H5 should’ve been Dr. Loomis’ final film
By - ButIAmYourDaughter
There was one version of Halloween 6 where Loomis has only a brief appearance...as a patient in a mental hospital. He gives Tommy a figurine that comes in handy later on in the movie.
But that's it. You never hear from Loomis again.
Never knew that.
If Loomis to have such a small role in H6, it really should just be his murder. Michael shows up to his house, Loomis knows he’s there, he gives one last speech, and accepts his fate.
Or blows up his pre-rigged house in one last attempt to slow evil down, because damn, that’s Loomis too 😂.
Losing Loomis that way would be tough, especially if they killed off Jamie too (tho, in this script, Jamie is also barely mentioned, and rather just shown living in a cage somewhere briefly).
There was an addition H6 script written before Daniel Farrands was brought on board and Loomis plays a much more substantial role than he did in Curse or the script I mentioned above. That script was a bit kooky, tho, as it settled not on a cult but Michael hearing voices to kill from a portal to another dimension in the Myers House.
Good grief was this production just off the rails.
Just feels like it was destined to be a mess.
But then again I don’t have the most positive view of the Akkad’s creative sensibilities.
Maaaan, 5 was a perfect way to go out. At that point, I believe the idea was to imply his death in the event that Donald wasn't around for a follow-up. That shot of him falling on Michael and losing consciousness is just a perfect, perfect ending for the character.
But I loved how much he loved the series, and I don't know that I would have wanted to lose him entirely in Part 6. Yes, he's lost a lot of his fire, and, sadly, his best scenes are in the wackier cut of the film (how anyone in their right mind cut the "Michael Myers \*is\* my business." line out of the theatrical version is beyond me), but, dammit, I love Dr. Loomis, and the character deserves to be there for the movie where we finally learn the secret of Michael's power.
In some way, I find the idea that he was able to move on from the Michael business for at least a few years to be a little comforting. And I do appreciate, from a story perspective, the idea that it ultimately draws him back in. There's a resigned sense of acceptance in that "I have a little business to tend to.." moment at the end, and I think it's sort of appropriate that the theatrical cut more or less implies that Michael finally dispatches of him once he goes in.
But, you're not wrong. He is obligatory, and Donald is clearly not up for the task. Still, though, I'll take any bit of Pleasence in Halloween that I can get. There's still a big, big void in the Halloween movies for me since he's been gone.
I adore him as an actor overall and as Loomis. He’s one of my favorite parts of any franchise.
This is all hindsight. Because back in the 90s I would’ve been pissed if Loomis was left out of H6.
But I also wasn’t aware, before seeing H6, that DP was so obviously struggling. And also never imagined that any Halloween creative team would ultimately see the character as pointless.
Only looking back can I actually appreciate the ending he got in H5, and for all that that team got wrong, commend them for actually writing a fitting end for him.
Get what you’re saying but if they had Loomis die in H5 then we would’ve never got to see DP share a screen with Paul Rudd and that’s something H6 really has going for it
I disagree. Loomis felt a bit out of character in H5. Just a bit. But H6 brought him back to being the Loomis we all knew and loved, even if it was only effectively a bit-part. I was happy to have him in H6.
Why do you think he’s out of character?
Loomis’ character progression from 1-5 is probably the most consistent thing going for this franchise. He becomes increasingly more erratic with each failed attempt to stop Micheal.
If H5 was a direct sequel to Halloween, I’d agree. But as it stands he seems perfectly in character in 5 because we saw exactly how he arrived there when watching the previous 3 entries.
Here’s a better way of putting it - would you have wanted the HR version of Laurie to be what she was like in her final appearance? Probably not.
Of all the many issues I have with Resurrection, the characterization of Laurie isn’t one of them. It’s one of the only things that makes sense about the movie.
So while I don’t agree with the actual way the death scene is handled, Laurie as a weary, fearless, unhinged (or seemingly so), institutionalized mental patient I have no problem with it.
In fact HR would’ve been a better film if we got to spend as much time with that Laurie as Michael’s nemesis as Loomis got in H5.
Well hell, I guess we disagree again. Interesting position to put Laurie in narratively but flat and dull characterisation.
Interesting position to put Loomis in narratively but way over the top and occasionally unintentionally hilarious characterisation.
Also it’s worth stating at this point (though I stand by the fact that his inclusion is thematically relevant and he ties the cast together in H6) something can be worth having just because it’s entertaining and Loomis is very much that in all of his appearances. There’s no reason to bring Myers back in each film but we’re not complaining about that. Same thing with Laurie. Their narratives end in almost every film and continue in almost every sequel. I don’t love the idea that films/games/etc. are expected by some fandoms to justify every part of themselves under some sort of magnifying glass or else. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing but I am saying that had they not included Loomis for that sort of reasoning and left it at H5 you’d just have fans complaining to this day that they gave Loomis a crap final showing for pretentious reasoning.
(By the way and I’m am joking here, just in case the tone doesn’t come across through text, what is next in your campaign against H6? Because if you want one we can agree on you could always go for the inclusion of Danny and/or the neglecting Lindsey. Or most especially the fact that Wynn dresses up in the ridiculous MiB get up for no reason at all whilst everyone else just goes full robes and daggers.)
I’ve said before that I would be perfectly fine if Halloween never had a single follow up. So yeah, not a single Halloween sequel is necessary or improves on the original (IMO).
Sometimes a character is just fun/interesting to have around, even if they don’t have a huge effect on the narrative.
I mean honestly Loomis’ narrative relevance arguably ends with his death in HII. Still glad he was brought back though.
I don’t find Loomis entertaining in H6.
I still don’t get the point of Danny and Steven both existing. One or the other as a setup for a future Shape, sure.
I still contend to this day that Tina really should’ve been Lindsey. It makes perfect sense because we already established in H4 that she’s close with Rachel and actually met Jamie.
Early versions of H5 did feature Lindsey as Rachel’s friend in the film.
To each their own for the vast majority of everything else you said. And my point was that the narratives of all these characters are finished in almost every film, how is H2 any different than H1, H4, 5 or 6? They all offer endings for Loomis. Same thing with Laurie in 1, 2, H20, HR and H18. Same thing for Myers in every film other than H5. I think that’s a ridiculous complaint to have that a character people want to see who is at that point the main reoccurring character, should just not show up because all of a sudden we want to retain one of our many endings.
I don’t believe in bringing characters back just because.
I think Loomis just has a MUCH better off ramp in H5. It’s a stronger ending for the character.
Laurie has a MUCH better off ramp in H20. I never wanted to see her again.
Rachel has a MUCH better off ramp in H4. Either give her a better death in 5 or write her out completely.
Halloween has a long history of diminishing returns when it comes to it’s main returning characters.
I made this post about Loomis, and gave my reasons why. I could easily make one about Jamie, Laurie, Rachel and Michael.
See, and obviously you’re entitled to your own views but, I just dislike this attitude in general personally and it’s absolutely everywhere in this fandom.
The ‘they should have ended it’ attitude.
What difference does it make? Why prevent something potentially great from existing just because you assume it would be worse.
Sure, they could have made up a new character instead of using Loomis/Laurie/whoever. But that doesn’t really change anything either it just means people don’t see characters they like.
The hammer Dracula series replaced Van Helsing in Prince of Darkness and nobody remembers that character because nobody cared about them. Speaking of which Brides of Dracula is an amazing film but nobody gives a toss about Baron Meinster they wanted Dracula.
Why bother bringing Myers back? We know from H1 and the Charlie comment that other people have been similar cases to Myers, so there’s no reason to bring him back. And it goes on and on until you reach ‘why make a sequel at all’.
Oh I don’t know, aside from obvious economic reasons it could be because people want to see one. Because people want to see something and they are after all paying to see it. Or because there is still potential to work with or reinvention that would only hit with an already established element.
And I don’t buy the ‘it’s art why ruin the artistic vision’ crap either because A. no sequel actually changes a previous work that would be called magic and is impossible and B. none of these films or in fact the vast majority of so called classics are untouchable masterpieces or anything close to it.
I apologise for what is definitely an unwarranted rant on my part but I honestly think that is really pretentious.
I don’t see the point of the rant.
Nobody has to like every single movie released in every franchise. People will always disagree with the creative directions taken by their favorite franchises.
Doesn’t change anything at all. People are literally just giving their opinions. The movies all still exist.
For example there are a lot of diehard Halloween fans who wish H20 didn’t exist. They hate everything about it and will always resent it not being a direct sequel to H6. They argue that it shouldn’t exist.
I disagree, but who cares? It won’t change the existence of that movie.
There are people who only see the franchise as the original Halloween and think the rest are trash. Some feel that way about everything after II.
I don’t get why you’re SO bothered by people not being into the existence of every single piece of crap somebody decides to label “Halloween”.
None of us have the power to “prevent” anything.
Loomis served no real purpose in either cut of Halloween 6, to be honest. And his character evolved, or devolved, from the first film as this heroic psychiatrist to this somewhat deranged man obsessed with taking his prey down, no matter who gets hurt in the process. So his character concluding in Halloween 5 using Jamie as bait makes absolute sense to me.
In Halloween 6, Tommy overhears Jamie on the radio, he finds the bus station she called from, finds baby Stephen in the bathroom, takes the baby to a hospital but gets pressured to leave by hospital security, and then brings the baby back to the house of Mrs Blankenship, who is already involved with the cult. So naturally the cult doesn’t have to look far at all when searching for this baby. Loomis doesn’t need to be involved at all. He contributes next to nothing.
Yeah, it’s obvious that the higher ups on H6 had no use left for either Loomis or Jamie.
H6 is the first entry where Loomis feels completely obligatory. The writing just isn’t there. Which is a stark contrast since Loomis was consistently the best written character in the 1-6 timeline.
And Donald was just too ill at that point to give the kind of performance that would’ve helped bring more life to that dead writing.
I’ve heard people say that about his acting in the film but honestly the character is old and the character doesn’t feel up to doing all that again. I never thought the performance kept out as noticeably impacted by DP’s situation, at least not in a way that didn’t work for the character in the film. H5 is dangerously close to being the equivalent of H18 Laurie for Loomis albeit to a far lesser degree. It’s the same thing as when people say Paul Rudd was bad as Tommy, sure he had very wooden moments particularly at the start but his performance also made sense for the state that character was written to be in. I guess people just wanted H2-4 Loomis again? Loomis in H6 feels closer to the H1 version in personality than any other version imo, much less explosive and much more clearly upset whilst having just a tiny bit more of a spark of personality (he had that in H2 and 4 but it’s often overshadowed by the shouting). Just my opinion though.
My heart sank when I saw H6 in theaters the first time and Loomis shows up. It was heartbreaking to watch for me.
Donald looked and sounded ill to me. Which makes sense because he was ill. He would go into heart surgery shortly after he finished shooting H6 and eventually die from its complications.
And it wasn’t really explained by age alone. Donald was in his mid 70s. Old, but not *that* old. I mean Donald was 70 when H5 came out. And obviously in better health. We’d seen Loomis old. What we saw in H6 wasn’t just Loomis old.
The decline between 5 and 6 is, IMO, stark.
Yeah it is but I just meant that on it’s own regardless of real world context I don’t think it jumps out as not working in the film, it does very much feel right for how he is written imo. Must just be me I guess though I really think that the performance matches the character. I think perhaps it’s a bit harsh that your heart sank when you saw him but that’s entirely my perspective, I personally think that would be somewhat extreme. But I guess if either you’re expecting H4/5 Loomis or you’re actively considering DP’s death it makes more sense. I really don’t see it as a problem within the film though.
I’m not sure how having an emotional reaction to an obviously sick actor, whose work I loved, is “harsh”. That was my visceral gut reaction.
The writing doesn’t suggest that Loomis has slowed down for health reasons. He’s retired, but Dr. Wynn has long term plans for him and his involvement in the “organization”. It’s rather jarring because obviously the frail, ill man before him isn’t remotely up to that task.
The writing is just so flat for Loomis. Of course it is, the movie is so sliced up and the script was being rewritten on the fly.
He does get more in the PCut. But I actually think that version highlights DP’s frailty more.
I would’ve loved to see Farrand’s full vision for Loomis. But obviously that didn’t happen. And even if it did, Donald just sadly wasn’t in the shape to play the full out Loomis that Farrand obviously wanted to write for him.
Oh I agree about Wynn wanting Loomis back that’s ridiculous (although it is more that Wynn wants to substitute himself with Loomis to get away but still his ‘come back to work’ thing is ridiculous).
And yeah ok Loomis isn’t written to be frail outright but he is written to be tired, wanting to live quietly and alone and as being aware that he can’t manage alone. I still think the performance matches the character in this film.
Maybe harsh wasn’t the right word, I guess I just don’t see it as a problem or as particularly noteworthy within the film itself, I definitely didn’t feel bad in any way when he came on screen for the first time, it sucks that he wasn’t well and that he died so soon afterwards but I don’t find it hard to separate that fact from what I see on film just as I don’t find it hard to separate DP in real life from Loomis on film. Again clearly it’s just me but that’s my honest perspective.
(Also I really don’t think the writing is flat for him)
I honestly don’t think the writing for Loomis, such as it is, is intended to suggest he’s tired or weary.
The opening just finds him retired. He’s writing a manuscript. He’s ready to move on from Michael and his career.
But after the phone call from Jamie, he’s instantly pulled right back in. He’s at Smith’s Grove, wanting access to all of Michael’s files. He’s bouncing all over the place, investigating. He pops over to the Strode house to give another one of his “pure evil” speeches. Later he pulls a gun out on Wynn. He also gets knocked out but recovers quickly.
While I find the writing for Loomis in H6 to be flat and tired, I don’t gather that we were meant to see the character that way.
Intended is different from ‘works just fine’ and like I say I personally don’t see the problem but to each their own
Well as much as I think there’s some nice symmetry in H5, ultimately it’s quite cynical and I do think a bit over the top - I’m not happy that we’re losing JLC Laurie for good in such a ridiculous version as the H18 version either (though granted there’s the slimmest chance they can tone it way down for Ends). In any case Loomis might not achieve anything in H6 but he is absolutely central to the core theme of the film and is the most centralised member of the cast - the cult are essentially a parody of smiths grove and what having Myers there has done to them, they are a fearing progressively superstitious group grasping at straws in some desperate attempt to stop and control Myers. The town of Haddonfield is doing much the same with its ban of Halloween and influence over its younger members (could be argued that links to Danny though frankly I think Danny is more or less pointless), Tommy is very much in a similar position to Loomis but it’s the younger Loomis who was trying to figure Myers out and who never could (again despite the insanity of the PC every cut other cut is explicit that Thorn is just a theory and not accurate, even the PC suggests this though granted with much more wiggle room), so Tommy is on a bit of a downwards spiral from one perspective, the Strodes are obviously relating directly back to Laurie and her friends (their lack of control is somewhat awkwardly shown through John Strode moving them there and all that which tbh is a bit less organic but hey) so Loomis is ‘from’ Smiths Grove, would be the first to go from there to Haddonfield and is actually known to the town, has the parallel to Tommy and the sense of responsibility towards the would be victims. So with all that in consideration, and also noting that he was the main reoccurring protagonist at this point - and the only one left with any real relationship to Jamie so the only one who would really have anything to say about her death, it makes sense to include him. His entire narrative has been about trying and failing to control whatever Myers is and to stop it, he almost lost it totally in the last film doing that, here he provides a full circle with him finally moving past it and finally deciding enough is enough before being dragged back in (and whilst Wynn’s reasoning is ridiculous it makes way more sense for Wynn to want to substitute Loomis and escape than it would for him to try that with literally anyone else in the main cast). So Loomis does what he always does and what everyone else in this film is doing, he tries to stop Myers and he fails. We get some sort of closure with the cult being killed off and Tommy Kara and Danny getting away however has Loomis not been there they’d really have had to kill Kara, Loomis’ staying behind (especially with the scream in most versions of that ending though even with just the mark of thorn transfer which whilst ridiculous still has some narrative symmetry to it) brings into focus the core theme of the film just at the end, to a character the audience actually gives a damn about and goes straight back to that ending in H1 with Myers disappearing into the night yet ever present and the fates of the cast left up in the air. Granted all of this could have been done better but hey his fall into insanity in H5 could have been done better to, also the H5 version is imo less interesting and somewhat more predictable whilst the H6 versions is very sympathetic and in a much more interesting narrative position (though I love the idea of the relationship between Loomis and Jamie in H5 not enough is done with it imo).
