Halloween II 4K UHD (1981)

[Telemachus]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dolby Stereo = LCRS surround mixed into two channels. Halloween II was mixed in Dolby Stereo. Halloween III was in mono (despite being made after HII) purely for budget reasons, not tech reasons. Ditto for Terminator being mono in 1984.

Thank you, I bow down to your sound knowledge

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

The world wasn't ready for the Silver Shamrock jingle in stereo.

[LanceL]

Originally Posted by AllOuttaBubbleGum

2018 Steelbook to the rescue; nets most of the detail--in most shots--and has a more natural grain pattern--IP style--without the compression issues* and over-saturation of the UHD. It's not as dynamic in caps, but I had it up again the other night and it's a thing of beauty. Bias cuz I haven't ordered the UHD/remastered blu-ray yet? Slight, maybe, but I am impressed with how well the '18 masters are holding up against the new releases.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...172239&i=2&l=0

The UHD looks better in that link to me.

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by LanceL

The UHD looks better in that link to me.

Looks better on my TV as well.

[LanceL]

Originally Posted by cuzzin

You might have to revoke mine as well. I enjoy seeing women clothed more than naked. I'm weird, I know.

[LanceL]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I'm positive because there's not going to be any 4K TVs, Blu-ray players nor movies in Heaven or Hell. So enjoy your movies (and life in general) as much as you can while you're here.

Then why the Hell is anyone even going to Heaven in the first place? If Heaven can't accommodate what we love, then it'll just be Hell.

[LanceL]

Originally Posted by RLStern

Thank you, it just doesn't make any logical sense, if he wrote it drunk how did it pass through numberous drafts and through Debra Hill his co writer on the movie?

Ever heard of Stephen King? The guy who directed Maximum Overdrive whilst on cocaine, as well as wrote a couple books he can't even recall because of his substance abuse?

[LanceL]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Is inebriation the only reason Halloween II was lousy? No, but it certainly explains a lot of the plot holes.

Could you please elaborate what these plot holes are? I'm not trying to contradict you, I just want to know.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by LanceL

Could you please elaborate what these plot holes are? I'm not trying to contradict you, I just want to know.

I can think of one plot hole. Mrs. Elrod doesn’t know if her husband likes mustard or mayonnaise on his sandwiches and they’ve been together how long??? They sure don’t look like newlyweds…

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by LanceL

Could you please elaborate what these plot holes are? I'm not trying to contradict you, I just want to know.

For a start, the local radio, and a TV news team, are all reporting the discovery of Michael's victims well before the town sheriff, whose daughter is one of the dead teens, knows about the murders.

[dubhousing]

Originally Posted by Martoto

For a start, the local radio, and a TV news team, are all reporting the discovery of Michael's victims well before the town sheriff, whose daughter is one of the dead teens, knows about the murders.

This is just a guess on my part - I don't have any inside information. I suspect that scene at the Elrods' house was shot to take place after the discovery of the bodies, but was moved up during the editing stage to give the movie a "kill scene" right at the start. Otherwise, why have a radio broadcast announcing the discovery of the bodies so prominently in that scene, when it creates a continuity error? I'll guess having a murder scene at the start of the movie, in parallel with the opening scene of the first movie, trumped the mistake.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by dubhousing

This is just a guess on my part - I don't have any inside information. I suspect that scene at the Elrods' house was shot to take place after the discovery of the bodies, but was moved up during the editing stage to give the movie a "kill scene" right at the start. Otherwise, why have a radio broadcast announcing the discovery of the bodies so prominently in that scene, when it creates a continuity error? I'll guess having a murder scene at the start of the movie, in parallel with the opening scene of the first movie, trumped the mistake.

No I think they were always intended to be in that order. It was not supposed to be revealed, to the audience, that Michael was still alive, and not the man killed by the cop car, until he appears at the hospital. (This was then changed to when Michael bumps into the kid with the radio in the added scene that was inserted a few scenes prior to his arrival at the hospital.)

