Micheal Myers....

[Franklin Stein]

I have a question....after the 3rd halloween...why did they eve bother bringing him back? They absolutely ruined the franchise with that flick,.....I admire micheal, for being the first. But it was freddy and jason that stood their ground after the 3rd.... We didn't get some weird story that didn't involve either of them...You all have to admit, if halloween 3 were halloween 4 then then it would be the father of all slashers kicking all undead ass...
because of 3, that;s why we don't want to see meyers....]
not to mention that the new halloweens have gotten so lame that I haven't even seen the last one...
And, I don't really care for pinhead as well, he was never really a driving point to the story, he just came out when ya fucked with the cube or whatever...never really scary... the hellraiser series really took a bad turn after the 3rd....
Well, I guess if ya wan't characters that that were strongest in their 2nd and 3rd rounds...well, I guess a Micheal/pinhead battle would be obvious... can't wait to pass it by when it hits video!!!!
Stay dead,
Gabe

[Charlie Brigden]

Well, after the ninety minutes of hatred that was Halloween II, Season of the Witch was an agreeable change of direction for me. It wasn't a great movie, but wasn't nearly as bad as the second film, and if that had been more successful maybe we wouldn't have had the slew of crap that followed, starting with The Revenge of Michael Myers. Or The Return, I can never remember. Either way, the franchise has been ruined.

[Franklin Stein]

either way you look at it, it's a lost franchise that keeps creating crap.
Ya have ta give carpenter the props though for his continous love of horror...
I am still saddened that jason v freddy didn't have cunninham or craven involved...It woulda be so cool!!!!!!

Fett:
Well, after the ninety minutes of hatred that was Halloween II, Season of the Witch was an agreeable change of direction for me. It wasn't a great movie, but wasn't nearly as bad as the second film, and if that had been more successful maybe we wouldn't have had the slew of crap that followed, starting with The Revenge of Michael Myers. Or The Return, I can never remember. Either way, the franchise has been ruined.

[thedudeabides]

I think Halloween III Season of the Witchwas a great idea. It was a good story, and a pretty nifty little movie. Sure, it was Myersless and I think that's why it gets such a short shift, but it is a really good stand alone movie.

Y'see, Carpenter originally planned on having a yearly or every 2 year Halloween movie released that would be a stand alone movie. A separate movie that was under the "Halloween" banner, but not straight sequels to Halloween/Halloween 2. No more Michael.

I think the concert could have worked, but the movie going audience was not ready for a Halloween "sequel" without Michael Myers.

It's funny, that the same audience that hates sequels because they are the same stories as the first was responsible for killing the idea- they were given a Halloween movie that was a new, fresh departure from a slasher movie and the audience stayed away in droves.

Halloween III gets such a short change, but if it's looked at as a separate movie, and the bias of it being a "Halloween Sequel" was overlooked, then maybe it can be appreciated for the good film that it is.

I, for one, wonder what kind of Halloween "sequels" we could have had if this idea had worked.

[JoNNy Toe-Tags]

As much of a Jason-man that I am, I can't help but loathe the Fifth installement with a passion, it's very much a Season-of-the-Witch syndrome, ol' Machete man ain't even in it. The series totally went a different direction after that, introducing the albeit still cool Zombie Jason.

But I agree that Halloween 3 soured me on the rest of the Shape's misadventures.

[Dr. Vitus Werdegast]

I love Halloween three and it was actually the first DVD I bought way back when. I agree with the Dude on this issue. First of all, ignore my love for Halloween 3:Season of the Witch itself and imagine a film series called Halloween which came out every year or two ON HALLOWEEN that was a different stand alone horror film each time somehow connected with our favorite holiday. And if it worked, John Carpenter would probably still have something to do with it in one way or another every time. Even if you didn't like one, you'd always have next Halloween to look forward to (and when was the last time you really, really looked forward to another Halloween movie...or Friday the 13th...or Hellraiser, etc)

[Doug]

Season of the Witch didn't ruin the series. Carpenter knew there was no where else to go with it, but the studios wanted more (money). So he crafts a good idea for a horror series of original stories and puts it under the Halloween title to get the funding. It flops.
Years later, Halloween 4 comes out and proves what Carpenter already knew- the series was dead.
So don't blame Season of the Witch. The continuing adventures of Michael Myers would have sucked with or without Tom Atkins.

