Talk:Halloween (2007 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

What the hell?!

Excuse me, but someone has defaced the hell out of this article and no one has caught it. Particularly the "ending" listed in the "Plot" section. The "ending" described here is FAKE and ridiculous. Please, please someone else that has seen the film like I have, please vouch that this ending listed here is fake. None of that "ending" listed here, happens in this 2007 film. The ending is corrected as this: The climax of the movie does not take place on a balcony. It takes place in front of the house. The police pull up and there is a standoff between Loomis and Michaels as the police ride up. Michael listens to Loomis and releases Laurie. Then the police officers shoot him down. That is the true ending and whoever added this ridiculous ending in which Laurie has the gun and kills Loomis is FAKE and INCORRECT. Someone please add the REAL ending. UltimateZeroX 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you only saw the workprint and didn't bother to actually pay to see the film in theaters.--CyberGhostface 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about. That does not happen. The police did not shoot him down. The only other cops were the ones he killed before grabbing Laurie the first time. When he released Laurie in front of the house he goes after Loomis and kills him and then chases Laurie upstairs. After they fall over the balcony she shoots him. Sorry, I saw it with my own eyes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Theatrical release shows Laurie killing Myers by the end of the film. Nothing in the article changes.--The Scourge 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The reception section keeps changing from "poor reviews" to "mixed." Something needs to be done about the fans of this film that try to give it too much rope. I've never seen a film with so low a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes deemed as having "mixed reviews," that's a bunch of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.71.128 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, the ending described here is COMPLETELY wrong and fake. But it does sound better than how it actually ended in the film.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the 2007 Halloween and it was a compleatly different ending to the plot on this site. Myers is killed by the police. Im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.227.76 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where you guys are seeing this alternate ending, because I saw the film in theaters--the day it was released--and it had the ending that is written here. I have to assume that you guys are watching some bootleg version that was not a final cut of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The ending where the cops kill michael is the workprint version. Which is an early cut for test audiences and things like that. I assume this was Zombie's original ending, but it is not the ending of the theatrical release. So if you downloaded the movie the workprint version is likely what you saw. The ending here is correct, so until you actually pay to see the real movie quit talking out of your ass.71.51.44.120 02:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)jl

I have heard rumors that this alternate ending will come as a special feature when the film is released on DVD User: Timberwolf 8:33 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberwolf101189 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, the alternate ending is on the DVD. Its a shame, though, because having seen both (Yeah I bootlegged the film but I paid to see it in theaters as well so they didn't lose any money from me) the workprint ending and the workprint itself is much better than the theatrical cut.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we find commentary on the alternate ending, it isn't worth noting. Many films have alternate endings. If we can find critics and whatnot discussing the theatrical cut and the alternate cut, then it would be equivalent to stating what special features are on the DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Release date

Is the Halloween 9 release date October 19, 2007 PLEASE TELL ME SO , if its not than would be vandalism THANKS.

That's weird october 19 is Micheal Myers birthday. -- Metal 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

October 19th is the UK release date. August 31st is the current set release date for the USA.

IMDB

Why are we even talking about who the IMDB listed? IMDB credit listings for upcoming films are submitted by fans. I'm going to remove it as the IMDB isn't even tabloid-status, unless someone else has other evidence. Mad Jack 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

yes it is, cause rob wanted it to be on michaels 50th birthday

october 19, 1957 - present

year it will take place in

What year will the storyline take place in please tell me?

As far as I know, it will take place in 1978 just as the original.MFuture 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To those who are adding plot information and cast information

I have already warned you for vandalism. If you persist, I will have no chance but to report you.--CyberGhostface 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

some one should fix the plot section... whats up now is the entire movie verbatim... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuity crap

This is so ridiculous. Just because one movie doesn't mention the events of another doesn't mean that it's a separate continuity. OVERKILL folks. That is overkill. They all work together just fine. One continuity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.199.220 (talk • contribs)

Okay then. How do the two coexist?--CyberGhostface 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can accually peice together the new film with the second film the way it is...Watch it and you will find out.72.84.57.146 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)TheLastNightmare

No you can't... other than being a variation of the window scene, the ending is completely different. Ophois 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I went through the article and tried to clean it up the best I could, based on other FA articles. We don't list every single cast member, even if they are "famous" by some degree. If you want to have a "cameo" paragraph (paragraph, not section) under the cast list, that's fine, but we need sources to confirm who they are. The cast list that is there now is one of the individuals that are more "core" to the film. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and so listing every cast member is not necessary. That is why we have a link to IMDb.com.

