horrorfan_1986

RZ's Halloween was the number 1 film of all time on labour day weekend. In the entire series, it was the second highest money making Halloween. It more than doubled Halloween Resurrection. So by all means, RZ's Halloween was a huge hit.

I really don't understand all this "Why are they making so many sequels!~" talk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been something like 22 James Bond films? Why is it that horror films can't do the same?

I'm actually surprised by this news since the Weinsteins has said in a few interviews that they had zero plans for a sequel anytime soon, if ever.

As for making a Halloween 2, it won't be a remake of Halloween 2. The events of RZ's Halloween makes it nearly impossible to make it a direct remake of H2. Personally, I'm excited to see what can be done with a different H2. I really feel as if Rick Rosenthal was a terrible choice for director of H2. It doesn't help matters that Carpenter had zero idea what to do when writing the script.

Jayman

Ah kids..don't you love 'em? They are so cute and out of touch with the world. First off, saying it's the number one movie ever on labour day weekend isn't much of a record. It opened up to 31 million. For a holiday weekend, that's nothing. Let's see what it beat that weekend. The Transporter 2 and Balls of Fury. Whoopie.

Have you seen the original Halloween? That was a classic movie my friend. And don't get me started on Halloween Resurrection. A bunch of kids in the former house of Michael Myers with web cams?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


They don't make horror movies like they used to. I'd rather watch a horror movie made in the 70's, or 80's than the crap they shell out now. It has much more of a creepy factor. Case in point: the ORIGINAL Amityville Horror vs. the remade version with Van Wilder. Give me a break.

horrorfan_1986

First things first, stop with the whole kids BS. I'm not some 13 year old kid who thinks Saw is the most original movie of all time. You're a Super Mod, act like it. I'm sure you're a much better debater than to bring up the whole age BS.

Okay fine, beating those two movies wasn't the biggest of deals. However, the point I was getting at is that it was a huge hit in terms of bringing money in. Beating out every other film on Labour Day weekend and being the second highest profited Halloween film is a huge deal. So regardless of whether someone likes the film or not, the numbers are there to prove it was a success.

Heh, for over a decade I have been obsessed with the Halloween series. I owned 3 different copies of the original on VHS and it was the first movie I bought on DVD and since then I have bought another copy on DVD. I've bought every movie on VHS and eventually DVD. Found copies of the H6 Producer's Cut, bought the figures, paid someone a few bucks to have their Halloween pin that was on their backpack, I own several posters of the films including a RZ theater one and I admin at a Halloween movies message board that as been around since 2001. Hell, at this moment I'm even wearing a John Carpenter's Halloween T-shirt. So believe me, I know my shit about the original and the series. But yes, the original was a classic and Resurrection was terrible (Once again, thanks Rick Rosenthal). Even how terrible Resurrection was, I went to see it in the theater and I bought the soundtrack.

Trust me, you're preaching to the choir as far as horror films not being as good as the grand age of the 60's and 70's. It's quite sad when the best recent horror films are either remakes (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or rip offs (Saw). The problem with current films is that they don't have the balls to do anything serious without the worry the MPAA will require them to make severe edits or some parent group will condemn it. Just the other day, I read over at Fangoria.com that they were planning on remaking I Spit on Your Grave. Now here's my question, why the hell would you remake the film when you know that there's no way you can show three increasingly disgusting raping? You're either having to settle to let it be rated NC-17 (if even that) or have to make such huge changes that would ruin the whole intensity of the film.

James Brolin or Ryan Reynolds, either way it was terrible. With the exception of Amityville 2, the entire series has been abysmal.

Jayman

Second highest profiting Halloween of all time? Well..are those rates adjusted for inflation? Because paying $10 for a ticket nowadays adds up a lot quicker than the $2 a ticket people paid back in the late 70's. Also..more people go to the movies now than they did 30 years ago. And it opens in more theatres. You really can't compare the two.

