It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
They simply ignore H20. As they should I might add.
How will they explain Michael's return after being burned alive at the end of 2? Will Loomis be mentioned, or will the film confirm that he died there along with Michael 40 years back? (The later sequels gave Loomis a burn mark on his face to show he'd survived the explosion, but I think Carpenter was of the mind to kill him off then and there) Not that it would matter much anyway, as there would be no way for Loomis to appear physically.
I'm extremely fascinated by the possibility of the film, and very happy it's being done with so much of the original players involved. The last I heard of a Halloween sequel was a few year's back, when a reboot was in the works. I didn't really like the sound of it, so I'm glad it didn't get off the ground in order for us to have this. One final showdown with Laurie and Michael.
H20 is my go to film at Halloween! Love it!
I think the plot is nicely done with a smart idea to have Laurie in hiding and never forgetting about her brother.
I love the locations and atmosphere of the film. The opening in Haddonfield beautifully harks back to the original and the empty school setting works really well for the extended climax.
Good strong cast as well and Jamie Lee is just brilliant in it. Such an angst ridden performance, she really makes the film work.
Lets see if this new version has such a good concept....
Oh and I recently re-read Carmilla. Great vampire story and far creepier and gorier than I remembered.
@Ludovico, yes, I would include Loomis in sharing the Halloween iconography too.
Though the later sequels are inferior, I think the most interesting and most impactful element of them is the Loomis and Michael relationship and how Loomis tries and fails constantly to reach the personification of evil in his eyes. His whole life becomes an endless fight to undo what can't be undone, to explain what can't be explained. And the whole series no matter the film plays him up as the conspiracy theorist who is off his rocker, where nobody believes him about Michael until it's too late. He always feels set up to lose, always to be misunderstood, and that feeling of instant defeat and the danger level he's always in makes those films supremely interesting. I like the character of the little girl Jamie he shares the screen with in 4 & 5, but those films are very much Loomis movies to me the way that the first two are Laurie's with Loomis playing a vital role.
@Ludovico, I love the Ahab/White Whale comparison. That's definitely there.
I'm a little curious, I won't lie, but it is doing just what H20 did 20 years go (use the first two films as the jumping off point for a new timeline).
Seems to be exactly that, @MajorDSmythe
As with everything in cinema these days, everything is rebooted, remade or regurgitated it seems.....
I think with this new one they'll really be ramping up the R-rated stuff, to really make a super adult film.
Though it worries me to see Danny McBride involved in the scripting, as he is most known for comedy films and TV.
Trouble is Halloween was never about the gore and violence.
It left that to the Friday the 13th type of slasher film.
Well, can't agree with that. It is a horror film after all, and the films depict some very violent kills that aren't mitigated by the comedy of Friday or Nightmare films and how the creativeness of those movies' kills made some of the violence more funny than blood-curdling.
But for me Halloween has always been the most impactful in its violence, as it just gives the violence and doesn't have anything else to mitigate or distract from it. You're right about gore to a point, where the early films (basically what Carpenter was attached to) utilized very little blood, and even though that could've been just as much a budget issue as style choice, it goes to show that films can still be unsettling without the gore. But the kills themselves are still there, and as with every film of its genre, Halloween goes there, especially in later films.
Unless you're trying to point out that the Halloween films had more going for them, like an actual story with characters you cared about, and there I definitely agree. I don't think any of the other old school horror films beat the endless cat and mouse between Michael and Loomis or Michael and Laurie, and the psychological or literary themes within.
I'm assuming you're referring to the straight to video Halloween sequels all of which I have no interest in seeing.
As I have said, H20 is one of my favourites, so it'll be interesting to see where they go with this new film.
With Jamie Lee attached something must have piqued her interest. Unless its financial reasons...
My ideal Halloween (2018) would be the 9th film in the series, picking up 15 years after Halloween: Resurrection, with Steven now an adult (with no mention of the Thorn cult). But I am well aware that would never happen.
You raise a valid point about the sequels, @LeonardPine. Halloween was equal parts Horror/Thriller (I stop short of calling it a slasher). The sequels however, feel like they were influenced by the Friday The 13th films, which were 7 films in by the time of Halloween IV.
I'm leagues more optimistic about this than I am Zombie's take on the series.
Let me think... yes, I believe that Carpenter is involved in some capacity. I think he is scoring the film. I wouldn't be surprised if he is also involved as a sort of consultant, which could be what lured JLC back.
Carpenter will executive producer and is a creative consultant so, as @Creasy47 said, the content of the script would be run by him and possibly shaped by his own ideas.
Let's hope he still has the magic after all these years. I'm pretty pessimistic these days about a lot of stuff, but I'm very hopeful for this movie, for some odd reason. The way McBride was selling it has me intrigued.
Well, better to have John than not have him, so I feel better about it then I would considering. He hasn't come back to the series since the start, so him being lured back is interesting and hopefully means something, basically that he feels there's a good story left to tell.
What did McBride say?
I have to agree with you there. It's nice that they both wanted him involved from the get-go, and they definitely didn't have to run their ideas by him, but still chose to.
McBride has talked about the simplicity and efficiency of the first film, and how they want to replicate that with a straight-up scary horror flick. They want to continue the tale in a really grounded way.
I think that's the reason they wanted to incorporate Carpenter from the outset, because they loved what he delivered at the start of the franchise and that's what they want to return to.
It's great to hear that they want to channel the first film with the new one. The first is the exemplification of perfect monster building in the visual medium, and one can learn so much about storytelling by how Carpenter chose to shoot Michael from afar or in shadow until he was ready to fully unleash him.
Hopefully the new film with utilize that idea, showing Laurie unknowing of Michael's presence as he trails her from long distance, homaging the first film where Michael stands outside her school and window before she really knows who he is.
Absolutely. As has been pointed out above, Halloween at its best is much more than a genre series or gore fest, and engages a lot of suspense and atmosphere on top of being very cleverly shot and written. There's a lot of psychology connecting it all and a very artistic use of camera (just look at how Carpenter plays with POV in the first film) to manipulate or deceive the viewer, or by how Carpenter disguises Michael until the end to built up the paranoia and danger of his myth. More than any other horror series from those days, Halloween was quite the amazing piece of filmmaking and I think it still doesn't get the credit it deserves from a wider perspective simply because it is marketed strictly as a horror film.
EDIT: Carpenter notes that it ignores everything after the first film, which I suppose is odd given the second one takes place immediately after the first. So he either misspoke, or it takes place right after the first and simply ignores the hospital visit in the second.
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3463699/john-carpenter-says-next-years-halloween-disregards-everything-past-original-film/
@Creasy47, we definitely share the same tastes and traditions. A couple years back a local theater was showing Halloween around the holiday, and I missed it. I still regret that one big time.
It's replaying in cinemas this Halloween, too, if it plays near you! I've missed it every single time, as well. Same with any showings of Carpenter's The Thing I'm always dying to catch.
I drink Hobgoblin a plenty and pumpkin tea (pumpkin chai from David's Tea when I have some from abroad or the Jollybrew pumpkin tea). As a kid we used to have pizza before going trick or treating.