I've rewritten the plot to be less "stolen" from other websites, and to be more paraphrased. I've also included information from the cast breakdown, to add a bit more for the plot. Since the synopsis isn't going to be that large until August, I've moved the production section to the top. This helps with the images that we have in the article, so that there are no gaps between areas. I've also reformatted the cast list to be more FA, and included some information about the characters. I don't have something for each character because I couldn't find sources talking about them. We need some reliable sources for the production section that talks about the casting of the principle characters. If we get enough information then we can break that into a "casting" subsection, but not until then. One of the major things I did, when I went through the production section, was remove anything that did not have a source, or was said previously. There were some things that were redundantly stated throughout the plot, and a lot of things that lacked sources. Just because the MySpace account is in the external links section doesn't mean that we don't put in-text citations. Also, we need to avoid using the MySpace profile as a source, because I also noticed that a lot of the older blogs that announced the casting of certain people have since been deleted. That would be of no use to us. I've found that many times there are sites that will report what is posted on the MySpace account, try and find those. Also, we need to avoid hearsay. Don't use sources that say something like "someone close to someone said ...", that's not reliable.

I removed that bit about the script being reviewed as the authenticity of the script is in question, as even Zombie stated that he didn't know what they were reading, but it sounded like something that was old and not even being used. Also, it isn't new to have scripts "stolen" and reviewed early. Since we cannot verify that what they read is what will be on the screen, we cannot add it. The same goes for that MTV interview where they miscontrude what Zombie said about the music. It's fan trivia, as it had to be clarified that they misunderstood him. We need to actually find sources. You cannot say something like "According to HalloweenFlash.com" and then not provide a source. We need to be able to verify that. If there wasn't a source to back it up then I removed it. If you find provide a source then we can work it back in. Also, there was a full paragraph of production information in the lead, which shouldn't have been there. The page still needs some work, and more information, but it's not due out until August 31, so we have time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just something I was wondering

Just thought you should change the plot on the Halloween remake. The character of Annie was not stabbed, she was brutally beaten and survived the movie. Keep the facts straight and stop making the page protected, when it's unprotected you get the correct info about the plot and other things. If it's left up to just one or two people, much of the infor will be incorrect.

Is there any proof of any information to be able to answer my question of: Will this film be just a remake of the the first, or will it use some elements from the second film, considering that the second is sort of a continuation, because it shows what happened that same night (unlike the other later films)? Just a question I had. Thanks for any help! --JpGrB

Not the place for such a question, as it doesn't pertain to editing the article. You could read through the article, there are interviews with Zombie in there. I'd assume it's mainly just the first film. The only thing from the second they are using is the fact that Laurie is Michael's younger sister, as this movie will make that clear from the getgo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, and thank you. I just thought I'd ask, so possibly, it could be added, but thank you. --JpGrB

I'm not sure if Rob Zombie intended for Danielle Harris' character (Annie) to survive this movie, as an homage to her survival through Halloween IV and V, but she was certainly stabbed. 17 times I believe the radio reports at the end of the movie. 76.190.164.114 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soundtrackcover.jpg

Image:Soundtrackcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Under "Plot" paragraph starting with "At the Doyle House"

Based on my personal recollection from my viewing of the film ending two hours ago, I believe the last two sentences should be revised to reflect the sheriff's stated desire to not have the baby live with the "stigma" of what her family has gone through as his motivation to drop her off at an emergency room where he states he thought "that'd be the end of it." The article currently states that the sheriff dropped the baby off at a foster home, presumably the Strode's. From my recollection of the movie, the next dialog after the sheriff states that he dropped the baby off at an ER reflects his surprise/dismay that it is another Haddonfield couple, the Strode's, that end up adopting baby Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.227.119 (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

semi-protected for 2 days

I have semi-protected this page for 48 hours due to a strong series of IP vandals attacking the page. Editing by new named accounts and IP addresses is blocked for that length of time.

