Halloween (2018)

[Jokerz79]

Superman, Bond, Batman, Frankenstein, Dracula etc. are all literature/comic characters different than purely cinematic original creations like Elm Street, Friday The 13th, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Child's Play, Saw, Scream etc. as i'm just saying retire the purely cinematic horror icons like Freddy (Robert IS the one and only Freddy and no one else can be him), Jason, Michael, Leatherface, Chucky, Ghostface, Jigsaw etc. and let them rest in peace for they earned their retirement. just let iconic horror franchises and their icons rest in peace and move on and try to find new ones.

I just want mainstream horror genre to stop being a lazy fatass on the shitter with scarfing down cheetos/cupcakes and take risks again like Romero, Hitchock, Friedkin and other great horror directors did in the past and take a page from the independent and foreign horror markets. Now A Quiet Place is an example of taking a risk and it was a hit, learn from it mainstream horror genre. I love Chucky, Freddy, Leatherface, Jigsaw, Jason, Ghostface etc. and that's why you gotta let them go, let them rest in peace and be buried in their graves. They just need to make and create new horror icons again, try again mainstream horror genre just try try try try again.

There is no difference and heck Friday the 13th didn't even become the iconic imagery we know till the 3rd film so we wouldn't have the iconic Jason if not for sequels.

[Michael Watkins]

Again you’re making a massive assumption that isn’t neccesarily true whatsoever

spoilers:

There’s absolutely zero reason to believe he would have attacked Laurie if he wasn’t brought to and isolated with her AND there is no reasonwhy he would target her again if he survives.

end of spoilers

in my opinion.spoilers:

they wanted to have it both ways. Jamie Lee Curtis was playing it as if Michael was obsessed with her. but, because they eliminated the original sequel, there is no reason for her to assume this. Laurie wasn't aware that Michael was stalking her in the original. that only became apparent when he tracked her down at the hospital. and that kid at the beginning had a point. he didn't kill that many people in this timeline. other than wearing a mask while doing it and not speaking afterwards, he fell quite short of the legendary status he had reached because of the sequels. logically, Michael wouldn't have been trying so hard to get into Laurie's survivalist house if his goal weren't to kill everyone inside. it's at this point of the movie where they switch back to it's-personal-mode. prior to that, I could totally believe that Laurie wasn't even on his radar. I also must have missed what happened to Loomis in this continuity.

end of spoilers that said, I very much enjoyed the movie. but i'm an Illinoisan horror fan named Michael. kind of biased.

[Punisher007]

in my opinion.spoilers:

they wanted to have it both ways. Jamie Lee Curtis was playing it as if Michael was obsessed with her. but, because they eliminated the original sequel, there is no reason for her to assume this. Laurie wasn't aware that Michael was stalking her in the original. that only became apparent when he tracked her down at the hospital. and that kid at the beginning had a point. he didn't kill that many people in this timeline. other than wearing a mask while doing it and not speaking afterwards, he fell quite short of the legendary status he had reached because of the sequels. logically, Michael wouldn't have been trying so hard to get into Laurie's survivalist house if his goal weren't to kill everyone inside. it's at this point of the movie where they switch back to it's-personal-mode. prior to that, I could totally believe that Laurie wasn't even on his radar. I also must have missed what happened to Loomis in this continuity.

end of spoilers that said, I very much enjoyed the movie. but i'm an Illinoisan horror fan named Michael. kind of biased.

spoilers:

Michael's new doctor says in the opening scene that Loomis is dead. They don't specify exactly when or how he died, just that he died offscreen at some point and that Dr. Creepy was one of his former students and that he lobbied to take Loomis's place as Michael's doctor after the latter's death.

end of spoilers

[Michael Watkins]

spoilers:

Michael's new doctor says in the opening scene that Loomis is dead. They don't specify exactly when or how he died, just that he died offscreen at some point and that Dr. Creepy was one of his former students and that he lobbied to take Loomis's place as Michael's doctor after the latter's death.

end of spoilers

kind of deflates Loomis as the Ahab of the original films, imo. but there's not an alternative I guess.

[Punisher007]

Not when Donald Pleasance has been dead for over 20 years. They handled it about as well as possible I think.

[kingaliencracker]

In the first film Michael stalked Laurie because she dropped a key off at his old house which Michael was in. It was played off as happenstance that she showed up there and caught his attention. Then he stalked Laurie and her friends. And I’m pretty sure they were all staying around the same area as Michael.

It wasn’t really until the second film where it went from happenstance and a fixation to “this dude is relentlessly pursuing this one girl and will stop at nothing and go anywhere to kill her”.

We're arguing semantics. If that's the justifiable reason why Michael stalked Laurie & Company in the first film, fine. But my point still stands - Michael did care about Laurie in the first movie and Laurie did matter to him, regardless of the reason. To argue that the new film somehow "corrects" the belief that Michael just randomly and indiscriminately kills as was established in the first movie simply isn't true.

In the first movie, Michael kills his sister Judith, an unknown person for his clothes, and then Laurie's friends, before turning his attention to Laurie. That doesn't seem like someone who is looking to kill whoever he can.

[Michael Watkins]

but can we all agree that the mask looks really good and the kills were appropriately brutal?

