Andrew Grevas
Recently I had the pleasure to sit down with 25YL staff members Bronson West, Sean Parker, Brendan Jesus, Robert Chipman and Justin Drabek to discuss the Friday the 13th franchise. This was a really fun, in-depth conversation where we talked about the best and worst films from the series, kills, how it compares to other horror franchises and more.
Andrew: How does the Friday the 13th franchise rank compared to the other major genre franchises in your opinion?
Robert: Friday the 13th is the gold standard for the stereotypical slashers of the 1980s. The series, especially the Paramount films, were content, for better and worse, with following a formula that helped define the 1980s as the decade for horror. While the movies did not feature high-concept ideas like the Nightmare on Elm Street series, or the original Hellraiser, nor did it fare well critically like Child’s Play and John Carpenter’s Halloween, it carved its own path by being cheap and nasty; catering to the teenage crowds and creating one of the most profitable horror franchises in film history.
Bronson: Friday the 13th is definitely one of the more important additions to the slasher genre as a whole, even if the quality was never as high as some of the other major franchises. It popularized those stereotypical ‘slasher rules’ that we’ve all grown to, for the most part, love and appreciate about the genre. That is until movies like Scream came along and had its own twist on said rules. The Friday movies, whether you want to agree or disagree, have had a similar impact on the slasher genre as movies like Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Sean: When people think ‘horror movies’ they think of the iconic hockey mask. Jason Vorhees is one of the key faces of modern horror. It may have taken Jason three movies to obtain his look, but it didn’t take long for copycats to appear in the wake of the burgeoning franchise. Sleepaway Camp, The Burning, Madman, and a slew of others started popping up after the success of the first Friday the 13th. The sequels are formulaic and appeared to have no intention of breaking “rules,” but the producers knew the absurdity in character archetypes, and their choices gave the films some entertainment value. Even the “bad” entries have their moments. Exasperating the audience with people taking showers or having sex at the most inopportune moments, building anxiety that causes people to yell at their screen or clam up in terror. Plus, every film goes hard in trying to outdo the last one too, a concept that, realistically, The Fast and Furious franchise films can only truly compare with. Both franchises have also been to space, had films in 3D, and have had crossovers with other franchises fall through.
Brendan: It’s one of the most iconic franchises around, who doesn’t know what the ch-ch-ch ah-ah-ah sound is from? Jason became a cultural icon through word of mouth alone. Does it get silly and ridiculous throughout the franchise? Of course. Unlike Nightmare, Friday the 13th found a way to embrace the camp, while still keeping an even footing and never losing sight of what it always stood for. Iconic actors, and kills alike, set Friday the 13th near the top of franchises. And yeah, I’ll say it, the 2009 remake IS my favorite.
Justin: I think that this series as a whole is just the most fun, and consistent. Each entry is just kind of its own thing. I can’t say like Brendan that the remake is my favorite in the series, but it is a fantastic flick.
Robert: Brendan spitting fire with the remake love! I think by 2009, when the Marcus Nispel-directed entry hit theaters, the fatigue going on with horror remakes including: J-horror, many of John Carpenter’s prior hits, and the Platinum Dunes assembly line, was in full force. The remake was never my preferred entry, but it should please fans of the series. The remake is another chapter in a series that, for the most part, doesn’t rock the boat too much. If anything, it’s a bit too slick and polished for its own good.
Andrew: Brendan already halfway answered this one but that’s ok! What’s your favorite entry in this series and also, your least favorite, with a little explanation for both?
Justin: Personally for me my absolute favorite is The New Blood. I think it presented a new take and gave Jason a strong opponent. I know most don’t put this one high on their list, and I assume I will be in the minority here on this panel, but Tina is a fantastic final girl and the subplots all are worth the price of admission. My least favorite is probably the first. If Annie had been the protagonist I’d feel differently. I know the shock was from seeing her be the viewer’s lead into the film and then have her taken down. I know without this one we wouldn’t have the others, but for me, it sits at the bottom. Followed closely by Jason Goes To Hell, and on a different day that one ranks at the bottom.
Bronson: Absolutely love Jason Lives with its tongue-in-cheek humor and gothic tone. McLoughlin had an absolute blast making it and you can really see that shine through with its creativity and self-aware nature. As for my least favorite, it’s probably Jason Takes Manhattan, although I do get enjoyment from all of the entries. It was just such a letdown for Jason to be on a boat for the majority of a movie that supposedly takes place in New York. Everybody wants Jason in the snow, and that’d be incredible, but I’m going to start a petition to get Jason back to The Big Apple, baby.
Robert: I’m probably going to get skewered, but my favorite entry in the Friday the 13th series is Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday. First, I’ll preface by saying it is far from the best. I feel The Final Chapter is the best for what the series offers and Jason Lives is the most entertaining, with its mix of ’80s slasher tropes and pre-Scream meta humor, as Bronson discussed earlier.
There’s an absurdity in Jason Goes to Hell that no other movie in the series came close to achieving, whether that’s good or bad is for each person to decide. Gone are horny counselors at a camp getting picked off one by one (except for the infamously gory camper scene addition part way into the film). Instead, we get a body-hopping horror film akin to The Hidden, with tons of back story, magical daggers, previously-unmentioned blood relatives, a bounty hunter hunting Jason whom we’ve never met prior who loves to break fingers, and a general sense of WTF insanity.
Does any of Jason Goes to Hell make sense? Certainly not. Do they waste an interesting makeup job on Jason in this movie? They do. Does it have the worst musical score in the franchise by miles? Absolutely.
It also has some of the greatest gooey and violent makeup set pieces in the franchise. Steven Williams’ Creighton Duke is one of the franchise’s greatest characters. The tent scene is infamous and worth the price of admission alone (just make sure you’re watching the unrated cut) and how can you not love the final shot? Jason Goes to Hell is a true love-it-or-hate-it movie. And I love the Hell out of it.
My least favorite, funnily enough, is the next entry, Jason X. Having a horror film mix with comedy is extremely difficult to do effectively. Jason X comes off as too cheesy, too cheap (even by Friday the 13th standards), and kind of an ugly movie all around.
Brendan: My favorite is definitely the remake. It took the franchise in a direction it hadn’t really gone in for quite some time. There’s a real terror to Jason that was fueled by the anger of the awful things happening within the mid-aughts. Also, can we talk about the tunnels! And how he was protecting a weed farm?! On top of the brutal and violent kills, the remake made Jason feel fresh. Picking a least favorite is hard, but it would probably have to be Jason Takes Manhattan. It’s so totally odd and out of place—and there’s that awful heroin scene that just feels incredibly out of place. It’s an ugly, slow, unnecessary installment.
Sean: My favorite entry on this series is Part VII, The New Blood. It’s outright the most fun of any of them because the series one-ups its previous entry where Tommy Jarvis is a mental patient, by deciding to wade into the 70s/80s trend of telekinesis. Lar Park Lincoln raises Jason from his watery tomb with her powers and he kills all of her friends. The trend hit the Exorcist sequel which was successful at the box office, but not with fans and critics, while movies like Carrie and Scanners were hits. As far as the Friday the 13th franchise is concerned, it is the laziest way they’ve ever brought the slasher back that it plays almost satirical of the franchise that it’s in. It’s so bad it’s good. Also, when Jason throws that girl over the television by her face –my favorite kill in these films– I laugh every time. It’s the most absurd Friday the 13th film. I love it.
My least favorite, on the other hand, is probably the 3D entry. It just doesn’t work without the 3D because it sinks into the gimmick and most of the time we have slow edits into shots meant to be 3D, taking away from the experience of the film. Add in that the acting is also a little subpar, even for a Friday the 13th sequel, and it’s probably the one I gloss over the most when revisiting the movies.
Andrew: Let’s talk kills. Everyone loves the sleeping bag death scene from Part VII but what are some of your other favorites?
Brendan: My favorite kill is more of a nostalgic one. When I think of Jason, I think of watching AMC’s FearFest. I distinctly remember Jason X being the first one I ever saw when I was watching FearFest as a kid. I think of the head freeze and smash. It was my introductory kill to the franchise and the one that always comes to mind. Is it the most gnarly? Well, it’s no sleeping bag kill. But it’s a fun and unique way that Jason X uses its setting to try and stand out from the bunch.
Robert: The first kill that comes to mind (excluding the sleeping bag kill and the tent scene I mentioned earlier) is the “death” of Jason in The Final Chapter. For one, it’s Tom Savini making his triumphant return to the series after skipping Part 2 and Part III. There’s also the use of the animatronic Jason head as it slides down the machete, which still looks solid for a low-budget slasher. And finally, it’s the culmination of Tommy Jarvis letting out his anger at hacking away at what remains of Jason, giving him an emotional release—good or bad? That’s the million-dollar question.
For a Jason kill, I’ve always been partial to Sheriff Garris’ death in Jason Lives. It’s not the goriest, showstopping number, but it’s a sad death because Garris is, overall, a good guy, trying to protect his daughter and realizes that his disbelieving nature of Tommy Jarvis was ultimately what led him to his final moments. Add on to that, it’s a quick, but jarring kill at snapping Garris’ body by folding him in half, and it’s the kind of kill that’s memorable without needing to resort to a full-blown trip to the makeup chair. The level of heroism Sheriff Garris has adds an additional layer to his end and makes it much more impactful.
Bronson: Friday the 13th is probably the hardest franchise to choose a favorite kill from for me. I mean, Mark’s death from Part II has always stood out to me because of how mean and visceral it felt. Shelly’s death is another one that I’m a huge fan of because of the fact that Chili thought it was just another one of his pranks. But I guess, ultimately, my favorite Friday kill is from my least favorite entry, Jason Takes Manhattan. The death of Julius has got to be one of the funniest and most creative kills in the franchise to me. Jason just lets Julius completely tire himself out until he finally tells Jason to “take your best shot” and, well, he definitely does. Even though it’s my least favorite in the franchise, you could at least tell that they were having as much fun as they could with getting creative when it came to kills. That’s why I love the franchise so much – no matter how crazy the movies got, they always knew they were crazy.
Sean: I will reiterate my love for Melissa’s death scene in Part VII. Ax to the face, and then a toss by the head over the TV clear across the room. It’s super ridiculous and completely effective given that character is a malicious bully. She gets way more than she deserves but it’s popcorn chomping horror at its finest.
Robert: While I have another hot take that is opposite Bronson, namely, Jason Takes Manhattan is one of my personal favorites, I whole-heartedly agree about the death scene for Julius being creative and funny.
Upon first glance, Jason decapitating someone may not seem as explosive as other kills in the series, but we’ve never seen Jason just allow someone to tee off on him for as long as he allows Julius to punch away. Spending over a minute, going toe-to-toe and accentuating Julius’ boxing traits to its full extent, is a touch of brilliance. And filming most of this sparring session over one shot is an especially nice touch.
Then, to have Julius expend all his energy, tuckered out and his knuckles bloody, and have his head knocked into oblivion with a single punch by Jason is a classic punchline, pun somewhat intended. It’s fantastic.
Justin: My personal favorite kill is the death of Annie in the first one, which might seem ironic because it’s also the reason the first one is my least favorite film. I just think during the whole lead-in you think Annie is going to be the lead and then bam, she is dead. It’s not a spectacular kill, but it is from a swerve perspective very great.
Andrew: I wanted to bring up Tommy Jarvis for a minute. In a sense, he seemed like an attempt to create this franchise’s version of Laurie Strode. Do you think the franchise should have brought Tommy back in Part 7 or one of the following sequels? Would bringing Tommy back for a new film be of interest to you or should that story be left where it is?
Justin: Tommy doesn’t hold a candle to Laurie. I personally do not think he should have been brought back for Part 5, though I get wanting to have a legacy character. I find him most compelling in the fourth one. He’s also good in Jason Lives from a character perspective. Just he really isn’t a focal point on why I enjoy this series.
Robert: I honestly never felt that Tommy had impacted Friday the 13th in the same way that Laurie Strode did in the Halloween franchise. This could be because three different actors played the character throughout the “Jarvis Trilogy,” or maybe because the Friday the 13th series is a completely different beast than Halloween.
While Halloween took a slower approach and worked on the characters, Friday the 13th lined up those in each movie for slaughter. Yes, Tommy got a well-rounded character profile in The Final Chapter, by Friday the 13th standards, I think the switch of actor and filmmaking style brought forth in A New Blood derailed any chance of the character being elevated to the next level like Laurie Strode.
In Jason Lives, I think Thom Mathews course-corrected the character, but by then, the franchise was losing steam at the box office and the ship sailed for crafting a true foe to Jason, as evidenced by dropping Tommy in The New Blood.
Brendan: If you look at the big three of 80s slashers you have Laurie with Halloween, Nancy with Nightmare, and Tommy with Friday. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows who Laurie is. Maybe a quarter of those people are aware of Nancy. Even less of that quarter probably knows who Tommy is.
There’s something about Nightmare and Friday that seemed less cohesive, in regards to the zeitgeist. Every day people could connect with the story of Halloween—it was the only one of the big three that felt grounded enough for mass appeal. That made it easier to connect with THE final girl. It almost feels like people only went to see Friday for the kills. I’ve watched the Friday franchise twice, and it wasn’t until I watched the Dead Meat Kill Counts that I actually cared about (and paid attention to) the story.
The throughline of Tommy Jarvis almost feels pointless in this franchise. In hindsight, I’m glad there’s a character that grows throughout the franchise, but it’s not solid enough to have any real impact like it does in Halloween or Scream. People get tattoos of Laurie and Sidney, no one gets tattoos of Tommy Jarvis.
Bronson: You know, even though I like the character of Tommy and I do enjoy Thom Matthews’ version of Tommy the most, I don’t really think the idea of Jason having a Laurie or Nancy fits into the series. I’m also not a fan of the whole ‘is he the next Jason/killer?’ type of ending that Part V had, I always feel like those endings are lazy (yes, even though I love Halloween 4 now, the ending is still cringy to me).
He just never felt like a ‘final’ character to me other than The Final Chapter.
I like Jason and his mythos the way it is without a Laurie or Nancy type of character, anyway. I think it makes him feel more destructive and unstoppable.
Sean: I am aligned with the thinking of my colleagues here. I think the Tommy Jarvis arc is fine, but the franchise was on its fourth movie when they introduced the character. It feels like they tried to give the fans a protagonist, which probably should have been Adrienne King, if anyone. I agree with Brendan’s assessment of the ’80s final character notoriety, and though Jarvis connects three films, the fact that he’s played by three different people makes the character feel interchangeable.
As far as seeing Jarvis return in a sequel or reboot –I think it’s tiring. I’ve watched quite a few of the Friday the 13th fan films and Tommy is the recurrent answer to immersing the audience. Clearly, there’s already established history, and those films find a way of dredging it up—and Jason. The Friday the 13th: Vengeance films have been very creative and a lot of fun, bringing in Jason’s dad and featuring some of the most extreme kills I’ve seen in any slasher film. However, while Tommy Jarvis works for the fan films, I think setting up a new Friday the 13th now, fifteen years removed from the last official film while asking newcomers to consume twelve cannon films for three with the character because Jarvis is the legacy lead after not appearing in five films after his arc, feels like a bad move.
Andrew: Perhaps the biggest inconsistency in all of the Friday the 13th films is what exactly happened to Jason in the lake when he was a child. Part 1 told us he died. Part 2 told us he didn’t, immediately retconning the first film. Part 6 told us yes—Jason did die in the lake and these films have been supernatural all along.
So here’s the question: Did Jason die in the lake as a child, making these films always supernatural to some extent or did he survive, live in the woods, and emerge when his mother died, making these films more of a revenge tale rather than supernatural films?
Justin: I would have to say I lean more into the idea that he did die as a kid. The first one is the only revenge film in my opinion. I think the supernatural aspect just fits better than a huge hulk of a man wanting revenge. Sure there is inconsistent storytelling. I honestly think the ending to Part 7 works as a return to his resting place.
Brendan: As a remake truther, I like to believe it’s a revenge take—the story is so much fun if you look at it through the eyes of Jason [basically] being a prepper. The inconsistencies don’t really bother me as the Friday franchise isn’t one I necessarily care too deeply about.
That being said, with some of the things that happen to Jason throughout the franchise, and his distinct ability to be wherever he wants whenever he wants, the idea of Jason being a supernatural entity is fun to humor. In Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday, Jason gets blown to bits, and then Phil the coroner eats his heart and turns into Jason. There’s no way to take that other than a supernatural route.
Bronson: I think, for the most part, I agree with Part VI that Jason has basically just been a supernatural entity all along, but if I’m being honest, I’d prefer that he lived and was sort of a woodsman. The idea that something is more grounded and chained to reality is much scarier of an idea to me than something that could never happen. That’s why Michael was scary in Halloween—the scenario could potentially happen in real life. Granted, Friday’s scenario is less believable, but it might not be an impossibility.
But again, while I’d love it if Jason survived and was some woodsman roaming around and getting revenge, I think with how they handled the series, it definitely makes more sense that Jason would be supernatural.
Robert: I don’t think it matters where Jason died, or if he died and what his motivations might be. I think, judging by each film basically having a new mythology for each entry, it’s based on the creative minds of that particular film.
The original was simple and made some sense of a mother seeking revenge for the death of her son at camp. Once Part II hit and changed the mythology, any semblance of a semi-logical narrative was out the window. He drowned, he didn’t, he’s a body-swapping demon, Roy Burns. None of it makes sense, but in a way, I appreciate that.
I treat the history of Jason Voorhees the same way I do the Halloween timelines. They’re kind of a choose-your-own-adventure storyline where it only makes the slightest of sense for certain films.
Sean: Agreeing with what Robert said, I don’t think it matters. As a series, Friday the 13th chapters are cautionary campfire tales and whichever person is telling the story adds their own colorful folkloric ideas. I think that’s what has always made the franchise alluring. Whether we believe he was chained, cinderblocked, and thrown into the lake only to re-emerge for revenge or decide there’s a similar story about a masked killer out there getting added to Jason’s lore is really up to the imagination of the audience. It’s all about the mythos, and it created fun scenarios for the killer who Tell-Tale Heart’s his way back to life in Jason Goes to Hell or thaws out of a block of ice and upgrades in Jason X. Maybe, at some point, it just got to be about overdoing it.
For me, I’ve always seen Jason as a supernatural slasher, but at any moment they could explain Jason’s presence in the same way Michael Myers was defined in the David Gordon Green trilogy. They can dismiss movies to fit a plotline they’re proud of and ground him in reality. I think that might also piss a lot of people off though.
Andrew: What would you like to see in the future from the Friday the 13th series? A new film? Another showdown with a horror icon, whether it be Freddy or someone else? A sequel to the reboot or nothing at all?
Robert: What I would like to see is another entry that doesn’t try too hard. Films that look like they barely try are the hardest to do, but if they could get people who really understand what makes the Friday the 13th series tick, would be ideal for me.
I’m not looking for another reboot or a movie that over-thinks itself. Friday the 13th has never been about themes or depth or, hell, plot for the most part. I think if a creative team can come in and do a new entry that delivers what the fans want: a camp, horny campers, a killer, and practical gore and set pieces, those are the building blocks.
My desired future film doesn’t need to be the best in the franchise or reinvent the Friday the 13th wheel, the creators just need to deliver the fans a simple sequel that will make them happy with the basics. Once the basics are there, new entries can come in and build from that. Just because something is simple, doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Brendan: Jason versus Rawhead Rex. I know it’s a pipe dream but how cool would that be? Or, keeping it with the Barker theme, Jason vs Cenobites! In all seriousness I think a reboot of this franchise would be nice. I don’t know exactly how I’d want to see a reboot of this though. Whatever it would be has to be gritty, mean, and over the top. What if there was one of those “adult summer camps,” where sad adults who can’t let go of their adolescence go, that takes place at Crystal Lake, and Jason just kills like 50 people? Make it a real bloodbath!
Bronson: I’d honestly like them to either do a sequel to the 2009 reboot or wipe the slate clean and do a complete reboot again. I know at one point there was a buzz going around about a found footage style Friday film and, to be quite honest, I’d love to see that. I want to see something different and exciting come from this franchise, and having a team of urban explorers or something be the target of Jason’s within a found footage slasher sounds like a very fun way to get more grounded and make Jason scary again.
That’s the main part that I’d like: Jason needs to be scary again. I’m honestly in favor of the idea of potentially reviving the Nick Antosca script that was in consideration at Paramount and shooting that. It was a very fun, stylistic, more scary approach that I think would be incredibly fun to see come to life. It was also set in the wintertime, which I know a lot of Friday fans have been wanting and got a few years ago with Never Hike in the Snow.
Justin: For me, I am not excited for the series at all. I wish I was, Fuller projects just never seem to click with me. I hope to be surprised but it’s not too high on my radar. As for the next film, I really agree with Robert that it needs to be simple, fun, and basic. I think it should be special.
Sean: Contrary to Justin, I like the idea of Bryan Fuller venturing into the Friday the 13th series. I’m a huge fan of his works, Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls, Pushing Daisies, and Hannibal are some of my favorite shows. I’ve clicked with everything he’s done. All these shows are extremely creative and exceptionally different. My guess is Crystal Lake will provide a more Hannibal-styled approach to Jason and the series will likely focus on Pamela Voorhees teaching her supposedly drowned son how to seek revenge. That’s just my best guess, but I think it’s a good place to restart.
To be honest, the person I think I’d be most thrilled to see make a Friday the 13th film at this point is Joe Lynch. I love the Wrong Turn films and Wrong Turn 2: Dead End was a fun, woodsy slasher flick and essentially a straight-to-video release that kickstarted four additional entries. It’s another series that does a similar thing to the Friday the 13th series in that they all try to outdo each other. Lynch’s recent Suitable Flesh also shows that he’s fine showcasing steamy sex scenes, while Mayhem shows an appeal for brutal kills and gore. All of his films have a feel of an earlier era, the grindhouse feel of Chillerama, the exploitation of Mayhem, or just providing the ’80s movie aesthetic in Suitable Flesh and Wrong Turn 2, even though neither takes place in that time period. Given what we’ve seen from Lynch, I think he could be the best link between modern horror ideals and the favorability of the ’80s franchise. But, rebooting a film franchise is a lot to take on, but he’d be my pick to pull it off.
I’m unsure what I want to see from a return to this franchise. I agree with Robert that simple is the best way to go, but that’s easier to say than to put together. I think we’re done with crossovers for a while, but Jason as an escaped cenobite from the Hellraiser series has potential, Brendan, I like that idea quite a bit.
