How did Michael find out where Laurie lived? When Laurie's mom killed herself, the sheriff erased Laurie from the record and dropped her off at a hospital in the next town, AND Michael has been secluded from the world for the last 17 years! Moreover, how did Michael even know what Laurie looked like? It's been 17 friggin' years!
Probably the same reason on why he seems to have immortality...a complete and utter mystery. (This is ignoring the 6th film, of course.)
If you don't ignore the sixth film, however, then there's your answer: the Cult of Thorn would have seen to it that he knew. They informed him where she was and probably showed him a picture so that he could get the job done. Just like they'd the ones who secretly taught him to drive and orchestrated the asylum break-out. Remember that they had a man on the inside. And he could have obtained files on Michael's family himself easily for ostensible job-related research reasons.
Even if you do ignore the sixth film, Dr. Loomis points out right in the first one that somebody at the sanitarium must have taught Michael how to drive. It's only logical this mystery person - revealed to be Dr. Wynn, the very person he's talking to, in the sixth film and reasonably assumed to be even you ignore that movie - also told him how and where to find Laurie.
I think this one is regarding Remake Michael, not the original. In the Zombieverse, there is no Curse of Thorn nor a cult for that matter. Also, in the original timeline, Michael's parents both died in a car accident. How Michael figured out that Laurie was Angel "Boo" Myers is anybody's guess.
Do you think there's a limit to Michael's high resistance to pain? Could there be some things he simply cannot survive?
Sure, but no one will ever be able to reliably bring them to bear, or make it stick if they do. I'm willing to bet he can survive losing a limb or three, and even getting riddled with bullets (he has got to have a hyper clot factor in his blood and self pinching arteries), total immolation would do it (but merely frying all his skin would probably do nothing) and destroying at least two thirds of his brain may kill him. Everything else he'll just shrug off.
It's also stated in the original novelization that Michael is possessed by the ghost of a murderous and sexually frustrated Celtic hunchback who killed his tribe's most lovely maiden and most handsome young warrior at a Samhain feast, and that the ghost repeats his fell deed every few decades through that bloodline (remember the bit about Mike's great-grandfather murdering a dancing couple at a Harvest Dance?). So a few supernatural talents are probably par for the course.
The Cult of Thorn supposedly protected him with their spells when they abducted him as a baby, but what we can see shows that he isn't invulnerable, only endowed with a fantastic healing factor like Wolverine's. Probably you'd have to go at him faster and harder than his healing goes, and keep at it until his body is destroyed.
Why didn't they follow up the ending of Halloween 4?
They did. Jamie was sent to a hospital shorter after attacking her mom and it turns out she gained a mental connection with Michael Myers. The mother lives from this ordeal and takes a vacation with her husband.
Here's one: In the first Halloween how did Michael Myers, a man confined in an asylum since childhood learn how to drive a car?
If you count Curse, one of them cult members could have taught him, for whatever reason. The novelization of the original mentions he just watched Loomis and other people charged with transporting him do it from the back of the vehicle, and when the time finally came, he winged it.
Even if you ignore the later films, the strangeness of this is brought up in dialogue... Loomis scratches his own head over it. "Maybe someone around here's been giving him lessons!"
Or this one: When he fell from the window near the end, shot, eye poked, and stabbed, how did he get his injuries taken care of? It wasn't as if he could just go to the hospital.
But he did, in the very next movie! Anyway, I'm going with a (possibly supernatural) Healing Factor, since even in the original, Michael seemed inhuman (for evidence of that assumption not related to shrugging off normally lethal injuries, there's lifting Bob up with one hand with no visible effort whatsoever, plus getting Judith's stolen tombstone into an upstairs bedroom by himself).
Why so much hate for the Rob Zombie movies? Especially 2?? I can understand the complaints about it being Bloodier and Gorier, but deep down, Zombie really was trying to make the characters complex human beings.
While the frequent "pounding the blade into people" got old in quickly in Halloween 2, I'd have to say that overall the Zombie films were so different than the original films that they could actually be considered different films. They certainly have more story structure than the original ones did.
The original Michael Myers was terrifying because there was no reason for his behavior: he was a child from a normal family who murdered his sister on Halloween. Rob Zombie's Michael, on the other hand, came from an absolute shithole of a family: stripper mom, drunk dad, etc. It would have been more strange if Michael hadn't gone crazy and became a serial killer. Plus, nothing Rob Zombie added really made the characters more complex, only more cliche.
Your mom's drunk boyfriend can't make you have psychopathic delusions and hallucinations. Also, Rob Zombie said he wasn't a maniac because he came from a bad family—he was a maniac because he's just a fucking maniac. Which may be worse depending on your point of view, since if it's true, the relentless vulgarity from the family is shown to be just one of Zombie's random indulgences with no bearing on anything. In any case, the characters aren't limited to just Michael. The Bracketts are arguably more complex than they ever were in Carpenter's films.
Laurie is so immensely unlikeable in the new films. Plus, besides simply being Bloodier and Gorier (and maybe even because of it, as if that alone makes a film "scary"), he eliminated any real tension or scares - the unfortunate trend in horror these days.
I was alright with the first one (I actually liked the re-tooling of Dr Loomis's motivation for stopping Michael), but I can see why most die-hard Halloween fans wouldn't like it. It throws the original's subtle horror in favor of full-on gorn (though I can't really be surprised, this being a Rob Zombie flick), and the first half hour was bogged down by a completely unnecessary and, honestly, badly done origin story. If Rob Zombie wanted to assure the audience that Michael was only crazy because he was simply born that way, then he failed miserably. I, however, utterly detested the sequel. Michael just became some murderous hobo with mommy issues, their decision to have Michael's mother appear to tell him to kill people was bizarre and served as a Nightmare Retardant to say the very, very least. And to top it all off, they completely derailed Dr. Loomis to being a money grubbing egomaniac who's riding on the corpses of the first film's victims to success.
My main issue with Zombie's remakes was how horribly unlikeable every single character was. Nobody felt like a real person - they were all just annoying redneck stereotypes or awful caricatures. The rapist orderlies, the necrophiliac ambulance driver, Michael's abusive stepdad, the stereotypical stripper mom, etc. Even the teens were unlikeable...Rob Zombie seems to have it in his head that female teens only talk about fucking, fucking and more fucking...oh, and apparently they can't speak a single sentence without swearing like sailors. (I miss the days when I didn't want to see every teen in a horror movie be killed.)
I always figured Zombie was trying to play on the coralation/causality assumption people make when they talk about child abuse and bad upbringings leading to Michael's kind of behavior. If there's no reason for Michael to go batshit, then it could happen regardless of whether his life was normal or horribly abusive. I figured Zombie was trying to subvert both the blaming it on the upbringing and the common subversion of that (giving the monster an ideal upbringing) at the same time. As for the unlikable characters, Zombie tends to write people as over the top parodies. You have to look at them from a black comedy slant.
In the original, why didn't Michael kill Laurie when she was a helpless baby. I'm sure he had some time to kill her. I mean, at least the remake explained that he just wanted to be with her.
Because Laurie isn't his sister in the original Halloween. If you want a longer answer that takes the sequels into account, though, killing a baby probably didn't provide the same thrill as murdering a nubile teenager.
I'd chalk it up to Michael's unpredictability. There was never any reason as to why he killed his sister Judith, and there was never really any reason as to why he didn't kill Laurie as a baby (ignoring the fact that Carpenter didn't intend Laurie to be Michael's sister in the original film). He just...decided to kill one sister that night, and not the other. It can't be explained. It's just pure evil at work.
Michael's behavior is often seemingly random. For instance, toward the beginning of Halloween 4, he probably could have killed Loomis at the garage, but let him live for whatever reason. In the seventh movie, he followed that mother and daughter into the bathroom, but just took their keys without killing them, even though there's no reason why he couldn't have.
