From Forrest Green with Love – Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (1986) – CBP030

Jason's Mask – Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (1986)

Jason's Mask – Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (1986)

Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI is the film that paved the way for Jason Goes to Hell. It introduced a sort of supernatural element into the series. This is also the film that fans cite as the start of the franchise's downward spiral into a parody of itself. While some of that might be true, there were some really good moments in this film, especially where some of the aspects of Jason's personality we haven't seen yet are concerned.

Discussion Points

  • We bring on Audible.com as a sponsor
  • But you can stop the ads!
  • You can blame Jason Goes to Hell on this film
  • The Universal Monster connection
  • Tommy is working through his PTSD
  • Jason's got a brand new mask
  • …and some new clothes
  • The gamma radiation explanation
  • Morgan Freeman?
  • Tommy's got a gun
  • No Final Girl?
  • The Sheriff
  • …ah yes, there was a Final Girl
  • Kano Jason
  • A Crazy Ralph stand-in
  • Erich Anderson was right!
  • Kids
  • Property damage

Listener Mail

“I've got to ask… Do you think Jason and his mom weren't aware of each other since he died in the lake for those 20 years? cuz in part 1 she went around killing everyone cuz he died at like 13, right? Then in part 2 he did cuz he saw her die. so wouldn't you think that knowing he lived make her cool out? Cuz it doesn't make any damn sense.”

“Would it have made a better film if Jason's father had made his appearance like he was supposed to at one point?”

“Talk about how different this movie is in tone to the rest of the franchise, with the comedy and Gothic-horror influences.”

“If Jason was already undead prior to pt 6, why does being raised by lightning make him super strong?”

“What does everyone think of the cast change for Jarvis? Upgrade, in my opinion.”

  • Deadman

    Oh come on, I’d watch part 7 or even 8 anyday over Jason Goes to Hell. Blame Adam Marcus for that crap! Btw, never noticed the blood splatters on the share links at the top of the page – nice touch.

    • Haha…I was only talking about the fact that this movie is the one that brought the supernatural element to the series. That was my only connection. And thanks about the graphics…I do all of them myself…lol

  • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw

    He COULDN’T have gotten the mask? Why the hell not??!!! These “debunkers” kill me with this shit! They become atheists or declare that no conspiracy could possibly exist because they come up against something that they view as an insurmountable discrepancy, when the reality is it is only their limited ability to conceive of possible scenarios which leads them to think there’s any contradiction!! Why couldn’t Tommy have blackmailed a policeman who had been admitted in the past to a mental health facility with Tommy but who was very concerned about keeping his fellow officers and superiors from learning about it, thus convincing him to get into the evidence locker and abscond with the mask?

    • I used Ocom’s Razor here. Sure he COULD have found a way to get Jason’s mask, but given all of the extra theorizing you have to do to explain how, it’s just more reasonable to assume that that mask was not Jason’s. That and it’s clearly not Jason’s mask given the look of the forehead chevron and the lack of the cheek chevrons, as well as some of the missing battle damage.

      • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw

        Ockham’s Razor is totally invalid and of no authority, especially when it comes to deducing anything about human behavior. It is NOT more reasonable to think it’s a different mask. It is more presumptuous. It cannot be said that it is clearly not Jason’s mask given that you could just as easily say that it wasn’t Jason’s face that was revealed at the end of The FInal Chapter. There are certain elements which are left to the interpretation of the effects people, similar to the way different comic book artists draw the same character drastically differently from one another.

        According to your “logic” you would also have to claim the mask in part 7 that he comes out of the lake wearing isn’t the one from part 6 because it doesn’t have a bullet hole in the forehead, it has a broken section on the wrong side, and it has totally different rivets, including the absence of even a hole for the lower right rivet, doesn’t have the same chipping of the chevron, and also has totally different straps.

        • You are obviously having an issue with Ocum’s Razor. The simpler explanation is at least the most reasonable. I feel like my explanation is the more reasonable of the two we presented. You have to jump through a lot more hoops than I do to explain how Tommy somehow got the actual mask, whereas with my explanation, he need it do anything but buy one. That is the very spirit of Ocum’s Razor. Does that mean I’m necessarily right? No. It just means that, for me, that is the most reasonable conclusion, especially when you consider the drastic changes to the mask that Tommy brings to Jason’s gravesite.

          I will, however, say that a lot of theorizing about Jason breaks down after part 6. Although, I still maintain that while the costume people got some of the continuity of the costume wrong, I think it’s still reasonable to say that it was the same mask, even though we know the art department clearly got some details wrong.

          If my answers here don’t satisfy you, perhaps you’d like to come on the show for a Patreon episode for a friendly debate about this? Email us, and I’ll give you the details if you want.

          • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw

            “You are obviously having an issue with Ocum’s Razor.”

            No, not only is it just something stated by a Franciscan friar, but as I implied, it is definitely not universally applicable, nor considered such by those who understand what it is and consider it valid for its intended context:

            “The application of the principle can be used to shift the burden of proof in a discussion. However, Alan Baker, who suggests this in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is careful to point out that his suggestion should not be taken generally, but only as it applies in a particular context, that is: philosophers who argue in opposition to metaphysical theories that involve any kind of probably “superfluous ontological apparatus.””

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

            “The simpler explanation is at least the most reasonable.”

            Really? What’s the simpler explanation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? What’s the simpler explanation of the origin of maggots and flies, spontaneous generation, or the hatching and maturation of larva?

            People inclining toward the simpler explanation when it comes to human behavior is what allowed Marie Laveau to convince countless dupes that she had “magic voodoo powers” when the reality was that she had a network of spies secretly working on her behalf to create “magical coincidences” in people’s lives.

            This is not to mention how many were written off as paranoid delusionals while government really was dosing them with radiation or conducting other experimentation on them.

            I totally destroyed your claims, and you are doing nothing but bullshitting in order to falsely give the impression to yourself and others that you won, and insulting and disrespecting me tremendously in doing so.

            Again, appealing to inconsistencies in the elements of the costume is totally invalid, and given that Tommy Jarvis is willing to expend the time and effort necessary to apparently escape a psychiatric facility, procure a vehicle, gasoline, digging equipment, etc., not to mention that he had no qualms about marching into a cemetery and spending however much time and effort was necessary to dig Jason up, there is no justification for doubting that he would do what was necessary to retrieve the mask.

            “If my answers here don’t satisfy you, perhaps you’d like to come on the show for a Patreon episode for a friendly debate about this? Email us, and I’ll give you the details if you want.”

            No, thank you. There are factors which make it very problematic for me to participate in those kinds of things as of in a way that I could be sure would allow for me to express my thoughts clearly and proficiently.

          • Yes, you really destroyed me, by offering a scenario that is grounded just as much by what you see in the films as my explanation, which is to say not very. I admitted that I could be wrong and that, for me, my explanation requires far less leaps of faith as far as what Tommy may or may not have done, and given everything we know from the film, including the mask seen on screen. If tacking on all those extra steps makes sense to you, that’s fine. No worries. I just can’t see how you’re justified in jumping to the conclusions that you have. its obvious that you feel the same way about my conclusions, and that’s fine.

            I also had no intention of disrespecting you, and after rereading what I wrote, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. My apologies on a poorly written rebuttal.

          • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw

            “Yes, you really destroyed me”

            Yes, I certainly did destroy your claims

            “…by offering a scenario that is grounded just as much by what you see in the films as my explanation, which is to say not very.”

            The scenario is perfectly plausible and consistent with the behavior of Tommy Jarvis, and as I proved by way of the differences between the depiction of the same mask in one movie and its depiction in another, with tremendously more significant substantive differences such as bullet holes, a totally different kind of rivet, totally different size of rivet and totally different color of rivet, totally different strap, absence of any semblance of a place for the rivets on the lower part of the mask which are, of course, indisputably intended to be portrayals of the same mask, the argument from a difference in appearance in this case is absolutely of no relevance whatsoever.

            I can guarantee you that as far as the filmmakers were concerned, the mask which Tommy Jarvis brings to the cemetery (which has the ax mark from part 3 long before there was any indication of a morbid fascination-based line of Jason Voorhees masks within the F13 universe as in part 8), was a depiction of the mask knocked off of Jason’s face in The Final Chapter.

          • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw

            “Yes, you really destroyed me”

            Yes, I certainly did destroy your claims

            “…by offering a scenario that is grounded just as much by what you see in the films as my explanation, which is to say not very.”

            The scenario is perfectly plausible and consistent with the behavior of Tommy Jarvis, and as I proved by way of the differences between the depiction of the same mask in one movie and its depiction in another, with tremendously more significant substantive differences such as bullet holes, a totally different kind of rivet, totally different size of rivet and totally different color of rivet, totally different strap, absence of any semblance of a place for the rivets on the lower part of the mask which are, of course, indisputably intended to be portrayals of the same mask, the argument from a difference in appearance in this case is absolutely of no relevance whatsoever.

            I can guarantee you that as far as the filmmakers were concerned, the mask which Tommy Jarvis brings to the cemetery (which has the ax mark from part 3 long before there was any indication of a morbid fascination-based line of Jason Voorhees masks within the F13 universe as in part 8), was a depiction of the mask knocked off of Jason’s face in The Final Chapter.

            It is not only unjustifiable, but also dangerous to presume the simplest explanation when it comes to the actions of human beings given that it is not without reason that conspiracy is designated as a crime just about everywhere and not without precedent.

          • lol Fair enough, man. It’s not that serious. I’ll ask the director when we talk to him next. But honestly, as I’m sure you know, if youy’ve listened to us for any length of time, I don’t necessarily care what the intent of the writers or directors are. Even when we talked to Victor Miller. He said his Jason was dead, but given what we saw in later films, I don’t say he died until Tommy killed him in Part 5.

            And yes, you argued your favorite theory, and you’ve failed to convince me. Sure, the scenario you lay out is just as plausible as mine, or more so according to you, and that’s fine. We’re allowed to draw our own conclusions about these films, it just so happens I don’t agree with yours. I do appreciate you sharing, though. Perhaps I will bring up this thread on the show for discussion. The invitation for you to come on is still extended.

          • lol Fair enough, man. It’s not that serious. I’ll ask the director when we talk to him next. But honestly, as I’m sure you know, if youy’ve listened to us for any length of time, I don’t necessarily care what the intent of the writers or directors are. Even when we talked to Victor Miller. He said his Jason was dead, but given what we saw in later films, I don’t say he died until Tommy killed him in Part 4.

            And yes, you argued your favorite theory, and you’ve failed to convince me. Sure, the scenario you lay out is just as plausible as mine, or more so according to you, and that’s fine. We’re allowed to draw our own conclusions about these films, it just so happens I don’t agree with yours. I do appreciate you sharing, though. Perhaps I will bring up this thread on the show for discussion. The invitation for you to come on is still extended.

          • Tsadi Waw Mem Taw

            “One night, he broke out the window of his room and his therapist found him, wearing Jason’s hockey mask and brandishing a knife.”

            “…I don’t necessarily care what the intent of the writers or directors are. Even when we talked to Victor Miller. He said his Jason was dead, but given what we saw in later films, I don’t say he died until Tommy killed him in Part 4.”

            Establishing what is “canon” to a series means that one has to care about what those responsible for making the series intended to portray.

            The fact that Victor Miller says Jason was dead does not negate the fact that he returned in sequels, because it occurred in the actual films. If the franchise would have continued in a different direction from part one or would not have continued at all, then there would be grounds for stating that Victor Miller’s position that Jason was definitely unalterably dead would win out. I am not saying this to be vitriolic or anything, but I have noticed that there are a lot of fans who wrongly believe they are justified in ruling that something in one series or another doesn’t make sense when they have no justification for doing so, the only basis for it being this Ockham’s razor presumption of the simplest explanation nonsense. That point of view is totally unjustifiable, and appealing to a Roman Catholic clergyman having professed it once upon a time does not change that. Don’t you understand? It’s all invented horseshit, like a little girl making the rules for a game she invented that exists nowhere but her imagination, with some bunch of dupes going along with it and adhering to those rules!! They created these disciplines and then THEY set the rules and standards for them with no valid comprehensive basis in reality for them! It’s completely worthless and of no authority!

          • These films, especially the later ones, are so convoluted by people who wished to leave their mark on the franchise, while grossly ignoring continuity, that it’s hard to reconcile them. We go by what we actually see in the films, regardless of what the script might say, or a writer might say, etc. I understand you’re wanting to stick to canon in the particular way that you are, but honestly, no one working on these films was. Again, that’s my opinion, and while I respect yours, I don’t agree with you.

  • Jeremy Seaholm

    I just heard this episode. My first thought on the mask point was that (and I could obviously be wrong) Tommy still had the mask from when he killed him as a kid. I don’t remember what happened with the mask at the end of part 4. We see him at the end of pt 5 with Roy’s mask. There’s an obvious difference between the two masks from part 5 to 6. Maybe the director just decided to go back from the blue chevrons to the red. Just a thought. Wether it’s right or wrong. That’s all it is. Just an opinion

  • Zimmerman

    I’ve always thought it made obvious sense that Tommy would have snuck Jason’s mask into his belongings after hacking Jason to bits at the end of Final Chapter. As someone psychologically damaged, who had already been obsessed with masks as a kid, this seemed a pretty easy assumption. It would have been easy to have grabbed it and snuck it to his room waiting for a police (which took hours to show up, according to the original script of Final Chapter).

    Beyond that, Tommy’s character portrayal in this Friday is so much more of a human being than in New Beginning. The end of Pt5 is so anticlimactic, whereas in this one Tommy returns to his aggressive approach to ending Jason which started in Pt4. It completes his story arc so much better.

    Beyond that the characters are actually likable (I’m always sad to see the Sheriff get snapped in half trying to save his daughter), there’s empathy to be had across the board. Compare that to 5, 7, 8 et cetera where you’re waiting/hoping for everyone to get killed.

    Visually, this film put Jason properly in the pantheon of classic horror villains like Frankenstein and Dracula and did it with the perfect iconography.

    Anyways, just wanted to say I felt the review here was completely off base (as well as the sympathetic review of Part 5) but that’s the beauty of the series, as divisive as it is iconic. Keep up the good work

  • Duggy

    There seems to be an assumption in the Jason’s age argument that Jason died in 57, and was revived in 79/80 when Pamela died. My assumption has been that if he died, he was reborn straight away and lived apart from society (including his mother) all that time, and thus “aged” normally (or more slowly).

    The other argument made against him being reborn until this film is that he gains super strength/the ability to survive in this film. However, I think he’s shown that before. In #3 the lifting Rick and crushing his head is beyond human, and then he’s dead enough at the end to convince authorities but comes back to life at the morgue. Obviously, you can say that in horror films non-supernatural killers exceed what norrnal people can do (for example Roy in #5), however, I don’t think you can claim that these things are proof that #6 was the first time he’s come back from the dead.

    • I don’t necessarily disagree with your super-strength argument. It does make a good case against my own theory. While I’d be hard pressed to find real world examples of people taking that kind of beating and still coming back strong enough to continue killing, as well as having that super strength, I still don’t feel like my own theory is incorrect for a few reasons. Every time he “came back to life” in 2-4, no external action was required for him to get up and start moving around again, but after 6 and beyond, there is some action that another character takes (or indirect action in the case of Manhattan) to get him moving again. Is that enough for my theory to hold up? Maybe not, but I like it…lol