Weird Al mocks Dr. Loomis! Another Halloween 2 photo.

Posted on 20 April 2009 by Quaid

My worst fears might be realized.  Rob Zombie is taking this movie in a very very off-course direction it seems.

Here is a picture.  From Zombie’s Halloween 2.  It is of Weird Al Yankovic.  He is on a talk show.  With Dr. Loomis.  And he is pointing at the doctor, and laughing.  Behind him is a Michael-centric news graphic, complete with duo-toned mask.

Where do I start?  1) If Michael is a pop-culture icon, he can NO LONGER BE SCARY! 2) If Loomis is on a talk show, then his presence in the movie is a farce and is doing horrible injustice to the memory of the late, great Donald Pleasance.  3) Weird Al Yankovic looks goofy! Look at his goofy, smirking face!  What the F%$& kind of tone is this friggin’ film going for?!

(Note to readers: I love Weird Al Yankovic and do not blame him for doing this movie.  The fault lies entirely with one Mr. Rob Zombie)

Okay, maybe I’m over-reacting, but this, coupled with the news that the “The Shape” spends most of the movie out of his mask as “The Bearded Southern Rocker” has me pissed off.  Why even make a Halloween movie if you are going to bitch-slap EVERY SINGLE ICONIC ELEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL FILMS???

There is still a tiny part of me that is hoping this movie could be fun.  But it’s slowly dying.  It seems we might finally have figured out a way to kill Michael Myers: put Rob Zombie in charge of him.

Here’s the pic, courtesy of the Rob Zombie Blog.  Click for biggification.

halloweenyankovic

                          

Categorized | News

8 Comments For This Post

  1. ShepRamsey Says:

    Personally, I’m done with judging remakes and adaptations based on how they stack up to their source materials. If this movie manages to be interesting and entertaining on its own merits, then I’m fine with that. I realize that maybe it’s a bastardization of the original idea and if it’s going to be such a different kind of beast then why bother with a “remake” in the first place, but I also think that doing something a little bit different ought to be the POINT of most remakes. We love the original so much because there really aren’t any other films that were able to do what that movie did in quite the way that it did it. So why are we clamoring for the remake to be that exact same thing? That lightning won’t strike twice, so why bother trying? If Rob Zombie wants to take the concept and spin it in a new and interesting way, then I say go for it! Now, will “H2″ be the new and interesting movie that I’m hoping it will be? I have no idea. But if the star of “UHF” is honoring this movie with a cameo, then that’s a seal of approval that I plan on heeding.

  2. Quaid Says:

    It’s all fine and good to say “it’s something different, so what?” But when you take a franchise, steal the title and then discard EVERYTHING else, you’re basically disrespecting the original in a way that Zombie says he never would.
    I think each remake is different. Some movies aren’t very good, and a total re-imagining makes sense. Assault on Precinct 13 was very different, but it had the same basic main characters and dynamics, and it was a hell of a lot of fun. To make a HALLOWEEN movie where Michael is maskless 70% of the time? It’s like making a “The Birds” remake without birds. It’s just dumb.
    My anger comes from the fact that I actually had hope for this one. The first Zombie Halloween wasn’t good, but it was because it was obsessed with Michael’s origin and speeding through the original. I just wanted Michael Myers (mask included) killing people. Didn’t need to be like Halloween 2–it shouldn’t be, because that movie had very little plot or point. But when you are taking the things out of Halloween that make it Halloween, why should I bother to care about your movie?
    And if they were remaking Blue Velvet with Brett Ratner, and the plot was a straightforward coming-of-age comedy, you’d throw up in your mouth a little bit too.

  3. ShepRamsey Says:

    To be fair, I throw up in my mouth a litte every time Brett Ratner makes anything. And all I’m saying is that just because this may come off as little bit disrespectful to the original and maybe a teensy bit pointless as a “remake” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s going to be a terrible movie on its own merits. I enjoyed his first Halloween movie (though it had problems) and I’m a big fan of The Devil’s Rejects and I think he just might be able to put out another quality film. (Although I’m also not saying that the concept of him fucking up BIG TIME isn’t totally plausible either.)

