MovieChat Forums > Prince of Darkness (1987) Discussion > Halloween IV

Halloween IV

posted 8 years ago by adamjgallant
4 replies | jump to latest

From the trivia page:

The film was originally written as the fourth Halloween film (when the series was to be unrelated Halloween anthology films like Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)) but was rewritten as a stand alone film when the producers decided to resurrect Michael Myers, a story arc John Carpenter felt he had concluded with Halloween II (1981).

It makes sense, although I had not heard this before. Can anyone corroborate? On the Halloween 4 trivia page:

Series creator John Carpenter wrote a treatment for this film that had a more ghostly psychological approach to the Michael Myers mythos. It concerned the town of Haddonfield and what effect the events of the first two films had on its citizens. This concept was later rejected by the producers in favor of the typical slasher fare, at which point Carpernter bailed out of the film, making this the first in the series to have no participation from him.

This treatment certainly doesn't sound like Prince of Darkness. I do wish they had kept the idea of Halloween as an anthology series. Halloween 4 is okay but I could do without it, and the sequels that followed.

[–] TheSolarSailor 8 years ago

Being a fan of Prince of Darkness since its original release, I do not remember reading ANYTHING about it initially being written as the next chapter in the Halloween anthology story. I don't think the trivia is accurate. The Halloween anthology series would always have involved the Halloween season. And I just have to say...A Halloween anthology entry with the story of Prince of Darkness sounds awful!

Now, the other trivia about the citizens of Haddonfield refusing to forget Michael Myers and his somehow returning as a ghost (sort of a hint of Nightmare on Elm Street) brought back because of their fear sounds more correct. I have actually read about that before on some other site. Carpenter's idea was probably rejected because of the similar theme to Nightmare.

When Moustapha Akaad turned down the treatment, Carpenter moved on to make Prince of Darkness instead. Nothing has ever hinted that PoD was originally a Halloween film.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

[–] adamjgallant 8 years ago

Thank you for your reply! I'm inclined to agree with you. It's certainly possible the PoD story could've been altered to coincide with the Halloween season, but the story as is has nothing to do with Halloween.

I wouldn't mind seeing Carpenter's other idea come to life. Not in a NoES ripoff, but a spooky tale about the psychological torment Haddonfield has suffered. Too bad Carpenter doesn't seem up for much these days.

[–] TheSolarSailor 8 years ago

Well, many times people change as they age. I respect John Carpenter and love his great films he has given us through the years, but even he seemed to get to a point where he doesn't quite make good stuff anymore, I am sorry to say. He treated things like The Fog remake as a paycheck, where I really wish he would have made sure that the people who wanted to remake it actually cared about his original film and wanted to build their new film into something that respected it. Carpenter did not seem to give two craps, just collect a paycheck to be an executive producer.

I the past, I had toyed with the idea of Carpenter's films being the ideas he would have used for his Halloween anthology, but really, I just don't think that is how any of it happened. He moved on after Halloween III failed and decided to just do other stuff.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

[–] adamjgallant 8 years ago

I have not seen the Fog remake but it looks like garbage. I believe JC is attached to whatever the next Halloween sequel will be. I have a feeling he won't be too involved though, similar to the Fog. It certainly is a shame but I suppose we should be grateful that we got the few excellent films we did.