Matt Reeves talks Cloverfield 2

Exclusive! JJ is involved...

Total Film recently caught up with Matt Reeves, who gave us an update on the status of Cloverfield 2, saying, "getting the right idea together has been taking a long time."

We asked the Cloverfield and Let Me In director what was going on with Cloverfield 2, and he told us: "Well, you are going to see it - we just don't know when [laughs].

"At the moment we are talking about the story quite a lot. Drew Goddard, who wrote the original, is going to pen the sequel and JJ Abrams is very much involved.

"However, the three of us have been so busy that getting the right idea together has been taking a long time."

But will the sequel shoot in real-time again? "You see, that's a difficult part: we want it to be shot like the first but how can you continue that idea successfully for a second time?

"We have a lot of affection for the original and the sequel can't just be the same thing. But that is tricky when you need to have a monster destroying stuff once again."

For more from Matt Reeves, get the new issue of Total Film Magazine, which hits newsstands on Thursday March 17th.



To subscribe to Total Film Magazine, click here.

Reckon a Cloverfield sequel could work, or would you rather the unique original be left well alone? Tell us below...

Comments

    • matty2392

      Mar 15th 2011, 22:51

      why do we need a sequel, the first is excellent and a sequel will ruin the first

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Mar 15th 2011, 23:25

      +1 Matt.

      Alert a moderator

    • DravenCage

      Mar 16th 2011, 21:06

      With thinking like that, we would never have had The Godfather Part II, Lethal Weapon II, The Empire Strikes Back, The Hangover 2, Evil Dead II, Dawn of the Dead, Rocky II, X-Men II, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and many other fantastic movies that are also sequels. On a side note, we also wouldn't have my favourite horror monster, Jason Voorhees, as we know and love him today either. Much like my argument when people diss a remake as soon as they hear the word, just because a movie is a sequel doesn't mean it'll suck. There are plenty of original titles that are just horrible, horrible movies as well. A bad movie is a bad movie, regardless if it's a sequel, remake or first-out-the-gate piece of cineme in much the same token as a good movie is a good movie, regardless of the history (or lack thereof) it may possess.

      Alert a moderator

    • xpialidoceous

      Mar 18th 2011, 12:44

      although I do agree with DravenCage to some extent (how 'The Hangover 2' made his list is beyond me) Most of the films he lists had new stories to tell or where the middle part of a trilogy. what I'm concerned about is making a sequel for the sake of making a sequel. If they didn't have a follow up story in mind for Cloverfield, they shouldn't invent one for the sake of making more money out of it. What made the first one 'good' was that it gave you first seat in a rollercoaster ride and didn't give you ANY explanations, because as a witness, you wouldn't HAVE that kind of info about the why or how ... And Dalidab ... don't list Quarantine (a frame by frame remake of the Spanish Rec) if you're going to burn the original seconds later.

      Alert a moderator

    • xpialidoceous

      Mar 19th 2011, 15:24

      lol @dalidab. don't worry, I'm not easily offended ;) I just meant that 'Quarantine' was an almost 100% identical 'english' carbon copy of Rec. So I just felt it was a bit foolish to like a remake that didn't add anything new and dislike the original material it was copied from. that's it ;)

      Alert a moderator

    • FBMSimson

      Feb 22nd 2012, 6:11

      There is an information on http://www.cloverfield-2.com/ who give 2014 as a possible release date for Cloverfield 2. On imdb have as "title": Untitled Cloverfield Sequel and Matt Reeves as director. From an estimated budget of $100,000,000 for sure we will see a great sequel.

      Alert a moderator