|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 13, 2018 3:42:30 GMT
That's great news. Hopefully the movie will actually live up to those early critical plaudits. Have we finally been given the ever elusive truly 'great' sequel to Halloween? What was wrong with IV, V and H2O? I really like 4. It's obviously the one that started the whole supernatural element because there's no way a human being can survive two gunshots to the eyes and being incinerated. But I thought it was a decent sequel and as goofy as the mask looked, it kinda helped the creep factor to it and Michael has some decent kills. I really liked the characters too. 5 was fine. It had some decent kills but overall I just found it forgettable. H20, while I appreciate it what it was doing and trying to ditch the whole cult of thorn and some of the supernatural element, it was very forgettable and I didn't like the mask either, and the kills were pretty weak as well, nothing memorable.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 13, 2018 4:21:11 GMT
It's Blumhouse. They are the new Weinstein company. Lots of media apparatchiks to kiss ass.
They are like the mini Disney.
If the media wasn't controlled people would be saying:
"holy shit--stop digging the graves outside the retirement home, do something original."
This is the third or fourth reboot--it doesn't deserve any mainstream attention. It's like Dracula vs Frankenstein--all that is missing is the equivalent of J Carrol Naish's clacking dentures and Lon Chaney's sad callback to Of Mice and Men.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 13, 2018 7:55:38 GMT
Uh oh. Just read it's a movie with a message about the long lasting effects of violence. A heavy handed anti violent content message in a slasher movie is the type of idiocy liberal critics would adore. Let's hope it doesn't go that route. I think you're reading a bit too much into that review. Just because it is exploring the effects of violence, doesn't mean its trying to spin into an anti-violence film. It's just the centerpiece of Laurie's character and how she survived Michael's first attack and the effects and PTSD of that have hardened her and made her self-efficient in survival. This is getting to be kind of funny to me. The sheer number of transformations that Laurie Strode undergoes. Halloween (1978) - smart, resourceful, tough, virginal, likeable and modestly pretty Halloween 2 (1981) - a nervous wreck (understandably so, not judging here), with the most ridiculous wig since Harpo Marx (okay, here I am judging!) Halloween H20 (1998) - solid and tough and the old Laurie Strode we all cheered on and liked so well in the 1978 original, w/smart and attractive new haircut Halloween Resurrection - Okay, I have admitedly not seen this movie, but it doesn't star a bunch of rap stars and isn't Laurie Strode back to being a quivering mess? With more Godawful hair? Halloween (2018) - Okay, I am going to see this for sure, but am also a bit fearful that Jamie Lee Curtis appears to be going the Granny Clampett route! Things must have been very confusing at times for Laurie's therapists, to say the least!
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Sept 13, 2018 15:08:25 GMT
My guess is the reason why they are disregarding Halloween II is because, in a perfect world, that is the ending. Myers is killed in the explosion, Loomis sacrificed himself in taking Myers out, and Laurie made it out alive. It had a clear ending whereas Halloween didn't. It left things wide open. What happened to Myers? Did he crawl away and bleed out? Did he get up and head back into the house to take care of Loomis and Laurie, or did he decide to go to a different neighborhood and continue his murderous ways with another unlucky victim, or did he head back to the Myers house to lick his wounds?
Its much easier to tag another movie onto the original's ending, although I don't really like the one they decided to use.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 13, 2018 17:20:23 GMT
This is getting to be kind of funny to me. The sheer number of transformations that Laurie Strode undergoes.Halloween (1978) - smart, resourceful, tough, virginal, likeable and modestly pretty Halloween 2 (1981) - a nervous wreck (understandably so, not judging here), with the most ridiculous wig since Harpo Marx (okay, here I am judging!) Halloween H20 (1998) - solid and tough and the old Laurie Strode we all cheered on and liked so well in the 1978 original, w/smart and attractive new haircut Halloween Resurrection - Okay, I have admitedly not seen this movie, but it doesn't star a bunch of rap stars and isn't Laurie Strode back to being a quivering mess? With more Godawful hair? Halloween (2018) - Okay, I am going to see this for sure, but am also a bit fearful that Jamie Lee Curtis appears to be going the Granny Clampett route! Things must have been very confusing at times for Laurie's therapists, to say the least!
