I'd like to keep this question specific to Halloween (2018) as I know other installments of the film have somewhat changed the lore and ideas behind Michael Myers, and I haven't seen them all so I'm unsure if this might have been described or explained in some way in another.

My question is that, though Michael Myers is described as pure evil which through study, has been concluded to deserve death and incineration, why did Michael Myers decide against killing a crying baby in the same house where he murdered a woman moments earlier?

For a man considered to be pure evil, what consideration went into this decision?

We know he makes decisions because he chooses to hide and obscure bodies in relevant and interesting ways. We see that he becomes fixated on those he intends to kill too, and if they don't die, he will try to finish the job, so to speak. Under the impressions the film (and I loved this film, though it was a fantastic sequel to the original), I suspected the baby would be the next victim. Or in fact is the consideration that the baby might not survive without the mother and thus is a waste of his energy?

Is there anything canon to suggest he has a line of who he will or won't kill?

1 Answer 1


According to Collider, the makers didn't exactly put much thought into that scene:

So why doesn’t he kill the baby?

That’s the question Collider’s Perri Nemiroff put to director and co-writer David Gordon Green when she sat down with the filmmaker to chat about the film. “Why doesn’t he? Because that would be so rude,” Green said. But does Michael think about it as an option when he stops? “I think it was a consideration,” he explained.

Green continued and explained the origin of the scene, which was a quick write-around after an unexpected road bump in production. “Yes, it’s terrifying in its own right. And it was a last minute idea — I mean, why is there a baby crib in the living room? It was gonna be her husband sleeping on the couch, but then he didn’t show up and we scrambled and put a baby crib in there. And then, yeah, I thought it was interesting to see one ethical choice that he made in the movie. So that’s the one ethical choice he makes.”

Note that Green offered a slightly different story for the presence of the baby in another interview:

The baby idea happened on set. Why would a baby crib be in the living room of the house? But the art director had that idea at the last minute. He's like, 'There's this blank space. We need some narrative there. What's the story?' And so we scrambled and found a little mobile.


But that was just a last minute idea. A perfect example of something we'd rehearsed and thought we had it all figured out, and in the last minute we're like, 'There's this boring gap here.' It was going to be her husband asleep on the sofa, and it's like, 'Who gives a shit about her husband asleep on the sofa?' But a baby crying, you're like, 'Oh, there's an ethical choice here.'

That same interview reveals that some of the sound of the baby was created by Jamie Lee Curtis.

The scene basically exists to fill time:

"We were looking for an interesting 15-second gap in a long sequence. And there were 15 seconds, no tension, no new information," the director detailed. "And the goal was, ‘How do we put something that's 15 seconds’ worth of intrigue in the sequence?’ And the production designer and the DP came up with the idea of putting a baby crib in the living room and then a baby. It was one of the things that was just exciting, and it fixed the problem; it filled the gap."

The director admits that this is inconsistent with the character:

"And now we're looking at a character who I proclaim is the essence of evil and has no motivation, no emotion, no real stimulation other than being a predator," the director added. "And yet we've given him this one consideration in which he does the right thing. So I'm not exactly sure how to stand by that and justify that, although I think it's fascinating to think of someone that is nothing but a cold-blooded, faceless, motivation-less killer. He made one decision that we are happy that he made."

(Note that the actual source for these two quotes is an interview with the L.A. Times, but due to GDPR blocking I cannot access that one.)

  • 1
    Do we consider ethics when we talk about Michael :D
    – Ankit Sharma
    Oct 29, 2018 at 12:47
  • 9
    It's a shame that's the official explanation, my interpretation was that he didn't kill the baby because it can't experience fear. Think about how he likes scaring people; stalking them and allowing them to see him, posing his victims where future victims will find them, creating morbid tableauxs like with his sister's gravestone, turning the cop into a jack-o-lantern or dropping the teeth over the bathroom stall. Michael is a showman when it comes to murder, the only time he doesn't bother is when he has a goal, like stealing the butcher's knife, or taking the mechanic's uniform. Oct 29, 2018 at 15:53
  • 1
    @CrowTRobot IIRC he also didn't kill a kid who bumped into him in the first movie. (I'm going from memory and it's been years since I last saw Halloween, so I'm not 100% sure.)
    – BCdotWEB
    Oct 29, 2018 at 16:24
  • 1
    @CrowTRobot - That's a really good theory. OP asks "Is there anything canon to suggest...", and I'd say that those examples are clearly canon. Perhaps write up an Answer?
    – BruceWayne
    Oct 29, 2018 at 18:22
  • 1
    @GrayRoberts sharks don't kill "thoughtlessly", they kill for food. They're not a very good example here...
    – Erik
    Oct 29, 2018 at 19:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .