|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 22, 2018 15:34:54 GMT
Obviously, it's a deleted scene so it can be written off, but people keep saying, and even Carpenter himself, said that Michael and Laurie being siblings was never his intention even though he established that in Halloween 2. Obviously, Carpenter had some intent on it if he directed this scene but then decided not to go through with it. It got me thinking maybe they're throwing us a red herring when they mention in the new one that the sibling thing was just a myth and made-up and the twist is that they really are related in some way.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 22, 2018 18:51:50 GMT
Well thatās interesting.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Aug 22, 2018 19:49:19 GMT
It's not a deleted scene.
It's a scene shot years after Carpenter's film, during production of HALLOWEEN II as an insert to subsidise for planned cuts to the imminent TV premiere of the original HALLOWEEN and also retrospectively to tie in with the new sibling plot line that HALLOWEEN II threw up.
As written and shot in 1978, the original HALLOWEEN had absolutely no intention or suggestion that Michael and Laurie would be related.
|
|
|
Post by James on Aug 22, 2018 19:54:41 GMT
Carpenter probably thought it was a bad idea at first, but then thought about introducing it in the sequel as a twist.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Aug 22, 2018 20:39:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 23, 2018 5:47:18 GMT
Likewise, the 1997 special edition of Star Wars confirms Greedo shot first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 7:17:35 GMT
I am looking forward to the new 'Halloween' movie but I personally feel it is a mistake to take away the Brother and Sister connection between Michael and Laurie 'cause it was one of the main things that separated 'Halloween' from other slasher movies with Michael not only being Laurie's brother but Jamie's Uncle in 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' and there are tons of slasher movies were the killers have no connection to the victims they are going after but very, very few where the killer is the victim's brother or Uncle and I just feel it is a bad call and makes no sense. I would have preferred a movie with Laurie and a grownup Jamie together that continued on from 5 and ignored the events of 6.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 25, 2018 14:11:57 GMT
I am looking forward to the new 'Halloween' movie but I personally feel it is a mistake to take away the Brother and Sister connection between Michael and Laurie 'cause it was one of the main things that separated 'Halloween' from other slasher movies with Michael not only being Laurie's brother but Jamie's Uncle in 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' and there are tons of slasher movies were the killers have no connection to the victims they are going after but very, very few where the killer is the victim's brother or Uncle and I just feel it is a bad call and makes no sense. I would have preferred a movie with Laurie and a grownup Jamie together that continued on from 5 and ignored the events of 6.Ā
Yeah but from my understanding they're ditching the supernatural element, or at least limiting that, so how do you explain Michael being burned alive and two of his eyes shot out from Halloween 2??
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 25, 2018 15:27:59 GMT
I am looking forward to the new 'Halloween' movie but I personally feel it is a mistake to take away the Brother and Sister connection between Michael and Laurie 'cause it was one of the main things that separated 'Halloween' from other slasher movies with Michael not only being Laurie's brother but Jamie's Uncle in 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' and there are tons of slasher movies were the killers have no connection to the victims they are going after but very, very few where the killer is the victim's brother or Uncle and I just feel it is a bad call and makes no sense. I would have preferred a movie with Laurie and a grownup Jamie together that continued on from 5 and ignored the events of 6.Ā
Yeah but from my understanding they're ditching the supernatural element, or at least limiting that, so how do you explain Michael being burned alive and two of his eyes shot out from Halloween 2?? They're ignoring part 2, so that won't be part of it.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 25, 2018 17:45:28 GMT
I am looking forward to the new 'Halloween' movie but I personally feel it is a mistake to take away the Brother and Sister connection between Michael and Laurie 'cause it was one of the main things that separated 'Halloween' from other slasher movies with Michael not only being Laurie's brother but Jamie's Uncle in 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' and there are tons of slasher movies were the killers have no connection to the victims they are going after but very, very few where the killer is the victim's brother or Uncle and I just feel it is a bad call and makes no sense. I would have preferred a movie with Laurie and a grownup Jamie together that continued on from 5 and ignored the events of 6.Ā
