Talk:Jason Voorhees/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reworked entire page

I have finally finished the new Jason Voorhees page. Please tell me what you think. Please note that it is designed after the Jabba the Hutt featured article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got impatient. I think all will agree this version is far better than what was currently there. Other than some copyediting, this is clearly on the way to FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

A great article, but a few comments before I'd feel happy making it a WP:GA:

• "Since Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, filmmakers have given Jason superhuman strength, and near invulnerability. Jason Voorhees is seen as a sympathetic character, albeit one whose motivation for killing has often been cited as driven by the immoral actions of his victims.

Jason Voorhees has been featured in many humor magazines, referenced in feature films, parodied in television shows, and been the inspiration for a horror punk band. Several toylines have been released based on various versions of the character from the Friday the 13th films. Jason Voorhees was awarded the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award" - "Jason" or "Jason Voorhees" appears too many times here - "he" would probably suffice a few times, so re-write and re-read to improve the flow.

• Follow WP:MOS for headings, i.e. do not repeat the article title in headings such as "Jason Voorhees in popular culture", just "In popular culture" will suffice.
• I'm not sure we need each character's actor in parentheses, but that's personal. It just reads a bit clunky and doesn't seem particularly relevant to Voorhees himself. Nor am I sure we need the years of release of each version of Friday 13th within the text either.
• "...as Pamela seeks revenge..." - is that Mrs. Voorhees? It's not clear.
• "...slams a machete through Jason's shoulder..." - then what? is that the end? does she then get killed by him or make her escape?
• "Chris fends off Jason by sending an axe to his head." - to, or into? Jason could have ducked!
• "His appearance in Friday the 13th: A New Beginning..." whose appearance? it's not clear.
• "Tied to the bottom of the lake with a boulder..." I thought he was tied to a boulder at the bottom of the lake... rephrase a bit I think.
• "...it is learned..." nasty passive grammar - it is revealed?
• "...it is believed..." again, not happy with that - perhaps, it is portrayed that...?
• It's interesting to read battle royal and check if that's applicable here.
• "...Michael Avallone.[12] Michael Avallone..." - just repeat his surname?
• Wikilinking TV seems a bit over the top.
• "...about to auctioned off to the highest bidder..." - grammar.
• Ref [55] need only be used once at the end of the para where it's currently used once per sentence.
• For "4 films" write "four films".
• Wikilink New Line earlier than the last mention.
• "surved"? Perhaps an American version of "surveyed"? By all means correct me if I'm wrong.
• Ref [100] could be moved beyond the full stop to sit with ref [101].

Incredibly well referenced for a potential GA, see these points off and you're well on the road to FA if that's what you're after. I'll put the GA on hold to give you time to sort this lot out, let me know when you're happy for me to re-review and, hopefully, promote. This article isn't far from A-class, so please do work on it and get back to me. The Rambling Man 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of what I can when I get back from my class and doctor's appointment later. Thanks for commenting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of all concerns (well, addressed them, you may not agree with all them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'm now listing as a good article. Well done to all concerned. The Rambling Man 13:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest making "In mass media" its own stand-alone section? It's generally discouraged for sections to have only one subsection, I believe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It kind of all seems connected, and I was merely following the Star Wars articles. But if you think it's best, then that's fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like bad grammar: Morga enjoyed his time as Jason, making sure he "really go into the character". but I don't want to change it since it's a quote. Is it a typo or is that what he said? Paul730 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be phrased 'making sure he "really got into the character"' or 'making sure to "really go into the character"' but since I don't know the original quote, I don't know which one is appropiate. Paul730 14:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OOOOOH. LOL, see I didn't even notice the problem, as I've always read it correctly. No, that was a typo on my part. My bad. You're right, it should be "got" and not "go".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Something you might find interesting: [When discussing ideas for F13 prt 2] "My friends in Boston felt it was really important to bring back this Jason character. Well, I thought that was just the worst idea I ever heard. I was completely wrong." - Sean Cunningham Paul730 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the book mentions that Cunningham basically stepped back from everything when they decided to use Jason. That's when he became a producer instead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem

There's something wrong with the bottom of the page. Don't really know what it is or how to fix it, so just thought I'd draw attention to it so somebody else could. Paul730 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Paul730 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem corrected. Someone screwed with the Friday the 13th template, located at the bottom. I went over to the template page and corrected it. It usually happens when people try and add things but don't understand the code being used, and they basically screw things up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with ref 77. Paul730 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Killer status

The infobox refers to Jason as a spree killer, but is categorised as a serial killer and mass murderer, which strikes as an inconsistency. Yes, it's this topic again, but the difference this time is that I've just more or less given up on battling these types of things, so I don't really give a shit anymore which way it goes, but thought others who clearly know what they're doing could see how best to straighten this out. --Bacteria 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me if it's removed entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

• [1] - Let's see if we can find some help
• [2] - more
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

I'll go through these later and see if we can solve that pesky "mass", "spree", "seriel" problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Added some more. These are in the article now, but I want to go through them more detailed to see if there is anything else usable. I just used the key word hits intitially. All of ref names, so if someone else reads them and decides there was something relevant, then you can use the ref name instead of having to write up the entire citation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculousness

"Martin Jay Sadoff kept a bag with him full of hockey gear, as most of the crew was Canadian and loved hockey" This is said as if implying he was a hockey fan because he is Canadian. I'm Canadian and I hate hockey. (Contact me) 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC

It's what the book said. If you don't like it, sorry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unwieldly infobox

I'm up for removing most of the fields or reorgansing the thing. Why isn't {{infobox character}} used?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That template isn't used because I can't stand it. It's got tons of in-universe crap in it that just takes up space..as per the stupid MOS you shouldn't delete section of an infobox if they aren't used. Well, "spouse" and all that other family stuff has nothing to do with understanding almost any fictional character. Like, what the hell is "cause/reason"? "Address", "religion"? This just ridiculous. I prefer to create them by hand, because it allows you the ability to create a section, when needed, that isn't normally found in an infobox. Otherwise, if you do put it in those infoboxes, you get this huge list of nothing, that only leads people to add in all that in-universe information, which by far, violates just about everything WP:WAF says about infoboxes. As for this infobox, what needs to be removed? It contains all the essentials: who created him, who has portrayed him, race (because his portrait doesn't make it obvious that he was once white), signature weapon and classification as a mass murderer (which are two things that he is famous for). The only thing that I could see going would be the fictional location, "Camp Crystal Lake". Other than that, everything else is either completely OOU, or IU information that is cited by secondary sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As for removing most of the fields, the template you mention has about 10 times the amount of fields.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you shouldn't really use half of them :P. The "portrayed by" bit just seems huuuge (understandably) but it's not helped by the references to all the films. Perhaps the (Such and such a film) inline citations should be replaced with "" style instead? I just don't like seeing too much in an infobox as they're meant to be kept to a bare minimum (although as with {{infobox character}} in practice, they rarely are). ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that we simply use the film citations from the "Film appearances" section as duplicate references for all the actors that portrayed the character?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is how it would look, which is slightly confusing, because you won't know who appeared in which film without going to the "Men behind the mask" section and reading about each one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the way Paul730 did it :).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture and mass media

Just wanted to inquire -- what are the differences between these two sections? I guess I'm not seeing a huge difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass media generally consists of references to the character, or appearances, where as popular culture is more like things that are used as marketing gimmicks for the character, or just plain ol market products. At least, that was how I always saw it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass media is part of pop culture. Globeclotter 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A part of, but not the same as. Awards are a part of the reception of something, and you have that them in their own section. Since it has been brought up that, stylistically, an article shouldn't have 1 subsection in a main section, they were separated. Since there are multiple topics covered in the first section, it is labeled the general title of "Popular culture", as it contains many varying subjects, while "Mass media" is specifically that, a section on the mass media portion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Powers

I really think that this page needs a section about his powers and abilities. --70.240.147.215 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Jason Voorhees#Characteristics. Any powers and abilities that have been verified with reliable sources are already mentioned in that section, which basically consist of invulnerability and super strength. I can't recall any abilities other than those anyway. Unless you count his ability to be edited from one location to the next, with no real explaination as to how he got there so fast...but that's more of movie editing issue, and not an actual ability. He cannot teleport, and we know he isn't running anywhere because he walks through the woods.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In "Jason Goes to Hell" he has the ability to posess people through a snakelike creature.

Can I just ask why you think a powers section is necessary? The info you mention is already in the article (the possession thing is mentioned in "Appearances", in the same place as JGtH). If you look at Superman#Powers and abilities, it details how Superman's powers changed over time, depending on who was writing him. It contains real world context, rather than simply "he can fly, has heat vision, etc." As far as I can see, all that info is supported by sources. Unless you have reliable sources discussing Jason's powers, I don't think a powers section is really necessary, as it would just be original research and unnecessary plot information. Paul730 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tense

Jason was a minor character in the original Friday the 13th, where he appeared as a hallucination of the main character Alice Hardy, but went on to become the main antagonist of the series. Is this meant to be in past tense? I'm asking because I thought that informantion about fiction should always be written in present tense. I mean, he still is a minor character in the original... if you watch it now he isn't gonna suddenly have a bigger part. Just checking before I change it. Paul730 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be present, it's just something that slipped through unnoticed. You can usually go with your gut instinct and correct it. If, per chance, it wasn't just a mistake that slipped by, someone would say so. Good catch.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

This page is poorly written. I suggest a thorough copyedit. I'm a little surprised that it made it to FA status. --80.1.36.9 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify?  Paul  730 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, removing one weasel word is hardly "poorly written".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Original Mask

This article doesn't mention that Jason wore a burlap sack over his head in Part 2. I think it's important to include this piece of info. Bobisbob (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't a burlap sack, but a pillow case (and was only referred to as "the bag" by the crew, from what I could find), and there's nothing to say about it really. It isn't a recognizable image for the character, and it was used and discarded in one film. It was only briefly mentioned in any source I could find, and I don't recall the page that it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be stated that until he wore the hockey mask, he wore the pillow case instead. Just mention it in passing?  Paul  730 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mention it where? The film section, the design section? He's just seen with it in Part 2, he maybe have stole it from the bed where he killed Cassandra in the sex-kabob, which means he had it for a few hours before removing it. It seems really unimportant to the character. The only mentioning I can think of is to add it to the part that mentions the hockey mask, and just say that he wore a bag (better to be vague, since I've never seen any reliable source confirm it as a pillow case, but based on what a burlap sack looks like, it certainly wasn't that) in the previous film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant, just say something like "Jason gets his hockey mask in part 3, having previously worn a bag over his head in part 2" Only word it better. It's not that important, but it couldn't hurt to just mention the fact briefly.  Paul  730 00:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Like that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that looks fine.  Paul  730 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New information in Freddy vs Jason vs Ash *SPOILERS*

The latest issue brought up a possibility that Pamela used the necromonicon to ressurect Jason, thus making him a 'deadite'. Although this probably isn't 'canon' with the films, should it be mentioned?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Only in the literature section (if it happens in the comics). Simply say something to the effect of, "Issue 6 of Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash established a new reason for Jason's resurrection, after drowning as a boy, ...blah blah blah" --- You get my drift.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the other origin Wildstorm presented in their first Friday the 13th series, should that be mentioned? The whole thing about the ghosts of the genocided Indian tribe possessing Jason. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it isn't already since you're asking about it. Yes, all origin stories should be mentioned. Since I don't have any of the comics, I went by the synopsis for each for what to put in the article. They can easily be rewritten. Please do so if you know more important details that occur in them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason's Fights

Personally, I think that there should be a section(or mini-section)about all of the charachters Jason Voorhees has fought, I mean, as far as I know, He is the only killer to fight so many others. It would be great if you could add this, or mention his rivals, like Jason-x, Freddy(twice, and the original plan for 7 or 8 to be the battle movie), Ash and Leatherface. Sorry for buggin' ya.

It sounds a bit trivial and fancruft-y to be honest. Jason's various battles with other icons are covered in the "Appearances" section as it is, we don't need an entire section or sub-section giving undue weight to info which can already be discerned from the article. Without any reliable sources discussing these crossovers, we can't prove why they would be notable enough for a separate section. Us stating on our own behalf that Jason has the highest number of crossover battles would be original research.  Paul  730 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're Right, missed it. Were any of them Canon? I've read'em all and though he seems to die in every bout, he comes back, canon or not. Is it safe to say no comics that are versus are non-canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss canon, as it isn't relevant to the article and Wikipedia isn't a fourm. To quickly answer your question though, I would consider Freddy vs Jason as canon because it's part of the film series, Jason vs Leatherface is explicitly non-canon as far as I know, and Ash vs Freddy vs Jason or whatever its called is presumably canon since it was intended as a film sequel. I don't think there's an exlcusive Friday the 13th canon however, just count what you like.  Paul  730 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly useful source

Being Jason Voorhees - It's basically Kane Hodder talking about the kills and stuff, then I thought of you guys. Not saying I wanna kill you guys but... never mind. Anyway, he also talks about the look of Vorhees, and Jason X - I assume it was around the time of that sequel's release. Dunno if it's of any use to an already Featured Article, but there's a lot I feel that can be used on other relative article... hope it helps. -- Harish - 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it (or you could). If there is repeated information, then we can swap out some of the sources for that one, because most of the sources come from two books, and if we can get a url source that says some of the same things then that gives us some variety in our sourcing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Van Voorhees

What is supposed to be creepy about a Flemish/Dutch last name? 83.76.224.240 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you. Victor Miller just found it creepy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarities between Jason and Batman

In someways, couldn't Jason be described as the villian counterpart of Batman Both are shadowy figures with a dark past, and both lack any supernatural powers other than shear strength. Both are dark and reclusive, showing little emotion or mercy for their enemies, and both are often portrayed as effectively invincible. The only difference is that Batman kills those who are threats to the city, while Jason kills those who tread on the grounds of the camp where he died. It may sound outragious, but think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion7 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First, Batman doesn't kill people (at least not with any regularity). Second, this isn't the place to discuss hypothetical symbolisms. If you're talking about improving the article, great, but without a literary analysis it would be original research for us to say anything of the sort.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jason has a shitload of powers. And Batman never kills outside of Frank Miller/Tim Burton-land.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty silly comparison in all honesty.  Paul  730 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll admit that some similaritys and on the subject of killing in the early comics BATMAN KILLED CRIMINALS ALL THE TIME and there are many different points to both characters User: Lord ciron 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.201.111 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying he killed criminals in Burton films. Jeez. (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Jason as a feral child

I've added Category:Feral children to this article. Jason was living in the woods since he was 11 and send the rest his childhood living off the land. I think the category would fit him. 66.112.107.98 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First, he has not definitive backstory. Technically, in the original he died as a child. In the first sequel, they only speculate about if he survived drowning. Regardless, that category is for real feral children, not fictional ones (speaking of, Tarzan should be removed from that list).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Should Jason's profile image be replaced with the one from '09? It's all over youtube and google, and since the new movie is coming out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't replace images just because there is a "newer" one available, that gives into recentism. The only reason we have that one up is because it's hard to find as good of quality (lighting, contrast, etc) with the older images. There's nothing wrong with the image up there now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a bit wrong, as the look used on the page is not Jason's usual garb, and was only used for one, arguably two films. I think it would be better to use a picture that showed Jason in clothing more like that he used from films three to seven, as that is the look more often associated with him. Each film made minor changes such as adding or removing gloves and belt and changes in color that could be attributed to age, but I think it's better to use the long-used look than either newer one. --JohnVMaster (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Usual garb? The only thing identifiable about the character is his mask and his machete. His clothes changed in each film (though they were supposed to be the same, they're clearly not when you look at them). He isn't Freddy Krueger. He doesn't have a shirt and a pair of pants that are a staple of his character, like Freddy's red and green sweater. His trademark is his mask and machete, both of which are present in the picture. Given that this mask rather closely resembles his original mask (with slight tweaks), which is already shown in the section below, there is no real reason to change his picture. This is the best quality picture out there that shows a full body appearance. What clothes he is wearing is irrelevant, since he was never known for his sense of style.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jason's usual garb were the workshirt and khakis seen in Part 3, The Final Chapter and quite faded in Jason Lives. I understand your other reasoning and if I'm able to find a high quality picture of him from p3-6 of Jason in that garb, I'll tell here. Even though his mask and machete are the only parts the public associates with him, nevertheless I still feel it would be important to show the clothes he more often assumed. He wore a jacket in the last 3 of the 12 installments and even though his clothes changed from 3-9, they remained at least somewhat similar each time. --JohnVMaster (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They're supposed to be the same, but the actual clothes are completely different. I don't mean literally different in the sense that they were obviously replaced the costume designer, but completely different in that the design of the shirt and coloring is different. Your clothes don't change color over the period of a couple of hours. Regardless, the only staple of the character is his mask and his machete. No one ever comments about his shirt and pants. It is not important because they are just clothes. The image currently used clearly represents him in all his glory. Some fannish opinion (pardon my use of the term) that an image of him in his original garb is going to make the image all the better isn't how we determine image use. No one will come to this article (with the exception of hardcore fans, which isn't who we write articles for) and say, "hey, doesn't he normally wear a green button up shirt, with some light colored khakis?" The clothes he wears is inconsequential to the look of the character. Read the article, you won't find information about the shirt he wore in Part 2 or Part 3, or any of the films for that matter because it isn't relevant to the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TaskForce

Im proposing a taskforce for Jason and a Friday the 13th project. anyone who approves of this idea, go to this page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. Toonami Reactor (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jason Takes Manhattan Plot Details

I feel the plot details I posted that were deleted are very important to the story from Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. The story for that film is actually one of the most confusing of the series, and that is why I feel more explanation is necessary. I realize it's supposed to be short and sweet, compared to the actual pages for each of these films, but there is more detail put in the other films so I don't understand why it's not allowed here? There is no introduction to the character of Rennie in the synopsis now, so when her name is listed it seems to come out of left field and noone knows who she is supposed to be. At least you could say "One of the students, Rennie..."

Also, while Part II of the series gives the idea that Jason never actually drowned (which is talked about in the short synopsis), the section for Part VIII neglects to mention that in that particular film Jason does actually drown as a boy. This is shown in flashbacks, ghostly visions, and the apparent dead body of Jason at the end. Why would this not warrant at least a sentence mentioning his death was re-retconned back to how it was in the original film? Otherwise, it's extremely confusing. That's actually something people would come on Wikipedia to check out since it does conflict with Part II's campfire story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the film page, it's the character page. Every minute detail does not need to be added. It is because the film is so damn confusing that we leave out those needless details. There's no introduction to really any of the characters. Ginny isn't "introduced", neither is Chris, Tommy, Trish, etc. Rennie doesn't need to be special. Again, this isn't the film page.

The entire series mythos is based on the legend that he drowned as a boy and then came back. It wasn't "re-retconned" that he did drown, they're merely playing off the same legend that had been in place for 6 sequels. Part II merely makes the suggestion of "what if he didn't drown". It's never clearly stated that he drowned and came back to life, or that he survived the ordeal and grew up in the woods. You only see him as two version, kid and adult. Nothing in between. You're looking way too much into these details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, but then why say they retconned his death at all for Part II then? The way that it's written now makes it sound like the campfire story is true and that's all there is to it. I completely agree with leaving it open ended, and that it is ambigious in the series, but that means taking the phrase "retconned" out of the equation and just saying "Jason is somehow alive" or whatever to that effect. Then both possibilities are equally represented and the statement would be completely accurate. Is that at all possible to remove the "retconned", if you admit there is no definitive answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because, if you read the article, everyone working on the original film clearly states that Jason IS dead in that film. Thus, the sequel retcons his death. Whether they retcon it as him surviving, or him coming back form the dead is neither here nor there, the fact is that they changed it so that he is alive in some capacity in that film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. It says "Jason's death as a boy is retconned..", meaning him dying as a child has been changed. That is not necessarily the case, as you've said. Now if it said "Jason being dead", that's different than saying "his death as a boy". The past and present tenses make all the difference. In the particular instance that he came back to life, he STILL died as a boy. There's nothing being retconned about that. Jason coming back to life is a continuation from that death. Saying it was retconned is implying they re-wrote what it was supposed to be, and now it's something else. You wouldn't say Jason's death was retconned in Part VI, would you? Or pretty much every zombie movie, whoever died's death is retconned? So again, I think it should be slightly altered to something else besides a "retcon". I know what your arguing, but I don't think it reads that way, otherwise I wouldn't of said anything in the first place. The wording is the exact same to the Michael Myers article, where it says Michael's death has been retconned in Halloween: Resurrection (which is true), and that scenario is completely different than Jason's. Michael Myers never died, Jason might have died, yet they are both described as retcons. You already agree that it's not necessarily true that Jason was alive the whole time and living in the woods, so I don't see the big deal about changing one little word to make it a little more obvious you don't mean that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his physical death is retconned, they just don't explain how he came back. If you want the "he survived" angle, then go for it. They DID rewrite what it was supposed to be. Did you not read my last statement, or have you not read the article beyond the plot section? What I agreed to was that the film never clearly defines how he is still alive, whether he survived or whether he is a zombie (though, Steve Miner implies that he survived the drowning). What IS clear is that the filmmakers on the original killed him, and they all acknowledge that his death was retconned in the sequel. Please read the article. You're trying to change a definite into a possible because what, you don't like the fact that he died in the original?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article a few times but I don't think your understanding what I mean. I'm saying using the term "retconned" seems very much like your saying Jason's drowning was changed into him surviving all along. We seem to agree that he could of either survived, or he could of came back to life somehow, but there is no definitive answer. If there is no definitive answer, then the word retconned is incorrect because that word only works if he never drowned in the first place.

