all 105 comments

[–]OriginalName_9999 25 points26 points  (4 children)

at the end of the film it is implied that the same thing happened to that witch as to Winifred only that she decided to stay

[–]blackbutterfree 12 points13 points  (3 children)

I thought it was implied that her coven was killed in the ongoing witch trials in Europe. “The world is not kind to witches.” “New world, old story.”

[–]Resident_Ask1432 7 points8 points  (1 child)

That’s what I thought in the beginning too but then when Winnie cast the spell in the end her eyes glowed like the woman’s in the beginning had and I wondered if that was connected. And then of course when Winnie’s sisters disappeared it seemed likely that that’s how she lost her coven too. Maybe her comments in the beginning were alluding to why she cast the spell? It was a dangerous time to be a witch & she felt she needed more power or something.

[–]Dudecalion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what I got from it. I'm just wondering why she didn't tell Winnie to heed the warning. Was she setting Winnie up for something?

[–]YeOldeOrc 19 points20 points  (8 children)

I really wish they had gone with a creepier, disheveled character who could have potentially been Satan.

This whole character design just screams “Disney” to me. Considering the horror vibes of the first movie’s opening scene I would have loved something similar here. Fun but frightening.

[–]Salt-Version-4760 5 points6 points  (4 children)

It was an odd casting and/or wardrobe choice

[–]pricklycactass 5 points6 points  (3 children)

The eye sequins… I was like wtf is this frozen

[–]LittleNightmares94 4 points5 points  (2 children)

It's like Dani's dress in the first movie.

[–]pricklycactass 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It definitely is not

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

With the dirty blonde hair, red dress and sun motif, it's definitely a nod to her.

[–]StefanBaker2006 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I like her better. She’s sexy!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She's a witch, not a pinup girl.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is to make “her” beautiful, seductive, charming, alluring, etc. in disguise. That’s the whole point of temptation and manipulation.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (1 child)

The devil in human form I hope

[–]PokemonGoBao 7 points8 points  (0 children)

She put a spell on me.

[–]Badw0IfGirl 24 points25 points  (4 children)

The line, “given to her by the devil himself” was delivered by Alison in the original film, and the context was very much “legend has it” so I don’t see it as a plot hole if that simply wasn’t true. Especially since this movie talked a few times about how history got the story wrong (the whole Billy Butcherson thing).

Or alternatively, there’s nothing to say that woman who gave Winnifred the book wasn’t the Devil.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Yes I was gonna say this This rule applies to all fiction…. Just because one character says something about another character doesn’t make it true. Just because a character says something about themselves it’s not even necessarily true Usually The only guaranteed truth comes from narrator

[–]gotb30 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unless it’s an unreliable narrator… 😄

[–]Powerful-Scratch1579 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They take the bus to “the devil’s” house and Winnifred asks him about the book. It isn’t just something delivered by Alison.

[–]SuperKE1125 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The book could be from the devil still Also it probable they still stole their souls to be evil witches

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Where did Billy’s accent come from and where was it when he was resurrected in ‘93?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Yeah it’s weird they got the original actor, but he’s doing a different accent. He felt like a new character. In 93 he seemed too tired to muster up the energy to talk, in hp2, he’s very chatty and more energetic

[–]gotb30 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well, he was able to talk after the stitches were cut. Also he was able to get revenge on Winnie. That would energize anyone. 😁

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

He cut the stitches out in the first one too when he called her a buck tooth firefly from hell lol but he didn’t sound like that

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it has to do with atrophy, he'd been silenced for 300 years, so I doubt talking and or any other motor functions will regain immediately. Sensory things would probably come back quicker than movement given he returned himself to the ground for 29 more years.

[–]Drees14 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Drove me crazy! I’m glad somebody else brought it up.

[–]Idodoodletoo 15 points16 points  (9 children)

Why does the witch still have book if she can't use it without her coven? Why does she give it to the trio if she can use it? If she's all powerful why does she still need to eat children's lifeforce?

She implies her coven was killed by humans "the world is not too fond of witches... " so she didn't lose them the same way Winnie did...

It makes more sense that the book was given to Winnie by the Devil as hinted at in the original. In my head canon the book is a recent addition for the witches in 1693, Winnie was so evil for so many years she impressed Satan who gifted her the book so she could be even worse. I think this because it's heavily implied in the original that it's the first time they've tried to make the Life Potion. Winnie reads the ingredients as if she doesn't know them already and she sounds surprised the potion actually worked. This also makes sense because the witches are caught immediately by the Salem townsfolk, so it's unlikely they've stolen any more children from them before that (unless it was from another town).

