Or was the film destined to fail from the start being rushed into production so quickly?
I find it odd you would get a pretty unknown guy to do part 5.
Halloween Returns 2016
Well, originally Dwight Little and Alan B. McIlroy wanted to come back to do 5, but it fell through. I think Girard was a good pick as he made it more dark, gothic, literally. The rush didn't help, in fact the script was written for a 2 year gap, Jamie went from 7 to 9 and Loomis mentions 12 years to the night when he offered himself. (meaning 1978) It was a good film in certain aspects, the house, Thorn (at least in theory), Shanks as Michael, Jamie, etc. and had bad parts, psychic link, the goofy cops, etc.
It's really hard to tell which is better, a fast movie like 5 or a mess like 6 that took 6 years just to get made 2 different ways, theatrical and producer's cut versions. Depends on your point of view, I guess.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
Good points. I know I've seen Akkad say they should have left a 2/3 year gap when talking about 5.
I know it's all hindsight but had they left a few years gap and Halloween 5 came out in 90/91, they would have had good rental and vhs sales/exposure from number 4 and most of the other horror franchises had all pretty much died out, so they wouldn't have had to compete against much in terms of other horror films.
Halloween Returns 2016
Exactly. Hollywood is not easy to figure out. Strike too soon, much like the Fridays did by having part 8 in 89 when the original came out 9 years earlier and you burn the fanbase out. Or do like 6 did and have too many cooks in the kitchen, too many scripts, delays, director, producer, etc. and you come up with a mess. To me, for the Halloween franchise, it started going downhill with 5. Each after had their good parts, but not on par with the first 4.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
[deleted]
You are saying the Thorn thing was a good idea? How do you figure? The whole point of Michael is that he is the unknown, we don't need to know why Michael is what he is anymore than we need to see him under the mask.
shareNope. As whacked as the film is, it at least has actual tension and energy unlike Littles bland, dry direction for H4.
shareThis is a joke right? Part 4 was one of the best in the series. This movie had it's moments, but everything was definitely downhill from here. 4 was the last perfect Halloween film.
shareNo, it was DEFINITELY the director. He vetoed the idea of Evil Jamie (like H4) hinted at because it's "not Christian" and these movies are "very Christian and morality based." He's also responsible for a lot of the awful casting decisions, characters, and utterly pathetic kills. Michael crying. The lack of atmosphere.
It probably was never going to be great, but pretty much anyone would have been a better director choice
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/
Wouldn't that be more of the writer's job? And seeing as how he had 2 other writers with him, according to Imdb credits, is it all him? And lastly, don't forget Dimension and Akkad himself having their own say.
Here's the thing. Good decision or not, they decided to fast track 5 one year later. Even at 2 years later, you really can't have a believable 8/9 year old female killer. Hell, even by the time Curse came out in 1995 and Jamie was 14 (since she was born in 1981) she wouldn't have been a believable killer. Plus you saw how people hated Friday 5 without the real Jason and Halloween III without Michael at all. So they weren't going to be without him here. My beef is the hokey psychic link. I wasn't much a fan of the crying, but the dark tone was much better than the Lifetime movie Halloween 4.
Given how many problems Curse had, I'm sure 5 had it's own share. The Man in Black was not thought out, just thrown in. However, it's not a totally bad movie and some of the characters were good. Jamie, Loomis, Rachel. Then others played their parts. Tina as Annie, Sam as Lynda. Not that big of a stretch. The guys were just body count fodder. Just like past films.
It's not a great film, but it has it's moments.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
Wouldn't that be more of the writer's job?The director tends to have way more say than the writer, and Girard himself confirms it was him who pushed for ot having evil Jamie and shot the entire thing down.
Seriously, what are you talking about with the "Lifetime movie" stuff? 4 was very dark, did you even see the first film? 4 was right in line with that. What would have made 4 "darker". More silly kills? That's F13th, and not saying I've anything against f13th but they are different styles.
shareHuh? I wasn't aware the movies were Christian, when did he say all of that? At any rate directors don't usually have that kind of pull on a film if they are an unknown. The writers pitch most the ideas and the studio is the one that green lights it.
shareDominique Othenin-Girard - This guy should've been fired, and sued into oblivion, he almost got several of his actors killed multiple times. I generally hate this guy. Regarding the movie, He was very good with suspense, set pieces, and knew how to play with shadows. But when it came to story, character, and tone Girard did a terrible job.
https://screenrant.com/halloween-5-tina-character-fan-hatred-explained/
The first mistake came from Akkad himself who was not interested in making Jamie a psychotic killer. This mandate immediately changed the trajectory of Halloween 5, ensuring any path forward would contradict or, at least, lessen the impact of H4’s ending. The second, biggest mistake in the development of Halloween 5 was the hiring of a director who was not familiar with the series. Original Halloween producer Debra Hill suggested Othenin-Girard – who had previously co-directed the thriller After Darkness. Othenin-Girard ran with Akkad’s request to put the focus back on Myers by attempting to humanize the character. He also decided to create a film that was tonally and narratively a complete departure from the previous Myers outings.
https://thetwingeeks.com/2018/10/26/halloween-5-the-revenge-of-michael-myers/
Girard proves himself to be inconsistent regarding the direction of the film as well. The staging and framing jumps around in quality early on; he tends to favor close up and low angles and some of his choices make the actions on screen a little hard to follow. This does seem to improve as the film continues on, either that or his style has an adjustment period. Alan Howarth is back as the composer, continuing his role from Halloween 4, and he has improved his work from that film, but he still relies too much on older themes. He goes to the “Halloween Main Theme” all too often and lessens its overall impact; although the minimalist, slower interpretation is appropriate in specific moments.