Q: How did you come about getting the job for Halloween 6 and did they give you guidelines to follow from the beginning or change everything, as far as how they wanted the story to go, after the film was finished?
FARRANDS: I met with Moustapha Akkad in 1990, shortly after the release of HALLOWEEN 5. I had been a life-long HALLOWEEN fan and managed to get one of my original horror scripts over to Ramsey Thomas, who had produced “5.” He liked my writing enough to set up a meeting for me with Moustapha Akkad. I spent weeks preparing for the meeting and came in with a huge notebook filled with HALLOWEEN research – I had the entire series laid out in a timeline, a bio of every character, a “family tree” of the Myers and Strode clans, as well as all of the research I had compiled about the runic symbol (Thorn) that was briefly shown in “Halloween 5.” I then laid out how I thought all of this might be explored in HALLOWEEN 6.
I heard nothing for the next five years. Then, in June of 1994, I received a phone call from Mr. Akkad. They were desperate for a writer who could deliver a workable storyline for “6.” Several other drafts and writers had not worked out, and they were fighting time to make a production start date.
I came in and pitched my ideas to Moustapha Akkad, his son Malek and producer Paul Freeman. It was strange because when I came into the meeting, there was my (now rather dusty) research notebook (with the HALLOWEEN 6 logo I’d created – with the “A” in HALLOWEEN replaced by the Thorn symbol) sitting out on Mr. Akkad’s desk. He told me he had kept it there since we met all those years ago … so I took it as a good omen. I guess after the meeting they all agreed that I was the guy for the job. They really gave me no guidelines other than the movie had to deal with Michael Myers, it had to be set in Haddonfield and it had to be scary. We all agreed that the film should be more atmospheric than overtly gory. I wanted it to be a real homage to John’s masterpiece. I remember that one thing Moustapha insisted on was that we not show much of Michael Myers – that he should remain mostly in the shadows and not fill every frame. Probably the biggest task that was put to me was to provide an explanation for the Mysterious Stranger from “Halloween 5.” Other than that, they pretty much let me go off and write the movie in my head. As most fans know by now, the film we ended up with pretty much went off in the opposite direction … that’s the part that was certainly the most frustrating for me as the writer. But it was a great opportunity and I will always be grateful for being given the chance to write a Michael Myers movie.
Q: How would you compare Halloween 666 The Origin of Michael Myers the original that was going to be released to Halloween 6 The Curse Of Michael Myers and exactly why was it not released?
FARRANDS: The reasons behind the reshooting and re-editing of HALLOWEEN 6 are a hundred-fold. For the record, the film was never called “The Origin of Michael Myers.” That title appeared on an early video trailer released by the studio. We had no official “subtitle” at the time. My script was titled HALLOWEEN 666. Later I came up with THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS at a point during production where I felt the movie was truly “cursed.” I sort of meant it as an in-joke at the time, but I guess the producers took it seriously. Like much of the “Barry Simms” dialogue that appears in the film, I suppose that title was my own subversive and subconscious way of telling the audience that this was not the film they were meant to see. Other than that, I like the notion that 4, 5 and 6 sort of stand as their own trilogy: THE RETURN, THE REVENGE and THE CURSE. Someone once accused us of copying the PINK PANTHER sequel titles, which I took as a compliment. Peter Sellers rules.
Q: How would the movie have ended if Donald Pleasence didn’t pass away during filming?
FARRANDS: Originally Loomis was going to be the surprise “twist” death at the end of the film … but as the script kept changing, so did the ending. After the battle of all battles between Loomis and Dr. Wynn (a part I wrote for the amazing Christopher Lee), Wynn was dead and Michael was again missing. In a homage to the final scene of THE FOG (the original, not the remake!), Loomis stops and asks, “Why not me, Michael?” At which point “the Shape” appears out of the darkness, slits Loomis’s throat with a huge SLASH of his knife … CUT TO credits. No one liked that ending, especially since Donald Pleasence said he wanted to survive until “Halloween 22.” In another version, Loomis discovered that Kara was dead (in the bus station where Jamie had hidden the baby earlier in the film), only to find little Danny, bloody and catatonic, holding a knife .. and the baby. In another version, Wynn gets into a helicopter to escape the carnage at Smith’s Grove. He thinks he’s got the baby in his black satchel … and doesn’t realize ‘til it’s too late that Tommy has taken the baby and put a bomb in its place. The helicopter (and Wynn) go KABOOM as Tommy, Kara and the kids make their escape.