Showing that Michael is still alive immediately after the crash scene, which is when Brackett learns of the bodies and about Annie, would make no sense.

It's also necessary for the Elrod's scene and the added kill scene to take place immediately after the credits because it re-establishes Michael's character and what he's capable of. Otherwise the movie goes from Loomis running around in the pre-titles sequence then straight into Loomis riding with Brackett in the patrol car.

Plus the Elrod scene begins with Michael observing Loomis being picked up by Brackett and shouting "I shot him six times". So that really settles it. It would be all out of continuity if the Elrod's scene came after Ben Tramer getting toasted. Then again it's out of continuity anyway.

[jstxanothrxstory]

Originally Posted by jeffarent

I just wish we could get the television cut in Blu-ray. They did it for the first movie, why couldn’t they do the same for this release?

The television cut for the first film is just upscaled on the Blu-Ray, so it's not really any different than how the second film would look if they were to plop it onto a Blu-Ray. Even the extended cut just utilizes upscales of the footage.

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

I imagine they figure it's not worth the upgrade given the quality of the source. It'd be terrific if someone were able to reassemble the TV cut in the proper aspect ratio from the original materials, but nobody would finance such a restoration, and even if they would, we're assuming such materials are extant.

There's been fan edits that have done this, fwiw. The most common one was from the early 2000s (dubbed 'The Ultimate Cut'), and it just utilized a 4:3 version of the theatrical cut to make the footage fit together. A bit rough editing wise given the musical cues change dramatically when certain footage is spliced in, and the alternate scenes are repeated, but it was still cool to have. Someone a year or two ago did a modern version where they upscaled and cropped the TV footage to 16:9 and spliced it in with the 2.35:1 theatrical cut. My personal preference would be just to leave the TV footage at 4:3, but for certain scenes were the footage changes back and forth so quickly (Michael in Laurie's room being an obvious example), I suppose it could be jarring.

Originally Posted by Streetlight

When I asked the question, someone told me that the original materials might have been destroyed in a fire.

That is correct. Fun fact: The reason an extended cut exists for the first film is because when Anchor Bay had the rights, they found the negatives for the extended footage and discovered it was still shot in 2.35:1. I'm assuming that footage has been lost over time given what Cliff said about how AB handled the original elements for the fourth and fifth films.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by LanceL

Could you please elaborate what these plot holes are? I'm not trying to contradict you, I just want to know.

For starters, the giant hospital in a small town like Haddonfield. The hospital with an overnight staff of less than ten. The hospital that has no patients. And no lighting.

Oh wait; do the unsupervised newborn babies count as patients?

[HW666]

Originally Posted by Martoto

For a start, the local radio, and a TV news team, are all reporting the discovery of Michael's victims well before the town sheriff, whose daughter is one of the dead teens, knows about the murders.

I've always believed that Carpenter accidentally introduced this plot hole during his post production work/reshoots. For starters, during the Elrod scene the shooting script only has the report about the escaped mental patient and nothing about the killings, which would have been correct. It's possible that some of that Mundy dialogue was added in post production by Carpenter, particularly with how it's cut in. He also shot the Alice scene and that has a news report that breaks continuity in the same way. Would make sense but I don't know for certain.

[dubhousing]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

For starters, the giant hospital in a small town like Haddonfield. The hospital with an overnight staff of less than ten. The hospital that has no patients. And no lighting.

Oh wait; do the unsupervised newborn babies count as patients?

This doesn't let the film off the hook, but the book Taking Shape (which is excellent) provides a great deal of information on the making of II, which explains some (though not all) of the illogical or contradictionary elements.

In the case of Haddonfield Hospital, it was originally scripted as a small health clinic, not a full hospital. That explains (production-wise, not by internal logic) why a hospital would have a hot tub, and why it is sparsely staffed (especially at night), but not why it ends up having a maternity ward. The film weirdly seems to use elements of both a health clinic and a traditional hospital, which I could chalk up to the complicated production.

