31

Badass Halloween III Art Print Makes Summer the Season of the Witch

Post Thumb:

/jun14/halloween-3-s.jpg

Badass Halloween III Art Print Makes Summer the Season of the WitchHorror movies without Michael Myers in them don’t get much more awesome than Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which is finally being accepted for the movie it is, rather than maligned for the movie it is not. Bout time, horror fans. Bout goddamn time.

Speaking of which, artist Aaron Crawford of Cavity Colors has just put up for grabs a piece of limited edition art that pays tribute to the three iconic masks seen in the Halloween franchise’s unrelated third installment, which is pretty much a must-own for all fans of the film.

Measuring 16″x20″, the fine art print comes signed and numbered by Crawford, with only 100 of them available. If you want to be one of those lucky 100 fans, head over to Cavity Colors to pick one of these bad boys up for just $30.

125 days till Halloween… Halloween, Halloween… 125 days till Halloween…

SILVER. SHAMROCK.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch

VISIT THE EVILSHOP @ AMAZON!
Got news? Click here to submit it!
Subscribe to the Dread Central YouTube Channel!
Count the days in the comments section below!
Image Type 1:

John Squires

I have a beard. And two cats.

  • Shambling_in_Bandages

    “Halloween 3 is bad….Want proof? It will never be remade.”

    That’s not proof it’s bad, that’s just evidence of Hollywood’s tendency to remake the first movie in a series. You’re probably never going to see remakes of ‘Evil Dead 2′ or ‘Friday the 13th 4′, but that doesn’t mean they’re shit movies, it merely means that the sequels to a remake tend not to be remakes of the original sequels. Plus, of course, ‘Halloween’ is very definitely all about Myers now, even more so than the early 1980s, as the first go-around proved. If they were to remake ‘Halloween 3′, they would have to ditch the number from the title, like they should have done first time around.

    • kiddcapone

      I don’t think many people consider Halloween 3 the actual third film in the series, regardless of the number 3 at the end. It will always be Season of the Witch. If someone watched a Halloween marathon, they would delete 3 from the rotation.

      If some studio was looking around for the next horror film to remake, they wouldn’t pass on 3 because of having to use the name Season of the Witch, they would do so because it’s a terrible lame plot that can’t be saved. And this is from the folks who thought shit like The House on Sorority Row, Night of the Demons, and Mother’s Day were good enough for remakes.

      They did remake Friday the 13th even though it’s not a remake of the 1st Friday the 13th, it’s technically a combination of parts 2 and 3.

  • kiddcapone

    I’m kind of in shock that in 2014 people still think Carpenter had something to do with this (score aside).

    Season of the Witch is a bad movie, for all the reasons stated in this thread, and then some…I don’t get the love simply because it’s batshit crazy, because a lot of horror during the late 70’s / early 80’s was batshit crazy, but most of them had other elements that made it even out. This is MST3K worthy.

    It’s like Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park or Flash Gordon. Sure, you might have fond memories and liked it when you were a kid, but bad is bad. Halloween 3 is bad….Want proof? It will never be remade. You will see a Pieces, Hell Night, or Parasite remake before H3 would ever come up in conversation. There’s just nothing of worth to be found. Anywhere. Forever.

  • frank_dracman

    *Rides in on white horse* Fuck all ‘yall, I still like this movie! *Rides into the sunset*

    For me it was like an episode of The Outer Limits or Twilight Zone and as such they had to stretch a simple, original idea into a movie. Some of you guys (I point no fingers) are just way over thinking it (though I will admit it was very well written and made valid points). Watched it last year and had fun and will watch it again this October.

    GODFLESH, I need to find that Carpenter picture in the form of a shirt.

    • GODFLESH69

      Finally somebody that gets it, sure it’s full of WTF? moments but that’s what makes it Carpenter. I remember being disappointed seeing it in theater when I was a kid , missing Myers and all but it’s grown on me over time not the best Carpenter flick but a guilty pleasure I guess! Frank I know TSHIRT Bordello has a very cool They Live shirt i have it see pic above I dont know about a t for this Carpenters mashup though.

      • Cinemascribe

        It’s not Carpenter though. He only produced it. Nigel Kneale wrote the original screenplay, which Dino De Horrendous disliked and had Tommy Lee Wallace (who also directed) revise. It was after the experience of working on this fim that Carpenter sold his interest in the rights.

        • GODFLESH69

          Scribe thought Carpenter had more involvement on this ,still think it’s a fun flick to watch around the holiday though.

          • Cinemascribe

            That’s fair. Hey, believe me, I have more than my share of flicks that have gotten raked over the coals (for good reason) that I absolutely love.

            I think what gets my dander up with THIS particular flick,though, is that if you ever read up on the history of the project, you find out that they were on their way to making what sounded like an AWESOME movie. It was supposed to be Nigel Kneale delivering esoteric, atmospheric horror with an emphasis on mood and ideas, not gory shocks. Dino De decided he wanted it to be more of a standard exploitative horror flick and ordered rewrites. Even though they reportedly used many of the same ideas Kneale had come up with, it was all apparently altered to such a degree that he became disenchanted with the project asked for his name to be removed from the credits. It was Carpenter’s idea to bring Kneale in, since he admired the man’s work. It’s really a damned shame. I would have loved to see the film they wanted to make.

          • GODFLESH69

            Honestly thought Carpenter had some writing credit on H3 ,guess just produced and did the score.Never heard the back story before thanks for enlightening me Scribe.

    • LSD Zombie

      Frank is spot on with the Twilight Zone comparison. It took me awhile to appreciate Halloween III for what it is, but when I finally did, it became one of my favorite horror movies.

  • Shambling_in_Bandages

    Some of you chaps are on drugs. Nigel Kneale never had a shitty story idea in his life. Well, okay, except for that one about the dolphin ghost haunting an aquarium.

    • Diavolo

      Weirdly, based on a ‘true’ story, look up Sadlers Wells Peacock Theatre – Flipper .

  • Terminal

    I would have loved if Carpenter was allowed to move beyond Michael Myers and give us a new Halloween themed movie every sequel. There’s so much lore attached to the holiday it’s sad he never got to tap in to that.

    • LifeMi

      Halloween III is a terrible movie, but I agree it would’ve been cool to have seen an anthology universe. But the key is that the movies need to be good and while I have no problem with it not being a Michael Myers film, I will never understand the love some people have for this film.

      • Cinemascribe

        I wrote this some time back about the very same topic, LifeMi. Halloween III was was one of the rare films that had issues that were so glaring it was impossible for me to willingly suspend my disbelief:

        Why Halloween III is an awful movie.

        For the uninitiated: Halloween III gained infamy for having nothing whatsoever to do with the first two films.The story of unstoppable killer Michael Myers was abandoned entirely in favor of a plot about a doctor who discovers that an aging Irish toymayer responsible for producing a line of popular Halloween masks (Silver Shamrock is the brand name) plans to use the scheduled Halloween night broadcast of an electronic Jack O Lantern (an event being advertised as part of a special give away associated with the Silver Shamrock brand) to simultaneously activate a computer chip imbedded inside the company logo found on the back of each mask, here represented in the form of a thin, silver disc with a shamrock on it. Apparently, there are also slivers taken from one of the rocks that comprise the monument Stonehenge incorporated into each of the microchips which will grant the entire process a mystical power..or something. Watching the broadcast (which urges the kids to wear the maks as they tune in) will result in an electronic signal commanding the computer chip in the logo to fire off a laser that will fry the kid wearing the mask , causing his or her skull to split open in an explosion of bugs and various things that slither. Presumably, the point here is to mass murder every child wearing Silver Shamrock masks across the nation at the same time on All Hallows Eve. As marketing schemes go, this one doesn’t have a lot of repeat value.

        When asked why he attempted to take the franchise in this direction, producer/creator John Carpenter explained that he felt the Myers story was done and instead wanted to continue the series as an anthology, releasing a different original movie each year, all set on Halloween.

        Halloween III: Season of the Witch was released to theaters in 1983.

        In 1988, the next sequel – Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers- was released, which is indicative of how well this “new direction” went over wth audiences.

        So without further adieu:

        Let’s start with the biggest gripe I have with Halloween III: The plot is inane.