Finally they went with the “power of the runes” ending (which I jokingly refer to as “Tommy’s magic acorns”), the version that wound up in the Producer’s Cut. Personally, I thought the whole thing was (and looked) rather silly – especially considering that they didn’t even spring for a special effect (how about a ring of white light that consumed Conal Cochran in H3?). I didn’t mind having Loomis take on the “curse” … the implication that he would now become Michael’s protector rather than his destroyer was a great twist and, had Donald lived a while longer, I think that idea would have made a really interesting chapter in the series.
Q: I’d just like to start off my saying Halloween 6 is extremely underrated and easily ranks as one of the strongest of the sequels. Love it or hate it, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers dared to do something fresh with the series and explore new territory unlike the films that came after it. I’d be much more interested in seeing a sequel to this film than Halloween: Resurrection. Anyway, I would just like to know what is your favorite thing about Halloween 6 and what was your biggest disappointment?
FARRANDS: Thank you for the kind words. I guess one of my favorite things about HALLOWEEN 6 is the fact that it has Donald Pleasence. I mean, he was as important to the series as Michael, in my opinion. He brought a touch of class – and real menace – to the films and I think without him, the series has just become another FRIDAY THE 13TH. I also really loved the scene with Mrs. Blankenship (a name I “borrowed” from a very obscure reference in HALLOWEEN 3 – “Minnie Blankenship”) tells the story of the history of Halloween to Danny. The way that story was intercut with the modern celebration taking place at the college was brilliant – and it was exactly the way I envisioned it when I wrote the script. Also, all of the scenes with Kim Darby alone in the house I felt worked really well. That section of the movie is as close to the original HALLOWEEN as I think any of the sequels have ever gotten, and that’s in all sincerity to the credit of Joe Chappelle and our Director of Photography, Billy Dickson.
Q: How did you get the idea of the curse of THORN being the surrounded theme of Halloween 6?
FARRANDS: It wasn’t so much my original idea as it was established (if only hinted at) in “Halloween 5.” If you look closely, both Michael and the Mysterious Stranger in “5” have the mark of Thorn tattooed to their wrists. That they both wore this mark signified to me that there was a connection between them, perhaps something of a satanic nature. I credit a lot of the lore I came up with about “Thorn” to a book called RUNE MAGIC by Donald Tyson. It dealt with Thorn as a symbol of pure evil, a demonic, destructive energy – the power of the Devil himself. In actuality, it comes from Norse mythology, although the druids certainly had similar rites and symbology. It just found it interesting dramatically to go back to the idea of Samhain (a link to Michael that had been hinted at as far back as HALLOWEEN II). Some fans have argued that Michael needs no explanation; others love the fact that we attempted to expand on his backstory and give it more of a mythic sensibility.
I think they’re both right. In the original script, I didn’t connect Thorn to a constellation of stars or give it any more weight than Loomis did in his monologue in “Halloween II.” It was merely another symbol of Michael’s unyielding power, his bloodlust and his ability to resurrect. I think the bogeyman should always remain something of an enigma. While I don’t especially care for the haphazard way the idea of Thorn comes across in the film, at the time I didn’t see anything wrong with tying him into the very backstory that John Carpenter created in his own sequel. I never thought for a moment the fans would have any problem with that element of the story. And maybe they wouldn’t have had it been less intrusive and silly. I guess we’ll never know.
Q: What are your feelings on the Producer’s Cut? Should it be released?
FARRANDS: I think the much-pirated “Producer’s Cut” should be released, if only as a footnote showing how drastically a film can be altered during post production. I know there had been talk at Dimension about releasing the P-Cut on DVD, but since the studio went through some major changes over the past year I don’t know if it’s something that just dropped off the radar momentarily, or if plans have changed. I will definitely keep halloweenmovies.com up to date if I hear there has been any movement.
Q: Had Donald Pleasence not passed away, and you’d have been hired to write Halloween 7, how would you have begun the script? Did you have anything in mind for the beginning of the next film while penning this one?
