vishspal
Sophomore
@vishspal
Posts: 756
Likes: 211
 
|
Post by vishspal on Jun 6, 2021 1:56:40 GMT
What if instead of being a direct sequel from Halloween 2, the movie was a direct sequel from part 4? How different would the movie be?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 2:56:47 GMT
I guess the title would need to be changed to Halloween: H10 (no more funny water title) and Jamie Lee Curtis's character would be dead, so the entire plot would need to be changed to Jamie's Lloyd in a mental instituti...oh wait.
Yeah, I've got nothing. The plot would need to be changed so much that you might as well have asked, "what if Halloween 5 took place in 2005 and we followed what happened to Jamie Lloyd as an adult?" It would no longer be the movie Halloween: H20, besides it taking place "20" years later.
No, I'll play along. You could keep a similar plot that instead of it being Laurie Strode living in a gated community with a changed name and a kid in high school, you could have it be Jamie Lloyd in the same situation with a kid in middle school. The sandman song wouldn't really have the same effect anymore, so I would remove that. Then you would just need Jamie Lloyd to explain to her boyfriend what happened in her past and that would entail what happened to her after she went crazy at the end of Halloween 4. The movie would lose some of the impact that the actual Halloween: H20 has.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 3:15:58 GMT
I guess the title would need to be changed to Halloween: H10 (no more funny water title) and Jamie Lee Curtis's character would be dead, so the entire plot would need to be changed to Jamie's Lloyd in a mental instituti...oh wait. Yeah, I've got nothing. The plot would need to be changed so much that you might as well have asked, "what if Halloween 5 took place in 2005 and we followed what happened to Jamie Lloyd as an adult?" It would no longer be the movie Halloween: H20, besides it taking place "20" years later. Well, the plot of Laurie faking her death was a direct result of it originally being a follow up to 4-6, as was Dr. Loomis surviving the hospital explosion. You could say the movie would be the same only with the excised references to Jamie left intact. Although there was never a good excuse for her abandoning Jamie and keeping John, even in the original script. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 3:25:07 GMT
I guess the title would need to be changed to Halloween: H10 (no more funny water title) and Jamie Lee Curtis's character would be dead, so the entire plot would need to be changed to Jamie's Lloyd in a mental instituti...oh wait. Yeah, I've got nothing. The plot would need to be changed so much that you might as well have asked, "what if Halloween 5 took place in 2005 and we followed what happened to Jamie Lloyd as an adult?" It would no longer be the movie Halloween: H20, besides it taking place "20" years later. Well, the plot of Laurie faking her death was a direct result of it originally being a follow up to 4-6, as was Dr. Loomis surviving the hospital explosion. You could say the movie would be the same only with the excised references to Jamie left intact. Although there was never a good excuse for her abandoning Jamie and keeping John, even in the original script. I added more to my reply, but that is my main problem. I forgot that it was actually suppose to be a follow up to 6 originally, but now I sort of recall you telling me that. It was a great decision to scrap it being a sequel to Halloween 6 and making it a sequel to Halloween 2, though I never actually thought about that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that she would think Michael Myers was still alive (unless the movie mentions that his remains weren't found.) I have taken it as an extreme post-trauma reaction and the movie does lean heavy into post-trauma.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 4:09:56 GMT
I guess the title would need to be changed to Halloween: H10 (no more funny water title) and Jamie Lee Curtis's character would be dead, so the entire plot would need to be changed to Jamie's Lloyd in a mental instituti...oh wait. Yeah, I've got nothing. The plot would need to be changed so much that you might as well have asked, "what if Halloween 5 took place in 2005 and we followed what happened to Jamie Lloyd as an adult?" It would no longer be the movie Halloween: H20, besides it taking place "20" years later. Well, the plot of Laurie faking her death was a direct result of it originally being a follow up to 4-6, as was Dr. Loomis surviving the hospital explosion. You could say the movie would be the same only with the excised references to Jamie left intact. Although there was never a good excuse for her abandoning Jamie and keeping John, even in the original script. I wonder how the original script was planning on including that stupid cult stuff and why Michael Myers would have even bothered with the daughter. This all raises too many questions that the actual script avoids, such as "wouldn't a supernatural cult make it their business to know if Laurie is actually dead?" Wouldn't Michael Myers just go after Laurie directly in Halloween 4 if he apparently knows she is still alive? How does Michael know Laurie had a child? WHO IS MICHAEL MEYERS' INFORMANT? WHO I ASK?  The clusterfuck that is the Halloween franchise makes this funny to speculate about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 5:01:53 GMT
