Good analysisđ»
Thank you. The sad thing is they knew what they did and even said fans would hate it. Well maybe you should have come up with your own ideas rather than ripping or two other horror movies 
And somehow thatâs the genius of it
Like, what about those of us with no strong reaction to it? It isnât wonderful. It isnât terrible. Worse than good, but not so bad it isnât watchable. 5.5/10.
H6 is an objectively terrible movie that can be backed up with simple analysis. Quality is not subjective. You can debate the story quality of Ends but still is vastly less corny and silly and as an actual edited film H6 is vastly worse.
Everyone wants their opinion but reality is we are taught that facts override opinions all the time but no one wants to be wrong. In this case we have some facts that are verifiable with some knowledge of filmmaking techniques, story elements and some pretty awful or hammy acting.
People need to accept that sometimes their opinions on things can be invalidated with actual facts. You donât get an âopinionâ on what 2 plus 2 is. Itâs 4. But we push this dangerous narrative that opinions arenât ever wrong and itâs one of the biggest reason why there is so much misinformation and delusion out there.
I hate to tell everyone this, butâŠ
If editing is the rubric for identifying an âobjectively terrible movieâ then John Carpenterâs original Halloween wouldnât have stood as a pinnacle of the horror genre for 40+years. The sound editing alone would be enough to âobjectivelyâ discredit the merits of the film.
Yet, it has stood the test of time. Almost as if, maybe, the objective qualities of a film arenât necessarily the only barometer for gauging the merits of a film.
As I said in this comment, the issue isnât the amount of time Myers was given on screen, it was how that time was allocated and utilized.
https://forum.michael-myers.net/t/halloween-ends-drops-80-in-2nd-weekend/67598/31
In response to your edit:
I happen to agree with the conclusion youâve drawn â H6 IS an awful movie.
However, your analysis is an oversimplification. Until you provide an actual structure, with an actual scoring rubric, for judging the âobjectivelyâ identifiable qualities of a film using your âknowledge of filmmaking techniquesâ your stance is, ironically, subjective.
Thatâs the issue, though. Even with the aid of a standardized rubric, you canât pull the subjectivity out of the process entirely. Iâve heard this stance float around here before; art can be measured objectively. Thatâs true, it can be, and it should be.
However, think about the most prestigious awards in the industry that are given to films that are scrutinized under a lens of objectivity. This, for all intents and purposes, is the rubric our culture has accepted as being the pinnacle of objectivity. The Oscars are considered the height of film achievement.
Now, consider this: the entity that objectively scrutinizes these films and then awards them is called the Academy of Motion Picture ARTS AND SCIENCES. Arts AND sciences. Not arts OR sciences. Huh, weird.
A quick wikipedia copy and paste of the Academyâs page reads: âThe Academy Awards, better known as the Oscars, are awards for artistic and technical merit for the American and international film industry.â ARTISTIC AND TECHNICAL. Not artistic OR technical. They are measured together. Arts AND sciences. Together.
2+2 may equal 4, but a critic doesnât have to like it.
edit: and before anyone wants to argue about the credibility of the Academy and the Oscars, I want it to be known that I donât hold their analysis or decisions in high regard. But they are the best we have at the moment. Whether we like it or not, they set the precedent.
He used most of that time to have the final battle with Laurie we were all waiting for, and the rest establishing a new character concept that ingratitude him as a potential pass torcher.
I mean⊠itâs absolutely from a plot standpoint exactly what was supposed to happen. What is the problem?
I have done that, if you want to hear my analytical points on that I can share them again but it seems you agree with me that H6 is terrible. But yes, I can definitely back that up.
Sure. I get they donât have to agree but when someone disagrees that 2 plus 2 is 4, you simply canât give them credence. An âopinionâ there is irrelevant.
And yes, the Oscars definitely bring about a sense of legitimacy and prestige to films and being nominated is certainly a badge of credibility. But of course, they always miss things and certainly have some politics going on, more than likely. But either way, you donât get nominated for an Oscar unless you really have something.
âAnd yes, the Oscars definitely bring about a sense of legitimacy and prestige to films and being nominated is certainly a badge of credibility. But of course, they always miss things and certainly have some politics going on, more than likely. But either way, you donât get nominated for an Oscar unless you really have something.â
Then we agree, the Oscars are the best rubric we have for analyzing a film objectively, and even then, that rubric takes into consideration the artistic (and subjective) merits of a film. Therefore, the logic of dismissing the artistic (and subjective) merits of a film, as you suggest, is a concept that not even the most objective and analytical organization on the planet would employ.
"Sure. I get they donât have to agree but when someone disagrees that 2 plus 2 is 4, you simply canât give them credence. An âopinionâ there is irrelevant. "
It is not irrelevant.
