MovieChat Forums > Freddy vs. Jason (2003) Discussion > This movie could have been awesome ...

This movie could have been awesome ...

posted 7 years ago by MaximRecoil
15 replies | jump to latest

... if not for the following problems:

1. The nude scene at the beginning was ruined by the chick having fake tits. Makers of porn videos with a budget of $500 or whatever can manage to find women with big, shapely, real tits, yet with a $30 million budget they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for someone who has foreign objects wedged under her flesh instead of actual homegrown breast tissue? They could have gotten Gianna Michaels (to name one of countless examples); she did a topless scene in a mainstream (non-porn) horror movie once - Piranha 3D (2010), and she was both in the business and in her prime in 2003.

2. Jason should have been played by Kane Hodder; Ken Kirzinger was laughable (see my post here for more details - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329101/board/nest/262583871?d=264533348#264533348).

3. Jason having a fear of water was asinine, and utterly at odds with the previous movies.

4. Jason being affected (knocked out no less) by drugs was absurd. Jason has been supernaturally animated since at least part 6 (and debatably, earlier than that). Why would whatever supernatural force is animating him, be affected by drugs, which work strictly on a natural/biological level? In part 7 Jason was essentially a walking skeleton with some remnants of rotted flesh attached. He had no back muscles whatsoever (his spinal cord and rib cage were clearly visible); his hands were mostly just bones, and in at least one shot you can see that the area around his knee is just bones. The only way for him to even stand up, much less have superhuman strength, is via some unknown supernatural force, because he clearly doesn't have the muscles to do it.

Being in such a severe state of decomposition, his heart, brain, and blood vessels also would have been decomposed, thus there's no way for the drugs to reach his brain, not that it would matter anyway, given his supernatural animation. Keep in mind that he was shot in the head at close range in part 6, and it didn't even phase him. Drugs of this type work by merely shutting down parts of or otherwise altering the function of the brain, while a bullet actually destroys massive amounts of brain tissue. If a bullet to the head didn't affect him, drugs wouldn't do jack sh*t.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximRecoil 7 years ago

Does a woman having artificial breast somehow prevent you from engulfing them, rubbing, or motorboating them?

I'm not sexually attracted to manmade objects, dumbass.

Girl had a pleasant rack

If you find manmade objects which are vaguely in the shape of female breasts, "pleasant", get yourself a doll.

It was probably a huge upgrade than what she had previously and no doubt she looked better and felt better about it.

No, foreign objects wedged beneath the flesh are never an "upgrade" at all, much less a huge one. And regardless of your bizarre fetish for plastic bags filled with silicone or salt water, they could have easily hired a woman with large, well-shaped breasts. There are plenty of them out there who will work for cheap, considering that role didn't call for anything beyond porn-level "acting".

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximRecoil 7 years ago

Makeup is a man-made object, does that cancel women who wear it out?

Makeup isn't a fake body part. It's like clothing, i.e., applied on top of the body, and readily removable.

A doll doesn't possess a reproductive system, nor does it have the ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind. Dumb comparison.

This is a non sequitur; consider it dismissed. You said she had a "pleasant rack", which has nothing to do with a reproductive system or the "ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind".

They look perkier, more compact, and way more pronounced.

Those are the very things which make them look ridiculous, along with the fact that they don't move properly, because they are self-contained in plastic bags rather than being naturally integrated human breast tissue.

You just wanted to be a bitch and whine about it like it's the moderate 1950s.

This is another non sequitur from you, one which is from particularly deep in left field, no less. Consider it dismissed as well.

Tits are tits

No. Tits are female breast tissue, made of human cells. Plastic bags of silicone or salt water are not tits in any way, shape, or form.

I'm just not a choosy dick like yourself, I can have fun with artificial breast just as much as I can genuine ones.

Which is why you should get a doll. You're basically like a dog, which is so easily duped that it will hump a fire hydrant.

I'm sure your life will continue on.

Another non sequitur; dismissed.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximRecoil 7 years ago

It's nothing like clothing.

I already established otherwise, i.e., it goes on top of the body and it is readily removable. Consider your mere gainsaying dismissed.

It's manufactured concealer to hide imperfections

Clothing is too. Would you rather see Rosie O'Donnell with clothes on or without?

just as false breast are.

