The Friday The 13th Movies Thread - Part 2

I'd rather they avoid Higgins Haven...I'm not against the idea of building a similar set, but imo, they shouldn't outright remake it. I also agree about maybe taking him out of his element & pitting him somewhere new. The trick, however, is figuring out an interesting way to pull that off and not wasting the opportunity like with JTM.

No way Jason should be stomping through the streets of New York (or anywhere, for that matter) and not murdering any and everyone he comes across.
 
Here's what you do- Jason returns to Crystal Lake, NJ and becomes a life insurance salesman. It doesn't end well. Fin.
 
:funny:

Seriously, though, we need a winter setting. Both in film and in-game.
 
I'd like to see a F13 in winter. Start it off w/ an ice fishing kill, maybe an ice skate head split, and you know a snowblower death scene is gonna happen. Pretty sure ur the same poster who's been championing this idea, why don't u write it? Paramount or whoever obviously has no idea what to do w/ this franchise. Seize the day!
 
I've written six F13th scripts already. At this point I'm biding my time. Patience is key.
 
:funny:

Seriously, though, we need a winter setting. Both in film and in-game.

Yeah, this shouldn't be complicated, just make a friggin sequel to the reboot, and set it in the winter, and be a fairly traditional F13 film, these films are not expensive to make, and have enough of a built in audience to guarantee a profit for a low budget film, they should just get off their arses and make it already.

And bring back Mears as Jason, he was great.
 
Yeah, this shouldn't be complicated, just make a friggin sequel to the reboot, and set it in the winter, and be a fairly traditional F13 film, these films are not expensive to make, and have enough of a built in audience to guarantee a profit for a low budget film, they should just get off their arses and make it already.

And bring back Mears as Jason, he was great.

This would all work for me :up:
 
I don't think there's ever been a bad Jason & while Richard Brooker, Ted White & Kane Hodder have always been favorites, Derek Mears (imo) gave the best performance. It was the most nuanced & just straight up creepy. But then again, I think that largely has to do with the fact that he's an actual actor & that he truly understands the character.

Btw, am I the only one who's always found it amusing that Hodder refused to harm animals in any of his films & stated Jason's not evil enough to do so when it's clear that he murdered a dog in part II? Never understood that...he's evil enough to maim anyone he comes across but animals? Oh no, he'd never do that! :funny:
 
I don't think there's ever been a bad Jason & while Richard Brooker, Ted White & Kane Hodder have always been favorites, Derek Mears (imo) gave the best performance. It was the most nuanced & just straight up creepy. But then again, I think that largely has to do with the fact that he's an actual actor & that he truly understands the character.
Agreed. Derek Mears' performance as Jason was just about the only thing about the remake that I actually like. Everything else (IMHO) was a giant steaming turd.
Btw, am I the only one who's always found it amusing that Hodder refused to harm animals in any of his films & stated Jason's not evil enough to do so when it's clear that he murdered a dog in part II? Never understood that...he's evil enough to maim anyone he comes across but animals? Oh no, he'd never do that! :funny:

I never heard him say that, but if he has said so then you're right that is hilarious.

Although to be fair, Jason wasn't an undead zombie/revenant thing in Part 2. He was just a guy (all be it a VERY strong guy who's VERY tough to kill) living in the woods. He probably killed Muffin because he was hungry, not out of any sort of homicidal rage. By the time Kane Hodder took over the role Jason had clearly beeen established as a supernatural undead zombie/revenant creature that doesn't need nourishment to survive, just whatever magical MacGuffin the writers decided to use to bring Jason back from the dead for that installment. So maybe Jason wouldn't kill a dog just for the hell of it. After all, he didn't kill any of the little kids in Part 6 either.

Just saying.
 
I know I am in the minority with this, but...for some reason this look always looked more terrifying to me. Maybe, its because it was overly simple?
Just a single eye showing, so you know its a man.......but what kind of devil lurks under it?

da417129d7e92ba3ce5b5374e90e5705--horror-icons-horror-posters.jpg
 
In hindsight the idea of the sack to mask transition was great, it's just a shame Jason was a bit of a bumbling hillbilly in Part 2.
 
