How will F1309 fit in with the timeline? [Archive]

View Full Version : How will F1309 fit in with the timeline?

Jason3000

01-26-2009, 05:22 AM

It's not a remake, it's not a sequel, it's not a re-imaging...so WTF? How are we supposed to put this in the Friday the 13th series timeline? Does it belong in that timeline or does an entire new time line get started? Or does it have the same timeline up to a certain point? Maybe we will get a better understanding of this answer when we see the movie and we know more things, but for now we do know the movie is supposed to take place in 2008/2009...and Judging by the F13 timeline, wouldn't Jason have been 'captured' (Jason X starts off in 2009 i believe)?

Honestly, i would hate it if a new timeline had to be started for this...but i think this might just be the case.

Rich

01-26-2009, 05:25 AM

Patrick

01-26-2009, 05:40 AM

IMO it is a remake/reimagining and an entirely new start to the franchise. So I will most likely consider this a fresh start. I have just assumed that's what this is to begin with.

NW77

01-26-2009, 06:43 AM

Like some said, this is a different F13th & has no connection with any of the other films. Thus, the new film has it own timeline now. No doubt we will see a new timeline once they do sequels to this new film.

Jason3000

01-26-2009, 07:01 AM

Chad Baker Lives

01-26-2009, 07:21 AM

This is why I'm not a fan of remakes as a general rule unless they either completely update the story and start over or stay completely true to the original including the time in which it took place.

Timberwolf Entertainment

01-26-2009, 07:52 AM

But i don't understand how you can say this is a 'new timeline' when it's obviously based off of stuff that happened in the old timeline. Jason still drowned as a young child, Jasons mom still sought revenge on the conucelors, etc. So are we saying now instead of all that stuff happening in 1980, in this 'new timeline' Jason was born in the 80s, drowned in the 90s, and his mom sought revenge in the 00s?

Yes.. thats exactly what they are saying.

The best examples are Bond and Batman... all the Bonds and all the Batman's have the same elements, but they are not part of the same timeline. Batman's parents are killed in ALL the timelines.. but it is still seperate.

So Jason drowning is still part of it. Also he actual wears the hood in this film and gets the Hockey mask.. so it has some elements of 2/3. However, he doesn't steal the mask from Shelly anymore (I assume..lol)

1989's Batman had the Joker and Harvey Dent, but its not connect to The Dark Knight. Same with Bond... some would say Dr. No till View To a Kill are sequels, but after than the ages and the times changed alot on with the exception of "Q" who the kept more out of respect and fun then actual continuity. Then Casino Royale started all over yet again.

Back in the day something like Dracula was remade tons of times, same elements, but not connect at all. Jason has been around for almost 30 years.. its kinda beyond sequels now. Its a legend, a campfire tale... and it changes with the times. I kinda like that idea. But its not a NEW idea.. Jason's story has just been around that long. Maybe in 30 more years there will be a new retelling in a totally digitally animated 3D feature that is not connected to this F13 09 Timeline

skuppy

01-26-2009, 07:58 AM

I don't think it truely belongs in the classic timeline. I think it is an all new film based on older films. However, once can assume that Jason survived Tommy's attacks at the end of The Final Chapter and lived to cause further havok as an undead human character. Of course that would pretty much be pulling a Halloween H20 and erasing sequels. I guess it is up to everyone as an individual. You know what it funny? We are discussing where it can fit into the old series while a 12 year old high schooler may not even know an old series exists.

12 year old high schooler?!?! If that kid is 12 and in high school, then I'm sure he/she's smart enough to know of an older F13 series. ;)

Actually, a lot of kids do know of Jason and the films. My kids tell me about their friends at school and they talk about Jason, Freddy, Leatherface, etc... and my kids are 11, 10 and 7 y/o. Kids aren't exactly clueless these days that some may lead you to believe.

sCabbOy

01-26-2009, 02:57 PM

It's going to fit over the last few minutes of Part 1, completely over Part 2 and maybe even Part 3.

simonthekillerewok

01-29-2009, 03:42 PM

The best way I can explain it, and you'd only get this if you were science fiction fan, is that the original timeline would still exist, but this film represents an alternate timeline like an alternate universe (or movieverse?). That's the way I interpret it. If you've seen 'In a mirror Darkly' the coolest enterprise episode, you'll get what I mean

francesco

01-29-2009, 03:44 PM

wow it's cool...jason in very worlds!

Rick

01-29-2009, 04:16 PM

From the commercials and what we have gathered from interviews it seems that Pam's killing spree (at least a version of it) did happen. We won't know more about it til we see it or read the reviews, but it seems like the basics from part 1 still exist, although it seems like the time period will be different (her killing spree happened in the 90s or 00s instead of starting in the 50s and then again in 80 I guess).
As for the series in general it's a complete restart for Jason. I'm not even sure you can say it's a divergent branch of the old timeline after part one, because obviously the dates are going to be way different from part one in the original series.
I'm just calling it a remake/reboot. Those terms are pretty close and can be interchangeable depending on the situation.
It's a whole new series.
Instead of remaking part 1 with Pamela and just mentions of Jason, they are completely starting over and reversing the roles; starting with Jason and just mentioning Pamela.
From the commercials this seems like the idea. The legend of camp blood is already in place and this will be the first full fledged slaughter, much like part 1 had the legend in place and them Pam committed the first full fledged slaughter.
Either way we should know soon. The movie is out in a couple weeks and for those of us who can't resist spoilers the critics are getting their screening in a few days I think.

At this point I'm going with remake/complete reboot with a reversal of roles for Pamela and Jason.

Timberwolf Entertainment

01-29-2009, 07:36 PM

Sean [The Wildcard]

01-29-2009, 10:22 PM

This film won't fit at all into the already existent time line. If anything, this is starting a brand new time line...obviously.

Rich

02-02-2009, 07:08 PM

I guess the best way to look at it is the way the Batman films are. You have the Tim Burton films and then the Chris Nolan films. They are completely different series of films about the same character(s). I said that years ago and Blake Washer disagreed with me on that one. That is how I see it though. We'll just have to wait to see the film. If it does not give us years then the rule of film is, it happens the year it is released. THEN we can place it into the old series. If it gives us years for everything and changes the year of Jason's drowning and Pamela's spree etc, then it will have to be looked at as the "Batman Begins" kind of reboot of the Friday the 13th series.

So to keep it simple, the we have to wait and see if the film gives us years. We don't know until we see it.

sooners4life98

02-02-2009, 08:13 PM

I say forget the timeline. This is a remake of the old ones 1-3 in an updated way. IMO.

Rich

02-02-2009, 08:40 PM

Well, if we don't get years (or altered years) we can just say that with his regeneration abilities, he just simply regenerated all the way back to basically human skin tissue. The meat around the legs and knees would be fully regenerated hence allowing him to run again. He was able to run during one scene in Freddy vs. Jason. :D

I know it is really meant to be the start of a new series and not be connected to the old one, but as long as they don't change the years when he drowned and his mother was killed while this particular film takes place in 2009, it could be looked at as just another sequel. We wouldn't know until we see the film.

Lammert

02-02-2009, 08:43 PM

If it could only ignore everything after Part 4 or 5.....

Cody

02-03-2009, 12:19 AM

The movie begins in 1980. Exactly which events are said to have happened in 1980, I'm not sure.

Joe Karlosi

02-07-2009, 07:41 PM

It'll be a whole new timeline, nothing to do with the others.

Hockey Mask

02-08-2009, 06:16 PM

I have a Paramount timeline and a New Line timeline. Hopefully, I can put this as a prequel to 9-11.
We never got a good explanation of the sewer drowning in JTM so Part 8 might as well be the capper for the Paramount timeline.

cjfridayfan13

02-09-2009, 02:57 AM

i see this as a new film on its own timeline

Friday The 13th

02-14-2009, 02:47 AM

As I posted in another thread I really enjoyed this movie. I like how it wasn't a 'complete remake'. For me it was good to see they didn't mess with the original film at all in this timeline. You could watch the new film as a direct sequel to the original Friday. I like that. I'm glad that the whole remake idea isn't 'jammed down our throats'. Call me crazy or what you want but I'm a die hard Friday fan that must somehow place the new movie in the original timeline and NOT in the remake category. Easy to do for me considering the new film basically says the original Friday happened, Jason drowned in 57, etc etc. The dates remain the same, so while watching this film I took what was said in Jason X about the regeneration of Jason and in my mind, now this is just my crazy fan belief that I made up to satisfy myself lol, but I believe in my mind that this is a sequel to Freddy Vs Jason. Jason has regenerated back into a human agian and is no longer zombie Jason, He's picked up some new clothes, grown a bit of hair, comes across a new hockey mask and just does what he does best. The new film doesn't say that none of the sequels ever happened so in my weird silly mind I view it as a sequel and I enjoy it a lot more as a sequel than a straight up remake.

Rich

02-14-2009, 07:00 AM

For me, it's the new Part 5.

Brett H.

02-14-2009, 07:02 AM

Truth be told, for me it's the new Jason Goes to Hell. Mesmerizing.

Hypnocil

02-14-2009, 07:36 AM

So far I don't really see why this movie couldn't take place after Freddy vs. Jason.

If Jason won the fight back in 2003 (and I believe he did)...that means he has had six years to become the Jason we are seeing now. Six years to regenerate...and the Jason that was brought back from Hell seemed half-way Human anyways. So over time, Jason begins to think on a more Human level, and sheds some of his former Zombieisms.

In those six years, Jason could have established the Camp area to his liking (ie. traps, learning about the tunnels and how to utilize them, setting up a shack near the camp) and since the locals had no problem staying away, Jason was relatively free to roam. Eventually, he loses his hockey mask, but is able to find an old familiar replacement. ;)

The kids not knowing about Jason...to me it's no more shocking than the kids in parts 7 or eight or FVJ never hearing about Jason. Most teenagers (or people in general) just don't care about serial killers enough to know anything about them...and Jason would still be considered dead since the FBI blew him up, so there's no reason for anyone in the area to be "too alarmed" even though they've obviously become cynical over the years. :p

Patrick

02-14-2009, 07:48 AM

I am placing this film in a class on it's own. I want to think of it as a fresh start for the series. As much as I love the old series (and always will), it needed a reboot/re-start. It needed to become fresh again. Jason......especially in FvsJ...had become a parody of himself....his true self. Derek Mears has brought Jason back to his roots. He is scary again. He is ruthless again. He is vengeful again. Back to greatness. Not just a zombie wondering around aimlessly with no direction. I welcome the new movie with open arms and an open mind.

Can't wait til Monday to see the box office results.

The Taff

02-14-2009, 08:25 AM

It's a remake. It doesn't go with the previous timeline. You guys are making it far more complicated than it is.

Friday The 13th

02-14-2009, 03:33 PM

It's a remake. It doesn't go with the previous timeline. You guys are making it far more complicated than it is.

I view it as a sequel but thats just me.

sCabbOy

02-14-2009, 03:48 PM

I find it impossible to be a sequel, since some things (wont spoil it) are changed , and completely over written. I won't even get into the dates being impossible to work in as a sequel. If this is indeed a sequel, then I guess Part 1/2 never happened, right? Because this movie changed some facts from those movies.

It's an obvious re-imagining/reboot/remake, and denying that is like putting a penis in your mouth and claiming not to suck cock as Henry Rollins (who's 48th birthday was yesterday, BTW) once said.

Friday The 13th

02-14-2009, 03:58 PM

Some people will view it some ways while others see it different.

SlasherFreak

02-14-2009, 04:37 PM

Definitely not a sequel...the old series is finished. Im really digging the remake, not as much as at least 4 of the films from the old series, but I do recognize the old series is over.

Rich

02-14-2009, 04:43 PM

I have slept on it and thought about it. Here's how I see it:

Jason X was a dream that Jason had while in hell. We saw that he had dreams in hell in Freddy vs. Jason. We also know that he drowned at the age of 11 in 1957. A kid growing up in the 50s (Godzilla, Creature from the Black Lagoon, War of the Worlds, EC Comics) would be sure to be a fan of science fiction, especially an outcast like Jason. So, while in hell Jason dreamed himself up into the context of a science fiction story which was Jason X. Then Freddy beings him out of Hell and back into reality in Freddy vs. Jason. Then after the events of Freddy vs. Jason, "his unique ability to regenerate lost and damaged tissue" (Jason X) would allow his skin, bones, flesh, and muscles to fully heal back to normal allowing him to retain his strength but also be able to run again.

So there you have it. Friday the 13th (2009) was officially Part 12 and all the history is intact. :funky:

Hockey Mask

02-14-2009, 04:45 PM

It doesn't seem to be a sequel but it sure isn't too difficult to slide it it within the Friday series either. The Friday timeline/canon is so far gone anyway this movie doesn't seem much worse than the others as far as fitting in.

Rich

02-14-2009, 04:48 PM

It seems like a sequel to me. Jason definitely had his craft perfected, and with his wardrobe and knowing what we learned in Jason X about his abilities, I think it totally happened after FVJ. I think it fits perfectly within continuity for reasons I have already shared. :)

This film was marketed as a "remake" because of the current trend in film, but it was really a sequel in disguise. We even saw Mark's wheelchair (from Part 2) in Jason's lair.

Natman

02-14-2009, 04:52 PM

I didn't see any standout reason why it couldn't be a sequel, so for me I'm accepting it as a remake and viewing it as a sequel.

Rick

02-14-2009, 05:04 PM

It's a remake/reboot/restart.
FvsJ showing the camp that was torn down by JGTH is just one of the many inconsistencies within the old series' timeline.
The stuff that this one rewrites and contradicts just makes that old timeline even rockier.

Rich

02-14-2009, 05:08 PM

The camp was torn down in Jason Goes to Hell. After many years of him being dead, they rebuilt it for business, hence the camp grounds with cabins in FVJ. Then, with the events in FVJ that took place, the camp was closet again. It has been closed since 2003, and the new film takes place in 2009 (since it said present day after the title screen). So, there you go. It was billed as a remake, but in my brain, it is Part 12 (and the best one since Part 2). :funky:

Hockey Mask

02-14-2009, 05:39 PM

As a sequel it does put a new meaning in the scene with him choosing the hockey mask over the pillow case.

johnboy3434

02-15-2009, 10:43 PM

Okay, here's the way I view the timeline: It's like the Halloween or Living Dead timeline. It has the same origin point, but branches off from there. First we have Ft13(80)->ANB, then JL came along and showed us that Jason wasn't cremated, but buried, so TFC branched into ANB and JL. So we have JL->JTM, then JGtH showed that Jason did not turn into a little boy, but was still at Crystal Lake like at the end of TNB (a deleted scene from TNB even shows that he was still capable of leaving the lake in the end), so TNB branches into JTM and JGtH. Then it's a straight shoot from JGtH->JX, chronologically.

Now, we know the film takes place in the year 2000 (despite it saying "Present Day"; seriously, can these people not add or something?), and that Jason has had at least one killing spree, because Wade talks about him "coming back" after his mother's death. The fact that he isn't wearing a hockey mask, coupled with Mark's wheelchair, shows that he escaped after Part 2 and DID NOT rampage further (probably because that shoulder wound was pretty friggin' nasty), only to pick up with the "remake" 15 years later. The fact that Ft13 is said to take place in 1980 in the "remake" and 1979 in TFC can be overlooked because 1979 was an error to begin with (June 13th, 1979 was a Wednesday).

If that's too convoluted for you, here's a graph.

............Ft13(09)..............JTM
............/...................../
Ft13(80)---P2---P3---TFC---JL---TNB---JGtH---FvJ---JX
.......................\
.......................ANB

Well, it's a bit more convoluted than Halloween, but nowhere near as bad as the Living Dead series. If anyone is interested in the ungodly mess that was that series' timeline, just ask and I'll post a little explanatory essay I wrote a year or so back.

sCabbOy

02-15-2009, 11:45 PM

Oh lord.

I knew it would be a matter of days before we saw a timeline.

I said this before, but if this is indeed a sequel we are forced to ignore parts 2 and 3, right? In the classic saga Jason lost the pillow case when Ginny defeated him. He left it and there was no choice in the matter. He then obtained the hockey mask out of chance. To accept this movie as a sequel, means all of that is now gone and that's silly. The wheelchair, and all of the other things are called "nods" and "homages" and weren't meant to be anything but that. When Mark was killed you actually think Jason went back for his freaking wheelchair? Better yet, his family did not wonder where it was?

Other than the movie carrying on after Part 1 this movie has VERY little to do with the original saga. Sorry, but you can not fit this movie in with the original saga and trying to do so is worse than fitting a square peg into a round hole. The only way that will work is to force it in.

You guys took someone's words (i.e. "legally it's a sequel") completely disregarded everything else he said and ran with it. Basically making this a sequel is giving Tom Savini his wettest dream and now saying everything after Part 1 NEVER happened... that is the only way to make this work.

Just accept what the movie is. It's really silly that people have to force themselves to believe it's a sequel so they can "enjoy it more".

johnboy3434

02-16-2009, 12:19 AM

He didn't "lose" his pillowcase. It was left by his body after Ginny and Paul beat feet. He simply put it back on, grabbed Mommy's head and hid until the coast was clear (as opposed to going on two more killing sprees). This movie was clearly supposed to be a follow-up to the first two films. It's made ridiculously obvious.

sCabbOy

02-16-2009, 12:41 AM

He put it back on? was this before or after he left? I don't remember him donning it- I remember him pulling himself away, while the sack stayed on the ground and making his way to Crystal Lake Cafe. So, you can not place this movie after Part 2. He did not have his sack on (or any mask) until the very end of Part 3... so? Part 4 without debate happened directly after 3 so you can not fit the movie in there.

In short this movie can not be placed anywhere but behind Part 1, over writing 2 and 3 and maybe 4.

What I meant by losing is sack, he left it behind and you can not debate that unless you admit that theory makes a good 10-12 minutes of Part 3 invalid now.

Jason13Voorhees

02-16-2009, 01:09 AM

Agree with sscabboy; it just does not fit in the timeline. This is a reboot. Neglects how he loses his potato sack and attains the hockey mask.

johnboy3434

02-16-2009, 01:09 AM

EDIT: I've expanded on my theory since the board went down. You can find it in the Timeline discussion thread, as I feel it's more accessible there and the mods might not approve of me posting it twice at the same time.

SaturdayThe14th

02-19-2009, 12:00 AM

i like to think that this is an entirely new timeline. i have been thinking about like this: everything in part one happened as it did in 1980. Jason comes back from his watery grave as a boy the same age he was when he drowned in ‘57. things are relatively quiet in crystal lake for the next 29 years outside of a few missing hunters/campers here and there and some unconfirmed reports of Jason sightings. then we pick up with f13 2009. so basically i think of f13 2009 as a new sequel to part one. it is the start of a new time line for jason voorhees. parts 2-fvj never took place. This movie is the new part 2 of the story of jason and his derranged mommy. thats how i look at it right now.

nottidelterrore

02-19-2009, 12:04 AM

The Dream Master

02-19-2009, 12:07 AM

The thing that messes things up a bit is the fact that part 1 took place in '79, according to Pamela's tombstone in TFC. Then again, dates have never been a strong suit for this series.

