Originally posted by Mr Parker
I fail to understand how anybody can like this one when since it was a movie made to explore his CHILDHOOD events,we STILL after all this time,dont have an explanation given to us on WHY he kills people all the time and WHY he CANT be killed and WHY its ob halloween he likes to go out and kill. 😠
You never grasped what Rob was trying to do with this film. He was illustrating the life of a psychopath:
----A psychopath is defined as a person having no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation
He has a mental disorder. So your explaination is simply genetics. The film was geared toward a realistic portrayal and not some supernatural villan. Sorry if that is not what you wanted with this remake, but it is what rob wanted.
To the others who did not like lauries character. Is character depth that important for an unsuspecting victim of this psychopath? She is just a young girl who is scared to death that someone is trying to kill her. If you think she was annoying, then you prob find teenage girls annoying i think she represented the age fairly well and seemed terrified. Unlike the original, laurie was not the focus of this movie.
In an earlier post I said Rob nailed it. By "nailed it" I mean the movie came out great for what he wanted to do, not meaning he reinvented the franchise. That was never his intent.
Originally posted by Zilverz
You never grasped what Rob was trying to do with this film. He was illustrating the life of a psychopath:----A psychopath is defined as a person having no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation
He has a mental disorder. So your explaination is simply genetics. The film was geared toward a realistic portrayal and not some supernatural villan. Sorry if that is not what you wanted with this remake, but it is what rob wanted.
To the others who did not like lauries character. Is character depth that important for an unsuspecting victim of this psychopath? She is just a young girl who is scared to death that someone is trying to kill her. If you think she was annoying, then you prob find teenage girls annoying i think she represented the age fairly well and seemed terrified. Unlike the original, laurie was not the focus of this movie.
In an earlier post I said Rob nailed it. By "nailed it" I mean the movie came out great for what he wanted to do, not meaning he reinvented the franchise. That was never his intent.
Everything you said was 100% true.Thank you!
I think that when movies try to explain the nature and origins of the powers of guys like Myers or Jason Vorhees,it kills the franchise.To me,when we find out what it is the drives Myers,then it's ruined for me.The mystique is part of what makes it so scary.Fear of the unknown is human nature.
As far as the whole "curse" storyline goes, it was just add-on content since it was introduced in the 6th film, and new material for the dwindling storylines were needed.
I highly doubt that when John Carpenter made the first Halloween in 1978, he imagined a 6 year old boy with some Celtic/whatever curse as the film's villain. He probably just imagined a completely psycopathic and remorseless child who would grow up into a homicidal maniac.
Originally posted by Impediment
As far as the whole "curse" storyline goes, it was just add-on content since it was introduced in the 6th film, and new material for the dwindling storylines were needed.I highly doubt that when John Carpenter made the first Halloween in 1978, he imagined a 6 year old boy with some Celtic/whatever curse as the film's villain. He probably just imagined a completely psycopathic and remorseless child who would grow up into a homicidal maniac.
Which is kinda what made the story so scary.
Unlike Jason or Freddy (Supernatural slashers) we had Michael , whom was just a normal person. A normal person whom one day decided that he would , should and could kill people just because he wanted too.
THAT was the scary part, it's all well and good showing the boogeyman killing people and the audience going 'Oh well , he's not real so it's all for fun'. But when you show the depravity that a normal person can sink to the audience can think 'Holy sh*t he was just like me...and he killed them mercilessly'.
Originally posted by Impediment
As far as the whole "curse" storyline goes, it was just add-on content since it was introduced in the 6th film, and new material for the dwindling storylines were needed.I highly doubt that when John Carpenter made the first Halloween in 1978, he imagined a 6 year old boy with some Celtic/whatever curse as the film's villain. He probably just imagined a completely psycopathic and remorseless child who would grow up into a homicidal maniac.
I think explaining a killers powers was a bad way to go though.
Most franchises explore this at some point,and I think thats the point when the majority shakes their head no.They keep popping out seqeuls for money,which is fine,but I think the franchise should of had its make over at that point.I thought part 4 had some great moments,but I feel as if 5 cheapend a lot of what 4 was leading to.I think 4 was attempting the rebirth but got lost in the fold.
In the Friday The Thirteenth comics,they explain the origins of Jasons powers as well.In the comics they claim it to come from an Indian curse.Which was a bit strange.
I think their are some exceptions to the origins though.At times I think it can be done rather good.I just don't see Halloween ever explaining Meyers powers in a truely creepy way though.
i really enjoyed rob zombie's vision of this classic remake. i think he did a great job of establishing the back history of michael's character. the only reservation i have is that i don't think rob zombie utilized enough of his twisted creativity in the death scenes. after seeing his other two movies, i feel as if he short changed himself in that department. i expected him to see this as an opportunity to be as disturbingly gruesome and elaborate as he could possibly make it.