Jason drowned in 1957 at age of 11..In 1980..After 34 years in death and still trapped in a child's body at the bottom of the lake, he was resurrected by the decease Mrs Voorhees and jumped out of the lake to attacked Alice.
In part 2, five years later, Jason's body rapidly aged and he was catching up to his actual age of 38 (Like the Forever Young film theory) and he was finally grown in Part 4.
"Jason drowned in 1957 at age of 11..In 1980..After 34 years in death"
What kind of math is that? According to the math I'm familiar with, 1980 minus 1957 equals 23 "years in death."
"In part 2, five years later, Jason's body rapidly aged and he was catching up to his actual age of 38"
Jason is an adult at the beginning of part 2 when he kills Alice, and that took place only a couple of months after the events of part 1. The rest of the movie takes place 5 years later.
Jason is smaller of stature in Part 2 in comparison to the ensuing sequels. When his face is observed at the end, he looks decidedly young. I'm not saying I agree with the OP's theory, but Jason's smaller stature & youthful look fits.
share"Jason is smaller of stature in Part 2 in comparison to the ensuing sequels. When his face is observed at the end, he looks like a teenage Jason."
Warrington Gillette played Jason in the face-reveal scene, and he was 20 years old at the time, and 6' 1" tall.
"I'm not saying I agree with the OP's theory, but Jason's smaller stature & youthful look fits."
Nothing fits the OP's theory, because the OP doesn't realize that the beginning of part 2 takes place only a couple of months after the events of part 1, and Jason is already an adult. The OP is saying that Jason grew into an adult over the course of 5 years, but it was really only a couple of months, and that's only if you interpret the end of part 1 as being real, which is different than what Sean Cunningham intended (child-Jason coming up out of the water was a hallucination/dream according to him, which is why he was opposed to making Jason into a living character in the present like they did in the sequels).
he was 20 years old... and 6' 1" tall
The OP is saying that Jason grew into an adult over the course of 5 years, but it was really only a couple of months, and that's only if you interpret the end of part 1 as being real
"In regard to height, he didn't look much above 5'9", regardless of how tall the actor was in real life. He's certainly shorter compared to Kane Hodder."
You can't estimate his height from the face reveal scene, because they never show him standing up. All the other scenes of him with the bag over his head were done by someone else, Steve Dash, who was 5' 10" and 37 years old. But you specifically mentioned the face reveal scene.
"The child was resurrected supernaturally at the age of 11 and, the OP argues, he was catching up to his real age of 38 five years later."
He was clearly an adult at the beginning of part 2, played by a 37-year-old man no less, and that was only a couple of months after the events of part 1. But then you say he looked like a teenager at the end of part 2, which was 5 years after the events of part 1.
"So, whether 5 years or 2 months, he's acknowledging that he rapidly aged due to some supernatural means. As such, the theory would still arguably fit the scenario as Jason would grow from 11 to his mid-teens in the two months before killing Alice at her house. The rest of Part II would fit the general age of Warrington Gillette."
You can tell from his hand at the beginning of the movie that he's a far cry from a teenager (which makes sense, since Dash was 37 years old). Does this look like a teenager's hand to you?
https://i.imgur.com/zsFCaft.png
You're trying to use your estimations of age, based on appearance, to say the theory fits the scenario, but that doesn't work, because what that really gets you is a Jason who aged from a child to an adult in his late 30s in a couple of months, and then 5 years later he was still in his late '30s, but just before he crashed through the window at the end of the movie, he de-aged to what you say looks like a teenager.
Steve Dash, who was 5' 10" and 37 years old.
He was clearly an adult at the beginning of part 2, played by a 37-year-old man
But then you say he looked like a teenager at the end of part 2
Does this look like a teenager's hand?
that gets you is a Jason who aged from a child to an adult in his late 30s in a couple of months
"which means he could be 15 years-old for all the viewer knows."
Wrong. You could see his hands. Hands show signs of age just as well as faces do.
"I was merely arguing for the OP's fan theory, an interesting alternative to consider. I've stated in both my posts that I don't necessarily agree with it and also that he didn't work out all the kinks, so I'm sorta helping him."
As I said, trying to use your estimation of age and height based on the actor's appearance doesn't work, because Jason was played by a 5' 10", 37-year-old for most of the movie, and then by a 6' 1", 20-year-old for the face-reveal scene at the end.
"You tell me, doesn't Jason look young at the end of Part II?"
Not to me. Behind all that makeup and prosthetics used to make him look severely deformed, he could have been anywhere from a teenager to say, 40 years old.
"You said the actor was 20, which means just out of his teens. I looked him up and he was still 19 when shooting began in early October, 1980. He turned 20 during filming."
He turned 20 four days after filming began.
"The image is too dark to tell much of anything."
Not too dark for me. Turn up the brightness.
"Besides, Jason was surviving in the woods for a few months, wouldn't this mar his hands a bit?"
That has nothing to do with age.
"And is there really a huge difference in a guy's hands from the age of 16-17 to their 20s or whatever?"
Not necessarily, but there is a significant difference between 16-17 and 37. There are likely other scenes which show 37-year-old Steve Dash's hands in the movie too, but I'm not going to watch the whole movie again right now to find them.
"(again, you can't determine his age by the 37 year-old actor since you don't see his face)."
Again, you can see his hands.
Hands show signs of age just as well as faces do.
Jason was played by a 5' 10", 37-year-old for most of the movie
he could have been anywhere from a teenager to say, 40 years old.
He turned 20 four days after filming began.
That has nothing to do with age.
"I'm a full-fledged adult and my hands look like they did when I was 16."
Not if you're 37 or older.
"You gave me a link to the best (dark) image you could find of Jason's hands from the opening"
The best that I could find? No, it was one that I already knew where to find it in the movie because it's a famous scene that often gets talked about when people discuss F13-2. As for "dark," it's in a kitchen with the lights on. If you can't see it that's your monitor's fault.
"and I saw no evidence that pegged the guy as definitively in his mid-30s."
You already admitted that it's too dark on your monitor to tell.
"Yeah, a fit guy with a bag over his head, which made it impossible to determine his age."
False; hands show signs of age just as well as a face does, as I've already said more than once.
"His shorter stature could be interpreted as a younger version of Jason compared to the later version played by other actors."
No, if you go by the actors he was 5' 10" and 37 right after the events of part 1, as well as 5 years later, and just before he jumped through the window, he grew 3 inches and de-aged 17 years.
"His face looked young, brah, especially compared to future depictions in the next two sequels."
You couldn't even see much of his face.
"Furthermore, your statement actually supports the particular fan theory we're discussing -- Jason could have been a teen in the prologue."
No, it doesn't, because him being much older than teens or twenties for all of the movie except one scene at the end, is at odds with the fan theory.
"Did I not plainly say "He turned 20 during filming"? Was it necessary to give the technical day he turned 20 as well? Whether it was four days or a month, it doesn't change anything -- he was transferring from his teens."
He was 20 when his scene was filmed, so how old he was when he wasn't being filmed is irrelevant.
"Actually living a primitive life in the wilds does prematurely age a person with glaring evidence for support."
No, it doesn't. If anything, all the shade that trees provide in the woods would do the opposite of speeding up the aging process (lots of exposure to direct sunlight tends to age the appearance of skin faster than normal), not to mention a lack of drugs, alcohol, smoking, and processed food.
"This discussion is useless and redundant at this point since the crux of your position is based on determining the age of a male by a dim image of his hand."
"Dim" is your problem. I can see the screenshot just fine. Also, this is ironic, coming from the guy who thinks he can determine the age of a face behind tons of makeup and prosthetics, so much so that he's practically wearing a mask.
I'm pretty sure I know what my hands look like better than you.
You already admitted that it's too dark on your monitor to tell
as I've already said more than once
and just before he jumped through the window, he grew 3 inches and de-aged 17 years.
No, it doesn't, because him being much older than teens or twenties for all of the movie except one scene at the end, is at odds with the fan theory.
He was 20 when his scene was filmed
coming from the guy who thinks he can determine the age of a face behind tons of makeup and prosthetics
"I'm pretty sure I know what my hands look like better than you."
And I'm pretty sure you're not immune to aging.
What happened to your plan to not reply again?
"No, I didn't. The settings of my monitor are just fine."
Obviously not, since you said, "When I first looked at the pic you sent I didn't even see the hand it was so dim." The scene is in a kitchen with the lights on. Do you really think they filmed it so that it looks like an unlit room at night?
"the best you could find"
I already told you:
"The best that I could find? No, it was one that I already knew where to find it in the movie because it's a famous scene that often gets talked about when people discuss F13-2."
So at this point you've established yourself as a liar.
"Like we can determine the guy's age based solely on that"
I never said you could, only that you can determine he's way older than a teenager.
"(rolling my eyes)"
More comical irony from the guy who thinks a 37-year-old's hands can pass for a teenager's hands. Evidently you think the only part of a human body that shows signs of age is the face. LOL at that.
"Yes, you're quite redundant... and tedious. No offense."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Except that (1) you couldn't tell anything about his height in that particular scene"
Is that a joke? I already told you that. You're the one who was giving height estimates ("In regard to height, he didn't look much above 5'9", regardless of how tall the actor was in real life"). So, going with your own idea that you can tell how tall he was (which you're now backpedaling away from), and correcting your bad estimation to align with the known height of the actor, you end up with a Jason character who grew from 5' 10" to 6' 1" and de-aged by nearly two decades in less than a day.
"and (2) you couldn't tell the age of Jason in the earlier scenes since, like I said, he had a bag over his head the entire time."
Yes you could, because you could see his hands, as I've already told you multiple times.
"Yes, it does -- you acknowledged that he could very well be as young as a teen in the movie."
What are you talking about? Him being "as young as a teen" in the face-reveal scene is a problem for the theory, not support for it, because he was clearly much older than his teens in all of the previous scenes. The theory proposes that he rapidly aged, not that he rapidly de-aged.
"Unless, the scene was shot in those first 4 days, which is very possible since it's the opening sequence."
Again, what are you talking about? Warrington Gillette's scene, i.e., Jason's face-reveal scene, is near the end of the movie, which is about as far as you can get from it being the "opening sequence."
"But it doesn't matter since, the point is, the guy was transferring from his teens at the time."
No, he wasn't, he was 20 years old. There's no such thing as "transferring" from one's teens anyway. Once 20 years have passed since you were born, you are no longer a teen. If it has been less than 20 years since your birth (but at least 13 years since your birth), you are still a teenager, even if it's only, e.g., a nanosecond less. There is no "transferring" stage. You're 100% a teenager until the exact moment at which 20 years have passed since you were born, and then you're 100% not a teenager.
"Meanwhile it's hard to believe that living primitively in the wilderness prematurely ages a person is even up for debate."
You made a mere assertion. You didn't even state a mechanism by which "living primitively in the wilderness" would result in premature aging. Furthermore, your mere assertion doesn't even make sense, because in the woods you have a lot of shelter from direct sunlight, and "living primitively" means no smoking, drinking, drugs, or processed foods, all things which are thought to contribute to aging. Mere assertions can legitimately be dismissed out of hand, and since you've failed to follow it up with any arguments of any kind in this most recent post of yours, you tacit concession on the matter is noted.
"You can clearly see part of the actor's face in the scene; he looked quite young, certainly not in his late 30s."
No, you can't, but even if that were true, it goes against the theory for which you've become a self-appointed apologist. See above.
"Okay, I'm done going around in circles. Have a good one."
Your resignation is accepted (again), or are you "just kidding" (again)?
Correct on his math, but it doesn't really make much difference for the issue at hand
shareI like that theory.
share