OK, so where's the extended edition? I know they say they included the extra scenes from the extended edition, but there is no second disc that contains the full television version all together? If not, no sale. Why waste money on this when they will invariably release a future blu-ray release that has the extended edition in its entirety? I still have my limited edition collection DVD that has one disc of the original version and one disc with the extended edition, and I am not unsatisfied with that. Does anyone else agree that it seems they are ripping people off on this release? And does anyone else think that at some point they are inevitably going to release them all in one definitive box set? I know I do.
Don't get me started on being ripped off. I am still recovering from what they did with the Halloween 4 Blue Ray, which was promoted as having a HALF HOUR of 'never before seen' footage.
Suffice it to say, it did not.
As for this one, like yourself, I'll most likely pass. I'm not sure how you feel about the 'tv' version, but I actually much prefer it to the standard version. In fact, for me, the extended version IS Halloween.
I suppose that's because most of the added footage features Dr. Loomis, and he's my favorite fictional character. Plus, most of the added scenes take place near the beginning, so the timing for the second half of the film is not really affected.
I fully intend to not buy it if it has nothing really good to justify that elaborate price. Why would I want to pay for basically the same disc as is available now just dressed up differently and with a couple of added gimmicks? I want to know it this is going to actually include the version I consider to be the real version of Halloween: the extended television version.
Agreed on all counts. Glad to see I am not the only person that believes all those things, because from what I can see, this version still is not the definitive blu ray version of the film I am on the lookout for if it does not have the television version, which I agree is the real version and for the same reasons as you.
Yeah, the only rational argument I've ever heard against the tv version was that it threw off the film's pace and timing. I might have agreed if the added scenes interfered with the final 30-35 minutes. But they were mostly right at the beginning, and one maybe bordering on the middle, so I have never perceived them as being a problem. But pace aside, I see them as an incredible addition, in terms of sheer content.
I think that Loomis' address to the psychiatric board is one of the finest scenes of Donald Pleasences's career. Very nearly on the level of his famous 'purely and simply evil' soliloquy later on at the Myer's house.
I have seen other films 'modified' for tv, with dismal results. But Halloween is one film that I MUCH prefer this way. Those added scenes really offer insight into Loomis. Like when he visits Michael's room, and stands there looking at him. Even though he is a grown man, and Michael still a child, you get the feeling that it takes actual COURAGE for him to be alone in that room with him, knowing what he seems to have already intuited about the boy, even at this early juncture. An incredibly tense scene, when you consider that it's basically just a man and a boy in a room, and nothing actually transpires.
I've seen entire MOVIES that couldn't conjure up the kind of dread and tension that were present in that one, minor, brief scene.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I may watch the original Halloween on TV, but if I get out the DVD, it is always the extended version. Not the TV version with all the cuts to the actual movie, but the extended version with the scenes shot for the TV version included with the original R rated movie version. I'm still furious that the Halloween II Blu ray has the TV version with all the dumb cuts in it. Plus it is a terrible full screen horror.
I agree with both of you, G. Garner and David Kahoun. It is true that the television version of Halloween was actually done well and did nothing to really upset the pace of the film. Meanwhile, they butchered the Halloween II television version unfortunately. I was very disappointed with it. I too was infuriated by this.
And yes, the best thing about the Halloween television version is more of Loomis, who was one of the most consequential characters to have ever been created besides Michael Myers himself.
I recall seeing a version of Halloween 2 on tv, but I'm not sure it's the one you guys are referring to. For all I know, there may be more than one version.
I was not impressed with Halloween 2 as I saw it on tv. I recall one GLARINGLY poor choice. The part where the security guard gets killed has always struck me as the quintessential slasher film murder. It's dark, and creepy, and the guy is completely isolated.
You know what's going to happen. You just don't know when, or how.
In the original version of Halloween 2, this is one of the finest stalking sequences I've ever seen.
But in the version I saw for television, rather than watching the security guard, they kept cutting back and forth between him and Myers. They kept showing all these quick cuts of Michael walking around!! As if he were someplace else in the hospital, and just made a special trip to the tool shed just to kill the guard.
As opposed to the classic original version, where Michael just suddenly appears and brutally dispatches the guy. I really don't know why they chose to change that.
Or the beginning, for that matter. I always loved the pre-title sequence with Loomis, and his yelling to the neighbor,'You don't know what death is!!' But this, too, they chose to rearrange, and placed it after the opening music and credits.
It's odd, but I can't picture the first one without the tv version. But I was never fond of the tv edition of Halloween 2. However, as I said, what I saw may not have been the identical version to which you guys refer.
No, that's the Halloween II TV version I know. Really bad at the end when Loomis and Laurie are turning on the gas, it goes back and forth with them and Jimmy walking the halls and when the explosion happens it is like Jimmy is blown back by that instead of falling in Mrs. Alves' blood. It is like he falls and it is his blood that splatters. That opening irritates me too, when in the original the neighbor guy says "I've been trick or treated to death" but in the TV one he says "Is this a Halloween joke?" But I do like the extra ending with Laurie in the ambulance when The Shape sits up, but then it is Jimmy and she says "We made it" it just doesn't seem complete until I see that one scene.
Why are 3 measly unimportant scenes so important to you guys? And yes, they do bog the film down. In the scene where Loomis talks to the hospital staff concerning his treatment and moving him they call him "Michael Audrey Myers" and "Michael Morgan Myers" in one breath. The scene with Lynda going to Laurie's house was filler. Laurie's friends are not supposed to know that Michael is stalking them the "shape" is only to be scene by Laurie, she's supposed to be the one that has the knowledge to know something isn't right. Annie didn't, why did Lynda, the clueless one, find out? Also, look at door and the windows next to it, which looks far different from the exterior that we see Laurie leaving earlier for school and when she leaves for Annie to pick her up. When Halloween was sold to NBC in 1980 Debra Hill flew to NYC to argue with the execs about not cutting the film for the tv premiere and of course out of necessity got Carpenter back to direct those scenes to be included to fill the 2 hour time slot and to make up for what was cut. So they were in essence forced upon them. The fact that they're even included in this new Blu-ray release should be enough to make you guys happy. Why waste time and effort in releasing another "extended" edition when that's not the preferred cut of the film that the director and producers wanted? I understand that's how some of you watched this movie originally but the DVD is out there for you, get it. I don't see them going to all the trouble of re-inserting these scenes and releasing it on Blu-ray or including a "tv version" in with a new release. And if these scenes are in HD than you have your wish. Just go to the "deleted scenes" portion of the Blu-ray when you know those scenes would've come up. I don't know what to tell you guys but the tv version is crap. I could understand the demand for the tv version of part 2 because it's much different and if you read the script it's a close to Rosenthal's version as we'll ever get the only notable difference is no reporter's death and putting the opening credits in order after Loomis says "you don't know what death is". It's 3 scenes guys and they're as unimportant as gum on the sidewalk.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. For me, they are of the UTMOST importance.
I have already made clear why I love those scenes so much-and, actually, it's 4 scenes-so I won't rehash all of that. But I can address a couple of your points.
If minor technical problems bother you that much, how could you even like the movie in the first place? What about that massive pile of cables CLEARLY VISIBLE on the Myer's porch at the beginning of the movie? That's a lot more serious mistake than anything you cite.
As to the content of the scene with the girls, I don't get your point. Neither of her friends had read anything sinister into the situation. They still thought it was some guy from their high school. Only Laurie seems concerned.
Just like when the car goes by, and screeches to a halt........how is this scene any different from that one?
No, that scene doesn't really add anything...... but I don't see how the film loses anything by that moment, either.
As I already pointed out, there were actually 4 separate added scenes. I just referenced one of them. The others were (1)Loomis addresses board (2)Loomis and Michael in hospital room (3)Loomis goes back to Michael's room the morning AFTER the escape.
Each of these moments with Loomis add something to the film. His address to the board is a masterful, brilliant scene. The moment with Michael alone in his room is very strong, as well. And his examination of the room the morning after is quite good. In this scene, we see Loomis as the staff see him on a daily basis. Very strong, very stern, every inch the authority figure.
So later on, when we see some of his emotion come to the surface, it makes it all the more clear just how powerful his obsession over Myers is.
As for the director's preference......I would never place John Carpenter's preferences ahead of my own. As I recall, he wanted to make a sequel in which Michael gets shot into space, so his opinion is far from infallible.
They're not important at all and add nothing to the story that we needed an explanation for. We knew Michael was being moved and Loomis was peeved about in the scene with nurse Marion in the car. We didn't need him going into his "evil" diatribe more than once.
I never noticed that "technical problem" it's pretty obvious though, when Laurie leaves a home with different siding and no windows near the door in the beginning of the movie than in the tv scene. Not only that but curtains too? That's a bit too much.
The difference is, when all 3 of them see him they think it's some guy from school "Devon Grand" (however you say his name) but Lynda freaking out as if she knows something when it's only Laurie that should be spooked is the problem. It loses its effectiveness and is pointless. Laurie's supposed to be the only one to see him when alone. Annie and Lynda only saw him once before they meet their demise and he was far away in a station wagon. I'm not even sure if they got a good look at him when they were killed I know Lynda didn't and it was dark and in a garage so I'm sure Annie couldn't quite make him out either. The scene in Michael's room takes place right after the board scene so it's in fact one large scene for me. And it does nothing. Do we need to see the aftermath to know he escaped? We just saw it. And "sister"? We know he killed his sister. We don't need a reminder.
His address to the board is no more or less than the way he talks to Brackett about Myers or the way he talks to Hunt or anyone else who will listen to him in Part 2. We didn't need that long diatribe more than once like I said up above. We see plenty of Loomis' emotion later on in the film.
Yeah, John Carpenter can come up with some wacky ideas but at least they're his! If he doesn't prefer the tv cut than he doesn't prefer it. I'm a purist if scenes were filmed years later or after the initial release of a film than to me they're really not part of it and have no place alongside the director's intended cut. That's just messing with art.
When she came inside, she was not afraid. She was excited, much the way that teen girls are prone to get excited over trivial matters.
And it's really hard to miss that tangled mass of cables on the porch.
As to whether or not Loomis' extra scenes add anything to the film......you can make a list of all kinds of stuff that don't alter the plot, but still add overwhelmingly to the film. Look at the musical score. Obviously, music does nothing to affect the story. But you don't have the same film without it.
Likewise, they could have chosen to feature a typical, monosyllabic hero in this film.......but that could never have measured up to Loomis. A hero who is the flipside to the monster he is hunting. Loomis is absolutely obsessive and iron-willed, in his own way seeming as comfortable in the shadows as Myers himself. He dominates each and every scene he is in.
Leaves falling in the light autumn wind. A solitary jack o'lantern on the porch. The macabre sight of all those escaped mental patients, in their white gowns, roaming the horizon like dangerous animals.
You can point to one thing after another that are not necessary...... yet they still add immeasureably to Halloween.
There are always guys like you around, who derive some odd satisfaction from claiming that what they like is the 'valid' version. And trying to harass and criticize anybody who deviates outside of their own narrow dimensions. And these guys take it hard when they come across somebody who cannot be bullied.
But no man tells me what to like. I am perfectly capable of deciding that for myself.
She was anxious for Laurie to open the door because she was freaked out because Michael was following her.
Well, I've always missed it up until you mentioned it nor do I really look for mistakes but that scene with Laurie and Lynda was downright distracting. It wasn't needed. What's so exciting about teen girls borrowing each other's clothes? What did that scene add to the story?
The tv scenes, from what I remember don't have any music at all. These scenes were filled AFTER and that knowledge alone renders them useless.
I'm not saying Loomis wasn't an important character, he was, but all I saw was over-acting in those scenes.
The part with the patients walking around and with that music lets us, the viewer, know that all the patients are out and if they're out then MICHAEL has to be around there somewhere and he sure the hell was!
I get no satisfaction out of this I'm just tired of the belly-aching over 3 scenes that weren't part of the film until 2 years after it was released. Having those scenes doesn't make it "uncut" or "unrated" just extended, 11 pointless minutes that don't carry or advance the film at all. Carpenter and Hill didn't like these scenes. You guys are the ones who are stamping your feet and holding off on purchasing this and complaining because your 3 precious scenes won't be re-inserted when 99% of the fan base couldn't give a Shepard's pie about those scenes. I'm not trying to bully anyone just look at what was written here. You guys are very defensive about this. The OP even refusing to buy it because of 3 scenes that weren't apart of John Carpenter's original cut and by demanding these scenes you're basically saying "I don't care about your work, your art, I can't appreciate it the way you intended for me to appreciate it" and that royally sucks. I don't know who the bully is but I can tell you that my original post here got a negative vote and I can only guess it wasn't from the 3 previous posters. I love this film it's my favorite film of all time, I own it on every format ever released, I met Jamie Lee Curtis last year, I've engaged in conversation on the net with some of the players in this movie but as far as I'm concerned I don't feel like I'm a bigger or better fan than anybody nor would I ever try to bully anyone and I don't appreciate the accusation to be quite honest. My original post may have come across a little harsh but I'm trying to tell you that these scenes don't matter. The important thing is that we get a good transfer of the widely acknowledged and preferred version and that my friend isn't the extended cut. It's the same thing with The Exorcist the "extended Director's Cut" is a fallacy. The theatrical cut is what Friedkin prefers!
Wow, I think everybody needs to just take a breath and calm down a little. Here is my take on this subject. I like extra scenes put into the movie. That is just my opinion. I'm fine with the original movie and actually love it, but since I have seen the movie with the extra scenes, to watch the original just seems like something is missing now. I can watch a movie on TV with no problems, but if I sit down to watch a DVD/Blu ray, I will pick the movie with the extra scenes included in the movie. That's just my opinion, it just works for me. There are other movies I feel the same way about. Like the previous poster added The Exorcist. I prefer the "extended Director's Cut", or all the Alien movies, I want the ones with the extra scenes. 1976's King Kong. Saw it at the theater when I was 10 years old and loved it. Saw it on TV with an extra half hour of footage and now the regular DVD seems incomplete. Even a movie like Foul Play that had a few minor scenes added in when it debuted on TV now seems like something is missing. I just think if it is a movie that I love, an extra scene here and there just adds to the enjoyment of an already wonderful viewing experience. Just more of a movie I love. Again, just my opinion about what works for me.
One other movie that they added a scene for TV was The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. There is a whole song sung by Burt Reynolds that is shown on TV, but is nowhere to be found on the DVD, not even as an extra. Sure, it's not a great song and Reynolds is no singer, but now that I've heard it, it just seems like it is missing.
To which I would respond, acknowledged and preferred...... BY WHOM?
My standard is what I prefer. That is the conversation. Why would any human being care what anyone thinks about a subject that is a matter of taste and preference?
There is only one reason. Because pretentious people always wish to portray themselves as superior. Now, how do you go about PROVING such a thing?After all, if you admit that it's just a matter of preference, then we can all say our opinion is as good as anyone else's. It's not like the world of sports, or business, where you can measure success and failure. With art, of what precisely would a measurement consist?
Hmmmmm........what to do?
That's why guys like you adore the proposition of having something that you think is the way the film was SUPPOSED to be seen. Fulfilling the director's vision........seeing it the way it was MEANT to be seen.
You never hear such sentiments from anyone other than pretentious types. Because there's no reason to consider such things unless you are propping up an image you wish to project.
For a human being to love something.....and then to deny that, because of some misplaced concern over how that will be perceived........for me, that is about as degraded as a person can get. From the standpoint of morality, or just self-respect......how much lower can a man sink?
But it's getting more and more common. That's why guys like you usually get the run of forums like this. A surprising number of people are intimidated by pretentious people.
Gee, I don't know, Carpenter and Hill who made the film should be the utmost important factor. And film historians don't refer to the extended cut as the movie to watch and the majority of the fan base prefers the theatrical cut. Your complaints are falling on deaf ears.
To be honest I really don't care but since I'm bored, a Halloween fan, and you started the discussion I decided to give my two cents after all Amazon forums aren't the only place where I've seen this complaint. I'm entitled to my opinion, God Bless America! Are you trying to say the only opinions that matter are the ones that mirror yours? If so than that's not really a discussion is it? It's about as pointless as the tv scenes.
You're calling me pretentious because I don't prefer the extended version? I'm just trying to tell you why you'll probably never get this version on Blu-ray and why there's not a vested interest by Anchor Bay to include them as a part of a Blu-ray or as its own separate Blu-ray. Amy Heckerling who directed Fast Times At Ridgemont High hates the tv cut of her film and it annoys her to even talk about it. Why? Because the version she shot is the version she prefers and considers canon. And what do I have to prove to you? That I met Jamie Lee and that I have talked to some of the people who made this movie? I do have pics of the book that Jamie signed, I have no reason to lie and especially to strangers. If you want pics I can provide them it's no problem. After all she did go to Horrorhound in November 2012 and she did promote her children's book last year that I bought that she signed at a book signing. I'm not the only fan who's met her and key people so what would I get out of feeding you a line of bull?
I don't have or adore having a proposition of any sorts. CARPENTER and HILL hated the tv cut!! The version that they filmed in 1978 is the version they released to the world to see! What don't you understand? Where do I become the "pretentious" one because of facts? The truth hurts I guess.
You can call me any names you want but the facts remain if Carpenter and Hill wanted these scenes in their original cut they would've wrote those scenes into their script and would've filmed them in 1978 like the rest of the movie they made! I don't know how to spell it out for you any clearer than that.
What am I denying you? You're being a bit melodramatic and you're thinking about this too much. Oh no, don't get paranoid, I'm not telling you how to think now, don't worry. As someone who's gay are you really going to tell me about how people are "degraded as a person"? The one pretentious person here is you. You have your version available on DVD and I watched it the other night and it looks good upscaled. There you go!
If anyone is actually intimidated by me speak up now or forever hold your peace. This is the internet, why should anyone be afraid to express themselves? It's just words on a screen. If people are too cowardly to post, whether it's for or against what I think than the problem is them, not me. I see no reason to live life being afraid.
I'm moving on to greener pastures. I seem to have upset you to a frightening degree. Just know, that you probably won't get this version on Blu-ray so appreciate what you do have and buying the 35th anniversary edition is as close as you'll ever get.
There are a few arguments to consider here. There are a lot of different versions of the various films in the Halloween series, so much so that it really almost defines the series to me. I don't agree that the studio is ripping people off because the film's various incarnations mean a lot to a lot of different people. So far, to my count, there is the original Cundy transfer DVD, the 25th anniversary Divimax, the Cundy Blu Ray, and the Extended Cut DVD. I normally would not include the different between a DVD and Blu Ray, but the transfer here really is night and day because the DVD version's bit rate is so low due to having the widescreen and full screen on one disc. Unlike a lot of fans that complain about the low bit rate, I enjoy it because it gives the film a grainier quality that makes it look like a bit of a grind house drive in theater film that it is meant to be. The Divimax was made in response to this, with a new remaster of the film, and the laserdisc commentary included. A lot of people complained it made the film too light, but again, I liked this version as it makes the film very crisp and plays out a little different in my mind. The Blu Ray is the definitive version to me, though maybe a bit too crisp. Now for the extended version. I personally don't like it. I paid a lot of money for the 30th anniversary set to acquire that film, and watched it once, and disregarded it. The first reason for this was because Carpenter hates the new scenes. I hate them because they include Michael as Luara's brother, something that was not included until the second film, which most people do not remember was omitted from the first film. Carpenter has said, and I agree, that the film is much scarier if you can forget that plot line from the sequels so that Michael is just after her because she went up to the Meyer's house. The other thing that through me for a loop, is that the scenes do not mesh with the rest of the scenes because they were shot for the movie, and just look different than the rest of the film. I appreciate that if you saw Halloween for the first time on TV, but considering these scenes were never intended for theaters and looked bad on the DVD, I don't see them doing anything but standing out more on the Blu Ray. I am of the opinion that they should have been presented as on TV, in full screen, with the nudity cut out, as the Shout version of Halloween II's TV edit. But the problem that I have is that the extended version did not sell well, so they aren't going to rerelease it. The 30th anniversary also did not sell well, which had most of those versions present minus the divimax. This new 35th anniversary edition is supposed to be yet another new remaster, though I am not sure why they are doing so, or why they need a new commentary, as I thought the old one was fine, and curious why it was not included in any of the other versions, especially the original blu ray. They might release a comprehensive collection one day, hopefully with the director's cut of II and 4, the Producer's cut of 6, the alternate musical score of H20, both versions of both Zombie remakes and so on. The problem is that most people have versions that they prefer, so including versions they already own or do not want at a premium brings ridicule. So just a thought.
