The Halloween franchise could have been saved in 1998 right after H20

Discussion in 'General' started by Spacetraveler, Sep 15, 2012.

  1. Spacetraveler

    Spacetraveler Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    If I recall correctly, the producers gave Halloween fans another chance to determine the future direction of the series. There was a poll or vote after Halloween H20 for fans on whether they want to continue the Michael Myers storyline or take the series in a completely new direction like Halloween III tried to do. But in the end, Myers vote prevailed once again and we got the (in my opinion) terrible Halloween Resurrection along with the bad remake and the even worse sequel that followed. So had fans voted for a new storyline, Michael Myers would have been dead for real in H20 like he was supposed to in Halloween II and who knows what interesting direction the series would have taken? Maybe they would have introduced a new villain even better than Myers. I think the producers should consider taking the series in a new direction now that the last 3 Halloween films after H20 completely worn out the Michael Myers plot starting with the new Halloween 3.
     
  2. othervoice1

    othervoice1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Indiana
    Resurrection was awful - I thought the remake was decent (the 2nd half only) and enjoyed the sequal quite a bit- although I prefer the Directors cut of part 2 but I also prefer the theatrical ending instead of the Directors cut ending - so I can never really see the version Id really like >:
     
  3. MarkWarner

    MarkWarner New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indiana
    The poll actually came out after Resurrection, along with a poll asking if the fans wanted to see Michael vs. Pinhead.
     
  4. soxfan666

    soxfan666 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Wow, Michael vs. Pinhead sounds like a terrible idea!
     
  5. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    8,955
    Likes Received:
    1,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    So you think the same team of people who made the terrible Halloween sequels with Myers would have suddenly made awesome movies without Myers? These sequels would have been the same quality regardless of any of the choices in that poll. Anyways I doubt the actual producers took a second look at the poll after it was posted. They're just going to do what they want to do.

    Halloween III probably should have just been released as "Season of the Witch" because it bombed by dropping Michael Myers. It's found an audience since but it was an uphill climb because of the Halloween franchise's baggage. Any repeat of this move would have the same results.
     
  6. wago70

    wago70 Surviving on nostalgia

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    San Francisco - down by them two ol' sheds
    Agreed about Halloween III - it should have been "Season of the Witch" and could have succeeded had Universal been more clever in marketing.

    Oddly Halloween III is the last film to actually look like a Halloween film. All the following films look really out-of-place next to the 1978-1982 films. I cannot watch them in sequence for that reason. As much as I like H20, it just looks to "summer-y". Granted it's California (convenient locale for the cast and crew) but the post 1982 films don't have that signature feel to them.
     
  7. CPT HOOK

    CPT HOOK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,188
    Likes Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    US
    I think 4 and 5 fit the season well.
     
  8. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I have never seen and have no real interest in seeing Resurrection but the remakes should never have happened. Peroid, point, and blank. Now, when people think of Michael Myers, a very large percentage will picture a guy who looks like a professional wrestler. Zombie could have done his own thing with an original character and just used the holiday, come up with a different title. I'd be fine with that. He had no right turning any part of the Halloween franchise into his white trash vision for the genre.

    As for the original franchise, we all know no feel from the later films could replace the 78-82 era. And until I get parts 4 and 5 on DVD and closely rewatch them as I have parts II, III, 6 and H20, I'd say it was all slowly downhill after part 3. I could watch them on YouTube but the quality is not very sharp. You can get a good grip on how good the acting is but not on how the movie feels. Beyond the music. However, the draw of H20 I think was supposed to be the characters. Who were mild steps above the characters from 4-6. As much as I want to be able to defend H20, it's just nostalgia. They're either bland or outright irritating characters but for radically different reasons. The brain-addled idiots from part 5 are now replaced by whiny, Varsity Blues-era teen film characters. "My mom's an alcoholic" - who cares? "My mom's a waitress and this small town will trap me if I don't get a scholarship ticket outta here by graduation" (Teaching Mrs. Tingle). "I can't fit in because everyone looks down on me because my father's a pool cleaner... even though my own house is huge and incredible and can't be cheap by any means" (She's All That). I wish that post-grunge, Party of Five faux-angst hadn't trickled down into horror but it did. (But don't you dare blame Scream- the first film was about how the media influences teen behavior and in the 2nd film, Sidney's problems were all guilt-related. Not a crappy home life and social ostracization.)

    I think now, after many years of having to watch the new millennium throw away even what made the 2nd and 3rd films appealing to horror fans, I'd take the 2nd and 3rd films over H20. But, proudly, I'll take H20 over the Halloween and Friday the 13th knock-offs from the early 80's.
     
  9. crikan

    crikan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Halloween is Michael Myers. If you want to make a horror film without Michael Myers, call it anything you want other than Halloween...

