Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)

What links here

Could someone please help me by going to the "What links here" for the franchise page and see which links should direct to this page instead of the the future section on the franchise page? Thank You! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 08:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Production: Development

Why is there a [sic] in the director's quote?

("It's definitely not a standard slasher film. This is a movie that you can mention to people and their jaws drop [...] because of that 

franchise, that character, had a profound effect [sic] on their childhood. [...] I hear things like, 'Freddy scared the hell out of me.' [...] What everyone involved wants to do is re-invent the character for a new generation." — Samuel Bayer on remaking A Nightmare on Elm Street.[5])

For the life of me, I cannot find any unusual (or incorrect) phrases or spelling in the quote. Maybe I'm just missing it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.190.135 (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of the word "effect"...it should be "affect".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Effect is correct. 94.170.25.203 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement is about having an influence on people. To "influence" is to "affect". In the statement, Bayer says that the film had a "profound effect" on his childhood. To "effect" means there needs to be a change. You cannot change a childhood. But, you can influence it, and that means the correct spelling is "affect".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but when you use "affect" as a verb, as the result of an influence, its noun form is still "effect". An effect is the result of being affected, regardless of context. GRAPPLE X 17:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how are you saying that it is not being used as a verb? The statement insinuates that an action has taken place upon the childhood of the viewers of the original Nightmare film. That's a verb. To have a "profound effect" means there literally needs to be something changing their childhood. A movie cannot actually change their childhood. It can influence it, but it has no direct "effect" on their childhood. Just look at the examples here and here. The closest example would be: "How does the crime rate affect hiring levels by local police forces?" - It's describing an influence of one item on another, the same as the statement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the first link you provided:

"If you are talking about a result, then use the word "effect."

Example: What effect did the loss have on the team?

It is appropriate to use the word "effect" if one of these words is used immediately before the word: into, on, take, the, any, an, or and.

Example: The prescribed medication had an effect on the patient's symptoms.

Example: In analyzing a situation, it is important to take the concepts of cause and effect into consideration.

If you want to describe something that was caused or brought about, the right word to use is effect."

It goes on to explain that, as a noun, "affect" specifically refers to facial expressions—"The woman took the news of her husband's sudden death with little affect", for example. "Effect" is the right word to use in the box quote, it is not used incorrectly and should not be marked out as such. GRAPPLE X 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But we're not talking about a "result", we're talking about an "influence". All he says is that the film has an influence on their childhood, not that it had such an impact that it actually caused a change. "Effect" means that a change occurs. "Affect" means that there is an influence upon. The statement isn't speaking from the perspective that something actually changed in these people. The example you provided is about a specific cause and effect relationship. That is not how Bayer is using it in his statement. You point to the example of "affect" as a noun, but it isn't being used as a noun.

Example: "Affect can also be used as a verb. Use it when trying to describe influencing someone or something rather than causing it."

That is exactly what is happening in the statement. It's describing how peopel were influenced not how they were changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't being used as a verb, it is being used as a noun. Therefore effect is the correct option. Your reasoning about there being "no change" is illogical and plainly wrong—there's no threshold of difference after which an "effect" has occurred. Any slight difference at all is an effect, even if said difference is just the quoted one, namely the knowledge of pop-culture figure's existence. The only way that "affect" would be correct in the quoted text is if it was phrased as "profoundly affected us". It's not, and as such, "had a profound effect" is completely and utterly the correct way. If you'd like, however, I could defer the matter to the Guild of Copy-Editors and ask them for an additional eye on this. GRAPPLE X 18:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're referring to with the "on" part now. So, I concede that. You could also be a bit more cordial in your discussion. The condescension in "is illogical and plainly wrong" and "is completely and utterly the correct way" is not really called for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to seem rude (and for that I apologise), I just wished to stress that it wasn't a stylistic matter that would come down to clashing opinions, but simply a matter of misapplying the (labyrinthine!) rules on those two words, meaning there was a 'right' answer to be found in the end. GRAPPLE X 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Release section

