PDA

View Full Version : Halloween Sequel Blurays


rhett
07-03-2011, 05:29 PM
With the official announcing of a HALLOWEEN II: 30TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION Blu-ray by Universal I'm sure we're all clamouring for the rest of the series to hit Blu-ray to join the releases of the original and the three Dimension sequels. Which yet to be released Halloween sequel do you want to see on the format most?

Hellbilly
07-03-2011, 05:32 PM
Season of the Witch

satans-sadists
07-03-2011, 05:34 PM
Halloween III: Season of the Witch, no contest. Long live Conal Cochran and Silver Shamrock!

dayglo
07-03-2011, 05:38 PM
Halloween III: Season of the Witch, without a doubt!

SickNick89
07-03-2011, 06:04 PM
Season of the Witch and Halloween 5.

maybrick
07-03-2011, 06:10 PM
Definitely Halloween III because it's the epitome of the under appreciated sequel. Halloween II, while I'm definitely up for buying, was a pretty unnecessary follow-up. The first film is much stronger because it leaves you with the impression that The Shape has escaped and could be anywhere... even inside your house!!! I always loved that, but Halloween II blows the concept by continuing the story and killing Michael off properly. Until the next movie, that is.

Katatonia
07-03-2011, 06:20 PM
Definitely another vote for Halloween III: Season of the Witch

I've always loved it since first viewing it as a kid. We NEED Silver Shamrock in HD!

Terry44
07-03-2011, 06:48 PM
100% Season of the witch its so underrated.

rxfiend
07-03-2011, 07:27 PM
Halloween 3, its one of my all time favorite horror films. I just hope Universal gives it some kind of extra features like a Tom Aktins commentary! :D

mazon27091
07-03-2011, 07:28 PM
I voted Season of the Witch, but I'm really happy no 2 is getting an Anniversary release, I will be buying it for sure.

Zillamon51
07-03-2011, 08:47 PM
What, no Resurrection? I wants mah Busta Rhymes in HD! :lol:

Part 4 gets my vote, as it's my favorite Myers sequel. Of course, I want to eventually have them all on Blu (hopefully in better form than the Echo Bridge releases).

bigdaddyhorse
07-03-2011, 08:59 PM
What, no Resurrection? I wants mah Busta Rhymes in HD! :lol:

Part 4 gets my vote, as it's my favorite Myers sequel. Of course, I want to eventually have them all on Blu (hopefully in better form than the Echo Bridge releases).


Me too, except I'm the lone person on this board that finds Resurrection fun and can look past Busta to an enjoyable slasher flick. It also is probably l;eft off with 6 and 7 due to the Canadian BD that carries all 3 films.

I wanted 2 the most, now it's 4, but from a decent company. Hopefully Anchor Bay still owns it.

shape22
07-03-2011, 09:19 PM
As a diehard fan of this series I'll buy them all. But 4 is my favorite sequel.

II and III should look really spectacular. There aren't many combinations better than Dean Cundey and Blu-ray. And here's hoping they check with Cundey before they release any more of his Halloween films on Blu-ray. Another Halloween color timing screw-up could send me over the edge.

MarkWarner
07-04-2011, 02:51 AM
Halloween III. The cinematography is so much better than H2 (mainly because Tommy Lee Wallace actually TRUSTED Cundey to do a good job), and honestly, I like it quite a bit more than H2.

It's me, Billy
07-04-2011, 03:02 AM
Halloween II (1981). The hospital setting worked so well. This one creeped me the hell out as a small child. Dick Warlock did a wonderful job at playing Michael Myers and the mask looked really good. I can't wait to see it in 2.35:1 1080p.

othervoice1
07-04-2011, 04:37 AM
Halloween II by far for me

Fistfuck
07-04-2011, 05:31 AM
Halloween II, while I'm definitely up for buying, was a pretty unnecessary follow-up. The first film is much stronger because it leaves you with the impression that The Shape has escaped and could be anywhere... even inside your house!!! I always loved that, but Halloween II blows the concept by continuing the story and killing Michael off properly. Until the next movie, that is.

I find H2 works well because it picks up directly where the first left off and manages to carry over quite a bit of the first film's feel and atmosphere. When seen back to back, H2 does exactly what you said (he could be anywhere) by having him stalk the back alleys and into the old couple's home and then Alice's. It purports that Laurie's endless night is far from over, though it does lose steam and starts to feel like it's own movie once it hits the hospital.

That said, since II is already coming out, I'd like to see 4 released, if just for the opening sequence in HD.

buck135
07-04-2011, 07:06 AM
Since two is on it's way, Happy Happy Halloween, Silver Shramrock!

buck135
07-04-2011, 07:20 AM
It's funny that i picked up the Halloween 2 Ultimate DVD a few weeks a ago at a convention in NJ. I'm hopeing the added scenes get spliced in or shown separately in this next blu-ray.

Kim Bruun
07-04-2011, 07:43 AM
Halloween II - for me, it's the single scariest installment in the franchise. Basically, it's one extended chase scene, and one that takes place in a particularly effective setting.

I will probably pick up Season of the Witch too, but I've always had mixed feelings about it. Not because Michael Myers isn't in it, but because of the severe lapses in logic (worst in the series) and the fact that it can't quite sustain the excellent sense of dread established in the first ten minutes.

Vortex
07-04-2011, 10:18 AM
II is horrible, my least favorite of the series behind H20. It was bad enough that I steered clear of the same director's Resurrection. I liked 4 quite a bit when I was younger. I still like it now, just not to the same extent. Great ending. 5 is pretty poor, though it has a few inspired moments.

Anyway, my vote is for III. Not a hard decision at all.

maybrick
07-04-2011, 01:31 PM
I find H2 works well because it picks up directly where the first left off and manages to carry over quite a bit of the first film's feel and atmosphere. When seen back to back, H2 does exactly what you said (he could be anywhere) by having him stalk the back alleys and into the old couple's home and then Alice's.

With all due respect, it doesn't do exactly what I said. With Halloween II, you know where Michael Myers is, and it certainly isn't in your back yard. He's still in Haddonfield walking down back alleys and into an old couple's home, etc. That isn't half as scary as when you're a kid watching Halloween for the first time at night, getting to the end of the movie and knowing that Michael has escaped, and then trying to fall to sleep afterward. It's the uncertainty at the end of the first film that's makes it a true classic, but having a direct sequel pretty much ruins the ending, or at least lessens it's power to a large extent.

That said, I do enjoy Halloween II as it's the first film in the series I saw (at a double drive in feature back in '82 with American Werewolf) and will definitely pick it up for nostalgic reasons.

shape22
07-04-2011, 04:28 PM
With all due respect, it doesn't do exactly what I said. With Halloween II, you know where Michael Myers is, and it certainly isn't in your back yard. He's still in Haddonfield walking down back alleys and into an old couple's home, etc. That isn't half as scary as when you're a kid watching Halloween for the first time at night, getting to the end of the movie and knowing that Michael has escaped, and then trying to fall to sleep afterward. It's the uncertainty at the end of the first film that's makes it a true classic, but having a direct sequel pretty much ruins the ending, or at least lessens it's power to a large extent.

