Hi, welcome to Horror Film Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Michael Myers page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- KyleH (Talk) 13:37, 27 April 2009

Michael Myers

Hey, I wanted you to know I removed the Halloween 4 info from the Michael Myers article because we already have an article on that version of the character. Basically, there are bunch of different Halloween continuties and timelines, and to cover them all clearly, we have different articles for different versions of the character. For example, in the H20 timeline, the events of Halloween 4 never happened. Paul730 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am not aware of any evidence that excludes 4, 5, or 6 from H20's timeline, in fact I read they were originally going to mention Jamie Lloyd's death in a student's report that Laurie would hear and that she would go into a bathroom and vomit b/c of Jamie's death in H20. I think it's appropriate to have the information in the article on Michael Myers, especially given the writers' original intent to connect H20 to the others and no apparent inconsistencies in the films. Also, Laurie's faked auto crash is consistent with what was said to have happened to her in 4, 5 and 6. It's just revealed in H20 that it was staged so she could hide from Michael and that she separated Jamie from herself so that if Michael ever did locate her again, he would not have Jamie (the intent being that she would be more protected away from Laurie, if that makes sense). I think the overall article on Michael Myers in general should have a small summary on each incarnation of the character with a link to the main page for that incarnation, similar to other wikis. Hero of Time 87 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

While it's true they were going to keep the movies connected, they ultimately did not, and H20 does contradict 4 - 6. For example, the police state Michael Myers hasn't been seen for 20 years, and it doesn't make sense why Laurie would abandon Jamie and not John. There are no mentions of 4 - 6 in either H20 and Resurrection, and it was the writer's intent to retcon those movies from continuity. I'm aware that Halloween fans have come up with various theories to connect the movies, but that's just fan fiction and not official continuity. More importantly, the Halloween comic book series from DDP are set in the H20 timeline and completely overwrite 4 - 6; these comics are approved by the movie studio and are considered canon. The timelines are completely separate. As for your proposal to cover all incarnations of the character on the same page, we already do that at Michael Myers#Alternate versions. The biography at Michael Myers should only cover Halloween and Halloween II (which are canon in both timelines) before going on to discuss the diverging timelines. Paul730 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: the comic books are NOT canon, they are like an expanded universe sort of thing. The films are canon, as well as commentary from the film makers. Laurie's birth name is "Laurie Ann Myers" as stated on wikipedia. Check it out. Please refrain from reverting much needed edits to these articles. And I respectfully disagree with your idea of the Michael Myers page. It should contain information on all aspects of the character including all of his incarnations, even if they are short summaries with links to the other pages that go more in detail. As for H20, Laurie's auto accident is covered, something from 4, 5, and 6. The police state that they never found Myers' body, which could pertain still to the fact that his body was never found after 5, where he vanished. They never said he'd not been heard from in 20 years, merely that his primary attacks were 20 years earlier. Hero of Time 87 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The comic books certainly are canon. They are developed alongside the film studio and the films' producer Malek Akkad is directly involved in their creation ( http://www.halloweencomics.com/ ). The writers and producers have stated numerous times, on forums and interviews, that since the movie series has been rebooted with Rob Zombie's film, the comic books continue the original series and are canon. Just because the Wikipedia article says "Laurie Ann Myers" does not make it fact, it is not even sourced. Halloween: The First Death of Laurie Strode and other titles establish that her birth name was Cynthia Myers. I do not enjoy reverting your edits, but I will do so if you continue to ignore continuity or the comics. Paul730 05:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to revert right back as well. I trust wikipedia over a single person who refuses to acknowledge that a set of comic books does not take precedent over the films. Just because Malek Akkad approves them doesn't mean they are canon to take precedent over his relative's films. If wikipedia has something, it's been proven fact otherwise they would remove it immediately. The comics do not take precedent over the films. If you are not going to try to actually improve these articles, then please move on to a different project. If you'd like to help expand them though, the help would be greatly appreciated. Hero of Time 87 05:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is created by volunteers like this site and can't always be trusted, it is not infallible. There is no source for the name "Laurie Ann Myers" on that article which means it fails Wikipedia policy. That name probably originated on the official Halloween website or one of the novels, so I don't know why you think it is more canon than the comic books. I am not saying the comics take precedent over the films; if you look at this site you will see I have taken care to cover all the movies and timelines equally and without bias. Michael Myers (4 - 6 timeline) has it's own article, just like the H20 version. One does not take precedent over the other, I am merely trying to explain that the timelines are separate. Paul730 05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm also saying there's not really anything in the films that specifically and definitely makes them be in different timelines either. I agree the comics are interesting to note and do have some relevancy, but not at the expense of the films and their commentary, which take precedent over any secondary short stories or comics written. And as for wikipedia, it's been like that for years now, so obviously someone proved it to be fact, otherwise it would not be there. If it's been there all this time without being moved, it's been found to be true. I trust a source of information like wikipedia (which is very stringent in their rules) over secondary short stories. As I said though, if you'd like to help expand these or compromise a bit on expanding them somewhat, the help would be appreciated. Hero of Time 87 05:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that H20 and Resurrection intentionally ignore 4 - 6 and there's a series of comics taking place which contradict those movies? You're acting like this is my own personal interpretation of the films when it's actually official continuity dictated by Malek Akkad and Trancas International Films. You're not listening to me, I'm not saying that we ignore the films in favour of the comics. Both deserve equal coverage. However, we need to be careful about how we cover them, because from a in-universe perspective, they fit together a certain way. Some stories are canon to one timeline, some to another, that has already been decided by the studio. You are trying to stitch the stories together into one timeline, which is not how they are intended to work. So far all you have said to me is, "the comics don't take precedent over the films". Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the comics or relegate them to a footnote, and then piece the films together how you want them to go.

