has anyone here seen Halloween 3 season of the witch?

[Psychonaut]

I think there was an episode of Knight Rider back then that used the masks and the Shamrock song but without the horror.

[Blu-Ron]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

I just recently saw The Thing for the first time and I loved it, so I rented the original Halloween. I watched it tonight and wasn't too impressed. I can clearly see why it's a classic, and how it would be enjoyable to watch when in the Halloween spirit, but IMO, it didn't hold up very well over the years.

I love the story though, how are the other Halloween movies? (not counting Zombie's versions)

This post should merit an automatic closing of your account.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

I just recently saw The Thing for the first time and I loved it, so I rented the original Halloween. I watched it tonight and wasn't too impressed. I can clearly see why it's a classic, and how it would be enjoyable to watch when in the Halloween spirit, but IMO, it didn't hold up very well over the years.

I love the story though, how are the other Halloween movies? (not counting Zombie's versions)

Actually I agree to an extent. As i posted in the halloween movie thread, I just watched again for the first time in a long time and it wasnt the same as back when, but obviously its a classic and just havin the invention of Michael and the best horror music theme its still clearly one of the best horror films of alltime but at this day and age it hasnt held up as much as I wouldve hoped. Got Em!!

[Blu Myers]

I actually have the soundtrack to HIII:SOTW. All together, I think it's probably one of the best soundtracks of the series, and I think the last time Carpenter and Howarth composed together.

[nycomet]

I liked the soundtrack, but the movie itself left me dead.

[Show spoiler]What were they thinking? No Michael Myers!

[Blu Myers]

It did have some decent kills though. One that stays with me is when the suit guy jams his fingers in the old guy's eye sockets. That had to hurt.

Also when Ms. Blankenship was messing with the comp. chip and it zaps her in the mouth...nice!

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by leem6453

Ok here's what happened. John Carpenter never intended to make a sequel to the original, but massive demand and what Carpenter refers to as "the biggest check I'd ever seen in my life" swayed him otherwise. So along came Halloween II. Carpenter wanted to kill Michael Myers forever so that's why they

[Show spoiler]burned him at the end.

The idea after that was to create a new Halloween "themed" movie every few years, each having a new Halloween holiday story. When Halloween III reached theaters, fans were outraged at the Myers-less sequel, leaving future writers no choice but to return to the original story line.

I personally did not like Season of the Witch when I first saw it, just because I was such a fan of the Myers story line. The film should have just been called simply "Season of the Witch" and I think it would have had a more positive response.

Having said that, Halloween III has really grown in populatity of the years, and some might say it's drawn a small cult following. I really enjoy it now and try to watch it every year.

Ok I got a question......why did Carpenter end the first film like he did if he wasnt intending on doin a part II? I thought he originally wanted to only do parts 1 & 2 and then he had a new idea for 3? But after watching parts 1 & 2 again that was my question. U cant end part 1 like he did not thinkin about a sequel right? Just curious if there was more to it? Got Em!!

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Ok I got a question......why did Carpenter end the first film like he did if he wasnt intending on doin a part II? I thought he originally wanted to only do parts 1 & 2 and then he had a new idea for 3? But after watching parts 1 & 2 again that was my question. U cant end part 1 like he did not thinkin about a sequel right? Just curious if there was more to it? Got Em!!

The ending of part 1 was simply supposed to be symbolic. Michael represented pure evil, and you can't destroy evil. You have to remember that this was before the days when long running horror movie franchises became the norm. I mean, there were the Hammer franchises and such. But not every horror movie made was intended to launch a series.

Then, along came Friday the 13th, and everything changed. They started up the yearly sequels and made a small fortune. Halloween II was born as a way to tap into that audience and make some money. It was pretty cyclical. Friday the 13th was made as a blatant rip off of the successful Halloween, and then Halloween II was made as a blatant rip off of the successful Friday series. And of course this all lead to the huge slasher boom of the 80s.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

The ending of part 1 was simply supposed to be symbolic. Michael represented pure evil, and you can't destroy evil. You have to remember that this was before the days when long running horror movie franchises became the norm. I mean, there were the Hammer franchises and such. But not every horror movie made was intended to launch a series.

Then, along came Friday the 13th, and everything changed. They started up the yearly sequels and made a small fortune. Halloween II was born as a way to tap into that audience and make some money. It was pretty cyclical. Friday the 13th was made as a blatant rip off of the successful Halloween, and then Halloween II was made as a blatant rip off of the successful Friday series. And of course this all lead to the huge slasher boom of the 80s.

Ok thats whats up! I can dig that! Got Em!!

[SpaceDog]

It's been ages since I've seen this movie, but it scared the hell out of me as a kid. It is too bad that the idea of a completely different halloween themed horror movie every year didn't take off. I would have liked to have seen what they'd have come up with instead of Hack/Slash part 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,19,11,takesmanhattan,goestospace ,visitsshadypines....

[Elandyll]

Absolutely love Halloween III.

Funny thing is, supposedly it hasn't been directed by John Carpenter (but by Tommy Lee Wallace), but the entire movie literally screams Carpenter from the music to the script and the direction.

