HorrorMan77

If you could save only one character from there death in the Friday the 13th movies which character would it be ?

84 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, HorrorMan77 said:

Hello people hope all is well my question is if you could save only one character from there death in the Friday the 13th movies which character would it be my choice would be SHELLY (Larry Zerner) he was A kind guy and only wanted friends to understand him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Davidt said:

Joey from part 5 he was just trying to be nice and offer people some chocolate 

? Screw that kid, the only thing I regret about his death was Vic didn't take a crap on him when he was finished chopping him apart. Lmao. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RandallFlagg said:

Hell yeah I periodically watch a sequential patch of 2 or 3 at a time. Usually parts 2 through 4 and parts 5 through 7. 

Yeah we watched part 4 the other night. That was her first time seeing that one. She has seen the rest so definitely busting out 1-3 tonight. She has to get caught up. I asked her the other night what world she has been living in to not have seen the first 4. Will be swinging by my storage unit today to get the rest of the movies out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jameson87 said:

Yeah we watched part 4 the other night. That was her first time seeing that one. She has seen the rest so definitely busting out 1-3 tonight. She has to get caught up. I asked her the other night what world she has been living in to not have seen the first 4. Will be swinging by my storage unit today to get the rest of the movies out. 

Think part 4 is my favorite. And best the first 3 are all essential for anyone viewing the series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah 4 is my favorite too. That is what was so shocking when she said she hadn't seen the best in the series lol. Had 4 on hand but now i definitely have to go grab these out. Because it has been a while since i have watched them and i am still shocked she hasnt at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RandallFlagg said:

? Screw that kid, the only thing I regret about his death was Vic didn't take a crap on him when he was finished chopping him apart. Lmao. 

Well everyone got their own opinion i guess but i liked him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ZooMalfunction said:

Apparently Kane Hodder refused to kick a dog in Part 8, arguing Jason would never hurt children or animals It's why he chooses to scare the gang kids rather than kill them, as even he has a code, and they're just a bit too young for him to blame for the world's faults yet.

In Jason's view, he isn't a crazed killer, but genuinely punishing the corrupt and evil types of people who left him to drown and killed his beloved mother. He's the good guy in his mind. He's the one cleaning up evil.

It's why Part 9 is so shit. It reimagines him as some kind of arcane hellspawned demon that just wants to murder everyone for the sake of EVIL!!! ...when in reality, he's always just been a tragic spirit of vengeance with quite a narrow geographical focus. Jason should always be portrayed with a (tiny) degree of sympathy IMO. Part 9 fails that test.

Another thing to notice is (as far as I recall) he never tortures or toys with anyone. He kills them in the most efficient manner at the time, often improvising tools. He's never shown to be a sadist, or killing for fun. Again, in his mind, he isn't the bad guy.

Jason is not some sort of anti-hero or spirit of vengeance, he is a villain, a psychotic serial killer. And if he were above killing animals, explain Muffin's mangled remains in part II.

Anyway, yeah, Jason is not some spirit of vengeance punishing corrupt individuals, because a large portion of the people he's killed were not corrupt individuals, just kids who happened to wander into his territory. He blames the counselors that were supposed to have been watching over him when, in actuality, half the blame falls on Pamela as well. She knew the boy was "special" and that he required unique attention and yet, she left him in a position to get bullied by his peers and to ultimately drown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Emperiex said:

Jason is not some sort of anti-hero or spirit of vengeance, he is a villain, a psychotic serial killer. And if he were above killing animals, explain Muffin's mangled remains in part II.

Anyway, yeah, Jason is not some spirit of vengeance punishing corrupt individuals, because a large portion of the people he's killed were not corrupt individuals, just kids who happened to wander into his territory. He blames the counselors that were supposed to have been watching over him when, in actuality, half the blame falls on Pamela as well. She knew the boy was "special" and that he required unique attention and yet, she left him in a position to get bullied by his peers and to ultimately drown.

I will explain that by showing you a very much alive muffin at the end of the movie. 

She left him with supervision. Maybe a nad choice of baby sitter, but still a baby sitter. As far as we know, she was a single mom working to support her special needs child. She left him in the care of people who were supposed to look after him. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Definitelynotjason said:

I will explain that by showing you a very much alive muffin at the end of the movie. 

She left him with supervision. Maybe a nad choice of baby sitter, but still a baby sitter. As far as we know, she was a single mom working to support her special needs child. She left him in the care of people who were supposed to look after him. 

It's quite obvious that was a dream as Sandra and Jeff clearly see muffin's mangled carcass in the woods and there was no indication that there was another dog out in those woods. So no, muffin did not show up at the end of the movie, because she was dead. Dead, dead, dead.

And maybe so, but some of the blame still falls on her. Considering she was working as a cook, how hard would it have been to have Jason seated nearby while she works? It would've prevented a lot of problems, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Emperiex said:

Jason is not some sort of anti-hero or spirit of vengeance, he is a villain, a psychotic serial killer. And if he were above killing animals, explain Muffin's mangled remains in part II.

