Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Halloween (2018)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
    And all of this just shows why it was dumb as hell to retcon the sibling connection. It's one thing to do it to make Michael go after random people and isn't fixated on his family. But when you're still introducing the character who was special to Michael because she was THE SISTER and he's fixated on her and her family AGAIN (the first time being because she was THE SISTER) then what was the point of the retcon? They might as well still be siblings. They trade in one fixation for another and the new one is pointless because Laurie is still front and center getting Michael's main attention which takes away attention he could have a new random person. This whole thing is just flawed.

    But even the retcon doesn't need to be done regardless because you can simply still have Michael go after random people even when he's targeting his family as we still seen throughout the series. It's not just one thing or the other and if he's doing one thing he can't possibly do the other. Just WRITE IT. Resurrection did it (though vaguely setting up Sara to be a potential new relative) after they wrote Laurie out. Those comics all have Michael going after random people when he's not targeting Laurie. Jamie Lee Curtis wants to brag how the retcon was needed so they can discuss trauma like what? You mean to tell me you couldn't push out the same story and meaning had this been a sequel to H:R? Swap out Karen for John Tate, Allyson with a son, gender swap the friends/romantic partners (or make John's son gay), throw in Molly for Ray's role, have Michael be locked up the night of Halloween 2002, but at a PRISON and not a sanitarium. Bingo, problem solved.

    That's how the movie SHOULD have been. The idea of Laurie warrioring up this time around makes sense because we see the build up. The problem with the 2018 movie is we don't see that. There's too big of a gap between the "last" time we see Laurie and thus we don't see a proper transition. With all the other movies intact, we see Laurie progress from a shy and naïve teenager in the first two movies, to a run away middle age woman who starts to take back her fear all in H20, continues to fight and stand strong in H:R, and then this movie she's geared up and ready to go into battle. Like what the hell, a missed opportunity to actually do this story right. Ugh. And trust me Jamie Lee, Laurie would have three times the amount of trauma going through her head too so why should the one event of the original only get credit for this?
    I think the point of removing the sibling angle was to get back to the randomness of Michael's actions in the first movie. There was no good reason for him to target Laurie and her friends. He picked them at random. That WAS the point of the movie, the absence of motive. And, I think part of the point of Laurie's obsession with Michael in this movie is the randomness of it all. We humans tend to look for patterns in things, even when there are none to be found. We seem to crave something that will give meaning to things that seem totally meaningless. And, when we can't find that meaning it messes with us. Michael showed Laurie that bad things can happen for no good reason. That means it can also happen again, and again, and again. I think this uncertainty breaks Laurie and is what drives her to start "warrioring up," because the world is full of bad things and any of them can come knocking at any time, for any reason at all, so she feels the need to prepare for it. Again, it's not just about Michael, it's about life and how unpredictable and scary it can be.

    And, again, I think having Michael obsess over Laurie because she's the one that got away works just fine. And, the fact that he kills some people at random along the way also works just fine. He'll kill some people for kicks and then he'll get to Laurie when he's good and ready to. He's moving at his own pace and doing things the way he wants to do them. Maybe he even kills those people as a way to let Laurie know that he's back and the game is back on. Michael's a deranged killer, his thought processes don't have to make sense to you or I, they only have to make sense to him.

    I tend to think of Michael as playing a big game with everyone, and everything he does is part of that game, including going after Laurie again after 40 years. His game with her isn't finished until he gets her, so he has to go after her again. He chose her at random, but now that she is chosen he won't stop until he gets her.