Defenition: Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction

Jason coming back to life (zombie, undead, supernatural element) is NOT retconning the first movie. They might not of changed the fact that he drowned, so it's not a retcon. However, if you go by Part 2 all by itself then it is a retcon because they were hinting that he never did drown, changing the facts established in the first film. Using the word retcon is wrong because its confirming the campfire story in Part II as fact, when you yourself said it's only a possibility. I just dont know why you think a character coming back from the grave is a retcon. I guess we're just disagreeing on what a retcon means. Your lumping it into a very generic category, but the term has a very specific meaning. And again, using the phrase "Jason's death as a boy has been retconned.." is the problem, and only works if your believing that Part II rewrote history.

Jason died in Part IV, and came back to life in Part VI, and that is not a retcon. The Part I-Part II scenario could be very similiar to that, where he died and came back. Being totally unbias, it could be that OR it could be that he never died in the first place which is the true definition of a retcon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There reason that is not a retcon is because they clearly resurrect him. He's still dead at the start of Part VI. OMG, I'm not aguing with you over this anymore. I have already told you, that filmmakers have clearly said HE WAS DEAD in the original. Read the article. Good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was dead in the original and he's back from the dead (maybe), so it's not a retcon. Why are so you confused about what I'm saying to you? You keep telling me to read the article for some reason. I KNOW and AGREE that Jason was dead in the first movie, what does that have to do with anything? Just because he's walking around in Part II doesn't make it a retcon because he might of came back to life (supernatural). Why does that statement confuse you? Your use of the word retcon is wrong for that particular situation, and I guess you just won't change it because you don't agree. It's an "unexplained resurrection", kind of like the gap between Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason Goes to Hell. Alter the statement "Jason's death as a boy has been retconned". I would change it myself, but I know you'd change it back. "Through unexplained methods, Jason has returned..", "Jason is found to be alive..", "Jason, revealed to be alive,.." all work. Those statement's dont flat out say he never drowned, like the way it is listed now.

And speaking of which, Jason didn't just die twice in the whole series like it's listed for Jason Goes to Hell. He died in the first film, he died in Part 3 since he's taken to the morgue in the beginning of 4 and pronounced dead, he died in Part 4 at the end, he died in Part 8 (maybe, it's ambigious), and yes he died in Jason Goes to Hell. So I'd also remove that statement that says "Jason Goes to Hell marks the second time Jason died", but I'm sure you won't. And if you want to get even more technical about it, Freddy vs. Jason states that Jason can never die, so you could argue Jason has never died beyond the original movie "he was just sleeping". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He was already dead in the first film. He didn't die in the third film since when they took him to the morgue they show him still breathing in the ice box. When we say "died" we mean official death, i.e. they'd tried to end the series twice by officially killing him (the first time in The Final Chapter and the second time in Jason Goes to Hell). Please read the article top to bottom, maybe even venture over to Friday the 13th (franchise) for some added detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jason's Wiki Picture

Do you think somewhere on the wiki there should be a picture of Derek Mears as Jason from Friday the 13th (2009)? I've heard that the current picture which is taken from Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is only up there because it is the most well-known modern representation of Jason. Well, why not put a picture of the remake's character up? It's a much better look than the current one, and will be more well-known later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you've heard that from. The picture that is up there is up there because it captures the most basic, well known image of him (his hockey mask and his machete), and it does it in a matter that is clear (i.e. the quality of the picture is good). Most of the pictures from the original films aren't great quality for showing a reader what he looks like. We don't change pictures each time a "new version" of the character comes out. It just so happened that the best image available was from the most recent incarnation (probably because it is a promotional image and not a screen capture). An image of Derek Mears as Jason doesn't add any value to the article. We don't add pictures for the sake of having them. Being the most recent doesn't mean that it will be the most well known image. It isn't the image that is well know, it's the imagery that is well known.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found several screencaps which would be better-suited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

None that you've presented here that myself and the other editors of this page can look at.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all the dislike for this picture comes from (someone wanted to change it above), it's as good a Jason image as we could ask for and recentism is certainly no reason to change it.  Paul  730 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The dislike for the picture is due to that among most Friday the 13th fans, "Freddy vs. Jason" is a footnote in history we all want to keep from happening again. Yes I know Wikipedia isn't about Friday the 13th and isn't catering to it's fans specifically, but it's also worthy of note that although Jason's clothes did change color anti-continuity between the third through eighth films, through them all his clothes were basically khakis and a workshirt. Sure it's not an iconic part of his look but if we can find a better screenshot from another film, well what do you guys say? --71.194.238.135 (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Disliking a picture because you don't agree with the existence of FvJ is not a valid reason to get rid of the image. The image itself is the best quality image we have, and there is no valid reason to replace it. This is a promotional image, and no screenshot will ever look better than a promotional image (it's called lighting, and they intentionally do not light well during the actual filming).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC

The new Jason would be better.

Correcting information

I tried to explain that he gets burned up in Earth 2's atmosphere, but they deleted it saying it was "original research". IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW DOES INFORMATION GET ON THIS SITE ANYWAY? Can someone PLEASE find a way of putting on there that he gets burned in Earth 2's atmosphere? Cause I don't know how to cite resources, nor if any resources can be cited for this because I got the information from the movie itself. It's so unfair I don't think I'll ever edit again. I have a wikipedia account but I don't use it anymore due to the creation of an idiotic asinine article (even though I never got banned). 24.65.118.20 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a page on Jason, not the films. Given the size of the page, we don't need every minute detail from the films. We don't need to know the detail of exactly how he lands on Earth 2, and that his mask comes off. It's generalized, because the information is already on the respective film page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural reference in Final Fantasy 6?

In Final Fantasy 6, when Edgar uses the chain saw, occasionally he will wear a hockey mask, which seems very clearly to be a reference to Jason. Does this deserve mention on this page? I think it does since it demonstrates the influence Jason has had on other forms of pop culture. Can we find a reference for this? Cazort (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source for it then yes. Because it isn't "obvious" in the sense that they identify him as such (especially since Jason has never used a chainsaw), and I'm sure the hockey mask (to avoid copyright issues) was a plain white hockey mask, we would need some type of reliable source from the creators discussing that that was their little homage to Jason. Otherwise, if you don't get the creators then we cannot say it was intentional reference.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalised into an article about gonorrhea

It's Friday the 13th, and it looks like someone has jokingly replaced this article with one about gonorrhea. Please undo this vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.215.129 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I Totally Agree! please..someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.178.82 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Article used as a source by Roger Ebert!

See [7]. Zagalejo^^^ 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Friday 13th 2009

I would like to add what Jason is doing in the new 2009 film.FashVic (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, man. But be careful J.Greb IS EVIL!!!! Kidding. (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

1980 introductions

I want to add it. (JoeLoeb (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

His Year of Birth is 1946

In Freddy vs Jason, the character "Deputy Scott Stubbs" (played by Lochlyn Munro), says that Jason was killed in 1957 at the age of 11, obviously making his year of birth 1946. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.123.234.150 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? He's a fictional character, so he doesn't actually have a "birthday".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mrs. Voorhees article says he's born June 13, 1946, but why doesn't this one say that? Kidlittle (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article not locked

This is the first time I've seen a featured article unlocked... interesting? 76.64.141.130 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean a featured article of the day? I think they should lock it if it's the FToTD, but in general featured articles are not locked on everyday basis. Specifically because not even featured articles are perfect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. It is "Today's Featured Article" which is historically locked due to a WP: rule. Just wondering what's up. 76.64.141.130 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I know they move protected it...probably just forgot to full protect it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Eminem lyrics...

