Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
I am kinda confused on the release date of this movie 2003, other articles (and my remembrance) suggest release 1998 instead. The article shows no information of the theatrical release having 3D footage, which it did too.
Would like to discuss this more. Hallow88 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have of the 1998 date? IMDb says 2003, AllMovie says 2003, and Allmusic says the soundtrack was released in 2003. Here is Empire Online's review, which again says 2003. In fact, here is a copy of the movie poster, which says "August 2003" on it. I'm not seeing anything that even hints at 1998. None of the posters or sites I checked said anything about 3D that I could see either. You're going to need to provide some reliable sources. Matt Deres (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except those sources don't actually say a movie was released in 1998. In fact one Do you mean those articles hint the 2003 may be true? If so I agree although I'd go further and say they make it sound very likely the 2003 is correct and not the 1998. One explicitly says
It didn’t actually come to fruition until 2003, but most fans of the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises know that New Line had been trying to get Freddy vs. Jason off the ground for many years by that point.
and the other says
However, back in 1997, New Line Cinema thought they had the story locked down for the ultimate Horror showdown and proceeded to begin the promotional campaign for the film. The campaign was short lived with the many changes in direction for the Freddy vs Jason causing delays, but one infamous flyer was sent out to announce a release year for the titans of terror. Thanks to a fan named "Jesse", we now can show our readers the promo sheet that announced the film's release for 1998. Check it out below and let us know what you think of New Line jumping the gun on the release date announcement.
Not RS obviously but several commentators seem to agree there was no movie in 1998. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)11:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing Newspapers.com (pay site) for 1998 through 2003, in 1999 the papers are saying Freddy vs. Jason is in pre-production. In 2001 they're saying they expect a 2002 release. In 2002 they're saying the script isn't done yet. In early 2003 they're saying it's expected later in the year. In early August 2003 they're saying it's to be in theaters on the 15th, and that proves to be the case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still stuck on how anyone could think that the movie came out in 1998. Literally the second line of the first link says "It didn’t actually come to fruition until 2003, but most fans of the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street franchises know that New Line had been trying to get Freddy vs. Jason off the ground for many years by that point." The second link is all about how, even way back in 1997, the movie was in planning. Clicking the first link there brings you to this page, which pretty clearly says "U.S. Release August 15, 2003" right near the top. What part is unclear or ambiguous? Maybe development hell will help you understand the years-long delay. Alien vs. Predator had a similar decade-plus wait time.
As to the second question, I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen nothing that suggests any part of the movie was filmed in 3D. Please provide a source. I don't understand what the purpose would be of only having one scene in 3D, but even if that were so, someone somewhere must have mentioned it - find it in a reliable source and it can be included. Matt Deres (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory link to Development hell, which is the term for a movie which is announced at a certain time, and then takes way too long to actually make. Though not listed in the article, given the timeline, this sounds like a classic example of development hell. --Jayron32 17:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I'd done that... :-) Matt Deres (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Wish I'd seen that you'd done that... :) --Jayron32 19:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now if you look at any VHS or DVD 2004 version of "Freddy Vs. Jason", it reads at the top Platinum series, how can it be labeled this way if it was just released that year? Hallow88 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "top Platinum" are marketing terms created by the film studio for its DVD releases. It means nothing in this context. --Jayron32 19:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article talks of a 1998 version which would have been made by a different director. https://www.screengeek.net/2017/08/01/abandoned-1998-freddy-vs-jason-movie-trailer-surfaces/
I remember seeing this movie at the cinema but, never seen this movie as the home version release, DVD, VHS, Blu-Ray. Going to watch now, maybe the whole movie is different, I will remember.