    One thing that I will agree with you on is that if they had at least included Halloween 2 in this new timeline it would have made Michael look more dangerous and worthy of being called the Boogeyman. By the end of H2 I think he kills like fourteen people that they know of and he's gone through some crazy things and survived. I think that would make more fuel to turn Michael into a legendary figure. They could have even still retconed out the sibling angle the same way they do here. You just have Laurie's granddaughter state in plain English that Michael and Laurie are not siblings, that's just something that people made up, again because they're trying to find a rationale behind something that has no rationale. You effectively say that in this new timeline, the part where Laurie is identified as Michael's sister didn't happen.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
      I think the point of removing the sibling angle was to get back to the randomness of Michael's actions in the first movie.
      But they can still do that even with the sibling angle being established so it's like, why is this such a big deal to do?
      Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
      And, again, I think having Michael obsess over Laurie because she's the one that got away works just fine.
      I don't like it. For one, it's too clique with what a lot of other horror movies do. But most importantly, Michael already had a set fixation on Laurie so it should have been kept. The "new" one doesn't really add anything new especially if her daughter or granddaughter is to pass the torch and we're back to this angle where Laurie's relatives is front and center and Michael is gonna keep chasing them down until they're out of the picture whether by them getting killed by him or them getting killed by something else accidentally or hiding away. One thing I like about the Friday the 13th movies is that we've had several protagonists for one movie and we never see them again. Laurie shouldn't have even been around this time. If they didn't want to make her the sister then this should have been a straight reboot. Don't connect it to the original when we have a string of sequels to that establishing this relationship in TWO freaking continuities perspecitively. Regardless of what the original itself established, the sequels tainted it and John Carpenter even filmed a scene for the original to VAGUELY hint at the two being siblings so even with them ignoring H2, Laurie should have still been Michael's sister for the sake of keeping the 1978 movie series of films following consistent with this huge character aspect at least when the timelines unfortunately can't be.
      Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
      One thing that I will agree with you on is that if they had at least included Halloween 2 in this new timeline it would have made Michael look more dangerous and worthy of being called the Boogeyman. By the end of H2 I think he kills like fourteen people that they know of and he's gone through some crazy things and survived. I think that would make more fuel to turn Michael into a legendary figure. They could have even still retconed out the sibling angle the same way they do here. You just have Laurie's granddaughter state in plain English that Michael and Laurie are not siblings, that's just something that people made up, again because they're trying to find a rationale behind something that has no rationale. You effectively say that in this new timeline, the part where Laurie is identified as Michael's sister didn't happen.
      Um, but it wouldn't have been good to have that Allyson line in here. We'd need more meat to that. In H2, Marion states that there were FILES on the whole thing so you can't just write that out being "just a rumor". We'd have to know why those files were wrong and where that info even originated. A better way to get around that is for Laurie to learn that she was adopted by the Myers and thus have parents even before them. That would have been a better way to "retcon" the sibling angle that is still consistent with what's established before and had those sequels still played continuity to this timeline. Just saying "Oh, that's not true" and brushing it off with no further revelation is just dumb and lazy.
      Last edited by DevonteHuntley; 10-19-2018, 09:25 PM.

      Comment


      • My early thoughts after seeing this last night:

        This is the best sequel since Halloween 4. I think a lot of the people saying its easily the best sequel have probably only seen the first one, or its recency bias, but this is still a very worthy entry. Michael and Laurie were handled very well, the soundtrack is fucking awesome, the kills are brutal, and there's some legitimately really funny stuff in there. On the negative side, I think the main supporting characters besides Laurie are kinda weak, and there's one story beat that's weird.

        Comment


        • I saw it today & all in all I thought it was pretty rad. My brain was actively rejecting it at first because of the other sequels, it was like a knee jerk reaction probably from familiarity* with the series. There were moments that were kind of off to me at first but it ironed out by the end. Oh and that kid that's being babysat? Ha ha, he's great!


          *Over familiarity, perhaps? Ha ha ha, nah...
          "We're all pretty bizarre. Some of us are just better at hiding it, that's all." -- Andrew Clark, The Breakfast Club (1985)

          Comment


          • Saw the movie and I enjoyed it a lot. A few flaws here and there, but overall a good movie.

            Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
            But they can still do that even with the sibling angle being established so it's like, why is this such a big deal to do?
            Making Laurie Michael's sister means that he went after her because she has a special significance to him, and that contradicts the point of the first movie. By removing the sibling angle, Michael choosing Laurie at all is back to being a random event. There was nothing special about Laurie Strode. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught Michael's eye, then she got away from him and now he wants to finish what he started. The fact that Laurie is significant to Michael now is a result of the events of the first movie, not something that was thrown in after the fact to give them a pre-existing connection.

            Laurie shouldn't have even been around this time.
            I'd say that's a valid point. Laurie didn't really need to be here and maybe it would have been better to just have Michael return to Haddonfield and pick a new group of random people to go after, effectively recreating the events of the first movie. That could have worked. I just think this way works too, especially if one of the points of the movie is to explore how the events of H1 have effected Laurie's life.

            Regardless of what the original itself established, the sequels tainted it
            And, now we have a timeline where those sequels no longer exist, so their taint is no longer relevant.

            and John Carpenter even filmed a scene for the original to VAGUELY hint at the two being siblings so even with them ignoring H2, Laurie should have still been Michael's sister for the sake of keeping the 1978 movie series of films following consistent with this huge character aspect at least when the timelines unfortunately can't be.
            The scene isn't in the movie so it's irrelevant. There's nothing in H1 that makes Laurie Michael's sister. Cut out everything that came after and she doesn't have to be his sister now.

            Um, but it wouldn't have been good to have that Allyson line in here. We'd need more meat to that. In H2, Marion states that there were FILES on the whole thing so you can't just write that out being "just a rumor". We'd have to know why those files were wrong and where that info even originated. A better way to get around that is for Laurie to learn that she was adopted by the Myers and thus have parents even before them. That would have been a better way to "retcon" the sibling angle that is still consistent with what's established before and had those sequels still played continuity to this timeline.
            I think you miss my point. In my scenario, by having Allyson dismiss the sibling angle as something that people made up, I would be effectively saying that the scenes in H2 where Nurse Marion identified Laurie as Michael's sister never happened. There was no conversation between her and Loomis regarding that, there are no files, none of it exists. Nurse Marion came to take Loomis back to Smyth's Grove, during the trip he realized that Michael might continue to pursue Laurie, and then he made their police escort take them to her.

