PDA

View Full Version : Rob Zombie's Halloween: Discussion 4



Pages : [1] 2

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-29-2009, 10:30 PM
From here: http://www.ohmb.net/showthread.php?t=12353


And just to get the ball rolling, I found this quote from a review online, and I think this paragraph really sums up a lot of people's complaints about RZH:



One of many reasons that Halloween worked is because the Shape represented an implacable, inexplicable, unstoppable force of evil. He existed to stalk and kill; there was no reason for it. Offering an explanation emasculates this image. He's no longer "the Shape," but "Michael Myers." The depiction of evil incarnate has been replaced by a slow-moving guy in a Captain Kirk mask with some serious family issues. And, instead of always hovering around the edge of the frame or just outside of it, he becomes the focus of shot after shot.



Funny thing is, this quote isn't from a review of RZH. It's from a review of the 1981 "classic," Halloween II.

How's that for irony?

brianandrews
07-29-2009, 10:33 PM
yeah well, I always felt that John should given me a call when he decided he needed to do a second Halloween. Basically for money reasons it seems. And you know what a sixpack of beer will do. I mean we could have sat around and shot the shit for a couple of weeks. come up with a really good storyline taking place three years later instead of the same night.

and for those in the know, don't even get me started on the whole etichinson script debacle. I mean damn.

The Source
07-29-2009, 10:34 PM
From here: http://www.ohmb.net/showthread.php?t=12353


And just to get the ball rolling, I found this quote from a review online, and I think this paragraph really sums up a lot of people's complaints about RZH:






Funny thing is, this quote isn't from a review of RZH. It's from a review of the 1981 "classic," Halloween II.

How's that for irony?

That is funny, but I love HII and loath RZ'sH.

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-29-2009, 10:41 PM
yeah well, I always felt that John should given me a call when he decided he needed to do a second Halloween. Basically for money reasons it seems. And you know what a sixpack of beer will do. I mean we could have sat around and shot the shit for a couple of weeks. come up with a really good storyline taking place three years later instead of the same night.

and for those in the know, don't even get me started on the whole etichinson script debacle. I mean damn.

I agree. Well, I don't know if he had to call you (:bastard:), but he certainly could've come up with something better than he did, in my opinion. But he did H1 because he wanted to make a great scary movie...he did H2 for the money. That, I think, was the biggest difference. He didn't really CARE about H2 like he did about H1. Not only did he not want to do H2, he didn't want ANYONE to do H2. He just did it because they were gonna do it with or without him, so he took the opportunity to kill Myers and Loomis, hoping that would be the end of it. And well, that didn't really stick, as we all know.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a "Let's bash H2" thread. haha I just thought that was an interesting irony, because when I read it, I thought, "This is what so many people say about RZH," and hardly any Halloween fans ever say it about H2. Even though it's true.

The Source
07-29-2009, 10:45 PM
I agree. Well, I don't know if he had to call you (:bastard:), but he certainly could've come up with something better than he did, in my opinion. But he did H1 because he wanted to make a great scary movie...he did H2 for the money. That, I think, was the biggest difference. He didn't really CARE about H2 like he did about H1. Not only did he not want to do H2, he didn't want ANYONE to do H2. He just did it because they were gonna do it with or without him, so he took the opportunity to kill Myers and Loomis, hoping that would be the end of it. And well, that didn't really stick, as we all know.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a "Let's bash H2" thread. haha I just thought that was an interesting irony, because when I read it, I thought, "This is what so many people say about RZH," and hardly any Halloween fans ever say it about H2. Even though it's true.

I don't want to start up our motive debate again, but there is a big difference between his killing family in HII and his family issues in RZ'sH.

brianandrews
07-29-2009, 11:24 PM
I agree. Well, I don't know if he had to call you (:bastard:), but he certainly could've come up with something better than he did, in my opinion. But he did H1 because he wanted to make a great scary movie...he did H2 for the money. That, I think, was the biggest difference. He didn't really CARE about H2 like he did about H1. Not only did he not want to do H2, he didn't want ANYONE to do H2. He just did it because they were gonna do it with or without him, so he took the opportunity to kill Myers and Loomis, hoping that would be the end of it. And well, that didn't really stick, as we all know.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a "Let's bash H2" thread. haha I just thought that was an interesting irony, because when I read it, I thought, "This is what so many people say about RZH," and hardly any Halloween fans ever say it about H2. Even though it's true.

it's basically true. When I first read that quote I thought that pretty much describes exactly how I felt about RZH. "Yes that's exactly right. He's taking the mystery out of Michael. Why the hell do we even need a back story" And then you had to go and ruin it by saying that it was a review of HalloweeN II. Fucker. And just to clarify, notice I use the word "felt" as opposed to how "I currently feel." My position is changed somewhat. But I do need to see the movie again as I do not own my own copy.

I think a little clarification needs to be stated about why HII was made. (Always remember now, the original film is abbreviated as JCH or I suppose H1 if you must. HI just doesn't look right. The remake is abbreviated as RZH. The sequel to the original is abbreviated as HII, using Roman numerals. Maybe there should be some sort of standard so we don't get confused. H2 means the 81' film or does it mean a sequel to the remake? Maybe RZH2 ? Nah. Anyway, Season of the Witch is abbreviated as HIII properly or H3 if you're lazy. At least until they come up with a sequel to the sequel of the remake. Correctly, Roman numeral's were used for the first two sequels of the original series (I can't believe I just used the term original series) it is only with Halloween 4 that we start getting into Arabic numerals)

Anyway back to the previous statement: I believe a little clarification needs to be stated about why HII was made. at least as i understand it. Yes. HII was made for the money but not necessarily because John wanted to make some cash off the franchise. John and Debra were not paid what they were contractually owed for the first film. In other words they got shafted. So HII was made so they can actually get what they were owed. And yeah it's also true that they were going to make it with or without John anyway. My understanding anyway.

Michael Voorhees
07-29-2009, 11:34 PM
I don't have a problem with Laurie being his babysitter or him having had family problems in RZH because it was something new & fresh, and I rather liked Michael being the center of attention in H2 & RZH.

nwiser
07-30-2009, 07:23 AM
Funny thing is, this quote isn't from a review of RZH. It's from a review of the 1981 "classic," Halloween II.

How's that for irony?

As I was reading the quote, I was actually thinking "they're talking about RZH??? They think the mask still looks like a Captain Kirk Mask? They think he's slow moving?" Then I saw you say it was about HII.


The remake is abbreviated as RZH. The sequel to the original is abbreviated as HII, using Roman numerals. Maybe there should be some sort of standard so we don't get confused. H2 means the 81' film or does it mean a sequel to the remake? Maybe RZH2 ? Nah. Anyway, Season of the Witch is abbreviated as HIII properly or H3 if you're lazy. At least until they come up with a sequel to the sequel of the remake. Correctly, Roman numeral's were used for the first two sequels of the original series (I can't believe I just used the term original series) it is only with Halloween 4 that we start getting into Arabic numerals)


See that's along the lines of what I said some time ago. It made sense to refer to the original HII with roman numerals and then when the sequel to the remake came out it was originally "H2" using arabic numerals. Now they've gone ahead and used roman numerals for it as well. It would have been nice to be able to easily make the distinction via the numbers in a discussion, HII vs H2, but whatever I guess.


I don't have a problem with Laurie being his babysitter

babysitter? baby sister?

Diamond Wings
07-30-2009, 07:35 AM
Well, I have no doubt that this has been discussed, but...

As of late, I have come to enjoy certain parts of RZH and have decided that it is time to own the movie. Question is, can you obtain a theatrical cut anywhere??

Masked Madman
07-30-2009, 10:30 AM
Well, I have no doubt that this has been discussed, but...

As of late, I have come to enjoy certain parts of RZH and have decided that it is time to own the movie. Question is, can you obtain a theatrical cut anywhere??

Directors cut is much better imo. Plus you get the 4 and a half hour making of documentary with the directors cut.

Diamond Wings
07-30-2009, 10:48 AM
I actually prefer the theatrical....so is it even possible?

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 11:08 AM
Amazon has it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000VKL6ZC

I know it says "Full Screen" on that page, and that's enough to scare anyone off...but Disc One is actually a flip-disc with the Full Screen on one side, and the Widescreen on the other.


And I'm with you. The movies where I prefer the T-Cut over the D-Cut, I could probably count on one hand...but RZH is one of them. The 4-hour doc on the 3-disc D-Cut release is great to have, but overall, the T-Cut is simply less flawed.

Diamond Wings
07-30-2009, 11:32 AM
Thanks....looks as though my collection will soon expand...

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 11:53 AM
Not a problem. :yeah:

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 12:19 PM
From here: http://www.ohmb.net/showthread.php?t=12353


And just to get the ball rolling, I found this quote from a review online, and I think this paragraph really sums up a lot of people's complaints about RZH:






Funny thing is, this quote isn't from a review of RZH. It's from a review of the 1981 "classic," Halloween II.

How's that for irony?

Kill one elephant and people might be able to forgive you. Kill every elephant in the world and you are the unforgivable guy who made elephants extinct. The original Halloween II took away some of the Shape's mystery, but the biggest mystery of all still remained - why he kills. We found out why Laurie's his target but that offers no insight whatsoever into why he's a mass murderer. That makes H2 forgivable.
RZH took away pretty much all of Michael's mystery. He's just a run-of-the-mill killer, nothing much separating him from real life murderers. Unforgivable in my book considering this character originated as an enigmatic force that's not even really human :nodsmile:

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 12:28 PM
Hair-splitter. :p

Some of us take a more hardline view. And those of us who do can trace everything that people bitch about, from Thorn in H6 to the demystificaion in RZH, right back to H2. That was absolutely the beginning of the end. All that crap that people hate...all of it springs from the completely unnecessary complications of the first completely unnecessary sequel.

People may love it, but H2 did a lot of stupid things...and they led to even MORE stupid things. You can only blame H6 and RZH so much if you let H2 completely off the hook. H2 gave Myers a clear motive...and everything that followed simply expanded on that. It opened Pandora's box of stupid family shit. :nodsmile:

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 12:33 PM
Hair-splitter. :p

Some of us take a more hardline view. And those of us who do can trace everything that people bitch about, from Thorn in H6 to the demystificaion in RZH, right back to H2. That was absolutely the beginning of the end. All that crap that people hate...all of it springs from the completely unnecessary complications of the first completely unnecessary sequel.

People may love it, but H2 did a lot of stupid things...and they led to even MORE stupid things. You can only blame H6 and RZH so much if you let H2 completely off the hook. H2 gave Myers a clear motive...and everything that followed simply expanded on that. It opened Pandora's box of stupid family shit. :nodsmile:

RZH's strong family angle can be traced back to H2 but a lot of the other demystifying stuff is solely a creation of Zombie's movie e.g. killing animals, having an abusive family, being bullied at school, gradually losing his ability to speak etc.

Thorn can't really be traced back to H2. The earliest that came in was H5.

Nibbz
07-30-2009, 12:38 PM
RZH's strong family angle can be traced back to H2 but a lot of the other demystifying stuff is solely a creation of Zombie's movie e.g. killing animals, having an abusive family, being bullied at school, gradually losing his ability to speak etc.

Thorn can't really be traced back to H2. The earliest that came in was H5.

the killing and eating animals go as far back as the original...

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 12:40 PM
H2 opened the door for Thorn...not only through introduction of the family angle, but the word Samhain on the blackboard, and Loomis's subsequent bullshit rant about Druid sacrifices to the Lord of the Dead. Come on, you can't even try to deny that one. haha

Pandaz
07-30-2009, 12:40 PM
RZH's strong family angle can be traced back to H2 but a lot of the other demystifying stuff is solely a creation of Zombie's movie e.g. killing animals, having an abusive family, being bullied at school, gradually losing his ability to speak etc.

Thorn can't really be traced back to H2. The earliest that came in was H5.
The inclusion of the symbol can't be attributed to Halloween II, but the explanation certainly can. It was explaining why Michael killed his relatives, which was an establishment made in Halloween II.

I don't particularly mind that Michael is a "stereotypical" killer in RZH because it's not connected to the original at all. It's a completely separate entity. It really doesn't taint anything. Halloween II, on the other hand, does, as it is connected to the original.

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 12:40 PM
the killing and eating animals go as far back as the original...

Sorry, I should have been clearer in that post - I meant killing animals before moving on to people. Throwing Michael in at the deep end by having him kill his sister first is more terrifying.

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 12:42 PM
Sorry, I should have been clearer in that post - I meant killing animals before moving on to people. Throwing Michael in at the deep end by having him kill his sister first is more terrifying.

So is Myers having no motive, but they put the smackdown on that in H2.

Nibbz
07-30-2009, 12:43 PM
Sorry, I should have been clearer in that post - I meant killing animals before moving on to people. Throwing Michael in at the deep end by having him kill his sister first is more terrifying.

yea I thought that was what you meant after posting it but I didn't feel like editing it lol

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 12:50 PM
the word Samhain on the blackboard, and Loomis's subsequent bullshit rant about Druid sacrifices to the Lord of the Dead. Come on, you can't even try to deny that one. haha

I'll have a stab at trying ;) Ah, well if you blame Samhain for Thorn, you should blame H1. Or at least the backstory of it. Samhain may not be mentioned in dialogue in the original but it was something JC and Debra Hill were apparently heavily influenced by. It was something they were conscious of when writing the movie. H2 simply took the next step by bringing it in onscreen.

So there ya go, H1 spawned Thorn :p


The inclusion of the symbol can't be attributed to Halloween II, but the explanation certainly can. It was explaining why Michael killed his relatives, which was an establishment made in Halloween II.


H2 opened the door for Thorn...not only through introduction of the family angle

I wouldn't blame the relatives thing for Thorn, just because it was such an elaborate way of explaining something simple. If it had been a more obvious connection e.g. Michael kills his family because he once had another older sister who tried to drown him at birth (just a random example off the top of my head), but saying Michael kills his family because a Druid cult cursed him with the Thorn symbol that becomes active during some freaky-ass constellations is so.....what's the word, divergent? I hope what I'm trying to say here makes sense.



I don't particularly mind that Michael is a "stereotypical" killer in RZH because it's not connected to the original at all. It's a completely separate entity. It really doesn't taint anything. Halloween II, on the other hand, does, as it is connected to the original.

Fair point.

Diamond Wings
07-30-2009, 12:57 PM
the killing and eating animals go as far back as the original...

He didn't eat the dog!

Nibbz
07-30-2009, 12:59 PM
He didn't eat the dog!

ok then Halloween II, didn't he eat an animal in that one?

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 12:59 PM
He didn't eat the dog!

"He got hungry" ;)

Nibbz
07-30-2009, 12:59 PM
"He got hungry" ;)

AH! I was right!

MM2DYLAN
07-30-2009, 01:00 PM
He didn't eat the dog!

Which one are we talking about? The 1978 original? There was the line "He got hungry".

Pandaz
07-30-2009, 01:02 PM
I wouldn't blame the relatives thing for Thorn, just because it was such an elaborate way of explaining something simple. If it had been a more obvious connection e.g. Michael kills his family because he once had another older sister who tried to drown him at birth (just a random example off the top of my head), but saying Michael kills his family because a Druid cult cursed him with the Thorn symbol that becomes active during some freaky-ass constellations is so.....what's the word, divergent? I hope what I'm trying to say here makes sense.
I think the elaboration was necessary, though not to the point of linking Michael's madness with astrology.

I mean, if we abide by your example...do you really think it's anymore plausible that Michael would take out his anger on his entire bloodline based on the unscrupulous acts of one relative? :D

TheThirdHalf
07-30-2009, 01:03 PM
He didn't eat the dog!

Um. Yep, he did ;)

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 01:05 PM
I'll have a stab at trying ;) Ah, well if you blame Samhain for Thorn, you should blame H1. Or at least the backstory of it. Samhain may not be mentioned in dialogue in the original but it was something JC and Debra Hill were apparently heavily influenced by. It was something they were conscious of when writing the movie. H2 simply took the next step by bringing it in onscreen.

So there ya go, H1 spawned Thorn :p

If it doesn't show up, it isn't there. :p

And I'm not just talking about "Samhain." Everything that Loomis says about the Druids in H2 is non-historical and completely made-up. In much the same way that everything Tommy says about the Druids and Thorn in H6 is non-historical and completely made-up. And those two visions are completely in line. It's obvious that H6 was expanding upon themes introduced in H2.

And my GOD, this has nothing to do with the topic! haha



I wouldn't blame the relatives thing for Thorn, just because it was such an elaborate way of explaining something simple. If it had been a more obvious connection e.g. Michael kills his family because he once had another older sister who tried to drown him at birth (just a random example off the top of my head), but saying Michael kills his family because a Druid cult cursed him with the Thorn symbol that becomes active during some freaky-ass constellations is so.....what's the word, divergent? I hope what I'm trying to say here makes sense.
And how would having a sister who tried to drown him at birth be so different from, say, what we got in RZH?

I get what you're saying about Thorn being overwrought...and it is...but it's an overwrought explanation that's consistent with Loomis's pseudo-historical Druid ramblings in H2, and what you present as an alternative is really not that different from Myers having a shitty upbringing in RZH.



He didn't eat the dog!

Of course he did. Well...half of it, anyway.

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 01:06 PM
I think the elaboration was necessary, though not to the point of linking Michael's madness with astrology.

I mean, if we abide by your example...do you really think it's anymore plausible that Michael would take out his anger on his entire bloodline based on the unscrupulous acts of one relative? :D

A bit more plausible than Thorn curses, yes ;)


If it doesn't show up, it isn't there. :p

Pfft, the intention was there :p


And I'm not just talking about "Samhain." Everything that Loomis says about the Druids in H2 is non-historical and completely made-up. In much the same way that everything Tommy says about the Druids and Thorn in H6 is non-historical and completely made-up. And those two visions are completely in line. It's obvious that H6 was expanding upon themes introduced in H2.

Oh, it's made up? :o I don't know anything about Druids and Samhain, I assumed Loomis' rambling was all true. In that case, you're right (:grouchy:) but I'll still point out Samhain was thought of as far back as H1 :p





And how would having a sister who tried to drown him at birth be so different from, say, what we got in RZH?

Oh, it would be just as bad. I wasn't using the drowning example as something I wanted to see, just something that could more plausibly be blamed on H2.



And my GOD, this has nothing to do with the topic! haha

Haha, sorry, didn't mean to drag it so :offtopic: On topic, RZH = not good :nodsmile:

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 01:10 PM
A bit more plausible than Thorn curses, yes ;)

Again, the explanation presented in RZH is entirely plausible. That doesn't stop a percentage of the fanbase (seemingly including yourself) from loathing it. haha

Zombie
07-30-2009, 01:15 PM
Again, the explanation presented in RZH is entirely plausible. That doesn't stop a percentage of the fanbase (seemingly including yourself) from loathing it. haha

It's entirely plausible.

Doesn't make it a good explanation, however.

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 01:16 PM
It's entirely plausible.

Doesn't make it a good explanation, however.

Which is my point to Devil's Eyes.

That and the fact that "good" is entirely subjective.

Zombie
07-30-2009, 01:18 PM
Which is my point to Devil's Eyes.

That and the fact that "good" is entirely subjective.

Obviously.

We'll never universally agree on the explanation given in RZ's Halloween. Some liked it. Some were indifferent and, as you mentioned, some loathed it.

The Kilted One
07-30-2009, 01:19 PM
And I'm with you. The movies where I prefer the T-Cut over the D-Cut, I could probably count on one hand...but RZH is one of them. The 4-hour doc on the 3-disc D-Cut release is great to have, but overall, the T-Cut is simply less flawed.

Right you are.

At least some things stay the same around here. :p

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 01:20 PM
Obviously.

We'll never universally agree on the explanation given in RZ's Halloween. Some liked it. Some were indifferent and, as you mentioned, some loathed it.

Which is what keeps this place from being a boring sea of nodding heads.

Zombie
07-30-2009, 01:22 PM
Which is what keeps this place from being a boring sea of nodding heads.

Sometimes groupthink can be awesome...

Just as long as you all agree with me.

Nibbz
07-30-2009, 01:25 PM
i like RZH :D

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 01:40 PM
i like RZH :D

I wish I could like RZH. Someone once accused me of wanting to dislike anything Rob Zombie makes. Not true, I tried to like his remake and just couldn't.

Can some RZH fans tell me what good things to look out for in the movie? Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

EvilOnTwoLegs
07-30-2009, 01:41 PM
Oh, it's made up? :o I don't know anything about Druids and Samhain, I assumed Loomis' rambling was all true. In that case, you're right (:grouchy:) but I'll still point out Samhain was thought of as far back as H1 :p

Yeah, the Druids didn't actually burn people alive in baskets or anything like that. They foretold the future by tossing apple peels into the air and seeing how they landed...things like that. Not quite as sinister and theatrical as burning people alive, so I can understand the liberties taken. haha Still, it's completely fictional, and very much in line with all of the things Tommy attributes to the Druids...particularly with the supposed "curse of Thorn" involving so much human sacrifice.

The Druids get a REALLY bum rap in several of these movies. haha Starting with H2.

At least Zombie left the poor Druids alone, so I give him credit for that. haha



Can some RZH fans tell me what good things to look out for in the movie? Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

Well, I'm not a RZH fan in the same sense that I'm a fan of H1, that's for sure. haha But as I see it, there's H1, and then there's the Halloween franchise, and they're basically apples and oranges. In order to accept the franchise, you have to accept that it taints the original, and not care. I can still view H1 as a standalone, and prefer to do so. But I can also enjoy some of the franchise, by accepting the alternate view of H1's events that is presented by the sequels. In comparison to the original intent of H1, I pretty much HATE the nonsense foisted upon it by the sequels...but I try to get past that in order to accept the franchise films. And I can do it to a reasonable degree.

So first off, I view RZH as a franchise film. Which means I automatically refuse to compare it to the original, or expect it to live up to that gold standard of quality. And while it has its share of problems, there are things of merit in it.

For example, while the editing and pacing are a MESS, I think the cinematography is great. Better than pretty much any of the sequels. Same goes for the mask and the score. Wayne Toth and Tyler Bates did great jobs, respectively. Also, Tyler Mane as Michael Myers. He brought back a lot of the elements that were present in H1, and never really used again in the sequels...Myers lunging at his prey, not always moving at a snail's pace, breathing heavily and acting genuinely enthusiastic about killing (as opposed to the stoic, almost robotic attitude of the sequels). So I really enjoyed his performance and what he brought to the table.

Like I said, there are plenty of things in the movie that I could do without (I even think Zombie made a mistake by going the sister route when he didn't have to, though I'm interested in seeing how he uses it in his H2)...but overall, I have problems with every sequel, as well, so I'm used to that. I just try to find the positive. And I happen to think that RZH has a few things going for it. CERTAINLY, much more than H:R did. haha Which makes RZH a step up, in my estimation.

brianandrews
07-30-2009, 01:52 PM
I never liked Druids. Whenever I played Dungeons & Dragons I always wanted to be either an Elf or a Paladin. I always thought the Druids were useless characters. I mean they couldn't even go above +3 strength or magic. How retarded is that? sure their healing power could be pretty high but an elf or wizard could easily take that responsibility.

Devil's Eyes
07-30-2009, 02:08 PM
Well, I'm not a RZH fan in the same sense that I'm a fan of H1, that's for sure. haha But as I see it, there's H1, and then there's the Halloween franchise, and they're basically apples and oranges. In order to accept the franchise, you have to accept that it taints the original, and not care. I can still view H1 as a standalone, and prefer to do so. But I can also enjoy some of the franchise, by accepting the alternate view of H1's events that is presented by the sequels. In comparison to the original intent of H1, I pretty much HATE the nonsense foisted upon it by the sequels...but I try to get past that in order to accept the franchise films. And I can do it to a reasonable degree.

So first off, I view RZH as a franchise film. Which means I automatically refuse to compare it to the original, or expect it to live up to that gold standard of quality. And while it has its share of problems, there are things of merit in it.

For example, while the editing and pacing are a MESS, I think the cinematography is great. Better than pretty much any of the sequels. Same goes for the mask and the score. Wayne Toth and Tyler Bates did great jobs, respectively. Also, Tyler Mane as Michael Myers. He brought back a lot of the elements that were present in H1, and never really used again in the sequels...Myers lunging at his prey, not always moving at a snail's pace, breathing heavily and acting genuinely enthusiastic about killing (as opposed to the stoic, almost robotic attitude of the sequels). So I really enjoyed his performance and what he brought to the table.

Like I said, there are plenty of things in the movie that I could do without (I even think Zombie made a mistake by going the sister route when he didn't have to, though I'm interested in seeing how he uses it in his H2)...but overall, I have problems with every sequel, as well, so I'm used to that. I just try to find the positive. And I happen to think that RZH has a few things going for it.

I've always thought the other entries after H1 should be viewed separately in a way, but I find it's easier said than done. I'm often bothered by how later sequels as well as RZH screwed things up. Separating them into H1 and the franchise is a good idea though.
I'll give the cinematography, score, and Mane's performance more thought next time I watch RZH :nodsmile: Oh, and I already agree the mask looks good, probably my fave after the original.


CERTAINLY, much more than H:R did. haha Which makes RZH a step up, in my estimation.

Should I give a Resurrection Is Good rebuttal here? Hmmm, Busta's "chicken fried" line is on my mind at the moment so I'll give it a miss just this once.

Michael Voorhees
08-04-2009, 08:16 PM
RZH is far better than HR could ever be. The beginning of HR is good but that's it. After that it goes straight to shitville. I love Busta Rhymes, but he doesn't belong in a Halloween movie.

