You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
What a joke this franchise has become.
BTW James, TCM is the greatest film ever made? Such a piece of high art, eh? 
Sorry man, just had to poke fun. 
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
You should definitely watch it. At least download a cam/screener when it hits the
That's what i'm gonna do. I was leaning towards just paying the $5 bucks in the afternoon at matinee, and seeing it, but it's finally starting to hit torrents and rapidshare, so i'm gonna go that route instead. If I really dig it (big fuckin' long shot), i'll take someone with me next Friday, and see it in the theater.
Would anyone be against the return of Dwight Little?
Meh... I don't think it's what the franchise needs at this point, although it certaintly wouldn't be the end of the world. Little did a good job, but Little will only do so well in accordance to his script. If I remember correctly Little was approached to do Halloween 8, and turned them down. They then went to Steve Miner (Halloween H2O) and he turned them down. They then went to Dominque-Othenin Girard (Halloween 5), and offered it to him, he turned them down, and finally Rick Rosenthal (Halloween II '81) accepted.
Rosenthal was the obvious bad choice, simply based on that fact that it's pretty well known now that he took Carpenter's marching orders, same with Wallace on Halloween III, and that's basically the reason those films turned out the way they did. In some ways, I wish Carpenter would return, if just to serve as Executive Producer, and really drive the project forward, but he has absolutely no interest, and his recent ideas for the franchise, like Michael in Space (Halloween 6) and Michael vs. Pinhead, all the while turning down a film like Halloween H2O, just leaves him brainless.
With all of that long winded babble, as for Little, see above reasons. Will he really bring all that much? I just see it being a Rick Rosenthal situation - again. People that, "hey, Rick Rosenthal on board, it'll be H2 revisted", and Rosenthal simply couldn't work past an ABYSMAL script and plot and horrible acting (Busta Rhymes mainly).
If someone pinned a brilliant script... maybe. But I don't see, at least in 2009, Little being all that special. There would really be no difference to just call Rick Rosenthal back or maybe even Tommy Lee Wallace, who were considered to be involved in some of the "better" sequels. The first reaction is, Wallace did H3! Are you kidding? Go check out the Halloween fan world, in 2009... it's one of the more POPULAR films in the franchise, after all of the shit people have eaten since 1989, barring H2O.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
I bring up Little because he's the only person in the history of the franchise other than Carpenter to truly nail the Halloween vibe. While he isn't the greatest director in the world, that has got to count for something.
I also realize people have/had issues with the mask, but as long as its a solid film, I can handle a mediocre mask.
I'll take a shit mask and a good film over a great mask and shit film any day of the week.
I think hardcore Halloween fans concentrate way too much on the Myers mask. Yeah it's a central theme of the series, but cmon. Its a mask.
What's funny about that is the 3D angle will put even more emphasis on the mask. We're bound to get at least one 3D scene revolving around it in some aspect, which will probably mean they will aim for a mask with brighter colors.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
It's a mask, yes, but it's also the sole relatable/recognizable feature Myers gives out of himself. Any director who renders his Shape an oafish stuntman in a very, very unconvincing mask isn't putting out much effort in regards to the of core the franchise. Little screwed up with the mask and the actor, although Joe Chappelle with H6 probably takes the cake. My main problem is that it's a comparatively inexpensive part of production design, and shouldn't be too hard to be done right.
The fact that so many filmmakers have overlooked this aspect stands as evidence to how far removed they've been of Carpenter's original intentions with the character. Not saying none of the sequels have any redeeming elements, merely suggesting that by phoning in the mask, they've obviously not taken enough time to consider their approach to The Shape.
Little's a decent journeyman director, I guess. He can stage his setpieces competently and deliver some stylish shots to get around uneven source material. Should check out his sequel to my guilty pleasure, Anaconda, to see where he currently lies in regards to directing horror film sequels.
The 3D part is a bit chilling, as it could end up a similar superfluous novelty as it was in Freddy's Dead, the umpteenth Elm St. sequel. If they'd come with some really clever ways to use it - similar to the Carpenter brainstorm of The Shape slowly lighting up in the dark, we could have some impressive setpieces. Hope they'd actually stage a few masters in 3D and let it play out from there, rather than to have the tacked-on mandatory knife impact or a mask appearance out of nowhere as an insert.
One can dream.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
It certaintly is an intriguing concept. You think of "3D" being such a modern idea in a sense (even though, it's big time aged), and being associated so much with Friday The 13th Part 3D, in terms of the 80's slashers. Seeing a modern Halloween sequel, especially after the Zombie disaster, what exactly they'll do. On one hand, it could be a very intriguing film, that could finally break out the paddles and jump start this franchise again (something H2O did in '98 and was wasted). On the other hand, it could be an utter laughable disaster, that'll make Zombie's films, and H5, H6 & H8 look like masterpieces in comparison. It's a big gamble, but at the same time, they've got no where to go but up.
I personally would like to direct non-3D Halloween III. The first thing i'd do is hire Dean Cundey for Cinematography, and the next, Alan Howarth for the score.
