|
Post by breckjensen on Dec 20, 2017 8:27:35 GMT -5
Hello, So the whole curse of thorn thing was really divisive when it was explained in The Curse of Michael Myers, but after thinking about it I feel like as a 'motive' for Michael its pretty damn cool. I like the idea of Michael being a victim himself, a sacrifice as the vessel for this evil that demands the blood of his family to be placated. I feel like it makes Michael much more interesting than just the embodiment of pure evil. Don't get me wrong, Halloween is a masterpiece, but it's more of a demonstration of John Carpenter's mastery of the craft than it is an interesting story. Michael is less of a character and more of a tool to carry the theme of "Evil never dies," and while that does have it's strength in that film, I personally feel that he becomes vastly more intriguing in Halloween II when Loomis finds the word "Samhain" written in blood in the classroom, and that ultimately pays off in The Curse of Michael Myers (albeit, ungracefully). I feel as though this characteristic gives Michael the longevity to be a viable character to carry multiple movies, not just the first. What do you all think? Do you think that explanation for Michael would have been easier to swallow had it been executed better? Or do you think that it should have never gone past Halloween? Please Help. Thanks ! I didn't find the right solution from the internet. References: www.horror.com/forum/showthread.php?s=fe6793e957a1fee27bcab8ba920c228d&t=68268best advertising examples
|
|