Why does no one talk about michael was obviously possessed by demon
He was a normal young boy who became possessed and killed his sisters and got powers of a demon. This is obvious but no one says this
shareHe was a normal young boy who became possessed and killed his sisters and got powers of a demon. This is obvious but no one says this
sharePeople tend to ignore the metaphysical options, no matter how obvious it is. They always go for something more tangible.
shareYeah. How absurd of these people to stick with reasonable explanations for things instead of philosophical theories...
shareMaybe in the future we will be able to have them just say a few prayers and have the demon out of him by noon and they can all get lunch together on a TV show called "Michael & Loomis."
shareHe was shot many times and burn alive, but still come back how is this reasonable for a man character
shareBecause it's a horror movie and that is a plot device in those movies.
shareThat does not matter, you are missing the obvious things
shareOkay, I bite: What are the "obvious" things?
shareThat he is shit in the eyes
You can't be shot in the eyes and live unless you are a demon
What you think a man can have no brain and eyes?
"You can't be shot in the eyes and live unless you are a demon."
This is wrong.
While the chances are slim, it can happen and did happen many many times.
You'd be surprised how resilient the human body can be.
And people can indeed live on with massive brain damage and even be functional.
It is all very circumstantial but possible.
My question remains, however: What are the "obvious" things?
No have you seen the film? I don't think you remember exact what happen to this guys eyes
shareNo, you are reading things into the movie that aren't there. Obsessively , I might add.
shareI don't know why ppl get so angry at this, it is much easier to accept that a demon is the only thing that can do the acts Michael did. How can man be shot so many time and live?
shareThanks for proving my point. Think about this John Carpenter doesn't even hint at this in the commentary or interviews. What does that tell you?
shareI did not prove anything. Yes I don't think John carpenter intend to make Michael a demon, but there are more halloween movies than just this one. Michael is shit, blown up, run over with car, set fire. Everything, but he live and keep going. Normal man cannot do this.
shareYes exactly, you have this Dr loomis shouting for 6 movies that he Is not a man, I shot him 6 times, and also saying many times that he is not human it is pure evil, and many other things
And Michael is shot and stabbed, shit In the eyes, and burned alive, but he come back
So how is that some normal guy? Obviosly kid was infected by this devil and stab his sister
I mean to be fair, Dr. Loomis isn't a normal guy considering at the end of the movie after this one, he blows up himself and Michael and then he's just perfectly fine in Part 4. Doesn't even have burns.
shareSo loomis is a demon as well you are saying
shareWhat are you talking about the whole side of his face is burned after 2. He also shows his right hand to the cop in 5 to make a point "not sure what the point was" and it is burned to hell, implying the whole side of his body was roasted.
shareSorry. It's been a long time since I saw part 4. Still, he shouldn't have been able to survive and the end of Part 2 implied he died.
shareBut I wouldn't die if someone shit in my eyes.
shareIt's never fully confirmed in the original. That is why it works so well because of the mystery.
Why did a young child from a seemingly normal family/background, kill his sister? It also asks the question can you be born evil
Yes in the original but unfortunately many other movies take away the meaning of that one
shareYes but damn it, what does the possession of Michael have to do with Silver Shamrock and Tom Atkins ability to get hot girls? These are the real questions.
shareWell, it is strongly implied in the second film. But the nature of the "demon" is not explored in any way because Loomis is obviously not a Christian. Loomis does seem to believe, from the begining that whatever Michael is - something deeply unnatural is present.
I do not acknowledge any of the films after 3 -- which was an unfortunately failed attempt to start up a yearly series of Halloween treats from John Carpenter. Michael Myers, demonic or not is not an idea worthy of all those sequels.
What difference does it make if demons possessed him or if Donald Duck told him to do it?
shareMaybe because demons don't exist?
shareThough they can in a work of fiction. Which is of course what Halloween entails.
Demons and fiction fit together perfectly in that regard.
But no one is mentioning any demons and nothing suggests there are demons in the film.
Except for main character loomis who shouts that Michael is not a man, he like a devil, or force of evil, like some demon
shareHe just says he is evil.
There's evil in this world. So far no demons were required for that to happen though.
He imply more than that. Plus Michael is shot, burned, blown up and abused but never dies, just continue his evil way. Like a demon terminator
shareThere's nothing new, scary or particularly imaginative about the antagonist in a horror flick being "possessed by demons". Besides, The Excorcist alreay went there, 10 years earlier and there'd be no topping that.
What's much more spooky than the cliched :"possessed by demons" rehash......is when you can't actually define him at all. That's what's so brilliant about MM. People always want to stamp labels on things...because once we're able to define them, we're less afraid of them. Heck, some posters on here like the sequels because they begin to define MM....give him a backstory.....a motivation.....heck, even a dysfunctional family life. Some even wanted to see him stand trial for his crimes! Noooooo! These people don't fucking get it.
Michael Myers can't be defined or explained. And I love that the best that Loomis and Laurie could come up with is....he's The Boogeyman. Absolutely brilliant. Not sure what era you grew up in.....but back in the 70's, "The Boogeyman" was everything that loomed in the shadows, hid under your bed, made creaking sounds down the hallway....and generally scared the shit out of you.
Not even the movie's CREDITS attempt to define MM. He is credited simply as "The Shape".
Once we can define something, we can explain it....make logical sense of it.....and solve it. It takes away the scariness that comes with our imagination. The franchise (and MM) were killed because of people over-exposing him....giving him a backstory....an outfit....and family issues. Once he became an action figure, a bobblehead and a lunchbox.....he was no longer anything but a silly cliche, no different than Jason....Freddy....Chucky.....
This new installment looks awful, because the producers never learned from the less-is-more brilliance of the first one. Not a drop of blood...and MM is rarely scene beyond the shadows. Everything after Carpenter's original has been awful, and only succeeded in diluting the brilliance of Halloween '78.