![]() | 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 |
I have finally finished the new Jason Voorhees page. Please tell me what you think. Please note that it is designed after the Jabba the Hutt featured article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A great article, but a few comments before I'd feel happy making it a WP:GA:
Jason Voorhees has been featured in many humor magazines, referenced in feature films, parodied in television shows, and been the inspiration for a horror punk band. Several toylines have been released based on various versions of the character from the Friday the 13th films. Jason Voorhees was awarded the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award" - "Jason" or "Jason Voorhees" appears too many times here - "he" would probably suffice a few times, so re-write and re-read to improve the flow.
Incredibly well referenced for a potential GA, see these points off and you're well on the road to FA if that's what you're after. I'll put the GA on hold to give you time to sort this lot out, let me know when you're happy for me to re-review and, hopefully, promote. This article isn't far from A-class, so please do work on it and get back to me. The Rambling Man 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest making "In mass media" its own stand-alone section? It's generally discouraged for sections to have only one subsection, I believe. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems like bad grammar: Morga enjoyed his time as Jason, making sure he "really go into the character". but I don't want to change it since it's a quote. Is it a typo or is that what he said? Paul730 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Something you might find interesting: [When discussing ideas for F13 prt 2] "My friends in Boston felt it was really important to bring back this Jason character. Well, I thought that was just the worst idea I ever heard. I was completely wrong." - Sean Cunningham [1] Paul730 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the bottom of the page. Don't really know what it is or how to fix it, so just thought I'd draw attention to it so somebody else could. Paul730 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. Paul730 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The infobox refers to Jason as a spree killer, but is categorised as a serial killer and mass murderer, which strikes as an inconsistency. Yes, it's this topic again, but the difference this time is that I've just more or less given up on battling these types of things, so I don't really give a shit anymore which way it goes, but thought others who clearly know what they're doing could see how best to straighten this out. -- Bacteria 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Martin Jay Sadoff kept a bag with him full of hockey gear, as most of the crew was Canadian and loved hockey" This is said as if implying he was a hockey fan because he is Canadian. I'm Canadian and I hate hockey. (Contact me) 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC
I'm up for removing most of the fields or reorgansing the thing. Why isn't {{ infobox character}} used?~ Zythe Talk to me! 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to inquire -- what are the differences between these two sections? I guess I'm not seeing a huge difference. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I really think that this page needs a section about his powers and abilities. -- 70.240.147.215 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In "Jason Goes to Hell" he has the ability to posess people through a snakelike creature.
Jason was a minor character in the original Friday the 13th, where he appeared as a hallucination of the main character Alice Hardy, but went on to become the main antagonist of the series. Is this meant to be in past tense? I'm asking because I thought that informantion about fiction should always be written in present tense. I mean, he still is a minor character in the original... if you watch it now he isn't gonna suddenly have a bigger part. Just checking before I change it. Paul730 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is poorly written. I suggest a thorough copyedit. I'm a little surprised that it made it to FA status. -- 80.1.36.9 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention that Jason wore a burlap sack over his head in Part 2. I think it's important to include this piece of info. Bobisbob ( talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The latest issue brought up a possibility that Pamela used the necromonicon to ressurect Jason, thus making him a 'deadite'. Although this probably isn't 'canon' with the films, should it be mentioned?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think that there should be a section(or mini-section)about all of the charachters Jason Voorhees has fought, I mean, as far as I know, He is the only killer to fight so many others. It would be great if you could add this, or mention his rivals, like Jason-x, Freddy(twice, and the original plan for 7 or 8 to be the battle movie), Ash and Leatherface. Sorry for buggin' ya.
