People need to stop bitching about "the thorn curse"

[SKOOFx]

Everyone claims that halloween 4-5-6 ruined the series due to its random storyline revolving around "a curse".


Im almost done with the Halloween Novel (Original 1979 print), and the VERY first chapter is a story of the origin. I wont get into details, but this totally changed my view of the series.

I love it 10x more now.
If myers was just your average psycho like everyone wants him to be, i find it dull(er), than what the real story is.


The curse is about rage. His grandfather had it.
And it is a result of a night of revenge and hate that took back one halloween during a celtic celebration where a "disabled" villager decided to commit a brutal murder because the woman he loved rejected him for someone more "suitable". (I SHIT YOU NOT)

It sounds ridiculous, but when its read, its such an awesome story.


99% of the "fans" will disagree with me, but i think Rob Zombie should make his version EXACTLY like the book.


What are your thoughts (This IS a horror forum afterall...so lets get down to the nitty gritty)

[PhilnEdee]

anyone seen or reviewed HALLOWEEN NIGHT...I saw it on the shelf...seems to be a total rip-off of the Myers idea???
Kids family killed...he's in Asylum....gets out kills on Halloween night...:confused:

[Phalanx]

Stab, Stab, Slash, Slash...I don't give a shit.

[urgeok]

Stab, Stab, Slash, Slash...I don't give a shit.

thats pretty much the way i feel about it.

[PhilnEdee]

Haven't read the book, didn't know it was out there, but I will now...

http://www.halloweenmovies.com/h9_lobby.html

Rob Zombie interview.

[Ginger<3]

i never thought 4-6 were bad movies, i actually really liked them. i wish jamie hadn't been killed off cause i'd really like to see her in another movie.

[Phalanx]

thats pretty much the way i feel about it.
I just can't get into rating a slasher film on storyline, it's unnatural...

[urgeok]

I just can't get into rating a slasher film on storyline, it's unnatural...


which is why i keep saying it's the lowest form of horror their is ..

there have been a couple of good effective ones - but for the huge majority its just a bunch of talentless kids and a talentless director with small budget making a film with absolutely no story or thought other than how to kill off the kids.

then the killer is finally dispatched - only to come back again and again.

you dont even get a resolution.

it amazes me how some people dig watching the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. If it floats your boat - cool - i just dont get it.

i need something new brought to the table - anything !

[Disease]

Hang on, is this a novelisation of the screenplay?

[Roderick Usher]

I just can't get into rating a slasher film on storyline, it's unnatural...

story is everything

bad story=bad movie

[spookshowbitch]

talentless director + talentless kids + small budget + no story = tons of blood and extremely creative ways to die

My kind of cheesy B-movie

[JP500]

I like everyone of the halloween movies except for 3 and 8.

[tic]

In Halloween, Halloween 2 and H20, the viewer is led to believe that Michael's main reason for returning to Haddonfield was to kill his sister, Laurie. In the other "pretend" sequels he is after her daughter and subsequently her grand - child (Halloween 7).

If that is the case why doesn't Michael go after Laurie's son "John" in Halloween:Resurrection?

[Ginger<3]

In Halloween, Halloween 2 and H20, the viewer is led to believe that Michael's main reason for returning to Haddonfield was to kill his sister, Laurie. In the other "pretend" sequels he is after her daughter and subsequently her grand - child (Halloween 7).

If that is the case why doesn't Michael go after Laurie's son "John" in Halloween:Resurrection?

probably because josh hartnett wouldn't play it again. ;)

seriously though .... just because he hasn't gone after john doesn't mean he won't.

and he went after the grandchild in halloween 6. i'm still very mad they killed jamie. i think they should say that woman was a decoy or something and let jamie live. :D

[Fred Krueger]

Alright people, why would anyone complain about the thorn theory when it is completely explainable?

First off, the tattoo. The man behind trying to control Micheal in Halloween 6 either runs or works at the Sanitarium, the tattoo could have easily been put on Micheal there, before the killings.

Next, the theory itself. It was devised by Tommy Doyle and never once is it said that it is FACT that Micheal kills because of the constellation. "Coincidence?" is all that Tommy says. Furthermore, Micheal kills all the ones involved in the plot in the operating room, obviously their idea on how to control him was WRONG.

Micheal goes after Jamie for the baby, and his motivations are either to get or kill that child. He also kills those living in his house, as he always does.

Now, the fact that people say 4,5,6 were ignored in H20 and Resurrection. Were they? Laurie Strode was in hiding in H20, even if she knew something happened to Jamie she couldn't talk about it to anyone. It had been awhile since Jamie's Death, in the context of the story there really wasn't need to mention it even to John who knew about Micheal. Who knows if she ever told him about her anyway? If she left Jamie to keep her safe, mentioning her to John wouldn't be very prudent. As for Resurrection, its mentioned by the crazy fact dude that he hadn't been seen between the events of 2 and H20, but that doesn't really mean that much.

As for why Micheal has not gone after John Tate or the baby, we are never given insight as to why he sometimes waits long periods before killing again.

In short ladies and gentleman, the thorn theory was never proven fact supported by Dr. Loomis or anyone who had any insight on Micheal, the ones who thought it was true were WRONG. Simple as that.

Yes Tommy, it was "Coincidence".

[stinking_dylan]

Stab, Stab, Slash, Slash...I don't give a shit.

Bingo.

I liked the first one for it's tension (and I was an easily scared kid back then).

Besides, as somebody already pointed out, the novel is an adaption of John Carpenters screenplay. So it holds no more merit than any of the 'sequels' (including the third one, which IMO is by far the most inventive of the sequels. It was written by the brilliant Nigel Kneale and wasn't intended to be a halloween sequel at all).

