TheHive08

Wonder how they'll write out the Loomis character... I would hope a nod to Pleasance in some way.

Noonan

Not sure if he resented it but the original idea was for the series to be a new story every year, similar to how H3 ended up. Probably got pressure from the studio due to the popularity of Michael.

Mike86

Well it's forty years later so it's reasonable to assume he would have passed away seeing as he was old in 1978. That's another odd thing about this film, going by the first film Michael was six when he killed Judith in 1963 so he'd be sixty now. Seems kinda weird to think he's still out there at that age. I suppose it's plausible but I imagine he's going to be a lot slower and stuff.

Noonan

Well they could reuse that plot point from H20. lol A few characters mentioned how old Michael would be then and how "it can't be him".

So since JLC is in this, we're basically erasing everything after night 1 and jumping ahead to modern times? That's A LOT of backstory to fill in for people to get into this.

d2cheer

I am still OK with all of this. Clean slate.

At this point just disregard the first film and start over.



Ummm...forget that last part.

DJariya

Yeah Loomis "killed" Michael at the end of part 2 by turning on the gas in the hospital and blowing up that room. He got permanent scars on his face after that which we saw on the now non-existent Part 4.

So Loomis shoots Michael at the end of Part 1 and then escapes, then we jump ahead 40 years later? It's one thing to pretend that 5 sequels don't exist, but now to pretend the direct sequel which was a continuation of the same night is now wiped clean and now we jump ahead 40 years is a lot.

TGM

just make it scary and they can do whatever they want.

DaveyJoe

Laurie and Michael being brother/sister is the only significant plot point introduced in Part 2. That's what they're wiping out I suppose.


Yep, and he was apparently drunk the entire time while writing it.

kd5

This just sounds totally bizarre to me. IMHO, Halloween and Halloween II are two halves of a whole story. Halloween II picks up right where Halloween leaves off. I feel like they just go together, like 2 parts of a whole. So, JC is going to re-write the whole friggin' story (basically), wiping out everything that happened after the original Halloween?

I don't own anything after the original and Halloween II, I had 4/5 on a double feature but it just didn't feel the same anymore and I sold it. Picked up Halloween III recently but it's like its own story, totally independent of the Michael Myers saga. So, for me, I already have all the Halloween I need. If he's going to basically wipe everything that happens after the original, re-write history (so to speak), I honestly don't know how I feel about that.

DaveyJoe

Danny McBride and David Gordon Green are writing the screenplay.

Hazel Motes

They also might be wiping out the fact that Michael Myers is supernatural. He might be just a man now. In the original he was just a man. In the sequel after all he went through, he became supernatural.

DaveyJoe

I think there's an argument there in the first film. He gets up after being shot six times. Dr. Loomis is constantly describing him as a force of nature. Dr. Loomis describes him as pure evil, and refused to acknowledge his humanity.

DJariya

They may be writing it, but Carpenter is EP and overseeing this project. So he will definitely be influencing how they're writing the script and if it meets his approval.

Josh-da-man

I sort of like the idea that JC is disregarding everything but the original film. It works well to pick up the series years after Michael vanished after falling out of the window. Not to mention erasing the whole brother/sister thing.

DaveyJoe

But Carpenter rewriting the series sounds disingenuous to me. More like McBride and Green are eliminating the other films from cannon and Carpenter approves.

Mike86

I could see taking out the films after two but I hope they have something really good cooked up to disregard the entire franchise aside from the first film. I realize that not all the sequels were the greatest but the second film was at least salvageable and really feels like such a natural progression from the first film that it seems weird to just throw it out.

kd5

Technically, yes, but JC sounds like he is (to a large degree) supprting this endeavor so in my mind this is his project even though the screenplay will be written by others.

Supermallet

I’m not trying to invalidate your opinion and I know many people feel the same way about Halloween and Halloween II being two halves of a whole.

As someone who never liked the franchise aspect of Halloween, I see Halloween II as superfluous, as I think John Carpenter did as well. There’s nothing in the movie that the first didn’t do better. I know that’s true of many horror sequels but Halloween II always felt especially egregious to me in that regard. A good storyteller knows where to end the story, and the ending of Halloween was perfect.

To be honest I’m not even especially interested in this sequel as I think everything past the first Halloween has been an attempt to get blood from a stone. The first movie is such a wonderful self-contained story.

Mike86

The first is definitely great on its own but I feel like the fact that Halloween II exists and is as good of a sequel as can be expected for what is a horror masterpiece makes it seem weird to just throw it out. It built on the first film and I always watch them back to back. It's not like the other sequels that range from average slasher fare (though I enjoy a lot of them for what they are) to crap (mainly Halloween: Resurrection).

I'll be curious what the explanation will be for having Michael choose to go after Laurie after forty years in the new film. What the hell else would he be doing that entire time? Obviously he's not captured at the end of the first film and I'm sure it's not like he's living a normal life.

Hazel Motes

True enough. But I think an argument could also be made that he's a man. Maybe not definitively, but its possible. We don't really know what happened at the end of the original if the sequel doesn't count. They could still plausibly go that direction (or any number of directions) if only the original is canon. It could be made believable. The same can't be said for Halloween 2 though. It's pretty cut and dry. From both the perspective of what happens to him physically and the Samhain narrative. You can't unring that bell. If they were going to make him just a man, cutting out everything except for the original would be the way to do it.

DJariya

Pretty neat fan made poster

Mike86

They should call it that rather than just Halloween again. Cool fan poster.

dex14

The concept of the poster is OK. But the photoshop is terrible.

Maxflier

Not for the movie, but this is as good a place as any to post it:

GoldenJCJ

Kind of neat but I’d have my doubts that Laurie Strode is terribly big on celebrating Halloween.