Jump to content
Deeify

A Nightmare on Elm Street

What's the best Nightmare on Elm Street?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Favorite Nightmare on Elm Street?

    • A Nightmare on Elm Street
      5
    • Freddy's Revenge
      2
    • Dream Warriors
      4
    • Dream Master
      3
    • Dream Child
      0
    • Freddy's Dead
      0
    • Freddy VS Jason
      0


Recommended Posts

I didn't include New Nightmare because I wanted to stick with the main canon storyline.  What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 4, but 3 is only a hair behind. But Renny Harlin is the fucking man. Even if he did pass on an offer from one of my scripts last year (it's okay Harlin, I still think you're awesome, and good luck with your latest efforts in China).

But honestly, if I wanted to show someone who had never seen any, I would be most excited to sit down and watch part 1. And if the question had been which one is scariest, that would have to be part 1.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the original for me, for sure. I was young when I watched part 1 and Freddy scared the everloving crap out of me at the time! I enjoy all of the movies to some degree, I even really liked New Nightmare and FvJ was campy fun! I'm glad you didn't enter that godawful re-make in the mix. Did you know that Jackie Earle Haley went to an audition for the original with his friend at the time, Johnny Depp? He didn't get a part, but Depp did. It's a shame that he would play the version of Freddy that came out in 2010. I don't blame Haley for how the character turned out, I blame the writers and director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rexfellis said:

I don't blame Haley for how the character turned out, I blame the writers and director.

Eric Heisserer is actually a really good writer. Honestly, you can never blame the writer. Unless the writer is also the director. And even then.

The writer is the bottom of the totem pole. Especially if you're hired to do a studio film. Imagine this situation --

Two producers approach a screenwriter. Offer him (or her) a job to work on a project. Only one producer at first deals with the writer. "What do you think? Can you write me a pitch? I'll send it to the creative exec at Studio Blah."

So the writer makes a pitch. Producer A says, "Awesome! I'll send."

Days, maybe weeks, go by.

Later, Producer A e-mails/texts the writer. "They loved it! We're setting up a call. Can you send me some times you're free next week?"

The writer does. They have a call. The exec, "Yeah, really loved your take, blah blah, what we're trying to do, blah blah. Can you write up an outline of your pitch?"

Writer does. "We like it! But can you change this and that?" Sure. Writer does.

"Great! Can you write the treatment?"

Writer does.

Oh -- but wait -- suddenly Producer B is back in the picture. Reads the treatment. "Change this that and the other thing." What? But the creative exec -- "My name's on this, too -- do it!"

Okay, fine. Writer changes it to please all parties. Which so far is Producer A. Producer B. And the Creative Exec.

Then the draft is done. And both producers have notes. Sometimes conflicting.

Revision after revision after revision after revision.

Okay. This is good. Let's send to the Creative Exec now.

The Creative Exec reads. "This is good, but I have thoughts."

Mountain of notes.

Revision (or fired and a new writer is brought on board).

Then the Creative Exec is like, okay cool, now let me show it to my boss.

More waiting. Then more notes.

Then finally, "Great! We sent an offer to Director A."

Director is on. First thing, "I have some notes!'

More revisions.

At this point, the writer is totally and utterly exhausted. And the script really isn't his or her vision. At all. It's the writer trying to desperately wrangle all of these crazy ass ideas and notes and demands while attempting to retain some sort of artistic integrity so he or she can actually go to the premier without requiring a six pack and a joint.

And THEN, when it's finally greenlit, imagine problems on the set that require day-of rewrites. Or a scene isn't geling, and the director and/or star wants changes.

THEN, after it's filmed, the EDITOR gets to put it together, which can totally change the movie (literally -- if you've never seen the original cut of MALLRATS when Kevin Smith edited it, you really should. It's a TOTALLY different movie, all based on how it was cut in the editing room).

Then finally the movie comes out and it's bad, and people are like, "THE STORY SUCKS WHO IS THIS SCREENWRITER?"

But if the movie comes out and it's good, people are like, "THIS DIRECTOR IS AMAZING!"

So, blame literally everyone BUT the screenwriter. The screenwriter is just a high-level problem solver on studio projects like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Smitty_Voorhees said:

Eric Heisserer is actually a really good writer. Honestly, you can never blame the writer. Unless the writer is also the director. And even then.

 

That is why I made writerplural. I am well aware of the studio "tinkering" with this film. The screenplay was originally written by Wesley Strick. Heisserer was brought in to revise the script. When Director Samuel Bayer go his hands on the revised screenplay, he decided that it needed to be changed even further. And, of course, the studio chimed in with what they wanted added and deleted. And, after test-audience screenings, it was altered further. I'm sure Strick probably had a decent screenplay, and Heisserer did a more than competent job of a re-write. When I lumped "writers" in there, I meant everyone had their grubby little hands on the script. 

If you want to see three other films off the top of my head that were neutered by re-writes and studio intervention, look into everything that happened with Disturbing Behavior (1999),  the Black Christmas re-make (2006), and 30 Days Of Night (2007). All three were well-developed, scary, and thought out stories that were completely hamstrung by studio interference. (although I believe that 30 Days of Night suffered the least).  And, if you step out of the horror genre, I would have loved to have seen what Suicide Squad would have been if the studio hadn't hired trailer editors on meth to hack that film to bits. And, Batman v. Superman, and The Craft, and......you get the point.

I should have clarified my statement by saying studio-involved revisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rexfellis said:

That is why I made writerplural. I am well aware of the studio "tinkering" with this film. The screenplay was originally written by Wesley Strick. Heisserer was brought in to revise the script. When Director Samuel Bayer go his hands on the revised screenplay, he decided that it needed to be changed even further. And, of course, the studio chimed in with what they wanted added and deleted. And, after test-audience screenings, it was altered further. I'm sure had a decent screenplay, and Heisserer did a more than competent job of a re-write. When I lumped "writers" in there, I meant everyone had their grubby little hands on the script. 

If you want to see two other films off the top of my head that were neutered by re-writes and studio intervention, look into everything that happened with Disturbing Behavior (1999) and the Black Christmas re-make (2006). Both were well-developed, scary, and thought out stories that were completely hamstrung by studio interference. And, if you step out of the horror genre, I would have loved to have seen what Suicide Squad would have been if the studio hadn't hired trailer editors on meth to hack that film to bits. And, Batman v. Superman, and The Craft, and......you get the point.

I should have clarified my statement by saying studio-involved revisions.

In there we are in total agreement. I AM LEGEND had a similar effect. Though to be fair, by the sound of it WWZ was actually fixed by studio meddling. But yes, there are always too many cooks in the kitchen for studio films. It's bizarre that they hire filmmakers based on their reputations and pedigree, and then micromanage everything they do. And then they complain that people don't go to the movies anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smitty_Voorhees said:

 Though to be fair, by the sound of it WWZ was actually fixed by studio meddling. 

Well, I don't know if World War Z was fixed. Disregarding the fact that I did read the book beforehand, and the movie had nothing at all to do with the source material, I thought the movie was horrible. With that title, I just expected a lot more I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rexfellis said:

Well, I don't know if World War Z was fixed. Disregarding the fact that I did read the book beforehand, and the movie had nothing at all in common with that, I thought the movie was horrible. With that title, I just expected a lot more I guess.

Yes, the book was way better. Although it wasn't a cinematic narrative, they still departed wildly with the material. Which, by the way, is why optioned material is so absurd most of the time. At that point, you're only optioning the market awareness of the title, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smitty_Voorhees said:

Yes, the book was way better. Although it wasn't a cinematic narrative, they still departed wildly with the material. Which, by the way, is why optioned material is so absurd most of the time. At that point, you're only optioning the market awareness of the title, nothing else.

True. The Zombie Craze was in full effect at the time, and they cashed in on it. I just wish they would have focused on a couple of the stories in the book, with maybe some flashbacks to the earlier instances of zombie attacks described in it. Or better yet, just do a movie of The Zombie Survival Guide, also penned by Brooks. That could be a fun flick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 2:33 PM, Rexfellis said:

It's the original for me, for sure. I was young when I watched part 1 and Freddy scared the everloving crap out of me at the time! I enjoy all of the movies to some degree, I even really liked New Nightmare and FvJ was campy fun! I'm glad you didn't enter that godawful re-make in the mix. Did you know that Jackie Earle Haley went to an audition for the original with his friend at the time, Johnny Depp? He didn't get a part, but Depp did. It's a shame that he would play the version of Freddy that came out in 2010. I don't blame Haley for how the character turned out, I blame the writers and director.

The remake was terrible.  I was actually really excited when I heard Jackie was playing Freddy.  I thought he would do great!  His talents were completely wasted.  They basically put him in a Freddy costume and said, "Ok, just jump out and scare these kids".  They missed the entire point of Nightmare on Elm Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll always prefer Dream Master because it was the first one i saw and the bug scene scared the piss out of me when I was a kid. Never did really like Freddy's revenge though. It just felt off to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RAGNAR0K N ROLL said:

I'll always prefer Dream Master because it was the first one i saw and the bug scene scared the piss out of me when I was a kid. Never did really like Freddy's revenge though. It just felt off to me. 

Freddy's Revenge had it's problems for sure.  What I did like about it though, was that Freddy was just plain mean in that one.  No big cheesy lines, he seemed pissed off and didn't mess around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Deeify said:

Freddy's Revenge had it's problems for sure.  What I did like about it though, was that Freddy was just plain mean in that one.  No big cheesy lines, he seemed pissed off and didn't mess around.

That's true he was a lot more sinister in Revenge than the others. Though I always kinda felt the wise ass one liners were kind of his "thing" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RAGNAR0K N ROLL said:

That's true he was a lot more sinister in Revenge than the others. Though I always kinda felt the wise ass one liners were kind of his "thing" 

Part 4 was, in my opinion, where he balanced all the best parts of the rest of the movies.  He was mean, cerebral, comical, and inventive with his kills.  Dream Master is Freddy in his prime I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...