Declaring Shenanigans on Elm Street - Page 2

I like Freddy's Revenge. Unintentional hilarity, and Freddy being as dark, and maybe even darker than the first. Even though the dogs with the faces look pretty fake, they're still disturbing, and Freddy's emergence from Jesse is creepy. He was never as creepy as that again, especially since he wanted to take "possession" of a teenage boy with a girly scream.

Clu Gulager owns as the dad in "Freddy's Revenge."

Fucker owns in a lot of movies.

Wasn't Springwood shit in Freddy's Dead though? Wouldn't it make sense for it to take place BEFORE Freddy vs Jason, where Springwood is awesome and everything's been great for years? Or am I missing something? Not to mention the tech advance...


And I agree with New Nightmare not being counted since Wes Craven has stated on occasion that it isn't REALLY Freddy. It's really whatever demon spirit or energy that chose the form of Freddy.

Jason always had the power to come back I think. It's just that his mom was psycho and when he drowned in the lake, she had a psychotic breakdown. It was a traumatic experience that she plays over and over in her head. It doesn't matter that Jason didn't die, the injustice of it and the trauma would always compel her to kill.

The true Elm Street connoisseur appreciates FREDDY'S REVENGE. It's so wrong but it feels so right. Enormously entertaining, often for all the wrong reasons, but generally creepy at times. At least they were trying to make a horror movie.

After watching the series again, I think I have to rank THE DREAM CHILD as the worst. FREDDY'S DEAD, as piss poor as it is, at least has some moments you can commit to memory. THE DREAM CHILD doesn't. It induces amnesia.

The Dream Child has a cool visual style at times, though, even if literally EVERYTHING (even Freddy's makeup) sucks.

In Freddy's Dead, everything sucks, and it looks like it was shot by The Saved by the Bell camera crew during their lunch breaks.

Seriously. Sebastian must be taking Hypnocil.

He forgot Super Freddy!



DREAM CHILD always felt like DREAM MASTER part 2 to me, so I tend to mentally blend them into 1 movie.

He electrifies the fence with Freddy power. That's...something.

Yeah the pool scene sucks. Even as a kid I thought it was dumb.


This is a 'what turd do you prefer' argument. Depending on my mood I might switch them. Usually I prefer things that are completely idiotic, which FREDDY'S DEAD has in spades. THE DREAM CHILD is just an unmemorable slog. But it's better made than FREDDY'S DEAD, I agree on that.

haha. That's my point. "Super Freddy" is what passes for "imagination" in THE DREAM CHILD. At least you get Breckin Meyer doing that crazy Inna Gadda Davida/Power glove scene in FREDDY'S DEAD. Brainboilingly stupid, yes. But at least it's amusing. Unlike Super Freddy.

What about that head demerge at the end of DREAM CHILD? I thought the prosthetics were kinda cool there.

I just can't see anyone liking FREDDY's DEAD. It's so ugly (due to the 3D colors) and unsatisfying. No one in the whole serious prior gets to kill Freddy. Not Nancy, not Alice. It's his ret-conned offspring. Not the "finale" Freddy deserved.

Maybe better off argued in this thread:
http://www.chud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114428

My favorite story about Part 4 is how, when Edgar Wright was a projectionist, he accidentally switched the 3rd and 4th reel and NO ONE IN THE THEATER NOTICED.

Dream Child is bunches better than Freddy's Dead.

As for the timeline, it's a bit hard to really justify FD taking place after FVJ when bits of that film appear in Freddy's opening monologue montage. Just assume it's been years and Hypnocil is what has let the little kids grow up into bad Jason Ritter.

I did that with the exact same reels on 13 Ghosts. No one noticed either. I also accidentally put an entire reel of Blues Brothers 2000 on BACKWARDS. People noticed, but they really didn't care.

Yeah...10 years in the future...when in relation to the fifth film. That means it would've been 1999. FvJ doesn't really say when it takes place, but by that time they already developed their hypnocil plan and have enough time for their kids to grow up and not remember anything.

