Talk:Michael Myers (Halloween)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Myers (Halloween) article.
Article policies
Good article Michael Myers (Halloween) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Michael Myers (Halloween) was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related article of the month for May 2008.

Contents

[edit] Who is Jamie?

Pretend that you don't know anything about the Halloween movies while reading this article and this will be a question that you will have. There is no introduction of this, apparently, important character or her significance to the story. How does this happen? Gunboat Diplomat 21:20, 22 October 2006

[edit] Drastic Rewrite

I just rewrote this article, merging in the two Michael Myers articles. Admittedly, a lot of what's here now should probably be in specific articles for the various sequels. --Myles Long 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, does Michael Myers even need his own article? Freddy Krueger redirects to A Nightmare on Elm Street. Should this article be merged with Halloween (1978 film)? --Myles Long 21:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
i just changed it into a "biography" of myers, removing all references to the films that can be found in Halloween (1978 film). so it has some value. i think the article on Haddonfield (Halloween) should definitely not exist though. Niz 22:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
actually yes this article should *not* exist - i think the text can be moved over to a new section in the main Halloween (1978 film) article, called "Michael Myers". if its done, remember to change the Halloween template as well, to remove the michael myers wikilink. (and get rid of Haddonfield (Halloween) at the same time). Niz 22:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I like this article the way it is, but I'd have no problem if someone wants to move the content to Halloween (1978 film). --Myles Long 15:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed some information about the making of Halloween, rewrote some of the beginning information, as well as the infomation about the last two films, and changed the headings. Also added the boilerplate. Anyone with some adequate writing skills and knowledge of H4-6 want to take a crack at adding relevant info about Myers to that section? --SR 29 Aug 2005

I noticed this (under the escape part) and it's confusing: "He also knew that Dr. Loomis would do everything to keep him locked up, so he made up his mind to escape. Even though he tried to convince the doctors a man named Dr. R.J. Black spoke with Dr. Loomis; Black told Loomis that Michael was cursed with "The Thorn," where a young man must kill his own family for survival (Dr. Black neglected to mention how dangerous Michael could be if he escaped.) Loomis considered this." It doesn't make sense, to me anyway. Walmartshopper67 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This will mark the 3rd time I've had to edit his name. His name is Michael AUBREY Myers, not Audrey.

[edit] Immortality?

He never dies! Why can't he die? When will he ever die? -- Ed Telerionus 23:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • when enough people stop renting halloween films on video Niz 13:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect, he will die after the source of the curse of the symbol Thorn is destroyed. -- Ed Telerionus 21:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Curse Of Thorn is no longer used in the Halloween series and in fact only appeared in Part 6. To base the remaining six movies (1,2,4,5,H20, Resurection) on this would be wrong and incorrect as it has clearly been established it no longer has a place in the storyline.


A more likely theory is that Michael Myers is a human form of evil that is beyond understanding, hence his "Boogeyman" nickname. John Carpenter described him as a "force of nature" and to make sense of his character would eliminate all mystery and power that surrounds it.

I think he'll die when people stop buying the crappy sequels...or when people completely forget about him and no longer becomes "popular" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.38.240 (talk) 20:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Shatner?

How does his mask resemble William Shatner in any way, shape or form? do they actually say that in the movie (waiting to see it, but haven't) or did somebody just infer that? --daunrealist 02:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It says that in the trivia section on the IMDb listing for the movie. It says: "Due to its shoestring budget, the prop department had to use the cheapest mask that they could find in the costume store: a Captain Kirk (William Shatner) mask. They later spray-painted the face white, teased out the hair, and reshaped the eye holes." You can even look for yourself if you want to: Trivia for Halloween. ONEder Boy 02:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks. I was just wondering. It doesn't even look like a William Shatner mask, by what they did to it! --daunrealist 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Audrey

Forgive me for sounding dense, but I've seen (the theatrical versions of) all the Halloween films many times, and I still can't figure where it's mentioned that Michael's middle name is Audrey. Is this only in the extended edition of H1 or H2? All I recall seeing is Dr. Hoffman typing the incorrect middle initial of "M" in H4.--Mike1981 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ressurection"? I'm not sure.--Sean|Black

In the Television edition of Halloween 1 there is a scene where Dr.Loomis is discussing Michael with the board of mental health. In this scene Dr. Loomis mentions his full name as "Michael Audrey Myers".

[edit] Whom did this?

  • Carpenter named the character after real-life Michael Meyers, whom was the European distributor of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976),
  • The officials brushed off Loomis' request believing that Michael was merely a "catatonic", whom "exhibits comatose behavior... no reaction to external stimuli."
  • She acts confused in the presence of her new friend as to why that the man whom was "that little kid who killed his sister" would be after her at all.
  • She realizes that it is her own brother whom is after her.
  • Accompanied by Marion is an Illinois state marshal whom is instructed to transport Loomis back to Smith’s Grove.
  • Among them is Heather Bowen, whom will debut as a planned walk-in cameo.

:) -Silence 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween: Resurrection, the handing of the knife

At the end of the first act in this movie Michael hands his knife to a rather unstable mental patient. I've always thought this scene implied that Michael was done " Here, you go kill people" kind of thing. This is not mentioned in the article btwAtirage 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you think of it this way, I always thought Michael gave the kid his knife because the kid seemed to know everything about him and saw him as his hero. I though he gave it to him as a present or souvenir but I never saw it as handing down the torch, because Michael is clearly not done when he handles the knife over. Remember, Michael has always lost his knives and doesn't have one of his own, he always gets one from the houses he breaks into or steals them from hardware stores. Kiske 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The most logical reason would be to frame the unstable patient for the murders he has just commited. Therefore the police would have no reason to believe Michael Myers was responsible and to ensure he would not be hunted down.

Do you REALLY think they wouldn't suspect Michael, the infamous blade-weilding serial killer? "Oh well he just killed those 500 people, and this kid has a knife. So that guy there MUST have been killed by the kid." PublicSecrecy 22 Oct 2006

There was no real evidence that Michael Myers killed anyone in Halloween H20, I t could have been anyone they never found his body. They only had the word of three people who saw a man in a mask. I do think Michael gave the guy his knife so no one would come looking for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.153.53.238 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height

I reverted the changes made arguing that Michael's height was 6 ft. even though they came from a website. By simple logic and comparrison to other actors who's height is actually known, we can get a fairly accurate estimate of Michael's size. Besides, the website used to document his height as 6 ft. is very innacurate, as it also says that Michael has blue eyes, when it was completely cleared in the first Halloween installment that Michael in fact had "the blackest of eyes...the devil's eyes". The respective website can therefore not be trusted and the statement of his size remains as well over 6 ft. tall. Remember, in H20, Josh Harnett, who is in fact about 6. ft 3 stands next to Michael Myers and seems to be about 3 or 4 inches shorter, therefore making Michael about 6 ft. 6 or 6 ft. 7, (1.98 m and 2.01 m respectively). If you actually find a reliable website that accurately describes his size we will change the article, until then, it will remain as well over six feet tall. Kiske 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Myers and Josh Harnett are both 6'2. Half the actors that have played Michael are 6'2 (George P. Wilbur, Chris Durand, and Brad Loree). The others actors to play Michael are smaller than 6'2. Nick Castle is 6'0, Dick Warlock is 5'9, and Don Shanks is 6'1. So, Michael is most likely to be 6'2. Michael might be taller though, and if he is, its probably the boots that make him seem taller. 13jason13voorhees13 02:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He's fictional, his height doesn't matter here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change

It said at the end of the Immortality section that Michael started killing his family at the age of 17, and that the stars in the constilation of Thorn consisted of 17 stars, and it may or may not have been coincidence, etc... I deleted this section of the paragraph since Michael started killing the rest of his family when he was 21. If it meant that Lori was 17, then someone can re-write it the way it should have been. Yes, Lori was 17, in the first film. But, she was two when Michael killed their sister, Judith, and Michael.. was only 6. It's obvious that Michael was gifted, but he chose to use that power, as a killer, which spooks me.. Rubyandme 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enemies

Should it be changed to "everyone, though mainly his family members"? I mean, I know there has been a bit of a debate considering that he was killing random people in H:R. ShinGaruda 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

His family would be encompassed on the "everyone". Everyone's general because it's just a small spot and would be too much to add detail to. Also, it's not really as important as say the "Portrayed By" section. I only added that section so that there was a little bit extra in the info. Bignole 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. After a while I too realized that it's just too much unnecessary detail. ShinGaruda 22:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I also saw your point, but really this entire page needs reworking. I started working on the Jason Voorhees page, because that one, this one, and many others are nothing more than fanboy information. This is what a page about a fictional character should actually look like, Jabba the Hutt. That is where I got the idea to insert the infoboxes for each character. Bignole 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I say it's time for things to be more informative and official with these characters. I haven't even seen all the films and I can tell that it's in a fanboy's words. ShinGaruda 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael's Family

I added a spot for the members of Michael's family in the info box, as most of the other horror characters have them too. But I'm afraid I dont have enough information. I could only remember the names of his two sisters. Could someone please add the remaining members of his family for me? His parents and his extended family from the sequel films, including Laurie's son from H20, and their relationship to Micheal. That would be very much appreciated. Also, there is no need to add "deceased" next to any of their names. None of the other horror articles have them, and it is a moot point within the realm of slasher films. Michael himself has "died" about 7 times now correct? It is also a big spoiler to those who have not seen the series in its entirety.

You can go to each of the movie pages, they should list their names (except maybe his parents names). As for the deceased, I could have sworn that Freddy's infobox had it and so did Jason's, maybe I'm mistaken I just thought they were there. And, as for Michael, he has never died. The suceeding films have always explained away his not-a-death-death. Him burning in part II put him in a coma at the beginning of part 4, he fell down a well and was shot, but floated away down the creek and was healed by a hermit for several months. I forget how he "died" in 5, but either way his deaths are always explained to not have actually occured and that he has always survived them. Bignole 07:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I went and checked, I was mistaken...I thought they said "deceased" but it just listed how they were related. It's the comic book character pages that do the "deceased" thing.Bignole 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you are right about the "deaths". But that doesn't really explain how a man pushing 50 would be able to do that to people in their teens with ease, let alone be almost invunerable to physical harm. Oh, well that's Hollywood for you. If no one else does it, I will try to find the family information myself. (Animedude 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] anal rape

When did Michael "anal rape his sister"? I might just have missed it, so I don't know if this is vandalism, or... true. Thanks.

hahahaha

He did not rape his sister but his niece, vaginally, in Halloween 6 so she could give birth to a baby and spread the Curse Of Thorn.

Um, he didn't rape her dude.83.67.202.168 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In Halloween 6 Producers Cut, he does indeed rape her. She then gives birth to the baby Steven.

They never said he raped her. I thought that he impreganated her through artificial insemination.

[edit] tattoo

there is a tattoo on michaels hand does anyone know what it represents?

It represents the symbol of thorn as explained in the 6th installment.Kiske 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It was also shown on Halloween 5. And I'm not sure if the whole thing with thorn tatoo on H5 being a film error or not. Because on Halloweenflash, they said it wasn't there in previous films and considered it a continuity error.

Now, does anyone find it very peculiar, that Michael shed a tear, to Jamie? I think Jamie had some connection. Rubyandme 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is possible that Michael Myers could very well be human. Because in my opinion, I think Michael was somehow corrupted and driven by the evil within him. But I don't think it took all of his humanity because if Michael was evil in human form, he wouldn't have hesitated to kill Laurie in H2 or Jamie in H5. He would have just slaughtered them instead of tilt his head in confusion or take off his mask and shed a tear. Also, I believe that Michael Myers and The Shape are different from each other. Because I think that The Shape is the force within Michael that makes him kill. And Michael Myers is a human who has fallen victim to the darker side of himself, and that he's trying to defeat it and regain control over himself, but is too weak to do so, which is a possible explanation why he hesistated to kill his sister or his neice if you think about it. The-devils-eyes-666 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of a clean up

I removed some sections of the article that were poorly written, had no source, and were just utter nonsense. If anyone (that includes long time Wiki editors with usernames) feels that I removed something by mistake, feel free to revert, otherwise they shouldn't be in this article.--The Scourge 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the "personality" section would be fine if you had sources for it. Now, this is true source (i.e. Carpenter, Hill, etc), and not some fan's website. If one of them talk about Michael's personality then it's good to include, it adds to the "out of universe" text, but doing it in your own words, and your own opinions is not good. It should stay removed till someone finds quotes for it. The same goes for much of the sections. Bignole 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Keep in mind, though, that I didn't write them. Just removed them.--The Scourge 10:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, I was just speaking in general terms. Bignole 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Isn't he more of a mass murderer then a serial killer. Serial killers usually kill about 3-4 people then have resting points. Mike Myers though kills around a dozen people in every film. There was also a website that said his murder rate was 77. Regardless, I think he's killed enough people in a short enough time to be considered a mass murderer. I mean all the murders happen in one night in most of the movies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Serial isn't "serial" by number but by continuation. "Mass Murder" means a lot at one time. He technically would fall under both, but since there isn't a limit/requirement to how many have to die in order to be "serial", the fact that he continuously kills withouth being caught supercedes the "mass". Then again, the fact that is always kills in Haddonfield could label him a "mass" over a "serial", because it's 1 place over a period of time (with exceptions being the times when he was between towns). Bignole 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMT ??

Under the synopsis for Halloween II, the acronym 'EMT' is used. If anyone knows what this means, could they please add it to the article.


ahpook 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be Emergency Medical Technician. Well, it should be linked, but that's what it means. Bignole 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need explanation...

the article as it currently stands contains the following:

year where he started to quickly lose some speech and began to show some stereotypical behavior

"stereotypical" in what sense? to what stereotype is his behaviour conforming? There is no proof that Michael even lost his speech, more likely he chooses not to use it. The fact he remained silent and near motionless for the fifteen years he spent incarcerated may well hold some explanation to his physical strength when he escaped; similar to a hibernation or restoration period where he would be building enough power and energy internally.

In 1978, Michael hijacked the car meant for his court transfer. The car was driven by Loomis's medical colleague and assistant nurse, Marion Chambers.

This is the first time Loomis is mentioned in the article but the tone used here implies the reader will already be familiar with him.

In the unreleased cut of the film, the reason Loomis screamed was because he found out that the Michael he was following was just Dr. Wynn in Michael's clothes.

No previous explanation of Dr. Wynn has been given, nor is one present later in the article. Who is he? Dr. Wynn is briefly involved in Halloween 1. He is the head of the Smith's Sanitarium where Myers escapes. His only role in the first film is to try and rationalize how he escaped. Dr. Wynn returned later in Halloween 6, where his role was more complex. He was responsible for releasing Michael as he was also the head of The Curse Of Thorn Cult. The climax of this film saw Dr. Loomis confront Myers, who was immobilized. When the mask was removed from who Loomis thought was Michael, it was in fact, Dr.Wynn. Michael was then seen walking away in the shadows.

I'm not familiar with the movies so don't feel in a position to add info, but if someone who is, could, it'd be much appreciated. --Black Butterfly 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The artical is way too confusing, it jumps around too much when it mentions the curse of thorn. I still have no clear idea on it, I thoaght Michael was put under the curse by his neigbors who were watching him the night he killed his sister. Now is Dr, Wynn the head of the Thorn Cult, or is it a seperate organization that worships thorn, because all it says is that is the leader of a group of druids; actually he's not even mentioned be name. We need some more information on Michael's background as well of Dr.Wynn, and the curse of thorn.-Darknessofheart


[edit] Death list

Aaron Pepin Feb 21, 2007- We need a death list! Is there any website with a death list? Or at least does anyone know how many people Mike Myer's killed? March 5, 2007- Well are there any websites or documents anywhere? Because I don't own any halloween movies eccept the first and is on VHS, so it's impossible for me to make a deathlist. Oh yah, Jason has a death list: List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series

Wiki doesn't do deathlists. They hold no encyclopedic value, as Wiki is an encyclopedia front and foremost, and not a fansite for any oblique trivia for fictional characters.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
And that page should probably be deleted, as it holds no notability or encyclopedic information. Thanks for bringing that page to my attention, because it's like a list of weapons for a video game. If there are any notable deaths then they would be noted on the films page, but a list of every death holds no value other than spoiler information.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mask

Does Anybody Know How Michael Got His Mask. If So Then I Think It Should Be Included Into The Article. (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Are you speaking literally (i.e. William Shatner mask) or fictionally (i.e. the hardware store was broken into and a mask was mentioned as one of the things taken, along with some other objects).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I Mean In The Halloween Universe. One Thing That Always Bothered Me Was Michael Just Turned Up With A Mask On. Jason Found His Hockey Mask In A Cabin. But Michael Just Turns Up With His Mask On With No Explanation Whatsoever. Maybe A Section On The Article Would Explain The Background? {Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)}

