Who would audiences have thought the killer was in 1980? - Friday the 13th (1980) Discussion

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Clockwork399 9 years ago

Yeah, Bill is a bit of a red herring at times I think. He is gone for long periods of time. Seems to have little fear in what is happening and such. However, as we find out he's doing things like fixing the generator and so on.

reply

[–] renatom1 9 years ago

Also, keep in mind that scene with Bill and the snake. After he kills it, the camera focuses on his face, and he has a sinister look on him as if to imply that he loves to kill.

reply

[–] Clockwork399 9 years ago

Absolutely. Bill was young, probably just born around 1958 in the movie, but there could have been some sort of tie to him that linked him to the killings in some way. Obviously we know it didn't, but if you are watching it the first time you never know.

reply

[–] renatom1 9 years ago

Yeah, they could have made it out to be that Bill was actually Jason's brother who grew up hearing about his brother's drowning and sought revenge.

reply

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I think they were setting up Steve, Bill, Ralph and maybe the weird cop on the motorcycle as suspects.

We were probably supposed to think that Steve and Bill were in on it together. Steve with the Jeep and the plaid shirt, and Bill with the machete and being absent at certain times.

And then with the weird way Ralph and that cop acted, we might have been suspecting them.

I wonder if anybody seeing it for the first time with no knowledge of the story, would have been able to figure out that it had anything to do with the "boy drowning in '57."

reply

[–] Clockwork399 9 years ago

I would take a wild guess that at most 1 or 2% would have even thought about Jason at that time if it were a first time. At first we see murders from 1958. You might wonder why that happened, but probably not thinking about it much. Then Enos is the only one who talks about Jason briefly in 1957 drowning. I mean, I am a huge horror movie buff and I can't imagine a scenario where you think the person doing the killing is based on a drowning a year earlier that BARELY gets mentioned until the end. Heck, maybe 2% is being generous.

reply

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I agree. That's what I like about the way this movie did the who-done-it thing. I don't know if you've seen Prom Night (1980), but where this movie did it right imo, PN failed.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I didn't know that, thanks for the info. Why did they bother with the red herrings?

reply

[–] LoneWolfAttack 9 years ago

The producer made the director of Prom Night do it the way it turned out atg first it was to be clear who the killer was.

That is not true. It was always a mystery. The producer simply thought it was unsellable unless they ripped off "Halloween" more and had an additional red herring. So he forced them, without original screenplay author Bill Gray's involvement (and later without director Paul Lynch's involvement, as well) to add a Michael Myers type subplot in reshoots. Because said producer wasn't terribly bright, those added scenes actually ended up taking away red herrings rather than adding to them, because it was so obviously not that person who was behind the killings - and the addition of that character made it obvious it wasn't another person behind them, either.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (9347176) 9 years ago

I would think that audiences would definitely have suspected Enos, Steve or Bill. Enos was really vehement and kind of angry in making the point that the counselors should quit right then and there, while taking Annie near the camp. Then, he just disappears. I don't think anyone would have thought that Enos drove the jeep though, that was Steve's type of vehicle. Annie would've probably known or at least recognized Steve, so that would've eliminated him after Annie's death. Ralph was only ever shown weirdly riding his bike, so again, after Annie's murder, why would anyone suspect him at all?

I never saw the film until after I saw parts 3 & 4, so I already knew who was offing everyone. Kinda killed it for me, if you'll excuse the pun.

-Rod

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (9347176) 9 years ago

Yeah, Annie's brief appearance and encounter with the killer would certainly have left people guessing for the next hour about who killed her. I always assumed that Steve had met with the people he was entrusting to run the camp that he had spent so much time restoring. I guess he could have spoken with Annie by phone but the first time I saw the film I wasn't even thinking about that. I already knew who the killer was, LOL.

-Rod

reply

[–] Clockwork399 9 years ago

In Prom Night they had a few suspects. They had Jamie Lee Curtis' character. Her brother, her father (Leslie Nielsen), her mother, the school janitor and then that red herring where they kept talking about an escaped convict. It wasn't until the end where you figure it is probably either one of two people. It still leaves you guessing.

With Friday the 13th you have plenty of suspects but don't have a clue who it is and are totally thrown for a loop that the person responsible is the mother of the boy who drowned in 1957. The thing with Friday the 13th is that no one would have predicted that. There were certainly signs during Prom Night where you could have linked who the killer was (or could be).

reply

[–] LoneWolfAttack 9 years ago

So who did people think it was? Or even so who did you think it was the first time you saw it?

When I first saw it - and I believe I saw it the second or third weekend it was out and somehow still managed to not have the ending spoiled for me (I wisely avoided the obnoxiousness of Siskel and Ebert even back then) - I thought Steve was the killer up until the second act. That was the intention, wasn't it? Crazy Ralph was too blatant a red herring, the only way it could have been the trucker was if there were two killers, the things the first two victims said to the killer made it obvious it wasn't a child they were talking to (meaning Bill in 1958), for whatever reason I didn't think of the cop, and no one else made sense. But because the picture was so poorly written, they didn't exactly run with that, and by the time Steve got to the diner, it was obvious it wasn't him.

When the killer showed up, I knew right away it was them. One, there was less than a half hour left on the runtime. Two, the orange plaid flannel shirt was visible prior to when it should have been visible. Had Victor Miller and Sean Cunningham been better writers, I'd like to think they would have had Steve wear a matching copy of that orange plaid flannel shirt (or at least have him take off into town with no shirt on), that it would have been tucked completely under the killer's sweater until the big reveal, and that Steve would have disappeared during the segments where the kids at camp are killed. Of course, it's impossible to solve a mystery at the beginning when the audience doesn't get to meet the culprit until the end.

reply

[–] accountinggeek2003 9 years ago

Back when the first movie came out there were many people who were not convinced that Mrs. Voorhees was the real killer. Many thought Crazy Ralph was the killer. So when they made Part 2 they brought back Crazy Ralph and killed him off very early in the movie so people would know for sure that he was not the killer.

reply

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I'm surprised people would have still thought Ralph was the killer. Do you mean they thought he was working with Mrs. Voorhees?

reply

[–] Clockwork399 9 years ago

Yeah that is strange if people thought Ralph was involved, even after hearing Mrs. Voorhees' admission. There was never a reference of him being involved. I can't even see a "use your own interpretation" angle where he is involved. He was old, slow and weak. Plus he rode a bike and not a jeep. People just didn't think an older lady was the murderer?

reply

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

Well there was a theory on here that Ralph was Jason's father, however I'm not sure the thread writer was being serious, but they acted like they were. Maybe that was a theory that went around in 1980?

I know a lot of people said they didn't think it was realistic that a woman could be the killer. That she shouldn't have been strong enough to take the people down, but she had the element of surprise in her favor. Some of the victims never saw her coming. And in Steve's and the two counselors in '58's case, they knew her and didn't know to fear her until it was too late.

The only thing I could say to those who still believed Ralph is involved, is because Ralph is so certain that everyone is going to die, which is a bit odd because up until then, there were 3 deaths at the camp. Which isn't a good record, but not necessarily something to say "it has a death curse" and "you're all doomed" over.

Then again if that's what makes the people still think he's involved, why would he warn the people and tell them to leave if he wanted to kill them?

I think some people also said they didn't understand how Pam could be watching the kids at the lake and then be driving on the road and picking up Annie. So maybe they thought she had to have an accomplice.

reply

[–] ReturnOfWhiskey 8 years ago

I'm sorry, but I'm getting so tired of people mentioning BILL as a possible suspect. HOW, pray tell, could Bill have been a suspect when he was at the lake with the other counselors at the same time Annie was getting killed in the woods? And so what if the camera lingered on his face after he killed the snake. Or if he wasn't always around. That all happened AFTER the lake scene where it was made crystal clear neither he nor any of the other counselors could have been the killer. I mean seriously, even my first time watching this at a very young age I knew it couldn't have possibly been Bill. lol, sheesh.

The only true, bonafied suspects were Steve, who drove the same jeep as killer, and Crazy Ralph, who had no reason to be at the camp but was seen lurking there anyways.



reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Clockwork399 8 years ago

I knew who the killer was the first time I watched this, only because by then (the mid 1990s) Scream had already given it away and it was pretty common knowledge to most. However, I always try to look at this movie in 1980 eyes as a first time viewer. Bill could have been a possibility as being an accomplice. The look on his face after the snake, the fact he was gone for certain important periods of time (Brenda getting killed, etc.) means he could have been in on it. Then he's alone with Alice at the end. Again, it is a long shot but as a first time viewer, I certainly can see how someone might have thought that. Steve for sure is a more probable suspect though.

reply

[–] ReturnOfWhiskey 8 years ago

I always try to look at this movie in 1980 eyes as a first time viewer.

But you're not! You're still looking at it with a 1990's post Scream mindset because the "2 killers" or "accomplice" concept didn't exist in early 80's slasher films. If you're truly looking at it with "1980's eyes" that thought should never cross your mind. With that said, and if you're paying attention to the events as they unfold, Bill could absolutely not even remotely be a suspect.



reply

[–] rikajessie 8 years ago

I saw the movies when I was a kid, I can't remember whether I saw the sequels first or this one first.

But the first time anybody saw this movie, they'd have no idea what is going on, really. They don't have an idea of why the murders are even being committed. So I can see why they would think it could be Bill, working with Steve. I think they could have even thought it was Officer Dorf, even though he was a goofy character.

reply

[–] Clockwork399 8 years ago

I'm trying to think, and I am pretty sure Scream was the first movie to have two killers. I think at least. While I watched Scream in 1996 there were a few things that sort of made you think there could be someone else co-operating. The opening scene with Drew Barrymore for example comes to mind. Not that you knew right away that there were two killers, but it wasn't hard to believe that it could cross someone's mind. While Norman Bates worked alone in Psycho, throughout the whole movie you figure he and his mother are in on the killings together. That was 1960. So it isn't outlandish to think a person in 1980 watching this movie might think there was more than one killer for whatever reason.

Even when Steve gets killed, it is clear he recognizes the person. If it isn't his counsellors who the heck is it, you'd think? I'm not saying Bill was even close to the #1 suspect, but he stuck around until the end and had very little concern or fear for the strange things going on around him. Just saying.

reply

[–] LoneWolfAttack 8 years ago

I'm sorry, but I'm getting so tired of people mentioning BILL as a possible suspect. HOW, pray tell, could Bill have been a suspect when he was at the lake with the other counselors at the same time Annie was getting killed in the woods?

The filmmakers may have been trying to make it look like Bill and Steve were in on it together. One would disappear while the other was there and vice versa. But when I originally saw it, the possibility of two killers didn't cross my mind.

Moviegoers who knew who Betsy Palmer was before it came out (meaning not me; I never watched anything she was on) no doubt had a leg up in figuring out the killer. Because they knew the picture was 20 minutes from the end and she still hadn't shown up yet. Moviegoers who were also more observant than I probably noticed the license plates on Steve's and Mrs. Voorhees' Jeeps were different colors. I didn't notice that until a long time later. Ditto the gaudy rings (which I have no idea why they made her wear, since, again, it ruined the "mystery" when she appeared).

reply

[–] amjschmitz 8 years ago

I might be able to shed some light on this. I had little access to cable TV as a kid, and horror movies went with that. The first 'Friday 13th' movie I saw was Jason Takes Manhattan, which, even as a kid with little horror exposure, I thought was incredibly stupid. So I never had the slightest interest in this franchise, even as I learned to enjoy the horror genre.

This year I decided to give some of those classics a look, notably "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" (which I rather liked).

So I went into "Friday" with very little information. This is all I knew:

The setting was a camp at Crystal Lake.

Jason was a kid who had drowned at the lake years beforehand.

Jason was the killer (or so I thought).

Seriously, that was ALL I knew. I didn't even realize Kevin Bacon was in this until last night. The series interested me that little.

As I watched the film, even though I thought Jason was the main killer, there were clues that made me think there were two killers, since some of the murders didn't seem to be Jason's doing. For one thing, Jason didn't seem to be the type to drive a jeep, so I figured the jeep-driving killer was someone else. And that someone else was thin, because we saw the killer's thin legs during the hitchhiker chase in the woods. My suspect then, because he drove a jeep and was thin, was Steve.

I also thought Crazy Ralph might have been a killer. When they discover him hiding in camp, I expected them to find his knife, his jeep, and the hitchhiker's body. When that didn't happen, I didn't suspect him anymore, though.

After Steve was killed, I didn't know what the hell was going on because the hitchhiker killing really didn't seem like Jason to me at all. If I was with a 1980's crowd and didn't know about Jason, I never would've suspected him, either, so at that point it is anyone's guess what they thought. I honestly wondered if maybe Jason had changed immensely in his size and style from this film to "Manhattan". I couldn't think of anyone else to suspect that would fit a "two-killer" story like I'd thought at first. If I hadn't known about Jason, I suppose I would've started thinking about the minor characters from the cafe or most likely the cop.

This made the eventual reveal of Jason's mom pretty satisfying, of course.

Hope that helps.

reply

[–] JackAteSally 8 years ago

That's whassup and that's why it's always cool to revisit things. I too have grown more an appreciate for the series as I'd gotten older because I went back to the original. I couldn't tell you the first F13 I saw but as I got, I was born 1990, my cousins and I would watch these sequels as well as Halloween and Leprechaun and Candyman constantly. While always preferring Halloween, I also directly associated F13 with Jason who I too admired. But now, at 25, I see Pamela as the true antagonist of the Friday the 13th series and a remarkable one at that.

"Oh... I'm not afraid."
-Pamela Vorhees

reply

[–] ludances 8 years ago

I saw it when it first came out and I remember thinking it was Ralph.

Knock if off Napolean make yourself a dang quesadil-la!


reply

[–] DrDanielChallis 8 years ago

The first time I saw this flick, back in the 80s, I thought of three other movies that took their inspiration from F13, and in turn, F13 Pt 2 probably took some inspiration from these as well with their featured killer in the sequel

A. The Prowler
B. The Burning
C. Terror Train

What did those movies have in common? The killer was someone that something bad happened to, or was slighted in some way, made fun of, etc, etc

D. Friday the 13th - I took this line of thinking and immediately applied it to "That boy that drowned" - he tried to befriend the counslers and they shamed him, ignored him, bullied him and didn't respond to his cries for help seriously - I was waiting for some seriously pissed off boy now man.

I was even thinking that Bill was really Jason and Crazy Ralph was either responsible for the 58 killings because that was his father or uncle who was looking after him or

the original killer (Bill/Jason's parent) was dead and Crazy Ralph was one of the counselors from the past that was trying to just simply warn them of history repeating itself, with the water going bad and all in 1962 (which would make for a great inter-quel / separate film) by the way

reply

[–] saint-21 8 years ago

I thought it was a man for sure. couldn't figure who, never suspected bill at all. But as soon as they introduced MRS Voorhees, I knew right away she was the killer. but she showed up out of nowhere and had that jeep. so bingo, I just didn't know why until she explained why she did it..

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 8 years ago

I watched some scenes of parts 6, 7, and 8 as a kid so I knew Jason. When I was 15 I asked my mom to rent me one of the movies from the video store and she rented Part 2 which spoils the first movie at the beginning. Though since I already knew Jason I didn't care as much about his Mom at the time. A few years ago I did finally watch the first but knew the twist cause of having seen the 2nd one so many times before. So I can't really answer the question. I think rewatching it again not long ago that the truck driver seems kind of suspicious with his story about the events of the lake and telling the girl not to go. I noticed he looks at the girl's butt as she gets out of his truck too.
Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

reply

[–] Horror_Metal 8 years ago

I was watching this the other day and wondering the same thing. I agree with those saying that Steve Christy was likely supposed to be the main Red Herring, up until near the climax when he is killed off.

Horror_Metal

reply