Talk:Wes Craven's New Nightmare

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 30, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Redone

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a film review site, nor a fan web page. I think this entire article needs to be redone. -- LGagnon 01:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The review is the biggest problem, but the plot summary could use a rewrite too. It reads a lot like a fanboy's overenthusiastic description. -- LGagnon 02:20, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

I've added the "inappropriate tone" template to this page because the "plot summary" section is far too conversational. The summary needs to be changed so that it:

provides information about the film from a neutral stance instead of describing it from the POV of a viewer (e.g., "we see...").
explains the plot rather than narrating it like a story (e.g., "Suddenly, Freddy slices his way through the back of the set! ... Well, actually, no, it's just...")
sounds like a formal encyclopedia article, not chatty.

I would try to make some changes myself, but I don't know anything about the movie and the section really needs a complete rewrite. This is just my quick sketch of the problem, so if anyone would like to discuss this further, please do so. Also, please remember not to remove cleanup templates without discussing it on the article's talk page unless significant changes have been made to the article since the template was added. Thank you.

–Sommers ^(Talk) 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rewrote to remove inappropriate tone. no more "we see", no more chatty stuff. dont think the "narration" is a problem though. Zzzzz 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, two years gone and it still lives. Yes, it was too chatty for encyclopedia sorry. I originally wrote the bulk of this article for another site a review. Zzzzz, I think you did a fine job cleaning up the POV. Thanks. Is there a discussion going on around here somewhere about how exactly one is supposed to be neutral when discussing and describing art? Could someone point me to it, please? Isogolem 06:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canoninity

Is this a real nightmare on Elm Street Film? Is it perhaps considered not part of the series and outside it, and Freddy really did die in Freddy's dead?

no freddy didn't realy die in freddy's dead, he was only stopped from spreading all over the world, and recontained within springwood again the a 5 years of rebuild leading up to freddy vs jason , as for this wes craven's sequel its canon but its not part of the main fiction line of events as it takes place in a alternate universe

As Poe knows, nobody knows. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told that it's not really even Freddy in this movie, just a killer that's a lot like him, dreamed up/imagined by Nancy/Heather. The snare (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about cast

I'm holding a discussion at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Cast in regards to the cast list for the film series as a whole (and the comics if need be). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sequel films?

Since the film is technically not a sequel (it takes place in "real life," rather than in the fictional world of the other films), shouldn't it be removed from this category? I know it's part of the series, but can it really be considered a sequel? Josh (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your understanding of sequels. Many, including Craven, consider this part of an unofficial trilogy (Nightmare 1, Nightmare III, and New Nightmare). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does he say that? I personally always assumed that it was not canon to the original story (murderer murdered by victims' parents, come back from the dead), but was just a neat side story. Jaguitar (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Should the title of this page really just be "New Nightmare"? I know the poster says "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", so that is typically what you find when searching but the film itself doesn't say that. Actually the film itself doesn't list a title at the start it just goes straight into the narrative. I've always wondered if we were attributing a name to the title of the film when in actually this is really no different than John Carpenter's Vampires. His name appears the same way on the poster, but the film itself is just "Vampires". I think that this film was really just "New Nightmare", and we should probably move the page to that title and leave the redirect from "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" so that we're at least a bit more accurate. Thoughts? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here, the title "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" has been assigned to it formally at some point. The real question is whether it's analagous to the John Carpenter examples. I think this is complicated by the ft that part of the plot has Wes Craven doing a New Nightmare on Elm Street film. Craven is actually a character in the film, so "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" could be referencing the Wes Craven character in the film, and not assigning the directorial credit in the same way John Carpenter does. In reality I think it does both—it's a pun title—but I think the unique meta-reality of the film makes it a special case in this respect. In short, if Wes Craven hadn't made the film it could still be called "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", so I don't think we can divorce the credit form the title with 100% conviction. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing clearly labels it as such, but the film itself doesn't go by any name really (and that is usually where we decide how it should be named). IMDb just lists it as "New Nightmare", but BOM and RT list it as "Wes Craven's New Nightmare". Anyway, I'm more just curious as to others' opinion about whether what it should be called because I cannot find anything that says definitively, one way or the other, what the title should be. Just people going with whatever they think. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the film copyrighted as? Would that be helpful? Mike Allen 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB says its complete title is "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", but it also says that on many of John Carpenter's films, which we overlook. If it was a straightforward directorial credit assignment I would support removing the "Wes Craven" part of it, but I'm not 100% convinced it is just a directorial credit because of the "film within a film" aspect of the plot. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Bram Stoker's Dracula. —Coder Dan (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should stay with the status quo. I'm not seeing New Nightmare used nearly as prominently as Wes Craven's New Nightmare. It's more used as the shorthand for the full title. I wouldn't have a problem with a statement in parentheses in the lead sentence saying "also known as New Nightmare", but I'm not going to push for it. Use of the shorthand in the article body would be self-evident. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Krueger as himself?

On the cast section, right below Robert Englund as himself/Freddy Krueger, we see Freddy Krueger as himself. Yeah OK it's funny regarding the concept of the meta-film, but how does that make any sense whatsoever information-wise? This is a non-factual-joke that does not belong on a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.51.163.129 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meta jokes about vicious child murderers crawling through the TV and into our realm are only funny if Zsa Zsa Gabor is involved. In this case, it was simply terrifying. Thanks for clarifying! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131222736/http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com:80/nightmareinterviewstheglove.html to http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com/nightmareinterviewstheglove.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131222736/http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com/nightmareinterviewstheglove.html to http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com/nightmareinterviewstheglove.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]