[Lord Malice]

hmm Halloween 4 did well from what I remember and proved that Myers was still a cool Character. To bad it didn't carry over to the last two crap fest.

[Ashxking2001]

The Halloween is the worst horror franchise ever. lest ignore the last movie and rewrite history as we see fit

[Michael Rabattino]

It's not Micheal, it's Michael.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[Greg Hansen]

Ashxking2001:
The Halloween is the worst horror franchise ever. lest ignore the last movie and rewrite history as we see fitOh really? Worse than, say, the 'Subspecies' or 'The Amityville Horror' franchises?

Methinks you should reconsider your position...

[Lord Malice]

Halloween is a pretty solid series ..the last two were bad..and part three doesn't belong.

But the first and fourth are great films. The second one is a good entry, 5th is pretty solid and 6th has its ups and downs, but it does have its entertaining moments and its the last with Loomis who is missed badly from the last two.

It was not Laurie Strode that this series ever needed back..it was Loomis. Until they find a way to replace his presence in future films they will always be lacking.

This is a solid series being crapped on by the last two films. There are certainly worse movie series out there..Leprechaun anyone?

[Mr. Fat]

Originally posted by thedudeabides:

"they were given a Halloween movie that was a new, fresh departure from a slasher movie and the audience stayed away in droves."

Whoa, whoa, whoa... I can understand the love for Halloween III. It's quirky, it's different, it's a change of pace... but it is not a good movie. And that is the reason people stayed away from it.

(***SPOILERS AND SUCH***)The lead character was an unlikable, alcoholic adulterer, the relationship between the the two lead characters was rather unbelievable. She just had a thing for overweight older drunks? The explaination for what/why they were doing what they were doing was ridiculous. And no one noticed that they stole Stonehenge? And that ending... One phone call can get you the person in charge of ALL the TV stations in the country? I think they were underestimating peoples intelligence there. Combine that with the fact that the movie is set on the west coast, and you think, "Boy. Tons of kids are dead all over the country already. Great timing, pal!"(***END SPOILERS***)

Overall, it was a bad movie combined with what was becoming a franchise name.

[Captain Blake 31]

Mr. Fat, do you like "Phantasm", the "Evil Dead" series, "Suspiria", "Videodrome" or any of Larry Cohen, Argento or Lucio Fulci's films?

The reason I ask is because all these films work for me, regardless of similar lapses in logic...actually, in some ways I love them for their blatant disregard of reality. Not saying I like it anytime a filmmaker gets condescending and tries to pull one over on the audience, but in these cases I think it works on the basis of nightmare logic.

"Halloween III" is a dark fantasy; I also think of it as the blackest sort of satire, played straight (making it all the more effective in my book; realistic or not, that ending literally raises my hackles it's so damned ghoulish.)

And I definitely think the level of hate directed at this movie at the time of it's release was a direct result of peoples sense of betrayal. I can see why many wouldn't like it, regardless, but the fact that The Shape wasn't in it was a big factor in all the bashing.

And Tom Atkins rules.

[Mr. Fat]

Yes, I do enjoy those films, but I think you're giving Halloween III a bit to much credit. Had it run along with a wink and a nod, and cut out the 'R' elements, this would probably be regarded as a bit of a classic. A 'PG' seasonal favorite. But by playing it straight, it comes off as ridiculous.

Part of movie watching is suspending disbelief. Movies like Evil Dead, Phantasm, etc. give you good reasons to. H3, however, pummels you over the head from the beginning with unbelievable set ups, and does not have any sort of payoff - emotionally, plotwise or otherwise - to keep you suspending your disbelief.

Bear in mind, I do not hate this movie. Like I said, it's quirky. It a fun bit of B-movie goodness. But it is not a good movie. If ya' know what I mean.

"And Tom Atkins rules.Sure does.

[thedudeabides]

I agree with you, Mr. Fat, that there are lapses in logic in HIII, but we have to suspend disbelief at some of it.

Part 3 was no more outlandish than Michael coming back in part 4 with the ability to see, despite the fact that both of his eyes were shot out, or the fact that Loomis shot Mikey 7 times from a 6 shit revolver in the first/beginning of part 2.

Movies ain't always like real life, but I do agree that every movie can have plot holes if you look hard enough.

