# Talk:Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

Go to e-bay, type in search "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers Producer's Cut", you're left with nothing except some results but link to pages but you will find the Producer's Cut. Click the 4 items one and go to the last one (the one that says Halloween ORGIN of MIchael Myers producers cut RARE oop).

The 'Fan Reaction' section of this article mentions that the character of Dr Wynn returns from the first film. However, the first mention of Dr Wynn that I can see is in the 'Trivia' section of this article. He's not even mentioned in the plot synopsis!  I've never seenany of the films, but if anyone who has could amend the relevant articles, they'd all make a lot more sense. 145.8.174.134 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a hide/show option for the latter part of the article that tends to ramble on about the various cuts, edits, versions, etc that the casual wiki reader most likely gets lost in. I fully agree with the suggestions to merge those latter sections into one. 174.228.3.228 (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I say keep it because the producer's cut is much more different than the theatrical cut, and there is a producer's cut article for the second Halloween movie, which was not as different from the final print as this one was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jstxanothrxstory (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Merge it.  Halloween II: The Producer's Cut is an actual encyclopedic article. Not simply an overly-detailed rehash of the entire plot: see WP:WAF. 82.9.30.76 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge the current Producers cut article as a section if possible. -GTAGeek123! "Peace"! 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I say keep it. It has seen gotten more articles on it and is starting to become a more encyclopediac-influenced article.
Merge - If the Director's Cut of better films like Aliens, or Kingdom Heaven haven't gotten a separate article, why this one? Thief12 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep it. It is almost an entirly different film. Not just a few added scenes like with most directors cuts. 76.221.223.250 17:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep As with Halloween II: The Producer's Cut, this is very different from the theatrical release and the article is actually LONGER than the main Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers article!  Put them both together, and people would probably be sticking a {toolong} tag on it.  Isn't merging of this type usually done with very short or overlapping articles?  Indium 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In the trivia section, it says that you can only see Michael's eyes in one scene, however, in at least one other scene it seems you can see his eyes (when he kills Barry Simms). Has anybody else noticed this, because I don't want to delete that bit without other people to back this up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.174.50 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 

      I disagree with the assertion that the audience is never told who the father of Jamie's baby is. I've watched this film several times now, and I've always thought it made it pretty apparent that Michael himself was the father, not only at the time of her forced impregnation ("Don't hurt me, Michael"), but later in the film when confronted by Michael, someone, though I can't remember who at the moment (I'll have to re-watch the film as its been a while since I've seen it), makes a comment to the effect of "It's your baby, isn't it, Michael?"
      Now granted the version I've seen is the Director's Cut and not the theatrical release, so I'm unsure if those two scenes are in both versions (not an easy film to find, let alone twice), but it is still certainly noteworthy in my opinion.
      I'll comment further when I've had a chance to re-watch the movie (the next day or two). -HamatoKameko (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. 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/20160304225223/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/halloween-vi-the-curse-of-michael-myers/dp/6155783 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/DVD/halloween-vi-the-curse-of-michael-myers/dp/6155783
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) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Drown Soda (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Will begin review in due time. Jon698 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Start review below @Drown Soda: Jon698 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I have made some comments on the sourcing down below @Drown Soda: Jon698 (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

After the film's home media release, the original workprint of the film, which featured 45 minutes of alternative footage and a different ending, was discovered by fans of the series. This version, dubbed the Producer's Cut, developed a cult following, with bootleg DVD copies sold on eBay and online petitions targeting for an official release of it.[9] In September 2014, the Producer's Cut received its first official home media release by Scream Factory as part of a Blu-ray box set of the Halloween series.[10] -> This is sourced information in the lede that is not found in the body. Could you move this to the body of the article and summarize it in the lede?
Six years after escaping the Haddonfield police station -> "Six years after escaping Haddonfield's police station"
not long after the producers entered a series of complicated legal battles ensued which -> Remove "ensued"
Spiegel was unenthusiastic about Phil Rosenberg's screenplay and ultimately departed the project. -> This statement is unsourced
Patrick would ultimately quit the project in May 1994 -> Remove would
He also theorized that by making Laurie Michael's literal sister -> Reword to "He also theorized that by making Laurie the literal sister of Michael" for readability.
According to Farrands, there were around ten different drafts of his script between June 1994 and the October 1994 film shoot -> Remove the first 1994
Donald Pleasence returned to play Dr. Loomis -> Change "Dr. Loomis" to "Samuel Loomis"
This is a reference on Carpenter's initial choice for role of Dr. Loomis during film making of Halloween from 1978 where he was offered that role, but declined due to low pay, only to regret it in later years. -> Change "where he was offered that role" to "where Lee was offered that role"
passing on of the "Curse of Thorn" to the Dr. Loomis character -> Change to just be "passing on of the "Curse of Thorn" to Loomis"
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers earned $7,308,529 during its opening weekend, coming in second to serial killer thriller Seven, being the first film in the series to be on par with Halloween II's opening weekend gross (both Halloween 4 and 5 had earned under $7 million). -> Break this up into two sentences "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers earned $7,308,529 during its opening weekend, coming in second to serial killer thriller Seven. It was the first film in the series to be on par with Halloween II's opening weekend gross as both Halloween 4 and 5 had earned under $7 million."
@Drown Soda: I have finished my review of the prose. Jon698 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jon698: I think I have addressed all of your prose concerns noted above. Thank you again, and let me know if anything was missed. --Drown Soda (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. You have answered my comments on the prose. I will get around to the source review soon. Jon698 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

