Do they really make the Halloween movies for the "fans"? [Archive]

boogeyman87

03-14-2005, 08:23 PM

Theres a difference between making it for the fans and catering to the fans. Some people liked what they did, and some didnt. Some fans want Michael to wear an afro and star in a buddy cop movie with Eddie Murphey in the next movie. There are crazy, whacked out and weird fans, but their fans. I like H20, do I care if it ignored some movies? No, I like all the movies and they all offer something for me. So while you and others may think that Akkad is ignoring your requests, he's just misslead.

Though I may change that statement later, I'm bipolar.:)

Oh and money is an issue no doubt. It plays a role but they do listen to the fans. On some level.

TheTerminator

03-14-2005, 08:26 PM

Here's the thing, though:

The Halloween-Halloween 6 storyline was THE story, not the H20/ Resurrection story. Therefore, they COMPLETELY fucked the fans over by ignoring all that and by changing nearly EVERYTHING.

And, it's not appropriate for them to say "these movies are made for you" when they're really not. In fact, the fans (us) are the LAST thing they consider. That is all I'm getting at.

I would have sent him a box of chocolates if he had said, "you know, we really don't give a shit about you guys because we know you'll be there anyway".

At least it'd be honest.

boogeyman87

03-14-2005, 08:30 PM

I didnt feel fucked over when they ignored H4-H6. I liked that storyline and I liked the other. Its all nice to me. :)

TheTerminator

03-14-2005, 08:31 PM

I did a little. I mean, I wasn't going to kill myself over it, LOL, but when I saw H20, I remember the very last shot (the one of Michael's decapitated head) and I remember thinking: "What the fuck?".

In all honesty, I felt a little cheated.

boogeyman87

03-14-2005, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by TheTerminator
I did a little. I mean, I wasn't going to kill myself over it, LOL, but when I saw H20, I remember the very last shot (the one of Michael's decapitated head) and I remember thinking: "What the fuck?".

In all honesty, I felt a little cheated.

They can really do anything they want. They dont need to listen to us, and dont need to make us happy. Its good business to but the movies made money dispite people not being happy. So as far as they know, they can still milk the audience for money while making whatever they feel they want to make. Unless you boycott the movie or get enough people to not see it, I'm thinking it will always be the same.

MichaelMyers

03-14-2005, 08:37 PM

The only way they make one that is for the fans, is when no one shows up for H9 when it comes out. Then they will either make H10 for the fans or not at all. But only if no one shows up.

boogeyman87

03-14-2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by MichaelMyers
The only way they make one that is for the fans, is when no one shows up for H9 when it comes out. Then they will either make H10 for the fans or not at all. But only if no one shows up.

Which will never happen. Plenty of people will always show up. Seriously, they only need to make around 10-12 million these days to stay on task. While not 100 percent easy its still fairly average for even the horrible horror movie to make at least 12 million.

H-field Hero

03-14-2005, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by TheTerminator
The Halloween-Halloween 6 storyline was THE story, not the H20/ Resurrection story. Therefore, they COMPLETELY fucked the fans over by ignoring all that and by changing nearly EVERYTHING.Not really. I mean, thorn kinda worked for that one movie, but to drag it out in future sequels would almost definatly lead to straight to video. I used to bitch a lot about the ignoring of H4-6, but I mean it's been coming up on 7 years since H2o was released and i'm just settling in on the fact that whats done is done. Halloween 4 is still arguably the best sequel. Halloween 5 is still one of the weakest entries in the series and halloween 6 still boggles the mind... unless one watches the kick ass producers cut (which is all I watch).

What exactly do you mean by "the fans". They don't cater these films to this small group of die hards who belong to this message board. And on the other hand, they don't make them to appease womans rights groups. They are made for the purpose of making money. In order to make money, the people have to like the product, otherwise they won't see it. I'm not a box office expert, but despite being a turkey H:R did good business.

I know i'm being a little vague here in my position, but it's just that movies are made for money. To single out Dimension/Akkads for making the movies just for money is like singling out a sports team for "only playing the games to win". Every company produces movies to make money, every sports team plays to win. Granted, sports teams should not cheat to win and movie companies/producers should not put out shitty films just to rake in cash. It's a double edged sword. Do I think Malek Akkad sits in his office and says "Ok, this movie is going to be for the die hard fans!!"-- absolutely not, but I also don't think he says to himself "ok, llets try to make as much money as possible while putting in the least amount of effort."

Another example of what I'm saying would be H2o. They knew that signing Jamie Lee to the film would get the fans in a frenzy... they also knew it would lead to $$$. Again, it goes both ways.

shrike

03-14-2005, 08:56 PM

ive been saying this for the longest time..

we are strong standing dedicated halloween fans...but akkad caters to the "mtv" audience who react only to the killings, and dont give a crap about the storylines.

it really sucks, but thats the way it is.

with all of the Halloween fan sripts and im sure a few script writers have good halloween ideas...they go with the garbage they have been putting out since H20.

I can not believe to this day, that the guy who directed H2 directed HR.

:rolleyes:

NCamp

03-14-2005, 09:15 PM

They put it out for "fans" meaning people with money. But they dont direct the movies towards the loyal fans. Cant be expected though, its a business.

Demonswrath

03-15-2005, 07:00 AM

You all have good points. I must say that those who claim that the films are being made with a horrible story and for the MTV crowd is correct. Quality really sucks in the Halloween series these days. No, I don't think it is good for business to ignore past films that are apart of the series. That was stupid. That only causes more confusion within the series. Die hard fans like us know and understand what happened. What about those who go to Blockbuster and rent the movies and think, wait, what happened after that last movie? H20 just cut it off like it was non-existant. That was a poor business move. I agree that they shouldn't stick on that one subject in H6, but they should never ignore something that is part of the series. A good business move would be to have that part of the series weeded out by taking it into a new direction, without ignoring the past films and confusing the audience. I am a huge fan of the series. But I must admit, if this next film attempts to deliver the same crap that has been given to us in the last two films, I will wait for it to come to video before I watch it. I may be a fan, but I'm no sucker to support half-assed attempts to create a worth while film. That just insults everyones intelligence. I waited for Resurrection. And I'm glad I didn't support it by giving them my money as approval for the work they put into it. I'm not a fool.

thetodd

03-15-2005, 08:13 AM

They cater to the casual fans, not the hard core ones. Starting with H20, they decided to MTVify things and try to lure in people outside of the fan base. That's why they felt the need to simplify things and pretend like 4-6 never happened. They didn't want to confuse the "Johnny-come-latelys". I think there needs to be a balancing act here. They shouldn't sacrifice quality and story in order to make things easier to understand for those who aren't long time or loyal fans of the series.

TheTerminator

03-15-2005, 08:18 AM

Here is what I don't understand:

In recent years, there HAVE been some decent horror movies. The Ring, Jeepers Creepers I and II and a few others. Why can't they make a Halloween sequel that caters to BOTH groups of people (the fans and the 'average moviegoer')?

Franchise

03-15-2005, 08:23 AM

If you think that they make movies for you, then you need to PM me cause I've got a million dollars tied up in a Swiss bank account and all I need is a way to transfer the money.

