Talk:Jason Voorhees/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dan Bradley

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Tackling what should be the easier of two problems- you say that Steve Dash can be listed here, even though he's not credited, because he is Jason for such a significant portion of the film. You won't allow Dan Bradley, however, because he's not credited. This seems like some tremendous hair splitting. We're not talking a few-seconds-long appearance, such as stand-in stuntmen (I won't argue that the stunt double from the end of Freddy vs. Jason should be here, nor would I argue Ken Kirzinger should be credited for his brief stunt work in Part VIII). While not a majority of the film, Dan Bradley does appear as Jason in several scenes of Part VI, and in that capacity kills four people-- 1/4 of the film's body count.209.34.28.236 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve Dask is the only person that everyone involved with the filming of Part 2 says should be credited as actually portraying Jason, because Gillette only filmed one scene. Dask is not given credit because he was not a member of the Screen Actor's Guild, and Gillette was. Thus, by union contract Gillette gets full credit. Bradley, we know in the article, only filmed one real scene and that was the paintball sequence. Would you feel better if we kept it objective, and removed Dask altogether and just listed those that were credited? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, that's the complete opposite of what I'm saying. Don't play straw man with me. I'm saying that if an actor is playing Jason for a significant amount of screen time, he deserves credit, regardless of whether or not he's credited. And Bradley is on screen for a significant amount of time-- every segment of the paintball sequence (which is not a single, continuous sequence but multiple scenes) as well as the scenes of Jason going to the woods/Crystal Lake in the daytime. If you are watching Jason Lives, and Jason is onscreen, and it is daylight, then it is Dan Bradley.209.34.28.236 (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What is defined as "significant" is the problem. For Dask, he was Jason the entire film with the exception of the unmasking scene at the end. Bradley was Jason for a handful of scenes that do not amount to a lot of actual time by comparison to the overall experience. So again, how can we arbitrarily say, "this is significant enough"? With Dask it was easier because he was Jason more than 50% of the time (he was jason about 90% of the time). That is not the case with Bradley, so how does one decide what is "significant"? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If an actor is in a role for more than a few minutes of screen time, I'd say it's significant. Kane Hodder, after all, is still credited as Jason in Jason Goes to Hell, even though the amount of time he's onscreen is probably comparable to the amount of time that Dan Bradley is onscreen in Jason Lives. The only reason Bradley isn't credited is because he got fired and because of the murky backstage politics plaguing most of the films in the series. As I said, this isn't a case of trying to nitpick and credit stunt doubles; Bradley filmed two days worth of scenes, resulting in his being onscreen for several minutes of the movie.209.34.28.236 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what is "a few minutes" and "several minutes"? How we decide how many minutes is enough? Your Jason Goes to Hell example is kind of moot because he's Jason the entire time "Jason" is on the screen. You cannot say "our guideline is 'a few minutes' and this guy was on screen for 'several minutes', thus he should be credited in the infobox". That's the most subjective analysis I've see so far. There's no criteria you're actually providing for how we would go about identifying appropriate credit in the infobox. Filming two days worth of scenes can amount to 2 minutes worth of footage depending on what they were filming and how long it took to film it, as well as what ended up actually making it into the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the JghT example moot? The actor is credited for playing Jason for what amounts to less than ten minutes of screen time. And I hardly think that this is "the most subjective analysis you've seen so far." Your "criteria" for Part 2 is just as subjective-- "Steve Dash isn't credited, but he's onscreen most of the time, so we'll credit him, and we'll credit Warrington Gilette, just because he's credited, but even though he's only in one, maybe two scenes." Honestly, you seem resistant to any sort of change to this page; I had to plug in multiple sources from the directors and writers to include that Parts VI and VIII state Jason drowned as a child, despite this being in the movies themselves, just to protect that information from your rapidly deleting it. Dan Bradley is Jason onscreen in Part VI for at least 1:10 of screentime; during this time, he is seen killing four people and preparing to kill a fifth (whose body is never seen). In a film series that, per its creators (do I need a cite here, too?) revolves around the body count, Dan Bradley's Jason kills 5/16 of the victims in part VI, or roughly 1/3 of all of the murders in the movie. Subtract the three that were tacked on after principal photography and this actually means that before executive meddling, Bradley's Jason was responsible for 5/13, well over 1/3. Yet this is insignificant because the creators chose not to credit him? Neither Ted White nor Tom Morga are credited for their contributions to the series, either. This seems to be much more about your subjectivity than anyone else's.209.34.28.236 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's moot because we're not talking about by comparison to the total runtime of the film, but by comparison to the amount of time the actual actor spent in the role. Kane is Jason the entire time, no matter of Jason is in the film literally for only a few minutes. It's just as much your subjectivity as it is mine. Ted White and Tom Morga are also in different boats. White requested not the be credited in the film because he didn't want to be attached to the movie. He had a horrible experience and didn't want to be associated with it. Morga portrayed Jason in the "Jason" scenes, and Jason in the "Roy Burns as Jason" scenes. You're right in that he wasn't credited. So, again if you want to remove him from the infobox as well to be more objective I'm fine with that. I do not have a problem with making this as objective as possible and if they were not credited as Jason then they don't get put in the list. We have two choices here. Either we remove anyone that isn't credited as Jason, or we add every single person that has ever put on the mask to be thorough. To me, I'd actually rather remove the people not credited because the infobox is pretty bloated with names as it is and adding more would just compound the issue. Another possibility is, we remove all the names and just include a link to the section on the actors that portrayed him. There have probably been 12 or 13 actors/stuntmen that have actually worn the mask....if not more. That's a lot of names for the infobox which is supposed to just be clear and concise data about the article. This approach is even suggested at WP:MOSTV for TV series infobox when you have a lot of cast members to list. It just becomes exhaustive listing everyone. You don't really know who portrayed him at what time, or in what capacity. Do you know how large the list would be if we included the people that stood in as hands and legs during the early films where Jason is barely seen? I'm not being a dick about this, I'm being serious. It's a crap load of names and it would be inappropriate for us to create an arbitrary guideline as to what constitutes "significant time" in the role. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If a consensus could be reached, I'd actually be more comfortable with simply putting "Multiple actors" or some variation in the infobox and allowing the article to speak for itself, in the interest of not having to argue over who gets included and also, as you point out, to prevent bloating it.209.34.28.236 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for that. It can be linked to the appropriate section in the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The hockey mask is a goalie mask

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The hockey mask is actually a goalie mask. Players in other positions did not wear this style of mask. The mask cannot be modeled on a Detroit mask of the 1950s because there were no goalie masks at all in the NHL until Jacques Plante first donned one in late 1959. He played for Montreal. So you might like to double check the info on this in your sources. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. I checked the source and they never stated how old the mask was. The prose next to the image doesn't even give a year, so I don't know how "1950s" got put in there. It's just stated that it was a Detroit goalie mask. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Color in the info box

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Many visually impaired Wikipedians override coloring using Special:MyPage/skin.css. The use of inline style statements breaks this and is in conflict with WP:Deviations. The color in the info box was removed for these compelling reasons. Please reconsider. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand where the conflict is. The page doesn't say not to use color in the infobox. The deviations section doesn't even mention color. What it says on color is to ensure that it isn't the only way being used to convey a message, provides a tool to select a color that someone with color blindness will likely see, and to not overuse color in the article. I don't think the article overuses it at all. I'd be glad to select a different color, but I don't think that the guideline restricts color in the infobox. At least, I'm not seeing it stated there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see an issue. Even if color was a problem I don't see why that includes replacing the aesthetically pleasing, well formatted custom infobox with the terrible default one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't care that it's in a template infobox now, but I disagree that it shouldn't have color. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I care, default template is a bad presentation piece, brings the whole lead down. But colour wise, if Simpsons is allowed to override with bright yellow, I'm sorry but a bit of green isn't going to harm anyone's experienceDarkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The policies that guide the use of color are at WP:COLOR and WP:Deviations. You are right that the guideline does not specifically forbid the use of color, but some people's access will be harmed: people accessing the article using screen readers and visually impaired people who wish to be able to over-ride color using Special:MyPage/skin.css. Another reason to alter the info-box was its use of HTML mark-up. Our wiki guidelines call for use of CSS mark-up in preference to HTML. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how adding color is going to harm a visually impaired person, or someone using a screen reader. The guideline says to take care in not overusing, and in what colors you choose in those cases. If there is something wrong with the color itself (the code for it, or the actual color) then I'll gladly find one that fits the criteria. But, I'm not seeing even where those sections say to avoid color if possible. They just say make sure they are to the AA or AAA level. I checked and the original color was not, but I found a new color that is rated to a AAA level per this tool. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the correct tool to use. Thanks, Bignole. I am going to do some more work on the text now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

These colors are too dark. I am gonna try another combiantion: EFEFEF in the quote boxes and ~~000~~ 504040 with CCC in the info box. These both get AAA rating and resemble the way the article was before I started. Have a look ; --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions of new actor?

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion

A recent addition by X4n6 includes the identification of Doug Tait as one of the people who have "portrayed" Jason. In addition, X4n6 has added information on what Tait did. My first issue is that Tait was called in to reshoot a single scene because Kirzinger was not available and they needed to reshoot the scene where Jason comes out of the water in Freddy vs. Jason at the end. To me, that is not "portraying" the character. The film itself does not give him this credit either. It would be akin to Kerzinger being credited as Jason in Jason Takes Manhattan because he shot a couple of scenes for Hodder who was not available. I know there was an issue with Gillette and Dask, but these people shared an almost equal number of scenes.

With regard to the material in the body. The information is a description of them filming of Freddy vs. Jason. The first bit is about Tait losing out to Kirzinger. We don't really touch on "casting" for Jason in that regard for any of the other actors. That's more of a film page thing. Secondly, the rest of the info is a description of filming the scene itself. Again this seems much more relevant to the film page than it does to the character article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have several responses to your concerns and it will probably not surprise you that I disagree with your conclusions. If you read the sources I provided, they discuss Tait's being cast by the director, Ronny Yu, to reshoot the ending of the movie. Not some inconsequential scene, as you suggest - but the ending of the movie! How is that possibly not significant? Obviously it is. It is not only significant, it is pivotal to the film. Additionally, the sources I provided offer specific quotes from the actor detailing his discussions with the director on the character: how the character should move, how the character should react, the new plotline in the reshoot, etc. Those are discussions specific to portraying a character. This character, the character of Jason Voorhees. So it is illogical to contend that they are not relevant.

You may attempt to minimize them if you'd like, and I certainly respect your opinion and your right to do so, but your objections are simply your opinion, because they don't appear to be based on anything more. Much like your contention that IMDB is not a reliable source? Again, nothing but unsubstantiated POV on your part. To the contrary, IMDB is the definitive source for film credits. Period. Is it imperfect? Certainly. But I would challenge you to suggest a better repository for film credits. Even film credits themselves are not definitive. If the film industry itself considers IMDB a reputable source, which it absolutely does, I'm quite sure Wikipedia can - and does. And as you'll note, IMDB credits the actor I added, so you are in error when you say the film does not. Please review WP:V.

However you do make an interesting point about casting. You argue that the article doesn't really touch on casting. Absolutely incorrect. In fact, here is an entire section called "Men Behind the Mask" which does little else! It discusses Gillette auditioning for the role of Paul and not getting it; the casting of Miner after a conversation; Ted White who only took the job for the money; C.J. Graham's interview, etc. etc. etc.; and all the actors and stuntmen who played the role. So I really don't see the basis for your objections. However if you'd like to continue to defend them, please feel free. Let's discuss. In the interim, I have reverted again. Please don't re-revert until you respond and we discuss here. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, one scene does not equate to portraying a character in the film. He's masked. Anyone of Kirzinger's size could do the scene...even if they were they could because there was no other person in the scene for size comparison. Tait's comments about how the character should move and act were in regards to matching up to what Kirzinger did - it was not about doing something different and making it his own because he was filming one scene that lasted a whole 30 seconds (if that). Again, this is stuff relevant to the film itself, and not to the character. The most anything needs to be mentioned is what we do for Bradley, is indicate that he filmed the final scene of the movie. That's it. The details you want to add are not relevant to this page. Nowhere else on this page do we go into those types of details.

