Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
B0bZomb1e

Does Jason....?

Recommended Posts

So my memory is a little fuzzy an im not sure if it was ever covered in the movies, but does our loveable manchild Jason kill children? Or rather wld he? Theres never bin any kids at the camps in the movies (as far ad i can remember an i haven't seen them in a million years) so ive always wondered how he would handle a child victim.

I think he wld pull a less comical Captain Spaulding, whereas he wldnt kill the kid, but wld definately scare the shit out of it. Make a little up close an personal memory.

Is this discussable? Or is there clarified info out there im unaware of?

Let me know what yall think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B0bZomb1e said:

So my memory is a little fuzzy an im not sure if it was ever covered in the movies, but does our loveable manchild Jason kill children? Or rather wld he? Theres never bin any kids at the camps in the movies (as far ad i can remember an i haven't seen them in a million years) so ive always wondered how he would handle a child victim.

I think he wld pull a less comical Captain Spaulding, whereas he wldnt kill the kid, but wld definately scare the shit out of it. Make a little up close an personal memory.

Is this discussable? Or is there clarified info out there im unaware of?

Let me know what yall think!

In part 6 the kids actually arrive at the camp and he is face to face with them really and does not kill them ..

Share this post


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

In part 6 the kids actually arrive at the camp and he is face to face with them really and does not kill them ..

Ill have to rewatch that one, is it like just a stand off/stare down until they flee or does the movie just end there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They even pull back from the Kick the dog trope.

In two they imply he did, then have the dog reappear.

In four it is implied but never showed he had anything to do with Gordon's death.

In eight he never harms the dog.

There is some implications and scenes that imply he is killing and eating wild animals, but not domesticated, or named ones.

I think the dismembering of teenagers at a rapid rate is enough to show he is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, B0bZomb1e said:

Ill have to rewatch that one, is it like just a stand off/stare down until they flee or does the movie just end there? 

They are in a cabin together and the kids are screaming and hiding under a bed and wut not ..then he gets distracted by a counselor and continues after the teens 

Share this post


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

They are in a cabin together and the kids are screaming and hiding under a bed and wut not ..then he gets distracted by a counselor and continues after the teens 

Hmm...that just tells me his focus was the teenage counselors(obviously) im wondering if he wld have done something had they bin the last ones there...

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say..the closest he's come to actually killing a kid is when he goes toe to toe  with Tommy Jarvis when he's a kid (part 4 corey feldman) at one point he does grab child Tommy from behind In a bear hug  and I doubt his was gonna just give him a stern talking to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Krock said:

They are in a cabin together and the kids are screaming and hiding under a bed and wut not ..then he gets distracted by a counselor and continues after the teens 

It happens twice.

Once he walks in to the cabing while they are all sleeping and he comes face to face with a little girl who is awake. He leans in looking at curiously then leaves because the cops are there. Then he busts through the door later when they are all hiding and the run screaming to the back of the room. He doesn't kill any of them, and busts through the wall to go after Meagan a few moments later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It happens twice.

Once he walks in to the cabing while they are all sleeping and he comes face to face with a little girl who is awake. He leans in looking at curiously then leaves because the cops are there. Then he busts through the door later when they are all hiding and the run screaming to the back of the room. He doesn't kill any of them, and busts through the wall to go after Meagan a few moments later.

Ya wut he said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B0bZomb1e said:

Hmm...that just tells me his focus was the teenage counselors(obviously) im wondering if he wld have done something had they bin the last ones there...

What do you think?

This has been kicked around a lot in a lot of places.

 

I think the consensus is likely he would not.

Given he "died" as a kid, he is likely to empathize more with children.

He is more of a revenant sort, so his murderous rage is mostly focused on those who look like those who let him die, and or those who tresspass.

The closest a Jason has come to attacking a kid was Roy going after Reggie.

In Part 4 he has the choice to go after Tommy upstairs and lunges towards him, but changes his mind when Trish yells. Jason then chases Trish. Jason does not apear to be going after shaved Tommy at all in the ending, but rather is mesmerized.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This has been kicked around a lot in a lot of places.

 

I think the consensus is likely he would not.

Given he "died" as a kid, he is likely to empathize more with children.

He is more of a revenant sort, so his murderous rage is mostly focused on those who look like those who let him die, and or those who tresspass.

The closest a Jason has come to attacking a kid was Roy going after Reggie.

In Part 4 he has the choice to go after Tommy upstairs and lunges towards him, but changes his mind when Trish yells. Jason then chases Trish. Jason does not apear to be going after shaved Tommy at all in the ending, but rather is mesmerized.

I was under the impression that whilst yes it was the counselors fault for letting him die it was the other kids that got him in the lake to begin with, giving me reason to believe he cld still hold a small chip for children.

But that cld just be my memory telling me things it doesnt quite remember.