If anyone strongly objects, please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page, or if I don't respond ask another administrator to review; I have no problem with it being unprotected if enoug people want it that way. Georgewilliamherbert 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lock the Page to where non users will not vandalize the page. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 02:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be either not protected, or edited for adding information about the Workprint version that wanders around the internet, which is full of major differences, including scenes that are in not in the final cut (some of the scenes of the final cut are missing too and some of them are entirely different). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.147.73 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I dont know what movie this article refers to, but it certainly isnt the 2007 remake. The end in particular is wildly inaccurate. 65.25.24.245 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What's innaccurate? Keep in mind that there are two versions of the film out, so you might be referring to a different cut.--CyberGhostface 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. i've only seen the version where Mike goes down in a hail of police gunfire after surrendering. The end as described in this article doesn't even resemble my cut.65.25.24.245 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but here in the States that ending is what happens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the plot

The plot section (as it was before trimmed) failed WP:PLOT, WP:MOS#FILM, WP:WAF and anything else you can think of that deals with this information. It fails WP:NPOV as well, because it's written in a dramaticized way. We are not here to promote films, nor to provide a substitute for watching a movie. Notice the length of the plot section for Halloween (1978 film), it's very concise and to the point. We do not need to know every last detail of the film. It's called summary style. If you find it bland, oh well, that is the point. Plots are meant to provide context for the real world content of the article, not to entise a reader to go watch the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The plot area seriously needs to be trimmed down to a plot. A plot is a short summary or idea about the movie. It is sad to come to a wiki to read a plot to see if I would like to see or read something and end up reading the entire film or book. Can we please trim it down to an actual plot? --Charles-Joseph 02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse synopsis with plot. Synopsis wouldn't have any spoilers and be more than a general overview, whereas an actual plot description would be a little more detailed. Trust me, this baby is a dream compared to most others. See WP:MOSFILMS for a guideline on the size of a plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

Sorry, bignole, but the plot summary you restored, I deleted for a reason: It's terribly written. I think it's much easier to have a plot summary that's too long, and clip off irrelevant information, than to have a plot summary that is just plain mish mash. Some examples:

Ten-year-old Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) is tormented by his family, and school bullies, as well as showing an interest in masks and killing animals.

If we're going to keep this--which I advise against, as it's a lousy way to segue into a plot--it should read:

Ten-year-old Michael Myers is tormented by his family and school bullies, and shows an interest in masks and killing animals.

or

Ten-year-old Michael Myers is tormented by his family and school bullies. He also shows an interest in masks and killing animals.

In either instance, the thougths behind the sentences, albeit relevant, are poorly constructed.

He is characterized by Dr. Samuel J. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), a child psychologist, as showing "warning signs"

Warning signs of what? Loomis makes it clear in the movie that he fears Michael is a psychopath. Here, the reader is left with no clue, as warning signs are included in a cryptic set of quotation marks that abruptly close the first part of the sentence.

That Halloween night, when his mother goes to work, Michael murders his mother's boyfriend (William Forsythe), his sister Judith (Hanna R. Hall), and her boyfriend.

Here we run into the problem that the reader has not been informed that everything is happening within a 24 hour time-frame. Suddenly interjecting "that Halloween" 1) Does not work because no prior point of reference has been included and 2) Is so vague that it leaves open for interpretation by the reader that an indeterminate period of time has passed from an unlabeled point A to Halloween, point B. It needs to be established that Michael is introduced to us and committs his murders within a single day.

Michael is convicted of first degree murder and taken to Smith's Grove Sanitarium, where he is placed under the supervision of Dr. Loomis.

At this point I must interject that no mention has been made of Michael's baby sister, or the fact that he spares her from his killing spree when he had her at his mercy. Not knowing this piece of information makes large portions of the summary to come largely irrelevant.

For the first eleven months, Michael cooperates with Dr. Loomis, claiming no memory of killing anyone. His mother Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie) visits him regularly, where he shows her the masks he has been creating.

The part about the masks lacks context. What masks? If we are going to leave it vague, we must remove 'the,' as it implies there are specific masks that the reader should know about. To make it correct it should read:

...shows her masks he has been creating.

Moving on:

Upon some advice from an orderly, Michael closes himself off, and does not speak to anyone.

