Halloween Remake Thread... - Part 1

[Roose Bolton]

Remake or not, I'd rather they ditch Laurie and all the baggage that the character carries.

 

[Evil Twin]

I'd be perfectly happy if they jettison the brother/sister idea as that's never really worked. If you're going to go back to the original, go back to the basic idea that Laurie (or whomever), just happened to cross paths with MM. The idea of just crossing paths with a malevolent being is more universal than "the brother I never knew of is a murderer obsessed with me".

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Remake or not, I'd rather they ditch Laurie and all the baggage that the character carries.

Agree on that

 

[marvelman2006]

Why reamke it at all, the original works perfect and rob showed you cant really update it. The problem with remaking this is the same problem other horror movies of the genre have had. They were lighting in a bottle type movies when horror was at its best being just suspenseful and having the killer hide in the shadows waiting to strike. Now its all about gore and how much they can try to make your stomach churn while blaring the scare sound effects up really high in the theaters to generate a scream or too from dumb teens who dont know any better.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I actually liked the Zombie version. I didn't think it was GREAT or will go down as a classic, but I did like it. I think if he released that same movie, using different character names and title, people wouldn't have bashed it, or its sequel, especially, like they did.

 

[The Joker]

I hated Rob Zombie's remake. Carpenter's original is a classic that didn't need to be remade.

 

[Evil Twin]

Why reamke it at all, the original works perfect and rob showed you cant really update it. The problem with remaking this is the same problem other horror movies of the genre have had. They were lighting in a bottle type movies when horror was at its best being just suspenseful and having the killer hide in the shadows waiting to strike. Now its all about gore and how much they can try to make your stomach churn while blaring the scare sound effects up really high in the theaters to generate a scream or too from dumb teens who dont know any better.

I don't know if I'd say Halloween was a "lightning in a bottle" since the cast and crew were obviously a talented group as much as I'd say that Michael Myers can't really support a franchise. The more you show of MM, the less power he has to frighten. Sure, you can go the Friday the 13th route of turning the series into a series of grand guignol setpieces, but that's not really what anyone loved about the original in the first place.

If I had to come up with a franchise hook for Halloween, I'd suggest using Loomis as the string that ties the series together. In a sense, he's an extension of Hammer's Van Helsing, the man of science that also believes in pure, supernatural evil in a disbelieving world. There's no reason that Loomis couldn't get roped into other maybe supernatural / maybe not horror stories involving satanists, witches, demonic curses, and the like. I'm think something along the lines of Kochak or Alan Moore's American Gothic storyline.

 

[marvelman2006]

I don't know if I'd say Halloween was a "lightning in a bottle" since the cast and crew were obviously a talented group as much as I'd say that Michael Myers can't really support a franchise. The more you show of MM, the less power he has to frighten. Sure, you can go the Friday the 13th route of turning the series into a series of grand guignol setpieces, but that's not really what anyone loved about the original in the first place.

If I had to come up with a franchise hook for Halloween, I'd suggest using Loomis as the string that ties the series together. In a sense, he's an extension of Hammer's Van Helsing, the man of science that also believes in pure, supernatural evil in a disbelieving world. There's no reason that Loomis couldn't get roped into other maybe supernatural / maybe not horror stories involving satanists, witches, demonic curses, and the like. I'm think something along the lines of Kochak or Alan Moore's American Gothic storyline.

I think you could say it was lighting in a bottle and when I say lighting in a bottle I dont mean tdk money gross I mean just a true story that makes it next to impossible to remake years later because the story fit the times. The cast/ script/ dialgoue and acting were just sharp and you felt it was something special and gave alot to the horror genre and made michael myers this iconic character. You can show plenty of MM but rob showed what happens when you try to flesh out his backstory way too much.

I like the loomis idea but again Donald Pleasence gave the character such emotional wieght and depth in the 1st 2 movies that its hard to imagine him going on witch hunts in another franchise. The whole idea of him being a mental doctor who tried so hard to treat a young boy and carried such sorrow with him and feeling like he failed and all the dead bodies MM racked up were on his shoulders. Im obviously a fan of the original halloween and Im not gonna pull the "rob zombie raped my childhood" card ethier because it shows some movies are still classics and simply cant be updated to today's standards because it was different times in the 70's and 80's.


Its the same effect with scream 1, that movie came out in a time where they took full advantage of a stranger calling someone from a cell phone and being untraceable and it created and play on those fears. Scream 4 didnt work at all 10 years later because now weve got apps that can track phones and have new iphones every year. Like I said its all about striking at the right time and catching that magic and most of the time it only happens once.

 

[Slushy]

The Halloween movie series overall is hardly any good since Michael Myers has never been a particularly interesting movie villain and the numerous films that came after were nothing more than rehash after rehash of the same plot (Michael comes back and is after his sister, niece, etc.)

