For one, both of those films nearly killed the Halloween franchise.
LOL and what did RZH2 do? Yeah put the franchise in limbo again. For it's longest stretch. 7 years and counting.
H6 was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for the franchise. Had Jamie Lee not signed on for H20, H6 would've been the end of the franchise. That isn't even debatable. I've researched this in-depth and her signing on was what saved the franchise from certain death.
Post the proof of this in depth research you did. Links, quotes, the lot.
In H5's case, it wasn't even about trying something different. You had a director in the chair who had no idea what he was doing and was just a control freak. How do we know this? During his first meeting with Moustapha Akkad, he threw the original script in the trash, insulted people who suggested ideas while on-set, almost let the actor portraying Michael burn up in a car because he was "so enthralled" in what was going on and decided it was a good idea to introduce the Man in Black, who was originally meant to be Michael's twin brother.
None of this makes him a director who wasn't trying something different, it just makes him an a-hole director with a vision he wanted to carry out, would accept no other ideas, and didn't want to waver from it. Stubborn? Yes. Control freak? Yes. Man without a specific vision? No.
Some of the best directors in the world are *****ebags on set;
http://whatculture.com/film/10-directors-who-are-notoriously-difficult-to-work-with?page=10
https://moviepilot.com/posts/3342008
In H6's case, we find out that Michael not only isn't the supernatural entity we all believed, but that he's being controlled by a cult of doctors and was coerced into raping and impregnating his teenage niece just to kill the baby as part of a ritual that made no damn sense.
Yeah that all sucked no question, but it's just the bastardization of one character. RZH2 ruined three iconic Halloween characters, that's why it's worse.
So I guess you would've preferred that Malcolm McDowell keep attempting to be Donald Pleasence-esque, even though it didn't fit at all?
In what way wouldn't it fit?
A Loomis that sells out and tries to cash in made more sense for this interpretation than having him chasing after Michael every second of the day.
No it doesn't. Not all psychiatrists are sell out a-holes. It reduces Loomis to a shallow one dimensional character, too. Pleasance's Loomis was a fascinating character who after spending 15 years working with Michael, he's become an obsession for him. He's the only one who can see what Michael is. He dedicates his life to trying to stop him.
That's every bit as plausible, not to mention 50 times more interesting than some 1D sell out.
It worked for the original franchise, it wouldn't work anymore.
You've still failed to prove why. Just saying it wouldn't doesn't make it so.
Moving on to Michael, what's wrong with him growing out a beard? Realistically, outside of some sort of genetic defects, it'd be more plausible than him being clean shaven all the time.
He looked like Grisly Addams in a hoodie. It's not a genetic defect to grow out a big dirty beard.
If you want to talk what's plausible with movie monsters, you might as well write off the entire horror genre. Using the realism card is like trying to apply it to superheros with powers.
And I guess your bias is going to make you just totally ignore that Laurie was a drugged out alcoholic in H20 as well. She was popping pills throughout the movie, AND drinking alcohol behind it. How is Zombie's any different/worse because she was doing the same?
No, my non bias fully acknowledges that, but it didn't turn her into an unlikable abusive b**ch. That's why Zombie's is worse. H20's Laurie was a paranoid haunted woman who had moved on with her life, started a family, got a career, but was still haunted by her demons. But she didn't turn into a total cow. She was still the good wholesome Laurie, even when relying on booze and pills to cope with her paranoia and fears.
You're lying and you know it.
Don't call me a liar. You want to start name calling we can slap a moderator on you to get you in line.
I am not lying. Harsh truths you don't want to hear don't make me a liar.
One film had Michael crying for no apparent reason and, I'll say this again because it's obviously not registering with you, the other had him raping and impregnating his own niece for a ritualistic practice that had no actual purpose.
It was not for no apparent reason. If you watched the scene it happened in what happened was Jamie almost got through to his humane side. She got him to take off his mask, she said he looked just like her, and what ever remainder of humanity that was left in him shed a tear.
No different to big Tyler Mane Myers trying to reconnect with his baby sister he loved as a kid.
The only character that wasn't ruined in H5 & H6 was Dr. Loomis and that was because Pleasence was there to provide some semblance of direction (for his character, anyway). So no, RZH2 is not worse.
No characters except Michael were ruined in H5 and 6. Jamie wasn't ruined. Even with the impregnated storyline in H6 it wasn't like she went and willingly screwed her uncle. The Thorn Cult forced it. Unlike the RZH2 where the characters were crap by their own freewill choices.
When you don't consider a character being turned into a cult abiding pedophile when he was once a supernatural force acting of his own accord a bastardization in favor of saying that an idea who presents none of those qualities as worse, I think it all speaks for itself.
Translation; you hate what I like, so to me that is my proof you are biased.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Have I called you biased? A band wagon hopper? A liar? No. I've got more class. So don't taint me with your brush.
You have no plausible argument, though, except for "omg it sucks! Myers is a hobo, he was totally ruined but it's okay that he was turned into a rapist and puppet."
See this is a great example of why you fly blindly in these debates. Nobody, least of all me, is saying what they did in H5 and 6 with Myers is "okay". What I'm saying is he, and two other iconic Halloween characters were bastardized just as bad in RZH2. Three characters ruined vs one. No contest. RZH2 is worse.
Even the great John Carpenter thinks Zombie's take was a heap of crap;
http://collider.com/john-carpenter-rob-zombie-halloween-remake/
Make all the accusations you want, they affect me little to none. Go ahead.
When I start resorting to calling you biased, a bandwagon hopper, and a liar, then I will have sunk to your level.
And congrats to you for continuing your bandwagon trashing.
Sure. And the sky is neon pink, the earth is square, and the moon is made out of cheese.
You're lying and you know it. One film had Michael crying for no apparent reason and, I'll say this again because it's obviously not registering with you, the other had him raping and impregnating his own niece for a ritualistic practice that had no actual purpose.