Also "A Nightmare on Elm Street" "Freddy's Dead, The Final Nightmare" only had the ending in 3D too.Hallow88 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As with others, I remain mystified what the confusion is. All the sources you're presented seem to agree that a movie was in development in 1997, to the extent that previews were released but the movie was never released and abandoned and instead a largely or completely new movie was made and released in 2003. No one else seems to remember this movie you claim you saw (and I'm including the plenty of commentators on the links you've provided) and it's very unlikely that there would have been a release for such a major franchise without anyone knowing about it. I mean even if it was some very limited release intended to preserve some expiring rights or something, I think we can be sure someone would have noted it instead of everyone saying it didn't happen until 2003. It doesn't even seem like you saw a trailer in the cinema, since the sources seem to agree it was simply shown at a trade show although this is the sort of minor thing which could have happened with few people knowing about it so I wouldn't completely rule it out. And it's also possible you saw the promotional flyer in the cinemas. There's also a reasonable chance that the tradeshow trailer leaked sometime in the past before the recent fuss so there's also a decent chance you may have seen it somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this doesn't even seem to be an example of the Mandela effect like Shazaam since as said before, from what I can tell few people seem to think it happened. (Although there are some similarities in the reluctance to accept maybe your memory is wrong I guess [1][2][3][4].) Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is possible, I watched the 2003 DVD and the movie seemed the same as I remembered it except one scene I had never seen before. The ending fight scene did have a lot of objects being pointed toward the screen like a 3D movie does though.Hallow88 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I find it questionable if anything is possible, but that's more of a philosophical argument irrelevant to the RD or this question. In terms of the issues under discussion, it is still technically possible that a movie was released in 1998, but the chances somewhere between slim to none. They've gotten even less by the fact the only evidence we even had of such a movie was your likely faulty memory, but you've now found that in fact the movie you claim you saw in 1998 is the one more or less the one which came out in 2003. And the evidence suggests the 2003 movie did not exist in 1998. (And I suspect even stronger evidence of this could be found by a look into the cast and crew.) The only difference is you don't remember one scene, but that's hardly uncommon with human memory, I mean we already have very strong evidence you're remembering one details wrong namely the release date. Of course it's also possible the scene was simply excluded, especially if you're also remembering incorrectly where you saw the movie and it was on TV or video release and the scene was censored or removed for some other reason. (I'm assuming you checked and made sure that the version you saw is the same as the theatrical release since otherwise I don't know why we've even discussing this.) Or for that matter if theatrical releases are censored where you live. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a theatrical movie, go to your local library and see if you can look at back issues in hard copy or microfilm of your local newspaper. Then look at the weekly movie released during 1998 and see if anything rings a bell. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, didn't think of that. I was wondering where I could find information like that so long ago.
I agree it seems very impossible, but I did see this movie at the cinema and it could not have been 2003 because I never went to the cinema that year.
I will try to look farther into this like you suggested, if anything of interest you will here again about this.Hallow88 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to point out some info, doesn't give a release date but, the Sheriff cop car used in the movie is a 1995 Ford Crown Victoria, it would be strange for this model to be used in a 2003 movie.Hallow88 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure were all on the same page here, why on https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329101/ under Cast & Crew for Visual Effects is there a ton of 3D credits given? 3D credits for a non-3D movie?Hallow88 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those looks like stuff like 3D artist. The crediting requirements for movies can be quite complicated, but especially for a 2003 movie there's a fair chance that 3D artist simply meant an artist who worked in 3D creating models and stuff which has been very common for a very long time even if there was never intention for the show (be it movie or TV series) to be shown in 3D. For example Black Hawk Down was from what I can tell never released in 3D [5] and there was probably never any intention to. Yet it too has 3D artists listed. [6]
That said I think most of us are not ruling out the idea some part of Freddy vs Jason was ever intended to, or shown in, 3D. While there were some minor initial comments, I think most of us, or at least me, have completely ignored that aspect as not being interesting enough to look in to. (Although admittedly probably unlikely considering the movie was in 2003, or if we believe you 1998, meaning it would only be 3D in iMax or via anaglyph and in most cases where people went to the effort in those days, it's still remembered as a notable part. E.g. [7][8]. Rather than something completely forgotten about [9].) If you wanted that aspect to get attention, you probably shouldn't have kept insisting the movie was released in 1998 despite the fact your own sources and all other evidence insisted the opposite.
BTW, movies use old vehicles all the time. It depends on the setting of the movie, what is available, what the director or whatever wants etc. In fact, it would generally be considered a blooper for a movie set in 1999 for example, to use a vehicle that wasn't released to 2000, no matter if the movie came out in 2003. A 1995 vehicle would probably be fine. I have no idea whether Freddy vs Jason was set in any specific time, but movies being set years before their release date is hardly uncommon. Probably even more so when the movie has gone through years of development hell. Horror movies probably also like to use older vehicles more often, especially when they want to create that aspect of 'will the car breakdown and/or fail to start'?
Again I have no idea if any of this applies to the movie, and frankly I don't really care, but to suggest a 2003 movie using a 1995 car is somehow strange is just intrinsically wrong. And of course, while the sources suggest the 2003 movie was largely different from the one being made in 1997, I can't rule out from what I've seen that some parts were re-used. Anyway, I think as with everyone else in this discussion, I'm beginning to find it very boring. If you want to continue to believe a movie was released when all evidence suggest it wasn't, that's up to you I guess.
Boring? I find it interesting myself, also its because all other sources point to a 2003 date as the release, so Wikipedia would and only can agree.
However, is there any article I overlooked from after August 1998 and before 2003 release date (that is dated and unchanged) that shows the wondering of why it wasn't being released? If so, I think that it might seem more accurate and believable.Hallow88 (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's this with a post dated 2001 talking about how it seems to be dead [10] and a 2003 post excited that it was finally released. Then there are plenty of sources talking about how it's still upcoming well after 1998 e.g. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] possibly [19][20]. Considering Jason X was apparently released before Freddy vs Jason and after 1998, it's likely there will be plenty more if you look into stuff discussing it's release. I'm sure these won't be enough, just as I'm sure if every single person you think was involved in the 1998 project personally told you there as no 1998 movie, the owner of every single cinema you've ever attended told you they never ran a Freddy vs Jason Movie before 2003 etc etc, wouldn't be enough. But whatever I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone I once knew insisted that a particular historical event happened on some different date than everyone knew it actually did. When I showed them a newspaper with the right date on it they said the newspaper's publication date was wrong. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It strikes me that the Guardian, or if not other sources I'm sure you can find discussing the possibly upcoming Freddy vs Jason between 1998 - 2003, are probably print sources. So I'm sure scans and microfiche copies of these could be found. But I'm also sure these are invented fakes someone has gone through the trouble to add to whatever collection these are in; and/or whoever was writing it was an idiot and didn't realise the movie was released, perhaps because by that time somehow everyone had forgotten it already like they have now, perhaps because it was such a bad movie that everyone made the collective decision to block it out of their memory despite the fact it's exactly the same as the 2003 release except for one scene. In fact a quick look and found Internet Archive has a copy of the Tripod page which they say they retrieved on 2003 03 06 with only the 2001 update [21]. (They didn't archive again until 2004 02 17 when they have the post-release/final? update [22].) They have a few other versions so you can partially see the updates being added [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Frankly I'm slightly confused by the dates surrounding some of these updates but whatever the case I suspect either the author was writing these confusing updates to fool someone ~17 years in the future or the Internet Archive is lying to us about when they archives this website or both. Likewise Internet Archive copies of any of the other sources. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please simplify the last paragraph to make it more easy to understand? Nil Einne?
Kind of confused on what you point is?Hallow88 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, it probably was released 2003, just seemed strange to my memory is all.Hallow88 (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking anything up, can you tell us what events were in the news when you saw it? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before uploading photos of eventing rider Lissa Green on Commons, I would like to know if I should put her in "Eventing riders from Australia" (she is competing for Australia [30]) or "Eventing riders from the United Kingdom" (she is living there [31])? // Zquid (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? --Jayron32 17:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not both?" - that's a good question... Simple answer: I didn't think of that! Thank you, I'll use them both. // Zquid (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
