More “Cloverfield” sequel and monster talk
Well the “Cloverfield” stories are pouring out. Given that the film took in nearly $20 million on opening day and will most likely set the record for the MLK weekend for a new movie it is no surprise there are already talks of a sequel. Several sites have stories posted about what angle sequel might follow.
Director Matt Reeves has stated that if they do a sequel, it might take place during the same monster attack, but seen from another camera.
As for where the origin of the monster the folks over at Film School Rejects have got some information to provide on that hotly debated topic.
No, not in the attack footage. Not in the news footage. In the footage from April that was accidentally erased by Hud.
This original footage doesn’t just include the budding relationship between Rob and Beth. It also has the “first” appearance of the monster.
Didn’t catch it? Well, go see the movie again, and watch carefully in the Coney Island footage at the very end. You might just see something suspicious drop into the water.
FSR
Taking the movie from the vantage point of the monster seems interesting, but could that really carry a sequel? Anyone have thoughts on whether Abrams can pull that trick off?
Tags: Cloverfield, monster, Movies, sequel, spoliers
Comments by Sean:
Comments by Drew P. Weiner:
Comments by A.:
Comments by Ant:
Comments by sung yong eom:
A different camera angle sequel? Personally I thought the movie was fantastic with its budget and the use of it. The best $25 million dollar special effects movie ever made. But come on this shaky camera pissed off alot of people it definitely wont work twice and then you want to do the same attack. NO WAY this will work!
>>Spoiler>>
Wow first off I got to hand it to you the monster looked great. Not once did I see anywhere on the internet a picture of the “real” monster before seeing this in the theatre. Cant believe that was pulled off. Didnt quite get the need for the little things though (like Godzilla’s babies in 98?) but they were scary. By the looks of the monster, I can definitely say it came from the bottom of the deep sea. The way it walks on 4 legs looks to me like how it should walk on the ocean floor. It’s mouth and face resembles other deep-sea predators. Also when it breathes it looks like something that would be fish like in origin. But when it all seems figured out, at the end of the movie something seems to drop from the sky. My opinion something transported it there, teleported from another dimension, came in meteor type fashion then hatched/grew/appeared. But then again it is just another media tactic to build more hype that is all.
I saw the “whatever” drop in the ocean at the end of the film.
My theory is that this one monster was a test to see what our (human) response would be to the one monster, and the effects of any response.
Next will be “them” dropping 100 of these things all over the world.
Look guys, its not the monster…hate to disappoint seriously. If you were part of the film geek nation(LOL), you would know that what dropped out of the sky was in fact, a satellite from a company called Tagruato, wich had made a statement two weeks before this movie came out that a satellite from their company dropped out of the sky due to a malfunction and into the Atlantic. Now, if you look at the date on the camera at the time of the clip, and translate it to the date at the time of the report, its about a two week difference. What you saw was a satellite, and THATS what woke up the monster (supposedly).
dude the king guy is totally right. the fact is the monster was organich and thats that. but if thwy do a seqel ill be ther
a satellite? yea okay
K1Ng5p4d3 is right. i was told “something” falls out of the sky and i went 2 times to see the movie and saw it, i was ranting like a moron “Did u see it?! did u see the monster!?” and then the news was broken to me, it was not the monster. Also, i read that the monster was in the water for thousands of years and it is still just a baby. that is probably old news by now, but i thought i’d add it in.
It is definately the satellite and “pixie” you are correct about the satellite waking up the monster, it has been dormant for thousands of years, and it is just a baby. It has all been confirmed by Director: Matt Reaves. Check out http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/ and look at the FAQ. Very helpful to all who find this movie amazing such as myself…
I think that the ship that dropped it off smacked into the satalite on thet way, so there you can both be happy!
Does it matter what the thing is, the movie was awesome and the monster looked sweet. End of. Stop analysing the sodding film and making side stories and plots up. ITS A FILM!!! NOT REAL LIFE!!!
SORRY.. I MEAN… IT’S REAL LIFE!!!!!
the other day i was buying my panties the monster was there!! buying socks!!!
great! i’m not lying!! it’s real, my friends!
I love this movie, its so unique and very entertaining.
Ok, to the one who said IT”S A FILM!!! GET A LIFE!!!!
I had a great time at this movie, and if people want to discuss and debate what happened, that’s cool. It is just a movie, and it’s fun to explore the unknown, sometimes. It’s always fun to see people say GET A LIFE to everything they don’t consider to be a life, if my life is the internet, then it can be… I’ll spend my life doing what I want, thanks, not being some fucking society drone
[...] the rest of this great post here Post a [...]