Halloween 4K UHD (1978)

[philrock90]

Can anyone tell me if this new 4k transfer is better than the 1st 4k release?

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by philrock90

Can anyone tell me if this new 4k transfer is better than the 1st 4k release?

Yes.

[mad_max2000]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

6, 7, and 8, plus the first Zombie film are all Dimension/Weinstein.

Originally Posted by WorkShed

Which I believe are now with Lantern, but they'd be pretty likely to work with a boutique label like Scream Factory for pretty dormant film assets.

6-8 are with Paramount since they acquired Miramax. Rob Zombie's 2 films are with Lionsgate now because they acquired Lantern Entertainment (the company that acquired The Weinstein Company).

If I had to guess, Lionsgate isn't going to budge on the 2 Zombie films because they have historically never licensed out to any one, despite Shout's past efforts. Paramount and Miramax might be open to licensing out Halloween 6-8 since Shout! has a deal with Paramount, and Scream! specifically has licensed 6-8 from Miramax as part of the 2014 series box set. So it's possible we see 4Ks of 6-8 but nothing is certain.

One major hurdle is that Paramount does not license out for 4K, only standard blu ray, but it depends on how much say they have over Miramax. If the deal with Paramount is written as such that Shout is able to make a deal directly with Miramax (without involving Paramount), that's a huge plus. But I don't know the specifics of the acquisition, it could be that Paramount has to be involved as the parent company.

[Tuc0]

Originally Posted by philrock90

Can anyone tell me if this new 4k transfer is better than the 1st 4k release?

The poll above will have 315 agreeing on Screams release being better and 43 go for the Lionsgate disc.

[aaron2970]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

I love the 35th Anniversary Blu-ray. It looks wonderful to me.

i agree -and i have a few versions right up to shout's 4k

[crowe-t]

Originally Posted by philrock90

Can anyone tell me if this new 4k transfer is better than the 1st 4k release?

Absolutely! For starters the opening credits are much better looking. In the 1st 4K release the pumpkin in the opening credits looks almost gray. In this new 4K release from Shout Factory the pumpkin is a nice deep orange. The colors in the whole movie pop more and the contrast is better too. This new 4K is an excellent presentation of the movie.

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by crowe-t

Absolutely! For starters the opening credits are much better looking. In the 1st 4K release the pumpkin in the opening credits looks almost gray. In this new 4K release from Shout Factory the pumpkin is a nice deep orange. The colors in the whole movie pop more and the contrast is better too. This new 4K is an excellent presentation of the movie.

And the new Atmos mix is a solid improvement over the prior 5.1 track.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by crowe-t

Absolutely! For starters the opening credits are much better looking. In the 1st 4K release the pumpkin in the opening credits looks almost gray. In this new 4K release from Shout Factory the pumpkin is a nice deep orange. The colors in the whole movie pop more and the contrast is better too. This new 4K is an excellent presentation of the movie.

Does all of that also apply when comparing the new BD to the 35th anniversary BD?

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Does all of that also apply when comparing the new BD to the 35th anniversary BD?

Yes.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Sabre95

What are the chances we see the rest of the movies get a 4K release? Did we only get the first 5 because of a rights thing from Shout?

I think we'll get 6-8 next year.

[The80s]

Originally Posted by thebarnman

If she did do that, then it wouldn't be a movie.

Originally Posted by thebarnman

If she didn't do that, then it wouldn't be a movie.

Originally Posted by thebarnman

I always answer these types of questions with the same answer. If they did do that (insert what ever scenario would be logical) then it wouldn't be a movie.

Originally Posted by thebarnman

Correct, she did have her back to him like that. Clearly it's a movie because that's the way it was written.

Originally Posted by thebarnman

It just wasn't written that way. If Michael didn't escape, if Laurie didn't drop off the keys, if Annie didn't get stuck in the window, if Bob didn't get the beer...

Originally Posted by thebarnman

If she didn't, it wouldn't have been a movie.

You just described every movie ever.


We're trying to figure it out from within the context of the story, inside the movie's universe.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by The80s

You just described every movie ever.


We're trying to figure it out from within the context of the story, inside the movie's universe.

Haven’t you heard? Every movie had to be exactly the way it is because otherwise… it wouldn’t be a movie. So there’s no point in discussing the plot of any movie. The filmmakers didn’t have a choice. It had to be the way it turned out.

[Martoto]

But they're right.

e.g. If people had listened to Loomis to begin with, there wouldn't be a movie. So the filmmakers aren't going to write an opening scene then have Michael locked up in max security with no chance of release or escape.

