Talk:Friday the 13th Part 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pillow case, not burlap sack.[edit]

It was not a burlap sack or a potato sack, it was a pillow case- huge difference. Steve Dash even said it was cloth and not burlap. This is easily visible on close-up shots of the mask.

request to add an external link[edit]

I run a website where we write synopses and spoilers for movies, and I'd really like to link to our Friday the 13th Part 2 synopsis. I'm not trying to spam; I'm making this request for about 8 movies in total. I really think this would be useful and informative to anyone looking for a bit more detail on what happens in the movie. And this wouldn't break any Wikipedia rules concerning external links...but posting the link myself WOULD break the rules. I can only ask that folks here take a look and if anyone thinks it would be useful to others, to please post the link. Here's the synopsis: http://www.moviecheat.com/ShowDetails.php?mid=139Rasi2290

What happened to Paul?[edit]

If anybody knows the real story, please share it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFoglio (talk • contribs) 01:15, July 4, 2007

Paul's fate was left unknown at the end of the film, and as far as I'm aware, was never covered in a subsequent film. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is highly probable that Paul is dead. In the store at the beginning of the third film where he murders the two owners, the woman is watching the news where it clearly states that "8 corpses have been discovered". Count the victims of the second film: Crazy Ralph, Officer Winslow, Scott, Terri, Mark, Sandra, Jeff, and Vickie. That adds up to eight. Of course, Alice's body was not recovered at the time of her murder five years previously and was seen as part of Jason's shrine to his mother, but still, there's eight fresh corpses are accounted for and there were eight kills in the present day during the second film. There would be at least nine if Paul was dead (as Alice seems to have been discounted anyway). Burbridge92 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dash vs Warrington[edit]

This article doesn't talk about the controversy between the to men who played Jason in the movie. It should be included. Bobisbob (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though I agree with you...trying to get actual information added on a Wikipedia page is like trying to convince twenty political bureaucrats to agree on approving paperwork without making 16 copies, and verifying every source 18 times first. Even if it's to reach an agreement on what color the sky is. That having been said, since it was exactly one year ago since you proposed this good idea, and I'm the first person to even notice or reply to your idea in any fashion at all, would probably serve as a good reminder that it probably isn't worth the time or effort to get the typical Wikipedia nazi to actually get off their butts and add some useful information at all. Because apparently that's not how Wikipedia rolls. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.27.245 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police Officer/Winslow...film/movie[edit]

NO WHERE in the movie was his name stated as "Winslow". Not even the credits. The books and the movies are written by totally different people, and therefore, Winslow is the name in the BOOK ONLY. And 'movie' is just as professional as 'film'.18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an official book released by the copyright owners, but that's fair enough. I'm reworded it so that it isn't "the cop" every 10 words. Also, "movie" and "film" are not the same caliber when it comes to professional writing. "Film" is more more eloquent when it comes to what an encyclopedia should be using to describe the "movie".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Friday2jasonmask.jpg[edit]

Image:Friday2jasonmask.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Packanack Lodge[edit]

The name of the main building in the movie is called "Packanack Lodge" (trust me, I own the first 8 movies and put this one in the DVD player just to make sure I was right before posting this); since Camp Crystal Lake is "permanently" closed down, does anyone know if the place they are actually at for the majority of the movie is a rival campground known (or perhaps only known as) Camp Packanack? Or might it not be a campground as such in the way that Camp Crystal Lake was (for children) and instead is just a neighboring campground with private lodges for adult groups or families to stay on the lake? I think the article would benefit a little by making it clear, if it was ever made clear enough to know for certain. - Somarinoa (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but the character of Paul (and the wiki plot summary) states clearly in the film that the location is a "counselor training center." Bodypuzzle (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on plot section[edit]

Should this article continue to have a plot section written in excessively poor, POV, weasel-ly English, including phrases such as, "we are introduced to a lovely group of counselors," "obviously they have an interest for each other," "old hick [...] feisty [...] vivacious [...] handsomegirl-magnet," "the killer pops up and we see him," "a short cat-and-mouse game ensues," and, "" – ? 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Please list your comments in your own section, and avoid threaded discussions within sections.