The part where the chair breaks under him when he tries to stab Ginny is hilarious. Especially when he falls on his ass and breaks his pitchfork.
 
In hindsight the idea of the sack to mask transition was great, it's just a shame Jason was a bit of a bumbling hillbilly in Part 2.

I agree. Takes away from the terror Jason is suppose to be.


The Joker
The part where the chair breaks under him when he tries to stab Ginny is hilarious. Especially when he falls on his ass and breaks his pitchfork.

Further evidence that Jason, the zombie king, should be used instead of the Rain Man hillbilly we were given.
 
The opening scene of Jason Goes to Hell reminds me so much of a match from the F13 game. It's pretty funny to watch, after having played the game.
 
Agreed. Derek Mears' performance as Jason was just about the only thing about the remake that I actually like. Everything else (IMHO) was a giant steaming turd.


I never heard him say that, but if he has said so then you're right that is hilarious.

Although to be fair, Jason wasn't an undead zombie/revenant thing in Part 2. He was just a guy (all be it a VERY strong guy who's VERY tough to kill) living in the woods. He probably killed Muffin because he was hungry, not out of any sort of homicidal rage. By the time Kane Hodder took over the role Jason had clearly beeen established as a supernatural undead zombie/revenant creature that doesn't need nourishment to survive, just whatever magical MacGuffin the writers decided to use to bring Jason back from the dead for that installment. So maybe Jason wouldn't kill a dog just for the hell of it. After all, he didn't kill any of the little kids in Part 6 either.

Just saying.

Yep, Hodder definitely said it. haha I think it was either for part 8, 9 or 10. As
for Muffin, I don't think it had anything to do with hunger. Imo, nothing truly indicated it was a kill out of a need to feast. It was established in part II that there was a nice amount of wildlife around so I'd imagine if that were the case he'd have better options for food. The way Muffin's body was mangled seemed very much rage filled & what have you.

And even with Jason becoming an undead zombie that doesn't require nourishment, I'm still inclined to believe he's going to do harm to whatever he crosses that's breathing. That's his whole thing: he sees life and wants to put an end to it. And I don't think it matters if that life is a human or wild animal.

Just my two cents, though.
 
Agreed. Derek Mears' performance as Jason was just about the only thing about the remake that I actually like. Everything else (IMHO) was a giant steaming turd.


I never heard him say that, but if he has said so then you're right that is hilarious.

Although to be fair, Jason wasn't an undead zombie/revenant thing in Part 2. He was just a guy (all be it a VERY strong guy who's VERY tough to kill) living in the woods. He probably killed Muffin because he was hungry, not out of any sort of homicidal rage. By the time Kane Hodder took over the role Jason had clearly beeen established as a supernatural undead zombie/revenant creature that doesn't need nourishment to survive, just whatever magical MacGuffin the writers decided to use to bring Jason back from the dead for that installment. So maybe Jason wouldn't kill a dog just for the hell of it. After all, he didn't kill any of the little kids in Part 6 either.

Just saying.

If you subscribe to the notion that Jason kills primarily out of a sense of revenge and rage (which many people do), then the idea that there are certain things/groups (animals, children) that he's simply not interested in killing, isn't that hard to buy.

Perhaps as a reflex if they happen to get in his way, but he doesn't go in looking to kill them like he does teens/adults.
 
Also, maybe someone could help me out.
It is never fully explained in the original, why Jason appears as deformed.
I don't remember his mom ever saying so. It was mentioned (?) that he was bullied or mentally disabled i believe.
Other than that, I'm not sure where it was mentioned he was hideous looking.
 
It's just something you have to accept. There is no definitive answer as far as I know.
 
It's just something you have to accept. There is no definitive answer as far as I know.

This. Never an explanation given nor does there need to be. Its just how it is.
 
His deformity gave him the power to slow walk and still catch up with people.
 
So it is conceivable you could reboot the franchise & have him be a normal looking man with just an evil look about him.

Something like this perhaps?

willem-dafoe-evil-cheekbones.png
 
No. That would be completely pointless and would be the most epic fail one could could pull off. That's like saying "hey, let's just turn him into Michael Myers with a hockey mask!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,301
Messages
22,082,408
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"