Well, the plot of Laurie faking her death was a direct result of it originally being a follow up to 4-6, as was Dr. Loomis surviving the hospital explosion. You could say the movie would be the same only with the excised references to Jamie left intact. Although there was never a good excuse for her abandoning Jamie and keeping John, even in the original script. I wonder how the original script was planning on including that stupid cult stuff and why Michael Myers would have even bothered with the daughter. This all raises too many questions that the actual script avoids, such as "wouldn't a supernatural cult make it their business to know if Laurie is actually dead?" Wouldn't Michael Myers just go after Laurie directly in Halloween 4 if he apparently knows she is still alive? How does Michael know Laurie had a child? WHO IS MICHAEL MEYERS' INFORMANT? WHO I ASK? The clusterfuck that is the Halloween franchise makes this funny to speculate about. The cult stuff is completely glossed over, as it probably should have been. Though I'm not sure Michael knew Laurie was alive until he broke into Chambers' office. Perhaps he was originally looking for details about his incest baby and got lucky.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 5:33:05 GMT
I wonder how the original script was planning on including that stupid cult stuff and why Michael Myers would have even bothered with the daughter. This all raises too many questions that the actual script avoids, such as "wouldn't a supernatural cult make it their business to know if Laurie is actually dead?" Wouldn't Michael Myers just go after Laurie directly in Halloween 4 if he apparently knows she is still alive? How does Michael know Laurie had a child? WHO IS MICHAEL MEYERS' INFORMANT? WHO I ASK? The clusterfuck that is the Halloween franchise makes this funny to speculate about. The cult stuff is completely glossed over, as it probably should have been. Though I'm not sure Michael knew Laurie was alive until he broke into Chambers' office. Perhaps he was originally looking for details about his incest baby and got lucky. Okay I am somewhat caught up now. I researched a bit and see that the incest stuff is mentioned in Part 6, but if Halloween H20 is ignoring all but the first 2 then he can't be looking for incest baby stuff in the opening of H20. That scene has always felt to be implying that he knows Laurie is still alive and looking through Loomis's old stuff for information about where she lives. I mean, the scene with the cops specifically points out that nobody has heard from Michael Myers since Part 2. I also noticed that Halloween H20 does mention that his body wasn't found at the end of 2, so that clears that up. That was just something I forgot. You have a great memory for things that I don't have at all. I hate Halloween 6 and have only seen it twice and have almost no memory of it besides that a cult has always been controlling Michael because they need related sacrifices to stop the end of the world? Some such nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 6, 2021 6:09:01 GMT
I guess the title would need to be changed to Halloween: H10 (no more funny water title) and Jamie Lee Curtis's character would be dead, so the entire plot would need to be changed to Jamie's Lloyd in a mental instituti...oh wait. Yeah, I've got nothing. The plot would need to be changed so much that you might as well have asked, "what if Halloween 5 took place in 2005 and we followed what happened to Jamie Lloyd as an adult?" It would no longer be the movie Halloween: H20, besides it taking place "20" years later. Well, the plot of Laurie faking her death was a direct result of it originally being a follow up to 4-6, as was Dr. Loomis surviving the hospital explosion. You could say the movie would be the same only with the excised references to Jamie left intact. Although there was never a good excuse for her abandoning Jamie and keeping John, even in the original script.
It would've made more sense if John was younger. Then it could be argued that Laurie gave up Jamie when she was young and scared to death Michael would still come after her because everything was still fresh, but after a few years she started to feel a little bit more secure to actually marry somebody and start a family with him, but John's 17, Jamie was 8, she would've been born 2 years after, John would've been born 3 years after.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 6:17:19 GMT
Well, the plot of Laurie faking her death was a direct result of it originally being a follow up to 4-6, as was Dr. Loomis surviving the hospital explosion. You could say the movie would be the same only with the excised references to Jamie left intact. Although there was never a good excuse for her abandoning Jamie and keeping John, even in the original script.