SaturdayThe14th

02-19-2009, 12:16 AM

Just accept what the movie is. It's really silly that people have to force themselves to believe it's a sequel so they can "enjoy it more".

Agreed......

johnboy3434

02-19-2009, 12:28 AM

The thing that messes things up a bit is the fact that part 1 took place in '79, according to Pamela's tombstone in TFC. Then again, dates have never been a strong suit for this series.

Well, that's relatively easy to dismiss:

1.) The "1979" date was an error, anyway.
2.) Even if it wasn't, that information didn't come to light until TFC, which, as far as I'm concerned, is still in a completely different timeline from this new film.

sCabbOy

02-19-2009, 05:32 PM

Changing the 1979 dates is in ill tastes since that date has been pretty much solid for all timelines and a) the movie was made in 1979 and b) we had visual proof it was 1979. You can not let a new film with a new production company and obviously a new franchise change that!

Rick

02-19-2009, 05:48 PM

Now that Fuller says it's "legally a sequel" (what ever that means) Friday the 13th 2009 fit's into the time-line right after part one.
Everything else is gone, this is the new Part 2 essentially.

Esten

02-19-2009, 05:57 PM

Everything else is gone, this is the new Part 2 essentially.

Miner direct this shit?

Rick

02-19-2009, 06:11 PM

For all intents and purposes it was really a remake, so we were loosing everything anyway. Apparently legalities are the only reason it's not being officially called that.
As for it being a remake it really only kept the bare essentials of part one anyway, which is probably the only thing they would have done regardless of legalities.

SaturdayThe14th

02-19-2009, 08:07 PM

it's like in back to the future part II when doc explains to marty about 1985 and 1985a after biff steals the sports alamanac.

sCabbOy

02-19-2009, 10:31 PM

Now that Fuller says it's "legally a sequel" (what ever that means) Friday the 13th 2009 fit's into the time-line right after part one.
Everything else is gone, this is the new Part 2 essentially.

With that notion (not to sound like Cunningham), if a sequel to this is made will that now over write other sequels like 3 and 4? Perhaps the next sequel will be so different that it can NOT fit into the time line? What if a prequel is made? See where I am going with this?

That's the problem I have and that's why I say a new timeline should exist. We can not arbitrarily say a new director has been killed off because a new movie is made, a new movie from a new franchise.

Rick

02-19-2009, 11:13 PM

Rich

02-24-2009, 04:54 PM

1979? 1980? What difference does it make (besides 365 days)? It is a Jason film. It is officially the 12th film in the franchise. As far as I'm concerned, for reasons I have already posted (on page 2) it's Part 12.

sCabbOy

02-24-2009, 05:52 PM

I think it means a lot if an entire franchise will be/is based off of that date, right?

Patrick

02-24-2009, 06:00 PM

I agree there should be a new time-line.
With the "legally it's a sequel" quote I guess if you were to take that heart it does mean part 1 happened and this new movie is part two. Anything that came next would essentially over-write the previous movies.
I guess if you want to take the "legally" quote seriously we now have our version of Halloween's divergent time-lines.
When it comes down to it "legally it's a sequel" probably just has to do with legally being able to make the movie.

Artistically (I guess you'd say) it's a new time-line. That's how I'm looking at it.
This gave us all of the elements of a remake, it restarted the story, so that's what it is.

I agree. I have always looked at this as a re-start, remake. I mean, to me, it makes more sense. For me, continuing with endless sequels of the Paramount/New Line films Parts 1-FvsJ would be pointless. A FRESH start is what Friday the 13th has needed since JGTH if you ask me. And now, we have gotten that as far as I'm concerned. Too much has gone on in those films to continue making direct sequels. With this reboot, they can go in any direction and it won't affect the old franchise.

sCabbOy

02-24-2009, 06:04 PM

Ok, what if this new movie- the new Part 2 over writes some things, so did Jason's kill number now go down? What about some things in Part 2 that are semi-important? Are those facts still there or is basically the entire movie gone?

So I should chuck my DVD now?

That's a silly notion, sorry.

It's not fans' of Part 2's fault and It's stupid to let a modern movie that smells, looks and feels like a remake completely fuck up an entirely good movie which contributed a lot of history to the story. I'm sorry to say this once again, entering that movie as a new part 2 fucks up a hellova lot more than the old Part 2. I don't even want to point out why they had GPS and cell phones in the NEW Part 2 and not the old Part 3?

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 06:09 PM

Where is this notion that this is a "new part 2" that simply overwrites the "old part 2" (and no other films in the old series) come from? There's no way you can watch this as a random "new part 2" and just insert it into the old series. Likewise, it doesn't fit between any other movies in the Paramount series. The only place it can go is after Freddy vs. Jason.

Patrick

02-24-2009, 06:19 PM

I think you have to look at this as an entirely new, fresh, reboot, re-start, etc. Because if you try and force it into ANY of the previous films, you are going to have conflict with something. Just think of the opening of the 2009 film with Pamela getting killed as Platinum Dunes REMAKE, THEIR remake of the old Part 1, which basically I think it is. On the DVD, I'm sure there will be more of it there. Just put the old franchise out of your mind. Not that it doesn't exist, it does and always will. I LOVE the old films and always will. But, to start anew, is the only way to go. Stop comparing this movie to the old franchise. You can't. I guess you can but you will never find where it goes.

This movie is starting the timeline over IMO. Starting the stories over. Just because we're starting anew, doesn't mean the old movies are any less important in movie history.

sCabbOy

02-24-2009, 06:23 PM

The best way to look at it is that this movie is a fresh start, using Part 1 as a template of the history prior to this movie. This in no way makes it viable in the old time line, it just uses the well known Pamela Voorhees rampage already laid down instead of using 90 minutes to reiterate.

nottidelterrore

02-24-2009, 06:24 PM

http://www.graphpaper.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/timeline.gif

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 06:25 PM

I really don't see that many difficulities with placing it after FvJ. I think the new one is vague enough to where it makes it look like Jason has been doing his thing for a while, which is why everyone is so spooked about Crystal Lake. Really, the biggest problem is the '79/'80 date, which was only caused by a fuckup from TFC in the first place. And sure, it seems kind of convenient that Jason would stumble upon yet another hockey mask at Crystal Lake, but it's not like that hasn't been a bit contrived before.

sCabbOy

02-24-2009, 06:28 PM

http://www.graphpaper.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/timeline.gif

I wonder if Jason has built himself a flux-capacitor, it would explain what he was doing inside of that damn barn!

Rick

02-24-2009, 06:32 PM

If it's the new part two why would it need to be inserted into the old series?
Since the series are sequels to each other part 3 is built upon what part 2 created, part 4 is based on what part 3 created and so on.
If this is indeed the new part 2 then it follows that it's already erased the entire rest of the series by reworking the foundation that the rest of the sequels were built on.

Of course the old series still exists and there's no reason to throw out your old discs, That is a separate series itself when taken in it's entirety.
But a sequel to this is going to create it's own mythology based on the foundation laid by Friday the 13th 2009.

Which is why (IMO) this should really be viewed as it's own time-line. This is a new beginning for a new series (hopefully).

Cody

02-24-2009, 06:33 PM

Fans have already been dealing with TFC's 1979 date for years, trying to explain why the tombstone says '79 when the film was set in '80. I read a timeline back even before the Jason X days that blamed 1979 on a drunken engraver.

Timberwolf Entertainment

02-24-2009, 06:42 PM

The biggest reason the remake is not a sequel is that Jason is a CHILD in 1980 (not a imaginary child seen through Alice's eyes) But and actual child.

In the original series Jason drowned in 1957 and grew up in the woods. His Mommy killed the kids and burned the place down. In 1979 or 1980 when people came back..she killed them..and Alice killed her.

But the remake seems to suggest (by both the time stamp and the outfit worn by "Alice") That the camp was still open, Jason had just drowned recently 79/80 and this was Mrs Voorhees first massacre. That right there makes it NOT the new part 2.

More or less it combines Alice and that story, with the two kids killed in the opening of part 1 just a year after the drowning in 1958. Other things are its raining and not on the beach.. and its not 100% said if thats even "Alice" Plus the locket.

So Jason is still a child in 1980 and grows up and the new film is in 2009 (another reason its not part of the old series... IT'S 2009.. cell phones, new cars etc.)

It doesnt fit in the old timeline and its not a sequel. Not really a balls out remake either. Much like Batman and Bond its just a modern take on the same material.

Old Series: Jason drown in 1957.. killed a bunch of people in the 80s was killed, then resurected, went to Manhattan, was sent to hell, Freddy got him out, then in the mid late 2000's he was frozen and awakened in the future and ended up on Earth 2. While there are contunity issues it more or less fits.

New Series.. Jason drowned in 1979/80, and its now 2009 where he is causing havoc. While Im too lazy to do the math he is a good 20-25 years younger than original series Jason.

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 08:24 PM

The biggest reason the remake is not a sequel is that Jason is a CHILD in 1980 (not a imaginary child seen through Alice's eyes) But and actual child.

I think it can be argued that Jason hasn't literally survived in the woods since his drowning (whenever it was) and that this was a sort of manifestation of his spirit returning at the command of his mother. I mean, if you listen to that part, it's almost exactly like Mrs. Voorhees (well, Freddy) summoning Jason to "live again" in FvJ. I like to think of this being sort of the same thing in the new one.

