Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 37 (click to see context) from:
to:
* In the first movie, 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 Wallace's master bedroom, and Bob goes down to fetch beers out of what is presumably the Wallace's refrigerator. And there's no indication they were planning to clean up after themselves 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. They could've found a safer place.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
** 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 sixth 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.
to:
** 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 sixth 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
*** If you ''DO'' ignore the sixth film, however, in the director's cut version of the first movie, Michael doesn't immediately go after Laurie. He returns to his old home, where Lauire is dropping off a key on behalf of a realtor parents. Michael sees her, and then spends the rest of the day stalking her and her friends. This is revisited in TheRemake.
to:
*** If Even if you ''DO'' do ignore the sixth film, however, Dr. Loomis points out right in the director's cut version of the first movie, one that somebody at the sanitarium must have taught Michael doesn't immediately go after Laurie. He returns how to his old home, drive. It's only logical this mystery person - [[spoiler: 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 Lauire is dropping off a key on behalf of a realtor parents. Michael sees her, and then spends the rest of the day stalking her and her friends. This is revisited in TheRemake.to find Laurie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
** I wouldn't put it past him. I think something like that happened in the third ''SilentNightDeadlyNight''.
to:
** I wouldn't put it past him. I think something like that happened in the third ''SilentNightDeadlyNight''.''Film/SilentNightDeadlyNightIIIBetterWatchOut''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
to:
* 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?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
to:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
** Even if you ignore the later films, the strangeness of this is brought up in dialogue... Loomis scratches his own haed over it.
to:
** Even if you ignore the later films, the strangeness of this is brought up in dialogue... Loomis scratches his own haed head over it.it. "Maybe someone around here's been giving him lessons!"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Even if you ignore the later films, the strangeness of this is brought up in dialogue... Loomis scratches his own haed over it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
* 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?
to:
* Here's one: In the first {{Halloween}} ''Halloween'' how did Michael Myers, a man confined in an asylum since childhood learn how to drive a car?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** 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 sixth 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.
Changed line(s) 31 (click to see context) from:
to:
* 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** 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'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.
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* 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?
to:
* 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27,28 (click to see context) from:
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26,27 (click to see context) from:
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
to:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** 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.
to:
** 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. teenager.
* 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.
* 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.
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
to:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
** I was alright with the first one (I actually liked the re-tooling of Professor 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 NightmareRetardant 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.
to:
** I was alright with the first one (I actually liked the re-tooling of Professor 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 NightmareRetardant 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I was alright with the first one (I actually liked the re-tooling of Professor 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 NightmareRetardant 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
** Laurie is so immensely unlikeable in the new films. Plus, they followed the style of "new horror" where there is no tension, only gross-out and unnecessarily graphic scenes. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't throw more casual rape in there, since apparently that's oh-so-necessary in horror nowadays. Horror is meant to be scary, these and similar "new horror" are just disturbing with no actual scares.
to:
** Laurie is so immensely unlikeable in the new films. Plus, they followed 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 style of "new horror" where there is no tension, only gross-out and unnecessarily graphic scenes. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't throw more casual rape in there, since apparently that's oh-so-necessary unfortunate trend in horror nowadays. Horror is meant to be scary, these and similar "new horror" are just disturbing with no actual scares.days.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**Laurie is so immensely unlikeable in the new films. Plus, they followed the style of "new horror" where there is no tension, only gross-out and unnecessarily graphic scenes. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't throw more casual rape in there, since apparently that's oh-so-necessary in horror nowadays. Horror is meant to be scary, these and similar "new horror" are just disturbing with no actual scares.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
to:
*Why so much hate for the Rob Zombie movies? Especially ''2''?? I can understand the complaints about it being BloodierAndGorier, but deep down, Zombie really was trying to make the characters complex human beings.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* 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.
to:
** 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.
* Or this one: When he fell from the window near the end,shot shot, eye poked poked, and stabbed, how did he get his injuries taken care of? It wasn't as if he could just go to the hospital.hospital.
** But he did, in the very next movie! Anyway, I'm going with a (possibly supernatural) HealingFactor, 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).
* Or this one: When he fell from the window near the end,
** But he did, in the very next movie! Anyway, I'm going with a (possibly supernatural) HealingFactor, 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).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* 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?
* 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.
* 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.