Although i will say in my own opinion i didnt think olde Jason would slaughter children, i was just hoping someone might think an have some sort of angle to say otherwise. 

Like all serial slashers have a odd soft spot in some way (except maybe kruger). Jason doesnt kill kids, Myers didnt kill all the crazies in the loony bin or the trick or treaters (that i recall) it just seems funny to me that these iconic slashers were as brutal as they come, but they still didnt kill the true innocents. Makes me wonder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B0bZomb1e said:

I was under the impression that whilst yes it was the counselors fault for letting him die it was the other kids that got him in the lake to begin with, giving me reason to believe he cld still hold a small chip for children.

But that cld just be my memory telling me things it doesnt quite remember.

Although i will say in my own opinion i didnt think olde Jason would slaughter children, i was just hoping someone might think an have some sort of angle to say otherwise. 

Like all serial slashers have a odd soft spot in some way (except maybe kruger). Jason doesnt kill kids, Myers didnt kill all the crazies in the loony bin or the trick or treaters (that i recall) it just seems funny to me that these iconic slashers were as brutal as they come, but they still didnt kill the true innocents. Makes me wonder...

I think the teasing is only in FvJ and possibly the remake?

But, if it did happen that way, we could say he has only ever tried to go after boys. Tommy specifically. The girl in six he is curious about, as if he has no idea what she is or what he should do with her.

Killing children in movies is a very hard thing to get away with, same as harming animals. Children lack agency in most cases, whereas adults are often punished for their choices in horror and other genres.

Often the death of children is used as a motivating factor for either the antagonist (Part 1 of this series) or the protagonists (say 95% of child death movies, ie too numerous for me to mention), and helps tyhe viewer to either relate to or understand quickly the motivations of a character. When it is not used in this fashion it is almost exclusively used to make sure there is no ambiguity that the person who kills a child is EVIL. Like the kick the dog trope.

People who kick dogs are evil. People who kill children are evil.

Most slashers don't need this short hand as we get it most of the time, they are killing people, this makes them evil. We don't have to see or hear about them doing something evil to know they are evil beyond what they are already evil.

It is often used when you aren't sure if someone is evil or misguided. They havenn't done anything too bad yet, so we aren't sure. Have them kill a kid, that'll do it. This would happen in movies that don't plan to have the other characters harmed.

The kick the dog thing is often used to show the difference between a brutal protagonist anti-hero type and the villain. If your hero is kind of a dick and goes around shooting poor greedo, you need to seperate him from Darth Vader by having Vader kick a mouse droid. That sort of thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the teasing is only in FvJ and possibly the remake?

But, if it did happen that way, we could say he has only ever tried to go after boys. Tommy specifically. The girl in six he is curious about, as if he has no idea what she is or what he should do with her.

Killing children in movies is a very hard thing to get away with, same as harming animals. Children lack agency in most cases, whereas adults are often punished for their choices in horror and other genres.

Often the death of children is used as a motivating factor for either the antagonist (Part 1 of this series) or the protagonists (say 95% of child death movies, ie too numerous for me to mention), and helps tyhe viewer to either relate to or understand quickly the motivations of a character. When it is not used in this fashion it is almost exclusively used to make sure there is no ambiguity that the person who kills a child is EVIL. Like the kick the dog trope.

People who kick dogs are evil. People who kill children are evil.

Most slashers don't need this short hand as we get it most of the time, they are killing people, this makes them evil. We don't have to see or hear about them doing something evil to know they are evil beyond what they are already evil.

It is often used when you aren't sure if someone is evil or misguided. They havenn't done anything too bad yet, so we aren't sure. Have them kill a kid, that'll do it. This would happen in movies that don't plan to have the other characters harmed.

The kick the dog thing is often used to show the difference between a brutal protagonist anti-hero type and the villain. If your hero is kind of a dick and goes around shooting poor greedo, you need to seperate him from Darth Vader by having Vader kick a mouse droid. That sort of thing.

Good points, fair enough.

Plus, especially for the times of this and those older flicks, the viewers weren't as devoid of emotion as people are these days an im sure seeing children die wldnt have done to well in-terms of reviews and what was "ok" to see. Even in the most brutal movies youve seen, writers still have to tip toe the line of whats allowed or taboo'd.

Jus sayin, ive never seen jason kick a dog...;)

Maybe a boombox though...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a really, really hard time believing that Jason wasn't intending to kill Tommy in Part IV.

I tend to think that people - including Kane Hodder - want to think that Jason won't kill kids or dogs or whatever because they want him to have some redeeming qualities or be an "antihero" like the Punisher or whatever...

But Jason isn't an antihero. At best, he's a force of nature - a localized hurricane that kills anything in its path. At worst he is a bloodthirsty and occasionally demonic murderer, killing innocents for no other reason other than that they have - usually unknowingly - invaded his space.

Plus, it was kids that taunted him into the lake, causing him to drown...

So, while I think, that Jason will go after adults (or young adults) first, I don't really see anything in the films themselves that would indicate that he wouldn't knock off the kids after.

To me, this is similar to the "FREDDY ISN'T A CHILD MOLESTER!" debate, where the films are pretty explicit about the fact that he was, but Freddy is a love-to-hate character, so people would rather believe that he wasn't... while happily accepting the idea that he had a room full of torture gloves to slowly murder children with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In interviews, Kane Hodder says he took out kicking the dog in Part 8. He said his version of Jason wouldn't kill dogs or children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2017 at 7:33 PM, RKSDooM said:

I have a really, really hard time believing that Jason wasn't intending to kill Tommy in Part IV.

I tend to think that people - including Kane Hodder - want to think that Jason won't kill kids or dogs or whatever because they want him to have some redeeming qualities or be an "antihero" like the Punisher or whatever...

But Jason isn't an antihero. At best, he's a force of nature - a localized hurricane that kills anything in its path. At worst he is a bloodthirsty and occasionally demonic murderer, killing innocents for no other reason other than that they have - usually unknowingly - invaded his space.

Plus, it was kids that taunted him into the lake, causing him to drown...

So, while I think, that Jason will go after adults (or young adults) first, I don't really see anything in the films themselves that would indicate that he wouldn't knock off the kids after.

To me, this is similar to the "FREDDY ISN'T A CHILD MOLESTER!" debate, where the films are pretty explicit about the fact that he was, but Freddy is a love-to-hate character, so people would rather believe that he wasn't... while happily accepting the idea that he had a room full of torture gloves to slowly murder children with. 

Actually, it was never explicit in the films that he was until the 2010 remake, although it was definitely implied in Freddy Vs Jason in 2003. Wes Craven wanted the character to be a child molester originally, but backed off of that stance under studio pressure. While there may have been subtle hints in the movies, it was never really a plot point. I could be mistaken about how much it was implied in the original films. I have the boxed set, I will have to go back and re-watch them to see if there was something I missed.

As to the original topic, like was said above, Jason never actually killed children or dogs in the movies. The most interaction he had with children was in Part 6, and he didn't harm any of them. One kid, while hiding under the bed with his friend, turns to him and says, "So what DID you want to be when you grew up?" That line makes me laugh every time I hear it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually, it was never explicit in the films that he was until the 2010 remake, although it was definitely implied in Freddy Vs Jason in 2003. Wes Craven wanted the character to be a child molester originally, but backed off of that stance under studio pressure. While there may have been subtle hints in the movies, it was never really a plot point. I could be mistaken about how much it was implied in the original films. I have the boxed set, I will have to go back and re-watch them to see if there was something I missed.

In NIGHTMARE 5 there is a newspaper clipping that identifies Krueger as a child molester, if memory serves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RKSDooM said:

In NIGHTMARE 5 there is a newspaper clipping that identifies Krueger as a child molester, if memory serves.

The Dream Child is actually my least favorite of all of the films, so I could have definitely missed that. I remember clippings of "Springwood Slasher Released On Technicality" and "Child Killer Set Free", but I do not remember one that designated him as a child molester. That was actually one reason I disliked the remake, because they made it so much of the plot. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the only time he was close to killing kids was Part 6 and there was also the time when he possessed Randy in Jason Goes to Hell to do a mouth to mouth with Stephanie.

If I recall the Wildstorm comic run, he did kill some kids who were close to killing the child who had a similar deformity that he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2017 at 4:31 PM, Rexfellis said:

The Dream Child is actually my least favorite of all of the films, so I could have definitely missed that. I remember clippings of "Springwood Slasher Released On Technicality" and "Child Killer Set Free", but I do not remember one that designated him as a child molester. That was actually one reason I disliked the remake, because they made it so much of the plot. Thanks for the info.

I hear ya, DREAM CHILD is pretty rough, especially the R-Rated version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really gotten the impression he would actively hunt/kill children. Because outside of the glimpse we got in FvJ there isn't to my recollection; any instances of the kids taunting him or bullying leading to his death though it isn't unfathomable that they would of course. Especially us late 20th century kids. That being said the entire reason for his death and by extension mommy's death was counselors who weren't paying attention so it makes more sense his seething rage would be directed towards his targets or anything that stands in the way of his objectives. I do think though I read somewhere they wanted him to kill the dog in VIII but Hodder said no way, Jason wouldn't kill a dog; or something to that effect so...it could be up for interpretation. But I fail to believe he would harm those that would be at least innocent in some way. Of course outside of VII and the camp scene we really haven't seen him around anything other than horny teens and cops with guns so not a lot of evidence either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...