Comments from TreasuryTag[edit]

No.
More extended version—content which violates our core content policies on original research, verifiability and neutrality, plus material which flagrantly goes against the manual of style, should be removed at once – ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research in the plot section. Plots are sourced to the films themselves and everything written (albeit poorly written) is in the film. If we removed all content that was poorly written from Wikipedia then we'd have a lot of bare articles. Where is the neutrality violated as well? POV wording is not a neutrality issue, because it isn't taking a stand for a particular side, it's just a POV description of characters. Easy to fix see here. They are not promoting anything, thus not a NPOV issue. Again, poorly written does not mean "original research" or "NPOV violation". If you don't like the way it reads, tag it or fix it. I've already done one of those.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Feisty"? "Vivacious"? [citation needed] ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PO (personal opinion, instead of POV, which could insinuate NPOV type of argument and it isn't) terms, don't need to be sourced because they shouldn't be there. They're easily removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be there. They're easily removed. I tried that, and you replaced them multiple times – since you have just noted that they shouldn't be there, perhaps you could explain this? And also, which part of, "Please list your comments in your own section, and avoid threaded discussions within sections," did you find confusing? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you blanket deleted the entire thing. You did not try to simply remove the problem words. If I comment to each of your new statements in my own section then the conversation wouldn't make sense, because no one would know what I was talking about each time. Regardless, this RfC is already clear in one thing, no one is for outright deletion of the entire plot section, which is what you were pushing for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You three times restored content which you acknowledge has no place in an encyclopedia. That seems more or less disruptive to me. I also see some support for deletion and rewriting from scratch (my deletion was the first stage of this process), so you're clearly not altogether familiar with the content of other editors' comments.
As it is, it seems that there is broad consensus for restoring the plot-summary from this revision and that is what I will do sometime tomorrow if there are no serious objections raised. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the parts where I went in and deleted the inappropriate stuff? You must have. You also don't understand that when someone says "delete and rewrite" they don't mean "delete and hope someone comes along and rewrites". It's all one process. Don't confuse the two. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't miss it. But it still doesn't mean that the above diffs don't show you repeatedly – over a period of around twelve hours – restoring material which you admit is and was inappropriate. When you reverted me the first time, why on earth didn't you check that you weren't replacing any such content? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there WAS NOT any original research, like you were claiming which is why I just reverted it. I didn't "clean up" anything until later because you were still making such a big deal out it and yet weren't bothering to do anything yourself but simply blanket delete it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you can possibly find this complicated, and suspect that you actually don't. But just for the record...
Three times, you restored material which included content you admitted above should not have been in Wikipedia. My question is this: although you ultimately removed that inappropriate content ("feisty" and the rest of it), why did you restore it three times before doing so? Is it because you didn't carefully check out the material you were replacing but merely blind-reverted? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in the beginning, it was horribly written, but that was not an excuse to blindly delete everything. I reverted it "3" times because you blindly deleted everything "3" times. I was only checking for original research and NPOV violations (which is what you were claiming was the issue) and when there were not any I reverted the initial time (the remaining times was me telling you that your claims were inaccurate). My "reverts" were simply because you kept blanket deleting instead of actually making changes yourself. It wouldn't take you more than 15 minutes to probably clean up that plot, but you had to turn this into some time of debate where the hope would be everyone would come in and say "yes, this is horrible lets just delete it and walk away". That isn't the case. The plot should be cleaned up, and the only reason I haven't done it myself is because I'm more annoyed by your own lack of interest in doing any real clean up duties yourself. I'm more offended that you'd rather delete it outright and hold some long discussion via RfC to see if others agree with you than just clean it youself. You appear to know enough about what is poor English that I would trust your ability to clean the section. I'm perfectly capable myself, but if you aren't going to throw a hand in and actually do something, then I don't have a vested interest in doing so either (At least, not at this particular time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially, your answer to, "Is it because you didn't carefully check out the material you were replacing but merely blind-reverted?" is yes. Thought so. Don't do that sort of thing in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about your own, misguided, self-rightious actions is fine with me. I'm not the one that cannot tell the difference between original research and NPOV violations and just shitty writing. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I recommend this book for you? I suspect you may find it invaluable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW, why do you keep removing outdents? They're used so we don't have conversations starting on the right side of the page) Just because you just finished that book doesn't mean that others have not surpassed you already, I actually have to read this for a living. Might I recommend you simply re-read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to get a better understanding. I would also suggest this one as well because you seem to not know what weasel words are as well, as you claimed the plot section was riddled with them. Now, before we continue to personally attack each other I'll just say this will be my last response to you because my real point was made awhile ago and everyone else's point here has been made as well. Just in case you missed the general consensus, a plot section will remain. You have two choices, rewrite it outright, or use the one from 3 years ago. Whichever you decide is irrelevant to the fact that you don't have consensus to just delete it and run away. I hope you have a happy and prosperous new year, and maybe we'll meet on better terms in the future. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, LASTWORD. How quaint. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bignole[edit]

Yes, this page should have a plot section. Should it be cleaned up, yes, but is there anything in that section that would force the entire section to be deleted? Absolutely not. There is no original research, as TreasuryTag states. Original research implies that you are jumping to a conclusion without sources to back it up. There are no conclusions in the plot summary, it's just a rehash of what happened in the film. Now, is the section poorly written, with tons of grammatical mistakes, extraneous details about the film, and probably some POV character identifies (which is not to be confused with a nonNPOV that Treasury is also claiming), yes. But none of that is grounds to delete a plot section. Plots are sources to the films. I've seen the film, and can verify everything written is exactly what happens. Whoever wrote the plot even steered clear of original research with things like, "We don't know what happened to Paul". This is very true, we don't know because he just isn't there anymore. My suggestion is tag it (which it is), fix it, or just don't read it until someone else has time to fix it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak[edit]

Should the article have an overly long plot section "written in excessively poor, POV, weasel-ly English"? No, of course not. The solution? Rewrite it. I found the plot to be not brilliantly written and a little confusing but it is easily fixable by someone who is familiar with the film. I see some of the words that bothered TreasuryTag have already been removed. It's a little too long, but I'm sure can easily be trimmed a bit. I'm surprised we need an RFC for this.--BelovedFreak 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from bobrayner[edit]

I think that the plot section, as it stands, is excessively long and has severe POV and style problems. I don't mind plot summaries in principle, but this one needs to be trimmed. With a chainsaw. :-) It might even be better to delete and rewrite from scratch, but that may not be acceptable to all. bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Betty Logan[edit]

There's a much shorter but better written version in the edit history: [1]. If no-one is up for a re-write I suggest replacing it with the the older version. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Format[edit]

Plot sections often bloat out on WP, becoming infused with unneccesarily intricate descriptions of little bits of action. I've seen this recently with The Towering Inferno, Terror Train, Halloween III: Season of the Witch and Prom Night. In those cases I simply go back and copy an older, much shorter version of the plot and reinstate that. I usually then trim it further for good measure. It is not really something I see as needing much discussion: plot synopses should be short. Format (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want my own section heading (we're not at ArbCom here folks!), so I'll piggy-back on this one. We should have a plot summary. Gutting the article by removing the entire summary is not acceptable, and I see it's been pared back now rather than being removed entirely. Plots are perfectly verifiable, not only by using the film itself, but also by reference to secondary sources. If there are issues with interpretation, they can be resolved by using reviews and commentaries - this is somewhat unconventional on Wikipedia, but I've found it useful to refine plot summaries as using other sources guides us on what to give weight to in our summary. WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words, which is not a hard limit; for comparison the previous (badly written) plot was just shy of 900 words. There are sources out there to work from:[2][3][4]. Fences&Windows 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason surviving or drowning in Crystal Lake.[edit]

I removed the statement that Jason Voorhees is a grown adult and that he survived his drowning. It is never stated within the film that he survived, and it's only hypothesized "in legend" that Jason witnessed his Mother's death, and even then it is not stated he survived his drowning. If we are going by what's told in each film on it's own, this film is too vague to piece anything together with our own opinions for an official Wikipedia article. Jason simply returned, with no explanation, and we don't know his official age to claim he is an adult. Simply showing his legs in the opening scene is quite a stretch to go on and say he's "fully grown".

Well, he would still be "fully grown", because I don't think he was going to become more adult in size than he was in the film (different actors portraying him not withstanding).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"5 years later" is the first time we see him completely. It's fair to say he's fully grown by that point, but not in the opening when all we are presented is a pair of jeans walking across the street. So, if the term goes anywhere in the article, it goes when he is revealed back at the Camp.
Well, it shouldn't say him at all. It should just mention that she was murdered by an unknown individual, because you don't know that it is him at that point in the movie (as you point out, a pair of jenas is just that). It shouldn't be noted until the end of the plot, when Ginny pretends to be Mrs. Voorhees that it is revealed that it is Jason killing everyone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. We don't know it's Jason until he responds to his name being spoken. Very true. Until then the killer could have turned out to be anybody, like so many slasher movies being released at that time. I'm sure that was going through audiences minds when first viewing this movie; were just so used to it being known he turns out to be Jason.

Feel free to correct the rest of the plot to account for that fact. I imagine the other pages are operating in the same capacity of assuming before it is stated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

Requested move 14 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved consensus is against the move. SSTflyer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Friday the 13th Part 2 → Friday the 13th Part II – Although this is technically the second film in a franchise series, the film is called Friday the 13th Part II not Friday the 13th Part 2 (based on the poster and trailer of the film) — it instead appears to be an original research addition for some reason other than actual title accuracy. On more than one occasion now, an anonymous IP has gone around Wikipedia actively breaking links to this article by prematurely rewording them to the correct title despite the fact that it makes them redlinks, so I'm submitting this for discussion on their behalf since they likely don't know how to do it themselves — but if this is going to keep happening, then the title needs to be fixed. 60.52.1.146 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The poster and the trailer, but 1) Not the actual film and 2) not the actual copyright. Both use the "Part 2" monicker, which is why the article is labeled that way. We do not name articles based on movie posters or trailers, because those are created by other people in marketing, and have nothing to do with copyright...or what appears on the screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bignole. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Killers[edit]

"Scott has his throat slit with a machete while caught in a rope trap and kills Terry off-screen, Mark gets the machete slammed into his face and falls down a flight of stairs, impales Jeff and Sandra with a spear while they have sex, and stabs Vicky with a kitchen knife." Scott kills Terry? Mark kills Jeff, Sandra, and Vicky? Granted, I've never seen the film, but I was under the impression that Jason did all the killing.... 71.233.90.196 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friday the 13th Part 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poster change  ?!?[edit]

This poster is more official ?!? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082418/mediaviewer/rm1225745152

I believe that was the poster used in movie rental locations, not for theaters. Similar to how the Friday the 13th: The Finale Chapter theatrical poster was just the name, but the video rental places got the poster with a knife through Jason's mask.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date[edit]

So on looking around at sources beyond Box Office Mojo (which should probably only be used for box office information and not film release dates really) I only see release information referring to a May 1 date. Here are the sources I've dug up:

This is several sources against the one Box Office Mojo and five of them are contemporary sources. I'm leaning towards we change the date to May 1, 1980. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AFI source is persuasive; the local papers are reliable sources, but only about releases within their localized geographic area, and so can't speak to a potential early release in some other area. I spent some time looking for any reporting about early/midnight screenings on Thursday nights, which could potentially have explained the 4/30 date, but didn't find any. Grandpallama (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Midnight screenings (if any) also suggest other problems. is midnight count as that day? Or is that for the the next day technically? Not that we've found any for this film, but so far I'm quite content for using AFI as a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, Crystal Lake Memories lists April 30 as the release date in their franchise box office section (at the end of the book), and on page 68 it explicitely states that it was released on April 30, 1981 to 1350 screens. That said, in "Legend of Camp Blood" (released earlier) on page 86, it says the same exact line except it has May 1, 1981. LOL. So, how's that for clarification and consistency.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! Well I'm pretty torn on this but if it was really released to that many screens, you think some sort of evidence of this would have shown up! When I was searching for this information in the Newspapers.com, I was really strictly looking for just anything that said any release date but have not really found any date referencing April 30. :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any way to contact the authors of these books to see where they got their information from? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I honestly don't know what prompted the change in date for some sources. It'll have to stay May 1, because there are several newspaper sources that say that, and only a few sources that are using April 30. Maybe Peter Bracke got the date wrong and these other sources are using his book as reference. This is what his book says:
The following is a list of statistics for the Friday the 13th franchise. Box office numbers have been provided by their respective distributors. Figures for total paid admissions are an estimate, based upon average ticket price of their respective year of each film's release. Ticket prices provided by NATO. As the Friday the 13th films were R-rated and earned the majority of their grosses on weekend evenings, no adjustments have been made for child, senior citizen or matinee pricing. All video sales figures current as of August 1, 2005. Provided by VideoScan, an independent industry tracking firm.
I mean, he seems to have his shit in order, so while at the moment I agree it should stay on May 1, I'm very curious as to where the April 30 date comes from.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with release date information. Even published sources who cite quotes from cast and crew, box office sources, rarely state where the information on where release dates come from. I'll push towards the May 1 date as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In the absence of an explanation for the discrepancy between the two books, I still find AFI to be the most persuasive/authoritative source for a release date in this case. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Warrington Gillette" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Warrington Gillette has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21 § Warrington Gillette until a consensus is reached. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friday_the_13th_Part_2&oldid=1207310795"