ROTTEN TOMATOES: Rob Zombie's "Halloween" Gets a New Poster and Website Comments

Rob Zombie's "Halloween" Gets a New Poster and Website

by Scott Weinberg | June 06, 2007

Summary

The official site for Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remake is up and running, and that's where you can check out the trailer and just a few other gizmos. Back to Article

(1-66 of 66 posts) | Reply

Jugger writes:
on Jun 06 2007 06:05 AM

[b]Wow[/b]
The poster is amazing!!!

but Michaels always have long hair??? is been a long time since i saw the movies

(Reply to this)

Metafact writes:
on Jun 06 2007 06:13 AM

I honestly have no faith in this needless remake. Rob Zombie does not have the talent (yet) to tackle a project like this, and early script reviews have indicated that this will be a "sympathetic" take on Michael Myers, which is just pathetic. That's the exact same thing Marcus Nispel did with Leatherface in the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and it nearly ruined the character. It seems as though Rob Zombie is doomed to repeat history.

I will agree that the poster is well done, but I would rather see this project either scrapped or put in the hands of someone more capable.

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 07:26 AM

Brad Dourif. Hmm. When are going to remake Cuckoo's Nest?

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Jun 06 2007 07:35 AM

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here but exactly how does one "ruin" a character in a horror film when all they do is stalk and slash? I mean, Jason, Michael Myers and Leatherface don't exactly hold intelligent conversations with the people they kill in their respective movies. So they stalk and they slash. Big deal. It's like a skipping record (or compact disc for you young ones). They do the same thing over and over and over. If someone chooses to create a backstory, hear them out first before passing judgement by saying they've "ruin" something that doesn't have a whole lot of substance to begin with. I would almost have to say these characters are more of an icon for how they LOOK then for what they actually DO. So one character uses a knife and the other a chainsaw. There's only so many ways you can kill someone with each before it gets redundant. Again, why is "filling in the blanks" so bad? Now class, discuss!!!

(Reply to this)

The Lord Slash writes:
on Jun 06 2007 08:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#868127)
I liked the TCM remake. I even thought it was as good as the original. But then again TCM is so much better than Halloween. Plus it came first. But yeah they could've used someone else to direct this movie.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 08:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#868129)
I would agree with these sentiments. I see no problem with making the character a more fleshed out villian, with actual motivation above and beyond "he's just a psycho." That worked in the 80's, when it was fresh, but now I think people want a little more. And I happen to think Zombie has both the talent and the passion to pull it off.

But I'm going to make a prediction now. Even if Zombie makes the best, most Academy worthy film ever, there will still be people who hate it because it's "not the original."

And just for the record, I thought the TCM remake was miles above the original. (Now donning fireproof suit)

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jun 06 2007 08:42 AM

why don't they wait till halloween to release it? what kind of 2ss does their marketing?? if the Saw trilogy can make a boatload of money(and they're really below average flicks) then this thing would make 10-20 mill more simply by going around halloween. not sure if its going to be any good. the chainsaw remake...was good. black christmas...was sh3t. amityville horror...good. the hitcher...good. you CAN have good remakes but...its iffy.

by the way, "ruin the character"?? there's been like 40 Halloween movies...the character is already ruined in most eyes. at least they're giving it a fresh new appeal and not the same ol' thing. only thing they need are: t3tties...young and perky. UNIQUE deaths...and some shock value. thats REALLY it. you don't need shakespeare. i think thats why the remakes are better than average horrors in my opinion. instead of wasting time on story, they copy off a previous one and put their minds on ways to make the scenes/deaths more unique.

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on Jun 06 2007 08:50 AM

Well...let's say they didn't make Halloween 20, and there was only the first one. If they were to remake it, they CAN'T give him more depth because then, it would be like...he's human. And you can't have your killer in a movie be human, because then in the back of your mind, you know he can be killed and you know what he's capable of. In the first Halloween you had NO IDEA what he was capable of because you knew nothing about him, and he seemed like a murderous ghost or something. That's what made him so scary. And that's why Friday the 13th sucked...kinda. They just HAD to bring the family in. I am still on the fence about this. I loved The Devil's Rejects...but I don't know...

