What made Loomis realize that Michael was just evil? - Halloween (1978) Discussion

[–] pop-actor 8 years ago

I guess it's like a kid who steals candies for the first few times, You think that you can reach him and prevent him of stealing again but as he gets older and he starts stealing cars and robbing banks, I guess there is no chance to reach him after that point...

I love Debi Sue Voorhees:
http://s32.postimg.org/btmfhyrk3/Debi_Sue_1.gif

reply

[–] BigRich 8 years ago

I guess it's like a kid who steals candies for the first few times, You think that you can reach him and prevent him of stealing again but as he gets older and he starts stealing cars and robbing banks, I guess there is no chance to reach him after that point...

 How is that the same analogy? Michael was locked up in the ward. Did he continue killing people when Loomis came to the "evil" conclusion?

I get what you're saying, but stealing candy as a kid, and then moving on to cars and banks later in life is far different than killing your sister and your shrink thinking there is no redemption because you're evil.

_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Excellent point, Rich.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] pop-actor 8 years ago

It's funny how Cj never writes a constructive respond it's always excellent point or agreed...

I Love Debi Sue Voorhees
http://s32.postimg.org/btmfhyrk3/Debi_Sue_1.gif

reply

[–] pop-actor 8 years ago

Did he continue killing people when Loomis came to the "evil" conclusion?

He caught after the moment he killed his sister.

shrink thinking there is no redemption because you're evil.

Myers was a kid, he just could used bad judgment at the time - I heard about kids who killed at such young age, they got therapy,psychiatry help & today they are fine & sane - I hate when I hear people say they can't change just because they committed a murder at such a young age or they weren't rationally thinking at the moment, you have to look at circumstance too of the murder of course if it's the Bundy, Dahmer or Gacy the type, they can't be cured...

Somewhere down the line, Loomis figured with all his therapy session in Myers case, once he is free, it's not going be one victim but severals.

No ones knows what went on in those therapy sessions between Loomis & Myers...

I Love Debi Sue Voorhees
http://s32.postimg.org/btmfhyrk3/Debi_Sue_1.gif

reply

[–] JediColt 8 years ago

Even with the serial killers they say its an addiction and they can't stop, they won't ever stop, yet several of them did stop at least for a time. I think Dahmer had a decade in between his first murder and his second, BTK quit and raised his kids before he started up again, no one knows what happened to the Zodiac, did he stop, die, get arrested for something else?

Of course it is possible that they kept killing the whole time and we just don't know about those murders.

There was a famous case of two girls who became obsessed with each other and murdered one of the girls mothers. Peter Jackson made a movie out of it, one of Kate Winslet's first roles. In real life both girls are out of jail and doing fine, but they were court ordered to never again have any contact with each other.

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

What's the name of the movie, Jedi?

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] JediColt 8 years ago

Heavenly Creatures

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Thank you.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] Irishdrummer007 8 years ago

Well I am sure Loomis would watch Myers stare at a wall for years. At first trying to reach Myers. In most cases you would think the person staring is completely lost and a doctor would try to reach that person.

But Loomis at some point figured out Myers was not lost. But in fact Staring at the walls and out the windows on purpose. Loomis figured Out Myers was waiting for something and taking his time. I also think as some point when Myers was just sitting there. When it was just him and Loomis or maybe Loomis watched Myers in his room with no one there from outside the room. Loomis could see Myers was not lost and was doing things on purpose. Like when standing behind a door watching from outside the room. Myers might actually turn and look Straight at Loomis and of course with the dark eyes. Or When Loomis was in the room alone, Myers would turn and look directly in his direction. Just imagining that gives me the creeps LOL.

Anyway Myers Giving small signs that there is something more going on in the little boy than meets the eye. Of course later that little boy grows up to be a man. Which adds to Loomis being scared of What Myers was. A Person who has been just sitting there taking his time and letting his rage built up over the years. It was only a matter of time before something was going to happen and Loomis knew it

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

I think it was the realisation that Michael's 'catatonic' state was just an act.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

He knew what he was doing.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i think Michael was crazy but not evil. he had mental issues for sure

he was in Smith's Grove Sanitarium receiving psychiatric care and i think that place is for crazy people who can't control what they do. maybe he wasn't crazy though, i don't know

guys like Ted Bundy i think were evil. he knew what he was doing and went to prison for it

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

i think Michael was crazy but not evil.