When you dig in a little you find that Carpenter helped re-write the script (un-credited), that Tommy Lee Wallace is a long time collaborator of John Carpenter (we're talking since Dark Star), and J.C. is of course one of the producers

Wouldn't be surprised if Carpenter helped direct and edit as well

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

It's been ages since I've seen this movie, but it scared the hell out of me as a kid. It is too bad that the idea of a completely different halloween themed horror movie every year didn't take off. I would have liked to have seen what they'd have come up with instead of Hack/Slash part 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,19,11,takesmanhattan,goestospace,visitsshadypines....

This aint about Jason!! Got Em!!

[Blu Myers]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

The ending of part 1 was simply supposed to be symbolic. Michael represented pure evil, and you can't destroy evil. You have to remember that this was before the days when long running horror movie franchises became the norm. I mean, there were the Hammer franchises and such. But not every horror movie made was intended to launch a series.

Then, along came Friday the 13th, and everything changed. They started up the yearly sequels and made a small fortune. Halloween II was born as a way to tap into that audience and make some money. It was pretty cyclical. Friday the 13th was made as a blatant rip off of the successful Halloween, and then Halloween II was made as a blatant rip off of the successful Friday series. And of course this all lead to the huge slasher boom of the 80s.

Couldn't have said it better. Carpenter talks about this on the documentary contained on the H20 dvd. They persuaded him with a fat check. He said he was staring at a type writer at 2 in the morning with a 6 pack of beer..."I'll make her his sister."...and walla, a sequel is born.

As far as Friday ripping off Halloween, on the "His Name Was Jason" doc, the writer of the first said that Cunningham called him up after seeing Halloween and saying "We need to rip off Halloween". Carpenter created a "monster" with the first Halloween for sure.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

Absolutely love Halloween III.

Funny thing is, supposedly it hasn't been directed by John Carpenter (but by Tommy Lee Wallace), but the entire movie literally screams Carpenter from the music to the script and the direction.

When you dig in a little you find that Carpenter helped re-write the script (un-credited), that Tommy Lee Wallace is a long time collaborator of John Carpenter (we're talking since Dark Star), and J.C. is of course one of the producers

Wouldn't be surprised if Carpenter helped direct and edit as well

Couldn't agree more. The whole "cadence" of a Carpenter movie is there. He definitely had an influence... just like Spielberg had an "influence" over Tobe Hooper on Poltergeist

I love HALLOWEEN III myself. It's a fun flick. I think there would be a lot less hate if it wasn't called HALLOWEEN III.

[GORT]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

Absolutely love Halloween III.

Funny thing is, supposedly it hasn't been directed by John Carpenter (but by Tommy Lee Wallace), but the entire movie literally screams Carpenter from the music to the script and the direction.

When you dig in a little you find that Carpenter helped re-write the script (un-credited), that Tommy Lee Wallace is a long time collaborator of John Carpenter (we're talking since Dark Star), and J.C. is of course one of the producers

Wouldn't be surprised if Carpenter helped direct and edit as well

you are 100% correct I also love Halloween III

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

Couldn't agree more. The whole "cadence" of a Carpenter movie is there. He definitely had an influence... just like Spielberg had an "influence" over Tobe Hooper on Poltergeist

Meaning, that Directors Guild regulations prohibit directors from having their own names on two major-studio films in the same six-month period--
And since Spielberg had his credit on "E.T.", Hooper "directed" Poltergeist, and since Carpenter had his credit on "The Thing", Wallace "directed" H3.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by leem6453

Couldn't have said it better. Carpenter talks about this on the documentary contained on the H20 dvd. They persuaded him with a fat check. He said he was staring at a type writer at 2 in the morning with a 6 pack of beer..."I'll make her his sister."...and walla, a sequel is born.

As far as Friday ripping off Halloween, on the "His Name Was Jason" doc, the writer of the first said that Cunningham called him up after seeing Halloween and saying "We need to rip off Halloween". Carpenter created a "monster" with the first Halloween for sure.

Ok well heres another question. if Jamie wasnt supposed to be his sister in the first place, then why would he focus on her in the movie like there was a connection. It sounds kinda fishy but its a good question. It wasnt like he was goin on a killing spree, I mean he killed a couple of her friends but they were close to her, but it was obvious who he was after so if there wasnt suppose to be a connection then that wouldnt make much sense to me. Got Em!!

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Ok well heres another question. if Jamie wasnt supposed to be his sister in the first place, then why would he focus on her in the movie like there was a connection. It sounds kinda fishy but its a good question. It wasnt like he was goin on a killing spree, I mean he killed a couple of her friends but they were close to her, but it was obvious who he was after so if there wasnt suppose to be a connection then that wouldnt make much sense to me. Got Em!!

It was actually very simple. Michael was hiding out in his house when Laurie Strode walked up to the front door and dropped off the keys for her father. He watched her and started following her and her friends. Then when night fell, he struck. Killed her friends and tried to kill her. She was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That was part of what made the first one so effective. The idea that this could happen to anybody.

Now, I'm actually a fan of the Laurie-is-his-sister reveal from the sequel. They got a lot of mileage out of it. But Carpenter is on record as saying that wasn't his intention when making the first movie. He never envisioned it as a series.