Halloween Film Comparisons
Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:22 AM
Halloween the film franchise has always been a passion of mine, as well as most of the Pit crew here. What I want to discuss is the comparisons between the films. The first two, followed by Halloween 4, 5, the Curse of Michael Myers and H20, I've seen Resurrection and for some odd reason it kind of grew on me.
The Shape has been one of the most feared iconic mass murderers in horror film history. No doubt, he has struck fear into the hearts of movie goers, but the actors who played him, fans have bickered back and forth on who was the best Michael Myers. Sure they put a lot of emotion into the way he kills his prey, but that's just an action. His true emotions are never really revealed, except for Halloween 5 when he cried.
What would have made the Shape better in part 5? Him crying or not crying? The rage as Loomis described in Curse of Michael Myers could explain why he kills, but in Halloween, Loomis describes Michael as being emotionless, this is contradictory to what he said in Halloween, when he describes the Shape to the Strode woman. Then again, no one really liked Curse of Michael Myers because, fans didn't want an explanation, yet the studio decided to give one.
I guess what it all boils down to is, in each Halloween film, except part 3, no one can really describe the emotion behind the Shape. What are some of your thoughts on this?
Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:45 PM
As for the Curse of Michael Myers, that movie was by far the crappiest storyline. They ruined the character by trying to explain why he does the things he does. They should've just left out the whole explanation and kept it in the roots of the original. The kills were good, but the explanation of a cult ruined it.
H20 was decent, just because Jamie Lee Curtis was in it. I liked how it moved away from Haddonfield and took place somewhere else.
I don't know why they bothered with Resurrection, H20 would have been the perfect ending to the franchise. Though, fans wanted Myers back. The studios saw this as more money in their pockets and decided to make Resurrection. Though I hated the beginning of the film. They killed off Jamie's character too soon. I would've preferred if she showed up throughout the film, having her escape the institution, knowing her brother was still alive and what happened to her son, having the Shape kill him and his girlfriend.
Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:03 PM
On the flight to Milan, Irwin found himself sitting next to Robert Rehme, President of Avco-Embassy Pictures. Irwin and Robert began talking and Halloween was brought up because of the success it was generating and then Irwin also brought up John's next feature, The Fog. This is where is get real sketchy but apparently after the trip to Milan, Robert came back and approached John about The Fog and made a contact with John for a 2 picture deal with Avco-Embassy with the first picture being The Fog. When Irwin arrives back from Milan, Irwin reads where John signed a 2 picture contact with Avco-Embassy and decides to sue both Avco- Embassy and John for breach of verbal contract.
In order for John NOT to get sued by Irwin and Compass, the deal was John would make The Fog with Avco- Embassy and the sequel to Halloween with Irwin and Compass. Basically, John was forced into Halloween II to get out of a legal issue. If you have ever read anything about John it's this... if you're a producer, and you ask John to change something or do something, he'll do it...with no problems. If you tell John to change something or do something, he won't. There's a BIG difference between the 2, asking and telling. So, John does The Fog with Avco-Embassy and gets forced into Halloween II with Irwin and Compass.
During this time, before the making of Halloween II, Akkad and Yablans make an agreement to sell the Halloween rights to Dino De Laurentiis and become Executive Producers with Dino De Laurentiis becoming the main person in charge of where the Halloween franchise will go. Also during this time, Irwin and Akkad's business relationship gets strained and Compass is dissolved.
Sure, John will say Halloween II was a business decision, but it was a decision that he was forced into. John never, ever, wanted to make a sequel to Halloween or stay in the "horror" genre, John wanted to be a Howard Hawks type of filmmaker. Meaning, he would do all genres and not only "horror". John wanted to be taken seriously as a filmmaker. If you read any of the back issue of Fangoria on the making of Halloween II, Debra says one of the first things they did was to "ban" Irwin from the set, this seems a strict retaliation against the Producer in which, John now had full, 100% creative control while making Halloween II, one of the demands for making Halloween II with Dino.
