So rushed.

You just LOVE replying to my new threads do you? But tend to leave some of my comments where I do reply to you hanging that I want your feedback on? Come on Dave, get with the program here.

Quality over quantity, which is why some of those yearly sequels didn't do so well. Not sure about Saw, but Paranormal Activity certainly wore out it's welcome to this point.

Saw certainly did well up until the fifth movie. By that point, the series kind of lost it's spark and with VI did terribly at box office, the creators finally decided to put it to rest with number VII. There were plans for there to be an eight and nine but that was scrapped. Saw V-VII were alright, but not as good as the first four. Out of the trio, V would be the best one and VII being the weakest. It was quite a poor wrap up to the series and should have been a lot longer.

Too many goofs and needed more polishing, IMO. Jamie magically aging two years, 7 in 4, 9 in 5. Loomis saying he remembers the night 12 years ago instead of 11- 1978-1989.

Did not quite understand this. It was as if they planned the movie to come out in 1990 or take place in 1990. But considering they rushed into production with H5, they obviously planned for a 1989 released. Rather odd for the movie to happen a year after it's released year for them to want the movie set in 1990 when it mind as well be set in 1989, so all the dialogue with it seemingly happening two years after Halloween 4 is a mystery to me. Some one contact Dominique Girard on that one.

The whole not knowing who the Man in Black was, not thought out at all. Michael crying. Silly psychic links (similar to Friday 7's telekinetic/psychokinetic lead actress). Rachel's death, among other things.

Again, these are little things. People should not be worked up over it and plus a lot of these things people don't even understand. The Man in Black was thrown in to provide a hook for the next movie at Moustapha Akkad's request. While it was unknown who he would be to the audience, he was never intended for us to know here in this movie whether the filmmakers even knew who he was or not. By the next movie we would surely find out who he is and by then the makers would know who he would be and they managed to do that. So the whole "not knowing who the man in black is" on behalf of the audience and the filmmakers shouldn't even me a problem. People want to get on the filmmakers for not knowing who the guy would be but it's like, his role wouldn't be of importance until the next movie and even if they did know what to do with him he would still be a mystery here to us so what difference does it make what THEY knew?

The Myers house didn't bother me. Houses can change in 11 years.

Okay, now you're being stupid here. Houses can change over time but that is not the case here. For one thing, the house looks TOO different that we'd have to image the original house being torn down and replaced with another one. It's not established that's the case. The Strodes were never able to sell it and the last they needed was to put that much change to it. Even if they have, it still doesn't explain it looking abandoned with weeds like it hasn't been lived in for many many years tops. There's been no renovation or remodeling. We're suppose to suspense disbelief here and ignore the fact that the house looks different; like we're to ignore recastings when a new actor for a character looks nothing like the original.

I should point out that the location of the house is also incorrect. It's located at a street corner. The Myers house had houses on both sides in the first two movies. We're to ignore that too. No way around that one unless you want to believe they just took the Myers house and drove it down the street to place in a new spot, torn it down, and rebuilt a mansion above it, but then over years have the property look like it hasn't been touched in ten years. Yeah, only an idiot would want to be desperate enough to swallow all of this.

Lastly, you also have to account the house display is once again changed in Halloween 6 and here you can't seriously think it's been renovated AGAIN, especially when it's now REDUCED in size to what is H5. Again, we're not suppose to buy it's been rebuilt or renovated apart from making it look livable from all the weeds and old wall and floor material that would need to be fixed up and changed, but in regards to the house looking drastically different in structure? Not the case.

Plus it fit the plot (attic, basement, laundry chute sequence).

See, I address this to you in a reply of mine that YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO. So don't want me getting on you on things you bring up to me you shouldn't that I counter to you in a reply you should be reading and letting me know you read and understood it. They didn't need a bigger house for these scenes. The attic, basement, and laundry chute weren't even all that big and they didn't need to be big considering it's only two people squaring off here, not a whole classroom. Apart from having bigger space for the cameras, they don't need it to be drastically big in terms of plot since Jamie and Michael would only be occupying a portion of the space. The laundry chute is certainly small and some thing you could so find in a house like the original one.

Even if they did need a bigger house, they could have at least gotten one that resembled the original for the outside display while the inside had some extra parts to it, sort of like they did in H8. The house in H8, while FINALLY RESEMBLING THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, had the inside come off as a lot larger than it appeared. But we could ignore THAT better than ignoring a whole house looking drastically different and no rebuilding or remodeling ever being done to it. So they should have gotten a more accurate house to use or at least use for the outside display if the inside of it didn't work with the chase sequences.

reply share

add reply

formatting help