Connect with us


Ultimate ‘Halloween’ Fan Film is Canon With Original Timeline

Halloween Resurrection

What if Dimension Films never bailed on Halloween original timeline and allowed Rob Zombie to remake John Carpenter’s classic? We would have a sequel to Halloween: Resurrection (2002), which would complete a new trilogy that started with Halloween: H20 (1998).

Kohl V. Bladen and Jeffrey J. Moore co-wrote and will co-direct Halloween: The Night Evil Died, a new fan-film that will feature original Michael Myers, Tony Moran, returning once again as The Shape (he played the unmasked Michael in the original film).

The fan-made sequel follows the events of Halloween Resurrection (where Busta Rhymes burned Michael in a fire), Emma (Emily Lanelle) and her friends take a road trip to Haddonfield to meet her Great Grandmother Pamela Strode (Juli Erickson). Michael returns to put the Myers and Strode family names to rest.

Even with a failed IGG campaign, the film is allegedly cast up and filming soon. They’re even working on Michael’s new mask in an update as early as yesterday!

It’s unclear if the film is financed, what the budget is, or how long it will be, but it looks like Bladen and Moore are determined to get this behind cameras some time this year.

Halloween: The Night Evil Died opens on the same night of Halloween: Resurrection. Michael wakes up in the morgue and kills the Coroner, before disappearing for fifteen years. The film jumps from 2002 to present day where we meet Emma Tate (John Tate’s Daughter), who recently moved in with her best friend (Carlie Hill) following the death of her father after a battle with cancer. Being sheltered her whole life and being lied to for her own protection, Emma turns to an online ancestry site to see if she has any living relatives and to find out about her past.

Emma discovers that she has a Great-Grandmother (Pamela Strode) who is still alive in Haddonfield, Illinois. From there she takes a road trip with some friends to meet her Great-Grandmother and to find out truths about her past. Unfortunately she finds out that she is related to Michael Myers and that she has been in danger since birth, and at high risk of a family reunion ever since. Has Emma come to Haddonfield to die? Will this be the end of the Myers’ family bloodline?

We’ll update you on any progress as this looks like a super fun project that we really hope happens.




  • john

    Um, the entire premise of this article is wrong.

    The “original” timeline was 1 – 6. 1, 2, 7 (H20), 8 (Ressurection) is the first ALTERNATE timeline and was the first to ignore films. Then the re-boot which is an alternate universe.

    I mean, come on… we all know this.

    • John Connor

      No, its one timeline.

      • john

        You’re implying Laurie just faked her death, left her daughter and never saw her again? Also, that even though the police at the beginning of H20 said Michael hadn’t been seen in 20 years that H4, H5 and H6 happened?

        Um, no.

        • John Connor

          As for Laurie in H20. She has this conversation with her son that says everything:

          “Dad would let me go.”

          “Well, “Dad” is an abusive chain-smoking methadone addict.”

          “And who would attract someone like that?”


          “And just think, he left you. ”

          Laurie Strode is anything but “pure”. Or is that Kerri Tate? Or Cynthia Myers?

          She had a very messed up past post-Halloween 1978. To get involved with someone like that and they later left her… do you have any idea how messed up Laurie had to have been to be left by an abusive addict?

          And this is just the info given from H20 alone.

          Shortly after 1978, Laurie conceived Jamie who was born around 1980. Laurie had to have been a complete wreck of a person. She had just found out that her life was a lie, her supernatural psycho brother that is pure evil tried to kill her, and she has no idea who she is. She likely got on the booze and probably drugs, especially if she would get involved with a drug addict and if she wanted to forget the absolute batshit insanity that is her life at this point.

          Jamie and John very likely had different fathers and were always separate from each other. Laurie likely slept around or at least cheated on Mr. Lloyd with John’s father, if she was even with him. Shortly after having Jamie, she conceived John. Laurie is 20 years old by the time she has John.

          I don’t see Laurie as really being in any solid relationships at this point if she was sleeping around and drinking (and drugging).

          It’s possible that Laurie got John taken from her by his father or his father’s parents due to her wreckless ways. She may have even had Jamie taken from her by Mr. Lloyd into his custody. Laurie was very likely an unfit parent.

          Laurie may have sought therapy and tried to get better or appear better. She gets back with Mr. Lloyd and gets to claim Jamie back. Laurie’s still messed up though and has fears of her brother coming after her.

          Does she know Michael is still alive? She believes him to be, but does she know that Wynn and his people are keeping him alive in a comatose state?

          Perhaps Dr. Loomis gets back in touch with Laurie to reveal to her that Michael is being kept alive. This scares Laurie so much and pushes her back to her delusional state shortly after that night in 1978.

          November of 1987, Laurie and Mr. Lloyd are in a car crash, likely killing Mr. Lloyd. Laurie takes this opportunity to fake her death and start anew somewhere else. She knows she will always be a target as long as Michael is out there. Everyone would be safer if Laurie was dead.

          Perhaps Dr. Loomis helps Laurie leave and agrees to watch over and protect Jamie from afar as she stays with a trusted family. He’ll be keeping a close eye on Michael in the meantime.

          Laurie likely instantly regrets this action, but she figures that Jamie is safer if she is nowhere near her and is believed to be dead. This is her one clean escape.

          11 months later, October of 1988, when Michael is being transferred, they (Wynn’s people) are sure not to notify Dr. Loomis. Michael causes the ambulance to wreck into a river and escapes. But as far as anyone knows, Michael is a burnt vegetable that was taken by the river.

          Chaos ensues as Dr. Loomis does is damnest to protect Jamie, but ultimately fails a year later.

          Laurie, meanwhile, far away with her new identity hears about Jamie’s disappearance and goes into a complete downward spiral. She goes back to her abusive lover, John’s father, and is able to claim John again. She will never let anything happen to John after what happened to Jamie. She is a new person with a new life and a new purpose despite still being an alcoholic paranoid crazy on a cabinet full of pills. On the surface she is Kerri Tate and will live to protect her son. Underneath, she is Laurie Strode and will live to protect her son.

          What’s more plausible?:

          a cult of people using a folktale, a ghost, to spook people into thinking that said spook is killing a bunch of people (when they are really doing the killings in said spook’s name)


          an evil unstoppable force that’s like a ghost because it can’t be killed actually murdering tons of people

          No sane person is going to believe it was the unstoppable force/ghost of a dead murderer, thus all those killings are attributed to the cult they found in H6. That is why only the murder events of 1978 are attributed to Michael Myers in H20.

          • john

            Nice copy and paste.

            Congratulations. You’re the only person in the world who can’t understand this.

            You can have theories all you want to make this feel like one timeline to YOU. That’s fine. Whatever you need to feel warm and fuzzy. You’re flat out wrong when it comes to reality though.

            See mental patient Harold in Halloween Resurrection. Funny how the movies in question always leave out any reference to evidence you’d need to be proven correct. But, I’m sure that’s just coincidence.

          • John Connor

            I’m not wrong. The reality is that there are 8 Halloween movies that are in the same universe.

            Harold is a mental patient that doesn’t get the facts right. His number of victims for the events he recounts are way off. He’s merely spouting off a loose and erroneous account of what the current newspapers are reporting.

            H20 mentions that Loomis lived and was tracking Michael down just like in Parts 4-6. If it was ignoring 4-6, why even bother to say Loomis lived after that explosion and fire in Part 2? Why have Laurie fake her death if it wasn’t for her “death” being mentioned in Part 4?

            The murders in 4-6 are attributed to the Thorn cult, not Michael. Why would anyone believe that Michael Myers did it after he died in 1978? It would be total conspiracy theory bullshit, just like Part 6 mentioned on the radio with everyone making fun of the idea of Michael Myers. That’s why only Dr. Loomis and Tommy Doyle took it seriously to go help Jamie at the train station. Dr. Wynn took the fall for the murders.