There are 139 references in the article. I will conduct a review of 25 references, representing 18% of the total. Jon698 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you add information from these SlashFilm and Bloody Disgusting to the article?
Source 1 does list Nightfall Productions as the production company.
I do not see anything in source 99 for "Meanwhile, online petitions from fans targeted an official release of it."
Source 11 does cover Daniel Farrands' selection as writer
I find source 12 to be insufficient. The interviewer is simply listed as "H6 FAN" and seems to be a fan website. The article would be fine with this information removed.  Fixed
I was initially hesitant about the Biff Bam Pop source, mainly due to its name and appearance, but it does have an editor-in-chief and writers published by actual book companies. Source 13 does cover Farrands' creation of a series bible
Source 17 is from a legitimate source. However, some of the information is not properly conveyed. "Fleder recommended screenwriter Phil Rosenberg, who became the first writer hired for the project." is not representative of the article, which simply states that Rosenberg wrote his draft before Farrands. Fleder is also not mentioned in the article. The title, contents of the draft, and Akkad's dislike of the draft are within the article.  Fixed
Source 18 covers the Halloween 666 title and its contents, Spiegel's response to Rosenberg's screenplay, and Spiegel leaving the project.
Source 19 does not seem good. Almost everything on the main page was written by the same person. However, the information covered by this source can be found in other sources. You can use 20 to help cover "Tarantino ultimately declined the offer, but suggested Evil Dead II co-writer Scott Spiegel as a potential director." and "Miramax then approached Quentin Tarantino, who had recently completed Pulp Fiction (1994) for the studio." can be covered by [20].  Fixed
Sources 21 and 22 have to be removed. WhatCulture is a generally unreliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and [22] appears to be a fan site. However, the text "Though a screenplay was never completed" can be covered by source [20] like above.  Fixed
Source 32 is not allowed. Not only is it an admitted fan site, but it is also a Geocities site. The section it sources might be cited through something more reliable online.
Source 61 does cover the start of filming in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I was initial concerned by source 64, but the writer is an established figure who has contributed to Blu-ray releases.
Source 71 has to be removed. All of the articles on the site were written by the same guy and it seems to be a fansite.
Source 83 does imply a release date of September 29 in Canada
Source 92 is from Birth.Movies.Death. and covers how long it took for the producer's cut to be released. You could use this source to further explain the differences between the two versions.
Source 95 is from a proper magazine. It covers the bootleg copies of the producer's cut and the petition to release it.
I don't find source 99 to be all that trustworthy. The information it covers isn't really important either so it would not be a major blow to the article to have it removed.
Source 96 does cover the first theatrical showing of the producers' cut and Farrands being present. It does not mention there being a Q&A so I removed it.
Source 97 is from Fangoria, a respected horror magazine, does cover the showing of the film at the New Beverly Cinema.
Source 100 does give a release date of September 10, 1996 for the home media release.
Source 121 is a proper accounting of the negative LA Times review
Source 124 is from a large magazine and properly quotes it.
Source 9 does cover Scream Factory's release
Source 4 does cover the $5 million budget and is from a site that was praised by Roger Ebert.
Source 137 does cover the Chaos! Comics version and Farrands contributing to the writing.
@Jon698: thank you. I think I have addressed your bolded points of concern above. Specifically regarding bullet point 6, I consolidated the book source from McMullins and Neil, which covers Fleder's involvement and Spiegel's initial hiring as screenwriter. I also excised the sources you noted as being unreliable/extraneous; most of these were just supplementary sources that, as you indicated, support material that is covered by more reliable ones. I also added information from the /Film source about Farrands's initial followup pitch to the film with Laurie Strode appearing as the villain, which was never made and instead became Halloween H20: 20 Years Later. If it appears I have missed anything, do let me know. --Drown Soda (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Drown Soda: I have made some more comments. These will probably be the last of my "negative" comments requesting removals. A cursory view of the other sources show no problems. I still have another 18 sources to look through. Jon698 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Drown Soda: I am done with my sourcing review. Just answer the few issues I have above and this will be passed. Jon698 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Jon698: noted--I think I have addressed them and excised/rephrased to eliminate the questionable sources. Thank you! –Drown Soda (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
All of my suggestions and comments have been met. I will be passing this article in a minute. Jon698 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
After conducting my review of the prose, I can find no errors. Drown Soda has answered all of my comments and concerns in a timely and adequate manner.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Everything is cited and there is no original research. All of the poor or low-quality citations were removed or replaced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
This article covers the plot, production, release, and legacy of the film. Everything that should be in a film article is covered in this article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No neutrality problems.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
There are five images in the article.  Halloween6cover.JPG is a fair use upload to Wikipedia that is low-resolution and is properly used in the infobox.  Mark of Thorn.svg is a simple design and is based on the Thurisaz rune. Image is used to visually show the Mark of Thorn used in film.  Donald Pleasence Allan Warren edit.jpg is a featured picture and properly licensed per ticket #2010022810019781.  Paul Rudd 2 SDCC 2014.jpg is a properly licensed image from Flickr.  Queen of Angels Hospitals (Western Hospital Review, 1928).png is a photograph taken in 1928 and is thus in the public domain. Reshoots were done at this hospital.
Overall: Pass
Pass/Fail: 
I can find no issues with this article that is preventing it from becoming a GA. This troubled Halloween sequel is up to the standards of a GA. Congratulations to Drown Soda for their work on this article.