Halloween: Trick or Treat

[cyberghostface.insanejournal.com]

This from Halloween: 30 Years of Terror. It's written by Stefan Hutchinson and illustrated by Danijel Zezelj. For what's it worth, you don't need to be familar with any of the films to understand this. It does tie into the first film, so if you've seen that you can appreciate this more, but it's not required.

Comments

[icon_uk.insanejournal.com]

Michael randomly harming children seems... off. He's never killed someone younger than an adolescent has he?

[punishermax.insanejournal.com]

Yeah this sorta seems dark and edgy for the sake of being dark and edgy.

[cainofdreaming.insanejournal.com]

It could be that the old granny has just gone off her rockers and is imagining Michael being there. Dunno if that's just wishful thinking, though.

[icon_uk.insanejournal.com]

Possibly, but the kids are reacting to him being there too.

[cyberghostface.insanejournal.com]

He tried killing his niece in 4, who was pretty young.

I don't have the exact quote with me, but Stef (the writer) pretty much explained that this occurs during the time that Michael thinks Laurie is dead, so he's essentially entertaining himself during her absence. He's not so much interested in hurting the kids (which is why he doesn't kill them when he easily could) but is just messing with Mrs. Mackenzie. His version of Michael (which is a bit different admittedly than the films at times) is pretty sadistic and mean-spirited and enjoys scaring people just as much as he does killing them.

[icon_uk.insanejournal.com]

He tried killing his niece in 4, who was pretty young.

True, though family is different for him, and he waiting until Lauries son was 16 before trying to kill him.

I don't have the exact quote with me, but Stef (the writer) pretty much explained that this occurs during the time that Michael thinks Laurie is dead, so he's essentially entertaining himself during her absence.

Why? Last time something like that happened he went into fugue state for 15 years, which sort of made sense.

He's not so much interested in hurting the kids (which is why he doesn't kill them when he easily could)

That almost makes it worse, killing is what he does so there's plenty of precedence, and he's usually rather straightforward about it. Hiding razor blades in sweets just to hurt random kids seems too complex and pointless for him.

but is just messing with Mrs. Mackenzie. His version of Michael (which is a bit different admittedly than the films at times) is pretty sadistic and mean-spirited and enjoys scaring people just as much as he does killing them.

Then that just makes it... not Michael Myers to me, so why bother making it him?

[cyberghostface.insanejournal.com]

Then that just makes it... not Michael Myers to me, so why bother making it him?

It's a different interpretation of him. The writer wanted to bring Michael back to the way he was originally--the "Shape" who didn't have a motive for what he did and was just stalking Laurie and her friends for no real reason--as opposed to the one that got bogged down by convoluted continuity that all started because John Carpenter got drunk when he wrote the sequel. (No, really--he was drunk when he wrote the reveal that he went after Laurie because she was his sister, and his since regretted it).

For what's worth, all of the comics that Stef has written have gotten great reviews from both the critics and fans, with the majority of them saying that they're better than anything the sequels have done. The Nightdance miniseries, for example, was IMO far more disturbing and scary than any of the sequels.

[icon_uk.insanejournal.com]

Michael never had a motive for what he did in Halloween (and I don't like the brother/sister reveal either though I confess I wasn't aware of it until I watched Halloween H20, since I'd never got around to seeing Halloween II and if the other sequels mentioned it, I'd forgotten it), but what he did didn't really change, from one movie to the next; He went around killing adolescent on Halloween. Having him randomly harm young kids isn't really going back to his original approach so much as it's fundamentally altering it.

I'm delighted the reviews were good (and I agree that most of the sequels were bad) but frankly I don't care. This just feels... wrong for a Michael Myers story.

[cyberghostface.insanejournal.com]

Well, one could argue that in the first film that Michael did A.) like to scare and toy with his victims and B.) did have his own warped sense of humor (with Bob's ghost costume and all as opposed to just hacking and slashing. He was playing cat-and-mouse a number of times as opposed to just killing. And it's not as if the writer is saying that going after children is all Michael's about--it's one isolated incident overall in the arc that the author is doing. The other comics elaborate more on why Michael is doing stuff like this.

Here's what the author said:

"For me, remaining true to the source is the actual freedom. And by the source, I specifically mean the original film. There’s so much scope for decent material lying latent within that original film which was never utilized in the sequels. A lot of the mysterious and creepy elements of The Shape were forgotten for the films afterwards – you know, the bizarre and dark sense of humor (e.g. wearing a sheet over the head), the scaring of the characters just as much as the killing (look how The Shape stalks Laurie Strode and lets her see him to creep her out). Also, the fact that in the first film, The Shape is a complete absence of personality—a void—leaves the character much more open to interpretation and less restricted than in the sequels, where he became pretty much a family killer and nothing more.

...

The way I approach it, is to define The Shape by his actions, and by how he is perceived by others—it goes back to the blank slate of the original. All we know is that he’s a voyeur as much as a killer, a hunter that slowly stalks his prey, a prankster of sorts who really messes with the heads of his victims, occasionally sexual and perverse (see the difference between how he watches and pursues women to men) and a sadistic, evil bastard with no redeeming human qualities whatsoever."

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=145520

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

I think the idea he has no motive ignores the fact that at the beginning(and I mean the original--I haven't seen Zombie's), his sister is having sex right before he does it. I was always under the impression that he did it because of that.

[cyberghostface.insanejournal.com]

The POV shot in the beginning shows that he took the knife to his sister's room before he knew that she was having sex.

[(Anonymous)]

In the first Halloween, we only saw what he did for the first night after he escaped. He's described by Loomis as 'pure evil', so what's to say that a few years later he would still be doing the same as he was on his first night? 'Pure evil' doesn't just mean killing only adolescents.

[sistermagpie.insanejournal.com]

I didn't know that about Carpenter. It's good to hear. I've always been annoyed at that whole thing. I tend to discount the sequels mostly anyway.

[mullon.insanejournal.com]

Who eats candy immediately? And how do you not see the blades?

[cyberghostface.insanejournal.com]

And how do you not see the blades?

You don't see it until you bite into it. It's happened before in real life.

[glimmung.insanejournal.com]

There have been so few instances of tampering with candy that it is statistical noise.
Basically just fear mongering by the news media.

[sistermagpie.insanejournal.com]

Yes, has anyone actually bitten into the razor apple? Most stories about candy tampering were done by people murdering children they knew.

By 1978 kids wouldn't eat anything not in its original packaging. At least in my experience of being a kid in 78.

[endis_ni.insanejournal.com]

Since I'm mooching through Snopes anyway: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp

[sistermagpie.insanejournal.com]

Thanks!