I want wide angles, long establishing shots, and my main focus would be doing everything possible to make the film "feel" like the first three Halloween movies.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
If I'd be given a carte blanche to do a film set in the Halloween universe, I'd take cues from William Peter Blatty's The Ninth Configuration, Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter and Sean Penn's The Pledge. Basically, the premise would be, every autumn, Haddonfield goes berserk as a masked killer enters the neighborhood, wreaking havoc in the spirit of Michael Myers, the little boy who killed his sister way back when and came back as an escaped mental patient, committing multiple homicides before being shot and killed by Dr Loomis (or Laurie, if you want to go with Zombie's theatrical version - I personally prefer the workprint ending).
The concept would wander into the territory of evil as an entity; Michael Myers, as a person, would be long gone, yet every year, someone would don the William Shatner mask and give up any pretensions of sanity and succumb to a killing spree. Every year, Haddonfield would shut down by Halloween. People would skip town to visit faraway relatives. Curfews would be issued. Trick or treating would be banished. The National Guard would patrol the streets for a few years during the holiday, before leaving the now-cold trail. A Michael would be waiting, somewhere...
He'd get a new killer to examine. A blank, nondescript personality, a shell of a (wo)man. A social class and family environment like any other, nothing singularly pointing out towards the atrocities now committed. He'd sought out a handful of aspiring students in criminal psychology, to participate in an experiment to live the Haddonfield life. Each of them would become a sleeper cell, under the pretext of studying under Loomis at the local university, as he lectures on the problem of evil. Could they observe and acknowledge any of their peers express deviant conduct beforehand, thus preventing a new Michael on Halloween?
Ripping a page from Donna Tartt's The Secret History, they would all become Michael on Halloween, donning the iconic mask and swearing an oath not to testify against the others. They'd all take a walk all over Haddonfield on Halloween. They'd all hunt alone, perhaps thinking an animal would be sufficient, or even traditional haunting, examining the public reactions to the mask itself. One would be caught by local townsmen and scolded by Loomis for a "bad joke". The others would still be out there, unbeknownst to each other - and to Loomis.
There would be a real Michael, however, whether he'd be the jock busted (as Loomis initially fears) or one of his unfortunate peers (caught and mangled by an angry mob), or a complete stranger, would be left open. There could be anyone underneath the mask, slowly coming to terms with the fact that you could anything in Haddonfield on Halloween when you are Michael Myers. You could shag the prom queen. You could rob a liquor store. You could take back on the football team member you got pushed by in the hallway during the fortnight. It is, in fact, a superposition.
At dawn, the survivors would return to Loomis, now exhausted from a night of bacchanal. The headlines of Haddonfield newspapers scream of Michael's night of terror. CNN would have camera crews unloading. The problem of evil, Loomis would sigh to a myrid of microphones, is the fact we all struggle in containing it.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
Wow. That's a bit too complicated.
I see what you're saying though. It doesn't revolve around Myers, but in the direction of "The Shape" with a more sinister, supernatural vibe to it.
Not against such a concept, but I think the "killer A, killer B, killer C" thing is a bit hard to grasp, especially if we're trying to keep the main context of the original story intact.
The "disciples of Loomis" concept a bit hard to swallow.
Here's my issue with the Halloween story...
Its not really that complex of a story. Sure, we have sequels that go a bit all over the place, but if we strip it down to its basics, its a very simple formula. Lunatic escapes the asylum and wreaks havoc on average small town Americana. Yeah you can add various other ingredients(and they did) and still not stray from those short roots.
I think a good question(and Axlin08 mentioned it earlier) is...
Does this story need to be told again?
My answer:
Why not?
I think Zombie sold himself way too short with his "vision", and I'm not really talking about his style of writing. He tried to act like this was "new and fresh", then goes on to rip off various aspects of the sequels and completely ignore the actual content of the original.
Why even bring up the sister angle? It wasn't even thought of in the original story. It should have been removed from the equation completely. Once you do that, as a writer/filmmaker you are able to truly see what you have to work with. Looking at the series overall and trying to be inspired from it, where do you go?
You go to Rob Zombie's Halloween and Halloween 2, which is just Halloween 2, 4, and 5 basically cooked up in a meth lab in a trailer park.
Remove the sisters, cousins, nephews, and nieces cause the only road they lead to is endless sequels without any finality. I'm not saying a reboot needs to be a stand alone film. If it requires a sequel, go right ahead.
Just don't stray from the original intent of the story. Now some Halloween nut on a horror board would jump in and say, "You just cant get over the past. This is a new vision. A reimagining. If you want the old stuff, go put the old movies in your DVD player."
My response to that is...
No, its YOU that cant get over the past. Zombie isn't showing me anything I didn't see in 88-89, and he's actually showing me a second rate version of it. I have no problems with different. Zombie doesn't bring "different" to the table. He brings rehashed ideas and junior high dialog to the table. He doesn't even understand the basic concept of the story, so how can he even imagine giving a fresh take on it?
