PDA

View Full Version : John Carpenter vs Rob Zombie



Pages : [1] 2

brandon13
04-29-2007, 06:04 AM
Who Do You Think Would Be A Better Director For The Remake?

MichaelMyers04
04-29-2007, 10:33 AM
I don't think there's even a competition. I don't wanna judge RZ yet, esp. because I haven't seen his previous movies, but as for Halloween, I don't think any director can JC.

MMyers89
04-29-2007, 10:37 AM
Well JC's Halloween will always be the masterpiece, but honestly, he hasn't done anything good lately, and I like both of Rob Zombie's movies better than any recent Carpenter, and the question is who is better for the REMAKE, so I'm gonna have to say Zombie.

Roswell
04-29-2007, 10:39 AM
I'm not sure who would be the better director in this case. Carpenter is my favorite of the two, but his last few films haven't been all that great (not terrible, just not as good as his early work).

Zombie has only done two films, so it's hard to judge him, especially since both films were radically different than each other.

I'd probably vote "someone else", since I had a few directors in mind for a remake before RZ was announced.

I can definately see this thread turning into a bitchfest.

Khan
04-29-2007, 02:12 PM
Someone else, as Zombie would never have been my first choice and Carpenter only cares about money.

samhain51
04-29-2007, 03:08 PM
Its kind of weird how we compare about the movie when it didnt even come out yet !!! JC is in a whole different league!!!

Crystal Lake'80
04-29-2007, 07:46 PM
Rob Zombie is the perfect choice for the remake. I haven't seen either of his films, but I enjoy his music. John Carpenter is the king of horror, but it would be pointless for him to be in charge of the remake. In Carpenter's mind, he already remade the movie, it's called Halloween II. Also, Zombie and I are both huge Alice Cooper fans!

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-29-2007, 07:58 PM
Obviously, once you throw the all-inclusive "Someone Else" category in there, that's where my vote's gonna end up. I could list well over 100 directors, off the top of my head, who are better than either Carpenter or Zombie. And I'm sure that at least one of them could make a great Halloween film. :p

With Zombie, he's got the job, no matter what...and I'm interested in seeing what he can do with it. He only said yes to the offer once he had an idea of how to do it "well" (whatever that means to him)...so it seems like he's doing it for the right reasons, at least.

Carpenter would have been doing it strictly for the money...and perhaps for the opportunity to kill off Michael Myers, concretely, once and for all. Of course, they wouldn't let him actually do that...so in the end, it would just be for the paycheck. And I haven't liked any movie that he's made since In the Mouth of Madness (which still wasn't great)...and he had a few duds before that as well. He's really just not a very good director anymore.

So yeah...if it was my choice, I'd go with "Someone Else." But it isn't my choice...nor anyone else's, except the folks who've already made the call. So let's just hope that the guy we got is going to do a good job.

mcilroga
04-29-2007, 08:10 PM
You know what I'd love to see? A Hitchcock Halloween film. Just think of the possibilities!

Padams
04-29-2007, 08:16 PM
I've yet to see any of Zombie's work. Carpenter doing a remake of his own work would rub me the wrong way. I chose Zombie. Frankly, I don't care.

CyanideAssassin
04-29-2007, 08:48 PM
You know what I'd love to see? A Hitchcock Halloween film. Just think of the possibilities!

Yes! And he can call it...Psycho!

Actually, of the old school directors I'd probably pick Dario Argento, since Carpenter was channeling Argento to some degree in Halloween.

Of the new directors? I really liked the Descent over all other recent horror films, it had strong characters, nice intriguing buildup and suspense, with minimal cheese and gore. Therefore, I'd pick Neil Marshall.

mcilroga
04-29-2007, 08:53 PM
Yes! And he can call it...Psycho!

Yes, because you know how similar in plot the two films are.

Seriously though, if Hitchcock were alive today, he would definitely be a consideration of mine. He has an incredibly wide range, and can make just about any style of horror film.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-29-2007, 09:27 PM
Yes, because you know how similar in plot the two films are.

Seriously though, if Hitchcock were alive today, he would definitely be a consideration of mine. He has an incredibly wide range, and can make just about any style of horror film.
Do you think Hitchcock would really want to remake a film that paid so much homage to one of his own films? All differences aside, Halloween was largely informed by Psycho. He did remake one of his own films, so I wouldn't say it was entirely out of the question. Still, it would kind of be like Hitchcock remaking an early '80s Brian De Palma film...fairly pointless.

A couple of things you could expect, though, if you brought Hitchcock back from the grave and he did remake Halloween...way more nudity, and far more sadistic violence directed at women.

mcilroga
04-29-2007, 09:39 PM
Do you think Hitchcock would really want to remake a film that paid so much homage to one of his own films? All differences aside, Halloween was largely informed by Psycho. He did remake one of his own films, so I wouldn't say it was entirely out of the question. Still, it would kind of be like Hitchcock remaking an early '80s Brian De Palma film...fairly pointless.

Oh, good God - of course not. That is why I stated, "It's what I'd like to see." Huge difference there, my friend. It's not what I'd expect to see. At all. Only in my delusioned fantasy world would Hitchcock ever deem to remake Halloween, haha. Besides, he's been dead for over 25 years? :bastard:

MichaelFan_2k4
04-29-2007, 09:44 PM
I don't care as long as the movie kicks ass.

DonaldPismyHero
04-29-2007, 11:13 PM
Carpenter's credibility stands tall and his filmography proves to be one of the best in the history of horror/sci fi films. He is my all time favorite directors with Romero, Argento, Hooper, and Craven following closely behind. I think that Carpenter's Halloween is and will always be a masterpiece. To make a re-make with him as the director would be amazing but to let Rob Zombie, who is a big Halloween fan himself direct the movie through his eyes, will definitely captivate fans and audiences alike and hopefully will prove to be a worthy installment in the series. Carpenter is a better director IMO but let's let Zombie give his place in the Halloween series. The directors who put out classics tend to be judged harder than ones who have never put out anything worthy, and to say that Carpenter isn't that good of a director because you think his last 2 movies weren't "as good" is ludacris. A man who scores 90% of his work and has mastered his work has my respect and that is why he is my favorite director. *steps off soapbox.*

Scoot
04-29-2007, 11:25 PM
Carpenter's record speaks for itself..

Halloween
Escape From New York
The Thing
Starman
The Fog
Prince Of Darkness
Vampires
and yes, even They Live!!

MichaelFan_2k4
04-30-2007, 12:16 AM
Looks like we have a clear winner on our hands, John Carpenter.

Khan
04-30-2007, 05:38 AM
I've yet to see any of Zombie's work. Carpenter doing a remake of his own work would rub me the wrong way. I chose Zombie. Frankly, I don't care.

Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much, which was his own movie.

I can't see Zombie and Carpenter being compared, as Carpenter has a legacy and Zombie is a newbie.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 09:07 AM
Oh, good God - of course not. That is why I stated, "It's what I'd like to see." Huge difference there, my friend. It's not what I'd expect to see. At all. Only in my delusioned fantasy world would Hitchcock ever deem to remake Halloween, haha. Besides, he's been dead for over 25 years? :bastard:
haha Well, I was taking the possibility of human resurrection as a given in the scenario. ;)

And yes, I can see what you're saying. Just wanted to get your take on how Hitchcock might view the situation...you know, if he still had eyes. :p



Carpenter's credibility stands tall and his filmography proves to be one of the best in the history of horror/sci fi films. He is my all time favorite directors with Romero, Argento, Hooper, and Craven following closely behind. I think that Carpenter's Halloween is and will always be a masterpiece. To make a re-make with him as the director would be amazing but to let Rob Zombie, who is a big Halloween fan himself direct the movie through his eyes, will definitely captivate fans and audiences alike and hopefully will prove to be a worthy installment in the series. Carpenter is a better director IMO but let's let Zombie give his place in the Halloween series. The directors who put out classics tend to be judged harder than ones who have never put out anything worthy, and to say that Carpenter isn't that good of a director because you think his last 2 movies weren't "as good" is ludacris. A man who scores 90% of his work and has mastered his work has my respect and that is why he is my favorite director. *steps off soapbox.*
For the record, I wan't talking about Carpenter's last two movies. I was talking about the majority of his cinematic output. I'd say he's only made about a half dozen films that I actually consider good. None of those have been made in the past decade, and all of the best ones (in my opinion, at least) were made upwards of 20 years ago. So I think it's safe to say, for me, that John Carpenter is hardly the director he used to be. And that, as far as I'm concerned, he just isn't very good anymore.

Thurisaz
04-30-2007, 09:28 AM
If I could pick anyone it'd have to be the guy that directed my favorite horror film of the last 15 years, Brad Anderson. But Zombie works for me too.

But definitely not Carpenter. Unless he were to somehow retroactively remake it in the early 80s before his talent vanished into thin air.

alfabit1
04-30-2007, 11:48 AM
Well, I voted for the "someone else" category. I feel the same as Evil on this one. Carpenter has done some good pictures, but I find a lot of his output only average at best. Halloween was like the pinnacle - and once the 90s hit he was done. I have no problem w/ Zombie, and I enjoyed TDR somewhat, but probably would have went in a different direction if given the choice.

InTheDeep2007
04-30-2007, 12:05 PM
I really don't know at this point. But I would have liked to see John carpenter do this

shoe1985
04-30-2007, 12:36 PM
Carpenter by a long shot for me. I am not a big Zombie fan. He has some good ideas, but many bad ones too.

I wouldn't mind seeing someone else come in and inject new blood into the series though. A Wes Craven Halloween could be exciting.

With the Halloween series you must capture the season. Even though this guy hasn't done much great work, he did capture the season perfectly before, I would like to have seen Dwight Little do a remake. H4 was like the perfect Halloween season movie. Adding in the scarecrow, the farm, and everything like that.

I voted Carpenter though. It could of been the movie to light the fire again.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 12:44 PM
Carpenter by a long shot for me. I am not a big Zombie fan. He has some good ideas, but many bad ones too.
Come on...Carpenter doesn't have a plethora of bad ideas? Let's be fair. haha

Khan
04-30-2007, 01:50 PM
Carpenter by a long shot for me. I am not a big Zombie fan. He has some good ideas, but many bad ones too.

I wouldn't mind seeing someone else come in and inject new blood into the series though. A Wes Craven Halloween could be exciting.


Wes Craven?

He is as bad or worse as Carpenter!

As for Zombie, someone correctly pointed out that 1000 Corpses is a virtual remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and TDR is much like TCM 2.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 02:13 PM
As for Zombie, someone correctly pointed out that 1000 Corpses is a virtual remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and TDR is much like TCM 2.
There are some shared plot elements between TCM 2 and TDR, but when it gets down to atmosphere, the two are night and day. There was nothing gritty or serious about TCM 2 at all...it was essentially a campy horror comedy from start to finish. I don't think the same can be said of TDR.

If anything, Ho1KC and TDR are a reverse of TCM and TCM 2. In the case of TCM, the first film was serious, and the second was campy, over-the-top and humorous. In the Zombie films, it's the other way around. So in terms of plot, it's a valid point. But in terms of filmmaking, it simply doesn't apply.

In my opinion, Hooper went downhill from TCM to TCM 2, while Zombie matured from Ho1KC to TDR.

lacey
04-30-2007, 02:18 PM
I find it intriguing that Rob Zombie so boldly told MTV News that his "vision" for Halloween H20: The Missing Years was his own. ESPECIALLY since in July 2005 their was an interview of the screenwriter Jake Wade Wall, talking about working with Dimension Films on the SAME script. The idea was created by Jake Wade Wall. The interview is on Bloody-Disgusting.com and is written by Elaine Lamkin.

I rather see what the ORIGINAL writer would do with it.

The original article is here:

www.bloody-disgusting.com/feature/103

shoe1985
04-30-2007, 02:27 PM
Wes Craven?

He is as bad or worse as Carpenter!

As for Zombie, someone correctly pointed out that 1000 Corpses is a virtual remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and TDR is much like TCM 2.

Craven and Carpenter are two pioneers of horror. No matter who you are, Scream was a well made horror movie. It is hard to say it was a bad movie, and Craven was top notch on that movie. Red Eye was also really done well.

Like I said though, this could of been the match to light John's fire again. I have heard he was very interested in doing a Helloween movie.

Roswell
04-30-2007, 02:29 PM
I find it intriguing that Rob Zombie so boldly told MTV News that his "vision" for Halloween H20: The Missing Years was his own.

Um, what?

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 02:32 PM
I find it intriguing that Rob Zombie so boldly told MTV News that his "vision" for Halloween H20: The Missing Years was his own. ESPECIALLY since in July 2005 their was an interview of the screenwriter Jake Wade Wall, talking about working with Dimension Films on the SAME script. The idea was created by Jake Wade Wall. The interview is on Bloody-Disgusting.com and is written by Elaine Lamkin.

I rather see what the ORIGINAL writer would do with it.

The original article is here:

www.bloody-disgusting.com/feature/103
Technically, a bunch of people on this message board had that idea before either of them. What Wall wanted to do was write a film that would cover Myers's years in Smith's Grove...period. Something fans here have been talking about for years. And if it were a part of the old continuity (which it would have been, while Zombie's remake won't), I would oppose it for the same reasons I opposed the idea when it was raised by members here back in 2002...Michael didn't do anything during those years, according to the old series. So what would the film be about? Michael Myers, sitting in a room, not talking? Wow...cinema at its finest.

Seriously, the two ideas aren't even remotely the same, and Zombie never said that he was the first person who ever thought it would be cool to see what happened in Smith's Grove. Obviously, he isn't. But his contribution is to establish an alternate Halloween reality, so that Myers can actually do something during that period, rather than just staring at a wall.

And you know what? The fact is, I don't want to see what Wall would have done with a Halloween film. His only two screenwriting credits (aside from some upcoming releases) are the remakes of When a Stranger Calls and The Hitcher...which were pretty much crap, weren't they? And if he had gotten to write that Halloween script, it would have been before both of those scripts...so it's not even a case of him improving over time.

Sorry, but I wouldn't be interested in seeing the same talent present in the When a Stranger Calls remake applied to a Halloween film where Michael Myers sits in a chair for 15 years. Maybe that's just me.

And by the way, your post is completely off-topic, isn't it?

Khan
04-30-2007, 02:58 PM
Craven and Carpenter are two pioneers of horror. No matter who you are, Scream was a well made horror movie. It is hard to say it was a bad movie, and Craven was top notch on that movie. Red Eye was also really done well.

Like I said though, this could of been the match to light John's fire again. I have heard he was very interested in doing a Helloween movie.


It would be nice to see Carpenter make another really good film.

I enjoyed Cigarette Burns a lot, but a full length film would be great.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 03:22 PM
No matter who you are, Scream was a well made horror movie.
Gotta agree on this. Despite the fact that I hated most of the post-hip slasher crap that came in the wake of Scream, Scream itself was quite a good picture. And being that it shared some similarities with New Nightmare (another great film, and a return to form for NoES after the abysmal Freddy's Dead), Wes Craven was the perfect choice to direct Scream.