Furthermore, your insistance that an unsourced statement from Wikipedia somehow trumps an official comic book approved by Malek Akkad is ridiculous. Wikipedia has strict policies, but they're not always enforced and something doesn't become "fact" because nobody challenges it. Either way, Laurie and Loomis should be split into sub-articles like Michael is, because they have conflicting biographies in the 4 - 6 and H20 timelines. I realise you don't like this format, but it is official, and the information will all be there, simply on separate pages. If you like, the "Laurie Ann Myers" name could go on her 4 - 6 article, since "Cynthia" is only canon in the H20 timeline. Paul730 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you man, other than this is a FILM wiki, not a comic wiki. Yes, that's really where those comics belong, in the footnotes, b/c they do not take precedent over the FILMS. And if it's good enough for wikipedia to have "Laurie Ann Myers" (and has for years), then it's good enough for here. Wikipedia would not have it on there if it were not true. So sorry to say, but your love of the comics, while commendable, does not take precedent over the films or their commentary. This is a Horror "Film" Wiki, not a "Horror Comic Wiki."

Furthermore, Malek Akkad is NOT the original creator of the series, he's merely a fill-in for his relative who was sadly killed in a terrible accident. Thus anything he makes does NOT hold precedent over the work of Moustapha Akkad. His comics are "expanded universe" material at best, similar to Star Wars. And just like Star Wars, the expanded universe does NOT take precedent over the films or official commentary from George Lucas himself. Expanded Universe material merely tries to bridge gaps in a series' story, poorly at times. So your insistence on the comics, as I said, is commendable and we do need to mention the events of them, but they really do belong in more along the lines of footnotes b/c they do NOT take precedent over the films. This is also a film wiki as I said before, not a comic wiki.

As for connecting 4, 5 and 6 to H20, there is NOTHING in the movie itself that makes it impossible to connect them, merely they omitted official mentioning of Jamie Lloyd. The faked auto accident was left in there, even shown exactly when and how it was supposed to have happened like it was in 4. They said "they never found his body," but this could also be referring to them never finding his body after 5. And yes, it would actually make sense from Laurie's perspective to separate Jamie from herself if she wanted to protect Jamie from being discovered by Michael. If Michael ever tracked Laurie down again (as he does in H20), he would not have known about Jamie in Laurie's mind. The fact that she had John Tate when she settled in California and kept him with her doesn't mean much, other than she wanted someone for companionship. But her original idea of protecting Jamie by separating from her and hiding her with a new family wouldn't exactly have been too out there, it just went terribly wrong b/c it became common knowledge eventually that Jamie Lloyd was related to Michael Myers. It is notable that she did exactly that with John Tate following the events of H20, she sent him away someplace where Michael would not discover him, exactly as she'd done with Jamie. Hero of Time 87 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again you completely misinterpret what I'm trying to say as some kind sleight against the films. I am not saying the comics take precedent over the films. When have I tried to ignore or downplay the films in favour of the comics? Never, it is you who is downplaying the comics because you don't like them and regard them as ancillary. The bias is yours. Yes, the films are more important from a real-world, historical perspective, but the comics are still canon. DDP even advertises them as "officially approved, in-continuity". Licensed comics are not all non-canon by default. I know they are in some franchises, but not all. For example, Buffy ended a few years ago and now Joss Whedon has continued it through comics. It's not always a case of "comics are expanded universe". Also, you use Star Wars as an example. Cast your eyes over to the Star Wars Wiki then, where comics are treated equally with regard to character biographies.

I was wondering when you would play the "this is a film wiki" card. Yes, it's a film wiki, but the Halloween comics are legitimately connected to the Halloween films via continuity which means we need to cover them when writing character biographies. It's not like I'm trying to write articles about Hellboy comics or something. You're just splitting hairs now.

Malek Akkad may not be the creator of the series, but he's still the Halloween producer and makes decisions about the franchise. Who said he holds precedent over Moustapha? You keep using the word "precedent" like this is some kind of "my stuff beats your stuff" argument. It's not. Trancas International Films and Malek Akkad say the comics are canon, but set in a different timeline from Halloween 4 -6. That doesn't mean they "take precedent", it's just simple fact about how the stories fit together. Btw, Moustapha Akkad was around during H20, which means he was most likely involved in or approved the decision to split the timeline in the first place. So it isn't a case of his son coming in late and changing everything.

*Sigh* You're making arguments and rationalizations I've heard a thousand times. I've read forums, I've read fan fiction, I know the zillion excuses we can make to connect the films. But just because it's not impossible to connect them doesn't mean they are. That's just your personal interpretation, which is valid, but not the same as official canon. It's widely known that the studio made a conscious decision to retcon Halloween 4 - 6 because of the convoluted mythology the series had amassed at that point. The fact that Halloween fans choose to ignore that and try to connect the films anyway doesn't change that. Paul730 16:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And I still say you go by the comics way too much man, they are meant to supplement the movies, not dictate whether or not the series is broken up or not. And I still say there is no evidence the studio ever intended to "retcon" 4-6, that is your personal interpretation as much as I have my own. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary that the movies were still meant to be in one universal timeline, save for the remake. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your opinion on the continuity is no more canon than mine. There is no more evidence to support yours than there is to support mine. I go by the movies, with the comics as supplementary expanded universe material SOLELY. And I say again, this is a film wiki where we go by the films first and foremost, any expanded universe material is secondary to film material and commentary. This debate is not going anywhere I can see, so I see no reason to continue it, other than to ask whether or not you are going to help expand these articles as they desperately need it. If so, that's wonderful and it would be a big help. If not, please don't make it any more difficult than it already is to reorganize them and in some cases even create them.

The Star Wars wiki covers their expanded universe in detail b/c much of the Star Wars universe is covered in the countless books written by other authors besides Lucas himself, with only the six official films constituting the main series. However, the films still take precedent, with the books or expanded universe material supplementing it where possible, nothing more. This case is the opposite: there are more films than comics, much of the series is covered in film. There are only a handful of comics for this series that were created long after the original creators of the series were supplanted. Hence, with those factors, the films still retain more authority than a handful of secondary comic books written after Moustapha Akkad's death. And as I said before, you have no proof that there was ever an intention to "split the timeline" at H20, there's even evidence to suggest the contrary. This discussion is closed. Hero of Time 87 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is a statement from the official Halloween comics website (which is approved by the film studio) [1]:

"Those who know the films will know that there are three continuities within the original series. Halloween III was a standalone story, not related to the other films, and parts 4, 5 and 6 were written out of continuity by the seventh film, Halloween: H20. Our comics are set within the universe begun by the original two films and continued into Halloween: H20 onwards."

Then, in an interview with DDP about why Jamie Lloyd isn't in the comics, they replied:

"[Halloween H20] dropped the previous storyline of Halloween 4, 5, and 6, and continued from Halloween II as if the intervening films never happened. It was a studio decision made before our involvement, so we have to abide by that."

Writer Stef Hutchinson has this to say [2]:

As you know, when Halloween: H20 came out, it dropped Halloween 4-6 out of continuity, saying they didn't happen. It's one of the many controversies amongst fans of the series. To this day, people insist that they can tie everything together well etc. but it's not possible - certainly not thematically. Maybe you can tie them in if you accept the prominently supernatural tones of 4-6, but if you're aligned to the more realistic feel and subtle supernatural overtones of Halloween and Halloween II, then it's clear that they don't match. Say whatever you want, Thornies... ;)

That aside, it's a decision that was made by the powers that be. And that's that, end of story. We still get constant letters asking for a follow-on to Halloween 6, and asking about what happened to those characters, including Jamie Lloyd, which surprises me because she was killed off in that film.

To get straight to the point, it's not going to happen. There's legal complications there for us which prevent it, the powers that be don't want it so that's pretty much that. I wanted to get that out there right off the bat. This is not a sequel to the middle trilogy. It's something different, and besides, we've established a very coherent continuity in our comic books up, which is something that isn't in the films, so we won't be sacrificing that to make a new sequel to the sixth film in a series that was dropped from continuity ten years ago."

Finally, Wikipedia (which earlier, you claimed consisted only of "fact") states [3]:

"As originally conceived, the plot device in which Laurie had faked her death was written explicitly to account for her reported "death" in Halloween 4, and the original story treatment for H20 acknowledged the events depicted in the fourth through sixth films in the series, including the existence and death of Laurie's daughter, Jamie Lloyd. However, the filmmakers ultimately chose to ignore the continuity of the previous three sequels. Although Laurie's faked death remained in the script, the scenes mentioning Jamie were removed from the story, and the film's dialogue was adjusted to indicate that Michael Myers had not been heard from in the twenty years since the night depicted in the first two films."

I have provided the above evidence that the films follow two timelines. So far, all you have provided is your own belief that "the comics dont count". Basically, you wish to ignore all of these official sources because of your own personal prejudice against the comic book medium, and to support your own belief that the films somehow tie together (even though the above sources state that they're not supposed to). This is not a case of the comics taking precedent over the films (a point which you're still arguing against)

On Wookieepedia, the films may take precedent, but the comics are still fully documented in character biographies and not relegated to footnotes as you earlier insisted we do. Also, you say there are more Halloween films than comics, which is not true. There are currently seven Halloween films, not counting III or Rob Zombie's movies. There are also seven comic book titles, with several more waiting to be released. As you can see from Michael Myers (H20 timeline), the comics form a large portion of the characters' history, as is the case on Wookieepedia. Your argument is flawed and shows that you know almost nothing about the comics you are arguing against.

This argument is ridiculous. At the end of the day, you want to ignore official sources so you can push your own opinion about how the films fit together. You say I have no evidence, even though I have provided it, and all you have provided is your own opinion. If you wish to expand the articles, that's great, I appreciate it. But if you continue to write in a manner which contradicts official continuity, I will challenge it. Paul730 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you've provided no evidence but a few secondary comic books written long after Moustapha Akkad's death that are NOT as credible as the films. This is a FILM wiki, not a comic wiki. You want to mention the comics in the footnotes or separate section, that's fine, but don't interfere in the main parts about the movies with them. And you can dispute things all you want, but I'm going to go by the movies first and foremost, whether you like it or not. And as I said before, since you don't really have much of a case here, this discussion is CLOSED. Unless you have a legitimate cause of concern, please go bother somebody else. Any further pointless arguing will be ignored and removed. Hero of Time 87 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hero is correct. Because they are not films, the comics should not be recognized as part of the series. Feel free to add information from the comics, but make it known that the facts come from something other than a film. --Notmyhandle 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)