Julie Walker

Seriously though, I do wonder how this new film will be. I do like the aspect of removing the sister story-line and going back to the original intent of the first film, which is, pure evil on the loose who randomly selects targets that cross his path and Laurie just happened to catch his interest at the time. Of course, how the hell to write her back into the story and have Myers seek her out is anyone's guess.

As long as they don't go in a he's living off the land in the woods with a beard and dreadlocks dressed like a ragged bum Rob Zombie explanation for what he was doing for 40 years, I'm good.

Also maybe murders have happened in Haddonfield in the preceding years, but no one knew it was Myers since he always escaped and no one was left to tell the tale? Something like that needs to be considered, since if he's doing nothing but living off the land Rob Zombie trailer-trash style for 40 years, the hell? And he better be supernatural, but never explained 'why' or 'how' vs being 'human' still, since age-wise, Myers would be like in the image posted and suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

Mike86

I never really had a problem with the sister angle. Plus yeah that's another thing with this film I don't get at this point. Explaining how Michael is still around and is surviving without being caught and also how he tracks her down and also why he'd still care forty years later if she's not related seems like a stretch.8

DaveyJoe

I'm a fan of the franchise, but if this turns out well, and I believe it will, we won't miss any of the sequels. The guys working on this are actually talented, getting hung up over the likes of Halloween H20 is just silly.

Noonan

Speak for yourself. I very much enjoy H20, 4, & 5; and will continue to regardless of how this comes out. I doubt I will enjoy it more than H20.

d2cheer

Agree with this.

Mike86

I can see it from both sides I guess. On the one hand none of the sequels are as good as the first film (though Halloween II comes damn close I don't care what anyone says) and the idea of a direct sequel is kind of a cool idea. On the other hand while I don't think a lot of the sequels are great most are at least salvageable to work with in my opinion (for the horror genre at least).

I'm still of the mindset that even if this film is good and does well there's a very good chance that the sequel will fuck things up (as is the case with horror films quite often) and then there will just be another alternate timeline of sequels.

inri222

qft

DaveyJoe

The continuity of this franchise is all ready fucked. It's like the X-Men of the horror genre. The last two movies were polarizing reboots. Part 8 was declared non-canon soon after it's release. Part 7 ignored the previous three films. Part six had a flimsy connection to the previous two films by switching actresses. Part three had nothing to do with anything. There's no cohesive narrative throughout the series that makes any sense. They're all just hastily assembled excuses to get Michael back to kill babysitters.

It would be impossible to make a good film that follows all of the previous movies. The series is all ready a mess of fragmented continuities. I'm happy for them to try something new in an attempt to make a quality horror film. I still have my boxset and I can enjoy the sequels whenever I want.

Mike86

That sort of comes with the horror territory though. The big slasher films aren't exactly known for continuity. I can appreciate trying to make a good film but I don't think it's necessary to reset the timeline in an attempt to correct what's come before.

DaveyJoe

Then why are we upset with this movie ignoring prior sequels? That's the status quo. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This franchise literally does this every couple of films.

DaveyJoe

H20 is in a different continuity from 4-6. Laurie is dead starting with part four.

DthRdrX

Interesting enough:

The opening credits of H20 would originally cover 4-6, specifically Jamie being safer away from her, and provide a true ending for Sam Loomis, using the newspapers pinned to the wall and voiceovers, but it got cut down to just the quick sound clips of DP and papers relevant to H1.

I was a big fan of 4 and 5 back then and remember being disappointed they left it out. I guess it doesn't really matter if they are just going to keep changing continuity.

Mike86

True enough I suppose. I dunno to me the franchise only really did a major reboot once before (H20). The first two and four to six more or less followed one timeline. Sure there were some errors and not all those films were great but they worked together well enough. My point was more that the continuity of these films is never really perfect but that doesn't mean that you have to reset every other film. I can see not acknowledging the events from prior films but I think it's a bit silly to say that nothing beyond the first film exists. It just feels unnecessary. Even with H20 I always kind of thought you could work it in with the other films that it wrote out. You could simply view it as Laurie faked her death or disappeared after the second film (after all she did change her name and moved away from Haddonfield).

DaveyJoe

Halloween 3 took the franchise in an entirely new direction, trying to create an anthology series. Part four was a soft reboot back to the Michael Myers story. H20 ignored the previous three films and created an alternate timeline. The 9th and 10 films were total reboots. You guys are just picking and choosing here and ignoring the facts. The franchise continuity has always been a miss. H20 Laurie never acknowledges Jamie at all. With 10 films this series has never had more than 3 films that follow a continuous timeline.

Mike86

You can't really count Halloween III as it's a completely different thing. The only relation it has to the franchise is the name and sequel number but it's not really a Halloween film. I know what it's supposed to be but just saying.

Otherwise though four through six more or less follow the first two. The only one that really offset things was H20 but again while it's not officially the storyline I still think you can make it fit in with the same timeline. It just doesn't acknowledge what happens in four through six or Jamie. That's just how I view it but I'm not saying it works perfectly with the others. Resurrection follows but it's just not a good film. The Zombie films are a remake and a sequel to a remake so they don't have to fit.

raven56706

H2O was awesome but resurrection was complete shit..


"trick or treat.. muthaf"

DaveyJoe

But if you grew up following this series you would realize that they tried to drastically alter course after every two films. So this new direction wouldn't seem abnormal at all. In fact, it is the norm for the Halloween franchise. It's just amusing to see stuff like "I don't want this film to ignore the previous films in the series that ignored previous films in the series."

I say we just relax and see how things turn out, because it will all come down to the execution, and Carpenter seems pleased with the direction Green and McBride want to take this film. It's the first time Carpenter's been invested in the series for decades, so I'm definitely intrigued.

Mike86

Yeah, I am still interested don't get me wrong. The only one I wish was being kept in continuity is Halloween II. Mainly because to me it and the first film feel like two halves of one story. The other films while I like I can take or leave really.

robin2099

I'm ok with them eliminating all the movies including 2. Honestly while I like 2,the reveal of Laurie as Michaels sister did a lot of damage and is a plot point that I don't think needs to stick around anymore.

Mike86

My thing with that though is why even bring Laurie back at all in this film? What's Michael's motive for seeking her out after forty years? Maybe just for the fact that she got away during his initial night of terror but still I don't see why he'd have waited that long. I'm sure it'll be something like she left Haddonfield after the events of the first film and something is bringing her back.

DaveyJoe

We'd have to ask Green, McBride, and Carpenter. For all we know there is no Michael Myers, and this movie is about Laurie Strode dealing with the trauma of the events from the first film. There's a lot of opportunity for characterization there, which is a good reason to include Laurie here.

DthRdrX

Another note: Go back and look at some of Moustapha Akkad's qoutes about H20. (He was obsessed by this point about driving sequels forward regardless of content.)

Although Resurrection went in the direction everyone expected with Michael switching the mask in H20, Akkad wanted to reveal that Michael wasn't even in H20 at all.

DaveyJoe

Interesting, I'll see if I can dig those up.

Sonny Corinthos

Halloween (franchise)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_(franchise)

Reading this page will help a person try to keep up with all the changes that have occurred over the years regarding the Halloween films. As a lifelong fan of this franchise, i'm excited about the new film.

islandclaws

Given Carpenter's original idea for H4, I have to believe the film is taking a similar approach. Doing something akin to ANY of the sequels would never appeal to JC.