Khan
04-30-2007, 03:49 PM
Scream was pretty good I admit.

I will get flak for this, but I find NOES to be overrated.

On topic, every director will release a few duds in their career.

Spielberg directed 1941 and Lucas was a part of Howard The Duck.

Carpenter has had his fair share of duds, and Zombie did 1000 Corpses.

Todd
04-30-2007, 04:47 PM
Carpenter wouldn't return to direct H20, so what makes anyone think he would have done this remake?
Would his heart have even been in it?
Even assuming that Carpenter was willing and motivated to do a remake of his own movie, could he have made it better or added anything new?
I think that having someone with a fresh perspective take the basic concept and add their own touch to things was the best way to go.

bucky01403
04-30-2007, 04:51 PM
I think its kind stupid to compare an already established and beloved director such as Carpenter, to a still up and coming director. Halloween is Carpenter's brainchild so of course he would be best for a remake. Even though I am curious to see Zombie's take on a Halloween movie.

Silverpsycho
04-30-2007, 04:56 PM
Great thread. :)
I haven't given this much thought but I don't consider John Carpenter or Rob Zombie to be the man for the job when it comes to making the best HalloweeN remake. I am pretty psyched about Zombie's take but Carpenter's will always be the classic. I like the idea of getting more of a background on Myers so Zombie is at least bringing something new and interesting to the table and isn't outright remaking the film scene by scene. I can't say who I'd want to direct a HalloweeN remake that would pull off the best version, but that was my choice. Carpenter made the classic, Zombie's version should be fun...but someone out there could have really made the ultimate remake. Who is that guy?...I really have no clue.

slasher2040
04-30-2007, 05:17 PM
I think John Carpentor will do better than rob Zombie even though I never seen any rob Zombie films.

WhiteZombie
04-30-2007, 05:34 PM
I like everything Robs doing so far, So I choose Rob. Why do I want to see John remake his own movie?

Khan
04-30-2007, 05:57 PM
I recall that in an interview, Carpenter said that at long as he gets a paycheque in his hand, he is happy.

Plus, many of Carpenter's films are so well respected that he isn't afraid of any remakes taking the place of them.

Frazetta
04-30-2007, 06:17 PM
I'd rather see what Rob can do with Halloween than Carpenter redoing his own movie & most likely at a lesser level. Rob seems more passionate about this movie & filmmaking in general at this point. I'm actually pretty dissapointed with how Carpenter has decided to handle himself in recent years.

mcilroga
04-30-2007, 06:42 PM
Wes Craven is a 'hit or miss' to the extreme. He'll make a classic, then turn around and make complete dirt. Sure, his movies, for the most part, are well-made...Cursed was a well-made film, but it wasn't by any means an entertaining piece of cinema. That goes for a mass of his other movies as well.

Scream was a great movie, both made and entertaining, and it completely revolutionized the horror genre. It has a memorable beginning, an impressive middle... and a (rather) shocking ending. Unfortunately, the film gets ample slack because of the abundance of post-it ripoffs... most notably I Know What You Did Last Summer (which, by the way, is beautifully shot). Society works that way, I suppose? Condemning something for what it spawned? I'm just glad Halloween hasn't been blasted for the cheesy '80s slashers that followed.

Anyway, then Wes Craven made Scream 2 and Scream 3, films both disgustingly inferior to the original (and each predecessor, really). I was a little surprised when I saw the sequel, because I knew it was directed by Wes Craven, so I had high expectations... Oh well. Even the best directors botch sometimes.

shoe1985
04-30-2007, 06:49 PM
Derek, most directors are hit or miss. Look at David S. Goyer, great writer, but can't really do a good job at directing. He could do an interesting job writing a remake though.

Maybe Clive Barker too. He is writing the remake for his movie Hellraiser. He says that he felt certain elements didn't work, and he can go back and make changes.

Carpenter could have gone back and made things stronger.

Now I all for seeing people do their own thing, but I would rather a sequel to a series than a remake.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 06:59 PM
I think John Carpentor will do better than rob Zombie even though I never seen any rob Zombie films.
First of all, "Carpenter" doesn't have an "O" in it.

Second, Carpenter will not be doing this movie, so I doubt he "will do better" than Zombie...because, you see, he isn't doing it at all.

And finally, if you haven't seen any of Zombie's films, you can't have a valid opinion in this particular area. He could be the Orson Welles of horror, for all you know...or Uwe Boll's illegitimate brother. Either way, you have no frame of reference...so your opinion is invalid.

Thanks for playing the game, though...and as a parting gift, we've got some lovely Lee press-on nails for you. :p

mcilroga
04-30-2007, 07:01 PM
Derek, most directors are hit or miss. Look at David S. Goyer, great writer, but can't really do a good job at directing. He could do an interesting job writing a remake though.

Maybe Clive Barker too. He is writing the remake for his movie Hellraiser. He says that he felt certain elements didn't work, and he can go back and make changes.

Carpenter could have gone back and made things stronger.

Now I all for seeing people do their own thing, but I would rather a sequel to a series than a remake.

No offense, and I know you didn't mean it this way, but I hate when you presume to "educate" me on subjects. I know most directors are a hit or miss, but many also have a plethora of great flicks, and then dwindle into remarkable absurdity (Carpenter) or some other variation. This man, despite any time period, can make a masterpiece... or a pile of shit. No kidding, one after another. He isn't the case of when good directors go bad; he is the case of when good directors go bad and then good and then bad and then good again. If Carpenter was to make a new movie, most of us would naturally expect garbage on celluloid. Why? Because he hasn't made a decent film in over ten years, and has lost the great talent he once had. Can he redeem himself? Maybe? Craven, on the other hand, is entirely unpredictable and inconsistant.

Frazetta
04-30-2007, 07:30 PM
He could be the Orson Welles of horror, for all you know...or Uwe Boll's illegitimate brother. Cmon EOTL, everyone knows that Uwe Boll's illegitimate brother is Eli Roth.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 07:32 PM
Craven, on the other hand, is entirely unpredictable and inconsistant.
That's good for box office, though, isn't it? Because people will go...just to find out if it's one of his better films, or one of his horrible travesties.

The entire Hollywood system is built upon bad films...that people go to see anyway. :nodsmile:



Cmon EOTL, everyone knows that Uwe Boll's illegitimate brother is Eli Roth.
I thought Eli Roth was the cousin that Tim Roth disowned. :p

mcilroga
04-30-2007, 07:42 PM
That's good for box office, though, isn't it? Because people will go...just to find out if it's one of his better films, or one of his horrible travesties.

The entire Hollywood system is built upon bad films...that people go to see anyway. :nodsmile:

It sure is... Craven is a respected filmmaker, and people will continue to see his movies. He usually picks a variety of actors, and the marketing team put together decent trailers from what I've seen. Money isn't everything though, and it's better to see good movies make money than bad ones. Hollywood is fucked up either way. :p

shoe1985
04-30-2007, 07:52 PM
No offense, and I know you didn't mean it this way, but I hate when you presume to "educate" me on subjects. I know most directors are a hit or miss, but many also have a plethora of great flicks, and then dwindle into remarkable absurdity (Carpenter) or some other variation. This man, despite any time period, can make a masterpiece... or a pile of shit. No kidding, one after another. He isn't the case of when good directors go bad; he is the case of when good directors go bad and then good and then bad and then good again. If Carpenter was to make a new movie, most of us would naturally expect garbage on celluloid. Why? Because he hasn't made a decent film in over ten years, and has lost the great talent he once had. Can he redeem himself? Maybe? Craven, on the other hand, is entirely unpredictable and inconsistant.

I love talking with you Derek. You make the conversations fun. I didn't mean anything by it.

I liked Ghost of Mars. I thought it was a fun movie, and it had a very odd look to it.

I don't get the bashing of Eli Roth. I liked Hostel and loved Cabin Fever. I guess it is just something to bitch about.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-30-2007, 07:55 PM
I don't get the bashing of Eli Roth. I liked Hostel and loved Cabin Fever. I guess it is just something to bitch about.
That or the fact that your taste isn't universal and a lot of us think his films are dogshit. ;)

mcilroga
04-30-2007, 07:58 PM
I love talking with you Derek. You make the conversations fun. I didn't mean anything by it.

I feel like a boy with a new balloon. I also feel like shit for completely pwnz0ning you in my last post. My apologies.


I liked Ghost of Mars. I thought it was a fun movie, and it had a very odd look to it.

Back! BAAACK, you hideous creature! What is this thing? We must send it back from whence he came! :D


I don't get the bashing of Eli Roth. I liked Hostel and loved Cabin Fever. I guess it is just something to bitch about.

Funny, I disliked both. Hostel was a half terrible horror film, half cheesy porno, and from what I've seen, the sequel will be following in its footsteps. Cabin Fever, on the other hand, is loads of fun if you're either a) drunk; b) stoned; or c) on your death bed in need of a laugh.

MyersFan927
04-30-2007, 08:24 PM
I don't know much about Craven or Zombie, but Carpenter's movies have diminished greatly over the years. Ghosts of Mars is a really cool flick and certainly held my attention but it isn't close to the quality films he made in the early 80s...while Vampires and EFLA are decent. Cigarette Burns and Pro-Life, though made for TV, range from suck-ass to acceptable. VoTD is so-so...his last "triumph" was In the Mouth of Madness...but all in all, Carpenter has lost his genius.

I think he may be washed up compared to the early days.

wyatt s
04-30-2007, 08:56 PM
I don't know much about Craven or Zombie, but Carpenter's movies have diminished greatly over the years. Ghosts of Mars is a really cool flick and certainly held my attention but it isn't close to the quality films he made in the early 80s...while Vampires and EFLA are decent. Cigarette Burns and Pro-Life, though made for TV, range from suck-ass to acceptable. VoTD is so-so...his last "triumph" was In the Mouth of Madness...but all in all, Carpenter has lost his genius.

I think he may be washed up compared to the early days.

I guess, as blasphemus as it seems, I can see how someone could think that about Carpenter but i disagree. I think in even his crappy films alla Ghosts of mars you can still see flashes of his brilliance (esspecially in cigarette burns, which i love)

I think what's really happened is that he burned out, which even the great ones can do, had a few bad films in a row and decided he didn't need the hassle of it all. I think if Carpenter really really feels a deap passion for something again (his lack of current passions seems to be the problem based on recent interviews) he will give us something truly great. And I for one and eagerly awaiting that day. even if it never happens.

scorpio95628
05-01-2007, 12:01 AM
Carpenter or Zombie huh? Well, here's what I know....House Of 1000 Corpses is one big steaming pile of poop...there isn't one original idea in that entire film...and several scenes are blatant rip-offs of scenes from another classic horror film. The Devil's Rejects is a better film but more of an action/adventure film than a horror film. And Mr. Zombie needs to be introduced to a small term called "continuity". Only two films under his belt and he can't keep his characters/storylines straight. With that being said, I think John Carpenter would be the last guy I would want to do a "remake" of Halloween. A sequel maybe, but not the remake. And, in my opinion, Carpenter has made more crap movies than great ones. Halloween, Escape From New York and The Thing are the only films he's made that I'll still watch today. Anyone remember "Prince Of Darkness"? Good God...what a horrid mess....In all honesty, I hate the fact that a remake is being made at all but, like most fans of the series, I'll take something over nothing. Maybe Zombie will surprise me.....

shoe1985
05-01-2007, 05:26 AM
That or the fact that your taste isn't universal and a lot of us think his films are dogshit. ;)

I don't know if the majority hated it, they did get good reviews, and most people I know liked them both.

Cabin Fever was just a fun movie for me. It didn't take itself serious.

Hostel was very disturbing, but I thought it was good.

Plus, his movies do make a decent amount of money.

Laow-Z
05-01-2007, 05:45 AM
Hostel was a half terrible horror film, half cheesy porno

Was there even nudity in Hostel?

samhain51
05-01-2007, 05:58 AM
Was there even nudity in Hostel?

There was some nudity in Hostel ! Hostel was a good movie to me ! In other words I think it gave a valuable lesson to those who are in foerign countries !

Frazetta
05-01-2007, 08:53 AM
That or the fact that your taste isn't universal and a lot of us think his films are dogshit. ;)
BINGO!!!

Gerry f'n D
05-01-2007, 09:15 AM
I personally thought "Hostel" was overrated.I was disappointed in it.

cheers

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-01-2007, 09:25 AM
I don't know if the majority hated it, they did get good reviews, and most people I know liked them both.

Cabin Fever was just a fun movie for me. It didn't take itself serious.

Hostel was very disturbing, but I thought it was good.

Plus, his movies do make a decent amount of money.
I wouldn't say a majority hated those films, either...but a lot of people didn't like them.

Cabin Fever turned off a substantial portion of its audience because it was sold as a more serious film than it actually was.

Hostel had a lot of potential, but it seemed like Roth completely missed the boat with all of the possible social metaphors...even the really obvious ones. It ended up being a dumber version of the movie it should have been.

And for the record, I think that a lot of movies that make money are dogshit...even those that make a lot of money. Your average filmgoer's standards in recent years haven't exactly set the bar higher.

mcilroga
05-01-2007, 11:24 AM
Was there even nudity in Hostel?

Good Lord, Laow... the first portion of the film is strictly nudity, haha.

Khan
05-01-2007, 11:51 AM
And for the record, I think that a lot of movies that make money are dogshit...even those that make a lot of money. Your average filmgoer's standards in recent years haven't exactly set the bar higher.

Yes, and these lowered standards are the reason why they are churning out nothing but sequals and remakes.

Laow-Z
05-01-2007, 12:21 PM
Good Lord, Laow... the first portion of the film is strictly nudity, haha.

LOL...I have this movie but only watched it once....guess I forgot:) Guess I should give it one more chance at least, didn't really care for it the first time.

The Frightmaster
05-01-2007, 04:12 PM
I think maybe Rob because he's younger can direct a movie that will appeal better to this generation than maybe John could. I mean movies have changed since 1978.

DonaldPismyHero
05-01-2007, 10:24 PM
There are some shared plot elements between TCM 2 and TDR, but when it gets down to atmosphere, the two are night and day. There was nothing gritty or serious about TCM 2 at all...it was essentially a campy horror comedy from start to finish. I don't think the same can be said of TDR.

If anything, Ho1KC and TDR are a reverse of TCM and TCM 2. In the case of TCM, the first film was serious, and the second was campy, over-the-top and humorous. In the Zombie films, it's the other way around. So in terms of plot, it's a valid point. But in terms of filmmaking, it simply doesn't apply.

In my opinion, Hooper went downhill from TCM to TCM 2, while Zombie matured from Ho1KC to TDR.



