Batman-Online.com

Not sure how this thread will play out in a movie forum dedicated to comics, comic movies and specifically Batman.

But over the past few years, I've nursed a burgeoning fandom of the Halloween franchise. Some movies are better than others, sure. But in the horror world, Halloween is a far stronger performer creatively than the great majority of its competition.

I wanted to see Halloween 2018 in theaters but the moment passed me by. Life happens.

The continuity in play is that Halloween 2018 is the new Halloween II (if you want it to be). I don't need a Halloween film to be perfect. We all know what the best Halloween movie is. Since there's no way to ever top the original, the best any sequel can hope for is to follow the spirit and tradition of the original. Anything more than that is probably impossible.

On that basis, I rather enjoy Halloween 2018. It's not immune to today's agenda-mongering. But I suppose the saving grace is that this whole Rah rah, Girl Power thing is that such a thing is hardly foreign to the Halloween series. So if there's an agenda there, it sort of blends in to the history and traditions of the series.

The movie isn't perfect. I think it errs on the side of humanizing The Shape a bit too much. Carpenter's original walked the line perfectly, creating ambiguity about whether he's somehow paranormal or if he's just human. Either interpretation or a mix of the two can be completely valid. But I don't think that's quite as true of the 2018 film. The film more clearly suggests an all- or mostly human framework for The Shape.

Either that works for you or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, am I supposed to tell you you're wrong? Because I can't.

All in all, H2018 is worth seeing. But the canon of Halloween for me begins and ends with the original Halloween film. The various sequels might be interesting in their own right but the original is in a class by itself.

The canon for the Halloween films is similar to the canon for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films in my estimation. It's literally ALL OVER THE PLACE.

In the case of Halloween 2018, I can't say I blame them for creating yet another timeline. Halloween Resurrection was a sh*t show, and effectively killed the H1-H2-H20 timeline. The Rob Zombie's Halloween films are within their own timeline, and now we have the *new* timeline with H1 and H-2018 being the only two films that count. Which is fine. I dig the original H2, and kinda hated to see it dropped again, but doing that was by no means a deal breaker, and I agree that Halloween 2018 is assuredly a worthy sequel in the overall franchise.

For me, my initial viewing of Halloween 2018 was very similar to my initial viewing of Halloween H20. In that I was overall satisfied with the overall film, and also would be satisfied as a fan in those films being the final conclusions to their respective timelines. Now I know there's not a snowball's chance in hell Halloween 2018 is going to be the final Halloween movie, just like H20, but if it were to be, I would be content. Just like in 1998. However, in comparing the two films, I believe H-2018 is a overall stronger film. There's alot of stuff I like about H-2018. While there's a handful of moments I dig about H20. Both film's address Laurie Strode as suffering from trauma, but take very different routes in how she deals with it. I'm fine with either/or on that front, as I can't say one interpretation of Laurie is more valid than the other. I like Steve Miner's H20 work alright, but I think David Gordon Green's work comes across as more interested, and John Carpenter (along with his son) handling the score duties just beats the hell out of the background noise H20 unfortunately got stuck with during post-production.

But yeah, both Halloween H20 and Halloween 2018 have their own seperate issues, but effectively provided the shot in the arm that the Halloween franchise needed. We know the cluster that happened following H20, it will be interesting to see how Halloween 2018's followup pans out.

(P.S. Not to change the subject too much, but one of the things Halloween 2018 did in affecting me, was making me wish similar care/approach would be taken with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films, in by keeping the 1974 original, and making a direct sequel in direction and tone to THAT film and see what happens. Tobe Hooper's TCM2 is alot of fun, and I like it alot now despite being dissatisfied with the sequel in my initial viewing, but Tobe Hooper himself has been quoted in saying that he didn't believe TCM2 was the 'quintessential sequel' to the original. The less said about TCM3D the better. I don't know, Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkle's once-proposed sequel title; "Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is just too good not to use. 

I enjoyed it a lot. I have a few reservations with the editing at times and some story choices. There's a plot twist that is a little silly, but it kind of works, I guess. Also, there's a character I felt should've died, but disappears completely from the movie.

I absolutely love the score. I've probably listened to the end title track over 30 times by now.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Mon, 28 Jan  2019, 15:02
I enjoyed it a lot. I have a few reservations with the editing at times and some story choices. There's a plot twist that is a little silly, but it kind of works, I guess. Also, there's a character I felt should've died, but disappears completely from the movie.

I absolutely love the score. I've probably listened to the end title track over 30 times by now.

The character who should've died is apparently being held in reserve for the sequel. Because if there was anything people were on pins and needles about in this movie, it was the fate of that character.

Honestly, it's a bit silly either way. The character obviously survived the movie so bringing them back for the sequel is kind of stupid.

...

Of course, that won't stop me from watching the sequel because I'm a big hypocrite.

It'll be interesting if Halloween can deliver two great, enjoyable movies back to back. That's never happened before. At least not for me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jan  2019, 20:55
It'll be interesting if Halloween can deliver two great, enjoyable movies back to back. That's never happened before. At least not for me.

I keep coming back to this thought. I hope all the key players come back: David Gordon Green, John Carpenter (with Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies), Jamie Lee Curtis, and, I can't believe I am saying this, Danny McBride. Also, I hope the main title jack o' lanterns are here to stay.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Mon, 28 Jan  2019, 15:02
Also, there's a character I felt should've died, but disappears completely from the movie.

If this is the same character I am assuming you are referring to, I think I read somewhere that he's actually the son of one of the kids that bullied Tommy Doyle in the 1978 original, and was also one of the kids that was snooping around the Myers house in that classic scene where Dr. Loomis tells them to get their ass away from there!

Interesting tidbit for die hards, but probably nothing that's going to have any real bearing on story/plot for the next one.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 29 Jan  2019, 00:18
I think I read somewhere that he's actually the son of one of the kids that bullied Tommy Doyle in the 1978 original, and was also one of the kids that was snooping around the Myers house in that classic scene where Dr. Loomis tells them to get their ass away from there!

That is true. Lonnie Elam is the boy who bullies Tommy in the original film and is mentioned by name by Karen's husband. PJ Soles is also the voice of Allyson's teacher and Nick Castle returned to play Michael for one scene.

There are also a number of callbacks/similarities to the sequels. One of the victims is dressed like Mrs. Elrod from Halloween II and Oscar mentions Mr. Elrod later in the film. Children can be seen wearing the masks from Season of the Witch. There's even one that takes its DNA from sequences from both Halloween 4 and Halloween H20.

Although I am not sure if it was intentional, there's also a story element that harkens back to something Sherif Brackett says in Halloween II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL6R3HmQfPc

A few clever nods to other Halloween films there. The fire and the action in the hospital, Halloween 2. Some of the masks, Halloween 3. Slamming someone's head into a wall to kill them, Halloween 4.

Overall, looks pretty interesting. Looking forward to this movie.

Yeah, the nods are great, and I'm interested in seeing the character's of Tommy Doyle and Lindsey Wallace return as well.

Another thing that's going to be interesting to see play out, is the flashback sequence that's said to be in Halloween Kills, where we see Michael being apprehended by the police back in 1978. I would assume we're going to see a young Frank Hawkins in this, and probably a stand in for Dr. Loomis (perhaps only filmed from behind?), since Hawkins stated in Halloween 2018 that he actually stopped Dr. Loomis that night in finishing the job on Michael.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 25 Jun  2021, 23:57

Yeah, the nods are great, and I'm interested in seeing the character's of Tommy Doyle and Lindsey Wallace return as well.

Another thing that's going to be interesting to see play out, is the flashback sequence that's said to be in Halloween Kills, where we see Michael being apprehended by the police back in 1978. I would assume we're going to see a young Frank Hawkins in this, and probably a stand in for Dr. Loomis (perhaps only filmed from behind?), since Hawkins stated in Halloween 2018 that he actually stopped Dr. Loomis that night in finishing the job on Michael.

Stuff like that is partly why I love this movie series. There are so many different timelines, alternative endings, sequels, reboots, unboots, retcons, I just eat it all up with a spoon. Can't wait for HK either. Looks like a ton of fun.

I still haven't seen the 2018 film yet, despite hearing a lot of good things about it. I need to catch up on this series before October.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 28 Jun  2021, 13:51
I still haven't seen the 2018 film yet, despite hearing a lot of good things about it. I need to catch up on this series before October.

No spoilers. But for the new timeline, the only films you need to bother with are Halloween (1978) and Halloween (2018). You can ignore everything else. Just in case you didn't know.

In my opinion, getting two good films released back-to-back is an impossibility for this franchise. So, there's a real chance HK could buck that historical trend.

Totally unrelated. But there's a memorable cameo performed by a stuntwoman in the 2018 film. She went on to some YouTuber's channel and dished at length about her day or two of shooting. Turns out, she's a Halloween mega fan from way back and she gave an analysis of the 2018 film I've never heard anywhere else. I'll dig it up and post a link if you're interested.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jun  2021, 16:42
Totally unrelated. But there's a memorable cameo performed by a stuntwoman in the 2018 film. She went on to some YouTuber's channel and dished at length about her day or two of shooting. Turns out, she's a Halloween mega fan from way back and she gave an analysis of the 2018 film I've never heard anywhere else. I'll dig it up and post a link if you're interested.

Would that be an episode of Corridor Crew's stuntmen reacts series, by any chance? While I haven't seen that particular video, I am subbed to their YouTube page and I seem to recall seeing a thumbnail come up in my recommendations featuring Michael Myers' mask.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 28 Jun  2021, 22:34
Would that be an episode of Corridor Crew's stuntmen reacts series, by any chance? While I haven't seen that particular video, I am subbed to their YouTube page and I seem to recall seeing a thumbnail come up in my recommendations featuring Michael Myers' mask.

Nah, I was thinking of something else. Major league, all thrilla no filla, step lively SPOILER ALERT because they blow the lid off pretty much the entire movie in this interview. So, definitely something to save for after you watch it.

Still, Marian Sing (the stuntwoman in question) offers a lot of technical baloney about how her scene was shot. Then she waxes fangirl a little bit about the movie series and all that. Worth watching if you're into this type of stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJDDllRZd_E

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6rRqXeX0AArTlw.jpg)

At a glance, I noticed a nod to Halloween 3 with some of the masks the victims wear and possibly a nod to Halloween 4 with the whole shotgun by the stairs bit. The hospital stuff could be a reference to Halloween II. So, quite a lot of references are going on here.

As far as I'm concerned, this movie is shaping up to look great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUwVHX3242M

Damn, Michael is going to be a absolute BEAST in this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZw6Irnuu1s

Sort of a fluffy "We're so happy to be back" type of thing. But there's some footage in there that I, at least, have not seen before. Still, the energy for this thing seems very real. As a fan of these movies, I'm of the opinion that there have never been two good Halloween movies released back-to-back with each other. But Halloween 2018 was good and HK is shaping up to be good too. So, maybe history is about to change?

Just a couple more weeks until showtime!

I have to give the Akkad's, and Universal for keeping the Halloween property in the mix of things within the public consciousness, and for the better part, consistently with films that are rather high profile in terms of the horror genre. Say what you will about Rob Zombie's vision for Halloween back in 2007, but it was a rather bold and high profile move for such a property. Especially in light of Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects". Which a lot of horror fans enjoy for the most part, and which in turn, gave that Halloween project much attention as a consequence.

With Leatherface and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" franchise getting lesser returns with each subsequent installment, Hellraiser being MIA, Chucky being regulated to mainly straight to DVD/TV series (with a "Remake" that really should have been titled something else), and Freddy and Jason both being on indefinite hiatus thanks to change of rights/legal battles, it's been pretty much Michael by himself pulling the wagon on keeping the '80's iconic slashers alive in the zeitgeist with installments of actual quality.

Yeah, pretty much. I've taken all that to mean that there's a solid idea underlying Halloween that people can connect to in some way whereas the other properties you mention don't necessarily have the same mojo going for them.

Halloween as a franchise is a survivor. I'm not fond of Zombie's Halloween movies. But as you say, they were high profile and proved that the series can be modernized in ways that maybe the also-ran franchises can't.

Yeah, it's kinda interesting how Michael Myers, during the entire decade of the 1980's, only had really three films featuring him. Two being decent (H2, H4), and one being absolute crap (H5). Where "Friday the 13th" had eight installments, and "Nightmare on Elm Street" having five. As a consequence, the perception was that Freddy and Jason were the slasher kings of the 1980's, which in turn initiated the old "who would win?" debate that finally was realized in 2003.

As far as the 1990's go, I would say that this is where Michael began returning back to prominence thanks to all the attention of Jamie Lee Curtis returning to the franchise with "Halloween H20" in 1998. The slasher genre got a kick start thanks to "Scream" just a few years earlier, and with Jamie Lee returning, along with the Creed song, "What's this Life for" being heavily played during advertisements of the movie, "H20" was smart in the sense of capitalizing on what was going on at the time. The only one that comes anywhere close would be "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", but arguably "H20" was by far the more successful of the two while in theaters (with "New Nightmare" gaining more of a following on VHS/DVD). "Freddy vs Jason" was a big deal, but so was Rob Zombie's "Halloween 2007" reboot.

Then you had the two reboots of NOES and Friday the 13th that I don't think many people truly loved. Especially in the case of the NOES reboot (I can't believe it's been nearly 20 years since Robert Englund has played Freddy in a NOES movie), but Michael, following what many people found with the lackluster-Rob Zombie's "Halloween 2", has really got a good jump start with "Halloween 2018", and to which appears to be very much continuing with "Halloween Kills", and then the not-too-distant-future release of "Halloween Ends".

Where you can say that Michael was unseated from his throne by Freddy and Jason in the 1980's, in more recent years, Michael Myers and the Halloween franchise, for the most part, has continued to deliver a more quality product to where Michael has arguably reasserted himself to the very top of the slasher echelon.

Halloween Kills is coming on Friday. And it's starting to get hard to avoid spoilers.

I have exactly zero interest in seeing this thing in a theater so I signed up for the Peacock app. I'd rather watch the movie at home and munch my own popcorn. But that could just be me.

Checking this out at the local theater tonight at a 7pm showing.

Judging off the last few of my theater experiences, there will be plenty of seats. "Venom 2" had like maybe 8-9 people on it's opening Thurs night, and the opening Thurs night showing for "No Time to Die" only had two other people outside of the group I was in.

This will probably be it for me for awhile, at least until "Ghostbusters Afterlife" comes out in Nov. Can't think of anything else in Oct I really want to see in a theater, and I don't have any interest in "The Eternals" whatsoever.

Today's the day. We've been moved over to permanent WFH at my job. And I'm exhausted.

So, I'll probably hit the sack right after work, get some sleep, wake up later, make some popcorn and watch the movie tonight. It should probably be watched at night anyway.

Listening to the score now tho. And I'm a bit underwhelmed so far. At 45 minutes, there's no way this is the complete score. So, I'll reserve judgment on the score for the time being. Some of it is rly good tho.

Meanwhile I'm lagging behind by three years and still haven't seen the 2018 Halloween. Fortunately it's making its UK TV debut tonight, so I'll be watching that this evening while everyone else is watching the new film.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Oct  2021, 13:49
Meanwhile I'm lagging behind by three years and still haven't seen the 2018 Halloween. Fortunately it's making its UK TV debut tonight, so I'll be watching that this evening while everyone else is watching the new film.

If you feel like posting your thoughts later about the 2018 film here, you might as well. I'd be interested in that.

For now, no spoilers. Zero.

But man, this movie is LEGIT.

Checked this out.

Welp, I was completely wrong about the crowd. Venom 2 and Bond was damn near empty on opening night, but HK was pretty damn packed at the 7pm screening I went to. I even dug up my old graphic H20 shirt that I had in a storage crate for the occasion, which is still in surprisingly good condition after all these years. I was wearing a XL even then, so it still fits.  :D

I'll be posting my quick thoughts spoiler review soon enough. It's good (though has some problems), but not quite on that Halloween 2018 level.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 16 Oct  2021, 08:49It's good (though has some problems), but not quite on that Halloween 2018 level.

For me, HK elevated H2018. I liked 2018. It's good. But I liked HK better.

I might have more criticisms on the rewatch. But at this moment, I just don't have very much negative to say about HK.

Also, it's not a spoiler to say that Michael walks out of Laurie's burning house and then some stuff happens. That's in the trailers and a lot of other promotions. That scene will become one of the great iconic moments in all of Halloween, I have no doubt about that.

Oh yeah, something else. Since I'm here...

(https://i.imgur.com/ulHdbb1.png)

Pretty big disparity between the critics and the audience on Rotten Tomatoes.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 15 Oct  2021, 16:06

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Oct  2021, 13:49
Meanwhile I'm lagging behind by three years and still haven't seen the 2018 Halloween. Fortunately it's making its UK TV debut tonight, so I'll be watching that this evening while everyone else is watching the new film.

If you feel like posting your thoughts later about the 2018 film here, you might as well. I'd be interested in that.

They didn't show it. ::) I was sitting there with the lights out, all hyped about seeing it, and at the last second the announcer said there'd been a change to the schedule. A British politician named Sir David Amess was tragically stabbed to death yesterday, and I think sensitivity over the knife crime element might have been the reason for the rescheduling. At any rate, they showed some Michael Fassbender film I'd never heard of instead. So I ended up watching Andy Muschietti's It Chapter Two (2019) on Amazon Prime, and now I'm even more sceptical about the quality of The Flash.

Halloween '18 is presently scheduled to be shown on Thursday night, so I should be able to watch it then.

My view is that it's been basically impossible to get two good Halloween movies in a row.

Halloween 1978 is obviously good. But Halloween II is crap on a stick without the stick, if you ask me.

Halloween 4 is good. But Halloween 5 is BY FAR the worst in the entire franchise as far as I'm concerned. Yes, 5 is even worse than 6, I don't care what anybody says.

Halloween H20 is good. But Halloween: Resurrection is bad. I can still enjoy it on some level. But it's objectively bad, I acknowledge that.

Halloween 2018 is good... which didn't bode well for HK... which makes it so much more satisfying to me that HK is as awesome as it is. Because history wasn't on HK's side here.

Anyway, wanted to throw that out there.

For anybody interested, free to watch on YouTube.

On a different subject...

Halloween, 1978
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hf-IkEZlgA
The original. All thrilla, no filla.

Halloween, 1978 (TV Version)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IRFwT5vsaY
The original... edited for TV. There are some new scenes included to pad out the runtime. Because even with commercials, there just wasn't enough material to fill a two-hour timeslot.

Halloween 04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlHiC4pYU8Q
I'm a big fan of this movie.

Halloween 05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9odZH1PKV4
I'll say it. This is the worst Halloween movie ever made. Worse than Resurrections, worse than the Zombie versions, worse than everything.

My quick thoughts review.



SPOILERS





Halloween Kills is a worthy enough follow up to 2018's Halloween, but I came out of this movie feeling that it was a bit uneven, and had it's share of issues. Did I like it? Yes. Just not to the extent of it's predecessor. What this film has going for it, is a story that is incredibly fast paced, and is pretty unrelenting in providing the gore and kills. It's pretty much Michael Myers being at his most vicious in the entire series. About the only films that come anywhere close to this level of viciousness, is perhaps the 6th movie (especially the scene where Michael massacre's Wynn and the cult of Throne in the operating room scene from the theatrical cut), and Rob Zombie's Halloween movies. More so the second than the first. In that context, it's outstanding. Unfortunately, I find the movie itself has some problems that inevitably bring it down a peg or two. It's very much the "Empire Strikes Back" in this particular Halloween timeline (H78, H2018, HK, HE), darker tone and all, but unfortunately some directing/story/character choices just simply lack that 'oomph' that the 2018 Halloween has in spades.

The flashbacks to 1978 was handled extremely well, and I have to call out that the (apparently) non-CGI Dr. Loomis was DAMN impressive visually. The voice however, unfortunately got wonky a few times (especially so in the pitch levels), but man, what a feat in bringing in the visual treat of Dr. Loomis from 1978 for one more go! I also dug the slick way in how actual footage from Halloween II (1981) was incorporated. Very nicely done indeed.

Speaking of the 1978 flashback, the whole Lonnie deal is a curious thing. In the original, we see Lonnie teasing Tommy Doyle about "the boogeyman" at school. Suggesting he's in with the school bullies. We later see him attempting to go into the old Myers home, on a dare, until Dr. Loomis spooks him, and he high tails it out of there. Further suggesting Lonnie is likely something of a juvenile delinquent. In HK, we see now that Lonnie gets teased just like Tommy, and even has a brief encounter with Michael on Halloween night 1978. Cut forward to 2018, Lonnie is portrayed as a pretty swell guy who's now friendly with Tommy. You'd think the point of showing Lonnie encountering Michael in 1978 as a child, and again in 2018 as an adult, would be to further heighten the tension, but no. Lonnie is just simply killed off screen. I didn't get that.

The opening title sequence with the multiple burning jack-o-lanterns was alright. I was honestly expecting something different, but it's ok. comparatively speaking, I absolutely LOVE the inflating jack-o-lantern from the H2018. That was absolute aces. HK's is just alright.

Laurie is sidelined for the entire film, due to the injuries she sustained in H2018, but she get's enough screen time to where the film doesn't absolutely forget about her. Despite Laurie saying that Dr. Sartain was the "new" Loomis in H2018, it's absolutely Laurie who's the embodiment/extension of Dr. Samuel Loomis now. She's decidedly speaking just like him, and is unconditionally integrated with how Dr. Loomis viewed Michael now. The simpatico is complete, and it's more than just Laurie being like T2 Sarah Conner. Her perception of Michael Myers and what he is, is perfectly aligned with Dr. Loomis.