I think this explains a lot about just why John doesn't look fondly at Halloween II or Halloween III. Not only was he dealing with a project he didn't want to do, he found himself tampering with it and getting attached to a franchise he didn't want necessarily to be attached to. John fully knew his name recognition with the Halloween franchise might hurt him in Hollywood so he tried to put out a good product even though his heart was not in it.
What do you think? Could the bad memories of the past be one of the reasons why John doesn't like talking about Halloween II?
I feel the main reason why JC doesn't like talking about Halloween II or Halloween III is that he knew off the bat that there wasn't anything there worthy of a sequel, the original was open and shut, started perfectly, ended perfectly, and kept that sense of mystery and fear of the unknown Carpenter always goes for.
Halloween II while a good film, took away those aspects key to Carpenter's films, it explained too much, it took away mystery and it tried to end the storyline. Carpenter never ends a storyline, most films he has a direct hand in ends on an ominous note or a sort of "to be continued note" and keeps a sense of mystery Laurie's face staring blankly in the ambulance was as close to Halloween II got to that sort of ending. Mr. Carpenter never intended for The Shape to have a method of operation, an origin, a motive, or an ending.
I believe this was the rest of the reason why he doesn't look back at Halloween II fondly, he went against his principals both in storytelling and in business dealings and Mr. Carpenter seems to be a man of principle.
Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:37 AM
Have you read any of the Halloween comics? Not the ones that came out by Chaos Comics, but the ones by Devil's Due Publishing. The writer Stefan Hutchinson was sticking to Carpenter's style of storyline, more mystery. They published a four issue series subtitled Nightdance where it had the same principle of the first film, the Shape stalking a baby sitter and having it take place in Russleville, a clear homage to the original film. It even has a short story of Charlie Bowles, if you recall the groundskeeper talking to Dr. Loomis, telling him the story of what Charlie did to his family with a hacksaw.
Stefan had written a couple of stories one included the history of Dr. Sam Loomis, what he was like before he met that six year old child with the blank pale, emotionless face, the blackest eyes, the Devil's eyes. It explains how he developed his obsession with the Shape and why he wanted to contain him and never let him out.
There was another story about a photographer, it was included in the Halloween 25 years of Terror Documentary. Then Stefan wrote a short Halloween story about what really happened to the mechanic whose jumpsuit the Shape had stolen.
The first story that was written and illustrated was One Good Scare, it focused on Sam Loomis' son who followed in his father's footsteps and worked as a psychiatrist at Smith's Grove. Lindsay Wallace appears in this one, grown up and stalked by the Shape. There were a lot of fans who wanted the sequels to remain in the same tone as the original.
But like what you've stated, what was done is done. The Shape is nothing more than a killer of relatives and those who get in his way or trespass onto his domain.
Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:09 PM
The only complaint I have is, it wasn't long enough. It wasn't a comic or anything, just a short story.
Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:43 AM
They ignored the events of Halloween 4, 5 and Curse of Michael Myers. They mainly stuck with Halloween, Halloween 2, H20 and Resurrection.
They were supposed to come up with another storyline, The Mark of Thorn, although it's written differently. It focuses on Tommy Doyle who's a comic book artist drawing about what happened to him when he was young and how he was almost killed by the Boogeyman and how he's haunted by him.
The artists have done multiple covers, each one done really well.
They did an anniversary edition of Halloween, subtitled 30 Years of Terror. It was an anthology written by Stefan and illustrated by different artists. The first story was Trick Or Treat, it explains what happened when Tommy and Lindsay went to Mackenzie's place.
P.O.V drawn from the point of view of the Shape and his victim.
Visiting Hours, the story leads up to Laurie's unfortunate fate at the beginning of Resurrection.
Tommy and the Boogeyman a grown up Tommy is scolded at by his wife because of his son finding his old comics collection, mainly Tarantula Man. It's pretty creepy, not what would one expect. Not even from a comic within a comic.
Last story is Repetition Compulsion, it's a story featuring Sam Loomis before the last days of his life as he's still pursuing the Shape. The nurse from the original, Halloween 2 and H20 is his caretaker and tries to help him with his obsession in Michael.
The comics are hard to find, I have them though. I already have the trade paperback of Nightdance. I don't know if the publisher's still around after what they did. You may find them on E-bay.