I think they should've just ignored ressurection. It could've played off with John being her son and his family. She acts the same way in h20 and he could be tired of trying to talk sense into her that he's dead or been captured again.

@Columbusbuck said:

So we're all going to just totally ignore Laurie had a teenage son twenty years ago?

Yes, they said this new Halloween is to be the real sequel and to ignore the rest.

They weren't saying that in 1998...

@Columbusbuck said:

They weren't saying that in 1998...

You don't have to ignore all the sequels if you don't want to, but in doing so; you will forever be conflicted about the current state of affairs.

It's up to you to believe what you want to believe, and sometimes you just have to tell yourself it's just a movie.

@Video-Store-Vagrant said:

I find the suggestion and the notion of ignoring all the sequels gross.i also find is disrespectful to dr sam loomis and the memory of the high quality man that portrayed him until his death.donald pleasance was the heart of these films..not Jamie lee or even Michael myers..show some god damn respect you savages.

The character Sam Loomis played by Donald Pleasence was I felt treated in very great respect in the latest Halloween. He was mentioned several times with really great feeling and was also brought back to life in the form of a audio cassette recording of his findings of Michael. I don't know how much more Mr Pleasence could be respected...I even spelled his name correctly and presented it with proper capitalization. Mr Pleasence was born in 1919 and passed away at 75 years of age. He has an incredible string of movies and TV shows he's appeared in including playing the President in Escape from New York (1981.)

The suggestion of ignoring all the sequels was by the way from John Carpenter. He says "It picks up after the first one and it pretends that none of the others were made." Mr Carpenter by the way said he originally intended for every Halloween movie to be vastly different as is apparent in "Season of the Witch," but those in the money business dictated and got otherwise. In saying that; there's been many movies with lots of sequels that horribly go awry...sure it's unfortunate, but again they are only movies.

The original Halloween would have never been what it turned out to be without John Carpenter. Sure; there would have been a Halloween movie, and it might have even had a different title, but it wouldn't be anything like we know it today. And for that I'm grateful to Mr John Carpenter. And, if he says that the new Halloween will ignore all sequels, it's going to (and did) ignore all sequels.

And my point is made clear. Josh Hartnett's son was NOT treated with great respect or any respect at all.

@Columbusbuck said:

And my point is made clear. Josh Hartnett's son was NOT treated with great respect or any respect at all.

In this new timeline (and that's what it is) John (played by Josh) no longer exists. Even Laurie in one of the later sequels gets killed in the opening scene...I think that was in Resurrection. You could say Laurie didn't get any love or respect in that case, but in this the new timeline, Laurie was never killed and never had a son.

In real life, Josh Hartnett is doing very well and continues to play different characters in current and soon to be released movies.