No no no, you first asserted Craven had a high opinion of himself because he praised his own movie. I responded saying that point is moot because, like the other poster said, he dissed the sequels, which would include his own, at the same time. Then you claimed he "didn't diss his own movie" (don't lie, those are your own words), because New Nightmare is not a sequel. The burden of proof for that is on you and you haven't convincingly proven your claim.
Lol, you just keep changing the rules to your liking. The alternative title was also the title while shooting and used in other countries, which says enough. Even Craven called it "Nightmare 7" in interviews. It doesn't seem he was the one who wanted the name change:
"Craven at various times subtitled a Nightmare On Elm Street 7 with The Real Story or The Ascension. “New Line were rather shy of using a number,” claims Craven, “because they think if you have a high number on a sequel everybody goes, “Oh, it’s the seventh, why go see it?” Putting Craven’s name in the title was thought to give the new movie a connection to the series source material, making it clear that this was a Freddy feature from his original creator, yet offering something ‘new’ in the Nightmare mix."
And New Nightmare is NOT a "new start" that recreates the same characters, so no, it's not a reboot.
2. No, you cherry-picked and only chose the source you liked. My dictionary sources say it is a sequel and so does my review source.
3. And I've provided evidence that mentally challenged does refer to mental disorders, like Aspergers. Deal with it and move on.
4. Lol, you want me to counter a non-argument??? Okay, how about this: YOU. ARE.WRONG.
And stop projecting, not everybody is a little boy like you. I'm a full grown, adult woman.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
1. And I provided objective proof that he praised his own movie in his own movie and that he has a high opinion of himself. I have yet to see any evidence he dissed his own movie so my point stands and even evidence he did diss his own movie wouldn’t invalidate my premise
2. He didn’t go with that title so it’s a non sequitur. Move on
3. You’ve provided no such evidence and the fact that there are plenty of intelligent people on the spectrum and the definitions don’t support your assertion invalidates your claim. Next point
4. My sources say it’s not so therefore no one can say with any certainty it is so therefore my point isn’t moot
5. You’re just too afraid to counter that argument. You are a gutless coward who is desperately seeking the attention mommy never gave him. Go see a therapist
Honestly by this point you are just repeating yourself so do you have anything new to add to this or should I close your case and dismiss your premise right now? You might want to start preparing your concession speech
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
They did go with the title in other countries. Lol, just give it up. The guy called it Nightmare 7 and referred to it being a sequel AFTER the release of the movie. That's hard evidence that completely destroys your one dictionary definition.
"My sources say it’s not so therefore no one can say with any certainty it is so therefore my point isn’t moot"
Lol, I see you're backtracking. You're the one who said with certainty that he could not have dissed his own movie. You shouldn't have made that mistake. You also changed your argument halfway from "I didn't say he didn't diss his own movie" to "It's not a sequel!". You keep moving goalposts. Look up what moot means. My arguments definitely make your point moot.
Your 'argument' was that I only have "empty speculation, logical fallacies and dishonest debate tactics" without providing a shred of evidence. I counter that non-argument by saying: YOU.ARE.WRONG.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
Well guess what that a not the official title and therefore it has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion nor does it have any bearing on the narrative structure. It is set in its own continuity therefore it’s a reboot not a sequel. A made up title that was never used has no bearing on whether it’s a sequel or not. Also this entire discussion is pointless because it’s still an objective fact that he praised his own movie
Another strawman I just didn’t accept the assertion he did diss his own movie. Learn the difference , pee wee
I have proven all of those, you being too stupid to understand what was figuratively written out for you with crayon is your own damn fault.
This is your last chance, do you have anything else to add to this discussion or should I go ahead and dismiss your case? Because now all you’re doing is repeating yourself and talking in circles
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
Again, you don't know what reboot means. New Nightmare was not a "new start". It actually acknowledges all the events in the first movie, but only as happening in a movie.
I'm repeating myself by providing new evidence that Craven considered it a sequel? It IS an official title if it was released under that name in other countries. But even if it wasn't official, Craven used the name Nightmare 7 since its release and referred to it as a sequel.
If he dissed one if his own movies at the same time it certainly makes your point that he had a high opinion of himself moot.
All you're doing is moving goalposts. You didn't simply say I can't be certain Craven considered it a sequel, you asserted he couldn't have dissed his own movie because it's not a sequel. And that's just a wrong assertion.
My speculation has all been based on evidence, anything you perceived as a logical fallacy was nothing but a failure to understand on your part and you have not proven whatsoever that I've been dishonest.
I'm already looking forward to your next reply where you once again refuse to accept the evidence!😆
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
It takes place in it's own continuity, therefore it is not a sequel it's a reboot
Yes you are repeating yourself, first of all you haven't proven at all that Craven considers it a sequel, the link you posted was hearsay. Secondly the title is irrelevant, if it doesn't continue the story from the previous and since it takes place in its own continuity then it's not a sequel and my definition backs that up.
It doesn't make it moot at all, it's an objective fact that he praised his own movie and that was the point of the OP, genius.