The stalking scene featuring Lindsey and Michael was very effective, and pulled off marvelously. It's shot well, and being a survivor from the original, I actually CARED whether Lindsey lived or not. Which is why I found the scene actually suspenseful. Unfortunately, most of the victims in Halloween Kills, I could literally care less than zero about. The film runs at such a break neck pace, and as a consequence, the overwhelming majority of the victims are literally just there to get slaughtered by Michael. In that sense, HK is essentially a homage to some of the Friday the 13th movies. Where any real investment with the victims, are null and void. They are there to get killed, and you know it. As intentionally hilarious and annoying as those two John guys were, I literally could give less than a flying f*** about their fates. Making the run up to their deaths feel incredibly drawn out in the films futile attempt at suspense. In short, it's like the blonde babysitter, and her boyfriend from H2018. Only in HK, this happens multiple times.

Speaking of drawn out, the whole subplot at the hospital featuring the mob turning into a frenzy over who-they-think is Michael Myers, but turns out is just a schlubby mental patient (who appears to be about as tall as Danny Devito) that escaped alongside Michael, but CLEARLY doesn't resemble Myers in the least bit, to be incredibly tedious. Again, I get the idea, I see what they were going for, but the execution was poor. Personally, that entire sequence really needed to be trimmed down significantly.

Anthony Michael Hall as Tommy Doyle was very good in his role, and you kinda get a sense that adult Tommy isn't someone you necessarily want to F with. As he comes across as one of the more braver characters in the film. Almost not even thinking twice to go outside the bar when they *think* Michael Myers is outside. Probably a bravado persona as a result in how he deals with his PTSD following the events of 1978 no doubt. His line to Laurie about, "40 years ago you protected me, let me protect you now." was a nice touch. Hated to see the guy off'ed (being a child survivor from the original, and his Paul Rudd appearance in H6/Curse), but it's understood from the get go that this was Michael's retaliation for everything that went down thus far in this timeline. I wouldn't mind if they pulled a Hawkins (yeah, Sartain stabbed the guy in the neck AND ran him over in a cop car) with Tommy, but I don't see AMH in the cast for "Halloween Ends", so that means Tommy Doyle is very dead.

Was cool to see Nurse Marion Chambers again (I can't help but think of Marilyn Chambers with that name! haha), even though she got H20'ed again. Pretty amusing she's been killed in two different Halloween revivals now. However, this time around, HK was more fan servicey by the entire thing being played out as something of a homage to the car scene in the rain from the original Halloween. I kinda wish the, "This is for Dr. Loomis" line would have been cut. Mainly due to whenever Loomis is seen, or even just mentioned, I want it to always pack a punch.

There is no doubt, that James Jude Courtney is definitively, one of the best Michael Myers actor's of all time at this stage. If there was any lingering doubt on that following H2018, he's cemented his status as one of the very best Michael's in HK. With Halloween fans, Nick Castle is the OG, set the stage, and any who follow will always be compared to him, but I think it's more than safe to say that JJC is to Michael Myers, what Kane Hodder was to Jason. A definitive incarnation, that will forever be a fan favorite. Speaking of other Myers actors,  Airon Armstrong was also damn impressive as Michael in the 1978 flashback sequences. Like, noticeably so. Well done, Airon. Well done.

Best kills would probably have to go to either the old couple, where the older guy gets to be something of a "project" for Michael all while the older lady gets to witness helplessly (shades of Leatherface sawing up Kirk right in front of his girlfriend hanging on a meat hook from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974) while slowly dying off herself, or how the Cameron kid, who's brought back from H2018, gets his. Other's were amusing, but I found those to be the most memorable.

The ending, well, I just found very lackluster in it's execution. The build up with Michael going after Allyson is outstanding, Karen coming out of no where to protect her daughter from Michael is great. Karen taking off Michael's mask, taunting him, and making him go after her instead is achieved very well. Michael soon after finding himself in a trap, where Karen reprises her "Gotcha" line from H2018 is even good. It's from there on out, where to me, the quality noticeably takes a dip. I mean, it was cool see Brackett once again in HK, but I couldn't help but think it was incredibly cringey when he delivers a quotable line from the 1978 original literally out of no where. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind fan service (and HK is VERY fan servicey), and would generally prefer that approach over the more recent trite use of "subverting expectations", but it just didn't come off well to me. Like at all. Michael taking a licking, but keeps on ticking after the gang thinks he's dead was expected (cause this one points at a very much supernatural take on Myers), but the stylistic approach in how he begins killing each and every one really felt off. That entire part just didn't really fit in anywhere with how Halloween has been presented. As it almost came across as way too edited, or they were rushing thru the filming of this scene (I don't even recall seeing any wide shots), and what we got is what we got. Which was more surreal and dreamlike than what has been typically firmly established when it comes to Halloween movies. Honestly, it actually came across like something from the rejected H4 Dennis Etchison script, where Michael is not presented as a unstoppable killer in a white mask, and blue mechanic jumpsuit, but rather as a shape shifting supernatural ghostly spectre. In addition, I thought the scene with Karen going up alone into the Judith Myers room to gaze out the window literally right after being pursued by a lethal serial killer came across as incredibly pretentious, or overtly melodramatic (similar to the whole mob chasing Danny Devito's mental patient cousin bit from earlier). Especially so by incorporating this, I guess, "vision" of a child Michael Myers standing there looking out the, what I would call, 'motive window' before she decides she, apparently, needs to do the same. It flat out felt like the movie needed to give Michael a big WIN, and killing Karen in Judith's Myer's room (in similar fashion), would be just the closer that would get that done. A more realistic take, would have been Karen going straight to her daughter, who was just attacked herself (in addition to witnessing her boyfriend getting murdered right in front of her as well as losing her father earlier in the night), and holding onto her tightly as they (probably) would be returned to the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital. That's what one would expect a parent to do. That's what I would have expected from Karen in the H2018 film. This just veers off into left field, by having her hang around and explore the Myers house by herself. Even with the cops around, this was a stretch when concerning her character. I mean, I could kinda see Laurie doing something like that, since it's all-too-well established in this timeline that it's actually Laurie who is the one with the one-sided obsession, but with Karen ... it's rather dubious.

With HK, the representation of Michael Myers appears to be going right back to over explaining things. Much like H2 in 1981. What made Michael scary in the 1978 classic, was that we, as an audience, were not privy to a whole hell of a lot of information when it came to Michael. His motivations. Almost nothing. Was he just simply a escaped deranged mental patient, or perhaps actually evil incarnate? Something in between? What little we get comes from only Dr. Loomis, but it's concise, and doesn't give too much away. There was a big mystery when it came to Michael, as you could watch the Carpenter film, project whatever your conclusions were onto Michael (whether he has supernatural abilities or not), and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong either way. Thus making him The Shape. The 2018 film chose to do away with every sequel that attempted to explain Michael and his abilities/motivations, and just acknowledge the 1978 original. Laurie, the pod casters, Dr. Sartain, all of them wanted to force some sort of a motivation/connection, but as we saw in H2018, there simply isn't one. Michael was decidedly the mysterious emotionless embodiment of evil. Just as he was in H1978.

With HK, I found that there was a glaring tendency, literally almost from the beginning, to explain and elaborate on Michael's powers and motivations. Which goes into the whole deal of Michael having a need/desire to go to the Myers house, and stare out his sister's window. Course this was addressed much later in the film, but even in the 1978 flashback, the young Hawkins is having a conversation with another cop while they are looking for Michael, and the topic suddenly shifts to the revelation that Michael, even as a child, displayed this behavior of looking out his sister's window. With the cop friend thinking it was weird, and feeling sorry for Michael. I remember watching this, and kept thinking, "Please shut up.  Please shut up. This isn't necessary."

Then we also get Laurie narrating at the end, about how every time Michael kills, he "transcends". The inference being that with each kill, Michael "transcends" into a higher being of evil I suppose. We see Michael has human like qualities (hiding in the gun room while Laurie's house is ablaze, freaking out when his mask is off or even messed with), but then we go a step further, with Laurie further stating that Michael's "true power" comes from fear and emotional distress of his victims (which is evident due to Michael's looming stature in Haddonfield even four decades later). Thus, making Michael Myers DEFINITIVELY supernatural again in this timeline. As he is feeding off of killing, victims, and terror. With the implication being that Michael's supernatural abilities is WHY he cannot be killed like a normal human being. He's beyond that. Which the group that Tommy, and Brackett are apart of found out.

Ok. Sure. Fine. I don't really have a issue with that, nor did I ever have a issue with the indication of Michael having some sort of supernatural connection with "Samhain" from H2 1981. It's just something of a cheat in my view, especially since one of the major points of doing away with everything but the original, was to return Michael as the mysterious Shape that he was back in the 1978 Carpenter film for this timeline.

All in all, I thought it was a generally good Halloween movie. Highs, and lows for sure. More good, than outright bad I'd say, and I would probably give it a 7 1/2, or maybe an 8 out of 10 overall. I've only seen this once in the theater (I think the 1978 sequences alone make it worth the trip to the theater!), and my rating could change either way, but it's overall enjoyable, and one of the better Halloween sequels out there. It's a film that has both good and absolutely outstanding stuff in it, but also has other parts that, glaringly, stick out like a sore thumb. HK is REALLY good with the KILLS (pretty much a hybrid of the gore found in Rob Zombie's Halloween movies and H2018), but I found it lacked with pretty much most of the characters. Ultimately, the film didn't feel nearly as 'complete' as the 2018 film did. Which parallels with H1978 and H2 1981. You really have to see H2018, to get really anything out of HK.



END OF SPOILERS




I might list a ranking for all 12 Halloween movies later. Since Colors brought the topic up. Looks like we're opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to the original H2, but we're in agreement on H5 and HResurrection being at the VERY bottom of the barrel.



Now, onto Halloween Ends.

SPOILERS

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 06:20There is no doubt, that James Jude Courtney is definitively, one of the best Michael Myers actor's of all time at this stage. If there was any lingering doubt on that following H2018, he's cemented his status as one of the very best Michael's in HK. With Halloween fans, Nick Castle is the OG, set the stage, and any who follow will always be compared to him, but I think it's more than safe to say that JJC is to Michael Myers, what Kane Hodder was to Jason. A definitive incarnation, that will forever be a fan favorite.

I basically agree. Nick Castle is a sentimental favorite for me. Because of that, it's hard for me to say JJC is the superior Myers. And yet, all signs point in that direction. So yeah. Much love and affection to Castle. But I think this is JJC's character now.

Before H2018, I didn't get much into the pissing contests over who played the role best. I wasn't big on Dick Warlock. But otherwise, I liked all the actors who played the character and appreciated the qualities they individually brought. So, I hope it means something when I say that (with all due respect to Castle), JJC is definitive at this point.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 06:20Speaking of other Myers actors,  Airon Armstrong was also damn impressive as Michael in the 1978 flashback sequences. Like, noticeably so. Well done, Airon. Well done.

I was shocked to discover the fact that a different actor played the role in those scenes. But he did a fine job. A FINE job! When the inevitable reboot/retcon/whatever comes along (which I also can't wait for), I think the production should give Armstrong some serious consideration. That entire sequence was a massive treat for fans.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 06:20
Then we also get Laurie narrating at the end, about how every time Michael kills, he "transcends". The inference being that with each kill, Michael "transcends" into a higher being of evil I suppose. We see Michael has human like qualities (hiding in the gun room while Laurie's house is ablaze, freaking out when his mask is off or even messed with), but then we go a step further, with Laurie further stating that Michael's "true power" comes from fear and emotional distress of his victims (which is evident due to Michael's looming stature in Haddonfield even four decades later). Thus, making Michael Myers DEFINITIVELY supernatural again in this timeline. As he is feeding off of killing, victims, and terror. With the implication being that Michael's supernatural abilities is WHY he cannot be killed like a normal human being. He's beyond that. Which the group that Tommy, and Brackett are apart of found out.

Ok. Sure. Fine. I don't really have a issue with that, nor did I ever have a issue with the indication of Michael having some sort of supernatural connection with "Samhain" from H2 1981. It's just something of a cheat in my view, especially since one of the major points of doing away with everything but the original, was to return Michael as the mysterious Shape that he was back in the 1978 Carpenter film for this timeline.

I took that line less literally. I've only seen the movie the once. But I thought Laurie was basically using a metaphor. The legend of Michael Myers grows stronger, the fear of him grows stronger with every life he takes. I didn't think she necessarily meant that he was supernatural in some way in a literal sense.

Maybe I misunderstood what she meant?

Other stuff. For me, the best kill sequence in the movie is probably the firefighters. Michael is *PISSED* about having been left to die. So, when a fresh batch of new victims come along for him to vent his frustration, he doesn't waste the opportunity. I love how the firefighters outside the house instantly realized this episode just went from a rescue into a fight. And when you think about it, firemen are somewhere in the top ten list of non-professionals you DO NOT want to mess around with.

The fact that Myers cut through them like a hot knife through butter (A) did a lot to reestablish his bona fides in this movie and (B) illustrate that he's taking the gloves off this time around.

Other stuff. Another thing that works well for me is how HK works as the second half of H2018 that I at least never realized was missing.

All in all, I could bang away about this movie all day long. But maybe it's enough to say that I dig it and can't wait to watch it again.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 12:49
I basically agree. Nick Castle is a sentimental favorite for me. Because of that, it's hard for me to say JJC is the superior Myers. And yet, all signs point in that direction. So yeah. Much love and affection to Castle. But I think this is JJC's character now.

Before H2018, I didn't get much into the pissing contests over who played the role best. I wasn't big on Dick Warlock. But otherwise, I liked all the actors who played the character and appreciated the qualities they individually brought. So, I hope it means something when I say that (with all due respect to Castle), JJC is definitive at this point.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. All of the previous Michael Myers actors bring certain qualities that are appreciated, but JJC really sticks out above the pack. Dick Warlock comes across like a sweetheart of a guy in interviews I've seen him in, but unfortunately, he does come across as rather small in stature in H2. Like noticeably so. I think he's even made light of this in self deprecating jokes during interviews. Don Shanks seems like a cool guy, but good grief, I really, REALLY loath the H5 mask. I wouldn't go so far as to say the mask hinders his performance, but it certainly doesn't do him any favors either.

QuoteI was shocked to discover the fact that a different actor played the role in those scenes. But he did a fine job. A FINE job! When the inevitable reboot/retcon/whatever comes along (which I also can't wait for), I think the production should give Armstrong some serious consideration. That entire sequence was a massive treat for fans.

Yeah, Airon Armstrong's brief but memorable flashback scenes as Michael kinda makes me wish there could be a "in between" prequel set sometime after 1978, but well before 2018, where Michael escaped, and Dr. Loomis has to go track him down again. Unfortunately, that would be stretching things a bit too far, and would lessen the dramatic impact of Michael not being in the "wild" since 1978. As you say, he should be given strong consideration whenever the next Reboot/Retconned timeline inevitably happens.

QuoteI took that line less literally. I've only seen the movie the once. But I thought Laurie was basically using a metaphor. The legend of Michael Myers grows stronger, the fear of him grows stronger with every life he takes. I didn't think she necessarily meant that he was supernatural in some way in a literal sense.

Maybe I misunderstood what she meant?

I just think there's something to her speech about Michael, which sounds very Dr. Loomis-y, and how even Dr. Loomis himself from the recording from H2018, where he's firmly recommending killing Michael, and going the extra mile in cremating his body afterwards. Not even referring to Michael as "him", but "It". "It needs to die!". Evidently, Laurie is on the same page. Speaking of Michael as not simply a man, but something else entirely. It seems like HK further plays this out, as Michael is able to absorb heavy blows, stabbings, getting shot, ect. Rather than appearing just even a little bit fatigued following all the damage inflicted upon Michael from the group at the end, he just sits right back up like literally nothing happened and goes on the offensive like an unstoppable supernatural force.

I'm not even sure Hawkins himself is taking Laurie's speech about Michael literally, because I think she, like Dr. Loomis, can easily be considered unhinged in how she speaks about Michael. However, I think as this timeline progresses, Michael's abilities are proving both of their cases. That's the narrative perception that the film appears to be going for.

QuoteOther stuff. For me, the best kill sequence in the movie is probably the firefighters. Michael is *PISSED* about having been left to die. So, when a fresh batch of new victims come along for him to vent his frustration, he doesn't waste the opportunity. I love how the firefighters outside the house instantly realized this episode just went from a rescue into a fight. And when you think about it, firemen are somewhere in the top ten list of non-professionals you DO NOT want to mess around with.

The fact that Myers cut through them like a hot knife through butter (A) did a lot to reestablish his bona fides in this movie and (B) illustrate that he's taking the gloves off this time around.

Agreed. That Michael vs Firefighters scene is going to be one of the more iconic moments in Halloween history in showing off how much of a badass Michael Myers truly is. I should have spoken more about this in my review, but I think you're description of the scene is nicely put.

I watched Halloween '18 last night. It was shown in a double bill with Poltergeist (1982), which is a pretty good combination for this time of year. I figured I'd best post my thoughts here rather than in the Halloween Kills thread. Spoilers follow.

Overall I didn't love Halloween '18 as much as most fans seem to, but I think it probably is the best instalment in the franchise since Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. It's certainly the best since H20. At the end of the day, it is another retread of the Michael Myers plot and follows the same formula as the previous entries: the town is haunted by Michael's earlier killing(s), he escapes from captivity, kills a mechanic and steals his clothes, comes to Haddonfield pursued by his psychiatrist, the psychiatrist works with the local police, babysitters are murdered, the final girl(s) confronts Michael, etc. Halloween '18 does at least attempt to subvert some of those formulaic elements by having the Dr. Loomis substitute turn out to be a maniac, and having Laurie turn the tables on Michael in the final act by luring him into a trap, but it never deviates too far from the familiar patterns established by the earlier movies. Ultimately most slasher films are formulaic, and this one is no exception. But for the kind of film it is, I thought it was fairly well crafted and atmospheric.

The characterisation of Laurie Strode was interesting. The H20/Resurrection timeline portrayed her as haunted by her experiences in the original film, but nowhere near as damaged as she is in the 2018 movie. Her trauma seemed much more intense here, and JLC portrayed her bitterness and paranoia effectively. However, I'm not sure I buy the whole survival nut angle if this is a direct sequel to the 1978 film that ignores everything else in between. I'd have no trouble buying it if this was the Laurie who'd lived through the events of H20. If that was the case, then her anticipation of Michael's return, and her dread of its inevitability, would make more sense. But here she only encountered him once forty years ago, and she has no reason to believe that there's anything supernatural about him. His invincibility, as well as his pattern of escaping captivity and returning to Haddonfield, weren't really established until the sequels. It almost felt as though the 2018 Laurie was tapping into the shared trauma of her counterparts in those other timelines, even though the events of those films are apocryphal to this one.

The teenage characters are mostly boring and obnoxious, which is only to be expected in this genre. It makes the audience not mind so much when the killer turns them into mincemeat. Saying that, Halloween '18 also contains some more disturbing murder scenes that are clearly intended to prod the viewer out of their comfort zone: these being the killing of the little boy and the scene where Michael butchers a woman while her baby is crying in the adjacent room. These scenes help maintain the film's edge and remind us that Michael Myers is an evil psychopath, not the toothless franchise mascot he was at risk of becoming circa 2002. I personally prefer the 1978 film's more subtle approach to violence, but at the same time I understand the need to satisfy modern audiences' expectations concerning the level of gore. Especially after Zombie upped the ante so much in his reboot.

On the technical side of things, the film looks good. The dominant colours are a seasonally-appropriate mixture of orange and black; the black being achieved through use of darkness, and the orange through mise- en-scène rather than heavy-handed lens filters. If they'd filmed this movie in the early noughties, I imagine they might have used filters to drown every shot in an unnatural orange tint. But here they convey the prevalence of orange more subtly using props and set design: e.g. the orange candles in the background of the restaurant, or the orange tiles on the walls of the hospital. Little touches like that contribute to the film's visual character and evoke a more seasonal ambience than many of the earlier Halloween films managed to conjure. Needless to say the minimalist score is also effective, combining familiar themes from the original film with some newer tracks that I thought echoed Mark Isham's score for The Hitcher (1986).

Carpenter referenced Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho in the original Halloween, and there were a couple of pleasingly Hitchcockian moments in the 2018 film too. The first was the static shot looking through the window of a house where we see Michael's face reflected in the glass. Michael then moves out of shot before re-entering it as he strolls past a window in the background, communicating to the viewer that he is walking around the side of the house. He then re-enters the shot a third time, only now he is inside the house and calmly stalking the occupant who has yet to notice his presence. This exemplifies one of Hitchcock's classic techniques of feeding the audience information the protagonists lack in order to create suspense. Another very Hitchcockian moment is the Rear Window-like scene where Laurie sees Michael through one window of a house and a policeman through another, but the two men cannot see each other. Again, it alerts the audience to the danger a character is in without the character perceiving it himself, and the resulting effect is one of suspense.

The weakest aspect of the film for me was the script. Obviously it was necessary for the plot that Allyson not be informed of Michael's return, but the scene where her boyfriend spontaneously throws away her phone felt to me like a contrivance. The unresolved nature of that whole subplot and the boyfriend's fate was also a tad elliptical, though judging from previous comments in this thread I understand that this is something the sequels will address. There were one or two other moments when the characters had to display below-average intelligence in order to facilitate a set piece or keep the plot moving, but again, that's par for the course in most slasher movies.

