MovieChat Forums > Halloween (2018) Discussion > How does Halloween 2 (the original one) ...

How does Halloween 2 (the original one) really disrupt between the first and now?

posted 6 years ago by artguylarry (498)
19 replies | jump to latest

Don't burn me at the stake, this is an honest question. The gimmick here is that the new film purposely ignores any sequel since the original. But as one poster has already pointed out, if you ignore everything after the first film, the new one doesn't really make that much sense.

If you remember, Michael was never established as Laurie's brother IN the original film, yet now she has this vendetta against him after supposedly just being some random guy who chased her around, one evening 30 years ago. A guy who for whatever reason, she NOW knows he's her brother and that he's been an unstoppable killing machine ever since that one night? Why is that? How does she even know he still exists? And what makes her think he's all of a sudden coming for her? Obviously I haven't seen it, so I'm hoping they'll make some sense of it all. I certainly hope they explain it all a little better.

Secondly, at the end of the original, Michael disappeared, but NOW he's just.... in prison? How did it happen? How was he found and captured? Is it even explained? If they're not going to explain it, it still would have been SOMEWHAT plausible starting from the end of Halloween 2. Yes, it was assumed he died in the fire, but who's to say? And what's more, at least Halloween 2 established Michael as Laurie's brother.

I just think the whole idea of ignoring EVERYTHING makes a little less sense. Granted, I've tried, but I can't think of how to justify H20, since "Michael" (so we were led to believe) was beheaded. But at least Halloween 2 allows the new film to make a little more sense.

At any rate, the sequel is loved by many, and even if you take it or leave it, it doesn't disrupt. So why ignore it?

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I really don’t get ignoring part 2 either, it’s a good film and works well with the original. They should have been able to write it from there if they absolutely had to retcon some of the movies.

[–] SoCrates (874) 6 years ago

I agree. Halloween 2 is so underrated. It fits so well with the original, and the setting, Haddonfield Hospital, is really creepy.

[–] FCN36 (19) 6 years ago

He gets BURNED ALIVE at the end of 2 you complete and utter moron. Go "write from there" for a character who's supposed to be HUMAN in the 78 original.

SMFH

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

yes because in horror films everything is dealt with realistically. He is not a normal human, they can say he is human all they want but if that were true he should have been either dead or crippled at the end of part 1 however he just disappeared after being shot repeatedly and landing on his back from a second story fall. This was also handled in part 4 easily enough, as again the first film already established the character as being unnatural, so why not magically make it out of the fire. Because, again the series isn't realistic to begin with. If they HAD to skip movies because they couldn't handle what came before they could still have worked from part 2, if they really wanted to.

If you can't discuss something without making yourself look foolish by name calling you should find someplace else to be.

[–] AdamWaldron96-2 (178) 6 years ago

(1/2)

I've become attached to the whole killing his entire family growing up as a kid. But recently, going back through the films, I wished they weren't siblings, because especially when you get into Halloween 6 (either cut giving Michael Myers bat-shit crazy reason for everything), the sibling/niece/grandnephew narrative does not make any sense. In Halloweens 2, 4 and 5 individually, his goal is to kill ONE family member, yet he always manages to tangent off stalking or killing others, or just stalking his target.

Once you get to Halloween 6, and apply the Cult of Thorn storyline to the first one as well, and add the fact that this cult can kidnap Michael's targets (and have kidnapped his targets, like Jamie Lloyd), it makes Michael look incompetent, and possibly ADHD since he stalks and goes after others. It also makes the cult look incompetent as well. By the end of Halloween 6, at least 70 to almost 80 people (depending on which cut of 6 you watch) have died, whether it be at the hands of Michael Myers, or Jimmy's own clumsy ass, or Dr. Wynn, or four drunk gunmen, or a cop with his foot pressed too hard on the gas pedal. And out of those people, spanning the course of 32 years, Michael only killed TWO family members (one in the producer's cut). For a cult that needs an entire family sacrificed to spare them the wrath of Thorn, they seem to be doing fine 32 years later when it began.

