The Friday The 13th Movies Thread - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mrs Voorhees got an axe wound to the head? I tought she was just decapitated?

That's not Mrs Voorhees, it's Chris Higgins (the girl who survived Part 3). Jason should have an axe wound to the head. But as mentioned above, they ended up using a different ending.
 
IIRC, Chris was set to be decapitated as well via machete. And now that I think about it, Jason getting an axe to the face was a throwback to the girl in part one who got an axe to the face from Pamela.
 
I liked Chris Higgins,One of the few protagonists that I liked in the franchise
 
Same. She's actually my favorite Friday girl. Second favorite is Ginny from part 2. Then Trish from part 4.
 
Same. She's actually my favorite Friday girl. Second favorite is Ginny from part 2. Then Trish from part 4.

I think Ginny was probably my favorite. Chris would be second. Alice and Trish are tied for third.
 
Trish or Tina is probably my top favorite and then Chris and Ginny
 
I'm watching "His Name Was Jason" again.

At 21:27 into the documentary, one of the writers who is being interviewed says "Jason is a kid who's just too dumb to know he's dead."
 
So he's actually dead, but he's still walking around alive because he's an idiot because he doesn't realize that?

Yeah that's not supernatural at all. That sort of thing happens all the time. The walking dumb dead :o
 
Last edited:
So he's actually dead, but he's still walking around alive because he's an idiot because he doesn't realize that?

Yeah that's not supernatural at all. That sort of thing happens all the time. The walking dumb dead :o

I never said that that was the official explanation as to why Jason never stays down. I said that a horror writer had said that. You replied that you didn't believe me that anyone said that. I watched "His Name Was Jason" last night, not because I was hunting for the quote but rather because I just felt like watching it again. When it got to the quote I figured I'd post the exact time code to prove it's not hearsay.

Also, if I remember correctly, the guy who wrote the screenplay for "Jason X" said in "The Many Lives Of Jason Voorhees" that Jason "went from being a guy that's just really hard to kill to being a killer zombie" when talking about Part 6. This insinuates that Jason was not a supernatural being in the movies prior to Part 6.

Add to that the fact that movie bad-asses can do superhuman feats without actually being supernatural beings (Marv in "Sin City" wasn't supernatural, he was just one tough SOB). And the fact that there are several medical reasons that Jason could have survived many of those attacks. There could even be a medical reason he'd be able to continue killing as though nothing happened (there's a condition which I think is called Chronic Insensitivity to Pain which could account for this, although if Jason has this it's a grievous continuity error, as he's shown to experience pain in Parts 2 & 3). Basically, superhuman feats of strength, endurance, and durability do not necessarily equal supernatural. If it did, Rocky would be supernatural. Commando would be supernatural. Batman would be supernatural. Rambo would be supernatural. I could go on and on.
 
Writer of the new Friday movie, Nick Antosca, has turned in a draft.

@TwistedKhy Turned in draft a few weeks ago, @bruckmachina & #PlatinumDunes & I all excited to make a great F13 movie. Don't know schedule.
 
I think I've only said the original of these and that was back in the early 00's, when I was in my very early teens. Plus that poopy remake with the guy from Supernatural. I remember thinking the original was extremely boring and goofy... but it's on TV in about ten minutes, so I think I'll give it another go and see if anything changes.

EDIT: Goooodddammit, it's the friggin' Supernatural guy version.
 
Last edited:
I like the original, but I think unlike Halloween or Nightmare on Elm Street, a lot of people don't list it as their favourite one of the series.

Part III (my fav) is when the Friday series picks up, in my opinion anyway.
 
This is awesome. Done by Matt Ryan

J697Mv5.jpg
 
I think I've only said seen the original of these and that was back in the early 00's, when I was in my very early teens. Plus that poopy remake with the guy from Supernatural. I remember thinking the original was extremely boring and goofy... but it's on TV in about ten minutes, so I think I'll give it another go and see if anything changes.

EDIT: Goooodddammit, it's the friggin' Supernatural guy version.

That's one of the things I hate about movie remakes. After the remake comes out, that's all anyone ever shows on TV. And finding the original on DVD is damn near impossible.

As for the original being boring? I guess that all depends on perspective and expectations. If you were expecting someone to just show up and start butchering everyone with a machete every few minutes without even giving you time to breathe in between killings, then I guess you would find the original kind of boring.

But what you call boring, I call suspenseful. It's all those new slasher films that don't give their audiences time to relax between kills that I find boring. High body counts and bloody, graphic death scenes are meaningless unless the time is taken to build suspense between kills. I'd rather see a small body count with quality suspense between each kill to a kill shot every few minutes any day of the week.

That's my opinion at least.
 
I think I'm going to rewatch some of the Friday The 13th movies later this week, and write down the time codes for each kill. It's no coincidence that as the time between each kill shrinks, so too does the quality of each movie.
 
So I decided to rewatch the original Friday The 13th, and I've documented the time codes for each death in the movie. For some of the off screen deaths, I've documented both roughly when the character died, and when we see the character's body, as which is considered to be their "Death Scene" might be debatable. So here they are.

