I remember when I watched the first teaser trailer for the 2008 movie, Cloverfield. As far as I remember, that was the first found-footage movie I ever saw. I’m also not a big horror movie guy. However, I have to admit, that first trailer really hooked me with the found-footage aspect and the fact that we didn’t see the giant monster. The thing is, I’m not the biggest horror movie fan, but I do like movies about giant monsters. Now we all knew that King Kong wasn’t going to show up and battle the mysterious giant monster in the movie. That’s what I like seeing in movies about giant monsters. Godzilla vs. Kong, anyone?
Anyhow, what intrigued me about Cloverfield was that the found-footage style gave us only brief glimpses of the monster. Heck, the movie never even told us exactly where it came from. That whole mystery behind the monster is what made the movie interesting to me. How it handled the found-footage element is what made it even scarier and made us feel as desperate as the main characters. I also liked how the ending was open and it heavily implied that the main characters died and the monster would continue causing destruction. To me, Cloverfield was a unique kind of movie and I wanted a sequel.
Well, the Hollywood Reporter has recently revealed that a sequel is in the works. It should also be noted that this sequel will be a proper sequel to the 2008 movie and not some loosely connected spin-off. Speaking of which, what was the deal with those not-sequels to the first one?
I will say, the 2016 10 Cloverfield Lane movie with John Goodman wasn’t bad. In fact, I very much enjoyed it. The only thing about it that bothered me was the fact that it had the Cloverfield name attached to it. The title implied it was at least connected to the first movie and heck, it even had J.J. Abrams producing it. Yes, J.J. produced the first Cloverfield, back when J.J. actually did great things. Hey man, everyone deserves a shot at redemption.
Last I checked, even J.J. said that 10 Cloverfield Lane was only connected to the first movie by the Cloverfield name. Well, he wasn’t wrong, because 10 Cloverfield Lane was different from the first movie in almost every way. There was no found-footage style, and not even the same giant monster. There were aliens invading Earth and there was a more psychological thriller aspect to it. Again, it wasn’t bad, but did it really have to use the Cloverfield name? That really made fans scratch their heads.
Oh, and let’s just take a second to talk about the other not-sequel from 2018. That absolutely dreadful Cloverfield Paradox that was thrown on Netflix at the last minute. I mean, seriously, what was that movie even about? I remember the same monster (much bigger for some reason), but most of the movie took place in outer space. And then there was some kind of time travel or time misplacement… or was it alternate dimensions? I can’t even remember, but the bottom line is that it was very, very bad. And no, it had no real connection to the 2008 movie. That movie was just embarrassing and it made me wonder if we would ever get a real sequel to the first one.
As it turns out, being patient actually pays off. Well, at least in terms of getting a proper sequel for one. The thing is, I wonder if it’s too late for a real sequel to 2008’s Cloverfield. We’re all sadly still trying to wash the bad taste of that Paradox movie out of our mouths. That’s not the best movie to leave us with and I’m guessing the majority of fans aren’t stoked for more Cloverfield because of it.
Now there are some things to be excited about. For one, we know that J.J. Abrams is returning to produce and Joe Barton is attached to write the script. I can’t say Joe Barton is a good or bad choice for it, because the only thing I know he’s attached to is the Gotham spin-off series. So let’s think positive and say his involvement is a good thing. If he and J.J. are going to give us something better than paradox, they already got the first step down. This next Cloverfield movie will actually be a direct sequel to the 2008 movie, which is something they should’ve have done in the beginning.
After this news, it looks like a lesson was learned, but they also intend to divert from the found-footage style that made the first movie great. Is that a good or bad thing? Well, I’m honestly not sure how I feel about it. I did love how the found-footage style made the first movie scarier, but I have a feeling the sequel can work without it. Or better yet, it can work from it.
The footage that the main characters caught on their camera could give the main characters of the sequel and idea of what they’re dealing with. We’ve seen that the monster moves fast and kills almost anything that enters its vicinity. We know it survived the attempt to nuke it, so where does it go from there? It’s probably going to roam the country and kill everything in sight. The first movie showed us that the military can’t destroy it, so how will humanity defend itself against the monster?
I think this sequel will try to give us some answers on two things: where the monster came from and how humanity will kill it. The monster had the element of surprise in Cloverfield one and now humanity has more time to reorganize and plan a counterattack. If someone finds the footage from the first movie, they can use that to study the monster and find a weakness. And since the sequel won’t be using the same style as the first Cloverfield, I’m guessing we’ll be seeing more of the monster. We already know what it looks like. Yeah, it’s big and scary, so the quick glimpses won’t work the second time around.
If the sequel focuses on the destruction, that’s an improvement. If there’s an explanation as to why the monster is attacking, that would be interesting. Oh, and no time travel, or whatever that nonsense was. A part of me feels like this sequel is too late. However, I’ll take something that’s at least good. The first Cloverfield intrigued me enough, so I’ll watch a proper sequel.
Follow Us
