Would Season of the Witch have performed better if H2 didn't exist?

[Deathscythe]

I'm not too big on H3, but it does have fans here.

So I'm wondering, if there was no H2 and the first sequel in the franchise made it into an anthology series straight off the bat...do you think H3 would probably have fared better?

[WestinHillsDays]

Halloween 3 as viewed through the lens of "obscure and strange" horror is pure gold. This statement, however, does not apply to the original Halloween and its sequel.

I quite frankly don't consider H3 part of the franchise.

[Boiler Room Brawler]

I'm not sure if H3 was a good enough movie on its own merits to keep the Halloween franchise afloat. The idea was most certainly there though.

[Kane Lives]

That extra sequel did set the tone for the series in a lot of minds. Without it, it probably would have been more successful, but I'm not sure to what extent. I think Michael may have still haunted it a bit. The first one ended with him alive, so there may have still been complaints about them not using him again.

For me, I don't think it would have changed my view on it much. I'm not too big of a fan of Halloween III on its own. I like the plot of the killer masks a lot, but I'm not too big on the rest of the film. I think it plods. So, I agree that it may not have been strong enough to convince people to give another Halloween story a go.

[Utellme]

Best case secnario would of been H1 1978 and H4 1988 being H2 and not have the parts 2&3 we did get.

[Natman]

Yes, it would have performed better, it probably would have been received better, and it would have much more easily sold the anthology idea. I am still not much of a fan, though, but that has everything to do with the movie just not clicking with me. Can't save 'em all, I suppose.

[God of Thunder]

I really don't care what a bunch of other people think of it, I fucking LOVE Halloween III.

[nottidelterrore]

I really don't care what a bunch of other people think of it, I fucking LOVE Halloween III.

That's pretty much how I feel, man. :)

[Utellme]

I really don't care what a bunch of other people think of it, I fucking LOVE Halloween III.

Dont get it twisted Season Of The Witch is a great flick to me if treated as a stand alone film.Cause it dont fit in the Halloween franchise.

[The Dream Master]

Coming out with a standard part 2 that continued the Myers story killed any chance the anthology idea had of getting off the ground. Do I think Season of the Witch would have been a runaway success? No, probably not, but I think it would have done at least a little better.

[MysterioMan007]

Season of the Witch has grown on me over the years a little bit, but I doubt it would have fared any better. It was a little too sci-fi with all the robots, but I do believe another anthology movie could have been given a chance.

[Fran Fine]

An anthology series right off the bat would have been a great idea. I think the movie would have performed better because at this point it wouldn't be a series meant to focus on Michael's story. If Carpenter had made "Season of the Witch" as the second movie instead of Part 2 continuing off of the original then his idea of an anthology series might have worked.

[Rich]

If there was no Halloween II, then Season of the Witch would have done better because people would have understood John's intention. Because of Halloween II people saw Halloween as a Michael Myers series. Eventually it would become that.

[Psychoticninja]

I agree with what everyone was saying. Without H2 and Michael Myers returning, Season of the Witch would've been another 'scary' horror tale under the Halloween franchise.

But, looking at the film by itself, its not diamond in the dirt. The storyline is ok and of course I love the apocalyptic ending :) . I think it definitely would have done better if there was no H2

[Rich]

Maybe it would have done better if it was just not a part of the Halloween series and just titled, "John Carpenter Presents: Season of the Witch"

On the poster it could have said, "From the Producers of Halloween, Halloween II, and The Fog"

[Chex]

I know I'm a bit late here, but:

So I'm wondering, if there was no H2 and the first sequel in the franchise made it into an anthology series straight off the bat...do you think H3 would probably have fared better?

I guess it would depend on exactly when the movie came out because of various factors. When we get to late 1980, say after Friday the 13th, two things have happened in (horror) cinema. The slasher boom has really started to head full force and blood/gore is becoming more explicit with films Scanners, Dawn of the Dead, and the already mentioned film with a crazy Mrs. Voorhees. Those two factors alone changed the game up.

There's also what audience expectations were for the next film when the first Halloween ended. Debra Hill once mentioned that audiences thought the first movie ended with a set up for the sequel despite Hill and John Carpenter's intentions to the contrary. So any film that's going to come next with the title Halloween is expected, by the general audience, to continue on with the story from the first installment.

As I mentioned before, the release date of the hypothetical Halloween II: Season of the Witch will come into play as it determines what obstacles the movie is up against.

1982
Say the release time was never altered. The slasher boom has hit hard and has shown that it's where the big box office draw is for the time being. A movie carrying a title of that of a sequel would be expected to fall right in line with the other slashers and given how people thought the ending to Halloween left it open to a sequel, you'd have just as much disappointment, if not more, with it.

Even folks who never got the notion that Halloween's ending meant more adventures of Michael would likely figure he would still come back, especially since in August of 1982 audiences watched Jason Voorhees go from seemingly dead to simply getting back up and carrying on for another film without missing a beat. Considering how Michael did this in the first film and it would appear all the more natural course of thinking as far as expectations.

Reception wise from movie viewers would be the same, if not slightly more negative due to to him still alive at the end of Halloween versus supposedly burned to a crisp in Halloween II and expecting Michael to show back up, compared to how it went down with Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Box office wise, I would think it would do a bit more because of the first weeks draw alone. Then it would tank once people found out it wasn't an actual sequel like they were expecting.

1981
If it came out when Halloween II originally did, well, I don't see much of a change from the above I wrote for 1982 other than the last bit about audiences already introduced to a killer who gets back up in the next installment with no explanation to kill some more in the form of Friday the 13th 3. Even so, I don't believe much else would be different.

As far as box office and reception, I wouldn't think there would be too much of a difference from the 1982 release. Maybe a slight change due to how many years it had been since Halloween with how much of a status it had built up, more so with the constant slasher films that would be released. Having more films to compare to Halloween may increase how well thought of a sequel would be. I guess what I'm saying is if there's more time for Halloween to cement its status, then that could be a factor in how well its name is considered which would affect people's impressions initially when hearing of a sequel.

1979
Say the movie comes straight out of the gate as fast as it can possibly be (October, 1979). The title of Halloween would be fresh in viewers minds. Blood/gore hadn't quite made its big mark just yet with only Dawn of the Dead so far. However, it would have to compete with audience anticipation of a follow up story with Michael as viewers thought the first movie ended with such an intention. What it could have going for it would be a couple of gross out moments that would be something more than what could be normally seen at the time.

To go and see Halloween II the following year would amount to a great surprise mixed with disappointment for audiences, I would think. However, it would likely draw in big numbers during the opening weekend, but fall hugely after that. If people complained about how the movie was when it was released originally, they would be far more critical of this situation.

Other Titles
If the movie was released as Halloween II, I don't believe it would have been a success due to the title. It would have brought in more cash depending on when it was released. It would be interesting to see if there would even be a series as nobody might not even touch it again because there isn't enough proof that tossing Michael back up on the big screen would be worthwhile. If they did decide to ('they' as in Carpenter/Hill or Akkad which would seem more prone to), when it would be released could be something different. Perhaps it would've happened in 1982 during high times of the slasher craze rather than 1988.

As far as the thoughts of taking the Halloween off of the title and having released as Season of the Witch, I'm sure it would have helped the reception about it, whatever little there is. It wouldn't have near as many viewers (even taking in the home video format) as it did with its actual title. The biggest reason the film has been seen as much as it has is that its part of the Halloween series. If not, it would be a fun little B movie like Night of the Comet. While fun, I'd wager more people have seen Halloween III: Season of the Witch over it.

Having John Carpenter's name attached to it wouldn't have mattered much. Otherwise, The Fog would have been a huge hit, but wasn't and that was coming off of Halloween. Carpenter's name alone just isn't enough to pull in the mega bucks. His films through out the 1980's never amounted to big box office dollars. The Last Starfighter was the biggest with $28 million while the other were between $11 million to $25 million and those he actually wrote/directed.

How well Halloween III: Season of the Witch could have done at the box office is something that couldn't have been altered much (well, other than changing the movie entirely with the story and actors I guess) no matter what its title was or when it was released during that time frame. The only thing that could have changed is how well it was received. With no ties to Michael and/or the expectations for it as a sequel, it would have had a huge weight lifted off of its shoulders.

Yay, a long post after so long! :p

[William Bludworth]

Best case secnario would of been H1 1978 and H4 1988 being H2 and not have the parts 2&3 we did get.

H2 is my favorite sequel of the bunch

[Rich]

Best case secnario would of been H1 1978 and H4 1988 being H2 and not have the parts 2&3 we did get.

I don't agree with that. Halloween II and III are great movies. Though I do agree with you if you think Halloween 4 is the best sequel.

[WesReviews]

I know I'm a bit late here, but:


I guess it would depend on exactly when the movie came out because of various factors. When we get to late 1980, say after Friday the 13th, two things have happened in (horror) cinema. The slasher boom has really started to head full force and blood/gore is becoming more explicit with films Scanners, Dawn of the Dead, and the already mentioned film with a crazy Mrs. Voorhees. Those two factors alone changed the game up.

There's also what audience expectations were for the next film when the first Halloween ended. Debra Hill once mentioned that audiences thought the first movie ended with a set up for the sequel despite Hill and John Carpenter's intentions to the contrary. So any film that's going to come next with the title Halloween is expected, by the general audience, to continue on with the story from the first installment.

As I mentioned before, the release date of the hypothetical Halloween II: Season of the Witch will come into play as it determines what obstacles the movie is up against.

1982
Say the release time was never altered. The slasher boom has hit hard and has shown that it's where the big box office draw is for the time being. A movie carrying a title of that of a sequel would be expected to fall right in line with the other slashers and given how people thought the ending to Halloween left it open to a sequel, you'd have just as much disappointment, if not more, with it.

Even folks who never got the notion that Halloween's ending meant more adventures of Michael would likely figure he would still come back, especially since in August of 1982 audiences watched Jason Voorhees go from seemingly dead to simply getting back up and carrying on for another film without missing a beat. Considering how Michael did this in the first film and it would appear all the more natural course of thinking as far as expectations.

Reception wise from movie viewers would be the same, if not slightly more negative due to to him still alive at the end of Halloween versus supposedly burned to a crisp in Halloween II and expecting Michael to show back up, compared to how it went down with Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Box office wise, I would think it would do a bit more because of the first weeks draw alone. Then it would tank once people found out it wasn't an actual sequel like they were expecting.

1981
If it came out when Halloween II originally did, well, I don't see much of a change from the above I wrote for 1982 other than the last bit about audiences already introduced to a killer who gets back up in the next installment with no explanation to kill some more in the form of Friday the 13th 3. Even so, I don't believe much else would be different.

As far as box office and reception, I wouldn't think there would be too much of a difference from the 1982 release. Maybe a slight change due to how many years it had been since Halloween with how much of a status it had built up, more so with the constant slasher films that would be released. Having more films to compare to Halloween may increase how well thought of a sequel would be. I guess what I'm saying is if there's more time for Halloween to cement its status, then that could be a factor in how well its name is considered which would affect people's impressions initially when hearing of a sequel.

1979
Say the movie comes straight out of the gate as fast as it can possibly be (October, 1979). The title of Halloween would be fresh in viewers minds. Blood/gore hadn't quite made its big mark just yet with only Dawn of the Dead so far. However, it would have to compete with audience anticipation of a follow up story with Michael as viewers thought the first movie ended with such an intention. What it could have going for it would be a couple of gross out moments that would be something more than what could be normally seen at the time.

To go and see Halloween II the following year would amount to a great surprise mixed with disappointment for audiences, I would think. However, it would likely draw in big numbers during the opening weekend, but fall hugely after that. If people complained about how the movie was when it was released originally, they would be far more critical of this situation.

Other Titles
If the movie was released as Halloween II, I don't believe it would have been a success due to the title. It would have brought in more cash depending on when it was released. It would be interesting to see if there would even be a series as nobody might not even touch it again because there isn't enough proof that tossing Michael back up on the big screen would be worthwhile. If they did decide to ('they' as in Carpenter/Hill or Akkad which would seem more prone to), when it would be released could be something different. Perhaps it would've happened in 1982 during high times of the slasher craze rather than 1988.

As far as the thoughts of taking the Halloween off of the title and having released as Season of the Witch, I'm sure it would have helped the reception about it, whatever little there is. It wouldn't have near as many viewers (even taking in the home video format) as it did with its actual title. The biggest reason the film has been seen as much as it has is that its part of the Halloween series. If not, it would be a fun little B movie like Night of the Comet. While fun, I'd wager more people have seen Halloween III: Season of the Witch over it.

Having John Carpenter's name attached to it wouldn't have mattered much. Otherwise, The Fog would have been a huge hit, but wasn't and that was coming off of Halloween. Carpenter's name alone just isn't enough to pull in the mega bucks. His films through out the 1980's never amounted to big box office dollars. The Last Starfighter was the biggest with $28 million while the other were between $11 million to $25 million and those he actually wrote/directed.

How well Halloween III: Season of the Witch could have done at the box office is something that couldn't have been altered much (well, other than changing the movie entirely with the story and actors I guess) no matter what its title was or when it was released during that time frame. The only thing that could have changed is how well it was received. With no ties to Michael and/or the expectations for it as a sequel, it would have had a huge weight lifted off of its shoulders.

Yay, a long post after so long! :p

You make some good points. At the end of the day, I don't think it would've mattered a great deal, really. Audiences from late 1980-1984 were stalk-n-slash crazy, and there was very little room for anything else. While I do love Halloween III for what it is, a by-the-numbers slasher, it is not.

I think the ONLY way H3 would've succeeded on some level would've been to drop the "Halloween III" from its name and be known simply as Season of the Witch.

[Ron]

Yay, a long post after so long! :p

Congrats....Now prepare for people to quote the shit out of it:p

[Chex]

Congrats....Now prepare for people to quote the shit out of it:p

I don't even remember typing it up. >_<

I think the ONLY way H3 would've succeeded on some level would've been to drop the "Halloween III" from its name and be known simply as Season of the Witch.
Like you said, slashers were the big draw then. I don't know how well a movie with the description "this toy maker guy steals part of stonehenge and makes masks that kills kids when they watch this damn annoying commercial" would really do. I think the film was rather screwed either way.

By attaching itself to the name Halloween, it at least drew in some folks during it's opening weekend. The drawbacks to doing so would be a huge drop in money and bad word of mouth because of how little of a connection it has with the other films. At least the opening week's box office turns it from a lose-lose into a almost-but-not-quite-really-win-but-a-lose-lose.

Oh, unless you were Roger Ebert. I have no idea what movie he watched as his review was how Michael had escaped the fiery death of part 2 and was now stalking the hospital that Challis worked at.:doh:

[Fran Fine]

The drawbacks to doing so would be a huge drop in money and bad word of mouth because of how little of a connection it has with the other films. At least the opening week's box office turns it from a lose-lose into a almost-but-not-quite-really-win-but-a-lose-lose.

Even with the rumors going around of Michael not being in the movie there still would have been lots of people going to see it for themselves out of curiosity.

Oh, unless you were Roger Ebert. I have no idea what movie he watched as his review was how Michael had escaped the fiery death of part 2 and was now stalking the hospital that Challis worked at.

Where could I come across this? This seems rather odd. Exactly what movie was he watching? Michael was clearly not in it so I have no idea where he came across him being in this movie.

[The Dream Master]

Ebert's review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19821031/REVIEWS/41006007/1023).

[Fran Fine]

Ebert's review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19821031/REVIEWS/41006007/1023).

Thank you Dream Master. He seems to have the plot of the rest of the movie down packed, but it's just this one little error here Chex mentioned minus the part where Michael escaped his death is apparently stalking the hospital Challis works at:

A half-baked scheme like that feels right at home in "Halloween III," which is a low-rent thriller from the first frame. This is one of those Identikit movies, assembled out of familiar parts from other, better movies. It begins at the end of "Halloween II," when the monster was burned up in the hospital parking lot, but it's not still another retread of the invincible monster. In fact, the monster is forgotten, except for a lab technician who spends the whole movie sifting through his ashes. Instead, the plot follows the young daughter (Stacey Nelkin) of one of the victims, who ran a toy shop. She enlists the aid of a local doctor (Tom Atkins), and they retrace her father's steps back to an ominous toy factory run by Dan O'Herlihy. The factory has the whole town bugged and under surveillance, and the factory's guards are androids who crush their victims' heads with their hands.

Did he even watch Halloween II? He would have noticed the differences. Plus, why would Michael not be wearing his mask and now be dressed up in a nice suit playing the role of a professional business man?

[MaDMaNMaRz]

I still believe the reason H3 failed is because it had Halloween in the title. The first two did very well, and people were expecting Michael. That alone aided in its downfall. They really should've released it as Season of the Witch. It's only a minor change in the title, but I think it would've performed better.

[Killer Party Site]

I like 3, but it would be better just called Season Of TheWitch

[Demorte]

That's pretty much how I feel, man. :)

As a separate movie I liked it but not part of the Halloween series,

[J Killer]

Three should have just been named as Season of the Witch. It is so disconnected from being a halloween movie it's like saying in Part 5 of Friday the 13th Jason was in the movie but he really wasn't in it except for the hallucinations. But as a separate movie it's actually a pretty good movie.

[Darth Sinister]

Maybe it would have done better if it was just not a part of the Halloween series and just titled, "John Carpenter Presents: Season of the Witch"

On the poster it could have said, "From the Producers of Halloween, Halloween II, and The Fog"

This would've been a better option. I don't think it would've done as well, but it would've been remembered differently.

[MaDMaNMaRz]

I've stood behind H3 since the first time I saw it. It definitely shouldn't have had "Halloween" in the title, but as a standalone film, it is awesome.

[Nancy Thompson]

I still believe the reason H3 failed is because it had Halloween in the title. The first two did very well, and people were expecting Michael. That alone aided in its downfall. They really should've released it as Season of the Witch. It's only a minor change in the title, but I think it would've performed better.



it failed because it was a halloween movie W/out Michael Myers

[French Friday]

Maybe H3 would have worked better if set in the Myers universe, even without him. 4 years later, in Haddonfield, the bloody night of Halloween 78 is forgotten and that's when the story begins. There was already mention of celtics legends in H2, so Stonehenge in H3 would have made the link, maybe brought some explanations about Myers' carnage. That way, the word of mouth would have been "yeah, there's no Myers in there, but it tells more about what happened in the first two movies and that's great."

There were those guy acting like Myers (same kind of movement) and enough stuff in H3 to make it a true Halloween sequel without changing a lot of it. At that time, Loomis was supposed to be dead, but they also could have resurrected him like in H4 and make him the hero, either instead of Challis, or as a partner. With Pleasence in the movie, the same story would have been liked better by the audience.

Just my humble opinion.