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.