Yes it is, in mainstream pop culture, by default, Michael Myers and Laurie Strode are siblings, even those who never seen the 2nd movie have that as the story.
Even those who LOATHE the story acknowledge this. whether anyone likes it or not is their opinion, but this is the mainstream plot of the 1st two movies, even if they never seen the 2nd movie they are still seen as siblings, whether Carpenter likes it or not, and I assure you, he doesn’t like it, he absolutely hates that storyline, despite how successful it is.
In fact that’s the most accepted plot, it’s ingrained in pop culture to the point where pop culture was shocked about 2018’s retcon and they had to explain it and keep repeating it within the movie.
If you think it’s a cheap storyline and don’t like it, it’s your prerogative, but that’s the most successful and known storyline in the serious. Only a small niche dislike it.
As does with every sequel, doesn’t change the fact that it’s the pop culture default.
Which starts in Halloween 4 and is completely irrelevant to the thread and plots of the first two movies, especially the 2nd movie where it’s established that he didn’t target any other relative… only Laurie.
This family killer stuff isn’t in the first two movies. in the first two he targets he murders his sister Judith then wants to repeat it with his sister Laurie, while murdering others at random, not just because someone might get in his way(Alice), but because he’s evil. he doesn’t target any other family members nor is he bound in the writing to just that target, as in Halloween II he gives up and goes back to murdering the neighborhood at random until he hears Laurie’s location on the news.(something people forget)
Halloween 4 is where he just murders family members and only anyone else in his way.
It’s clear that you (RLStern) aren’t interested in legitimate debate. Each time you directly quote individual snippets of someone’s response, you essentially talk in circles hoping nobody will notice. Instead of offering sensible refutes, you’re just pointing out what you don’t “like” about their opinion. Also, as others have pointed out, you treat your own opinion as if it’s concrete and factual. Clearly this entire thread is based on personal taste and there is no definitive opinion. One doesn’t outweigh the other, no matter how badly any of us would like.
While there could be potential to have a healthy debate here, screaming the loudest and refusing to see points by the opposing side comes off as a bit stubborn.
It’s a bit of a strawman argument to say that just because mainstream audiences went along with the directional shift in story back in the 80s it somehow equates to it being objectively better and more effective narratively, weather it’s more effective or not is entirely subjective (though you can make a better argument the unknown is more psychologically threatening). It’s a very minor plot change at the end of the day so it being accepted is insignificant compared to actual pop culture influence. you are really inflating it to support your preference. I’m not arguing that it isn’t effective to push the narrative forward, obviously it does that because it gives us more information about Michaels motive. but by default that kind of change contradicts the creative choices carpenter made for Michaels character in the original where the shape isn’t supposed to understood. That’s the foundation of what made his character, and honestly I think most Halloween fans agree and understand that now and isn’t so much a niche anymore, which is arguably a reason for why the 2018 film went back to the original approach.
This is what happens when fanboys take the word of the director, literally. Just because JC changed his mind years later and slated the idea of H2, doesn’t mean at the time his opinion wasn’t different. It’s with this shift, that fanboys also shift with it. I bet if JC never said that, and praised H2, all fans would likely do the same.
Make up your own minds.
In my opinion H2 is a good film, far better than Halloween 2018, for the mere fact that 2018 retcons H1’s ending; he got locked up and is only a human, but got shot 6 times and they didn’t even explain it? He waited for 40 years… why, did he lose his mojo or something? Why did Sartain have to let him out, was he not capable of getting out himself this time. It’s too orchestrated. Too scripted.
At least the H2 revelation added depth and honoured H1.
But if you want my honest opinion, nothing is canon after H1 anyway. I like to think Myers is still out there, he became the night, he became Halloween, literally. What’s more scary than this guy just getting up after 6 shots, and vanishing… who knows, maybe he’ll come back someday, when they do a proper sequel/reboot, where The Shape just shows up again at random. Age doesn’t matter now, it was confirmed at the end of H1, what he really was, Loomis was not insane. The movie asked those questions throughout, and when it ended, it seemingly confirmed that Loomis was telling the truth.
All these modern movies are about gore and what is so different between 2018 Myers and RZ’s Myers from 2007/2009? Not much, both are brutes, both rely on gore. Maybe one day the filmmakers will bring back the OG stalker Myers. But I won’t hold my breath.
I’m neither screaming nor am I dismissing any writings via my opinion, I refuted every single argument with facts.
Refuting the idea of the sibling storyline with the fact that it is the default Michael Myers storyline in pop culture, isn’t about what I like or using my opinion, that’s a concrete fact no matter who likes or dislikes that storyline.
Ralph_E_Fresh from OHMB, and no I didn’t troll, I came here to be civil and debate topics, you come here to insult me and have still not offered anything of substance in regard to this topic, other than your insults towards me and expressing your dislike of the facts.
