CS: Any possibilities for a "Cloverfield" sequel?
Reeves: This was so fun 'cause we'd never done anything like it, and I think we'd want to find a similar challenge, to find a way to have its roots in this but be fresh and new, otherwise you're just repeating yourself. There's a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming and he turns over and he sees the ship that's been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy's briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another. That idea sort of tickled me. We'll have to see if anyone would want a sequel. If the movie does well and we find a compelling reason to do so then it would be fun to do a sequel.
Did you see the thing in the last shot? In the final shot there's a little something, and I don't wanna say what it is. The final shot before the titles. The stuff at Coney Island, there's a little something there and I don't want to give it away 'cause the fun is sort of to find it, but I will say this: there's a funny thing, you look at the shot and until you see it you don't see it and you really don't see it and obviously you don't 'cause none of you have seen it, but once you see it you'll never stop seeing it.
CS: It's the thing dropping in the water, right?
Reeves: Ahh, you saw it.
tapehead wrote:Cool - I'll check that link.
Leckomaniac wrote:You guys talking about this interview?Leckomaniac wrote:Wow. I just read an interview with Matt Reeves over at comingsoon.net and I read this and my jaw dropped:When we were mixing the teaser trailer we wanted to indicate that it was a creature. We put in animal sounds and decided it still wasn't enough. So at the end of the mix, the last 10-minutes, I jumped up in front of the mic and yelled "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" I came home one day and there was this whole thing with audio spectral analysis, playing back my voice and everybody was convinced that I said "It's a lion!" instead of "It's alive!". I thought, "How can anyone think it's a lion?" That kind of stuff was going on every day, and it was exhilarating and terrifying, 'cause we hadn't even finished making the movie yet, and we were excited about the movie, but we didn't know if our movie could compete with all these crazy movies that people were coming up with that were so fun!
Son of a bitch.
tapehead wrote:found it:Leckomaniac wrote:Cha-Ka Khan wrote:Leckomaniac wrote:So those of us who really liked it are MORONZ!!!!! and those that didn't like it are savvy movie veterans who possess the proper knowledge so that they can correctly dislike the film?
I call bullshit on that.
No dude, I was just turning his argument around where he was saying all of us who didn't like the film were moronz and all of you who did had the ability to look past all of it's problems and not watch it with a critical eye.
I am trying to think of some way you could prove it.
Can your out-of-the-box CGI software create a better camera with longer battery life?
EDIT: I included the wink just so everyone knows that was in jest. Just some good natured ribbing.
tapehead wrote:I edited my quote; having read the interview, it's still not much of anything. I do however like the idea of the other camera guy that Hud encounters on the Brooklyn Bridge. I suppose they're all just hooks for a possible sequel, but honestly I might have preferred it if that end sequence wasn't there.
Fried Gold wrote:What's this about a satellite?
Dr William Weir wrote:What IS worth looking at is how the marketing seems to have failed to generate much interest beyond a fervent internet fanbase. Its failiure to excite audiences beyond the geek culture seems to show that maybe all that money spent on guessing games could probably have been put to better use letting everyone know what they're getting...
Dr William Weir wrote:Well, naturally that's subjective.
Pacino86845 wrote:Dr William Weir wrote:Well, naturally that's subjective.
But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!
Zarles wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Dr William Weir wrote:Well, naturally that's subjective.
But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!
Right, but you never like anything.
The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.
Zarles wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Dr William Weir wrote:Well, naturally that's subjective.
But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!
Right, but you never like anything.
The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.
tapehead wrote:
1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.
Chairman Kaga wrote:tapehead wrote:
1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.
That makes no sense since the story takes place in April and May.
tapehead wrote:I'm really disappointed to hear that view of [rec] - after Quint had talked it up in comparison to Cloverfield, I was planning to see it soon. I guess I might still, but with more tempered enthusiasm.Zarles wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Dr William Weir wrote:Well, naturally that's subjective.
But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!
Right, but you never like anything.
The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.
1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.
papalazeru wrote:To be honest, I cared very little about who lived or died. My friend and I are still contemplating whether Lilly died after she flew away in the copter. As they otehr guys were taking off you see a chopper come down pretty hard. Was it hers? Can anyone clarify this.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests