MovieChat Forums > Halloween (1978) Discussion > Giant plot hole if the original sequel(s...

Giant plot hole if the original sequel(s) is/are no longer canon.

posted 4 months ago by jasonbayly13181 (177)
11 replies | jump to latest

Hear me out because I'm sure people will be chomping at the bit to smash me since that's what everyone does on here. But I promise I'll do my best to make sense.

The entire point of the original 1978 Halloween was for Michael to escape and to find his sister to kill her. We find out in the original sequel that this was his motive. If any movie beyond the OG 1978 movie is no longer canon, except the new trilogy, then there's no reason at all for Michael to have purposely sought out Laurie in the orginal.

When he escaped during the storm in the OG, he was hell bent on going directly to Laurie because he already knew who she was. He was hanging outside bushes on her walk to school, out by the clothesline in her backyard, and standing outside her window watching her at school.
But if we disregard that she's his sister, then him specifically seeking her out makes no sense at all because he'd have no idea who she even was since they'd never once interacted before, let alone have a motive to kill her. I hope I'm making sense on this.

The new trilogy still sort of makes sense since he'd be trying to get revenge on her for their first encounter 40 years prior, but seems like a bit of overkill (no pun intended) for him to wait four decades to kill the person he had a 20 minute encounter with so many years prior. I know we have to look at it as we're dealing with a highly irrational psychopath's mind so he sat and stewed on it for 40 years, but it still just seems like a stretch to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, but taking the brother/sister angle out of the story makes his motives in the original completely pointless. Here's where I get crushed by everyone, so go ahead.........

[–] pjl69 (2435) 4 months ago

"Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, but taking the brother/sister angle out of the story makes his motives in the original completely pointless."

Its not pointless, its just random, which makes it scarier. I have never paid much respect for the soap operish brother/sister angle, which was clearly made up for the sequel. For me the Halloween story ended with the original movie.

[–] Kowalski (58863) 4 months ago

THE TERROR OF MICHAEL IN THE ORIGINAL IS THE RANDOMNESS...WHICH THE SEQUELS WRECKED WITH TACKED ON PLOTLINES.

[–] PaladinNJ (20316) 4 months ago

One thing to remember is that there was never intended to be a sequel. Each Halloween movie was supposed to be a standalone story. In the original movie he's gone back to his family home and killing everyone there. In Halloween II, they created the sister angle to give him a reason to pursue her further.

They tried to get back to their original plan with Season of the Witch, but all the fans wanted Michael, so the producers decided to go for the easy bucks.

[–] SoCrates (868) 4 months ago

As usual... None.

Michael has every opportunity to randomly stalk the neighborhood and kill as many people as he can find just like "Halloween 2018". Instead, he is completely keyed in on Laurie. He stalks her wherever she goes, in broad daylight even, and he steals the tombstone of Judith and sets it up for her to find. This is more than just claiming another victim.

That's why Halloween II (1981) fits together with the original like a glove, and is way better than any of the other sequels. The brother/sister angle makes sense. Plus, you get a great performance from Donald Pleasence and Nancy Stephens in this amazing scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iirUmQhNAZc

[–] Lord Rake (3822) 4 months ago

Not really, Laurie might be the first girl he sees when returning and so he starts with her. It's possible he was stalking other girls as well but never made it past Laurie because Loomis shot him 6 times.

There is also a sexual aspect to Myers, remember he attacks his sister while she is naked and after she hooked up with her boyfriend. Laurie is a virgin and because she is pure he doesn't attack her until last and that is most likely why he was stalking her.

The brother/sister aspect ruins things because it gives Myers a motive and connection to his victims. I think keeping his intentions muddy and his attacks random makes him as a character a better personification of evil because any explanation you give for evil is based on a humans point of reference.

[–] Martoto (4248) 3 months ago

he entire point of the original 1978 Halloween was for Michael to escape and to find his sister to kill her.....

That's just categorically not true. This entire thread is based on a completely false premise.

[–] Seperatrix (1089) 3 months ago

"The entire point of the original 1978 Halloween was for Michael to escape and to find his sister to kill her."

You may be right, but I have an alternate take on what we see in the film. Since a sequel was never intended, I always interpreted Myers as having a simple obsession with returning home to relive his experience. Once home, the first person he sees is someone who was his sisters age. Hence, his new targeted obsession. Note that Laurie has a different father than Michael also.

"But if we disregard that she's his sister, then him specifically seeking her out makes no sense at all because he'd have no idea who she even was since they'd never once interacted before, let alone have a motive to kill her."

I don't think he sought her out. As I suggested, he saw her approach his house and being that she was the same age as his sister when he murdered her, I assume his fixation on Laurie began at that moment. Note that he also follows Tommy -- would that mean that he knew who Tommy was? Or that Tommy was his brother? No. He just became fixated on the two of them because he saw them after he had returned and stood looking outward while in his old home.

"We find out in the original sequel that this was his motive."

Since a sequel was never planned, the explanation provided in the sequel comes off as an adlib, especially the way they hastily inserted the lines of exposition at one point. It was almost a "don't look too closely" moment.

Having said all that, to your point there was omitted footage in the original Halloween. One where Loomis visits Michael as a teenager in the asylum then later revisits the room after Michaels escape. In the second of those two scenes we see the room is trashed and the word "sister" is written on the wall. I always took it as further evidence of Michaels morbid fixation on his dead sister. But who knows for sure?

[–] DavidM (335) 3 months ago

The first movie tried to be a borderline supernatural version of a typical serial killer, as almost all serial killers are driven by sexual impulses. It isn't necessary laurie was his sister, it's simply the first person he sees after returning home.

In any case, it doesn't even look he tries to kill Laurie as he kills her friends, my opinion is he kills the other girls because sexualizes them (he sees both Annie and Lynda nude at some point) as he sexualized his ssiter when he was a child, and kills the man because he was standing between him and his victims, but he doesn't sexualize Laurie and that makes him not to attack her as directly as he attacks the others, giving her enough time to escape and fight.

[–] horrorfan000 (2077) 4 days ago

"Don't get me wrong, I love the movies, but taking the brother/sister angle out of the story makes his motives in the original completely pointless. Here's where I get crushed by everyone, so go ahead......... "

I don't know about the original. He could have just fixated on her randomly when she dropped the keys at the Myers house. A a chance encounter. It's the sequels where the sister connection made sense. Without the sister thing Laurie's character becomes an unimportant random victim. So unimportant that they needed the DR Sartain character to conveniently bring Michael to her to force her relevance.