PDA

View Full Version : The inverted approach to RZH



Ispitonmygrave
04-07-2011, 10:43 AM
Although I can see what RZ had set out to do with the first half of his remake, I feel that his attempt at a socio-political statement fell flat; the nurture/nature paradox.

The Devils Rejects worked well via the trigger of an emotional, internal debate, causing one to wonder how he could find himself taking sides with "The Bad Guys". He used likeable lead-characters that many viewers found themselves rooting for. Ironically, these same characters happened to be pure sociopaths.

Parallel to this, the "Good Guy" who's out for justice is then turned into a loathed enemy.
Who’s the antagonist and who’s the protagonist? Who do you root for and why?

So - moving forward,

Rob attempted to do something similar with his Halloween -in terms of trying to get us to sympathize with the monster. And this, IMO, seemed to take away from the Mythos of Michael.

I would have liked to see a young Michael come from an upper-middle class family -one which had provided Mikey with everything he needs (and MUCH more: video games, Cell Phones, etc). Having him then turn into "The Shape"/Pure Evil, for unexplainable reasons, would then give the character an interesting type of irony. The parents tried their best to raise him right yet, regardless of their efforts, was just a bad seed.


I agree that this is similar to the Original, but given a modern twist (His mother could've had a collection of Louis Vuitton purses, Drive a BMW; Father is a banker, etc), we could have kept the Michael is "PURE EVIL " establishment while also leaving the audience to somewhat wonder if our Consumer-Whore based society makes us less human.

Sure, my little post doesn't do the concept justice, but with I'm sure a capable director/writer could subtly pull it off.
It's a way to provide the other form of depth that Rob did with Michael -one that establishes that Nurture is not Nature : and this is why the Boogeyman can be anyone - anywhere.

Thoughts?

z0mbiej0e
04-07-2011, 10:56 AM
I don't think it really matters where Michale came from, (IMO) he would of still became that monster we all love...

And all series killers were children once... Does that justify what they did? No. And I guarantee that one had a better home then the others. Maybe because Rob brang out the drity and gritty feel of the family, is because you feel this way, but you didn't see Judith butchering people. Michael was just a sick kid...He would have done the same whether or not if he had that sorta family...

Roswell
04-07-2011, 11:00 AM
First off, I don't believe he was making a statement with how Michael was presented in the film. I'm one of the people that believes that Michael's environment didn't create him, but rather added fuel to whatever fire was inside him that drove him to kill. He was bound to snap eventually, so the question wasn't if it was going to happen, but when. And when just happened to be that Halloween night.

Also, I don't feel much sympathy for Michael in the remake, whether that was Zombie's intention or not. A couple scenes manage to paint Michael in a more human, more flawed way, but overall I still feel like he's definitely a villain. A confused, perhaps tragic villain, but a villain nonetheless.

And sorry, but the idea of him being almost a rich kid with everything at his disposal who suddenly snaps doesn't work for me. I like the idea of Michael having no option BUT to kill in the end. I also like the idea of when Deborah talks to Michael about starting over tomorrow, he takes it in a completely different way than she meant it. Obviously this isn't explicitly stated in the film, but that's what I come away with when I watch the movie.

Again, I don't believe Zombie was making a statement with his version of Michael. I believe Zombie was only trying to put him into a situation where he had no other options, and where killing in the end was the only thing that made sense.

Blood&Guts
04-07-2011, 11:18 AM
I have no problem with the first half other than the grunge aspect. It felt weird watching but Ive gotten used to seeing it now. I thought Daeg gave a creepy performance and maintained a good balance of innocence and evil. I lost ALL sympathy for Michael when he killed Ismael. I thought it was a turning point in the film.

Ispitonmygrave
04-07-2011, 11:30 AM
Good counter-points.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-07-2011, 12:12 PM
Eh, a lot of sociopaths come from upper middle class families. And it's not that surprising, either. Being spoiled teaches you to be selfish, and to put your needs before the rest of the world.

What you're talking about here would essentially be a Bret Easton Ellis approach to Michael Myers. And while I'm all for something like that, it's certainly no more an "original" or "fresh" idea than what Zombie did, and I don't think it necessarily would have worked any better or worse.

Steven Lloyd
04-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly didn't feel any sympathy for Michael whatsoever. He's a murderer and has no sympathy for a single one of his victims. And, no, his "love" for Laurie in the first one doesn't count as a redeeming quality.

The thing that turns off of Zombie's films is that he has an insatiable love for filthy, disgusting redneck characters. All of whom are given ridiculous, over-the-top dialogue. I couldn't even take Daeg's Michael seriously because of his awful mop-top.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-08-2011, 12:53 PM
If you know any filthy, disgusting rednecks (and the American Midwest is chock full of them, believe me), you'll know that there's nothing over-the-top about the dialogue Zombie gives them...that's just how they talk. :p

z0mbiej0e
04-08-2011, 01:02 PM
I didn't really have much of a problem with the "redneck" dialogue. I thought it added to the story.

