Is it too late for a sequel?


If not I have an idea for the sequel to Halloween: Resurrection. The setting is one year later from Halloween Resurrection. Michael Myers survives the electrocution from Halloween Resurrection, and is now on the hunt for Laurie Strode's son John Tate. John is now living in Haddonfield as a doctor, while working at the hospital he discovers that he had a half sister named Jamie Lloyd who was murdered by Michael Myers in the medical records. He attempts to find out more about Jamie and why his mother never told him about her. He then visits the Curruthers house (Rachel and Jamie's Parents). John then finds out that his mother faked her death and gave Jamie away for adoption to protect her and relocated to California to protect him. John who is very shocked to learn what transpired starts having nightmares about what his half sister Jamie experienced, he even starts seeing what Michael Myers sees (identical to Jamie in Halloween 5). Michael finds out where John lives and seeing him wandering by the Myer's house, and goes after him. Michael surrounds John and has him trapped, when all of a sudden Laurie Strode, who had once again faked her death, emerges from out of no where with a shot gun and blows Micheal's head off. Of course this is not the whole movie, but a short synopsis of what happens. What do you think?

reply

Despite how much people hate 6 I still think they should include Jamie's son into the mix. Maybe with John's "investigation" it leads him to Stephen and realizes maybe Micheal is coming home for him (With Micheal thinking John is already dead) They can include a shock death with Tommy Doyle (because hes being replaced by John anyway).

As for your question if it is too late I would say its never too late. If they wanted too they could defiantly go back to the original movies attempt to tie in aspects from 4 into the H20 timeline. Will They? Is the question because money talks and these producers feel like none of us would be interested in a actual sequel but in all honestly it would be how they handle the films. If they manage to make things fresh and interesting and get some good directors and actors they could pull off something good no matter how much people hated the movies its a sequel of. As long as they put the care into them then they could make possibly the best halloween movie ever. I wouldn't mind Josh Harnett back as John (even though he says hes done acting for good) and get Paul Rudd back as Tommy. Get a bigger budget and get good writers.

If they wanted too they could attempt to make a worthwile sequel but they want to make movies as cheap as they can these days and hope to sell the movies by its name "Halloween, Micheal Myers! We have to see it!" Then when the story turns out *beep* they complain its the fans not interested then believe what fans want is a reboot. With stuff like Ash vs. The Evil Dead and the Legend of Conan that puts in some hope that things can be continued after a reboot. Obviously Evil Dead has been rebooted but the new TV Series is coming that will go back to the original films and Conan was rebooted but we will see a new movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger back as Conan continuing the first two movies. A new Halloween movie is being rumored to not be a reboot or sequel to any of the previous films but will be in the timeline of the original films.

reply

No Jamie doesn't exist in John tates world they ignored all the Jamie stuff so that won't work

reply

Hahahahaha....No. Never. Not in a million years would anyone actually set a movie to be a direct sequel to this embarrassment. I don't care if Carpenter himself wrote it. This thing is one of the worst pieces of garbage ever filmed.

reply

[deleted]

In the original script for H20, they tie in 4-6 into the H20 timeline. Jamie is in John's world. They didn't just ignore that stuff. They cut it for time most likely.

reply

It would have been nice to see Laurie's reaction finding out that Jamie was dead.

reply

[deleted]

I would say that the death of Jamie is what probably lead Laurie to become an even more intense alchohlic as a way of numbing the pain of losing her daughter while inadvertently creating a rift with John not truly realizing to the extend why Laurie is paranoid and protective of him.

reply

Not possible as neither of them mentions a sister to John, or another child of Laurie. Given Jamie was 7 at the time of Laurie's "death" John would be well aware of his twin sister born the same year as he was, 1981. So there's no way to tie Jamie to H20 or Resurrection if she's never mentioned as existing. Not by Loomis' map, Marion, Laurie, John or even Will who seems to have "heard the story". So bottom line, not brought up in film, didn't happen. Fan theories are all well and good, but unless it's tied in canonically through dialogue or pictures inside the movie, it's only speculation, not fact.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

While I do agree that there is a possibility that John would be aware of Jamie's existence even if the films don't mention the connection. Just because it wasn't brought up in film doesn't mean it happened. lots of speculation indeed.

reply

To not mention it disrepects the fans and ignores a gold mine of history and emotions. They didn't mention it because it would make Laurie, Loomis look bad. Why leave one and take the other? If anything, John should've been left as the males in the family tend to be killers. Too hard to explain and too character damaging.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

Agreed Dave

reply

Actually Dave I finished the story the best I could.

reply

And I admire you for the effort. At least you tried. In all my years, I just can't get past certain things and view 4-6 as their own beast, story, which at the time filled a gap with what and who they had to work with thinking JLC would never come back. Surprised she actually did, considering her career didn't need it, but it was an attempted love letter to the fans. Had Carpenter agreed, the score, the mask, even the story itself would've been better and less Scream.

As it was, they did the best *they* could by not even trying to tie it together or justify or explain Laurie's and Loomis' actions. Best not to disrespect the dead who cannot defend themselves (Pleasence). So ignoring it was the best option and didn't bother me one bit as I understood the reasoning on both sides of the camera.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

Did you post it anywhere

reply

The short film they're supposedly making with Tony Moran as Michael (Halloween: The Night Evil Died - set after the events of Resurrection) sounds like the next best thing to me. Yes, Resurrection wasn't the most satisfying entry/conclusion in the original series... Understandably it's considered one of the series' worst. But I won't lie, I always craved a follow up to Resurrection so I'm interested to see how this pans out.

reply

It's not too bad, and it's certainly better-sounding than what Rob Zombie gave us.

reply

TREATMENT FOR SEQUEL:

20 years after the aftermath of Halloween: Ressurrection.
Laurie Strode was actually, Paris Hilton, all along, (in movies 1, 2, 3, and 5 only). Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode was the real Paris Hilton, disguised as Laurie Strode, in order to protect Jamie identity. The Michael Meyers electrocuted by Buster Rhyme was actually not Michael Meyer, it was Laurie Strode's mailman. And the real Michael Meyer has been going incognito as Laurie Strode's mailman for all 6 movies, casing her out each business day for over 20 years not including holidays. Now, racked with guilt and losing her grip on reality and prescription medication, Paris Hilton must do combat with Michael in the ultimate showdown.

reply