Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Halloween (2018)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If there's no Ben Tramer then this movie is an automatic failure.

    Comment


    • Holy shit, I just realized this is a timeline in which Ben Tramer is still living. O_o

      Without any of Michael's shenanigans, many of the ill-fated characters went on to live happy lives.
      People hyping up latest comic book movie to be the GOAT and I'm like "psshh, you guys must not have seen Bigfoot rip off a man's dick before in 1980's Night of the Demon."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
        Um, Laurie wouldn't be allowed in? I doubt it. Michael doesn't have a restraining order against her.
        No, Laurie wouldn't be allowed in. Michael's a dangerous prisoner, which means that they're going to treat him as such. People aren't going to be allowed to just come and visit whenever they feel like it. Access to him is going to be restricted. The people making that documentary probably had to get special permission to see him, and even then they were in the presence of armed guards.

        It's like dealing with a dangerous animal at the zoo; nobody gets near the thing unless they're qualified to work with it, or unless special precautions are taken. And, they're only going to go to that kind of trouble if there's a good reason to do so.

        I don't see why they wouldn't unless they suspect Laurie will do something,
        Considering that Michael killed her friends and tried to kill her, the authorities have good reason to think that she might try something, hence they're not likely to let her near him.

        The other concern would likely be that Michael might try to kill Laurie again, which wouldn't be good either.

        but she could easily tell them she just wants to keep an eye on him so he doesn't escape.
        It's not her job to keep an eye on him. It's the job of the people who work at the sanitarium he's being kept in. Dr. Loomis could have done that because he was Michael's doctor, but Laurie has no authority to claim any kind of guardianship over Michael. She's not even his sister in this version of the story, so she can't use that to get close to him. She has no business seeing him so they're not going to let her.

        To wait forty years for a one night showdown is a waste and why the aspect of this movie does not work out.
        It works just fine. Part of the point of the movie seems to be the question 'has Laurie lost her mind?' "Has one monster created another?" The fact that Laurie continues to obsess over Michael after Forty years is evidence that maybe she is losing it. Her own daughter thinks she needs help because she won't let it go. That's how obsessions work. They don't come and go when it's convenient. They persist beyond the point of reason. Even when Michael does escape and return to Haddonfield, validating Laurie's fears, there's still the possibility that she's gone over the edge.
        Last edited by Darth Reaper; 10-01-2018, 10:15 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
          No, Laurie wouldn't be allowed in. Michael's a dangerous prisoner, which means that they're going to treat him as such. People aren't going to be allowed to just come and visit whenever they feel like it. Access to him is going to be restricted. The people making that documentary probably had to get special permission to see him, and even then they were in the presence of armed guards.
          But they didn't work there, so perhaps if Laurie worked there then she'd have easy access to him than if she was just a visitor. And Michael can't be that dangerous considering he only killed like four people in his life. He's not a serial killer here. Parts 2-8 didn't happen, so his dangerous level is quite limited here.
          Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
          It's not her job to keep an eye on him. It's the job of the people who work at the sanitarium he's being kept in. Dr. Loomis could have done that because he was Michael's doctor, but Laurie has no authority to claim any kind of guardianship over Michael. She's not even his sister in this version of the story, so she can't use that to get close to him. She has no business seeing him so they're not going to let her.
          Laurie can MAKE it her job, just like she's making it her job to be the one to stop him when she escapes. As for not being his sister, we don't know that for certainly. Yeah, they ignored Halloween II which establishes the sibling thing, but I doubt we're gonna get some backstory on Laurie that proves she wasn't still adopted or still couldn't be the sister in this new timeline, so I wouldn't say that.
          Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
          It works just fine. Part of the point of the movie seems to be the question 'has Laurie lost her mind?' "Has one monster created another?" The fact that Laurie continues to obsess over Michael after Forty years is evidence that maybe she is losing it. Her own daughter thinks she needs help because she won't let it go. That's how obsessions work. They don't come and go when it's convenient. They persist beyond the point of reason. Even when Michael does escape and return to Haddonfield, validating Laurie's fears, there's still the possibility that she's gone over the edge.
          It doesn't work. No one is gonna be obsessing over some measly killer after forty years who only killed THREE people and didn't even put up that much of a fight. This isn't Leatherface and his family of maniac cannibals here. This is just a simple guy in a Halloween mask and jumpsuit who doesn't even SPEAK. How does that cause some one to have so much damn trauma they need to go Sarah Conner like the world is about to end? It makes no sense and ignoring the other movies makes it more deviant that an aspect like this does not work.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
            But they didn't work there, so perhaps if Laurie worked there then she'd have easy access to him than if she was just a visitor. And Michael can't be that dangerous considering he only killed like four people in his life. He's not a serial killer here. Parts 2-8 didn't happen, so his dangerous level is quite limited here.
            The point still stands that the people making the documentary probably had to talk to the people running the sanitarium and convince them that it was worth it to give them access to Michael. They probably were only allowed to see him under controlled conditions. And, the people in charge could have easily said no to them and sent them away. Laurie has no good reason to see Michael, so they're probably not going to let her. "I'm keeping an eye on Michael because he's The Boogeyman" is not going to fly with the authorities.

