screen writer
Dan Farrands!!!

What are your earliest recollections of the horror genre? What movie do you remember really just scaring the hell out of you?

Well, I'd definitely have to say Jaws because I was 5. It was the summer of Jaws and like everyone else, it completely terrified me. The even scarier thing about Jaws for me personally probably had something to do with the fact that it was actually filmed at the beach we used to go to. (laughs) So, it's pretty traumatic when you're 5 and you recognize the little huts on the beach. It was Martha's Vineyard and we'd go out there in the summer from Rhode Island, which was where I was born and is very close to where Jaws was filmed. I really was way too young to have seen it. But I do remember begging to go see it.

Do you remember the first impression Halloween made on you? Which was the first one you saw and how'd you feel about the character of Michael Myers at the time?

I remember vividly. It was the first airing of the original Halloween on network television in the fall of 1981. And it was on NBC. And I remember very vividly sitting in the living room and we were one of the first families on the block to have a VCR, so I decided for some odd reason, I had to record this. I sat there through the first 45 minutes or so of the film, and as it got darker and scarier, it seemed the rest of the family just disappeared and went to bed. And I was the only one left. The last man standing. (laughs) And I made it through the whole movie by myself, huddled in the corner of the sofa, with this remote control in my hand (because I didn't want to record the commercials) sitting there in absolute terror. I was 12. That was it.

I felt like I had stared death in the face and survived it, and Halloween was really a cathartic experience. People always use that analogy of a horror film being like a roller coaster and I think that's true. Again, I had recorded it, so my fascination for it just grew. And I started writing scripts for my own horror films in jr. high and high school. I became known as "Dan The Horror Movie Man." I made movies back then like "Halloween Party" & "The Halloween Hospital Massacre" and it went on and on from there.

Is this how you got into screenwriting? Writing a lot of Halloween related stories back in high school?

Absolutely. And a number of my own Friday the 13th's as well. It really wasn't much of a surprise to any of my classmates at my high school reunion that I actually went on to write one. Everyone just thought "Well, of course you did!" This was pre-determined! This was fate.

How'd you land the gig writing the 6th Halloween film?

What happened was I moved back to Los Angeles, I had lived in LA for part of my youth after we moved to California from back east for about 5 or 6 years, then we moved to Northern California, which is really where I developed my love and fascination with horror films. I came back to Los Angeles right out of high school. I didn't go to film school, and I didn't have any rich uncles in the business. I truly was just determined to work in this field. So it really began in late 1989 or early 1990 through a chance meeting with Ramsey Thomas, who had produced Halloween 5. I had seen Halloween 5 the night it opened, and I walked out of that theater with my two best friends, who remember this very well, and I said, "I'm going to write Halloween 6." And that was it. It was one of those crystallized moments where I just knew. I'm going to make this happen. It was one of those things where if you focus enough on something ... well, I suppose now I'd say, "be careful what you wish for." (laughs)

That's really how it began, it was this years-long journey of being absolutely focused on the goal. And doing whatever I had to do to get there. It wasn't stepping over anyone and it wasn't writing a spec draft of Halloween 6 and bugging the producers because they don't respond to that kind of thing. There is a protocol for how these things get done in Hollywood so, even though I knew I'd be facing some stiff competition, I knew I still had to play by the rules while at the same time making sure the producers knew I was the guy to do this job! I went off and wrote several other things over the next several years. I had an independent film produced and like all new hopeful writers I just set about making my way. Early on I had sent Ramsey another script I had written. And he told me, "Hey, we're looking for writers to come in and take a crack at Halloween 6." This was in 1990. Which to me was like "the calling." I prepared for weeks for this meeting. I literally researched every element of Halloween; not only the Halloween films, which I knew like the back of my hand. What I brought to the table was sort of a representation of the mythology and all this stuff that was hinted at in part 5. The Thorn, this ancient rune and all of this Celtic lore that I felt could really be tied in to the mythology of Michael Myers. I really set about laying out the groundwork for what all of that means. And I kind of had an instinct that even they [the producers] didn't know what all of this mumbo-jumbo introduced in '5' was all about. It was like they dropped these hints in 5 of what may come, but as I learned when I went in and met with the producers, they really had no idea what any of this Man in Black business meant at all!

That's interesting. When I walked out of Halloween 5, I felt like they left a lot of questions open with almost no intention of answering them.

Well, yeah. They didn't and it's funny. When we filmed Halloween 6 in Salt Lake City, where they had done 4 & 5, some of our crew came from those earlier films. I got friendly with some of them and I asked them questions. And I remember asking what had gone on with Halloween 5? Why did certain things happen the way they did with that film? What were the director or writer's intentions? And the response I'd always get is... nobody knew. They were making things up as they went along. And the director (of 5) from what I understand was very big into ancient superstitions and the idea of introducing some kind of black magic. So, I think he would come to the set with these ideas about bringing some of the black magic to the plot. I had one conversation with one of the screenwriters, Michael Jacobs, and I asked him while I was writing the script, "Can you guys give me a hint here? I want to be true to what you had set up."

And his take was, "We didn't know what any of it meant." There was really no answer as to what all this stuff about runic symbols and the man with the black coat and the strange cowboy boots was all about. This all came from the director of Part 5. So since no one had any idea as to what this mysterious man in black or about the symbol on his wrist was about, I was free to go my own path with it. And I think one of the things that impressed Moustapha Akkad was that I came in with a ton of research. I literally made a binder with a big black cover and with the title Halloween 666, and it had the Thorn symbol replacing the 'A' in the Halloween logo. And for 5 years, he apparently kept this thing on his desk and used it as a reference for other people coming in with pitches. This is a big leap in time, because I was first brought in to talk to them in 1990 and there was a big legal battle in terms of who was going to pick up the distribution, which ended up being Dimension. And until that happened, there really was no development on the project. From my understanding, there were two other teams of writers brought in to work on the script initially. And apparently, neither of those teams worked out. And suddenly they really had a problem because they had a production date. There was no script. All they had was the mask! (laughs) But no script. There was a whole crew in Salt Lake waiting for this thing to go. So, I was brought in as a last act of hope. And maybe desperation on the part of the producers, because they were looking for someone to crack this thing, and to do it very quickly. So, that's when I got the call.

