movies Halloween

James Rogers

James Rogers

Do you know what I though would have been a good sequel to the Halloween movie franchise?

Micheal Myers is captured and put in a maximum security mental hospital, then about 20 minutes from the end of the movie, the psychiatrist goes to him and talks to him. A simple conversation, and in that conversation, we see the human side of Michael. They say nobody is born evil. Some people become bad due to environmental conditions; home life - that sort of thing. I would like to find out what is going on inside Michael's mind. Undoubtedly he is insane, but how does he view life? Why does he kill. Everyone is looking for peace. What is Michael's reason for not being at peace? Is it simply a case of Schizophrenia or is there more to it? What do you think?
 
Unfortunately, the original poster has left the forum, so replies here may be wasted.

Just in case James sees this, The single best examples of seeing a story from the perspective of the bad guy are "The Shield" and "The Sopranos". Both stories of multiple murderers, where you gain insight into their perspective. They aren't horror shows, unless you really start thinking about them.
 
I don't consider an anti-hero to be a bad buy... like tony isn't going around murdering teenagers for fun... he's just an unbridled captalist.

More like... No Country for Old Men if you want to talk about following around a bad guy.
 
sfoster said:
I don't consider an anti-hero to be a bad buy... like tony isn't going around murdering teenagers for fun... he's just an unbridled captalist.

More like... No Country for Old Men if you want to talk about following around a bad guy.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying. In the OP though he's kind of describing getting inside the monster's head, understanding the motivations. No country for old men really doesn't do that. He's just kind of a by the numbers psychopath. It's a great film, don't get me wrong. I think in antihero tales, which I really like, we get an appreciation for how life distorts in the grey areas, and can really follow their rationale step by step.

As far as Tony or Vic not being real murderers....... I think they definitely are monsters, and the way we are presented with the world from their view kind of masks that, intentionally. In example, the Bevelaqua hit. Malinga's murder on the boat, Vic shooting Terry Crowley and planting the gun on two time. From an objective perspective, and from a moral one, it's hard to say that these actions are so much better than Michael Myers. Is there ever a good reason to shoot an unarmed man or woman? History says yes, but personally, I would say no.

IDK, your description of Tony as an unbridled capitalist kind of rings true. It's all shades of grey isn't it. Force someone out of a mobile home and let them die on the street for 20k, or shoot someone in the head over the same amount. It's different in methodology, and similar in result.
 
Last edited:
Nate North said:
I get what you're saying. In the OP though he's kind of describing getting inside the monster's head, understanding the motivations. No country for old men really doesn't do that. He's just kind of a by the numbers psychopath. It's a great film, don't get me wrong. I think in antihero tales, which I really like, we get an appreciation for how life distorts in the grey areas, and can really follow their rationale step by step.
Click to expand...


Yeah exactly like michael meyers, which is what OP is suggesting be EXPANDED ON to get inside their head more.
 
Last edited:
Well i get what you'res saying too - does that movie already exist? where it's expanded upon of someone truly evil.
IDK, we have The Iceman i suppose. maybe that is closer.

Personally, I think the idea of trying to 'relate' to someone that is truly evil is a stupid stupid idea that is doomed to fail.
Nobody (sane/moral) wants to watch a movie about a rapist going around traumatizing people and then relate to the rapist..

That's why the anti-hero movies always have redeeming qualities, because we want the audiece to be able to relate to them in some aspect.
One of the only movies that seems to break this mold is There Will Be Blood, which just has an all around completely unlikable main character.

Maybe it is able to skirt the rules through sheer force of talent in the actors.
 
What about that Dick Cheney movie with christian bale? did anyone see that?
I can only imagine that hollywood really hates dick cheney and made him to be a bad guy and a star of the movie.
 
sfoster said:
Well i get what you'res saying too - does that movie already exist? where it's expanded upon of someone truly evil.
IDK, we have The Iceman i suppose. maybe that is closer.
Click to expand...


That song in the end credits of The Iceman. So exactly right for that film.

 
sfoster said:
Well i get what you'res saying too - does that movie already exist? where it's expanded upon of someone truly evil.
IDK, we have The Iceman i suppose. maybe that is closer.

Personally, I think the idea of trying to 'relate' to someone that is truly evil is a stupid stupid idea that is doomed to fail.
Nobody (sane/moral) wants to watch a movie about a rapist going around traumatizing people and then relate to the rapist..

That's why the anti-hero movies always have redeeming qualities, because we want the audiece to be able to relate to them in some aspect.
One of the only movies that seems to break this mold is There Will Be Blood, which just has an all around completely unlikable main character.

Maybe it is able to skirt the rules through sheer force of talent in the actors.
Click to expand...
I think it's interesting how we perceive things. Were Tony's murders so much more noble than a rape? In each case, the crime is using force and destroying part, or all of another person. Why do we have such an easier time excusing murder? I think it's because we can all identify with rage, with frustration, with the need for some person to be gone, but almost none of us can identify with a rapist. Not that we should, not my point.

Mara's comment made me think a bit, about how our social training has kind of given us this bias that it's a lesser or at least more sympathetic crime to murder someone over money. Did Dahmer kill more people than Tony? Seems like the numbers were similar, and yet it's so much easier to laugh along with Tony as he plays a childish prank on his neighbor, even after watching him kill a kid tied to a chair in cold blood.

It's also interesting to note that within the law, murder for profit is considered the worst form of murder, and punished accordingly. Reading up just now on the 3 degrees of murder, it's interesting to note that the wording has changed over the last decades. We no longer list crimes of passion as a category of murder. It's premeditated first, spontaneous second, and pseudo accidental third. Interestingly, depraved indifference comes in the second category, which in my opinion, is correct.
 
Last edited:
sfoster said:
What about that Dick Cheney movie with christian bale? did anyone see that?
I can only imagine that hollywood really hates dick cheney and made him to be a bad guy and a star of the movie.
Click to expand...
That sounds hilarious, as a satire. I'd make that movie. Dick Cheney bravely shooting his buddy on the hunting trip. Having the patriotic fortitude to throw the poor under the bus. Reminds me of "Where's my Roy Comb"

And I did see the Cheney movie. It wasn't funny though.
 
Last edited:
Nate North said:
That sounds hilarious, as a satire. I'd make that movie. Dick Cheney bravely shooting his buddy on the hunting trip. Having the patriotic fortitude to throw the poor under the bus. Reminds me of "Where's my Roy Comb"

And I did see the Cheney movie. It wasn't funny though.
Click to expand...
Wow so youre saying hollywood actually gave him a sympathetic film?
 
sfoster said:
Wow so youre saying hollywood actually gave him a sympathetic film?
Click to expand...
No, maybe I worded that poorly. You saw it right? It wasn't too sympathetic. I was imagining how one could make a sardonic satirical comedy about this aptly named person.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, forgot about Henry.

This movie is...... disturbing. It's about as close as you get to seeing what real serial killers are like.

They aren't smart, they aren't cultured. Every time I watched this film, I got the feeling that I was seeing something more realistic. A drunk moron at a truck stop, more like lenny from mice and men, minus the brother to stop him.

I don't really have the desire to watch it again. It's not that it's super gory, or sick. It's just so believable, and in that sense, much more horrifying than something like "Silence of the Lambs"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top