Zombie
08-04-2009, 08:19 PM
RZH is far better than HR could ever be. The beginning of HR is good but that's it. After that it goes straight to shitville. I love Busta Rhymes, but he doesn't belong in a Halloween movie.

I'd say they're about equal in terms of shitness.

nwiser
08-05-2009, 08:56 AM
As I see it, they're about the same. Take from that what you will.

Michael Voorhees
08-05-2009, 04:08 PM
Say what you will but I'll never buy into the RZH is a shitty movie bullshit.

Zombie
08-05-2009, 04:11 PM
Say what you will but I'll never buy into the RZH is a shitty movie bullshit.

That's fine.

I won't buy otherwise. ;)

lopli
08-10-2009, 01:39 PM
RZH is a great movie, but extremley overrated. It's one of my favorites, but I hate how people regard as ''the best halloween ever'', just because you get to see Danielle Harris naked.

Nibbz
08-10-2009, 01:45 PM
RZH is a great movie, but extremley overrated. It's one of my favorites, but I hate how people regard as ''the best halloween ever'', just because you get to see Danielle Harris naked.

um what people do you talk to? I haven't seen one person on this board say "its the best halloween ever" or ANYONE say it's awesome cause Danielle is naked. That scene is horrifyingly real and scary. It's certainly not overrated, people trash it all the time. if anything it'd underrated because it's a remake of a better movie.

All in all it's my favorite to watch, but it's not the best one, that honor belongs to the original.

lopli
08-10-2009, 02:43 PM
People I know in real life and on other message boards, and youtube. It doesn't necessarily mean here.

Michael Voorhees
08-10-2009, 07:40 PM
That still doesn't make it overrated, it just means that a bunch of people you know love the movie. And anyone who says a movie is great specifically because one girl is naked is an idiot.

Zombie
08-10-2009, 08:05 PM
I don't think RZ's Halloween is overrated. It got pretty shitastic reviews from the MS press and outside of the fanboys, it's pretty much been panned.

heavymetal
08-10-2009, 08:54 PM
It was okay at best. The white trash angle really sucked and I DID NOT like Daeg. Sorry. Other things were good, some not so much. That's all you can really say about it.

Diamond Wings
08-11-2009, 05:07 AM
I appreciate it more after watching it with the commentary on. I love how Rob talked about changing the camera styles, the coloring, etc. Still not "great" but I enjoy a watch of it.

Khan
08-11-2009, 05:28 AM
When I first saw it, I hated it with a passion, but I have stepped back from that viewpoint.

I still don't like it by any means, but I would take it over H5, H6 and HR.

The pacing is still the biggest flaw of the movie for me, as I didn't want to see the original crammed into 45 minutes, creating RZ's much lamented faceless characters.

Diamond Wings
08-11-2009, 06:04 AM
When I first saw it, I hated it with a passion, but I have stepped back from that viewpoint.

I still don't like it by any means, but I would take it over H5, H6 and HR.

The pacing is still the biggest flaw of the movie for me, as I didn't want to see the original crammed into 45 minutes, creating RZ's much lamented faceless characters.

Much agreed.

Michael Voorhees
08-11-2009, 11:42 AM
I thought the pacing was great and his intention wasn't to make it too much like the original, but still keep elements from the original. In a way, he kind of took the original and put it from Michael's point of view this time, rather than Laurie's as it was in the original. Sure, there are a lot of changes, but it does seem that way.

Thorni52
08-11-2009, 11:57 AM
When I first saw it I hated it but since then I've tried to find good things in it but still fail doing so. H2 looks like a hell of an improvement though.

Diamond Wings
08-11-2009, 12:04 PM
Does anybody have pics of any RZH filming locations?

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-11-2009, 11:37 PM
When I first saw it, I hated it with a passion, but I have stepped back from that viewpoint.

I still don't like it by any means, but I would take it over H5, H6 and HR.

The pacing is still the biggest flaw of the movie for me, as I didn't want to see the original crammed into 45 minutes, creating RZ's much lamented faceless characters.

Well, let's be brutally honest, shall we? The original had faceless characters, as well. Despite the fact that he crammed the whole of H1's plot into about 50 minutes, Zombie managed to give Laurie Strode a home life, with two parents, both of whom were actual characters. Compare to the single wide shot of Laurie's dad in H1.

We can't very well complain about the one, while accepting the other, simply because of the original's "classic" status.

Zombie
08-11-2009, 11:42 PM
Except I doubt Darth is talking about character history.

Sure, it provided a cute backstory and gave us an idea of what type of relationship she had with her adoptive parents. But beyond that, Laurie was very much a faceless character. So was Annie and Lynda. They weren't developed in the context of the film like the original to a degree because there was no time spent focusing on their build up to Halloween night.

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-11-2009, 11:51 PM
Are we now pretending that Annie and Lynda were actually developed in H1?

Come now.

brianandrews
08-11-2009, 11:52 PM
Well, let's be brutally honest, shall we? The original had faceless characters, as well. Despite the fact that he crammed the whole of H1's plot into about 50 minutes, Zombie managed to give Laurie Strode a home life, with two parents, both of whom were actual characters. Compare to the single wide shot of Laurie's dad in H1.

We can't very well complain about the one, while accepting the other, simply because of the original's "classic" status.


and to think that I was actually going to bed. I'm not sure what you mean by faceless exactly. Now the way that I look at it when I considered the first one, I see fully fleshed out and realized characters. Maybe they're one-dimensional. Maybe they don't necessarily have a lot of depth (who says they need to) but I really don't consider that one-dimensional at all. I have heard you make this argument before regarding the writing of the film. In one of the previous threads about the upcoming movie. You said something about the dialogue being corny. So I suppose you could say the writing in the first film wasn't necessarily anything special, Now I know you read the original screenplay. That's screenplay is mainly a screenplay for cinematography. There really isn't a lot of dialogue and as compared to the direction of what the camera is going to do. The entire first seven minutes of it there is maybe a minute and a half of dialogue. And I'm really wandering off point here.

I don't believe that the original characters were faceless. I believe the actors and the actresses gave the characters a unique life. They took imaginary characters and put them in imaginary circumstance and made them alive.
So the question becomes, are these characters believable. And you have to look at it, this is my opinion, you have to look it as a whole. Not just the dialogue which may consider corny, but the actors delivering the dialogue. In other words nobody can say totally like P.J. Soles. Nobody. A character does not need to have a lot of depth to be believable. It just needs to be believable. that is enough for this part of the lesson.

Zombie
08-11-2009, 11:53 PM
Are we now pretending that Annie and Lynda were actually developed in H1?

Come now.

Not pretending anything. But compared to what was done in the remake? Sure.

They were secondary characters. They didn't need to be developed to the extent we saw with Laurie.

Unfortunately, I felt in RZ's they were all on the same level and it kind of undercuts the whole rally around the hereon foundation of the original.

When Annie and Lynda bit the dust, we didn't care. We didn't care because they weren't characters we were told to care about.

Yet I can't help but think in RZ's Halloween, I had the same thought process when Myers went after Laurie. I didn't care if she died. It just didn't seem to matter. None of the characters, outside of Myers' mom, had any lasting impact on me.

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-11-2009, 11:54 PM
and to think that I was actually going to bed. I'm not sure what you mean by faceless exactly. Now the way that I look at it when I considered the first one, I see fully fleshed out and realized characters. Maybe they're one-dimensional. Maybe they don't necessarily have a lot of depth (who says they need to) but I really don't consider that one-dimensional at all. I have heard you make this argument before regarding the writing of the film. In one of the previous threads about the upcoming movie. You said something about the dialogue being corny. So I suppose you could say the writing in the first film wasn't necessarily anything special, Now I know you read the original screenplay. That's screenplay is mainly a screenplay for cinematography. There really isn't a lot of dialogue and as compared to the direction of what the camera is going to do. The entire first seven minutes of it there is maybe a minute and a half of dialogue. And I'm really wandering off point here.

I don't believe that the original characters were faceless. I believe the actors and the actresses gave the characters a unique life. They took imaginary characters and put them in imaginary circumstance and made them alive.
So the question becomes, are these characters believable. And you have to look at it, this is my opinion, you have to look it as a whole. Not just the dialogue which may consider corny, but the actors delivering the dialogue. In other words nobody can say totally like P.J. Soles. Nobody. A character does not need to have a lot of depth to be believable. It just needs to be believable. that is enough for this part of the lesson.

You were ONE of those characters, Brian. Forgive me if I don't consider you a remotely objective party. :p

brianandrews
08-11-2009, 11:55 PM
Are we now pretending that Annie and Lynda were actually developed in H1?

Come now. Did they need to be?

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-11-2009, 11:57 PM
Did they need to be?

Not at all. Which is why I don't sit around and bitch about it. But apparently, they had to be developed in RZH, and the fact that they weren't is worth bitching about? haha

God, I love double-standards. Hours and hours of chuckles to be had.

brianandrews
08-11-2009, 11:58 PM
You were ONE of those characters, Brian. Forgive me if I don't consider you a remotely objective party. :p

what. Are you afraid to debate with me on this subject? just consider me a partisan of the original film. What am I gonna do? Bite your head off? refuse to ever post on the board again? Am I supposed to be objective on this subject? I'm not a Supreme Court justice you know. I am allowed to have an opinion you know.

Don't make me sic Tom Cruise on you.

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-11-2009, 11:59 PM
Everyone watch out...Brian's drunk again.

Zombie
08-11-2009, 11:59 PM
Not at all. Which is why I don't sit around and bitch about it. But apparently, they had to be developed in RZH, and the fact that they weren't is worth bitching about? haha

God, I love double-standards. Hours and hours of chuckles to be had.

No double-standard coming from me.

They just needed to be developed enough to where their deaths create some semblance of emotion.

When Lynda died in the remake, I had no emotion.

When Laurie was being stalked by Myers at the end, I once again felt zero emotion for her.

EvilOnTwoLegs
08-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Isn't that because you're a heartless bastard, though?

Or have you just been pretending all this time?

Zombie
08-12-2009, 12:04 AM
Isn't that because you're a heartless bastard, though?

Or have you just been pretending all this time?

I did kind of feel emotion when Michael didn't totally bang Annie after pulling Paul off of her.

It was the perfect moment and Michael couldn't close the fucking deal.

Yeah, that got me.

brianandrews
08-12-2009, 12:07 AM
Not at all. Which is why I don't sit around and bitch about it. But apparently, they had to be developed in RZH, and the fact that they weren't is worth bitching about? haha

God, I love double-standards. Hours and hours of chuckles to be had.

I think probably because Rob's movie was more character driven and dialogue driven. John himself states Halloween is basically a stylistic exercise.

I do not think necessarily that a character needs to be well developed to be believable. Now I have only seen RZH once. And when I can afford a TV and a DVD player I am certain I will see it again. Now you could say that the characters of Annie and Judith were one-dimensional, and not likable and not really well-developed, and I do not mean when their tops were off. But I could certainly say they were believable. Especially Hanna. Having met her once I know she's absolutely nothing like that skank that was on the screen. In this case, in my opinion, and I'll say it again, it is not really the depth or the layers of the character that is most important, but the believability. I've had a chance recently to watch William Forsythe's part again. At the most maybe a two dimensional character. A thoroughly dislikable human being. But I could definitely believe that a character like that could exist. And there was more depth to his performance when compared to some of the others.

brianandrews
08-12-2009, 12:12 AM
Everyone watch out...Brian's drunk again.

It is this god damn speech to text program that I use. It is pretty damn accurate but not always. And I don't always check to make sure that my speech is properly transcribed. I have just reedited that previous post, the one that came out all screwed up and it now looks the way that I wanted it to.

and I'm not drunk. who'd you think I am? Scoob?

brianandrews
08-12-2009, 12:12 AM
if I was scoob then I would be ring up post after post

brianandrews
08-12-2009, 12:13 AM
and not really care what anyone thinks

Zombie
08-12-2009, 12:14 AM
I want to use a speech to text program.

My fingers, fuck them.

brianandrews
08-12-2009, 12:20 AM
No double-standard coming from me.

They just needed to be developed enough to where their deaths create some semblance of emotion.

When Lynda died in the remake, I had no emotion.

When Laurie was being stalked by Myers at the end, I once again felt zero emotion for her.

he has a point here. Re: feeling for the characters. I want to actually feel for the characters on the screen. So in a certain sense they have to be sympathetic characters. If they are thoroughly reprehensible who really wants to see that. I did see a movie called Hurlyburly once.and every character in that movie was a disgusting human being with absolutely no redeeming value at all. It was a Hollywood insider story so obviously it was true to life. But these reprehensible characters were played by Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, Meg Ryan, Chazz Palmenteri and Garry Shandling. So at least in that case it worked.

But if you don't feel for the characters, then maybe all you have is blood and gore and viciousness and ugliness. So who wants to see that? the same kind of people that would show up to the public executions in revolutionary France. The same kind of people that enjoy getting their emotions raised to a fever pitch just to watch somebodies head chopped off. The type of people that like going to dog fights. Not really a lot of art there.