I understand where you're coming from but we honestly don't know enough about Zombie's style to judge his filmmaking. He's directed 2 movies so far and you're comparing him to Tobe Hooper and John Carpenter. I know you have your opinions but the thing is that a lot of Carpenter's movies he directed he did not write. I laugh at a lot of people that say Vampire's plot is over-done when he didn't even write it. Carpenter Vs Zombie can or should not be argued until Zombie has directed more films, maybe 15 years from now. His films were similar to TCM but he gave his own Zombie style to it.

wyatt s
05-01-2007, 10:30 PM
I understand where you're coming from but we honestly don't know enough about Zombie's style to judge his filmmaking. He's directed 2 movies so far and you're comparing him to Tobe Hooper and John Carpenter. I know you have your opinions but the thing is that a lot of Carpenter's movies he directed he did not write. I laugh at a lot of people that say Vampire's plot is over-done when he didn't even write it. Carpenter Vs Zombie can or should not be argued until Zombie has directed more films, maybe 15 years from now. His films were similar to TCM but he gave his own Zombie style to it.

agreed, though I think it's fair to compare thier very different style of filmmaking. At this point I think Zombie has already sort of proclaimed what his "Style" is.

shoe1985
05-02-2007, 05:22 AM
I wouldn't say a majority hated those films, either...but a lot of people didn't like them.

Cabin Fever turned off a substantial portion of its audience because it was sold as a more serious film than it actually was.

Hostel had a lot of potential, but it seemed like Roth completely missed the boat with all of the possible social metaphors...even the really obvious ones. It ended up being a dumber version of the movie it should have been.

And for the record, I think that a lot of movies that make money are dogshit...even those that make a lot of money. Your average filmgoer's standards in recent years haven't exactly set the bar higher.

Lets look at Roth's Tomato rating:

Cabin Fever -63%
Hostel - 58%

Only two movies under his belt. Now this shows that it is divided somewhat, but for the most part it seems he has enough positives than negatives.

I know many people liked CF and then Roth had a short ego trip, or so they say. I met the guy and thought he was extremely polite and respectful.

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-02-2007, 10:03 AM
Lets look at Roth's Tomato rating:

Cabin Fever -63%
Hostel - 58%

Only two movies under his belt. Now this shows that it is divided somewhat, but for the most part it seems he has enough positives than negatives.

I know many people liked CF and then Roth had a short ego trip, or so they say. I met the guy and thought he was extremely polite and respectful.
Again, I never said majority.

Why you feel compelled to press this point, when I don't even claim to speak for a majority, is beyond me, quite frankly.

scorpio95628
05-02-2007, 11:30 AM
I understand where you're coming from but we honestly don't know enough about Zombie's style to judge his filmmaking. He's directed 2 movies so far and you're comparing him to Tobe Hooper and John Carpenter. I know you have your opinions but the thing is that a lot of Carpenter's movies he directed he did not write. I laugh at a lot of people that say Vampire's plot is over-done when he didn't even write it. Carpenter Vs Zombie can or should not be argued until Zombie has directed more films, maybe 15 years from now. His films were similar to TCM but he gave his own Zombie style to it.

Not that I hate Rob Zombie or anything but what, exactly, is his "style"? In my opinion, House of 1000 Corpses is such a blatant Texas Chainsaw Massacre rip off that Zombie should have split the profits with Tobe Hooper. The Devil's Reject's is a better film, but not by much. And he, for some reason or unless I missed it somewhere, left out at least two or three of the "family" members from House with no explanation of where they were or what happened to them...And it wouldn't surprise me at all if Zombie does recreate certain scenes from H1 without changing a thing. I hope Zombie's Halloween is a good movie, but it won't surprise me if it isn't. Let's all remember that this is a rock star who fancies himself a big time director now. Time will tell, I guess.....

wyatt s
05-02-2007, 11:36 AM
he, for some reason or unless I missed it somewhere, left out at least two or three of the "family" members from House with no explanation of where they were or what happened to them..

He left out Grandpa because the actor Dennis Fimple died

He cut Dr. Satan out of the Devil's rejects because as he said on the commentary he thought it was just too surreal to be excepted as "real" in the film. And he wanted to be as real as possible.

krustytheklown
05-03-2007, 08:52 AM
john carpenter is my all time favorite director, but i think the studio system burnt him out. ghosts of mars was bad, and he hasnt had a really good movie since mouth of madness.i agree that hes just in it for the money now. thats why he signed off as producer for The Fog remake, and why hes signing off on RZ halloween. with regards to RZ remaking halloween, my initial reaction was that his music and movies are too much an extreme homage to 70's B movies, and he didnt have the experience to make it work. JC at least had been to film school. then i heard RZ talk, and he really seemed to get what made some of the sequels suck, and i thought he could bring a hard edge that the remake needed. then the script review confirmed my fears that mabye he isnt right for the project. then(again) the trailer came out and i got excited again. he could fall in the trap of over explaining a characters origins and kill a movie like in a way H6 did. either way ill be there on opening day with an open mind. still wouldnt mind guilermo del toro take a crack at it though.

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-03-2007, 01:13 PM
I understand where you're coming from but we honestly don't know enough about Zombie's style to judge his filmmaking. He's directed 2 movies so far and you're comparing him to Tobe Hooper and John Carpenter. I know you have your opinions but the thing is that a lot of Carpenter's movies he directed he did not write. I laugh at a lot of people that say Vampire's plot is over-done when he didn't even write it. Carpenter Vs Zombie can or should not be argued until Zombie has directed more films, maybe 15 years from now. His films were similar to TCM but he gave his own Zombie style to it.
Hard not to compare Zombie and Carpenter when that's what this thread is about. And for the record, someone else was comparing Zombie's films to the TCM movies...I just gave my two cents. Hooper went from serious to campy, Zombie went from campy to serious. That's all I said.

And whether he wrote those films or not, Carpenter is responsible for how they turn out. Every single thing in there is his responsibility. Because he's the director. If he doesn't like something in the script, he can have it rewritten or rewrite it himself. If the studio won't let him, he can say no. But John Carpenter, admittedly, never says no to getting paid. Even if the script is a piece of dogshit. He'll direct it anyway, and he'll let it be dogshit.

Directors are responsible for their films...period. If a director puts out a film that is inferior for any reason, it's their fault. Unless the studio interferes during or after production, thereby causing a problem beyond the director's control. If that's not the case, however, then the blame goes primarily to the director. Just as praise does. Ever since the Auteur theory became widely accepted in the film world, directors have been viewed as the primary "authors" of their films. And whether it's good or bad, they're the ones primarily responsible for it.



He left out Grandpa because the actor Dennis Fimple died

He cut Dr. Satan out of the Devil's rejects because as he said on the commentary he thought it was just too surreal to be excepted as "real" in the film. And he wanted to be as real as possible.
Yeah, as far as sequels go, the gap between Ho1KC and TDR is very broad. Zombie wasn't interested in making another zany, unrealistic horror film. He had done that with Ho1KC, and pretty much done everything he wanted to do. He still liked the main characters, and wanted to do something more with them, but wanted to put them into a "real world" setting. Which is why he ultimately dropped Dr. Satan. And why Otis isn't some freaky albino in TDR, either. And why Spaulding doesn't wear his clown make-up for much of the film. Even the previously established characters that he used in TDR got a pretty major overhaul to fit into a more realistic setting.

Khan
05-03-2007, 01:36 PM
Zombie has yet to fully prove himself to me.

His debut film was a stinker and then he improved with TDR.

Maybe after a few more "original" films I will be 100% convinced.

wyatt s
05-03-2007, 03:32 PM
he may not have fully proven himself, But I'd rather he did the remake than Carpenter simply because I've seen Carpenter's Halloween already and I loved it, I'd like to see something new.

scorpio95628
05-03-2007, 06:33 PM
He left out Grandpa because the actor Dennis Fimple died

He cut Dr. Satan out of the Devil's rejects because as he said on the commentary he thought it was just too surreal to be excepted as "real" in the film. And he wanted to be as real as possible.

Ok, but here's the problem with both of those examples and the precedent that it sets- Rob Zombie feels completely free to alter or change things he has already put on film, despite what the change might do to the continuity of his series as a whole. That is the easy way out and shows a lack of respect for your audience and your own work. I'll leave Grandpa out as I can completely understand why you wouldn't want to replace the original actor, but the character's story could have been resolved through other character dialog during the film. And, as far as Dr. Satan goes....well....like I said...cheap way out in my opinion....

It's this kind of thing that has me concerned about Mr. Zombie's thought's on the Michael Myer's mythos and his plans for it...

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-03-2007, 06:56 PM
Ok, but here's the problem with both of those examples and the precedent that it sets- Rob Zombie feels completely free to alter or change things he has already put on film, despite what the change might do to the continuity of his series as a whole. That is the easy way out and shows a lack of respect for your audience and your own work. I'll leave Grandpa out as I can completely understand why you wouldn't want to replace the original actor, but the character's story could have been resolved through other character dialog during the film. And, as far as Dr. Satan goes....well....like I said...cheap way out in my opinion....

It's this kind of thing that has me concerned about Mr. Zombie's thought's on the Michael Myer's mythos and his plans for it...
Okay...first of all, Dr. Satan's existence is hardly denied by TDR. He's not focused on. How is that a continuity problem? Zombie actually shot a scene with Dr. Satan, but he decided not to use it. Not showing Dr. Satan does not preclude his existence. Zombie just didn't want to focus on the more outlandish elements from the first film. Still, TDR was made with it in mind that there is a Dr. Satan. There is no lack of continuity there.

Also, not including any reference in the dialogue to Grandpa being dead...are you really serious? Look, let's say Grandpa died sometime between the two films. At what random point in TDR should someone have brought that up, for pretty much no reason other than to tie up a so-called "loose end?" Again, this isn't a continuity problem. That's like saying that there are massive continuity problems in pretty much every sequel ever made, just because there was a character in the first one who isn't featured or mentioned in the second. This is standard, and it's not a continuity issue.

The only real continuity issue between the two films is that Otis isn't an albino in TDR. That was a decision that Zombie made to disregard something from the first film, in order to bring the characters into a more grounded existence. And most fans don't really give a shit, and prefer the way Otis is portrayed in TDR to the way he was in Ho1KC. Zombie wanted to make a different type of film, using the same characters. And the second film is, in fact, much better due to the changes he made.

And it's not like Michael Myers's continuity has been fantastic thusfar. Hell, even the continuity from H1 to H2 ain't exactly the best I've ever seen. And when you look at the series as a whole, the continuity is pretty terrible. And a lot of it isn't even intentional...it's just lazy filmmaking. And what is intentional is a lot more severe than just deciding that one character isn't an albino anymore. It's more like deciding that three films in the series are no longer part of the canon. So let's not worry too much about how continuity is going to be handled in the Halloween films from here on out...it's a bit late for that.

Besides, Zombie hasn't committed himself to making another Halloween after this...so this whole discussion is pretty much pre-emptive, if not moot.

scorpio95628
05-03-2007, 08:25 PM
Okay...first of all, Dr. Satan's existence is hardly denied by TDR. He's not focused on. How is that a continuity problem? Zombie actually shot a scene with Dr. Satan, but he decided not to use it. Not showing Dr. Satan does not preclude his existence. Zombie just didn't want to focus on the more outlandish elements from the first film. Still, TDR was made with it in mind that there is a Dr. Satan. There is no lack of continuity there.

Also, not including any reference in the dialogue to Grandpa being dead...are you really serious? Look, let's say Grandpa died sometime between the two films. At what random point in TDR should someone have brought that up, for pretty much no reason other than to tie up a so-called "loose end?" Again, this isn't a continuity problem. That's like saying that there are massive continuity problems in pretty much every sequel ever made, just because there was a character in the first one who isn't featured or mentioned in the second. This is standard, and it's not a continuity issue.

The only real continuity issue between the two films is that Otis isn't an albino in TDR. That was a decision that Zombie made to disregard something from the first film, in order to bring the characters into a more grounded existence. And most fans don't really give a shit, and prefer the way Otis is portrayed in TDR to the way he was in Ho1KC. Zombie wanted to make a different type of film, using the same characters. And the second film is, in fact, much better due to the changes he made.

And it's not like Michael Myers's continuity has been fantastic thusfar. Hell, even the continuity from H1 to H2 ain't exactly the best I've ever seen. And when you look at the series as a whole, the continuity is pretty terrible. And a lot of it isn't even intentional...it's just lazy filmmaking. And what is intentional is a lot more severe than just deciding that one character isn't an albino anymore. It's more like deciding that three films in the series are no longer part of the canon. So let's not worry too much about how continuity is going to be handled in the Halloween films from here on out...it's a bit late for that.

Besides, Zombie hasn't committed himself to making another Halloween after this...so this whole discussion is pretty much pre-emptive, if not moot.

Evil...you and I agree on most things, and I'm not looking to start some huge argument about it. With Dr. Satan being such a main focus in the first film (heck...it's "The Legend Of Dr. Satan" that gets those kids into trouble in the first place) I, personally, find it to be, as you put it, the worst example of "lazy filmmaking" to pretty much disregard that character in the second film. And, I'll give you that the grandpa thing isn't much of a big deal. I'll also be the first to admit that the Halloween franchise is one of the worst as far as continuity issues are concerned. And, perhaps, that's why continuity issues bug me so much. In any event, since I don't want this to turn into a huge debate, I'll clam up about what I feel are huge flaws in Mr. Zombie's filmmaking abilities.

Shamrock-Robot
05-03-2007, 08:48 PM
Evil...you and I agree on most things, and I'm not looking to start some huge argument about it. With Dr. Satan being such a main focus in the first film (heck...it's "The Legend Of Dr. Satan" that gets those kids into trouble in the first place) I, personally, find it to be, as you put it, the worst example of "lazy filmmaking" to pretty much disregard that character in the second film. And, I'll give you that the grandpa thing isn't much of a big deal. I'll also be the first to admit that the Halloween franchise is one of the worst as far as continuity issues are concerned. And, perhaps, that's why continuity issues bug me so much. In any event, since I don't want this to turn into a huge debate, I'll clam up about what I feel are huge flaws in Mr. Zombie's filmmaking abilities.

I dont consider it lazy filmmaking at all, Dr. Satan was a main focus point in H01000C along with The Fireflys, In TDR Rob wanted that film to focus mainly on the Fireflys, And really if you think about it Dr Satan doesnt really fit well with the settings of TDR, Thats one of the main reasons Rob Didnt include the scene, And as far as Otis not being a albino in TDR thats actually pretty simple to explain and here goes.. Somewhere in an interview Rob stated 2 reasons why Otis isnt a albino in the second film 1. was because it just didnt fit well with the gritty look of TDR and I think Rob made a smart move there because it wouldnt have worked well like it did in the first film and 2. Is because in HO1000C Otis dressed and painted himself like an albino for halloween, Its actually all pretty simple really, People just dont wanna cut Rob a break.

