How Blumhouse took a Risk and Won.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

A decade ago Halloween as a franchise was pretty much dead and buried. The last film from the rebooted Rob Zombie universe of the character stumbled to a $33+ million domestic take at box office. Zombie had planned a 3rd film but given the response was so negative and Dimension Films itself seemed to not wanna do anything else with the franchise.

The lead star of the franchise was long gone as well with Jamie Lee Curtis receiving a less than honorable death in Halloween : Resurrection . A fact many were very angry over for years ; the series limped into a reboot to try and lure a new generation. Zombie's films were so ill-received that after plans for a 3D sequel were announced they never happened. Things weren't looking good.

Then 2016 happened.....






John Carpenter had birthed Halloween. It was his basically. A fact that for a number of years he never went anywhere near the sequels beyond writing Halloween II . Because as Carpenter would tell ; he never believed in a sequel to the film and Universal and later Dimension Films took over doing sequel after sequel. Of course in mid 1980's ; Universal did try to move on from the evil Michael Myers. But after a bad response by fans to Halloween III ; the anthology horror concept was dropped. Myers came back to kill repeatedly again.

In 2016 things changed a lot. Dimension Films after 20+ years of owning the rights to make Halloween movies lost them. They were obtained by Blumhouse Productions and Universal . Its then the company detailed that Carpenter was coming back to Halloween. As creative consultant , Executive producer and composer of the music. It was a stunning shock...then the biggest....Curtis was back as Laurie Strode again.

The last one was a head scratch deal as fans brought up she had died back in the late 1990's "Halloween Resurrection" film. Its not til later that people would learn of the risky move that the writers and Carpenter decided to do .... (spoilers below folks)...





-




-





- The proposed idea was to retcon every film since 1978 . That every film never existed and that for 40 years Laurie Strode and Michael Myers had never crossed paths in that time. There was no brother/sister connection that was pushed into the 2nd film to try and justify why Myers was so intent on killing Strode. No ...that was gone.

It was a risky move in a lot of ways. Halloween as a franchise was a mess at times. 3 sequels in the 1980's featured cults and more. 2 in the 1990's retconned them but added more confusion. In the 2000's , Zombie's films became jokes about white horses. Then you had the fact Jamie Lee Curtis was near 60 and hadn't really done a huge film in 8+ years. (You Again)

So with a franchise that seemed outta steam by its reboot films in 2000's and one studio giving up on it... what could Blumhouse do here ? Well the trailer showed exactly what they would do.





The film would do the best opening of any Halloween film in its time and has earned $77.5+ million opening week. It also showed that fans would tune in to see an older woman lead a film. By next week it should do well over $100+ million domestically.

Now some will question how this film did this. So I'll explain...



- Blumhouse Productions is a horror studio and since 2008 has released mostly horror films to wide success from The Purge film series to others. They have became the studio where popular horror films has became a norm for them. So they knew exactly what they would do with a Halloween franchise and Michael Myers.


- People wanted to see the classic battle of Laurie Strode vs Michael Myers. The trailer makes a point to tell us ..this is about those 2 and the collision course they are on again. You don't have to watch any other film or know the history. All you have to do is watch the 1st film from 1978 and jump to this one. Which makes it easy for newer generation of people to click with.


- John Carpenter being involved after years away was something people wanted. Carpenter is a legend in film and composing so getting him back and letting him be involved was a solid move. You can tell through the film that his hands were all over the film in a way. From the easter eggs to Halloween III to this.


What does this mean for Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street moving forward ? Well as Blumhouse showed age does not damn well matter for horror icons. Both franchises have had reboot films fail the last decade and now studios have to be scratching their chins and thinking , if it worked for Halloween ...why not ...Jason or Freddy ?

In all a big risk move by doing this paid off for Blumhouse. They have revived a horror franchise and with Friday the 13th film rights up in the air ; perhaps they should get that one next.

[Jokerz79]

This wasn't a risk the film had a 15 million dollar budget it was always going to make money how much was the only question and congrats to them they hit the jackpot.

[thwhtGuardian]

Yeah...I'm not really sure how this was a risk in any way, shape or form.

I mean, sure the franchise is damaged goods so it doesn't have a huge following that would make it a guaranteed success so it would have been a big risk if they had given it to some big named director, included a star studded cast and a huge budget....but they didn't do any of those things. They put it out through Blumhouse, who's known for keeping budgets low, using mostly journeymen directors and bit actors and demanding quick shooting schedules and has a proven track record with horror...so pretty much the definition of playing it safe.

That's not to say it's a bad film, or a poor choice of direction to go in for Universal..,but it's not a risk.

[Username taken]

This wasn't a risk the film had a 15 million dollar budget it was always going to make money how much was the only question and congrats to them they hit the jackpot.

Yeah, this wasn’t a risk. At all.

Even if it grossed $30 million, it would have still made a slight profit.

This is a Halloween movie, it’s been dormant long enough for folks to re-develop interest. Even the first Rob Zombie movie made good money at the time.

[Scott Taylor]

Friday the 13th really doesn't need a reboot. It wasn't the half-assed, all over the place mess the Halloween movies became. True there are klinkers, but man there is some entertaining stuff in there - and a linear storyline.

Nightmare on Elm Street - hmm. I kind of feel the same way about it. Just continue rather than rebooting.

[Jokerz79]

I prefer the shape concept over any origin but I don't think Halloween was as bad off as people think post Rob Zombie. Yes his Halloween II didn't do well but his Halloween was a hit and while his II was not something I liked for a Halloween film he definitely understood the film series and knew its history and his films were better IMO than Curse or Resurrection.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The problem with Hallowen was two fold. The first issue was that because Laurie Strode as a character was so popular they pretty much jettisoned half 3 of the existing films to reestablish her for H20 which created a new timeline. Not the worst thing since 6 ventured into the absurd and was a disaster of a film and pretty much damaged the future prospects of the franchise. However, they brought her back and killed her immediately in Resurrection. So you eliminated half the franchise for the sake of one character you killed off anyways. Which honestly was a big mistake the previous films made by killing off Jamie Lloyd in 6. This created a disaster of continuity

Which goes into my next point that because the writers correctly identified that the family angle boxed them in. Without Lloyd or Strode both followups lost direction and felt meaningless. Hence why afterwards they literally rebooted the franchise to go back to the strode well again and why they felt the need to go back again for this film. This was problematic not only because it limited the franchise, but it also completely made it lose what made the first film work. Michael Myers was the boogeyman. He was the personification of human evil. He just existed. You didn't need to know why. You just needed to know he was an evil man who was going to kill. His motivation didn't matter. And then he was given a motivation and the series was married to it, ultimately to it's detriment.

[numberthirty]

Yeah...I'm not really sure how this was a risk in any way, shape or form.

I mean, sure the franchise is damaged goods so it doesn't have a huge following that would make it a guaranteed success so it would have been a big risk if they had given it to some big named director, included a star studded cast and a huge budget....but they didn't do any of those things. They put it out through Blumhouse, who's known for keeping budgets low, using mostly journeymen directors and bit actors and demanding quick shooting schedules and has a proven track record with horror...so pretty much the definition of playing it safe.

That's not to say it's a bad film, or a poor choice of direction to go in for Universal..,but it's not a risk.

Yeah, this wasn’t a risk. At all.

Even if it grossed $30 million, it would have still made a slight profit.

This is a Halloween movie, it’s been dormant long enough for folks to re-develop interest. Even the first Rob Zombie movie made good money at the time.

Shoot, the second Rob Zombie film made decent money and that pair of films straight up abandoned canon.

This franchise is nothing like a "Risk".

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Shoot, the second Rob Zombie film made decent money and that pair of films straight up abandoned canon.

This franchise is nothing like a "Risk".

The films made a little money , nothing major like what Dimension wanted by the end. The Zombie films cost $15-20 million apiece by each one sure. It made a small profit domestically but by 2000's Dimension Films clearly did not want small profits or like the negative reaction the films got.

Hell the 2 , 1980's films where they introduced a cult into Myers etc made small profit too. But wasn't received well.


