redcharge
Sophomore
@redcharge
Posts: 257
Likes: 119
|
Post by redcharge on Oct 4, 2021 21:28:31 GMT
into the current halloween series then surely they couldve found a way to include loomis as well or perhaps they just didnt want to revisit the loomis character again since zombie had already done that with his two films.
to be fair though zombie also had brackett in both of his films so.......
halloween kills trailer does tease a cgi version of loomis but.............
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 1:34:58 GMT
The producer said they did not recreate Loomis with CGI, and somehow that got interpreted by everyone that they did recreate him with CGI Who the hell know? I guess we'll find out soon.
But I don't think they wanted to recast Loomis. They clearly wanted to use as much of the original cast as they could.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 5, 2021 3:28:48 GMT
What are you talking about? They included aged Bracket because the actor is still alive. That's Charles Cyphers reprising the role.
And apparently this does have a CGI Donald Pleasance flashback, to go along with that pitiful voice actor in Halloween 2018 that the podcasters listen to.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 11:39:07 GMT
What are you talking about? They included aged Bracket because the actor is still alive. That's Charles Cyphers reprising the role. And apparently this does have a CGI Donald Pleasance flashback, to go along with that pitiful voice actor in Halloween 2018 that the podcasters listen to. Yeah they were all very excited that they nailed the voice in the last one, but I thought it was a like a mediocre impression. Again, the quote where everyone seems to think the producer says they are recreating Loomis with CGI is when he explicitly says they are not recreating him with CGI. He could obviously be lying, but it seems like that's the only source and everyone just forgot how to read all the words in a sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Oct 5, 2021 14:47:39 GMT
What are you talking about? They included aged Bracket because the actor is still alive. That's Charles Cyphers reprising the role. And apparently this does have a CGI Donald Pleasance flashback, to go along with that pitiful voice actor in Halloween 2018 that the podcasters listen to. Yeah they were all very excited that they nailed the voice in the last one, but I thought it was a like a mediocre impression. Again, the quote where everyone seems to think the producer says they are recreating Loomis with CGI is when he explicitly says they are not recreating him with CGI. He could obviously be lying, but it seems like that's the only source and everyone just forgot how to read all the words in a sentence. Even the H20 voiceover was better than the voice they got in the 2018 version. I didn't know there were potential CGI Donald Pleasence shenanigans going on with Kills until just now. So weird and depressing when filmmakers resort to this. Absolutely unnecessary and just distracting. I sincerely hope they didn't go that route with this.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 15:07:35 GMT
Yeah they were all very excited that they nailed the voice in the last one, but I thought it was a like a mediocre impression. Again, the quote where everyone seems to think the producer says they are recreating Loomis with CGI is when he explicitly says they are not recreating him with CGI. He could obviously be lying, but it seems like that's the only source and everyone just forgot how to read all the words in a sentence. Even the H20 voiceover was better than the voice they got in the 2018 version. I didn't know there were potential CGI Donald Pleasence shenanigans going on with Kills until just now. So weird and depressing when filmmakers resort to this. Absolutely unnecessary and just distracting. I sincerely hope they didn't go that route with this. Again... no idea if he's lying or not, but the producer said they were NOT going to use a CGI Loomis, and somehow that quote was used to confirm that they were. Don't know how that happened, but so far the only information we have is that it is NOT going that route.
|
|
redcharge
Sophomore
@redcharge
Posts: 257
Likes: 119
|
Post by redcharge on Oct 5, 2021 15:14:02 GMT
Even the H20 voiceover was better than the voice they got in the 2018 version. I didn't know there were potential CGI Donald Pleasence shenanigans going on with Kills until just now. So weird and depressing when filmmakers resort to this. Absolutely unnecessary and just distracting. I sincerely hope they didn't go that route with this. Again... no idea if he's lying or not, but the producer said they were NOT going to use a CGI Loomis, and somehow that quote was used to confirm that they were. Don't know how that happened, but so far the only information we have is that it is NOT going that route. In the last trailer we got though for this film there is a scene of Michael standing outside the Myers house in front of police but there is also someone standing behind him in a long brown trench coat If it's not Loomis then i don't know who it is The scene is obviously a flashback scene However imo if they were going to include that scene they should've recast Loomis
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Oct 5, 2021 15:23:09 GMT
Even the H20 voiceover was better than the voice they got in the 2018 version. I didn't know there were potential CGI Donald Pleasence shenanigans going on with Kills until just now. So weird and depressing when filmmakers resort to this. Absolutely unnecessary and just distracting. I sincerely hope they didn't go that route with this. Again... no idea if he's lying or not, but the producer said they were NOT going to use a CGI Loomis, and somehow that quote was used to confirm that they were. Don't know how that happened, but so far the only information we have is that it is NOT going that route. Ok, got it. Clearly this means that they're using CGI Peter Cushing instead, per John Carpenter's original casting wishes? 😋
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Oct 5, 2021 15:25:13 GMT