All the Halloweens with Curtis I have enjoyed, apart from Resurrection, which was a virtual reality theme and was about buying into a pop culture thing at the time and Curtis died anyway after 10mins. It just didn't rock my boat. I thought H20 was terrific.
Yes, I am defiantly going to see this new one, but I to me, Myers was long dead in 1981 after being shot in both eyes and burnt to a crisp. H20 I saw as more of a physical psychological projection of Myers that Laurie manifested back into her life due to her trauma and angst she was still carrying around. It wasn't actually the 'real' Myers that was shot in both eyes and burnt to a crisp at the end of H2...phew!
You really do like the 1981 "Halloween 2', don't you, Toasted Cheese? I thought it was okay. I think my favorite part has to be Lucille Benson's super brief appearance in it. "You want mustard on your sandwich, George? George?" Also, the hot tub kills were effective. I've always liked Pamela Susan Shoop and the guy is sexy. I know you really liked the sweet, pretty blonde nurse. I did, too. I was a little sad when she got it in the back. I didn't like that head nurse all that well. She was a little on the unfriendly side. "Oh, no, you won't be back!" And her death was not very well explained, I thought. And I always thought it stood out, though, that Laurie and the little boy who had the bad luck of cutting him mouth on some evil candy (that was horrible and frankly I would have thought his circumstances were more immediately dangerous than Laurie's, who had a shoulder wound, but she's the star, so...) were the only two patients in the whole hospital. It added well to the atmosphere, but it just seemed odd. Oh, well. For me, a decent slasher flick.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Sept 13, 2018 19:20:40 GMT
I don't especially like Halloween 2. It's fine, but the movie that started the trend ended up with a sequel imitating its copycats' ramped up body count and on screen gore when that wasn't really what the original was about. I always sort of found that strange. Not that it's a bad version of that, but it's a little weird, and adding the sibling angle always felt like a bit of a reach to me.
Also, they tried sequelizing that movie with Halloween 4 and with H20, and in either case it's hard to buy that any characters made it past part 2. The intent was clearly for that one to end it. So with the long term time line making no sense and even the second not really being workable for a sequel, it makes sense to make the new one a continuance of the first.
It might not work. There might be annouing things in it, but I like the approach and hiring an interesting filmmaker is enough to make me hopeful... John Carpenter being involved in some way is a plus.
The reviews are good, which is encouraging, but I'm trying to avoid spoilers for the most part... but it's nice to see this movie is doing well with critics who would have every reason to have an attitude against it.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Sept 13, 2018 21:10:29 GMT
That's great news. Hopefully the movie will actually live up to those early critical plaudits. Have we finally been given the ever elusive truly 'great' sequel to Halloween? What was wrong with IV, V and H2O? 4 and 5 were not bad movies and I do intend to re-watch them at some point in the future, but they basically confirmed the franchise's determination to become just another slasher franchise in a decade loaded with slashers. They were nice, seasonal slashers that paled in comparison with the 1978 film. There was nothing especially notable or memorable about them. I want something more captivating for this sequel. I want it to be the type of horror film that gets horror fans and critics talking in a way most run-of-the-mill slasher films don't. That said, H20 badly needs a re-watch on my part. Haven't seen it since 2005 and my memory of the film is fuzzy, so I won't comment on that one for now.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Sept 14, 2018 0:21:55 GMT
My guess is the reason why they are disregarding Halloween II is because, in a perfect world, that is the ending. Myers is killed in the explosion, Loomis sacrificed himself in taking Myers out, and Laurie made it out alive. It had a clear ending whereas Halloween didn't. It left things wide open. What happened to Myers? Did he crawl away and bleed out? Did he get up and head back into the house to take care of Loomis and Laurie, or did he decide to go to a different neighborhood and continue his murderous ways with another unlucky victim, or did he head back to the Myers house to lick his wounds?
Its much easier to tag another movie onto the original's ending, although I don't really like the one they decided to use.
