PDA

View Full Version : Rob Zombie's Halloween: Discussion IX



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

atomic dog
06-18-2007, 03:57 PM
from here:

http://www.ohmb.net/showthread.php?t=11463

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 03:58 PM
I know this film will be bloody, but look at the far wall behind Michael in the sixth picture. The wall is coated in streaks of blood. Really not digging that.

Yeah, there's a lot of blood on that wall.


Secondly, the picture of Michael being escorted down the hall just makes me cringe. I don't know; I don't really know how to explain my frustration over it, it just doesn't seem right. Reminds me of a giant Jesus, honestly.

Hmmm, i rather liked that picture.

-mitch-

Superman
06-18-2007, 03:58 PM
Whoo-Hoo!!! New thread! :roflmao:

Todd
06-18-2007, 04:00 PM
Considering almost nobody in the cast is a known draw, similar to his previous movies. He wrote and directed all 3 movies. People will know he has something to do with it, and some might pass if off because of his previous movies.

The original Halloween had a fairly inexperienced director and a cast of unknowns (with the exception of Donald Pleasence, who wasn't exactly a star), yet it managed to do fairly well, did it not?
Rob Zombie might not be a huge draw, but I doubt he'll be a repellant, either.

Superman
06-18-2007, 04:01 PM
First you posted this in the other thread:


hmmm, i rather liked that picture.

-mitch-

And then you post this:




yeah, there's a lot of blood on that wall.



Hmmm, i rather liked that picture.

-mitch- Why say just about the same thing twice? :confused: I know I read it in the other thread and I'm sure others had as well.

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 04:05 PM
Since I said a while back that I wouldn't be able to see this on opening day, due to work, I should maybe update and say that I've changed shifts, and will now be off on August 31st. So I'll be able to go on opening day now.

Honestly, I just don't want a bunch of people coming on here and reviewing it before I get a chance to see it...so this is good.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:06 PM
First you posted this in the other thread:



And then you post this:



Why say just about the same thing twice? :confused: I know I read it in the other thread and I'm sure others had as well.

yeah sorry,
i wasn't originally going to respond to the first half of the post, but then i decided to. i clicked the edit button to put in my response to the first half, but by the time i had finished atomic dog had closed the thread. so, i had to repost. so, yeah that's my story.

much respect
-mitch-

Superman
06-18-2007, 04:07 PM
Since I said a while back that I wouldn't be able to see this on opening day, due to work, I should maybe update and say that I've changed shifts, and will now be off on August 31st. So I'll be able to go on opening day now.

Honestly, I just don't want a bunch of people coming on here and reviewing it before I get a chance to see it...so this is good.

Why would anyone do that? :evil:

You could always just not come on the booard until you've seen the film. :nodsmile:

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 04:09 PM
You could always just not come on the booard until you've seen the film. :nodsmile:
Yeah, that's likely. This is me we're talking about, Clark. haha

I'm gonna be on the board on August 31st, no matter what...so I'm glad that I'll get to see the film before the reviews start rolling in.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:10 PM
You could always just not come on the booard until you've seen the film. :nodsmile:

well, if EOTL is anything like me, this message board is like a drug. i have to visit it atleast once daily. so, i will have to see this film the day it comes out. it is a must.

-mitch-

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 04:16 PM
well, if EOTL is anything like me, this message board is like a drug. i have to visit it atleast once daily. so, i will have to see this film the day it comes out. it is a must.
I'm pretty much a hardcore OHMB junkie...so yeah, it goes without saying that I'll be here on opening day. So it'll be good to get out to the theater and see the movie before everyone logs on and starts posting their opinions on it.

Superman
06-18-2007, 04:19 PM
I love this site, but sometimes other things come up where I am not able to be on for days at a time, but I understand what you're all saying.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:20 PM
before everyone logs on and starts posting their opinions on it.

oh man, that'll be fun to read. it will be hell on OHMB.

lol
j/k

-mitch-

Khan
06-18-2007, 04:20 PM
It is only money, so I might as well go and see the movie.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:22 PM
I love this site, but sometimes other things come up where I am not able to be on for days at a time, but I understand what you're all saying.

well, i have too much time on my hands (no job or anything else to do) so i log on to the boards alot in one day. i am an OHMB junkie,fanatic,loser, maybe that will change when i get a job to occupy more of my time.

-mitch-

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 04:25 PM
I love this site, but sometimes other things come up where I am not able to be on for days at a time, but I understand what you're all saying.
Yeah, I have times when I don't always get to log on every day. And I've pulled some crazy disappearing acts in the past. haha

But generally, I like to at least check in once a day. And if I was at work on the 31st, I'd obviously have some spare time, so I'd be on for sure.



oh man, that'll be fun to read. it will be hell on OHMB.

lol
j/k
It's gonna be...interesting. haha That's for sure.



It is only money, so I might as well go and see the movie.
Yeah...it's only a few bucks. After all this discussion, you might as well check it out. You only get one chance to see movies in the theater...once they're gone, they're gone. I always try to see Halloween movies in the theater...even when they look shitty to me. haha

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:29 PM
It's gonna be...interesting. haha That's for sure.

yes it is.

-mitch-

Khan
06-18-2007, 04:32 PM
Yeah...it's only a few bucks. After all this discussion, you might as well check it out. You only get one chance to see movies in the theater...once they're gone, they're gone. I always try to see Halloween movies in the theater...even when they look shitty to me. haha

My dad (a non-horror fan) even said he would see it with me, so I might bring him along.

I paid to see Dracula 2000 and Blair Witch 2 in theaters, so it can't be any worse then that.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:34 PM
I paid to see Dracula 2000 and Blair Witch 2 in theaters, so it can't be any worse then that.

let's hope you're right, those movies are horrible... especially Dracula 2000. did you not see H:R in theater, well if you did put that w/ the other two films you mentioned there. haha.

-mitch-

Khan
06-18-2007, 04:37 PM
I only recently saw H:R and I was fast forwarding through most of the really bad scenes.

I never plan on seeing it again.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:41 PM
I only recently saw H:R and I was fast forwarding through most of the really bad scenes.

so you fast forwarded through the whole movie. haha.


I never plan on seeing it again.

can't say i blame you there. lol

-mitch-

Khan
06-18-2007, 04:42 PM
It is the Jason Goes To Hell of the series to me, where I see it once or twice and have no desire to see it again, let alone buy it.

Every series has its stinker entry.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:45 PM
It is the Jason Goes To Hell of the series to me, where I see it once or twice and have no desire to see it again, let alone buy it.

Every series has its stinker entry.

agreed. i did buy it though, for completist reasons.:godno:

-mitch-

shoe1985
06-18-2007, 04:46 PM
The original Halloween had a fairly inexperienced director and a cast of unknowns (with the exception of Donald Pleasence, who wasn't exactly a star), yet it managed to do fairly well, did it not?
Rob Zombie might not be a huge draw, but I doubt he'll be a repellant, either.

Word of mouth helped that movie. Hell look at Knocked Up, almost all unknowns, yet it is one of the best reviewed movies the year. It is most likely going to hit $100 million, but it is in a genre, comedy, that does create $100 million hits. Horror movies average out around $30-$50 million. So, naturally that is where this movie should be at when it leaves theaters.

I never said Rob Zombie wouldn't draw for this movie. He has a fanbase and they will see this movie, that is roughly $1-$8 million. Then you have the Halloween fanbase, which is roughly $1-$10 million. These are rough figures. You have to also take into effect that the general audience will go see what they are in the mood for. Some people enjoyed the original and will go see the sequel just to see it, but not be a fan of the series.

If the advertising is done well, this will have an effect too. If it is done poorly, then people won't bother with it. In the next month we will have a better idea of how this movie will do because that is when movies start getting buzz. We have some buzz now, but nothing to get crazy about. The trailers will be hitting with other, bigger movies, and people will take notice.

Todd 78
06-18-2007, 04:52 PM
Those pics are awsome.

This movie is going to be intense. I want Sherri Moon Zombie to have my babies

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 04:54 PM
I paid to see Dracula 2000 and Blair Witch 2 in theaters, so it can't be any worse then that.
I'd say that's a pretty sensible prediction.

And I wasn't as lucky as you...I did subject myself to H:R in the theater. It was a Halloween film, so I went. It looked bad, and it ended up being worse than I could have even guessed. haha So the new film has to be better than that...I can't imagine how it could possibly be worse.

At any rate, I can guarantee that I've seen plenty of movies in the theater that sucked more than this movie will. Even if it's not that good, it won't be as bad as some of the garbage I've seen. haha

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:54 PM
Those pics are awsome.

i liked 'em. i especially liked the second pic


This movie is going to be intense.

i hope so.


I want Sherri Moon Zombie to have my babies

that's... interesting. haha.

-mitch-

Todd 78
06-18-2007, 04:54 PM
I only recently saw H:R and I was fast forwarding through most of the really bad scenes.

I never plan on seeing it again.


So you saw only 3 minutes lucky bastard. I sadly stayed through the entire crappy film in the theater.

Chaosboy
06-18-2007, 04:59 PM
Word of mouth helped that movie. Hell look at Knocked Up, almost all unknowns, yet it is one of the best reviewed movies the year. It is most likely going to hit $100 million, but it is in a genre, comedy, that does create $100 million hits. Horror movies average out around $30-$50 million. So, naturally that is where this movie should be at when it leaves theaters.

I never said Rob Zombie wouldn't draw for this movie. He has a fanbase and they will see this movie, that is roughly $1-$8 million. Then you have the Halloween fanbase, which is roughly $1-$10 million. These are rough figures. You have to also take into effect that the general audience will go see what they are in the mood for. Some people enjoyed the original and will go see the sequel just to see it, but not be a fan of the series.

If the advertising is done well, this will have an effect too. If it is done poorly, then people won't bother with it. In the next month we will have a better idea of how this movie will do because that is when movies start getting buzz. We have some buzz now, but nothing to get crazy about. The trailers will be hitting with other, bigger movies, and people will take notice.

RZs' name has actually entered more house holds than I ever anticipated ( my mum actually knows his name!!...I'm not saying she would go ) but it does leave an 'X' variable that you can add to your estimations. My point....more folks may know and like his work than we know...well than I know anyway!

Addendum: I think I'm gonna splurge and pay the xtra .50 cents on real butter to top my already reasonably priced popcorn when I see this!!......truth!

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 04:59 PM
At any rate, I can guarantee that I've seen plenty of movies in the theater that sucked more than this movie will. Even if it's not that good, it won't be as bad as some of the garbage I've seen. haha

you must be referring to Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. haha.

-mitch-

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 05:00 PM
you must be referring to Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. haha.
I refuse to talk about that. haha

Todd
06-18-2007, 05:21 PM
Word of mouth helped that movie. Hell look at Knocked Up, almost all unknowns, yet it is one of the best reviewed movies the year. It is most likely going to hit $100 million, but it is in a genre, comedy, that does create $100 million hits. Horror movies average out around $30-$50 million. So, naturally that is where this movie should be at when it leaves theaters.

I never said Rob Zombie wouldn't draw for this movie. He has a fanbase and they will see this movie, that is roughly $1-$8 million. Then you have the Halloween fanbase, which is roughly $1-$10 million. These are rough figures. You have to also take into effect that the general audience will go see what they are in the mood for. Some people enjoyed the original and will go see the sequel just to see it, but not be a fan of the series.

If the advertising is done well, this will have an effect too. If it is done poorly, then people won't bother with it. In the next month we will have a better idea of how this movie will do because that is when movies start getting buzz. We have some buzz now, but nothing to get crazy about. The trailers will be hitting with other, bigger movies, and people will take notice.
I was around back in '78, so you don't need to tell me how the original Halloween made its money. It was in theaters forever. The point is that a movie with a relatively inexperienced director and a cast of unknowns can do well. In contrast, a movie with a well known director and fairly well known actors can easily go straight down the toliet (coughgrindhousecough). If this movie is hyped correctly, it will do well on its opening weekend, and if it is good, it will have the legs to continue making money for a few weeks. I'm not expecting a blockbuster, but I do expect it to rake in around 50 million, maybe more.

ghettomyers
06-18-2007, 05:43 PM
http://www.michael-myers.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19609

NEW PICS!!!

if this was posted my bad

Chaosboy
06-18-2007, 05:51 PM
http://www.michael-myers.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19609

NEW PICS!!!

if this was posted my bad


Whoa!! That pic of those 2 guards leading MM down the hall is Monster Wicked!!!

Roswell
06-18-2007, 05:52 PM
http://www.michael-myers.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19609

NEW PICS!!!

if this was posted my bad

Was posted in the last thread, but it's good you posted them in here just in case some people didn't see them.

mcilroga
06-18-2007, 05:53 PM
I'm truly scared of the OHMB on August 31st, 2007. It hasn't happened yet, but you don't exactly need psychic abilities to realize this place is going to go down on opening day. Heh, hopefully we break the "Most Users Online" record again.

Anyway, I'm curious: how is this board going to be set up? Is there going to be a spoiler thread and a spoiler-free thread for the UK members who won't get to see it for the then upcoming two or so months? Someone's bound to ruin it for everyone (probably some idiot who joined just to do that), so I probably won't be visiting the forum from the day before 'til I see the movie.

