Halloween (2018)

[Nate Grey]

Because

spoilers:

That’s kinda what happened in the movie Michael didn’t care about Laurie. He was literally killing random people until he saw Laurie (who was going after him) and even then he really didn’t pursue Laurie until the crazy doctor practically drove him to her house. I don’t think Carpenter liked the sibling angle because the original concept was that Michael was just some boogie man. Then the sequels all made it about him zoning in on Laurie and Jamie. Which wasn’t as scary because you knew there was a motive and an end goal for him. Like you didn’t really cared who he killed in 2, 4, 5 or H2O as long as Laurie or Jamie made it. The point of the original is summed up in the final scene. Michael is gone and the camera pans to all the houses in the neighborhood. Because he just exists and he could be anywhere. He’s quite literally the boogeyman.

end of spoilers

spoilers:

The point though is that the instant Michael starts chasing ONE person, or even one family (Laurie+daughter+granddaughter), it STOPS being random, he STOPS being a boogeyman and becomes instead someone with a vendetta you shouldn't get in the way of. The great irony is if Carpenter et al was interested in keeping the boogeyman angle long term then each movie would have a different protagonist we've never seen before nor will again. Keeping Laurie turns it back into a vendetta (starting at the house sequence) hence people wondering if they were going back to that anyway why not keep the sibling angle. Its like Carpenter got rid of the angle only to keep the same dynamic (Michael chases Laurie, Laurie fights back) which leaves people scratching their heads in confusion.

end of spoilers

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

spoilers:

The point though is that the instant Michael starts chasing ONE person, or even one family (Laurie+daughter+granddaughter), it STOPS being random, he STOPS being a boogeyman and becomes instead someone with a vendetta you shouldn't get in the way of. The great irony is if Carpenter et al was interested in keeping the boogeyman angle long term then each movie would have a different protagonist we've never seen before nor will again. Keeping Laurie turns it back into a vendetta (starting at the house sequence) hence people wondering if they were going back to that anyway why not keep the sibling angle. Its like Carpenter got rid of the angle only to keep the same dynamic (Michael chases Laurie, Laurie fights back) which leaves people scratching their heads in confusion.

end of spoilers

Because again

spoilers:

Michael wasn’t targeting Laurie at all. He literally didn’t care about her. She shot at him and actually shot him and he still didn’t start focusing on her. That was the whole point. Laurie despite all the build up didn’t matter. Laurie thought Michael would chase her, he didn’t. The journalist thought Laurie was important, he ignored a trunk full of documents where he easily could have discovered her location and went to her house. The Sheriff thought Laurie was important and rounded up her family. Then the doctor thought Laurie was important. Michael literally didn’t even try to kill Laurie until he was literally dropped at her house in the middle of nowhere. And even then he killed the cops first, he killed the husband first. When he threw Laurie off the balcony and she was clearly missing he just completely ignores her and goes to the other people he knows are in the house. The movie heavily implies that if Laurie lived one town over and stayed home he would never went near her unless he already wiped out everyone in that area first. The only reason Laurie ended up mattering was because everyone else placed so much undo emphasis on her that it ended up becoming a self fulfilling prophecy that he would be put in her path. I think that was largely the point they were going for. The problem ended up being too many people trying to find motive and reason to something that just existed when their wasn’t one. Just like all the sequels did. In the end when it really can’t fown to it, Laurie didn’t matter to Michael at all. The only people he even bothered to actually tail were the journalists because they had his mask. He just wanted to kill. He was a monster. No rhyme or reason. It wasn’t until he was literally given no options but to go after Laurie that he finally did.

end of spoilers

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This has always been the case for horror films.

Yeah this is why studios love these movies. They are cheap to make and they can make bank

[kingaliencracker]

spoilers:

I saw it yesterday. I felt that it was just okay. Maybe the critical response drove up my expectations too much but I guess I felt I would be blown away by it and really I felt it was on par with Halloween II (Carpenter Series) and Halloween H20. Michael was awesomely brutal but after reflecting on it I felt like they got his character wrong too. Michael is brutal but in a much more methodical way (generally speaking - we're not speaking of the Rob Zombie "films"). I felt like this Michael was just a freight train going at 60 MPH, which again was awesome but in the original movie he was definitely more of a stalker-type. Speaking of characterization, as much as I hate to say this I don't think Laurie Strode was needed in this movie. Laurie's character appearing beyond the 1st film makes sense with the family lineage to Michael attached. If that's taken away - and I'm completely fine with them doing that - then her character kind of becomes cumbersome to the film. On top of that, I felt like they didn't really cover any new ground with her character that they didn't already cover with H20. Really the characters beyond Michael and the little kid who was being babysat weren't really interesting to me. I called the plot twist with the doctor pretty early on (in my opinion they made it too obvious). I still can't figure out the point of the reporters except to make sure Michael got his mask back, which seemed like a pretty convoluted way of going about that. And the ending was pretty far-fetched. Overall it was entertaining but I still feel we haven't gotten a really great sequel to the original.

end of spoilers

[kingaliencracker]

spoilers:

I also want to touch upon this notion that this sequel somehow establishes that Michael never really cared about Laurie in the first movie and that the sister angle was unnecessary. Again, I'm fine with the jettisoning of the sister/brother angle. It was very soap opera, for lack of a better term, and somewhat constrained the sequels/reboots especially when Jamie Lee Curtis wasn't involved. But to say that Michael didn't care about Laurie at all in the first movie? That's simply not true. Michael stalked Laurie and her friends the entire day in the original film. He could have gone house-to-house killing people as he did in this movie but it's pretty clear that Laurie & Company were targeted by Michael, and the entire movie was built up to their murders (in Laurie's case, attempted murder). In fact, that's why the whole brother/sister came about in the first place. I can't remember who asked it, but someone asked Carpenter why did Michael seem fixated on Laurie so much in the first movie, and the brother/sister angle eventually formulated from there.

end of spoilers

[Grim Ghost]

Too much comic relief in this film for me. I think it really hurt the film. You can tell every line Danny McBride wrote.

[Nate Grey]

Because again

spoilers:

Michael wasn’t targeting Laurie at all. He literally didn’t care about her. She shot at him and actually shot him and he still didn’t start focusing on her. That was the whole point. Laurie despite all the build up didn’t matter. Laurie thought Michael would chase her, he didn’t. The journalist thought Laurie was important, he ignored a trunk full of documents where he easily could have discovered her location and went to her house. The Sheriff thought Laurie was important and rounded up her family. Then the doctor thought Laurie was important. Michael literally didn’t even try to kill Laurie until he was literally dropped at her house in the middle of nowhere. And even then he killed the cops first, he killed the husband first. When he threw Laurie off the balcony and she was clearly missing he just completely ignores her and goes to the other people he knows are in the house. The movie heavily implies that if Laurie lived one town over and stayed home he would never went near her unless he already wiped out everyone in that area first. The only reason Laurie ended up mattering was because everyone else placed so much undo emphasis on her that it ended up becoming a self fulfilling prophecy that he would be put in her path. I think that was largely the point they were going for. The problem ended up being too many people trying to find motive and reason to something that just existed when their wasn’t one. Just like all the sequels did. In the end when it really can’t fown to it, Laurie didn’t matter to Michael at all. The only people he even bothered to actually tail were the journalists because they had his mask. He just wanted to kill. He was a monster. No rhyme or reason. It wasn’t until he was literally given no options but to go after Laurie that he finally did.

end of spoilers

Trying this one last time:

spoilers:

Regardless of HOW they got there, to Michael targeting specifically Laurie, they're there NOW. Any movie going forward will be Michael chasing Laurie. That's my point, that going forward NOW the boogyeman aspect is gone which puts us firmly right back in the Halloween 4-6 category. Which begs the question why drop it (being siblings) if he's going to wind up chasing her anyway? Yay they're not brother and sister but he's still pursuing her a la the original sequels that are no longer in continuity. I thought Carpenter wanted to course correct the series, not do what was already done just a bit better.

end of spoilers

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Trying this one last time:

spoilers:

Regardless of HOW they got there, to Michael targeting specifically Laurie, they're there NOW. Any movie going forward will be Michael chasing Laurie. That's my point, that going forward NOW the boogyeman aspect is gone which puts us firmly right back in the Halloween 4-6 category. Which begs the question why drop it (being siblings) if he's going to wind up chasing her anyway? Yay they're not brother and sister but he's still pursuing her a la the original sequels that are no longer in continuity. I thought Carpenter wanted to course correct the series, not do what was already done just a bit better.

end of spoilers

Again you’re making a massive assumption that isn’t neccesarily true whatsoever

spoilers:

There’s absolutely zero reason to believe he would have attacked Laurie if he wasn’t brought to and isolated with her AND there is no reasonwhy he would target her again if he survives. In the original series the point was that he was specifically following her because she was his sister. The original was retconned so that was the reason he stalked her friends. The second was the reason he followed her to the hospital. In H20 it was why he followed her out of state. And in Ressurection it’s why he followed her to the mental Asylum. There is no reason to believe in this film that Michel is anything but a psycho who gets off on killing and if free again wouldn’t just go back to Haddonfield and randomly murdering people. There is no reason to believe he would stalk her or go out of his way to find her. That’s the difference. I’m not making a massive assumption about anything. There is zero evidence in the film that he cares enough about Laurie to go after him. Laurie shot him in the streets and he still didn’t pursue her. He was taken to her house and went after everyone indjcrimjnately even though he knew there was a chance Laurie was alive. There’s nothing to support that the status quo is now “Michael is now targeting Laurie”. Could it be? Yeah. Is it supported based off anything film. No. Not really. There’s really no reason to believe Laurie is anything more than what Tommy Jarvis was to Jason. Just someone who got the best of him a couple of times. Jason didn’t go after Tommy again when he was away from the lake and Michael isn’t likely to seek Laurie out if she’s away from Haddonfield

end of spoilers

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

spoilers:

I also want to touch upon this notion that this sequel somehow establishes that Michael never really cared about Laurie in the first movie and that the sister angle was unnecessary. Again, I'm fine with the jettisoning of the sister/brother angle. It was very soap opera, for lack of a better term, and somewhat constrained the sequels/reboots especially when Jamie Lee Curtis wasn't involved. But to say that Michael didn't care about Laurie at all in the first movie? That's simply not true. Michael stalked Laurie and her friends the entire day in the original film. He could have gone house-to-house killing people as he did in this movie but it's pretty clear that Laurie & Company were targeted by Michael, and the entire movie was built up to their murders (in Laurie's case, attempted murder). In fact, that's why the whole brother/sister came about in the first place. I can't remember who asked it, but someone asked Carpenter why did Michael seem fixated on Laurie so much in the first movie, and the brother/sister angle eventually formulated from there.

end of spoilers

In the first film Michael stalked Laurie because she dropped a key off at his old house which Michael was in. It was played off as happenstance that she showed up there and caught his attention. Then he stalked Laurie and her friends. And I’m pretty sure they were all staying around the same area as Michael.

It wasn’t really until the second film where it went from happenstance and a fixation to “this dude is relentlessly pursuing this one girl and will stop at nothing and go anywhere to kill her”.

[KabutoRyder]

Not movie related, but its got Michael and its fn glorious.

[Punisher007]

ThIs was great. The use of lighting, colors, shadows, etc stood out to me especially. It was fantastic, as was the score. Also this movie really knew how to effectively build up tension and suspense. And the callbacks/references were well-done, especially in the climax. Speaking of which, dear lord was that climax fantastic.
spoilers:

I especially loved Judy Greer baiting/faking out Michael. That was badass.

end of spoilers

[TomServofan]

My mom and her friend wanted to see a movie as i went with them to one of my city's theaters as they went to see that hotel movie and i went to see this as i'm glad i didn't pay any money for this.

It's nothing but a half-assed sequel with poor writing, poor scares, boring story and steals from Halloween 2 1981/4/H2O which are all better than this and almost not as bad as 5/Resurrection/Zombie's 2 and as lame as 6/Zombie's remake. Horrible movie! i put it on par with Zombie's 1 and 2, Resurrection and 5 being one of the worst halloween films! poor writing and all, this was a waste of money for me! i'm done, i'm fed up with this franchise, to me it ended with H2O and i don't need a fake Halloween 2 when i got the real one at home on blu-ray in my boxset as that's the real Halloween 2 to me from 1981.

Also ripping off H2O, 4, 1978 and 2, it's not homaging it's just stealing from the other films. This one is just a sloppy money grab with no soul/passion or likable characters, even Jamie Lee Curtis was no help as she was haggard and did this for a paycheck and for money. I think it's time we bury this franchise! no one asked for this sequel. Stop beating this dead horse already! let it rest in peace as Michael earned his retirement. To have horror get out of the shitter in the mainsteam is to take a page from the independent studios and independent horror films and foreign horror films with stuff like It Follows, Housebound, The Babadook, Tragedy Girls etc. stop remaking great horror films that don't need to be remade like Poltergeist, stop making sequels to worn out horror franchises, stop prequels etc.

independent horror films are out from the shitter known as mainstream when the mainstream should get out of the shitter, look for independent or foreign and say "screw the mainstream" sometimes as sometimes there is surprises like A Quiet Place or IT etc. and when i'm talking mainstream i mean shit like Poltergeist remake which thankfully bombed and Insidious 4 which didn't do well and dunno why Ouiji a hit, i'm glad people went to see It Follows and some people support that. Enough too much PG-13 stuff like Ouiji but A Quiet Place was excellent and IT was an R rated hit. Remake little known films like Blood Beach or Lifeforce rather than classics like Poltergeist which thankfully bombed but Suspiria looks nice and should be a good remake that is trying something different than be a xerox copy like Poltergeist. They need risks again, take it again mainstream just like the independents are! Paranormal Activity wasn't a risk, stop with the ghost movies, stop with the found footage movies and do something different in the mainstream. Take a page from It Follows. Stop being lazy mainstream horror, get off your fat ass and put down the potato chips or cupcakes shoving them in your mouth like Steven Seagall down and shoving them in your mouth and do something else, start trying to do something unique. Just try something different than another remake of a great movie like Poltergeist, sequel to an older franchise, found footage and all that. I don't get the hype and praise Halloween 2018 is getting!

i just don't want to see these horror icons (Jason, Freddy, Chucky, Ghostface, Michael, Leatherface, Jigsaw) over and over again on the big screen and your just gonna get diminishing returns just like the Universal monsters being ran into the ground in the 30s/40s/50s as they had huge characters and big hits on their hands then pumped out sequel after another (the only great sequel is Bride of Frankenstein) and the bottom completely fell out with diminishing box-office returns and before these characters became jokes even with Abbot and Costello movies then Universal knew when to quit. If Halloween 2018 becomes a hit then studios will be like "audiences want more Halloween, they want more Candyman, more Freddy, Jason Voorhees etc.", but for Candyman, one Candyman movie was enough as the first was excellent but the sequels were cash-ins and no more Elm Street films, Robert IS Freddy as Jackie proved it was a failure to recast Freddy for you can't do it, Robert IS the character and always was as even Englund said so. Can't we have new horror icons already? let the worn out old tired icons like Freddy, Michael, Jason, Leatherface, Jigsaw, Ghostface, Candyman, Chucky and Pinhead die and rest in peace already, don't keep digging up them from their graves every 5 or 10 or 15 years then propping their corpses up on the big screen in Weekend at Bernies style. Just come up with with your own new horror icon and new horror franchise already! i'm not super big in Insidious and the Conjuring spin-offs but at least it's something different, well not quite different, but not the same old horror franchise some of us seen or the same horror icons for they are trying to create their own. I know they haven't been the best but at least they are giving a damn and giving it an effort, that's just how i feel about it. Just try try again mainstream horror! making new horror icons would actually work because there are no ideas to bring in for most horror icons. New horror icons might get the hate, but it may take time before the newer ones would gain praise. I'll say this though. Even though using the same stuff is unnecessary. Just like in the last decade we got new horror icons in the mainstream like the Creeper, Captain Splauding and Jigsaw while Sam from Trick R Treat becomes a cult horror icon with Leslie Vernon when Trick and Behind the Mask were sent to the DVD direct to video market rather than to all mainstream theaters which should had happened even Hatchet was shown in midnight theaters than all theaters as there's Victor Crawley whom is a cult horror icon.

Now outside the mainstream we got Wolfcop, Tucker and Dale etc. should had been released in all theaters. I'd say end these horror franchises (Chucky/Halloween/Elm Street/Friday The 13th/Saw/Scream/Hellraiser/Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and bury them, let them rest in peace from film and let them live on through merchandise, comics, video games, toys, appreal, streams of the old movies on amazon/hulu/crackle/Netflix whatever even re-issues of the films on blu-ray and that's fair game. Can we have new original cinematic horror icons/new franchises already? try to come up with new horror icons/franchises and try try again mainstream and let the older franchises rest in peace in favor of new franchises/new icons. I saw Hell Fest which is something different in mainstream horror and a comeback for slasher films, we send the message to studios we want fresh new horror icons and new franchises as that movie has potential to make one. Yet there is some like me (one who is like a couple of friends on youtube being them some other horror fans who are tired of these same old worn out horror franchises being hurt by these new sequels/remakes hurting the franchises legacy and staining their name to become jokes). Just don't make anymore. That's my advice. The more you make, the longer you keep this franchise sucking the life out of other horror projects and potential franchises. This is like when Universal completely ran their Monsters franchise into the ground, just make new ones already and new icons. Being a fan of these horror franchises/older horror icons is like having a beloved pet you had memories with and grew up with, but sadly the time has come to put it to sleep. Or it's like having a friend terminally ill on life support. You know it's hard to pull the plug but it's for the best.

[Jokerz79]

My mom and her friend wanted to see a movie as i went with them to one of my city's theaters as they went to see that hotel movie and i went to see this as i'm glad i didn't pay any money for this.

It's nothing but a half-assed sequel with poor writing, poor scares, boring story and steals from Halloween 2 1981/4/H2O which are all better than this and almost not as bad as 5/Resurrection/Zombie's 2 and as lame as 6/Zombie's remake. Horrible movie! i put it on par with Zombie's 1 and 2, Resurrection and 5 being one of the worst halloween films! poor writing and all, this was a waste of money for me! i'm done, i'm fed up with this franchise, to me it ended with H2O and i don't need a fake Halloween 2 when i got the real one at home on blu-ray in my boxset as that's the real Halloween 2 to me from 1981.

Also ripping off H2O, 4, 1978 and 2, it's not homaging it's just stealing from the other films. This one is just a sloppy money grab with no soul/passion or likable characters, even Jamie Lee Curtis was no help as she was haggard and did this for a paycheck and for money. I think it's time we bury this franchise! no one asked for this sequel. Stop beating this dead horse already! let it rest in peace as Michael earned his retirement. To have horror get out of the shitter in the mainsteam is to take a page from the independent studios and independent horror films and foreign horror films with stuff like It Follows, Housebound, The Babadook, Tragedy Girls etc. stop remaking great horror films that don't need to be remade like Poltergeist, stop making sequels to worn out horror franchises, stop prequels etc.

independent horror films are out from the shitter known as mainstream when the mainstream should get out of the shitter, look for independent or foreign and say "screw the mainstream" sometimes as sometimes there is surprises like A Quiet Place or IT etc. and when i'm talking mainstream i mean shit like Poltergeist remake which thankfully bombed and Insidious 4 which didn't do well and dunno why Ouiji a hit, i'm glad people went to see It Follows and some people support that. Enough too much PG-13 stuff like Ouiji but A Quiet Place was excellent and IT was an R rated hit. Remake little known films like Blood Beach or Lifeforce rather than classics like Poltergeist which thankfully bombed but Suspiria looks nice and should be a good remake that is trying something different than be a xerox copy like Poltergeist. They need risks again, take it again mainstream just like the independents are! Paranormal Activity wasn't a risk, stop with the ghost movies, stop with the found footage movies and do something different in the mainstream. Take a page from It Follows. Stop being lazy mainstream horror, get off your fat ass and put down the potato chips or cupcakes shoving them in your mouth like Steven Seagall down and shoving them in your mouth and do something else, start trying to do something unique. Just try something different than another remake of a great movie like Poltergeist, sequel to an older franchise, found footage and all that. I don't get the hype and praise Halloween 2018 is getting!

