Why are they making Michael so brutal? - Halloween Kills (2021) Discussion

[–] vegan_voorhees (383) 3 years ago

I had the same thought. It looked chaotic, but hopefully the film will be more nuanced.

Seems weird that those involved bad mouthed all the old sequels and seem to have pretty much copied them.

reply

[–] Mister Babadook (2624) 3 years ago

Lol yeah they chose to ignore the sequels and erase them cause they was inferior, but then they constantly have references to those those sequels and remind people those sequels exist.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

Definitely more brutal than the original, but I still feel like the vibe is completely different from the Zombie films. Personally I thought his remakes were awful, but I actually enjoyed Halloween 2018.

The original might have been closer to it if they had the budget for it.

reply

[–] g-bone (534) 3 years ago

I think they showed every kill in the movie.

reply

[–] Mister Babadook (2624) 3 years ago

Yeah thats another thing, we see like 30 kills in that trailer, including Allyson's boyfriend getting killed. I don't know why they always gotta show everything in trailers these days, less is more people.

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1905) 3 years ago

I don't even watch trailers. Maybe the occasional youtube ad

reply

[–] lm362 (341) 3 years ago

Really with the second or third Halloween movie, they deviated greatly from the first one. I had hoped that Michael Myers would be the "Boo Radley"(To Kill A Mockingbird), of this and future movies-you knew he committed terrible crimes, but there was a reason behind them. With the second movie bringing out that he had a sister and the nurse saying someone should have told the mental institution/Michael about that I was hoping future movies would have less killings and focus more on his reason/reasons for murdering. I should've figured that with second film having more gory killings that future movies would continue with even more gore. I was hoping Michael Myers, although a killer, would eventually be somewhat of a sympathetic character similar to the Boo Radley character. What a waste and shame.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

I disagree. Part of what made the first one so brilliant was....we knew very little about MM. He seemed more like a demon possessed than a man with a troubled background. He was literally....The Boogeyman of our childhoods. That being who lurked under our beds or in the shadows. In fact, in the credits he was known only as "The Shape".

The more they gave him a backstory, the less scary he became. The more often we saw him, the less scary he was.
Everything that was so brilliant about the original film...got lost pretty quickly in the sequels.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Yes MM was credited as The Shape but he never lurked under anyones bed. You are getting confused with another movie it sounds like

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

I was speaking in metaphors. "The Boogeyman" is a concept...a figment of childhood ghost stories.
An example of which would be....that scary boogeyman lurking under your bed......(or in your closet....or in your imagination).

Don't be so literal. Are you serious that you didn't understand that??

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

I read your post too fast. I get it now

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

just a troll, don't bother

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

B/c they don't get it. And at this point, I'm not sure Carpenter even understands. Either that or the checks matter more to him than recapturing what the first film pulled off. To me, all it shows is a complete lack of creativity to default to this gratuitous violence. But I guess that's what today's audience needs in order to consider a film something better than boring. It all kinda reminds of the evolution of Jaws to The Meg or Rocky to Rocky 5. With Rocky Balboa, Stallone brought the latter back to where it needed to be -- lean and poignant. Carpenter's name attached duped us into thinking the same might be happening here.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

This is spot on. I use the Jaws franchise as a cautionary tale all the time. The brilliance of the original (Jaws and Halloween)....and just how much the subsequent sequels dilute the first film.

Just like with Halloween......Jaws was subtle and the scares were intelligent, not gratuitous. We rarely saw the shark. What scared us was knowing it was nearby....being aware of its presence. They used it sparingly, and to great effect. The best thing that ever happened to that film...was the mechanical shark ("Bruce") breaking down so often they had to limit how often it was actually used in scenes....(and therefore had to be creative in editing about how to indicate the shark was in the area......fin, yellow barrels....music/score....etc). It was true serendipity. Yet....the producers didn't LEARN from it. With each subsequent sequel, we got more shark...more blood....more attacks...more gore and more deaths.

Likewise with Halloween. Part of the brilliance of the first film was....we rarely saw MM, and we knew very little about him. He lurked in the shadows. He was quite literally....The Boogeyman of our childhoods. There were very few actual kills...and almost no blood at all. The acting and the story were what made it so chilling. We didn't need to be spoon-fed with actual gory kill scenes. The brilliance was in things like....Loomis:

"I met him, 15 years ago; I was told there was nothing left; no reason, no conscience, no understanding in even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, of good or evil, right or wrong. I met this... six-year-old child with this blank, pale, emotionless face, and... the blackest eyes - the Devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up, because I realized that what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil."

