Why did Halloween 3 have nothing to do with the other Halloween movies?

[border]

I know it's probably the least-liked of the 80's Halloween flicks, primarily because Michael Myers disappeared completely.  But is there any reason the studio or film-makers decided to do this?  Was the film always intended to be a Halloween movie, or did the studio just have some script/movie that they decided to slap the name on so it'd sell better?

Maybe they were planning to turn the series into an anthology of standalone stories?

WTF happened?

[TVC15]

John Carpenter intended the movies to be an anthology series is what I had always heard.  I also wouldn't put it past Carpenter to be purposefully difficult.

[Madrun Badrun]

Ya it was horrible. 

[border]

Carpenter neither wrote nor directed Halloween 3, though.  He has a credit for being a producer and for the music, though I'm not sure about the extent of his involvement.  Was the plan just to turn the series over to other writers and directors, who would make their own films about bad things happening on Halloween?

[TVC15]

Carpenter neither wrote nor directed Halloween 3, though.  He has a credit for being a producer and for the music, though I'm not sure about the extent of his involvement.  Was the plan just to turn the series over to other writers and directors, who would make their own films about bad things happening on Halloween?

According to Wiki, they still needed Carpenter's blessing for a sequel:

When approached about creating a third Halloween film, original Halloween writers John Carpenter and Debra Hill were reluctant to pledge commitment. According to Fangoria magazine, Carpenter and Hill agreed to participate in the new project only if it was not a direct sequel to Halloween II, which meant no Michael Myers.[4] Irwin Yablans and Moustapha Akkad, who had produced the first two films, filmed Halloween III on a budget of $2.5 million.[1]

I am guessing the most logical answer is that Carpenter, at the time, did not want anyone else doing Michael movies other than himself.

[TakingBackSunday]

Where's that one gif of the main character guy rolling over to something funny that scares the shit out of him

[The Fake Shemp]

Carpenter neither wrote nor directed Halloween 3, though.  He has a credit for being a producer and for the music, though I'm not sure about the extent of his involvement.  Was the plan just to turn the series over to other writers and directors, who would make their own films about bad things happening on Halloween?

No, TVC is right... sort of.  Halloween was always meant to be different stories at its core, as Halloween was originally intended as a sequel to Bob Clark's genre defining Black Christmas.  Carpenter thought that the story of Michael Myers was concluded with Halloween II and wanted to do new stories for each sequel.  He did come up with the story for Halloween III and both he and Debra Hill served as the main producers.

The film bombed and there was a huge backlash, which is why he all but abandoned the series and left it to Moustapha Akkad to continue to milk with further Michael Myers sequels.

[border]

No offense to Carpenter, but if he wanted Halloween to be an anthology he probably shouldn't have made a direct sequel and then tried to change it with Halloween 3.

Also from Wikipedia:

John Carpenter was actually first approached by Cannon Films to do a Halloween 4 around 1986 after the studio produced The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Although the idea to do a Leatherface vs. Michael Myers movie was rejected, it did spark interest in reviving the series. Soon after, Carpenter and fellow writer Dennis Etchison began writing the script for the fourth Halloween. While a direct sequel to Halloween & Halloween II, the script did not feature a living, breathing Michael Myers. More of a ghost story, the fear and angst of the adults in Haddonfield allowed The Shape to reappear, causing a kind of "psychic disturbance" in the town. However, Akkad rejected it, calling it "too cerebral" and insisting any new Halloween movie must feature Myers as a flesh and blood killer. At this point, Carpenter washed his hands of the series and sold all of his remaining rights to Akkad.[5]

Is there any more information about the "cerebral" Halloween 4?  Was a script ever leaked or anything?  Has Carpenter commented on it?  It sounds like it could have been pretty interesting......

[TVC15]

No offense to Carpenter, but if he wanted Halloween to be an anthology he probably shouldn't have made a direct sequel and then tried to change it with Halloween 3.

Also from Wikipedia:

John Carpenter was actually first approached by Cannon Films to do a Halloween 4 around 1986 after the studio produced The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Although the idea to do a Leatherface vs. Michael Myers movie was rejected, it did spark interest in reviving the series. Soon after, Carpenter and fellow writer Dennis Etchison began writing the script for the fourth Halloween. While a direct sequel to Halloween & Halloween II, the script did not feature a living, breathing Michael Myers. More of a ghost story, the fear and angst of the adults in Haddonfield allowed The Shape to reappear, causing a kind of "psychic disturbance" in the town. However, Akkad rejected it, calling it "too cerebral" and insisting any new Halloween movie must feature Myers as a flesh and blood killer. At this point, Carpenter washed his hands of the series and sold all of his remaining rights to Akkad.[5]

Is there any more information about the "cerebral" Halloween 4?  Was a script ever leaked or anything?  Has Carpenter commented on it?  It sounds like it could have been pretty interesting......

That's the first I've heard of it, and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable concerning the franchise (one of my old best friends was a hardcore Halloween nerd).

The thing is, and Willco will back me up here, is that Carpenter is easily jaded.  I am sure if that anecdote is true, concluding with him just selling off the series, he probably got really drunk and bitter that very night and burnt the script.

[The Fake Shemp]

It wasn't meant to be an anthology from the start and that why I said TVC was right... sort of.  It was supposed to be one story in a collection of horror stories at its core - that was the point I was trying to make (and that Halloween itself was just another tale in the holiday slasher series!).

But after Halloween II wrapped up, Carpenter didn't want to continue to do Michael Myers stories and envisioned a franchise that had different Halloween tales.  This didn't go over too well.

I will say this, the movie is absolutely dumb, but the Silver Shamrock jingle is fantastic and the lighting and cinematography is some of the creepiest ever seen by human eyes.  There's dark, sterile look that film nails that gnaws on my soul.

I've heard bits and pieces of Halloween 4, no more than the information you have in front of you, but that the breaking point was that Akkad wanted to mimic (ironically) the knockoff slashers that Halloween had inspired instead of creating new stories.  Carpenter wanted none of that, probably because he wasn't a studio shill yet and was at his creative peak in the 80s.

Nowadays, he'll do anything for money.

Personally, I've always felt they should tackle the material in different ways.  Like, follow Loomis' son (presumably with daddy issues on account that his father spent more time chasing a serial killer than with his family).  Or make a Se7en-like film, through the eyes of detectives trying to stop a violent serial killer.  Stuff like that.  That's why Rob Zombie's film looks so disappointing.  It's like he's just remaking the Carpenter classic but with the production values of The Devil's Rejects.  He would make the recently deceased Moustapha Akkad proud.

[The Fake Shemp]

Oooh, Melissa is here.  And she knows horror films.  Maybe she might drop some knowledge on us, son.

[border]

Halloween 4 sounds like it could have been really cool and different, or ridiculously stupid.  Sometime over the years, someone has to have asked more about it in an interview or something.  I just wanna know how it was supposed to have worked.

[Saint Cornelius]

I really liked Halloween 3, there's some seriously spooky shit going on there. I can't hear "London Bridge" without thinking 'ah, that fucking Silver Shamrock mask is going to melt my fucking face off!'

[border]

I haven't seen it since I was a kid, but I remember being kinda creeped out by it.  Not sure if it'd actually be scary to see it now though.

[Saint Cornelius]

I hated the eye-gauging scene and the head-ripped-from-the-shoulders scenes mainly due to the gross sound effects. But it might seem quaint now after the likes of Guinea Pig and Hostel and that sorta shit.

[Error Macro]

I always thought it was amusing that they referred to the Silver Shamrock masks as the Halloween Three ("Yes kids, you too can own one of the big Halloween Three.  That's right, three horrific masks to chose from.") in an attempt to tie the title of the movie into the story.