H20 had this issue as well. He knows where Laurie is, but decides to just stalk Molly, and kill her friends. I'll give Resurrection a little credit for at least having him succeed in killing Laurie Strode 15 minutes in rather than by the end of the movie, but then we see it leads to what is considered to be the worst Halloween film, so probably for the best he didn't succeed in killing his family members I guess.

[–] AdamWaldron96-2 (178) 6 years ago

(2/2)

Now, with this new one, while I'm annoyed that the other films are being ignored (even though H20 already did that 20 years ago), I can at least say it SHOULD be interesting to see Michael just kill random people like he was in the first film. But when you really look back at the franchise, killing random people was all Michael did in ALL of these films, regardless if he had a motive or not. Hell, if you ignore the first 15 minutes of Resurrection, that movie is entirely what the theme of this new reboot is: Michael killing people who aren't related to him. Problem is, the movie was shit, with some enjoyable moments, in a so-bad-its good way.

So to me, this whole get rid of the sibling narrative doesn't really add anything, or change anything for the franchise other than erase the other sequels from this new timeline. The remakes were already in their own little universe, so who really cares about them. This new reboot will leave room for a potential future film to dive into what makes him tick again, which let's face it, there will be a sequel eventually down the road. This film is guaranteed to be a financial success regardless if its good or bad. And the sequel after this upcoming reboot, or the sequel after that can repeat history with the franchise by fucking it up in different and/or similar ways.

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

While I agree completely, my thought process (as it is when pulling apart any film franchise) is much more simple: Do what you intend, then for the love of god, lay it to rest. What I hope to envision is that Laurie is - for whatever reason I hope they tell us - preparing for this one final stand off with brother Michael. I hope it lives up to the hype and if they do it right, Laurie will sacrifice even herself in a noble death to take Michael out. Cut, print, it's a wrap, roll the credits and just end it already. Let them both go out with a bang and let it the fuck go. But end it in such a way that it deserves.

[–] Champ0425 (143) 6 years ago

I can understand her having a vendetta with him and being haunted by the whole experience. For all we know, Laurie could have PTSD in this movie. He killed all of her friends and he almost killed her. I always tell people that the ending to Halloween is not a happy ending. It's sad. Not just because Michael Myers gets away, but because when you see Laurie sobbing in the end, you realize that even though she survived, nothing will ever be the same again. She'll never be the same again. Halloween II (TV version) had a happy ending. Michael is clearly dead. She shot his eyes out and he gets incinerated. You watch him burn in the end. Then you see Laurie holding hands with Jimmy in the ambulance, indicating that they will end up together and that she has a chance at having a normal life.

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

That's a very good point, and I hadn't considered that. The theatrical ending of H2 comes closer to tying into the new film, but ultimately neither version works after shooting his eyes out - unless you're willing to suspend belief, and usually I am not. Deviations like that are usually a copout (like "he put the mask on some other guy" in H-Rez). The original film should tie very nicely into the new one.

[–] Champ0425 (143) 6 years ago

I'm not expecting anything great. I don't know what else they can do really. How is he going to escape this time? He escaped the first time because nobody wanted to listen to Loomis. You would think they'd be more cautious this time. Last time he escaped, he went to Haddonfield and nobody knew he was coming. If he escapes and goes to Haddonfield, they will be ready for him. I really don't know how they can do this. If they just had him vanishing after the first one instead of being captured, it would be different. Nobody would know where he is or when or where he's coming from if he returns.

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

Here is what I am afraid will happen, versus what I hope to see: What I hope for is an epic standoff, a "one way out" that pits Laurie against Michael and somehow ends with Laurie ultimately sacrificing herself to take him down. It would cap off the franchise and bring a solid end to what will hopefully be a great suspenseful ride. What I am AFRAID will happen is that they pull off the same BS these movies always pull and leave a survivor/open end for the possibility of a new chapter so someone else can fire off a series of copped out sequels. My hope is that Jamie Lee Curtis wouldn't be a part if it if that were the plan.

