Quote:
Originally Posted by trans8010
Cookie women and pirates? I'm afraid I need a refresher as I have no idea who in the heck these are in relation to Halloween.
As for sequel talks. Danny McBride has said that a 2 movie deal was planned but was shelved until reception for this movie comes in. If it is a hit, we may get another sequel set in this timeline. Or, maybe we wont.
|
“Cookie woman” refers to an advertisement at a liquor store in Halloween 5 that showed a drawing of a woman with cookies for boobs. It was what Jamie was describing to Loomis when she was sensing that everybody’s favorite character, Tina, was in danger and wanted to let them know where she was. Eventually someone figured out what she meant by “cookie woman.” Personally, this is one of my favorite parts in Halloween 5 due to Loomis’s delivery of the line, “Cookie woman?” with a perplexed look on his face.
As for the pirate, Jamie’s awkward, stuttering friend in Halloween 5 wears a pirate costume.
Anyway, regarding the idea that studios should focus on making new horror icons and franchises, what’s the point? If someone is against franchises having multiple sequels, where do you draw the line? It’s not like studios can always predict which sequels will be the most successful and keep selling tickets before one of them bombs. I don’t know why someone who’s a fan of horror franchises even thinks this way. The point of them is by definition to make money. It’s very difficult to constantly keep creating brilliant horror movies, a couple worthwhile sequels, and then move on to the next thing purely to let them go out with a bang and be a perfect series. If that’s how someone thinks, I don’t know why they like sequels in the first place. I also don’t know why anyone wants a constant influx of horror icons. I can inderstand wanting to watch original and effective horror movies, but when you start taking about franchises and icons, you are already in the territory of studios milking them. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any sequels.