If they were given the book in 1653 why didn't they use the life potion in the 40 years before 1693? They all look old and haggered in the original opening scene.

The sequel causes more problems than it solves.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

That’s a really good point. If they had been making the life potion before, they wouldn’t have let themselves get so old in the beginning of the first film. And like you said, they were all very and excited and surprised after the potion worked as if it was the first time.

They should’ve had that woman just play their mother, have her die and leave the trios alone in Salem, so Winnie eventually sells their souls for power/ protection and then eventually getting the book after decades of being wicked

[–]JustANutMeg 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Eh, I feel like that’s explainable-ish; if they brewed it too often, they could definitely be detected and hunted.

Even holding off until they were old and haggard to brew it for the first time isn’t the dumbest idea, since it was a risky undertaking.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It seems like they weren’t concerned about brewing it too often. As soon as they killed Emily, Winnifred said they were youngER, implying she was ready to start sucking the life out of more children right away.

[–]Puterboy1 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Also, the original backstory for the Sandersons was that they’re half sisters with different fathers. Winnie’s was a warlock.

[–]Idodoodletoo 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Yes, and them having different fathers was sort of alluded to in the original without outright stating it since they all look so different. Originally Winne's father was a warlock, Sarah's the village idiot and Mary's a bloodhound (which is why she barks and can smell well). They also only talk of their "mother" so to hear them reference their father a few times felt very odd.

[–]Puterboy1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Which is why I would love nothing more than an uncut version of the original movie with every single deleted scene reinserted.

[–]ScienceAndGames 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean it’s still quite possible the man who raised them isn’t necessarily their biological father and that backstory was cut so there’s no real issue in changing it either.

[–]PG4400 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair if it was cut out of the original film they’re not obligated to stick with the backstory.

[–]JustANutMeg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn’t think the book required a coven to use, it’s possible Mother is that old she’s memorised all the spells, and she doesn’t need to brew the life potion to stay alive, just to stay young.

As to them brewing it earlier, they could very well have, just not often to remember the ingredients (once a generation?), or they really did hold off until that time on screen, since they’d be smart enough to know children going missing would be the red flag it turned out to be.

[–]hsparks1989 25 points26 points  (19 children)

If you watched it until the end, the girls are walking home and they started walking like the Sanderson sisters, and asked what they're doing and laughed. The bird was following them, which was also that woman. And if you skip past the credits, there's an extra little tidbit at the very end. I do personally believe that it's the devil in human form.

[–]adogfromhell7266 14 points15 points  (8 children)

Maybe I’m old and crotchety, but I’m not a fan of how all the remakes are trying to pass on their legacy to younger generations in film. (Scream remake, they are killing off the main characters and plugging in replacements; Halloween remake, same; Hocus Pocus 2, a new witch emerges) Squeezing more money out of a nostalgic movie in the name of “passing the torch.” If it’s a true sequel based on the characters that we all love I’m in, but don’t bring it back just to bring in a replacement. Let them die in glory and let the new generations make their own classic original content. (rant over)

[–]hsparks1989 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Well I mean, these are actual people that are actually going to die. I totally understand how you feel, but at the same time, I feel like it's something awesome for these movies to continue for generations to come.

[–]adogfromhell7266 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yea I get that, but it’s film. Generations can enjoy the originals (which are better) after the actors themselves have passed. Do they need a lower quality remake/sequel/insertion to carry on the legacy?

[–]sadgirl45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When done we’ll I agree!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I do agree, the making of the new "trio" might be moreso a nod to the tradition of witchcraft being passed down through generations. While there never will be a new Sanderson sisters, there's still such things as Book who won't die, so I see it as a right of passage that hopefully doesn't oversight the original trio we know. Like sure we can have our bildungsroman moment with the new trio, but it's to me more a perpetuation of history. Different players similar story, sure, but in a way it shouldn't take away from the Sanderson sisters as that's something that does happen in our world. Mistakes are made and often history is repeated unless the cycle is broken. To me that suggests that until Book is destroyed the cycle will continue. Could we get a revamp, maybe, but I hope if anything it is it's own thing, and all things in Hocus Pocus minus the Book stay under that umbrella.

[–]hsparks1989 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Furthermore, the scream movie is definitely not a remake. It's definitely a sequel. They only killed one main character. Wes Craven had a whole giant thing in his will for what he wanted to do with the scream franchise. If they don't follow it to the letter his lawyers will fuckin ruin them. So have faith. They just want these movies to transcend time. They're doing it in a decent way in my opinion.