            They're not going to let Laurie work at the facility where Michael is being kept. Even if she could get the right qualifications to work at such a place, they're not going to let HER work there for any number of reasons. It just wouldn't be a good idea.

            As for how dangerous Michael is in this movie, he escaped from custody after fifteen years of appearing to be catatonic, then went home and killed four people in cold blood. They lock people away for life in maximum security prisons for less than that, and the authorities like to keep those prisoners on a very short leash. It doesn't matter how many people Michael killed. What matters is that he has killed and there's every reason to think that he'll kill again if given the chance. He's proven himself to be a threat to others, so he's going to be kept under tight security, like any dangerous criminal would be.

            Laurie can MAKE it her job, just like she's making it her job to be the one to stop him when she escapes. As for not being his sister, we don't know that for certainly. Yeah, they ignored Halloween II which establishes the sibling thing, but I doubt we're gonna get some backstory on Laurie that proves she wasn't still adopted or still couldn't be the sister in this new timeline, so I wouldn't say that.
            No, she can't just MAKE it her job. She has to get permission to work at that sanitarium or even to see Michael, and chances are that the authorities wouldn't give her that permission. And, if they don't give her that permission, she's out of luck.

            It doesn't work. No one is gonna be obsessing over some measly killer after forty years who only killed THREE people and didn't even put up that much of a fight. This isn't Leatherface and his family of maniac cannibals here. This is just a simple guy in a Halloween mask and jumpsuit who doesn't even SPEAK. How does that cause some one to have so much damn trauma they need to go Sarah Conner like the world is about to end? It makes no sense and ignoring the other movies makes it more deviant that an aspect like this does not work.
            I think you're only saying this because you've never experienced it. Try looking up real-life stories of people who have survived attempts on their lives and see what they have to say. I've seen and read enough to feel fairly certain that it's a life-altering experience, and some people react to it more extremely than others. It doesn't have to be The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to scar you for life. All it takes is a man in a mask with a knife who doesn't talk killing your friends, setting them up for you to find them, and then trying to kill you.

            Comment


            • Well, I think Laurie could have slipped through the cracks and gained access at Smith's Grove. Agree to disagree on that I'd say. As for the trauma thing, I never experienced it, but I doubt I'd be hell bent about it forty years later. There's far more things to be that traumatic about like 9/11 for example. Now that's something to be warriored up about and some one trying to take down Bin Laden, but a measley little pest like Michael Myers? I just don't buy it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
                Well, I think Laurie could have slipped through the cracks and gained access at Smith's Grove. Agree to disagree on that I'd say.
                Laurie COULD slip through the cracks. There's always the possibility. But, I honestly don't think she WOULD. I think they'd recognize her and turn her away precisely because they don't want an incident. It wouldn't look good for them if she managed to get into the facility and kill the man who's probably their most notorious patient, or worse she tries to kill him only to be killed by him. Like you said, agree to disagree I guess.

                As for the trauma thing, I never experienced it, but I doubt I'd be hell bent about it forty years later.
                You say that now, but you might not feel that way if you ever had to go through it (and hopefully you'll never have to). Like I said, look up some real-life stories of people who have survived actual attacks. See how it affects them. It might change your point of view.