That’s not subjective, LIKING it or not is subjective. whether anyone is a fan of the storyline or not, it Objectively was effective, so unbeliebavle effective that it became the default narrative of the ORIGINAL movie, mainstream pop culture sees Myers and Strode as siblings EVEN without having seen any of the sequels.
That deals with a how and not why. WHY Michael is targeting Laurie isn’t an unknown, it’s clear he wants to kill her.
It’s not minor nor am I inflating it, mainstream pop culture sees Michael Myers and Laurie Strode as brother and sister as default for the original movie, even without seeing the sequels this is the accepted plot. so much so they had to force character exposition of the retcon in the 2018 film to absurd levels, as mainstream audiences and pop culture have them as siblings.
Carpenter’s intent is irrelevant to whether it was successful or not, he may have not liked the storyline, in fact he hated it, and that’s too bad, whether he liked it or not, it was successful and perhaps the most important plot he wrote in the series, to where mainstream pop culture has Myers and Strode as siblings by default EVEN without seeing
This is factually false, mainstream pop culture sees them as siblings, even the retcon and character exposition of the 2018 didn’t change that. only a niche online argued against it, evident by mainstream pop culture seeing them as siblings even without watching sequels.
I am Ralph_E_Fresh from OHMB, that site closed down. I don’t know any Joe(though that username does sound familiar if he was on OHMB), but here’s my instagram in case you want to follow me or know who I am.
For years Carpenter shat on Halloween II, and his fans went along with it, despite never even thinking about that prior. they went overboard with it and claimed it was the reason for the franchise getting screwed(That’s actually Halloween 4) and now we have Halloween 2018 and Halloween kills because of the clueless producers, writers and director listening to them.
I remember arguing with someone on the old OHMB, and they were trying to argue that Michael Myers ran in Halloween 1 or that he became a family killer in Halloween II despite clearly not targeting his family and only his sister while randomly murdering others.
Carpenter isn’t perfect, he’s wrong about a bunch of stuff, especially Halloween II which plot became more iconic than the original, to the point where mainstream pop culture sees Myers and Strode as siblings in the ORIGINAL film even without ever watching sequels.
It would be easier to actually have a debate with you if you gave me just one cohesive response rather than breaking apart multiple sections then going on a tangent for each one, who has time for that shit? Maybe you should notice from the way you take your approach that no one enjoys it. Challenging discussion isn’t a bad thing, but in this case you’re just indulging in your own arrogant point of view with each reply
The first 2 Halloween films would have grown to the same amount of pop culture popularity had not the brother sister story line been apart of h2. that’s how insignificant it is. it was simply written in, because when youre gonna do a sequel you need to tell more information to the audience to progress the story. you’re not making a solid argument at all over the fact audiences just adapted to the added plot point in 1982. people considered it to be cannon for the first movie because Halloween 2 literally picks up the same moment that the first ended, making it like it’s the same movie. Objectively it worked and no backlash was caused by it. Being quite insignificant as it is. Does not make it objectively a better approach than the original intention when you just watch that first film in a vacuum. get it through your head that it’s subjectively better for you, your preference. not as a narrative decision objectively speaking.
Yeah true the fact is we really can’t say for sure. But it’s a high probability the brother sister connection didn’t really do much too boost Halloween’s popularity, that’s why I can say it with confidence. Halloween was already gaining a good amount of popularity before h2 came out. a sequel to it in and of itself is more responsible for Halloween growing in pop culture, not the plot twist that happens in like 2 minutes
Because Halloween 1978 was out for 3 full years before Halloween II, literally starting the “slasher” boom, yet the plot of the sequel 3 years after is the mainstream pop culture plot of the ORIGINAL film, that’s how significant it was.
I can understand you loathing the sibling storyline, but lets be real here, it’s the most mainstream pop culture plot of the series, even those who never seen any of the sequels by default have Michael Myers and Laurie Strode as siblings.
It is objectively better, again from 1978-1981, Michael Myers and Laurie Strode are not siblings in canon, yet the accepted mainstream pop culture plot since Halloween II is that they are siblings, if it was not better audiences wouldn’t accept it.
The sibling angle became the iconography of the ORIGINAL film, despite not being in the original movie, that makes it objectively successful and better.
And don’t bother bringing up Carpenter’s original intent, it’s pointless, original intent doesn’t equal better.
Darth Vader wasn’t originally intended to be Anakin Skywalker yet that’s the best twist in cinema history.
Donald Pleasance wasn’t originally intended to play Dr. Samuel Loomis, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee were, yet you’d be crazy to argue that it would have been better than Donald Pleasance playing Dr. Loomis.
