Discover Top Posts Tagged with #steven lloyd

Halloween: Why the Thorn Trilogy was as underrated as "Twenty Years Later" was overrated

So yeah, I said it. And now I’m gonna explain it.

This may be some nostalgia of mine talking but as a long time fan of the Halloween series - I am talking when I was ten years old, when I was first getting into horror genre- I grew up on the old Halloween sequels consisting of the Thorn trilogy and the Twenty Years Later story lines. I know they are considered separate continuities and timelines, but y'know broad strokes, Easter-eggs, and the fact early script drafts for Twenty Years Later (Or H-20) intended to tie them together before they were cut from the final film, you can make the case they are ostensibly canon to each other, but that’s about it.

The Thorn Trilogy isn’t considered the best of the series; many fans looking down on the fifth and sixth film as being the least popular of the films. I think the only reason they aren’t considered by fans the worse in the series is because Resurrection exists, and was that followed by Rob Zombie’s remake duology. On the flip side, H-20 and 2018 are considered the golden calves of the franchise, and for the life of me, I never saw the appeal of the formers popularity. Now I can see why people have problems with the Thorn trilogy - especially regarding the cult and curse plot element of the sixth film. Unpopular opinion, but the sixth film was my favourite of the series - maybe has to do with my autism appealing me with both world building and the familiar - or that it seemed to tie up one storyline, but at the same time set up so much that I was disappointed that it didn’t continue.

For context, this post is partially inspired by Schaffrillas Productions video about Shrek 2. In this I will be using the criteria of what he describes as a “Perfect Sequel” which I’ll apply to the Halloween series, and as his Shrek 2 video says, there’s no such thing as the perfect movie; there’s too many variables to cover in a single movie alone, while a movie can preform it’s functions as a sequel perfectly even that doesn’t mean the movie itself is perfect. The “Perfect Sequel” criteria goes as such; expanding the universe; continue the story; introduce new themes or expand on old themes; leave an impact on the franchise.

Like Schaffrillas Productions, I will use this criteria to determine what the Thorn trilogy did right over H-20. Now am I gonna throw the 2018 sequel into the equation ? Maybe for compare and contrast purposes, but the 2018 sequel hits those same beats. There really is no competition between H-20 and 2018, I don’t question why the latter is considered a fan favorite. What I am primarily doing here is comparing the old sequels, and 2018 barely comes into the equation.

Does the Thorn Trilogy expand the films universe ? Does is continue the story ? As far as continuing the story goes ? Well that’s a no brainier; Halloween II begins where the original film ends; Return of Michael Myers picks up ten years later with Michael waking up from a coma after his seeming death in the second; Revenge follows Return and that leads to Curse. You get the picture, there’s an overarching story here.

“But does it introduce new themes that impact the franchise ?” You ask. Not the Thorn trilogy itself, but the second film does. Halloween II kinda sorta introduces a supernatural element to Michael by hinting a connection to the an ancient element of Halloween - more specifically the lord of the dead Samhain- but more importantly revealing that Michael and Laurie are brother and sister. The supernatural stuff is explored exclusively throughout Return to Curse, but ever since it was revealed the entire Halloween series hinged off of Michael and Laurie’s familial connection. Even in 2018 where they discontinue the sibling aspect, the theme of family permeates the plot, with the focus hear being on Laurie, her family drama, her need to protect them and how Michael not only affected her but her family.

In what’s relevant here is Michael and Laurie’s family connection is the focal point of the Thorn Trilogy, albeit not through Laurie herself; our lead character in Return and Revenge is Jamie Lloyd, the orphaned daughter of Laurie Strode and niece of Michael Myers, and she is what made their relationship the most plot relevant. Before Michael even wakes up from his coma, we are introduced to Jamie being haunted and even bullied over the fact that she’s and orphan and how her uncle is the infamous boogeyman. Her mother is gone, and she never even met her uncle, and yet both their shadows hang over her. Once Michael learns he has a niece that’s still alive, that’s all he needs to get up and at ‘em and nothings gonna stop him from getting his hands on her. And once he does in Curse ? It’s their baby he’s after next! Yes, their baby. Michael is the biological father of Jamie’s son Steven, who becomes his new target and finds an adoptive family in Tommy Doyle, Karla Strode, and her son Danny, who take the responsibility to protect Steven from not only Michael, but an evil cult that will no doubt be following them for some time. So we have something set up; a possible future confrontation between Michael and his vengeful son, and defeat the cult that has been mentoring Michael and orchestrating his rampages from behind the scenes.

So what comes next ? H-20 gives us Dawson’s Creek with a serial killer. One of the things I mark against H-20 was I felt it lacked the same kind of substance as the previous trilogy. For something that was conceived as the finale of the Halloween saga, I just couldn’t get emotionally invested, and maybe it had to do with the later release of Resurrection and the knowledge of what comes next. Maybe I was deflated that Jamie wouldn’t get justice, or that we wouldn’t find out what became of Little Baby Steven. Sure we got a plot about Laurie being a protective mother towards her son John, but for some reason I couldn’t really empathize with John in comparison to Jamie - not helping his case is that 2018 Laurie has a new daughter in Karen who has the same kind of baggage John had with Laurie, was a more interesting in characterization. John was a just a Dawson’s Creek student who serves as someone Laurie needs to fight for, only to be forgotten in Resurrection. Unlike Jamie or Karen, John was more of a plot device than a character.

As far as expanding on the previous films themes go, H-20 doesn’t really do this. It’s focus is on Laurie and her incoming “final” confrontation with her brother…but it doesn’t feel like it has the same weight. Laurie’s having her nightmares, she’s living in paranoia and the constant fear of her brother inevitably coming after her again, and how it took a toll on her relationship with her son. That’s all well and good, but the problem is the emotions feel underwhelming here. I’m not bashing the acting or anything, but I think I was supposed to take Laurie and John’s screaming match when they argue about Michael more seriously than I actually did (their second scene together by the way). Maybe they should have focused more on Laurie’s angst, and her relationship with her son, but it all felt rushed and emotionally underdeveloped in comparison to Laurie’s emotional scars shown in 2018, which felt like they had a little more weight here. 2018 gave us a slow burn with them, H-20 gave us the last three episodes of Game of Thrones.

Also the fact its Halloween night is barely a factor in this movie. There’s more focus on a trip to Yosemite Park than the actual holiday, and none of the characters don’t even go on the trip itself. Hell, this movie and it’s sequel were released in the summer.

“What about expanding the films universe ?” As I said above, I think the main thing I liked about the Thorn trilogy was it’s world building. It is next to 2018 with the most lore filled storylines in the series, (and I expect more to come from 2018’s sequels). And the Thorn trilogy not only captured the atmosphere, but tied the lore of the actual holiday of Halloween much better than H-20. And for better or worse, we dig in a little more into the mystery that is Michael Myers and his family. Or do we ?

Short answer is “Depends on what version of the sixth movie you watch.” Yeah I know the sixth movie introduces the Thorn cult and curse, but there is are differences between the Theatrical Cut and the Producers Cut on account of things that have been added, cut or changed outright between the two versions. The Producers Cut is the only version Michael being a puppet of the Thorn Curse and tool to this cult. The Theatrical Cut plays around with this idea but doesn’t explore it beyond a theory Tommy has, but isn’t verified in the cut itself. As far as the Theatrical Cut is concerned, Michael is just a rage driven psychopath.

And honestly I get that one of the supposed appeals to Michael Myers is the mystery of his character. Everyone goes off about how he was such a cool villain in the first movie was because of his mysteriousness and the questions left unanswered and go on and on about it. But here’s the thing, the point of a mystery is the need to solve it, the need to explore and find out more about this mysterious figure. Michael being a mysterious figure can work in one or two movies before it gets boring and he just becomes a blank slate, a carboard cut-out. And really that was one of the problems Michael had in H-20. The Thorn Trilogy gives three movies to find out more about Michael, and his familial connection to Laurie Strode is the focus, even with Laurie out of the picture. Some would say because we find out more about Michael, his status as a villain is cheapened, but I always thought he becomes more interesting the more we find out about him.

In H-20, we got nothing with Michael. We don’t find out anything really new or interesting, or anything that really makes him that much of a threat. The whole movie was about a showdown he was going to have with Laurie twenty years after his first rampage, but there’s no real substance with Michael this time around. And this isn’t the same as 2018 going back to basics by following only the first movie - H-20 explicitly follows the second movie so this is the same Michael who hints at a supernatural element, the same Michael who is revealed to be Laurie’s brother, but none of that is really important here. The brother and sister element - the crux of these two characters, isn’t of importance here as it was for the Thorn trilogy; the closest we get to that is the scene where Laurie kills someone she thinks is Michael, which leads to Resurrection.

Michael and Laurie felt more related in 2018 than they ever did in H-20. And speaking of 2018, I know they brought Michael back to his original form, but considering there’s two sequels to that movie in the works, there is only so much you can do before Michael becomes “cheapened” by finding out more about him or become boring by keeping him a blank slate. Like I said, Michael can only really get away with being enigmatic for one or two movies before it just becomes a crutch and excuse which would result in him becoming boring.

As far as world building goes, the H-20 storyline doesn’t really expand the universe besides taking us to a boarding school in California, but I can give it leniency since it was gonna originally be a follow up on the previous trilogy. Now onto comparing characters.

Laurie Strode as a Protagonist

While it goes with out saying that Laurie Strode is a runner up when it comes to being the OG Final Girl. In the same way Michael helped define the slasher villain, Laurie is helped define what the final girl is. In just about every timeline and storyline in the Halloween series, all it took was one night to shape Laurie as her fateful encounter with Michael. In the first two movies, Laurie was a great protagonist, she was the naive, inexperienced teenage girl, and even a sisterly figure to Tommy Doyle. She was a protective babysitter who risks her neck to not just survive the night against a psychotic stalker, but protect the kids that are in her care. And that was just the first movie.

The second movie (which takes place on the same night mind you) things get personal with the brother/sister relationship. In this movie, the family aspect did impact Laurie; Laurie was the first person who finds out the truth and has a dream induced flashback of when she met Michael when she was younger shortly after her mother told her she was adopted. Laurie wakes up and the revelation that the seeming stranger that just murdered her friends is her brother, it puts her into a brief catatonic shock…although she might have been faking it while planning an escape. Point is the brother revelation had an effect on her.

But watching II and Twenty Years Later back to back, I just didn’t feel that it the same impact as it did in the previous movie. Michael’s relation to Laurie wasn’t as important in this film as it did the previous films. If it wasn’t for the fact that the brother-sister thing was mentioned a few times, it didn’t feel like it had that much of a weight to it. It didn’t feel like Laurie was afraid of her brother here, but rather just the guy who terrorized her. Like I said, above, Laurie and Michael felt more “related” in 2018 than they did in H-20, despite that aspect being cut out. The closest we get to Laurie having a moment of “this is my brother” is the scene where she kills some poor sap she thinks is Michael.

The focus in both H-20 and 2018 is about Laurie’s trauma and paranoia about Michael coming after her and her children. But overall I felt 2018!Laurie was the better take on the character, especially in that aspect; we see how strained her relationship with her daughter is and how close she is with her granddaughter. 2018!Laurie’s life effectively went down the tubes and Michael never stopped haunting her, and has burned himself into her very soul, that it would be irrelevant whether or not they are blood related. It’s gotten to the point where her daughter barely has a relationship with her. Despite this and having little to lose, 2018!Laurie has spent forty years preparing for a showdown with Michael, and is just itching for him to come loose again, arming herself, fortifying her house, keeping herself in shape the whole nine yards. Because it makes her that much stronger, makes her a little bit harder, makes her that much wiser, so thanks for making her a fighter.

H-20!Laurie spent twenty years just living in fear of Michael that at some point to the point that she faked her death, but doesn’t do much of else. And honestly despite her trauma and paranoia in this movie, I was less sympathetic to this take on Laurie, because she has a lot more to lose. She hasn’t had her life ruined by Michael in the same way 2018!Laurie has, in fact she lived a more comfortable (dare I say) privileged life, as the headmistress of a boarding school in sunny California, and still has a considerably more positive relationship with her son, and it’s only after Michael catches up to her, she’s ready to confront him and (seemingly) kill him. And I just couldn’t feel the same emotions with H-20!Laurie as I did with the 2018 counterpart.

I thought that H-20 was a little rushed with her character development and arc. But I think what made me unsympathetic is because Resurrection made it hard for me to root for in retrospect, and the fact H-20 was originally going to be directly tied with the Thorn trilogy; keep in mind as far as the Thorn trilogy goes, Laurie was killed in a car accident, which left her daughter Jamie virtually alone, with her mothers death taking an obvious toll on her, which dear old uncle Michael is out to kill her. H-20 reveals Laurie faked her death, and considering the original plans to tie the two stories, this effectively means that Laurie faked her death, abandoned Jamie with seemingly no regard for her, and let Jamie go through Hell alone. And I’m supposed to feel sorry for Laurie because of twenty years of nightmares ? Yeah, 2018!Laurie is the mother that Jamie deserves.