EDIT: As for who I'm going with, I'm bringing my wife and her friend (who loathes any and all horror films, the bitch).

ghettomyers
06-18-2007, 05:55 PM
quick question, wat is BOC? is dat a band or somtin, cause RZ said BOC will be rockin "Dont Fear the Reaper"

Chaosboy
06-18-2007, 05:57 PM
quick question, wat is BOC? is dat a band or somtin, cause RZ said BOC will be rockin "Dont Fear the Reaper"

Blue Oyster Cult....was playin' on the radio in Annie's car on the way to their.......DESTINY!!!!!......LOL!

ghettomyers
06-18-2007, 06:00 PM
o yeahhhh!!! duh, i knew dat i was jus makin sure yall did, well damn i knew Blue Oyster Cult sung it, and i knew it was in da first movie, i jus though a band called BOC was redoin the song or somtin....but sho sho

BoogeyMan88
06-18-2007, 06:02 PM
Blue Oyster Cult....was playin' on the radio in Annie's car on the way to their.......DESTINY!!!!!......LOL!

So its confirmed that BOC is gonna be in the new movie? thats the one ingredient that can make the movie just a little bit better...Cowbell

Chaosboy
06-18-2007, 06:10 PM
So its confirmed that BOC is gonna be in the new movie? thats the one ingredient that can make the movie just a little bit better...Cowbell

Just in case anyone was interested...Rudy Sarzo ( former Ozzy, Quiet Riot bass player ) is playin' with them on their summer tour...cool!

Khan
06-18-2007, 06:14 PM
agreed. i did buy it though, for completist reasons.

There are times where I refuse to purchase a film.


So you saw only 3 minutes lucky bastard. I sadly stayed through the entire crappy film in the theater.

That sounds painful.


At any rate, I can guarantee that I've seen plenty of movies in the theater that sucked more than this movie will. Even if it's not that good, it won't be as bad as some of the garbage I've seen. haha

I figure that the worst thing that can happen is that I don't like the movie.

BoogeyMan88
06-18-2007, 06:19 PM
Is Don't fear the reaper in the new Halloween? anyone? I'm just curious. It's one of my favorite songs

Todd 78
06-18-2007, 06:20 PM
That sounds painful.



Yep If I was by myself I would have walked out of the movie after Buster punked out Michael. It took all my will power to watch the crap in disbelief. No matter what, I am 100 percent sure this movie will be better than Ressurection.

Roswell
06-18-2007, 06:21 PM
Is Don't fear the reaper in the new Halloween? anyone? I'm just curious. It's one of my favorite songs

Yes.

This was just confirmed in the last thread.

Phatboy41
06-18-2007, 06:42 PM
Just wanted to say... I think those pics are crazy. I really like them, they look very dark and have just gotten me even more excited.

Todd 78
06-18-2007, 06:58 PM
Just wanted to say... I think those pics are crazy. I really like them, they look very dark and have just gotten me even more excited.

Especially the Sherri Moon Zombie photo right?:bastard:

ghettomyers
06-18-2007, 07:00 PM
^ YES!, yes very much so

norman745
06-18-2007, 07:01 PM
http://www.michael-myers.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19609

NEW PICS!!!

if this was posted my bad


thx man

BoogeyMan88
06-18-2007, 07:04 PM
Yes.

This was just confirmed in the last thread.

Excellent, that will be the cherry on top of what should be a sweet movie

ghettomyers
06-18-2007, 07:15 PM
thx man

no pob son

Phatboy41
06-18-2007, 07:18 PM
Especially the Sherri Moon Zombie photo right?:bastard:

oh hell yeah!

The Ox
06-18-2007, 07:52 PM
First off thanks for the new pics second sherri has a mean bod on her wow. And last but not least does the unmasked michael laying on the floor look like he is rockin some warrior face paint to you to ? lol

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 08:02 PM
I was around back in '78, so you don't need to tell me how the original Halloween made its money. It was in theaters forever.
That's something that was great about the era I affectionately refer to as BHV (Before Home Video). Of course, home video has existed throughout my entire lifetime as a readily available means of watching films, but prior to the advent of the common magnetic videotape technology, films ran in theaters for ages...particularly good ones. Runs upwards of a year were not at all uncommon. Because if you wanted to see a film, that was your one big chance. Of course, you could see it years later on television...but apart from that, you went to the theater.

Now, it's all about putting films in the theater for a few weeks, then getting them out on DVD within a few months. The average span from theatrical premiere to DVD release is now considerably shorter than the average theatrical run was in the '60s and '70s. And that's kind of sad. Not that I'm not a huge supporter of home video. I'm all for it. I just wish we could "have our cake and eat it too," you know? If films could have longer runs in the theater, and you could still buy it on DVD, that would be great. But since people have adopted a "Wait for the DVD" philosophy, theatrical exhibition has become less profitable, in most cases, and DVD sales account for the bulk of the industry's revenue. As such, there's a rush to get things out of the theaters on onto the home video market ASAP.



I figure that the worst thing that can happen is that I don't like the movie.
Pretty much. There's really no other major consequence involved. And if you don't like it, you're out a few bucks...no big deal. And you'll be able to participate in the online insanity with the rest of us. ;)



First off thanks for the new pics second sherri has a mean bod on her wow. And last but not least does the unmasked michael laying on the floor look like he is rockin some warrior face paint to you to ? lol
That's not Michael. ;)

It's Mason Strode.

Frazetta
06-18-2007, 08:21 PM
EDIT: As for who I'm going with, I'm bringing my wife and her friend (who loathes any and all horror films, the bitch). My girlfriends family,her Parents & Sister, are all really excited about this movie & all 6 of us will be there opening weekend. (I'll be there opening day aswell :nodsmile: )

Man In Black
06-18-2007, 09:51 PM
I've no idea how I got those pictures. There seemed to be a 20 minute window where they were part of a jazzed up official website (possibly uploaded by accident). It had "Synopsis/Gallery/Trailer" links and the gallery was sort of set with an orange graveyard background. Nothing happened in the Synopsis or Gallery pages - the trailer page strangely took you to the Gallery though:)

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-18-2007, 09:59 PM
I've no idea how I got those pictures. There seemed to be a 20 minute window where they were part of a jazzed up official website (possibly uploaded by accident). It had "Synopsis/Gallery/Trailer" links and the gallery was sort of set with an orange graveyard background. Nothing happened in the Synopsis or Gallery pages - the trailer page strangely took you to the Gallery though:)
See, this is why you're the news guy. haha

Even when there's only a brief window of opportunity, you get the goods. :yeah:

Monte
06-18-2007, 10:10 PM
Given the current downward trend right now for horror movies, I think as long as Michael isn't strapping people down and performing open-heart surgery with no anesthetic, it should do pretty well.

TheShape'78
06-18-2007, 10:40 PM
I think as long as Michael isn't strapping people down and performing open-heart surgery with no anesthetic, it should do pretty well.

no, that is being saved for SAW 4. hahaha, think about it.

lol
j/k

-mitch-

mr32
06-18-2007, 10:58 PM
The pics are great they just got me more excited about the film!!!!!!!!!!!

Lucifer
06-18-2007, 11:49 PM
Especially the Sherri Moon Zombie photo right?:bastard:

YES !!!

nwiser
06-19-2007, 02:43 AM
Why would anyone do that? :evil:

You could always just not come on the booard until you've seen the film. :nodsmile:

lol yeah. that's either devotion, or insanity. :nodsmile:

nwiser
06-19-2007, 02:52 AM
It is the Jason Goes To Hell of the series to me, where I see it once or twice and have no desire to see it again, let alone buy it.

Every series has its stinker entry.

ehh...JGTH had its moments. the whole eat the heart & jumping from body to body thing was out there, but getting to see the voorhees house and finding out Jason had living family was interesting. of coure it might have been more interesting had it been introduced earlier in the series. then again if earlier in the series it was pointed out that jason had family, and he decided to go after them, it might be considered a copy of Halloween.

the bounty hunter did have a funny line when he was asked what came to mind when he heard the name Jason Voorhees. :nodsmile:

nwiser
06-19-2007, 03:01 AM
Whoa!! That pic of those 2 guards leading MM down the hall is Monster Wicked!!!

it's an interesting pic considering its a scene we didnt get in the original...but holy cow tyler is so hulking next to them!

Khan
06-19-2007, 04:18 AM
ehh...JGTH had its moments. the whole eat the heart & jumping from body to body thing was out there, but getting to see the voorhees house and finding out Jason had living family was interesting. of coure it might have been more interesting had it been introduced earlier in the series. then again if earlier in the series it was pointed out that jason had family, and he decided to go after them, it might be considered a copy of Halloween.

the bounty hunter did have a funny line when he was asked what came to mind when he heard the name Jason Voorhees. :nodsmile:

JGTH is similar to H6 in that it tries to explain too much and the explaination given just makes things more confusing.

Did I mention that Tyler Mane is freaking huge?

shoe1985
06-19-2007, 05:28 AM
If you click the link below and click on the pic of Michael it will take you to the Weinsteins Company page of Halloween.

Weinsteins (http://www.weinsteinco.com/)

There isn't much there, but you do get to see a new pic of Michael closeup.

nwiser
06-19-2007, 05:58 AM
If you click the link below and click on the pic of Michael it will take you to the Weinsteins Company page of Halloween.

Weinsteins (http://www.weinsteinco.com/)

There isn't much there, but you do get to see a new pic of Michael closeup.

I did notice on there it states the film will "uncover the making of a pathologically disturbed, even cursed child named Michael myers."

It's the word "cursed" that made me stop. I'm interested to see if that statement is just a creative blurb to get people interested in the film, or if it actually means that at some point in the film it will be revealed that Micheal is under a curse that would explain his motivation to kill and ability to survive (in potential sequels). Since the idea of this film was to start fresh and move away from some of the more controvercial themes that plagued the old series, I would be surprised if they would include something like "Thorn".

Then again, i could be reading too much into it.

samhain51
06-19-2007, 06:15 AM
I guess we an say hes cursed all the serial killers I know are cursed and dont think the same way a normal human being thinks!

Khan
06-19-2007, 06:32 AM
They are too smart to use anything remotely like Thorn.

The Frightmaster
06-19-2007, 07:27 AM
They are too smart to use anything remotely like Thorn.

God I hope they are, I'm apart of the thorn haters club I would never want the thorn to come back.

Superman
06-19-2007, 07:29 AM
LONG LIVE THORN

The Frightmaster
06-19-2007, 07:29 AM
I hope your joking

Superman
06-19-2007, 07:30 AM
Uuumm....no....why would I be? :confused:

The Frightmaster
06-19-2007, 07:32 AM
because the thorn storyline was and is a terrible idea

Superman
06-19-2007, 07:33 AM
Well, that's your opinion. I however liked it and enjoyed the idea.

The Frightmaster
06-19-2007, 07:34 AM
well good for you.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 07:36 AM
Alright I'm pretty positve that the comment about Michael perhaps being cursed is just some vague informational blurb that has no actual bearing on the movie itself. I know nothing about the final movie, but I'm almost willing to garuntee (but I won't) that there will be no referance to Michael actually being cursed. Honestly the closest they'll probably come is refering to him as being "pure evil."

The Frightmaster
06-19-2007, 07:37 AM
I perfer michael being pure evil then cursed. I think he's scarier being pure evil.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 07:41 AM
I prefer the pure evil because it's so vague an anigmatic. I don't, and have never liked, things to be over explained. That said I've never had a real problem with Thorn as a concept, I just think it was executed badly. And as I said, I don't forsee it making a cameo in the remake.

Superman
06-19-2007, 07:42 AM
well good for you.

Well good for you as well.

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 08:12 AM
because the thorn storyline was and is a terrible idea

And that is your opinion, so good for you.

Thorn would of been a good idea if it was executed the right way, but it wasn't so it will forever stay as a underground release, P-Cut.

Khan
06-19-2007, 08:42 AM
God I hope they are, I'm apart of the thorn haters club I would never want the thorn to come back.

Add me to that club.

Todd 78
06-19-2007, 09:07 AM
Hail The Thorn almighty

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 09:10 AM
Queens in the motherfucking house!!!!!!

krustytheklown
06-19-2007, 09:13 AM
any word on the opening credits? i loved the opening pumpkin shots in H1 and H2,and it was kind of cool in H4, but after that i havent exactly been blown away. HR not only sucked, but had absolutely no opening anything, besides a lame version of the theme.i hope RZ has some take on the classic pumpkin for an opening, with a slight tweaking of the theme.

MyersFan75
06-19-2007, 09:17 AM
any word on the opening credits? i loved the opening pumpkin shots in H1 and H2,and it was kind of cool in H4, but after that i havent exactly been blown away. HR not only sucked, but had absolutely no opening anything, besides a lame version of the theme.i hope RZ has some take on the classic pumpkin for an opening, with a slight tweaking of the theme.

I thought HR's main score was awesome. Why didn't you like it?

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 09:20 AM
H4 was the best opening, great mood.

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-19-2007, 09:25 AM
I prefer the pure evil because it's so vague an anigmatic. I don't, and have never liked, things to be over explained. That said I've never had a real problem with Thorn as a concept, I just think it was executed badly. And as I said, I don't forsee it making a cameo in the remake.
I don't particularly like the Pure Evil explanation, at least when taken literally, as in the sequels. And certainly, I don't see anything vague or enigmatic about it. It's pretty cut and dried. Pure Evil...really no room for speculation there. And, as someone who doesn't believe that Pure Evil exists, I pretty much find it to be just as "out there" as Thorn.

Myself, I preferred when Michael was presented in a vague and enigmatic way...which really onlt occurred in H1. They didn't necessarily take the Pure Evil idea so literally in the first film. You could believe that he was Pure Evil, but you were also allowed to believe that he could be human. Overall, he was presented as human, with hints at the possibility of something more supernatural.

In the sequels, though, they took Pure Evil to its literal limit, presenting an invincible, invulnerable Michael Myers who couldn't possibly be human. That's what I didn't necessarily like. I'm not saying, of course, that I didn't like any of those films. I absolutely love H4, invincible Michael or not. But I don't think it was the best way the character was ever presented. I think Carpenter had the right balance in the first film. All subsequent attempts to portay Michael as Pure Evil were overstated. And personally, for me, I don't find the idea of Michael Myers being "Pure Evil, end of story" to be as interesting as leaving it open to interpretation. It just doesn't allow my mind enough exercise.

As for whether or not they'll be using a curse in this film, I'm 99.9% positive that they won't. The only reason I don't say 100% is that anything is technically possible. But I put it in the category of "Unlikely in the Extreme."

Todd 78
06-19-2007, 09:31 AM
The only thing better thabn Zombie doing the Halloween remake is the return of the thorn.!

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 09:31 AM
I don't particularly like the Pure Evil explanation, at least when taken literally, as in the sequels. And certainly, I don't see anything vague or enigmatic about it. It's pretty cut and dried. Pure Evil...really no room for speculation there. And, as someone who doesn't believe that Pure Evil exists, I pretty much find it to be just as "out there" as Thorn.

"Myself, I preferred when Michael was presented in a vague and enigmatic way...which really onlt occurred in H1. They didn't necessarily take the Pure Evil idea so literally in the first film. You could believe that he was Pure Evil, but you were also allowed to believe that he could be human. Overall, he was presented as human, with hints at the possibility of something more supernatural.

In the sequels, though, they took Pure Evil to its literal limit, presenting an invincible, invulnerable Michael Myers who couldn't possibly be human. That's what I didn't necessarily like. I'm not saying, of course, that I didn't like any of those films. I absolutely love H4, invincible Michael or not. But I don't think it was the best way the character was ever presented. I think Carpenter had the right balance in the first film. All subsequent attempts to portay Michael as Pure Evil were overstated. And personally, for me, I don't find the idea of Michael Myers being "Pure Evil, end of story" to be as interesting as leaving it open to interpretation. It just doesn't allow my mind enough exercise.

As for whether or not they'll be using a curse in this film, I'm 99.9% positive that they won't. The only reason I don't say 100% is that anything is technically possible. But I put it in the category of "Unlikely in the Extreme."


The thing I liked about your take was that you really tried to explain and define Michael Myers and even bring out more about the mythology of Halloween itself.

Yeah. That was always my intent, but I think as the script developed and other people got involved it just went too far in terms of attempting to provide an explanation of Michael Myers. My original take was never about the stars aligning. But the director wanted to create a real mythology for Michael. To explain to the audience: 'Why does he kill?' and 'why some years and not others?'. And I was basically given one night to kind of come up with something. And I thought... "Well ..." (laughs) And he opted for that version. I didn't really agree with that take.

I always felt Michael was, for lack of a better term, a sexual deviant. A child trapped in a particular moment in time. He's become so fixated on this event when he was a kid. Which I think had a lot of sexual context to it and a lot of underpinnings of repressed sexuality to it. The original Halloween was very voyeuristic in nature, which was part of what made it so scary. It's something the audience can't quite put their finger on. But really what Michael does for the better part of the movie is just follow the girls around and watch them. He's a watcher. And I think, at least in my view of who the character was, is that he became utterly fixated on this particular moment in time [the murder of his sister] and for whatever twisted reason he had to continually replay that for himself. Even as an adult. That's why he escaped and had to go back and search out a girl who reminded him of a sister that once was. It wasn't until the sequel [Halloween II] of course, where she [Laurie Strode] literally became the sister. But that was never the original intent. And I always thought it was much more interesting psychologically that Michael Myers fixates on a particular girl that excites him sexually. I think that's something that all of the sequels have missed out on. They always pushed it into a different realm. But the basic simplicity of that character makes it so much more frightening. And in a way, relatable. I really think the essence of it was this guy out there. With this crazy mask, who was unbelievably nuts and he will get to you ... he doesn't care if he knows you or you're related to him in any way ... the fact is that he will kill you. And that's the simplicity of the original Halloween, which worked so well. Even Halloween: H20, which proclaimed itself to be the definitive sequel, missed that sense of terror and realism. Well, that's just my opinion as a fan. (laughs) I do appreciate what you're saying though. I felt at the time, this guy's been burned and beaten and shot... how does he keep coming back?
He can't just be a man anymore, he's gone beyond that. He's mythical. He's supernatural. So, I took it from that standpoint that there's something else driving him. A force that goes beyond the five senses that has infected this boy's soul and now is driving him. In justifying why and how this guy keeps coming back, we came up with this idea that he's gone beyond being human. That he's controlled by something much bigger then we could ever understand. And I thought that was a good launching point for the future films, but unfortunately they dropped all of that. And now he's just this guy in a mask who kills people on the Internet. (laughs)"


Right out of the mouth of Daniel Farrands, maybe Zombie asked for his advice??

This guy needs to write another Halloween ... but under his terms.

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-19-2007, 09:53 AM
I always felt Michael was, for lack of a better term, a sexual deviant. A child trapped in a particular moment in time. He's become so fixated on this event when he was a kid. Which I think had a lot of sexual context to it and a lot of underpinnings of repressed sexuality to it. The original Halloween was very voyeuristic in nature, which was part of what made it so scary. It's something the audience can't quite put their finger on. But really what Michael does for the better part of the movie is just follow the girls around and watch them. He's a watcher. And I think, at least in my view of who the character was, is that he became utterly fixated on this particular moment in time [the murder of his sister] and for whatever twisted reason he had to continually replay that for himself. Even as an adult. That's why he escaped and had to go back and search out a girl who reminded him of a sister that once was. It wasn't until the sequel [Halloween II] of course, where she [Laurie Strode] literally became the sister. But that was never the original intent. And I always thought it was much more interesting psychologically that Michael Myers fixates on a particular girl that excites him sexually. I think that's something that all of the sequels have missed out on. They always pushed it into a different realm. But the basic simplicity of that character makes it so much more frightening. And in a way, relatable. I really think the essence of it was this guy out there. With this crazy mask, who was unbelievably nuts and he will get to you ... he doesn't care if he knows you or you're related to him in any way ... the fact is that he will kill you. And that's the simplicity of the original Halloween, which worked so well. Even Halloween: H20, which proclaimed itself to be the definitive sequel, missed that sense of terror and realism. Well, that's just my opinion as a fan.
See, that's something that H1 really supports. I've said a lot of that myself, but I think this is the first time I've seen this particular Farrands interview. When/by whom was it conducted?

And yeah...I wish they had let him write the film on his own terms. But then, he also had to contend with all the invincible, supernatural stuff that had already taken place in the sequels. That was the problem. People blame H6 for the bulk of that...but by that point, it had already gotten too supernatural to treat Michael as even a remotely human character. Unless they pulled an H20 and just made a direct sequel to H1. haha That would've been the only way to do it.

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 10:02 AM
See, that's something that H1 really supports. I've said a lot of that myself, but I think this is the first time I've seen this particular Farrands interview. When/by whom was it conducted?

And yeah...I wish they had let him write the film on his own terms. But then, he also had to contend with all the invincible, supernatural stuff that had already taken place in the sequels. That was the problem. People blame H6 for the bulk of that...but by that point, it had already gotten too supernatural to treat Michael as even a remotely human character. Unless they pulled an H20 and just made a direct sequel to H1. haha That would've been the only way to do it.

Daniel Farrand's wrote the best sequel possible, and if you get a chance to read his ORIGINAL script of H6 you will be blown away with his ideas, a movie from a fan made for the fans. I would of been psyched if Daniel Farrand's wrote a re-imagining of Halloween besides Zombie, because from what it sounds he knows exactly the meaning of Carpenters Halloween, but reading some information of Zombie's version it seems that he takes a lot of what Farrand's says.

H6 was a mess from the start .. common they didn't even want Danielle Harris! Farrand's from what he has said doesn't support a REMAKE but he knows that this is the only way to go, forget about the past series and start fresh. It's funny how every time they make a new Halloween they call him up and ask ideas. I wonder if Rob actually talked to Farrand's....

ETOL here is the link brotha: http://www.iconsoffright.com/IV_Dan.htm

MyersFan75
06-19-2007, 10:17 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.

That is probably why I like H6 so much. I see it for what it COULD have been, and not what it turned out to be. And, for the sake of discussion, I rather enjoyed the P-Cut, anyway.

Farrands obviously has a huge creative mind and a deep knowledge of what makes Myers tick. He also did something (at least tried) that I really, really enjoyed: going into the Halloween season, uncovering its meaning and roots. I really loved this.

What the hell, long live Thorn and Halloween 6.

Chaosboy
06-19-2007, 10:32 AM
I always felt Michael was, for lack of a better term, a sexual deviant. A child trapped in a particular moment in time. He's become so fixated on this event when he was a kid. Which I think had a lot of sexual context to it and a lot of underpinnings of repressed sexuality to it. The original Halloween was very voyeuristic in nature, which was part of what made it so scary. It's something the audience can't quite put their finger on. But really what Michael does for the better part of the movie is just follow the girls around and watch them. He's a watcher.

The author, Curtis Richards, of the first novel must have shared your feelings because he takes what you have said and really plays up MM's sexual deviance. I think it turns up the "CREEP FACTOR" when you're actually allowed into MM's mind as author Richards does. I actually perfer the novel to the movie in many ways. The prologe works beautifully at its' hinting that there may be more to MM's story than the " psycho stalker ", yet never admitting nor confirming this. I think that possiblity combined with the sexual deviant characteristics adds so much more to the mystery of MM. I think that was what the writer of H6 played some of his tale from.....

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 10:37 AM
I don't particularly like the Pure Evil explanation, at least when taken literally, as in the sequels. And certainly, I don't see anything vague or enigmatic about it. It's pretty cut and dried. Pure Evil...really no room for speculation there. And, as someone who doesn't believe that Pure Evil exists, I pretty much find it to be just as "out there" as Thorn.

Myself, I preferred when Michael was presented in a vague and enigmatic way...which really onlt occurred in H1. They didn't necessarily take the Pure Evil idea so literally in the first film. You could believe that he was Pure Evil, but you were also allowed to believe that he could be human. Overall, he was presented as human, with hints at the possibility of something more supernatural.

In the sequels, though, they took Pure Evil to its literal limit, presenting an invincible, invulnerable Michael Myers who couldn't possibly be human. That's what I didn't necessarily like. I'm not saying, of course, that I didn't like any of those films. I absolutely love H4, invincible Michael or not. But I don't think it was the best way the character was ever presented. I think Carpenter had the right balance in the first film. All subsequent attempts to portay Michael as Pure Evil were overstated. And personally, for me, I don't find the idea of Michael Myers being "Pure Evil, end of story" to be as interesting as leaving it open to interpretation. It just doesn't allow my mind enough exercise.


I should have been a little more specific, as is always my flaw, when I refer to the "pure evil" concept and the enigmatic and vague quality of Michael Myers I'm refering to the first film. Becaue I don't really find him to be either of those things in the sequels. It is my opinion that the Michael in that film is really "pure evil in human form" and not just "pure evil." There's a slight difference. It never really gets any deeper than that, and that's by design. And I prefer that to the Thorn curse.

The sequels always took the concept a little bit too literally for my taste and Michael was stripped of any and all characteristics that he may have had in the first movie. He became increadibly one dimensional, which I will always argue that Michael was not in that first moviel. In fact far from it in my mind. He had just as much characteristics and personality as the characters he was stalking and killing, the ony difference was that he was silent.

I'm hoping we can get something closer to that original characterization in the remake, though I'm pretty sure we won't ever get it back 100%

scoob
06-19-2007, 11:12 AM
Daniel Farrand's wrote the best sequel possible, and if you get a chance to read his ORIGINAL script of H6 you will be blown away with his ideas, a movie from a fan made for the fans. I would of been psyched if Daniel Farrand's wrote a re-imagining of Halloween besides Zombie, because from what it sounds he knows exactly the meaning of Carpenters Halloween, but reading some information of Zombie's version it seems that he takes a lot of what Farrand's says.