FARRANDS: My HALLOWEEN 7 would have picked up exactly after the events of HALLOWEEN 6 and followed the same characters on the same night. It would have been like HALLOWEEN 6 1/2.
Q: What was your favorite kill in the film?
FARRANDS: I liked the sequence with Kim Darby (as Debra Strode) running through the clothes lines in the back yard, only to pull back the sheet and reveal Michael standing there with the ax. I thought that whole scene was very effective and Michael just looked so damn creepy. I also liked the fact that they stuck to the script and didn’t show Kim’s head go flying off. The script said something like, “He swings the ax, painting the sheets red.” And that’s exactly the way it came off. I also like the REAR WINDOW scene with Beth on the telephone and Kara looking helplessly through Tommy’s camera as her friend is stabbed to death. Marianne Hagan’s performance in that scene was impeccable, although I wish the actual kill had been more drawn out and suspenseful. In the script, after Michael is done “stabbing” Beth, he actually looks straight out the window … right at Kara … and slowly pulls down the window shade. To me that would have been so damn scary .. but even as it is, the scene is pretty effective.
Q: Other than Part 6, do you have another favorite film of the series?
FARRANDS: The original HALLOWEEN, of course. After that, I’d say HALLOWEEN II (since it really is a continuation of the original, and it has the same great lighting and cinematography of Dean Cundey). I’m not a big fan of the more recent sequels (H20 and RESURRECTION), but I can appreciate the unique things that each filmmaker brought to the series … even HALLOWEEN 5!
Q: Where did the hospital chase happen at? Did you have to build one or did you shoot that scene in a real hospital?
FARRANDS: The underground hospital scenes at the beginning of the film were actually part of an elaborate sewage tunnel system in Salt Lake City (I wasn’t there but I hear the smell was awful! No wonder poor Susan Swift had that pained look on her face!). The scenes at the end of the film (theatrical cut) were filmed at an actual abandoned hospital in Los Angeles called Queen of Angels. It was actually a very creepy place to walk around in … the tunnels and the old machinery were all real (everything except the lab with the babies inside the fish tanks). Of course not only did we have Michael Myers walking around, but there were numerous stories about the ghosts that haunt the hospital … which only added to the scariness of the place.
Q: I always wanted to know why the Myers house in Halloween 6 was so different to the first films? Not just externally, but internally?
FARRANDS: Quite simply, it was a different house. The first two films were shot in South Pasadena (where the original “Myers House” still stands today, albeit in a different location). We made HALLOWEEN 6 in Salt Lake City, so it was a challenge to find a house that looked like the original. For what it’s worth, I think we at least came closer than the Myers house used in HALLOWEEN 5 (which looked like Dracula’s castle). The biggest difference I think is that our Myers house was painted differently and the roof was pitched at a different angle. Otherwise, I thought it was a reasonable stand-in. And you could almost believe that the Strode family may have renovated the house to give it a facelift and a new look. The good news is that you at least understood that it was the Myers house … so we at least got it partially right!
Q: Would you ever allow a Halloween 6 book based off your original script for Halloween 6?
FARRANDS: I think it’s a great idea, but I’m not sure there is much of a market for HALLOWEEN novelizations. At one point, Nick Grabowsky, who wrote the tie-in to HALLOWEEN 4, had been interested in adapting the scripts for HALLOWEEN 5 & 6. The deal never came together but who knows what might happen in the future? If the fans really want it, they have to make some noise. The thing about producers is that they only tend to respond when there is a real demand.
Q: It seems like you really tried to move the series forward with the thorn story line while paying a lot of respect to the early films with the return of the Strode family and Tommy Doyle’s character playing key roles. How important was it to you to have that connection to the original?
FARRANDS: Hugely important. My script was chock-full of references and little nods to the original. HALLOWEEN is what started it all, and the idea in my mind was that bringing back Tommy Doyle needed to be more than a gimmick. I wanted it to be his story. Here’s this guy who’s been living in a cave for 17 years. He’s basically so traumatized, and so fixated on this event from his childhood, that he’s never really grown up. He’s never been a whole person. His arc was similar in a way to Laurie Strode’s in H20. And Ripley in ALIENS. He needed to go from hiding to fighting. He needed to face his demon. Everything about HALLOWEEN 6 was supposed to be like a repeat (in a déjà vu sort of way) of the events of 1978, as seen through Tommy’s eyes. Like the scene where Danny is coming home from school and he runs into the outstretched hands of a stranger, causing him to drop his Halloween pumpkin. Only this time it’s not Michael, it’s Tommy.
