Announcement

**Hedji** · Jul 14, '15, 8:54 AM

I agree with you Tom.

Audience tastes and film conventions have changed an awful lot since those first two films. Picking up stylistically where they left off is going to be daunting to say the least. It could be done, but would it sell? Most filmgoers seem more programmed towards what Rob Zombie was feeding them. Michael's killings will probably be more cruel, more gory, and involve more torture. It's the way it is now.

**Gorn Captain** · Jul 14, '15, 9:09 AM

When you look at the original, there's no gore. It's all style, lighting and camerawork, but no excess. That's what made it great.
Remember when Michael nails that guy to the door, and then just tilts his head slightly to observe. That was impressive, without showing a bloodbath.
Modern audience will probably find that boring and soft now.

Rob Zombie showed me everything he didn't understand about the original.

**MIB41** · Jul 14, '15, 9:35 AM

I think where Zombie got Halloween fundamentally wrong was changing Michael's family environment. In the original, Myers appeared to be a very innocent looking child in a very traditional middle American home. The profile didn't fit the horrific crime which made it unsettling. But it also set the stage for Dr. Loomis and his story responsibilities. It's his reflections and paranoia that feed us the information on Myers. That is what we adopt and build upon as Myers comes into town and starts stalking those teenagers. It's a chilling treatment even by today's standards because it's still making you feel the threat level through the eyes of Loomis. In the Zombie film, Loomis has absolute ZERO story responsibilities because we see it's the home environment that creates Myers. He's a victim of abuse and neglect, which I thought was a very irresponsible social statement to place on a iconic modern monster. It, in effect, justifies him and I don't think that's healthy material for these kinds of films. Justified or not, kids get ahold of these films and this kind of messaging can have ( I believe) harmful effects if a troubled young person identifies with that environment.

To me, Myers is a modern day Frankenstein. You beat him, shoot him, burn him, and he comes back for more. He's the "boogie man". He's not to be taken as a plausible product of society so much as a modern monster to run from. I think when you start applying justification to the process, you miss the art of the scare and start building a path not really intended for this kind of treatment.

**Earth 2 Chris** · Jul 14, '15, 10:38 AM

^Modern storytellers seem unable to give us a villain that isn't sympathetic on some level. The desire to see what makes them tick is too great. But they often rob their audience of a great device, like the inexplicable Myers, who we only know as "pure evil" thanks to the ravings of Loomis. That's one thing I have to give Goyer and the Nolans in regards to the Joker in TDK; we don't know WHAT his deal is. He tells different stories every time, and they could all be lies. Of course, this is adapted from the comics, but the Burton film had to explain the Joker, rather than just use him as a force of evil, or chaos. In some cases, it detracts, rather than add, to the character.

Chris

**MIB41** · Jul 14, '15, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Earth 2 Chris

^Modern storytellers seem unable to give us a villain that isn't sympathetic on some level. The desire to see what makes them tick is too great. But they often rob their audience of a great device, like the inexplicable Myers, who we only know as "pure evil" thanks to the ravings of Loomis. That's one thing I have to give Goyer and the Nolans in regards to the Joker in TDK; we don't know WHAT his deal is. He tells different stories every time, and they could all be lies. Of course, this is adapted from the comics, but the Burton film had to explain the Joker, rather than just use him as a force of evil, or chaos. In some cases, it detracts, rather than add, to the character.

Chris

Exactly. When it comes to our villains, less is more because what you don't know is vastly more interesting with your imagination.

**Hedji** · Jul 14, '15, 11:27 AM

The other thing is... cinematography. Camera movement, shot composition, and color grading are all different now. The Dean Cundey Halloween films are sublime in their color palette. Natural when they need to be. Enhanced blues and oranges at other times. Now everyting is blanched green and teal.

But, then, my idea of perfection in color and camerawork is Creepshow, so what do I know?

**Earth 2 Chris** · Jul 14, '15, 11:57 AM

^Nothing is creepier or more unsettling than Myers walking down a suburban street in the afternoon sun from the first movie. The idea that the daylight can't even save you touches a nerve that all the buckets of fake blood in the world can't compare to.