Long ramble aside, I don’t think Loomis is pointless in H6 because I think he brings all the pieces together more naturally than Tommy could have alone and he provides the core ideas and theme of the film a clear climax and ending which as it turned out was definitely a good thing since H7 never got made. Is it H20 Laurie strong for a character arc? Well in terms of focus and fanfare of course not. But I think especially when views with the previous 5 films in mind, it’s just as well developed and for what it’s worth a lot more individual than simply fighting back. I think that H6’s version of Loomis is also a far better representation of the character than H5’s and DP clearly didn’t want to do what he was being given in H5 trying to shift the focus somewhat at times with his performance - that’s not really a good thing and whilst fun the sheer over the top insanity is only just justified narratively and would have been a sad way to see the character go imo, yet without the sense that it was sad by design as in H6.
You put waaaaay more thought into this movie than the people who were actually paid to do it.
Ultimately Loomis is underwritten, obligatory, and sadly being played by a beloved actor who just isn’t up for the task anymore.
The only real significance he has to the plot of H6 is some cult/Thorn business that was mostly cut out of the theatrical version, and ultimately a set up for a H7 that would never be made, for a character whose portrayer unfortunately wasn’t going to be alive to follow through on it.
Well yeah, I mean Farrands has talked a little about the idea of controlling evil being the point of the film and the TC outright has Tommy tell the audience that it’s impossible and highlights the idea and the rest of the cuts still have it talked about on the radio and through the cult so it’s not like I’ve pulled this from thin air. But yeah obviously I’ve put more thought into it in much the same way people have put more thought into H1 than Carpenter and co ever did, doesn’t mean it’s not accurate. Everything I’ve said is in the film and clearly much of it was intentionally done. I don’t think he’s underwritten and I don’t think a character needs to be chewing the scenery to have significance nor do I think they need to actively impact the plot (especially when the whole idea is that they can’t, that’s arguably been true all along). I mean is Loomis pointless in H1? His only purpose there is to give fuel to the fire that Myers isn’t human. Laurie could have saved herself narratively and it would be fine. Is Laurie pointless in H2? She’s only there to be a target. But these characters do add to the films they are in and without them the films would be lesser. Loomis in H6 has a lot more going on than Loomis in H1, so I really don’t agree with you on this one.
Of course the PC ending sort of screws things up as H7 never happened and the TC does too little with DP’s screen time but what I’ve typed is still presented in some form and all of the (far superior) cuts, again especially the tv cut, give Loomis (and everyone else) a much more complete picture. I’ve never argued that H6 wasn’t butchered in the editing room, it absolutely was. But these cuts do exist and the tv cut was officially released, it’s not like you can’t watch a more complete version of H6 than the TC or PC.
There’s really no comparison between Loomis in H1 and H6.
Loomis sells the mythology of Michael in Halloween. Donald excels at adding gravitas, depth and sanity to a character that a lesser actor would’ve chewed to overacting Hell. He sells The Shape as much as the chilling score does. He’s *brilliant* in Halloween. Every choice measured, deliberate. And he’s aided by a good director and a solid script.
The degree to which Loomis superficially kinda resembles H1 Loomis doesn’t feel purposed. It just feels deflated.
Ask yourself, if DP shot that same script in 1988 or 89, can you honestly say we would’ve gotten the same performance?
Well obviously not and that changes my point how? Different doesn’t = bad or pointless. And I was comparing the two because I was arguing that Loomis isn’t better off leaving in H5 and that his role narratively is not one of change and massive impact in h1 or 6, lauries isn’t in 2 but that this doesn’t make their additions pointless.
I’ll be honest I disagree about the ‘deflated’ thing and find it a bit sad that you think that simply because he was older and more frail.
Him being older has nothing to do with it. It’s odd that you see it what way when I already said DP isn’t *that* old in H6 and I don’t think the issues have anything to do with age. Again, he’s already basically 70 in H5 and I’m arguing in favor of his work in that.
Loomis, to me, is deflated in H6. Deflated in significance, deflated in writing, and yes, deflated in performance.
It is sad. But the facts are that DP was ill, and the character wasn’t suppose to be. And I feel like you’re chiding me for mentioning the obvious.
No I simply disagree and think that it’s a bit sad that you see it that way. Just my honest perspective but like we always each to their own.