Yeah but from my understanding they're ditching the supernatural element, or at least limiting that, so how do you explain Michael being burned alive and two of his eyes shot out from Halloween 2?? Now that part I think is kinda bs. How do you explain Michael driving cars without lessons, lifting full grown guys in the air with one hand, and walking away from 6 gunshot wounds and a 2 story fall on his back? The character was always supernatural. As for the sister connection *introduced in 2*, I think that pigeonholed the series (so each entry HAD to be about him chasing his sister, niece, nephew, grandnephew/son, etc) and made him more motivated and thus less scary.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Aug 25, 2018 17:54:37 GMT
It's not a deleted scene. It's a scene shot years after Carpenter's film, during production of HALLOWEEN II as an insert to subsidise for planned cuts to the imminent TV premiere of the original HALLOWEEN and also retrospectively to tie in with the new sibling plot line that HALLOWEEN II threw up. As written and shot in 1978, the original HALLOWEEN had absolutely no intention or suggestion that Michael and Laurie would be related. That's exactly right, Carpenter shot those scenes exclusively for the TV premiere and to tie in the sister angle with Halloween II. There was also a mass paperback novelization of Halloween that came out around the same time as the TV premiere. This book included the sister plotline and it gave some background on the supernatural element of Michael Myers. Unlike the movie, it is extremely graphic and gory.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Aug 26, 2018 14:32:13 GMT
Yeah but from my understanding they're ditching the supernatural element, or at least limiting that, so how do you explain Michael being burned alive and two of his eyes shot out from Halloween 2?? As for the sister connection *introduced in 2*, I think that pigeonholed the series (so each entry HAD to be about him chasing his sister, niece, nephew, grandnephew/son, etc) and made him more motivated and thus less scary. I agree. I never cared for the "only killing family" plot line. Carpenter did such a great job portraying Myers as a force of nature who just happened to latch onto Laurie when she dropped the key off at his house. Giving his character motivation made him far less scary for me.
|
|
simest
Sophomore
@simest
Posts: 243
Likes: 222
|
Post by simest on Aug 26, 2018 23:05:34 GMT
There was also a mass paperback novelization of Halloween that came out around the same time as the TV premiere. This book included the sister plotline and it gave some background on the supernatural element of Michael Myers. Unlike the movie, it is extremely graphic and gory. I have read this book a couple of times and strongly recall the background to the supernatural element of the story. I am stumped however, as I don't recall at all the novelisation including any aspect of the Laurie/Michael - sister/brother angle. Can you remember what page roughly this appears? I still have a copy but can't find any such moment.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Aug 27, 2018 2:27:39 GMT
I have read this book a couple of times and strongly recall the background to the supernatural element of the story. I am stumped however, as I don't recall at all the novelisation including any aspect of the Laurie/Michael - sister/brother angle. Can you remember what page roughly this appears? I still have a copy but can't find any such moment. Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of this book. Somebody lent it to me many years ago when I read it. I could have sworn one of the chapters described the part where SISTER was written on the door, but I don't remember the pages. Sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 8:25:51 GMT
I am looking forward to the new 'Halloween' movie but I personally feel it is a mistake to take away the Brother and Sister connection between Michael and Laurie 'cause it was one of the main things that separated 'Halloween' from other slasher movies with Michael not only being Laurie's brother but Jamie's Uncle in 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' and there are tons of slasher movies were the killers have no connection to the victims they are going after but very, very few where the killer is the victim's brother or Uncle and I just feel it is a bad call and makes no sense. I would have preferred a movie with Laurie and a grownup Jamie together that continued on from 5 and ignored the events of 6.
