# Talk:Friday the 13th (1980 film)

Shouldn't there be a wiki site for Friday the 13th?  I mean this is a huge phemonenon.

A timeline was once here.  It has been removed due to copyright violation.  For a similar page, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_and_Jason_universe_timeline --ChuckDizzle 01:16, 17 June 2006 (U
In the section of the article that mentions the sequals it states that Jason remained the killer in all the movies, but that is not true.  In the fifth movie a paramedic is the killer and not Jason.

Was this film based upon a novel?  Thanks.

No it wasn't.  According to Cunningham, the movie was done because he wanted to do a super low budget horror film to make some quick cash.  Nevertheless, it worked.--74.128.180.187 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay.  Thanks.
More specifically it was a film intended to pay the bills with, while he worked on producing a soccer movie.
Whoever posted that it was meant to cash in on Halloweens sucess is speculating. It isn't factual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 

In the film, one of the kids plays a song on guitar. Any idea what song it is? Kabooky 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you thinking of either "Tom Dooley" or "River of Jordan."--ChuckDizzle 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It says Cunningham used Friday the 13th as a way to get quick cash to make another me he thought would be big which is Here Come the Tigers but if you click the link to the IMDB reference it says here come the tigers was made in 1978 2 years before Friday the 13th even released isn't that like impossible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.69.200.24 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

He did do Here Come the Tigers first. I'm working on revamping this entire page with lots of production information, so take anything on it with a grain of salt. I'll remove that bit now though.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The jury's out on a separate cast list (Jaws (film) is an FA without a list), but there is a consensus that there is no need for a table. The JPStalk to me 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the list entirely because all of the key characters (even the truck driver) are listed in the plot, along with the actors that played them.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Recently a user removed the full stop after the second caption arguing that it's (just) a "one sentence caption". Since it is a complete sentence the period has to persist, no matter whether there is only one sentence or more. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions. Sentence fragments like the description of the theatrical poster in the infobox don't need periods. Dutzi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the production section, when discussing the twist about the killer's identity, there is a quick reference to Scream 2. This seems like a completely unnecessary spoiler for the film, which has no reason to be here whatsoever. I think removal of this sentence would be beneficial without causing any harm to the article as a whole.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightofprinces (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 

A film article will contain spoilers, that's not going to change anything. But, I would remove it solely because there isn't a source to back up the fact that it was an intended homage to this film. This could just be someone reading between the lines themselves, so I'll go remove it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The most important thing is sourcing. Globeclotter (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I probably spelled that wrong but who cares. The only way to get to the Friday the 13th remake page is to type in Friday the 13th (2009 film), as Friday the 13th (film) redirects here. Should we put up at the top a link to the remake article? Not everyone thinks of typing (2009 film) next to it. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But who is going to type in "Friday the 13th (film)" and be looking for the 2009 film, when they probably know that the 2009 film is a remake of the 1980 film? If they are looking for the remake, they'll most likely be searching for Friday the 13th remake or just Friday the 13th. The reason "(film)" redirects to the 1980 film is because for the longest time that was the title of that article. We only recently moved it to "1980 film". If the reader knows that much about article titles that they would include "film" in the title, then they probably know to include a year when there was a previous version of the movie.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In the article date of action is Friday, June 13, 1979
But in 1979 June 13 was Wednesday
in 1980 June 13 was Friday  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.125.67.160 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 

I think it keeps getting changed because they filmed the movie in 1979, and never explicitly say when the film picks up at (year wise). People assume 1979, because of when they filmed it, and others assume 1980 because of when it was released. We could just remove the year altogether.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Intersting point Globeclotter (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The film takes place on June 13,1979.In Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter,it states on Pamela Voorhees' tombstone that she died in 1979.

