As a huge Nightmare on Elm Street fan, it frustrates me that Freddy only has a single kill in the whole film, whereas Jason has dozens.
Probably the best scene is Mark's dream sequence where Freddy burns him alive (Mark being the only character who truly knows what's going on, everybody apart from him and the Sheriff have no idea.)
Yes, I know that towards the end it will be harder for the kids to dream when Jason is with them, but a few more deaths with Freddy terrorizing their nightmares wouldn't go amiss. Anyone else agree?
Yeah, would've loved for Freddy to have at least a couple more kills. But then again, Freddy wasn't really about having high body counts whereas Jason was usually hitting double digits.
Yeah, would've loved for Freddy to have at least a couple more kills. But then again, Freddy wasn't really about having high body counts whereas Jason was usually hitting double digits.
Exactly. In the original NOES Freddy had 3 kills, 4 if you include the bed scene with the mother at the end.
reply share
You can sort of count the stoner as a Freddy victim too.
That was more of a combined kill, Jason finished him off.
Yeah, would've loved for Freddy to have at least a couple more kills. But then again, Freddy wasn't really about having high body counts whereas Jason was usually hitting double digits.
I agree with this. Jason was a silent killer, so there wasn't much else for him to do other than kill, kill, kill. Freddy had more personality and could actually talk, so had to carry the story more than Jason did.
reply share
Thanks for putting a spoiler in the thread name, a-hole
This movie is 13 goddamn years old! First...Don't look at message boards if you haven't seen the movie. Second...if you haven't seen it by now, you probably won't.
Just saying,
Rex
When movie hell is full, re-makes shall walk the earth.
reply share
Thanks for putting a spoiler in the thread name, a-hole
It's a movie discussion board for a 13-year old movie. Are you really surprised that the plot could be spoiled by posting on the forum? I mean, even if the movie was brand new, don't read the forum if you don't want to risk seeing spoilers.
13 years after the film was made, I think it's safe to assume that most people reading this forum have seen the movie, and those that haven't don't care about spoilers.
reply share
It's a movie discussion board for a 13-year old movie. Are you really surprised that the plot could be spoiled by posting on the forum? I mean, even if the movie was brand new, don't read the forum if you don't want to risk seeing spoilers.
13 years after the film was made, I think it's safe to assume that most people reading this forum have seen the movie, and those that haven't don't care about spoilers.
Still, you don't put SPOILERS in the THREAD TITLE. As simple as that, it's a common sense. I doesn't matter how old the film is. What's the time limit then, how old films can be spoiled? 1 year? 5? 10? 13?
reply share
It's a movie discussion board for a 13-year old movie. Are you really surprised that the plot could be spoiled by posting on the forum? I mean, even if the movie was brand new, don't read the forum if you don't want to risk seeing spoilers.
13 years after the film was made, I think it's safe to assume that most people reading this forum have seen the movie, and those that haven't don't care about spoilers.
But isn't it also common sense, that if you don't want to find out spoilers from a movie you shouldn't post on an internet forum about that movie?
reply share
I totally agree, the highlight of all the NMoES movies were all ways Freddys over the top, inventive and tragicomedic kills. This being 50% a NMoES-movie really disapointed me a lot, it could at least have used two more dream-kills in the classic Freddy style, especially since the movie didn't really have too much of Freedy versueing Jason either...
No ones afraid of Freddy, Jason kills to get them scared, except Jason doesn't stop (and nicks one of Freddy's kills). Freddy throws a tantrum, targets getting rid of Jason, and fails miserably in the process.
I wouldn't say miserably. He had Jason dead to rights, so to speak, until those meddling kids got involved.
False. The kids were the ones who were keeping Jason unconscious in the first place. If they hadn't kept injecting him with tranquilizers, he would have woken up a lot sooner, i.e., before Freddy would have even gotten to the point of stumbling upon the "fear of water" thing, and then what?
In other words, you have it backwards. The only reason Freddy had Jason in any sort of compromised position at all was because of "those meddling kids". He used one of those meddling kids as a vessel to render Jason unconscious to begin with, and then they took it upon themselves to keep him unconscious. It was only the fact that they ran out of the tranquilizer drug that made them stop injecting him when they did.
By the way, the idea that Jason dreams is asinine, as is the idea that drugs could knock him out, or even affect him at all. He's "undead" / supernaturally animated; normal biological rules don't apply. The idea of him being afraid of water is asinine too.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs. reply share
"By the way, the idea that Jason dreams is asinine, as is the idea that drugs could knock him out, or even affect him at all. He's "undead" / supernaturally animated; normal biological rules don't apply. The idea of him being afraid of water is asinine too."
I know it's too late to reply but Jason being afraid of water in a dream is not asinine. He would still somewhere in his memory have the vision of himself drowning (or almost drowning if you believe the fan theory that he somehow ended up swimming to shore unnoticed and survived in the woods all those years) and Freddy could use said fear in said memory against him. So yeah. Not asinine. If you're talking about in the real world, yes but not in a dream world. Also I'd argue that a zombie could sleep and dream too. I think zombies could be susceptible to drugs and I'm pretty sure that there are movies where that happens.
I know it's too late to reply but Jason being afraid of water in a dream is not asinine.
That's a non sequitur. I didn't say, "By the way, the idea that Jason is afraid of water in dreams is asinine." If you allow for the asinine idea that Jason dreams, then sure, he can be afraid of water, or enjoy playing tiddlywinks, or whatever, in his dreams. Again, I said that the idea of him dreaming in the first place is asinine. He's supernaturally animated, i.e., he's not animated via biological functions like a real-life organism. How do we know? In part 6 he was shot in the forehead at close range with a .357 Magnum, and it didn't even faze him, which eliminates the possibility that his brain controls his functions. In part 7 he was so rotted away that most of his bones were visible, including his entire rib cage, which means there couldn't have been any functional brain matter left, especially considering how much of it would have been destroyed by the bullet in the previous movie. It also means that muscles aren't in any way responsible for his movements, given that they are largely nonexistent, and what's left of them is rotted (meaning, nonfunctional).
Dreams are a product of the brain; Jason functions without a functional brain or other vital organs, which makes the idea of him dreaming asinine. Sedatives having any effect on Jason is also asinine, because sedatives work by altering brain functions, and in order to do that, they use the circulatory system to reach the brain. For starters, Jason shouldn't have a functional circulatory system (see part 7), and for another thing, he doesn't have a functional brain for the drugs to affect in the first place. So what's supposed to be happening here? The drugs are affecting whatever supernatural force is animating Jason? That's asinine. Drugs work strictly on a biological level, and a supernatural force is not biological, by definition.
reply share
I'm sorry. But just because Jason is rotted and was brought to life by artificial means doesn't mean his brain doesn't work. I admit I haven't seen a large amount of Zombie movies but I would argue the brain still works in most of them. By your logic the premise of the monster learning to talk in The Bride of Frankenstein shouldn't work because the Frankenstein monster is basically dead rotted Flesh brought back to life and therefore shouldn't be able to talk cause his brain shouldn't work.
>I'm sorry. But just because Jason is rotted and was brought to life by artificial means doesn't mean his brain doesn't work.
Yes, it does. Rotted flesh is inherently non-functional, you know, because it is inherently dead, and the rotting destroys its original structure. On top of that, brains which have been shot at close range with a .357 Magnum tend to become non-functional as well, due to massive tissue destruction. Ballistics gelatin is designed to approximate human tissue; see here what a .357 Magnum does to it, and you can get an idea of what it does to a brain - https://youtu.be/9ZJSGJqsVFg (just in case you were thinking a bullet just pokes a neat little hole like an arrow).
>I admit I haven't seen a large amount of Zombie movies but I would argue the brain still works in most of them.
Your argument holds no water, given that we saw him shot in the head in part 6 and it didn't faze him. Prior to part 6 it could be argued that he had a functional brain, but that's irrelevant, because FvJ takes place after part 6. Not having a functional brain doesn't mean he's "mindless" (which he obviously isn't), it just means his thinking and movements aren't happening on a biological level, which only leaves a supernatural level (such as his body being animated by his spirit/ghost, for example). Drugs can only act on a biological level, therefore they would be useless against Jason, just as a bullet to the head is useless against Jason (bullets also can only act on a biological level).
>By your logic the premise of the monster learning to talk in The Bride of Frankenstein shouldn't work because the Frankenstein monster is basically dead rotted Flesh brought back to life and therefore shouldn't be able to talk cause his brain shouldn't work.
First of all, it is not "my" logic, it is simply logic. Jason being shot in the head and not being fazed means his brain is not controlling his functions, period. Movies not from the F13 franchise are irrelevant.
You could argue that if it hadn't have been for the kids 'meddling', the two wouldn't have fought at all. If Jason wasn't drugged, he wouldn't have slept and wouldn't have been able to pull Freddy out of his dream.
Not me. I wasn't impressed with Jason's over-kills in this movie, so I don't think Freddy's kills would have made a difference. If this were the 80's or 90's, teens fearing the Boogeyman might work. But today's teens are more empowered, so it's hard to see where Freddy can get to them. Sure, teens are troubled, threatened, hurt these days, but I don't see the Freddy Franchise using that AT ALL.
And what fresh Hell is this?, Malory from Archer(Dorothy Parker)