WHY do you consistently insist upon rendering about 80% of Loomis' dialogue and a good chunk of the script (some of the best in the movie), entirely pointless or 'just exaggeration'?

he was in Smith's Grove Sanitarium receiving psychiatric care and i think that place is for crazy people who can't control what they do. maybe he wasn't crazy though, i don't know

guys like Ted Bundy i think were evil. he knew what he was doing and went to prison for it

Yes, because no-one has ever been misdiagnosed or received inadequate/inappropriate care/treatment for their issues, right?

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

"WHY do you consistently insist upon rendering about 80% of Loomis' dialogue and a good chunk of the script (some of the best in the movie), entirely pointless or 'just exaggeration'? "

well its not pointless. i think its meant to show Loomis is really obsessed by Michael and pretty spooked by him. this is a movie about a human killer. Loomis sounds like he's exaggerating a bit when he's describing how evil he is

i don't even think he tried to kill lindsay and Tommy. i forget now. an evil person would at least kill children

its just how i feel, not saying i'm right

"Yes, because no-one has ever been misdiagnosed or received inadequate/inappropriate care/treatment for their issues, right?"

yes some people are misdiagnosed or receive inadequate/inappropriate care/treatment i'm sure. maybe Michael was a stone cold killer but he was only 6 so i doubt it could be determined at that age. he was probably crazy or troubled

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

Loomis sounds like he's exaggerating a bit when he's describing how evil he is

God, what must it be like to watch Pleasance's chilling delivery of his monologue where he describes Michael's evil to Sheriff Brackett and get, "Eh, nahhh he's exaggerating. Michael's not so bad - he's just mentally ill" from it?

an evil person would at least kill children

Not necessarily. It depends what their agenda/motivation is.

It's clear Michael's motivation (at least in the first movie, before we learn of Laurie's relationship to Michael) was to come back to Haddonfield to re-live the murder of his older sister, which doesn't include killing children.

He fixates on Laurie not just because she is pretty and blonde like his sister but also because the first time he sees her she is with Tommy, who resembles himself as a child.

He even watches and follows Tommy later that day, presumably out of curiosity.

yes some people are misdiagnosed or receive inadequate/inappropriate care/treatment i'm sure. maybe Michael was a stone cold killer but he was only 6 so i doubt it could be determined at that age.

But Loomis didn't come to the conclusion that Michael is evil at 6; that came years later.

It's made pretty obvious Loomis knows Michael better than anyone and is privy to information about him that no-one else is so I don't understand your insistence on making out that most of his lines are just 'exaggeration'.

We're not meant to know what tipped Loomis off about Michael's true nature, just that somewhere along the line, something did.

he was probably crazy or troubled

I think you're confusing this movie for Rob Zombie's.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

"God, what must it be like to watch Pleasance's chilling delivery of his monologue where he describes Michael's evil to Sheriff Brackett and get, "Eh, nahhh he's exaggerating. Michael's not so bad - he's just mentally ill" from it? "

yeah all i got from that is Loomis is just as crazy as Michael. i would say that i do believe Michael was mentally ill though. Norman Bates killed a few people and i think he was diagnosed as mentally ill to.

"Not necessarily. It depends what their agenda/motivation is."

i agree for sure

"It's clear Michael's motivation (at least in the first movie, before we learn of Laurie's relationship to Michael) was to come back to Haddonfield to re-live the murder of his older sister, which doesn't include killing children."

i agree that seems to be what he's doing

"It's made pretty obvious Loomis knows Michael better than anyone and is privy to information about him that no-one else is so I don't understand your insistence on making out that most of his lines are just 'exaggeration'."

"We're not meant to know what tipped Loomis off about Michael's true nature, just that somewhere along the line, something did."

its just that Michael is in a catatonic state for 15 years which is a mental/medical illness that was probably a result of post-traumatic stress disorder which occurred after Michael killed Judith.

i haven't watched the movie in a long time but what evidence did Loomis provide about Michael's behavior that led him to diagnose he was "evil"?

from what i understand, for 15 years Michael did or said nothing. how can that lead to a diagnose of evil?

we would need to know what tipped Loomis off. if not, can i be blamed for thinking he may be exaggerating a bit?

"I think you're confusing this movie for Rob Zombie's"

Michael must have been a bit crazy or troubled. he did kill his sister after all

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

yeah all i got from that is Loomis is just as crazy as Michael. i would say that i do believe Michael was mentally ill though.

The other characters are supposed to think Loomis is exaggerating, hence why they dismiss his fears and don't heed his warning, but we the audience are supposed to feel Loomis' dread and fear and feel the tension building alongside him. How on earth can you enjoy the building tension of the movie if you only view Loomis as some paranoid crackpot?

Norman Bates killed a few people and i think he was diagnosed as mentally ill to.

It's implied over and over and over that Michael is an anomaly so what did or didn't happen to Norman Bates is irrelevant.

It's like trying to apply real shark behaviour to the shark in Jaws.

we would need to know what tipped Loomis off.

No, that would take away the mystery.

if not, can i be blamed for thinking he may be exaggerating a bit?

Yes, not everyone needs everything spelled out for them.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

"The other characters are supposed to think Loomis is exaggerating, hence why they dismiss his fears and don't heed his warning, but we the audience are supposed to feel Loomis' dread and fear and feel the tension building alongside him. How on earth can you enjoy the building tension of the movie if you only view Loomis as some paranoid crackpot?"

well i got plenty of tension from Michael stalking and killing people.

yes Loomis was correct in realising Michael was a threat and i took him seriously. the part about Michael being an all evil supernatural being or whatever Loomis said just showed me that he is affected mentally by Michael and probably on the verge of insanity himself

"It's like trying to apply real shark behaviour to the shark in Jaws."

true but even though Quint thought it was some sort of evil super shark, in the end it was just another mortal shark. Michael was no super being either. he was no Ted Bundy with 30 or more kills. Michael got beat by a babysitter and an old man and probably died of blood loss and trauma an hour after the credits rolled

"Yes, not everyone needs everything spelled out for them."

and not everyone takes the Hyperbole that an old man speaks as literal

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

true but even though Quint thought it was some sort of evil super shark, in the end it was just another mortal shark. Michael was no super being either. he was no Ted Bundy with 30 or more kills.

WTF are you even talking about? The mortality of the shark is irrelevant.

The shark in Jaws is an anomaly with unusually aggressive behaviour and higher than normal intelligence (i.e. the shark actually starts to purposely follow the boat for what seems like several days, which is abnormal behaviour from a shark) which defies what the experts (Quint and Hooper) previously thought they knew about sharks.

It's mortality doesn't make it any less of an anomaly.

Michael got beat by a babysitter and an old man and probably died of blood loss and trauma an hour after the credits rolled

^And you're ragging on me for interpreting the movie too literally?

and not everyone takes the Hyperbole that an old man speaks as literal

HA!

Says the poster trying to shoe-horn 'real-life' logic and literalness into this movie 

And the correct term is not 'hyperbole', but exposition.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

"WTF are you even talking about? The mortality of the shark is irrelevant."

your point about the shark was dumb so tried to make some sense of it lol.

"The shark in Jaws is an anomaly with unusually aggressive behaviour and higher than normal intelligence (i.e. the shark actually starts to purposely follow the boat for what seems like several days, which is abnormal behaviour from a shark) which defies what the experts (Quint and Hooper) previously thought they knew about sharks.

okay the shark was an anomaly but Michael wasn't. he did nothing many killers before hadn't done already and more extreme. as long as you understand that the shark in Jaws and Michael have nothing in common

"^And you're ragging on me for interpreting the movie too literally?"
yes actually you are.

"Michael got beat by a babysitter and an old man" - fact. (its exactly what happened)

"and probably died of blood loss and trauma an hour after the credits rolled" - just a reasonable guess. that's why i said, probably

"Says the poster trying to shoe-horn 'real-life' logic and literalness into this movie"

the movie is scary because we are literally supposed to believe the events could happen to anyone in any small town. many people were scared after seeing this because it seemed real. when you apply real life logic it just seems more real

"And the correct term is not 'hyperbole', but exposition."

some quotes from Loomis:

I met him, fifteen years ago; I was told there was nothing left; no reason, no conscience, no understanding; and even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, of good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face, and the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized that what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil.

Death has come to your little town, sheriff.

I- I- I watched him for fifteen years, sitting in a room, staring at a wall, not seeing the wall, looking past the wall - looking at this night, inhumanly patient, waiting for some secret, silent alarm to trigger him off. Death has come to your little town, Sheriff. Now you can either ignore it, or you can help me to stop it.

This isn't a man.

He's gone! He's gone from here! The evil is gone!

so yeah. i'd have to say he's exaggerating just a bit.

Michael is just a regular but insane human being who killed like 5 or so people, probably not enough to make national headlines. Loomis makes him sound like he's Darth Vader or something.

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

Honey, I haven't even read your response as I'm not interested in carrying on the conversation so I'm just going to sum up my problem with how you view the movie.

It's like you're watching Shark Week then trying to apply the information from there into Jaws. (And I never even implied that the shark in Jaws was immortal, so I don't even know why you're bringing that up; you don't have to be immortal to be an anomaly or a freak of nature!)

Or watching a documentary about Ted Bundy then trying to apply it to Halloween.

Michael Myers isn't Ted Bundy.

Or Norman Bates.

Or any other serial killer you've brought up.

He is Michael Myers and everything you need to know about him is in the movie. Not in Ted Bundy's biography.

I think it's hysterical that you accuse me of viewing the movie too literally when anyone who knows anything about movies knows that, unlike books, movies aren't limited to just words to tell a story; you can tell that Loomis isn't exaggerating in the scene where he describes Michael to Sheriff Brackett, not just by the words he says but by his tone of voice and by the way the scene is framed, focusing only his face, with no distracting background which tells us what he is saying is important and something we, the audience, need to know. You can tell he isn't exaggerating by the use of music and it's ominous tone, connoting dread and fear.

Not comedy, not 'oh here he goes again'; dread and fear.

But you don't hear the tone of voice in Donald Pleasance's acting. You don't see the way the shot is framed or lit. You don't hear the music.

You just hear 'hyperbole from an old man' which tells me you aren't interested in viewing this movie outside of your own narrow viewpoint and limited understanding.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

I'm with Thief on this one,Kurt.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i had a feeling you would be

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i could tell Loomis was exaggerating. no big deal if you can't. all that matters is whether you enjoyed the movie😜

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

i could tell Loomis was exaggerating. no big deal if you can't.

You've just reminded me I need to change the 'turn-off' in my profile from 'stupidity' to wilful stupidity.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

it was a nice discussion. sorry if i said anything rude. things got carried away. the points you made were fair and i'll remember them when i watch this movie on Halloween

reply

[–] JediColt 8 years ago

In defense of Kurt he is absolutely entitled to his viewpoint of Michael not being evil and the system failing him. Forget what John Carpenter said, audience members are allowed to have their own interpretation of a film regardless of what the director says.

Ridley Scott says Deckard was a replicant in Blade Runner, but the scriptwriter says he wasn't and Harrison Ford says he wasn't. I am free to have either interpretation and not be "wrong" because of what Ridley Scott's opinion is.

We've seen George Lucas reimagine and reinvent his own Star Wars saga and plenty of fans disagree with his revisions and continue to have their own interpretations.

How many times have we seen Directors that didn't even have deep rooted explanations for their films? Nick Castle asked Carpenter about his character and motivation before his first scene and John told him to shut up and just walk across the street.

Rutger Hauer asked Ridley Scott why he would save Deckard and Ridley said "I don't know, he just does it, its just a reflex action to catch him."