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 09:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#868134)
I talked about this in another thread. Michael worked in the first one because they tried to make him very elemental. That's why there's so much talk about "The Boogeyman" in it. Michael is supposed to be our childhood fears in human form, more idea than reality. I think that's why he's gone at the end after they shoot him. He can't die because Michael is the representation of an age-old and universal idea: "The Boogeyman" aka Fear.

By giving him backstory they take Michael from being a mythical villain to a real threat which can work either way, but I feel it will ultimately take away from the original's pathos. But, what's Zombie gonna do? Reshoot the movie frame for frame and line for line?

Really this is what's wrong with remakes. Half the time there's no reason to do it. Wanna remake Friday the 13th into a great horror film? Go ahead because the originals arguably didn't do it. But why remake something that accomplished the job already? I honestly don't know why New Line hasn't remade F13 yet.

(Reply to this)

Exode writes:
on Jun 06 2007 09:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#868135)
Well said.

(Reply to this)

Metafact writes:
on Jun 06 2007 10:24 AM

FILMCZY and Ashron: You both make some good points (except for the whole "TCM remake was better than the original"), and I guess I should explain myself.

Ash84 and BrokebackYoda basically have the right idea when they say that Michael Myers (and for that matter Leatherface) need to be mysterious on some level because that's what made them so terrifying in the first place. I remember in an interview with Malcolm McDowell (who will be playing Dr. Loomis in this film) where he says his character will be very prominent in the new Halloween. It would have been cool to have Myers fly in the face of everything that Loomis had been taught as a therapist; that everyone has a reason for who they are and what they do. Myers' lack of motive would provide quite a dilemma for the doctor. Instead, he's going to find out that Michael was abused as a child, that he has deep-seated emotional problems, and so on. BORING.

The decision to portray the homocidal maniac as a "sympathetic" figure goes against everything that the series stands for. By attaching reasons, explanations, and purposes to the killings, Rob Zombie is stripping away that heartless and mysterious quality that gave the horror so much of its weight to begin with. I suspect that it�s yet another example of our society's obsession with Freudian rationalization (no offense to the man himself, of course), at least in cinema. Pure terror works best when it cannot be understood or explained. Michael Myers was once evil incarnate; now he will be reduced to a mere frightened child.

I hope that makes more sense. You can put away your fire-proof suit now, Ashron.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 10:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#868135)
I can agree with most of this, but even in the original they showed he was human, because they did show him as a kid, and you know he was in a mental institution. I get the feelling Rob is just going to delve into this a little further than the original. It wouldn't surprise if he came up with some reason Michael can't be killed or is at least very difficult to kill.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 10:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#868135)
I'm not a fan of today's horror movies, because of everything you just said about the original Halloween. There really isn't too much behind mindless brutality in today's films. And F13 could really use a remake. It scared me when I was 12, but I couldn't tell how freakin' ridiculous it is.

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 11:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#868137)
I like your angle of having Loomis baffled by Michael. I think you could tell the story, focused on Loomis and not Michael and the girls. That would turn this movie into a "Silence of the Lambs"/"Se7en" kind of story. Might work, might not.

But if you're gonna remake something that worked to begin with, you could at least approach the story from another angle. Tell it a different way.

But who knows, Zombie's hasn't come out yet. Maybe he already knows some of this (shrug).

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 11:29 AM

I have my doubts, but I hope it's good.

(Reply to this)

narcissusbleh writes:
on Jun 06 2007 12:27 PM

I love the new poster.

And I agree with those of you who say that giving Michael a backstory makes the character less scary, but c'mon. the character's been ruined enough by the horrible sequels (although I liked a couple of them).

Michael needs a fresh start, and I'm happy they picked someone as unsafe as Zombie to write and direct. At the very least, I know that he'll take this movie up a couple notches. I can't wait.

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 12:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#868142)
That's right, his character has been ruined enough already.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 06 2007 12:59 PM

In a summer that I firmly believe will be full of surprises, Halloween will be the final of them all. It has two things going against it; Rob Zombie (House of 1000 corpses, well, it just wasn't good) and the fact that it's not only a remake of a horror movie, but it's another entry in a series that should've ended a while ago. Then again, Rob Zombie also appears to be one of the reasons it could be a real surpriser, because The Devil's Rejects was a vast improvement over the vastly improvable House of 1000 corpses. The casting of Tyler Mane is pretty solid; he may be another "wrestler in a movie", but at least he's been in some pretty solid movies before.

