NthnButAGoodTime

Jason is Canonically a Deadite

41 posts in this topic

According to the Jason Goes To Hell director, it was an intentionally selected mythology for Jason. We're not talking shared props with a wink to the audience. We're talking a confirmed backstory. The game's shift is even MORE appropriate, given the link between the two properties.

http://horrorgeeklife.com/2017/11/01/jason-goes-to-hell-jason-voorhees-deadite/

Quoting Director Adam Marcus:

  • "She [Pamela Voorhees] makes a deal with the devil by reading from the Necronomicon to bring back her son. This is why Jason isn’t Jason. He’s Jason plus The Evil Dead, and now I can believe that he can go from a little boy that lives in a lake, to a full grown man in a couple of months, to Zombie Jason, to never being able to kill this guy. That, to me, is way more interesting as a mashup, and Raimi loved it!”

    “It’s not like I could tell New Line my plan to include The Evil Dead, because they don’t own The Evil Dead. So it had to be an Easter egg, and I did focus on it…there’s a whole scene that includes the book, and I hoped people would get it and could figure out that’s what I’m up to. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 9 was an abomination.

  • The movie makes a claim that only a member of the Voorhees family line (or has a blood link to them) is capable of stopping Jason for good, which basically ignores Part 6-8's subsequential defeats of Jason by people who have no link whatsoever to that family line.
  • Despite Jason being "killed for good" with some mystical dagger garbage, he apparently ignores the "killed for good" part considering Jason X as well as FvJ happened. While FvJ isn't canon, Part 10 is technically speaking.
  • Jason didn't possess anyone despite being defeated during Part 6-8, or after Part 4 for that matter. He would've been able to use that strange hyponotic power that gets people to help him while he was "dead," which meant he could've escaped the water much faster. Instead, he was fish food for an untold number of years after each movie.

The only good thing to come out of that movie was the Duke. Even worse, there's a chance the whole possession fiasco could one day become a game mode, something I refuse to play if that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trident77 said:

Part 9 was an abomination.

  • The movie makes a claim that only a member of the Voorhees family line (or has a blood link to them) is capable of stopping Jason for good, which basically ignores Part 6-8's subsequential defeats of Jason by people who have no link whatsoever to that family line.
  • Despite Jason being "killed for good" with some mystical dagger garbage, he apparently ignores the "killed for good" part considering Jason X as well as FvJ happened. While FvJ isn't canon, Part 10 is technically speaking.
  • Jason didn't possess anyone despite being defeated during Part 6-8, or after Part 4 for that matter. He would've been able to use that strange hyponotic power that gets people to help him while he was "dead," which meant he could've escaped the water much faster. Instead, he was fish food for an untold number of years after each movie.

The only good thing to come out of that movie was the Duke. Even worse, there's a chance the whole possession fiasco could one day become a game mode, something I refuse to play if that happens.

Jason had not needed to resort to possession until Part 9, since his body remained intact after each "death"..for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NthnButAGoodTime said:

Quoting Director Adam Marcus:

  • "He’s Jason plus The Evil Dead, and now I can believe that he can go from a little boy that lives in a lake, to a full grown man in a couple of months, to Zombie Jason, to never being able to kill this guy."

Uh. Jason drowned in 1957 at age 10. He made his first killer appearance 22 years later in 1979 -- at age 32. He then killed everyone as Baghead Jason in "F13 part 2" five years later -- at age 37.

What is he talking about, "a couple of months"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Cokeyskunk said:

Uh. Jason drowned in 1957 at age 10. He made his first killer appearance 22 years later in 1979 -- at age 32. He then killed everyone as Baghead Jason in "F13 part 2" five years later -- at age 37.

What is he talking about, "a couple of months"??

The "little boy in the lake" here meaning the appearance of Jason at the end of Part 1 [spoiler alert].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of using the necromnicon to bring Jason back from the dead, but I don't like the idea of him being a deadite. Granted, I know little about The Evil Dead franchise, but can't you do one without the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he doesn't act like any of the snarly growly deadites I've ever seen so what is he a "special" deadite? Plus most of them move fast all the time and are far more bestial in nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RAGNAR0K N ROLL said:

But he doesn't act like any of the snarly growly deadites I've ever seen so what is he a "special" deadite? Plus most of them move fast all the time and are far more bestial in nature

If he's already taking license to reinterpret Jason, it seems likely he'd feel no restraint in redefining the terms of Deadite-dom.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

If he's already taking license to reinterpret Jason, it seems likely he'd feel no restraint in redefining the terms of Deadite-dom.

Anyway,i never considered Part 9,X and FvsJ to be in the same canon as Part 1 to 8,to my eyes those movies are set in alternate realities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, FreakyFrank1 said:

Anyway,i never considered Part 9,X and FvsJ to be in the same canon as Part 1 to 8,to my eyes those movies are set in alternate realities.

