Comments on: Halloween movie timelines explained Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:22:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: Skench Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:22:41 +0000 wait a minute… whaaaaat!? Did you just say “monster madness”???? Yeeeeaaaahhh!! That’s good news!!! 😀

By: klaus84 Mon, 18 Jun 2018 02:03:20 +0000 In reply to Xen11.

i believe james said he is done with “monster madness”, not film reviews in general. although of course this is a monster movie. i also think monster madness is one of cinemassacres greatest assets, and should not be given up. avgn, and monster madness are the reason i tune in.

By: Xen11 Sun, 17 Jun 2018 19:52:46 +0000 So what’s up with Monster Madness? I thought James was done with it. It’s back now?

By: Smokingspoon Sat, 16 Jun 2018 18:57:13 +0000 I really liked Season of the Witch. I caught it as kid late at night, and it was so bizarre and brain staining.

By: Xen11 Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:51:47 +0000 Halloween 1-8 (original through Resurrection) fits perfectly.
I don’t understand how people can be so confused, so I’ll spell it out.

Halloween 3 can be seen as same universe if you consider that John Carpenter made a film based on the real life horrors that had befallen Laurie Strode and her friends.
You might say, “But Xen, how can that be? It looks exactly the same as the movie we watched.”
Well, what we watched isn’t supposed to be considered a movie, it’s supposed to be the real-world and not camera-angles. They got Jamie Lee Curtis to play Laurie Strode because they look so much alike, nearly identical really.
Similar to Tom Cruise in Valkyrie, who looked almost exactly like the real-life guy he was playing (which is why he took the role).

It shares the Halloween/SamHain/possessed-by-evil theme of the original two films.
The later films (specifically The Curse Of Michael Myers) feels like Silver Shamrock and Thorn are very much related and the same.

In H20, one detective says, “You don’t think that Michael Myers…”

The other: “Never found his body.”

We know the town, the cult of Thorn group, were keeping his being held (as a severely burned victim as a seccret).
Plus, they never found him in the crash when they were transferring his burned comatose body. The detective at the crash site (the vehicle was halfway in the river) mentioned to Dr. Loomis that :”Even by some miracle Michael is conscious, his muscles would be totally useless.”

“You’re talking about him as if he were a human being.”

As far as anyone that doesn’t believe in supernatural beings knows, Michael Myers is only confirmed to have killed in ’78. Those incidents that occurred in ’88, ’89, and ’95, if done by Michael Myers, would mean he was supernatural. Some people believed that. I’m not even sure that radio talk show (that aired in The Curse Of Michael Myers) believed that. They treated it like a joke, like a legend, like Area 51. When Jamie calls the radio station, only Sam Loomis and Tommy Doyle take it seriously because they know.

The detective in the H20 scene then goes on to say, “Yea, but that was like 20 years ago… There’s no way, Fitz. Yea, you tell them to look for a guy with a cane and Alzeimers.” referring to Michael’s age he would be now.

When Wynn and the cult were uncovered in ’95, they took the blame/fall for all the murders since ’88 because its just not plausible for a mortal to do all those things like taking out an entire police station (ala The Terminator) or getting shot dozens of times and living. Think about it.

I can see people taking the murders in ’78 more seriously. If they were to believe the entire story of that night, even getting shot six times and continuing to live is not implausible if you had a bullet-proof vest (and maybe was on some wicked drugs).

Besides, this was Marion’s crime scene, who was involved in the ’78 murders only.

As for this talk of “official word”, the only official thing is that those 8 Halloween films are all in the same universe. You can think of H20 diverging into a ‘what if?’ scenario that ignores the timeline of 4-6 if you like, but in the final products there’s nothing (like the Halloween film playing in Season Of The Witch) that says they didn’t happen. Actors, directors, producers can say whatever they want, it doesn’t change what’s in the film. Some, when selling H20, would say it only acknowledged the original film and none of the sequels. (You would agree with me that that’s BS.) They say different things because they have their own interpretations and they are there to sell the movie in those interviews despite even what they think. They will say, “Yea, ignore those crap films (the sequels that didn’t make a lot of money) and just acknowledge the popular big-money-making film that everyone knows and loves. (Interpretation: “Give us your money.”) I’m sure someone also said that it doesn’t erase any of the sequels, it simply focuses on Laurie Strode and her trauma from 20 years ago.

