A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Analysis and Discussion

[FendersRule]

I consider myself to be hardcore of the most hardcore of fans of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. I've sat down, and literally tried to uncover what makes the good sequels in the series so great, and why the new one is doomed for failure.

To repeat, the remake will probably suck. There's already a review out on it, but take it with a grain of salt because the reviewer did not see a finalized version:

http://nightmareonelmstreetmovie.com...-street-review

I figured out what makes the 1, 3, and 4 so damn good. The ingredients are all sufficient (but not all are entirely necessary collectively) to create a good NOES film. These are not in order of importance, but I would personally consider the soundtrack of most importance:

* Robert Englund. While not a necessary "required" ingredient, it's one that always seems to work one way or another. If you seem to believe that this is a "required" ingredient, then maybe you can remember when the Dark Knight came out, and that Heath Ledger's performance absolutely blew everyone away. Disagreers should also understand that his role in part 2 and part 6 didn't really "save" them from the suckiness (and some would consider 5 to be suckiness). Freddy can be recreated, so relax. Robert Englund is probably getting too old to be Freddy as well.

* Wes Craven's Music.

I think NOES movies have two main distinct audio qualities:

(A) The main theme. Everyone knows what this theme is.

(B) The classic 80s aggression/monster theme....lots of midi-synthesizing (the stuff that make's John Carpenter's films so awesome). These are used when Freddy comes out, etc. Here's a run down on how the audio is used in the series:

NOES 1: Uses Heavily both A, and B. Therefor, awesome-ass movie.

NOES 2: Uses Neither A or B, but uses different audio mixes/tracks, etc that is decently "good". We end up with a subpar movie.

NOES 3: Uses a *fair* amount of A, but more heavily on B. Great NOES comeback, but not as good as the first. Could this be because "A" wasn't used as much as it should have been? B was used almost as good as the first one...major props.

NOES 4: Uses heavily A, with very little B (the cheapie 80s synthesizing was dieing off at this point). Besides using A heavily, NOES 4 implements "real" 80s music, and uses it very very well. This all combined, really lives a great aural experience for me, almost as good as the first.

NOES 5: Don't remember. Probably very little A and B.

NOES 6: I don't think it uses A and B at all.

NOES 7: Different. I think they use A a little bit.

The New Nightmare on Elm Street....what will it use? Do you notice a pattern here? If it doesn't use either A or B, then it might just as well suck. Horror films are defined by their soundtrack. The awesome orchestrated music is what really brings about the emotion in Friday the 13th movies, and John Carpenter's piano theme really makes Halloween the creepiest film of all time. Soundtrack is a must, and it must have a predominant theme. Hollywood seems to never fully realize this on their remakes.

* Imaginative dream sequences. NOES 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 had very imaginative dream sequences. Imaginative doesn't mean "special effects". It means environmental, shocking, creative, and or "funny". NOES 2 did not have ANY good dream sequences. Part 5 still had a few good ones and part 6 actually had some "decent" ones as well, but it that point, they were starting to get cheesy and stupid at that point. 2010 will rehash several from the first NOES I believe. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, I don't know yet. It certainly isn't creative...

* Voice Modulation. As time passed, Robert Englund tended to develop his voice for Freddy as the series went on, and modulation slowly went out the window (which is in my opinion, a mistake on everyone's part). This may be argued, but Freddy should not sound like a normal man, not matter how much robert wants to create his own voice without the modulation. He should sound evil, with a snarl and dark tone (ANOES 1, and 2 had the most darkest Freddy voices, with 2 being the most darkest and best IMO). Part 1 works extremely well too. When part 3 and 4 came around, voice modulation was starting to go away, and it didn't seem to negatively affect things too much, but in my opinion, it's a needed thing. Watch the 2010 trailer and hear Jackie say, "This won't hurt, one little bit". It sounds horrible IMO.

* A Nightmare on Elm Street should take place on....Elm Street. Parts 1, 2, 4, 5 (can't remember too well on this one) all seemed to have taken place on Elm Street environment. Part 3 didn't really take place too much on Elm Street directly, but we do know that it was in the same area inside of a mental ward, and it seemed to work. Parts 6, 7, and the remake do not take place on Elm street, and IMO, it hurts them. It's like watching Friday the 13th, and seeing Jason kill people on an airplane or on Manhattan (notice a pattern?). Leave the environment intact.

* Freddy's makeup should look slimy, wet, and enticing. There is no comparison in that the first two movies of the series, Freddy had the best makeup. Parts 3 and 4 Freddy had pretty good makeup as well. Part 5, and 6 were god aweful in this regard, and it looked completely like a mask and a hackjob. Part 7 was ok, but it still looked like a mask to me (but better than 5 and 6). Freddy vs Jason had the best Freddy makeup I have seen since part 2. The remake clearly looks like a mask, and it looks too dry, and almost like a puppet. Notice a pattern?

For NOES (2010):

* The movie begins at a party that is held in California somewhere and is not faithful to elm street.....
* There was no modulation to Freddy's voice via the trailer and it didn't sound correct.
* Rehashed dream scenes (but they still could be good if given the proper soundtrack). They won't be creative though.
* No Wes Craven music. Probably generic and typical soundtrack crap....
* No Robert Englund.
* Makeup looks like a mask.

The ingredients are simply not there for it to be a good ANOES installment. Discuss.