You're Right, missed it. Were any of them Canon? I've read'em all and though he seems to die in every bout, he comes back, canon or not. Is it safe to say no comics that are versus are non-canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 ( talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Being Jason Voorhees - It's basically Kane Hodder talking about the kills and stuff, then I thought of you guys. Not saying I wanna kill you guys but... never mind. Anyway, he also talks about the look of Vorhees, and Jason X - I assume it was around the time of that sequel's release. Dunno if it's of any use to an already Featured Article, but there's a lot I feel that can be used on other relative article... hope it helps. -- Harish - 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What is supposed to be creepy about a Flemish/Dutch last name? 83.76.224.240 ( talk) 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In someways, couldn't Jason be described as the villian counterpart of Batman Both are shadowy figures with a dark past, and both lack any supernatural powers other than shear strength. Both are dark and reclusive, showing little emotion or mercy for their enemies, and both are often portrayed as effectively invincible. The only difference is that Batman kills those who are threats to the city, while Jason kills those who tread on the grounds of the camp where he died. It may sound outragious, but think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion7 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll admit that some similaritys and on the subject of killing in the early comics BATMAN KILLED CRIMINALS ALL THE TIME and there are many different points to both characters User: Lord ciron 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.201.111 ( talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added Category:Feral children to this article. Jason was living in the woods since he was 11 and send the rest his childhood living off the land. I think the category would fit him. 66.112.107.98 ( talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Should Jason's profile image be replaced with the one from '09? It's all over youtube and google, and since the new movie is coming out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a bit wrong, as the look used on the page is not Jason's usual garb, and was only used for one, arguably two films. I think it would be better to use a picture that showed Jason in clothing more like that he used from films three to seven, as that is the look more often associated with him. Each film made minor changes such as adding or removing gloves and belt and changes in color that could be attributed to age, but I think it's better to use the long-used look than either newer one. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Jason's usual garb were the workshirt and khakis seen in Part 3, The Final Chapter and quite faded in Jason Lives. I understand your other reasoning and if I'm able to find a high quality picture of him from p3-6 of Jason in that garb, I'll tell here. Even though his mask and machete are the only parts the public associates with him, nevertheless I still feel it would be important to show the clothes he more often assumed. He wore a jacket in the last 3 of the 12 installments and even though his clothes changed from 3-9, they remained at least somewhat similar each time. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Im proposing a taskforce for Jason and a Friday the 13th project. anyone who approves of this idea, go to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. Toonami Reactor ( talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel the plot details I posted that were deleted are very important to the story from Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. The story for that film is actually one of the most confusing of the series, and that is why I feel more explanation is necessary. I realize it's supposed to be short and sweet, compared to the actual pages for each of these films, but there is more detail put in the other films so I don't understand why it's not allowed here? There is no introduction to the character of Rennie in the synopsis now, so when her name is listed it seems to come out of left field and noone knows who she is supposed to be. At least you could say "One of the students, Rennie..."
Also, while Part II of the series gives the idea that Jason never actually drowned (which is talked about in the short synopsis), the section for Part VIII neglects to mention that in that particular film Jason does actually drown as a boy. This is shown in flashbacks, ghostly visions, and the apparent dead body of Jason at the end. Why would this not warrant at least a sentence mentioning his death was re-retconned back to how it was in the original film? Otherwise, it's extremely confusing. That's actually something people would come on Wikipedia to check out since it does conflict with Part II's campfire story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I can understand that, but then why say they retconned his death at all for Part II then? The way that it's written now makes it sound like the campfire story is true and that's all there is to it. I completely agree with leaving it open ended, and that it is ambigious in the series, but that means taking the phrase "retconned" out of the equation and just saying "Jason is somehow alive" or whatever to that effect. Then both possibilities are equally represented and the statement would be completely accurate. Is that at all possible to remove the "retconned", if you admit there is no definitive answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 05:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. It says "Jason's death as a boy is retconned..", meaning him dying as a child has been changed. That is not necessarily the case, as you've said. Now if it said "Jason being dead", that's different than saying "his death as a boy". The past and present tenses make all the difference. In the particular instance that he came back to life, he STILL died as a boy. There's nothing being retconned about that. Jason coming back to life is a continuation from that death. Saying it was retconned is implying they re-wrote what it was supposed to be, and now it's something else. You wouldn't say Jason's death was retconned in Part VI, would you? Or pretty much every zombie movie, whoever died's death is retconned? So again, I think it should be slightly altered to something else besides a "retcon". I know what your arguing, but I don't think it reads that way, otherwise I wouldn't of said anything in the first place. The wording is the exact same to the Michael Myers article, where it says Michael's death has been retconned in Halloween: Resurrection (which is true), and that scenario is completely different than Jason's. Michael Myers never died, Jason might have died, yet they are both described as retcons. You already agree that it's not necessarily true that Jason was alive the whole time and living in the woods, so I don't see the big deal about changing one little word to make it a little more obvious you don't mean that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have read the article a few times but I don't think your understanding what I mean. I'm saying using the term "retconned" seems very much like your saying Jason's drowning was changed into him surviving all along. We seem to agree that he could of either survived, or he could of came back to life somehow, but there is no definitive answer. If there is no definitive answer, then the word retconned is incorrect because that word only works if he never drowned in the first place.
Defenition: Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction
Jason coming back to life (zombie, undead, supernatural element) is NOT retconning the first movie. They might not of changed the fact that he drowned, so it's not a retcon. However, if you go by Part 2 all by itself then it is a retcon because they were hinting that he never did drown, changing the facts established in the first film. Using the word retcon is wrong because its confirming the campfire story in Part II as fact, when you yourself said it's only a possibility. I just dont know why you think a character coming back from the grave is a retcon. I guess we're just disagreeing on what a retcon means. Your lumping it into a very generic category, but the term has a very specific meaning. And again, using the phrase "Jason's death as a boy has been retconned.." is the problem, and only works if your believing that Part II rewrote history.
Jason died in Part IV, and came back to life in Part VI, and that is not a retcon. The Part I-Part II scenario could be very similiar to that, where he died and came back. Being totally unbias, it could be that OR it could be that he never died in the first place which is the true definition of a retcon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 12:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was dead in the original and he's back from the dead (maybe), so it's not a retcon. Why are so you confused about what I'm saying to you? You keep telling me to read the article for some reason. I KNOW and AGREE that Jason was dead in the first movie, what does that have to do with anything? Just because he's walking around in Part II doesn't make it a retcon because he might of came back to life (supernatural). Why does that statement confuse you? Your use of the word retcon is wrong for that particular situation, and I guess you just won't change it because you don't agree. It's an "unexplained resurrection", kind of like the gap between Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason Goes to Hell. Alter the statement "Jason's death as a boy has been retconned". I would change it myself, but I know you'd change it back. "Through unexplained methods, Jason has returned..", "Jason is found to be alive..", "Jason, revealed to be alive,.." all work. Those statement's dont flat out say he never drowned, like the way it is listed now.
And speaking of which, Jason didn't just die twice in the whole series like it's listed for Jason Goes to Hell. He died in the first film, he died in Part 3 since he's taken to the morgue in the beginning of 4 and pronounced dead, he died in Part 4 at the end, he died in Part 8 (maybe, it's ambigious), and yes he died in Jason Goes to Hell. So I'd also remove that statement that says "Jason Goes to Hell marks the second time Jason died", but I'm sure you won't. And if you want to get even more technical about it, Freddy vs. Jason states that Jason can never die, so you could argue Jason has never died beyond the original movie "he was just sleeping". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think somewhere on the wiki there should be a picture of Derek Mears as Jason from Friday the 13th (2009)? I've heard that the current picture which is taken from Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is only up there because it is the most well-known modern representation of Jason. Well, why not put a picture of the remake's character up? It's a much better look than the current one, and will be more well-known later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have found several screencaps which would be better-suited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The dislike for the picture is due to that among most Friday the 13th fans, "Freddy vs. Jason" is a footnote in history we all want to keep from happening again. Yes I know Wikipedia isn't about Friday the 13th and isn't catering to it's fans specifically, but it's also worthy of note that although Jason's clothes did change color anti-continuity between the third through eighth films, through them all his clothes were basically khakis and a workshirt. Sure it's not an iconic part of his look but if we can find a better screenshot from another film, well what do you guys say? -- 71.194.238.135 ( talk) 07:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The new Jason would be better.
I tried to explain that he gets burned up in Earth 2's atmosphere, but they deleted it saying it was "original research". IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW DOES INFORMATION GET ON THIS SITE ANYWAY? Can someone PLEASE find a way of putting on there that he gets burned in Earth 2's atmosphere? Cause I don't know how to cite resources, nor if any resources can be cited for this because I got the information from the movie itself. It's so unfair I don't think I'll ever edit again. I have a wikipedia account but I don't use it anymore due to the creation of an idiotic asinine article (even though I never got banned). 24.65.118.20 ( talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In Final Fantasy 6, when Edgar uses the chain saw, occasionally he will wear a hockey mask, which seems very clearly to be a reference to Jason. Does this deserve mention on this page? I think it does since it demonstrates the influence Jason has had on other forms of pop culture. Can we find a reference for this? Cazort ( talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's Friday the 13th, and it looks like someone has jokingly replaced this article with one about gonorrhea. Please undo this vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.215.129 ( talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
See [7]. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add what Jason is doing in the new 2009 film. FashVic ( talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to add it. ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC))
In Freddy vs Jason, the character "Deputy Scott Stubbs" (played by Lochlyn Munro), says that Jason was killed in 1957 at the age of 11, obviously making his year of birth 1946. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.123.234.150 ( talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Mrs. Voorhees article says he's born June 13, 1946, but why doesn't this one say that? Kidlittle ( talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen a featured article unlocked... interesting? 76.64.141.130 ( talk) 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly no prude, and I use this sort of language myself when I deem it appropriate, but do we really need to include those lyrics on THIS page? I can imagine that, upon visiting an article about rap or Eminem in particular, one would expect explicit lyrics and profanity. But on a completely unrelated page? Is this appropriate? I propose we remove the box with the Eminem lyrics. His reference to the movie/character is valid, and should stay, but the lyrics should go. Thoughts? Deltwalrus ( talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In re: Tommy's assertion in Part VI that Jason drowned in Crystal Lake as a child:
Per the book he consults, Jason can only be stopped if he is returned to his original resting place, where he drowned as a child. As the climax of the film depicts Jason successfully being stopped by being returned to this resting place, it stands to reason that, per McLoughlin's script, Jason did in fact drown there as a child. Further, the subsequent films follow this canon: Jason is only "freed" in part VI because of Tina's psychic powers, and defeated by being returned to the bottom of the lake; at the beginning of part VIII, Jason is immobilized at the bottom of Crystal Lake until he is revived by electricity, as he is at the beginning of Part VI. As the series contains a few retcons, I see no reason that this retcon should not be mentioned, as it directly impacts the circumstances of Jason's defeat and resurrection in the two subsequent films. 64.129.66.88 ( talk) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a continuity error, not a retcon. The only retcon is what they did in the first sequel. It's the only one that is even acknowledged as a retcon by the producers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I, Ghostkaiba297, and one of my newest friends, Jabrona, are 100% certain without a doubt that Freddy vs. Jason is set between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. Jason dies in Jason Goes to Hell - dragged into the ground, into hell. Alive again in Jason X, released before FvJ because the latter is in development hell. Freddy vs. Jason - Jason is resurrected by Freddy - who, at the end of JGTH, pulled Jason's hockey mask into hell.