As for Tom Atkin's character being an boozehound, well, Carpenter always liked to have anti-heros or flawed people be his "heros", so I guess Tom Atkin's character fits right in.

I still believe that people stayed away because it was a Halloween sequel without "the killer" first, and because people thought it was a weak story, second.

It's ironic, back in the 80's a movie series could have gotten away with the idea of taking the sereis in a completely new direction, but even back then the sheep that were the general movie going public couldn't handle it.

We have umpteen crappy Halloween movies now, because the average mall rat or John and Jane Q Public Movie Goer wants Michael Meyers back. The real fans of the series would probably, I say Probably, be happier without a new crappy Halloween.
It's better to have no movie, than to have a bad movie.

For the record, Halloween III is still my favorite. :D

[mrstiffie]

Again I agree with thedudeabides, I myself love Halloween III. It's a great stand alone movie. It'd evil and the concept is facinating. Kinda does the whole pop-culture-can-be-deadly thing similar to Jihatsu (Suicide) Circle. Kids get into a fad, what if the fad is bad for them (other than drugs and such.) I love it. And it had the Carpenter flair in terms of music and that cool fuzzy lens for the lighting. Because it followed the Myers storyline people tend to snub it. It should be re-released as just Season of the Witch.

Blair Witch 2 without the Blair Witch would have been great as a stand alone, and by that I am refering to the ending, which was evil. Maybe 'cause I've been saying for years "You can't trust film, but video you can" then it comes back to bite them in the ass. Now that's no longer true, but it was for a good while.

Did 4 ruin the franchise? No. The 6th one did.

[Lord Malice]

mrstiffie:

Did 4 ruin the franchise? No. The 6th one did.No, the death of Donald Pleasance sent the series down the tubes. Really if you look at the series and you pretend part 3 isn't really a Halloween film, you have one poor film (6), two great films (1+4,) and two solid/good films(2+5). The 6th came out poorly, but it could have been worked around.

Without Donald you are two bad films out of 2. They bring back Laurie, ignore the last three films (two of which are definately, imo, better films), they don't replace Loomis in any fashion, the result are bad films.

Laurie and Jaime were good victims for the series, but Michael AND Loomis were the driving forces of the films.

Its Good Vs Evil aka Loomis vs Michael, this was true from the original to the 6th film. Bringing back Laurie can not replace what you lose in Dr Loomis.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If they can't replace what Loomis brought to the films, the presence of the character and actor. Future Halloween films will always have a strike going against it.

[mrstiffie]

I agree, but Loomis could was never really a formidable force against Myers, he couldn't be (past 1). 5's ending, as I have said before, was booed at it's own opening. So they decided to redo it, which they should have, but with Plesence dead at that point, they just left it as him dying off screen, which wasn't any better.

What if Loomis had an offspring, complete with an accent?

[Lord Malice]

AS cheesy as some might find that to be, I could accept an offspring..or more likely a grandchild. YOu need that character (Loomis), or something like him imo for the films to have a shot.

Loomis wasn't a formidable matchup, no one really is against such a man. But he is driven much like Michael, he is part of what you expect from a Halloween film.

[ScannerDarkly]

I'd prefer if they just let this series finally die. In previous years I wished for one final battle that would end the series on an up note, and H20 seemed to attempt it (for all its flaws and it's ending being negated by the next film). But that made money so they continue to squeeze the last few drops out of this cash cow's withered teat. Seriously, it's long past time to stop this shit.

Regarding Halloween 3, I liked Carpenter's idea for the original-film-every-coupla-years-under-the-Halloween-moniker. As for 3 itself, for me it just has that weird '80s vibe with the creepy electronic score and especially the amazingly downbeat and fucked-up ending. I might not put it in my Top 10 of all time (or even the Top 50) but I'd certainly watch it again every few Octobers or so just to soak in that special '80s horror feel.

[thedudeabides]

A lot of people miss the Mobey Dick analogy in the Halloween series.

When the Loomis character was alive and kicking, he was the Cap'n Ahab chasing the great white (mask)whale that was Michael Meyers.

Just like the novel is about a man's obsession, the Halloween movies (Loomis ones) are about Loomis' obsession with stopping Michael.

The movies are about the killer killing the babysitter true, but the underlying theme is maddness and obsession. Loomis' has almost just as an unnatural obsession in Meyers, just like Michael has an obsession with killing his intended victims.

And just like the novel, these obsessions are on a collision course, destined to destroy one another. It is an outcome that someone will not live through.

And if you take H2O as scripture, Loomis took his obsession to his grave, forever haunted by it,or if you take Halloween 6 PRODUCER'S CUT as scripture, Loomis was consumed by his own obsession, forever a slave to it.

The underlying themes in the previous installments are pretty amazing.

[mrstiffie]

ScannerDarkly:
I'd prefer if they just let this series finally die. In previous years I wished for one final battle that would end the series on an up note, and H20 seemed to attempt it (for all its flaws and it's ending being negated by the next film). But that made money so they continue to squeeze the last few drops out of this cash cow's withered teat. Seriously, it's long past time to stop this shit.

Regarding Halloween 3, I liked Carpenter's idea for the original-film-every-coupla-years-under-the-Halloween-moniker. As for 3 itself, for me it just has that weird '80s vibe with the creepy electronic score and especially the amazingly downbeat and fucked-up ending. I might not put it in my Top 10 of all time (or even the Top 50) but I'd certainly watch it again every few Octobers or so just to soak in that special '80s horror feel.IMO there was one final battle; Halloween 2. Should have ended there.

I loved the concept of 3 and especially the 80's syntho music. That stuff was creepy. Plus it, along with a low bass-line, is/was Carpenter's trademark. You want to make the next scary movie? Shoot it on old film stock with old equipment from the 70's and use a cheesy syntho-score.

But I digress.

thedudeabides: You put the series in a whole new perspective for me with the Moby Dick analogy. Your explination makes the original ending to 6 make sense, but they didn't explain it like you, plus, we don't want to see Loomis lose in the end. That's why 2 rocked: Loomis won but was a victim to his obsession.

Plus they shot him in the eyes. Had the numerous people gunning for Jason did the same they'd have had a chance!

Edit: I just read a synopsis of the Producer's Cut. So Loomis is supposed to be the next Man in Black? Would that make him evil? It's been so long since I saw the original I forgot the whole Thorne thing.

[thedudeabides]

********SPOILERS BELOW**********
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Yup, Loomis has the Thorn symbol burned on his hand at the end of the Producer's Cut...

But I don't think he's the next Man in Black...because they show someone wearing Michael's shoes (the audience just knows it's Michael...let's just accept that) dressed as the Man in Black with the coat and hat.

If the movie logic is to be followed, then the Man in Black is keeper/ruler of Michael Meyers, and Meyers is slave to the Thorn.

Then...

Michael is now the new Man in Black and keeper of Loomis, who now is slave to Thorn.

This ending is a fitting end to the series if they wanted to end it on a downbeat note:

It would have shown that Loomis eventually BECAME what he devoted his life to stop. Loomis became the evil force that he always wanted to stop.

It would have been shocking and sad, and a grim way to end the series.

But alas...they had to continue the series, ignoring pretty much everything from the original.

[Scott Standridge]

Let me just say again that I want some of whatever the "H3 is a good stand-alone movie" people are smoking.

That movie may have been hurt by the fact that it was called Halloween and didn't have Myers, but the main reason it flopped (imo) is that it was a steaming pile. Silliness played absolutely straight just doesn't work for me in this. There were some good scenes (woman gets blasted in the mouth by the bug-death-ray, kid with the mask on his head gets "tested" on), but in the end it was a poor story, poorly executed. IMO, naturally.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention:

CLOCKWORK AUTOMATONS.

Which Full Moon did much, much better. :D

[Scott Standridge]

Forgot to say...

I love H and H2 as a unit. If the series had ended there, it would have been perfect, in my book. But again, I know I'm in a minority there.

[mrstiffie]

Scott you breaka my heart.

H3 is an awesome premise. The story is ingenius. Again, it played on the fad-with-underlying-evil that films these days try (Jihatsu Circle as I said) and it did it well. Exactly how they were able to do what they wanted to do was awesome, and actually creepy.

To top it off, it had the Carpenter flair to it. I smoke Black and Burley pipe tobacco, but I am afraid it will not give you the effect you desire, the effect to know what a great movie is!!

