Replacing Pleasence (What if HALLOWEEN would have found a new actor to play Dr. Loomis?)

 One of the most beloved protagonists within all of horror of all time is the character of Dr. Sam Loomis from the Halloween films. While the impeccable writing of John Carpenter created the structure and the background, it was the flawless performance of Donald Pleasence who truly brought Loomis to life. The passion and spirit he put into his action & his dialog were what made Loomis such a hero to so many of us. 

Our hearts were ripped out of our bodies and honestly the soul of Halloween died the day Pleasence passed away nearly 28 years ago. To quote both Daniel Farrands and Malek Akkad, the franchise has never been the same without him. He is sorely missed. His absence has been deeply felt as the series has moved on. It's hard to swallow that he wasn't given a more proper exit. He deserved and furthermore he had earned a better end. I do think though that of all the poor decisions that have been made regarding Halloween throughout the years, it was a wise decision to let the character die with the actor. 

I wonder though, what if they hadn't? What if they had decided to replace Pleasence with another actor? Who might they have chosen to fill the role? Obviously nobody was going to fill the shoes of the veteran actor, but there are those who would've given it a valiant effort.  With no help whatsoever from a horrendously awful written screenplay, Malcolm McDowell gave it a gallant effort. He put forth a tremendous performance, despite a script that went out of its way to make him look a fool.  Yet, when I say a new Dr. Sam Loomis, I'm not talking remakes or reimagining. I'm speaking specifically to continuation. As if the Loomis character had not died & ended up in Halloween H20. 

Well, I don't know who they would have chosen but had I been in charge here are the four actors I would have gone after.  From #4 to #1, I give you the top actors in my opinion who could have taken over the Dr. Loomis character. 

#4
Christopher Lee 

If you're a diehard Halloween fanatic you already know that Christopher Lee was the original choice to play Dr. Loomis before the role went to Pleasence. It's so hard for me to imagine anyone other than Pleasence in the role, but I do think Lee would have done an outstanding job. He would have kept Pleasence's poetic nature, while at the same time giving the character a bit more anger. Pleasence's Loomis was so calculated, fixated and precise. I think Lee would have made him a bit more unstable & that would have been fun to have seen. As to him taking over, I think he would have done his best to honor the spirit of Pleasence while at the same time making the character his own. We would have had him through 2015, when Lee sadly passed away. 

#3
Richard Attenborough 

With the massive success of Jurassic Park I could have seen the studio plausibly going after Richard Attenborough to replace Pleasence. He had a similar build, albeit a tad heavier than Pleasence & he had a natural altruistic nature to him that would have fit the character perfectly. Dr. Loomis was a protector, a guardian if you will. His life's purpose was to protect as many as he could from Michael Myers and this is a point that I feel Attenborough would have accentuated. We would have had Attenborough up until 2014. 

#2
Bernard Hill 

I think Bernard Hill would have been a great choice to have been the next Dr. Loomis. A gifted actor who plays his roles with precision and expertise. I can see him studying the role so well that he would completely encompass the character. I think he could have matched Pleasence's obsession and determination. As to the brightest side of Hill playing the character, he not only could have been in H20, he could have also been in the recent trilogy. He was ironically enough only in his early 50's when Titanic came out. 

#1 
David Ogden Stiers 

If you can't give me Donald Pleasence, David Ogden Stiers is the next best thing. I think Stiers would have been as close to Pleasence as any of us could have hoped for in a new Loomis. The heart, the devotion, the intensity, I believe Stiers would have brought it all to the table. I think fans would have felt he played homage to Pleasence and been very happy with his performance. He's who I would have picked. He would have been my #1 choice. 


Again, to reiterate, I think the decision to have the character die off the day Pleasence passed away was the right decision to make. This is only speculation as to what if they had decided to have replaced him instead? 

How about you? Who would have been your picks? 

HALLOWEEN: A reflection.

 

I was 12 years old the first time I saw Halloween. In fact, I saw Halloween & Halloween II back to back. I was over at my friend Chris Thompson's house for the weekend and he and his family had rented both films. Not only did I fall in love with both films, I made a realization about myself. Between the near flawless storytelling & the mesmerizing performance of Donald Pleasence as Dr. Sam Loomis, I knew that in somehow, someway I had to dedicate my life to this art. I wasn't sure exactly what my medium would be, be it acting or writing, but it was something I had to do. If a talent wasn't discovered that day, a love & a passion certainly was. This isn't "just a movie" to me. It was a life changing experience. 

Both films were. For their own sake alone, there's nothing about either film I would change. Michael Myers was the perfect villain. Mysterious & puzzling, yet not obnoxiously ambiguous. He was the embodiment of evil. He went beyond a psychopath or a psychotic. He had no other motive. It was pure and it was simple. Laurie Strode was the perfect heroine. Strong and courageous. She showed her heroinism not by standing toe to toe with Michael in an effort to prove her toughness, but instead to demonstrate her selflessness in protecting Tommy and Lindsay. The character was likable, identifiable and admirable. The hero, the savior Dr. Sam Loomis. The good doctor fixated with stopping Michael and protecting others from him. While Michael would stop at nothing to kill, Loomis would stop at nothing to save. The two were diametrically opposed. Night and day. Dark and light. 

The opening scene with the escape from Smith's grove. The slow buildup with Michael stalking Laurie. Watching her from the clothesline, from behind the bush and the most effective of them all, from the car across the road while she's in English class. Talk about the power of suspense being executed beautifully. Loomis' "purely and simply evil" speech & so many of his other classic lines. I can't go on enough about how much I love this film and the way the story is told. 

I think it continued just as well in Halloween II.  If there is a flaw here, I would say it may be in making Michael and Laurie brother and sister. Had Halloween II been the end of the Michael Myers saga, then I think it works just fine. Yet had we known we were going to be getting films forty years later, I can see where such an idea limits creativity.  Suddenly it makes each story have to relate to Michael's bloodline, his family. Unless of course you decide to throw everything out the window and completely start over again....(We'll eventually get to that). 

Was I a fool to ever think that maybe, just maybe one day I'd get another sequel that would live up to Halloween & Halloween II? Obviously I was. I spent over twenty years & a lot of $$ getting disappointed over and over again. Never once was I satisfied. Some made me happier than others, but I always left feeling that they could have done better. I always left feeling that there was something in the film that went out of its way to let me down. 

I've had so many thoughts about this film over the years. If you remove Halloween from the title & from your mind, it's actually a very enjoyable film. Tom Atkins is absolutely awesome in this disturbing thriller. The story is creepy, thrilling and exciting. Usually film's don't have the slightest clue how to leave an audience properly wondering, "What happened?" but Halloween III: Season of the Witch couldn't have done it any better. As a stand alone film, I really like this movie. Some feel that I and others should leave it at that, I don't.  It's not just Season of the Witch, it's a Halloween film. Furthermore it has III in the title. III represents something. It represents that a I & a II came before it, therefore making it a sequel. Sequels have expectations (or at least they did at one time) & as a fan of I & II, it's ok to have those expectations. Furthermore it's ok to be upset if those expectations are not adhered to. Often times they aren't anyway, but here there wasn't even an attempt. There was absolutely no effort. 

I already know the rebuttal.  "Carpenter was going for an anthology."  I've heard the argument. I've seen the documentaries. I've heard the commentaries. I know.  In my opinion if this is where he wanted to take Halloween & this is what he wanted Halloween to be, then as much as it pains me to say this, there should have never been a Halloween II. I think that's where Carpenter went wrong.  I think Michael's death should have been Loomis shooting him off the roof. When Loomis looks down, he sees Michael's lifeless body laying on the lawn. Laurie comes up behind Loomis, we get a close up of her face starring at Michael's lifeless body, we cut back to a close up of Michael's face & we fade to black.  By having Loomis look down & now we see only an imprint of Michael's body, we set ourselves up for a sequel. We beg ourselves for a sequel. Hell we DEMAND a sequel.  Some might argue that the end of Michael being blown up in the hospital in Halloween II put a permanent end to the Michael Myers saga. I argue that it didn't because getting six bullets pumped into your chest & falling flat on your back doesn't end you, neither will an explosion.  I'll stand next to my argument that if the anthology thing was ever to work, then each story needed a definitive end. 

I think Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers  was a gallant effort. The film had plenty of flaws & plenty to nitpick at, but at least it tried. Jamie Lee Curtis' refusal to return, because she had "outgrown" the horror franchise, along with Halloween II forcing some sort of family tie-in left options limited. Jamie as the damsel in distress, the daughter of a now deceased Laurie Strode was believable enough. Danielle Harris did an outstanding job. Who I really liked here was Ellie Cornell as Rachel. A fun, courageous, heroine who totally kicked ass. Dr. Loomis was back to play his role. Really this film did a lot of things right & presented some good ideas. Unfortunately they didn't execute all of them very well & even more unfortunate, some of them they didn't do anything with at all. The Reverend Jackson P Sayor was fantastic. Why he & his speech are only a snippet instead of a focus is beyond me. Where I think this film really went wrong was passing the torch to Jamie at the end.  It didn't work for me for many reasons. 

For one it was clear that they didn't think it through.  What in the world would a sequel look like? Was Michael now dead & people were going to have to fight off a killer 10 year old girl? What would that look like on film? I'm not sure audiences would want to see Dr. Loomis pumping 6 bullets into the chest of little Jamie Lloyd. Would Michael return & he and Jamie go on a Uncle & Niece killing spree? I have no idea what the hell they were thinking here. They really backed themselves into a corner with no where to go, which in partial is how we got the mess with did with Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers. 

I'll argue that this film does have some redeeming qualities but they are few and far between. It's hard for me to admit what a pile of rubbish this film is because it was Dr. Loomis' last hurrah before Donald Pleasence's health began to fail. It was rewarding seeing him kick Michael's ass one last time, but there's nothing much beyond that the film has going for itself. They completely abandoned the idea of Jamie being the killer. Which was good, but where they went next was just plain insane. Killing off Rachel and replacing her with Tina was a decision that should have got someone 3-5 years.  Of all decisions made for the Halloween franchise, that has to be in the top 5 dumbest. I love Don Shanks as a stuntman & feel he is one of the most personable outside of the movies, but curse me if he isn't in one of the worst films.  

I grant the film a little bit of grace because of the circumstances. This film was rushed and they were given practically no time to get it done. On top of it Dominique Othenin-Girard was so obsessed with making sure that the actors liked him and were enjoying themselves that he forget that he was making a movie. The whole shoot was one big party & little actual work got done.  The mysterious man in black added something kinda cool & fun, but should have been thought out more. They hadn't the slightest clue who he was or what they were going to do with them. Another example of backing themselves in a corner with no where to go. 

I have a really hard time talking about this film, because I have a hard time separating what it could have been, what it SHOULD have been, from what it was. This could have easily been the sequel I was looking for. The live up to I & II continuation that I had been begging for. Screenplay writer Daniel Farrands' ideas weren't exactly where I would have gone, but at least they were something worth looking at. They were "new & fresh" as everyone seems to want, but they also didn't shit all over the original. They tied in & linked to what had happened before. Had what was on the page ended up what was on the screen, I still would have had some problems with the film, but it would be a solid B or even a B+, rather than the D that it turned out to be.  I'm not sure if I'll ever forgive director Joe Chappelle for butchering this film as horribly as he did. It was Michael Myers we were supposed to see slicing up his victims, not Chappelle slicing up a decent screenplay. 

Chappelle can take his, "I found Loomis to be boring" attitude and shove it straight up his ass. He was making a Halloween film. Is he that dense to not realize that we as fans wanted Loomis in the film and we wanted to see as much of him as possible? The main story focus is of good Vs Evil.  Instead we get Chappelle's signature flash cut scenes multiple times throughout the film. Difficult to watch, hard to follow and nausea inducing.  

Anything about this film to like? Well, yeah. Paul Rudd gave a very good performance as Tommy Doyle. It was clear that this was a passing of the torch. Loomis could no longer be the savior. I loved the idea of Doyle being the new Loomis. I was all for it. It's a shame that Chappelle ruined the experience for Rudd. Made it so horrible for him that he deemed he would never be in another Halloween film ever again. 

It was clear that Donald Pleasence's time was up. Everyone knew that this would be his last film. He was dying & everyone knew it. To not have given him his due, his final moment was a tragedy. His dedication to the Halloween films wasn't an ego boost. It wasn't a shrine to himself. It was a dedication to the fans. A dedication to his craft. He deserved to go out on top. He earned that moment.  Nearly 30 years later, I'm still pissed off that he didn't get it. I suppose I always will be. 

When he tells Tommy, Kara & Danny that he can't go with them because he had some unfinished business, there should have been a final confrontation with him and Michael. Him killing Michael one last time or even the two of them killing each other.  Something better than what we got with both the theatrical cut and the producer's cut. I do know that. 