Which leads us too…

Jamie Lloyd as a protagonist

Now Jamie was considered a fan favorite upon her introduction, and in my opinion is one of the most thematically important characters in the series. As I explained above, Jamie is the linchpin of Michael and Laurie’s relationship, being both Laurie’s daughter and Michael’s niece. From such, both characters shadows hang over Jamie, despite and because of Laurie being out of the picture. Despite being a child, Jamie is subjected to the trauma of her mothers passing and her relationship with the boogeyman being public knowledge (and other children bully her over it, I can’t get over that).

Now there’s two kind of protagonist dynamics that Laurie and Jamie fill that contrast each other; Laurie is the protector of the cute, Jamie is the cute. But Laurie’s not around, and Jamie would be completely alone if it where not for her foster sister Rachel, Rachel’s friends, the local and state police and a mob of vigilantes. Well unfortunately, the Jamie Lloyd Protection Squad are a non issue to Michael who had squad of his own in the form of the Thorn cult, and these fuckers don’t play around. The world will stop at nothing at kicking Jamie down, and kicking her while she’s down, just for existing. If that’s not enough, she is held captive for years by a cult, forcibly impregnated by Michael and disemboweled in the sixth movie.

Did I mention Jamie was an eight to nine year old kid in the fourth and fifth movie ? I can see why Danielle Harris is disgruntled that she couldn’t return. Fun fact, Danielle Harris wanted the sixth film to have Jamie die killing Michael once and for all to save her baby. But because this is Jamie Lloyd we are talking about, she’s not allowed to get justice. You could make the argument that Jamie gets points dying to save her baby in the actual movie…but it wasn’t Danielle Harris playing, so whatevs I guess.

As I already said, what made Jamie a little more interesting for me than H-20!Laurie is that her connection to Michael being more emphasized here than with Laurie. This was first shown in the fourth movie and expanded upon in the fifth, which implies Michael has some sort of psychic and emotional link with Jamie. Under Michael’s influence, Jamie attacks her foster mother, and is subsequently institutionalized, and is still terrorized by Michael through nightmares, visions and seizures, as Michael continuously taunts Jamie with the murders of her protection squad. That’s when it hit me; Jamie and Michael are Ying and Yang, and that’s why it worked. Where Jamie was innocence, Michael was purely evil.

Michael is the human personification of evil, it only makes sense he be connected to someone who is pure and simply innocent. These two effect each other, and compliment each other. I’m honestly curious how this connection played out during Jamie’s captivity, because despite everything she’s been through, she was still innocent enough to try to reach out to Michael a final time. In the fifth film Michael has a bizarre moment of humanity and feels brief remorse due to Jamie’s influence and on the flip side, Jamie has a brief moment of darkness due to Michael’s influence. So of course I’m going to avoid a certain Mad Titan’s quote about perfect balance, because the meme is too easy. It dawns on me that I may be reading into something that isn’t there, but dear reader is what all theorists and analysts such as myself do ?

And speaking of perfect balance, that is another reason why I think a storyline about baby Steven introduced in the sixth film is a wasted chance. Not only is his *ahem* “origin” anti-hero backstory material, but think about what Steve represents; he’s a living combination of Jamie’s innocence and Michael’s evil. He is someone who not only carries Laurie and Jamie’s legacy on his back, but Michael’s legacy as well. Thematically speaking, he is prime material to be the one to one day kill Michael once and for all. But we got more of Michael fighting Laurie, so I guess that’s cool.

Michael Myers as a villain

Okay, what can I say about Michael as a villain that hasn’t already been said ? I mean what movie does him best ? Many would say the first two. But what does a better job at “expanding” Michael. Many would also say the 2018 sequel, but that’s not primarily what I’m comparing here, so we are sticking with the old school sequels. Michael’s main appeal to the bulk of the fandom was the mystery aspect of him in the first movie. But “Michael is cool because he’s mysterious” can only work for one or two movies before it becomes a crutch and as a result turns Michael into blank slate. And considering that 2018 has two sequels in the work, Michael is likely to get some “expansion” to keep him interesting, and that’s because the appeal to a mystery is the inherent need to solve it.

But that is beside the point. In my personal opinion, Michael’s appeal wasn’t that he was a mystery, but that he was the human personification of evil, and from such I think the only way Michael can really be cheapened is if he was given something to humanize him like love, empathy or sympathetic qualities. And no, the single tear in the fifth movie ultimately means nothing considering what happens down the line. So as long as Michael is evil and doing inherently evil deeds, I don’t see it as cheapening him.

