Would Michael have been any different physically after the events of HR?

[Voorheeszilla]

This is something I've been thinking about for a couple days now....after the events of HR, would Michael have been able to heal completely once again?

I mean, I've considered that the damage he sustained in HII was worse than HR, but I still do wonder if he would've healed, or would some of the burns possibly have remained?

We all know Michael's supernatural, but in the timeline HR is set in, it's never actually indicated as to how his healing factor works, exactly.

[idolone]

What? That wasn't Michael burning up in HR, it was some random guy that Michael swapped places with. Just kidding. He'd probably be fine. I mean, he did grow new eyeballs back (from H2) after all.

[Voorheeszilla]

Yeah, I know, I just wondered if his regenerative factor would've once again allowed him to fully heal. He was pretty fucked up at the end of HR. :lol:

[idolone]

Yeah, he got messed up pretty bad in that one.

[Voorheeszilla]

Yeah, but I still don't see how Laurie's plan at the beginning would've worked for her. At most, Michael would've fell, landed face first or on his back, & been up in a matter of minutes.

I don't see why she didn't come up with a somewhat better plot, because that one definitely wouldn't have put Michael out of commission for long.

[Fran Fine]

Yeah, but I still don't see how Laurie's plan at the beginning would've worked for her. At most, Michael would've fell, landed face first or on his back, & been up in a matter of minutes.

I figured she thought he would have broken his neck. He didn't have to land directly on his face or on his back.

[Rick]

I don't see why Michael would have been physically different after HR, like you said in your first post he sustained much worse in Halloween 2 and healed fine.
No reason to think he wouldn't heal up just as well.

[Voorheeszilla]

Yeah, I was just curious as to whether or not he could heal again, but I'm sure he could. I do think it'd be a bit of a hassle for him to get the mask off considering it was pretty much stick to his burned skin.

[Rick]

I'm sure he would have just peeled it off.
I doubt it would have made a difference to him.
Who knows, maybe he wouldn't care and leave it on until he found a suitable replacement?
But I think he'd just peel it off and either go looking for a new one or go into hiding until he healed, which could take hours, days, weeks, months or years since we really have no idea or indication how fast he can heal in the H1, 2, H2O and HR continuity.
But I'm sure given time he'd heal up just as well as he did after part 2.

[Sean [The Wildcard]]

He'd still make those ridiculous moaning noises. :shifty:

[Jus-X]

The mask would be burned to his face, but he wouldn't give a fuck. He feels no pain. Well not like we do anyways. So ripping it off of his toasty flesh wouldn't be a problem for him, but I doubt he'd do it until he found another Shatner or Frasier mask.

As far as his healing capabilites, I'm not knocking that he has them... but he was all bandaged up in part 4 and still had some scarring. Granted it's another continuity, but he'd be pretty fucked up looking for atleast a couple years until it all healed.

[Voorheeszilla]

^ Agreed. As I've stated before (I'm sure), H4-H6 Michael has more superhuman strength, but the Michael from the H20-HR continuity seems to have better healing capabilities.

Though, since the damage he received in HR weren't as bad as HII, it probably would take him less time to heal.

I still always wonder what they would've had Michael doing if there was a sequel to HR. He couldn't go back home since his house completely burned down. Haha, what the hell would he do?

[The Tall Man]

I don't think the Myers house actually burned down. It looks to me like only the shack they were in at the end (which was separate from the house) burned to the ground.

T.M., Esq.

[Rick]

Yeah, in HR it was the garage that caught fire, which was separate from the house.
But he still probably wouldn't go back to the house since his hiding place in the sewer has been exposed.

[Darth Reaper]

Yeah, but I still don't see how Laurie's plan at the beginning would've worked for her. At most, Michael would've fell, landed face first or on his back, & been up in a matter of minutes.

I don't see why she didn't come up with a somewhat better plot, because that one definitely wouldn't have put Michael out of commission for long.- Voorheeszilla

I'm guessing that Laurie was just doing the best she could with what she had. She was in a mental hospital, she didn't have access to very much. The best she could do was drop him from a great height and either hope he doesn't get up again, or at least give him one more Stone Cold Steve Austin sallute before he comes back and gets her.

I still always wonder what they would've had Michael doing if there was a sequel to HR. He couldn't go back home since his house completely burned down. Haha, what the hell would he do?

The most obvious answer would be to have him continue to pursue Sara Moyer. She's gotten his attention and now he won't stop until he gets her.

[Rick]

The most obvious answer would be to have him continue to pursue Sara Moyer. She's gotten his attention and now he won't stop until he gets her.
Which, imo, is what Myers should have been from the get go. He sees a girl, becomes obsessed with her and pursues until her gets her. Then moves on.

[Voorheeszilla]

Admittedly, I like the Sara Moyer character, so if that would've continued, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. And yes, I agree, because each time I look at the original, I almost view it as a stand alone film, because as far as that film is concerned, Michael & Laurie are not connected at all aside from sharing the same hometown.

[Jus-X]

Admittedly, I like the Sara Moyer character, so if that would've continued, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. And yes, I agree, because each time I look at the original, I almost view it as a stand alone film, because as far as that film is concerned, Michael & Laurie are not connected at all aside from sharing the same hometown.

I liked Sara Moyer. I also liked the idea that Fran Fine came up with that Sara could possibly be related somehow to Michael. I like the idea as long as she doesn't end up being another sister. I'd much prefer a cousin, as if Laurie's dad had a young brother who had a kid.

[Rick]

I think a cousin coincidentally going to school in the area and getting on the show would have been a little too corny, but since we have the whole "Myers always targets female family" thing to deal with I guess it would have been the only way.

[Voorheeszilla]

The idea of connecting Sara Moyer to Michael as a family member would be pointless, & would have completely retconned the fact that they were trying to get away from the family angle in HR. I don't think they need to always connect his victim to him through a bloodline. It becomes too cliche, predictable, & ultimately stupid, IMO.

[Fran Fine]

I liked Sara Moyer. I also liked the idea that Fran Fine came up with that Sara could possibly be related somehow to Michael. I like the idea as long as she doesn't end up being another sister. I'd much prefer a cousin, as if Laurie's dad had a young brother who had a kid.

My intention was to make her Laurie's Strode's daughter. Now before we get carried away on how the whole John and Jamie issue is complicated enough, let you guys be aware at how perfectly I perfectly solved that problem and was even able to squeeze Sara into it afterwards. I can tell you this though, both Jamie and Sara have the same father. ;)

The idea of connecting Sara Moyer to Michael as a family member would be pointless, & would have completely retconned the fact that they were trying to get away from the family angle in HR. I don't think they need to always connect his victim to him through a bloodline. It becomes too cliche, predictable, & ultimately stupid, IMO.

Are you sure about that? I always figured they were saving something up for Halloween 9. The family angle works better in my opinion since we can go through Sara's history and understand Michael's connection with her the same way we went through Laurie's history in Halloween II and understood Michael's connection with her when she was just this random victim in the previous movie she was in.

[Darth Reaper]

I don't think there needs to be a history between Sara and Michael. All that matters is that he wants her so he's going to stop at nothing to get her. Michael's a monster, he wants to do bad so he does bad, that's all the motive he needs.

If you want to deepen it a bit you could say that Michael gets stuck on Sara because she reminds him of Laurie and Judith. But, beyond that the idea that Michael is after her simply because she's the one that got away works just fine.

[Jus-X]

The idea of connecting Sara Moyer to Michael as a family member would be pointless, & would have completely retconned the fact that they were trying to get away from the family angle in HR.

I don't think that was the case. Michael went out of his way to get his sister. The third time he succeeded. Walking away he caught sights of a potential victim, approached him, and handed over his knife.

This signified Michael's purpose for killing to be over. Maybe he didn't care about John? Stephen and Jamie had been retconned at this point. But handing over his knife signified he was done and he was going home.

The POV of Dangertainment's contestants is that Michael came and hunted them down, but from Michael's POV, he came home and found intruders.

Had we gotten a sequel to HR, I'm sure we would have gotten the family angle back, maybe if the right fan got into writing H9, he would have bridged the Jamie Trilogy with the Laurie trilogy together with HR.

[Darth Reaper]

At this point I'm thinking that trying to connect H4-H6 with H20 and HR would take too much time and energy to achieve. Better to either just move forward and see what Michael does after HR.

Having him pursue Sara works just fine. Maybe he did feel like he was done after killing Laurie, but Sara could represent a new reason to keep going.

[Voorheeszilla]

I don't think that was the case. Michael went out of his way to get his sister. The third time he succeeded. Walking away he caught sights of a potential victim, approached him, and handed over his knife.

This signified Michael's purpose for killing to be over. Maybe he didn't care about John? Stephen and Jamie had been retconned at this point. But handing over his knife signified he was done and he was going home.

I doubt Michael would've ever stopped killing for good. He did retreat to his home, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was "done" forever.

The POV of Dangertainment's contestants is that Michael came and hunted them down, but from Michael's POV, he came home and found intruders.

Very true. They invaded his home, & suffered the consequences. Though, with Michael being KNOWN to have still been alive, I don't see why they would've even let them do a show there. I mean, history has shown that Michael always pays his home a visit, so that was just a stupid idea on their part.

Had we gotten a sequel to HR, I'm sure we would have gotten the family angle back, maybe if the right fan got into writing H9, he would have bridged the Jamie Trilogy with the Laurie trilogy together with HR.

There's really no way to connect the H4-H6 storyline to the H20-HR storyline. In between H4-H6, Michael killed what....about 50 people or so? There was no recollection of any of that in the H20-HR storyline. The fact that he caused so much death & destruction would've most definitely been brought up. Not to mention that connecting the two continuities means that Laurie sacrificed one child (Jamie) for another (John) by leaving her behind, & that makes her as much of a monster as Michael.

There's just absolutely no way to connect the storylines, & I doubt anyone would be able to do so in a believable manner. I prefer they remain separated anyway. I do hate that they retconned Jamie's character, & if I had my way, it would've been Danielle Harris in H20 instead of Josh Hartnett (nothing against Hartnett, though).

[Fran Fine]

There's really no way to connect the H4-H6 storyline to the H20-HR storyline. In between H4-H6, Michael killed what....about 50 people or so? There was no recollection of any of that in the H20-HR storyline.

Oh this is easy. The people of Haddonfield knew that Michael was active during the events of Halloween 4 and Halloween 5. Six years later by the time Halloween 6 took place everything thought he was dead and the deaths that did occur that year weren't as active as the deaths that occurred in 1988 and 1989. They were pretty much "silent deaths" if you will because no one around really knew about some one dying other than Jamie Lloyd and Barry Simms.

The fact that he caused so much death & destruction would've most definitely been brought up. Not to mention that connecting the two continuities means that Laurie sacrificed one child (Jamie) for another (John) by leaving her behind, & that makes her as much of a monster as Michael.

No it doesn't because it takes much more thinking to get it right. You can say that after the events of Halloween night 1978 Laurie tries to go on with her life and after a while meets Mr. Lloyd and they both have Jamie in early 1980. Soon after, Laurie's thoughts on the 1978 incidents causes a dispute between the two so she leaves and takes Jamie with her and soon meets a man (who will not be called "Mr. Tate" because "Tate" goes with the fake name Laurie used to go into hiding). After a few months of being together Laurie winds up pregnant by this man by December 1980 and have John in August 1981 (since in H20 John's dad sends his birthday card two months late).

Laurie and this second man live together for a couple years until Laurie's thoughts on the 1978 incidents causes a dispute between them as well. They decide to split, John's father takes John and move out of state, leaving Laurie raising Jamie by herself until she runs into Mr. Lloyd and wants him to be in their life again. So they get back together and raise Jamie for about four years until 1987 when Laurie fears that Michael would be out of his coma soon and come after her when the ten year mark of the 1978 incident is about to hit so she goes through the witness protection program to protect herself but tells Mr. Lloyd about this before doing so who ends up devastated afterwards. Jamie's father then dies soon after Laurie's "death" and Jamie is then adopted by the Carruthers.

Laurie goes about the country trying to get settled and ends up in California a few years later by the early 1990s where she meets her second lover and her son John and wants to be in their lives again now living under the name of Keri Tate. They get back together but soon things fall apart and John's father walks out on her and their son and Laurie is stuck raising John up until the events of Halloween H20.

This is basically my insight on the whole connection thing in my Halloween 9 I didn't really want to reveal, and how I squeezed Sara in all of this was after Laurie gets back with Jamie's father and they both have her in about 1984 since she's about 18 in Resurrection which is set in 2002.

But what you think overall Voorheeszilla as well as anyone else?

[The Tall Man]

There's really no way to connect the H4-H6 storyline to the H20-HR storyline.
Sure there is. All you have to do is extend the 4-6 timeline that says events in 7 and 8 happened just not EXACTLY as they happened in the real movies 7 and 8 (i.e. Myers went to California, got Laurie, came home). Simple.

Not to mention that connecting the two continuities means that Laurie sacrificed one child (Jamie) for another (John) by leaving her behind, & that makes her as much of a monster as Michael.
Pfft. So?

T.M., Esq.

[Voorheeszilla]

Oh this is easy. The people of Haddonfield knew that Michael was active during the events of Halloween 4 and Halloween 5. Six years later by the time Halloween 6 took place everything thought he was dead and the deaths that did occur that year weren't as active as the deaths that occurred in 1988 and 1989. They were pretty much "silent deaths" if you will because no one around really knew about some one dying other than Jamie Lloyd and Barry Simms.

No one thought Michael was actually dead. He was in a jail cell, & then the entire police force ends up dead? Sorry, but no one believed he was dead by H6. Gone? Yes. Dead? Absolutely not. And there's no such thing as silent deaths. He killed multiple police officers & others in H4, continuing his rampage in H5, killing even more officers & teens. Those most certainly were accounted for.

No it doesn't because it takes much more thinking to get it right. You can say that after the events of Halloween night 1978 Laurie tries to go on with her life and after a while meets Mr. Lloyd and they both have Jamie in early 1980. Soon after, Laurie's thoughts on the 1978 incidents causes a dispute between the two so she leaves and takes Jamie with her and soon meets a man (who will not be called "Mr. Tate" because "Tate" goes with the fake name Laurie used to go into hiding). After a few months of being together Laurie winds up pregnant by this man by December 1980 and have John in August 1981 (since in H20 John's dad sends his birthday card two months late).

This is all speculation, though, with nothing to support it. Fact of the matter is, if you try to connect the two then that means if Laurie left with John, she would've faked her death & abandoned Jamie, making her a bad parent, a monster, & not much of a heroine.

Laurie and this second man live together for a couple years until Laurie's thoughts on the 1978 incidents causes a dispute between them as well. They decide to split, John's father takes John and move out of state, leaving Laurie raising Jamie by herself until she runs into Mr. Lloyd and wants him to be in their life again. So they get back together and raise Jamie for about four years until 1987 when Laurie fears that Michael would be out of his coma soon and come after her when the ten year mark of the 1978 incident is about to hit so she goes through the witness protection program to protect herself but tells Mr. Lloyd about this before doing so who ends up devastated afterwards. Jamie's father then dies soon after Laurie's "death" and Jamie is then adopted by the Carruthers.

Laurie goes about the country trying to get settled and ends up in California a few years later by the early 1990s where she meets her second lover and her son John and wants to be in their lives again now living under the name of Keri Tate. They get back together but soon things fall apart and John's father walks out on her and their son and Laurie is stuck raising John up until the events of Halloween H20.

This is basically my insight on the whole connection thing in my Halloween 9 I didn't really want to reveal, and how I squeezed Sara in all of this was after Laurie gets back with Jamie's father and they both have her in about 1984 since she's about 18 in Resurrection which is set in 2002.

As I've said before, it takes a lot of stretching to try to connect the H4-H6 continuity to the H20-HR continuity, & at the end of the day it's better to leave them separate. They're not MEANT to be connected, so why go through the aggravation of doing so? As far as H20 is concerned, Michael may have been behind a few deaths if you go by the multiple news clippings surrounding Loomis' room, but nothing on quite a large scale as what he did in H4-H20. Not to mention that connecting the two means incorporating Thorn, & there's absolutely no sign of Thorn anywhere in H20 or HR.

[Darth Reaper]

Not to mention that connecting the two continuities means that Laurie sacrificed one child (Jamie) for another (John) by leaving her behind, & that makes her as much of a monster as Michael.- Voorheeszilla

I wouldn't go that far.

For me, the biggest hitch is when did Laurie decide to fake her death? Did she do it soon after the events of H1 and H2, or did she wait awhile. If you go with the idea that she did it soon after then you could say that her fear that Michael was still alive and might come after her again drove her to give Jamie up for adoption, hoping that Michael would come after her and never discover Jamie. It's the hardest thing she'd ever done at that point, but she does it to keep Jamie safe.

In 1981 Laurie gives birth to John. Giving up Jamie was so hard for Laurie that she can't bear to do it again, so she decides to keep John and hope for the best.

None of this makes Laurie as much a monster as Michael. Michael is a cold-blooded killer, Laurie is simply a normal, flawed, fallible woman who's been deeply traumatized by a terrible event in her life and as a result maybe hasn't always made the best choices.

There's really no way to connect the H4-H6 storyline to the H20-HR storyline. In between H4-H6, Michael killed what....about 50 people or so? There was no recollection of any of that in the H20-HR storyline. The fact that he caused so much death & destruction would've most definitely been brought up.

This is one of the hardest things for me to resolve when thinking about connecting the two storylines. I would think that the events of H4-H6 would be big news at least for awhile, and everyone would know about it. Yet, in H20 a cop acts like Michael hasn't been seen or heard from in ages, and Laurie and John don't seem to know about any of those things. John even says to Laurie "Michael Myers is dead." If the events of H4-H6 had happend, surely he would know that there's at least every possibility that Michael is alive, at large, and very much a threat.

And, wouldn't Laurie know about Michael surviving the fire and being kept in another hospital (as shown at the beginning of H4). I would think that would be a matter of public
record.

My fear is that even if you could tie up all of the loose ends to connect the two storylines, you could spend a whole movie doing it rather than telling an actual story. I don't think the general public cares enough about all of this to pay money to sit through it. They'd rather see what Michael does next.

Not to mention that connecting the two means incorporating Thorn, & there's absolutely no sign of Thorn anywhere in H20 or HR.

This isn't neccessarily true. You could just say that both Tommy and the Thorn Cult were wrong about Michael being afflicted with the Curse of Thorn. They thought they had found an explanation for Michael but the were wrong.

[Fran Fine]

No one thought Michael was actually dead. He was in a jail cell, & then the entire police force ends up dead? Sorry, but no one believed he was dead by H6. Gone? Yes. Dead? Absolutely not. And there's no such thing as silent deaths. He killed multiple police officers & others in H4, continuing his rampage in H5, killing even more officers & teens. Those most certainly were accounted for.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to prove you wrong on this one because actually, people did think Michael was dead along with Jamie. They were caught in an explosion after all that Barry Simms was even convinced that Michael was dead. Tommy even states that in the opening voice-over "Many people believed them dead but I think that some one hid them away....." as he and Loomis were the only ones who truly knew Michael was still around somewhere.

Also, I use the term "silent deaths" to describe deaths that no one would be around to know about by the way. Also, since you've brought up the fact of how Michael killed so many people in the H4-H6 storyline that's not mentioned in the H20-HR storyline, it's easy to say things were covered up. I doubt anything would have been speculated that much after the events of Halloween 6 since hardly anyone else besides the main characters knew Michael was around killing again with only two of the deaths being more open. The incident at Smith's Grove probably wouldn't have had much affect on the citizens of Haddonfield miles away. So from 1989 (if we were to look as this series as a whole) things would have been most likely forgotten about in Parts 4 and 5 and most definately 6 by 1998.

John even says to Laurie "Michael Myers is dead." If the events of H4-H6 had happened, surely he would know that there's at least every possibility that Michael is alive, at large, and very much a threat.

Not really, I mean think about it. He's been in California most of his life miles and miles and miles away from Haddonfield, Illinois where not that much talk on Michael would take place, Laurie told him about the explosion that happened 20 years prior which would get John to think he was dead, and with him never having to deal with Michael before, I wouldn't blame him for saying that.

And, wouldn't Laurie know about Michael surviving the fire and being kept in another hospital (as shown at the beginning of H4). I would think that would be a matter of public
record.

Well the thing is since Laurie never thought Michael was dead that would be the case. In the H20 storyline it's implied that she fled Haddonfield some time right after the 1978 incidents feeling as though Michael was out there as he had simply vanished from the explosion, got with a man in California, had John and lived happily ever after until the events of H20. If we were to connect the storylines together and have her now living in Haddonfield for those next few years (until her "death" in 1987) with her now knowing Michael's whereabouts being in a coma in another hospital since the time of the 1978 incident, and fearing that he could wake up at any time and come after her then that would also be enough to trigger the actions she pulled afterwards and still lead into the events of H20 the next time we see her. Of course the issue regarding Jamie and John and their fathers roles during this time would work better if we went by my solution to that.

My fear is that even if you could tie up all of the loose ends to connect the two storylines, you could spend a whole movie doing it rather than telling an actual story. I don't think the general public cares enough about all of this to pay money to sit through it. They'd rather see what Michael does next.

I know, but for the sake of the series making sense without leaving anymore holes in the story then it must be done but in a less complicated way of course.

This is all speculation, though, with nothing to support it. Fact of the matter is, if you try to connect the two then that means if Laurie left with John, she would've faked her death & abandoned Jamie, making her a bad parent, a monster, & not much of a heroine.

Yeah but I don't think you can't deny that it doesn't work perfectly. Besides, I never said Laurie left with John. Her and his father split up and went their own separate ways taking each kid with them. Of course she would have had to abandon Jamie later, but it's not as bad as some one speculating that Laurie took John with her and left Jamie which would have made her even more of a bad parent, and Jamie wouldn't have really known that much about John so he had to have already been out of the picture. And Laurie being traumatized as she was after the events of Halloween 1978, she's bound to have done anything like that.

As I've said before, it takes a lot of stretching to try to connect the H4-H6 continuity to the H20-HR continuity, & at the end of the day it's better to leave them separate. They're not MEANT to be connected, so why go through the aggravation of doing so?

It was a stretch, and after many stretching it worked for me. No one is saying they were meant to be connected but this is something I wanted to do when I decided to write a Halloween 9 because there was so much left to do. I wanted to close the book on Sara Moyer and John as well as Jamie's kid Stephen so I wanted the storylines to be together as a whole. It would make give my Halloween 9 with a more interesting plot building upon Parts 4-6 plus Sara finding out she's a relative. She and John are going back through history here on Michael so they must have some things to dig up along the way. And seeing as how Stephen had Thorn DNA in him imagine what kind of role he'll make taking on Michael. Of course I had to split my ideas so the John/Sara thing happens in my H9 and Stephen's story happens in my H10.

Not to mention that connecting the two means incorporating Thorn, & there's absolutely no sign of Thorn anywhere in H20 or HR.

Thorn was no where present in any Halloween movie before Halloween 5 so I don't see your point here. It could easily have been brought back which is what I did in my Halloween 9. H20-HR didn't completely ignore Parts 4-6 so it was plausible to bring everything back including Thorn.

[Darth Reaper]

I know, but for the sake of the series making sense without leaving anymore holes in the story then it must be done but in a less complicated way of course.- Fran Fine

But, that's the thing, I don't think there is a less complicated way to do this. It's a complicated issue.

Not really, I mean think about it. He's been in California most of his life miles and miles and miles away from Haddonfield, Illinois where not that much talk on Michael would take place, Laurie told him about the explosion that happened 20 years prior which would get John to think he was dead, and with him never having to deal with Michael before, I wouldn't blame him for saying that.

The thing is that the kind of killing sprees that Michael went on would most likely make national news. It's like the BTK killer and his ilk. Everyone was talking about them everywhere. There's no way that Michael's deeds wouldn't be heard about all over the country.

Remember, by H6 Michael is described as the most infamous mass murderer in history.

If we were to connect the storylines together and have her now living in Haddonfield for those next few years (until her "death" in 1987) with her now knowing Michael's whereabouts being in a coma in another hospital since the time of the 1978 incident, and fearing that he could wake up at any time and come after her then that would also be enough to trigger the actions she pulled afterwards and still lead into the events of H20 the next time we see her.

If Laurie knew that Michael was in a coma in a mental hospital somewhere she would probably tell John and then they would both know that Michael is indeed alive and John's words in H20 would make no sense.

And, again, Michael's actions in H4-H6 would most likely make national news. It would be very difficult for Laurie and John not to hear about it. Part of the point of H20 is that Laurie doesn't know if Michael is alive or dead. If you combine the storylines there's no way she couldn't know.

Of course the issue regarding Jamie and John and their fathers roles during this time would work better if we went by my solution to that.

I like my idea better, vague though it may be. :D It's a bit less complicated.

[Jus-X]

I think this whole concept is being way over-analyzed. The fact is that if a movie was made where John travels to Haddonfield and discovers he had a sister (or half sister) who died a while back and there were murders going on in 88, 89, and 96, people wouldn't question it as much as all of this.

It can easily be said that the police department kept the murders under wraps from the media and FBI in order to keep everything within their means. We see a vigilante group in 5. We know Meeker's daughter got killed with half of his police force. There's a good chance that the police wanted vengance for themselves if Michael ever resurfaced. Along with the formers members of a cult that tried to control Michael, his murders would be hush hush from cops AND from people in town.

Deputy Stubs in FVJ had no idea who Freddy was, so why is it hard to believe that new cops wouldn't be told about the town's dark history. You can't brush the events of 1978 under the rug, the Myers home and Hospital were media circuses, but you can definitly keep the media from finding out about anything after by keeping their mouths shut so they can take vengance into their own hands.

Dates about Jamie's birth and her father, John's birth and his father, when Laurie went into Witness Protection, whether she was a bad mother or a scared victim... it's too much.

John goes to Haddonfield and reveals a coverup. I would accept that, I'm sure other's would too.

[Fran Fine]

But, that's the thing, I don't think there is a less complicated way to do this. It's a complicated issue.

I don't think the information is too much. At least if this were to actually be a movie then this movie would have more to offer than H20 and HR. It would be better to squeeze Parts 4-6 into the storyline to bulk up the story, since a trying to do a third story where they are ignored would be kind of hard make the series dull by this point.

The thing is that the kind of killing sprees that Michael went on would most likely make national news. It's like the BTK killer and his ilk. Everyone was talking about them everywhere. There's no way that Michael's deeds wouldn't be heard about all over the country. Remember, by H6 Michael is described as the most infamous mass murderer in history.

Yeah, but the Strode family never heard of him accept John. So it maybe a thing that many others didn't know about him.

If Laurie knew that Michael was in a coma in a mental hospital somewhere she would probably tell John and then they would both know that Michael is indeed alive and John's words in H20 would make no sense.

And, again, Michael's actions in H4-H6 would most likely make national news. It would be very difficult for Laurie and John not to hear about it. Part of the point of H20 is that Laurie doesn't know if Michael is alive or dead. If you combine the storylines there's no way she couldn't know.

If we go by my solution to the Jamie and John problem (when Laurie's having a difficult relationship with two men and not really being there in John's childhood who is then taken by his father out of state at like around age two or three) then this problem is solved because he wouldn't know anything about Michael until years later when Laurie finds him and his father again when she explains herself for not being in his life and the issue she and his father had together. Besides, the last thing Laurie would want to do is tell any of her kids about Michael.

I like my idea better, vague though it may be. :D It's a bit less complicated.

I would like to hear your solution. :D

Deputy Stubs in FVJ had no idea who Freddy was, so why is it hard to believe that new cops wouldn't be told about the town's dark history. You can't brush the events of 1978 under the rug, the Myers home and Hospital were media circuses, but you can definitly keep the media from finding out about anything after by keeping their mouths shut so they can take vengance into their own hands.

Yep this is exactly what I had in mine.

Dates about Jamie's birth and her father, John's birth and his father, when Laurie went into Witness Protection, whether she was a bad mother or a scared victim... it's too much.

Yeah well, like I told Darth Reaper it can be necessary thought and at least it would help build up some interesting information into the series that can close everything up.

Okay, I think I said as much as I could so I'm going to call it quits I think. It was really nice having this discussion with you guys. :)

[Voorheeszilla]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to prove you wrong on this one because actually, people did think Michael was dead along with Jamie. They were caught in an explosion after all that Barry Simms was even convinced that Michael was dead. Tommy even states that in the opening voice-over "Many people believed them dead but I think that some one hid them away....." as he and Loomis were the only ones who truly knew Michael was still around somewhere.

You're not proving me wrong, because in H6 many, many people called in to Barry Sims' show with their theories of what happened to Michael, NONE of them believed he was dead. It'd be foolish to think Michael was dead after the events of H5. What possible reason would they have to believe he was dead? Not only was his cell door busted open, but the entire police force was massacred. :X

Also, I use the term "silent deaths" to describe deaths that no one would be around to know about by the way. Also, since you've brought up the fact of how Michael killed so many people in the H4-H6 storyline that's not mentioned in the H20-HR storyline, it's easy to say things were covered up. I doubt anything would have been speculated that much after the events of Halloween 6 since hardly anyone else besides the main characters knew Michael was around killing again with only two of the deaths being more open. The incident at Smith's Grove probably wouldn't have had much affect on the citizens of Haddonfield miles away. So from 1989 (if we were to look as this series as a whole) things would have been most likely forgotten about in Parts 4 and 5 and most definately 6 by 1998.

Still, they KNEW Michael did it. No one was around to see Annie, Bob, & Lynda get slaughtered, but they knew Michael did it, so what's your point? There's no such thing as a silent death. And what would be the purpose of covering up the events? Granted, city's don't want their citizens fearing that a psychopathic killer is coming after them, they still can't exactly cover up something like that, especially when everyone knows who Michael is. Nah, I'm not buying that, especially with only two years being in between H6 & H20.

Not really, I mean think about it. He's been in California most of his life miles and miles and miles away from Haddonfield, Illinois where not that much talk on Michael would take place, Laurie told him about the explosion that happened 20 years prior which would get John to think he was dead, and with him never having to deal with Michael before, I wouldn't blame him for saying that.

You're really stretching, now, because, if he was still active for the last 10 years, there's no way they wouldn't know about the events that transpired. None of the discussions in H20 allude to H4-H6 being in existence to that time continuity.

Well the thing is since Laurie never thought Michael was dead that would be the case. In the H20 storyline it's implied that she fled Haddonfield some time right after the 1978 incidents feeling as though Michael was out there as he had simply vanished from the explosion, got with a man in California, had John and lived happily ever after until the events of H20. If we were to connect the storylines together and have her now living in Haddonfield for those next few years (until her "death" in 1987) with her now knowing Michael's whereabouts being in a coma in another hospital since the time of the 1978 incident, and fearing that he could wake up at any time and come after her then that would also be enough to trigger the actions she pulled afterwards and still lead into the events of H20 the next time we see her. Of course the issue regarding Jamie and John and their fathers roles during this time would work better if we went by my solution to that.[/QUOTE]

Did we watch the same film? Because Laurie was NOT living happily ever after for those 20 years. She was a tortured soul, someone desperately trying to forget a haunting memory. That's not a sign of a happy person. Again, I would say you're stretching very hard to connect two storylines that shouldn't be connected.

It would be like me trying to connect Smallville to the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. There are a few similarities, but at the end of the day, they're meant to convey two separate stories. Same can be applied here.

I know, but for the sake of the series making sense without leaving anymore holes in the story then it must be done but in a less complicated way of course.

Connecting H20-HR to H4-H6 is creating more plotholes within the story, it doesn't really help anything at all by trying to do so.

Yeah but I don't think you can't deny that it doesn't work perfectly. Besides, I never said Laurie left with John. Her and his father split up and went their own separate ways taking each kid with them. Of course she would have had to abandon Jamie later, but it's not as bad as some one speculating that Laurie took John with her and left Jamie which would have made her even more of a bad parent, and Jamie wouldn't have really known that much about John so he had to have already been out of the picture. And Laurie being traumatized as she was after the events of Halloween 1978, she's bound to have done anything like that.

I can deny it, because it doesn't work perfectly. If that were the case, what happened to Jamie's father? Why isn't he around at all? Again, as far as H4 is concerned, there is no John Tate, & as far as H20 is confirmed, there is no Jamie Lloyd, point blank. They're not connected, at all, and once again, if they were, it means Laurie sacrificing one child for another. Sorry, but I'll pass on that.

Thorn was no where present in any Halloween movie before Halloween 5 so I don't see your point here. It could easily have been brought back which is what I did in my Halloween 9. H20-HR didn't completely ignore Parts 4-6 so it was plausible to bring everything back including Thorn.

