Jump to content

Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Freddy and Jason: A new template

Please see:

Talk:Horror film#Freddy and Jason: A new template
Wikipedia:Peer review/FreddyJason/archive1

Lady Aleena | Talk 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Freddy's Dead novelization

About Freddy's Dead novelization: According to Amazon, the novelization was written by Bob Italia, Wes Craven, Rachel Talalay, in 1992 by Abdo Pub Co . ISBN 1562391615 ... this is a Junior Novelization that is around 64 pages long, but it is still a novelization. There was also a Graphic Novel in 1992 by Andy Mangels ISBN 1565210034. - Antmusic 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stolen Game

In the video game section, there is a link to a flash game. The site linked to is infact a site which steals games from original sources. That particular game originated on newgrounds.com and can be found at http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/81945. There is also an updated version at http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/323239. These games are actually legally hosted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theblinddevil (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Name change

Might I suggest a name change? Since the page encompasses more than just the films, my suggestion is following the "Friday the 13th (franchise)" example, and call the page A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). This is based on the fact that not all of the different mediums have direct continuity with the movies. They may not negate aspects of the films, but they don't really bring them up either. This is even more present when you talk about merchandise, which is simply products associated with the title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection, so it's moved. I'll go through the linked pages to make the corrections there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypnocil

Hypnocil redirects to this page, yet there is no more mention of it in the article. Was this intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.19.208 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would redirect it to Part 3 and/or Freddy vs. Jason. It probably doesn't need a redirection to begin with. It should probably just be deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Box Office

Was wondering would the Saw Series be included in the box office area as the other Horror Fansicses that were recongnized seeing it is also one of the Top Horror movies out there? --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, because it wasn't part of the initial comparision. Also, SAW has three films that would have been released after the revenues for these were calculated based on the 2005 inflation. It could represent a scewed view of where the films fall. I mean, there are other horror franchises, but these were the most popular ones of the 80s. I think maybe that should be clarified, so that we don't run into future problems. Maybe state that these films, which spand 3 decades primarily (70s - 90s). Other than that, I did find a 2007 inflation adjuster, so I could adjust everyone for 2007 and reorganize that way. It'll just take some time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scream is a 2000 Film series or 90's not sure, was just wondering seeing that there have been series that maybe made more that the older films if they were using the 2007 inflation adjustment of every single horror series that were successful in the box office this far. Also seeing that a New Nightmare on Elm street is on its way(not a prequel) , I don't see why not update the chart compared to other film series.

--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just calculated SAW's grosses for all 4 films (and that is a 2004-2007 franchise), and they come in at $285,763,829. That would put them just in front of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which is only adjusted for 2005, and not 2007).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I just calculated the 2008 inflation for Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the total comes to $302,175,983.22. Adjust SAW leads to a total of $306,039,167.22; that's barely in front of Texas Chainsaw. Plus, if you look at number of theaters. I mean, we could list it, but I'm working off a stupid laptop right now (desktop problems) so it's a little difficult for me to do any serious editing to clean up the box office section with the 2008 adjusted numbers. If you give me some time I will do it (along with the Friday the 13th (franchise) section of the same information).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
My classes were canceled this morning, so I took the liberty of adding Saw into the mix, and adjusting everyone to the 2008 numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Anyway I am going to add the Untittled Nightmare film in the Franchise chart though the other parts i am not sure how to put in like the budget and etc. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast

I propose we create a List of characters in A Nightmare on Elm Street (similar to to the List of characters in Friday the 13th page) to corale all of these characters--including the ones that have their own page currently--into a centralized location. Though some of the characters have been able to appear in both the films and the comics, they lack the "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" that WP:NOTE requires for article inclusion. Most of the articles are shear plot details, and would be much better served in one location (as we could cover both film and literature appearances of those characters if it applies).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddy and Jason: A new template Part 2

Over two years ago I made a template for the macroseries created by Freddy vs. Jason. I put it up for peer review and at the time it was too big. Back then there weren't collapsible templates, so yes, it was too big. Now that the collapse functionality is here, I added it. I would like to know what you all think of it before I put it into the main template space. So, here it is for your inspection. Please leave notes on its talk page. Thanks! - LA @ 07:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I really don't understand this about part 1 in realtion to part 3

in part one at the very end of the movie nacy is taken away in a car possesed by freddy, but somehow she appears in part three as well. what id like to know is how she mannaged to survive freddy a second time. i cant find any mention of this on here. can someone clear this up for me?

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. This isn't the place to discuss such things. Might I suggest using IMDb's forums, as they generally have many users who are quick to answer things of this nature.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Bob

There are a lot of wild rumours flying around that state Billy Bob Thornton has been cast as Freddy in the remake, but I fear that this is a case of Chinese whispers as Robert Englund just stated that Thornton would be a good choice, but NOT that he has been specifically cast. magnius (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's been a problem with Anon's coming to this page and adding those rumors. I don't know about Thorton's page, but it's probably an issue there as well. It's usually not a real "hassle", so we wouldn't be able to protect this page for once a day "vandalism".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
         PROBLEM
 "Brad Fuller and Andrew Form the website ShockTillYouDrop.com that they hoped to begin shooting the film as early as Spring of 2009"
  Shouldnt this instead be "Brad Fuller and Andrew Form ANNOUNCED VIA the website ShockTillYouDrop.com that they hoped to begin shooting the film as early as Spring of 2009"
 

As is "Andrew Form the website" makes no since, what about the website and Andrew Form?
  I have no ideal what this is trying to say?

 -Phoenix  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.10.142 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to give the reboot it's own article?

I seriously think it's time that we give the reboot it's own article. Time has passed, the majority of the cast has been confirmed, and shooting has been going on since May I believe. Any thoughts? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 9:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my thoughts are WP:NFF, which requires that the production of the film be notable. By notable, that means that we have to have significant coverage from reliable sources discussing the production. There hasn't been any sources talking about the production of the film, as of yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to officially apologize to Bignole over some disagreements on this, How about we create at subpage? Such as... A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)/2010 film? Good? I know of a few sites, I could get some new info ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some we can grow off of. Plot details, cast reference?, this one is awesome! JoBlo.com ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
See this infobox I have already created ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Creating a sandbox (it needs to be a user sandbox, as only WikiProjects get offshoot pages like that) to develop the page is fine. It can be built upon simultaneously on the franchise page and in the sandbox until the point that the franchise page can no longer support the section. To address the potential sources, LatinoReview got a leaked script (one written four months before filming began, which leaves events subject to change), which means they were reviewing something illegal. There was an issue not too long ago with the Wolverine movie that was illegally leaked, and a big commotion within Wikipedia about us putting stuff in the article that was based on illegally viewed information (e.g., writing a plot synopsis for a film that was stolen). I understand the eagerness to add more info, but there are particular reasons why we wait until a studio releases an official synopsis for their films. The movieweb stuff would need to be first hand interviews, and not their film info page (as the information, unless otherwise stated, probably came from IMDb - and IMDb is not accepted on Wikipedia). This page is a fansite. It's not the official website of the film, but a site created by someone else to track the progress of the film. Nice looking website, but not owned by Warner Bros. Just like with MovieWeb, if they do first hand interviews (i.e. if they conduct the interview themselves) then that would be acceptable to use, but hearsay news is not accepted. By "hearsay" I mean they are reporting on what they claim others to have reported on (e.g., DreadCentral reports that Fangoria spoke with.... - If that's the case, then we need to find the Fangoria source and cite that, not the DreadCentral one). Last, this is a public forum, which we cannot use. Joblo does do some personal interviews, but this particular page is just a user forum, and we cannot cite things from that. I know I sound like a party pooper (so to speak) about all of these, but I've been writing film articles for Wiki since 2005, so I've seen what's typically allowed and what's not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, even if the Wikipedia could write about stolen things, spoiling the plot would be a hideous thing to do, and the Wikipedia doesn't allow spoiler notices. Anyway, feel free to use my sandbox I have created for the movie. Yes, updates will need to be simultaneous on the future page, then when it gets to big, we'll move the page to just, A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) and then we'll trim down the future franchise section a little bit a provide a "see main page, ...." link. Everyone on board? Once again, we can use this sandbox. Ooh, I'm so excited! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The official A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) page has begun here, all contributions are greatly encouraged. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

NES release photo

What do you mean "not discussed in detail", do you mean the opening scene or....? Keep in mind, the image is currently under a fair-use rationale for this article and the image currently isn't being used. How about we overwrite the photo with a photo from the middle of the game? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no discussion at all of the game graphics, so any image of said game doesn't meet WP:FUC or WP:NONFREE, which requires critical commentary on said image. Matter of fact, nothing in that section is sourced to begin with, so it's lucky to even be there. The only image that would be allowed would be a free image, and that can only happen if someone takes a picture of their copy of the game and releases it under a public domain license. Kind of like this image, though even then I question how you can release the rights to something you don't own (i.e. you don't own the graphics on the game), but at current time these are being accepted as "free" images.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The section has what, 10 paragraphs, lets shorten it so it just says the game was released. I'll have the image deleted. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not about having enough information, it's about having the right information. We could have 10 sourced paragraphs about what went into writing the game's story, but that wouldn't justify the in-game footage. We would need information, sourced, that discusses that graphics of the game and an image would need to be used that would substantially increase the understanding of that information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we couldn't have ten paragraphs, in my opinion if the paragraph is worth keeping it should be somehow collapsed into another section unless it's totally necessary. I created an example here with dummy text comparing ten paragraphs to normal section (in my opinion). You can see how much cleaner it looks have just a couple of thick paragraphs. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm talking about image use, not paragraph structure. I'm clarifying when a non-free image can be used. If you have ten full paragraphs, then you have ten full paragraphs. If you have 10 skinny, weak ones then you can merge the text into few paragraphs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Ten full paragraphs... you mean an article? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Nine full paragraphs (8 if you ignore the opening paragraph which is smaller than the rest), hardly a stand alone article. Two more wouldn't really add that much more - as those only account for about 10kb of information. I would consider 10 paragraphs a comprehensive section of an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That's the development of the entire series, I'm just talking about a video game from '89 section. I can see that being a section if it's important, is that important? Yes, many things aren't though and it just makes it appear disordered. Going back to this, you can see the paragraphs I used is what currently appears on the video game section, some of the paragraphs being one line. We discussed the photo five threads ago! How did that happen? Anyway, whenever I scroll down the article and come across that video game section, I feel that's the down point to the article, the section needs to be cleaned up or tagged. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It should probably be removed completely, and taken to the talk page with a request to find reliable sources for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Nightmares on Elm Street: Freddy Krueger's Seven Sweetest Dreams

I've noticed a few Nightmare-related articles refer to a novel entitled The Nightmares on Elm Street: Freddy Krueger's Seven Sweetest Dreams (1991). I am not familiar with the text, but wonder if it warrants a short article. There appears to be articles related to the comics related to the franchise. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet heard of this novel, I will do some searching and see if it's notable enough to deserve it own article, keep you posted • S • C • A • R • C • E • 20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for researching the topic. :) Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... doesn't appear to have much notability, it does however appear to be freakin' expensive! It may however deserve mentioning in the franchise page at least • S • C • A • R • C • E • 20:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, sounds like a plan. It could be simply added to the 'Novels' section. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I found somethings [1] [2] [3] not notable sites though • S • C • A • R • C • E • 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It's addition there would be perfect • S • C • A • R • C • E • 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'll see what I can find and thanks for those links. I found it on Amazon too, but it doesn't have much in the way of plot synopsis, unfortunately. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have the book lying around (along with several others). I could add stuff about the seven stories in it. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be great. I was a little hesitant to add much as I'm really not too familiar with the book. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to the other franchises

Because the franchises are also "iconic", that makes it relevant to add the grosses of all of them? This just looks like an attempt to bulk up the box office section. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot think of the Nightmare franchise without thinking of those others. Comparing them to the Nightmare franchise is only the obvious thing to do when you can actually do it with reliable sources. If the Nightmare franchise was at the top of the list, I'm sure you'd have no problem showing the comparison.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying I'm biased? If I didn't want the list to be displayed because of this, I wouldn't want the fact it came in third to be displayed either. This article is about the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, not horror film franchises in general. Don't mean to get angry here but "You cannot think of the Nightmare franchise without thinking of those..."? Yes, I can, and if your argument is that, I can argue that you can not think of those and that it's irrelevant to the Nightmare franchise article because of that. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's still relevant. You're talking about where it falls in financial comparison to other franchises of the same ilk. If it was dead last, yeah it would be rather irrelevant. Nightmare is not dead last, and is considered one of the top horror franchises of its generation. Why would it not be relevant to compare it to the other franchises that are considered the same thing? It's an objective look at how this franchise compares to the other horror franchises when you look at box office grosses. It's not like the other franchises were just pulled out of thin air, they have connection to this one--whether through direct film connection or the fact that they are all part of the slasher/horror genre with iconic lead villains.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:STICK is starting to apply here, but I still don't find this relevant. No matter was place it holds, the grossing of other franchises (regardless of similarities) doesn't belong here. People reading this article could care less what the others got, and if they do, they can visit the related pages. I can kind of see how it's successor(s) may be good for comparison, but the others? Pointless. Besides genre, Nightmare doesn't even slightly relate to these franchises, and genre shouldn't justify inclusion of misc. lists. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The Nightmare franchise (not the original film, but the whole franchise) owes its success to Friday the 13th and Halloween. Comparing the three of those across the box office, which is the only objective way to do that, is relevant. It's no different than any single movie being compared to the movies that were released in the same year as it, or comparing Kill Bill to the success of other Quentin Tarantino films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's different. Kill Bill and other Quentin Tarantino films are linked with Quentin Tarantino, even that I find inappropriate to add to an article. Okay, what about Scream, Saw, Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Child's Play? Every time I see that paragraph, it looks so out of place, and that's why I removed it with out discussion. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 08:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
They're all linked by the slasher villain theme, plus the fact that they were all discussed in a book that compared them all, hence why they were also all included here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

How about a potential infobox? Maybe something like a discography infobox (Example: Shakira discography). Like the point of an infobox, it should list the basics at a glance. Also, I feel the photo is way to big, same going for the Friday the 13th franchise photo • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a film page, it's a franchise page. Putting in a film infobox, or any other infobox, would focus solely on one aspect of the franchise and that isn't what this page is designed for. For something like Superman (film series) or Spider-Man (film series) then it makes sense, but not really for a franchise page. Both images are set to "thumb", and nothing else, which is the recommendation of the image MOS. The image MOS says not to specify images unless absolutely necessary, because when you start specifying image size you affect non-registered readers who cannot change the preference for images with defaulted sizes. If it's too big for you, I'd suggest going into your "My Preferences" (at the top), go to "Appearances" and change your default thumbnail size.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that it's really hard to find the links to the individual movies in the franchise. You have to search in a wall of text (good content, though) that also includes a whole bunch of other links. I realise they are in the box at the bottom, but many people don't know this. I'm not arguing for an infobox, but we need a way to highlight the mention of the individual films beyond a link that gets lost in all the other links. If the current way is the Right Way, then we should go fix the Indiana Jones page. Consistency is good, no? I just want clarity and accessibility, making it easy to move on from franchise to individual film. 83.93.56.235 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hard to find the links? Not only are they in the body of the article, but there is a nice navigation box at the end of the article that lists them all again for "easy" finding. This page is based on the Friday the 13th (franchise) page, which has passed GA status, and would have passed FA status a year ago if not for some copy editing issues (which have since been resolved). Since that franchise page has actually been under scrutiny more than this or the Indiana Jones page, I say that's a better model. We do not restructure articles simply so links are "easier to find". Links are placed where they naturally fall.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Layout

I tried to restructure the page [4] to give a clearer overview of the progression of the films, much like the Batman in film or Superman (film series) page, but my edits were reverted. I feel that the main problem is that giving an overview of the plot of 7-8 movies with no break as the first section leaves the reader a little bewildered, and it is difficult to find one's place. The point of breaking it down gives a clearer path and structure for the reader to follow. It would be nice to see a clear chronology and I felt that section breaking was most appropriate. What do others think? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

These pages were based on Friday the 13th (franchise), which has gone through extensive reviews (GA, FA, Peer Review) and the format has stuck through all of those. I personally prefer this format because it keeps everything neat and to the point. I don't think readers need their hand held when reading the most basic of plot summaries when we have the individual film pages that they can read longer versions of each. To argue that the plots need to be broken down would be like arguing every section needs to be separated by film (Developement, Music, Box Office, etc.). I think there is too much push to try and make things "easier", and I think that "easier" really is about editing and not about reading. It might be difficult to edit this type of page because you have to scan through all the plots to find the one you want to fix, but that's just the price of admission IMO. People have also suggested just breaking the films up by paragraph, and to me that leaves these weak looking paragraphs. Batman in Film and Superman (film series) are different types of pages. I'm not sure if I agree with their layout, but for the most part none of those films really co-exist. Superman and Superman II, sure. But the other films, and the other Batman films typically have indepedent stories. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare often have storylines that extend across multiple films (especially for Halloween and Friday the 13th) and to me it makes better sense to blend those connections then simply put in 10 subsections and unnecessarily extend a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We're goning to end up having the same argument on two pages here - may I suggest debate is centralised at Talk:Halloween (franchise)#Layout. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Thumbs Up".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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://www.tvaddicts.tv/movie/drama/Freddys_Nightmares.html
    • In Freddy Krueger on 2011-03-19 13:28:56, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) on 2011-06-20 02:19:03, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

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

Requested multi-move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Concerns about page views and consistency with similar articles are noted, but we have a solid consensus that in this case, the current setup works. Cúchullain t/c 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


– Stats for the franchise (last 90 days) are the same as the 2010 film (last 90 days).The 1984 film is the current "primary topic" and seemingly more popular. However, I'm not convinced that the significance of 1984 film is greater than the franchise itself, the remake, or even Part 2 (1985) that has gay subtext. Sure, it has Johnny Depp, and it is the first film of Freddy Kreuger film serial. But WP:DABCONCEPT would make the franchise the primary topic, unless the power of popularity/statistics overcomes general concept. I would propose creation of the disambiguation page, but WP:DABCONCEPT discourages it as usual. Google's first page results of the whole title show (excluding Wikipedia) the franchise, the 1984 film, the remake, first four films, etc. Bing results are similar, as well. As for popularity, I'm sure that the stats for the first film include those wanting to read the franchise or the remake, and that the stats' accuracy could be dubious. George Ho (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Nightmare_on_Elm_Street_(franchise)/Archive_1&oldid=1136487677"