Read what I said about casting, I said "in that regard". Meaning, we are not listing all of the people that lost out of the role for Jason. Noting why someone took the role is not the same as just listing people that failed to win it. You need to read what I wrote more carefully. As for IMDb, you should probably read WP:IMDB. It isn't considered reliable because it is user submitted. What you posted on the page was a link to their trivia section. The film itself does not credit Tait as Jason (watch the credits, he isn't in the cast...so the fact that IMDb lists him is irrelevant. Just to point out though, this is what IMDb lists: "Douglas Tait....stunt double: Jason, Los Angeles (as Doug Tait)"), so why would we when he doesn't even share an equal number of scenes with Kirzinger in the role? As for reverting, I would ask that you respect WP:BRD, which states that if your bold addition is reverted once, and a discussion is started then you do not revert it back until a consensus is formed. So, as I stated, the most that would need to be mentioned is that Tait refilmed the final scene for Kirzinger and attempted to match his mannerisms to Ken for the walk. Everything else, like how they pulled the scene off, is only relevant to the film's page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I take issue with your use of WP:BRD to revert the edits while we discuss this - which is precisely what BRD suggests you should not do:

"BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

"BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."'.

But second, making the same arguments over and over again does not make them any more valid. Your suggestion that playing a scene in a film isn't playing the character, is your opinion. That's it, nothing more. Further, that unsourced opinion is defeated by a notable source - and that notable source is the director of, and the actor in - the film in question. Seriously, what more do you need?

Speaking of your sources, where is yours supporting your contention that all Tait did was mimic Kirzinger? I'll consider it when you present it. Not before. Especially when it's again contradicted by the notable source I've already provided. Also, do not make assertions regarding casting choices. That's beyond your scope as an editor here. The fact remains Tait was hired to play the role of Jason and that is not ever disputed anywhere. Your claims about IMDB ignore the fact that I provided other sources in addition to IMDB. Where is your cast and crew list that says Tait is not credited? He's sure listed in the cast and crew list on IMDB, and not as "uncredited" either. I don't know if he's listed in the film's credits or not, and frankly don't care because it's irrelevant, simply because film credits are not definitive either. Surely everyone who knows film knows that. But in this case, even the writer/producers acknowledge that Tait played the role of Jason in the film. I'll be happy to include this in the article to settle this: [[1]]:

"SPOILER: According to writers Mark Swift and Damian Shannon several endings were considered for the film and finally producer Robert Shaye came up with his idea which was acceptable for everyone. He shot the final scene and the last scene of the movie which shows Jason was filmed without Ken Kirzinger. It was shot at Los Angles with another actor, Douglas Tait, playing Jason."

Same page: "Although Ken Kirzinger was chosen to play Jason, many re-shoots were made late in the production process and Ken was not available to work. The producers used their next choice for Jason, actor Douglas Tait. The most notable scene shot with Mr. Tait is the very last scene in the movie, just before the credits."