I also wanted to focus on the voyeuristic idea, that Tommy Doyle is a watcher – in that way, he’s a lot like Michael Myers (I jokingly referred to him as “Peeping Tommy”). I also wanted to go back to the idea of the two houses across the street from one another, which was so central to the original film. In the scene where Tommy is upstairs with Dr. Loomis and hears Kara screaming “Help me!” at the front door, I wanted a quick flashback to the original film where young Tommy hears Laurie screaming outside. It was really about coming full circle for this character. And I loved writing the character and finding ways to connect him to the original film – just the simple references to comic books like “Neutron Man” and “Tarantula Man” hanging on his walls. I don’t know if you can see them in the film, but they’re there. And bringing back even minor characters like Dr. Wynn … naming the “parents” John and Debra … Tim Strode’s famous “stomach pounder” (a reference from Adrienne Barbeau’s son in THE FOG) … characters talking about “Hardin County” and “Russellville” … making the address of the Myers house “45 Lampkin Lane” … just all of the little references that bring the story back to its origins and re-establish it in the universe of the original. Those were the things I really fought for. What can I say? I’m a die-hard John Carpenter fan. Guilty as charged.
Q: As far as setting is concerned the 6th installment to the franchise was right on target after a subpar effort in 5. From the Myers’ house looking more like the one in the early films and the over feel that it was Halloween in a small town, it was all terrific! Were atmosphere and setting things you specifically addressed in your script and/or did you talk to the director about the importance of these things?
FARRANDS: Yes, I think more than anything my script was dripping with atmosphere. I really wanted to evoke that small town sense we got in the original film (and to a lesser extent in HALLOWEEN 4). I described the setting sun on Halloween eve as this really magical time … it’s as if a blanket of darkness descends and all of the goblins are released from hell to run amok. I really wanted to convey that sense of excitement, possibility and dread that only comes out on Halloween. Whether that came across in the film is debatable. But I definitely feel that atmosphere above all else is what made the original HALLOWEEN a classic.
Q: In YOUR version of H6, why was Jamie Lloyd kidnapped by Wynn and impregnated? It seems the way it was written that the baby was intended to be Michael’s “final sacrifice”…but why couldn’t Jamie be his final sacrifice? What was the significance of the baby in Wynn’s mind?
FARRANDS: The idea of the baby being Michael’s “final sacrifice” came out of the idea that (at least in Wynn’s twisted mind) an offering of “innocent blood” needed to be made in order to end Michael’s reign and pass the bloodline to Danny. None of this was in the original script, but as it evolved that is the direction that it went. It never made a lot of sense to me. I would have much preferred seeing Michael chase a resourceful “final girl” around the house with a knife for the last 20 minutes of the film, but I think our story got bigger than it ought to have been and consequently the final act became something of a mish-mash in both versions.
Q: If you could sum up Michael Myers in one word would what would it be?
FARRANDS: Eternal.
Q: Was Danielle Harris asked to reprise her role as Jamie Lloyd?
FARRANDS: Yes, and she was set to do the film until the final day of pre-production. It really came down to an issue of money. The studio (Dimension) did not want to pay Danielle more than she received in HALLOWEEN 4. They did not see her as a central character (although in my script she did not die until the final moments of the film). Consequently, Danielle decided, perhaps rightly, that she didn’t want to do the part under those conditions. I know this has been a sore point for fans for many years. I remember at the time lobbying (along with Joe Chappelle and Moustapha Akkad) to do whatever we could to get the studio to give Danielle something more.
After all, she and Donald were the stars of the franchise, at least at that point. They didn’t bite … and Danielle walked. It’s really too bad in many ways because I think the fans would have appreciated (and understood) he film a whole lot more had the character been played by the actress who originated the role. I also think Danielle could have helped fight for the script – so that her character (although terribly wounded and out of commission for much of the film) would come back and really kick Michael’s ass in the final moments. Jamie still would have died … but she would have at least gone out a hero. At least that’s the way I wrote it.
