The Halloween Film Series Thread... - Part 4

[Michael Strode]

Because I just love the look of that H6 mask, is that okay? Haha

I apologize if it seems like I'm being combative, you can like that mask. I've just seen the H20 mask torn to pieces and the H6 put on a pedestal, and borderline shoved down my throat for years.

By the way, I hope you know I'm not angry or anything like that. An unfortunate result of reading comments is you can't hear the tone of voice of the person talking. I don't have any beef with you, we're cool.

Also sorry for posting a comment and then deleting it, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I figured it would be better to have all of this in one single comment.

Sorry but regardless it still looks horrible to me. And the mask changes are still very noticeable throughout the film.

By the way, I'll also like to clear another thing up. The knb mask is only visible on screen in three scenes, in the classroom scene in a far away shot, in the gate scene for a couple of shots, and a single shot during the final battle that's less than half a second.

The rest of the scenes that have the knb, you can not see it, since Michael is a silhouette in those scenes as shown in some of the screenshots I posted. So it's not noticeable through out the movie.

During the daytime, every single shot of Michael during this potion of the movie is the Stan Winston mask, with the except for that far away shot during the classroom scene I mentioned.

Yes I’ve seen the film many times haha. I’m saying even still for me it doesn’t look great or work. Like I said I wish they just stuck with the H6 mask from the opening scene for the entirety of the film.

By the way, I wanted to clear something up. Even if they went with the H6, the Knb mask shots, as well as the cgi mask shot would still exist in the movie. The Knb was the first mask used, and was used for a good chunk of the movie, till a producer told them it didn't look like Michael.

A modified remold version of the H6 was created without telling Steve Miner first. The day they had to shoot the opening, Miner found out and wasn't too happy about not being told ahead of time. After a few arguments, Miner agreed to use the mask in the opening for a couple quick flashes, while a new mask was being created.

This new mask was created by Stan Winston himself. This mask resembled Michael from the first movie more. Since they were on a tight schedule, they didn't have time to reshoot every shot of the mask, so they prioritized the close up shots of the mask.

The few shots of the Knb mask left in the film were edited down, to make it less noticeable when watching the movie. Thankfully most of the Knb mask shots were ones in heavy shadows.

As said before, the shot of the Knb mask during the garbage disposal scene was unable to be reshot, so they alerted it with cgi.

In any case, even if they went with the H6 mask, his eyes would've still been shown on the terrible home video releases. The size of the eyeholes would've still been the same, the same hair style. And the shots of the other mask would've still been in the movie. In other words, it would've changed nothing.

 

[Pittman4Two]

@Michael Strode I appreciate your passion for H20. I didn't think it was a bad movie at all, but I don't think it has aged well. You've heard this a million times, but I do think it's too Scream-like and the dialogue reminds me so much of Dawson's Creek. I think JLC did a great job. I actually prefer this Laurie over the more recent version as I believe the H20 Laurie Strode is how '78 Laurie would've progressed (regressed) organically over the years.

One thing that had (and still has) bothered me is how it was explained Michael survived HII. "They nevah found his body." Not a scratch on him, obviously his eyes were fine.

Overall I rank H20 5th on my rankings...just below the legendary, iconic H4 (that was for you ) and ahead of Halloween: Evil Dies To...I mean Kills.

 

[Michael Strode]

@Michael Strode I appreciate your passion for H20. I didn't think it was a bad movie at all, but I don't think it has aged well. You've heard this a million times.

Not starting a fight, just wanna make that clear beforehand. This is a debate, not a fight.

Yeah I have heard that a million times, and it's never made any sense to use that as a criticism. Literally every movie ever made is gonna feel like the time it came out in in some way. Would you say Universal's Dracula has aged poorly?

Would you say the original Halloween hasn't aged well? You can obviously tell it's from the 70s due to the slower pacing compered to modern movies, dialogue, clothes, etc. If this was made today, it would be considered an art house movie.

By the way, I'm not bad mouthing the original movie. I love it, it's a favorite of mine. I'm just making a point.

I've heard from countless people who have went to modern screenings of the movie over the years, telling me how bored the audience were of the movie, and even seeing several people walking out.

There was a double feature screening held a few years ago, of both H20 and the original. My friend was shocked that for the entirety of the original movie, no one made a peep.

However once H20 came on, the audience got really into it. Screamed when something scary happened. And cheered through out the movie, especially during the ending.

My friend was old enough when H20 came out. And according to him, the way people reacted during that screening a few years ago, were the same way the audience he saw it with reacted back in 1998.

So if you say H20 hasn't aged well, what does that say about the first movie?

@Michael Strode I do think it's too Scream-like and the dialogue reminds me so much of Dawson's Creek.

Every Halloween movie has been influenced by other films at the time of their release. H2 H4 and H5 were all very heavily influenced by the 80s slasher films at the time of it's release, specifically the Friday the 13th movies. This is why the movies are gorier, the kills are more outlandish, and why they kept trying to make Michael look bigger with each movie, etc.

When they were making Halloween 4, Moustapha Akkad was quoted as saying "I want Jason" when he was telling them how he wanted Michael portrayed in the movie.

H3 was influenced by Invasion of the Body Snatchers, as stated by Wallace.

H6 theatrical cut was influenced by early 90s MTV. The producer cut was heavily influenced by Rosemay's Baby, as stated by the writer.

Resurrection was influenced by Big brother and the Blair Witch Project.

Every sequel has either been influenced by movies that came out around the same time as their release, or were influenced by even older movies. This shouldn't be used as a criticism since it could be applied to literally ever movie ever made.

@Michael Strode One thing that had (and still has) bothered me is how it was explained Michael survived HII. "They nevah found his body." Not a scratch on him, obviously his eyes were fine.

I thought you fans wanted them to keep Michael mysterious, and not explain things.

On top on that, it follows Halloween II. At the end of the 1978 movie Micheal got stabbed in the eye. In Halloween II both his eyes are shown and are fine.

Also let's be honest, if we get a sequel to Halloween II, Michael needs working eyes in order to kill people, otherwise he'll be blind and wouldn't be a danger to anyone.

My point is, if Michael can heal his eyes, then why wouldn't he be able to heal his skin as well.
Also in regards to 4-6, it's always bugged me that Michael only has burn scars of the back of his hands, but no where else on the rest of his body.

In Halloween 4 when he's still wearing the hospital gown, we can clearly see his his arms and legs are unburned.

In Halloween 5, we're shown his entire face is unscarred, and he has a full head of hair.

My question is, why are the back of his hands the only part of him that got scarred, despite having his entire body being set on fire.

I'm glad that H20 kept it consistent, that if Michael can have working eyes after Halloween II, then he shouldn't have burn scars either.

 

[Broseph44]

God damn man….

 

[Michael Strode]

God damn man….

What? If someone responds to me, I'll respond back. Is that a bad thing?

 

[Pittman4Two]

Not starting a fight, just wanna make that clear beforehand. This is a debate, not a fight.

No problem. Like I said, I appreciate your passion and it's good to get a fresh take every now and then. I hope you can appreciate deferring opinions as we discuss these points.

Yeah I have heard that a million times, and it's never made any sense to use that as a criticism. Literally every movie ever made is gonna feel like the time it came out in in some way. Would you say Universal's Dracula has aged poorly?

Would you say the original Halloween hasn't aged well? You can obviously tell it's from the 70s due to the slower pacing compered to modern movies, dialogue, clothes, etc. If this was made today, it would be considered an art house movie.

By the way, I'm not bad mouthing the original movie. I love it, it's a favorite of mine. I'm just making a point.

I've heard from countless people who have went to modern screenings of the movie over the years, telling me how bored the audience were of the movie, and even seeing several people walking out.

There was a double feature screening held a few years ago, of both H20 and the original. My friend was shocked that for the entirety of the original movie, no one made a peep.