(Reply to this)

bat-fink writes:
on Jun 06 2007 01:17 PM

[b]Looks about the same as the original, and i though[/b]
Just watched the trailer, and it did nothing for me, i dont know wether i like horror movies or not, because i am mostly disapointed.

Halloween to me was the weekest one, a guy in a mask that just stabs people with no real explanation as to why.

Devils rejects had a lot more substance, as did house of 1000 corpses, texas chainsaw was still my fave, followed by the remake of Hills have eyes.

But halloween original and remake seem like a no brainer to me. Halloween just seems monotonous. run scream kill, run scream kill... yawn!

Id rather see a Freddy v Rambo movie anyday!

(Reply to this)

DanSmith writes:
on Jun 06 2007 01:57 PM

A yellow band trailer? has that ever been done before?

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on Jun 06 2007 02:06 PM

I agree with those saying that Michael Myers has been ruined by the remakes...starting with number four. But...I think Rob Zombie is as good as anyone. Because he really LOVES the movie, so...I guess we'll see. Maybe it will be something we don't expect.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 02:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#868137)
I don't know. The sympathetic thing is just hearsay right now, isn't it? And Zombie's characters in his previous movies have been anything but sympathetic. Hell, even the "good" guys are pretty effed up in his stuff.

I can understand the concerns everyone has, but let's face it, we'll all be there the first weekend to check it out. Our company's already planning to take the afternoon off on the 31st to go check it out.

And Batspideykong, I'll have to disagree with you on Corpses. I found it pretty damn chilling, because just when you thought things couldn't get worse for the heroes, it did. It was pretty no holds barred, and I appreciated that gutsiness. But I do agree that overall Rejects was a better film.

(Reply to this)

Metafact writes:
on Jun 06 2007 02:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#868150)
It was revealed that Myers would be portrayed as a "sympathetic" character after the script made it to the offices of Ain't It Cool News.

By the way, what company do you work for?

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 02:36 PM

i honestly hate long, pointless posts about nothing, sooo i'll get to the point.

i think it looks great, and there will always be haters for everything. it's not about what they are excited for, it's about what you are excited for.

(Reply to this)

Admiral_N8 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 02:56 PM

Sites down for me.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 03:15 PM

I actually am co-owner of two companies. One is Indievision, a creative agency, and the other is Synthetic Fur, a film production company. If you're really interested, you can check out our websites.

http://www.indievision.com

http://www.syntheticfur.com

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on Jun 06 2007 03:34 PM

Well I'm sure i will see it too. Out of curiousity.

(Reply to this)

VinceVega writes:
on Jun 06 2007 03:44 PM

I'm just hoping Zombie doesn't pull any punches. When I heard he was doing this remake, my first thought was that he would be the only man I'd trust to do it, given his mind-boggling devotion to the horror genre. But the only way this can succeed is if he manages to bring something new to the story that the original didn't already do.

That's why I like the fact that he's "exploring" the Michael Myers character. I don't think "sympathetic" is really where he's going, but realistic, insofar as explaining the origins of his rage. But he'll still be evil.

(Reply to this)

Metafact writes:
on Jun 06 2007 03:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#868154)
Damn, I wish I could work for a company that takes the afternoon off for a movie. And you co-own two? Impressive.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 05:12 PM

Whoever said that the original Halloween was not good is insane. Halloween is arguably the best horror/thriller ever. The only other movies that come close are jaws, psycho, and the exorcist.

(Reply to this)

Flyshooter writes:
on Jun 06 2007 05:28 PM

I think you are judgin something that's not even out yet, give Rob his chance. The worst thing that can happen is for it to be an enjoyable flick, wich is a lot more than the last entries of this franchise. Moreover, Rob has proved to be a skillfull director with a very low budget and he does his job with passion and honesty (Cf the Bonus DVD of Devil's Rejects, he's totaly in his trip). I mean The Devil's Rejects will be a movie that will still be talked about in 10 years. And I think the fact they're releasing in august (so shortly after the shooting has been finished, wich is a feat in itself) is because they have entire confidence in both Rob Zombie and his baby, thus no need to play on the halloween period (which ends up being bukled up by mostly crap anyway). Let's wait and see folks. Oh, btw, I'm new here, so give me a warm welcome and a cup of coffee. Thank you!

