Halloween : They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

It wasn’t completely necessary to erase the entire timeline as no major event in this movie seriously contradicted it. The same movie could have happened while still acknowledging the sequels happened.

They don’t have to specifically mention a particular sequel’s event in detail, but they can loosely connect them: instead of being in captivity for 40 years, just say Michael was in captivity for 10 years or so, sometime after when Resurrection took place. Instead of saying Michael killed five people, Laurie strode could say Michael killed dozens of people.

Again, they don’t have to specifically go into detail about Laurie beheading Michael in H2O, or bring up the Curse of Thorn or any specifics: but just generally acknowledge that Michael Myers has been “around” killing people for a good 20 years or so after 1978 with Loomis on his trail.

LaurIe’s booby trapping of her house, and being trained in combat, and PTSD trauma over the event we have made more sense If Michael was on the loose committing murders for 20 something years rather than one night in 1978. Laurie would’ve been more justified in her behaviors.

Would’ve been cool if H20 happened too: that way Laurie would have battled my goal every 20 years.

They could’ve mentioned her son being killed off by Michael. That would also add to her emotional trauma and riggin’ her house in combat. It was a lost opportunity.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Exactly. Like you said, it would have made her psychosis and bunker-style home make a lot more sense.


Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

I agree completely. The biggest thing is that her daughter in this film could easily have been played by Danielle Harris. There IS a way to have included her in this one. It involves wanting to keep them separate to avoid making the entire famil easy to find. One didn't even have to lose the sibling connection. That storyline could have been left intact as well.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Get used to this even though this is nothing new.

Like later King Kongs ignore each other.
So do Godzilla movies.
The SW PT totally ignores the OT even though both had the same creator.
And then as I understand it, they did the same damn thing with the most recent Terminator movie.

I figure you can either accept it, try to ignore it or create your own story to explain it.

Like I just figure the PT are just dreams and nightmares that Luke had.
It is the only way to make any sense out of the plot holes and bad acting and bad writing.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Most people totally think the Halloween movies after the first one were just cash grabs, and non canon, so that's that, you get no opinion on this. Same goes with the Terminator movies, after part 2, most fans, including Cameron, think that they are ALL non-canon. So they did the fans a favor and erased them. If you want to watch them that's fine but they are NOT canon, PERIOD, END OF STORY!!!

OK, so it took me a few minutes to decipher your retarded abbreviations, but I assume you mean Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, and Original Trilogy?
I mean, you do realize that Lucas had all 6 movies written from the very beginning? Right?
He started on Episode 4: A New Hope for the main reason of action and expense. He wanted to start in the middle of the action becuase he knew it was more likely to make money, and also he knew that it would take years before we had the tech to make the FX for the Prequels a reality. I saw the A New Hope in the theater during its original run, even though I was only like 3, I still remember my parents taking me.
I also remember my mom specifically telling me that Lucas was planning on making 9 movies all together. This was like in the early 80s, so obviously she read an interview or something where her explained his vision. As far as plot holes, I don't even know what you're talking about. I have watched all the Episodes 1 to 3 with Lucas' director's commentary, and he explains the reasoning for every detail. Maybe you should do some more research or watch the movies again with the commentary on, like you're supposed to do. Anyone who doesn't watch a movie and then watch it a second or 3rd or 4th time, to listen to all the commentary tracks(LOTRs has 3 or 4, plus 3 or 4 more for the extended versions, so you'd better be prepared to watch 25 or so hours of LOTRs, all 3,both theatrical and extended versions, then also witch each commentary track, or you might as well not even be ALLOWED to come here and give you OPINION. I don't want to hear any of your excuses either. If you can't be bothered to watch movies properly, then just STFU and keep your uninformed personal info to yourself, cause no ones else wants to hear it.
ALso, did you really just compare The Terminator and it's sequels to old japanese movies from the 60s and 70s? Jesus bro!

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

you do realize that Lucas had all 6 movies written from the very beginning? Right?
He started on Episode 4: A New Hope for the main reason of action and expense

I very much doubt that. Obviously the prequels were retconned and conceived much later.