Also, we are sure that Jason is completely incinerated in Earth 2's atmosphere at the end, except for his hockey mask, the last remnant of him that lands in the lake. The next film to be released was, as mentioned, Freddy vs. Jason, then a remake series. I mean, what happened to Pinhead when he went up in space? No one can deny he's dead for good after what Paul does to him. But we're not talking about Pinhead, we're talking about Jason.
Now, on the opposing side we've got our chief admin, Bignole, and his friend Paul730. They firmly believe that Freddy vs. Jason is out of continuity with the Jason series and that Jason survives the end of Jason X. They say any statement otherwise is "original research", a policy of Bignole's invention as I'm sure we all know. Well, original research is unverifiable comments often based purely on theory. Well, Freddy vs. Jason was always planned, and after Jason Goes to Hell, once New Line had the Friday the 13th series, there was no doubt the much-anticipated versus would come, so Jason X was written to make room for it and set in the future to not contradict it.
Bignole thinks conclusions should be drawn based on what appears in the movie itself. However, there is nothing to suggest Jason survived the reentry into the atmosphere. Saying that he survived could be construed as original research. Saying he died can be verified by the Jump to Death menu, as well as nothing's left of him but his hockey mask. What, is the hockey mask gonna start frying people with Dr. Octogonapus lasers or something?
(One final note before I get other sides of the debate is, as I already said, Bignole is wikipedia's chief admin. So when stating arguments, it would be wise to not get angry and flame him. Well, I'm guessing that's against wikipedia rules anyway to flame people, but flame an admin and he could ban you without a second thought. Though I'm not afraid to say it's a bit out of character for an admin to add potentially false info, but hopefully we'll settle that in the debate) Ghostkaiba297 ( talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Update, the burning in atmosphere thing has been said in a way that does not explicitly state he burns to death but doesn't say he survived either, just saying "burning in its atmosphere", which can mean either. So I guess if Bignole worded it that way, we'll omit the argument of whether he survived (as that's no longer an issue in editing), and I guess the debate will stick to the main scheme, of the Freddy vs. Jason continuity. Ghostkaiba297 ( talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that already implied by the "takes place in 2010, and skips ahead 455 years" for JX, and then FvJ stating "present-day" with 2003 in parenthesis? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
All that needs to be said in this discussion is that we should not try to make reference to any chronological details if we cannot source it to a reliable source or the subject itself. We cannot speculate or synthesize the order of the films. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it is worth noting in the header that Jason's backstory has been altered at least twice over the course of the series. No further detail-- that belongs, and indeed is already in, the article. A simple breakdown:
Part 1: Jason drowned as a child. Part 2-5: Jason did not drown as a child but lived in the woods as a hermit. He lived in the woods for years until (if Ginny is to be believed) he just so happened to see his mother die, prompting a killing spree when new counselors began training near Crystal Lake. Part 6-Freddy vs. Jason: Jason drowned as a child and has always been some sort of supernatural force.
The remake/reboot uses a truncated version of Part II's origin story, with Jason's supposed drowning, his mother's killing spree, and her death all happening within a short amount of time, as Jason is still a child when Mrs. Voorhees is decapitated. If we are to acknowledge the remake/reboot (which the article certainly does), this represents no less than three alterations to the character's backstory, two of which occur within the same continuity.
