Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Slashers' started by Fistfuck, Jan 30, 2017.
Just checking. *kiss*
So, you believe that deformed people are superhumans who can survive drownings, hangings, axes deeply embedded in their foreheads, and their shoulders, having their hands split open, their heads split open, being chainsawed, beaten over the head and back with a host of heavy objects, etc- and just... keep on tickin'? You are what I believe they call gullible, my friend.
Jason was always a zombie, people. Human beings, as Jason's many victims have proven time and again, have a tendency to suffer from a thing called mortality. Jason wouldn't be immune from it just because we never saw lightning strike him before. We didn't see him track down Alice, across bloody state lines. Even though he was in fact so developmentally challenged and - in fact - a mental near-infant who only lived to maybe age 12, so- don't be so quick to believe he was master at phone booking, hitchhiking, map reading, etc. If you need to see him become a zombie to believe he could get up after being buried alive... I expect you to explain, in detail, how the fuck he survived a drowning and found Alice after several years of his mother having been dead. Oh, and by the way- that's some son she's got there. If we're meant to believe he had been living in the woods for YEARS and only at the last minute decided that he loved his mother so much he didn't ever need to find her and tell her he was okay after well over a decade she was going mad and killing people who tried to get the camp started up again. He only decided to prove his devotion to his mother upon her death? What... the...
Sorry, folks. Jason was always a zombie.
Deal with this any way you can. I'll give you all the time you need. Have a tissue if you need one. Have a good cry. If you need it. If he can survive a drowning, a hanging, and being gored open at every end- he can survive being buried alive. He was always a zombie and Tommy Jarvis just aimed for the head like you do with any zombie.
Ken Kirzinger is the correct answer.
The only person listed who actually did a bad job.
I can't separate a Jason performance from the film in-question. The remake was shit, so, therefore- Remake Jason was a weak Jason. Thereby making 2 terrible Jason's on the list. In my opinion.
I can. The remake is my least favorite Friday, but I still thought Mears did a decent enough job.
Kirzinger was too damn stiff and didn't really seem like he put much into it.
Fair enough, but whether people insist that any "slower" Jason automatically equals Frankenstein or not, he's not really supposed to be agile. That's not a word one should ever be able to use to describe Jason. The guy doesn't do squats. He doesn't fence on his days off. He's not dashing. He's not a superhero. Remake Jason was way too quick and slick.
I don't really mind a running Jason. He ran in 2, 3 and 4, so I don't really see a problem with Mears sprinting around.
And for me, someone running at you with a sharp instrument is going to more terrifying than someone slowly walking towards you.
I'm going C.J. Graham. I just wasn't into his antics or way he carried himself in part VI - seemed like such a let down from Richard Brooker's performance which may be my favorite. Now that's a kickass Jason, probably my favorite. I like the Part VII Kane a lot too.
I thought Jason was pretty stiff in Jason Lives. That would be my first pick. Then I'd probably follow that with JGTH which hardly had Jason in it, but when he was it was too obvious that he was in a rubber suit as he looked a bit fat and fake. Then FvJ as he was too much a mindless Frankenstein-like monster. I also don't really like his look in FvJ either.
CJ might actually be my favorite.
He's like the Terminator version of Jason. Had the walk down, too.
That's not how filmmaking works. Films are not supposed to be realistic- they are supposed to be stylized, interpretive. They are art. Not a training video: "What to Do (and What Not to Do) When Being Confronted by an Undead, Ultra-Strong, Unkillable Psychopath."
Realistic elements have their place in horror but they are not supposed to rule the films. To be the main consideration for how scenes play out. (That being said, I remember my previous post about Jason and Alice and that's a slightly different issue- that's a matter of storytelling.)
Besides: if every film pushes the "Killers Must Run or Else They Aren't Scary" button, filmmakers will only make the killers run and that will get fucking old as shit. Like every single millennial trope did over a decade ago when people got sick of the torture craze. Never before had an era in horror played itself out so quickly.
Part 3 Jason was my least favorite. Not "worst" just least favorite. After he shoots the girl with the spear gun he kind just turns and moseys off. You could ADR in him saying "well... I best be goin' now" and it would still work with the scene. Just no urgency, fast or slow.
Sure, but he is Jason. That is the original Jason, when Jason was actually with Paramount. When Jason was Jason. That's the only Jason. Because it is Jason. How could that Jason be weaker than the New Line Jason's? Hell, he isn't even Jason in the New Line installments. That's how non-existent those disasters are. There is no Jason redux or Jason after the 80's. Jason is the 80's. Once they are over, he is over.
I don't disagree, but I don't remember hating Mears performance and certainly not on principal.
