Goddard says Cloverfield 2 a different beast
We've heard a lot of talk about Cloverfield 2 and none of it has really come to fruition and one of the problems is now that Cloverfield four years ago and hand held footage films have been pouring out ever since, the shine has gone from the style.
So if there is to be a Cloverfield 2, and the people involved always seem keen when they talk about it, what will they do for the sequel? What story will they follow and how will it be told? Drew Goddard has been talking.
Drew Goddard wrote Cloverfield (Filmstalker review) which Matt Reeves directed, and both have moved on since and yet both keep getting asked about a second film and they both keep saying positive things.
Matt Reeves moved onto the excellent Let Me In while Drew Goddard has yet to reveal all with The Cabin in the Woods and Robopocalypse. That's all great news but where is the sequel of Cloverfield left?
There's been talk of it ever since the first film and the idea that seemed to be gaining traction was more lost/hand held footage but from the perspective of other people involved as the creature took to the city streets. The interest seemed to be exploring the same story from different viewpoints and perspectives to reveal more and tell something different.
However time has moved on since then and while Goddard, speaking through Bloody Disgusting and First Showing, admits that a year or so ago the first person viewpoint was integral to the film, it's maybe not an option now.
The thing about Cloverfield that was exciting was that it felt different, and we'd need to find whatever that is. We'd make it feel fresh and new, and if you asked each of us how we were going to do it we'd each have a different answer.
That's good news though for they all have answers, at least that's better than saying they have no idea which direction to take a sequel. The problem is they have three directions, and what are those three directions? Well only J.J. Abrams, Reeves and Goddard know for now, and until they decide we won't see either.
Mind you, as I mull over those words while I type it does suddenly occur to me that since the project has three creatives behind the idea, why not let each of them make their sequel? Perhaps three sequels is a little too much, although chalking one up as an origin, one as a different perspective on the events of the first film and one the sequel would give enough room for something different in each film. Why not just let Reeves and Goddard make two separate sequels with Abrams producing both?
However it's just a whimsical idea, the studio would never go for it, and they're hardly going for a sequel as it is.
That doesn't mean the three people behind Cloverfield aren't keen as Goddard hammers home the point that they all do when asked about a sequel, they're all keen.
I hope so. I mean, I'd like it to. 'Cloverfield' was very much a dialogue between J.J. Abrams, Matt Reeves and me. And you need those three parts. It's just been hard because we've been busy. None of us wants to make a movie just for the sake of making a sequel. That's just not interesting to us. I think we all have ideas of what we want to do, and they're probably all different. But we need to sit down and get it together. I blame Star Trek.
Well perhaps there is something in that statement, but at the same time the bigger picture is that no matter how the three of them talk to the press there's not been enough movement or desire to make a sequel, otherwise it would have an idea, a script and would be touted around the studios as I write.
Could we see a Cloverfield sequel? Could it work, and could you fall behind the idea of two sequels one from Matt Reeves and the other from Drew Goddard?