H6 was a mess from the start .. common they didn't even want Danielle Harris! Farrand's from what he has said doesn't support a REMAKE but he knows that this is the only way to go, forget about the past series and start fresh. It's funny how every time they make a new Halloween they call him up and ask ideas. I wonder if Rob actually talked to Farrand's....

ETOL here is the link brotha: http://www.iconsoffright.com/IV_Dan.htm


Hey Dark Empire, thanks for providing that link. I've never read that interview before, was very interesting.

Khan
06-19-2007, 11:21 AM
:band:Thorn is dead!:band:

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Hey Dark Empire, thanks for providing that link. I've never read that interview before, was very interesting.

No problem, it's an interview I think everyone should read.

Man In Black
06-19-2007, 11:33 AM
The first audience preview is tonight... there is a good chance we might get some reviews on AICN and the like.

hOTKILLERsuNday
06-19-2007, 11:36 AM
The first audience preview is tonight... there is a good chance we might get some reviews on AICN and the like.



Oh............MY.......God!

Dark Empire
06-19-2007, 11:37 AM
The first audience preview is tonight... there is a good chance we might get some reviews on AICN and the like.

Where at?

Man In Black
06-19-2007, 11:40 AM
I have no idea. I don't know much about the process, although I'm sure people don't even know what movie they are going to see before it begins - so I'm not much help in that regard. But apparently, this is happening tonight.

MyersFan927
06-19-2007, 11:44 AM
This is cool, but I don't want to know anything too specific about the movie or what it's like until the August 31st release. I just don't want a lot of information spoiled for the fans.

Is there any word on the soundtrack? I'd imagine it would be released by now.

ghettomyers
06-19-2007, 11:55 AM
The first audience preview is tonight... there is a good chance we might get some reviews on AICN and the like.

Holy......shit.

ghettomyers
06-19-2007, 11:56 AM
This is cool, but I don't want to know anything too specific about the movie or what it's like until the August 31st release. I just don't want a lot of information spoiled for the fans.

Is there any word on the soundtrack? I'd imagine it would be released by now.

na i dont think it will be realesed until a week before the movie comes out, thats usualy how it goes.

MischievousSpirit
06-19-2007, 12:29 PM
Holy......shit.

OMG Tony said SHIT! :bigeyes:

Khan
06-19-2007, 12:53 PM
The first audience preview is tonight... there is a good chance we might get some reviews on AICN and the like.

Could reshoots or edits will be ordered as a result?

krustytheklown
06-19-2007, 01:30 PM
a test screening tonight? sweet. AICN has not been favorable to this project so it will be interesting if they post any reviews tomorrow. i reallly must avoid them, although i know i cant. mabye RZ will test in kansas city, where i live and where the original opened. i got to see jc's halloween opening night, in kc, before any of the buzz or hoopla. i had no idea what i was in for. greatest movie ever, at least until star wars equaled it.

Joe Kerr
06-19-2007, 01:58 PM
a test screening tonight? sweet. AICN has not been favorable to this project so it will be interesting if they post any reviews tomorrow. i reallly must avoid them, although i know i cant. mabye RZ will test in kansas city, where i live and where the original opened. i got to see jc's halloween opening night, in kc, before any of the buzz or hoopla. i had no idea what i was in for. greatest movie ever, at least until star wars equaled it.

Star Wars Came out First...

krustytheklown
06-19-2007, 02:05 PM
jesus christ, i cant believe that brain fart. its because im about to get off work. im as big a star wars fan as halloween, and i can quote lines from every movie, as well as the books and a few star wars video games, and i make a flub like that. my son would shoot me. my bad, star wars was the greatest movie of all time until halloween equaled it. anyway, thats what i want RZ halloween to be, the movie that recaptures the magic. another empire strikes back, in essense, a great movie that adds to my enjoyment of the original.

Todd
06-19-2007, 02:11 PM
If there is a test screening tonight, I wonder how long it will be until some reviews of it go up?

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-19-2007, 02:12 PM
Daniel Farrand's wrote the best sequel possible, and if you get a chance to read his ORIGINAL script of H6 you will be blown away with his ideas, a movie from a fan made for the fans. I would of been psyched if Daniel Farrand's wrote a re-imagining of Halloween besides Zombie, because from what it sounds he knows exactly the meaning of Carpenters Halloween, but reading some information of Zombie's version it seems that he takes a lot of what Farrand's says.

H6 was a mess from the start .. common they didn't even want Danielle Harris! Farrand's from what he has said doesn't support a REMAKE but he knows that this is the only way to go, forget about the past series and start fresh. It's funny how every time they make a new Halloween they call him up and ask ideas. I wonder if Rob actually talked to Farrand's....

ETOL here is the link brotha: http://www.iconsoffright.com/IV_Dan.htm
Thanks, man. Appreciated. :D

And you know, if they do make a sequel to Zombie's Halloween, it would be the perfect opportunity for Farrands to write the sequel that he wants to write. Because he won't have to carry too much baggage. That was the single biggest problem with H6. People can dog it all day long, but look at what had been done up to that time. H2 introduced the notion of Laurie as Michael's sister and made Michael an unstoppable supernatural cyborg thing. H4 followed up by revealing that Michael is driven to kill all his living relatives. H5 introduced the Thorn tattoo and the Man In Black, with an ending left wide open for a sequel that didn't come for six years. Farrands was pretty much stuck...he had to follow up on what had been established, and I think he did about the only thing he could do, given the circumstances. It's not the film he wanted to write...it's what he had to write. The previous sequels left him no alternatives.

Now, that doesn't mean he necessarily had to write the Thorn storyline the way he did. But then, a lot of what we see in H6 (even in the P-Cut) wasn't Farrands, but Chappelle. There really is no "Farrands-approved" cut of the film. The P-Cut comes closest, but even that doesn't come close at all, really. Basically, it wins by default. But what Farrands was required to do was continue the established "Michael Myers kills his family members" plot, and follow up on both the rune tattoo and the Man In Black from H5. He had to do those things...it wasn't his choice. Basically, that made Thorn the albatross hanging around Farrands's neck. He had to use it somehow, and he did it the best way he could, I think. Unfortunately, they chose a director who was completely at odds with Farrand's sensibilities, and many dreadful changes were made before the cameras even started rolling, let alone in reshoots.

But anyway, get back to the original point (and getting back on-topic), I think Farrands could write a hell of a sequel to Zombie's Halloween, if they choose to make more films. That would even get me behind the notion of a sequel, despite my desire to see a stand-alone Halloween. Because what Farrands originally wanted to do, but couldn't, was follow up on the themes of H1. The reason he couldn't was because the subsequent sequels had already gotten away from a lot of that, and added a lot of baggage that he had to carry into his script. If he were to write a sequel now, however, he'd only have one film to follow, and I think that a lot of the ideas that he had initially for H6 would work extremely well as the second installment of a new series. More so than as the fifth installment in the old Myers continuity.



I should have been a little more specific, as is always my flaw, when I refer to the "pure evil" concept and the enigmatic and vague quality of Michael Myers I'm refering to the first film. Becaue I don't really find him to be either of those things in the sequels. It is my opinion that the Michael in that film is really "pure evil in human form" and not just "pure evil." There's a slight difference. It never really gets any deeper than that, and that's by design. And I prefer that to the Thorn curse.

The sequels always took the concept a little bit too literally for my taste and Michael was stripped of any and all characteristics that he may have had in the first movie. He became increadibly one dimensional, which I will always argue that Michael was not in that first moviel. In fact far from it in my mind. He had just as much characteristics and personality as the characters he was stalking and killing, the ony difference was that he was silent.

I'm hoping we can get something closer to that original characterization in the remake, though I'm pretty sure we won't ever get it back 100%
Agreed. The original Myers was the best, most effective characterization, hands down. As for Thorn, Farrands was pretty much strongarmed into continuing what had been put forth in the previous films...and one of those things was Thorn, via the tattoo in H5. I think he did the best he could with it. The problem is, it isn't what he wanted to do in the first place, and once he conceded and wrote it the way they wanted him to, the director destroyed even that. H6 is just a mess...but Daniel Farrands had the best intentions for it. He was simply overruled every step of the way.



The first audience preview is tonight... there is a good chance we might get some reviews on AICN and the like.
God...this could be a good thing, or a very, very bad thing.

And that's not even taking into account the quality of the film.



Could reshoots or edits will be ordered as a result?
That's one thing I'm worried about...especially with Dimension's track record.

Even if I end up thinking the movie sucks, or at least could have been better, I don't want them to do reshoots. I'll stick up for any director's right to make a film the way he envisions it. And also, I'm gonna stick up for myself here, and say that a room full of people who may very well be complete idiots shouldn't be able to determine the content of a movie that I'm gonna pay to see.

If I hear "reshoots"...especially this late in the game...I'm not gonna be happy about it. Last minute reshoots are never a good thing.

Khan
06-19-2007, 02:28 PM
God...this could be a good thing, or a very, very bad thing.

And that's not even taking into account the quality of the film.

AICN's review of the early draft caused a huge controversy, so this may indeed be a similar situation.


That's one thing I'm worried about...especially with Dimension's track record.

Even if I end up thinking the movie sucks, or at least could have been better, I don't want them to do reshoots. I'll stick up for any director's right to make a film the way he envisions it. And also, I'm gonna stick up for myself here, and say that a room full of people who may very well be complete idiots shouldn't be able to determine the content of a movie that I'm gonna pay to see.

If I hear "reshoots"...especially this late in the game...I'm not gonna be happy about it. Last minute reshoots are never a good thing.

Dimension has been forcing reshoots as recently as last year (Black Xmas, The Messengers), so let's hope they give Zombie the chance to sink or swim on his own merits.

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Dimension has been forcing reshoots as recently as last year (Black Xmas, The Messengers), so let's hope they give Zombie the chance to sink or swim on his own merits.
I know...they've been notorious for reshoots for as long as I can remember. The earliest Dimension films I can recall were in the mid-'90s...as far as I know, that's when the subsidiary was formed. And from then 'til now, they've been very trigger-happy when it comes to reshoots.

Like you, I'm hoping that they'll allow this film to succeed or fail on its own merits. They've given the film to Zombie, and he's made it his way...which is what they asked for. His name is on all the advertising, and it's going to be associated with him, no matter what gets done with it. So hopefully, they'll allow it to go out as a "Rob Zombie film," just as the one-sheet proclaims. Whether it's good or bad, whether it succeeds or fails...we should be able to point to Zombie as the primary force behind it, for good or ill.

And even if it's bad, June reshoots for an August release date are only gonna make it worse. That's something you can take to the bank.

Frazetta
06-19-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm excited & very nervous about these test screenings. Even if Halloween is a good film there could be a whole group of idiots saying it sucks. If these ppl don't know the movie they're about to see how can we take their opinion seriously?

metaldrumz
06-19-2007, 03:11 PM
:spam:

Khan
06-19-2007, 03:11 PM
It would be nice to know who is deciding the movies fate in terms of their age and demographic.

Roswell
06-19-2007, 03:17 PM
New Halloween pic!

http://ut.netmusicpromotions.com/5kbj318191ifd6.html

That's just some picture of the cover of an album that's not even related to Halloween.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 03:18 PM
Call me crazy but I'm not really worried. Test screenings are mostly made up of your target audience. So you can assume that they're gonna probably fill it with 18-25 year old males and then some other people just to get a slightly varied grouping. So I don't anticipate that really being much a problem. Plus, just about every studio movie has them. So I'm not gonna freak out over the possibility of reshoots simply because they're holding screenings. It's too be expected. I'll freak out when they actually begin reshooting, but not before hand.

metaldrumz
06-19-2007, 03:21 PM
Ugh. I lost the page and cut and paste the wrong thing!

Think it was just a fan poster anyways. Sorry.

Lupinus
06-19-2007, 03:21 PM
New Halloween pic!

http://ut.netmusicpromotions.com/5kbj318191ifd6.html

Dude, wtf

Joe Kerr
06-19-2007, 03:21 PM
New Halloween pic!

http://ut.netmusicpromotions.com/5kbj318191ifd6.html

hacked profile...?

Superman
06-19-2007, 03:22 PM
Who cares what a few test screeners/critics say? If you like a movie you like it. If you don't...then you don't. Many times I have liked a movie "critics" have said was bad or not good.

Lupinus
06-19-2007, 03:27 PM
Who cares what a few test screeners/critics say? If you like a movie you like it. If you don't...then you don't. Many times I have liked a movie "critics" have said was bad or not good.

Because a few dumb shits can look at an awsome film and think it is shit causing the company to go sex crazy and retard strong on the director and order a slew of reshots and shit hacking a great film to garbage.

Khan
06-19-2007, 03:35 PM
Because a few dumb shits can look at an awsome film and think it is shit causing the company to go sex crazy and retard strong on the director and order a slew of reshots and shit hacking a great film to garbage.

Exactly.

Superman
06-19-2007, 03:39 PM
So if a few "critics" have seen the movie and don't like it and it goes back for re-shoots and retooling....how does that affect "us" the general public? We have not seen it, therefore we have no idea what it's "supposed" to be. Like I said....it does not matter.

Khan
06-19-2007, 03:40 PM
Plus, Dimension likes movies around the 90 minute mark so that they can pack in more daily screenings and have been cutting down film lengths for years.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 03:44 PM
Test screenings are held constantly for just about every studio movie, and not everyone of them leads to reshoots or butchering the movie. I refuse to freak out over it or even worry at all until it actually happens. And nothing thus far even hints to me that it will. I just think it's really premature to start worrying now.

Khan
06-19-2007, 03:49 PM
If this was a Lion's Gate movie, I would be inclined to agree.

Yes, there is the chance that it survives the test screenings, but we are talking about Dimension.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 03:51 PM
that's not really fair though. Dimension may have a history of reshoots and the what nots, but it doesn't mean that every film they put out gets butchered just because of a test screening. even if the test screening goes badly it doesn't mean that they'll automatically cut it to shit. They aren't necessarily stupid. Doesn't it make more sense to withhold worry until some evidence actually points to them doing that?

H-Field Hero
06-19-2007, 04:23 PM
I'm excited & very nervous about these test screenings. Even if Halloween is a good film there could be a whole group of idiots saying it sucks. If these ppl don't know the movie they're about to see how can we take their opinion seriously?As fans it's important to not take the results of the test screenings too seriously.

Franchise
06-19-2007, 05:09 PM
I've seen it all now. At least I believe so. First I saw the bitching about the early script. Then I saw the bitching about the poster. Now, I'm seeing people worried about the test screenings? Wow.

I'm inclined to believe that Rob Zombie has a certain bit of leverage over Dimension on this considering I don't think he'd take a project without having some control. Either way, you'll see Rob's work on the screen and I would think it's got his approval.

shoe1985
06-19-2007, 05:12 PM
It would be nice to know who is deciding the movies fate in terms of their age and demographic.


So if a few "critics" have seen the movie and don't like it and it goes back for re-shoots and retooling....how does that affect "us" the general public? We have not seen it, therefore we have no idea what it's "supposed" to be. Like I said....it does not matter.

The point of reshoots is to make a movie that a larger audience will want to see. It is all about making money, not necessarily a good movie. If the audience they have is in the 18-49 category and loves it, they will probably make minor changes. Now if these people say this part was terrible, they will make drastic changes because it must appeal to a big audience.

You could say, "How does this affect us?" Well we might not see the version Rob wants us to see, but what a larger audience does because they are who pays the bills for Dimension and company.

I don't believe 1408 had any reshoots, if they did, they were probably minor changes because the early reviews have been positive.

Khan
06-19-2007, 05:38 PM
I have my doubts that Dimension would suddenly bend over backwards to make Rob happy considering they didn't even do that for Wes Craven.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 05:48 PM
I have my doubts they Dimension would suddenly bend over backwards to make Rob happy.

It's not a matter of bending over backwards to make him happy. It's a matter of they hired Rob Zombie to make a Rob Zombie movie. And I'm sure they knew what kind of a movie he was likely to make before they hired him. If they were just going to go ahead and cut it to pieces after a test screening they wouldn't have shelled out the money for him (not that he was probably that expensive, but more so than some no name I'm sure) when they could have just gave "Joe Blow" a fraction of the amount. I think we really need to give Dimension more credit than we are. They may have a history, as I've stated before, but they've also been in the bussiness a while now and they atleast kind of know what they're doing.

Khan
06-19-2007, 05:57 PM
As I just mentioned, even Wes Craven, who as spotty as he is with his movies, is a big name in horror, didn't get final cut.

Dimension took Cursed, hacked out two minutes of footage and made it PG-13, totally overruling Craven.

They made Kevin Yagher disown Hellraiser: Bloodline!

shoe1985
06-19-2007, 05:57 PM
It's not a matter of bending over backwards to make him happy. It's a matter of they hired Rob Zombie to make a Rob Zombie movie. And I'm sure they knew what kind of a movie he was likely to make before they hired him. If they were just going to go ahead and cut it to pieces after a test screening they wouldn't have shelled out the money for him (not that he was probably that expensive, but more so than some no name I'm sure) when they could have just gave "Joe Blow" a fraction of the amount. I think we really need to give Dimension more credit than we are. They may have a history, as I've stated before, but they've also been in the business a while now and they at least kind of know what they're doing.

Please, re-read your post. Every studio knows what they are getting into before they make a movie. They know the script, they know the cast and crew. Sometimes what is written doesn't come out as planned. They make reshoots to make it better, or worse. No studio is perfect, and they all make mistakes.

Khan
06-19-2007, 06:05 PM
As Dr, Phil says (and I agree), "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

I don't claim to know everything, but I can guess at it, as we are all doing.

Just ask the Pang Brothers.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 06:10 PM
All I'm saying is this, there seems to be this sudden panic that we're about to have another Halloween 6 fiasco on our hands just because there is a test screening and it doesn't make sense to me. As I've said, just about every studio film has test screenings, and it's in fact fairly rare for there to suddenly be forced reshoots to overhaul the entire thing.

Reshoots are usually just used to fix a scene here and there or to give a little added umph to something. They don't generally get used to change a movie completely from one thing to another, as they kind of were in the case of H6 or Cursed (though admittedly I know fairly little about the happenings on that film as I've not even seen it.)

Plus we still don't have any evidence what so ever that this could even happen, so until something comes along to prove such a thing I think all the premature speculation is just as rediculous as discussing the quality of the film before we see it.

Phatboy41
06-19-2007, 06:12 PM
is anyone going to be posting info on how the test screenings go asap?

Todd 78
06-19-2007, 06:17 PM
As fans it's important to not take the results of the test screenings too seriously.


Unless they are great.:bastard:

Khan
06-19-2007, 06:19 PM
Cursed (though admittedly I know fairly little about the happenings on that film as I've not even seen it.)

While it won't happen for this movie, Cursed was filmed as an R-rated movie and the studio wanted a PG-13, so like so many other movies, it was edited to achieve that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257516/trivia

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 06:26 PM
Seems like Craven, the writers, and the studio all had different visions for "Cursed" to begin with huh? That kind of sucks for that movie. I think the difference here is that Rob and the studio, up to this point, seem to be on pretty much the same page. Of course I don't want to come off as saying it's absolutley not at all possible what so ever that the film won't get reshot or butchered, I just think it's highly unlikely.

Phatboy41
06-19-2007, 06:54 PM
I hope I'm not late on this... if I am, I am very sorry, and if my posting these videos somehow makes people upset, I am sorry for that as well... I was just searching around and found this, don't know if it's new or old or what...

4 parts to the video interview with Scout Taylor- Compton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4odYsQoug0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OK5juXQ4k0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6JWZ9-Ya8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh5YCB_T6B0

scoob
06-19-2007, 07:04 PM
Nice find there, Phatboy, thanks for that!

I havnt seen any of these and I usually read every little thing posted on here...unless I missed it somewhere I think this is a new discovery!

Nice one!

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 07:13 PM
Fairly cool vid. Nice post as I hadn't seen it yet. But there's something more important than the answers. Scout is wearing a Batman shirt :hugegrin:

MM41
06-19-2007, 07:19 PM
THE MOVIE WAS AWSOME! haha joking, but thats what i'll prob. be saying come August 31st !! I cant wait!!

scoob
06-19-2007, 07:24 PM
I hope I'm not late on this... if I am, I am very sorry, and if my posting these videos somehow makes people upset, I am sorry for that as well... I was just searching around and found this, don't know if it's new or old or what...

4 parts to the video interview with Scout Taylor- Compton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4odYsQoug0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OK5juXQ4k0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6JWZ9-Ya8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh5YCB_T6B0

Just watching part 2 now - Scout gives away ( unless its been changed ) a pretty big spoiler for the end of the film.
Thought would warn those that dont really want to know too much.

Its a funny interview though, God, she really struggles with city names dosnt she?

Frazetta
06-19-2007, 07:26 PM
So if a few "critics" have seen the movie and don't like it and it goes back for re-shoots and retooling....how does that affect "us" the general public? We have not seen it, therefore we have no idea what it's "supposed" to be. Like I said....it does not matter. Because, good or bad, I want to see Zombie's Halloween. Not a movie that he was forced to reshoot at the last minute. I think any reasonable person will admit that much.

I'm also guessing that Rob would not have took the job unless he had some sort of creative control. Dimension went out of their way to hire Zombie so they should know or atleast have a vague idea of what they're getting.

MM41
06-19-2007, 07:38 PM
Scout spoils a whole lot for the end of the movie right there, Its obvious she is young and does not know how to keep stuff inside lol, oh well.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 07:41 PM
I agree with the "spoiler" issue. I like the interview over all but I wish she could be just a little more vague when discussing actual scenes in the movie.

scoob
06-19-2007, 07:44 PM
Yeah, completly lol

My God, I know she is young but bloody hell.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 07:48 PM
Yeah, completly lol

My God, I know she is young but bloody hell.

Believe me I tried to make her stop while I was watching the vid, but it didn't work. Guess she couldn't hear me or something

scoob
06-19-2007, 07:54 PM
Believe me I tried to make her stop while I was watching the vid, but it didn't work. Guess she couldn't hear me or something

I sat there pretty stone faced in amazement at how much she was giving away before she might of , just might of , realised what she was saying.

It was interesting though. Pretty insightful.

She starts to go on a little, but Im not complaining. I enjoyed it, despite having to drink more then normal to sit through it.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 07:59 PM
I sat there pretty stone faced in amazement at how much she was giving away before she might of , just might of , realised what she was saying.

It was interesting though. Pretty insightful.

She starts to go on a little, but Im not complaining. I enjoyed it, despite having to drink more then normal to sit through it.

Well, spoilers and all, she did definately seem genuinely more comfortable with the situation than in her previous interviews. Probably has something to do with there not actually being any interviewer. Over all I enjoyed the video, she's got a fairly spunky and engaging personality (or atleast seems to have) and she's also a pretty decent actress from what little I've seen. I think she'll do a pretty good job with the role, although how I can get to that conclusion from that interview befuddles even me.

But if she has enough good taste to wear a batman shirt she can't be a complete idiot.:nodsmile:

samhain51
06-19-2007, 08:03 PM
Alls I have to say is I hope its more than 75% true The rumors that is!

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:06 PM
Alls I have to say is I hope its more than 75% true The rumors that is!

I'd like to know what exactly the rumors are before I make a judgement on that. But it is cool to know that there is atleast some truth to them. Then again it may just be an actress hyping it in hopes of getting a role, who can really say for sure.

scoob
06-19-2007, 08:08 PM
Well, spoilers and all, she did definately seem genuinely more comfortable with the situation than in her previous interviews. Probably has something to do with there not actually being any interviewer. Over all I enjoyed the video, she's got a fairly spunky and engaging personality (or atleast seems to have) and she's also a pretty decent actress from what little I've seen. I think she'll do a pretty good job with the role, although how I can get to that conclusion from that interview befuddles even me.

But if she has enough good taste to wear a batman shirt she can't be a complete idiot.:nodsmile:

I think that Danielle Harris' has an almost role model type influence on her, and somewhat is evident on part 2 of that interview. It was almost as if she was trying to be Danielle for the last segment of that part, lol. Just something I noticed.

I do think she will do well in the role , like yourself, Im not sure why either. I think because she is probably a better actor then someone that has to answer something on the spot.

I dont mind the ol' Batman but, I'm a Superman person myself, lol.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:16 PM
I think that Danielle Harris' has an almost role model type influence on her, and somewhat is evident on part 2 of that interview. It was almost as if she was trying to be Danielle for the last segment of that part, lol. Just something I noticed.

heh, yeah she kind of did emulate a little, but whatever it wasn't annoying or distracting so I'm cool with it


I do think she will do well in the role , like yourself, Im not sure why either. I think because she is probably a better actor then someone that has to answer something on the spot.

I don't know why either, I just think she has the right kind of personality to do a "modernized" Laurie Strode. But that's all speculation until we see the film itself now isn't it.


I dont mind the ol' Batman but, I'm a Superman person myself, lol.

Careful now, I may have to get myself an axe. fair warning...:evil:

scoob
06-19-2007, 08:24 PM
heh, yeah she kind of did emulate a little, but whatever it wasn't annoying or distracting so I'm cool with it:

Yeah, it was fine, just kind of amusing for some reason.



I don't know why either, I just think she has the right kind of personality to do a "modernized" Laurie Strode. But that's all speculation until we see the film itself now isn't it.

She could play a naive Laurie to perfection!



Careful now, I may have to get myself an axe. fair warning...:evil:

As long as you're not anything to do with a Colon Globus ressurection, I'm happy :)

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:28 PM
well Laurie was a little naive to begin with.

*waits for 5000000 people to come in and explain why I'm wrong*

scoob
06-19-2007, 08:33 PM
I was going to put that but I thought it would be condemned by "But Laurie was smart, but shy" kind of thing.

It will be a brilliant script if Scout comes out of this looking smart.
Ooh. That was a little below the belt maybe.
:)

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:38 PM
It will be a brilliant script if Scout comes out of this looking smart.
Ooh. That was a little below the belt maybe.
:)

I am offended to no end. You are a very crass and insensitive person who needs to take some kind of sensitivity course or something. How dare you!!!


....sarcasm is quite possibly the worlds greatest invention.

lauriestrodefan
06-19-2007, 08:41 PM
looking forward to this movie. go michael

scoob
06-19-2007, 08:41 PM
Yes.
She gets off lightly until the film comes out then she will be belittled to tears by my soul shredding humour...

Maybe not.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:46 PM
Yes.
She gets off lightly until the film comes out then she will be belittled to tears by my soul shredding humour...

Maybe not.

I'm looking forward to that. Does that make me a bad person?

scoob
06-19-2007, 08:48 PM
lol

It makes me feel better about having the most lamest sarcasm known to man.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:50 PM
lol

It makes me feel better about having the most lamest sarcasm known to man.

even the lamest of all sarcasm is better than most humor.

scoob
06-19-2007, 08:54 PM
True indeed.

Testing that theroy -
Here is a question for you:
How did Mrs. Blankenship die from drinking milk?

The cow stepped on her.

Applause...

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 08:58 PM
:roflmao:

Hahaha
I don't know if I'm really tired, or what, but at the moment that really is hillarious. Probably one of those things where I'll look at it tomorrow and ask myself: "why the fuck did you laugh at that?!?!"

scoob
06-19-2007, 09:06 PM
lol

I dont know, its just the beer and Mrs. Blankneship.

Is 6 am here so I have some excuse for lame humour.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 09:08 PM
lol

I dont know, its just the beer and Mrs. Blankneship.

The joke is of course aided by the fact that I'm working on day two of being up all night. And yes Beer+Blankenship=comedy gold. But we're increadibly off topic aren't we? Oh well.

scoob
06-19-2007, 09:12 PM
You are correct.

You would have thought this Halloween screening would be over by now, I'll be interested to know what happened in that.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 09:19 PM
You are correct.

You would have thought this Halloween screening would be over by now, I'll be interested to know what happened in that.

I suspect information about that will probably flood in tomorrow (as far as I'm concerned it's not really tomorrow until the sun rises) all at around the same time, as that seems to be the way of this kind of things. Though they'll probably be a some info on it in the real early morning hours

scoob
06-19-2007, 09:26 PM
Sun is up and full of light here. How wonderful it is to see that when all you really need is a kip.

Anyhow, no doubt you are right. Someone is bound to go on some website and post about the whole thing.
Which in a way, kind of makes these screenings a little pointless?

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 09:33 PM
Sun is up and full of light here. How wonderful it is to see that when all you really need is a kip.

Anyhow, no doubt you are right. Someone is bound to go on some website and post about the whole thing.
Which in a way, kind of makes these screenings a little pointless?

Test screenings aren't really pointless, though I do think people make far too much out of them. They are really just a way for the filmmakers to see what's working in their film and what's not, which in turns aids them in tweaking the film here and there and just tightening it up in order to make in play better for an audience. They really aren't meant to be important to the viewer per se, atleast not in the short run, there meant for the filmmakers. Atleast that's how it's supposed to work. Sometimes a studio uses bad screenings as an excuse to truly over haul an entire film, I'm sure you noticed the earlier discussions tonight on that subject. As I said I don't really think there's reason to worry about that with this film, I'm more worried about the mpaa than anything else.

scoob
06-19-2007, 09:41 PM
Oh yeah, definitly.
I just think with the internet and the way things work now that does a test screening really pay dividends for the company.
Im just thinking maybe, its a way of material being leaked or pirated, or to a much less degree just being reviewed as if it were the final product.
All that could end up as a negative. Im probably way off, but I think in future, they structure of these test screenings might need to be altered.

I dont know too much about them but I beleive the people present have to give their reviews. But its like me ending up watching something like "Alice Goes To Wonderland". Im not really going to go and watch a film like that, so how they can judge a target audience around people that have no idea of what they are going to watch and then judge the film by it, is pretty silly to me.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 09:49 PM
well test screenings, from my understanding, are usually done by gathering your "demographic." you walk up and ask "hey you wanna see a horror film?" and there you go, you have an audience member. Afterwards people film out cards full of questions about what they liked, what they didn't like, etc. and then a certain amount are kept behind as the rest of the audience leaves for some discussion. Atleast that's how it works for a lot of films. I'm sure all screenings are different. At the end of the day the thing that's really important is for the filmmaker to be able to watch the audience watch the movie and see how they're affected. That's really the most important thing, though the studio execs I'm sure are more interested in the "results." From there it's back to the editing room, and maybe little pick up shots here and there. Nothing usually too extensive as I stated earlier. Over all it's probably a good thing for the filmmakers.

I'm sure there are ways of dealing with the piracy issues, but I've never actually been to a test screening so I don't know what the precautions are.

scoob
06-19-2007, 09:57 PM
That is reassuring they include horror fans, but my God, how the hell does this work?
They just ask random people walking on the street an hour before it plays, or days or weeks?
Give them a ticket to get it in and thats it?
It still reeks of insanity. I mean to see a free film, regardless what it is, you would probably take it up anyway.
But to then be able to judge it? Thats the bit that I dont really like too much.
On one showing? A bunch of people that noone knows is let in on a free showing of a movie. You are not going to turn that down even if you dont like what it's about. You would probably go for the experience.

I just think it is a bad way for a company to get an idea of what the final cut should be like. If they didnt like it in the first place, then they should not have commisioned it.

I expect there are more then just one showing, because otherwise, the whole idea is just plain daft.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 10:03 PM
usually there's a number of showings, in various different locations across the country.

scoob
06-19-2007, 10:05 PM
Ahh, well that shuts me up.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 10:09 PM
yeah the process is kind of grueling and on the surface seems a little rediculous but it really can be useful.

scoob
06-19-2007, 10:13 PM
Yeah.

I guess it is useful in some respects. I mean if it's a good film, whats the harm.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 10:18 PM
It's only when studios try to fuck with a film that you get in to problems, but despite what people think that's pretty rare. I've already had that discussion more than I care to though.

scoob
06-19-2007, 10:21 PM
Yeah I have read lol

And I think that since from the start, on this project, NO ONE has inteferred with Rob Zombie, from what we know.
Unlike the last few Halloween films where there seemed problems from left and right.
This one seems to have been made very smoothly.
And if that ends up the case, well you have to credit Rob Zombie AND Dimension.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 10:27 PM
Yeah I have read lol

And I think that since from the start, on this project, NO ONE has inteferred with Rob Zombie, from what we know.
Unlike the last few Halloween films where there seemed problems from left and right.
This one seems to have been made very smoothly.
And if that ends up the case, well you have to credit Rob Zombie AND Dimension.

that's basically the point I've been trying to make. People have been worrying and panicing about this test screening for seemingly no reason. Nothing about the production of this movie seems to suggest that there are any problems. And usually when movies have a lot of reshoots and get butchered before they are eventually released, there are problems from the beginning of production. So I'm only trying to be rational about it.

scoob
06-19-2007, 10:34 PM
Well, I think you're right.

The way I , OK I am now flippin' Doc from Back To The Future, but I kind of imagine this film to not exactly give you that satisfsction you got from the end of H:20, or the relief that the film was actually over from H:R.
Im HOPING, or moreorless, expecting, a finale where you dont go home feeling happy, or that the problem was resolved. Now, I know im gonna get flamed for this and fair enough, but I dont think these test subjects are going to get it.

Anyway, I dont care about them or that, I think ( In my mind ) that this film might be one to watch a couple of times before you actually grasp what's happening and that to me is brilliant.

Specualtion of course, but hey, theres a new Halloween movie coming out in little less then 3 months.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 10:42 PM
that's a possibility. I don't expect to be totally blown away by the film the first time, but I can definately see it being a "grower." Why not? HOTC was a "grower" for me as well. Though TDR I pretty much liked from the first viewing.

scoob
06-19-2007, 10:54 PM
It took me two views to appreciate HOTC, and the fact the director was making this movie. I cant say it is one of my favourite films but I cant say it was badly made or any of the other insults that are just pointless.
It was cheaply made, but it works. You cant really argue with that.
Rob did what he did and the obvious TCM are there for all to see. I dont think Rob was even trying to hide it.

The Devils Rejects - A completly different film. But a sequal nonetheless and one that was done in the way he wanted it to be done. It's great in the way it follows on from HOTC but in a darker and more serious tone.

How people expect, or can complain that this, Halloween, will even be remotly close to them two movies is acceptable but I think and HOPE is just not going to happen.
This is not HOTC part 3, this is Rob's first film outside of that series.
It is an important film to him as it is to us, ( career wise for Rob ) to show his diversity and that he can expand from the two films he has done.
I expect blood, I expect his direction and I expect SOME similar traits to that of the films hes made - thats why he has the job.
I dont expect a foul mouthed flick that has T@A on every shot, although I am prepared for the worst.

Fuck it, we'll see.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 11:03 PM
Well obviously Rob is the same guy who mad TDR and HOTC and as such there will probably be things about Halloween that will be similure to things we've seen in those two movies, sure. Every director has a signature style. You can watch a Scorsese flick and Know it's a Scorsese flick, you can do the same with Spielberg and David Lynch and a litteny of other directors. So I expect it to feel like a Rob Zombie picture in every way. Does that mean that we're gonna get the TDRized version of Halloween? Absolutely not. The notion of that is rediculous. The actors, the locations, the material, everything is totally different and the movie will be because of that.

scoob
06-19-2007, 11:08 PM
Yep,
you know my main concern is quite funny and silly really.

It regards the dialouge. I just dont want to hear Fuck every second in a Halloween movie, nor do I want sexual references thrown in all the time.

I dont have a problem with that, but in a Halloween film - I dont care if it's a reimmaging, I dont want to hear that shit.

The dialouge is probably my main concern.

I know that it's full of " I dont like this, I dont like that" but I havnt been like that. It's just one major concern I have about the film.

It was done well in TDR, because that was the type of film it was - it suited the situations and the characters.

As I said, I dont expect it to be so much like that in this but, hey, we'll see.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 11:17 PM
The dialouge is probably my main concern.

that's actually a concern of mine as well. Rob has proven to me that he can do a movie and make it well written, but dialouge is another matter entirely. He realise on cusses and sexual referances (as in the womans "big titties flopping out" conversation in TDR) a little too often for my taste. I'm hoping he can work through that and avoid the tendency to fall back on it. As an aspiring writer myself I know it can occasionally be hard to get away from the stuff you've done in the past but it can be done. Plus I think some of it depends on the actors. Rob seems to be fairly loose when it comes to add libs and such things, so I think it could somewhat depend on the actors general mode of speach as well. We'll have to see though.

scoob
06-19-2007, 11:30 PM
that's actually a concern of mine as well. Rob has proven to me that he can do a movie and make it well written, but dialouge is another matter entirely. He realise on cusses and sexual referances (as in the womans "big titties flopping out" conversation in TDR) a little too often for my taste. I'm hoping he can work through that and avoid the tendency to fall back on it. As an aspiring writer myself I know it can occasionally be hard to get away from the stuff you've done in the past but it can be done. Plus I think some of it depends on the actors. Rob seems to be fairly loose when it comes to add libs and such things, so I think it could somewhat depend on the actors general mode of speach as well. We'll have to see though.

Thats twice in a night you made me feel better about myself, Wyatt, we're gonna have to stop meeting in such seedy corners of the OHMB.

Agree completly, Rob is a talented director and he knows his stuff. I dont want to be a hypocrite when I just said on one of my last posts that I dont expect him to carry his HOTC-TDR legacy into this.

I dont think swearing is needed unless really required in a horror film - it weakens the word when it's needed in use, it sounds bad, and it's just plain annoying to hear it repeatedly.
Same with the sexual references - I know it's 2007 but 18 year old's dont carry themselves around like sluts all the time. There are the few that dont, you know.

I sound like I am already condemning it, but, yeah my concern is langauge and dialouge.

I dont expect Shakespeare but hearing the F word constantly will just annoy people.

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 11:44 PM
Thats twice in a night you made me feel better about myself, Wyatt, we're gonna have to stop meeting in such seedy corners of the OHMB.

I like seedy corners. Only the really interesting people go to them.


I dont think swearing is needed unless really required in a horror film - it weakens the word when it's needed in use, it sounds bad, and it's just plain annoying to hear it repeatedly.
Same with the sexual references - I know it's 2007 but 18 year old's dont carry themselves around like sluts all the time. There are the few that dont, you know.

I sound like I am already condemning it, but, yeah my concern is langauge and dialouge.

I dont expect Shakespeare but hearing the F word constantly will just annoy people.

Though it was a bit over kill the swearing in TDR and House was alright, and relatively acceptable for the most part, because the good majority of the characters were fairly dirty and dispicable people. It made perfect sense that they would talk like that. Why wouldn't they?

As for Halloween, these characters are more accessable and normal suburban people (or atleast should be) meaning that in real life they would be less likely to be running around spewing a stream of curses forth every five or six sentencesl. It wouldn't make any sense as it doesn't really fit the characters.

I'm a twenty first century kind of a guy, and I'm well aware how foul mouthed some people can be, hell I'm guilty of it myself at times. But in casual conversation cussing is still pretty sparse, and as far as I'm concerned really only used to emphasize things. I suppose I won't mind hearing the guards and orderlies and such people in the sanitarium swearing up a storm, as it seems it would probably fit their characters (again just speculation) but if the girls and their families do the same thing I'll be the first person to call "bullshit."

Lucifer
06-19-2007, 11:44 PM
I dont think swearing is needed unless really required in a horror film - it weakens the word when it's needed in use, it sounds bad, and it's just plain annoying to hear it repeatedly.
Same with the sexual references - I know it's 2007 but 18 year old's dont carry themselves around like sluts all the time. There are the few that dont, you know.

I sound like I am already condemning it, but, yeah my concern is langauge and dialouge.

I dont expect Shakespeare but hearing the F word constantly will just annoy people.

Oh i so totaly agree !!! If theres too much swearing it just turns me off a film .If a person in real life swears alot to me it just shows how ignorant they are and this is the same with a film .
There are a few teenagers that dont go looking like sluts but there are still alot that do .

scoob
06-19-2007, 11:51 PM
HOTC and TDR was fine for swearing and sexual whatnot, you know that just WAS that style of film.

Halloween, I just dont want to watch it and see supposed "normal" teenagers or even psychiatrists or whatnot cussing in that way - it's just not real and makes it a comedy.

We all swear- I'm sure psyciatrists and as I said "whatnots" swear, but this is a film. It is pointless waste of dialouge.

I expect some swearing, Im not being a bloody nun, but just use it with and when its needed!

wyatt s
06-19-2007, 11:52 PM
Oh i so totaly agree !!! If theres too much swearing it just turns me off a film .If a person in real life swears alot to me it just shows how ignorant they are and this is the same with a film .
There are a few teenagers that dont go looking like sluts but there are still alot that do .

sure just go ahead and jump right into the middel of our conversation why don't you! Nah just kidding. You're absolutely right, people who swear at a constant rate for no real reason have a tendancy to come off as slightly ignorant, that or they have a pretty poor vocab. I'm alright with cursing to some degree but at a certain point it just becomes agrivating.

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-20-2007, 12:02 AM
Oh i so totaly agree !!! If theres too much swearing it just turns me off a film .If a person in real life swears alot to me it just shows how ignorant they are and this is the same with a film .
There are a few teenagers that dont go looking like sluts but there are still alot that do .
I curse like a sailor on PCP and don't consider myself ignorant, by any stretch of the imagination.

Personally, I find the designation of words as "good" or "bad" to be rather ignorant. It's a distinction which, in courtroom parlance, assumes facts not in evidence. So personally, I don't get any more offended or annoyed by people using the word "Fuck" frequently than I do by people who use the word "God" frequently...or "Chair"...or "The." They're just words, and I see nothing "bad" about any of them.

The only bad word is a word that goes unused...especially if it's out of shame or fear.

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:05 AM
I dont mind it at all -but in a film, and a certain movie, yeah, I do.

I just dont think it is needed until the pivitol moments of the movie.

Otherwise it just sounds like the same old thing. Who cares?

wyatt s
06-20-2007, 12:06 AM
well, I can't necessarily agree with you on there being no sex or swears in the sequels. There was the hot Tub sex scene in 2, the character of Bud pretty much existed just to swear make nasty comments and get killed almost off camera, I haven't watched it in a while but I think there was sex in 3, and Halloween 4 has one of the more prolonged sex scenes in the series (though I don't think it's a necessarilly bad one) but as for first film. No there wasn't a whole lot of that going on, and it really does go a long way towards making it a "classier" picture than most other slasher fare.

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-20-2007, 12:08 AM
well, I can't necessarily agree with you on there being no sex or swears in the sequels. There was the hot Tub sex scene in 2, the character of Bud pretty much existed just to swear make nasty comments and get killed almost off camera, I haven't watched it in a while but I think there was sex in 3, and Halloween 4 has one of the more prolonged sex scenes in the series (though I don't think it's a necessarilly bad one) but as for first film. No there wasn't a whole lot of that going on, and it really does go a long way towards making it a "classier" picture than most other slasher fare.
Just because all the guys in H1 finished up in about ten seconds flat doesn't mean that there wasn't a fair amount of sex in the film. ;)

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:08 AM
well, I can't necessarily agree with you on there being no sex or swears in the sequels. There was the hot Tub sex scene in 2, the character of Bud pretty much existed just to swear make nasty comments and get killed almost off camera, I haven't watched it in a while but I think there was sex in 3, and Halloween 4 has one of the more prolonged sex scenes in the series (though I don't think it's a necessarilly bad one) but as for first film. No there wasn't a whole lot of that going on, and it really does go a long way towards making it a "classier" picture than most other slasher fare.

Yep, I deleted my message after I thought about what I said ...

Didnt really make sense.

wyatt s
06-20-2007, 12:10 AM
I curse like a sailor on PCP and don't consider myself ignorant, by any stretch of the imagination.

Personally, I find the designation of words as "good" or "bad" to be rather ignorant. It's a distinction which, in courtroom parlance, assumes facts not in evidence. So personally, I don't get any more offended or annoyed by people using the word "Fuck" frequently than I do by people who use the word "God" frequently...or "Chair"...or "The." They're just words, and I see nothing "bad" about any of them.

The only bad word is a word that goes unused...especially if it's out of shame or fear.

See, you're a different case entirely in my opinion. You've proven yourself to be a fairly intelligent person capable of having a conversation and with you I think it's more of a personal preferance when it comes to swearing. And that's not particularly annoying. It's annoying when people rely on it as if it's the only thing they can come up with to say. I'd venture to guess that you could, if you really tried, have a conversation free of curses but just choose not to. There's a bit of a difference there.

wyatt s
06-20-2007, 12:11 AM
Just because all the guys in H1 finished up in about ten seconds flat doesn't mean that there wasn't a fair amount of sex in the film. ;)

I don't think there was a whole lot. What was there two scenes if I recall correctly? One of them off camera.

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:16 AM
Sex in H1?
Non-existent pretty much!

It was implied, but never seen.

wyatt s
06-20-2007, 12:18 AM
Sex in H1?
Non-existent pretty much!

It was implied, but never seen.

and none of it in my opinion is gratuituse. With that I'm gonna try to sleep for about 3 hours as I have work this afternoon (4:20 am where I'm at)

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:22 AM
And I agree with that.

Monte
06-20-2007, 12:22 AM
I'd be a lot more comfortable with the process of test screenings if it involved somehow getting audiences who would actually be interested in seeing such a film. Seems like the age demographic is the only thing considered. These people are almost always just there because it's a free movie. How the hell are any suggestions they have going to actually be useful?

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:25 AM
We was talkingh about that earlier, and I was told that it's not a one off showing.
Its shown in various places around the country.

The people invited would have to be somewhat of a "horror or thriller" fan.
You cant really ask for much more then that?

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-20-2007, 12:33 AM
See, you're a different case entirely in my opinion. You've proven yourself to be a fairly intelligent person capable of having a conversation and with you I think it's more of a personal preferance when it comes to swearing. And that's not particularly annoying. It's annoying when people rely on it as if it's the only thing they can come up with to say. I'd venture to guess that you could, if you really tried, have a conversation free of curses but just choose not to. There's a bit of a difference there.
I equate word discrimination with racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and all other forms of prejudice. It isn't directly and deliberately harmful to other beings the way those forms of discrimination are, but it is discrimination, nevertheless. I don't find it to be as vile as discrimination against human beings, but I still have to shake my head at people who try to enforce a class system on words that their ancestors invented.

Sure, I could have a conversation without using those words...and I have plenty of them. But I can also have innumerable conversations without using the words "armchair," "groundhog," "tangerine," and "wastebasket." That doesn't mean that those are words I shouldn't use. See the thing is, I see no difference, personally, between "armchair" and "fuck," in terms of their value as words. One is as good as the other...which means that neither is worse than the other.

The whole thing, as it concerns the English language, is rooted in historical classism and imperial discrimination, anyway. Which I find to be more offensive than any "curse word." For the most part, our "dirty words" stem from German, while their "clean" counterparts have Latin origins. Not much of a coincidence, considering that the natives of England spoke a dialect of German at the time the Romans conquered them. The indigenous people there were, of course, considered by the Romans to be subhuman...just as all indigenous peoples were. And their language, of course, was also subhuman. This is why "fuck" is profanity and "copulate" isn't. Why "cunt" is vulgar, while "vagina" is proper. Which, if you ask me, is all a load of masculine bovine feces.

I don't rely on "curse words" any more than I rely on other words...but I do rely on language, and I don't necessarily categorize words as "Good" or "Bad." So I don't exclude anything from my vocabulary. I always find it an interesting argument when people say that cursing is a sign of limited vocabulary. What's interesting about it (to me, at least) is the notion that one can expand one's vocabularly by deliberately eliminating words from it. That's a logistical point that I've never been able to wrap my cerebral cortex around.

In short, I hold these truths to be self-evident. All words were created equal. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line (around AD 45), someone (self-righteous Roman slavemasters) decided that no words were equal to their words. Their words were the words of the gods, and those other words were mere animal grunting to them. As a people who've inherited a mongrel language, we have upheld certain of those prejudices for nearly 2000 years. Which, to me, is vastly more offensive that any four-letter word.


Anyway, getting back on-topic...Halloween is currently the featured trailer on the IMDb's "Watch This: Trailers and More -- Most-Watched Edition." Seems like more and more people are getting interested in the film, which could hold promise for the box office.

Monte
06-20-2007, 12:37 AM
Anyway, getting back on-topic...Halloween is currently the featured trailer on the IMDb's "Watch This: Trailers and More -- Most-Watched Edition." Seems like more and more people are getting interested in the film, which could hold promise for the box office.

Fucking fantastic! Bitch ass shit!

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:38 AM
I hope so, this Halloween might actually stand a chance of being "acclaimed".
In some horror award ceremony. Not that I care about all that, but it would be nice if Halloween was actually top dogg again and appreciated.

I;ve shown the trailer to a few people, mixed views. Some couldnt care less, some were pretty excited by it, and my mum - a life long Halloween fan - said " He's too tall".

Kind of left me gutted.

Well the pics, she liked up until the one of Mike being escorted - ( which I loved and envisioned from the script ) and she just said " No. Thats not Michael Myers." walked off.

Its kind of a tradition that I take my mum to a Halloween film, I dont care if im 27, she got me into it.

Monte
06-20-2007, 12:57 AM
If that's not Michael Myers, then damn, Samara from The Ring has been eating her Weaties.

scoob
06-20-2007, 12:59 AM
Well Im sure that was interesting.

Any news on the screening?

Man In Black
06-20-2007, 01:01 AM
Well, it took place in New York but thats all I know up to now.

Khan
06-20-2007, 03:00 AM
Yeah, completely lol

My God, I know she is young but bloody hell.

She does the worst interviews ever.

Either she is contradicting the director or she is giving it all away.

MyersFan75
06-20-2007, 03:35 AM
I hope so, this Halloween might actually stand a chance of being "acclaimed".
In some horror award ceremony. Not that I care about all that, but it would be nice if Halloween was actually top dogg again and appreciated.

I;ve shown the trailer to a few people, mixed views. Some couldnt care less, some were pretty excited by it, and my mum - a life long Halloween fan - said " He's too tall".

Kind of left me gutted.

Well the pics, she liked up until the one of Mike being escorted - ( which I loved and envisioned from the script ) and she just said " No. Thats not Michael Myers." walked off.

Its kind of a tradition that I take my mum to a Halloween film, I dont care if im 27, she got me into it.

I agree with your mother. I don't like that picture either.

Khan
06-20-2007, 04:25 AM
I also agree with Scoob's mother, but I won't judge the entire movie based on one picture.

Psych0ticNemes1s
06-20-2007, 04:37 AM
Where is said picture? Myers is being escorted somewhere? You can't escort a monster... wtf... I hope it is young Myers...

Dark Empire
06-20-2007, 04:48 AM
Thanks, man. Appreciated. :D

And you know, if they do make a sequel to Zombie's Halloween, it would be the perfect opportunity for Farrands to write the sequel that he wants to write. Because he won't have to carry too much baggage. That was the single biggest problem with H6. People can dog it all day long, but look at what had been done up to that time. H2 introduced the notion of Laurie as Michael's sister and made Michael an unstoppable supernatural cyborg thing. H4 followed up by revealing that Michael is driven to kill all his living relatives. H5 introduced the Thorn tattoo and the Man In Black, with an ending left wide open for a sequel that didn't come for six years. Farrands was pretty much stuck...he had to follow up on what had been established, and I think he did about the only thing he could do, given the circumstances. It's not the film he wanted to write...it's what he had to write. The previous sequels left him no alternatives.

