The Halloween Franchise

[The Joker]

I've wondered if that wasn't bandied about for HR but was rejected because of logistical challenges. HR had to explain how Myers survived H20. So, right there, you're hard-pressed to work that explanation into a found footage thing.

So, unless HR was going to be another retcon or some sort of reboot, the crew was stuck with a conventional film approach.

Yeah, about the only way it could've been done (I suppose), is for HR to open just like it did, with Jamie Lee's Laurie Strode's prologue playing out exactly like we saw, and 'then' cut to a found film presentation. Perhaps with some lines of text stating that the footage was found about a year following the unsolved Laurie Strode murder in 1999 or 2000....

Though that might be considered a bit too jarring.

If you ever do a Reddit AMA about this, DM me.

Or hell, DM anyway because I'm blown away by this.

Sure. Wish I could say it was a spectacular relationship (it was at first yeah), but it devolved more and more into insecurityville as it went on.

The closest I can think of Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon, which is equal parts documentary and traditional film. Definitely worth watching tho.

I'll have to remember that.

Whoa, rly? Because I dig the F13 remake as mandatory F13 viewing but can only appreciate H2007 as a strictly optional reinterpretation of H1978. Jason in the remake is mad, bad and dangerous to know. Strange that (at least imo) F13 is by far the most enjoyable of the 2000's slasher remakes.

Yeah, I get that. I am not saying that the 2009 F13th movie is bad by any means, but I just found that Rob Zombie's directorial style and cast had a stronger punch to it than Marcus Nispel's F13th effort. Actually, I found Nispel's TCM 2003 remake more enjoyable as a whole than the 2009 F13th movie. Derek Mears as Jason was outstanding to say the least, but the rest of the cast wasn't really anything to write home about. Perhaps that was by design I guess, but I actually thought the 1st set of teens looking for weed following the Pamela Voorhees prologue to be more likable than the more prominently featured set. 

Yeah, I don't think anybody would argue against that. The Nightmare remake is an inferior product for quite a number of reasons, in fact.

True. Pretty much a series of jump scares. Bleh. I remember being kinda disappointed hearing Robert Englund wasn't going to cameo in the 2010 NOES, but yeah, after seeing it, I'm glad he didn't.

[thecolorsblend]

Is Halloween Ends The Last Michael Myers Movie? Blumhouse Head Responds
https://screenrant.com/halloween-ends-michael-myers-last-movie-jason-blum

Short answer is it's the last Blumhouse Halloween film by contract. At least for now. Who can say what the future will bring?

Honestly, I think it stands to reason that the series will continue in some way. It's not like Akkad has an endless vault of IP's that he can experiment with at his leisure. Whether it's a reboot or whether it does or doesn't include Blumhouse, it seems like a no-brainer to say that there's always another one coming. Sooner or later.

But assuming Halloween Ends lives up to its name, I'm at a loss as to how to continue the series. This current timeline seems like it will be fully explored by the end of HE. But at the same time, even five years from now seems too soon for a wholesale reboot. Related, I assume nobody is interested in reviving the Thorn, H20 or Zombie timelines. So, what's left?

But whatever it is, let's face it, I'm buying it, yeesh.

[The Joker]

Yeah, I agree. One way or another, Halloween will continue on past Blumhouse's Halloween Ends. It's just too big of a horror IP to remain dormant for a extensive period of time.

I really can't see the Akkad's going back to Zombie or Thorn continuities, unless it's for streaming or something, but I think that's rather unlikely. A remake/reboot would make the most sense, but one has to wonder if a presumed remake will include recastings of legacy characters like Laurie and Dr. Loomis, or would it attempt to open with new characters (outside of Michael of course) with no association with the past?

I guess if people don't take to a new cast of characters, reintroducing recast legacy characters could be something of a "hook" for sequels, but it's all conjecture.

[thecolorsblend]

* Yes yes yes, I realize that HR is bad. But if you ask me, it's bad in a good way. Maybe H2018 and HK have changed my perspective a bit. But now I can watch HR and enjoy even the cringey stuff like Busta Rhymes defeating Michael Myers TWICE.

