Um...Laurie is Michael's sister - Halloween (2018) Discussion

[–] Bercilak (300) 6 years ago

Not exactly. This was an idea that Carpenter came up with for "Halloween II". In the original "Halloween", there is never any mention of any familial connection between them. He was just a bogeyman who picked Laurie and her friends for no reason.

So, strictly speaking, in the original movie they are NOT related and this sequel has it right. Of course, it has a ton of other problems, based on the trailer, but contradicting the original relationship between Michael and Laurie isn't one of them.

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

Indeed she was his sister. Thats the whole point of the clip of the beginning of Halloween. And thats his motivation why he is following especially thos teenagers in the first movie! To kill his second sister!

Dont defend stupid decisions. This doesnt make you look clever at all.

reply

[–] Bercilak (300) 6 years ago

I'm not defending anything. I don't give a shit what their decision is for this movie or what it was for the original. I'm simply pointing out that you don't know your movie history and that the original premise did not make any reference to any familial connection between the two characters. I saw "Halloween" in the theater in 1978. Before there were any sequels. Nobody walked out of the theater saying, "Yeah, that was his sister--that was why he stalked her and killed her friends." Nobody.

Also, you should learn how to write contractions properly. Not doing so doesn't make you look clever at all.

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

He followed her the whole day! Thats the story of Halloween, the original movie. Everyone with a working brain questioned why he followed just her, when he stood at the High School and could have followed anyone!

Is it that hard to think? Everyone which thought back then about this movie, came to the conclusion that they are connected in any way. That they are siblings was offered with part 2, but the connection was clear even to the dumbest ones at the cinemas in 1978!

reply

[–] Starman (412) 6 years ago

They are connected indeed, it is called destiny, not as brother and sister. I would suggest anyone to watch this new film as a story creating an alternate timeline. Changing the narrative. At the end, anyone can choose which timeline works for them the best. But yes, the original film does not intentionally explain anything besides suggesting the idea of fate, that Michael is somehow her lover from hell, that she attracted by her sexual repression, her fears, fears to face other people, including those she secretly loves, Michael was a manifestation for her to ultimatelly face herself. Halloween was a powerful film because subliminally (wihout filmmakers'intention) taps into the psyche of collective consciousness dealing with love, fear and sexual energy. I'm very curious how they are going to develop Laurie now, to see how much has she has changed.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4078) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FCN36 (19) 6 years ago

LOL you're so f'n dumb it's not even funny, loser crybaby.

The entire point of the original opening is to show Michael's origin, THAT'S IT. Hence why he then escapes years later and targets THREE girls who all LOOK LIKE his older sister, that's why he tries to kill Laurie JUST like he tries to kill her two friends, he's not singling her out specifically or trying to reunite with her, he's trying to kill ALL OF THEM.

ACTUAL facts for a change. You're welcome, dumbass ; )

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

Laurie isnt Michaels sister in this sequel? K, I thought even for a moment about watching this movie. But this is again some stupid cash in which gives a sh*t about the original movie. So .... no, thanks.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

From Wikipedia on 1978's Halloween:

"In 1980....After a debate among Carpenter, Hill and NBC's Standards and Practices over censoring of certain scenes, Halloween appeared on television for the first time in October 1981.[16] To fill the two-hour time slot, Carpenter filmed twelve minutes of additional material during the production of Halloween II..... Another extra scene features Dr. Loomis at Smith's Grove examining Michael's abandoned cell after his escape and seeing the word "Sister" scratched into the door."

From Wikipedia on Halloween II:

"The screenplay of Halloween II was written by Carpenter and Hill. In a 1981 interview with Fangoria magazine, Hill mentions the finished film differs somewhat from initial drafts of the screenplay.[4] The plot twist of Laurie being Michael's sister required a retcon of the timeline between Judith's murder and the events depicted in the first Halloween; while Michael Myers is said to have committed the crime fifteen years ago and to be twenty-one."

It's pretty clear that in the original Halloween, Michael Myers wasn't intended to be Laurie's brother and the decision to add that twist was made for Halloween II.

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20747) 6 years ago

I always thought that twist was intended to keep Jamie Lee Curtis attached to the series.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Actually Halloween II was supposed to conclude the Michael Myers story. Halloween was intended as an anthology series with each movie being a different story. The original was so successful they decided to continue it and draw a definitive closure to Michael Myers' story. Halloween III: Season of the Witch left fans disappointed and confused as to why it wasn't connected the first two movies in any way. So six years later when they got around to making Halloween 4 they brought Michael Myers back (and Loomis too who was left with rather mild facial scarring despite being in a room filled with gas that ignited).