Michael never turned up with the mask. You have to pay attention to the films. In the first one, it's mentioned a mask was one of the items stolen from a hardware store, which is the same mask he used in the second Halloween; and in the fourth film, he stole one from same store Jamie was shopping for her costume, which supposedly is the same mask in the fifth film (though it looks entirely different), and so on and so forth.--The Scourge 08:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Speaking Of The Mask, Why Does Micheal Wear it? (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

To hide his face, who knows. Because it's something reflected from his childhood when he killed his sister. Because he's still stuck in this "I must wear a costume on halloween" phase? If you can find a reliable source that says why, then I'd say add it. But it's never really been explored in the films, though I hear Zombie is planning on giving an explaination.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Zombie does reveal more information on Michael's mask. It would be such a great addition to the article. AquafireGal. 22:07 21st March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, in the remake, uses his mask to hide his face because he's self-concious about his looks. By the way, THE REMAKE WAS FUCKING AWESOME!!!! The-devils-eyes-666 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record Jason didn't find his mask in a cabin he killed the prankster in Friday the 13th part 3 i believe his name was shelley and took it from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.153.53.237 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition of images

Too many images have been added to the article making it look disrupt. Notable and important images that made a difference can stay in my opinion, but the rest should go. If anyone doesn't object, I'm gonna start removing.--The Scourge 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There were 18 images, I removed 9 of them. The user involved was adding them in the best interest, but I think they might have gone a bit overboard. The same thing over on the Jason Voorhees article.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael's parents

Were Michael's parents in the Halloween series referred to by name or were they just Mr. and Mrs. Myers? I know in the remake, his father is dead from what I've heard and his mother's name is Deborah. But, I'm just curious if they've being named in Halloweens 1-8. (excluding 3) Also, did they die in a car crash? I've seen all the films, and I know the way they died wasn't mentioned in the original, part 3 obviously, 5, h20, and resurrection, but I haven't seen 2 or 6 in a while and I've seen 4 only once. I've heard his mother's name on here and other sites being "Edith" or "Margaret" and his dad's name being "Peter," "John," or "Donald." So, what the hell are their real names? The-devils-eyes-666 02:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The PowerWalk from Hell

The thing i've always hated about Myers is his uncanny ability to always catch people despite never moving faster than a determined geratric. Has anyone ever seen this dude run? If it has never happened (which I believe) can anyone shed some light on why the directors added/kept this element.Scott Free 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he's ever ran after his victims. I was fine with it for the first two. Because while his victims ran, Michael caught up to them in a relaistic time window. The newer ones piss me off beacuse his victims run and he is able to catch them in two seconds by walking. I only consider the first two movies to be the true ones because they were made by John Carpenter and his wife who made the character of Myers. The other writers don't know how to make these movies. Only the Carpenters know the character of Myers, his movements, and what's going on inside his head.-Darknessofheart

[edit] Pop culture references

Why is there no mention of his appearances outside the films, such as his spoof on Robot Chicken or his influence/references in Scream? Paul730 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we need a reliable source discussing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember the writer of Scream discussing in the commentary how Halloween and Michael Myers greatly influenced him. Also, in a DVD feature of Halloween H20, Jamie Lee Curtis mentions Halloween's influence on Scream. Would these be appropiate sources? I'm just asking before I go to the bother of rewatching them. Thanks. Paul730 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they would be great sources. If you watch them, write down what they say...actually write it all down because any production information would be great for the two films as well. If you need help with the citation, I'll help you write up a template for the DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe, original research, plot summary issues

The article is tagged for being primarily in-universe, per policy, it needs to have primarily real-world information. This can be achieved with character development (real-world - writing), casting, creation, critical commentary, fan reception, etc. This information should be the primary focus of the article, and not the in-universe information (as stated in the plot summary tag). Furthermore, the original research tag is placed because there is a bulk of the article's in-universe information that has no citations and appears to be someone's original research from watching the films. This is why the article has the tags it does. Ejfetters 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and I have it in my sandbox cleaning it up. See User:Bignole/Sandbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, hope to see this article maybe get a good article nod, maybe? If you want any help let me know. Ejfetters 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm always in need of extra hands to help search for more sources. If you check the talk page you'll see that I've found quite a few, though I haven't gone through any of those yet. I had more, but they have either been implemented or removed because they didn't have anything about the character that could be used on the page. If you find something and want to add it, go ahead. I've got everything in bullet form at the moment so that it's easier to organize/reorganize later on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He's Autistic!!! Doesn't Want to speak etc!

