What's your head canon?
-
kuatorises — 4 years ago(November 04, 2021 12:08 PM)
I meant that H20 was ignoring 4-6, not a new part 2. H20 mentions they are brother and sister, which obviously means it's including part 2. I misspoke. I do absolutely think H20
Wait, why can Loomis survive in part 4's continuity, but not H20s? If 4 said he survived the explosion, there's no reason he can't survive between 2 and H20.
I'm not back at square one, I have many continuities to enjoy as a Halloween fan.
Halloween, 2, 4.
Halloween, 2, H20.
Halloween, 2018……Kills and Ends? -
P.Error — 4 years ago(November 06, 2021 01:24 AM)
Wait, why can Loomis survive in part 4's continuity, but not H20s?
Well here's the thing:
Part II was meant to kill off Michael and Loomis for good. Their deaths were not left open-ended. Part II was originally meant to be the last Myers movie.
Part IV comes. The studio wants to bring back Michael and Loomis. But they died? Oh well no problem - just write that they survived the explosion.
H20: The actor who played Loomis had already passed away in real life at this point. So it was impossible for him to reprise his role. Thus, if H20 continues directly from Halloween II like a lot of people say, and I argue it doesn't, there would be no real reason to say Loomis survived that explosion if that character cannot return anyway.
Never lose your desire. -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(November 01, 2021 12:07 PM)
I'm with you Panther. The very first two Halloweens exist in their own sphere and work in well together, kept a same/similar style and it finalized the story as it needed too.
I don't really like 4, 5, 6 or Resurrection, (Resurrection I thought would breathe new life back into the series with Rosenthal being at the helm: It didn't!), and I can easily dismiss them.
H20 works in well with a distressed and disturbed Laurie actually materializing Michael back into her life due to obsession. We know its not really Myers, (
he died at the end of II burnt to a crisp
), just some psycho Myers wannabe, yet I find it all works in well as a psychosomatic mind trip of Laurie's.
H20 also didn't overdo the violence/gore and still managed to make what it did show brutal and effective, plus it had a creepy all-hallows atmosphere.
Just got back from
Kills
. The previous installment failed to deliver what it promised and if it was supposed to ignore all that came after the original, why did it play homage to nearly every other
Halloween
, including Zombie's reboots?
I thought
Halloween
'18 was ridiculous and just as convoluted as every sequel that came after II: of course III & H20 are exceptions.
Kills
I found an improvement, but it was bloody, graphic and brutal and like most slasher/horrors of today, its to make up for the lack of genuine scares and atmosphere.
Messing with the timelines is also frustrating to the max and Nurse Marion has died twice now in 2 different
Halloween
movies.
I also can't buy Laurie being the vengeful crazed old lady she's become just based on the original film's scenario. It would have been II which tipped her over the edge, yet that is supposedly ignored and it makes more sense that Laurie is Myer's sister, giving him more of a bond/connection with her.
Sorry for the long spiel, but I just had to get it off my chest….
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(November 01, 2021 01:52 PM)
Yep that is how I felt about Halloween 2018 and Kills. I also couldn't get into any of the characters. This Laurie was way over-the-top in being paranoid and her daughter and grand daughter were just sort of there.
It seemed like a forced contrived character padding with these characters. It might have worked better if Laurie had stayed single, reclusive and crazed.
With Laurie's representation in the original, it just seems so out of character and obnoxious for her to end up like a geriatric Ramboette. These new reboots are ott.
H20's Laurie was a much more realistic portrayal with her being concerned on Halloween for the safety of her son. I thought the school was a different atmosphere for a change, but it also gave a little of the traditional Halloween feel at the beginning in the neighborhood with the nurse.
Yes, the opening of H20 had a great Halloween atmosphere and the private school setting worked well too. It was creepy and shadowy.
That Laurie went into hiding, changed her identity, had alcohol abuse issues, had a son that she was protective of because she feared Uncle Michael might come for him too being as neurotic as she understandably was, appeared to make a lot more sense being a direct sequel to the first 2 only. Plus Steve Miner's directing was on the ball and the acting was decent compared to the previous sequels.
Resurrection
made the series convoluted again and I hated the characters and virtue reality scenario.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
P.Error — 4 years ago(November 02, 2021 08:45 AM)
I also can't buy Laurie being the vengeful crazed old lady she's become just based on the original film's scenario. It would have been II which tipped her over the edge, yet that is supposedly ignored and it makes more sense that Laurie is Myer's sister, giving him more of a bond/connection with her.
Yes, exactly. I've said this so many times. Laurie here is more crazed than H20, and she's had 40 more years to move on. If H20 happened, Laurie's trauma here would make sense. Michael kept coming back in her life.
