T w e n t y S i d e d

Well, let’s get this over with. And Happy New Year for those following the Gregorian Calendar. The final two movies of the original Halloween timeline are best tackled all at once, even though from some points-of-view the second movie of this trilogy, V: The Revenge of Michael Myers, is more closely related to part IV. This third second-trilogy movie, Halloween VI: The Curse of Michael Myers; kills off the main character at the beginning and retcons the series, setting up another new concept. However, the retcon (and movie, really) was so bad it seemingly killed off the franchise. Except it didn’t. In fact, there are only three years separating part VI from Halloween: H20, whereas VI was released SIX YEARS after Part V. I distinctly remember a short period of time in the early 1990’s when something along the lines of Halloween: H20 was believed to be the next Halloween movie after V. A “reset” film that followed from the first Halloween rather than continuing the Jamie Lloyd story. There’s a lot more to all of this behind the scenes rather than on the screen, so let’s learn a bit.

Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers ended with Michael being “shot to death” and little Jamie Lloyd, Laurie Strode’s orphaned daughter, taking Michael’s place by murdering her foster mother with a knife WHILE WEARING A CLOWN COSTUME…a repeat of the opening scene of the first Halloween movie. I discussed a few weeks ago that this film did marginally better than Halloween III, but for whichever reasons you want to cite this film was considered a success while III was perceived as a disappointment. And to be clear, I’m *not* complaining. I am one of the people who considers Halloween IV to be nearly on par with the first film. Regardless, Executive Producer Moustapha Akkad immediately set the release date for Halloween V in October 1989, the next year. THEN set out to try to get the movie made. Not unusual on the low-budget side of film production, but considering IV was a gamble to start with and wasn’t returning the same investment as the other leading franchises at this point, may have been putting the cart before the horse. Not that this was anything new in this franchise.

Akkad tried to hire back McElroy and Little, the team mostly responsible for Halloween IV. They both declined. McElroy and Little both felt IV was a stand-alone film. They had no fleshed-out idea to expand the story. They assumed whoever Akkad hired would go in the only direction left: explore psychologically-damaged preteen killer Jamie Lloyd in a way the franchise hadn’t with Michael. This was actually a very progressive, forward-thinking idea at the time; but not isolated. The 1980’s was proving to be an era of increased emotional and psychological understanding, although we wouldn’t see the more commonplace views of these explorations until the 1990’s and 2000’s. Moustapha Akkad hired playwright Shem Bitterman to produce a script in a very short amount of time. Bitterman returned in three days with something that reflected McElroy’s and Little’s views; but Akkad rejected this effort outright. He did not wish to pursue a sequel with a new antagonist, no matter what the setup was. He wanted Jamie Lloyd essentially returned to where she started at the beginning of Halloween IV: the target of Michael Myers. While this was going on, Akkad was trying to secure Jeff Burr to direct. Just as things seemed ready to go, Debra Hill (remember her?) recommended director Dominique Othenin-Girard to Moustapha Akkad. Akkad went with Othenin-Girard; Othenin-Girard threw out Bitterman’s rewrite and hired Robert Harders. This script was ALSO rejected. Othenin-Girard then pitched an idea along with writer Michael Jacobs, with further additions by Othenin-Girard. This final idea was accepted, although production would begin (had already begun) without a full script. Lucasfilm can tell you how that goes.

So Moustapha Akkad’s demand that Michael be the only designated villain required a retcon of Halloween IV. This was mainly accomplished by simply stating that Jamie had not killed her foster mother, only attacked her. It was agreed by every in-story expert this was no more than a trauma response. Loomis’ reaction is just…not mentioned again. Although Dr. Loomis comes off so bizarre and unhinged in this movie it’s easy to dismiss him as merely not-in-his-right-mind anymore. Looking back at the Loomis character from what he became in much later films this doesn’t feel wrong, I admit. It’s only if you follow the character forward from the first movie, where he was a calm, insightful, determined professional thwarted by a bureaucratic system that refused to accept complex, nuanced cases; that this stands out. The fifth movie functionally replays the fourth movie, while making Jamie mute from trauma. Also she apparently now has a psychic connection to Michael, who is alive, of course. He got shot into an abandoned mine, escaped out a back way before the entrance could be blown up with dynamite, and is subsequently nursed back to health FOR A YEAR by a hermit in the woods. Michael wakes up just before Halloween and returns to Haddonfield to kill Jamie. On this quest Michael kills foster sister Rachel, the protagonist of Part IV; then Rachel’s replacement, her best friend Tina, before being lured back to the “Myers House” in town by Loomis and Jamie. Loomis tranquilizes Michael, then beats him unconscious with a 2×4 before suffering a stroke and collapsing on top of Michael. The Sheriff and deputies appear and take the still-alive Michael into custody. The film ends with a mysterious man dressed in black appearing and breaking Michael out of jail. Depending on which version of the movie you watch, this man in black can be seen a few places throughout the film, observing events.