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-03-2007, 10:05 PM
Evil...you and I agree on most things, and I'm not looking to start some huge argument about it. With Dr. Satan being such a main focus in the first film (heck...it's "The Legend Of Dr. Satan" that gets those kids into trouble in the first place) I, personally, find it to be, as you put it, the worst example of "lazy filmmaking" to pretty much disregard that character in the second film.
There's a massive shift in focus between the two films (which is allowed in sequels)...and one that ultimately didn't allow for inclusion of the character. If you really want, you can always splice in the deleted scene, and end all your continuity troubles. ;)

But of course, that scene doesn't fit with the tone of the film...which is why it isn't in there.

I tend to look at TDR on its own terms and see it for what it is...namely, a much better film than Ho1KC. And if Zombie had to drop some of the things that made Ho1KC a lesser film, in order to get TDR to that point...then I'm glad he did it.

No one has to agree...but I think Zombie took a pretty significant step up between the two films, and showed that he can do more than one type of horror movie. For a sequel, TDR was very different from Ho1KC...which I consider its primary strength.

scorpio95628
05-03-2007, 10:12 PM
I dont consider it lazy filmmaking at all, Dr. Datan was a main focus point in H01000C along with The Fireflys, In TDR Rob wanted that film to focus mainly on the Fireflys, And really if you think about it Dr Satan doesnt really fit well with the settings of TDR, Thats one of the main reasons Rob Didnt include the scene, And as far as Otis not being a albino in TDR thats actually pretty simple to explain and here goes.. Somewhere in an interview Rob stated 2 reasons why Otis isnt a albino in the second film 1. was because it just didnt fit well with the gritty look of TDR and I think Rob made a smart move there because it wouldnt have worked well like it did in the first film and 2. Is because in HO1000C Otis dressed and painted himself like an albino for halloween, Its actually all pretty simple really, People just dont wanna cut Rob a break.

It's not that I'm one of the people that doesn't want to cut Rob a break, and I hope his Halloween is awesome. Blatant omissions from previous films in a series bother me from a storytelling position. I feel the same about the Halloween series as well. If I had never seen House Of 1000 Corpses before The Devil's Reject's, I can tell you that I would have liked TDR much better. I found myself asking questions about previous characters from the first film that weren't in the second while I watched it, and I kept expecting Dr. Satan to pop up at some point and that never happened. It's as simple as that for me. And providing an explanation in an interview or magazine article doesn't let you off the hook in my opinion. I'm sure Rob had valid reasons, from his point of view, as to why the omissions worked better. But the general viewer might not have heard or read his reasons, and I'm sure some probably didn't care anyway, and been confused after seeing the film. I know I was. And, in any event, Evilontwolegs is correct about continuity issues being present in most film series. The fact that those issues bother me is a pet peeve of mine, as in my opinion, most of them are unnecessary or a result of the lazy filmmaking that Evil mentioned.

DonaldPismyHero
05-04-2007, 12:12 AM
There's a massive shift in focus between the two films (which is allowed in sequels)...and one that ultimately didn't allow for inclusion of the character. If you really want, you can always splice in the deleted scene, and end all your continuity troubles. ;)

But of course, that scene doesn't fit with the tone of the film...which is why it isn't in there.

I tend to look at TDR on its own terms and see it for what it is...namely, a much better film than Ho1KC. And if Zombie had to drop some of the things that made Ho1KC a lesser film, in order to get TDR to that point...then I'm glad he did it.

No one has to agree...but I think Zombie took a pretty significant step up between the two films, and showed that he can do more than one type of horror movie. For a sequel, TDR was very different from Ho1KC...which I consider its primary strength.


Agreed. It's a big step up from H01kC. I liked both films and even though Universal criticized him for making them *ahem*, I think they were good movies. As far as what you stated earlier about the director being responsible for the entire film, you are somewhat correct in that aspect. A director is responsible for how the film looks visually. The script can be altered yes..but unless he re-writes the whole thing, the principle theme and plot will basically remain the same. Carpenter in my eyes is a better visual story-teller than Zombie. Again, I beat the dead horse by saying, Zombie has only made 2 films, let's cut the guy a break. I'm going to have to hit myself in the head if I have to repeat myself again.
Carpenter gets paid for his movies as does any other director in cinema. If I were a highly acclaimed director that has already made millions of dollars in my genre and were asked to do a film that I didn't really like all that much that paid well, would I do it? That's hard to say. If I knew I could alter it a bit and make it my own, possibly. I don't think any of us know what it's like to have millions of dollars in cash waved in front of our faces. I guess that's why most director's first movies are their most artistic. Carpenter even said himself that a big budget is not always a good thing while making a film.
Back to topic, Zombie has shown that his future is promising. Can I ever see him directing anything aside from horror films? Probably not, but there is nothing wrong with that. Carpenter delved into horror and Sci Fi and most of you know he did westerns before he became big. To have Carpenter do a re-make would please me on all levels but it also pleases me to know that a Halloween fan is making this film. I can use an example of grades for this argument..yes you heard me, grades.

If you were to judge a college senior with a 3.4 GPA against a concurrent enrollment high school senior who was taken 2 college courses and maintained a 4.0 by only taking 2 classes, who would you say is the better student? The college senior has gotten some C's and even a few D's but the A's outweigh the lower grades. My point? Carpenter has more experience than Zombie and IMO is a better director. Who do I want to direct this movie? It doesn't matter, but Zombie is in the hot seat and I have no problem with him re-invisioning Halloween.

Reborn Angel
05-04-2007, 12:33 AM
I dont agree with the fact that people are now already judging of Rob or John is better you guys haven't seen the movie yet:)

freethy
05-04-2007, 03:47 AM
I dont agree with the fact that people are now already judging of Rob or John is better you guys haven't seen the movie yet:)

Yeah, not only that, but if this is JC vs RZ, then why is there an option to choose someone else? Is it me? Is my brain fried?

zombie commando
05-04-2007, 06:58 AM
Carpenter. All the way. I dug The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, and Escape from NY faaaaar more than all of Zombie's crap combined. This isn't even a contest. I can't believe you guys are questioning this.

PG Soul
05-04-2007, 09:52 AM
What a silly thread.

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-04-2007, 11:33 AM
Carpenter. All the way. I dug The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, and Escape from NY faaaaar more than all of Zombie's crap combined. This isn't even a contest. I can't believe you guys are questioning this.
The only Carpenter films that it's really fair to compare to Zombie's films are Dark Star and Assault on Precinct 13. Otherwise, we're comparing experience to inexperience. Carpenter did a lot of learning on his first few films, and by the time he got to Halloween, had reached greatness. Zombie hasn't gotten that far yet. Halloween is his third film, just as it was Carpenter's. And like Carpenter, he has shown vast improvement from his first film to his second. It's hard to compare the two, except in those terms.

And since this is essentially about who you think should direct the remake, I'd have to side with Zombie over Carpenter. I don't want to see Carpenter, now deep in a downslide, remake a film that he made at his peak. I'd rather see what Zombie can do by mining the lessons he learned on his first two films, and making the Halloween concept his own. If I had a choice of anyone, I wouldn't go with either of them. But out of the two, it's pretty much Zombie by default. Just because I don't want to see a burned-out Carpenter try to rework what I consider to be his best film.

krustytheklown
05-04-2007, 11:49 AM
i love JC, but yeah, hes burnt out and not about to remake a movie he kicked ass on 30 years ago. RZ has the passion but mabye not the experience(jc went to film school) but i may end up liking his vision, or hating it. im glad its not a community project. like H20 ending up being, but i would have felt better if he had a professional do a script polish before filming started. i just cant feel comfortable with the same guy who wrote "american witch" writing halloween. well see

WhiteZombie
05-04-2007, 03:31 PM
Carpenter. All the way. I dug The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, and Escape from NY faaaaar more than all of Zombie's crap combined. This isn't even a contest. I can't believe you guys are questioning this.

Yeah good movies, good director, your right....But would you really want him remaking his own movie?

Khan
05-04-2007, 05:35 PM
Hitchcock did it.

Frazetta
05-04-2007, 05:38 PM
Hitchcock did it. Comparing Carpenter to Hitchcock is like comparing the hot Stripper at the local club to Kate Beckinsale........it's not exactly even.

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-04-2007, 05:40 PM
Hitchcock did it.
Hitch did it in the mid-'50s, while he was at the top of his form.

Carpenter passed his peak years ago.

Shamrock-Robot
05-04-2007, 06:02 PM
Carpenters true last great film was They Live, In the 90s he had a bunch of bad movies and some that were ok and tolerable, But even though he hasnt made any good movies in a while he still has a body of work that blows alot of the other so called Masters of Horror out of the water.

Khan
05-04-2007, 06:03 PM
Comparing Carpenter to Hitchcock is like comparing the hot Stripper at the local club to Kate Beckinsale........it's not exactly even.

True, but I just thought I would mention it.

Laow-Z
05-04-2007, 06:14 PM
Comparing Carpenter to Hitchcock is like comparing the hot Stripper at the local club to Kate Beckinsale........it's not exactly even.

Some of the places I go to...they are even....do I have to learn ya???:nodsmile:

Frazetta
05-04-2007, 06:50 PM
Some of the places I go to...they are even....do I have to learn ya???:nodsmile:To the out of this World hot Kate Beckinsale.....I think not:nodsmile:

DonaldPismyHero
05-08-2007, 08:50 PM
To the out of this World hot Kate Beckinsale.....I think not:nodsmile:

Haha very true. Carpenter and Hitchcock were from completely different generations of film. I think that Carpenter took Hitchcock's work and raised it up to a higher level. Hitchcock was an excellent director mainly because he was extremely visual, storyboarding almost everything in the script. Carpenter is also a very good visual story-teller. The two are both excellent directors.

DonaldPismyHero
05-08-2007, 09:03 PM
Hitch did it in the mid-'50s, while he was at the top of his form.

Carpenter passed his peak years ago.



You've made your point over and over and over. Yes his peak was from the late 70s through the 80s but come on, do you know one single director who's following movies superceded the one that came before it? I know that Rob's Rejects was a step up from House. You say Carpenter passed his peak. Ok, but a lot of Carpenter's later movies he did not write. Yea it's the director's job to add lib to the script, structure the film visually and take what he wants to from the script, but with a poor plot in an already bad script(if that's the case) the director cannot change that. IMO I want Zombie in the seat just like you, but to imply that Zombie is a better director than Carpenter is ludacris.

shoe1985
05-09-2007, 06:58 AM
You've made your point over and over and over. Yes his peak was from the late 70s through the 80s but come on, do you know one single director who's following movies superceded the one that came before it? I know that Rob's Rejects was a step up from House. You say Carpenter passed his peak. Ok, but a lot of Carpenter's later movies he did not write. Yea it's the director's job to add lib to the script, structure the film visually and take what he wants to from the script, but with a poor plot in an already bad script(if that's the case) the director cannot change that. IMO I want Zombie in the seat just like you, but to imply that Zombie is a better director than Carpenter is ludacris.

I agree with you somewhat.

Remember John was still very young when he did Halloween. My belief for it being so good was that he knew this could be his big break. From anyone you talk to everyone making this movie, cast and crew, had a great time doing this. That is key to making a good/great movie. If people are in for the paycheck, changes are you won't get the movie that should be great.

Carpenter is now all about the paycheck. He has his legacy and what else is there to prove?

Zombie has no legacy in film and this is his chance to prove whether he should be making movies. This is the movie to put him over as a true filmmaker. If it is not good, I don't believe he will have much success after this.

I am not sure about Zombie, but I know my best work is usually done when my back is up against the wall.

Inhumane
05-09-2007, 10:32 AM
This is not even a debate in my eyes. Carpenter has made some damn fine films ("Halloween," "The Fog," "Escape From New York," "The Thing," "Starman," "In The Mouth of Madness," among a few others) and Zombie has made two crappy films. I fail to see how they could even be mentioned in the same breath beyond saying that Zombie is remaking "John Carpenter's "Halloween".

You know, the lack of respect that teens-to-mid twenty-year olds show towards older filmmakers is appalling. Society is so built on the "what have you done for me lately" bandwagon. It's quite sad. IN MY OPINION, the 18 to 29 year old demographic are surely the ones to blame for the horror genre's predominately crappy track record of late. Until they wise up, the genre will keep thrusting out crappy film after crappy film.

Laow-Z
05-09-2007, 10:38 AM
Type normal please

Roswell
05-09-2007, 10:40 AM
Type normal please

I think someone has hacked the board. I had that happen to me as well.

EvilOnTwoLegs
05-09-2007, 10:58 AM
You've made your point over and over and over. Yes his peak was from the late 70s through the 80s but come on, do you know one single director who's following movies superceded the one that came before it? I know that Rob's Rejects was a step up from House. You say Carpenter passed his peak. Ok, but a lot of Carpenter's later movies he did not write. Yea it's the director's job to add lib to the script, structure the film visually and take what he wants to from the script, but with a poor plot in an already bad script(if that's the case) the director cannot change that. IMO I want Zombie in the seat just like you, but to imply that Zombie is a better director than Carpenter is ludacris.
I never said Zombie was a better director than Carpenter. But thanks for putting words in my mouth, then claiming that your own erroneous assumption is ludicrous. Or as you say, Ludacris...and if you're talking about the rapper, I apologize for correcting your spelling.

And while most directors go through periods where their work isn't top-notch, most of the real greats don't produce several great films, then spend the next 25 years+ producing sub-par crap. Hitchcock had a slump, but the vast majority of his work speaks for itself. Some of Scorsese's latest films aren't exactly on a par with Taxi Driver, but his number of direct hits far outweighs his few misses. Kurosawa never made a bad film. Need I go on?

And while a director may not be able to salvage a completely bad script...and I've said this before, but you're making me say it again, so don't blast me for "making my point over and over"...a director has to say "YES" to a project in order to direct it. If the script is obviously beyond saving, he can turn it down. Carpenter doesn't. So it's still his fault that he's making crap films...because he chooses to make them, no matter how bad the script is. Why? For money and nothing else. By his own admission, Carpenter has become just another whore in the Hollywood gangbang. He's doing it for the cash, whereas once, he actually cared about whether or not the film was worth making.

When you say "Yes, I'll direct this," you sign your name to that film. And if it's released with your name on it, as director, then it's primarily your fault if said movie sucks...unless the studio overrides you and forces you to change it. Which hasn't been the case with Carpenter's turkeys. He's signed on to movies with scripts that were so terrible, even you're saying he couldn't save them...and he's made those movies, and that's something he's ultimately responsible for. No one is holding a gun to Carpenter's head and forcing him to make bad movies from bad scripts. They just hand him a paycheck and he dances for them like a trained monkey. It's his choice to make bad films. Saying it's not his fault, somehow, just doesn't cut it.

Again, let me repeat...since despite my saying things "over and over," apparently, you've completely missed my point. I'm not saying that Zombie is a better director than Carpenter, overall...or at Carpenter's peak. I'm not even comparing the two...you're the one who keeps bringing that up. I'm simply saying that Carpenter has established a long track record of making crap films, by choice, and has turned from a visionary director into a hack who's only in it for the money. He cares more about the number of zeros on his paycheck than he does about how well the film turns out. And that's not exactly someone I'm clamoring to see more work from.

