Talk:Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

Untitled

I moved this to the correct title. --Myles Long 21:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was NOT a paramedic in this movie!

{spoiler} I changed the references to "Halloween: Resurrection" in the description of this film because I don't feel it's appropriate. I think that when discussing the plot of each film individually, we shouldn't use the retcon established in the following sequel. In the plot of Halloween: H20, it is definitely supposed to be Michael that Laurie decapitates at the end of the film, and not a paramedic. That idea was established to allow for another sequel after the success of Halloween: H20. VertigoXpress 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to start an edit war over this, but it is not logical to have an encyclopedia page on a film and take into consideration it's sequels when discussing the plot, especially when the plot device in the sequel is a retcon. Look up that word and maybe you'll see what I'm saying here. When Halloween: H20 was made, they absolutely did not intend that guy in the mask at the end to be a paramedic, it was intended to be Michael Myers. The paramedic gag was made up by the script writer of Halloween: Resurrection. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. VertigoXpress 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be noted in the page though for it plain and simply wasn't Michael. SOADLuver 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't Michael...in Halloween: Resurrection. In this film, it was Michael. The script of Halloween: H20 makes no mention of the switch referred to in "Resurrection", so when discussing the plot of this film you have to take it on its own terms. I'm not against mentioning somewhere else in the article that the sequel established a retcon about it NOT being Michael at the end. However, the actual plot of the film shouldn't contain references to the sequel, especially since in this case, the idea of it being a paramedic in Michael's clothes and mask was an afterthought. Can we compromise and put it in the continuity section? Wanna write it? VertigoXpress 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I added the info myself just to show you what I meant. If you want to edit it, go ahead. VertigoXpress 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm satisfied thank you for being reasonable. SOADLuver 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed quote

Someone thankfully just removed this before I could, quoted here for public amusement:

"KMBC-TV called it quote "Sensational......., Smart and Non-Stop Scary......, Jamie Lee Curtis Truimpt Return....., and Finally a Sequel.......related/base/lives up to the original!!!!!."

If an American TV station actually had English that bad ("related/base/lives"??), I wouldn't consider them or their opinions a reliable source of anything. Not that that's even remotely likely. Indium 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Body Count

I just saw the movie, and I'm pretty sure that seven people die. The two teenagers, the old woman, the teenage guy, his girlfriend, Laurie's boyfriend, and M.M. So I replaced 6 with 7, and unless it's proven otherwise, I suggest that we keep it that way.Italian Robot 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Paragraph

Is it just me or are there way, way too many punctual errors/disgusting sentences in the plot summary? Maybe it could read:

"The movie features the return of Laurie Strode, Curtis's character from the first two Halloween films (revealed to be living under the assumed name "Keri Tate"). As Tate, Laurie has a seemingly perfect life with an intelligent son, a dedicated boyfriend, and a great career as a head mistress at a private boarding school in Northern California. She continues to be haunted by the tragic events of 1978, however, and is far from happy. To everyone else this is "just another Halloween," but Laurie Strode will never see the holiday the same way.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the events of 1978, her psychotic brother and serial killer Michael Myers appears and starts killing off her co-workers and students one by one. For the first time in two decades they meet again. Laurie manages to escape, but instead of fleeing she returns to the school to challenge Michael in a fight to the death. She finds him and attempts to kill him several times. She finally pushes him off a balcony to his apparent death, a resolution similar to the first film.

The police arrive at the scene and put Michael's corpse in an ambulance in a body bag. Laurie steals the ambulance, unaware that Michael is still alive in the back. He escapes the body bag and again attempts to kill her. She slams on the brakes, sending him smashing through the windshield onto the dark road. She then tries unsuccessfully to run him over. The vehicle violently tumbles down a steep hill. When it comes to rest Laurie is uninjured while Michael is trapped between the ambulance and a fallen tree. He reaches out to her. She reaches for his hand but pulls back, remembering everything he's done to her and her friends. In a moment of justice and ultimate resolution she beheads him with an axe. Michael's severed head rolls down the hill." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.155.39 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading through it, and thought it was ridiculous that she would be living with a decapitated boyfriend. I think your version is definetly better suited to that section. --Repner1 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename the article

Shouldn't this article be renamed Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later (Instead of 20 years later)? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

There is a lot of missing citations and information in this article that needs to be added to it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done DrStrauss talk 18:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later → Halloween H2O: Twenty Years Later – The film is called Halloween H2O: Twenty Years Later, the real and proper title. Based of the film's poster itself and it's H2O not H20 as the title refers. 175.144.126.35 (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC).

Based on the American Copywrite office, it was titled "Halloween H20: 20 years later. The poster does say otherwise: here as you suggested however. I'm a little torn, but I'm leaning towards the "20" as even the intro in the films opening credits says 20 Years Later.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support move, The title is confusing, between H2O (with the letters H and O along with the number 2 in the middle and meaning for water) and H20 (with the letter H and the number twenty), the H2O one works better along with the subtitle replaced the number with the word as a real title. 115.135.77.81 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have struck this vote as obvious ballot stuffing by the IP editor who began the discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Most reliable sources have it as H20 with a zero, not H2O with the letter O. As for the 20/Twenty in the subtitle, I honestly have no idea.  ONR  (talk)  01:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No case to answer. Sources support the current title. Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup and Expansion

This article is poorly written and sourced, and requires significant attention. The article contains information that isn't formatted properly and needs to be rewritten so that it's properly formatted to Wikipiedia's standards. The "Continuity" section is one such section which is composed of bullet points rather than a well written paragraph and should be rewritten and added to the production section as it pertains to the film's production in a sense. The "Reception" section is way too short and requires significant expansion, with more reviews from notable critics to be added to it. There is also information in the article that is unsourced and either needs to be removed or given proper citations when necessary. This article, like all articles, has potential but it just needs a little work on it in order for it to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)