taylor you can be the boss of your character, push the director of what you want to do not what he wants just take your time dont rush and make H3 a spectacular movie because fans didnt like H2 becaused it was rushed and wasnt cared about so yeh do what you can!

Mike Lee.... seriously? Rob's H2 is 'leap years ahead' of the original H2??? Depth & pain??

I think I take your sentence "In my book, that's a much worse premise than John Carpenter ever realized" in a completely different way! H2 was a weird, hackjob of a film with no depth, substance, emotion or dignified dialogue. Every other sentence was filled with pointless swearing, unnecessary nudity, ridiculous "plot twists" and plot holes that would have any original Halloween fan reeling with disgust a what Zombie released, BOTH versions!

I loved the remake, I detest the sequel. Providing Zombie isn't involed with H3, I may pay to see it at the cinema.

Ahhh...and so it begins....

I'll definitely agree with you guys that Halloween 2 was flawed. Most of the flaws were ironed out in the "unrated cut" that was free of producer/Weinstein meddling...Zombie's unrated cut brought both DEPTH AND PAIN to characters that were human and flawed. The theatrical version didn't portray these emotions as well as the final DVD release....but even with the theatrical version....Rob's Halloween 2 was LEAP YEARS ahead of the original H2 and its current horror contemporaries.

As far as beautiful people getting butchered - this case still stands in my mind. Scout, Danielle, Brea and Angela are all attractive - but not even comparable to the "beauty" of the actors we see in current horror films (the remakes of Friday and Chainsaw Massacre leap instantly to mind.) Even the Final Destination series (that beat H2 on opening weekend) showcased and sold the "sexiness" of its actors. None of Rob's movies (including H2) can ever be confused as selling "sex." They sell horror and brutal violence. Generally with no sugar-coating.

I saw a comment below about the shit ending to Rob's H2. The directors cut actually ends INCREDIBLY different....but he wasn't allowed to let that ending debut in the theaters. So, shame on Rob for getting involved with a franchise that's owned by greedy assholes - and shame on Rob for trying to create tormented and disturbed characters - all surrounding the antagonist Michael Myers.

I guess that really sums up Rob's take on Halloween vs. John Carpenters. John created normal people and the effects of a maniac on them. Rob takes an entire flawed family - throws in a maniac and surrounds him with flawed and weak people....what we get is an entire story, void of heroes - where everyone is a villain.

In my book, that's a much worse premise than John Carpenter ever realized.

I'd like to see a Season of the Witch remake, just not called Halloween 3. I though Zombie's first Halloween was mostly "meh" and the second was better - until the shit ending.

I think Halloween 3 could be great - hell why not? It's just another franchise installment. It can be anything it wants. It's not like H20 was a classic anyways. Todd Farmer had an apparently pretty bad ass draft of H3 that they basically threw away, so while H3 could be awesome, odds are they're going to shit out some shit. Now that is poetry.

Honestly, yes i didnt think too much of Halloween 2 (either ending).

I thought Rob Zombies version of Halloween 1 was good, but he didnt convey that same character and presence over into the second. It felt like a complete cut off point between the two movies.

As for a 3rd... just no. And from the sounds of the interview its purely a money ploy on the part of the studio to keep chiming in on the Halloween season movie goers every year like Saw.

Rob Zombies Halloween 2 was an incredible re-imagining of the franchise. By saying it "sucked" you compare it to what? The original Halloween 2? Season of the Witch?

Rob Zombies take on the franchise moved the series from a moron in a mask to characters with depth and pain. Although flawed, Halloween 2 still stands independent as a High point in recent horror cinema. Most American horror films churn out the same "beautiful" people getting butchered and confuse "startling" with "scary."

Taylor's decision to wait until the dust settles on this project makes good sense. Rob Zombie jump-started what (at least in my mind) was the weakest of the horror franchises (Nightmare, Friday, Chucky....) and gave this series a new lease on life.

Lets see if someone comes to this project that's actually interested in telling a story vs. making money.

I, too, was unaware that people existed who enjoyed Zombie's versions of Halloween. Were you a major fan of the originals?

I got a chance to see Halloween on the big screen (thanks Scott Weinberg!), and it blew me away. So much done with so little. Minimal, yet completely frightening.

Zombie is the opposite. It's all dark and broody without substance. This character development you talk about was lost on me - where does that happen again? The guy still lumbers around grabbing randoms and hacking them or choking them to death.

I was completely unaware that there existed on this planet people who liked Rob Zombie's Halloween 2. However, I think that we may have been watching two different movies. First off, I am really at a loss as to what you consider "depth and pain." A few surreal images of Sheri Moon in a dress accompanied by a pony does not constitute depth of character. In addition to that, Michael Myers is not the protagonist of the story. Laurie Strode is the main character, Michael Myers is a catalyst. As far as this film being in some way different from the the usual "'beautiful' people getting butchered", I would like to know what you think of Scout Taylor-Compton, Danielle Harris, Brea Grant, and Angela Trimbur. All of them are pretty god damn attractive if you ask me. Throw in some gratuitous nudity, and your entire point seems based in another world where Rob Zombie has stopped shitting on classic horror movies.