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 05:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#868157)
Impressive? Difficult is more like it :-) But thanks. They're small companies, and being the boss has its advantages, such as being able to take an afternoon off for a movie. We don't do it often. King Kong was the last time. The best part is, since we're in the film business, I get to write the tickets off on my taxes as research :-)

(Reply to this)

narcissusbleh writes:
on Jun 06 2007 05:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#868145)
You're excited about Tyler Mane being in the film?

Two words. Or names, rather.

Malcolm McDowell.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 06 2007 06:07 PM

In reply to this comment (#868161)
Well I wouldn't say excited, I'm just glad it's not some wrestler that has had no previous experience in acting. But Malcom McDowell's in it? That's worth getting excited over.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 06:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#868162)
Are you sure you're 14? You have better knowledge of movies and actors than most 30 year olds.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 06 2007 06:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#868163)
I swear to God, I'll be floored if you get any cooler.

(Reply to this)

JackHorner1979 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 06:43 PM

[b]How are people worried about this?[/b]
Right, because before Zombie took over, the Halloween franchise was just chugging along into quality territory.
Are you kidding me? Anything Zombie does is an improvement over what we've been offered since Season of the Witch. Yeah, that long ago. I don't understand the level of contempt people have for remakes. If you don't like the new one, so be it. You'll always have the original to enjoy. It's not like someone is breaking into your home to steal your original version, never to be seen again.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 07:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#868165)
I've always had this attitude myself. Some remakes I like, some I don't, but it's not like seeing a remake completely destroys my memory of the original.

The only real complaint I have about remakes is that for every one done, that's one less slot for an original idea written by some as yet unknown screenwriter or a great, original film made by some as yet unknown director. So I sort of have a love/hate relationship with the whole remake concept. But what are you gonna do. Hollywood doesn't like to take chances, so they'll keep making them as long as people keep watching them.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 06 2007 07:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#868164)
Thanks. I try my best

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Jun 06 2007 07:49 PM

wow, i'm really liking the intelligent discussion in this thread. Metafact, FILMCZY, and Ashron, i applaud you guys. the original Halloween still evokes this kind of intellectual conversation, which is why it transcends all the other countless slashers that have followed. as far as Zombie's "reimagining" goes, i'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst.

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 07:57 PM

i wonder if this is gonna be good..... the poster looks pretty cool and the trailer isn't bad.......... but i have a feeling that rob zombie might go over the top with gore and leave us with a huge NC-17 worthy blood fest that only saw fans could appreciate. I Don't know, or not, that's just what i think after seeing some terrible horror movies in the last 15 years or so

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Jun 06 2007 09:05 PM

the trailer looked pretty good..........i am actually lookin forward to this now........

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Jun 07 2007 05:39 AM

I'm a little on the fence, like many others, and I agree with many things said here.
First - since this is a remake of the original, it's got a pretty difficult measuring stick. The original Halloween was a darn good movie. But, given how badly the sequels have run it into the ground, I'd much rather see Zombie's take than another crap sequel. And I think Zombie is a great choice.

But I do think that elemental, indecipherable villains like Mikey work best because they're essentially unexplained. You can't stop them because you can't understand them, and they're scarier that way.
Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, and arguably even Roland of Gilead were more intense when you knew less about them.

But I'll go see it. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[edit] almost forgot - I liked the trailer, the poster and even the music!

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Jun 07 2007 06:20 AM

I'm in, it looks cool.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 07 2007 06:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#868168)
Oh yeah, well, you're a moron.

Sorry, just wanted to bring things back down to the usual level before we all got big egos :-)

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 07 2007 08:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#868168)
And that's the best way to approach them as a viewer. I went into Dawn '04 like that and came away very pleased.

As far as my thoughts on remakes... Well, I do and don't like them. Sure Dawn '04 was great and it didn't deminish Dawn '79 any, but it took one of my favorite horror movies of all time and made it mainstream. I like my little treasures to be relitively unknown. It makes them more unique to me.

But now if I talk about Dawn I have to deal with "'04 or that other one?" and then my Dawn '79 conversation turns into a "remake" discussion.