            Just saying "Oh, that's not true" and brushing it off with no further revelation is just dumb and lazy.
            I disagree. Sometimes, the simplest solution is the best one. The problem with your idea is that it makes Laurie's backstory even more convoluted than it was before. Now your saying that she was born to one set of parents, adopted by the Myers family, and then later adopted by the Strode family. That needlessly complicates things.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              Saw the movie and I enjoyed it a lot. A few flaws here and there, but overall a good movie.
              There's always going to be flaws. The movie is quite decent to me. I didn't care for it. The retcon really has me dislike it. I wish the plot was tweaked to follow Resurrection. I'm gonna post my review of the movie in a separate comment below this one.
              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              The fact that Laurie is significant to Michael now is a result of the events of the first movie, not something that was thrown in after the fact to give them a pre-existing connection.
              But lots of things are thrown in "after the fact". It's been like this since storytelling began. Nothing is ever fully crafted out and even if they are, it's always to a limited extent and ideas still change along the way. It kills me when people complain in a series where something introduced down the line and brag how it "wasn't the original intention" like does it have to be? You're crafting a series, ideas have to come up down the line to keep it moving and keep it fresh or else what the hell are you doing? Look at every TV show out there. I'm sure 99% of them have been the writers making stuff up as they go. It's not like they are required to write everything out and how it's gonna go before it's put on screen or that's gonna be a lot of time and ideas to create. You only focus on the initial project at hand and just because something isn't thought of at the time doesn't mean it can't be later on.
              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              I'd say that's a valid point. Laurie didn't really need to be here and maybe it would have been better to just have Michael return to Haddonfield and pick a new group of random people to go after, effectively recreating the events of the first movie. That could have worked. I just think this way works too, especially if one of the points of the movie is to explore how the events of H1 have effected Laurie's life.
              That could be explored through dialogue. H20 did it with Loomis when it wanted to wipe out H4-H6 and with him being dead we simply got dialogue talk of what he did. He was seeking out Michael throughout that time, got sick at some point and was living with Marion. I wish we got a little MORE than what they threw at us but that's something they could have done with Laurie. Or not have her dead but not have her seen, similar to what they did with Sally Hardesty by the sequel's events. We didn't see her, we just heard about what happened to her and that she simply went crazy. The movie went on to focus on entirely new protagonists.
              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              And, now we have a timeline where those sequels no longer exist, so their taint is no longer relevant.
              Doesn't matter or work like that. We already have sequels that establish what gives us a different outlook of the original. Unless going a straight remake route, anything connected to that original movie needs to stick with the relationship and keep that consistent. It's been imbedded too far and these sequels are connected to the same movie. It doesn't make sense to disjoint the relationship even if you're disjointing a continuity. There's a reason why they didn't decide to not include H2 in H20 when Steve Miner thought to do that. It's set on the same night, but the franchise has established that Michael and Laurie are brother and sister and this was a huge plot device knowledge. It doesn't make sense to have a sequel in this same series of movies come in and declare otherwise with some cheap retcon. You can take away the plot, but not a very important and uprooted relationship unless you're starting from scratch entirely. Rob Zombie for example could have discarded the thing since he was starting COMPLETELY from scratch. It just works better in this case.
              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              The scene isn't in the movie so it's irrelevant. There's nothing in H1 that makes Laurie Michael's sister. Cut out everything that came after and she doesn't have to be his sister now.
              Well she has to because the sequels CONNECTED TO THAT MOVIE say so and this movie is associated with them regardless because it's associated with the original as they are. There's always something that has to tie that circle of movies together even if the timelines don't work out. Like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series for example, we never knew Leatherface's family's name until the sequel. But the sequels following TCM2 kept the surname Sawyer despite happening in different timelines, and this passed onto even the 2013 direct sequel to the original and it's prequel and neither of those movies technically had to do it. But they did it for the fact it was imbedded in that series of movies and these movies are connecting to the same original movie those sequels are connected to and they have it so it's a partial connection to them they still ought to have at the very least. The only movie that should be changing up names is the remake, which did in fact do that making the family's name Hewitt. Now that's alright.

