Halloween II (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by WillG

GoodTimes Home Video had the R1 Distribution rights to HII and HIII in the earlier days of the DVD format (VHS as well)

I'm pretty sure that was just one of the horror titles (like Psycho II and III, Halloween II and III and The Funhouse) that Universal licensed to Goodtimes back then rather than Universal not having the rights to Halloween II.

 

I'm pretty certain that HALLOWEEN II and III are like any other film DeLaurentiis produced that Universal distributed -- i.e. FLASH GORDON, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, DUNE, etc. Universal owns the domestic rights, they control the video releases, but DeLaurentiis' company owns the actual movie.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Has Carpenter ever actually said he directed those scenes?

I have a hard time believe he did as he was obviously not too interested in a sequel (outside the money) and had much bigger projects he was working on.

 

[WillG]

From Wikipedia:

The decision to include more gore and nudity in the sequel was not made by Rosenthal, who contends that it was Carpenter who chose to make the film much bloodier than the original.[23] According to the film's official website, "Carpenter came in and directed a few sequences to clean up some of Rosenthal's work."[21] One reviewer of the film notes that "Carpenter, concerned that the picture would be deemed too 'tame' by the slasher audience, re-filmed several death scenes with more gore."[24] When asked about his role in the directing process, Carpenter told an interviewer:

That's a long, long story. That was a project I got involved in as a result of several different kinds of pressure. I had no influence over the direction of the film. I had an influence in the post-production. I saw a rough cut of Halloween II, and it wasn't scary. It was about as scary as Quincy. So we had to do some post-production work to bring it at least up to par with the competition.[5]

Rosenthal was not pleased with Carpenter's changes. He reportedly complained that Carpenter "ruined [my] carefully paced film."[

It's true that Carpenter was not interested in making Halloween II. He's admittied he attached himself to the movie because it was a chance to make some good money (even after Halloween became a huge financial success, apparently Carpenter personally made very little money off it). However, it still had his name on it as producer, writer and composer, so he would have probably wanted the film to conform to an expectation he may have had.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Wow - that would make for a fascinating making-of doc: a candid, matter-of-fact depiction of a semi-troubled production, something akin to the making of Alien 3. Halloween II isn't one of my favorite movies but I would buy a reconstructed version in a heartbeat.

 

[Michael Elliott]

That [24] quote comes from a movie reviewer with no connection to the actual film so I wouldn't put too much stock into it. It would be nice for Carpenter to be involved with a Special Edition but he's probably got too much on his plate right now unless they recorded him before his upcoming comeback. The [5] is interesting as well because he uses the word "scary". The gore wouldn't really make it scary but some of the stuff missing from the theatrical version at least made the film run smoother.

I'd be perfectly happy with the alternate scenes as an extra. I never watch the TV version of the first film so it's doubtful I'd watch that version of the sequel. I had heard about a lot of footage missing from part 3 that I'd much rather see if both films are being re-done.

 

[WillG]

That [24] quote comes from a movie reviewer with no connection to the actual film so I wouldn't put too much stock into it.

I think it can pretty much be assumed that the account is reasonably accurate. There's enough quoted material from Carpenter and Rosenthal out there to support that Carpenter made significant changes to the film in Post. As to why, it makes sense that Carpenter, or others involved in the production felt that the movie needed to deliver some goods in the gore department after Friday the 13th became such a hit.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by WillG

There's enough quoted material from Carpenter and Rosenthal out there to support that Carpenter made significant changes to the film in Post.

I guess it all depends on your definition of 'significant changes' but I don't find adding shots of gore to really be a significant change. If there is a director's cut of this movie, I think people are going to be tremendously dissapointed if they're expecting huge differences between the two versions. Based on what I've read over the years, my guess is that there might be a re-ordering of scenes, a few of the TV scenes might be put back in and they'll remove some of the gore shots. It's not exactly the Donner cut of Superman II or Apocalypse Now Redux.

And nothing against Rick Rosenthal but I'll take the John Carpenter of 1981's opinion on what is and isn't working in a movie over first time director Rosenthal any day of the week.

 

[WillG]

I guess it all depends on your definition of 'significant changes' but I don't find adding shots of gore to really be a significant change.

If a director claims he tried to make a movie that did not rely on gore, and then the producers re-shoot scenes to include gore, I would call that a pretty significant change. And even small editorial changes can significantly change the tone of a film. Now, Carpenter may have made the right call (There was a time when I was younger when I think I actually preferred Halloween II over the original because of the higher body count and gore)


Based on what I've read over the years, my guess is that there might be a re-ordering of scenes, a few of the TV scenes might be put back in and they'll remove some of the gore shotsThe television version presented many of the scenes in a different order than the theatrical. The rumor I've heard is that a Rosenthal cut would supposedly include footage that has never been seen before.

 

[Michael Elliott]

But does "post-production" really mean going back and filming new material? To me, if Carpenter did post-production work on this it would mean something along the lines of editing stuff out, mixing it around or trying to pick up the pace of the film through editing. If he watched the rough cut and thought there wasn't enough gore he would have to go back into production and this would cost some money to get everyone back together (unless they did it in some basement). I'm not sure if the media followed troubled productions back in 1981 so perhaps it was well-known that the film was in some sort of trouble.

It would be interesting to know why Carpenter wanted H2 to "fit in" with what was out at the time yet he didn't do this with a couple of his own films and they certainly didn't care what the masses thought with H3. Was he just so unpleased with H2 that he didn't care what the masses were going to think with H3?

 

[WillG]

But does "post-production" really mean going back and filming new material?

Sure. It happens all the time. Post-Production is any work that happens after principal photography ends. I'm sure you've heard of Pickups, ADR, etc. One famous example is the "Ben Gardener Head" scene in Jaws. That was filmed, I believe, as late as after test screenings. Spielberg felt the scene needed one extra scare. So they went back and shot it in Editor Verna Field's swimming pool. I believe that Spielberg initially had to pay for the shoot himself (but was later reimbursed).

It would be interesting to know why Carpenter wanted H2 to "fit in" with what was out at the time yet he didn't do this with a couple of his own films and they certainly didn't care what the masses thought with H3. Was he just so unpleased with H2 that he didn't care what the masses were going to think with H3?

Again, I would guess it was about money. Carpenter has admitted he got involved with HII purely for money. He could have had a points deal which would explain why he made the "fit in"..higher box office returns = more money for him. That's just speculation, but it makes sense if money was what he was after. Halloween III was the film he actually wanted to make (or at least the concept of Halloween being an anthology series). And yes, for the record, Carpenter has pretty much disowned HII.

 

I think JC had control over the production and he was scared that H2 was going to bomb because it lacked the blood that the auidence seem to want. He did not want his name "on a bomb". Since tinkering on "the fog" in post production was a huge sucess he felt the same must be done to H2. By the time H2 was released Horror films were coming out left and right. There was a 3 year gap between Halloween and Halloween II and gore was the rage... However my question still is "what did JC do". Reshoots, re-editing, insert shots? And will there ever be a special edition release of the film on dvd?