I don't know, remakes don't deminish the original movie, but they can really change the... aura, I guess is the word I'm looking for... of the previous movies. Just look at how people regarded the Star Wars franchise pre-prequels as opposed to post-prequels.

(Reply to this)

narcissusbleh writes:
on Jun 07 2007 08:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#868174)
Indeed.

Also, it's introducing the film to a new generation, so now when you mention Halloween, most people will assume you're talking about the remake.

If Zombie's version is successful, then Carpenter's version will be like the original Scarface (in that most people don't know there was an original Scarface).

Can't wait for Aug 31st though.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Jun 07 2007 09:29 AM

I'll continue as the "D's" advocate and ask exactly what appeals to fans of these supposed "unstoppable" characters? It is their look? Their style? The fact they can't be killed? What part of the character do fans continuously cling to that warrents sequel after sequel (other than studio profit) or such intense debate when someone attempts to alter or "expand" them? I'll agree John Carpenter made a wise decision to describe Myers as "pure evil" as if there was nothing else there: a mythic figure conjured by one's worst fears. But after that"explaination" there really isn't much more to do with the character, right? Now the sequels become nothing more than carbon copies of the first with absolutely nothing new to add to the story being told. Jason, IMHO, is pretty damn boring. Can anyone give a good reason why we should root for this guy? He certainly isn't "pure evil"--Myers already claims that crown, so what's his point? Chasing stupid teenagers who want to have sex? I can't understand anyone wanting a remake of F13 when the original was "notorious" ONLY for the graphic effects at the time of its release. It was scary only because of the detail of bloodshed that the audience patiently awaited between stupid teenagers having sex. However many sequels later, Jason is still Jason and still dull.

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 07 2007 09:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#868176)
Reffering to my previous post about Michael being unstoppable, I meant that it worked in Halloween 1 and only Halloween 1, forget the sequels. I think Carpenter never meant for there to be sequels (I mean, it was a small, insignificant movie when they wrote/filmed it. How was he or Debra to know it was gonna make a ton of money?). The last scene worked because it wasn't just an "oh they left it open for a sequel" moment. It was actually part of the story and part of Michael's character to disappear at the end, ambiguously.

I actually hate zombie "unstoppable" killers like Jason. It worked in Halloween because his disappearance had context to it, it wasn't just thrown in to open up a sequel. It reinforced the idea of Michael being fear itself in human form.

You wonder why anybody would want to remake F13 because it was so bad. I'm the exact opposite. Why would you wanna remake Halloween when the first one was so GOOD? If you're gonna remake something, remake something that NEEDS to be redone. It's like a test in school, if you got an A why would you ask to retake it? If you got an F, then you'd be pleading to retake it.

F13 sucked, so let's try it again. Halloween is the A movie here, why mess with it?

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 07 2007 10:50 AM

I actually liked F13 and still do, especially taking into account the minimal budget. And it should get some kudos for being Kevin Bacon's first film :-)

What everyone seems to forget is that it wasn't Jason in the original, it was his mother, a normal human and it wasn't revealed until the end. Jason was just there as the "bogeyman" figure. So at the time, it was a nice "a-ha, gotcha" sort of thing. Jason the unstoppable killer didn't show up until the second movie.

But the only reason to watch the sequels was to see what sort of inventive ways they could kill off teenagers, and all that's been eclipsed by the Saw movies and other gorefests. I don't know that there's much could really be done with an F13 remake, but I'm sure someone will try at some point.

(Reply to this)

joeyiscool11 writes:
on Jun 07 2007 12:01 PM

I'm real nervous about this film. I'm a huge fan of all the Halloween movies, definitely the best horror franchise of all time. I also love Rob Zombie... as a musician, his solo and white zombie stuff are amazing, as a film maker he uses gore. As much as I love Rob Zombie I can easily say he is nowhere near as good as a film maker compared to John Carpenter. I'm going to see it, but I'm probably not going to be haoppy

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 07 2007 12:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#868179)
Well as long as you go into it with a positive attitude like that, how can you fail :-)

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Jun 07 2007 12:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#868177)
"You wonder why anybody would want to remake F13 because it was so bad. I'm the exact opposite. Why would you wanna remake Halloween when the first one was so GOOD? If you're gonna remake something, remake something that NEEDS to be redone. It's like a test in school, if you got an A why would you ask to retake it? If you got an F, then you'd be pleading to retake it.