The lighting does have an explanation - Myers cut the power. The scene was shot but cut, then re-added to the television cut (which doesn't help the theatrical edit in explaining why the lights are so dim). This is just another sign of the film's production problems.

Goodness knows, as much as I like Halloween II, and I do, it has all sorts of problems. The scene with Ben Tramer doesn't make any sense. He's wearing the same mask as The Shape, which is at least plausible because the local hardware store is selling them, but he's implausibly wearing the same (or similar) mechanic's work uniform. Who wears a work uniform as a Halloween costume? The car explosion doesn't make much sense either; hitting a pedestrian generally wouldn't cause a car to explode. That scene seems to exist just to give the movie a "roller coaster" moment of shock. Yes, I know the scene "needs" to happen, so Tramer's body is charred to a crisp and Loomis can't know for sure if it is Myers or not, but the premise is deeply flawed and doesn't work.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by dubhousing

This doesn't let the film off the hook, but the book Taking Shape (which is excellent) provides a great deal of information on the making of II, which explains some (though not all) of the illogical or contradictionary elements.

In the case of Haddonfield Hospital, it was originally scripted as a small health clinic, not a full hospital. That explains (production-wise, not by internal logic) why a hospital would have a hot tub, and why it is sparsely staffed (especially at night), but not why it ends up having a maternity ward. The film weirdly seems to use elements of both a health clinic and a traditional hospital, which I could chalk up to the complicated production.

The lighting does have an explanation - Myers cut the power. The scene was shot but cut, then re-added to the television cut (which doesn't help the theatrical edit in explaining why the lights are so dim). This is just another sign of the film's production problems.

Goodness knows, as much as I like Halloween II, and I do, it has all sorts of problems. The scene with Ben Tramer doesn't make any sense. He's wearing the same mask as The Shape, which is at least plausible because the local hardware store is selling them, but he's implausibly wearing the same (or similar) mechanic's work uniform. Who wears a work uniform as a Halloween costume? The car explosion doesn't make much sense either; hitting a pedestrian generally wouldn't cause a car to explode. That scene seems to exist just to give the movie a "roller coaster" moment of shock. Yes, I know the scene "needs" to happen, so Tramer's body is charred to a crisp and Loomis can't know for sure if it is Myers or not, but the premise is deeply flawed and doesn't work.

You forgot to mention, we can see and hear Tramer's body slump onto the hood of the car after he's hit/the car explodes, but then we see him upright in the next scene. Not really a plot hole, but ridiculous nonetheless.

[questrider]

A few here keep saying that Ben Tramer is wearing overalls like The Shape when, in fact, he's wearing a blue windbreaker jacket and pants.

Halloween II (2/10) Movie CLIP - Mistaken for a Murderer (1981) HD - YouTube

That style of windbreaker jacket was everywhere in the 70s and 80s.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by dubhousing

The car explosion doesn't make much sense either; hitting a pedestrian generally wouldn't cause a car to explode. That scene seems to exist just to give the movie a "roller coaster" moment of shock. Yes, I know the scene "needs" to happen, so Tramer's body is charred to a crisp and Loomis can't know for sure if it is Myers or not, but the premise is deeply flawed and doesn't work.

"Is it true that there's a point on a man's head where, if you shoot it, it will blow up?"

[dubhousing]

Originally Posted by questrider

A few here keep saying that Ben Tramer is wearing overalls like The Shape when, in fact, he's wearing a blue windbreaker jacket with pants.


That style of windbreaker jacket was everywhere in the 70s and 80s.

Arrrghh, you're right. My apologies!

[questrider]

No apologies necessary. It all happens pretty fast and it's quite dark! I've just always noticed since the windbreaker jacket is very reflective and I had a similar one back then in middle school.