That said, I do enjoy Halloween II as it's the first film in the series I saw (at a double drive in feature back in '82 with American Werewolf) and will definitely pick it up for nostalgic reasons.

I agree. Halloween II is one of my favorite bad movies. But it IS bad. Jamie Lee's participation amounts to an extended cameo. And the well written and sympathetic secondary characters from the original are replaced by the kind of idiotic cardboard cutouts you usually find hanging around Camp Crystal Lake. You don't feel any dread when Michael is stalking someone because their deaths will improve the gene pool.

Ironically enough, the guy who created the original masterpiece deserves most of the blame for the sequel--starting with the script. Carpenter wrote WAY too many scenes for Myers. The lurking Shape of the original, who was scariest when he was unaccounted for, is now front and center for the bulk of the run-time. Hell, I'd bet he has significantly more camera time than Jamie Lee. And instead of killing others mostly to further terrorize his intended target, here he kills everyone he can--and in assorted creative ways. And I'm not sure pure evil would be concerned about constantly switching murder weapons and techniques for the benefit of increasingly jaded slasher audiences.

And now for my major objection. The sister idea is desperate and stupid--as Carpenter has admitted many times. That misguided attempt to give Myers unnecessary motivation essentially pigeon-holed the entire rest of the series and took away some of the scare factor that Maybrick mentioned. Michael wasn't out there randomly re-creating the 1963 murder of his sister anymore. He was now systematically slaughtering his family members. So if you weren't a Myers (or nearby cannon fodder) you were safe.

Without the sister idea, Michael's future outings could have gone in many different directions (as in the comics). And he could have continued as a true bogeyman--one capable of showing up in YOUR hometown some Halloween. The Michael of the original is a much more compelling character than the Michael of the sequels because his focus wasn't so narrow.

Of course, H2 isn't all bad. Cundey brilliantly recaptures the look of the original, which tremendously aids continuity. Cundey really makes the empty hospital an ominous and threatening stage. I'm also a fan of Howarth's electronic rendition of Carpenter's score. It lends a really gothic feel to the film. And although Warlock's robotic Shape has little to nothing in common with Castle's more graceful one, he does LOOK fantastic--and mean. It's a shame that the later Myers sequels got so far away from the original look of The Shape. Michael never looked this scary again.

Rosenthal historically has shouldered most of the blame for H2. But Carpenter wrote the script and altered the finished film with gratuitous re-shoots. I'd be very curious to see Rosenthal's original cut. It supposedly captures the mood of the original much better than the released version.

As I said, I love the film and I watch it frequently. But I'll always view H2 as the ultimate missed opportunity. The rest of the series would have been so much better if Laurie died and Michael lived--thus clearing the path for new adventures. It's still an easy pre-order for me.

Chunkblower
07-04-2011, 04:36 PM
There’s a subtle change in the craft of part II that makes a huge difference to me. The original film was framed in an objective, third person POV whereas the second largely uses Michael’s POV. This owes more to Friday the 13th and the other Halloween clones of the era than the original film and is why II has never really felt to me like the direct continuation that it was intended to be.

The first film derived a lot of tension from having Michael pop up in the edges of the frame. We never knew where he was. In part II we are seeing things through his eyes so both on a conscious and unconscious level the film shifts protagonists. It ceases being Laurie’s story and becomes Michael’s and loses so much by sidelining Laurie. It makes sense, from a narrative perspective, to have her doped up and unconscious for most of the movie but from an emotional one it leaves the film hollow in the centre. We spent so much time in the first getting know Laurie, empathizing with and cheering for her, that to push her to the back burner is a mistake that the film never fully recovers from. Of the new characters Jimmy comes closest to filling the void, but we simply don’t know and haven’t been through as much with him, so he makes a poor substitute.

There’s another shift, one of tone, that I always found jarring as well. While Michael, owing to the traditions of the holiday, was a prankster in part one (toying with Laurie, Linda and Annie), in two he’s just a vicious slasher. The kills are a lot more brutal and over the top. Well executed, so to speak, but entirely different in flavor than the first movie.

Still, as far as sequels go, Halloween II is solid. Cundey’s cinematography is fantastic and II has a slick, professional sheen that Halloween lacked. Also, other than Laurie‘s terrible wig, the film hasn’t aged nearly as much as the first. Although it casts in with other, lesser films inspired by its predecessor, it still does them all one better.

maybrick
07-04-2011, 05:02 PM
Very well thought out responses, guys. Thanks very much. :) I with agree with everything you two say. I guess I should point out one other small thing about Halloween II that annoys me: the turning back of the clock. At the finale of Halloween, it's obvious that it's supposed to be late at night because there's nobody awake in the neighborhood, all of the trick or treaters have gone home, and there isn't a single passing car to be seen. But at the beginning of the next film we're supposed to believe that just a street or two away the town is still bustling with activity? I don't, and can't, buy it.

JGrendel
07-04-2011, 06:57 PM
Being a fan of the series I want them all on Blu but I did vote for 2.

Slackjaw83
07-07-2011, 11:58 PM
I haven't posted on here for a long time, as I've been pretty busy with a few things in my real-world-type-life. Anywho, I decided that I HAD to vote in this poll and vote for Part III : Season of The Witch. Why was it imperative that this be the first thread I post on in awhile? Because one of the things I did in my few months off was take over the tattoo shop I've worked in since '04, give it a face-lift, and change the name. Why does that relate, you ask? Because I own and run The Silver Shamrock Tattoo Co. ( http://www.facebook.com/silvershamrocktattooco ). It should also be noted that, since March, no clients or people off of the street have "got" the reference, lol.

Mutilated Prey
07-08-2011, 12:05 AM
Part 2 all the way. What's all this bonerism for part 3 :confused:

I'll take part 4 and 5 before 3 too. 3 is OK and all, but it's not THAT great - easy. :lol:

wago70
07-08-2011, 12:05 AM
I LOVE Part II, but I voted for H3: Season of the Witch because it has such a rich, seasonal feel. It's also the most Carpenter-feeling film even though he didn't direct it. I loves.

Vortex
07-08-2011, 12:40 AM
I'll take part 4 and 5 before 3 too. 3 is OK and all, but it's not THAT great - easy. :lol:

Says the guy voting for Part 2. :lol:

Mutilated Prey
07-08-2011, 01:50 AM
Says the guy voting for Part 2. :lol:

That's right, to each their own. Part 2 is really fun. I love the TV version too. I really dig how it just picks right up where 1 left off. I only wish they let Michael run amuck late night in the town a little longer before making his way to the hospital.

I was so friggin' excited when Part 4 came out. I was bouncing like a new born elf. Maybe Part 5 is a stretch, but I was really intrigued by the thorn tattoo and dood in the hat thingy going on there. I liked Part 3 ok, but I just think I would have enjoyed it more if it were called Silver Shamrock - that's it :)

fattyjoe37
07-08-2011, 02:15 AM
Put me in the camp of "I don't get the love for Part 3". To me that would be a bad film even if it wasn't called Halloween 3. I voted for 4, my favorite of the sequels just in front of 2.

crikan
07-08-2011, 01:45 PM
Put me in the camp of "I don't get the love for Part 3". To me that would be a bad film even if it wasn't called Halloween 3. I voted for 4, my favorite of the sequels just in front of 2.

Agreed. Part 3 is horrible for many reasons.

Mutilated Prey
07-08-2011, 02:30 PM
Put me in the camp of "I don't get the love for Part 3".

I believe the term was "bonerism" :)

SickNick89
07-08-2011, 04:34 PM
I totally respect peoples right to their own opinion on this as long as it's not "Michael Myers isn't in that one".

Mikey Horror
07-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Since II has been announced, I'm going with IV, next to the first two, that would have to be my next favorite.

JimSmith
07-08-2011, 10:00 PM
I totally respect peoples right to their own opinion on this as long as it's not "Michael Myers isn't in that one".
But that's exactly why they hate the third movie. It's different. Plain and simple!

crikan
07-08-2011, 10:24 PM
But that's exactly why they hate the third movie. It's different. Plain and simple!

I could care less about it having Micheal Myers in it or not. IMO if the film hadn't sucked so bad they may have suceeded with having a yearly Halloween film with unralted stories. Even the great Tom Atkins doesn't save Season of the Witch from being an incredibly stupid film.

buck135
07-08-2011, 11:27 PM
I'll take part 3 over parts 4-8 any day. I'll take part 3 in black and white running backwards before either of the two (or three) remakes.

It's me, Billy
07-09-2011, 06:59 AM
Put me in the camp of "I don't get the love for Part 3". To me that would be a bad film even if it wasn't called Halloween 3.

Yeah, I've never particularly liked it either. I was born in 1979 and I remember back in the very late 1980s, a station (WSBK) aired a double feature of Halloween II and Halloween III: Season of the Witch during their "Movie Loft" segment. I was no more than 10 at the time and didn't know anywhere near what I know about horror movies now, but I did know a little about Michael Myers and even more about Freddy and Jason. So I watched the double feature and was absolutely glued to the screen during Halloween II. I loved it. It kept me in suspense and it never dulled. Imagine my disappointment when Halloween III comes on and it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous two films. I didn't even finish watching it.

I know what Carpenter and Co. originally wanted to do with Halloween and, for the most part, I think it could have been a good idea. The problem was that the Michael Myers storyline was too good for Carpenter's plan to have a different themed Halloween film every year or so. After two highly successful Halloween films dealing with Michael Myers, Michael Myers became synonymous with Halloween, at least in the movies.

I'm suprised so many people like Halloween III. I remember one guy (not on this forum) saying that Halloween III was his favorite in the entire series, including the 1978 original! I'm in the group that says Halloween III is a bad movie regardless of it's title. I vaguely remember a scene where Tom Atkins ends up fighting a woman (who he thinks is his friend) who is really a robot or something like that. All I remember is how poor (cheap) the effects were in that scene. The movie just did nothing for me. If I want something different, I'll watch a good horror film like The Thing (1982), Terror Train, Black Christmas, My Bloody Valentine, etc. I simply think Halloween III should never have been called Halloween III. It should have been called just "Season of the Witch" or "Halloween: Season of the Witch" (without the "III") or something else like Silver Shamrock, etc.

The Tall Man
07-09-2011, 08:01 AM
Love em both. But Season of the Witch gets my vote. They had the balls to go in a different direction with it and it paid off. Great movie. Plus with Tom Atkins what else can ya say ?

Vance Vandy
07-09-2011, 12:14 PM
Part III for me. Excellent film and my seasonal October favorite. I also think 5 is somewhat underrated. As for II, I've personally never gotten the love for that one. The only time I've been more bored by a slasher was during the original Prom Night's endless disco dancing. At least the boredom there didn't last the duration of the movie though.

ronnie21
07-09-2011, 01:20 PM
Yeah, 3 i saw for the first time in June of 83 when it first hit home video, i was 10 My uncle rented it. I already seen the first two and was a big horror fan and couldn't wait to see 3. knowing it didn't have Michael in it and it was anew direction even back then. I went into with open arms. I watched it twice that weekend as kids did back in those days, even if the movie was bad. I thought it was really violent and graphic for its time. The bugs scene was hard to watch.. I thought it was a creepy movie and met tommy lee wallace a few years back and he told me that bug scene was such a mess to clean up and conduct. He says they shot halloween 3 in the spring of 82.. I remember seeing the t.v. spots in october of 82 and wanted to see it in the movies but was too young..

maybrick
07-09-2011, 01:45 PM
Yeah, 3 i saw for the first time in June of 83 when it first hit home video, i was 10 My uncle rented it. I already seen the first two and was a big horror fan and couldn't wait to see 3. knowing it didn't have Michael in it and it was anew direction even back then. I went into with open arms. I watched it twice that weekend as kids did back in those days, even if the movie was bad. I thought it was really violent and graphic for its time. The bugs scene was hard to watch.. I thought it was a creepy movie and met tommy lee wallace a few years back and he told me that bug scene was such a mess to clean up and conduct. He says they shot halloween 3 in the spring of 82.. I remember seeing the t.v. spots in october of 82 and wanted to see it in the movies but was too young..

I was definitely too young (8), but I got to see it at the theater anyways. I saw a lot of horror movies as a young kid, and as I loved them I had young parents that were all too willing to take me. (Actually, in this case it was my grandfather. He paid for my ticket and then went next door to see First Blood.) I can't recall if I knew beforehand that Myers wasn't in it (I'm pretty sure I didn't. I only knew it from ads in the paper) but I thought it was good anyways, albeit kind of weird. I wound up going twice, once with myself and once with a friend from school. I'll always know the exact day I first went to see Halloween III, because it was the date that pops up at the beginning of the film. I remember saying out loud, "Wow! That's today!!" :)

JimSmith
07-09-2011, 08:41 PM
Yeah, I've never particularly liked it either. I was born in 1979 and I remember back in the very late 1980s, a station (WSBK) aired a double feature of Halloween II and Halloween III: Season of the Witch during their "Movie Loft" segment. I was no more than 10 at the time and didn't know anywhere near what I know about horror movies now, but I did know a little about Michael Myers and even more about Freddy and Jason. So I watched the double feature and was absolutely glued to the screen during Halloween II. I loved it. It kept me in suspense and it never dulled. Imagine my disappointment when Halloween III comes on and it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous two films. I didn't even finish watching it.

I know what Carpenter and Co. originally wanted to do with Halloween and, for the most part, I think it could have been a good idea. The problem was that the Michael Myers storyline was too good for Carpenter's plan to have a different themed Halloween film every year or so. After two highly successful Halloween films dealing with Michael Myers, Michael Myers became synonymous with Halloween, at least in the movies.

I'm suprised so many people like Halloween III. I remember one guy (not on this forum) saying that Halloween III was his favorite in the entire series, including the 1978 original! I'm in the group that says Halloween III is a bad movie regardless of it's title. I vaguely remember a scene where Tom Atkins ends up fighting a woman (who he thinks is his friend) who is really a robot or something like that. All I remember is how poor (cheap) the effects were in that scene. The movie just did nothing for me. If I want something different, I'll watch a good horror film like The Thing (1982), Terror Train, Black Christmas, My Bloody Valentine, etc. I simply think Halloween III should never have been called Halloween III. It should have been called just "Season of the Witch" or "Halloween: Season of the Witch" (without the "III") or something else like Silver Shamrock, etc.
The michael myers storyline?! What storyline?! The first halloween movie didn't have a story, hell it didn't even have good cinematography, direction or anything else. It is by far the most overrated horror movie of all time!

shape22
07-09-2011, 09:08 PM
The michael myers storyline?! What storyline?! The first halloween movie didn't have a story, hell it didn't even have good cinematography, direction or anything else. It is by far the most overrated horror movie of all time!

What exactly would you consider "good?" Cinematographer Dean Cundey is widely considered to be one of the greatest ever to stand behind a camera. And his work on Halloween is generally considered to be iconic. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005678/bio

You're entitled to your own opinion. But whether or not it's defensible is another matter.

ronnie21
07-09-2011, 09:35 PM
I was definitely too young (8), but I got to see it at the theater anyways. I saw a lot of horror movies as a young kid, and as I loved them I had young parents that were all too willing to take me. (Actually, in this case it was my grandfather. He paid for my ticket and then went next door to see First Blood.) I can't recall if I knew beforehand that Myers wasn't in it (I'm pretty sure I didn't. I only knew it from ads in the paper) but I thought it was good anyways, albeit kind of weird. I wound up going twice, once with myself and once with a friend from school. I'll always know the exact day I first went to see Halloween III, because it was the date that pops up at the beginning of the film. I remember saying out loud, "Wow! That's today!!" :)

cool thumnail. I love old movie ads...

ronnie21
07-09-2011, 09:36 PM
actually people are wrong about H3. Michael is in it, for a second. The Halloween t.v. commercial. ha ha ha

killit
07-09-2011, 11:38 PM
What exactly would you consider "good?" Cinematographer Dean Cundey is widely considered to be one of the greatest ever to stand behind a camera. And his work on Halloween is generally considered to be iconic. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005678/bio

You're entitled to your own opinion. But whether or not it's defensible is another matter.

Yeah, damn Jim, this is straight up crazy talk. Especially the cinematography and direction.

JimSmith
07-09-2011, 11:38 PM
What exactly would you consider "good?" Cinematographer Dean Cundey is widely considered to be one of the greatest ever to stand behind a camera. And his work on Halloween is generally considered to be iconic. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005678/bio

You're entitled to your own opinion. But whether or not it's defensible is another matter.
I don't care what Dean Cundey did after halloween. I just don't think that halloween is a masterpiece of any kind. If halloween is so damn good then why did John Carpenter say that without the music halloween would not be scary? I'm just a horror fan that likes different kinds of horror movies like Wes Craven's New Nightmare which is a real masterpiece, Halloween 3 etc.!

JimSmith
07-09-2011, 11:41 PM
Yeah, damn Jim, this is straight up crazy talk. Especially the cinematography and direction.
Even John Carpenter admits that people comparing him to Hitchcock is just wrong!

maybrick
07-10-2011, 12:21 AM
If halloween is so damn good then why did John Carpenter say that without the music halloween would not be scary?

Uh, no offense intended, but saying a statement like that kind of shows how little you truly know about what makes a movie work and what doesn't. Regardless of what genre we talk about, music is very important in establishing mood. Even silent films of a hundred years ago still had organ or full orchestral scores that played along with them.

Since you brought up Hitchcock, how effective would his films like Psycho, Vertigo, and North By Northwest be if he didn't have Bernard Herrmann?

shape22
07-10-2011, 12:27 AM
I don't care what Dean Cundey did after halloween. I just don't think that halloween is a masterpiece of any kind. If halloween is so damn good then why did John Carpenter say that without the music halloween would not be scary? I'm just a horror fan that likes different kinds of horror movies like Wes Craven's New Nightmare which is a real masterpiece, Halloween 3 etc.!

New Nightmare is definitely underrated. But calling it "a real masterpiece" probably qualifies as hyperbole. And as much as I enjoy H3, arguing that it's superior to Halloween during a psychiatric interview might get you committed to an asylum.

And as Maybrick said, what horror film doesn't rely on the score to establish mood?

maybrick
07-10-2011, 12:40 AM
Dean Cundey also did Halloween 3, so saying that the first film had terrible cinematography but the third one didn't even though they were done by the same fella with the same exacting standards seems a bit wonky to me. :lol:

shape22
07-10-2011, 12:41 AM
Dean Cundey also did Halloween 3, so saying that the first film had terrible cinematography but the third one didn't even though they were done by the same fella seems a bit wonky to me. :lol:

And his work on the original was SLIGHTLY more imitated than his work on H3.

JimSmith
07-10-2011, 02:06 AM
Uh, no offense intended, but saying a statement like that kind of shows how little you truly know about what makes a movie work and what doesn't. Regardless of what genre we talk about, music is very important in establishing mood. Even silent films of a hundred years ago still had organ or full orchestral scores that played along with them.

Since you brought up Hitchcock, how effective would his films like Psycho, Vertigo, and North By Northwest be if he didn't have Bernard Herrmann?
Well as far as Psycho goes, which I'm pretty sure that we can all agree was definitely a masterpiece in every sense of the word, I never really heard of Bernard Herrmann before a few years ago. I never knew who did the score for Psycho but as long as I've been a horror movie fan I've always known of Alfred Hitchcock.

JimSmith
07-10-2011, 02:09 AM
New Nightmare is definitely underrated. But calling it "a real masterpiece" probably qualifies as hyperbole. And as much as I enjoy H3, arguing that it's superior to Halloween during a psychiatric interview might get you committed to an asylum.

And as Maybrick said, what horror film doesn't rely on the score to establish mood?
Uh....yeah....I'm the one who's a nut?! Quit dressing up like michael myers and get a life!

Mutilated Prey
07-10-2011, 02:14 AM
Makin' friends fast around here Jimmy. :lol:

JimSmith
07-10-2011, 02:18 AM
Dean Cundey also did Halloween 3, so saying that the first film had terrible cinematography but the third one didn't even though they were done by the same fella with the same exacting standards seems a bit wonky to me. :lol:
I never said the first film had terrible cinematography! I said that it wasn't any good. I guess what I meant to say was I don't know why people are so religiously drawn to the first halloween movie. They're like a crazy religious cult. Like I said before halloween fans think that their little movie inspired every horror film that came after AND before it! You nutbars are just way too fanatical!