I don't really know what more needs to be said. If you'd like, we can always seek consensus. Otherwise, we can just agree to include that Tait filmed the final scene - indeed playing the role of Jason in that scene. I feel strongly about that, and I'm supported by ambundant sources. Do I want to give it undue weight? No. But do I want it ignored? Absolutely not. If you feel equally strongly that we include that on Tait, and nothing more, then so be it. Perhaps there's our compromise. X4n6 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, IMDb is not a reliable source and even if it was it lists Tait as "stunt double". Neither the film itself, nor IMDb list Tait in the "Cast" section as actually portraying the character. Even this source you are using says "stunt double". If we listed every stunt double that portrayed Jason or Freddy or Michael Myers, then we'd have a much larger list of people that supposedly "portrayed" the character. What you are citing is a user submitted trivia post in IMDb. The only "reliable" source you have is talking about refilming one scene--Jason walking out of the water. The statement with Tait explaining why they needed to reshoot has nothing to do with this character page and everything to do with the film itself. The next part is describing the special effects of having Jason walk out of the lake. That has nothing to do with Tait trying to figure out how to "portray" the character, but simply not float to the surface because he was wearing pads. That is filming information, not character information. This is about all that is needed to give Tait his due. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You really should let go of the "big lie" [2] that IMDB is not a reliable source and re-read what the WP actually says. It is NOT a Wikipedia policy. It is only a view that may be considered "with discretion". It also clearly says that IMDB IS accepted as an external link. So your blanket statement that IMDB is "not reliable" is itself not reliable and not supported. You also don't seem to understand film credits, or what constitutes an actor, or what "post production" consists of. Stuntmen are members of the Screen Actors Guild [3] and work under those contracts. Film credits vary widely at director/producer's discretion, [4] so are not definitive. And "post production" is no longer "post" production [5] when there is a reshoot. It's called "reshooting" [6], and returning to "production" [7] status. But I'll fix the problems with your edit and replace with an edit that we should both be able to live with and, as you say, gives Tait his due. I'll also include my original sources, which you also used, as well as others, and IMDB as an external link. X4n6 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not accepted as a source in an article, and an external link to the film credits page does not affect this page. Again, why are you trying to add film page information to this page? The IMDb link has not place on this page. Why would we include that link, but none for the other 10 films? That makes no sense at all. He isn't credited as being anything other than the stunt double, so why are trying to give him more credit than even the studio or director is willing to give him? Why are you also trying to turn 2 sentences into their own paragraph? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is routinely used on this site as a source, and is absolutely accepted as a source, according to Wiki policy. Now that may kill you, but that is the policy, and whether or not you agree with it is relevant only to you. If you'd like to change that policy, I advise that you seek consensus for that within the mechanism that is available for that, but that is not here. Besides, you seem to have forgotten that ALL the actors playing this role - are stuntmen. So what makes you presume to decide what stuntman gets what credit and what stuntman does not? He was hired by the production and is listed - by name - in the credits as playing Jason. The End. It doesn't matter in how many scenes, or where in the credits. The statement that he played the role onscreen is a fact. To try to appease you, I even noted his appearance in one scene, just as it was also noted that Ari Lehman only played the role as a child, in a couple scenes, and not in the entire film. We have to be consistent. I have never seen an editor try so hard to delete multiple sources, since usually it is our job to demand more sources. And I made the new sentences a new paragraph simply because the previous paragraph was TOO LONG. At already 18 lines - just how long would you like that one single paragraph to be? In it's present state it is grammatically ridiculous, so I am fixing it.X4n6 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Shooting a 14 second scene is not something worth mentioning. Certainly not in any great detail, its something you'd mention on the films page in a development section or something. Notable stuff should be listed here the same way notable aliases does not include any name a person has been called, notable portrayals shouldn't include if someone threw a mask on for a few seconds. Its not something which will broaden someones understanding of the subject and should be isolated to Freddy Vs Jasons page.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree on several levels. First, discussions regarding what's "worth mentioning" are inherently subjective and involve value judgments we shouldn't be making here. We're not editorializing in these articles. We're simply stating the facts for the reader to decide. If we have facts we don't include, we fail at that mission. Second, your suggestion regarding "development" is flawed because we aren't talking about the development process, but what actually ended up on the screen. If you want to argue that it might merit a trivia section, that's debatable, but at least that's an honest debate. As regards notability, I would easily argue that anything that required returning a year later to re-shoot, especially in this case where the entire ending of the film was re-shot, is inherently notable. Finally, as this article is devoted to the development of the character of Jason, information regarding how the character was originally seen by test audiences, then ultimately reworked for final audiences, intrinsically broadens the understanding of the subject. X4n6 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its notability is all that subjective. We had this arguement over on the Joker article where he had a dozen aliases listed which were all one-off names or titles, after some debate we reduced this down to the Red Hood as its the only one that permeates various media and is an actual separate identity from the Joker. This, all I know is that Ken Kirzinger played Jason, this new information I didn't know but it doesn't feel like it has broadened my knowledge of the subject matter anymore than I'd list all the stuntmen who played Ghostface. As for Development, I'd list filming and casting under a development section, it'd be suitable under filming or casting. I just don't personally see that it adds anything to the readers knowledge of the character Jason Voorhees anymore than it would to say Ronny Yu was behind the mask during one scene. I think its information worth recording lest it be lost as is happening with a lot of Scream info, I'm just not sure its applicable here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's notability is subjective either. To the contrary, I think it's pretty clear. Nor do we have to take my word for it. The studio, the production team and the director, all obviously believed it was notable enough to go to the extraordinary length and expense of reshooting the film's final scene - a full year after the film was completed. That is not a decision that is ever made at that level without there being consensus that there are "notable" reasons. It is pretty extraordinary and yes, notable in and of itself. But what is subjective, is what you feel about knowing that Kirzinger did not play the role throughout the film, and indeed, learning that he did not even appear in the film's climax. That may not matter to you, but it might matter enormously to someone else. But we can't substitute your subjective judgment for anyone else's. Again, trivia buffs, film buffs, eat this stuff up, so just because your tastes are different, it doesn't diminish theirs. Speaking personally, I'm always interested to learn when the climax of a film is changed because a test audience doesn't like what it sees. Maybe that's me, but that's my value judgment and it's certainly every bit as valid as yours. X4n6 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The people listed in the infobox are all credited as "Jason Voorhees" in each of the films. The only person not, is Steve Dask who was not because he wasn't an SAG member. It's stated in Crystal Lake Memories, that Steve Dask did more of the role than Warrington Gillette, who only did the unmasking scene, but Gillete gets the credit because he is an SAG member and Dask is not. So, no, we are not crediting "all stuntmen", that is entirely inaccurate. There are many stuntmen who performed certain scenes for even Kane Hodder that are not credited throughout all of the films. Ari Lehman is the only person credited as Jason in that film. You're trying to quibble over how the film credits them and you have nothing to stand on. The film says "Kirzinger is Jason". IMDb says "Kirzinger is Jason". The film and IMDb both say "Tait is a stunt double". That is not credit for being in the role. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple question: is Tait credited as just a generic stunt double or is he credited as Jason? You're still splitting hairs. It's clear from all the sources that Tait didn't just perform a stunt for Kirzinger - he replaced Kirzinger at the reshoot. That's an undeniable fact. One year later - Tait was there - Kirzinger was not. That's it. I think my original compromise was more than reasonable. I listed Tait in the infobox under "(Final Scene)". That says it all. It fairly lets the reader know exactly what he did, when he did it and nothing more. That's still a more than reasonable compromise and a more than fair solution. X4n6 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a portrayal though. He isn't credited as the character, but as the stunt double. This is the only character that we would be doing this for. We don't list every stunt woman who performed the fighting sequences for Buffy Summers or Sarah Conner, because they were not actual appearances. The only people credited as actually being that character are the ones listed in their respective infoboxes. The same with Leatherface, Pinhead, Freddy Kreuger, Michael Myers, the list goes on. Again, you have no justification to include him because he isn't credited as him anywhere. He's credited as a stunt double. The only exception to this rule is Steve Dask, and I explained that he is considered by everyone involved in Friday the 13th Part 2 to have played Jason because Gillette was fired and only filmed the unmasking scenes, but because he was SAG and Steve was not he got the credit over Steve. That is the only reason Steve is listed in the infobox as a portrayer, because he truly did portray the character the whole film minus two scenes. There is a significant controversy around that. There is not one for Tait. You are the only one wanting to include it and it goes against other character articles. I don't know what you're agenda is to include Tait, but even another editor came in and said that they disagree with you and you continue to put it back in. I dont' see how you could consider a single 20 second clip worthy mentioning as "portrayed by". We dont' say that Kane Hodder "portrayed" Freddy Krueger just because he was the character's arm in Jason Goes to Hell. That doesn't make sense. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it absolutely is a portrayal and try as you might, that doesn't change. Your only line of defense here is one of crediting and I'm perfectly willing to discuss that. Crediting works the same as billing. It doesn't reflect what you actually did in the movie or how big your role is - it reflects what your agent can successfully negotiate for you. I do hope you know the film industry enough to understand that. From all the sources I've read and used, this was Tait's first big role. He's had many more bigger roles since. Since everyone else has been speculating here, I'll try a little myself. I'm goning to assume that his agents did a crappy job of getting him proper billing for the reshoot. I'm also going to speculate that if he or anyone else were a bigger name - say they'd brought in Kane Hodder - to do the exact same thing that Tait did, he would have gotten a proper screen credit and this whole discussion would be moot. But despite the admittedly lousy credit, we know what Tait did. He played the role of Jason in this movie in at least the final scene, which notably was reshot. Right? We all agree on that. So I simply don't understand why it's so problematic listing it. That's my agenda. Listing the facts we know about the role the article discusses. You asked my agenda. So what's yours? Listen, I respect that you have done a lot of work over a long period on this article. I get that. The history of this talk page alone indicates that. But I hope you understand that doesn't make this article your own personal fiefdom that you have to protect against outsiders and interlopers like me. You've already duly noted there are exceptions to the norm in the infobox and you've explained why. Dask and Lehman are exceptions for different reasons. Tait is simply another exception for another different reason. I'm not interested in edit-warring and I hope you aren't either. So, can we simply agree that the infobox is another exception, and one you'll reluctantly live with, or would you like us to bring in other editors to decide? By the way, the other editor expressed fair concerns which I believe I fairly responded to. Why would you have a problem with that? That is the way this is supposed to work. Finally, I correctly edited the long paragraphs for substance, not for sources. X4n6 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing that we give Tait full credit for portrayal just because he filmed one stunt scene of walking out of water. That makes no sense, and right now you're all alone in your argument. So, I'll let you have your infobox addition for now, but if by the weekend if nothing changes then consensus will be in favor of removing it as the other editor agreed that it's a trivial mentioning and should not be there. There is nothing else to argue because you and I are not agreeing on this at all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that I'm arguing for full credit for Tait when the infobox clearly says "final scene". But there has to be some compromise here. I would agree to putting Tait's name next to Kirzinger with "final scene" or even in parenthesis with "final scene" or some other option you might perhaps suggest. I just don't see it as the all-or-nothing that you do. But I agree that we should probably leave it up for the weekend, let others discuss, then if we can't reach consensus by next week, submit it to a consensus board for as much feedback as possible. Then we'll all live with that determination. X4n6 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming we have a source other than IMDB trivia I see no problem with noting (either in the film article or briefly here) the fact that the guy was needed to reshoot one critical scene. I don't feel it warrants the infobox inclusion, though. The only analogous situation I can think of is the Crow and I don't believe we note the man who stood in for Brandon Lee in the infobox. The guy was a stand in for a character who is masked (thus making the use of a stand in easier than other roles). Millahnna (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes we have several sources that aren't IMDB. And the analogous situation I would think of would be Darth Vader. Who goes in the infobox? The voice guy or the body guy? How about the Muppets? The puppeteer or the voice? If we consider it, there are several examples where more than one individual play the same role in a film. Shouldn't the infobox reflect that?

