MovieChat Forums > Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) Discussion > Not a Sequel

Not a Sequel

posted 8 years ago by BobbyWaggs
13 replies | jump to latest

As a Halloween sequel I can tell you back in '82 going to the theater to see this was terribly disappointed --- kept thinking when is Mike going to sneak around the corner to make this a true Sequel --- as you know it never happens and what we have here is FAILURE to COMMUNICATE ---

This should have never been titled Halloween 3 - especially only 1 year after H2 had cane out and all of us H fans were clamoring for more Boogeyman --- still 34 years later I get pissed that I spent my 5 bucks and my Fiancé's 5 bucks to see this ...

If this movie had been titled "A Halloween story" or just "Season of the Witch" I would have never held a grudge and may have rated it higher but ---

Making us get all balls up for H3 so soon after H2 and getting this ... SUCKED.

The Great Halloween franchise is still soiled by this one off story and wish to the filmmakers to one day erase its existence in the series ...

Can they do a renumbering of the series?

So in closing --- If this film were not included in the HALLOWEEN franchise and just titled whatever it's a good little scary Halloween time movie but Halloween 3 is really H4 and so on ...

Halloween 1978
Halloween 2. 1981
Halloween 3. 1988
Halloween 4. 1989
Halloween 5. 1995

---

Series over ---

The H20 and Resurrection films were blobs of *beep*

Thank you ---

Off to watch trading places and grease up to JAMIE LEE'S NUDE SCENES ---

[–] TMC-4 7 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/58vxyo/request_theres_any_good_theories_on_the_halloween/d93nw9i/

Mike Myers was connected to Halloween 3:
1. The "company" in season of the witch is headed by a warlock who wants immortality, and uses his magic to kill children via masks.

2. Michael Myers started killing when he wears a mask and only when he wears a mask.

3. Obviously there was testing before they were able to link masks with death and immortality.

4. Michael Myers somehow got a beta test of a mask that gives eternal life, something the warlock would want, but also causes him to go insane and kill his family. Seeing this, the warlock chose not to wear it and go with plan B, aka season of the witch.

5. Most witches have to kill their family first to ascend.

6. Michael Myers can't talk, but he's immortal due to his mask and wants to kill his family to be immortal.

[–] DfromKJD_DTH 7 years ago

That's an amazing fan theory hahaha

[–] ccr1633 7 years ago

That's awesome. Thanks for the amusing theory TMC-4.

My guess, probably falsifiable from interviews with Carpenter or Wallace at the time, was that the core creative team behind Halloween '78 (Carpenter, Hill, Wallace, Cundey, Yablans, Akkad) wanted to continue making a series of creepy Halloween films, but wanted to extend their interests and be more innovative by unshackling themselves from Michael Myers. They abandoned the concept due to the financial failure of this film, which is a shame in my opinion. I think Wallace deserved a better shake. He did a nice job with the thankless task of trying to put the great novel "It" to film. I would've liked to have seen more from him during his peak creative period. Wallace was unfairly maligned for Halloween III, mainly because sheeplike audiences were so glued to the whole Myers thing.

[–] MJohnsontalker 7 years ago

The series creators have addressed this THOUSANDS if not millions of times. Halloween was originally created to tell scary stories of Halloween night events. Halloween 1 and 2 were about Michael Myers and when they killed him off they planned on making part 3 about a new story line. Then originally part 4 was going to be a new Halloween Story line but due to the outcry of No Michael Myers, the filmmakers brought the character back.

[–] PaladinNJ (20310) 6 years ago

Exactly

[–] Spiff-King 7 years ago

should never called it a Halloween film!

What a bunch of tools!

[–] Tank-McQuade 7 years ago

Damn them for calling it Halloween 3!!

Should have been called doctor dans horror XXX rated adventure

[–] MarilynLuvsTigger 7 years ago

I think you're right. It's not bad as a stand alone, but making it a sequel of the original Halloween was misleading at best and manipulative at worst.

Hollywood is a place where they'll pay you $50,000 for a kiss and 50 cents for your soul.

[–] redwolfforlife 7 years ago

Couldn't agree more. I've been like WTF since 1982.

[–] glennhead-61166 7 years ago

No sh!t Sherlock

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

THIS is why we can't have nice things. Just imagine -- if this weren't a nation of witless morons, the anthology idea would never have had to have been explained and, possibly, to this day, we'd have a different Halloween story each and every year.

But nooooooooooooooo, folks wanted to see Michael Myers, who had been burned beyond recognition in the otherwise useless first sequel, somehow come back from the dead and continue stalking anemic Laurie Strode.

Here's the truth, my friend:

Halloween III is the best and only worthwhile sequel.

But, whatever, the dummies got their way. In October, you'll get some more Michael Myers walking around killing people. Hope you're happy.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Agreed. I don't give a DAMN about Michael Myers (another boring boogeyman like Jason or Freddy) but I AM intrigued by this Conal Cochran and his sinister company with an utterly evil agenda.

I think the Halloween franchise people shot themselves in the foot by featuring Myers in the second movie, because by then audiences decided that it was only ever about Myers and they would accept nothing else. Heck, even the first movie alone, they most likely decided that.

I love Season of the Witch but it seriously would've stood a much better chance at the box office if it didn't have the Halloween name in front of it, even if "Halloween" and "Season of the Witch" are effectively the same thing.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Losing the Halloween tag was probably the correct thing to do. And yes, bringing Michael Myers back for II was a mistake. The first movie had such a beautiful, nihilistic ending, why soil it with a sequel? I think the big guys in charge (Akkad and the half-bald guy) were pissed off at other movies cashing in on the slasher craze Halloween, essentially, started, and felt it necessary to remind the public who the Big Daddy of the genre was. I still hold hope that someone will take up the mantle of doing a Halloween (the holiday, not the movie) centered movie each year. Without the Halloween tag in front of the subtitle, there's no reason ANYONE couldn't go ahead and do this.