Remicis

03-15-2005, 08:27 AM

My feeling on this is a little bit of both. Do I think the movies are made "for" us? No, but I do think we're taken into consideration. As many have pointed out, the films are made primarily for the mainstream audience. Movies are made for money, and that crowd is where the bulk of your box office take is gonna come from. The fanbase alone wouldn't be enough to sustain the continuation of this series, so they have to look outside of us and try to pull in everyone they can. And the majority of people just want some slice-'n-dice death, some jump scares, and some cheap thrills from a Halloween movie, nothing more. In that sense, the general moviegoer takes precedence.

I don't see them as having the attitude of "screw the fans," however. If that were the case, quality would be suffering a lot more than it is. We may all bitch and moan about Resurrection, but let's face it, folks, things could be much worse. If they didn't care about the fans at all, I doubt they would've even bothered to finish off Laurie's character. She would've simply vanished with no explanation because there would be no regard whatsoever for continuity or overall plot integrity. And each movie would just be Michael hacking up a new cast of cardboard teenagers for no reason. It'd be a lot like Friday the 13th. But it would pretty much satisfy the moviegoing public because that's all they want from a Halloween movie. I think the fans keep them putting a little more effort into the series.

And on a side note, I remember a mention of straight-to-video...you know, if you want these movies to be more catered towards us, STV would actually be a good thing. They'd have a smaller audience, less people to please, and they could take what we want into greater consideration. I wouldn't mind in the least if Halloween went STV. Just because a movie sees a theatrical release doesn't mean it's going to be good. I've seen a lot of genuinely good, well-made movies released STV, and some real crap released in theatres.

King Sly Joker

03-15-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by MichaelMyers
Plain and simple, its all bullshit. Its not about the fans, its about the money.

I can believe that about HR and H5.But when they made H4 and H20.I truly believe they had the fans in mind..

Khorne23

03-15-2005, 02:35 PM

Fuck no. Neither the Akkads nor any other film maker makes movies for the fans. They make 'em to make money.

Rick

03-15-2005, 02:43 PM

For horror " fans" or Halloween "fans"?
Lol, if they are making them for the Halloween fans explain H8?
Putting a guy in a white mask and blue coveralls doesn't make it a Halloween movie.

jmb_052

03-15-2005, 02:46 PM

They keep putting them out to get money. They get money from us. They put it out for the fans.

TheTerminator

03-15-2005, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Franchise
If you think that they make movies for you, then you need to PM me cause I've got a million dollars tied up in a Swiss bank account and all I need is a way to transfer the money.

You misunderstood me. *I* never claimed that they made them for "me" (or US, as fans). I was just wondering what everyone ELSE thought.

MyersFan75

03-15-2005, 08:42 PM

I alway's felt like it was for the money.
I can't say that for everyone though - certain producers, cast, scripters, and others DO produce the film for us.
I can only say that Dimension and at times, Akkad, are the two responsible for movies like Resurrection.

Later,
MyersFan75

ten31

03-16-2005, 05:17 AM

I've always said it was for the money but I'm going to change my mind and say that the Akkads do make the Halloween movies for the fans.

Yes I hate that they left out H4-6 when they made H20 but that's in the past. If the Akkads just wanted to make a quick buck they would have jumped on VS bandwaggon and made Michael vs Pinhead.

Demonswrath

03-16-2005, 06:57 AM

That is true Remicis of what you said about ending Laurie's story for the fans, but they really stuck it to the fans as well by ignoring H4-6. All it would have taken was a wee bit of story-telling creativity to entergrade them together and then move into the new direction that they plan on going with the series. But to ignore them was a horrific disreguard to the fans of horror and the Halloween series itself. I don't think it's asking alot to at least recognize the past films and then move on. That's why I don't really think they are concerned at all with the fans. They say things like that so we will pay to see their film. There is no reason or excuse for them to release a poor film without good story elements and with those scares that an everyday movie-goer would want to see. It is the lack of effort that bothers me.

King Sly Joker

03-16-2005, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by jmb_052
They keep putting them out to get money. They get money from us. They put it out for the fans.

Exactly my point..

wallygatorca

03-16-2005, 08:53 AM

Such a no brainer...

Here's why:

I spoke on the phone with Malek Akkad about 2 months ago, because I was inquiring about obtaining the rights of H1 and H2 to show at a local theater. We had a good conversation, and near the end, he talked about working on H9. I gave him my opinion that 1 and 2 stand alone and sequels after were just put out for the Benjamins. He agreed and stated, "You sound like a true fan, but of course, it's all about the money in Hollywood"

LoomisFan4Life

03-16-2005, 09:27 AM

They are doing what sells and right now Rappers and Teen Boppers sell. Thats just the way it is.

Remicis

03-16-2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Demonswrath
That is true Remicis of what you said about ending Laurie's story for the fans, but they really stuck it to the fans as well by ignoring H4-6. All it would have taken was a wee bit of story-telling creativity to entergrade them together and then move into the new direction that they plan on going with the series. But to ignore them was a horrific disreguard to the fans of horror and the Halloween series itself. I don't think it's asking alot to at least recognize the past films and then move on. That's why I don't really think they are concerned at all with the fans. They say things like that so we will pay to see their film. There is no reason or excuse for them to release a poor film without good story elements and with those scares that an everyday movie-goer would want to see. It is the lack of effort that bothers me.

No arguments here. The Laurie thing was just an example of the little bones they throw us from time to time. We're not completely disregarded, that's all I was saying.

At the end of the day, as has been said several times, all the sequels have been made for the money. H2 was made to capitalize off the success of the original, not because the filmmakers had a lot of affection for the fans of H1. Same has been true of every other sequel since. The money comes from the Benjamins, not us, so that's who the movies are mostly catered towards.

rabbitinred666

03-16-2005, 09:44 AM

H-field Hero

03-16-2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by wallygatorca
Such a no brainer...

Here's why:

I spoke on the phone with Malek Akkad about 2 months ago, because I was inquiring about obtaining the rights of H1 and H2 to show at a local theater. We had a good conversation, and near the end, he talked about working on H9. I gave him my opinion that 1 and 2 stand alone and sequels after were just put out for the Benjamins. He agreed and stated, "You sound like a true fan, but of course, it's all about the money in Hollywood" haha man you continually amaze me with your defense of Halloween 2 as a sequel while saying the others are tripe and put out for money. Halloween II was made to capitalize on the success of the slasher craze that all these other films were cashing in on. Is halloween II the shit? Hell yeah, it's arguably the best sequel and one of my favorite films. But that doesn't mean it was made out of bond love and passion for the material.

If someone wants to argue that the original is the only true halloween film and the others are just cheap rip offs and blah blah, I won't agree with that but I can say "ok, they're an original loyalist and thats fine". But this bit of defending halloween II as a sequel, just because it goes so nicely with the original and ends everything nice and neat with a bow, while at the same time calling the other sequels lame movies made for money is hypocritical in the sense that all the sequels were made for the same ultimate reason... MONEY.

King Sly Joker

03-16-2005, 09:53 AM

Khorne23

03-16-2005, 09:56 AM

I think the situation goes a lot like this: a bone is thrown to the serious fan (bringing Laurie Strode and Rick Rosenthal back, for example), but basically, its about making money. The PTBs see the Halloween films as a way to toss off quick, cheap films and make a buck, films they know that some people will see, because they have such a loyal fan base.

wallygatorca

03-16-2005, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by H-field Hero
haha man you continually amaze me with your defense of Halloween 2 as a sequel while saying the others are tripe and put out for money. Halloween II was made to capitalize on the success of the slasher craze that all these other films were cashing in on. Is halloween II the shit? Hell yeah, it's arguably the best sequel and one of my favorite films. But that doesn't mean it was made out of bond love and passion for the material.