Absolutely brilliant.
The trailer for this new sequel indicates they've learned NOTHING from what made the original so great. We should RARELY see MM. Instead...this appears to be a gore-fest. No better than any of the numerous Friday the 13th or Freddy sequels. The first Halloween rose above the category of horror film. It was a masterpiece. The sequels.....are ruining that. SMH...

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Nonsense. Audiences today want to know more about MM, not less. Give us a back story and have more blood and kills. And by the way, Jaws 2 had more action in it than the original and was just as scary. Recall the helicopter scene? Jaws 1 had nothing that effective than that helicopter scene in the sequel

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

Millsey....just curious. How old are you?

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

22

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

I didn't have to ask.

reply

[–] strangenstein (683) 3 years ago

"Recall the helicopter scene? Jaws 1 had nothing that effective than that helicopter scene in the sequel"

With all due respect, you're out of your ever-lovin' mind. There isn't one moment in JAWS 2 that equals the first film, with the possible exception of Tina's horrific and anguished "Sh-sh-sh-aaaaark!" scream. You're also wrong about wanting to know Michael's back story. As others here have noted, you're too young to truly understand what made the original so fresh, unique - and scary. The original Halloween was a product of its time, but that doesn't mean the scares and atmosphere can't relate to modern times. Halloween 2018 had a brilliant opening in the nuthouse, capturing the mystery and fear of Michael Myers. Unfortunately, it was downhill after that.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

You don't think the ending in Jaws 2 was more effective and dramatic than the original? Instead of the shark being shot, he swims and bites into that electrical cable. I thought that was a better ending for the demise of the shark

reply

[–] strangenstein (683) 3 years ago

It’s not whether the manner of death of the shark is better, it’s which movie better held the audience in its grasp, so when the shark is killed it was a real release. People stood and cheered when the shark died in JAWS. JAWS is primal, JAWS 2 is a monster movie.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

If its a killer shark in each movie, then both films are monster films

reply

[–] strangenstein (683) 3 years ago

Any movie with a monster in it could be labeled a "monster" movie, but JAWS transcended that label. Again, you're too young to understand the fury and horror - yes, horror - that JAWS unleashed on the world June 20, 1975. Spielberg created something primal, that tapped into audience's innate fear of the water (or, rather, what's IN the water). There isn't one moment in the movie where the shark isn't real, and even when it's not on-screen, it's in the back of your mind. JAWS 2 simply doesn't have that power. Unlikable teenagers is a big part of that. As one reviewer said at the time, "JAWS 2 is the most expensive picture AIP never made."

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Well I saw Jaws 2 before I saw the original. Maybe thats why for me, Jaws 2 is more effective

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7476) 3 years ago

Jaws 2 was dreadful

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

Yeah, our imagination is supposed to do the heavy lifting, and it connects to something primal within us. MM, like a shark, is simply a force of nature moving in one direction. You can't peel back the curtain like the dopey RZ films did right outta the gate. And all the violence just takes the tension of what might happen completely away. There's nothing eerie or suspenseful about watching MM take out a bunch of firemen in the trailer. It looks like a crazy action pic. The only thing missing is MM pulling off the mask and revealing that he's played by Nicolas Cage.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

This ^^^^^

What would constitute a quality film (rising above a C- slasher film) would be something cerebral and nuanced, taping into what actually scares us viscerally. The first film did that perfectly.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

We understand. You do not it seems. We want to see more of MM and his back story. By the way, the original Rocky had the least action scenes in them. Give me Rocky 3, 4 or 5 any day over 1 and 2.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

Who's 'we'? You don't understand that it was all kicked off by a film that didn't do exactly what you're claiming is what everyone wants. That's why the first is considered a classic, and a phenomenon of its time, while the others are considered mostly laughable. Same with Jaws, Rocky. The other films were so bad that this reboot trilogy disconnected from them all except the first film, even though the same protagonist -- played by the same actor -- appeared in many of the sequels. But unfortunately, it fell into the same pattern, dangling over baked gore in place of suspense, so modern audiences won't look down at their phones.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Jaws and Rocky were too slow paced. I am also part of the modern audience. I want to know back stories of the villains and see more blood. And obviously racial diversity is very important and this lacks in many of the older films

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

Ah, just a troll. You should've just said "Huge plot hole" something something instead.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

The fact that Rocky could get a fight with the heavyweight champion in the original was a plot hole. You have to be a ranked fighter to fight the champ

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

Seriously Millsey....I don't mean to be blunt, but you're either kinda naive....or you are indeed a troll.

