Michael was a serial killer, serial killers tend to be upset when their targets evade them. I think it makes perfect sense that Michael would follow Laurie to the hospital to kill her, there didn't need to be any sister twist.
share[deleted]
I actually love the the twist.
I was a kid when I saw this and found out and I remember being blown away by it. Plus it connects really great because of the focus he had on her in Halloween.
For me, him being a serial killer after random victims is scary but him being hell bent on killing her because she is his sister is much more horrifying. I'm really glad they went the route that they did.
I agree with everything you said. Giving Myers a motive totally destroyed the character that Carpenter so skillfully created for the first movie.
Don't call it a comeback. I've been here for years.
I agree. The sibling twist always felt contrived to me. Also the fact he can survive being shot multiple times. This is where he stops seeming human and more comic book-like. It weakens the premise.
I still liked part 2, though. I think this is where they should have ended the Michael Myers story-line. I wish Carpenter would have moved forward with his anthology, despite H3 getting a poor reception.
Hollywood is a place where they'll pay you $50,000 for a kiss and 50 cents for your soul.
He survived all the bullets, and fall in the original, though. He was still alive at the end of the original. He was comic-book like right from the start.
Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.
"I think this is where they should have ended the Michael Myers story-line. I wish Carpenter would have moved forward with his anthology, despite H3 getting a poor reception."
I completely agree.
It would've been interesting, no doubt.
RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time. RIP Robert Vaughn
Agreed, even though Carpenter co-wrote the story. The whole "surviving girl" is a relative of the killer or a variation thereon has become a silly cliche.
shareHalloween II was the first to do it, weren't they?
Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.
First to do a final girl thing? No way. TCM probably isn't even the first but there has to be many grind house and slashers in between too.
shareIndeed. Final girls go back to creature features, even movies like King Kong, where Fay Wray was the final girl and even Psycho where Vera Miles was the Final Girl in that. All Hitchcock films had a Final Girl. This is new by no means.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
Wasn't Halloween 2 one of the first films to have the final Girl as a relative?
If it became a cliche, maybe it was with the rest of the sequels and or other films that followed that format.
I thought the revelation of Laurie being his sister was brilliant and absolutely horrifying.
And it made me so happy that it gave Jamie Lee Curtis the ability to reprise her role as Laurie Stride 2 more times.
And speaking of her coming back, I liked H20 but I found it as a missed opportunity to bring together Jamie Lee Curtis and Danielle Harris as mother and daughter. I would have been absolutely fine if parts 4,5 & 6 were Laurie's nightmares about her daughter due to her post traumatic stress from what happened to her.
And I utterly despise HR because of what happened to Laurie.
I like Resurrection more than most.
Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.
Yes, to my knowledge, Halloween II did the family angle first, which set it apart from the others. But final girls in general happened long before Halloween came out.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
I believe it.
Movie Theater: Young Frankenstein 10/10. RIP Gene Wilder. One of the funniest people of all time.
I always thought they kinda bit off the whole empire strikes back, i'am your father luke. no way. kinda thing that was the biggest shock in movie history. who knew. right.. so I thought the played off that plot twist..
shareI'm honestly not conviced about the whole "IT RUINED THE FIRST ONE !!!" thing.
The twist about Laurie being Michael's sister is not that much of a huge thing : we already knew Michael killed his sister, so him wanting to kill his other sister is not that much of a big deal.
It doesn't change anything, exept adding an interesting focus on Laurie and a urge to protect her.
But again, it's not that important.
It's not like they came up with Michael being in a coma for 10 years or being part of a secret cult, like they did in parts 5/6.
Michael kills his sisters....no big deal...relax...
I know this is old but the thing with the original is there seems to be no motive with Michael. Why did he kill his sister? Unlike the remake, he seems to come from a decent area, parents appear to be well off to some degree. It's the whole idea that your next door neighbour could be a serial killer and the question of if you can be born evil. I also think it speaks to the modern day in the sense when something like this happens or something like a shooting, we look for reasons to why they did what they did and use anything we can find as no one wants to admit they just did it because.
The sequel kind of ruined that mystery by giving Michael a reason to be targeting Laurie while as in the original as stated above we have no idea why he is doing anything, seemingly no motives. While it kind of makes sense it sacrifices that mystery to do so
Was the twist necessary?
To continue with Myers fixated on Laurie, it was probably necessary to the film, in order to provide some shred of plot where there otherwise was none.
Without it, HALLOWEEN II would have no plot to offer at all that the original hadn't already provided.
Even with the twist, the movie has little to give storywise other than a guy simply in pursuit of his sister.
I am more of the opinion that if they had to do a sequel - which I would rather they hadn't - they might have considered moving on from Laurie (let her be a successful rescue by Loomis) and have the night continue with Loomis and the police trying to find Myers and prevent further random deaths, such as that of Alice - whose death for me really doesn't fit in at all with Myers agenda targeting Laurie as his sister, as revealed later in the film.
Either way, I feel they were between a rock and a hard place trying to resuscitate or advance a concept that had already been executed efficiently first time out.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.
I'm pretty sure Carpenter in a Fangoria interview said he felt the need to explain why Michael travels across town & heads to the hospital.Of course you don't really need the twist.Michael never got the job done the 1st time around so he's going after Laurie again.
shareThat's what I've always said, The.
RIP Gene Wilder. RIP Robert Vaughn. RIP Carrie Fisher. RIP William Christopher. 2016 is the worst!
I think the twist was a good insertion. However, I think they should have just stopped at two though. Or, begin the anthology format like they had planned and leave it at that -- not return to the MM theme.
shareTrue; if they're going to do Halloween sequels, leave Michael out of it. But of course the movie directors and writers cant do that for obvious reasons.
share