Halloween: H2O

[El Rooto]

I cried when Michael got his head chopped off. I mean it.

[Autobotsdie]

That wasn't Michael man.

[El Rooto]

It is in MY world!

Okay, for the purists, when it WAS Michael.

[Scarecrow]

With the remake, it certainly makes Halloween 8 almost redundant now.


- Scarecrow

[Deathscythe]

Spoilers in the first post, wow.

On topic, does anyone find it odd at the end of Halloween 2 Michaels a flaming torch yet he manages to hide for 20 years without being noticed?

[El Rooto]

Spoiling a 9-year old movie?

Okay, I guess some people haven't seen it.

[sCabbOy]

Here's a spoiler Michael is an excellent driver capable of driving 2/3 across America w/o a ticket or map!

[Deathscythe]

Spoiling a 9-year old movie?

Okay, I guess some people haven't seen it.

I know everyone heres probably seen it, but it was just funny to enter the topic and first thing mentioned is the ending to the flim.

[El Rooto]

Here's a spoiler Michael is an excellent driver capable of driving 2/3 across America w/o a ticket or map!

Well, in the original, someone at Smith's Grove was stupid enough to give a psychopath driving lessons. And besides...he might have gotten a map.

[Deathscythe]

Well, in the original, someone at Smith's Grove was stupid enough to give a psychopath driving lessons. And besides...he might have gotten a map.

It was Dr. Wynn, as revealed in H6.

Too bad H20 ignores that movie.

[sCabbOy]

Well, in the original, someone at Smith's Grove was stupid enough to give a psychopath driving lessons. And besides...he might have gotten a map.

After being catatonic for decades it must have come naturally.


Yeah, he probably went to a gas station (he had to gas up many times with that gas guzzling truck he drove) and bought a map

[The Tall Man]

Evil doesn't need maps.

T.M.

[BlakeTyner]

Evil doesn't need maps.

T.M.

Because Evil has Tom-Tom, not Jeff-Jeff.

~Blake

[Autobotsdie]

With him driving and filling up with gas you know he either killed the gas attendant or just simply drove off without paying or both.

[sCabbOy]

I just can't get behind the fact that he drove up to a gas pump, got out, unscrewed the cap, flipped up the lever, filled up watching the meter.... bored... shuffling.... and then jumps in the van hauling ass.

Or looking for a station that doesn't have "pay before pump" signs.

That's why that movie would have been much more believable if it was like a state or two away.

[Jigsaw]

I like H20 a lot, IMO it's the third best of the series after the first two movies. Myers was great in this one too.

[Deathscythe]

I'm not much of a fan of Dunrad. My favorite Myers are Warlock, Castle, and Loree.

[Autobotsdie]

I just can't get behind the fact that he drove up to a gas pump, got out, unscrewed the cap, flipped up the lever, filled up watching the meter.... bored... shuffling.... and then jumps in the van hauling ass.

Or looking for a station that doesn't have "pay before pump" signs.

That's why that movie would have been much more believable if it was like a state or two away.

Back then they didn't have pay before pumping so it would make sense that happened.

[sCabbOy]

Back then they didn't have pay before pumping so it would make sense that happened.

Since I was a kid, a lot backwoods places had that policy- especially after dark. Yeah, now it's everywhere... but once you get in the deep country or backroads where gas stealing becomes a huge problem you saw it more and more.

[Deathscythe]

Michael could have just killed all the people at the Gas Station.

[sCabbOy]

Michael could have just killed all the people at the Gas Station.

You'd think that mass killings on a trail from IL to CA would have made bigger news. That would have been easily 100 people if he filled up 5-8 times. That truck probably got 5-10 miles to the gallon, and he probably too back roads to CA, which makes the trip much longer.

I just don't see Michael stalking and killing a handful of people at each and every gas station just for fuel. It'd be smarter for him just to jack a car. We have to face the facts and admit it was bad writing.

[The Dream Master]

I get the feeling that the rest stop incident wasn't the only one of its kind. That's why the scene was written into the film, in my opinion: to show that Michael didn't just magically drive one car across the country.

[BlakeTyner]

I pity the fool who tried to utilize a rest stop glory hole while Mikey was taking the kids to the pool.

:mrt:

~Blake

[Autobotsdie]

What was the purpose of Michael killing that guy by the trains tracks?

[The Tall Man]

I just can't get behind the fact that he drove up to a gas pump, got out, unscrewed the cap, flipped up the lever, filled up watching the meter.... bored... shuffling.... and then jumps in the van hauling ass.

Or looking for a station that doesn't have "pay before pump" signs.
Here's something that's gonna blow your mind too, Scab... sometimes Myers has to go to the can.

Myers is most like normal people of the big trio, so him having to do the logistic things we have to do too isn't a stretch.

Hell, in a deleted scene for H8, Myers uses the remote lock on the car he jacked to get back to Illinois! That's nothing compared to stealing gas. ;)

T.M.

[DarkPumpkin]

After recently rewatching H20, there is a scene in particular that really bothers me now:

After Laurie freaks out after catching the boys out and about in town, and she takes them back to school. Michael is seen following closely behind. And I do mean closely behind. If you watch the scene where she is talking to LL in the car after driving to the guard station, Michael's car is ten feet away from her at the most. How did anyone not notice him then? Especially considering that is one hell of an ugly, stand out car.

I still find the rest stop scene chilling. It seems very in character with the Michael of H1. It's just a very creepy image to picture Micheal staring at you in broad daylight as you sit powerless in a bathroom stall. If you were struggling to go to the bathroom, I promise you you wouldn't be after seeing that.

All in all, I now find H20 a mixed bag. It's nowhere near as God-awful as Resurrection, but it's also not as great as 2 or 4. There are glimpses of the real Micheal to be found here, such as with the scene I described above. There is some attempt to pay homage to the original. However, there is also that late 90's "We gotta make a movie like Scream or Urban Legends so that the teeny boppers will flock to see it" vibe that tarnishes the film to a large degree.

[sCabbOy]

Here's something that's gonna blow your mind too, Scab... sometimes Myers has to go to the can.

Myers is most like normal people of the big trio, so him having to do the logistic things we have to do too isn't a stretch.

Hell, in a deleted scene for H8, Myers uses the remote lock on the car he jacked to get back to Illinois! That's nothing compared to stealing gas. ;)

T.M.


Well, it took me a few years to learn to drive a car another few years to know the road enough not to break traffic laws and not to get tickets. That's what I was more or less referring to. His ability to drive across country with ease. However, who really knows how easy it was because it wasn't shown. In part 1 when Michael stole the care seems to be his first ever experience behind the wheel, but drove very well.

I'd still like to see Michael pull down his jump suit and squat to take a crap then try and find something to wipe with.

[The Dream Master]

I'd still like to see Michael pull down his jump suit and squat to take a crap then try and find something to wipe with.

Don't give Zombie any ideas for a sequel there, Scab.

[Ron]

I'd still like to see Michael pull down his jump suit and squat to take a crap then try and find something to wipe with.

maybe he can just wipe himself with Zombie's next screenplay..

[sCabbOy]

maybe he can just wipe himself with Zombie's next screenplay..

Or with Ho1KC screenplay.

[The Dream Master]

I'll give Zombie credit for his first two movies. I actually enjoyed both of them--I just don't think he's right for the Halloween remake.

[girlychaos]

Considering I'm not exactly "crazy" about parts 4 and 5, I'd say I love H20. I like the death and the chasing scenes a lot, and the suspense is pretty effective too. I'll go even further and say I have no problem with the cast whatsoever, I think it's great.

I loved seeing Janet Leigh on it....I think it was great seeing her and Jamie Lee together.

[Autobotsdie]

I have a question. When michael lowered himself behind Laurie in the hallway how come she didn't see him up near the ceiling right before she past that area?

[sCabbOy]

I'll give Zombie credit for his first two movies. I actually enjoyed both of them--I just don't think he's right for the Halloween remake.

I've always thought House was a piece of crap, but liked TDR. I dunno... You can tell he's a fan, but I don't like his WRITING as much as I like his DIRECTING.

[MaDMaNMaRz]

Don't give Zombie any ideas for a sequel there, Scab.

LOL!! :lol:

Rob Zombie's Halloween 2: Michael Takes a Shit

[Autobotsdie]

Halloween 2: Michael has the runs.

[Deathscythe]

I actually enjoyed both of them--I just don't think he's right for the Halloween remake.

Same here, I think he'd be better for a Texas Chain Saw Massacre movie.

[sCabbOy]

I couldn't imagine what he'd do to a TCM remake. I really loathe the fact that he went back and rewrote history in Halloween to tell you the truth.

[Ron]

I couldn't imagine what he'd do to a TCM remake. I really loathe the fact that he went back and rewrote history in Halloween to tell you the truth.

I can imagine what he'd do to a TCM remake and it's called House of 1,000 Corpses:side:

[sCabbOy]

I can imagine what he'd do to a TCM remake and it's called House of 1,000 Corpses:side:

You're right there!

[Rich]

I love the opening moments in this movie. From the kids and Loomis' nurse gettin killed to and including the title screen. After that the movie went down hill fast. The only other scene I really liked in this movie was when Michael was in the bathroom with the woman and her daughter. That was the scariest scene in the whole movie to me.

[Wheatjedi]

I love the opening moments in this movie. From the kids and Loomis' nurse gettin killed to and including the title screen.

I couldn't agree with you more. I absolutely love the prologue of H20 and the opening title sequence. The music, slow panning of the camera and voice-over (even if it wasn't really Pleasence himself) were wonderful.

[Rich]

even if it wasn't really Pleasence himself

It wasn't? I always thought it was. I always thought they used stock footage voice for that scene.

[Ron]

Nope. I don't think that voiceover sounded anything like pleasance. They should have just used his from halloween.

[MaDMaNMaRz]

Yeah, you could tell it wasn't Donald. They really should have used the audio from the original.

[The Dream Master]

It could have been a rights issue.

[Ron]

I love the opening moments in this movie. From the kids and Loomis' nurse gettin killed to and including the title screen. After that the movie went down hill fast. The only other scene I really liked in this movie was when Michael was in the bathroom with the woman and her daughter. That was the scariest scene in the whole movie to me.

I'm right there with ya Rich! The bathroom scene made me feel really uneasy. Scenes like that where nothing really happens I find to be a lot more creepy than blood and guts.

[MaDMaNMaRz]

I agree Rich. The opening parts of the movie are actually semi-decent. But after that, it goes downhill.

[Deathscythe]

I also can agree with that, oh well still better than Resurrection imo.

[Wheatjedi]

It wasn't? I always thought it was. I always thought they used stock footage voice for that scene.

That was a sound-alike performer named Tom Kane. I don't know for certain why Pleasence's voice wasn't used, but as The Dream Master said..... it could have been some kind of rights issue.

[The Dream Master]

I'm almost certain it is a rights issue that's similar to that of the F13 franchise. I'm guessing Dimension gets first look at anything the Akkads feel like producing, but someone else owns the rights to the actual first film (that includes any audio or video clips that could be used in a film). I'm guessing their price was too high for Dimension to use in H20, so they went ahead and used a voice actor.

[French Friday]

I remember they used a new voice because Pleasence's lines weren't "synched" with the rythm they wanted for the credits. Too slow, or without the good tone. They didn't fit with the speed and atmosphere of the credits they wanted.

[DarkPumpkin]

Does anyone have an answer for my question I asked? I am still trying to figure out how nobody noticed him.

[The Dream Master]

I'm thinking it's probably just a case of sloppy writing and nothing else, DP.

[DarkPumpkin]

Very true, DM. Sadly, H20 seemed to be riddled with that. The first time I saw that scene in the theater, I didn't give it a second thought. After repeated viewings, it really started to bother me.

Here is Michael in this very noticable old time jaloppy, which isn't the quietest of cars either. And Laurie is supposedly so paranoid about Michael finding her that she is constantly checking over her shoulder and everywhere else. And yet when he is not even ten feet behind her in that car, she nor the world's most incompotent security guard can't see him?? Let alone hear the car?

[MaDMaNMaRz]

I noticed that, Pumpkin. I'd agree with DM and say it's a case of sloppy writing.

[Rick]

Got to agree that it's just sloppy filming and writing.
The only other explanation is she's drunk from lunch (who knows how many drinks she really had besides the two or three we see) and is too focused on her anger and fear of finding john off school grounds.
And Ronny really is the world's worst security guard.
Because of other's drunkenness and incompetence Michael's business is made that much easier.

[Ron]

I really hated the CGI mask.

[DarkPumpkin]

I really hated the CGI mask.

You aren't alone friend. Not by a long shot. I remember the first time seeing it in the theater and going "There is something really off with that mask. It doesn't even look real." Lo and behold, it wasn't.

Have you checked out the 25 Years of Terror documentary? They give great insight into the Steve Miner mask controversy. It's very informative and very honest.

[Deathscythe]

I don't have the 25 years of terror decumentary? Anyone just wanna tell me what they said?

[Ron]

I beleive that they spoke about how Steve Miner envisioned the mask as an all white face with no expression, which it clearly was not. It also said that the mask pretty much took on a life of it's own.

[DarkPumpkin]

I beleive that they spoke about how Steve Miner envisioned the mask as an all white face with no expression, which it clearly was not. It also said that the mask pretty much took on a life of it's own.

Oh it was quite the mess actually. What Peter said is correct, Steve Miner had this vision of the mask as completely white with no expression whatsoever. Everybody tried to explain to him otherwise, but he was having none of it. There are no less than 4 different masks used in H20 along with the CGI mask.

There were also at least 3 different companies involved in the production of the mask(s), including Stan Winston's people. Miner was allegedly so pissed when they brought in a mask that he hadn't approved that he opted for the CGI mask in the close up scenes. That is why the mask looks different in just about every scene that Myers is in. My biggest problem with the mask is how far the eye holes are open in it, displaying almost all of Michael's eyes. They look bright and wide open, in sharp contrast to the dark Devil eyes of H1.

Which brings me to another problem I have with H20: There is too much of Michael in this film. The original Halloween works because we only really catch brief glimpses of the Boogeyman, and even then, he is obscured some in shadow or faint light. I really feel like Miner almost goes into overkill with how often Michael is displayed, and displayed completely.

From the beginning, Michael is made almost center stage. When he is attacking and killing Nurse Crane you see him through the bright lights of the police cars. The mask is also so bright and crisp white than he commands attention because of how much the mask stands out. It's very distracting.

I just forgot that wasn't the only controversy on H20. John Ottman also speaks on the H25 documentary about how changes were made to his musical score. In essence, most of the music used isn't even really his. He talks about how when Michael descends from the pipe and the chase commences, he was going to use this great choral music, and instead Dimension opted for "Na-ya-ya-ya-ya" (very Three Stoogish sounding) music instead.

[MaDMaNMaRz]

Yeah, I hate the CGI mask too. In all honesty, I didn't like any of the masks. There were about 4 or 5 different masks in the film, correct?

I haven't watched the Halloween: 25 Years of Terror DVD in a while, so I don't remember the extent of the whole mask controversy.

[The Tall Man]

Pumpkin, well I see your point about the presence of Myers... but that's who I'm there to see, so I wanna see him. As faras I'm concerned, he's the star of the movie. If you can't give me some Pleasance (and no one can do that again), then give me the Myers.

T.M.

[Ron]

I wish they could have got a closer approximation to the original Myers mask.

[The 5th Golden Girl]

I absolutely love the beginning of "Halloween: H2O." From the "Mr. Sandman" song which immediately bridges part 2 to H2O to the re-introduction of the Nurse from part 1 and 2 to Joseph Gordon-Levitt (probably my favorite young actor) to the whole ominous feeling. I love it all up to the end of the opening credits.

The rest of the movie... I could take it or leave it, really. I loathe the too-smart-to-be-real-conversation Kevin Williamson dialogue; it's really out of place in a Halloween film. Jamie Lee Curtis does her best, but the film tends to fall apart the further into it we get. The teenagers are unlikeable. LL Cool J... ugh.

Really, this film is good for three things... the opening, the Rest Stop scene, and the scene between Jamie Lee Curtis and Janet Leigh. I love that scene. The "may I be maternal for a moment?" from Janet to Jamie, and the "Psycho" score playing softly as Janet Leigh walks towards the car she drove in "Psycho." It's just a neat scene.

Speaking of music, I recently discovered that the score was rejected, and that's why the "Scream" music is used so much. Good Lord, that irks me so much when I watch this movie. The "Scream" music works well for "Scream," but Michael Myers just looks stupid stalking people to it.

But still, the awesome opening is worth owning the movie for me, except the closed captioning tells me that the Nurse says, "Andy, he's not dead!" right before she gets killed, but I think she says, "in here, Goddamn it!" I thought that was weird.

[Autobotsdie]

I wish they would've kept this part in there.

The reports that Kevin Williamson's original treatment for "H20" included a scene in which "Halloween 4" through "6" are acknowledged as being "in continuity" and "canon" are completely accurate. The scene did exist, and involved a bitchy student at Keri/Laurie's school giving a class report on the "Haddonfield Murders", and going into great detail about Jamie Lloyd, Danielle Harris and JC Brandy's character from "Halloween 4" through "6". The student talks about Jamie losing her parents in an auto accident, as was the explanation in those sequels for Laurie Strode's absence. (In fact, the only reason for Laurie to be in the Witness Production Program with her son under an assumed name as "Keri Tate" at all was because the original story for "H20" was conceived like this, with "Halloween 4" through "6" in continuity, and Williamson thus being required to create an explanation for Laurie's "death" in the previous movies and her subsequent resurrection.) The student's report chronicles Jamie's being hunted and eventually killed by her uncle, Michael Myers. Upon hearing this oral presentation in the classroom, a grief-stricken Keri/Laurie then retreats to a restroom and throws up. This scene was of course omitted from the actual film.

And also in the last scene where Laurie decapitated Michael he was supposed to call out her name but that was scraped.

[101ant101]

And also in the last scene where Laurie decapitated Michael he was supposed to call out her name but that was scraped.

that would of been kinda good and a good ending to the films

[DarkPumpkin]

Pumpkin, well I see your point about the presence of Myers... but that's who I'm there to see, so I wanna see him. As faras I'm concerned, he's the star of the movie. If you can't give me some Pleasance (and no one can do that again), then give me the Myers.

T.M.

Oh no doubt, I want to see Mike too. I just personally feel that Miner went a bit overkill in this film, especially with the "not really Michael" Michaels (ie Laurie hallucinations, etc). Also, I don't mind seeing Michael, but I also like that air of enigma to remain with him. Miner seemed to splash as much light on him as possible and I already mentioned that distracting white pristine mask, so he ceased to be The Shape surrounded by shadow. Instead, he became "that really pissed off guy."
ADDED:
I absolutely love the beginning of "Halloween: H2O." From the "Mr. Sandman" song which immediately bridges part 2 to H2O to the re-introduction of the Nurse from part 1 and 2 to Joseph Gordon-Levitt (probably my favorite young actor) to the whole ominous feeling. I love it all up to the end of the opening credits.

The rest of the movie... I could take it or leave it, really. I loathe the too-smart-to-be-real-conversation Kevin Williamson dialogue; it's really out of place in a Halloween film. Jamie Lee Curtis does her best, but the film tends to fall apart the further into it we get. The teenagers are unlikeable. LL Cool J... ugh.

Really, this film is good for three things... the opening, the Rest Stop scene, and the scene between Jamie Lee Curtis and Janet Leigh. I love that scene. The "may I be maternal for a moment?" from Janet to Jamie, and the "Psycho" score playing softly as Janet Leigh walks towards the car she drove in "Psycho." It's just a neat scene.

Speaking of music, I recently discovered that the score was rejected, and that's why the "Scream" music is used so much. Good Lord, that irks me so much when I watch this movie. The "Scream" music works well for "Scream," but Michael Myers just looks stupid stalking people to it.

But still, the awesome opening is worth owning the movie for me, except the closed captioning tells me that the Nurse says, "Andy, he's not dead!" right before she gets killed, but I think she says, "in here, Goddamn it!" I thought that was weird.

I couldn't agree with you more, Golden Girl. Another moment that I hated at first, but grew to enjoy, is when Laurie is desperate and kicks Michael in the nards. At first I thought it was just a cheap shot, but then I have come to like it. It shows that Michael is still a human in some ways, and even The Shape feels it when he gets kicked in the Shape-Nards.

Another scene I love: When Laurie comes back into the school, and Michael ever so slowly descends from the ceiling. It's creepy and really showcases the Mike I know and love.

I think the scene where Laurie is under the tables and Michael is flipping them over is extremely tense and well done. I could have lived without the stabbing him with the flag pole scene but the rest of it is well done. In an interesting tidbit, this scene was supposed to be in H4, with Michael flipping the desks to get to Jamie, but was scrapped. Mustapha never forgot about it though and decided to have it in this one.

I mentioned about the music in my last post if you want to find out more about it.

All in all, I certainly don't hate H20. I find it to be a very respectable sequel and I do believe Jamie Lee had the best intentions. I truly believe she felt this was a love letter to the fans, and there are moments where it truly feels like that, such as with the described above scenes. However, there is so much of the Scream undertone (makes sense, with Kevin Williamson behind that) that in a lot of ways, it just doesn't feel like a Halloween film.

[Scarecrow]

There was a lot of good intentions from a lot of people but these were often buried under a desire to remove 4-6 and pander to a more Scream-savvy audience.

- Scarecrow

[Autobotsdie]

I think its weird that Scream and Halloween played offf each other.

[The Tall Man]

This is a really terrible thing nobody was paying attention to:

"Scream" has them watching "Halloween", making it that Halloween is a fictional movie in the Scream universe. Then, in Halloween H20, the kids are watching "Scream 2"...

But then again, "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash"... when Nancy was watching fictional character Ash in Nightmare 1.

T.M.

[Autobotsdie]

The way I look at is since Scream used footage of Halloween the producers of H2O thought they would turn around and use footage of Scream 2. My guess is why they didn't use footage of the first Scream is because of the footage of Halloween in it. It would look kinda dumb if they did that. I never could understand why in part 3 of Halloween they showed footage of the first Halloween when part 3 had nothing to do with Michael.

[Rich]

But then again, "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash"... when Nancy was watching fictional character Ash in Nightmare 1

Yeah but the particular Ash in that story is going to wear a trench coat and exit films and enter reality. :lol:

[The Tall Man]

Autobots, they were trying to say that Halloween 1 and 2 were only movies in the universe of 3.

Rich, I wouldn't put it past... Craven ;D

T.M.

[Rich]

Autobots, they were trying to say that Halloween 1 and 2 were only movies in the universe of 3.

Rich, I wouldn't put it past... Craven ;D

T.M.

The way I look at it is that Halloween was nothing more then a stand in for a horror movie. The way I interpret the Halloween III story is that they were not watching Halloween, but a horror movie. They simply used Halloween just because that was the footage they owned.

Or maybe someone made a movie based on Michael Myers, much like they make movies based on Gein and Gacy today, and that is what they were watching.

It is very easy to put Halloween III into the proper time and space.

[The Tall Man]

"Halloween III" isn't meant to be put into the continuity of the Myers saga, though. That's stuff fans like to do after the fact.

T.M.

[Rich]

"Halloween III" isn't meant to be put into the continuity of the Myers saga, though. That's stuff fans like to do after the fact.

T.M.

I know it wasn't meant to but you can still do it. I still think Cochran was partners with Wynn and part of the Thorn thing.

[The Dream Master]

You're forgetting something though, Rich. There is no Thorn, as Halloween 6 never existed.

Thanks, H20. :X

[Erik]

that would of been kinda good and a good ending to the films

I agree. If that were the last time we ever saw Myers and they ended the franchise right there, that could have been a really great ending. Almost poetic.

[Rich]

You're forgetting something though, Rich. There is no Thorn, as Halloween 6 never existed.

Thanks, H20. :X

There is in my world, because in my world, only H1-6 exist and the other two (and Rob's) do not. :)

[The Tall Man]

Rich, you live on Europa, don't you? http://www.f13-community.co.uk/board/images/smilies/1.gif

T.M.

[Rich]

Tall, how did you know? You realize that I can't let you live now? ;):D

[Autobotsdie]

The only one that shouldn't exist is 3.

[The Dream Master]

There is in my world, because in my world, only H1-6 exist and the other two (and Rob's) do not. :)

Rich, I was totally being cheeky with my "Halloween 4-6 don't exist" comment. As far as I'm concerned, H20 and HR don't exist for me, either. The Producer's Cut of Halloween 6 provides a pretty satisfying ending to the original Michael's arc, much more so than HR.

[Deathscythe]

H20 will always exist in the form of Dawsons Creek.:D

[Rich]

The funny thing is while watching this film, I sing a song to myself:

"I don't wanna wait...for this film to be overrrrr!"

:lmao:

[El Rooto]

:meh:

Had no idea people disliked this one so much. IMHO, it's the best sequel in the series.

[Rick]

I'd much rather watch this than 5 and 6.
Not the greatest entry but IMO 5 and 6 started a story line I thought was completely horrendous.
Would have been interesting to see them actually try and connect the two diverging time lines but I don't think there is any way it could have been done to any real satisfaction, again IMO.

[BlakeTyner]

I rather like H20 and Resurrection, though in a completely different way than 1 and 2. I don't think that either of those (or the new Zombieween) will be talked about in 30 years, but I had enough fun watching them.

~Blake

[French Friday]

You are all wrong, H4-H6 and H20 exist ! It's HR that doesn't exist !

:D

I love the H20 ending for Michael.

[girlychaos]

:meh:

Had no idea people disliked this one so much. IMHO, it's the best sequel in the series.


I've always wondered why people hate H20. It's my 3rd (sometimes 2nd) favorite of the series...I don't really like part 4 and part 5 is pretty annoying. H20 has a lot of great suspense scenes and pretty good deaths. Nothing wrong about it at all, but that's just the way I think.

[nickmeece]

There was a cut scene in H20 that did connect it to H4, 5, and 6!

And here it is...the long lost CONNECTION scene...

http://www.angelfire.com/il/haddonfield/scripts/Halloween_H20excerpts.html

[The Dream Master]

Yeah, that's been known about for awhile. I'd never read it though, so thanks for sharing. It's a shame it was never filmed and included in the final film. It would have made H20 a bit better for me, but it wouldn't have fixed all the flaws of that film.

[Kane Lives]

I had never read it either.

It's nice to see there at least was an attempt initially to connect H20 to Halloween 4-6.

[Autobotsdie]

I'll except 4, 5, 6, and H20 and even the begining oif Ressurection and thats it.

[The Tall Man]

I've always wondered why people hate H20.
It's a combination of things for me... Firstly, it's not really a Halloween movie so much as it is "Scream" with Myers. Secondly, Myers looks and acts like shit. Lastly, the jackasstic pretentiousness of Jamie Lee and Steve Miner annoy me so much it's stained my opinion of the film itself. And a couple of other things throw this one in last place for me as far as the formal series is concerned.

T.M.

[Deathscythe]

I didn't mind the whole ignoring H4, H5, and H6 part. H20 just didn't have that 'Halloween' feel to it after the opening credits, and I wasn't much of a fan of Chris Dunrads Michael Myers performance either.

[girlychaos]

It's a combination of things for me... Firstly, it's not really a Halloween movie so much as it is "Scream" with Myers. Secondly, Myers looks and acts like shit. Lastly, the jackasstic pretentiousness of Jamie Lee and Steve Miner annoy me so much it's stained my opinion of the film itself. And a couple of other things throw this one in last place for me as far as the formal series is concerned.

T.M.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. That was enlightening, Mr. "It's disgusting how many flat women there are". ;)

[Scarecrow]

I found Ressurection had more of a Halloween feel than H20. In the cinema, the music kicking in at the start, it built the right atmosphere. Though it has a lot of problems and it's not as good on video as it was in the cinema, Ressurection is still better than some give ti credit. The sewer kill is fantastic.


- Scarecrow

[DarkPumpkin]

I found Ressurection had more of a Halloween feel than H20. In the cinema, the music kicking in at the start, it built the right atmosphere. Though it has a lot of problems and it's not as good on video as it was in the cinema, Ressurection is still better than some give ti credit. The sewer kill is fantastic.


- Scarecrow

I got to agree with you on that one point, Scarecrow: The score by Danny Lux is absolutely incredible. It's really gothic and gorgeous. I love the haunting woman's choir that is subtlety plays throughout.

[Deathscythe]

In the H20 timeline, did Loomis die at the end of H2 or just of age?

The funny thing is while watching this film, I sing a song to myself:

"I don't wanna wait...for this film to be overrrrr!"

:lmao:

I sing that song too. *Jason Ritter grin*

[The Dream Master]

Just because of age. Marion Chambers became his nurse when he was old; hence, the opening scene.

[TheCurse]

With him driving and filling up with gas you know he either killed the gas attendant or just simply drove off without paying or both.
Well, we've seen him do it before. In H1 Loomis stops at a phone booth at a gas station to make a phone call and we see the attendant's body when he walks around the area. In H4 we physically see Michael kill at a gas station, then he jacks the tow truck and ends up blowing up the pumps. :evil:

Michael sure has a penchant for jacking vehicles:

H1: station wagon
H4: tow truck
H5: Mikey's car
H7: truck

I'm sure there are more instances but they escape me at the moment.

[Deathscythe]

Didn't he steal one in H6 as well? When he was chasing Jamie in the opening?

[TheCurse]

Good call. He did steal a van in H6 to chase Jamie.

[The Dream Master]

I can see it now:

GTA: Haddonfield.

[Deathscythe]

Dr. Loomis as the police
Dr. Wynn as the gangsters

[The Tall Man]

I can see it now:
GTA: Haddonfield.
I want that game RIGHT NOW.

Michael sure has a penchant for jacking vehicles:
He also stole that red car to get back from California to Illinois in Halloween 8.

T.M.

[Deathscythe]

Yup, and since H2 (same day as H1) and H3 (no Myers) dont count, hes stolen a car in every Halloween film.

[Scarecrow]

I now have the mental image of Michael stealing and riding a Harley Davsion...


- Scarecrow

[El Rooto]

Please yes.

[DarkPumpkin]

I just re-watched this again last night with a friend, and noticed there is something else that really bothers me about the film. During the opening montage, when we see the newspaper clippings from Loomis' office, I couldn't help but be slightly annoyed. H20 portrays Michael as some kind of joyriding serial killer freak who is traveling state to state killing people. Just see how many cities he has terrorized in Illinois alone! Look at some of the methods he has used in order to dispatch some of his victims. It's just not Michael, period.

[Scarecrow]

That is somewhat odd actually. What IS the opening trying to imply? That Michael HAS been wandering about? H20 in its own continutiy is confused with Loomis and Michael apparently surviving HW2's Inferno, untouched. I'm not gonna ignore sequels on the command of a sequel that can't it's own damn continuity straight!


- Scarecrow

[French Friday]

That opening montage, IMO, just shows that 4-6 really happened in the H20 universe. And that there were other "lost adventures" between 6 and H20. If we take the P-Cut ending of 6, Loomis is alive and Michael too, escaping again. In the T-Cut, it's unclear if Loomis is alive or killed by Myers. But I would take the P-Cut ending and just understand with that montage that Loomis continued to track Michael who himself was tracking "his" baby, adopted by Tommy and Kara who are themselves fugitives trying to survive. That's why Michael is wandering a lot between 6 and H20, to find the baby and finish his job. I can imagine he finally succeeded in killing Tommy, Kara, Danny and the baby and as nothing happened, it indicated to him that a family member was always alive somewhere, so he went after Laurie again.

Something like that.

The cop who says "But it was 20 years ago" was stupid anyway, so it's easy to say he was wrong.

[Rick]

I always figured that the opening of H20 was just reflecting Loomis' obsession with Michael. That Loomis collected anything about unsolved murders all over Illinois (and beyond) and studying them to see if they possibly could have been Michael.
He knew Michael was still around and he wanted to look for a pattern leading back to Haddonfield or toward Lori.

[DarkPumpkin]

That opening montage, IMO, just shows that 4-6 really happened in the H20 universe. And that there were other "lost adventures" between 6 and H20. If we take the P-Cut ending of 6, Loomis is alive and Michael too, escaping again. In the T-Cut, it's unclear if Loomis is alive or killed by Myers. But I would take the P-Cut ending and just understand with that montage that Loomis continued to track Michael who himself was tracking "his" baby, adopted by Tommy and Kara who are themselves fugitives trying to survive. That's why Michael is wandering a lot between 6 and H20, to find the baby and finish his job. I can imagine he finally succeeded in killing Tommy, Kara, Danny and the baby and as nothing happened, it indicated to him that a family member was always alive somewhere, so he went after Laurie again.

Something like that.

The cop who says "But it was 20 years ago" was stupid anyway, so it's easy to say he was wrong.

This would be great except H20 deliberately went out of its way to pretend that 4-6 never happened. I tried to use your theory as well, but it still doesn't make him the Michael I know and love. Even within the sequels, there is a motivation for the people he kills. These kills in the opening montage just seem so random and out of place, that they truly bother me.

And yes, Loomis is obsessed with Myers, but if anyone would recognize his handiwork, it would be him. He would know that it just doesn't fit. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me and I blame it on laziness.

[El Rooto]

That's a load of bullshit. He's killed people without reason in 1...2...5...

[The Tall Man]

Ya know... there'a s reference to H4 that does remain in the final film: "Laurie Strode killed in car accident".

T.M.

[El Rooto]

People are calling this film pretentious when there's New Nightmare, Bride of Chucky, and other pretentious sequels coming out in the 90s? :side:

[The Dream Master]

The reason New Nightmare isn't dissed as "pretentious" is because it's actually an excellent film, unlike H20. :)

[The Tall Man]

I diss Nightmare 7 as pretentious. :)

T.M.

[The Dream Master]

Damn it, TM, don't go complicating things. :)

Anyway, I just don't see WCNN as pretentious--just innovative.

[El Rooto]

Wes Craven took the idea for WCNN off The Player.

[The Dream Master]

How so? Because it's a metafictional movie that stars actors/actresses as themselves?

I'd wager that Craven was far more inspired by the idea of Jungian archetypes and such things.

[The Tall Man]

Wikipedia claimed that Wes pitched the NN concept to Bob for Nightmare 3.

S-10 tells me Bob's response was "Are you retarded?"

Take it for what it's worth. :)

T.M.

[El Rooto]

How so? Because it's a metafictional movie that stars actors/actresses as themselves?

I'd wager that Craven was far more inspired by the idea of Jungian archetypes and such things.

He admitted to it in an interview he gave to Brian J. Robb.

[The Dream Master]

However, Craven also claims to have come up with the idea when he was writing Dream Warriors (as TM pointed out), and that was a good 6 or 7 years before "The Player" was released.

[Deathscythe]

I liked New Nightmare and Bride of Chucky. Personally I didn't care for Child's Play 2 or Child's Play 3.

[French Friday]

This would be great except H20 deliberately went out of its way to pretend that 4-6 never happened. I tried to use your theory as well, but it still doesn't make him the Michael I know and love. Even within the sequels, there is a motivation for the people he kills. These kills in the opening montage just seem so random and out of place, that they truly bother me.

They're not random if you understand Michael was tracking Tommy, Kara, Danny and his baby. They were smart, they didn't stay in Haddonfield...

Apart from this stupid quote from the cop saying 20 years ago, which happily can be erased by saying the guy is an idiot, everything in H20 proves me 4-6 happened, up to way Laurie acts and the Frankenstein lecture.

She just knows she let her daughter be killed. She can't forget that. She can't forgive herself. And now, his son is endangered.

She's Victor. Michael is the Monster. And Victor's wife is Jamie Lloyd.

[Chex]

Apart from this stupid quote from the cop saying 20 years ago, which happily can be erased by saying the guy is an idiot, everything in H20 proves me 4-6 happened, up to way Laurie acts and the Frankenstein lecture.


So in order to make everything fit, you ignore statements?

[Deathscythe]

Be honest here, if H3 - H6 were never made, and than H20 was released in '98. What would you guys think of this film?

[Scarecrow]

The H20 Cop is a member of Thorn and is trying to throw everyone off by insisting Myers has been dead for years. :p


- Scarecrow

[JVY2K]

This would be great except H20 deliberately went out of its way to pretend that 4-6 never happened. I tried to use your theory as well, but it still doesn't make him the Michael I know and love. Even within the sequels, there is a motivation for the people he kills. These kills in the opening montage just seem so random and out of place, that they truly bother me.

And yes, Loomis is obsessed with Myers, but if anyone would recognize his handiwork, it would be him. He would know that it just doesn't fit. Sorry, it just doesn't jive with me and I blame it on laziness.

I don't like the movie so I haven't seen it in years but aren't the kids he kills the one's who discovered the break in at Loomis's nurses house? I'd say he just kills them to get them off his trail.

Also, an easy way to link H2O with 4-6 is to simply assume the general public wouldn't have believed Michael could have survived what happened to him in 2. So the events that take place throughout 4-6 would simply be written off as copycat killers of Michael, from the original set of murders. Thus the only material referenced to as actual Michael Myers events are what takes place throughout Halloween 1-2. In the general publics mind, those are the only events where the real Michael Myers killed. Everything else up to when he returned in H2O were copy cats in their minds.

Realistically as well, if Myers was a real life killer, none of us would believe he'd come back from the dead after being shot up and burnt to death. So it's a natural assumption and easily explains why nobody makes reference to what Michael did following the events in H2. The characters involved know it was Michael. We know it was him. But the general public wouldn't believe it. It's simple.

[Chex]

Also, an easy way to link H2O with 4-6 is to simply assume the general public wouldn't have believed Michael could have survived what happened to him in 2.

The townsfolk of Haddonfield seemed to believe during the course of H4 and H5. I see no reason why H6 wouldn't have reenforced the idea of him.

Besides, if one of the only ways to try and make the linkage work is to assume then that's not a very strong piece of evidence to use.

[JVY2K]

The townsfolk of Haddonfield seemed to believe during the course of H4 and H5. I see no reason why H6 wouldn't have reenforced the idea of him.

Besides, if one of the only ways to try and make the linkage work is to assume then that's not a very strong piece of evidence to use.

The drunk beer bellies did. Drunk beer bellies! And the police force after MUCH convincing from Loomis.

[Chex]

Exactly, after a certain event, the police force was convinced. Now what belief could there be that the residents of the city didn't? It's simple. They did.

This was shown to us in H6 with the ban on Halloween. Heck, Myers was even still being talked about on radio shows and known by the general public as callers were talking about him.

Oh, and to insist that the general public never believed Myers survived H2 is a huge stretch considering that the man was known by people to be alive in an institute for 10 years in a coma. Then there's his breaking free. Then there's him slaughtering people over the course of two years.

[JVY2K]

Exactly, after a certain event, the police force was convinced. Now what belief could there be that the residents of the city didn't? It's simple. They did.

This was shown to us in H6 with the ban on Halloween. Heck, Myers was even still being talked about on radio shows and known by the general public as callers were talking about him.

Oh, and to insist that the general public never believed Myers survived H2 is a huge stretch considering that the man was known by people to be alive in an institute for 10 years in a coma. Then there's his breaking free. Then there's him slaughtering people over the course of two years.

Hahahahah!!! Why are you fighting so hard against my theory? It's just a theory bud, never said it was a fact. I laid it out as one of the simpler ways to connect the films (watch as you'll debate that one line there, lol)...

It's like you're trying to convince me of what a bunch of fictional people believed. Where's the gain? Are you going to feel better after you dissect my theory down? I think this is hilarious :)!!

Either way though, the facts in H2O are that Myers is only talked about in reference to H2. The facts are H2O ignored 4-6. That said, it is not a stretch to assume the public of not just Haddonfield but everyone who would have heard about it all on the news wouldn't have believed a killer was shot up by the police force, fell down an old mining shaft, survived, came back a year later, got shot up some more and yet came back again, got shot a few more times and still survived.

The events happened involving Michael Myers and all characters involved knew it was him. However, once all was said and done, realistically, allot of people would write it off as not actually having been Michael even though it was. Just like in FvsJ when they make reference to Jason being a copy cat killer. General people who haven't directly experienced the events that the characters have are not just going to openly believe there's a guy out there impervious to pain and who can't die. Regardless of whether it's hyped up on a radio talk show and random callers call in talking about Michael. You talk about it as if world wide, it's a given fact that every single person out there would automatically believe it would be him. No questions asked.

Either way though, it's just a theory. I'm not penning the next Halloween movie. You can rest easy and stop fighting so hard :cool:

[Chex]

Because you said yourself that it's "simple" and it makes sense. I'm only showing that it's not well thought out and contains inconsistencies that aren't tying up in the least.

[JVY2K]

Because you said yourself that it's "simple" and it makes sense. I'm only showing that it's not well thought out and contains inconsistencies that aren't tying up in the least.

In your opinion. You choose to believe one thing. I do another. It doesn't make me right and it certainly doesn't make you right. They're all just theories and opinions.

And that, my little friend, is that simple :cool:!

[Chex]

You can stick with it as much you want, that's your choice. :)

All I did was throw in a few mentionings of how the films disagree with your theory. I would think the films come first as well, in any rate.

Now I will say that you could tweak your idea a bit and make it somewhat work.

[JVY2K]

In the world of movies and theories, any theory can be tweaked :)...

I also like to believe that Laurie originally had two children. John and Jaimie. She chose to fake her death and gave up Jamie, separating her from John because she feared whatever happened to her brother could pass on to her son and he would also kill his sister. She took John so she could keep an eye on him and raise him up right so that history wouldn't repeat itself.

[Chex]

I've always liked to think the same thing about Laurie and her kids.

The only problems that arise from that are:

-She gives up one kid, but not the other
-She decides to raise one child to keep an eye on, but not the other
-It only dawns on her at some point that John is in danger because of his age, yet nothing is mentioned about Jamie and that she was attacked. In all honesty, if 4-6 existed in this films mind, then her immediate thought process should have been about John.
-Jamie is left to live in Haddonfield

There's a couple more, but as the list keeps going the idea of her having two kids becomes more and more "out there".

Like I said though, I've always liked to think the same thing, but logically H20 throws up too many road blocks for the idea.

[JVY2K]

Well if she gave up Jamie and went away with John in order to make sure he didn't turn out like Michael aswell as to protect Jamie, the way I figure it is she never planned to ever associate with Jamie again. Hence the faking of her death. Then never speaking of the fact that she had a daughter ever. This way, if John was to turn out like Michael, he wouldn't know he had a sister. It was a sacrifice she made to protect both of them.

[The Dream Master]

Here's the thing that no one ever brings up: what about Jamie's dad? He obviously died (or is supposed to have died) in the same wreck Laurie was in. It's already a stretch for me to believe that one parent would fake their death and leave a child behind, but both of them? No way.

Anyway, all this shit is moot. H20 ignored the fuck out of 4-6, and that's the facts. There's no sense in trying to rationalize it because no scenario makes sense at all. All that talk about Michael being missing 20 years is enough for me to show that it ignored those films, especially given how paranoid Laurie is in that film. Don't you think that, as paranoid as she's made out to be, Laurie (of all people) would have been the first to point out to folks (like John) that Mike showed up in Haddonfield a few times and butchered the shit out of the town?

[JVY2K]

Here's the thing that no one ever brings up: what about Jamie's dad? He obviously died (or is supposed to have died) in the same wreck Laurie was in. It's already a stretch for me to believe that one parent would fake their death and leave a child behind, but both of them? No way.

Anyway, all this shit is moot. H20 ignored the fuck out of 4-6, and that's the facts. There's no sense in trying to rationalize it because no scenario makes sense at all. All that talk about Michael being missing 20 years is enough for me to show that it ignored those films, especially given how paranoid Laurie is in that film. Don't you think that, as paranoid as she's made out to be, Laurie (of all people) would have been the first to point out to folks (like John) that Mike showed up in Haddonfield a few times and butchered the shit out of the town?

It's fun to rationalize. It's not like it's taking historic events and putting a spin on it. Like "Yeah, my theory about WWII is it was actually this way"...These are fictional films. So yes, there's lots of sense in rationalizing as these Halloween movies are meant to be fun. Not taken as serious pieces of history ;)...

[Deathscythe]

Be honest here, if H3 - H6 were never made, and than H20 was released in '98. What would you guys think of this film?

Hmmm, anyone wanna answer?

As for myself, I probably would have liked it more. Just a little bit more through.

[The Dream Master]

Hey, if you want to keep at such a fruitless endeavor, have at it. I'm just telling you cats the unfortunate facts. Believe me, if I thought there were any way to possibly rationalize the continuity of the Halloween franchise, I'd be on board; however, I gave up on that shit way back in '98 when it was apparent that H20 screwed things up.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, H20 and H:R don't exist in the true continuity. In my mind, the series should have died with Pleasance anyway, so Halloween 6 is a more fitting end.

DC: To be honest, even if H20 hadn't ignored 4-6, I still probably wouldn't like it a whole lot. I do think the beginning (all the way up to the rest stop scene, I guess) is pretty good stuff, as is Michael and Laurie's final showdown. The middle of the film just kills the momentum, though.

[Deathscythe]

I like to view the series this way: H1, H2, H4, H5, H6 P-Cut.

[The Dream Master]

DC, yeah, me too. I like the ending of the P-Cut because it suggests that Loomis was cursed to watch over Myers until the day he died. That's the only way for Loomis to go out, if you ask me.

[Chex]

H20 ignored the fuck out of 4-6, and that's the facts.

Exactly. No theory or rationalization will somehow undo all that. H20 seems to be set up to where for every theory that comes to making sense, there's something else that undermines it causing the idea to fall all the way back to square one.

[JVY2K]

Hey, if you want to keep at such a fruitless endeavor, have at it. I'm just telling you cats the unfortunate facts.

Fruitless endeavor? Dude, they're movies. Nothing more. I think it's weird how you feel people shouldn't rationalize of come up with theories for this. Like I said in my previous post, you almost act as if it's a historical event and people are changing history. Only this is a fictional tale. ANY fictional movie can be rationalized and added a theory here or there if need be.

There is no right or wrong in terms of rationalizing H2O. If people want to do it, it's their choice. Doesn't make them wrong and you right or vice versa. It's all opinion.

[The Dream Master]

Like I said, if people want to go ahead and come up with their theories about this or whatever, they can have at it. However, if it gets posted in this thread and I think it's a bit of nonsense, I'm going to show why I disagree with it. This has been going on since H20's release.

You're right: they are just movies, and it's not like I hold some sort of grudge about it, but if I'm posting in a thread on it, I'm going to be honest and give the facts.

[JVY2K]

Like I said, if people want to go ahead and come up with their theories about this or whatever, they can have at it. However, if it gets posted in this thread and I think it's a bit of nonsense, I'm going to show why I disagree with it. This has been going on since H20's release.

You're right: they are just movies, and it's not like I hold some sort of grudge about it, but if I'm posting in a thread on it, I'm going to be honest and give the facts.

No theory is nonsense though because it is just that. A theory. To me, it's kinda boring to just sit and take a movie for what it is and grumble about it. Maybe that's because I'm a writer though and I have an imagination where as some people don't and can't comprehend anything past what's in front of their eyes...

[The Dream Master]

Anytime you're trying to rationalize something that flies in the face of the facts that are put in front of you, it is nonsense. It's got nothing to do with imagination; hell, anyone with half a brain could have written in one scene that kept 4-6 in continuity. A vivid imagination is one thing, but when it clouds your logic, that's not so good.

Like I said, I would have been open to this type of speculation and whatnot back in '98 or '99, but no amount of fanboy speculation is going to change the facts.

[Chex]

Anytime you're trying to rationalize something that flies in the face of the facts that are put in front of you, it is nonsense.

Bingo. Theorizing is fine, but if it encounters facts that disprove it then the theory is dead.

[JVY2K]

Anytime you're trying to rationalize something that flies in the face of the facts that are put in front of you, it is nonsense. It's got nothing to do with imagination; hell, anyone with half a brain could have written in one scene that kept 4-6 in continuity. A vivid imagination is one thing, but when it clouds your logic, that's not so good.

Like I said, I would have been open to this type of speculation and whatnot back in '98 or '99, but no amount of fanboy speculation is going to change the facts.

See, this is all just your opinion on things dude. Nothing more. Just as any opinion or theory or rationalization is just that. An opinion. And nobody is ever 100% right or 100% wrong with their opinion. Because it's theirs...

And logic has nothing to do with coming up with theories for movies. People have been coming up with their own theories for movies for years. The F-13's, Terminators, NOES's, Halloweens, Robocop's, Star Wars, the Alien series etc. You're telling me each and every one of them are full of nonsense because they aren't bowing down to the facts and instead having fun with things and coming up with their own theories? Are people who write novel of comic continuations of movies and ad their own theories to the novel or comic also full of nonsense because they aren't writing with the exact facts on screen and instead adding their own twist to the story that alters the events from the films?

Maybe movies should start coming out with an additional bit before the warning stating.

"This movie is to be taken for what is it. No theories or rationalizing should be disucussed regarding this film."

:rolleyes:

[Chex]

And logic has nothing to do with coming up with theories for movies. People have been coming up with their own theories for movies for years. The F-13's, Terminators, NOES's, Halloweens, Robocop's, Star Wars, the Alien series etc. You're telling me each and every one of them are full of nonsense because they aren't bowing down to the facts and instead having fun with things and coming up with their own theories?

Any one of them that goes against stated facts means the theory is dead in the water. It's like I made a theory saying that Han Solo never shot Greedo. By your ideals, I can say that and get away with even though it goes against a fact.

[The Dream Master]

I'd like to see where I ever said "no theories or rationalizing should be discussed" or whatever because you clearly aren't reading a damn thing I've said.

You can't come up with a theory for something if it flies in the face of facts that are right there. To use an example from a film you mentioned: would you try to argue that Vader really wasn't in fact Anakin Skywalker, but some guy going around claiming to be him? Of course you wouldn't, because the series shows that this is a fact that isn't negotiable. It'd be nonsense to say otherwise.

It's the same thing with H20. It all but comes out and screams "4-6 didn't happen!" so any type of theory that tries to say otherwise sounds ridiculous. I'm all for speculating and theorizing when there's room to do so, but it's just not there with H20 in this regard.

[JVY2K]

Any one of them that goes against stated facts means the theory is dead in the water. It's like I made a theory saying that Han Solo never shot Greedo. By your ideals, I can say that and get away with even though it goes against a fact.

If you want to get picky, you could also say that Loomis is actually Michael and Michael is Loomis. It's a theory, so it can't be disproved. Only that's silly and lame and obviously I am not making a point regarding silly shit like that...

If people want to come up with theories though to rationalize events in a film, like many people do with JGTH or T3 etc. then they can. Regardless of the facts the movie lays out, to that fan the movie becomes more enjoyable when they come up with theroies to add to that universe of films. It doesn't make their theory wrong or "dead"...It's not like they're pitching their theory to the director and asking him to change the movie. It's simply their little theory on a movie. And by no means is it "nonsense" for them to come up with it...

And honestly, I'd rather discuss Jason films with some of the guys here who love discussing different theories on the series then with you two who take the movie for what it is, submit yourself to the "facts" and move on. To me, that's boring. But again, that's what makes everyone different and in this little debate, I'm no more right or wrong than you to are. Nor are you two anymore right or wrong than I am. It's all simple opinion. Nothing more...

[nottidelterrore]

I didn't mind this movie too much. Not really that bad. Entertaining & watchable.

I didn't like that it ignored the 4-6(3 too, I guess although it had nothing to do with the Myers story).

[JVY2K]

You can't come up with a theory for something if it flies in the face of facts that are right there.

Sure you can. They're movies. Fiction. None of it is real. If you ask me, you take movies way to seriously bud. Lighten up a bit :)...

[Chex]

Regardless of the facts the movie lays out, to that fan the movie becomes more enjoyable when they come up with theroies to add to that universe of films.

This is the problem. You're picking and choosing to ignore something just to make up your own "fanfiction". I'm not saying you can't do so and have fun with it, but I draw the line at it trying to be presented as a theory because it has facts that go against it and disprove it.

Fan fiction - yes.
Theory - not even close.

If you want to get picky, you could also say that Loomis is actually Michael and Michael is Loomis. It's a theory, so it can't be disproved. Only that's silly and lame and obviously I am not making a point regarding silly shit like that...

Good thing you didn't try to use this as example as the films disprove it early on. :p

[The Dream Master]

Chex, exactly. JVY, if you want to talk about wild what-if scenarios, we have a fan-fiction sub-forum. By all means, go knock yourself out over there.

But over here, when we deal with "theories," it's generally accepted that you have to accept what the movie's telling you before putting forth said theory. Otherwise, why bother watching the movie in the first place?

[JVY2K]

This is the problem. You're picking and choosing to ignore something just to make up your own "fanfiction". I'm not saying you can't do so and have fun with it, but I draw the line at it trying to be presented as a theory because it has facts that go against it and disprove it.

Fan fiction - yes.
Theory - not even close.

Good thing you didn't try to use this as example as the films disprove it early on. :p

Fan fictions are really just the writiers theories on the events of the film series they're doing a fan fiction on. Many scripts out there have events that go against facts presented in a particular film. Doesn't mean that writers full of nonsense. It's means their taking a different approach.

And obviously the Loomis thing was a joke, haha. Glad you caught that. Obviously shit like that would be silly. Same as DM's Anakin thing. People aren't dumbasses.

[Chex]

Fan fictions are really just the writiers theories on the events of the film series they're doing a fan fiction on. Many scripts out there have events that go against facts presented in a particular film. Doesn't mean that writers full of nonsense. It's means their taking a different approach.


Fanfictions can be what you said and more such as "what if's" on events or even disregarding actual facts. That's where your statements lie in.

Theories use facts to speculate something that has yet to be explained. If the theory goes against facts, the theory is stopped. If the theory is disprove, like yours has been, the theory is disregarded or discredited.

[JVY2K]

Chex, exactly. JVY, if you want to talk about wild what-if scenarios, we have a fan-fiction sub-forum. By all means, go knock yourself out over there.

But over here, when we deal with "theories," it's generally accepted that you have to accept what the movie's telling you before putting forth said theory. Otherwise, why bother watching the movie in the first place?

Again, that's just your opinion. Nothing more.

And if I feel like bringing up a theory about a movie being discussed here, I will do so. In this forum.

[The Dream Master]

And if that theory is as ridiculous as this "4-6 happened along with H20," I'll be right here in this forum to discredit said theory.

[Chex]

Again, that's just your opinion. Nothing more.

And if I feel like bringing up a theory about a movie being discussed here, I will do so. In this forum.

Which is quite fine. You brought up your theory. It's been talked about and discussed. It's been shown how your theory goes against facts so it's not a solid theory.

[JVY2K]

Fanfictions can be what you said and more such as "what if's" on events or even disregarding actual facts. That's where your statements lie in.

Theories use facts to speculate something that has yet to be explained. If the theory goes against facts, the theory is stopped. If the theory is disprove, like yours has been, the theory is disregarded or discredited.

The definition of theory is both.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Dealing with facts as well as speculation, contemplation and guess. Thus, we are both right regarding the discussion of theories :)...
ADDED:
And if that theory is as ridiculous as this "4-6 happened along with H20," I'll be right here in this forum to discredit said theory.

Lmao! I find it hilarious that you're so against fan theory and how "facts" of a movie are so important to you. As I said before, they're just movies bro. Pieces of fiction. Lighten up man :)...

[Chex]

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Yet we know your theory isn't a fact or close to it as it disregards established facts meaning your theory is discredited.

Lmao! I find it hilarious that you're so against fan theory and how "facts" of a movie are so important to you. As I said before, they're just movies bro. Pieces of fiction. Lighten up man ...

He seems to be just fine. He's probably tired of repeating how your theory isn't sound. ;)

[The Dream Master]

So, if I woke up tomorrow morning and said, "you know, the sky isn't blue. In fact, I have a theory that it's really red," that'd be okay with you?

Like anything, there's such a thing as a "good theory" (which is supported by empirical facts) and a "bad theory" (which is just some inane rambling).

[JVY2K]

Yet we know your theory isn't a fact or close to it as it disregards established facts meaning your theory is discredited.

As stated in that meaning, but there are different meanings to the word theory.

6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Meaning fans can openly guess or speculate about certain events.

It's like a police investigation. Sometimes they're presented with a series of facts. Those facts aren't always right though and they need to come up with theories that both deal with the facts and theories that also don't deal with the facts. Such as a case where someone is wrongly accused. If the set of facts that show them as guilty were the only set of facts followed, thse people would never be helped. However, that's not the way it is and theories that do not deal with those facts are investigated and often lead to reveal something completely different...

A bit off topic, but my point is life is not simply black and white, "facts are facts and that's that"...
ADDED:
So, if I woke up tomorrow morning and said, "you know, the sky isn't blue. In fact, I have a theory that it's really red," that'd be okay with you?

Like anything, there's such a thing as a "good theory" (which is supported by empirical facts) and a "bad theory" (which is just some inane rambling).

Dude, your little examples are mockeries. But if that's how you have fun, have at 'er.

[Spade]

Lovely thread, just plain lovely.

[Chex]

JVY, you're missing the point that your theory goes from "can be speculated" to "disproven theory due to established facts". You can still call it a theory if you want, but at best it's called a disproven/discredited theory.

Dude, your little examples are mockeries. But if that's how you have fun, have at 'er.

To be fair, his example is exactly like yours. He's making a theory, but it goes against established facts.

[JVY2K]

Regardless, in the end these are all just opinions. You guys are fighting to prove you're "right" and I'm simply just saying theories on movies, regardless of facts, are not nonsense to a fan who wants to have fun with it. I'm not trying to prove I'm right, but being right certainly seems to be important to you guys.

I guess I just don't take movies as seriously as you guys do. They're pieces of fiction and I could really careless what someone wants to think of a movie as long as they have fun with it. That's it for me. In the F-13 section on the old board, there were tones of theories that went against "facts" and we all had fun discussing them. That's the bottom line for me. I log on here to discuss movies and theories and share opinions. I really could careless how "inane" they are, as to me they are just pieces of fiction sittin' on a shelf. I've read some really out of this world theories on films before, some that I didn't agree with myself, but I didn't try to discredit the person for something they've come up with and enjoy. I discussed it with them. That seems to be lost on you two, but like I've said, it's all just opinion...

Neither of you are right. I'm not right. We're all just sharing opinions. Simple as.

[Chex]

Since everything else you've written has been touched upon (repeatedly), I'll just comment on one thing.

I log on here to discuss movies and theories and share opinions. I really could careless how "inane" they are, as to me they are just pieces of fiction sittin' on a shelf. I've read some really out of this world theories on films before, some that I didn't agree with myself, but I didn't try to discredit the person for something they've come up with and enjoy. I discussed it with them. That seems to be lost on you two, but like I've said, it's all just opinion...

It's been discussed. It's what we've done. It's been shown that facts in the film go against your theory. That was the discussion over it. Instead of taking that and leaving it, you instead ignore any try at discussing how the theory is right by using movie facts, examples, statements, etc but attempt to discuss how the theory can still be right in general due to definition.

I honestly don't see how you can read through all these posts and not understand that your theory was talked about and proven that it can't work given all the information the films provide to us. You sound as if you can't accept the fact that it's disproven and keep trying to cling to it by playing "run around" over it's technical name instead of discussing your theory further with other facts from the series.

[The Dream Master]

Chex, exactly.

We did attempt to discuss this theory. You put out a particularly wild theory that flies in the face of the facts, and I rebutted it. That is discussion. Now, if you could have come back with a response that was backed by some sort of sense, then the discussion would have continued.

However, when someone resorts to saying "well, it's my opinion and I don't care what you say," we no longer have discussion.

Like I said earlier, if you want to go over to the fan-fic forum and discuss an alternative to H20, by all means, go for it. I'll be more than happy to discuss it because it's not like I exactly love H20.

[JVY2K]

Since everything else you've written has been touched upon (repeatedly), I'll just comment on one thing.



It's been discussed. It's what we've done. It's been shown that facts in the film go against your theory. That was the discussion over it. Instead of taking that and leaving it, you instead ignore any try at discussing how the theory is right by using movie facts, examples, statements, etc but attempt to discuss how the theory can still be right in general due to definition.

I honestly don't see how you can read through all these posts and not understand that your theory was talked about and proven that it can't work given all the information the films provide to us. You sound as if you can't accept the fact that it's disproven and keep trying to cling to it by playing "run around" over it's technical name instead of discussing your theory further with other facts from the series.

What I said in my last post covers exactly how I feel. We obviously have different opinions when it comes to how we discuss movies. And that's cool.

*Tickles your balls* it's my theory that you enjoyed that. :D

[Chex]

I'm not surprised in the least that you don't understand how even that theory is disproven in this topic. ;)

[JVY2K]

I'm not surprised in the least that you don't understand how even that theory is disproven in this topic. ;)

You loved it.

[Scarecrow]

Halloween 5 doens't count. It ignores the previous films. The FACT is that the Myers house is a manshion. Houses cannot change size. Therefor it is a FACT that Halloween 5 ignores the previous films and that Halloween 6 ignores Part 5. It is a FACT that Jason can teleport and was a normal kid in Part 8, it ignores the others clearly. Part 2 didn't happen as Myers was on fire badly burning and Loomis clearly blew up, Parts 4 AND H20 ignore Loomis's death and n H20 Myers just "vanished" and isn't burnt. So it's a FACT.

Man, we could go on for DAYS like this.

I tell you what, it's a FACT that none of these are FACTS because it's all fictional and part of a fictional universe which is all open to interpretation and will never fully fit together. People ignore the Myers House magical transformation, they ignore small details or design links so the continuity works for them. It's not just a FACT but a studied area of academics that fans do this.

And some people should chill out and not get so hung up on being "right" and trying to find some high ground over other fans by claiming to just use "facts" when the veyr nature of any fandom is inter-atcivity with a text and the desire to discuss, change and alter texts and characters to fit a unified whole. It's fun, it's part of fandom and it isn't going away even when some people tyr to bring "reason" and "facts" into a fictional Universe that others just want to enjoy.


- Scarecrow

[French Friday]

So in order to make everything fit, you ignore statements?

Human error. The cop doesn't seem to be very smart. His partner seems to be the head of the duet. The idiot cop wasn't even there in 1978 and what happened in 4-6 are able to be blamed on a copycat (in the reality of the movie, because it's Myers for sure for us). Do you remember the cops in H4 answering to Loomis ? "Myers alive, is it a joke ?".

So I don't ignore statements, I understand them the way I want. Which is very different.

I prefer enjoying the whole franchise than just listening to producers that hate the franchise.
ADDED:
The H20 Cop is a member of Thorn and is trying to throw everyone off by insisting Myers has been dead for years. :p

You know I like that idea ? I have to work it out. ;)
ADDED:
Exactly, after a certain event, the police force was convinced. Now what belief could there be that the residents of the city didn't? It's simple. They did.

This was shown to us in H6 with the ban on Halloween. Heck, Myers was even still being talked about on radio shows and known by the general public as callers were talking about him.

Well, show me the scene in H4-H5-H6 where someone takes Myers identity card.

There's only Loomis to say it's Myers. And everyone, as well as his colleagues, say he's crazy.

You assume the 10 years with Michael in a coma was known by people, but how ? It seems to me that it was never told that Myers survived that night of 78. We can say that the medias and the authorities say Myers was dead in 1978, just to appease them, to not scare them. Myers is dead, no more problem. The cop from H20 just knows what the medias said.

Then 4-5 happened. Did you see how many people wear Michael's mask, pretending to be him ? That's what happened with urban legend and boogeymen, not with alive serial killers.

So then, in H6 they forbid Halloween. But not because of Michael Myers. Simply because of the murders that happened on the halloween night.

As I always say, you're the watcher, you decide.

I just tell you that my theory is simple and coherent with what happened and is said on screen.

It's just long to explain, but it's very simple. And it's long because there's 20 years of events to discuss with many characters and places.

ADDED:
Bingo. Theorizing is fine, but if it encounters facts that disprove it then the theory is dead.

And what happens when you have a counter-theory to answer to your counter-facts ?

In my theory, I have one main "counter-fact" : the cop saying Michael disappeared 20 years ago.

For my theory to work, I have to find why he's wrong. Is he lying ? (a Thorn member ?) Is he stupid ? (Human error) Does he know only what the authorities of 1978 said ?

It's only when I have NO answer that the theory is dead.

Only for now, no one found a plot hole I couldn't answered.

-----------------------------------

To conclude, I'm always very happy when someone brings to me "counter-facts", because that way, I can upgrade my theory to another that works better.

Just don't say a theory is ridiculous. Discuss it, but respect it.

[JVY2K]

Ah yes! Two of my kinda movie fans.

Well said Scarecrow and French :D!

[Chex]

Scarecrow: The latest entry overrides anything that the new entry contradicts the older entry. It's as easy as that. The Myers house changed in H5. By H6, it's back to normal. That's just one example. It's a retcon of sorts.

Human error. The cop doesn't seem to be very smart. His partner seems to be the head of the duet. The idiot cop wasn't even there in 1978 and what happened in 4-6 are able to be blamed on a copycat (in the reality of the movie, because it's Myers for sure for us). Do you remember the cops in H4 answering to Loomis ? "Myers alive, is it a joke ?".

It's been a while since I've seen the start of H20, but I don't remember anyone disagreeing with the cop's statement. Of course, you're connection to H4 is at the start of the film. By H6, we've seen that Myers was believed by all as it almost destroyed Haddonfield and even placed a ban on Halloween itself. Notice nobody in that film ever mentioned a "copy cat" as that's mere speculation on your part with no evid

So I don't ignore statements, I understand them the way I want. Which is very different.

Interpretation is one thing. Twisting and bending the statement, when you've acknowledged that you understood the statement just fine, but are choosing to ignore it is doing just that.

I prefer enjoying the whole franchise than just listening to producers that hate the franchise.

But you don't enjoy the franchise as a whole as you yourself have said that you ignore Halloween 8. (Trust me, I'm not really arguing though about that choice :) )

Well, show me the scene in H4-H5-H6 where someone takes Myers identity card.

There's only Loomis to say it's Myers. And everyone, as well as his colleagues, say he's crazy.

It didn't take long for the sherrif to believe him in H4. As for the identity card, please, did you hear anyone at the end of H5 suggesting "we have this man captured that looks like Myers, but I don't think it's him"? No. They believed it was him.

You assume the 10 years with Michael in a coma was known by people, but how ? It seems to me that it was never told that Myers survived that night of 78. We can say that the medias and the authorities say Myers was dead in 1978, just to appease them, to not scare them. Myers is dead, no more problem. The cop from H20 just knows what the medias said.

People in certain positions or worked certain jobs knew such as levels of the police force, institutions, hospitals. As for the general public, they obviously knew about him after H4 as we see by H6.

Then 4-5 happened. Did you see how many people wear Michael's mask, pretending to be him ? That's what happened with urban legend and boogeymen, not with alive serial killers.

Once again, I point towards H6. By that time, he wasn't an urban legend.

I just tell you that my theory is simple and coherent with what happened and is said on screen.

It's just long to explain, but it's very simple. And it's long because there's 20 years of events to discuss with many characters and places.

Then let's just get back to your theory. As I said before, the theory is fine except (and as I pointed out further above) you're choosing to ignore a statement that you yourself have acknowledged. It's not a matter of interpretation as you've even said you understood the statement and what it meant, it's the simple fact that you're using speculation and assumption to make the statement work with your theory without using any hard evidence to disprove the man's words. You've stepped over that boundary, so to speak.

And what happens when you have a counter-theory to answer to your counter-facts ?

In my theory, I have one main "counter-fact" : the cop saying Michael disappeared 20 years ago.

For my theory to work, I have to find why he's wrong. Is he lying ? (a Thorn member ?) Is he stupid ? (Human error) Does he know only what the authorities of 1978 said ?

It's only when I have NO answer that the theory is dead.

Only for now, no one found a plot hole I couldn't answered.

If you can find a counter argument against the man's statement using other evidence, then go for it. However, your method of choosing to ignore the statement isn't a counter argument as it's just be selective to make your theory fit while pushing aside statements and facts. There's a difference there.

To conclude, I'm always very happy when someone brings to me "counter-facts", because that way, I can upgrade my theory to another that works better.

Just don't say a theory is ridiculous. Discuss it, but respect it.

Which is what I've done. I explained why it didn't work and here we are, having a discussion. I'll be honest with you, you're more than welcome to reply to all the bits about H4, H5, H6 as I'm going to stop there with them. The main issue at hand is how you're dealing with the statement.

[Scarecrow]

Scarecrow: The latest entry overrides anything that the new entry contradicts the older entry. It's as easy as that. The Myers house changed in H5. By H6, it's back to normal. That's just one example. It's a retcon of sorts.

It's all a retcon. A house changing size is no different to what H20 did,it's just most fans are happy to ignore it. As others are happy to ignore certian inconsistancies.


I explained why it didn't work and here we are, having a discussion. I'll be honest with you, you're more than welcome to reply to all the bits about H4, H5, H6 as I'm going to stop there with them. The main issue at hand is how you're dealing with the statement.

No you didn't. You explained why it didn't work FOR YOU. It's all personal, and since none of it is real then none of it is any more valid than anything else. The person who enjoys and make it work is better off, IMO, than the person who hates and wants it to not fit.


- Scarecrow

[Chex]

It's all a retcon. A house changing size is no different to what H20 did,it's just most fans are happy to ignore it. As others are happy to ignore certian inconsistancies.

I never said they couldn't ignore it. Anyone is happy to do as they please. It's that when someone brings up a theory to show that the retcon didn't happen, yet is lacking evidence and tossing aside statements, that's where I draw the line.

No you didn't. You explained why it didn't work FOR YOU. It's all personal, and since none of it is real then none of it is any more valid than anything else. The person who enjoys and make it work is better off, IMO, than the person who hates and wants it to not fit.

Scare, I've explained how theories work. I've explained how if something that's stated and goes against your theory, it stops the theory. He can go ahead with the theory all he wants, but whenever he tries to present it as a workable theory, I will always disagree as all he did to get around the bit that discredits it is by discrediting a statement and ignoring it.

[JVY2K]

The debate you and Dream Master have goin' here Chex is pointless. You're debating with the fact that some fans like coming up with theories or explanations for certain things in movies to allow them to enjoy them better.

There's different types of fans when it comes to watching and enjoying movies. There's the kind like you guys who watch a movie for what it is and nothing more. If it's good, you like it. If it's bad, you dislike it. Simple as. Then there's the types of fans like Scarecrow, French Friday and myself who choose to apply theories or explanations to certain things in order to enjoy the movie more. Regardless of whether the theory goes against facts laid out in the movie isn't the point. It's a fictional universe and anything is up for interpretation.

Take JTM for example. It's a fact that at the end of the movie Jason turns back into a child. Many many fans however have applied a theory that is was simply just another hallucination of Rennie's. And that works.

Neither kind of fan is more right or wrong than the other. Everyone simply views movies in different ways. And whether or not their theory has a few holes in it makes no difference. And like Scare said, I feel the fans who find ways to enjoy movies full of plot holes or ways to connect movies that ignore each other have a better viewing experience than those who just sit and grumble about how inconsistent a particular sequel was.

[Chex]

The debate you and Dream Master have goin' here Chex is pointless. You're debating with the fact that some fans like coming up with theories or explanations for certain things in movies to allow them to enjoy them better.

You're obviously not reading the posts then as that's not what either of us have been doing. You've also missed (and it was even in my last post) how discussing theories is all fine and dandy.

A theory was presented to everyone as to how the series all fits together. The theory uses facts and statements from the films to help bring it together. To the person who makes the theory, he/she can sit around and say that it works perfectly as much as he/she wants to.

To everyone else, who the theory is presented, is a different matter. Statements and facts disprove the theory. That means the theory doesn't make sense and is discredited. So now this situation arises:

Movies - take precedence over anything else
Fan theory - take precedence over anything else

The theory is being selective now by ignoring facts and statements and taking precedence over the films. If you want to believe that, then go for it. However, it doesn't mean the theory is sound and works as it's quite the opposite.

It can, however, work as fanfiction as that's the next category it falls into.

And whether or not their theory has a few holes in it makes no difference.

I'm not going to respond to everything you wrote again JVY as there's plenty of posts that respond to it. However, the quoted section needs attention.

You don't seem to understand what makes a theory work and what doesn't. This is your problem. I highly suggest you reread these posts again as they all go into an explanation. If the theory has holes in it, that's one thing. French's theory goes against a stated fact and has no counter arguement with other stated facts to disprove the original statement to begin with. The theory is now discredited. Him continuing to pursue it and ingore and/or change other facts is allowed, except that it's now fan fiction.

[JVY2K]

The theory is being selective now by ignoring facts and statements and taking precedence over the films. If you want to believe that, then go for it. However, it doesn't mean the theory is sound and works as it's quite the opposite.

If works for the fan who's come up with it, then it is sound and it does work for them. If someone else doesn't think it works, that's their opinion. You can lay out all the facts you want, but whether it disproves a theory or not is your opinion based on your viewing experience. It's impossible to tell someone that the way they view a film or a set of films is right or wrong, because all human beings are different with a different thought process. Do you understand that?

Realistically speaking, articles that talk about how H2O would be ignoring H 4-6 are given facts that it does indeed ignore them. This is common knowledge. Everyone knows the movies intention was to have H2O follow H2. However, many fans of come up with theories or explanations that still ties the series together. Of course it really doesn't it's been stated H2O ignores 4-6. But in their Halloween universe and the way they enjoy the movies, the series is connected and it works. Obviously there are tones of facts that show the movie ignores 4-6. This still doesn't make said fans theory "dead" or "wrong" because it works for that fan. Another fan might have a completely different way they choose to link the films together and for them, that works.

It's a fictional universe of fictional tales on screen. Why do you think discussion forums are so huge out there? They wouldn't be half as big if every single fan out there simply took a movie for what it is, took in the facts and never came up with their own stuff to apply to the movie. This is why there were threads 300 pages long on the original F-13 board discussing theories and opinions on ways to link up the poor continuity of the F-13 series and other films. If everyone thought like you and Dream Master, then the discussions wouldn't be half as big. And THAT is a fact..

You don't seem to understand what makes a theory work and what doesn't. This is your problem. I highly suggest you reread these posts again as they all go into an explanation. If the theory has holes in it, that's one thing. French's theory goes against a stated fact and has no counter arguement with other stated facts to disprove the original statement to begin with. The theory is now discredited. Him continuing to pursue it and ingore and/or change other facts is allowed, except that it's now fan fiction.

Nah bro, I understand fine. I just don't agree with you. French's theory works for him and because it does, the theory works fine. In your mind, it's discredited because you like to look at the facts and nothing beyond. French chooses to find ways around the facts to apply to his theory and thus enjoy the movie more. Does that make him wrong for going against "facts" in the movie? Not at all. Does it make you right because you've disproved his theory with facts? Nope. It all comes down to how someone wants to view a movie(s)...

And the thing between you and French here is a perfect example of how there's so many different kinds of fans out there.

Sorry bud, but in the world of movie watching, there is no right or wrong. Just many many opinions...

[The Dream Master]

Two things: the Myers house from Halloween 5 looking different is way different than H20 just denying the existence of 4-6. It's a production fuck-up, but it's minor because it doesn't really change the plot elements of the films that came before it. If you want to get this picky about things, then you'd have to question if Jason has in fact been the killer in every F13 flick because he looks different in every movie. However, this is ludicrous. Obviously, it's not black and white every time, but when a movie pretty much comes out and ignores previous events, then it's pretty simple to me.

And second, this statement:

Take JTM for example. It's a fact that at the end of the movie Jason turns back into a child. Many many fans however have applied a theory that is was simply just another hallucination of Rennie's. And that works.

This is 100% true. And you know why I have no issue with it? Because of the part I bolded. It works because there is no evidence anywhere that suggests this couldn't be true. In fact, JTM practically suggests Rennie is crazy as a bat because she's always seeing shit. This is a good theory, whereas the theory that 4-6 and H20 can be somehow reconciled is just a bad theory. I mean, here's the deal: if you really think this H20 theory of your's is defendable, how come you haven't tried to convince me otherwise? If all you can say is "it's my theory and I like it," then there's obviously not much there. I'll at least give French Friday credit--he tries to give me some evidence that I can maybe consider. I don't agree with his theory, but I respect it because he puts some effort behind it.

Also, I really love that assumption that I only look at movies and "take them for what they are." If I did this, I assure you I wouldn't be on a message board posting about this shit all the time. French knows this--hell, he and I have been back and forth on the NOES timeline for years now. Furthermore, I can assure you that I've done more than my fair share of interpretation of works, seeing as how I've been an English major for six years.

Anyway, this is my final word on the subject. I'm all for people having their little theories, but if I don't agree with them and can provide evidence as to why, I expect the same in return. "Theories" and "interpretations" are only as good as the evidence behind them.

[Dave Dunwoody]

I like to think that 4-6 & H20 can exist in the same universe, but it does take a lot of work. You have to rationalize gaping plotholes, and you can come up with an elaborate backstory to explain them, but you shouldn't have to put that kind of effort into simply enjoying some movies. Unfortunately Halloween puts us in that boat.

Still, for fanboys like me, it's fun. :D

[Deathscythe]

I'd rather just leave it simple and have H20 ignore it.

[Chex]

Nah bro, I understand fine. I just don't agree with you. French's theory works for him and because it does, the theory works fine. In your mind, it's discredited because you like to look at the facts and nothing beyond. French chooses to find ways around the facts to apply to his theory and thus enjoy the movie more. Does that make him wrong for going against "facts" in the movie? Not at all. Does it make you right because you've disproved his theory with facts? Nope. It all comes down to how someone wants to view a movie(s)...


Your first and section sections are basically the same, so I quoted the shorter of the two.

As I said, he can keep the theory and let it work for him. I've said numerous times. Multiple. Many. More than once.

What doesn't work is his theory being presented for everyone to show how the films are linked. If he, or anyone else, wants to believe it then they can. Here's the key though: It's not fact. His theory isn't sound so if it's ever presented as being evidence that it can, then it's discarded to the side.

It's as if I said Annie didn't die in Halloween 2 as she's seen in Halloween 3 because Nancy Loomis Keys is in it. What discredits that theory? She's shown to be dead (and I'm wanting to be stated as such as well, but my memory is foggy). So when it all comes down to it, if I ever present this theory to anyone as a fact, at the end of the day, it's not. It's a descredited theory that's been proven wrong.

Now take it one step further: Annie wasn't actually dead in Halloween 2 and it was her in Halloween 3. As I just ignored evidence that contradicts and halts my theory, i'm now in the area of fan faction or a "what if". It's as simple as that.

Lastly, as far as opinions go, please feel free to think about things as to how you want. At the end of the day, just because you ignored evidence, does it make it right? No.

Take Dream Master's analogy of the sky and saying it's red. It's his opinion. However, facts contradict it. The facts take precedence and he's proven wrong while still holding onto his opinion.

Honestly, I'm done responding to you JVY as you don't seem to understand what's being said and keep hiding behind the idea of "it's just a movie". You've never yet to express a reason why the rules that are used everywhere else concerning how theories, facts, statements, and evidence work are somehow negated when talking about movies. Honestly, I've waited this long and I don't see you ever doing so except repeating yourself (which I'll admit is what I'm having to do).

Anyway, this is my final word on the subject. I'm all for people having their little theories, but if I don't agree with them and can provide evidence as to why, I expect the same in return. "Theories" and "interpretations" are only as good as the evidence behind them.

Exactly and very well put Dream Master. Evidence is used to create the theories. When evidence shows that the theory isn't sound then I expect a better arguement than "the cop's just stupid".

[The Dream Master]

I think French's assertion that the cop could have just been some idiot is reasonable; however, the cop's explanation at the beginning isn't the sole example. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to explain away the notion that Laurie can be told "Myers hasn't been seen in 20 years, he's dead, get over it, etc." without her refuting this by pointing to what happened in 4-6. If anyone would have known about Michael's return to Haddonfield, it would have been Laurie. There's also that age of 17 nonsense, too--obviously, Jamie Lloyd wasn't 17, but Michael came after her anyway. However, if you write out 4-6 like H20 did, you can go ahead with it.

In the end, all of this could have been avoided if they would have kept that one scene in the film that linked H20 to 4-6. Sure, it would have made Laurie look like a terrible person and parent, but that could have added to the complexity of her character.

I know some of you cats must think I'm hell-bent on never having H20 and 4-6 reconciled, but believe me, that's not the case. If there were any conceivable way for me to get behind it, I'd be there. I'm just not seeing it though. I didn't back then, and I still don't now.

[JVY2K]

I like to think that 4-6 & H20 can exist in the same universe, but it does take a lot of work. You have to rationalize gaping plotholes, and you can come up with an elaborate backstory to explain them, but you shouldn't have to put that kind of effort into simply enjoying some movies. Unfortunately Halloween puts us in that boat.

Still, for fanboys like me, it's fun. :D

Exactly man! It's fun. And that's what it all boils down to. Havin' fun with all this shit, regardless of whether it goes agaisnt "facts" or not. Who cares.

This is why you and I are writers. Though I haven't written anything in a LONG time nor accomplished half of what you've done. It's on the back burner for me, which I hope to pick up again sometime soon. Your stuff is amazing though. I always enjoyed your material. Even when we were bitter enemies back in the F-13 days ;)...

Honestly, I'm done responding to you JVY as you don't seem to understand what's being said and keep hiding behind the idea of "it's just a movie". You've never yet to express a reason why the rules that are used everywhere else concerning how theories, facts, statements, and evidence work are somehow negated when talking about movies. Honestly, I've waited this long and I don't see you ever doing so except repeating yourself (which I'll admit is what I'm having to do).

Exactly and very well put Dream Master. Evidence is used to create the theories. When evidence shows that the theory isn't sound then I expect a better arguement than "the cop's just stupid".

They are just movies though. And it's fun to apply theories to movies and explain things that are unexplainable based on facts in the film. Many many many fans do this and to them, none of it is "nonsense" because they enjoy the movies. It may be your opinion that their theory doesn't work but that's where it ends. Your opinion. Just as they have their own. And nobody is right or wrong when it comes to opinions.

This could go back and forth forever because we simply just disagree. Still though, neither of us is more right or wrong in this whole debate.

[Jason's Storm]

I heard this recently, and thought it was really funny. "Never facts, or continuity, get in the way of your story." Or something like that. So basically, if it doesn't fit, ignore it. I think its common among horror movie franshies.

~JS

[Dave Dunwoody]

Exactly man! It's fun. And that's what it all boils down to. Havin' fun with all this shit, regardless of whether it goes agaisnt "facts" or not. Who cares.

This is why you and I are writers. Though I haven't written anything in a LONG time nor accomplished half of what you've done. It's on the back burner for me, which I hope to pick up again sometime soon. Your stuff is amazing though. I always enjoyed your material. Even when we were bitter enemies back in the F-13 days ;)...

Figuring out timelines is nothing. That fighting, now that was a spectacular waste of time. ;) Seriously though, thanks Mike.

But I can understand why people would be uninterested in trying to reconcile continuity, especially with Halloween. The filmmakers have more than once gone out of their way to contradict previous sequels. It's one thing to say that Michael switched places with a paramedic; it's another entirely to say that three fucking films never happened. They could've just ignored those movies, but no, Steve Miner knew that 4-6 (and 2, if he could've swung it) were unworthy of his masterpiece.

[Deathscythe]

Lovely thread, just plain lovely.

Truth, I just reread all of this.

[Chex]

EDIT: I'm just going to delete everything in this reply. There's nothing in it that hasn't been said.

So as to get back as to the actual film, I recently saw the TV version of H20. I at least liked what happened to LL. :)

[French Friday]

Now I understand why you made me angry on the RE thread, there was another "war" on this thread ! It was a double attack ! :p

Now I would like you to understand that I absolutely NEVER ignore a fact shown ON SCREEN in a movie of a franchise. It's my FIRST rule when creating a theory. I can't ignore something. If I ignore something, that means my theory doesn't work.

The cop does say "it was 20 years ago" in my theory. I don't ignore that fact. I'm just asking myself : why does he say that ? Michael was alive and the shape appeared three times between 2 and H20. So why ?


It's been a while since I've seen the start of H20, but I don't remember anyone disagreeing with the cop's statement.

Because you always say to someone he's wrong ? Sometimes you just prefer let him talk and stay silent. Especially if he annoys you. I've always see that duet of cops as a really professionnal cop forced to make a team with the stupid rookie and nephew or brother-in-law of the captain. That's they way these two cops appear to me.

That's the basis of my theories. I try to adapt to the screen what I know of real people. If something can happen to real people, then I don't see anything that would prevent that from happening to the screen people. It has even more chance to happen in a fictional world than in reality !

Of course, you're connection to H4 is at the start of the film. By H6, we've seen that Myers was believed by all as it almost destroyed Haddonfield and even placed a ban on Halloween itself. Notice nobody in that film ever mentioned a "copy cat" as that's mere speculation on your part with no evid

That's speculation of my part for sure. It's a theory. It wouldn't have been a theory and a speculation if it was said clearly on screen. It would have been a fact.

My answer : by H6, thanks to the radio-show, we know that many people like to joke about Myers. Some girl wants to make love with him. We know there's a conspiracy theory around Myers for some people (the mention of Langley being attacked by Myers as a joke). We know by the host that he thought Myers is supposely dead or has simply disappeared since H5, as well as Jamie Lloyd.

So we know by H6 that some people either think Myers is dead, either has disappeared in 1989. Then, if you follow the events of H6, no murderer is arrested. And all the people who have seen Michael were either killed or potential targets (Tommy, Danny, Kara...) who maybe don't want to talk about Michael. Remember also that Tommy was considered by other people like someone a little crazy.

So, all in all, the cop in H20 could be one of those people that thinks Myers has disappeared a long time ago. Was it 10 years ago or 20 years ago ? He didn't remember well. He tries and says 20 years. I don't remember well, but isn't his line a question or something "doubtful" ?


Interpretation is one thing. Twisting and bending the statement, when you've acknowledged that you understood the statement just fine, but are choosing to ignore it is doing just that.

I showed you above how I don't ignore that fact. He says 20 years in my theory.


It didn't take long for the sherrif to believe him in H4. As for the identity card, please, did you hear anyone at the end of H5 suggesting "we have this man captured that looks like Myers, but I don't think it's him"? No. They believed it was him.

Did you hear someone saying "This is the real Michael Myers we just caught ! 11 years after, we finally caught him ! This is him, I know his face !" ?

They believe it was a killer with the Myers mask.

Remember that surely the last picture available from Michael's face was when he was 8. Smith's Groves surely kept the others, if there had been. And remember too, last but not least, that Michael Myers could have had some burnt scares on the face (in the unmasking scene with Jamie, we see mainly his eyes, the rest is in the shadows). Do you think removing his mask would make them sure it's Michael and not a copycat ?


People in certain positions or worked certain jobs knew such as levels of the police force, institutions, hospitals. As for the general public, they obviously knew about him after H4 as we see by H6.

First, they just know there's a killer using the Myers modus operandi. Could be a copycat. No proof it's the same killer as in 1978 (especially when there's 10 years of peace without any murders between both nights)

Second, in my theory, at the end of H2, Myers was thought dead. He was burnt, he surely wasn't moving when put in the ambulance.

There's a scene in H2 where Marion is talking to Loomis about the Michael files. There was always something strange around that scene, as if some people were trying to hide stuff about Michael. by H6 we could say Wynn and the Cult of Thorn were already active and protecting Michael. They had hands in the government. In the medias.

So the 1st of November 1978, the media says to the world that Michael Myers was dead in the explosion, and that Loomis barely survived. "Haddonfield, you can sleep again, the boogeyman is dead !"


Once again, I point towards H6. By that time, he wasn't an urban legend.

You always confound Michael Myers and The Shape.

By H6 and my theory, Michael Myers is dead in 1978 and The Shape killed twice in 1988 and 1989 (the same copycat for both nights, as he escaped in 4 and had the same target). It's easy for the general public to accept that some maniac, fan of Myers, just decide to copy him, to achieve his mission by killing Jamie Lloyd.

I know that kind of copycat happened in a Law & Order episode and it wasn't said unbelievable there...

At least, that's the official version given by the authorities and the media.

But as The Shape disappeared that night with Jamie Lloyd, a legend began to grow around Myers and the Shape. As with Jack the Ripper. And by H6, people were believing stuff, and some others were believing other stuff.


Then let's just get back to your theory. As I said before, the theory is fine except (and as I pointed out further above) you're choosing to ignore a statement that you yourself have acknowledged. It's not a matter of interpretation as you've even said you understood the statement and what it meant, it's the simple fact that you're using speculation and assumption to make the statement work with your theory without using any hard evidence to disprove the man's words. You've stepped over that boundary, so to speak.

Do you think every word coming out of your mouth is always the pure truth ?

You don't know irony ? You don't know "human error" ? You don't know "lying" ? You don't think someone can be wrong on the year of an event ?

Can you tell me when Jack the Ripper disappeared ? Right now, without much thinking ? (the cops weren't investigating a Myers case there, they just arrived on a crime scene and were just beginning to think about Michael).

I don't step over any boundary. I don't ignore a fact. It's just that I'm searching how to interpret that fact. And if there's a context that would modify the meaning ot it. The context here being the previous movies and the way the duet of cops act together. Their characterization.


If you can find a counter argument against the man's statement using other evidence, then go for it. However, your method of choosing to ignore the statement isn't a counter argument as it's just be selective to make your theory fit while pushing aside statements and facts. There's a difference there.

And again, in my theory, the cop DOES SAY "but it was 20 years ago, no ?" (I'm sure it was that kind of line, not something very affirmative).

I never said he doesn't say that line in my theory.

Which is what I've done. I explained why it didn't work and here we are, having a discussion. I'll be honest with you, you're more than welcome to reply to all the bits about H4, H5, H6 as I'm going to stop there with them. The main issue at hand is how you're dealing with the statement.

Here's what happened :

1) You gave me a counter-fact, explaining me why it doesn't work.

2) I give you now - here above - my counter-theory, explaining why it works.

So now you can either 3) Give me a new counter-fact and I will 4) try to find a new counter-theory. Maybe I won't be able and have to accept my theory doesn't work.

or 3) You just accept that my theory works.

or 3) You stop the discussion.

But I would prefer ending the discussion on something better than just a non-ending.
ADDED:
Two things: the Myers house from Halloween 5 looking different is way different than H20 just denying the existence of 4-6. It's a production fuck-up, but it's minor because it doesn't really change the plot elements of the films that came before it.

"it's minor"

You just nailed it.

It's as minor as one-line in a 80 minutes movie.

But the fact is that the house is different. You take the fact and you just bend it to your desire.

"It's not a different house, it's a production fuck-up."

And for me and the 20 years :

"It's not the truth, it's a cop fuck-up".

You see something on screen, you hear something on screen, and you just decide to go around it, to find an explanation to enjoy better the movie.

But I would go further by saying the house is a plot-hole I would like to find an explanation for, but can't.

It bothers me every time, but I can't find any explanation. If I was able to find an explanation the same way I found an explanation for the 20 years, I would be very happy.

As for Jason Voorhees, thanks to his regeneration power, his different appearances are easily explanable.

Because for that too, I have theories.

Theories exist to make coherent something that isn't

Why would you make theories if everything was already coherent ?
ADDED:
I left but I come back because I just thought about something to explain to you how theories works for me :

I think that was Dream Master taking this mocking example about a blue sky being said red by a theory. There he was saying that we can't do anything with theories. There are boundaries.

So I played around that.

Imagine you go outside, the sky is clearly blue, and you say "Oh, what a nice red sky today !". You're obviously wrong. You said it, no one ignores it, but you're wrong. The same with my "20 years ago" cop problem. The guy says something, but in the story, he's obviously wrong.

So why did you say the sky is red ?

1) You are crazy/stupid.
2) You have an eye illness (you're daltonian, if that the same word in english)
3) You were taught your whole life that blue is red.
4) You have a brain illness and the words and their meanings are mixed in your mind. You think blue but say red.
5) You're just joking
6) You're lying because you hate blue skies (irony).

What is the right answer ?

The context will help. The reaction of people around you to your statement. What you will say the rest of the movie.

Maybe they will be silent and sad -> it's a brain illness.
Maybe they will be shocked -> you're crazy.
Maybe they will laugh out loud -> it's another of your jokes.
Maybe they will answer "no, it's blue, what are you high, idiot !" -> you're stupid
Maybe they will answer "stop talking shit and bring me back my money !" -> they are bad guys and you just want to show you aren't afraid of them.

There it is, just an example of how the exact same line can have multiple meanings depending on the context.

[The Dream Master]

French, like I said, the cop's line can be explained away; however, he's not the only one who thinks Myers has been gone for 20 years. Most importantly, Laurie herself believes he's been gone for 20 years, which makes no sense considering how paranoid she is. If anyone would be aware of Michael's exploits in 4-6, it would be her. I can't buy into the idea that she just took off and didn't monitor what was going on in Haddonfield as controlling as she is throughout H20.

There's also the "17 years old thing" that H20 was trying to bring into canon, which obviously ignores 4-6.

Like I've said, I respect people who try to reconcile the two, but no one's been able to convince me that it's possible for the past 8 or 9 years now.

[Chex]

No offense French, and I'm glad you responded, but I haven't read your response past the first bit as I've stated my thoughts on the matter. Once I got the bit about speculating the other officer's and their silence in comparison to the statement, I decided to just scroll down and stop.

You're not going to convince me that your theory is in any way relevant just as I'm not going to convince you that your theory is a sound idea.

[JVY2K]

Figuring out timelines is nothing. That fighting, now that was a spectacular waste of time. ;) Seriously though, thanks Mike.

But I can understand why people would be uninterested in trying to reconcile continuity, especially with Halloween. The filmmakers have more than once gone out of their way to contradict previous sequels. It's one thing to say that Michael switched places with a paramedic; it's another entirely to say that three fucking films never happened. They could've just ignored those movies, but no, Steve Miner knew that 4-6 (and 2, if he could've swung it) were unworthy of his masterpiece.

Haha, indeed it was.

And I agree, I can perfectly understand why some may not be interested in linking up the movies. The Halloween's make it difficult. My argument in all this though is it's silly for someone to just come along and say "Nope, that's wrong and here's the facts" and assume they are 100% right in the matter. Disagree and discuss all you want, but to just assume they are 100% right when in their mind they disprove a theory is immature. Discussion boards are about discussing and debating. Not a proving ground for being right and proving other people wrong.

For example:

"I don't quite agree, here's why" rather than the pompous approach of "Nope, that's nonsense. It ignores the facts. Your theory is dead!" with an added little stinger of "You're welcome to believe that, but it's still not a sound theory" in other words saying "I'm right, you're wrong but you're welcome to think that way"...

No one person is ever always right and never wrong. And when it comes to such a thing as debating pieces of fiction, the sky is the limit and there is and never will be a right or a wrong.

[Chex]

Not a proving ground for being right and proving other people wrong.


Yet you continue to show ingnorance on how theories work. They can be proven to be true or to be proven false. Also, the discussion was about how the theory is shown to be false due to evidence. The discussion doesn't stop there though as it can continue in the form of how the theory can counter the evidence and etc.

You can call it immature that an idea is shot down because of evidence stating otherwise. You can call it whatever you want, but it's how theories work.

There's been plenty of examples as to how your line of thinking such as "it's all opinion based despite evidence" is immature. Your response shows exactly that as you try to brush it off with a cheap comment of "whatever, it's only films lol".

Go to school, enter a class, and then give your reasoning for why the sky is red while prying on to the idea of "it's my opinion so it can't be wrong". Of course, everyone will show and say how your opinion is correct by backing up the reasoning with evidence. It's ok though, just stick with "but it's my opinion" and see how you hold up.

Oh, and stop with the "you guys just think you're absolutely correct" bit. Dream Master and myself have only been talking about one portion of his theory and why it goes against evidence. No where did we ever state "we're always right" as it's just BS coming from you. You can call it immature, you can call it pompousness, call it whatever you want when you're shown to be incorrect about something, but don't just sit around and make up things.

[JVY2K]

Yet you continue to show ingnorance on how theories work. They can be proven to be true or to be proven false. Also, the discussion was about how the theory is shown to be false due to evidence. The discussion doesn't stop there though as it can continue in the form of how the theory can counter the evidence and etc.

You can call it immature that an idea is shot down because of evidence stating otherwise. You can call it whatever you want, but it's how theories work.

There's been plenty of examples as to how your line of thinking such as "it's all opinion based despite evidence" is immature. Your response shows exactly that as you try to brush it off with a cheap comment of "whatever, it's only films lol".

Go to school, enter a class, and then give your reasoning for why the sky is red while prying on to the idea of "it's my opinion so it can't be wrong". Of course, everyone will show and say how your opinion is correct by backing up the reasoning with evidence. It's ok though, just stick with "but it's my opinion" and see how you hold up.

Oh, and stop with the "you guys just think you're absolutely correct" bit. Dream Master and myself have only been talking about one portion of his theory and why it goes against evidence. No where did we ever state "we're always right" as it's just BS coming from you. You can call it immature, you can call it pompousness, call it whatever you want when you're shown to be incorrect about something, but don't just sit around and make up things.

I've already heard all this from you dude. You repeat yourself as much you claim I do. You have your opinion and I have mine. I am certainly not alone in my line of thinking and neither are you. Simple as...

[The Dream Master]

Alright, despite participating in this discussion (and having said my last piece on the matter), I'm going to have to stick the mod hat on and ask you guys to continue this debate on "theories" or whatever in PMs (or create another thread somewhere).

If you want to discuss/debate theories that are particularly relevant to Halloween H20 (like French is doing), then that's fair game.

[Chex]

That sounds fine. I was going to suggest that anyway since we're now delving off topic (again....sorry).

On topic: I still enjoy the scene where Laurie decides to confront Michael. There's this nice shot of the school that's darkened out a bit (it's night) with the theme music playing.

[JVY2K]

That sounds fine. I was going to suggest that anyway since we're now delving off topic (again....sorry).

On topic: I still enjoy the scene where Laurie decides to confront Michael. There's this nice shot of the school that's darkened out a bit (it's night) with the theme music playing.

Do I detect the sound of lips smackin' cheeks?

Nah, it's all good. That scene is cool. The ending of H2O with the Laurie/Michael battle makes up for the rest of the film...

[Chex]

Do I detect the sound of lips smackin' cheeks?

I have no idea exactly what's going on where ever you live to determine what sounds are around you.

Nah, it's all good. That scene is cool. The ending of H2O with the Laurie/Michael battle makes up for the rest of the film...

I agree, I think it's the higher point of the film. That, and it shows what Myers thinks of tables that are in his way. :p

[Patrick]

I love the way Halloween H2O opens....with the Dimension logo appearing on the screen while Mr. Sandman begins to play in the background and continues to play while Nurse Nancy gets out of her car and walks up to her house. And when she gets to the front door, she steps on the broken glass and the music just stops......I love that. It always reminds me of Halloween II.

And later when Jamie Lee Curtis turns on the radio it is playing...that was a nice touch.

[French Friday]

No offense French, and I'm glad you responded, but I haven't read your response past the first bit as I've stated my thoughts on the matter. Once I got the bit about speculating the other officer's and their silence in comparison to the statement, I decided to just scroll down and stop.

Body language. Do you really think a silence means nothing ? And what do you make about the context of the scene ?

It seems to me that you can't accept that someone in a movie could act like a real person. For you, someone on screen can't lie, can't be wrong. He said it, so it's true ? Even if there are other evidences against it (the 4-6 stories as in my theory, the events happened, because that's also a basis for any theory-making : first, you always have to choose which movies happened, then, you try to put them together).

You're not going to convince me that your theory is in any way relevant just as I'm not going to convince you that your theory is a sound idea.

Too bad you take it that way.

I just want you to accept the fact that I'm NOT ignoring facts.

Is it really so hard to accept that my theory is only based on what is shown and heard on screen ?

You can say everything about my theories, disagree about them, but NOT that I'm ignoring facts.

Now my theory is just a theory, meaning it can be weird or wrong for you. But hey, sound means correct, no ? So I suppose you were thinking the opposite of what you wrote. Because I already know my theory is sound ! :p

What I want to say is : where the fun of writing theories if we can't speculate on everything on screen ? On a silence, on a glance... When making theories, EVERY DETAIL counts.

I understand that for you, making theories is just summing up the movies for people who haven't understood every plot point.

Theories are just needless in that case. Theories exist to explain plot holes. The "20 years" in H20 is a plot hole when you consider 4-6 exist. So you have to speculate to fit that "20 years" in the story you want to watch.

And as I always say, you're the watcher, you decide.
ADDED:
French, like I said, the cop's line can be explained away; however, he's not the only one who thinks Myers has been gone for 20 years.

I just answered to Chex about the "cop point". But I have answers for everything.

It's just long because it's a long story.

Most importantly, Laurie herself believes he's been gone for 20 years, which makes no sense considering how paranoid she is. If anyone would be aware of Michael's exploits in 4-6, it would be her. I can't buy into the idea that she just took off and didn't monitor what was going on in Haddonfield as controlling as she is throughout H20.

And I agree with you, she's well aware. She watched TV in 1988 and 1989 and 1995. She was in California, she learned on TV that her daughter she abandonned was tracked then killed by The Shape. She was surely already drinking but in 1988, she began to drink a lot more. She knew Michael was alive and was tracking her family. All this time, she knew.

Don't tell me you didn't see that Laurie herself always sees Michael everywhere, every year, especially when Halloween is coming ? If she thought he was dead in 1978, she wouldn't be as afraid. It's a big part of the plot of H20. You can't ignore it !

But her son, like everyone else who wasn't attacked directly by Myers in 1978, knows what the authorities and medias said : Myers is dead in 1978. "Don't you tell me you saw him burn ?" "well, I didn't really SEE him...".

You see, I give you explanations based on what is shown and said in H20.


There's also the "17 years old thing" that H20 was trying to bring into canon, which obviously ignores 4-6.

Well, it was just something a drunk and paranoid mother said. It's not any proof that's the way Michael works. Just a coincidence.

As you say, H20 was "trying" to bring it into canon, but NOWHERE in H20 there's a scientific proof or supernatural analysis that would say it's THE rule.

And now I would say : show me the proof in the series that Michael kills only his 17 years old sisters. BTW, I think I remember Judith Myers wasn't 17 the day of her death in the original movie, there was a discussion about that.


Like I've said, I respect people who try to reconcile the two, but no one's been able to convince me that it's possible for the past 8 or 9 years now.

I'm not trying to convince you.

I'm just trying to make you accept that my theory is based on FACTS shown on screen and doesn't contradict anything.

And you just don't like it, simply. I respect that. You're the watcher, you decide.

THAT would be showing respect.

[JVY2K]

You rule French Friday! And I definitely don't detect the sound of lips smackin' cheeks here. Very good bro, very good!

[hack slash]

I definitely don't detect the sound of lips smackin' cheeks here.

wow, somebody's gotta weird lip smackin on cheeks fetish:p


Personally I'm glad they did H2O the way it was, ignoring the dumbness of 4-6(4 is still a decent film, 5 and 6 not so much)

[Chex]

Body language. Do you really think a silence means nothing ? And what do you make about the context of the scene ?

It seems to me that you can't accept that someone in a movie could act like a real person. For you, someone on screen can't lie, can't be wrong. He said it, so it's true ? Even if there are other evidences against it (the 4-6 stories as in my theory, the events happened, because that's also a basis for any theory-making : first, you always have to choose which movies happened, then, you try to put them together).

Too bad you take it that way.

I just want you to accept the fact that I'm NOT ignoring facts.

Is it really so hard to accept that my theory is only based on what is shown and heard on screen ?

You can say everything about my theories, disagree about them, but NOT that I'm ignoring facts.

Now my theory is just a theory, meaning it can be weird or wrong for you. But hey, sound means correct, no ? So I suppose you were thinking the opposite of what you wrote. Because I already know my theory is sound !

I'm sorry French, but I don't accept it as it comes off as desperately trying to find a way around the statement. It looks as if you're now using the "interpretation" approach and that's one thing I'm not even going to get into with anyone.

Also, about the "hey said it so it's true" bit, yes I do believe so as there's no evidence given that he's lying or incorrect in any way.

I understand that for you, making theories is just summing up the movies for people who haven't understood every plot point.

You're completely incorrect. How you even came to that conclusion is something I can't figure out.

In the case of films, I see theories as a way to explain what hasn't been explained and/or to fill in any gaps between certain points. Just like when theories are used on everything else in life, I see them as going three possible routes:

1. The theory is proven true by evidence and not countered by any. (Annie dies in Halloween 2 as an example)

2. The theory is proven false as evidence counters the theory. (Laurie Strode dies at the end of Halloween 1 for example)

3. The theory is an idea that hasn't been proven true nor can be denied. (Dr. Loomis visits the Rabbit In Red at some point in his life for example)

[BlakeTyner]

Thread closed. Now play nice.

~Blake

[The Dream Master]

Alright, I'm reopening this thread with the caveat that everyone's gotta play nice, as Blake so eloquently put it.

Furthermore, this thread's only going to stay open as long as we can stay on topic and discuss H20. If someone wants to go and make a thread that debates what counts and how we determine timelines/canon, feel free to do so. If you want to debate how H20 does or does not fit into here, then do that here.

Finally, don't post in this thread unless you really have something to contribute to the discussion. This really goes for any thread, but it's particularly relevant to this thread.

Anyway, on with the debating...
------------------------------------

I'm not trying to convince you.

I'm just trying to make you accept that my theory is based on FACTS shown on screen and doesn't contradict anything.

And you just don't like it, simply. I respect that. You're the watcher, you decide.

THAT would be showing respect.

Come on FF, you know me better than that. You know I respect your opinion on these matters. In fact, I bow to your never-ending quest to tie everything together, and I usually can see your point (even if I don't agree with it). You're the forum's official "timeline guy" as far as I'm concerned. :bow:

However, with H20, I just think your theory is quite a stretch. Yes, nothing indicates that Laurie hasn't been keeping up with the events in Haddonfield (if you assume 4-6 happened), but it seems to me that ,if she were so intent on scaring John into staying home, she would have mentioned that Michael definately didn't die back in '78. That she didn't indicates that H20 definately is ignoring 4-6 because it contradicts Laurie's paranoid nature too much.

Also, with the "17 years old thing," I guess you could attribute that to some aimless speculation on Laurie's part. However, I do think Judith was 17 as well. Doesn't Laurie say so during that scene? I honestly can't remember.

There's also Jamie's dad (Jimmy, I guess): he obviously died the same night as Laurie supposedly did, so he would have to be in on whatever conspiracy Laurie was trying to pull. I can't be led to believe that two parents would willingly leave a daughter behind like that. This is not to mention the problem that John and Jamie were both definately born by that time. Why would Laurie take one kid and not the other? I know this argument has been re-hashed over and over, but it's a good one, in my opinion.

I could also point to the fact that Miner and others repeatedly affirmed that they were treating H20 as if 4-6 never happened, but I don't really buy into the artists' intention that much ("a text's unity lies not in its source, but it's destination" and all that jazz).

Anyway, I'll just affirm what I've already said: I don't think I'll ever be convinced that 4-6 can be tied into H20's continuity. I hope that doesn't somehow again get misconstrued that I'm trying to shut down discussion about theories linking movies together or whatever because anyone that's ever been paying attention around here knows better.

[Scarecrow]

I often wondered what would have happened had the infamous "Haddonfield report" scene stayed in but the rest of the film remained unchanged, contradictions and all...


- Scarecrow

[French Friday]

Come on FF, you know me better than that. You know I respect your opinion on these matters. In fact, I bow to your never-ending quest to tie everything together, and I usually can see your point (even if I don't agree with it). You're the forum's official "timeline guy" as far as I'm concerned. :bow:

I know, I'm sorry. I was angry these last few days, because of this thread and the RE one together. As well as some girl problem in my real life (these women will kill me). Was too much for my mind.

So when Chex told me I was ignoring facts, which is the total opposite of how I work, it was one step too far for my "coolness".

I think I'm better now. Sorry again. Now the discussion :


However, with H20, I just think your theory is quite a stretch. Yes, nothing indicates that Laurie hasn't been keeping up with the events in Haddonfield (if you assume 4-6 happened), but it seems to me that ,if she were so intent on scaring John into staying home, she would have mentioned that Michael definately didn't die back in '78. That she didn't indicates that H20 definately is ignoring 4-6 because it contradicts Laurie's paranoid nature too much.

Sure, it's a stretch, between all the series, Halloween is the one that makes my brain really burn.

My answer would be simple : she's paranoid, she changed her name, she lied to every people she knows as Keri Tate. She wanted to erase Laurie Strode and her evil brother from her life. So in 1998, when her visions are becoming reality, it's surely the first time she succeed in beginning talking about her past as Laurie Strode. Note that she first changed her name to protect herself from Michael's "ghost" (the death was announced by TV, but there's a legend around him, as seen in 4-6, his death is debatable for many people, so many people just think he disappeared). Well, revealing to her son in 1989 (maybe too young to hear that) or 1995 that she's Laurie Strode would be one step outside the shield. Based on the beginning of the movie and the way John talks to her, we also know that her drinking problem is not just from yesterday. And people with drinking problems aren't as reasonable as others. They're not necessary coherent. She wants to protect her son but doesn't want to talk about the possibility Michael is alive. Maybe like Kirsten in Dream Master or the Springwood Conspiracy for Freddy, she's afraid that speaking about Michael would make him come back. Plus, I know there's a lot of mothers who don't talk to her children of the bad things their father did, to protect their innocence. It can work for evil uncles. So she stays silent. And for John, his mother wants to protect her from someone who's dead. Then, you understand why he thinks his mother is crazy !

------------------------------------------------------------
ADDED : I just realised that John knew she was Laurie Strode if I remember well - she surely talked to her one day about 1978 - so the part of my theory above which always work is the one about not talking about Michael alive to not make him come back. And the fact she's drinking so not necessary coherent. Hey, sometimes, my memory is blurry too. Happily I always fix my errors. Just tell me there are errors and I'm there !
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, when she explains it all to her boyfriend that night, well, he's not really ready to listen to her, he just wants to sleep with her that night. And I suppose that when a woman wants to tell her deepest secrets to her lover and when he's just interested in sex, well, she surely won't really open EVERYTHING.

And if saying "my brother was a psychopath" is one thing, saying "I abandoned my daughter and I let her be killed by my brother without doing anything to help her" is clearly another one. Since 1988, she feels guilty. Since 1995, it's worst.

In real life, people who feel guilty for something have a hard time to tell about the truth of what happened.

If it's that's "easy" for me to link H20 into 4-6, it's thanks to Laurie's drinking problem and paranoia. If they had shown a totally normal mother, it would have been a lot more difficult as the loss of Jamie couldn't have been inserted as easily in her past.

Also, with the "17 years old thing," I guess you could attribute that to some aimless speculation on Laurie's part. However, I do think Judith was 17 as well. Doesn't Laurie say so during that scene? I honestly can't remember.

Well, that's my point. In H20, she said her sister was 17, but if I remember well, the tombstone in the original shows she was something like 19 or 20. I have to rewatch the movie to be sure. I'm sure there was a discussion on that point years ago on the old forum.

If that's true, that means she contradicts the original...


There's also Jamie's dad (Jimmy, I guess): he obviously died the same night as Laurie supposedly did, so he would have to be in on whatever conspiracy Laurie was trying to pull. I can't be led to believe that two parents would willingly leave a daughter behind like that. This is not to mention the problem that John and Jamie were both definately born by that time. Why would Laurie take one kid and not the other? I know this argument has been re-hashed over and over, but it's a good one, in my opinion.

I'm happy you brought that point. It's the biggest stretch in my theory :eek:, but I rewatch H4 twice with that one in my mind and I think it works.

If I remember well (it's been a long time since the last time I thought about my Halloween's theory), Jamie's born in early November 1980 and John in August 1981 which means all what I'll say happened in a really short time, in December 1980.