Michael Voorhees
08-12-2009, 02:45 AM
I will agree we should've been able to feel more for the characters, but I do think Laurie was relatable and a character you could care for. Annie's sequence did make you care for her, or fear for her. At least for me. Lynda....well, she was the character you wanted to die.

nwiser
08-12-2009, 10:56 AM
My fingers, fuck them.

it was skull fucking, not finger fucking. my guess is the latter will make an appearance in H2 now that Paul's dead and Annie's a shut in. :bigeyes:

Nibbz
08-12-2009, 01:17 PM
I will agree we should've been able to feel more for the characters, but I do think Laurie was relatable and a character you could care for. Annie's sequence did make you care for her, or fear for her. At least for me. Lynda....well, she was the character you wanted to die.

that is probably my exact thoughts on the matter. I cared for Laurie's character alot. Scout played her fantastically. Danielle Harris made Annie likable where as in the original I really fucking hated Annie. And as for Lynda... well she did her role. In the original I didn't care for her and she was there basically just to die. But at least in this one you see some character development with Laurie and Lynda on the phone and they have like a friendship bonding moment that was pretty nice. But yea as the 3 girls go in the original and remake

Original: Laurie-cared for her
Annie- didn't like her that much, thought she was annoying.
Lynda- she really wasn't in the movie that much, so I didn't really care when she died

Remake: Laurie- cared for her more than I did in the original
Annie- cared for her more than I did in the original, liked her, was horrified by the beating she received from Michael.
Lynda: Pretty much the same as the original, I didn't care.

Zombie_Myers
08-12-2009, 03:09 PM
The uncut version had better character development IMO and the other extended/edited scenes played out a lot smoother, it didn't feel rushed like the theatrical did, the theatrical was good though but I think if the uncut version was the theatrical, reviews may have been more positive and there might've been less complaints from some saying the film just revolves around blood and gore. I didn't really understand why some were so critical about the violence, it wasn't that bad sure when comparing the violence in this to the violence in the original yes it's extremley brutal particularly as the original revolves around suspense not violence but by todays standards it was actually standard violence to expect in a horror film it wasn't over the top like Halloween 6 was and it isn't as gory as other films which come out in the horror genre these days.

darkstanley
08-16-2009, 08:52 PM
great point. i think though it was logical to have more of a focus on myers in halloween 2. by the end of halloween 1 we had gotten familiar enough with the character that hiding him in the shadows again for pt. 2 might have seemed redundant. not saying i wouldnt have done things differently, but just saying.and i LIKED showing more of myers in RZ H1. after 30 years of slasher movies there is just not going to be that many surprises with the character. i hated the fact that RZ explained everything, and continues to overexplain everything, but in todays cinema we show the monster. lurking in the shadows has been done, now audiences need a more clever approach to be scared. not retarded in your face shit like saw, but suspense and a level of brutality not possible with 1978 ratings board.





Kill one elephant and people might be able to forgive you. Kill every elephant in the world and you are the unforgivable guy who made elephants extinct. The original Halloween II took away some of the Shape's mystery, but the biggest mystery of all still remained - why he kills. We found out why Laurie's his target but that offers no insight whatsoever into why he's a mass murderer. That makes H2 forgivable.
RZH took away pretty much all of Michael's mystery. He's just a run-of-the-mill killer, nothing much separating him from real life murderers. Unforgivable in my book considering this character originated as an enigmatic force that's not even really human :nodsmile:

Michael Voorhees
08-19-2009, 08:07 PM
that is probably my exact thoughts on the matter. I cared for Laurie's character alot. Scout played her fantastically. Danielle Harris made Annie likable where as in the original I really fucking hated Annie. And as for Lynda... well she did her role. In the original I didn't care for her and she was there basically just to die. But at least in this one you see some character development with Laurie and Lynda on the phone and they have like a friendship bonding moment that was pretty nice. But yea as the 3 girls go in the original and remake

Original: Laurie-cared for her
Annie- didn't like her that much, thought she was annoying.
Lynda- she really wasn't in the movie that much, so I didn't really care when she died

Remake: Laurie- cared for her more than I did in the original
Annie- cared for her more than I did in the original, liked her, was horrified by the beating she received from Michael.
Lynda: Pretty much the same as the original, I didn't care.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, especially the Annie bit. God, she was so damn annoying, and you're happy to see her die, but with the remake Annie, you're terrified for her. Plus, Annie in the remake actually seemed like a real friend to Laurie, whereas the original seemed like a total stuck up biatch.

Diamond Wings
08-20-2009, 05:17 AM
My opinion- Annie didn't seem like a terrific friend in RZH, in all honesty. Her relationship with Laurie didn't seem all that different from JCH.

Michael Voorhees
08-20-2009, 06:46 AM
I'm not saying she was the best friend in the world, but to me they seemed to be more like actual friends than in JCH.

Diamond Wings
09-11-2009, 07:06 AM
Where in the film was the Bachman-Turner Overdrive tune used?

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 07:24 AM
I'm not saying she was the best friend in the world, but to me they seemed to be more like actual friends than in JCH.

??

Do you even like the original? Seems to me, in comparison, and in every way, you prefer RZH. Just a question, because any time I see you compare the two, you choose the remake.

Nibbz
09-11-2009, 07:34 AM
??

Do you even like the original? Seems to me, in comparison, and in every way, you prefer RZH. Just a question, because any time I see you compare the two, you choose the remake.

just because he prefers the remake doesn't mean he doesn't like the original. I prefer the remake but still love the original

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 07:37 AM
Haha...I know your story. I just want to hear his side as he's always choosing the new flavour :p

nwiser
09-11-2009, 08:30 AM
Haha...I know your story. I just want to hear his side as he's always choosing the new flavour :p

it's a defensive stance. like a mother bear guarding her cubs.

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 08:37 AM
Haha...yeah, I see that shit all the time on Discovery :D

Black Sunshine
09-11-2009, 08:44 AM
this movie only had 4 discussion threads.... and H2 is up to 22 threads... geez!

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 08:47 AM
O yeah, we're gonna get this baby pumpin' yet though haha. Only 900 posts left til thread 5!

Black Sunshine
09-11-2009, 08:48 AM
im sure it can be done.... but H2 has blown this away!!

Diamond Wings
09-11-2009, 08:49 AM
Where in the film was the Bachman-Turner Overdrive tune used? Just repeating...any help on this or know who I could send a message to? Curiosity's got me.

Roswell
09-11-2009, 08:50 AM
I believe it was used at the truck stop that Joe Grizzly stops at.

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 08:50 AM
No kidding...I can't believe this place didn't explode into a thousand threads over the reboot, but instead it's sequel. Doesn't really make sense.

SLAB
09-11-2009, 08:53 AM
I believe it was used at the truck stop that Joe Grizzly stops at.

I only recall Rush's Tom Sawyer being played at that point.

Diamond Wings
09-11-2009, 08:54 AM
I only recall Rush's Tom Sawyer being played at that point.

Ditto.

MischievousSpirit
09-11-2009, 08:58 AM
No kidding...I can't believe this place didn't explode into a thousand threads over the reboot, but instead it's sequel. Doesn't really make sense.

There were at least 10 general discussion threads for this movie. If you go back to the oldest threads in this forum, you can see that. However, a lot of threads were also lost in the great board crash of August 2008. I guess They just decided to start over again at 1 after the crash.

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 08:59 AM
^^^

Ahhh...okay, that makes sense. I got lost in the crash too haha

Black Sunshine
09-11-2009, 09:02 AM
Crash's boy do they always come into play in the Halloween Series!!!

TheThirdHalf
09-11-2009, 09:03 AM
Cow!!

Black Sunshine
09-11-2009, 09:06 AM
and some other things....

as for that song, i dont remember it being played....

EvilOnTwoLegs
09-11-2009, 11:13 AM
There were at least 10 general discussion threads for this movie. If you go back to the oldest threads in this forum, you can see that. However, a lot of threads were also lost in the great board crash of August 2008. I guess They just decided to start over again at 1 after the crash.

I think we were on General Discussion Thread 15 when RZH came out.

There was certainly more discussion for H2, but that's to be expected, when you consider how many members the board has gained in the past two years.

Michael Voorhees
09-11-2009, 07:12 PM
Yep, and the number of general discussions thread is only subject to increase by the third film, or be around the same as H2.

Btw, I'm watching RZH right now. I'm at the end with Laurie in the house trying to get Lynda to "wake up" despite the huge red hand print on her neck. :bastard:

Nibbz
09-12-2009, 04:59 AM
Yep, and the number of general discussions thread is only subject to increase by the third film, or be around the same as H2.

Btw, I'm watching RZH right now. I'm at the end with Laurie in the house trying to get Lynda to "wake up" despite the huge red hand print on her neck. :bastard:

you know I thought of Lynda's death when in RZH2

her dad was telling Loomis that "loomis' monster" butchered his baby girl (Lynda). Michael didn't butcher her. He just strangled her.

Scarface
10-18-2009, 06:32 PM
Oh don't get so upset....Im not dismissing IGN soley on that ive seen other shit on movies they reviewed and also I saw that they did a history on Halloween article and that was flawed as all fuck. So an idiotic statement on top of a idiotic article means that they don't know shit about the Halloween franchise. Its not an opinion to say "RZ's remake of Halloween is universally hated by the fans" thats stating something as a fact. Accept what? your opinion on who hates and likes the film, I didn't know your opinion was a fact.

No. It's still their opinion. There are countless numbers of scathing reviews for the film. More so than there are reviews praising the movie. It's how that particular writer of the article sees the general reaction to the film. Just like you saying they are wrong in saying that RZ's remake of Halloween is universally hated by the fans (which I can agree with) is just an opinion, and not fact.



Wrong, he wanted to originally do a prequel leading up and ending with Michael's escape. The studio pressured (forced) him to add the remake stuff. Ok so the fanbase pressured him to add shit in and didn't like it when he did add it in? Hypocritical no?

No. That was his excuse. That he felt pressured by the fan base to include material from the original. I'm not the one that said it. Also, here is what Zombie said, in regards to him pushing for the remake:


"Nothing made me want to do it; it never even crossed my mind. [This] was something that came to me. I think sometimes people think that I searched [this] out. I had a meeting with Bob Weinstein and he brought up that they own the Halloween franchise and they wanted to do another movie but they didn’t know what they wanted to do. They had seven or eight scripts [for] a “Part “9 that they weren't happy with.

I really didn't know if I wanted to get involved because I thought the series had run its course. It was kind of tired to me and I wouldn’t do a [sequel]; that would be crazy. But then I went away and thought about it for a long time and I thought that, well, what seems exciting is starting over, bringing a new life to the whole thing rather than continuing on [and] I came up with a way to do it and that was exciting."

They were still planning on doing Halloween 9 when Zombie came aboard.




I never said more people liked it than hated it. I was just pointing out that IGN's claim that pretty much every Halloween fan hated it was asinine. And from where I view it its pretty evenly split. Good for you that you hated it, that doesn't mean more fans hated it then liked it.

Just it doesn't mean it's evenly split. Again, the number of negative reviews out there for the film outweigh the number of positive reviews. Let's look at Rotten Tomatoes, for example. The film has a 26% rating based on 97 reviews. 27 reviews are fresh (meaning positive) and 72 are rotten (meaning negative) and the average review rates the film at a 4/10. You can't sit there and tell me every single one of those reviewers are not fans of the original. And that's just one example of where I've seen negative reviews triumph the positive. Again, I don't care who likes the film, just as I don't care who doesn't like the film. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing.



What are you talking about behind the scenes? Anyway lets take examples of old and new. Introduction of Laurie till Annie taking Lindsey to Tommy's is stuff from JCH. But how can you say there wasn't new stuff? Bob being killed and hung, Annie used as bait, Michael killing and being shot by cops, Laurie getting captured and taken back to Michael's, Laurie stabbing Michael and running away and falling in the pool, Michael busting through the car and grabbing Laurie, Michael crushing Loomis' head, Chase through the house, ceiling part, Laurie shooting Michael in the head, all that shit is new and takes up about half of the remake portion. I already explained the dialogue parts so if there is something I am missing please enlighten me. Your acting like he just copied and pasted Carpenters dialogue and he didn't. Never said you were thinking irrationally but you are just clearly ignoring parts of the movie imo. Has nothing to do with opinion when I bring up facts.

Ah, so you seemingly dismiss that Malcolm reuses several lines from the original. I don't care what you say to try and convince me otherwise. The second half of the film is in "essence" a carbon copy. The same events essentially play out. Just because Zombie indeed made changes doesn't mean it's not essentially the same thing. There's not much remake going on in there.



So you have nothing to counter my argument and you call me ignorant? What an assholish thing to do.

Happy now?

