ByMichael Giannandrea, writer at

I'm sure many of you are just as worried about the new Halloween movie that's in production. From the numerous sequels, remakes, remakes of sequels and the two different timelines that Halloween franchise has created. There is a lot riding on this new movie. For a start do we really want a third timeline. Where 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 didn't happen. I failed to mention rob zombie's halloween as I'm sure everyone wishes they never happened. Nevertheless by completely forgetting all these movies with the exception of the original and the 1981 sequel. This leaves many fans puzzled at the direction this movie is going. For instance that would mean Lauriee strode was not only still alive but still Michael's sister. Unless they write her out as they did in four (rather poorly). But if she were still alive then why not do another movie about her and Michael? or even a sequel to Halloween returns with Laurie in it. Then there is the ending to Halloween 2. It seemed pretty final Michael and loomis couldn't have survived that. There is also the gun shot to both eyes to take into account. What I'm wondering is. If they're trying to go back to the original and give us that old school horror flick feel. Why not go back to the original and do a direct sequel to one. Therefore Michael wouldn't be laurie's brother. And loomis would still be alive. Obviously with loomis alive there is still characters of which the fans can relate and not some daughter of a cop and son of a Myer's victim. Going back to the original literally opens the door to so many possibilities. And ofcourse there is also the option of doing a ninth which a lot of people want aswell. However for me. It's been played out Laurie is dead and it just gives Michael no purpose. However if Michael wasn't her brother you wouldn't have this problem. There is the other option of a sequel to Six. Involving the curse of thorn. Which i'd rather not think about. There is even problems with this storyline. The daughter of the sheriff who was the deputy in the 1981 sequel? I'm assuming the sheriff will be a recast. So in that case why not recast sheriff brackett. That would be a much more interesting plot line. The 'vengeful father' But instead let's put a girl in there because we need a woman for Michael to go up against. It feels stretched out that for a horror film the protagonist needs to be a woman. Not mention the cinematography watching rob zombies Halloween; I don't feel like I was in 1978. It seemed to polished. They need to go back and give us the b-movie feel. You might say I'm being nostalgic but hey they want us to feel like we're watching an old school Friday night flick. Then this is the way to do it. It's also surprised me that they haven't over the years done a movie where the main events didn't take place on Halloween. For example Friday the 13th part 3 and 4 both didnt take place on Friday 13th. But nevertheless those were two of the best movies of that particular franchise. However whatever they make I'm sure they'll make money on it. And the fans will probably be left with three different timelines and millions of Halloween fans wondering where will Hollywood drag the legacy of the 1978 classic 'Halloween' to next.


Latest from our Creators