Is it really practical to have an entire section devoted to one sentence? I realize more information regarding the film's release will be added as it becomes available, but I believe we should fold the information into another section until we have enough release information to constitute an entire section. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't why that's on there ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Because we technically cannot have anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. It's a single sentence, but at this time it's the best home for it. It's not unusual for upcoming film articles to have a single sentence in a section that typically fills out once release gets closer. If this was a film that had already been released, then that's a different story.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So then we can't just slap this into the Production section, or the infobox, eh? --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to put it in the production section, because it's not production info. It's already in the infobox. Most future film pages are like this. It's just a waiting game till we have more info for it. It's not like having a single sentence on the music in a film. In such a case it would be easier to just merge something like that into a generalized production section, but this is different because the release has nothing to do with any other section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

It's too bad they had to pick the exact same title. Does anyone have any data on if it was finalized. Simply taking out the 'A' for example (Nightmare on Elm Street or tweaking it to The Nightmare on Elm Street would make noting it easier and remove the necessity for 2010 parenthesis. After all, remakes are never exact. Tyciol (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From everything I have read on the internet, it is exact, were you proposing a move? Frankly, I'd find doing that to be ridiculous • S • C • A • R • C • E • 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't completely change the name of a film just to make it easier to edit the Wikipedia. Piping is always used on basically every page, what's wrong with [[A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)|A Nightmare on Elm Street]] • S • C • A • R • C • E • 04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See the film's logo here, it says 'A', although the film's site is nightmareonelmstreet.com • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the poster uses a small 'a', does that need changing or does wikipedia demand a capital anyway? magnius (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the lower caps is just for art, Wikipedia doesn't demand upper caps, see eBay and iPod, if it came down to sacrificing the title I'm sure we could get an 'a' but we currently are unassured if that's the true title • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Worthy of note is the fact that, in the paragraph in the given link, it says, "Freddy Krueger returns in A Nightmare on Elm Street..." I think it's reasonable to leave as-is, despite the website URL. As you said, it's evident the lowercase "a" is just for art. The Guy ^(edits) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Original characters by:

Apparently, none of Craven's characters are coming back, Nancy is a goth enthusiast, none of the friends, we're not even sure if Freddy will be the same, Nancy's parents might have different names, I think definitely Original characters: is needed, otherwise it's mis-leading to the reader, it implies Craven assisted in the new film. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why is this called the ComicCon banner? The website on the poster says it's the official poster (so far?) • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the source said it was the new ComicCon Banner. My assumption is that it is both the teaser poster and the ComicCon banner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Inside duo's comments worth mentioning?

"We [Julien Maury and I] have an American agent who couldn't understand how we could turn down directing a remake of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street.' He felt we were going to earn a lot of money and make a big hit -- why refuse? But for us, the screenplay wasn't any good, and we weren't going to be able to rewrite it. We're not interested in cheating, we want to make films we can be proud of."[1]

Is it worth mentioning that the two (who directed Inside (film)) turned this down?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On their page, maybe. I don't think it's worth it on here, because no one else has really bothered to mention them - especially since I think that may have been before Platinum Dunes was involved given that it was suggested that Bay requested Samuel Bayer from the start.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Casting section

I don't think a casting section that looks like

• So and so as John Doe
• John Q. Public as Johnson

is necessary at all, but it should resemble something like The Dark Knight (film)#Cast. Where its easier to spot out the cast member and the character's information seeing that they each have their own paragraph and additional information also. But we currently don't have information on the characters' and their portrayals, so the casting section should stay the way it is. The second paragraph in our casting section tells of all the actors and their characters. Its very easy to read. Please leave this section alone until we gather more information as the release date approaches. $©@®©Ξ 00:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILMS#Cast, cast lists are not the preferred method: "ideally as well-written prose". Frankly, I despise cast lists, because they do nothing but breed unwanted and unneeded plot information about the characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the cast list should provide a brief description of the characters and should mainly focus on the actors' portrayals. I think the plot sections in articles are useless if they do not contribute to the other sections such as events that happen in the film that impacted the casting. $©@®©Ξ 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a "brief description" of a character, because we'll have the film's plot. We don't need to say that Character X is Nancy's boyfriend in the cast section if the plot already says it. The Dark Knight might follow that route, but Halloween, Friday the 13th, and many other GA or FA horror film articles don't. It works well for them, and I don't see a reason to depart from that structure - especially when you get characters that don't have enough information to support a full paragraph by themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The reader shouldn't have to read the entire article to find out information on the cast. I've never seen a group of articles that all had the same plot and casting layout, whatever works for the article I guess $©@®©Ξ 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't. They read a section titled "Casting" to get information on the cast. If they need to know more immediately what character is played by what actor, that is what the plot is for, because the plot will list the actors' names as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne / Batman, a billionaire dedicated to protecting Gotham City from the criminal underworld by night. Bale said he was confident in his choice to return in the role because..." I think it works very nicely $©@®©Ξ 05:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people avoid the Plot section or at least avoid reading through all of it because they do not want to be too spoiled. But I get both of you guys' points. Personally, I am okay with both styles, but and am always pointing out The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers (film) articles as good formatting in regards to various things (even though I cannot stand bullet-point style in other cases, because Wikipedia's preference for prose has also caused me to feel that way; at least The Dark Knight (film) article does not have the bullet points). However, if you look at the Cast and characters section of the Transformers (film) article, it does often breed unwanted and unneeded plot information about the characters like Bignole says (especially since, currently, unlike The Dark Knight (film) article, it is unlocked). Sure, Plot sections attract that kind of additional information as well...but it is extra work when another section is also significantly doing that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't work around the article to violate a guideline :oP But I'm just saying, the casting section should be very applicable $©@®©Ξ 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the attraction of cast lists but they're not really neccessary if the section is well organised. Think about it; a paragraph for Freddy, a paragraph for Nancy, and another for supporting/minor characters. What's so hard about that? Not everything should be broken down into bullet points and subsections and spoon-fed to the reader.  Paul  730 05:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Scarce, I know. When I mentioned some people avoiding the Plot section, I was responding to Bignole...since he said that people can just check that. Yes, we should not try to keep them from being spoiled by making a bullet-point type of Cast section, but I was only giving out a different thought on that matter. Besides...they could still get spoiled from reading the Cast section...depending on whether or not it says something spolierish about the characters...and what Bignole said about them checking the Plot section for names makes sense; surely (once we have one), people can glance for names there quickly without being too spoiled. The part of the cast not in the Plot section are people they are likely not looking for anyway.

In either regard, I definitely see where you are coming from on Cast sections. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between Transformers/The Dark Knight and Nightmare on Elm Street and other other horror films. It's the coverage. A part from maybe Freddy, I can almost 100% guarantee that we won't have a paragraphs worth of information on any other character (save for maybe...maybe Nancy). Everyone else will get blip mentionings. As such, those types of formats that appear to work for film articles like TDK and Trans. don't tend to work that way for films that have less reliable coverage on specific characters (i.e. horror films that tend to create one-dimensional characters just so they can kill them off). If someone doesn't want to read the plot to be spoiled, when why would they read the cast list to find out who a character is? That tells them nothing about the plot of the film, and as such is virtually useless. They can look in the infobox in most cases and see a list of actors in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you mean about horror film articles typically not being able to produce Cast sections as in depth as The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers (film) articles. This type of thing was also discussed at The Final Destination article. That article's Characters section was removed because those characters are so one-dimensional and it was only attracting plot about how the characters die. People keep trying to add the Characters section back to that article, but the article looks cleaner without it; and is also now less prone to bad spelling and grammar (we all know how some of the fanboys are, especially the very young ones, with their horrible spelling/grammar).

As for looking for cast names, I do not feel that finding out what character an actor is portraying is truly a spoiler. They usually look to the Cast section for that, to find that out quickly. The infobox lists the cast but not the characters the cast portrays (and certainly not minor characters). Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a spoiler, what I said was that including some detail about "who the character is in the film" is needless, because we have a plot section for that. If they don't want to spoil themselves, that's their choice. That's why we link to IMDb - because they provide a comprehensive list of everyone that's in the film - along with little synopses of what happens in a film. I find no value in cast "lists", especially ones that add those "Actor as Character: Character is a blah blah blah, yada yada yada". It's needless plot details. If that type of info is important to a reader, then they're going to read the plot anyway, and as such they don't need it reiterated to them in the cast section. The only reason any plot info in a cast section would be relevant would be to provide context to the real world info on the character. If that's the case, it would most certainly be included in some, more natural form when discussing the character instead of just thrown in at the beginning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's The Dark Knight (film) and Transformers (film) articles type of formatting that I prefer when having a cast list section (though The Dark Knight (film) article is a blend); real-world context is exactly what I am talking about if we were to have one in this article. But, as I stated before, I understand that type of cast section cannot be done with this article as well as it is done with those articles. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's done there because Alientraveller is the primary editor, and that's how he does cast lists. He also did Jurassic Park and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial that way. My practices are more in-line with what the MOS says. In theory, The Dark Knight doesn't actually follow what the MOS says. It says only include plot info if the character is not mentioned in the plot section (ex. Witchfinder General) - So, technically the stuff about who "Bruce Wayne", "Harvey Dent", or "Optimus Prime", etc from those movies should be removed because they are discussed in the plot section of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Alientraveller, I just checked in on that editor yesterday after checking the edit history of the Titanic (1997 film) article to see if the article is still well-watched; it is still well-watched...but not by Alientraveller, who is currently semi-retired. By "primary editor" of those artices, you mean that Alientraveller crafted the majority of the material in those articles, right? Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Correctamondo. It isn't that I'm dismissing his work, and neither does the WP:FILM community, for the most part (which is why the MOS says what it does).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Other cast in infobox

I'm wondering why the other confirmed cast members can't be listed in the infobox? Such as Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Katie Cassidy, Connie Britton and Clancy Brown. Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because we only know of two starring roles at the moment. The others are just characters and the infobox isn't designed to list everyone in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously they have "major" roles in the film, or they wouldn't have been announced already. Of course the infobox is not designed to list everything. But it is there to list what is relevant. Also, bolding shouldn't even by in the infobox or really anywhere but the headings and other exceptions. That's in the MoS guideline. Why? I really don't know. A few people have been changing it to the parenthesis/small format for a few months now, me included. —Mike Allen 05:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They announced everyone with a role that has lines but they didn't put significance to it like they did for Freddy and Nancy. As for the bold text....the issue is more about de-emphasizing the contributions than the bolding.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot

At the beginning of the movie Dean does not get his throat cut by Freddy in the dream. In the dream Freddy makes him cut his own throat because he knows it will appear as such in the real world. --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Freddy is holding Dean's hand. Freddy is the one actually cutting Dean's throat, Dean is trying to fight him off. The fact that dean's hand is holding the knife is irrelevant to the fact that Freddy is the one pushing it into his neck and pulling it across.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The plot is supposed to be as concise as possible. Going into all those minor details is unnecessary. The reader shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia to get a blow by blow account of what happens scene by scene. They need to watch the film and if they don't understand something, that's what forums (and IMDb) are for. See WP:FILMPLOT. Mike Allen 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quentin steals ephedrine from the hospital, not adrenaline. He mistakenly calls it adrenaline when explaining it to Nancy. Artlandaou (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No one calls it anything else...it's only ever referred to as adrenaline....regardless of what the wrapping on the vial might have said. Since someone didn't correct him in the movie, we don't really have a place to correct him in our plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The package he takes from the hospital does not say ephedrine, it says epinephrine, which is another name for the hormone adrenaline. 68.46.107.187 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does the director's quote include a [sic]? For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is unusual or incorrect about the phrasing or spelling. Maybe I'm just missing it? 99.130.190.135 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong "effect"? I don't know. Mike Allen 02:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Trailer Music

Um, who did the music for this films' third trailer, if I ask?Johnlongbond (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/nightmare-haley.html
  • In Freddy Krueger on 2011-03-19 13:28:37, 404 Not Found
  • In A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) on 2011-06-20 02:18:16, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Box office

Man what a lousy section, who cares about all these so called records and IN DEPTH info about the success of the film except the die hard fan who wrote it. This is NOT an impartial opinion at all or just stating normal facts. It's someone who is creating every way possible to brag up a slasher film! Cmon, it was a 60 million movie here in the US! That section should be shortened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.210.66 (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What I want to know is what is with the "Adjusted for inflation" grossing? I don't understand the numbers. Are we adjusting for a $2.50 movie ticket in 1984 to an $8 movie ticket in 2010? Online reporting tells me a movie ticket costs $8.38 now, but actually buying a ticket carries a tag of $11 for an adult, $9 for a senior or child. Movie ticket inflation comparing a 1984 movie to a 2010 movie is like 3.5-4.5 the price of a ticket, depending on whose numbers you believe. --John Moser (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When you adjust for inflation, you're adjusting for the value of the dollar compared to today. You're not adjust for what ticket prices are, as they vary too much from city to city, state to state. I can get an adult ticket for $7 where I live.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film). 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/20091216104549/http://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fridaythe13th09.htm to https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fridaythe13th09.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708090116/https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tcm03.htm to https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tcm03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708090157/https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=amityvillehorror05.htm to https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=amityvillehorror05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708090202/https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hitcher07.htm to https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hitcher07.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nightmare_on_elm_street_2010/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film). 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/20100517041553/http://riskybusiness.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/02/11/a-director-moves-onto-nightmare-on-elm-street/ to http://riskybusiness.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/02/11/a-director-moves-onto-nightmare-on-elm-street/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010144152/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/24/kellan-lutz-elm/ to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/04/24/kellan-lutz-elm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503004518/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/05/01/box-office-nightmare-on-elm-street/ to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/05/01/box-office-nightmare-on-elm-street/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Development section

I am copyediting this article and have a question about the Production->Development section. Alerting NeoBatfreak who asked for the copyedit but anyone in the know can answer. Currently it says:

Fuller and Form likened the new Nightmare film to their 2003 remake of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and retracted an earlier statement when they said they did not plan to "cherry pick" the best elements of the franchise, like they did with the reboot of the Friday the 13th franchise they released in 2009. Instead, the 2010 film is more of a reimagining.

When I take a look at the reference, I can't find where it says such a thing. This article says nothing about those two giving a retraction. If it is true that these two had said something different in the past, then it needs to be referenced. Right now this area reads as original research, a synthesis of published material, something that goes against WP:OR.

The first sentence makes it seems as though Fuller and Form said the bit about "cherry pick" when it was actually the author of the article; this also goes against WP:SYNTH.

This is what I have changed it to in one edit (so it can be undone quickly if need be). Link to edit: [2]

Fuller and Form likened the new film to their 2003 remake of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre where they picked the best elements of the franchise. Instead of a remake, they saw the 2010 film as more of a reimagining. The pair also explained that A Nightmare on Elm Street would have a different tone than their Friday the 13th remake. Form states, "I think a Friday the 13th movie like we made was really fun. You know, sex, drugs and rock and roll, and I think a Nightmare movie is not that."

PopularOutcasttalk2me! 18:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This looks like where it was originated from: "As we strolled through the surreal environments, the Dunes boys equated their take on the latest Nightmare to 2003's Chainsaw and are hesitant to use the word "remake." Unlike their bout with Jason Voorhees earlier this year, this Nightmare film doesn't cherry pick "best moments" from the franchise and recreate them. This is a no-nonsense, re-imagined take on Krueger. "He's not funny, he's a f**ked up guy," Fuller warned us." -- That said, it doesn't say they retracted anything and that statement doesn't even make sense since they didn't cherry-pick the best elements from the Nightmare films. So it isn't a retraction...they followed through on that. Your adjustment wouldn't work, as the "cherry pick" piece is in relation to F13, not Texas Chainsaw. They said that Nightmore is more like Chainsaw than F13, because they didn't cherry pick the best elements for the former 2 films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Bignole, yes, you are right it does not make sense especially with everything else in the article. I couldn't see the forest for the trees. I am going to take the end of that sentence out and maybe combine it with the next. In any case, this would be the third or fourth time the same idea was written in the article. Less words is okay.

You in Florida or just went to school there? PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the third or fourth time someone inserted the notion of retracted statement, or that it's mentioned 3 or 4 times throughout the article?

I went to Florida State, I no longer live there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)