All the rest that came after is bulls<>t, except H20, because it wasn't really Myers anyway. It was definitely Myers. They only made that it wasn’t Myers in Resurrection so they could make another movie. But it was really stupid.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 14, 2018 18:20:24 GMT
You really do like the 1981 "Halloween 2', don't you, Toasted Cheese? I thought it was okay. I think my favorite part has to be Lucille Benson's super brief appearance in it. "You want mustard on your sandwich, George? George?" Also, the hot tub kills were effective. I've always liked Pamela Susan Shoop and the guy is sexy. I know you really liked the sweet, pretty blonde nurse. I did, too. I was a little sad when she got it in the back. I didn't like that head nurse all that well. She was a little on the unfriendly side. "Oh, no, you won't be back!" And her death was not very well explained, I thought. And I always thought it stood out, though, that Laurie and the little boy who had the bad luck of cutting him mouth on some evil candy (that was horrible and frankly I would have thought his circumstances were more immediately dangerous than Laurie's, who had a shoulder wound, but she's the star, so...) were the only two patients in the whole hospital. It added well to the atmosphere, but it just seemed odd. Oh, well. For me, a decent slasher flick. H2 was the first slasher I saw and in the cinema too and I was scared. It was also at a Cinerama cinema, so the screen was big. The film delivered what it promised. It in fact set a bench mark for me, for other slashers I then saw that came before it and after. It was spooky and atmospheric, it had a decent body count and without being too graphic, the violence was presented with what I see as a sharp, pointed and metallic squirm factor. I felt like I could smell Myers when he was wandering the town and the hospital corridors and especially the nurse in the hot tub when she was caressing his hand thinking it was her bf. He would have been dirty, unpleasantly sweaty and would have just reeked of the stench of evil.
Mrs. Alves, the head nurse had an off-screen death that worked in well I found. We just saw a couple of intercuts of blood dripping on the floor and it makes you wonder what is going on, then later, the paramedic guy that liked Laurie slipped over in a massive pool of it. Now, this is one continuity error that does piss me off. A bit later when Laurie is hiding in the back of the car and he suddenly opens the car door gets in and then collapses forward on the steering wheel horn—it's not clear if he is dead or concussed—there is NO blood on his shirt and he slipped in a massive pool of it that had been drained out of Mrs. Alves. It kinda ruins something for me here.
I find that scene with the little boy with the razor blade stuck in his mouth the most squeamish part and that was tragic. Poor kid and his mother was doing all she could to console him and she would have been just as distraught. I also get squeamish at the needle part when the doctor is drawing Laurie's and then when the nurse gets one stabbed slowly in her temple. Ouch, that must've hurt!
If you really analyze 2 though, it does kinda fall apart. And while that can be said for any film you analyze and it becomes nitpicking, I think there a few bizarre plot points in the story. While the hospital setting was atmospheric, it's kinda silly that it was nearly empty. Also, Laurie just survived her first encounter with Michael, I feel like there should have been a police officer watching over her at the hospital, whether it's for a witness statement or protection. And Michael should have been dead right away after getting shot twice in the eyes.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Sept 14, 2018 21:37:19 GMT
Nick Castle returning to play Michael even if only for a few moments is a big yes.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Sept 14, 2018 23:58:16 GMT
My guess is the reason why they are disregarding Halloween II is because, in a perfect world, that is the ending. Myers is killed in the explosion, Loomis sacrificed himself in taking Myers out, and Laurie made it out alive. It had a clear ending whereas Halloween didn't. It left things wide open. What happened to Myers? Did he crawl away and bleed out? Did he get up and head back into the house to take care of Loomis and Laurie, or did he decide to go to a different neighborhood and continue his murderous ways with another unlucky victim, or did he head back to the Myers house to lick his wounds?
Its much easier to tag another movie onto the original's ending, although I don't really like the one they decided to use.
Halloween 2 made it clear, that Myers didn't die and carried on his rampage during the course of the night. The start of Halloween 2 re-shot the sequence where Loomis goes out to find Myers gone and just blood on the grass, but this was what happened in the end of the first Halloween. He then stole a knife from Mrs. Elrod and carried on his rampage to hunt down Laurie in the hospital who it turns out was his sister as well. Halloween 2 gave us an 'absolute' end and that was the intention of the film-makers at the time too. All the rest that came after is bulls<>t, except H20, because it wasn't really Myers anyway. I can't make excuses for this, Myers was killed off in part 2. Yes Halloween II did make it clear, which is why I was saying if they had to pick a movie to tack this new one onto the only one that makes sense is the first because part II ended it. Or at least it should have.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 15, 2018 2:24:55 GMT
Yes Halloween II did make it clear, which is why I was saying if they had to pick a movie to tack this new one onto the only one that makes sense is the first because part II ended it. Or at least it should have. Exactly, part II ended it, so they have looked for a loophole. In that respect, it makes sense to disregard every other Halloween apart from the first, but 2 was a direct continuation of the first that led to the 'absolute' firey and explosive deaths of both Myers and Loomis who sacrificed himself so Laurie could live. There is in fact NO loophole and it makes the events of H20 redundant as well, because that was in direct reference to the first 2 Halloweens.