X4n6 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Body doubles are used on practically every film, and we don't list every stuntman that stands in for Daniel Craig on the Bond films. If reliable sources credit this actor in the role then perhaps this article should, but as it is, the only source provided is the official site and it only mentions the actor in regards to a particular aspect of filming: it doesn't assign him an official credit for playing the part. In view of that I don't believe the source backs up crediting the actor in the role. If there are reliable sources out there such as the NY Times or Variety or whatever that credit the actor then I'll happily change my stance. As for just mentioning the involvement of the actor, I think that's ok provided it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't call a reshoot the same as using a body double. Especially when as much of the second actor is as visible as the first actor. Also, other sources have been deleted. They can easily be restored if it's consensus that that is what's necessary here. X4n6 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's sometimes the whole point of a double/stand-in — sometimes you see more of them than you would the credited actor, like in sex scenes. If you check [8] then you will see David Prowse, James Earl Jones and Sebastian Shaw are all credited cast members. The main issue is that you don't misrepresent the source. If you want to put this actor in the cast listings then you need a source that does likewise. If all you've got is a source that says this actor played the part in one specific scene, then you can include that as long as you maintain the context. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's only a stand-in when you have someone you are standing in for. The actor was hired to play the role in the reshoot a year later. Not stand-in for someone who wasn't even on payroll at that point, let alone on set. There are multiple sources that say the actor played the role. These edits simply reflect that. I'm compiling a list of all the sources I can find that say exactly that and will post them here when I'm finished. In the interim, kindly wait for the process to play itself out and not insert your own edits and reverts in the middle of the discussion, prior to consensus. I have asked for BRD and would appreciate it from you as well. X4n6 (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD = bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, others reverted, now we're discussing. Until we see those sources you're talking about, continuing to re-add the controversial material is edit warring on your part. Millahnna (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You two editors have already revealed what is clearly your shared agenda. And your joint tactics. So until all the dust settles on all the silly charges, countercharges and all the nonsense you both have evoked, it is counterproductive to engage either of you further. Your actions have made it impossible to continue to assume good faith. X4n6 (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may comment here, I agree with leaving the name out of the infobox. It may be appropriate in the article, but the infobox is much like the lede of the article, it's a brief, easy-to-read summary of the most pertinent information. It shouldn't be cluttered.

