MovieChat Forums > Halloween (2018) Discussion > but.......she died in halloween resurrec...

but.......she died in halloween resurrection????!!!!!

posted 6 years ago by lukejbarnett (1869)
22 replies | jump to latest

laurie strode died in the last halloween movie she was in. so how in the world are they going to make her being in this movie make sense? they'll probably find some dumb and illogical way of explaining it away like she actually didn't die or this new movie takes place before that movie. which will piss off movie goers because well that's out of order to us in the reality of movies coming to our theater screens and tvs. or they might say that that movie wasn't reality or some other bullshi# to make us believe this new movie is movie reality.

[–] StarWarsRey (566) 6 years ago

Its a sequel to the original Halloween from 1978. Everything after that didnt happen.

[–] cj3333 (1046) 6 years ago

That sucks. This is the first movie I have really been excited to see in like 2 years...now that I know that, I have zero interest in seeing it.

[–] GotWood84 (384) 6 years ago

Who cares what you're interested in?

[–] cj3333 (1046) 6 years ago

You obviously; you replied.

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

LMAO just because he replied, doesn't mean he cares what you are interested in! lol
Think through your logic, child.

[–] cj3333 (1046) 6 years ago

He was interested enough to read my post, consider it, disagree with it, type out a reply and then hit the "add reply" button. From my perspective he cares too much.

What was that about logic?

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

Yeah, no that's not how it works lol.
Do I care about what you thought of this film? A film that I haven't even seen? Why would I? Because we are speaking right now? No.
Sometimes people just feel like replying, it doesn't mean they care about that person lol.

People who always say "you must care because you replied" are idiots to be honest.

[–] cj3333 (1046) 6 years ago

I wasn't aware people always said that. If so, I feel it supports my argument (I conversely feel resorting to name calling weaken yours).

The argument being: you cared enough to engage in an action. Does the person care as much about what I think as much as say their job or family? No. But they care enough to feel the need to engage in the action of replying. So, yes, that is why people say such things, if they in fact do, as you suggested.

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

Of course you were aware other people said that, you idiot lol.
That is where you got it from, obviously.
You expect me to believe you thought of that by yourself? An argument that people have been using online for about 10 years? lol What a joke.

Anyway, by your logic. If someone replies to someone, they must care about their opinion.
So, you care about my opinions do you? Why would you? Why would you care about the opinion of a total stranger online?
I am talking to you right now and I can tell you, hand on heart that I do not care about your interests or opinions lol.

[–] cj3333 (1046) 6 years ago

I enjoy debating. I don't enjoy the name calling, though. Why the animosity?

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

Exactly. I enjoy debating too. That doesn't mean we "care" about everyone we speaks to's opinion though does it?
Sorry for calling you an idiot, that was uncalled for.

[–] cj3333 (1046) 6 years ago

Thank you.
How about we agree it comes down to semantics? Then we can both be right and have something ponder for later.

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

Yeah, that works for me.

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 6 years ago

I see you’re still incredibly dumb. How about you read a little about a movie before criticizing it?

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 6 years ago

fuc# you

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 6 years ago

fuc# you

[–] Moonglum9 (11267) 6 years ago

Since she is Michael's sister, maybe she inherited the unkillable gene as well.

[–] StarWarsRey (566) 6 years ago

She's not Michael sister anymore

[–] atd8vii (592) 6 years ago

There is a reason for this, and a little sleuthing on your own part would have given you the answer already, but this film takes place after the first Halloween and is disregarding the sequels all together.

[–] CodyXBrenda (326) 6 years ago

Kinda like how in Elm Street 3, Nancy was killed off by Freddy, in the last 5 minutes of the film. Then New Nightmare happened 7 years later after the 3rd installment, but took place in the real world, so that Heather/Nancy could still be alive. They did something similar here, but instead of the real world, it's an alternate continuity; which had it's first divergence, 20 years ago with H20.

[–] Olivergbyrne (695) 6 years ago

Resurrection deserves to be burned anyway! They completely ruined the awesome ending from H20 with that ridiculous idea that Michael Myers would make a switcharoo with a cop so that Laurie decapitate him thinking it was Michael! I mean really?! WTF? Michael is "the shape" and that film made him look like an evil master mind! I am happy they ignoring all the sequel and start from fresh.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 6 years ago

True dat. Plus, a sequel to the original that ignores any relation between Michael & Laurie is something many were always curious about (what if!). I’m ready for this new take on the series.