                There's far more things to be that traumatic about like 9/11 for example. Now that's something to be warriored up about and some one trying to take down Bin Laden, but a measley little pest like Michael Myers? I just don't buy it.
                The thing is we don't get to pick and choose our obsessions. We get stuck with them whether we want them or not. I sometimes think that if I could just focus my Obsessive-Compulsive tendencies on physical fitness, I could be a world-class athlete. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't choose the things that my mind gets stuck on, I just role with them.

                And, Michael Myers is not a measly little pest, he's a cold-blooded killer. People should be frightened of people like him.

                But, based on a clip from the movie that I saw, I think Laurie's problems go beyond Michael himself. I think Michael showed her that the world can be a very dark and scary place, full of dangers that might show up when you least expect it. Bad things can happen to people in this world, and there doesn't always seem to be a good reason for it. You can be going about your daily life and then, boom, suddenly you find yourself maimed or dead, and for no better reason than because the right set of circumstances came together to make it happen. I suspect that in Laurie's mind, Michael symbolizes all of that. He represents every bad thing that could happen to you. He's a perfect example of the seeming randomness and unpredictability of life, and that can be what's truly terrifying.

                Comment




                • Listening to the OST now. As I expected, this is a full on new Carpenter score rather than just a retread of his earlier stuff. Sounds good. Possible spoiler warning about the track titles though, so if you click through to youtube and read them you might learn more than you want to.

                  Really dig the track starting at 19:48. Reminds me a lot of Goblin's work on Suspiria.
                  Last edited by sagittarius; 10-15-2018, 04:07 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Sweet, I didn't know it up to listen to yet. I'll have to check this out sometime.
                    People hyping up latest comic book movie to be the GOAT and I'm like "psshh, you guys must not have seen Bigfoot rip off a man's dick before in 1980's Night of the Demon."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
                      You say that now, but you might not feel that way if you ever had to go through it (and hopefully you'll never have to). Like I said, look up some real-life stories of people who have survived actual attacks. See how it affects them. It might change your point of view.
                      I'm sure people out there exist, but I feel like they're over-doing it or have some mental issue to begin with that's causing that. There's plenty of people out there who are able to move on and not dwell in the past to effect how they handle life. Frankly, I'd like to have seen Laurie as some one who was the opposite of what she was in H20, not the way they depicted it here but some one who's more loose. She's not thinking about Michael and living life like he's not coming after her again and when he does escape, she's naïve that he's gonna come after her again. In the 2018 movie, Laurie is so sure Michael is coming after her specifically. It makes no sense, especially with the sibling angle being removed. Not that strangers can't be obsessed for people they're not related to, the sibling angle and having Michael target Laurie a few times had those instances been kept in continuity helps motivate that logic. But in this case, it's been forty years and while Laurie survived her attack and "got away", Michael could easily just target some one else. I think the only reason he went after Laurie and her friends in 1978 because they were teenage girls like Judith was if he's trying to relive that night. So wouldn't go after more teenage girls this time around? Laurie is much older now and would be way out of Michael's league, so a thought should go through her head that would help her feel safe this time around if she doesn't get involved in his mess. So I feel like there's no reason for her to be so sure he'd be after her specifically and been "waiting" for her like they have this spontaneous connection. Simply being the one who got away doesn't cut it for me when you take into effect that she's older now and if he only went after her as a teen because Judith was a teen when he killed her.
                      Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
                      And, Michael Myers is not a measly little pest, he's a cold-blooded killer. People should be frightened of people like him.
                      He's a cold blooded killer, but one Halloween night of four victims killed over the course of hours compared to a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people within 102 minutes. Bin Laden is far more sinister and deadly than Michael and that terrorist attack makes Michael's one killing spree look like sugar cookies with EXTRA sugar on them. -_-
                      Last edited by DevonteHuntley; 10-17-2018, 07:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DevonteHuntley View Post
                        ButI think the only reason he went after Laurie and her friends in 1978 because they were teenage girls like Judith was if he's trying to relive that night. So wouldn't go after more teenage girls this time around? Laurie is much older now and would be way out of Michael's league, so a thought should go through her head that would help her feel safe this time around if she doesn't get involved in his mess. So I feel like there's no reason for her to be so sure he'd be after her specifically and been "waiting" for her like they have this spontaneous connection. Simply being the one who got away doesn't cut it for me when you take into effect that she's older now and if he only went after her as a teen because Judith was a teen when he killed her.
                        I think it works just fine to say that Michael wants Laurie because she got away from him the first time. I like the idea that Michael may pick his targets at random, but once he has picked them he won't stop until he gets them. He may set them aside for awhile and switch focus to somebody else, but he'll always come back to them.

