Talk:Michael Myers (Halloween)/Archive 1

y 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)[reply]

Oh, ok, thanks. I was just wondering. It doesn't even look like a William Shatner mask, by what they did to it! --

…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/' ……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"

- ¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"

.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"

.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯

.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯

.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"

.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯

.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\

.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,

.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì

: : : : : :, : : : : : :/

"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

daunrealist 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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 did rape her dude.83.67.202.168 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

She was artificially insemination, in the director's cut, ti was either Dr. Wynn or someone else from the cult of thorn who raped her. In the Rob Zombie remake, the don't show it, but young Michael did raped Judith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.68.218 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Michael is human but he was born with the Devil's Curse a.k.a. The Curse Of Thorn. Every time he dies, he goes to hell, but the devil sends him back up. The devil keeps doing this until he finishes the job the curse forces him to do, which is to kill all of his blood relatives. --74.161.68.218 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)MM2914 Bit Of Clean DIccourge|The Scourge]] 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Point taken. Keep in mind, though, that I didn't write them. Just removed them.--The Scourge 10:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just speaking in general terms. Bignole 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Categor 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 toconsidered 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 2WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE006 (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)[reply]

EMT ??

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

ahpook 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)}[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Because we need a reliable source discussing it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep, and I have it in my sandbox cleaning it up. See User:Bignole/Sandbox. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]

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:

Well written: I had two small grammar fixes while reading through the article, but for the most part it is well written.
Factually accurate: It is well sourced, and anything that could be contentious has a reference.
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.
Neutral point of view: Passes, nothing really POV about it at all.
Article stability: Besides a little vandalism the past few days it's stable.
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)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aquintana29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Judypen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape

It should be mentioned that Michael Myres is reffered to as The Shape in the credits of the first TWO movies not just the original as it says in the atrical. I just watch part two toady and noticed this. Don't know about 4,5 and 6. TARDIS6 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

musical synopsis

Twice now I've tried to add http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1821685 to the list of outside links of interest, and it's been reverted by two different people. The argument against it seems to be, from what I can tell, that it's not boring enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A dry, written synopsis of the Halloween movie would be a valid link. Why is a link to a more entertaining, musical -- but entirely accurate -- synopsis not appropriate? SmashTheState (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good reason: "Sorry, The item you're looking for could not be found!" BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link does work.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I've seen this. It's rather entertaining, but not for Wikipedia. We do not put fan created material in the external links section. Please read WP:EL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the photo

please take a photo of michael from the first part because that's the best looking AND the sort of look he has throug the hole series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.250.126 (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree that it was the "best looking", it wasn't the way he looked throughout the whole series. They replaced the mask in part 4, 5, 6, H20, Resurrection, and in the remake. We are using the remake as the primary image because, frankly, that's the best quality photo as far as lighting goes. We do have an image of the original mask in the body of the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason for this photo to be from the reboot or whatever you want to call it, no one besides the cast and crew of those films and their mothers thinks of them when they think of Halloween or Michael Myers. It should be reverted to a picture of the actual character from the actual film. You might as well use fan art off deviantart or something.

Up to fan interpretation.

