VHS?

Just PLEASE dont go anywhere near the "Thorn" shit
As mentioned, a sequel coming off of 1,2 and H20 are fine by me. Fact, not sure I would mind going after Resurrection.

dex14

John Tate still lives. Bring it back to the family.

Rival11

I honestly thought I posted my thoughts on the unrated directors cuts of the Zombie Halloween's here but I guess I never did:

To all you haters of the Zombie flicks, I seriously urge you to watch both the unrrated directors cuts of each film. They're awesome and you can obviously tell a ton of stuff was left out.

Yes, the redneck characters don't help much but they also don't take away that much away from the director cuts either.

Seriously, they're worth checking out - even if you still don't like them after viewing, I still think it's worth your time -I loved them (and part II is even more brutal, there is a scene that I THINK was completely left out and if it wasn't left out it was definitely trimmed, that will really make you feel for the sherrif).

The DC of part one makes for a more complete, tense, viewing - the DC for part II as already mentioned, makes for a more much more brutal experience.

Brack

Would be nice, but it's been over 35 years and none come even close to being as good as the first one, though I enjoy the '81 Halloween II (made the mistake of a back story) and parts of parts 4 and 5. Still don't see what was so good about H20 aside from having Jamie Lee Curtis back, and Resurrection ruined that movie even more. Didn't like either Rob Zombie film because of a stupid backstory and made Michael into a superhero-sized killer that just seemed off to me. But it seems to me the original is just as good as this franchise is ever going to get. This isn't James Bond.

inri222

raven56706

Halloween 9- Myers takes Manhatten!

DRG

I like some of their Saw stuff (although they were responsible for the worst entries in the series) and whatever Collector film of theirs I saw, but I really hope they aren't going for those sorts of tones here. The gritty/grisly modern horror aesthetic is just wrong for this franchise (and one of the many problems I had with RZ's take). The original's kills had a sort of poetic brutality, somehow surreal and raw at the same time.

islandclaws

I have, more than once, and they're both still massive pieces of shit.

The first one offers up a white trash background Myers never needed, then it crams the whole of Carpenter's film into the last 40 min.

The second one is an exercise in paying attention, as it's obvious Zombie put so little thought into making a halfway decent movie the only fun in watching it is picking it apart. I've seen people commend it for "trying something new", which might have been commendable had the movie been remotely good. Scout Compton is a terrible actress, too. Terrible.

EddieMoney

The best thing they can do for this series is not make another movie. Ever. Fuck those Hollywood grassfuckers.

GoldenJCJ

I agree. The great thing about the original Halloween - and what made it so scary - is that it could have taken place in any neighborhood in any town in the US. Not just redneck, white trash shit holes or dark industrial urban ghettos. I haven't seen anything from the Saw films that made me think "this could be happening right here in my town."

Also, for the love of Pete, try to add some sense of suspense to the proceedings! Gory kill after gory kill does absolutely nothing to the viewer's psyche. Tense scenes that leave a lot to the viewer's imagination are far scarier.

I however, have no doubt that this new Halloween movie will feature none of that and will be just as bad as the other sequels/ remakes/ sequels of remakes/ etc.

d2cheer

Sorry, I get it. I like Highlander II in any cut. But these were seriously piles and the will never scar my eyes in any cut again.

VHS?

Only thing that hyped RZ versions were Micheal's large size and the brutality that Rob was known for in his 2 previous films. That doesnt make a Halloween film. Rob thought it did by using his same old formula.
Jason Voorhees was known for his brutality. Michael Myers was not. He was known for his ghostly appearance that scared you just seeing him from a distance and then suddenly being in your face. His kills didnt need blood and guts.

Mike86

Agreed completely. Honestly that's a big reason why I don't like many modern horror films. I don't expect it to happen but ideally I would like if the new film was a period film that took place in the 80s after the original Halloween II and only the first two films were kept in continuity.

hanshotfirst1138

While I'm not a fan of the original, it's many things, but it's definitely not a grisly film at all. The actual violence in it isn't very explicit. It's a hard thing for people in today's day and age to understand, but sometimes less can indeed be more.

Neil M.

Creating an alternate timeline after Halloween II is probably the only idea that would truly excite me. The rational side of me knows that they probably couldn't pull it off but it would at least keep me interested in the project.

Having said that, I'm fully expecting this to be just another sequel to the original continuity.

GoldenJCJ

Having Dr. Loomis actually die in the explosion would be a good start.

Mike86

Honestly like I said before if the new film is somewhat of a sequel to the original continuity that works for me. As long as the overall tone is more in line with the originals I'll be satisfied. I would love the idea of an alternate timeline though if it happened.

DRG

I think an alternate timeline could be great, but it would be the *third* timeline based on the original film.

Halloween > Halloween II > Halloween 4 > Halloween 5 > Halloween: Curse of MM

Halloween > Halloween II > Halloween H20 > Halloween Resurrection

Halloween > Halloween II > Halloween ?

DthRdrX

LOL at all the logical ideas presented. Given the series history of bad ideas I expect the next one to be a follow up to the Busta Rhymes film.

DarthVong

It would be nice to see them do something similar to the comics (Nightdance or One Good Scare). They avoided the Thorn storyline and kept Michael more like he was in the original film.

inri222

John Carpenter must love what the Akkad family has done with his & the late Debra Hill's vision.

robin2099

John Carpenter doesn't care about anything unless the check they hand him bounces.

hanshotfirst1138

He was partially complicit in it it though, didn't he even direct bits of the second film uncredited?

Mike86

Honestly the second timeline with Halloween, Halloween II, and H20 wasn't that bad until they followed up and did Resurrection. They could almost just throw that film out of continuity and follow H20 up with a better sequel. The Only thing is H20 had a pretty satisfying (and seemingly definitive) ending. That's why I wouldn't mind a new timeline that just kept the first two films in tact or possibly bridges the span of time between Halloween II and H20.

EddieMoney

Sadly, some people in this thread are putting 100x more thought into this than the screenwriters ever will.