I was brought in, and basically grilled. "What is this? What is that? What's the story? How would you do it? We know you know this better than anyone else, so tell us. What should we do? We have no idea." Apparently, the other scripts didn't even address the issues of Thorn and the Man in Black. They just sort of forgot about those elements and went in a different direction entirely. And I think Akkad was committed to picking up the story that had been left off in 5.

The thing I liked about your take was that you really tried to explain and define Michael Myers and even bring out more about the mythology of Halloween itself.

Yeah. That was always my intent, but I think as the script developed and other people got involved it just went too far in terms of attempting to provide an explanation of Michael Myers. My original take was never about the stars aligning. But the director wanted to create a real mythology for Michael. To explain to the audience:  'Why does he kill?' and 'why some years and not others?'. And I was basically given one night to kind of come up with something. And I thought... "Well ..." (laughs) And he opted for that version. I didn't really agree with that take.

I always felt Michael was, for lack of a better term, a sexual deviant. A child trapped in a particular moment in time. He's become so fixated on this event when he was a kid. Which I think had a lot of sexual context to it and a lot of underpinnings of repressed sexuality to it. The original Halloween was very voyeuristic in nature, which was part of what made it so scary. It's something the audience can't quite put their finger on. But really what Michael does for the better part of the movie is just follow the girls around and watch them. He's a watcher. And I think, at least in my view of who the character was, is that he became utterly fixated on this particular moment in time [the murder of his sister] and for whatever twisted reason he had to continually replay that for himself. Even as an adult. That's why he escaped and had to go back and search out a girl who reminded him of a sister that once was. It wasn't until the sequel [Halloween II] of course, where she [Laurie Strode] literally became the sister. But that was never the original intent. And I always thought it was much more interesting psychologically that Michael Myers fixates on a particular girl that excites him sexually. I think that's something that all of the sequels have missed out on. They always pushed it into a different realm. But the basic simplicity of that character makes it so much more frightening. And in a way, relatable. I really think the essence of it was this guy out there. With this crazy mask, who was unbelievably nuts and he will get to you ... he doesn't care if he knows you or you're related to him in any way ... the fact is that he will kill you. And that's the simplicity of the original Halloween, which worked so well. Even Halloween: H20, which proclaimed itself to be the definitive sequel, missed that sense of terror and realism. Well, that's just my opinion as a fan. (laughs) I do appreciate what you're saying though. I felt at the time, this guy's been burned and beaten and shot... how does he keep coming back?

He can't just be a man anymore, he's gone beyond that. He's mythical. He's supernatural. So, I took it from that standpoint that there's something else driving him. A force that goes beyond the five senses that has infected this boy's soul and now is driving him. In justifying why and how this guy keeps coming back, we came up with this idea that he's gone beyond being human. That he's controlled by something much bigger then we could ever understand. And I thought that was a good launching point for the future films, but unfortunately they dropped all of that. And now he's just this guy in a mask who kills people on the Internet. (laughs)

Were there any parameters set up from the get-go? For example, did you know early on that Danielle Harris wouldn't be returning and that's why the Jamie Lloyd character died so early on in the film? Was that always your intention?

Nope. In fact, they didn't want that character in the movie at all. I had to push to really get Jamie to come back. And the way that I sold it was, she can literally be the "bearer of the torch" by passing it to the next set of characters ... in this case, a living baby.

I thought Jamie could be in the opening scene so at least we see what's happened to her and at some point in the film she passes on. Literally, the torch she passes on in this film is this child. And Mr. Akkad took to that idea right away ... he thought it was a great way into this movie, with this baby. Which Jamie would gives birth to at the beginning of the movie. And I remember the way I got them behind the idea is by referring it to as 'Halloween' meets 'Rosemary's Baby.' And that somehow this child, this innocent, has something to do with continuing the bloodline of Michael Myers. And that's why no one's heard from Jamie in 6 years.

She's developed into a young woman and they've incubated her, these people ... who really are there to protect Michael Myers; not so much control him. They kind of have these bizarre pseudo-religious beliefs, weather they're true or not. I saw this "cult" as a kind of Heaven's Gate group or secret society that has been steeped in their belief system for so long that they have really come to believe that the murders and the blood sacrifices are God's way of preserving a natural balance and order. And from the earliest days, it is true that sacrifices were part of what would evolve into our modern Halloween traditions. Whether these things are true or not really doesn't matter. You can't argue with "true believers." But they look at Michael as sort of this avatar. A deliverer of these sacrifices. He may just be nuts (laughs) but these particular people see him as something far more. Ultimately we thought most of the town of Haddonfield would be in on this secret society (we were saving that reveal for 'Halloween 7' ha!) but decided initially to center the cult around the staff of the Smith's Groove Sanitarium where Michael's been confined all these years. So in answer to your question regarding Danielle Harris, at first they didn't want the character and I sold them on bringing her back. And when I did, they went out very quickly and started looking at actresses for the role. And Danielle came into the casting director's office and said, "What are you doing? This is my part, and I'm going to play it. I am going to see this through." And they were shocked because they didn't expect that she would want to do the film. But of course more than pleased that she came in and said "Hey, I'm in." So, that was the beginning of that. So, as I was continuing to write the script, I wanted to make the role juicier for her. So, the way I wrote it in the original draft -- the one I was happiest with -- was that Jamie lived until almost the end of the film. It was always agreed that she would not be the center of the action. But she was there at the beginning, and then put out of commission for the majority of the movie. Basically she's mortally wounded and ends up in the hospital. But by the end of the film, even though she's severely injured, she comes back for one last battle with the Shape. And she does it in a very heroic way. She did it in a way where she would fight Michael, not only to save her baby but so that it would allow time for the other characters [Tommy, Kara and Danny] to escape. The idea was that Jamie would've shown up in the tunnels beneath Smith's Grove at the end of the film ... the same place she had escaped from with help from the nurse at the beginning of the film.

Jamie shows them the way out. But by now she's so injured, she knows she's not going to make it. So in a final showdown, she puts up this huge heroic battle to the finish with Michael Myers. She dies in the scene but I thought that would be so fantastic not only for the character but for the audience. You know, she made it, not literally but figuratively. Jamie fights to the end. She lived and died a hero. That's the way it should have been done.

I would LOVE to have seen that. I would've loved to have seen it too, but they just decided they didn't want to feature the character that much. And I think it eventually became an issue of money. And I can't blame Danielle for stepping down prior to production. I don't think anyone blamed her, even Mr. Akkad. But the studio just wasn't willing to pay her as a featured character. I think they wanted to pay her basically a weekly rate. Which is ridiculous. I mean, she's on the poster for Halloween 5! She was the character the audience identified with. I remember we were all really disappointed when she dropped out, but we understood her reasons. So that began a whole new series of changes in the script and cutting and cutting back on everything to the point where all of the things I thought were exciting and special about it slowly started to disappear. So, it was really disappointing.

What can you tell us about the actress who did end up playing Jamie, J.C. Brandy?

J.C. was a real pro and a lot of fun. She had to go through a lot physically for the role, and it literally was freezing when she had to run around in the dark in this pouring rain wearing nothing but a hospital gown. It really was rough on her but she was a total trooper.

She really is a huge "Halloween" and John Carpenter fan. In fact, I remember she would come to me during breaks and point out all of what I thought were my cleverly-concealed John Carpenter references throughout the script. Like the "stomach pounder" Tim Strode refers to in the breakfast scene. That's right out of 'The Fog' and J.C. immediately got it. I felt bad that the fan reaction to her was so negative. I guess it's never fun stepping into another actress's shoes but I think all things considered, J.C. did a great job.

Any other notable actors we didn't see? Well, the role of Tim's girlfriend Beth, I know one actress who auditioned ... and one who I and Malek Akkad thought would be really good -- and who was even willing to do the nudity at the time was Denise Richards, but the studio passed on her. They said she was "all boobs", and I thought, well isn't that the point? (laughs) Well, one thing I hope was in your script from the beginning, the character of Tommy Doyle. Let's talk a bit about that because you started introducing a lot of characters from the original film, such as Dr. Wynn and Tommy Doyle. Where did that all come about?

That was always just me. One of the first things I pitched was, let's bring back characters we know. What I really wanted to do with this film was make it the one that takes all of these little threads... although it doesn't necessarily do it very well in the final version! ... but the original intent was to bring together all of these threads from the previous films; not only from the original Halloween, but also the characters and plots of 4 & 5. And tie them together in this one film, so as they're all existing now in the same universe. Whereas before it was about Laurie Strode.

And with this one, I wanted to bridge all of that. And initially, it was going to be both Tommy AND Lindsay from the original film as boyfriend and girlfriend. And Tommy would have run this pirate radio station out of the college. It sort of evolved from there. Having the radio element obviously. But if I remember correctly I think the producers were more interested in having Tommy return as this really strange, reclusive guy. I mean, his arc is virtually the same as Jamie Lee's character in H20. He's a survivor of the original massacre who's been completely traumatized by this event. So the turning point toward the end of the second act was Tommy having to stop running and confront his childhood bogeyman all over again. But again, as the script developed we just kept losing more and more of that. My original draft had all kinds of flashbacks to the original movie. Like when Kara and the little boy are screaming and pounding at the door "Please! Open the door!", it should have been this insanely daja vu moment for Tommy. It's the same event all over again -- 17 years later. And so there would have been flashes in Tommy's mind to his childhood ordeal. But all of that stuff got kind of lost. But it was always my intent to bring Tommy in. He's a great character. I liked Paul Rudd a lot. And I think it was a great way to bridge the original movie with the sequels. The intent at the time was to make Tommy into the successor for Dr. Loomis. Have Donald [Pleasence] pass the torch to Tommy. There was a lot of torch passing in Halloween 6 ... except no one could seem to hold on to it! And of course he [Pleasence] unfortunately passed away. We thought what a great in if we've got this other (and younger) character in Tommy who has become as obsessed with Michael as Loomis was.

We thought Tommy could bring this voice of sanity ... a kind of modern Van Helsing, the fearless Michael hunter! I think that's what the last two films were missing was a character like Loomis or Tommy ...  someone to track Michael and give voice to this evil within him and to provide a sort of moral core to the stories, as twisted as they may seem. The thing I liked about the early films was there was always this theme of good vs. evil.

Speaking of Donald Pleasance, as a huge fan yourself, was it a thrill for you to think while writing the script, "I am writing Dr. Loomis's dialogue!"?

It was so amazing that it almost paralyzed me. (laughs) I just couldn't wrap my brain around the idea that THE Donald Pleasence was going to be saying these words ... my words. And they were never good enough. Literally, I would sit there for hours and days. And remember, I was under an insane deadline. I was getting calls every day. I had less than a month to write that first draft. Actually maybe it was two weeks. So, it was an incredible amount of pressure but also the pressure of wanting to do this well. Knowing that one of my idols was going to be in this film. Knowing that these lines had to have a certain weight.

I had lobbied for so many years telling Mr. Akkad that I'm the one who can do this. And now it's like, "OK, kid, go do it!" Here I was being asked to write for this incredible actor who had really been the lifeblood of this series and hundreds of films before. I just kept thinking, how do I do this? I'm not worthy! Finally, I just did what I thought was best. And I wanted to give Loomis an arc.

Start him as a different guy. It starts with him in seclusion, and he's retired and he's kind of put the insanity behind him but not really. Secretly he's been writing a book about Michael and is basically pulled out of retirement to hunt down his patient one last time. I thought that was a great way to start with him. Start him in a place of relative peace and end up right back in hell. The amazing and gratifying thing was that when Donald read the script he truly loved it. He said it was by far the best "Halloween" since the first and he was thrilled to be a part of it. So for me that really was the ultimate validation, and I will never forget it.

Unfortunately after he passed away, a few months after the first shoot, things began to devolve rapidly. My idea was always to end the movie with this incredible battle for Michael Myers' soul between the good doctor and the evil doctor and that was really what it was building to in the script. I had written the part of Dr. Wynn with the idea of casting a serious equal for Donald. I never thought anyone would get the reference to the original (except J.C., who got it right away). But I think it's great that the die-hard fans knew right away that it was supposed to be the same Doctor Wynn from the original movie. And I went back to that line where he says to Donald Pleasence, "He didn't know how to drive a car." And Loomis says, "Maybe someone around here gave him lessons." And I thought, let's literally go with that. Wynn (and his staff) really did give him lessons! (laughs) And there was even a reference to that line in the finale of my original script where Wynn is sort of explaining to Loomis what's basically been going on under his nose all these years. And he says, "We even taught him how to drive a car." I never imagined this secret society to be anything like the Temple Of Doom version they shot. (laughs) I imagined it to be much more relatable, like the Satanists in 'Rosemary's Baby'. The scary part of it is they could be the nurse, the guy working at the bus station, or the old lady across the street. And I thought that was a very scary idea. So, Doctor Wynn as I had wrote him, was a much bigger character and I had begged the producers to offer it to the actor I had in mind as I was writing ... I actually wrote the part for Christopher Lee.