So since that night of 1978, Laurie's getting drinking problems. It began with a simple post-traumatic experience, but got worse and worse. Jimmy (let's say it's him) wanted to help her and married her in 1979, just after graduation (the marriage is not necessary needed). She got pregnant. Jamie's born.

One night of december, there's a car accident. Oh, stop, I have a new theory coming to my hands right now, I think way better of my old one. There is always a car accident, but now, only Laurie is on board. In fact, it's a suicide. Post-Pregnancy/Motherly depression added to her post-traumatic experience 2 years ago. She failed her suicide. The car burns to hell but she was ejected and alive. If she can't kill Laurie Strode's body, she will kill Laurie Strode's name. She contacted Marion, her only "friend", and she will be the one who will help her to escape (in H20, she feels sad and really not happy with her life, which I take as her feeling guilty of what she accepted to do at the time). In California, Keri Tate was not healed at all, always drank, she met some guy and got pregnant again. This second time, she doesn't want to escape her responsibilities. She didn't stay long with John's father. He was as drunk as her at the time of John's birth. She wanted to heal, not him. Then in 1988, she watched TV and her strength disappeared and drinking came back to her.

Now in Haddonfield, her husband knew she was in the car, and the hell just burnt everything. So she was said dead.

A few months/years later, Jimmy got married again (or for the first time, you decide), and as Jamie was only one month old when her mother died, the only mother she knows is Jimmy's new wife. Her only parents in her mind. And unhappily, with irony, they died in a car accident in 1987, letting Jamie be adopted by the Carruthers. Obviously, Jimmy told her about her real mother, and she always kept a picture of her, wishing she would have babysit her (and that's the line that allows me to make that theory because if Laurie was alive between 1980 and 1987, it's obvious Laurie WOULD HAVE babysit her daughter herself many times, so Jamie wouldn't ask the question -> obviously the line can be understood as "I wish she would have babysit me NOW", but there's a blur on that line and I use it)

So John doesn't know about his half-sister and neither she does about her half-brother. No one in Haddonfield knows about John, maybe even not Marion, as John is born one year later.

Now you're surely :confused: or :eek: and I understand.


I could also point to the fact that Miner and others repeatedly affirmed that they were treating H20 as if 4-6 never happened, but I don't really buy into the artists' intention that much ("a text's unity lies not in its source, but it's destination" and all that jazz).

And you know I agree with you on that point. I'm not listening to the directors and writers, unless I have no idea by myself.

ONLY what's ON SCREEN counts.


Anyway, I'll just affirm what I've already said: I don't think I'll ever be convinced that 4-6 can be tied into H20's continuity. I hope that doesn't somehow again get misconstrued that I'm trying to shut down discussion about theories linking movies together or whatever because anyone that's ever been paying attention around here knows better.

That's OK. You aren't convinced, that's your choice. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just presenting a theory for people who want to link 4-6 to H20 without finding their own theory.

I also like to show to anyone a new way to watch things, to help people to watch their movies differently. There are some people who hate movies because there's a plot hole. I fill that hole. Some people hate H20 simply because it ignores 4-6. With my theory, I'm just answering them H20 could be linked to 4-6, and hopefully they will see H20 with a new eye after that.

But in the end, you're the watcher, you decide. (I should copyright that one !)

I just don't want anyone telling me I'm ignoring facts, simply because there's nothing more wrong than that.

FF, professional timeline and theory maker.

[Spade]

I love reading these posts by French Friday. There a blast.

[Scarecrow]

One of the best FANFICTION explanations I read was that Laurie found Jamie stood over John with a knife, ala end of Halloween 4 and she was terrified that Jamie was going to end up like Michael, and thus wanted her to be seperated from the rest of the family. Harsh but I wouldn't blame her. As I said though, that was in a fanfic but still a cool concept.


- Scarecrow

[The 5th Golden Girl]

You know, I think I realized recently what bothers me most about this movie... it's the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't play Laurie Strode... she plays Jamie Lee Curtis. She put way too much of her own self into the character and I didn't once see a glimmer of the character she played in the original movie.

I love Jamie Lee, don't get me wrong, but she should have been more like she was in the original. I know the events of her life have changed her, but still... she should have been quieter, not as out-going, not acting like she some smart-ass ("You get your smart mouth from my side of the family... really, Laurie? Would that be the Strodes... who you grew up with... or the Myers... who you came from... because neither really make much sense to me given what we saw in the original movie).

Oh, well, I still love the movie if only for the first ten minutes. Great opening.

[French Friday]

One of the best FANFICTION explanations I read was that Laurie found Jamie stood over John with a knife, ala end of Halloween 4 and she was terrified that Jamie was going to end up like Michael, and thus wanted her to be seperated from the rest of the family. Harsh but I wouldn't blame her. As I said though, that was in a fanfic but still a cool concept.


- Scarecrow

Cool idea. I'll think about that and see if I prefer that one over mine. Or not.

[Patrick]

You know, I think I realized recently what bothers me most about this movie... it's the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't play Laurie Strode... she plays Jamie Lee Curtis. She put way too much of her own self into the character and I didn't once see a glimmer of the character she played in the original movie.

I love Jamie Lee, don't get me wrong, but she should have been more like she was in the original. I know the events of her life have changed her, but still... she should have been quieter, not as out-going, not acting like she some smart-ass ("You get your smart mouth from my side of the family... really, Laurie? Would that be the Strodes... who you grew up with... or the Myers... who you came from... because neither really make much sense to me given what we saw in the original movie).

Oh, well, I still love the movie if only for the first ten minutes. Great opening.


That's a really good point. That IS something to think about....why is she so "Lara Croft" now instead of Laurie Strode. Of course it could be everything she has gone thru as you mentioned.

[Spade]

One of the best FANFICTION explanations I read was that Laurie found Jamie stood over John with a knife, ala end of Halloween 4 and she was terrified that Jamie was going to end up like Michael, and thus wanted her to be seperated from the rest of the family. Harsh but I wouldn't blame her. As I said though, that was in a fanfic but still a cool concept.


- Scarecrow

That's a very good explanation.

You know, I think I realized recently what bothers me most about this movie... it's the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't play Laurie Strode... she plays Jamie Lee Curtis. She put way too much of her own self into the character and I didn't once see a glimmer of the character she played in the original movie.

That's one of my biggest problems with this movie as well.

[Deathscythe]

I never understood when people say the actor was playing themselves:confused:.

[Scarecrow]

I do see what they mean. People can and DO change a hell of a lot over time but in film land with such limited time, such a massive change pretty much changes the character completely. If she'd been a bit, I don't know, meeker (?) earlier on it'd make the hardening at the end all the more noticable.


- Scarecrow

[French Friday]

I explain this change by the loss of her daughter and the trauma she lived 20 years ago. And there's the drinking problem. Her toughness can be seen as a "mask". When she's alone in the movie, alone in town for an example, drinking, I think she's closer to what she was in the original : not sure of herself, doubting. It's only when there's someone else (boyfriend, students, son) that she appears tougher than she was and well, Jamie-Lee-Curtis-ish.

[Fowlees]

A fairly strong cast in this one...Jamie leigh, Josh Hartnett, that bit of crumpet out of Dawson's Creek, and er LL Cool J!!:D

[Ron]

I always hated how LL Cool J's character was an aspiring erotic literature author.

[Fowlees]

Yeah, that is quite irritating isn't it.

[Fowlees]

Mustapha Akkad said in an interview that this film continued on from Part 2, kind of excluding all that happened in Parts 4 through 6.

[Ron]

yep..I honestly didn't mind the whole retcon of 4-6. It might have bothered me if 6 wasn't such a mess. I found H2O to be a breath of fresh air to the fans of the series. I found with this film that either people love it or they hate it. I personally love it.

[Fowlees]

Yeah same here Peter.. I thoroughly enjoyed H20 , (just a shame about the Myers mask they used).

As for Parts 4 - 6, I liked Part 4 , but thought 5 and 6 were turkeys.

[Ron]

Oh, don't even get me started on the CGI mask!!

[Fowlees]

Ooops! Have i scratched an opened wound that has yet to heal Mr. Baker?

[Ron]

It just looked so....blue and fake or something. I just can't put my finger on it.

[Fowlees]

The word you are searching for is..shit., i believe.

P.S. Thanks for the invite to join the _Baker's Dozen_ Pete.
I wholeheartedly accept.
I guess i'll have to update my sig.

[Chex]

Thinking back to how H20 and H8 ignore 4-6, I just now realized that they also mess up how Myers is even around.

At the end of Halloween II, we watch him lay in place while burning. According to H20, nobody had seen Myers since that night. So just how exactly is that? I mean, the man is burning to death. Did he suddenly get up and do the old switcheroo again with a paramedic? Did he just get up and walk off and completely ignore that Laurie was right there and decide to run away all the while he's on fire? I'm sure the cops wouldn't notice that. Of course, he also wouldn't have had time to do anything anyway considering everyone must have arrived there very soon since Loomis survived.

I know that this would have all made sense if they decided to keep in the scene of the girl giving her school report which would then link up 4-6 and make complete sense and even more so as part 4 explains how he lived...er, survived...er, well, what happened to him afterwards.

Then there's Loomis. It's said that he had been trying to track down Michael ever since and looked into other strange murders to see if it was him. Fine and dandy. So why wouldn't he bother to venture back to Myer's house considering that was his great plan at the start in Halloween where he thought Myers would have hid?

It's even more absurd if you think Freddie's assumption that Myers had been living underneath his house for 20 years, but considering Freddie is basing that on...what exactly? Without something to support that?

Then there's Myers all of a sudden knowing where Nurse Marion is. The guy hasn't been seen around for 20 years and he now knows where she's located yet doesn't know where Laurie is? To make this worse, was he always in the area of where she lived yet Loomis never found him hanging around?

Lastly, there's Myers and Laurie to begin with. He somehow vanishes from the hospital (probably walking out while on fire) yet takes 20 years to find Laurie. Ok, fair enough. He then takes how many years to find her again in H8? He would have had an easier time to track her down then so why all the slow action?

I've also seen this mentioned on another forum, but it's actually a valid point. So Myers hangs out in a sewer. He's covered in sweat from the overalls and mask. He's covered in blood. How the hell does nobody smell this guy coming? Seriously, he would reek yet somehow people get into cars with him, he's hiding out behind them, etc and somehow the smell doesn't alert them?

"Sniff sniff...I smell sewer water...the hell is that??"

[French Friday]

Chex, I can say I totally agree with you since my rewatching of H4 and H5 a few weeks ago. I have to say that now, around 13 years after my first watching of the original Halloween and the franchise, I'm tired of the plot holes in this series, and more, I'm tired of every character other than Loomis and Myers since H4. They steal every scene they are in. But when they aren't on screen... Maybe "I get too old for this shit". :)

And now comes H20 and what you just said. Even erasing 4-6 doesn't make H20 work as the finale of a trilogy. If you really try to tie everything together, it's just too much stuff to add to the story to make it work. You can't just enjoy the movie as every 10 minutes, you have something that doesn't work either way, 4-6 or not.

I think I just watched the Halloween franchise too many times now and can't accept these failures anymore.

And now the original series is over, it's easier for me to reduce it to the first three movies. And maybe H20 which is more a direct sequel of the original (if only they had follow the original plan and not include the sister angle...).

I think that maybe H1 and H20 can work together if the revelation Laurie Strode is Michael's sister can be seen as a first time in H20, but I have to rewatch it to see how it's presented. It's hidden first, talked between mother and son, and then, there's the revelation to her boyfriend. As it begins with a mysterious file stolen to the nurse we already saw in H1 maybe it can work this way. "what was in this file ?" "why did she changed her name ?" "why does Myers want to kill her ?" and then you learn it. She's his sister. Following H1 only, it would explain Myers vanishing and Loomis tracking him, as it's what happened at the end of H1.

At last, I think on future blue-ray, I'll just buy 1-2-3 and H20. Just for the fabulous Ottman's score when Laurie gets angry at the end !

[Chex]

The other thing I just realized is that H20 would have gone out of it's way to even erase how Loomis even survived the end of Halloween II if Halloween IV had the scene of him being knocked through a wall due to the explosion. Since it wasn't filmed though, I suppose that doesn't matter anyway.

The other is the bit of Nurse Marion taking care of Loomis until his final days. So now Loomis died by Michael's hands, but just rather passing on while she took care of him.

All of this just makes me see that, while the Halloween continuity and story of 1-6 wasn't the greatest, H20 and H8 just made things a hundred times worse. Even if you want to ignore Halloween 4-6, you now have this big gap of logic as to how in the world Myers escaped the hospital, how Loomis survived despite that for intents and purposes, H20 may as well have said he died there, but now that he still surived, he never thought to look back in the Myers house even though that was his original plan in the first film? Lame.

Oh well, the ending was nice.

[Scarecrow]

Which is why you might as well INCLUDE 4-6 and deal with the just as many plot problems there. :)


- Scarecrow

[Chex]

Which is why you might as well INCLUDE 4-6 and deal with the just as many plot problems there.

If you try to do that, then a majority of both films (H2O and H8) truly make little sense then. That's just as bad, honestly as either way you go you have tremendous problems.

[The Dream Master]

Here's my solution guys: I ignore H20 and H:R. :) If Miner and company want to disrespect three entries, I'll return the favor.

[Fowlees]

Here's my solution guys: I ignore H20 and H:R. :) If Miner and company want to disrespect three entries, I'll return the favor.

Fair play to you DM.

[Autobotsdie]

Here is how I think it should have been played out. Ignore 4-6 first off. Halloween 1 and 2 happens and Michael and Dr. Loomis survive the explosion. Fast foward to Halloween 8 and the begining of Halloween 8 shows the end of Halloween 2 with both of them surviving the explosion and showing how the did it and fast foward to 20 years later when both Loomis and Michael are getting around. They can even show it like in part 5 where Michael just gets up out of bed after being in a coma for a year while Loomis searches for him.

[Jigsaw]

Here is how I think it should have been played out. Ignore 4-6 first off. Halloween 1 and 2 happens and Michael and Dr. Loomis survive the explosion. Fast foward to Halloween 8 and the begining of Halloween 8 shows the end of Halloween 2 with both of them surviving the explosion and showing how the did it and fast foward to 20 years later when both Loomis and Michael are getting around. They can even show it like in part 5 where Michael just gets up out of bed after being in a coma for a year while Loomis searches for him.


Loomis wouldn't have been able to be in the film sadly, since Donald Pleasance died :( R.I.P.

[DRE]

Thinking back to how H20 and H8 ignore 4-6, I just now realized that they also mess up how Myers is even around.

At the end of Halloween II, we watch him lay in place while burning. According to H20, nobody had seen Myers since that night. So just how exactly is that? I mean, the man is burning to death. Did he suddenly get up and do the old switcheroo again with a paramedic? Did he just get up and walk off and completely ignore that Laurie was right there and decide to run away all the while he's on fire? I'm sure the cops wouldn't notice that. Of course, he also wouldn't have had time to do anything anyway considering everyone must have arrived there very soon since Loomis survived.



The other thing I just realized is that H20 would have gone out of it's way to even erase how Loomis even survived the end of Halloween II if Halloween IV had the scene of him being knocked through a wall due to the explosion. Since it wasn't filmed though, I suppose that doesn't matter anyway.

The other is the bit of Nurse Marion taking care of Loomis until his final days. So now Loomis died by Michael's hands, but just rather passing on while she took care of him.



There's a very simple answer for this, Steve Miner not only wanted to erase 4, 5 & 6, he wanted Halloween II gone as well. He wanted H20 to a sequel to the original only, but didn't realize that H2 was the one that connected Laurie and Michael as brother and sister.

He's a dumbass, yes.

[Jigsaw]

Although I like H20, Miner definitely had a stupid approach to it by choosing to also ignore H2.

[Chex]

There's a very simple answer for this, Steve Miner not only wanted to erase 4, 5 & 6, he wanted Halloween II gone as well. He wanted H20 to a sequel to the original only, but didn't realize that H2 was the one that connected Laurie and Michael as brother and sister.

He's a dumbass, yes.

Yeah, I know that. It's been known since H20 was in production. My points were in reference to just how screwed up H20 H8 are even by ignoring 4-6 and by trying to 'clean continuity' in a way, they managed to make it worse.