Like you, I don't necessarily expect anything overly great, but I hope for it. Being a fan of Carpenter, his vision of Halloween, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Laurie Strohd, I am hoping for something good. Whether or not we get it remains to be seen I guess. Quite obviously, I have very little faith in great film making anymore.

[–] sslssg (34211) 6 years ago

My only thoughts on this is that they have disregarded previous movies enough times that even if they end it with a definite ending, someone else could still take the series and run with it, because who cares right?

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

And I'm sure they will. Because it's a cash cow. But to Carpenter I don't think it is. At least I hope not.

[–] Champ0425 (143) 6 years ago

They tried to bring Carpenter back to direct Halloween Resurrection and I heard he laughed at them. I don't think he's emotionally involved with Halloween anymore. Not for turning down directing Resurrection, but I really just don't think his heart is in Halloween anymore. Why, after all these years, he's returned to produce and do the score for this movie, I don't know. They even brought back Nick Castle, the same actor from the very first Halloween to play Michael Myers. I don't know what it all means. Maybe this will be the last one.

[–] FCN36 (19) 6 years ago

The sequel was godawful and he gets blown up and melted at the end, dumbass. It's really not rocket science why it was (thankfully) thrown out with the rest of the trash.

P.S. i'll be sending some random guy to your house tomorrow night to murder your family and then try to kill you straight after. Let me know in 40 years how you're totally over it because it "wasn't that big a deal"

SMDH f'n moron

[–] artguylarry (498) 6 years ago

Wow you are so well spoken aren't you?

I don't recall that being my main point you fucking moron. The point was establishing the family connection. And I never said she SHOULDN'T have a vendetta against him, but rather she is preparing for some end-all battle when - as far as WE know - she never knew who he was or that he even still existed. THAT was my point. The first movie left nothing but unanswered questions, yet now she just knows everything about who he is, how he got there and how he's connected to her, after 40 years and she somehow just KNOWS he's coming after her. At least the second one answered those questions, and therefore more easily leads us into the new story.

Learn to read or grow up, one or the other. Or shut your glory hole.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 6 years ago

Halloween 2 is a good movie. Arguably just as good as the original

However, Halloween 2's revelation that Laurie and Michael are siblings laid the foundation for every other sequel (not counting Halloween 3) that followed. Every single other sequel was centered around the familial aspect introduced in Halloween 2.

So by ignoring Halloween 2 you get a genuinely fresh start. Michael Myers is no longer just driven by this weird, nonsensical desire to murder his own family. You can finally tell a fresh story that isn't treading the exact same territory as the 6-7 other movies that already showed us what an un-killable superhuman brute hell-bent on killing all his nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. looks like

[–] mav100000 (345) 6 years ago

While I agree enough with this, here is my issue: why does anyone care about a killer who has 4 murders to his name (note in the trailer they say he killed 3 on halloween night, when he really killed 4, plus Judith, '78)? Eliminating Halloween 2 does have the problem of taking away some of his backstory in that he has fewer bodies to his name, so why would anyone then care about him enough to visit his mental institution (per the trailer)?

[–] Goliard (1420) 6 years ago

artguylarry:
Some good questions, but ultimately (It seems to Me) premature to worry. Essentially, we won't know how they address your questions until we see the movie. I think you're being (a bit) premature with some of your concerns, fwiw: At base, if you consider the end of the original movie, assuming they catch him and imprison him, they're not just gonna sit on him. There would be a HUGE effort into figuring out his backstory.
Maybe that effort yields a wealth of information/actions that we're not privy to, in the trailer.

If so, your concerns are all neatly addressed.

Like I said: we'll just have to wait and see. . .