However once H20 came on, the audience got really into it. Screamed when something scary happened. And cheered through out the movie, especially during the ending.

My friend was old enough when H20 came out. And according to him, the way people reacted during that screening a few years ago, were the same way the audience he saw it with reacted back in 1998.

So if you say H20 hasn't aged well, what does that say about the first movie?

I should've been more clear. When I say aged, I mean it's so a product of its time that the interest in rewatching is not nearly what it was a decade a go or longer. The original still garners attention each and every year. The reason for that is its iconic status in horror cinema. Just like Psycho, just like The Exorcist...yes, they're old movies....yes, they're not scary to the new crowds, but they were groundbreaking films in how they portrayed horror with atmosphere, suspense, and music.

H20's best horror moment, in my opinion, was the opening scene. It was dark, it was suspenseful and it had Myers do what he does best, toy with his victims.

Every Halloween movie has been influenced by other films at the time of their release. H2 H4 and H5 were all very heavily influenced by the 80s slasher films at the time of it's release, specifically the Friday the 13th movies. This is why the movies are gorier, the kills are more outlandish, and why they kept trying to make Michael look bigger with each movie, etc.

When they were making Halloween 4, Moustapha Akkad was quoted as saying "I want Jason" when he was telling them how he wanted Michael portrayed in the movie.

H3 was influenced by Invasion of the Body Snatchers, as stated by Wallace.

H6 theatrical cut was influenced by early 90s MTV. The producer cut was heavily influenced by Rosemay's Baby, as stated by the writer.

Resurrection was influenced by Big brother and the Blair Witch Project.

Every sequel has either been influenced by movies that came out around the same time as their release, or were influenced by even older movies. This shouldn't be used as a criticism since it could be applied to literally ever movie ever made.

I think H20 gets more of this "influenced" attention because it was obviously a better movie than H5-H:R. Those installments are all jokes to begin with so I don't think anyone wants to go into a deep dive to debate the influences of those films. I think the influence of Dawson's Creek and Scream is felt more in H20 than the other installments' influences that you mention. The dialogue (Kevin Williamson), the music, Michelle Williams, etc. gave in-your-face examples of how similar the film is to DC and Scream.

I thought you fans wanted them to keep Michael mysterious, and not explain things.

On top on that, it follows Halloween II. At the end of the 1978 movie Micheal got stabbed in the eye. In Halloween II both his eyes are shown and are fine.

Also let's be honest, if we get a sequel to Halloween II, Michael needs working eyes in order to kill people, otherwise he'll be blind and wouldn't be a danger to anyone.

My point is, if Michael can heal his eyes, then why wouldn't he be able to heal his skin as well.
Also in regards to 4-6, it's always bugged me that Michael only has burn scars of the back of his hands, but no where else on the rest of his body.

In Halloween 4 when he's still wearing the hospital gown, we can clearly see his his arms and legs are unburned.

In Halloween 5, we're shown his entire face is unscarred, and he has a full head of hair.

My question is, why are the back of his hands the only part of him that got scarred, despite having his entire body being set on fire.

I'm glad that H20 kept it consistent, that if Michael can have working eyes after Halloween II, then he shouldn't have burn scars either.

Michael healing his eyes and skin? That's the first time I've heard/read that conclusion to gaffs made by the sequel filmmakers up until H18.

In H4, I don't remember seeing Michael's legs before he was in the mechanic's gear again. He was all bandaged up though and his eyes were covered.

H5 is junk. Like I said earlier, debating small inconsistencies in that pile of garbage is unnecessary. I would not dream of comparing H5 to H20.

Hell, all of these things you are bringing up are part of the reason the series has been retconned over and over.

In summary, I believe H20 is middle of the road when it comes to the entire franchise. I've tried to give some thoughts on why it isn't higher on most Halloween fans lists. I hope you don't take this as piling on...just some reasoning for why it's not universally loved.

