Halloween (2018)

Didn't see a thread for this so I thought I'd do one. Danny McBride (yes, that Danny McBride) is writing.

Jamie Lee Curtis is back as Laurie Strode. John Carpenter is producing and says the take "blew him away."

Like H20 this is gonna be a direct follow-up to Halloween II that ignores the rest of the sequels. And they promise no supernatural origins or powers for Michael this time.

I'm liking what I hear, though it falls into the Fridge Logic problem where I'm forced to ask how Michael survived having his eyes shot out and being burned to death if he's not explicitly superhuman, but maybe they'll just retcon the ending of II.

edited 15th Sep '17 1:40:46 PM by comicwriter

WOW!!, I didn't expect her to come back. So does this mean that they're just ignoring H20 and Resurrection now? Because while it'd be disappointing in H20's case, Resurrection already kind of ruined that story anyway.

Well, H20 did end with Michael getting his head chopped off. It's going to be hard to follow that up unless you do an Ass Pull like Resurrection did.

As a fan of the Halloween series, I'm optimistic about this project. I find it funny how it's going to be a direct continuation of the first two films when the series has already had a full-blown reboot. Although given the quality of the Zombie films, they won't be missed in my eyes.

edited 15th Sep '17 1:20:27 PM by chasemaddigan

I was about to ask if this makes Halloween the most-retconned film series in history, but then I remembered Godzilla and Highlander still exist.

I...don't know how to feel about this. I kind of just want to ask "WHY?!"

As a fan of the Halloween IV-VI continuity, I didn't much care for H20's reboot. As bad as Halloween VI was, it still beats Resurrection. And I never had any interest in Zombie's continuity.

I guess I'll give this a shot out of respect but I still don't know why it nees to exist.

P.S.

Jamie was the best hero after Loomis. Always and forever.

It's the 40th anniversary of the original film next year, and they want to make a new film to commemorate that. That's probably a big reason for it (hence why they set it for a 2018 release date).

I don't know how to feel about this.

On one hand, Twin Peaks gets Laura Palmer back, Spit On Your Grave is supposedly getting the original actress back, and now Halloween gets Laurie Strode back? Mmkay. And Carpenter directed The Thing, one of my all-time favorites, so, this is good.

On the other hand, I liked the twist with Jamie in Halloween 4 and especially liked the ominous ending of Halloween 5. Though I haven't heard great things about Halloween 6. Curiously I never saw that one on TV as a child.

And granted my memory of these films is spotty, but didn't Michael take several rounds from a handgun, fall off a balcony, and then walk it off in the first film? That Carpenter directed?

edited 18th Sep '17 10:17:36 AM by Soble

I think that they might be referring to the whole Curse of Thorn nonsense from parts V and VI. In the first film, how human he is is up for debate. People have survived being shot multiple times, being stabbed, and falling from high places. So that at least has some basis in reality (even if it's obviously played up/exaggerated for a movie).

But in later sequels, yeah he's 100% no doubt about it superhuman.

Yeah I remember way back when talking about this with a buddy of mine. He insisted Michael in the first movie is just supposed to be insane. You know, Hollywood Insane where you're so crazy you feel no pain and mind over matter. That kinda thing.

While becoming superhuman in Parts IV-VI was a way to try and rip off Friday the 13th.

Although even Jason was "human" until Part IV so I dunno.

This thread has inspired me to re-watch Halloween IV. It's a great movie, I'd argue the best one after the first.

edited 18th Sep '17 3:53:50 AM by Nikkolas

I prefer H20 over IV myself. However, IV is still pretty decent (and it helps that Donald Pleasance and Danielle Harris give really good performances, plus Rachel is a surprisingly decent character as well).

In regards to the first film, I think that much like most other things there, Michael's nature is meant to be ambiguous. Is he "pure evil" in the sense that he's a psychopath with no conscience, or is it that he's more than human? The movie, doesn't answer that question (deliberately I think).

