New Halloween trailer

[Dr Kain]

phpBB [media]

This may be the best Halloween film since III. There's a lot that I liked here.

[jellydonut25]

I liked that a lot.

It won't be hard to top everything since 3, even though I enjoy 4, H20, RZ, and RZII on various levels of irony.

[O.Supreme]

Trailer does look interesting, but of course I have questions....

So basically this is retconing everything except the first film? (Basically the "Godzilla 1985" of Halloween films?), I actually liked H20, because I thought it brought closure to a franchise that had gone way off course, but then they had to muck it up again with Resurrection, and I haven't seen any of the ones since then.

But being as it is, this all goes back to the single event of 1978, then basically the entire "supernatural" element is removed, and we just go back to a human psycho killer, which is fine. Michael however, has to be pushing 60 (as is Jaimee Lee Curtis IRL) . Now I'm not saying that the idea of a 60 year old Psycho killer is beyond the realm of reality, but you gotta imagine, after almost 40 years in an institution, his health cant be that great. I would not be surprised if this doesn't end with him dying of some sort of bodily failure, unless, of course, the supernatural element is reintroduced.

[klen7]

This seems like the right direction for the franchise (i despise RZ films in general) but WHY did they have to give it the same title as the original? At least the 2007 film was a reboot. I really don't understand why this happens as often as it does in franchises these days

[lhb412]

This looks fantastic. I've steadily gotten more and more excited about this film every time a morsel of news was released about it. As it stands, it's probably the 2018 film I'm most excited about.

Anyone else see the Silver Shamrock masks?

[Dr Kain]

I liked that a lot.

It won't be hard to top everything since 3, even though I enjoy 4, H20, RZ, and RZII on various levels of irony.

I think you mean after III as III is just an excellent movie all around. Flawed, but excellent.

[jellydonut25]

Trailer does look interesting, but of course I have questions....

So basically this is retconing everything except the first film? (Basically the "Godzilla 1985" of Halloween films?), I actually liked H20, because I thought it brought closure to a franchise that had gone way off course, but then they had to muck it up again with Resurrection, and I haven't seen any of the ones since then.

But being as it is, this all goes back to the single event of 1978, then basically the entire "supernatural" element is removed, and we just go back to a human psycho killer, which is fine. Michael however, has to be pushing 60 (as is Jaimee Lee Curtis IRL) . Now I'm not saying that the idea of a 60 year old Psycho killer is beyond the realm of reality, but you gotta imagine, after almost 40 years in an institution, his health cant be that great. I would not be surprised if this doesn't end with him dying of some sort of bodily failure, unless, of course, the supernatural element is reintroduced.

The supernatural element is extremely present in the first film. Perhaps you're due for a re-watch?
He's heavily insinuated to be a literal manifestation of the boogeyman...a human body possessed by some evil force.


If there is one concern I have for this, it's that the reverence for that idea and the original will be so deep, that this will wind up being one of those "requels" that claims to be a sequel but is just a remake with tons of nostalgia bait.

[eabaker]

The supernatural element is extremely present in the first film. Perhaps you're due for a re-watch?
He's heavily insinuated to be a literal manifestation of the boogeyman...a human body possessed by some evil force.

Huh. You're taking some stuff literally there that I always read as more metaphorical.

[jellydonut25]

The supernatural element is extremely present in the first film. Perhaps you're due for a re-watch?
He's heavily insinuated to be a literal manifestation of the boogeyman...a human body possessed by some evil force.

Huh. You're taking some stuff literally there that I always read as more metaphorical.

I take it kinda both ways...?

I mean, he gets stabbed, pummeled, bludgeoned, shot, and falls from a 15 foot height and then is just walking around out there somewhere at the end...so there's SOMETHING about him. I take it in kind of the Unbreakable/Split way. He's more (less?) than human. To say he's portrayed as human in the film isn't exactly right. He's depicted as unstoppable and highly inhuman. Loomis spends the entirety of the film insisting that Myers is only human in the strictest, biological sense, and that he "isn't a man," and is "purely and simply evil." Again, he's literally called the boogeyman. The implication to me has always been supernatural, even if it's not to the heightened, comical degree of the sequels. Even the mask itself is a manifestation of Michael's pure evil. He's not putting on a mask to hide his face, he's putting on a mask to SHOW his true face. It's blank, emotionless, unchanging, nonexpressive. Michael Myers is the Boogeyman.