Wow!

This is perfect because you have two amazing horror character actor veterans. Two giants in one movie.

Wasn't he one of the people Carpenter originally wanted for the role of Loomis in 'Halloween'?

That's exactly it! That story didn't come out until much later, but I had heard Christopher Lee was offered the role of Loomis and he had always regretted not taking it. So I thought -- here's our opportunity to bring him into the series! And the reaction I got was pretty much, "He's too old. Nobody knows who he is. And it doesn't really matter." I thought "What the hell are you talking about!?" And now of course, a decade later, he's in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and he's got a whole second career playing the ultimate bad guy.

Donald Pleasance, to me, deserved to be on screen with a contemporary.  Someone in his league ... not the guy from Lethal Weapon! That was just another thing I remember being shot down and standing there thinking, "you can't be serious!" Knowing in my heart that this was absolutely the right way to do this. And then having it made very clear that I wasn't the one calling the shots.

Christopher Lee as Dr. Wynn?  That would've been FANTASTIC.

Can you imagine him being revealed as the man in black? He had the right persona and the right build. And those gaunt, glacial features. He was just the perfect person to play off of Donald. Imagine seeing those two on film together ... in what turned out to be Donald's final screen performance. It would've been insane. For horror film lovers and all the way back to the Hammer films. And all those amazing films that they had both done. It would have elevated this movie to a place where no Halloween film had gone before. It would've been a class act.

What exactly are the differences between the final Theatrical Cut and the now infamous Producer's Cut? Most fans have seen both.

Isn't e-bay great? (laughs)

Is the Producer's Cut more along the lines of what you originally wrote or is it more of a first cut of the film?

It was supposed to be the final movie. It was what they intended to put out. It was a final cut. It was mixed. Everything was done for release. But it was tested and it tested very poorly, which I completely understand why. It was terribly made, in my opinion. It was one of those things, where time after time & not to get down on the director [Joe Chappelle] because he was a really nice guy. But just because you're a really nice guy doesn't mean you should be directing a particular type of movie.

The original director attached was Fred Walton who did 'When A Stranger Calls', but he had to drop out, I think again, over money. I never personally got the sense that Joe cared about making Halloween 6 as scary as possible. He just wanted to put his own stamp, his own style, on it.He didn't want it to be the next in this ongoing series. He wanted his film to stand on its own, or so he said when I would question him about things like, "Why is there no pumpkin in the opening title sequence?" (you gotta have the pumpkin!)  Or: "Why is the 'Halloween Theme' being played on an electric guitar?" Or: "Why is the guy's head exploding on the fuse box?" With all due respect, I just don't think he got what sets Halloween apart from Friday The 13th. To me, Halloween should be about the suspense and the build up. It's not about blowing people's heads up. I didn't get it. I still don't get it. I don't know why they went that route with it. I always liked the way I pitched it, and I think the way the executive producers saw it ... as very classy, classic horror/suspense film. There's nothing wrong with continuing a tradition if it works.

So, the producer's cut is technically the final cut, and it just tested really poorly?

Yeah. The director and another uncredited writer would basically take the pages I turned in and toss them aside and start over. And then I think it came down to that they only had like a week to shoot all of that new material. And remember this is after Donald Pleasance had already passed away. They had to sort of cleverly take the footage they had and infuse the new scenes into that. Dialogue was literally playing against someone who was not there. Which was just creepy. I thought I was seeing a ghost one day, I went onto the set and there's this old man walking around with a cane and I thought, "Oh my God, it's Donald Pleasence." No, that's his double. (laughs) It was very bizarre.

It came down to an element of time. The director was shooting stuff that in my opinion didn't need to be shot. And the crew was there on the final night of filming until 3 AM, and they literally ran out of time and couldn't finish the movie ... so here's what you get. And that's why you see a mask with a needle lying on the floor at the end. Because there was no time to shoot a real ending. Again, I'm not pointing figures. I think Joe's a nice guy and has done well for himself. But I just don't think he had an understanding of what makes Halloween, HALLOWEEN.

I'm not sure what the situation is like with the rights involved, but have you ever thought about putting together your original script and putting it out as a novelization? I know the Halloween 4 tie-in is very popular amongst the fans.

It was talked about for a while. Even at the Halloween convention a couple of years ago. Nick Grabowsky who wrote the Halloween 4 novelization had approached me about going back and doing a Halloween 6 book adaptation. And he really emphasized going back to the source, the original script and telling the story the way I had meant for it to be told. But, I just don't think there's an interest in it. Fortunately or unfortunately, the consensus of the producers is that horror movie fans don't like to read. They would rather see the movie.

The books have never really sold that well. I mean, they are GREAT collector's items. I love them, I have them all. It's just not an item the producers would have a reason to go out and publish. It's a great idea and if someone ever wanted to do it, I'd give them my blessing completely. It's not so much a rights issue as it is a financial issue. I just don't think there's a market for them. Maybe if the fans get organized and start asking for this stuff, we'll be proven wrong.

Do you think we'll ever see an official release of the Producer's Cut of Halloween 6 on DVD?

From your mouth to God's ears, I hope so!  My understanding is that Dimension would like to do it, but they can't find the original film elements. They've been missing for a while. So, without the original negative or print, it's going to be difficult to do anything. All we have are these bootleg copies that you guys have all had for a decade. So, yes there is interest. And if they asked me to do a commentary, I'd so be there! (laughs) At the time the film came out in 1995, the studio really downplayed all of the reshooting and the problems and completely denied there was another version. But fans ... especially Halloween fans -- - are smarter than that. They want their Michael. And they know how to get a hold of this stuff. I don't know how, but they do! And it wasn't the market then as it is today where every other DVD seems to be an alternate version or a director's cut or a separate disc of deleted scenes. No one at the time ever prepared for that. And this is one of the last of those movie from that era that sort of got lost. So, if they find the elements... hell, if the fans from your website know how to find the original elements, since they seem to know how to find everything else, pass it on, because the studio would LIKE to put it out.

You were at the Halloween Return's To Haddonfield 25th anniversary convention. What was that experience like from your perspective?

I was really nervous about going. I initially didn't want to go, and I really didn't want to do a panel to talk about the movie, because I know it had been the object of quite a bit of fan distain and ridicule over the years. Not unwarranted because I was saying the same things before it opened. Literally going to the director and saying, "This is the worst fucking movie ever made." I suppose in retrospect I could have handled that better, but I truly love these films and I was devastated over how the film turned out. I felt like the over-protective parent of some poor little orphaned child. And then when the movie was screened for the first time he actually said, "They [the audience] only booed because they didn't want it to end." (laughs) "Umm, no, I don't think you're getting it!"

So, I just didn't know what the convention was going to be like. I didn't know what kind of reception we were going to get. But I went, and I'm glad I did because the response was overwhelmingly positive. It seems with anything, over time, people become a lot more forgiving. You learn more and compare it to the other movies that come later. Which, in the case of this series, have only gotten worse rather than better in my humble opinion.

We got a great reception, and we did the Q&A panel and got a standing ovation after the little lady who played Mrs. Blankenship (Janice Knickrehm) recited her entire monologue from the film! She had somehow remembered all of it, so for me that was such a thrill. And so flattering. I actually thought that was one of the best scenes in the movie, because it's one of the few scenes that were actually all of my words. And it was shot more of less the way I had envisioned it. Intercutting that modern celebration of the festival going on as the old lady talks about the dark origins of the Druid festival of Samhain. And how amazing it was that she remembered all the words. I really loved meeting all the fans too, because at heart I'm just one of them. I thought Tony [Masi] and his crew did an amazing job.

I remember the theatrical trailer, which I still have on my original VHS of THE CROW, where the film is called 'Halloween 666: The Origin Of Michael Myers'.  Isn't there a story behind the title you guys ended up going with, which was obviously 'The Curse Of Michael Myers'?

Well, that was really never the title, which is the weird part of that trailer. The only connection there is that the script some other writer had written before I came on the project apparently was called 'The Origin Of Michael Myers'. My script had no title other than Halloween 666. That was it. No 'Curse Of' or anything. I think Miramax needed to put a trailer out and they just threw that title on it.  No one on our team ever called it 'The Origin of Michael Myers'. The title for 'The Curse' ... well, I'll admit that it was my title. I remember going into the production offices in my pajamas. (laughs) We were in Salt Lake City and they wouldn't lend me a printer for all of the new pages I was rewriting at the time, so I literally had to go down every morning after working all night and go down to the production accountant's office to use their printer to print the script pages. And they'd get mad at me! I was like, "How are you going to do the accounting on this movie if there's no script?" (laughs) It was pretty funny. So I'm in my pajamas and Akkad walks in and I'm looking like death warmed over, and he's in his suit smoking his pipe. I remember he kind of looked at me and thought, "Where the hell have you been?" And he says to me (in Moustapha voice), "We need a title, Daniel, for this movie. What will we call this?" And I said, "Well, ya know. This movie is cursed. So, why not just call it 'The Curse Of Michael Myers'." And he says: "Oh, I like this! This is good!". And I didn't think he really took me seriously. I was half-asleep and was sort of joking. But that became the title. And let's face it: it works. Oddly enough, we later were accused of copying the Pink Panther movies. Those were called 'The Return', 'The Revenge' and 'The Curse'. And I guess that's EXACTLY what I was thinking. (laughs) So, no. just for the record, we did not copy the Pink Panther movies, although that's kind of cool. But I liked the 'Blank of Michael Myers' sub-titles. Because 4, 5 and 6 really are their own trilogy.

Now, you invented the character of the 'Tooth Fairy' and your version of that story is going to be made into a film. Can you give us a bit of the story and what we can expect from that project?

I appreciate your asking. The movie is going into production next week (June 2005). It's somebody's movie, but it certainly is not my movie. There has been, yet again, a breakdown in communication with the producers of this film for whatever reason. It's more their reason, I believe.

I just don't know what the situation is, because it has not been communicated to me. But, the script that I co-wrote is not being made. The one I believe they are going with is absolutely unrecognizable to me. At press time, I would say... don't look forward to an improved version of 'Darkness Falls'. (laughs) I don't know what it is they're doing or why, but again, the people that hold the money call the shots. This is another situation in which they have gone off and just decided to do their own movie, with very little attention or regard being paid to the source. As far as what I can say about 'Darkness Falls', I wrote a story about an evil tooth fairy character who was really a woman who lived in a small town 100 years ago, and who'd use the disguise of the tooth fairy to lure children to their death. That was a script that I wrote with my partner 11 years ago.

So, we sued the studio behind 'Darkness Falls' and settled the case amicably. I don't know if there will be a 'Darkness Falls 2'. I haven't heard of any plans.

Well, I hope not! Because in my opinion, that movie sucked! Well, I don't mean to jinx anything but I don't have high hopes for a 'Tooth Fairy 2' either at this point. Everyone thinks they can write horror. Everyone thinks that they KNOW the genre. Very few people really get it, and I'm not claiming to be a genius, but I think I know the stuff that works. When I see what doesn't work, I get very vocal about it and why I think it's a mistake. It's unfortunate. But in Hollywood, money rules.

Interestingly enough, I remember McFarlane toys put out a Tooth Fairy figure for a film to be called 'The Tooth Fairy'.  But as it went to press, they ended up completely changing the look of the Tooth Fairy and essentially made her look like an old witch. Although still packaged as from the film 'The Tooth Fairy', it ended up being for 'Darkness Falls'.  What's the story with the multiple designs on the Tooth Fairy figure?

My understanding, and again, I wasn't involved in the production of 'Darkness Falls' so I can't speak to any of that. But I can tell you, that my understanding of it is that a guy named Steve Wang had designed this really incredible version of the Tooth Fairy, which is exactly the one McFarlane sculpted as the action figure you referred to. And that was the version of the Tooth Fairy that was originally in 'Darkness Falls'. Until, apparently ... well, it's good to know these things aren't limited to just me. (laughs) The studio looked at it and said it just was not scary enough. So, my understanding is they hired Stan Winston and his team to replace it with the old hag version. They had already done the toy from the original design. And the film was about to come out right around the time the studio had decided to change the look of the character. So, I think thru CGI and a lot of re-shoots, they put the Winston version in. Personally, I liked the first version with the long dark hair, and wings, and all that spooky stuff that Steve Wang did.