            Remember when Michael escapes in Part 4 and the detective or paramedic was saying how it would be impossible for him to swim in the river or walk (after the ambulance crashed) because of his severe burns. Dr. Loomis says something like ‘You’re talking about him as if he were a human being!”

            To think Michael did the killings in 4-6 would be to believe in the supernatural. Only crazy people (besides the very few involved) would think that Michael did all those things.

          • john

            You have extrapolated your own timeline. Whatever makes you feel good.

            Must drive you nuts that nearly everyone understands H20 is a retcon.

            You seem very invested in making this one incredibly convoluted and, frankly, illogical continuity in your brain. I’m not going to waste my time.

  • Andrew Lyall

    Someone tell him what canon means ffs

  • THGrimm

    Interesting. I’m excited for them! Go indie filmmaking!!

    • john

      *FAN* filmmaking.

      Indie people have standards and actual control over the property they’re making. They want people to actually see their movie and have a shot at doing something else.

      This is fans having fun. All well and good. But don’t sully the name “indie” with this stuff.

      • THGrimm

        As an active member of the Cleveland indie community, I would argue that it’s still “indie” as it is still independent filmmaking; you’re just splitting hairs. Sure, fan films are limited due to copyrights and what not, but to say they don’t have standards is wrong; that’s by the individual. You still “have a shot at doing something else” if you do a fan film. If it’s done well, it looks good on your resume. I know a blossoming filmmaker who created a Legend of Zelda fan film called Legacy.

        Anyways, I don’t get how it sullies indie filmmaking. Enjoy your day.

        • john

          It’s not a legitimate piece of professional work without the rights. Period.

          It can be well done. It can MAYBE grab attention– though I’d ask for examples of those who actually lept from fan films to legit marketable filmmaking– but it’ll never be a legitimate piece of professional work. By definition it can’t be.

          And having worked in Hollywood for 12 years now… a fan film on a resume will be seen as “cute” and possibly laughable.

          Will be interested to see what becomes of the “blossoming filmmaker” you know.

          Sorry. I know too many people who have worked their butts of trying to get financing or distribution for scripts/films they actually own to entertain the idea that, “Ah, I can make a Halloween film and it’s legit.” No, it isn’t.

          Go to a real pitch meeting with a script or property you don’t own. We’ll see if they care how much you’re “blossoming.”

          • Daniel Mercer

            You didn’t have to come off so harsh.

          • john

            Maybe you’re just too sensitive. Harsh? Have you seen the rest of the internet? If this was “harsh” to you then really, it’s your problem.

            I spoke facts. I didn’t insult anyone with name calling or hyperbolic emotion.

            A fan film is just that– a fan film. If someone can’t stand to read that then they’re the one with the chip on their shoulder.

            Seriously, I’m open to you telling me what exactly was out of line but I’m not going to accept factual, reasoned and true statements as examples.

          • Daniel Mercer

            So what if I am? Re-read your own post and look closely. I won’t point out your own post for you.

          • john

            “So what if I am?”

            Well, if you are then that would mean I wasn’t harsh.

            “I won’t point out your own post for you.”

            Got it. So, you have nothing.

          • Daniel Mercer

            Your last post sentence came off as dickish. Especially the way you said:

            “Go to a real pitch meeting with a script or property you don’t own. We’ll see If they care how much you’re ‘blossoming.'”

            That is what came off rude.

          • john

            A) Thought you weren’t going to “point out your own post for you.”
            B) One sentence? That’s all you got? One sentence raised you ire so much your first post ever had to be a criticism of it?
            C) “That is what came off rude.” — “Came off” puts the responsibility on your ears, friend– well, in this case, eyes. There is literally nothing untrue in that sentence. Not to mention, “blossoming” is a QUOTE. There is nothing outlandish in there. There are no names being called there.

            Unlike YOU who has all ready said I come off as “dickish.”

            And I’m the one being “harsh”? Your obliviousness is astounding.

