Talk:Halloween (2007)

Gun control rant

Is the little rant as part of description on the article really necessary or appropriate?--Jackie.45Cal 05:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is an obvious FLAW and considering that we are a firearms in films site, we should at least be cognizant of the times when a script presents a falsehood to the viewing public. Why do YOU have a problem with it? MoviePropMaster2008 05:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with it as it is obviously politically motivated. Many people place comment about inaccuracies relating to stance or weapon safety that have been deleted and considered inappropriate (Like the one suggested below by kornflakes89) that have absolutely no validity under this one. I have no problem with the suggested politics or the interpretation of the situation, but it is political. If the film itself had suggestion about the lack of firearms safety, I can see this site having a place for it directly in the article, but it makes none. Specific Politics aside; is expressing ones politics, with no provocation, in a main article, an appropriate action for a Database site? Surely the Discussion page would be more appropriate.--Jackie.45Cal 18:29, 12 April 2011 (CDT)

While this is on the topic of something being necessary, is the comment about the scene where the cop shouts "freeze!" shoots one time, then gets killed, being annoying necessary? As the cop is obviously scared to the point where he's wouldn't be thinking straight enough to fire more then once. -kornflakes89

Section to be determined

An anonymous user wrote:

Remington 870

When Michael (Tyler Mane) tries to escape a police man tries to shoot him with a shotgun only to hit his fellow officer.

What scene was this? MPM2008

Two versions of this movie are on DVD. The theatrical version shows Michael being escorted by armed guards, only to break away and slaughter most of them. This is the scene where the Remington comes into play. The Uncut version (which, surprisingly, is the more widely available version and the one it sounds like you have) omits this scene entirely and instead had Michael break out after two sadistic orderlies enter his room and taunt him while raping a female inmate, which of course leads to Michael predictably bashing their skulls in. --Clutch 06:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that entire rape scene was so ridiculous. It stretched the limits of believability. These morons were raping a girl in Michael's Bed, right in front of Michael Myers, while he was wearing his mask and these bozos taunting him right into his face. It made no sense. That's about as smart as poking a sleeping lion with a sharp stick...... MoviePropMaster2008 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not unbelievable and certainly not funny. Insanitarium inmates were many times raped and abused by orderlys and security. And the two guards don't see Michael as a threat and they don't know of his past or capabilities. To them he's just a big dumb insane guy.72.186.190.189

Yo. User:72.186.190.189 (a) Yes it is unbelievable and stupid. Don't confuse real inmate abuse with the idiocy of this over the top scene. and (b) Don't edit my comments so it looks like I said what YOU said. Watch where you insert your opinion. It's misleading to edit it so that it looks like I said YOUR comments. MoviePropMaster2008 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch the movie with Rob Zombies commentary, he clearly says that this kind of thing does happen more often then people would like to think. -kornflakes89

Sections to be added

The firearms identified in the first Remington 11 picture need to be split into separate sections, I would do it myself but I am short on time right now.-RedJedRevolver

shooting scene

In the empty pool scene, where dr. Loomis shoots thrice at Michael, two or three steps behind the villain there's Laurie, so, if that was real, the .357 bullets would strike her or not?

it's a movie , it's not real ....

it's a movie, he was firing blanks ....

No seriously, if Loomis had hollow points there would not be a lot of through and through penetration risk. MoviePropMaster2008 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If he were firng HP's, Michael would only have had 2/3 of a head-S&Wshooter 01:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nay, Michael Myers is bullet proof just like Jason Voorhees ;) LOL. I've always wondered how these 'guys' always shrugged off gunshots that would have obliterated a 'normal person'..... 01:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I daresay another explanation: the gunstore clerk saw Loomis hurriedly buying a pistol and thought he want to rob a bank, so gave him rubber bullets. In the same scene, the clerk says ".22 Smith & Wesson" "just pisses off" people, but I think its effect should be a little more effective.

Yeah but the store clerk is oblivious to the fact that Loomis is going after a human, he suspects like a normal person he would be hunting large game.