Khan
05-09-2007, 03:51 PM
That post in bad Swedish keeps on making me laugh.

Myers_0728
05-12-2007, 09:16 AM
Gotta say good ol' John.

hes_behind_you
06-23-2007, 02:59 PM
he created the original, so it has to be him, RZ will do a good job but JC will still win

Nrious
07-23-2007, 08:26 AM
I would have to see RZ's first to say for sure, but I would rather it be RZ than JC. From what I've seen I like where RZ is going with this, I like it a lot. It's fresh and it's a direction I feel was necessary for the series. JC could very well have some ideas that I wouldn't expect, it could be that his version would blow RZ's out of the water, but JC's vision of Myers has already been created. RZ's Myers looks faster, stronger, bigger, and all around scarier for this time period.

Either version would be great.

Shamrock-Robot
07-23-2007, 10:21 PM
There is no point in mixing up the two.

Khan
07-24-2007, 03:44 AM
Carpenter has a legacy, while Zombie is just getting started.

Shamrock-Robot
07-24-2007, 05:00 AM
Carpenter has a legacy, while Zombie is just getting started.

Exactly, Maybe in another 20 years the two can be compared but not now.

Khan
07-24-2007, 05:23 AM
Zombie also needs to expand his horizons from horror to get that recognition.

zombie commando
07-24-2007, 06:22 AM
The THING will beat the crap out of anything Zombie puts out alone. He has yet to make a totally original film. I enjoy his flicks, but they're nowhere near the level of creativity that Carpenter was working at. I think I'd go as far as to rate Eli Roth above Zombie, and there are probably a hundred more film makers that are just starting to get recognized that are more skilled than both of them.

Shamrock-Robot
07-24-2007, 06:32 AM
Zombie also needs to expand his horizons from horror to get that recognition.

Yeah, Carpenter has done it all, From Horror to action to comedy to romance.

Khan
07-24-2007, 06:33 AM
I totally agree.


Yeah, Carpenter has done it all, From Horror to action to comedy to romance.

Being able to direct a variety of genres is very impressive.

Cereal Killer
08-03-2007, 11:22 PM
Two genres, two different mindsets... you can go on and on. JC had it down perfect and for him it WAS only going to a one movie thing with MM. Zombie is remaking "The Godfather of Horror".

JC had a limited budget, but he made a simple story with simple music into an icon. Really. Why was this forum made... what started it? RZ is going to remake, add in bits, change stuff, give more insights, and he's gonna put his gore & gritty touch to it. Carpenter wanted this to be a one movie thing... which is why it has the very unique but simple ending with the breathing, the scenes Myers was at... he's just alive but the story was going to be done. RZ is remaking what JC & DH made history with.

I think both are going to be cool, but you can't say who'd be a better with anything. JC did the original and he never even wanted to make H2! ... RZ just got the chance to give us a new version of a classic horror with a big smacking of blood and dirt. No knocking, but it's a remake of JC's work. The story never would be if it wadn't been for JC & DH. They dreamed this up. The whole forum and series started because of the 78' film... including it's remake... how can you really outrank the original film that started the whole ball of wax? You can't. It's apples and oranges. This could be the best horror remake yet, but how can it outclass the film that inspired it? It can be "cooler" for fans that came around for later sequels, or just younger kids who will get some HalloweeN for the first time, but you're still just paying homage to the original by remaking it.

Both cool IMO... H07' pending, but both two different films, writers, directors, styles, decades, missions, etc. I think JC and RZ are both awesome, but they're both going in opposite directions.

Dr. Wynn PhD
08-04-2007, 01:01 AM
Hi everyone,

Personally, I don't think RZ's a good choice. The original Halloween (and John Carpenter's philosophy) is about what you don't see. What the viewer doesn't see is far scarier than something that's explicitly shown on-screen. I'm sure the film will be enjoyable, but I can't understand why they think it's necessary to explain everything in the back story (which is true with all horror remakes, actually). Doesn’t that destroy the mystery? The unexplained and the unseen are far more effective. That's my view anyway.

samhain51
08-04-2007, 06:01 AM
This is putting a legend vs. a rookie dont take anything away from Rob Hes doing what no other director could do with Halloween ! Make It good again ! Its also very scary once more!!!!Thank you Rob!

Khan
08-04-2007, 06:29 AM
Make It good again ! Its also very scary once more!!!!Thank you Rob!

And you know this because you have seen it?

samhain51
08-04-2007, 06:34 AM
You know my expectations are high but on the other hand I think it will be very good its just MY opinion!!!

Halloween444
08-23-2007, 11:51 PM
Carpenter is one of my favorite director of all time but Zombie would do a better job now.

TommyDoyle2
08-24-2007, 01:53 AM
For the love of cigarette burns...

I can't believe a poll like this even exists. Fair enough, each to their own, and we all have our own opinion, but no serious cinema lover/scholar could even consider putting Rob Zombie near John Carpenter.

I like Rob Zombie, musically and film-wise, though neither of his movies are worthy of even looking in the vague direction of John Carpenter, but c'mon, lets not go overboard. John Carpenter made The Thing, Escape From New York, Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, Christine Dark Star, hell even Ghost's of Mars rates a mention...these aren't just 'movie's' they are a sub-culture inspiring way of life. Rob Zombie is a musician playing filmmaker. John Carpenter is 100% film maker (who sometimes plays musician). The man was BORN to make movies, and his past flicks have stamped pop-culture history. Comparing Zombie to Carpenter (which this thread has inadvertantly done) would be like calling Carpenter the new Hitchcock back in '77/'78. He'd of balked. I think the biggest objection you'll ever hear to a Zombie/Carpenter comparison is from Rob Zombie himself.

I know I missed some Carpenter titles...Vampires etc. But do I really need to illustrate further?

WhiteZombie
08-24-2007, 07:47 AM
For the love of cigarette burns...

I can't believe a poll like this even exists. Fair enough, each to their own, and we all have our own opinion, but no serious cinema lover/scholar could even consider putting Rob Zombie near John Carpenter.

I like Rob Zombie, musically and film-wise, though neither of his movies are worthy of even looking in the vague direction of John Carpenter, but c'mon, lets not go overboard. John Carpenter made The Thing, Escape From New York, Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, Christine Dark Star, hell even Ghost's of Mars rates a mention...these aren't just 'movie's' they are a sub-culture inspiring way of life. Rob Zombie is a musician playing filmmaker. John Carpenter is 100% film maker (who sometimes plays musician). The man was BORN to make movies, and his past flicks have stamped pop-culture history. Comparing Zombie to Carpenter (which this thread has inadvertantly done) would be like calling Carpenter the new Hitchcock back in '77/'78. He'd of balked. I think the biggest objection you'll ever hear to a Zombie/Carpenter comparison is from Rob Zombie himself.

I know I missed some Carpenter titles...Vampires etc. But do I really need to illustrate further?

Right, Carpenter is a great film maker, But why in the hell would we want him to remake his own movie?

prophet007
08-24-2007, 07:47 AM
I've seen Zombie movies and they are awesome and crazy. I think he would do well with the new halloween remake.

The Kilted One
08-24-2007, 09:47 AM
Carpenter would kick Zombie's ass, in a cage fight. That's what it all really boils down to, right?

TommyDoyle2
08-24-2007, 10:08 AM
Carpenter would kick Zombie's ass, in a cage fight. That's what it all really boils down to, right?

Haven't seen you in awhile!


Any I doubt it. Carpenter would have to go five minutes without a cigarette to cage fight...and that aint happening any time soon. :bastard:

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-24-2007, 10:48 AM
I know I missed some Carpenter titles...Vampires etc. But do I really need to illustrate further?
Thank God you left out Vampires...that movie was a steaming pile of shit. :D

Khan
08-24-2007, 10:54 AM
Most big name director have done a turd or two.

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-24-2007, 10:56 AM
Most big name director have done a turd or two.
Personally, I think that Carpenter has had cinematic diarrhea for a while now...but that's just my opinion. All I know is, he hasn't lived up to his early potential.

Khan
08-24-2007, 10:59 AM
Spielberg - 1941
Lucas - Howard The Duck, and some would say the new trilogy

The Kilted One
08-24-2007, 11:01 AM
Haven't seen you in awhile!

Yea man, how's it going?



Any I doubt it. Carpenter would have to go five minutes without a cigarette to cage fight...and that aint happening any time soon. :bastard:
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Ah... I got a good laugh out of that one.

Is it me, or does the whole RZ's Halloween section reak of bullshit? ...I mean, more than it usually does?

Khan
08-24-2007, 11:02 AM
Just imagine how things will be after the 31st.

The Kilted One
08-24-2007, 11:04 AM
Just imagine how things will be after the 31st.

I'd rather not...

:batard:

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-24-2007, 12:30 PM
Spielberg - 1941
Lucas - Howard The Duck, and some would say the new trilogy
There's a difference between a few bombs here and there (like Spielberg has had) and the bulk of a director's output going straight downhill beyond a certain point.

I happen to put Lucas in that latter category, as well...I think Lucas competely sucks now. And in their day, both he and Carpenter were master cinematic storytellers...which is why their decline is so unfortunate.

The Kilted One
08-24-2007, 12:43 PM
There's a difference between a few bombs here and there (like Spielberg has had) and the bulk of a director's output going straight downhill beyond a certain point.

I happen to put Lucas in that latter category, as well...I think Lucas competely sucks now. And in their day, both he and Carpenter were master cinematic storytellers...which is why their decline is so unfortunate.

Yea, JC's Pro Life forced that realization upon me. I was fighting it for quite a while, but I can fight no more.

Khan
08-24-2007, 12:55 PM
I haven't seen Pro Life yet.

Is it that bad?

mcilroga
08-24-2007, 12:57 PM
I haven't seen Pro Life yet.

Is it that bad?

It's terrible... terrible film. I almost thought Carpenter was gaining back what he once had with Cigarette Burns, and Pro-Life shot my fantasies back down into place. Haha.

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-24-2007, 01:03 PM
It's terrible... terrible film. I almost thought Carpenter was gaining back what he once had with Cigarette Burns, and Pro-Life shot my fantasies back down into place. Haha.
Cigarette Burns is an exception to what's unfortunately become the norm for Carpenter. He makes a good film now and then, but the bulk of his latter output has just been unexpectional, and pretty bad.

Khan
08-24-2007, 01:04 PM
I am way behind in the MOH series.

I have only seen four episodes of the first season.

The Kilted One
08-24-2007, 01:29 PM
It's terrible... terrible film. I almost thought Carpenter was gaining back what he once had with Cigarette Burns, and Pro-Life shot my fantasies back down into place. Haha.

Yea, I really enjoyed CB, but PL sucked... Villain style!


Cigarette Burns is an exception to what's unfortunately become the norm for Carpenter. He makes a good film now and then, but the bulk of his latter output has just been unexpectional, and pretty bad.

Sad, but pretty true.


I am way behind in the MOH series.

I have only seen four episodes of the first season.

You need to get on that, man! I have the first season coming, as soon as it's released.

TommyDoyle2
08-24-2007, 06:51 PM
Any Ghosts of Mars fans? I seriously thought it a return to form.

It was cool in that I didn't despise it, and I certainly wouldn't mind one more Escape film- Escape From Earth?

prophet007
08-26-2007, 11:22 AM
what is the best master of horror show that you have seen?

alphaproject
08-27-2007, 10:52 AM
It's terrible... terrible film. I almost thought Carpenter was gaining back what he once had with Cigarette Burns, and Pro-Life shot my fantasies back down into place. Haha.


This couldn't be more true and depressing.

How can you make CB and then make PL???

Pro-Life was not the Carpenter that made even Ghosts of Mars, which I could barely stand. At least it had some atmosphere though. Pro life was easily one of the worst things, not only Carpenter has done, but period anyone has directed. It was THAT bad. The best thing about it was the opening score by his son.

eklypised
08-28-2007, 11:46 AM
would be better to say after I see the Robs film

Peter_
08-29-2007, 11:30 PM
Capenter will always be the best for Halloween.

Just because his newer movies have been fairly mediocre, I think he would bring back the whole vibe of what Halloween is if he ever returned to the series to direct again... which unfortunately, seems like it will never happen.

MrShape666
08-30-2007, 01:16 PM
I'll just wait until I actually see the Zombie film before I answer this. That said, its very hard to top the excitment of the original. I doubt the remake will inspire the same kind of excitement that we felt watching the original for the first time.

njdevs03champs
08-31-2007, 01:40 PM
I wouldnt mind seeing Dwight Little come back.

chipsteak
08-31-2007, 03:47 PM
" John Carpenter vs Rob Zombie"

i think JC would benefit from being a 14-year-old heavy metal fan trapped inside a grown man's body. ( sarcasm - just in case )

MichaelFox
04-20-2009, 05:37 AM
I'm going to vote for Rob Zombie! Because I couldn't stand how the original Halloween was directed. Honestly, and no offense to anybody who is going for Carpenter, I find RZ's way of telling the story better. Details are what makes the movie better. Carpenter jumps to scenes and keeps you wondering.

Khan
04-20-2009, 05:42 AM
Then why is the film so beloved among the majority of the horror community?

For a supposed Halloween fan and collector, you have an unhealthy hatred for the origins of the series.

TheThirdHalf
04-20-2009, 05:45 AM
I'm going to vote for Rob Zombie! Because I couldn't stand how the original Halloween was directed. Honestly, and no offense to anybody who is going for Carpenter, I find RZ's way of telling the story better. Details are what makes the movie better. Carpenter jumps to scenes and keeps you wondering.

Holy shit. You've never seen the workprint of RZH then. Before they had him Carpenterize his film. It was a goddamn mess. Are you sure you're not just trolling? haha

alphaproject
04-20-2009, 02:04 PM
I thought the WP was better than the theatrical release.

Matt-ha-chew
04-20-2009, 02:33 PM
Carpenter all the way. Its how it all began. Its how each Halloween should be. Rob version is for the new generation, but Carpenters will always be #1.

Slasher Fan
04-20-2009, 03:16 PM
Easily John Carpenter.

The Frightmaster
04-20-2009, 04:04 PM
Who Do You Think Would Be A Better Director For The Remake?

Well even though JC has directed some of my favorites movies like, Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, and Escape from NY, I don't think he really cares about the series anymore, other than getting a pay check. From what I've heard from other members it seems like JC's best days are behind him.

I don't dislike RZ has a director, I dislike RZ as a writer. RZH was a poorly, POORLY written movie. Rob should have never touched that script.

So since JC doesn't have the passion and Rob did a piss poor job, I would vote someone else.

darkstanley
04-20-2009, 05:12 PM
i agree with everything said on this post, but i will say RZ has a great visual style. i dont mind him being an idea maker, but no way should he have sole script writing duties. and if JC's next movie shows no inspiration, well chalk it up to a once great director having burned out on the studio system, and just wish him well. i will contend however that RZ has never done anything remotely as bad as escape from LA. that was an abomination and desecration of a sacred character



Well even though JC has directed some of my favorites movies like, Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, and Escape from NY, I don't think he really cares about the series anymore, other than getting a pay check. From what I've heard from other members it seems like JC's best days are behind him.

I don't dislike RZ has a director, I dislike RZ as a writer. RZH was a poorly, POORLY written movie. Rob should have never touched that script.

So since JC doesn't have the passion and Rob did a piss poor job, I would vote someone else.

slasherfanatic
04-20-2009, 05:24 PM
I would say that John Carpenter's Halloween is simply in a class far above any of the sequels or spin-offs and much better than the remake. Carpenter is a horror genuis. Rob Zombie didn't do a bad job directing the remake, but he did do a fairly poor job of writing it. I don't think Rob is a very good writer, but I'm hoping H2 will prove me wrong. I didn't really like the how much profanity was hurled at the audience in the first 5 mins of the film, but thats just my opinion. I enjoyed Rob Zombie's Halloween and look forward to H2, but nothing can ever top JC'S Halloween...

Danny Strode
04-20-2009, 06:27 PM
I'm sure I've voted on this, but just in case....

Carpenter all the way.

Lord Thurisaz
04-22-2009, 02:29 AM
Without John Carpenter's, we wouldn't have Rob Zombie's remake, but I still enjoyed RZH. Anyways, I'll have to go with John Carpenter's classic HalloweeN.

Dingo
04-22-2009, 09:01 AM
Wait...what? do you mean in a boxing ring? In a pie eating contest? Egg and spoon race...
Coz surely as there is a sun in the sky you do not mean who is the better director!!!

Michael Voorhees
04-25-2009, 02:46 AM
Can't really compare the two...they have different styles and ways of storytelling.

MichaelFox
04-25-2009, 05:34 AM
Yea, doesn't really matter. Halloween was done great by both directors.

Khan
04-25-2009, 07:44 AM
Didn't you say that you hated Carpenter's style of directing a few days ago and implied that the original was crap? :crazy:

michealjamie6
04-25-2009, 08:06 AM
I think that rob and john are both great directors :bastard:

Danny Strode
04-25-2009, 08:20 AM
Didn't you say that you hated Carpenter's style of directing a few days ago and implied that the original was crap? :crazy:

I don't recall that, but I do know that this one claimed Castle was the worst Michael.

Torgo
04-25-2009, 08:39 AM
Wait, a better director for the remake?

Seeing as how Carpenter hasn't made a watchable movie in 15 years or so, I'd say Rob Zombie.

But honestly, why would JC want to remake his own movie? This is a silly question!

Danny Strode
04-25-2009, 10:11 AM
The only director who would remake his own movie is George Lucas. And he'll do that when he goes and re-fucking-does Star Wars.

Spongerboy
04-25-2009, 10:19 AM
The only director who would remake his own movie is George Lucas. And he'll do that when he goes and re-fucking-does Star Wars.

What about the guy that did "Funny Games"? And wasn't Clive Barker originally supposed to do the Hellraiser remake? Come to think of it, most of the original people from Child's Play are doing the remake.

But yeah, George Lucas will redo Star Wars a million times.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-25-2009, 11:23 AM
Carpenter all the way. Its how it all began. Its how each Halloween should be. Rob version is for the new generation, but Carpenters will always be #1.

Man, it's like you haven't even SEEN any of the shit Carpenter's done over the past 20 years. haha Yeah, he was great in 1978, but you know what? 1978 was a long fuckin' time ago, and Carpenter has directed more bad movies than good since then. I don't want him anywhere near Halloween anymore. His last big idea was to shoot Myers into space...then we could have Halloween: Ghosts of Mars. :p



Without John Carpenter's, we wouldn't have Rob Zombie's remake, but I still enjoyed RZH. Anyways, I'll have to go with John Carpenter's classic HalloweeN.

This is for who should've directed the REMAKE, you fool...not which movie is better. haha



The only director who would remake his own movie is George Lucas. And he'll do that when he goes and re-fucking-does Star Wars.

Alfred Hitchcock beat him to the punch by over fifty years, when he remade The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1956. :p

Torgo
04-25-2009, 12:34 PM
What about the guy that did "Funny Games"? And wasn't Clive Barker originally supposed to do the Hellraiser remake? Come to think of it, most of the original people from Child's Play are doing the remake.

But yeah, George Lucas will redo Star Wars a million times.

I think the guy who directed The Vanishing 93 also directed the original version.

SOOOOO, the only way I see John Carpenter remaking Halloween is if he makes it in another language.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-25-2009, 01:34 PM
I think the guy who directed The Vanishing 93 also directed the original version.

SOOOOO, the only way I see John Carpenter remaking Halloween is if he makes it in another language.

You're correct on The Vanishing. Too bad the studio made Sluzier fuck up the American version.

But as I pointed out, Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1956, after making it in 1935...and both versions were in English. :p

Danny Strode
04-25-2009, 03:02 PM
Alfred Hitchcock beat him to the punch by over fifty years, when he remade The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1956. :p

Well.... I stand corrected. Asshole.

:p

Ispitonmygrave
06-03-2009, 12:04 PM
Ok, but here's the problem with both of those examples and the precedent that it sets- Rob Zombie feels completely free to alter or change things he has already put on film, despite what the change might do to the continuity of his series as a whole. That is the easy way out and shows a lack of respect for your audience and your own work. I'll leave Grandpa out as I can completely understand why you wouldn't want to replace the original actor, but the character's story could have been resolved through other character dialog during the film. And, as far as Dr. Satan goes....well....like I said...cheap way out in my opinion....

It's this kind of thing that has me concerned about Mr. Zombie's thought's on the Michael Myer's mythos and his plans for it...


^^^^^

Wow--looking back in time, it turns out that you were somewhat on point with your comment.

Horror Kitten
07-07-2009, 05:52 PM
The poll is closed but I say RZ. Although Carpenters Halloween is WAY better in book, he already did a Halloween. I'm kinda glad it was Zombie who did the remake. I was completely opposed to it when I heard about it, and before, but he didn't do an awful job. It was alright in my book.

But why would I rather RZ than JC - We already saw JC's take on Halloween. He came up with Halloween, and I think we'd all agree he did an amazing job. But since he already directed the movie, why wold he come back to do the remake. I think it's better if someone new does it so it'll be, well, new. I mean thats kinda the point.

I totally respect that Barker had the opportunity to do Hellraiser again and he said no. He said he would do the script, but he already directed it once, why would want to go back and do the same movie again? I mean, I know that Hellraiser remake has gone through so many directors and looks like it'll never be made, I'm just using what Barker about the project as part of my argument ;)

Michael Voorhees
08-18-2011, 10:07 PM
John Carpenter's Halloween is the best of the series, but in terms of whose style I prefer, it'd definitely be Rob Zombie.

The Saw
08-18-2011, 10:12 PM
Who made the better Halloween movie? Carpenter. Who's a better director? Zombie. And the poll says JC vs RZ. So RZ.

Michael Voorhees
08-31-2011, 03:49 PM
Well, although some fans will always find this blasphemous, I'd say that when it comes to JCH & RZH2 they're about equal in terms of quality. You can't completely compare them, because they are meant to be two separate visions, but still, the quality of both films is great.

blacksymbiote
09-01-2011, 02:31 PM
I'd like to see JC do a movie and RZ do a sequel to it. I think that would work perfectly.

CJ7
09-01-2011, 02:40 PM
Both Carpenter and Zombie are great directors/screen writers.
Rob's Halloween movies are great, and I like how vicious Michael Myers has become with his murders.JC's Halloween is a timeless classic that will forever be one of the all time greatest horror films.Gotta go with Carpenter although, Rob was the perfect person to write/direct the remake.

Michael Voorhees
09-03-2011, 04:26 PM
I'd like to see JC do a movie and RZ do a sequel to it. I think that would work perfectly.

Nah, Carpenter's lost a step or two....or maybe even three over the years. Haha, you'd be better off just letting Zombie do both films.

A Dumb Question
09-03-2011, 04:32 PM
Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1956, after making it in 1935...and both versions were in English.

Ahem, the remake was in English and Spanish. Que sera sera!

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 08:02 AM
All of John Carpenter's films are better then Rob Zombie's films. I love Carpenter's Halloween films but I'm not too keen on Zombie's Halloween remake and sequel to be honest.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-07-2012, 03:16 PM
Ghosts of Mars is NOT a better movie than The Devil's Rejects. haha

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 03:20 PM
Ghosts of Mars is NOT a better movie than The Devil's Rejects. haha

I really disagree you. Ghost of Mars is alot better film then The Devil's Rejects as it was alot of crap in my eyes to be honest.

TheThirdHalf
01-07-2012, 03:26 PM
You must have had crap in your eyes when you watched Ghosts of Mars if you didn't realize what a steaming pile of shit it was.

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 03:28 PM
You must have had crap in your eyes when you watched Ghosts of Mars if you didn't realize what a steaming pile of shit it was.

I really enjoyed it.

TheThirdHalf
01-07-2012, 03:29 PM
I can't honestly say that I'm shocked to hear that.

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 03:31 PM
I can't honestly say that I'm shocked to hear that.

Well you must be psychic to hear me because I cant hear anyone on here.

ALDO
01-07-2012, 03:40 PM
I can't honestly say that I'm shocked to hear that.

Shell shocked!:)

Sorry.

TheThirdHalf
01-07-2012, 03:43 PM
Well you must be psychic to hear me because I cant hear anyone on here.
My powers are infinite.

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 03:54 PM
My powers are infinite.

You need to go to Smith's Grove to see the real Dr. Loomis for some mental help. Get well soon buddy!:nodsmile:

TheThirdHalf
01-07-2012, 03:56 PM
Loomis is a dick.

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 04:01 PM
Loomis is a dick.

No he is not. Loomis is the man. Respect him.

The Kilted One
01-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Ghosts of Mars is NOT a better movie than The Devil's Rejects. haha

Ghosts of Mars isn't better than many films at all, since you brought it up.

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 04:20 PM
I would say House of 1000 Corpse bis a better film then Ghosts of Mars.

Roswell
01-07-2012, 04:23 PM
Rob Zombie's worst film is still better than John Carpenter's worst film.

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 04:25 PM
Rob Zombie's worst film is still better than John Carpenter's worst film.

What is John Carpenter's worst film of all time?

Roswell
01-07-2012, 04:28 PM
Goats With Farts...I mean Ghosts Of Mars.

The Saw
01-07-2012, 04:28 PM
I would say House of 1000 Corpse bis a better film then Ghosts of Mars.

So Ho1KC>Ghosts of Mars>Devil's Rejects?
Uh, okay. :crazy:

the 'M' clam
01-07-2012, 04:34 PM
So Ho1KC>Ghosts of Mars>Devil's Rejects?
Uh, okay. :crazy:

I hate The Devil's Rejects.

The Kilted One
01-07-2012, 04:37 PM
Goats With Farts...I mean Ghosts Of Mars.

But the one he did for Season Two of Master's of Horror was pretty stinky, also.

His Season One Contribution, though, is the only decent thing he's done in YEARS.

Michael Voorhees
01-07-2012, 04:40 PM
Zombie is overall more creative than Carpenter, imo. Carpenter seems sloppy with his ideas at times, & not sure where to go with them.

Roswell
01-07-2012, 04:47 PM
But the one he did for Season Two of Master's of Horror was pretty stinky, also.

His Season One Contribution, though, is the only decent thing he's done in YEARS.

I've stopped including his Masters Of Horror contributions since those are episodes and not complete movies. It'd be like comparing Alfred Hitchcock's TV episodes to his films if I did.

The Kilted One
01-07-2012, 06:18 PM
I've stopped including his Masters Of Horror contributions since those are episodes and not complete movies. It'd be like comparing Alfred Hitchcock's TV episodes to his films if I did.

True, but good God- In Carpenter's case, you've got to cut the man some slack by including Cigarette Burns in his body of work.

I mean seriously- What was the last decent thing he coughed up, before that (or after, for that matter- nothing after)? And more importantly, when was it?

Hellraiser94
01-07-2012, 07:28 PM
I wish nobody remade it. Rob Zombies film was stupid, Michael showed to much emotion, and he was to human like. I consider his remakes to be unrelated to the Halloween films and just to be the average Rob Zombie movies. John Carpenters was a masterpiece.

the 'M' clam
01-08-2012, 04:22 AM
I wish nobody remade it. Rob Zombies film was stupid, Michael showed to much emotion, and he was to human like. I consider his remakes to be unrelated to the Halloween films and just to be the average Rob Zombie movies. John Carpenters was a masterpiece.

You hit the hammer as I agree that Rob Zombie's films are stupid and just average. John Carpenter's Halloween was a masterpiece. Rob Zombie's Halloween is nothing compared to John Carpenter's Halloween. People these days do not know what a film is these days.:violin:

TheThirdHalf
01-08-2012, 06:52 AM
I don't know what you're talking about Martin (probably not alone here). I've never once seen anyone choose Rob's remake over the 78' classic. We're talking entire bodies of work here...

Roswell
01-08-2012, 08:25 AM
People these days do not know what a film is these days.:violin:

You said you enjoyed Ghosts Of Mars. Do you really want to have this discussion?

Todd 78
01-08-2012, 11:06 AM
You hit the hammer as I agree that Rob Zombie's films are stupid and just average. John Carpenter's Halloween was a masterpiece. Rob Zombie's Halloween is nothing compared to John Carpenter's Halloween. People these days do not know what a film is these days.:violin:

Maybe so but Rob Zombies Halloween 2 blows away John Carpentar's Halloween 2 if we go by individual films as an argument

Hellraiser94
01-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Maybe so but Rob Zombies Halloween 2 blows away John Carpentar's Halloween 2 if we go by individual films as an argument

I disagree, Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 was alright, but nothing compared to the original. I hate how on the Rob Zombie cover of H2 it says "One of the most original and shocking entries in the series" I do not recall a hobo Michael Myers and a white horse in ANY of the originals.

Todd 78
01-08-2012, 01:34 PM
I disagree, Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 was alright, but nothing compared to the original. I hate how on the Rob Zombie cover of H2 it says "One of the most original and shocking entries in the series" I do not recall a hobo Michael Myers and a white horse in ANY of the originals.

1 I was talking about the sequel not the first film

2 Isn't that the point if it wasn't in the series before that defines being original as opposed to same old shit of faceless characters being killed by a faceless boogey man

Michael Voorhees
01-08-2012, 01:51 PM
I disagree, Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 was alright, but nothing compared to the original. I hate how on the Rob Zombie cover of H2 it says "One of the most original and shocking entries in the series" I do not recall a hobo Michael Myers and a white horse in ANY of the originals.

