No discussion of the new line cinema is complete without the phrase "Freddie's house". While attributing the success of the new line (and it is eventually acquiring by Warner Bros.) Only the franchisee "Nightmare on Elm Street" can be simpler, to make it easier, There is no doubt that Elm Street preserved the studio and put it on the mapand that the mass treasurer of the series and cultural influence helped lead to future victories like The films "Lord of the Rings" And The "Conjection" franchise. On the one hand, the prosperity of the "Elm Street" films is another example of the power and popularity of the horror genre as a whole. It is a lesson that Hollywood's mainstream seems to be constantly forgotten and learned again; After all, the box office of 2025 would not be anywhere near what is without The massive horror strikes like "sinners" and "weapons". However, Freddie Krueger's omnipresence during the 1980s and early 1990s surpassed even the average successful horror film. Freddie became a true successor to Other icons for horror like Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and othersIt appears not only in the film series, but also in spin-off TV shows, comics, toys and other tying materials.

Of course, there is no way to predict which movie and character could hit so great with culture. Freddie's popularity even confused his creator, Wes Craven, like 1994 Meta-Dolesman "New Nightmare of Wes Craven" He tried to reach the bottom why this man became so huge. Given how fast the new line set the sequel to "ELM Nightmare" in the production after the original film made a killing murder in the end of 1984, someone would have assumed that at least the studio had incaling that Freddie could be a big business. However, according to a recent exclusive interview with Jackec Sholler, director of "Nightmare on Elm 2: Freddie Revenge", this was not the case. As Holler explained, the New Line cinema was not ready for Elm Street to become a franchise, and this short -sightedness at the beginning of the series led to some problems with Freddie's "revenge", things that almost prevented Freddy from continuing her rule of terror.

According to Sholder, when the founder of the cinema in the new line, Robert Jay, encountered Craven's script for "ELM Street Nightmare", were not necessarily the dollar signs that Jay saw in him. Explaining Holler:

"I remember when Bob first chose the script from Wes, because he used to run things from me ... I was one of the people to hear. It was kind of his attitude.

There was a little Snafu about the "Elm Street" sequel, of course, that the film was never intended to support a continuous story. In the last days of shooting at Elm Street, Jay had predicted to ask Craven to shoot some more open moments. That, he said, as Sholfer noted, the sequels in those days were "kind of view" and that the distribution hand on the new line believed that if the sequel did 70% of what the original film did, then it would be considered a success. In other words, today's mentality is that the sequels can (and maybe should) overcome their predecessors have not yet expressed expression. As Holler continued:

"Hope was that (Nightmare 2) would do well enough to have a" nightmare 3. "The idea of" Nightmare 4 ", no one went there.

Although the franchise concept was still quite new in the mid-1980s, some tropes have already begun to appear, one of which is that there should be a return to the character or characters below if possible. However, while the "New Lines" cinema certainly wanted Freddie Krueger to remain a supernatural villain on Elm Street, They almost did not return actor Robert Englund to repeat the role. As Holler recalls, the studio reviewed the title and character more important than the actor at this stage, similar to how other desirable villains such as Michael Meyers and Jason Vorihes exchanged performers in their sequels:

"They just wanted to extract a script called" ELM 2 Nightmare "with a character called Freddie, not even having to play Robert Englund."

Fortunately, Englund came on the "Revenge of Freddie" ship. Even so, the film will end with a different kind of Krueger than seen in Craven's film. This Freddie will be a little more confidence (though not yet completely comical), and instead of drawing the dreams of children on Elm Street, he will try to get into the real world by penetrating his dreams (and eventually possessing) Essie Walsh (Mark Patton). This change in the rules makes Freddie's revenge intriguingly unique in retrospect, But it caused some problems for the initial reputation of the film by fans. It is also indicative of how no one in the new line was thinking about the longevity of the franchise, as Holler explained:

"The rules were (there was) this man called Freddie. He kills teenagers when they sleep. That was the rule, that was. So, that idea was kind of dead end."

It is true in Sholfer to say that the sequel to the rules set out in Freddie's Revenge would be a deadlock for the series, especially given that it would take away so much of what the franchisee had to become. However, the benefits of the creative freedom given to Sholler and Freddie's "Revenge" company, along with the new line, looking at only one movie at the same time, not the cinema universe, are all the qualities that today's study and producers may want to revise them. It is always good to keep an eye on potential futures, But don't put the cart in front of the horse.