Obviously, you wouldn't call it Halloween III, and even the subtitle Season of the Witch is somewhat irrelevant to the story.  I don't know what would be an appropriate title, but remaking titles isn't what this is about.  As for a list of potential directors, I would nominate Don Coscarelli, William Malone, or John Carpenter.  All three have done supernatural horror before, and done it well.  Coscarelli has delved deeper into the mixing of the horror, science ficition, and fantasy genres with the Phantasm films, Malone did a wonderfully chilling job with the House On Haunted Hill remake, and Carpenter's done numerous films in that subgenre including The Fog, Prince of Darkness, and In The Mouth of Madness.  Carpenter would be the most logical choice because moving the franchise into a completely different direction was his idea, and he was the producer of the original which was directed by Tommy Lee Wallace (who also wrote the script).  Coscarelli can turn even the most bizarre concept into a killer movie - he's done it his entire career - and he could pull this off with no problems.  Imagine Angus Scrimm taking over Dan O'Herlihy's part as the evil Cochrane, but maybe that's a bit too expected.  I believe the lead of Dr. Daniel Challis wasn't hit just right, but Tom Atkins did a fine job, though.  You'd need someone in his mid-to-late thirties for this role, but unfortuantely, I can't come up with any casting ideas.  I suppose the role, as it was written, is too non-specific, and no one kind of actor jumps out at me.  Though, where the music is concerned, I wouldn't mind having Alan Howarth back (if he could deliver something better), or bring in Danny Lux. Halloween: Resurrection might not have been worth much more than one or two viewings, but Lux's score was very powerful and dramatic - I own the score on CD!

The script could use some polishing up.  Either change the entire Stonehedge element, or flesh out more backstory so things make more sense.  Nothing wrong with fantasy elements, but treat them with some history.  Cochrane's explanation of motives is good, but allowing us to understand how he's doing what he's doing would enhance the film in ways you couldn't imagine.  Cochrane himself just never seemed evil enough to me.  Yes, he has purely evil intentions, but he himself didn't come off as evil incarnate.  I'd imagine he would be much angrier seeing as how Halloween had been made a mockery of over the centuries, and he is taking revenge on that.  He required more menace for he himself to be feared outright.  Thinking of Cochrane in such a way instantly brings up Angus Scrimm because of The Tall Man, but also Christopher Walken or Christopher Lee could really embody that sort of character.  The script could also give some more character traits to Dr. Daniel Challis.  That's really what the original lacked - depth of character and backstory - and is what should be worked on for a remake.

All in all, I believe that what was Halloween III: Season of the Witch could be reworked and remade into a very effective horror film that wouldn't at all look cheap, and certainly wouldn't be nearly as cheesy - if at all.  Coscarelli might retain some humor and focus on the fantastical aspects of the story if he directed whereas Malone and Carpenter would probably keep any potential humor to a minimum and focus on tension and terror.  Though, Carpenter is not above intentional cheesiness, but Malone would certainly deliver a solid and true horror film.  I truly doubt that this film will ever get remade simply because almost nobody really gives a damn about it, and would rather forget about its existence rather than shove it back into people's faces with a remake despite the likelihood of such a remake having nothing to do with the Halloween franchise.  But one can imagine what could be, and to me, this sounds like a good idea.

In a bygone era, I might've nominated Steve Miner to helm a remake since Friday The 13th, Part 2 delivered so much more than the original film, but he's very much drifted away from the horror genre and his last slasher outing was Halloween: H20 which I despise greatly for numerous reasons.  Of the modern era horror genre filmmakers, I solely endorse Alexandre Aja!  This just might be me reeling from the wake of his remake of The Hills Have Eyes, but goddamn, he did an absolutely wicked, bad ass job with it.  The intensity was high, the shock factor was cranked up, the terror was all there, and there was no holding back on gore.  Aja has all the tools and the talent to make a great horror film, and I would be ecstatic to see his take on the original Friday The 13th.  In my original writing of this article, while it was still a work in progress, I suggested Marcus Nispel, James Wong, or Gregory Hoblit.  In retrospect, it was me grasping at straws, trying to see who could capitalize on the various elements in the story.  Nispel seemed a right choice based on TCM '03, but Aja's Hills remake blows that film out of the water!  James Wong seemed good because of his X-Files past, and he's now even directing a remake of Black Christmas.  Though, after seeing Final Destination 3, I don't have that much confidence in his abilities, and early reviews of his Black Christmas remake are quite negative.  Gregory Hoblit - I really don't know why I picked him.  Probably just based on the mystery aspects of the F13 story, but nothing more.  Alexandre Aja has proven to me that he is a modern master of horror cinema, and I would fully embrace him for this job.

As far as cating goes, I would ban the inclusion of all the hot teen stars of the day, and try to discover unknown talent that has potential.  For Mrs. Voorhees, we don't want someone who's a movie star, but a real actress with some credible work behind her.  I would nominate Olivia Hussey.  She was the female lead in Black Christmas, and subsequently, she played Norman Bates' mother in the telemovie Psycho IV: The Beginning.  She can have both a beautiful, loving look, but can also look quite villianous and sinister.  Plus, she's about the same age now that Betsy Palmer was when she did Friday The 13th!  I believe Olivia could deliver a chilling and demented performance just as Betsy did, and make it as memorable.  As for Alice Hardy, if you want another redhead - which I have a fondness for - I can nominate Alicia Witt.  Yeah, I only saw her in the terribly ineffective Urban Legend (which I'll get to later), but she plays a very good heroine.  Though, as I said, I believe it would be better to have a cast of quality unknowns here, but still, studios like to have some kind of fairly recognizable name to draw audiences in.  As for the score - I would have no problem with Manfredini returning (if he dumped the snyth scoring), or perhaps Fred Mollin taking over for his mentor.  On the topic of special effects - no CGI!  This is a simple stalk n' slash deal as far as effects go, and what could be done with practical effects 25 years ago with amazing results could be done even easier now in the same way with the same great results!  Bringing in KNB EFX Group would be the only choice here!  They can get the job done with masterful results.  Maybe they'll be some touching up via digital technology, but we don't need people getting stabbed, impaled, and slashed with a CGI machete!  It just cheeses up the look of the film whereas practical effects add to the realism of it.  KNB did amazing work on Aja's The Hills Have Eyes (among dozens of other films), and they appear to only get better with every film they work on.

The final point to wrestle over is that the Friday The 13th films have become synonomous with Jason Voorhees, and doing a remake of the original which does not feature Jason as the killer would truly hurt the box office where the general movie-going public is concerned.  Hardcore slasher fans wouldn't mind because they know the original quite well, and not having Jason wouldn't be a negative.  Though, people who see the title Friday The 13th will automatically think Jason Voorhees, and when they don't see Jason as the killer, they'll be bewildered and confused (possibly pissed off, disappointed, etc.).  You might be able to make Jason the killer, but who's going to explain the full backstory and motive?  Jason doesn't speak, and unless you do a whole dialogue like Paul Holt does in Friday The 13th, Part 2, no one's gonna understand why he's killing everyone.  Though, I'm sure a talented and creative screenwriter could conjure up a clever way to execute this idea.  Also, revealing Jason as the killer would throw the fans completely.  I even heard ideas of having Jason's father Elias as the killer, and so, there would be many ways to go with this - making the ending very interesting for everyone.

So, in conclusion, if you get an imaginative screenwriter with a love for the subgenre and even the series itself, you could have a much more compelling story told with possible new twists to the tale.  Putting the amazing Alexandre Aja in the director's seat would make this one powerhouse of a horror film.  We Friday fans LOVE the gore factor of these films, and yes, it IS still possible to make Jason Voorhees (or Pamela Voorhees) scary again.  It's all in the presentation and execution that makes it scary or not.  Whatever plans New Line Cinema might have (or had) for restarting this franchise is unknown to me, but if this article happens to get seen by someone at New Line or Platinum Dunes, I hope they take some notes from it.