Masked Madman
10-18-2009, 06:57 PM
No. It's still their opinion. There are countless numbers of scathing reviews for the film. More so than there are reviews praising the movie. It's how that particular writer of the article sees the general reaction to the film. Just like you saying they are wrong in saying that RZ's remake of Halloween is universally hated by the fans (which I can agree with) is just an opinion, and not fact.
The IGN comment doesn't sit well with me and should have been worded differently. Also if I can find the history of Halloween article they did I'll post it, there where alot of plot mistakes and facts that they posted in their that annoyed me.



No. That was his excuse. That he felt pressured by the fan base to include material from the original. I'm not the one that said it. Also, here is what Zombie said, in regards to him pushing for the remake:



They were still planning on doing Halloween 9 when Zombie came aboard.
Doesn't say he was pushing for a remake, just that he didn't want to do a sequel. His original idea was a prequel so that article could go either way.


Just it doesn't mean it's evenly split. Again, the number of negative reviews out there for the film outweigh the number of positive reviews. Let's look at Rotten Tomatoes, for example. The film has a 26% rating based on 97 reviews. 27 reviews are fresh (meaning positive) and 72 are rotten (meaning negative) and the average review rates the film at a 4/10. You can't sit there and tell me every single one of those reviewers are not fans of the original. And that's just one example of where I've seen negative reviews triumph the positive. Again, I don't care who likes the film, just as I don't care who doesn't like the film. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing.
Vice Versa with me, But from what I've seen the reviews haven't been overly positive or negative. That was my whole point from the beginning from what I've seen the reviews have been pretty evenly split.



Ah, so you seemingly dismiss that Malcolm reuses several lines from the original. I don't care what you say to try and convince me otherwise. The second half of the film is in "essence" a carbon copy. The same events essentially play out. Just because Zombie indeed made changes doesn't mean it's not essentially the same thing. There's not much remake going on in there.
I didn't dismiss what Malcom said I posted that earlier. But from my count it was only three things that were lifted ("He is headed to Haddonfield" talk, "Devils Eyes" variation, and "Was that the boogeyman"). I wasn't trying to convince anything just stating what I've seen. I disagree about the carbon copy of the original situation. There are elements lifted directly from the original and brand new elements imo, I think the first half of the remake part is reused stuff but the second half is new stuff.



Happy now?
Yes I am, now lets go argue in some more threads :bastard:

Scarface
10-18-2009, 07:22 PM
Doesn't say he was pushing for a remake, just that he didn't want to do a sequel. His original idea was a prequel so that article could go either way.

Again, here is another couple of quotes straight from Rob Zombie's mouth:


"I didn’t feel any pressure from John. As for the studio, [they] wanted it to be as different as possible. They weren't concerned about staying true to John Carpenter at all. Nobody was really putting any pressure on me other than myself. If I’d said there was going to be no Dr. Loomis and there was going to be no Laurie Strode I don’t think anyone would have really argued with me. It was more the pressure I put on myself to [decide] what I wanted to keep from the original and what I didn’t.

As for compromising, it’s funny everyone thinks the studio is some big scary monster that controls what you do. And maybe it is that for some people but, no, no one ever told me anything. I cast who I wanted to cast. I did what I wanted to do. You can’t do anything except for what you think is the right thing to do. If it works it works because, really, what else can I do?

The fans were just all over the place."


"The one thing I have in common with everyone else is that I am a huge fan [of the original] so I kept trying to come from the point of view of what would I want to see myself. What would make me happy? What elements would I like to keep and what ones would I like to see expanded? I had to work out for myself what I thought was the proper thing to do.

I just felt, for one thing, I wanted Michael Myers who I felt was the key ingredient to the whole series to be more important, not just be a guy in a mask hiding in the shadows. I wanted him to be more front and center. But, everyone seems to have this big misconception that everything is explained and that is not the case. Here we get pieces of his life but we don’t explain anything, you get glimpses without any explanation.

Ultimately he grows up to be Michael Myers as we know him, but he’s not running around being this human guy we now understand."




I didn't dismiss what Malcom said I posted that earlier. But from my count it was only three things that were lifted ("He is headed to Haddonfield" talk, "Devils Eyes" variation, and "Was that the boogeyman"). I wasn't trying to convince anything just stating what I've seen. I disagree about the carbon copy of the original situation. There are elements lifted directly from the original and brand new elements imo, I think the first half of the remake part is reused stuff but the second half is new stuff.

And "Two roadblocks and an all points bulletin wouldn't stop a five year old." My point is for someone trying awfully hard to make his films different, he reuses material rather than making his own.

Masked Madman
10-18-2009, 07:31 PM
Again, here is another couple of quotes straight from Rob Zombie's mouth:









And "Two roadblocks and an all points bulletin wouldn't stop a five year old." My point is for someone trying awfully hard to make his films different, he reuses material rather than making his own.
Don't mean to be a stickler but those sound to me like interviews after it was announced that it was going to be a remake not before.

And yeah that quote is involved with the "Hes headed to Haddonfield" speech between him and the doctors that I mentioned.

Scarface
10-18-2009, 07:38 PM
Don't mean to be a stickler but those sound to me like interviews after it was announced that it was going to be a remake not before.

And yeah that quote is involved with the "Hes headed to Haddonfield" speech between him and the doctors that I mentioned.

What? Rob Zombie's name wasn't even revealed until after it was announced this was going to be a remake. So of course any interview with him is going to be after it was announced as a remake. There are no interviews with him from before that. All of the directions RZ went with were his decisions. He says it right there himself. I don't know what else you need.

Masked Madman
10-18-2009, 08:40 PM
What? Rob Zombie's name wasn't even revealed until after it was announced this was going to be a remake. So of course any interview with him is going to be after it was announced as a remake. There are no interviews with him from before that. All of the directions RZ went with were his decisions. He says it right there himself. I don't know what else you need.
Well I got a link that proves it was going to be a prequel first.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/Zombie_Signs_on_for_Halloween_Prequel/3504103


Rocker-turned-movie-maker Rob Zombie has signed to direct a prequel to the cult Halloween franchise, and promises fans it will be the scariest yet.

The Devil's Rejects director insists the Michael Myers story has grown tired after a string of disappointing sequels, and has vowed to reinvent the series with more gore and suspense than ever before.

The film will be set before the events of Halloween II, and will focus on the life of the serial killer as a young man, before he was admitted to a mental institution.

Zombie says, "The look and the feel is going to be completely different. Halloween started off as a very terrifying concept, a terrifying movie. But over the years, Michael Myers has become a friendly Halloween mask.

"When it came to the point where you could buy a Michael Myers doll that was cute-looking and press its stomach and play the Halloween theme, you knew the scare factor was gone.

"But I think the story and the situation is scary. All it needed was someone to come in and to take a totally different approach to make it scary again. To me, that's the challenge and that's the fun."
So IDK I honestly think he didn't want the remake aspect to be cluttered in with the final movie.

Scarface
10-18-2009, 08:51 PM
It was always going to be a remake with him. I don't understand what you're getting that he wanted to do a straight-up prequel. He wanted to include aspects in it that serve as a prequel of sorts, but it was always intended that he was doing a remake. It was his choice to add in the actual remake aspect in the last half.

Nothing about that quote suggests that he was talking about it being a prequel. That is clearly a typo from the writer of that article.


Q: So, what exactly is your Halloween then? Half remake, half prequel?

RZ: The one thing I have in common with everyone else is that I am a huge fan [of the original] so I kept trying to come from the point of view of what would I want to see myself. What would make me happy? What elements would I like to keep and what ones would I like to see expanded? I had to work out for myself what I thought was the proper thing to do.

I just felt, for one thing, I wanted Michael Myers who I felt was the key ingredient to the whole series to be more important, not just be a guy in a mask hiding in the shadows. I wanted him to be more front and center. But, everyone seems to have this big misconception that everything is explained and that is not the case. Here we get pieces of his life but we don’t explain anything, you get glimpses without any explanation.

Ultimately he grows up to be Michael Myers as we know him, but he’s not running around being this human guy we now understand.

There's nothing to suggest that he never had intentions to include the actual remake aspect of the story into the film.

Masked Madman
10-18-2009, 08:55 PM
It was always going to be a remake with him. I don't understand what you're getting that he wanted to do a straight-up prequel. He wanted to include aspects in it that serve as a prequel of sorts, but it was always intended that he was doing a remake. It was his choice to add in the actual remake aspect in the last half.

Nothing about that quote suggests that he was talking about it being a prequel. That is clearly a typo from the writer of that article.

Im saying he wanted to do a prequel and then a remake. Not a prequel with a condensed version of a remake in it. I can't find the article but I've seen before where he wanted to do two movies instead of having it condensed in one.

Scarface
10-18-2009, 09:12 PM
I've heard that before about how he wanted to do two movies, too, but the idea was quickly shot down. The idea never got far. It wasn't like he spent so much time coming up with the two films idea, and then suddenly the studio said 'no.' You don't sit there and expect the possibility of making two simultaneous films and work on them for a while before talking to the studios about it. It was more likely an idea he just threw out there during a meeting, and they rejected him then and there. The concept is ridiculous. He wanted to pull a Kill Bill with a Halloween movie. Yeah, like that would ever work. His budget was $20 million.

I honestly don't see how this has to do with how much of a mess the film ended up being. It was still all his ideas. He said so himself. It's his fault that the film ended up feeling like two totally different and incomplete pictures conjoined in the middle to try and make one film. There is just no excuse. The blame goes to his writing abilities. He wasn't clever enough to combine his ideas into one coherent piece that goes over smoothly.

Michael Voorhees
10-19-2009, 02:58 PM
I've heard that before about how he wanted to do two movies, too, but the idea was quickly shot down. The idea never got far. It wasn't like he spent so much time coming up with the two films idea, and then suddenly the studio said 'no.' You don't sit there and expect the possibility of making two simultaneous films and work on them for a while before talking to the studios about it. It was more likely an idea he just threw out there during a meeting, and they rejected him then and there. The concept is ridiculous. He wanted to pull a Kill Bill with a Halloween movie. Yeah, like that would ever work. His budget was $20 million.

Really? I never knew that but yeah, bad idea. I would've liked seeing the concept of him escaping Smith's Grove being the end of the first film, but pulling a Kill Bill with this franchise would've been a horrible move. And I thought the budget was $15 million?

Scarface
10-20-2009, 01:43 PM
Okay, I figured I'd move this "discussion" into the appropriate thread:


Because that IS the plot of the remake! That he was an 'ordinary' psychopath/serial killer. Geez. Things are always exaggerated in the movies, it doesn't make Michael supernatural. At all. Only if he comes back from RZH2. I think it's safe to say that RZ intended to kill Michael at the end of his reimagined version and a sequel got made regardless. The only thing that makes Michael reappearing in RZH2 'acceptable' is that his face getting allegedly blown off happen off-screen; Laurie coulda shot him in the shoulder for all we knew. Sure enough his half-torn mask indicates against that, but they never explicitly said she shot him in the face that I recall and so it's halfway plausible for him to have appeared in that movie. As for being a jackass, you hypocrite. I state an opinion that disagrees with yours and you get all butthurt and draw out these stupid arguments. I've made it crystal clear what I meant and I tried reasoning with you and leaving it at that at least twice now but you're too stubborn to drop it (I realize there's some irony in this reply :p). So let's just drop the fucking argument and call it quits?

No, that's just your interpretation of the plot. I don't recall anywhere in the film where it says "Hey, I'm way more grounded in reality than Michael in the original." That part just doesn't ring a bell. Nowhere in the original does it say Michael is supernatural, just like nowhere in the remake does it say Michael is 100% realistic. And please, enlighten me, how was I being hypocritical? I don't give a shit about your opinion. What bothers me is when you pass off what you're saying as fact, then telling us how we are not understanding the plot and how biased we are towards Rob Zombie. Yeah, cause that just makes me so hypocritical. And how am I being the one "butthurt" about this? You feel the need to respond to my responses. That, sir, makes you the hypocrite here, if you're going to throw out that term.

o.n.i.x
10-20-2009, 02:07 PM
That's appreciated, but I was done with this argument ages ago (which you and others blew way out of proporation). The only reason I bothered replying was because people were (and still are) twisting my words and I felt the need to clarify shit.

Scarface
10-20-2009, 02:13 PM
I'm not twisting your words. You've made it abundantly clear that we, apparently, don't understand the movie and that we are so biased due to our fanboyism of Rob Zombie to the point that it's ludicrous. No need to clarify. Got you loud and clear.

Michael Voorhees
10-20-2009, 05:37 PM
That's appreciated, but I was done with this argument ages ago (which you and others blew way out of proporation). The only reason I bothered replying was because people were (and still are) twisting my words and I felt the need to clarify shit.

All you've managed to clarify is the fact that you haven't the slighest idea what you're babbling on about, which became even more evident when you referred to us as fanboys.

EvilOnTwoLegs
10-20-2009, 05:43 PM
Is it just me, or is "butthurt" the dumbest goddamn word anyone ever thought of?

Why do people use it? Do they not realize how retarded it makes them sound?

Masked Madman
10-20-2009, 05:49 PM
Is it just me, or is "butthurt" the dumbest goddamn word anyone ever thought of?

Why do people use it? Do they not realize how retarded it makes them sound?

No, it isn't just you. I've heard it like 10 times today just on this forum.

I don't know about "butthurt" but my head hurts from the stupidity of the insult.

Michael Voorhees
10-20-2009, 08:55 PM
Is it just me, or is "butthurt" the dumbest goddamn word anyone ever thought of?

Why do people use it? Do they not realize how retarded it makes them sound?

No, it isn't just you. I had to re-read that post in the H3D forum twice because of how idiotic it sounds.

I really do wonder where all of these stupid insults come from.

Scarface
10-20-2009, 09:04 PM
I saw "butthurt" mentioned at least twice today by a couple users in unrelated discussions, haha. The term just reminds me of hemorrhoids.

Dammit. I want to pick up that damn third disc from the three-disc release of RZH. I still haven't seen the 4 1/2 hour documentary. I've just been too stingy to shell out $15 just for the third disc, since I already bought the fucking two-disc d-cut. I've not been able to find it yet for at least under $10.

Michael Voorhees
10-20-2009, 09:10 PM
Haha, good luck finding it. I tried to do the same, and all of them were over $15 bucks, so after a while I just gave up on searching for it.

A Dumb Question
10-20-2009, 09:19 PM
I guess I can thank this message board for introducing me to the term "butthurt." It seems that we never adopted that one over at the Highlander message board.

boogeyman87
10-20-2009, 10:57 PM
Dammit. I want to pick up that damn third disc from the three-disc release of RZH. I still haven't seen the 4 1/2 hour documentary. I've just been too stingy to shell out $15 just for the third disc, since I already bought the fucking two-disc d-cut. I've not been able to find it yet for at least under $10.


Haha, good luck finding it. I tried to do the same, and all of them were over $15 bucks, so after a while I just gave up on searching for it.



I just picked up the blu-ray for $8. :p

okay, it was actually $13 but I had a $5 rewards certificate.

Scarface
10-20-2009, 11:22 PM
I mean, I guess I could just sell my copy of RZH, use the money I get from to donate for the three-disc, but the shitty thing is, unless I try selling it online, I'm only going to get probably $2 or $3 for it. Fucking pawn shop.

Anybody looking to buy RZH d-cut? I'll give a real good deal. $10 (+$5 S&H). Take it or leave it. ;)

TheThirdHalf
10-21-2009, 02:01 AM
It seems that we never adopted that one over at the Highlander message board.

That's because there can be only one butthurt!! :p

If you guys can get the BD for 8 bucks, you should. It looks great in high def, especially the daylight scenes....and man, "Michael Lives" is great. I've only watched it once all the way through though.

Masked Madman
10-21-2009, 09:36 AM
I noticed something when watching this last night. When Michael first gets his jumpsuit and in the daytime scenes it's brown, but night time on its blue. Is this a goof or is it just lighting?

o.n.i.x
10-21-2009, 09:39 AM
Could be more of a lighting issue than a goof. Why would they use a brown boiler suit for that one scene? You'd have thought they'd have only blue ones on set for a Myers movie, unless they were originally gonna change his look a bit and have him have a brown suit instead.


I really do wonder where all of these stupid insults come from.

How is that stupid saying in any way an insult? :p It's a term to say that you're getting all worked up and angry about something.

Masked Madman
10-21-2009, 09:46 AM
Could be more of a lighting issue than a goof. Why would they use a brown boiler suit for that one scene? You'd have thought they'd have only blue ones on set for a Myers movie, unless they were originally gonna change his look a bit and have him have a brown suit instead.




The brown was in more than one scene though. It was from when he killed Joe Grizzly all the way up till he started stalking Bob and Lynda, then it was blue.

Michael Voorhees
10-21-2009, 09:52 AM
Maybe it was brown all throughout but the lighting made it seem blue?

o.n.i.x
10-21-2009, 09:52 AM
The brown was in more than one scene though. It was from when he killed Joe Grizzly all the way up till he started stalking Bob and Lynda, then it was blue.

I thought it might've been after I posted that. Hmm. Good question. Maybe they wanted slightly different looks for a Daytime!Myers and a Nighttime!Myers or something? Assuming it wasn't a lighting issue.

Masked Madman
10-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Maybe it was brown all throughout but the lighting made it seem blue?
Thats my guess I don't know why I just picked this up. The lighting is very blue in the movie so thats my guess because I know Tyler wasn't using a blue jumpsuit. Unless they went in and changed it blue on purpose, which I doubt.

Michael Voorhees
10-21-2009, 10:17 AM
I doubt that as well because in most of the shots I see the jumpsuit is brown, and only appears blue during the night scenes.

TheThirdHalf
10-22-2009, 01:54 AM
Hahaha...up until about a month ago, you thought they were blue the whole time. And that was AFTER claiming to have seen the movie more than anyone on the board :p

Nibbz
10-22-2009, 02:27 AM
wasn't it.... always brown? I never thought it was blue, not once while watching the film. And honestly.... brown works for Michael better than blue.

TheThirdHalf
10-22-2009, 03:17 AM
It works with that mask better for sure, but you can't really mix and match. I have both masks, and both coveralls, and the masks really only look decent with their intended coveralls for some reason.

Michael Voorhees
10-22-2009, 04:24 AM
Hahaha...up until about a month ago, you thought they were blue the whole time. And that was AFTER claiming to have seen the movie more than anyone on the board :p

Actually, I never really paid attention to the coveralls and went "weren't they supposed to be blue the entire time?" I noticed they were brown and looked blue-ish in some shots, but it didn't really register until the discussion came up. And I actually do uphold that statement, because from late 2007 to now, I've watched the film hundreds of times, literally.

EvilOnTwoLegs
10-22-2009, 01:09 PM
The coveralls are always brown...if they seem bluish in the nighttime scenes, it's for the same reason that everything seems bluish in the nighttime scenes. They tweaked the color timing in post-production. They made the daytime scenes warmer (better for capturing oranges and other fall/Halloween colors) and the nighttime cooler (because "blue" is the international cinematic symbol for "night").

ukfootball1979
10-22-2009, 02:09 PM
Ok, So I can't remember the defferences in the T and D cuts of this film. The only obe i remember is the Break out scene. What are the others?

Towelman
10-22-2009, 03:58 PM
Ok, So I can't remember the defferences in the T and D cuts of this film. The only obe i remember is the Break out scene. What are the others?

http://www.ohmb.net/showthread.php?p=637091#post637091

Nibbz
10-23-2009, 02:22 AM
from a scene to scene standpoint, and how the movie flows. imo the D-Cut flows so much better and is more coherent. I just really can't get behind the rape scene, it was completely useless and made his escape seem accidental rather than planned in his head.

ukfootball1979
10-23-2009, 05:01 PM
Yeah....If there was only a way to swap out the escape scenes. lol thanx forthe post though an the changes. I just coldnt remember if I was really missing much or not.

o.n.i.x
10-23-2009, 05:05 PM
Although the rape scene is horrible and made Michael's escape seem more accidental, I think the reason for it was to show that he was completely emotionless and immune to other people's plight and anguish and that it was only when the carers/janitors (what were they?) personally interfered with him (not like that :p) that he finally reacted.

Though I do wonder if Michael would've bothered to escape had that not occured; my personal view of the matter is that he wouldn't, given how uncaring (for want of a better word) he seemed towards the opportunity to get out.

Michael Voorhees
10-24-2009, 02:38 PM
All the above reasons are why the theatrical escape was better. Michael is set to be transported (similar to the original) and in this version he picks his spot and kills the guards, which allows him a chance to escape. It made more sense and actually fit into the movie. The rape scene was just out of the blue and didn't fit in at all.

freethy
10-24-2009, 05:35 PM
He should have had a more stealthy escape scene IMO. Would have been better if he would have slipped away without anyone realising until it was too late.

Danny Strode
10-24-2009, 06:00 PM
Would have been better if he would have slipped away without anyone realising until it was too late.

Heh-heh. Isn't that kind of what happened anyway? ;)

freethy
10-24-2009, 08:10 PM
Well, i ment without the raping or killing....lol

tha shape
10-25-2009, 03:17 PM
All the above reasons are why the theatrical escape was better. Michael is set to be transported (similar to the original) and in this version he picks his spot and kills the guards, which allows him a chance to escape. It made more sense and actually fit into the movie. The rape scene was just out of the blue and didn't fit in at all.

Yeah i really dont like either of the escape scene's.

Stebob1984
10-26-2009, 11:10 AM
All the above reasons are why the theatrical escape was better. Michael is set to be transported (similar to the original) and in this version he picks his spot and kills the guards, which allows him a chance to escape. It made more sense and actually fit into the movie. The rape scene was just out of the blue and didn't fit in at all.

I only ever saw this scene on the trailer (which was awesome) and when I saw the film I was like what? why have a dumbass rape scene in and take out a cool escape scene. I think the rape scene just showed how twisted Zombie is. It was just stupid. I hardly doubt this would happen for real.

TheThirdHalf
10-26-2009, 02:27 PM
I hardly doubt this would happen for real.

I'm willing to bet money it happens more often than many people would want to believe. Maybe more-so in the recent past, but I bet it happens.

Scarface
10-26-2009, 02:49 PM
Well, if he is to be believed, Rob said the idea for the rape scene came from stories he's read/heard on the news about shit like that going down in asylums. Still doesn't make the scene fit. It really just felt out of place in the film. Like it didn't belong. Like a lot of scenes in RZH.

heavymetal
10-26-2009, 02:54 PM
Or most of them in the first half. I actually liked the second half....probably because it's all based on Carpenter's material.

I hated the opening with Daeg. That kid sucked.

Masked Madman
10-26-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm willing to bet money it happens more often than many people would want to believe. Maybe more-so in the recent past, but I bet it happens.

Oh hell yeah it happens alot not just in mental hospitals but nursing homes as well.

Michael Voorhees
10-26-2009, 09:52 PM
Yeah, people doubt that in asylums like that someone would rape a patient, but I've watched tons of documentaries and such that have said otherwise. It's more likely to happen than not, so even though the rape scene in RZH is out of place, there's some truth to it.

Kefka
10-27-2009, 03:21 AM
I think the rape scene works fine. Michael has been wanting out for a long time and maybe this was his first opportunity to escape. If you dont like the scene because its offensive then thats okay. But dont see how it doesnt fit.

Michael Voorhees
10-27-2009, 06:11 AM
It's not that it's offensive, it just doesn't add to the plot and shows Michael basically got lucky that two hicks were dumb enough to come into his territory. In the guards escape scene, he picks his spot and escapes, and even avoids getting shot by holding a guard in front of him. The latter scene depicts him as being a lot more intelligent than the former.

SasorRegateme
10-27-2009, 07:50 AM
My feelings towards the rape scene have always been meh. Would've prefered the theatrical version of his escape, but I've learned to live with the D-cut's version. It's all about Zombie's vision that matters, despite how others here feel.

Kefka
10-27-2009, 08:07 AM
It's not that it's offensive, it just doesn't add to the plot and shows Michael basically got lucky that two hicks were dumb enough to come into his territory. In the guards escape scene, he picks his spot and escapes, and even avoids getting shot by holding a guard in front of him. The latter scene depicts him as being a lot more intelligent than the former.

Disagree with the last statement. He didnt choose to get transfered. He got lucky to get transfered and saw a window of opprotunity while they were moving him. So, like with the rape scene, you can say he "got lucky" with the transfer.

Michael Voorhees
10-27-2009, 08:31 AM
Still, my point is he picked his spot and made a move at just the right time, which wasn't luck. He was smart enough to take out the guards before they could even take out their weapons, and when one did, he held a guard in front of him to take the shot so he didn't have to, and then attacked her before she could shoot again. That shows much more intelligence than him getting pissed off by some idiot rapists and then walking out the door. The theatrical escape is better in every aspect I can think of. Better set up, better acting, smarter Michael, etc.

Kefka
10-27-2009, 08:45 AM
I just prefer the rape scene to the Action Hero escape.

And I dont think set up, acting, or Michael is any better or worse on either. But talking about fitting, really the escape with the guards? Reminds me of First Blood :roflmao:

Michael Voorhees
10-28-2009, 10:32 AM
To each his own, but I, along with others, think the theatrical escape was better, fit in more, and showed Michael as being intelligent by picking his spot.

Masked Madman
10-28-2009, 11:01 AM
I like the rape scene better because the guard scene felt to tacked on like it was a scene to add a few more quick kills.

Slasher Fan
10-28-2009, 11:24 AM
To each his own, but I, along with others, think the theatrical escape was better, fit in more, and showed Michael as being intelligent by picking his spot.

I agree.

Plus it had the lovely Leslie Easterbrook in it as one of the guards.

Michael Voorhees
10-28-2009, 11:27 AM
Yes, she is quite lovely indeed.