"Closes himself off" is incredibly vague and has no context whatsoever. To someone unfamilair with the expression, "closes himself off" and "does not speak to anyone" can be two entirely different sets of behavior referred to within the same sentence.

After an incident where Michael attacks and kills a nurse, Deborah Myers, unable to cope with all the tragedy, takes her own life; her infant daughter is put up for adoption.

The proper phrase here is "in which Michael..." not "where Michael." "Where" is used to denote a physical or theoretical location, not an incident.

For the next fifteen years, Michael (Tyler Mane) continues making his masks and not speaking to anyone. Dr. Loomis' experience with Michael allows him to write a book, and give seminars on what he deems as the look of a true psychopath.

"Loomis' experience" indicates that Loomis only encountered Michael once or had one impacting experience with him, which is inaccurate. It should be "experiences." The tidbit about his seminars also indicates that Loomis is purely fascinated with Michael's aesthetics; while the segment of Loomis' seminar does focus on Michael's eyes, the title of his book and his conversations with the Sheriff indicate that Loomis, a psychologist, of course has more than an interest in Michael's facial features.

On the eve of Halloween, Michael was to be transferred to a more maximum security prison room. While being transferred, he breaks free of the chains and handcuffs that were holding him against his will and kills the guards and managers, escaping.

We suddenly encounter a tense shift. Now we're in the past, with "was." In addition, stating that Michael is being held against his will by handcuffs is completely redundant.

I could go on, but I hope I have demonstrated my point. Timmybiscool 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bignole

I do not wish to engage in a revert war or have to appeal to "higher powers." If you like, simply go through the "too long" version and clip out what you deem irrelevant. It is far easier than having to completely re-word the above version and correct all of its terrible grammar and other errors.Timmybiscool 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about you take your own advice. How about clarifying things, instead of reverting to a poorly written, extended version. "It is Halloween", gee thanks for that 1st grade sentence. Ten year old Michael Myers begins his day by vivisecting his beloved pet rat and wandering his house in the clown mask he intends to wear trick-or-treating that night - easily summarized by saying "he tortures animals", the details are irrelevant. How about you try explaining things that need explaining and leaving the excessive, irrelevant details out. I already trimmed it, I should not have to do so a second time because you are too lazy to go in an clarify things that you think need clarifying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are getting unecessarily rude about this and seriously tempting me to contact a Wikipedia mod. I am trying to be civil. Please explain how my version is poorly written. I did that task with the version you insist upon keeping. If you are so adamant to keep it, at least try to correct all of the errors I pointed out above. "It is Halloween" is not a "first grade sentence," it is a simple sentence that provides context for the time span of the opening of the movie, a context that is sorely missing in that version you insist upon restoring.Timmybiscool 01:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Be nice, Bignole. Timmybiscool, the article could be summarised better. I know it's difficult to remove information which you believe is important or entertaining, but Wikipedia is not a substitute for actually watching the film. Simply include the bare bones of the plot, enough to provide context for the out-of-universe information which should provide the bulk of the article. Paul730 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ending of the movie

Just a question. I may be wrong, but when I watched the movie I left with the impression that Michael had grabbed Laurie's gun (rather than her wrist) while she was sitting on him, pulling the trigger himself in a suicidal fashion. Don't know if anyone else agrees, but it would have been a great ending. Maybe someone with a bootleg copy can shed some light on this. 76.190.164.114 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This could be. I was also under the impression that Dr. Loomis didn't indeed die. When I saw the movie, I knew that Malcolm McDowell had already signed on for two more potential sequels, so I made sure to watch his 'death' scene very closely. There was blood, but not that much. I feel as though maybe Loomis was knocked unconscious by the pressure of Michael's hands. Just my personal thoughts on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.247.167 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys/gals, this isn't a forum. Let's keep the discussions to the improvement of the article. If you'd like to discuss the film on general terms I'd suggest going to a forum like IMDb or another similar site. You could both also register here and carry on the conversation on your user talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The version of the movie I've seen, Loomis convinces Michael to let the girl go and then the cops shoot him until he's dead. 80.229.169.189 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that I have never read any news reports that there are two versions floating around I would have to say that you didn't view a theatrical release but possibly some bootleg version that was not the final cut.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He has seen the so called infamous "Workprint" version of the film which to me is a lot better than the theatrical version. There are according to www.halloweenmovies.com, two different versions of this film. One is more violent than the other. It includes a rape scene, gorrier death sequences, a different better ending, and more details involving Michael in the sanitarium. I hope both versions make it to DVD this Dec. --Charles-Joseph 02:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

the end where michael is convinced by dr loomis to let laurie go is indeed available in some bootleg copies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Shedding some light on the plot confustion...