        I don’t mean that it merely deviated from the formula of the first two films. I mean it’s literally absurd. Here’s the short version: Toymaker Conal Cochran wants to sacrifice all of America’s kiddies on Halloween night as part of some half-assed pagan ritual to celebrate the festival of Samhain. Great. Okay, putting aside the oft asked question of what he could possibly hope to gain from the wholesale murder of children except maybe going down as history’s biggest fuck stick, let’s examine the potential success of this plot for a moment.

        Oh, wait, it had none. Precisely fifteen minutes after phone calls starting pouring into every single emergency service call center in the continental United States reporting that thousands of kids were inexplicably sprouting crickets from their pie holes, law enforcement would deduce that all of this happy crap traces back to the toymaker. The military would be called in to track the source of the electronic image and then send a couple of F-15 Tomcats to bomb Cochran’s little Midwestern fiefdom back into the dust from whence it came. And that’s only allowing for the unlikely event that rampaging mobs of parents whose kids (or whose neighbors kids) got killed/maimed didn’t get there first and beat Cochran to death with his own shoes. Not to mention that there has never been a Halloween night where every single kid wore only one of three specific masks made by a single toy company. In fact, most kids I knew growing up preferred to handle their own make up and create their own costumes.

        Now, factor in that this broadcast is set to the tune of the most irritating advertising jingle ever composed (a variation on “London Bridge”). You’ve got to address the reality of human response to that sort of advertising: The music is so annoying that any Halloween night broadcast of those irritatingly soulless tones repeating on an endless loop would have every parent in the country shouting at their kids to “turn that shit off” long before the laser equipped disc on the back of the mask had a chance to fire.

        Which brings up another point: The only successful test of the flashing pumpkin broadcast is carried out on unsuspecting victims who have been lured into a LOCKED ROOM. If you take into account how long the demonstrated effect of the electronic pumpkin/laser mask combo takes to kick in during a controlled experiment, you’d have to guess that the majority of parents would be hustling their kids out of the room and yanking the masks off their kids heads (not to mention turning off the damned TV) before things even came close to getting that far. So what you’d end up with is a negligible part of the population of any given suburban neighborhood dying/being injured while everyone else kind of stands around wondering what the fuck is going on, mere minutes before figuring out who’s obviously responsible.

        Here’s what I imagine a typical conversation would be like between kids on the Halloween night alluded to in Halloween III:

        “Hey, Bobby, let’s go get Timmy. We can hit the houses on the next street over and score some serious candy.”

        “Aw, hey, didn’t you hear, man? Timmy’s in the hospital. Ambulance showed up and hauled him off an hour ago.”

        “Damn..what happened?”

        “I dunno. Katey Becksworth was telling me some weird shit about snakes and his dad destroying the television with a baseball bat. His parents seemed hell pissed though. They had that goofy Jack O Lantern mask Timmy was wearing in hand and were lighting torches and carrying pitchforks.Then they joined a mob of other parents, all heading out of town. I heard someone say they’re gonna burn down a toy factory.”

        “Wow. Ah well. More candy for us. Come on, before all the Snickers are gone.”

        So not only does this movie do away with the plot line that lured fans back into the theater to begin with by representing itself as a sequel that it actually isn’t by calling itself Part III , but it does so in favor of a plot that has virtually NO CHANCE of actually succeeding. But the worst part? The absolute apex of the levels of stupidity in play here? The guy attempting to pull this poorly conceived scheme off already has killer robots. This asshole has actually assembled a small army of functional killer robots he routinely sends out into the night to murder his enemies and instead of just making, oh, maybe ten thousand more of them and sending them out as part of violent automaton jihad, he opts to invest his fortune in a plan that can be negated by hitting the “off” button on a television set.

        – The film apparently runs out of script before it ends. Watch Halloween III again sometime (or for the first time). Between the scene where Tom Atkins escapes from a chair he’s been bound to and removes a skull mask Cochran has slipped over his head and the final scene with Atkins trying to call the television stations in an attempt to shut the deadly broadcast down (in itself the progenitor of a hilariously nonsensical moment. Listen to Atkins’ dialog in that scene: He shouts into the phone “The third channel, turn off the third channel.” Well, Tom, you’re talking to the TV people over the telephone. It’s an aural medium, not a visual one. You should probably be more specific. Not to mention that there is no one agency a person can call to have all of the networks shut down) there’s practically no dialogue. It’s Atkins running around a warehouse, raining boxes of the logo discs down on a bargain-basement computer array before his girlfriend inexplicably turns up as a pissed off mannequin. Yep. As far as generating nail-biting suspense goes, that sure as hell tops Laurie Strode being relentlessly stalked by her violently insane, seemingly indestructible older brother.

        – The production values are largely crap. There are some admittedly decent gore effects (the aftermath of the laser misfire leaps to mind), but otherwise this film looks like it was made for about eight bucks and change. The aforementioned warehouse scene at the end that’s supposed to take place in Cochran’s command center (or whatever you call it) is the sort of set you’d expect to find in an Ed Wood film, replete with an entirely unconvincing mock up of a Stonehenge rock. The original Halloween, by contrast, is legendary for looking fairly slick on a much smaller budget.

        And speaking of the original film, that leads me to the other major issue with Halloween III: It isn’t scary. At all. Unlike the first two, which both managed their fair share of genuine jolts, Halloween III didn’t even make my skin crawl when it tried to. It flatlines from the opening scenes and plods along, showing us images that could (and should) have bothered me if it had even tried to have me giving one actual fuck about any of the characters. But it didn’t. And this is the (supposed) second sequel in a series launched with the film I still consider the greatest American horror film ever made.

        So, yeah. I can’t get behind any of the latter day cult love for Halloween III. I don’t think it’s so bad its good. It’s just bad. Really, really bad. Halloween III took a huge, stinking shit on Michael Myers entire franchise and its fans up to that point. Even if it had just been called Season of the Witch, without the attempted franchise tie in, this movie would still suck rancid monkey sack.

        • MonsterMash

          Mike or no Mike, Halloween title or not, it is a shitty movie. Has all the production value and half the suspense and creativity of your average Goosebumps episode. It might as well be an R-rated episode of that show. A lazy episode at that. That said, your analysis is a well-written one and would make a good discussion-opening essay about the film.

        • LifeMi

          A-FUCKIN-MEN.

        • Terminal

          Excellent analyses and made me realize that Halloween 3 is even worse than I originally thought.

          • Cinemascribe

            Thanks, Terminal (and LifeMi..A-fucking-men indeed!) ). Sorry it’s such a long read..I wasn’t trying to be obnoxious, just demonstrate (with an element of humor) that not everyone who hates the movie falls within the “it didn’t have Michael Myers, so that’s why it sucks” camp. Some of us went into it with an open mind and still saw it for the epic fail that it was. I actually liked the idea of an ongoing anthology approach set on Halloween. That could have been something really special. But they botched it. When the majoirty of the plot developments make no sense even within the insane context of the universe Halloween III set up, you know somebody somewhere REALLY screwed the pooch.

          • Steve Barton

            Really well written article Cinemascribe. Me? I dig the flick because of its sheer lunacy, but I’d be hard pressed to argue any of your points. Gotta wonder though would you have taken such time to write something that well thought-out if the film wasn’t called Halloween III? If it was just Season of the Witch?

            The title adds such stigma.

          • Cinemascribe

            I dunno. That’s a good question. I think I probably would have. I’ve done the film critique thing for a while on different websites and this wouldn’t be the first film I’ve dissected this way.

        • LSD Zombie

          Yes, and the film linked to your avatar is equally preposterous. And that’s okay because they’re just fucking movies! No offense.

          • Cinemascribe

            ROTLD is absolutely preposterous, but it’s a good movie instead of an awful one because it works within the context of the plot it sets up. Why are the tanks in the Uneeda medical supply warehouse? Because the Army screwed up and sent the tanks there. Why did the dead come back? The guys were screwing around and released the trioxin. Why do the zombies eat brains? Because it eases the pain of being dead. Yeah, the film is ridiculous, but it still operates with a degree of internal logic.

            In Halloween III there’s no internal logic. Nothing that we’re told backs up what’s happening on the screen. There’s never any answer to why Cochran would bother with the masks when he already possesses an assmebly line of robot assassins, nor does the film explain what the murder of the children will actually accomplish. And, as I mentioned above, the plan itself is surprisingly inept considering how much effort he presumably put into it. It’s just bad filmmaking.