Being in Long Island, New York, I live close by to Amityville...

Uh-oh, here we go... (laughs)

You did an excellent job on the Amityville documentaries for the History channel, which ended up on the 4th disc of the recent Amityville box set from MGM.  How'd those projects come together?  Was it the making of the remake that sparked your interest?

Man, this is a different interview unto itself! The documentary came about years ago. Those aren't new. They aired in 2000 on The History Channel. So, they're about 5 years old. Talk about predating something. And talk about stirring interest in something. My involvement in Amityville began with an earnest interest in discovering what happened in this house and what this family experienced there and where are they today? It was those questions that led to the idea of doing a documentary. That in itself was a year-long process to get through. And to get the people who hadn't talked about the story in 20 years to come out and talk about it again.

George Lutz hadn't spoken about this in years. How did you approach him and convince him that your intentions for the documentaries were good ones?

It was honestly a process. Getting to him was difficult. Finding and tracking him down was difficult. He definitely lived much like Doctor Loomis at the beginning of Halloween 6; which was in seclusion for many years. When we met, George was living a very quiet, off-the-media-radar-map life. The events of Amityville just were not part of his life anymore. He was busy fixing old cars and computers when I came along and said, "Consider this." For the record, he's far from the money-grubbing miscreant that he's been portrayed as in different stories and books by all these people who think they're experts who know the truth. The fact is that if George Lutz cashed in -- and with all due respect, he's an incredibly nice and generous and funny man -- he certainly would've ended up better off than he has today financially. A lot of people made a lot of money off of the Amityville story, including and especially the producers on the new remake. And the fact is, George wasn't one of them. Most of the money the Lutzes made went to lawyers, defending lawsuits. And this continues to this day. George and his family were, in my opinion, victims of the media.  Their story was hugely popular at the time. I don't know if you remember the whole hoopla surrounding that from the 70...

Well, I was just being born then. (laughs) But of course, I remember a lot about it growing up and seeing the original movies.

When it hit, I remember this was the type of book that kids would bring to the school yard and everybody would be reading it. And everyone was creeped out by it. And the Lutzes were this sort of typical American family from Long Island. I mean, you know what it's like, you live there. It's very much suburbia and the Lutzes were hardly media savvy. There was no CNN broadcasting 24 hours a day. It was a very different time. Today, if a story like theirs hit the evening news, I guarantee there'd be a dozen William Morris agents hounding them for representation. At the time, though, all they had was a local lawyer and a friend that worked at a hair salon giving them advice. It sounds amusing, but that's really all they had.  They had fled their home with little more than the clothes on their backs. They were living at Kathy's mom's house when the media grabbed hold of the story. They had a 19 year old intern from the TV station that they came to trust. These were the people they were "in bed" with, so to speak. These were not the kind of people that knew how to go out and make lucrative book and movie deals.  So, I think, and pardon the pun here, when you sign a deal with the devil, it's for life. You don't get your soul back. I think that's what happened with this family. They were taken for a ride by the movie companies and the publishers. My impression of George Lutz was that he was a bit guarded at first, but when a relationship took hold and a bond was developed there, it was great. When I explained to him the intent of my project and that I would give him an equal opportunity to tell the story the way it happened, his reaction was, "We'd love a chance to tell this our way. To confirm that no one in my family ever said it was a hoax."

The thing I loved about your documentaries is that between the editing and writing, you truly left it up to the mind of the audience to decide what they thought happened.

It was an absolute conscious decision on my part to do it that way, because I knew I was never going to convince die-hard skeptics that ghosts lived in this house. No matter what I say, or the Lutzes say, or how credible this family comes across, I can't take that stance. All I can do is present to you the differing sides, the opposing viewpoints, of the story and let you as intelligent people make up your own minds. All I can do is present the story as they told it. And it seemed to be the right decision. Because over the years, the more it airs, we always get the same reaction: "I really liked that you made me make up my own mind." And let me tell you, the truth of this whole affair is difficult to get to and to present, even after all of these years. There were people involved with our own show who did want to skew it. And I stayed really firm about it. Although it was low-budget and was done for The History Channel, the one thing I'm proud of with those shows is that it represented my work. That it was my vision. We didn't get everything we wanted. Of course looking back I wish there were things we had done differently or given more screen time to. But I thought at the time that if this one fails, it'll be because of me and not because of a bunch of people I have no control over. It was really my opportunity to direct something, produce it, write it and do it more or less my way, with the guidance of a group of very supportive producers. And it was great. I'm glad people enjoyed it. It was good enough for MGM to want to include on their box set. (laughs) And the reaction from the majority of the people I interviewed sent letters saying how this was by far the most accurate account of the Amityville story ever done. Finally, someone told it how it was. There was no blood dripping down the walls. It wasn't George Lutz attempting to kill his whole family with an axe or attempting to...

You mean, 'The Shining'?

It's really unfortunate that certain producers and studios think that they can just portray living people in such a negative light. I think it's unfortunate that when MGM and Platinum Dunes announced an Amityville Horror remake, they denied any participation for the family they were depicting. And then went on to slander them in the public eye. I mean, George Lutz is NOT an attempted axe murderer. I said to him after the movie came out, "George, if you had done half the things they show you doing in this film, you'd be serving twenty years in Dannemora."

Oh, we at Icons Of Fright are very vocal about how much we dislike that remake. I thought the book was great... Well, let me ask. If a major movie proclaims itself to be based on a true story. And the movie company and the actors and producers and director go out of their way in public forums, in press releases and on-set visits with MTV to say they've gone back and done a faithful adaptation of the book, wouldn't you expect the movie to actually have something in common with that book? I just morally and ethically have a problem with that. I have a problem with people who sensationalize for the sake of ticket sales. I thought the movie was an appalling exercise in greed and a blatant disregard for the truth.

In my opinion, a lot of things in that Amityville remake were in really bad taste.

