After just concluding my screenplay for a Hellraiser reboot, I decided that I wanted to go back and revisit "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and try to figure out why it was such an epic fail in my eyes. The point of this is exercise is really to make sure that I have not just made the same mistakes over again. And for the record I am writing this after watching the new NOES on DVD.
Wes Craven's beyond classic 1984 film has everything needed to create masterful horror in my eyes. I can actually remember watching the film by myself, at midnight, in the dark, when I was probably oh six or seven years old. I specifically remember that it was on USA and I had snuck out of my bedroom in order to catch a glimpse of the film. I want to officially say that the original Nightmare probably kickstarted my lifelong obsession with horror movies, for just the sheer thrill of being scared. When you are that age, the adrenaline really flows while watching a film. Now, at 26 I hardly feel like that anymore while watching a movie, it's just not the same. But anyway, the original had EVERYTHING needed to be successful. A terrifying antagonist in Freddy Kruger, likable protagonist,; Nancy, romantic interest; Glen, the "oracle" character in the drunk mom, everything needed to create an amicable ensemble of characters needed to complete the journey into the realm of the dream world. Freddy himself, Robert Englund, just had that on screen presence that made your skin crawl. The fact that anything is capable in the dream is what really makes him terrifying. Anyway, I don't think I really need to go into too deep a detail as to why Nightmare on Elm is an all time classic.
Now the 2010 reboot of Nightmare On Elm is a very interesting ploy and on paper I think could have worked. First... what it did have... A variety of "new" spins and takes on the original story.
- Freddy is apparently a pedifile
- The use of "micronebs" or dreams while you are awake
- Great opening with the knife to the throat suicide.
- Scenes from several different Nightmare films, not just the original
- Unique Flashbacks
These elements should have made for a great new spin on the franchise. Well, they didn't and I don't think I have ever been more pissed off in my life leaving the theater, well except for when I paid to see "Signs", but other than that pretty freakin' angry. The Nightmare Franchise to the children of the 80's is up there on our nostaglia list with "The Goonies" and Ninja Turtles, so it is pretty goddamn important to be re-launched correctly.
Well first off, Jackie Earl Haley is a terrible conception of Freddy Kruger. His on screen presence just isn't scary. Groundskeeper Willy from that one Treehouse of Horror was more intimidating that JEH. He is just barely 5 ft tall and all the CGI makeup even lessens the case for terror. The decision to re-vamp Freddy's backstory, which on paper sounds great, totally ruins any sort of horror hero quality. People like to root for Jason or Leatherface to crush the pothead, or the annoying girl... but making Freddy belong on "To Catch a Predator" just sort of ruined his persona.
My biggest problem with the film is the pacing and character development. From the get-go I originally thought the hot blonde was Nancy, because the story revolved around her for the first twenty minutes. Then she dies in a lame excuse for the upside down ceiling kill from the original then we pretty much meet Nancy afterwards. She has similar qualities to the original Nancy but she has to talents or drive to defeat Freddy like the original. She just follows the guy from "A Haunting in Connecticut" while he figures out how to defeat Freddy. It's Nancy's battle with Freddy that makes the original awesome.
All in All the third act is decent, but the first two are just so bad that they can't make up for it. I hope in my heart of hearts that I can somehow get my Hellraiser script to Dimension because if it is true, and the guy who wrote Jason X is on the project, that franchise will wind up in the graveyard just like A Nightmare on Elm Street....
This is a great franchise opportunity to start re-imagining what could be done with new styles in cinematography as well in technology in general. Thank you so much for posting this. I have been looking for a good franchise to re-write, and you have given me a few ideas.
ReplyDeleteThats awesome man, glad you enjoyed the post...
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of your points that you have brought up 100 percent; they are part of the failure of the new one, and there was much potential in the remake. I think this is a little deeper than you intended on going with your analysis, but screw it I’m gonna do it anyways because I’m bored of physics.
I think something that you have neglected in your quick write-up is the influence of the originality of the first Nightmare on Elm Street in comparison to the new one. The first NOES was just that, the first one of its kind. It brought its own stigma of fear and fright nights with it. Slipping into your dreams and being murdered by a guy who had hedging shears for fingers was just totally new and original. That character essentially became an icon in American pop culture; anyone will recognize the brown and red striped sweater and glove. Even the glove often brings back the imagery of Nightmare on Elm Street.
WARNING SPOILERS:
What I think the new one attempted to do, and in doing so became its greatest failure and thus its complete failure, was elaborate on its originality. Giving Freddy the background of a pedophile is a good start. No one likes NAMBLA, and no one likes pedophiles, so when Freddy turns out to be a child molester it makes sense that the parents of the children seek his death. Not a totally new concept here, in the original NOES the parents kill him in a similar fashion. Just an elaboration; or more so an explanation of why they killed him to begin with. This part has some extra detail, but not really a new concept in my eyes.
Then there is part where they go into the school, find the sex dungeon, and trip balls to draw out Freddy. Where this is a new concept in comparison to the old one, it seems too rushed and not detailed enough to make it believable to me. Not that I could have written it any better, but I think some more elaboration on this part or explanation of the dream world that they are sent into would have done volumes for the originality of the film.
I think some of the successes of the new horror remakes (and I don’t know your feelings on this), like the Texas Chainsaw Massacres and Halloweens, are their elaboration on the originality of the new concepts presented in congruency with the aura presented by the originality of the old films.
Now admittedly I am not the horror guru that you are, my forte lies in the realm of action films. However, I think that the largest failure of the new NOES was the neglect of its own originality in what it tried bringing to the table. I didn’t expect them to give Freddy a new murder weapon or costume, but I did expect them to add something new to something that was already done very well the first time.
On a side note, who the hell could measure up to Wes Craven though? I feel as if the project was doomed before it even started without Wes Craven’s help. Something of interest to note on the newer remakes is that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which I really enjoyed) was re-written by its original writer. I wonder if Wes Craven had re-written this what kind of masterpiece would have been created….
Austin