The Horror Thread

[Piper Maru]

What did you guys think of Halloween 3? I thought it was interesting, but the robot subplot was too dumb and the "relationship" between the guy and girl was too awkward. I would have liked to have seen what the Halloween movies would have been like if they kept the whole new story for each film thing going on.

I think I'm one of the few here who likes Halloween 3. Yeah it's real campy, but I still enjoy it.

[YT]F_ncGYKwfnk[/YT]

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

The ending is pretty boss.

 

[Heretic]

the previous three films don't count. they are basically just drawing out a story that needed to end with Michael finding Laurie and killing her (or being killed by her). it made no sense to introduce Jamie, when Laurie was still out there. and i'm falling asleep just thinking about the cult. talk about neutering the antagonist. he goes from being a force of nature to some religious group's *****.

If a studio makes a movie, and then says "it doesn't count" then I expect my money to be refunded in full. Otherwise, I expect them to care enough about their investment and trademarks...and my money...to make films that don't need to be wiped away a few years later with me being told to disregard everything I saw.

 

[Thundarr]

I think I'm one of the few here who likes Halloween 3. Yeah it's real campy, but I still enjoy it.

[YT]F_ncGYKwfnk[/YT]

I enjoy it as well. I don't care for it as a sequel to the first two Halloweens. But I do enjoy it as a stand alone film.

 

[Thundarr]

If a studio makes a movie, and then says "it doesn't count" then I expect my money to be refunded in full. Otherwise, I expect them to care enough about their investment and trademarks...and my money...to make films that don't need to be wiped away a few years later with me being told to disregard everything I saw.

Movie sequels have been doing that long before H20. Many movie sequels rewrite the ending of the previous film to start the next film with in order to be able to make a sequel that makes some sort of sense.

In this case they basically said, "Parts 4 through 6 all suck, so we're just gonna ignore them."

 

[redhawk23]

It's all fiction anyways, why does it really matter? Even if a film "undoes" a previous entry, it doesn't literally wipe the previous entry out of existence as in you can literally still pop in your DVD player and watch it.

But as always, I really have to ask, why is there any more than 1 Michael Myers film at all?

 

[redhawk23]

I do not understand how bland and terrible the "You're next" trailers are.

The movie has quite a bit of humor and wit but the trailer show almost none of that. A lot of the humor is essentially in the setup and introducing the characters so they could seriously show some of this in the trailers, the contrast of the humor with the attack on the family and it would spoil nothing while giving a proper sense of what the film is.

Terrible marketing as is though.

 

[Heretic]

Movie sequels have been doing that long before H20. Many movie sequels rewrite the ending of the previous film to start the next film with in order to be able to make a sequel that makes some sort of sense.

In this case they basically said, "Parts 4 through 6 all suck, so we're just gonna ignore them."

First of all...it's always wrong to do that. Before you spend money on something that you hope will bring in cash for decades, think it through!

I'm biased, but 4-6 is the range where I got into Horror films...so those were important parts of the story in my mind. H20 really wasn't very good either...and don't get me started on Resurrection.

 

[JOlsen]

All the Halloween films past the first two weren't very good. H20 was a nice ending though.

 

[Thundarr]

First of all...it's always wrong to do that. Before you spend money on something that you hope will bring in cash for decades, think it through!

I'm biased, but 4-6 is the range where I got into Horror films...so those were important parts of the story in my mind. H20 really wasn't very good either...and don't get me started on Resurrection.

First, I never said that it was a good thing, only that Halloween isn't the only movie franchise to do so.

Second, horror films, especially those of the slasher sub-genre, are almost always treated as the bastard illegitimate children of the distribution/production companies. They despise the movies themselves, but love the high revenues they generate. So they're always hoping to permanently kill off the villain in every film, but then always want to go back to the well one more time after the BO receipts are added up.

Third, regardless of the nostalgia you feel towards Parts 4 through 6, they are the three worst films of the series, with inferior writing and acting in comparison to Parts 1, 2, and H:20. And while H:20 might not be quite up to par with the first two, it at least attempted to recapture the magic of the original so I have to give them props for that.

And finally, please don't even mention Resurrection. That movie shouldn't even have Halloween in the title. Hell, after H:20, it never even should have been made. The ONLY thing about that film I even REMOTELY liked was trying to spot Vancouver landmarks throughout the film.

 

[Heretic]

Yeah...the studios make tons of money off of them yet refuse to actually care about the product. It's pathetic. Horror and Sci-Fi fans are the most loyal...and get treated the worst.