If they kept the sibling relationship giving Michael a motivation to kill specifically her, it would make sense that she rigged her house with traps and had gun training. But to do all this based on a random serial killer from 40 years ago isn't plausible enough.
H20 works in well with a distressed and disturbed Laurie actually materializing Michael back into her life due to obsession. We know its not really Myers, (he died at the end of II burnt to a crisp), just some psycho Myers wannabe, yet I find it all works in well as a psychosomatic mind trip of Laurie's.
No, that was definitely Michael there. Toward the end, Michael switched clothes (off screen) with an EMT and crushed his vocal chords. So when Laurie cuts off his head, it's an innocent man. This was an excuse made up to have Michael back in Resurrection.
Never lose your desire. -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(November 02, 2021 09:16 AM)
No, that was definitely Michael there.
For myself and the demise of Myers and Loomis at the end of part 2, I personally just can't go there and accept that Myers is still alive in H20. That is why I can't buy into part 4 and the rest either.
Toward the end, Michael switched clothes (off screen) with an EMT and crushed his vocal chords.
We don't know about this though until the next instalment
Resurrection
.
As a complete film on its own within H20, I see Myers as being some other psycho dude who is an obsessed Myers clone and fear manifested due to Laurie's past trauma and her own obsession.
This is only my own interpretation, because I ignore all the other sequels and take the ending of part II as matter of fact in the filmdom world. That was Carpenter's original intention at the time to kill him off. Otherwise narrative wise, H20 is then just another
Halloween 4
fallacious scenario with him still being alive.
No way he would have survived the roasting him and Loomis got.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(November 02, 2021 09:27 AM)
Well Marion Chambers says in H20 that she's been caring for Loomis until his death.
Yes, that does throw a spanner in the works. However, we do see Myers walking out in an inferno of flames at the end of part 2 and then he collapses and there are close up shots of his mask and face going all crispy.
It could be feasible Loomis survived over Myers as we didn't see him again, but that was one big massive explosion.
As I said though, what I perceive is only my interpretation to assist in making the events of H20 appear more logical within the scenario of the first 2 instalments.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
kuatorises — 4 years ago(November 04, 2021 12:15 PM)
"H20 works in well with a distressed and disturbed Laurie actually materializing Michael back into her life due to obsession. We know its not really Myers, (he died at the end of II burnt to a crisp), just some psycho Myers wannabe, yet I find it all works in well as a psychosomatic mind trip of Laurie's."
What in the hell? It was not a copycat in H20.
They're "messing with the timeline" because almost everyone doesn't give a **** about "The Thorn Trilogy". It's been ignored twice now: H20's continuity and 2018's.
I agree about your gore comment in H20. It's not super bloody or cartoony. It's a solid approach.
2018 is convoluted? I'm sorry, what? You said you saw Kills. I cannot comprehend your comment given that fact. Kills is a mess. Poorly acted, convoluted, and just plain 2nd rate. And another strike against Kills is it eliminates the connection to Laurie. I have no idea why they were so obsessed with adamantly stating he didn't care about killing laurie. -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(November 06, 2021 09:59 AM)
What in the hell? It was not a copycat in H20.
If you read my other comments, I have commented that is what works for me. I just can't buy into Myers as being alive, not after that inferno and his burning corpse at the end of part II.
The timelines messing is what has made this series a convoluted mess. I attempted to watch
Halloween - '18
again the other day and got 10mins in and had to shut it off. I hated the start, (what is with the close up of the reporter's eyes?), the asylum scene was all bright, presented dull and unscary, and as soon as JLC appears like a grey haired and wacky granny, I rolled my eyes and gave up.
It went through the motions of a stupid script, it made reference to other Halloween films when it was supposed to ignore what had gone before, the characters were ****e and at least
Halloween Kills - '21
opened with a Halloween vibe and atmosphere.
Even Zombie's
Halloween - '07
reboot that I am not fond of was better.
The Laurie connection thing may get more of push in the next installment, but the sister thing in part 2 worked just fine and made more sense to me.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Joc Spader — 4 years ago(November 06, 2021 02:54 PM)
I attempted to watch Halloween - '18 again the other day and got 10mins in and had to shut it off. I hated the start, (what is with the close up of the reporter's eyes?), the asylum scene was all bright, presented dull and unscary, and as soon as JLC appears like a grey haired and wacky granny, I rolled my eyes and gave up.
I gave it a second watch last month too and that line the father said about the peanut butter was so f'n cringey.
Tell you what…When I send my ex-wife her money…you can lick the stamps. -
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(November 07, 2021 05:00 AM)
I may attempt again to watch the whole thing. The first time was painful enough to sit through all the way and I wasn't scared once.
And what was with the inflating pumpkin in the opening credits sequence? If it was supposed to signify a re-emergence of Halloween films, it was preposterous….
Norman! What did you put in my tea?
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 