Yeah, it's all in fun, but they are playing mind games with their own logic and it is convoluted and contrived.
Well it's the whole evil/supernatural element they introduced with the character with 4 that's kinda the "logic" in why he always come back. Carpenter kinda skirted the lines with that concept with two. He probably did intend it to end with 2, but I think it was still left open. Anyone could survive falling off that balcony. It wasn't a huge drop. And while rare, it's not too far fetch surviving 6 shots from a revolver. People can survive a headshot and even a shotgun blast to the chest, so you're able to buy it. Carpenter clearly thought of him as this supernatural element of evil that will not die if he can take two gun shots to the head and still walk out of the hallway while on fire. And in the H20 timeline, they mentioned Myer's body was never found. And while Carpenter wanted to end it with 2, I'm pretty sure he went on the record of saying that he didn't like the way he ended it and never liked the brother/sister plot line. So I think this new one is the one he thinks will be the end, that if Michael is killed of course.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Sept 15, 2018 2:42:47 GMT
Exactly, part II ended it, so they have looked for a loophole. In that respect, it makes sense to disregard every other Halloween apart from the first, but 2 was a direct continuation of the first that led to the 'absolute' firey and explosive deaths of both Myers and Loomis who sacrificed himself so Laurie could live. There is in fact NO loophole and it makes the events of H20 redundant as well, because that was in direct reference to the first 2 Halloweens.
Yeah, it's all in fun, but they are playing mind games with their own logic and it is convoluted and contrived.
Well it's the whole evil/supernatural element they introduced with the character with 4 that's kinda the "logic" in why he always come back. Carpenter kinda skirted the lines with that concept with two. He probably did intend it to end with 2, but I think it was still left open. Anyone could survive falling off that balcony. It wasn't a huge drop. And while rare, it's not too far fetch surviving 6 shots from a revolver. People can survive a headshot and even a shotgun blast to the chest, so you're able to buy it. Carpenter clearly thought of him as this supernatural element of evil that will not die if he can take two gun shots to the head and still walk out of the hallway while on fire. And in the H20 timeline, they mentioned Myer's body was never found. And while Carpenter wanted to end it with 2, I'm pretty sure he went on the record of saying that he didn't like the way he ended it and never liked the brother/sister plot line. So I think this new one is the one he thinks will be the end, that if Michael is killed of course. Carpenter intended it to end with the original. He had no plans to do a sequel, and when asked to write it he said that there was no more story to be told. He was more or less forced to write Halloween II as some sort of legal issue, so he said he got drunk and wrote it.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Sept 15, 2018 2:51:15 GMT
Well it's the whole evil/supernatural element they introduced with the character with 4 that's kinda the "logic" in why he always come back. Carpenter kinda skirted the lines with that concept with two. He probably did intend it to end with 2, but I think it was still left open. Anyone could survive falling off that balcony. It wasn't a huge drop. And while rare, it's not too far fetch surviving 6 shots from a revolver. People can survive a headshot and even a shotgun blast to the chest, so you're able to buy it. Carpenter clearly thought of him as this supernatural element of evil that will not die if he can take two gun shots to the head and still walk out of the hallway while on fire. And in the H20 timeline, they mentioned Myer's body was never found. And while Carpenter wanted to end it with 2, I'm pretty sure he went on the record of saying that he didn't like the way he ended it and never liked the brother/sister plot line. So I think this new one is the one he thinks will be the end, that if Michael is killed of course. Well, being burnt to a crisp in a massive explosion would make it very difficult to find a body. I don't recall them commenting on Loomis's body in H20 and if they found that. There was a close up shot of the mask and flames coming out of the eyes. Yes, the intention at the time was to kill him off and make it at least more believable and then move on.
Hindsight is a powerful tool and I'm sure many film-makers may look back at their projects and look at things they could have done differently. I think the brother\sister connection worked in quite well with H2. It gave MM more of a motivation and was a little twist that added to the creepiness of it all. Carpenter may only be feeling this due to how convoluted the sequels became.
This new one has a small budget and looks like it is going to be a smash hit. We all know what that means. Money talks and bulls<>t will fly and stack itself a mile high. It is just going to go down the same track again. Not to mention the fact that Blumhouse purchased the rights to Halloween. I doubt they would have done that to make a one and done movie. I'd say the only way this is the last one is if it tanks.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Sept 15, 2018 10:16:06 GMT
That's great news. Hopefully the movie will actually live up to those early critical plaudits. Have we finally been given the ever elusive truly 'great' sequel to Halloween? What was wrong with IV, V and H2O? The cartoonish, buffoonish cops in part 5 are very, very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Sept 16, 2018 2:29:34 GMT
Nice. Even if it got the worst reviews ever I'd be still in. Totally. I mean you have to see it.
|
|
|
Post by QueenB on Sept 16, 2018 3:35:33 GMT
Nice. Even if it got the worst reviews ever I'd be still in. Totally. I mean you have to see it. Same here.
|
|
egon1982
Sophomore
@egon1982
Posts: 994
Likes: 268
|
Post by egon1982 on Sept 22, 2018 21:01:28 GMT
I smell bullshit, i was fooled by the "praise" of Curse of Chucky and Cult and those movies pissed me off like Seed and i felt the Child's Play franchise ended with 3 while believe the other sequels are just spin-offs starring Chucky and all that praise does is just kill the franchise and i believe it's dead and Don Mancini is a fucking hack writer/director at this point and lost his touch after 3.
I prefer the Friday The 13th and Elm Street franchises over Halloween but i dig Halloween 1, 2 3, 4 and H2O as i disliked 5/6/Resurrection/remakes and the last Halloween film worth a damn was H2O and that ended the story in my book well. But NOOO they had to make Resurrection only to kill the franchise even the remake with sequel, they are turning this character into a joke since Resurrection and i'm sick/tired of it. I'm not looking forward to the new movie.
The trailers i've seen so far look like the same shit as H2O/4/1/2 in one as it's ignoring the sequels yet "homaging" them in half-assed nostalgia jerking off ways, hypocritical and offering nothing new even in story. Jamie Lee Curtis did this for a paycheck as i can tell she is not having a good time with this as she looks haggard/worn out just like this franchise as it's time she needs to do something new. I don't get the hype or praise! the story is just H2O only 40 years and all that as i've seen it before in other parts of the franchise and the title is lazy i mean "Halloween" with no subtitle and looks like way too much fucking homages which are half-assed. If you saw the second trailer that's the case, there's an entire sequence in the trailer that is a near shot to shot version of a sequence in Halloween 2 1981 only with a different person killed for it's not a homage anymore but a friggin rip off, nothing new and the same regurgitation of the same crap i've seen before in the franchise even the remake.
Every trailer i've seen for this movie makes me less and less interested, the style looks impressive but not the substance for the story as it's style over substance from the looks of it. It's offering nothing new! it's the same as H2O only the sibling plot is removed and i dislike that! i don't need a fake Halloween 2 when i got the real one from 1981 on blu-ray in my boxset from Scream Factory and will soon get the steelbook 4K remastered version of Halloween 2 and 3 soon in the mail. Nick Castle playing the shape again but anyone can play Michael where Michael is like Jason and Leatherface where they are characters who do not need to relay on the character actor playing the character like Robert Englund for Freddy Krueger as you just wear a mask, say nothing and have movements to be a physical presence than a performance. I'm not excited about 78 year old nick castle playing Michael again and Carpenter being involved? i can listen to some music from the soundtrack without having to see the movie. Carpenter involved with the production? probably very limited and him saying "oh it's great" as he said that before about other shit in the last decade as he's tasked with selling the film for what do you think he's gonna do with this franchise? is he gonna say the movie sucks to the media? no he's getting paid and i think it's time Carpenter should do something different than just Halloween, i'd say have him do a film for an independent production company than a bigger studio because they'll just fuck him over. Why should i be excited? i am not, at least Zombie did something different with his remake despite i thought the remake was lame as hell. I'm not creaming my face and putting on my michael myers mask and jumpsuit, i don't get it or the hype! it's the 11th film in the franchise and offering nothing new and the same stuff you've seen before with new coat of pant. Danny McBride i enjoyed Eastbound and Down but can he just try something else? i don't think he would work for a horror film as he's better with comedy and too many goddamned lazy half-assed homages even to Halloween III which i can just watch Halloween III at home.