So overall I thought it was solid, but I didn't love it. I'd definitely rank it above Halloweens 5, 6, Resurrection and the first Rob Zombie movie (I still haven't seen the second), and possibly above H20. But I didn't like it as much as the first four Halloweens. The best entry in the franchise is still the 1978 film, but my personal favourite remains Season of the Witch. I think the Myers storyline is thoroughly played out at this point, and if the franchise must continue then I'd rather see it revisit the Cochran/Silver Shamrock storyline than rehash the Michael plot yet again. But I'm still willing to give Halloween Kills and Ends a look at some point in the future.

On its own merits, I enjoy the movie. I can buy the extent and scope of Laurie's trauma. She was the most emotionally fragile in H1978. Her entire social group was brutally murdered and she only escaped death herself by reaching down deep to find strength to allow her to survive. And she had plenty of luck too. Plus, her attacker is still alive and has already demonstrated his ability to escape custody once before.

Taken together, I can buy that the psychological cocktail Laurie is working with has driven her into some pretty extreme directions.

One part of the movie that esp works for me is the opening bit when Aaron pulls out Michael's mask. It's clear from that moment that Michael has pretty much established himself as the alpha male among all the other cuckoos in the asylum. The other inmates pretty much lose it when Michael is in proximity to his mask. Even the guard dog is starting to freak out a little. That moment does a lot to reestablish just how dangerous Michael is.

And it's enough to make you think that even though Michael is the one in chains, you start wondering who the real prisoner is in that asylum.

The Sartain bit remain controversial to a lot of fans. And I don't completely understand why. Originally, you're supposed to think that Sartain is the new Loomis in the movie. But I would've found that boring. So, the revelation that Sartain had his own agenda through the film works better for me since it means he's not a Loomis knockoff. I buy that a lot better than I would Sartain being presented as Loomis ver. 2.0.

Like SN, I have a tremendous affection for H4 and H20. I'll defend both of them to the last. But H2018 simply offers better dramatic potential for continuing the story than those films did.

On the topic of trauma, I would probably lean more towards how Laurie was depicted in H20. Though at the same time, I can easily go with how she deals with her trauma in H2018, by being much more proactive as a consequence, and pretty much a excessive survivalist.

One thing about HK, that really further expanded with what was touched upon in H2018, is that it's not only Laurie that suffered trauma, but other people who had encounters (brief or not) with Michael on Halloween night 1978. With in how Michael is brought up by name within HK, where he's not even present, it sure seems like the film evokes the notion that Michael's legend or presence within the town's population, hasn't ever truly diminished despite his decades of being locked up at Smith's Grove Psychiatric Hospital. Essentially becoming very much a real life "boogeyman" for the resident's of Haddonfield. As even the mere account that Michael is stalking around Haddonfield once again, quickly drives people of all backgrounds into a literal frenzy to get rid of him once and for all.

H4 and H6 both address the conception of how Michael's legend is perceived with the people of Haddonfield, but the Blumhouse trilogy seems to have really amped it up to a noticeable degree. If one can accept this concept, then it's understandable how Laurie turned out in this Blumhouse timeline. Especially so since she was very much a primary target on that '78 Halloween night. In all likelihood for Laurie, it was a choice of being either zealously proactive, or sink into substance abuse, and later probable suicide.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 21 Oct  2021, 15:48

I just think there's something to her speech about Michael, which sounds very Dr. Loomis-y, and how even Dr. Loomis himself from the recording from H2018, where he's firmly recommending killing Michael, and going the extra mile in cremating his body afterwards. Not even referring to Michael as "him", but "It". "It needs to die!". Evidently, Laurie is on the same page. Speaking of Michael as not simply a man, but something else entirely. It seems like HK further plays this out, as Michael is able to absorb heavy blows, stabbings, getting shot, ect. Rather than appearing just even a little bit fatigued following all the damage inflicted upon Michael from the group at the end, he just sits right back up like literally nothing happened and goes on the offensive like an unstoppable supernatural force.

I'm not even sure Hawkins himself is taking Laurie's speech about Michael literally, because I think she, like Dr. Loomis, can easily be considered unhinged in how she speaks about Michael. However, I think as this timeline progresses, Michael's abilities are proving both of their cases. That's the narrative perception that the film appears to be going for.

Something that muddies the water a bit is that Carpenter's balance was usually perfect. Every time Michael was shown in a borderline supernatural light in H78, the moment was immediately followed by something that humanized him. Or vice versa, a very human moment was followed with something arguably supernatural. He always made sure to give conflicting impressions. For example, Laurie tears his mask off and we see a very human face. But then the mfer survives six gunshots and a two story fall.

Carpenter's successors tend not to do that. Rob Zombie would show him in an almost exclusively human light. Or Joe Chappelle would show him in a primarily supernatural light. They never even tried getting the balance right, mostly.

And David Gordon Green has given contradictory stuff too. But not in the same rapid fire way that Carpenter did. I think that's one of the reasons people are on such different pages from each other with these movies. Not criticizing Green. After all, a director's got to do what a director's got to do. I'm just saying, you know? He's not demonstrating the same mastery as Carpenter, that's all. But honestly, you could argue that even Carpenter wouldn't be capable of pulling it off a second time either.

It's been announced that HE will pick up four years after HK. Under the circumstances, that was probably inevitable. But I do wonder how that changes the story that was being told. If it changes at all.

Anyway...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 29 Oct  2021, 01:08
Something that muddies the water a bit is that Carpenter's balance was usually perfect. Every time Michael was shown in a borderline supernatural light in H78, the moment was immediately followed by something that humanized him. Or vice versa, a very human moment was followed with something arguably supernatural. He always made sure to give conflicting impressions. For example, Laurie tears his mask off and we see a very human face. But then the mfer survives six gunshots and a two story fall.

Carpenter's successors tend not to do that. Rob Zombie would show him in an almost exclusively human light. Or Joe Chappelle would show him in a primarily supernatural light. They never even tried getting the balance right, mostly.

And David Gordon Green has given contradictory stuff too. But not in the same rapid fire way that Carpenter did. I think that's one of the reasons people are on such different pages from each other with these movies. Not criticizing Green. After all, a director's got to do what a director's got to do. I'm just saying, you know? He's not demonstrating the same mastery as Carpenter, that's all. But honestly, you could argue that even Carpenter wouldn't be capable of pulling it off a second time either.

It's been announced that HE will pick up four years after HK. Under the circumstances, that was probably inevitable. But I do wonder how that changes the story that was being told. If it changes at all.

Anyway...

Yeah, I get what you're saying. The original "Halloween" was pretty much the one that really straddled the line on Michael being human or "supernatural" to some degree. I think the follow-up, H2, leaned more into Michael being endowed with supernatural powers, but at the same time, it may have been out of pure necessity at that point. I think the rejected H4 Dennis Etchison script is very interesting to think about, and could in some ways, been the film that really progressed Michael Myers and "Halloween" to the next stage (kinda like how "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3" progressed the concept from the original), but in a lot of ways I think Joe Chappelle was absolutely correct in creating something of a happy marriage between the two concepts. Where Michael was as recognizable from H1 & H2, but having more of a prominent supernatural bent without going completely full tilt with it like the Etchison script would have undoubtedly taken it.

With HK leading into HE, apparently what we saw at the end of HK wasn't the original idea. Which would have had Laurie call Karen, right after Michael murders her, with Michael picking up the phone and breathing into it. Essentially a homage to H1 with the Lynda/Laurie phone call. Laurie realizes what's happened, and tells Michael she's coming for him. Which would have had Laurie determiningly walking down the hospital hallway carrying a knife, something of which I believe are in the tv spots for HK, as the camera freeze frames on the knife Laurie is carrying. Just like the freeze frame of the knife Allyson is holding at the end of H2018.

That being said, I guess there could have been a 4 year time jump regardless of which ending David Gordon Green would have chosen, but the original ending for HK sure came across like the Blumhouse trilogy was originally conceived to take place on the same Halloween night. Personally, I am cautious about wuflu being incorporated into the concluding chapter of the Blumhouse trilogy, along with the 4 year time jump, but hopefully it'll be good. I have to believe, given Michael's legendary boogeyman like stature within Haddonfield 40 years removed, and especially since his return rampage in 2018 where he's still at large, we'll see "Halloween" absolutely banned in Haddonfield in 2022. Perhaps even focusing on numerous residents suffering from PTSD, depression, and suicide. As a result of having to adjust to the "new normal", and constant fear mongering from towns people, and even the local news within Haddonfield.

Are we allowed to just do fanboy "This part was so cool!" stuff? Because I'm doing it anyway.


The movie has a brief flashback to 1978 when Michael was apprehended. He was surrounded by cops and escape was impossible. If he didn't go quietly, he'd die. End of story.

Near the end, Michael is surrounded and escape was impossible. And this time, he didn't go quietly. Last time he surrendered, he spent forty years locked up. He obviously isn't making that mistake again.

I love the juxtaposition of those two scenes and what they say about Michael. Either scene by itself is cool. But beginning and ending the movie with those scenes tell you something about the lessons Michael has learned all these decades. Very cool stuff, very well done.

Oh, what the hell? Let's.

I absolutely love how Michael kills Cameron in this. I mean, the guy did a lot in redeeming himself a bit from H2018, but man, Michael just totally wrecks this guy emotionally and physically, before delivering the coup de grâce right in front of his girlfriend, Allyson. It's debatable if Michael would have simply walked passed Cameron if Allyson had made a run for it, considering he mortally wounded the old woman from earlier after killing her husband, and just left her to slowly die, but with Allyson watching and screaming, "Leave him alone!", Michael was like, "Nuh-uh. Not happening. Here, you watching? Watch this!" Brutal.

Too lazy to check Box Office Mojo. But Wikipedia lists off a gross of over $117 million.

At this point, I think we can safely assume that day-and-date streaming has not hurt HK. I mean, it might've. We can't know what would have happened without same day streaming. But $117 million on a $20 million production budget has to be considered a gigantic success. There's just no other way to look at it.

And while I might drag this thread a bit off topic, it does shine a lot on other same-day streaming releases. Some of them have been box office hits "in spite" of same day streaming while others have been flops. At this point, my only conclusion can be that same-day streaming appeals to a certain type of viewer while the theatrical experience appeals to someone else.

This is very significant. And I wonder if the movie industry is taking the time to truly ponder the ramifications of this thing. If it is true that streaming doesn't measurably harm the box office then (A) a lot of Hollywood big shots have damaged their careers for no reason and (B) an entire new world of marketing opportunities has just opened up.

I would hope that Peacock (and the rest) (but Peacock is the only thing that matters in this thread) is measuring those analytics every possible way they can. But more than ever, I'm convinced that streaming has potential that nobody has fully understood yet.

tl;dr- $117 million, that's good news, can't wait for Halloween Ends.

Apparently an extended cut of HK is on the way. I don't have any details. But I saw it listed for pre-order an Apple TV.

Yes. I pre-ordered it. No regerts,

It's not a "scene" in the truest sense of the word. But an interesting deleted moment from H2018 anyway. I dig it because it shows Michael gradually (but probably unintentionally) closing in on the Strodes/Nelsons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-AjsdBtByw

Hmm ...

I wonder if both the theatrical and extended cut will be on the same blu ray?

Otherwise, looks like I'll be, at the very least, double dipping. Just like with all the different cuts/editions that came along with being a completionist and obtaining every damn version of Rob Zombie's two Halloween movies.  :D

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 10 Nov  2021, 21:38I wonder if both the theatrical and extended cut will be on the same blu ray?

Both will apparently be included with the Apple TV version. And both will include director commentary too, if that's worth anything to you.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 10 Nov  2021, 21:38Otherwise, looks like I'll be, at the very least, double dipping. Just like with all the different cuts/editions that came along with being a completionist and obtaining every damn version of Rob Zombie's two Halloween movies.  :D

Finding all the Zombie versions hasn't been very easy. Finally found both versions of his first Halloween movie but so far have only found the theatrical version of H2.

My honest opinion is that fans can say whatever they want about his movies. But at the end of the day, he saved Halloween from direct to video hell. For that reason, we owe him a tremendous amount of gratitude.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 23 Nov  2021, 18:43
Both will apparently be included with the Apple TV version. And both will include director commentary too, if that's worth anything to you.

Not really, but I appreciate the info. I'm still a physical media guy. I think I remember you stating that you have pretty much made the jump to streaming already. I'll begrudgingly bite the bullet on having to stream at some point soon I'm sure, but I want to continue my physical media collection of Halloween movies as long as I can. Own pretty much all the DVD releases, got the big and beautiful Scream Factory box set, and of course the blu of H2018. HK will, of course, be added to the display shelf. Even if I have to buy it twice for different cuts. I'll do it.

QuoteFinding all the Zombie versions hasn't been very easy. Finally found both versions of his first Halloween movie but so far have only found the theatrical version of H2.

Concerning Zombie's 2007 Halloween .... do you have the workprint version?

There's pretty much 3 different versions:

Workprint
Theatrical
Director's Cut

With Rob Zombie's Halloween 2, for some reason all I could find was the Director's Cut when it was released on DVD in stores (back in 2009?). I think it was actually a few years later when I ran up on the RZH2 DVD on a horror movie sale display at a wal-mart. With the Scream Factory box set, it only includes the Director's Cut's of Zombie's H1 and H2 for some reason despite a good number of extras. You literally have to resort to buying a standard double feature blu ray release to get the Theatrical Cuts of Zombie's H1 and H2. Pain in the ass, but it is what it is.

QuoteMy honest opinion is that fans can say whatever they want about his movies. But at the end of the day, he saved Halloween from direct to video hell. For that reason, we owe him a tremendous amount of gratitude.

Couldn't agree more. After Halloween Resurrection, Zombie's reboot of Halloween in 2007 was, as Scorsese would say, "cinema" by comparison. I personally can't help but think of Zombie's Michael Myers whenever I watch the Blumhouse films (if just a little bit), considering it was Zombie who initiated pushing the current aged decrepit mask look, as opposed to the classic clean mask that was the case in H1-H8.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 25 Nov  2021, 02:59I think I remember you stating that you have pretty much made the jump to streaming already.

It's a practical decision as much as anything else. I have far more hard drive space available than I do shelf space. We all make compromises in life.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 25 Nov  2021, 02:59Concerning Zombie's 2007 Halloween .... do you have the workprint version?

I do not. Aside from the fact that it exists, I can't say that I know much about it. I assume there are differences between that and the theatrical and director's cuts?

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 25 Nov  2021, 02:59Couldn't agree more. After Halloween Resurrection, Zombie's reboot of Halloween in 2007 was, as Scorsese would say, "cinema" by comparison. I personally can't help but think of Zombie's Michael Myers whenever I watch the Blumhouse films (if just a little bit), considering it was Zombie who initiated pushing the current aged decrepit mask look, as opposed to the classic clean mask that was the case in H1-H8.

Always thought Resurrection was a shame, personally. Is it great? No. For that matter, it's not even very good. But I don't think it should've been a franchise-killer.

I mean, I don't care what anybody says. Halloween 5 is the worst Halloween movie ever made. Basically every creative decision in that movie is pure garbage. By comparison, Resurrection might not be high art. But it's watchable. I can even enjoy Resurrection on a "This is a bad movie but I kind of like it anyway" sort of way. I cannot derive any such enjoyment from H5. I have my share of disagreements with Zombie's movies but I can let that stuff slide.

With Halloween 5? I can't let anything slide. It's just BAD, period.

But yeah, as you say, I also see a bit of shared DNA with Zombie's handling of Myers and the Blumhouse version.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 25 Nov  2021, 03:22
It's a practical decision as much as anything else. I have far more hard drive space available than I do shelf space. We all make compromises in life.

Understandable.

I plan on getting (probably) a 5TB external hard drive this Christmas. I've downloaded quite a number of videos/documentaries from Youtube, Dailymotion, Bitchute, ect and initially thought I would burn them to DVD-R's, but I have waaaay too much data for something like that. I've accepted just putting whatever on a portable USB stick if I want to watch it, since most players have that port on them now. Pretty much the only exceptions where I'll burn a DVD-R these days, is usually for a movie I would have to REALLY like, and put extras like viral ads, teasers/trailers (shame most of the time these are exempt on blu/dvd/4K), cast/director interviews, and maybe any mini documentary about the film I might find on youtube that's deemed worthy. Essentially a custom "bonus extras" disc, which I just store inside the official release case.

QuoteI do not. Aside from the fact that it exists, I can't say that I know much about it. I assume there are differences between that and the theatrical and director's cuts?

It's not as fresh in my mind the differences, Zombie's various cuts of his 2007 reboot kinda run all together in my head, but I do remember the opening dolly track shot featuring the Myers house, with "Monster Mash" playing. The workprint actually has opening titles, which don't start until, following Michael's mother being called to the school, and Michael is waiting outside the principals office. If I recall correctly, right as kid Michael begins running down the school hallway, it freeze frames with the "Halloween" title at that point. With the rest of the opening credits playing out during the scenes with the one school bully leaving the school, picks on other kids, and pretty much ending right before the 'Michael kills the  school bully' scene.

I'm pretty sure there are others, but yeah, the movie plays a little bit different with each cut as some things are very much exclusive to each cut. I would say it's worth tracking down if you can find it. If you can't, let me know. I recently put it on a backup hard drive for safe keeping. I'm sure I can probably upload it Megaupload or something. 

QuoteAlways thought Resurrection was a shame, personally. Is it great? No. For that matter, it's not even very good. But I don't think it should've been a franchise-killer.

I mean, I don't care what anybody says. Halloween 5 is the worst Halloween movie ever made. Basically every creative decision in that movie is pure garbage. By comparison, Resurrection might not be high art. But it's watchable. I can even enjoy Resurrection on a "This is a bad movie but I kind of like it anyway" sort of way. I cannot derive any such enjoyment from H5. I have my share of disagreements with Zombie's movies but I can let that stuff slide.

With Halloween 5? I can't let anything slide. It's just BAD, period.

I honestly go back and forth between H5 and Resurrection on which is the absolute worst. I mean, I will say that Resurrection is better made, it's more aesthetically pleasing to look at, as H5 looks like absolute garbage (even with a 4K release, I can't imagine the movie still not looking like trash), but the plot of HResurrection reads like a Madtv/SCTv plot. Not to mention the elephant in the room with Busta Rhymes actually getting the better of Michael Myers in a physical confrontation. As a Halloween fan, it's damn right EMBARRASSING even almost 20 years later, and I still groan and roll my eyes whenever I do happen to watch HRessurrection because of that. It's outright bewildering that Moustapha Akkad actually Ok'd that. Especially with how protective Moustapha was with the franchise. Hell, I'm not even sure Frank Mancuso Jr. would have approved of something like that when "Friday the 13th" and Jason Voorhees was under the Paramount umbrella, and he was much more hands off than Mr. Akkad. Just absolutely amazing.

H5 is crap, and again, looks like absolute trash. There is very, very little to really like about it. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I think because it's essentially the middle act of the entire "Thorn Trilogy" (H4-H5-H6) within the Halloween franchise, H5's ties with it's predecessor (H4) and successor (H6), both of which are better movies, is what keeps it sorta viable. Cause otherwise, I agree, it's garbage. Knowing what I know now, I realize the entire deal with the tattoo and Man in Black was a complete clusterF behind the scenes, but I do recall theorizing for years just what all that meant (especially with just who the Man in Black was). With my own personal theorizes varying wildly as a kid. However, the H5 mask is and will forever be appalling to look at, and the whole deal with Michael shedding a tear is on par with Busta Rhymes beating Michael's ass in Resurrection. Perhaps even worse. Just awful.

On the flip side, H5 does feature Danielle Harris as Jamie for the last time, in addition to featuring the last appearance of Donald Pleasence as "classic Loomis" (with the trenchcoat look). I just wish the movie would have been better made to have served them better. I think Danielle was very good with what she was provided. Especially for being so young at the time. I think one of the very few scenes I thought had any sort of weight, was that one scene where Jamie discovers the dead body of Max the dog, and screams out, "Max!". I don't know, something about a scene where a child finds a dead dog/cat has a element of being heartbreaking. I think it's safe to say that H5 featured Dr. Loomis at his most unhinged to say the least. On a lighter note, for some reason, I still find that one kid's delivery of, "Jamie, are you ok?" absolutely hysterical. Definitely one of the few good parts to me.

It's really a toss up with me on which is worst. I don't find HResurrection quite the chore to watch as H5 is, probably due to HResurrection being more aesthetically pleasing to look at as far as a movie goes, but again, the plot and Busta Rhymes crap really kills it for me.

I guess it just depends on my mood on any given day on which is worst for me.

Halloween Kills is downloading in my iTunes right now. I got the announcement on my phone that my pre-order was available now at 11:19 my time.

Obviously, I have no intention of watching it tonight. But I'll probably give it a look tomorrow (or the day after) and let you all know what I think.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 25 Nov  2021, 08:45Not to mention the elephant in the room with Busta Rhymes actually getting the better of Michael Myers in a physical confrontation. As a Halloween fan, it's damn right EMBARRASSING even almost 20 years later, and I still groan and roll my eyes whenever I do happen to watch HRessurrection because of that. It's outright bewildering that Moustapha Akkad actually Ok'd that. Especially with how protective Moustapha was with the franchise. Hell, I'm not even sure Frank Mancuso Jr. would have approved of something like that when "Friday the 13th" and Jason Voorhees was under the Paramount umbrella, and he was much more hands off than Mr. Akkad. Just absolutely amazing.

I want to be careful in how I say this. Because there's the possibility of being misunderstood.

But with these big famous slashers, I actually don't mind when a character BRIEFLY gains the upper hand over The Slasher through dumb luck and the element of surprise. John and Molly BRIEFLY overpowering Michael in H20 works for me because it wasn't a real fight, there were two of them, they got super lucky and they used the opportunity to make a run for it. As it should be.

