Timeline Proof – Friday The 13th (2009) Is Part Of The Series


By Shane Zinda

Proof for the Preservation of Continuity

I, personally, found in it all I needed to classify it as a Sequel. I guess it depends on how you define Sequel. To me, in Friday the 13Th and Franchises like it, a Sequel is defined as a new entry into the series that does not definitively break continuity with that which came before.. With how Friday the 13Th and Jason work, and how continuity is already left largely in the eye of the beholder from the ending of the Part 1 onward, I think that it is actually incredibly easy for the fans of the Franchise to find a way to see it as a Sequel. I don’t demand that people agree with me, I prefer everyone decide for themselves. I just want to give evidence to this logical proof. It’s like the Bond movies, in a way. If we take into consideration the point of view that every new actor is a new 007, then there are many Bonds and not one. As such, Bond is an alias and not just one person. And, from that, we can deduce that the 007 series is one long running Franchise; and not a reboot with the new Casino Royal. With The New Friday; as long as continuity is not definitively broken, it can be considered a Sequel. Criticize my proof if you feel compelled to. I find that when people criticize me, it makes me think more. The more I think, the better defined my proofs become. So, without further adieu, my Proof of the Preservation of Continuity.

Flash Back Date

The New Friday starts out in 1980. This sets this flashback as a retelling of the end of Part 1. The best I can tell, this is done from Jason’s perspective. Though, that is debatable and in and of itself not the point of this logical proof. In elaborating on this, there is only one thing in the entire scene that might make it not jive 100% with the original. Now, I realize at first glance the order of events and dialogue are not the same. It’s not like the beginning of Part 2 where they play the end of Part 1 almost verbatim. It is a new perspective, possibly Jason’s, of the same events. If we look at the comic book Pamela’s Tale Volumes 1 and 2; they are a combination of retelling the events of Part 1 as well as shedding more light into the past that foreshadowed them.

The reason I bring this up is because it too deviates from a word by word reiteration of the same events. Rather, it paraphrases some parts. It is an example of how multiple sources of media can deliver multiple perspectives of the same event. One could think of Part1’s ending from Alice’s point of view in Part 1, Pamela’s in Pamela’s Tale, and Jason’s in the New Friday. If you were to get three people to describe to you the same event; it is likely that the descriptions will vary based on what each person found important to themselves. Thus, the retelling itself is up to interpretation.

As a side note, I guess the reason I feel The New Friday’s Prologue is from Jason’s point of view is because it is set away from the rest of the film. In doing so, it seems to belong to him. Almost as a memory. He feels that, even beheaded, she is talking specifically to him. And, it is often unclear what is happening. It does not show if Jason rose from the depths of the lake after or watched from the sidelines still alive. (In the theatrical release.) It shows us just enough to give everyone what they need to know to understand the character and leaves everything else to interpretation. I just have a feeling, with how it looked, was paced, was set apart, and was personal directly to him; that it was his memory of the event and what he found important and took away from it. The only thing, to me, is the locket. One possible explanation is that, as a memory, he might be associating it with her in the memory even though it wasn’t on her person at the time of her death. Another is that it was, and we just didn’t see it in Part 1. Maybe it was under the Blue Sweater. Or, maybe this is just a hole in my theory. I never said it was perfect. And, if you pick one of the other two, the theory still stands so far.

The Present & The Past

The next scenes take place Friday the 13Th, the Present. Which, with the release date, is 02/13/2009. Then the rest of the movie six weeks from that point. It very clearly says present; not 1981 1982, or anything like that. So, to me, this says that it is not a film that fits in between Parts 2 and 3 like some of us thought it might be before it was released.

Which was understandable, considering the appearance reminiscent of Parts 2 and 3; the sack and the un-axed Hokey Mask. One reason I bring this up is to get people to think. If Jason was alive, from resurrection or never having drowned, back in 1980; what did he do for the past 29 years?

My guess, the events of the Franchise we came to know and love. Seriously, did he spend the 29 years digging the mines? No, because there was mention that a sign was put up for them. He wouldn’t build secret mines and then put up a sign for them. He found them, he didn’t make them. The mines also help explain how he gets around so well in the entire Franchise.

