NthnButAGoodTime

Jason is Canonically a Deadite

41 posts in this topic

27 minutes ago, bewareofbears said:

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

I actually, seriously like this approach, even if you posted it mockingly. It's not like reading is listed as one of Jason's strong points. 

Then again, what if a "Vorhees" was close enough for the curse to kind of work (a la "Klaatu barada nik[cough][cough]" was enough to make the book do...something)?

Share this post


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

I actually, seriously like this approach, even if you posted it mockingly. It's not like reading is listed as one Jason's strong points. 

Then again, what if a "Vorhees" was close enough for the curse to kind of work (a la "Klaatu barada nik[cough][cough]" was enough to make the book do...something)?

My assumption with the film is it's a one-off, similar to Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason. I enjoyed that the new Star Trek films chose to showcase another universe while leaving the original intact. I look at this film in the same vein as it's a possible outcome of Jason's story but not definitive, again like Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason.

Friday the 13th was released in 1980, Evil Dead in 1981. The two franchises really only share an Easter Egg reference in one film with an explanation from the director that was never shown or mentioned in the film. I'm pretty sure Freddy's glove is an Easter Egg in one of the Evil Dead films but it doesn't connect the franchises outside of a passing reference.

Edit:

@NthnButAGoodTime

Another wrench in your theory is here:

The Evil Dead films are entertainment in Freddy's canon, which is connected with Jason's in Jason Goes to Hell. Meaning the Book of the Dead in the "Vorhees" house is more likely a horror nerd's prop, like the crate in the basement.

Edit 2:

Here's the Freddy's glove Easter Egg from Evil Dead II:

 

Share this post


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

My assumption with the film is it's a one-off, similar to Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason. I enjoyed that the new Star Trek films chose to showcase another universe while leaving the original intact. I look at this film in the same vein as it's a possible outcome of Jason's story but not definitive, again like Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason.

Friday the 13th was released in 1980, Evil Dead in 1981. The two franchises really only share an Easter Egg reference in one film with an explanation from the director that was never shown or mentioned in the film. I'm pretty sure Freddy's glove is an Easter Egg in one of the Evil Dead films but it doesn't connect the franchises outside of a passing reference.

Well, if you want to take the fun out of everything, sure. 

Technically you can drop the series at any point you like, as they were filmed to cash in on an unexpectedly popular low budget, single entry movie. Nobody was trying to build a mythology. Nobody anticipated heated discussions in the future around their narrative choices. People kept throwing money at them, so they threw the next thing together.

I'd rather explore the implications of the accidental mythology created by the whole, than itemize what I'll accept and leave out of my personal canon.

Share this post


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

My assumption with the film is it's a one-off, similar to Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason. I enjoyed that the new Star Trek films chose to showcase another universe while leaving the original intact. I look at this film in the same vein as it's a possible outcome of Jason's story but not definitive, again like Jason X and Freddy vs. Jason.

Friday the 13th was released in 1980, Evil Dead in 1981. The two franchises really only share an Easter Egg reference in one film with an explanation from the director that was never shown or mentioned in the film. I'm pretty sure Freddy's glove is an Easter Egg in one of the Evil Dead films but it doesn't connect the franchises outside of a passing reference.

Edit:

@NthnButAGoodTime

Another wrench in your theory is here:

The Evil Dead films are entertainment in Freddy's canon, which is connected with Jason's in Jason Goes to Hell. Meaning the Book of the Dead in the "Vorhees" house is more likely a horror nerd's prop, like the crate in the basement.

Edit 2:

Here's the Freddy's glove Easter Egg from Evil Dead II:

 

giphy.gif

I'll go with anything that discredits any of the mythology they tried to establish in Jason Goes To Hell.

I will never watch The Final Chapter and think that there is a hell demon inside of his body while he murders Jimbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know Adam Marcus said that, the same thing was implied in Freddy vs Jason vs Ash where it's seen Pamela used the Necronomicon to bring back Jason.

Share this post


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

 

@NthnButAGoodTime

Another wrench in your theory is here:. 

To be clear, this is not my theory. This discussion is spawned from a quote from the director of the movie in question with a citation link to the article containing the quote. I have no stake in any side of the discussion, save for the fact that I enjoy discussion.

Edit: Unless your edit was in response to my theory below your statement. In which case...ok, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours 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. ;)

Edit:

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

So THIS is why I come off as such a dick? I need to work on my smiley face emoticon game. 

As for OP, I read that article by her as well. I thought this was incredibly stupid though. Now we have ideas thrown out there that Jason's mom summoned him from the Necronomicon. Yet she goes to the lake to exact his revenge that she believes he deserves, so clearly she thinks he is dead and hasn't returned. I highly doubt Jason would have a hesitation about killing animals or children if he were a Deadite. This also raises the question of when did he become resurrected as a Deadite? In part 9? Before part 1 and the boy became a man? 

It's cool Mel got that interview and it was interesting, but it's barely canonical even if he thinks it is. Series should have ended at 4, then again at 8. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2017 at 7:12 PM, 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.

Same here, movie versions of fanfiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason is considered a revenant not a deadite. A revenant MUCH more closely fits with what Jason is.

A shitty director who made a shitty movie and threw Jason into it does not equate to a credible source.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why peoples tried to connect the dots between Part 9,X,FvsJ and the other 8 previous movies,but the thing is that there is no dots.

There's just too much inconsistencies in those 3 films to fit them with the previous movies in the franchise.

So then some of these peoples start saying 'well he was always supernatural from the start,he always had regenerative powers,he always was a deadite'.

Im sorry but no...i've seen those 3 specific films multiples times and i never felt like those were meant to be in the same canon as Part 1 trough 8...my brain/mind just doesnt see the connections between them.