Is that a joke? Fake boobs hide nothing. If anything, they make imperfections such as poor breast shape more noticeable, by pushing the breast tissue outward, thus making it more prominent.

You compared the likes of a doll to fake breast, that analogy is shallow and a half-baked attitude. My statement still holds, the doll has none of the above and your connection was impractical.

Your non sequitur remains dismissed, for the same reason as before:

You said she had a "pleasant rack", which has nothing to do with a reproductive system or the "ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind".

A typical response to rationalize one's inexperience.

This is comically ironic, considering it is you who are not noticing the difference, when in reality, there is a huge difference. Even if you're too oblivious to see it, physics demands that there is a big difference in the movement of self-contained bags of liquid and human breast tissue. Enclose human breast tissue in plastic bags and it wouldn't move right either.

Having been with females who've had fake breast, not a jarring difference or notable variation unless drastic scarring is present. Go back to the drawing board with this shoddy and commonly used reasoning.

LOL @ you. See above.

You know your argument was absurd, degrading, and immature. Just sore I called your ass out on how stupid it was. I mean really, you gave fake breast as one of the reasons to not approve of the film.

Your non sequitur remains dismissed, simpleton.

Again, they don't react noticeably different

Your demonstrably false assertion is dismissed.

taste different, and can be handled in the same way as genuine ones do. They are also covered with the human flesh just as natural ones are. So the problem is, this prevents you from enjoying them how?

They look bad, like tumors, and they move like tumors too. In other words, they are disgusting. You've already established that you're indiscriminate / easily duped, like a dog.

Seems you have very little contact with women in general and have been conditioned to believe artificial breast are somehow incapable of being enjoyed like natural ones (common).

Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo.

A doll doesn't possess any human traits or emotions

Once again, idiot, that's a non sequitur. We're talking about boobs, or in your case, manmade objects which fool you into thinking they're boobs. Neither real boobs nor fake boobs have anything to do with "human traits or emotions", and that's especially the case with females in a movie (which is what this thread is about) whom you'll never meet.

Third time using that exhausted idiom in the same post.

"Idiom"? LOL. You clearly don't know what the word "idiom" means, as it has no application here whatsoever. Every time you construct a non sequitur you're going to see me point out that it is a non sequitur; same input = same output. I point out non sequiturs because non sequiturs are invalid, which means they can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.

Sign of a feeble mind with nothing worthy to say.

Comical Irony Alert: Part II

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximRecoil 7 years ago

You didn't establish anything. Grasping for straws on a similarity that has little in common other than wearing it. Try harder.

Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.

Clothing isn't made to hide imperfections you idiot.

Comical irony, from someone who established himself as an idiot in his first post; one with a fetish for plastic bags no less. Your mere gainsaying is dismissed again.

It's made to hide the bare body as it would be illegal and indecent to go in public without them. You must be a troll. I can't imagine anyone being this stupid deliberately.

Educate yourself, ninny - https://www.google.com/search?q=slimming+clothes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. Just like makeup, clothes can be made with more than one function in mind.

It corrects drooping and unbalanced breast with synthetic filling, supporting the faulty breast. Your insertion is inaccurate, it in no way makes 'poor breast shape more noticeable".

Yes, it does, numbnuts, and you've already established that you're in no way qualified to comment on breast shape, given that you think the chick at the beginning of FvJ had a "pleasant rack" (LOL!). The bad shape and unsightly gap between her breasts wouldn't have been anywhere near as noticeable before she got her tumors implanted.

I suppose you fancy hanging tits? More power to you. Not all women need fake breast, but some do in fact look much better with them.

No one looks better with synthetic tumors wedged beneath their flesh.

Not only are you using non sequitur incorrectly

LOL @ the simpleton who thought "non sequitur" was an "idiom", thinking he's now an authority on the term. Ironically, by disputing the correct usage of the term "non sequitur", you've established, for the second time, that you don't know what it means (you established it for the first time when you called it an idiom).

as I'm staying within the confines of the argument and making valid points you can't dispute,

No, road apple, you have been posting things which don't logically follow from previous statements, which is a non sequitur. For example, human traits which originate from the mind have nothing to do with the characteristics of boobs (or objects falsely so called).

your diction is very limited

Comical Irony Alert: Part VII.