I'm certainly no prude, and I use this sort of language myself when I deem it appropriate, but do we really need to include those lyrics on THIS page? I can imagine that, upon visiting an article about rap or Eminem in particular, one would expect explicit lyrics and profanity. But on a completely unrelated page? Is this appropriate? I propose we remove the box with the Eminem lyrics. His reference to the movie/character is valid, and should stay, but the lyrics should go. Thoughts? Deltwalrus (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The box provides added appeal given the long section that contains a tremendous amount of text and only one other image. Wikipedia is not censored, and it's directly related to Jason's impact on popular culture. This in addition to the fact that Eminem clearly utilizes the character or series frequently in his music for some reason, given the number of instances that we could find (others probably exist).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of Eminem's extensive usage of the character's mask, and reference to the character itself, are notable and valid. No argument here about the pop culture value. I disagree that breaking up the page visually is a valid reason per se to keep the box, but that's secondary to my core question, which is this: Is it appropriate to include explicit or profane lyrics on a page where there is, arguably, no expectation of encountering them? I 100% agree that Wikipedia is not, and should not, be censored, and that lyrics such as these, when adding representative or descriptive value to a page's subject, are valid inclusions. But the page is about Jason Vorhees the fictitious character, not Eminem or his music. I just think we can do without the lyrics on this particular page. Perhaps replace with a picture of Eminem performing in the mask? Deltwalrus (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a free image of Eminem performing with the mask on, then I would gladly suppliment the box for that. As it stands, one is not in existence that I'm aware of. As such, given the extensiveness of the Eminem stuff, and the lyrics that explicitely states the reference to Jason, I feel that it's in appropriate usage. It's minimalistic, and I don't view it as "should the dirty words appear on this page". If some high profile individual stated that the Teletubbies were (pardon the usage) "fucking retarded", I would certainly include that on the page in an appropriate section on public reaction. The fact that the language might be a bit much is irrelevant to the fact that it is an accurate representation of what the individual said and the idea that it's not something you'd typically see on a page related to Teletubbies wouldn't cross my mind so long as the context was right for the inclusion of that person's opinion (i.e. a section about public reaction). That said, if you can locate another Eminem song that contains lyrical references to Jason I'd also be glad to suppliment that out to please you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not scour the Interwebs for a suitable picture, but if anyone else has one, that's fine. I think I am not making myself clear with what I am trying to convey here with regard to the lyrics, so I'm going to back off and just let it be. And this is not about pleasing me, as you put it, it is about making this the best encyclopedia possible. Deltwalrus (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lyrics were there when it went up for FAC, and no one voiced an issue with it at that time. You're actually the first person to say something in the almost 3 years that it has been in existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Part VI Retconning

In re: Tommy's assertion in Part VI that Jason drowned in Crystal Lake as a child:

Per the book he consults, Jason can only be stopped if he is returned to his original resting place, where he drowned as a child. As the climax of the film depicts Jason successfully being stopped by being returned to this resting place, it stands to reason that, per McLoughlin's script, Jason did in fact drown there as a child. Further, the subsequent films follow this canon: Jason is only "freed" in part VI because of Tina's psychic powers, and defeated by being returned to the bottom of the lake; at the beginning of part VIII, Jason is immobilized at the bottom of Crystal Lake until he is revived by electricity, as he is at the beginning of Part VI. As the series contains a few retcons, I see no reason that this retcon should not be mentioned, as it directly impacts the circumstances of Jason's defeat and resurrection in the two subsequent films.64.129.66.88 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He's still alive at the end of the movie, so how was he stopped? Being chained to the bottom of the lake doesn't really mean you're "resting". There's too much original research going on here. The only actual retcon is the fact that he drowned in the first film. Otherwise, he never would have grown up if he drowned and came back to life later. You also have to remember that every sequel has stated that the "legend" is that he drowned as a boy. It's never stated that that actually happened. The only reason the first sequel is considered a "retcon" of that event is because it was his own mother saying he was dead. Again, had he died he would not have grown up into a man, he would have remained a boy if he came back from the dead originally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm solely going off of Tom McLoughlin's script here, as well as the scripts for parts VII and VIII. Jason is "stopped" because-- well-- he's stopped. In other parts of these movies we see him engage in superhuman feats of strength like bursting through the wall of a building, breaking a man in half, punching a hole through a man's chest, etc., yet when under the lake, he's unnable to remove a chain from around his neck. Whatever logic McLoughlin had for Jason going from dead boy to dead man, it's present in the script.209.34.51.198 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You never see him engage in superhuman feats until Part 6. Before that, he is shown to be "human". He bleeds and hurts, he responds in pain when attacked. He is merely just never actually "killed" until The Final Chapter. The only time he has gone through any "wall" before Part 6 is when he goes through the door in The Final Chapter. It was Jason Lives that turned him into a superhuman, which is expressed in the script when Tommy specifically stated "he's even stronger now".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize this; what I'm saying is that, despite being able to do all of that stuff in Part VI, getting chained to a rock under Crystal Lake renders him incapable of removing the chain, and in subsequent installments Jason needs "help" in escaping the lake; if Tommy is wrong and the Lake doesn't hold some sort of power over Jason, it's inexplicable that he can't remove the chain. I realize that Jason is presented as fully human in II & III (and ambiguously human in IV), which is why I think that McLoughlin's retconning is notable; in order for the climax to make any sense at all, Jason had to have drowned in the lake. Otherwise, he kind of just for no reason at all loses his super powers when underwater.209.34.51.198 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There's too much original research here. Nothing ever states that it is a retcon. You cannot interpret a film and say there is a retcon. The producers have only ever acknowledged the one retcon for the original sequel as the original sequel was never supposed to have Jason to begin with. See Friday the 13th (franchise)#Development and the section on this page that discusses his development as a character. In addition, if you have to look at the film (which we don't because that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia), Tommy's books are about supernatural entities. Jason did not become supernatural until this film (you admit that yourself). Thus, the idea of "putting him in his resting place" is actually a contradiction in the film given that his actual resting place is the cemetary where his body was buried. Otherwise, you'd have to say that he was never dead when he was buried and that he's been a walking zombie ever since he was a small boy. So, in reality the issue you bring up is less a retcon and more of a continuity error on the part of McLoughlin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit that II & III don't depict him as supernatural, and I'm not sure what the creators were going for with IV. Part VI is the first time that Jason is explicitly depicted as supernatural. Tommy's book says that Jason must be returned to his original resting place, hence the return to the Lake and the apparent retcon that he did drown there. If Jason hadn't have drowned as a child, the lake wouldn't be his original resting place, and therefore his being chained to the boulder wouldn't have any more effect on him than being shot in the head. Even if we take McLoughlin's treatment as a continuity error, it's a continuity error that becomes canonical in parts VII and VIII; even if you call talk of Jason's having drowned as a child in VI as "interpretation," the story arc of the main character in VIII relies on Jason having been a "zombie child" under Crystal Lake years prior to Part II.209.34.51.198 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a continuity error, not a retcon. The only retcon is what they did in the first sequel. It's the only one that is even acknowledged as a retcon by the producers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because a narrative choice isn't acknowledged by the producers doesn't mean that it didn't happen, especially in a series like F13th where the power has shifted hands so many times. In his interview segments in "Crystal Lake Memories," the Pt. VIII writer/director indicates that "Little Jason" stuff is real (though he intentionally left it open to interpretation for the audience), meaning that Jason, at some point, was a zombie child beneath Crystal Lake.209.34.51.198 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with you. You have to provide something that says this is a retcon and not something a continuity error made by McLoughlin. The page already says "where he supposedly drowned as a child". It's clear that this is a matter of question within the series from that statement. But, to say "retcon" when they have never stated such a thing (exception being to the first sequel) would be original research because you are describing an intentional change and not something an error. It doesn't matter if some later film says he was a "zombie child" (which by the way is false, because Renny was hallucinating...she showed that repeatedly throughout the film) or not, because that only indicates that they decided to listen to an error from two films before. You're trying to add a personal judgement and that is not allowed per the policy on original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If VI and VIII treat McLoughlin's "error" as canon, though, doesn't it move it from error to... well, canon? It isn't false that Jason is presented as a zombie child in Part VIII, either; Rob Hedden says that he's left it open to interpretation in Crystal Lake Memories, but that it was his intention that Renny really did get attacked as a child by a zombie Jason under Crystal Lake: And Rennie has this total fear of the water. She literally was dragged down by Jason- it's freaked her out ever since, and now he's come back. (p. 206). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.51.198 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it as this, there has only ever been one identified retcon. Anything else you're proposing is personal interpretation of the events in the film and is thus original research. The only reason "retcon" even appears on this page where it does is because it's something the producers have identified themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Part VIII's not personal interpretation, it's straight from the director; I've even cited it.209.34.51.198 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jason Goes to Hell/Freddy vs. Jason/Jason X Debates