Like you say tho, Busta Rhymes going toe-to-toe with Michael in a fight AND WINNING is... just too much. That's just a whole nother ball game.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 14 Dec  2021, 05:24
Halloween Kills is downloading in my iTunes right now. I got the announcement on my phone that my pre-order was available now at 11:19 my time.

Obviously, I have no intention of watching it tonight. But I'll probably give it a look tomorrow (or the day after) and let you all know what I think.

Golly. Totally forgot to follow up on this.

Okay, so if anything, HK benefited from a second viewing. I never had a problem with the movie. But it gets even better on the second viewing. Michael is PISSED after nearly dying in H2018 and he pulls no punches, as it were, here in HK. Carnage candy, as the saying goes. I love it!

Now, I've only seen the theatrical cut once. What I bought on iTunes was the extended cut. What are the differences between the theatrical and extended cuts? This is the best resource I've been able to find:

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=780565

Bottom line, minor amounts of extra footage here and there and then a pretty significantly different final scene before credits roll. Otherwise, it's basically the same movie.

My guess is that the extended version was Green's preferred cut at one point. But cuts were made (A) possibly to appease the ratings board and (B) Green wanted Halloween Ends to comfortably jump forward to 2022 and there's just no way to reconcile the urgency of Laurie's final scene in HK with a four year flashforward. Ergo, the phone call moment was cut.

Further, the theatrical cut is canonical to HE. Something to be aware of there.

HK being as good as it is isn't a small feat. Historically, speaking only for myself, two good Halloween movies have never existed back-to-back. H78 is awesome; Halloween II is p00p, imo. Halloween IV is awesome; I think we all know what I think of H5 by now. H20 is a triumph; Resurrection is, well, not a triumph. So, for H2018 (a quality movie) to be followed up with HK (also a quality movie) is unprecedented in my experience. Ymmv.

All in all, I was perfectly satisfied with HK back when I watched in October and nothing much has changed since then. I enjoy the movie and am anticipating HE.

After that... well, it sounds like Jamie Lee Curtis will be truly done with Laurie Strode. Which means there will probably be some kind of reboot eventually. I'm fine with that, honestly. There are plenty of ways keeping this franchise alive, whether it's a reboot or whether it's a sequel to HE. Either way, the Halloween series is a SURVIVOR and I'm enjoying its newest lease on life.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  6 Mar  2022, 06:06
Okay, so if anything, HK benefited from a second viewing. I never had a problem with the movie. But it gets even better on the second viewing. Michael is PISSED after nearly dying in H2018 and he pulls no punches, as it were, here in HK. Carnage candy, as the saying goes. I love it!

Now, I've only seen the theatrical cut once. What I bought on iTunes was the extended cut. What are the differences between the theatrical and extended cuts? This is the best resource I've been able to find:

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=780565

Bottom line, minor amounts of extra footage here and there and then a pretty significantly different final scene before credits roll. Otherwise, it's basically the same movie.

My guess is that the extended version was Green's preferred cut at one point. But cuts were made (A) possibly to appease the ratings board and (B) Green wanted Halloween Ends to comfortably jump forward to 2022 and there's just no way to reconcile the urgency of Laurie's final scene in HK with a four year flashforward. Ergo, the phone call moment was cut.

Further, the theatrical cut is canonical to HE. Something to be aware of there.

HK being as good as it is isn't a small feat. Historically, speaking only for myself, two good Halloween movies have never existed back-to-back. H78 is awesome; Halloween II is p00p, imo. Halloween IV is awesome; I think we all know what I think of H5 by now. H20 is a triumph; Resurrection is, well, not a triumph. So, for H2018 (a quality movie) to be followed up with HK (also a quality movie) is unprecedented in my experience. Ymmv.

All in all, I was perfectly satisfied with HK back when I watched in October and nothing much has changed since then. I enjoy the movie and am anticipating HE.

After that... well, it sounds like Jamie Lee Curtis will be truly done with Laurie Strode. Which means there will probably be some kind of reboot eventually. I'm fine with that, honestly. There are plenty of ways keeping this franchise alive, whether it's a reboot or whether it's a sequel to HE. Either way, the Halloween series is a SURVIVOR and I'm enjoying its newest lease on life.

Very cool.

I thought the Extended Cut ending with the phone call, and the freeze frame zoom like in H2018 more or less had a stronger punch to it, but as you say, it's understandable given the time jump deal with HE.

I've read some fans speculating that there's a possibility that following HE, Halloween will revert back to the Thorn timeline, but I have a really hard time thinking that's even reasonably realistic. Whomever would REALLY have to be clever to get something like that to work without confusing the casual audience. A reboot is the most tenable route. Cleaner and safer.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 10 Mar  2022, 22:06
I've read some fans speculating that there's a possibility that following HE, Halloween will revert back to the Thorn timeline, but I have a really hard time thinking that's even reasonably realistic.

Must've missed that. I understand that the Thorn movies have their fair share of fans. But they're a rarity among the fanbase, I would imagine. Plus, most people just haven't seen them. I'll defend H4 all day long. But let's face it, H5 and H6 are just plain BAD.

Heh, it might be sort of funny if they resurrect (hehe) the H20 timeline. What's Josh Hartnett up to these days, you know?

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 10 Mar  2022, 22:06
A reboot is the most tenable route. Cleaner and safer.

Pretty much. I can buy into the idea of an elder Michael Myers for this current series of movies. Anything to get JLC back in the saddle. But after these movies have run their course, it'll be a little too hard to picture someone as old as Myers still running around making stabby stabby.

Plus, a reboot might be an opportunity to take the story in a new direction. I can't imagine a stronger version of the Laurie Strode storyline than what we're getting now with the Green timeline. So, why not reboot and try something different? A new main character or something.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 10 Mar  2022, 23:01
Must've missed that. I understand that the Thorn movies have their fair share of fans. But they're a rarity among the fanbase, I would imagine. Plus, most people just haven't seen them. I'll defend H4 all day long. But let's face it, H5 and H6 are just plain BAD.

Wishful thinking I'm sure. Presumably from fans of the Thorn story line wanting some sort of closure that never really came. That, or they really want Paul Rudd back as Tommy Doyle again.  ;D

QuoteHeh, it might be sort of funny if they resurrect (hehe) the H20 timeline. What's Josh Hartnett up to these days, you know?

:D I can actually envision this happening with the fan films these days. Wasn't there a fan funded project that was a (unofficial) "sequel" to Wes Craven's New Nightmare starring the adult version of Heather Langenkamp's son in that movie? Not sure if it ever got made, but I do remember reading about that a year or so ago.

I have seen the fan films of Friday the 13th that had CJ Graham playing Elias Voorhees, and Thom Matthews. Some of them are actually very decent.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 10 Mar  2022, 22:06
Pretty much. I can buy into the idea of an elder Michael Myers for this current series of movies. Anything to get JLC back in the saddle. But after these movies have run their course, it'll be a little too hard to picture someone as old as Myers still running around making stabby stabby.

Plus, a reboot might be an opportunity to take the story in a new direction. I can't imagine a stronger version of the Laurie Strode storyline than what we're getting now with the Green timeline. So, why not reboot and try something different? A new main character or something.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm glad this is now an isolated clip. It sums up everything that's wrong with this sequel. Who thought this was not going to send the movie into hilarity mode with this over the top hammy delivery?

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/8d040614-5794-4f12-8b15-0411cb923616

Rewatching Halloween: Resurrection at the moment*. Even now, I wonder if an opportunity wasn't lost to do Halloween: Resurrection as a found footage film.

I mean, that would've been a big stylistic departure from H20 (and everything else the franchise had always been). But it would've been a modern (for its time) approach to the film and it would've rly allowed Michael to be portrayed as more of a boogeyman.

The found footage technique hadn't yet been run into the ground in 2002. Plus, it would've been a natural fit for HR.

* Yes yes yes, I realize that HR is bad. But if you ask me, it's bad in a good way. Maybe H2018 and HK have changed my perspective a bit. But now I can watch HR and enjoy even the cringey stuff like Busta Rhymes defeating Michael Myers TWICE.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 Apr  2022, 00:15
Rewatching Halloween: Resurrection at the moment*. Even now, I wonder if an opportunity wasn't lost to do Halloween: Resurrection as a found footage film.

I mean, that would've been a big stylistic departure from H20 (and everything else the franchise had always been). But it would've been a modern (for its time) approach to the film and it would've rly allowed Michael to be portrayed as more of a boogeyman.

The found footage technique hadn't yet been run into the ground in 2002. Plus, it would've been a natural fit for HR.

It is kinda of a wonder a found footage Halloween or Friday the 13th never got made during the 2000's. In HR's case, it would have been interesting seeing the film go from the usual formula following Jamie Lee's exit, to found footage from there on out...

Quote* Yes yes yes, I realize that HR is bad. But if you ask me, it's bad in a good way. Maybe H2018 and HK have changed my perspective a bit. But now I can watch HR and enjoy even the cringey stuff like Busta Rhymes defeating Michael Myers TWICE.

It's been quite a long time since I've sat down and watched HR. I got that big and beautiful Scream Factory blu ray box set, but it's just one of those Halloween movies I really don't revisit all that much (like H5). I do remember relating to the High Schooler's romantic situational plight when I saw this in the theater back in the day (being 18 and dating a chick who was 30).

Doing a found footage Friday the 13th movie probably would have been the easiest out of any of the horror slasher franchises back in the 2000's. I don't mind the F13th 2009 remake, but I don't find it as pleasing as Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween. Both outdo the 2010 A Nightmare on Elm Street remake though (and I was keeping an open mind due to Jackie Earle Haley, but the film itself was just flat out unmemorable).

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  1 May  2022, 03:04It is kinda of a wonder a found footage Halloween or Friday the 13th never got made during the 2000's. In HR's case, it would have been interesting seeing the film go from the usual formula following Jamie Lee's exit, to found footage from there on out...

I've wondered if that wasn't bandied about for HR but was rejected because of logistical challenges. HR had to explain how Myers survived H20. So, right there, you're hard-pressed to work that explanation into a found footage thing.

So, unless HR was going to be another retcon or some sort of reboot, the crew was stuck with a conventional film approach.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  1 May  2022, 03:04It's been quite a long time since I've sat down and watched HR.

Obviously, I can't defend the movie in terms of creative merit. I'm just saying I can contextualize it better now than I could, say, ten years ago.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  1 May  2022, 03:04(being 18 and dating a chick who was 30).

If you ever do a Reddit AMA about this, DM me.

Or hell, DM anyway because I'm blown away by this.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  1 May  2022, 03:04Doing a found footage Friday the 13th movie probably would have been the easiest out of any of the horror slasher franchises back in the 2000's.

I'll cosign that. If it wasn't going to be Halloween then F13 is definitely a good candidate. In fact, I'm surprised a found footage slasher of SOME kind has never truly been done. The closest I can think of Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon, which is equal parts documentary and traditional film. Definitely worth watching tho.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  1 May  2022, 03:04I don't mind the F13th 2009 remake, but I don't find it as pleasing as Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween

Whoa, rly? Because I dig the F13 remake as mandatory F13 viewing but can only appreciate H2007 as a strictly optional reinterpretation of H1978. Jason in the remake is mad, bad and dangerous to know. Strange that (at least imo) F13 is by far the most enjoyable of the 2000's slasher remakes.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  1 May  2022, 03:04Both outdo the 2010 A Nightmare on Elm Street remake though

Yeah, I don't think anybody would argue against that. The Nightmare remake is an inferior product for quite a number of reasons, in fact.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  1 May  2022, 04:04
I've wondered if that wasn't bandied about for HR but was rejected because of logistical challenges. HR had to explain how Myers survived H20. So, right there, you're hard-pressed to work that explanation into a found footage thing.

So, unless HR was going to be another retcon or some sort of reboot, the crew was stuck with a conventional film approach.

Yeah, about the only way it could've been done (I suppose), is for HR to open just like it did, with Jamie Lee's Laurie Strode's prologue playing out exactly like we saw, and 'then' cut to a found film presentation. Perhaps with some lines of text stating that the footage was found about a year following the unsolved Laurie Strode murder in 1999 or 2000....

Though that might be considered a bit too jarring.

QuoteIf you ever do a Reddit AMA about this, DM me.

Or hell, DM anyway because I'm blown away by this.

Sure. Wish I could say it was a spectacular relationship (it was at first yeah), but it devolved more and more into insecurityville as it went on.

QuoteThe closest I can think of Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon, which is equal parts documentary and traditional film. Definitely worth watching tho.

I'll have to remember that.

QuoteWhoa, rly? Because I dig the F13 remake as mandatory F13 viewing but can only appreciate H2007 as a strictly optional reinterpretation of H1978. Jason in the remake is mad, bad and dangerous to know. Strange that (at least imo) F13 is by far the most enjoyable of the 2000's slasher remakes.

Yeah, I get that. I am not saying that the 2009 F13th movie is bad by any means, but I just found that Rob Zombie's directorial style and cast had a stronger punch to it than Marcus Nispel's F13th effort. Actually, I found Nispel's TCM 2003 remake more enjoyable as a whole than the 2009 F13th movie. Derek Mears as Jason was outstanding to say the least, but the rest of the cast wasn't really anything to write home about. Perhaps that was by design I guess, but I actually thought the 1st set of teens looking for weed following the Pamela Voorhees prologue to be more likable than the more prominently featured set. 

QuoteYeah, I don't think anybody would argue against that. The Nightmare remake is an inferior product for quite a number of reasons, in fact.

True. Pretty much a series of jump scares. Bleh. I remember being kinda disappointed hearing Robert Englund wasn't going to cameo in the 2010 NOES, but yeah, after seeing it, I'm glad he didn't.

Is Halloween Ends The Last Michael Myers Movie? Blumhouse Head Responds
https://screenrant.com/halloween-ends-michael-myers-last-movie-jason-blum

Short answer is it's the last Blumhouse Halloween film by contract. At least for now. Who can say what the future will bring?

Honestly, I think it stands to reason that the series will continue in some way. It's not like Akkad has an endless vault of IP's that he can experiment with at his leisure. Whether it's a reboot or whether it does or doesn't include Blumhouse, it seems like a no-brainer to say that there's always another one coming. Sooner or later.

But assuming Halloween Ends lives up to its name, I'm at a loss as to how to continue the series. This current timeline seems like it will be fully explored by the end of HE. But at the same time, even five years from now seems too soon for a wholesale reboot. Related, I assume nobody is interested in reviving the Thorn, H20 or Zombie timelines. So, what's left?

But whatever it is, let's face it, I'm buying it, yeesh.

Yeah, I agree. One way or another, Halloween will continue on past Blumhouse's Halloween Ends. It's just too big of a horror IP to remain dormant for a extensive period of time.

I really can't see the Akkad's going back to Zombie or Thorn continuities, unless it's for streaming or something, but I think that's rather unlikely. A remake/reboot would make the most sense, but one has to wonder if a presumed remake will include recastings of legacy characters like Laurie and Dr. Loomis, or would it attempt to open with new characters (outside of Michael of course) with no association with the past?

I guess if people don't take to a new cast of characters, reintroducing recast legacy characters could be something of a "hook" for sequels, but it's all conjecture.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 Apr  2022, 00:15
* Yes yes yes, I realize that HR is bad. But if you ask me, it's bad in a good way. Maybe H2018 and HK have changed my perspective a bit. But now I can watch HR and enjoy even the cringey stuff like Busta Rhymes defeating Michael Myers TWICE.

I hesitate to call myself a fan of this movie. But I do have bizarre appreciation for it. So, the workprint...

https://archive.org/details/halloween-resurrection-workprint-scenes

I'm up to my eyeballs with work at the moment. So, I'm in no position to say what differences (presumably) exist between the theatrical version and the workprint scenes.

However, Katee Sackhoff revealed on her YouTube channel that the close-up of Jen's bra in the movie isn't her. The director wanted her to lift her shirt but she refused. So, they used a body double for the close-up and cut around Sackhoff to achieve the illusion that she's exposing her ta-ta's. Even tho she never did. She went on to chalk that up to a learning experience, where actors have to watch their own backs on a film set because nobody else will. So, there's one thing that the workprint might show.

Anyway. Maybe we should retitle this thread to General Halloween discussion? Or something like that? Because let's face it, the Halloween series doesn't warrant a thread for each individual entry in the franchise on a Batman-focused forum.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Jun  2022, 16:55
Anyway. Maybe we should retitle this thread to General Halloween discussion? Or something like that? Because let's face it, the Halloween series doesn't warrant a thread for each individual entry in the franchise on a Batman-focused forum.

I've re-titled it 'The Halloween Franchise' and merged it with the Halloween (2018) thread.

Also, here's a post I made back in 2018 in another thread concerning how I'd rank each entry in the series. Seems relevant.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 12 Nov  2018, 20:33

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 11 Nov  2018, 14:01
Going back to the Halloween movies, SN, how would you rank them? Excluding Season of the Witch.

My rankings would go a little something like this:

1. Halloween 1978
2. Halloween 2 1981
3. Halloween 2018
4. Halloween 2007
5. Halloween 4: Return of Michael Myers 1988
6. Halloween: Curse of Michael Myers 1995
7. Halloween: H20 1998
8. Halloween 5 1989
9. H2: Halloween II 2009
10. Halloween Resurrection 2002

That's tricky. My list wouldn't be too dissimilar from yours, with a few minor differences. I still haven't seen Halloween 2 (2009) or the 2018 movie, and some of the other films I haven't watched in over a decade. But going off what I remember, and ignoring Halloween 3, I'd rank the Michael Myers series as follows (from worst to best):

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

Nothing about this film works, unless you're watching it as an ironic illustration of how not to make a sequel. The house filled with cameras offered the perfect set-up for a found footage film, but the movie never follows through on that premise. A found footage film still probably would have sucked, but at least it would have been different. The retconning of H20's ending robbed the previous movie of its finality, which in turn resulted in an extremely underwhelming exit for the Laurie Strode character. Her death should have been far more impactful. And as for Busta Rhymes... Ugh. It's hard for any screen villain to bounce back from a movie this bad.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

I've seen this movie at least two or three times over the years, but honestly... I can barely remember it. That says a lot about how good it is. Halloween 4 ended on a bold note that could have concluded the entire series, or else reoriented the franchise along a fresh path. But Halloween 5 squanders that potential in favour of a forgettable retread more befitting the Friday the 13th franchise than Halloween.

Halloween (2007)

I'm not a fan of Rob Zombie, but I give this one credit for carving its own identity and attempting a more grounded, psychological take on the central character. However the blunt, graphic nature of the movie is antithetical to what made Carpenter's original so effective, and the expanded back-story for Michael Myers merely demystifies him and – for me at least – makes him less frightening. The dialogue between the teenage characters is extremely cringeworthy in places (I read a leaked copy of Zombie's script before the film was released, and the original version was even more lurid than the finished product). On the plus side, the movie delivers some strong visuals and an impressive line-up of veteran actors appear in minor supporting roles. Zombie fans will probably rate this one higher, but it just didn't do anything for me. I should mention I've only seen the director's cut. I gather the theatrical version is quite different.

Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

If I were ranking these based purely on personal preference, then this one would rate higher. It was the first Halloween sequel I saw as a kid and back then I really liked it. I didn't become aware of the different cuts until many years later. Halloween 6 is the conclusion to the trilogy that begins with Halloween 4. But like the recent Star Wars movies, the trajectory of that trilogy was not properly mapped out in advance. There are too many opaque plot points that needed clarifying: is Michael the father of his niece's child or not? What influence, if any, does the weird cult have over Michael's actions? And what the hell happens to Dr Loomis in the version of the film that ends with the close-up of Michael's mask? I have a nostalgic soft spot for this one. But objectively speaking, it's a real mess.

Halloween H20 (1998)

H20 has the same late-nineties slickness that characterised movies like Scream, I know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend. But what it lacks is the post-modern self-awareness that helped deconstruct the American horror genre and rejuvenate it towards the end of that decade. There are a couple of metafictional gags relating to Janet Leigh, but aside from that H20 is basically just another retread of the first film. It looks nice and has decent production values, but the score is overbearing and the constant false jump scares are irritating as hell. This movie seemed really cool back in 1998, but now it just feels redundant.

Halloween 2 (1981)

Is this sequel necessary? No. But it's entertaining. I like the way it picks up exactly where the first film left off, utilising many of the same locations and actors for a more or less seamless continuation. It does what a horror sequel is expected to do: up the gore, make the kills more inventive, and expand on the mythology. Whereas most horror sequels close on an ambiguously open-ended note, Halloween 2 contains the first of several attempts to conclude the story of Michael Myers. If the series had ended here, it wouldn't have been a bad place to stop. Halloween 2 may be unnecessary, and it lacks the subtlety and originality of the first film, but it's still very watchable.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

This film set the precedent for releasing Halloween movies on the anniversary of the original. In that sense, you could call it Halloween H10. It starts on the right note with an atmospheric montage of desolate autumnal imagery accompanied by Alan Howarth's melancholy score. I love this title sequence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nwMfSdlj7Y

From there, we return to the story of Michael Myers. Yes, the same Michael Myers who was incinerated at the end of the second film. You have to overlook this discrepancy, as well as the one about Loomis (he was blown to smithereens last time we saw him, but is now only mildly scarred) in order for the film to work. But if you can do that, Halloween 4 is one of the better instalments in the franchise. It doesn't deviate too far from the formula established by the first film, but it executes that formula with just the right amount of panache. The cinematography and lighting evoke a suitably dark and moody atmosphere, there are some suspenseful set pieces, and the central performances are generally strong. For me, Halloween I, II and IV constitute the classic Michael Myers trilogy. This movie offers a good ending to that saga.

