Talk:Jason Voorhees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jason Voorhees article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Jason Voorhees is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Bignole (talk • contribs • email) and Paul730 (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Jason Voorhees was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related article of the month for October 2007.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Reworked entire page

I have finally finished the new Jason Voorhees page. Please tell me what you think. Please note that it is designed after the Jabba the Hutt featured article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got impatient. I think all will agree this version is far better than what was currently there. Other than some copyediting, this is clearly on the way to FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review comments

A great article, but a few comments before I'd feel happy making it a WP:GA:

  • "Since Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, filmmakers have given Jason superhuman strength, and near invulnerability. Jason Voorhees is seen as a sympathetic character, albeit one whose motivation for killing has often been cited as driven by the immoral actions of his victims.

Jason Voorhees has been featured in many humor magazines, referenced in feature films, parodied in television shows, and been the inspiration for a horror punk band. Several toylines have been released based on various versions of the character from the Friday the 13th films. Jason Voorhees was awarded the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award" - "Jason" or "Jason Voorhees" appears too many times here - "he" would probably suffice a few times, so re-write and re-read to improve the flow.

  • Follow WP:MOS for headings, i.e. do not repeat the article title in headings such as "Jason Voorhees in popular culture", just "In popular culture" will suffice.
  • I'm not sure we need each character's actor in parentheses, but that's personal. It just reads a bit clunky and doesn't seem particularly relevant to Voorhees himself. Nor am I sure we need the years of release of each version of Friday 13th within the text either.
  • "...as Pamela seeks revenge..." - is that Mrs. Voorhees? It's not clear.
  • "...slams a machete through Jason's shoulder..." - then what? is that the end? does she then get killed by him or make her escape?
  • "Chris fends off Jason by sending an axe to his head." - to, or into? Jason could have ducked!
  • "His appearance in Friday the 13th: A New Beginning..." whose appearance? it's not clear.
  • "Tied to the bottom of the lake with a boulder..." I thought he was tied to a boulder at the bottom of the lake... rephrase a bit I think.
  • "...it is learned..." nasty passive grammar - it is revealed?
  • "...it is believed..." again, not happy with that - perhaps, it is portrayed that...?
  • It's interesting to read battle royal and check if that's applicable here.
  • "...Michael Avallone.[12] Michael Avallone..." - just repeat his surname?
  • Wikilinking TV seems a bit over the top.
  • "...about to auctioned off to the highest bidder..." - grammar.
  • Ref [55] need only be used once at the end of the para where it's currently used once per sentence.
  • For "4 films" write "four films".
  • Wikilink New Line earlier than the last mention.
  • "surved"? Perhaps an American version of "surveyed"? By all means correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Ref [100] could be moved beyond the full stop to sit with ref [101].

Incredibly well referenced for a potential GA, see these points off and you're well on the road to FA if that's what you're after. I'll put the GA on hold to give you time to sort this lot out, let me know when you're happy for me to re-review and, hopefully, promote. This article isn't far from A-class, so please do work on it and get back to me. The Rambling Man 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of what I can when I get back from my class and doctor's appointment later. Thanks for commenting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Taken care of all concerns (well, addressed them, you may not agree with all them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I'm now listing as a good article. Well done to all concerned. The Rambling Man 13:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest making "In mass media" its own stand-alone section? It's generally discouraged for sections to have only one subsection, I believe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It kind of all seems connected, and I was merely following the Star Wars articles. But if you think it's best, then that's fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like bad grammar: Morga enjoyed his time as Jason, making sure he "really go into the character". but I don't want to change it since it's a quote. Is it a typo or is that what he said? Paul730 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be phrased 'making sure he "really got into the character"' or 'making sure to "really go into the character"' but since I don't know the original quote, I don't know which one is appropiate. Paul730 14:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OOOOOH. LOL, see I didn't even notice the problem, as I've always read it correctly. No, that was a typo on my part. My bad. You're right, it should be "got" and not "go".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Something you might find interesting: [When discussing ideas for F13 prt 2] "My friends in Boston felt it was really important to bring back this Jason character. Well, I thought that was just the worst idea I ever heard. I was completely wrong." - Sean Cunningham[1] Paul730 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the book mentions that Cunningham basically stepped back from everything when they decided to use Jason. That's when he became a producer instead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

There's something wrong with the bottom of the page. Don't really know what it is or how to fix it, so just thought I'd draw attention to it so somebody else could. Paul730 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Paul730 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem corrected. Someone screwed with the Friday the 13th template, located at the bottom. I went over to the template page and corrected it. It usually happens when people try and add things but don't understand the code being used, and they basically screw things up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a problem with ref 77. Paul730 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killer status