Focuses on the masks, walks slowly and delibretly! The thing he's good at is murder! Or he is psychotic and autistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SapientiaSativa (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mask?

where can one buy a copy of his mask? not a cheap reproduction from some crappy catalogue, but one that has been officially liscensed by the film company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.220.19 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect tense

I have a minor complaint about how the article describes the events of Halloween (1978) and some of the other movies. It is written in past tense which is incorrect (e.g "he stalked her"), it's supposed to enlist the events in present tense (e.g "he stalks her"). I know, it's nothing really important but I thought I'd just point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CD Set (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warnings

This wikipedia entry contains many spoilers for the old series as well as the 2007 release. Spoiler's should be added toward the bottom of the page or a spoiler warning should be added before the afore mentioned content.

Articles about fictional characters will obviously have spoilers. Per WP:SPOIL, because of that, we don't put "spoiler warnings" on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelgone.png

Image:Michaelgone.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agustinaldo

User:Agustinaldo has repeatedly removed large chunks of this article and replaced them with comments to the effect that the content should not be in as it is not canon. this was done without consulation or official source. please discuss here before removing it again. --Black Butterfly 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because it ISN'T canon!

Would you consider the events of "Superman: Red Son" canon to the Superman comics?

Or the events of "What If?" canon to the Marvel Universe?

The director and producers of Halloween H20 clearly stated that Halloween 4-5-6 are not canon. This is followed in all Halloween media up until the Rob Zombie remake.

Thus, Michael is NOT a superhuman being. He is a regular human with peak physical strength an a high pain threshold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've explained to this editor that canon is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Issues about canon are "in-universe" and not something we have to worry about, we just have to worry about providing sourced information that is relevant to the development and cultural impact of the Michael Myers character. Whether or not Michael is superhuman doesn't matter - he could be superhuman in one film and human in another, continuity is not our concern.  Paul  730 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
1. As explained above, canon is irrelevant - this article is about all films in which the character appears.
2. You have not provided a source proving that the creators did not consider the work to be canon. --Black Butterfly 14:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No

Wikipedia's goal is to provide accurate information. If you wish to point out that Michael is superhuman in one movie and human in another, you have to point out that fact.

You don't do that. You just say "Michael Myers has superhuman such and such" and list ALL movies as examples.

Instead of saying "Michael has been shown as a superhuman being in such and such movies, but H20 ignores them and depicts him as a regular human". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a cite that certain of the films are not to be considered canon - i.e. an official proclamation by the people who made them.
Also, regardless of whether or not they are canon, they are films in which the character appears, and as such need to be mentioned. Removing the content is not helpful. --Black Butterfly 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this probably isn't the key issue here, but I still fail to see how the so-called "non-canonical" films depict him anymore inhuman than the rest, with the exception of the first film and its remake. I'm sorry, but I don't see anyone walking from what he goes through in Halloween II, at least, without being being empowered by some kind of supernatural voodoo (and remember he survives that wicker man routine even in H20, but without the scar tissue he has in the Jamie Lloyd trilogy). --Bacteria 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article, images

