Connect with us


‘Jason Goes to Hell’ Director Says Jason is Canonically an ‘Evil Dead’ Deadite!

Some fan theories, well, they’re actually true.

For years, fans have been speculating that Jason Voorhees is actually what’s known within the Evil Dead franchise as a Deadite, and that’s all been fueled by 1993’s Jason Goes to Hell. Not only did the film tease a battle between Jason and Freddy, but it also came with a pretty interesting Easter egg: the Necronomicon-Ex Mortis in the Voorhees basement.

Was it just a fun tribute or something more? According to director Adam Marcus in a new chat with Horror Geek Life, it was intended to be something more than a simple nod!

[I] wanted to create a mythology for Jason in this movie, because it had driven me nuts as a viewer,” Marcus explained, speaking specifically about Jason magically growing from a small boy to a full-grown, unstoppable monster in such a short period of time. “She [Pamela Voorhees] makes a deal with the devil by reading from the Necronomicon to bring back her son. This is why Jason isn’t Jason. He’s Jason plus The Evil Dead, and now I can believe that he can go from a little boy that lives in a lake, to a full grown man in a couple of months, to Zombie Jason, to never being able to kill this guy. That, to me, is way more interesting as a mashup, and [Sam] Raimi loved it!

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

It absolutely is canon.

Maybe that shared slashers universe we wrote about wasn’t such a crazy idea after all.



  • JoeInTheBox

    That’s great and all, but being that it’s only canon to his version and literally no one else’s(i.e. Paramount, not sure where Raimi weighs in on this now, and previous/future installments), it’s no longer canon and is just a cool footnote for literally one version of Jason.

    • Paramount didn’t make Jason Goes to Hell; New Line Cinema did (and they were involved with Evil Dead). Incidentally, New Line also gets the rights back in 2018.

      • JoeInTheBox

        That’s what I mean, this doesn’t jibe with Paramount’s plans, because it was a New Line Production. Hell, it didn’t even figure into New Line’s Jason X or Freddy Vs. Jason. It’s literally canon-specific to one movie only.

      • ChampionOfLight

        New Line was only a distributor of the original Evil Dead. They had nothing more to do with it and, as noted in the above article, weren’t even aware of the intentions of the director –

        “It’s not like I could tell New Line my plan to include The Evil Dead, because they don’t own The Evil Dead.”

        The idea to make Freddy vs Jason vs Ash a reality wasn’t formed until Freddy vs Jason was released and successful. Had the discussions been going in before that point we probably could have seen it become an actual film.

  • Kyle Ord

    Sure ill take it

  • judeau13

    Pretty sure nothing post part 8 is canon Adam. JGTH and Jason X are at best alt universe films, working better as goofy stand alone films. Making Jason a deadite and trying to retcon some bizarre supernatural backstory takes away virtually everything that was cool about Jason. Sometimes less is more, and when it comes to slasher origins that is almost always the case.

    • Inferus

      Can we exclude 8 as well? No one should die in Vancouver.

      • Khy

        I don’t consider anything past 7 as canon. I can even excuse the loopy telekinesis because 7 picks up so well after 6 and the fact that it tries to imitate Final Chapter is sweet.

        • I wish that were the official canon, because 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are the “authentic” films in the franchise for me (if you get what I mean). Those were the best ones, before everything went downhill.

    • Rohan

      I personally believe that the films split into two different timelines after part 6: with Tommy either beating Jason and the series going on to part 7, or Tommy failing and the military needing to be called in leading to 9 and on.

      • ChampionOfLight

        Part 7 is over 10 years after 6 with Jason still trapped in the lake from his defeat by Tommy in 6. 9 is after Jason actually appeared outside of Crystal Lake on his killing spree. It may be a bit bizarre but the timeline from 6 to 9 makes just as much sense as anything else in this series.

        • Rohan

          Didn’t he melt in part8 though? Like, disintegrate because of the toxic sewage? I just assumed he permanently got killed in part 8.

          • He got hit by toxic waste, which is probably why the hockey mask was glued to his face in Jason Goes to Hell (given that he’s unmasked every film, it didn’t get that way because he was wearing it for a long time).

          • Nicolas Caiveau

            His hockey mask is melted on his face in Jason Goes To Hell, precisely because of the toxic sewage in the end of part 8 ! So no he wasn’t permanently killed. The blond girl just had another hallucination where she saw kid Jason on the floor and assumed zombie Jason was dead.

          • ChampionOfLight

            I believe a comic claimed he was washed out to sea and eventually made his way back to Crystal Lake. That is the best possible excuse there is but it’s not like Part 8 had much logic to begin with…

    • They officially are, regardless of what you think about them. The only film that isn’t canon is the 2009 reboot.

      The reason this Deadite explanation isn’t canon is because:

      1. It is contradicted by the other films.

      2. None of the films (including Jason Goes to Hell) have revealed him to be a Deadite, though the Necronomicon does explain how he was able to back as an indestructible zombie in Jason Lives after only being struck by lightning.

      • darklordofgorgoroth

        The reboot is essentially part 12 disguised as a remake.. The writers have stated tis fact numerous times.

  • Daucus Karota

    Makes sense to me. As far as retconning an explanation for his abilities, it’s not a bad way to go.

  • Munchie Strikes Back

    Dumbest thing I’ve heard today. But it is early.

  • IWC-3PO

    Jason Goes To Hell is the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation” of the Friday The 13th movies.

    • Inferus

      Without the cross dressing…

    • I would personally award that (dis)honour to Jason Takes Manhattan, but that’s just me.

      • Jason Takes Manhattan was silly, but IMO it’s no Next Generation. Manhattan is a pretty standard Friday sequel, just on a boat.

        • I’d say it was easily a disaster in its own right.

          • Well I wouldn’t call it good, that’s for sure.

    • Nicolas Caiveau

      To me, JGTH makes more sense than TCM Next Gen, where we’re supposed to believe the Illuminatis were secretely behind the massacres the whole time for no particular reason.

  • Saturn

    The reason that Jason went from young boy to grown man in a manner of months?
    Well, Friday the 13th pt 2 covered that – Jason didn’t actually drown (or so they locals believe) in the lake, he manged to get out.
    He survived in the wilderness for years, until that fateful night he saw his mum killed – and then sought revenge.
    According to Pt 2.

    • Mark Davis

      Pretty much. He was just a relentlessly motivated hillbilly for films 2-4. He survived way more than a normal human should but he was nonetheless still human.

    • darklordofgorgoroth

      That’s called a retcon, nothing more!

  • Aslinn McIntyre

    Well, wasn’t the scene where lil Jason comes out of the water in Friday 13th a dream the survivor had? I always interpreted it that way.

    • Saturn

      Yes – ’twas but just a dream.

      • Aslinn McIntyre

        That was what I thought, this is a pretty desperate attempt to tie this canon in with another canon. Oh well.

    • Nicolas Caiveau

      Yes it was.

    • darklordofgorgoroth

      It was originally concieved as a dream sequence, but later retconned (as usual) into be taken at face value

  • nowaygetreal

    You can’t just have the director of the worst film in the franchise start making shit up because he thinks it’s cool.
    If this were a theme explored throughout the series I’d be ok with it, but when it comes from JGTH you need to slow down pal

  • Jay Bennett

    why the fuck not i guess

  • Cory Smith

    This was even fully revealed in the Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash comics.

  • Khy

    His words carries as much weight as the pizza faced virgin burnout that works in the DVD section at Wal-Mart.

    Fyi- Jason Goes To Hell would have been my favorite Friday IF this cunt hadn’t added that body jumping bullshit.

    Fuck you asshole!

  • DaddyKo

    Jason Goes to Hell & Jason X are total abortions & are better off forgotten.

  • Max Power

    Also, isn’t the knife used on Jason in JGTH the same one from the Evil Dead franchise?

