Halloween Kills, a direct sequel to Halloween 2018, is scheduled to open October 15th, you know, just before Halloween.

By direct sequel, and as clearly evidenced by the trailer just dropped, this one starts exactly where the last one ended. That would be with Michael going up in flames, only guess what? The Fire Department arrives and is very sorry.

No spoilers, it's all in the trailer.

Then we watch as Michael stomps around town taking on all sorts of groups without a care in the world. No more creepy, silent stalking for this boy! And this is why most horror movies don't appeal to me much anymore. Horror is just blood and gore and realistic CGI done in grim earnestness, devoid of all humor. Slashers used to be fun. Now its just a grim death march through the faceless extras and the secondary characters of minimal interest, until you get to the main event with the main character. And still evil never quite dies, even when it doesn't win.

As far as I know, there has never been an explanation for Michael Myers, but I only saw the Halloweens with Jamie Lee, so there may have been one without me knowing. In the last reboot, he was still just an insane human. So I don't really understand how he got to be invincible, but it sure looks like it. By taking it to this extreme, which franchises tend to do when they are in their 12th installment, it just reduces the suspense to nothing because you can't fight invincible and it gets boring after the 6th beheading.

The problem is, I'm pretty sure I will see Halloween Kills, just as I went to see the Halloween reboot. Just as I know there is a really good chance Michael will be back, however this one ends. And just as I know that none of them will ever be as good or as scary as that cheaply made Halloween movie, with the three note soundtrack and the screaming Screen Queen. Michael will live as long as Halloween makes money.

On a humorous note I once had a back stage tour for the band Shinedown and noticed a Michael Myers mask on one of the amps.

Turns out that Zach Myers full name is Michael Zachary Myers and he takes it on tour with him.

So I guess I'm a little behind on this news, but I just found out that a sequel to the sequel to the reboot has already been made. They were both supposed to have gotten out for 2020 and 2021, but were delayed to 2021 and 2022.

Halloween Kills is already backed up by Halloween Ends to come out October 2022. By that its pretty safe to assume that Michael Myers walks away from everything in this next one, again. Since Jamie Lee is not really talking about Ends, I can't quite figure out if she is in or out.

So Halloween Kills is just more set up, which some fans seem fine with, but what is the point of the exercise if the conclusion can always be changed or never exists? Michael has turned into the least compelling villain in my opinion, simply because he has no story. He kills anyone he sees without any reason and now he isn't even discrete about it. Are they going to try to turn him into some mythical monster at this late stage?

Probably, they have at least two more movies to fill and he can't just hack away at extras for 90 minutes each.

I read that the official chronology of these movies is the 1978 original with the 2018 movie being a direct sequel to that, and these next two movies being parts 3 & 4 of the complete story.

This means none of the other sequels/reboots ever "happened" within this newly defined timeline, including the original hospital-set "Halloween II" which infamously made Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) Michael's long lost sister.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
I read that the official chronology of these movies is the 1978 original with the 2018 movie being a direct sequel to that, and these next two movies being parts 3 & 4 of the complete story.

The "reboot" was tagged a not so direct sequel where the characters aged the appropriate 40 years, but in addition to erasing Halloween 2, it also erased H20. That was the 20 year anniversary film that also had Jamie Lee taking on Michael once and for all. Right.

Even being generous, Laurie and Michael are going to be able to apply for Medicare soon. It will have to complete because its time for Halloween: The Next Generation.

I think you could still watch the first two films, H20 and the 2018 version together and they would fit into a nice set.

The Rob Zombie films were ok but his version of Michael's home life was more of a justification then his horrific bloom from a nice family where you would never see it coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Slashers used to be fun. Now its just a grim death march through the faceless extras and the secondary characters of minimal interest, until you get to the main event with the main character. And still evil never quite dies, even when it doesn't win.

That's been the formula for slashers basically since inception.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
As far as I know, there has never been an explanation for Michael Myers, but I only saw the Halloweens with Jamie Lee, so there may have been one without me knowing. In the last reboot, he was still just an insane human. So I don't really understand how he got to be invincible, but it sure looks like it. By taking it to this extreme, which franchises tend to do when they are in their 12th installment, it just reduces the suspense to nothing because you can't fight invincible and it gets boring after the 6th beheading.

