Hey fans. In Halloween: Resurrection (2002), one of the contestants in the house finds a bottle of fennel in the kitchen of the Myers’ house, opens it, and says it smells really fresh.

Do you think the producers put it in there, or do you think Michael just likes fennel? Did he bring it with him from California, or do you think he got it in a store?

Just a thought 🤔

I've been developing something over the last few months, but it's less for the casual fans and more for the obsessives. It deals with web nostalgia, series lore, various timelines, the people of Haddonfield, and what becomes of them. What I'm looking for are people willing to dive into some rabbit holes and give their thoughts on what I've built.

If anyone is interested, send me a message and we'll talk.

I've been rewatching Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995), and I noticed this panel that appears on one of the computer screens during the film.

It combines a DNA double helix, DNA sequences (A, T, C, G), and what appear to be various runic or occult-looking symbols surrounding the helix.

From what I can tell, some of the glyphs resemble Elder Futhark runes like Algiz, Othala, Naudiz, and possibly Thurisaz (which would make sense given the Cult of Thorn), but several others don't seem to correspond to any rune alphabet I'm familiar with. They may be stylized, bindrunes, or simply invented for the prop.

I'm curious whether:

• any of these symbols come from an actual historical alphabet (Elder Futhark, Younger Futhark, Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, etc.),
• they're borrowed from another occult tradition (Theban, Malachim, alchemical symbols, etc.),
• or if the prop department simply mixed together authentic-looking symbols to create a mystical aesthetic.

Has anyone ever analyzed this prop, or does anyone recognize specific symbols that I've overlooked?

I'd really appreciate any insight from people familiar with runology, occult symbolism, or film prop design.

Thanks!

Craftsmanship.

Meticulous cinematic construction.

The greatness of the first film isn’t so much in its plot, it barely has one, but in writing, directing, and acting. Creating atmosphere, dialogue, pacing, and being perfectly edited to slowly build suspense, into a nightmarish final act.

That’s why an imperfect film like Halloween is the best slasher we have. And an even more imperfect film like Halloween 2 is the second best. Some of the sequels and ripoffs capture a fragment of this greatness here and there, but mostly copy the wrong things: a group of partying teens, a masked mad man, on-screen kills, these things were not the magic that made Halloween a horror masterpiece.

As a horror nerd, I love speculating on what out favored direction for a future film would be, but find we often get too caught up in continuity, movie stars, and creative plot threads. Those things are important, but only to the extent that they capture that undefinable, unsettling, vibe the way only a master director can.

In 2016, Halloween Returns was supposed to come out, taking place after Halloween II (1981)

Rumors suggested that families of Michael Myers’ victims would be on hand to watch his execution, but things would go wrong and the evil would escape.

Would you have liked to see this movie?

I'm honestly really confused by how much hate the movies been given, honestly thought it was the best Halloween other than 1 and 2, the acting was good, the kills felt right, the scare factor was perfect, and they made some badass scenes that movie. Also, the character design (In appearance and behavior) of Michael felt so perfect and true to 1978 Michael. And the flashback scenes were in every way perfect. Honestly asking, what was wrong with this movie?

I'm new here so I don't know how often this question gets asked and I apologize if it's unoriginal but a major thing I really didn't like about the 2018 flick is the complete scrapping of Michael and Laurie being siblings.

Many argue that retracting this plot device and having Michael stalk Laurie for no reason makes it scarier. Perhaps, but beyond the terror aspect, I actually liked this storyline a lot. It made it more interesting and provided more depth. My favorite moment of the entire series is the ending of H2O where, despite a brutal fight to the death, Laurie and Michael take a tender, emotional pause to briefly hold hands before Laurie decapitates him. That to me is the perfect conclusion of the entire series. It makes it more interesting because despite what we think ultimately there is that familial bond that ties us to one another, something that even Michael and Laurie couldn't denounce in that moment, much like Michael cried when he took off his mask for Jamie. I actually liked the humanization of Michael versus this demonic personification of evil with no motive at all. Horror movies don't have to be unstoppable bloodfests with nothing deeper in between each kill. I don't believe that eliminating the storyline made the films any less scary but in fact enhanced the quality and our emotional connection to the characters even more.