Halloween (1978)

What is there to say about this film that hasn't already been said? From the extended first-person opening sequence to the final scene where we hear Michael's muffled breathing whispering through the darkened streets – this movie is a haunting chiller from start to finish. Admittedly some of the acting is wooden, and it's kind of obvious it wasn't filmed in autumn. But I love the grainy 35mm photography, the pacing is perfect, and Carpenter's minimalist score is unforgettable. As a film buff, I also dig the references to earlier horror movies such as Christian Nyby's The Thing from Another World, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, Michael Powell's Peeping Tom and Bob Clark's Black Christmas. Carpenter's Halloween is a genuine classic worthy of standing alongside those films.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gstatic.com%2Ftv%2Fthumb%2Fv22vodart%2F3499%2Fp3499_v_v8_ab.jpg&hash=eb47ac1f240c3332b1ff8d3bbd0824a563d42ee7)

Halloween Ends trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_mAWKyfj6c

Looks pretty awesome to me.

I am teased.

Arguably unrelated. But I finally rewatched Halloween III: Season of the Witch a couple weeks ago. Hadn't seen it since I was a little kid.

The obvious: There's no Michael Myers here. There, I said it.

But when you move away from that, if you mentally rename the movie to just "Season of the Witch", it's actually pretty enjoyable. You've got a murder mystery going on, killer masks, killer robots, modern day druids, something to do with Stonehenge and so forth. It's a pretty bonkers movie, all things considered. It's kind of sad that Season of the Witch's scarlet letter is the "Halloween III" part of its title.

If not for that, I think it would actually be a pretty well-regarded horror movie today. Yes, it's been reappraised in recent years. But the stigma still lingers. And it's a strange fate that a movie this good has gotten such bad treatment due to outside factors beyond anybody's control.

Anyway. Point being, it's worth another look if you haven't seen it in a while. Halloween III: Season of the Witch came out a few months after Poltergeist. They're roughly contemporaries with each other. And while Poltergeist is the superior film, Halloween III: Season of the Witch still has a lot to offer.

As a side note, Halloween III: Season of the Witch has an awesome and iconic poster. One of my favorites of all time. It tells you nothing about the story, and yet it definitely conveys the fact that this is a horror movie.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 30 Jul  2022, 07:34Arguably unrelated. But I finally rewatched Halloween III: Season of the Witch a couple weeks ago. Hadn't seen it since I was a little kid.

The obvious: There's no Michael Myers here. There, I said it.

But when you move away from that, if you mentally rename the movie to just "Season of the Witch", it's actually pretty enjoyable. You've got a murder mystery going on, killer masks, killer robots, modern day druids, something to do with Stonehenge and so forth. It's a pretty bonkers movie, all things considered. It's kind of sad that Season of the Witch's scarlet letter is the "Halloween III" part of its title.

If not for that, I think it would actually be a pretty well-regarded horror movie today. Yes, it's been reappraised in recent years. But the stigma still lingers. And it's a strange fate that a movie this good has gotten such bad treatment due to outside factors beyond anybody's control.

Anyway. Point being, it's worth another look if you haven't seen it in a while. Halloween III: Season of the Witch came out a few months after Poltergeist. They're roughly contemporaries with each other. And while Poltergeist is the superior film, Halloween III: Season of the Witch still has a lot to offer.

Absolutely. Halloween '78 is the best film in the series, but Season of the Witch is my personal favourite. It's criminally underrated. Carpenter's original concept was for an anthology series with each annual instalment being a standalone film set on Halloween. Unfortunately Halloween 2 set a precedent for continuing the Michael Myers storyline, and so fans expected more of the same when the third film came out. I wonder would audiences have been more receptive to Season of the Witch if it had been the second film in the series and not the third?

But you're right that it should really have been released as a standalone movie. Had it been, then Season of the Witch would probably now be regarded as a Carpenter classic on a par with The Fog. It's gradually starting to receive the appreciation and cult status it deserves, and I've noticed that its IMDb rating increases a little each October. But it's taken four decades for the movie to earn such reappraisal. There was a time when Halloween 3 was in the IMDb bottom 100. All because Michael Myers wasn't in it. ::)

The original screenplay was penned by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, best known as the creator of the Quatermass serials. Kneale had his name taken off the credits after being dissatisfied with Carpenter's rewrites, but you can still see his imagination on display in the finished product. It's a very creative premise: a rich psychotic toymaker steals part of Stonehenge and distributes fragments in kids' Halloween masks so he can trigger their magical properties and kill the wearers using a signal concealed in a TV broadcast, thereby recreating the pagan blood sacrifices of Samhain and reawakening the terror of the season. As plot's go, it's certainly original. No one can say it's formulaic. And while other instalments in the franchise take place on October 31st, Season of the Witch is the only one that's actually about Halloween. It captures the atmosphere of the season better than any other entry in the series.

The low-key lighting and dark cinematography create a moody and ominous atmosphere, and the minimalist synth score is terrific.


I love Dan O'Herlihy's performance as Cochran. It was surely this role that led to him being cast as the Old Man in the RoboCop movies and Andrew Packard in Twin Peaks. His monologue about the origins of Samhain is chilling stuff.


My brother bought me a book for my birthday last year called The Films of John Carpenter by John Kenneth Muir. In his analysis of Season of the Witch, Muir is extremely dismissive and writes the movie off as a failure. One of the criticisms he levels at the film is Cochran's plan, arguing that it doesn't make sense for him to execute a scheme that could so easily be traced back to himself. I noticed this book was published in 2000. Had it been published at the end of 2001, I think Muir might have found Cochran's disregard for his own safety in the pursuit of a terrorist agenda more plausible. Cochran doesn't care if he gets caught. He just wants to spread terror and make people fear Halloween again. His actions are irrational, yes, but his willingness to sacrifice himself for his cause is frighteningly believable.

That's not to say that Halloween 3 is without flaws. The subplot about Cochran replacing Ellie with a robot is a bit weird. It's never explained why he did that or why the robot didn't try to stop Challis from sabotaging the villains' operation earlier. The central scheme to kill everyone at 21:00 doesn't take into account differences in time zones. Also, the Silver Shamrock broadcast is on after a screening of Halloween '78. But the Silver Shamrock broadcast is at 21:00, which means Halloween '78 was shown before the nine o'clock watershed. That seems unlikely.

Then there's Tom Atkins' character, an unwashed drunk middle-aged doctor who never changes his clothes but is somehow irresistible to attractive younger women. His sexual conquest of the recently bereaved Ellie adds a layer of unintentional comedy to the movie ("What was that?" "Who cares?"), which even Atkins himself has joked about in interviews. The unlikeable nature of his protagonist is down to the writing and not his performance. In fact Atkins' acting is pretty good, particularly during the final scene where he's yelling for the network to cut the Silver Shamrock broadcast. But his character, as written in the script, isn't terribly sympathetic.

Despite these issues, Season of the Witch is a really fun movie that deserves more credit than it receives. It's essential October viewing for me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 30 Jul  2022, 07:34As a side note, Halloween III: Season of the Witch has an awesome and iconic poster. One of my favorites of all time. It tells you nothing about the story, and yet it definitely conveys the fact that this is a horror movie.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Halloween_III_Season_of_the_Witch_film_poster.jpg)

The original trailer's really creepy too, with the eyes appearing behind the mask and the voice whispering in the background.


I've seen a number of fan theories over the years about how the Silver Shamrock storyline might be connected to Michael Myers through the iconic Captain Kirk mask. Supposing the mask was originally made by Cochran, and it was the mask that granted Myers his powers of invincibility. That's one avenue a future entry in the series could explore. Though to do that, you'd have to ignore the fact that Halloween '78 exists as a movie within the reality of Halloween 3.

Thinking about the future of this series. And I've wondered about the potential of revisiting the Thorn films. I mean, there's no way to make a sequel to Halloween 6. Even if anybody had an appetite for that (and most people don't), there's not very much gas left in the tank after that movie.

But what about revisiting Halloween 4? Pick it up in the modern day. Jamie is released from the nuthouse. She's finally recovered well enough from her PTSD from Halloween 4 that she can TRY reintegrating into mainstream society. It's been all these decades and Myers is presumed long dead. Which makes it decidedly inconvenient for Jamie when Myers comes looking for her.

The reason I suggest this is partly because I will defend Halloween 4 to my dying breath. Obviously, nothing touches H78. We all agree on this. Still, H4 is a worthy sequel that honors the spirit of the original. And frankly, that's not the norm in this franchise as much as it should be. So, retcon everything after H4 out of existence and resume the story from there.

Or what about revisiting Halloween 5? Admittedly, I'm disinclined to do that. Because H5 is p00p on a stick without the stick. Still, that cliffhanger ending of Myers getting put into (and subsequently taken right back out of) jail is interesting. What happened to him? Who took him? Why? You can answer those questions in the modern day. Turns out, the guy who sprung Myers out of jail is Danny, Judith's boyfriend from that fateful night back in 1963. Danny heard Myers was active again in Haddonfield and he wanted retribution. He wasn't freeing Myers. Danny wanted his pound of flesh.

And he got it. Or so he thinks. So, imagine his surprise when he finds Myers gunning for him. After Danny is gone, Myers sets his sights back on Haddonfield. In theory, bringing Harris back to play Jamie is strictly optional here. Although, why bother reopening the H5 can of worms if you're just going to ignore Jamie? Wtf kind of sense is that supposed to make?

So, I say bring her back, show Jamie's normal life in suburbia, she's happy and healthy, she goes to PTA meetings, she's married to cannon fodder some dude who probably sells insurance or something and is pretty much living a quiet life. But when she finds out that Danny, her savior from H5, has been murdered, she has SOME idea of what's coming next... but (unlike Laurie in this current run of Blumhouse films) Jamie refuses to see the obvious, preferring to live in denial instead. Make a character arc out of that. Like, the importance of confronting one's own past or whatever.

I submit to all of you that there's SOME mojo to the idea of bringing Danielle Harris back to the character. She's a fan-favorite, she loves the material, her story got royally screwed over in subsequent sequels and bringing her back has a lot of potential.

Anyway. There are lots of ways to continue the franchise after HE and most of them are probably better ideas than revisiting H4 or H5. Still, revisiting those films isn't a completely insane idea, and may actually have a lot of dramatic potential.

Of course, the obvious drawback is Michael's age. He's already getting sized up for a wheelchair as it is. So, sticking with og Myers just might not be a practical option anymore after HE. So, hmm.

Anyway.

I appreciate the well thought out post, Colors, and like some of your ideas. Personally, I am not opposed to taking another timeline jump post-H4, with a returning Danielle Harris as Jamie. I think that would really play to the Halloween fan base really well in a lot of ways, to which Rob Zombie was no doubt cognizant of when he cast Harris in his Halloween films.

I know I said this offhandedly previously in this thread, but I kinda think having Paul Rudd return as Tommy Doyle in a post-HE world (not literally in the Blumhouse continuity, but in the overall grand scheme of things) might just be the shot-in-the-arm "name" (for mainstream advertising appeal, ect) the franchise is looking for with Jamie Lee Curtis calling it a wrap. If you add Danielle Harris into the equation, the Akkad's would effectively retain the Myers vs. Strode factor without the presence of Jamie Lee. Just as it was in 1988 with H4.

I think Danielle Harris would be game. I think Paul Rudd was courted for HE, but couldn't do to scheduling conflict. That may just very well turn out to be a blessing in disguise if such a scenario like this plays out.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXUXpM04y4

This guy is doing a YouTube series based on the entire franchise. But he's going in a pretty original direction so you shouldn't expect "Herpa derp, dId yOu kNoW MiChAeL MyErS Is nOt iN ThIs oNe?".

Rather, he reveals a lot of stuff that I certainly never knew. It's pretty insightful.

(Yes, I'm still in the Halloween III rewatch afterglow)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 30 Jun  2022, 17:16

Halloween (2007)

I'm not a fan of Rob Zombie, but I give this one credit for carving its own identity and attempting a more grounded, psychological take on the central character. However the blunt, graphic nature of the movie is antithetical to what made Carpenter's original so effective, and the expanded back-story for Michael Myers merely demystifies him and – for me at least – makes him less frightening. The dialogue between the teenage characters is extremely cringeworthy in places (I read a leaked copy of Zombie's script before the film was released, and the original version was even more lurid than the finished product). On the plus side, the movie delivers some strong visuals and an impressive line-up of veteran actors appear in minor supporting roles. Zombie fans will probably rate this one higher, but it just didn't do anything for me.

I try to look for the good in Zombie's remake. I guess my way of rationalizing it is that the 1978 original will always exist. So, there's no real need for Zombie to try TOO hard in remaking it.

Instead, he reimagined the material according to his own sensibilities. He completely recalibrated the visual language of the Halloween series up to that point (for better or worse) and he somewhat modernized it. Yes, he made plenty of missteps along the way. And the good does not outweigh the bad. But I still see it as a worthwhile effort.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 30 Jun  2022, 17:16I should mention I've only seen the director's cut. I gather the theatrical version is quite different.

Michael's escape sequence is different. And I'll say better. In the theatrical cut, you get the idea that Michael saw Loomis walking out on him as being abandoned by one of his last tethers to mankind. From there, you can surmise that the reason that he escapes from Smith's Grove to reconnect with Laurie in the hopes that she will pick up where Loomis left off as being someone who hopes that he somehow comes back from the darkness.

Obviously, the director's cut went a completely different direction with the business involving the orderlies and the female patient.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 30 Jun  2022, 17:16

Halloween H20 (1998)

H20 has the same late-nineties slickness that characterised movies like Scream, I know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend. But what it lacks is the post-modern self-awareness that helped deconstruct the American horror genre and rejuvenate it towards the end of that decade. There are a couple of metafictional gags relating to Janet Leigh, but aside from that H20 is basically just another retread of the first film. It looks nice and has decent production values, but the score is overbearing and the constant false jump scares are irritating as hell. This movie seemed really cool back in 1998, but now it just feels redundant.

Fair enough. I have a real soft spot for H20 tho. It came out when I was in high school and it felt like a slasher movie geared toward my sensibilities. I rly enjoyed the "slick" feeling the production has. It's a peculiar hallmark of late Nineties/early 2000's horror films. I don't know if we should blame (credit?) Rob Zombie's House Of A Thousand Corpses for this sea change of more grungey and grimy horror movie aesthetics. But I, for one, kind of miss slick movies like this.

I adore H20. But yeah, I have to admit it's not perfect. It comes in at a whoppin' 86 minutes (even with credits), there are no real subplots going on and the carnage is mostly frontloaded at the start of the movie rather than being a bit more equally spaced out through out. In fact, my memory is that H20 might have the lightest body count of all with six (?) kills. I think HK opened with more than six kills and it just went on from there. The H20 script could've used another draft to correct those issues.

Your remarks about the score interest me tho. John Ottman was supposed to score the film. And what he came up with was a pretty Hitchcockian score that leaned into the suspense more than the actual carnage (since there's not a lot of carnage to speak of). But the producers hated his score and replaced as much of it as they could with Marco Beltrami material repurposed from Mimic, Scream and other stuff. Ottman's opening titles remain. But big chunks of the rest of his score are missing. ALL of it would've been gone if the producers had enough time. Ottman is still miffed about that to this day, in fact.

Still, all in all, I dig H20. Maybe it's a nostalgia thing. But I enjoy it.

Did I ever post my own rankings? If not...

#11 will always be dead last for me no matter how many of these things ever get made. I'll be shocked if I ever watch it again, honestly. #07-#10 could be in a different order on any given day. These could get rewatched, you never know. From #02-#06, I enjoy all of them and rewatch them regularly. And #01, well, pass me some popcorn because that's obvious.

11- Halloween 5- I just have nothing positive to say about this movie. This will always be last with a bullet for me. I sincerely can't imagine a worse Halloween movie than this one.

10- Halloween II (1981)- I've never seen what other people love about HII so much. It's never made sense to me. My lasting resentment with this film comes down to the revelation that Laurie and Michael are siblings. Two different timelines and the reboot run with that idiotic plot point and I'll never forgive HII for that.

09- Zombie's Halloween II (2009)- Does very little for me. But I will give Zombie credit for exploring the aftermath of 2007. Violence has consequences and Zombie acknowledged that.

08- Halloween 6- It has some decent kills. But neither cut of the movie is what you'd call a masterpiece, exactly.

07- Zombie's Halloween (2007)- I don't need it, honestly. But, as above, I can see SOME good in it. Not much. But a little.

06- Halloween: Resurrection- I can only imagine how much grief I'll get for ranking this movie so high up. But I can't help it, I have a bizarre affection for this one and at this point, I have to admit I'm a fan. I recognize (and agree with) the fact that this movie has many fundamental flaws. But I still get a weird enjoyment out of it, no idea why.

05- Halloween H20- I mostly said my piece above. But whether it's nostalgia or genuine merit, I dig this thing.

04- Halloween Kills- It ups the ante considerably after 2018, it has more kills than any other Halloween movie afaik and it's a worthy entry into the 1978/2018/HK/HE quadrilogy. Plus, Haddonfield feels like a character in this movie rather than a setting or a backdrop. That's new to this series and I welcome it.

03- Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers- Possibly more than any other sequel, this one truly honors the original as much as it can. And I value that. I could quibble over the fact that Myers could've and should've used the bandage mask through the entire film. But since this is supposed to be the RETURN of Michael Myers, I can see where it was important to use the recognizable mask. Still, a missed opportunity.

02- Halloween 2018- This restored a lot of purity and dignity to the original. Plus, it gets points from me for FINALLY removing Halloween II (1981) from continuity.

01- Halloween (1978)- Duh, pretty sure this tops everyone's list. Honestly, there is ONLY the original movie in my headcanon. The various sequels are interesting, I guess. I enjoy several of them. But I don't mentally admit any of them into my imaginary canon. Which, I guess, is why the ever-shifting timelines don't bother me.

https://twitter.com/halloweenmovie/status/1562123791710318597

The long and the short of it is that Halloween Ends will premiere in theaters and on Peacock simultaneously.

Well, my work here is done.

(https://i.imgur.com/eKB6yT3.gif)

"Halloween Ends" posters.

(https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/2022/07/21/57c7dcd7-4be5-4910-ba7e-7c621a03435c/halloween-ends-official-poster-michael-myers.jpg)

(https://i0.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/halloween-ends-poster.jpg)


I've been reading about HE having two different cuts that are scoring in direct contrast to one another.

Blumhouse/Universal will probably go with the cut getting positive results (unless they really want to troll the fans haha), but it does leave one to wonder just what in the hell is going on with the other cut? Is it THAT controversial? Or is it just a matter of this particular HE cut not being all that satisfying? Especially in terms of concluding the Blumhouse Halloween trilogy...

This could end up being something like the H6 Theatrical Cut/Producers Cut deal, somewhere down the road.

Maybe.

I think that by now most Halloween fans are fairly comfortable with alternate cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if whichever version becomes the alternate cut eventually gets released.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 15 Aug  2022, 22:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXUXpM04y4

This guy is doing a YouTube series based on the entire franchise. But he's going in a pretty original direction so you shouldn't expect "Herpa derp, dId yOu kNoW MiChAeL MyErS Is nOt iN ThIs oNe?".

Rather, he reveals a lot of stuff that I certainly never knew. It's pretty insightful.

(Yes, I'm still in the Halloween III rewatch afterglow)

Thanks for posting this, colors. I've long been a fan of Nigel Kneale and I'd love to read his original Halloween 3 script. But since it's not available anywhere online, Tommy Lee Wallace's upcoming book might be the next best thing.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 16 Aug  2022, 16:3110- Halloween II (1981)- I've never seen what other people love about HII so much. It's never made sense to me. My lasting resentment with this film comes down to the revelation that Laurie and Michael are siblings. Two different timelines and the reboot run with that idiotic plot point and I'll never forgive HII for that.

I suppose one thing Halloween 2 has going for it is the proximity of its release to that of the 1978 film. It takes place on the same night as the original and features many of the same actors, and since it came out just three years later the cast don't look all that different. In that sense, Halloween 2 looks closest to the original film. But ultimately it is an unnecessary addendum to Carpenter's movie and lacks the subtlety and restraint of its predecessor. The plot twist about Michael being related to Laurie always struck me as contrived and redundant. Though saying that, Halloween 4 arguably redeemed the fratricidal aspect of the mythology by using it as the starting point for Jamie's storyline.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 16 Aug  2022, 16:31Fair enough. I have a real soft spot for H20 tho. It came out when I was in high school and it felt like a slasher movie geared toward my sensibilities. I rly enjoyed the "slick" feeling the production has. It's a peculiar hallmark of late Nineties/early 2000's horror films. I don't know if we should blame (credit?) Rob Zombie's House Of A Thousand Corpses for this sea change of more grungey and grimy horror movie aesthetics. But I, for one, kind of miss slick movies like this.

I think Zombie's partly to blame, but ultimately he was only part of a much larger shift towards grungy 'extreme' horror and torture porn that dominated the genre throughout the noughties. This was partly driven by the popularity of the Saw franchise and Eli Roth movies, but also the influx of Asian extreme (Audition, Ichi the Killer and pretty much anything else directed by Takashi Miike) and European extreme movies (Irréversible, Martyrs, The Human Centipede, etc).

I too have a lot of nostalgia for the horror films of the late nineties and early noughties. Back then we were spoilt with an abundance of stylish and smart western horror movies, plus a new wave of inventive Asian horror films, that reinvigorated the genre after the terminal sequelitis of the late eighties temporarily killed it. Then the postmillennial trend shifted things in favour of torture porn and bad remakes (mostly produced by Platinum Dunes), which is why I stopped following the horror genre for a time. It was only towards the end of the noughties that a higher quality of horror film started coming out again, and that reawakened my interest in the genre.