So you go Kurt!!! You have your own ideas! Also don't give up on the Jaws metaphor!! Clearly the shark was meant to be immortal or supernatural or something.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

hey thanks. that's nice of you to say

Carpenter says Michael is "unkillable" from what i've read on WikipediA:

"John Carpenter has described the character as "almost a supernatural force - a force of nature. An evil force that's loose," a force that is "unkillable".

yet for Halloween II he says;

"When asked, in a 1982 interview, what happened to Myers and Loomis, Carpenter flatly answered, "The Shape is dead. Pleasence's character is dead, too, unfortunately."

anyway he seems to change his mind to. i'm not sure what to believe

i didn't know all those things about the movies you mentioned. pretty interesting

i think JAWS is just one pissed off shark!

reply

[–] pop-actor 8 years ago

i think JAWS is just one pissed off shark!

I think Jaws wasn't love enough - If only the people would had throw him a fish or two like they do with Dolphins at Disney - He might have been more compassion....

I Love Debi Sue Voorhees
http://s32.postimg.org/btmfhyrk3/Debi_Sue_1.gif

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

in the end i guess he was just hungry. he wasn't a bad shark

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Oh, the shark was evil.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

humans needlessly kill a lot of sharks. its kind of hard not to cheer for the shark when watching JAWS

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Yeah. Quint. That's why he got eaten. Lol. But that kid didn't deserve it.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

that kid probably peed in the ocean. the sharks home. people that pee in the ocean may deserve to be eaten

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

And it's descendants.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] JediColt 8 years ago

Well, it doesn't really matter what Jaws is, because its more about the 3 men going after him. Spielberg very purposefully fleshes out our scientist shark expert, our grizzled fisherman and our afraid to go in the water police chief.

We see Quint and Hooper both use their tried and true methods against the shark and fail, yet Brody succeeds despite knowing less about sharks and the ocean. Why? because of his pure motivations. Brody just wanted to kill the shark to keep people safe, he had no ulterior motives, didn't care about furthering his career.

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

That's why Jaws is an excellent movie.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

http://imgur.com/62LQtRi

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] Kimrubymoon 8 years ago

Evil is not in the DSM-IV. Evil is more of a religious term. Therefore you cannot make any concrete link between the two terms. HOWEVER, a sociopath can be considered evil and do evil things so I suppose one can equate being mentally ill with being evil; but it's a loose comparison at best.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i agree. i don't think anyone is professionally diagnosed as evil. its a subjective term.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

the term evil is subjective. that's just how Carpenter see's it. i don't though

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

You don't believe the director?

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

no. what he views as evil may not be what i view as evil.

besides, some directors think their movies are good yet they turn out the opposite. directors aren't always right

reply

[–] ThiefOfStars 8 years ago

no. what he views as evil may not be what i view as evil.

besides, some directors think their movies are good yet they turn out the opposite. directors aren't always right

And therein lies your problem; you're unable to open yourself up to a different interpretation and viewpoint other than your own.

www.twitter.com/iamthiefofstars | www.instagram.com/iamthiefofstars

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

its a stupid viewpoint so i'll stick with mine

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Agreed, Barn.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

well his actions may have been evil but i tend to believe he is not actually evil, but mentally ill.

like if a guy slaps my butt. it may be a gay action but it doesn't necessarily mean he's gay

or if a girl is bitchy once in a while it doesn't make her a bitch.

i guess what i'm saying is if Michael spent his whole life doing evil things, everyday, then i would believe he's an evil person

but he killed his sister at the age of 6, then did nothing wrong for 15 years. then snapped and killed again. those are evil things but he did them so far apart that i just don't see him as evil all the time

he was 6 during first kill and at that age he might not have known what he was doing

then he turns 21 and kills again but considering he's a mental patient i tend to think perhaps he is mentally ill instead of being evil

i really don't think the term evil is used by any doctors to professionally diagnose anyone. people can be diagnosed as depressed, or bi polar but not evil

anyway, yes Michael did evil things but i guess technically i don't see him as evil

Ted Bundy did many bad things over many years and showed no remorse so he's pretty close to being evil

hey maybe i'm wrong. its just the whole mental issue thing with Michael that i'm looking at and him being under psychiatric care

by the way, i'm mentioning this with Halloween being a standalone movie. after all the killing he's done in the sequels, maybe he's not insane but definitely a pretty evil guy.

i'm in the minority in my thinking so i'm most likely wrong lol. its an interesting discussion though

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

You're in the minority in most things, Kurt. Why should this be any different?

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i wasn't expecting it to be any different

smart people are always in the minority pretty much everywhere you look

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Smart? Lol. You keep thinking that, pal.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] RobsBottin 8 years ago

Nobody has ever been diagnosed with 'evil' or 'evilness'. Carpenter has already explained that Myers is pure evil, a force of nature. I hope that concludes the debate, I always find it helps if you listen to the people who created the character instead of writing a load of idiotic statements.

It's all a deep end.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

Nah. Carpenter said Michael was unstoppable yet in part 2 he said at the end that Michael was dead

he said there should never be a sequel to the original yet he did a sequel and is involved with a new movie

Carpenter is great but i won't take anything he says as gospel

if he says Michael is pure evil then thats his interpretation but only his. he may set his standards low when it comes to what he thinks evil is

Michael's a bad guy but he's no Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, The Joker, Darth Sidious, Anton Chigurh

those guys were truly bad ass

just my opinion. i rate Halloween a better movie than the ones those characters are from and Carpenter a better director than the guys who made those movies

not dissing Halloween or Carpenter

reply

[–] RobsBottin 8 years ago

Carpenter was going to be sued by Irwin Yablans because John was going to direct his next picture with a different studio (I forget the name of the company).

To avoid legal action Carpenter agreed to write and produce Halloween II with Debra Hill. If you own the Blu Ray collectors edition Irwin even talks about the proposed law suit.

John didn't want anything to do with a sequel but as I've said he was contractually obliged to write and produce part two.

I think where Carpenter's integrity should be questioned is with the recent Blumhouse Halloween reboot which John is Exec Producer.

"The story has been told, it didn't need a sequel".

It's all a deep end.

reply

[–] dave626 8 years ago

Given his age, his health and what they've done to the franchise at this point, Carpenter probably wanted one last paycheck and hurrah. He didn't need to, he's got money, but when given the opportunity to give a final sendoff in this stage of the game, why not? Can't be any worse than the last 4.

"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

[–] RobsBottin 8 years ago

Because the story has been told and Carpenter said during an interview that none of the sequels hurt the original.

Personally I can't stand any of the sequels, they are all absolutely terrible and completely unnecessary. Yablans and Tommy Lee Wallace are not particularly fond of H2 either.

Money talks unfortunately and that's why Halloween was turned in to a laughable franchise.

It's all a deep end.

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Going by what's in the movie? What a concept! Lol.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] Verdugo85 8 years ago

He explained it to Brackett Blank pale, emotionless face, the blackest eyes, the devil's eyes.

reply

[–] Tri0xin 8 years ago

He lacked empathy.

reply

[–] RobsBottin 8 years ago

Erm, eight years of sitting and talking to a young boy who doesn't respond.

It's all a deep end.

reply

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

maybe the child had PTSD or had psychological issues

reply

[–] fyfytj 8 years ago

That's exactly what makes me curious. What, after eight years of utter silence and no response, was the straw that finally broke the camel's back and convinced Loomis that Michael was just evil? By the way, "a young boy who doesn't respond" would be indicative of a catatonic patient rather than an evil one, so that's probably not what tipped Loomis off, especially not after eight solid years of Michael maintaining the act.

reply

[–] YakuzaElite1980 8 years ago

Micheal was contempt with killing his sister. he never showed any sympathy or feelings towards it nor did he want to talk about it or apologize. That made Loomis realize that Micheal was happy with his actions in turn making him a sick person or in his eyes evil.

reply

[–] RobsBottin 8 years ago

During the extended cut Loomis is trying to convince the panel that Myer's catatonia is actually a conscious act and he should be moved to a high security Hospital.

"You've fooled them haven't you Michael? But not me".

Sums it up nicely.

It's all a deep end.

reply

[–] cjh8504 8 years ago

Indeed. I like the tv cut.

X-Men: Apocalypse 8/10. TMNT: Out of the Shadows 9/10. RIP Doris Roberts. You were wonderful in ELR.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]