Meh... It just doesn't line up with what is presented on screen. You said yourself that films are not supposed to be realistic - while I'd contend that some films are indeed supposed to be realistic while others are strictly fantastical, that's beside the point - the Friday films are supposed to be fantastical. They are not pseudo-veristic serial killer studies a là Deranged or Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. And Jason himself is elevated to mythical status in Part 2 - someone who you hear campfire tales about, a creature of legend. So of course he's more than a man. Part 2, for instance, has Jason grunting in pain as Ginny kicks him in the balls. That's not very zombie-like, is it? He also doesn't look decomposed at all, and the movie states that his drowning was supposed - i.e. his body was never recovered from the lake. It also wouldn't make sense for him to grow to adult size if he died as a child. But fans make all sorts of crazy theories to fill in the holes and explain away the inconsistencies from film to film.
Again: These movies are fantastical. Jason is obviously a walking corpse by the time of Jason Lives. Part 2 probably has Jason at his least fantastical. He reacts to pain, he doesn't survive any obviously fatal injuries, and the movie itself advances the theory that he never really drowned. He also has healthy, rosy skin (which he gets to keep in the following sequel, though his thin mountain man hair inexplicably disappears). Part 3 has him surviving a hanging and an axe to the head (though he does succumb to the latter after a few terrifying seconds), but categorising him at this point is still in the realm of fan fiction.* He is simply Jason. The Final Chapter has him looking noticeably less healthy, with gnarly and pallid skin. He's also taken a trip to the morgue, so he must have been pronounced dead.
*Take your pick:
-He's a zombie.
-The devil slug inside him from Jason Goes to Hell is keeping him alive.
-He's too stupid to realise he's been killed.
-He has enough hit points to survive Chris rolling a critical hit with her axe.
Well Thank you!
What I mean about not being fond of the Zombie version of Jason, is the clear change and turn in his character, when he is resurrected in part 6, and clearly looks like a zombie.
I see Jason in part 2, 3 and 4, as an unstoppable freak, that can take one hell of a beating.
And he reacts to the pain.
Also, he RUNS. So complaining about Jason running in the remake, is just stupid.
After part 6, he doesn't react to pain, and "teleports" after walking toward his next victim, and is very different to the earlier version.
Complaining about Jason being different in the remake? He feels more like old-school Jason, than anything after part 6.
People can cry and shout at me how much as they want.
But I found the remake to be the best F13 movie, since part 4.
And I bet, that if you grew up with the remake, together with rest, you wouldn't come down as hard against the new Jason.
There is something called nostalgia glasses. They clearly don't let you see all the flaws in the 80:s movies
Now I'm looking forward to your 2000 words of saying how wrong I am
You're not quite getting what I'm saying. I'm the one pointing out that if people are going to say "we need to judge by what we see on the screen," which fans (and you, by virtue of this reply) are telling me, then things aren't adding up. If it actually matters how Jason moves (so people are arguing, you can see it for yourself if you flip back 5 or more replies), and people say it matters that Jason is resurrected by lightning in the 6th film (again: you can see it for yourself right here in the other replies)- then it's logically a very huge problem that he isn't easily killed by the hanging in the 3rd film, the machete to the head in the 4th film, that he gets up at all at the beginning of films 4 and 3, and that humongous plot hole about how he refused to look up his mother only until he saw her die... then just waited years to get his revenge...
I'd be willing to accept a total logic-wipe through the films if that's what I was seeing from the franchise's viewership. But now fans are picking and choosing what to get finicky about. What things destroy the story, when Jason lost his mojo, etc. But... hey, if we think about it- nothing makes sense. Jason should have died so many times in the franchise before The Final Chapter's b.s. dramatic fade-to-white. If fans can ignore that, they can ignore what they don't like about Jason Brooker's performance and Steve Dash's freaky Alice-homing / sniffing abilities and a little Frankenstein lightning.
It's only fair- you have to admit. What's more zombielike than just getting the hell up after someone hacks at you to the point of Game Over?
That's pretty how I always saw this before I went online and found out fans are really pretentiously latching onto this "EW! Jason became a zombie in Part 6: Franchise ruined!" If you take out the goddamn lightning, tell me what you have - you have Megan doing the same thing Paul does jokingly in the 2nd film. "He's a legend. Who's to say he isn't real? He could be out there right now..." However, what you will note (and this hurts your argument), Ginny actually analyzes Jason as a human. Not a myth. If you want to say Paul was right, she was wrong- you might have that ending to contend with. Jason doesn't vanish into thin air. Ginny begins hallucinating and a significant portion of the ending never actually happened. Arguably, Paul never even survived the "There's someone in this fucking room!" scene. So... we don't know who hacked him down for certain or when it happened. That whole scene in the shack is compromised, AND the scene before it where Ginny sees the mouse under the cabin bed because the film blurred the dissolves of Ginny running and of the moon and the music got very trippy. No one can say for certain what the hell happened after the pitchfork through the car roof scene.
What viewpoint are you arguing on behalf of? The fans saying Jason was a man or the theory that he wasn't?
The movie doesn't state anything explicitly. It presents one view- Paul's, that Jason definitely drowned, and he agrees with the local police / official statement, and Ginny's, that Jason may or may not have drowned, that his mother took revenge for a drowning she thought happened, but this means Jason definitely took typical routine Human-emotion-driven revenge for his mother's death. So... regardless of who is right/wrong, Jason is still being portrayed as stalking the grounds of the camp and its neighboring woods because his mother was killed.
So, we still have a very big problem. He only exists because of his mother. So... if he never drowned, why in the fuck did he just up and LEAVE HER, pop up to take revenge once she's killed, and - of course - he mainly targets camp counselors and teenage partygoers. Because they were the base of person who would have been responsible for his drowning, if Jason actually drowned- then this is covered thematically by how the film fixates on the much-sex-having or talking about by literally every single counselor in the first film. So the first film clearly operates on the basis of: Jason definitely drowned. It was merely a clever twist of fate that having Alice dream/hallucinate Jason into a zombie aligned with what the franchise was doing by making Jason unkillable. Which, they did by just having him stand up at the beginning of the next 2 films. Just calling him a myth doesn't explain any of that away. Or, it would had the police / ambulance drivers not swooped in and carted his body way off the property of Camp Crystal Lake.
Sorry, bud but you're the one leaving a ton unaccounted for. Not I. At the end of the day, I never said these movies aren't a total mess where storytelling is concerned. I'm just saying the zombie thing makes the most sense. For the simple fact that if people judge Jason's movements on human terms, they have to stick to that and deal with the logic of Jason surviving what no human can. I never said the films covered this base- they left a ton of questions unanswered. But most fans are not really paying attention when the films directly contradict their wonderful "Jason can't be zombified" theory. Because, see... if he was never a man to begin with, if everyone was fine with the myth theory... then who the fuck cares that he was struck by lightning the one time? He would have gotten up eventually. All the movie really did in that scene anyway was stop Tommy Jarvis from lighting the corpse on-fire. Divine Script Intervention. That's pretty meta, really. Beyond merely copying the Frankenstein formula.
Recognized. But, what I'm saying about him allegedly loving his mother enough to take revenge for her death but not enough to tell her he isn't dead still stands. Every single film says that he's killing for revenge. It's, in fact, the only single bit of information that remains consistent in every single film. So... we have a problem there.
And this is to say nothing of his mother traipsing through the woods the entire first film, as well as stalking the victims from 1958, and never once running into him. Jason: Master of Invisibility? He stays sooo close to the grounds that he knew his mother was killed, yet just HAD to wait 2-3-4-5 years to go find Alice... No.
Never denied it.
I'm too lazy to screencap it now, though I have the Paramount movies uploaded to my other computer, but: when Chris stabs him in the hand through the door and in the knee before she runs into the room where she jumps out the window after smashing it with the chair.
I would agree with you, but the next film shows his body in the same location getting up. Just getting up. And it's still Steve Miner in the director's chair. So... we have a problem.
Only on Ginny's side. I contend that the film was trying to pit both of their theories against one another. Which they did, really, just so Jason could be in film: at all. Because Paul merely said he's not anywhere. And we know he's actually somewhere. So... Ginny may say he didn't really drown ("her rage at what she thought happened") but she also says he's somewhere. And we see him killing people; we wouldn't have a film without him. So... we can only really take her theory as far as: Jason exists because he's killing people. How he came around and all the subdetails that facilitate his existence are not covered. Even within her theory. That would be remarkable vision and insight on her part into something the films themselves can't even figure out. She ain't no Nostradamus.
Don't do that.
One of the Killer Klowns has peach-white human skin. That's because the glove slipped. You've got to ignore that. That's not relevant. Impacts the movie not.
These debates never get old. Actually.....nevermind
I always just keep in mind the fact none of these movies were made with the intention of another one succeeding it. They were just so successful at the box office, on a shoe string budget, by the time the opening weekend was over, someone at Paramont was on the phone lining up the next installment.....which would hit theaters one year later (that fact right there should tell you how much thought was put into the actual story of Jason). So yeah, I don't waste any time trying to connect the dots and coming to any conclusion, because from my perspective, there is no conclusion. Each Friday has it's qualities to enjoy, some more than others, including each individual Jason. I for one, love every friggin Jason I've ever laid eyes on...... including Kane from Jason goes to Hell. From Jason X? Yup, fucking badass. Freddy vs Jason? You know it...... and even though I voted Mears by default, I dig the remake.
The remake is shit. Pure molten shit.
Nostalgia goggles? The whole genre works on nostalgia goggles. The history of the entire damn genre is in its past. It's an easy to make and equally easy to challenge argument. You can't deny the genre used to exhibit an artistry that is now totally dead in favor of digital-era slickness in a millennium where the genre became a Hollywood by-product and subjected to homogenization and processes like market research and how films are financed and how directors are even attached to projects. It's a fucking long-ass cry from the low-budget days when directors took influence from greater sources than their VHS/DVD collections and the hot shot tricks they learned in film schools... Of course, the Friday the 13th films are only in their rarest moments a barometer for the fact that horror used to be an artform (now it's pure business and cold calculation). But... hey-ho.
That's pretty much it.