You point out that the extended version makes reference to the whole 'brother-sister' connection, which is only partly true. The word 'sister' is scrawled on a door. As he was originally committed for the murder of his sister, I don't think it's too much of a stretch that he was referring to his original victim. It may be ambiguous, but certainly not enough to affect anyone's enjoyment or understanding of the film.
And, anyway, wasn't the whole brother-sister thing Carpenter's idea, in the first place? He came up with that for part 2, which was not necessary. In terms of narrative logic, I could easily see Myers continuing to pursue Laurie, simply out of the frustration of having her escape his clutches in the original. He didn't need any additional motive.
Personally, I have never liked the sibling angle. In fact, I think you could easily accept the original premise, even after viewing parts 1 and 2. Naturally, in part 2, Loomis ASSUMES that it can't be a coincidence that Myers just happens to be after his sister yet again. He makes the normal, human assumption that there is cause and effect at work there.
Slasher films are not about logic(a fact that usually doesn't bother me all that much.) But if you had to embrace one hypothesis or the other, which would you find easier to accept? That Myers just latched on to the girl who came to his door? Or that Myers somehow knew, not only that he HAD a sister in town, but precisely WHO she was.......what she looked like......that he was GOING to hunt her down that night, anyway, but lucked out by having her come right to his doorway bright and early that morning......
Either one of these notions is somewhat problematic. But I'm not so sure that you can't still make the case for the original supposition(that Myer's pursuit of a girl who turns out to be his sister is merely a freak coincidence) about as easily as anything else.
If matters of narrative logic are really a problem for you, then you won't be a fan of ANY Halloween film, from 1 all the way through Resurrection.
Which takes you back to my original point....... personal taste and preference. After all, you don't HAVE to have those extra scenes.....just like you don't have to depict Myers with all the heavy, animalistic breathing.....or wearing such a bizarre, ghoulish mask......or cocking his head, like a curious animal, as he gazes at the victim he has just impaled to the wall......
You don't have to have a jack o'lantern on the porch, or leaves falling in the gentle October wind, or a classically trained English actor to portray the obsessed hero, Loomis......
And you don't have to have the greatest slasher film musical score in history, either........
Whether or not John Carpenter hates something is the absolute LEAST of my concerns. I love it with a passion...... and that will suffice.
Quit trying to TELL us that these scenes don't matter! They don't matter to you, but do to others. This entire back-and-forth about these scenes is absurd! I like the added scenes, and would have preferred a second disc with a blu version of the extended version on it, but that's me. I refuse to tell you or anyone else out there in the ether fuzz of the internet what scenes matter, or which version to watch. Isn't there a more constructive topic to discuss? We all love Halloween, but each in our own way, and we have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell the other what scenes matter and what scenes do not. Take a pill. Make a sandwich, grab a can of pop and throw in Halloween, and love it in whatever way you want. Just don't expect everyone else to do what you do.
I've watched the film with it's original cut all but once. It truly is weird to see the extra scenes in there after being used to the film without them there and with a quicker pace. The scenes feel more like deleted scenes if anything, the first one drags on too long, and the third feels mostly pointless. It all depends on which version you watch first.
With that said, there SHOULD be an option to watch the film with the scenes spliced in for the people that would prefer to watch it like that. You don't even need to put the whole film on the disc again since the actual CUT is the same... just with additional scenes.
I am glad the scenes are included at all though.
As for Anchor Bay "ripping us off", there's no question that this (and the other Blu-ray for that matter given how fast it came out) is a cash-in. If anything, it shows you how well the title does for them, and how much of a staple it's become for them.