It had to be the way it turned out because that was the movie they wanted to make. They weren't going to make a movie they didn't want to make.

As for explaining why things had to be that way in the movie's "universe". Who cares? Unless you're talking about perverse choices or things that are so counterintuitive that the require justification or suspension of disbelief, it's the movie they were making is the answer to your question.

[Matt89]

With that being said, it's not like Halloween is very illogical anyway. Michael escapes (not that unrealistic - after all, Ted Bundy escaped twice) and goes to his hometown to kill a bunch of people. The only really unrealistic thing about it is

[Show spoiler]Bob being held up against the kitchen cabinet with merely a knife through his chest and Michael walking away again after being shot repeatedly lol

but it's pretty believable for the most part. Halloween is pretty simple. Halloween II is where you really have to begin to suspend your disbelief.

~Matt

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Martoto

But they're right.

e.g. If people had listened to Loomis to begin with, there wouldn't be a movie. So the filmmakers aren't going to write an opening scene then have Michael locked up in max security with no chance of release or escape.

It wouldn’t really make sense for people to listen to Loomis to begin with. He just goes on and on about how evil Michael is. Those monologues aren’t typical for a psychiatrist or believable from a psychiatric standpoint.

Originally Posted by Martoto

It had to be the way it turned out because that was the movie they wanted to make. They weren't going to make a movie they didn't want to make.

No one was saying it had to be radically different. The discussion revolved around little details, like what if Laurie had walked out of the house with the kids? Well, they could have done that if they wanted and still come up with an ending that’s virtually identical to the movie’s ending. What if she hadn’t thrown the knife away a second time? Well, Michael could’ve crept up on her and taken the knife away. Saying it wouldn’t have been a movie is nonsense because plenty of movies are shot with alternate versions of scenes and the director chooses what he wants. It’s not like there’s some universal law that states a certain idea has to be used over another and if not then the movie won’t work.

Originally Posted by Matt89

With that being said, it's not like Halloween is very illogical anyway. Michael escapes (not that unrealistic - after all, Ted Bundy escaped twice) and goes to his hometown to kill a bunch of people. The only really unrealistic thing about it is

[Show spoiler]Bob being held up against the kitchen cabinet with merely a knife through his chest and Michael walking away again after being shot repeatedly lol

but it's pretty believable for the most part. Halloween is pretty simple. Halloween II is where you really have to begin to suspend your disbelief.

~Matt

Yeah, I don’t find any major problems with Halloween. The knife holding up Bob and him dying instantly from it might be unrealistic, but that scene is so effective that it doesn’t matter to me. The only thing that leaves me scratching my head a bit is why the alarm at the hardware store goes on for about twelve hours. As for the ending being unrealistic, that was the point. The movie is basically very realistic up until the last scene, at which point we’re supposed to believe or half-believe that Loomis, and Tommy as well, were right.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Yeah, I don’t find any major problems with Halloween. The knife holding up Bob and him dying instantly from it might be unrealistic, but that scene is so effective that it doesn’t matter to me. The only thing that leaves me scratching my head a bit is why the alarm at the hardware store goes on for about twelve hours. As for the ending being unrealistic, that was the point. The movie is basically very realistic up until the last scene, at which point we’re supposed to believe or half-believe that Loomis, and Tommy as well, were right.

Totally. And my pointing out the unrealistic nature of those two scenes isn't a knock against it as much as it is just bringing attention to the fact that overall, most of the movie isn't THAT unrealistic. The way Michael turns his head, admiring his work after offing Bob is one of the best scenes in the film. Truly creepy and unsettling. The fact that there's no score either and that scene is done in complete silence only adds to the effect.

And yeah, the ending of the film is just really bleak (and it works) and certainly adds to the mythos of Michael Myers and the idea that he's an unstoppable inhuman killing machine, which Dr. Loomis goes to great lengths to explain. Unfortunately, that opened it up for a number of sequels (some of them I do like) but it's sorta nice sometimes to think of Halloween as its own film that has just a typically bleak unrelenting downbeat 1970s ending.

~Matt

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

It wouldn’t really make sense for people to listen to Loomis to begin with. He just goes on and on about how evil Michael is. Those monologues aren’t typical for a psychiatrist or believable from a psychiatric standpoint.

No, he doesn't start warning anyone that Michael is evil until years later. In fact there's no reference to him calling Michael evil until the night he escaped. I'm talking about them not taking Loomis's medical opinion seriously and keeping him in minimum security.