 

[Michael Strode]

No problem. Like I said, I appreciate your passion and it's good to get a fresh take every now and then. I hope you can appreciate deferring opinions as we discuss these points.



I should've been more clear. When I say aged, I mean it's so a product of its time that the interest in rewatching is not nearly what it was a decade a go or longer. The original still garners attention each and every year. The reason for that is its iconic status in horror cinema. Just like Psycho, just like The Exorcist...yes, they're old movies....yes, they're not scary to the new crowds, but they were groundbreaking films in how they portrayed horror with atmosphere, suspense, and music.

H20's best horror moment, in my opinion, was the opening scene. It was dark, it was suspenseful and it had Myers do what he does best, toy with his victims.



I think H20 gets more of this "influenced" attention because it was obviously a better movie than H5-H:R. Those installments are all jokes to begin with so I don't think anyone wants to go into a deep dive to debate the influences of those films. I think the influence of Dawson's Creek and Scream is felt more in H20 than the other installments' influences that you mention. The dialogue (Kevin Williamson), the music, Michelle Williams, etc. gave in-your-face examples of how similar the film is to DC and Scream.



Michael healing his eyes and skin? That's the first time I've heard/read that conclusion to gaffs made by the sequel filmmakers up until H18.

In H4, I don't remember seeing Michael's legs before he was in the mechanic's gear again. He was all bandaged up though and his eyes were covered.

H5 is junk. Like I said earlier, debating small inconsistencies in that pile of garbage is unnecessary. I would not dream of comparing H5 to H20.

Hell, all of these things you are bringing up are part of the reason the series has been retconned over and over.

In summary, I believe H20 is middle of the road when it comes to the entire franchise. I've tried to give some thoughts on why it isn't higher on most Halloween fans lists. I hope you don't take this as piling on...just some reasoning for why it's not universally loved.

I don't agree with a single word you, but I'm too busy being sick at the moment. Again I'll respond to the rest when I'm feeling better.

 

[Pittman4Two]

I don't agree with a single word you, but I'm too busy being sick at the moment. Again I'll respond to the rest when I'm feeling better.

Ahh...the beauty of a healthy discussion. Well wishes sent to you, my friend. Hopefully my diatribe didn't cause you to become ill!

 

[Wildcard]

Random tidbit but after fully realizing just how much Rob Zombie was inspired by Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it makes me love his two Halloween films that much more.

A lot of people accused him of making him like Jason but nope, he was definitely more like Leatherface. The obsession with masks due to the lack of family, the more grungy look, the overall family elements, etc. I can see TCM all over the remake now & it gives me a new appreciation of it. Same for the sequel where Zombie went even further with it.

I know the typical argument is that's not the classic Shape and normally I'd agree with it, but it was a remake and the point was to do something different. Imo, I think what Zombie came up with is a lot better than it's often given credit for. It is incredibly different from the original while also delivering a terrifyingly real serial killer whose brutality matches several notorious real life counterparts with similar backgrounds. In the case of the first, I feel the theatrical is the better version because the escape scene shows Michael's cunning & savagery all in one. Part two, I'm fine with either cut, but I prefer the theatrical ending. It felt like it fit more than Michael taking off the mask to speak to Loomis. In the T-Cut he just absolutely wrecks him with no words spoken & I love it.

So yeah, that's my consensus. Halloween blended with Texas Chainsaw Massacre made for a refreshingly different Hellbilly styled approach. Something that gave a truly intriguing take on my favorite character. And, imo, that was leagues above cult garbage where Michael cries, has a baby with his fifteen year old niece & is the errand boy for a bunch of elderly Smith's Grove employees dressed up like they're going to a Munsters convention.

Or the Dawsons Creek and Scream-esque knock-off that quickly segway's into Myers getting his ass kicked by Busta Rhymes. So, with all that in mind, I'd say Zombie's duology is just fine for what it is.

 

[Batgirl0202]

I actually have a special place in my heart for Zombie's Halloween, stemming from when my friends and I first saw it way back in 2007.

