Long-Winded Script Review

[The Dark Shape]

After reading this draft, in true I-love-hearing-myself-talk fashion, I wrote a script review. Ain't it grand?

(Needless to say, SPOILERS FOLLOW.)

-------------------------------

"The brain keeps working for up to seven minutes after the body dies. I still have four minutes with you."

Through means that weren't particularly difficult -- thanks, internet friends! -- I managed to get a hold of the January 14, 2009 draft of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (which seems to have strangely dropped the "A"). Credited to Wesley Strick with revisions by Eric Heisserer and running 110 pages, I imagine this is the same draft Latino Review took a look at.

Some quick background going in - HALLOWEEN is my favorite film of all time and the movie that got me into movies. So of the "big three" franchises, I'm very partial to Michael Myers. But ELM STREET, to me, is easily the most consistent of the group. Even when the films are bad there's some kind of awful comedy that can make you chuckle. You can't say the same about HALLOWEEN 5.

I've been very hesitant, even violently resistant, toward the prospect of a remake because I think it's a purely trend-based decision. FREDDY VS. JASON did major box office piggy-backing off Freddy's popularity (JASON X made $12m, FVJ $82m - what's the primary difference?). For whatever it's worth, I thought there was plenty of room left to tell fresh Englund-Freddy stories that still made significant money with today's teens.

But alas, here comes the remake. And now that all of my biases are laid bare, my review.

We open in suburbia as Dean - a high school student described as "clean and preppy" - is throwing a party. Yes, instead of moody boiler room shots, we follow kids getting drunk and playing Guitar Hero. Conveniently, all of our potential victims are here. As well as Dean, we have Kris (think Tina), Quentin (Glen), Jesse (Rod), and Nancy (erm, Nancy).

By page 7 Kris has awoken from a nightmare and gone upstairs to see Dean slashed violently down the chest, then thrown a few stories to his death.

It's a surprisingly weak opening. There's no physical appearance by a certain fedora-wearing fiend, which is completely fine because they're saving him for an entrance later. But the attack itself is totally expected and without any kind of shock value to the audience. Yes, this is a remake, but it follows exactly the same set of rules as the first eight. This problem will creep up later in our story.

Dean is buried. People grieve in boring fashion. It's here moreso than the banal party scene that the script reveals its biggest issue - these people are boring. There's no spark, no wit. They speak dryly and rattle off information. Characters exist solely as pieces to be killed at certain intervals to keep the pace up. Platinum Dunes' FRIDAY THE 13TH remake had the exact same issue.

Moving on, Kris begins something of an investigation. Nancy - borderline goth - shows up long enough to ominously give her coffee beans. Kris quickly discovers some kind of childhood connection to the man she's seeing in her nightmares. A visit to the attic reveals a box of old photos from when she was five - attending pre-school with other kids who have conveniently all stayed friends since then (and yet don't remember being at the school together).

It's here the script gets something very right: the first appearance of one Freddy Krueger.

A blue dress with a lace collar.

WIDER

Kris holds the dress up, turns it over... to find FOUR SLASHES in its fabric, just like her dream.

The doll's pull string spools up and in a music-box child's voice:

CHINA DOLL (V.O.)
One, two, Freddy's coming for you.

The atmosphere is dead-on and the actual appearance of Krueger is twisted, disorienting, and definitely full of potential once filmmakers put it to film.

Freddy's nature in the script is sadistic but playful - there's the sense he lets victims go just to torment them further. Still, by the third time Kris had escaped a nightmare at the last moment (by page 34!), you're dying for the fake scares to end. And they do, with a jump-scare in bed certain to give opening night crowds a heart attack. It's the kind of appearance that will have you grinning from ear-to-ear.

To speed things along, Kris is out of the picture. The script then follows a groove very similar to Wes Craven's original. Nancy takes it upon herself to figure out why the burned man is tormenting him. She and Quentin - who is certainly a more proactive "hero" than Johnny Depp's Glen was - follow the clues and twisted images Krueger shows them to figure out why he's dead-set on putting them in pine boxes.

So, Freddy's new back story. There are two sides to this coin.

On the positive front, the concept of making Freddy Krueger the caretaker of a pre-school is inspired (if not begging for a lawsuit by the creators of THE SIMPSONS). The idea is that Freddy was wonderful with children and they all loved him. But after strange incidents, the kids pointed the finger at Freddy, saying he molested them. After escaping a prison sentence, the parents track him down and make him pay.

There are two major problems with the parents' reveal. One is that it's treated as a shock. Pretending people don't know this aspect going in would be like remaking THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and trying to sucker punch the audience with "No, I am your father" in act three. It's pop culture at this point and people fully expect it.

The second problem is that Freddy's actual death is now an accident. The parents didn't mean to kill him - an overzealous father just tossed a molotov cocktail in to "smoke him out," but it caught fire and the man burned to death. Obviously, ten years later, 'ol Krueger ain't happy.

Now I want to discuss the pedophile accusations, and at this stage I warn of major spoilers. Yes, I've been revealing up to this point, but I'm now going to discuss the truth of Krueger's involvement. Ye be warned.

So, now the last of our teens, Nancy and Quentin believe that Freddy was falsely identified; that they were coerced into accusing him by their parents. Audio-tapes exist with their accusations. These tapes, conveniently held in the now-abandoned pre-school, are apparently the key to their torment. They assert if they destroy the tapes, Freddy will leave them be.

Of course, looking through the tapes, Nancy has a revelation.

NANCY
He's not after us because we lied,
he's after us because we told.

And so the script dilutes the one truly inspired idea it has. Call me crazy, but the concept of an innocent Krueger who was burned alive for something he had no involvement with and is now taking his revenge out upon those who lied is so much scarier to me than, "He was a psycho all along." Yes, that's more in line with Robert Englund's pre-burning child-killer, but this ain't Robert Englund.

It's a missed opportunity and a very disappointing one at that.

Now, this isn't Robert Englund's Freddy, but he's certainly of the same mold. Reading through his scenes it's impossible not to see them with NIGHTMARE 1's Englund in mind. He's sparsely used and quiet. His longest line of dialogue is three sentences. But when he does speak, it hits. The quote at the beginning of this review is a personal favorite, as he torments a teen who has passed on in the physical world.

I'm surprised Jackie Earle Haley, who is indeed perfect for the role, would take it. Freddy's screen-time is roughly equal to the first film with some expanded back story being shown. He's cruel, but in the end he's just a slasher. Haley will have to take part in a broad, cliche act three showdown with Nancy that requires little acting and much grunting.

The script is very structurally sound, but act three goes off the rails a little bit. Quentin's "final" nightmare is significantly less satisfying than Depp's fate. Whereas Glen gushes out of his bed, Quentin simply sits in a chair with spiders crawling over him. That's it. And "I'm your boyfriend now, Nancy," works significantly better in the original.

This review is now edging toward harsh, which I again chalk up to being a big fan of the actual series (with NEW NIGHTMARE being my favorite). There are two elements in particular that will particularly impress people. The first is a scene with a character, Marcus, documenting his final days on webcam. This ends in a brilliantly creepy homage to NIGHTMARE 3.

The second is the concept of "micronaps," where after seventy hours of no sleep, your brain shuts down for a few seconds at a time. As Nancy and Quentin walk down Elm Street for the final confrontation with Krueger, they keep flashing between the real world and that of the dream - including a demonic dog that's a clear reference to FREDDY'S REVENGE.

In the end, the structure is there. The nightmares and the execution of Freddy are borderline excellent. The major issue is the complete lack of interest in the teens. They rattle off boring dialogue and that's it. The script's idea of witty is for Nancy and Quentin to have a moment of, "If we live through this will you go out with me?" Who wouldn't want them to die at that point?

Shore up the teen stuff and come up with a more dynamic, interesting act three confrontation and this'll be a film worth paying to see. It's already a significant improvement over HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH on the page.

[The New Blood]

That really doesn't sound too bad. It just sucks that the characters will be the usual run of the mill, cookie cutter molds like other horror films have lately. That will really hurt the film. Hopefully some significant changes are made in that regard by the time filming begins. I highly doubt it though.

[sooners4life98]

The teens won't have me not go see this movie. I didn't have a problem with F13 young adults and I don't think I will have problem with noes kids either.

[Harmonic Bond]

Thank you for this. I was awfully curious to the script that members were referring to so casually. Doesn't sound bad, actually. The death scenes sound like they won't quite match the original, oh well.

One question. Does the boiler room show up at all? If not, where do people go when they dream?

[Penhall]

I read the script and thought it was pretty crappy. I hate the whole idea of "Is Freddy really innocent???" And then the "realization" that he is, indeed, a pedophile. And the fact that he never murdered any kids before being burned, and is no longer punishing the parents for their crimes, but instead is killing off kids that "told on him" is lame, IMO.

One of the reasons touted by Fuller and Form for remaking the movie was all the cool stuff they can do with nightmare landscapes and exciting stuff like that, and I dont even remember anything like that in the script.

I found the script to be dull and just plain bland.

No matter how well it is directed/acted, I dont see horror fans embracing this. It'll come out, we'll all go see it, and then it'll be quickly forgotten.

I guess we'll see soon enough.

[Timberwolf Entertainment]

That really doesn't sound too bad. It just sucks that the characters will be the usual run of the mill, cookie cutter molds like other horror films have lately. That will really hurt the film. Hopefully some significant changes are made in that regard by the time filming begins. I highly doubt it though.

You really can't get more cookie cutter than F13.. so I'm sure elm won't be THAT bad.

I was very against this remake awhile back.. but now I'm 50/50. I don't mind the remake in theory... but the production team does make me worry.

[DD77]

What's all this cookie cutter talk about? What do you people want exactly? Which horror films are up to your standards in victim filler between deaths? :confused:

[Timberwolf Entertainment]

What's all this cookie cutter talk about? What do you people want exactly? Which horror films are up to your standards in victim filler between deaths? :confused:

I think they just want it to be a bit more real.

We all know the old Elms and Fridays were not high art.. but take the cast of F13 part 2 or TFC. While not shakespeare the did seem more real and honest. Now Elm was even better done when you look at the cast of Dream Warriors.

The new F13 suffers from the stereotypes that the old Fridays actually created in a way. Oh.. Jimbo was a nerdy guy so lets have that, Teddy was a pervert so lets have that. etc. etc.. So the new F13 has all the cookie cutter stereotypes the old Fridays have, with none of the honesty or 'semi-realism' Even the later F13s like part 8 had these same issues... but not so glaringly MTV as the new one.

With Elm it could be even worse as for the most part the first 4 Elm's were on a level above F13.. so this could be a even bigger drop in quality... at least to this reader (I have not read the screenplay) But I understand where he can be coming from.

