Daniel Farrands' Halloween 6 script
Marytylermorbid
I'm so sick and tired of hearing people blather on and on about how it was
Joe Chapelle who ruined this movie. Sure, Chapelle is a hack filmmaker at
best. But when you're working from the mess that Farrands created on paper,
what are you supposed to do? I don't even think Scorcese could have done
anything with the piece of shit script. Every time I read something about H6 --
whether it be in Fango, or in smaller press -- the constant scentiment is "poor
Daniel Farrands. He's had his vision tarnished by the big studio." Bullshit.
Farrands script was trite. Read it and see for yourself. I welcome all
opinions. You can find it at http://www.angelfire.com/il/haddonfield
WideScreenPig
writ thusly:
I think Dan did a very good job, all things considered. With five
films worth of baggage, and no time at all to write, he made a genuine
attempt at exploring the many tantalizing threads that the other films
had created (in some cases all-but-accidentally) and not utilized.
Those who complain that the Druid angle is inappropriate would be
advised to check both HALLOWEEN II and, more crucially, the intriguing
prologue in Curtis Richards' (Dennis Etchison's) novelization of the
first film, to fully appreciate his embellishments.
More importantly, he took Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis seriously, he
logically extrapolated their lives (and the psyche of the town of
Haddonfield) from what had come before. He cleverly incorporated old
characters (the still-traumatized Tommy Doyle, Dr. Wynn--whose
attempts to dissuade Loomis from finding Myers in the first film take
on more sinister dimensions when viewed in retrospect, and Jamie Lloyd
from 4 & 5) and new ones with interesting "real-life" problems (again,
shades of the original) as opposed to the paper targets of II, 4 and
5, all the time laying in plot threads that lead inexorably back to
the events of the first film And he took it (gasp!) _seriously_. He
could easily have dashed off a quickie slasher script and suffered
nothing for it (a la HALLOWEEN 8 - MICHAELMYERS.COM, a three-day
wonder if ever there was one) - it's was the fifth sequel to a
flagging franchise, who would care?
The answer is: Dan cared. He has a deep, abiding love and respect for
both HALLOWEEN and its fans, which is more than can be said for most
of the people responsible for making it. As Phil Nutman correctly
noted in his afterword to the HALLOWEEN comic released last year, you
won't find a bigger fan of the first film than Dan, and you certainly
won't find anyone more knowledgeable about it.
The fact of the matter is that HALLOWEEN 6 WAS trashed by the studio
that released it. The needless reshooting/recutting of that film by
Chapelle and Dismension/Miramouse is one of the most heinous examples
of executive level tampering in the history of genre movies. It's all
a matter of record; the complaints you've read in various magazines
over the years are entirely legitimate.
Dan would be the first guy to tell you that his original script wasn't
perfect, but he did the best damn job he could under the
circumstances, and both his script and the original cut of H6 are far,
far better than they have any right to be.
But thank you for your comments. Now that we've suffered the slings
and arrows of SCREAM, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, THE FACULTY,
URBAN LEGEND, VALENTINE and the endless hordes of Gap-ads-with-killers
we've been subjected to, it's good to know that people have the spare
time to tell us how bad scripts were for genre sequels written more
than half a decade ago.
__________________________________________
WideScreenPig
"Oh my GAAD! Thass TERR-ee-BULL!"
- Stefania Stella
For Immediate Emergency Ironic Assistance
Dial 1-800-WIDESCREENPIG-IS-AN-ASSHOLE
Operators Are Standing By.
ZoulonFire
>advised to check both HALLOWEEN II
care to share a bit more info? im sorry, but i must have seen H2 a dozen times
and havent detected any really references to the "druid" angle of the later
movies.
A
WideScreenPig
thusly:
Halfway through the film, Doctor Loomis enters the Haddonfield school,
after it's discovered that Michael has broken in and painted to word
SAMHAIN on the wall, a reference to the Celtic festival of the dead,
whose rituals formed much of the basis for what we now call Halloween.
Carpenter threw it in as just one more element in his "I don't care
just gimme the money" hodgepodge script; as with the revelation that
Laurie is Michael's sister, nothing is done with the information, but
Dan picked it up and ran with it.
Monster-Mania
thought out and written, clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the
sequels. Dan really did care about putting together a quality sequel and I
salute him for trying to do so. I'm still hoping that at some point his
version of the movie will come out in DVD.
--
Monster-Mania
www.monstermania.net
Flack
> Actually I found the Daniel Farrand's original script to be extremely well
> thought out and written, clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the
> sequels. Dan really did care about putting together a quality sequel and I
> salute him for trying to do so. I'm still hoping that at some point his
> version of the movie will come out in DVD.
I thought the script was A-OK and creative. Not saying I LIKED it or
am happy with it but the issue at hand here is was it good. It was a
"new" story. A "new" idea. I suppose they needed that. I mean, he
can't keep coming back from the dead. And Yes, in HALLOWEN 2, loomis
speaks of druid priests. Samhain, lord of the dead... etc etc...
Watch it again..... "...they see omens....." etc etc
Flack