Talk:Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Halloween III: Season of the Witch is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 24, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 7, 2006	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
February 21, 2007	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
June 17, 2012	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Holidays: Halloween Low‑importance

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Halloween task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema / Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

A plot ideal that might have worked[edit]

It could have been suggested that Silver Shamrock is responsible for "the evil" (as Loomis repeatedly puts it) that is Michael Myers. They might have produced the mask he wore in the other movies in the franchise.

Well, Halloween 3 has absolutely nothing to do with the other films (other than the name), so it has nothing to do with Michael Myers at all so their is no way that could be possible or make sense. 71.115.17.228 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I have rewritten/updated this article in a similar fashion as I did Halloween (1978 film) and Halloween II. Added sections on production, reception, criticism, etc. Added pictures. Please copyedit and critique. Dmoon1 06:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on all of these articles. --Myles Long 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dmoon1 15:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

timeout review[edit]

from The Time Out Film Guide (collected reviews from time out magazine) edited by tom milne second edition 1991, p277 reprinting original magazine review by Tom Milne:

"98 minutes"

The title is a bit of a cheat, since the indestructible psycho of the first two films plays no part here. With the possibilities of the characters well and truly exhausted, Season of the Witch turns more profitably to a marvellously ingenious Nigel Kneale tale of a toymaker and his fiendish plan to restore Halloween to its witch cult origins (involving a TV commercaal for toy masks that are in fact diabolical engines). Kneale had his name removed from the credits after tampering with his script had reduced O'Herlihy's toymaker - originally bathed in Celtic mists of myth and magic - to the conventional mad doctor. The end result s a bit of a mess but hugely enjoyable, and often (thanks to Dean Cundey's camerawork and John Carpenter's close supervision as producer) as striking visually as its predecessors. Zzzzz 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novelization[edit]

What is there to substantiate that the novel was a best seller? Does the reprint state that? Шизомби 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting the FA[edit]

It's not an easy thing to do. Good stuff! --P-Chan 03:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic doctor?[edit]

I'm not sure I can conceive of what such an article would entail...? Шизомби 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ellie an android throughout the film?[edit]

I had always thought that she had been an android the entire film and didn't know it herself, created by Cochran to locate her "father" Harry Grimbridge and kill him or to lure anyone he might have told about Cochran's plan to the factory for Cochran to kill himself. Did anyone else think the same thing? GLENN_THE_TOOL 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I did't think that. Which would be ridiculous. What I did think was that it was one of the worst films I had ever seen. It's so full of holes you could drive a truck through it. A couple of examples - if the vagrant is right and the entire workforce of the factory has been shipped in from out of town, how is Cochrane able to enforce a curfew over the community ? And if he is such a technological genius that he can make androids, why does he need human operatives to work in his factory - why not save lots $$ and use androids ? One more - if he wants to use a human subject for his test, why waste his star salesman ? And what does he think will happen after he killed all the kids ? And how does Challis work out from that needlessly complicated control panel how to switch the commercial on ? And is it seriously credible that a chip of stone from Stonehenge stuck in a microchip would be able to generate a "ray" and kill people and spontaneously generate insects and snakes (insect and snakes - why ?). Loved the not burning "burning" factory near the end though. Sorry, didn't mean to rant. 90.192.171.121 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why kill the children in the first place? Because society turned the celtic Samhain into the capitalistic festival of Halloween?--87.184.159.86 (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really make sense that she would have been an android the whole time. The androids were void of emotion and personality while Ellie exhibited both. If you notice, at the end of the film once she is rescued from the factory by Challis and they escape, Ellie is quiet and emotionless and she doesn't speak a word, because this is after she was replaced by an android (and presumably killed. If she wasn't dead already, and held captive somewhere else in the factory, the explosion/fire would have killed her anyway). If the goal was to have anyone Harry might have told killed, and Ellie was an android all along, he could have just had Ellie kill him herself. She had to perfect opportunity to do so while they were having sex for example. Or even when he rescued her before they escaped the factory. You could argue she sought him out and even seduced him sexually for the purpose of luring him in, but she simply had too much humanity to be an android. She was too determined to find out what happened to her dad. Besides, do androids have sex?

As far as the other comments, you're putting too much thought into it. Who's to say much of the townsfolk weren't also androids or replaced with androids? Regardless, it seemed to be a town with other jobs and businesses. The townsfolk, like the hotel owner, all seemed to revere Cochran so in one way or another he had some kind of control over them, be it magic or fear. The entire town had Stepford vibes so who knows. The point is we weren't supposed to know much more than Challis knew. Some of the people brought in from out of town were likely androids, at the very least some of them were, we know all of his henchman were... but really, how would we know anyway? This would explain why he didn't hire the existing townsfolk. I think the drunkard was essentially playing the role of the harbinger, and putting in the line about Cochran bringing in people from out of town was meant to reinforce the idea of the androids. We also don't know how the population of the town before Cochran brought in the new people. Perhaps much of the town's population were part of those brought in. Challis' response when all the people were staring him and Ellie down as they arrived in town was "factory town" which would imply the town was mostly compromised of employees of the factory. While you could argue Challis was simply wrong, it seems pointless to include that line in the script otherwise.

As far as killing his best salesman and his customer base, he didn't seem to give a shit. He was a "mad scientist" after all. He had been working on this plan for a while and didn't seem to be worried about a future of selling masks and novelties. Though the continued production of masks on October 31st would seem to be a plot hole, but at the same time it allowed the Dan and Ellie, and the viewer chance to get a peek into the process and therefore was necessary regardless of continuity. Cochran explains his deranged plan to Challis with my favorite line from the film. "I do love a good joke and this is the best ever: a joke on the children." We have no idea of knowing exactly what all was unleashed once masks all over the country were activated, it seems it would have much larger ramifications than just killing off children who his products were marketed to. This was going to have a much larger effect that transcended money and profit.

Commercial[edit]

If you look closely at one scene where there's a TV, it shows the commercial for the original Halloween movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.82.0 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Movie's origins[edit]

I had read a while back (in Fangoria maybe) that Halloween III was originally supposed to be part of the Halloween television series, and that was the reason for Michael Myers's notable absence. I'm looking for a source, but does anyone else know anything about this? Rob Standefer ^talk 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irony in the storyline[edit]

Does anyone know if there's been any commentary regarding the ironic aspect of "mass-marketing the masks" from a film that is basically one big critique of American consumerism and the general commercialization of holidays like Halloween? 66.142.42.216 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Capitalism or Anti-Communism?[edit]

Under the critical response section, it is said that the movie is anti-capitalism and anti-corporate; I'm I the only one noticing that the activities of Mr. Cochran and the Silver Shamrock Novelty company more closely resembles those of a communist dictatorship, making the movie anti-communism/anti-dictatorship? Although it can be assumed that the Silver Shamrock company was a private organization, but so are the American policial parties that practically run the US government. The curfew, censorship, and security in Santa Mira is something I would more expect to see in communist dictatorships like Cuba (especially the robots going around killing anyone that attempted to expose them), and with the company seemingly being the only form of the government in the town, it could be argued that the company wasn't a private organization at all, but rather a government run semi-monopoly (since there were other brands of masks, but Silver Shamrock dominated the nationwide market). The way that they had taken over the town of Santa Mira, and how they had dominated the halloween mask market, you better believe that the federal government would have been their next target if Conal Cochran was real. In the US, the only time you're likely to see the same thing on every single TV channel (as with the evil commercial in the end of the movie being carried by all three broadcasters) is if it involves the government. The propaganda (aka advertising) used by SSN is used by the private and public sectors alike in real life. In my opinion, Conal Cochran was the exact opposite of a capitalist. His plot to eliminate children very closely resembled Adolf Hitler's genocide; he was, in a way, blaming the children for the commercialization of Halloween, although Hitler wasn't a communist. Perhaps one could compare SSN to the Taliban who has radical religious reasons for hating Americans. The anti-capitalism claims were direct quotes from notable critics, but surely there has to be notable critics that see the anti-communism/anti-dictatorship aspects as well. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

Removed the following from the film description: "Moreover, the frequency of graphic violence and gore is less than that of Halloween II (1981), although scenes that depict the deaths of characters remain intense." This qualifies as original research or opinion. If this segment is intended to fall under an already-listed source, please make that clear. Bodypuzzle (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I did a large revert to the version approved for FA status. There is absolutely NO WAY the article, as it stood before my revert, could be considered anywhere close to FA quality, or even GA. It was filled with loads of unsourced POV, weasel words, and other things seriously affecting the quality. It will need a lot of work and sourcing if it is to be restored to the last version before I reverted. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed to keep FA status[edit]

I wanted to nominate this article to be on the Main Page for Halloween, but after skimming through it, it really needs some work. There are a bunch of issues that go against FA criteria, which I'll try to address here before going to WP:FARC. Since this article doesn't seem to be maintained, I will go to WP:FARC if there are no detailed replies anytime soon.

In-line references – Many statements lack references throughout the article. There are really too many to tag, so I'll just place a notice at the top. Simple as that.
Sources – There are currently 36 different sources cited in this article, which is not very many. By comparison, Laserblast, which is a much more obscure and little-known film, has 69 references and is not yet a featured article. Additionally, many of the sources that are present are not reliable sources. This includes six IMDb references, which do not satisfy WP:IRS.
Non-free media – A few non-free images do not seem to satisfy non-free content guidelines. This includes a cropped screenshot of Tom Atkins's character, which does nothing more than identify the actor in the role (who has free media available). There is also an image of John Carpenter composing the music on a synthesizer, but that image really isn't needed to illustrate the fact that he composed the music on a synthesizer. I think the second half of that last sentence summarized it quite well.

–Dream out loud (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

I deleted the "legacy" segment which had no references and some veiled personal opinion. It also stated that the film has been "officially" called a cult classic - by whom? 81.104.9.27 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that something should be included in the area of reception about the fact that this movie HAS BECOME a cult classic. While some sources would need to be found, I would think at the very least at the bottom there could be a link to it's inclusion of a list of cult films.. Most fans of the Halloween franchise watch the various Michael Myers films all year around, however Halloween 3 is a classic that MUST be watched every Halloween season. The music from the commercials is part of the reason. A truly realized entry would include something about it's status as a cult classic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.12.8 (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The film has definitely acquired a cult legacy. See this: How Halloween III Went From Reviled to Revered In Just 30 Years. A "Legacy" section wouldn't be too much of a stretch for the film, because it's definitely acquired a new fan base. Older fans of the series have also gotten over the fact that Myers was absent and grown to appreciate the film as its own vehicle. 1.123.44.53 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]