|
I dunno, at least Kevin Smith has the decency to use his wife sparingly. It's not the presence of Sherri Moon that bothers me, it's that it means we're going to get some more of that fantastic back story.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
So Michael Myers is Jason now, basically? Brad Dourif owns though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 21:51
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it was more backstory or ongoing internal motivation. To the degree it might be the latter I'm cautiously optimistic. The bad choice on Zombie's part would be to follow explicitly in Haloween 2's footsteps because, even if I think it's pretty good, it feels like a shallow extended deleted scene from the first movie. Making this movie interesting in its own right would be a move in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 22:12
|
|
|
This thing hs become so far removed from the original Halloween concept that it actually doesn't even bother me anymore. It's so very clearly it's own thing. That said, we already have a perfectly good unstoppable killing manchild with a mommy complex, there's no need for another one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2009 22:17
|
|
|
I can't wait for the Thorn saga to start again 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 02:19
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Here is the proper trailer for Halloween 2, holy poo poo it looks bad. Seems like they are turning Michael Myers into Jason Voorhees. Msg a mod. To be fair, Halloween 2 pretty much turned Michael into Jason, including the stupid 'creative kills.' But yeah, it's good to see that Rob Zombie continues to seemingly not get what made the first Halloween so effective (the randomness and LACK of explanation for everything) and instead continues to try and provide more motivation and backstory for the killer. Did someone ever tell him that the reasons DONT MATTER for the Myers type of villain (true evil)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
Matlock posted:I can't wait for the Thorn saga to start again NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO That poo poo was awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 15:57
|
|
|
Darko posted:Msg a mod. The motivations of the original are just that. This is not the original. Taking the characters and doing something different is not a bad thing. Yes it will piss off those that can't bear to see something different, but they'll always be able to go back to those. If he was going to keep everything the same there's no point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 17:06
|
|
|
I thought the trailer looked interesting. It's not immediately clear whether Michael Myers is actually in the movie as anything except a hallucination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
after watching the trailer... I'm interested I like Zombie as a film-maker and I felt the worse parts of his Halloween was when he was doing the Carpenter version in the 3rd act. this one feels a lot more like a Rob Zombie film and im interested on where he's going to taking it. It's not the original and I don't want it to be, that movie is great on its own. what i'm interested in is HIS take on the material. I want him to do something different then whats been done before. I do truly feel that nothing is 'sacred'. If the movie is good but different then what we know as Halloween then bravo. if it sucks then it sucks. also, I wonder if this might make the first one better? I still think Zombie's movie was the best one since the original (mainly since i think that the series had the worst sequels in any franchise - I like 2 and 4 but really, they're just fun and not at all scary) but is just heavily flawed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 01:09
|
|
|
It would be awesome if, instead of the usual Masters of Horror or whatever thing, one year they were just like "Everyone make a Jason movie" and then you ended up with a lot of different directors doing Jason movies and maybe one would be good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 01:14
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:It would be awesome if, instead of the usual Masters of Horror or whatever thing, one year they were just like "Everyone make a Jason movie" and then you ended up with a lot of different directors doing Jason movies and maybe one would be good. Hahaha, I don''t know if I'd like that, but I think it would totally be worth it. The latest one was loving awesome though, (if you fix the ending.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 02:06
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:The motivations of the original are just that. This is not the original. Taking the characters and doing something different is not a bad thing. Yes it will piss off those that can't bear to see something different, but they'll always be able to go back to those. If he was going to keep everything the same there's no point. That was the crux of Halloween. Without that, it's just "random slasher movie" and there's no reason to remake it. Him being "true evil for no reason" is what differentiated him from Jason, the dude from The Burning, etc. It would be like remaking Body Snatchers and not making it about conformity, or remaking The Thing and not making it about isolation and paranoia. You can touch other aspects of the movie, but not retaining the core idea makes it pointless to remake as you may as well make a new movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 15:48
|
|
|
Darko posted:Him being "true evil for no reason" is what differentiated him from Jason, the dude from The Burning, etc. That's personal opinion. For me, the reason Halloween stood out was that it occurred in the suburbs surrounded by what you'd expect would be safety. They weren't in the woods, they weren't isolated, they were right down the street. And the killer could br right there in the car watching them walk home from school and nobody knew. People could be murdered right on the phone and you couldn't tell. The killer could literally be standing at your doorway while you're vulnerable and you couldn't tell. And the whole time you're in the heart of civilized safety. For some it's that the killer had no origin. For others it's about how the killer presents himself. There's no objective answer and I don't personally think he's lost the appeal of Halloween by giving him backstory. It's different but it's also a remake and differences and reinterpretations aren't bad in my book. Edit: I'm sure we've had this conversation before in the Halloween thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 19:23
|
|
|
 I don't want a huge chunk of black bars, so here's a spoiler warning for this post.I'm a big fan of the original Halloween and a Rob Zombie fan who considers the remake nearly as fascinating as the original, but for entirely different reasons. Original Michael had motivations, and was not all random. That's a myth. He takes a mask from his sister's lover, and then he stabs her to death, while nude, with a knife. You don't need to be a freudian psychologist to understand what's going on there. The cause of his psychosis is never explained in either movie. People say the remake explains it, but that's untrue. He begins H1 killing animals and already hosed up. What we're seeing instead, in both films, is the result of the pre-existing psychosis. It causes him to fall in love with his sister and to 'punish' adults for doing adult things (like taking his sister away from him). It basically causes him to be retarded, a manchild with too much strength. In Carpenter's Halloween, the victims are normal people who don't really deserve to die. They're just being regular teens, growing up, so you ask "why is Michael being so terrible?" H1 is completely different, because we want the victims to die. They're irredeemable assholes, child abusers, bullies. Everyone who dies in the movie deserves it according to slasher-movie logic. And, being slasher fans, we understand and agree with that logic. In Carpenter Halloween, Michael is an alien. In H1, he's an alien and he's the hero of the story. He kills these awful characters that nobody likes, so obviously he's the hero. And it's because he's psychotic and alien. H1 is all about how slasher fans come to identify with and cheer for the killers in horror films. It's the same idea Zombie explored in both House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects. That is, up until Danny Trejo's death. Trejo tells him to keep fighting, and to persevere. He's asking for it! But he's also likeable, and he hasn't done anything really wrong, by slasher standards. Trejo's death is where Michael goes too far, and the next third of the movie is told roughly from Loomis' point of view. He's turning Michael into a mythological celebrity by cashing in on the murders, but he's afraid of him. Loomis is a non-psychotic person who is fascinated by Michael's power and tries to turn him into a celebrity (again, like a horror fan). I think that the movie is ridiculing him for his trashy non-fiction book and his over-the-top proclamations. Finally, the last third is told from the victims' point of view. Michael is no longer understandable or likeable. He's just an alien, and we start thinking that he deserves to die. The ending is brilliant in that way, because it's this iconic shot of Laurie shooting him in the face, screaming, and then the scream merges into the sound of her crying as a baby. There you get the two big themes of the movie, all in one scene: -We, the audience, love killers. They are our celebrities, the way Ted Bundy is a kind of celebrity. By killing Michael, Laurie ascends to become the new heroic killer of the story. -The act of killing (and of dying) reduce you to being child-like. People who die in the movie will scream, and cry and crawl like babies. Michael kills them, like in the original, because he dislikes grown-ups and everything they represent. Killing them brings them down to his primal, instinctual level. Laurie is brought down to that same level when she is forced to kill in return. H1 is not a perfect movie. I think it has an extremely brilliant script, but Devil's Rejects messed with our concepts of good and evil far more effectively. H1 tries to tell the Rejects story in reverse (what happens when a likeable killer stops being likeable?) and it doesn't quite get us to sympathize with Laurie enough at the end to make that work. But both movies are still about childhood vs. adulthood, the fascinating alien-ness of insane people, human brutality vs. suburban domesticity, the origin/importance of "boogeyman" myths and so-on. It's partly Zombie's fault for choosing such iconic source material, but you need to accept that the remake is a totally different style, in order to see how similar they are in terms of meaning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 19:53
