MovieChat Forums > Halloween (1978) Discussion > Should Judith have been a random girl/ba...

Should Judith have been a random girl/babysitter?

posted 25 days ago by DevonteHuntley (228)
9 replies | jump to latest

I for one have no issue with the sibling angle revelation in the sequel and people who hate on it ought to lay off. It made sense that Laurie was Michael's sister given he attacked one sister that started off this whole thing. Why wouldn't he go after another? These haters feel it ruined the mystery motive and I just roll my eyes. We still don't know why he wants Laurie dead; we just know there's a pattern. There's still mystery with what he does. Him going after family doesn't really change him still doing things at random or without cause.

But one thing I NEVER hear these sibling angle haters complain about in regard to Michael being this "mysterious boogeyman" is whether or not Judith should have been related. Given the initial concept and title being "The Babysitter Murders" I think it would have made sense if Judith was Michael's sitter that he decided to pop a visit to one night and caught by HER parents. Then the movie would run the same but removing all references to Judith being the sister with her being a sitter.

[–] steven1660 (144) 17 days ago

I never thought about it like this, but I think you're right! They could have said Judith was at Michael's house babysitting. Her and her bf hooked up in the parents bed and he killed her. John Carpenter didn't write the movie with sequels in mind so I guess it didn't matter at the time. But would have been a good idea for haters of the sister angle. For me, I'm like you, I don't mind the sister angle.

[–] Lord Rake (4454) 17 days ago

It is irrelevant with Judith because Myers was still borderline at the time. He was a normal kid and he might have snapped from seeing his sister and her boyfriend hooking up or it was just his time to snap. But he was there because it was his house, he didnt go seek out his sister it was just where he was at the time. So his motivation is still unknown but when he goes after ANOTHER one of his sisters it starts getting silly.

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 17 days ago

It never got silly. It would if he went after a second unknown sister (third overall) by H4, but Laurie being one works fine. I just wish the movies explained where she was during 1963 when she would have been two at the time. But if Michael is suppose to be this boogeyman babysitter killer who's not targeting any family members initially, then it makes all the more sense Judith was one too. If he starts off killing one sister then it makes sense he'd go after another hence why we got the H2 twist in the first place. Understand that.

[–] Lord Rake (4454) 16 days ago

He is a kid who either snapped psychologically when he saw the two hooking up or it was his time to turn supernaturally. The sister works because she is in the right place at the right time and that is pretty much all he could have handled as a child, he was not going to be big enough to go on a rampage and was caught easily by his parents.

Laurie being his sister doesn't add anything great to the storyline, no need for it.

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 16 days ago

Look, if you can accept one sister being slaughtered, then another one shouldn't be an issue with you. Laurie being a sister WORKS given the attention she was given during the original and in H2 it helped give a reason for Loomis to go to the hospital to not only save her yet again but also to figure out where Michael likely is since he sees Laurie is of an importance. The twist works and people need to get over it instead of harping over John Carpenter's pathetic back tread of a rather reasonable twist he know he needed to make H2 really go somewhere since he decided to continue the story the way he did. Perhaps he should have written a sequel without Laurie and we had a new lead, but nooo you continued Laurie and set it on the same night, the sister angle was needed to bring them back together.

[–] Lord Rake (4454) 15 days ago

How is the sister angle needed? Michael was stalking Laurie and her friends and who knows how many other girls all day. It is reasonable to believe that if he survived Loomis shooting him he'd be going after Laurie again because of that. They dont need to explain all of Michaels motivations.

I can accept Judith being slaughtered because she was there when Michael snapped. Why wouldnt he go after her? But there is no need to have Laurie related to him and how doesn't she know her own old house? There are a ton of hoops to jump through to make her Michaels sister for no benefit to the narrative.

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 15 days ago

The sister angle is needed for the reasons I provided. If we had H2 the same way what would be the big importance for Loomis to know Michael would be trailing Laurie at the hospital? The sister angle helps in this case: "He killed one sister fifteen years ago, now he's out trying to kill the other!" work your way around that one.

If the sibling angle is such a bore to you and John, then he should have written a different story where Michael trails after another young woman OR maybe made Judith just a babysitter Michael snuck up on in the first place to avoid even feeling like he HAD to make Laurie one too. How would Laurie not know her own house? Well, she was adopted when she was four. Not many kids remember much from that time and perhaps she was never told about her old house and or forgotten about it. Perhaps if John continued the story in H3, we would have had some of these questions answered but he opted to do a whole 180 and not address some of things H2 leaves off on once finding out about the sibling angle which was a bad move on his part.

I LOVE the angle and think it brings a unique dynamic to this whole thing we never really seen before because its always villains being unrelated to their targets and this was a breath of fresh air. We still don't know why Michael does what he does or wants his family dead so this revelation doesn't quite change much of his character. That doesn't come along until we get to the Thorn concept down the line and even that's something I like as it ties to Halloween and brings a layer of new avenues to explore in a series about a PAGAN HOLIDAY you dolt. Now get with it.

The sibling angle is fine. You hate it because John and most people who kiss his ass do. Think for yourself and or learn to branch your mind when it comes to cooperative storytelling.

[–] Lord Rake (4454) 14 days ago

First of all H2 isn't the pinnacle of slasher/horror films, it's dull and no one really remembers it and its only tolerable because Loomis is great and crazier. But it would still be reasonable that if Michael was on the loose "and not Lauries brother" that he'd be going after her because he stalked her all day and tried to kill her once.

"The sibling angle is fine. You hate it because John and most people who kiss his ass do. Think for yourself and or learn to branch your mind when it comes to cooperative storytelling."
I dont even like Carpenter and have never heard him talk about not liking the sibling thing. Going after Judith is fine, she is in wrong place at wrong time and being related to Myers is incidental.

[–] DevonteHuntley (228) 14 days ago

Why would Michael simply stalking Laurie again? You went after her, failed, now move on. He'll just be out killing at random at this rate. But most importantly, what would be enough for Loomis to think she's in any further danger to know where to find Michael? There's no huge tie-in between them. The ending wouldn't work unless it was revealed they were related. END OF STORY.

As for your second statement at the bottom, ALL LIES. John is ON RECORD hating the sibling angle and blaming it on the alcohol (and yet everything else he wrote for the movie works just fine). You're no Halloween fan if you don't know this PUBLIC and constant out there info.