I believe that a simple sentence such as "At least two directors have made modifications to his origins, resulting in conflicting back stories" is an appropriate entry in the heading. 209.34.28.236 ( talk) 01:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
I have finally finished the new Jason Voorhees page. Please tell me what you think. Please note that it is designed after the Jabba the Hutt featured article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A great article, but a few comments before I'd feel happy making it a WP:GA:
Jason Voorhees has been featured in many humor magazines, referenced in feature films, parodied in television shows, and been the inspiration for a horror punk band. Several toylines have been released based on various versions of the character from the Friday the 13th films. Jason Voorhees was awarded the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award" - "Jason" or "Jason Voorhees" appears too many times here - "he" would probably suffice a few times, so re-write and re-read to improve the flow.
Incredibly well referenced for a potential GA, see these points off and you're well on the road to FA if that's what you're after. I'll put the GA on hold to give you time to sort this lot out, let me know when you're happy for me to re-review and, hopefully, promote. This article isn't far from A-class, so please do work on it and get back to me. The Rambling Man 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest making "In mass media" its own stand-alone section? It's generally discouraged for sections to have only one subsection, I believe. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems like bad grammar: Morga enjoyed his time as Jason, making sure he "really go into the character". but I don't want to change it since it's a quote. Is it a typo or is that what he said? Paul730 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Something you might find interesting: [When discussing ideas for F13 prt 2] "My friends in Boston felt it was really important to bring back this Jason character. Well, I thought that was just the worst idea I ever heard. I was completely wrong." - Sean Cunningham [1] Paul730 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the bottom of the page. Don't really know what it is or how to fix it, so just thought I'd draw attention to it so somebody else could. Paul730 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. Paul730 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The infobox refers to Jason as a spree killer, but is categorised as a serial killer and mass murderer, which strikes as an inconsistency. Yes, it's this topic again, but the difference this time is that I've just more or less given up on battling these types of things, so I don't really give a shit anymore which way it goes, but thought others who clearly know what they're doing could see how best to straighten this out. -- Bacteria 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Martin Jay Sadoff kept a bag with him full of hockey gear, as most of the crew was Canadian and loved hockey" This is said as if implying he was a hockey fan because he is Canadian. I'm Canadian and I hate hockey. (Contact me) 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC
I'm up for removing most of the fields or reorgansing the thing. Why isn't {{ infobox character}} used?~ Zythe Talk to me! 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to inquire -- what are the differences between these two sections? I guess I'm not seeing a huge difference. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I really think that this page needs a section about his powers and abilities. -- 70.240.147.215 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In "Jason Goes to Hell" he has the ability to posess people through a snakelike creature.
Jason was a minor character in the original Friday the 13th, where he appeared as a hallucination of the main character Alice Hardy, but went on to become the main antagonist of the series. Is this meant to be in past tense? I'm asking because I thought that informantion about fiction should always be written in present tense. I mean, he still is a minor character in the original... if you watch it now he isn't gonna suddenly have a bigger part. Just checking before I change it. Paul730 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is poorly written. I suggest a thorough copyedit. I'm a little surprised that it made it to FA status. -- 80.1.36.9 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention that Jason wore a burlap sack over his head in Part 2. I think it's important to include this piece of info. Bobisbob ( talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The latest issue brought up a possibility that Pamela used the necromonicon to ressurect Jason, thus making him a 'deadite'. Although this probably isn't 'canon' with the films, should it be mentioned?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think that there should be a section(or mini-section)about all of the charachters Jason Voorhees has fought, I mean, as far as I know, He is the only killer to fight so many others. It would be great if you could add this, or mention his rivals, like Jason-x, Freddy(twice, and the original plan for 7 or 8 to be the battle movie), Ash and Leatherface. Sorry for buggin' ya.