Incredibly bad taste. I'm sorry, but Jodie was NOT the ghost of Alison DeFeo and let's call her who she was, because she was one of six human beings who tragically lost their lives in that house. And I found that so tasteless and disrespectful. The Lutzes never claimed that what happened to them in that house had anything to do with the ghosts of the DeFeo family. In fact, they've been vocal over the years about how tragic and what an incredibly sad loss the murders were for the family and the communitry. It's another element of the history of that house that was absolutely disturbing. But the Lutzes' experiences did not involve ghostly little girls getting attacked by insane preachers. This is a complete fabrication. I found it completely offensive. And I'm sure you have your own thoughts being a Long Islander yourself.

I've read some interviews with both you and George on a few websites.  Did you see the Amityville remake together?

No, I didn't see it with him, but he called me right after he had seen it. And he and his friends and family were laughing and trying to have a sense of humor about it, as George always does. I think it's the thing that's helped him most through all of this. He said, "Well... they got two things right: We moved into a house on Long Island... and we owned a phone." (laughs) "That's pretty much it!" Just to give you an idea of how inaccurate the film was. I think the thing that really bothered me was all the hype around it and the all of the shameless promoting of it as "based on a true story." And having all these actors... well, they're doing a job. Ryan Reynolds is getting paid to do a gig. But to go out of your way and say things like "It's based on the book." It's like... did you ever actually read the book? 'Cause this ain't based on the book I read! And then to say things like, "We've done all of this historical research and we are being truthful." And I think Melissa George said in one interview she had read Kathy Lutz's diaries in preparation for her role. Give me a break. Kathy spent 15 years of her life with an debilitating respiratory illness, which unfortunately took her life about 6 months ago. And this is a woman who lived a very simple life and brought meals and gave shelter to the homeless of her community. She didn't open her diaries for Melissa George! That just didn't happen. She was in a hospital clinging to life during her last few months. So, I find it offensive that the cast and crew of this "remake" would claim to have anything to do with the Lutz family.

I have my own feelings about this, because I had spent years along with George Lutz trying to get a sequel movie off the ground. It wasn't so much a traditional sequel but rather a kind of next step. We were completely open about the fact that ours was going to be fiction, but it was an interesting kind of hybrid dealing with the real events. And we WERE going to stick to the real events in that occurred in the house. But our idea was to kind of update it and say, "What If?". Obviously it was intended to be a horror film and it was scary. But unfortunately, the Lutzes didn't retain rights to the 28 days they lived in that house. They sold those rights off to the studio back in the 70's without having that crystal ball to be able to tell them: "25 years in the future, they may want to do a remake. What happens to you then? Do you have any control over how your story is portrayed?" Again, they didn't have a William Morris agent barking at the studio or anyone to really protect them back in those days. Their contract in my estimation sucked. And that portion of their lives was, for all intents and purposes, given away.

Not only will they not profit from this remake, but again they've been subjected to the ridicule of being labeled as "that family." Our intention was to do a movie that was truthful but was still kind of exciting. It had no pretense of trying to defraud the public into thinking it was "a true story." It was more of a fun "What If?" scenario. What would happen if these people had to go back to that house? Again, bringing back all the elements from the book and from the true story. In retrospect? I'm glad ours didn't happen. Because ultimately, we would have been subjected to that same kind of scrutiny. As unfortunate as it is that this remake has caused further damage to the Lutzes, I was glad I didn't have to be the one to deal with the fallout. We experienced a lot of betrayals all along the way. Our own manager who had set up this deal for us with Dimension, entered secret negotiations to get a producing credit and fee for himself and chose to associate himself with the remake. Just all sorts of backstabbing. And ultimately what I came away from it with was that the Amityville Horror, haunted or not haunted, definitely brings out the worst in people. It brings out a side of people that is just not positive. Whether you choose to believe there is some kind of negative psychic energy or just base human greed, I just know from my own research and from everything I've seen and experienced through all of these projects is that it's probably a healthier thing to heed the warning of that disembodied voice in the Amityville house and just GET OUT! 

I've dated girls from Amityville.  I understand.

See? So, you know. It's unfortunate for the community, because something like this doesn't go away. It's legend now. And legends only tend to grow with time. It's silly to resist it. Because the more they resist it and the more they try to downplay it, the more people become interested. That was one of the things I wanted to get on the documentary, but the representatives for the village of Amityville wouldn't appear on camera or talk about it. In my estimation, they're only creating more mystery by refusing to discuss it and hence more intrigue. I mean, the current owner of the house ... let's just say he had problems with us being in town for the documentary. But I say you don't buy a house with that kind of reputation without thinking that someone's going to come by and ask questions from time to time.

Any problems while making the Amityville documentaries?

Problems? We had many problems. (laughs) There were people that would not talk on camera. There were several interviews we set up and people just didn't show up. Interestingly enough, there were people in the community who would say things to us off camera. But when we asked them to speak on camera, they wouldn't talk. You know, about things they've heard about the house. Things that allegedly have happened there that people don't talk about. Maybe it's just certain folks trying to add to the mystery and the lore of the place. It was just interesting to me that they wouldn't say certain things on camera because they claimed they would be ostracized from the community. I'm not saying the house is haunted today. We weren't allowed inside. The owner wrote a very nasty letter to the president of A & E accusing us of trampling on his lawn and banging on his door. We never got within 50 feet of the house. So, we were very respectful to the people of the town. We spent a  lot of money there. And we just did our job. I can understand in a way what they're saying. They feel that anything they say on the subject is only going to bring about more negative attention, but I think saying nothing brings even more attention.  

So, what's up next for you? What have you been working on?

There's a couple of things. There's a pitch I'm working on which is a fun horror/comedy that deals with a haunted house. Maybe it's my way of dealing with all of the negativity of Amityville. Laugh in its face! I can't give too many specifics yet, but we're pitching that around to the studios and we're really excited about that. There's also a television series concept based on Friday The 13th that I've been involved with. And we've been trying to get off the ground for a little while. We're hoping to make something happen with that sometime this year.

Is that a new series? I thought Sean Cunningham had mentioned something about it at the Fango con in Burbank, CA.

Yeah, he did mention it. It's something I have been developing with Geoff Garrett from Crystal Lake Entertainment, Sean's company. We're really excited about it. It spins off on the idea of Friday the 13th and the mythos of Jason, but it's really about the residents of Crystal Lake and the strange things that happen in this town. It's fun and scary and it's got this moral center to it and I think it'll be great for series television. There's a few adaptations I'm also working on. I co-wrote an adaptation of an amazing book called "The Girl Next Door" by Jack Ketchum. It's probably one of the most brutal and unforgiving horror books ever written. And it's based on a true story.

I think Lucky Mckee, writer/director of MAY was talking about "The Girl Next Door" at his panel at Fango also. And how he'd love to do that.

Oh, I didn't hear his panel. But we had just had a conversation prior to him going on. So, maybe that's where it came from. (laughs) But yeah, he's been a real supporter of it. There's been a couple of directors who have come around. The problem is it's such a tough, tough pitch because it is really brutal. It's not something like 'Last House On The Left' or a film where they have no kind of moral core to it. This really does have a right versus wrong morality to it, but it's so brutal and disturbing and terrifying. Why I'm attracted to this, I don't know! (laughs)

I just sort of thought, let's do something so off the map and so scary that it takes me out of the realm of franchise horror movies. I mean, the Halloween's and Friday's and Amityville's and all that stuff is great but horror is such an unexplored universe. Hollywood seems to only tap into the thing of the moment. Right now it's 'The Ring' and 'The Grudge.' Tomorrow it will chase the next trend.

And there's plenty of source original material they can go to such as books, rather then constant remakes.

Ya know, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface with some of it. It's like... guys, just take a chance! It's the movies where the directors and writers step out of the mold, where they hit the audience with a sledgehammer, that really have an impact and bring in the grosses (pardon the pun).  And I really believe the genre needs to constantly reinvent itself for it to thrive and go on. You want people to leave the theater saying, "Oh, I didn't see that coming!" There hadn't been anything like 'The Sixth Sense' in years. And it goes on to make $500 million dollars or whatever. People just want their entertainment in different ways. People like to be scared in different ways. I almost hate to admit it, but Michael Myers has really lost his luster. Same for Freddy and Jason. It's always when they team them up you know they're in trouble! I mean no disrespect when I say that. These characters and these franchises are amazing testaments to the genre, but I just think it's time for something new. The studios and the artists have to be brave enough to say, "We're going to be renegades, we're not afraid to push the envelope, we're going to make something that's completely off the map!" Go back to something like 'The Exorcist' -- who the hell would have thought to make a movie out of that, but they did and history was made. I think it takes someone with very big balls to do real horror. So I congratulate and admire the likes of Friedkin and Carpenter and Craven and all the other filmmakers of our generation who said, "To hell with it. I'm gonna do whatever it takes to scare the crap out of 'em!"

If you ever got the opportunity to do another Halloween film, what would you do, or what do you think they should do to follow up on the series & make it interesting? Since inevitably there will be another Halloween.

Right now, I believe there is talk about remaking the original Halloween. Which is going to cause a huge furor among the die-hards. But they did it with Texas Chainsaw and it made a fortune and people seemed to have responded fairly well to it. What I would do? Well, my first answer is I would just stop! (laughs) Call it a day. And let Michael go to the old people's home for retired slashers! But if they really wanted to make one and do it right, the only story left to tell, in my opinion, is the prequel story and intersperse that with a modern story. But I already told that story in the comic books.

Oh, that's right!  You did the comics! I loved those first few issues.

Oh, thanks. That really was my pitch for Halloween 8. Invariably, it's an honor and very sweet each time I get a call from the producers when they're going to do another movie. They invariably call me and ask what should we do?  If we bring you in, will you pitch us something? So, alright, here's what I think you should do given the last movie. When the opportunity came around to do a Halloween 8, right after H20, first my answer was (as above) ... just don't do it! You killed him, so don't cheat the audience. But then I started thinking about it, and I knew they had Jamie Lee Curtis for 5 minutes in the movie as a cameo. And I thought, wait, this could be really cool. What if WE know we have Jamie Lee but let's not let the audience know we have her for 5 minutes, and make it the big twist ending? You can play this movie out like a traditional Halloween movie, and I pitched it as a sort of wraparound. That Tommy Doyle had been accused of the murders from H20. He's been locked up for it in Smiths Groove. He's been basically treated like Michael Myers. He escapes very much like Michael in the original film. And he goes back to Haddonfield where Lindsay is living, as a reporter. And he holes up with her and they spend this long night going through the records and journals of Dr. Loomis. And through this, they learn of what happened all those 16 years while Michael was locked up in Smiths Groove.

And so we get to go back in time, ala Titanic (laughs). Not quite that epic, but going back to that early story of why Dr. Loomis has been so obsessed with his patient. What was Michael doing during all these years of silence? And what happened between Michael and perhaps some of the other people in the hospital? And then you book-end that with the Lindsay and Tommy story. And ultimately what you find out is that Michael Myer's has come back for them, or so we think, but at the end of the movie, the mask comes off ...and it's Laurie Strode. It's even sort of hinted at at the end of H20 ... after she chops off his head, she's looking pretty deranged ... and breathing in an awfully familiar way! Wow. Which essentially is what you did with the first 2 issues of the Halloween comic books.

That was pretty much exactly my pitch for Halloween 8. Which eventually I ended up doing for the comics. Because I thought, if you're going to get Jamie Lee for 5 minutes, make it THE best 5 minutes of the movie. Give it that 'Sixth Sense' type ending. So, people could walk out and say "Holy shit. You have to see this movie. I can't tell you why, but just go see it." Of course they didn't buy it. So instead we got Laurie Strode falling off the roof of a mental institution with a knife in her back. Talk about a less than glorious end for an unforgettable character. I kind of found that insulting. That that's the way she would die. I'm sure there'd be fans who would have hated to see her as the crazed killer ... but it makes more sense than sewing Michael's head back on! It would have taken the story full circle.

I had initially been against the idea of remaking Halloween, but I don't know. Maybe at this point, a restart would be what the character needs. The sister plot line started with Halloween 2, so it'd be interesting to restart Michael's motivations and make him what he was in the original film.

Yep. In a way, what else can they do? They can't keep doing these sequels with these gimmicks. It's getting ridiculous. They have to get back to the basics of what made this character so scary. But I don't know. I think I would give it a good 10 years. Let it sit on the shelf again. Let the sequels sort of die away. And then maybe consider starting over. Then again, Hollywood is about the money factory, and I think they want to cash in. And now that horror remakes are huge, why wouldn't they give the biggest horror movie of all time the same makeover treatment? I don't necessarily agree with it, but these are business people and I can understand why they would do it. But it's like that old saying. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.