If H20 exemplifies the slick self-aware horror trend of the late nineties, then it could be argued that Zombie's Halloween films exemplify the nastier 'gorenography' trend of the noughties, thus illustrating how the Halloween brand has adapted to the times in an effort to stay relevant. Similarly, the emphasis on nostalgia that permeates the Blumhouse films (bringing back JLC, the retro synth score) is typical of current cinematic trends.

If we want to know where the future of the series lies, we should keep an eye on emerging trends in the genre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjM6qjRVpD4

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcdaR4cXoAAPcCN?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fciy69CWQAEXrHQ?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fcpfq3BWIAA7svp?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcpT7HKWIAIX6Rl?format=jpg&name=large)


I thought these were well done. VHS-style trailers for the Blumhouse trilogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rAv0mDbmPU

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 12 Sep  2022, 23:42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjM6qjRVpD4

My enthusiasm for this thing remains undiminished. Not so long to wait now.

In terms of sheer kill count, HK is a tough act to follow.

Aside from the convenience of the studio owning the rights to both franchises, I've never understood the logic behind pitting Michael Myers against Pinhead. Not only are the characters themselves totally different – and not in a way that would make them contrast effectively against one another – but the tone and style of their respective movies are also drastically different. Incompatibly so, in my opinion.

I don't particularly want to see Myers go up against another movie villain. But if it has to be done, there must be more appropriate adversaries for him to face than Pinhead. How about the Sawyer family from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise? Or Carrie White? The Friday the 13th movies already made an unofficial Jason vs. Carrie in Part VII: The New Blood (1988).


But with Halloween they could make it a licensed crossover. Maybe even bring back Sissy Spacek as an older version of Carrie, whose teenage granddaughter is now manifesting the same powers she once did. It's a lame idea, I know, but it's one way to go.

Or you could take a more humorous post-modern approach and make Halloween Scream (or HalloScream), in which a group of Ghostface killers try to manipulate Myers into recreating his own past murders so they can document it in their movie. Michael would have an obvious advantage over Ghostface on account of his supernatural strengths, but the Scream team could compensate for that by having maybe five or six Ghostfaces on their side; all highly skilled, with teamwork strategy and modern technology at their disposal. Or perhaps the Ghostfaces are all serial killer competing to see who can take down Myers for a cash prize. Surely something like that would work better than Halloween vs. Hellraiser.


For Pinhead, a more evenly matched opponent would be the Tall Man from the Phantasm franchise.


Both characters were once human, but were transformed and enslaved by a malignant force after venturing into another world. Both possess telekinetic powers which they use to slash, drill and tear their victims apart (the Tall Man uses Sentinels, Pinhead uses hooked chains). They both possess the ability to travel between dimensions, and to manipulate life and death in order to enslave their victims. They can also transform their victims into monsters (Lurkers and Gravers/Cenobites).

Phantasm vs. Hellraiser would be a dark fantasy film centred on a war between two hellish realms: the Red Planet and the Labyrinth.


Both worlds can be accessed from Earth using a special gateway (the Dimensional Fork/the Lament Configuration). Our world would serve as the battleground between them, with the Tall Man pitting his army of Lurkers, Gravers and Sentinels against Leviathan's army of Cenobites led by Pinhead. That would work better than pitting Pinhead against Michael Myers.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 28 Sep  2022, 13:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_H_kUQ_8Hs

Aside from the convenience of the studio owning the rights to both franchises, I've never understood the logic behind pitting Michael Myers against Pinhead. Not only are the characters themselves totally different – and not in a way that would make them contrast effectively against one another – but the tone and style of their respective movies are also drastically different. Incompatibly so, in my opinion.

Honestly, I tend to agree with that. I don't relate to pairing unrelated characters up in the first place. But if you're going to do it, yeah, they should be compatible.

Castigate me as a heretic if you want. But if you ask me, pairing characters up like that is what you do when your individual franchises have begun running out of steam.

As an example, there's a very strong argument that Universal's monster rallies of the Forties accelerated the (already terminal) creative decline of the classic monster franchises. The monster rallies probably kept the lights on at Universal. But it came at the price of the credibility the films had earned up to that point.

That's not to say there aren't enjoyable monster rallies. But it is to say that the individual characters were best served with solo films.

If Myers were to get pitted against another established character, I would regard that as a very poor sign for the Halloween franchise's health and legitimacy. Considering the hard won gains the Halloween series has achieved since 2018, I cringe at the thought of Myers in anything but a solo film.

But...

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 28 Sep  2022, 13:09How about the Sawyer family from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise?

... this could be interesting. Myers is the perennial lone wolf. So, odds are he'd target the Sawyers. Of course, the Sawyers aren't exactly innocent, shrinking violent teenagers. Absent any possibility of a team up (neither camp seem like joiners to me), conflict is the only possible outcome here. And I do sort of like the idea of captives of the Sawyers being caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to escape two separate camps of murderous psychopaths. Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 28 Sep  2022, 13:09Or Carrie White? The Friday the 13th movies already made an unofficial Jason vs. Carrie in Part VII: The New Blood (1988).

Always considered this entry to be an underrated entry into the F13 series. It's a welcome little change of pace... which I'm happy to let Jason have. I have less personal investment in Jason, frankly. So, bizarre oddities like that suit me just fine.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 28 Sep  2022, 13:09But with Halloween they could make it a licensed crossover. Maybe even bring back Sissy Spacek as an older version of Carrie, whose teenage granddaughter is now manifesting the same powers she once did. It's a lame idea, I know, but it's one way to go.

Like the man says, I think there would be an issue of availability. Carrie White died pretty definitively at the end of the De Palma film.

But if it meant seeing Spacek reprise her most famous role... yeah, I think I might be willing to eat crow and at least give Carrie v Michael: Rise Of The Chef's Knife a day in court. Out of respect.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 28 Sep  2022, 13:09Or you could take a more humorous post-modern approach and make Halloween Scream (or HalloScream), in which a group of Ghostface killers try to manipulate Myers into recreating his own past murders so they can document it in their movie. Michael would have an obvious advantage over Ghostface on account of his supernatural strengths, but the Scream team could compensate for that by having maybe five or six Ghostfaces on their side; all highly skilled, with teamwork strategy and modern technology at their disposal. Or perhaps the Ghostfaces are all serial killer competing to see who can take down Myers for a cash prize. Surely something like that would work better than Halloween vs. Hellraiser.

This would have to be done with tongue pretty firmly in cheek since Halloween is a fictional series of movies in the Screamverse. And come to think of it, Scream was a fictional series of movies in the H20 timeline.

Still, the mutual admiration society that has existed between Halloween and Scream would make for a fun crossover film.

For my own suggestion, Rob Zombie exited the Halloween franchise with a pretty sour taste in his mouth. But I've wondered how a Zombie Myers face off against the Firefly family might play out. As with the Sawyers, the only way I can think of to justify such a crossover in-universe(s) would be with the Fireflys and Myers actually hunting each other.

Where the wheels come off the wagon there is Sheri Moon Zombie having already played Michael's mom along with Zombie's apparent preference for the core Firefly family members always surviving each film. I just can't picture too many survivors if they go to head to head with Zombie's Myers. But hey, maybe there's a way to make it work.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 29 Sep  2022, 00:31Castigate me as a heretic if you want. But if you ask me, pairing characters up like that is what you do when your individual franchises have begun running out of steam.

I think that's true in most cases. For me, it depends on the IP. I never wanted to see Alien and Predator cross over. I was fine with the AvP videogames and comics, but I was opposed to the movie being made. Why? Well, I consider the first Alien to be a legitimately great film. Throwing the Xenomorph into a monster mash cheapened the concept in my eyes.

With something like King Kong and Godzilla, it's a different story. Those characters already have long histories of battling other giant monsters. They're the two most famous kaiju in movie history, and it makes sense for them to fight each other. If they existed in the same world, they would inevitably clash. It doesn't require a major plot contrivance to facilitate that conflict.

But in the majority of cases, I agree that versus films are generally cheap cash-ins that studios resort to when ideas are running dry. I expect a DC vs. Marvel movie will eventually be made, once the box office returns for both brands sink sufficiently low.

Halloween is one of the film franchises that I don't want to see cross over with something else. I wouldn't mind a crossover between Michael Myers and the Silver Shamrock storyline, but I don't particularly want to see Myers duke it out with a villain from another franchise.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 29 Sep  2022, 00:31For my own suggestion, Rob Zombie exited the Halloween franchise with a pretty sour taste in his mouth. But I've wondered how a Zombie Myers face off against the Firefly family might play out. As with the Sawyers, the only way I can think of to justify such a crossover in-universe(s) would be with the Fireflys and Myers actually hunting each other.

Where the wheels come off the wagon there is Sheri Moon Zombie having already played Michael's mom along with Zombie's apparent preference for the core Firefly family members always surviving each film. I just can't picture too many survivors if they go to head to head with Zombie's Myers. But hey, maybe there's a way to make it work.

There's potential in this idea. Zombie's more lurid and graphic reinterpretation of Halloween might be better suited to such a crossover than Carpenter's comparatively subtle and restrained version. And since the 2007 Halloween and its sequel are stylistically and tonally consistent with Zombie's Firefly movies, it would make sense to use Captain Spaulding and his crew as opponents for Tyler Mane's version of Myers.

Returning to the subject of Halloween Ends, here's a new browser game to promote the movie's release. Ever wanted to be chased down and killed by Michael Myers? No? Well now's your chance.

https://escape.halloweenmovie.com/?id=63359a2eac3f7

I had a few goes and could only survive for about three minutes. I'm sure others can do better.

Thx for posting that. It's a pretty simplistic game. But it says that somebody is willing to invest the bucks for promoting this movie.

I'd like to think it says something that somebody behind the scenes believes in this franchise enough that they'll spend money on promoting their third movie in the Blumhouse series. Doing this for your first movie is one thing. But doing it for your third, that's pretty telling.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeBMbWMWAAAdUPO?format=jpg&name=large)

Figured this was worth posting. As trying to explain all the "Halloween with Michael Myers" timelines can come across as incredibly convoluted for the uninitiated.

Listening to the HE score while I work. I never thought HK's score was bad. But so far, I'm liking this one more. We'll see how things go.

I'll be watching the movie tonight on Peacock. Got my whole evening built around this thing.

Just over an hour into this thing. And... wow, what a change of pace it's shaping up to be. There's a lot to say. But there are also spoilers to avoid for now. But what I'll say is that this a pretty daring creative direction.

Instead of typing up 50 million posts, I'll probably just update this one.

Update 01- Wow. I'm... just not sure what to think about this.

Update 02- Okay, so there's almost no way of talking about what does and doesn't work with HE without going into some pretty big spoiler territory. So, unless someone authorizes spoilers early, I'll refrain from posting spoiler stuff until Monday. Fair enough?

For non-spoiler stuff, I'll just say that I enjoyed the movie. Yes, it's very different from any other Halloween movie ever made. But considering how similar to one another every other Halloween movie ever made can be, a change of pace (esp for a concluding chapter) is probably a good idea. I think so anyway. If you disagree... well, in that case, I'll go out on a limb and suggest you didn't like this movie very much.

Generally, I think the Blumhouse films were well worth making, they honored many previous Halloween films and they restored a lot of dignity to the franchise that had been sapped away by Halloween Resurrection (which I still kind of enjoy even while I acknowledge it's no good at all) and the Zombie films. The way is clear now for a reboot of some kind, which I can't wait for.

Update 03- So, this is a little odd. Halloween II (1981), Halloween III: Season Of The Witch and Halloween II (2009) are also streaming on Peacock. I don't think I understand the logic behind only those movies streaming there. But they are streaming there. Ymmv in Europe.

Update 04- My self-imposed spoiler moratorium is nearly over. But until then, SN mentioned the Halloween/Hellraiser crossover we neatly avoided back in the Nineties. Having seen the og Hellraiser now... I think I could see a crossover, actually. Now, to be clear, we're talking about a very specific version of The Shape. The Thorn trilogy era Michael Myers, who is clearly under some kind of curse and is basically a paranormal entity, isn't a total mismatch with the Cenobites as presented in the first Hellraiser. The director of such a crossover would need to pay VERY close attention to the tone and style of a Thorn-era Halloween crossover with Hellraiser. Good luck finding such an astute director, mind you. But I don't think it's a completely insane idea.

But if we were talking about Myers as seen in Halloween 1978, yeah, that character has no business whatsoever crossing over into anything too overtly paranormal.

Point being that the Halloween franchise was such a trainwreck by the mid-Nineties that I just can't imagine crossing over with Pinhead and co. would've made the situation radically worse.

Of course, then we wouldn't have Halloween H20 (which I continue to adore). So, on balance, I have to say things worked out for the best.

Spoilers

It's about forty minutes before we even see Michael in the movie. And when we finally do see him, he's broken, hiding from the world in a sewer. Subsequent scenes show that he's not the apex predator that he was in the previous two movies anymore. I can totally understand how this doesn't work for dedicated fans of the series. But I can accept it. It even makes sense to me in a lot of ways. Just like a lot of predator animals will just go into the woods and mark time for however long they have left when their glory days are behind them, Michael is doing the same thing here. In the previous two movies, he got shot, stabbed, run over, beaten, set on fire and probably other stuff I'm forgetting about. I can see where he'd be in bad shape after all that. And now, he's just waiting to die, a weak shadow of his former self.

The theme of society needing an Other to oppose and by which to define itself was embodied by Michael previously and now it's Corey being forced into that role. Honestly, this is where the themes of the film get a little muddled for me. Is Corey pushed into evil by Haddonfield because society needs an enemy to fight? Or was he corrupted by evil in some general sense (or by Michael directly in the sewer)?

Maybe the entire point is for me to be asking these questions. But I just find it a bit confusing.

There IS an argument that Michael's evil is a transferable commodity. Halloween 4, Halloween 6, H2018 and HK could all be argued as implying that. So, the idea that Michael's evil overpowered Corey (an otherwise basically good kid) is a defensible interpretation, if you ask me.

The opening credits of H2018 used the H1978 font. HK used the original Halloween II's font for its opening credits. HE uses the Halloween III italicized font. And those were all significant choices. They weren't done at random.

Halloween III is notorious for showing very little Myers (and only H1978 on a TV screen). And HE is already becoming notorious for showing relatively little Myers.

There were some weird creative decisions. I think I understand David Gordon Green was going for when Corey steals Michael's mask. But that's just emasculating for Michael. The previous movies showed Michael getting his mask taken too and it's just a tired idea by this point. Michael is the dying predator who isn't as strong as he used to be, hence he's unable to stop Corey from stealing his mask. Plus, it shows that Corey himself is becoming more powerful. He's now powerful enough to outmuscle Michael when nobody else in the movie is truly capable of doing that. I'm just saying that three consecutive movies where Michael gets his mask stolen is just ridiculous, no matter how effective it might be in each individual case.

Overall, I enjoyed this film and I enjoy the whole Blumhouse run of movies. In the end, I think this was well worth doing. And I'm now super excited to see where else the series could go. Might I suggest a reboot set in the Seventies?

I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of HE, Colors. Truly. It's discernible that you, Silver, and I are pretty big fans of the Halloween franchise, just by going off this thread, and although I presently don't know what Silver's opinion is as-of-yet, at least one of the three enjoyed this installment.

For me, I was hyped for HE (tried to stay away from spoilers as best I could), but unfortunately walked out of the theater very underwhelmed. Which was in stark contrast to what I felt with the other Blumhouse efforts back in 2018, and just last year with HK. H2018 was a very pleasing movie to sit thru, and though I had issues with HK, I felt there was more positives than negatives. However, with HE, there's some very odd choices made, some of which I don't particularly find very satisfying (especially in terms of cohesion), and thus consider HE to be, by far, BY FAR, the weakest of the Blumhouse Halloween trilogy.

So yeah, I am absolutely sympathetic towards those who disliked what we were given here, and a little bit envious towards those who really enjoyed HE.

I don't know. I can't say it's the worst Halloween movie as some are claiming, cause that's just a tad bit hyperbolic, but I definitely wouldn't rank it high up there either. To me, the film comes across like a very calculated attempt in wanting to be controversial. Although thank god they apparently dropped the 'post-covid world' angle that they originally claimed was going to factor into HE's story, cause I really didn't see any of that present in the film itself. But yeah, if deliberately sparking contention among fans/general audiences was in play, Blumhouse succeeded. No doubt about that.

I may write up a more spoilerish post soon, I may not. Haven't really decided on that yet. Honestly, I get what David Gordon Green/Blumhouse was going for with the choices made, but some of them I just don't think particularly came off very well, was done better in previous movies, or just seemed, ultimately, kinda corny.

As far as the final confrontation between Michael and Laurie? I'll take how it was handled in the original "Halloween II", and even "H20" over this any day.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 17 Oct  2022, 21:44I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of HE, Colors. Truly. It's discernible that you, Silver, and I are pretty big fans of the Halloween franchise, just by going off this thread, and although I presently don't know what Silver's opinion is as-of-yet, at least one of the three enjoyed this installment.

I'm inferring a lot from his absence in this thread.

Honestly, fair enough. HE is taking a beating from the critics and from wide audiences. Clearly, the creative direction HE takes isn't for everyone. And I'll even say that I understand why. Characters go in some pretty unexpected directions, Myers is relatively underused, there's an emphasis on character development which is usually foreign to Halloween, so on and so forth. That stuff will bother some of the movie's core audience.

But this is one time when the subversion of expectations works for me.

Well. "Works". Maybe that's not the best way to put it. But I'm not mortally offended by HE. Tons of Halloween movies show The Shape as a larger than life evil presence who cannot be defeated. A movie that goes a different direction for the sake of "ending" the story is fine with me. No, I wouldn't want every sequel in this franchise to be like HE. But as a conclusion (of this timeline, if nothing else), I'm not bothered at all by HE.

H2018 had tons of nostalgia, HK had tons of carnage and HE is an oddball conclusion to the story. I can accept all of that just fine.

I reassert that the next Halloween movie needs to take the gloves off. But I think I'll look back favorably on the Blumhouse films. And I'll go out on a limb and suggest that history will ultimately be very kind of the Blumhouse films as well. But I might be wrong.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 21 Oct  2022, 18:02
I'm inferring a lot from his absence in this thread.

Either Silver is working on one hell of a write up, or it's just not worth his time.

QuoteHonestly, fair enough. HE is taking a beating from the critics and from wide audiences. Clearly, the creative direction HE takes isn't for everyone. And I'll even say that I understand why. Characters go in some pretty unexpected directions, Myers is relatively underused, there's an emphasis on character development which is usually foreign to Halloween, so on and so forth. That stuff will bother some of the movie's core audience.

But this is one time when the subversion of expectations works for me.

Well. "Works". Maybe that's not the best way to put it. But I'm not mortally offended by HE. Tons of Halloween movies show The Shape as a larger than life evil presence who cannot be defeated. A movie that goes a different direction for the sake of "ending" the story is fine with me. No, I wouldn't want every sequel in this franchise to be like HE. But as a conclusion (of this timeline, if nothing else), I'm not bothered at all by HE.

H2018 had tons of nostalgia, HK had tons of carnage and HE is an oddball conclusion to the story. I can accept all of that just fine.

I reassert that the next Halloween movie needs to take the gloves off. But I think I'll look back favorably on the Blumhouse films. And I'll go out on a limb and suggest that history will ultimately be very kind of the Blumhouse films as well. But I might be wrong.

I'll always appreciate the Blumhouse trilogy for some of things brought forth for the franchise, even if I feel the concluding chapter was incredibly underwhelming and fundamentally bizarre with the character/story choices made. It is what it is, but the 2018 film is comfortably in my top 5 Halloween films. I was very pleased with that movie. "Halloween Kills" is a fun ride, and yeah, I find the image of Michael emerging menacingly from Laurie's burning house to already be in the category of iconic imagery when it comes to Halloween films. The pre-title 1978 flash back sequence is top tier as well. Even the people who vocally oppose HK, seem to at least like the '78 sequence.

I'll agree that HE is the oddball of the Blumhouse trilogy, and thus feels very disconnected (for numerous reasons) to it's predecessors. The more I digest HE, the more I believe the intent of having the three films take place on the same night should have remained the objective. Or have H1978, H2018, and HK be the "trilogy" rather than having to actually produce three films. 

This channel isn't just superficial clickbait trash. They offer real and meaningful insights. This is worth watching.

If you just didn't enjoy the film, I don't think anything here will change your mind. But I found my appreciation got deepened a bit after watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxd25wSVw6U

I've only just recently joined (this year) the H franchise and here are some brief thoughts:

Halloween is a masterpiece I'm so enamored with because I just don't see a lot of movies like that anymore. I'm actually glad I saw it. It is a great feeling.

The Halloween sequels are an easy breakdown. The entries that attempt to end the franchise (2, H20, the new trilogy) are the good ones as 'ending it' assigns a goal, and that purpose gives the films focus and less room to slide off the rails. The stories are taut and driven.

The bad ones are the opposite, they (the Thorn trilogy, Resurrection) attempt to propagate the franchise and too easily slip into slasher schlock. They too closely resemble the knock off films. The only goal is to continue and quality suffers instantly.  Maybe I'll do some blurb reviews one by one later, but I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.

Also, Donald Pleasence was a treasure.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 21 Nov  2022, 02:53
This channel isn't just superficial clickbait trash. They offer real and meaningful insights. This is worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxd25wSVw6U

Agreed. I think I discovered the channel a year or two ago when they were posting numerous deep dive videos on characters from IT (from the book, 1990 mini series, and the recent theatrical duology).

