MovieChat Forums > Halloween (1978) Discussion > Michael’s outfit....

Michael’s outfit....

posted 3 years ago by Ripkens25 (1902)
13 replies | jump to latest

One of many reasons the sequels taint the original.....

The original is a masterpiece. No real backstory for Michael. He’s a mystery...lurking in the shadows. Evil incarnate. He’s simply...The Boogeyman. We don’t need any more than that. And, like Jaws, we don’t see him TOO often. Part of his scariness is...just knowing he’s out there. We don’t learn about a troubled family life or mommy issues (screw you Rob Zombie).

Also...his clothing (and mask) are simply a result of whatever he was able to muster up on the fly. So, for just a few days, it made sense that we’d see him dressed the same way. However...over 40 years (and 10 movies) later...it has now become his trademark outfit...like the one Superman always wears. Once Michael got a signature look...an action figure...heck, a lunchbox...he ceased being that scary, mysterious Boogeyman. By H2, he was already overexposed...though H2 was passable. All the sequels after H2 are an embarrassing insult to Carpenter’s masterpiece.

[–] kwestmo (4114) 3 years ago

agreed

[–] Seperatrix (1089) 3 years ago

Well it was admitted by the guy who bankrolled the film that the only reason they made the second was because copy cat slasher films released after Halloween were raking it in.

Too bad. Otherwise the Halloween could have stood alone as a classic like Psycho.

[–] SandyR (7350) 3 years ago

Good point.

[–] Sidha108 (2356) 3 years ago

I used to really like all the films, but now really just the first three movies are worth checking out on a regular basis.

[–] SandyR (7350) 2 years ago

Same here.

[–] Bercilak (300) 3 years ago

I'm old enough to have seen the original in the theater (although I was a kid when I did that) and I've seen every sequel in the theater, too.

I agree with you. None of the sequels ever should have been made. Not a one.

[–] SandyR (7350) 3 years ago

Do you not like the anthology idea they tried with III?

[–] Ripkens25 (1902) 3 years ago

In retrospect...I'd have preferred an annual Halloween-themed movie, each independent of the last. That might have been cool. Anything would have been better than 10 progressively worse Michael Meyers movies that dilute not only the original, but also the character himself.

[–] NorthernLad (472) 3 years ago

I like how you said "10 progressively worse Michael Myers movies." That's exactly how it feels. The only thing I can say about 4-6 is that at least it looks like Halloween in them. The storyline though is pure crap. I don't mind H20 but it's still a rather bland installment.

[–] Bercilak (300) 3 years ago

That would have been much better than what they did because it would've required some creativity, but I would still have preferred that "Halloween" remain a stand-alone movie.

[–] strangenstein (683) 3 years ago

I don’t want to hijack your thread, but I wanted to add something regarding your comment about Halloween II. I think it’s a strong sequel that could’ve been even better if Carpenter hadn’t stepped in and insisted on filming new scenes and re-editing. The original is a perfect film and didn’t need a sequel, but H2 could’ve been a worthy ending.

[–] TroyB (164) 2 years ago

I second this. The ending to Halloween is what defines a boogeyman.

[–] SandyR (7350) 2 years ago

Yes. Wes Craven was complaining about this very thing with regards to Freddy Kruger in the movie New Nightmare.