For future reference also, IMDB is not a reliable source. Furthermore, WP:BRD should only be used to add disputed material to an article once. Once it's removed, take it to the talk page and continue the discussion there to try and gain consensus. It's not an excuse to edit war material in during discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Big Nole is blocked for editing warring, so should X4n6. Yes, I agree with leaving the name out of the infobox. Hell no one should keep adding a name over and over. When you got reverted the first time, you should have taken here and talked about. That's how BRD works, not keep reverting it, like someone's going to win a prize at the end. —Mike Allen 06:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Having stumbled upon this edit war, I might as well chime in. First - IMDb is definitely not a reliable source for anything found in trivia, or any other part of a film's IMDb page except possibly credits, and as an external link. Second - I don't think I've ever seen an FA or Good WP "character" page that lists what amounts to a stuntman, appearing in only one scene - even a "climactic" one, in the infobox as one of the "portrayed as" actors. I'd like to see one that does. This would be akin to listing Joe Canutt as an actor who "portrayed" Ben-Hur (if Ben-Hur had a character page) because he appeared in a few shots of the chariot race in the '59 version. Third - I can't believe only Bignole got blocked for edit warring while X4n6 did not. WP:BRD clearly calls for both Bold and Revert editors to take it to the talk page before any more reverts are made. X4n6 clearly disregarded this admonishment, as did Bignole.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors familiar with these sources and Tait's role in this film (which is the only role of his mentioned in the lead of his WP article now) might want to weigh-in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait where the article Douglas Tait is up for deletion again, having been deleted once before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait. Novaseminary (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors familiar with the genre may indeed wish to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait, where the BLP for Douglas Tait is up for deletion again, by the same editor - this time as a result of a recently failed speedy attempt on the BLP by, you guessed it: the same editor. X4n6 (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fictional cyborgs

