So let me preface this by saying that I understand that appreciation of visual effects, like many other things is completely subjective to the viewer. So I completely get that a lot of people liked the look of Michael in this movie.
Having said that, I think a lot about how much I enjoyed the film. It had new characters that I actually care about, the story was simple yet interesting, and best of all, it replicated the eerie feel of the first film in a way that even the sequel had a hard time following. Despite all of that, I could never get over how comical Michael looks in the movie. The actor’s frame looks unrealistically proportioned, and the mask they used is probably the source of the mass produced garbage that has been around since the 1980’s. (God bless Trick or Treat Studios)
So again, I get that the look of Michael in the movie has become an acquired taste for a lot of people here so bashing it won’t be welcomed. I am just wondering if anyone else thinks that the movie would have gained a colossal amount of quality just from having an actor and costume that heavily resembled the one from the first two films.
The mask is actually made very well. The problem might have been it was too small for Wilbur. Sitting on the stand and not stretched out, it looks better. The bedroom scenes are classic and the mask looks great if you ask me. I like the different mask looks for each movie. This site would be less interesting if all the masks were the same. My two cents.
I think the mask isn’t the problem, it’s the padding under the suit. It makes gpw look like an action figure. Is that hocky goalie gear underneath the suit? I think the mask is creepy as hell and I love the escape look too, wish he kept it longer in the film.
A different mask (one that actually looked like the original mask) and actor would have certainly helped but the film was pretty much doomed by the lousy script. The action scenes were also way out of character for The Shape - The scene on the roof and the pick-up truck scene come to mind. I never understood the love for this film, outside of maybe some nostalgia, especially when you have the far superior original and the first sequel to compare it to. Halloween II is hardly a masterpiece but it certainly delivers the goods to fans wanting more of the night he came home. Halloween 4 is total amateur hour. The only compliment I can give it would go to the lighting department. The blue lighting throughout gave it kind of cool look harkening back to the original.
I love Halloween 4 but totally agree that a different mask and actor would have helped the movie alot. Not a huge Wilbur fan or a fan of the mask Still though I love H4 for the total “Halloween time of the year” feeling it gives off
Carpenter’s original concept for Halloween 4 would have been so much cooler imo.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095271/trivia Series creator John Carpenter wrote a treatment for this film, that was 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 have had on the it’s citizens. This concept was later rejected by the producers in favor of the typical slasher fare, at which point in time John Carpernter bailed out of the film, making this the first film in the series to have no participation from him.
Eh, it depends on how the script would have played out. From what I’ve read about it it’s a huge departure and kind of hearkened back to Carpenter’s Someone is Watching Me with the high rise element, and it Haddonfield banning Halloween and such (which part VI used) so that The Shape wouldn’t come back (an element of Friday the 13th part VI as well). While I’m sure it would have been a good movie, I’m not sure it would have been a Halloween film and would have ended up with the reception III received; and remember Carpenter also brought up the idea of sending Michael into space (also jokingly referenced in VI), I think he stopped giving a damn after the original as he never wanted a sequel.
I actually prefer IV to II. II benefited from having a lot of the people behind the original on it, but to me IV was a spookier film, focused less on the family connection (which really hurt the series), and the characters weren’t oblivious. It brought back te Shape of the original and not the MIchael Myers of II. I thought the script (the original script didn’t have the Kelly-Brady-Rachael teen soap opera thing going on that was added by request) actually changed things up in having them smartly hole up in a house, nail the windows shut, and with two armed police men there. The Shape also was smarter than in part II, he knocked out the power to at least most of the town, made it seem like he died in the accident, took out the police force, etc. I think if the original script idea of not having the teen soap opera element was used it’s be even better as the weaker moments revolved around that storyline.
I thought the idea of making The Shape more supernatural would have been pretty cool. I always thought there was a little of that in the original when doors would open and close on their own. It would have been the ultimate transformation into the boogeyman! Carpenter was on to something with this concept. The Shape being more of a “spirit” of Halloween if you will. The embodiment of evil. This would also link right into why he can’t be killed.
All of those reasons you gave for liking H4 were some of the many reasons I hated the film. Laurie alone in the house with a couple of kids was far scarier than a house full of cops and teens. The Shape was more of a looming threat in the background of the story, and that made it scarier. Also, the original never depicted Haddonfield as a rural hick town. It was more upper-class which seemed to work better with the tone of the film.
The casting and design of Michael was absolutely ridiculous. He reminded me of your typical local haunted house Michael Myers - You know, the guy in the Don Post mask who has no idea what the character is about. I never once believed that I was watching Michael Myers on screen. Halloween II has many flaws but it is a lot of fun for those of us who loved the original and wanted a little more.
I enjoy discussing these films, especially Halloween 4 since it seems to be such a hit with the fans (something I’ve never been able to fully understand). No offense to you all who like the film. I just don’t get it.
The padding is painful. In Halloween 6 Michael (again played by Wilbur) has such a perfectly creepy pose/figure that is completely lost by the padding of Halloween 4.
Just compare this…
…to this.
I liked how Michael looked older and oddly built in 6. Very creepy.
I agree that H4 would have been leaps and bounds better if the mask and pads were changed. They pull me out of it every time. I LOVE the atmosphere and the characters, but I simply cannot find myself scared of, or intimidated by Michael. It’s so odd that there is even potential as seen by JC’s H4 pics (https://forum.michael-myers.net/t/halloween-4-tis-the-season/49864/1) but in the movie it just isn’t pleasant. I really wish they had paid closer attention to the main antagonist and essentially the star of the movie. It was that way for Halloween 4 and 5. It wasn’t until H6 that we got what we could really call Michael back. I enjoy the movie, but the mask pulls me out every time.
There are certain shots in the film where he looks great, the mentioned bedroom nightmare scenes and the shot of him ascending the stairs to kill Brady for instance. But in general I agree, I don’t know what Dwight Little was thinking allowing Wilbur to get away with wearing all of that weird looking padding.
The mask, though, is okay, at least it’s still a converted Shatner which is more than I can say for the mask in H5, I hate that mask with a passion.
Still though I love H4 for the total “Halloween time of the year” feeling it gives off 
