Halloween III (2011)

[Lambagus]

Originally Posted by mpstjohn

Add to that the whole reason the original was scary at all was because Carpenter didn't spell everything out, he left most of it to our imagination. Zombie, on the other hand, spelled everything out, and left nothing to the imagination, giving us a film completely devoid of suspense.

Michael Myers wasn't even Michael Myers in Carpenter's Halloween. It goes credited as "The Shape." And that is wha was so great about Carpenter's Halloween was that you had this force of evil that has no motive. It escapes, it goes home, Laurie happens to deliver the key shortly after, it sees her, it stalks her. The scariest thing about Halloween to me and why it worked....no motive. Just plain randomness. It could happen to any group of friends and the shape could be anywhere (which is what is meant by the ending shots of all the locations where the shape had been.)

Carpenter and Debra Hill only made Halloween II to get the money they should have made for Halloween. They were young and inexperienced at signing contracts, signed a bad one for Halloween and wanted to recoup some of the money. For Halloween II, they got a fair deal. Carpenter coming up with the whole Michael being Laurie's brother was what he attributes to it being the year of '...Luke, I am your father' and a case of Budweiser and thinking 'oh gosh, were making the same movie just not as good.'

[nefilim]

Originally Posted by Alpha Sixx

Just bring back my beautifull and lovley scout taylor compton and sheri moon and im in!!!!!!!

bring them back and I`ll avoid it like plague ! pretty faces - yes, that is what we want, it does not even matter that they can`t act. just like in Bay horror reboots ...

[Mike53421]

Originally Posted by Lambagus

Michael Myers wasn't even Michael Myers in Carpenter's Halloween. It goes credited as "The Shape." And that is wha was so great about Carpenter's Halloween was that you had this force of evil that has no motive. It escapes, it goes home, Laurie happens to deliver the key shortly after, it sees her, it stalks her. The scariest thing about Halloween to me and why it worked....no motive. Just plain randomness. It could happen to any group of friends and the shape could be anywhere (which is what is meant by the ending shots of all the locations where the shape had been.)

The scene where he appears behind the bush as they're walking home from school and when he's in the backyard within the laundry terrified me. The first time I saw it was at the cottage and had a very creepy view out the window afterwards before bed.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Lambagus

2. The plan was to shoot Halloween III (2011) in 3D

(Eight more months till "Halloween", "Halloween", "Halloween"... )

but the project was scrapped so who knows if 3D is still the plan. (I personally think if it is in 3D we will get a rushed film that uses 3D to get people to come see it)

And I know it's brought up every time we see a RZ3 header, but--
If they want to start shooting, there's only a little time left...And don't forget about the Big Giveaway at nine--Don't miss it! And he should remember to wear his mask! The clock is ticking...It's almost tiiiime (boop-beep-boop-beep)...

(There's no way in the world that RZ is going to get away from those fan associations no matter how many "3D" or Cool Subtitles he puts on his own third-movie sequel, so he better just learn to give in and go with it, or not bother at all. )

[HDMe]

Some random Halloween thoughts...

Rob Zombie's Halloween movies weren't horrible... but I admit, I don't think of them as fondly as I do the classics. I probably even prefer the "bad" sequels to the original to the newer remake.

That said... I tend to agree, leave the new remakes as they stand... don't keep going with them.

Once we got more into the Thorn story in later movies, I always thought that cult in Halloween III with the killer masks could have been related to the cult of Thorn. They could even have been competing cults who had different ideas on how the killing masses of people saved their own followers thing.

A remake of Halloween that fits into the old continuity and related it more to the "Shape" storyline would be welcomed. That could also even be used to integrate Myers into it and bridge the gap from 2 to 4 like some have mentioned.

I would also be interested in a 5.5... that shows what happened from the very weird ending of 5 to where we got the cult movie in Curse.

6.5 would work too... bringing us from the end of Curse to H20.

And of course, someone could pick up from Resurrection and go...

As for why Michael wouldn't have gone after his sister's son... keep in mind that in H20 they made it clear that she had been in hiding for 20 years... but he definitely was killing folk in those other movies while he couldn't find her. So it's perfectly plausible that her son went back into hiding after H20 while his mom was in the asylum (as shown in Resurrection)... and after his mom died in Resurrection, he most certainly would have been in double-secret probation hiding!

A sequel to Resurrection could go either way... It could have Michael coming after him... or him going after Michael!

And of course we have the other storyline about the baby from the end of Curse... who by now would be an adult too... so that's another direction.

A smart script could pick up at any one of a number of points and with a little backstory refresh, jump right into the action.

On a related note... the Friday the 13th reboot was interesting in that while some hated that too... it actually could effectively exist in the old Jason universe, if you ignore the actor changes... so unlike what Zombie did with Halloween, you didn't have to throw away the old stuff to take the new. That might have been the biggest mistake Zombie really made... effectively severing all connections with the old Halloween stories instead of fleshing things out and keeping the old connections intact.

