We just received the first approved photo of Michael Myers from Dimension Films’ Halloween 2, Rob Zombie’s remake of John Carpenter’s horror classic.
Photo by: Marsha LaMarca/Dimension Films
Here’s the trailer:
|
|
||||
13 comments to First Approved Michael Myers From Halloween 2Leave a Reply |
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2010 Atomik - We Find The Awesome For You - All Rights Reserved |
||||
It wasn’t enough that Zombie ruined a classic he’s ruined an icon. He’s turned the whole storyline and characters into white trash counterparts. Awesome!
Worse than that, rumor has it that Michael Myers will spend more movie out of his mask than in it.
Its upsetting, really.
And Zombie has given Michael Myers some sort of mamma’s boy, oedipus complex. It looks truly rediculous. Thanks Rob for runining the last pure horror icon. Just call it H2: Michael Vorhees’ Revenge hehehe.
People are such crybabies about remakes. A remake does not “RUIN” anything, it’s just a re-imagining of the story. What DOES ruin a “Horror Icon” like Michael Myers is Halloween 3, 4, 5, 6, H20 and Halloween Resurrection. (although 4 wasn’t horrible..nice twist at the end). If you don’t like a remake’s version of a story, that’s cool. I personally liked the remake of Halloween and I love the original. I own them both. I liked the remake of Texas Chainsaw, hated the original…acting was goofy. Texas Chainsaw was another movie with 3 crappy sequels (especially the one with renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey (phew!)). Hated the remake if Friday the 13th. Not that it was a very bad movie, just didn’t offerany real backstory to flesh the character out. If anything, it had LESS backstory than the original. Just call it what it was, Friday the 13th Part 11… Bad sequels hurt a series more than remakes, I loved Highlander, i don’t acknowledge any sequels or TV series.. there can be only one….
You have a good point, Jaavik, but more than anything, many people don’t like when new people come in and change the property.
Sometimes there’s room for innovation, but one of the greatest things about some of the classic horror films is that they’re raw and dirty. The killer is a monster more than a character. They maim and kill and torture and the viewers have little to no idea why, making it that much more terrifying.
A major problem many have with horror remakes is when people try to give the title characters a new backstory for you to empathize with. In some cases, they want you to feel bad for the character and for many this takes away from what a really good slasher film is. I’m all fore fleshing out a backstory, but giving Leatherface a name and trying to make me feel sorry for him takes away from that dirty feeling I get after watching the first film. Sometimes its more fun just to watch someone slaughter innocent people and find out that its just for fun. We don’t always have to feel bad for the killer. Sometimes they do it because nothing makes them happier than ruining the lives of victim after victim after victim.
I agree that sometimes sequels just aren’t up to snuff, but when people go back and change the way characters act and make up new stories to try and make me feel sorry for them, it takes away from what the story used to be. I’d rather someone make a new character with a great backstory (even one I can empathize with) rather than trying to make me feel bad for a character I’m already in love with.
I can see what you’re saying, but personally, knowing someone’s backstory hasn’t really made me feel sorry for them. In the case of Halloween, I always felt he was scarier when he was just a screwed up human being. But as the series went on, he became more and more of something supernatural. He started out as an escaped mental patient and slowly became this unstoppable zombie that for some reason gets activated every October 31st by a mysterious Thorne cult. The same for the Friday the 13th movies, the first two were about screwed up people, and they were scary. Jason became super zombie and then it was all about the elaborate (and mostly funny) kill scenes. The horror element had seriously been watered down. Look at Nightmare on Elm Street, in the first movie, he’s a shadow of a figure with the ability to come after you in your dreams, slowly he became this one-liner spewing action hero. I think that’s the focal point of what has begun to leave a bad taste in my mouth. There are no “sympathetic characters” in most horror films. You don’t care about the well-being of anyone, so when they die, you get a mild amusement from the elaborate death and that’s it. So you cheer for the next elaborate death because that’s all you get from it, so the “killer” becomes the hero of the film. Another case in point are the Romero Zombie films. In the original “Night of the Living Dead” it’s about the people in the house, the ones you like and the ones you don’t, when the black guy gets killed at the end by the humans who mistake him for a zombie, the sense of horror comes from the actions of the people rather that the flesh-eating monsters. Romero took that interesting premise and bastardized it by the time you get to “The Land of the Dead” where the audience is rooting for the zombies to kill the “evil rich people”.
The problem with having a “horror franchise” is that the story gets lost when you keep changing it to make the next sequel and find a way to bring the killer back so you can rack up another body count. There’s no ART to them anymore and that’s what it becomes about. How many cool ways can we kill somebody that nobody really cares about.
Just because you may feel a twinge of sympathy for a character for the horrible way their life started out doesn’t mean you sympathize for them when they are dangerous and unpredictable in their adult life. Rob Zombie nailed that on the head when he had Michael kill Danny Trejo in the hospital who was always nice to him and looked out for him. Same goes for Leatherface. Personally, his backstory made him a lot creepier to me. R. Lee Ermy’s character was almost scarier to me that Thomas (Leatherface) because you understood his motivations and you knew what he was capable of. I think that’s why the Friday the 13th remake didn’t do as well, it doesn’t flesh anything out, it’s just a straight to the Jason kills people in the woods premise that it could have just as easily been Friday the 13th Part Eleven. It offered nothing new and interesting.
I’ve been watching horror films my whole life. It’s extremely rare that any movie would “scare” me anymore. The most I can hope for is a sense of creepiness and feeling disturbed. A strong story is going to do that much better than a blood drenched special effects scene
And don’t get me wrong, I still love the classic horror films. I love the original Halloween as much as I love the new one. They are very different films and just because I enjoy the new one doesn’t mean I feel like I’m betraying the original which is where I think a lot of these criticisms come from.
I read over what i posted and I think where I’m going is that when you have a character that you sympathize with (say YOUNG Michael Myers in RZ’s Halloween), the character became multi-layered, becasue he was a cross between this ruthless bastard (when he killed the kid from Spy Kids in the woods with a tree branch) to seeing him caring for little Laurie as a baby, he loves his Mom and you feel the sympathy there, then he grabs the fork and slaughters the nurse in the hospital. It’s a new kind of horror from just the mindless killing machine. It makes you like him, then fear him, feel sorry for him, then hate him when he torures and mutilates a really likable character. It just makes it a deeper story for me.
If you just go to the horror film to see the blood and guts and laugh when people are butchered, that’s cool too. But that’s like 90% of the horror films out there. I like my Hannibal Lecter’s where you may understand what made him the horror of a human being he is, but still hate him for feeding brains to the little asian boy on the airplane..lol
Okay this is retarded. Im a HUGE halloween fan and rob zombie has ruined it with this sequel. The remake was fantastic in my opinion. It gave you great insight on things that it didnt show in the original. But this sequel (H2) is down right a disgrace to Halloween. Why? Well Look at him in that picture. Does that look like Micheal in any possible way? Rob is creating an all new character and giving him the name Micheal Myers. Micheal has ALWAYS worn a Full White Mask with Coveralls and Boots. ALWAYS and thats what made him look creepy. But now look at him. Half of his mask is gone :/…its not even white…and hes wearing bum clothes that looks like he got out of a dumpster. This is just ridiculous. John Carpenter is STUPID for allowing Rob Zombie to even put this into production the way it is. ITS A DISGRACE!!!!!!!
oh and another thing…in the trailer I did not hear one time the theme song at all….Is rob taking that away now to? It wouldnt suprise me if he put some song up there made by him like “Living Dead Girl”…Micheal looks like just some other crazy psycho that you see in just about every single movie you see now a days. He does look like “The Shape” as they originally called him. He looks retarded. Rob maybe you should just go back to making your head bangin devil worshipin music cause Directing is just not for you.
Can’t agree… The white mask IS iconic, but so is the Hockey Mask for Jason Voorhees. But Jason started with a potato sack on his head, and in my opinion, he was way scarier when he looked like that with the overalls. The mask isn’t what makes him Michael Myers. WHO Michael Myers was wasn’t really explored until the remake, unless ou bought into the Thorn Cult scenario.
I think this is the problem. Before now, all Michael Myers really was, was “The Shape” or “The Boogeyman”, he was so underdeveloped that people are getting uset when the ONE major thing that defined him is being taken away, what else makes him Myers?
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/08/h2-halloween-2-update-rob-zombie-clarifies-to-film-on-the-mask-new-poster/
Here’s an article with an interview with Rob concerning the “maskless” Michael Myers.
Well, Jaavik, you make a very good point.
If done well, there is no reason remakes can’t thrive, but sometimes its just hard to accept. Remakes definitely have their place, and while they aren’t everybody’s favorites, they can really add to the property sometimes.
LOL..
I came across this discussion that I had before RZ’s Halloween II came out. Just to wrap it up, I saw it in the theater and was EXTREMELY disappointed. It seems like Rob took a lot of the criticisms he got for the original to heart and tried to make the movie they wanted to see. IT went right back to Michael killing people much more randomly (killing for the sake of killing and racking up the body count for the fans)than he did in the original, being involved with something Supernatural and even attempted to steal the ending from Halloween IV, by making Laurie take over the mask and begin talking to “Mommy” whom she has no memory of”. Wow..just awful…