CJ7
04-08-2011, 03:50 PM
With RZH you see that Michael was constantly tormented and made fun of all of the time which lead to his breaking point.Rob added more background to Michael telling the story about what made him become the unstoppable force that he is.With the original Halloween he just snapped one Halloween night and decided to kill his sister for no reason.In a way it's scarrier not knowing why he did the murdering compared to knowing his childhood story.

H6 would reveal that it was because the voice told him to do it.A good concept but I prefer the idea of Michael just losing it.Be it snapping, Thorn, or being tormented to the point of murder, it covers every angle.It gives fans the choice as to what happened causing his to kill his family with three different causes.RZH2 showed how much Michael had lost his mind by the fact that he was seeing his mom who wasn't even there.

z0mbiej0e
04-08-2011, 07:14 PM
H6 would reveal that it was because the voice told him to do it.A good concept but I prefer the idea of Michael just losing it.

Another reason why I dislike H6... The voice...bullshit. Not at the age of 6.

MichaelJrdnMyrs
04-08-2011, 09:58 PM
Although I can see what RZ had set out to do with the first half of his remake, I feel that his attempt at a socio-political statement fell flat; the nurture/nature paradox.

The Devils Rejects worked well via the trigger of an emotional, internal debate, causing one to wonder how he could find himself taking sides with "The Bad Guys". He used likeable lead-characters that many viewers found themselves rooting for. Ironically, these same characters happened to be pure sociopaths.

Parallel to this, the "Good Guy" who's out for justice is then turned into a loathed enemy.
Who’s the antagonist and who’s the protagonist? Who do you root for and why?

So - moving forward,

Rob attempted to do something similar with his Halloween -in terms of trying to get us to sympathize with the monster. And this, IMO, seemed to take away from the Mythos of Michael.




See, the Devil's Rejects didn't really work for me on that level because I didn't feel any sympathy towards the killers. After what the Fireflies did, I don't see how so many people felt aw shit about a cop playing dirty with them. It was wrong, but c'mon. No way did I feel any compelling reason to squirt a few over their problems.

The first part of Halloween was much more effective. Not that it was terribly moving or anything, but I at least felt SOMETHING seeing an innocent kid being pushed around into darkness. It blows my mind how many people blame the boy for not exercising better judgement and control over his psychotic impulses. Like so many, he was just fucking doomed by circumstances.

The new socio-economic aspect worked for me too. Having MM rise up from his shit ghetto-ness to find the sister he saved living it up in perfect honkyland, awesome. Too bad it all felt too rigidly Carpenter to connect with the first half.


I would have liked to see a young Michael come from an upper-middle class family -one which had provided Mikey with everything he needs (and MUCH more: video games, Cell Phones, etc). Having him then turn into "The Shape"/Pure Evil, for unexplainable reasons, would then give the character an interesting type of irony. The parents tried their best to raise him right yet, regardless of their efforts, was just a bad seed.


I agree that this is similar to the Original, but given a modern twist (His mother could've had a collection of Louis Vuitton purses, Drive a BMW; Father is a banker, etc), we could have kept the Michael is "PURE EVIL " establishment while also leaving the audience to somewhat wonder if our Consumer-Whore based society makes us less human.

Sure, my little post doesn't do the concept justice, but with I'm sure a capable director/writer could subtly pull it off.
It's a way to provide the other form of depth that Rob did with Michael -one that establishes that Nurture is not Nature : and this is why the Boogeyman can be anyone - anywhere.

Thoughts?

I actually don't think your concept is all that close to the original either -- it's more of a story based on the fervent fan mythos. It's never said that the original MM's life was all candy canes and gummy bears.

I do think your concept could be done well in the right hands. I wish Zombie could have had some kind of co-directer and writer helping him flush out his concept too.

Every type of story has been told to death. I'd say that fleshing out the details is the only way to give them lives of their own.

We could've been blown away by Zombie's revamped story, if he truly possessed greatness.

CJ7
04-10-2011, 02:54 PM
Another reason why I dislike H6... The voice...bullshit. Not at the age of 6.

I don't mind Thorn as much as I used to, it's a good concept.The idea of Michael hearing a voice which we would find out to be Dr.Wynn, is pretty ridiculous.I watch H6 occasionally but I'll always prefer the original story when it comes to Michael becoming the shape.He snapped, no explanation it just happened.I like Rob Zombies Halloweens and the fact that he added Michael being tormented and made fun of which made him snap but like I said, it's scarrier when someone snaps for no reason.