My only point was that $30 million or so isn't that much when you consider it's a solid horror series that many people know about. $30 million on an opening weekend isn't all that much to write home about these days.

I don't really know what else to respond to since you basically agreed with the rest of my points, so there ya have it.....son ; )

horrorfan_1986

None of the profits are adjusted for inflation, however; there has been a Halloween film every five years or so. Obviously, the original has the most unadjusted profits seeing how it was released in 1978. For many years it was the highest profiting indy film up until about 1990. The further we look at the series in terms of years, there's less to adjust. 1981, 1982, 1988, 1989, 1995, 1998 and 2002 were all the years of the Halloween sequels. H20 was generally regarded as a huge hit at the time of slashers being the "In" thing because of Scream. In all, H2O saw a gross of 55 million. Total costs for the film was 17 million. So the film made a 38 million dollar profit. Keep in mind this was with Jamie Lee Curtis backing and during a time when all slashers could potentially be a big money maker. RZ's Halloween depended on Zombie's name after an incredibly disappointing Resurrection gross of 30 million. (with the film costing 13 mil, Resurrection only made 17 million.) RZ's Halloween brought in 58 million with a budget of 15 million. That's a 43 million dollar profit.

Now regardless of what anyone thought of the quality of the film, RZ's film recovered from the bomb of Resurrection that was only 5 years before. Not only that, but it brought in 5 million more than H2O. Regardless of inflation, RZ's film was a success.

Jayman

But don't you agree there should be a time where you hang it up and let the series just rest?

Look at the ridiculousness of the Friday the 13th series. That has become a laughing stock now. I mean, Jason in space? In the Halloween franchise going to come to that?

I really just wish they would leave the series be. Even if they make a little bit of money, who cares. John Carpenter and company should have the mind to just say "Let's just let the legacy live on now"

horrorfan_1986

The films are still making money though. And now with Rob Zombie restarting the series, it's a chance to start all over.

The Halloween franchise doesn't need to go the route of going to space. Much like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or with Bride of Chucky, a new start or change can really freshen things up.

Being such a fan of the original, I would think you would realize that Carpenter doesn't own the series and hasn't even had any part of the series since Halloween 3. With his death in 2005, Moustapha Akkad's ownership of the series goes to his family, but more specific, Malek Akkad.

Like I said in my first post, if James Bond can have so many films, why can't a horror series have a long series? Regardless of how bad some movies can be, nothing beats going to the theater and hearing that music play while I see Michael as he's meant to be seen. As a fan of the likes of Jason, Michael, Freddy and Chucky, I want to keep seeing them. They are the modern day version of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man. It has now been over 80 years since Dracula and the vampires first made their motion picture debut, yet pretty much every year a new one comes out.

The major problem with these series are fans viewing them as bits of a bigger story. If they would simply think of them in the James Bond sense, people won't need to want to see the series coming to an end.

In the end, movies like any other business is just about making money. As long as Michael Myers is still bringing money into Dimension, why should they stop making them? 2008 is the 30 year anniversary of Halloween. And yet Halloween and Michael Myers is still incredibly popular.

Brandon

Personally, I would like to see Zombie continue writing his own material and not remaking films that have already been made, but with that said, I did like the remake for Halloween and I understand why they'd possibly make another one. The franchise is a money maker, it has name value, and it's much easier to live off that name than to begin a new franchise. I believe DVD sales were pretty stellar for this film as well.

Make no mistake, I don't think the movie was as good as the original, but it probably wouldn't have mattered what he did.. it's just too much of a classic.

Necro

Thought Zombie's was pretty good.

Swamps

^I also thought Zombie did a good job with the Remake. I think bringing in a new director would just be a mistake since Zombie has revamped things.

__________________
"And Shepherds we shall be

For thee, my Lord, for thee.

Power hath descended forth from Thy hand

Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.

So we shall flow a river forth to Thee

And teeming with souls shall it ever be.

In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti."

-Connor and Murphy MacManus