I had Victor Miller as a guest speaker at my school today, and he told us that the true story behind the "inspiration" of this film was a call from the producer. In the call, he said, "Haloween is doing good, let's rip it off." Miller went to see the film, and based the plot off of Haloween's structure of:

Children in a place/situation where they cannot be helped by adults
A prior evil that wreaks havoc
A bunch of randy teens wanting to get it on, but getting killed as they do so.
Also, he said that he based Mrs. Voorhees off of the "mother [he] never had", a woman that would kill someone if they did anything bad to her son. He also mentioned that the character of Jason never interested him, and that to him he was just a "drowned monster kid". Really great lecture, I was really happy to be there. If video/audio confirmation is needed, I noticed someone videotaping.--TheChrisParker (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We would not published material to verify the information, which isn't needed anyway because he stated the same thing in the Crystal Lake Memories book. I just haven't gotten around to cleaning up the page with all that I have.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

the kis and mas sound EXACTLY like the whistling at the end of black sabbaths 1971 song children of the grave from masters of reality lp.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.226.191 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 

Does this include a director's commentary? Globeclotter (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the critical response section to discuss the response at the time of the film's original release first, followed by present day views of the film. The section originally began with the words "Upon release, Friday the 13th received mixed reviews from critics." I noticed that all the quotes from contemporary reviews in the section are negative, so I changed "mixed" to "mostly negative". However, an anonymous editor has changed it back to "mixed". Can anybody provide evidence that supports this (i.e. positive reviews from the time of release)? The Rotten Tomatoes rating is not useful for gauging the critical response at the time of release, as almost all the reviews that contribute to the film's current 60% score seem to be from the 2000s.
Eljayess (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We know that the year that the "present day" in the film is set in is 1979 due to what we are informed in the second movie. The second movie is set in 1984, and the events which occurred in the first film (as well as the murder of Alice at the beginning of the second film) are said to be 5 years previously. Therefore the year that this film was set in has to be 1979. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you know the line of dialogue or when it occurs, this could be cited with a bit of fudging of the {{Cite episode}} template. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The year is irrelevant first off. Secondly, you cannot take a line of dialogue from one film and attach it to another. We don't retroactively change films based on continuity establishments in later sequels.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Betsy Palmer received a 1981 Golden Raspberry Award nomination for Worst Actress for Friday The 13th. Since it has on the article that it was nominated by the Razzies for Worst Picture, do any of you think that it would be significant to put that she was nominated for Worst Actress underneath the nomination for Worst Picture? 
Any thoughts or comments are truly apprciated. Frschoonover (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I just added that on to the article. Thanks. Frschoonover (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What it's stop of finland? Suudali75 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friday the 13th (1980 film). 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) 22:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friday the 13th (1980 film). 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/20150414210057/http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D83927 to http://www.moviesunlimited.com/musite/product.asp?sku=D83927
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) 12:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Change mrs vorhees to Pamala vorhees (Betsy palmer) Keiraneds08 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s a good idea Keiraneds08 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: Why? Per Pamela Voorhees her first name is never given in this film Cannolis (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As of September 13, 2022, the film has received a release in 4K on UHD. The release includes the original theatrical cut as well as the unrated version. 67.175.102.175 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Provide the source and added to the rest of the home media information. :)   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure the date was June 13, 1979? It was a wednesday. But July 13 of that year was a friday. Aminabzz (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It says "present day". The problem is that the film was made in 1979, but released in 1980, so it isn't clear which year they pick. Also, the fact that June 13 was a Wednesday is not relevant to film world.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Friday the 13th (2017 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Friday the 13th (2017 film) until a consensus is reached.  InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Under the Filming section, remove the statement "The handler was not made aware of the plans to kill the snake." as this is an unverified rumor. The linked source does not state this as a fact, and also has no sources of its own. Fhibbian (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fhibbian. I looked at the linked source, Screen Rant,  and it appears to say: ...was accompanied by a handler who didn't know about its intended fate. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists Screen Rant as marginally reliable, so it may be wrong in this case. It seems that the entire matter of the snake being alive is attributed to Screen Rant. Do you suggest we remove any mention of a snake from the filming section?--Commander Keane (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The fact that it is a real snake was confirmed by Tom Savini here (and is also plainly seen in the film) so that should be left in the article. Fhibbian (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fhibbian, X (Twitter) isn't a reliable source, per Wikipedia:TWITTER and using your own eyes is original research. A snake could be mentioned in the Plot section as that is exempt from policies.
Either we trust Screen Rant or not. Alternatively we could just remove the handler thing using common sense. I think I will do your request using that concept actually. Commander Keane (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Has FilmDist rules changed? they said that if there are at least two distributors in general (a domestic and a foreign) then include both of them. I understand why for other films where the distributors in each country are different and that it should be restricted to it’s country of origin but if Warner Bros handled full international distribution of the film can’t they be included? Editoman2 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I was asked to review some edits, so I figured I would add my comments here as well.
Would the text be better as "He recalled," instead of "He recalled:" regarding the quotation from someone named Nelson?  Would it be better to link to Saint Sebastian#Martyrdom regarding the martyrdom of Saint Sebastian?  There are a few references with the word "sponsored" in the URL, which has me a bit concerned about those sources.  Should this be readded to Category:Films about summer camps?  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to do do the GA review for this article? GettingSwole (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, was that what you wanted?  I thought you wanted me to review your edits for some reason.
I do not recall ever doing a GA review and I don't believe I am good for that process.  I am willing to comment about improvements.  (Though, I don't like horror topics.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Do you know someone who would like to review it? GettingSwole (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
My understanding is that a nomination goes onto a board and is generally looked at in order.  It likely will be a few months before it gets reviewed.  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
It looks like there are currently over 80 articles being reviewed at the moment at GAN.  If you prefer getting someone to review it, I would suggest asking someone at Category:WikiProject Good Articles participants to see if someone there would be willing.  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Looks like The Lorax either saw the nomination or something, so I scratched the sentence that no longer applies.  Best of luck.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friday the 13th (1980 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GettingSwole (talk · contribs) 00:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: User:The lorax
Gonna grab this one! Will see if there's any necessary edits to be made. The Lorax 🗣️🌳 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for volunteering to do this, The Lorax.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead
Lead shouldn't have sources, all sources should be moved to their respective sections. Maybe we can add in the factoid that this is the "first independent slasher film to be acquired by a major motion picture studio."
Plot summary
While the plot is under 700 words as it should be per WP:FILMPLOT, it is currently hard to understand and needs a thorough copyedit. Sample sentence: "At the camp, counselors Ned, Jack, Bill, Marcie, Brenda, and Alice." Huh? I think this plot section should be rewritten to be more clear and concise.
Production
This is very well researched with appropriate visuals. I recommend cutting down on excessive trivia and cruft in the casting section, which currently seems too excessively detailed. For instance, the paragraph after "The producers originally wanted Sally Field for the role of Alice, but realized that they could not afford an established high-profile actress and went for unknowns instead..." should just be cut. I'm also not sure how pertinent it is that we know that King also auditioned for the roles of Brenda and Marcie. It seems immaterial to the rest of the article. Let's shrink the casting section by 50%.
Filming and special effects section read great and are well sourced.
Music section looks good. Great use of fair use music sample.
Themes section is fine but maybe a little too excessively detailed.
Reception
Very interesting, exceptionally sourced and researched - wow, Gene Siskel was a jerk.
References
Copyvio checker looks good, Slant Magazine's quotes are all appropriately cited.
Archive all sources and ensure dead links are replaced or removed.
That should do it for the review. Fix these up, otherwise an extremely well-researched article.The Lorax 🗣️🌳 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I fixed everything. GettingSwole (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
On the list of people who edited the article the most,I'm No. 3. I edited over 3% of the article. Do I count as a significant contributor? GettingSwole (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
If not, we must ask Drown Soda if it's OK for me to nominate this. GettingSwole (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it's okay, doesn't the guidelines say any "significant contributor" can nominate an article as long as an impartial editor reviews it? The Lorax 🗣️🌳 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't know how to properly interpret these rules. GettingSwole (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
There's a line about having to contribute 10% and being one of the top contributors but I don't know if it's one or the other or both or how to interpret the rules. GettingSwole (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Anyways, here's the breakdown of everything I evaluated above:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
You've addressed all of my concerns! Based on the above, this definitely qualifies for GA, congratulations! The Lorax 🗣️🌳 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Awesome! Is it going to get a good article green symbol? GettingSwole (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Yep! Congrats!! The Lorax 🗣️🌳 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
If you have any interest in mythology/religion, I just nominated Yakub (Nation of Islam) for GA if you'd like to check that out. If you know of anyone else who might like to take a look at that article, please let me know! GettingSwole (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@GettingSwole: @The lorax: Wow, thank you for nominating/reviewing/contributing to this. I did a lot of work on it over the summer and was considering nominating it myself recently—I hadn't returned to the article in some time and was happy to see it was approved for GA status. Awesome! –Drown Soda (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)