And in all that is logical, H20 makes less sense if you ignore 4-6. H20 follows the breadcrumbs and explanations in that Thorn trilogy. Laurie’s car crash, Michael and Loomis surviving the fiery explosion, etc. I mean, why even mention that Loomis survived all these years when it would have been a hell of a lot easier and more plausible to say he died in that explosion, if their actual intentions were to erase the following sequels? Why mention the car crash from Part 4?

In the H20 narrative, they try to keep it simple and focus on Laurie Strode, who was only involved in the ’78 murders. They didn’t want to get into the nitty gritty details like Part 6 did, so they didn’t delve into that. From a business perspective, they wanted money and the only truly big success was the original film, so it was focused on continuing Michael vs. Laurie. They acknowledged the sequels as I mentioned, but didn’t go out of their way to explain details. So you have to think. I know that’s hard for the mass of simpletons out there, but that’s why, I think they didn’t delve into details. They simply wanted you to think of the original movie that made big money.

If someone were watching these films in order for the initial time (as I did in 1998) without any knowledge of behind the scenes or movie-promoting interviews or selling points, etc. do you really think they would jump to the conclusion when watching H20, “Oh, 4-6 never happened.” They would likely think, “Oh, wow, Laurie faked her death in that car accident mentioned in Part 4” and “Oh, wow, looks like Loomis did survive the last movie when he screamed. Looks like Michael didn’t get to him, Loomis just saw his mask on the floor and realized he escaped once again. So he was living with Marion in his final years, trying to track Michael’s whereabouts. Cool.”

When I watched the entire series (up to H20) for my virgin viewing in 1998, the continuity made total sense to me. It still does.

If H20’s intent was to ignore 4, 5, and 6, why follow their breadcrumbs?

Laurie faked her death through a car crash. The same car crash that she supposedly died in as revealed in The Return Of Michael Myers.

Where’s the explanation for Michael’s disappearance and recovery of a crispy roast? Oh yea, that was explained in The Return Of Michael Myers.

What about Loomis surviving that explosion at the end of II? Yep, The Return Of Michael Myers, where its later acknowledged by H20 that Loomis was alive and well leading up close to 1998, when H20 takes place.

What was Loomis doing with all that tracking of thumbtacks across the U.S.?

More incidents of Myers. Especially between 5 and 6. If he survived 6, which is doubtful, he could have been keeping track after that as well.

Why was Myers wearing the same mask from The Curse Of Michael Myers at the beginning of H20?

So they never mentioned the 1988/1989 incidents of Michael Myers in H20. Perhaps that was attributed to Wynn and his cult posing as Michael which was blown open in The Curse Of Michael Myers. Perhaps the media narrative changed when that cult was discovered. Nothing but a trail of dead bodies with Wynn as head master.

The only reason 1978 keeps getting mentioned is because that’s the only incident pertaining to Laurie. Laurie was not involved in any of that hubbub going on that involved Thorn.

The media could have attributed the incidents dating back to 1988 to that cult to Wynn and his governed officials. The real monster that was a copycat of Michael Myers, using that legend, that incident from 1978, in order to scare people. Thus, Michael Myers is no longer attributed to those incidents, except by those handful that knew the truth, those that won’t be heard.

How could a severely burned victim pull all this off anyway? I’m sure there were believers that still thought it was Myers that took out an entire police station, that believed Dr. Loomis’s rants about “pure EVIL” “from HELL” and many others that veered toward the official more believable truth that there was a cult that was responsible for all this.

You have a kooky radio show talking about Michael Myers like those UFO conspiracy theory radio talk shows airing late at night.

“Even by some miracle Michael is conscious, his muscles would be totally useless.”

“You’re talking about him as if were a human being.”

Was Laurie having the same psychic visions as her daughter had about Michael? (The POV of Michael, seeing what he sees).

As to Jamie and John, the siblings that probably weren’t born much more than a year apart. Car crash happened in 1987 at about the ages of 6/7 for John and Jamie. Did they have the same father? Laurie and the (a?) father fake their deaths. Was it planned? Or did they take the opportunity after an unfortunate accident? Were they unable to acquire Jamie afterwards? Perhaps both Jamie and John were put into foster homes and John was the only one they were able to retrieve without compromising their actually being alive. Maybe Jamie had the only solid family while John was left in the wind. Keep in mind that John’s father was on drugs. Safe environment for kids?

Laurie could have been in an affair with a guy on the side where she had John with the druggie guy while she was in a “happy” steady relationship with Jamie’s father? Maybe she faked her death of her “happy” life, leaving Jamie with a good family while she went to take care of John under her new assumed identity (Keri Tate), her effed up life, because drug-daddy couldn’t be there for John.

