Can they fix it digitally in post-production? 
1 Like
The new trailer for Halloween Kills is out today. Just an early, knee-jerk reaction to it is that it looks like this has the potential to be among the very best of the sequels, right up there with Halloween II and Halloween (2018). It’s definitely going to be the most brutal of the sequels, with its only competition in that department being Rob Zombie’s two entries.
Not posting the video here, though, as the first bit of the trailer is just a massive spoiler for anyone who wanted to be at all surprised at how they resolved the ending of the previous film. This is also a trailer that I’m surprised didn’t get a red band certification. It walks right up to that line, IMO, so between that and the spoilers, it’s best left for people to search out on their own.
2 Likes
It‘s a good trailer. I wonder why it‘s necessary to go for this kind of brutality. John Carpenter did not need that for his original. (And he made that mistake for the follow-up.)
I do enjoy the trauma angle for an ageing Laurie and her estranged family.
But HALLOWEEN was best IMO when MM was the boogeyman, not a real person.
I think it has to do with the nature of the character of Michael Myers himself. With the original film, Laurie Strode and Dr. Loomis are arguably the focal point of the film. We put ourselves in their shoes and live the events of the film through their eyes, with the horror in the film coming because this unstoppable force is coming at them and threatening them and what they stand for, which is a stand-in for the audience’s own experience of the quiet, suburban existance that so many can either directly relate to or can easily find some parallels with in terms of their own lives.
As these types of franchises move forward, though, it becomes less about the protagonists and the focus moves more towards the man in the mask. As Myers (and with the other slasher villains as well) becomes more of the audience focal point in the films, they have to give him more to do. And more to do for Myers means more (and more creative) kills.
I will say, I do think that an upshot in brutality might work in the film’s favor for a couple of reasons. This is now being billed as a trilogy, and as such with the middle film in a trilogy, the stakes have to be raised. The last film already put our main characters in grave danger, so now the ante has to be raised, so to speak. Plus, I think it will also fit in with what looks to be one of the main ideas of the film, which is Haddonfield finally fighting back against Myers. With the exception of the small vigilante group that goes out after Myers in Halloween 4, the town of Haddonfield has been depicted as a town that just tries to forget about Myers and his transgressions, the old “out of sight, out of mind” tactic, with only the police force and Dr. Loomis being there as the guardians against him. This doesn’t seem to be the track they’re going with in this film. In what I would argue is a long overdue plot device for the franchise, it looks as though the populace of Haddonfield is pissed and they’re not going to take it anymore, and are taking the fight to Myers. With the upshot in anger from what I would imagine would be the vast majority of the characters that we will see on screen (several of which will be those that are, like Strode, dealing with past trauma as several characters from Carpenter’s original are slated to return here), Myers has to match that as a character, otherwise it risks making the townsfolk look more like the villains of the film than Myers himself.
As for Myers being better as the boogeyman rather than a real person, I think that there are lines in the trailer that allude to him being more of the immortal boogeyman that we’re used to. He’s referenced as “evil” at least once and the line Jamie Lee Curtis has about him using killing as a means to “transcend” kind of alludes to that as well. I can go for either interpretation of the character, and honestly thought that the concept of having a 60+ year old villain in a slasher film was kind of cool, but I think that there will be enough of the boogeyman angle here for those that preferred the original concept. Plus, there’s the fact that Carpenter is quite involved with the making of these films, so I would imagine that he’d speak up if they were doing something that was particularly at odds with how he envisions the property.
4 Likes
Not the most reliable of sources, granted.
2 Likes
So… Bond films aren’t the only ones which are “cursed”?
2 Likes
TOP INSIDER SAYS NEW INDY MOVIE IS CURSED
“We’ve all been feeling it, but the the top film makers won’t say it, but we all know there’s a curse on the movie”
…
1 Like
It is, all joking aside, a really bad situation to delay filming for three months - that’s much longer than NTTD or M:I FALLOUT had to endure.
It´s not impossible - but it´s not ideal.
Could it have happened to a younger actor? Sure! But whatever they ask of Ford to do, his age will not make it easier or less risky.
I love Ford. I really do. But I would have preferred the role to be recast for a new series of Indy films. Or to have them leave these films alone.
1 Like
Who didn’t see something like this happening? I mean he’s only 78 years old.
Speedy recovery, Indy!
1 Like
Amazon wants FTC Chair Lina Khan recused from all its cases
They would.
Speedy and hopefully complete recovery to Ford. Never mind the film.
2 Likes
78 Years old is nothing. Clint is 91 and still rocking! 
… and wise enough not to do any fight scenes anymore.
It’s not true
Isn´t it? His reply is vague and avoiding Fords status.
The Sun claimed they shut down. They havn’t. They’ve probably done what every other production has ever done when their lead gets injured and just prioritised working with other actors and the stunts.
1 Like
True.
Still, the status of Ford’s injury is still undisclosed. And they will run out of scenes when the main actor cannot work for months.
In contrast to TFA Ford is probably in almost every scene in an Indiana Jones movie.
Not playing chicken little here, just wondering - and hoping for the dreaded Sun to just make stuff up to have people talk about other stuff than government people frenchkissing lobbyists.
Given how many stunt doubles were needed for Ford in the 80’s, I imagine they could do a fair amount of the action without him…but they are certainly going to be more nervous the longer they can’t bridge the action and villains with Harrison Ford’s charm.
3 Likes
Our beloved Mister Vic Armstrong doubled Harrison for most of Temple of Doom due to his back jnjury, and they shot around Cruise’s ankle on Fallout, so I’m not worried.
4 Likes
2 Likes