Now, that doesn't mean he necessarily had to write the Thorn storyline the way he did. But then, a lot of what we see in H6 (even in the P-Cut) wasn't Farrands, but Chappelle. There really is no "Farrands-approved" cut of the film. The P-Cut comes closest, but even that doesn't come close at all, really. Basically, it wins by default. But what Farrands was required to do was continue the established "Michael Myers kills his family members" plot, and follow up on both the rune tattoo and the Man In Black from H5. He had to do those things...it wasn't his choice. Basically, that made Thorn the albatross hanging around Farrands's neck. He had to use it somehow, and he did it the best way he could, I think. Unfortunately, they chose a director who was completely at odds with Farrand's sensibilities, and many dreadful changes were made before the cameras even started rolling, let alone in reshoots.

But anyway, get back to the original point (and getting back on-topic), I think Farrands could write a hell of a sequel to Zombie's Halloween, if they choose to make more films. That would even get me behind the notion of a sequel, despite my desire to see a stand-alone Halloween. Because what Farrands originally wanted to do, but couldn't, was follow up on the themes of H1. The reason he couldn't was because the subsequent sequels had already gotten away from a lot of that, and added a lot of baggage that he had to carry into his script. If he were to write a sequel now, however, he'd only have one film to follow, and I think that a lot of the ideas that he had initially for H6 would work extremely well as the second installment of a new series. More so than as the fifth installment in the old Myers continuity.

I totally agree .. If I knew Farrands was behind a sequel I would back it 100%. If the movie does well we can expect a sequel, hopefully Farrand's jumps all over that and writes a script.

Man In Black
06-20-2007, 04:48 AM
Where is said picture? Myers is being escorted somewhere? You can't escort a monster... wtf... I hope it is young Myers...


Here
http://robzombieshalloween.net/june18/7.jpg
Escorting him to a hearing at Smiths Grove prior to escape

freethy
06-20-2007, 06:11 AM
Here
http://robzombieshalloween.net/june18/7.jpg
Escorting him to a hearing at Smiths Grove prior to escape

He looks like Jesus.

samhain51
06-20-2007, 06:18 AM
Holy shit Id be intimidated if I was those guys!!!!!

samhain51
06-20-2007, 06:18 AM
I know one of those guys is a prick and hes gonna get it!

Khan
06-20-2007, 06:28 AM
Wow, he is massive!

Superman
06-20-2007, 06:38 AM
Yeah....good 'ol Sabertooth.

Phatboy41
06-20-2007, 06:42 AM
About the Scout interview: I couldn't even watch the entire thing because she kept giving away sooo much to the film... I only got through half of part 1 and felt like she was going to tell me the entire movie and all the good scenes if I kept watching so I stopped... I'm really sorry if anyone watched the entire interview and got spoilers they did not want. I didn't watch the interviews when I posted them and if I had of known they were like that I would have put up bold print that said SCOUT SPOILS THE MOVIE, BEWARE! I am very sorry.

Does anyone know when or if there will be any interviews of the test screening soon?

samhain51
06-20-2007, 06:53 AM
I was wondering what was up with that ! I didnt hear anything around here about her interview! I asked her two questions that didnt get a response but on the other hand didnt see anything on the interview on this web site maybe the didnt post it on here yet!As for her giving stuff away I think Rob will be a little bit up ste and some of the fans ! She probaly looked at it like we should know first because we are the die hards!

Dark Empire
06-20-2007, 07:15 AM
I didn't watch, nor will I.

Thurisaz
06-20-2007, 07:18 AM
I've read two small reviews from some people on another board that saw a screening in New York last night. One of them didn't like it and one of them did. They said it was a rough cut with a lot of temp music and the sound effects were not finished yet. Also there was no title sequence.

Here's the (really short) reviews.



Saw a preview screening tonight in NYC. I can't say it was good. Its starts out pretty well, for say the first half hour or so but then loses it momentum quickly, Its overly violent very quickly and many of the scenes just seem there to show you Mike Myers is a crazy killer. The violence gets really bothersome after awhile with scenes where theres just blood everywhere. Also in true B-movie fashion theres tons of nudity and sex, pretty much any young girl on screen will be seen fucking or fucked by the end(the funny thing is somehow they're all 25-30). But anyway the whole lead-up to Mike Myers finding Laurie is pretty much bullshit. And when finally he finds her theres no real chase or anything. He just sorts of grabs her and then brings her to his lair where just stays with her. When she does escape its quickly finished by her falling in empty pool and being cornered. Mike Myers is alo made into a supernatural monster of sorts being shot and stabbed multiple times to survive it all until the end. Finally with the amount of sex and violence currently in the film I'm unsure of how it will get an R.



I'll spoiler some of this just to be on the safe side.
I have to say that I actually enjoyed it. The beginning parts with the family atmosphere were definitely Rob Zombie (who was in the theater sitting a row behind me and 5 seats to the right :cool:) there was hillbilly lifestyle aplenty. William Forsythe as Myers' (step?)dad was a shining example of this and I think it could have been toned down a bit, but it helped show Michaels fucked up child life I guess. I went into the movie expecting to really be disappointed but I couldn't bring myself to be so. The only parts that I didn't like where the cheesy dialogue of the teenage girls and every once in a while when Michael would say "mommy", seemed like you were supposed to believe that he was actually a good kid that just went nuts sometimes but it felt forced, maybe it was supposed to sound that way I don't know. I enjoyed the music and sound effects all though the effects were mixed in way loud, you could pretty much feel every hit and stab. I didn't think it was too gratuitously violent or gory, I'm glad that there was really no holding back when it came to the violence and nudity, I mean that's how I remember horror movies being when I was younger and with the movie industry being so tame nowadays I thought it was refreshing. There were no cliche "boo" scenes even though Myers' did come out of nowhere a lot, they didn't really play on the suspense like so many movies do. When an attack happened the music/noises got really loud and real-life audible stuff got muted, gave it a surreal feeling. I know I'm kind of rambling but I'm not really writing a review here. If anyone has any specific questions I'll be more than happy to answer. One thing I didn't like besides the gratuitous hillbilly-ism of the beginning was that the pacing did feel a little rushed when you think back about it. Overall, I'm satisfied.

Superman
06-20-2007, 07:24 AM
Wow...two very different "reviews". I'm really worried about the blood/gore violence factor. To me that is not Halloween, but I guess we should expect it from Rob.....I mean his two other films were trash. I just hope this does not turn out to be his third mistake.

Dark Empire
06-20-2007, 07:41 AM
Wow...two very different "reviews". I'm really worried about the blood/gore violence factor. To me that is not Halloween, but I guess we should expect it from Rob.....I mean his two other films were trash. I just hope this does not turn out to be his third mistake.

So I guess after reading this ..
Mike Myers is alo made into a supernatural monster of sorts being shot and stabbed multiple times to survive it all until the end. Finally with the amount of sex and violence currently in the film I'm unsure of how it will get an R.

That he dies in the end?

Thurisaz
06-20-2007, 07:44 AM
The thing that worries me most in those reviews is the fact there is worry over whether this movie can get an R rating. Something we all felt may be a challenge but now it seems likely that things will have to be cut.

Khan
06-20-2007, 07:44 AM
Wow...two very different "reviews". I'm really worried about the blood/gore violence factor. To me that is not Halloween, but I guess we should expect it from Rob.....I mean his two other films were trash. I just hope this does not turn out to be his third mistake.

I knew it would be loaded with sex and gore.


The thing that worries me most in those reviews is the fact there is worry over whether this movie can get an R rating. Something we all felt may be a challenge but now it seems likely that things will have to be cut.

There's always the unrated DVD.

I bet the MPAA returns this with an NC-17, as it was submitted a few weeks ago.

Thurisaz
06-20-2007, 08:04 AM
I just got some questions answered by one of the reviewers above in regards to some things we've heard about the movie and from the script. Beware there are spoilers here.


Questions
1 Does Michael talk as an adult? He does in the script and it works really well, so I was wondering if it was cut out.

2 Does Michael masturbate to images of dead animals as kid? Another thing in the script that caused some controversy.

3 Is the sequence in the beginning of Michael killing a classmate in the movie?

4 Does Michael die at the end as he does in the scrip? In other words is he definitely dead or is it open ended?

5 Is the blood/gore over the top (ala Kill Bill) or is it realistic?

6 What is the ratio of Child Michael vs Adult Michael in the film?

7 Were adult Michael's motives in tracking down Laurie ambiguous or straightforward? In other words is it possible it's because he loves her and not because he wants to kill her?


Answers
1. As far as I recall Michael has no dialogue as an adult. I probably wouldn't have liked it so much if he did. Loomis mentions that he hasn't spoken in 15 years and that doesn't change once he escapes the institution.

2. No masturbation of any kind. Michael's mom is shown pictures from his locker or schoolbag of dead animals but it is never implied that he masturbates to them, just that he was the one who kills them.

3. Michael does kill a classmate outside of school on the way home. A bully who messes with him in the bathroom and taunts him about his mother. Michael stalks him as he walks home and attacks him with a thick treebranch.

4. It would seem that he is definitely dead. There is no cliff-hanger ending that would lead you to believe they'd make another movie, unless they were to explain what happened because there is no scene where his body is missing or anything. The last shot is the camera panning vertically away from Michael's body as it lays on the ground outside his house and fades to black.

5. The gore is realistic but plentiful. Michael's killings are more brutal in this version, but the amount of gore that accompanies it is appropriate.

6. I would say the ratio of child Michael to adult is around around 70-30 or 60-40. The movie itself I'm not too sure how long but it felt just about equal with only a bit more time devoted to young Michael.

7. That was one problem I had with the movie, it was a bit ambiguous. Loomis was asked by the sheriff why Michael was going back home and Loomis replied "I don't know" and the only indication we get is almost at the end when Michael finally has Laurie in his possession and shows her a picture of the two of them in their childhood (which Laurie) doesn't understand. That is when you get the idea that it's because he loves her, although he seemingly rips through the entirety of her friends for no real reason. Also after Laurie escapes and Michael continues his pursuit, it is to be believed that maybe now he wants to kill her.

Dark Empire
06-20-2007, 08:09 AM
Thanks Deadpool.

Superman
06-20-2007, 08:26 AM
Yeah thanks....that was an interesting bit of reading.

The Frightmaster
06-20-2007, 08:26 AM
Since there was one bad review and one good review it makes me really nervous on the success of this film. But I guess it could be worse, both of the reviews could of been bad.

zombie commando
06-20-2007, 08:42 AM
I never trust reviewers. They'll shit on a movie one year then praise it down the road when they "get it".

Lucifer
06-20-2007, 08:44 AM
Dont think they can really judge it that well from a rough cut can they?

Thurisaz
06-20-2007, 08:47 AM
Dont think they can really judge it that well from a rough cut can they?

I would think if Rob is showing this to people already that yeah, it'd be pretty easy to judge it off this cut. Obviously it's not gonna be the final pressing of the film but it's much easier to judge this than the script we had.

And just from the questions above it does seems that quite a bit has changed from that script as expected.

Monte
06-20-2007, 08:47 AM
Since there was one bad review and one good review it makes me really nervous on the success of this film. But I guess it could be worse, both of the reviews could of been bad.

And when the movie actually comes out places like this very forum will go absolutely batshit insane. I'm staying the hell away from the Internet come late August.

Khan
06-20-2007, 08:48 AM
Since there was one bad review and one good review it makes me really nervous on the success of this film. But I guess it could be worse, both of the reviews could of been bad.

Can't please everybody.

Thanks for the information Deadpool.


And when the movie actually comes out places like this very forum will go absolutely batshit insane. I'm staying the hell away from the Internet come late August.

I will be here to see it all happen!

Thurisaz
06-20-2007, 08:50 AM
Can't please everybody.

Thanks for the information Deadpool.

No problem. I just thought those questions in general would put to rest some of long running rumors that quite a few people had a problem with. I decided to not ask about the shit mask as I really don't want my dreams of that being dashed :)

sahin
06-20-2007, 08:54 AM
Thx!thx!thx!:d:d:d

shoe1985
06-20-2007, 08:57 AM
4. It would seem that he is definitely dead. There is no cliff-hanger ending that would lead you to believe they'd make another movie, unless they were to explain what happened because there is no scene where his body is missing or anything. The last shot is the camera panning vertically away from Michael's body as it lays on the ground outside his house and fades to black.
[/QUOTE]

I guess they decided to go with the other ending. I knew it was similar to the early draft with changes, but I liked the other one that I read better. Oh well, I am still excited to see this one.

samhain51
06-20-2007, 08:58 AM
hey thank you we all know the main story line now and I still in general want to be suprised by things!!!Im still very anxious to see it!Im sure that goes for everyone else!

Khan
06-20-2007, 09:03 AM
There is one unanswered question for me still, but I am willing to wait and see.

Is the rape scene still in?

The Frightmaster
06-20-2007, 09:06 AM
There is one unanswered question for me still, but I am willing to wait and see.

Is the rape scene still in?

Wow I didn't even know that was a scene who was suppose to be in the scene.

Monte
06-20-2007, 09:12 AM
Wow I didn't even know that was a scene who was suppose to be in the scene.

Two guards rape a female patient at Smith's Grove. Needless to say, Michael doesn't approve, which leads to the events resulting in his escape.