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

No one was saying it had to be radically different. The discussion revolved around little details, like what if Laurie had walked out of the house with the kids? Well, they could have done that if they wanted and still come up with an ending that’s virtually identical to the movie’s ending. What if she hadn’t thrown the knife away a second time? Well, Michael could’ve crept up on her and taken the knife away. Saying it wouldn’t have been a movie is nonsense because plenty of movies are shot with alternate versions of scenes and the director chooses what he wants. It’s not like there’s some universal law that states a certain idea has to be used over another and if not then the movie won’t work.

I don't think that's the same thing that barnam is responding to. People are talking about different permutations as if they're so intuitive that they need to be explicitly addressed. I don't think he's saying you can't ponder what ifs because they change the storyline. I think he's saying that the storyline and the filmmaker does not need to justify not making those choices.

The alternate scenes you refer to are usually from indecisive directors or from meddling studio execs second guessing the director.

This is making me think of the "But what if he'd shot you in the face?" bit in Dumb & Dumber though.

Filmmakers that are worth watching set out to make the movie they want to see and therefore want to make. And then they make it as best they can. They don't set out to make a movie that will serve the audience's particular logic or curiosity. In just about every case with a film-maker like Carpenter, there's no ifs. The movie is the way it is or they wouldn't have made it.

[The80s]

Originally Posted by Sabre95

What are the chances we see the rest of the movies get a 4K release? Did we only get the first 5 because of a rights thing from Shout?

I feel it's very likely and I have a ton of hope for it.

Cliff from Shout said in a video interview that (something to the effect of)"it would be impossible to do all the movies at once so we had to split them up." He means upgrading them to 4K, and the big hint is "split them up."

From what I recall that's all he said about it. So my theory is they have the rights to all the non-Blumhouse films (H1-RZH2) and are releasing them in halves. 1-5 now. 6-10 next year. (That's likely why they chose to release specifically 5 films this year and not 3 or 4 or 6 or 7. Because 5 is right down the middle)

Fingers crossed because my Halloween 4K collection wont be complete without H6. My main concern with that is that BOTH cuts get a 4K upgrade. I'm gonna be pretty upset if only the P-Cut gets the upgrade.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Martoto

No, he doesn't start warning anyone that Michael is evil until years later. In fact there's no reference to him calling Michael evil until the night he escaped. I'm talking about them just taking Loomis's medical opinion seriously and keeping him in minimum security.

I thought you were talking about the beginning of the movie, at which point Loomis had been convinced for seven years that Michael was pure evil. Even if he hadn’t previously used the word “evil” to describe Michael, his colleagues’ lack of faith in his assessment of Michael is believable because it was still overly dramatic. Watch the scene in the TV version where he describes Michael to some other doctors for how these situations might’ve played out.

Originally Posted by Martoto

I don't think that's the same thing that barnam is responding to. People are talking about different permutations as if they're so intuitive that they need to be explicitly addressed.

This particular conversation started because someone said Laurie didn’t go with the kids down the street because she knew Michael would come after her whether she was with the kids or not, and then I replied saying that at that point she thought Michael was dead, and that it wouldn’t make sense for her back to be turned toward Michael if she thought he was alive. Then barnum replied to me as if I was criticizing the actual scene in the movie instead of this hypothetical scenario. I don’t know if he misunderstood my post or just likes to say “because it wouldn’t have been a movie” regardless of the context, but there you have it.

Originally Posted by Martoto

The alternate scenes you refer to are usually from indecisive directors or from meddling studio execs second guessing the director.

This is making me think of the "But what if he'd shot you in the face?" bit in Dumb & Dumber though.

Filmmakers that are worth watching set out to make the movie they want to see and therefore want to make. And then they make it as best they can. They don't set out to make a movie that will serve the audience's particular logic or curiosity. In just about every case with a film-maker like Carpenter, there's no ifs. The movie is the way it is or they wouldn't have made it.

Or there could just be different ideas from the writer/director. In the script for Halloween it says that when Laurie stabbed Michael, the knife stayed in his abdomen. So it wasn’t like there had to be another instance of her throwing the knife away and without it the movie couldn’t exist. We’re talking about little things that easily could’ve been decided on during the day of shooting. Choosing between having the knife stuck in Michael’s abdomen or Laurie holding it and tossing it aside doesn’t change the movie in any meaningful way.

[Martoto]

When people ask "Why didn't..." there is an implication that the film has neglected the obvious or logical flow of events without merit or justification.

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

...Choosing between having the knife stuck in Michael’s abdomen or Laurie holding it and tossing it aside doesn’t change the movie in any meaningful way.

Either way, Laurie doesn't have the knife when the Shape comes around again. That was always the intent.