This sequel is a mixed bag, but it would have gained something if they had actually filmed in the fall! It really lacks the Halloween atmosphere that part 4 did. Most ridiculous is the opening shot of Haddonfield, announcing that it's October 31... on a shot of a completely green tree!
shareThis again? Look, when you make a movie about the holiday, Halloween, you kinda need to release it around Halloween. So you have two choices, film it during Halloween and wait a whole year to release it, which is a waste of time and money letting it sit on the shelf that long, let alone lose fan interest or film it off season and release it for Halloween itself.
Given how this was released a year after 4, which was a super quick turnaround, they had to film it off season. Should they have waited til 1890? Maybe. But the other franchises were cranking them out fairly quickly and they had to keep up with the competition.
You kind of write yourself into a corner when you make a movie around a certain time of year. Even when they started releasing them in the summer, where in H20, California has no seasons, it's still not good enough scenery wise.
This movie was a mess from start to finish, but the look was the least of it's concerns. At least for me. So bottom line, location, first California, then Salt Lake City, you're not going to get a midwestern fall look no matter when you shoot it. And in order to release it around the holiday you are promoting, therefore tapping into the best possible market audience aside from the summer blockbuster, you're going to have to film it in advance, but not too far as to let it collect dust.
It is what it is, what it had to be.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
Having just watched it in 4K HDR, I really loved the vibrant colors of this one. It looks gorgeous.
share