What's so great about the original HII? The fact that they copied Friday the 13th's style of gore over story & was the complete opposite of the original? RZH2 is just like the original in that it's different, it stands out. It's nothing like any of the other films in the series, it can stand on its ow two feet. The same can't be said for the original HII, which is just a generic slasher where Michael loses every bit of personality that was given to him in the previous film.

I love the original HII, but it pales in comparison to RZ's H2 for so many reasons. Sure, I still consider it a classic in its own right, but better or more entertaining/compelling than Rob's? Absolutely not.

Roswell
01-08-2012, 02:00 PM
I hate how on the Rob Zombie cover of H2 it says "One of the most original and shocking entries in the series" I do not recall a hobo Michael Myers and a white horse in ANY of the originals.

:crazy:

When they say "original", they don't mean the original series. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Hellraiser94
01-08-2012, 02:15 PM
RZH2 is a good film if it was not a Halloween film. It is pretty entertaining, but since I know its a Halloween film, it kills it for me. It would be cooler if Rob Zombie made the film with a different title in my opinion.

ALDO
01-08-2012, 02:17 PM
Sounds like HIII all over again.

"If it didn't have the HalloweeN title I would have liked it"

Roswell
01-08-2012, 02:40 PM
*still doesn't understand how people would instantly like these films if they had different titles*

That's kind of like me saying "I'd like Halloween 5 more if it wasn't called Halloween 5"...except I wouldn't, because changing the title wouldn't change the fact that the film still sits firmly in the "shit" category. The film is what it is, and changing the title doesn't suddenly make every flaw disappear.

Michael Voorhees
01-08-2012, 06:29 PM
^ This.

Fact of the matter is, Rob brought something interesting to the table, & he told a unique story. Carpenter may have created the brother/sister angle, but Zombie, to date, has made the most sense of it. I think it's stupid that people are still complaining that Myers had a fucking beard & a hoodie rather than paying attention to the film itself. Get over it, characters go through changes all the times. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's really not that serious.

Peaker1990
01-08-2012, 06:41 PM
I think it's stupid that people are still complaining that Myers had a fucking beard & a hoodie rather than paying attention to the film itself. Get over it, characters go through changes all the times. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's really not that serious.

Not only is it not serious, it's utterly ridiculous. People always want more of the same, and it's annoying. At this point, expecting Michael to remain exactly the same as his original-film counterpart (which, lest we forget, doesn't even EXIST in RZ's universe- and hasn't existed at all since 1978) is not only stupid, it's begging for disappointment.

Deviancy
01-08-2012, 07:24 PM
I think he's just saying that if it was its own beast, it would have even been better.

And it would have been because it would have been more creative but instead RZH was like lets say Lady Gaga. All he did was take characters that were already created then modernize things a bit, while all Lady Gaga does is take what Madonna, Dale Bozzio and Stacie Q did in the past and modernize it a bit. I have less respect for directors and musicians who merely take other peoples work and toss a new coat of paint on whatever it is.

But for each their own...

Muse
01-08-2012, 07:32 PM
I think he's just saying that if it was its own beast, it would have even been better.

And it would have been because it would have been more creative but instead RZH was like lets say Lady Gaga. All he did was take characters that were already created then modernize things a bit, while all Lady Gaga does is take what Madonna, Dale Bozzio and Stacie Q did in the past and modernize it a bit. I have less respect for directors and musicians who merely take other peoples work and toss a new coat of paint on whatever it is.

But for each their own...
But, you can't really blame Zombie for that. It's exactly what he was hired to do! That was his job. While you use Gaga, well, it's her conscious decision to butcher what those already did before her. In her case, she's not really original, she's just annoying... hah But let's not get sidetracked on my dislike of Gaga... Rather, what Zombie did was take what was put before him and actually took it in a direction that hadn't been done before. All Zombie did was what H2, H6 or H20 had tried to do before it. Yet because it's not in the original series, it seems to get so much flack for being original? I'll never understand it. Even if you don't like the film, what he did with what he had was still very creative and very original, in terms of this series. And for me, better than what we'd seen before, but that part is only my opinion, of course.

Roswell
01-08-2012, 07:33 PM
I think he's just saying that if it was its own beast, it would have even been better.

And it would have been because it would have been more creative but instead RZH was like lets say Lady Gaga. All he did was take characters that were already created then modernize things a bit, while all Lady Gaga does is take what Madonna, Dale Bozzio and Stacie Q did in the past and modernize it a bit. I have less respect for directors and musicians who merely take other peoples work and toss a new coat of paint on whatever it is.

But for each their own...

Judging from this statement and the quote in your signature, I take it you don't like any film produced in the last thirty or forty years.

Deviancy
01-08-2012, 08:48 PM
Judging from this statement and the quote in your signature, I take it you don't like any film produced in the last thirty or forty years.

So you're saying every film made in the last thirty or forty years has been a remake?

*Goes to look for the original Scream, Ginger Snaps, 30 Days of Night, Lost Boys, The Mist, and Trick R' Treat*..

Hrmm.. I can't seem to find the originals. Or are you implying those films took ideas from other films? I have no issue with bands or film makers who take a few ideas from a film or two and then make their own beast, what I don't care for bands that sound nearly identical to earlier bands..

For example..

This is the Sisters of Mercy.. a great band from the 80's.. that was influenced by Motorhead and Floyd, but you really can't tell..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxucr5TSxDg&feature=related

But then came the 90's when lame bands couldn't come up with their own ideas and a dozen bands did this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N3T-R8tdw&feature=related

Pure audio plagarism... it wasn't that they merely took a few lil things here and there, they copied everything from the drum machine, sound arrangements, and vocal style. And then there are horror remakes, like the Friday the 13th one, which was basically just F13 2 and 3 modernized. They really brought nothing new to the table whatsoever, and they performed necophilia on a franchise that had its time in the sun. The same goes for the NOES remake, and 99% of the others. Now Zombie I do give credit for, for doing a few new things with Michael, while the other slasher remakes are pure trash. But at the end of the day, its still just another remake and the mainstream are really getting sick of them, and rightfully so.

But as the french say.. c'est la vie..

Roswell
01-08-2012, 09:04 PM
So you're saying every film made in the last thirty or forty years has been a remake?

You weren't talking about remakes. You were talking about how people recycle ideas, which is what most, if not all filmmakers do and have been doing for a long time.


*Goes to look for the original Scream, Ginger Snaps, 30 Days of Night, Lost Boys, The Mist, and Trick R' Treat*..

I enjoy most of those films, but original they are not. Sorry.


But why couldn't he have just come up with something of his own? Some new slasher? Oh right.. he was paying "homage". Riight.. he just happened to be paying homage to something that would be easier to make a profit from than something new.

He was hired to do the film. He didn't go to Dimension and say "Hey, I want to do the Halloween remake." They offered it to him, he mulled it over and said yes. That's why his films have Michael Myers and not some other guy. That was the character he was given, and he did what he did with it.


Newsweek summed it up the best just a few months ago, these studios are cranking out these remakes because all they care about is profit. Which is a shame because in the studios did take more risks back in the day..

The studios only care about money? Say it ain't so, Joe! I had no idea that the "business" part of show business actually described what goes on in Hollywood!

It's always been about money. It's always been about cashing in on the latest crazes and how best to get your hard earned money. The only difference is that people are more aware of it now and can use places like magazines and the internet to complain about it.

And yes, the studios have taken risks before, but they've also made some pretty dumb decisions too, and not just in the past ten years, but since the beginning. It's a gamble whenever any film is released, and if a studio is on a winning streak, then yeah, they might take a chance and release something that goes against the grain, but that's a rare occurrence.

Deviancy
01-08-2012, 09:21 PM
You weren't talking about remakes. You were talking about how people recycle ideas, which is what most, if not all filmmakers do and have been doing for a long time.

This is what I said..

I have less respect for directors and musicians who merely take other peoples work and toss a new coat of paint on whatever it is.

Halloween was someone elses work that Zombie merely took and then added some new bits to it. Ginger Snaps was not someone elses work, sure it borrowed a few ideas here and there but it was its own beast, and they didn't seem to put profit first, they seemed to actually have a little integrity. And thankfully, there are still actors who have integrity and won't just take any film that offers up a lot of money, Daniel Day Lewis for example seems to be very picky on what he picks, even though he's had tons of offers.

Yes.. I know a lot of studios put profit before everything else, and sometimes thankfully the director still gets to put out a creative piece of work with little friction from the studio. But sadly, often times their work gets neutered because all the studio cares about is making things friendly for a larger audience, rather than staying true to the film and possibly having a smaller audience. And the reason I always bring music in to these discussions is what happens at the studios, it happens with the labels. And a lot of bands have been ditching the labels in order to remain true to the artform, rather than deal with asshats who only care about profit and don't have an artistic bone in their body. The Cure and Garbage are now working without a label to get away from that nonsense, and I believe Manson is as well. The Cure is a good example of a band that never gave a shit about making it big, its always been about the music and when the fans just wanted the same album over and over, they told the fans to sit on it and did their own thing.

I respect that. Even though the Cure have released a few albums I haven't been fond of, I still buy them to support the fact they do their own thing. And the same goes with some indie film makers.

And no, I don't own a lot of films. The only modern films I own either really felt like something new to me, or have Milla in them. Her films for the most part are turds but she's the only milf I like gawking at. The rest of my collection are films I liked as a child because even though I wouldn't care for them much if they came out in this day and age, I have an issue with nostalgia.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 03:21 AM
:crazy:

When they say "original", they don't mean the original series. I thought that was pretty obvious.

In fact, it means precisely the opposite. It means that it's doing something that the previous films hadn't already done. That's what "original" means.



I have less respect for directors and musicians who merely take other peoples work and toss a new coat of paint on whatever it is.

In other words, pretty much every director and musician in the world.



So you're saying every film made in the last thirty or forty years has been a remake?

*Goes to look for the original Scream, Ginger Snaps, 30 Days of Night, Lost Boys, The Mist, and Trick R' Treat*..

Hrmm.. I can't seem to find the originals.

Where are all the original versions of Lady Gaga's songs?

See, this is why your points frequently make no sense. You set up this analogy, which appears to be all about lack of creativity, and artists borrowing styles and ideas, and how that's lame. Then later, you try to make it strictly about remaking things, but hey, guess what? That's completely at odds with what you originally said, because applying the above logic to your original analogy would imply that every Lady Gaga song is a cover.

Deviancy
01-09-2012, 04:15 AM
See, this is why your points frequently make no sense. You set up this analogy, which appears to be all about lack of creativity, and artists borrowing styles and ideas, and how that's lame.

I'll blame that on too much caffeine.

What I'm saying is this, a film like Ginger Snaps borrowed bits and pieces here and there, for example having a teen deal with the curse while at the same time dealing with being a teen, hell Teen Wolf did that. But the way Teen Wolf was handled was all cornball comedy, while Ginger SNaps I felt dealt with it in a more serious fashion, and was an actual horror flick and not an awful comedy. So I don't think Ginger Snaps crossed the line between influence and copy, while a film like Fast and the Furious basically just swaped surfboards for cars and copied almost everything from Point Break. Then there's these so called remakes, I've always given Zombie credit for bringing some new elements to the films. But remakes like NOES I felt really didn't offer anything new, unless you count phoned in performances as new. I mean there's a reason why I support Mara's decision to bash the hell out of it, it was nothing more than recycled crap. I can't even give them credit for adding the pedo angle since all they did was take Craven's original idea and implement it.

But to put in a simpler way..

If I walk out of a theater feeling like I've seen that film before, or put on a cd and it sounds exactly like something I've heard before, I see that as crossing the line between influenced by/copycats. However, if I walk out of a theater knowing where the writer got some of his ideas from but still felt like I saw something new, I see that as influenced by and not a copy. Sadly, there have been more times when I've walked out of a theater feeling like I got ripped off because the film either was a total rip off of another film, or was just bad in general. The 80's when it seemed like it was one steroid monkey action film after another really got on my nerves Which is probably why these days I tend to just wait till films are on cable or rent. But every now and again I see a gem, like V for Vendetta. Sure, it was based on a comic but it was the first film adaption of the comic, and on top of that they even changed things to make it more of a slam against modern politics. The comic is still by far better but its two different genres and Moore is by far a better writer.

But between anonymous and occupy, the mask has gotten a lil overused.

But well, it isn't like they could wear Ghostface masks, wouldn't portray the same message.

I don't expect 100% originality, I don't even know if thats humanly possible at this point. But I don't want more of the same over and over and over again, it just gets boring. I liked party rock in the 80's but the labels kept putting out more and more party rock bands, and it just was overkill and I got sick of it. And when the slasher genre was fun in the mid eighties, the studios got carried away and overdid it and drove it right into the ground. Why can't they learn that moderation is a good thing and it keeps things living a lot longer? I know they love money, and after seeing the guy behind Two and a Half Men, I imagine most studio execs and producers need money to get laid. But still.. a lil moderation would be a good thing.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 12:43 PM
I'll blame that on too much caffeine.

What I'm saying is this, a film like Ginger Snaps borrowed bits and pieces here and there, for example having a teen deal with the curse while at the same time dealing with being a teen, hell Teen Wolf did that. But the way Teen Wolf was handled was all cornball comedy, while Ginger SNaps I felt dealt with it in a more serious fashion, and was an actual horror flick and not an awful comedy. So I don't think Ginger Snaps crossed the line between influence and copy, while a film like Fast and the Furious basically just swaped surfboards for cars and copied almost everything from Point Break. Then there's these so called remakes, I've always given Zombie credit for bringing some new elements to the films. But remakes like NOES I felt really didn't offer anything new, unless you count phoned in performances as new. I mean there's a reason why I support Mara's decision to bash the hell out of it, it was nothing more than recycled crap. I can't even give them credit for adding the pedo angle since all they did was take Craven's original idea and implement it.

But to put in a simpler way..

If I walk out of a theater feeling like I've seen that film before, or put on a cd and it sounds exactly like something I've heard before, I see that as crossing the line between influenced by/copycats. However, if I walk out of a theater knowing where the writer got some of his ideas from but still felt like I saw something new, I see that as influenced by and not a copy. Sadly, there have been more times when I've walked out of a theater feeling like I got ripped off because the film either was a total rip off of another film, or was just bad in general. The 80's when it seemed like it was one steroid monkey action film after another really got on my nerves Which is probably why these days I tend to just wait till films are on cable or rent. But every now and again I see a gem, like V for Vendetta. Sure, it was based on a comic but it was the first film adaption of the comic, and on top of that they even changed things to make it more of a slam against modern politics. The comic is still by far better but its two different genres and Moore is by far a better writer.

But between anonymous and occupy, the mask has gotten a lil overused.

But well, it isn't like they could wear Ghostface masks, wouldn't portray the same message.

I don't expect 100% originality, I don't even know if thats humanly possible at this point. But I don't want more of the same over and over and over again, it just gets boring. I liked party rock in the 80's but the labels kept putting out more and more party rock bands, and it just was overkill and I got sick of it. And when the slasher genre was fun in the mid eighties, the studios got carried away and overdid it and drove it right into the ground. Why can't they learn that moderation is a good thing and it keeps things living a lot longer? I know they love money, and after seeing the guy behind Two and a Half Men, I imagine most studio execs and producers need money to get laid. But still.. a lil moderation would be a good thing.

