The Creative Genius of Wes Craven's NEW NIGHTMARE

Audiences just weren't ready for New Nightmare when it was released in 1994.

Viewers had expected a beat-by-beat continuation of the Nightmare saga like they had seen many times before. Sometimes that worked, but many times it didn't. 

Wes Craven's New Nightmare 1994

After a while, you realize that killing off Freddy doesn't work, which makes the series redundant and an overall insult to your intelligence. 

It can't help but tire itself out. That's why they chose Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare as a title in one entry. New Line Cinema was smart in that regard. They knew the Elm Street saga was hanging on to dear life, and it was time to mercy kill it.

But obvious now, in retrospect, that Craven's intention from the beginning was to treat the Elm Street movies as a one-off. They were never meant to go that way. That was just pure corporatism milking the franchise to make money and pay the bills.

That philosophy worked in the 1980s because slashers were huge back then. 

But again, according to the only person that matters in this conversation--WES CRAVEN--the goal was to end the Freddy story with Nancy in the 1984 film. Craven knew that Freddy's return would only dilute his presence. 

The only way to bring back Freddy in a realistic way, without the tropes and dullness that sequels bring, was to go full META.

That's ingenious on Craven's part. I know fans respect and adore Craven for his talents as a filmmaker, but Craven really was a creative genius storyteller. Expert-level writers and directors like him don't just grow on trees. They're one in a million. Craven was that one.

But there's a problem with meta--it only works once. 

Metafiction is unique because it provides a perspective that's unusual for the viewer. Audiences aren't accustomed to experiencing a story that acknowledges itself as the story is being told to the viewer. Meta can be a thrill ride if it's done correctly. But once it's performed, any sequels will be forced to increase the meta level or abandon it. 

Craven knows meta only works once. That's why his involvement with the Elm Street series was limited, as compared to the Scream series. He knew the Scream series was more bankable because it was light meta. It was more understandable meta. It wasn't as complicated to follow as New Nightmare. 

Craven learned from New Nightmare's lack of box office success that he shouldn't overdo the self-awareness of Scream, which worked, and allowed for the series to thrive as a massive franchise.

Wes Craven

Craven's intentions with the Elm Street saga were to end it quickly with no sequels.

New Nightmare comments on the effects of horror movies on it's audiences. There's a blatant message in New Nightmare. Scream's message is more diluted. Not as strong or obvious, and because of its watered-down subtext, Scream actually prospers for it. 

New Nightmare is the end of the Freddy story. The film trades the Freddy character for the overall message of the film. That's why the Freddy character is hardly in the film. He's a backdrop for what Craven wants to say about horror movies. That message was his true intention from the onset.

The real problem that awaits the Elm Street saga is what story will they do next? 

Every possible angle has been used and analyzed. Will studios go the meta route or not? Craven boxed everyone else out of the Elm Street saga with New Nightmare. He excluded them from continuing the Freddy character in any way other than just simple routine stories.