Good post. I just watched it recently, and feel the same way. I liked it, but understand how a lot of fans viewed it as a bait-and-switch. It was focused away from Michael, and more about another fledgling killer, and an old Laurie coming to terms with her ordeal.
This one didn't have the long, tense pursuits of victims, didn't have the trademark theme rolling (much), not a large body count.. It wasn't a typical Halloween sequel, but I liked it's subtleties. I thought it was a good stripped down story of vengeance. The protégé seeking revenge against his tormentors & Laurie getting final vengeance ( it's never really final, but..).
Fellow Halloween fans who hated it, I get it.. but I liked the elements (& mood) that made it a different kind of sequel. And I do think giving co-stars more focus is actually originalist.. the first Halloween story was co-written as much about Laurie as Michael. I think by audience-demand, Michael became the star, but I don't know if that's what Carpenter & Hill had in mind(?)
I'm waiting for Make Halloween End Again.