[Punisher007]

This is the best Michael since the original for me. I mean he's a brutal as we've ever seen while, while still feeling suitably shadowy, sneaky, mysterious, etc like he's supposed to be (looking at you Rob Zombie). Also the mast looks fantastic and some of these kills made even me go "wow" and that's not easy to do these days.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

We're arguing semantics. If that's the justifiable reason why Michael stalked Laurie & Company in the first film, fine. But my point still stands - Michael did care about Laurie in the first movie and Laurie did matter to him, regardless of the reason. To argue that the new film somehow "corrects" the belief that Michael just randomly and indiscriminately kills as was established in the first movie simply isn't true.

In the first movie, Michael kills his sister Judith, an unknown person for his clothes, and then Laurie's friends, before turning his attention to Laurie. That doesn't seem like someone who is looking to kill whoever he can.

It’s not semantics. Every single sequel was built upon the family relationship. The first film is a psycho murderer escapes, by pure chance he see’s a girl at his house and stalks her and her friends trying to kill them. It’s pure chance and random. We are led to believe it could have been anyone who piqued Michael’s interest.

The entire rest of the franchise says that isn’t the case. That Michael was really looking for Laurie after escaping, that she was his reason for coming out, that he would not have even been on a rampage in Haddonfield if she was there. In the first film he just see’s Laurie by chance, starts killing until he is stopped. In the second film he is looking for Laurie and nothing else matters. This is a sharp contrast to Michael messing around and going back and forth killing her friends. In the sequel he is on a one objective mission. In Part IV he is a comatose and only awakens because he learns Laurie has a daughter who he pursues in the next two films. In the 6th we found out a cult is making him do it. In the retconned 7th he goes across the country to find Laurie. In the 8th he finally kills Laurie and then..... goes back to his house and only kills again because people camped out there.

The entire point behind the first film was that this guy was evil and that it was random. The Laurie could have been anybody who walked up to that house. She was just the unlucky one. The rest of the series means it HAD to be her. This film retconned it particularly to say “no he’s just a random killer who kills whoever interests him”. He never pursued Laurie despite seeing her on several occasions. It’s almost entirely possible he didn’t even recognize her. He literally makes no effort to even bother to follow her despite multiple opportunities to.

Yes Michael fixated on Laurie in the first film. But it was by pure chance. It could have been absolutely anyone in the works that went near that house and caught his interest. If that day Laurie drove out of town and never returned, Michael wouldn’t have followed her around. He would have found a new target. Because his targeting of Laurie was random. Taking that away is a MASSIVE difference. It takes something random and gives it predestined motive. Which changes the whole point.

[Punisher007]

John Carpenter himself doesn't even like the sibling's twist. He basically blamed it on a combination of writers bloc and too much alcohol, and he regretted it soon after writing it. And in the context of Halloween II (1981), it really isn't executed well imo anyway.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

John Carpenter himself doesn't even like the sibling's twist. He basically blamed it on a combination of writers bloc and too much alcohol, and he regretted it soon after writing it. And in the context of Halloween II (1981), it really isn't executed well imo anyway.

It not. It’s literally there because Jamie Lee Curtis became a named actress and they were getting her back and this was her final horror film (as she announced at the time). They wanted her to be a central figure and they devised a way to make her more important. And it’s something that tied the hands of the franchise ever since.

Honestly 4 was the only one where they actually used it effectively.

[chachi]

The randomness of Michael choosing to become fixated on Laurie is what makes the original a classic. Once the sibling angle was introduced the entire franchise became handcuffed to that idea. Like previous poster said, 4 was decent and tried to go a different direction with it. 5 was a mess with mute Jamie being linked to her uncle because she touched his hand, the man in black just walking around town, bad comedy, and the freaking Myers house being a Victorian mansion! 6 is a mind ****, the producers cut is a little bit better, but by this time, the franchise was a train wreck. I liked H20, the only issue is it was made during the Kevin Willamson, let make horror movies with the cool kids from the CW era. The ending was great though, **** Resurection for the ridiculous storyline, and the switch with Michael and a paramedic.

[AnakinFlair]

The randomness of Michael choosing to become fixated on Laurie is what makes the original a classic. Once the sibling angle was introduced the entire franchise became handcuffed to that idea. Like previous poster said, 4 was decent and tried to go a different direction with it. 5 was a mess with mute Jamie being linked to her uncle because she touched his hand, the man in black just walking around town, bad comedy, and the freaking Myers house being a Victorian mansion! 6 is a mind ****, the producers cut is a little bit better, but by this time, the franchise was a train wreck. I liked H20, the only issue is it was made during the Kevin Willamson, let make horror movies with the cool kids from the CW era. The ending was great though, **** Resurection for the ridiculous storyline, and the switch with Michael and a paramedic.

Hey now, get it straight. Those were The WB kids. The CW came a few years later.

I agree with everything else you said, especially about Resurection. And THAT was the one I saw in theaters!

[chachi]

forgot about the WB. LOL. Although Jennifer Love Hewitt was on Fox, I believe?

[AnakinFlair]

forgot about the WB. LOL. Although Jennifer Love Hewitt was on Fox, I believe?

Yeah. Party of Five.