JimSmith
07-10-2011, 02:19 AM
Makin' friends fast around here Jimmy. :lol:
I sure am slappy! :-) There's definitely some things that you can't say on this forum that's for damn sure!

buck135
07-10-2011, 03:04 AM
And as Maybrick said, what horror film doesn't rely on the score to establish mood?

Sex in the City 2. :lol:

maybrick
07-10-2011, 03:19 AM
I never said the first film had terrible cinematography! I said that it wasn't any good. I guess what I meant to say was I don't know why people are so religiously drawn to the first halloween movie. They're like a crazy religious cult. Like I said before halloween fans think that their little movie inspired every horror film that came after AND before it! You nutbars are just way too fanatical!


I sure am slappy! :-) There's definitely some things that you can't say on this forum that's for damn sure!

You wouldn't happen to be a hard core Republican, would you? :eek2:

buck135
07-10-2011, 03:31 AM
Uh....yeah....I'm the one who's a nut?! Quit dressing up like michael myers and get a life!

That's uncalled for. Shape22 has been a terrific contributor to these boards for years. He is a big fan of the Halloween films, hence the photo.

shape22
07-10-2011, 05:25 AM
Uh....yeah....I'm the one who's a nut?! Quit dressing up like michael myers and get a life!

Ha. I take it this means you don't want to further pursue rational discussion about this topic?

No one here is out to persecute you Jim. But you can't expect us to find validity in vague, unsupported criticisms about a landmark film. For instance, you say the camera work and directing in Halloween is nothing great. I would argue that the opening Panaglide sequence alone is a fairly remarkable technical achievement. The bulk of it was achieved with just 2 shots--which required tremendous dexterity from the Panaglide operator, a lot of carefully choreographed scrambling by the lighting crew just out of frame, and some nifty editing that makes the splice virtually undetectable. And that sequence is just one example of the wizardry on display in Halloween.

No one is trying to censor you. And it's not off-limits to dislike Halloween or voice your criticisms. But you can't just say, "huh huh, it sucks" like Beavis without some questions or push back.

And yeah, some Halloween fans occasionally dress up as Myers ON HALLOWEEN--or even use a picture from such an occasion as an avatar here. I appreciate your concern. But so far it hasn't prevented me from paying taxes, sustaining a marriage, or approximating a productive member of society.

Buck, thanks for the kind words.

dave13
07-10-2011, 03:20 PM
I sure am slappy! :-) There's definitely some things that you can't say on this forum that's for damn sure!

no man, that's not true. honestly, you can pretty much say anything you want around here. you may get people disagreeing with you, even vocally at times, but that doesn't mean you can't say it. take a look at this thread:

http://www.horrordigital.com/vb3forum/showthread.php?t=35316&highlight=unpopular+opinions

Fistfuck
07-10-2011, 03:44 PM
At first JimSmith reminded me of a young DeathDealer (luv u, d00d) but then I started to get glimpses of MoonGirl84. This should be interesting...

ronnie21
07-10-2011, 05:45 PM
can't we get along.

JimSmith
07-10-2011, 11:34 PM
Ha. I take it this means you don't want to further pursue rational discussion about this topic?

No one here is out to persecute you Jim. But you can't expect us to find validity in vague, unsupported criticisms about a landmark film. For instance, you say the camera work and directing in Halloween is nothing great. I would argue that the opening Panaglide sequence alone is a fairly remarkable technical achievement. The bulk of it was achieved with just 2 shots--which required tremendous dexterity from the Panaglide operator, a lot of carefully choreographed scrambling by the lighting crew just out of frame, and some nifty editing that makes the splice virtually undetectable. And that sequence is just one example of the wizardry on display in Halloween.

No one is trying to censor you. And it's not off-limits to dislike Halloween or voice your criticisms. But you can't just say, "huh huh, it sucks" like Beavis without some questions or push back.

And yeah, some Halloween fans occasionally dress up as Myers ON HALLOWEEN--or even use a picture from such an occasion as an avatar here. I appreciate your concern. But so far it hasn't prevented me from paying taxes, sustaining a marriage, or approximating a productive member of society.

Buck, thanks for the kind words.
I never said halloween sucks I just don't see why people obsess over this movie so much. When this movie first came out no one was going to see it and it was getting bad reviews. If it's such a masterpiece then why wasn't it getting good reviews? Why weren't people going to see it? I'll take The Fog anyday over halloween. Now THAT film has some great and masterful shots in it! :-) It also has a great story and excellent atmosphere! :-) And it also doesn't have to rely on it's musical score either.

fattyjoe37
07-10-2011, 11:41 PM
I never said halloween sucks I just don't see why people obsess over this movie so much. When this movie first came out no one was going to see it and it was getting bad reviews. If it's such a masterpiece then why wasn't it getting good reviews? Why weren't people going to see it? I'll take The Fog anyday over halloween. Now THAT film has some great and masterful shots in it! :-) It also has a great story and excellent atmosphere! :-) And it also doesn't have to rely on it's musical score either.

You do realize that when it came out Halloween was the highest grossing independent film of all time (so people were going to see it) and it got a lot of great reviews (Ebert's 4 star review comparing it to Psycho comes to mind). It's ok if you don't like the movie, but don't throw out false facts.

buck135
07-10-2011, 11:49 PM
If it's such a masterpiece then why wasn't it getting good reviews?

Please don't qualify the quality of a film over it's reviews. Halloween started the slasher film. As far as The Fog not relying on it's score, watch it again. The score is just as instrumental.

spawningblue
07-11-2011, 08:28 PM
And yeah, some Halloween fans occasionally dress up as Myers ON HALLOWEEN--or even use a picture from such an occasion as an avatar here.

Wow, that's awesome. I never knew that photo was of you. All this time I thought it was a shot from the movie haha. Great job with the lighting!

I'm not going to comment on the origianl Halloween blasphemy talk and instead will comment on the titled thread discussion.

I picked part 3, even though I really do enjoy part 2.

No, I don't think part 3 is better then the original classic but as crazy as it is, it is one of my favourite horror films of all time, probably even in my top ten.

When I was younger I never gave it a chance and probably like most on here turned it off halfway though when I came to the realization that Michael Myers wasn't going to show up. I just didn't get it, or understand how they could be so ballsy to remove their main character from the third film after the first two were such a success. Now of course I totally appreciate this and wish they had went stuck through with their plans with a different story every Halloween. Totally!

Over the years though I gave it another chance, and after a few watches I have grown to love the film. Actually it has become an October staple in ym house and with every viewing it gets better and better.

The film just oozes with atmosphere due to the great cinematography and excellent electronic score, and personally I think this picture does a better job then the other Halloween sequels displaying the Halloween season. There are few films that just make it feel more like Halloween for that matter (Although Trick r Treat is a great recent example), especially when that catchy Silver Shamrock jingle hits on screen with the three dancing masks.

It also made me appreciate and idolize the man, the myth, the Atkins. He's such a badass and I can't help but laugh when he manages to bed the young woman, which he also manages to do with Jamie Lee Curtis in The Fog. His long white 'stach must have been hypnotizing in those days.

