HALLOWEEN II: Should they have made Michael and Laurie related?

Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by deepred, Jul 19, 2013.

?

Should they have made Michael and Laurie related?

  1. YES, family matters.

    34.0%
  2. NO, that shit was dumb.

    66.0%
  1. Mok

    Mok Family is Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,011
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    63
    WHAT?!?! Where? Who?

    I like that they are related. I love the original series AND I like Zombie's films and what he expanded on.
     
  2. wago70

    wago70 Surviving on nostalgia

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Francisco - down by them two ol' sheds
    I hated Michael being made that much more "human" and defined. It was then that I couldn't buy his repeated immunity from gunshots, stab wounds, ect.
     
  3. Bobbywoodhogan

    Bobbywoodhogan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    Why not I say? I mean look at Halloween II, I don't think it would have been that interesting just to have Michael going after Laurie cause he didn't get her in the first one. I thought it added an interesting angle to it.
     
  4. Christy

    Christy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Voted No as I agree I also found it dumb.
     
  5. Do you see

    Do you see Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    RF
    I liked the fact that in the original you never really knew why Michael stalked Laurie. Was it an attraction to her when she dropped off the key or was it anger that someone dares trespass on his property? The unknown element I believe leaves the viewer with more of a feeling of fear.
     
  6. wago70

    wago70 Surviving on nostalgia

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Francisco - down by them two ol' sheds
    Same here - when I first saw it, I felt the most dread for Laurie since it seemed he was saving her murder for something really horrible since he zeroed in on her first.
    The Halloween II story twist was just way too easy and just didn't have creative fire - maybe something *more* was just too ambitious? It's like how current movies use that old, tired "...he killed because he was abused as a kid..." and audiences buy it all the time.
     
  7. ImmortalSlasher

    ImmortalSlasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    In a dark moonlit forest.
    I feel the same. Myers was the boogeyman at the end. Even if he had the backstory in the opening. When we see what he can do at the end. That's it. He became a horror icon. Everything afterwards he's just another returning sequel character that's been giving way too much backstory. It's like how they added all that unnecessary stuff in the remakes. Or how the Friday the 13th remake needed to give Jason underground tunnels with lights.
     
  8. HorrorFan24

    HorrorFan24 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2013
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Was it Carpenter's intent for them to be brother, sister. Its kind of hard for me to imagine the sequels without the relation factor.
     
  9. ImmortalSlasher

    ImmortalSlasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    In a dark moonlit forest.
    I don't know. I recall watching or reading something that Carpenter didn't like the sequel or didn't want to make it.
     
  10. Franco

    Franco Weekender

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Peru
  11. shape22

    shape22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The family angle came into play with Halloween II. Carpenter has discussed this many times. The sister idea was the product of writer's block, beer, and a project he had no interest in. He never wanted to make a sequel to Halloween. He made his point with the final location montage at the end of the original. Evil doesn't die. And it's everywhere. Michael was the boogeyman--the mythical embodiment of evil--and still out there somewhere.

    Unfortunately Carpenter was contractually obligated to a sequel. But he had no compelling ideas for the script. So he went with the sister angle--an idea that he knew was recycled and uninspired.

    When Carpenter did the reshoots to pad the running length of the TV version of Halloween he included a scene referencing the sister angle to pave the way for the sequel. But that's the only link between that idea and the original.
     
  12. thrashard76

    thrashard76 Thrash or be Thrashed

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    13,646
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    I voted yes, but it is what it is. In order to have Curtis reprise her role, something like this had to be done. Either that or have her killed off in the first 15 minutes like that other sequel.
     
  13. mcchrist

    mcchrist A new breed of pervert!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2001
    Messages:
    7,998
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Keepin' the dogs away...
    Its very important to have made them siblings, I never really understood why people hated it. The opening sequence alone sets up a freudian psychosexual complex towards the sister, for me that makes him more frightening to me. To each their own, I guess.
     
  14. Zillamon51

    Zillamon51 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    627
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Michigan
    I just rewatched the first film. The scene where they discuss fate in the classroom is obviously meant to mean something. If Michael's actions are random, then it's irrelevant. The same scene could have taken place in biology class. Dissecting a frog would have been better foreshadowing. The idea of fate only comes into play if Laurie is born into the world with a murderous older brother.
     
  15. Myron Breck

    Myron Breck BOO!!! Gotcha!

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,692
    Likes Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I took it to mean that her encounter with evil was her fate just because it was meant to happen to her, not that she had evil in her family. I hadn't thought of it your way before, but it does kind of match up with the second film.
     
  16. wago70

    wago70 Surviving on nostalgia

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Francisco - down by them two ol' sheds
    I think it's an irritating idea because it's too literal. It's explained too easily so that mass audiences go, "...oh so that's why he's after her..."
    I love HALLOWEEN II but the mystique of the unstoppable phantom killer ends for me at that moment in the story.
     
  17. booper71

    booper71 Lord of the Thighs.

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,241
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Ohio (Mason)
    Should've made him Tommy Doyles brother, that way Tommy could get revenge in part 3 as a fake michael, after all his brother was shot twice in the face and laid motionless engulfed in flames while the Sandman took his soul.
     

Share This Page