  4. ParryOtter Says:

    If you’re going to remake a movie and completely reject everything about it (good or bad), you’re not remaking a movie. You’re capitalizing on the success of something else and using the opportunity to put your own spin on it and get credit.

    There are plenty of movies we see and think “damn, it would have been so much better if X had happened instead.” I get that, but sometimes you just have to say “tough shit.” Someone thought if it before you did and made it their own. If you’re not good enough to give it a (slightly) new feel or perspective and still follow the framework and themes, don’t remake it. Maybe Zombie wants to see it played out as it is in his own mind. If that’s the case, he’s creative enough to do that without crossing the line. If he just doesn’t give a shit and completely wants to do things his way, he should use his talents to make an entirely new movie.

    Honestly, I thought his Halloween remake was good. Not just because it was interesting or entertaining, (nearly anyone can do that), but because it upheld the same sentiment. Michael is “scary” because he kills people for no apparent reason. He’s mysterious. To me, the back story didn’t make him less so. Yeah, his home life is crap but honestly, is that quite enough to make a person have that much hatred and brutality in them? I don’t know if Zombie really wanted us to buy that or not. Honestly, I think he did it that way because everything he makes portrays something slightly gritty and demented, so that’s all he knows how to do. Such things might work on a person who is already nuts, but its not going to make a Michael-type monster in childhood. Michael’s unhinged as a kid and unhinged as an adult, and we still don’t REALLY know why. Plus, it’s still a killer in the middle of white, suburban America defying people’s assertions that things like that “couldn’t happen here.” For me, it toes the line but essentially keeps the same spirit.

    A perfect example of a remake that should have never happened: I Am Legend. I admit, I enjoyed this movie. There were certain parts in the first half that were great. But ultimately, it doesn’t deserve to have that title. It completely destroys every idea that made the novel and previous movie what they were. Morgan isn’t “legend” because he is a horrifying figure to the legions of vampires he kills or because he’s last man on earth completely free of infection. He becomes legend because he survives. It’s absurd. It ignores the tone, complexity of the character, the psychological elements of the situation, and the plot in general. A movie like this, though entertaining, interesting, and popular, is an insult to the original material and doesn’t deserve to carry the same title. It defeats the whole point of a remake. All it does is take the general trappings of something else and use them to create a new pile of crap.

  5. ShepRamsey Says:

    I still argue that what we’re talking about is the difference between a GOOD movie and a BAD movie. “I Am Legend” wasn’t up to the task of dealing with the themes and ideas inherent of the concept in an intelligent way and the resulting movie was simplistic and bad. Had it been a good movie made by talented people, it could’ve been interesting and different while preserving the original ideas and giving it its own spin. A great example of a totally different remake that was really good on its own merits was Zack Snyder’s remake of “Dawn of the Dead.” It didn’t really pay any mind to the satirical elements of the original or even the classic zombie mythology which Romero solidified himself (running zombies?!), but it used the idea, did its own thing, and turned out to be one of the best horror movies of the last five years. Why is it okay for “Dawn of the Dead” to be totally different from the original but not “Halloween?” And personally, (and I ought to have at least SOME supporters on this one) I think the original “Dawn” is a better movie than the original “Halloween” and in theory would deserve a more reverent adaptation. (Don’t worry, Earth, I still think “Halloween” rocks.)

  6. Will Says:

    I dont get why ur PMSing so badly dude who wrote this. The new movie looks pretty damn awesome. The Halloween series is by far the best horror series in history, however, you have to admit that some elements are getting a little bit old. I have no problem with giving Michael a new look. I also think it’s great that Rob cast Wierd Al, that’s one of the most brilliant casting jobs ever. They’re trying to make a horrifying film in a new kind of way, so get off their backs dude.

  7. Nice Quotes Says:

    Hi there, simply became alert to your weblog through Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I?m gonna watch out for brussels. I?ll be grateful in the event you proceed this in future. Lots of other people can be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!

  8. south australian football Says:

    Someone necessarily assist to make seriously articles I’d state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and to this point? I surprised with the research you made to make this particular put up extraordinary. Excellent process!

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Zombie “Isn’t thinking about Halloween at all” while making his Halloween movie. | MovieChopShop Says:

    [...] HERE to see all the videos. [...]

Leave a Reply

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Loading...