It doesn't have to be Goodfellas.. we know that... but we don't want fake plastic people either.

[Jus-X]

Thanks Dark... In my eyes you can't make a remake without stepping on some people's toes.... which is what it sounds like is going on with Freddy only being accused, but not proven guilty. It could work. And we all need to remmember, even if a script isn't the best sounding thing... alot of time actors can make the poorley written lines worth while, and a slight change of story could work. I'll still go see it.

[Ron]

I'm not gonna lie, after the Friday the 13th remake, my expectations for these things are non existent. I didn't hate the Friday reboot, but it was not exactly thought it was gonna be.

[The Dark Shape]

What's all this cookie cutter talk about? What do you people want exactly? Which horror films are up to your standards in victim filler between deaths? :confused:

I generally like to give a damn about whether they live or die. Or more simply than that - I don't want to be bored when Freddy/Jason/Michael isn't on screen.

[DD77]

I see.. I guess i don't care either way. Unless i like one of the actors sexfully or through their other work, i usually don't care about anyone really. The small talk doesn't bother me that much. They come, they go. There will be blood.

[The Dream Master]

I read the script a couple weeks ago, and I honestly can't muster much more of a description than "bland." I agree that the teens aren't memorable or well-written in the slightest, but I don't think "Freddy" is much better. To me, he's even more of a generic thug than Freddy was in the original. At least Craven gave him some good lines ("This is God," "Come to Freddy") and some cool things to do (like cutting himself and laughing about it, extending his arms, etc.). Here, he just sort of sits in the shadows, randomly brandishes a pitchfork, spouts stitled-sounding dialogue, and doesn't even get too creative with his deaths. I mean, seriously--Craven did better with a smaller budget. Since when does Freddy pour bugs on someone instead of turning them into one? It just lacks imagination to me.

[DD77]

To me, he's even more of a generic thug than Freddy was in the original. At least Craven gave him some good lines ("This is God," "Come to Freddy") and some cool things to do (like cutting himself and laughing about it, extending his arms, etc.). Here, he just sort of sits in the shadows, randomly brandishes a pitchfork, spouts stitled-sounding dialogue, and doesn't even get too creative with his deaths. I mean, seriously--Craven did better with a smaller budget. Since when does Freddy pour bugs on someone instead of turning them into one? It just lacks imagination to me.Now this i care about. They should've kept at least a couple classic moments... It really is a damned if you do damned if you don't, lose-lose situation. The balance between old and new is near impossible. But at least make more effort.

[Rich]

I'll tell you guys what. We are getting the return of the Freddy from the original film in the remake. He is dark and evil. As long as they don't change anything from the script, the new one is going to be very good.

It's too bad that Donald Thompson is not in the story.

[Esten]

If the Freddy from the original film was in the script, I must've missed him. I'll give Phillip Marlowe a call, and maybe we can track him down.

[VoorheesGuy91]

I've been very hesitant, even violently resistant, toward the prospect of a remake because I think it's a purely trend-based decision. FREDDY VS. JASON did major box office piggy-backing off Freddy's popularity (JASON X made $12m, FVJ $82m - what's the primary difference?). For whatever it's worth, I thought there was plenty of room left to tell fresh Englund-Freddy stories that still made significant money with today's teens.

Just for the record, Jason X failed miserably at the Box-Office due to the fact that the idea of Jason in space was so outlandish and absurd that nobody wanted to waist there time or money to see it. Friday the 13th (2009) grossed a total of $89,571,558 worldwide. So I guess there goes the "FvJ only made money due to Freddy theory"...just my two-cents.

[The New Blood]

Jason X failed because it was a fucking horrible movie that few people could enjoy. When I walked out of the theater from JX everyone around me was making fun of it and basically despised the entire film. That pretty much sums of the word of mouth JX got. Not only that but it was barely advertised at all before it came out. From my mentioning anything about JX to other people around that time, it seemed like nobody even knew the film existed.

[The Tall Man]

^^^My crowd loved JX when I saw it in a packed theater opening night.

T.M.

[Timberwolf Entertainment]

FvsJ made money because of Freddy AND Jason together... A solo sequel film by either at that time would not have done more than 20-30mill.. Jason X made even less cause of no awareness. .and yes cause it was in space.

[Culp]

And shitty.

I'm worried here how Nancy is going to be portrayed. Heather did a great job with what could have been a generic character and turned her in to a heroine for the series. If this Nancy sucks...then who cares if Freddy is after her?

I hope that the original cast make cameos, especially Heather, to me she's almost as important as Robert to the original series.

[Geddy Peart]

I'm really trying to reserve judgement until I actually see the film. I love the original ANOES, and it was hard for me to accept that Robert wouldn't be coming back this time. However, I knew that would happen eventually. It will be difficult to see someone else in the role, but I'm gonna give the new guy a chance. And though the script may sound lack luster, perhaps the direction and acting will some how make it work.

If I end up not liking or even hating the remake, I'll always have my box set.

BTW, is it true that Robert is having to audition for a cameo? I hope that's just a rumor and because it's true than that's really a slap in the face not only to the guy who made this franchise what it is (Robert) but also the fans.

[Timberwolf Entertainment]

BTW, is it true that Robert is having to audition for a cameo? I hope that's just a rumor and because it's true than that's really a slap in the face not only to the guy who made this franchise what it is (Robert) but also the fans.