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 21 Nov  2022, 15:50
Also, Donald Pleasence was a treasure.

Couldn't agree more.

The current trend with media seems to be streaming shows.

It makes me wonder how Halloween could fit in with that milieu. Shooting from the hip, I'm not sure it can. But then again, Halloween movies fit comfortably into the Seventies, Eighties, Nineties, 2000's, 2010's, etc. So, why couldn't a streaming Myers show work?

I'm not aware of any movement on a new Halloween project post-HE. I'm not commenting on news items here. I'm just spitballing. The idea of a Halloween show interests me. Mostly because I can see where it could go badly wrong.

But if it's done well, it could breathe a whole new life into the franchise. And since there's no obvious creative direction to go in right now, a Halloween streaming series might be just what the doctor ordered.

Danielle Harris on the recent passing of George P. Wilbur.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoZcKrmWIAEwYt0?format=jpg&name=large)

RIP George Wilbur.

Fun fact. Halloween 04 was her first movie. So, early on, Wilbur refused to wear the mask around her unless they were shooting a scene. And before shooting their first scene together, he introduced himself to her, told her it was all make believe, she should call CUT if she gets actually scared, nobody actually wants to hurt her, etc. He did a lot to set her at ease on this set full of grownups and scary stuff going on.

I always thought that was a classy thing to do for a child.

That's a very cool story about George Wilbur.

I've seen a few clips of George attending Halloween conventions here and there. Always came across like a soft spoken gentleman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piF5iMWGsVs

A reboot in some form is coming. In other news, water is wet.

Still, the prospect of a Season Of The Witch TV show does intrigue me. I said on some previous page that I finally rewatched SOTW. And forget the Michael Myers bit for a minute. SOTW is a highly enjoyable horror movie. So, revisiting that in some capacity is music to my ears.

I personally find the speculation that Paramount is ready, willing and able to outbid all comers for the Halloween movie rights. I seem to be the only one in the room who never expected Akkad to reup with Blumhouse. So, the news that the Halloween rights are being shopped around (to parties other than Blumhouse) came as no surprise.

The real question at this point is what exactly Halloween (in the Myers sense) has left in the tank anymore. The nostalgia angle is probably off the table following the Blumhouse series. It may never be possible to go back to that well again. But it's certainly not possible right now.

A hard reboot had mixed (at best) results when Rob Zombie did it. But that doesn't mean the idea has no merit to it.

So, it's hard to say what the best course of action might be. But I'm not thrilled with the idea of Michael Myers possibly appearing in a TV format. I'll need a LOT of convincing when it comes to that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 27 Sep  2023, 01:03the prospect of a Season Of The Witch TV show does intrigue me. I said on some previous page that I finally rewatched SOTW. And forget the Michael Myers bit for a minute. SOTW is a highly enjoyable horror movie. So, revisiting that in some capacity is music to my ears.

I don't mind "H3: Season of the Witch", and personally have come around to it as a enjoyable film in the past 15 or so years since I really sat down and gave it a honest watch, but I also distinctly remember when much of the fan base absolutely abhorred H3 due to the film's choices to exclude Myers, and even make H1 (at least) a fictional film that's played on television (something of precursor to Wes Craven's New Nightmare).

Personally, I have a really difficult time believing that headlining a tv series with the "Halloween" brand, and going the anthology route, and/or possibly extending the H3 "Season of the Witch" storyline would be all that fulfilling with the masses for very long. Yes, it does have it's fans, and I like the film too, but at the same time, I have to be honest with myself and know that going with the H3/Anthology route is going to be incredibly more niche than somehow incorporating Myers as per usual.

If they just want to go with "Season of the Witch" as the series main title, I would be more inclined to that notion. Differentiate the two, to where there's no confusion, disappointment, or possible fracturing of the fan base. The problem, is that I don't know how amendable a lisenser would be to producing a tv series based on the outlier of a franchise, and also not being able to use the "Halloween" name on it?

QuoteThe real question at this point is what exactly Halloween (in the Myers sense) has left in the tank anymore. The nostalgia angle is probably off the table following the Blumhouse series. It may never be possible to go back to that well again. But it's certainly not possible right now.

A hard reboot had mixed (at best) results when Rob Zombie did it. But that doesn't mean the idea has no merit to it.

So, it's hard to say what the best course of action might be. But I'm not thrilled with the idea of Michael Myers possibly appearing in a TV format. I'll need a LOT of convincing when it comes to that.

I think the problem with possibly running a "Halloween" tv show co-currently with a "Halloween" film series, is that the franchise will undoubtedly diminish sooner rather than later due to overexposure. I'd rather the Halloween franchise remain as films just as they always have been, but one way I could envision a "Halloween" tv series with Michael Myers being possibly worthwhile, is by taking something of a "American Horror Story" approach where each season is disconnected from the previous. Where you could adapt/modify unproduced scripts and such, and tell finite Myers stories without being continually conscious of the how's and why's this or that might affect continuity going forward. Under this plan, returning to the Thorn storyline for a season, or re-incorporating Jaimie Lloyd with Danielle back as followup to H4, or even adapting the Dennis Etchison script, might be more feasible for a tv show, rather than it would be for a actual film.... 

As an aside, Halloween (2018) is now streaming on Peacock. No idea if SN has seen it yet. But if he (or anyone) hasn't, well, here's your chance.

I saw Halloween (2018) a couple of years ago, but I still haven't seen either of the sequels. I've been keeping out of this thread for a while now to avoid spoilers. However Halloween Kills is currently on Netflix, so I've added it to the list of horror films I'm hoping to watch during October.

I've already watched several old horror films this month that I'd not seen before, including The Fall of the House of Usher (1928), Dos monjes (1934) and Return of the Daimajin (1966).I'll probably watch Halloween Kills soon. I also want to re-watch The Exorcist for its 50th anniversary, and I always like to revisit a few of Roger Corman's Poe movies around this time of year. I'm aiming to balance my October viewing between movies I'm familiar with and films I've not seen before.

My life is chaos at the moment. For a variety of reasons too. So, I already knew I had no chance whatsoever of doing 31 In 31 this year. Not happening.

But I could (and did) settle for weekend rewatches. There are four Saturdays in October this year, which offers a pretty good balance.

So, last weekend, I rewatched Halloween Ends. Second time I've ever seen it. My initial concerns remain and so do my initial positive reactions. Looks like I called this one when it first came out, a rarity for me.

This coming weekend (if possible) will be Nosferatu The Vampyre. This is the rare remake which I think actually exceeds the original. The dialogue, the creepy atmosphere, the sinister production design, Dracula's resemblance to Orlok, etc. Against all odds, Nosferatu The Vampyre is a worthy remake. Highly recommended!

After that is Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. This is "the funny one". Yes, it's still a horror film. But it's less determined to be scary than its predecessors. I won't say this one's my favorite. But I do adore it.

Finally, there's The Lost Boys, a perennial favorite. I simply can't say enough good things about The Lost Boys. A true classic, if you ask me.

Since my previous post I've watched A Page of Madness (1926), X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963) and Evil Dead Rise (2023). For spooky seasonal reading, I'm currently halfway through Dracula the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker, and I've just bought a copy of The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux to read next.

Right now I'm just watching/reading general horror, but in the second half of October I'm going to focus on more specifically Halloween-related things.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  4 Oct  2023, 19:40This coming weekend (if possible) will be Nosferatu The Vampyre. This is the rare remake which I think actually exceeds the original. The dialogue, the creepy atmosphere, the sinister production design, Dracula's resemblance to Orlok, etc. Against all odds, Nosferatu The Vampyre is a worthy remake. Highly recommended!

The last time I watched Herzog's Nosferatu was when I was about 16 or 17. I need to check it out again. Murnau's original is one of my favourite vampire films, so I prefer that to the remake. But the remake is certainly good and I've seen a lot of film buffs saying they enjoy it more than the 1922 movie.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  4 Oct  2023, 19:40After that is Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. This is "the funny one". Yes, it's still a horror film. But it's less determined to be scary than its predecessors. I won't say this one's my favorite. But I do adore it.

I've never really liked the Friday the 13th series. I've seen every instalment in the franchise, but I still regard it as a poor man's Halloween. A Nightmare on Elm Street is my favourite slasher franchise, so when it comes to the whole Freddy vs. Jason debate I'm firmly on Team Freddy. That said, I remember Jason Lives being the F13 film I enjoyed the most. Partly because of the humour, but also because it has a more gothic visual flair than the earlier movies. I read somewhere that the director was influenced by Hammer movies, and it shows. The death scenes are also more creative in Part VI than in the earlier films.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  4 Oct  2023, 19:40Finally, there's The Lost Boys, a perennial favorite. I simply can't say enough good things about The Lost Boys. A true classic, if you ask me.

The Lost Boys is unquestionably a classic. I just re-watched it last month and it's aged like fine wine. Great visuals, great soundtrack, a skilful blend of horror, comedy and action. I generally don't like eighties teen movies, but there's something about The Lost Boys that clicks with me. It clicked with me when I first saw it at the age of 12, and it still clicks with me now in a more nostalgic sense. I always identified strongly with the Sam character. When I was a teenager I used to hang around in comic book stores and I had friends exactly like the Frog brothers. Guys who were into martial arts, comics and air guns and who acted as if they were commandoes. I also have an older brother named Michael who's cooler than me. So all that stuff resonated.

I think one of the reasons The Lost Boys works so well is that it gets across a more male-centric view of adolescence than the average teen film. Most teen movies focus on the female experience or on romance, but The Lost Boys is a more aggressive masculine film. It focuses on the love-hate relationship between brothers, the power dynamics within male groups where different people are competing for alpha status, dangerous peer pressure, the difficulties of adapting/changing in order to fit in, the immature way young males view girls as idealised trophies to be competed for, the irrational macho impulse to save face when confronted with violent and potentially life-threatening challenges, and so forth. Other films have used vampires and werewolves as a metaphor for adolescence, but few have done so as successfully as The Lost Boys.

The scene where the mother tries talking to Michael after he comes home late and he just wants to go to bed always struck me as real. I expect every teenage boy has had that experience, where a parent or older relative was trying to communicate with him and he just wanted to be left alone. Beneath the fantasy veneer, there's a kernel of emotional and psychological realism in The Lost Boys. It captures the excitement and awfulness of being a male teenager better than any other horror film I can think of. It's my favourite Joel Schumacher movie, and I rank it alongside Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark as the greatest modern day vampire film. I love both of those movies. Interestingly, they both came out in 1987, both have terrific soundtracks, and both feature sons of Exorcist star Jason Miller in prominent roles: Jason Patric in The Lost Boys and Joshua John Miller in Near Dark.


That family has some impressive horror movie credentials. But yes, The Lost Boys is superb. Looking back on it now, I can totally see why WB thought Schumacher would be a perfect choice for Batman. Chris O'Donnell's Dick Grayson wouldn't have been out of place in Santa Carla. In some ways, Michael can be seen as a prototype for Schumacher's Robin – a headstrong young biker with a strong attachment to his family, who gets drawn into a dark vampiric subculture, stumbles into a cave and is transformed into a violent creature of the night. I would've loved a Schumacher Batman film made in the same style and tone as The Lost Boys.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  6 Oct  2023, 13:45I think one of the reasons The Lost Boys works so well is that it gets across a more male-centric view of adolescence than the average teen film. Most teen movies focus on the female experience or on romance, but The Lost Boys is a more aggressive masculine film. It focuses on the love-hate relationship between brothers, the power dynamics within male groups where different people are competing for alpha status, dangerous peer pressure, the difficulties of adapting/changing in order to fit in, the immature way young males view girls as idealised trophies to be competed for, the irrational macho impulse to save face when confronted with violent and potentially life-threatening challenges, and so forth. Other films have used vampires and werewolves as a metaphor for adolescence, but few have done so as successfully as The Lost Boys.

My view is that issues and themes related to family were like catnip to Schumacher.

Some ridiculous percentage of his films center on a character (or group of characters) trying like crazy to build a family, rebuild it, reconnect to it or whatever. More than a lot of directors, Schumacher had a preoccupation with this subject that colors a lot of his films.

Flatliners, Falling Down, somewhat his Batman films, The Lost Boys, etc., family is a core issue/theme/conflict/goal/whatever in all those films. And I think Schumacher's difficult early life likely plays a role in all that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  3 Oct  2023, 10:42I saw Halloween (2018) a couple of years ago, but I still haven't seen either of the sequels. I've been keeping out of this thread for a while now to avoid spoilers. However Halloween Kills is currently on Netflix, so I've added it to the list of horror films I'm hoping to watch during October.

Very interested in your thoughts on "Halloween Kills" whenever you share them, Silver. I remember HK being somewhat controversial/divisive among the Halloweenies when it came out, but no where near the level of "Halloween Ends".

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  4 Oct  2023, 19:40My life is chaos at the moment. For a variety of reasons too.

Oh, I definitely know what you mean, and can even very recently, relate! I'm thankful I still have a good job that pays pretty well, but everything else? Hoo boy! Nothing that can't be eventually weathered, but even an extended period of monotony sounds good to me now.

QuoteAfter that is Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. This is "the funny one". Yes, it's still a horror film. But it's less determined to be scary than its predecessors. I won't say this one's my favorite. But I do adore it.

Solid entry in the franchise. I can't necessarily disagree with Silver's opinion of "Friday the 13th" being the poor man's "Halloween", but admittedly, during my childhood, I found the F13th flicks much more entertaining and rewatchable than I did the Halloween films. Where one franchise leaned into being more scary/suspenseful, the other seemed to gravitate into being more and more eccentric/spectacle. Course, I was getting into the films prior to 1995, so it was pretty much F13th 1-8 + Jason Goes to Hell vs. Halloween 1-5 at the time. I remember liking H6 Curse of Michael Myers a lot when it came out, but I think H20 really re-solidified the Halloween franchise to where it needed to be. Given that it felt like a big deal at the time, and was successful. Where, by comparison, H6 was just moderately fruitful in reigniting interest.

Course H6/Curse was following H5. It had no choice but to swim upstream and hope for the best. 

When I was a kid, Friday The 13th's mediocrity was actually the selling point for me. The Halloween series was ambitious. Even if the ambition utterly failed (such as The Curse Of Michael Myers), at least the ambition existed in the first place.

F13 knew it was a slasher conveyer belt and never aspired to anything else. The movies knew the audiences wanted mayhem and endeavored to give it to them. I liked that F13 embraced its second tier nature. I simply find Michael Myers a scarier villain than Jason.

But Jason kept coming back in film after film. And that gave me a strange affection for the F13 series. I can't explain it. But I have a lot of respect for F13.

News is a few days old now, but it looks like the notion of a Halloween television series on the horizon is, indeed, very real.

https://deadline.com/2023/10/halloween-tv-rights-miramax-deal-trancas-series-cinematic-universe-1235571505/

I realize it's early days with this thing. But the idea of a Halloween cinematic universe presumably spread across film and TV doesn't necessarily inspire confidence.

I see three possible scenarios here.

Scenario 01: A reboot that incorporates the main Michael Myers franchise with the Season Of The Witch concept. Presumably, this would incorporate Silver Shamrock masks as part of Michael's evil. That fan theory has been bandied about for a long time now. And while I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, I do have reservations about attributing Michael's evil solely to an outside source. I don't think Michael should be humanized, frankly.

Scenario 02: A Myers-based reboot that reserves Michael for feature film with a TV series that shows the aftermath of Michael's rampage(s) in Haddonfield. Trouble is I don't see much room for a story in that limited idea. Plus, the Blumhouse series somewhat addressed that already. HK and particularly HE go to pains to illustrate the trauma Michael has inflicted upon the town, far beyond merely the Strode family.

Scenario 03: A Myers-based reboot in feature film and a separate/unrelated TV show that explores the SOTW concept in greater detail. This has the most appeal to me, frankly. I've come to enjoy and adore SOTW and would love to see the idea expanded upon in a TV series.

The reports of this pushing for a "Cinematic Universe" with the Halloween franchise is concerning. It's a business aim that has proven to be successful for some, and disastrous for most. Not all IP's warrant, nor can support, such a direction. In addition, even if initially successful, it still runs the very real risk of over saturation, where the whole thing becomes overplayed, collapses under it's own weight, and audience apathy sets in (took awhile with Marvel, and happened reasonably quick with Star Wars).

There seems to be a real push to resurrect the "Season of the Witch" story line as a late, and though it's intriguing to think about, I honestly hope it doesn't (especially if they wind up knocking it out of the park) wind up unintentionally creating a 'Pro-SOTW Anthology' camp vs 'Pro-Michael Myers' camp where each team begins simply looking for things to nitpick and complain about concerning the tv show and films. We already have flagrantly vocal proponents/detractors regarding "Halloween Ends", where clearly fans are staunchly at the opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to. Would such a course direction unintentionally cause yet another rift? I'm not sure ... but the risk is there. Along with the aforementioned factors.

Course, who knows? Perhaps there's some brilliant ideas that can bring about cohesion between SOTW and Michael Myers, that doesn't wind up lessening Michael? I guess we'll find out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59U159j11BY

Yeah, not too sure about those flashbacks either. They don't seem to amount to anything relevant. In a script like that, you'd think flashing back to something related to Brackett would've been the way to go.

Still, Retribution sounds like it would've been a lot better than Halloween 5.

My diet of October horror literature and cinema continues. I finished reading The Phantom of the Opera, and I also read An Exorcist Tells His Story by Gabriele Amorth and Attack of the Jack-O'-Lanterns by R. L. Stine. I'm now reading The Shadow over Innsmouth by H. P. Lovecraft. Since my previous post I've watched The End of the World (1916), 13 Ghosts (1960), Mill of the Stone Women (1960), The Oblong Box (1969) and Us (2019), none of which I'd seen before. I also re-watched House of Usher (1960), Tales of Terror (1962), The Raven (1963) and The Exorcist (1973). I still haven't gotten around to watching Halloween Kills yet, but I will.

Regarding the announced Halloween TV show, I'm growing tired of this trend of making small screen spin-offs based on theatrical films. How many such shows have actually turned out well, or enhanced the cinematic brand on which they're based? Some might be good, but the majority fall flat and end up contributing to franchise fatigue. Not everything needs to be a shared cinematic/TV universe.

Season of the Witch presents the most fertile ground for expansion, but I don't trust the modern entertainment industry to not screw it up. I love the original movie. It's such a weird atmospheric film, and I don't think it would be possible to recapture its distinctive mood today. Modern filmmakers would probably cast someone like Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Cochran's granddaughter, and then drag out Tom Atkins as the obligatory 'legacy character' just to show how useless he is and kill him off so his diverse female replacement can outperform him.

I'd rather Season of the Witch was left in 1982, untainted by the stain of a modern reboot. I'll be watching it again later this month, a little nearer to Halloween. One thing I would like to see is a copy of Nigel Kneale's original script before it was rewritten. That would make for an interesting read, but I've never been able to find it online. Here's an early teaser that credits Kneale as the writer, taken from a 1982 Universal Pictures trade book.


Speaking of SOTW, has anyone seen the Knight Rider episode 'Halloween Knight'? I caught in on TV a few years back and was surprised to see a Silver Shamrock mask make an appearance. The episode as a whole is largely a pastiche of Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), but it also contains some nods to other horror films, including SOTW.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 20 Oct  2023, 15:34I still haven't gotten around to watching Halloween Kills yet, but I will.

I see considerable merit to the Blumhouse films. But aside from H2018, they've proven to be fairly controversial among fans. I enjoyed Kills. But I'm in no position to guarantee that you will.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 20 Oct  2023, 15:34Regarding the announced Halloween TV show, I'm growing tired of this trend of making small screen spin-offs based on theatrical films. How many such shows have actually turned out well, or enhanced the cinematic brand on which they're based? Some might be good, but the majority fall flat and end up contributing to franchise fatigue. Not everything needs to be a shared cinematic/TV universe.

I found a hot take a while back that suggested that Avengers Endgame didn't break audiences from comic book films; WandaVision (and the subsequent TV tie-ins) did.

The more times goes by, the more it looks like the MCU (for whatever reason) was able to successfully achieve a shared cinematic universe but it's the exception that proves the rule. Namely, that audiences don't want shared cinematic universes.

It's sort of hard to argue against that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 20 Oct  2023, 15:34Season of the Witch presents the most fertile ground for expansion, but I don't trust the modern entertainment industry to not screw it up. I love the original movie. It's such a weird atmospheric film, and I don't think it would be possible to recapture its distinctive mood today. Modern filmmakers would probably cast someone like Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Cochran's granddaughter, and then drag out Tom Atkins as the obligatory 'legacy character' just to show how useless he is and kill him off so his diverse female replacement can outperform him.

I largely agree. However, the one possibility for success here comes down to the fact that horror is such a niche genre that it can't afford to get too "progressive". The profit margins on most horror properties are already fairly slim as it is. Producers and filmmakers can't afford to antagonize audiences.

The Blumhouse Halloween films dipped a toe into that at times but mostly they tried to keep their collective nose clean. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it. I find it telling that Halloween Ends has the lowest concentration of "progressive" stuff going on. And considering the creative risks the Ends narrative took, it's not hard to see why.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 20 Oct  2023, 15:34I'd rather Season of the Witch was left in 1982, untainted by the stain of a modern reboot. I'll be watching it again later this month, a little nearer to Halloween.

I largely agree that SOTW is best left alone. However, given a choice between a remake or a sequel, I'd prefer a remake. As you say, a sequel can only serve to harm the original. Whereas a remake can be easily ignored if it falls short of the mark.