I, Ghostkaiba297, and one of my newest friends, Jabrona, are 100% certain without a doubt that Freddy vs. Jason is set between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. Jason dies in Jason Goes to Hell - dragged into the ground, into hell. Alive again in Jason X, released before FvJ because the latter is in development hell. Freddy vs. Jason - Jason is resurrected by Freddy - who, at the end of JGTH, pulled Jason's hockey mask into hell.

Also, we are sure that Jason is completely incinerated in Earth 2's atmosphere at the end, except for his hockey mask, the last remnant of him that lands in the lake. The next film to be released was, as mentioned, Freddy vs. Jason, then a remake series. I mean, what happened to Pinhead when he went up in space? No one can deny he's dead for good after what Paul does to him. But we're not talking about Pinhead, we're talking about Jason.

Now, on the opposing side we've got our chief admin, Bignole, and his friend Paul730. They firmly believe that Freddy vs. Jason is out of continuity with the Jason series and that Jason survives the end of Jason X. They say any statement otherwise is "original research", a policy of Bignole's invention as I'm sure we all know. Well, original research is unverifiable comments often based purely on theory. Well, Freddy vs. Jason was always planned, and after Jason Goes to Hell, once New Line had the Friday the 13th series, there was no doubt the much-anticipated versus would come, so Jason X was written to make room for it and set in the future to not contradict it.

Bignole thinks conclusions should be drawn based on what appears in the movie itself. However, there is nothing to suggest Jason survived the reentry into the atmosphere. Saying that he survived could be construed as original research. Saying he died can be verified by the Jump to Death menu, as well as nothing's left of him but his hockey mask. What, is the hockey mask gonna start frying people with Dr. Octogonapus lasers or something?

(One final note before I get other sides of the debate is, as I already said, Bignole is wikipedia's chief admin. So when stating arguments, it would be wise to not get angry and flame him. Well, I'm guessing that's against wikipedia rules anyway to flame people, but flame an admin and he could ban you without a second thought. Though I'm not afraid to say it's a bit out of character for an admin to add potentially false info, but hopefully we'll settle that in the debate) Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Update, the burning in atmosphere thing has been said in a way that does not explicitly state he burns to death but doesn't say he survived either, just saying "burning in its atmosphere", which can mean either. So I guess if Bignole worded it that way, we'll omit the argument of whether he survived (as that's no longer an issue in editing), and I guess the debate will stick to the main scheme, of the Freddy vs. Jason continuity. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Like I said, you'd have better luck on WP:FILM, or at least asking people from there to come here because not a lot of people watch this page.

Now to address your issues. When retelling plot information, we do go by what appears on the screen. With regard to Jason X, I have actually rewritten the statement to say that he falls to Earth 2 and burns in the atmosphere. To suggest anything else would be original research because that's all you see happen. You don't see his body afterward, you only see a mask.

With regard to where a film lies in continuity. I have stated repeatedly that that has nothing to do with this page. The "films" section is merely about giving a brief summary of his appearance in a film, nothing more. It's not there to debate whether his appearance in Freddy vs. Jason puts him before or after Jason X. That's not relevant to this page. THis page is meant to take an encyclopedic stand on the topic of Jason Voorhees. I even removed the bit about "retconning" from the summary of the second film so that even that judgement (whether supported by sources or not) is not part of the summary of the film's events.

Regardless, one cannot say "Jason was pulled into the ground in Jason Goes to Hell," and "Jason comes out of the ground in Freddy vs. Jason", thus "Freddy vs. Jason picks up where Jason Goes to Hell left off." when there is a 10 year gap in between films, with one film in between them, and no indication in Freddy vs. Jason that their stories even overlap. That would be synthesis. You're taking two separate points and trying to create a third, unique outcome from them. But again, I point out that continuity has not place here, because the film summaries are a reflection of what specifically happens in the films themselves, and not only should they not contain user assumptions as to their continuity, but they should also not be rearranged to fit whatever supposed continuity might exist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Freddy vs. Jason is clearly & obviously set between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. The matter of continuity is simple common sense: At the end of Jason Goes to Hell, Jason is defeated (sent to hell, as per the title), and Freddy's glove appears to drag his hockey mask into the ground. Freddy vs. Jason begins with Freddy monologuing that he's been stuck in hell, but has now "found someone" (Jason) who will enable him to escape. He resurrects Jason, and the film ends with Jason (and apparently Freddy) still "alive" (as Jason emerges from Crystal Lake holding Freddy's severed head, which then winks at the camera...obviously these are supernatural characters, but whatever...the point is to show that they're not defeated). Jason X begins in the present day & then proceeds to the far future, with Jason being incinerated on falling through the atmosphere of another planet. So clearly Freddy vs. Jason cannot follow Jason X in continuity. But this is all just dancing around the point, which is:

Freddy vs. Jason is in fact mean to pick up where Jason Goes to Hell left off. There's commentary about this on one of the DVDs. It's been years since I watched it but I'm pretty sure it was on Freddy vs. Jason. They talk about how the idea for a crossover film was in place since before New Line even acquired the Friday the 13th franchise (this is discussed in the Friday the 13th (franchise) article), and how said crossover was in development hell for many years and thus Jason X was eventually made first. I'm sure the sources from the franchise article could be brought to bear here if that's the root of this disagreement. Yes 10 years elapsed between when the films were made, but that really doesn't have any bearing on the continuity of the story...Revenge of the Sith came out 28 years after A New Hope but the continuity is clear & intended. The overlap in the stories between Jason Goes to Hell and Freddy vs. Jason (and Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare) is indicated via Freddy's opening monologue.

