Halloween Kills & Halloween Ends Official Thread Sometime In the Future

[MartyMcFly]

YEA BUT GOING BACK
TO THE LAST MOVIE
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
BE MAKING THIS shyt MORE
REALISTIC & MODERN.

THEY COMPLETELY THREW THAT
CONCEPT OUT THE WINDOW
WITH THIS MOVIE.



​

Not entirely. David Gordon Green was on the last drive in a couple weeks ago and he said they want to make each movie a separate type of horror flick. Which he also said shortly after the first one dropped and was a hit.


The first one they co wrote with a Halloween fanatic like he and Danny McBride are, and this one they wrote with a slasher fanatic. And they wanted to make the 80s horror flick of their dreams. Whether it works or not for you is clearly subjective but they had in mind what they wanted to do and did it.

 

[CHICAGO]

Not entirely. David Gordon Green was on the last drive in a couple weeks ago and he said they want to make each movie a separate type of horror flick. Which he also said shortly after the first one dropped and was a hit.


The first one they co wrote with a Halloween fanatic like he and Danny McBride are, and this one they wrote with a slasher fanatic. And they wanted to make the 80s horror flick of their dreams. Whether it works or not for you is clearly subjective but they had in mind what they wanted to do and did it.

IF TRUE
THATS STUPID AS fukk.

SIMILAR TO THE DUMB shyt
DISNEY DID WITH STAR WARS.

​

 

[MartyMcFly]

IF TRUE
THATS STUPID AS fukk.

SIMILAR TO THE DUMB shyt
DISNEY DID WITH STAR WARS.

​

I don’t think so. If you want to make each movie with a different tone that’s fine. And not at all like what Disney did with Star Wars. Their issue was lack of congruent story. This one is changing tones from flick to flick with one coherent story.

David and Danny knew back in 2017/2018 how they want to end it and they’re driving to that point. How they get there tone wise is entirely up to them. And they’re also not the first horror franchise to make films in a series have different tones.
Evil dead, phantasm, the strangers, alien, nightmare on elm st, even Friday the 13th all have various tones and different types of horror from flick to flick. It’s not impossible to do as long as you have one or two people at the helm who are consistent

 

[CHICAGO]

I don’t think so. If you want to make each movie with a different tone that’s fine. And not at all like what Disney did with Star Wars. Their issue was lack of congruent story. This one is changing tones from flick to flick with one coherent story.

David and Danny knew back in 2017/2018 how they want to end it and they’re driving to that point. How they get there tone wise is entirely up to them. And they’re also not the first horror franchise to make films in a series have different tones.
Evil dead, phantasm, the strangers, alien, nightmare on elm st, even Friday the 13th all have various tones and different types of horror from flick to flick. It’s not impossible to do as long as you have one or two people at the helm who are consistent

GOING FROM HES NOT
SUPERNATURAL TO HE IS
SUPERNATURAL TO MOVE THE
STORY ALONG IS A WEAK
COP OUT.



​

 

[MartyMcFly]

GOING FROM HES NOT
SUPERNATURAL TO HE IS
SUPERNATURAL TO MOVE THE
STORY ALONG IS A WEAK
COP OUT.



​

Laurie said it but that’s her theory. That’s not in stone. The director even said that and it’s quoted in this thread.

None of the characters know a damn thing about Michael. That’s one of the running themes of this movie. They all have different views of his motivation or what he is and no one has the same story. Meaning no one knows and they’re all just talking:

“The suggestion that he is more than a man is a theory that Laurie has,” the director tells IGN. “My own personal concept for Michael, which will carry forward as long as I'm involved, is that he's capable of spectacular things but not impossible [things]. So I don't personally see him as supernatural, but I see the element of fear that he's generated and exacerbated is transcending the immediate character and moved on to an entire community."

And Laurie is talking more about Michael being “more than a man” in the sense that he’s the embodiment of fear and since no one can truly defeat fear, ever, then Michael is everlasting.

 

[CHICAGO]

Laurie said it but that’s her theory. That’s not in stone. The director even said that and it’s quoted in this thread.

None of the characters know a damn thing about Michael. That’s one of the running themes of this movie. They all have different views of his motivation or what he is and no one has the same story. Meaning no one knows and they’re all just talking:

“The suggestion that he is more than a man is a theory that Laurie has,” the director tells IGN. “My own personal concept for Michael, which will carry forward as long as I'm involved, is that he's capable of spectacular things but not impossible [things]. So I don't personally see him as supernatural, but I see the element of fear that he's generated and exacerbated is transcending the immediate character and moved on to an entire community."

And Laurie is talking more about Michael being “more than a man” in the sense that he’s the embodiment of fear and since no one can truly defeat fear, ever, then Michael is everlasting.

THAT QUOTE MEANS NOTHING
AFTER WATCHING WHAT
HE SURVIVED IN THIS MOVIE.



​

 

[MartyMcFly]

THAT QUOTE MEANS NOTHING
AFTER WATCHING WHAT
HE SURVIVED IN THIS MOVIE.



​

He survives that all the time. In any continuity tho. It’s the same idea carpenter had for him in the first movie. The man survived multiple shots to the chest and a fall out of a second story window. And walked up like it was nothing. Also a needle to the neck and a hanger to the eye.

In the last movie he survived getting burned, his fingers getting shot off, and God knows whatever else. Regardless of continuity, Michael is the boogeyman. And the boogeyman is, until someone figures it out, unkilable. The only reason carpenter “killed him” in part 2 in 81 is because he didn’t want to deal with the character anymore.

 

[DaddyFresh]

Laurie said it but that’s her theory. That’s not in stone. The director even said that and it’s quoted in this thread.

None of the characters know a damn thing about Michael. That’s one of the running themes of this movie. They all have different views of his motivation or what he is and no one has the same story. Meaning no one knows and they’re all just talking:

“The suggestion that he is more than a man is a theory that Laurie has,” the director tells IGN. “My own personal concept for Michael, which will carry forward as long as I'm involved, is that he's capable of spectacular things but not impossible [things]. So I don't personally see him as supernatural, but I see the element of fear that he's generated and exacerbated is transcending the immediate character and moved on to an entire community."

And Laurie is talking more about Michael being “more than a man” in the sense that he’s the embodiment of fear and since no one can truly defeat fear, ever, then Michael is everlasting.

THAT QUOTE MEANS NOTHING
AFTER WATCHING WHAT
HE SURVIVED IN THIS MOVIE.



​

Yeah seems like the director trying to have it both ways. Dude is 60+ and taking gunshots and stabbing like there nothing. The only logical explanation is he is supernatural. The idea any man let alone one that old can do all that is bogus af

 

[MartyMcFly]

Yeah seems like the director trying to have it both ways. Dude is 60+ and taking gunshots and stabbing like there nothing. The only logical explanation is he is supernatural. The idea any man let alone one that old can do all that is bogus af

I think that’s the issue tho. Looking for logical explanations in a movie that is the sequel to a movie about a guy who was described as the boogeyman. Who was shot stabbed and fell
out of a two story window only to walk off like he slipped in a puddle of water.


Carpenter said years ago Michael is the boogeyman. He’s pure evil. There’s no rhyme or reason to why he does what he does or why he survives. He’s not quite monster but not quite man. That’s why he’s “the shape”; he’s not meant to be defined or logical

 

[DaddyFresh]

I think that’s the issue tho. Looking for logical explanations in a movie that is the sequel to a movie about a guy who was described as the boogeyman. Who was shot stabbed and fell
out of a two story window only to walk off like he slipped in a puddle of water.


Carpenter said years ago Michael is the boogeyman. He’s pure evil. There’s no rhyme or reason to why he does what he does or why he survives. He’s not quite monster but not quite man. That’s why he’s “the shape”; he’s not meant to be defined or logical

If he’s not quite man doesn’t that make him supernatural? Logic or reason doesn’t explain him which is why imo he falls in the supernatural category.

 

[MartyMcFly]

If he’s not quite man doesn’t that make him supernatural? Logic or reason doesn’t explain him which is why imo he falls in the supernatural category.

He’s never been supernatural to me. He’s evil. The pure embodiment of evil. He’s the boogeyman. I never needed an explanation beyond that. Or even wanted an explanation beyond that.

Someone telling me he’s pure evil and a monster is enough for me and I’m good. I sympathize with you and everyone else who wants more but for me when it comes to Halloween, the less definition for Michael the better. I don’t care about who he’s related to. I don’t care about his nature. He’s scarier that way.

All I can do is tell you what carpenter said which is what Green said. I know their explanations don’t work for everyone but those are what they are

 

[DaddyFresh]

He’s never been supernatural to me. He’s evil. The pure embodiment of evil. He’s the boogeyman. I never needed an explanation beyond that. Or even wanted an explanation beyond that.

Someone telling me he’s pure evil and a monster is enough for me and I’m good. I sympathize with you and everyone else who wants more but for me when it comes to Halloween, the less definition for Michael the better. I don’t care about who he’s related to. I don’t care about his nature. He’s scarier that way.

All I can do is tell you what carpenter said which is what Green said. I know their explanations don’t work for everyone but those are what they are

Breh I don’t need your sympathy. I’m a big fan of slasher films and don’t expect a realistic depiction. I enjoy them for what they are. But acting like he can still possibly be human is extreme cognitive dissonance.

.John Carpenter: I wanted the audience not to know whether he was human or supernatural. He had no character. He was blank. He was simply evil. He’s like the wind, he’s out there. He’s gonna get you.

That’s a direct quote from carpenter. After all the sequels the answer is now obvious. He’s been burned alive, thrown of balconies, shot countless times. Laurie literally states in the movie he’s not human. Even if he was as unrealistic as that is I don’t care. These movies are popcorn guilty pleasure fun.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Breh I don’t need your sympathy. I’m a big fan of slasher films and don’t expect a realistic depiction. I enjoy them for what they are. But acting like he can still possibly be human is extreme cognitive dissonance.

That’s a direct quote from carpenter. After all the sequels the answer is now obvious. He’s been burned alive, thrown of balconies, shot countless times. Laurie literally states in the movie he’s not human. Even if he was as unrealistic as that is I don’t care. These movies are popcorn guilty pleasure fun.

Yeah again that’s her interpretation. I don’t believe everything a character says in a horror movie about a horror character is supposed to be gospel. They don’t know. They’re throwing stuff against the wall. You’ve seen slashers where they do that all the time. Characters have ideas and don’t know. And even that said, Laurie is stating it as metaphor. At least that’s how I took it. But even that goes back to the ambiguity.

I like it ambiguous and to me, a concrete answer is unnecessary.

 

[DaddyFresh]

Yeah again that’s her interpretation. I don’t believe everything a character says in a horror movie about a horror character is supposed to be gospel. They don’t know. They’re throwing stuff against the wall.

I like it ambiguous and to me, a concrete answer is unnecessary

Well that we can agree on it doesn’t matter. It’s just gory fun. Nothing about the movie or character is realistic

 

[MartyMcFly]

Well that we can agree on it doesn’t matter. It’s just gory fun. Nothing about the movie or character is realistic

Yup.