Halloween H20 I have a lot of mixed feelings about. There's a lot about this film I did like, but a lot about it I didn't. I didn't appreciate that H4-H5-H6 were ignored completely. I can understand omitting certain things about them, but to completely ignore them, I feel was a slap in the face. Jamie Lee Curtis has said before that she was glad she wasn't in any of those "not so great films" & had she done Halloween H20 and that been it, I'd let her get away with saying that.  But when you turn around and decide to be in Halloween Resurrection you better keep your God damn mouth shut about "films that suck."  I liked Michael in this one. I liked the story in this one. Weaving Laurie Strode back into the story was done in a very convincing and entertaining way.  She was still in many ways the same Laurie Strode that she had been in 1978.  There were glimpses of what I call the "ode to Strode" self-proclaiming shrine that JLC would later give herself, but it wasn't as strong here as it could have been. Laurie Strode got her final confrontation with Michael. She got her last hurrah. She got to end it by kicking his ass and having her way with him. She got her moment in the spotlight, her moment in the sun. Her moment of, "Me and only me could have done this."  I was fine with it. Matter of fact I cheered it. Why she needed it three more times afterwards, that I'm not such a big fan of. 

All right! Good going! We have Halloween H20 we introduced some new, likable characters we can get behind. We abandoned Jamie Lloyd and Tommy Doyle for John Tate. Ok, I can live with that. Let's see him in this new Halloween Resurrection film. That sounds great.  No? What do you mean no? 

Oh, let's instead put Laurie into an insane asylum for murdering a paramedic that she thought was Michael & have her killed off in one of the stupidest ways possible. I mean whatever ideas they gave her back in 1988 for a possible return to the series just had to be God-awful because there was no way that "I'm beyond that now" JLC could ever return to something as low as horror. Oh no, but give her a way to completely just shit on the awesome work she did in Halloween H20, just sign the check & she'll help you wipe. 

God this film was bad. Really, really, really bad. How in the Hell this rubbish got green lit I'll never figure out. The Myles character makes the film somewhat watchable & it can sorta be fun watching Busta Rhymes act like a fool, but this just isn't good.  Surely it couldn't get worse than this right? I mean as I sat in the movie theater trying to figure out why in the Hell they went this direction, I at least knew if they did another Halloween film it would be better than this.  

"Hold my Beer!!!!!"  Rob Zombie shouted from the top of his lungs. If I thought Halloween Resurrection was a disappointment, then was I in for a treat. He was going to lure me in with the return of Danielle Harris & a cast featuring legends Malcolm McDowell & Brad Dourif. Then as I sat in my seat comfortable, awaiting what I thought would at least be a decent film, he'd unleash one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever witnessed in my life.  This wasn't Michael Myers. This was Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Kuemper, Gary Ridgeway & Dennis Rader all piled into one.  "Purely & Simply evil" my ass. His psychopathy was easily diagnosed and understood. We knew exactly what he was and we knew exactly why he was that way. Making him huge and barbaric took away from his mystique. What bothered me most about this film was how much of a blabbering buffoon the Dr. Sam Loomis character was made out to be. Not at all the fault of McDowell who did his best, but the fault of such a shit screenplay.  Loomis goes from observing Michael & seeing exactly why he is the way he is to a few minutes later giving the "I met his 15 years ago.." speech.  Laurie just screaming her head off like an idiot. Michael that we've known for 30 years who wanted to kill his sister, now suddenly wants to bond with her over a photo? My God, this film made me damn near like Resurrection. I sat through this in the theater & I will never in my life ever want my $$ back more than I did that night. 

  
I didn't see this in theaters.  That's the only reason why the above statement remains true. I had to hand it to Rob Zombie. I didn't think he could do any worse than what he did with his original Halloween remake but his Halloween II has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. At least with Halloween V  & Halloween Resurrection I can find redeeming qualities. I mean hold a gun to my head I can find things I like about Zombie's Halloween.  I have to admit it was shot beautifully. The cinematography and lighting was well done. I did like the scene where he carried a body into the darkness.  But Zombie's Halloween II? Jesus, there just isn't anything. I didn't know it could get this bad. If I tried to make the shittiest Halloween film that I could & someone said to me, "I'll give you $10 million if you can make a film worse than Zombie's II" I don't think I could do it. I'm not even sure if it's possible.  But bless those who decided to try anyway. 