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is it that Jason/Uber-Jason is no longer counted as a fictional cyborg? He was rebuilt by nanobots in Jason X, and everywhere I've looked it up, they've said that he was cybernetically enhanced. Smijes08 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The nanobots are just doing the work and they used metal to fill in the gaps that could not be created organically. The question is, how much intergration are we talking about (and the film doesn't show really). For example, Robocop is a cyborg and is fully integrated between mechanical and organic (a computer even operates in his brain to control functioning). For Jason, it appears that it repaired the organic material in his head and merely replaced his right arm/chest and left leg with metal from the ship. I also feel like there is a difference between being a "cyborg" and being "cybornetically enhanced". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

New character In Mortal Kombat X

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here's the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma7BfBSiqag & http://www.mortalkombat.com/en/ .--FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 15:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Youtube is generally not considered a reliable source, even from a company page, because the videos can be quickly pulled down or replaced. It makes it hard to verify down the road. The other site is just a site. We need an announcement that we can cite, and that won't get replaced in a week. Then, we actually need to provide that reference on the page. Just adding content and then trying to place a source on the talk page is not appropriate. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

sophie rodideal

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ĮĮĮĮĮĮ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.98.171 (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dead Links

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Halloween Horror Nights reference is no longer available as it has either been removed or changed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it in the internet archives anywhere? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible Collaboration

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wonder if I can get some people that expanded this article to help me expand the one on Leatherface. With the exception of Bignole who has already helped me significantly--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC).

A Minor Point

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the description here it reads 'In this film, 10-year-old Jason is portrayed in the memories of his mother' - it's pretty clear, especially in the context of the 2nd film, that Pamela Voorhees is imagining the drowning, not remembering seeing it. She's too busy cooking and that's why she blames the counselors for not watching him while he was swimming. She imagines him calling out to her, but she also imagines he's speaking through her as she talks in the film. The the 2nd film, it it established by the writers that Jason never drowned, but rather lived semi-peacefully in the woods outside the camp for 22 years until he witnessed his mother's death (at the end of the first film). So my suggestion would be to reword that 'In this film, 10-year-old Jason is portrayed in the mind of his mother' or 'In this film, 10-year-old Jason is portrayed in the imagination of his mother' or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.139.186 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't rewrite plot points because another film retcons the events. We write them based on how they were originally presented. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jason Voorhees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jason Voorhees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)