Q: Why was Dr. Loomis screaming at the end of the film?
FARRANDS: Because he couldn’t believe he was cut out of his own movie? Sorry, couldn’t resist. In the theatrical version, it appears that Michael has escaped (sans his mask) and is in the process of murdering Dr. Loomis as the movie ends. I agree it is totally unclear and utterly confusing. I don’t think at that point the director even knew what was supposed to be happening. There was just a mad rush to finish the film and get it into theaters in time for the release date. It really was a sad coda for such an amazing actor as Donald. He deserved a lot better, at least in this writer’s humble opinion.
Q: When Kara’s mom was about to be slaughtered by Michael Myers, did she say ” oh my god ” or did she say “Oh Michael” when she was on the ground?
FARRANDS: I believe she says, “Michael”… but that was ad-libbed by Kim Darby. I think it’s a great moment in the film.
Q: I have heard that the “Producer’s Cut” of Halloween 6 was a lot closer to your original story than what we saw in theaters. Did you have any vision for the story beyond Halloween 6? What might a sequel to your version of the story have looked like?
FARRANDS: I never pursued the idea of a story beyond HALLOWEEN 6. However, I did write a treatment for HALLOWEEN 8 which became the basis for the three-part HALLOWEEN comic book series a few years ago. It dealt with Tommy Doyle and Lindsay Wallace rummaging through the files and diaries of Dr. Loomis and learning of the events that transpired during Michael Myers’ 15 years of incarceration at Smith’s Grove. It was sort of a prequel intercut with a present-day story (kind of like TITANIC, with a much smaller budget!). The final twist of the story was that although it appears Michael has returned for another night of terror, this time the face behind the mask is revealed to be a familiar member of the Myers family … and she’s got a serious ax to grind.
Q: Who decided to make Michael in this particular film so dark and cold-blooded? I mean, Michael Myers is evil no doubt about it, but in this one, if you were within 100 yards of this guy, you’re dead!
FARRANDS: Isn’t that the point?!?
Q: Why didn’t you include Laurie Strode in H6?
FARRANDS: Because Jamie Lee Curtis had sworn off her career in horror films… until it became fashionable to do them again.
Q: Since Michael was going for Stephen (Jamie’s child – Michael’s grand nephew … i think) would he go after him again? Then after Stephen’s children? (What a great idea for some sequels!)
FARRANDS: The Myers bloodline is very, very long, isn’t it? You never know. Stephen may return one day to do some damage of his own. At some point Michael’s going to have to retire, isn’t he? Eventually there just might be a “Son of Michael Myers.”
Q: My question is in regards to the Halloween 6 Producer’s Cut of the film. The version of that movie has been widely considered by most Halloween fans as far superior to the theatrical version. I was wondering why it is that the Producer’s Cut was scrapped by the studio for a version with far less story line, character development, & excluded many of Donald Pleasence’s scenes.
FARRANDS: The only way I can answer this (and I do not mean it sarcastically) is: you’d have to ask Joe Chappelle and the executives at Miramax. The Producer’s Cut tested very poorly. At that point, everyone decided the film needed something more. I wholeheartedly agreed. It needed more scares and a lot more suspense. I desperately hoped that they would go back into the existing scenes and put back the scares, the chases and the suspense that had been taken out during the original shoot. For whatever reason, they decided to go for a more “X-FILES” approach (or “science vs. mysticism” as the director would say).
I never understood the reasons for it and I can’t explain what was supposed to be happening in those final scenes of the theatrical cut simply because I didn’t write them. Joe had a vision for the film, so he said, and he did not want it to be a sequel to HALLOWEEN 5. That’s why he removed the flashbacks to “5,” added all of the MTV “slash” cuts, the rock-n-roll HALLOWEEN THEME, and deleted many of the scenes with Donald, which he felt slowed the pace of the film. It was ultimately Joe’s film, so there wasn’t a whole lot I could say or do once the cameras started rolling. Which isn’t to say I wasn’t doing a lot of jumping up and down and pissing people off by saying, “This sucks!”