              TCM4 did a rather cheap thing trying to "connect" the middle movies in as one in it's opening monologue, even declaring this was "five years" after the third movie given the time gap between productions which is five years but plot-wise, it doesn't work and it doesn't explain why Leatherface is always with a different family or how he could be alive following the explosion at the end of TCM2 or why he has a knee brace in TCM3 that he was suppose to have receive when he cut himself at the end of the first movie.
              If they were to do a direct sequel to Candyman, I still expect to see the name Daniel Robitaille in there, a name we didn't know until the sequel. Despite the original not having it, the sequels did and this sequel is connected to that original movie connecting it to that series of movie which has that name imbedded as something significant.
              It feels off to throw in a new name until this was a total reboot.
              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              I think you miss my point. In my scenario, by having Allyson dismiss the sibling angle as something that people made up, I would be effectively saying that the scenes in H2 where Nurse Marion identified Laurie as Michael's sister never happened. There was no conversation between her and Loomis regarding that, there are no files, none of it exists. Nurse Marion came to take Loomis back to Smyth's Grove, during the trip he realized that Michael might continue to pursue Laurie, and then he made their police escort take them to her.
              Um no. If it happened onscreen, it happened period. You shouldn't partially follow a movie. It's either the whole thing or not at all. If you don't like that angle, then either reboot entirely or do the adoption scenario I write below. As far as the adoption idea being "convoluted" it's not. It's a simple plot twist that could build on Laurie discovering who her real parents are in the sequel. There's plot material that could be worked with there. It's only convoluted if you try to pack that storyline in the same movie it's discovered in. But a simple discovery and some dialogue is all we need at the moment. It doesn't need to go further than that. But it's a much more idealistic approach to "remove" the establish relationship than retconning. Hollywood has gotten too comfortable with that and it keeps them from actually doing something worth keep a working story consistent.
              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
              I disagree. Sometimes, the simplest solution is the best one.
              Oh no, it's always a terrible solution. I hate it that TV revivals such as Will & Grace and Roseanne did it. Just goes to show those shows never should have been brought back in the first place or they should have went in a different direction with those stories. And it's just sloppy thinking how the intended finales ended so there's like a crappy story transition here. Either follow what you layed out at the time when you didn't even know you were coming back or don't even bother. It just causes a mess that you can't just sweep under the wrong. Will & Grace's issue is that they want us to think they simply ignored the finale, but it must be the whole Season 8 because Grace was still pregnant for a significant amount of episodes and in the revival, she's not mentioned having any kids. That same season we learn Karen's husband Stan is still alive and Karen even asks this. If S8 isn't to have happened, then Stan would be dead. But he isn't, but somehow Grace's child just vanishes? Did she have a miscarriage? Like this is the dangers of trying to simply write off things as being a rumor and not packing some more meat to fully satisfy getting around things so we don't have these plot error issues that linger up.
              Last edited by DevonteHuntley; 10-21-2018, 11:43 AM.

              Comment


              • So I seen the movie and my response to it is "Meh". It wasn't terrible, it was decent, but I wouldn't fair it above a lot of the sequels. As I stated in my last comment and some of my other ones, the retcon really ruins it for me to fully appreciate the movie and without it, it definitely would have lead to some altered story changes that I feel would have been a better movie for me. For everything else in the movie passed the retcon, it was quite lackluster:

                The opening credits is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. They clearly taken the "Halloween" title off the ending to the original movie, the credits were going by too fat, the variation of the theme was rather generic, and the deflating pumpkin was silly. Should have just been a regular pumpkin, perhaps on fire or something? But yeah, that whole thing was just yuck and disappointing.

                The sequence where Aaron tries to get Michael to talk while holding his mask went on rather too long. I think it could have been trimmed down by ten seconds. The inmates going crazy was disturbing and got too over the top as the sequence dragged so trimming the sequence down could have helped tone down their barbaric reactions too.

                The gore should have been taken down a notch. They said they were bringing this back to the tone of the original yet all there is death and some severe graphic deaths throughout the damn thing. And they thought keeping a lot of it "offscreen" would make a difference, but that didn't cut it for me. How clever, but nope.

                The editing was quite funky at places like it wasn't properly transitioning between scenes such as the scene where we first see Allyson at school where her boyfriend scares her or that boy and his dad in the car after the crash happens.

                I can't picture Michael being institutionalized for forty years in a mental asylum especially if he went through all those doctors and they couldn't get nothing out of him. He should have been sent away to a prison far long into the past.

                Karen and Ray's role in this movie seems very poor. They're like "just there" and there's nothing interesting about them. Their relationship isn't written as strong and this mostly has to do with the little role they share in the movie so there's very little we see of them. They're practically bystanders for the most part, especially Ray. He was very useless more-so than Karen. I feel as though those characters didn't need to be in the movie. They could have been killed off at some point before the movie and Allyson could have just been raised by Laurie.

                The flashbacks with young Karen seemed very abrupt. I also like to know how old Karen is suppose to be and what happened to her when she was taken in by the system. How was she raised post-12 when she was removed from her house? The movie doesn't answer this.

                Laurie meeting with the family at the restaurant seemed quite sudden. There was a scene where she visited Karen at her job as Karen tells Allyson, but this was cut. It would have been a proper meeting between the two before the restaurant scene. Also, we're suppose to believe Karen works as a counselor so why not show that? They only had ONE scene of it and they cut it. Rather dumb.

                Characters like Cameron and Julian just disappear. We should have seen them more in the end. The way they were written out was just abrupt like the writers forgot about them. Both should have had bigger roles. I wish Julian appear earlier in the movie, like in a moment when Dave and Vicki are walking on their own before meeting up with Allyson like when Tommy Doyle appeared to Laurie when we first meet him.
                There also could have been a moment when Michael stalks Julian at his school like he did with Tommy, but Julian acts total opposite. Julian deals with bullies but runs them off and he actually sees Michael and shouts out to him.

                Cameron's friend Oscar shouldn't have been in the movie. To give Cameron a proper closure role, I would have had him take over Oscar's role and death in the end. So at the party, Allyson gets a call from Laurie to come home. Cameron walks her home in an effort to make up for him kissing another girl. Allyson is still mad at him and decides she wants to walk on her own. Cameron is then the one who gets spiked.

                When Allyson, Vicki, and Dave are walking to school, their whole conversation seems off when they're talking about the events of the original. It was dialogue that I'd picture being in a Scream movie. The acting wasn't too convincing here. I think better delivery and lines that didn't come off too "Scream-self awareness" would have worked. I am also curious to how long Allyson was friends with the other two for because it's like they're just now aware

                Loomis' voice-over on that tape was bad. That accent was off as well. I heard it was terrible and worse than Tom Kane's impression in H20 and that person was indeed right. Tom's impression was actually better. They should have brought him back.

                Michael should have killed that baby in the woman's house, just saying. If he's truly pure evil, then it's NO LIMITS. I also think he should have traveled about the neighborhood killing a few more people if they were gonna do this "door to door" thing.

                Dave's death should have been shown. The way he just pops up dead was rather silly. It's similar to Nora's death in Resurrection where we don't see her die but she pops up dead at the end (as they cut the scene where Michael does kill her), but that didn't bother me. It has to do with the fact that Freddie tells Michael to go to the garage where she's at we see him depart there. So when she pops up dead, we known in advance he was going there. With Dave, we see him pick up a knife and that's it. Michael doesn't even know he's in the house. Next thing you know we're on Hawkins and he arrives at the house and finds Dave dead. Again, we should have seen more of a build up at least or see Dave die.


                Some characters did not feel developed especially with each other. Vicki has one scene with Allyson and that's it. Vicki and Dave's scenes together was too small. They barely talked much or did anything. I read there was another scene they shared together in the beginning that was cut. Big mistake. It wouldn't have added much, but a little more something than what we got. At least in the original, the dynamic between Laurie, Annie, and Lynda was heavily strong. Vicki, Dave, and Allyson was to be the "modern trio" of that and they're handled so loose and distant.

                The school party scene seemed like a waste. I feel Allyson didn't even need to be there and too clique. I don't think they even needed one in the movie.

                I'm disappointed the Myers house wasn't displayed here. The closest thing we got to it was the fake constructed one Laurie had in Karen's old room. How the hell do you not display something so important and central to the original movie?

                Laurie's house being a trap wasn't dumb, but to have her burn the whole damn thing down was in fact dumb. All of her possession just gone. At least if she was gonna do that, it should have been in like a guest house, not her own damn house. And if it had to be her own house, I'd prefer if she released something cold like in Jason X where Jason gets caught in that chemical ice stuff and it freezes him. Maybe that could have been done with Michael. It's a different demise for him I would have liked. We've seen him burn twice already.

                They also should have loosened up on the homages. We didn't need a reminder of the sequels which is ironic because they want us to forget about them. But even they knew they couldn't really do that since they exist which makes the retcon thing pointless.

                Dr. Sartain is an interesting character, pretty Wynn-like as Wynn was in H6. I feel his angle was a hit and miss and died too early. He should have been in the movie more and frankly, when he put on the mask I was wondering, what if Michael was taken out at this point and he spent the rest of the movie as the successor going to kill Laurie? Now that's a turn of events that would have been very intriguing. Sartain could have also been able to tell Laurie that he orchestrated the escape so Michael could kill her. All the more reason his character should have lived.

                The music/variation of the Halloween theme I hated. It was way too generic and modernized. John Carpenter didn't seem to try his best this time around. I don't see why people are praising it. It really sucked to me.


                Michael and Laurie's special connection. This is emphasized quite a bit and it's rather odd given the retcon. Dr. Sartain talks about this connection between Michael and Laurie yet they're [suppose to be] not related this time around and how they "keep each other alive" like that's all good if they were siblings but they're not now [allegedly] and Michael went after her ONCE so what's the big deal? Laurie thinking Michael has "waited for her" and then there's Laurie acting Michael-like at times when she's watching Allyson at school and then after she falls off the balcony and vanishes and when she appears behind Michael in the shadows like if she was still the sister, this would have been better rooted. They'd share the same DNA so they're bound to inhabit similar qualities and Laurie also in ways, is a boogeyman only she's the "good" one. I want to believe they're still siblings here until said otherwise. The movie doesn't disprove that notion at all other than retconning H2 but she still could have been born to the Myers family for all we know. Laurie is clearly pinned as some one more than a victim "who got away".

                So yeah, that's my review on the movie. It had some poor story choices and too many characters that caused some to not be fleshed out properly. That's what happens when you try to squeeze everything into one movie, this could have at least been an intended two-parter like they were planning to do, perhaps set on the same night like the first two movies.
                Last edited by DevonteHuntley; 10-21-2018, 08:28 PM.

                Comment


                • Looks to make $77.5 million on a budget of $10-15 million. Needless to say, it's a huge hit on its opening weekend.
                  People hyping up latest comic book movie to be the GOAT and I'm like "psshh, you guys must not have seen Bigfoot rip off a man's dick before in 1980's Night of the Demon."

                  Comment


                  • Whoever played Michael really did a great job of humanizing him again and not making him feel like a kind of lumbering oaf. The only negative I can think of in terms of the handling of Michael was that I was a little disappointed that he wasn't in the periphery that much. Maybe I was just expecting more of that, but I think maybe they were afraid of just looking like they were copying the first film in that regard. H20 tried to do some of that and it wasn't that great.

                    Comment


                    • I know that I will buy the DVD (preferably used), but nothing I have read thus far about this movie has impressed me:

                      1. Michael refuses to talk. Check
                      2. Michael escapes while being transferred from a facility to another. Halloween 4 and Rob Zombie's Halloween 2
                      3. Laurie Strode struggles with PTSD and has to protect her family. Halloween H20
                      4. There is a big fire and Michael allegedly dies in the fire. Halloween 2

                      It seems derivative. I enjoyed watching the Halloween and Friday the 13th movies.... when I was a kid.

                      My taste has changed now that I am adult: I am far more into drama than horror. It's the reason I adore Bates Motel. I like watching films and TV series with characters facing existential dilemmas. For example, I love Norma Bates. She is a troubled woman, but she loves her son and tries so hard to protect him. She opens a motel, wants her business to succeed, but cannot do it because because the city council wants to build a bypass in front of her business. She has rage attacks. She is a woman tormented by her past. Yet she tries and tries to do everything right according to what she believes is right. She is so intriguing that she cooks breakfast in high heels! Nowadays, I am not as much interested in watching gory horror films as I am interested in watching films or TV series with compelling characters, such as Norma Bates, and a strong element of drama.

                      I also prefer TV shows over movies because a TV show allows a character to have more depth, whereas a movie, no, there isn't as much time for adding depth to a character.

                      So, yes, I will watch the movie, eventually, but purely for nostalgia.
                      Last edited by Westin; 10-22-2018, 07:13 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
                        But lots of things are thrown in "after the fact". It's been like this since storytelling began. Nothing is ever fully crafted out and even if they are, it's always to a limited extent and ideas still change along the way. It kills me when people complain in a series where something introduced down the line and brag how it "wasn't the original intention" like does it have to be? You're crafting a series, ideas have to come up down the line to keep it moving and keep it fresh or else what the hell are you doing? Look at every TV show out there. I'm sure 99% of them have been the writers making stuff up as they go. It's not like they are required to write everything out and how it's gonna go before it's put on screen or that's gonna be a lot of time and ideas to create. You only focus on the initial project at hand and just because something isn't thought of at the time doesn't mean it can't be later on.
                        But, I think there's also something to be said for going back to the original idea and starting again from there. They've done it more than once with Godzilla, and some of the results have been good.

                        Doesn't matter or work like that. We already have sequels that establish what gives us a different outlook of the original. Unless going a straight remake route, anything connected to that original movie needs to stick with the relationship and keep that consistent. It's been imbedded too far and these sequels are connected to the same movie. It doesn't make sense to disjoint the relationship even if you're disjointing a continuity. There's a reason why they didn't decide to not include H2 in H20 when Steve Miner thought to do that. It's set on the same night, but the franchise has established that Michael and Laurie are brother and sister and this was a huge plot device knowledge. It doesn't make sense to have a sequel in this same series of movies come in and declare otherwise with some cheap retcon. You can take away the plot, but not a very important and uprooted relationship unless you're starting from scratch entirely. Rob Zombie for example could have discarded the thing since he was starting COMPLETELY from scratch. It just works better in this case.
                        Well she has to because the sequels CONNECTED TO THAT MOVIE say so and this movie is associated with them regardless because it's associated with the original as they are. There's always something that has to tie that circle of movies together even if the timelines don't work out. Like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series for example, we never knew Leatherface's family's name until the sequel. But the sequels following TCM2 kept the surname Sawyer despite happening in different timelines, and this passed onto even the 2013 direct sequel to the original and it's prequel and neither of those movies technically had to do it. But they did it for the fact it was imbedded in that series of movies and these movies are connecting to the same original movie those sequels are connected to and they have it so it's a partial connection to them they still ought to have at the very least. The only movie that should be changing up names is the remake, which did in fact do that making the family's name Hewitt. Now that's alright.

                        TCM4 did a rather cheap thing trying to "connect" the middle movies in as one in it's opening monologue, even declaring this was "five years" after the third movie given the time gap between productions which is five years but plot-wise, it doesn't work and it doesn't explain why Leatherface is always with a different family or how he could be alive following the explosion at the end of TCM2 or why he has a knee brace in TCM3 that he was suppose to have receive when he cut himself at the end of the first movie.
                        If they were to do a direct sequel to Candyman, I still expect to see the name Daniel Robitaille in there, a name we didn't know until the sequel. Despite the original not having it, the sequels did and this sequel is connected to that original movie connecting it to that series of movie which has that name imbedded as something significant.
                        [COLOR=#161616][FONT=Arial][SIZE=12px]It feels off to throw in a new name until this was a total reboot.


                        Um no. If it happened onscreen, it happened period. You shouldn't partially follow a movie. It's either the whole thing or not at all. If you don't like that angle, then either reboot entirely or do the adoption scenario I write below. As far as the adoption idea being "convoluted" it's not. It's a simple plot twist that could build on Laurie discovering who her real parents are in the sequel. There's plot material that could be worked with there. It's only convoluted if you try to pack that storyline in the same movie it's discovered in. But a simple discovery and some dialogue is all we need at the moment. It doesn't need to go further than that. But it's a much more idealistic approach to "remove" the establish relationship than retconning. Hollywood has gotten too comfortable with that and it keeps them from actually doing something worth keep a working story consistent.
                        Oh no, it's always a terrible solution. I hate it that TV revivals such as Will & Grace and Roseanne did it. Just goes to show those shows never should have been brought back in the first place or they should have went in a different direction with those stories. And it's just sloppy thinking how the intended finales ended so there's like a crappy story transition here. Either follow what you layed out at the time when you didn't even know you were coming back or don't even bother. It just causes a mess that you can't just sweep under the wrong. Will & Grace's issue is that they want us to think they simply ignored the finale, but it must be the whole Season 8 because Grace was still pregnant for a significant amount of episodes and in the revival, she's not mentioned having any kids. That same season we learn Karen's husband Stan is still alive and Karen even asks this. If S8 isn't to have happened, then Stan would be dead. But he isn't, but somehow Grace's child just vanishes? Did she have a miscarriage? Like this is the dangers of trying to simply write off things as being a rumor and not packing some more meat to fully satisfy getting around things so we don't have these plot error issues that linger up.
                        I guess the difference between you and I here is that I don't see this as an all or nothing kind of thing. It doesn't have to be "either you completely start again from scratch, or you follow everything else to the letter." And, I don't think you have to use one approach every time. Different approaches can be used in different situations. For example, overall I enjoyed Friday The 13th 2009, but I think one thing that hindered it is that I don't think they did a good job defining what it was that they were doing with it. I get the impression that the writers wanted to do a sequel, but the people in charge wanted a remake, so they tried to make it look like a remake while secretly throwing in hints that it was a sequel. The result was a bit of a mess. In that case, I think it would have been better if they had simply given their bosses the straight-foreword remake they wanted because that would have at least made things less confusing. I would have preferred a sequel, but I could have accepted a well-made remake. Trying to have it both ways didn't work there.

                        But, in the case of Halloween, I think a different approach can work. You don't need to remake Halloween because it was done right the first time, so you take that foundation and build something new around it. You don't have to cut out Halloween 2 completely because overall it's a solid movie, but if you want to remove the sibling angle because you want to try something different, then you can eliminate it. My one demand would be that you at least try to make it clear what's being eliminated and what isn't. Again, by having Allyson dismiss the sibling angle as a rumor that people made up, I'd be telling the audience that in this new continuity that I'm creating, the scenes where Nurse Marion identifies Laurie Strode as Michael's sister should be disregarded because they aren't relevant to the story I would be telling. Whether it works or not isn't entirely in my control, but it's the route that I'd rather take.

                        Halloween 2018 establishes that it's beginning a new continuity. The only fixed point in history is Halloween 1. Everything else is malleable. The rules can change to whatever degree the storyteller wants. We don't have to like what they come up with, but they're still free to do it.

                        Comment


                        • This thread gets bonus points for throwing Will & Grace in the discussion.



