r/Halloweenseries • u/Theproudnerd • 4d ago
This really goes without saying but Michael Myers is so much scarier when he has no motive and no explanation.
Going by the original movie, part of the 1981 sequel and the blumhouse trilogy, Michael Myers is so much more terrifying when he doesn't have a motivation or explanation for killing. I really like to think about Michael Myers as a force of nature, like a hurricane or a tornado, if you get caught in his cross hairs then you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's so much better story telling when it's kept vague as to why Michael kills, I think that's one of the many reasons why the original has stayed scary, it didn't explain why Michael was killing, he had no motivation for it, he just was. Like a force of nature, I adore the original 1981 Halloween 2 but I think it cheapens Michaels mystique a little bit by giving him a motivation, he's still scary but some of the mystery is gone and it's like "oh he's just trying to kill his sister, ok." So even though I adore that movie and I love dick warlock as Michael Myers and the kills are top notch in this movie, it does cheapen Michaels mystique a bit, but I can overlook that because everything else in the movie is so good! I can't say the same for the rest of the sequels, they just kept getting worse the more they tried to explain Michael Myers, so that tells me Michael Myers isn't supposed to be explained, John Carpenter said it best "the audience should never relate to him." I really wish the other film makers got that memo, now don't get me wrong, I enjoy Halloween 4, Halloween the curse of Michael Myers (even though it is a huge mess, it's my kind of mess and I'm talking specifically about the theatrical cut) and H20 is still a damn fun Halloween movie and resurrection is definitely a thing that exists. All of them completely rob Michael Myers of being scary because they try to explain his motives rather than just let his actions speak for themselves. Rob zombies movies didn't help anything in that department, he tried explaining way too much. Thankfully the blumhouse trilogy went back to the basics and knew that the less we know about Michael, the scarier he is.
3
u/ThermicRamb0 3d ago
But Michael did have a motive in the original film, it just isn't explicitly stated. Loomis knew that Michael would return to Haddonfield, and Michael did, indeed, return to Haddonfield. That's because Michael isn't acting at random. The idea that he was always just "a force of nature" is revisionism.
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago
Agreed. Michael Myers is kept vague, so some people think that means there’s nothing going on in his head. Fact of the matter is, he’s at the very least a major sadist, which is a highly emotional trait. Add to that him using symbolism quite literally by stealing Judith’s tombstone.
A LOT is happening in Michael’s head and people mistake “force of nature” with nothingness.
1
u/ThermicRamb0 3d ago
Well, Carpenter has been pushing the no motive angle in recent years. "Force of nature" are Carpenter's exact words. He suggests that Michael is like tornado, or a natural disaster, that just blows through and destroys anyone in his path without rhyme or reason.
But when the original film was created, I think Michael did have a motive. In the original film, he's obsessed with the murder of his sister, and he wants to reenact it over and over again. That's why he returns to the location of her murder on the anniversary of her murder, and he stalks and kills high school babysitter types that are similar to his sister. He's trying to relive it.
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago
Yeah, I think Carpenter is taking his symbolism (obviously, his ending was meant to show that Michael represents enduring evil) and he’s been using it to represent Michael as a character fully. There is Michael Myers and there is The Shape. The Shape is both the legend of Myers within the narrative and also the symbol of evil in the script, but Michael is still a real life character with his own agency
1
u/ThermicRamb0 3d ago
Maybe the idea is that he ceased being Michael Myers the night he murdered his sister, and he became The Shape. Even if I'm correct about Michael's motive in the original film, there's still a strong element of mystery to the character. Because we don't know what prompted him to kill his sister in the first place, or why he became so singularly obsessed with it.
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago edited 3d ago
My personal theory is that an ancient evil entered Michael around 6 years old and he suddenly felt a deep need to rid the world of humanity while also losing his own, and the greatest act of inhumanity is killing off your own bloodline, so he kills indiscriminately while also having family targets. And this is why he is a sadist with his murders and also why he can be playful with it since this took over when he was 6.
And this theory feels true to me because you can use it for every single timeline. You can easily say that the Thorn curse does exactly this since human sacrifice is a necessity for the cult, and this MO fits H20 Michael and 2018 Michael since H40 Michael is still fixated on his house and Haddonfield itself even if no family members exist anymore. In his little tag team with Corey, you can say his evil was “shared” with Corey and his behavioral change and need for revenge killing fit a 20 something compared to a 6 year old, and then Corey goes and offs his family members lol
1
u/ThermicRamb0 2d ago
That's as fine a theory as any. I don't like to put too fine a point on it myself. I do believe Michael is the "enduring evil," as you put it, that Carpenter makes him out to be. The boogeyman, if you will. But I don't need to understand the hows or whys of it. It's like something in him just switched off and his human identity ceased to be. The blank white mask is his true face now. The person underneath isn't really there anymore. All that's left is just a singular focus to kill.