If your looking forward to it, that's fine i have no issue with that! i just don't get the hype or praise this movie is getting. People are going to be lining up the door, to see this, but to each their own, yet i hope it's a surprise or the best Halloween in years but i doubt it is. At the same time, i hope it isn't it but if it turns out to be good, i just don't want to see these horror icons (Jason, Freddy, Chucky, Ghostface, Michael, Leatherface, Jigsaw) over and over again on the big screen and your just gonna get diminishing returns just like the Universal monsters being ran into the ground in the 30s/40s/50s as they had huge characters and big hits on their hands then pumped out sequel after another (the only great sequel is Bride of Frankenstein) and the bottom completely fell out with diminishing box-office returns and before these characters became jokes even with Abbot and Costello movies then Universal knew when to quit. If Halloween 2018 becomes a hit then studios will be like "audiences want more Halloween, they want more Candyman, more Freddy, Jason Voorhees etc.", but for Candyman, one Candyman movie was enough as the first was excellent but the sequels were cash-ins and no more Elm Street films, Robert IS Freddy as Jackie proved it was a failure to recast Freddy for you can't do it, Robert IS the character and always was as even Englund said so. Can't we have new horror icons already? let the worn out old tired icons like Freddy, Michael, Jason, Leatherface, Jigsaw, Ghostface, Candyman, Chucky and Pinhead die and rest in peace already, don't keep digging up them from their graves every 5 or 10 or 15 years then propping their corpses up on the big screen in Weekend at Bernies style. Just come up with with your own new horror icon and new horror franchise already! i'm not super big in Insidious and the Conjuring spin-offs but at least it's something different, well not quite different, but not the same old horror franchise some of us seen or the same horror icons for they are trying to create their own. I know they haven't been the best but at least they are giving a fuck and giving it an effort, that's just how i feel about it. Just like in the last decade we got new horror icons in the mainstream like the Creeper, Captain Splauding and Jigsaw while Sam from Trick R Treat becomes a cult horror icon with Leslie Vernon when Trick and Behind the Mask were sent to the DVD direct to video market rather than to all mainstream theaters which should had happened even Hatchet was shown in midnight theaters than all theaters as there's Victor Crawley whom is a cult horror icon. Now outside the mainstream we got Wolfcop, Tucker and Dale etc. should had been released in all theaters.
Fuck this! Halloween is a DEAD franchise. Bury it. There's no need for this and NOBODY asked for this. Just these brain-washed fans who like any of the garbage Hollywood shills out. I don't give a fuck if people say I hate everything. Hate is GREAT, we need more hate! At least it's genuine and can't be faked. Hate for Star Wars (Post return of the jedi), hate for SJWs, hate for nostalgia, hate for hack writers and directors, hate for every bad or unnecessary remake and reboot, and hate for these studio executives who greenlight these shitty movies and disrespect the actual moviegoers IE me! Like Palpatine would say "Let the hate flow through you."
I'd say end these horror franchises (Chucky/Halloween/Elm Street/Friday The 13th/Saw/Scream/Hellraiser/Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and bury them, let them rest in peace from film and let them live on through merchandise, comics, video games, toys, appreal, streams of the old movies on amazon/hulu/crackle/Netflix whatever even re-issues of the films on blu-ray and that's fair game. Can we have new original cinematic horror icons/new franchises already? try to come up with new horror icons/franchises and try try again mainstream and let the older franchises rest in peace in favor of new franchises/new icons.
I'd rather spend money to see Hell Fest instead which is something different in mainstream horror and a comeback for slasher films, we need to make that a box-office hit and send the message to studios we want fresh new horror icons and new franchises as that movie has potential to make one.