[urgeok]

Alright people, why would anyone complain about the thorn theory when it is completely explainable?

First off, the tattoo. The man behind trying to control Micheal in Halloween 6 either runs or works at the Sanitarium, the tattoo could have easily been put on Micheal there, before the killings.

Next, the theory itself. It was devised by Tommy Doyle and never once is it said that it is FACT that Micheal kills because of the constellation. "Coincidence?" is all that Tommy says. Furthermore, Micheal kills all the ones involved in the plot in the operating room, obviously their idea on how to control him was WRONG.

Micheal goes after Jamie for the baby, and his motivations are either to get or kill that child. He also kills those living in his house, as he always does.

Now, the fact that people say 4,5,6 were ignored in H20 and Resurrection. Were they? Laurie Strode was in hiding in H20, even if she knew something happened to Jamie she couldn't talk about it to anyone. It had been awhile since Jamie's Death, in the context of the story there really wasn't need to mention it even to John who knew about Micheal. Who knows if she ever told him about her anyway? If she left Jamie to keep her safe, mentioning her to John wouldn't be very prudent. As for Resurrection, its mentioned by the crazy fact dude that he hadn't been seen between the events of 2 and H20, but that doesn't really mean that much.

As for why Micheal has not gone after John Tate or the baby, we are never given insight as to why he sometimes waits long periods before killing again.

In short ladies and gentleman, the thorn theory was never proven fact supported by Dr. Loomis or anyone who had any insight on Micheal, the ones who thought it was true were WRONG. Simple as that.

Yes Tommy, it was "Coincidence".


wow,

if people put this much thought into day to day activities we would be a problem free planet..

[ferretchucker]

I always saw (and still do) thorn as a name for a mental brain disease where he believes if he kills his family and close ones the world will be complete. He kills anybody to get there and no, he doesnt just blindly slash. I think michael is a smart as he is slow.
He killed Lauries friends to get her over there and lure her straight into his hands. As for H20, the reason Jamie isn't mentioned is because, as pre-mentioned, she erased all trases of a link between her and jamie. As far as she's concerned she has no daughter.
4, 5 and 6 were great movies with some good deaths and an insight into Michael. He wasn't just some madman out to slash his siblings, he want's to kill the whole chebang. And they hadto put it in these films because a lot of people didn't understand the deep significance of "samhain" in 2. It would have been in the first one but after a combination of people wanting more myers, samhain not being understood and the will to make this the best horror series of all time they decided to stretch it out in 3 films.
To me the only bad one is 8 but that is because they killed off michaels last remaining major foe. There was his first foe, Loomis, who's death was never explained in the films but was very vividly to the public in an interview, Jamie who was turned into sausages and Laurie.
Fianlly, John was going to be the main character in Halloween 9. When the idea of this film was destroyed by the studio it was gone. It would have been halloween retribution and would be Michaels final film. It would have fitted in perfectly with a never filmed scene for 8 where laurie says "you will never get my son." I loved this idea so much i made a story for it in one of my English exams. It involved laurie still being alive and john finally killing Michael and Laurie finally gets the end she deserves with her living her life out with John.

[PhilnEdee]

I always saw (and still do) thorn as a name for a mental brain disease where he believes if he kills his family and close ones the world will be complete. He kills anybody to get there and no, he doesnt just blindly slash. I think michael is a smart as he is slow.
He killed Lauries friends to get her over there and lure her straight into his hands. As for H20, the reason Jamie isn't mentioned is because, as pre-mentioned, she erased all trases of a link between her and jamie. As far as she's concerned she has no daughter.
4, 5 and 6 were great movies with some good deaths and an insight into Michael. He wasn't just some madman out to slash his siblings, he want's to kill the whole chebang. And they hadto put it in these films because a lot of people didn't understand the deep significance of "samhain" in 2. It would have been in the first one but after a combination of people wanting more myers, samhain not being understood and the will to make this the best horror series of all time they decided to stretch it out in 3 films.
To me the only bad one is 8 but that is because they killed off michaels last remaining major foe. There was his first foe, Loomis, who's death was never explained in the films but was very vividly to the public in an interview, Jamie who was turned into sausages and Laurie.
Fianlly, John was going to be the main character in Halloween 9. When the idea of this film was destroyed by the studio it was gone. It would have been halloween retribution and would be Michaels final film. It would have fitted in perfectly with a never filmed scene for 8 where laurie says "you will never get my son." I loved this idea so much i made a story for it in one of my English exams. It involved laurie still being alive and john finally killing Michael and Laurie finally gets the end she deserves with her living her life out with John.

Actually, when they made H2O, they disclosed to moviegoers to ignore the events in 4,5,6...they would not pertain to this movie. And yea, as for 8, after he kills Laurie...that movie goes to the crapper.
Did you read the book too? if so is it good? I have got to find a copy of the book.

[Vodstok]

I like Halloween. It mad egood use of atmosphere and tension, and although the story is lacking to the point of being almost not there, it was a good exmple of filmmaking. The second was more of the same, and a bit fun (and is tyied to some childhood memeories, so i like it too)

However, as has been stated, no story = bad movie. The reason many critics dont like horror is that they are just a series of events. there is no plot, no central driving motive, just some douche with a weapon knocking off attractive little child stars. This is the reason why a movie like Alien gets an oscar and friday the 13th gets treated like a retard in hockey mask.

[Ginger<3]

wow,

if people put this much thought into day to day activities we would be a problem free planet..

actually he DOES put that much thought into day to day activities ......... makes me want to fling myself off the roof sometimes to be honest as i'm a little more "what happenes happens"

[ferretchucker]

edee, to find out abit of his origins, search michael myers in wikipedia. it tells you quite a lot.