Halloween/Michael Myers Discussion

[Dennis K]

Have any of the films given a reason for why Michael wanted to kill his sister Laurie so much other than just because she was his sister? I know he killed the one sister at the opening of the first film, but I can't recall a real reason being offered up. I've always kind of thought it might be an interesting idea if Michael had a twin brother who was sent away for doing something diabolical. Talk to me Halloween/Michael Myers fans!

[SnowTrooper]

Michael killed his sister and tried to kill Laurie because he had 'The Thorn Curse'. Which meant that he had to kill his entire family, this was revealed in Halloween 6:The Curse of Michael Myers.

[mattbib]

Well, given that Halloweens IV through VI are officially disregarded, the Thornn thing never happened. I think Michael is simply just psychotic.

[Scorpion13]

The Halloween series did a continuity restart ala Godzilla.

When they made H20, they ignored everything after Halloween 2.

So.....

Showa Halloween: Michael Had the ancient curse of Thorn, placed on him by a druidic cult.

Heisei Halloween: He's just nuts.

Personally, I liked the reason put forth in the original movie: none. there is no reason why its happening, it just is.

[mattbib]

Agreed. Part of me HATED when they brought in Thorn, even though they were good films. I didn't want Michael to have any supernatural aspect.

[Scorpion13]

Agreed. Part of me HATED when they brought in Thorn, even though they were good films. I didn't want Michael to have any supernatural aspect.


I dont mind him being supernatural, I just dont like it being explained. Explaining it gives the feeling of understanding, and lessens the WTF factor.

[VCreed32]

And it wasn't a huge aspect either.

[JohnPopa]

Michael worked best as a manifestation of our fears -- as a metaphor. Explaining the story beyond that was a mess waiting to happen.

[Murrocko]

Did they ever explain who that guy was that had the same mark on his wrist as Michael?

[Radical]

Agreed. Part of me HATED when they brought in Thorn, even though they were good films. I didn't want Michael to have any supernatural aspect.

I always wondered, "Is something supernatural going on, or is he just too psycho to know when he's been hurt?"

[mattbib]

Did they ever explain who that guy was that had the same mark on his wrist as Michael?Yes, it was all spelled out in Halloween VI.

[Murrocko]

Yes, it was all spelled out in Halloween VI.
Soooo, who is he?

[Indigo Al]

Put me down for ignoring the ridiculous Druid crap that Halloween 6 tried to establish.

There is nothing more chilling than Dr. Loomis's speech in the first one, about looking into Michael's eyes and seeing absolutely nothing - no reason, no emotion - staring back.

[Cleric of Hell's Brigade]

Who was the guy who released Micheal from prison? You know, the guy who for the most part, all you see are his boots.


Who/what was he?

[artemisboy]

I didn't want Michael to have any supernatural aspect.

But he almost HAS to have a supernatural aspect. The man gets shot, stabbed, burned, run-over, etc. over and over again and he still comes back stronger than ever with no real effects from all the previous damage. He's almost too much like Jason from the Friday the 13th series. If he weren't supernatural he'd be dead a long time back. So either there's many many many Michael's out there or the guy HAS to be supernatural.

I'm one of the few who liked the whole Druid explaination. It tied Michael more into why he had such close ties to Halloween and why he was unstoppable. Hence, I keep parts 3-6 in continuity in my mind. It even gave a very good reason why he was able to drive off in the first film when, by all rights, he wouldn't know how to work a car at all.

The man in black (spoilers ahead for those of you who don't want to know) was the leader of the Druid order Micheal was a part of. He was Micheal's protector and it is he who taught Michael to drive and who kept bailing him out of his jams when needed. You find out in the movies that the man in black was actually the head of the mental hospital that Micheal was held in since childhood. It was he that was responsible for putting the ideas in Micheal's head as a child to kill his family for the survival of the whole. In part 6, if you have seen the uncut director's version, you will see that the man in black is killed and the druid mark then appears on Dr. Loomis' arm, thus making him Micheal's new protector. But as the actor has since died, that angle of the story has never been explored since.

One thing that is rather confusing is that Laurie Strode has had TWO children since part 2 was released. Jamie Lloyd and John Tate. (whom it seems John had no clue about) Micheal was successful in killing Laurie in part 7 and Jamie in part 6, but John is still out there waiting for Micheal to come after him next. If a new movie were to be made, I think resolving the "family confusion" and making John meet up with Tommy Doyle (in part 6 played by Paul Rudd) and Jamie's baby would make it very interesting. (FYI: Jamie's baby is rumored to be Micheal's child as well.)

- Peter

[Dennis K]

But he almost HAS to have a supernatural aspect. The man gets shot, stabbed, burned, run-over, etc. over and over again and he still comes back stronger than ever with no real effects from all the previous damage. He's almost too much like Jason from the Friday the 13th series. If he weren't supernatural he'd be dead a long time back. So either there's many many many Michael's out there or the guy HAS to be supernatural.

I'm one of the few who liked the whole Druid explaination. It tied Michael more into why he had such close ties to Halloween and why he was unstoppable. Hence, I keep parts 3-6 in continuity in my mind. It even gave a very good reason why he was able to drive off in the first film when, by all rights, he wouldn't know how to work a car at all.

The man in black (spoilers ahead for those of you who don't want to know) was the leader of the Druid order Micheal was a part of. He was Micheal's protector and it is he who taught Michael to drive and who kept bailing him out of his jams when needed. You find out in the movies that the man in black was actually the head of the mental hospital that Micheal was held in since childhood. It was he that was responsible for putting the ideas in Micheal's head as a child to kill his family for the survival of the whole. In part 6, if you have seen the uncut director's version, you will see that the man in black is killed and the druid mark then appears on Dr. Loomis' arm, thus making him Micheal's new protector. But as the actor has since died, that angle of the story has never been explored since.

One thing that is rather confusing is that Laurie Strode has had TWO children since part 2 was released. Jamie Lloyd and John Tate. (whom it seems John had no clue about) Micheal was successful in killing Laurie in part 7 and Jamie in part 6, but John is still out there waiting for Micheal to come after him next. If a new movie were to be made, I think resolving the "family confusion" and making John meet up with Tommy Doyle (in part 6 played by Paul Rudd) and Jamie's baby would make it very interesting. (FYI: Jamie's baby is rumored to be Micheal's child as well.)
- Peter

I hate to nitpick (okay, I don't, but I'll try not to be a dick about it) but here are a couple of thoughts regarding your post.

1) Michael predates Jason, therefore he can't really be like Jason at all. I know what you mean though, and the Michael that has survived from Halloween 4-present is a pale imitation of the original classic character IMO.

2) I've seen Halloween 4 & 5 on amc's Monsterfest, and man, those movies really suck. The only part of either one of them that I thought was the slightest bit interesting was the Halloween costume the little girl wore in Halloween 4, the same costume that Michael was wearing when he killed his sister at the beginning of the original film. I do remember the man in black (Hello, I'm Johnny Cash - sorry) though and I've always wondered where they were going with it.

3) The next Halloween I bothered watching was Halloween; H20, and while it was certainly a step up from parts 4 or 5, for me it lacked anywhere near the intensity of the original and even the the first sequel. I don't recall a lot of the details, other than Jamie Lee Curtis real life mother, Janet Leigh was in it, and in a nice tip of the cap to the horror movie that made her a star, she was driving the same make and model car that she did in the original Psycho. For me, the best part of H20 was the ending, when she had "Michael" pinned with the ambulance. I almost felt bad for him as he stretched out his arm, as if he was asking his sister to help him.

4) Which brings me to Halloween; Resurrection. What an EXCELLENT serve to explain why Michael isn't dead. The final confrontation between brother and sister at the beginning of the film is also excellent, and is probably the best sequence since their first confrontation. The rest of the film is pretty run-of-the-mill with nothing in particular to distinguish it from the rest of the slasher schlock.

5) And here I thought incest was a worn out cliche in Hollywood with the exception of Anjelina Jolie and her brother.

[SnowTrooper]

I do wonder how Jamies baby could have belonged to her and Michael, I cant picture Michael gettin busy with a woman or jizzing in a cup. But that would be a strange twist. As for the John Tate thing, I think that Josh Hartnet wont be included in a sequel, I dont know why but I just have that feeling.

I liked Halloween 6 but I did want more clues to the identity of the Man in Black besides just what I've read on the internet. Halloween 4 and 5 did suck pretty bad but thats not gonna stop me from watching them again.

I would like to see a sequel with John Tate or Paul Rudds character from Halloween 6, I would also like to see a relative of Dr. Loomis.

[Dennis K]

I would also like to see a relative of Dr. Loomis.


Dr. Van Loomis, played by Hugh Jackman.

(and no love for my 'long lost twin brother of Michael' idea?)

[TheBatGotHim]

I'm a real big fan of Halloween. I love the character of Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode. I'm very glad they decided to start over with H20 because I am definately not a fan of H3-H6. H5 and H6 completely butchered (no pun intended) the character of Michael Myers IMO.

H2 was the best sequel IMO and now that I look back on the whole series, I really wish they would have stopped at H2 like John Carpenter wanted.

H20 was pretty good but I really wish it could have been a lot more scarier and Michael and Laurie only share the screen for about 15 minutes which is kind of dissapointing to me because its been 20 years and when Michael finds Laurie, she only battles him for a short time.

H8 pissed all over what H20 created. I really hated the fact that they went a head with H8. i remember the official site had a poll if the fans wanted Michael back for H8 or a copycat and they voted For Michael. Although it was a good explanation for Michael's return in H8, I really wish he would have stayed dead at the end of H20. The first 15 minutes is the only good part about this whole movie. The rest is horrible.

I wish Donald Pleasence would have lived for H20. I think it would have been interesting seeing him and Laurie reunited to battle Michael one last time.

[mattbib]

But he almost HAS to have a supernatural aspect. The man gets shot, stabbed, burned, run-over, etc. over and over again and he still comes back stronger than ever with no real effects from all the previous damage. He's almost too much like Jason from the Friday the 13th series. If he weren't supernatural he'd be dead a long time back. So either there's many many many Michael's out there or the guy HAS to be supernatural.Ehhh...maybe. I disagree, though. The sheer level of Michael's insanity could explain his continued survival. There's a certain point at which people can stop feeling pain, so much so that severe injuries don't impede their function. Really, most of the injuries he sustained in Halloween, Halloween II, H20, and Halloween Resurrection aren't that severe. Certainly not at the level at which we've seen Jason Voorhees resurrection from.
One thing that is rather confusing is that Laurie Strode has had TWO children since part 2 was released. Jamie Lloyd and John Tate. (whom it seems John had no clue about) Micheal was successful in killing Laurie in part 7 and Jamie in part 6, but John is still out there waiting for Micheal to come after him next. If a new movie were to be made, I think resolving the "family confusion" and making John meet up with Tommy Doyle (in part 6 played by Paul Rudd) and Jamie's baby would make it very interesting. (FYI: Jamie's baby is rumored to be Micheal's child as well.)See, this WOULD be confusing if in fact Parts IV through VI were even taken into consideration in the making of H20. They weren't; the franchise officially disavowed these three movies. In effect Jamie Lloyd never existed. The fact that Laurie had supposedly died, which led Jamie to live with relatives, would make no sense if those films were still canon, as there would be no logical explanation for her to have given up one child by faking her death while personally raising a second child. Regardless, I wouldn't mind seeing an on-screen reconcilation of both IV - VI and H20, and I'd love to see John Tate featured in a future Halloween film.

- Peter[/QUOTE]

[Indigo Al]

All that a succesfull Halloween film needs is a masterful use of music, lighting, and suspense, like H1 and to a lesser extent, H2.