The ending of the movie where Michael is shot in the head by his sister is the one that appears in theaters, and should be considered the final cut. However, in the weeks before the film's theatrical release, an internal workprint was leaked onto the web, with several changes including an entirely new ending.

In this preliminary version, Michael appears and pulls Laurie from the car a few minutes after Michael gets shot three times by Loomis. At that moment, the police arrive in force. Michael drags Laurie to the walkway in front of the house, until Loomis convinces him to stop. Michael is holding the knife and Laurie, and Loomis is attemping to talk Michael out of killing her. Loomis says that he is the one that deserves to die, because he "Failed you, Michael". Michael drops the knife and lets Laurie go. Loomis walks Laurie away from Michael toward the police cars. At this point, Michael is a few feet behind them and slightly out of focus. It appears that he may have moved forward slightly after them (hard to tell the way the shot was, but I assume something must have provoked the next action). After he moves, the police simultaneously beging emptying thier guns into Michael. So Michael is gunned down, Loomis and Laurie both live. The video ends with the audio of Loomis's initial interview with young Michael, where the boy inquires about Loomis's accent, and Loomis sort of laughts off the question. In the new context of the final scene, this suggests that Loomis may have prevented everything my being more receptive to Michael's question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.65.29 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception

The critical reception of this movie was poor and some fanboys apparently want to gloss this over. According to rottentomatoes it received 22% positive reviews which means almost 8 out of every 10 reviews for this film were negative. JpGrB made the unintentionally comedic statement about the section of "too bad it's not just talking about rotten tomatoes" which makes it sound like rt is one opinion. Rottentomatoes is the best source we have for giving an overview of critical reception of a movie and this movie clearly had a poor critical reception. Pointing out that it received some or any positive reviews does not change this. 72.64.165.157 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the perfect solution, remove it entirely. We don't need to qualify information that readers can do for themselves. If a film has a 22% approval rating, then it should be obvious that critics didn't like it, and there's no reason to restate the obvious.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done.--CyberGhostface 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I never even thought of that. 72.64.165.157 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No biggy (pardon the pun on my name). Most of the time the best ideas come from group thinktanks. You say "this doesn't work," and it triggers in the mind of someone else a new idea.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly enough, this film did not do too well in my town. I went and seen it on opening night, and there were a lot of hardcore Halloween movie fans there at the taping. Even one of course you guessed it, dressed up like the Shape himself. I guess every town has a guy like that. When I went in to see it, I knew I was in for a totally different film in a way and that's how I went in to see it. Then while attempting to watch it, I found myself falling to sleep, and being startled by some people walking out of the theatre even the guy dressed up as Myers. When I saw this I at least had to ask him why he was leaving and his quote: "This piece of **** is what Rob Zombie gives us isn't worth being called Halloween. I'd rather be watching Halloween III than this." He did have a point too. Only the first half of the film was interesting. Too many of the same actors being used over and over by the same writer/director gets old fast. What really killed it was the second half. Perhaps being left as a prequel would have saved it?--Charles-Joseph 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the guy dressed up to see the movie (as stated by person above) it must have been the most dissapointing hour of his life. i hated the remake and i hate zombie for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.104.48 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding an Alternate Ending