Yes, the effects aren't the best, but personally I think they work well with the film and actually add to its charm. The whole movie and it's story feels like an 80s rendition of a long lost Twilight Zone episode or some other 60 anthology series. It doesn't need lots of kills and gore, although a few of the deaths are kind of gross thanks to the copious amounts of insects draining out of the masks. They are done in a fun way though, where you turn your head away and laugh. They aren't offensive or sickening like deaths try to be in films now.

All of this is of course held together by Director Tommy Lee Wallace. He should not be overlooked as it's his Direction that makes this all work. This easily could have been a very bad film, but somehow a flick about robots, killer masks, and Stonehenge works, and very well I might add! Actually I used to think Carpenter Directed this because some shots have his style, that and of course he helped with the music. He delivers a tension and mood that is lacking in a lot of films that instead rely on gore and shock scares.

Anyways, I love this film and am not embarrassed to admit it, although I probably don't even need to write that as this is a film that over the years many have come to appreciate. It's no longer a film that you have to be ashamed to admit to liking. I can understand why others don't enjoy it though. If you are expecting and waiting for Myers to show up like I did many years ago, it's easy to come away disappointed if not angry. Or if you are expecting something really serious and scary, or a slasher film like the previous films of the series instead of the slow burning atmospheric ride with lots of fun and charm that it is.

rxfiend
07-11-2011, 08:59 PM
Great post Spawningblue, your feelings match mine when concerning H3, though unlike a lot of people, the lack of Myers never bothered me the first time I saw it back in the late 80s.

To me, H3 is one of those movies that everyone should watch around Halloween (the holiday) each year.

shape22
07-11-2011, 10:28 PM
No, I don't think part 3 is better then the original classic but as crazy as it is, it is one of my favourite horror films of all time, probably even in my top ten.

Nice post Spawningblue. You summed up the strengths of H3 very nicely. Even though I'm obviously a Myers fanatic I'm a big fan of Season of the Witch.

I love a "good bad movie." And for me, H3 is the perfect example. It has glaring flaws that are easy to mock and criticize. But they just add to its charm.

Unfortunately only diehard genre fans seem able to get past the plot holes, lousy supporting turns, or outrageous dialogue in H3. But I'll gladly take all of that for all the fun this film offers. Who doesn't laugh at Atkins pawing the 60-something nurse at the hospital? Or Starker the drunken bum ill-advisedly screaming "Hey Cochran, F YOU!" Or Cochran's hilarious cop-out answer about how he arranged to transport a certain iconic seemingly immovable object? And if anyone can find a better line delivery of "who cares?" than what Atkins delivers here they deserve a prize.

Yeah, there are lots of more competent horror films that are "better" on an objective scale. But lots of them tread such familiar territory that they're boring as hell. That's never an issue with H3. Parts are silly and maybe even ludicrous. But there's always something funny or interesting going on. And I'll take a flawed fun movie over a competent dull one every time.

Sure there are a lot of warts here. But a lot of the elements that seemed to put off mainstream reviewers are obviously more tongue-in-cheek than outright inept. Doesn't it seem like most of the actors are practically winking at the camera? And the film isn't bad across the board. It really does drip with Halloween atmosphere. And the score and Dean Cundey's graceful mastery behind the camera make it look and sound a lot better than other low-budget films from this era.

Speaking of Cundey, I've always thought that he made H3 look more like a Carpenter film than JC's own work with other DPs. I think it's clear that Cundey deserves at least as much credit as Carpenter for what what we now think of as "the early Carpenter look."

Spawningblue, it's funny that you bring up that picture. When we were shopping for houses and we came to the one we ended up buying, my wife was looking at all the typical things. But all I could think was "holy shit. Look at that closet!" I knew that was going to come in handy around Halloween.

prez387w
07-12-2011, 01:08 AM
I can't believe PART 2 is coming out on Blu!! I will be FIRST in line to pick it up. How can Halloween fans bash it? I'm a little shocked really. I loved it as a kid. JLC is in it, a great pair of naked boobs (greatest boobs I had ever seen at the time), Myers back and cutting up people (gorier than the first although I love the first movie and it is my fav), the great razor blade in mouth scene (always had heard those rumors as a kid and nice to see it on screen finally), great score, Donald Pleasance (funnier than ever) and that hospital setting (I thought it owrked really well).

I actually do like Part 3 as well but it doesn't even come close to Part 2 and can't really be called a Halloween sequel (no Myers). The acting is awful (but lots of fun) and the story a little far fetched but it's still a movie that I want to own on Blu-Ray (love that creepy music!!). Release them all as far as I'm concerned!
Long live the Halloween franchise and all others too :)

othervoice1
07-12-2011, 02:05 AM
I agree - I love Halloween 2 - Halloween 3 to me is not a "Halloween" (as in the franchise not the holiday) movie but is good on its own. I look forward to having both on blu. Just personally I do enjoy Halloween 2 more than Halloween 3

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 03:45 AM
You do realize that when it came out Halloween was the highest grossing independent film of all time (so people were going to see it) and it got a lot of great reviews (Ebert's 4 star review comparing it to Psycho comes to mind). It's ok if you don't like the movie, but don't throw out false facts.
Those aren't "false facts" they're right straight from John Carpenter's mouth. He says in a featurette for The Fog DVD that no one was going to see halloween at first and it was getting lousy reviews and then it kind of caught on. Just look at the wikipedia page for the movie!

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 03:50 AM
How does hating the first halloween movie make me a hardcore republican maybrick?!

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 03:56 AM
Please don't qualify the quality of a film over it's reviews.
When a movie is hailed as a masterpiece I will!

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 04:15 AM
Ha. I take it this means you don't want to further pursue rational discussion about this topic?

No one here is out to persecute you Jim. But you can't expect us to find validity in vague, unsupported criticisms about a landmark film. For instance, you say the camera work and directing in Halloween is nothing great. I would argue that the opening Panaglide sequence alone is a fairly remarkable technical achievement. The bulk of it was achieved with just 2 shots--which required tremendous dexterity from the Panaglide operator, a lot of carefully choreographed scrambling by the lighting crew just out of frame, and some nifty editing that makes the splice virtually undetectable. And that sequence is just one example of the wizardry on display in Halloween.

No one is trying to censor you. And it's not off-limits to dislike Halloween or voice your criticisms. But you can't just say, "huh huh, it sucks" like Beavis without some questions or push back.

And yeah, some Halloween fans occasionally dress up as Myers ON HALLOWEEN--or even use a picture from such an occasion as an avatar here. I appreciate your concern. But so far it hasn't prevented me from paying taxes, sustaining a marriage, or approximating a productive member of society.

Buck, thanks for the kind words.
There was infinitely better camera work done on The Evil Dead! Come on now! Admit it!

shape22
07-12-2011, 05:02 AM
Those aren't "false facts" they're right straight from John Carpenter's mouth. He says in a featurette for The Fog DVD that no one was going to see halloween at first and it was getting lousy reviews and then it kind of caught on. Just look at the wikipedia page for the movie!

