Need a film explaining to me.

[Slipknot 666]

Nightmere on elm street: Wes Cravens New nightmere.
This film was like WTF!
You know Nancy from some of the nightmeres.
well in wes cravens new nightmere shes some one differnt and her name isnt nancy!
I didnt get the film one bit,
Can some one go though the film with me please.:confused: :p :confused:

[pinkfloyd45769]

She was actually playing herself, it was like the whole Freddy thing was coming true in real life. I'm really bad at explaining things, hope this helped a little.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by pinkfloyd45769
I'm really bad at explaining things.

Ditto, I understand the movie just fine but it would probably take a mile long post for me to explain it.

[pinkfloyd45769]

I think i pretty much said all that can be said, i really don't know how to explain it much better. :confused:

[PR3SSUR3]

Perhaps all films where the title is preceeded by the name of the director should be boycotted, in protest of them being stuck up their own arseholes.

This trend is getting worse, and means producers think this "seal of approval" guarantees sales.

A tiny bit of research will uncover a favourite director or writer and maybe sway you to go see or rent a film, but does this shit really need to be plastered up in three-foot-high letters?

[filmmaker2]

Perhaps the easiest way for you to get it is to rewatch the scene in which Wes Craven (playing"himself") sits down with Heather Langenkamp (playing "herself") and explains what myths are, the "genie in the bottle" theory, and why he thinks they need to reinvent the myth to recapture the demon.

Basically, Freddy was always a real monster going back for thousands of years, and making movies about him captured his essence and controlled him. But when the movies lost their punch (became formulaic and stupid) the monster was released again. Thus creating the need to "reinvent" the myth and recapture the monster. Basically, the monster is trapped inside the story until the story goes bad, and then you have to rewrite it again and capture the monster again.

What I think is clever about the film is how it makes reference to the fact that most of the sequels to the original film were crap. It's really not a bad movie at all, it is aware of itself, and Robert Englund playing "himself" is really funny.

[pinkfloyd45769]

Originally posted by filmmaker2
Perhaps the easiest way for you to get it is to rewatch the scene in which Wes Craven (playing"himself") sits down with Heather Langenkamp (playing "herself") and explains what myths are, the "genie in the bottle" theory, and why he thinks they need to reinvent the myth to recapture the demon.

Basically, Freddy was always a real monster going back for thousands of years, and making movies about him captured his essence and controlled him. But when the movies lost their punch (became formulaic and stupid) the monster was released again. Thus creating the need to "reinvent" the myth and recapture the monster. Basically, the monster is trapped inside the story until the story goes bad, and then you have to rewrite it again and capture the monster again.

What I think is clever about the film is how it makes reference to the fact that most of the sequels to the original film were crap. It's really not a bad movie at all, it is aware of itself, and Robert Englund playing "himself" is really funny.

That is exactly what i meant to say!! :D

[PR3SSUR3]

it is aware of itself

Ugh!

And isn't producer Robert Shaye - who even starred as himself in New Nightmare - rubbing it in to those who paid to see his previous sub-standard products?

Clever?

[filmmaker2]

I like the part when Shaye kind of wigs out in the office and screams, "Will someone answer the goddamn phone??" or something similar.

I have a strange feeling that you don't like the film...dunno what might have led me to that conclusion...

[Slipknot 666]

Ahh i see, thank you. :p