|
Post by mysterydriver on Jan 9, 2009 22:44:40 GMT -5
The guy worked special effects for Mortal Kombat: Annihilation....and takes credit for it?
All sarcastic comments aside, I haven't seen anything the guy has done as director of photography, so I wish good luck to Zombie and him.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jan 9, 2009 22:50:37 GMT -5
I'm more interested in either storyline, or casting decisions myself. I honestly don't see how Fango or BD or whatever site that was from thought this was newsworthy.
Not knocking you, Andrew. Just saying. By all means, please keep us informed!
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jan 9, 2009 23:06:11 GMT -5
I'm more interested in either storyline, or casting decisions myself. I honestly don't see how Fango or BD or whatever site that was from thought this was newsworthy. Not knocking you, Andrew. Just saying. By all means, please keep us informed! No problem will do
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jan 9, 2009 23:09:38 GMT -5
Actually, in regards to Zombie's sequel....I wonder if he's bringing Malcolm McDowall back to play Loomis? Seems like it would be awkward to recast him now.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jan 9, 2009 23:14:28 GMT -5
Zombie wants him back
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jan 9, 2009 23:28:18 GMT -5
Aye, no doubt he does. But would McDowall WANT to come back to a series whose first entry was so reviled by critics and fans alike? "Micheal, JESUS CHRIST!" ;D
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jan 22, 2009 19:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jan 22, 2009 19:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jan 22, 2009 19:29:03 GMT -5
I'll give Zombie benefit of the doubt and accept the first movie as an experiment that f***ed up.
I just HOPE he doesn't make it like the first
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Mar 18, 2009 2:23:55 GMT -5
Update on Rob Zombies Halloween 2
Margot Kidder (The Amityville Horror, Sisters, Superman, Black Christmas), has joined the cast of Rob Zombie's Halloween sequel, which apparently has been given a new name.
The new title of the movie is Rob Zombie's Halloween: The Devil Walks Among Us
|
|
|
Post by Jock Ass on Mar 18, 2009 2:30:27 GMT -5
What is the smurfing point of even doing another Halloween movie, let alone a sequel to a bad remake? Are they going to redo the entire story? If so, that's massively idiotic. Wasn't Loomis killed in the remake? Without the character of Dr. Loomis, there is absolutely no smurfing point in doing more movies. He was more vital to Michael's character than Laurie was. Damn Hollywood. Why can't they EVER leave well enough alone? It may have been an atrocious remake but it made s***loads. That's all Hollywood care about. Step One: Steal Underpants Remake/Recycle Classic Film/Franchise Step Two: Step Three: Profit
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Apr 11, 2009 13:59:03 GMT -5
First shot of Myers with the mask on:
|
|
|
Post by Ishmeal Loves Kaseyhausen on Apr 11, 2009 14:21:54 GMT -5
Is there some kind of unwritten rule that remakes are automatically shit? I thought the remake was done really well. I keep seeing arguments that it didn't keep the "integrity of the original" and it was too different. THAT'S THE POINT OF A REMAKE! Why remake a movie to make it exactly the same?
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Apr 11, 2009 14:40:58 GMT -5
Is there some kind of unwritten rule that remakes are automatically excretory matter? I thought the remake was done really well. I keep seeing arguments that it didn't keep the "integrity of the original" and it was too different. THAT'S THE POINT OF A REMAKE! Why remake a movie to make it exactly the same? Not unless they're done by Platinum Dunes. ;D Seriously, to answer your question: I think, especially in the horror genre, that by now we've been burned so MANY times that it's almost knee-jerk to assume that the folks remaking these films that are so near and dear to us have no idea what they're doing, and that they're gonna screw things up royally. There are people who enjoy the PD versions of TCM and F13...just as there are those who really enjoyed Zombie's take on HALLOWEEN. As I have said many times, I have come to regard Rob's effort the first time around as a thoroughly schizophrenic endeavor; he didn't make one great movie, he made two mediocre films and smashed them together. This time around, Rob seems to be throwing the playbook right out the windah (as Dusty Rhodes would say) and going for a completely original movie. That worries me because, though it's fine to tweak certain things about a character and a franchise when you remake or "re-imagine" it...there are still certain things about the character that you MUST keep consistent. If those rumors about Rob having Michael maskless for 70% of the film are true....then this is just NOT a HALLOWEEN movie. It's some random, bearded deranged giant psycho stalking and killing people.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Servo on Apr 11, 2009 15:31:11 GMT -5
Actually, in regards to Zombie's sequel....I wonder if he's bringing Malcolm McDowall back to play Loomis? Seems like it would be awkward to recast him now. According to his MySpace blog which gave updates on the filiming McDowall is back. There is a scene where he's on a talk show promoting a book about Myers. The other guest on the panel "Weird Al" Yankovic Is there some kind of unwritten rule that remakes are automatically excretory matter? THE THING SCARFACE
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Apr 11, 2009 15:38:05 GMT -5
One could also throw in Cronenberg's THE FLY as well, Paul. But I think those are more or less happy accidents than the general rule. Especially nowadays, when selling tickets means more than telling a great story, or being faithful to what made the film memorable in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by MiLo Duck on Apr 11, 2009 17:41:16 GMT -5
I'm one of those people that prefer the new Halloween. So this is awesome news to me. I remember the old Halloween movies when I was a kid and found them just as bland as I do today. I honestly struggle to both get the rampant appeal and the assertion that the old stuff was in any way better.
I'm not begrudging anyone their opinion. Whatever makes you happy and all that, I'm just asking someone to be a little more detailed about what exactly "sucked" about Zombie's movie. I found to have a lot more depth as far as story as well as the cinematography of the scare shots to be FAR more effective each and every time. The performances were easily stronger and Michael's obsession made actual sense. The original seemed like such a stretch the way it was presented that I spent more time asking questions as to how things would even get to this. I know this is standard fare for many horror movies, but I always found Halloween to be a greater transgressor than most.
So, once again, just want to know exactly why the remake sucked for the detractors?
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Apr 11, 2009 17:54:55 GMT -5
Heh...you get me or TR started on this subject, MiLo, this could go for DAYS. ;D
I think we're the two most vocal haters/detractors of Zombie's work on here, actually.
For my part, it comes down to the fact that yes, Rob COULD have done something truly innovative, and new with this material, and could have presented to us a new vision for what Michael Myers can be. But somewhere along the line, Rob either lost confidence, got rattled be scathing early negative feedback, or whatever...and he bailed on HIS vision and made the second half of his movie a bland, horrible knock off of the ending of Carpenter's movie.
That being said, what problems did I have with Rob's original vision? The fact that it really WASN'T terribly original at all. In fact, we'd seen it done TWICE before this, in HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES and THE DEVIL'S REJECTS. Haddonfield, Illinois + redneck hillbilly stereotypes DOES NOT COMPUTE. Plus, Rob seemed like he just couldn't go a whole dialogue exchange without dropping an F-bomb, which, even though I am not a prude, got to be pretty grating, pretty quickly.
Also, though there was a lot more than this, Rob committed his greatest sin when he ripped the guts out of the HALLOWEEN mythos when he turned what was an excellent, psychologically appealing story into just another overly loud, overly macho "RRRAAAGH! Myers SMASH!" Jason Voorhees knock off.
But like I say, I preferred Carpenter's original to Zombie's vision BECAUSE it was quiet, and intense, and psychologically jarring. Other people prefer the latter because it DOES have more action, and more destruction and mayhem. I was willing to give Rob a chance the first time, because I genuinely wanted to see what he was going to do with these characters and this film. By the time the 7 foot Myers rolled onto the screen, I regretted having given Rob that chance.
|
|
|
Post by MiLo Duck on Apr 11, 2009 18:44:57 GMT -5
Thanks. I read a lot of "it sucks" comments but don't get a lot of what people actually think sucks.
I still like the new trend up to and including the latest Friday the 13th effort. There really is no way to keep going in most horror series, yet they should not be left to languish either. Streamlining, condensing, and restarting is about the only thing that makes sense to me. I see you don't like it being too much like the first, but I think it needs to stay in line and do plenty of homage to kick things off otherwise the point of trying to catch new audiences up is just lost. Anything else would be awkward and just plain goofy.
Oh yeah, and as someone from the midwest, there are more than enough crazy hillbillies. It may not be the hills of Alabama, but they are certainly there!
Once again, thanks for the input.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Apr 15, 2009 17:38:34 GMT -5
Zombie is answering questions on his blog: Question #1
|
|