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:That's personal opinion. For me, the reason Halloween stood out was that it occurred in the suburbs surrounded by what you'd expect would be safety. They weren't in the woods, they weren't isolated, they were right down the street. And the killer could br right there in the car watching them walk home from school and nobody knew. People could be murdered right on the phone and you couldn't tell. The killer could literally be standing at your doorway while you're vulnerable and you couldn't tell. And the whole time you're in the heart of civilized safety. You're missing the major part of exactly what you're saying. The original appeal of Halloween WAS that is was in the suburbs in relative safety which you agree with. But that is ESTABLISHED because the first killing, in the suburbs, is done by a normal kid in a normal house. This is what sets the tone - that evil can be completely random and happen for no reason to people who don't bring it on themselves. A normal kid in a normal family kills his sister for no reason, and then he kills people in the town for no reason. This makes it scary because it's saying it can happen to YOU. Making it "crazy abusive redneck family creates killer that stalks his sister" removes that. It isn't as scary anymore, because it now gives you an "out." The first one essentially said that any parent could raise a serial killer; this one says you only have to worry about it if you raise the kid in the house of 1000 corpses. The first movie says any random person could be stalked; the remake (and sequels) are saying don't be related to any serial killers! I know what you're saying about different interpretations, but you're essentially agreeing with the interpretation I'm presented, since the surburbian atmosphere is established and punctuated by the very first killing, which is completely absent in Zombie's version because of giving Myers an abusive upbringing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
I just watched the His Name Was Jason documentary on Netflix, and I can't say I'm really a fan. If you've ever seen a documentary on slasher films in general you've seen this movie, there's really not much at all that's insightful or new in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 09:41
|
|
|
Darko posted:This is what sets the tone - that evil can be completely random and happen for no reason to people who don't bring it on themselves. A normal kid in a normal family kills his sister for no reason, and then he kills people in the town for no reason. This makes it scary because it's saying it can happen to YOU. I've heard the "no reason" idea before but it always seemed to be subverted by the established idea that Michael was punishing sin and vice. Michael kills his sister because she just had sex with some kid. He doesn't kill his parents. For me it isn't that there's no reason or that he's a normal kid. It's that, within the theme of Halloween, there was a mask that evil could wear and you couldn't see it coming. He's brazenly walking the street, driving in a car, even standing in a doorway and nobody sees him for the evil he is. Loomis is the only one who sees that they aren't safe and nobody can see past that mask. But why should they, they're in a safe cradle. Even when Michael slowly approaches them in a car, they feel safe as houses and jeer at him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 13:38
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I've heard the "no reason" idea before but it always seemed to be subverted by the established idea that Michael was punishing sin and vice. Michael kills his sister because she just had sex with some kid. He doesn't kill his parents. I never took the sin and vice thing to be the reason, just as a thematic side point. I've heard that sin and vice analysis many times; but I think that it was something that was so exaggerated with the Friday the 13th that it was retrofitted as the driving point to Halloween since it was the 'first.' I view it as being used as an interesting contrast, but not as the driving point behind Myers. The reasoning behind that, I think, is that he is stalking Laurie Strode from the start, and she was virginal. I felt that he punished the other characters because they reminded him of his first kill, but she was always his true target, and that was only because she happened to stop by his house (I ignore sequels). That cemented the 'random' aspect to me. I do agree with your analysis of the safety, but it seems that I combine that with 'random' as much as you do with 'punishment.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 14:38
|
|
|
Laurie may be virginial but she's not innocent despite what the thesis says. She shares marijuana with her friend while they're riding around in the red car. At the time they're being pursued by Myers in his stolen wagon. It's after this that he goes on killing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 15:57
|
|
|
FirstCongoWar posted:I just watched the His Name Was Jason documentary on Netflix, and I can't say I'm really a fan. If you've ever seen a documentary on slasher films in general you've seen this movie, there's really not much at all that's insightful or new in it. I thought it was great. The previous F13 DVDs where mostly bare-bones except for a few commentaries like on part 7. This documentary was the first time I've seen interviews from all of the directors and all of the people that played Jason. not to mention seeing a bunch of the actors/actresses again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
Boinks posted:I thought it was great. The previous F13 DVDs where mostly bare-bones except for a few commentaries like on part 7. This documentary was the first time I've seen interviews from all of the directors and all of the people that played Jason. not to mention seeing a bunch of the actors/actresses again. Anyone interested in this kind of thing should really check out Crystal Lake Memories, it is a fantastic and awesome book. edit: Well poo poo, I'm glad I got this while it was still available, over $100 used on Amazon now. If I was going to pick a book that I would spent $100 on it would be at the top of the list, it's pictures are great. knifehitz fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Apr 28, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2009 00:32
|
|
|