If someone wants to argue that the original is the only true halloween film and the others are just cheap rip offs and blah blah, I won't agree with that but I can say "ok, they're an original loyalist and thats fine". But this bit of defending halloween II as a sequel, just because it goes so nicely with the original and ends everything nice and neat with a bow, while at the same time calling the other sequels lame movies made for money is hypocritical in the sense that all the sequels were made for the same ultimate reason... MONEY.

LOL...Amazing how it seems that you actually read all my posts in defense of H2.

All of the films, all, were made with money in mind first, then of course the fans (how to get their butts in the seats), which brings it right back around the circle to the almighty $$$, because:

butts in seats=dollars...bottom line.

Keep checkin' for my defense of H2 in future posts. If I couldn't hold my opinion to myself talking to Malek, well...just keep checkin'

"Hypocritcal", no. "Old School", yes

DarthMyers

03-16-2005, 04:13 PM

Nope, they cater it to a demographic, not a fan-base. 90% of genre films are made this way because of the almighty dollar. Very few companies will risk the story for revenue.

The old-school Halloween fans are my age (mid-30's). There's no way a company will fund a horror film catered to an older crowd. They're shooting for the teeny-bopper to mid-20 levels.

wallygatorca

03-16-2005, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by rabbitinred666
yeah i talked to him on the phone too and he said i could star in h9. I told him my idea for the movie and he liked it and he said he will do it immediately. We only talk once a week though.

yeah right

I did not see this earlier...

Are you insinuating something here?

horror83

03-16-2005, 08:18 PM

to all the fans out there i want to know whats going to happen to the series now all these people are gone now

Donald Pleasence
Debra Hill

where is the series going to go now i'm really worried

Jason Voorhees

03-16-2005, 08:21 PM

I vote that they do it just for the cash. Can't blame them though, it's one of the most succesful horror franchises.

MichaelMyers

03-16-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by horror83
to all the fans out there i want to know whats going to happen to the series now all these people are gone now

Donald Pleasence
Debra Hill

where is the series going to go now i'm really worried
They didn't have anything to do with the series lately, so it doesn't affect the series any worse than its gotten lately.

Ultimate Killer

03-16-2005, 08:29 PM

It was said that Debra Hill had something to do with the later sequels, anyone else hear this?

MyersFan75

03-16-2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Ultimate Killer
It was said that Debra Hill had something to do with the later sequels, anyone else hear this?

Yeah, besides the characters of course she wasn't involved w/ the later sequels.
Either it was innacurate info or they just threw it down just for the fun of it.

Idiots.

:rolleyes:

CURSE

03-17-2005, 01:13 AM

the money. sad but true.

H-field Hero

03-17-2005, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by wallygatorca
LOL...Amazing how it seems that you actually read all my posts in defense of H2.

All of the films, all, were made with money in mind first, then of course the fans (how to get their butts in the seats), which brings it right back around the circle to the almighty $$$, because:

butts in seats=dollars...bottom line.

"Hypocritcal", no. "Old School", yes I don't go around the board sniping for your H2 defense posts. You act like i'm ripping you for defending halloween II. Hello? Check what I have under "favorite halloween". It's the reasons you give to defend it that are ludacrous. You like the story ending after halloween II and I respect that... it's all well and good. However, please do not act like Halloween II was the labor of love in creating like the original was, while the sequels following it were just shit films made for money pumped off an assembly line. Hell, most of the big names involved didn't even want to be a part of it. I believe Carpenter came back due to a contractual obligation and to get the huge sums of money that he never saw with the original (at the time... obviously in the present time the original has made him fortunes). So yes, halloween II owns, but lets not lie to ourselves and act as if it's somehow more justifiable as a sequel than those that came after it.
If I couldn't hold my opinion to myself talking to Malek, well...just keep checkin'Not sure what you're trying to say right there, but I'm having his father, Moustapha over for breakfast so I gotta run.

wallygatorca

03-17-2005, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by H-field Hero
So yes, halloween II owns, but lets not lie to ourselves and act as if it's somehow more justifiable as a sequel than those that came after it.

I'm having his father, Moustapha over for breakfast so I gotta run.

Of course it was more justifiable. The original "stopped", with a huge question mark, thus needing an answer. At the end of H2, Michael was done, cooked, left as ashes, and with no question left about his fate. Therefore, any sequels were not as justified to the main plot/story, in that their premise was just a revival of something that had already seen complete closure. Continuing, was a true showing of greed and a slap in the face to a story that had "ended".

Tell Moustapha I said, "What's up?" and make sure to serve "chorizo" (he loves Mexican food).

H-field Hero

03-17-2005, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by wallygatorca
Of course it was more justifiable. The original "stopped", with a huge question mark, thus needing an answer. At the end of H2, Michael was done, cooked, left as ashes, and with no question left about his fate. Therefore, any sequels were not as justified to the main plot/story, in that their premise was just a revival of something that had already seen complete closure. Continuing, was a true showing of greed and a slap in the face to a story that had "ended".Very true. However, you're speaking from a storyline stand point. I'm looking at in on the financial side and the true reason why each sequel is made... in that light, the shitty film like halloween resurrection had as much justification as Halloween II.

Halloween wasn't set up for a sequel and had the slasher craze not kicked off, there never would have been one. What that means is that there was no original intention to continue the story and answer the big question, "Where did the shape go?". But, Yablans said "Hey, look at these movies ripping off of the original film we made. We have to make another sequel." And boy am I glad he said that because I'm glad halloween II was made.
Tell Moustapha I said, "What's up?" and make sure to serve "chorizo" (he loves Mexican food). I'm a steak fajitas guy so thats what we had ;).

Remicis

03-17-2005, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by wallygatorca
Of course it was more justifiable. The original "stopped", with a huge question mark, thus needing an answer. At the end of H2, Michael was done, cooked, left as ashes, and with no question left about his fate. Therefore, any sequels were not as justified to the main plot/story, in that their premise was just a revival of something that had already seen complete closure. Continuing, was a true showing of greed and a slap in the face to a story that had "ended".

Originally posted by H-field Hero
Very true. However, you're speaking from a storyline stand point. I'm looking at in on the financial side and the true reason why each sequel is made... in that light, the shitty film like halloween resurrection had as much justification as Halloween II.

Yes, from that standpoint, H6 is also equally as justifiable as H2. But even when coming at it from that angle, if you talk to John Carpenter, Michael was "done" at the end of H1. His whole point with the end of the first one was that you didn't need an answer. Not knowing was the idea. So in that sense, the story had "ended" with the first movie. Carpenter hates H2 (along with every other sequel, just to be clear), he's publicly lamented that "there was no more story to tell." So this one was also a revival of something that had already seen the closure that was intended for it.

Sorry, I'm very much with H-field here. I'll totally and completely disagree with, but still respect, an H1 purist who dismisses all the sequels because they're attached to the ideal of the original. But denouncing the rest of the sequels as greedy attempts to cash in while pretending H2 is something special sounds screwy to me.

gerry d

03-20-2005, 09:56 AM

If they make the movies for us fans then it didn't kick in till H4 or H5.At the HII stage it was still too early to say.