These worn out horror franchises/icons like Halloween are like that one great relative with Alzheimer’s that’s on life support suffering and they keep forgetting who they are and who their family are and you’re just waiting for it to die but you can’t pull the plug because you have no say in the situation because you’re a kid (that kid is the horror fan mentality of supporting these worn out franchises when they don't know when to quit just like the mentality of wrestling fans who are like "i'm gonna keep watching Raw in the PPV for shitty matches for i don't like this but i'm gonna continue anyway" stop!). Yet there is some like me (one who is like a couple of youtube friends of mine and some other horror fans who are tired of these same old worn out horror franchises being hurt by these new sequels/remakes hurting the franchises legacy and staining their name) who believe they are gone are just waiting for someone to pull that plug.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 25, 2018 16:22:54 GMT
I smell bullshit, i was fooled by the "praise" of Curse of Chucky and Cult and those movies pissed me off like Seed and i felt the Child's Play franchise ended with 3 while believe the other sequels are just spin-offs starring Chucky and all that praise does is just kill the franchise and i believe it's dead and Don Mancini is a fucking hack writer/director at this point and lost his touch after 3. I prefer the Friday The 13th and Elm Street franchises over Halloween but i dig Halloween 1, 2 3, 4 and H2O as i disliked 5/6/Resurrection/remakes and the last Halloween film worth a damn was H2O and that ended the story in my book well. But NOOO they had to make Resurrection only to kill the franchise even the remake with sequel, they are turning this character into a joke since Resurrection and i'm sick/tired of it. I'm not looking forward to the new movie. The trailers i've seen so far look like the same shit as H2O/4/1/2 in one as it's ignoring the sequels yet "homaging" them in half-assed nostalgia jerking off ways, hypocritical and offering nothing new even in story. Jamie Lee Curtis did this for a paycheck as i can tell she is not having a good time with this as she looks haggard/worn out just like this franchise as it's time she needs to do something new. I don't get the hype or praise! the story is just H2O only 40 years and all that as i've seen it before in other parts of the franchise and the title is lazy i mean "Halloween" with no subtitle and looks like way too much fucking homages which are half-assed. If you saw the second trailer that's the case, there's an entire sequence in the trailer that is a near shot to shot version of a sequence in Halloween 2 1981 only with a different person killed for it's not a homage anymore but a friggin rip off, nothing new and the same regurgitation of the same crap i've seen before in the franchise even the remake. Every trailer i've seen for this movie makes me less and less interested, the style looks impressive but not the substance for the story as it's style over substance from the looks of it. It's offering nothing new! it's the same as H2O only the sibling plot is removed and i dislike that! i don't need a fake Halloween 2 when i got the real one from 1981 on blu-ray in my boxset from Scream Factory and will soon get the steelbook 4K remastered version of Halloween 2 and 3 soon in the mail. Nick Castle playing the shape again but anyone can play Michael where Michael is like Jason and Leatherface where they are characters who do not need to relay on the character actor playing the character like Robert Englund for Freddy Krueger as you just wear a mask, say nothing and have movements to be a physical presence than a performance. I'm not excited about 78 year old nick castle playing Michael again and Carpenter being involved? i can listen to some music from the soundtrack without having to see the movie. Carpenter involved with the production? probably very limited and him saying "oh it's great" as he said that before about other shit in the last decade as he's tasked with selling the film for what do you think he's gonna do with this franchise? is he gonna say the movie sucks to the media? no he's getting paid and i think it's time Carpenter should do something different than just Halloween, i'd say have him do a film for an independent production company than a bigger studio because they'll just fuck him over. Why should i be excited? i am not, at least Zombie did something different with his remake despite i thought the remake was lame as hell. I'm not creaming my face and putting on my michael myers mask and jumpsuit, i don't get it or the hype! it's the 11th film in the franchise and offering nothing new and the same stuff you've seen before with new coat of pant. Danny McBride i enjoyed Eastbound and Down but can he just try something else? i don't think he would work for a horror film as he's better with comedy and too many goddamned lazy half-assed homages even to Halloween III which i can just watch Halloween III at home. If your looking forward to it, that's fine i have no issue with that! i just don't get the hype or praise this movie is getting. People are going to be lining up the door, to see this, but to each their own, yet i hope it's a surprise or the best Halloween in years but i doubt it is. At the same time, i hope it isn't it but if it turns out to be good, i just don't want to see these horror icons (Jason, Freddy, Chucky, Ghostface, Michael, Leatherface, Jigsaw) over and over again on the big screen and your