Worst Jason

Discussion in 'Slashers' started by Fistfuck, Jan 30, 2017.

?

Who gave the weakest performance as Jason?

  1. Warrington Gillette/Steve Dash

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Richard Brooker

    1 vote(s)
    4.0%
  3. Ted White

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. CJ Graham

    2 vote(s)
    8.0%
  5. Kane Hodder

    5 vote(s)
    20.0%
  6. Ken Kirzinger

    12 vote(s)
    48.0%
  7. Derek Mears

    5 vote(s)
    20.0%
  1. Natas

    Natas Theres no such thing as the boogyman

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    Yeaaaa remember when Hersey's used to cost a nickle!?!?!?! The good old days.

    I don't compare the 09 remake to the Friday films of the 80s. Useless. But I do know that when I saw the Friday the 13th remake in the theaters, I had a fucking blast. Then when I bought it on dvd and watched it, had fun too. Watched it a couple of weeks ago on F13 on the projector....... lotttaaa fun. Beer helps though. It's mindless but it's fucking Jason. Love it.
     
    Steel76 likes this.
  2. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Again, Watas, you were in high school during the Britney/NSync/Ricky Martin/Jennifer Lopez craze days.


    I don't either, technically. I knew it sucked when I found out it was being produced by Platinum Dunes and directed by the director of Texas Chainsaw Massacre '03.

    In fact, I believe I've gone on-record already in this thread by saying any Friday the 13th / "Jason" film associated with New Line is instant backwash.
     
  3. Natas

    Natas Theres no such thing as the boogyman

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    You've said that to me twice now and I still don't understand? LOL Very bizarre. You're correct though, when I was in Junior High and High School, those acts were very popular. I'm aware and I remember. But I fail to see any point? Are you saying me and my friends listened to that? Cuz ah yeah, very wrong. I watched many a J-Lo music videos on mute, though. I'll quote a good buddy of mine from east Texas any time he sees a woman with a good bum "Man, I'd eat that ass like cold pizza"

    Anyways...... so are you saying you never watched the Friday the 13th remake? Made your mind up based on the Producing company and director?
     
  4. Natas

    Natas Theres no such thing as the boogyman

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    Now I got "livin la vida loca" stuck in my head!!! Thanks man! Gawwleeeee LOL
     
  5. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,395
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    I've never had a problem with any Jason performance, Ken's is just the least memorable. If we're considering all Jasons young and old my vote would be for the generic TV commercial-looking kid from the JASON TAKES MANHATTAN flashbacks - so boneheaded and goes completely against the whole essence of the series.

    Part 3 I've always had reservations with and part of that lies with the way Jason's made to be some goof trying to rape girls in Higgins Haven, but as far as the actual performance goes, I think Brooker does a pretty good job. The fight with Kimmell at the end is a series high point for me, and the way he reacts after getting the axe to the face is iconic - the arms just kind of mindlessly shooting up evokes the impulses of a forever child.
     
    zbinks and Workshed like this.
  6. Harry Warden

    Harry Warden Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,848
    Likes Received:
    1,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Hermitage, Pennsylvania
    You do understand that the entire franchise is fictional right?? Since when do horror films, especially those made to simply make as much money as possible, need to make any sense? I understand what you mean, but were talking about horror films here. Half of the plots over the past hundred years would probably never actually happen in real life. For example, I don't think that a man made of human body parts like Frankenstein is actually going to grow a conscience either or have the capacity to know the difference between right or wrong or long for a bride, but a las, he was portrayed that way in films. Of course Jason could never survive any of the torments you describe, but it's fun watching him survive it anyway, though I will grant you stupid and outrageous many times. People want him to be superhuman so they can get to the next sequel. That's why I liked part 2's Jason the best. You at least had a sense he was vulnerable.
     
    Natas and Steel76 like this.
  7. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Read.
    My.
    Other.
    Posts in this thread.

    I explained very clearly that that first post you replied to was basically framed on other people's arguments.
     
  8. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,638
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm pretty sure Alice was in the town of Crystal Lake in Part 2 so Jason really wasn't traveling too far to go kill her.
     
  9. MisterTwister

    MisterTwister The Schlock King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,068
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lake Wales, FL
    Don't have a worst Jason. I think they all have something I like.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2017
  10. Body Boy

    Body Boy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I see the "nostalgia glasses" as working both ways.

    It's entirely possible that people cannot see certain, uh, positive qualities of the remake due to a blind love of the past.

    As well, considering the remake went back and fed nostalgia by being the first Crystal Lake slasher in the series since 1988, defenders of it may also be blinded by its sheen and illusion, rather than seeing the glaring writing flaws within.

    Some will hate the film just for being a remake, others will love it because it's the furthest we've gotten from space jumping demon. Eh.
     
  11. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I wish. But, what I wish even more is that the piece of shit had never been made.


    Oh, so do I (by the way, I believe the correct expression is: nostalgia "goggles") (the glasses thing is a reference to They Live because many people have that film on the brain) (I don't blame them, considering the global sociopolitical climate of current events and the horrifying real-life effects and human toll of modern capitalism). Some people actually have their nostalgia goggles on, other people are realists. Not because they get a prize for it or anything. In fact, people who live in a bubble tend to enjoy their lives more (there is no shortage of real-world examples).

    But there is still a gigantic difference between how both films were made and the times they were made.

    As we all know, Friday the 13th took some ideas from Halloween (same as other ideas were taken from Bava's Bay of Blood). Because that's how filmmaking worked back then. Films ripped each other off but directors were still allowed to have personal individual styles and the aesthetic qualities of one film didn't have to be identical to the films they were copying. Films were allowed to be different.

    With the remake, there is no difference between it and every other torture-trope-flavored "slasher" film. Slashers are actually pretty much dead. They're now survival films, ala- Wolf Creek, Inside, etc. Whereas 70's slashers were more like stalkers (Black Christmas) and the tropes were very rooted-in focused on the killer's behavior (the heavy breathing noises, their peeping through windows, their nasty habit of calling victims and never saying anything when they answer back "hello?", etc), millennial slashers are hunters. Whenever a victim runs, it's directly comparable to a wounded animal fleeing from a shooter. The camera lingers on the victims' behavior: their sweating in warm weather, their torn / dirtied / muddied clothing, bloodied skin / feet from running barefooted / sleeveless, their labored breathing in cold weather. Specifically, after the killer begins to strike.

    I mean: remember the 80's? Remember the whole "you're not supposed to see the monster" thing and how John Carpenter said he wanted to change that with The Thing? Well, there's also the famed trope of "the movie's over when the monster dies." Which dates back to Universal monsters. So, "fear" or the thing to be feared was kept "in the dark" for most of the running time. Which is why the 70's slashers spent more time on the victims before the killers strike. In the 80's, as Siskel & Ebert coined the term "dead teenager movie," the movies were about the deaths and therefore the killers had to be featured onscreen more. But, while more victims were consumed per movie, the deaths were no more drawn out. Killers were still able to be mysterious. The ending reveals might indulge in a little psychology but we didn't typically see every detail of the killer's life just like we didn't have to watch victims dragged to underground bunkers and empty warehouses to be tortured. (Hello, again- Wolf Creek, Inside, etc.)

    And, what I've been saying all these years, is that you can't have a state in the genre where you have to "live" the process of characters being tortured or slowly dying by struggling for half an hour a-piece in every single film that gets made because it becomes desensitizing, to say nothing about stifling creativity. Movies need to tackle different world subjects, ideas. If every film is made the same way, you get the same damn thing. The same victims. Same deaths. Same look. Same feel. And you gain nothing more than you had the last time. Horror needs variety or it dies. And like I've been saying for years, horror is a business and the practice of selling horror films in the millennium is that variety is not good for business. People pay to see more of the same, so we get the same. Every time.

    So... this whole discussion of "it's really a good movie- people just won't take off their nostalgia goggles" is utterly and totally absurd. I "grew up" with Friday the 13th, so it would make sense for me to be too attached to it. But... I didn't "grow up" with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, did I? Wait, I guess only I can answer that question. The answer is: no. I rented the movie on VHS from Blockbuster in 2000. I was 17 and had never seen it before. I didn't really get it. What I saw I didn't even like. But I was 17. People have this weird thing about being treated with respect at 17, but I was an idiot at 17 and I tend to regard most people the same way. I acquired the DVD at age 20, several months before the remake was released, and it took me awhile to get into it. I now own 3 DVD's of the film and rank it #2 on my Top 100 list.

    When I saw the E! channel "behind the scenes" making-of the remake in 2003 (when I was 20 and still didn't really appreciate the original film)... I was shaking in my chair with fury. That was over 13 years ago, that was 4 years before I became a member of this board. I repeat: I did not grow up with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But I respected the original film enough to know this remake was spitting in the face of the original and everything it stood for was an insult to horror and fans who love the genre. Then, the remakes of Dawn of the Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, The Fog, Black Christmas, etc, all came out. And I knew all of them were in the same boat. None of them were creative endeavors. They were cash-ins. They were soulless Hollywood shit. Made by studio executives who hired directors to shoot scripts that were already selected, to make money. Not to make art.

    The directors didn't care any more about making art either. They were in it for the money. Meanwhile, Mick Garris was getting the directors of Halloween, Phantasm, Re-Animator, The Howling, The Changeling, Suspiria, An American Werewolf in London, Fright Night, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, It's Alive, Hellraiser, and others together... Why? Because he knew he could rope them into a short-lived Showtime project? NO! Masters of Horror was for years before the television project a series of celebratory dinners with famed directors of horror films of years past because... they LOVED THE GENRE THEY WORKED IN!!! They didn't just squirt out a movie and collect their paychecks. They were artists! They cared about the films they made and the fans who made their films legendary. And they still stand by those films and their fans: in some cases, over 40+ years later. That is saying something. Because... it means something.

    So... no, I'm not apt to buy into this "nostalgia goggles" thing. I respect the genre as an artform because there was actually a time where it existed as an artform. That's not something I have some childhood attachment to and to insist otherwise is stupid- it's something I've gained an appreciation for over time. Something I'm still learning about (as I see amazing stuff I should have seen years ago like Island of Lost Souls, Vampyr, I Walked with a Zombie, Blood Feast, Kuroneko). And it's been nearly 2 decades since films like Wrong Turn, The Ring remake, The Sixth Sense, and other movies changed the genre completely. (I'm not saying all those movies were bad, but they introduced cliches/tropes they and their clones just copied without any care or tact.)

    And if I want technically proficient but soulless crap, I'll go back to the 80's and watch enjoyably bad movies like Silent Night, Deadly Night or The Initiation or Nightmare on Elm Street 5. At least they knew how to hold a camera still (or in-place when they panned). And their soundtracks didn't sound like they were copying the latest Ashley Judd, Brittany Murphy thriller. It is not in any way bone-headed to say the millennium killed horror. It's very accurate to say that the business practices that give us most of the horror films we consume since the start of the millennium have changed the ability for horror to be as great as it once was.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2017
    studio1 likes this.
  12. Natas

    Natas Theres no such thing as the boogyman

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    Chris Sabo is all about that nostalgia!

    upload_2017-2-1_7-34-34.jpeg
     

Share This Page