As for all the details being different (like it raining on the beach, etc.), I kind of look at it like comics. How many times have we seen the same origin stories retold with minor cosmetic differences? It kind of goes along with the "campfire tale" aspect of the series in that no story is ever told exactly the same way. I really wish this prologue would have just been intercut with Wade's story to further drive this point home. All the other stuff from 2-FvJ actually happened, and Jason's been chilling in the woods and slowly regenerating to human form by the time the new film starts. All the modern technology would be around since it is indeed the "present day."

Then again, you can also look at it as a complete reboot--it can go either way, and I'm glad they left things vague enough so fans can do that.

Timberwolf Entertainment

02-24-2009, 08:29 PM

I think it can be argued that Jason hasn't literally survived in the woods since his drowning (whenever it was) and that this was a sort of manifestation of his spirit returning at the command of his mother. I mean, if you listen to that part, it's almost exactly like Mrs. Voorhees (well, Freddy) summoning Jason to "live again" in FvJ. I like to think of this being sort of the same thing in the new one.

As for all the details being different (like it raining on the beach, etc.), I kind of look at it like comics. How many times have we seen the same origin stories retold with minor cosmetic differences? It kind of goes along with the "campfire tale" aspect of the series in that no story is ever told exactly the same way. I really wish this prologue would have just been intercut with Wade's story to further drive this point home. All the other stuff from 2-FvJ actually happened, and Jason's been chilling in the woods and slowly regenerating to human form by the time the new film starts. All the modern technology would be around since it is indeed the "present day."

Then again, you can also look at it as a complete reboot--it can go either way, and I'm glad they left things vague enough so fans can do that.

Well if that is the case they only have time for one more sequel. Jason is frozen in 2010 and not unfrozen till the future...

However.. in someways this does fit as Jason is very human in Jason X.

Its not a sequel and I think its silly to think otherwise.. but if it is you have to include all 11 films and there can only be one more (maybe two if you hurry), before it bumps into Jason X.

It dont matter since its not part of the old series... but if it was.. that is an issue.

Of coarse if they use Tommy Jarvis in the next one like they want to and he is 12 years old in 2010.. it instantly puts to rest this sequel silliness. Hell if he is 25 its still way off.. How old is Corey.. 35?

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 08:35 PM

Eh, I think it can be kind of like comic books where they can just keep having unspecified Jason stories that would theoretically lead into Jason X. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we'll EVER see a film that literally ends where Jason X begins (with Jason in government custody). Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Rowan say he was captured in 2008? If so, if you wanted to place the new film in the old timeline, that means it'd be more like 2005, probably. At any rate, they could just do it in a comic book manner where there are never any specific references to dates; or, better yet, like many of the James Bond films--just a string of random Jason adventures with no specified date, with Jason X allways looming "in the future." Then again, even that will probably start looking silly, but that's the breaks I guess. That's actually one of my biggest beefs with Jason X (besides the quality of the movie itself :X): the fact that it sort of locked in "the end" of the story.

Wow, after typing this, I can see why most folks would just rather see this whole thing as a reboot. :X

Timberwolf Entertainment

02-24-2009, 08:40 PM

I kinda prefer the Bond randomess myself. Only the Connery/Moore films were really sequels.. after that it was random, then the reboot in Casino just said fuck it.

I think Myers and Jason are now like novels and comic books in that they have been around SO long its ok to start over. Jason is a campfire tale... he just IS.

I hate Jason X, but 1 to FvsJ and JX seems kinda cool to me.. its the end of an era. lets have some new fun.

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 08:44 PM

I think Myers and Jason are now like novels and comic books in that they have been around SO long its ok to start over. Jason is a campfire tale... he just IS.

Yeah, I've said it before, but I especially believe Jason (not so much Michael) is easier to reboot because he's the most like a comic book character to me in that you can just put him in any random situation (without reference to anything previous) and have it work. You really just need Jason, his fodder, and a competent cast and crew to have a decent Friday the 13th film. To me, there's really not a whole lot of baggage that's associated with Freddy (having to recast the part) and, to a lesser extent, Michael. Don't get me wrong, I think you can just put Michael into random slasher scenarios, but he isn't as compelling. Halloween 8 was like that, and it was just lacking something.

Rick

02-24-2009, 08:45 PM

It's already too late if you are worried about it bumping into JasonX, in that movie Rowen says "we executed him for the first time in 2008" which was a year before this movie took place.
Even if you want to try and apply that to JGTH you are going to have a lot of trouble trying to reorganize the time line to accommodate.

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 08:51 PM

Yeah, the dates in the old timeline were already messed up enough starting with The New Blood, and it took some really conservative estimates when it came to Tommy's age to squeeze everything in. Really, despite being released in '93, I think JGTH would have to take place closer to 2000 to work. So, yeah, dates have never been the series's strong suit.

Patrick

02-24-2009, 08:57 PM

I just want them to make direct sequels to the new movie. I don't care for the idea of "random" anything dealing with Friday the 13th films. James Bond, yes. But Friday the 13th isn't James Bond.

And as someone mentioned, the outfit that "Alice" had on suggests the camp is still open and running.

Timberwolf Entertainment

02-24-2009, 09:24 PM

Yeah, I've said it before, but I especially believe Jason (not so much Michael) is easier to reboot because he's the most like a comic book character to me in that you can just put him in any random situation (without reference to anything previous) and have it work. You really just need Jason, his fodder, and a competent cast and crew to have a decent Friday the 13th film. To me, there's really not a whole lot of baggage that's associated with Freddy (having to recast the part) and, to a lesser extent, Michael. Don't get me wrong, I think you can just put Michael into random slasher scenarios, but he isn't as compelling. Halloween 8 was like that, and it was just lacking something.

I agree. When JP and I made F13: Storm, we just took Jason and plopped him in the story. We didn't even have the connection stuff that even Cold Heart had when written.

Michael and Freddy need Nancy, The Elm House, Loomis, Laurie etc. If you do them again you have to REMAKE cause you need those elements. Some people don't like Rob's vision but he has Loomis and Laurie.. he didnt make a totally random seperate storyline. Even H8 had the house.. so that is a minor connection..if a weak one.

I also love Jason..cause while he is a murdering bastard he isn't EVIL (one of the beefs I have with JGTH) One of the things I love about FvsJ is that he is 'almost' the hero. Even though he is a killer, he just wants to be left alone, and Freddy the sick child killer fuck is the one pulling the strings.

I always wanted to do a JvsM fan film that highlighted this..with a Laurie/Jamie like character than Jason inadvertantly protects from Michael. I think that would be interesting. Plus I love the idea of Jason just being confused why Mike won't die. He has so much more personaltiy when played right and that would be cool.. Jason vs this unstopable machine of evil.

Anyway.. Jason I hope will continue to 'be back' no matter what timeline its in.

sCabbOy

02-24-2009, 09:38 PM

SaturdayThe14th

02-24-2009, 10:07 PM

http://www.graphpaper.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/timeline.gif

yeah thats what i'm sayin! good visual aid, nottidelterrore.

The Dream Master

02-24-2009, 10:45 PM

Hypnocil

02-24-2009, 10:56 PM

sCabbOy

02-25-2009, 03:01 AM

I don't think anyone's saying that Friday the 13th 3 (or any of the others out of the first six) suddenly becomes a shitty movie just because part 7 started messing up the dates. Besides, if anything, TNB messed up the dates for the movies that came after it, not the ones before it.

No, I feel (my opinion) Part 7 was a shitty movie. I feel that shitty movie only fucked itself up with bad dates, not others.

The Dream Master

02-25-2009, 03:11 AM

I just don't see what quality has to do with it. So, let's just humor this situation and say that you thought Jason Goes to Hell was an awesome movie and definitely changed the location to CT instead of NJ--would you accept it then?

Besides, I think "messing up the dates" is quite different than completely "fucking up" other movies. For example, I don't really care for Jason X, but I don't let that affect my enjoyment of the other flicks that I do like.

sCabbOy

02-25-2009, 03:23 AM

The fact that a horribly written movie in 1987 that fucks dates up holds no water for me. That movie was made in 1987, 8 years after the first and that movie's continuity errors should only effect that movie and NOTHING before it. I really hate the notion that when another movie comes and fucks shit up that every movie before it has to suffer- NO WAY, no how. Take that movie for what it is and take the errors as problems with THAT movie.

Meaning some people (won't point fingers) has stated that you can indeed stick the new movie in the old time line, the problems that new movie causes by doing so should just be accepted as continuity errors since the old movies already had a lot of them.

I think that is silly, and if that movie is indeed entered into the new time line, yes the history the other movies laid down and are now changed has to suffer. Case and point, if the new movie is now the new Part 2 or whatever, we lost some great things that happened in Parts 2 and 3. Obviously they are still there, but some people will simply refuse to accept those things into the timeline because they feel so compelled to fit the new movie into the old time line. I won't let a new movie change what has already happened and I compared it to how a newer movie said CCL was one place when we all know it was in NJ as per 1,2,3.

I can't get behind that.

The Dream Master

02-25-2009, 03:26 AM

johnboy3434

02-25-2009, 04:15 AM

Well, to (try to) sort all of this out, I'm going to start the series anew, try to wipe every preconception I had about its chronology away, and start from scratch. I'll be watching all the Ft13 and Nightmare on Elm Street movies (plus my newly acquired copy of the Freddy's Nightmares series) in release order, and making notes along the way, revising my conclusions with each new film.

So far, I've gone through Ft13 1-5 and NoES 1. I've even got a system worked out with what evidence takes precedence when there is a conflict. It's been fun so far, as I love over-analyzing things, freeze-framing to try and make out calendars in the background, etc. I'll post my final theory once I'm done. I know this is basically a colossal waste of time and nobody will care but me, but DAMN IT, I WANT TO DO IT!