                        Then again, I'm also intrigued by the idea that maybe Michael isn't particularly interested in Laurie at all in this movie. He's just out to kill, and he doesn't give Laurie any particular thought until she comes after him and ends up drawing his eye back to her and her family. It actually ends up being her obsession with him that puts her back in the line of fire.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Reaper View Post
                          I think it works just fine to say that Michael wants Laurie because she got away from him the first time. I like the idea that Michael may pick his targets at random, but once he has picked them he won't stop until he gets them. He may set them aside for awhile and switch focus to somebody else, but he'll always come back to them.

                          Then again, I'm also intrigued by the idea that maybe Michael isn't particularly interested in Laurie at all in this movie. He's just out to kill, and he doesn't give Laurie any particular thought until she comes after him and ends up drawing his eye back to her and her family. It actually ends up being her obsession with him that puts her back in the line of fire.
                          And all of this just shows why it was dumb as hell to retcon the sibling connection. It's one thing to do it to make Michael go after random people and isn't fixated on his family. But when you're still introducing the character who was special to Michael because she was THE SISTER and he's fixated on her and her family AGAIN (the first time being because she was THE SISTER) then what was the point of the retcon? They might as well still be siblings. They trade in one fixation for another and the new one is pointless because Laurie is still front and center getting Michael's main attention which takes away attention he could have a new random person. This whole thing is just flawed.

                          But even the retcon doesn't need to be done regardless because you can simply still have Michael go after random people even when he's targeting his family as we still seen throughout the series. It's not just one thing or the other and if he's doing one thing he can't possibly do the other. Just WRITE IT. Resurrection did it (though vaguely setting up Sara to be a potential new relative) after they wrote Laurie out. Those comics all have Michael going after random people when he's not targeting Laurie. Jamie Lee Curtis wants to brag how the retcon was needed so they can discuss trauma like what? You mean to tell me you couldn't push out the same story and meaning had this been a sequel to H:R? Swap out Karen for John Tate, Allyson with a son, gender swap the friends/romantic partners (or make John's son gay), throw in Molly for Ray's role, have Michael be locked up the night of Halloween 2002, but at a PRISON and not a sanitarium. Bingo, problem solved.

                          That's how the movie SHOULD have been. The idea of Laurie warrioring up this time around makes sense because we see the build up. The problem with the 2018 movie is we don't see that. There's too big of a gap between the "last" time we see Laurie and thus we don't see a proper transition. With all the other movies intact, we see Laurie progress from a shy and naïve teenager in the first two movies, to a run away middle age woman who starts to take back her fear all in H20, continues to fight and stand strong in H:R, and then this movie she's geared up and ready to go into battle. Like what the hell, a missed opportunity to actually do this story right. Ugh. And trust me Jamie Lee, Laurie would have three times the amount of trauma going through her head too so why should the one event of the original only get credit for this?
                          Last edited by DevonteHuntley; 10-18-2018, 02:01 PM.

                          Comment


                          • After listening to RJ the Movie Critic give this glowing reviews on ESPN Cleveland today, I'm officially really pumped.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SanicHeghog View Post
                              After listening to RJ the Movie Critic give this glowing reviews on ESPN Cleveland today, I'm officially really pumped.
                              Yeah, my interest is getting hyped somewhat just by listening to people at work talk about wanting to see it. Unfortunately, no weekend viewing for me as I'm waiting until Monday to see it with friends.
                              People hyping up latest comic book movie to be the GOAT and I'm like "psshh, you guys must not have seen Bigfoot rip off a man's dick before in 1980's Night of the Demon."

                              Comment


                              • I will likely watch this when it comes out on DVD.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X