You're Right, missed it. Were any of them Canon? I've read'em all and though he seems to die in every bout, he comes back, canon or not. Is it safe to say no comics that are versus are non-canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 ( talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Being Jason Voorhees - It's basically Kane Hodder talking about the kills and stuff, then I thought of you guys. Not saying I wanna kill you guys but... never mind. Anyway, he also talks about the look of Vorhees, and Jason X - I assume it was around the time of that sequel's release. Dunno if it's of any use to an already Featured Article, but there's a lot I feel that can be used on other relative article... hope it helps. -- Harish - 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What is supposed to be creepy about a Flemish/Dutch last name? 83.76.224.240 ( talk) 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In someways, couldn't Jason be described as the villian counterpart of Batman Both are shadowy figures with a dark past, and both lack any supernatural powers other than shear strength. Both are dark and reclusive, showing little emotion or mercy for their enemies, and both are often portrayed as effectively invincible. The only difference is that Batman kills those who are threats to the city, while Jason kills those who tread on the grounds of the camp where he died. It may sound outragious, but think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion7 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll admit that some similaritys and on the subject of killing in the early comics BATMAN KILLED CRIMINALS ALL THE TIME and there are many different points to both characters User: Lord ciron 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.201.111 ( talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added Category:Feral children to this article. Jason was living in the woods since he was 11 and send the rest his childhood living off the land. I think the category would fit him. 66.112.107.98 ( talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Should Jason's profile image be replaced with the one from '09? It's all over youtube and google, and since the new movie is coming out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 ( talk) 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a bit wrong, as the look used on the page is not Jason's usual garb, and was only used for one, arguably two films. I think it would be better to use a picture that showed Jason in clothing more like that he used from films three to seven, as that is the look more often associated with him. Each film made minor changes such as adding or removing gloves and belt and changes in color that could be attributed to age, but I think it's better to use the long-used look than either newer one. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Jason's usual garb were the workshirt and khakis seen in Part 3, The Final Chapter and quite faded in Jason Lives. I understand your other reasoning and if I'm able to find a high quality picture of him from p3-6 of Jason in that garb, I'll tell here. Even though his mask and machete are the only parts the public associates with him, nevertheless I still feel it would be important to show the clothes he more often assumed. He wore a jacket in the last 3 of the 12 installments and even though his clothes changed from 3-9, they remained at least somewhat similar each time. -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Im proposing a taskforce for Jason and a Friday the 13th project. anyone who approves of this idea, go to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals. Toonami Reactor ( talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel the plot details I posted that were deleted are very important to the story from Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. The story for that film is actually one of the most confusing of the series, and that is why I feel more explanation is necessary. I realize it's supposed to be short and sweet, compared to the actual pages for each of these films, but there is more detail put in the other films so I don't understand why it's not allowed here? There is no introduction to the character of Rennie in the synopsis now, so when her name is listed it seems to come out of left field and noone knows who she is supposed to be. At least you could say "One of the students, Rennie..."
Also, while Part II of the series gives the idea that Jason never actually drowned (which is talked about in the short synopsis), the section for Part VIII neglects to mention that in that particular film Jason does actually drown as a boy. This is shown in flashbacks, ghostly visions, and the apparent dead body of Jason at the end. Why would this not warrant at least a sentence mentioning his death was re-retconned back to how it was in the original film? Otherwise, it's extremely confusing. That's actually something people would come on Wikipedia to check out since it does conflict with Part II's campfire story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I can understand that, but then why say they retconned his death at all for Part II then? The way that it's written now makes it sound like the campfire story is true and that's all there is to it. I completely agree with leaving it open ended, and that it is ambigious in the series, but that means taking the phrase "retconned" out of the equation and just saying "Jason is somehow alive" or whatever to that effect. Then both possibilities are equally represented and the statement would be completely accurate. Is that at all possible to remove the "retconned", if you admit there is no definitive answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 05:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. It says "Jason's death as a boy is retconned..", meaning him dying as a child has been changed. That is not necessarily the case, as you've said. Now if it said "Jason being dead", that's different than saying "his death as a boy". The past and present tenses make all the difference. In the particular instance that he came back to life, he STILL died as a boy. There's nothing being retconned about that. Jason coming back to life is a continuation from that death. Saying it was retconned is implying they re-wrote what it was supposed to be, and now it's something else. You wouldn't say Jason's death was retconned in Part VI, would you? Or pretty much every zombie movie, whoever died's death is retconned? So again, I think it should be slightly altered to something else besides a "retcon". I know what your arguing, but I don't think it reads that way, otherwise I wouldn't of said anything in the first place. The wording is the exact same to the Michael Myers article, where it says Michael's death has been retconned in Halloween: Resurrection (which is true), and that scenario is completely different than Jason's. Michael Myers never died, Jason might have died, yet they are both described as retcons. You already agree that it's not necessarily true that Jason was alive the whole time and living in the woods, so I don't see the big deal about changing one little word to make it a little more obvious you don't mean that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have read the article a few times but I don't think your understanding what I mean. I'm saying using the term "retconned" seems very much like your saying Jason's drowning was changed into him surviving all along. We seem to agree that he could of either survived, or he could of came back to life somehow, but there is no definitive answer. If there is no definitive answer, then the word retconned is incorrect because that word only works if he never drowned in the first place.
Defenition: Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction
Jason coming back to life (zombie, undead, supernatural element) is NOT retconning the first movie. They might not of changed the fact that he drowned, so it's not a retcon. However, if you go by Part 2 all by itself then it is a retcon because they were hinting that he never did drown, changing the facts established in the first film. Using the word retcon is wrong because its confirming the campfire story in Part II as fact, when you yourself said it's only a possibility. I just dont know why you think a character coming back from the grave is a retcon. I guess we're just disagreeing on what a retcon means. Your lumping it into a very generic category, but the term has a very specific meaning. And again, using the phrase "Jason's death as a boy has been retconned.." is the problem, and only works if your believing that Part II rewrote history.