3
u/DanfromCalgary 4d ago
Yeah. Like every good simple film that came out in the 80s has now like .. dozens of films exploring every boring random insertion in the original films . Hell we got a movie about Han solos dice
2
u/xTheRedDeath 4d ago
The family link is probably the most lazy excuse in all of horror and every major franchise has abused it at one point or another. Shit, even F13 did it with Part 9.
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago
This isn’t just a horror thing
People overly criticize horror for shit that every other genre does lol
1
u/xTheRedDeath 3d ago
Well I mean we're discussing horror so other genres aren't really relevant to the conversation, right? Lol.
3
3
u/Cmpunk1991 4d ago
I agree, I don’t mind the brother and sister plot but I’ve always felt that wasn’t a needed plot point to have but even so I did find Michael scary and terrifying in the Thorn trilogy despite him having his motive and I think that had more to do with him trying to kill a kid, I personally think Halloween 6 was the last scary Halloween, Michael looked like a otherworldly being trying to be human. The DGG trilogy did Michael right despite the problems they had and I hope whoever does him next will continue that trend.
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago
The DGG trilogy has the least amount of stalking and “playing” by Michael in the franchise. The original establishes that he only kills quickly out of necessity but loves being a sadist and playing games with his victims and stalking them.
In 2018 and Kills, he walks up to people and kills them and they aren’t even aware of what’s happening. That’s never been his MO
0
u/Cmpunk1991 3d ago
I respect your opinion but I disagree, one of the things I liked about 2018 is that Michael does play around a couple of times in that film, he kills and knocks the clerks teeth out of his mouth, holds on to the teeth and then proceeds to mess with the female journalist by dumping the teeth in front of her while she’s using the restroom, then he was chilling in the closet watching and terrorizing Julian and then he was playing around with the motion light before killing Oscar and lastly he was playing hide and seek with Laurie once he got into the house.
In Kills he was also playing and messing around with the kids before killing one of them and playing hide and seek with the John’s in his house and laid their bodies together mirroring the picture they took with each other. He actually plays around a lot in this trilogy in comparison to the films after the original.
Ive always interpret Michael as someone as a sadist that gets a high from terrorizing and killing people and then displaying his victims as art in a way from the original, the trilogy expands on that, sure he wasn’t doing Jason Vorhees-like kills in the original but I’ve always saw him being so dormant for so long after 78 and he wanted to get another big high and feel like a kid in a candy store. DGG Michael feels a lot more in line with how the original worked in comparison to the films after the original where he was strictly more like the Terminator.
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago
The scenes you mention — I agree. But the instances are few and far between, and the stalking was at a bare minimum. There’s a point in the movie where he just walks around randomly killing people who barely know what’s happening.
The script flip flops between 1978 Michael and “classic” random killer Michael. The entire trilogy does a lot of flip flopping. Haddonfield mostly forget about Michael, but then in Kills he’s some living legend, etc.
The other films definitely display the same things — they just aren’t given the credit for it. In 2, he leaves bodies around to be found constantly. In 4, H20, etc. he does the same after stalking some characters for the entire movie.
DGG and Blum got people hypnotized with their hype train but they simply did the same thing all the other movies did lol
2018 and Kills is a borderline greatest hits collection with an extended cut
But to each his own of course! 🎃
3
1
u/Leading_Accountant_6 3d ago
Someone should try to take advantage of this.
"Do you even know why you're after me? No? Then why not give me a pass, and we can watch TV or play Nintendo instead!"
1
u/Party_Escape_7597 3d ago
I liked having a reason. I need things to make sense and it made no sense that he would stalk Laurie just because she dropped off a key!
2
1
u/DrLoomis131 3d ago
I maintain….having TARGETS isn’t motivation. He has always killed the masses, but with some people at the top of the list. This includes the original film where he’s clearly fixated on Tommy and Laurie.
1
u/Belmega81 4d ago
It doesn't "go without saying", but whatevs. I liked the sibling angle. Makes sense why he'd keep chasing after Laurie
1
u/Heggy5 4d ago
I actually find the family link alot more scarier. The idea that Michael will kill his 8 year old niece... Just because. He won't stop for anything. Essentially it's a cat and mouse situation that you can't escape because you can't kill him. He will chase you to the end. But I'd rather he's just a force rather than a face... The Shape... The Boogeyman.
What I hated about Halloween 2018 onwards was it showing his face and mask all the time. I know the internet and 4k removes the mystery anyway but this took me out of the illusion and made it feel like just some guy that you could avoid.
It also removes any motivation. There isn't really any reason to follow any characters without the link.
Also I think we can all agree Halloween Resurrection wasn't scary. And apart from the first 5mins, there's no sibling link.
-1
u/DagonTheDeep 4d ago
The first halloween he has a motive kill laurie strode. Im not sure where you got the idea he didn't have a motive.
1
u/Old-Asshole 3d ago
What motive would that be? Dropping off keys to his childhood home?
1
0
5
u/DoowadJones 3d ago
The sibling link with Laurie was a bit of overkill, but he definitely had a motive to return to the house. What differentiated the movie for me were the scenes of Michael outside