So let me get this straight: The man in black controled Myers? So everything Myers ever did was under his control, like a remote control robot? Like, the Thorne dude would think "Kill that chick there" and he'd do it? So why the obsession with Strode? Forgive me, I haven't seen it in a long time, and then I kept changing the channel.

While the dad in that movie goes down in history as one of the all time biggest pricks, I didn't like his death scene: too long. mrstiffie belives kill em quick.

[thedudeabides]

*****MORE SPOILERS BELOW******
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
mrstiffie:
So let me get this straight: The man in black controled Myers? So everything Myers ever did was under his control, like a remote control robot? Like, the Thorne dude would think "Kill that chick there" and he'd do it? So why the obsession with Strode? Forgive me, I haven't seen it in a long time, and then I kept changing the channel.
Michael was under the curse of Thorn, and he would have to kill everyone in his bloodline to give this cult of Thorn some sort of absolute power.

****SPOILER*****
This is the complete ending of the movie - the grand finale at almost seven minutes! No stabbing Michael with syringes and them beating him with a pipe...check this out. We are taken to the Thorn Cult room, where Kara is about to be sacrificed. Michael is standing there and is part of the cult. Wynn explains how Danny is to be the next Thorn child. Kara pleads to Michael to not sacrifice the baby. Tommy stops Wynn from continuing the ritual, and escapes with Kara, Danny, and the baby. Michael follows. An amazingly cool chase scene through the bright hospital halls, and Loomis appears to shoot out the locked door. Tommy stays behind to play with his "good" runes and perform a sacrifice of blood to cast a spell on Michael. Michael stops dead in his tracks and stands frozen. Tommy leaves and Wynn shows up and is heartbroken that Michael is seemingly shut down. Outside, Loomis says "I have a little business to attend to here" and we get to see what that REALLY MEANT. Loomis goes back inside to see Michael. He pulls off the mask to find Wynn, who has cast a spell on Loomis and Loomis has Thorn on his wrist now!

It turns out that Wynn's retirement from Smith's Grove is also a retirement from his position as Michael's caretaker, and in a scene laced with much magic and hokum, Wynn passes on his duties to Loomis and there you have it. The producer's cut also suggests that Michael has retired from the noble profession of serial killing.

This isn't really explained in the movie too well, like if Michael didn't kill his whole bloodline, why did he just stop?
Wouldn't Loomis be the controller if Michael then? (THAT'S irony for you!)

Also the producer's cut implies that little 'ol Danny was going to be the "next Michael Meyers."

I know this sounds a bit involved, but the producer's cut gives all this motivation much more relevance and clarity than the theatrical cut did.

The idea of Loomis being a slave to the evil he hates most made for a really good ending.

[TravisDearly]

thedudeabides:
*****MORE SPOILERS BELOW******
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
mrstiffie:
So let me get this straight: The man in black controled Myers? So everything Myers ever did was under his control, like a remote control robot? Like, the Thorne dude would think "Kill that chick there" and he'd do it? So why the obsession with Strode? Forgive me, I haven't seen it in a long time, and then I kept changing the channel.
Michael was under the curse of Thorn, and he would have to kill everyone in his bloodline to give this cult of Thorn some sort of absolute power.

****SPOILER*****
This is the complete ending of the movie - the grand finale at almost seven minutes! No stabbing Michael with syringes and them beating him with a pipe...check this out. We are taken to the Thorn Cult room, where Kara is about to be sacrificed. Michael is standing there and is part of the cult. Wynn explains how Danny is to be the next Thorn child. Kara pleads to Michael to not sacrifice the baby. Tommy stops Wynn from continuing the ritual, and escapes with Kara, Danny, and the baby. Michael follows. An amazingly cool chase scene through the bright hospital halls, and Loomis appears to shoot out the locked door. Tommy stays behind to play with his "good" runes and perform a sacrifice of blood to cast a spell on Michael. Michael stops dead in his tracks and stands frozen. Tommy leaves and Wynn shows up and is heartbroken that Michael is seemingly shut down. Outside, Loomis says "I have a little business to attend to here" and we get to see what that REALLY MEANT. Loomis goes back inside to see Michael. He pulls off the mask to find Wynn, who has cast a spell on Loomis and Loomis has Thorn on his wrist now!

