He would have absolutely no connection to her at all, yet he was specifically and purposely stalking her and trying to kill her. It was the whole point of him escaping and tracking her down. So why did he do that and make that his entire goal to find her if he had zero connection to her? He wouldn't even know who she was.
Dragging Laurie through Halloween franchise is as stupid as dragging Sigourney Weaver through Alien franchise, but audience needs stars, I guess...
sharePeople who like this movie complain that its “haters” just want the same movie over and over. Yet that’s exactly what this movie is. The Corey plot was a misfire. It’s whole raison d'etre is to be the 8th movie about Michael trying to kill Laurie.
Such hypocrites.
I would love to see a movie where they actually go back to the first film’s tone and mood: creepy guy stalks and murders babysitters for no good reason in inventively unsettling (not necessarily gory) ways.
It's silly, they have been selling us how the story was screwed since the revelation of the family connection but they still gave us the same plot but making zero sense for the reason you already mentioned, they should have move on and kill off Laurie at the beggining of H18 or don't bring her back at all, her character was horrid in this new trilogy being a Sarah Connor/Ripley /Loomis wanna be
shareThe fact is that they didn't even need the sibling connection to make Michael stalking Laurie make sense. in DGG's timeline, he already faced Laurie once before and in this movie, twice, so why wouldn't he go after her? However, DGG went the weirder route of making Michael a man child, which is why he needed Dr. Sartain in 2018 and Corey in Ends to make the meeting happen (and I still don't know what Laurie's plan was by pretending to commit suicide). However, the original already establishes that Michael knows how to drive and set up traps and is clearly stalking his victims while biding his time on Halloween night (He even lets Tommy go). Not exactly the behavior of a man child. I personally didn't mind the sibling connection, but how hard could it have been to come up with another reason for Michael to stalk Laurie? I don't know what DGG was thinking.
I guess he bought into all the nonsense from hack reviewers that Michael is just an "idea" and took that literally. Either that, or he was so desperate to separate himself from the other sequels that he ended up losing his way.
But my point was, he faced her in the OG Halloween, yes, but why? Again, if they are saying he had no connection to her then why was he so hellbent on finding her, stalking her, killing her to begin with? Yes, he faced her originally but had absolutely no reason to since they wiped out the family connection to her in the new trilogy. It’s like opening a phone book, picking a person to stalk, and doing it. That’s how much connection Michael had to Laurie once they retconned the family connection. Therefore, OG part one makes absolutely no sense and every new follow up after that doesn’t either.
shareI think Michael targets Laurie because he sees her drop the keys in the mailbox. However, the Judith headstone which could be argued was meant for Laurie was probably the inspiration for the sibling development even though it wasn't made explicit in the first film. It's also worth noting that Laurie and her friends physically resemble the murdered sister in the opening. So a lot if it is left for interpretation, but what made Michael so memorable is that despite everything, he still acted human. This is made apparent time and again in the first film. The version we get in the DGG trilogy does not for the most part. He shows shades of his former self in 2018, but not in Kills or Ends.
shareHe was also clearly supernatural in Halloween 1978. He could drive not having seen a car before, and he survived 6 shots at close range which should have killed him.
shareIt was meant to be ambiguous. Just like with many things in that movie. Everything up until that point suggests that he is human. Although, he never gets shot in the face so you could still potentially argue that he's not supernatural, just very powerful.
I've seen others compare him to Batman who took far worse punishment and managed to survive despite being just a man in a suit.
I would not say it makes no sense. I would say it is ambiguous and open to interpretation which I think is another reason why the movie was more effective and memorable than other slashers.
Its ambiguity makes the story linger in the mind after you leave the theater, like The Shining and 2001.
"he needed Dr. Sartain in 2018 and Corey in Ends to make the meeting happen"
Yes, they made the meeting happen. As in, Michael had no desire to go after Laurie. He never would have went after her. Probably doesn't even remember her from '78. He didn't need those others to get to her, they just brought him.
It's very clear in Halloween '18 that he is just going around town killing. Sartain brings him to Laurie's house where he just does his thing because there are people there. In Kills he's just going home and killing the people that get in his way. There's nothing to suggest he's after Laurie in Ends either.
Yes, strange choices in both films that just overcomplicated things to an absurd degree. When I meant he showed humanity in 2018, I was really just referring to the one scene where he toys with the babysitter before killing her.
shareWhy overcomplicated things? It just reinforces the idea behind David gordon Green trilogy that Laurie and all the town had projected their own personal pain and fears over Michael, not understanding him.
shareIt leads to a much more convoluted plot in both films, where characters act in weird ways just to make the movie happen. Meanwhile, all of it isn't necessary since Laurie still lives in Haddonfield, already defeated Myers (at least temporarily), and permanently disfigured him. He would surely have at least a passing interest in her. No need for Dr. Sartain to go insane or have Corey who is the new vessel for evil start dating Laurie's granddaughter.
shareThat's just an example of this trilogy vacillating. In 2018 and Kills, he really had no obsession with Laurie. She was obsessed with him, but he could hardly care less about her. He's only interested in going home (something they dropped out of Ends, because why would he now be less interested). He only goes after her when she's in his path. I'm not sure if it's intended, or how well it actually works, but I feel like it's a metaphor. I'm not an expert and not trying to be offensive to anyone with a trauma, but it often seems like a victim is more preoccupied with whatever event than the perpetrator is, at least after the fact. Even down to a trivial level like break-ups.
shareThe Myers House was demolished, which btw for me is the worst thing of Ends, because It simply abandons all the mythology about Michael exposed in Kills.
share