Also, Pamela’s Tale shows Elias as a miner, an interesting connection.

So, if we try to say that nothing happened between 1980 and the present; then isn’t that out of character for Jason? In 1980, he felt that his Mother told him to kill for her. Did he just sit on it for 29 years and on 02/13/2009 decide, “Now is the time!” Where we supposed to simply believe that nobody ever tried to go back to Crystal Lake or re-open the camp? Or that he never wondered off site? (Part 8.) Or bounty hunters never came after him? (Parts 4 and 9,) Or that he never caught the attention of the FBI? (Part 9)

I think this was a way for the writers to tell us something. To say the previous 11 movies did not exist would be to say that Jason put Mommy’s head in a hole in the wall and sat there in the dark for 29 years without anyone going into the camp and without him killing any significant amounts of people to draw any sort of large attentions such as the FBI. It just doesn’t makes sense that he would stay alive, angry, and dormant for 29 years. To me, this was the writers’ and Director’s way of saying this really is Part 12, not a reboot.

The GPS Tells us Something

The GPS is another telling sign. As far as I know, no such device existed in the 80s. Or, at least not in such a hand held way that would be readily available to the public. So, the movie has to take place in the true present, 02/13/2009, not as some way of being between Parts 2 and 3.

Let’s Check Shutdown Dates

Wade said that the camp had been shut down for 20 years. Twenty years ago would be 1989. The Camp Grounds were clearly shut down in Part 11. They were also shut down in Part 9. And, it is unclear if they were active or inactive in Part 8; the few minutes we spent there before the boat went off to find the Lazarus. If they were shut down after the events of Part 7, as would be completely possible from what we see in Part 8, they would have been shut down for 20 years just as Wade said.

Now that we have it established that the prologue with Mrs. Voorhees is in 1980 and the rest of the movie is in 02/13/2009 and the six weeks after; we’ve also established that the Camp Grounds have been closed down for 20 years, which fits the timeline of the previous 11 films, and we can assume by his character that Jason did not sit and do nothing for 29 years. The movie is crying out, screaming, for fans to put the pieces together. I hope that I am laying a good foundation here.

Jason doesn’t Need Excuses

The next point I want to make is how this is possible. We must look at how Jason was left at the end of Part 11. Jason was left in Camp Crystal Lake. How many times have we seen him rise from the lake? How many times have we seen him just get up again?

At the beginning of Part 3 we see him begin to crawl and get up from the floor of his shack in Part 2. There was no one having sex. He wasn’t struck by lightning. He wanted to get up and seek vengeance; and he did. So, the idea of him getting up without an outside cause like lightning being needed seems doable to me; he’s done it once before. Also, we’ve seen him rise from the lake in Parts 1 (arguably dream sequence), 4 (goes under for spear kill), 6 (goes under and back up against Tommy), 7 (Tina), 8 Power Cable, 11 (arguably dream sequence.) So, we know he can resurface from water. He even does so again at the end of Part 12! So, he can come back on his own without an outside force and can come back up from water.

Jason Dresses for Success

He had a jacket on at the end of Part 11. Lo and behold, he has a jacket on in Part 12. Now, it is a different jacket yes. But, did he wear the same green shirt from Parts 3 to 4? It’s the type of cloths that stay in continuity, not the actual costume itself. So, just because it’s a different jacket (costume) doesn’t mean it’s a different jacket (storyline wise.)

Jason Regenerates

He is alive again, but don’t be fooled. We know from Jason X that Jason has the ability to regenerate lost and damaged tissue. Even when his mask is taken off in Part 10, he looked more alive than in previous films. I believe Jason could regenerate to being alive again. Once he is alive again, he would be just like he was in Parts 2, 3, and 4. As such, it makes sense to me that Jason simply regenerated back to being alive and young.

Jason’s Age

Let’s take this a bit further. Jason was 11 when he drowned. Part 1 takes place in 1980. Jason drowned in 1957. If Jason did not drown, and instead lived, he would be 39 years old in Part 2. (Jason was 11 upon drowning in 1957. Add 23 to take him from 1957 to 1980. That sets him at 34 in 1980. Now, Paul says that it has been 5 years sense the events of Part 1 in Part 2. This would make Jason 39 years old in Part 2.) If we put that in contexts of The New Friday, Jason would be 63 years old. This new Jason sure is a pretty spry 63 year old. He must exercise well, eat well, lift lots of weights, and really take care of himself in that old cabin to be in such good health at 63 years old. Try imagining Crazy Ralph doing the things Jason does in the New Friday. Get my point?

Jason can regenerate back to a youthful and healthy state of about a 20-30 year old. And, if he can do that, why not be able to regenerate from dead to alive when we already know he can come back from the dead with his own regeneration, given the right inspiration, such as in Part 11. Or, again, even without a direct outside force, such as in Part 3’s beginning.

Relics from the Past

We see the Wheel Chair from Part 2. We also see a bike which could be from Crazy Ralph or one of the Twins from Part 4.

Compile the Proof

Now it makes sense that we have the prologue taking place in 1980. The rest of the movie takes place in 02/13/2009 and the six weeks after. We realize that Jason didn’t sit there and do nothing for 29 years.

We know that Jason must be able to regenerate to a youthful form, otherwise he’s one Hell of a strong 63 year old for someone living off wild game in the woods alone. We know that Jason has come back from the dead on his own accord before, and out of the lake (even in this movie), can regenerate lost and damaged tissue, and with all that, I think we can assume he could become alive again and not just back alive from the dead.

For goodness sake, the camp has been closed down for the time-frame it should have been, just as Wade said; and Jason’s still wearings the same jacket as he did in the previous film! I don’t know why he decided to ditch the Hockey Mask and try the Part 2 look again. Probably the same reason he picked up a Jacket somewhere in one of his Dream Sequences in Hell between Parts 9 and 11; namely Part 10. I guess he just felt like it. But we all know that he got his Hockey Mask back. There is no axe mark, but there wouldn’t be. This is a new Hockey Mask; not the one from Part 11.

A Word From the Writers

I am confident the writers knew what they were doing and that they allowed for this point of view on continuity be true, nay, even encouraged it to the fans paying attention to these details.

“It’s basically, it’s kind of like a sequel. You know what, I think that this movie can still take place and not sort of disregard the other movies. That’s one of the things for us is that we did not want to say, “none of these movies happened.” It was important for us not to say, “Hey we’re starting over and that didn’t exist.” That’s not something we wanted to do… For me, it lives sort of alongside all the others.” - Damian Shannon & Mark Swift – from Script to Screen His Name Was Jason.

So you see, we didn’t get a new Jason. We got to see the original Jason come back in a new way. And, truly, isn’t that what we all wanted anyway? I know I did.

About the Author


44 Responses to “ Timeline Proof – Friday The 13th (2009) Is Part Of The Series ”

  1. It’s a reboot of the series, not a continuation of it. If it was a sequel, they wouldn’t have given it the same name as the 1980 film that its based on. I mean, seriously, what kind of a degenerative brain disease does someone need to have to name the 12th entry of a film series EXACTLY THE SAME NAME AS THE ORIGINAL FILM?!?

    Platinum Dunes does not even understand continuity…that’s why all of their F13 flicks make no sense from one to the next. Damion Shannon and Mark Swift do not understand continuity and that’s why they work for Platinum Dunes and try to call their film a sequel. Somebody needs to go back to school…

  2. Dude, seriously, who goes to the movies to see PART 12 of anything???? No one. The guys who made the “remake” did a half decent job of creating the feel of the original Fridays (IE 1-4).

    Now, what could have been better….

    1. The music. The screeching violins are as pivotal to the soundtrack as Ki ki ki ma ma ma. (which was also underused).

    2. Big fake boobs are not required. Nor is Pot smoking. But thumbs up on each…just don’t make it so gratuitous. Neither drove the plot before, why should it now?