The Thorn and Zombie stories of Michaels transition into the shape add more variety but nothing beats the original idea.

z0mbiej0e
04-10-2011, 02:58 PM
Yeah, I just like the "he snapped" explanation. Rob's "tormenting" was cool; but the Thorn? Fuck no.

CJ7
04-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Yeah, I just like the "he snapped" explanation. Rob's "tormenting" was cool; but the Thorn? Fuck no.

Thorn was alright at first but then they went to far with a cult.Got really sci-fi at that point where snapping and the tormenting angles are more realistic.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-10-2011, 03:15 PM
Thorn went WAY too far when they brought in an imaginary constellation. haha

CJ7
04-10-2011, 03:20 PM
Thorn went WAY too far when they brought in an imaginary constellation. haha

Can't say that helped cause it didn't.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-10-2011, 03:24 PM
The whole "Whenever it appears, he appears" thing was something that always had me crying foul. I was 15 when H6 came out, and being that it was the first Halloween movie in six years - and the first to be released since I'd become a fan - I loved it pretty much unconditionally. But still, that always bugged me. haha That and the fact that the ending was basically non-existent.

A Dumb Question
04-10-2011, 04:45 PM
Thorn was alright at first but then they went to far with a cult.

The cult isn't the problem. In fact, the idea that a group of crazy nutjobs support Michael's cause because they have convinced themselves that he will fulfill some Druidic blood sacrifice is pretty cool. The problem is with Thorn itself, as it is too blatantly supernatural. Astrological mind control, psychic links, magical runes, and genetically-engineered evil have no place in a story about a sociopathic stalker, no matter how immortal he may seem. The fifth and sixth films cross the line into all-out fantasy, when all of the other films carefully walk that line to keep from getting too silly. Michael is evil because he has no capacity for empathy. Period.

CJ7
04-12-2011, 01:16 PM
The cult isn't the problem. In fact, the idea that a group of crazy nutjobs support Michael's cause because they have convinced themselves that he will fulfill some Druidic blood sacrifice is pretty cool. The problem is with Thorn itself, as it is too blatantly supernatural. Astrological mind control, psychic links, magical runes, and genetically-engineered evil have no place in a story about a sociopathic stalker, no matter how immortal he may seem. The fifth and sixth films cross the line into all-out fantasy, when all of the other films carefully walk that line to keep from getting too silly. Michael is evil because he has no capacity for empathy. Period.

Agreed.Thorn became to supernatural as H6 went on with the idea of magic runes, a magic constellation that appears, etc.The concept is good but maybe it could have been approached differently."When it appears, he appears" was pretty ridciculous also, plus there's the fact of Michael leaving the Thorn symbol burned into the hay and Loomis knew that it was "His mark".

Thorn supports the fact that something had to be keeping Michael alive because evil or not, nobody could survive what he can.It does add some Sci-Fi to the character of Michael Myers but with the additions of a cult, star constellation, runes, and so fourth it became more Sci-Fi then before.The cover even has a quote from a Science Fiction group.

TheThirdHalf
04-12-2011, 02:34 PM
Thorn went WAY too far when they brought in an imaginary constellation. haha

That magically appeared at random intervals :p

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 02:40 PM
Yeah...appeared for ONE NIGHT, mind you. And not on any kind of regular cycle, either. It appeared in 1963, then not for another fifteen years, then ten years later, then one year later, then six years after that....

They should've just released a viral video of Michael Myers raping Carl Sagan.

A Dumb Question
04-12-2011, 02:49 PM
I liked Thorn because it was a progression...it allowed Halloween to continue without becoming a stagnant "more of the same" series, as Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street had long-since become. Each sequel, up to that point at least, offered us something new, beginning with H2's revelation about Laurie being Michael's sister. Really, I don't think Thorn spoiled things any more than Laurie becoming Michael's sister in H2 spoiled things. It's just a progression...which the series needs in order to move forward without becoming stale.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 02:53 PM
Yep...I totally said that six years ago.

And I pity anyone who goes through six years of life without radically changing. Because there's one thing I said in that post that still holds absolutely true...stagnation is pretty pathetic.

As is digging through someone's past posting history, attempting to "out" them with something they said years ago. ;)

A Dumb Question
04-12-2011, 02:55 PM
Oh, it just makes me regret not joining the board back then. The potential debates that were lost! For shame!

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 02:58 PM
Oh, they weren't lost...you just weren't here for them. :p

I had plenty of interesting debates in those days...and in the now-lost-forever days of the UHMB. Just as I continue to have now. But yeah, my tastes and opinions have changed pretty drastically over course of the near-decade I've been here. Hell, looks at that post again...I talk about H2's sibling crap like it was a positive thing for the series. :crazy:

Now if I could go back in time and debate MYSELF...that would be something to see.

A Dumb Question
04-12-2011, 07:48 PM
I almost joined back in '05, but I chose to favor the Highlander board instead. Oh, well. I prefer the current model over the Yottle of Halloween Past, even if that one did hilariously insist that H20 ruined the series by dropping the "intelligent" story arc of prior films. Tee hee. The new you would win the debate, by the way.

Do we have a thread to discuss how our opinions as fans have changed over the years? I guess my post would be called, "Dr. Strangeloomis, Or How I Learned to Stop Caring About that Stupid Mask and Love The Return." Tastes thankfully do change sometimes...or tolerance builds over time, at least...

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 08:13 PM
I tend to grow less tolerant of crap over the years. In my youth, I was able to indulge more in garbage. Now that I'm getting older, I feel it's a waste of what little time I have left on this wretched planet.

Shit, if the internet had been around when I was in grade school, you might have found evidence of me professing my love for Masters of the Universe, or the 1980s TMNT cartoon. Of course, as an adult, if you were to force me to watch an entire episode of either, I'd most likely claw my eyes out and jab No. 2 pencils into each ear by the time the closing credits rolled.

A Dumb Question
04-12-2011, 08:20 PM
He-Man always blew, but I'll defend the initial TMNT miniseries to the grave. The later seasons not so much.

See what happens when I try to research how opinions of Halloween: Resurrection have shifted over the years? I eventually find myself talking about Masters of the Universe of all things. Gag.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 08:26 PM
He-Man always blew, but I'll defend the initial TMNT miniseries to the grave. The later seasons not so much.

See what happens when I try to research how opinions of Halloween: Resurrection have shifted over the years? I eventually find myself talking about Masters of the Universe of all things. Gag.

Opinions of H:R haven't shifted much over the years, though if I wracked my brain, I could point to one or two members who thought it was better than H20 back in 2002. Still, consensus has remained pretty consistent since its release. It was widely considered to be the worst Halloween film in 2002, and that opinion thrives to this very day.

Which leads us...inevitably, but incongruously...to the question of an inverted approach to RZH.

A Dumb Question
04-12-2011, 08:40 PM
Oh, on topic: yeah, I would have dug Michael Myers: American Psycho more than what we got. I'd prefer a superintelligent Shape with an artistic flair and an overinflated ego, even if he's a mute.

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 08:52 PM
He'd have to be a consummate dork and listen to really terrible music, though.

A Dumb Question
04-12-2011, 09:12 PM
Well, Rob's Michael did listen to Nazareth's cover of Love Hurts...

EvilOnTwoLegs
04-12-2011, 11:24 PM
How close he lived to the Rabbit In Red and/or how good his hearing was would determine whether or not he actually heard the song his mother was (not actually) stripping to. And either way, that wasn't his choice. All we really know about Mikey's musical taste is that he likes Kiss. I don't think Pat Bateman would approve.

CJ7
04-13-2011, 02:45 PM
Thorn had good progression but was ultimately retconned and followed up with H20 which went back to the basics of Michael being pure evil and after his sister.I don't mind that they left out the events of H4-H6 to get ridd of the Thorn angle but there had to be a way to connect H4 to H6 without mentioning Thorn.They could have had one of the detectives in the beginning mention that Jamie was murdered but the killer was never found, he disapearred without a trace or that he was killed after a shoot out killing him.

Michael would make his return after years of his disappearance to track down his sister who he had not seen since twenty years earlier.

Khan
04-13-2011, 03:19 PM
I guess you didn't notice, but that comment was satirical. It was ADQ reposting a six year old comment from EOTL.

CJ7
04-14-2011, 02:31 PM
I guess you didn't notice, but that comment was satirical. It was ADQ reposting a six year old comment from EOTL.

In that case, edit to post.

the 'M' clam
06-06-2011, 11:56 AM
Like this Rob Zombies remake Halloween but it was a bit too much like House of a 1000 corpes but mean in a good way & did even better job on Halloween 2. I would like to see another remake of Halloween in about 20 years time & the best to direct will be Marcus Nispel as done as he done a great job on the remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre & Friday the 13th as they have that dark spooky feel to it.

Astro_Creep
06-12-2011, 05:45 PM
RZH is nothing like House of 1000 Corpses.

The Rock Child
09-10-2011, 03:27 PM
I saw this film not too long ago. I was very unsure about watching it. The film isn't BAD if I pretend JC version didn't exist - HA! No but really JC version is my favorite and trying to compare RZH to JCH is like apples and oranges to me. Where I liked RZH, I agree with the original poster of this thread. The debate of this film was nature/nuture. Basically the movie (to me anyway) pushes the idea that Michael turned into who he was because of his home life. I think I like the idea better that he was "just bad..." and giving it a history and explaination takes away some of the scary elements of who MM is. As I often say, there is no reason why MM is a killer. He just stalks you with a knife and regardless if you run...he will catch up to you and stab your ass. LOL