F13 sucked, so let's try it again. Halloween is the A movie here, why mess with it?"

I agree with your take on "Halloween" but I still don't believe F13 has enough of a solid story to warrent a remake no matter how bad the first one was. If someone can pitch a decent "reimaging" of it please post your ideas. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know how the original ended? What would the new twist be in the remake? Jason's dad? sister? babysitter? Paris Hilton? I'm still a firm believer in story over effects. F13 just doesn't hold a candle to "Halloween" which had story AND style.

(Reply to this)

mr.Moo-bee writes:
on Jun 07 2007 12:30 PM

[b]Ill watch it if my girlfriend pays for it[/b]
It might be better than the original because the first one sucked. The music was scarier than Michael Myers by far.But Rob Zombie will make this one a bit more interesting and and a lot bloodier

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 07 2007 01:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#868181)
I understand where you're coming from, but don't you see that because F13 sucked so bad and had no story at all that it has the most room for
improvement? I mean since it has no story, it's a blank slate for any kind of story you want!

I would use Jason's character in the camp setting again (Jason was the better character between he and his mother, imo; just sorry execution of his idea).

We all know that the problems with F13 were directing, writing, acting and music, imo. All of those things are easily fixed if a studio had the money, interest and passion to put into it.

Maybe that's why I would like to see one: the flaws in the series could really have been fixed easily.

As far as writing, all the series ever needed was a story for the campers that had relevance to the plot (Jason killing them all). What we got instead was "I kinda like Todd."/"No! You really you like Todd? You whore!" as people were killed in cut scenes.

Why not have the teenagers somehow trapped at the camp, KNOWING that Jason is stalking them, trying to survive or get away instead of having sex the whole time without a clue as to what's happening around them.

The most basic thing though: have the characters' actions and dialogue actually be relevant to the overall story-- an example would be one character's triumph over a personal struggle as the result of Jason and the killings.

But we never got any of those simple writing ideas, we just got teenagers talking about sex while their friends got killed. That's what was wrong, the characters were never involved in the story's main element (Jason). That's bad writing which is very easily fixed.

I'm totally with you on the "story over effects" talk. And yeah, I think I could probably write a better F13 script than any of the ones they used. Not bragging, just saying the originals were that bad.

I guess, the whole point here is that you could do ANYTHING different just about and wind up with something better than the originals. It just needs some passion and creativity. Halloween already got a good treatment, it doesn't need any help. But I'm curious about RZ's Halloween just the same.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 07 2007 06:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#868183)
You have no understanding of F13. It was good when it was made, of course people 20 years later are going to hate it because your idea of horror has changed. Hell they can make a remake of it shot by shot just with better effects and it will be awesome. Hell the movie had the first of second best death scene ever. Kevin Beacons death scene is up there with Johhny Depps in Nightmare on Elm Street, another awesome horror movie.

(Reply to this)

RottenRob writes:
on Jun 07 2007 10:32 PM

[b]Snobby nitpicking about the music[/b]
I think the detuned piano sounds a little hokey (sp?), but I don't know if that's how it'll be in the movie.

I'm a composer, but I try not to be hyper-critical of others' music. I just think it's a little too much and makes me think of a cheesy detuned keyboard piano. Maybe a more authentic sound of an actual out-of-tune piano would have the creepy effect without the cheese.

Movie looks good to me, though.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Jun 08 2007 06:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#868183)
I thought there was a little more to F13 pt. 7. The one with the telekinetic. It had some of that "personal triumph" you spoke about.
Now, I'm not saying it was good, it was just better than a lot of them.
I actually do like Jason Voorhees, but just in a "this is fun but crappy" kind of way.
I loved Freddy vs. Jason for that, and I was actually rooting for Jason all the way through.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 08 2007 06:39 AM

In reply to this comment (#868184)
Much as it pains me to do this, I actually agree with Aknddon on this one. Times have changed and when F13 came out it was the shizzit. Believe it or not, boys and girls, there was a time when all a horror movie needed was a knife, teenagers, and bare breasts. F13 had all of these and worked fine. The story was simplistic, but that's all it needed to be. And the arrow through the throat is a classic death.

