why didnt michael kill...
Some things go a little too far.share
I´ll be happy to awnser that for you, and that is bc literally is ILLEGAL!,yup for real illegal there´s a rule of film makers sort of speaking that states that no movie can implicate the killing of infants, that´s why and for those who think he didn´t do it bc it was over the top shit, i mean c´mon why the fucking character would´ve give two shits about killing a baby? if it´s supposed that he´s a heartless psycho... that scene was totally unnecessary starting from the point that it´s illegal implying it,so yeah, that´s why.share
Didn't the children get slaughtered at the end of the movie All Hallow's Eve?share
I'm pretty sure I've seen a movie or two that has infants being killed onscreen. Can't remember what movie I might've seen it in. I've watched a ton of movies throughout the years. But they weren't graphic kills. It was just pretty much a baby getting shot or stabbed and in a none graphic way, but the movies were rated R. They were pretty basic kills. Unless the Mandela Effect is kicking in again and to the point that I can't remember what movies I saw them in but have the memories of seeing infants getting killed onscreen in movies. And I'm not confusing it with seeing infants dying from getting sick or health complications or maybe freezing to death. I believe there was a shot of a dead man or woman and their dead infant in Titanic when a few of the lifeboats go back for survivors. Not confusing it with stuff like that. But I didn't know it was illegal. Kurt Sutter (head writer/creator of Sons Of Anarchy) gave a warning/heads-up that he'd be that guy to include killing babies in the show, although he never went through with it. I think he just said that to swerve the fans for something currently happening in whatever the current season was at the time he said it. But with the stuff he did on Sons Of Anarchy or wrote into it, I could actually see him include onscreen infant deaths in another show he works on in the future. Plus fight to include it in the show.share
If they didn't show him killing a baby because they legally couldn't then they simply would not have had a baby in the scene. Come on, this should be common sense
The baby was clearly put there to imply that there are certain lines that even Michael will not cross. He is just not a mindless killing machine, and that is how the writers chose to make their point
Nonsense. There are plenty of movies where babies are murdered or at least their murder is implied if not shown on screen. I would not expect Michael to kill a baby since a baby doesn't know dick about Halloween. Scaring and killing people on Halloween is Michael's fantasy which he needs to feed.share
That's bullshit there are plenty of movies that have killed babies a good example is:
You should check out Human Centipede 2 then where (SPOILER) a pregnant woman escaping gives birth behind the wheel of a car and then inadvertently crushes the baby's head pushing the gas pedal to escape...share
Maybe because it was helpless with no way to fight back?share
Not sure why specifically, but apparently there was an actor who was supposed to die in the scene with no baby shown, but the actor didn't show up. JLC did a baby cry noise and they used it. Note that no baby is actually shown on screen.
Personally, based on the scene itself, I really wish that the guy had shown up. FOr those who don't recognize it, the woman is clearly Mrs. Elrod from the original part 2, and Harold Elrod would have been the guy killed. Damn him for not showing up!
Similar to why the Predator doesn't kill everything it comes across. No sport.share