I would never believe Lucas wrote all 6 parts in the 70s, then thought, “ok I think I’ll start with Part 4!”

I doubt he even knew what he was going to do with Empire and Jedi yet, much less the prequels which weren’t even a thought.

Even the original trilogy was thought up as it went. Darth being Luke’s father wasn’t planned until writing Empire Strikes Back.
It’s like making Michael Laurie’s sister in Part II.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

I agree.

When SW first came out it was called just that.
Then they added in A New Hope later on when they saw how successful it was and knew they were going to make it into a space soap opera.

Although around the time SW came out I do remember a couple of other kids saying how Darth Vader was burned in a lava pit.

Now it could have been George leaked that idea or else someone else made it up and then George heard of it and put it in.

In either case I somehow doubt he had all of the visions for the PT at that time.

We responded to what are just ramblings on of a crackpot.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Although around the time SW came out I do remember a couple of other kids saying how Darth Vader was burned in a lava pit.

He did burn in a lava pit in Revenge of the Sith. Are you sure they talking about that?

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Somehow word got around about him burning in a lava pit right after the very first SW movie came out.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

It doesn't matter what you think you know. It was always Episode 4, even on the VHS.
Since 1981 it has been Episode 4, I don't give a **** what you retards think, this is a fact, there is documented proof in newspaper articles and interviews from the early 80s.
He had ALL of these movies planned from the beginning. They might not have been fully formed ideas, but there were always going to be prequels and sequels to the original star wars movies:


“Children, count to ten.”

“Four, five, six – one, two, three – ten.”

These words were uttered by comedian and actor Eddie Izzard over two decades ago. The confusion that the Star Wars saga’s episodic releases have caused is itself a part of Star Wars.

If you were to ask the man himself, George Lucas, he could say it all makes perfect sense. Buy why? Why not just release the films in the right order? Why confuse audiences with non linear storytelling. Why start with Episode IV?

The truth is, he didn’t. This may seem like a shock but when Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was released in 1977, it was simply known as Star Wars. The film enjoyed many rereleases in subsequent years but it wasn’t until 1981 that the title sequence was changed to read Episode IV and the new under title.

This of course comes after the release of The Empire Strikes Back in 1980 which came with the Episode V under title right out of the gate. This is where the confusion started, and it only got worse from there.

But you may still be wondering… why Episode IV? When asked this, Lucas has stated that it was for “technical and storytelling reasons.” Lucas is famously flippant for his remarks on what Star Wars was originally intended to be. He has claimed on multiple occasions that there was meant to be six, nine or even twelve films in his grand saga. Was he changing his mind or purposefully keeping us in the dark? We may never know."

This is him talking about in the early 90s that was on VHS, he explains that the idea was always to put the middle of the story first. I am 47, I have always known this, it was talked about by everyone since I was a little kid that 2 or 3 more trilogies were going to be made someday:

Mark Hamill in 1983 talking about how Lucas had Episode 7 and 8 planned for 2011:

If you want more proof, google it, there are dozens of other sources. Sorry to burst your little bubbles, but all of this **** was planned, PERIOD, 40-50 years ago down to the year, and the wasn't any retconing happening, which is why he added Episode 5 and 6 to Empire and ROTJ in 1980 and 1983 when it was in the theaters. I was there, watching them.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

More of your proof. Like I said, not everything came to be exact, some things changed from the original ideas, but the general story for all the 9 movies were there from the beginning:


The excerpt is from a “Revenge of the Jedi Story 1981 Conference” that was attended by George Lucas, writer Lawrence Kasdan, director Richard Marquand, and producer Howard Kazanjian. In discussion story details regarding the third film of the original trilogy, Lucas unearths the backstory of Darth Vader as well as Luke and Leia Skywalker and it’s pretty fascinating to see how much of the story winds up in the prequels. Even more fascinating, perhaps, is what didn’t wind up in the prequel:

"Well, anyway, Luke’s father gets subverted by the Emperor. He gets a little weird at home and his wife begins to figure out that things are going wrong and she confides in Ben, who is his mentor. On his missions through the galaxies, Anakin has been going off doing his Jedi thing and a lot of Jedi have been getting killed—and it’s because they turn their back on him and he cuts them down. The president is turning into an Emperor and Luke’s mother suspects that something has happened to her husband. She is pregnant. Anakin gets worse and worse, and finally Ben has to fight him and he throws him down into a volcano and Vader is all beat up.

