Generally speaking I would have to disagree with you. Yes, we do not see Freddy for some time, but just like in Jaws, the less you see him the better, at least in this instance. The by time that series had run its course all you did was see Freddy; in fact, you saw him EVERYWHERE, like in music videos, on TV, in each movie, there was so much Freddy overkill that he wasn't scary at all! He almost became a stand up comic. This movie was to create a feeling of dread again, to make you feel afraid of him again, not feel like he was a jokester there to kill mindless teens. That is why you had Heather/Nancy in the lead role, we are already invested in her from two other movies in the series, plus now she is a Mom and wife, struggling with her own issues as well. She was more human in this movie than any other one in the series.
Add in the whole story with the boy, who is having what many actual children go through, especially when parents are stressed or when a traumatic event happens, and you have actual real life drama mixed in with fantasy/horror, which was rare back then. Plus you have the film within a film, plus all the behind the scenes stuff, and Wes himself talking about the mythology and folklore of horror, and basically you have an amazing reboot of a series without ruining the original intent of the series. Only Wes could do this in such a brilliant way. Watching this made me realize, even more so, how much the world lost when he died.
reply
share
TheSolarSailor
9 years ago
Well put, TheHungryAndAngryShow. Well put indeed. The film really is nuanced and has a lot to offer for those with an actual attention span.
- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.
reply
share
TheHungryAndAngryShow
9 years ago
Thank you. I am a fan of the slash and dice films as much as the next guy, I love to see mindless teens get killed and all the blood and gore, but I also have a brain and one of the best parts of Nightmare on Elm Street, the original, was the depth of the story and the fear it instilled. There was the slasher aspect, but it was always about what could be, how scary it was to think about something getting you in your dreams.
New Nightmare was not about something getting you in your dreams, it was about the manifestation of entertainment into reality, rather than the other way around. Imagine if all the scary things in movies DID become real. This was not a movie to scare just you, it was to scare the whole entertainment industry! Wes predicted the mixing of reality and entertainment in a way that was scary. Little did he know that Kim Kardashian would be the boogie man, not Freddy!
reply
share
al666940-3
9 years ago
You guys must be delusional, definitely seeing what you want to see, not what's in front of you all.
"Churning out sequel after sequel"
So what? That's called making money and business. And a topic better suited for a documentary, not a horror film.
"Watering down characters"
Where was Freddy watered down here? Since the first nightmare HE has been the actual hero and character people cared about, not the leads! So his showing up to high five fans is exactly acknowledging that. And again, if you want to make a movie about people liking the bad guys, do a documentary.
The only section where Freddy was indeed watered down was by Craven himself by cheap makeup, gay leather gear, cheapest looking glove ever (looks good in posters, not so much on film), pathetic Hanzel/Gretel one liners, a set so obviously fake whatever Craven tried to convey got lost in the laughter.
"the manifestation of entertainment into reality, rather than the other way around"
Not sure what that means.
"it was to scare the whole entertainment industry! "
I doubt it scared anyone, even the child actor. At best it would have scared NLC by killing their cash cow, but then again they had already ended the franchise.
"! Wes predicted the mixing of reality and entertainment in a way that was scary. Little did he know that Kim Kardashian would be the boogie man, not Freddy!"
Again, absolutely 0% connection between this film and reality tv. The Kardashians have always been real, they never were movie characters that somehow became real.
reply
share
TheHungryAndAngryShow
9 years ago
Your opinion is your opinion, I obviously do not agree with you, and it seems at least one person understood what I wrote, so I don't think I need to explain it.
The one point I will make is that New Line Cinema doubled the budget in less than two months, just in the US theater release alone. If you add in rentals, video sales, DVD sales, bluray sales, overseas box office and other revenue streams, this made New Line Cinema a fair amount of money. This was not in any way a negative in their accounting books.
reply
share
al666940-3
9 years ago
You can always find someone who shares your opinion, no matter how whack it is. That means less than nothing.
And the fact stands, this was the nightmare movie with the weakest grossing numbers. If NLC had indeed made good money on it, how come it was the last one? The crossover and remake were many years after. When the franchise was profitable they were churning out one sequel per year almost.
And since you clearly seem to ignore the moviemaking/advertising costs and splitting of revenue with movie houses and oversea distributors, no wonder you think this was a home run.
If it had been they would have made a sequel, plain and simple. Want proof? Zombie's Halloween remake: it was profitable enough to force a sequel, and force Zombie to direct it (he was set against it, but money and the prospect of being replaced if he didn't budge sure changed his mind).
reply
share
TheHungryAndAngryShow
9 years ago
Nightmare on Elm Street - Budget : 1.8 million / Box Office : 10.8 million / Profit : 9 million
Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Budget : 2.2 million / Box Office : 23 million / Profit : 20.8 million
Nightmare on Elm Street 3 - Budget : 4.5 million / Box Office : 44 million / Profit : 39.5 million
Nightmare on Elm Street 4 - Budget : 7 million / Box Office : 49 million / Profit : 42 million
Nightmare on Elm Street 5 - Budget : 8 million / Box Office : 22 million / Profit : 14 million
Nightmare on Elm Street 6 - Budget : 8.5 million / Box Office : 35 million / Profit : 26.5 million
New Nightmare - Budget : 8 million / Box Office : 17 million / Profit : 9 million
So what we see here is that the first Nightmare On Elm Street movie made as much profit as the last one in the box office alone. I will give you that the first made more overall with rentals, video, DVD, bluray and overseas, but in no way was New Nightmare a flop, and I am absolutely sure New Line Cinema did not expect this to reach the heights of any of the other ones.
Of course there are more fees than the budget alone, but movies are judged as successes by their box office numbers because it follows that with overseas and other revenue streams a movie will do even more money than just simple American box office. With something as internationally famous as Nightmare On Elm Street, what you had here was a movie that was going to do much better than just American box office numbers alone. I can guarantee you that New Line Cinema did not lose their shirt on this one, even if they did not make a killing, no pun intended.
reply
share
al666940-3
9 years ago
9 million in 1984 is worth more than 9 million in 1994.
The proof is that the 1984 movie got a sequel, and the 1994 didn't.
It didn't make enough doe to warrant a sequel. That is the definition of a dud when you're talking about the latest instalment of a franchise.
Why do you think they keep making Fast & Furious sequels? Because they KEEP making money, no matter how absurd/preposterous the plots keep getting.
Freddy vs Jason made way more money, and is far more celebrated (even if they committed the mortal sin of replacing Kane Hodder) because it ENTERTAINED. Nobody has ever accused that one of being bored/slow/absurd/etc. Heck it even had a couple good scary scenes with Freddy looking actually creepy like in parts 1/2.
reply
share
TheHungryAndAngryShow
9 years ago
Profit is only one reason for sequels, it takes a lot to make a movie, not just money. Loads of successful movies don't have sequels, and even some flops get sequels.
The Nightmare On Elm Street series continued in both Freddy Vs. Jason and in the horrible reboot, so it sure didn't kill the series by any means.
Obviously this movie is loved by some, hated by others, that's just opinion. I didn't find this slow or boring, I was entertained the whole time. You obviously weren't. No point in beating that dead horse.
reply
share
michaeluk26
8 years ago
That's complete and utter BS. No one was cheering for Freddy until part 3 at the earliest. He was scary and serious and audiences were terrified by him. Part 3 and mainly part 4 is where the stand up comic stuff started happening. He was giving fans high fives because of the $hit that was parts 4-6.
The churning out sequel after sequel line is in direct correlation with watering the character down. I understand the money aspect but to ruin a character to make money is stupid.
Uh, Freddy's Dead was supposed to be the last one. But they then decided they wanted to do something for the 10 year anniversary. It was a treat for the fans of the original. There was NEVER going to be a sequel to this no matter how much money it made. Obviously. Are you willingly being this obtuse? You want to bring Freddy vs Jason into this? Its at least as polarizing as this film. Don't know where you get your info on it being celebrated. Of course it made more money, it was the linchpins of 2 of the greatest horror slasher's in history going at it. It would have made money no matter what.
There are 2 reasons that you completely ignore as to why New Nightmare didn't make money. It opened opposite Pulp Fiction, the freaking hit of the year. It got lost in the shuffle and frankly, people were tired of Freddy. He was over exposed and people got tired of the goofiness and the diminishing returns show that. They didn't want more Dream Childs and Freddys Dead. Most thought this would be the same type of crap. However Robert Englund, the guy who plays Freddy, says this is the best movie in the series. I trust his opinion over yours.
reply
share
apriloish
8 years ago
There isnt anything wrong wit ha funny freddy movie an there isnt anything wrong with sequels sequels dont water the character down weak stories do craven diddnt think sequels could be made but when they were he wanted on board he wanted to do three they said no to his draft an i read it an it honestly isnt that great he also wrote a draft for four they again said no Craven agreed to do this after they called him up an payed him money he felt he was owed for the sequels because it was his character craven talking about watering down isnt so much the sequels its more him talking about the changing of freddy. Craven himself was a fan of dream master it was his fav sequel an he thought it was creative as for new nightmare its not a freddy film its a stand alone its a pretty good film the comedy started in 3 an in four freddys not much more comedic then 3 the tone of four is cheesier but freddy himself isnt much more comedic the first half of three plays serious then after the tv kill it becomes comedy 3 balances the horror comedy part the best of the sequels i loved craven but part of his resentment toward the sequels was really a money thing he felt he was owed money because it was his character which i agree with him
reply
share