Why did Halloween (2018) ignore Halloween II?


mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I get it's becoming a trend for franchises to make sequels where they ignore all the dirt spots and only acknowledge the ones people fondly remember. I personally like Terminator 3, but I know it doesn't have the best reputation.

However, with Halloween II I think they made a really big mistake. Not only is this a very respectable follow-up to the original, and has grown a bigger fanbase over the years, but John Carpenter himself wrote it. So if they really want to honor Carpenter's vision only, shouldn't this movie be included? It's a real shame to ignore such a good sequel, but it also doesn't make sense in general why it got treated like a "black sheep".

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."

Welcome to the human race...
In short, because Halloween II was a cash-grab. Despite the original's success, John Carpenter didn't make much money off it so he effectively did the second one in order to get what he was owed (and then planned to leave the Michael Myers story alone for good, which is why he's had no creative involvement with any subsequent Halloween movies except for composing the score on the 2018 one). As a result, the sanctity of his original vision is definitely debatable in this regard, especially when so much of it hinges on the arbitrary plot twist that Laurie is Michael's long-lost sister. In any case, I don't think II is so thoroughly respected that it can't afford to be disregarded when making new sequels. Even when Rob Zombie remade II he managed to wrap up the entire movie's hospital plot in the space of about 15 minutes, which I think is actually a pretty good reflection of how flimsy it is.
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.

Ghouls, vampires, werewolves... let's party.
I think if John Carpenter were to write and direct the next sequel, he'd make more money out of it than in 1978 given that his name is bigger than it was 40 years ago, and I think more people would watch it if they knew it was directed by Carpenter.

The first 2 Halloween films are among my favorite horror/slasher films.
After that....not so much....

Welcome to the human race...
If we're going to talk about Carpenter's vision for Halloween, how about his idea for the franchise to have a different setup in each movie (hence why Halloween III is about a haunted mask company instead of Michael)? The only reason that fell apart is that Michael had already appeared in two movies by that point so people hated III mainly because they expected more Michael, which is a shame because I would've been interested in seeing Halloween go the anthology route more than just hammer out a bunch of repetitive slashers.

I don't think having Carpenter himself do another Halloween would be the answer anyway - as much as I hate to admit it, the guy's filmmaking isn't as good as it used to be (did anyone here see The Ward?) and he clearly doesn't give that much of a damn about Halloween anyway. If anything, he seems content to collect residuals and make music rather than go for such a blatant cash-grab.

Because it made it easier.

It's a real shame to ignore such a good sequel.
ado stunt cars 2 racing game