And don't forget Bill Moseley. :nodsmile:

Stebob1984
10-28-2009, 11:29 AM
I haven't seen the theatrical cut but I must say I would have much preferred the other escape scene and not the rape one. What are the differences in the theatrcal and DC versions? was it less gory? Why havent they released the theatrical version aswell, I mean some people might have bought the DVD thinking its the same as the theatrical cut and wanting that version.

Diamond Wings
10-28-2009, 11:34 AM
They did release the Theatrical, but it was a bit tough to find a copy. I got one on Amazon.

storyteller
10-28-2009, 11:36 AM
Yes, it is difficult to find those copies, because by all means that fuckhead named Loomis was D-E-A-D before he was able to utter those now infamous letters. I don't get why Zombie killed Loomis, just to tack on an ALTERNATE ending that became canon.

Stebob1984
10-28-2009, 11:40 AM
So can anyone list the differences between the theatrical cut and directors?

Stebob1984
10-28-2009, 11:53 AM
Never mind just found them, I just ordered it so I can see which version I prefer it says on the site I saw that the theatrical cut is actually more violent than the directors cut.

Michael Voorhees
10-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Yes, it is. I'll post the vid from Youtube in this thread later on. That's where I saw it.

Stebob1984
10-28-2009, 12:46 PM
Yes, it is. I'll post the vid from Youtube in this thread later on. That's where I saw it.

Is this in relation to my post?

Kefka
10-28-2009, 04:50 PM
To each his own, but I, along with others, think the theatrical escape was better, fit in more, and showed Michael as being intelligent by picking his spot.

and thats totally fine that you, and others, prefer the great escape. I just thought the rape scene fit better.

Michael Voorhees
10-28-2009, 10:00 PM
Is this in relation to my post?

Yeah, I thought you didn't see it yet and I was going to post it so you could see the differences between it & the director's cut escape version, unless you've already seen it?

Stebob1984
10-29-2009, 10:14 AM
Yeah, I thought you didn't see it yet and I was going to post it so you could see the differences between it & the director's cut escape version, unless you've already seen it?

No I havent seen it would love to though thanks

Michael Voorhees
10-30-2009, 11:07 AM
No I havent seen it would love to though thanks

Ah, okay, here ya go:

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

Stebob1984
10-31-2009, 03:41 AM
Ah, okay, here ya go:

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

That was awesome much better than that god awful rape scene thanks for the link

Was the ending different betweem the theatrical and directors cuts aswell?

Michael Voorhees
10-31-2009, 08:38 AM
If you're referring to Laurie having the gun on Michael, no it wasn't different. A different ending from the workprint was filmed, but they went back & re-filmed the ending that was for both the theatrical & director's cut releases.

Danny Strode
10-31-2009, 08:56 AM
Was the ending different betweem the theatrical and directors cuts aswell?

The lone difference between the two is that there is added footage that proves Loomis is alive.

Franchise
10-31-2009, 10:55 AM
There's more differences. They added black and white scenes of a young Michael into the movie while in the sanitarium. Sort of like little Loomis reviews of him.

Danny Strode
10-31-2009, 11:03 AM
There's more differences. They added black and white scenes of a young Michael into the movie while in the sanitarium. Sort of like little Loomis reviews of him.

I know. My post was in response to the question of whether the ending was different or not.

Franchise
10-31-2009, 11:18 AM
Bah. Bah I say.

Michael Voorhees
10-31-2009, 11:53 AM
Haha

I think the ending we got is better, quite honestly. It was nice to see Michael looking for Laurie around the house. The first few times I watched the movie those scenes had a ton of tension building up.

nwiser
10-31-2009, 01:06 PM
Bah. Bah I say.

Bah? Like a sheep?

Stebob1984
11-01-2009, 03:30 AM
Haha

I think the ending we got is better, quite honestly. It was nice to see Michael looking for Laurie around the house. The first few times I watched the movie those scenes had a ton of tension building up.

I agree I'd only ever seen the workprint until last Friday when I thought I'll just watch the second half of the movie and see if I like it and I much preferred that ending it was very tense.

Michael Voorhees
11-01-2009, 01:26 PM
The main thing I love about the workprint ending is that Loomis reaches through to Michael to let go of Laurie, but Michael is still killed by Brackett, whom likely knew Michael wasn't walking towards Loomis & Laurie to hurt them, but opened fire anyway because of what Michael did to his daughter.

Stebob1984
11-01-2009, 01:32 PM
I just found the workprint ending very flat, I was like is that it?

Stebob1984
11-01-2009, 01:35 PM
Recently I have changed my opinion of this film I do enjoy the second half, I think its alright. But looking back on the whole film I realised this film is a fucking cartoon. Everyones just so over the top and some of the lines people have would never be said in real life. its like Zombie wanted to make his film more realistic and all he did was create a live cartoon.

Michael Voorhees
11-01-2009, 01:38 PM
For future reference (not to be a dick), you should combine your posts and not double post.

Also, your statement is invalid. These characters are pretty tame compared to real life. I've been around people who talk like the characters in real life, and act as they do. And many others around here have stated the same.

Stebob1984
11-01-2009, 01:40 PM
For future reference (not to be a dick), you should combine your posts and not double post.

Also, your statement is invalid. These characters are pretty tame compared to real life. I've been around people who talk like the characters in real life, and act as they do. And many others around here have stated the same.

Sorry I didnt click that Id double posted.

Really so you know people who say let me pass this beast in peace? etc

Michael Voorhees
11-01-2009, 01:57 PM
People say a lot of weird or unexpected shit at all times. I'm not saying they say what's specifically from the movie, just that it's not far fetched or unrealistic at all.

Stebob1984
11-01-2009, 02:12 PM
People say a lot of weird or unexpected shit at all times. I'm not saying they say what's specifically from the movie, just that it's not far fetched or unrealistic at all.

Wow makes me glad I live in England :D ha ha

Masked Madman
11-04-2009, 06:58 PM
I was just thinking, how the hell did Michael know that it was his sister after Laurie dropped off the mail? You could say because Tommy calls her Laurie, but, in H2 it is revealed that her real name is Angel Myers. So did Michael go after her on a hunch or did he pick up her scent (smell the envelope) like an animal and go after her?

Scarface
11-04-2009, 11:57 PM
Maybe in H3, we'll find out that Laurie actually visited him in the hospital when she was like 8 or 9, but conveniently forgot all about it.

:bastard:

tha shape
11-05-2009, 12:00 AM
Maybe in H3, we'll find out that Laurie actually visited him in the hospital when she was like 8 or 9, but conveniently forgot all about it.

:bastard:

Maybe...just maybe..lol

Masked Madman
11-05-2009, 10:23 AM
Maybe in H3, we'll find out that Laurie actually visited him in the hospital when she was like 8 or 9, but conveniently forgot all about it.

:bastard:

"Go on Laurie visit your homicidal brother."

Diamond Wings
11-05-2009, 10:31 AM
I have no doubt this was brought up at some point, but I never saw it and it's not worth starting a thread about. When Brackett and Loomis are in the car, when they receive the call regarding Laurie Strode, Brackett is sharing the story of her adoption. Doesn't he say that she was a baby? If I am remembering correct, she had to be at least 6 months old when the murders took place and then didn't at least a year pass before Deborah committed suicide? Just thinking...it's foggy, but I'm just thinking.

Masked Madman
11-05-2009, 10:34 AM
I think he says something along the lines of "I saw this sweet little girl". I don't recall him saying baby.

Diamond Wings
11-05-2009, 10:42 AM
Ah, well, that would make more sense. It certainly isn't the end of the world. Just got me thinking.

Edit: Actually he says, "beautiful innocent baby".

Danny Strode
11-06-2009, 01:30 PM
I have no doubt this was brought up at some point, but I never saw it and it's not worth starting a thread about. When Brackett and Loomis are in the car, when they receive the call regarding Laurie Strode, Brackett is sharing the story of her adoption. Doesn't he say that she was a baby? If I am remembering correct, she had to be at least 6 months old when the murders took place and then didn't at least a year pass before Deborah committed suicide? Just thinking...it's foggy, but I'm just thinking.

As far as any type of continuity goes, let along age of a certain character, it's mostly up for debate. I find that most of us have to grab onto dialogue (such as the "innocent little baby" comment) to try and decipher certain things and peice together any sort of timeline.

And don't start with the fucking commentary shit, Joe. SWISH! :p

Masked Madman
11-06-2009, 01:33 PM
Ah, well, that would make more sense. It certainly isn't the end of the world. Just got me thinking.

Edit: Actually he says, "beautiful innocent baby".

Well idk if she was only a year and a half I think calling her a baby is fine because I typically do that until the kid turns like 4 haha.

Diamond Wings
11-06-2009, 01:35 PM
Fair enough. God, look at me trying to make sense of a Halloween sequel that isn't even the original that...oh, shit, I'm spent.

Masked Madman
11-06-2009, 01:37 PM
I still want to know how the hell Michael knew that Laurie was his sister.

Diamond Wings
11-06-2009, 01:38 PM
Pure animal instinct!!

Masked Madman
11-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Thats my guess he picked up her scent by smelling the envelope.

SasorRegateme
11-06-2009, 07:47 PM
Thats my guess he picked up her scent by smelling the envelope.
I thought everyone knew that by now.

Masked Madman
11-06-2009, 07:55 PM
I assumed he knew from Tommy saying Laurie's name.

SasorRegateme
11-06-2009, 07:58 PM
I assumed he knew from Tommy saying Laurie's name.That's also a possibility.

Masked Madman
11-06-2009, 07:59 PM
That was my point it isn't now because in H2 its revealed her real name is Angel Myers so I guess the scent things the only way.

Stebob1984
11-07-2009, 12:45 PM
He picked up her scent? WTF? If thats true then thats just dumb. Also to note in the theatrical cut he doesn't sniff the envelope so it cant be true.

Scarface
11-07-2009, 02:43 PM
It still doesn't make sense if he picked up her scent (which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it). How does he know what the fuck she smells like? It's just as illogical as Tommy saying Laurie's name. So I'd rather go with that one than he picked up her scent. It just makes him seem like a pervert, haha.

I'd like to think that there was some psychic linkage between the two, as shown in RZH2. Just because they didn't show or insinuate it, doesn't mean it's not there. I doubt the crash in the van from RZH2 suddenly gave all the shit to him (i.e. visions/psychic link) at once. And it wouldn't make sense saying that it was only caused by the crash since Laurie wasn't there, and she somehow was able to see some of the same visions as Michael.

Masked Madman
11-07-2009, 03:57 PM
I'd like to think that there was some psychic linkage between the two, as shown in RZH2. Just because they didn't show or insinuate it, doesn't mean it's not there. I doubt the crash in the van from RZH2 suddenly gave all the shit to him (i.e. visions/psychic link) at once. And it wouldn't make sense saying that it was only caused by the crash since Laurie wasn't there, and she somehow was able to see some of the same visions as Michael.

The crash from the van no, the gunshot to the head yes.

Scarface
11-07-2009, 04:07 PM
I think there was something there prior to the gunshot. I think the gunshot only intensified the visions, but not the psychic stuff. It just wouldn't make sense unless Laurie was also shot in the head.

Masked Madman
11-07-2009, 04:14 PM
Maybe the fall from the balcony had something to do with it :dunno:

Scarface
11-07-2009, 04:53 PM
Well, I suppose you can say that both of them suffering traumatic events might have triggered the psychic bond. Michael obviously getting shot a bunch of times, then once in the head, and Laurie being thrown off a balcony and shit.

However, it still doesn't explain how Michael knew what Laurie looked like and how he found her. The sniffing of the envelope doesn't make it more logical than Tommy saying her name, since he wouldn't know what the fuck she smelled like, haha. Unless he recognized the smell from her as a baby, but if you go that route, you might as well just say he recognized how she looked like from when she was an infant.

Either way, nothing about it makes sense. Hence why I think that psychic mumbo jumbo introduced in the second film could have been present in the first film as well.

Stebob1984
11-08-2009, 02:13 AM
It still doesn't make sense if he picked up her scent (which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it). How does he know what the fuck she smells like? It's just as illogical as Tommy saying Laurie's name. So I'd rather go with that one than he picked up her scent. It just makes him seem like a pervert, haha.

I'd like to think that there was some psychic linkage between the two, as shown in RZH2. Just because they didn't show or insinuate it, doesn't mean it's not there. I doubt the crash in the van from RZH2 suddenly gave all the shit to him (i.e. visions/psychic link) at once. And it wouldn't make sense saying that it was only caused by the crash since Laurie wasn't there, and she somehow was able to see some of the same visions as Michael.

Plus how can you smel anything through a latex mask?

Its got to be a psychic link in this movie. It made more sense in the original cause at the time there was no family connection and she just reminded him of his sister.

Masked Madman
11-08-2009, 09:38 AM
Plus how can you smel anything through a latex mask?

Its got to be a psychic link in this movie. It made more sense in the original cause at the time there was no family connection and she just reminded him of his sister.

Have you ever worn one? They have holes in the nostrils. The mouth is closed so the only way to breathe is through the nose, otherwise you would suffocate ha.

