Why is Michael Myers so hard to put down? (Halloween Spoilers)
This is more of a lore question towards Halloween, rather than DBD. However, since Myers is in DBD, I feel like it's appropriate to ask this here. This question ONLY applies to the 2018 timeline, which is the first movie, the 2018 movie, the 2021 movie, and the next one called Halloween Ends. Anything from the other movies is irrelevant to this discussion.
Michael Myers in the movies mentioned above is a lot less supernatural than the other iterations of the character. Although he doesn't survive extreme things like being burnt alive or shot in the head like the other movies, the amount of stab and bullet wounds he receives over the course of those 3 movies would certainly put a normal person down. At the end of the 2021 movie, he gets shot in the chest and stabbed MULTIPLE times, but still somehow gets back up.
While it's possible that he just has very good pain tolerance, pain isn't the concern here, it's whether or not someone could actually survive that kind of damage. Realistically, that would kill a normal person, but even if it didn't, they most certainly wouldn't be able to get right back up from it, seemingly unfazed and ready to kill some more.
So, is there any actual logical explanation as to how Myers survives all this stuff? If not, does anyone have any theories?
Comments
-
Halloween Kills Michael is just straight up a Jason clone (which is funny considering that the first Friday movie is a crappy knockoff of Halloween), he's probably the incarnate of evil that Loomis talked about which is a shame, I really thought the 2018 movie had some potential, but of course the sequel had to suck.
3 -
Okay but that wasn't the question.
0 -
"he's probably the incarnate of evil that Loomis talked about"
1 -
Oh, my bad.
So what exactly does that mean? Is he supernatural?
0 -
Yeah pretty much, I'm not a fan of that explanation though which is why I went on that massive rant. But the "Evil Incarnate" explanation is that he kills as the physical embodiment of death, he does it dispassionate of the person, only deriving any form of enjoyment from the act of killing someone and watching as they slowly die.
0 -
I hated it too, Michael on the original movie was just a normal guy with a high pain tolerance, I wish he had stayed like that.
2 -
Bad writing is one hell of a drug.
0 -
What?
0 -
The answer to your question is:
Bad writing.
Michael Meyers is this way because of poor creative choices during the writing process - and a fundamental lack of direction during its implimentation.
0 -
Well, based on 70s movie logic;
He's evil. Reeeally, really evil.
And that's all it takes to be immortal.
0 -
High pain tolerance? He gets shot six times at close range and falls out of a second floor window. Then he just gets up and walks away.
That's not high pain tolerance. That's straight up inhumanly evil survival. Which the original Halloween makes abundantly clear several times. Not to mention before this scene Laurie stabbed him in the NECK with a large knitting needle, and then in the chest with his own knife. Halloween Kills didn't do anything that the original Halloween movie had not already established with the character.
The original Halloween portrays Michael as something that is beyond human. He can appear and disappear in the blink of an eye e.g. the scene where Laurie sees him standing in her back yard staring at her one second, and then the next second he's completely vanished.
Dr. Loomis spews out dialogue in every scene he's in about how Michael is pure evil. How he's not a man. He even refers to Michael as it rather than him.
Even John Carpenter intended that to be the portrayal of the character; "It was a movie where the main character, the guy in the mask, really isn’t altogether human. He has no characteristics. He’s almost like a machine. He was just pure evil. That was what I intended to do. It’s evil out of nothing, evil from no background, which completely creeps me out as a human being, that evil could arrive at my doorstep without a purpose, without a past, without an origin. So that’s the idea behind it. It was put together to scare you."
Link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/john-carpenter-speaks-halloween-secrets-834754/
So if your interpretation of Michael Myers in the original Halloween movie was just a normal guy with a high pain tolerance then you completely misread the portrayal and intention behind the character.
To answer the question of this thread, its not bad writing, its not that he's a Jason clone, or any of the other misinformation answers you've been given here. Its that the character is inhumanly evil. And something like that doesn't die like a normal person.
2 -
Myers has insane pain tolerance and most wounds he suffers are not really that life threatening, the pain tolerance comes from the fact he just doesnt care about it, he feels it but he doesnt give a damn, we had a psychopath here in Spain who was devoid of any emotions and empathy, while in jail he was interviewed for a TV show, he showed total lack of interest for anything at all except for killing and drinking, he was never questioned about pain but the way he talked about his murders, the motivations, everything... its unnerving watching him speak, you could tell he was more of an automaton than a human being, he just didnt care, I always tought of him as an IRL Michael Myers.
The needle to the neck looks dangerous and it is but if it misses the carotid artery, jugular veins or the trachea is not that worrisome (it probably missed since he still moves around), the stab on the eye with the wire is non lethal, the stab on the chest in the closet is a minor wound, probably didnt even get pass the ribs, plus all these wounds were delivered by a slim and lanky teenager girl not by the quarterback of the school, you need a LOT of strength to kill someone with a single stab from a knife or have luck and puncture a vital organ or artery, for example the heart is heavily protected by a layer of muscle, the ribs and natural reflexes make you move away when attacked minimizing penetration, its not easy to reach it, especially by someone on a bad position and lacking strength like Laurie.
The gunshots, thats another story, I suppose some of them could miss, others hit non vital parts like the arm and a few hitting the lungs or stomach (lethal if untreated but he could be found and sent to the hospital), he falls from the balcony and "banishes" but he could have crawled a few meters away into the bushes thanks to adrenaline rush and then collapse.
0 -
John Carpenter says he was partially inspired by a mental patient whom he saw in a sanitarium. The blank emotionless stare of this person unnerved him. But you're trying to paint a picture there of a character who was not portrayed that way. The movie doesn't verbally describe the character that way. The director did not write nor intend for that to be the portrayal of the character. The movie flat out says multiple times he is inhumanly evil. The director wrote the character that way and said that was the portrayal he was doing with him. There is no grey area here. This is not a subjective matter. You can't say something isn't what it is when the people who made the movie and wrote the character tell you otherwise.