Another explanation is that Laurie wasn't at the Myers house in the first film. The Myers were leaving their teenage daughter to keep an eye on their son, who is probably ten or even nine years old. If you were a parent, would you trust your teenager to keep an eye on your ten year old child and your infant at the same time? It'd make more sense to leave the baby with a next door neighbor who may have more experience with babies and let the teenager keep an eye on a more manageable ten year old.
Why did no paramedics not notice a man with burnt scarring and a wielding a kitchen knife after Michael had switched "bodies" in Halloween 8? It just boggles the mind.
Yeah, this bugged me to. The only explanation I have is that Michael may have healed enough to pass for normal over the last twenty or so years.
I always assumed it has something to do with the supernatural-esque aspects Michael seems to have. He walks straight past a bunch of paramedics holding a bloodied knife and (presumably) covered in burn scars...then just seems to just fade into the bushes. As if he was never there.
I assumed the reason why no one noticed him at that moment was because everyone was focused on Laurie stealing the van, after stealing the gun from an officer and holding them up to steal the van. After driving off, they were more concerned about the woman who is acting a bit crazy than the people around in the area.
In Halloween: H20, Michael drove from Illinois to California. So he would have had to refill the car a few times on the way to California. Would he have taken off his mask and just refilled at a gas station like any regular person, or was he leaving a trail of bloodied gas attendant corpses behind him? If the latter is correct, then you'd think the police would have found the trail and followed it back to Haddonfield. Especially since they were already on the look-out for Michael after he killed the nurse in California.
How did Michael end up on the truck at the end of Halloween 4? When did he cling to it? We seen the truck pull up, load the girls onto it, and leave. If Michael clung onto the bottom, he would have had to come out of the school before the girls did, at which point the people pulling up probably should have been able to notice him.
Offscreen Teleportation. All slasher film villains have this power. It's how people like Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers can suddenly appear in front of their intended victims despite said victims clearly being able to out-run them.
If the Cult of Thorn wanted to Michael to kill his entire family for the unexplained ritual, why did Dr. Wyn impregnate Jamie instead of allowing Michael to kill her? Why create a new member of a family that he should want completely destroyed?
Seeing that Michael was getting old, and given all that he has suffered in the way of physical injuries, they probably used Jamie to create the next line of the Myers bloodline with the intention of making the baby the next Shape.
In the first movie, high school students Bob and Lynda run happily into the house where Annie was supposed to be babysitting little Lindsey Wallace. Where they have passionate sex in what is presumably the Wallaces' master bedroom, and Bob goes down to fetch beers out of the Wallaces' refrigerator (that's where he is ambushed). And there's no indication they were planning to launder the sheets or air out the room, or too drunk to think out the consequences. So what were they thinking? They were old enough to have cars and bedrooms of their own, and this is a semi-rural small town with its share of outdoor spots. They could've found a safer place...safer from adult discovery, I mean.
They're teenagers. First off, they brought their own beer (you can see them drinking it in Bob's van prior to heading inside). There's a good chance that they would have had sex on the bed and then leave everything the way they found it (without washing the sheets. There are teenagers who have had sex on the beds of adults and not think about doing it). Or, since it'd be the kind of thing they would have done if Michael hadn't turned up and killed everyone, they would have left Anne to actually do the laundering, where she would have griped about not being able to hook up with Paul that night and having to do the dirty work to clean up Linda's mess.
Perhaps they're adrenaline junkies and the fact that it's someone else's house - with their young daughter downstairs - is what makes it fun?
Michael's mask is supposed to be a Halloween mask he stole off a hardware store's shelf. But what is it a mask of? It's just a white face with hair.
It's William Shatner. Seriously. ("William Shatner mask" even redirects to "Halloween (1978 film)" on Wikipedia now.)
