Talk:Friday the 13th (2009 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sympathetic not sympathetic

? make up your mind its confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why now?

This project is only just announced, and negotiations are still going on. Either delete this article or rename it to "Untitled Friday the 13th Project", as no one knows the final title yet.

"is an upcoming slasher film remake of the first three to four Friday the 13th films." - This is still uncertain. I suggest to rephrase that sentence, as no official news is out about this. Wikipedia is not a rumor site! -- Kirjapan 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was proded on Oct. 12, so it won't be deleted till Oct. 17.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the official F13 site says "the new film will not be a direct sequel to Freddy vs. Jason or Jason X, but instead seems to be a remake/reimagining of the first 3-4 films of the series." I'm sure this film will get made; I don't think it's a rumor. — Enter Movie 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Fridaythe13thfilms.com" is not an "official" site. A big indication for that is the site went offline a few months back because they didn't pay their bills. Official sites usually have direct connections to those they are representing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are also other website that says it's a remake to the first 3-4 F13 films. If it wasn't, then Pamela would be the killer, and there would be no reason for Jason to murder anyone and wear the hockey mask. — Enter Movie 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing says the film will be made, or when it will be made. Doesn't warrant a separate article per WP:NOTFILM. By the way, Bloody-Disgusting is equivalent to SuperHeroHype.com, which means that unless they are reporting a personal interview they generally are not considered reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloody-Disgusting also have sources, like saying "according to the Hollywood Reporter..."[1] Plus, there are numerous sites that says the film will be made; just search up "friday the 13th remake" on Google. — Enter Movie 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Google hits do not mean anything, please read WP:NOTFILM and WP:CRYSTAL. They don't even have a release date for the film, or a start date for production. Also, use the Hollywood Reporter source instead of the Bloody-Disgusting source, as the HR source is more reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it enough that one of the producers, Brad Fuller, has announced that the film is being made? I mean, if one of the producers of a film says a film is being made, wouldn't you say it's enough reliable information to prove it's being made? — Enter Movie 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Saying the film will be made and actually starting to make it are two different things. Please see Spider-Man film series and Superman film series for examples of how producers said "we are making a film" for 20 years, and even wrote lots of scripts and cast many actors and hired many directors, but nothing ever came to fruitation. WP:NOTFILM states that unless production has started, and that production is itself notable, then the film does not warrant separation on its own. I'm writing a paper right now, but when I'm done I'm going to propose that this page's information be merged to Friday the 13th (franchise) until production actually starts on the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay people, lets look at it from the facts:

• Director Jonathan Liebesman is still negotiating with the production/distribution companies, and have to reach an agreement before the end of 2008.
• No official title have been announced.
• Writers are Damian Shannon and Mark Swift
• According to some users on imdb.com, the producers stated it will be a "re-imagining" of the first 4 films. The official details of the film's plot is cloudy. So beyond this statement, everything else should be considered rumors.

-- Kirjapan 05:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk: Friday the 13th (franchise)#Merge. Please join.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all right with merging. :) — Enter Movie 21:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

dude the the commericals say that its friday the 13th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.36.140 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation(s) for use

• SET VISIT: Jason Voorhees Returns to Camp Crystal Lake for Friday the 13th! interview with the marauding killer himself, design of Jason, references to the other films and Jason's changed personality. Alientraveller (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Set Visit: Friday the 13th - Producers Andrew Form and Brad Fuller on the bloody depths of the Friday the 13th remake.  Paul  730 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Cinematography: courtesy of Kodak. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I used Paul's. Girolamo, I tried to access the Kodak link, but they say they are having some sort of error.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Teaser Poster

Not sure how reliable this is but heres a teaser poster. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that it isn't the "poster" but merely an elongated verison of the ComicCon banner that someone has digitally enhanced (and not the studio). Let's wait for someone a bit more reliable to post it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure either. Just thought I should bring attention to it on wikipedia incase there might be something to it before it's added.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 07:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

American Remake?