Since the bootlegged version definitely exists, would anyone be opposed to simply adding a subsection for it under plot? I think this talk page shows it is notable and common enough to warrant mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capi crimm (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's an illegal copy of a film that was not distributed. There is no press for this film, thus there is no notability for said film. This talk page shows a bunch of IP address (which we cannot verify if they aren't all the same person) talking about a film they stole (which wasn't even the real film). Also, a dozen people talking about a film hardly qualifies as anything. It isn't an alternate ending to the movie, it was a reshot ending to the movie. What you need to do is find reliable sources discussing why he reshot the ending, and then you can put that in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. It isn't very notable at the current state. If it released on the DVD extras or something like that, it would be notable.JpGrB 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[Small spoiler regarding Workprint Version] I aree with Bignole as well. I've seen this version and to me it is far better, and I believe it almost seems like it could be passed off or attempted to be passed off almost like an unrated version of the film. One of the main reasons is the big "rape" scene in the asylum. Anyway, a lot of people over at www.halloweenmovies.com message board have also been discussing this issue as well. From what they have said, it was a Workprint of the film that was purposely leaked over the internet to get more attention on the film. Weather or not that is the case is yet to be determined. Perhaps we'll be able to see it when it hits the stores apparently on December 18th of this year. Until then, I do agree with Bignole on his statement above though. --Charles-Joseph 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast list

Is this really necessary? Anyone important is mentioned in the plot summary, and we have a link to IMDb if people want a full list. What's our reason for keeping it here? Paul730 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've contemplated removing it. It's grown to basically look like an IMDb list. I think people just got mentioned because of the fact that they were in other Zombie movies, and not because they had significant roles. Plus, it appears to be just a breeding ground for lots of IU information; there doesn't appear to be any true casting info. I'd support its removal. The actors and characters are already mentioned in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote to remove it. These lists are kinda pointless; they don't tell us anything the plot summary can't. I mean, is listing the guy who played "security guard #3" or whatever really encyclopedic? Afterall, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If actual information on casting does crop up, I'd gladly have a "casting" section, but not as it currently stands. Paul730 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to remove a cast list if there's a link to IMDb and all cast members are mentioned in the plot summary...it just seems like a repetitive waste of space. Oh, and something else about the cast; I added a Calico Cooper reference to the DVD Release section. She was in a deleted scene that got cut.Long Away May (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot is way off.

The whole thing that Michael Myers, Laurie the knocking into the railing ending is way off (like person saying that the closest plant to earth is Pluto). Dr Loomis does not get kill. For any body who watch the movie knows that both Dr. Loomis and Laurie live and Michael get killed by police.

Someone is not getting there facts right. SO please grab the Rob Zombie's Halloween and watch the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin001001 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok people, how about we act like law abiding citizens and actually watch a legal copy of the movie. Please read the discussions that take place above. What you saw was a workprint version of the movie, not a final cut. It was equivalent to a test screening, except someone stole it and leaked it on the internet. What is in this plot section is exactly what appeared in the theaters, I'd know because I paid to see it myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrated DVD version

I just picked up my copy of the unrated version, and it came as a two-pack with another film called Partyline. I'm contemplating as to whether or not add this tidbit to the DVD section since there's no article on it here on Wiki, and there's nothing in the IMDB database. Has anyone even heard of this film?--The Scourge (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The film the article is about is the only film that gets free plot publishing, anything else really needs third-part sources covering the topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wait. You sort of lost me here. Are you talking about Halloween, or Partyline? Because there isn't an article for Partyline, from what I can tell.--The Scourge (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which means that it probably is nothing more than a short for the DVD. I would try and find a third-party source describing it. It doesn't really seem all that noteworthy. It's like saying "there are behind the scenes documentaries", which aren't that relevant to the article itself, unless there was some context behind it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I figured it had some credibility since it was rated R. Plus, it seems a little too long for a short film (91 Mins.). It's probably just me.--The Scourge (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be an interesting addition, if someone writes about it. I mean, you could end up with a mini-film article in this article. I just don't think simply stating what the plot of the film is does for this article, since apparently no one has heard of the film--short of it being released with this unrated movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the extra DVD that comes with the Unrated Director's Cut varies as I got Pulse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.179.191 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

Okay, this just popped up onto comingsoon.net: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=8288 It says there will be a sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween, so maybe we should put some info in the page about this. 24.76.185.79 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hearsay, they are reporting on what other people are saying, which is itself based on a scooper that "talked" to Akkad. Let's wait for official announcements. Even when that does occur, that information will be best placed on the franchise article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Akkads' saying that the film is going from direct to dvd to theaters. It's on Google news. It's on a few more websites now.--VampireKen (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also been officially announced. It was announced at the 30 years of terror convention.--VampireKen (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)