More accurately, it WAS a William Shatner mask — the crew did modify it (notably painting it white). Within the films, it's a generic mass-produced mask, sufficiently popular that Ben Tramer wears the same thing.
People dislike the supernatural explanation for Michael's origins and abilities? Why? How else do you explain the fact that nothing can kill him? In the first two films alone he was shot multiple times, stabbed in the eyes and finally blown up. I'm calling the explanation a perfectly justified one.
Not so much that the explanation is supernatural, but that there's an explanation at all. Any attempts to explain what Micheal is or why tend to simply make him less scary.
Why do people think Michael having any kind of a backstory that explains why he kills people or how he's able to sustain fatal injuries makes him less scary? Yes, there's something to be said about the "fear of the unknown", but then why even give him a name or show his face in the original movie? Personally, the idea of having no explanation for Michael doesn't scream fear, but instead screams "the writers were too lazy to think of anything good".
The problem people have with the added backstory in later films is that it was not very well thought out. Carpenter infamously stated he thought of him being Laurie's sister late at night drinking after all. The other issue is that it becomes needlessly convoluted. Before Halloween 6, Michael just randomly killed people, but now it was because of a curse being carried out by a cult that has never appeared before this film. People tend to take issue with the backstories because of the on-the-fly nature of them combined with the "fear of the unknown" being sometimes more effective than knowing. Sometimes it's scarier for just any average joe to be depraved killer for no reason than for a convoluted explanation as to why they kill.
The troper asking this question works at a modern hospital in a small town probably smaller than Haddenfield, and gets that it may be by design by Carpenter and Hill this way, but why is the hospital in Halloween II (1981) so understaffed? With how big the town of Haddenfield is portrayed and with the notable size of the hospital, it seems rather odd that you have at least three nurses pulling double duty (including two nurses that appear to work Inpatient and Mrs. Alves who seems to run the NICU portion of the hospital, all working in the ER as well) and, just as odd, one security guard on duty. Typically, there'd be more than the number of medical staff seen in the film not only during a night shift, but during a night shift and a holiday no less. And each department being covered by individual teams of staff (meaning Mrs. Ales would be handling NICU while the staff in the ER handling Laurie's injuries). Is this how hospitals typically worked in a town the size of Haddenfield circa 1978 or was this just dramatic licensing by Carpenter and Hill to keep not only the cost of hiring additional actors down, but to make the numbers easier for Michael to kill?
From what I understand, the tiny staff size was more than likely dramatic licensing as patients alone typically have around four staff members dedicated to them, so the hospital is criminally understaffed. This might possibly have to do with a deleted scene where the power goes out in the hospital, thus explaining why it is so dark throughout the film.
In H4, we learn that rather then die in the explosion from H2, Michael suffered third degree burns all over his body and was in a coma, for 10 years. The only reason we see him coming out of it is because the paramedics talk about Jamie during the transfer. Why did nobody use this to just blow his brains out while he couldnít do anything?! Youíre telling me that Dr. Loomis(and this is ignoring how he survived being in the center of the explosion and coming out with a limp and small facial/hand burns), Laurie, the police, hospital medics, anybody who knew or was related to one of his victims, or just anyone at all didnít take advantage of the immobile mass murder to just kill him? That the police, state or local, decided that it was probably a good idea to temporarily forget the law, and at least try to kill the psychopath who survived an explosion? I find that rather hard to believe.
Most likely to both their conscious and the eyes of the general public, it would be a case of If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him . Sure, Laurie and Loomis have tried killing Michael before, but those instances were in self-defense. Killing someone, even a crazed serial killer, while they're in a coma would not only be morally questionable, but there would also be a lot of people angry over that person's constitutional rights being violated.
Given how they were keeping Michael in the basement of the hospital, and the unawareness of him in the general public, it doesnít seem like anyone would know if somebody killed him, and just put his corpse in a wood chipper.
Frankly, at this point constitutional rights should have gone out the window when he survived an explosion. Also, how do you kill a guy who survived that?