Talk:Friday the 13th: A New Beginning

It's not Pete it's Jake

The one with Robin who gets killed with a meat cleaver to the face is called Jake, not Pete. Pete is the guy with Vinnie in the car. Pete's throat is slit by Roy. Can someone please correct that? 24.65.118.20 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The end of the movie

From what I understand, and what's listed at IMDB, the entire ending sequence is a hallucination. This is pretty obvious when you think about it. After Tommy 'wakes up' he still hallucinates Jason and then finds a hockey mask in a drawer in the hospital room. When Pam comes in, he appears behind her after she walks through the door and he's holding some sort of cleaver. There's absolutely no reason for a hockey mask to be in a hospital room, especially a room with someone who would have a bad reaction to seeing a hockey mask. And of course there's nowhere for him to get a cleaver from in his room. In conclusion, Tommy never has Pam come into his room, and he never gets the mask or cleaver, its all a hallucination. Just wanted to see if people were in agreement with this before I change it. 154.20.8.66 (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I`ve never thought of that before, but I think your right —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicPCP (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the answer is in Crystal Lake Memories, and I'm too lazy to look right now. Unless you can find a credible source (not IMDB) that states the ending is intended to be a dream or hallucination, then the page is better left as is. Bodypuzzle (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fadden or Faden?

I watched the movie maybe a week ago, but when I watched it then I noticed this -- when the cops call the apprehension of Vic, they spell his name "Fadden", but in the outhouse stall and maybe the credits, it's spelled Faden. Any known reason why? Which one would be correct? I'm leaning towards the two N's, since the graffiti could be done by someone else (aka NOT Victor) or he might not be able to actually spell his own name (it happens). Thoughts? -- Somarinoa (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Edits to Plot Summary

I cleaned up the Plot section significantly by correcting a multitude of spelling, punctuation, grammar, and syntax errors; however, it still needs a lot of work. I also requested citations in two areas of original research or opinion. Bodypuzzle (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First use of the word...

I added in to the 'Other Notes' section "The first "Friday the 13th" film to use the word "cunt" said by the character Vinnie in the line "Those cunts aren't going to wait all night!"." originally without sources, but when I find three sources, Doniago tells me that the sources aren't valuable and first reverts my edit and says it isn't validable because one of the links was to a Wikia (it was the Friday the 13th dedicated wiki to the character "Vinnies" page). I can understand this and happy with that link being taken away. So put back my edit in without the wikia source and a link to Rotten Tomatoes for quotes from the film and a source to a website dedicated to movie quotes. Doniago then tells me that these aren't acceptable as the information now seems like trivia (seems kind of funny how he/she didn't mention this to begin with). But the other information in the "Other Notes" doesn't seem like anything necessary to the article either. Information about Corey Fieldman is a bit trivia also.

Doniago also tells me that there some be information from a third party (I'm guessing this is the next one up from a 'secondary source'), but why would there be an article dedicated to "A New Beginning" explaining how the film is the first Friday the 13th film to use the word "cunt"? That would only be a one-sentance article. No one would ever write an article about one single thing in the movie. And you might ask then why is it being included on Wikipedia if it's "one simple thing"? Well the Corey Fieldman info on "Other Notes" is one simple thing too, it doesn't matter. Doesn't add anything to the plot. I know that Wikipedia doesn't like OR, but I gave two sources to websites that gave the quote. There isn't going to be an article saying it's the first "Friday the 13th" film to use the C-word. The two sources to the websites that have the quote are relevant so then it prooves that it's actually a quote from a film, because they wouldn't just make up the quote. You can go watch the film yourself and find it. And this week I have watched the first six Friday the 13th films, and it wasn't until "A New Beginning" that I heard the word "cunt" used in a Friday the 13th film. Yes it may count as OR, but it is and it isn't at the same time, because you, whoever is reading this could watch the Friday the 13th films in order and you would find that the first Ft13th film to use the C-word, is "A New Beginning". Sometimes OR is necessary when its information that like the case here, is in the movie, but there isn't an article written about it. The film is the proof and source itself. Just like how a plot to a film isn't referenced or sourced, because its the film itself. If you don't believe the plot of a film on Wikipedia, watch the film and find out yourself, and then you'll see that Wikipedia did in fact have the correct plot. I'm babbling on now, but you should be able to see my point here. If not then you weren't reading properly or taking anything in, as I've explained it quite clearly I believe.

That's all I've got to say. (Doniago I know me and you have talked on my talk page and I said we'll talk on here, so here is the discussion.) Charlr6 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the film using the word is notable. It's just a word. We are not noting the first time the word "fuck" is used, or "shit", or "hell". The word is not illegal to use, it's just inappropriate. Pointing it out amounts to trivia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out the information about Corey Fieldman is trivia, its not necessary. Not really notable. Who cares about that? But then you might ask who cares about its being mentioned that the C-word is used in this film, and not in the previous ones. But that's where people coming to Wikipedia might just want to find out details or research the movies, and thats where both the Corey Fieldman and the c-word information would come in and be helpful.

And it is just a word, you are correct. Most 15 or 18-rated films or R-rated films have the word "fuck" in, "shit" or "hell can be used in PGs and 12s/PG-13s ('shit' and 'bastard' has even been used in a U-rated film, Spy Kids 2 and Flight of the Navigator). Nowadays film makers don't care if a film has the word 'cunt' in it, so if it was a modern day franchise I wouldn't add it in. But in the 70s and 80s it seemed to be more inappropriate and offence, because it hadn't been used in many films before, now tons of TV-shows and movies use the word.

You are also correct that we aren't noting the first times of the other words, but thats because they are used much more often. Much more in most movies, and in movies in the 80s were films that used those words more frequently. Charlr6 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to slap you down for WP:OR, Charlr6, but the quote from Rotten Tomatoes suggests it is notable by others than just you. Ideally I think you'd need a source, not necessarily from a film-critic, that said something like "this film was the first of the series to use the c-word, which was quite rare for a 1985 film aimed at a younger audience". But you seem to be stuck with just that single review quote. So I think it's borderline. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't going to be an article about the use of the word, but this is when the information is OR and it isn't at the same time. If anyone who reads this, watches the first five Friday the 13th films, they will see that the fifth film is the first Friday film to use the C-word. And the film isn't aimed at a younger audience, its a R-rated slasher film for older teens and young adults.

The two websites I did list are links to quotes from the film, so it proves that I didn't make up the quote. But it is the first film in the Friday film to use the C-word. If anyone who reads this watches the films, you'll see for yourself. So there will be evidence if other people see the films and then can see that it is the first Friday film, and this makes it not as OR as it could be, because anyone else can just watch the films and see for themselves what I'm saying is true. This film isn't hugely popular, so why would anyone write an article about it? The OR is condescending because it makes it seem that critics reviews or film articles are 'above' and more important than a Wikipedia editor who knows the truth. I'm not 'trolling' around and making it up. The secondary and third party source could be the films itself, just like how a films plot isn't referenced or sourced, because it IS the plot of the film. Charlr6 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are qute right, Charlr6, the plots for films, as for novels, usually act as their own source. It's the bit about having to watch all the earlier ones to know this fact, that seems somehow borderline to me. "First US film ever to use the c-word" might be notable, but if it rested of equally limited reliable sources, might not last very long. But you are obviously arguing in good faith and I'm sure no-one thinks you are a troll. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe everything I would say has already been said. The thrust of my argument is that I don't see how it's notable that this is the first movie in this series to use the word. That sounds like the definition of fancruft to me, especially if no third-party sources made note of it. Nobody expects an entire article on the subject, but at least an article where the fact is noted is, to my mind, a requirement to demonstrate that the fact isn't trivial. Doniago (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There won't be an article though about it. It's not a hugely popular film, so it's not like there is an article about it. Or a movie review for the film and says, for example, "not only is this film an obvious cash-in movie as the last film was classed as "The Final Chapter", but this movie is also the first Friday the 13th film to use the C-word". Charlr6 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If no reliable source has discussed it, then the information doesn't satisfy WP:V and is inappropriate for inclusion. Also, IMO, if no reliable source has discussed it, then why is it important enough to be included here to begin with? Doniago (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source has said anything about the Corey Fieldman information. So we would all have to go out of our way and watch the documentary to find out if its true. No reliable source has discussed it, so why is that important to be included?

We would all have to go out of our way to watch the documentary and see if the Corey Fieldman information is true, just like you would all have to go out of your way and watch the first five Friday the 13th films to find out that "A New Beginning" was the first Friday the 13th film to use the C-word. Charlr6 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Although there needs to be a citation put in, the source is there. The fact that it's not an external link is irrelevant. The difference is that you're comparing an actor not being able to reprise his role completely with some significance in word usage in the film. I don't think those two things are even remotely close on noteworthy scale.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then I could add in either on the actual page, or hide it as an edit next to the 'first use of the word' information (like how in plot summaries you can add in the edit box "no more than 800 words" but it can't be seen by anyone else) so then if people don't like it, and are about to get rid of it, they would see the edit. I could say "Watch the first five films, and you will see this is the first 'Friday' film to use the C-word".

It wouldn't be a external link, but the source is there - the films!

The two pieces of information though are still 'trivial' though.

But what about editing in either on the actual article or hide it in the edit list not to the "first use of the word" information that the source is the first five films, and for you to believe it you should watch the first five films to see that it is the first film to use the C-word? It's asking people to go out of their way, which they won't do, just like no one will probably unless extremely desperate go out of their way and watch the documentary and try and find if its true.

So how about it? The source is the first five films if you watch them in order. There isn't an actual article about it so this is the last source, the first five films IS the source. Mention either on the page or hidden in the edit box how it to prove it, you need to watch the first five films?

This is where OR is relevant. I've seen that not all Wikipedia follows rules. We aren't going to get told off if we don't follow rules. I've seen information not referenced but have been left there for a while. This is where 'trust' should come in, how can you even trust most articles outside of Wikipedia? It's written by someone, doesn't mean it's fact.

The source for the Corey Fieldman is watching the documentary.

The source for the first use of the C-word in the 'Friday' films is watching the first five films and seeing yourself. Simple as.

And like I said, how can you even trust most articles outside of Wikipedia? It's written by someone, doesn't mean it's fact.

I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with the source in general. Yes, I can watch the films and verify that it was the first time that word was used in the series. But, how is that notable? You are applying significance to the use of the word when no one else has supplied significance to it. That is the difference. You're opinion that this is somehow worthy of mention isn't relevant. You cannot compare it to an actor not being in the film when he was expected to be, because they are not even close when it comes to value of information. So, unless you have a source that discusses the significance of using the word, there is not a reason for it to be in the article. If you think no such sources exist, then there isn't even a reason to debate it because you're admitting that it's not noteworthy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Where has anyone supplied significance to the Corey Fieldman info?

And no sources will exist because it's not a popular film, if it was then the actual article would be jammed full of information. The significance of the word being used in the film is that it's the first Friday the 13th film to use the word. And I'm not admitting it's not noteworthy, if I was then there would not be a discussion or debate to begin with. What is the point of the "Other Notes" anyway? It's irrelevant to the page itself as it is only one 'note'. Waste of space if it's only one piece of information. Charlr6 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel that we're talking in circles here.

Significance was supplied to the Corey Feldman info when those involved with the film opted to talk about it on the DVD Boxset. I'm assuming they didn't make note of the fact that this film is the first one in the franchise to use the word "cunt".

Again, please review WP:V. Information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable through a third-party reliable source. It doesn't matter whether you think it's significant, though so far I'm not even sure that you've asserted that (though you seem to think it's important enough to debate), much less why you think it's significant. All indications seem to be that we're talking about WP:FANCRUFT here.

As far as "Other Notes" goes, it's a poor header. "Production" would be more in line with the MOS and equally descriptive regarding the Feldman info. Doniago (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they are going to talk about in the documentary how its the first Friday film to use the word, like its a big thing. It's not a big thing about Corey Fieldman anyway. Charlr6 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're admitting it's not a big thing that they used the word. The fact that in the documentary they felt compelled to acknowledge why Feldman was not in the film, yet did not feel the same way about a particular word used in the movie shows that at least they (that would be the people making the film) thought that mentioning why Feldman was not in the movie for more than a few minutes was a big thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would they mention anything from the script though? Charlr6 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, they kind of did mention stuff from the script by discussing Feldman's absence from the movie. Either way, the real question is "Why should we be mentioning it?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. We can mention the Feldman bit because the people behind the film chose to mention it. Can the same be said for the c-word info? If any third-party reliable source mentioned it then it can be added with the source cited. If no, then the information doesn't pass WP:V and most likely isn't notable enough for inclusion. Honestly not sure what the difficulty is here. Why are you so intent on this Charlr6? Doniago (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friday the 13th: A New Beginning. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115052539/http://www.lalalandrecords.com/F13.html to http://lalalandrecords.com/F13.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

The film has gained a Cult following in recent years 2601:647:8000:2C60:1D50:F91B:76A2:A9E4 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)