We were all barely in our teens so we bought tickets to another movie (can't for the life of me remember which one) and snuck into Halloween for a matinee viewing on a bright sunny Sunday afternoon in September. We were literally the only ones in the theatre. It was like watching a movie at one of our homes, but with much better sound & vision. So fun

It was still to this day one of my favorite movie-going experiences. Maybe that's why I don't hate Halloween '07 like many folks seem to. I'm actually compelled to defend the film when people talk **** about it.

Ah memories...

 

[Gothamsknight]

I've was always a fan of Rob, especially his music, growing up, but I think my issue with his films actually grew over time. Back in the day, I was a fan of house of 1,000 corpses and devils rejects, the former of which I think still has cool style. The problem for me is that he never tried anything other than "poor, broke, redneck trash" aesthetic for his films. There's absolutely no reason why that HAD to be the motivation for his Halloween film. Little things that Rob does seem like it's there for shock value rather than story purpose. in the unrated cut, WHY is a girl being raped in michaels cell? Why? I don't understand.

There's elements of his remake I genuinely enjoy, particularly performances from Scout, Danielle, Mcdowell, and Manes take on The Shape. Also the bits that are a remake of the original film. I think all that stuff is genuinely atmospheric and done somewhat well, but the backstory stuff, the step dad, etc, is just awful to me and it makes sitting through the remake a chore. and I still think RZH2 is terrible. I liked his remake more when I was 14, which is when it came out. As a 30 year old, I don't find much redeeming qualities about it anymore or any of his films for that matter. It seems like he also only makes films for his specific audience these days as well, which just feels alienating.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[Enriquespy]

Back to the original film....


AGAIN???????????????

 

[Captain Tired]

Yeah at this point I'm more interested in Dwight Little wanting to do an alternate sequel to H4.

 

[Pennywise]

“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 Halloweenfranchise’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.”

 

[Arachnerd]

*massive sigh*

Maybe one day, they'll revisit the anthology angle and/or continuing off Season Of The Witch. *me inhaling copium*

 

[Link]

That seems a little... tired. I was hoping for something more exciting.

 

[Drizzle]

*massive sigh*

Maybe one day, they'll revisit the anthology angle and/or continuing off Season Of The Witch. *me inhaling copium*

Why do something that makes sense when we can get a whole spinoff show about Loomis going on his day to day routine and telling everyone who he encounters that he's met evil?

Kidding aside, what else is really left to pull from Halloween 78?

 

[DarkKnight88]

The simpler the stories for this, the better. Once they over complicate it, it never works for the better.

I can’t think of a worse film to try to turn into a tv series.

 

[Arachnerd]

Why do something that makes sense when we can get a whole spinoff show about Loomis going on his day to day routine and telling everyone who he encounters that he's met evil?

Can't wait for the Ben Tramer movie! Hopefully he finally gets some justice.

 

[DyeLorean]

Is there anything more to do at this point? Seriously. What a waste of money and resources.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I don't know what to think other than the Boogeyman lives. It almost sounds like they're unsure of what to do in a way.

 

[Mani-Man]

We probably already talked about it, but what are you Going to do Else with it?
Halloween is about Michael going on a killing Spree.
There really isnt too much you can do about that.
But i mean, Hollywood is supposed to find New ways and all...if they cant, whats the point?

 

[Captain Tired]

Being someone who doesn't consider the DGG films the be-all and end-all of Halloween sequels, I've absolutely no problem with more Michael Myers content. I just wish they'd stop going back to the OG and maybe take him out of Haddonfield for once. Furthest he's gone is, what, California? Switch things up and do something a bit more out there. Having said that, I definitely don't think the franchise is suited for a series. It was hard enough trying to mythologise the story for cinema. Doing it for a series will be like drawing blood from a stone.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I am at the point where new Halloween films just don't excite me. The last 2 were terrible, and I am just kind of burnt out on Myers and seeing the same old story.