While I have no doubt the film makers of Halloween: H20 wanted to retcon the continuity, it has been more up to fan interpretation and nothing is officially "set in stone". It could work both ways actually, so I don't see it necessary to publish that H20 restarted continuity when it's not 100%. Best to leave it up to the viewers than tell them something that may not be true. It's more like they chose not to discuss 4-6, rather than totally go against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doesn't say it totally retcons them, it says "Ignoring the events of the previous three films" which is more or less the same as you saying "they chose not to discuss 4-6". Halloween H20 does ignore the last three films by simply not referencing them, so the article is not untrue by stating that. Futhermore, it is 100% that H20 restarted continuity because the canon comic books from DDP are set in the revised timeline and contradict 4 - 6. If you want to tie the films together, that's up to you, but we shouldn't remove facts from the article to support your fan theories. Paul 730 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it officially been stated that the Halloween comics are part of continuity? Can't the same thing be said about the other Halloween comics that bridged the gap between Halloween 6 and Halloween: H20? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film clearly ignores the events of 4-6. First, Laurie is alive. Second, she has a 17 year old son. The fact that no reference is ever made to Jamie (Laurie's daughter in 4-6) means they ignored that little detail. The fact that Michael has been active through the years in 4-6, yet, Laurie (in H20) doesn't know for a fact that he is alive, only lives in fear that he might come back (based on her statement that she didn't stay to watch the body burn), means that they ignore the fact that he was alive and killing people in Haddonfield in the years leading up to the events of H20. It's clear, they ignore those films. Plus, there are countless interviews with the cast and crew of 4-6, where they talk about being insulted that H20 retconned their established history. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the back of Halloween: 30 Years of Terror, the DDP editor says "We're telling the only officially approved, in-continuity stories centred in the original series of Halloween films." Malek Akkad, the producer of the films, watches over the comic book series and approves their canonicity. I don't think the original Chaos Comics had such approval, and they contradicted the movies anyway. Also, the HalloweenComics website has this to say: "Those who know the films will know that there are three continuities within the original series. Halloween III was a standalone story, not related to the other films, and parts 4, 5 and 6 were written out of continuity by the seventh film, Halloween: H20. Our comics are set within the universe begun by the original two films and continued into Halloween: H20 onwards." Paul 730 01:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, most of it is opinion based which was my point. You could easily say that Laurie avoided any news involving Haddonfield, since she was trying desperately to move past all that with therapy. It would of been 10 years of nothing since Michael woke up out of his coma in Halloween 4, which is plenty of time for her to fake her death (to explain her "dying"), have Jamie and then later have John. The crime scene photo of the bloody scissors is a reference to Halloween 5, or Jamie in Halloween 4, since Michael never used scissors in either Halloween 1 or 2. Again, I agree they wanted to last minute re-write continuity, but it all comes down to one or two lines in the film, which isn't that much to go off of in terms of substance. Most people don't even know they tried to do this, only the die-hard Halloween fans. There are equal or greater continuity mistakes in the other films as it is, including Resurrection which screwed up lots of details pertaining to the other movies in the series. This isn't just a personal opinion, but is a well discussed debate among fans in general, so I feel it should be left open-ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not opinion based. The crew say that they don't follow the previous films. It's 20 years after the original night. Jamie was what, 7-8 years old? It's simple math. If John is 17, then it means that 3 years after the events of the original he was born. That means that he was 6 years old the year that Laurie supposedly died in an automobile accident and Jamie is left with her relatives. So please, explain how they didn't just ignore the fact that John is never mentioned in 4-6, or that John has no recollection of Jamie, who would have been at least 1 year older than he was? Jamie makes no mention of a brother dying, nor do they mention it in the film. You can remove all of the "opinion" out of it, it still comes down to straight math. John would have known about Jamie, and yet she is never mentioned, not once. Thus, they clearly ignore those events. The opinion is on your end, as you try and leave the door open to that back assward continuity that Halloween has woven over the years. Face the reality, they retconned those events. It isn't the first time they did it in that series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've seen this debate discussed endlessly on Halloween forums, we could go on forever. The timelines are conflicting, but many pissed-off Thorn fans dislike that their favourite movies were retconned so come up with elaborate fanwank to tie them together. The fact is we have official sources confirming that the timelines are intended to be separate and that H20 retconned 4 - 6, so the article is not wrong in stating that. As I've said before, Anon, if you want to reconcile the timelines into one, that's your right as a fan. However, you're asking us to omit relevant facts from the article because you don't agree with them personally. Paul 730 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New image

I uploaded an image of Tony Moran and added it to the article. Feel free to resize, move, or remove. I added it here as he doesn't have an article and figured it may be relevant for inclusion here. If there is a reply here, let me know, as I'm not watching this page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three series

Michael Myers is a different character in three different series of movies.

There's the original two, Halloween 1 and 2, which spun off into both 4-6 and H20 and Resurrection, and then there's Zombie's series.

Not counting Halloween 3.

No, Michael Myers is one character who appears in three different continuities of the same movie series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bignole. If we were writing from an in-universe perspective, which we're not supposed to on this site, then the idea of Michael as three different individuals is correct. The Horror Movie Wiki (which is linked in the article itself) takes this approach, with spin-off articles for the different timelines. But from a real-world perspective, Michael is a single fictional character who appears in various continuities. This article does acknowledge that H20 follows a different continuity to 4-6, and that Rob Zombie's film is a remake. Paul 730 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Members

can someone please add on the info box portion, write out his family members?

Per WP:WAF, we only include stuff in the infobox that is necessary to understand the character. Who his family members are wouldn't be necessary. It's just trivial info. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me?

Or is it wrong to have the image of Michael Myers from a REMAKE/RE-IMAGINING, rather than his original appearance, the way he was originally intended to look. I know there is no real difference, but out of respect for John Carpenter and Debra Hill, their 1978 image of Michael, the one from the original series should be the lead image. I'm sure any fan of that particular series, rather than Rob Zombie's, would agree with this. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about who is a fan of which series, and it's not about being "out of respect" for some other person. The image from the remake is the best lit, full bodied shot of Michael that it is out there....because it's a piece of promotional photography. There is no such image for Michael for the first two films, and in the actual film any full body shot is generally too dark to see any real features. This is about WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, which is about finding the best representation of a subject, not simply satisfying some fans' idealization of Carpenter. We already have an image of the original mask in the body of the article, we don't need two images of the same mask. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mask image

A added a image taken from convention but it was removed from this article for some reason about a section, what's the problem? Maybe other section on the article? Egon Eagle (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't make sense to put a picture of a replica of the mask in the film section for one. The Stockholm Fair has nothing to do with the actual films. Secondly, I don't see where it says that is an actual mask from the film. It looks like someone's personal creation just being utilized for the Fair. If it was going to be used in the article, the question that needs to be asked is what purpose is the picture supposed to have? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spended hours to take photos on a sci fi convention and decided to upload free image on Wikipedia of uniforms, actors etc. Egon Eagle (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about your work, I'm talking about the usefulness of the image itself. Your effort is appreciated, but if there isn't a place for the image itself then we cannot simply put it in the article just because someone put in time and work to get the picture. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, never mind. Just keep good work. I edit Swedish Wikipedia, here I'm edit not much, just categories and adding images, We don't use nonfree images on the Swedish version. Egon Eagle (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the image is on WikiCommons it will help whoever needs it. It may turn out that it can be used here later, or even at Halloween: Resurrection. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wrong... Michael Meyers has a cameo appearance in Halloween 3 during the bar scene when they show the commercial for the John Carpenters Holloween Classic Movie on the T.V.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.28.90 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Antagonist", "protagonist", etc.

Per WP:FILMROLE, "Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided." - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, didn't you try and change it to "villain"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you restored "antagonist". What would you suggest? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that it shouldn't be changed because "FILMROLE" is referring to actors, not characters. This is a character page, not an actor's page, or a film page. It's a page specifically about a fictional character, thus identifying the role in the film is different here. That section specifically talks about it from the perspective of a "role", and that's not what this page is about. It's not about a role, but a fictional character. So, identifying them with a "label" is appropriate here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read of WP:FILMROLE. My understanding -- and an idea that stands without WP:FILMROLE -- is that applying the label is interpretation. From our articles on the terms, their meanings vary widely. Applying the label involves selecting one of those interpretations, matching it against an interpretation of the character (often from multiple works) and deciding the two match. The simplistic approach seems to rein when this is applied: Drained of all context, "good guy" = "protagonist"; "bad guy" = "antagonist". "Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles." - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to see the removal of "antagonist" or "villain" (the latter of which I dislike because of it's childish nature), but then you need something like "main character". Again, we're talking about a character, not an actor in a role (because there are a ton of actors that were in these roles). You're more than welcome to go to the MOS and ask for clarification on what the guideline is referring to. My understanding has always been that it was meant specifically for describing an actor's role on a film page, not for how you describe a character on their character page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

I have retagged the "In popular culture" section. The editor who removed the tag cited the section in Jason Voorhees which, aside from being other stuff, is quite different.

The tag, referring to WP:IPC, states, "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. Try to source unreferenced entries, and remove those that are inaccurate or speculative."

The Jason Voorhees section explains the subject's impact on popular culture, leading off with "Jason Voorhees is one of the leading cultural icons of American popular culture.[100][101][102] In 1992 Jason was awarded the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award.[103] He was the first of only three completely fictional characters to be given the award; Godzilla (1996) and Chewbacca (1997) are the others.[104][105] Jason was named No. 26 in Wizard magazine's "100 greatest villains of all time".[106] Universal Studios theme parks, in collaboration with New Line Cinema, used the character for their Halloween Horror Nights event.[107]"

This article's section, while not configured as a list, is still a list of appearances. In stark contrast to the Voorhees section, this one starts with "In Robot Chicken's nineteenth episode, "That Hurts Me", Michael Myers (voiced by Seth Green) appears as a housemate of "Horror Movie Big Brother", alongside other famous slasher movie killers such as Jason Voorhees, Ghostface, Freddy Krueger, Pinhead, and Leatherface. Myers is evicted from the house, and takes off his mask to reveal himself to be the comedian Mike Myers, and utters his Austin Powers catchphrase, "I feel randy, baby, yeah!" He then proceeds to kill the host." The rest of the section is similar: List the appearance, give a plot-ish description of the appearance, move on to the next one. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