Heck even if Part 8 Jason clothes werent as shredded as part 7,at least he's under the water again with piles of wooden planks and rubbles on him,so at least it follow the ending of Part 7.

I'll say it again,those Jasons from Part 9,X and FvsJ are not the same Jason as in Part 1-8,those are Jasons who went trough different events,who had different histories,because they are Jasons from alternate realities...

It's kinda like the 2009 remake wich is basically a reboot using certain elements of the first 4 films,Part 9,X and FvsJ are also in a sense semi-reboots.

Part 9 is from a reality where Jason was revived with the necronomicon and doesnt have the same wounds (missing right eye instead of the left eye),and it's set in the same universe as Evil Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street.

Part X is from a reality where Jason never was a zombie,he was a human with wolverine like regenerative powers for all his life.

As for FvsJ,if you look at the behind the scenes pic showing Jason face under the mask,he look a lot more fresh than Part 6,meaning that that version of Jason died not too long ago prior to the events of that movie. (maybe a few weeks or months)

 

So go on,continue,you can keep on telling us that those 3 films are part of the canon,but i am not fooled and will not change my mind on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dmack621 said:

Jason is considered a revenant not a deadite. A revenant MUCH more closely fits with what Jason is.

Yep. Or I guess you could even equate him to a Rusalka, but those are usually women.

10 hours ago, dmack621 said:

A shitty director who made a shitty movie and threw Jason into it does not equate to a credible source.

I have to agree, here. (Not necessarily with the "$#!%%y" sentiments, but with the rest.) 

Honestly, unless it appeared in a Friday the 13th film, I don't consider it "canon." In fact, I don't even take the Pamela/Jarvis tapes as canon. 

The problem here is: the Paramount directors who helmed the original films really didn't give two squats about staying canonical in a slasher movie, so canon often went out the window. (Case-in-point: Jason's appearance dramatically changing in Parts 2, 3, and 4, even though they're all supposed to happen within the same week.) So F13 canon is already a big mess, to say the least.

But really -- some dude who directed one of the lousiest entries in the franchise (no offense, just how it is) hears an idea and thinks it's cool -- THAT does not make it canon. He helmed "The Final Friday," and had his chance to create canon as he saw fit. But he didn't try to negotiate with the owners of the Evil Dead IP, and didn't try to make it happen. So that one goes out the window.

Adam Marcus is not the end-all, be-all of the F13 franchise. Now, if Victor Miller came along and said something like this, I would put more credence into it being canon -- as he created the whole friggin' thing.

If Adam Marcus wants Jason to canonically be a "Deadite," he needs to create a F13/ED crossover film.

Then, and ONLY then, will it be canon.

 

Sorry. F13 canon -- and all of its lovely brokenness -- is a passion of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to  think that Part 9 is a stand alone movie. Not only does it ignore the canon of the first eight, but it's also never touched on again in future sequels. Jason X is kind of ambiguous, I think since it's set so far into the future, it could take place in whatever timeline you wanted it to. I think Freddy vs Jason is the same way, you could argue that Freddy got Jason out of Hell after he was destroyed by toxic waste in Part 8, or you could argue that the same Jason pulled into the ground by demons was the one resurrected by Freddy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2017 at 3:22 PM, deathbat96777 said:

I like to  think that Part 9 is a stand alone movie. Not only does it ignore the canon of the first eight, but it's also never touched on again in future sequels. Jason X is kind of ambiguous, I think since it's set so far into the future, it could take place in whatever timeline you wanted it to. I think Freddy vs Jason is the same way, you could argue that Freddy got Jason out of Hell after he was destroyed by toxic waste in Part 8, or you could argue that the same Jason pulled into the ground by demons was the one resurrected by Freddy. 

Jason X actually appears to be alive an kicking not undead. It could be argued he exists in an alternate timeline when Tommy didn't kill him in Part IV. FvJ is certainly a stand-alone. Jason was pulled to Hell in a backyard. Freddy wakes Jason up out in a forest. Part 9 is totally a stand alone as well and ignores the first 8 movies.

I generally only consider the first 8 to be canon in terms of the original story. I hate the ending of part 8 with a passion, but it is what it is.

Share this post


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

Jason X actually appears to be alive an kicking not undead. It could be argued he exists in an alternate timeline when Tommy didn't kill him in Part IV. FvJ is certainly a stand-alone. Jason was pulled to Hell in a backyard. Freddy wakes Jason up out in a forest. Part 9 is totally a stand alone as well and ignores the first 8 movies.

I generally only consider the first 8 to be canon in terms of the original story. I hate the ending of part 8 with a passion, but it is what it is.

When I first Jason X I was surprised Jason looked human again. I thought maybe it was the budget but I think it's also that whole regeneration angle.

I agree, 1-8 are the series and the rest are one-offs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe part 1-8 is canonical and the other realities alternate, but someone has asked because Jason is "immortal", he regenerates, he is able to teleport, among many and countless other abilities, according to the canon of the 1-8 Jason He was presumed dead but miraculously survived the drowning and established a shelter near the Crystal Lake Camp and appeared just as his mother was killed and that's why he started killing, and as the movies progressed, supernatural abilities appeared out of nowhere.

Why? It may have to do with Jason's mysterious father, maybe he was not human but a supernatural being, maybe a demon. Maybe Pamea used the necronomicon turning Jason into a deadite or a revenant. Or maybe (and more likely) the directors of the origin of their powers never crossed their minds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/11/2017 at 3:22 AM, dmack621 said:

Jason is considered a revenant not a deadite. A revenant MUCH more closely fits with what Jason is.

A shitty director who made a shitty movie and threw Jason into it does not equate to a credible source.

I'd give you a like if I had any left, but yes, revenent suits him MUCH better. 

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