Friday The 13th Kill Clock

Robert = Stabbed in the gut at 00:04:40
Claudette = Killed off screen at 00:05:15
Annie = Throat slashed at 00:22:23
Ned = Followed the killer into a cabin at 00:34:25, then is shown hidden in a bunk with his throat slashed at 00:40:10
Jack = Stabbed through the neck while in bed at 00:43:00
Marcy = Takes an axe to the face in the bathroom at 00:46:50
Brenda = Is killed off screen at the archery range, presumably with a bow and arrow, at 00:57:05, and then is thrown through the kitchen window at 01:14:13
Steve = Is stabbed in the gut at 01:04:05
Bill = Is killed off screen out by the emergency generator at 01:07:50, and then is found hanging on the shed door with his throat slashed and shot full of arrows at 01:10:52

* Mrs Voorhees = Decapitated with her own machete on the beach at 01:28:10

(* Mrs Voorhees's death was less an act of terror and more an act of heroism on the part of Alice, which is why I separated it from the others)

So in the original movie, the least amount of time spent building suspense between killings is the roughly 4 minutes in between Jack's and Marcy's deaths. Everyone else gets 10 to 15 minutes to build suspense before each kill. Heck, there's about 17 minutes between Claudette's death and Annie's. Then there's about 20 minutes between Annie's death and the reveal of Ned's dead body.

Some modern horror fans might prefer to have higher body counts with a death or a jump scare every 3 or 4 minutes throughout the entire movie. For me personally? I prefer to get about 10 minutes or so of tension and suspense built up before the payoff of a cool death scene. That, to me, is a great slasher movie.
 
I think both styles have their pace...if all horror movies adhered to one style it'd be pretty boring. I'll admit I do prefer suspense, a big reason I like parts two, three & four the most out of this series. They didn't treat Jason like the star or a villain to really be "cheered" for. He was kept in the shadows, usually not even shown in full view consistently until the very end.

In this case, returning to that prospect would do this series a lot of good.
 
I think both styles have their pace...if all horror movies adhered to one style it'd be pretty boring. I'll admit I do prefer suspense, a big reason I like parts two, three & four the most out of this series. They didn't treat Jason like the star or a villain to really be "cheered" for. He was kept in the shadows, usually not even shown in full view consistently until the very end.

In this case, returning to that prospect would do this series a lot of good.

The "wall to wall gore" style might work okay for stuff like Saw or Hostel, but I feel "Suspense before gore" works better for slashers like Friday The 13th or Halloween.

Jaws, for example, works so well because you can't see the shark for most of the movie. The first few Friday The 13ths were very much the same, which is a big reason why they worked so well.

The first three Friday The 13ths worked the best for this reason. Part 4 was okay, but it began to slip away from the suspense that they had in the first three. Jason was fully shown killing his victims throughout almost the entire film. There were a few instances where they tried to maintain the mystery of the first two sequels. But after two sequels, there was really no point to doing so. At least that's what I think.
 
Wall to wall gore doesn't necessarily work well on F13th, but this is the franchise that spear-headed (no pun intended) the more gore-infested films we've come to know. These movies are known for being gory & providing audiences with uniquely twisted deaths...it's just that parts two, three & four had suspense to go with them. There's a balance to it that most can't seem to acquire.

And just my opinion but I haven't ever found the original to be all that great, which is why I didn't really mention it when referencing the first few movies. It's really just a lo grade rip-off of Halloween, something even its creators have said. From time to time I do enjoy it but I definitely believe it's far from being one of the best of the series.
 
Wall to wall gore doesn't necessarily work well on F13th, but this is the franchise that spear-headed (no pun intended) the more gore-infested films we've come to know. These movies are known for being gory & providing audiences with uniquely twisted deaths...it's just that parts two, three & four had suspense to go with them. There's a balance to it that most can't seem to acquire.

And just my opinion but I haven't ever found the original to be all that great, which is why I didn't really mention it when referencing the first few movies. It's really just a lo grade rip-off of Halloween, something even its creators have said. From time to time I do enjoy it but I definitely believe it's far from being one of the best of the series.

I'm guessing you would have liked it more if Jason were the killer. The quality of the kills, the level of suspense, all of that is about the same between the first and second movie. They even take the same minimalist approach with the music in the sequel as the first movie.

Personally, I liked the whole mystery aspect of the first movie. And the twist at the end that the killer was in fact a seemingly sweet and helpful old lady I found to be very effective. The first time I ever saw the movie, Mrs Voorhees being the killer took me completely by surprise. The way the kills were shown throughout the movie led you to believe the killer was a man. Then when Mrs Voorhees showed up, you think she's there to help. Then BAM! It turns out she's the killer. IMO, brilliantly done.

As I've said in my posts defending A New Beginning, you don't need Jason as the killer in order to have a good Friday The 13th movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,304
Messages
22,082,653
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"