Interview by: Max Evry
CS: Any possibilities for a “Cloverfield” sequel?
Matt 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.
Cool. I was pretty happy with the movie and I know most sequels tank so I’d pass on a sequel but he definitely has the right idea. It’s the same concept for sequels for any kind of Apocalytic movies or War movies, etc. So many different people affected in so many ways.
In a portion of the interview I didn’t include in this posting Reeves indicated that the ‘monster’ in Cloverfield was actually a ‘baby’ and acting out of confusion. So I suppose we’d really hate to see Big Mama reacting out of being pissed off that those puny humans were picking on the ‘little one’.
Again. If you have not seen ‘CLOVERFIELD’ yet I strongly recommend it. Do NOT wait to see it at home. The movie was meant to be watched on the big screen with a big box of popcorn.