What I stated was "Girl had a pleasant rack and it wouldn't make one bit of difference in the sack" to your original shallow post, which is a fair assessment. The "ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind" was a whole different post regarding your comparison of fake breast to a doll. Please learn proper comprehension skills.

See above, dumbass.

Again, a myth. You keep asserting the "move right" argument as if all natural breast move similarly.

They do all move similarly, moron, because they are all made of the same material (human cells), which are always integrated to the rest of the body in the same way. There are variances due to overall mass and level of firmness, but they all fall into the category of natural movement, because they are natural. None of them move like self-contained plastic bags of liquid, because that is a fundamentally different thing.

The only form of fake boobs which look and move similarly to the real thing are the silicone injection type, because the silicone is injected directly into the breast tissue, thus it isn't contained in a plastic bag. However, that's a dangerous procedure which is illegal in most countries. A lot of the women who starred in, e.g., Russ Meyer movies in the '60s and '70s had this done, with Russ Meyer paying for it in some cases (such as with Kitten Natividad). They had it done in Tijuana, Mexico, where it isn't, or wasn't, illegal. Natividad had to have a double mastectomy in the late 1990s, which Meyer also payed for. They had injected her with industrial-grade silicone, rather than pharmaceutical-grade. Neither one is considered safe for such a procedure, but industrial-grade is especially unsafe.

The point is, fake breast do not hinder movement enough to make one like yourself worry about such a petty thing. As I said, you just wanted to bitch when it doesn't make a bit of difference in the bedroom as they can be handled just like real ones. Your reasoning is mute and superficial.

Again, you're an idiot; an oblivious idiot at that. Real boobs totally change shape when in different positions, such as when a woman is laying on her back, on her side, or leaning forward. The bigger the boobs are, the more drastic this shape change is. Self-contained bags of silicone can't change shape by any significant amount, because plastic bags don't stretch by any significant amount without breaking/tearing.

Here's some fake boobs in various positions:

http://i.imgur.com/xBJJkkj.jpg

LOL! They look like bowling balls under a sheet, albeit, misshapen bowling balls.

On the other hand, this is what real boobs look like in various positions:

http://i.imgur.com/UXrSuW1.jpg

Keep copy and pasting that ineffective word you have failed to grasp or use properly ;).

Comical Irony Alert: Part VIII

Pamela Anderson's didn't resemble tumors during her prime

During her prime she didn't have fake boobs. She posed nude for Playboy (or one of those magazines) prior to getting her tumors, and they weren't bad back then.

You can't acknowledge you're being a little petty prick and it's unfortunate. Your argument is "They move different, omg they look like tumors", give me a break. You can enjoy them just as real ones, can you not?

Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug.

Nah, you've pretty much confirmed you're a virgin.

Your second laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading (which, as a bonus, is another non sequitur), is dismissed, Miss Cleo. By the way, idiots are the sole source of non sequiturs, which of course, establishes you as an idiot.

... that dumb statement again (used incorrectly for the 10th time). Go renew your understanding of it and the proper way to practice in it a debate. You compared breast to a doll (which is a causal fallacy and a non sequitur), and my "human traits and emotions" comment was directed towards that, dumbass. I swear, you couldn't even debate a third grader. My argument stands, a doll possesses neither of the aforementioned things, you're comparison is mute and is based on judgment.

This is hilarious. Not only have you already established that you don't know what a "non sequitur" is, or an "idiom", but now you have also established that you don't know what a "causal fallacy" is. Do you just pick terms out of a hat? The meaning of a causal fallacy can be summed up by the old axiom, "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". That concept obviously has no application here whatsoever. Also, this is yet another non sequitur from you; consider it dismissed out of hand. It is also: Comical Irony Alert: Part IX.

'Idiom' is used as one's distinctive style of writing or way of speaking.

No, clodpate, an idiom is a term or phrase that doesn't make sense according to the literal meaning of the words used. A couple of examples are: "kicked the bucket" and "bought the farm". Those mean that someone or something died / stopped working, but you would never know it based on the literal meanings of the words "kicked" and "bucket", or "bought" and "farm". The term "non sequitur" is not an idiom in any way, shape, or form.

You copy and paste the same line because you know you having nothing to reply with.

LOL @ "copy and paste". Why would I copy and paste such a short term? And the reason I type "non sequitur" is because you construct non sequiturs. There is no need for any other reply because non sequiturs are logically invalid.

Seeing as I how having first-hand knowledge trumps an opinion, you're "dismissed" and incorrect way of using "non sequitur" are worthless and comical. You clearly aren't very cultured and it shows. Please supply something different on your next reply or I'll just chalk this up as another virginal troll attempting to sound educated on the matter. More than likely, this will be my last response. Your reasons and robotic way of lecturing is that of a shallow and ignorant grade schooler.

Next time try not to make such a stupid topic with moronic reasons and no tangible thought put into it. I would be embarrassed for people to view this.

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and also: Comical Irony Alert: Part X.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MaximRecoil 7 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed, airhead, and given that you have no further arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JimmyPooSwag 7 years ago

Other guy kept deleting his posts but I'll respond to you:

1) What ruined the nude scene for me wasn't the fake tits but the fact the chick had a WAY bigger cup size than Katharine Isabelle. Body doubles only work well if viewers aren't able to distinguish them from the real actor but they failed in that.

P.S. I also prefer natural tits myself but fake ones can be nice as well as long as they don't go overboard with them like in the pics you posted.

2) I also agree with this. Can you imagine all those people that were pumped to see Kane Hodder vs. Robert Englund and got sorely disappointed? It feels so unbalanced to have Robert Englund turn in a stellar performance but Kirzinger was just okay.

3) I feel like the writers just decide to make Jason hydrophobic when it's needed. You had the main girl Rennie in Jason Takes Manhattan that was afraid of water and then Jason turns into a little kid at the end of the film from toxic waste (even though Jason swam to Manhattan in the same film.) I guess in this one, they wanted to ignore everything again and bring back the hydrophobia to give Freddy a way to torture him. It's the same thing with Freddy's fear of fire. As far as I'm aware, New Nightmare is the only film that shows he has a fear of fire but that wasn't Freddy, it was a demon taking his form.

4) If you were to knock him out with drugs, I would imagine it'd take more than two big syringes to get the job done.

[–] MaximRecoil (4054) 6 years ago

>1) What ruined the nude scene for me wasn't the fake tits but the fact the chick had a WAY bigger cup size than Katharine Isabelle. Body doubles only work well if viewers aren't able to distinguish them from the real actor but they failed in that.

I was talking about the girl at the beginning of the movie. The girl who body-doubled for Katharine Isabel didn't appear to have fake tits, but they only showed them from a top-down perspective so I can't say for sure. The girl at the beginning of the movie had blatantly fake tits though.

>4) If you were to knock him out with drugs, I would imagine it'd take more than two big syringes to get the job done.

If a bullet to the head doesn't faze him, then drugs would obviously have no effect whatsoever, regardless of how much of them you use. Based on the previous movies, there's no way that Jason even has a functional brain for the drugs to affect.

[–] The_Stranggler 7 years ago

Another thing is they should've brought Tommy and Alive back. More unique dreams

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

1. I will not abide Odessa Munroe slander. Her plastic tits are pure Y2K bimbo status. Her skinny dipping scene is great. One of the best openings to a film ever. As for why she got the part. A lot of Horror films were shot in British Columbia, Canada. As it's cheaper than shooting it in Hollywood. She's from the area and was down to do nude scenes. She was also in Final Destination 2 where she was the bikers GF who flashed her tits near the beginning. She's a legend.

2. I'm not a member of the Kane Hodder fan club. He was a decent Jason sure, but Ted White (The Final Chapter) was the best. Also Derek Mears (2009 remake) was an improvement. Ken did alright in this film all things considered, any issues with him are down to the direction and the makeup. Jasons a big goon in a mask, he can be played by many stunt people not just Kane.

3. I understand complaints about this. But they wanted to give Freddy something to give him an advantage in the dream world, something to exploit. It would make sense that someone who supposedly drowned would be afraid of water, even if it's just subconciously or something they got over but still have those traumatic memories deep in the back of their mind.

4. Eh. It's a film. They needed to get Jason into the dreamworld. He doesn't sleep does he? So that's what they came up with.