Perhaps even more illuminating than the preceding volume overall, this chronicles 23 attempts (well, 21 - one was a full trilogy) to sequel-ize or reboot the Halloween franchise over the past four decades, between the release of the original and the final Blumhouse-abetted realization of the current iteration.
And honestly, some of these sound pretty fucking great. Even though I'm a huge fan of Rob Zombie's Halloween II Director's Cut, I'm kind of stunned that Todd Farmer & Patrick Lussier's first attempt at a follow-up (in 3-D, no less) never made it to screen. Yes, it spins pointedly off of the ending to the *theatrical* version of RZ's masterpiece, but it's a genuinely thrilling evolution of Zombie's exploration of these characters, and resets the Shape to a point where any subsequent follow-up would have an entirely clean slate to move forward. Honestly, I'm a fan of their My Bloody Valentine 3-D remake, and of Drive Angry, but this might have been even better than those. To say nothing of Tom Atkins having a planned cameo.
Otherwise, I think some of the "Shape in prison" or "Shape in psychiatric ward on lockdown" premises had a lot of potential. There's even one late in the game from a screenwriter named Scott Milam that would have served as an almost Mindhunter-esque re-branding of Myers.
The only pitches I found tiresome were the ones that played up the fantastical elements the most. From the mid-90s insistence on incorporating VR technology (from Bob Weinstein, allegedly) never worked, and the latter-day attempt at a trilogy built around reconfiguring "the Shape" in some kind of weird satanic multiverse (which I highly doubt even got considered at a high level) just struck me as embarrassing. Maybe it read better on the page than as it was pitched and summarized here, but I just found the whole thing so wrongheaded. Not just on a conceptual level - I'll admit some of that's interesting - but at what point as a creator do you cut your losses and realize "there's no way anyone's going to give this much of a shit about what I'm doing here." For me, with that idea, I would have tapped out on it a lot sooner as a result.
I've been reading this in chunks over the past few months, so it's possible I'm forgetting some of the earlier pitches, but I think there's something intriguing in the fact that some of the earliest and most wrongheaded concepts (on the page) would go on to find more natural purchase in later iterations, that would have realized their potential more fully.