And yeah, Jason in Friday the 13th parts II-IV is clearly meant to be more "human." But it's "Hollywood human," where there's some basis in reality (I've read about people surviving axe blows to the face/head like Jason does in Part III), but exaggerated for the sake of film (said people could just get right back up and attack someone after taking such a blow like Jason does). And the fact that he's flat-out killed off at the end of Part IV and needs to be resurrected onscreen in Part VI is further proof of this.

It makes me wonder if they'll incorporate Michael's age (he'd be 61/62 years old by now) and/or the injuries that he suffered at the end of Halloween II into the story in some way?

Yeah it's Loomis and Jamie that make Halloween 4 so great in my view. They're really unique. In horror, the bad guy tends to be the star, ESPECIALLY for slashers where the killer is just fed disposable nothing characters. But Halloween alone can claim to have protagonists who stand out just as much as the antagonist.

I'd go so far as to say Dr. Loomis is the greatest horror movie protagonist of all time. Maybe Ash is better if Evil Dead after 1 can still be called "Horror."

Well, it seems Laurie Strode has cheated death again for the second time. At this rate, cheating death will be a family trait for the Meyers' family.

I think they should also get Daniel Harris back reprising her role as an older Jamie Lloyd. Of course, that could be me wanting them to explore the missed potential of Jamie Lloyd being the next Micheal Myers in Halloween 4.

As much as I liked the Jamie twist in Halloween 4, making Jamie the next Michael was interesting as a cliffhanger, but I've no idea how they'd have carried on with that idea. And it raises a greater question of whether a female horror icon would actually appeal to modern audiences.

Well, they could show Jamie Lloyd starting her career as a serial killer as an adult. James Rolfe mentions that possibility if a young child doesn't work out. Plus, having a female child be a serial killer is a much more refreshing concept, and it could be creepy depending on how she performs her murders. It would have made Halloween stand out from the rest of the male slasher icons like Freddy and Jason, with a child and a female to boot. Two birds with one stone if I do say so myself.

I really want to see a What If? story about Jamie Lloyd being the next slasher of Halloween. What would she look like, and how would Dr. Loomis deal with it?

They're ignoring all of the sequels post-Halloween II. So as far as this movie is concerned, none of the stuff that happened after the hospital explosion in Part II, counts anymore.

Kinda timely that this announcement came up because I just watched the first movie like last week for the first time ever.

Sorry to hijack this thread but would you guys recommend seeing any of the sequels? Big horror film franchises with several installments tend to have a bad reputation for anything after the first movie.

I'd recommend Halloween II (and it and the original are kind of a two-part story since they both take place on the same night and II picks up immediately after the end of the original). H20 is also good (and you could look at Halloween, Halloween II, and Halloween H20 as being the "Laurie Strode" trilogy in a way). And personally I think that Halloween IV (while not as good as the other three) is still pretty decent.

Avoid Halloween's V, VI, and Resurrection though, they suck.

I have a lot of trouble viewing the original and II as two halves of the same whole. Really, I basically refuse. Part of it has to do with some jarring inconsistencies. Part of it is the godawful twist. Part of it is the quality gap between the two of them.

I agree with this post. Halloween III: Season of the Witch has nothing to do with the Michael Myers story and is pretty bizarre, but is certainly interesting to say the least. It has an absolutely haunting ending, but there is a lot of nonsense involving robots and runes before you get to that.

Avoid the Rob Zombie films, unless you want to see the first movie redone with more unlikeable characters and the first half devoted to Michael's crappy childhood.

edited 19th Sep '17 8:18:41 AM by chasemaddigan

Busta Rhymes > Michael Myers

It could be kind of interesting if Laurie had the Dr. Loomis "Michael hunting" role this time around. And it'd set this film apart from H20 as well.

Judy Greer will play Laurie's daughter Karen.

Laurie has the same resurrection ability as Michael.

Awesome.

:)

Pardon?

They're (rightfully) ignoring everything after the 1978 film.

Why in the world would you ignore the second film?

It was made by Carpenter, Pleasance, and Curtis.

edited 17th May '18 9:16:47 PM by CharlesPhipps