I don’t see why so many of us are getting upset. I thought it was handled very tastefully. Michael is very human in Rob’s vision. If he started to speak Klingon I could understand the anguish but it’s one word that is so full of meaning. One word to deliver 17 years of pent up vengeance and rage towards Loomis. This moment in the movie is very important because just before Michael is gunned down we are reminded that he is very human and his feelings toward Loomis are justified because of all that Loomis DIDN’T do for Michael and the Myers family. This isn’t just another faceless killer in a mask. Try and look at it this way and it is much easier to enjoy the movie in whole.
It’s just unnecessary. I think we get a pretty good idea of how angry he is just with the grunting and the savageness of his kills. Talking (among other things about Michael in H2) takes a lot away from the character and the mystery of Michael which is what he always has been: an enigma. He’s not an enigma anymore because we’ve seen his backstory, his face, heard him talk, etc. We know too much now.
GOTTA AGREE WITH DREN ON THIS ONE.
its so funny no offense matt you know our views sometimes are similar except all RZ talk an u knew i was gonna come post on ya cause we have good debates…NOW
its funny how everyone talks about michael as if original mike is like a long lost brother that the new brother should try an take after…i dont care for the old story when it comes to michael an in reality matt your kind of wrong cause who are we to say what ROB’S michael is suppose to be.
Well it’s OK to change a character but not so drastically. If you change a character too much then it just becomes something entirely different and now I wonder…why is it called Halloween anymore? I really think Rob should have just came up with his own slasher.
I wouldn’t consider Michael Myers an enigma or mystery. Even in the 1978 version. People tend to forget that Carpenter showed Michael, without his mask and coveralls, leap on top of a car, assault its driver and scramble into the driving seat. Nothing wrong with that but nothing mysterious about it either.
If Zombie had shown Michael leap on top of a car I guarantee there would have been outcry.
Michael grunts in Carpenters version. Throughout. A scene very similar to the climax of H2 shows Michael, while choking Jamie Lee Curtis, unmasked and grunting… No one complained.
So when Michael says “DIE” it is less than one second of screen time and it also suggests that Michael didn’t come to Haddonfield just to kill Laurie but only to save her and destroy Loomis.
And speaking of changing characters drastically. Donald Pleasance went from a fairly rationally acting person in Halloween 1978 to a rambling nut-job in Halloween 4,5 and 6… again no one really complained. I think it’s a case of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” when trying to progress the Halloween franchise.
now thats a great idea dude…imagine just a guy with no half mask or anything not michael not halloween just that hobo murdering that really would of been cool great view matt
And I wouldn’t have seen it. 
But you never actually see what he looks like when he jumps on the car, you don’t get a good look at him. Whereas Zombie gives you many close up shots of Michael’s face in H2 therefore taking away any mystery to him and giving the chance for the audience to really wonder what he looks like. Michael should be the boogieman and seeing his face takes away that quality.
And I wasn’t arguing about the grunting. I like the grunting and one reason is because it is reminiscent of the originals.
But you never actually see what he looks like when he jumps on the car, you don’t get a good look at him. Whereas Zombie gives you many close up shots of Michael’s face in H2 therefore taking away any mystery to him and giving the chance for the audience to really wonder what he looks like. Michael should be the boogieman and seeing his face takes away that quality.
And I wasn’t arguing about the grunting. I like the grunting and one reason is because it is reminiscent of the originals.[/quote]
But You must admit that Michael leaping onto a car had nothing mysterious or enigmatic going for it. Also in some ways it seemed like it wasn’t Michael and as a result was almost out of character to how Carpenter portrayed him for the rest of the film…
In the escape scene he was like a wild, feral animal… fast and almost disorderly, a large contrast in comparison to Michael as a six year old and later as the shape who moved slowly and silently and struck with composure and was, if I may use this decription, violently elegant.
I think Michael in H2 was more enigmatic. He moved through the fields on the way back to Haddonfiled like a determined force. His visions were haunting and mysterious. His silence, broken by fierce grunting only to return to silent Michael again in a matter of seconds was truly chilling.
I think Michael was definitely an outline of the darkness that the human mind can succumb to in the 1978 version of Halloween. He was a lot more creepy than Zombie’s Michael. However I think Zombies Michael is scarier to me as he represents the very real and exceedingly violent serial killers that exist in our progressively hostile world.
Not really. Most of the shots of Michael we see he’s just standing still. When he walks in the movie he doesn’t exactly walk slow. Walking across the street after Laurie was a good example, he walks pretty fast. His moments aren’t robotic at all in the original so I would say his actions in the beginning don’t really differ from later in the movie.