            It’s interesting though: Some of the same people who I’ve seen defend Halloween III both here and elsewhere online practically ruptured an artery lambasting the Elm Street remake. I’m not defending that movie so much as pointing out that the ANOES redux took epic levels of oftimes angry shit for presumably insulting the good name of the original, but Halloween III gets a free pass by a lot of people because it was “different”, despite the fact that it’s so awful that it’s MST3K worthy and basically pissed all over a franchise that was working just fine as it was. At least I didn’t pay to see it in a theater. That would have been too much

          • LSD Zombie

            Cochran set out to offer up children around the world as a blood sacrifice. Beyond that, I didn’t really need any further explanation. I think that’s one of the many problems that films suffer from nowadays. Things are over-explained to a point where all of the mystique is absent. As for why the masks were chosen as the method of execution, all I can say is why not? The masks have become iconic for better or worse and so has the jingle.

            I think sometimes people can’t differentiate between what’s bad and what’s simply not their cup of tea.

          • Cinemascribe

            I can differentiate just fine. If someone is going to make a blood sacrifice in a film set on Halloween and the film doesn’t let us know why they’re doing it that’s not “over explaining” , it’s just poor writing. The point of my essay was to point out that it really is a bad movie and to demonstrate that there are plenty of reasons people dislike it that have nothing to do with the absence of Michael Myers, not to criticize anyone for liking it.

          • Terminal

            Okay you lost me there with your defense of the unwatchable NOES remake.

            Otherwise, within the context of the narrative, ROTLD isn’t preposterous. It’s not a straight faced horror movie, and was meant to channel the EC comics universe.

          • Cinemascribe

            Oh, I wasn’t defending the ANOES remake..just pointing out that I’ve seen people give it a severe thrashing and in the same breath praise HIII:SotW.

          • Shambling_in_Bandages

            “There’s never any answer to why Cochran would bother with the masks when he already possesses an assmebly line of robot assassins”

            I suppose the screenwriter left it to the viewer to understand that making a bunch of cheap masks that people unwittingly allow into their homes is far, far cheaper and far, far more effective a plan than making a billion robotic killers and then sending them to stomp around the world ripping people’s faces off. How much does it cost to make a cheap mask with a little microchip in it compared to a fully functional robot killer?

            “nor does the film explain what the murder of the children will actually accomplish.”

            Cochran explains this, doesn’t he? He’s the witch of the movie title and we’re in a supernatural horror movie: he’s sacrificing the children to the old Celtic gods in a bid to return the world to a time when people damned well feared and respected witches and gods and goblins, etc.

          • Cinemascribe

            “I suppose the screenwriter left it to the viewer to understand that making a bunch of cheap masks that people unwittingly allow into their homes is far, far cheaper and far, far more effective a plan than making a billion robotic killers and then sending them to stomp around the world ripping people’s faces off. How much does it cost to make a cheap mask with a little microchip in it compared to a fully functional robot killer?”

            There was a flick called Martians Go Home years back that looked like it cost zero dolalrs to make and somehow managed to convey that millions of martians had overun Earth. It could have been pulled off. Honestly, though, I didn’t really want to see a massive robot killng spree- I was just pointing out that the film repeatedly demonstrates that Cochran has a far more effective means of killing people than the flawed (and easily negated) plan the film makes the focus of the plot.

            “Cochran explains this, doesn’t he? He’s the witch of the movie title and we’re in a supernatural horror movie: he’s sacrificing the children to the old Celtic gods in a bid to return the world to a time when people damned well feared and respected witches and gods and goblins, etc.”

            His comments allude to Celtic rituals and Stonehenge having a power..which he also counters with “its a joke on the chidlren.” There’s no really cleae explanation of what he’s doing..is he summoning demons? Sending the world to the tenth level of hell? Demonstrating new population control techniques? It’s really vague , and it comes off like someone said “Hey, let’s slip in a passing reference to the Celts and toss in a Stonehenge rock.That covers everything!”

      • Terminal

        I agree, Halloween 3 is terrible. I don’t understand the love for it beyond the gimmicks within the narrative of the commercials and masks. I wish I knew why it’s garnered such a big following over the years. It’s just so bad.

  • GODFLESH69

    I always dug Season of the Witch and accepted it as being a totally different film than all others in the franchise. Carpenter’s plan was to have a different Halloween themed horror flick every couple years but since this wasn’t a hit those plans were scrapped a real shame.