Stebob1984
11-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Have you ever worn one? They have holes in the nostrils. The mouth is closed so the only way to breathe is through the nose, otherwise you would suffocate ha.

yeah but the latex smell is over powering so it'd taint any other smells. That sounded so wrong :D

A Dumb Question
10-24-2012, 05:44 PM
Two new online reviews of this film:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/phelous/36996-halloween-re-make

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/blockbuster-buster/blockbuster-buster/36870-rob-zombies-halloween

blacksymbiote
11-04-2012, 02:59 AM
How could that guy sleep while Michael's tearing a house apart? I thought that was an awesome rampage for the shape.

Michael Voorhees
11-15-2012, 12:32 PM
Five years later, I still love this movie. I've seen it more times than I can count & I still love it. Is it better than John Carpenter's original cinematic masterpiece? No, but it's still a good remake, & holds more water than a lot of others that have surfaced. I think it's a good film that shows the opposite side of The Shape/Michael Myers. Rather than him being a character essentially bound by evil & having no reasoning, he's a product of his environment this time, doomed to become a killing machine.

Stebob1984
11-06-2013, 12:07 PM
Five years later, I still love this movie. I've seen it more times than I can count & I still love it. Is it better than John Carpenter's original cinematic masterpiece? No, but it's still a good remake, & holds more water than a lot of others that have surfaced. I think it's a good film that shows the opposite side of The Shape/Michael Myers. Rather than him being a character essentially bound by evil & having no reasoning, he's a product of his environment this time, doomed to become a killing machine.

After seeing the theatrical version it's really grown on me, I much prefer this to the sequel. Of course it can't touch the original but as far as remakes go its one of the better ones. I think it's definitely better than the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake which I just think was a huge failure. It's also better than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake which I do really like but for me it falls short of the Friday the 13th remake (Reboot, reimagining, whatever) which I think is the best of the horror reboots in my opinion. The one thing that does stand out to me about Halloween though is Mane as Myers, I actually skated him before and I couldn't gave been more wrong. He was excellent, so menacing and scary, by far the best thing about the film for me.

Michael Voorhees
11-06-2013, 05:39 PM
I think H2 is the better of the two & flows better overall but to each his own. And RZH will always be a favorite for the simple fact that I have so much nostaglia surrounding it. It has lots of elements I like: Mane's performance as Myers, Danielle Harris, some good kills, etc.

EvilOnTwoLegs
11-06-2013, 06:47 PM
RZH is too herky-jerky for me. I think I liked it more when it came out simply for the fact that it was drastically different from H:R, and opened up a world of new potential by throwing away the baggage of the original series. Also, Mane was the best Michael Myers I'd seen in a long, long time. But the movie's just all over the place in terms of story and pacing. The editing has always bugged me...even when I first saw it...but now, it makes the film hard to even watch. Overall, it's a movie that doesn't know what it's supposed to be, made by a director who can't decide what the hell he's trying to do. In filmmaking terms, it's sloppy...and that's something I can't get past anymore.

It has its positive points. The mask is great, Mane is great, I like Malcolm when Zombie's not force-feeding him "Loomis '78" dialogue, and aside from the awkward cropping, the cinematography is pretty solid throughout. But the way it's assembled, and the constant vacillation between fresh ideas and carbon-copy scenes, is just frustrating as hell. For me, it's nothing more than a primer for RZH2, the movie where Zombie finally figured out what he was trying to do with the remake, and did it right.

Michael Voorhees
11-06-2013, 08:11 PM
The most annoying thing about Loomis is that Zombie said he didn't want him to "unknowingly be doing some sort of Donald Pleasence interpretation" but he still ended up giving him a fair amount of his lines, & they came off as being forced.

PumpkinKing~*`
11-06-2013, 09:32 PM
The most annoying thing about Loomis is that Zombie said he didn't want him to "unknowingly be doing some sort of Donald Pleasence interpretation" but he still ended up giving him a fair amount of his lines, & they came off as being forced.

I always felt the same way. Without Malcom seeing Donald's performance he still gave much of the same but with less fines. I never disliked Malcom's portrayal in the first film, but if felt bland. Both in dialogue and delivery.

Michael Voorhees
11-06-2013, 11:06 PM
Agreed. I always thought that even if Rob was going to make the role similar to the original that he could've used different lines that were unique to Malcolm. That's another reason why I was and still am a big fan of Loomis' transition in the second film...the whole performance seems to fit this particular universe more, and seems less forced to boot.

Stebob1984
11-10-2013, 08:16 AM
Yeah I don't think McDowell seemed all that comfortable delivering Pleasance dialogue, they should have changed some of it or even ditched some of it. Fir instance you didn't need the boogeyman line at all.

Dark Empire
11-26-2013, 08:47 PM
RZH is too herky-jerky for me. I think I liked it more when it came out simply for the fact that it was drastically different from H:R, and opened up a world of new potential by throwing away the baggage of the original series. Also, Mane was the best Michael Myers I'd seen in a long, long time. But the movie's just all over the place in terms of story and pacing. The editing has always bugged me...even when I first saw it...but now, it makes the film hard to even watch. Overall, it's a movie that doesn't know what it's supposed to be, made by a director who can't decide what the hell he's trying to do. In filmmaking terms, it's sloppy...and that's something I can't get past anymore.

It has its positive points. The mask is great, Mane is great, I like Malcolm when Zombie's not force-feeding him "Loomis '78" dialogue, and aside from the awkward cropping, the cinematography is pretty solid throughout. But the way it's assembled, and the constant vacillation between fresh ideas and carbon-copy scenes, is just frustrating as hell. For me, it's nothing more than a primer for RZH2, the movie where Zombie finally figured out what he was trying to do with the remake, and did it right.

I just recently decided to watch both films again this past month.
I tried to give both movies a chance, but they are really below par entries/remakes. I am a fan of Rob Zombie, and it was awesome to talk to him in private while he was lurking the forums back in 2007 but the movies are more bad than good. The only thing I consider "right" on his part was the atmosphere in part 2. Besides that what did he get right??

PS- ETOL just admit it , you and I know we liked it because RZ came on the forums and was cool enough to answer and talk to us in private. :laugher:

EvilOnTwoLegs
11-26-2013, 09:42 PM
I just recently decided to watch both films again this past month.
I tried to give both movies a chance, but they are really below par entries/remakes. I am a fan of Rob Zombie, and it was awesome to talk to him in private while he was lurking the forums back in 2007 but the movies are more bad than good. The only thing I consider "right" on his part was the atmosphere in part 2. Besides that what did he get right??

PS- ETOL just admit it , you and I know we liked it because RZ came on the forums and was cool enough to answer and talk to us in private. :laugher:
No, it was more the fact that it was emphatically not H:R. haha But while I've soured quite a bit on the remake since its release, I've come to view the sequel to it as one of the best films in the entire franchise.

FTL
02-08-2014, 05:28 PM
I finally got to check this out again. I kinda like it. I remember not being so gung ho about it the first time around when I saw it in theaters, but I guess I have changed as a writer and movie goer over the years. I don't mind the "pervasive language," so long as the right actors are speaking the lines, otherwise it just feels forced. William Forsythe really helps that kitchen scene out. He's a blast to watch. McDowell is good too, he's very likeable. Dourif does OK but I think Zombie throws him better work in RZH2.

I like the first half of the movie better than the 2nd half. It's different. It's fresh. I don't agree with how Zombie went about showing how Michael snapped, but it was new and you could tell it was more of Rob's ideas than Carpenter's. Then the second half gets tacked on (with references galore force fed down our throats to the point of a distracting viewing experience) and we get 3 characters that we're supposed to care about, but there's no character development done at all. The mayhem and the chaos just comes out of nowhere. I remember watching Lynda's death and not really caring about it at all. The final chase sequence goes on for far too fucking long. Honestly, we could have used all that time for more character development. As I said, I also didn't like all the references and re-imagining of scenes from the original. I don't know why Rob felt like he had to load up the movie with all that shit. It felt forced and left me cringing and thinking to myself, Carpenter did it better.

Overall, I kinda liked it. It had it's moments. It was different...and some times that goes a long way. If I had to give it a rating this time around, I'd probably give it a 2.5 stars out of 5.

Thorni52
02-08-2014, 08:15 PM
Once it gets into "remake" territory, I find it so boring. Mcdowell is a great Loomis though. a GREAT Loomis.

EvilOnTwoLegs
02-09-2014, 03:50 AM
I really do find myself wanting to turn the remake off once it gets to "present day" territory. Or at least fast-forward to the scene where Myers uses Annie to bait Laurie...the one strong, truly original set piece in the second half.

Thorni52
02-09-2014, 06:59 AM
I really do find myself wanting to turn the remake off once it gets to "present day" territory. Or at least fast-forward to the scene where Myers uses Annie to bait Laurie...the one strong, truly original set piece in the second half.

The only other scene I like in the second half is the backyard pool scene. Malcolm's "Michael, it's me, Samuel!" gives me the chills every time.

Roswell
02-09-2014, 09:55 AM
Or at least fast-forward to the scene where Myers uses Annie to bait Laurie...the one strong, truly original set piece in the second half.

For me, once it gets to that scene, I'm back into the film. Things get streamlined at that point and I can get into it more.

FTL
02-11-2014, 09:23 AM
Maybe the remake should have been more like this, and this might sound confusing, but...

The 2nd half of the remake should have been the first half, with more character development, and the 2nd half should have been RZH2 D-Cut.

Any thoughts?

Thorni52
02-11-2014, 12:38 PM
Maybe the remake should have been more like this, and this might sound confusing, but...

The 2nd half of the remake should have been the first half, with more character development, and the 2nd half should have been RZH2 D-Cut.

Any thoughts?

I've often thought about this. All I can say is RZH2's "Halloween Night," When Myers finally attacks and goes for Laurie, is a hundred times better then the shot for shot remake stuff we got in RZH. Smith Grove with Loomis deserves to be in there too.

So It would go as follows: Michael as a kid, Michael in Smith's Grove____There needs to be something informative in between here that connects the gap a bit_____everything from RZH2.

Roswell
02-11-2014, 12:41 PM
I think I've brought this up before, but someone made a fan edit where they did exactly what you guys are describing. Never got around to checking it out, but it's certainly an interesting "What if?" idea.

Thorni52
02-11-2014, 01:04 PM
I've also said this before, but I wish zombie would have shot RZH alongside photographer Brandon Trost and on 16mm, plus the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. RZH is a pusedo-gritty, glossed up hollywood film, and the jump from it to the look of RZHII is jarring to say the least.

FTL
02-11-2014, 02:16 PM
The remake does have it's positives I think.

Smith's Grove/first half.
Hipster/likeable Loomis, some funny lines from modern Loomis.
An actual, scary as fuck Michael Myers who felt very, very intimidating.
William Forsythe.
Danny Trejo.

and that's just to name a few things I liked....

I honestly think that Rob's story has been covered -- and nicely wrapped up -- in RZH2.

I also think that the whole SISTER and/or BLOODLINE plot has been covered.

Done to death. Beaten like a dead horse. haha

Move on now, and let's have a reboot -- possibly a new franchise -- that doesn't involve a Laurie Strode.

A fresh, new storyline sounds good to me.

EvilOnTwoLegs
02-11-2014, 04:23 PM
I've also said this before, but I wish zombie would have shot RZH alongside photographer Brandon Trost and on 16mm, plus the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. RZH is a pusedo-gritty, glossed up hollywood film, and the jump from it to the look of RZHII is jarring to say the least.

What kills me...and yes, I will continue to beat this dead horse for years to come...is that RZH was framed for 1.85:1. The compositions make that clear. Then some genius came in and decided that it should be 2.35:1 (presumably because the original film was), and so, cropped it to that wider aspect ratio, leading to a lot of shots that look really cramped and poorly framed. While I agree that I wish Zombie had shot the remake on 16mm with Trost at his side, I'd actually settle for a version that simply wasn't cropped.

Thorni52
02-11-2014, 06:20 PM
What kills me...and yes, I will continue to beat this dead horse for years to come...is that RZH was framed for 1.85:1. The compositions make that clear. Then some genius came in and decided that it should be 2.35:1 (presumably because the original film was), and so, cropped it to that wider aspect ratio, leading to a lot of shots that look really cramped and poorly framed. While I agree that I wish Zombie had shot the remake on 16mm with Trost at his side, I'd actually settle for a version that simply wasn't cropped.

I think you were actually the one who told me about it. Ever since then it's bugged me to pieces I can't watch it without noticing that awkward framing. I do think 16mm would have gave the film a different feel though. Or at least what Branon Trost did with Lords of Salem. That film was shot digitally and it STILL looked grittier then RZH. haha

TheShape'78
02-11-2014, 08:15 PM
then some genius came in and decided that it should be 2.35:1 (presumably because the original film was), and so, cropped it to that wider aspect ratio, leading to a lot of shots that look really cramped and poorly framed.[/i].

on whose orders?!!!