It would've made more sense if John was younger. Then it could be argued that Laurie gave up Jamie when she was young and scared to death Michael would still come after her because everything was still fresh, but after a few years she started to feel a little bit more secure to actually marry somebody and start a family with him, but John's 17, Jamie was 8, she would've been born 2 years after, John would've been born 3 years after.
It makes no sense to me any way you cut it and I'm a little lost on your logic. Halloween H20 points out that she had been paranoid and suffering from post-traumatic stress since the end of 2. She has a child, changed her name and moved. She is shown to be an extremely overprotective mother due to her past and has never gotten over Michael Myers. How does changing the age of the son make her abandoning Jamie make any more sense? Keeping track of plot details after Part 2 is difficult enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 6, 2021 6:24:34 GMT
It would've made more sense if John was younger. Then it could be argued that Laurie gave up Jamie when she was young and scared to death Michael would still come after her because everything was still fresh, but after a few years she started to feel a little bit more secure to actually marry somebody and start a family with him, but John's 17, Jamie was 8, she would've been born 2 years after, John would've been born 3 years after.
It makes no sense to me any way you cut it. Keeping track of plot details after Part 2 is difficult enough.
I was going to reply to your original comment, but with its content in mind...the thing is even if Laurie had done that in another town, another state, there's no telling who or where Jamie would've ended up, and could very well have landed with a family moving TO Haddonfield who weren't familiar with the history. She would've been better off doing what Jamie did in 6, leave the unknown unnamed baby so it would be found but nobody would know who it came from, and take off.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 6:32:26 GMT
It makes no sense to me any way you cut it. Keeping track of plot details after Part 2 is difficult enough.
I was going to reply to your original comment, but with its content in mind...the thing is even if Laurie had done that in another town, another state, there's no telling who or where Jamie would've ended up, and could very well have landed with a family moving TO Haddonfield who weren't familiar with the history. She would've been better off doing what Jamie did in 6, leave the unknown unnamed baby so it would be found but nobody would know who it came from, and take off.
While not impossible, I find that absurdly unlikely to the point where nobody would consider that as a possibility.
|
|
mgmarshall
Junior Member
@mgmarshall
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 3,395
|
Post by mgmarshall on Jun 6, 2021 6:50:06 GMT
So we just open on Loomis still huddled in a corner weeping?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 7:15:05 GMT
The cult stuff is completely glossed over, as it probably should have been. Though I'm not sure Michael knew Laurie was alive until he broke into Chambers' office. Perhaps he was originally looking for details about his incest baby and got lucky. Okay I am somewhat caught up now. I researched a bit and see that the incest stuff is mentioned in Part 6, but if Halloween H20 is ignoring all but the first 2 then he can't be looking for incest baby stuff in the opening of H20. That scene has always felt to be implying that he knows Laurie is still alive and looking through Loomis's old stuff for information about where she lives. I mean, the scene with the cops specifically points out that nobody has heard from Michael Myers since Part 2. I also noticed that Halloween H20 does mention that his body wasn't found at the end of 2, so that clears that up. That was just something I forgot. You have a great memory for things that I don't have at all. I hate Halloween 6 and have only seen it twice and have almost no memory of it besides that a cult has always been controlling Michael because they need related sacrifices to stop the end of the world? Some such nonsense. I meant in the original treatment/script before 4-6 were ignored. He still broke into Loomis' files, and the H20 opening is a holdover from that. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 6, 2021 7:22:12 GMT
Okay I am somewhat caught up now. I researched a bit and see that the incest stuff is mentioned in Part 6, but if Halloween H20 is ignoring all but the first 2 then he can't be looking for incest baby stuff in the opening of H20. That scene has always felt to be implying that he knows Laurie is still alive and looking through Loomis's old stuff for information about where she lives. I mean, the scene with the cops specifically points out that nobody has heard from Michael Myers since Part 2. I also noticed that Halloween H20 does mention that his body wasn't found at the end of 2, so that clears that up. That was just something I forgot. You have a great memory for things that I don't have at all. I hate Halloween 6 and have only seen it twice and have almost no memory of it besides that a cult has always been controlling Michael because they need related sacrifices to stop the end of the world? Some such nonsense. Okay. That clears it up.
|
|