Audiences responded appropriately. Halloween V doubled it’s budget of $5.5 million, earning a bit over $11 million. This is a result that, in the 21st Century, is commonly considered “breaking even,” as the marketing budget is generally presented as equal to the production budget. Of course, that’s for mainstream productions, not low-budget films. While the Halloween franchise frequently presents itself as being of a “higher grade” than other horror series, its roots and obviously its actual production history at this point betray the lie. Halloween V was the lowest grossing, least attended, and worst-reviewed entry in franchise history. Moustapha Akkad shelved the series until a better understanding could be reached. Admirable, you might think, but Akkad felt the problem was that Halloween V was TOO DIFFERENT from Halloween IV. Remember, I noted that V largely just replayed IV; with different locations around Haddonfield. A frequently noted criticism of Part V was that the film was just a retread of the same events…it’s not just me. You could easily point out that Akkad, the prime mover of the franchise since Part II, was likely the biggest source of the series’ frequent faults. Despite his “shelving” of the series, Akkad was planning Halloween VI by 1990. The production was following very similar lines to previous pre-productions; people being hired, Akkad not liking their work and firing them, etc., when a legal war started over distribution rights. This eventually involved John Carpenter, who was once again asserting ownership rights for a distribution deal with New Line Cinema. New Line would end up fighting Miramax, who had obtained distribution rights through a purchase of Dimension Films. This put the series on hold until 1993. Miramax (who had won the legal battles) would start production for Halloween VI in late 1993, but a variety of “creative differences” would cause the dissolution or rejection of every creative effort through late 1994.

In the background, since 1990, screenwriter Daniel Farrands had been writing treatments and scripts for the next Halloween installment. He is a self-described fan of the series from the beginning, and even created a series “bible” for Akkad and other producers to use. I’ve seen this mentioned in a few places; I’ve never seen any reference to this playing any important role in decisions made. As Miramax attempted to start the project with various directors and producers, some well known or seen as rising starts, Farrands re-wrote the script based on the current most-popular ideas being thrown out. By 1994 the fundamental directive was in-place: give Michael Myers a REASON to kill, and that reason had to be supernatural in some way. Farrands would later say the film went too far, and possibly the idea was a mistake. But this also seems to have largely been out of his hands. While he had produced, he says “at least 10” different scripts between June and October 1994. significant parts of the released film were the result of re-shoots staged by the director Joe Chappelle and Dimension Films/Miramax. Moustapha Akkad notably was sidelined by this point, as well (for better or worse).

I’m not going to give you a plot summary. It’s a mess. I want to be clear and point out that I am NOT saying the film is “not enjoyable.” It’s got some fun bits, even some good bits. But, really; the movie is a mess. TLDR; as mentioned, Daniel Farrands was tasked with creating an “origin story” for Michael Myers that went beyond the established understanding. This is where the influences from Halloween 3 return. Michael Myers is supernaturally-control by the Druidic “Thorn Cult” that uses the “Thorn” symbol to drive a person to murder everyone of their bloodline *on Halloween.* Please hold all questions. You may shout them into the void after reading this post. Why? The psychiatric hospital that was holding Michael off-and-on through the years is studying pure evil in an attempt to control it and become all-powerful. Etc., etc. The Thorn Cult is “one murder away” from finishing their project, Jamie Lloyd (remember her?) escaped from them at the beginning of the movie to get her recently-born child away from the cult. While Jaime is killed (one of the best kills in the series, although that may only be a cut scene, I can’t remember) she was able to save her baby, who Thorn wants back. In the end the heroes save the day, Michael turns on the cult, and Sam Loomis may or may not be able to kill Michael off-screen. Or off-scream, as it is, you hear Loomis screaming so probably Michael killed him.

But that may not mesh with your memory. You can view original cuts of the film as special features here and there. The original edited version was test-screened in New York, if I remember correctly…and people didn’t much like it. There were even some “official” published bad reviews of the test screen, that made some important people with money mad. So Miramax ordered TWO CONCURRENT REWRITES of the script, then a production crew filmed new scenes, new versions of existing scenes, and started to film a new ending before running out of money and time. These new scenes were haphazardly cut into the film. And while the original version is dopey, boring, poorly-acted and poorly-conceived, it’s more-or-less cohesive. The new version IS NOT.

Halloween VI: The Curse of Michael Myers made about $15 million on a budget of $5 million. So that’s…better? The movie had a tremendous opening weekend, although this was likely at least partly because pre-release trailers were based on the original cut and a pre-production version of the script called Halloween 666. AND the rumors that Halloween was going to do something new connected to the original film, I bet. Theater attendance fell off quickly after that, and the critical and fan response was brutal. Even decades later the reception of Part VI is mixed. But, some of the best elements are meta-textual, and I will always point out this works in some situations but not all. Sequels, of course, bring a certain amount of dependence on prior work (as do prequels, something I think people forget). But there are elements of Farrands scripts (the parts that survived studio butchering) that depended not only on knowing all the Halloween movies, but John Carpenter’s OTHER work, for example. And I’m not talking about “references.” References are one thing; knowing what a character did in The Fog being the only way to make sense of a line that explains something in a different movie’s plot is…excessive, to put it mildly.

There were, believe it not, ideas to expand Halloween VI into Halloween VII and continue the Thorn Arc, that now seemed to be what the whole second set of movies was about. Thankfully, in my opinion, better ideas won out and the Thorn Trilogy was abandoned (at this point) forever. Although; three things. I said “better” ideas, not necessarily “good ideas.” And, arguably, you can squeeze the Thorn plot into the Rob Zombie Halloween movies. You *can.* Not saying you should. It is *not* affiliated with those films officially. Lastly, you CANNOT reconcile the mythology introduced in Halloween VI with any prior movie. Maybe Farrands did, at one point; but I doubt it. He was seemingly against the supernatural rationale for Michael, but I am assuming he got paid for all that work he did. I know some of it was just for the love of the series. Regardless, Michael Myers thus becomes the last of the three major franchise serial killers to “be supernatural/paranormal.” Even if the “Curse of Thorn” didn’t stick around, the association of franchise serial killers being “hard to kill” with “being supernatural, somehow” is thoroughly cemented by this point.

So what comes next?

Paige Francis He/him