It turns out that Wynn's retirement from Smith's Grove is also a retirement from his position as Michael's caretaker, and in a scene laced with much magic and hokum, Wynn passes on his duties to Loomis and there you have it. The producer's cut also suggests that Michael has retired from the noble profession of serial killing.

This isn't really explained in the movie too well, like if Michael didn't kill his whole bloodline, why did he just stop?
Wouldn't Loomis be the controller if Michael then? (THAT'S irony for you!)

Also the producer's cut implies that little 'ol Danny was going to be the "next Michael Meyers."

I know this sounds a bit involved, but the producer's cut gives all this motivation much more relevance and clarity than the theatrical cut did.

The idea of Loomis being a slave to the evil he hates most made for a really good ending.anchor bay really needs to release that producers cut on dvd.

[ZombieZack]

They're keeping the series alive like keeping someone alive on a respirator.....they're there, but they're not doing much.........pull the plug.......have myers be a homosexual or something....then people would stop watching....

[thedudeabides]

I have a DVD of the Producer's cut with the original scenes edited into the theatrical cut. It is the best composite version out there -story wise.

I highly reccommend that people track this down. It has the original opening, ending and what really happened to Jamie Lloyd (hint: Michael didn't impale her on farm machinery)

[Myer's Son]

Are you guys still bashing on my Father :) ...listen the Producer's Cut of Part 6 would of made alot of sense, but sense my father is a slave to Moustapphha Akkad....he has no choice but to come back in these dull sequels..Father is tired and I must take over!! Bring out the Producer's Cut, don't do the remake, and stop the sequels and may my father rest in peace.

[Carl Cunningham]

thedudeabides:
I have a DVD of the Producer's cut with the original scenes edited into the theatrical cut. It is the best composite version out there -story wise.

I highly reccommend that people track this down. It has the original opening, ending and what really happened to Jamie Lloyd (hint: Michael didn't impale her on farm machinery)Where did you get this? I've had it on VHS for years. Is the DVD (obviously a bootleg) of quality?

[thedudeabides]

The DVD is of varying quality. The theatrical scenes are good, but the producer's cut scenes are of lesser quality. Nothing horrible, I'm sure we've all seen better, but not horrible.

Worth it though.

here's the link:

<a href="http://onegoodscare.net/h6_procut_dvd/index.html" target="_blank">http://onegoodscare.net/h6_procut_dvd/index.html</a>

It's done by a fan, so if you order it, it might take a week to get to you.
He also includes various behind the scenes stuff, a clip from Entertainment Tonight, trailers, a bunch o' stuff.

[mrstiffie]

Sorry fans, but both endings of 6 were no good.

And Myer's: Whose is your mom?

[Myer's Son]

My father never spoke of her...but he did say i had a half brother who was always away in camp with my mother. Hint Hint

[mrstiffie]

Bill Murry from Meatballs? Wow!! wink

OK I admit had Jamie not died on the combine-thingy the movie would have been a bit better. That and the dad dying in the basement I found to be kinda sadistic. I know that's stupid to say about a movie with a homicidal maniac, but like I've said in previous posts: quick deaths.

[mrstiffie]

I have not seen Ressurrection yet, but is it true they actually show Myer's face this time?

[Cubbington LeDouche]

may be "Spoilerish" but it's Halloween 8, so do we really care? just to be safe though....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No they don't show his face but they do show Michael's apparent weakness to Rapjitsu, his love of rodent meat, and that annoying kid that tongue tornadoed Tara Reid in that pie movie gets aced.

[Scott Standridge]

mrstiffie:
I have not seen Ressurrection yet, but is it true they actually show Myer's face this time?Didn't they show his face in the first movie? In silhouette, sure, but you could totally see him.

[Dan Whitehead]

Scott Standridge Drinks Only Beer:
mrstiffie:
I have not seen Ressurrection yet, but is it true they actually show Myer's face this time?Didn't they show his face in the first movie? In silhouette, sure, but you could totally see him.Yep, when Laurie rips his mask off near the end. It's a fleeting glimpse, but you see him clearly and deliberately. It's the only shot where Nick Castle doesn't play Michael - Carpenter wanted someone who looked "angelic" under the mask.

[mrstiffie]

Which one are you talking about? I (accidentelly) read a spoiler that says his face is shown in a morgue.