The moment, I finished watching what Rob Zombie had to offer, I knew right away it was actually better than the original. He took a classic story and gave it a modern day twist. I like the first half as I think it added a new dimension to Michael, and made him seem very ruthless and cold blooded moreso than the 1970s version. Despite what happened to him in his origin story, I was wanting him to show compassion several times (especially with Danny Trejo's character), and felt like it made him all the more scary rather just being "a disturbed kid locked away who escapes and is somehow immortal." because John Carpenter was too lazy to give him a background story.

The film actually did the one thing I thought I would never see again: Michael was scary again. Gone were the supernatural theatrics. It was realistic. Haunting. Believable.

Of course, there was a lot of sex and violence, which gave life to the film. All the actors played their characters very well, especially Malcolm McDowell, who did a very well performance playing Dr. Samuel Loomis as well as having a different take on the character. Oh, yeah Danielle Harris (who played Annie) is really hot.

Ironically, I love the remake (its actually one of my favorites of all-time) and I hate the sequel.

 

[Donnie Darko]

This discussion really makes me want to watch The Devil's Rejects again.

 

[Evil Twin]

I think you could say it was lighting in a bottle and when I say lighting in a bottle I dont mean tdk money gross I mean just a true story that makes it next to impossible to remake years later because the story fit the times. The cast/ script/ dialgoue and acting were just sharp and you felt it was something special and gave alot to the horror genre and made michael myers this iconic character. You can show plenty of MM but rob showed what happens when you try to flesh out his backstory way too much.

I like the loomis idea but again Donald Pleasence gave the character such emotional wieght and depth in the 1st 2 movies that its hard to imagine him going on witch hunts in another franchise. The whole idea of him being a mental doctor who tried so hard to treat a young boy and carried such sorrow with him and feeling like he failed and all the dead bodies MM racked up were on his shoulders. Im obviously a fan of the original halloween and Im not gonna pull the "rob zombie raped my childhood" card ethier because it shows some movies are still classics and simply cant be updated to today's standards because it was different times in the 70's and 80's.


Its the same effect with scream 1, that movie came out in a time where they took full advantage of a stranger calling someone from a cell phone and being untraceable and it created and play on those fears. Scream 4 didnt work at all 10 years later because now weve got apps that can track phones and have new iphones every year. Like I said its all about striking at the right time and catching that magic and most of the time it only happens once.

I'll definitely agree that Halloween, and Scream, were the right movie, at the right time and that 2012 isn't the same time. My only quibble would be that John Carpenter, and his cast and crew, were really talented so it's not really a surprise that Halloween turned out well. Platinum Dunes and the typical cast they get, not so much.

I also agree that Halloween isn't really the best foundation for a franchise, for a variety of reasons. Some movies don't really support a sequel and Halloween certainly makes a case for that. Frankly, III is the only "sequel" that's ever held much interest to me, because at least it's trying something different instead of being a rehash to diminishing returns.

 

[Thundarr]

And it was 4 times less good.

That's a matter of opinion. I think the original Friday was every bit as good as the original Halloween. There are certainly differences, such as Friday having a higher body count and bloodier death scenes. But they both make an effort to build the tension and develope suspense, which to me puts them on par with each other.

If I HAD to pick a favourite between the two, I'd choose John Carpenter's Halloween. But Friday The 13th certainly comes in a close second.

 

[Thundarr]

Sure, I get that. I liked how Carpenter handled it better. In the original, the p.o.v. shots had a point in concealing that the killer was a child. That's an interesting choice. And Michael Myers escape told from the p.o.v. of Loomis and the nurse he's traveling with is far more interesting since Loomis is an interesting character.

So in the first 10 minutes you get the Halloween setting, an idea of Myers, an idea of Loomis, how Loomis views Myers, and Myers' escape. That stuff all comes into play later in the film, not just being there for some scares. Heck, we may be introduced to Laurie in the time this pitch takes.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with just going for some scares at the opening of a horror film, but other than the fact that they'd obviously spend more money than Carpenter's original, what's there? Who are the characters? What separates it from any other slasher? Does the opening tell you enough if you're not familiar with the original? What's the nature of the plot? Straight remake? In short, what's the vision other than "let's make it bigger". Is there room/merit in big setpieces other than in the escape?

Frankly, I think they fumble the character stuff in the pitch. And I consider the characters one of the strengths of the original. If they're ever going to make another good Halloween film, coming up with the next Jamie Lee Curtis seems to me to be more the key than showing off the concept of a setpiece.

Well put, and I couldn't agree more.

 

[Thundarr]

The Halloween movie series overall is hardly any good since Michael Myers has never been a particularly interesting movie villain and the numerous films that came after were nothing more than rehash after rehash of the same plot (Michael comes back and is after his sister, niece, etc.)