[Henry88]

It's blank, emotionless, unchanging, nonexpressive.

the face of death is William Shatner.

[O.Supreme]

Some of those are interesting explanations, maybe I do need to rewatch? I remember this film scaring so many of my friends and family as kids, but it NEVER scared me. I just didn't get it. It wasn't gory as the Friday series, nor was it "flashy" as the Nightmare series. I do appreciate it now, as it is more psychological horror, on a simpler level, but for some reason, it just never made me afraid. For what its worth Poltergeist was far scarier to me than most slasher films...but I digress

From what I recollect, none of the injuries Michael sustains in the original film are really significant, until, yes the end, with the fall and "I shot him six times..." etc... That I believe was the significant turn at the very end, up until that point, there was nothing that indicated to me, that he was anything more than a disturbed individual. Of course there have been studies of people IRL with extreme adrenaline levels, or under the influence of powerful drugs that have suffered far worse, and still lived, but I know Michael was (as far as we know), not any of those cases.

[Dr Kain]

That's the thing, it can go either way based on what you want to perceive. He was really just a guy in a mask, but he was so evil Loomis personifies him as being like a demon. It wasn't really until the later sequels that they really made him be more than just a man. Either way, all we know is that he found wearing the mask to be far more important than killing Laurie, which is why it doesn't make sense in H20/Resurrection that he would put his mask on some random cop.

Anyway, we'll have to see what they do in this new one as I am quite curious. All I know is that I am very happy with what I saw in that trailer. I just hope those weren't all of the best scenes of the movie in there.

[O.Supreme]

OK....It all makes sense now

phpBB [media]

[jellydonut25]

I can't find it anymore, but there was a quote from the writers about how this is so true to the spirit of the original that they legitimately attempted to and went out of their way to include as many homages and moments from the original film as possible.

That ties into my concern that this might turn out to be a nostalgia-bait "requel" and gives me a touch of pause. But I'm still very on-board.

[UltraDada72]

Trailer does look interesting, but of course I have questions....

So basically this is retconing everything except the first film? (Basically the "Godzilla 1985" of Halloween films?), I actually liked H20, because I thought it brought closure to a franchise that had gone way off course, but then they had to muck it up again with Resurrection, and I haven't seen any of the ones since then.

But being as it is, this all goes back to the single event of 1978, then basically the entire "supernatural" element is removed, and we just go back to a human psycho killer, which is fine. Michael however, has to be pushing 60 (as is Jaimee Lee Curtis IRL) . Now I'm not saying that the idea of a 60 year old Psycho killer is beyond the realm of reality, but you gotta imagine, after almost 40 years in an institution, his health cant be that great. I would not be surprised if this doesn't end with him dying of some sort of bodily failure, unless, of course, the supernatural element is reintroduced.

These are pretty much the same thoughts I've had. I also enjoyed H2O and liked how that ended. I also thought about his age and what health he much be in having been locked up all those years. I'll still give this a chance as I've read that they made an effort to keep the spirit of the original.

[Dr Kain]

THe problem with H20 is that it feels like a 90s horror film rather than a Halloween one. I'm not sure why, but something changed when the series was sold to Miramax. Same thing happend with the Friday the 13th series when it went from Paramount to New Line Cinema. For as bad as A New Beginning, The New Blood, and Jason Takes Manhattan are, they are no where near the levels of suckitude of everything that came after.

[jellydonut25]

THe problem with H20 is that it feels like a 90s horror film rather than a Halloween one.

Because it IS a 90s horror film. Stuff adapts to the sensibilities and times of when it's made. Making a standard mid-80s Halloween movie in 1998 would have not been a good play.

For as bad as A New Beginning, The New Blood, and Jason Takes Manhattan are, they are no where near the levels of suckitude of everything that came after.

I love New Blood.
New Beginning is the dirt worst though. Jason Goes to Hell is worse, but New Beginning is right there.