Michael Myers became invincible at the end of the original film when he was shot 6 times, then disappeared into the night.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:

That's been the formula for slashers basically since inception.

Michael Myers became invincible at the end of the original film when he was shot 6 times, then disappeared into the night.

Yeah, but I must have changed since inception. There was a time when I watched them all. Now the lack of boundaries, rules, humor and even any justice bother me. My idea of a good horror movie seems to have changed.

As for Michael, I only saw the Halloweens with Jamie Lee Curtis. He certainly couldn't be killed by anything, but except for being called the Boogie Man at the end of the original Halloween, I can't remember ever seeing, and I can't find now, even a half baked explanation of who or what he is supposed to be, or why he is so single minded.

Maybe they will finally figure it out in Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends. Find his demon name, offer us something, it's annoying.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:

That's been the formula for slashers basically since inception.

Michael Myers became invincible at the end of the original film when he was shot 6 times, then disappeared into the night.

Yeah, but I must have changed since inception. There was a time when I watched them all. Now the lack of boundaries, rules, humor and even any justice bother me. My idea of a good horror movie seems to have changed.

As for Michael, I only saw the Halloweens with Jamie Lee Curtis. He certainly couldn't be killed by anything, but except for being called the Boogie Man at the end of the original Halloween, I can't remember ever seeing, and I can't find now, even a half baked explanation of who or what he is supposed to be, or why he is so single minded.

Maybe they will finally figure it out in Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends. Find his demon name, offer us something, it's annoying.

Haha! Haven't we all?

The only explanation given was when Loomis described him as "pure evil". If there was any more to it in the later films I've since forgotten - the only ones I like and will re-watch are the original two (and the latest one).

Rob Zombie tried to give him a reason, but again I don't recall them saying how he became superhuman. He might've in his second one, but I hated his first so much I never bothered.

I don't mind them not explaining why. I only hope that with Halloween Ends they actually do END the story.

Watching the latest trailer and I think my Halloween box office money is going to Antlers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLkaO67TJ6Q

I will catch Mike on some other format.

Yeah, maybe don't catch him in person!

I saw the first (new) one twice at the walk-in, but this one might have to wait for home viewing. It's too dark for the drive-in, despite the improved digital projectors and the only sit-in movie we've seen this entire weird time was "A Quiet Place II".

Hopefully, we'll back to a movie or two a month at the cinema in 2022.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Watching the latest trailer and I think my Halloween box office money is going to Antlers.

Halloween Kills was already previewed at the Venice Film Festival and it didn't kill.

It is apparently wall to wall gore directed at a lot of nameless townspeople extras. The reviews were not very good.

I think the thing that really hurts this film for me is that it has been well advertised that a third installment with Jamie Lee is backing it up next year. It's one thing to expect a sequel and another thing to know that the story is just bidding time and costing you more money while you're waiting for the big finale, which is guaranteed not to be in this one.

But let's face it. If you are an old Halloween fan, you will see Halloween Kills eventually. For pure gore fans, which I'm not, it's supposed to have an impressive body count.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I think the thing that really hurts this film for me is that it has been well advertised that a third installment with Jamie Lee is backing it up next year. It's one thing to expect a sequel and another thing to know that the story is just bidding time and costing you more money while you're waiting for the big finale, which is guaranteed not to be in this one.

I don't know if you're a Star Wars fan, but what are your thoughts about those that were released as trilogies? Did knowing there would be a third movie wrapping things up kill your interest in the middle film? I guess the same question could be asked with Lord of the Rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I think the thing that really hurts this film for me is that it has been well advertised that a third installment with Jamie Lee is backing it up next year. It's one thing to expect a sequel and another thing to know that the story is just bidding time and costing you more money while you're waiting for the big finale, which is guaranteed not to be in this one.

I don't know if you're a Star Wars fan, but what are your thoughts about those that were released as trilogies? Did knowing there would be a third movie wrapping things up kill your interest in the middle film? I guess the same question could be asked with Lord of the Rings.

