Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
deathbat96777

A Sequel to RZ's Halloween 1 in the style of Blumhouse's Halloween

Recommended Posts

I had this idea the other day, what would it be like if they had made a sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween that ignored his H2 instead of making a sequel to the original that ignored the o.g H2 instead? I know a lot of people hated both of Rob's movie, but there's just as many people that are of the opinion that his first movie was great, but his second rendition was awful. While I'm excited for the new Halloween, I think a different take on what happened to Michael after Laurie shot him in the head would be great, because H2 09 was such a let down to me. The idea I had was for it to play out like normal up to the part where Michael comes at Laurie with the axe. She moves out of the way at the last second and is saved by Loomis and Brackett who come out of nowhere and gun down Michael. They manage to get Michael to the morgue and it plays out sort of like The Final Chapter. Michael wakes up and kills everyone, then we jump to a decade later. In my version, Annie was actually dead and we don't see her anymore, Loomis isn't an egotistical douche, and Laurie's friend aren't cringy throwaway characters. In my version, Laurie would be kind of a big sister to Lindsey Wallace and Tommy Doyle, who have became like her siblings and they all live in a sorority house together. Loomis tries to take Laurie to Smith's Grove to give her treatment and encourages her to write a book about her experience to help other people who've been victims of serial killers but she fights it. Loomis, feeling he has failed Michael and the town, tries to rectify what has happened and becomes more like his classic counterpart and slowly over the course of the film sees Michael as less and less redeemable until he finally gives up on him and sees him as pure evil. Once Michael comes back and gets revenge by killing the now grown up versions of Tommy and Lindsey, Laurie starts Michael proofing her house like in the new movie about to come out, and after she has a meltdown and has a Ben Tramer type incident where she kills someone dressed as Michael, she agrees to go to Smith's Grove for treatment, but escapes after she hears of Michael's whereabouts. Loomis and Brackett attempt to track her down, and she has a final showdown with this version of Michael, which ends with Michael taking off his mask and giving Laurie a hug. As Loomis and Brackett approach, Loomis snaps and tries to kill Michael because of what he senses within him and beats his former patient to a pulp. Michael, feeling betrayed, kills Loomis. Brackett escapes with Laurie and Michael manages to hitch a ride and climb through the trunk, and something similar to the end of Halloween 4 happens with Michael getting ran over a few times, getting gunned down and then falling down a shaft. Brackett goes to check to see if Michael is dead and gets stabbed to death, and Laurie confronts Michael once again, knocking him unconscious with a 2x4 and taking his lifeless corpse and loading it into the coroner's van. She takes his body back to the Myers house, Michael wakes up and she actually blows his head off for real this time  and hides his body under the floor boards where he found his mask and puts the picture of him and her back in his coverall pocket. The movie ends with Brackett's deputies grabbing Laurie after they find her kneeling over a pile of dirt where she's allegedly buried Michael in the crawspace, and we then see her with a blank expression on her face inside an empty room like before, except this time instead of seeing a horse, we see no one. All of this is off the top of my head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if my grammar isn't adequate enough for you. I'm sure your intent with a comment wasn't to be hostile or a grammar Nazi, but I'd appreciate it if you'd comment on the actual content of my post itself and not where I left out commas or had run on sentences. No offense, but that's kind of annoying. It defeats the purpose of even replying. I could understand if it was completely incoherent but I feel like it's pretty easy to follow what I was saying unless I'm in complete denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×