So how does one expand on Michael and his evil correctly ? Make him a bigger threat with each passing sequel, and give him more heinous deeds under his belt.

In the second movie, he massacres a hospital to get to Laurie. The fourth movie has him slaughtering an entire police force and a vigilante mob just to get to Jamie. The fifth movie has Michael track down Jamie’s friends and foster sister, and display their corpses as a way to taunt Jamie. Sixth movie, he disembowels Jamie after she gives birth - mocking Jamie for trying reach out to him no less! - before seeking out and trying to kill their baby, and massacres a group of followers for thinking they can control him. There’s also Steven’s conception, which is universally regarded as too far even for Michael. 2018 has Michael kill a child onscreen, exceed the body count of the first movie before he even gets his mask back -and just to get his mask back- kills several people in different houses in a matter of minutes, and uses a cops severed head as a makeshift Jack-o-Lantern. You see that ? In almost each sequel, Michael was more of a threat, and was more “creative” when it came to his evil. He fulfilled a function as a villain and evil personified with no real humanity and no moral restraint.

What about H-20 ? Compared to those other movies, Michael was boring here. He kills three people at the beginning of H-20 and three more in the third act, but isn’t really creative or spectacular (except for using a skate for one kill). The bulk of the movie is Michael just traveling to the boarding school Laurie is hiding in, but doesn’t really do anything of substance. I wouldn’t mind too much, but back in the day this was billed as the final movie. The only creative thing Michael does is fake his death and that isn’t revealed until Resurrection which was near universally disowned by the fandom. Give Resurrection this, it adds more to Michael’s rap sheet. We do get a brief montage at the beginning of H-20 that implies that Michael has gone on a killing spree across the country, but the problem is it breaks the “show don’t tell rule”.

I’ll give them this, we do get a comic book miniseries called Nightdance set in the H-20 continuity, that expands on Michael’s evil and menace in ways I won’t spoil here because I recommend it, and it’s not as well known as Resurrection despite being considered by some to be the better follow up. It’s almost a shame this wasn’t made into a movie, because in the actual movies in that timeline Michael didn’t feel as threatening or menacing, took a lot of the edge off his character, and made him especially weak compared to the previous sequels. You could make the argument that the movie was mainly focused on Laurie’s facing her demons, the problem was that everything was rushed and undeveloped in that department, so Laurie’s character arc doesn’t really make up for it.

Compare and contrast this with 2018, which gave us a slow burn focus on how Michael effected Laurie, Laurie’s relationship with her family and quickly shown us the stakes Michael’s threat poses. It really makes me question why H-20 was seen as such a golden calf back in the day. It seems to me that is was mostly because Jamie Lee Curtis made a comeback for that movie.

Conclusion

So that’s my reasoning for why the Thorn trilogy hits the “Perfect Sequel” beats over H-20; it had more lore and world building; had a greater focus on the themes introduced in the second film; a more sympathetic protagonist; Michael’s evil was empathized more; and an atmosphere closer related to the actual holiday of Halloween. 2018 had some of the same beats at the Thorn trilogy, but I’m not gonna a final decision until the 2018 sequels are finished. It’s a personal standard of mine to wait until the story is over before I make a final decision.

I will give 2018 points so far for building it’s new lore and developing it’s new characters in one movie, but I think it has it’s problems too. Mainly that 2018 felt more like a big “Fix It” fanfic brought to the cinema, and was a little heavy when it came to self referencing humor, call-backs and leaning on the fourth wall, and fandom wish fulfillment. 2018 isn’t a bad movie, it’s one of my favorite sequels, but even so I can’t get around the whole “fanfic-ish” feel I got from watching it.

Pretty much the one thing H-20 has over 2018 was that it didn’t try too hard to be Scream, which was a formula most late 90’s horror films followed. At most we were given a quick Scream cameo, that could possibly shatter the canon if I think of it too much. H-20 went out of its way by not copying Scream during the writing process. Little known fact, but while H-20 was intended to be the last Halloween film, the studio had this rule was that Michael Myers wasn’t allowed to actually be killed off, so a sequel was planned in advance to clarify he was still alive; the original plan was that “Michael” would be a obsessed fan and copycat; that idea was scrapped possibly for following the “Scream formula” too much, and what we got instead was the infamous paramedic twist in Resurrection.

#steven lloyd

Trending Tags

Recently Viewed Tags

#steven lloyd