But at the end of the day most movie sequals or a series of movies are made because of the mighty $

If you've got the cash these movies will be made.There's always going to people that will go & see these sequals.

cheers

Khorne23

03-20-2005, 01:57 PM

I think I read somewhere that a sequel can be financially justified if the original film either covers costs or makes 50 million in profit (I don't remember which). Because the Halloween movies are so economical to make, financially, a sequel will always be justified. In this article, the head of new projects for Sony/ Tri-Star said that, because it made a profit of $340 million, and despite immense outcry from hardcore fans, the Godzilla movie which came out in 1998 would have a sequel. The balance sheet "allowed" it.

Samuel L. Jackson once said that the decision whether a movie gets made or not needs to somehow be separated from the issue of whether it will make money or not. Obviously, he was saying this in regards to getting what he feels are quality films made, but it would also apply to the Halloween movies.

No longer (or, at least, less likely would it be...) for a movie to dovetail in with popular trends:

- Halloween 4 = Friday the 13th

- Halloween 6 = the X-Files

- Halloween H20 = Scream/ I Know What You Did Last Summer

- Halloween 8 = reality TV

At least, the decision to make some bucks would not be strictly tied to what popular trend the film can be shoehorned into.

myers maniac

03-20-2005, 03:54 PM

How far is too far? The Halloween series as a whole is fairly decent but, where are they going to go from here and still keep the theme of halloween from getting downright stupid!! What's left for Michael to do...

complete

03-20-2005, 04:07 PM

Nah. It's all for the $$$$$$$$.

Logically, would they put out a Halloween film and charge nothing for us fans to see it? Nah. They may consider the fans input every now & then, but it's not solely for the fans. And no movie is SOLELY for the fans. Someone's gotta make $$$ somewhere.

theoutfieldguy

03-21-2005, 01:42 AM

Moustaphababish makes the films for his platonic,undying love of The Shape. "Michael My'as...I luvb'dis guy!"

Silverpsycho

03-21-2005, 03:09 AM

I voted that "yes," Halloween films are catered to the fans but not everyone gets heard. Unfortunately only a small handful of Halloween fans are heard and they usually have no idea what they want. I do believe that Akkad wishes to try and make a majority of the fans happy but that is really impossible since the Halloween series has gone into so many different directions. I honestly am okay with the whole thorn story and then the separate original story. I really don't care what comes out...even if we end up with another Halloween III (which I really do like). So in the end, I do think Akkad tries to make most happy, even though it is quite a difficult task.

FranchiseHatesMe

03-21-2005, 06:24 AM

Its all about the mighty dollar everything in this world goes around money.

ten31

03-21-2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Khorne23

No longer (or, at least, less likely would it be...) for a movie to dovetail in with popular trends:

- Halloween 4 = Friday the 13th

-

Halloween 4 a Friday 13th knock off? Maybe Halloween 5 could be compared to a Friday film.

thetodd

03-22-2005, 06:09 AM

I think it's fair to say that the main goal of most movies is to sell tickets. That being said, if they only cater to the casual fan, the quality of movies will go way down.

Laow-Z

03-22-2005, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by icparenumber1
Its all about the mighty dollar everything in this world goes around money.
"The holy dollar rules everybody's life, gotta make a million doesn't matter who dies" -- Queensryche:cool:

FTL

03-24-2005, 11:56 PM

I always thought the Friday series was made more for the fans than Halloween has been. With every Friday I watch, I'm pretty much happy and satisfied with 'em, excluding maybe one or two sequels.

Andrew73

03-25-2005, 01:35 AM

If the Halloween films were made for fans. They would have made series tie together better. As for mtv of the movies, they should stop. Since its annoying, who cares about teen angst. when couple mintues the body count starts.

Loomis 91

03-29-2005, 12:10 PM

No, H8 is proof of that. (Shit on a stick)

Nightmare13

03-29-2005, 01:23 PM

No! I think, while making Halloween: H20, they were making it for the fans, but then they ingnored Halloween 4, 5 and 6. :rolleyes:

TheShape2005

04-08-2005, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by MichaelMyers
Plain and simple, its all bullshit. Its not about the fans, its about the money.

yeah it's about the money but I think it is for the fan's also because without the fan's liking what they watch then their wouldn't be no money made anyways

Laow-Z

04-08-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by TheShape2005
yeah it's about the money but I think it is for the fan's also because without the fan's liking what they watch then their wouldn't be no money made anyways
But then again we won't know that we like it until we watch it and by that time they got our money already....pretty sneeky of them!!:D

TheShape2005

04-08-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Laow-Z
But then again we won't know that we like it until we watch it and by that time they got our money already....pretty sneeky of them!!:D

yeah they know were going to come and see it and are money will be in their back before the movie is done LoL. well they also know that everybody will buy it also to go with their collection of the films so they would have to really like Mix Michael with Barney before the fans would get sick of the movies

Demonswrath

04-13-2005, 10:38 PM

I'm sneaky too. I'll watch the movie a few days before it's released from a friend that can get it off the net from some friends. The same I did for Resurrection. They didn't see a dime of my money for that. If the movies good, I'll see it again but on the big screen. We won't get fooled again! No, no!

TheShape2005

04-13-2005, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Demonswrath
I'm sneaky too. I'll watch the movie a few days before it's released from a friend that can get it off the net from some friends. The same I did for Resurrection. They didn't see a dime of my money for that. If the movies good, I'll see it again but on the big screen. We won't get fooled again! No, no!

I wont do that I want to help make more movies in the future and going and seeing them is the way. so I go and see the movie a lot before it comes out. cause it don't have to be anything good. with Michael I will like it no matter what

Demonswrath

04-13-2005, 11:45 PM

No. If I was to pay money to see Halloween Resurrection, I would be encouraging them to make another film like it. Now, I am a Halloween nut. If it's a good film, I will see it eight times in the theaters if money permits me to. I will not encourage poor effort. Fan or not, I'm no sucker. I will dish out cash to see it on the big screen if it is worth it. They need to earn my good money, not just because they made a new sequel to a film with my favorite character of all time in it. Poor effort should not be rewarded.

thetodd

04-14-2005, 06:58 AM

Yes, they make the Halloween movies for the fans, but not just the hard core fans. It's a simple fact of business that you have to attract as many customers as possible.

ITSMEBILLY

04-14-2005, 10:42 AM

Well if anyone one remembers halloweenmovies.com posted questions to help shape the story of Halloween Resurrection, they ask if we wanted a continuation of 4,5,6 or John Tate or Jamies baby and Tommy Doyle. If we wanted Tjorn back and lots of other things and we all sent emails saying outr bit and some how the ppl, who didnt want any continuation of 4,5,6 and thorn, jamies baby and Tommy Doyle..Won!

I consider the majority of these ppl new fans brought in during H20 who never saw another Halloween film b4 and then watched the series and realised H20 doesnt fit with 4,5,6 and thought that H20 was some how the priority story.

So we got Resurrection with no link to those films. I only wish they had listened to the true fans!

In which case this thread would be by new fans moaning they got fucked over by H20 being the only film that doesnt fit insted of the other way around.

TheShape2005

04-14-2005, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Demonswrath
No. If I was to pay money to see Halloween Resurrection, I would be encouraging them to make another film like it. Now, I am a Halloween nut. If it's a good film, I will see it eight times in the theaters if money permits me to. I will not encourage poor effort. Fan or not, I'm no sucker. I will dish out cash to see it on the big screen if it is worth it. They need to earn my good money, not just because they made a new sequel to a film with my favorite character of all time in it. Poor effort should not be rewarded. [

well thats what you think! I don't think HalloweeN: Resurrection was a poor effort. I loved the movie. I don't really hate any of them. not even HalloweeN III. I have been a fan of the HalloweeN Seires for 15 years now and just always looking forward to the next one. if the last one was a hit in the theatres or not. I'm one of the biggiest fan of the Series no matter what they do. I guess just to much History with all of them growing up!

gerry d

04-14-2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by ITSMEBILLY

I consider the majority of these ppl new fans brought in during H20 who never saw another Halloween film b4 and then watched the series and realised H20 doesnt fit with 4,5,6 and thought that H20 was some how the priority story.

So we got Resurrection with no link to those films. I only wish they had listened to the true fans!

Personally i wouldn't just say it was new fans that didn't want anything H4-H6 to feature in HR.There are fans that have followed the series from Halloween & felt let down by H5 & H6.Therefore they didn't want it to be included in HR.

I'm not too sure of your definition of true fans?

I mean you could have someone that has followed the series from the start & they are not too keen on 1 or 2 of the Halloween movies.Does that mean they are not a true fan?.

cheers

SonOSam

04-15-2005, 09:49 PM

As i understand it a "test audience" is how we got H6 theatrical version and not producer's. Also, how we ended up with H8. Here's a novel idea....either hire good writer/s or use a good script. Ok, I wrote a sci/fi script and it's been quite a process. I had it professionally edited and recently used a script consultant and I'm making improvments. Going through all that makes me wonder if H6 or H8 had been edited or if they even had a consultant. I remember hearing that while filming H6 they kept changing the ending or that they didn't have an ending when filming began. And how did H8 end up like that? It seems like such a mess. Choose a script. Green light it. Choose a director. Make the movie and then don't "F" it up. No test audience. MO

The Dark Shape

04-17-2005, 10:39 PM

Every single film is a business enterprise. So no, they aren't made for the fans -- they're made to make a profit for the production company and studio. That said, I'm sure Akkad believes he's making the best possible film he can. Agree with the results or not, he puts a hell of a lot more effort into these films than someone like Sean Cunningham.

Originally posted by gerry d
I mean you could have someone that has followed the series from the start & they are not too keen on 1 or 2 of the Halloween movies.Does that mean they are not a true fan?.

And that's the true question. Who is a "true fan"? Somebody who loves all eight films with every inch of his heart? How about a person who finds faults in the films, but always sees the best in them? Or someone else who's very critical, disliking a good chunk of the series, but always hopes for the highest peaks of quality?

When someone mentions a "true fan" on a message board, they generally mean somebody who thinks just like they do.

TheShape2005

04-17-2005, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by The Dark Shape
Every single film is a business enterprise. So no, they aren't made for the fans -- they're made to make a profit for the production company and studio. That said, I'm sure Akkad believes he's making the best possible film he can. Agree with the results or not, he puts a hell of a lot more effort into these films than someone like Sean Cunningham.

And that's the true question. Who is a "true fan"? Somebody who loves all eight films with every inch of his heart? How about a person who finds faults in the films, but always sees the best in them? Or someone else who's very critical, disliking a good chunk of the series, but always hopes for the highest peaks of quality?

When someone mentions a "true fan" on a message board, they generally mean somebody who thinks just like they do. yeah well said. Akkad I do think trys to make the films for the fans so we will be happy with them!

urg

04-18-2005, 02:18 PM

no, they make it for the money the fans posess lol.

TheShape2005

04-18-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by urg
no, they make it for the money the fans posess lol. well yeah true that is the whole point of a movie being made in the first place!

Chaosboy

01-15-2006, 09:19 PM

I really don't think so,( ex.H-8 ) Money is who they make movies for now. If they thought MM would attract a larger audience wearing a dress........they'd probably do it!!!.....now that is what is really scary.

MichaelMyers04

01-15-2006, 09:48 PM

I think they used to, up until like H4. H5 and H6 I'm not sure, but I'm certain that H20 and HR were not for hardcore fans. They erased 3 really good movies (that a lot of fans loved) just because it would be to confusing for "newer fans". To hell with the newer fans, what about the people who stuck with Halloween since #1??

I think they got sucked into the whole Scream era, and they never came out.

slasher

01-23-2006, 06:41 AM

Do they make the Halloween movies for the fans? No they dont. They used to but not anymore. Now they make the movies for the teeny boppers or the younger generation who could give a crap less about a really good horror movie. Ever since Scream came out movie directors have followed that formula. Just watch H20 and Ressurection to see what I'm talking about. Give me the good ol John Carpenter days!

:mad:

discvader

01-23-2006, 06:52 AM

I think they stopped making movies for the fans when they made H2O and decided to forget movies 4,5,and 6. After that it was about the coin...:yar:

Cruel Intentions

01-23-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by thetodd
They cater to the casual fans, not the hard core ones. Starting with H20, they decided to MTVify things and try to lure in people outside of the fan base. That's why they felt the need to simplify things and pretend like 4-6 never happened. They didn't want to confuse the "Johnny-come-latelys". I think there needs to be a balancing act here. They shouldn't sacrifice quality and story in order to make things easier to understand for those who aren't long time or loyal fans of the series.

Thats exactly how I feel. I don't think they do it for the hard core fans as much because there is less of them and that makes less money. There are a lot more casual fans which is more money. Plus they know the hard core fans will see them anyway so it's a win win with money.

45 Lampkin Lane

01-23-2006, 02:00 PM

They cater to fans of the horror/slasher genre. They occasionally cater to the hard core fans (i.e. HalloweeN 4) but thetodd is quite correct in his summary.

horrorqueen7

01-25-2006, 10:13 AM

I think that they make the movies to make money. Yes. However maybe with the newer films they are trying to go for a diffrent audience. Personally I dont care for H20 or Resurrection. Still I go to see the new ones when the come out. And I wont lieI will continue. I hope to see Halloween 9 filmed in South Pasadena - and bring back some of the older characters and tie in all the movies togather (with the exception of 3) and just finally end the series. Thats what would make me happy. but its not going to make everyone else happy. The fans all want differant things. :) I am looking forward to Halloween 9 tho.

shoe1985

01-25-2006, 10:59 AM

They were making them for the fans, but once H6 bombed, they had to do something to bring in more fans, and get more money. H20 was a good movie, but it followed what everyone else was doing. H4 did the same thing, but this came first, and had started a new storyline. The fans liked it and went with it, so the creators did the same. They tried to please the fans, but then when H6 bombed, what else could they do? Halloween is now part of the Weinsteins, and they are in the business to make money. Yes, they try to make good movies, but it comes down to how can they get people in the seats.

thetodd

01-26-2006, 04:43 PM

The make the Halloween movies in order to turn a profit, bottom line. I mean, it might be more than that to some of the people in charge, but even they have to make sure that the movie will be seen by as many people as possible. It sucks, but we hard core fans could see every Halloween a dozen times and it wouldn't be enough to pay for the promotion of it, let alone the production.

Horror Kitten

02-01-2006, 09:01 PM

No, I don't think they make Halloween for the fans. But what are they gonna say, "We make these movies only to get you to fork over the dough"?

Not very likely.

mikey_man

02-03-2006, 02:13 PM

Thay think they were doing the films for the fans by going back to the original storyline probably because they thought the majority of fans preffered the original story than the thorn and jamie lloyd story lines. I think there should be a petiton going around the net wanting the storyline from 6 to continue from where that left off.

LittleMikey

02-05-2006, 07:29 PM

the only time they listened to the fans is when they scrapped the idea for Helloween

saber372

02-06-2006, 09:06 AM

i think ultimately the fans have something to do with it, but the first thing is money.

The Dark Shape

02-07-2006, 12:17 PM

It's definitely about making money, but Akkad's made the films for fans more than Sean Cunningham's made the last few F13 sequels for his fans.

saber372

02-07-2006, 12:54 PM

ultimately, it has to be for the fans, because without fans...there is no...MONEY..so even if it is a little, it is ultimately for the fans

Lonnie_Elamb

02-07-2006, 08:46 PM

Yeah, it has to be at least partially for the fans. Without the fans, there are no money. But don't think they'll be making another Halloween if the last one does shitty. When there's no more money to be made, I'm sure they'll be done. Either that, or Michael will go into another coma until something new comes up.

Dark Agent

03-08-2006, 07:35 AM

They better start connecting H4-6 to the plot, otherwise they will lose another fan...............MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! !!!!!!!!!!:mad:

MyersHunter20

03-08-2006, 10:16 AM

of course they make these movies for the fans. if they didnt, i think they would have killed off Michael Myers along time ago. They will keep making these movies until we dont want them anymore, which is hopefully never.

shoe1985

03-08-2006, 02:14 PM

I am a huge fan of this series, just like everyone here. I already said that they make it for money, but they do consider the fans in keeping Myers in the movies. Now with Akkad gone, we will probably get a remake, something I believe most fans don't want. The days of the fans are over now with him.

Nightmareman88

03-11-2006, 01:27 PM

Halloween Resurrection, nuff said.

PINKSUGARBABE

06-01-2006, 02:40 AM

i dont think its for the fans its for the money$$$$ so yeh

H-field Hero

06-01-2006, 02:58 PM

Another thing worth noting (and i know i've said this before) is that often times fans have some of the most far out, ridiculous ideas... much like the "omg omg omg bring back thorn baby stephen!" that Stef alluded to. That said, there are times when level headed, intelligent fans spark up very interesting ideas and fan fiction stories, but even then one could argue that most of them wouldn't be a commercial success.

Btw Stef, I'm pretty sure somewhere in this thread I made a post almost mirroring the one you just made. heh.
What exactly do you mean by "the fans". They don't cater these films to this small group of die hards who belong to this message board. And on the other hand, they don't make them to appease womans rights groups. They are made for the purpose of making money. In order to make money, the people have to like the product, otherwise they won't see it. I'm not a box office expert, but despite being a turkey H:R did good business.

I know i'm being a little vague here in my position, but it's just that movies are made for money. To single out Dimension/Akkads for making the movies just for money is like singling out a sports team for "only playing the games to win". Every company produces movies to make money, every sports team plays to win. Granted, sports teams should not cheat to win and movie companies/producers should not put out shitty films just to rake in cash. It's a double edged sword. Do I think Malek Akkad sits in his office and says "Ok, this movie is going to be for the die hard fans!!"-- absolutely not, but I also don't think he says to himself "ok, llets try to make as much money as possible while putting in the least amount of effort."

Another example of what I'm saying would be H2o. They knew that signing Jamie Lee to the film would get the fans in a frenzy... they also knew it would lead to $$$. Again, it goes both ways. There we are :D.

mcilroga

06-01-2006, 03:13 PM

They better start connecting H4-6 to the plot, otherwise they will lose another fan...............MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! !!!!!!!!!!:mad:

AND MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! TOO!

Verdis Quo

06-02-2006, 02:59 AM

I think 2 + 5 were both made purely for the money, but I still like them alot.

gerry d

06-02-2006, 09:10 AM

I think 2 + 5 were both made purely for the money,

In that case i'd ask for a refund on H5:laugh:

cheers

The Dark Shape

06-02-2006, 09:27 AM

They better start connecting H4-6 to the plot, otherwise they will lose another fan...............MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! !!!!!!!!!!:mad:

AND MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! TOO!

If that's what it depends on, prepare to pack your bags and say GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD BYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEE!!!!

Bennett Tramer

06-09-2006, 04:18 AM

i think both you always make a movie to make money but i also think they sort of give what the Halloween fans want

devils-eyes

06-09-2006, 04:58 AM

they dont think of the fans cos they no the fans will go see it anyway like most of u av said its purely for the money

mr32

05-13-2007, 08:38 PM

Hell no and we all know what they make em for.

Myers_0728

05-13-2007, 11:23 PM

I think also that they completely fucked up the story by just changing it out of the blue. It went from an interesting Thorn story, IMO, to a crappy teenage slasher film.

Laurie Strode

05-14-2007, 12:03 AM

IMO they do make them for us the fans. If there were no fans, the franchise wouldn't be as big as it is and they woulda stopped making the movies a long time ago. Of coarse money is a factor, and that's because the movie makers know there are alot of Halloween fans out there. Even if the Halloween movie their making sucks, it doesn't matter....their still making it for the fans because we bring in the big bucks.

EDIT: I meant to choose fans in the poll but I didn't.

Patrick Bateman

05-16-2007, 10:36 AM

Hell no and we all know what they make em for.

Money - Pink Floyd :bow:

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

"HuHuh! I was in the right!"
"Yes, absolutely in the right!"
"I certainly was in the right!"
"You was definitely in the right. That geezer was cruising for a
bruising!"
"Yeah!"
"Why does anyone do anything?"
"I don't know, I was really drunk at the time!"
"I was just telling him, he couldn't get into number 2. He was asking
why he wasn't coming up on freely, after I was yelling and
screaming and telling him why he wasn't coming up on freely.
It came as a heavy blow, but we sorted the matter out"

EvilOnTwoLegs

05-22-2007, 08:05 PM

No, I think they make the films for people who will hate them. Back in 1978, there were like five or six people who hated Halloween...all of the sequels were made just for them.

temp19

05-23-2007, 11:55 AM

The underlying reason for making movies is to make money so I would say that the Halloween movies are made for money but since you cannot make money without fans I would say yes they are made for the fans to spend their money on.

Darth Tyranus

05-23-2007, 02:38 PM

It is about money and nothing more.

Dark Agent

05-23-2007, 06:36 PM

The underlying reason for making movies is to make money

And the Art part of the movie industry has since been lost.

DarknessBDJM

05-23-2007, 06:41 PM

They make them for the fans in the sense that they make them because of the fans, but I feel that they stopped making them because of what fans particularly want in a Halloween film after 4.

Darth Tyranus

05-24-2007, 05:31 PM

They made Resurrection for the fans...

the shape '78

05-24-2007, 08:46 PM

resurrection... the biggest slap in the face to all halloween fans, hardcore and casual halloween fan alike.

-mitch-

wyatt s

05-24-2007, 08:55 PM

They didn't make ressurection for the fans, they made ressurection for a target audience. The problem is that the film came out as most crappy fan films do. Infact the whole plot seems like something that a fan with no real talent would come up with. I honestly think the first four movies were made more or less for the halloween fan base, but the others really weren't.

Dark Agent

05-24-2007, 09:51 PM

Well Halloween 6 was written by a fan for fans, but of course we all know whatthe director did with that one.

But H5, H20 and H:R were really not made for the fans in my view.

ALDO

05-24-2007, 10:10 PM

H:20 was made for the Dawson's Creek audience wasn't it?:bastard:

EvilOnTwoLegs

05-24-2007, 10:20 PM

H:20 was made for the Dawson's Creek audience wasn't it?:bastard:
No...it was just made by people who had worked on Dawson's Creek. ;)

mr32

05-26-2007, 12:59 AM

And mostly they target the young veiwer the most, no disrespect to the younger veiwer.

xlucky7sevenx

06-22-2007, 08:34 PM

He could have just meant we make these films for the fans (meaning casual fans) but i guess in some way they do and they don't they have to appeal to both which is very hard to do.

jigsaw_dude

08-23-2007, 09:44 PM

Hell No, H20 and Resurrection made that quite clear.

Fiberawptic

08-24-2007, 07:27 AM

Well, TBh, dont ya think H4 was some what a gift for fans, since they brought back MM. Everybody loves MM. But i personally believe they make SOME things in each movies for the fans but most of the movie isnt based on what fans want, its budget and money. Why else do you think there is a Halloween Ressurection? The fans didnt ask for it.

Anyway, i think Robs halloween will be most dedicated to fans because he himself is a huge fan and, this is akward, but hes somewhat young like many people here and his age allows him to think about imagination than just a stupid budget like most older-aged directors do.

TommyDoyle2

08-24-2007, 09:45 AM

Hell No, H20 and Resurrection made that quite clear.

Hell yeah brother.

For the fans? They seemed more inclined to cater to Jamie Lee's whims at making a direct sequel to H2. Which is fair I suppose. I mean, what did she do? Co-star in part one and grudgingly (practically) cameo in Halloween 2. After that she practically flipped the bird at the series, unlike a certain English gentleman who was loyal to the fans until the very end.

What have I done? Well gee, spent my hard earned money on novelizations, posters, C.D soundtracks, DVD's, Movie Maniac figures and wheelbarrows full of other stuff concerning H4-H6. I defended the Jamie Lloyd trilogy to the hilt, became invested in the storyline, the characters and the finer details of Thorn. I also bought a green Tommy Doyle-esque jacket for Gods sake, I idolized the character so damn much...I petitioned for H6 P-Cut to be released...I lived that frigging series. And for what? For Jamie Lee Curtis to 'thank' me by telling me my love for the CLASSIC series wasn't needed. Oh no...we've got something better now. Yeah. Look where that ended up. I wouldn't have cared if we went DTV either...I'm loyal to H1-H6.

mcilroga

08-24-2007, 10:05 AM

Hell yeah brother.

For the fans? They seemed more inclined to cater to Jamie Lee's whims at making a direct sequel to H2. Which is fair I suppose. I mean, what did she do? Co-star in part one and grudgingly (practically) cameo in Halloween 2. After that she practically flipped the bird at the series, unlike a certain English gentleman who was loyal to the fans until the very end.

Wake up and smell the roses.

I'm certainly not in a position to deny that H20 wasn't made "for the fans," but let's not fool ourselves into believing that it was the first sequel to cater to that tradition. Because here's the thing: None of the sequels were made for the fans (with the possible exception of H3). Halloween II? Made for the money, baby. Let's face facts, none of the sequels are necessary movies, ergo, were only created for the profit [this is evident as the series stretched more and more into absurdity]. Especially when they brought back Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis from the dead in 1988. Kind of hard to defend that move (aka: moolah moolah moolah!). H20 is commonly blamed for being "the one that turned the franchise into a cash-grabbing whore" (or some other equally ridiculous claim) because it, unlike the last few predecessors, actually did turn a profit. Some fans are blindsided by this. Make no mistake though, friend; the intentions were there... five films priorly.

On to other matters: Donald Pleasance had a shit career, at least commercially. His never took off, he is not well known, and that's why he stuck with the series. Be assured, had his acting profession taken off after Halloween, as Jamie Lee Curtis' did, he'd have ditched the franchise like that. *snap* Because that's what an actor does... their career is on the rise, they're branching out of horror -- what lunatic would glue themselves down? It's the wonderful world of acting. You're offered up, you go up. Jamie Lee Curtis went up. Donald didn't. Why? He was never offered up. He stuck with the Halloween series because he had nowhere else to go.

TommyDoyle2

08-24-2007, 10:17 AM

Wake up and smell the roses.

I'm certainly not in a position to deny that H20 wasn't made "for the fans," but let's not fool ourselves into believing that it was the first sequel to cater to that tradition. Because here's the thing: None of the sequels were made for the fans (with the possible exception of H3). Halloween II? Made for the money, baby. Let's face facts, none of the sequels are necessary movies, ergo, were only created for the profit [this is evident as the series stretched more and more into absurdity]. Especially when they brought back Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis from the dead in 1988. Kind of hard to defend that move (aka: moolah moolah moolah!). H20 is commonly blamed for being "the one that turned the franchise into a cash-grabbing whore" (or some other equally ridiculous claim) because it, unlike the last few predecessors, actually did turn a profit. Some fans are blindsided by this. Make no mistake though, friend; the intentions were there... five films priorly.

On to other matters: Donald Pleasance had a shit career, at least commercially. His never took off, he is not well known, and that's why he stuck with the series. Be assured, had his acting profession taken off after Halloween, as Jamie Lee Curtis' did, he'd have ditched the franchise like that. *snap* Because that's what an actor does... their career is on the rise, they're branching out of horror -- what lunatic would glue themselves down? It's the wonderful world of acting. You're offered up, you go up. Jamie Lee Curtis went up. Donald didn't. Why? He was never offered up. He stuck with the Halloween series because he had nowhere else to go.

It's like chumming isn't it? I throw chum (H20 disses) into the ocean that is OHMB and you attack! :bastard:

Donald Pleasance was a stage actor, and one of the few whose craft translated as well to screen. He was worshipped by theatrical scholars and film buffs, and was a genius who could convey in one look what others would need 10 pages of dialouge to accomplish. Legosi played Dracula a boat load of times too. Was his a shit career? He was getting older, but he could have easily told the Halloween fans to sod off, and retire. He loved the series and the character of Dr Loomis. He spoke of it with genuine affection, and became endeared to teenagers, something very rare for a man his age, because he was DR LOOMIS. He chose to be. And JLC's career isn't exactly painting the town red. Maybe she returned to Halloween because she had no where else to go. We can't all remain in Trading Places shape can we? :bastard:

mcilroga

08-24-2007, 10:28 AM

It's like chumming isn't it? I throw chum (H20 disses) into the ocean that is OHMB and you attack! :bastard:

Donald Pleasance was a stage actor, and one of the few whose craft translated as well to screen. He was worshipped by theatrical scholars and film buffs, and was a genius who could convey in one look what others would need 10 pages of dialouge to accomplish. Legosi played Dracula a boat load of times too. Was his a shit career? He was getting older, but he could have easily told the Halloween fans to sod off, and retire. He loved the series and the character of Dr Loomis. He spoke of it with genuine affection, and became endeared to teenagers, something very rare for a man his age, because he was DR LOOMIS. He chose to be. And JLC's career isn't exactly painting the town red. Maybe she returned to Halloween because she had no where else to go. We can't all remain in Trading Places shape can we? :bastard:

Thank you for the A&E biography on Donald Pleasance. :bastard: His stage-acting honestly does not matter to the conversation, because that has nothing to do with the Hollywood business. He was not a well-known actor, that is a fact. Let's talk about the time-frame after Halloween II (since, that is after all, what your original post was speaking of)... Curtis went up. She didn't sky-rocket, but she certainly advanced rather quickly, especially in the mid-late '80s. Would you stay with Halloween? I sure the fuck wouldn't.