The original Halloween to me was conceived as a one-shot story that centralizes on the experience of being stalked and murdered in the safety of your own backyard. Michael as a character is not important to the story, except as a constant reminder of the stakes. Seriously- the only development Michael gets is to establish what a dangerous, mysterious threat he is, mostly by Dr. Loomis working as a hype man for The Shape.
Now when John was tasked with writing the sequel he ran into a problem- why is Michael after Laurie still? The narrative required a motivating drive for Michael, but in doing so IMO it really went against the core horror theme of the original. John had to define a character who by design was supposed to be undefineable. By delving into Michael as a character it shifts the horror on a fundamental level. It goes from “this can happen to you” to “this happened to that person in this location”. To me that lessens the impact of the original.
H18 and its sequels to me reverted back to remove that factor, but it also nakes an icon of Michael.
The Myers character is the most important character in the film, Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode hinge on that character.
Michael Myers targets Laurie Strode in the original, so there always was a motivating drive, the drive is simply revealed in the sequel.
Michael Myers is definable, he’s pure evil. his character was never ever undefinable.
No, he murders at random in both Halloween I and II, even if someone doesn’t get in his way. in fact, in Halloween II he gives up targeting Laurie as he leaves the area after getting shot off the balcony and goes on to immediately murder people at random, beginning with Alice. he only goes back after Laurie when he finds out her location on the radio.
H18 he still targets Laurie. this time without the brilliance of the sibling storyline.
Michael is important as the antagonit, but he’s pure action. There’s no motive laid out for him, so for you to say Michael is the most important character is just wrong in my view. Michael is only built up to establish and raise the stakes.
[quote=“, post:36, topic:65475”]
Seriously- the only development Michael gets is to establish what a dangerous, mysterious threat he is, mostly by Dr. Loomis working as a hype man for The Shape.
Now when John was tasked with writing the sequel he ran into a problem- why is Michael after Laurie still? The narrative required a motivating drive for Michael, but in doing so IMO it really went against the core horror theme of the original.
[/quote]
Michael Myers targets Laurie Strode in the original, so there always was a motivating drive, the drive is simply revealed in the sequel.
Did he, though? Michael’s first kill was seemingly random with no motive to speak of, and Michael only meets Laurie after she literally shows up on his doorstep. Even then, he spends most of the movie killing random teenagers (narratively to raise the stakes and thereby the suspense for what’s to come for the final victim)
[quote=“, post:36, topic:65475”]
John had to define a character who by design was supposed to be undefineable.
[/quote]
Michael Myers is definable, he’s pure evil. his character was never ever undefinable.
And what does pure evil mean, exactly? A character can’t be defined by such a nebulous concept as “pure evil”. What- does he fuck kids? Does he torture people chained up to the radiator? Does he skin them alive?
[quote=“, post:36, topic:65475”]
By delving into Michael as a character it shifts the horror on a fundamental level. It goes from “this can happen to you” to “this happened to that person in this location”. To me that lessens the impact of the original.
[/quote]
No, he murders at random in both Halloween I and II, even if someone doesn’t get in his way. in fact, in Halloween II he gives up targeting Laurie as he leaves the area after getting shot off the balcony and goes on to immediately murder people at random, beginning with Alice. he only goes back after Laurie when he finds out her location on the radio.[/quote[
And here you contradict your previous point- you can’t both be random and targeting. If Michael was targeting Laurie then by definition that’s not random. Nothing in the original even hints at why Michael is targeting Laurie- because it’s not about that. The movie is focusing on the experience of being stalked. Michael essentially begins and ends as “undefined threat”.
[quote=“, post:36, topic:65475”]
H18 and its sequels to me reverted back to remove that factor, but it also makes an icon of Michael.
[/quote]
H18 he still targets Laurie. this time without the brilliance of the sibling storyline.
Eh, brilliance is overstating it IMO.I think John knew that by adding a motive to Michael it fundamentally shifted the horror from “it could happen to you” to “it happened to this person at this location”- but that’s the price of continuing the story of a character.
Michael’s motive is murder. without the Michael Myers character there’s no Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode, they simply wouldn’t work.
Myers targets Laurie in the first movie, this is a fact.
Just because he doesn’t commit other disturbing and repulsive acts doesn’t mean him murdering isn’t pure evil, it’s repulsive and immoral. Michael Myers is pure evil.
The movie retains the idea that “it could happen to you”, anyone gets killed, not just those in his way, even those who aren’t get murdered(Alice).
Halloween 4 is where they started the “it could only happen to this person”.
Halloween II is brillant in that it resonated with mainstream pop culture, making people fear that this could happen to them. to the point where the plot of Michael and Laurie being siblings is the default plot of the original film, even without seeing Halloween II.
