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.

[arolive]

I agree with the points that you make. I also consider myself a hardcore nightmare fan, I am sad that Robert Englund will not be in the film as Freddy.

[Dotpattern]

For me personally, I'm going to wait until I see the new movie before I form an opinion. Everyone tends to hate on remakes on principal alone, but there are enough good remakes for me to want to give every movie a chance, and make a decision based on the movie and not the principal.

As for the music, Wes Craven didn't compose any music for the series. There's no reason that whoever composes the new movie can't include the famous theme, the same way Brian Tyler included Jerry Goldsmith's theme in Rambo, or how Lalo Schifrin's theme is included in all the Mission: Impossible movies.

I also think a lot of doctors, and a lot of burn victims, will agree that the new make up looks more clinically accurate. I don't know if that makes it "right," or makes him more or less scary-looking, but it seems the filmmakers were trying to present Freddy, who is burned to death, with a look that is in keeping with people who have had severe facial burns.

[iamsparticus9]

i'm willing to give it a shot. i just hope they don't make him a innocent victim of mob violence. what to me made freddy so good was that he was bad when he was alive. got punished for it and came back even worse. i read somewhere that they were going to make him wrongfully accused. That would kill it for me.

[arykmax]

Originally Posted by iamsparticus9

i'm willing to give it a shot. i just hope they don't make him a innocent victim of mob violence. what to me made freddy so good was that he was bad when he was alive. got punished for it and came back even worse. i read somewhere that they were going to make him wrongfully accused. That would kill it for me.

I hope they don't go that route and don't think that they would. I am also going to give it a shot. I am a huge fan of the originals and can't resist some more Freddy.

[cynatnite]

Originally Posted by iamsparticus9

i'm willing to give it a shot. i just hope they don't make him a innocent victim of mob violence. what to me made freddy so good was that he was bad when he was alive. got punished for it and came back even worse. i read somewhere that they were going to make him wrongfully accused. That would kill it for me.

I'd hate to see them go that route. If they do that in this remake, I'll probably wait to rent it rather than hit the theater.

[arykmax]

The review that the OP linked to seemed to suggest that this would not be the case. He made it sound like "alive" Freddy would be anything but innocent.

[miller_time22]

I'm not holding out hope for this remake to be anything more than merely adequate. My big issue appears to be that based on the trailer, rather than putting their own spin on the original story, they've merely put together a quasi greatest hits of scenes from the original. I hope there is more to it than that and will reserve judgment until I see it.
But I have pre-ordered the original movie on Blu-ray and will be using the movie cash included to go see this. So, if it does end up sucking, it won't be as bad.

[F13BluRay]

I am willing to bet he is NOT wrongfully accused. His portrayal of Krueger before being burned, from what very little we saw in the trailer, seems very similar to his character from Little Children where he first played a pedafile, who also was not wrongfully accused. Anyone in agreement? I think so.....

[Porkchop Express]

Originally Posted by iamsparticus9

i'm willing to give it a shot. i just hope they don't make him a innocent victim of mob violence. what to me made freddy so good was that he was bad when he was alive. got punished for it and came back even worse. i read somewhere that they were going to make him wrongfully accused. That would kill it for me.

That was my biggest concern from the trailer as well.

[M and J]

I'm a little sad about Robert Englund, but there's a lot of good remakes out there. I will have to see it first, to form an opinion!

[masoud90]

Isn't it supposed to be PG-13????

FLOP. but i'll give it a chance.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by iamsparticus9

i'm willing to give it a shot. i just hope they don't make him a innocent victim of mob violence. what to me made freddy so good was that he was bad when he was alive. got punished for it and came back even worse. i read somewhere that they were going to make him wrongfully accused. That would kill it for me.

Originally Posted by M and J

I'm a little sad about Robert Englund, but there's a lot of good remakes out there. I will have to see it first, to form an opinion!

Originally Posted by masoud90

Isn't it supposed to be PG-13????

FLOP. but i'll give it a chance.

Yeah. You guys should give it a chance, I sure as hell am. All my OP was intended for, was for an attempt to pull out the main ingredients that seem to make the good NOES films good.

Also, I was making predictions based on these said ingredients on the review that I linked, in that the new NOES doesn't carry very much ingredients that made several of the first installments good. It's like me telling you I'm making brownies, but they don't have sugar, flour, or cocoa. You just can't expect them to taste good, or anything like brownies. There's always a chance that my brownies have a magical ingredient that makes them taste pretty good , but most likely, you're going to need the sugar, cocoa, and flour in order for them to taste like brownies, and to be good.

You can use any metaphor you would like there, and it should just make sense.

Additionally, I'm all about for something new and shocking. However, you still have to have the base ingredients for it to work. Then, you can add extra ingredients once you have the base covered. This is what we are hoping for, but I still think it's doubtful.

[rdm5777]

Originally Posted by masoud90

Isn't it supposed to be PG-13????

FLOP. but i'll give it a chance.

PG-13??? They wouldn't...would they?

If they do, I'm out. I have absolutely no interest in a PG-13 NOES film.

As it is, they have me scared to death by that trailer implying they are going to portray him as a victim. I'm hoping it is misdirection.