On another note...I just watched A Haunting at Silver Falls on Netflix streaming. It looks like a Horror movie from the cover...but is really a supernatural mystery involving the ghosts of two dead girls. Sadly, it is very obvious to tell who the bad guys are. The problem is that it makes it pretty clear that the mystery involves at least the assistance of several bad guys...but then those bad guys who are clearly guilty are dropped from the story completely. One character who is a jerk throughout the film, then randomly calls saying that he is now a good guy who is on his way to help...and then he is never mentioned again. In fact, it is flat out stated that the mystery revolves around a secret at Silver Falls...and yet the resolution has NOTHING to do with going there to find the evidence or anything. When your mystery is so badly done that people can figure it out in 10 minutes, so you throw in a bunch of random details that have nothing to do with anything and plot points that are never addressed again, those aren't clever red herrings, it's crappy writing. Oh...and in case someone CAN'T figure out the mystery quickly...the promotional summary released by the company basically spoils the entire thing. On the plus side though...the star of the film is an unknown named Alix Elizabeth Gitter and she is beautiful.

 

[culver3vlr22]

First, I never said that it was a good thing, only that Halloween isn't the only movie franchise to do so.

Second, horror films, especially those of the slasher sub-genre, are almost always treated as the bastard illegitimate children of the distribution/production companies. They despise the movies themselves, but love the high revenues they generate. So they're always hoping to permanently kill off the villain in every film, but then always want to go back to the well one more time after the BO receipts are added up.

Third, regardless of the nostalgia you feel towards Parts 4 through 6, they are the three worst films of the series, with inferior writing and acting in comparison to Parts 1, 2, and H:20. And while H:20 might not be quite up to par with the first two, it at least attempted to recapture the magic of the original so I have to give them props for that.

And finally, please don't even mention Resurrection. That movie shouldn't even have Halloween in the title. Hell, after H:20, it never even should have been made. The ONLY thing about that film I even REMOTELY liked was trying to spot Vancouver landmarks throughout the film.

They should of made the film with Laurie taking of the Michael mask at the end. Jamie lee was signed for just a cameo and that was the better ending I think it would of been pretty awesome.

H:20 isn't that bad the mask sucks and the score is god awful in some parts and really good in others. But I thought it was a fun film better than 5 IMO.

I still think the rz halloween series isnt impossible to do a 3rd film.
Have loomis a drunk and obsessed with Michael never believing he's gone and in a stat of panarnia and stop at nothing to kill Michael after Michael and Laurie ruined his book and career and made him the joke of the town. Loomis would be always visiting Laurie at the pyschward. Than halloween comes around and michaels killing again(the opening scene would show Michael killing his way free again ala the 2nd movie just different. Maybe show that in flashbacks instead). End of the movie have Laurie break out to hunt Michael down because she's still having nightmares of him and rather than kill herself first she wants to kill him than kill herself. The movie would be very much a loomis story tho and the fact that he's a low life now spending every last dime he has to hunt Michael.

The ending would be Laurie meets up with loomis they fight but than cops drive by they follow them to a blood bath Michael has done killing a tons of teens at a halloween party(I can finally get the gory nasty 50 teens killed party scene I still haven't gotten in a slasher movie) they go to michaels old home which had been bulldozed. Michael is there angry his home is gone. And final fight is on.

Laurie would decapitade Michael at end I mean full on nasty beheading.


I think it could be a great movie. Malcolm would act the hell out of that loomis.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

I watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3, now I've seen all of them. Part 3 isn't as bad as Part 4. I still can't get behind Part 2. I understand what they did and why it's a cult classic, but I just don't like it.

 

[Donnie Darko]

If a studio makes a movie, and then says "it doesn't count" then I expect my money to be refunded in full. Otherwise, I expect them to care enough about their investment and trademarks...and my money...to make films that don't need to be wiped away a few years later with me being told to disregard everything I saw.

I wish that worked with comics as well. DC would owe a lot of us quite a bit of money after the New 52 kicked off.

 

[redhawk23]

Why do they owe you money? You read or watched what ever piece of entertainment was offered. In fact you can continue to do so. It all still there, just as fictional as it always has been.

 

[Donnie Darko]

You do realize that not everything written on the internet, especially on a website with forums devoted to comic books and movies, should be taken 100% seriously, right?

 

[Thundarr]

I watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3, now I've seen all of them. Part 3 isn't as bad as Part 4. I still can't get behind Part 2. I understand what they did and why it's a cult classic, but I just don't like it.

I enjoyed Part 3 as well. I liked how it had a more serious tone than Part 2, although I do enjoy the campiness of Part 2 to a certain extent. I didn't think Part 4 was as bad as people say, but it certainly wasn't as good as Parts 1 & 3. It was better than Part 2 though.

 

[Thundarr]

They should have made the film with Laurie taking off the Michael mask at the end. Jamie lee was signed for just a cameo and that was the better ending I think it would have been pretty awesome.

Are you referring to Resurrection? If so, then "Please No". They did something similar in issue #3 of Chaos Comics short lived Halloween series. It failed then, it'll fail on film.

H:20 isn't that bad the mask sucks and the score is god awful in some parts and really good in others. But I thought it was a fun film better than 5 IMO.

This I agree with.

I still think the rz halloween series isnt impossible to do a 3rd film.
Have loomis a drunk and obsessed with Michael never believing he's gone and in a stat of panarnia and stop at nothing to kill Michael after Michael and Laurie ruined his book and career and made him the joke of the town. Loomis would be always visiting Laurie at the pyschward. Than halloween comes around and michaels killing again(the opening scene would show Michael killing his way free again ala the 2nd movie just different. Maybe show that in flashbacks instead). End of the movie have Laurie break out to hunt Michael down because she's still having nightmares of him and rather than kill herself first she wants to kill him than kill herself. The movie would be very much a loomis story tho and the fact that he's a low life now spending every last dime he has to hunt Michael.

The ending would be Laurie meets up with loomis they fight but than cops drive by they follow them to a blood bath Michael has done killing a tons of teens at a halloween party(I can finally get the gory nasty 50 teens killed party scene I still haven't gotten in a slasher movie) they go to michaels old home which had been bulldozed. Michael is there angry his home is gone. And final fight is on.

Laurie would decapitade Michael at end I mean full on nasty beheading.


I think it could be a great movie. Malcolm would act the hell out of that loomis.

To this I respectfully say, "F**k No!" Being visually raped by Rob Zombie twice is quite enough, thank you.

 

[redhawk23]

You do realize that not everything written on the internet, especially on a website with forums devoted to comic books and movies, should be taken 100% seriously, right?

Sorry, it's pretty much Poe's Law at this point. I've seen that exact sentiment expressed entirely sincerely.

 

[Piper Maru]

I enjoy it as well. I don't care for it as a sequel to the first two Halloweens. But I do enjoy it as a stand alone film.

That's what I meant to say! As a stand alone, it's fine. Actually, every October leading up to the 31st I have a horror movie marathon, Halloween 3: Season of the Witch is part of it. I love seeing it every time.

I really like this scene;

Halloween III Conal Cochran
[YT]fIFOPB31NSI[/YT]
A great scene from the underrated "Halloween III: Season of the Witch," where the sinister mask maker, Conal Cochran (Dan O' Herlihy) lays out his plan for Halloween night...

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

I enjoyed Part 3 as well. I liked how it had a more serious tone than Part 2, although I do enjoy the campiness of Part 2 to a certain extent. I didn't think Part 4 was as bad as people say, but it certainly wasn't as good as Parts 1 & 3. It was better than Part 2 though.

I'd rank it as remake, original, Beginning, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 4.

 

[jonathancrane]

I enjoy the television edit of Halloween 2 more than the theatrical cut, and immensely love H3.

 

[Thundarr]

That's what I meant to say! As a stand alone, it's fine. Actually, every October leading up to the 31st I have a horror movie marathon, Halloween 3: Season of the Witch is part of it. I love seeing it every time.

I really like this scene;

Halloween III Conal Cochran
[YT]fIFOPB31NSI[/YT]
A great scene from the underrated "Halloween III: Season of the Witch," where the sinister mask maker, Conal Cochran (Dan O' Herlihy) lays out his plan for Halloween night...

That was actually the one scene in the film I'm not too fond of. Once again my people being misrepresented by Hollywood as child murdering Satanists. It's like depicting all Jews as greedy, money grubbing busybodies. Or depicting blacks as always eating fried chicken and watermelon and washing it down with grape Kool-Aid. Or all Asians as being bad drivers. It's very prejudiced.

Other than that, a really well made horror movie.

 

[JOlsen]

The Wicker Man will never be beat for pagan style witchcraft in a horror film.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

I remember watching the TV version of Halloween, then the following year AMC got to show the theatrical version; thus without the extra scenes. I thought maybe I imagined those scenes and I had edited my own perception of the past. Then I found out there was a TV version, so it's cool now. lol