    • darklordofgorgoroth


      • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

        It’s weird, when you read it.. it sounds kind of cool. “And then turns out the kandarian dagger is the only thing that can kill Jason!” But when you see it it feels kinda cheap… Like they just took someone else’s cool thing and tacked in on for a cheap explanation.

    • Andrew Mount

      People keep saying it is, but it looks nothing like the dagger from ED 1 or 2.

  • diapers

    Well, dude is director and can say what he wants. By the time he got his grubby mitts on the franchise I don’t think it was clear what the fuck Jason was anymore, but the body jumping stuff ruined it for most folks. I know it has a few fans, but c’mon. Anyway, to me as to others, Jason remains a picked upon somewhat deformed recluse who snapped and began murdering. Simple.

  • Earthship Records

    awesome! There is always room to go back and make this happen……with halloween, #3 forgot
    1 and 2, numbers 7 and 8 forgot 2-6, Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2 forgot everything, and now they are about to act like none of the Halloween sequels happened so anything is possible.

  • matrixlord212

    Jason Goes to Hell is a different universe entirely because it was sold to new Line Cinema after Part 8! This is why Jason Goes To Hell is completely unrecognizable to the Friday The 13th Francise. He doesn’t hop in bodies, There is no mystical blade from the 1800s to kill jason. Jason was an only child. He is not supposed to look like a body builder Jason either. In their second attempt they made it that Jason Goes To Hell was a nightmare all in Jason’s mind. That universe saw Jason Frozen waking up 450 years in the future. That timeline was also erased because he would never meet Freddy. In fact, everytime New Line/Warner Brothers does a new friday the 13th it is in a different universe. The multi-Universe theory is accepted in Holllywood which is Why Halloween 2018 is an alternate universe to the Halloween francise where Halloween 2 on never existed. So to this guy’s universe, yeah Jason could be a deadite but only in that universe for that one movie.

    • Nicolas Caiveau

      You’re over analysing it. Freddy vs Jason takes place between Jason Goes To Hell and Jason X, that’s why Jason isn’t in hell anymore in Jason X…

      • Chris


      • matrixlord212

        You might have a point. I was never a fan of Jason Goes to Hell.

    • You might not like it, but the ‘body-jumping’ thing doesn’t contradict anything from the other films. We’ve only seen him get blown up once, and he was already shown to be quite unkillable beforehand. The ‘body jumping’ most likely serves as a means of self-preversation, similar to his regeneration abilities in Jason X.

      And he was a body builder in every movie. There’s literally a scene in Part III where he crushes someone’s head with his bare hands. For a purist, you’re saying some questionable stuff…

  • Nicolas Caiveau

    If Easter Eggs count, then Ash Williams, Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, Jason Voohrees and Leatherface are all in the same universe as Chucky !

    • Except it wasn’t just an “Easter Egg” nod, like in the self-referential parody Bride of Chucky. The Necronomicon was in the Voorhees house as a potential explanation for his supernatural abilities, in the same way that Freddy Krueger’s arm was meant to set up Freddy vs. Jason. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

      • Nicolas Caiveau

        Yes, you’re right. I haven’t seen it for a while.

      • Shibby

        Bitch, that phrase don’t make no sense, why can’t fruit be compared??

        • Bill Agans

          Learn how to grammar. Don’t & no in the same sentence is a double negative.

          • Shibby

            Shut the fuck up you stupid cuck. I was making a reference you clearly didn’t get.

  • Rohan

    I always thought he was a deadite. Maybe not a basic one that we see in Evil Dead, but a more powerful resilient one like the demon in Ash vs Evil Dead. The supernatural aspect makes more sense if that’s the case, seeing as how Pamela would do anything to get her son back, including reading the necronomicon.

    • Absolutely not. Jason Voorhees is Jason Voorhees, and saying he was always (or ever) a Deadite is a complete contradiction of the other films. Did the Necronomicon give him his powers? Probably, but Jason is no Deadite.

      • ChampionOfLight

        These films are LOADED with contradictions especially around Jason.

        • And he is not and never has been possessed by a demon.

          • ChampionOfLight

            Deadite mythology isn’t as simple as “possessed by a demon”… I mean, to be fair, the lore on that is all over the place as well….

            But you can’t make any such claim when, as part of canon, Part 9 turned him into a body-jumping demonic creature. Again – his lore is always established by the most recent film in the series so anything we believe can be re-written later on as being the truth and it would make just as much sense as anything we already accept as his lore.

          • Perhaps I should rephrase – I find it highly implausible that he was possessed by a demon the entire time based on every film that isn’t Jason Goes to Hell (and even that film doesn’t directly imply that, though we now know that that was the director’s actual intention).

          • ChampionOfLight

            I mean – I think you’re reading too much into it. Again – it’s never simply defined as a “demon possession” in the Evil Dead films. The rules change based on who/what is possessed as there is little consistency. Jason, the character, drowned as a child. IF you accept the later canon that he died as a child then the Jason we encounter was never the original Jason really – just a monster-ish version that still had the love for his mother but was, like a deadite, a demonic force that couldn’t be killed by normal means. If you prefer the idea that Jason survived the drowning lore then lightning brings him back years after his death and really there is no explanation beyond that until 9 suggested the body-shifting demonic stuff which doesn’t really mesh as well with anything before or after that.

            Perhaps I should clarify one point because we had a few discussions about all this and I don’t want you to think I’m trying to dismiss your opinions. Obviously it was NEVER planned Jason would be a deadite UNTIL JGTH just as it wasn’t planned that Jason would return from the dead until the failures of 5 or that Jason would even be a killer (alive or undead) until the success of the first film. This whole series is built on re-establishing the lore with new rules and retcons to simply tell the latest story. Jason being a deadite or not doesn’t really impact the per-existing films in any way. It simply adds more lore as a way to explain the clearly obvious retcons over the years with a retcon that served to tie Jason’s story into Ash’s.

      • Rohan

        If you read what I said, I thought Jason was possessed by a stronger demon than the normal ones, like the demon in AVED. It would explain his teleportation and stealth, plus make him stand out as something special.

        • Jason was never “possessed” and he doesn’t actually teleport. And everything I said still stands.

          • Rohan

            What did you say that still stands? All you said was ” Jason is Jason, you are wrong” I’m just saying I always thought of him as a deadite. Plus either he teleports or has a system of tunnels like in the remake.

          • Some things are better left unexplained regardless. I don’t think Jason comes out of nowhere because he has secret teleportation abilities or underground tunnels, as much as it is he’s able to do so because the movie wants him to do so (to amp up the fear factor). I doubt that, as far as the original films are concerned, the filmmakers cared about the “how” he does it. Really, this can apply to any slasher movie where the killer has inexplicable “He’s suddenly behind you!” powers.

          • Rohan

            I agree that some things are better left unexplained, but it’s fun to think about regardless.

          • J Jett

            Darkknight, although if you’ve ever watched THE WALKING DEAD, we all know how zombies constantly magically appear (teleport? lol.) out of nowhere without being heard sneaking up on said zombie’s victims (IN THE FREAKING FOREST/WOODS(!!!…LOL) where it’s nearly impossible to do without snapping branches/leaves on the ground, etc.). TWD continuously having that happen always irked me so much! so maybe zombie Jason is one of the impossible teleporting zombies from TWD? 🙂

          • Yeah, it’s a bit of a motif throughout horror usually meant to make jump scares, killers, zombies, ETC, less predictable.

          • J Jett

            Rohan, regarding Jason “teleporting” (which i assume you mean the fact that SLOOOOW, LUUUMBERING, SNAIL’S PACE Jason in F13’s 6-Jason X was still able to catch up with THE fastest runner/victims in the world! lol)…i really don’t think that that “quirk” can be chalked up to anything other than really REALLY lousy writing/filmmaking. lol. the fact zombie Jason could walk so freaking slow and yet have no problem magically catching up to his intended victim is so idiotic and i wish the writers/makers of the zombie Jason films had been more creative or talented (in filming/blocking those chase scenes in question) to where it made even half sense for that to happen. at least the tunnels used in the 2009 film were an attempt at explaining this teleporting issue (although i guess it wasn’t really needed in the film since Jason was human and didn’t need to magically catch up with his running victims. lol.

          • Rohan

            Yeah I understand that, I was just thinking ‘if’ he actually had that power and the writing wasn’t bad….

  • Evil Gooey

    I’m thinking Adam Marcus is OVER-STEPPING his director title. Ask Sean Cunningham or Victor Miller if Jason is a “Deadite”.

    • ChampionOfLight

      Victor Miller would say Jason died as a little boy and Sean Cunningham would say Jason is whatever he needs to be to keep coming back. This isn’t just some Easter Egg as the article suggests as it was an actual plot point in “Freddy vs Jason vs Ash” that was adapted into a comic after Raimi didn’t sign off on them using the Ash character.

      • darklordofgorgoroth

        Freddy vs Jason vs Ash is absolutely not canonical. It’s glorified fan-fiction at best. Your argument holds zero water

        • It wasn’t a “simple Easter Egg” anymore than Freddy Krueger’s arm was. That doesn’t mean he’s a Deadite, but it certainly means that the Necronomicon was canonically in the Voorhees house for some unexplained reason.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Reimagined canon. Also, Sean Cunningham says it isn’t canon

          • Source? The first 11 films are all in one timeline. That doesn’t mean you have to like all of them, but it doesn’t change reality.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Source? Crystal Lake Memories..
            Also, Freddy’s arm at the end is a preview of the forthcoming Freddy vs Jason, not exactly the same thing as an easter egg

          • Did you even read my comment? I literally just said that the Necronomicon and Freddy’s arm are genuine plot points and not Easter Eggs. Way to argue against something you obviously agree with.

          • NixEclips

            He would if it meant a big paycheck.

        • ChampionOfLight

          I mean – it wasn’t made into a film in the end because the series ended. It was still the actual outline for a film so it was clearly a direction the filmmakers were going to take it. My argument isn’t weightless nor was it “fan fiction”. The follow-up comic “Freddy vs Jason vs Ash – the Nightmare Warriors” was self-described fan fiction from the writers.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Acording to New Line, the comic book FvJvA takes far too many liberties with the material for it to be considered canon. Fact. Also, Sam Raimi refused them to make the movie because he owns ASh. Therefore it’s a glorified fanfic and absolutely not canon!

          • ChampionOfLight

            Where did New Line say this?

            And no – they sell Freddy vs Jason vs Ash so Sam eventually allowed some licensing deals to happen. If you go back to the original film pitch – Raimi stated in the past that he said “no” before having seen the pitch because Variety had reported that it was happening already and he was working on the early stages of an Evil Dead reboot.

  • darklordofgorgoroth

    Adam Marcus is absolutely not in the position to make such a statement, period. He simply reimagined the mythology!
    To quote Sean S. Cunningham, creator of the series: “When you’re at the 9th installment in a franchise, saying Hey, I’ve got an idea! is not a good idea”
    Thusly, i see this as non-canocial, to the point of fan-fiction.
    Jason isn’t a deadite, a Kandaarian demon. He’s an undead killer with a revenge motif. Anyone who doesn’t see that needs to have their head examined.

    • The Necronomicon obviously played some role in creating his supernatural abilities, but I absolutely agree that he is not some random Deadite posing as Jason Voorhees. In the first four films, he’s not even supernatural at all (which probably means that Pamela tried to resurrect him while he was still living).

      • darklordofgorgoroth

        Let’s see..
        Part 1: He’s dead!
        Part 2: “What-if” scenario!
        Part 3: Undead!
        Part 4: Rotting corpse!

        • Wrong, on all accounts.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Nope. And you don’t even have any counter arguments lmfao

          • Then why are we still going back-and-forth? This conversation has reached an impasse. Now, we’re just two commentators engaging in useless bickering.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            That’s what happens when trying to analyze this series. Every single time..

  • CeeZeeWeeZee

    No he most certainly IS NOT.

    • Bill Agans

      It’s been confirmed.

      • darklordofgorgoroth

        No, it hasn’t

      • CeeZeeWeeZee

        By Adam Marcus. Amounts to a work of fan fiction. But he doesn’t set canon.

  • If it’s canon, them why the hell is it contradicted by all the other films? The original series made it fairly clear that Jason Voorhees didn’t actually drown as a boy, hence why he is a living killer in the first four films. I always assumed that Pamela tried to use the Necronomicon to “resurrect” him while he was still alive, which led to his supernatural abilities in the later films (and how he was able to become a zombie in Jason Lives).

    • Nicolas Caiveau

      Nice theory 🙂

    • ChampionOfLight

      The films always retconned the story. In Part 2 and 3 he was “alive” with 2 suggesting he had been living in the woods the whole time… but that never really made much sense. 3 he was just a slasher. By 4 – most would consider him alive until the end but I would argue he is quite clearly dead as he is more shocked then hurt by wounds that previously hurt him in other films and the film starts with his body being taken to a morgue. By 6 and 7 they claim he “died as a boy” and “keeps coming back” so the mythology had already changed to say he was always resurrected.

      • Actually, F13 continuity isn’t quite as bad as people say it is. There are timeline errors and contradictions for sure, but Jason’s characterisation and backstory are mostly consistent throughout. He’s a living killer throughout all of the first four films. That never changed.

        His body twitching at the end of Final Chapter doesn’t mean anything, because dead bodies twitch all the time in real life. The film just wanted you to know that he was actually dead this time, which is why he was stabbed repeatedly after. He didn’t become a zombie until Parts 6-7, and nothing in those films contradicts him surviving his childhood drowning.

        As for him waking up in the morgue in the fourth film, he received a shallow axe wound to the side of the head wearing a hockey mask. That “death” was just as much a red herring as his Part II demise.

        • darklordofgorgoroth

          “Shallow axe wound” lol. I guess you think him being hanged fom the neck, dropping 20 feet then snapping his neck being shallow as well..

          • For a Friday the 13th film, him surviving that is nothing over-the-top.

          • ChampionOfLight

            Because he is an undead killing machine. No one else in the series survives anything else close to that so it is very over-the-top if you are trying to claim he is a normal non-supernatural killer that had been living in the woods for years after nearly drowning as a boy.

          • No… He wasn’t. He was never an “undead killing machine” until Part VI.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Yes, he was!

          • Good god, get lost. You didn’t contribute anything just now.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Did you?? Except resorting ad hominem, because someone disagrees with your opinion, sweety?

          • Bradley Blue

            I have only responded on this site a few times. I’m doing so now. Why? Because Darkknight2149 is completely unaware of his faulty logic. I love that you called him on a fallacy. Reading his replies… Good god.

          • J Jett

            well Bradley, Darkknight’s opinions on Jason/F13’s is almost exactly how i feel about the character/the first 4 films and that’s fine that some of you guys have other opinions on it. personally i don’t think Darkknight’s views on this are “faulty”. but most importantly (i’m assuming you feel the same way) we all seem to love this franchise. i think that’s pretty cool. 🙂

          • ChampionOfLight

            Except he was. The lore for this has changed many times – in 2 and 3 during filming he was a “lining killing machine” and retroactively they have stated he died as a boy and was always an undead killing machine. You can accept either answer and neither is wrong because this lore serves to fit whatever story they’re actively telling.

          • I guess we should take this as a proper “Agree to disagree”, then

          • ChampionOfLight

            That’s fine. I think this disagreement is coming from a weird place. This isn’t about our opinions in the end – these films always have had elements retconned with each new sequel. Pretty much all the classic horror films have to some degree (Chucky is still doing it!). Disagreeing with that just sounds like making excuses and I don’t understand why anyone would care that much to do so… it’s not like this series was ever planned out. And, again, that’s totally fine. But the series clearly has rocky moments regarding the lore and main antagonist.

          • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

            It was a fun read. You were arguing based in reality and he was arguing from within the movie universe.

          • ChampionOfLight

            Yeah. The problem with either is that the choices made in reality impacted the movie universe continuity. I love the films but I will never pretend that the filmmakers took any real care to keep the lore consistent between films and, honestly, that allowed them more freedom to make fun choices in each film.

          • Nicolas Caiveau

            I still think Jason was resurrected after being drowned, by his mother. But he didn’t become Zombie Jason yet, he was still alive, as he grew up to become an adult. But he became way more stronger than a normal human and also became crazy, thus decided to live in the woods without showing up to his mom. He may have become only “half-deadite” and needed to die again to fully become one.

            Maybe the spell didn’t work totally because it’s a spell for adult. Or maybe it was a curse, it would ressurect him, but only to become a monster once he’s dead again. Once he was killed by Tommy Jarvis, and reactivated by a lightning, he became zombie Jason.

          • Sounds like a sensible theory.

          • J Jett

            Nicolas, even though i hate anything supernatural coming into the first 4 F13 films (parts 1-5 & the 2009 film are the only F13 films i like. all the zombie Jason entries i hate. lol) what you suggest in your post actually works for me…although i will never accept that anything “Deadite/Evil Dead” related has anything to do with the F13 films (at least not the first 5 films & the 2009 film). but overall i like what you wrote!

          • Nicolas Caiveau

            You can totally disregard the supernatural elements of the series, but have to ignore ever movie after part 5, indeed.

          • J Jett

            Darkknight, for what it’s worth, i agree 1000000% that Jason was alive and human until Tommy’s machete swing to the head in part 4. i actually agree w/ most, if not everything you’ve said here in this comments section.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Because he’s undead.. At the very least super-human, which s basically the same thing in slasher movies 😉

          • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

            “Such a shallow snap of the neck shan’t stop me fair lady!”

        • ChampionOfLight

          No – it is quite bad. That’s fine if you own it but denying it is nonsense. He drowned as a little boy before the first film. In the first film – according to everyone making it – he was simply dead.

          Number 2 claims he wasn’t dead via Ginny who, in a bar drinking, randomly comes up with a whole theory for the audience to follow to explain the character she has only ever heard a single legend about.

          Jason still feared getting hurt and was in pain during events of 2 and 3. Jason very clearly died – more then once – in the ending of 3 (the filmmakers actually intended to kill Jason in that film, as well, but since they didn’t market it that way and it was a success they simply made another to “kill him for good”). You also misunderstood what I meant by 4 – I’m saying the film starts by suggesting he LIVED through 3 but they also start with his body in a morgue. Suspension of disbelief being that NO ONE checked for a pulse? However, by the end he took a machete to the hand and he simply looks at it confused (whereas in 2 and 3 he would yelp in pain) so I was saying by the events of 4 he is clearly already dead despite the selling point often being that he DIED in 4 and not before it.

          Tommy’s plan in part 6 was to return Jason to the lake WHERE HE DROWNED because that was where he actually died. And part 7 starts with narration specifically stating that Jason died as a boy and kept coming back.

          • If you want to see “quite bad”, I suggest you watch the continuity of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films. Friday the 13th at least has a somewhat serialised story and Jason’s general characterisation is consistent throughout (except in Jason Takes Manhattan, where he only kills specific people due to budget).

            As for the morgue, no one in F13 is competent; not even the people at the morgue. Authorities seemed to have proclaimed him dead almost as soon as they arrived at the scene, and he was surrounded by other corpses.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Jason’s portrayl/storyline is anything but consistent. I like the series, I grew up on it, but it’s hardly good filmmaking

          • It is consistent. His supernatural abilities changed and evolved, but he’s largely the same character throughout all the 11 films (with the only exception being Jason Takes Manhattan, where he only kills specific people).

          • ChampionOfLight

            No, it really isn’t. You’re weirdly defensive about this fictional character that has clearly changed from film to film.

          • And you and darklordofgorgoroth seem weirdly determined to troll all of my posts to make a point about how broken the continuity is. It’s fractured and there are tonnes of plotholes. Yes, we get the point. But the continuity isn’t anywhere near as severe as the two of you seem to want everyone to believe. Both of you are trying to make it seem like it’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre levels of bad, where every single film is practically in its own little universe, and the Friday the 13th timeline is nowhere near THAT bad.

            You two practically gave away your positions with your most recent comments – “”in-universe”?! In-Universe the plot changes from film to film”, “That’s what happens when trying to analyze this series. Every single time..”, “The reboot is essentially part 12 disguised as a remake.. The writers have stated tis fact numerous times”, and “You’re weirdly defensive about this fictional character that has clearly changed from film to film.”

            Yes, we get it. The continuity is bad. Blah, blah, blah. We GET it. And that doesn’t mean that the film timeline or that Jason’s characterisaton/backstory aren’t worth talking about, and we will continue to do so (regardless of what you think). The two of you can stop trolling everyone’s posts now, or at least just mine. Because I’m already on the verge of blocking both of you, as this isn’t even a genuine discussion anymore.

          • ChampionOfLight

            This isn’t trolling. You are saying some absurd things and I am replying to it. The continuity is obviously far from perfect. Doesn’t mean you can’t love the films – I do! But your statements are simply making excuses for obvious issues to people that are pointing them out. Don’t take it so personal. And I NEVER said the continuity was “the worst EVER OMG” or anything like that. You are just acting like it is perfect. It’s not. This isn’t a comparison to any other film so stop falling back on that.

            My two quotes and quote 2 seem to be saying mostly the same thing but 3 seems very unrelated to anything we’re discussing so I’m not sure why you used that as an example or what any of these were examples of… EDIT: I initially replied to each quote but this is long AND I don’t know what the purpose of the quotes were so I cut my response down.

            “Yes, we get it. The continuity is bad. Blah, blah, blah. We GET it.”

            You CLEARLY don’t “get it” because you have been repeatedly denying it and making excuses.

            “And that doesn’t mean that the film timeline or that Jason’s
            characterisaton/backstory aren’t worth talking about, and we will
            continue to do so (regardless of what you think).”

            This has NOTHING to do with what I think – I am literally talking about the characterization and backstory in all of these conversations. My criticism is to your statements that make excuses or deny obviously true statements that you simply disagree with. I have no issue discussing the lore or theories, etc. But simply saying “No – there are no issues. No, the character never changed. No, they didn’t retcon that” is not a discussion. You are making statements and I am explaining why they are incorrect as statements. I have no issue with your opinion of any film in the series (I didn’t even reply to you calling 7 a classic – or something along those lines – which I, personally, think is just as trash as 8 because it is your opinion and that is your opinion to have regardless of my own).

            “The two of you can stop trolling everyone’s posts now, or at least just mine. Because I’m already on the verge of blocking both of you, as this isn’t even a genuine discussion anymore.”

            This isn’t “trolling”. For the third or forth time – I am not trying to offend you and I’ve never been trying to troll you. If you say something that people disagree with then they will reply. We can discuss it like normal people but not if you repeatedly deny facts and make excuses while accusing me of “strawman arguments” and “trolling”. If you want to TALK, then I have no issue with that. With both appear to love horror films so we have something in common! If you are going go on the defensive because someone says something you don’t like then block me and everyone else in every forum.

          • ChampionOfLight

            This isn’t a comparison. Both are quite bad. Again – that isn’t necessarily a problem since most people don’t really give a shit as to why Jason is killing people they only care that he is.

            Jason’s general characterization is NOT consistent. When was the last time you saw these films? As stated above, in Part 2 he showed actual fear when Ginny attacks him with a chainsaw. In 3 he shows no fear but still displays pain while also displaying some element of potential desire with the suggested sexual assault of the main character. In Part 4 and 6 he lacked almost all emotion and seemed to not be bothered by pain much at all. By Part 7 (and on) he became far more expressive in both his movements and reactions. Sometimes he is portrayed as a simpleton and other times he is incredibly smart… the character has never been consistent because the performer and writer/directors would always do their own thing with the character. Hell, his appearance changes from film to film even in some very large ways during films that take place immediately after the previous ones (see his size and facial designs from 2 to 4).

            And no – calling them incompetent is just an excuse. As the film never actually suggests that they “made a mistake” at all. He suddenly is just back up and killing people again. And, as I noted, he also no longer felt pain.

            I love the series but I’m not going to act like these films are really thought out. They came up with any excuse they could to keep throwing out new films.

          • ” As stated above, in Part 2 he showed actual fear when Ginny attacks him with a chainsaw.”

            That’s mainly because he just started killing. You’ll notice, his kill style also started out mimicking his mother’s and then gradually became his own. And there are various in-universe explanations for why his physical appearance is different in the films (when undead and trapped at the bottom of the lake his skin rotted, in Jason X it is revealed that he has some degree of regeneration abilities, in Jason Goes to Hell his mask is glued to his face after getting hit by acid, ETC). Regardless, physical appearance does not constitute characterisation.

            And no, Jason has never been “incredibly smart” (except for Jason-In-Name-Only in that damned 2009 reboot). He’s somewhat of a simpleton in every movie; occasionally he’ll take out an electric fusebox or hang up the corpses of his victims (mimicking his mother from the first film), but that’s about it. Jason Voorhees is not some intellectual killer that outsmarts his victims at every turn. A ‘killing machine’ (undead or otherwise) is probably the most accurate way to describe him. And he’s largely the same character throughout the first 11 films, save for his out-of-character moments in Jason Takes Manhattan. You can argue that Jason ‘body jumping’ is out-of-character, but that once again describes his power-set and not his actual character. When he’s on-screen and played by Kane Hodder in Jason Goes to Hell, he acts exactly the way he does in all the other films.

          • ChampionOfLight

            “That’s mainly because he just started killing”

            That statement is based on nothing… he was afraid because a woman came at him with a chainsaw and unlike Part 3 the performer was smaller and playing the character as a living hillbilly.

            You give far too much credit to the idea that the character was actually developing when, in truth, it was just the result of different performers and filmmakers making the films with no real thought into the character other then “how do we get him to kill these kids”.

            What you claim to be in-universe explanations is a RETCON. How do you not get that? So he developed regeneration by Jason X but where was it during Friday 1 – 9 or FvJ? I already explained, in detail, changes in the characterization AND physical appearance was to clarify on how there was never any consideration to any element of Jason from film to film as he physically changed drastically in ways that are NOT explained in any way or in any film from film to film.

            Jason has shown signs of intelligence in various moments in various films including Jason X where he quickly escapes (without destroying) his restraints, kills a guard, and then poses the guard to look like him in the restraints and covered to get the drop on the people that come in the room. That is entirely nonsensical to a character that we previously were shown couldn’t tell the difference between two very different women if they were wearing the same sweater.

            No, Kane Hodder acts quite differently from Jason’s that came before him. You didn’t even attempt at arguing the previous points I made but I have recently watched each of these films again and there is very very clear differences with each different portrayal of Jason due to either the actor or the writer/director. That isn’t an opinion. You can visibly see it in these films and it is NOT the “development” of the character.

          • “Moments of intelligence” and “intelligence” are not the same thing.

            “He was afraid because a woman came at him with a chainsaw” because he had just started killing people. If the same woman came at him with the same chainsaw in the later films, he would be both indestructible and more sure of himself after years of killing people.

            And no, it’s not “based on RETCONS”. He looks different in each movie for reasons specific to said movie. And if a retcon fills in a plothole later in the series, it is still technically valid. Regardless, physical appearance has nothing to do with characterisation. No more strawman arguments, please.

            “No, Kane Hodder acts quite differently from Jason’s that came before him.”

            Of course each actor brings their own movements and physical presence to the role, but the characterisation has remained largely the same throughout the 11 films. Any differences in characterisation (and please learn what that word means before giving another strawman argument) are minor or gradual at best. The role of any franchise character is going to slowly evolve through the sequels, especially if other actors step into it, but Jason Voorhees remained Jason Voorhees throughout the 11 films.

          • ChampionOfLight

            “”Moments of intelligence” and “intelligence” are not the same thing.”

            I think you misunderstood then because my point was that we would see drastic changes in his character such as going from simpleton to suddenly intelligent. I never suggested this was something a whole film kept as my point was these were stark characterization changes from film to film or even scene to scene.

            “If the same woman came at him with the same chainsaw in the later films,
            he would be both indestructible and more sure of himself after years of
            killing people.”

            When he started killing has no relevance to this at all so I excluded that but to focus on this – yes, in later films he would show no fear because the performers and directors were making a different movie with a different version of this killer. It has NOTHING to do with the character “developing”.

            “He looks different in each movie for reasons specific to said movie”

            Yes – they RETCON the previous design to do something that fits the current movie. Do you know what a retcon is? Based on, “And if a retcon fills in a plothole later in the series, it is still technically valid” I assume you do not understand it as much as you seem to think you do… I don’t mean to offend but a RETCON is when they alter the lore or story to serve the direction of the latest storyline. So, no, it’s not “technically valid” because it fills in a plothole “later” – a retcon exists to try and dismiss obvious plotholes because of what happened before. AND YES – his physical appearance changing from Part 2, to Part 3, to Part 4 is relevant to the characterization when his central (and most popular characterization) is based on his large appearance and strength (neither of which he had in Part 2). Don’t be so naive. Do you know what a strawman argument is?

            “…but the characterisation has remained largely the same throughout the 11 films.”

            But – NO. They haven’t. AGAIN re-read what I said before or are you considering the suggested sexual assault in Part 3 to be in line with everything else we saw? Or his reaction to pain going from realistic to not bothered? His fear during 2 eventually becoming a complete lack of any emotion (fear or hatred) OR reaction in 6 to suddenly again reacting in 7-10 to nearly every single thing (Hodder’s Jason was very reactionary which is why they hired someone else for FvJ).

            This isn’t evolution – you are making excuses for very obvious continuity issues. Are they a big deal? Nope… so why are you making such blatant excuses?!

            YES – this series had very clear RETCONS. YES – Jason’s characterization changed from performer to performer and NO – the filmmakers clearly didn’t care that much as evidenced by their lack of even keeping the design consistent between films. It never mattered to them exactly what happened before and they simply made excuses or ignored inconsistencies to make the films they wanted to make.

          • NixEclips

            I’ve always been a “Jason has always been a zombie since 2” guy. Think you did a good summary, though.

          • ChampionOfLight

            Yeah, when I first watched these films as a kid I accepted he was just dead since before the events of 1. Nothing else ever really made sense. As an adult – I understand that each film tried to give their own explanation and that, yes, the filmmakers made 2, 3, and 4 believing Jason was “alive” after having survived the possible drowning but by 6 the filmmakers clearly just said to hell with it and retroactively accepted he had been dead the whole time.

          • NixEclips

            If you can find copies of the novelizations of 2 and 3, Jason wakes on the side of the lake, months later, I think, and vomits up worms and mud. Because he died. I think he lived in the woods from there. Been a long time and my copies have been lost.

          • ChampionOfLight

            Ah, interesting. I only ever had the Nightmare novelization because I was curious of Craven’s original ideas (long before the script appeared online).

        • Radb707

          Red herring? So this mofo can stop his heart now and fool trained medical professionals??

          • Which is hardly the most ridiculous thing to happen in a franchise populated by incompetent law enforcement and the medical “professionals” at the morgue were shown to be equally incompetent. Are you really going to question the logic of a franchise where a decades-old corpse was resurrected by a bolt of lightning? It’s honestly amusing to see people watch accept shit like that, and then scratch their heads when he survives a shallow axe wound to the side of the head whilst wearing a hockey mask.

    • darklordofgorgoroth

      The original series made it very clear that Jason DROWNED as a boy. He’s dead in part 1. Why else would Pamela avenge his death otherwise?? Part 2 retcons this, “What if he did survive?” this piece of dialogue makes part 2 a what-if scenario. In part 3 he’s a slasher, dead/undead who cares? By part 4, he’s most definitely undead..

      • He didn’t drown as a boy. He was thought to have drowned, and grew up living in the woods (the films stated directly that he survived). The ending to the original was a hallucination. And no, he didn’t become undead until Jason Lives.

        • darklordofgorgoroth

          Yes! He! Did! “Make no mistake about it. Jason is dead in part 1, or else part 1 makes no sense” quote Victor Miller

          • He was referring to the character’s status during the making of Part I, as Jason was never intended to be the villain in the sequel until later. He wasn’t talking in-universe.

          • darklordofgorgoroth

            Okay, how about this: Tom Savini also says that Jason is dead and out of the blue comes back to life in part 2. He also says F13 fans are stupid when trying to make sense of it all

          • ChampionOfLight

            “in-universe”?! In-Universe the plot changes from film to film. Jason was dead when they made part 1. They retconned him to have survived in 2. And then in 6 and 7 say they retcon it again to say he was dead the whole time since he drowned.

        • Radb707

          Yeah, but then it makes zero sense he doesn’t go back to his mom and say “Hi”. Unless her psychosis is just so bad that she really believes her son is dead and rejects him so he’s forced to live on his own in the woods. But then it makes no sense why he’s pissed she gets killed.

          Makes more sense she took care of him all these years, but when counselors started coming in BOOM she has a psychotic break and reverts to thinking her son died.

          • Because his mother was barely at Crystal Lake in the years following his apparent drownings. She only returned to sabotage the re-openings, hence why was called “Camp Blood.” Pamela (and virtually everyone) was unaware that he survived, and it is stated in Part II that he was wondering the woods until he finally found her the moment he watched her die in Part I. So remind me – What makes zero sense?

        • Drakk_Mallor

          He clearly didn’t even know how to swim, how is it logical to think he lived as a deep woods survivor for a few decades? Where did he get all these survival skills? Are you saying young Jason faked his own death? If the drowned spectre of his rotting child corpse is just a dream sequence, why do so many people in the franchise encounter it? Oh, wait, none of it makes sense, nor is it supposed to.

          • Or he simply survived his apparent drowning. By definition, drowning implies death and the flashbacks show that he wasn’t far from shore when it happened. It was also never implied that people were actually present during the drowning, hence why it wasn’t stopped to begin with.

            As for how he survived in the woods, I would assume he somehow adapted and survived in the same way he did as an adult. In Part II, it was suggested in a campfire story that he might be living off the land and wildlife (though it’s highly unlikely he was a survivalist killer as in the mediocre reboot, and the idea of Jason eating a bear is comedic). Really, we’re putting way more thought into this than the writers probably did. All that probably mattered to them is that he was alive and killing people.

          • Counter question – If he actually drowned, how is it logical that he’s a full grown adult in Part II?

          • Drakk_Mallor

            It’s not! It was never supposed to be logical! It’s just crap they threw together to make money on a sequel and it worked and we love it but it doesn’t make sense! Fake in-universe conspiracy theorists and true-crime writers in the DVD extras literally have this exact same argument we’re having! There’s nothing going on, there’s no logic intended at all!

      • Slade Howlett

        Pamela was insane. Jason was never dead and he never actually told her to do shit. She imagined all of that because she was traumatized and had gone full on psycho after she thought he had died.

        Jason never died. He survived and then grew up in the woods, saw his mother killed and then took on her “legacy”. The end.

        as to why Jason actually never went to see his mother and let her know he is alive – ask the writers, cause I have no idea. At the end of the day this is still Friday the 13th we are talking about. so dont look for too much logic.

        • darklordofgorgoroth

          Jason died! Why is it so hard for Friday fans to accept logic?

        • ChampionOfLight

          No, Jason did die and that drove Pamela insane. You may prefer the logic of the Remake or the initial plot setup in Part 2 by Ginny but the original “Friday the 13th” was about a woman that lost her mind after her son died and later F13 movies would even ignore Part 2’s explanation and say he “died as a boy but keeps coming back”.

          • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

            Yes! There were no plans for more when they made the first one. It just made money and the executives wanted more of that. Every part of the franchise after the first is essentially fan fiction.

            Every director has made loose attempts at figuring out some type of narrative but mostly that has been “He was left there at the end of the last one so that’s where he wakes up in this one and this is what happened to him so he should maybe look like this now” so it’s more or less purely accidental that there is a canon in the first place.

            Well 4,5 and 6 sort of did it though, come to think of it.

            Someone could make a new part 9 that could create a real good mythos and at the same time set up Goes to Hell and Jason X in a way that makes sense. Something that involves Tommy Jarvis perhaps..

          • ChampionOfLight

            Problem with Tommy Jarvis is that Part 7’s opening takes place YEARS after 6 (as their is now a home on the lake where previous Camp Forrest Green stood) and then it jumps ahead another 10 years after the intro. Although I guess they said Tommy was 18-ish(? yeah, right) in 6 so they could have just had the actor come back playing his own age in a film set between 8 and 9.

            But I would not mind a film (or a few) set between previous films over another Remake/Reboot.

          • Drakk_Mallor

            There’s a somewhat workable timeline on the Friday the 13th Wikia. It has most of the stuff from 6 onward going on in the 90s, for better or worse.

          • ChampionOfLight

            Yeah I saw a timeline video after rewatching all of them recently. The biggest issue with setting a film in the 90’s or present day is that the 80’s feel of the original films is part of what makes them still so very enjoyable. I really never want a “Friday the 13th” with cell phones or people talking about Social Media, etc.

            Not to say those things can’t be used effectively but I prefer the more simple content we got in the old “Friday” films and I’m afraid that anyone ever trying to do a new one would either do too many tongue in cheek references to older films or try and explain everything (like Remakes attempt at explaining him moving from point to point quickly or “where he got his mask”, etc).

          • Radb707

            You mean Freddy vs Jason vs Ash 2? Where the survivors of all the movies band together led by Tommy Jarvis to end them once and for all?

          • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

            Is that one of the storylines from the comics? If so, I want to read it.

          • Drakk_Mallor

            How’s this for a mythos: Jason fakes his death to go live in the wild because he hates all other human beings for mocking his deformity. He ritually cuts out his own tongue to make himself unable to ever ask for help from anyone. His mother was obviously crazy and he blames her for his father (who taught him survival skills) leaving them, so he runs away into the woods and never comes back. There, he meets evil spirits who dwell in the dark bowers of man’s domain. Communing with them, he decides to kill anyone entering his territory, which is the lake itself, camp or no camp. When he’s eventually killed, those evil spirits bring him back to go on with his eternal revenge against the one creature he hates most of all; pubescent or post pubescent humans. Kids he’s cool with. He would never hurt a kid.

          • Jarle Solbakken Fremstad

            Isn’t that more or less the reboot plus added bits of Hatchet?

            How about: He drowns but there’s aliens under water that gives him life back with a new face and a new body, all perfect, but if he leaves the water he will turn into the exact opposite. And then some other stuff happens and he leaves the water.

            Wow, I think I just Max Brooks’d Friday the 13th. I’ll stop now before I do any permanent damage.

          • Drakk_Mallor

            It is a lot like the reboot and Hatchet, yes, but it would be somewhat cohesive. I like to think of the Hatchet movies as essentially being Friday the 13th playfully re-imagined into a trilogy. Victor Crowley and Jason from Pt 2 have a lot in common, imho.

            If the aliens are lovecraft type aliens that could kinda work. Arguing Kandarian Demons vs. Lovecraft aliens is like arguing macguffins vs red herrings.

        • Radb707

          Dude, if she’s insane, it’s perfectly reasonable she took care of Jason all these years and it’s just whenever she sees counselors she has a psychotic break bringing back her trauma and has a delusion that her son drowned.

  • ChampionOfLight

    Two things –

    1. The Necronomicon wasn’t in the basement. It was sitting on a shelf in the main house. The Creepshow box was in the basement.

    2. Even if we ignore the setup in “Jason Goes to Hell” the outline for “Freddy vs Jason vs Ash” was adapted into a comic years ago and featured this as a revelation so the writers on that film were planning on continuing the idea moving forward.

  • Necro

    The ‘Necronomicon’ in ‘Jason Goes To Hell’ wasn’t in the basement it was sitting on shelf in the living room or whatever. And at the time New Line should’ve listened to Robert Englund’s idea for the sequel to ‘Freddy vs Jason’ and at least considered it. ‘Freddy vs Jason vs Ash’ would’ve been fucking sick for a sequel! IMO

  • The Internet Goblin

    Who cares what Marcus has to say? The guy was a self-admitted hack who didn’t know what he was doing when he made that movie. He can’t even do some basic Wikipedia research. Jason “drowned” in the late 50s and he came back in the 80s. That’s plenty of time to grow up.

    • Christopher Siano

      I think they mean within the time between the 1st and 2nd films.

      • Nicolas Caiveau

        He was already an adult during the first movie… The ending of part 1 with kid Jason in the lake is just a dream sequence.

        • darklordofgorgoroth

          He was dead during the first movie. That’s why Pamela went on a killing spree. jesus….

          • The Internet Goblin

            No, he was presumed dead, but they never found a body. Then he showed up alive 20 years later, having clearly grown up during those years. So the question is, which scenario is more likely here?
            A) That he was believed to have drowned, but was really living by himself in the woods, and came back later to seek revenge, or…
            B) That he actually drowned. Then his mom used a book from a different franchise to resurrect him, but it only worked 20 years after he died, and then he had a growth spurt for 2 months that physically caught him up with his actual biological age.

          • Radb707

            or C) Pamela was a nutbar and was traumatized by almost losing her son. She took care of Jason all these years, but every time counselors show up she has another psychotic break trying to kill them for letting her son drown. So the reason Jason shows up looking like crap is because she wasn’t around to take care of him anymore. Assuming Part II was a year or two after the first one.

            Or B version 2.0) He actually drowned and she used the book right then to bring her boy back and he grew up like normal. So when she says her son drowned, she’s technically not lying.

          • Eddie Barsh

            Part 2 took place 5 years after Part 1

          • Drakk_Mallor

            Each scenario is equally preposterous. How does a helpless deformed kid (who doesn’t even know how to swim!!) survive to adulthood alone in the woods? What’s he gonna do, hunt rabbits? Eat berries? Suddenly he goes from being a fragile kid the counselors should have paid closer attention to to what, being deep-woods kid-Rambo and taking a vow of silence? There is no canon explanation and it’s not supposed to make sense. They just threw Jason together as an antagonist in a hurry to make a sequel.

          • Schwifty

            There is … it’s mentioned in Part 2 that, if Jason had actually been alive (something that the characters discussing this don’t know yet), he would have seen his mother get killed, and that he had probably grown up on his own in the woods somehow. That’s the only time it’s ever mentioned, but I think that’s why: to offer a half-assed explanation of where he came from.

            I guess Marcus also forgot that there was a book of spells involved in Part VI, a.k.a. “The One Where Jason First Comes Back From The Dead”, and the book was not the “Necronomicon Ex Mortis”. Also, he was definitely dead and rotting at the beginning of VI and was accidentally resurrected via kooky Frankenstein science, not magic.

          • Drakk_Mallor

            There’s this funny podcast on Cracked where David Wong talks about how much work Jason must have had to put into killing Alice at the beginning of part 2. Wong concludes that Jason, being unable to buy, borrow or even drive a car (and having no friends who can give him a lift, and having no money for a bus, and being unable to hitch a ride what with the whole ‘deformed maniac with a bag on his head and a head in a bag’ look)…Jason must have remembered how to ride a bike and therefore ridden a bicycle to wherever Alice was living, taking his mothers’ head with him. Once there, he had to find her address, then find a map, then locate that address on that map, or ask someone who lived there where that street and that block on that street were as this was all pre-Mapquest. Getting a map might have required him to visit a gas station and buying one. Then he had to sneak into her apartment, put the head in her fridge, then just wait, possibly hiding behind a chair in the next room as kitchens in apartments don’t have a lot of hiding spots for full sized bag-headed killers. For how long was he going to have to wait? No one knows, not even him. Luckily her cat got her to come out into the kitchen by making a noise. Also luckily, she opened the fridge after dealing with the cat and saw the head, at which point Jason’s plan worked perfectly, and he killed her as she screamed in horror. Jason didn’t have to throw his back out crouching behind her recliner for 9 hours.

            And people on here are saying he wasn’t very good at murder yet in Pt 2. His plan worked perfectly!

          • Nicolas Caiveau

            She THOUGHT he was dead. Of course when the first movie was made, he was dead. But it was retconned by the sequels. He survived, or was resurrected, and then lived alone in the woods waiting for his mother to find him. That’s explained in part 2.

        • Schwifty

          I think that’s what’s confusing everybody. Most people (including Adam Marcus) seem to think the ending of the first one was actually Jason in the lake, and therefore can’t understand why he’s suddenly a six-foot-plus hulking murder machine in the second one, which takes place only months after Part 1. He “drowned” in the Fifties, at age 13 (?) or however old he was. So he’d at least be in his thirties by Part 2 (which would have taken place in 1980). Possibly close to or in his forties by THE FINAL CHAPTER … after which, the “aging” thing no longer applies, I guess.

      • The Internet Goblin

        Jason didn’t actually drown, and he was never undead until Part 6. We know this because his age would roughly match his appearance in part 2, he felt the need to build himself a shelter, and he grunted and howled in pain when getting stabbed in Part 3 and 4. He never does any of those things after becoming a zombie in Part 6.

    • Daniel Anderson

      Yeah but the Evil Dead time vortex was only a short period of time to take jasons corpse and turn it into zombie jason. To us it was 30 years, but to jasons corpse, mere few months.

      • The Internet Goblin

        In which Friday the 13th movie did we see this vortex again? The answer is: None! Because it’s purely fan-fiction.

        • Daniel Anderson

          I don’t recall seeing the in between from when Jason was a child to when he grew up. The entire movie series is fan fiction to slashers.

          • The Internet Goblin

            True we didn’t. But it’s not an amazing concept that a kid would be grown up 20 years later. They don’t need to show it happen for us to understand that. A vortex to a Kandarian demon dimension on the other hand… not so much a natural process.

          • Radb707

            The thing for me always was….why his mother kept claiming he was dead and why when he shows up in Part II he looks like a lumberjack. I mean I guess if part II took place years after the first one it would make sense he would look like that without his mom taking care of him but yeah. I love how in part 3 it’s like he decided to get a real job. He cuts his hair, puts on khakis and a button up.

          • Daniel Anderson

            Jason Vorhees died in the 50’s, though. Would you say him coming back to kill campers in the 80’s was a natural process? Or if we were to follow the remake, if he died in the 50’s and his mother killed people in the 80’s, would you say it was a natural process for a child with severe impairments to have survived in the wild for 30 years to watch his mother die, while he was still a child, to then become a killer? This franchise isn’t meant to follow a natural process, its meant to entertain.

      • Radb707

        What? Why would you need an Evil Dead time vortex? As seen in the Evil Dead movies, they just come back. The vortex was the result of an incantation meant to send the evil back to where it came. If Pam Voorhees used the book in the 50s to bring her son back, that’s plenty of time for him to grow up.

        • Daniel Anderson

          There wasn’t only one spell in the book, I’m sure.

    • Eddie Barsh

      That makes too much sense apparently …. Smh

  • Awfully funny how I brought this up early last month in my YouTube Review Show. Almost eerie…. Weird…

  • Cali-Chainsaw

    I’d love a shared slasher universe

  • DukeStKing

    If they just would’ve named him Jesus instead of Jason, it all would’ve made sense…..

  • RJ MacReady

    Who cares what the director of the worst F13th movie says(ok, maybe 2nd worst after part 8). I will continue to pretend Jason goes to Hell doesn’t exist…

    • dukeblues

      While it is a terrible movie, I still enjoy watching it only because I was 12 when it came out

    • Eddie Barsh

      Sameeeee. It never happened

  • Jesse Rothbeind

    One thing is clear: This is the most retarded thread ever in the history of the interwebs. Just enjoy the movies and stfu already!!!

  • Flu-Like Symptoms

    I’ll say this for BD; you guys definitely know how to start some shit.

  • WOLF

    Marcus also wrote Chainsaw 3D. Is that garbage canon?
    He certainly knows how to disregard canon that franchises have established.

  • AdamX

    So Jason is a deadite and Freddy literally became the book but we couldn’t work out way to get all this on the big screen…

    Still cool to know Jason is legit a deadite though.

  • Drakk_Mallor

    There’s a really comprehensive Friday the 13th wikia that will have to address this idea now. To be honest, I think it makes about as much sense as anything to do with where the hell Jason actually came from after drowning as a child.

  • Fearless Jared Feuring

    Looks like its time for me to finally watch Jason Goes To Hell

    • JB

      Don’t do it! You’ll only be disappointed.

      • Fearless Jared Feuring

        Lol, that’s why I haven’t until now. I haven’t heard good things. Maybe I’ll just youtube the Necronomicon scene…

    • Drakk_Mallor

      There’s a kinda epic ‘mortician eating an undead black rotting heart’ scene.

  • JB

    This is dumb as shit.

    • Eddie Barsh

      Not trying to be an asshole just wanted to point out that THE BEGINNING of Part 2 takes place 2 months after the 1st film in the opening scene. But the rest of the film takes place 5 years after the 1st film. So pretty much everything after Alice’s death in Part 2 is 5 years later.

  • John Connor

    It does not matter what a producer, actor, writer, director, etc. says.

    All that matters is what’s in the movie.

    The viewer determines what’s what between themselves and the movie.

    The viewer can talk, discuss, and listen to others (whether they worked on the film or not) and change their interpretation if they like what someone explains.

    I happen to share the same interpretation as the director explained but that doesn’t make it some solid canon fact that everyone has to accept for their own view of that film/universe.

    All that’s shown is a weird book that pretty much only an Evil Dead fan would recognize as the Necronomicon (and I didn’t even know of The Evil Dead when I first saw JGTH at the age of 8, so that wasn’t always my interpretation).

    Even as an Evil Dead fan you don’t have to take that as the Necronomicon because its never been explained in the Friday The 13th universe (it could just be seen as a prop homage).

    That interpretation the director describes is how I saw it (once I recognized the book) because it’s just so cool and makes sense.

    I still hope for a Freddy Vs. Jason Vs. Ash crossover as a future season of Ash Vs. Evil Dead.

  • Andrew Mount

    How could Pamela Voorhees have read from the Necronomicon in the 50s when the book went missing in 1300 AD? It didn’t turn up again until Professor Knowby went exploring in the ancient ruins of Kandar in the early 80s.

    It is a fun theoty but you pretty much have to ignore both the timeline AND the mythology of The Evil Dead to make it plausible

    • RawBeard

      it was a 2nd edition reprint 😉

      • gjk2012 .

        I’m guessing the 3rd edition reprint was in the Brendan Fraser Mummy films? The new testament book of the dead.

        • RawBeard

          yes that release was controversial as they swapped the human blood ink with a blood substitute for the PG-13 audiences as their marketers had done research.

  • Dan Warren (Forgottenretroworl

    This film was stupid as f***. Was very funny, though.

    • Eddie Barsh

      A disgrace

  • Jon bee

    what a load of fucking stupid shit…. what a douche

    • Eddie Barsh

      Agreed. That’s one of the problems w Jason is that there is so many different writers, directors, and companies that pass then rights from here to there and everyone wants to sabotage Jason bynputting their own spin on him. “Hey I have an idea, let’s make Jason battle against Carrie who uses her mind control powers to kill him” then the next asshole says “no wait, what about this, Jason goes to Manhattan and slaughters homeless bums” “well what if we sent Jason to space?” “No I got a better idea let’s make Jason an evil deadite and he eats ppls hearts and turns into that person”
      How do these ppl have jobs?!

  • matrixlord212

    One director can’t make that cannon. He is just looking for hype for his future projects.

  • RawBeard

    For me with the original movies this theory doesn’t work as Jason doesn’t behave like a Deadite and the timelines doesn’t work. However I’m not opposed to this idea if they ever decided to reboot Friday the 13th again, just set the origin a few years after Evil Dead maybe mixing in a crossover with Nightmare on Elm Street as long as it’s not a Vs.

  • Gerald Nekro G Smith
    • gjk2012 .

      That is one of the best special effects I have seen. What movie is that from? I know I’ve seen it before. And that eye ball popping out like that. lol

      • turk

        “Scanners” (1981), by Cronenberg.

  • Jim Charette

    aaaaand this is why Jason Goes to Hell was THE worst Friday the 13th movie(much more so than Jason X). This doesn’t make any sense either as Deadites can be killed, Jason can not. I mean how many times has Jason been blasted by his victims/cops/survivors boomsticks & shrugged it off? No, not buying this horseshit theory.

    • Drakk_Mallor

      Jason hasn’t suffered total bodily dismemberment, which, according to Professor Knowby, is the only way to stop a person who has been possessed by a Kandarian demon. So, it could kinda work.

  • Drakk_Mallor

    Having re-watched the fuck out of Friday 2, I have to admit that the origin presented for Jason’s existence is, simply put, that he didn’t drown and lived in the woods for many years before seeing his mother beheaded and vowing revenge on the counselors. It isn’t perfect, it doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense, by any means, but it’s what we are left with. Somehow, little Jason crawled out of the lake, scavenged and hunted for a few decades, saw his mother killed and became a killer in her honor. We are not meant to know the awful things he did to survive in the wilderness, only to know that they culminated in his living in a disgusting shack with a toilet that doesn’t lead down to to anything.

    It doesn’t make sense, but it is what it is. Jason’s living as a grown, non-undead human male, however deformed, is canon, even if it is ret-conned canon. If Pamela brought him back from the dead with the Book of Dead Names of the Dead, that’s up for debate. Maybe he drowned and she brought him back, maybe she was just crazy. Maybe the entire Voorhees family is a bunch of sociopathic nutjobs, I don’t know. Friday the 13th is, according to folklore, a bad day, a day when anything can go wrong, often involving cars crashing or breaking down, sometimes when murderers are about to stab you with something. Life’s a bitch that way.

  • TimR

    Makes no sense.

    The only time Jason could have been revived with the Necronomicon is before part 2, as in part 6 we know how he is revived (lightning). However, in parts 2-4, Jason is human and shares zero deadite traits or physical features. And what finally kills him in part 4 (a machete to the side of the head) would NOT kill a deadite. To kill a deadite you need to dismember their head and limbs. He would have survived a machete to the SIDE of the head.

More in Movies