For a remake, I would suggest ONLY David Twohy directing an updated version of his original script.  With Pitch Black & The Chronicles of Riddick, Twohy's proven to me that he can deliver genuine horror and visceral gore - not to mention, he can direct one HELL of a movie when given the chance.  I wouldn't mind having Julian Sands back since he made the role of the Warlock so his own.  I just don't believe anyone else could execute that role nearly as well as he did.  Not only did he put in a deliciously rich performance, but he had the perfect look - the look of an angel with a sadistic smile to boot.  Sands was just born to play this role, and man, did he bring it to wonderfully rich life.  Now, recasting Redferne is extremely difficult.  Finding someone around the age of 30 with a gruff look, but able to portray a heroic character that's held so close to morality and has a heart of gold and can do an English accent seems quite uncommon.  Sands still looks quite well for his age, and still has those golden locks.  Grant certainly looks his age at nearly 50, and I don't feel that age fits well with the character.  Perhaps the highly talented and well-received Jim Caveziel could pull it off?  I thought he was the perfect choice for the new Superman, and Redferne isn't too far off from the character of Superman (take away the superpowers, give him a British accent, and scruff him up a bit).  Caveziel continually proves his worth as an actor in every role he takes on, and perhaps he could show that again here.

It's a few too many years too late to tie this story into some kind of millennium apocalypse senario (a la End of Days), but the original didn't need it, and neither does a remake.  In an updated script, perhaps Kassandra could be someone more intelligent, more capable, but she can still be in peril.  Having her believe she can handle any situation that comes around, and then, being confronted with a powerful warlock who can do unspeakable harm to her without laying a finger on her would be very intriguing.  She needn't be anything like a cop, but just a strong woman that's physically capable of defending herself.  There are many women out there that can adequately defend themselves against an assailant, and so, this would be a nice way to update the character.  Plus, the kind of character Kassandra was in the original was very 80s like, and would seem a little too cliché and satrical these days.

All in all, with David Twohy at the helm, I believe he would put together a solid and entertaining cast with an effective script.  The special effects would be absolutely amazing, and Warlock could become a thrilling rollercoaster ride of horror, scares, and perhaps a bit of humor (which was present in the original).  Give the man the proper R rated cut, and let him go wild with this premise.  It could become a far more entertaining and well-rounded horror / fantasy film.

The cast is greatly chosen.  The parts that were at the forefront were portrayed by fine young actors, and I have no need to change them unless the reworked script called for it.  My main problem is the lack of actual suspense and terror in this film, and that can only be blamed on the director.  Jamie Blanks didn't do much before this movie, and even less after it.  His talent for the horror genre just is non-existent.  Who I would choose to direct this film?  On first instinct, I'd say David Fincher, but that's just not quite right.  The man's already been down this road, and has obviously made a point for each of his films be very different from the other where the premise is concerned.  Taking into considering the genre we're focused on heee, I would choose Marcus Nispel.  Whatever your feelings on his remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, you have to agree that he showed a talent for intense, viseral horror with that film.  I think he could amp up the intensity with this film, and create a much more interesting killer.  Getting the correct scriptwriter on board to make this concept reach its highest potential and making the story more than a one-dimensional slasher is just as important.

I don't think this was very strong entry for potential remakes, but I feel that the entire urban legend idea had a whole lot of potential that wasn't utilized correctly with this film (or either of its two increasingly worse sequels).  So, it would be best to just go back and redo the original, and redo it the best way possible.  And even if the concept fell short again, Nispel would at least have given us something with more punch than Jamie Blanks did.