All of that said, Bignole is (at least in part) correct that the purpose of the film sections in this article isn't really to explain the continuity. It might be appropriate to briefly mention the continuity when explaining Jason's role in Freddy vs. Jason, but you'd have to cite a source. I can see how that question might pop up in a reader's mind when the paragraph talk about Jason going to the future in Jason X, then jumps back to "a present-day Jason" in FvJ. There might be room to (again, briefly) mention the continuity shift there (again, only with a source). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Illa, where would the confusion be for a reader if the first line for Jason X is "takes place in the future", and the first line for FvJ says, "present-day Jason"? I have found a new source where Shannon and Swift say they did not want to mess with the chronology of the two films so they intentionally started Jason in the ground because that was where he was last seen in Jason Goes to Hell. They don't mention anything about him being in Hell though, and skirt around saying that he was actually there. So I would have a problem insinuating that he is in Hell when the writers themselves won't even say that. That is why I also go back to the fact that we should write what we see, not what is printed/spoken after the fact.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Freddy says they're in hell, though: "I had to search the bowels of Hell, but I found someone, someone who'll make 'em remember. He may get the blood, but I'll get the glory, and that fear is my ticket home". It's right there in the opening lines. I really think that is "writing what we see, not what's printed/spoken after the fact", because it's right there in the dialogue. That's why I think this is so blatantly obvious. I first glanced at this discussion and thought "wait, someone doesn't think that FvJ follows Jason Goes to Hell?", because I always thought it was implied/stated/obvious from Freddy's opening monologue that it does. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To me it seemed that those were separate thoughts. That he searched Hell and couldn't find anyone, but found Jason in Crystal Lake to do his work for him. That was the way I always interpreted it. That said, all that would need to be changed would be to add "resurrected from Hell". I don't think "as he was left in Jason Goes to Hell is necessary. As for Jason X, to me that still is an unexplained resurrection because 4 to 5 years pass between in-film continuities (since FvJ takes place in 2003 and JX in 2008) so I don't think anything needs to change as far as indicating that his resurrection in JX has anything to do with FvJ because he could have died and come back any number of times between then. We don't know because it's never stated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand how you can interpreted it that way. He flat-out says "I had to search the bowels of Hell, but I found someone". He searched the bowels of Hell and found Jason. He doesn't say "I searched the bowels of Hell and came up empty so I (somehow got out of hell and) looked in a lake." In fact Crystal Lake is never mentioned until almost halfway through the film. I think that assuming he searched anywhere other than Hell is the real assumption/synthesis here, as that's clearly not explicitly advanced by the primary source. At the start of the film, Freddy and Jason are both in Hell. That's said in Freddy's monologue, and it's the whole point of the opening: it's how they meet, because at the end of their respective previous films (Jason Goes to Hell and Freddy's Dead) they were both killed.

As for the confusion, it comes in because Jason X and FvJ are the only 2 films in the series that are out of chronological sequence with each other. The reader is reading along, and each film's plot follows the preceding one until Jason X takes the character 445 years into the future, then FvJ follows and suddenly it's "a present-day Jason battles Freddy Krueger." As a reader, I'd wonder why/how we jumped from 445 years in the future back to the present day, when up until this point each film's story has followed the previous one. It'd be rather simple to explain this shift by saying "Set between the stories of Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is a crossover in which present-day Jason..." This is the only section that discusses the plotlines, and the confusing jump from the far future back to the present day is barely mentioned, when it would be rather easy to clarify by tweaking the sentence a bit. I agree with you that we don't have to state or even imply a relationship between the plots of FvJ and JX, but we can at least mention that FvJ is set between the preceding 2 films. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that already implied by the "takes place in 2010, and skips ahead 455 years" for JX, and then FvJ stating "present-day" with 2003 in parenthesis?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of Freddy vs. Jason taking place 10 years after Jason Goes to Hell, many mistakes have been made regarding the timelines as written on websites. They say like four years go by between the intro of Part VII and its main plot, yet at the intro Tina is like 7, and in the movie she's like 17, so it would have been 10 years. If she was 13 at the prologue, she would have been the same age as Harry Potter in Prisoner of Azkaban, but she's younger than he is in Philosopher's Stone. I've written a timeline somewhere on Official Halloween Message Board, under either General Horror Discussion, Nightmare, or Friday that makes the most sense given other sources I've read. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghost, we're not really interested in what's said on fan sites or the like, we're interested in what's actually said in the films and in the sources tied directly to those films. We're not trying to write a fictional timeline here, we're simply trying to convey to the reader where each of the stories fall in relation to each other. There are a lot of "fictional timelines" of different film series floating around on teh interwebz, and most of them rely heavily on assumption and original research.

Bignole, I think that's assuming that readers will know that by "present-day" we mean "present-day as in when the film was released (2003)" and not "present-day in today (2011)". The sentence currently reads "Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is a crossover in which present-day Jason battles A Nightmare On Elm Street's villain Freddy Krueger". In that sentence "present-day" could be interpreted as "present-day to the reader" (2011) in this case. I think it would be simpler to leave out the "present-day", as that phrase has a certain inherent relativity, and instead just say "Set between the events of Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is a crossover in which Jason battles A Nightmare On Elm Street's villain Freddy Krueger". That makes it pretty clear where the story falls in relation to the previous 2 installments, without attempting to pin any specific year on it (since as far as I recall Jason X is the only one that actually mentions specific years). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have all that if you can say, "Set in 2003"? This is about being terse. It's 2003 in Freddy vs. Jason, there are billboards that indicate the relative year. At the very most, I think something as simple as "Set before Jason X", would be all that would be required. I don't think you need to hold a reader's hand that much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All that needs to be said in this discussion is that we should not try to make reference to any chronological details if we cannot source it to a reliable source or the subject itself. We cannot speculate or synthesize the order of the films. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I misinterpreted the "10 years elapsed" thing. I thought you were saying Freddy vs. Jason was set ten years after Jason Goes to Hell, but I never really looked closely at the paragraph and saw it clearly said "when the films were made". Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Retro Hippie, there's no synthesis or analysis in simply stating the relative order of the stories. As previously stated, the behind-the-scenes features of Freddy vs. Jason describe that it is set after Jason Goes to Hell and before Jason X. This is also blatantly obvious from the film itself, as Freddy vs. Jason takes place in the "present day" whereas Jason X takes place in the 25th century. Recognizing that 2003 comes before 2455 isn't original research.

Bignole, I don't recall that it's specifically mentioned in Freddy vs. Jason what year it's supposed to be. It's just "the present", as most of these films are (with the exception of Jason X, which is explicitly set in the far future). That's why I feel it's not an unreasonable request to indicate to the reader that, unlike every other film in the franchise up to that point, FvJ doesn't directly follow the film that preceded it. We could simply say "set prior to Jason X" or something simple like that. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that "Set before the events of Jason X" was already mentioned in the next sentence, so I made a minor edit and simply moved it back a sentence so that it provides a transition between the descriptions of JX and FvJ:

Previous wording: "Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is a crossover film in which Jason battles A Nightmare On Elm Street's villain Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a supernatural killer who murders people in their dreams. Set before the events of Jason X, Krueger has grown weak, as people in his home town of Springwood have suppressed their fear of him."