When you consider how weird the basic ingredients of SOTW all are, succeeding with that stuff seems unlikely. So, a remake seems like less of a threat than a sequel. In my opinion anyway.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 20 Oct  2023, 15:34Speaking of SOTW, has anyone seen the Knight Rider episode 'Halloween Knight'? I caught in on TV a few years back and was surprised to see a Silver Shamrock mask make an appearance. The episode as a whole is largely a pastiche of Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), but it also contains some nods to other horror films, including SOTW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeLLRTNLBG0

Blocked in my country (US). But I'm pretty sure I remember the episode. I think it guest stars a character called "Norman Baines", at least one sequence takes place in the original location of the Bates Motel from the original Psycho and some other callbacks. I think the episode's score even quotes from Psycho's score. I'm guessing someone from the production wanted to capitalize on the fact that Psycho II had so recently been released at the time. I remember this being a fun episode, tbh. But it's been years (decades?) since I last saw it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 22 Oct  2023, 06:46Blocked in my country (US). But I'm pretty sure I remember the episode. I think it guest stars a character called "Norman Baines", at least one sequence takes place in the original location of the Bates Motel from the original Psycho and some other callbacks. I think the episode's score even quotes from Psycho's score. I'm guessing someone from the production wanted to capitalize on the fact that Psycho II had so recently been released at the time. I remember this being a fun episode, tbh. But it's been years (decades?) since I last saw it.

Yep, that's the one. There's a very similar episode of Murder, She Wrote titled 'Incident in Lot 7' which is also a pastiche of Psycho and was filmed on the original set. At one point there's a shot-for-shot recreation of Arbogast's death scene on the staircase. It's a treat for Hitchcock fans.

Last night I watched Season of the Witch again. A few random observations.

I like how the opening titles continue the jack-o'-lantern motif of the previous two Halloween movies. Only here it's an animated pumpkin on a computer screen, which evokes the tagline on the teaser poster: 'Witchcraft enters the computer age.'


The theme of witchcraft meeting computer technology isn't all that prominent in the finished film. Perhaps it was more central to Nigel Kneale's original script. If the film were to be remade, I imagine the contrast between ancient pagan magic and modern technology would be more heavily emphasised. It's still present in the original movie in the form of the TV signal used to trigger the Silver Shamrock masks, but if they made it now the signal would likely be distributed via the internet and/or mobile phones.

There's one particular extra that always distracts me during the scene where Challis is phoning his wife after the murder at the hospital. It's the fireman on the left.


I don't know why, but the last few times I've watched the film I always find my attention drawn to this character more than to Challis. Maybe it's the way he's standing there listening in on Challis's conversation, but there's something off about him.

I'm curious about the weird cartoon showing on the TV in the bar. Turns out it's a 3-minute film called The Cigarette and the Weed (1981). It was written and directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also directed the 1978 The Lord of the Rings movie. It doesn't seem to have ever been released commercially and the only footage available online is the brief clip seen in Season of the Witch.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  6 Oct  2023, 13:45It's my favourite Joel Schumacher movie, and I rank it alongside Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark as the greatest modern day vampire film. I love both of those movies. Interestingly, they both came out in 1987, both have terrific soundtracks, and both feature sons of Exorcist star Jason Miller in prominent roles: Jason Patric in The Lost Boys and Joshua John Miller in Near Dark.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SKtC0qDW/millers.png)

That family has some impressive horror movie credentials.

I never noticed this before, but Joshua John Miller is also in Season of the Witch. I can't say I recognised him, as he looks younger here, but I spotted his name on the credits. He plays Challis's son.


So that's another classic horror movie to add to the Miller family's filmography. Miller's dad in SOTW is played by Tom Atkins, who two years earlier had appeared alongside his real life father, Jason Miller, in William Peter Blatty's The Ninth Configuration (1980).

I can't help wondering what the Halloween franchise might've been like if Season of the Witch had been a hit and they'd continued with the anthology concept. Would Halloween IV have been a sequel to Season of the Witch, or would they have come up with a completely new concept? I still think the idea of a Halloween-themed movie coming out every year, or every other year, all under the same banner but each with its own unique plot, has potential.

I'm sure someone somewhere must have sold licensed Silver Shamrock masks, because if they haven't it's a missed merchandising opportunity. The scariest mask by far though is the one shown in the poster, which doesn't actually appear in the finished film. I don't know if it's supposed to represent the spirit of Halloween, a Celtic demon or the true form of Conal Cochran, but the image of it leering predatorily down over the children from the orange and black sky is very disturbing.


On a similar note, for me the most disconcerting shot in the entire film is this one.


The ominous orange sky giving way to an expanse of darkness that portends the evil to come. Chilling stuff.

Season of the Witch is definitely a flawed film. The script, despite some quotable lines, isn't great, and I can understand why Kneale had his name removed from the credits. There are a lot of things in the plot that don't make sense when you stop and question them. However, I score it high for ambience and creativity, and the soundtrack is terrific. It's an underrated seasonal classic.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 29 Oct  2023, 19:02I can't help wondering what the Halloween franchise might've been like if Season of the Witch had been a hit and they'd continued with the anthology concept. Would Halloween IV have been a sequel to Season of the Witch, or would they have come up with a completely new concept? I still think the idea of a Halloween-themed movie coming out every year, or every other year, all under the same banner but each with its own unique plot, has potential.

I'd like to think Halloween IV would've been something completely new. In light of the Satanic panic of the Eighties, I'll suggest that Carpenter's own Prince Of Darkness could've been originally intended for some future Halloween franchise entry. That might be totally wrong tho.

Some sort of alien invasion taking place on Halloween night might've been interesting too. Between stuff like Close Encounters, ET, Starman and probably other stuff I'm forgetting, I think an alien-related Halloween film was probably inevitable.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 29 Oct  2023, 19:02The scariest mask by far though is the one shown in the poster, which doesn't actually appear in the finished film. I don't know if it's supposed to represent the spirit of Halloween, a Celtic demon or the true form of Conal Cochran, but the image of it leering predatorily down over the child from the orange and black sky is very disturbing.

Indeed. It's one of my favorite horror posters of all time. People can say whatever they want about the quality of the movie itself. But at the very least, we should all agree that the poster is awesome.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 29 Oct  2023, 19:02Season of the Witch is definitely a flawed film. The script, despite some quotable lines, isn't great, and I can understand why Kneale had his name removed from the credits. There are a lot of things in the plot that don't make sense when you stop and question them. However, I score it high for ambience and creativity, and the soundtrack is terrific. It's an underrated seasonal classic.

It's been reappraised in recent times. These days, the general consensus seems to be that if one just gets over the fact that there's no Michael Myers in this film, SOTW is a pretty solid and enjoyable little horror film. It gets pretty bonkers at times and the synth score can't be beat.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 29 Oct  2023, 21:43I'd like to think Halloween IV would've been something completely new. In light of the Satanic panic of the Eighties, I'll suggest that Carpenter's own Prince Of Darkness could've been originally intended for some future Halloween franchise entry. That might be totally wrong tho.

Some sort of alien invasion taking place on Halloween night might've been interesting too. Between stuff like Close Encounters, ET, Starman and probably other stuff I'm forgetting, I think an alien-related Halloween film was probably inevitable.

I'm sure you're right about the sci-fi angle creeping into future entries. Carpenter had already dabbled in sci-fi horror with The Thing – which I consider to be his magnum opus – and he made quite a few sci-fi films after SOTW. He referenced two scary sci-fi movies in the original Halloween in the form of the films the kids were watching: The Thing from Another World (1951) and Forbidden Planet (1956). The first two Halloweens were psycho killer slasher movies, and the third a supernatural witchcraft movie, so it would've made sense to go in a sci-fi or cosmic horror direction with the fourth. That would've kept things fresh.

And I agree that Prince of Darkness is the post-SOTW Carpenter film that would've fit best with the Halloween franchise. SOTW and POD are the two Carpenter movies most heavily influenced by Nigel Kneale's writing. POD borrows heavily from Quatermass and the Pit and The Stone Tape (1972), and Carpenter even used the pseudonym 'Martin Quatermass' for his writing credit (Kneale was reportedly not amused by that). I doubt Kneale would've collaborated with Carpenter again, given his dissatisfaction with SOTW, but I can imagine Carpenter producing a Kneale-esque concept for Halloween IV. Something involving otherworldly horror. Perhaps an alien menace that's laid dormant for centuries before being unearthed on Halloween night, or else a straightforward alien invasion movie taking place in a small town on October 31st.

Maybe In the Mouth of Madness (1994) could've been adapted for the Halloween franchise as well. That was Carpenter's most Lovecraftian movie and it contains shades of SOTW: following a mysterious death, a man and woman journey to a small town to investigate a wealthy recluse who is secretly plotting to use an entertainment medium (TV/novels) to plunge the world into chaos. Have the story take place in late October and bingo, you've got a Halloween movie.

I suppose the Cult of the Thorn plot in Halloween VI is the closest the franchise came to venturing beyond the usual Michael Myers formula after SOTW. But even then, Myers took centre stage. I don't know if the Cult of the Thorn would have been a strong enough concept on its own to carry a movie without Myers. They might've come across as a less interesting version of Conal Cochran. One of his lines in SOTW foreshadows the cult's astrological fixation:

Quote'In the end, we don't decide these things, you know; the planets do. They're in alignment, and it's time again.'

An extraterrestrial/cosmic threat would've been more interesting.

While we're on the subject, could The Fog (1980) have been adapted for the Halloween franchise? That's one of my favourite Carpenter movies (largely owing to it being coastal/oceanic horror), and I wouldn't really want to change it. But hypothetically, what if The Fog was Halloween II? What if instead of April 21st the town of Antonio Bay celebrated its centennial on Halloween? The streets could've been festooned with Halloween decorations, and the strange occurrences that happen on the preceding night could've been attributed to Mischief Night/Devil's Night shenanigans. The ghosts knocking on the doors of their victims' houses could've been mistaken for trick-or-treaters.

Now I'm imagining an alternate universe where the Halloween franchise looks like this:

•   Halloween (1978)
•   Halloween II: The Fog (1980)
•   Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
•   Halloween IV: Prince of Darkness (1987)
•   Halloween V: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
•   Halloween VI: H20/The Return of Michael Myers (1998)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 31 Oct  2023, 12:29Now I'm imagining an alternate universe where the Halloween franchise looks like this:

•    Halloween (1978)
•    Halloween II: The Fog (1980)
•    Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
•    Halloween IV: Prince of Darkness (1987)
•    Halloween V: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
•    Halloween VI: H20/The Return of Michael Myers (1998)

Interesting "what if" scenario. Although, with "Halloween VI: H20/The Return of Michael Myers (1998)", I think the film/script would have had to been revised a bit if Jamie Lee Curtis returning as Laurie Strode was going to remain the same. Looking back at H20, and the recent Blumhouse Trilogy, I kinda prefer the H20 route with her character and PTSD over the 2018 version, BUT mainly because I can envision that type of PTSD given the events of "Halloween II" remaining in the overall narrative. I just find it more believable, personally. With "Haloween 2018", I consider that David Gordon Green's way of not wanting to do a repeat of what we saw with Laurie's PTSD in H20, and going with a more Sarah Conner approach. Since Jamie Lee was being brought back once again, and to which is understandable for a story and marketing perspective.

A timeline where "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers" simply doesn't exist isn't something I would really want to jump into, however it is interesting to think of what impact Myers would have had in 1998, with only his second-ever outing in the Halloween Franchise, right smack dab in the Kevin Williamson horror renaissance of the late 1990's.

Considering both Freddy and Jason were on a extended hiatus at that point in time in the '90's, Would Myers have had more impact making a return in 1998, rather than 1988? What would the perception of Myers truly been like had he been essentially regulated as a one-and-done character 20 years prior?

It's an interesting scenario...

Danielle had her very own reunion at the recent H45 convention.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_9O6LIWwAALQLm?format=jpg&name=large)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUF_HcQTVD0

-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shdn2p_17fw

-----


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BqJ8nPF-xA

-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0lyn66FH-w

-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVRzsdwlXeM

-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI4tQA0rkUw

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 13 Jan  2024, 02:42https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVRzsdwlXeM

I think this script needed a revision or two. Something to give greater narrative focus to John. I might even suggest eliminating Brackett.

Then again, the entire thing is kind of DOA if Josh Hartnett wasn't willing to come back. Thing is, everyone assumes that he would've said no. But he got his start in horror films just like JLC did. Certainly, he seemed open to doing more horror films later in the 2000's. So, at the very least, I don't see the harm in asking.

I assume that Retribution would've come out circa 2004 or 2005. Hartnett was busy at the time. But not as busy as it looks. I think he could've worked it into his schedule. If he'd been open to it, the production probably would've worked around his availability.

Yeah, it pretty much would've been all-or-nothing with Retribution and Hartnett's participation/availability. As his star power, I guess, was at it's apex or still very high, around the time period of 2004-2005. Which would have provided something of a draw since Jamie Lee was, at that point, parted from the franchise.

After watching the Michael Myers vs. Pinhead video, I'm still somewhat surprised that one didn't get fast tracked by Moustapha Akkad following "Freddy vs. Jason" opening weekend numbers. Sure, Moustapha Akkad was absolutely against the idea, but that would have been a easy bet for profit. I can only assume Akkad thought any crossover would 'cheapen' the Halloween franchise, which is understandable. However, Michael Myers vs. Pinhead would've followed Resurrection, so it's not like we're talking about a cash-in crossover being the follow up to something that had artistic integrity here.

I can only guess that Moustapha Akkad was aware that the Halloween franchise sorely needed something of a palate cleanser following Resurrection. Which came to fruition in 2007 with Rob Zombie's reboot, just two years following Mr. Akkad, his daughter, and many others, being heinously murdered in 2005. Damn shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxaUTUQ7lLE

----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSuGmDXrre4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bta3cwZW_fI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowJaUUTmWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC2lVhxlPbA

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  3 Feb  2024, 03:20https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC2lVhxlPbA

The YouTuber mentions the number of Halloween scripts that introduce the idea of a copycat Myers. And like him, I'm starting to think that something along the lines of Halloween Ends/Corey Cunningham was probably inevitable.

Ages ago in some documentary or another, Adam Hann-Byrd, who played Charlie in Halloween H20, mentioned that his character was originally intended to be a copycat Myers but then the plan changed at some point. And I guess I naively thought that he was just joking around. But nope, apparently that truly was the original idea. It got changed somewhere along the way. I'm guessing that once JLC decided to return to the franchise, someone in the production (wisely) rewrote the entire story so that Laurie's confrontation with Michael became the spine of the story. A copycat Myers could only detract from Laurie's character arc in H20. So, that part makes sense.

Still, the copycat thing was always coming. And I'll be the one who says that Corey is probably done about as well as that concept can be done. Whether anyone loves Corey or not, I think he's the best possible representation of a copycat killer. So, I suppose the good news is that the idea won't be revisited any time soon.

Which, once again, raises the question of what possible direction the franchise can go from here on in.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFCFIu6WsAEhHqh?format=jpg&name=large)

Pretty much a concept of what a H3 would have looked like had the franchise stuck with Michael Myers rather than divert. Going strictly off the poster, it looks like the artist is going for a 'more supernatural powerful zombie' version of Michael that we would eventually later see done with Jason Voorhees in the "Friday the 13th" franchise over at Paramount.

-----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3cNiTWW0c


I actually like this approach a lot. Sure, it's pretty much another requel, but I think this gets a lot more right, than wrong in how it doesn't necessarily rely too much on nostalgia, and can freshen up the franchise without having to resort to another reboot. Personally, I would revise the script a bit to where the whole drifter stuff is cut out. Rather, I would have Michael just show up on Halloween night. No explanation. Keep that a absolute mystery. Additionally, this sort of approach could open up the possibility with having this particular timeline be set as period pieces in the 1980s/1990s. Set in different sleepy towns where the Shape might just show up on Halloween night...

Jimmy offers his thoughts about the prospects of a Halloween 04 requel. Apparently, people are talking about that as something more than a hypothetical. Dannielle Harris, Dwight Little, Scout Taylor-Compton (for some reason) (no idea why) and also Halloween fans.

I'm obviously open to that. I've never liked the Michael/Laurie sibling angle that's baked into the cake there. But Danielle Harris coming back for a REAL sequel to Halloween 04 solves a lot for me.

I'm still not sold on the idea of a TV show tho. Just doesn't add up for me.

But it should probably go without saying that a Halloween 04 requel would do well to avoid the Cult of Thorn stuff.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 15 Feb  2024, 02:14Jimmy offers his thoughts about the prospects of a Halloween 04 requel. Apparently, people are talking about that as something more than a hypothetical. Dannielle Harris, Dwight Little, Scout Taylor-Compton (for some reason) (no idea why) and also Halloween fans.

As much as I wouldn't mind seeing a "H4 Part 2", I still have a difficult time with how something like that would play with a wide audience, and not just Halloweenies. I mean, we're talking about a sequel to a particular installment of the Halloween franchise, that's only 4 years shy of being 40 years ago. If there's a will, there's a way I guess (although if the tv series goes the anthology route, I can easily see a continuation of H4 being a really good episode or 2-part episode season finale or something like that), but they will have to be pretty cleaver about it regardless.

With Scout Taylor-Compton, I think Scout and Danielle have a podcast together (I think both attended the Halloween Ends premiere, and apparently Jamie Lee was rude to Danielle. Or was just tart and indelicate with her. Something like that), so it might just be wanting to capitalize on putting Scout in the H4 timeline, as Danielle was brought into the Rob Zombie timeline. Again, most people aren't going to care one way or the other, but I can see the hardcore fans being alright with the idea at least.

QuoteBut it should probably go without saying that a Halloween 04 requel would do well to avoid the Cult of Thorn stuff.

Oh, for sure.

Posting this since I thought it was a cool image.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHBZW9WXEAA5_Az?format=jpg&name=900x900)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHniFJWWEAAlFH_?format=jpg&name=large)

So, there's been an update about the proposed Halloween TV series. It says quite a bit but at the same time, it doesn't say much at all.

QuoteHalloween TV series: "A creative reset"

Miramax Television in October signed a deal with Trancas to develop and co-produce a Halloween TV series, which is envisioned to potentially launch a cinematic universe spanning film and television. (Miramax and Blumhouse collaborated with Trancas on the successful recent Halloween movie trilogy.)

"We're on a fast track, it's a big priority for us. We've had lots of exciting conversations in recent months with a number of really talented people, and I think we'll have a pretty good idea of what we're going to be doing very soon," Helwig said, adding, "We're hoping to lock down the creative team very soon."

While the search for a writer is still ongoing, the idea for the TV series already has been identified.

"It's a big world," Helwig said of the 13-movie franchise. The most recent trilogy culminating with Halloween Ends provided a fitting conclusion to the story, "so I don't think that is an opportunity to go off the back of that."

So the series is going back to the Halloween franchise's origins.

"The foundation of it is the original film, the John Carpenter movie, the characters of that film, and perhaps a group of characters that we haven't really focused on that much in recent film versions or even in a number of them," Helwig said. "It's a creative reset completely and going back to the original film, as opposed to spinning out of any of the more recent film adaptations."

https://deadline.com/2024/03/miramax-the-gentlemen-tv-season-2-halloween-series-1235848616

I have no idea what it is about media types that they'll use the word "reboot" in every gd possible context except the CORRECT one.

So, is this a reboot? Is it a continuation of something else? Good luck trying to figure it out based on all that verbal diarrhea. "It's a creative reset completely and going back to the original film". Wtf does that even mean??

3C Films is being a lot more charitable about all this than me.


It's early days yet. Maybe a little too early for me to get as annoyed as I am right now. But when these media dickwipes talk out of both sides of their mouths like that, it's frustrating. If they're going to issue a public statement, then the absolute LEAST they can do is make it coherent. "Yeah it's a reset which directly ties in with the original!" Whaaaa??

Hopefully, the rest of you aren't as cranky tonight as I apparently am.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Mar  2024, 05:19Hopefully, the rest of you aren't as cranky tonight as I apparently am.

LOL

It really does read like, "Ok. Let's issue a statement about the series, buuuuuuut let's keep this as absolutely and incredibly vague as humanly possible! Just to keep the chatter going, and arguments coming with the fans on who's right, and who's wrong!" *snicker snicker*

If I had to take a wild guess, it sorta sounds like yet another "Ignore everything outside the 1978 Halloween" timeline. With Jamie Lee Curtis/Laurie Strode being done, I just get the feeling that there was a offer made to Paul Rudd to return to the franchise, and to provide a mainstream/casual viewer hook to become interested in yet another Halloween continuity. Which is just me basing this guess on that, "Group of characters that we haven't really focused on that much in recent film versions or even in a number of them" statement.

Just sounds like we're likely to see familiar characters with (sorta) new faces pop back up. Rudd returning as Tommy Doyle might be a deal with he's not exactly the same Tommy from H6, where that film events and all the thorn stuff can be ignored, but effectively it's Paul Rudd back as Tommy. The same could be done with Danielle Harris where the powers that be could decide if this Jamie Lloyd is Laurie's daughter or not? Tom Atkins returning as a different, but similar Dr. Challis. ect

How pleasing that approach will ultimately be is anyone's guess, but it just doesn't sound like they're going absolutely go back to square 1, and choosing to take the same route as Blumhouse. Solidifying H1978, and having familiar faces return as similar characters...

I don't know which franchise has more timelines out of Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but it's got to be a close race.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJsycZYXQAA_8T7?format=jpg&name=large)

1981 advertisement for the original "Halloween" premiere on NBC. Coinciding with the theatrical release of "Halloween II".