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20747) 6 years ago

You're right. They were trapped by their own success

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

Halloween II was always part of Halloween. Thats why Michael acted in Halloween like Lauries brother. And not there never were plans to do Halloween like Final Fantasy. It was always just part 1 and 2. But always planned as one story. If you would have lived back then, you simply would know that cause all movie magazines and interviews with Carpenter clearly stated that.

reply

[–] rtrlocations (25) 6 years ago

You have no idea what you're talking about. Halloween was originally made with no intention of having a sequel. Michael stalked Laurie with no motive and THAT's what makes it scary. Not knowing why they are doing it is way more terrifying than some elaborate explanation at the end of the movie.

John Carpenter and Debra Hill reluctantly agreed to do Halloween II, partly as a pay day. John Carpenter thought up the brother/sister connection over six pack of beer late one night in 1981 when he was writing the screenplay and had hit a roadblock. He's said it in several interviews (one of which I was at).

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

The connection between thos two were obvious in Halloween 1 already. Thats why it was changed later. He followed her, and only her, the whole day. From the school (where he could take way larger groups of teenies where he would have way more fun. Arent you realized that all this victims were around Laurie? And didnt you realized that he wasnt a serial killer before? He was just the murder of his sister! He murdered noone else. And now after escaping from the mental institute all he did was going directly to Haddonfield and to Laurie.

How much story do you need to realize that simply story arc??? Yes, it wasnt known that Laurie was his sister at the theatrical release. But that was changed later. But it was, even at the theatrical release, knwon that Laurie and Michael hat family connections.

reply

[–] rtrlocations (25) 6 years ago

Of course he murdered "noone" else. He was caught by his parents 30 seconds afterward. He went to Haddonfield because that's the only place he knew. But he didn't go to Laurie, she came to him. If Devon Graham dropped off a key, Michael would've gone after him.

If there was supposed to be some connection, there would've been some sort of reaction from Laurie when her father asked her to drop off the key or when she walked up to the house to indicate that it was a place that she had memories of or meant something to her. There was none of that. It was just the neighborhood spook house and she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That was her fate.

Find me just 2 people who walked out of the theater in 1978 who thought she was his sister and get back to me.

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

They moved away after the murder. Laurie never had any contact to that house.

And again: "Sister" was the term used in the original movie. But I know, that scene wasnt part of the theatrical release. But what was clear to anyone was the family connection between both of them. Cause she dropped the key, but why should this bother him at all? He walked by dozens of people at that day (cause he stood at the open street most of the time during daytime :) ). All of them could have served better reasons for him to kill them. But .... he followed only Laurie. His second sister. Which he liked to murder as he did with his first sister.

And BTW Why havent young Michael left the house at the beginning of the original movie and killed some other people? Cause he is a traditionalist. Family first :) .

Why are you defending stupid and clueless script authors when any movie fan out there already knows that they build up a bunch of sh*t?

Theres just one question I still have about the original film: How has Michael learned that he has a second sister? Loomis surely havent told him (it would have been against his character motivation, cause he perfectly knew how dangerous and deathbringing Michael is). Thats the one weak point I see, that Laurie is Michaels sister.

reply

[–] rtrlocations (25) 6 years ago

It seems to me you're clueless. Laurie Strode was 17 in 1978, which would've made her birth year 1961, two years BEFORE he killed Judith in 1963. If she was his sister all along like you claim, that throws out your no contact to that house theory.

You do realize that scene in the sanitarium where SISTER is written on the door is not a deleted scene from Halloween, but a scene shot specifically for the 1981 TV premiere of Halloween, don't you? They had to edit out over 3 minutes or so of footage to meet standards and practices, which left the running time short. The scenes where Loomis pleads with the two psychiatrists, the SISTER scene and Lynda visiting Laurie after being followed were all shot in 1981 during the filming of Halloween II to replace what was cut. That's why Laurie's hair is in a towel because Jamie Lee's hair was much shorter and why she had to wear a wig in Halloween II.

Michael never learns he has a second sister in the original because she didn't exist.

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

It was always indented cause it was even part of Halloween! In interviews back then Carpenter clearly stated that Michael always was presented as Lauries brother. And the whole motivation of Michael was to kill his sister. Otherwise he would have killed teenagers by random aorund Haddonfiled. But he didnt! Disowning that Micahel is Lauries brother means that you simply make the original movie inexisting at all. Its like when Deckard really would have been a replicant at Blade Runner (like some fools (including the clueless director, which didnt had any influence on the script for gods sake :) ) still thinking). The whole movie simply would have no story arc anymore. Halloween is about an maniac which likes to kill his family! Thats why he stayed the whole original movie at Laurie! Halloween without being Laurie and Mciaehl as sisters is as pointless as possible (thats why the new movie is trash and the script author is a complete idiot - and there is no discussion about that, cause thats based on the mentioned facts)).

With your strange script arc he could have killed half of the teenage population of Haddenfield in the meantime! Think before writing!