First off, the start of the film should remain completely untouched!  It was perfect the way it was in the original, and shouldn't tinkered with.  Also, cast a sympathetic and vulnerable female lead like Carol Kane was.  What we change is when the story jumps ahead a few years.  Simply put, our killer, Curt Duncan, could only be mentally ill to do what he had done, and so, I rather view him escaping from a mental hospital (much like in Halloween).  But something that would set this apart from Carpenter's classic is a few thngs beyond the "pure evil incarnate" Dr. Loomis prophet of doom foreboding.  Also, the suspense would stem more from his stalking of Carol Kane and her children than some masked man offing teenagers.  Yes, forget following Duncan around the city, stopping in bars, trying to pick up a woman, and evading a fat cop.  It's utterly boring, and holds no potential.  I'd like having a different sort of detective in the mix this time trying to protect Jill and her family as well as attempting to track down this escaped killer.  I know, it still sounds much like Halloween, but the approach would be different.  There's no All Hallows Eve atmosphere, and it boils down to a suspenseful thriller than a slasher flick.  It's more psychological terror than visceral horror.  And to preserve the ending of the original, Duncan could be believed either dead or captured (the latter being better, in my honest opinion), but then, he goes back to finish off Jill.  In a tense finale, the detective races back to Jill's house while Duncan closes in on his deranged homicidal goal.  It would all end in something I believe would be more satisfying than what the original movie achieved overall.

My sole choice for a director is Gary Fleder (Kiss The Girls, Runaway Jury).  He has proven to be a very capable and talented director.  Fleder can really wrap up mystery and suspense very well.  He can create an intelligent thriller, give it character, and make it powerful.  He's worked with some great, legendary actors in Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman.  So, there is no doubt Gary Fleder knows how to harness great talent, and utilize it to its fullest potential.  He can also make a great script work to a level of excellence.

Wrap it up, and call it a hit.  I feel this angle on a remake of this film has a better potential for success than what was released in February, 2006.  It also matures the story from a run-of-the-mill popcorn movie thriller to a tense and respectable crime thriller.  With a director that knows how to utilize the talent at his disposal, and how to craft a well conceived drama, this sounds like a superior film to what we've seen so far.

First off, you really restrain the humor.  It's good to have it, but don't have it dominant the film.  Secondly, make the deadites into the most horrific, gruesome bastards possible.  I'm not saying make them look like Orces from LOTR, but take what was used in other Evil Dead films, and make it look a bit more genuinely horrific.  I also think that walking skeletons are too cheesy, and aren't really frightening.  So, we forget about them here.  I know CGI would be inevitable with the scale of this film.  I'm talking about hundreds of deadites, maybe more.  Just a terrifying army of evil marching down on Arthur's castle, and Ash having to lead the way against it.  Make that battle majorly epic.  Have it so that it seems like our heroes have no chance of winning, and in fact come on the brink of defeat.  Basically, follow the same plot, but induce a larger scale and more horror than there is humor.

Of course, you keep Bruce Campbell, Embeth Davidtz, and even Richard Grove as "Henry the Red."  Though, I never felt that Lord Arthur or Wiseman John were very impressive.  For Lord Arthur, I believe Karl Urban could really bring some strength and weight to that role.  I've loved him in every role I've seen him in, and he's a great dramatic actor.  He could really make Arthur an authority figure, a nice counter-balance to Ash's unique egotistical personality.  Wiseman John, I think, should be cast with Alan Rickman.  He has a very good balance between drama and levity.  Plus, he's British, and that natural accent would do much to enhance the medieval England setting - something I felt Raimi's film lacked.  Yeah, Rickman's played a wizard before, but he's also played a German criminal mastermind, an angel, Rasputin, and a ton of other things - soon you run out of roles.  But anyway, I think that does well for the cast.

In terms of the director?  Sam Raimi is a good director, but I still have negative marks against him - especially in his need to inject so many poorly conceived comedic moments.  I hated Spider-Man 2, and so, you can see where I'm coming from.  IN regards to that film, I'll just say, "raindrops."  So, my idea is to get a director with a good sense of action, horror, and danger with a good handle on humorous moments.  This'll hit you from an odd angle, but John McTiernan.  My justification?  Predator.  Horrific gore, awesome action sequences, fantastic sense of character and dialogue, a nice sprinkle of humor, great drama, and definitely chilling suspense and terror.  McTiernan has everything it would take to make Army of Darkness a bad ass action-horror film with a great array of characters.  McTiernan also made The Thirteen Warrior which is much in the vein of what I have in mind - chilling inhuman savages, a medieval style setting, and grizzly battles.  McTiernan would prove perfect for this task.  Also, while you're at it, get KNB EFX Group back into this because they're better now than ever before!  Also, Joseph LoDuca had a wonderful score here with an added piece by Danny Elfman - keep it all.

