Cloverfield sequel

[Brenz]

There is at least one way to keep it scary, now that the monster's been seen in full. Rather than do another piece of found footage, they could assemble hundreds of sources into an official government report, a documentary, or some other collaborative, in-depth timeline, and make it into concept horror, where the distance makes it more bizarre and stomach-churning than the proximity. We already know what the creature looks like; why not run with it and actually go for an entire city's horror this time instead of the first-person subjective?

Yeah, the impalement bothered me, too.

[Steven Grant]

There is at least one way to keep it scary, now that the monster's been seen in full. Rather than do another piece of found footage, they could assemble hundreds of sources into an official government report, a documentary, or some other collaborative, in-depth timeline, and make it into concept horror, where the distance makes it more bizarre and stomach-churning than the proximity. We already know what the creature looks like; why not run with it and actually go for an entire city's horror this time instead of the first-person subjective?

What are they going to do for a plotline? Go back for the luggage? Destroy Staten Island?

- Grant

[Imaginos666]

I think a Cloverfield sequel would be doomed from the start. You have two options: re-hash or re-invent. If you do the first, audiences will be bored before the first trailer ends. If you do the second, you might as well make a new movie.

I think the guys behind the film are smart enough to know this. It doesn't mean a studio won't proceed without them, though. They're making a sequel to Donnie Darko, after all, which might be the most unnecessary sequel since that Casablanca follow-up with David Soul.