Okay, so since RZH2 actually borrows less from the original Halloween than most of the sequels in the previous series (which were largely content to simply remake the first film, each time with a little twist), then by your own criteria, it's obviously superior to the bulk of the original series.

I just don't get the idea that a film that does something entirely different, while using established characters, is somehow inferior to using established characters to do the same shit over and over again. See, when you rail against movies being "more of the same over and over and over again," it doesn't sound like you're talking about RZH2...it sounds like you're talking about the bulk of the original Halloween series. Because if there's one thing RZH2 didn't do, it was give fans the same things they were used to. That's why most people hated it, or said it would be good if it "wasn't a Halloween movie." Because deep down, they think it's good as a movie, but can't accept how different it is from all the redundant, repetitive Halloween movies they grew up on.

SuperDave
01-09-2012, 12:50 PM
I have less respect for directors and musicians who merely take other peoples work and toss a new coat of paint on whatever it is.

Rather ironic since your current avatar is Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salandar in the Dragon Tattoo remake, a role originated by Noomi Rapace in the Swedish original, itself based on a novel.

That's twice baked remake, my friend; a new coat of paint over a new coat of paint.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 12:58 PM
Rather ironic since your current avatar is Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salandar in the Dragon Tattoo remake, a role originated by Noomi Rapace in the Swedish original, itself based on a novel.

That's twice baked remake, my friend; a new coat of paint over a new coat of paint.

A film which largely disproves his own screed by being better than its Swedish counterpart.

Peaker1990
01-09-2012, 12:58 PM
Rather ironic since your current avatar is Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salandar in the Dragon Tattoo remake, a role originated by Noomi Rapace in the Swedish original, itself based on a novel.

That's twice baked remake, my friend; a new coat of paint over a new coat of paint.

Not the thread for this, but it's not actually a remake... it was an American-made adaptation of the novel. Just because a movie was already made in another country does not mean this film was based its Swedish counterpart.

Todd 78
01-09-2012, 01:11 PM
Not the thread for this, but it's not actually a remake... it was an American-made adaptation of the novel. Just because a movie was already made in another country does not mean this film was based its Swedish counterpart.

I would argue its a remake of the foreign film , regardless it is still not original which kills the argument Deviancy is trying to make

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 01:16 PM
I would argue its a remake of the foreign film , regardless it is still not original which kills the argument Deviancy is trying to make

It's certainly not a wholly original creation, but nor is it a remake of the Swedish film, as it incorporates elements from the novel that Oplev's film did not, as well as omitting elements that Oplev focused on. The source for Fincher's film is clearly the novel, not the previous adaptation.

Todd 78
01-09-2012, 01:19 PM
It's certainly not a wholly original creation, but nor is it a remake of the Swedish film, as it incorporates elements from the novel that Oplev's film did not, as well as omitting elements that Oplev focused on. The source for Fincher's film is clearly the novel, not the previous adaptation.

Its certainally a fine line .. Are there differences ? Sure , but its still the same basic story . The American version took less liberties but I guess it should still be considered a remake ... I mean thankfully it wasn't a shot for shot remake like Psycho ...

Roswell
01-09-2012, 01:21 PM
If it's based on a novel, it's not a remake. If every film based on a novel that already had a corresponding film adaptation was a remake, people wouldn't bitch so much about remakes. :bastard:

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 01:22 PM
If the source is undeniably the novel, rather than the previous film, I consider it an alternative adaptation, rather than a remake. I mean, what kind of Psycho would call Coppola's Dracula film a "Nosferatu remake?" Now, Werner Herzog's Nosferatu...that's a Nosferatu remake. But not every subsequent adaptation of Dracula is a remake of the earliest surviving adaptation.

For a more recent example, was 2002's The Bourne Identity a remake of the 1988 TV movie, which took completely different liberties with the text? No way in hell.

Todd 78
01-09-2012, 01:24 PM
So is Let the Right one in a remake or an American version .... To me we are starting to play semantics

Peaker1990
01-09-2012, 01:24 PM
But with novel adaptations, it's different. Remaking a film means USING THE ORIGINAL FILM as the basis for your project. Re-adapting a novel is an entirely different beast.

Say a new version of Psycho was to come out that introduced Norman in the first scene, shows Marion dying in the first minutes of the film, and is primarily split between the viewpoints of Norman and Lila/Sam, and made Norman a 45-year-old fat man... it would not, by any means, be a remake of Hitch's film, it would be a more faithful adaptation of the novel.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 01:29 PM
So is Let the Right one in a remake or an American version .... To me we are starting to play semantics

It's not a semantic argument...the line is quite clear. If a subsequent adaptation uses anything that is unique to the previous adaptation, then it is a remake (3:10 to Yuma comes to mind here), but if everything in the second adaptation comes straight from the text, and it is clearly a unique take on the material, then it is not a remake of the previous film. Period. The distinction is quite clear.

But then, you consider most prequels to be reboots, even when the connections to the previous films are obvious...so maybe it's not all that clear to you. :p

And I'd have to say that we're getting off the topic at this point.

Todd 78
01-09-2012, 01:30 PM
But with novel adaptations, it's different. Remaking a film means USING THE ORIGINAL FILM as the basis for your project. Re-adapting a novel is an entirely different beast.

Say a new version of Psycho was to come out that introduced Norman in the first scene, shows Marion dying in the first minutes of the film, and is primarily split between the viewpoints of Norman and Lila/Sam, and made Norman a 45-year-old fat man... it would not, by any means, be a remake of Hitch's film, it would be a more faithful adaptation of the novel.

Eh I would still call that a remake .... I meran there are differences between RZH and Halloween , so are we goiung to RZH a reinterpretation rather than a remake .... It doesn't need to be 100 percent faithful to be a remake in my mind

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-09-2012, 01:30 PM
Eh I would still call that a remake .... I meran there are differences between RZH and Halloween , so are we goiung to RZH a reinterpretation rather than a remake .... It doesn't need to be 100 percent faithful to be a remake in my mind

I must have missed the part where the original Halloween was based on a novel.

Todd 78
01-09-2012, 01:34 PM
I must have missed the part where the original Halloween was based on a novel.

So novls change how we define remakes and different adaptions ? As far as my prequel stance , I choose to view it that way not to ruin the experience and not get my mind distraced by potential continuity errors . I never said it was the right stance , but I would get myself in nitpick mode if I didn't

Peaker1990
01-09-2012, 01:47 PM
So novls change how we define remakes and different adaptions ? As far as my prequel stance , I choose to view it that way not to ruin the experience and not get my mind distraced by potential continuity errors . I never said it was the right stance , but I would get myself in nitpick mode if I didn't

Yes, novels change it, because a remake is a film that is based on ANOTHER FILM. Dragon Tattoo is NOT based on the Swedish film. It is based on the novel.

By your logic, Luhrmann's 1996 Romeo & Juliet must obviously be a remake of Zeffirelli's 1968 film.

Deviancy
01-09-2012, 02:07 PM
Okay, so since RZH2 actually borrows less from the original Halloween than most of the sequels in the previous series (which were largely content to simply remake the first film, each time with a little twist), then by your own criteria, it's obviously superior to the bulk of the original series.

And if you go back to earlier threads, you'll find where I gave it credit for that back when it was hip to bash it. All I said about RZH2 was that if he had created a new slasher, it would have been even more enjoyable because it just wouldn't have been Michael again. As for the sequels, I didn't see them as remakes with a twist, I saw them as part of an ongoing storyline. I wouldn't say the storyline had a natural feel to it, at many times things felt forced but they still were part of the storyline. But here's the thing, the sequels went forward in the story, Laurie remained killed off and Michael moved on to a new relative, and the story went forward. Yes, there's repetition but the story went forward regardless and offered up new characters. Then came Zombie's Halloween films, which just brought back all of those dead characters. He killed them off in different ways but they were still killed by Michael in the end. I'd say that makes his films far more repetitive than the sequels. Now I'm not saying they're bad, I want to make that clear because there's no way I think they're in the same league as remakes like NOES, Carrie, Wolf Man, and many of the others, I just think he should have ended it with RZH and gone to do his own thing, created some new franchise that was all his, and one where he has far more creative control. The guy has what it takes to do that.

As for my avatar, I guess I could see why some would assume I've seen the film because of it. But they'd be assuming wrong since I haven't seen the swedish version or the US version, yet. I just like that pic of Mara, I think she looks super hot in it. As for the US version being a remake, I've heard differently. I heard Fincher just did his own interpretation of the novel. But until I'm able to watch both films, I won't be able to have my own opinion. And I will check my total attraction to Mara's Lisbeth at the door, because if I don't I'll likely end up having a favorable bias for Fincher's version.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-10-2012, 12:53 AM
So novls change how we define remakes and different adaptions ?

Uhhhhhhh, yeah. haha

Is Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein film a remake of James Whale's? Of course not...it's an alternative adaptation of the novel, and a much more faithful one. Is Peter Jackson's King Kong a remake of Merian C. Cooper's? Absolutely...no room for debate, because King Kong was originally conceived and made as a film. Any film that tells the same story is therefore a remake of that film, because that film is the source for the subsequent film. But James Whale's Frankenstein was NOT the source for Branagh's Frankenstein film...Mary Shelley's novel was.

And Oplev's Dragon Tattoo movie was NOT the source for Fincher's...Stieg Larsson's novel was. So no, it is not a remake. It's an alternative adaptation of the same book. If Fincher and Zaillian had taken any of the changes that Oplev's film had made to the novel, and incorporated that into their film, then I would agree that it was a remake. But they didn't. They presented the novel as they saw it, and in doing so, disregarded the previous adaptation. They used different parts of the novel than Oplev did, and presented many of the characters in a different light (often truer to the way they were presented in the novel). That's not the same thing as remaking a film.



As far as my prequel stance , I choose to view it that way not to ruin the experience and not get my mind distraced by potential continuity errors . I never said it was the right stance , but I would get myself in nitpick mode if I didn't

So do you pretend that every sequel is a reboot, as well? Because those are often rife with continuity errors, as well. :p



And if you go back to earlier threads, you'll find where I gave it credit for that back when it was hip to bash it. All I said about RZH2 was that if he had created a new slasher, it would have been even more enjoyable because it just wouldn't have been Michael again. As for the sequels, I didn't see them as remakes with a twist, I saw them as part of an ongoing storyline. I wouldn't say the storyline had a natural feel to it, at many times things felt forced but they still were part of the storyline. But here's the thing, the sequels went forward in the story, Laurie remained killed off and Michael moved on to a new relative, and the story went forward. Yes, there's repetition but the story went forward regardless and offered up new characters. Then came Zombie's Halloween films, which just brought back all of those dead characters. He killed them off in different ways but they were still killed by Michael in the end. I'd say that makes his films far more repetitive than the sequels. Now I'm not saying they're bad, I want to make that clear because there's no way I think they're in the same league as remakes like NOES, Carrie, Wolf Man, and many of the others, I just think he should have ended it with RZH and gone to do his own thing, created some new franchise that was all his, and one where he has far more creative control. The guy has what it takes to do that.

As for my avatar, I guess I could see why some would assume I've seen the film because of it. But they'd be assuming wrong since I haven't seen the swedish version or the US version, yet. I just like that pic of Mara, I think she looks super hot in it. As for the US version being a remake, I've heard differently. I heard Fincher just did his own interpretation of the novel. But until I'm able to watch both films, I won't be able to have my own opinion. And I will check my total attraction to Mara's Lisbeth at the door, because if I don't I'll likely end up having a favorable bias for Fincher's version.

But Jesus, people are always going on and on about how RZH2's Michael "isn't Michael Myers, just some hobo"...so the fact that it's supposed to be Michael shouldn't even enter into it. :p

Personally, I think it's better to do something unique and different with an established series than just do something cliched, even if you're using characters you've created yourself. There are a million Halloween knock-offs that absolutely suck, and just tried to imitate Halloween's success...and they benefit nothing from having a killer other than Michael Myers, or protagonists other than Laurie Strode and Sam Loomis. I'd much rather watch RZH2, which takes the established characters and dares to do something that's never been done with them before.

It might have been cool as a non-Halloween film, but I think it benefits more from being a Halloween film. First of all, it needs a predecessor, so Zombie's remake would then have to be a standalone, rather than a Halloween remake. And that would be fine...in fact, that film probably would have been better off as a standalone, because then Zombie wouldn't have felt the need to Xerox pages and pages of Carpenter's script. But RZH2, I think, works best as a Halloween film because as a standalone film, it wouldn't be as unique as it is as a Halloween film. It probably would have just gotten lumped in with other surreal "Lynchian" films. But as a Halloween film, it stands out...and it makes better use of the classic characters than most of the previous films combined.

Todd 78
01-10-2012, 05:01 AM
Once Romeo & Juliet cane up , I am conceding this argument , and waving a white flag . A man needs to know when he has lost.

Peaker1990
01-10-2012, 10:38 AM
And that would be fine...in fact, that film probably would have been better off as a standalone, because then Zombie wouldn't have felt the need to Xerox pages and pages of Carpenter's script.

You know something funny? Many pieces of his script are lifted directly from Carpenter's script, and I'm talking full bits of action, right down to "the wind whips her clothes and hair" when Laurie is walking to the Wallace house (alone in the script, based on... OMG! A CALL FROM ANNIE!).

Michael Voorhees
01-15-2012, 01:34 PM
Not only is it not serious, it's utterly ridiculous. People always want more of the same, and it's annoying. At this point, expecting Michael to remain exactly the same as his original-film counterpart (which, lest we forget, doesn't even EXIST in RZ's universe- and hasn't existed at all since 1978) is not only stupid, it's begging for disappointment.

Indeed it is. I go to see movies to be entertained; what's entertaining about seeing the same thing over & over? Nothing at all. I like to see good changes, & that's what I feel Rob brought to the series, & even improved an idea originally created by Carpenter (that being the brother/sister angle). I like that he had the balls to switch up Myers look, & do something utterly insane with the story, & every time a fan complains about it, I just laugh & tell 'em to go watch the original if they want to see that again.

Halloween4Fan:D
01-18-2012, 01:48 PM
John Carpenter we all know he is the most best person to direct the remakes

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-18-2012, 01:51 PM
Based on Village of the Damned?

blacksymbiote
01-19-2012, 12:53 AM
More like The Thing, one of the best horror movies to date. Village of the Damned wasn't the worst remake ever either.

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-19-2012, 01:05 AM
No, Psycho was...but Village of the Damned was still a dog.

So Carpenter is 50/50 on remakes...am I supposed to be impressed? :p

Todd 78
01-19-2012, 04:47 AM
He made the Thing in 1982 . I haven's seen a good movie from Carpenter after the 80's