Halloween (2018)

[bradnoyes]

Regarding the retcon of the original ending, it is funny to think of the exchange between Laurie and Loomis (Laurie: "It was the boogeyman", Loomis: "as a matter of fact it was") taking place while Michael is just outside being placed in handcuffs. I agree with those arguing that the way this new movie contextualizes the ending of the original is a disservice, which is part of why it's just another sequel that I'll disregard.

[Hoke Moseley]

Does the new movie say Michael was captured right away?

Think about it... how long would Michael be able to survive on his own in the world with no money, food, or social skills? I doubt he would've been able to take off and live low down in Florida for 40 years.

He took off on foot or found the car he stole from Loomis and the nurse... and the police tracked him down. I don't see how that takes anything away from the original.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Does the new movie say Michael was captured right away?

Think about it... how long would Michael be able to survive on his own in the world with no money, food, or social skills? I doubt he would've been able to take off and live low down in Florida for 40 years.

He took off on foot or found the car he stole from Loomis and the nurse... and the police tracked him down. I don't see how that takes anything away from the original.

No it doesn’t. I don’t get why it’s hard for people to imagine he was captured more than a few hours later.

This reminds me of TLJ. The people who hate it complain about it so much that they’re manufacturing issues that aren’t even in the movie.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Regarding the retcon of the original ending, it is funny to think of the exchange between Laurie and Loomis (Laurie: "It was the boogeyman", Loomis: "as a matter of fact it was") taking place while Michael is just outside being placed in handcuffs.

That is such a hilarious thought for sure.

[jayman3]

Wasn't there an article saying the original films ending was going to be reshot and shown from a different perspective which would've shown Michael captured and taken away?

[ben6543]

Neca just announced they are making Laurie from the new movie to go with Micheal

[badfingerboogie]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

No it doesn’t. I don’t get why it’s hard for people to imagine he was captured more than a few hours later.

This reminds me of TLJ. The people who hate it complain about it so much that they’re manufacturing issues that aren’t even in the movie.

I'm pretty sure we're straight-up told in this that he was captured almost right after. I might be mis-remembering, but isn't there a whole scene dedicated to Will Patton's sheriff saying that he was amongst the first responders who came to the Doyle house that night and apprehended Michael?

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Wasn't there an article saying the original films ending was going to be reshot and shown from a different perspective which would've shown Michael captured and taken away?

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/ha...ed-1202004372/

They also wanted to have Michael kill Loomis right after the ending of the original.

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/...mis-halloween/

[elecrofunk]

Saw it in IMAX. Had already seen it 3 times but just had to. Haven't seen an IMAX since The Dark Knight over 10 years ago. It was sooo worth it! Can't wait for the BD.

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Regarding the retcon of the original ending, it is funny to think of the exchange between Laurie and Loomis (Laurie: "It was the boogeyman", Loomis: "as a matter of fact it was") taking place while Michael is just outside being placed in handcuffs. I agree with those arguing that the way this new movie contextualizes the ending of the original is a disservice, which is part of why it's just another sequel that I'll disregard.

Yeah that's a good way to describe it. I knew it was a bad idea to mess with the ending and I was right. Part of the the first one being so great was him being gone at the end after lumis unloaded in him. Such a load of crap that this was changed.

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

No it doesn’t. I don’t get why it’s hard for people to imagine he was captured more than a few hours later.

This reminds me of TLJ. The people who hate it complain about it so much that they’re manufacturing issues that aren’t even in the movie.

Umm first of all tlj sucked but people not "into" SW and worship the monopolistic disney corp act like its the best thing! ...

As to the "hard to imagine" thing, well that isn't what happened and changing it 40 years after it was made is a copout! Had George Lucas changed the ending to the OT oh lord the pitch forks. He made little changes and the mob was out and is still out. Yet it's okay to change an ending to one of the best horror films, yeah no. But hey keep imagining...

[levcore]

I did enjoy this but I think it was a mistake to ignore so many sequels. It definitely lessens the connecting tissue between Laurie and Michael. I mean Myers doesn't even seem bothered about Laurie until

[Show spoiler]Sartain practically drives him to her house.

[flash.over]

Originally Posted by levcore

I did enjoy this but I think it was a mistake to ignore so many sequels. It definitely lessens the connecting tissue between Laurie and Michael. I mean Myers doesn't even seem bothered about Laurie until

[Show spoiler]Sartain practically drives him to her house.

That’s kind of the point

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

Disregarding canon to make the movie you want is disrespectful to those who made the original works. Example: Disney rendering all Star Wars EU novelizations prior to the acquisition moot. Those works were canon in the universe.

Hell, this direct sequel to 1978 erases the goddamned ending of the first by having him magically get caught and put into prison. What? The point of the ending is that his evil cannot be contained and that was cemented throughout all of the sequels sans HIII.

You overlook the fact that Michael was contained for all those years leading up to his escape in the first movie.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by flash.over

That’s kind of the point

Correct,the whole sister thing was added in Halloween 2 to flesh out the story a little more and give Michael a reason for him stalking Laurie,when in fact the original movie's Michael stalking Laurie because she dropped a key off at his house is far more chilling imo,and probably why Carpenter chose that direction in the first place.

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

You overlook the fact that Michael was contained for all those years leading up to his escape in the first movie.

True but that was the creepy thing, he just all of a sudden escaped.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Michael11

No atmosphere, nothing new, bad acting.

Load of tripe.

No justification,same old comment,bad post.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

True but that was the creepy thing, he just all of a sudden escaped.

Loomis said that he thought they were not taking Michael's threat seriously enough,so I would imagine Smith's Grove did not see Michael as a potential escape risk,I mean he had not said or done anything for years.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flash.over

That’s kind of the point

Exactly! Michael didn’t even come back for Laurie. I thought that was obvious.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

True but that was the creepy thing, he just all of a sudden escaped.

We don’t know for sure that the crash wasn’t manufactured.