Halloween III is superior to all the other sequels in that franchise. Thanks to Tommy Wallace.

It's a pity that Tommy Wallace declined to direct Halloween II because that movie could really have done with the genuine fun that the wrung out of Season Of The Witch.

The obvious common ground for the first three films are that they were low budget genre films. The crucial difference is that Carpenter treated the first as a labour of love. Wallace debuted at the helm of his friend's production and naturally wanted to make his mark but was also no doubt motivated to emulate the appeal of the first movie. Evidently though, he wasn't keen to just copy the original, which is why he passed on II

Rosenthal on the other hand was a low budget film-maker who just treated Halloween II like a low-budget horror movie, and nothing else. As a result, Halloween II, even with more of THAT night, looks worse and worse as the years go by.

The arguments agains the departure from Haddonfield/Myers/Loomis/Laurie are a straw man for me. People seem to forget that back then, it was not inconceivable that a film-maker might actually elect to kill off a mass murderer and to intend for for them to stay dead. It wasn't taken for granted that whomever was putting the hat round the next year would make up some way of bringing them back the villain from their previously conclusive appearance (and departure). Sadly though, people like to point out that they were "stupid" to confuse the audience and not make Halloween III about Myers as if people were already well used to turning up to a franchise and seeing the villain ressurected from the dead and naturally took it for granted that Halloween III was, essentially, Myers III. It aint necessarily so.

I could go on but, for me, the biggest clue that Halloween III is a proper film and not just a contractual obligation is how the suited robot heavies are far more imposing and creepily reminiscent of the lurking Myers from the original Halloween than the waddling, bulging mummy thing which somehow does not scare in Halloween II .

You hit the coat-hanger on the neck, my friend.

Of course I'd argue that the sequels after III were not ruined by the man in the mask, but rather the lousy acting and recycled ideas/music, with the stupid addition of him stalking his family. Boring!

Halloween III creeps me out because it represents an evil corporation that seeks to mess up the world, much like They Live (only in that they've sort of won the game already).

Saying Halloween III is better than the other Halloween sequels is like saying Subway has better food than McDonald's. All the sequels to Halloween are below average to terrible.

It bears no relation to the other sequels and does entirely its own thing. So it's not really that kind of comparisons.

Even people that love the film sometimes get hung-up on the fact that it has the title Halloween III, which I think is kind of irrational. Changing the name aint gonna make it an overnight rediscovered classic or improve anyone's enjoyment of the film.

But if you were to watch it without knowledge of the title then I doubt anyone would compare it with any of the junk that came after it.

I'm going to agree with you, >>1. I have an affection for Halloween II because of nostalgia and personally i enjoy II and III equally but I see your point. (I don't seem to have the disdain you have for II).

I think it was a great, unique idea they had for the series, making it more of an anthology but unfortunately audiences just wouldn't accept it, which is a shame.

After Halloween III the sequels did indeed become vastly inferior and I like to pretend they don't exist.

I will watch Halloween 4 on TV in Oct, but I don't consider it a true part of the Halloween series. I see it more as a film I went to see in the theater as a pre-teen which was fun, so I will still give it a watch. However, once someone begins to talk about the first film trying to make all these connections to Jamie, Dr Wynn and the thorn cult thingie, her son and his Dawson's Creek friends, etc etc I tune right out. Snore.

unfortunately audiences just wouldn't accept it, which is a shame.

This still puzzles me to this day. Where slasher tropes, including the studios willingness to pretend have the "final" showdown, only for the fiend to spring back up the following year, so embedded already that audiences thought
"Hey. What is this original stuff? We demand an even poorer sequel to the mediocre Halloween II."

Repetition and lack of imagination feeds the masses, in their opinion.

How wrong were they proved when Fury Road blew the fücking doors off of the world, with some much-needed social commentary and overload of action which satisfied both the thinking and action audiences.

That proves that Hollywood is a filthy lie, tempting us with repetition of cheesy one-liners and identical imagery, without any emotional depth.

While I agree that Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) is one of the most underrated horror movies of the 1980s (it's soundtrack alone makes it a certified classic), you have to understand that the audience at the time was engulfed in the slasher craze, and Season of the Witch is most definitely not a slasher film. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite in terms of mainstream horror, focusing solely on paganism and science fiction. Also, because Halloween (1978) was such an cultural phenomenon at the time, when people go to see it's second sequel, they expect something more like the first two films. Honestly, the reason Season of the Witch failed at the box office is due to Halloween II (1981) -- had that film followed suit and created an anthology series, than people would have willingly accepted Season of the Witch as part of a tradition, not a confusing departure from what had already been established.

Still, the first three films in the franchise are great, and while the 1978 original is the classic, both Halloween II and Season of the Witch are very solid entries to the horror genre, and are still the best of the franchise.

Agree completely! Halloween III may not be the greatest movie in the world, but at least it's entertaining and imaginative. It has some style and personality of its own - which makes it the exact opposite of nearly every other franchise sequel. Honestly, I wish Halloween II had never been made. That's the movie that, to my mind, killed the American slasher genre. It was popular and influential, no argument there, but it set a terrible pattern. After that, nearly every successful slasher flick generated an endless stream of worthless, timid, assembly-line sequels where the unkillable monster-man villain becomes, essentially, the protagonist. I straight-up hated that trend as a kid, and I hate it all the more now (the occasion exception aside... like, I really dig Hellraiser II).

Every movie should be a fresh start, a blank canvas, a place to stick something no one's ever seen before. I've heard that Carpenter wanted to produce a series of fun, varied horror films with nothing in common but the holiday. If Halloween III hadn't been such a catastrophic failure with (forgive me) imagination-challenged mainstream audiences, he might have been able to make that happen. I mean, imagine getting a new, weird, unpredictable horror flick every year on October 31st! Trick 'r Treat, House of 1000 Corpses, Night of the Demons, The Guest and Ginger Snaps are all set on or around "The Night He Came Home", after all. But no. Instead we get fifty billion retreads of the same hulk-in-a-mask-chops-the-kids garbage. Boo.