ReelzChannel caught up with J.J. Abrams at the US-Ireland Alliance party and he talked briefly about the change in date (from December 25, 2008 to May 8, 2009) for Star Trek, which he is directing, and also said that Cloverfield writer Drew Goddard and director Matt Reeves have an idea for a second one. You can watch the interview using the player below:
Posted by: Andrew on February 23, 2008 at 02:49:36
jj is a genius, does everything well, raodkill still one of the best movies
Posted by: tony on February 23, 2008 at 02:51:51
i think they should never make another cloverfield movie. i thought the first one was hyped way too much and it didnt deliver in my opinion.
lets go buffalo
Posted by: temperance on February 23, 2008 at 02:54:17
yeah, **** the Cloverfield sequel, it will ruin everything good about the first.
Posted by: alex on February 23, 2008 at 02:59:15
ive never seen a star trek movie, but since lost and cloverfield are good, ill probaly see it. i thought cloverfield was just fine. its peoples fault it got overhyped, not the directors.spiderman 3 cost like 240 million to make and cloverfield cost 25 million, and cloverfield was literally 10 times better
Posted by: george on February 23, 2008 at 03:13:57
10 times better? no no no. u almost never seen a good full shot of the monster. clover field sucked and the whole home cam thing was stupid and would be stupid if its done that way again!
Posted by: misterpink867 on February 23, 2008 at 03:24:38
cloverfield was ingenious. i agree that it was much better than spider-man 3. i am the biggest spidey fan around, and the third movie was terrible.
cloverfield was so amazingly original, funny, and tense. i really enjoyed it.
Posted by: Robster on February 23, 2008 at 03:26:09
Roadkill?? Oh,do you mean Joyride? At least that's the title in the US. Think it was Roadkill in Europe,don't know why though. But it was a good movie nonetheless. Still talking about a sequel,LOL!
Posted by: Critch on February 23, 2008 at 03:27:22
Who cares how many times you see the monster? It's not that great of a design anyway. Sounds like you missed the point. You see the full effects in Spider-Man 3 several times...and the story around it was horrible. While there were some great scenes, the movie around it was just moronic and tedious. I agree with Alex.
Posted by: Ali on February 23, 2008 at 04:05:04
No Cloverfeild 2 please it won't work.Still waiting for Star Trek was angry at the casting of Simon Pegg how is he more Scottish than james Mcavoy ???Can't wait for the Dark Tower has loads of potential
Posted by: LordBishop34 on February 23, 2008 at 04:17:45
The Biggest thing said there was Dark Tower adaptation, while I am interested in seeing the new Star Trek...the idea of a Dark Tower movie series would be awesome.
Posted by: SILAS on February 23, 2008 at 04:57:33
Never seen a Star trek film but i plan on seeing this bc of jj. Cloverfield was awesome. Who cares if you dont get a good shot of the monster it was still good. If they do make a sequel i hope its not another cam-shoot from another guy like Reeves said before in another interview. Hopefully something that we get to know more about the monster.
Posted by: Ariwch on February 23, 2008 at 05:12:54
Suppose, Cloverfield was good - why not to make a sequel? If it will be "shooted" by quite different person - not a casual, but a policeman or a journalist for example, it could be fine as well. Sounds good.
Posted by: fudgebasket on February 23, 2008 at 05:35:07
I'm so happy to hear that even Abrams thinks the whole handheld perspective will 'wear out it's welcome' after a while. Seriously, you can only do that for so long.
Posted by: TPJR on February 23, 2008 at 06:06:15
For another Cloverfield, they should stick with the first person mode. Otherwise it just turns into another random giant monster movie. I don't care what the President's doing, I don't care what scientists are doing, I want to see the chaos... If you didn't like it, chances are you didn't get it.
Posted by: pax on February 23, 2008 at 06:41:45
I think a smart move would be to have military videotapers shoot the militaries various attempts at taking out the creature(s) which by now are probably an army of such things... So the movie would be a compilation of things filmed by army combat journalists in the field... Itd be believable as was the taping thing and could be less shaky as they have top of the line equipement. Id throw in lots of different kinds of recordings tapings, some with scientific equipment as they try to study the creature in depth as well desperately looking for weaknesses...
Posted by: pritty on February 23, 2008 at 06:49:01
he does not talk about aladygma. let see what happen
Posted by: seth ismael on February 23, 2008 at 07:48:39
I think its just awesome that jj will produce the cloverfield sequel, and i agree with pax that it would be great with military videotapes ( for more action). The Idea to make star trek with the old crew on the starfleet academy is incredible and when you see the cast it could be a very great movie.
PS: Why does cloverfield sucks? It was much too hyped? Well Emmerichs Godzilla was also too hyped, and most of you didnt liked it too.And the cloverfield movie is not trying to cath the intensity of the monster. Matt Reeves want you to show the fear of the characters. Think about it...
Posted by: Hughezy on February 23, 2008 at 07:49:45
here's why Star Trek got pushed back to the summer: so that the DVD will come out around Xmas.
it's all about the money people.
Posted by: Mulciber on February 23, 2008 at 08:14:21
holy crap!!! did he say the dark Tower series it is about dang time. I cannot wait. you know there going to make a cloverfield 2 movie but did he say it was probable for another monster but i thought he wanted to give America a monster icon like Godzilla is for japan. they need to stick with the same monster and show it evolve can't make an icon out of one movie..
Posted by: EskimoDragon on February 23, 2008 at 08:48:10
Well although a CF sequel would take points away from the first there were 3 monsters in the first movie so theres still two left the one that took out the bridge being the biggest so it would be interesting to see what they would do with the sequel seeing as the 3 main people behind the first movie are involved.
Posted by: Clever on February 23, 2008 at 08:53:58
"u almost never seen a good full shot of the monster." Well, that´s the good thing about Cloverfield.
Posted by: Fuller on February 23, 2008 at 09:05:59
I for one loved CF and would be interested in seeing a third. It was a breath of fresh air to see a movie done that way and a 2nd movie would be welcomed.
Let's Go Buffalo
Posted by: shaun on February 23, 2008 at 09:32:02
Who did he mention could be in a further Star Trek movie?
Posted by: RivenWinner on February 23, 2008 at 09:36:27
Don't even get me started on this new Star Trek. JJ needs to stay away from it, IMO, and hell, I'm not even a Trekkie.
Posted by: Abe on February 23, 2008 at 10:01:51
Please J.J no Cloverfield sequel. The first movie was just Okay. It had great camera work but no plot, and that kind of thing only works well in Seinfield.
I think he will do a great job with Star Trek for the simple reason that the is a Fan of the series. Why doesn't Hollywood get it. Hire Directors who are fans of stuff first like Peter Jackson and his Lord of the Rings and King Kong films.