If you were to put all these elements together with a more horror-driven script, it would be a smash blockbuster, I guarantee it.  But there's one final element to cap this whole thing off - the post-apocalyptic ending.  It's the ending I prefer for Army of Darkness, and would be a GREAT ending for such a hard-hitting film.  This kind of ending has worked to excellent effect in many John Carpenter films like Halloween, Prince of Darkness, In The Mouth of Madness, & The Thing.  No one should be afraid to use it because it makes for an unforgettable ending.

I find nothing wrong with the cast or plot, but there's a lot of stupid things in here.  Roseanne & Tom Arnold gotta go like avoiding the plague!  I understand the entire idea that Freddy has wiped out the children population of Springwood, but this is handled in such a cartoonish fashion that this plot point is begging to be ignored.  The entire execution needs an overhaul.  Freddy needs to be put back in a dark place where he is truly villianous, and not made into a joke.  Freddy Krueger was a killer of children, and it has also been hinted at that he was even worse than that.  This is a wholly dispicable individual, and he should be treated as such.  It's ballsy for a studio to complete villify their franchse star, but that's what is best for the film.  Furthermore, the dream death sequences need to be dark and frightening, not cartoony and goofy.  Freddy's meant to be at his most powerful here, and he should demonstrate that with making the deaths more violent than before.  Also, the ending needs a serious revamp.  Dump the 3D glasses gimmick, dump the "arming up" bullshit, and for the love of all that's good in cinema, forget about the damn pipe bomb!  Personally, if Freddy has become more powerful than ever, I'd like to see the surprise twist of him actually having powers in the real world.  That would make the end battle more perilless, interesting, and ultimately, force it to be more creative in destroying Freddy.  How that would be?  I'm not certain, but with a GOOD screenwriter with a thorough knowledge of the franchise, I imagine something satisfying could be created.  Possibly, Freddy's powers have grown to the point where he's able to trap his own daughter in the dream world, and the only way for her to escape is to destroy him by whatever means.  Whatever the case, this film requires something far more climactic and dare I say epic to make sure Freddy is dead.

So, who would be called on to director this darker, truly horror-driven film?  I know many would come right out and say Wes Craven, and while yes, he is a good director, he's had some missteps.  He's done things in Shocker that are practically the same as the cartoonish sequences in Freddy's Dead, and I couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't happen again.  New Nightmare is great, but still lacks something more.  For something as genuinely frightening and dark as I am imagining (as well as somewhat psychologically twisted), the only director that comes to mind is David Fincher, but frankly, I don't think you'd ever get him to do a slasher film.  Next best thing?  The master of macabre horror - Clive Barker.  His drecting credits aren't long, but he's made some great films.  Hellraiser & Lord of Illusions among the best.  From interviews, Barker seems to have a very good handle on Krueger, among other slasher icons, and I believe that he could create a version of this film that truly is filled with horror and a frightening monster named Freddy Krueger.  From the email interview I had with Robert Englund back in 2003, he always felt that Freddy should be dark, but a lot of the directors liked the comedy aspects of the character just to make him more marketable.  So, I feel that Englund could work well with Barker, and together, could create a Freddy's Dead that would give the true send-off the character has always deserved.

So, I still support Don Coscarelli's desire to remake the Phantasm legacy in his original intended vision, but it seems like a failed endeavour.  No new talk of the trilogy has surfaced since the desolution of the New Line Cinema deal, and nothing more on a fifth film to conclude the original continuity.  I can tell you that there are a LOT of Phantasm fans out there that are hungry for another film, and whichever way it goes, I will be anxious to see it.  Hopefully, Don can raise enough interest in another film to get the financial backing he requires, and make the best possible Phantasm film of all-time!  Until that day comes, we can only sit and dwell on what could've been, or what might still be.