Also, Freddy's in hell at the start of FvJ. It would make sense that he's in hell because he was friggin killed in Freddy's Dead. He wasn't definitively killed in ANOEM 5 , which is how he could come back and kill everyone. If Freddy's Dead has no problem throwing 10 years in there and have technology not go up at all, then I have no problem with FvJ being 10 years in the future without any advance in technology. I'm also fine with the idea that after Freddy's Dead, the townspeople felt comfortable enough to build up the town and have it be "prime real estate" (cheap places to live because everyone else died in them) with new parents being cut in on the whole deal. You know, if they didn't already know.

FvJ doesn't follow continuity so well with either film series anyway, so I'm fine with the "writers didn't think of it" explanation.

I don't think it's definitive, I just think they could both be interchangeable at best. But the whole "in hell" thing is a bigger hurdle to get over than a town being built up after an undefined amount of time since the previous movie.

Part 4 actually has a worse reputation then I think it deserves. It's a terrible horror movie, but it works great as an 80's piece of pop art. Kinda like Rocky IV. The opening song is marvelous, and Freddy is at his peak of one liners. It's pretty much trash, but such wonderful trash compared to the likes of Freddy's Dead.

If they did a 3-D Nightmare with the tone of 4 (maybe cleaning slightly closer to the more serious but still silly fun tone of 3) today, it would be a MASSIVE hit.

Super Freddy is plenty amusing. When dude gets shot little pieces of paper fly out instead of blood and guts. Though, to the other movie's credit, I do find it pretty amusing when Breckin Meyer dies because he's so blazed he can't wake up.

The effects save Dream Child, and I think they help elevate it way above Freddy's Dead. The man/motorcycle hybrid cyborg is fantastic. As is the little baby Freddy monster. I want a poster of this guy for my room. Or a crossover movie with the Ghoulies.

I've always liked how Dan turns into Ghost Rider at the beginning of Dream Child.

I still remember seeing it with my Dad and he just said "Ghost Rider!" when he begins morphing, and that was pretty cool.

Agree on Dream Child being better than Freddy's Dead.

Yeah. I might need to rewatch parts 4 and 5. I mean they're terrible but at the very least the kills are really creative. Compared to other horror movies anyway.

I don't think you can bring up John Doe being Jacob for an argument about the time, since maybe they thought about it and came to the conclusion it didn't make sense either. That's why it didn't end up happening.

Speaking of fan wankery, anyone ever check out the Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash 2 comic?

Man, thinking of time continuity in that book would drive you insane. Everyone looks like they're still in the 80s, yet it supposedly takes place present day. lol. Though the ideas in it are actually pretty cool for the most part.

The Freddy Vs. Jason Vs. Ash was pretty good, but agreed that all of the survivors didn't really look age appropriate. Tommy Jarvis looked like he's in his early 20's, when realistically he should have been in his late 30's.

Part 4 is Freddy: Stand Up Comedian, and at least Part 5 attempts to bring him back to being how he originally was, to a point anyway. I remember reading that the only line that Skipp and Spector actually wrote that ended up in the film was "It's a boy!"

But it should have been Jacob. Somebody from the original series to release and then battle Freddy. Instead we got new characters that I barely remember. Disappointing.

I'll be honest. I like the idea of Kruger having a kid. He was to have played up the whole lets band together and find the kids. Dose anyone know what was been cut out of the NOES series. I seem to remember something about Nancy having a sister.

Yeah, that's a good point. At least it was his daughter, I guess.

The reason Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash 2 is pretty cool is that all the survivors of the previous films band together to stop them, including Jacob...though he's kind of a wimp. I think.

"In a deleted scene featured on the Laser Disc and VHS from Anchor Bay we learn that Nancy and many of her friends from the neighborhood weren't always only children, but had a brother or sister before they were killed by Freddy (during the scene in the basement just before Nancy's mother reveals she has Freddy's glove.)"

I liked Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash enough for the fanwank aspect, but I thought part 2 was pretty bad. All of the survivor girls looked the same. And the story was dumb.

