Talk:Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject Horror (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Can we accurately say that it is also known as "Friday the 13th IX" because it legally never was. Paramount retained the "Friday the 13th" name, that is why New Line has never released a film by that name. The Part IX name is really only reference by fans, and even that isn't a correct. Should it not be removed?Bignole 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, New Line owns the Friday the 13th title. Notice that Paramount gave New Line credit for the title on the box set. New Line has simply chosen, for whatever reasons, not to use it. However, I don't think I've really ever seen fans refer to is a part IX (9). It's usually just Jason Goes to Hell, not even putting the subtitle into common use. I think going in line with calling it a ninth installment was really just a working title, or an alias to help integrate its place in the series. --Bacteria 02:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I read somewhere that New Line cannot use the title in any future films, though they own the rights to characters and the stories. They still collect all the money it brings in, but as part of the agreement they couldn't use the name as the title of the movie. Hence the Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. It would serve better purpose if you owned the right to use it in future contexts to use it when you make a film. There have been other cases when characters have crossed companies that the title couldn't be used anymore. Example would be DC and Marvel, when DC bought Captain Marvel part of the agree was that they couldn't use the working title for Captain Marvel when it was under Marvel ownership. They own the full rights, they just can't publish anything under its original title. Either way, I think we both agree that the "aka Friday the 13th IX" does not belong.Bignole 03:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read that before about New Line not being able to use "Friday the 13th;" they had just bought the rights to the Jason Voorhees character. But I've also read that they (New Line) later bought the rights to that name as well and have so far opted not to use it. On the DVD versions of the films that were released by Paramount, there is a notice to the effect of "Friday the 13th is a registered trademark of New Line" notice. --Myles Long 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New Lines owns all of the rights, but that isn't to say that part of the contract didn't state that New Line could not use the title in a feature film. Like I said, it wouldn't be the first time. I am going to remove the "aka Friday...IX" from the page, since we can all atleast agree that it was not known as friday the 13th part IX. Bignole 15:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

in the final scene from the movie, Evil dead stuff![edit]

the dagger and the necronomicon are seen in the final scene in the house, the exact same props from the first eveil dead films. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I love how someone saw fit to deem that "uninteresting". Nice hack job on the Trivia section thus far. -- 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ending[edit]

Why isn't the ending of this movie noted? Excuse me if I sound a little to fanboyish, but I feel that the ending is of great importance, for it could be considered the first canon crossover of the Freddy Krueger and Friday the 13th timelines; plus, it could also be interpreted as "inspiration," in a sense, for Freddy vs. Jason. Am I the only one who feels this way? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an in-joke. FvJ had been in development hell since Friday VII.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is this information stated? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Which part, the development hell? That's in both Making Friday the 13th: The Legend of Camp Blood and Crystal Lake Memories, the in joke I think was mentioned in CLM but I'm not positive where I remember reading it, hence why it isn't mentioned at all anyway. Right now I'm working on the Jason article, and once I'm finished with that I plan to tackle each of the films.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for clearing it up. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just being in college, and working during the day takes up a lot of time so I don't get to work on the Jason article as much as I want. In case you've seen the actual Jason Voorhees article, please note that I'm not literally working on that article, but a new one in my sandbox.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. Say, this is somewhat off-subject, but how many "sandboxes" can you make? I want to experiment with that but I don't want to break any rules. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I took out a link to the LAR Grizzly Win Mag. This link looked like it was thrown in there by somebody who felt the need to display their knowledge of firearms rather than contribute to the plot. (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


This article is missing important sections of information on the film, including information on the film's production which should be added to the article. There should also be more information on the film's reception added as well with more reviews from notable critics added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ending scene[edit]

I don't really care if the ending scene with Freddy's glove is included or not, but I think it'd be better to discuss it here than edit war about it. For what it's worth, reliable sources that describe the ending as important: [1], [2], [3]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

First, it isn't about whether the claw comes up or not. The plot is not a place for supposition regarding the future of a franchise. That is why I removed the statement from the plot, because when you remove that all you have is a descriptive statement of "a claw pulls the mask underground.", which is largely irrelevant to the overall plot of the film. It's a gag. I can pull the exact transcripts from Peter Bracke and the other companion book that talks about it. New Line owned both characters and struggled to get a FvJ movie off the ground. In the meantime, they created "New Nightmare" and "JGtH" as a way of keeping the franchises alive in moviegoers minds. The end bit of the claw was a last minute gag created by the director of "JGtH". It was not an intention of setting up a FvJ movie, especially since that didn't even happy for 10 more years. Even the sources you provided don't say that the scene was an intention to set up a movie, but that its sight pushed more for the movie to take place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was an intentional set-up for a franchise. I agree it was a throwaway gag. But the gag was highlighted in reliable sources, so maybe it's worth including. I'm not trying to argue anything in particular; like I said, I don't care all that much whether it's included it or not. But there's enough evidence of its importance that we can discuss it. Perhaps we could cite these sources in the reception. For example, in the link above, Bloody Disgusting called that scene "one of the best teasers in movie history". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It is included in the article though, down in the "trivia" section (mostly because the article hasn't been developed enough to have a proper production section where that would be included). My argument has always been that it isn't appropriate for the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Director's cut[edit]

According to this post there was a huge amount of additional footage shot that would have made for a more coherent story, but the studio forced its removal. There's a petition going for a Director's Cut. Not adding this yet as it needs better sourcing, noting it here so I can come back to it. JamesG5 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)