[HRH The KING]

Cloverfield will be defeated in London when he finds himself bogged down with "congestion charge" fines.

[CoW mAn]

Originally Posted by HRH The KING

Cloverfield will be defeated in London when he finds himself bogged down with "congestion charge" fines.

Or forced to go to Cardiff where production costs are lower

[HRH The KING]

They could use clips of BBC News 24 and Sky News to do fake news broadcasts about "an emergency situation in London".

They can be VERY convincing if they use real news presenters.

[CaptainJamesTKirk]

I'll have to see Cloverfield. I'm waiting for the DVD since I'm not a big movie theater goer.

[Inebriated Slime Devil]

Originally Posted by CoW mAn

In another interview, Reeves states:

“ 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."

Unless I saw something very compelling in the trailers, that would potentially be a dealbreaker for me if they not only rehashed the same camera style, but also used the same setting.

I liked the idea that they didn't attempt to explain the creature's origins in detail within the film beyond speculation by Hud, but if they plan to continue the series I think they should pay the creature itself more than just lip service.

[BX XI]

Originally Posted by CoW mAn

I couldn't agree more however this is what wikipedia has to say on the subject...

In another interview, Reeves states:

“ 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."[/i]

i think that would be a great way to do it actually. i haven't seen the first one myself but i do plan on seeing it.

as for the comment earlier about the Blair Witch Project and Blair Witch 2 personally i found the first one boreing as hell, the second one was much better.

[iang1968]

Hopefuly they use more third person views. The first one like Blair Witch does not go down well with people who suffer from motion sickness.

[kevin]

They need to drop the blurry camera work. But it probably helped them make the first one on a low budget.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by Captain_of_the_Enterprise

What did you think of the first?

Cloverfield was mediocre at best, nothing exciting about it and fortunately nothing to do with the new Star Trek.

I will probably watch the second Cloverfield, cause I always watch even the crappiest of these kind of films. I only hope that they did not raise expectations this time as they did with the First Cloverfield.

[kevin]

It's not raising expectations - it's falling for the marketing.