Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 18:03:46 GMT
John Carpenter is making his "Halloween III". The trailer is supposed to drop soon.
Jaime Lee Curtis is reprising her role as Laurie. Carpenter is pretending "Halloween III" - "Halloween Resurrection" and the Rob Zombie Halloween's didn't exist.
This way, they can release "Halloween" 1978 and "Halloween II" 1981 with the new Halloween III" 2018 as a trilogy.
Are you okay with other franchises doing this as well? Is this a better approach than remaking a franchise?
If so, what franchise do you think could benefit from dropping terrible sequels are making a proper trilogy? |
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Jun 7, 2018 18:23:04 GMT
They're doing this with the Terminator franchise as well. The next sequel will ignore Terminator 3-5, and pickup after T2.
I personally prefer this over a full reboot. It allows the same actors to be used, and you can make up for the previous poor installment without recasting everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 7, 2018 18:26:09 GMT
I hear that if "Alien 5" was to be made with Neil Blomkamp it would have ignored everything after "Aliens" and picked up right where "Aliens" left off. I don't know if I would have been OK with that since I like "Alien 3" and I know there are others out there who like it as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 18:28:59 GMT
I hear that if "Alien 5" was to be made with Neil Blomkamp it would have ignored everything after "Aliens" and picked up right where "Aliens" left off. I don't know if I would have been OK with that since I like "Alien 3" and I know there are others out there who like it as well. This is the only problem I see with taking this approach.
There are always going to be fans of one of the sequels that gets skipped.
For instance, I don't think most people would have a problem with forgetting Terminator 3-5 and making a proper T3. However, in a series such as Alien, it would be messy because Alien 3 has a big following.
However, I like it better than rebooting the whole thing with new actors and starting over.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 7, 2018 18:33:40 GMT
I hear that if "Alien 5" was to be made with Neil Blomkamp it would have ignored everything after "Aliens" and picked up right where "Aliens" left off. I don't know if I would have been OK with that since I like "Alien 3" and I know there are others out there who like it as well.
There are always going to be fans of one of the sequels that gets skipped.
For instance, I don't think most people would have a problem with forgetting Terminator 3-5 and making a proper T3. However, in a series such as Alien, it would be messy because Alien 3 has a big following.
Exactly. It's kind of like you're insulting the fans of the sequels with a less-than-stellar reputation. The studio acts like everyone unanimously hates a sequel like that which has proven to be untrue for certain franchises. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 7, 2018 19:07:09 GMT
I like sequels, even bad ones, to be acknowledged just so I didn't waste my time with them. Though if a franchise really gets painted into a corner, you pretty much need to ignore some. That's what happened to the Halloween franchise (in fact, this is the second time).
It also helps if you have character you want to bring back that was unequivocally killed off, like Laurie Strode. The new Terminator will bring back Linda Hamilton's Sarah Conner, and Blonkamp's Alien movie would have brought back the whole gang from Aliens (which is better than cloning them...)
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 7, 2018 19:17:46 GMT
My only complaint about bringing back old characters is the risk of the new sequel feeling derivative.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Jun 7, 2018 20:07:34 GMT
I hear that if "Alien 5" was to be made with Neil Blomkamp it would have ignored everything after "Aliens" and picked up right where "Aliens" left off. I don't know if I would have been OK with that since I like "Alien 3" and I know there are others out there who like it as well. If Fox was smart they would use Blomkamp's premise with a good director. |
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Jun 7, 2018 23:05:41 GMT
In general, I find it a bit lazy. They're taking the easy way out. You made bad movies. Deal with it and write your way out of it OR scrap the whole thing and start over. It also feels like fan-service to the nth degree, which always makes me uncomfortable.
I am looking forward to the new Halloween, but am a little dubious about writing over the events of Halloween II. I can understand why they'd want to cut H20 (and Resurrection, duh) out. Laurie's storyline came to a natural end and there'd be no other way to bring her back. Even still, I am prepared for this movie to be bad and to further sour my feelings about franchises living long past their expiration date.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 7, 2018 23:15:00 GMT
It's just more convoluted film making by committee. Even if Carpenter is coming back, even that feels like fanservice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 8, 2018 0:16:44 GMT
I don’t like it. Especially when you plan on ‘remembering’ certain sequels but excluding others. Seems needlessly confusing. Just make a different good movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 7:54:56 GMT
No. While I am looking forward to the new ‘Halloween’ movie coming out this year especially with Virginia Gardner being one of the main stars I think it would have been better if they had rebooted it from ‘Halloween 5’ and had a sequel with Jaime Lee Curtis and Danielle Harris in a movie together. What I find interesting is it apparently doesn’t ignore all of the events from the other sequels and I was reading something about the movie a few months ago where one of the producers said there are specific references in the new movie to events that were in the other sequels so I am not sure if it is a complete reboot now. I think it could actually continue on in the original Dr Loomis continuity of ‘Halloween 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and ignore the events of ‘H20’ and ‘Resurrection’ with Laurie surviving but with it being a follow up to Laurie’s story so 4, 5 and 6 still happened in this continuity but nobody lived to tell the story ‘cause Michael killed them all.
I think it is an interesting road to take. I would love to see them do the same thing with ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’ and make a sequel to ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street 5’ with Lisa Wilcox returning as Alice. Unlike ‘Halloween’ where they have had to ignore 'Ressuerection' just to bring Laurie back Alice is still alive and is the one person who beat Freddy twice and survived. Bring back Alice!! 
|
|