Jason died in Part IV, and came back to life in Part VI, and that is not a retcon. The Part I-Part II scenario could be very similiar to that, where he died and came back. Being totally unbias, it could be that OR it could be that he never died in the first place which is the true definition of a retcon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 12:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was dead in the original and he's back from the dead (maybe), so it's not a retcon. Why are so you confused about what I'm saying to you? You keep telling me to read the article for some reason. I KNOW and AGREE that Jason was dead in the first movie, what does that have to do with anything? Just because he's walking around in Part II doesn't make it a retcon because he might of came back to life (supernatural). Why does that statement confuse you? Your use of the word retcon is wrong for that particular situation, and I guess you just won't change it because you don't agree. It's an "unexplained resurrection", kind of like the gap between Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason Goes to Hell. Alter the statement "Jason's death as a boy has been retconned". I would change it myself, but I know you'd change it back. "Through unexplained methods, Jason has returned..", "Jason is found to be alive..", "Jason, revealed to be alive,.." all work. Those statement's dont flat out say he never drowned, like the way it is listed now.
And speaking of which, Jason didn't just die twice in the whole series like it's listed for Jason Goes to Hell. He died in the first film, he died in Part 3 since he's taken to the morgue in the beginning of 4 and pronounced dead, he died in Part 4 at the end, he died in Part 8 (maybe, it's ambigious), and yes he died in Jason Goes to Hell. So I'd also remove that statement that says "Jason Goes to Hell marks the second time Jason died", but I'm sure you won't. And if you want to get even more technical about it, Freddy vs. Jason states that Jason can never die, so you could argue Jason has never died beyond the original movie "he was just sleeping". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.61 ( talk) 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think somewhere on the wiki there should be a picture of Derek Mears as Jason from Friday the 13th (2009)? I've heard that the current picture which is taken from Freddy vs. Jason (2003) is only up there because it is the most well-known modern representation of Jason. Well, why not put a picture of the remake's character up? It's a much better look than the current one, and will be more well-known later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have found several screencaps which would be better-suited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The dislike for the picture is due to that among most Friday the 13th fans, "Freddy vs. Jason" is a footnote in history we all want to keep from happening again. Yes I know Wikipedia isn't about Friday the 13th and isn't catering to it's fans specifically, but it's also worthy of note that although Jason's clothes did change color anti-continuity between the third through eighth films, through them all his clothes were basically khakis and a workshirt. Sure it's not an iconic part of his look but if we can find a better screenshot from another film, well what do you guys say? -- 71.194.238.135 ( talk) 07:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The new Jason would be better.
I tried to explain that he gets burned up in Earth 2's atmosphere, but they deleted it saying it was "original research". IF THAT'S THE CASE, HOW DOES INFORMATION GET ON THIS SITE ANYWAY? Can someone PLEASE find a way of putting on there that he gets burned in Earth 2's atmosphere? Cause I don't know how to cite resources, nor if any resources can be cited for this because I got the information from the movie itself. It's so unfair I don't think I'll ever edit again. I have a wikipedia account but I don't use it anymore due to the creation of an idiotic asinine article (even though I never got banned). 24.65.118.20 ( talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In Final Fantasy 6, when Edgar uses the chain saw, occasionally he will wear a hockey mask, which seems very clearly to be a reference to Jason. Does this deserve mention on this page? I think it does since it demonstrates the influence Jason has had on other forms of pop culture. Can we find a reference for this? Cazort ( talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's Friday the 13th, and it looks like someone has jokingly replaced this article with one about gonorrhea. Please undo this vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.215.129 ( talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
See [7]. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add what Jason is doing in the new 2009 film. FashVic ( talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to add it. ( JoeLoeb ( talk) 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC))
In Freddy vs Jason, the character "Deputy Scott Stubbs" (played by Lochlyn Munro), says that Jason was killed in 1957 at the age of 11, obviously making his year of birth 1946. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.123.234.150 ( talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Mrs. Voorhees article says he's born June 13, 1946, but why doesn't this one say that? Kidlittle ( talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen a featured article unlocked... interesting? 76.64.141.130 ( talk) 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly no prude, and I use this sort of language myself when I deem it appropriate, but do we really need to include those lyrics on THIS page? I can imagine that, upon visiting an article about rap or Eminem in particular, one would expect explicit lyrics and profanity. But on a completely unrelated page? Is this appropriate? I propose we remove the box with the Eminem lyrics. His reference to the movie/character is valid, and should stay, but the lyrics should go. Thoughts? Deltwalrus ( talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In re: Tommy's assertion in Part VI that Jason drowned in Crystal Lake as a child:
Per the book he consults, Jason can only be stopped if he is returned to his original resting place, where he drowned as a child. As the climax of the film depicts Jason successfully being stopped by being returned to this resting place, it stands to reason that, per McLoughlin's script, Jason did in fact drown there as a child. Further, the subsequent films follow this canon: Jason is only "freed" in part VI because of Tina's psychic powers, and defeated by being returned to the bottom of the lake; at the beginning of part VIII, Jason is immobilized at the bottom of Crystal Lake until he is revived by electricity, as he is at the beginning of Part VI. As the series contains a few retcons, I see no reason that this retcon should not be mentioned, as it directly impacts the circumstances of Jason's defeat and resurrection in the two subsequent films. 64.129.66.88 ( talk) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a continuity error, not a retcon. The only retcon is what they did in the first sequel. It's the only one that is even acknowledged as a retcon by the producers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I, Ghostkaiba297, and one of my newest friends, Jabrona, are 100% certain without a doubt that Freddy vs. Jason is set between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. Jason dies in Jason Goes to Hell - dragged into the ground, into hell. Alive again in Jason X, released before FvJ because the latter is in development hell. Freddy vs. Jason - Jason is resurrected by Freddy - who, at the end of JGTH, pulled Jason's hockey mask into hell.