Lets examine risk...


- A franchise with no future . After Zombie's 3rd film never happened the franchise sit for over a decade.

- You cast a near 60 year old star to come back and lead the film.

- You do a reduced budget (between $10-15 million) for this one.


- You do a move deciding to create a new time line and change from other films.


The entire move was to try and lure new generation to these characters. It was more a risk of ...would that click ? Your taking a franchise that hadn't done well as H20 in the 1990's and now your kicking the tires on it again. Which is full credit to Blumhouse who seem to know horror films today. They knew the modern audience and put the right people around the film onscreen and off.

[numberthirty]

Politely, none of that is a "Risk".

A "Halloween" film doesn't need a huge budget to have a chance at being a success. It needs a good script, and a decent cast.

They had way more than that going in.

Not exactly risky.

[Jokerz79]

The films made a little money , nothing major like what Dimension wanted by the end. The Zombie films cost $15-20 million apiece by each one sure. It made a small profit domestically but by 2000's Dimension Films clearly did not want small profits or like the negative reaction the films got.

Hell the 2 , 1980's films where they introduced a cult into Myers etc made small profit too. But wasn't received well.


Lets examine risk...


- A franchise with no future . After Zombie's 3rd film never happened the franchise sit for over a decade.

- You cast a near 60 year old star to come back and lead the film.

- You do a reduced budget (between $10-15 million) for this one.


- You do a move deciding to create a new time line and change from other films.


The entire move was to try and lure new generation to these characters. It was more a risk of ...would that click ? Your taking a franchise that hadn't done well as H20 in the 1990's and now your kicking the tires on it again. Which is full credit to Blumhouse who seem to know horror films today. They knew the modern audience and put the right people around the film onscreen and off.

Rob Zombies Halloween was one if the highest grossing Halloween films.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Politely, none of that is a "Risk".

A "Halloween" film doesn't need a huge budget to have a chance at being a success. It needs a good script, and a decent cast.

They had way more than that going in.

Not exactly risky.

If this was the case then Dimension would have done Halloween 3D and kept the rights instead of just letting it die. Yes you can make a profit off small horror films as we see. Blumhouse makes a hell of a profit off the Purge films due to cheap budgets and can keep doing them as we see. They are a smaller studio that is geared towards horror. Dimension itself isn't and wanted more from it.

Its the same way as England discussed how New Line wanted more from the Nightmare films as they continued and felt like even though Freddy had saved that studio and made it millions of dollars ...well by the end they weren't happy with how the films were doing by the end. Its why #6 was done as the end then. They decided to pull the plug on it as they didn't see profit wise what they wanted anymore.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Rob Zombies Halloween was one if the highest grossing Halloween films.

Halloween (2007) : $58+ million domestically ($21+ million internationally).

Halloween II (2009) : $33 million domestically ($6+ million internationally)


Halloween H20 (1998) - $55+ million domestically (No international gross)


The 1st one did around the H20 level basically . The 2nd one is a big reason it seems Dimension decided to walk away from it. Losing half its box office. The current one has done this in 4 days.


$ 76+ million domestically ($14 million international)


Its gonna do a lot better than what Zombie's films did combined. Its gonna do around what the 1st film did as someone else brought up adjusted for inflation at a website discussed.

[Jokerz79]

Halloween (2007) : $58+ million domestically ($21+ million internationally).

Halloween II (2009) : $33 million domestically ($6+ million internationally)


Halloween H20 (1998) - $55+ million domestically (No international gross)


The 1st one did around the H20 level basically . The 2nd one is a big reason it seems Dimension decided to walk away from it. Losing half its box office. The current one has done this in 4 days.


$ 76+ million domestically ($14 million international)


Its gonna do a lot better than what Zombie's films did combined. Its gonna do around what the 1st film did as someone else brought up adjusted for inflation at a website discussed.

It doesn't change Halloween 2007 was a hit for them.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franch...=halloween.htm

I personally disliked Halloween 2007 because of its take on Michael Myers but that doesn't change it was a big success.

[choptop]

Ya I agree with the others this really wasn't risky....