Now, when he falls into the pit, his other arm goes and his leg and there is hardly anything left of him by the time the Emperor’s troops fish him out of the drink. Then when Ben finds out that Vader has been fished out and is in the hands of the Empire, he is worried about it. He goes back to Vader’s wife and explains that Anakin is the bad guy, the one killing all the Jedi.

When he goes back his wife, Mrs. Skywalker has had the kids, the twins, so she has these two little babies who are six months old or so. So everybody has to go into hiding. The Skywalker line is very strong with the Force, so Ben says, “I think we should protect the kids, because they may be able to help us right the wrong that your husband has created in the universe.” And so Ben takes one and gives him to a couple out there on Tatooine and he gets his little hideout in the hills and he watches him grow. Ben can’t raise Luke himself, because he’s a wanted man. Leia and Luke’s mother go to Alderaan and are taken in by the king there, who is a friend of Ben’s. She dies shortly thereafter and Leia is brought up by her foster parents. She knows that her real mother died"

Also, in the 1983 ROTJ novelization:

"When I saw what had become of him, I tried to dissuade him, to draw him back from the dark side. We fought…your father fell into a molten pit. When your father clawed his way out of that fiery pool, the change had been burned into him forever—he was Darth Vader, without a trace of Anakin Skywalker. Irredeemably dark. Scarred. Kept alive only by machinery and his own black will."

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

What are you babbling on about?
Is there a point to all that nonsense or just trolling with bullshit?

I think you are trying to somehow be creative and perhaps a bit funny but all of that gets lost when it just looks like bullshit diarrea full of hot air coming from your crackpot pie hole.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

I agree it is the latest business decision. However I can see how they could have been connected. 1981 H2 could have happened. That Laurie marriage could have broken up to another one that led to H18s' family. H4 could be the result of her first broken marriage. The time in the asylum could be why Jamie never saw Laurie after 1988.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Except Laurie died in Resurrection, so they had to retcon it.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

No one remembers Resurrection anyway. They could have retconned it from H20. They'd be one sequel as opposed to the entire franchise.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

It was just a friggin mess after the first one.

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

The most convoluted and confusing popular horror franchise.

Any excuse to re-invent it for a quick buck. I despised this Halloween follow-up. It lied to us and it didn't deliver what it promised. They didn't even give it a subtitle, just Halloween. Pathetic!

Halloween Kills was brutal and nasty, but it was a darn sight better than this crud.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Of course they had to, half of those movies don't even work with each other; and not to mention are awful. Missed opportunity? Why would you want Halloween 5, 6, or Busta Rhymes - which she does in - to exist?

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Yes, they really, REALLY did have to do that. Even if one set aside the fact that the sequels and nearly uniformly awful, the "franchise" has already been rebooted twice, and no one was pining for another sequel to that unfortunate chain of drek that ended nearly a quarter-century earlier. The original is still a classic, still acknowledged as such, still watched, still beloved, and is the firmest foundation on which to build anything further. The rest would just be an excess of badly-damaged baggage about which absolutely no one would care.

"The Dig"

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

Yes, they really, REALLY did have to do that.
I was a bit annoyed that they did this at first, because I thought enough already of this confounded series. Michael Myers died at the end of II in 1981 and Laurie was his sister.

I resigned myself to the fact that it might be worth a shot, yet the presentation of the film really didn't erase memory of all the Halloween films that came before it, even Rob Zombie's reboot. It played homage to some of them and this was a deceit to what was claimed. It was false promises.

I will need to see this again, because I really didn't like it. I wanted a spooky, creepy and atmospheric Halloween like the original, but this wasn't to be found. I liked Kills and Ends better.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: They didn’t have to erase the sequels.

I love me sum Busta Rhymes!

- Dane

My password is password