Anyone else extremely sad that Rachel got killed off in the beginning of this film? It messed the whole pacing up and to me she was definitely the hottest girl in the whole Halloween series.
Herbert West: Who's going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a sideshow.
I hate that they killed her off. She was the only likeable character in this movie.
shareLooks are irrelevant. But yeah she was one of the best characters in the series and we get stuck with that annoying Tina for the rest of the film ugh.
shareI don't get the major hate for Tina.
Yeah she was dumb at times and annoying.
But Rachel annoyed me too. I was hoping that she'd be smarter and on alert.
If I heard the dog barking I'd be nervous...
She blew everything off.
Tina should have listened more but she's a teen girl wanting to party and didn't want to spend her Halloween at the clinic while her fiends were partying.
But she did end up saving Jamie at the end.
Part 6 is what turns into crap..The actress JC Brandy was a horrible Jamie. She looked too old to be Jamie.
The actress JC Brandy was a horrible Jamie. She looked too old to be Jamie.
[deleted]
They always have a returning character being killed off in a next movie due to stupidity. For a person who endured what she experienced in the last film she was far too careless. You would think she was trying to get killed, and then when she is given a warning she still acts like nothing is amiss until its too late.
shareThe late Moustaffa Akkid regrets killing Rachel off but also thought it was good showing that no one is safe from Michael.
share[deleted]
Yeah, that was a tragic thing, but as I recall it was done by Miss Cornell's request. It was a shock to me the first time I watched it though (thought she would come back later and save Jaime, since it only appeared she got stabbed in the shoulder), but unfortunately that was not the case.
share[deleted]
Not sure where you got that.
I watched an interview with Cornell and she was very disappointed to be killed off so quickly in 5.
Yup. It was a total bummer. I get why they did it, but everything about it felt off.
shareIt was like killing off Nancy or Alice in the first hour. Worst decision ever.
Alice they didn't have a choice. Story wouldn't allow it and even if it did, she didn't want to do it at all because of her real life stalker.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
The story easily allowed Rachel to live. Michael could have killed Tina in the early scene when Rachel died so Rachel could resume her role as Jamie's protector. Killing Rachel--a character the audience was invested in--early in the movie accomplished nothing. At the very least, she should have made it to the climax of the movie.
It was a horrible creative decision.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Are you serious? The entire movie would've been a re-hash of Halloween 4. Rachel knew Michael. Like Loomis, she would've been prepared, expected and believed Jamie. What would've been *that* point? Been there, done that, a whole lot better the first time. Rachel would not have gone to Tower farm because she was single and would never have left Jamie's side. So much for that whole sequence. Rachel's death was surprising, unexpected and left a void and Jamie vulnerable. Still think it accomplished nothing?
Even Ellie herself said you live long through one movie, you're not going to live through the second. She knew this. Why can't fans accept it? It furthered the story, sent it off on a new direction, which is highly debatable if it was good or not, but it is what it is.
Rachel had to die. Otherwise, like I said, Halloween 4 all over again.
Nobody wants to see the same movie twice.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
Maybe you haven't noticed, but every Halloween movie other than season of the Witch is a retread to one degree or another of Halloween.
Apparently moviegoers did want to see the same movie multiple times given the general success of the series.
Yes, I am serious. It didn't further the story one bit to replace a loving sister working feverishly to protect her sibling from a homicidal maniac with a vapid, grating teenybopper who just randomly showed up to distract the characters from what Michael was doing and impede Loomis' attempts to stop any more bloodletting.
You may think that's great storytelling, but I do not.
Rachel was a character the audience was emotionally invested in. I don't think she absolutely had to die, but her death would have been much more meaningful had she lasted longer. Tina added nothing to the story but annoyance and was a poor replacement for Rachel.
As it stands, the producers of Halloween 5 completely vitiated any emotional connection the audience might have for the film with Rachel's early death. She was an integral character just one film earlier completely forgotten a half hour into the next film until Jamie saw her body.
Wow! I am utterly impressed at the emotional depth given to her death by not even having Loomis or Jamie or Tina or anyone else think even for a second to call To see if Rachel is all right when Michael is known to be rampaging again.
You may think the story demanded that, but realistically I don't see it.
Anyway, given how bad this movie was, I'd much rather have seen Halloween 4 rehashed closely than watch Michael stalk a bunch of unlikable jerks and Keystone Kops I was glad to see die.
Besides, your argument comes down to this basically:
Every horror franchise kills off the main characters of the preceding movie in succeeding installments, so Halloween had to do it too.
In other words, while you didn’t want Halloween 4 remade, you wanted Friday the 13th 2 and 6 and Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and 4 remade in the Halloween franchise.
Hooray for originality!
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Did you even see Friday 3-6? None of the previous film's characters, from Ginny, to Dana, to Tommy, etc. none of the died the next film. With the exception of Tommy, none of them were even cast in the next film.
Halloween 5 started that franchise's trend of surprise kills in the first 20 minutes, but you didn't know who or how. That is originality.
Rachel living would not have furthered the story. Period. Maybe you have a crush on her, but the same can be said of Jamie in 6. Her living would do what exactly? Same with Marion, or even Laurie. It's a jumping point to a new direction, which is what the films needed. Maybe not your cup of tea, but it certainly works for others. So much so that it continued to happen over the course of the next almost 15 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Your argument, which is purely what if as it is, since that's not what happened, is that Rachel living would have been a good thing. It would've taken away far more than it would've given back.
But I see you're set in your opinion, which is fine. But I just don't see it that way.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
Way to distract from my point. The boy who became the protagonist of Friday the 13th died a few minutes into Part 6. I know your argument isn't exactly resting on a strong foundation, but I'd at least appreciate intellectual honesty in your response.
Repeating a formula present in horror franchises as early as 1981 with the second Friday the 13th movie is originality to you. I don't even know what to say to that.
Wow! I must have a crush on a character existing on celluloid to think the film's producers made a mistake by killing her off early and replacing her with a useless character. Great logic there.
Of course I can point out the lackluster box office of the film as a means of noting audiences don't seem to have cared much for this or many of the other decisions made during the filming of this movie.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
I get what you mean and somewhat agree, but Tommy did not die in any of the Friday the 13th films. He returned in part 6 with a friend to dig up Jason and he accidentally resurrected Jason who kills Tommy's friend.
shareFair enough. It has been over a decade since I saw that movie, so obviously I didn't remember correctly whom Jason killed in the opening scene.
Regardless, my overall point stands.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Oh no, you did not have to back up you your point, it is legitimate. I was correcting a small irrelevant fact.
shareThey should've kept her and killed off super annoying Tina, ugh!, her demise scene freaks me out to this day, it could happened in real life.
share[deleted]
It's very hard for me to watch. Rachel is my favorite character and I hated to see her go.
share