[mpstjohn]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(Eight more months till "Halloween", "Halloween", "Halloween"... )



And I know it's brought up every time we see a RZ3 header, but--
If they want to start shooting, there's only a little time left...And don't forget about the Big Giveaway at nine--Don't miss it! And he should remember to wear his mask! The clock is ticking...It's almost tiiiime (boop-beep-boop-beep)...

(There's no way in the world that RZ is going to get away from those fan associations no matter how many "3D" or Cool Subtitles he puts on his own third-movie sequel, so he better just learn to give in and go with it, or not bother at all. )

Zombie had nothing to do with Halloween 3D. They turned to the filmmakers behind the My Bloody Valentine remake to handle Halloween 3D. Evidently they had already a finished script, scouted locations, scheduled the shoot and cast most of the film before Dimension pulled the plug on them. Had Dimension waited much longer to duck out, there'd already be a finished film. If I remember right they would've finished shooting the third film within the same year that Halloween II was released theatrically. (Just checked the screenwriter's blog, and it was scheduled to finish shooting on December 22nd). Boy, that was fast.

Originally Posted by HDMe

As for why Michael wouldn't have gone after his sister's son... keep in mind that in H20 they made it clear that she had been in hiding for 20 years... but he definitely was killing folk in those other movies while he couldn't find her. So it's perfectly plausible that her son went back into hiding after H20 while his mom was in the asylum (as shown in Resurrection)... and after his mom died in Resurrection, he most certainly would have been in double-secret probation hiding!

Actually, H20 was a retcon. Though they filmed a scene where Jamie Lloyd was mentioned, it was removed at Jamie Lee Curtis' request. So the events from parts 4 to 6 didn't happen. Presumably Loomis did not die at the hands of Michael and Laurie did not have a child with Billy Lloyd (the paramedic from Halloween 2). If I remember right, they do mention a father, though he was a drug addict, not a paramedic working at a hospital in Haddonfield. The age of the Myers child being the reason for Michael's return makes the most sense here, though I can't recall if the first sister Michael killed was 17, Laurie was in the first Halloween and her son had just turned 17 during the events of H20. So it would make sense that after killing Laurie, he'd come after her son (regardless of the Thorn Cult not factoring in). He waited 20 years not because he needed to hide and not because it took him that long to find Loomis' nurse, but because another Myers turned 17.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by nefilim

bring them back and I`ll avoid it like plague ! pretty faces - yes, that is what we want, it does not even matter that they can`t act. just like in Bay horror reboots ...

You do know Halloween is a horror series that had the likes of LL Cool J and Busta Rhymes, yes? Not some Oscar winning actors. Don't see the hate for Zombie's actors. If you point out one or 2, yes. But his movies had better actors as a whole, then any of them did.

Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Danielle Harris, William Forsythe, Bill Moseley, Udo Kier, Dee Wallace, Sid Haig, and Ken Foree. That sounds like a better group of actors than ANY of the other Halloweens. But I guess it's just cool to hate on Zombie and his wife for some reason.

[HDMe]

Originally Posted by mpstjohn

Actually, H20 was a retcon. Though they filmed a scene where Jamie Lloyd was mentioned, it was removed at Jamie Lee Curtis' request. So the events from parts 4 to 6 didn't happen. Presumably Loomis did not die at the hands of Michael and Laurie did not have a child with Billy Lloyd (the paramedic from Halloween 2). If I remember right, they do mention a father, though he was a drug addict, not a paramedic working at a hospital in Haddonfield. The age of the Myers child being the reason for Michael's return makes the most sense here, though I can't recall if the first sister Michael killed was 17, Laurie was in the first Halloween and her son had just turned 17 during the events of H20. So it would make sense that after killing Laurie, he'd come after her son (regardless of the Thorn Cult not factoring in). He waited 20 years not because he needed to hide and not because it took him that long to find Loomis' nurse, but because another Myers turned 17.

I hadn't thought about it that way... I do remember (since I just watched those last 3 original movies the other night) Jamie saying something about Michael dying in the fire (or not)... but I didn't think about what that meant.

So... I guess we sort-of have 3 timelines here...

Halloween + II + H20 + Resurrection
Halloween + II + 4 + 5 + Curse
Rob Zombie's Halloween + Halloween 2

The first 2 Carpenter-made movies being common to two of the plot-threads... and Halloween III not necessarily fitting into any continuity at the moment.

I suppose there's nothing in Resurrection to completely eliminate it from Curse-continuity, since the flashback doesn't make reference to her son... it could be perhaps argued that Resurrection could be made to fit into either of the first two timelines depending upon how you choose to view it.

In the first continuity, he would be coming to first find her then presumably continue after her son.

In the second continuity he could be coming just to find her and then he'd be off looking for the grandchild from "Curse".

[zeze]

If they do make it a sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween 2, then it will most likely to follow the storyline from the theatrical, and not the director's cut which will upset alot of fans. (One main reason is because the theatrical release is not available on blu-ray, which should have been included since they tell 2 different stories basically).

In my opinion, they should not make a third Halloween movie. The first Halloween movie Rob Zombie made was ok, but the last one was awful (i only saw the director's cut, but I know the differences between the two versions).

If they make this new Halloween, they should let John Carpenter write, direct, and produce it.

[Dudley Dawson]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

i disagree with you on this, a few horro remakes are better then their originals i.e. Let Me In, Last House On The Left, Texas Chainsaw Massarce... probably a few others im forgetting i just think its hard to hollywood writers to come up with original ideas for horror movies.. so if a movie back in the day was considered good or great they will tackle it, most fail most dont fail or prevail and some start something great.

Are you joking? That remake is a piece of junk and the original is maybe the best horror movie ever made.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Dudley Dawson

Are you joking? That remake is a piece of junk and the original is maybe the best horror movie ever made.

+1. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is prob the best American Horror film since the 70's.

[financially stable]

hope Scout Taylor Compton she was a hottie

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by mpstjohn

Actually, H20 was a retcon. Though they filmed a scene where Jamie Lloyd was mentioned, it was removed at Jamie Lee Curtis' request. So the events from parts 4 to 6 didn't happen. Presumably Loomis did not die at the hands of Michael and Laurie did not have a child with Billy Lloyd (the paramedic from Halloween 2). If I remember right, they do mention a father, though he was a drug addict, not a paramedic working at a hospital in Haddonfield. The age of the Myers child being the reason for Michael's return makes the most sense here, though I can't recall if the first sister Michael killed was 17, Laurie was in the first Halloween and her son had just turned 17 during the events of H20. So it would make sense that after killing Laurie, he'd come after her son (regardless of the Thorn Cult not factoring in). He waited 20 years not because he needed to hide and not because it took him that long to find Loomis' nurse, but because another Myers turned 17.

Yes and no. H20 drops the storyline that ran in 4-6, but they didn't completely ignore them. Some of the events in H20 were clearly written with those movies in mind. Part 4 says Laurie died in a car accident, so H20 claims she faked her death. Part 4 revealed that Loomis survived the fire in Part 2, and H20 honored that revelation by having him pass away more recently. And, of course, if you're watching H20 and wondering why Michael's still alive, 4-6 gives us that story. If you simply watch 1, 2, and H20, it doesn't really flow. I mean, didn't Loomis die in the fire?

Basically, Kevin Williamson wasn't overly concerned with 4-6 when writing the script, and was more concerned with continuing Laurie Strode's story. The Jamie Lloyd story causes some problems with Laurie and John's story in H20, so they basically chose to simply not worry about it. But they did leave it open enough for fans to consolidate the movies together. I choose to view them as a continuous series, albeit with a few iffy continuity issues.

[LordCrumb]

They should turn Halloween III into a comedy, make it Ash vs Michael vs Freddy.

[OrlandoEastwood]

I think they should just make a stand alone Halloween film. It just has Michael Myers and a group of people trying to stop him for 90 minutes until they ultimately fail and die. It should ignore Laurie Strode and really try to ignore all the previous films except for the fact that Michael is here and he is pissed and he killing people. Call it Halloween 3D and boom! You got yourself a money maker.

[HDMe]

I know it will never happen... but the other night I was thinking that I'd like to see someone take a stab (pun intended) at a Halloween TV series.

But the twist I'd like to see is... the TV show each week would always take place on October 31st. They could start one year and next week would be the next year. A two-parter or cliffhanger episode could take place on the same halloween night of the same year if necessary to tell the story.

So my thought would be...

Pilot Episode is 2 hours and tells the episode of the original halloween night where young Michael kills his older sister THEN for this one episode only jumps ahead 15 years or so to adult Michael escaping and killing on his first spree.

Then each week takes place on halloween night the next year. IF they had him born say in 1950, then episode one could take place in 1960... episode 2 in 1975... and then by the end of the first season they could be up to around 1995 advancing 1 year each episode and not including if they made any 2-parters.

With enough two-parters sharing a halloween year they might could go about 2 seasons before catching up to the current year.

We wouldn't get as many kills but it might be interesting to see an evolving Michael over the course of 40 years of serial killing.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

+1. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is prob the best American Horror film since the 70's.

He was talking about the remake.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by EricJ

He was talking about the remake.

What, you guys never seen Adam Green's Hatchet? It's bloody marvelous, made with bucketloads of passion and enthusiasm, and is downright funny in many places. Purchase a copy like, right now!

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by EricJ

He was talking about the remake.

What? He said the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massae sucks and the original is the best horror film of all time. And I agree with him (to the point of saying best AMERICAN horror film SINCE THE 70's). What are you trying to say? I just didn't get this post, sorry.

[antwonaj]

Is H3 still happening? I read on BD awhile ago that it wasn't?