I mean, he was already a pretty established feature film horror director after "Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes." And this was made right after his biggest success to date, "Nightmare on Elm Street."
Any ideas why he would agree to do a small-ish TV movie? I found it to be an excellent made-for-TV movie, but am just wondering if anybody has any background info as to why and how Craven became attached to the project.
Well, I guess I can answer my own question. It appears Craven did quite a bit of TV work while doing feature film work up until the mid-1980s, including several episodes of the first revival of The Twilight Zone. Guess he just went where the work was at this point in his career.
shareI've also heard he was quite broke still even after Nightmare on Elm St (maybe had a hard time getting paid by the producers?) which is probably why he did this and The Hills Have Eyes 2 (I've heard the *only* reason he did Hills 2 was for the paycheck)
Dr Bong Music & Videos http://www.worldofbong.com
I've also heard he was quite broke still even after Nightmare on Elm St (maybe had a hard time getting paid by the producers?) which is probably why he did this and The Hills Have Eyes 2 (I've heard the *only* reason he did Hills 2 was for the paycheck)
[deleted]
That Linda Blair TV movie he did was far better than Chiller, I thought.
http://jerrysaravia.blogspot.com/2011/01/strength-vitality-and-all ure-of-jill.html
Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.
[deleted]
I agree. Stranger in Our House (1978) has stayed with me all these years. I saw it's first run when I was 7 or 8 and man, the part towards the end when the witch shows her demonic eyes... DAMN!! ::::shudders:::: I think I've seen it about 3 maybe 4 times between the years of 78 to the early to mid 80s. I'm going to watch it on YouTube now, thanks for mentioning it LOL!!
April151CT