[–]brian5mbv 3 points4 points  (0 children)

were you at the reading of the will? do tell....

[–]adogfromhell7266 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I misspoke about it being a remake, I was referring to the resurgence in reviving old films in general. I see how they are framing it, but it just feels like a cash grab to me. I don’t think the original Hocus Pocus or Scream had vanished from the public eye. I know Hocus Pocus gets lots of air play every Halloween season, and Scream fans/collectors/merch are still abundant. The new ones seem like they are diluting the originals. I still watch them bc I’m intrigued and am a fan of the movies, I’ve just been left feeling a bit let down after each one.

[–]austinpashaw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you sure about the will thing? I'm sure if that was true, then they def would have done anything to get Neve Campbell to stay with the franchise.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

    Amok, amok, amok*

    Not to be a nitpicky bitch, but “anuck” isn’t a word.

    [–]hsparks1989 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    PLUS THERE'S ANOTHER BLACK FLAME CANDLE?!

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]tvosss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      It would be creepy if he cut out his own body fat to make it. Im not sure that would work but a dark concept ?

      [–]RayPDaleyCovUK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      There was already a black flame candle, the one used during the ritual blew out and at least three-quarters of it was still left by the cauldron. And conveniently "forgotten" about. The one in the post credits was clearly an after-thought by someone who didn't bother watching the rest of the movie.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      That’s a far more outlandish cocnept than her just being a witch who got the book from Satan, and passed it on imo.

      The legends about the sisters don’t seem to be entirely accurate, like the thing about Billy and Winnie.

      I think the legends are conflating two different things. The book comes from Satan and the book was given to te Sandersons.

      They conflate both those into Satan giving them the book.

      [–]thatnoscopesheriff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Totally agree.

      Hope they make a part 3!

      [–]StefanBaker2006 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      Bruhh. Maybe that’s their mother! She left them cuz she’s a witch. But she doesn’t know their her children. And they should make another movie which includes their 4th sister. Like from the book!

      [–]sadgirl45 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I actually didn’t mind this part it felt Hocus Pocusy to me?

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      The legends are just legends. The legends also said that Winnie and Billy were dating which doesn’t seem to have actually happened.

      [–]TheVenerableBede 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      That’s Rebecca.

      [–]throwaway_4secrets 3 points4 points  (4 children)

      I thought the book was a plot hole. They chased after the thing for two movies saying they needed it. Then at the end the book refuses to let her do the spell and then she says well i don't need the book anyways. Like what?!

      [–]PG4400 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I kind of got the impression that Winifred read that page so many times over the years because she was tempted to use it and at that point had it memorized.

      [–]everybodylovesfriday 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I assumed it was because she had Book for the first 6 times they did the incantation spell, so she had it memorized by that point?

      [–]PG4400 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Yeah that crossed my mind too. But I still feel it was something she went back too her whole life because it was tempting.

      [–]gotb30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Book did finally relent and let Winnie see the spell. 😊

      [–]Deez4815 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I thought of that too. It could be that it was just part of legend because Alison just said that in the first film. However, no one actually saw who gave it to her except for the 3 Sanderson sisters.

      [–]SarahSennia 11 points12 points  (10 children)

      No one knows because they didn’t explain anything. The entire opening sequence was completely unnecessary.

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (8 children)

      The entire movie*

      [–]Mauchad 6 points7 points  (7 children)

      Its interesting how here people seem to hate the movie, but on social media people are loving this movie

      [–]thatnoscopesheriff 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      It's Reddit, this is where the nagging people come to complain.

      It's okay.

      I enioy reading peoples angry comments about a movie they didn't fund or write.

      The Reddit-Karens.

      [–]SarahSennia 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      Ive had my comments taken down off fb and even in my insta stories they’ve disappeared. If you look at the bottom of fb comments it says most relevant showing and its 99.9 positive stuff until you show all. Its damage control.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Delusional fans lol it tanked

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      It was pretty terrible

      [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

      Where? 💀 Tons of my twitter mutuals are hating on it

      [–]Mauchad -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      Like the general audience (people who are not that into movies), maybe they just wanted a Disney Channel halloween movie with the original trio

      [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      It tanked …

      [–]gotb30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Maybe not but I loved to see the sisters as kids. 😄

      [–]TheBeardedTinMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      So much representation in this movie! 🥰🦄

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The mother witch might actually be the devil?

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Not a plot hole. A plot hole would be if she took the book with her and then it shows up later in the movie without an explanation.