    3. For the love of God, have a chase scene at the end with one lonely girl survivor!!!! Really, is that hard???


    5. Film it in the NORTHEAST. Yeah, we can tell the difference. Camp Crystal Lake is in New Jersey. Not Alabama, not Texas, not TORONTO for christ sake. The original had ATMOSPHERE…get it back.

    They made the originals a year apart in the early 80’s…on a shoestring budget. We don’t need them to take their time to make a sequel….it can be done fast…they just need to know how to get it right.

    Ok, rant over.. : )

  3. Yeah it wasn’t a sequel. It could be taken as one, yes, but ACTUALLY it isn’t. Like someone else said, it’s a reboot to the franchise. A fresh start.

    i think this movie is a new part of the story,
    the only one reason it looks like the 80’s stuff because producers wants to introduce new generations on the old style slasher.
    and i think jason wears the sack because in fvj the hockey mask was too damaged to wear it again.
    so, i don’t pretend people agree with me too and i say sorry if my english in not perfectly correct, i’m from italy-)

  5. Hi Diz, I didn’t write the article (Shane Zinda did) but glad you liked it. I have my own personal feelings on the continuity of the reboot but in regards to the argument that the reboot ISN’T a sequel because there are gaps in logic, well hell, pretty much every later FRIDAY sequel contained continuity errors, or was designed to ignore a previous entry (i.e. JGTH didn’t want to deal with JTM, FVSJ didn’t want to deal with JX, etc.) but the fans manage to fill in the blanks anyway, which this article is a new extension of.

  6. You keep bringing up that the original Friday the 13th is set in 1980. It’s not. Thanks to part 4, Mrs. Voorhees’s tombstone tells us that part 1 happened in 1979, which in reality isn’t even a Friday. Unfortunately, our beloved series’ timeline got screwed up over a quarter century ago!

  7. hi dusk,
    yes the article was nice-)
    we aren’t on the same point of wiew about the timeline but it’s ok.
    how shane says : “horror movies are made to think more”. ^_^

  8. A-MA-ZING, this article can explain a lot. I don’t I have any criticism, yet(I might need to think a little more about it). I think they wanted to reboot the franchise, not the story of Jason(as you explained in this article), so in that way it is a reboot.. But also a sequel. I love it.

  9. Freddy Vs. Jason wasn’t actually part 11, it was actually intended as part 10, as it happened right after part 9 (jason goes to hell) it explains how Jason got out of hell, Freddy brought him back. it was supposed to be made BEFORE jason X (part 10) but they instead made it after, that is why in Jason X it doesnt tell you how Jason got out of hell, which is where we seen him go in The final friday (part 9). at the end of Freddy Vs. Jason, Jason is left wondering around holding freddy’s head in his hand, now if you watch Jason X you will see that since beating freddy he has been captured, at the end of the movie Jason burns up in the atmosfear when he desends to earth 2 as the uber Jason, so how the hell could the 2024 version continue on from that?

  10. Nice article…really gets me thinking. I’ll have to discuss it with my brother now.
    I think its a really good point that it may indeed be a sequel.
    That’s what is so cool about this site…the opinions and discussions. Keep em coming.

  11. (for knightshade)

    hi!! i don’t think the 2024 movie is on the earth 2:
    freddy vs jason take place in 2024 , jason was captured by the army in 2024 , so, the new friday take place half in the same year before jx, if you consider the last movie as a sequel of freddy vs jason-)

  12. There was a lot of thought put into this article and I completely respect that. I like when someone puts thought into an idea and researches it. That being said, the new movie really is nothing more than a reboot to the franchise using basic plot elements from the original franchise.

    Jason Goes To Hell, Jason X and Freddy vs Jason could all be viewed as reboots as well because they went totally away from the storylines that were created in the 80’s during the Paramount days. However, they are all stand alone movies/stories that were never continued and hence are called sequels to the original franchise.

    I can see, looking at some of the facts in this article, where you could view the 2024 movie as a sequel. However, the beginning of the movie itself is reintroducing the audience to origins of the Friday the 13th story and Mrs. Voorhees killing of the counselors. This was done to start a new movie and new franchise. If you make a movie to make a new franchise, then it can’t be called an 11th sequel as it’s the beginning of a new franchise and not just another standalone movie to keep the original franchise going.

  13. i agree with everything you just said, i always thought of the new friday as more of a sequel to the original, but with the same title, but now that you point all of this out, i can agree that it is more of a sequel to the entire series than anything.

    GOOD WORK!!!!

  14. JF,
    “This was done to start a new movie and new franchise.” Based on what exactly? I can understand the new movie argument.

    It could be called a reboot, new movie, just like JGTH, JX, FvsJ, however to call it a new franchise well where is your proof? It never changed the things that made it a franchise to begin with. In fact it made it better be incorporating successful elements from parts 1-4.

    So while I do not disagree with the reboot image completely I do agree with the writer in thinking this is another updated version of Jason, hence the sequel. A Sequel that incorporates elements of past, but ultimately taking place in present time. Doesn’t that make it a sequel? Seriously are die hard fans of the franchise supposed to forgot about the whole story line of the movie?
    Mission accomplished ” “It’s basically, it’s kind of like a sequel. You know what, I think that this movie can still take place and not sort of disregard the other movies. That’s one of the things for us is that we did not want to say, “none of these movies happened.” It was important for us not to say, “Hey we’re starting over and that didn’t exist.” That’s not something we wanted to do… For me, it lives sort of alongside all the others.” – Damian Shannon & Mark Swift – from Script to Screen His Name Was Jason.”

  15. JJ,
    You can view it as a sequel if you would like, but Platinum Dunes have said this is rebooting the franchise. Yes, they took elements from the original movies like Part 1-4 to create this new telling. However, how can you say that this is a sequel to the other movies, when Jason is human again, is wearing the sack again and is finding the hockey mask for the first time, AGAIN. This is a retelling of the original Friday the 13th story to start a new franchise, much like A Nightmare On Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw and so on and so forth.

  16. Seems to me like whats been done with the reboot is the timeline has been shifted and updated. If Jason was a boy still in 1980 when his mother was killed, he would’ve had to grow up first, leaving a much smaller gap to explain. Jason wouldn’t be 63 in this new timeline. Love the article though. I recently discovered Pamela’s story and it is very interesting.

  17. i hated everything after part 5,so to exclude any zombie garbage is great by me.a reboot is still way better then some stupid story lines of body-jumping or zombie jason or space or manhatten all those sequels were beyond stupid.they rebooted the series but left out all that stupid shit..good for them good for the fans.it really surprises me that fans love part 6-10 and to me they all are the bad sequels not scoring higher than a 2 out of 10,the reboot scores like an 8 out of 10 and yet they still complain.i can’t bring myself to sit through those other parts at least the new one tried to bring it back.the others 6-10 were made with no skills from non fans of the franchise for a quick money grab.

  18. The way I see it.

    Parts 1 through 8 are the franchise series. JGTH, JX, and FVJ are stand alone stories and not part of the series. The new film is a remake, but taking place 20 years after the end of the series, so to not interfere with the original series. As a reboot of a new series of films, than the upcoming new series films can be seen as a sequel to the original franchise series. Taking place in the same world, with the same character, and acknowledging all series events.

  19. Very interesting article. Makes you go…hmmmm… I think it can go either way. Obviously the makers created a reboot/retelling of the Jason story…But it’s very interesting that it can fit in as a sequel if you sit there and think about the details that would make it a sequel. Yet, it is called “Friday the 13th” and the makers insisted that it’s a new retelling so that’s what it was. What makes one think further and is very interesting is what Shannon & Swift said in an interview about the movie in Script to Screen His Name Was Jason. Like I said, it’s one of those things that make you go…hmmm.

  20. ummmmm……i like the girl in the tent seen….she had nice boobs.

  21. sorry…i cant type or spell today….

  22. it is a re-imagining, not a continuation of the story. the short answer is the mask. by getting the mask in that barn, it tottally erases shelly’s mask and the events of part 3.

  23. what the reboot was missing was atmoshpere. sure it could of done without some of the tits and ass and drugs, my opinion is that they were not needed, but the boobs were nice. they are trying to please todays MTV generation. the original movies had Jason sneaking around to get his kills, hiding in the shadows and such. sure this movie had some of it too, but again, it just did not have the right atmoshpere about it. its hard to explain, but i am sure everyone knows what im talking about.


    then if it was a 1 for 1 remake, everyone would have the panties in a knot on where they fucked up and how come that they just didn’t put some new ideas into making a new film to make Jason fresh again.

    i for one, liked the new movie, sure it doesn’t compare to parts 2,3,4 ( my favs ). but it was fresh. sure you had some predictable parts, and sure they could have done alot better in the story, i was disapointed on how he got the mask, considering that is the franchise trademark. also, they showed Jason far too much in the first half of the movie. they should have just showed quick glimpes of him, as that helps add to the suspense of the movie, just as they did in the first few and is the same as Spielberg did for Jaws. dont give everything away up front, keep the people wanting more and then BAM!!!! the last 20-30 mins its in your face action!!!

    ok, just my ramble for the day, keep up the great site guys, and long live Jason!!!

  24. I think the term \

  25. Movie was good enough.

    - Easily the best remake in terms of staying true to source material.

    - Steve Jablonsky though is very generic score wise and I hope they force him to use more of the friday score in a sequel though with most remakes they trend towards not using most of the old scores from the old series.

    - It was not that atmospheric and the kills while some were good, the repetitive machete hacking needs to go. Yes its his main weapon but the character was far more wide ranged in terms of weapons in prior movies.

    - Making him ’smarter’ was a good idea as it was its really hard to argue he was completely stupid in the original series. I believe it was always a myth created by casual fans and Halloween elitists in Michael Myers vs Jason Voorhees arguments.

    - Next film needs a winter setting as it would be completely fresh and new to the series.

  26. Actually this is a very cool concept. Very well written.

  27. Hey diz, all i meant was that there is Friday the 13th 1 through to 8 right? at the end of part 8 jason basically gets melted turned back to a kid, very weird ending. Part 9 Jason Goes To Hell, as someone said is like a stand out movie, it is ALSO a continuation, you may wonder how Jason got back to crystal lake from Newyork right? The slug creature that you see in part 9 transfure from body to body, well that apparently swam through the sewers all the way back to Crystal Lake. At the end of Part 9 Jason gets dragged down into HELL then you see Freddys claw hand come out of the dirt and grab Jason’s hockey mask and drages it down into hell. Now the next movie to be made was Freddy Vs. Jason, however it was put off being made, they then made Jason X which is part 10, however in Jason X it does not tell us how the hell jason got out of hell, left us wide open, this is where Freddy Vs. Jason comes in, it actually continues on from Part 9 Jason goes to hell, it explains to us how Jason came back from hell, Freddy Krueger brought him back, now that we have established that we move on to the way Freddy Vs. Jason ends, with Jason heading back into the woods with Freddys head in his hands, which would be a better explaination for the beginning of Jason X, sometime after Jason defeated Freddy and headed back into the woods at Crystal lake, he was captured by the military, and hence the reason he was chained up at the beginning of Jason X. So in actual fact the timeline goes JGTH – FVJ – JX now you look at Jason X as the LAST movie in the series, at the end earth is dead people now live on earth 2, and at the end jason burns up in the atmosphere heading down to earth 2, last thing you see is his new uber jason metal mask laying there, and you wonder if jason is still alive and will there be a new beginning on earth 2 with uber jason, will it start all over again?
    So all i meant was with that timeline as jason X as the LAST, how would the 2024 Friday possibly ever be a sequal?
    It can’t be, no way in hell…

  28. Very well-researched, and well-done.

    The only flaw, as pointed out is 1980 rather than 1979. But I don’t see why it’s so hard to write that off as an error on the tombstone. It’s happened in real life – my grandfather’s birth date was two years off for many years (1931 rather than 1933)

    Ignoring that though, it makes a lot of sense.

    A lot of people say “They said it was a reboot, so it’s a reboot” but I don’t like that argument. I personally still place it in a new timeline because for all intents and purposes it is, BUT you can’t just write things off as “because the director/producer/writer” said so. There’s a lot of things in the F13 series that go completely against what was the intentions of the original F13 script.

    From my point of view, nothing is ‘canon’ to a film’s timeline until it’s on screen. I only take an actor/writer/director’s viewpoint when a series/franchise is finished, because then it can’t really be contradicted. There’s still a ‘Friday the 13th, Part II’ that, although extremely unlikely, COULD say “Parts 1-11 DID happen” Of course basic logic says it won’t, but it’s something they could do if they decided to.

  29. Sorry if this has been said but I didn’t read all of the responses… Okay first off the whole thing about the reboot being a sequel is stupid. I think the people from platinum dunes saying that, are the one’s who thought in the beginning they had a remake going but then noticed halfway through that it wasn’t a remake or really anything, so they started saying it’s a sequel or remake or reboot whatever the hell they wanted to call it cause they don’t even know. Now as far as the timeline stuff goes. I know the continuity has been screwed up since part 1 but if Jason drowned in 57′ when he was 11 why the hell was he still a child in the remake in 1980? I don’t buy the whole “Jason can regenerate” thats the horseshit we got in starting in part Jason X. Or maybe even Jason Goes To Hell I don’t remember. But this movie was entertaining for the time being. I just can’t bring myself to love it. I mean I love the older films. Part 6 being my favorite, But I just can’t sit back and throw the remake in the player and watch it like I can the old ones. I hope they take that into consideration with the sequel they are trying to make.

    P.S. Dunes… Please for the love of GOD get new writers!!!! Swift and Shannon wouldn’t know a good story or even know how to write one if it fell in their laps.

  30. I have to say the story was well written, I have to agree with the idea that the film was truely a sequel, there are just to many coincedences and if it was a reboot remake reimagining thing then why not have the names from the first film? if I wanted to make a remake I would make sure the names of the original charcters were used, and rewritng a story with all new campers and new names is just purely stupid, I think it was more a sequel than anything.I personally would love to see the original camp ground in the next film if they can pull it off.

  31. It is called pushing the reset button on a franchise that had grown stale & too unrealistic, far fetched. They wanted to bring it back to reality….even though Jason was a little too “Ninja-ish” in the reboot. It’s still more realistic than a chick with Psychic powers, getting struck by lighting, body jumping, going to space…etc. Platinum Dunes said that the sequel will use the original series as a jumping off point, leaving the reboot as a stand alone film.

  32. In agreement with MyNameIsJason re: Jason’s age:

    OK, OK, it all seems to make ALOT of sense except this: you state that Jason would be twenty-something (actually 34, if born in ‘46) in 1980 – well then, why did he still look like a kid? A LITTLE kid? That’s the only thing that bugged me here – if all you say is correct, he aged ALOT between parts 1 & 2. Just food for thought – I actually agree that it’s pretty much a sequel – I just think you should leave his age out of the equation, it clouds your very clear and observant piece.

  33. hey jaysin..indeed,indeed

  34. Wow. I’ll tell you what…I’ve been through grad school…and I’ve seen grad papers that have featured less research than this write up…very nice work Shane…I like your timeline, well written, well researched, well done.

    If only we all put as much time into our love of Fri 13th.


    Im torn between my favorite… part 2, 4, 9 or the remake…its so hard to pick…

  35. It was meant to be a reboot in the same vain as James Bond was a few years back. James Bond would be 90 now if they kept the original timeline.

    All the fans were screaming to bring back the elements of the original movies. Well, that’s what we got…minus suspense and inventive kills. I for one liked it, but things could have been done differently as stated in my original post.

  36. People are writing a lot of things.

  37. it was my understanding that jason only killed people who entered his wilderness out of revenge for seeing his mother killed. just because the new movie didnt talk about any killings happening between 1980 and the present doesnt mean there were not any :) just my opinion, but i thought the movie was a decent reboot, i can see how folks would take it as a sequel. i thought the article above was interesting and made me wonder about things that i never thought of before nice work!

  38. I’m sold. Nice write up. I always consider it the 12 entry anyways…why? Because that would make the next one 13….and there is no way I’m back tracking futher away from that 13 entry that I’ve been waiting forever for.

  39. I cannot believe I am even engaging in this ridiculous discussion, but a simple math correction is in order: The opening scene of the [truly awful] reboot is set in 1980. Assuming Jason was roughly 11 at the time, that would put his birth year as 1969. The [truly awful] reboot then jumps to “The Present,” which is assumed to be 2024. This would make Jason 40-years-old. I understand where the age of 63 is coming from, but it relies on Jason drowning in 1957–which is from the ORIGINAL film, not the reboot; please stop confusing the two.

  40. It\’s not a matter of opinion of view. It\’s simply is not part of the original series. Doesn\’t mean its bad, doesn\’t mean its good. It\’s a reboot, a retelling whatever… but what its not is a sequel. I\’m cool with that… let it be reborn for a new age.. and reborn again 20 years for now. Let it live forever.

  41. Sigh…

    A) It’s a re-boot, just like with Texas Chainsaw. Not some cockamamie sequel. Timelines and plot points were finessed.

    B) The date on Pamela’s tombstone is obviously a mistake. There was no Friday, June 13th in 1979. There was in 1980. Why everyone would automatically accept a typo in the 4th movie of series as gospel and overwrite the original legend with it is beyond me. (Point in case: if you accept “present day” in the reboot as 2024, then why wouldn’t you accept it as the year in which the original was released?)

    C) The reboot opening credit sequence is not told from Jason’s POV. And even if it were, he was a child. In 1980. It’s not rocket science, people.

    D) I think if the 2024 movie were a sequel, Jason would have caught on to the child-psychology trick at the end as the same one that Ginny had pulled on him in part 2. (Of course, you’d also have to believe that Jason was about SIXTEEN YEARS OLD in part 2.)

    The film is a re-boot. I understand that some people can’t handle the idea of starting a movie series over, but let’s get a grip, kids. The reason they updated the backstory so that Jason was still a child in 1980 was because if they set the film in the 80s, the fashion and hairstyles would have been distractingly funny. It would have become a period piece, like “Adventureland,” except the comedy in this case would have been unintended.

    Here’s a simpler hypothesis: the sequels were getting so crappy and shoddily made that they decided to REBOOT the series, abandoning all the demon-possessing, body-jumping, zombie-ambling, teleporting, outer-space bullshit that each subsequently inferior sequel kept unloading. It’s ironic that everyone in this thread is missing the entire point of ANY reboot – to START FRESH. Not to continue what was just getting worse.

  42. It\\\’s a reboot,no need to try to classify it as a sequel using proof from conjuring up every little reference that you see.

  43. you\’ve got a lot of good ideas here. many i haven\’t thought of, in particular the connections with 2024 film and the original 4 film franchise (1-final chapter) very cool ideas!. where i differ is with the part 9, 10, 11 stuff. I believe it\’s incorrect to refer to the 3 new line films as part 9, 10, 11. i don\’t consider any of the new line films as canon. they are not friday the 13th films. they are jason films. the last friday the 13th film before this 2024 picture was part 8. \

  44. “hell”, “x” & “vs” are films based on the character of jason voorhees but they are not friday the 13th films. i realize that this is a weird, ocd, minority view but i consider them to be separate movies with convoluted story lines that are in no way connected to the 8 film paramount franchise. new line certainly tried to throw in little bits of things here and there to give a vague appearance of continuity with the paramount stuff but it’s not enough for me to mentally glue them together. supposedly new line bought the rights to the characters of jason, pamela, the crystal lake name, and the trademark for the title “friday the 13th” (though for some reason they didn’t use the title in any of 3 films). but all of the scenarios and footage from the first eight films (plus the remake rights) remained the property of paramount. don’t get me wrong i own and watch the the new line jason movies but i don’t try and tie them in with the paramount 8.

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>