Again... no idea if he's lying or not, but the producer said they were NOT going to use a CGI Loomis, and somehow that quote was used to confirm that they were. Don't know how that happened, but so far the only information we have is that it is NOT going that route. In the last trailer we got though for this film there is a scene of Michael standing outside the Myers house in front of police but there is also someone standing behind him in a long brown trench coat If it's not Loomis then i don't know who it is The scene is obviously a flashback scene However imo if they were going to include that scene they should've recast Loomis Could be a flasher... 🤔
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 15:37:41 GMT
Again... no idea if he's lying or not, but the producer said they were NOT going to use a CGI Loomis, and somehow that quote was used to confirm that they were. Don't know how that happened, but so far the only information we have is that it is NOT going that route. In the last trailer we got though for this film there is a scene of Michael standing outside the Myers house in front of police but there is also someone standing behind him in a long brown trench coat If it's not Loomis then i don't know who it is The scene is obviously a flashback scene However imo if they were going to include that scene they should've recast Loomis There's no reason to just leap to the assumption that it's a CGI Donald Pleasence just though, especially when the exact quote is, "Loomis is not recreated with CGI..." Apparently David Gordon Green said in 2018 that their art director looks exactly like Donald Pleasance circa 1978. My guess is that you'll see brief glimpses of a flashback and you'll see that guy playing Loomis without any dialogue and he'll appear onscreen from a distance and for only a short time on screen. Maybe there is some sort of CGI Loomis, but there is literally no good reason to think that there would be, and certainly the idea that you see a piece of the flashback in the trailer does not suggest CGI in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 15:38:50 GMT
Again... no idea if he's lying or not, but the producer said they were NOT going to use a CGI Loomis, and somehow that quote was used to confirm that they were. Don't know how that happened, but so far the only information we have is that it is NOT going that route. Ok, got it. Clearly this means that they're using CGI Peter Cushing instead, per John Carpenter's original casting wishes? 😋 Wouldn't be the first time for old Pete Cushing. But then Universal might have to buy that Peter Cushing software from Disney.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 5, 2021 16:17:41 GMT
What are you talking about? They included aged Bracket because the actor is still alive. That's Charles Cyphers reprising the role. And apparently this does have a CGI Donald Pleasance flashback, to go along with that pitiful voice actor in Halloween 2018 that the podcasters listen to. Yeah they were all very excited that they nailed the voice in the last one, but I thought it was a like a mediocre impression. Again, the quote where everyone seems to think the producer says they are recreating Loomis with CGI is when he explicitly says they are not recreating him with CGI. He could obviously be lying, but it seems like that's the only source and everyone just forgot how to read all the words in a sentence. Several of the reviews mention the CGI Donald Pleasance.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 16:35:50 GMT
Yeah they were all very excited that they nailed the voice in the last one, but I thought it was a like a mediocre impression. Again, the quote where everyone seems to think the producer says they are recreating Loomis with CGI is when he explicitly says they are not recreating him with CGI. He could obviously be lying, but it seems like that's the only source and everyone just forgot how to read all the words in a sentence. Several of the reviews mention the CGI Donald Pleasance. Which ones? I haven't found them. All I can find are rumor sites saying that they heard there might be archive footage or something, but nothing that seems like it's from legitimate source.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 5, 2021 17:43:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 5, 2021 18:02:37 GMT
Thanks. Interesting wording there in those reviews. One calls him a 'hologram', another calls him 'digitally reconstructed.' This leads me to believe that it's more like Carrie Fisher in that last Star Wars movie than Peter Cushing in that other Star Wars movie.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 5, 2021 21:03:00 GMT
Thanks. Interesting wording there in those reviews. One calls him a 'hologram', another calls him 'digitally reconstructed.' This leads me to believe that it's more like Carrie Fisher in that last Star Wars movie than Peter Cushing in that other Star Wars movie. Reviews indicate another bad voice impersonator, so it'll be a little more than fancy editing and archive footage.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 6, 2021 2:28:06 GMT
Thanks. Interesting wording there in those reviews. One calls him a 'hologram', another calls him 'digitally reconstructed.' This leads me to believe that it's more like Carrie Fisher in that last Star Wars movie than Peter Cushing in that other Star Wars movie. Reviews indicate another bad voice impersonator, so it'll be a little more than fancy editing and archive footage. These ones don't mention his voice at all.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 6, 2021 2:59:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 6, 2021 11:27:05 GMT
It's all pretty vague, but I guess when you piece these disparate things together it does sorta sound like it's gonna be more elaborate, even though this one says it's a brief... but also that it's inadvertently funny, which is unfortunate. I imagine it would be the same voice actor as last time, who we all seem to agree was not great.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 13, 2021 4:07:36 GMT
It's all pretty vague, but I guess when you piece these disparate things together it does sorta sound like it's gonna be more elaborate, even though this one says it's a brief... but also that it's inadvertently funny, which is unfortunate. I imagine it would be the same voice actor as last time, who we all seem to agree was not great. Having seen the film, I can confirm we get CG Pleasance. Or perhaps it was a lookalike. It was weird and off-putting either way.
|
|