Anyway, yeah, Jason is not some spirit of vengeance punishing corrupt individuals, because a large portion of the people he's killed were not corrupt individuals, just kids who happened to wander into his territory. He blames the counselors that were supposed to have been watching over him when, in actuality, half the blame falls on Pamela as well. She knew the boy was "special" and that he required unique attention and yet, she left him in a position to get bullied by his peers and to ultimately drown.

I didn't say they were corrupt. I said he believed they were. In Jason's mind, he's the good guy.

And yes, he is an anti-hero to some. Read up on the production of the films. It's why the Godzilla reference was inserted in the Fangoria magazine. The intention from very early was to root for Jason as the unstoppable monster.

Roger Ebert even gave the films poor reviews for these reasons, as he thought it was terrible that the audience would cheer for Jason in the theatre.

It's why people enjoy playing as Jason too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Emperiex said:

It's quite obvious that was a dream as Sandra and Jeff clearly see muffin's mangled carcass in the woods and there was no indication that there was another dog out in those woods. So no, muffin did not show up at the end of the movie, because she was dead. Dead, dead, dead.

And maybe so, but some of the blame still falls on her. Considering she was working as a cook, how hard would it have been to have Jason seated nearby while she works? It would've prevented a lot of problems, that's for sure.

The thing that Jeff and Sandra found is ot obviously Muffin. Not gonna post the screen cap but:

"Looks like a dog." "It's too mangled to tell." They don't suggest it is muffin and, if the film makers wanted it to be muffin all they had to do was put the ribbon on the ground in the scene. There is not ribbon.

You say obviously, but there is some interpretation room open for what was and wasn't a dream. Unlike other movies in the series, there was no major wipe or transition to show passage of time between awake events and live events. until after Jason busts through the window.

Where did the dream start? We wouldn't know for sure, other than to speculate that maybe she fell asleep under the bathtub, and Jason walked away when he couldn't find her. She is rescued by the 15 or so other counselors who show up the next morning. Though not a long shot, all of the activity from Jason's shack to the cabin he breaks in to at the end flow from one scene to anouther, with no fade outs or long transition shots. It is unlikely the movie ended in the shack.

In the end, what we know for sure is Jason was a sheltered "special" boy who may or may not have drowned as boy, and is now killing people for tresspassing on what he considers his land. He is the embodiement of campfire stories and the antagonist.

This is partly why I have always complained about this ending. There is no real resolution to the story at all.

All of which is secondary to your original point, which I do not fully disagree with in the first place. I think @ZooMalfunction is right when he says that producers wanted to allow Jason to think he is right in what he is. That doesn't mean we have to think so. You are right when you say he isn't an anti-hero like Dexter Morgan for example. Dexter kills clearly evil people and those who threaten his family overtly. Jason kills horny teenagers, and anyone else who happens to be with in arms reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela is villain. A tragic villain, but a villain regardless. She knew what she was doing, and did it to try to wash away her own guilt.

Jason is different. He's mentally disabled and brainwashed by Pamela. In his mind, he's just getting rid of the bad people who hurt him and his mother, and keep coming back to do the same. It's hard to attach a sinister motivation to someone with the mind of a retarded and traumatised child who was dominated by a psychotic mother.

He just wants to live in peace, alone at Crystal Lake. In his mind, he's the good guy. He doesn't kill anyone who hasn't 'threatened' his peace, and doesn't behave in a sadistic manner - just killing as efficiently as possible.

He just wants him and his mother (or her head at least) to be left alone.

It's that shred of sympathy that makes him such a compelling character IMO, and different from every other movie slasher.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ZooMalfunction said:

I didn't say they were corrupt. I said he believed they were. In Jason's mind, he's the good guy.

And yes, he is an anti-hero to some. Read up on the production of the films. It's why the Godzilla reference was inserted in the Fangoria magazine. The intention from very early was to root for Jason as the unstoppable monster.

Roger Ebert even gave the films poor reviews for these reasons, as he thought it was terrible that the audience would cheer for Jason in the theatre.

It's why people enjoy playing as Jason too.

It doesn't matter if Jason views himself as the good guy or not. Was he sympathetic as a tortured youth? Yes. But that all went out the window the minute he started hacking and slashing everything he came across. He's not an anti-hero, he's a villain. He's a monster that kills people and that's why the early films work the best; they treated Jason as the villain he is rather than trying to portray him as this superhero slasher that he clearly is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Emperiex said:

It doesn't matter if Jason views himself as the good guy or not. Was he sympathetic as a tortured youth? Yes. But that all went out the window the minute he started hacking and slashing everything he came across. He's not an anti-hero, he's a villain. He's a monster that kills people and that's why the early films work the best; they treated Jason as the villain he is rather than trying to portray him as this superhero slasher that he clearly is not.

Part 2 treated him very much like a tragic figure throughout the whole film. They even walked back the animal cruelty deal a little at the end. He was able to be outsmarted because his love for mother was used against him.

I will admit part 3 rapey Jason may have had little factors that made you wonder about what would happen if people left him alone.

Part 4 was more like a rage filled part 2. Of course, people had come in to what he thought was his land and tried to kill him so there is that. In the end, his mental weakness was exploited again by Tommy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Emperiex said:

It doesn't matter if Jason views himself as the good guy or not. Was he sympathetic as a tortured youth? Yes. But that all went out the window the minute he started hacking and slashing everything he came across. He's not an anti-hero, he's a villain. He's a monster that kills people and that's why the early films work the best; they treated Jason as the villain he is rather than trying to portray him as this superhero slasher that he clearly is not.

So let me get this right...

The writers and directors intended for him to be portrayed with an element of sympathy. Kane Hodder portrayed him as someone with a moral code. Modern fans root for Jason. According to Roger Ebert, contemporary audiences rooted for Jason. You're currently playing a videogame where the main selling point is to BE Jason.

...yet your view that he's just an unsympathetic monster is the dominant one.

Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this right....

Let's just assume for a moment Jason were real: you're telling me that you'd be rooting for him to slash through people and to kill people? And then you try to say he has a moral code?

Okay, that says more than enough for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZooMalfunction said:

So let me get this right...

The writers and directors intended for him to be portrayed with an element of sympathy. Kane Hodder portrayed him as someone with a moral code. Modern fans root for Jason. According to Roger Ebert, contemporary audiences rooted for Jason. You're currently playing a videogame where the main selling point is to BE Jason.

...yet your view that he's just an unsympathetic monster is the dominant one.

Ok.

To be fair, I think the video game aspect is about the vicarious thrills and the defeat of others. 

I am, according to science anyway, not "crazy." Yet I sometimes enjoyed going on rampages in GTA. I will admit that when I was bored I would sometimes cultivate that 5 star wanted level. Sometimes, when I have a bad day I want to kill dragons in Skyrim or shot Super Mutants in Fallout. 

These kinds of thrills and emotional out pourings are fairly normal. I don't enjoy it out of sympathy for my character, but out of selfishness. 

I do not want to play as Jason because he is a sympathetic character. I do it because it is fun to challenge myself and others through the mechanism of the game. Plus messy fun is entertaining. 

To what I think is actually your point, Jason is neither a sympathetic character or an anti-hero. He is a personification of vengeance. He is a manifestation of a lot of things. Sometimes he is punishing that catholic guilt side of people (whether they are catholic or not, people can feel guilty about certain things), he satisfyingly ends bad people (Crews, Trey, etc), and he is ultimately beaten by the best in our nature. Innocence, ingenuity, perseverance, determination, love for others, hope. Jason is a representative of our bad nature, and a chilling, fun one at that.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Emperiex said:

So let me get this right....

Let's just assume for a moment Jason were real: you're telling me that you'd be rooting for him to slash through people and to kill people? And then you try to say he has a moral code?

Okay, that says more than enough for me.

 

He isn't real though...

Nice strawman argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 10:31 AM, ZooMalfunction said:

Apparently Kane Hodder refused to kick a dog in Part 8, arguing Jason would never hurt children or animals It's why he chooses to scare the gang kids rather than kill them, as even he has a code, and they're just a bit too young for him to blame for the world's faults yet.

In Jason's view, he isn't a crazed killer, but genuinely punishing the corrupt and evil types of people who left him to drown and killed his beloved mother. He's the good guy in his mind. He's the one cleaning up evil.

It's why Part 9 is so shit. It reimagines him as some kind of arcane hellspawned demon that just wants to murder everyone for the sake of EVIL!!! ...when in reality, he's always just been a tragic spirit of vengeance with quite a narrow geographical focus. Jason should always be portrayed with a (tiny) degree of sympathy IMO. Part 9 fails that test.

Another thing to notice is (as far as I recall) he never tortures or toys with anyone. He kills them in the most efficient manner at the time, often improvising tools. He's never shown to be a sadist, or killing for fun. Again, in his mind, he isn't the bad guy.

I love you're insight here, many people don't seem to try and understand how Jason works or figure out what he must be thinking. I was so fascinated by Jason as a child I grew up thinking more and more about why he does what he does.

Even when I was a kid I knew that Jason wouldn't hurt kids, I remember seeing Part 6 and how he almost seems curious about the little girl at the camp, and not in any way hostile towards her or any of the other children. Yet in that same movie he brutally murders Paula who seemed so innocent herself, it really gives you the idea that while Jason may choose not to hurt children or helpless animals -- he is still an unforgiving, unreasoning, and unstoppable killer. In his eyes everyone must be evil and everyone deserves to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2017 at 8:18 AM, DarkRicochet117 said:

Even when I was a kid I knew that Jason wouldn't hurt kids

Did you see how brutally Jason went after Tommy in Part 4?  He totally would have killed him if he could!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 2:42 PM, Definitelynotjason said:

I will admit part 3 rapey Jason may have had little factors that made you wonder about what would happen if people left him alone.

We should seriously make that nickname catch on like part 2 sackhead Jason!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, final_guy said:

Did you see how brutally Jason went after Tommy in Part 4?  He totally would have killed him if he could!

Debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i actually remember a comic book were infact jason KILLED the kids except one who is deformed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now