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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
|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
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.
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
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
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 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.
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?
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
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,
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
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
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
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.