Hold on tight. This is gonna be a long one.
Wikipedia defines fanboy as: a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view.
Those who know me know that I have a love for all things Halloween. It is my favorite holiday, that also happens to fall in my favorite season. Its is also one of my favorite films. Let me be more specific. John Carpenter's Halloween released in 1978 is one of my favorite films. Not horror films...just films. I also want to make it clear that it not my favorite horror franchise. I find the Evil Dead Trilogy, Romero's Dead Films and even the Friday the 13th films to be a more entertaining GROUP of films.
But I consider the original Halloween to be just tops. (I do have a lesser love for part 2)
So everyone around thought I would be quite excited to know that there was a new Halloween movie out. *sigh* No. I haven't been excited about a sequel since part 4 and that's only because it had been 7 years since we last saw old Michael. And after that I wish we would have never seen him again. As much as I felt the sequels continue to hurt peoples view of the series, I knew that as long as they made money and were cheap to produce, they would continue to be released. And I was ok with that.
But now there is a more distrubing trend. Call them reimaginings, reboots, whatever. They're remakes. The idea of remaking an older film is nothing new. Its been going on since the invention of film. John Carpenter himself remade The Thing and not only wasn't I bothered by it, I actually love that movie. But when I heard Rob Zombie was going to helm a remake of Halloween, I was neverous but also intrigued. As news of the cast started to spill out I was hopeful. Brad Douriff was to play Sheriff Brackett. Cool. I like Brad Douriff. Great actor. Loved him in Deadwoood. And Christ the guy is Chucky. OK. Nobody else really mattered to me except for one. Donald Pleasance cemented himself as one of my favorite actors of all time when he donned the trechcoat to play Dr. Sam Loomis. He did so many other wonderful things before that but if he had only ever played Loomis, he would still be one of my favorite actors. So when I heard the Malcom McDowell was going to play Loomis. Honestly I started to get a bit excited. Maybe, just maybe this could work.
But then, I started to hear things. People were getting a hold of the script and started posting script reviews. I normally stay away from them but why should I care about spoilers? I know this movie backwards and forwards. As I read the reviews the smile on my face started to fade. Mr. Z was removing everything I felt made Halloween what it was. He was elaborating on Michael's childhood. He was giving him the standard 'broken home'. He was giving him a stripper-with-a-heart-of-gold Mom and a foul-mouthed redneck father. He was turning Michael into a sympathetic character. He made him into any disturbed individual you might see on the nightly news. For all intents and purposes, he unmasked the boogeyman. He turned the lights on in the house, so that we could expose this 'evil' for what it was. And by doing so, removed all the fun from the movie.
Let me borrow a passage from a review I read recently:
"
There's a great track on the new album by Patton Oswalt that's all about his disappointments with the STAR WARS prequels, and I think it's one of the most succinct explanations I've ever heard anyone offer. He doesn't wail about his raped childhood or anything else like that... instead, he imagines a conversation with George Lucas circa mid-1990s, as he's gearing up to write the stories.George Lucas - "You say you're a STAR WARS fan. Do you like Darth Vader?"Patton Oswold - "I fucking love Darth Vader, man. The helmet and the cape… with the sword. That's great, man! Is he in the first movie?"GL - "Uh, yeah. In the first movie, you get to see him as a little kid."Patton tries to take it in stride, but Lucas continues, telling him about the second film a bit.GL - "Well, hey, don't worry, cause guess who shows up in the second movie. Boba Fett."PO - "Very fucking cool! Boba Fett! Yes! With the helmet, and he's a bounty hunter! That is so cool!"GL - "Yeah, and in the second movie, you get to see him as a little kid."You can sense Patton's growing exasperation.PO - "I do not give a shit about that. I could not care less."GL - "Well, in the third movie, guess what shows up? The Death Star."PO - "Oh, that's... what is it doing, George?"GL - "They're just building it."And that does it. Patton just finally snaps, ramping up to the realization that pulls it all into focus for me.PO - "I don't give a shit where the stuff I love comes from! I just love the stuff I love!"Part of what made Michael scary was not knowing why. Why does he do these things, what is his motivation. Dr. Loomis tells you from the beginning and constantly reminds you throughout the film.