If you approach movies/stories that literally....you'll never be able to let go and just enjoy them.
(Sometimes....you have to suspend disbelief and just accept the absurdity).

In Rocky (the original)....it was written as a modern day cinderella story. And part of its very PREMISE....is that an exception (to the normal rules of boxing) was made...as a promotion.....a spectacle.....something Apollo's promoters dreamed-up as a way to get Apollo more exposure and publicity.

(A publicity stunt? In boxing?? Naaaaa.)

If you're not willing to suspend disbelief and just enjoy.....if you go into movies and pick things apart with literal analysis......you'll hate Rocky III because Thunderlips would have broken Rocky's back with that back-breaker drop. You'll hate Fast & Furious 9....because they launch a Pontiac Fiero into space. You'll hate Jaws because a giant shark chases 3 men and jumps up onto their boat. You'll hate every single James Bond movie..........

Seriously, Millsey.....

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Yes those things you mentioned about in Rocky 3, and Fast Furious 9 are all plot holes

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

You can break the rules...if the plot is pure fantasy.
It's allowed.

I give up.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3861) 3 years ago

Are you serious Clark? Mayweather just boxed a youtuber, ring up god or the master computer and tell him we've got a very big problem down here on Earth, we have plotholes all over the place.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Who is Clark? And that Mayweather fight wasn't for the a championship. By the way, that fight, despite no title on the line had a big plot hole in itself. Mayweather should have knocked out that youtuber, no doubt about that

reply

[–] Dainty (1864) 3 years ago

How is thinking Jaws is slow, trolling? I prefer Jaws 2 over the first one. First is still good though.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

I looked at the posting history. Notice millsey didn't defend against my comment, but rather went into the "Huge Plot Hole" shtick that you'll find across that history I mentioned -- including a post about an actual fight right above your comment.

reply

[–] Red1983 (60) 3 years ago

KISS MY FATASS MARTY SMALL DING DING. U MUST BE ASIAN 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

Are you laughing at what you said b/c you realize no one else will?

reply

[–] Red1983 (60) 3 years ago

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

I know it's so tough figuring out how to reply to the right person, but keep trying...

reply

[–] horroreporter (231) 3 years ago

Thats not very nice, apologize to the Asian race please

reply

[–] Red1983 (60) 3 years ago

I will as soon as they take the coronavirus away because they started all this mess

reply

[–] Indig0Mist (82) 3 years ago

Of course Carpenter just cares about the money at this point, he doesn't give a $hit, he invented some shitty excuse (taking a beer ffs) for writing the siblings plot in Halloween 2 just to promote the new films so fans would think that now it was cool not having that connection and bashing the classic because the original writer changed his mind but still having, guess what, yeah an old and over the top unrealistic Laurie Strode being the target for Michael again... Now we have the same shitty plot story about Michael targeting Laurie and her offspring but making less sense because now they're not even related! they have to come up with dumb ideas to reunite them (Dr. Sartain) .

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Did he politely kill people in the original?

reply

[–] horroreporter (231) 3 years ago

"Politely kill" ha ha classic

reply

[–] Mister Babadook (2624) 3 years ago

He killed people less violently in the original, like 1 stab and he was done, or 1 throat slit, he wasn't mutilating people tearing faces off, squashing heads like a pumpkin and sawing people. They're making him over the top gory and violent in these new movies for some reason.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

He stabs his sister 9 times in the very beginning of the movie.He strangles both Linda and Bob in a somewhat violent manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfVQMYvgXuQ. It's more graphic -which is pretty much how it's been since the 2nd one - but he's always been brutal.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

There's just something more....artful in how the deaths were depicted in the first one ('78). They seemed less gratuitous and very thoughtful in how the scenes were shot. As has been mentioned, there was almost zero blood in the original Halloween. It was more about suspense than about gore and violence.

In the opening scene, when MM stabs his sister, we see it (artfully shot) through his eyes...quite literally, through the eyeholes of a child's mask. And I suspect the use of multiple stabs was to emphasize he was more of a mechanism than a boy. No emotion, nothing behind those eyes. SO in that sense, it wasn't gratuitous...it was purposeful.

And even in probably the most grisly scene in the movie (when he impales that guy to a door with his knife).....again, VERY artfully shot. It's done in silhouette. And, we see some of the genius behind Carpenter (as well as Nick Castle's portrayal of MM). It's right after MM impales the guy to the door...and then just stands there. All we hear is him breathing....and then he tilts his head slightly to the side. For such a subtle move...it looks kinda brilliant onscreen.