Have we watched the same films? I've seen every Halloween movie dozens & dozens of times, & there is absolutely nothing in H20 that indicates the events of the previous films are to be accounted for. Not in one scene is there an implication that Jamie Lloyd exists, or that Michael was as active as in the H4-H6 storyline. Of all the news clipping shown, none hold any reference to the previous films. It's not plausible to bring everything back, because they purposely got rid of Thorn to start fresh & provide a better sense of continuity, & I don't blame them. H4 was a great film, H5 was terrible, & H6 was mediocre. Number seven was their attempt to start fresh, while continuing from the HI/HII storyline. As far as seven & eight are concerned, Thorn never existed, is gone, & was never coming back.

[Darth Reaper]

Deputy Stubs in FVJ had no idea who Freddy was, so why is it hard to believe that new cops wouldn't be told about the town's dark history. You can't brush the events of 1978 under the rug, the Myers home and Hospital were media circuses, but you can definitly keep the media from finding out about anything after by keeping their mouths shut so they can take vengance into their own hands.- Justyn

The authorities in Springwood had a good reason to keep Freddy a secret. By that point they knew he was real, they knew he feeds on fear, and they knew that he preys on children. If the children don't know he exists they won't fear him and then he doesn't have the power to enter their dreams, and thus the children are safe.

The idea that the cops would keep the events of H4-H6 a secret because they want Michael for themselves sounds a bit far-fetched.

Yeah, but the Strode family never heard of him accept John. So it maybe a thing that many others didn't know about him.- Fran Fine

I got the impression that they knew who Michael was they just didn't know that he lived in that house for some reason. H6 has plenty of problems.

I would like to hear your solution.

My idea goes something like this:

After H2 Laurie gets involved with Jimmy. Their relationship doesn't work out, probably at least in part because of the trauma that they both suffered (sadly, that happens sometimes), but before that Laurie gets pregnant with Jamie. After she gives birth her fear of Michael becomes so intense that she decides that the only thing to do is to disappear, so she plans to fake her own death. But, first she puts Jamie up for adoption. She figures that Jamie will be safer if she's not with Laurie. It's a gut-wrenching decition but she does it to protect Jamie from Michael.

Fast-forward a bit and Laurie's living under a new identity and has a new lover. Together they have John. Laurie's fear of Michael is still there but now things have changed for her. She has the beginnings of a family in her hands and she can't bear to walk away from that. Plus, giving up Jamie was so hard for her that she can't bear to do it again. So, she decides to stay put and hope for the best.

Of course, Laurie's relationship with John's father eventually falls apart too, but by this point she's commited to keeping John and holding on to the new life that she's made for herself.


Personally, I think the best thing to do at this point would be to pull another H20 and start over again. Use H1 and H2 as the starting point and build a new continuity from there.

[Fran Fine]

You're not proving me wrong, because in H6 many, many people called in to Barry Sims' show with their theories of what happened to Michael, NONE of them believed he was dead. It'd be foolish to think Michael was dead after the events of H5.

Then I guess Barry and just about anyone else Tommy labels as believing Michael was dead are fools then because there were those types of people around besides those who thought he was either long dead or long gone or those who just thought he was gone. Like I said, there was an explosion after all.

Still, they KNEW Michael did it. No one was around to see Annie, Bob, & Lynda get slaughtered, but they knew Michael did it, so what's your point?

They didn't know he did it until after the bodies were discovered and Loomis of course telling the media that it was him that was likely responsible.

There's no such thing as a silent death.

That's what I like to call it okay whether it's an actual term or not. So we're not mentioning this again.

And what would be the purpose of covering up the events? Granted, city's don't want their citizens fearing that a psychopathic killer is coming after them, they still can't exactly cover up something like that, especially when everyone knows who Michael is. Nah, I'm not buying that, especially with only two years being in between H6 & H20.

Three years actually. Not everyone knows who he is. Rachel's boyfriend Brady didn't even know who he was in Halloween 4 even after what happened in Parts 1 and 2. Besides, Freddy Vs. Jason took place only four years after Freddy's Dead after he's been on a rampage for years and look how many people didn't know about Freddy. Springwood had mostly new people in it so whose to say Haddonfield didn't have any new people in it with no information on Michael if we were to look at this series as a whole? Again, IF we were to look at this series as a whole.

You're really stretching, now, because, if he was still active for the last 10 years, there's no way they wouldn't know about the events that transpired. None of the discussions in H20 allude to H4-H6 being in existence to that time continuity.

Well Laurie being out of state living miles away for years and years not hearing information is plausible if we were to look at this series as a whole. H20 was all about getting back to Laurie's storyline without having to deal with happened in Parts 4-6.

Did we watch the same film? Because Laurie was NOT living happily ever after for those 20 years. She was a tortured soul, someone desperately trying to forget a haunting memory. That's not a sign of a happy person. Again, I would say you're stretching very hard to connect two storylines that shouldn't be connected.

Wow, you thought I was actually serious when I said "happily"? I was being sarcastic when I said that. Again that's my fault you didn't catch that.

It would be like me trying to connect Smallville to the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. There are a few similarities, but at the end of the day, they're meant to convey two separate stories. Same can be applied here.

Well it depends on how everything work out I guess. Smallville's timeline looks as thought it takes place in the present I believe compared to the movies that took place in the years before hand, which is kind of different from what we're dealing with here. Just because know the storylines of H4-H6 and H20-HR weren't meant to coexist with one another doesn't mean I nor anyone else can't try to connect them together if we see fit. I don't see why that should matter to you because it's out ideas we think can be a possibility and it works fine if you're trying to tie everything and the remaining characters up. I'm doing this for my benefit and I wish you can respect that.

Connecting H20-HR to H4-H6 is creating more plotholes within the story, it doesn't really help anything at all by trying to do so.

What plot holes exactly? I didn't come across any when I did it because I closed everything neatly in my own way in my story.

I can deny it, because it doesn't work perfectly. If that were the case, what happened to Jamie's father? Why isn't he around at all?

I explained this in my previous comment in Post #26, again if we were to look at this series as a whole. He had to have been dead apparently. I stated that he died sometime after Laurie ran off:

Laurie and this second man live together for a couple years until Laurie's thoughts on the 1978 incidents causes a dispute between them as well. They decide to split, John's father takes John and move out of state, leaving Laurie raising Jamie by herself until she runs into Mr. Lloyd and wants him to be in their life again. So they get back together and raise Jamie for about four years until 1987 when Laurie fears that Michael would be out of his coma soon and come after her when the ten year mark of the 1978 incident is about to hit so she goes through the witness protection program to protect herself but tells Mr. Lloyd about this before doing so who ends up devastated afterwards. Jamie's father then dies soon after Laurie's "death" and Jamie is then adopted by the Carruthers.

