|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 28, 2018 11:52:15 GMT
Eh, I don't mind that they're related, but then I'm not the biggest fan of the franchise, so maybe there's a downside I'm not seeing. I think it made the Myers character less scary. Carpenter spent the first movie painting Myers as a force of nature and pure evil. Having Brackett ask Loomis if Haddonfield was about to become a slaughter house. Then we find out in part 2 that Myers was just a dude who wanted to kill his sister and that the only person in danger was Laurie and anyone unlucky enough to be with her. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 28, 2018 14:22:14 GMT
If they are ignoring all sequels, it would only stand to reason that they are doing away with that part. I imagine that, and Loomis' and Michael's demise at the end of part 2 are going to be dismissed by ignoring the sequel(s). That would leave use, if that's the case, with Loomis and Laurie surviving beyond that night, and Michael disappearing, and perhaps not being heard from since.
I assume that Michael has not been heard from since then because if there were more murders in Haddonfield it would be hard to imagine Laurie ever going back there. As I see it now you'd have Loomis living and continuing to keep watch over the town till his death, and maybe that's why Laurie returns, to pay respect after Loomis dies, and that event is the impetus for Michael to return as well.
I don't quite understand what the 'first one ending in a slightly different way' comment means. Still fun to speculate.
|
|