Not moving the goalpost at all. And I was justified in saying that considering you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that ANN is indeed a sequel. If you can provide evidence that it is and it was actually Craven's intention to diss that movie then I'll considered revamping my statement, until then it stands and I am justified in saying it, shit for brains.
LOL you haven't provided one shred of evidence, all you've done is started with the conclusion you wanted and then worked backwards and cherrypicked whatever supported your absurd proposition while ignoring everything else.
What evidence??????
This is seriously your last warning, this has got to be like the 8th time I have debunked your entire premise, either post something new or move the conversation in a constructive manner or I am closing your case. Funny how you'd attack me for being autistic when you are showing some signs of autism yourself. Dumbass.
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
Lol, all you've got is the same old arguments.
No, a reboot is a restart, that's not what New Nightmare is. Maybe a reimagination or something.
The title shows Craven considered it a sequel and so does him referring to it as a sequel. You not wanting to accept the Oxford or Merriam Webster definitions is absolutely meaningless in that regard. What only matters is what Craven thought.
No, your point was that he had a high opinion of himself for praising his own movie. Him dissing his own movie makes that point moot. Why are you ignoring your thread title and half of your OP???
"all you've done is started with the conclusion you wanted and then worked backwards and cherrypicked whatever supported your absurd proposition while ignoring everything else."
Lol, no, that's what you did. At first you only kept repeating that Craven praised his own movie ( totally missing the other poster's point). You didn't come with your argument that New Nightmare is not a sequel until you actually looked up the movie. And then you cherrypicked by only accepting the dictionary definitions that suited you. And then you even ignored Craven's own words!
You're warning me??? Bwuahahah, you're really getting desperate!🤣🤣🤣
I never attacked you for being autistic. You have been insulting the mentally challenged, though.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
"Lol, all you've got is the same old arguments."
Just a pathetic attempt at a personal insult - Dismissed
"No, a reboot is a restart, that's not what New Nightmare is. Maybe a reinvention or something."
I've already explained this quite clearly multiple times dismissed
"The title shows Craven considered it a sequel and so does him referring to it as a sequel. You not wanting to accept the Oxford or Merriam Webster definitions is absolutely meaningless in that regard. What only matters is what Craven thought."
I've already debunked this as well, if he wanted it to be called ANOES 7 he would have but he didn't, dismissed.
"No, your point was that he had a high opinion of himself for praising his own movie. Him dissing his own movie makes that point moot. Why are you ignoring your thread title and half of your OP???"
He did praise his own movie in his own movie, that's an objective fact and it supports my other claim. You are dismissed on this point
"Lol, no, that's what you did. At first you only kept repeating that Craven praised his own movie ( totally missing the other poster's point). You didn't come with your argument that New Nightmare is not a sequel until you actually looked up the movie. And then you cherrypicked by only accepting the dictionary definitions that suited you. And then you even ignored Craven's own words!"
He did praise his own movie. When I discovered New Nightmare was a reboot is irrelevant. I never accepted any definition, but I did prove that yours didn't prove your point. You never showed me Craven's own words, you showed me hearsay. Dismissed
That was the last warning you are getting. Your premise is debunked. Now do the honorable thing and concede.
I never attacked you for being mentally challenged, in fact I did the opposite, I wanted to know if you were because if you were that means I needed to leave you alone, I don't bully people who can't legitimately defend themselves.
Game, set and match. Better luck next time, little boy
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
My god, saying you have nothing but the same old arguments is no insult. How freaking sensitive are you? It's no different than you saying I'm only repeating myself (which is a lie).
Anyway, I see you have absolutely nothing new to add to discussion. If anyone is repeating themselves, it's you.
Reboot means restart. You have not explained whatsoever how New Nightmare restarted the series, as it acknowledges the existencece of previous Nigtmare movies, only in a different context. Maybe you're thinking of retcon or reimagination.
Craven called it ANOES 7 until the studio changed it and he still called it Nightmare 7 AFTER its release. He also referred to it as a sequel in a later interview, so I've proven my point.
The objective fact that he praised his own movie does not support your "other claim" that Craven had a high opinion of himself when he dissed his own movie at the same time.
My point was that your assertion, that Craven wasn't dissing his own movie because New Nightmare isn't a sequel, was not correct. My dictionary definition proved that point.
I showed you an exact quote from an interview in which Craven refers to New Nightmare as a sequel. Your entire premise has been destroyed. Now go sit in a corner and cry about it.
And I never attacked or insulted those with Aspergers. I simply questioned why you were disrespecting the mentally challenged while you have Aspergers yourself.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
- call it whatever you want the fact remains that it’s not in the same continuity and it’s not a sequel. Wikipedia and the definition of sequel confirms this
- all that matters is what we ended up with and we ended up with New Nightmare and even if it were called ANOES 7 it still wouldn’t prove your case you moron
- all that I need to prove my premise is evidence he praised his own movie and even you have admitted it exists, that is a case closed in my favor
- wow how many f-cking times do I have to repeat myself: my assertion wasn’t that he didn’t diss his own movie I just don’t accept that he did, donyou aeriously not understand the difference? Do I need to find some kind of kindergarten logic 101 book to recommend to you? I literally feel like I’m talking to my 2 year old niece although she is clearly more intelligent than you are
- you showed me hearsay, I don’t accept it, it’s not admissible in court either
- there you go, you just admitted that you said that people with aspergers need to walk on eggshells and watch what they say because they have aspergers. And I never Insulted mentally challenged people, I’m legitimately concerned for you. I feel like a bully but in all honesty you are kind of bringing this on yourself
You are literally repeating yourself numb nuts. I warned you I was closing your case if you didn’t stop. You are literally doing nothing but repeat the same nonsense you’ve been doing for the past 2 days. If you want a response to your incoherent ramblings just look at my previous post, I already demolished it. Come back when you have something of value to add to this discussion other than strawmans you coward
Your concession is noted and your logical fallacies are dismissed
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
-Lol, you're dismissing legitimate dictionary definitions again? The Oxford and Merriam Webster definitions say it's a fact that it's a sequel. You need to move on from this.
And Oxford and Merriam Webster also say it's not a reboot.
-An actual quote from an interview with Craven referring to New Nightmare as a sequel is hearsay? You're delusional!
-No, I criticised YOU for disrespecting the mentally challenged.
-"wow how many f-cking times do I have to repeat myself: my assertion wasn’t that he didn’t diss his own movie"
Not once did I imply that was your assertion. The point is that Craven dissing his own movie makes your point that he has a high opinion of himself for praising his own movie moot. When will you finally get this???
-If I'm repeating myself it's because you ignore all the evidence I provide and just keep on repeating yourself (which you've just admitted.)
-Warning me of what? More crying by you???😂
Fact is that I've provided evidence that proves I'm right and you're wrong. You've been dismissed for once and for all, buddy. There's just no way you can ever return from this!🤣🤣🤣
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
- I believe the definition I posted , a definition that you are dismissing which is a legitimate one. Dictionary.com says it’s not a sequel , that is an objective fact
- there were not any direct quotes from craven on your link, it is very much hearsay. Nice try kiddo.
- I never showed disrespect to the mentally challenged that was all you, I was legitimately concerned for you and if you truly are mentally challenged then I owe you an apology because that means I’m a bully.
- then therefore there’s no point in discussing whether he was dissing his own movie or not because you have conceded that I never claimed he did , case closed. Game set and Match for me
- I have destroyed all of your “evidence” you are attempting to disguise logical fallacies and appeals to ignorance as evidence and I’m not letting you get away with it.
- lol you have been completely and totally owned. I have destroyed you, if this were a boxing match the ref would have called it a long time ago but he didn’t stop me from bashing your face in because he’s enjoying watching me do it. You are a complete non challenge, usually I’d feel bad for you but like I said you deserve this, why do you do this to yourself? My guess is you are so desperate for attention you don’t even care if it’s negative attention, you need to see a therapist but that doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about, junior. Get help
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
I never dismissed your definition, I provided another legitimate definition that disproves your assertion that Craven couldn't have been dissing his own movie, because it's not a sequel.
You need to reread my posts, I actually quoted an interview with Craven that was published in a book about him.
You've disrespected the mentally challenged, which is mindboggling since you're mentally challenged yourself.
You've been utterly destroyed. See my reply all the way at the bottom.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
Wow Man let me say this again: I was never my position he didn’t diss his own movie. Regardless of whether he dissed his movie or not is 100 percent irrelevant to my op you idiot. I never once showed disrespect to mentally challenged people , in fact I was being quite compassionate and the definitions prove that Aspergers doesn’t fit the criteria of mentally challenged, some may be but it’s not due to Aspergers you moron. Although if we accept that I am then that means you’ve been owned by a mentally challenged person which makes you mentally challenged which is not a road I think you want to travel down. I totally own you, I have completely and utterly humiliated you. The best you’ve done by this point is prove something o never even argued against. I hope you’re proud that you spent you’ve wasted your entire night doing that while I’ve been sleeping and getting ready for life the next day. You suck
reply
share
sslssg (34211)
4 years ago
Your perseverance is amazing.
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
To be honest, I have some free time on my hands right now, otherwise I'm not sure I'd waste my time on this. It's just annoying how this guy constantly lashes out at those who contradict him.🙄
reply
share
davodikum (6197)
4 years ago
Yeah I started to argue with him yesterday but had to stop. I was at work and it's hard to txt on the sly when the little window keeps getting thinner and thinner so you can barely read what you're writing. Plus it is pointless to argue with him, once his mind is made up nothing can change it. Kinda sad really, defeats the whole point of these types of conversations and the point of this site.
reply
share
Stratego (30497)
4 years ago
I'm an insomniac who's mostly on MovieChat at night, so you can imagine I'm glad I don't have to wake up early this week!
I'm dead serious when I say he has Aspergers. I've had a similar discussion with him before and having dealt with people with Aspergers, I eventually realized that that is most likely the explanation for his behavior. I know trying to reason with him is probably pointless, but at the same time I don't want to give those with the condition special treatment and assume they're not capable of accepting that people might disagree with them.
reply
share