Also, we are sure that Jason is completely incinerated in Earth 2's atmosphere at the end, except for his hockey mask, the last remnant of him that lands in the lake. The next film to be released was, as mentioned, Freddy vs. Jason, then a remake series. I mean, what happened to Pinhead when he went up in space? No one can deny he's dead for good after what Paul does to him. But we're not talking about Pinhead, we're talking about Jason.
Now, on the opposing side we've got our chief admin, Bignole, and his friend Paul730. They firmly believe that Freddy vs. Jason is out of continuity with the Jason series and that Jason survives the end of Jason X. They say any statement otherwise is "original research", a policy of Bignole's invention as I'm sure we all know. Well, original research is unverifiable comments often based purely on theory. Well, Freddy vs. Jason was always planned, and after Jason Goes to Hell, once New Line had the Friday the 13th series, there was no doubt the much-anticipated versus would come, so Jason X was written to make room for it and set in the future to not contradict it.
Bignole thinks conclusions should be drawn based on what appears in the movie itself. However, there is nothing to suggest Jason survived the reentry into the atmosphere. Saying that he survived could be construed as original research. Saying he died can be verified by the Jump to Death menu, as well as nothing's left of him but his hockey mask. What, is the hockey mask gonna start frying people with Dr. Octogonapus lasers or something?
(One final note before I get other sides of the debate is, as I already said, Bignole is wikipedia's chief admin. So when stating arguments, it would be wise to not get angry and flame him. Well, I'm guessing that's against wikipedia rules anyway to flame people, but flame an admin and he could ban you without a second thought. Though I'm not afraid to say it's a bit out of character for an admin to add potentially false info, but hopefully we'll settle that in the debate) Ghostkaiba297 ( talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Update, the burning in atmosphere thing has been said in a way that does not explicitly state he burns to death but doesn't say he survived either, just saying "burning in its atmosphere", which can mean either. So I guess if Bignole worded it that way, we'll omit the argument of whether he survived (as that's no longer an issue in editing), and I guess the debate will stick to the main scheme, of the Freddy vs. Jason continuity. Ghostkaiba297 ( talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that already implied by the "takes place in 2010, and skips ahead 455 years" for JX, and then FvJ stating "present-day" with 2003 in parenthesis? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
All that needs to be said in this discussion is that we should not try to make reference to any chronological details if we cannot source it to a reliable source or the subject itself. We cannot speculate or synthesize the order of the films. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it is worth noting in the header that Jason's backstory has been altered at least twice over the course of the series. No further detail-- that belongs, and indeed is already in, the article. A simple breakdown:
Part 1: Jason drowned as a child. Part 2-5: Jason did not drown as a child but lived in the woods as a hermit. He lived in the woods for years until (if Ginny is to be believed) he just so happened to see his mother die, prompting a killing spree when new counselors began training near Crystal Lake. Part 6-Freddy vs. Jason: Jason drowned as a child and has always been some sort of supernatural force.
The remake/reboot uses a truncated version of Part II's origin story, with Jason's supposed drowning, his mother's killing spree, and her death all happening within a short amount of time, as Jason is still a child when Mrs. Voorhees is decapitated. If we are to acknowledge the remake/reboot (which the article certainly does), this represents no less than three alterations to the character's backstory, two of which occur within the same continuity.
I believe that a simple sentence such as "At least two directors have made modifications to his origins, resulting in conflicting back stories" is an appropriate entry in the heading. 209.34.28.236 ( talk) 01:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)