Would Halloween 4 be better if...

[Leatherface]

I have been thinking about this for awhile now, I always felt Michael targeting random people was better than going after his family, but what do you guys think? Would Halloween 4 have been better if Jamie Lloyd was just some girl that a deranged sociopath targeted? Or do you prefer it that she's targeted by her uncle?

[TommyBlade™]

I prefer it that she's targeted by her uncle? Such stories are to be told to the audience. Reason being, everyday in life & other events you see deranged sociopath targets random people. Why not introduced something for a change, read into the human mind more. Think the unthinkable & witness the wrath when a Family member turns on his own.

[stalker]

It's a little late to change the story now, but I think it's fine the way it is.

[Doomsday]

Michael wouldn't be who is if he wasn't targeting family members, it started with his older sister when he was a child, then his younger sister when he broke out, he wasn't going after family members, what reason or motive would he have had to become a serial killer in the first place?

this goes back to how some people even today still are upset that we find out in Halloween II that Laurie is actually Michael's younger sister, some people claim is was just a plot twist used to pitch the movie but if that was the case, why would have Michael had targeted her throughout the first movie? it only made sense that she was his sister

Halloween 4 is no different, it could be said that Michael had no intentions of escaping the ambulance until he overheard that he had a surviving relative living in Haddonfield, that being Jamie

[stalker]

Jun 28, 2013 13:20:08 GMT -5 Doomsday said:

Michael wouldn't be who is if he wasn't targeting family members, it started with his older sister when he was a child, then his younger sister when he broke out, he wasn't going after family members, what reason or motive would he have had to become a serial killer in the first place?

this goes back to how some people even today still are upset that we find out in Halloween II that Laurie is actually Michael's younger sister, some people claim is was just a plot twist used to pitch the movie but if that was the case, why would have Michael had targeted her throughout the first movie? it only made sense that she was his sister

Halloween 4 is no different, it could be said that Michael had no intentions of escaping the ambulance until he overheard that he had a surviving relative living in Haddonfield, that being Jamie

And it's really weird how he found her, especialy knowing he had never seen her.

[jlaw]

Jun 28, 2013 13:20:08 GMT -5 Doomsday said:

this goes back to how some people even today still are upset that we find out in Halloween II that Laurie is actually Michael's younger sister, some people claim is was just a plot twist used to pitch the movie but if that was the case, why would have Michael had targeted her throughout the first movie? it only made sense that she was his sister

Two reasons to me, man. Michael becomes fixated on Laurie in the first one because she comes up to the steps of his house to put the key under the mat or she reminds him of Judith. Or a combination of both. There is evidence that he is reliving that Halloween night he killed her. He steals her headstone and brings it with him for later. I think the headstone is the biggest piece of evidence that he is reliving that night of 15 years prior for some unknown reason. Why have it in the movie otherwise? As much as I can speculate, it still leaves many questions which to me is a good thing.

And it is just a plot twist for a sequel. There's that famous story of Carpenter being dragged in to write the sequel and he's sitting there late one night drunk off his ass trying to figure out what else to do with these characters. Then he is like "ok I'll make her his sister". The original Halloween, like nearly every classic, was never written with sequels in mind. It was supposed to be a one off.

As for the question on hand, I am one of those people who much prefers to think of the original Halloween as standalone and any concrete reasons to explain Michael ruins the mystery and mystique. However, I can go with the sequels after the fact because I can separate them in my mind. If I'm in the mood to see that story go further, I go past Part 1, so I don't mind by the time I get to 4 and it is his niece he's going after.