I'm sure that's just a rumor. In fact regardless of Nightmare or Robert.. a cameo is when they ask YOU to be their movie cause your already a star.

[Esten]

The fuck would Englund have to audition for anything? They know the guy, so if they want him, they cast him.


But, yeah, don't put Englund in the film. Leave him out entirely.

[DedKid]

One of the reasons JX flopped was because it was available online quite a few months before it hit theaters. The fact that the production was mired with problems from certain egotistical producers who shall remain nameless is another story. If Jim Isaac was allowed to shoot the draft that Todd had initially written, you know, the one that New Line actually gave a greenlight to, and DeLuca claimed "rocked", I don't think it'd be so reviled among fans or would've been such a flunk at the box office. But this isn't the "Who Fucked Jason X" thread, so I digress....

After reading all of this, despite my curiosity to see how this turns out, I'm agreeing with Esten, that they need to leave Englund out of it. A few weeks ago, I thought a cameo would be cool, but now, I'm thinking that would just be a painful reminder of ANOES's former greatness, a greatness that was sacrificed for a sick, rather than evil, Freddy, and bland, boring-as-shit characters. You can sneak characters like that into an F13 or a Halloween, and it'll still work, but when you're talking about a film where the protagonist goes into the subconscious of his victims, well, those victims need some damn substance in order to have a viable subconscious for Freddy to invade.

[Germaniac]

I'll tell you guys what. We are getting the return of the Freddy from the original film in the remake. He is dark and evil. As long as they don't change anything from the script, the new one is going to be very good.


I gotta agree with that. Just finished reading the script and some scenes were really dark and creepy, something that most of the Nightmares after part 2 weren´t! No more of that funny Freddy and that sci-fi/fantasy bullshit from ANOES 3-6.
The flashback-stuff worked really good for me (The Grimm-story of the Pied Piper, which is referenced in the script, takes place in Hameln, which is only 100km away from where I was born and raised!). The script also pulls a little "Psycho"the frist act portrayed Kris as the heroine and Nancy was barely in it.
I agree that the climax was a bit rushed and that the script needs some "fleshing-out" in several scenes, but for a draft it is very good and hints a a good movie.

[The Tall Man]

Now we're calling Nightmares 3-6, "too sci-fi"? wtf?

T.M.

[Esten]

Now we're calling Nightmares 3-6, "too sci-fi"? wtf?

T.M.

LDP in that shit?

[The Dream Master]

Perhaps we should call them "SyFy?" :X

Fuck, I'd take "Robert Englund in A SyFy Channel Production of A Nightmare on Elm Street: Alien Apocalypse" co-starring LDP.

[Timberwolf Entertainment]

Perhaps we should call them "SyFy?" :X

Fuck, I'd take "Robert Englund in A SyFy Channel Production of A Nightmare on Elm Street: Alien Apocalypse" co-starring LDP.

I always thought Robert should host a game show as Freddy.

I think it was a missed opportunity. :)

[ToJarJa]

Good review.

I'm actually surprised to hear in the end they aren't going to humanize Freddy. I thought for sure after the recent amount of remakes they were going in that direction.

[Germaniac]

Now we're calling Nightmares 3-6, "too sci-fi"? wtf?

T.M.
Huh?
Part 3-6 had the "joining other peoples dreams/getting pulled into other peoples dreams" stuff, which is clearly pseudo-science since it contradicts the known laws of nature! Sci-Fi isn´t just aliens, space-ships and time-travel. It´s about alternate reality´s/possibilities.
Sure, part 1 and 2 had sci-fi/fantasy elements as well (pulling stuff out of your dreams, getting killed/injured in dreams and the real world) but 3-6 jumped the shark for me with this mumbo-jumbo.
The dreams of the people also became too sci-fi/fantasy as well. Whereas the dreams of Part 1 and 2 only involved the dark and scary boiler room the suckquels involve bizarre fantasy/sci-fi-elements such as an robot-arm coming out of a school-desk, a transfroming Television-set, evil-transforming-motorcycle-Freddy, SuperFreddy, Videogame-Freddy (who also made the victim jump around in the real world!), super-powered Dream-Warriors/Dream-Masters yadda yadda.
Heck, in Freddy´s dead the reality was manipuilated without any of the characters being asleep (they were unable to drive out of town, the house thery enter transforms into the Freddy-house).

[The Tall Man]

Part 3-6 had the "joining other peoples dreams/getting pulled into other peoples dreams" stuff, which is clearly pseudo-science since it contradicts the known laws of nature! Sci-Fi isn´t just aliens, space-ships and time-travel. It´s about alternate reality´s/possibilities.
Absolutely not. Firstly, something falls into a certain genre because of its presentation, not because of "what it is". "Alien" is a horror movie. That is its presentation-- to scare you. The fact that its set in space has no baring on what genre it is.

Secondly, everything you listed off are fantasy elements, NOT science fiction, which makes sense because the setting is that of the dream world... a FANTASY.

such as an robot-arm coming out of a school-desk, a transfroming Television-set, evil-transforming-motorcycle-Freddy, SuperFreddy, Videogame-Freddy (who also made the victim jump around in the real world!)
All presented as a means to scare the victim. It's presentation: horror.

Heck, in Freddy´s dead the reality was manipuilated without any of the characters being asleep (they were unable to drive out of town, the house thery enter transforms into the Freddy-house).
Yes, because Freddy is so engourged on souls in that picture that he has god-like powers. Again... a horror presentation.

Calling the Nightmare films "too sci-fi" is ridiculous. Not even famed science fiction hater Boo would go along with that.

T.M., Esq.

[Timberwolf Entertainment]

I def agree Tall.

That's why I stand by Jaws being a horror film no matter where they put it in Blockbuster. Just because it has other elements (adventure, humor, drama) and is only rated PG.. its still meant to scare the shit out of you.

I also think Jaws 2 is a slasher film... its a bunch of dumb teenagers and a killer.. who was also disfigured by one of the dumb teens :)

But.. what is Jason X? Horror, Sci-Fi or Comedy?

[The Tall Man]

Horror by proxy. It's the ninth sequel to a horror movie, ergo, horror.

Likewise, "Freddy's Dead" is a horror movie because it's the sequel to a horror movie, even though there's nothing horrific in the film.

Equally likewise, "Rocky IV" is a drama film because it's a sequel to a drama film even though there's nothing dramatic about it.

T.M.

[Ron]

I agree TM. There is absolutley nothing scary about Seed of Chucky, but it still falls into the category of horror based on the previous films in the series.

[Jus-X]

I agree TM. There is absolutley nothing scary about Seed of Chucky, but it still falls into the category of horror based on the previous films in the series.

When I worked at Blockbuster, before I became manager I got in trouble for taking Ernest Scared Stupid out of horror and moving it with the other Ernest movies in Family. :confused:

[The Tall Man]

When I worked at Blockbuster, before I became manager I got in trouble for taking Ernest Scared Stupid out of horror and moving it with the other Ernest movies in Family. :confused:
That bold word explains the jackassery inherent in that story.

"Family"'s not a genre either... That's... like a rating? Blockbuster... :rolleyes:

T.M., Esq.

[Jus-X]

Yeah, when I worked there, there was Drama, Action/ Adeventure, Sci-Fi/ Horror, Family, New Releases, PS2, XBox, Game Cube.

It's been a few year but now its Drama, Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, Horror, Suspense, New Releases, PS3, XBOx 360, Wii, Game Cube, and a bunch of other stuff

[Ron]

Yeah, when I went to Blockbuster tonight (which I never do) and I was shocked by how shitty the setup of the store and how poor a movie selection they had. I miss the mom n pop spots.

[Dead Cell]

I do have a couple concerns with the script based on the review in the first post. Spoilers ahead! Uh... do I need to say spoilers in this particular forum? Anyway...

First, the good. It sounds like they're going to portray Freddy much the same way he was depicted in the first film. I like it when he's scary instead of cornball funny. Part 3 displayed the perfect blend of sadistic humor and scariness, I think, but after that Freddy just kept getting more and more screen time and kept getting stupider and stupider. Two seconds into Freddy's Dead and I knew I was in trouble when I saw Freddy fly on-screen on a broom and dressed like the wicked witch of the west. Yeah. So no worries in his portrayal.

Now, the not so good.

Freddy works in a daycare and looks after children. Okay. So... no boiler room? I really wonder about that. One of the key plot twists is that Nancy and her friends were all at the daycare when Freddy worked there and were all victims of his child molesting ways. This, I don't like. I don't like that right out of the gate Nancy is instantly a victim, though she doesn't remember the incident at the start of the movie. In the original series Nancy was his nemesis and there was always this line that they never crossed. It's like... it's weird, but I don't want to see her playing the role of a victim getting revenge. Does that make sense?

Also, in this new version it was the kids that told on Freddy and got the parents and the police involved. This again changes the motives and story some. Now it's not as much a moral tale about parents taking justice into their own hands and how Freddy's taking out his revenge on *THEM* by killing their innocent children. Now it's a story about how Freddy wants revenge on the kids that told on him. I like the idea of the original series that none of the kids even knew who Freddy was. He was this guy that was going around killing kids (when he was alive) and the parents took it upon themselves to kill him and keep it a secret amongst themselves, never telling anyone.

And now the parents never intended to kill Freddy. That was a freak accident when one crazed parent throws a molotov cocktail into Freddy's house (or wherever) with the intention of "smoking him out". I don't get why the writers would want to weaken the resolve of the parents. Smoke him out? And then what? He was already set free on a technicality. Legal justice didn't work. What are they going to do when they smoke him out? Give him a stern talking to? So that kind of irks me. I've never heard anyone say that, from a writer's perspective, it's a good idea to weaken the resolve or motives of a character (or a mob in this case).

And those are my thoughts so far. All the stuff that I mentioned above is basically minor stuff, but still- it's minor stuff that does change things around.

[Jus-X]

I do have a couple concerns with the script based on the review in the first post. Spoilers ahead! Uh... do I need to say spoilers in this particular forum? Anyway...

First, the good. It sounds like they're going to portray Freddy much the same way he was depicted in the first film. I like it when he's scary instead of cornball funny. Part 3 displayed the perfect blend of sadistic humor and scariness, I think, but after that Freddy just kept getting more and more screen time and kept getting stupider and stupider. Two seconds into Freddy's Dead and I knew I was in trouble when I saw Freddy fly on-screen on a broom and dressed like the wicked witch of the west. Yeah. So no worries in his portrayal.

Now, the not so good.

It's like... it's weird, but I don't want to see her playing the role of a victim getting revenge. Does that make sense?

it's not as much a moral tale about parents taking justice into their own hands and how Freddy's taking out his revenge on *THEM* by killing their innocent children. Now it's a story about how Freddy wants revenge on the kids that told on him... the parents took it upon themselves to kill him and keep it a secret amongst themselves, never telling anyone.

And now the parents never intended to kill Freddy. That was a freak accident when one crazed parent throws a molotov cocktail into Freddy's house (or wherever) with the intention of "smoking him out".


Yeah, with a remake I expect that the persons who are writing, directing, and producing would do something to make the movie their own, but I definitly agree that these things change the whole motive of the characters in the movie.

I also don't know how I feel about Freddy changing from a child killer (Possible molester), to a child molester who doesn't kill. This is indeed a bad way to go, they should just throw Detective's Benson and Stabler from Law And Order SVU in the movie and get a good District Attorney to lock him away!!!.

I'm not going to think negativly about the movie until I see it. I try and keep a low expectation on movies so I end up enjoying it more. But still, they're not just changing characters around, but the motives as well. :doh:

[Esten]

Detective Benson

Jump my bones, bay-bee!

(That's a reference few will get)

[Jus-X]

I'd prefer Casey Novak!!!

[The Dream Master]

Jump my bones, bay-bee!

(That's a reference few will get)

Stripping Mariska gonna be in this shit?

[Dead Cell]

Yeah, with a remake I expect that the persons who are writing, directing, and producing would do something to make the movie their own, but I definitly agree that these things change the whole motive of the characters in the movie.

I also don't know how I feel about Freddy changing from a child killer (Possible molester), to a child molester who doesn't kill. This is indeed a bad way to g.
Yeah, and it just doesn't ring true. If Freddy were just a child molester and not a killer before his death, then why make a glove with knives on it? He's a really hands on gardener, right? :P

[The Tall Man]

Stripping Mariska gonna be in this shit?
Would it matter? ^^^

Yeah, and it just doesn't ring true. If Freddy were just a child molester and not a killer before his death, then why make a glove with knives on it? He's a really hands on gardener, right? :P
Weren't they a landscaping tool... another concept stolen from "The Simpsons"?

T.M., Esq.

[The Dream Master]

Would it matter? ^^^

Only if she went all the way this time...and looked like she did 20 years ago. :X

But no, no it wouldn't matter. All the nekkid huars in the world can't salvage this one.

[Jus-X]

Yeah, and it just doesn't ring true. If Freddy were just a child molester and not a killer before his death, then why make a glove with knives on it? He's a really hands on gardener, right? :P

Either that, or he's a child molester who only likes the little girls... rips the shit out out their [censored]. If he liked little buys and wore the glove with them, technically he'd be a castrating killer... which is what they don't want to do.

[Cody]

Weren't they a landscaping tool... another concept stolen from "The Simpsons"?

The way I took it, it seemed to be a nightmare twist on the times when he would use a handheld garden claw (like Rod scraped the side of the house with in the original) while wearing gloves.

[Esten]

Only if she went all the way this time...and looked like she did 20 years ago. :X


Bah, I'd do a 60 year old Mariska. :P

[The Dream Master]

Figured you'd say that. :X

[Jus-X]

Well good thing Dimidio isn't responding yet, he would probably like to smack Detective Stabler in the face with his cock until his cheek turns blue!!!

[Geddy Peart]

Only if she went all the way this time...and looked like she did 20 years ago. :X


She still looks great.

[The Tall Man]

Only if she went all the way this time...and looked like she did 20 years ago. :X
Actually, she looks better today than she did in 1988.
http://www.whyfame.com/gossip/2009/january/27/mariska_hargitay_has_recovered_main_10036.jpg
http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/mariska-hargitay-dress-awards-1.jpg
:wiggle:

T.M., Esq.

[The Dream Master]

Well, you guys got me there. I really had no idea she still looked so fine. :o

So let's hope one of the reasons the script is suddenly so much better is the addition of stripping Mariska.

Somehow, I still think "Freddy's Tricks and Treats" will still be more watchable. :X

[Esten]

Well, you guys got me there. I really had no idea she still looked so fine. :o

So let's hope one of the reasons the script is suddenly so much better is the addition of stripping Mariska.

Somehow, I still think "Freddy's Tricks and Treats" will still be more watchable. :X

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1821/silentx.jpg

[The Tall Man]

Somehow, I still think "Freddy's Tricks and Treats" will still be more watchable. :X
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1821/silentx.jpg
:eek:

I basically said the exact same thing over in the Remake thread.

And S-10, :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

T.M., Esq.

[Michellemabelle]

post deleted.

[Darth Reaper]

FREDDY VS. JASON did major box office piggy-backing off Freddy's popularity (JASON X made $12m, FVJ $82m - what's the primary difference?).- The Dark Shape

I'm with Timberwolf here. FREDDY VS. JASON was successful because it had both Freddy and Jason in it. The novelty of that concept was a big part of what drew the people in.

Also, I think if JASON X had been a better film, was promoted better, and hadn't been leaked onto the internet before it hit theaters it could have done better business. The success of the remake shows that people are still interested in Jason.

And so the script dilutes the one truly inspired idea it has. Call me crazy, but the concept of an innocent Krueger who was burned alive for something he had no involvement with and is now taking his revenge out upon those who lied is so much scarier to me than, "He was a psycho all along." Yes, that's more in line with Robert Englund's pre-burning child-killer, but this ain't Robert Englund.

It's a missed opportunity and a very disappointing one at that.


I disagree. I think in order to do the original film justice they need to stay true to the original character that Wes Craven created and the original point that he was trying to make. That point was that the parents took justice into their own hands and executed Freddy, and they had no right to do that. It doesn't matter how vile he was, his life wasn't theirs to take. He became their dirty little secret, their hidden shame, and eventually he came back to haunt them. And, it was their children who paid the ultimate price.

Freddy isn't supposed to be a sympathetic character. He's supposed to be evil incarnate, and (at least my gut tells me) he got that way because he chose to go bad, not because society made him that way. Turning him into an innocent man who was falsely accused of a crime just doesn't seem true to the concept of his character to me. I don't care if this is a remake, and therefore not the exact same character that we saw in the original series; they're still remaking an old film not creating a new one, so I think the substance of this particular character needs to remain intact.

Of course, this also means that I don't approve of Freddy's death becoming an accident. On top of what I just wrote, it feels like they're trying to water down the story, even if that's not their intention.

"Alien" is a horror movie. That is its presentation-- to scare you. The fact that its set in space has no baring on what genre it is.- The Tall Man

Eh, I think it's fair to call ALIEN a sci-fi film, because of its setting and how the story is told, but I agree that it's primarily a horror film. I don't think it has to be one or the other. It can be both.

Originally Posted by The Dream Master
Stripping Mariska gonna be in this shit?

Would it matter? ^^^


Yes it would, because that would be awesome. Even if the movie itself sucked, the sight of Mariska doing the full monty would be worth the ticket price all by itself.

Actually, she looks better today than she did in 1988.

Damn, Mariska's HOT! Just looking at her picture makes me sweat. I love a woman who can still turn me on at 40+.

Jump my bones, bay-bee!

(That's a reference few will get)- Esten

You're right, I didn't get it. Could you please explain it to me (DR hangs his head in shame :shyface: ).

[Rich]

I'm with Timberwolf here. FREDDY VS. JASON was successful because it had both Freddy and Jason in it. The novelty of that concept was a big part of what drew the people in.

Absolutely. Now, I personally enjoyed Jason X as a fun entertaining film, but there are plenty of reasons why it did so badly in box office (release date push back caused massive online bootlegging, just the concept of Jason in outer space turns off some people for the silliness of it). Honestly, I think the silliness of it was part of it's appeal to me. Some times I just feel like watching a funny Freddy movie despite enjoying the scary Freddy more, and likewise some times I just enjoy watching a silly Jason movie as opposed to a dark and serious one. It all depends on my mood.

As far as Freddy vs. Jason, it was definitely the novelty of having both characters in the film together that sold the movie. Both Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger are popular mainstream monster characters who the public loves to see keep coming back. To finally have them in the same film together was exciting. I remember when I went to see it in theaters, I was so exited to see two of my favorite characters in the same film! In a way, it made me proud. I couldn't help but feel like being a fan for all these years finally paid off no matter how the film turned out. Freddy vs. Jason, just the film being made and released, is a proud moment to me, because these characters were my childhood and to finally see them come full circle in a climactic popcorn film together really was an experience.

Freddy isn't supposed to be a sympathetic character. He's supposed to be evil incarnate

Even the most evil character like Freddy Krueger can have some kind of tragedy behind him. Watch the backstory of Freddy's Dead. With his upbringing, he seems like he never even had a chance to be a normal human being.

Turning him into an innocent man who was falsely accused of a crime just doesn't seem true to the concept of his character to me

If you ask me, I think it is actually interesting story telling. The lore is still there. He was burned to death by a lynch mob of parents for murdering kids. The only difference this time around is the mystery story line of was he guilty or not. I like that story arc. I think it is still a familiar story line, but with a fresh new twist. I think it is creative.

[Darth Reaper]

Watch the backstory of Freddy's Dead. With his upbringing, he seems like he never even had a chance to be a normal human being.- Rich

And, I would say that goes against Wes Craven's intentions for Freddy a bit. Freddy is supposed to be the most foul, loathsome, miserable excuse for a human being imaginable. You're not supposed to sympathize with him. That's not the point. The point is that no matter how awful he was, the parents had no right to kill him. They did something that was wrong, and it came back to haunt them.

If you ask me, I think it is actually interesting story telling. The lore is still there. He was burned to death by a lynch mob of parents for murdering kids. The only difference this time around is the mystery story line of was he guilty or not. I like that story arc. I think it is still a familiar story line, but with a fresh new twist. I think it is creative.

Truthfully, I could probably live with the mystery angle since looks like he turns out to be guilty anyway, but I think they should keep the part where the parents kill him intentionally.

[Jus-X]

just the concept of Jason in outer space turns off some people for the silliness of it

Yeah, poor BO results for Leprechan in Space, Pinhead in Space, Critters in Space, etc... and they didn't pull any punches.



But I'm with Darth on this. Freddy's not meant to be a sympathetic character. He is a child molester/killer and the town hated him and wanted him dead for his crimes. To have his death be an accident and to not be guilty of his child crimes, takes away from the Freddy character. I'd still go see the movie, but I'm not sure if I would enjoy it very much. On the contrary, I've gone into movies expecting crap and actually enjoyed them.

[Rich]

And, I would say that goes against Wes Craven's intentions for Freddy a bit. Freddy is supposed to be the most foul, loathsome, miserable excuse for a human being imaginable

I agree and I must admit that THAT is how I like Freddy best.

However...

You're not supposed to sympathize with him. That's not the point

I also feel that once you have gone through six films and have developed a character the way they developed Freddy, by that point, I don't think there is anything wrong with providing backstory and showing wrongs that were done to Freddy. Hell, there are people out there who sympathise with Satin and Pinhead. Why can't we sympathise with Freddy to a degree?

Yeah, poor BO results for Leprechan in Space, Pinhead in Space, Critters in Space

Lep in Space did not even have box office because it was direct to video. I don't know about Critters. Pinhead in space did (and was) horrible. I do think that Jason X was the best out of the characters (who don't beong there) going to space. At least it made sense. It wasn't like "poof, he's there." There was an actual story about people in the future on a field trip to old earth and find him (not knowing who he is being 500 years into the future) and bring him aboard their ship. At least that makes sense and is justifiable through logic despite how silly it is. I enjoy the hell out of it.

But I'm with Darth on this. Freddy's not meant to be a sympathetic character. He is a child molester/killer and the town hated him and wanted him dead for his crimes

I am not disagreeing. I am just saying that I am open to a little bit of complex backstory.

the parents had no right to kill him. They did something that was wrong, and it came back to haunt them.

That is a double edged sword. I am a believer in eye for an eye justice. If Freddy did in fact murder those kids, then I believe the parents of the kids have every right to murder him for it.

The fact about our justice system is that it does not always work, case and point OJ Simpson is free.

[Jus-X]

In regards to our justice system, I have to agree with Rich. I went to Jury Duty and was interviewed to be on a jury and they asked me if I was biased in any way. I told them the only thing I was biased on was if strong evidence that points the defendant towards a crime, but that evidence is dismissed because the defense pulls legal rights intrusion to get the evidence yanked, yes I an biased because you know the persons guilty with the picture of his hands in the cookie jar, and you dismiss the evidence. I am also biased when evidence proves the person guilty and defense pulls an insanity plea to keep the guilty person out of prison, that person should be responsible for his crimes no matter his mental state. They said I was a sad excuse for an American citizen and dismissed me.

[The Tall Man]

That is a double edged sword. I am a believer in eye for an eye justice. If Freddy did in fact murder those kids, then I believe the parents of the kids have every right to murder him for it.
Well believe what you want, but what the Elm Street parents did was definitely the wrong move in the reality of the fiction.

According to Robert Englund, because the parents murdered Freddy, he didn't go all the way to hell. He went to purgatory because he himself had been wronged as well.

So apparently, because the Elm Street parents made a dick move, Freddy didn't go to hell until after "Freddy's Dead".

T.M., Esq.

[Jus-X]

Well believe what you want, but what the Elm Street parents did was definitely the wrong move in the reality of the fiction.

According to Robert Englund, because the parents murdered Freddy, he didn't go all the way to hell. He went to purgatory because he himself had been wronged as well.

So apparently, because the Elm Street parents made a dick move, Freddy didn't go to hell until after "Freddy's Dead".

T.M., Esq.

Freddy was guilty. The evidence they found proved he was guilty. But because the guilty person's rights were violated and the evidence was obtained without the proper search warrant. After being aquited, Freddy could not be convicted of the crimes he already went to trial for, because double jeopardy would be attached.

So the parents had the choice to see if he murders one of their children and catch him in the act, which results with the loss of one of their children. Or they had the choice to have him run to another town and murder more children. They made the right choice of wanting to stop Freddy from killing again. Unfortunatly they had no idea doing so allowed him to make a deal with the dream demons to continue to live in the realm of dreams.

[The Tall Man]

It's Catholic shit. Take it up with them.

[Jus-X]

Well it was Englund who said Freddy's in purgatory. It's the actual movie's that say he's a dream demon. Dream Demons aren't in the Catholic Bible!

[Darth Reaper]

Actually, I think according to Catholicism, Freddy would have gone to Hell. You don't get to go to purgatory when you have those kinds of sins on your soul; it doesn't matter how he died. But, the parents might go to Hell too unless they sincerely repent. Murder is murder no matter who the murdered is. It's up to God to decide who lives and who dies, not us.

I am a believer in eye for an eye justice. If Freddy did in fact murder those kids, then I believe the parents of the kids have every right to murder him for it- Rich.

You can believe what you want, but apparently that's not what Wes Craven believes, and the point he was making was that part of the reason he came back was because the parents killed him.

So the parents had the choice to see if he murders one of their children and catch him in the act, which results with the loss of one of their children. Or they had the choice to have him run to another town and murder more children. They made the right choice of wanting to stop Freddy from killing again. Unfortunatly they had no idea doing so allowed him to make a deal with the dream demons to continue to live in the realm of dreams.- Justyn

How many children have died because of what Freddy has become? Where's the justice there? And, there seems to be no stopping him now. It doesn't matter if they didn't know what the exact consequences of their actions would be, they knew that they shouldn't have done it or they wouldn't have tried to hide it.

However, there is one thing that I'm wrestling with. I personally think that even if Freddy hadn't been killed, if he had lived to be 100, was about to die of old age, and he was still offered the chance to haunt the dreams of the living, I think he'd take it in a heartbeat because that's the kind of sick twisted person he is. The question is, if he hadn't been killed, would he have still gotten the chance? Would the Dream Demons have still been interested in him, or would they pass him by for someone else? Would they have been able to make that deal with him if he died of natural causes, or would he have to get on the express bus to Hell along with all of the other losers with no deals? These things tend to happen when people die untimely and often violent deaths, so I'm tempted to think that if the parents hadn't killed Freddy, the demons would have passed him by.