I understand that wikipedia has to recognize that people around the world read this and that we shouldn't be American-centric...but really...do we have to say "an American remake"? The original and as far as I know ALL the Friday the 13th movies are American made, therefore saying "an American remake" makes it sound like the original wasn't American and this one is an American remake of a foreign film. Nowadays what really makes an "American" film anyways? Many "American" films are shot in Vancouver, Toronto, Hong Kong, Australia, and other foreign locations, and also released world-wide. Foreign films are often made in American English and released in the US at the same time as world-wide release. Can't we just put in the box at the side a small blurb- origin of film (or something like that) and the country(ies) that it was produced in/filmed in, instead of dumbing down articles and having to clarify things as American or not. With all respect to Hong Kong, Bollywood, and the British film industries Hollywood still has a vast lead over all foreign film industries in both box office take each year and number of films produced, let wikipedia readers guess on each film article whether it was American or not. Even if they guess American on each one, they'll still be right 70% or more.148.78.243.24 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Though I do agree that it's a little clunky in the wording, looking to change Wikipedia practice on film pages should be done at WP:MOSFILMS, not here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think better wording would be to simply call it an American horror film in the first sentence, then discuss it's remake status in the second, possibly with a semi colon. "American remake" is a weird clarification, implying the original wasn't American, as the anon pointed out above. Besides, it's not even a proper remake, it's based on the franchise, not just the first film (although that's a whole other debate).  Paul  730 23:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

I personally disagree with the "Sequel" section. The fact that the producers enjoyed making the film and would like to do another is neither here nor there. They haven't said that they ARE doing a film, only that they hope to be able to come back to the character at some point. If anything this is something for Friday the 13th (franchise), and not this article. The same way Rob Zombie's sequel to his 2007 Halloween is presented.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need a section in this article, but I have no problem with it being added to the Future section of the franchise article.  Paul  730 10:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, yes, put it in the franchise's article; I was simply making the point that it should go somewhere in this series of articles. --The Guy _complain ^edits 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag

The content of the Production section is absolutely fawning and reads like it's promoting the movie. Content like "For this film, Jason's intelligence and thought processing is more defined" (which sort of comes from the actor playing Jason, hardly a reliable source when he's promoting his movie) or "They also did not want to spend a lot of time covering Jason's childhood experiences, because they felt it would take away the mystery of that made the character so great" (a quote from one of the two writers of the screenplay, again, not reliable) doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Mr. Darcy talk 17:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have an wrong interpretation of advertisement. Of course this stuff is reliable. First, Mears is explaining their take on Jason, which isn't advertisement. The writers are also explaining exactly what they wanted to cover with the film (the writing process). You have no real evidence of this article violating WP:NPOV. Please read WP:SOAP, as this article clearly does not (<--inserted missing word) promote this film in violation of WP:NPOV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that the article is slanted in favor of the film (this article clearly does promote this film in violation of WP:NPOV.). That's great. Let's get to work on cutting down the fawning content. And incidentally, the quotes I listed above aren't from reliable sources because of the obvious bias of those sources (they have financial stakes in the success of the film). Whether Jason's intelligence is more defined is a question for, say, movie critics, or other unbiased third parties. Mr. Darcy talk 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NOR and WP:RS, there is nothing wrong with the sources. They are interviews with the crew on exactly what went into making the film. Thus, they are reliable, because they are what we call "from the horse's mouth". At no point in there does it say "this film is awesome" (that's promoting the film). The whole point is that they are discussing the changes they have made to the character for this film, which is encyclopedic. The reason the article does not violate NPOV is because it in no way takes a side. There are no sides to take. It's objective information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some wording could be adjusted and some additional sources added, perhaps some more mainstream sources, but the {{advert}} tag is not appropriate in this fashion. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bigs, I think you skipped a word in your first comment because you do say this violates NPOV. Just wondering if that's what's causing confusion. As it is, I agree with you that the sources and information are perfectly fine, but perhaps the article prose could be altered to reiterate that it is those peoples' opinion that such-and-such made Jason great and more defined or whatever. Because those sentences Darcy quoted do kinda present opinion as fact.  Paul  730 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I corrected this. I didn't know what he was referring to originally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire passage is: "For this film, Jason's intelligence and thought processing is more defined. Mears likens the character to John Rambo, Tarzan and the Abominable Snowman from Looney Tunes. Jason is similar to Rambo because the audience will see him setting the other characters up to fall into his traps. Like Rambo, he is more calculated because he feels that he has been wronged and he is fighting back. He is meant to be more sympathetic in this film." -- I can see where some could be altered, but it's primarily backed by the examples they give in their interview. It was written when we first created the article, so it probably needs to be tightened anyway. As for the second example MrDarcy gives, I completely disagree that that is either promotional, or even needs rewriting. It's a simple statement of what the writers decided to focus on. Every sentence should not begin with "John Doe stated", or another derivative, because that's just poor writing. It becomes repetitive, as the average reader should be able to distinguish when you are still reporting someone else's words, and when you're inserting your own opinion. Granted, the first example with Jason as Rambo does need adjusting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I kind of disagree with the NPOV tag as well. First, it's stating that the entire article fails NPOV. Second, the entire article is production information (nothing analytical) that is just regurgitated from the crew, so how exactly can would present it in a manner that is bias?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the tag is appropriate, the article is not riddled with non-neutral statements but I am getting a weak positively-weighted glow from it. Here's some examples:

• Using a clump of text copied-and-pasted from a website to fill an entire section (plot) isn't acceptable any which way, but for that plot synopsis to be an advertising blurb.. we've just started reading and the article's already sunk. Wording like "one of the most terrifying specters in American film history" does not belong there at all. That source should be used to contruct a similar, neutral synopsis in an editor's own words, if anything.
• Under 'development': "Ultimately, it was decided that Friday the 13th would not be an origin story, but that the audience would get a sense of the history as the film progressed." What the audience got a sense of is up to them, not the writers, this is very blurb-like wording and needs altering.
• Under 'writing': "because they felt it would take away the mystery of that made the character so great." This is not in quotes, this isn't any crew member talking it's what WP is saying to its readers. Again, it's blurb and a watchful eye needs to be cast over the article.
• Still under 'writing': "Unfortunately, at a rate of $100,000 a carcass," unfortunately is a judgement, not a neutral statement, just state the facts without opinion.
• Under 'creating Jason': "Mears also relies on the people behind the camera, which he likens the experience to a NASCAR race. Mears is the driver and the effects team is his pit crew." Again this is not quoted, or summarized neutrally, it repeats sappy interview language as bald fact instead of being tied to reality.
• Not netruality issues but I noticed the article constantly slips between past and present tense, there are several small errors and it could do with a good proof-read.

So.. I don't think the problems are major (except for the plot section), but the non-neutral aspects along with the lack of any outside opinions yet does slant this article. Someoneanother 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The film will be out on Friday, so the plot is not really a major concern (but feel free to summarize it if you wish). I adjusted the Development section. In the writing section, the entire thing is: "The writers wanted to take the film "back-to-the-basics", with a leaner, meaner Jason. They also did not want to spend a lot of time covering Jason's childhood experiences, because they felt it would take away the mystery of that made the character so great." -- It's rather clear when you're reading the whole thing that this is all talking about what the writers have said. If you want to verify that, then you go to the source, that is why it is there. Over quoting in article's results in poor quality. So does the constant "He said/She said" format. One should be able to assume that an average reader is going to understand that when you start something with "According to John", and then spend the next 3 sentences discussing what something John did that it was all coming from John himself. The same goes for the Nascar thing. I've adjusted it to be more representative of Mears's thoughts on it, but there is no need to quote something if it's easily paraphrased. You'll have to point to this "past to present" tense switching.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dropping in 'so great' is surplus to requirements, that they felt it would reduce the air of mystery surrounding the character can be stated without it. All the NASCAR thing is actually saying is: "The worker relies on his enablers in the same way a worker in another field relies on their enablers." We know that the cast relies on the crew, they don't just show up on an empty set and flap about. It's stating the obvious, qualifying it with an analogy just increases the amount of empty words. Past and present tense example: "Fuller and Form have thirteen young actors in Friday the 13th, whereas in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre they only had five. The pair had to continually recast parts to find the group that worked best together. This recasting process would extend all the way to the start of film. Richard Burgi, who was cast as the sheriff, did not sign on until twelve hours before he had to start filming his scenes." They have x actors, but they had x actors on another film, Burgi was cast rather than is cast. That text may well have been placed during filming and it's just something that needs updating. Someoneanother 05:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another example of past/present tense is in the creating Jaso section, it starts off in the past tense then goes on to say "The character will have hair loss, skin rashes, and the traditional deformities in his face, but it will be in a way that allows the audience to see a human side to him." Again there's a slightly unqualified statement, whether or not the audience sees a human side is for the audience (and critics) to decide. Again, far from the end of the world, but it needs qualifying with something like "hoped to allow the audience.." Someoneanother 05:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of cleaning that up. The Casting section was written when it was happening, and hasn't been touched other than to move it around in the primary section. I didn't even pay attention to the "great" part of that sentence, I must have looked right over it. As for the Nascar thing, Mears actually explains how the special effects crew would give him suggestions. He wasn't speaking of the general crew (like the director), but specifically the special effects crew because they are coaching him on how to create subtle movements through all of this make-up. That's not the same as the automatic direction you receive from the director.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of all the changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better, nice work. Someoneanother 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The screenwriters also give some neutral information in their interviews.98.97.38.6 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another poster

I have uploaded another poster, what do the editors think about changing the old one?Sha-Sanio (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be ironic for you, the current one we have is actually the most recent poster that was issued. The one you uploaded to Wikipedia (and I really wish you would start discussing these things on talk pages before even uploading an image that never gets used) was actually the first teaser poster that was released for the film. This one is the official theatrical poster that was released afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know that, besides that I don't be so mad, when other people try to help you with the articles. I'm going, because I'm sittung here for an hour and little bit longer and the Windows doesn't want to start. I'm going mad with all those waiting and all those Vista-Problems. These system should be replaced not me.Sha-Sanio (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless let's discuss the image topic, this image is much more impressive and we could add it somewhere else in Wikipedia. When my computer has had started an hour ago, then I could have added some more info to the fair use rationale, but taht was an hour ago. Tommorow I'll start working earlier, so don't worry about that. We could use the image for the Character srticle as a current picture of Jason Verhoes, what do you think about it?Sha-Sanio (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

I prepped the reception section with what we'll need for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I hid the text because MetaCritic is still waiting for their first 4 reviews, and Rotten Tomatoes only has 6 reviews which isn't a representative sample to really publish. When the film is officially released we should get a better number and all we'll have to do is unhide the text and fill in the real percentages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly positive IGN review - 4/5!  Paul  730 03:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References to Original Series?

It has been said that the film will contain references to the original series and in the small plot summary, I think I noticed one. The main character Clay seems like an homage to the character Rob from Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter. Rob was hiking through Crystal Lake and it was eventually revealed that he was searching for Jason to get revenge for his sister Sandra, a minor character who was killed by Jason in the previous movie, Friday the 13th Part III. Rob was the character who explained to the other protagonists who Jason Voorhees was through some newspaper articles he had cut out. I mean, even though there are obvious differences between the two there are also some even more obvious similarities so perhaps it should get a mention? Byakuya Truelight (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like nothing more than a rumor. However, if one were to find a reference that stated that allusions to the original series were intentional, then it could be added. Otherwise, it would be speculation and original research. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The "Writing" section already mentions some things that Shannon and Swift have confirmed that they put in as homages, like Mark's wheelchair or Pamela's sweater.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Bay template

I have a Michael Bay template on my page, why is it not added to this article? Maybe I should do this.Sha-Sanio (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Michael did not direct this film. He only produced it. If we added a template for every producer that has produced multiple films then we'd be overloading the page. The director is the key figure for the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected???

Why is it impossible to edit this article?FashVic (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) When I have finished the plot soon, I would like to add to the article, why is this not possible?FashVic (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary is there, doesn't need to be added.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lawerence

whomever wrote the summary left the fact that Lawerence was one of the friends.70.171.80.56 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you can add him in. Which one was Lawrence?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The black guy.70.171.80.56 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I checked out IMDb and saw his picture and changed it. I should have let you know. I'm horrible with names, so I sometimes get some character names after I first see them mixed up. It should be all straight now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Box office

Can someone add the opening box office for the film and how well the movie did compared to other horror remakes? I don't have permission to edit the page but the source can be found here http://coronacomingattractions.com/news/friday-13th-remake-kills-box-office —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screenhead (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already on the page. We don't need to add anything compared to other remakes until the end of this film's run. Right now it's not really representative to discuss it compared to the other remakes who have finished their box office run (unless it passes them all early on).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the overall weekend gross be added to the article? We have a couple of numbers, but not one that represents the whole weekend. Here's a possibly usable link. 156.56.170.200 (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This movie opened with $40.7 million http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2009&wknd=07&p=.htm for the 3-day weekend and $45.2 million for the 4-day weekend http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2009&wknd=07a&p=.htm. Where in the heck is the $60 million number coming from? It's obviously speculation that was nowhere near the actual numbers and should be removed.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Was based on estimates done after Friday's numbers, when it opened with 19 million. It clearly didn't keep up the pace it was setting and it'll probably get removed if it already hasn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fan Reaction

The answers gonna be that's unencyclopedic or something but Fan reaction has been way more positive than critics. I'm mentioning this because fans have basically hated (unsure about Freddy vs Jason) all the F13 films since part VIII. now everyones saying stuff like it's the best jason and other stuff. It is worth mention because if fans have hated the last few films and declare the series dead and then say it's the best.--VampireKen (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2009

Personally I think its the other way round, I liked FVJ but wasn't very keep on this. Fact is, in the original Friday, Pamela was the killer. To me this remake did not explain enough, it was not detailed enough and really did not explain enough about Jason. You don't even get to see Jason at the Camp. Obviously this is my opinion, but I'm sure many agree. This is just another pointless slasher remake just like Amity-ville and Texas Chainsaw Jay794 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussions such as this one away from this talk page, as it is not a forum. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start this as a forum. I asked whether or not the fan reaction should go on the page. Since this is the first film people have like in a long time and the film is getting better reviews from viewers and fans then critics. I have seen other articles where fan reaction is added which is why I was asking about this. That is all i'm asking. Not opinions on the new film.--VampireKen (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is verification. How do we verify how "fandom" feels about a movie one way or another? Forums etc are certainly no reliable source, because the opinions of a few randomers on a message board aren't necessarily indicative of an entire group. If we were to comment on it in the article, we'd need some kind of solid source reporting on the fan reaction. There's also the question of whether the fans' opinion is even notable.  Paul  730 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILMS, fan reaction is based on the CinemaScore (which I have, and am adding), a part from that it's based on the box office revenue. We do not comment on fan reaction in a general sense, because generally speaking no one else does (except for specialized websites and public forums).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

preceeded by...

FREDDY VS. JASON? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.238.51 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all part of one large franchise of films. Continuity is not something that is distinguished when we put "FvJ" in the "preceded by" section. If we considered continuity then a lot of films would have multiple films in those sections, because various sequels rewrite continuity. Halloween would have multiple continuities. That is why films are listed their based on their connection to the previous films and their chronological order. This is part of the same film series, it just reboots the continuity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

This is the 2nd Friday the 13th film that actually has a body count of 13, the first being The Final Chapter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlayn18 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

cool. Please do not write Trvia questions on the discussion page. They are actually discouraged on articles as well. Just remember that for next time.--VampireKen (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects

• Friday the 13th: Compositing Kills at Camp Crystal Lake

Visual effects coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks Erik. I have a couple more interviews with cast and crew that I have yet to run through. I'll try and implement all of this soon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)