just gonna get diminishing returns just like the Universal monsters being ran into the ground in the 30s/40s/50s as they had huge characters and big hits on their hands then pumped out sequel after another (the only great sequel is Bride of Frankenstein) and the bottom completely fell out with diminishing box-office returns and before these characters became jokes even with Abbot and Costello movies then Universal knew when to quit. If Halloween 2018 becomes a hit then studios will be like "audiences want more Halloween, they want more Candyman, more Freddy, Jason Voorhees etc.", but for Candyman, one Candyman movie was enough as the first was excellent but the sequels were cash-ins and no more Elm Street films, Robert IS Freddy as Jackie proved it was a failure to recast Freddy for you can't do it, Robert IS the character and always was as even Englund said so. Can't we have new horror icons already? let the worn out old tired icons like Freddy, Michael, Jason, Leatherface, Jigsaw, Ghostface, Candyman, Chucky and Pinhead die and rest in peace already, don't keep digging up them from their graves every 5 or 10 or 15 years then propping their corpses up on the big screen in Weekend at Bernies style. Just come up with with your own new horror icon and new horror franchise already! i'm not super big in Insidious and the Conjuring spin-offs but at least it's something different, well not quite different, but not the same old horror franchise some of us seen or the same horror icons for they are trying to create their own. I know they haven't been the best but at least they are giving a fuck and giving it an effort, that's just how i feel about it. Just like in the last decade we got new horror icons in the mainstream like the Creeper, Captain Splauding and Jigsaw while Sam from Trick R Treat becomes a cult horror icon with Leslie Vernon when Trick and Behind the Mask were sent to the DVD direct to video market rather than to all mainstream theaters which should had happened even Hatchet was shown in midnight theaters than all theaters as there's Victor Crawley whom is a cult horror icon. Now outside the mainstream we got Wolfcop, Tucker and Dale etc. should had been released in all theaters. Fuck this! Halloween is a DEAD franchise. Bury it. There's no need for this and NOBODY asked for this. Just these brain-washed fans who like any of the garbage Hollywood shills out. I don't give a fuck if people say I hate everything. Hate is GREAT, we need more hate! At least it's genuine and can't be faked. Hate for Star Wars (Post return of the jedi), hate for SJWs, hate for nostalgia, hate for hack writers and directors, hate for every bad or unnecessary remake and reboot, and hate for these studio executives who greenlight these shitty movies and disrespect the actual moviegoers IE me! Like Palpatine would say "Let the hate flow through you." I'd say end these horror franchises (Chucky/Halloween/Elm Street/Friday The 13th/Saw/Scream/Hellraiser/Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and bury them, let them rest in peace from film and let them live on through merchandise, comics, video games, toys, appreal, streams of the old movies on amazon/hulu/crackle/Netflix whatever even re-issues of the films on blu-ray and that's fair game. Can we have new original cinematic horror icons/new franchises already? try to come up with new horror icons/franchises and try try again mainstream and let the older franchises rest in peace in favor of new franchises/new icons. I'd rather spend money to see Hell Fest instead which is something different in mainstream horror and a comeback for slasher films, we need to make that a box-office hit and send the message to studios we want fresh new horror icons and new franchises as that movie has potential to make one. These worn out horror franchises/icons like Halloween are like that one great relative with Alzheimer’s that’s on life support suffering and they keep forgetting who they are and who their family are and you’re just waiting for it to die but you can’t pull the plug because you have no say in the situation because you’re a kid (that kid is the horror fan mentality of supporting these worn out franchises when they don't know when to quit just like the mentality of wrestling fans who are like "i'm gonna keep watching Raw in the PPV for shitty matches for i don't like this but i'm gonna continue anyway" stop!). Yet there is some like me (one who is like a couple of youtube friends of mine and some other horror fans who are tired of these same old worn out horror franchises being hurt by these new sequels/remakes hurting the franchises legacy and staining their name) who believe they are gone are just waiting for someone to pull that plug. Nice rant. I'm looking forward to this because while it's still a slasher, at least the main character isn't a teenager. I really like Jamie Lee Curtis and she is definitely not doing it for a paycheck. She looks haggard and weary because it's the makeup. And I know some really like Halloween 2 and don't like the fact that it's being ignored, but this one is already kinda more consistent with Michael Myers and just little details, such as being blind in one eye from being poked by a hanger. In Halloween 2, while you could see both eyes in the first place, which kinda takes away the menace of Michael, both eyes were fine too. It's just small details like that really helps. From what I read, Nick Castle is only Michael in one scene, most likely when he is unmasked, but a younger actor is doing all the physical acting.
|
|