The infobox refers to Jason as a spree killer, but is categorised as a serial killer and mass murderer, which strikes as an inconsistency. Yes, it's this topic again, but the difference this time is that I've just more or less given up on battling these types of things, so I don't really give a shit anymore which way it goes, but thought others who clearly know what they're doing could see how best to straighten this out. --Bacteria 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me if it's removed entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I'll go through these later and see if we can solve that pesky "mass", "spree", "seriel" problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Added some more. These are in the article now, but I want to go through them more detailed to see if there is anything else usable. I just used the key word hits intitially. All of ref names, so if someone else reads them and decides there was something relevant, then you can use the ref name instead of having to write up the entire citation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculousness

"Martin Jay Sadoff kept a bag with him full of hockey gear, as most of the crew was Canadian and loved hockey" This is said as if implying he was a hockey fan because he is Canadian. I'm Canadian and I hate hockey. (Contact me) 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC

It's what the book said. If you don't like it, sorry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwieldly infobox

I'm up for removing most of the fields or reorgansing the thing. Why isn't {{infobox character}} used?~ZytheTalk to me! 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That template isn't used because I can't stand it. It's got tons of in-universe crap in it that just takes up space..as per the stupid MOS you shouldn't delete section of an infobox if they aren't used. Well, "spouse" and all that other family stuff has nothing to do with understanding almost any fictional character. Like, what the hell is "cause/reason"? "Address", "religion"? This just ridiculous. I prefer to create them by hand, because it allows you the ability to create a section, when needed, that isn't normally found in an infobox. Otherwise, if you do put it in those infoboxes, you get this huge list of nothing, that only leads people to add in all that in-universe information, which by far, violates just about everything WP:WAF says about infoboxes. As for this infobox, what needs to be removed? It contains all the essentials: who created him, who has portrayed him, race (because his portrait doesn't make it obvious that he was once white), signature weapon and classification as a mass murderer (which are two things that he is famous for). The only thing that I could see going would be the fictional location, "Camp Crystal Lake". Other than that, everything else is either completely OOU, or IU information that is cited by secondary sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As for removing most of the fields, the template you mention has about 10 times the amount of fields.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you shouldn't really use half of them :P. The "portrayed by" bit just seems huuuge (understandably) but it's not helped by the references to all the films. Perhaps the (Such and such a film) inline citations should be replaced with "[2]" style instead? I just don't like seeing too much in an infobox as they're meant to be kept to a bare minimum (although as with {{infobox character}} in practice, they rarely are). ~ZytheTalk to me! 02:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that we simply use the film citations from the "Film appearances" section as duplicate references for all the actors that portrayed the character?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is how it would look, which is slightly confusing, because you won't know who appeared in which film without going to the "Men behind the mask" section and reading about each one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the way Paul730 did it :).~ZytheTalk to me! 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture and mass media

Just wanted to inquire -- what are the differences between these two sections? I guess I'm not seeing a huge difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass media generally consists of references to the character, or appearances, where as popular culture is more like things that are used as marketing gimmicks for the character, or just plain ol market products. At least, that was how I always saw it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Mass media is part of pop culture. Globeclotter 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A part of, but not the same as. Awards are a part of the reception of something, and you have that them in their own section. Since it has been brought up that, stylistically, an article shouldn't have 1 subsection in a main section, they were separated. Since there are multiple topics covered in the first section, it is labeled the general title of "Popular culture", as it contains many varying subjects, while "Mass media" is specifically that, a section on the mass media portion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powers

I really think that this page needs a section about his powers and abilities. --70.240.147.215 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Jason Voorhees#Characteristics. Any powers and abilities that have been verified with reliable sources are already mentioned in that section, which basically consist of invulnerability and super strength. I can't recall any abilities other than those anyway. Unless you count his ability to be edited from one location to the next, with no real explaination as to how he got there so fast...but that's more of movie editing issue, and not an actual ability. He cannot teleport, and we know he isn't running anywhere because he walks through the woods.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In "Jason Goes to Hell" he has the ability to posess people through a snakelike creature.

Can I just ask why you think a powers section is necessary? The info you mention is already in the article (the possession thing is mentioned in "Appearances", in the same place as JGtH). If you look at Superman#Powers and abilities, it details how Superman's powers changed over time, depending on who was writing him. It contains real world context, rather than simply "he can fly, has heat vision, etc." As far as I can see, all that info is supported by sources. Unless you have reliable sources discussing Jason's powers, I don't think a powers section is really necessary, as it would just be original research and unnecessary plot information. Paul730 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

Jason was a minor character in the original Friday the 13th, where he appeared as a hallucination of the main character Alice Hardy, but went on to become the main antagonist of the series. Is this meant to be in past tense? I'm asking because I thought that informantion about fiction should always be written in present tense. I mean, he still is a minor character in the original... if you watch it now he isn't gonna suddenly have a bigger part. Just checking before I change it. Paul730 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be present, it's just something that slipped through unnoticed. You can usually go with your gut instinct and correct it. If, per chance, it wasn't just a mistake that slipped by, someone would say so. Good catch.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This page is poorly written. I suggest a thorough copyedit. I'm a little surprised that it made it to FA status. --80.1.36.9 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify?  Paul  730 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, removing one weasel word is hardly "poorly written".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Mask

This article doesn't mention that Jason wore a burlap sack over his head in Part 2. I think it's important to include this piece of info. Bobisbob (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't a burlap sack, but a pillow case (and was only referred to as "the bag" by the crew, from what I could find), and there's nothing to say about it really. It isn't a recognizable image for the character, and it was used and discarded in one film. It was only briefly mentioned in any source I could find, and I don't recall the page that it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't it just be stated that until he wore the hockey mask, he wore the pillow case instead. Just mention it in passing?  Paul  730 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Mention it where? The film section, the design section? He's just seen with it in Part 2, he maybe have stole it from the bed where he killed Cassandra in the sex-kabob, which means he had it for a few hours before removing it. It seems really unimportant to the character. The only mentioning I can think of is to add it to the part that mentions the hockey mask, and just say that he wore a bag (better to be vague, since I've never seen any reliable source confirm it as a pillow case, but based on what a burlap sack looks like, it certainly wasn't that) in the previous film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I meant, just say something like "Jason gets his hockey mask in part 3, having previously worn a bag over his head in part 2" Only word it better. It's not that important, but it couldn't hurt to just mention the fact briefly.  Paul  730 00:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Like that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that looks fine.  Paul  730 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New information in Freddy vs Jason vs Ash *SPOILERS*

The latest issue brought up a possibility that Pamela used the necromonicon to ressurect Jason, thus making him a 'deadite'. Although this probably isn't 'canon' with the films, should it be mentioned?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Only in the literature section (if it happens in the comics). Simply say something to the effect of, "Issue 6 of Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash established a new reason for Jason's resurrection, after drowning as a boy, ...blah blah blah" --- You get my drift.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What about the other origin Wildstorm presented in their first Friday the 13th series, should that be mentioned? The whole thing about the ghosts of the genocided Indian tribe possessing Jason. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess it isn't already since you're asking about it. Yes, all origin stories should be mentioned. Since I don't have any of the comics, I went by the synopsis for each for what to put in the article. They can easily be rewritten. Please do so if you know more important details that occur in them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason's Fights

Personally, I think that there should be a section(or mini-section)about all of the charachters Jason Voorhees has fought, I mean, as far as I know, He is the only killer to fight so many others. It would be great if you could add this, or mention his rivals, like Jason-x, Freddy(twice, and the original plan for 7 or 8 to be the battle movie), Ash and Leatherface. Sorry for buggin' ya.

It sounds a bit trivial and fancruft-y to be honest. Jason's various battles with other icons are covered in the "Appearances" section as it is, we don't need an entire section or sub-section giving undue weight to info which can already be discerned from the article. Without any reliable sources discussing these crossovers, we can't prove why they would be notable enough for a separate section. Us stating on our own behalf that Jason has the highest number of crossover battles would be original research.  Paul  730 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're Right, missed it. Were any of them Canon? I've read'em all and though he seems to die in every bout, he comes back, canon or not. Is it safe to say no comics that are versus are non-canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss canon, as it isn't relevant to the article and Wikipedia isn't a fourm. To quickly answer your question though, I would consider Freddy vs Jason as canon because it's part of the film series, Jason vs Leatherface is explicitly non-canon as far as I know, and Ash vs Freddy vs Jason or whatever its called is presumably canon since it was intended as a film sequel. I don't think there's an exlcusive Friday the 13th canon however, just count what you like.  Paul  730 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly useful source

Being Jason Voorhees - It's basically Kane Hodder talking about the kills and stuff, then I thought of you guys. Not saying I wanna kill you guys but... never mind. Anyway, he also talks about the look of Vorhees, and Jason X - I assume it was around the time of that sequel's release. Dunno if it's of any use to an already Featured Article, but there's a lot I feel that can be used on other relative article... hope it helps. -- Harish - 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it (or you could). If there is repeated information, then we can swap out some of the sources for that one, because most of the sources come from two books, and if we can get a url source that says some of the same things then that gives us some variety in our sourcing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Van Voorhees

What is supposed to be creepy about a Flemish/Dutch last name? 83.76.224.240 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you. Victor Miller just found it creepy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities between Jason and Batman

In someways, couldn't Jason be described as the villian counterpart of Batman Both are shadowy figures with a dark past, and both lack any supernatural powers other than shear strength. Both are dark and reclusive, showing little emotion or mercy for their enemies, and both are often portrayed as effectively invincible. The only difference is that Batman kills those who are threats to the city, while Jason kills those who tread on the grounds of the camp where he died. It may sound outragious, but think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion7 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First, Batman doesn't kill people (at least not with any regularity). Second, this isn't the place to discuss hypothetical symbolisms. If you're talking about improving the article, great, but without a literary analysis it would be original research for us to say anything of the sort.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Jason has a shitload of powers. And Batman never kills outside of Frank Miller/Tim Burton-land.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a pretty silly comparison in all honesty.  Paul  730 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)