Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 112 of 112
  1. #106
    Astonishing Member kingaliencracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    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.
    I understand that. My statement about semantics was because the reason why Michael became fixated on Laurie in the first movie is irrelevant. The fact remains he specifically focuses on her and her friends. He doesn't tear through a neighborhood or police officers as he does in this film, which was my point about this notion that the new Halloween film somehow reverts Michael back to his original form. That's not an accurate statement. Michael stalks his victims in the first movie. In the new film, he's a freight train. The characterization doesn't match, even if I concede that Michael in the new film was pretty wicked.

    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.
    I understand all of this. It doesn't change my opinion that how Michael was presented in the first film is different than how he was presented in this film, regardless of the sister/brother dynamic being removed between Laurie and Michael, which I've stated repeatedly I'm perfectly fine with.

  2. #107
    Incredible Member bobellis75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingaliencracker View Post
    I understand that. My statement about semantics was because the reason why Michael became fixated on Laurie in the first movie is irrelevant. The fact remains he specifically focuses on her and her friends. He doesn't tear through a neighborhood or police officers as he does in this film, which was my point about this notion that the new Halloween film somehow reverts Michael back to his original form. That's not an accurate statement. Michael stalks his victims in the first movie. In the new film, he's a freight train. The characterization doesn't match, even if I concede that Michael in the new film was pretty wicked.



    I understand all of this. It doesn't change my opinion that how Michael was presented in the first film is different than how he was presented in this film, regardless of the sister/brother dynamic being removed between Laurie and Michael, which I've stated repeatedly I'm perfectly fine with.
    Because they didn't introduce the sibling angle until part 2....he wasn't related to Laurie in the original. Carpenter added that bit in when he did the second movie. Allegedly he sat down and hammered out the script for part 2 in one night with a 12 pack of beer so he could have been drunk when he came up with that idea...

  3. #108
    Put a smile on that face Immortal Weapon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Bronx, New York
    Posts
    13,939

    Default

    I still think it's a mistake to drop the sibling angle. There's no point in revisiting Laurie and introducing two generations of her family without it.

  4. #109
    the devil's reject choptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    8,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Weapon View Post
    I still think it's a mistake to drop the sibling angle. There's no point in revisiting Laurie and introducing two generations of her family without it.
    I agree with this.

  5. #110
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chachi View Post
    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.
    Do you think Scream actually worked where the imitators didn't?

  6. #111
    Dorky Person Charmed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,640

    Default

    spoilers:
    I prefer H20 to this film. This movie is a lot more artsy and a lot less "tv movie" than H20 was, but it's dialogue and characters leave me feeling dry. I also felt as though Jamie had a meatier role in H20 than she did here. It probably helped that that movie was more about her, whereas this one seemed to also be about her and the mom and the granddaughter. H20 did have a little plotline with the son, too, but even his issues were tied to Laurie. (That scene where the granddaugther breaks up with her boyfriend seems pretty pointless, though I guess it was a way to get the friend to get killed.)

    Other than the camera angles and lighting, I did enjoy the music. I just didn't feel any suspense. Characters said what they were feeling, rather than being allowed to show that (that could be something H20 did, as well, but I haven't seen that movie in a while so I'm not sure).
    end of spoilers

  7. #112

    Default

    Just got around to seeing Halloween 2018.

    Kept waiting to be scared, but it never happened. I'm ok with the lack of explicit kills because the first one didn't really have them, either.

    Where the movie failed was that it was pretty much lacking in suspense. THAT'S what made the original such a classic. The feeling of unease and tension throughout was what kept you into the movie.

    We've already had the Laurie-meets-Michael-again plot in H20. I thought it was better executed there than in H40. So, a lack of suspense and a lack of real scares made this a lackluster outing for me.

    It's interesting that directors keep wanting to reboot or retcon the series to supposedly get it back on track, but it never fully gets there.

    I enjoyed Halloween 4 and H20 better than this. In spite of the gratuitous gore of the Zombie reboot, I think his Halloween (H30, ok H29) was better than this, also.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •