So Michael Myers is dead. Now what? Halloween III: Season Of The Witch was supposed to be the next installment of an anthology series that would be based around the Halloween holiday. It was the first and last to deviate from the Michael Myers saga. People wanted more Michael and this film did not deliver, and thus was not all that successful.

     This was not a bad film. There was more of a suspenseful, sci-fi element to the film rather than just straight horror. Had this film been released simply under the Season Of The Witch title, the reception to it would undoubtedly have been warmer, though it's also highly probable that not as many people would have gone to see it. Regardless, this is what it is and it is forever a part of the Halloween franchise.

     While it wasn't bad, I'm not going to pretend that this was a great film. The plot has some holes in it. Androids, killer masks, and Stonehenge are not a natural combination of things. Bringing them together as part of a plot by a maker of Halloween novelties, well... It's best not to think about it too much, I guess, and you don't really think about it while you watch. The film draws you in early on, and you're gladly along for the ride trying to figure out what's going on up at that factory. The film is well shot and well paced enough to keep you from picking out all the flaws. It's a fun movie as far fetched as it may be.

     Naturally, as the franchise continued on after this movie, the continuity nerds looked for connections to the Michael Myers films in the series. This is what I want to talk about in this article: the fan theories. There are some interesting ones, some more interesting than others. Two of them rise above the rest, so let's take a look at what our imaginations have come up with...

     In my previous Halloween article, I discussed the two different lines of continuity established by the different versions of the first Halloween film. Halloween II can pick up from either version, but the big plot twist introduced in this film is foreshadowed in the TV version of the first film via the new scene in which Michael Myers writes the word "sister" on the wall of his room at the sanitarium before he escapes. Therefore, it should be assumed that I am referring to the version of the first film with the extra scenes shot for the TV version included. This probably won't even matter, as there are so many things to talk about in Halloween II that those scenes won't even be a factor in the discussion. What does matter is Halloween II is a flawed movie.

     There are several reasons for this, and John Carpenter is one of them. The impression I get is that he was tasked with making this film. He declined to direct but he produced it and wrote the screenplay, with the directing duties going to Rick Rosenthal. Not wanting to make the same film over again, Carpenter looked for something he could throw in there to give this second chapter something different. So, what does he do? He makes Laurie Michael's sister. You'll recall I previously discussed how mystery is a vital element in a good horror film, well there goes the mystery. Now we have a reason for why Michael kills: he's after his family and everyone else is just opportunity along the way. Oh well, this is the last Michael Myers movie in the Halloween franchise so, whatever, right? Wait, they bring him back in part four and he's still after family? Oh dear.

     Well, the sister plot twist is really just a minor complaint compared to the main issue here. Remember how there were two versions of the first film? Well here we go again! Except this time, there is no "better" version in circulation. This is kind of Carpenter's fault too. When Rosenthal submitted the original cut of this movie, Carpenter wasn't all that impressed. He said it was about as scary as an episode of (the TV medical drama) Quincy. So Carpenter increases the violence and trims away some of the character development along with some of the scenes that give the movie some cohesive sense. Some of the excised material was added back into the TV version, but many scenes were rearranged or further edited for time. Both versions are a mess.

     I don't know of any definitive cut of this film in circulation that puts the best pieces from both versions together, you basically have to watch both of them and then put it together in your head. It's no easy task so I'm going to attempt to guide you through the patchwork that is Halloween II... 

     Halloween is my favorite holiday. As a kid, I always looked forward to this time of year. I loved the costumes, the ritual of going door to door for candy, the old monster movies on TV, and (usually) the cooler weather. Had that been all there was to it, I'm not sure if it would still be such an important time for me these decades later, but something significant happened that is such an integral part of the holiday for me that it's difficult to think of a time without it.

     In 1978, a film simply titled Halloween first appeared in theaters. I was only seven at the time, so obviously I did not see it in the theater, I had to wait until it came to television, as we had to do back in those days. As I recall, Halloween III had already come out so I would have been probably 11 or 12. I remember loving the silent, masked killer concept, relentless and unstoppable. In the final scene he is shot multiple times, falls off the balcony and then moments later is simply gone... Thus ended the film. No resolution. It was perfect.

    There isn't a lot I can say about this movie that hasn't already been said dozens of times. Everything from how this film came to be, to making California in spring look like Illinois in autumn, to basically starting the slasher genre, is discussed in every article you read about it. I don't want to talk about any of that. If you don't know that stuff by now then this article really isn't for you. I want to talk about how this served as the basis for one of the more convoluted lines of continuity in all of horror cinema.

     There are at least three different lines of continuity in this franchise, and that's not counting the two films by Rob Zombie, which are their own entity. All three timelines start with this film. The original line was 1-2-4-5-6, followed by 1-2-H20-Resurrection, and the latest being 1 with the new trilogy that began in 2018. I say at least three because there are those who only acknowledge the original, and probably some other subsets and combinations as well, such as a simple 1-2-4 combination.

     As if this whole franchise wasn't complicated enough with all the different sequel timelines, we also have to deal with different versions of the first two films. First there are the theatrical versions, then there are the TV versions. These are not just your standard "edited for television" versions. The original has additional scenes filmed at the same time as Halloween II, and Halloween II is full of alternate and rearranged scenes. I'll also mention that there are two different versions of the sixth installment as well, but that's a whole other story there. Yeah, it's complicated, so let's start at the beginning...

     If I had to point to the beginning of modern horror cinema, then Night of the Living Dead is where it's at. This was definitely a transitional film and retained several elements from mid-20th century horror films, but the gruesome nature of this movie along with its social commentary would create a paradigm that horror cinema would embrace in the coming decades. Fans of modern "zombie" films and television may find this film to be quaint or even somewhat boring, but there is no Rick Grimes without his walking in (our lead character) Ben's footsteps.

     I admit that I was one of those who was a bit bored when I first watched this film. My first exposure to modern horror was through films like The Fog (1980), Phantasm (1979), and The Shining (1980). These were all creepy films with equally creepy soundtracks and many other horror films of the era followed that pattern. I knew Night of the Living Dead would be a bit different based on its age alone. The soundtrack, which was all stock incidental music, was more reminiscent of films from the 1940s and 1950s. Shooting it in black & white hearkened back to those days as well. The film's graphic nature was really the main point that set it apart from some of those classic monster movies, but even that was rather tame by today's standards. For teenage me, while I liked it enough to own a copy, this was an "old movie".

     I don't look at it so much as an old movie anymore, but rather like a demo or an independent early release from a nationally known band. It's rough, maybe even primitive, but all the pieces are there, pieces that would be developed and expanded upon and put together in different ways to become something greater.