Ok, don’t websites read their sources before writing articles. I’m now beginning to see why people in the industry get so frustrated with the web because once one blogger takes a story completely out of context and misrepresents something, it can very quickly spread like wildfire and that false story then becomes verbatim through even further misrepresentations. 

Case in point. You may have read that Brad Fuller, the producer of the recent reboot of Friday the 13th is planning/teasing to make next year’s August released sequel in a “snowbound setting”. Which isn’t really anywhere near close to the truth if you actually read the article in question. 

During Fuller’s informative interview at Hitfix, the question of a “snow setting” actually comes from a member of apress conference who suggested the idea when Fuller mentioned he wanted to do something with the sequel that hadn’t been done before. 

His response was basically (as the source gives me no direct quotes, I’m reading through the lines) “yeah fresh idea, but we won’t set it in a wintery setting”. Which basically to me says “yeah thats cool, but we aren’t doing it”. 

Yet every single website has now decided to report this as what Fuller is planning or even suggesting to do, when it wasn’t even his idea to begin with! lol. 

If an audience member shouted out, “Hey Brad, have you thought about adding Pinocchio in as the biological father of Jason?”, and Fuller responded with “that’s fresh, but we won’t be looking to delve into Jason’s dad” then would the web erupt with stories about a wooden boy whose nose grows long when he lies into the mix?

Honestly, I’m certain some folks don’t read articles in full before putting their spin on things. In truth, there is actually less reason to think the sequel will be set in snow than there is to think it’s going to be set in hell because Fuller has dismissed the idea in the interview itself (the no wintery setting comment). 

So why don’t we get down to some actual newsworthy stuff in the interview. First up, I’m glad to hear that Fuller has held his hands up about mistakes that were made in the making of the first movie, in particular his repsonse to the lack of quality, clever kills, as mentioned by me in passionate 14.02.09 review. 

…And beyond that, it just wasn’t a very good slasher film. The kills sucked. Very little thought or effort had been put into any kind of inventiveness and except for maybe one or two kills (the burned chick comes to mind), they were all really lame. When your slasher movie, when your FRIDAY THE 13TH movie doesn’t even have that, what is it we are paying for exactly?

You have rebooted a franchise which has legendary kills. Simon Gallagher showed the best of the them all to you this week but I dare say he would find it difficult to choose anything from this bunch that would warrant a place on a top 20 list. When your slasher movie, when your FRIDAY THE 13TH movie doesn’t even have that, what is it we are paying for exactly?

It can’t be the suspense. You will watch this movie and notice that none of these young guys or gals will ever get away from their fate in that scene, there is no suspense because we know as soon as Jason has his eyes on someone, that is it. Nispel is no Craven, he has no idea how to build up to a kill and I pretty much had it down to a tea who was the next in line to be killed. No shocks, no surprises. 

So I’m happy to here that Fuller has took this kind of criticism on board…

“If we’re vulnerable on [the first film], it’s that people thought our kills weren’t clever enough, so whatever we need to do to make those kills seem clever in the second film is what we’re going to do,”

That’s a criticism that really goes to my heart, that I feel like I’ve failed the fans if those kills aren’t original or that they’re not unique or grisly. You can read the comments and see where the truth is, and you can see as a producer where maybe that kill could’ve been better or we could’ve done something more clever here. However we can bring more clever kills to the second one, that’s what we’re going to do.”

Would the clever kills involve 3-D, all the more popular after My Bloody Valentine 3-D did so well in theatres…

“It’s certainly been talked about,” Fuller says. “The financial ramifications of doing a movie in 3-D on a budget that size, ‘cause it’s not like they’re going to say to us ‘Yeah, well why don’t you make a sequel and here’s twice as much money,’ it doesn’t go that way. Our movies are virtually all the exact same budget and I guarantee you if we make that movie i”ll be the same budget as the original. And we’ll say ‘Hey do you want to do it in 3-D?’ and they’ll say ‘Yeah, let’s talk about it’ and then when they see that it’s six or seven million dollars more they’ll probably opt out unless something that we are not expecting happens. I suspect it will not be in 3-D, although we’d love to make a 3-D horror movie. We’d love to do it; they just don’t throw that money our way.”

So 3-D (yes they have talked about), but snow (they won’t be using it). 

Fuller’s next task is to get the script, currently being written once again by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift greenlit so they can push forward with finding a director. Marcus Nispel has already dismissed the idea of coming back for a sequel.