WTF? Uh, no. Why would he be looking at a revolver for LARGE GAME? Duh. It's obvious he's buying the revolver for defensive aka 'human' purposes. MPM2008

Well the term .22 Smith & Wesson is the gun dealer's quick description of the .22 LR Smith & Wesson Revolver aka Model 617. But a .22 LR would NOT DO MUCH to a very large perp with a mental disorder. Especially Michael Myers, who would shoot him with a .22 and expect him to stop his attack? For a novice shooter who will be facing an imminent threat, than a .357 (probably loaded with .38 +P) is a good choice. When Loomis wants to upgrade he just changes the ammo to the hottest .357 wad cutters on the market. MoviePropMaster2008 08:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then he wouldn't sell him the gun.-protoAuthor 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, in a scene there is a girl, Lynda, who sees Sheriff Brackett approaching with his car and says, ironically, "Oh no, 5-0". I don't know slang, what it means?

You don't know what the street term "Five Oh" means? It's ghetto/gansta talk for "The police" 75.36.153.132 03:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Magic. Also, the movies would be boring if some guy just doubletapped them halfway through their killing spree-S&Wshooter 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the most ridiculous thing was how the revolver fell on three empty chambers at the end of the movie. I believe Loomis already fired three shots, so he only loaded half the cylinder? I understand that sometimes mistakes are made during production, but this one was just too deliberate and idiotic for me.--Mauser 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the gun store dealer thought Loomis was a dork, so he sold him surplus ammo that had a 50% failure rate! ;) LOL! 75.36.153.132 03:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You know I just watched this scene again, and from what it looks like, Loomis was shooting at an angle, doesn't look like much, but it might have been enough to make a difference in whether or not a through and through shot would've hit her. -kornflakes89

Two Things About the Gunshop Scene

When the clerk spins the cylinder on the Python, it clicks. I always thought the Python spun silently. Am I wrong?

Also, the clerk may have indeed thought that Loomis was hunting. He says "Piss IT off" "Blows ITS fuckin' head off." If he knew it was for defense, he probably would have said "their." Also, he says "What are you hunting?" Of course, the clerk may have simply been patronizing him. I'm not sure. -SasquatchJim

- Could be either. I wouldn't look too much into it myself. As for the clicking sound, movies often show revolvers making the clicking/ratcheting sound when the cylinder is spun open/unlatched from the gun even though being open gives it nothing to ratchet against. It's a common mistake that applies to pretty much all revolvers in films. StanTheMan 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yeah. I thought so. I saw it in a few other movies (namely Death Sentence) and was just curious. Thanks. Also, I watched the scene again, and it sounded sorta like the clerk was being sarcastic. Dunno.SasquatchJim

The store clerk was definitely being sarcastic. Loomis is a BRITISH dude, wearing professional clothes and a trenchcoat. He doesn't look like a HUNTER at all. No one would assume he is buying for pistol hunting. Clerks make those types of comments just to see what the customer says, usually to use "animals" metaphorically for any target they are talking about. Of course, the "It" comment could be a scriptwriter's metaphor for Meyers who is arguably something other than human. MoviePropMaster2008

Yeah, that makes more sense. Which does bring up a point: If an angry, nervous man who knew little to nothing about guns came into your shop looking to buy the biggest magnum revolver he could find, and was eager to get the transaction over with, would you sell it to him? I wouldn't LOL. Of course, the clerk did convince Loomis to buy a $1400 handgun, so he may have just wanted to make a profit. -SJ

But also Loomis didn't look like some sort of gang banger or nut job. He looked like a highly educated British professional. Though he may be a gun 'virgin', his entire appearance screams "money" versus "crime". :) MoviePropMaster2008 15:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -SJ

Just realized something ironic, MPM. You said Loomis doesn't look like a nut job. That's true, but Malcom McDowell's (arguably) most famous role was a complete psychopath, Alex DeLarge. Just thought it was funny. -SJ