Yeah but from my understanding they're ditching the supernatural element, or at least limiting that, so how do you explain Michael being burned alive and two of his eyes shot out from Halloween 2?? I think you are right but I think that is kinda a mistake in a way 'cause Michael Myers was always meant to be a Boogeyman-like character that Doctor Loomis described as being the embodiment of pure evil and not just some random killer carrying around a knife and by removing the supernatural elements I worry they might lose what made the character so special and scary in the first place. To me the fact Michael kept coming back no matter what happened to him and he could survive things nobody else could made him far more scarier but that is just me.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Sept 7, 2018 14:19:39 GMT
I think you are right but I think that is kinda a mistake in a way 'cause Michael Myers was always meant to be a Boogeyman-like character that Doctor Loomis described as being the embodiment of pure evil and not just some random killer carrying around a knife and by removing the supernatural elements I worry they might lose what made the character so special and scary in the first place. To me the fact Michael kept coming back no matter what happened to him and he could survive things nobody else could made him far more scarier but that is just me. I'm not sure that getting rid of part 2 necessarily changes any of that. It all worked in the first one by just keeping it ambiguous. I guess I get the idea that the ending of the first didn't really count could ruin things for people, but him coming back this way pretty much maintains the ambiguity. I prefer that to plainly telling us that he's a supernatural beast of some kind, or some bullshit cult being behind it or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 7:02:02 GMT
I think you are right but I think that is kinda a mistake in a way 'cause Michael Myers was always meant to be a Boogeyman-like character that Doctor Loomis described as being the embodiment of pure evil and not just some random killer carrying around a knife and by removing the supernatural elements I worry they might lose what made the character so special and scary in the first place. To me the fact Michael kept coming back no matter what happened to him and he could survive things nobody else could made him far more scarier but that is just me. I'm not sure that getting rid of part 2 necessarily changes any of that. It all worked in the first one by just keeping it ambiguous. I guess I get the idea that the ending of the first didn't really count could ruin things for people, but him coming back this way pretty much maintains the ambiguity. I prefer that to plainly telling us that he's a supernatural beast of some kind, or some bullshit cult being behind it or whatever. I am not sure how they are going to explain the ending didn't count. I mean it is one thing to ignore the other movies in the franchise but to ignore the ending of the first movie it is supposed to continue on from makes it difficult to watch the two together in continuity unless Michael going out the window and his body disappearing turns out to be a dream and Laurie was unconscious at the time. I can see why a lot of fans didn't like the cult aspect of 'Halloween 6' and I wasn't a fan of that either but I like Michael as a supernatural character. I am interested in how they are going to explain what happened to Dr Loomis in this continuity. 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' were the follow ups to his story in the original timeline but if they never happened did he die a different and does he have any living relatives like a son or a daughter this time. I always found it odd they never mentioned if he had kids or relatives in the old series.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 9, 2018 14:08:36 GMT
I'm not sure that getting rid of part 2 necessarily changes any of that. It all worked in the first one by just keeping it ambiguous. I guess I get the idea that the ending of the first didn't really count could ruin things for people, but him coming back this way pretty much maintains the ambiguity. I prefer that to plainly telling us that he's a supernatural beast of some kind, or some bullshit cult being behind it or whatever. I am not sure how they are going to explain the ending didn't count. I mean it is one thing to ignore the other movies in the franchise but to ignore the ending of the first movie it is supposed to continue on from makes it difficult to watch the two together in continuity unless Michael going out the window and his body disappearing turns out to be a dream and Laurie was unconsciousĀ at the time. I can see why a lot of fans didn't like the cult aspect of 'Halloween 6' and I wasn't a fan of that either but I like Michael as a supernatural character. I am interested in how they are going to explain what happened to Dr Loomis in this continuity. 'Halloween 4, 5 and 6' were the follow ups to his story in the original timeline but if they never happened did he die a different and does he have any living relatives like a son or a daughter this time. I always found it odd they never mentioned if he had kids or relatives in the old series.I don't think they're going to try and change or retcon the endy anyways. In the trailer, the British guy mentions that Michael was shot by Loomis. And even though he "got away" by the end, he was still wounded, so he was probably easy to capture.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Sept 9, 2018 20:43:15 GMT
Wait... Michael has always stalked his family. She was always his sister.
He's not human He's the boogeyman
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Sept 9, 2018 20:58:15 GMT
Wait... Michael has always stalked his family. She was always his sister.Ā No, not in the first one.
|
|