What Carpenter said isn't untrue. But it's extremely misleading. You may not be aware of this. But at the time of Halloween's release it wasn't standard practice to launch low-budget films nationwide. A film like Halloween would open in a few select towns. If it did well enough, it would then open in a few more. And although the release would be announced by a small ad in the movies section of the local paper, that was the extent of advertising for a low-profile film like Halloween. All of this pretty easily explains why the film didn't come out of the gate like a rocket.

Today the same film would open with a national advertising blitz that would guarantee an audience. But in the case of Halloween, word of mouth had to do the heavy lifting. That's why glowing reviews from The Village Voice and other high-profile newspapers were so important to the film's ultimate success. These days reviews are largely irrelevant to box office results--as a list of the current top-grossing films will confirm. But in the 1970s bad word of mouth would kill a small film like Halloween. Reviews in the local paper were all people had to go on.

As far as the camera work in The Evil Dead (another of my favorite films), no, I don't think it's on par with Cundey's work in Halloween. Yes, it's flashier. And it's totally appropriate to the film that Raimi was trying to make. But despite a lot of extremely inventive shots, the overall cinematography is a lot more amateurish than anything Cundey has done. It's no accident that Cundey went on to work on some of the most high-profile films of his era. You might want to compare Tim Philo's resume to Cundey's. But the important thing here is that both films have appropriate visual styles. Just as the hyper-kinetic camera work in The Evil Dead defines the threat in the woods, Cundey's gliding perspective shots mirror the graceful movements of Nick Castle's shape.

First-person perspective shots were used in horror films before, most memorably in Black Christmas. But the use of the Panaglide camera suggested a more omnipotent killer--more a force of nature than a man. And the midnight blue lighting scheme that Cundey employed quickly became a slasher film cliche. So while Cundey's work is more subtle, it's not any less impressive. Hollywood certainly noticed.

It's obvious no one is going to change your mind about this topic. And I've definitely said more than enough at this point. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Shlockjock81
07-12-2011, 06:05 AM
I voted for Halloween III. I love the second one and I'm overjoyed that they're both getting releases, but Halloween III has piqued my interest for years. I actually like the fact that it had it's own story and atmosphere. There's some great cinematography in there and it will be great to see in 1080p, not to mention hearing John Carpenter and Alan Howarth's amazingly rhythmic and creepy score in 5.1 *fingers crossed*.

Halloween II is a great slasher film from the golden era but I've always taken the first in the series as a stand alone film. I prefer the idea of Michael Myers being a real human being with absolutely no conscience as opposed to him being an indestructible, supernatural monster. This is why I really don't care for the Halloween series after the 3rd one. It became as far fetched as Jason (another series I don't care for after the 3rd). They were already stretching it near the end of Halloween II, by shooting him ANOTHER 5 or 6 times, then shooting his eyes out, revealing glowing sockets...

Psychopaths and escaped mental patients scare the crap out of me. Probably why "Nightmare" is one of my favorite horror flicks. There's something so unpredictable and savage about them.

Seeing Michael Myers pick up the phone after killing Lynda and listening to Laurie on the other end still creeps me the eff out to this day and I've seen the original more times than I'd like to admit.

maybrick
07-12-2011, 12:43 PM
How does hating the first halloween movie make me a hardcore republican maybrick?!

It doesn't, but your attitude is eerily reminiscent of opinions I see when I read more politically motivated message boards. A lot (not all) but a lot of conservatives, particularly the extemely vocal hard right ones, make a habit of making unpopular statements with little to no facts to back them up, but then claim that they're being victimized by the other side when their opinions are called into question. That's pretty much what I also see here. Btw, you haven't answered my question.

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 05:56 PM
It doesn't, but your attitude is eerily reminiscent of opinions I see when I read more politically motivated message boards. A lot (not all) but a lot of conservatives, particularly the extemely vocal hard right ones, make a habit of making unpopular statements with little to no facts to back them up, but then claim that they're being victimized by the other side when their opinions are called into question. That's pretty much what I also see here. Btw, you haven't answered my question.
The question you asked is if I'm a republican or not and the answer is that I am not. But I am a libertarian who believes in live and let live. The case I presented against halloween is fairly simple, there's just nothing to it! Like I said before there is infinitely better shots and creative camera work done in The Evil Dead than in John Carpenter's movie. As far as the acting goes I don't think that it's any better than any other low-budget movie. To those people who claim that halloween is a masterpiece show me the evidence! The burden of proof is on you!

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 06:01 PM
A lot (not all) but a lot of conservatives, particularly the extemely vocal hard right ones, make a habit of making unpopular statements with little to no facts to back them up, but then claim that they're being victimized by the other side when their opinions are called into question.
Liberals do that bullshit too! I'm in the middle knocking both liberals and conservatives heads together like Moe from the Three Stooges! :D

maybrick
07-12-2011, 06:45 PM
Liberals do that bullshit too! I'm in the middle knocking both liberals and conservatives heads together like Moe from the Three Stooges! :D

Actually, liberals use facts. Conservatives more often than not use faith. For instance, trickle down economics has proven time and time again to simply not work in reality. The rich never take extra cash the government give back to them and use it to upgrade their equipment and hire more people. They pocket the cash instead, especially when a recession hits. NO business in their right mind is going to start hiring and making more stuff when demand isn't there. It doesn't make any rational sense, but don't tell a conservative that because no matter what you say, no matter how much evidence you give to the contrary, they'll still "believe" it to be true. Because that's the power of faith! :lol:

And libertarian? Isn't that just another name for a pot smoking Republican? ;)

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 07:53 PM
Actually, liberals use facts. Conservatives more often than not use faith. For instance, trickle down economics has proven time and time again to simply not work in reality. The rich never take extra cash the government give back to them and use it to upgrade their equipment and hire more people. They pocket the cash instead, especially when a recession hits. NO business in their right mind is going to start hiring and making more stuff when demand isn't there. It doesn't make any rational sense, but don't tell a conservative that because no matter what you say, no matter how much evidence you give to the contrary, they'll still "believe" it to be true. Because that's the power of faith! :lol:

And libertarian? Isn't that just another name for a pot smoking Republican? ;)
I'm convinced that what is going to have to happen as far as the U.S.A. is concerned is to increase taxes AND decrease government spending. Like what they are doing in Greece. And also I'm not a religious man. So quit bringing up faith!

JimSmith
07-12-2011, 08:03 PM
Actually, liberals use facts. Conservatives more often than not use faith.
Liberals use faith like with global warming. Environmentalism has turned into a religion! The earth has gotten warmer over the past decade but that is because of increased solar activity. It's not man-made and we don't need to have a cap and trade bill passed! That is not going to do a damn thing! You have to admit environmentalism is a lot like religion. You know we have to do certain stupid things and perform certain dumb rituals to get into heaven, we also have to do certain asinine things to save the environment like buy special light bulbs, turn our lights off, not run our air-conditioners/heaters as much etc.! It's all bullshit! And also why does President Obama want to make everybodies energy bills skyrocket?!

Shlockjock81
07-12-2011, 08:17 PM
OMG the politics, the politics, the motherfucking politics. SHUT THE HELL UP BOTH OF YOU! This thread is about the Halloween sequels on blu FFS!!!

maybrick
07-12-2011, 08:39 PM
OMG the politics, the politics, the motherfucking politics. SHUT THE HELL UP BOTH OF YOU! This thread is about the Halloween sequels on blu FFS!!!

:lol: :p

maybrick
07-12-2011, 08:47 PM
Liberals use faith like with global warming. Environmentalism has turned into a religion! The earth has gotten warmer over the past decade but that is because of increased solar activity. It's not man-made and we don't need to have a cap and trade bill passed! That is not going to do a damn thing! You have to admit environmentalism is a lot like religion. You know we have to do certain stupid things and perform certain dumb rituals to get into heaven, we also have to do certain asinine things to save the environment like buy special light bulbs, turn our lights off, not run our air-conditioners/heaters as much etc.! It's all bullshit! And also why does President Obama want to make everybodies energy bills skyrocket?!

Environmentalism is based on data and evidence, so sorry, NO it is nothing like a religion. There's a WORLD of difference between believing in something that can be empirically seen and something that can never be known. As far as saving the environment, it's going to take far more extreme matters to save than the things you mention, but because of the current political climate (no pun intended) such limp dick measures are just about the only things that can get passed. And the increased solar activity? It's another potential problem altogether and has little or nothing to do with climate change which has been getting progressively faster and faster over the past century. The solar activity is the strongest that it's been in hundreds of years and has the potential to crash every single satellite in the sky, I shit you not.

blu
07-13-2011, 02:50 AM
Back on topic:

Halloween III: Season of the Witch, without a doubt!

Ditto that but I certainly want them all.

Dobby
07-13-2011, 08:09 AM
Went with Halloween 3 all the way. Will still buy Halloween 2 for sure though. Don't care for H4 & 5 will not purchase those. Been reading allot on various forums and web sites. That H3 is not coming out any time soon. I really hope that is not true.

shape22
07-13-2011, 01:55 PM
Went with Halloween 3 all the way. Will still buy Halloween 2 for sure though. Don't care for H4 & 5 will not purchase those. Been reading allot on various forums and web sites. That H3 is not coming out any time soon. I really hope that is not true.

Damn. I had a bad feeling. H2 is up for pre-order at Amazon but not H3.

Dobby
07-13-2011, 02:17 PM
Damn. I had a bad feeling. H2 is up for pre-order at Amazon but not H3.

Yeah well don't take my word for it. All I have said is from various forums what I have read. I also can't find H3 for pre-order hardly anywhere. I really hope H3 & H2 come out together. Seems like all the focus is on H2 at the moment from the studio. Hopefully some info will follow soon enough.

SickNick89
07-13-2011, 03:52 PM
Yeah well don't take my word for it. All I have said is from various forums what I have read. I also can't find H3 for pre-order hardly anywhere. I really hope H3 & H2 come out together. Seems like all the focus is on H2 at the moment from the studio. Hopefully some info will follow soon enough.

If they are putting effort into a SE of Halloween III I can wait a little longer. If not that sucks! I really want to see HIII in HD.

shape22
07-13-2011, 04:07 PM
If they are putting effort into a SE of Halloween III I can wait a little longer. If not that sucks! I really want to see HIII in HD.

I have a feeling we'll see world peace and the piranha scene from Cannibal Holocaust before a true special edition of H3. I hope I'm wrong.

JimSmith
07-13-2011, 05:42 PM
Environmentalism is based on data and evidence, so sorry, NO it is nothing like a religion. There's a WORLD of difference between believing in something that can be empirically seen and something that can never be known. As far as saving the environment, it's going to take far more extreme matters to save than the things you mention, but because of the current political climate (no pun intended) such limp dick measures are just about the only things that can get passed. And the increased solar activity? It's another potential problem altogether and has little or nothing to do with climate change which has been getting progressively faster and faster over the past century. The solar activity is the strongest that it's been in hundreds of years and has the potential to crash every single satellite in the sky, I shit you not.
I think that we both can agree that the earth is billions of years old and the climate has changed several times over those billions of years. What about the little ice-age in medieval times. Was that man-made?!

JimSmith
07-13-2011, 05:50 PM
Environmentalism is based on data and evidence, so sorry, NO it is nothing like a religion.
But environmentalism has turned into a religion. Have you ever heard of climate-gate?! Look it up online!

maybrick
07-13-2011, 06:06 PM
I think that we both can agree that the earth is billions of years old and the climate has changed several times over those billions of years. What about the little ice-age in medieval times. Was that man-made?!

Excepting things like the extinction level event that wiped out the dinosaurs, those changes all took place slowly over the course of millenia, not in a century's time.
But environmentalism has turned into a religion.
Just because there are people that make it their life's goal to fight for the cause of environmentalism doesn't make it a religion any more than it does for people who fight for equal rights, children's welfare, or space travel. There are devout christians, jews, muslims, sikhs, buddhists, agnostics, wiccans, AND athiests that are ALL for protecting the environment. About the best you can say is that loving the world is a by product of religion or morality. But it isn't a religion.

As much as I enjoy having these discussions, let's get back to the original topic because I think we're annoying people.

JimSmith
07-13-2011, 09:54 PM
Excepting things like the extinction level event that wiped out the dinosaurs, those changes all took place slowly over the course of millenia, not in a century's time.

Just because there are people that make it their life's goal to fight for the cause of environmentalism doesn't make it a religion any more than it does for people who fight for equal rights, children's welfare, or space travel. There are devout christians, jews, muslims, sikhs, buddhists, agnostics, wiccans, AND athiests that are ALL for protecting the environment. About the best you can say is that loving the world is a by product of religion or morality. But it isn't a religion.

As much as I enjoy having these discussions, let's get back to the original topic because I think we're annoying people.
You still haven't answered my question!

buck135
07-13-2011, 10:27 PM
Well, let's see. First the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it, he took her best summer dress and he put it on and went to town...

Fistfuck
07-14-2011, 12:51 AM
And here I always thought I'd have to pay money to watch to men swordfight with their cocks...

SaxCatz
07-14-2011, 04:47 AM
Well, let's see. First the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it, he took her best summer dress and he put it on and went to town...

This is the best post in recent memory. Tempted to sig it but its a tad too long.

SaxCatz
07-14-2011, 04:50 AM
And libertarian? Isn't that just another name for a pot smoking Republican? ;)
Hey, f*ck you, @sswipe!;)

buck135
07-14-2011, 05:53 AM
This is the best post in recent memory. Tempted to sig it but its a tad too long.

Thanks. I love quoting the Airplane movies whenever possible. I think of this one every time anyone mentions the beginning of the world.