knifehitz posted:Anyone interested in this kind of thing should really check out Crystal Lake Memories, it is a fantastic and awesome book. Holy poo poo - I just bought that book from Amazon maybe 6 months ago. Glad I didn't wait. You're right, it's pretty drat awesome. The Making of Friday the 13th book is decent too, but CLM is top. "His Name Was Jason" is an interesting enough documentary and definitely worth getting through Netflix if you only want to watch it once. It was neat to see how some of the actresses aged - Jensen Daggett (OMG BOOBS!), Lauren Marie Taylor, and Debisue Voorhees are all still hot, but the twins from Part 4 - not so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2009 16:51
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Laurie may be virginial but she's not innocent despite what the thesis says. She shares marijuana with her friend while they're riding around in the red car. At the time they're being pursued by Myers in his stolen wagon. It's after this that he goes on killing. The difference between the "final girls", in F13 Part 2 and Halloween, is in how they survive: one evolves into a mother figure, while the other regresses and starts crying about the boogeyman. Jason is about punishing immaturity, while Michael is about punishing puberty. They both target teens, but for entirely different reasons. Jason is a kid who wants people to grow up. Michael is a kid who hates grown-ups.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2009 17:01
|
|
|
I just have to say, that trailer for Halloween 2 looks interesting but it borders on self-parody.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2009 19:11
|
|
|
knifehitz posted:edit: Well poo poo, I'm glad I got this while it was still available, over $100 used on Amazon now. If I was going to pick a book that I would spent $100 on it would be at the top of the list, it's pictures are great. I think any book or DVD that is out of print and no longer for sale gets jacked up to $100 by the Amazon re-sellers. Its really crappy but what can you do. edit--> I don't know if this has been posted yet but the Friday remake DVD has a release date of 6/16/09! Here is a link to the covers: http://iconsoffright.com/news/2009/04/look_at_friday_the_13th_dvd_co.html I'm definitely going to get the 'Killer Cut'. I wonder what they put back into the movie though? Some of those kills seemed like they where sneaking past the censors already for the theatrical release. Boinks fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2009 17:00
|
|
|
That's sweet that it'll be out soon. I really liked the new Friday, it delivered exactly what I wanted it to and was just fun to watch. The boobs definately didn't hurt either. It really felt like a homage to 80's horror done right. The style seemed to match IV, V and VI which were my favorites. I'll be anxious to see what gore (or maybe boobs) they added into the extra cut. edit: Hell yeah, Blu-Ray! knifehitz fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Apr 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2009 17:21
|
|
|
Just got Cold Prey 2, didn't know it had been released in the UK yet. The first one was a decently made slasher movie with a cool setting (A snowey Lodge). I hope the sequel lives up to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
I always wondered why the gently caress they did fake Jason, Jason in NYC, Jason without Jason, Jason in space, and Jason versus Freddy before doing one in the loving winter. I know Crystal Lake is a summer camp and all, but drat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
the artworks for Cold Prey 1 and 2 are pretty cool. Chop the top off of this and it would be perfect. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
The Remote Viewer posted:I always wondered why the gently caress they did fake Jason, Jason in NYC, Jason without Jason, Jason in space, and Jason versus Freddy before doing one in the loving winter. I know Crystal Lake is a summer camp and all, but drat. Bikinis and subsequent lack of bikinis!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2009 21:58
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Bikinis and subsequent lack of bikinis! On the other hand, bare breasts and cold nipples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
I'm watching April Fool's Day and honestly I don't know if I can bear to watch the last hour. Why is this a cult classic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 01:35
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:I'm watching April Fool's Day and honestly I don't know if I can bear to watch the last hour. Why is this a cult classic? Which version?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 01:38
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Which version?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:I'm watching April Fool's Day and honestly I don't know if I can bear to watch the last hour. Why is this a cult classic? Watch the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
Just finished watching Cold Prey 2 very good, not as good as the first but still very good. Well made, characters are likable, perfect mix of suspence and gore. Highly recommend seeing it and the first one for those that have not seen it yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 03:26
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Watch the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 04:18
|
|
|
Frontalot posted:Oh...my...God. That's like the cinematic version of "did I tell you about the time I got arrested?" Just don't watch the remake, it's the worst remake to come out. Not only that but it was one of the worst POS the come out last year, yeah it went DTV but it was such a stinker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Just don't watch the remake, it's the worst remake to come out. Not only that but it was one of the worst POS the come out last year, yeah it went DTV but it was such a stinker.  It wasn't terrible but if not for the castration that could've been made as a network TV Sunday night mystery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 04:29
|
|