Revised wording: "Set before the events of Jason X, Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is a crossover film in which Jason battles A Nightmare on Elm Street's villain Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a supernatural killer who murders people in their dreams. Krueger has grown weak, as people in his home town of Springwood have suppressed their fear of him."

I think this does a better job of transitioning the reader's train of thought from one film to the next, and establishing the chronological relationship of the stories right at the transition point rather than a sentence later, when the reader is now well into thinking about FvJ. Let me know what you think...I may just be overthinking this whole thing. It's a minor flow issue, really. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Now, on the opposing side we've got our chief admin, Bignole, and his friend Paul730. They firmly believe that Freddy vs. Jason is out of continuity with the Jason series and that Jason survives the end of Jason X." Please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said that FvJ isn't canon and that isn't my opinion, I consider all the F13 movies in continuity aside from the remake obviously. However, I agree with Bignole that trying to stitch the continuity of the films together isn't really relevant in an article/section which simply covers Jason's appearances in the films, not the narrative of the series itself. The fact that the article mentions that Jason X is set in the future and FvJ is set in the present should kind of indicate which order they take place in anyway, without holding the reader's hand. I'm not strongly opposed to the "set before the events of Jason X" line as a bit of clarification but it's not really necessary.

As for the issue of Jason dying at the end of Jason X, the article already mentions that he burned in the atmosphere. To imply that he's permanently dead is basically personal interpretation from fans who desire closure to the series. There are several comics and novels which depict Jason surviving that film; whether you choose to consider them canon or not, the ambiguity is still evident.  Paul  730 00:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for saying that, I thought you reverted an edit related to that once. Btw the article says "burned in the atmosphere" cause Bignole put it there shortly after we finished discussing it on our talkpages, cause it doesn't say for sure that he survived or that he died, but we do see him burn so what could be more accurate than that? (I didn't notice until after I started this section, hence my "Update" paragraph) But I think everyone will be satisfied with what it says now. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

He definitely burns up on entry into the atmosphere, but the fact that his (now futuristic-y metal) mask lands in a lake, conveniently close to some nubile young couple, and the final shot is a zoom in on the mask at the bottom of the lake with the classic "sh-sh-sh ah-ah-ah" sound, implies to me that he'll be back somehow. Heck, he's come back from being hacked up, blown to bits, and even sent to Hell...of course he'll find a way back from that! Naturally I'm not suggesting mentioning anything of the kind in-article (the current state looks good to me), but this conversation has got me thinking about how hilariously bad these movies were and now I want to watch them again :) --IllaZilla (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Backstory Mention

I believe that it is worth noting in the header that Jason's backstory has been altered at least twice over the course of the series. No further detail-- that belongs, and indeed is already in, the article. A simple breakdown:

Part 1: Jason drowned as a child. Part 2-5: Jason did not drown as a child but lived in the woods as a hermit. He lived in the woods for years until (if Ginny is to be believed) he just so happened to see his mother die, prompting a killing spree when new counselors began training near Crystal Lake. Part 6-Freddy vs. Jason: Jason drowned as a child and has always been some sort of supernatural force.

The remake/reboot uses a truncated version of Part II's origin story, with Jason's supposed drowning, his mother's killing spree, and her death all happening within a short amount of time, as Jason is still a child when Mrs. Voorhees is decapitated. If we are to acknowledge the remake/reboot (which the article certainly does), this represents no less than three alterations to the character's backstory, two of which occur within the same continuity.

I believe that a simple sentence such as "At least two directors have made modifications to his origins, resulting in conflicting back stories" is an appropriate entry in the heading.209.34.28.236 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem with your statement. The "resulting in conflicting backstories" part. Who is it conflicting with? No film legitimately says that his death did or did not occur. It is always "assumed" one way or the other. In both Part 2 and Part 6 it is insinuated that either he drowned or he didn't drown. Nothing more. There is no conflict in his backstory because his supposed drowning never actually changes anything about him as a character. Thus, his backstory is not actually in conflict, it's a single aspect of his backstory that is never 100% clarified in the series. That is not something for the lead paragraphs. For one, it's a minute detail about a character who is not well known because of his drowning as a boy, but what he did as an adult. Secondly, any fictional character that has multiple creative inputs is going to have differences created in his storyline. Lastly, there is no significant coverage of such a "conflict", so to place make mention of it like it is significant would be placing undue weight on a minor change to the character over the course of a 30 year existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Part 2 conflicts with Part 1. Parts VI and VII conflict with part 2. And whether or not the character was always a supernatural force (as VI, VIII, and JgtH claim) or whether he was an adult human who died and then came back to life do have an effect on the overall character, far from being "minor."209.34.28.236 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Part 2 doesn't "conflict" with Part 1. What it does is say that no one ever found his body when he drowned. Part 1 never claimed that they found his body, they just say he drowned as a boy. Part 7 doesn't conflict in anyway because it's just following where Part 6 left off. Part 6 insinuates that he did drown as a boy. People adding to a backstory does not necessarily change to the backstory. Saying Jason was supernatural from the beginning doesn't make his backstory conflict with each film because the first film, and the subsequent films up to part 6, never talk about such a thing. That's not a conflict, because they are not contradicting anything previously established. They are merely providing a new rationale for how he could have "drowned" and "grown up" at the same time. Jason X also states he has regenerative capabilities, which is never stated anywhere else. They didn't change his backstory, they merely adding a new dimension that helped to explain away contrived events from the previous films. Again, that is typical for most fictional characters. Do you know how many times the details of Superman's origins have been changed in 70 years depending on who is writing the character? If you notice that lead, the only change noted there is the one that actually received a lot of coverage in the media, and that was John Byrne's changes because he actually changed the character significantly from his original story. That created a stir in the populic. That is not the case with Jason. He has never been "changed" significantly, he's just been expanded upon to explain away certain unexplainable events (ala teleporting Jason). The lead covers those changes already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to go by the Superman article, it also contains this sentence, which you apparently missed: In the seven decades since Superman's debut, the character has been revamped and updated several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.28.236 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This article says that same thing, just not in those same words. This article states: "Jason was not originally intended to carry the series as the main antagonist." and "...filmmakers have given Jason superhuman strength, regenerative powers, and near invulnerability." - That indicates that his storyline has been updated over time, because the statement is clear that they didn't do this all in one film. My problem with your proposed inclusion is that you are inserting your own dialogue ( "which has caused conflict in his backstory") and that is not accurate. The conflict is one that you see, not one supported by any source. The sources indicate that they changed things to make it fit their film, but what they changed didn't necessarily alter anything in his actual backstory. His backstory is that two counselors neglected him while he was swimming and supposedly drowned as a child. The only thing that changes is whether or not he actually drowned. The story itself doesn't change, just the outcome of the event. The only thing you can state with certainty is that him drowning as a boy has changed back and forth in the series. That's about as objective as you can make that statement, but again it comes down to "is it relevant to the lead paragraphs"? To me, it isn't because whether or not he literally drowned is a minor aspect of his overall backstory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)