Chris

**palitoy** · Jul 14, '15, 12:15 PM

My friend got really bent out of shape when Zombie remade Halloween, I agreed it was needless but didn't really think it was a problem. Why? Because you can't top the original and look, the Zombie movies are already a fading memory.

Not a fan of the slasher genre at all but the one film I truly respect is the original Halloween. It's a brilliant movie and is so well above it's peers.

If this remake turns a generation on to the original, then it did something good.

**megoapesnut** · Jul 14, '15, 2:20 PM

We must be long lost brothers. I completely agree with you on every point and comment you made here.

Originally posted by MIB41

This new sequel, reboot, or as they are selling... "recalibrated" installment starts filming this month. Thoughts? I've been a fan of the character but my real love of the series has always been the first two. All the other sequels (minus the Zombie films) have been a guilty pleasure where I turn off my brain and observe an environment where stupid people (along with the napkins their characters were developed on) go to die. I mean how can't you love and laugh at a sequel that employs the actor who played Nakoma from Grizzly Adams and make him into the Haddonfield slasher? Ironically the second film introduced the storyline with Laurie being Michael's sister that essentially started the whole bloodline franchise. That plot point is so ingrained in people's minds, they often watch the original with that understanding, although Carpenter never originally intended it. Even Zombie's reboot borrowed from II as well.

I didn't care for the Zombie films because it was more an endurance contest on gore and crude dialogue, than scripting a new film with chills. How those films got away with an "R" rating is something of a mystery to me. But supposedly this new film is going back to pick up where the first two films left off. Of course this is not the first go around from that point of redirection. Halloween 4 picked up after II, as did Halloween H20. So will Myers simply jump on another branch of his family tree or are they going to steer clear of the bloodline theme and move him in a new direction? My early thoughts are another family plot because without the cat and mouse play that pretty much defines Myers, he's relegated to a standard slasher.

They tried to reboot the other iconic slashers from Friday the 13th and Nightmare with limited success. My thinking is the more they re-stylize these monsters, the less people want to see them. Different is not always better. Here's a report on the new Halloween installment:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...Jyf8K2MZzhv6yQ

**megoapesnut** · Jul 14, '15, 2:22 PM

Here's another brother from another mother. Completely agree. Both of you are WAY to easy on Zombie, though. He completely @#$%^& up my favorite movie with his dirty, greased, straggly haired biker gang casting.

Originally posted by Gorn Captain

When you look at the original, there's no gore. It's all style, lighting and camerawork, but no excess. That's what made it great.
Remember when Michael nails that guy to the door, and then just tilts his head slightly to observe. That was impressive, without showing a bloodbath.
Modern audience will probably find that boring and soft now.

Rob Zombie showed me everything he didn't understand about the original.

**Iron Mego** · Jul 14, '15, 2:36 PM

Originally posted by megoapesnut

Here's another brother from another mother. Completely agree. Both of you are WAY to easy on Zombie, though. He completely @#$%^& up my favorite movie with his dirty, greased, straggly haired biker gang casting.

This.

The one thing that bugs me about this new Halloween is the title. Halloween Returns? How does a holiday "return?" Well, I guess it returns every year actually. Might as well call it Halloween Again.

**madmarva** · Jul 14, '15, 11:11 PM

Reading this thread got me to thinking was there a better decade for horror films than the 70s? Maybe it's just because that's when I was a kid, but The Exorcist, Jaws and Halloween are all more than three decades old, but they still deliver like they did when they were first released. And that's just three.

Halloween really is a masterpiece. It's not the first slasher film, but it's definitely the gold standard.

**thunderbolt** · Jul 15, '15, 4:04 AM

Originally posted by madmarva

Reading this thread got me to thinking was there a better decade for horror films than the 70s? Maybe it's just because that's when I was a kid, but The Exorcist, Jaws and Halloween are all more than three decades old, but they still deliver like they did when they were first released. And that's just three.

Halloween really is a masterpiece. It's not the first slasher film, but it's definitely the gold standard.

throw the Omen on that pile and I agree.

**Hedji** · Jul 15, '15, 8:07 AM

Was just about to add that. Omen is one of my favs.

Announcement

Halloween returns

Halloween returns

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment