Editorials
30 Years of ‘Dream Warriors’: The Freddy that Almost Was
30 years ago today, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors was released into multiplexes across the nation. New Line was running to the bank with one of the highest grossing films of 1987, and Freddy Krueger secured his place in the pop culture pantheon. “Welcome to primetime, bitch,” indeed. Directed by Chuck Russell (The Blob) in his prime, Dream Warriors is widely considered the best sequel of the franchise. The film also represents a huge turning point, sending Krueger down the path of wisecracking super-villain. The script is credited to both Russell and Frank Darabont as well as Bruce Wagner and Wes Craven.
After the mediocre reception to Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, New Line smartly decided to bring Craven back into the picture to help mold the newest installment. In a first draft screenplay, dated 6/16/86 (seriously, “666”?), Craven and Wagner presented a pretty solid structure that didn’t change too drastically in the finished film. The basic premise is all there. Nancy winds up helping a group of troubled teens in a mental institution who’ve become victim to the dream demon.
Seeing as to this was a first draft, it’s far from perfect as to be expected. There are several odd choices throughout. Suspension of disbelief is put the test with major narrative jumps that manage to defy the already loopy internal logic built into the series. In the amazingly exhaustive doc that chronicles the entire franchise, Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy, Rachel Talalay (series producer/director, Freddy’s Dead) put it best:
There were no rules. Everybody could do everything. So, it was just the kitchen sink thrown in.
It wasn’t long before both Russell and Darabont were brought in to take a crack at the screenplay. Their take, of course, was more to the studio’s liking as their rewrite turned into the film we have today.
So, what would the original iteration of the film have looked like? A lot has been said that Craven’s original draft was much darker than what made it to screens. Freddy’s perverse tendencies are on full display with profane one-liners standing in for the comedic zingers we were given instead. Lines such as “Give Freddy a little head, hm?” during a variation on the “Freddy snake” scene present Krueger as more of a sexual deviant than ever before. The character of Philip is written as a “frail, thirteen year-old”. His death here is similar, except he’s not strung up like a marionette. Here, Freddy physically leads the boy by placing the child’s feet atop his own, marching him unwillingly towards his demise. Phillip asks, “Why me?” to which Freddy responds, like the true dirty old man he is, “Because, I like you.” Pedophilia was only ever assumed in Craven’s original, and this draft provides plenty of moments to back it up.
Despite the ickier bits, there’s also a saccharine sweetness on display, especially in the script’s third act. When the Dream Warriors finally rally together to take the fight to Krueger, there are Spielbergian levels of schmaltz. The scene actually calls to mind the final scenes of Craven’s own The People Under the Stairs where the entire community shows up to support Fool. There’s even more focus on the romance at the film’s heart between Nancy and Neil. A quick love scene is super cringey. Just peep that dialogue below. Sheesh.
Speaking of Nancy, our returning heroine from part one, she is front and center in this first draft. The film opens to the birth of Freddy by a nameless woman, alone in a secluded ranch home. No mention of Amanda Krueger or 100 maniacs here. Nancy, driving cross country on the hunt for her missing father (which leads to a great exchange between her and Neil, seen below), blows a tire and stumbles upon Freddy’s ol’ abode. When Nancy enters the house she’s thrown into a “waking dream”. Yep, as told to us by exposition dump, John (Nancy’s father), Freddy’s home is a literal gateway to the dream-world. No “zzzs” necessary. After escaping the clutches of Freddy’s home, Nancy is rescued by the good samaritan/doctor, Neil, who takes Nancy under his wing. He also ends up taking her on as his assistant where she seems to have free reign of the institution despite having no medical qualifications at all!
It’s also revealed that John wound up locked inside the loony bin too. He got busted trying to burn down the Krueger home after shaving off his eyelids! Relieved to have located her father, Nancy discovers that he’s been on the hunt for Freddy all this time. John believes that Freddy’s home is the source of his power. Burning it down will put the dream demon to rest for good. Somehow everyone involved, the kids, Nancy, her father, have all been unknowingly drawn to this town because they’re “special”; they’re the warriors capable of stopping Freddy. Yep, we’re not in Springwood anymore. The idea that “every town has an Elm Street” is presented for the first time in this script only never to make it to screen until Freddy’s Dead, 5 years later.
One of the script’s strong suits are the visuals. One finale scene involves a bonus character named Laredo (who ultimately became the wheelchair bound, Will, in the finished film) realizing he has the power to morph into anything he can imagine once up against Freddy. Laredo morphs into a giant gargoyle, Freddy a giant bird. Laredo turns into a net to catch Freddy, only for Krueger to morph into goo in order to slip away. It’s absurd and surely would have played more for laughs, whether intentional or not. Kincaid doesn’t survive this initial draft, and again, the visuals of his death are part ridiculous and part horrific. Kristen, able to pull the warrior from one dream scenario to the next, teleports the warriors from Freddy’s home back to the “reality” of the hospital. Kincaid winds up trapped halfway through a wall. His upper body is screaming for help in the real world while his lower half is fair game to Freddy in the dream world. The punchline involves Freddy’s glove ripping through Kincaid only to pop through the boy’s mouth. The creme de la creme, however, is the final moment of Kristen literally witnessing Freddy’s birth only to battle the evil newborn, bashing it to death against a wall.
It’s some of these insane ideas that probably wouldn’t have worked on screen, but they’re certainly exciting to think about “what if”. Overall, this draft lacks serious character development with Kristen getting the short shrift making way for more screentime for Nancy. There are no group sessions until the end when all the kids prepare for battle. It certainly lacks the emotional heft of the film we know and love. Of course, this was just a first draft, so it’s possible Craven/Wagner could have ironed out these issue before production. What’s more interesting to ponder, would A Nightmare on Elm Street have been the horror juggernaut it was had this script been filmed? Would kids have had Freddy lunchboxes and action figures to play with? Probably not.
The brutal nature of Krueger as written here would certainly please the hardcore set. Freddy disembowels Kristen’s mother and munches on her intestines. Joey actually dies by “seductress Freddy” when their French kiss leads to Freddy’s tongue twisting up into his skull and popping out both of his eyeballs from inside. This script isn’t short on the bloody stuff, that’s for sure. The idea that Freddy isn’t tied to Springfield would have certainly opened up the later sequels to head in different directions. As well, we may have ultimately been given an entirely different backstory for Krueger’s birth.
Nonetheless, this is the reality that we live in. Frank Darabont and Russell were brought in to clean up the original draft and add their own spin to it, and aren’t we happy they did? Nightmare 3 is one of the most imaginative and fun horror films of the 80’s. Yes, this direction did represent the beginning of the series’ downward spiral, but we’ll always have Dream Warriors. Here’s hoping that if a Nightmare reboot ever gets off the ground, they’ll look to this film for the proper balance of fun and horror. So, happy 30th anniversary, Dream Warriors!
For those interested in a complete breakdown of the Craven/Wagner script, check out this 2012 article from Evan Dickson. Is Nightmare 3 your favorite sequel of the series? Would you have preferred this more brutal take on the film?
Before director John Fawcett and writer Karen Walton introduced the world to the Fitzgerald sisters, werewolves had all but vanished from the big screen. In fact, the last theatrical offering of lycanthropic horror, prior to Ginger Snaps, was 1997’s An American Werewolf in Paris. And as one might recall, the reviews for that movie weren’t so hot. So, clearly, the genre was in desperate need of fresh eyes.
Ginger Snaps first emerged some years after what many deem to be the peak of Canadian horror: the 1970s and ‘80s. Or as cinephiles like to call it, the “tax shelter era”. Yet unlike a lot of the movies produced back then (and even now), this cult classic isn’t vague about its story’s location. Rather than passing off the Great White North as the U.S., Ginger Snaps was squarely set in Canada. The fictional suburb of Bailey Downs is indeed an amalgam of multiple places, but nonetheless, it is 100% Canadian.
In an editorial titled “What Canadian Horror Tells Us about Our Deepest Fears”, journalist Harrison Mooney related deep-seated Canadian anxieties to Canadian horror cinema. Although Ginger Snaps wasn’t one of the mentioned titles, Mooney’s notion that Canadian horrors feed on homegrown fears is still applicable. Ginger Snaps is a movie that very much deals with “the loss of control” and “the violent outsider”, as well as the Canadian land itself. That last point—“colonialism has traumatized even the settlers”—is most apparent in the prequel, Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning; however, it can also pertain to the trilogy’s other entries.
Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins in Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed.
Before reaching that period prequel, and after first getting to know the two Fitzgerald sisters, the Ginger Snaps trilogy touches down in an urban locale (really Edmonton). Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed vaguely picks up where the original movie left off, with Brigitte (Emily Perkins) going things alone after losing Ginger (Katharine Isabelle). The cozy-turned-creepy atmosphere of Bailey Downs has also been swapped out with a comprehensively bleaker one as Brigitte endures more than just another harsh Canadian winter.
As with any other sequel intent on not repeating things, Ginger Snaps 2 chronicles a different struggle for its main character. The affliction remains the same as before, but the fight to stave it off is unique to Brigitte Fitzgerald. The movie fully understands that no two werewolves should ever be the same. And ensuring that distinct transformation was a newcomer named Megan Martin. What the screenwriter lacked in sheer experience, she made up for in wild ideas.
After passing the directorial reins to Brett Sullivan, the first movie’s editor, Fawcett stayed on as a producer. Walton’s characters were left in capable hands with Martin, who more than delivered on that potential for familial grief entwined with detachment issues. Naturally, one might worry that Ginger’s demise dampens the possibility of a good story; she is the namesake, after all. On the contrary, Sullivan and Martin found a clever, if not familiar, way to keep Ginger around, all without sacrificing character development for the sequel’s actual protagonist.
Tatiana Maslany in Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed.
While Ginger Snaps is one of many movies that enthusiastically dispels the myth of safety in the suburbs, Ginger Snaps 2 leans into the idea of cities being crime-ridden and dangerous. Of course, the threat lurking around every corner here is not that forward, but an otherwise harmless librarian (Brendan Fletcher) who was hoping to score Brigitte’s number. No, it’s that mysterious werewolf who has taken a liking to the main character—and then continues to stalk her throughout the story.
As if the literal beast on her tail wasn’t an ample enough reminder of her own looming fate, Brigitte is also being viciously haunted by her past. That come-and-go-as-she-pleases specter of Ginger, a manifestation born from grief, unresolved trauma, and monkshood abuse, fluctuates between comforting and cruel. She can either soothe little sis during her syringe sessions, or she can sardonically read her as no one else can.
While it is certainly Isabelle playing the ghost, that depiction is less Ginger and really more Brigitte. This damning evidence of the Fitzgerald girls’ codependency problem—not even death can put an immediate stop to it—shows how Brigitte can only be honest with herself by filtering her thoughts through a likeness of Ginger. Ultimately, though, there is a breakthrough moment for Brigitte; it’s one where she can stop living in her sister’s shadow and, at least for a few minutes, relinquish her overwhelming survivor’s guilt.
Emily Perkins in Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed.
Werewolf stories are often psychological by nature. Scarcely ever do humans seem to willingly give in to that bone-breaking transformation—that complete lack of self-control. This internal conflict has been there since the beginning of the genre, and movies like Ginger Snaps 2 run away with the concept. So while setting the sequel inside a rehab center feels a little on the nose, that location offers a potent playground for the characters. It’s also one most befitting of gritty, post-Y2K horror.
With its emphasis on psychology, the sequel is constantly studying its characters and how they tick. Brigitte obviously gets the most extensive analysis; on top of Ginger’s intermittent commentary, the Happier Times staff gives its latest in-patient a clinical, and sometimes amusing, evaluation. In addition to Brigitte’s review are these less spoken assessments of the supporting characters. These particular deuteragonists, such as that deceptively clean-cut orderly (Eric Johnson) who trades drugs for sex, are key components in the movie’s overall sense of weirdness.
Of all those offbeat side characters who make Ginger Snaps 2 an unusual, not to mention worthwhile, viewing, Tatiana Maslany’s Ghost is the most influential. Almost always doing or saying something that provokes unease, Ghost is fascinating enough to warrant her own movie. It would be hard to convince anyone this petite, blonde, and twisted teen is lovable, yet that growing instability of hers becomes a surprising source of entertainment in the sequel. So, yes, this movie absolutely found someone more frightening than a werewolf, and her name is Ghost.
Without getting caught up in any arguments about which of the first two movies is better, Ginger Snaps 2 is an impressive follow-up. Fully doing its own thing and not trying to catch lightning in a bottle twice, the second movie is tailor-made for cinephiles who crave bold and very strange sequels.
Emily Perkins in Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.