DVDizzy Forum

Shocktillyoudrop has the full story!:

"Variety, who confirmed our news break (yet, sadly, offers no credit), says the new film will pick up where Zombie's reboot ended "following the aftermath of Michael Myers' murderous rampage through the eyes of the sister he hunted."

Sources tell us that Zombie's vision for the sequel - which will not resemble Rick Rosenthal's original second installment - is "crazy" and a "totally unique approach" for a next chapter.

"I was so burned out. (But) I took a long break, made a record and I got excited again," Zombie tells Variety. "Now, we'll be hauling ass, and that's the problem making a movie called 'Halloween': If you come out Nov. 1 or after, nobody cares. If it was called anything else, I'd be fine."

Tyler Mane will reprise his role as Michael Myers; it's unknown if Scout Taylor-Compton or Malcolm McDowell will encore as Laurie and Dr. Loomis, respectively.

Production begins in March with its release targeted for October (a similar turnaround on Zombie's first Halloween). Malek Akkad of Trancas International Films will produce alongside Spectacle Entertainment's Andy Gould."

Now, could someone relase a Halloween II '81 SE for the occasion?

I'm not sure if I should be excited or hang my head and groan. Seeing a new remake would be cool, but why does it have to be Zombie doing it? I'll give him credit he's good at what he does but everything is just so.. extreme. Tons of swearing, extreme violence, gore/blood, sexual innuendos.

It really ruined the remake he did of Halloween for me, that whole kitchen scene with Laurie and her mom early in was just plain stupid. While the extreme violence and gore/blood can be a good thing it gets makes you (well me at least) rather queasy I just don't see a need for it. I also didn't care for how he changed Michaels family, the abusive Dad (stepdad?), the stripper mom, hoochie daughter etc. I didn't see anything wrong with the original version, it makes it a bit more frightening knowing Michael became a killer even though he's from a "normal" family. Loving parents/environment. The daughters still a bit of a hoochie but there's not much that could be done about that I guess

This is the main reason(s) I avoid almost all of his movies. The only one I'll watch is Halloween but mainly because of the story.

Original "Michael" from a normal family, turning into a non-responsive lump in the asylum, then breaking out from a secure installation and going back to finish what he started was scary...

Remake heavy metal "Michael" from an EXTREMELY dysfunctional family, killing animals and stuff off in the woods, talking to hippy Dr. Loomis like a normal kid, breaking out because guards were raping a girl in his room, not scary...

Don't care at all for the remake, but I echo the sentiment of a Special Edition DVD for the original Halloween II. The first two movies were the only ones that were actually any good (though Halloween III: Season of the Witch is somewhat effective as a standalone horror piece.), the rest were just...blegh. Halloween: Resurrection especially.

albert

littlefuzzy wrote:Original "Michael" from a normal family, turning into a non-responsive lump in the asylum, then breaking out from a secure installation and going back to finish what he started was scary...

Remake heavy metal "Michael" from an EXTREMELY dysfunctional family, killing animals and stuff off in the woods, talking to hippy Dr. Loomis like a normal kid, breaking out because guards were raping a girl in his room, not scary...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Escapay wrote:Don't care at all for the remake, but I echo the sentiment of a Special Edition DVD for the original Halloween II. The first two movies were the only ones that were actually any good (though Halloween III: Season of the Witch is somewhat effective as a standalone horror piece.), the rest were just...blegh. Halloween: Resurrection especially.

I agree with that as well. The trick is: Dean Cundey, Alan Howarth, and the 2.35:1. Without them, Halloween-anything just isn't quite the same. H20 wasn't bad for a sequel in this franchise, but now it's fairly obvious that part II was superior. You see H20 once, you don't need to see it twice. While I think you need to see parts II and III at least twice to fully get them. Not that they're that deep, they're very technically proficient and entertaining films with a lot of visual complexity. They just needed a little tweeking or a touch-up in the character writing department.