Halloween (1978) vs Halloween (2007)

[frogmort]

Halloween 1978 - One of the best films of all time.

Halloween 2007 - Pretty terrible.

[darkness2918]

I like them both a lot for different reason. Its hard for me to choose between them.

[ChainsawJedi]

The question is: is "loud, graphic, and visceral" a "bad thing" compared to "quiet, elegantly violent, and emotionally subtle"? And the answer is yes.

Never was a question so blatantly loaded.

[ol_Dut]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Try-hard elitists and wannabe film snobs.

This poll is silly. Might as well ask whether you prefer sex or being stabbed in the genital region with a rusty harpoon.

That was a close one, but since you said "rusty", my choice is clear. I do not want to run the risk of tetanus - i can't remember when I had my last booster shot.

And silly poll? Not really. It kind of restores my faith in horror movie fans - most current horror films & franchises to the contrary. The fact that many here can separate the wheat from the chaff is great to see.

Oh, and the original for me.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Original 1978 HALLOWEEN by a mile.

Seeing the comparison video, it's quite evident the 1978 original is also the better looking film.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by ChainsawJedi

The question is: is "loud, graphic, and visceral" a "bad thing" compared to "quiet, elegantly violent, and emotionally subtle"? And the answer is yes.

Never was a question so blatantly loaded.

Well, to be fair, even though I wrote that, I think that both films are equally good but I like the remake more.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

Original 1978 HALLOWEEN by a mile.

Seeing the comparison video, it's quite evident the 1978 original is also the better looking film.

What do you think of the comparison video?

[Todd Tomorrow]

While I appreciate when a remake tries to add something new, the Zombie remake still makes one of the worst horror franchise mistakes, explaining something which was scary because it was unknowable. Halloween 1978 offers hints at what Michael is or has become but it stays deliberately vague. Giving him a misery memoir background ruins that. Apart from that, unlike Carpenter, Zombie never has any interest in the victims of his films. Laurie is a likeable, smart girl who we come to root for in the original. She is a cypher in the remake. The original's greatest asset was probably it's style and the remake has none.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

What do you think of the comparison video?

I thought it was interesting and well-made. I didn't agree with the narrator's personal choice of film, though.

For me, the video highlighted the differences in look between films - the original film has the better cinematography imo.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

I thought it was interesting and well-made. I didn't agree with the narrator's personal choice of film, though.

For me, the video highlighted the differences in look between films - the original film has the better cinematography imo.

When you mention cinematography, are you referring to the technical aspects, such as color grading and lighting, or are you referring to the narratively conducive aspects, such as the emphasis on the setting to convey certain moods and ideas?

By the way, I'm the creator of the video.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

When you mention cinematography, are you referring to the technical aspects, such as color grading and lighting, or are you referring to the narratively conducive aspects, such as the emphasis on the setting to convey certain moods and ideas?

By the way, I'm the creator of the video.

Obviously it would be the artistic aspects. In 1978 it was rare for low budget horror movies to get shot in 2.35:1 widescreen and Dean Cundey's compositions are exemplary. He uses the wide frame to constantly create tension especially the way he has Michael appear in the frame with his victims. It's also beautifully lit, the was Michael appears and disappears in and out of the dark. Halloween also was one of the first movies to use a Panaglide camera a variation on Steadicam, to achieve it's POV stalking shots.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

What do you think of the comparison video?

I don't agree with your theory that the flat, stereotypical characters in Zombie's remake and his treatment of class and race are ironic, it's just lazy characterization.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Try-hard elitists and wannabe film snobs.

This poll is silly. Might as well ask whether you prefer sex or being stabbed in the genital region with a rusty harpoon.

That sounds kinky, I might try it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Obviously it would be the artistic aspects. In 1978 it was rare for low budget horror movies to get shot in 2.35:1 widescreen and Dean Cundey's compositions are exemplary. He uses the wide frame to constantly create tension especially the way he has Michael appear in the frame with his victims. It's also beautifully lit, the was Michael appears and disappears in and out of the dark. Halloween also was one of the first movies to use a Panaglide camera a variation on Steadicam, to achieve it's POV stalking shots.

Yep, basically what I was going to say. The use of light and shadow was a joy. Kept me on edge for the whole film. Then of course, we have that iconic music.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I don't agree with your theory that the flat, stereotypical characters in Zombie's remake and his treatment of class and race are ironic, it's just lazy characterization.

The characters in Zombie’s remake are anything but flat. Sure, they're one dimensional, but they're all filled with energy and are fun to watch. By the way, what do you think of Michael McDowell as Loomis?

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

The characters in Zombie’s remake are anything but flat. Sure, they're one dimensional, but they're all filled with energy and are fun to watch. By the way, what do you think of Michael McDowell as Loomis?

I honestly don't remember him much, as I'm no fan of the film I only watched it once when it got released on Blu-ray. He certainly didn't erase my memory of Donald Pleasence.

I'm generally not much of a Rob Zombie fan and the problem I have with all of his films is that he seems to have little interest in his non-villain characters apart from casting a lot of minor horror icons in supporting roles.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

The characters in Zombie’s remake are anything but flat. Sure, they're one dimensional, but they're all filled with energy and are fun to watch. By the way, what do you think of Michael McDowell as Loomis?

He was fine in the first film. I thought his acting was embarrassing in the 2nd film.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

He was fine in the first film. I thought his acting was embarrassing in the 2nd film.

From what I remember of the second remake, he's very snobbish and more focused on his fame than on being a compassionate, well-intentioned man who feels that it's his responsibility to stop Michael. I own a copy of it as part of a double feature with the first remake but haven't watched said copy yet; I haven't seen the movie in years, and was very disappointed with it the only time that I have seen it.

[Michael1989]

Whoever voted for RZ's version must feel real lonely. Having said that the original is my favourite horror of all time but I still really enjoy the 2007 version aswell for what it is.

[Batmon77]

Devils Advocate -

Lets say u personally prefer the remake.

What does it do better than the original to make it better?

If someone never saw both, how would u present your preference?

I actually think Zombie did a good job modernizing the mythology.