Yeah but in H2 its a heavy grunt where in the original its more like heavy breathing, slight grunts at times…The original Michael is definately a Mystery and enigma IMO…Thats what made him so creepy…Zombie explains almost everything where in the original you have no idea why he iswhat he is…In the original michael comes from a normal family and something just happens…We dont know what…One day he just goes silent, kills his sister and never speaks again LoL…In Zombies version it can be explained why Michael snaps, to a degree anyway…His upbringing can definately be part of what happens to zombies Michael…Carpenter even said it himself…“Michael is an undeniable force”…A force of Pure Evil…Zombies Michael is much more Human(Even though he can take some slugs and still be standing) he is definately more human and not so much a force of soly pure evil…
I enjoyed RZ H1 because it kept alot of the original traits…H2 just changed to much about the original character to me…Im not knocking the film or anyone who enjoyed it, Hey whatever floats your boat you know…But to me too much was changed from the original and I tend to agree with Matt in saying this should of been Zombies own slasher…I would of really enjoyed H2 if “Halloween” was not the title and Michael myers wasnt the slasher…Thats just how I see things…There were things I liked about H2…I thought the hospital scene was killer…I wish they would of stayed with that route like in the original H2…But after the hospital is where I start to lean away from the film…I dont think I will ever like Michael speaking or not wearing the white face…I didnt like the bad relationship Laurie and annie developed either…The kills were definately more brutal and I do like a more brutal myers but at the same time alot of the kills were the same…He definately liked to throw people on the ground and stab them repeatedly LoL…I mean I must say that I still enjoyed watching the film…I wont say its horrible because its not, just not a good Halloween to me due to drifting away from alot of the classic traits that made Michael and Halloween…Later guys
Not really. Most of the shots of Michael we see he’s just standing still. When he walks in the movie he doesn’t exactly walk slow. Walking across the street after Laurie was a good example, he walks pretty fast. His moments aren’t robotic at all in the original so I would say his actions in the beginning don’t really differ from later in the movie.[/quote]
Realistically though he would have needed to run to leap atop the car like that. This is what I mean when I say it is almost like a different character. Why didn’t he run after Laurie. He had to run to leap so its something he can do. I suppose we have different perceptions of the enigmatic elements of Michael but I must say and I think you will agree with me here; Thank God Zombie rescued Michael from the sinking disaster that was “Halloween:Resurrection” and made him scary again.
But that’s the point. We don’t know if he ran or not. We are supposed to imagine it ourselves what he would have done. Carpenter leaves much to the imagination where Zombie hands us everything we need to know.
But that’s the point. We don’t know if he ran or not. We are supposed to imagine it ourselves what he would have done. Carpenter leaves much to the imagination where Zombie hands us everything we need to know.[/quote]
Yes but he definitely would have had to run and unfortunately visualising Michael running in a nightgown makes me giggle.
Zombie’s concept of Michael Myers was not the result of an evil gene or that he grew up in a dysfunctional household (if the household was to blame then Judith would have been insane too) but this madness was something that he was born with. This was a type of madness that not even Dr. Loomis could comprehend so in this way Michael’s insanity in Zombie’s version is clearly enigmatic. This is the mysterious element of Zombie’s Myers. What kind of madness drives him. Where did it come from. What is the seed of it all.
It is suggested in H2 that the traumatic events of H1 have awoken this dormant psychosis in Laurie as well when we watch her behaviour bloom into the same type of mysterious insanity. My theory is that when Laurie too begins to hallucinate her surroundings, her subconscious memories of Deborah and Michael as a child come to the fore and slowly dominate her perceptions of reality.
totally agreed, Zombies Halloween films really delve into the psychological aspect of the story that have been TOTALLY absent from the series since the original film. I love it for that,
I was wondering what did Loomis say to Micahel before Michael says DIE.
‘‘michael, for god sakes’’
Without a doubt, this Michael isn’t the shape…the shadow we all know and love. Hell Zombie himself admitted that in the audio commentary. Someone said above,“This is just too much of a change from the original Myers.” It’s meant to be. Sure Carpenter made us guess and didn’t give us much so we could use our minds. It was brand new, film number uno, this is films 9 & 10. We can’t really get suprized by that old mystery of Michael Myers again can we? In Robs first remake he gave us most of the old story up front cause we already know it. Then he added his own twists to make it a new experience with new, Chaos insuing Michael Myers. With H2 he took all the charaters to their limits, and in all new directions never before seen. I don’t think it was pointless for new Michael to say “DIE”, only if you’re mixing in 1978 Michael. It was 15 years of silence & anger all coming to a head. Michael knew he was gonna die when he busted threw the wall with Loomis. In Michaels last moments he gave Loomis what he wanted all along…Loomis finally reached Michael…, and Michael gave Loomis what was coming to him.
I’m a diehard for classic Michael Myers don’t get me wrong, But I see and accept this new Myers as well. For it’s little classic touch, and for touching all new grounds in the Halloween franchises history. I can see why it bothers fans but Im ok with it.
Just one mans thoughts. 
Michael…we are going to Hell"