I do like your general ideas, and this franchise needs a thinker like that on the team. You do understand the story at heart, but I think you go just a bit too far with it.
I REALLY like the media aspect you mention at the tail end. These slashers always occur away from that, and I think intertwining the story with a statement about our media(and culture's) fascination with serial killers(death) would be a nice ingredient to add to the pot.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
My concept was to just salvage Zombie's story, lol. Maybe Bob will give me a call.
Copperye that actually is an intriguing story, that I think in some portions kind of had shades of Dan Farrands original treatment for Halloween 6, with the neo-Druids being much more heavily featured, and a driving force with Michael.
I like how it does something totally off the mark. The exact thing I love to hell out of Halloween III '82. Everything it did was not what you expected, which is prevolent in that story proposal. But like James said... too much. It's so far away, and almost technical, that casual audiences wouldn't touch it.
Like James referred to, I think the story NEEDS to be simplified.
NOTE: originally in my first intended post here. I attempted to explain my own way to incorporate Zombie's Halloween into my own vision, by acknowledging H2 being a dream, and picking up from there, with
, and tried to develop it there. It became such a clusterfuck, and so fuckin' ridiculous to do, that I completely abandoned it, and continued the post with the following statements...
Zombie should've NEVER pulled that sister angle. I even wonder if the studio suits pressured him to do. That was actually one of the things Carpenter supposedly INSISTED to Zombie - DO NOT DO THIS!!! Carpenter always viewed adding the sister angle in H2-81 as a huge mistake on his part, that pigeonholed the franchise forever.
Zombie should've used Michael's psychopathic behavior in Halloween 2007, and ignored the sister subplot. Even Loomis believes Michael is psychologically damaged child, and feels sympathy for him - like he did do. Where it should've changed was the modern murders. Loomis 'slowly' starts to delve further into Michael's psyche. He's still analyzing him, even has he tries to stop him, slowly developing the "evil" persona... "The Shape". Michael 'becomes' The Shape. He takes on a supernatural persona. What if Michael is some sort of unexplainable 'boogeyman' that haunts Haddonfield on Halloween night, and like Santa Claus, sometimes he shows up, and sometimes he doesn't, leaving that fear by some, and letting of the guard down, by others.
Loomis feels guilty and continues to try and stop Michael as he slowly realizes he's evil.
Other than that...
Each film revolves around some different cast of characters falling prey to Haddonfield's "Boogeyman", The Shape/Michael Myers, and Loomis swooping in, as the Van Helsing, to try and keep ole' Mikey at bay, and getting a little crazier each time.
It's a pretty simple formula. The art imo to Halloween, is not some BIG ASS masterful story. It's about ignoring "Michael Myers.com" bullshit stuff, and telling a simply slash n' kill, with a recurring Loomis vs. Myers thing, with the BIGGEST part, being - good direction. A good 'eye' for the film. Create an atmosphere like those earlier films. Give it a vibe. Give it a creepy feel. Give it a seasonal Halloween feel, and creating that through a good score.
And it can be recycled over and over and over, as long as those basic ingredients are there.
That's the biggest problem with the franchise, is with each film, they go out there and try to create some big story, something different, and it's really not necessary.
"But Axlin08, we want something different. We want something off the wall"
You don't want me to do that. Because the only way I do that, is to KILL Myers off forever, and go the Carpenter-anthology route with H3-82, and each year, tell a different story based around the holiday of Halloween, but with the film keeping the same vibe. That's the only way i'd do something vastly different with Halloween.
Re: Halloween 3D in summer 2010
I have two words for you(not YOU specifically, but anyone reading this), and this isn't meant to ruffle Carpenter nutswinger feathers.....
Black Christmas.
THAT is a slasher at its absolute purest. Does that film have flaws? Sure. However, you cant really deny what it achieved and what it was meant to convey. Carpenter expanded on this concept. He basically took that story and gave it a face, gave the audience something to fear other than a character not shown to the viewers.
Not intending to start a 'chicken or the egg' argument between the two flicks as it always goes nowhere, but one thing is certain.....
Carpenter expanded on the basic premise of the slasher. He gave us something "different". While not a huge departure from Black Christmas obviously, he took the concept and made it his own.
That is what Zombie should have done. Not trash it up with hillbilly shit, but take the core of the story and add his own subtle tones to it. While you could say "copycat", it becomes his just by the imprint he leaves on it.
As I mentioned earlier, Zombie was on the right track with the prequel aspect of his film. He was filling in the pieces of the puzzle that Carpenter didn't touch. Zombie basically turned the first 60 seconds of the original film into the first half of his movie. While he is a hack writer through and through, that took balls. He then immediately de-balls himself by playing it safe with a condensed remake that borrows more from sequels than it does the original film. He was incredibly liberal regarding material to work with, yet boxes himself in anyways.
He lost sight of the ball completely.
The next director in front of the firing squad has one hell of a task ahead. Do they go the safe popcorn fluff route, or do they do what Zombie said he would do but was unable to... make Michael Myers scary again?