Every effort after the original Halloween pales badly in comparison. I hate to think they dilute the brilliance of the original, but they kinda do....just like what the Jaws sequels do to Jaws.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Artful and thoughtful are are not words I use to describe murder.

I get the feeling you simply don't want any sequels. All of your complaints boil down to "they're not the original." No, they aren't. They were never going to be either. No one is going to make a sequel just to make it the same movie. SOMETHING has to be expanded on or some kind of ante upped. The cult shit was stupid, but SOMETHING has to change.

reply

[–] Ripkens25 (1912) 3 years ago

If you don't think that art (be it poetry, the stage, movies, books, ghost stories, Shakespeare, Greek tragedies, The Bible, music, opera, paintings, etc, etc, etc,) has included death, dying, murder, revenge, etc, etc.....you must get your art only from Disney films.

Take any Iron Maiden album cover...and I'll show you something with very dark themes.....yet was artfully done.
Read just about any Shakespeare play...and I'll show you something with murder in it....that was artfully done.
Go see the opera La Bohème....and I'll show you something with murder in it...that was artfully done.
Listen to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody...and I'll show you a song about murder and the gallows....artfully done.
Read Poe's The Raven.....artfully done.

A movie (which happens to have death and murder in it) can INDEED be artfully done. Stream the movie From Hell, which is about Jack the Ripper. Artfully done. Watch Silence of the Lambs: artfully done. Watch Seven....Memento.....Murder on the Orient Express.....LA Confidential.....Fargo.....Death on the Nile.....North by Northwest.....The Usual Suspects.......Shawshank Redemption......Chinatown.....Mystic River....Dead Man Walking.....Dial M for Murder.....The Maltese Falcon......The Black Dahlia.....

Carpenter shot the original with great use of shadows, imagery, score, timing, and suspense...not to mention great writing, including some fantastic soliloquies from Donald Pleasance (Loomis). All of this is also pretty subtle, tapping into what scares us viscerally...(rather than hitting us over the head with it, like the sequels). This was thoughtful and artful.

I'm contributing to the conversation by pointing out the contrast of what made the original so good (STYLE-WISE)...and what the sequels didn't learn from Carpenter and his original. If the sequels had kept things more cerebral (still intense and suspenseful, just not gratuitous and gory), they could probably have done a couple with decent quality. But instead...they just phoned them in; cookie-cutter slasher films in which MM is still running around in the same outfit and mask, for decades, killing more and more people. Once MM stopped being that boogeyman in the shadows, and got his own action figure and lunchbox, that should have been a hint to the producers to just...stop.

reply

[–] Mister Babadook (2624) 3 years ago

Couldn't have said it better myself Ripkens.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4052) 3 years ago

Unlike you, he's not conflating actual murder with the creative choices a director makes in depicting it, in film, to elicit a certain response. Hitchcock's shower scene in Psycho is as grisly as can be, but no one who understands film would ever say it's neither artful nor thoughtful -- when every frame of it screams the opposite.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Your whole argument basically implies that gratuitous gore and violence can't be artful or cinematically thoughtful. I don't think that's correct.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9626) 3 years ago

Do you want him to be a perfect gentleman instead?

reply

[–] HorrorMetal (838) 3 years ago

To be fair, he was pretty brutal in the original Halloween II as well. And that movie was even more of a direct sequel to the original than the 2018 film was, being that it even took place on the same night. The sixth film, despite its many massive problems, was the same way with its over-the-top brutality. I wouldn't change anything about the original, it's perfect the way it is. But, like others have already pointed out, they have to do something different and "up the ante" somewhat for a sequel. And I think every follow up attempted to expand on the original in some ways.

Sometimes this didn't work at all, like with Myers crying, the thorn nonsense, or getting his ass kicked by stupid Busta Rhymes (ugh). But having him be so damn violent I think kind of works for his character and doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm all for "less is more" and subtlety, but most of today's younger horror fans don't have the attention span to see a modern slasher movie that lacks excessive gore and brutal kills. Sadly, a slasher movie like the original that makes you use your imagination and suggests most of the horror wouldn't go over very well today. And, in this case, I'm actually fine with that because I really did enjoy Halloween 2018 quite a bit. Just my two cents.

And I think that Myers being so savagely fierce and cruel is pretty much the only thing these newer films have in common with Rob Zombie's version, thankfully.

reply