I knew this film would be a shrine to JLC & be all about her and how great she was, but I went into the film with an open mind anyway.  Not only do we continue to omit H4, H5 & H6, but now we're going to take it a step further and omit H2 & H20 as well. Michael and Laurie are no longer brother & sister. We no longer have a connection between the two. We want to make it clear that Michael has no real motive for going after Laurie, he just does. No reason to go after her anymore than anyone else, but hey, we gotta kiss JLC's ass for at least two more movies, so just go with us on this one.  Ok, fine.  I'll go along for the ride.  We'll take a detour down let's insult the memory of Donald Pleasence by introducing Dr. Sartain who starts off kinda good & then becomes an absolute idiot.  Can't bring back Jamie. Can't bring back John, but what we will do is introduce Karen and Allyson.  Ok...ok...ok...

Once you get past that and realize that all changes have been done in order to get it across that this film has one hero and one hero only, you can sorta start to enjoy it.  Michael is still for the most part Michael & the teamwork between the three women to outsmart him and outdo him is quite good. You'll never convince me that Kara was better than Jamie or that we needed a Kara over a Jamie, but whatever. The teamwork was still good. That I did appreciate it.  This film disappointed me, but not near to the level I thought it would.  Gave it a solid C. 

Hope and hype, I was excited for this film. Tommy Doyle, Lindsay Wallace, Nurse Chambers? Seriously? All of these characters were returning? Granted, Doyle had a new actor, but the original Wallace and Chambers? OMG, Sheriff Bracket!?!?!? Even little Lonnie!?! I couldn't believe my eyes.  Maybe Jamie Lee Curtis was going to share the spotlight after all.  Maybe she'd allow Laurie Strode to get a little help from some of the other characters. This was awesome.  

OR NOT

Bring back all of these characters only to have Michael just wipe the floor with them. Make sure that we as an audience know that Laurie ONLY Laurie can defeat Michael. She is the ONLY one. NO ONE else. 

If there are theaters in Hell, I swear one screen plays' Zombie's II & the other one plays this.

You know what really pisses me off about Halloween Kills? It had the potential to be really good. It could have been a good film. It could have finally been the film that gave me the great sequel/remake/reimagining/whatever you want to call it that I've been looking for. 

I refused to see it.  H20, Halloween 2018, Halloween Kills I think three "Ode to Strode" JLC Shrines are enough. I really don't need a fourth. I've read the treatment, and seriously I don't think I could sit through this. I really don't.  What in umpf is up with this Corey character? Didn't we already decide with the end of Halloween IV  that going down this route was not a good choice? Didn't we already establish that? I suppose they had to think of something considering that they killed everyone else off & left Laurie Strode played by "am not returning after this" the only one left to do anything. We sure did need Laurie kicking Michael's ass one last time incase the first 10,000 times we saw it wasn't enough. 

I loved the Laurie Strode character in H1 & H2. I really did. I mean I loved her.  I liked her a lot in H20.  I even tolerated her, despite her egocentric demeanor in Halloween (2018). But this JLC is HALLOWEEN, F everyone else, attitude of Halloween Kills was too much for me.  I couldn't take it. 

Pleasence died & people want to shove that in my face all the time. He couldn't have came back & (even though they already have multiple times) would I really want someone else playing the role of Loomis?  Ok, fine. 

But...
Tommy Doyle
Lindsay Wallace
Jamie Lloyd
John Tate

I mean come on, this doesn't have to be a one woman show.  She can always remain #1, but does she have to be the ONLY one?  "But Kara and Allyson!!"  For show, nothing else. 

I have let these films let me down and disappointment for such a long time. What is so difficult about making a good horror sequel.  Halloween isn't the only film that struggles with this.  All horror series do! I thought maybe SCREAM would be the one that didn't & while some might point a boney finger at SCREAM 3, at least it wasn't the abomination that SCREAM V turned out to be. 

I know knowing me and the promise of "what if?" "Just in case" will get me to sit down and give a TV series a chance that they're bound to try one of these days. 

Why oh why do I torture myself this way? 

Why oh why can't they make sequels that are good!?!??!? What is so freakin' hard about this!??!! 

God, I wish I was in Hollywood. Give me a chance. I'd write something good. I don't know if I'd be able to salvage anything out of the films, but I wish I was in charge of the TV series that is rumored. God, I wish I was.