Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / Halloween

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** If you note when Laurie posted that letter through the letterbox, michael sniffed it, while not a foolproof explanation, smells can bring up powerful memories, perhaps inside his own mind one thing keeping him going was things like the smell of his sister and stuff, remember he was very fond of her.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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?
* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it [[spoiler:so abruptly after having Loomis shoot Michael, and seemingly finally kill him after a few failed attempts, and then show Michael's body gone, therefore STILL alive]]?

to:

** 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?
* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it [[spoiler:so abruptly after having Loomis shoot Michael, and seemingly finally kill him after a few failed attempts, and then show Michael's body gone, therefore STILL alive]]?
that?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it so abruptly after having Loomis shoot Michael, and seemingly finally kill him after a few failed attempts, and then show Michael's body gone, therefore STILL alive?

to:

* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it so [[spoiler:so abruptly after having Loomis shoot Michael, and seemingly finally kill him after a few failed attempts, and then show Michael's body gone, therefore STILL alive?alive]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; but, putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it so abruptly after Loomis shooting Michael and then Michael disappearing, effectively still alive?

to:

* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; but, putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it so abruptly after having Loomis shooting Michael shoot Michael, and seemingly finally kill him after a few failed attempts, and then Michael disappearing, effectively still show Michael's body gone, therefore STILL alive?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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?

to:

** 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?that?
* Just morbid curiosity, since this is one of the early (if not THE FIRST) instalment of the now familiar slasher film genre; but, putting aside the fact that the next film begins and continues where the first one ends, why did John Carpenter decide to end it so abruptly after Loomis shooting Michael and then Michael disappearing, effectively still alive?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Most likely to both their conscious and the eyes of the general public, it would be a case of IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim . 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.

to:

** Most likely to both their conscious and the eyes of the general public, it would be a case of IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim . Sure, Laurie and Loomis have tried killing Michael before, but those 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 doesn’t 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?

Added: 445

Changed: -12

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* 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 [[BoomHeadshot blow his brains out while he couldn’t do anything]]?! You’re 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 didn’t 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.

to:

* 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 [[BoomHeadshot blow his brains out while he couldn’t do anything]]?! You’re 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 didn’t 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.believe.
** Most likely to both their conscious and the eyes of the general public, it would be a case of IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim . 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* 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.
----

to:

* ** 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 [[BoomHeadshot blow his brains out while he couldn’t do anything]]?! You’re 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 didn’t 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.

Changed: 4

Removed: 22

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

to:

\n----\n<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** 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?

Added: 741

Changed: 356

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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.




to:

* 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


The troper asking this question works at a modern hospital in a small town probably smaller than Haddenfield, and gets that it was designed 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?

to:

* The troper asking this question works at a modern hospital in a small town probably smaller than Haddenfield, and gets that it was designed 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?

Changed: 1172

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

The troper asking this question works at a modern hospital in a small town probably smaller than Haddenfield, and gets that it was designed 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?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** 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 [[spoiler: Angel "Boo" Myers]] is anybody's guess.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* 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 "[[AssPull the writers were too lazy to think of anything good]]".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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.

to:

** 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.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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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.

to:

** 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. 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? 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.



** 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.

to:

** 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.



** 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.

to:

** They're teenagers. First off, they brought their own beer (you can see them drinking it in Bob's van prior to heading inside). 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. sheets. There are teenagers who have had sex on the beds of adults and not think about doing it. 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.

Added: 663

Changed: 4

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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.

to:

** 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. 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? 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.



** 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.

to:

** 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.


Added DiffLines:

** 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.

Added: 322

Changed: 3

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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.

to:

** 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. 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? 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.


Added DiffLines:

** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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? It'd make more sense to leave the baby with a next door neighbor who may have more experience with babies than to leave it with a teenage girl.

to:

** 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. old. If you were a parent, would you trust your teenager to keep an eye on your ten year old child and your infant? 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 than to leave it with and let the teenager keep an eye on a teenage girl.more manageable ten year old.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** 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? It'd make more sense to leave the baby with a next door neighbor who may have more experience with babies than to leave it with a teenage girl.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** It's William Shatner. Seriously. ("William Shatner mask" even redirects to "Halloween (1978 film)" on Wikipedia now.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* 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 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, 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.

to:

* 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 clean up after themselves 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* 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 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, and this is a semi-rural small town with its share of outdoor spots. They could've found a safer place.

to:

* 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 Wallace's Wallaces' master bedroom, and Bob goes down to fetch beers out of what is presumably the Wallace's refrigerator.Wallaces' refrigerator (that's where he is ambushed). 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, and this is a semi-rural small town with its share of outdoor spots. They could've found a safer place.
place...safer from adult discovery, I mean.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* 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.

to:

* 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 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.own, and this is a semi-rural small town with its share of outdoor spots. They could've found a safer place.

Top