Yeah that's a fair point Ted and I understand the similarity you're driving at, but I would have to say that I don't think I'm particularly opposed to the middle film of a trilogy. If anything its generally the ending film that disappoints me.

I am not a Star Wars fan. I liked the first two films, or 6 and 7 as it was, but you have to remember that when Star Wars A New Hope was released, it had a complete ending. There was no guarantee that there would be An Empire Strikes Back if it wasn't a hit. So when Empire came out and was even better than the first one, it was fine that it had no ending and was just going to run into Return of the Jedi. I had no problem with that, it was Return of the Jedi that didn't live up to first two films for me.

The rest of the Star Wars trilogies I can't say because I didn't like any part of 1, 2 and 3, although I saw them, and I haven't seen even one of 7, 8 and 9 or the standalones.

The Scream films, all 4 of them, had endings, but kept getting weaker as it went on. Alien had 2 great movies, a horrible Alien3 and a very flawed Resurrection. Harry Potter lost me after the third one, so can't say. X-Men don't care. Bond was all separate films until the Craig era started to follow a certain running storyline. Nearly all of the big horror titles turned to junk after the second film. Even Day of the Dead was bad compared to Night and Dawn. Lord of the Rings I saw and was sort of OK throughout, Hobbit didn't see.

There are really too many franchises to name, but I think what I would prefer is not to have a trilogy at all. I think what I would have done was wrap up the new Halloween at this one, because if my history indicates anything, it's that I'm probably going to like the third film less than the middle one and that doesn't bode well for Halloween Ends.

An honest trilogy is simply one story that is told in three distinct and connected parts. The point of a film wrapping things up in 2 or 6 hours divided by 3 makes little difference to me. All of the markers or division points used to break up a trilogy can be and are used in stand alone movies. By design most theater and film are divided into 3 parts anyway.

The problem that seems to be with the current Halloween trilogy is that the second part is unnecessary and the story would probably be of a better quality in 2 parts. Assuming the 3rd part isn't worse than the 2nd.

The first Star Wars developed into a trilogy (thus word play on things said in the first film) while the other two were designed trilogies. Fortunately the Star Wars universe isn't locked into the trilogy method so we end up with superior tales such as Rogue One and Mandalorian. Of course my favorite trilogy is Rogue One, Star Wars and Empire. As Hurley says on LOST.....Ewoks suck.

Which brings up a point...should the first Star Wars series now be considered a quadrilogy?

I think LOTR and The Hobbit were nearly perfect examples of the trilogy format and how it should be utilized. You didn't lose interest in the middle film because it had something to say and it escalated things from the first one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

The idea of the trilogy is based on the original three act play structure of Set Up, Confrontation and Resolution. But that's easy when the same audience is there for one sitting. When you try to convert the structure to films its harder because the writer has to provide some ending to each section or risk making the audience feel as though they just saw an incomplete story. But it really is an incomplete story because the studio wants to lock in the audience to come back for the next installment or the next act as it were.

While we are speaking of trilogies, what the heck would you call the Marvel and DC universe blocks that keep wrapping multiple characters and storylines all around each other? For me I call them over and done with , but there are plenty of fans that either are so invested in the complexity of the character's worlds as to understand their relationships or they are just going out of habit. Either way the movies and TV shows make money and just keep on coming because of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Lord of the Rings I saw and was sort of OK

sort of ok???

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Lord of the Rings I saw and was sort of OK

sort of ok???

Oh you're just in raptures because it was mainly your kind of actors.

I did enjoy it, but I only saw the first trilogy once. I've got a boxed set somewhere of all 6 films, but the cellophane is still on it. What I really liked was the cards.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Lord of the Rings I saw and was sort of OK

sort of ok???

Oh you're just in raptures because it was mainly your kind of actors.

I did enjoy it, but I only saw the first trilogy once. I've got a boxed set somewhere of all 6 films, but the cellophane is still on it. What I really liked was the cards.

Not forgetting that 'the Lord of the Rings' was written as three books in the first place so was ideally suited to being made into a trilogy of films