The moment, I finished watching what Rob Zombie had to offer, I knew right away it was actually better than the original. He took a classic story and gave it a modern day twist. I like the first half as I think it added a new dimension to Michael, and made him seem very ruthless and cold blooded moreso than the 1970s version. Despite what happened to him in his origin story, I was wanting him to show compassion several times (especially with Danny Trejo's character), and felt like it made him all the more scary rather just being "a disturbed kid locked away who escapes and is somehow immortal." because John Carpenter was too lazy to give him a background story.

The film actually did the one thing I thought I would never see again: Michael was scary again. Gone were the supernatural theatrics. It was realistic. Haunting. Believable.

Of course, there was a lot of sex and violence, which gave life to the film. All the actors played their characters very well, especially Malcolm McDowell, who did a very well performance playing Dr. Samuel Loomis as well as having a different take on the character. Oh, yeah Danielle Harris (who played Annie) is really hot.

Ironically, I love the remake (its actually one of my favorites of all-time) and I hate the sequel.

I genuinely feel sorry for you.

 

[Thundarr]

I'd be perfectly happy if they jettison the brother/sister idea as that's never really worked. If you're going to go back to the original, go back to the basic idea that Laurie (or whomever), just happened to cross paths with MM. The idea of just crossing paths with a malevolent being is more universal than "the brother I never knew of is a murderer obsessed with me".

I'd agree with this. People forget that John Carpenter retconed the whole brother/sister angle for the sequel, because he felt he needed a reason for Michael to continue to stalk Laurie throughout the second movie. It was never a part of the original movie's storyline. So it's not exactly "sacreligious" to nix that part of the story in the new remake.

 

[bullets]

I actually liked the Zombie version. I didn't think it was GREAT or will go down as a classic, but I did like it. I think if he released that same movie, using different character names and title, people wouldn't have bashed it, or its sequel, especially, like they did.

I think it was highly entertaining. The only issue is that he turned Michael Myer into Jason Vorhees. I can enjoy his interpretation but it's not the standard for a Halloween film. I'm not that big a fan of the original Halloween 2, still haven't seen part 3 , 4 was ok , 5 and 6 aren't memorable, and Ressurection was awful. I'd say Halloween:H20 was a decent sequel but not great. They should of ended it there.

If they are working on a new film I hope they return Michael to his roots. I thnk they could do an updated version but it will probably wind up like most of the horror remakes.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Now I need to watch Friday the 13th series again

 

[bullets]

Halloween is just around the corner. You should do a marathon.

 

[Roose Bolton]

You know what I would have loved? Instead of the Reboot I think a prequel to the original Carpenter film would have been interesting, about the Myers family in the year leading up to that fateful Halloween night.

A young happy family with two beautiful kids and a third on the way who are too caught up with their own lives to realise that they're slowly losing their son.

I think it'd work so much more in keeping with the original idea to show Michael slowly becoming that blank void despite the happiness around him rather than the paint by numbers abused psycho that Zombie showed.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

That dark void reminded me of one episode of Angel
There's that kid possessed by a demon who likes little boys (pedophile I say), but the demon sends a "Help Me" message
Later the demon explains it was him who asked to be saved and the boy burnt his sisters room just cause she had one piece of marshmallow more than he did
Was he inspired by the old version of Michael Myers as a kid killing his naked older sister?

And I guess the franchise started as splatter porn, Zombie added one or two scenes more than the original

 

[Gianakin_]

Its the same effect with scream 1, that movie came out in a time where they took full advantage of a stranger calling someone from a cell phone and being untraceable and it created and play on those fears. Scream 4 didnt work at all 10 years later because now weve got apps that can track phones and have new iphones every year. Like I said its all about striking at the right time and catching that magic and most of the time it only happens once.

I did enjoy Scream 4 because it was a big FU to remakes. Like the other Scream flicks, it served its purpose: to parody the latest trends of the genre.

 

[TX85]

Has there been any recent news on the Halloween 3D sequel/reboot or on another possible film??

As for RZ's films I really overall liked the remake But had very mixed feelings about his H2 and mostly was a big dissapointment!

I love the MM character and the whole franchise But while I didn't think Ressurrection was that bad I feel H20 had the perfect ending to the series,Instead of the remake I agree it should have been a prequel like I think they should have done the Freddy prequel afterall than that remake!!

IF/When they reboot again I'd like for them to take elements from RZ's first movie&the original and mix them while as it has been said..Dropping the brother/sister thing and have Myers randomly stalking Laurie again cause he may be curious about her or something!

 

[Slushy]

I genuinely feel sorry for you.

*spits on the ground

Save your pity.

I did enjoy Scream 4 because it was a big FU to remakes. Like the other Scream flicks, it served its purpose: to parody the latest trends of the genre.

At least Scream 2 and 3 did something different. Scream 4 didn't add anything new and considering there was an 11 year wait for it, what a fu**ing letdown.

 

[Gianakin_]

It added exactly as much as 2 and 3 did.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The best thing Scream ever did was give Shaggy a leading role