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Then why did they have to retcon certain elements of the first movie to make the timeline fit? And I did live back then. And the quote from Carpenter's co-writer for Halloween 2 where he states that adding the plot twist required retconning the timeline in the original film comes from a 1981 issue of Fangoria...you know an interview from back then.

Not sure why you are so resistant to this.

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

The only major element was that they had the wrong age for Michael. So Carpenter have overlooked that while writing his script. Seems like he realized during writing that his killer followed just one person in a town with thousands over thousands of other teenagers. So perhaps ( :) ) there is some kind of connection between them? And he most likely forgot about the age of Michael he wrote at the beginning.

And it was a plot twist for the co-author. Carpenter always thought of Laurie as Michales sister. As mentioned: Without that anchor the whole movie would be the most stupid horror movie ever :) . A serial killer wasting his time by following one random teenager for the whole night (he even stood in front of the High School with all this other possible victims), while he could have killed dozens of other teenagers (what he obviously liked as seen at the murder scenes with Lauries friends). So yes, at the beginning of writing the script Carpenter most likely thought about doing the movie the way the book worked. But then he changed his mind while writing the script.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Serial killers actually do waste their time by following random people all the time. I honestly have no problem with the plot twist but it does mean there are several things that are hard to account for:

1) How did Michael know his sister was living under the name Laurie Strode?
2) How did Michael know what she looked like that he could recognize her by seeing her? There was no facebook back then so him recognizing her seems unlikely.
3) What happened to Michael Myers/Laurie Strode's parents? This is addressed in Rob Zombie's version but not in this one.

It was a fun plot twist but if it was honestly intended (and if you have a link to any interview containing a quote for Carpenter stating this please provide it) then they did a very poor job setting up for it in the original film.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

Some people don't like the sister thing. It never bothered me because it provides solid motivation for him. I find it unlikely whatever they have cooked up will be better than the sister attachment.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Ah. Very interesting. I did see the Rob Zombie reboot or remake or whatever you want to call it and in that one Michael had two sisters. Judith who was a bratty teen and Laurie who at the time was a baby. Michael seemed to love his baby sister and it was mentioned several times. I guess with the new one they are going to ignore all of that. His whole motivation seemed family related. Without that the film is just another slasher flick.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I think people confuse when they became brother and sister because the idea works so well it folds into the re watching of the original movie as if it was always like that. The retconning of the sister thing just comes off a bit tacky and unnecessary. Not that yet another reboot within the original series featuring Jamie Lee Curtis back from the dead isn't already silly thing to do.

reply

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

It was clear with part one that there was some family connection between Michael and Laurie. Cause otherwise Michael would have been the dumbest serial killer in history :) ! That this connection was a sibling related one was the explenation of part II. But the connection was a logival part of the origina lmovie.

reply

[–] horrorfan000 (2151) 6 years ago

I always thought the sister thing made perfect sense plot wise.Otherwise why would he go out of his way to track down this one specific girl if there's no connection.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4480) 6 years ago

In short, not anymore.

This relatively new take on the franchise shall be interesting and refreshing. And for the record, the movie can “cash grab” me all it wants. :) Carpenter & Jamie Lee’s involvement, along with the screenplay, has more than piqued my curiosity. Blumhouse themselves have been responsible for putting out some of the most memorable horror films in recent years.

reply

[–] vegan_voorhees (383) 6 years ago

I don't mind that they've done this - the series was already screwed with beyond salvaging any coherence that captures all of the MM-featuring films.

I do wonder what happens when it rakes in trillions of dollars and their left thinking up new ways to carry on though.

reply

[–] Stratego (29567) 6 years ago

I never liked them being siblings, I thought that was actually bad writing as it makes no sense if you look at the first movie.

reply

[–] mav100000 (341) 6 years ago

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I've always just accepted it, so it was never a big deal for me. Carpenter never liked it anyway, but I still wish they had kept Halloween 2 in the cannon. I have loved it for many years and my tradition is to watch both 1 and 2 every year on Halloween, ending my horror-thon with the pair of them. Not sure what I will do now that this one is supposed to get rid of part 2!

reply

[–] Stratego (29567) 6 years ago

I'm gonna wait for the reviews. The story of Michael having been in jail all these years and going after Laurie after 40 years doesn't seem to make a lot of sense either.

reply

[–] mav100000 (341) 6 years ago

I can agree with that, but to date, I own every film in some format except for Resurrection. I will likely own this one too, unless it is completely unbearable!

reply

[–] Stratego (29567) 6 years ago

I actually own none of the movies, even though I think the first one is a great classic. Here's hoping for the fans that this one is at least decent!

reply

[–] FCN36 (19) 6 years ago

Your opinion is laughably wrong, crybaby dumbass

reply