I'm with you. I consider 12 minutes of Part 1, the end credits to 3, and the scenes with Dr. Crews in Part 7 to be non-canon. So, I get it.

 

 

 

Edit:  Iiiiiiiiiiiiii'm just messing with you.

Edited by NthnButAGoodTime

Share this post


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

If he's already taking license to reinterpret Jason, it seems likely he'd feel no restraint in redefining the terms of Deadite-dom.

Yeah I suppose you have a point in that. I mean if you're going to go out there why not go all the way out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RAGNAR0K N ROLL said:

But he doesn't act like any of the snarly growly deadites I've ever seen so what is he a "special" deadite? Plus most of them move fast all the time and are far more bestial in nature

The more vocal deadites from Evil Dead are ancient demons inhabiting human bodies. Jason's soul is inhabiting his own, now demonically supercharged body. Thus he retains his own mentality and personality.

What he said about Jason growing from a little boy to an adult in months is impossible because the "zombie kid Jason" from part 1 would have already rotted to just bones by then. Jason allegedly drowned in 1958. If he truly did drown then his body would have already rotted to nothing in just a few months or a year.

If the Evil Dead reference is taken as canon, then it would be best to say that Pamela used the Necronomicon to resurrect Jason shortly after he drowned. His soul was returned to his body with a spark of demonic power in it that lay dormant. He lived in the woods for decades until Part 1 happened, then his deadite healing factor kicked in as he was mortally wounded in parts 2 and 3, but the damage in part 4 was too much and he "died" for real. Then when lightning struck him in part 6, the Necronomicon's spell was fully awakened and he became a true deadite.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NthnButAGoodTime said:

The "little boy in the lake" here meaning the appearance of Jason at the end of Part 1 [spoiler alert].

I know the reference, I just don't understand what he's talking about as that was clearly dismissed as a dream, or else Alice would have been dead in the first film.

(Also, if anyone needs spoiler alerts on the F13 forum on the initial film released 38 years ago, there's something hairy going on there.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Cokeyskunk said:

I know the reference, I just don't understand what he's talking about as that was clearly dismissed as a dream, or else Alice would have been dead in the first film.

(Also, if anyone needs spoiler alerts on the F13 forum on the initial film released 38 years ago, there's something hairy going on there.)  

Unless from the cops' angle, the soggy boy was obstructed from view by Alice's body and the canoe, so they didn't have any reason to look for a boy.

 

The spoiler alert part was meant as more of a joke...I also gave the alert after the spoiler.

39 minutes ago, bewareofbears said:

Nope.

Welcome back Bears. It's nice to have you constructively contributing to conversations, again.:P;):):D:wub:

Edited by NthnButAGoodTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NthnButAGoodTime said:

Unless from the cops' angle, the soggy boy was obstructed from view by Alice's body and the canoe, so they didn't have any reason to look for a boy.

 

The spoiler alert part was meant as more of a joke...I also gave the alert after the spoiler.

Welcome back Bears. It's nice to have you constructively contributing to conversations, again. 

I disagreed, it didn't require any explanation. Thanks for welcoming me back with a condescending shitpost. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bewareofbears said:

I disagreed, it didn't require any explanation. Thanks for welcoming me back with a condescending shitpost. :) 

:) I was going more for gentle ribbing, than outright condescension. I guess, thanks for reading too far into my tone... again.:)

 

Either way, welcome back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bewareofbears said:

I disagreed, it didn't require any explanation. Thanks for welcoming me back with a condescending shitpost. :) 

Uh-oh. Looks like somebody needs a TICKLE!!!!

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NthnButAGoodTime said:

:) I was going more for gentle ribbing, than outright condescension. I guess, thanks for reading too far into my tone... again.:)

 

Either way, welcome back.

Thanks, and it's difficult sometimes to perceive intent or tone through text. Throw me a winky face next time and I may get the joke. ;)

Edit:

@Cokeyskunk Tickle Me Bears will be available at all major retailers this holiday season. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Thanks, and it's difficult sometimes to perceive intent or tone through text. Throw me a winky face next time and I may get the joke. ;)

I have taken your advice and edited my original post, but still took the opportunity to be an idiot about it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NthnButAGoodTime said:

I have taken your advice and edited my original post, but still took the opportunity to be an idiot about it. :)

Works for me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bewareofbears said:

Tickle Me Bears will be available at all major retailers this holiday season. ;)

Parental Warning: The tickle sensor is concentrated to one small spot on the Bears. Please have a conversation with your children prior to giving them their Bear. Counseling sold separately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the idea is people have to accept the Book of the Dead's appearance as canon than they also have to accept what else was shown in the film- particularly that Voorhees was spelt "Vorhees", meaning that house never belonged to Pamela *Voorhees*, nor did she have a daughter and the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding (like all those Sarah Connors killed in the first Terminator). :P

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