I really don't get where all this "he was in love with Dr. Loomis" stuff comes from. I certainly don't recall any interviews of him expressing his deep, heartfelt admiration for the character. Hell, he read the script for Halloween and demanded cash on hand. He disliked Halloween 5. Doesn't really sound like someone who was "in love" with a character; what it sounds like is someone who was love with a character when money was offered, haha. Sure, he was passionate in his role, but that's called acting.

And the same could easily be argued for JLC. "I loved the character so much that I came back for H20 to see where she was" (which the woman has said herself; *ahem* unlike Donald Pleasance). Oh, but I guess that's all for the money. Because, you know, Donald Pleasance never wanted a lot of money. :D

TommyDoyle2

08-24-2007, 10:38 AM

Thank you for the A&E biography on Donald Pleasance. :bastard:

I was trying to be heart-felt you uncaring prick. :bastard: I've written a gentle piano piece to accompany that little bio too...so what do you think of that?

His stage-acting honestly does not matter to the conversation, because that has nothing to do with the Hollywood business. He was not a well-known actor, that is a fact.

John Carpenter seemed pretty in awe of him. But what the hell does one of the greatest cinematic minds of our time know?

I really don't get where all this "he was in love with Dr. Loomis" stuff comes from. I certainly don't recall any interviews of him expressing his deep, heartfelt admiration for the character.

Indepth, intellectual, interview's aplenty. Just google 'Horror Legend', and they'll pop up. Google Jamie Lee and you'll find some cleavage shots and a sound bite of her in Freaky Friday. ha ha.

And the same could easily be argued for JLC. "I loved the character so much that I came back for H20 to see where she was" (which the woman has said herself; *ahem* unlike Donald Pleasance).

She was slumming dude. If she loved the character so much, she'd of demanded a role in Halloween 4.

Darth Tyranus

08-24-2007, 10:40 AM

Films are made to to make money.

End of story.

mcilroga

08-24-2007, 10:45 AM

I was trying to be heart-felt you uncaring prick. :bastard: I've written a gentle piano piece to accompany that little bio too...so what do you think of that?

I think you've lost your bloody mind is what I think.

:kiss:

John Carpenter seemed pretty in awe of him. But what the hell does one of the greatest cinematic minds of our time know?

Haha, okay... I'm in awe of a few stage actors myself. Doesn't mean they're well known.

Indepth, intellectual, interview's aplenty. Just google 'Horror Legend', and they'll pop up. Google Jamie Lee and you'll find some cleavage shots and a sound bite of her in Freaky Friday. ha ha.

And when all else fails, downright lie! :bastard: Hahaha.

She was slumming dude. If she loved the character so much, she'd of demanded a role in Halloween 4.

Eh, seven years wasn't enough for her? Perhaps she wanted to wait another ten? Tense herself up more? :p

jigsaw_dude

08-24-2007, 01:50 PM

Donald Pleasance had a shit career

:gtfo:

mcilroga

08-24-2007, 01:53 PM

:bigeyes: :gtfo:

Fantastic rebuttal there... it's great how you just chose not to read the end of my sentence... since the word "commercially" changes everything, right?

jigsaw_dude

08-24-2007, 02:04 PM

mcilroga

08-24-2007, 02:19 PM

Listen to me here, Halloween 4-6 was made for us Halloween fans who wanted Michael back. With H20, they ignore three whole films, a HUGE slap in the face to us fans who have followed the series all this time. And at the end of the film, they dedicate the film to Donald Pleasence, what a great way to honor him by throwing his past work right out the window.

I'm not even going to comment on Halloween Resurrection.

No, Halloween 4 was certainly not made for the fans. You think they out-of-the-blue brought Myers and Loomis back (from a point blank gas explosion) for the fans? Haha, I don't think so. They stretch some great plausibility for a paycheck, and you know it. It'd been so long since a Halloween film, why else would they bring the series back so randomly? Then, guess what -- Halloween 4 turns out a commercial success. Guess what happens next? Halloween 5! (so quickly too; that's got to say something). Which is, of course, a failure commercially, so then guess what happens... no new Halloween movie for six years. You think all of that is a coincidence? No, no it's not.

Halloween H20 perfectly acknowledges H1 and H2, which are the movies that I'm guessing he considers his finest Halloween films, considering he didn't like H5, and was extremely unhealthy during H6. So I'll take a shot in the dark here and claim that H1 and H2 are the best of the lot, in his opinion. This leads me to believe that he wouldn't hate H20 for ignoring half his Halloween legacy if he was still alive. Just like Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell, etc. don't.

Towelman

08-24-2007, 03:11 PM

He was not a well-known actor, that is a fact.

Not quite true. He definitely was well-known in England, before and after playing Loomis. Not in a tabloid celebrity way, but certainly a known and well-regarded character actor that a lot of people would have heard of or recognised from film and TV roles, including people who'd never seen any Halloween films. I remember seeing him interviewed on talk shows where Halloween was barely mentioned.

Crystal Lake'80

08-24-2007, 06:58 PM

I can't believe that after almost ten years, people still complain that they ignored 4-6. The reason H20 ignores these films isn't because they wanted to dumb it down for the modern teen, but because Jamie-Lee didn't like the films. Halloween 4 and H20 are the only sequals that stay true to the original. H20 earned big money, you can claim it's because of Scream, which it in part is, but I believe it also has to do with the fact that Michael Myers was not the star of the show, and that it was about the teens again. How is H20 the first film to cator to the MTV crowd? H4-6 has just as many crazy fashion styles and pop singles. Does anybody know where Danielle commented on H20/Resurrection?

FooFighter09

08-24-2007, 07:06 PM

Let's look at the facts:

Halloween H20

- IGNORED Halloween 4-6

Halloween Resurrection

- KILLED Laurie Strode
- IGNORED H4-6

That about explains it.

EvilOnTwoLegs

08-24-2007, 07:09 PM

I don't get into the H4-H6/H20 arguments anymore. I did a lot of railing back in the day, but those are all conversations I've had too many times now, so I don't revisit them. I didn't like the fact that they excised three films from the canon that a lot of us grew up with, but it's not something I really feel like dwelling on anymore. In a way, the fan script than Remicis and I wrote probably helped me to get that out of my system. We tied the continuities together in our own way, and after that, it didn't really seem to matter anymore if H20 disregarded H4-H6.

But yeah, those are discussions that I had when I first joined the board, and we'd all go back and forth on that topic forever...but I feel like I've said whatever it is I wanted to say about it. Even if it's all gone, now that the old board is down. haha