Which movie killer has the most evil story?

Do you mean worst as in badly written or worst as in evil?

Oh well then definitely Michael Myers. Other movie killers usually had something awful happen to them like Candyman, Jason, Jigsaw, Bubba etc. Even Freddy had an abusive father when he was a kid. But Michael, from what we can tell he had a normal happy home. Then one Halloween night when he was 6 years old, he picked up a knife and murdered his older sister for no reason at all.

Ever since he's never wanted to put the knife down. As Dr. Loomis said he's purely and simply evil.

Michael Myers is strongly implied to have a mental illness similar to schizophrenia and in my opinion is a cautionary tale of what happens if you treat a mentally ill person in the absolute worst way possible. To quote the Wikipedia article on Michael's character;

"Carpenter's inspiration for the 'evil' that Michael would embody came when he was in college. While on a class trip at a mental institution in Kentucky, Carpenter visited 'the most serious, mentally ill patients'. Among those patients was a young boy around 12 to 13 years old. The boy gave this 'schizophrenic stare', 'a real evil stare', which Carpenter found 'unsettling', 'creepy', and 'completely insane'. Carpenter's experience would inspire the characterization that Loomis would give of Michael to Sheriff Brackett in the original film. Debra Hill has stated the scene where Michael kills a German Shepherd was done to illustrate how he is 'really evil and deadly'."

Michael Myers was a little boy with extreme schizophrenia whose family did nothing to help him. A common symptom of schizophrenia is hearing voices, so it would probably be safe to say that Michael heard voices that told him to kill his sister. And being six years old, at an age where empathy or even an understanding of good and evil is absent, he killed his sister. Doctor Loomis didn't even consider the thought that he was mentally ill and labeled him as pure evil, even as a six year old. To quote Doctor Loomis; "I met this six-year-old child with this blank, pale, emotionless face, and the blackest eyes; the devil's eyes [...] I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...evil." How did Loomis become a licensed psychiatrist with a degree when he doesn't even consider that a six year old boy killed his sister because he was mentally ill.

Michael had no help during his formative years while suffering from an extreme mental illness, so it's obvious that when he broke out he wouldn't know better to not listen to his voices and kill people. He didn't have any guidance. He wasn't taught the concept of morals or alignment or empathy due to Loomis's sheer incompetence. While it's undeniable that the actions he committed were pure evil, I see him as an extremely mentally ill man who wasn't given proper guidance as a child and as a result has no way of dealing with the voices except for listening to them and killing people. The real killer in Halloween wasn't Michael, it was Loomis, who treated Michael so poorly that Michael became a killing machine with no grasp of good and evil.

In conclusion, Loomis is a horrible psychiatrist and Michael killing people could have been prevented if he got a psychiatrist who knew what they were doing. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

The creator of Michael was directly inspired for Michael's character by a kid with schizophrenia he visited while in college. The symptoms Michael deals with on a daily basis are also symptoms of schizophrenia. The Fandom article on him does a better job explaining it than I do, so here you go.

I'd argue pedophile Freddy was worst.

Candyman was mercilessly tortured yes, but it pales to what Freddy did to kids before death.

I see. Honestly why not have both types of responses, adds to the post flavor.

The movies never implied Michael was mentally ill. They pretty much spell out in fifty foot high letters through Loomis' dialogue that he is pure evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5PxXzLoB9s&t=2m44s

Yet even he wont kill a child according to the director. This is emphasized in the new movie when he walks to a babies crib and looks at the baby before walking away. Also he walks past a bunch of kids who talk to him in the movie.

"As Myers is slaughtering his latest victim, the faint cry of a baby can be heard in the background. This immediately puts the audience on edge and as we follow Myers around the house, we can hear him getting closer to the baby. And in perhaps the tensest moment of the entire film, Myers finally reaches the crib and an unthinkable thought enters your mind, “Holy #########. Is Myers going to murder that baby?” The answer is, thankfully, no. After seeming to pause for a split second, Myers decides to leave the baby unharmed (other than the obvious damage of having murdered the child’s mom) and heads back out to slice and dice a few more unsuspecting suburbanites on his way to exact revenge against Laurie Strode"

The others where made non cannon by 2018 and yes in the beggining he does kill the kid because hes in his way and he needs the car. But he wont kill a kid/baby for no reason. Same with the kids who were out trick or treating one literally walked right up to him and talked to him.

"While the rest of the movie works tirelessly to convince us that Myers is an unrepentant monster, his decision not to kill a defenseless, crying baby shows that he may actually have a shred of humanity left in him. Even Myers, who is meant to represent evil personified, knows that killing a baby is simply too dark and decides to stick to murdering adults instead"

Assuming you felt Orion was "rude" to me in this reply please note that I never viewed their response as rude or aggressive.

One of the biggest things to do when reading a post is to always read it in a calm voice, especially with how toxic these forums can be. If the voice in your head sounds mad when reading then the words you read will sounds mad. I do not in any capacity see Orion being rude in this reply, they are simply explaining why they believed the OP was speaking in terms of "written poorly" and the title was indeed changed from the time I made my reply.

I can also defend Orion under the assumption of possibly "not reading" all the other posts as often I just read a few then answer one that catches my attention. As someone who reads far to many threads a day, a passing glance is the fastest way to get around.

PS: This too was typed in a calm mindset and isn't to be rude or poke fun at you at all. This is why its always important to never add a vocal tone to what you read. (^.^)

Why are they non canon? The Halloween franchise has several timelines. They are all canon depending on which timeline you look at. I could say the original Halloween is non canon if I just looked at Halloween III which doesn't even have Michael Myers lol. Or the Rob Zombie movies.

Michael needed the car that's why he had to murder the child? Pull the other one its got bells on it. He was HIDING in the back seat waiting. What was stopping him from just taking the car before the kid got back? They keys were even already sitting in the ignition. Or why did he have to murder the kid to take the car? You trying to tell him he couldn't have just tossed the kid out and taken the car lol?

Look at the original movie when he escaped. He could have killed the Nurse and taken her car if he wanted to, but he didn't. He just scared her out of it and took it.

Dude you're just choosing to look the 2018 movie (which he even murders a kid in lol). So I don't get your logic here. Why is looking at the other movies not valid just because the 2018 movie isn't including them? The Halloween 1, II, 4, 5, and 6 timeline is bigger and more inclusive than any of the others. Does that make them more valid than you cherry picking one movie to focus on?

But lets play devil's advocate and look at this one example you are so focused on; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEk58AqUVHg&t=3m7s

Look at that scene. Michael is hiding in the back seat of a car that already has keys sitting in the ignition. If all he wanted was the car why didn't he take it before the kid got back? Why didn't he just toss the kid out instead of murdering him, or are you trying to sell the idea he needed to kill the kid in order to get the car off him lol?

Michael waited for that poor kid to come back and murdered him. Plain and simple. So your claim he won't kill kids unnecessarily is totally wrong. Its a fact shown on screen.

Yet when the director is asked when he doesnt kill the baby the director says this.

In fact, when asked about Myers’ decision not to commit infanticide, Halloween co-writer and director David Gordon Green admits that it is “the one ethical choice he [Myers] makes.” and while the creator is nice the director directs what happens in the movie they are the end all. Same thing with the nurse. While hes evil he has lines he wont cross looks like.

Freddy Kruger the bastard son of 100 maniacs. Who slauthered children.

Michael tried to kill a baby in Halloween 6. Michael murdered a child in the 2018 movie. You cannot say Michael would never do either. They are both there in the movies. Its irrefutable fact. What's your next example?

FYI Halloween 2018 is not a reboot. Its a sequel. It takes place 40 years after the original. Its no different to Halloween H20 which just cherry picked which movie it was a sequel to.

Myers without a doubt. Dude is just evil distilled.

He doesn't kill because he likes it. He does it because he has too. It's apart of him.

And my fact is theres some people he choses not to this is a fact as well.