He is not ignoring pain. He simply is not affected by pain. You get stabbed in the neck, whether it hits any major arteries or not, you're going to be bleeding like a stuck pig. Michael wasn't. You're also missing other details. For example you suggest some of the gun shots could have missed. If you watch the scene where he gets shot you see his body react to each one of the six gunshots. None of them missed. Unless Loomis has the worst aim in the world, its pretty difficult to not hit vital parts when the guy is standing right in front of you. Unless of course you're deliberately trying to not kill him. Which definitely wasn't Loomis' intention. You don't shoot an unarmed man six times unless you're trying to kill him.
At the end of the day you can choose to believe what you wish. But its simply a case of ignoring facts as the writing, the details, not to mention the words of the actual people who wrote and directed the movie don't support it.
1 -
It's been a while since I watched the movies, so my knowledge was kinda rusty. As much as I love the movies, his origins is kinda meh for me, I don't like characters that are evil just for being evil.
0 -
I dont understand your whole first paragraph as I didnt say anything about Myers except he ignores pain so Im going to bypass it, the guy I talked about was just a real life example of a person who behaved like a machine programed to kill instead of a human, someone who was pure evil, I wasnt talking about Myers especifically but someone who was similar to him.
He is affected by pain, he grunts when hurt, accelerates his breathing and collapses from it, the wire wound staggers him and both the needle and knife wounds put him down for a few seconds until he gets over it, he feels the pain but he ignores it which is the same as being unaffected, pain is a sensation and can be trained to be ignored, like people not gagging from the smell of rotten flesh (most people bart the second they smell it but workers used to it are unaffected), there is a treshold you can raise to a degree but there is a point where he collapses from it, he just gets over it fast, he is definetely affected by pain otherwise he wouldnt stop when attacked.
The bleeding you have a point but wounds unless deep, wide or puncturing vitals/arteries dont bleed like a fountain, most of Myers wounds in the first film are superficial at best, Laurie is very weak and her weapons are very small, the wire and the needle are 2 milimeters wide, thats nothing, the knife wound would make him bleed but we dont really see him that well to confirm (I do believe she actually stabs the stomach zone seeing how he grabs it) until we see him in the ground being shot, I take the lack of blood as a narrative license since Laurie barely bleeds from her wounds too, the film budget was severely lacking so maybe they couldnt afford that much blood or the troubles that come with using it (you have to wash the clothes after filming, has to be reapplied etc) but I concede this point.
He actually reacts only to 5 out of 6 gunshots so at least one missed and hitting someone in front of you is not THAT easy when its dark plus guns have recoil even how hard you press the trigger affects your aim, you can watch videos of security cameras of gunfights in the street between rival gangs and people walking unscathed after being shot 10 times at less than 10 meters, its much harder to hit with a handgun than most people think, especially when its dark and the person is flailing around like he is after the first shot but hollywood made us believe its super easy to use gun because action movies use homing bullets.
P.D. I work in an oil refinery, I was stabbed with wire once, it was around 5mm deep around 1-2mm wide, it didnt bleed that much because the flesh closes superfast if the wounds are not very wide, it does hurt a lot and it left a scar, Ive also seen my fair share of accidents, both bloody and bloodless, you would be surprised how good adrenaline is when you need to ignore pain until it runs out a few minutes later and how certain injuries barely bleed while others bleed way more than you could believe.
0 -
Dude I can't debate with someone who completes ignores what the FILM MAKERS and the movie itself says in order to put their own spin on something. Its like trying to talk to someone that says the earth isn't round or that we don't breathe air.
You're also desperately trying to apply realism to a horror movie that tells you multiple times that said character is an inhumanely evil being.
You're also once again misconstruing details of the movie. Michael does not grunt in pain any of the times he is inflicted with injuries. He doesn't make a sound when Laurie stabs him in the neck. Nor when she stabs him in the chest. Nor any of the six times Loomis shoots him. There isn't a peep out of him.
Anyway I can't say any more on this without repeating myself. John Carpenter says he is inhumanly evil. The movie itself tells you many times he is. If you choose to believe otherwise that's your choice.
2 -
First of all relax because your hostility over this menial theme makes no sense at all, people are discussing a movie and your first post is already a flame then the rest keep the same tone.
Myers lets out an "argh" when stabbed near the eye and then a soft "ugh" when he gets stabbed on the chest/belly in the closet scene and I know Carpenter said he is inhumanely evil, what does that have to do with him not being human anyway? Inhumanely means "lacking kindness/being extremely cruel", its the oposite of "humanly" it doesnt mean someone isnt a human, doesnt mean someone is a ghost/demon/eldritch thing wathever, he is just an "inhuman" evil guy who lacks empathy just like regular violent psycopaths.
I cant debate with someone who doesnt even know what "inhuman" means so this is my last post directed at you.
0 -
You don't understand what?
0 -
It should be creepy and it made money. You can´t just simply let your money die. A lot of killers come back.
Look it up somewhere as i don´t know it exactly - with the 4th movie they introduced the - Curse of Thorne cult - and a Man in Black. This should have been some kind of supernatural Demon power evil or so which gives him the extra strengh.
4,5,6 was a trilogy in this regard. They kinda scrapped it then.
0 -
THAT'S WHAT I SAID. Yet they didn't, despite being given the perfect opportunity to go for his head.
0 -
The problem with that is, those movies are completely unrelated to the timeline that Halloween Kills is a part of. So that doesn't really matter.
0