Yeah, it's kind of interesting how Part 3 is often regarded as such an excellent sequel by a lot of people who hate 4. Three is actually the one that introduces a lot of the elements into the series that so many people have a problem with. The wise-cracking Freddy stuff is all over it as well as the over-the-top dream sequences. I think given the direction that Dream Warriors went in, Dream Master was a more than acceptable continuation of it. Warriors tends to get more credit because Craven did a little bit of writing on it and a few of the popular characters returned.

That scene never felt right with me and I'm glad they took it out. "As part of the elaborate attempt to cover up the fact that we killed the local child murderer, we're all gonna just erase the memories of our murdered children so their siblings won't ever ask questions."

That is true.

Ash's whole plot in it sucks ass too. I really wanted him to have more to do. But the parts that were the best were the concept of the survivors banning together and Freddy's daughter coming back with an Electra complex. The whole Freddy wanting to take over the world with the power of the Necronomicon, with Jason (turned flesh and blood with metalhead hair) leading the Army of Darkness thing sounds alright on paper, but it wasn't executed as well. I still liked it enough though.

There's a world of difference between 3 and 4, even if they might have similar tones. Take for example, the fact that you care about the characters. Arquette is great, and that scene where Kincaid freaks out on the hospital staff hits hard. Dream Master just drops all these characters and picks up with new ones who aren't nearly as compelling.

Plus, Dream Warriors comes off as an actual, legitimate continuation of the story that was set up in part 1. It's the most compelling, natural continuation of the story in the whole series. Dream Master has that obvious taint of a strained story created just to keep the franchise going.

But hey, every installment from 4 on (New Nightmare excepted) has that same taint. Didn't stop me from watching and enjoying them. There's just no way to claim that they're anywhere near Dream Warriors.

I'd stand by Dream Warriors as the best of the sequels but also note that some of the biggest issues that fans had with the sequels start here. I think when its ideas are executed right, they are strong as hell. I don't think any of the Elm Streets film made the reality behind the kids' depriving themselves of sleep as balls out terryfying as number three does. The backstory stuff with both Nancy and the kids and the male psychorist and Freddy's mother both work extremely well. But this is also the one where Freddy becomes a wise-cracking master of the puns and all the dreams get stylishly over-the-top. Personally, I didn't mind it so much but let's stop acting like the goddamn wizard master wasn't just as cheesy as the comic book hero or video game sequences respectively.

Ha I didn't even realize Dream Master was directed by Renny Harlin. But yeah, just from the beginning of the movie alone it totally seems like they strained to keep the franchise going.

The thing I don't understand about THE DREAM CHILD is how cheap it all looks. Considering the money Part 4 made (and how slick and "MTV" it looks), as well as Freddy's growing popularity and eventual oversaturation, wouldn't New Line have thrown at least as much money into this one?

Back in the olden days, it was generally understood by studios that sequels were an exercise in diminishing returns, and that it made financial sense to cut the budget of each successive entry in a franchise. And for a long time, it was actually true. Until pretty recently, actually.

I've rewatched my way through the series these past few days, in anticipation of NEVER SLEEP AGAIN, and I think these are films I am WAY too forgiving of. I've just seen the DREAM CHILD, about to abuse my brain with Freddy's Dead, and out of those five it's only DREAM CHILD I don't actually like. It's just so ravenously dull and even the awesome effects work doesn't save it.

It's bizarre DREAM MASTER has nowhere near the level of imagination of DREAM CHILD but it still just comes across as utterly dull even with Ghost Rider and Super Freddy.

I have to admit a growing fondness for Freddy's Revenge, I actually kind of like Jesse as a character and even though NOTHING happens in the film I appreciate the intent.

Completely agree with this. Dream Warriors doesn't work as as a straight up horror film like Craven's original, but as a dark fantasy film, the Freddy it presents makes for great villain. It's why that wizard master stuff actually feels right at home in the third film.

I appreciated Dream Child's attempts to return to dark fantasy after Renny Harlin happened with the fourth film. But then Stephen Hopkin's happened. And as to the cheap look of Dream Child...take a look at Predator 2, Hopkin's follow up to Nightmare 5. It has that same oddly cheap yet money was obviously being spent look about it. Stephens Hopkins is apparently afflicted with the same malady as that other film director named Stephen... Stephen Sommers. One has to wonder after awhile if the shoddy look and effects work isn't just a creative choice on their part.

Nightmare 5 also had like somewhere close to a hundred writers tackling the script if I'm remembering the old Fango and Gorezone articles correctly. I remember the Skip and Spector article in Gorezone which got me all excited about the possibilities for Dream Child. I also remember the article after the film was released that talked about how everything they wrote but for a line or two was jettisoned. Of course that was still back in the day when the prospects of endless horror franchises that churned out yearly sequels still excited me and didn't cause me to just roll my eyes. Which reminds me, it was fun to follow the development of these sequels in the pages of Fango and Gorezone. I sort of miss those pre-film websites days when you had not even a handful of articles devoted to a film before its release and you just spent hours reading those same articles over and over again.

The thing with FREDDY'S DEAD is that there are some great ideas in the film, but they're constantly undermined by the fact that nobody has a handle on the tone. Carlos's dream sequence is one of the best since the Dream Warriors, the use of silence, the design of the place, how nasty Kruger all work really well. But then you have Freddy hopping around a Looney Tunes villain, shhing the audience and dicking around with chalkboards. Conceptually it's a lot of fun, but it jars with the tone.

It's also just one origin too many. If you actually string together everything about Freddy's background from all the films, it's fucking ridiculous. They should have stopped at "bastard son of a hundred maniacs".

Carlos's death scene is definitely effective to a point. Freddy dropping the pin needles works okay, I guess. I think it's his shouting behind a deaf Carlos, though, that works the best. That image is one I still have branded into my head, despite not seeing this movie in years.

And, as stupid as it is, I always laugh when thinking of Freddy's pun, "Nice hearing from ya, Carlos!" It's probably the only time Freddy ever made me laugh outside of the time he asked Zsa Zsa Gabor, "Who gives a FUCK what you think?!?

I think this must have been the first time I'd seen New Nightmare in a long time, because it felt surprisingly new.

Didn't like it as much as I thought I would, I think they overplay Dylan's 'possession' a little. He's a creepy kid and he's an effective horror tool, but it gets a little boring after a while. I'm kind of half and half on the redesign of 'Freddy'. I like elements of it, and the make-up is outstanding, but I dislike how mastabutory it is.

"Like you...but scarier....DARKER"

It's like the Image comic version of Freddy, espeically with those weird biomechanical finger claws and the weird trench coat. Langenkamp and Englund are fantastic though even if I think the film is kind of 'flat' in terms of direction especially compared to something like Scream.

Call me crazy, but I still think the only decent Freddy movie is Freddy vs Jason.

If you're about to follow that up by arguing that Friday the 13th is a better series than A Nightmare On Elm Street, then I'm calling shenanigans on you, sir.

I'm also half-and-half on Freddy's New Nightmare redesign. I really dig the make-up and trench coat, but I'm mixed on the bone-claw and hate the leather pants.

no, not at all. Freddy is a great concept, Jason is a Michael Meyers ripoff.

New Nightmare is utter shit. Freddy's a demon named what again, in that film?

Here is something. Nancys' mom said the Judge and Lawyers got rich off the trail. Someone would have had to written a book about such a huge fuck up of justice.

I enjoy the FRIDAY THE 13th series more than NIGHTMARE I think because it had zero potential. It is a horrible concept for a film franchise, and that translates into its weird charm (for me). NIGHTMARE is an amazing concept, and thus I tend to judge it more harshly when it gets lazy or mucks things up. I know it is capable of so much more.

I agree, I have an appreciation for both of the series but my expectations for them are completely different. I don't really look for much out of a FRIDAY film so in general I tend to enjoy the crappier ones more than I enjoy bad ELM STREET.

I think for me ELM STREET works best when there's some really genuine creativity in the film and I don't just mean creative special effects. As cool as some of the gags get later in the series (specifically 4 and 5) I just find most of the film around the effects really dull and boring.

I never got "Freddy as a punster". Was that the only direction they could take the character?