I agree with Dennis K.'s assessment of H20. It suffered from Scream syndrome, when it should have been a return to the spare, minimal and terryfying horror of the first film.

To me, Druids, and Lord of the RIngs-type explanations for why Michael is are superfluous. He's the boogeyman. That's it.

Come to think of it, though, I'm a big defender of H3, an awful yet wholly original movie - and the culprits there were Druids! Perhaps H's 4-6 are really sequels to H3!!!!

[DDM]

When someone is antisocial, psychotic, & a megalomaniac, no rational reasons will make sense for Michael Myers's desire to murder his sisters. John Carpenter turned Michael Myers, mostly referred to as "The Shape," as simply the personification of evil. Evil people does not need rational reasons to kill anyone.

[artemisboy]

I do wonder how Jamies baby could have belonged to her and Michael, I cant picture Michael gettin busy with a woman or jizzing in a cup. But that would be a strange twist. As for the John Tate thing, I think that Josh Hartnet wont be included in a sequel, I dont know why but I just have that feeling.

I don't know why but I never had a problem with the idea of Michael fathering a child. If he really was a follower of the Thornn, he would have done what was needed to fulfill his duties. Which includes murder AND rape.

As for Josh Hartnet, I'm not too crazy about the actor but I do like consistancy. I'd prefer him to reprise the role but if another actor was needed, no biggie. After all, if Paul Rudd can play Tommy Doyle from part 1, I guess anyone can play the role of John.

I liked Halloween 6 but I did want more clues to the identity of the Man in Black besides just what I've read on the internet. Halloween 4 and 5 did suck pretty bad but thats not gonna stop me from watching them again.

Actually, the writer of Halloween 6 really did his homework on this one. The man in black was really Dr. Wynn who was shown WAY back in part one. He is the guy who is arguing with Dr. Loomis when Dr. Loomis says that maybe someone from the mental hospital has been teaching Michael to drive a car. As it turns out, he WAS taught by someone at the hospital...the very man Dr. Loomis is arguing with!

I would like to see a sequel with John Tate or Paul Rudds character from Halloween 6, I would also like to see a relative of Dr. Loomis.

As a fan of the series, having these two characters meet would be SO awesome for me. For several reasons:

1) They both have a history with Laurie Strode.

2) Tommy Doyle (aka Paul Rudd) is now the guardian of Jamie's (Micheal's) baby. Tommy can explain that the baby is really John's nephew and that John had a sister all this time that he didn't know about.

3) It could explain why Laurie had kept Jaime a secret from John as well as explain who their fathers were.

4) We would be able to see what Tommy and the baby have been up to all this time later.

- Peter

[Jared]

IV-VI alway seemed silly to me because I can't see any way that Dr. Loomis could have survived that explosion from the end of Part II.

For that matter, I thought H20 also ignored Part II, as I dont' recall any mention of Michael suppossedly have been killed in the fire.

[artemisboy]

I can't swear to it but I do vaguely remember a scene where John reassures Laurie that Michael died a long time ago. Perhaps this was supposed to be a nod to the explosion? I know that Laurie did say that she faked her death. Perhaps another nod to the explosion also.

- Peter

[TheBatGotHim]

I can't swear to it but I do vaguely remember a scene where John reassures Laurie that Michael died a long time ago. Perhaps this was supposed to be a nod to the explosion? I know that Laurie did say that she faked her death. Perhaps another nod to the explosion also.

- Peter

That was actually in the scene in H20 where Laurie got onto her son about sneaking off campus. His words were "You said it yourself, you watched him burn". :)

[artemisboy]

That's it! Thanks. :)

- Peter

[Dennis K]

Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream.......

[artemisboy]

Question: I haven't seen Halloween 3 in YEARS because Michael wasn't in it. What exactly did the kids in the haunted Halloween masks do? Did the masks on their heads change at all? Did they do anything other than stab people?

- Peter