I hesitate to call myself a fan of this movie. But I do have bizarre appreciation for it. So, the workprint...

https://archive.org/details/halloween-resurrection-workprint-scenes

I'm up to my eyeballs with work at the moment. So, I'm in no position to say what differences (presumably) exist between the theatrical version and the workprint scenes.

However, Katee Sackhoff revealed on her YouTube channel that the close-up of Jen's bra in the movie isn't her. The director wanted her to lift her shirt but she refused. So, they used a body double for the close-up and cut around Sackhoff to achieve the illusion that she's exposing her ta-ta's. Even tho she never did. She went on to chalk that up to a learning experience, where actors have to watch their own backs on a film set because nobody else will. So, there's one thing that the workprint might show.

Anyway. Maybe we should retitle this thread to General Halloween discussion? Or something like that? Because let's face it, the Halloween series doesn't warrant a thread for each individual entry in the franchise on a Batman-focused forum.

[Silver Nemesis]

Anyway. Maybe we should retitle this thread to General Halloween discussion? Or something like that? Because let's face it, the Halloween series doesn't warrant a thread for each individual entry in the franchise on a Batman-focused forum.

I've re-titled it 'The Halloween Franchise' and merged it with the Halloween (2018) thread.

Also, here's a post I made back in 2018 in another thread concerning how I'd rank each entry in the series. Seems relevant.

Going back to the Halloween movies, SN, how would you rank them? Excluding Season of the Witch.

My rankings would go a little something like this:

1. Halloween 1978
2. Halloween 2 1981
3. Halloween 2018
4. Halloween 2007
5. Halloween 4: Return of Michael Myers 1988
6. Halloween: Curse of Michael Myers 1995
7. Halloween: H20 1998
8. Halloween 5 1989
9. H2: Halloween II 2009
10. Halloween Resurrection 2002

That's tricky. My list wouldn't be too dissimilar from yours, with a few minor differences. I still haven't seen Halloween 2 (2009) or the 2018 movie, and some of the other films I haven't watched in over a decade. But going off what I remember, and ignoring Halloween 3, I'd rank the Michael Myers series as follows (from worst to best):

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

Nothing about this film works, unless you're watching it as an ironic illustration of how not to make a sequel. The house filled with cameras offered the perfect set-up for a found footage film, but the movie never follows through on that premise. A found footage film still probably would have sucked, but at least it would have been different. The retconning of H20's ending robbed the previous movie of its finality, which in turn resulted in an extremely underwhelming exit for the Laurie Strode character. Her death should have been far more impactful. And as for Busta Rhymes... Ugh. It's hard for any screen villain to bounce back from a movie this bad.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

I've seen this movie at least two or three times over the years, but honestly... I can barely remember it. That says a lot about how good it is. Halloween 4 ended on a bold note that could have concluded the entire series, or else reoriented the franchise along a fresh path. But Halloween 5 squanders that potential in favour of a forgettable retread more befitting the Friday the 13th franchise than Halloween.

Halloween (2007)

I'm not a fan of Rob Zombie, but I give this one credit for carving its own identity and attempting a more grounded, psychological take on the central character. However the blunt, graphic nature of the movie is antithetical to what made Carpenter's original so effective, and the expanded back-story for Michael Myers merely demystifies him and – for me at least – makes him less frightening. The dialogue between the teenage characters is extremely cringeworthy in places (I read a leaked copy of Zombie's script before the film was released, and the original version was even more lurid than the finished product). On the plus side, the movie delivers some strong visuals and an impressive line-up of veteran actors appear in minor supporting roles. Zombie fans will probably rate this one higher, but it just didn't do anything for me. I should mention I've only seen the director's cut. I gather the theatrical version is quite different.

Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

If I were ranking these based purely on personal preference, then this one would rate higher. It was the first Halloween sequel I saw as a kid and back then I really liked it. I didn't become aware of the different cuts until many years later. Halloween 6 is the conclusion to the trilogy that begins with Halloween 4. But like the recent Star Wars movies, the trajectory of that trilogy was not properly mapped out in advance. There are too many opaque plot points that needed clarifying: is Michael the father of his niece's child or not? What influence, if any, does the weird cult have over Michael's actions? And what the hell happens to Dr Loomis in the version of the film that ends with the close-up of Michael's mask? I have a nostalgic soft spot for this one. But objectively speaking, it's a real mess.

Halloween H20 (1998)

H20 has the same late-nineties slickness that characterised movies like Scream, I know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend. But what it lacks is the post-modern self-awareness that helped deconstruct the American horror genre and rejuvenate it towards the end of that decade. There are a couple of metafictional gags relating to Janet Leigh, but aside from that H20 is basically just another retread of the first film. It looks nice and has decent production values, but the score is overbearing and the constant false jump scares are irritating as hell. This movie seemed really cool back in 1998, but now it just feels redundant.

Halloween 2 (1981)

Is this sequel necessary? No. But it's entertaining. I like the way it picks up exactly where the first film left off, utilising many of the same locations and actors for a more or less seamless continuation. It does what a horror sequel is expected to do: up the gore, make the kills more inventive, and expand on the mythology. Whereas most horror sequels close on an ambiguously open-ended note, Halloween 2 contains the first of several attempts to conclude the story of Michael Myers. If the series had ended here, it wouldn't have been a bad place to stop. Halloween 2 may be unnecessary, and it lacks the subtlety and originality of the first film, but it's still very watchable.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

This film set the precedent for releasing Halloween movies on the anniversary of the original. In that sense, you could call it Halloween H10. It starts on the right note with an atmospheric montage of desolate autumnal imagery accompanied by Alan Howarth's melancholy score. I love this title sequence.

From there, we return to the story of Michael Myers. Yes, the same Michael Myers who was incinerated at the end of the second film. You have to overlook this discrepancy, as well as the one about Loomis (he was blown to smithereens last time we saw him, but is now only mildly scarred) in order for the film to work. But if you can do that, Halloween 4 is one of the better instalments in the franchise. It doesn't deviate too far from the formula established by the first film, but it executes that formula with just the right amount of panache. The cinematography and lighting evoke a suitably dark and moody atmosphere, there are some suspenseful set pieces, and the central performances are generally strong. For me, Halloween I, II and IV constitute the classic Michael Myers trilogy. This movie offers a good ending to that saga.

Halloween (1978)

What is there to say about this film that hasn't already been said? From the extended first-person opening sequence to the final scene where we hear Michael's muffled breathing whispering through the darkened streets – this movie is a haunting chiller from start to finish. Admittedly some of the acting is wooden, and it's kind of obvious it wasn't filmed in autumn. But I love the grainy 35mm photography, the pacing is perfect, and Carpenter's minimalist score is unforgettable. As a film buff, I also dig the references to earlier horror movies such as Christian Nyby's The Thing from Another World, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, Michael Powell's Peeping Tom and Bob Clark's Black Christmas. Carpenter's Halloween is a genuine classic worthy of standing alongside those films.

[thecolorsblend]

Halloween Ends trailer:

Looks pretty awesome to me.

[The Joker]

I am teased.

[thecolorsblend]

Arguably unrelated. But I finally rewatched Halloween III: Season of the Witch a couple weeks ago. Hadn't seen it since I was a little kid.

The obvious: There's no Michael Myers here. There, I said it.

But when you move away from that, if you mentally rename the movie to just "Season of the Witch", it's actually pretty enjoyable. You've got a murder mystery going on, killer masks, killer robots, modern day druids, something to do with Stonehenge and so forth. It's a pretty bonkers movie, all things considered. It's kind of sad that Season of the Witch's scarlet letter is the "Halloween III" part of its title.

If not for that, I think it would actually be a pretty well-regarded horror movie today. Yes, it's been reappraised in recent years. But the stigma still lingers. And it's a strange fate that a movie this good has gotten such bad treatment due to outside factors beyond anybody's control.

Anyway. Point being, it's worth another look if you haven't seen it in a while. Halloween III: Season of the Witch came out a few months after Poltergeist. They're roughly contemporaries with each other. And while Poltergeist is the superior film, Halloween III: Season of the Witch still has a lot to offer.

As a side note, Halloween III: Season of the Witch has an awesome and iconic poster. One of my favorites of all time. It tells you nothing about the story, and yet it definitely conveys the fact that this is a horror movie.

[Silver Nemesis]

Arguably unrelated. But I finally rewatched Halloween III: Season of the Witch a couple weeks ago. Hadn't seen it since I was a little kid.

The obvious: There's no Michael Myers here. There, I said it.

But when you move away from that, if you mentally rename the movie to just "Season of the Witch", it's actually pretty enjoyable. You've got a murder mystery going on, killer masks, killer robots, modern day druids, something to do with Stonehenge and so forth. It's a pretty bonkers movie, all things considered. It's kind of sad that Season of the Witch's scarlet letter is the "Halloween III" part of its title.

If not for that, I think it would actually be a pretty well-regarded horror movie today. Yes, it's been reappraised in recent years. But the stigma still lingers. And it's a strange fate that a movie this good has gotten such bad treatment due to outside factors beyond anybody's control.

Anyway. Point being, it's worth another look if you haven't seen it in a while. Halloween III: Season of the Witch came out a few months after Poltergeist. They're roughly contemporaries with each other. And while Poltergeist is the superior film, Halloween III: Season of the Witch still has a lot to offer.

Absolutely. Halloween '78 is the best film in the series, but Season of the Witch is my personal favourite. It's criminally underrated. Carpenter's original concept was for an anthology series with each annual instalment being a standalone film set on Halloween. Unfortunately Halloween 2 set a precedent for continuing the Michael Myers storyline, and so fans expected more of the same when the third film came out. I wonder would audiences have been more receptive to Season of the Witch if it had been the second film in the series and not the third?

But you're right that it should really have been released as a standalone movie. Had it been, then Season of the Witch would probably now be regarded as a Carpenter classic on a par with The Fog. It's gradually starting to receive the appreciation and cult status it deserves, and I've noticed that its IMDb rating increases a little each October. But it's taken four decades for the movie to earn such reappraisal. There was a time when Halloween 3 was in the IMDb bottom 100. All because Michael Myers wasn't in it.

The original screenplay was penned by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, best known as the creator of the Quatermass serials. Kneale had his name taken off the credits after being dissatisfied with Carpenter's rewrites, but you can still see his imagination on display in the finished product. It's a very creative premise: a rich psychotic toymaker steals part of Stonehenge and distributes fragments in kids' Halloween masks so he can trigger their magical properties and kill the wearers using a signal concealed in a TV broadcast, thereby recreating the pagan blood sacrifices of Samhain and reawakening the terror of the season. As plot's go, it's certainly original. No one can say it's formulaic. And while other instalments in the franchise take place on October 31st, Season of the Witch is the only one that's actually about Halloween. It captures the atmosphere of the season better than any other entry in the series.

The low-key lighting and dark cinematography create a moody and ominous atmosphere, and the minimalist synth score is terrific.

I love Dan O'Herlihy's performance as Cochran. It was surely this role that led to him being cast as the Old Man in the RoboCop movies and Andrew Packard in Twin Peaks. His monologue about the origins of Samhain is chilling stuff.

My brother bought me a book for my birthday last year called The Films of John Carpenter by John Kenneth Muir. In his analysis of Season of the Witch, Muir is extremely dismissive and writes the movie off as a failure. One of the criticisms he levels at the film is Cochran's plan, arguing that it doesn't make sense for him to execute a scheme that could so easily be traced back to himself. I noticed this book was published in 2000. Had it been published at the end of 2001, I think Muir might have found Cochran's disregard for his own safety in the pursuit of a terrorist agenda more plausible. Cochran doesn't care if he gets caught. He just wants to spread terror and make people fear Halloween again. His actions are irrational, yes, but his willingness to sacrifice himself for his cause is frighteningly believable.

That's not to say that Halloween 3 is without flaws. The subplot about Cochran replacing Ellie with a robot is a bit weird. It's never explained why he did that or why the robot didn't try to stop Challis from sabotaging the villains' operation earlier. The central scheme to kill everyone at 21:00 doesn't take into account differences in time zones. Also, the Silver Shamrock broadcast is on after a screening of Halloween '78. But the Silver Shamrock broadcast is at 21:00, which means Halloween '78 was shown before the nine o'clock watershed. That seems unlikely.

Then there's Tom Atkins' character, an unwashed drunk middle-aged doctor who never changes his clothes but is somehow irresistible to attractive younger women. His sexual conquest of the recently bereaved Ellie adds a layer of unintentional comedy to the movie ("What was that?" "Who cares?"), which even Atkins himself has joked about in interviews. The unlikeable nature of his protagonist is down to the writing and not his performance. In fact Atkins' acting is pretty good, particularly during the final scene where he's yelling for the network to cut the Silver Shamrock broadcast. But his character, as written in the script, isn't terribly sympathetic.

Despite these issues, Season of the Witch is a really fun movie that deserves more credit than it receives. It's essential October viewing for me.

As a side note, Halloween III: Season of the Witch has an awesome and iconic poster. One of my favorites of all time. It tells you nothing about the story, and yet it definitely conveys the fact that this is a horror movie.

The original trailer's really creepy too, with the eyes appearing behind the mask and the voice whispering in the background.

I've seen a number of fan theories over the years about how the Silver Shamrock storyline might be connected to Michael Myers through the iconic Captain Kirk mask. Supposing the mask was originally made by Cochran, and it was the mask that granted Myers his powers of invincibility. That's one avenue a future entry in the series could explore. Though to do that, you'd have to ignore the fact that Halloween '78 exists as a movie within the reality of Halloween 3.

[thecolorsblend]

Thinking about the future of this series. And I've wondered about the potential of revisiting the Thorn films. I mean, there's no way to make a sequel to Halloween 6. Even if anybody had an appetite for that (and most people don't), there's not very much gas left in the tank after that movie.

But what about revisiting Halloween 4? Pick it up in the modern day. Jamie is released from the nuthouse. She's finally recovered well enough from her PTSD from Halloween 4 that she can TRY reintegrating into mainstream society. It's been all these decades and Myers is presumed long dead. Which makes it decidedly inconvenient for Jamie when Myers comes looking for her.

The reason I suggest this is partly because I will defend Halloween 4 to my dying breath. Obviously, nothing touches H78. We all agree on this. Still, H4 is a worthy sequel that honors the spirit of the original. And frankly, that's not the norm in this franchise as much as it should be. So, retcon everything after H4 out of existence and resume the story from there.

Or what about revisiting Halloween 5? Admittedly, I'm disinclined to do that. Because H5 is p00p on a stick without the stick. Still, that cliffhanger ending of Myers getting put into (and subsequently taken right back out of) jail is interesting. What happened to him? Who took him? Why? You can answer those questions in the modern day. Turns out, the guy who sprung Myers out of jail is Danny, Judith's boyfriend from that fateful night back in 1963. Danny heard Myers was active again in Haddonfield and he wanted retribution. He wasn't freeing Myers. Danny wanted his pound of flesh.

And he got it. Or so he thinks. So, imagine his surprise when he finds Myers gunning for him. After Danny is gone, Myers sets his sights back on Haddonfield. In theory, bringing Harris back to play Jamie is strictly optional here. Although, why bother reopening the H5 can of worms if you're just going to ignore Jamie? Wtf kind of sense is that supposed to make?

So, I say bring her back, show Jamie's normal life in suburbia, she's happy and healthy, she goes to PTA meetings, she's married to cannon fodder some dude who probably sells insurance or something and is pretty much living a quiet life. But when she finds out that Danny, her savior from H5, has been murdered, she has SOME idea of what's coming next... but (unlike Laurie in this current run of Blumhouse films) Jamie refuses to see the obvious, preferring to live in denial instead. Make a character arc out of that. Like, the importance of confronting one's own past or whatever.

I submit to all of you that there's SOME mojo to the idea of bringing Danielle Harris back to the character. She's a fan-favorite, she loves the material, her story got royally screwed over in subsequent sequels and bringing her back has a lot of potential.

Anyway. There are lots of ways to continue the franchise after HE and most of them are probably better ideas than revisiting H4 or H5. Still, revisiting those films isn't a completely insane idea, and may actually have a lot of dramatic potential.

Of course, the obvious drawback is Michael's age. He's already getting sized up for a wheelchair as it is. So, sticking with og Myers just might not be a practical option anymore after HE. So, hmm.

Anyway.