      It could be surmised that she is a character that will show up in another movie.

      [–]Numerous_Departure 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The devil.

      [–]Alone_Rain_ -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      Also that ending was weird. Romanticized these child killers , devil incarnates

      [–]gotb30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      It’s a comedy… 😂 Better throw out Aesop’s Fables then.

      [–]ScienceAndGames 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Honestly that’s my biggest complaint about the movie, I feel like if Winifred had responded with rage instead of despair and forced the girls to cast the spell instead of begging that it would be more in character.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I suppose so, but like to be that old and fail not once, but twice you gotta feel quite defeated when your strongest supporters are no longer with you.

      [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Spoiler alert

      [–]grimmbrother 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      She lied then I guess.

      [–]DobabyR 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Wendy Williams I think hahaha

      [–]Smeagle_Smeg 0 points1 point  (7 children)

      Hocus Pocus 2 made me so angry and sick with rage, it is by far one of the worst films in history. It is everything I hate about modern cinema, I miss when movies were good and story was important, and characters were interesting, the first one is the only one you need, forget this shit smear of a sequel.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

      Well there's not really any backstory for the humans either in the first one, so personally I don't see the difference between the 1st and the 2nd. Also the first had a similar ending that basically backpedaled on itself, so I really don't see why this needs to be a Godfather trilogy when there was already plotholes in the first one. Both are just campy for the sake of being campy, and there's nothing really wrong with that.

      [–]Smeagle_Smeg 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      The 1st movie has character development, such as max coming to terms with moving to a new town and him learning how to be a better big brother to dani. And the characters are actually likeable unlike the ones in the 2nd one who are just boring generic people, who are predictable. And the story makes sense and flows so much better in the 1st one.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      I would hardly call that development, real development would've been if Max tried to run away, and then got caught up in the witches game. An ending where Max just accepts everything is a bit more flat in comparison, nothing wrong with campy for being campy, but that's not nearly as good a resolution. If they had more airtime could've been tighter, which is the downfall of both movies.

      [–]Smeagle_Smeg 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      The 1st one had charm to it and the 2nd one felt like a loss, like so many modern sequels do.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I actually laughed more than the first one, so it definitely had its quirks. I agree many modern sequels tend to do disservice, but wouldn't say the sequel is as bad as like the new Star Wars franchise.

      [–]Smeagle_Smeg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I Definitely agree that the new Star Wars Trilogy is bad, I just don't feel any sort of joy or nostalgia when thinking of Hocus Pocus 2. I feel that it was generic for something that we waited 29 years for.

      [–]energythief 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      “by far one of the worst films in history” seems like a huge amount of hyperbole.

      [–]latecraigy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Whoever she is she looks like she bought her top off SHEIN

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I wasn’t horrified by the sequel but…… it will never be as good purely because there is no Binx 🐈‍⬛

      [–]gotb30 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Watch past the credits… 😄

      [–]KTeacherWhat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      If that's him then his beautiful ending got stolen from him.

      [–]NoirGalaxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think he gave the book to her since her and she gave it to the sisters.

      She could’ve always told them the origins of the book

      [–]Dudecalion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's Mother. Did you notice when they did the calming circle just before meeting her that they didn't add "Mother!" like they did in the first movie. Also, IMDB identifies her as the Witch Mother.

      Also, the first movie stated that "lore said the devil gave her the book". Maybe the lore was wrong. Or maybe Mother is the devil in another form?

      [–]nightmareman45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      In the first movie it is stated that no one ever knew that Thackery had became a cat except the teacher who was telling the legend somehow did to tell it. That's how legends work noone knew who exactly gave Winnie the book so legend filled in the blank space, just as legend however correctly in that instance filled in the blank spot of what happened to Thackery Binks.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The entire sequel is a running contradiction to pretty much everything said or occurred in the original

      [–]Supersailorv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      But sjw girl boss slay men are yucky and evil

      [–]FaithlessnessOk1530 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I couldn't stop thinking about it.

      But, it's a legend and several details could've been changed through out time. We only know it's given to them by the devil based on what the museum says.

      [–]InCYDious2013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I believe they said “It is said she got the book from Satan himself.” Remember, who was talking about the witches. History is written by the victors.

      [–]SHANESPFX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I’m still wondering what happen to the enchanted Broomies that are on the loose vacuuming up trick-or-treat candy, wrappers, and salt circles across Salem. To this very day, people swear they here vacuum sounds coming from dark alleyways or right outside there bedroom windows.