You even read this and quoted it in comment in Post #28 when you told me this in response:

As I've said before, it takes a lot of stretching to try to connect the H4-H6 continuity to the H20-HR continuity, & at the end of the day it's better to leave them separate. They're not MEANT to be connected, so why go through the aggravation of doing so? As far as H20 is concerned, Michael may have been behind a few deaths if you go by the multiple news clippings surrounding Loomis' room, but nothing on quite a large scale as what he did in H4-H20. Not to mention that connecting the two means incorporating Thorn, & there's absolutely no sign of Thorn anywhere in H20 or HR.

Ring a bell? So Laurie wouldn't have been sacrificing one child to save another as I put down that she ran into John and his father while trying to get settled somewhere years later. So again, it can fit.

Have we watched the same films? I've seen every Halloween movie dozens & dozens of times, & there is absolutely nothing in H20 that indicates the events of the previous films are to be accounted for. Not in one scene is there an implication that Jamie Lloyd exists, or that Michael was as active as in the H4-H6 storyline. Of all the news clipping shown, none hold any reference to the previous films. It's not plausible to bring everything back, because they purposely got rid of Thorn to start fresh & provide a better sense of continuity, & I don't blame them. H4 was a great film, H5 was terrible, & H6 was mediocre. Number seven was their attempt to start fresh, while continuing from the HI/HII storyline. As far as seven & eight are concerned, Thorn never existed, is gone, & was never coming back.

It's easy to think that way when you know H20's intention was to follow 1 and 2 without having anything to do with Parts 4-6. It's not that hard to put the pieces back because there weren't that much information in the movie that retconned them completely out of continuity. I mean it wouldn't be that hard because it mostly concerns Laurie's two kids. If H20 had anything that stated Laurie fled to California in 1980 or something and lived there ever since (which was never stated when exactly she came to California), or Loomis dying in the hospital explosion or something (which he didn't) then no one would be trying to do something like this. But those were things left out which opened a debatable discussion on the whole thing if plausible. Again, PLAUSIBLE.

And geez Voorhesszilla, can you stay calm when you're responding? You're temper is starting to worry me now. I didn't want to argue with you, and would like to have a nice calm discussion. But I'm sorry we can't see things fit. I see it plausible to connect the storylines together while you on the other hand think differently because of H20's intention of not having anything to do with Parts 4-6. If you think about it hard enough the holes can be filled. You can respond to this if you wish and as best as you can, but we're never going to see eye to eye on this one so I think we just respect each others' views on this despite what the intentions were.

The idea that the cops would keep the events of H4-H6 a secret because they want Michael for themselves sounds a bit far-fetched.

Meh, I think it works alright.

I got the impression that they knew who Michael was they just didn't know that he lived in that house for some reason. H6 has plenty of problems.

Well Debra might have known about Michael as well besides John since she seems to know about Jamie, but I'm not sure their kids did though let alone them living in the house which only John knew was once Michael's house.

My idea goes something like this:

After H2 Laurie gets involved with Jimmy. Their relationship doesn't work out, probably at least in part because of the trauma that they both suffered (sadly, that happens sometimes), but before that Laurie gets pregnant with Jamie. After she gives birth her fear of Michael becomes so intense that she decides that the only thing to do is to disappear, so she plans to fake her own death. But, first she puts Jamie up for adoption. She figures that Jamie will be safer if she's not with Laurie. It's a gut-wrenching decition but she does it to protect Jamie from Michael.

Fast-forward a bit and Laurie's living under a new identity and has a new lover. Together they have John. Laurie's fear of Michael is still there but now things have changed for her. She has the beginnings of a family in her hands and she can't bear to walk away from that. Plus, giving up Jamie was so hard for her that she can't bear to do it again. So, she decides to stay put and hope for the best.

Of course, Laurie's relationship with John's father eventually falls apart too, but by this point she's commited to keeping John and holding on to the new life that she's made for herself.

I tried my best to stay away from her taking John and leaving behind Jamie by taking John out of the picture already with him being taken out of state by his father when he's just two years old. But your solution to everything is okay I guess. :)

Personally, I think the best thing to do at this point would be to pull another H20 and start over again. Use H1 and H2 as the starting point and build a new continuity from there.

I wonder how that would have worked out. :D

[Voorheeszilla]

Whatever. I'm done discussing this. If you want to create your own accounts of the story & change it so that it can match up for YOU, then go right ahead. I'll be amongst the people who know that the two are not connected & acknowledge the facts that have actually been presented, not speculation & theories.

[Fran Fine]

Well of course there would have to be theories thrown here and there but thank you for accepting my ideas on the whole thing. Sorry if I made you mad but I just had to get my points across in an understandable way as possible. But it was nice having this discussion with you. :)

[Jus-X]

Whatever. I'm done discussing this. If you want to create your own accounts of the story & change it so that it can match up for YOU, then go right ahead. I'll be amongst the people who know that the two are not connected & acknowledge the facts that have actually been presented, not speculation & theories.


Zilla, speculation and theories are what we use to connect the dots of bad continuity. The fact that Jason's appearance changes with each film is that the makeup artists wanted different looks. Thats the fact. But in 2001 we hear the word "regenerate" and assume everything from movies past has to do with regeneration. Its a classic example of fans speculating and theorizing something mentioned in a stand alone film to tie to previous films.

Likewise, H20 was set to be a stand alone film, a sequel only to the original. The only story was Michael and Laurie, that's it. That was the film makers intention, but doesn't mean that horror fans can't come up with waysto connect those dots. Its our rights as fans to do so.

[The Tall Man]

Likewise, H20 was set to be a stand alone film, a sequel only to the original. The only story was Michael and Laurie, that's it. That was the film makers intention
Justyn, that's not true. It was ALWAYS meant to be "Halloween 7" (the title of the script was something like "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode"). It only became an ipso-facto Halloween 3 in the middle of filming thanks to Miner and Curtis' arrogant asses. Moustapha Akkad always wanted it to be a true Halloween 7 and he's just as much a filmmaker as those other two-- in fact, for my money, what he says has more weight than theirs. Curtis was only in two prior films and Miner's a Johnny-come-lately.

Not that I disagree with your point, but the movie was meant to be a true sequel, not a "Let's start this again" train wreck it became.

T.M., Esq.

[Jus-X]

I know that. But you're referencing an early draft of the script. Once the film went into production they were using the script that retconned the Jamie Trilogy.

As a matter of fact, I remember a scene from an early draft where Kerri Tate sat in class hearing an oral report on the Haddonfield Murders of Michael Myers, and how Michael's sister died in a car crash leaving her daughter Jamie behind. The report talked about the events of parts 4-6 and Kerri got very uneasy hearing about it.

But the fact is that once the film went into production, all of that went out the window. No mention of 4-6 was ever in the film, it didn't necesarily discount the events until HR came around and more than one person started saying Michael hasn't been seen for 20 years.

But the point I'm specifically making is that if was can take 1 line from Jason X that was there to indicate Jason will regenerate to an new improved uber edition, and backtrack that to previous films and say "that's why he looks different" or "that's why he didn't die from the axe wound" or "that's whyhe can still use his arm well after a near fatal blow of the machete"... then why give a fan guff for making shit up to connect two continuities.

If Fran Fine was hired to do a sequel to HR and Malek allowed him to connect the two continuities by talking about a town-wide coverup of the Jamie continuity, fans who watch the film would say, "ooohhh, so they are connected."

Likewise, when Todd Farmer decided to put the idea that Jason regenerates to explain why he has skin and hair again and implicate he will eventually get upgraded, we take that idea and work it backwards, saying Jason's been doing that since day one. I read it in every thread where people wonder what Jason's rate of regeneration was in that particular film.

[Fran Fine]

If Fran Fine was hired to do a sequel to HR and Malek allowed him to connect the two continuities by talking about a town-wide coverup of the Jamie continuity, fans who watch the film would say, "ooohhh, so they are connected."

They would be connected at that point as they weren't meant to have been before. But imagine what kind of relief this would have been to me if I was just a few years older at the time and a somewhat screenwriter. I would have put the pieces together and we would have been able to go on and focus on the characters from Part 6 again since everything would have been restored. I mean, making a third story in the H20 storyline ignoring Parts 4-6 as well would be kind hard and would have made the series a bit dull at this point because there's like nothing new at this point to give other than a boogeyman Michael stalking and killing people. So including Parts 4-6 would have been needed to make the plot of H9 more interesting to grasp.

[The Tall Man]

I know that. But you're referencing an early draft of the script. Once the film went into production they were using the script that retconned the Jamie Trilogy.

But the fact is that once the film went into production, all of that went out the window.
You got a source on that? Cause my source for what I just told you is Moustapha Akkad, Malek Akkad, and Kevin Williamson. I'm running with them.

T.M., Esq.

[Jus-X]

You got a source on that? Cause my source for what I just told you is Moustapha Akkad, Malek Akkad, and Kevin Williamson. I'm running with them.

T.M., Esq.

: confused: Um... maybe I'm not quoting them correctly or understanding the story correctly, but...yeah... the people you mentioned are the sources.

The scene in question was never filmed, just written. The re-written
Then filmed to what we have today. Masks changed. Music changed.

Now that I think of it, this film would be the second most changed of the series. Right there behind Curse.

But yeah dude, if I got the story wrong about the script and production then educate me. It wouldn't be the first time I mixed up something I heard. I can admit that.

[The Tall Man]

Hrm. Maybe it's semantics that screwed us up. The way you were talking, you made it sound as if the script they were shooting from had all the 4-6 references removed and they had decided on that direction before shooting. That's not true. I mean, that sounds like what you were saying. Is that right?

I never meant that they SHOT any references to 4-6 because they didn't. Miner refused to do it. But it was in the script for the school scene and when they came to shoot said scene, that's when Miner threw his hissy fit and Curtis and Disney backed him, much to Akkad's chagrin. This was in the middle of production, i.e. they were already shooting. THAT's all I meant.

You'd think that'd have been something Miner bitch-fitted about BEFORE cameras rolled from one, right? Apparently not.

T.M., Esq.

[Jus-X]

Maybe the way I worded it first, but that's not what I meant to say.

[The Tall Man]

It's all good, sir.

[CountProphet]

This is all speculation, though, with nothing to support it. Fact of the matter is, if you try to connect the two then that means if Laurie left with John, she would've faked her death & abandoned Jamie, making her a bad parent, a monster, & not much of a heroine.


Heroine? All she did was scream for two movies, and finally was badass for one scene in H20



I never meant that they SHOT any references to 4-6 because they didn't. Miner refused to do it. But it was in the script for the school scene and when they came to shoot said scene, that's when Miner threw his hissy fit and Curtis and Disney backed him, much to Akkad's chagrin. This was in the middle of production, i.e. they were already shooting. THAT's all I meant.



So, he didn't read the script?

And why hissy fit in the first place? He hate Halloweens 4-6?

[The Tall Man]

He hates Halloweens 2-whatever, Count. When asked about the sequels in an interview, Miner infamously said "There's only one Halloween movie, the original."

He was forced into acknowledging Halloween II because that's where the sister angle came from, but he didn't even want to do that originally.

T.M., Esq.

[Deathscythe]

"There's only one Halloween movie, the original."
H2-H6 felt more like a Halloween film then H20 did.


Heroine? All she did was scream for two movies, and finally was badass for one scene in H20

She was quite heroic in the first film where she did mange to slow down Myers, but for the second film you are right. Loomis is the true hero.

[CountProphet]

She was quite heroic in the first film where she did mange to slow down Myers, but for the second film you are right. Loomis is the true hero.

I don't know to really call it 'heroic' per say. Maybe, trying to momentarily portet the kids, and hide them in the closet, but the rest of the time she basically, whining and hiding. No heroics there.

Yes, I agree that Loomis is the true hero of the franchise. It sure ain't as heck Jamie Lloyd, Rachel, and Strode thats fo sure!

He hates Halloweens 2-whatever, Count. When asked about the sequels in an interview, Miner infamously said "There's only one Halloween movie, the original."

He was forced into acknowledging Halloween II because that's where the sister angle came from, but he didn't even want to do that originally.


Granted, he's right the original is the best, but both Halloweens 2 and 4 are better than his shitty Friday flick. Yes, I know it's one of the best in the Friday series, but compared to Halloweens 2 and 4 it's garbage.

Wait, it minute if it was intended to be a sequel when he began, then what the heck did he think what he was stepping into when it started? That it was not going to be a sequel?:confused:

[Rick]

He probably figured after he started filming he could make the movie he wanted to or threaten to walk off set.
And with Jamie Lee Curtis in his corner he'd get what he wanted.

[The Tall Man]

H2-H6 felt more like a Halloween film then H20 did.
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

Wait, it minute if it was intended to be a sequel when he began, then what the heck did he think what he was stepping into when it started? That it was not going to be a sequel?:confused:
He probably figured after he started filming he could make the movie he wanted to or threaten to walk off set.
And with Jamie Lee Curtis in his corner he'd get what he wanted.
Miner, like a lot if not most people in Hollywood, is a hop skip and a jump away from batshit. Really, he's just crazy if he goes around denying Halloween has sequels (which he has). Trying to impose common sense and logic on the way these people think will get you nowhere... Fast.

T.M., Esq.

[Deathscythe]

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

Yeah. despite H20 ignoring H4-H6 I did actually like the story...but it's Miners direction that killed it for me. He should have gotten the cinematographer to give the movie more of a Halloween atmosphere and not a "late 90's slasher" atmosphere.