Article looks pretty good now, seems to be rewritten from a real-world perspective. The only thing I want to bring up before I tag any images, is the fact the the two images on here, fair use images, seem replaceable with more acceptable images. I am willing to forego tagging the image in the infobox for deletion until the DVD comes out, but once it does it should really be replaced with a screencap, as the origin of the image, not the source, is better referenced, and also it is less infriging, since a screencap is a mere frame in a work (the film) with tens of thousands of frames (probably more than that.) This image being a promotional image, is the entire work, so thats that concern. The other image has an unknown origin really, and seems to be better replaced with something else. Is it really necessary? Can't we just get a screencap from the original Halloween and compare masks from the various films? I believe we can get screencap of say, the first one, then a cap from 4-5, then cap from H20/Resurrection era, then maybe refer to the one that is already in here. This shouldn't be a problem as long as the images are the subject of the section. Then they are being discussed, a section on how the mask has changed over time. Ejfetters (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, I just reread the section. Here is the best course of action. Remove the image that is in the mask section now, as it doesn't really show the mask in action (in the film.) Get a screencap from 1, then one from 2 (showing the change in the lighting perhaps?) - then one from 4/5. If the section can be expanded into the H20-Resurrection era, we can get a screencap from those. A cap from the new one isn't needed, the lead image suffices. The best way to do this I would say is to crop the head out of the screencap and minimize the image so its not huge and place them accordingly, what do you think? Ejfetters (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It was actually me who suggested the current image of the mask (although Bignole uploaded it), and I did so for a couple of reasons. First, the image also shows Nick Castle, who is discussed in detail in the casting section, therefore killing two birds with one stone by showing the actor and the mask. Second, it's an "out-of-universe" behind the scenes image, and aren't those better for an "OOU" behind the scenes section? (Look at the Jason Voorhees article) I can't actually think of a scene in the original Halloween where the mask is seen clearly enough for a decent screenshot... maybe the scene where he's on the phone but even then it's really dark. Changing the main image to a screenshot sounds okay in theory, but I don't know if there's a scene that would be appropiate; ideally we'd need a picture where Michael's trademarks (mask, knife, boiler suit) are all in view and adequately lit, and he's not in any funny poses.  Paul  730 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • First, it's the best image of the mask in the first film available. I don't know the last time you watched the film, but in Halloween, the mask is typically always in shadows. There isn't a good image of the mask available (as Paul has also stated). As for the suggestion of getting the mask from each film and comparing, well, without actual commentary on each of masks in significant doses, we cannot justify a gallery of non-free images just to say "look at the differences". On the infobox image, I personally prefer promotional images for the specific reason that they are usually better lit, and show the character in question in more detail--whereas with screenshots we have to compete with all the shadows they hide the characters in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not arguing that the promotional images look better than the screencap, yes they do. The issue at hand is they are the complete work, of unknown original source, and we don't truly know that the images were released for promotional use - as has been discussed at length for several Star Trek character & ship images. Ultimately, the images were nominated for deletion, and after lengthy debates, were deleted, leaving no images on the pages. Users later reuploaded the publicity images, and had them struck back down and speedily deleted. The compromise for the licensing problem was a screencap, as the original source is truly known (the episode) - and the other issue is taken care of as well - that being that they are far less infringing because they are a minor piece of the entire work, the full episode. One frame is just a fraction of thousands of frames. The publicity images are the complete work, and more infringing. So, yeah, the publicity images look really good, I just don't think they will pass an IFD for these reasons, as publicity images of unknown "original" source and unknown intention are being deleted. Wanted to get a heads up on this before the images get removed. There have been a few black & white Halloween publicity images themselves that have been deleted for this concern. Ejfetters (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Jason's image is a promotional image, and it wasn't questioned. If the source itself refers to the image as "promotional", then--as long as the source is deemed reliable--there is not a problem with the image. When it comes to the images on here, the infobox image is on the official website of the film series, under the new film's news reel. The "i watch stuff" link is just used because it goes straight to the image, and I couldn't get the official website to give a specific url for the new film's page. According to the film's official myspace page (which is linked from the official film website), the lead image was taken by Marsha La Marca--which I have updated to the image's summary. As far as the Castle and mask image, it appears on the official website. Given that they don't note who took the picture--which isn't necessary in all cases, but always a plus to have--the image must be owned by them (again, assumption based on the fact that they don't give anyone credit for the image, which could mean that the still photographer hired for the movie could have taken it). I think saying "specific ownership unknown" is misleading, since the image on on their official website--insinuating from the lack of attribution to a photographer that it was probably taken by someone paid to take pictures, instead of from someone's personal album. I removed that and put in the copyright for the production companies, then added "Specific photo credit unknown", because we know who owns the photo--the makers of the films, since they don't have to attribute themselves if they don't want to--but we don't know who actually snapped the photo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

In doing this review, I compared the article to the FA, Jason Voorhees, and feel that it is almost to that article's quality. In going over all of the points:

  1. Well written: I had two small grammar fixes while reading through the article, but for the most part it is well written.
  2. Factually accurate: It is well sourced, and anything that could be contentious has a reference.
  3. Broad in coverage: Mostly. This passes, but more should be added in the "Becoming the Shape" section about the other actors who portrayed him. Right now it kind of ends abruptly and some additions would definitely help it.
  4. Neutral point of view: Passes, nothing really POV about it at all.
  5. Article stability: Besides a little vandalism the past few days it's stable.
  6. Images: If a free image could be found I think it would help the article, but if not the article is illustrated well enough.

So it passes GA, and I believe with a little more work it would pass a FA review. Congratulations. Phydend (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)