2+2=4, but a critic (and the audience) may prefer 3+2=5 or 14/2=7.
Thatâs what film analysis is, after all; a process of comparing a technical artwork against a backdrop of its predecessors and contemporaries to determine whether the artistic and technical qualities within the film (2+2=4) hold up to the rubric created by those aforementioned films, and then decide if the formula used (2+2=4) was the most appropriate choice given the choices that were available (3+2=5âŠ14/2=7).
At the end of all of that, the subjectivity of the critic has the final say. If subjectivity, and opinions, were truly omitted from the process, as you suggest they should be, why is it that a film can have multiple scores from multiple critics? If we were to follow your logic, every film would have a single score universally accepted by every professional critic in the industry. Every film would be held to an indelible rubric. Thatâs laughable.
The issue people have raised is the way in which DGG used the character of Michael Myers as a means to an end. Pun intended.
Youâre correct, Michaelâs presence was reduced to little more than a plot device. That, from a rabid fan base of Myers enthusiasts, is the problem.
Iâm not talking about doing another math problem. Iâm talking about people legitimately forming an âopinionâ that contradicts facts, saying that 2 plus 2 actually does not equal 4. And unfortunately, it happens all the time and is constantly accepted. And that is one of many reasons we have so much information and so many people unwilling to learn things because their hubris and insecurity is so stuck on having an âopinionâ on everything. Itâs dangerous.
As far as individual critics go, thatâs a deep dive and for another day, lol. But I donât think many âcriticsâ would say H6 is a better movie, lol.
That is what is amusing about it. Legions of impulsive fans who are furious about the movie going in the inevitable direction it needed to. Could Michael have racked up a few more kills along the way? Sure. Could the plot have focused more on him? Sure. But for the sake of ambiguity and leaving the franchise open for further potential, it was the only real way to go. And so you put the character development and symbiotic relationship with Michael on his potential predecessor or at very least symbolic torch carrier, which fits the narrative of the town being the real carrier of evil. Which, despite what dense fans think, is 100% relevant to the last 2 films. You just have to have some attention span, lol.
âIâm not talking about doing another math problem. Iâm talking about people legitimately forming an âopinionâ that contradicts facts, saying that 2 plus 2 actually does not equal 4.â
In order for your argument to hold any water, we have to accept that your conception of what constitutes a good film is âfact.â I do not. As Iâve pointed out, your criteria of a filmâs editing is flawed.
You havenât provided a concrete rubric for which to judge a film by. Not that I expect you to, thatâs ridiculous. Therefore, we are then left to take your word that whatever process you employ to judge a film by is in-line with industry standard and can be accepted as fact. Are you educated in the film industry? Do you hold a degree or certification that helps prove your analysis is worth more than the next average Joe? Do you have real-world experience filming a movie?
Iâm not convinced your âlogicâ is more bulletproof than someone elseâs âlogicâ that says H6 is better than ENDS. Which, by the way, IN MY OPINION, it is not.
All youâve done is tell people their opinions are worth less than your so-called âfactsâ without validating a single criterion from which youâve obtained these âfacts.â Dare I say, your âfactsâ look and sound a lot more like opinions the longer this conversation takes place.
Joe, the point Iâm trying to make here is that there is enough room on the big ole internet for everyone to share their thoughts and feelings without having someone dismantle them in a manner that makes the other person feel stupid or unimportant. That was the intent of my first message, and that is the intent of this last message. Friendly discourse and tact are paramount. Take from that what you will. Again, whether or not this conversation reads a certain way, I value your opinions. You seem passionate about film and our views seem to line up in many regards. Thatâs cool.
HEDGE
ââŠdespite what dense fans thinkâŠâ ⊠âYou just have to have some attention spanâŠâ
Case in point. For some reason you feel the need to subtly (or not so subtly) put others down when making a point. Thatâs not cool, dude, and thatâs precisely why I felt the need to reply to your comments and completely dismantle your position all while showing you and your ideas respect. Proving a point doesnât have to resort to name-calling or belittlement. Thatâs what Lawson Graves was saying a page or two ago, and thatâs the sentiment Iâm echoing.
Itâs not about the time, itâs more about the lack of his presence throughout the movie.
Iâll clarify. Iâm not claiming as a fact that the movie is great, but that it does have solid aspects of quality defined by filmmaking enough to make it a solid entry, at least where it pertains to comparison to the other movies in the franchise. Nuance is debatable but all films are farfetched on some level. But Ends has a lot more metaphorical suggestion than any other Halloween film, which gives it much more artistic value.
Glad you agree, but by actual defined filmmaking standards, H6 is objectively a worse film. If you need a post detailing this thoroughly Iâm surely game.
Metaphorically, his presence is felt more than in any other Halloween film, and that is arguably the entire point.