Now having said that, I would certainly not be opposed to a remake, and the ideas being floated around are sounding pretty good. Maybe I should get started on a script :-)

(Reply to this)

Ash84 writes:
on Jun 08 2007 06:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#868186)
I agree! The "Carrie vs. Jason" one (Part 7 did you say?) and the one with Thom Matthews (think that was part 6) were both cream of the F13 crop, imo. They did try some new stuff with those two which I thought was refreshing. I still never saw the quality I was looking for in that series, though.

I don't agree with the other poster that F13 was the shiit back in the day. It may have been, I wasn't around back then so I could be wrong. But you had Texas Chainsaw and Halloween before F13 came out. F13 may have been scary and fun when it first appeared but it wasn't near fresh or different and the sequels were fine with just letting it get more generic over time while other people named Wes Craven decided to take horror to a new level.

I was rooting for Freddy in FvsJ.

But believe me, I'm not an F13 hater I have quite a few of them on DVD and watch 'em every now and then. I just think there could have been more done with them as far as quality and freshness. You can say F13 1 had some freshness to it in its time, I'll give you that (just not a lot), but you can't tell me there was ANYHTING fresh about Jason X or Jason Goes to Jail-- I mean Hell-- by the time the 90s and 00s rolled around.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 08 2007 12:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#868188)
Yes F13 was the shit back then, it was released in limited theaters yet was number one or two when it came out. It is a classic. Texas Chainsaw was not big when it came out, it was very much a cult movie.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 11 2007 02:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#868189)
You've also gotta remember TCM Paved the way for a lot of slasher flicks that followed. When it first came out it got banned in a lot of places. People weren't ready for it. That probably effected it's initial success. I think the UK just lifted the ban on it in like the last 10 years. Here's to desensitization :)

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 12 2007 03:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#868190)
It had a very little effect on the big movies.

(Reply to this)

1deadm.f. writes:
on Aug 02 2007 08:16 PM

to all the non believers eat sh@# you guys obviously no nothing about horror and what it takes to put together a masterpiece and let's be honest we want more gore, death sequences to frighten the fudgepacking idiots who act like life is peachy and this sort of thing is not an artform expression of imagination brought to you to give you the high you are looking for in this genre we want more they give us more and just like video games they could have designed the perfect(ex: madden) game but they always leave you wanting more that is why you buy that is what keeps the business alive, back to the movie there is more evidence Have you seen the trailers I for one know they don't tell the story but if you like horror like I do then these trailers as far as violence being desplayed are already better than all the halloween movies and at least michael is in it anyone remember the third installment absolutely terrible will never watch it again I may watch this particular movie till I die now that's killer
besides do you remember the classic lines from rob's previous movies the man is a huge fan who knows the world of horror hell his whole career is about it if no one else has the passion it's him he deserves all the credit in the world for by now making a character who before this was to put it blunt a knife wielding ***** he finally grows **** and balls that she be the title

(Reply to this)

Angstwithoutreason writes:
on Aug 16 2007 01:16 PM

Halloween,

This flick has really gotten strangled by so many remakes. It's really hard to say if Rob Zombie's version is going to be any different. He's not an acclaimed director, and frankly they're just films that were made poorly, and written poorly, not to mention the actors weren't amazing enough to even help his films with their performances.

From the trailer it looks to be decent, but trailers can be so deceiving they can make great films look ridiculous and make ridiculous films look fantastic.

If he pulls it off, I'll be quite suprised.

(Reply to this)

portom1986 writes:
on Aug 26 2007 08:58 PM

In think this movie can go either way. Yes, the sympathetic view of Michael Meyers would definitely be a blow to the "unkillable" persona he has throughout the entire series. I hated all of them after the second installment. However, from what I gather from both trailers, Zombie is trying to show that all of us are capable of doing unspeakable acts. All it takes is something in your mind to disconnect you from reality. The fact that our minds are frail and so poorly understood can be scary if you think about it. Michael was ten when he first murdered. No matter how many times this same premise is remade, that still scares me a little.

Basically, I think that Rob is trying to show that we are not so different from Michael. That is a scary thought, at least for me.

(Reply to this)