Q: Halloween 6 gave us a deeper understanding of Michael. What kind of challenges came up in the writing process? Also what would you like to see in the future films of Halloween?
FARRANDS: HALLOWEEN 6 was a constant challenge, especially when it came to all of the arbitrary changes and cuts that were made to the script as we got further along in the process. Initially, the challenge was to find a way to bring all of these various story threads together. There were a lot more characters we had to follow in this one. The story was much more “epic” in scope … even though the budget remained virtually the same as the earlier films. Tracking each of the main characters – Tommy, Loomis, Wynn, Kara and the other Strode family members – was very difficult at times. At times I felt like I was writing HALLOWEEN: WAR AND PEACE. Looking back, I would have scaled back the number of characters and focused more on the traditional elements – a girl, a dark house and a killer with a very big knife.
Those are the basic elements that made HALLOWEEN so frightening, and I think the scenes in the film where we focused on that simplicity are when it worked best. I hope the series goes on in new and interesting ways. I don’t think you can keep doing the same film over and over again, although it seems to be what the audience wants. I thought the Internet idea was terrible – there was no sense of isolation or fear or danger in that one. I don’t think Michael Myers needs a “gimmick” to be relatable, even to today’s jaded audiences. I think the challenge for future sequels will be how to make Michael even remotely scary. With all of the masks and action figures and websites and DVDs, he’s been mass-marketed to death. I think you’d need a director who really understands atmosphere and suspense to make it good again. You need more than a body count to make it scary. And for God’s sake, give me a pumpkin in the main title sequence!
Q: Are we to understand that Tommy Doyle’s landlord (Mrs. Blankenship) is a part of the Thorn cult?
FARRANDS: You are correct. After all, isn’t it conceivable that Michael was coming from the house directly across the street the night he murdered his sister in 1963?
Q: While the Halloween Franchise remained almost bloodless, Halloween 6 seems to have a lot more blood in it than any other Halloween movie, were you concerned at all about straying away from the formula the other movies had followed?
FARRANDS: First, I would argue that only the original HALLOWEEN was virtually bloodless. The sequels that followed all pretty much went for the graphic on-screen kills. I agree that 6 went over the top in terms of the gore quotient. Most of the blood and guts stuff was added in post-production and during the reshoots. My script was very light on the red stuff. In fact, it was so non-graphic that many of the special effects guys were sent home during the early part of the shoot. It wasn’t until the film tested poorly that they went back and added all of the gore to “save” the film. That was a demand on the part of Dimension. It was all rather baffling, and sort of amusing in a way, when the real answer, the real way to “save” the film was to just go back to the basic stuff. Michael Myers, a girl trapped in a closet, and that intense, adrenaline-inducing “tink-tink-tink-tink!” electronic chase music!
Q: Halloween 6 is one of my personal favorites from the franchise, so I was wondering if you have wanted to or if approached would write another installment in the Halloween series?
FARRANDS: Thank you – it makes me happy that the movie seems to have developed its own little fan base over the years. I would definitely consider writing another HALLOWEEN sequel … under an entirely different set of circumstances, of course. I can’t say that it would be easy to do again – each film comes with its own unique set of challenges – but I certainly know a lot more than I did back then (or at least I think I do). I’d certainly choose my battles a little better this time – lighten up on the little things and really come out swinging on the important issues. Even at the time, I felt like I was somehow representing the fans of the series. I’d continually argue for more scares, more suspense, less gore. I wanted flashbacks to the original film. I wanted the real mask, the real Myers house, and the list goes on.
I don’t know if I (or anyone for that matter) could make the “definitive” HALLOWEEN sequel at this point – “H20” was supposed to be “the one to end them all” and even though it was reasonably successful, I felt it lacked that special “something.” I don’t think you can try to re-capture the magic that John Carpenter brought to the original. It was unique for its time, it broke new ground, and that’s why it became a classic. Now that it’s been imitated so many times, it’s hard to go back and have the audience take it seriously. The late Debra Hill once told me that the thing she loved about the sequels was that they were great for giving new people a start in the business and she was right … so for that reason I hope the films continue. But back to your question: if the right situation came along and we got together a group of people (hopefully all fans) who were committed to making a truly kick-ass HALLOWEEN film, would I want to be involved? Hell yes!