                          Comment


                          • I've always disliked the sister angle, it was completely unnecessary.
                            As many have said in the past (and above) the randomness of the events of the first movie are what really makes it work.
                            Adding a family tie wasn't really even necessary for the sequel. Halloween 2 would have worked just as well with Michael continuing to go after Laurie simply because she became his fixation.
                            Complaints about retconning the family tie between Michael and Laurie as unnecessary is ignoring the fact that the sister and brother angle was an unnecessary retcon itself.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
                              But, I think there's also something to be said for going back to the original idea and starting again from there. They've done it more than once with Godzilla, and some of the results have been good.
                              I don't really see that as a plus. It makes the other entries very pointless and that's just wrong. People put their time and energy into those movies to mean something and unless some one is going straight reboot/remake, no sequel deserves to be retcon and the story material just needs to remain consistent until that time comes. The Godzilla series have gotten ridiculous. One sequel in the 1980s that was a direct sequel to the original movie was literally tweaked and changed to become a sequel to ANOTHER sequel released the following year. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that. It's like the two Exorcist prequels. You literally have to make two versions of the same movie that tell a different continuation or beginning to what went on? A mess!
                              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
                              For example, overall I enjoyed Friday The 13th 2009, but I think one thing that hindered it is that I don't think they did a good job defining what it was that they were doing with it. I get the impression that the writers wanted to do a sequel, but the people in charge wanted a remake, so they tried to make it look like a remake while secretly throwing in hints that it was a sequel.
                              The movie should have been a sequel. It never needed to be a remake/reboot. you can't even fit in in continuity with the original series because of the opening and it depicting a young Jason during the 1980 events and when in the first sequel, he would have been a grown man by then. And look what you have, almost ten years later and no sequel to it so that was pretty much a waste. Platinum Dunes really need to be ashamed of themselves. They do all of this remake and rebooting and while I admire them for being vastly original with their stuff and throwing in their own elements, none of them were successful or memorable but the Texas Chainsaw Massacre revisioning.
                              Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
                              But, in the case of Halloween, I think a different approach can work. You don't need to remake Halloween because it was done right the first time.
                              Well if you're rebooting, it won't be a remake. It will be what Batman Begins was to Batman (1989). You're not remaking the story. Rob Zombie already did that, but this new reboot would have been different, something like an adult Judith Myers breaking out of an institution and going after a young Michael Myers. Now that's a pretty interesting twist of events. I am not fond of partial material from a movie being "retconned". It doesn't make sense when you're acknowledging everything else. It's rather you're taking all of that movie with it so ignoring one scene is just ridiculous. That's like if H20 had Ben Tramer in it. "Hey, let's just retcon that ONE SCENE in the sequel we're continuing from where he clearly dies". That'll just look silly. There's just certain ways to handle a story and you can't be picking and choosing material within one you're following to acknowledge. Disregarding whole movies is one thing and dumb because they exist, but not to nick pick at material within a movie that's not totally being ignored? Now that's just beyond the scope a disgrace. I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to go about doing it.
                              Originally posted by Westin View Post
                              This thread gets bonus points for throwing Will & Grace in the discussion.
                              I'm glad to see you're happy about that. I had to make a point and that show just came to mind.
                              Originally posted by rickdrinksbeer View Post
                              I've always disliked the sister angle, it was completely unnecessary.
                              No, it was an added story element that every series does. Did you find the Star Wars revelation pointless of Darth Vader being Luke's father? You're one of the people who just doesn't get it. Something that starts off one way doesn't mean it has to be that way throughout. It's all about being fresh and finding new ground to work with or else you're going to have a very bland and repetitive series or a very short one that's not likely to get highly praised.
                              Originally posted by rickdrinksbeer View Post
                              Adding a family tie wasn't really even necessary for the sequel. Halloween 2 would have worked just as well with Michael continuing to go after Laurie simply because she became his fixation.
                              Well John Carpenter wanted to add a twist and it wasn't that bad. It's a pretty damn good one. I don't see the hate other than "well the original didn't have it" like so what. It means no harm, it works for the story and the fixation Michael have for her, so there should be no problem.
                              Originally posted by rickdrinksbeer View Post
                              Complaints about retconning the family tie between Michael and Laurie as unnecessary is ignoring the fact that the sister and brother angle was an unnecessary retcon itself.
                              It wasn't a retcon because it didn't contradict the original. The original may have layed it out that the two weren't likely related, but that's thing. LIKELY. There's nothing to disprove any chance of them being related so a revelation like that comes and fits itself in perfectly. At first, Michael simply went after Laurie and the mystery was the why. H2 provided us with the why. It just filled in information that was never fully developed passed a vague assumption. A retcon would be what PSYCHO did where Part 2 had Emma Spool be Norman's real mother instead of the aunt. But then this was negated in the next sequel which had her lie the whole time so she was really the aunt who was simply jealous that she couldn't have a son of her own.

                              Last edited by DevonteHuntley; 10-23-2018, 01:49 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Carpenter hated the idea of making them family himself and has stated as much. He claims he did it while stuck and after a 6 pack.
                                It was nothing short of soap opera writing.
                                The story and resulting series would have been much more interresting and better served if the randomness of Myers' obsession with Laurie had been examined in later sequels.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X