            First, grow a set. Second, learn to stop being so sensitive and how to parse out what are simply the facts of an argument you don’t like and what’s a harsh insult. Third, when you’re criticizing someone else’s words and behavior, maybe don’t resort to name calling when the person you’re criticizing hasn’t done so.

            I mean, I don’t give an F about what you called me but YOU should based off this little crusade you started.

            No way you’re not involved in the making of this fan film and don’t like it being labeled exactly what it is.

            Miss those parts where I said it’s “all well and good” and “fans having fun” and “can be well done”? Seriously, HUGE chip on your shoulder about all this. Not to mention, you clearly recognize you were being too sensitive but also don’t want to turn back now.

            Again, grow a set. The rest of the internet will eat you alive. I mean, if those posts are “harsh” then I can’t imagine the saccharine sweet, resistance free life you must lead.

            And after all this, if you feel like you’re being picked at and lectured– realize YOU lectured me.

          • Dave Proteus

            Hmmm… The entire dynamic of Fanfilms have changed, my friend. Many fanfilms have spawned not only successful careers for those who make them (have you ever heard of a show reel? Even fanfilms can help filmmakers get jobs) i.e. The makers of Batman: Dead End or Star Wars: Duality…

            They can be made as way for already established filmmakers to honor an existing property, like Star Trek: The Continuing Voyages or the upcoming Star Trek Axanar, Both not only made by already established filmmakers, but with the cooperation of writers, producers and even stars involved with Star Trek.

            Or they can be used as a proof of concept. Let’s not forget that DEADPOOL started as a fanfilm, and though you may try to argue that, it’s exactly what it was.

            Yes, there are also fan produced films that are just a bunch of kids having fun, but you seemed to jump up and talk alot without understanding that fanfilms aren’t what they used to be anymore.

            Oh, and as for that whole “Indie people have standards” rhetoric? Indie films are no more sophisticated or revolutionary than any other film style. How appropriate that you’re on a horror website, a movie genre that was born of and thrives in Indie culture, and I can point you to roughly 200 horror films that were produced by people with no standards at all. It’s this holier than thou B.S. film snobbery that “sullies” the name “Indie”. Fan films are the very DEFINITION of “Indie”

          • Niles Danish

            I feel pretension.

          • john

            You “feel.”

          • Tiger Quinn

            I’m just going to block you. You sound like you huff paint.

          • THGrimm

            I definitely get that it’s not necessarily worthwhile to put so much into an established property as opposed to making something original if you’re trying to make it.

      • dredgXIX

        lol what a douche…

  • Dan

    Isn’t this kind of the plot line for Halloween 4 & 5? I’m all for a new Halloween film, just saying…..

  • Nicolas Caiveau

    Uh no, it cannot be canon, if it’s a fan film. It can be awesome, it sounds actually promising, but it’s not canon.

  • ForskinCutter

    Burning hot mess of turd

  • Sykes

    Can’t wait to see the 60 year-old Michael Myers doing his thing. 😉

  • Halloween_Vic

    The poster is terrible but I’m looking forward to this atleast someone is actually making a new Halloween film lol, considering we have nothing updated on an actual film.

  • Niles Danish

    I’d give it a watch. I mean, fan film making in a lot of regards is great. People who have a passion for the property.

  • Mark B

    I’ll watch it for sure. Even a fan-made movie of Michael is better than no Michael. Hopefully they can deliver something quality.

  • silentevil77

    I’ll definitely give it a shot

  • Ryan

    Fan films in the Halloween genre are (by and large) garbage. This is because it’s mostly kids playing around in their backyards. However, this film looks like it has potential. A Halloween fan film that blew my mind was Halloween The Night He Came Back. The production value was insane, cinematography incredible, and their Michael Myers was the best since Nick Castle in my opinion. They even shot in Pasadena. Here’s the trailer.

    A lot of fan films are used to hone skills and pay tribute to a franchise. If you have real filmmakers doing them, they can pretty special.

  • milton del fabro


More in Indie