    I enjoyed Resurrection but hated H2O. The remakes were fine.
     
  10. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I can't help but say to myself: at least H20 killed Michael Myers. By any of the sequel's rules, there's no way he could have survived decapitation. All of the sequels trashed Michael Myers, invented family members just to get him out and killing again, spit in the face of the original's no-graphic-violence / gore policy... The franchise was an insult to the first film from Halloween II's conception. H20 at least said: as far as we're concerned, this is the end. And since Rob Zombie's seen fit to deliver the worst films with that name on them so far, there's no reason not to see H20 as a fitting end. Otherwise, Zombie looks like a necrophiliac. Apart from not getting what Halloween was ever about, I don't think Zombie really needs that strike against him too.
     
  11. shape22

    shape22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first 3 were all shot by Dean Cundey. I've always believed that Cundey's movies without Carpenter look more like John Carpenter films than Carpenter's movies without Cundey. More than anyone Cundey created the Halloween "look."
     
  12. deepred

    deepred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Atlanta
    It did except for the fact that John Carpenter and Clive Barker were set to collaborate on the project if it was green-lit.
     
  13. Demoni

    Demoni Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Interesting perspective...
    By that, you can actually mean that Cundey created John Capenter. :D
     
  14. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,068
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I don't mind Zombie as a filmaker, although he needs to stay away from writing and sticking his wife in everything. But I agree with you that his Halloween films were just bad, and I also think it would have been a lot cooler and less blasphemous if he just created a new killer to stalk Halloween night.

    Agree again. i don't mind the less of the series, but the highlights are definitely the first three. They were great films while the rest were okay to just awful.

    This I don't agree with, but to each their own. I would take The Prowler, The Burning, Hell Night, April Fool's Day, Terror Train, ect. over H20.
     
  15. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I want to see Terror Train.

    But: The Burning was shit, April Fool's Day was shit, Hell Night I reviewed 2 Halloween's a-go in this thread (series) and it's a 5/10'er. The Prowler I haven't seen yet, but after that clip of the shower scene (which I caught in the Going to Pieces documentary)- I was angrier than I've been in a long time. Technically, not even Humanoids from the Deep made me that mad. Trick 'r Treat did. It was just sleaze, not horror. It didn't even feel creepy, it just felt exploitative. And horror is horror. There's a line that scene crossed. And, surprisingly, the director fucked up like this again in Friday the 13th Part IV. Where characters stopped feeling like characters and started making me feel like I was dealing with a problem the director had. I don't pay to watch a movie so I can play captive therapist to the director's personal fetishes / whatever excuse he had.

    So, I had a chance to watch it when it was on Netflix: WI, but I don't like being angry. And I love how people here make me out to be unreasonable. Can you tell me really where I'm really being unreasonable in this instance? If movies like The Burning want to pile on the sleaze and then be brutal with the violence, why can't they treat characters with respect? Or why can't the movie be intelligent? Why do these movies have to be aggressively stupid? Can't I hold them to the same standards as truly smart movies from years prior?

    Really- I think the only movies to emerge from that time period which haven't risen to the same exact level as Tenebre or Videodrome in fan circles as having half a brain in their head and were quite good are Dead & Buried and Just Before Dawn. They were vicious and crude in their own ways. But they were smart. And they were good and spooky. In fact, aside from 28 Days Later and Mulberry Street, I haven't seen one new-millennium horror film deal with the concept of survival as intelligently as Just Before Dawn. The last scene especially. (After that, we start getting into monster subgenres but I wanted to throw Alone in the Dark '81 a bone. For at least being really tense and surprisingly scary.)

    As for April Fools' Day- that thing was a mess. Not only was there nothing interesting about it, but it had no guts and nothing resembling a tone of fear or dread. Frankly, considering that most people already know the ending before they even see it, I don't know how it's even considered a horror film. It's that off. Hell Night... the first 15 or so minutes are great and so are the outdoor scenes looking up at the house. But, it's a long movie and there are no characters. Just talking heads.

    In comparison to these films, Halloween H20 actually tried. At least it put up an honest effort. It may have failed as much as it succeeded, but they really put thought into their characters. And delivered what none of those (just the first 4 you mentioned) films did in my opinion: an unforgettable horror moment with dramatic weight behind it. For me, it's the actual decapitation rather than the "will she help him" moment. But, this scene was just big enough that it means different things to different people. Can that compare with "ooh, Tom Savini's FX are cool, man"? Not really. But, hey, as a compromise I'll say: Friday the 13th, the original, beats them all.

    :D


    I missed yours but I did read up on some comments. Well... on Netflix. It drew some really interesting 1-3 star reviews. Unlike comments on something like The Evil Dead (which are unreadable), I found, without question, the people giving it the lesser ratings put more thought into their comments than the people giving it higher ratings.

    I did a little review on it too:

    I am sick to death of the last decade's approach to survival horror. This wave has come as a result of many different events around the world signalling the beginning of the end of the world. This is all fine and good, I even agree there's at the very least cause for concern that the world is ending. Deep down, I don't even mind the entire aesthetic change of horror and the absurd over-focusing on things like technology and crowds of people in peril. But... why exactly do movies need to treat characters like shit? If the movies care so much about the disintegration of society and government turning against us... why do they not only view the characters as worth nothing and entirely subject to death by ultra-trivial means (in this movie, being accidentally whipped by the monster's tail is both effortless on its' part and treated with no emotional or physical gravity) but also actively seek to make them so unlikable, aggressively hypocritical, stupid, nasty, guilt-mongering, etc(.)? The point of the wave of survival horror movies is supposed to be that we're all in this together. Which you'll note by, again, the treatment of characters in mass death scenes. But nearly every goddamn movie is about splitting us apart. And every time, it isn't for a specific reason. There's nothing to actually learn from these movies about the world we live in. This movie, for example, deals with a family who love each other but when things are at their worst... they heartlessly mock, judge, shame, and demean each other. Do you believe your family would ever do that to you? Let alone in a time of crisis??

    This movie is really on a mission to insult people. Under the guise of being a socio-political commentary. A group of protestors trying to keep the local population safe from toxic fume dumps are attacked by a swarm of police and when the camera shows one of the family members rushing to try and save his niece, he runs out of frame while the camera stays on a bum picking his nose in apathy at the situation. Is the point of this shot his apathy? No. It's the nose-picking. The military is about to unload poisonous gas over the area they suspect the monster is hiding which they themselves suspect will kill children if they breathe it in, police are endangering the lives of hundreds of people, and where's the camera? On a guy picking his nose.

    This movie has a gift for that kind of thing. A group of media photographers unsubtly swoop in on the gathering grieving loved ones during a memorial after the monster's first mass killing spree and the family I mentioned before drop to the floor and start rolling around like worms. I really hope someone is reading this and if you are, I imagine you have an eyebrow raised. You might be wondering what the context is for this scene. Why are they rolling around? Well, two of the brothers are arguing but as soon as the photographers show up, they all manage to end up on the floor scorning them for exploiting their grief. But they're all still rolling around. On the floor. Like worms. I can't possibly emphasize this enough. The shot is clearly trying to milk some humor from this. But the fact that the last scene had the monster jump in a very small building with a bunch of people trapped against a pair of chained doors while streams of blood dripped over the edge of the elevated trailer-like structure... Not funny. The film thinks a lot of unfunny things are hilarious. After a news report shows an image of one of the monster's surviving victims having contracted a disease that makes his skin break out in boils and blisters, they report that there's a virus spreading and anyone who coughs might have it. Cut to a bunch of people on the street wearing gas masks. The second someone coughs, they all look suspicious (even though they're also all protected). The guy takes off his mask to spit in the street and the sounds the rest of the crowd makes are barely removed from the roar of a hysterical riot. ZAZ made this funny. Of course, in Airplane!, no one was being hurt or killed in a realistic context. It's not funny here. It's not even realistic. The guy was clearly a smoker. I know smokers. Not only do they breakout in heaving coughs daily but they produce a lot of phlegm and need to spit it out. Lots of people smoke. So, almost everyone knows someone like this guy.

    At 2 full hours long, what can anyone say the movie accomplished? Nearly every single scene is about making the characters we're meant to care for unlikable and treating people dying, dealing with grief, and terrified for the safety of their loved ones with no respect whatsoever. The themes are serious, the people who praise the movie are serious, and the movie is a big joke. Add to that the fact that it's also a computer-generated monster which kills people by the dozen, tears a family apart... looks silly. The camera can't get enough of it as well. Which makes sense as it's not just shown to be huge and fast... it also backflips acrobatically like a dolphin. So, it's good to know that if this were really happening, while crowds of people were being picked off one by one you'd have the option to also sit on the grass, munch on some popcorn, and clap like you were at Sea World. Filmmakers, a little tip: if your movie is about the tragic waste of human life and the effect that has on society, maybe it's not so important that your savage monster can do cool tricks.

    :(
     
  16. startide

    startide Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Hamilton High
    Don't bother. Based on your shit list, I suspect Terror Train would make it too. It eluded me for years too, and when I did finally see it, I wondered why I bothered!

    I love H20. It's probably my favourite Halloween film. It reminds me every bit of the original, but that's why I love it so much - it's not Halloween 2, which I hated. It really should have ended there, but Miramax/Dimension had to have one more go, didn't they? :mad:
     

Share This Page