There are many plausible possibilities. And here’s one…

As for Laurie, and all this talk of, “She wouldn’t abandon her daughter like that…”, it’s called ‘character development’.
It didn’t betray Laurie’s character.
Look at what happened to her.

From H20 between John (her son) and Laurie:

“Dad would let me go.”

“Well, “Dad” is an abusive chain-smoking methadone addict.”

“And who would attract someone like that?”


“And just think, he left you. ”

Laurie Strode is anything but “pure”. Or is that Kerri Tate? Or Cynthia Myers?

She had a very messed up past post-Halloween 1978. To get involved with someone like that and they later left her… do you have any idea how messed up Laurie had to have been to be left by an abusive addict?

And this is just the info given from H20 alone.

(I’m going to now delve into territory that will no doubt infuriate those that hate to think. So if you are one of those people, feel free not to read any further. This would save you a lot of time and you can get an early start picking on those little kids playing in that sandbox outside.)

Shortly after 1978, Laurie conceived Jamie who was born around 1980. Laurie had to have been a complete wreck of a person. She had just found out that her life was a lie, her supernatural psycho brother that is pure evil tried to kill her, and she has no idea who she is. She likely got on the booze and probably drugs, especially if she would get involved with a drug addict and if she wanted to forget the absolute batshit insanity that is her life at this point.

Jamie and John very likely had different fathers and were always separate from each other. Laurie likely slept around or at least cheated on Mr. Lloyd with John’s father, if she was even with him. Shortly after having Jamie, she conceived John. Laurie is 20 years old by the time she has John.

I don’t see Laurie as really being in any solid relationships at this point if she was sleeping around and drinking (and drugging).

It’s possible that Laurie got John taken from her by his father or his father’s parents due to her wreckless ways. She may have even had Jamie taken from her by Mr. Lloyd into his custody. Laurie was very likely an unfit parent.

Laurie may have seeked therapy and tried to get better or appear better. She gets back with Mr. Lloyd and gets to claim Jamie back. Laurie’s still messed up though and has fears of her brother coming after her.

Does she know Michael is still alive? She believes him to be, but does she know that Wynn and his people are keeping him alive in a comatose state?

Perhaps Dr. Loomis gets back in touch with Laurie to reveal to her that Michael is being kept alive. This scares Laurie so much and pushes her back to her delusional state shortly after that night in 1978.

November of 1987, Laurie and Mr. Lloyd are in a car crash, likely killing Mr. Lloyd. Laurie takes this opportunity to fake her death and start anew somewhere else. She knows she will always be a target as long as Michael is out there. Everyone would be safer if Laurie was dead.

Perhaps Dr. Loomis helps Laurie leave and agrees to watch over and protect Jamie from afar as she stays with a trusted family. He’ll be keeping a close eye on Michael in the meantime.

Laurie likely instantly regrets this action, but she figures that Jamie is safer if she is nowhere near her and is believed to be dead. This is her one clean escape.

11 months later, October of 1988, when Michael is being transferred, they (Wynn’s people) are sure not to notify Dr. Loomis. Michael causes the ambulance to wreck into a river and escapes. But as far as anyone knows, Michael is a burnt vegetable that was taken by the river.

Chaos ensues as Dr. Loomis does is damnest to protect Jamie, but ultimately fails a year later.

Laurie, meanwhile, far away with her new identity hears about Jamie’s disappearance and goes into a complete downward spiral. She goes back to her abusive lover, John’s father, and is able to claim John again. She will never let anything happen to John after what happened to Jamie. She is a new person with a new life and a new purpose despite still being an alcoholic paranoid crazy on a cabinet full of pills. On the surface she is Kerri Tate and will live to protect her son. Underneath, she is Laurie Strode and will live to protect her son.

Now do you believe me?

By: Mac Tonight Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:40:57 +0000 Yeah they messed up the timeline with the Halloween movies but I think poor box office performance played a big factor in why the studio kept messing around with them. Friday the 13th started to do the same thing towards the end, mainly Jason takes Manhatten onwards, where Jason would die at the end of one movie and be alive in the next with no explanation. I have to say though the new Halloween trailer looks really really promising but this is coming from someone who actually enjoyed Rob Zombie’s Halloween movies. I just it does well enough where we get more sequels because there’s nothing worse than having a horror franchise die.