The Mask of Michael Meyers

I've heard people asking (well, saw) about Michael Meyers's mask and why he wears it. I saw this one retarded answer someone posted on a different site. It retarded answer said: "It's propably because he's old." All I can say is: Do the math, person. He was six (6) when he was locked away. Fifteen (15) years later he escapes and starts killing. 6+15=21. He was twenty-one (21) so he was young in this matter. I believe it also has a connection to why he doesn't talk. He still is human, yet appears invinsible and indistructable. He hasn't talked for fifteen (15) years like a normal human would. He is expressionless and the white mask helps prove that in a way. It's as if he's trying to leave his human years, so he wears the mask to feel less human or not human at all. That's my understandment of why Michael Meyers wears a mask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperHomie101 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Akkad

Why is there no mention of Mustafa Akkad in this article? If you look at his article, it clearly states that he was the orginal producer not to mention the fact that his name is prominent on the cover and begining of 1 and 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannelumpkin (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He produced a film, he did not create the character. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Profile Image to character

Why the hell replace the profile image of Michael Myers to Mike Myers? Mike is an actor himself at all, and Michael is the fictional character. The previous image should be returned promptly.--שי אביגד (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michael Myers (Halloween). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Myers (Halloween). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Myers (Halloween). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Myers (Halloween). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114042656/http://www.callofduty.com/ghosts/dlc/dlc1-onslaught to http://www.callofduty.com/ghosts/dlc/dlc1-onslaught

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and Creation

Why isn't there any information on the character's concept and creation as well as the people who played as Myers?--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that this article should be reevaluated based on the absence of the above mentioned information.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-evaluated for what? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the character's development should be in its own section, instead of being placed into the characterization section. Information on each of the individual actors portraying the character is absent from the article while some has been regulated to the characterization section. This article should cover the COMPLETE scope of the character such as their development by different directors/writers, and the individuals who have portrayed the character. A Concept and creation section is necessary to to give a much needed bridge between the appearances section and the characterization section. This Concept and creation section should include sub-sections character's creation/development and later writers/directors development of the character, as well as information on each of the actors that have portrayed the character (Men Behind the Mask sub-section). Since this information is scarcely non-existing in this article, that makes it incomplete and therefore not GA status no matter how well written it is (it's great on that front). This might sound like a complete bashing on the editors part, but this is not the case, so I'm sorry that it sounds like that. My intention is to have this article be the best that it can be and, in order for it to be that way, it must be fully developed. I did create a separate userspace for the purpose of creating and adding the above mention information. A lot of this information can be added via copy edits from each of the film's in the series since they have more than enough info on the character that fits with the information liste3d above. I did start a little bit on that so we do have a head start in a way.--Paleface Jack 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the names of the sections are largely irrelevant. The reason Jason has all those is because I had a ton of information and that was how I chose to organize it. This page doesn't have that much information. It isn't like people are restricting it from being added either. Additionally, GA status is not "complete". Please review what GA means. The requirements are "broad coverage". This isn't a featured article because it doesn't have enough information to justify that status, but GA mean it is broad in its coverage and that is clearly the case here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and Creation sections

As I have stated in the above mentioned section, this article is missing a large portion of information on the character's concept and creation which needs to be added to the article. A good portion of this information can be found in the articles on the different films in the series. I have created a userspace in order to add these pieces of information separately before putting them into this article. Anyone willing to work on this would be fine by me. Here's the link to the page: User:Paleface Jack/Michael Myers (Halloween)/Concept and creation--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayals in the infobox

Per WP:INFOBOX, an infobox is supposed to give a concise overview of key points made in the article. Who portayed the character when is pretty key for a character article. This is also common with most other character articles I know, such as Freddy Krueger (of course that article uses years, which might be a less clutter-heavy solution). A reader searching for this page might epexct to quickly find out who played Myers in the movie they just watched, and that without reading the entire text. Lordtobi (✉) 06:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of people that have portrayed the character and how many films there are, I would say that it is unnecessary information. We literally have the films and the actors right next to the infobox. So, you're looking at the same information next to each other. You don't need it. When an actor portrayed a character is not "key to the article". Who portrayed them is, but the rest is context and context goes into the body of the article. There is no reason to clutter the box with years or films. Also, just because other articles are doing something doesn't mean we should be doing it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Krueger has been played by two actors so that probably isn't a very good comparison. A better one would be Jason Voorhees where the actors names are listed just like in this one without needing to list every film. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason used to have them in, but they were removed during the FAC. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Myers (Halloween). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170928103108/http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/killers/ to http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/killers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article misreads movie monster study

As an FYI, the discussion in the "Characterization" section of a 2005 Media Psychology Lab study misreads that study. The study asked respondents to identify their favorite movie monster and then asked respondents who chose a particular monster why they liked that monster. So, the study did not ask respondents to compare monsters to one another beyond identifying a favorite, but rather sought to discovery the reasons for a monster's popularity among fans of that monster. This is why the N varies in table 7/page 22; for Michael Meyers, N=37, meaning that 37 respondents identified him as their favorite monster, and the data that follows is specific to those 37 respondents. The study doesn't show, contra the wiki article, that respondents found Michael Meyers to be the most evil of all the monsters, but rather that Michael Meyers' evil is a bigger reason for his popularity among his fans than it is for other monsters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.70.90.232 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Michael Myers Halloween 2018.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the page

Petition to update the picture to the most recent version of Michael Myers. The current picture feels dated, and isn’t the best quality to say the least. Irongsass (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to petition to update a page, and we also don't update images just because a new movie comes out. The reason this picture was used over prior images was because it was a clean, full shot of the character. The quality is actually pretty good (all images have size restrictions). If you have an equivalent shot, then it shouldn't be a problem. Most of the images of Michael from the first films are too dark to see anything other than his mask, which is why this one was chosen (because it isn't a still from the film itself, but a behind the scenes promotional photo that was released). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this

Jesus this admin doesn't read. "and cameos in a film within the film within a film Stab 8 in the 2022 film Scream, portrayed by co-director Matt Bettinelli-Olpin.[51]" This isn't important and should be removed, Myers didn't appear and it was only sourced as Reddit. 2001:4455:364:A800:4D1D:F130:9788:992E (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it that hard to explain it here? Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by a questionable user who constantly adding Reddit as a source [1]. Was it that hard to read? 2001:4455:364:A800:4D1D:F130:9788:992E (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the mask should be probably remove as it was sourced on a youtuber with only 4k subscriber/documentary [2]. thoughts on primary contributer Bignole? 2001:4455:364:A800:4D1D:F130:9788:992E (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than have a chaotic cleanup from multiple directions, please list what you think should be removed and why, and it can be done in one go. This article tends to attract LTAs (which is why it's on my watchlist) and the cumulative damage should be repaired cleanly and by consensus. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the sad part was this is a GA article, but I think I'm done anyway. I'll leave it to a primary contributor on what he does. 2001:4455:364:A800:4D1D:F130:9788:992E (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could help out, and not use unhelpful edit summaries like "invalid info". I am surprised to see an "in popular culture" section in a GA, and in my view the whole section ought to be nuked, but that should be by consensus. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things get added a lot that probably shouldn't be here. The Stab thing sounds like indiscriminate information, so it should go. Reddit isn't considered a reliable source either. As for YouTube, it's been accepted (much as I don't like it) as a reliable source if said source is an official channel connected to the subject matter. That said, YouTube isn't actually what is being referenced here. The documentary Halloween: Unmasked is being referenced, and youtube is being used to show the clip from the documentary as assistance for verifying the stated content. Technically, you don't need the link, but in this case it's probably fine because it's not the source, merely a bridge to the source so you don't have to go watch the entire documentary to find that statement. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction: "Wallace"

Paragraph two: "Since Castle, Moran, and Wallace put the mask on in the original film..." There has been no mention of anyone called 'Wallace' before this sentence. Either 'Wallace' should be removed from this sentence, or it should be clearly defined who this is in this sentence (First and last name, and optionally their role in the film) AfroThundaah (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Tommy Lee Wallace, one of the production people. It was hardly a portrayal, so much as it was a time constraint and they needed someone in the mask for the scene. Just removed it because it implies the same level as Moran and Castle. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Myers" or "Michael Audrey Myers"

should we keep it as Michael Myers or should we change it too Michael Audrey Myers

(Feel free to discuss this, if it should change or not; my more experienced peers.) Abdullah raji (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not real. Fictional characters are listed by their common names. The fact that a movie gave him a middle name is irrelevant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Abdullah raji (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]