The Dream Master

02-25-2009, 04:19 AM

Man, you're gonna be fucked on the Nightmare continuity as soon as you watch "No More Mr. Nice Guy" (the pilot episode of Freddy's Nightmares). :X

The Tall Man

02-25-2009, 07:25 AM

Yeah, Johnboy, "Freddy's Nightmares" does not take place in the continuity of the formal Nightmare series. It's an alternate Freddy Krueger, with nothing to do with his previous adventures in motion pictures, regretably.

T.M.

johnboy3434

02-25-2009, 07:27 AM

Well, I'm going to consider Freddy's Nightmares a special case. Whenever a franchise (any franchise) makes a jump to another medium (say, from theatrical films to television series), the new medium is almost always relegated to a lower level of canonicity. When there are glaring errors in FN, I'll simply toss them out, regardless of how concrete they are compared to the films' vagueness. I'm more concerned with the order of events than the actual workings of the events themselves.

By the way, I snuck a peak at FN, and judging just from how it looks, all I can say is DAMN does that show reek of cheap 80s television.

Anyway, the system I'm using is, in case of conflicting info is

1.) Onscreen text, being delivered by a supposedly omnipotent entity, trumps dialogue, which trumps props that contain information, which trumps guessing based on actor's ages (which is a last resort, anyway).
2.) In the case of FN, any and all conflicting information, regardless of its type, will be disregarded.
3.) If the conflict is between two items of the same type, the more recent one takes precedent.

sCabbOy

02-25-2009, 03:19 PM

Freddy's Nightmares should not even be talked about in the same ANOES timeline. As far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with it.

johnboy3434

02-25-2009, 04:23 PM

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it does, so NYAH! :p Seriously, though, it may turn out that you're right. I haven't watched it yet (like I said, I just got it), so I can't say if there's any irreconcilable errors that kill the whole series or not.

Rich

02-25-2009, 04:37 PM

I see the whole thing as I giant time line, despite some of the plot holes. Part 5 said Jason was creamated. Maybe they just told the locals that in order to quiet them up, but they really just burried him. If you notice, they put him at the end of the cemetary and his stone was facing the wall, so it isn't like anyone in the grave would see the name on the stone unless they made an effort to do so. Why was the town of Forrest Green renamed BACK to Crystal Lake? It wasn't explained but maybe Jason would believed to have been dead and the place became a tourist atraction, as shown later on in the series in Jason Goes to Hell. I see them all as one straight time line, as I do the Halloween films. I rather enjoy just watching them as one series rather then trying to complicate things. :D

sCabbOy

02-25-2009, 07:22 PM

Logically, they just don't bury people like Jason. Of course stupid shit like Elias paying for the plot was introduced in the original script of Part VI and hat changes it for some people. However, if Jason was killed he would have been cremated because buying a plot, burial services and a coffin would have cost the county about 5 grand. Usually when a serial killer is executed and nobody claims the body he/she is cremated so it makes sense.

The Tall Man

02-26-2009, 01:05 AM

I haven't watched it yet (like I said, I just got it), so I can't say if there's any irreconcilable errors that kill the whole series or not.
There are two glaring errors early on. One episode with a reporter kid shows on a computer screen that Freddy was killed in 1975 (closer to the original Freddy's death). "Sister's Keeper" seems to imply that Freddy died in the late 80s, because it takes place very soon after "No More Mister Nice Guy", but the time frame is obviously the 80s. No adults were minding the candy store.

My favorite episode, "It's My Party and You'll Die If I Want You To" from season 2 features Freddy crashing his 20 year high school reunion... and tries to convince us Freddy was 18 in 1970. :confused:

T.M.

johnboy3434

02-26-2009, 04:44 AM

There are two glaring errors early on. One episode with a reporter kid shows on a computer screen that Freddy was killed in 1975 (closer to the original Freddy's death). "Sister's Keeper" seems to imply that Freddy died in the late 80s, because it takes place very soon after "No More Mister Nice Guy", but the time frame is obviously the 80s. No adults were minding the candy store.

My favorite episode, "It's My Party and You'll Die If I Want You To" from season 2 features Freddy crashing his 20 year high school reunion... and tries to convince us Freddy was 18 in 1970. :confused:

:o

...

:misery:

Holy fuck, I am NOT looking forward to this. *world-weary sigh* Why is it that most of my favorite franchises don't give a flying fucknut about continuity? Did I do something bad in a previous life? I mean, they could at least PRETEND to care. Like in the Star Wars franchise, there's continuity errors all over the Expanded Universe, but they actually come up with pretty creative stuff to fix it. But not all these horror franchises, noooooo, they just bring in the cheapest hack they can find, cross their fingers, and hope he's caught the previous films on late-night TV at some point.

Okay, rant over. That accursed entity known as real life is keeping me from continuing until the weekend. I must find a way to destroy it... or I could just do my math homework, either one.

Hypnocil

02-26-2009, 04:55 AM

Nothing in "No More Mr. Nice Guy" jives with what Marge told Nancy.

In the movies, Krueger was freed on a legal technicality...someone forgot to sign a search warrant correctly. In the pilot, Krueger was freed because that horrible actor pretending to be a police officer forgot to read him his Miranda rights. Also NONE of the Elm Street parents were even mentioned. Donald Thompson, Elaine Parker, Joey's mom....they just didn't exist.

The events surrounding Krueger's death also completely changed, and not for the better.

"It's My Party and You'll Die if I Want You To" does indeed showcase Freddy's 20-year high school reunion, but the REAL action occured right afterwords.....it involves a "possession", and the power of money compe...... *smashes head into concrete*

prot

02-27-2009, 12:07 AM

Well, I can't get behind wedging the new movie into the old series by writing out 2 and 3, either, for a host of reasons that I gave earlier today. To me, you either put it at the end (after FvJ) or you look at it as a complete reboot. I think there's room for either one of those interpretations.

At any rate, I don't think it has to be put into the "old" continuity to be enjoyed, as it's the same movie regardless.

EXACTLY my thoughts too, I think the makers just left it open for interpretation, and thats a good thing, you dont really piss off either side of the argument then. To me, its simply a sequel to FvJ, and to me that works fine, but i understand how some peeps would like it as a straight up part 2. I guess its whatever floats your boat really =)

Killa Pimp

02-27-2009, 01:51 AM

yeah, they basically just "retconned" the hell out of the franchise.
like comic books-
Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.[1] The change is informally referred to as a "retcon," and producing a retcon is called "retconning". Most activities of this type are performed in the comic book medium or aging movie franchises.

When writers:
run out of ideas-
Need to change the old storyline because it doesn't work anymore -
(like Captain America in WW2 and its now 2009 or Super Man landing on earth in 1938)
new writers don't want to deal with convoluted continuity-
so they
just ignore parts that don't fit anymore and start over with what works in the current time frame keeping the pieces that are the core but throwing out the useless stuff.
I didn't like a few changes they made and this is a far from perfect film, but let me continue:

Think of this movie as F13: Brand New Day (spider man)
Or F13 : Birthright (Superman)

You don't have to like it:
Mainly because if you are a an old school fan they weren't targeting you any way.
They figured you were going to see it regardless.

The company did what they thought was best to relaunch the franchise.
They are thinking more long term revenue stream.

Think about this:
The first movie hit about 30 years ago -
most people that saw the first few in theaters it are nearing middle age or already there.
That was also when the franchise was most profitable on a regular basis per outing.

(50 is not middle age, how many 100 year olds you see running around.)

Priorities shift, and unless you are a hardcore fan these are just gimmick flicks.

So they needed to get a Newer, younger core audience back for the long haul.

in about 20 years they will probably relaunch again.

its just business, pure and simple.

So its basically this just replaces the old continuity for those that want it to.
And for those that don't -
there's always the DVD's of the originals.

Rich

02-27-2009, 04:39 AM

Think of this movie as F13: Brand New Day (spider man)

I would rather not. Brand New Day was absolute crap to the highest craptastic crap. Friday the 13th (2009) to me was Friday the 13th Part 12. It was definitely not Jason: Brand New Day. One could look at it as Jason: The Ultimates of you like, but please...not Brand New Day. Next well have Obama in Friday the 13th.

buying a plot, burial services and a coffin

If the cemetary was owned by the town, then it's their own plot anyway. Burial Services? I don't think they had a funeral for Jason. I think in this case, it is the coffin that would have cost anything. Ultimately I agree with you that if such a horrible creature like Jason ever existed he would be creamated and not burried. In Friday the 13th land, however, we know that certain elements of science and logic go out the window and this is just one of those. We just have to take it at face value. So, contradicting what was said in Friday 5, in Friday 6 we learn that Jason was in fact burried, despite what the mayor said in Part 5. It's just one of those things that you let "slide" in order to pick up with the series and enjoy the rest of the film.

The problem is in the 80s Paramount basically told every director that theirs was going to be the last one, so almost each film was treated as such. So, when Jason finally "died" in The Final Chapter, I guess Danny Steinmann thought it was okay for Jason to be creamated because "he ain't gonna come back."

Again, that is why we just have to take certain things at face value and just keep repeating what the original Last House on the Left trailer says, "It's only a movie."

johnboy3434

03-10-2009, 06:45 PM

Remember what I said about including Freddy's Nightmares in my timeline? Yeah, forget that. I've watched the first 13 episodes (in other words, enough to give it a chance) and it is quite possibly the SHITTIEST TV SERIES I HAVE EVER SEEN. I'm sorry, I just can't sit through another 31 episodes of that. My timeline will be movies-only (which means Lost Tales from Camp Blood will also be absent), and it is well on the way to being finished. All I lack is JTM onward for Ft13 and DC onward fot NoES.

sCabbOy

03-10-2009, 09:04 PM

Burial service as in the services provided to autopsy him (required by law in a homicide, right?), pump the body full of formaldehyde, pay for a coffin, dig the hole and bury it. Not to mention the price of the plot. Not a funeral or wake.

Generally when the state takes on the final expenses of a murderer he is cremated.

Rich

03-11-2009, 04:12 PM

Well, being that Jason is a creatur that can't be killed, I'll just say that he survived Tommy's attack at the end of The Final Chapter, and the new film is an alternate part 5. Being that Jason is back to his more humanistic self (yet still and will always be supernatural, super strong, and unkillable) it give a better continuity. So, the way I see it is if you think of it as Part 12, then he fully regenerated back to his more human form. Or you can think of it as a new Part 5, with branching an alternate timeline.

I am starting to like the new time line idea a little better since there were so many plot holes in the later sequels. Part 5 said he was creamated. Part 6 had him burried. Part 6, the town was renamed Forrest Green. Part 7 is was back to Crystal Lake. Part 8 at the end he turned back into the little kid. Part 9 he was fully grown. I think the plot of the later series became a mess, because writers did not mind to pay too much attention to the film(s) that came before theirs.

I still really love the first seven films, but I just wish the writers paid more attention to plot detail.

sCabbOy

03-11-2009, 05:55 PM

If you are going to pull scenarios like that out of a hat let's go ahead and say that Pamela didn't die either.

johnboy3434

03-11-2009, 10:43 PM

I'm of the opinion that there are at least four separate timelines:

#1: Friday 1-5
#2: Friday 1-4, 6-8
#3: Friday 1-4, 6, 9, FvJ, 10
#4: Friday 1, 2, "Remake"

Considering the fact that "Jason was cremated" is given as a reason for us to believe he wasn't doing the killing in ANB, I'd call it an irreconcilable plothole for him to be buried in JL, regardless of what the novelization says. Thus, we have timelines one and two. Now, the hockey mask, of all things, is a key factor in determining timeline three. The mask has a chunk knocked out of it by the boat motor in JL. In TNB, Tina uses her psychic powers to tear this mask in half, rendering it unusable. Jason recovers a new mask in JTM which, strangely, has the same knotch from Chris's ax, but not the missing chunk from JL. Also, the toxic waste badly burns it and eats away at several places on its edge. When JGtH came around, not only was it missing the chunk taken out in JL, but none of the damage done by the toxic waste is present on the mask.

There's also the whole issue of logic: by Occam's Razor, the best answer is the one that requires the least amount of fantastic speculation. If we assume JGtH happens after JTM, we must assume that the whole "little boy" sequence was a dream by Rennie (without anything explicitly indicating that), and that Jason, upon waking up after his toxic waste bath, made it back to Crystal Lake and either repaired all the damage to his mask (through God knows what means) or found a new one, which then proceeded to sustain all the same damage the old one did in the time before JGtH.

If we assume it follows TNB, it is less surprising that Jason can still be walking around (I mean, all he did was fall off the dock), but we still must assume that he found a new mask and incurred all the same damage as before. Placing it after JL has a logic problem as well, but it's not nearly as severe: at some point, Jason had to break the chain around his neck. Now, supernatural strength is one of the most basic traits associated with Jason, so this isn't that much of a stretch. He already has the correct mask and he's already in the correct place. Hell, since it's impossible to tighten a rope made of chain links like that, Jason could have taken some time and figured out that he could pull himself down to the bottom of the lake and simply remove the loop from around his neck once he had some slack. He was supposed to be mentally disabled, so this taking him awhile isn't impossible.

As for timeline four, I'm not entirely sure of this. Part 1 obviously happened. We see a reenactment of its climax in the beginning. Same time, same place. Part 2 would have to happen for anyone to suspect Jason was alive again, since no indication was ever given in Part 1 that he was anything but dead (outside of a sequence that logic dictates would have to be a dream). Part 3 couldn't have happened because Jason was supposed to be dead in the end, and that goes double for Part 4. He's still dead in Part 5, and by Part 6 the camp has been reopened and renamed, despite it being made clear in the "remake" that it was shut down for good after Pamela's little griefing session. This also rules out the "remake" following any of the further sequels.

However, there are still points of inconsistency that throw a monkey wrench in the works. Why is Jason's bed still in the cabin if Steve Christy had been remodeling the place years beforehand? I mean, Pamela was still ostensibly his friend. Would you keep the bed of your friend's dead child around your place of work? Or worse, what if he was sleeping in it? Let's face it: to keep that thing around, Steve would have to have as many problems as Pamela. That's the big one, right there. Jason's age is another matter. He's rather spry for 63 and not undead, I'd say. This is at least arguable (we don't even know what happened to Jason in the old series, either), but the first point requires quite a bit of speculation. Ultimately, I won't stand too closely by this, because either the Director's Cut or further sequels could easily prove it wrong, but if it IS part of the original series' continuity, it more or less has to follow the first two films.

sCabbOy

03-12-2009, 02:43 PM

Here's the best timeline.

1-JX, FvJ

2009 - 2009

Rich

03-12-2009, 04:23 PM

If you are going to pull scenarios like that out of a hat let's go ahead and say that Pamela didn't die either.

I never said that. I just said you can basically place it anywhere.

Since I see Jason X as one of those dreams Jason had in hell, I place it in perfect order that they were released. Then knowing that FVJ happened in 2003 and the new film didn't happen until 2009, I just simple say that within that six year period he regenerated all of his tissue basically back to perfect form, since we know he regeneratres tissue. That is why I basically look at the film as Part 12.

johnboy3434

03-12-2009, 06:29 PM

Here's the best timeline.

1-JX, FvJ

2009 - 2009

You didn't read a word of my post, did you?

Darth Reaper

03-13-2009, 01:15 PM

Another thing that prevents me from believing that this is a sequel to the original series is that Jason doesn't seem to be nearly as strong as he was during FREDDY VS. JASON. There's no way Clay could have gotten into a fist fight with the old Jason and held his own. Jason would have broken him in half in a heartbeat (if Clay's lucky). If Jason were to regenerate to a completely life-like state I don't think he would lose his power. He'd look like a living person again, but he'd still be the powerhouse that he was before.

Considering the fact that "Jason was cremated" is given as a reason for us to believe he wasn't doing the killing in ANB, I'd call it an irreconcilable plothole for him to be buried in JL, regardless of what the novelization says.- johnboy3434

I disagree. I think you can get away with saying that somebody decided to have Jason buried instead of cremated, and nobody bothered to tell that mayor. It could even still have been Jason's father who did it. Maybe he wasn't there for Jason in life, so he decided to make sure that he at least got a decent burial in death.

Rich

03-13-2009, 04:20 PM

There's no way Clay could have gotten into a fist fight with the old Jason and held his own

Why not? Julious did, and that was while he was at his "super zombie strongest."

I think Jason plays with his prey a little bit. I think, sometimes, he allows his victims to feel like they have a chance and then pulls the plug. I don't think that is too far fetched of an idea. Cats love to play with mice before killing them.

The Dream Master

03-13-2009, 04:26 PM

Yeah, Jason should have ripped Steven a new asshole in JGTH, but he didn't. The simple answer is that it's a plot convenience to keep the characters alive.

johnboy3434

03-14-2009, 05:30 AM

Well, after much grueling effort (read: hitting the pause, rewind, fast-forward, and slow-mo buttons on my remote countless times), my analysis of the Ft13 timeline is complete. I went into this without preconceptions, throwing out everything I thought I knew about the timeline and relearning it. The films are listed in chronological order because that's the order I watched them in. Note that, as we all know, it's impossible for a Ft13/NoES to fit all the evidence, so this won't please everyone. But just read it with an open mind and you might like it. For those who don't want to read through the stupid analysis and just want the results, there's an easy timeline in the end.

Friday the 13th (1980)

The prologue is simply identified as taking place in 1958. The main events are more specific. We know it's Friday, June 13th in the "Present Day" when Pamela goes medieval on everyone, which makes it pretty fucking clear that it's supposed to be 1980. The movie ends the following morning, putting the main events of the film on June 13-14, 1980. The little flashback to Jason drowning took place in 1957, we are told. Enjoy how easy this was. It's about to go right down the shitter.

Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)

According to Paul's campfire story, Alice was killed two months after Pamela's rampage. This pins the prologue to August, 1980. Assuming the title is relevant, the largest portion of the main action (the day that the cop and counselors are killed) would take place on Friday the 13th. Hence, the counselors arrive on Thursday the 12th, and the final scene takes place on Saturday the 14th. The following movies will suggest otherwise, though. As for the year, Paul also says it's been 5 years since the first film, placing this in 1985. In this year, Friday the 13th fell during September and December. This sort of screws up the idea of Packanack Lodge being a Summer Camp until you remember that this is just supposed to be counselor training. If you consider that the trees are not dead from the ravages of Fall, yet, I think most people would pick September. Hence, the film would seem to cover September 12-14, 1985.

Friday the 13th Part III (1982)

Okay, this movie takes place immediately after the last one, as we all know. Harold and Edna bite the big one the night following Ginny's confrontation with Jason, which would make it seem like Saturday the 14th, with Chris and friends arriving at Higgins Haven the next day, and Chris being carted off the morning after that. However, Andy makes reference to a "weekend in the country", suggesting that it's at least Saturday, if not earlier, when the kids arrive. This moves the events back a day. So Part 2 now covers September 11-13 and Part III covers September 13-15, still in 1985. This also pins Chris' flashback to 1983, as it is implied to happen two years prior. The magazine Debbie reads talks about celebrating 25 years of Godzilla. Since Godzilla's first film was in 1954, this pins the magazine to 1979. I believe it's safe to say that the magazine was not current at the time.

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

Well, the film starts off the night following Chris' breakdown, the kids arrive at the cabin the next night, and the night after that is when everything goes to Hell. Since there's no indication that we should shift the dates anymore, that pegs this film's events to September 15-17, 1985. This is going to be the last easily dated movie for a while. The tombstone of Pamela Voorhees brings us to our first big continuity problem. From hereon out, I'm establishing a hierarchy to help deal with these inconsistencies. Onscreen text takes priority, followed by dialogue, followed by props, followed as a last resort by using the actors' ages and other guesses. Since the onscreen text in Ft13 trumps the tombstone (a prop), and since the date on said tombstone contains an error (June 13th, 1979 wasn't a Friday), I stick to my placement of Ft13 at 1980.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

There are, frustratingly, absolutely no hints as to what year it is in this film. The watch Nancy uses to time her awakening says August 24th, but fails to mention what year. Then again, it is also inconsistent with the actual time mentioned in the dialogue, so even the date might be questionable. Until evidence from the sequels comes in and changes it, I'll pin this to its release year and say August 19-24, 1984, since the events cover at least five nights (Tina's nightmare, Tina's death, Rod's death, Nancy's visit to the clinic, Nancy's final battle with Krueger, then it ends on the morning of the 24th).

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

This is where things get fuzzy. The only indication for any date that we're given are those seen in Tommy's medical file. From what I can tell, these are simple months and days, with no years given, but the look we get at them isn't the greatest. As a last resort, I will use the ages of the actors. Tommy was said to be 12 years old during TFC, and John Shepherd, the actor playing Tommy in ANB, was between 23 and 25. Going with the former to keep the film as close to the 80s as possible (the fashions make no effort to disguise the decade), that places the film in 1996, where Friday the 13th falls during September and December. Lana complains of it being cold, but it doesn't seem to be that close to winter, so I'll go with September (if anyone from New Jersey or Connecticut would like to correct me on what either looks like during the Fall, feel free). As far as days go, we have the day Tommy arrives at Pinehurst, and the day where just about everyone is killed. Since the latter gets more screentime and is more significant to the plot, I'll say this was the titular Friday. So this film covers September 12-13, 1996.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Well, this film has absolutely nothing to even suggest when it takes place. All we know is that it's been 5 years since NoES, the date of which we don't really know, anyway. In fact, the range of dates I figured above is proven wrong in this one, as the diary entry from what had to be the day that Nancy confronted Krueger is dated March 15th. Since this was spoken, it trumps the prop watch that gave us the August date. This means the 12th and 13th had to be school days, and that works with a number of years. If we assume that FR takes place in the year of its release (and NoES doesn't), this places NoES on March 11-16, 1980 and FR somewhere in 1985.

Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (1986)

We've actually got a bit of help here! The calendar on the wall of the sheriff's office is too blurry to read the name of the month, but we can see that it starts on a Sunday (like any month with Friday the 13th) and that it has 30 days. Since the film was made in 1986, this had to be June. Now, Thom Mathews, the actor playing Tommy, was 27 during filming. When compared to the age given for Tommy during TFC, that puts the film in 2000. Unfortunately, June 13th, 2000 was not a Friday, so we need to find the nearest year where it is. Our choices are 1997 or 2003. A form of some sort in the police station also had the date 1986 on it, but that's impossible. Still, I consider it a reason to go with the earlier date. As for days, we have the night Jason is resurrected, the day of basically all the killing, and the final scene takes place the following morning. So JL takes place on June 12-14, 1997.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

The Nightmare movies have, so far, been uncanny in not giving you the slightest fucking clue when they take place. This movie says it's been 6 years since NoES, putting it a year after FR. Beyond that, all we know is that it has to take place before May 1989, because that's when Nancy's Hypnocil prescription expires. The pick-up date is listed on the bottle, but the year is obscured, so we can only make out that it was picked up on April 7th. Considering the size of the bottle and the fact that it's a daily drug, I wouldn't call it more than a month's supply. With nothing else to do, I'll pin it to April in its year of release, 1987. A calendar that has 31 days and starts on Sunday supports this as taking place in March 1987 (given the dates the film was being worked on), but that doesn't jive with the Hypnocil bottle. This moves NoES to March 11-16, 1981 (the 12th and 13th are still school days, so it works) and FR to some time in 1986.

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Those calendars are really coming in handy. There's one in Dr. Crews' makeshift office and in the kitchen of the kids' cabin. It, again, starts on Sunday, but has 31 days. Considering the year in which the film was made, this is obviously May. However, the prologue is simply impossible to make sense of without being creative. While the implication is certainly that Jason was already chained down in the lake when Tina killed her father, the timeline simply cannot accommodate that. Thus, we can only assume it is a flashback. The calendar (yay, calendars!) near the front door says Friday, October 13th. The earliest year that makes sense for this is 1989. Jennifer Banko, who played young Tina, was 9 at the time of filming, while Lar-Park Lincoln was 26. This places the main events in 2006, but May 13th wasn't a Friday that year. The closest year that it was was 2005. As for days, we have the day Tina arrives, the day everything goes to Hell, and the morning that Tina and Nick are carted off. So I pin this film to May 12-14, 2005.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Finally, something concrete! It's not much, but it's there: a calendar! Granted, the calendar on Alice's wall shows what is obviously May 1988, which doesn't jive with the statement of 93 days until summer vacation, but I'll take a year when I can get it. This is backed up by the fact that Hairspray is playing at the theater Alice visits in her dream. The span of time since DW is not given, but since they share some actors, who have all aged one year, I'll say DW was one year prior, which is where I already have it. So DM takes place around March 1988 (assuming a June end to the school year).

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Well, the main title for this film is entirely irrelevant. It cannot take place on Friday the 13th because, as the DJ says, Lakeview High's senior class will be graduating on "the 13th of this month". The intent is obvious. Given that Tamara's biology project was still due, I think it's safe to assume that they weren't graduating on the boat (or at least not that night). As for what month it is, most New Jersey school years end in June. Unfortunately, we're seriously running out of space on the timeline (to be explained later). There are no suitable years that fit this when TNB is pinned to 2005. In fact, the only June 13th that does work is in 2003. This is imperative if the dating is to make any sense, so we'll have to move TNB. Unfortunately (again), there are no instances of Friday, May 13th, within the interval from 1997 to 2003, so we must simply choose a Friday the 13th that fits. The name of the month on the calendar in TNB was never seen, so even if it isn't May, as long as it still has 31 days, the movie wouldn't technically be wrong. With these restrictions, the eligible Fridays fall in March 1998, August 1999, October 2000, July 2001, or December 2002. My decision ties into Rennie's flashback. No span of time is given between the flashback and main events, and I cannot find the young actress's age, so I will defer to the script, which says it was the summer of four years prior, or July-September 1999. Now, normally, the concept of Jason dragging her under makes no fucking sense at all, but if Jason were, say, chained to the bottom of the lake and grabbed her, while her weird psychic visions made him look like a little boy... you can see where I'm going with this. For this reason, I put TNB in August 1999 (and Rennie's flashback in July), because if Jason could pull Rennie down under the water after TNB, he would have better things to do than just sleep under the ruins of the dock. This would allow enough time for the town to change its name back to Crystal Lake, the furor over the TNB murders to cool down, and Suzi to apparently transfer to Lakeview High, since no one born and raised in Crystal Lake would be unaware of the Jason murders. It just wouldn't happen. Oh, and while I don't think I really need to say this, Jim's figure of "thirty years" (since Jason's drowning) simply can't work under any circumstances. In my timeline, it's more like 46 years. Just as with the first film, the flashback to Jason drowning took place in 1957.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989)

Well, we finally have a solid year. DC takes place in 1989, and considering that it involves a high school graduation, it most likely takes place in June of that year. We know that the days covered are Friday-Sunday, but there's no indication of which dates these refer to. The epilogue takes place after Jacob is born. We know Alice has been pregnant for at least 6 weeks because Jacob's gender has been determined, and most pregnancies are 38 weeks in length. That places the epilogue in January 1990. There is a calendar in Mark's room for January 1989, but that makes no sense.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

We're given a concrete year in this film, as well. It is said to take place ten years from "now" (meaning 1991, the year of the film's release). So the year of the film is 2001, but we can specify further. Assuming Maggie's "happy Father's Day" is to be taken seriously, Freddy dies on June 17th, a Sunday. Counting backward, that means the film started the prior Thursday. So FD takes place from June 14-17, 2001. This is going to cause problems in the near future.

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)

The television program says that Jason Voorhees has been striking fear blah blah blah "for over 20 years". Now, it was never confirmed that Jason was a dangerous killer (or even alive) until the events of P2, P3, and TFC, back in 1985. Now, the only Friday the 13th in 2005 was in May, less than 20 years later. So, we look to 2006, where Friday the 13th falls in January and October. Again, I don't know what either New Jersey or Connecticut looks like in the Fall or Winter, but to me, this looks more like Fall, so I'll go with October. One of the days takes up nearly half the movie, so that will be the titular Friday. That is, of course, the day that Jason goes to Hell, with Freddy dragging his mask over on the morning of the next day. Duke arrives and Diana is slain the prior day, Duke was interviewed (and Jason escaped) one week before that, and Jason was overkilled to oblivion one week prior to the interview. So, Jason was blasted to pieces on September 28th, he transferred his soul to the Coroner on October 5, and the main events of the film take place on October 12-14, 2006.

New Nightmare (1994)

This obviously takes place in a separate timeline from all the other films, but the date is easy to tie down thanks to a real world event that is referenced. It starts in the week following the '94 LA earthquake, and proceeds only a few days from there. So we can safely say it takes place in January 1994.

Jason X (2002)

Well, we have problems of a different kind here. While I said I was going into these films without preconceptions, I broke that rule up in JTM because it was pushing things past 2008 (the year Jason had to have been captured by). We're given a year for the main events of JX: 2455. As for the prologue, things are a little hairy, mainly because the writers are stupid as all Hell. Rowan is said to have been in stasis for 455 years, but the cryogenic chamber was manufactured in 2010. Since the years 2455 is given explicitly, with no need for calculation, I'll go with that, and I'll use 2010 for the prologue since it minimizes the amount of stupidity in the other figures given. I can't tell you how glad I am that this is almost over. Just one more hump to skin.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Remember how I said FD was going to cause problems? Well, it just did. The Sheriff speaks of "four years of peace" (meaning without Freddy running free), and Mark and Will were both institutionalized four years prior to the film. This, combined with the fact that clips from FD are shown in the prologue, means it has to be at least 2005, and that's assuming Springwood recovered almost instantly. JGtH helps things by having to take place in at least 2006. Also, a deleted shot shows a re-enactment of Freddy's glove dragging Jason's mask underground, which makes it obvious that FvJ is an immediate sequel. So, Freddy found Jason on the morning of October 14th, with Jason waking up and heading off that night. Now, considering that Jason has to cover over 450 miles or so before reaching Lori's house on a weekend, I'm going to reasonably assume Jason arrived the Sunday of the next week, instead of the day after he woke up. It has to be a Sunday because Lori goes to school the following day. That night, the rave occurs and Lori runs off with Will. Stubbs finds them the next day and all but the final scene takes place on that day. The scene with Freddy and the little girl in the beginning had to take place in 1968, the year of his death. Apparently, he got one last victim after being released before the parents caught up with him. Also, Will's flashback to the death of Lori's mother is said to take place four years earlier, so sometime in 2002. Now to address the issues FD brings up. The construction site for Crystal Lake Resorts (worst. idea. ever.) is obviously unfinished, with a completion date of Spring 2004. This obviously doesn't jive with 2001 being over 4 years ago. I'm invoking the rule I set forth above, and so the onscreen text from FD (and the dialogue from JGtH, now that I think about it), overrules the prop from FvJ. This will be one of my most controversial decisions (after all, we are only given a few explicit years; to turn one away must seem like madness), but I tend to believe the word of an omniscient narrator before I believe a sign that could very well be obsolete thanks to the myriad amounts of legal and financial problems that come with building a resort on the site of multiple mass murders. Oh, and as a bonus, the deleted alternate ending took place two months after the main events, so sometime in December.

Sweet mother of mercy, am I glad that's over. Well, at least it's over until Ft13(09) comes out on BD. I'm withholding an analysis on that until I can get it in better quality. Now, I specifically arranged this so that each installment of the Friday series follows the other chronologically, since most of the people here tend to not split the timeline like in Halloween (with the exception of NN, which is placed in its own timeline). So, here's my timeline in one, unified piece. If you believe in timeline splits, like me, just chop out the relevant sections. Italics indicate main events.

MAIN TIMELINE

1957
-Unspecified date: Ft13/JTM [Jim's] flashbacks

1958
-Unspecified date: Ft13 prologue

1968
-Unspecified date: FvJ prologue

1980
-June 12-13: Friday the 13th
-August: P2 prologue

1981
-March 11-16: A Nightmare on Elm Street

1983
-Summer: P3 flashback

1985
-September 11-13: Friday the 13th Part 2
-September 13-15: Friday the 13th Part III
-September 15-17: Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter

1986
-Unspecified date: A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge

1987
-April: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

1988
-March: A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

1989
-June: A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child
-October 13: TNB prologue

1990
-January: DC epilogue

1996
-September 12-13: Friday the 13th: A New Beginning

1997
-June 12-14: Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI

1999
-July: JTM [Rennie's] flashback
-August 12-14: Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood

2001
-June 14-17: Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

2002
-Unspecified date: FvJ flashback

2003
-June: Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan

2006
-September 28 - October 14: Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday
-October 14-25: Freddy vs. Jason
-December: FvJ deleted epilogue

2010
-Unspecified date: JX prologue

2455
-Unspecified date: Jason X

ALTERNATE TIMELINE

1994
-January: New Nightmare

That's it. I'm going to bed.

Killa Pimp

03-14-2009, 03:18 PM

Johnboy , when I saw that post, my initial reaction was:

http://http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6135/colinpowellread.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=colinpowellread.jpg)

But I decided to read it since you put so much effort into it.
I applaud your effort, very thought provoking.

http://http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kaneklapqo6.gif)

sCabbOy

03-14-2009, 03:24 PM

I guess that is a very good timeline, although I disagree with the ANOES dates. As for ANB in an old Fangoria Steinmann said it was 7 years later. Later Steinmann said it was 5 years. So, it's safe to say Tommy was between 17-19 in ANB. You can say he may have aged badly due to RX drugs, stress and mental illness.

SlasherFreak

03-14-2009, 03:28 PM

sCabbOy

03-14-2009, 03:30 PM

I gave it a whirl, and while I applaud the effort...I still think people read too much into movies. I love f13 as much as anyone else, but i dont really give a shit to sit around and construct a timeline and explain errors. Jason + woods + people + slaughterfest = good movie to me, i could give a shit about the years. They could have one movie be a period piece and take place in 1880 with jason in it and the sequel take place in 2009, with jason 129 years old and still in good shape, and i probably wouldnt give a shit

I agree because of course nothing will be perfect and taking a line from a movie and completely rearranging 2 movies before it to fit that line is silly. Of course everything will not fit perfectly. If we would want to get technical in the script for Part III Debbie says it's Friday The 13th and Chtis points out to Rick that someone has been sleeping in her bed (Jason), which points out that Jason stayed there at least one night before the Higgins Haven slaughter which moves the movie back to a Friday The 13th and makes it one more day after Part II...

But of course who cares and let's just take the movies in sequence they way they were meant to be taken.

I also think it's silly to incorporate ANOES into the timeline when Freddy's slaughter or ANOES happened about the same time as as Jason being killed by Tommy.

Rich

03-14-2009, 05:38 PM

Friday the 13th Part 2 did not happen in december, I'm sorry. I lived in New Jersey for many years. I guarantee you that naked women do not go swimming in water in December, not in New Jersey anyway.

According to historical challenders, Friday the 13th, 1981 may have happened in December, but according to the fictional plot of the film, it happened sometime during June or July.

I don't mind the timelines that much. I only pay attention to specific dates such as Jason's drowning and things like that. Other then that, I just think of it in order.

johnboy3434

03-14-2009, 07:04 PM

I figured as much. That's why I placed it in September. Since you lived in New Jersey, tell me, does it look more like ANB's weather in September or December? Same with JGtH: does it look more like that in October or January?

Rich

03-15-2009, 03:50 AM

A New Beginning is definitely more September then December. September the leaves start to fall off the trees. In October the leaves fall off even more and by the end of October, November, and December, the trees are completely bare of leaves. Between Oct and Jan, Jason Goes to Hell was Oct, but THEY ALL HAPPENED IN THE SUMMER.

Forget about over complex timelines. They don't work. The films weren't made for that. Just take them in order from 1-10 and FVJ and then the new film. You'll make life a lot easier for yourself.

johnboy3434

03-15-2009, 05:39 AM

I wasn't setting out to make sense of it all. That's impossible. I was just trying to find the best fit, and, in my mind, I've done that. While I welcome any and all criticism and am open to changes, I'm not really raring to go in-depth with it. Quite frankly, I'm all Friday'd out. If you care to find out what I'll be doing instead, read on. If not, ignore me. I'm just killing time right now.

My next project is of a similar goal though: I'm going to try and make sense of the epic clusterfuck that is Nintendo's Legend of Zelda series. You know how JGtH and JX started out with absolutely no frame of reference or any general idea as to what has been happening recently? Well, imagine if every installment of the series were like that. Oh and instead of 11 movies, there's 21. Yeah, that's the Legend of Zelda. Each installment is a masterpiece of game design (well, except for three games from the early 90s, but most of the fans choose not to speak of them), but the continuity is vague at best. Normally, you could just say that they have no relation to each other, except one of the higher-ups insists that there is a coherent timeline (and yet he refuses to make it public...), even though it has become increasingly obvious that he's the only one on the creative team that gives a damn. So, what do the fans do? If you said "argue about it until they're blue in the face", then you get a cookie. That said, I'm going to join the nerdy hordes and research every piece of minutiae there is to be found in the games and formulate my own chronology. This will take a while.

sCabbOy

03-15-2009, 03:05 PM

In the Northeast sometimes even as early as September the leaves are falling from trees and it's starting to get too chilly for skimpy clad women. But, at the same time look at Madman, shot in NY it was supposed to be the Summer but was clearly late Autumn. Some shots it was obvious, other shots they tried masking it by spray painting yellow and orange foliage green.

Rich

03-15-2009, 05:47 PM

As far as Zelda goes, the original one on the NES was absolutely brilliant. You can't really bash the graphics because it was only an 8 bit system. Also, the first one on Super NES was great too. Pretty much all of the Zeldas were great games. The Gameboy and Advance and DS ones were good too. They are all great games.

As far as Friday the 13th, I can see what you are saying. I find it fun to play around with the films from time to time. You like to create timelines. I like to write my own Friday stories. We each have out own hobbies to do with Friday the 13th, so that's cool.

Scab, you are right about the leaves in September. I was just being steriotypical and modest. Giving the choice between September and January, Friday the 13th Part 2 is easily a September story, though we all know it is a June story.