i just don't want to see these horror icons (Jason, Freddy, Chucky, Ghostface, Michael, Leatherface, Jigsaw) over and over again on the big screen and your just gonna get diminishing returns just like the Universal monsters being ran into the ground in the 30s/40s/50s as they had huge characters and big hits on their hands then pumped out sequel after another (the only great sequel is Bride of Frankenstein) and the bottom completely fell out with diminishing box-office returns and before these characters became jokes even with Abbot and Costello movies then Universal knew when to quit. If Halloween 2018 becomes a hit then studios will be like "audiences want more Halloween, they want more Candyman, more Freddy, Jason Voorhees etc.", but for Candyman, one Candyman movie was enough as the first was excellent but the sequels were cash-ins and no more Elm Street films, Robert IS Freddy as Jackie proved it was a failure to recast Freddy for you can't do it, Robert IS the character and always was as even Englund said so. Can't we have new horror icons already? let the worn out old tired icons like Freddy, Michael, Jason, Leatherface, Jigsaw, Ghostface, Candyman, Chucky and Pinhead die and rest in peace already, don't keep digging up them from their graves every 5 or 10 or 15 years then propping their corpses up on the big screen in Weekend at Bernies style. Just come up with with your own new horror icon and new horror franchise already! i'm not super big in Insidious and the Conjuring spin-offs but at least it's something different, well not quite different, but not the same old horror franchise some of us seen or the same horror icons for they are trying to create their own. I know they haven't been the best but at least they are giving a damn and giving it an effort, that's just how i feel about it. Just try try again mainstream horror! making new horror icons would actually work because there are no ideas to bring in for most horror icons. New horror icons might get the hate, but it may take time before the newer ones would gain praise. I'll say this though. Even though using the same stuff is unnecessary. Just like in the last decade we got new horror icons in the mainstream like the Creeper, Captain Splauding and Jigsaw while Sam from Trick R Treat becomes a cult horror icon with Leslie Vernon when Trick and Behind the Mask were sent to the DVD direct to video market rather than to all mainstream theaters which should had happened even Hatchet was shown in midnight theaters than all theaters as there's Victor Crawley whom is a cult horror icon.

Now outside the mainstream we got Wolfcop, Tucker and Dale etc. should had been released in all theaters. I'd say end these horror franchises (Chucky/Halloween/Elm Street/Friday The 13th/Saw/Scream/Hellraiser/Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and bury them, let them rest in peace from film and let them live on through merchandise, comics, video games, toys, appreal, streams of the old movies on amazon/hulu/crackle/Netflix whatever even re-issues of the films on blu-ray and that's fair game. Can we have new original cinematic horror icons/new franchises already? try to come up with new horror icons/franchises and try try again mainstream and let the older franchises rest in peace in favor of new franchises/new icons. I saw Hell Fest which is something different in mainstream horror and a comeback for slasher films, we send the message to studios we want fresh new horror icons and new franchises as that movie has potential to make one. Yet there is some like me (one who is like a couple of friends on youtube being them some other horror fans who are tired of these same old worn out horror franchises being hurt by these new sequels/remakes hurting the franchises legacy and staining their name to become jokes). Just don't make anymore. That's my advice. The more you make, the longer you keep this franchise sucking the life out of other horror projects and potential franchises. This is like when Universal completely ran their Monsters franchise into the ground, just make new ones already and new icons. Being a fan of these horror franchises/older horror icons is like having a beloved pet you had memories with and grew up with, but sadly the time has come to put it to sleep. Or it's like having a friend terminally ill on life support. You know it's hard to pull the plug but it's for the best.

Why is comics or video games (which now have stories with cut scenes to the point of being a film) ok if you're against new retellings? Are you against Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster too? What about Superman, Batman, or James Bond? I get you dislike the new films and TV shows but it's simply don't watch I just don't get the hatred of continuing these series especially when most have had bad sequels for decades anyways.

[Punisher007]

Ah I see that someone wandered over here from SHH, eh Hordakfan.

[TomServofan]

Why is comics or video games (which now have stories with cut scenes to the point of being a film) ok if you're against new retellings? Are you against Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster too? What about Superman, Batman, or James Bond? I get you dislike the new films and TV shows but it's simply don't watch I just don't get the hatred of continuing these series especially when most have had bad sequels for decades anyways.

Superman, Bond, Batman, Frankenstein, Dracula etc. are all literature/comic characters different than purely cinematic original creations like Elm Street, Friday The 13th, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Child's Play, Saw, Scream etc. as i'm just saying retire the purely cinematic horror icons like Freddy (Robert IS the one and only Freddy and no one else can be him), Jason, Michael, Leatherface, Chucky, Ghostface, Jigsaw etc. and let them rest in peace for they earned their retirement. just let iconic horror franchises and their icons rest in peace and move on and try to find new ones.

I just want mainstream horror genre to stop being a lazy fatass on the shitter with scarfing down cheetos/cupcakes and take risks again like Romero, Hitchock, Friedkin and other great horror directors did in the past and take a page from the independent and foreign horror markets. Now A Quiet Place is an example of taking a risk and it was a hit, learn from it mainstream horror genre. I love Chucky, Freddy, Leatherface, Jigsaw, Jason, Ghostface etc. and that's why you gotta let them go, let them rest in peace and be buried in their graves. They just need to make and create new horror icons again, try again mainstream horror genre just try try try try again.