"..because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...evil."
That was it. No further explaination. He didn't say because he daddy beat him. He didn't say because him mommy didn't love him. He didn't say because his creepy Uncle touched him. He was just evil. End of story. Now before you get all crazy on me and say "Carpenter showed Michael as a kid too!". Let me explain why. It was to further the belief that this kid was just like any other. He didn't look unhappy. His parents looked normal. There was nothing out of the ordinary. Something in this kid just snapped. For no reason.
Just a couple more points and I'll leave you all in peace. Remakes like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead. I know I know I'll get crap from people saying, 'the remake of Dawn of the Dead was great!'. Shut up. Yes, it was a well done zombie film with some good scares. But I ask you, what was the point in calling it Dawn of the Dead? Couldn't it have been called something else and been passed off as original? Honestly apart from zombies in a shopping mall, the story shares no similarities. It could have picked a different location and not had that tag of remake forever hanging over its head. But no. Some execs has to sit around a table collecting millions of dollars for saying "hmmm, kids like zombies, Dawn of the Dead was a good zombie movie. It took place in a mall. Kids like malls. Hey Snyder, make us a Dawn of the Dead but with quick cuts and rock music" I don't fault Zack Snyder. The guy had to start somewhere and he is a very talented director (can't wait for Watchmen). And as we get further and further along the more people will forget the original even existed. And I think that's what is bothering me the most. See, these movie are making money. So the remakes will continue to be churned out.
The other point I was going to make was about the remakes I enjoy. I can only half explain my hypocrisy.I can just say that its all about the story and how its approached. The attitude that sticks out in watching the new version of the film.
Mind you a haven't watched Zombie's Halloween. Ordinarily I would shame anyone for ripping a film before you've seen it. But I refuse to pay money to further support the trend of these 'remakes for the MTV generation'.
Actually I did watched about 2 minutes of it. Someone sent me a link to it online and I watched the beginning. I didn't last long. Once I heard Mr. Myers (Michaels father) threaten to come across the table and skull-fuck Mrs Myers (Michael mom) I tuned out. It just didn't feel like Halloween to me. And it depresses me. Of all the remakes that have come out in the past 10 years, this is the one that angers, depresses and saddens me the most. Probably because its the movie I hold most dear.
Lastly, my wish on what I wanted to see happen with the series from the beginning. I am the firm believer of 'too much of a good thing isn't alway good' Especially when it comes to horror. Clive Barker said it best about his creation Pinhead.
"One of the obvious limitations is that the more often you see a villain, the less scary they are. It's the law of diminishing returns…. I'm very aware that that's a problem. Particularly the 'Hellraiser' series. You know, Pinhead is a plastic model, a jigsaw and a phone card - a very well exposed face. The first thrill you had of seeing that character in the first movie…has long since gone. And you can never really recapture that first encounter."So I would have been more than happy to see Michael die along with Dr. Loomis in at the end of part 2. At that point Carpenter wanted the franchise to turn into an anthology based around the holiday. New stories every couple of years by new and talented writers and directors that had to do with the holiday of Halloween. Unfortunately Halloween 3 failed (unjustly!) and they went back to Myers. However I think this year we will get a look into what may have happened eventually if Carpenter had gotten his wish. Check out this trailer:
I think it looks like a ton of fun. Can't wait!
I do have a logical side though. Its whispering in my ear now saying, "Why do I care? What does it matter if a movie came out and people went to see it, and I don't like it. There are lots of movies out there I don't like"
Well.....because, I'm a fanboy.
UPDATE: I refer to the earlier scene in which there is the threat of a skull-f'ing as being Michael's dad. It is in fact the mother's boyfriend. Like it really matters, but I thought I'd add it in the interest of getting my facts straight.