Ever since Westworld I have been enthralled by flicks that put two opposing forces against each other. Good v. Evil, Cop v. Robber, etc. There were alot of lunch room table conversations revolving around "Who would win in a fight". Freddy v. Jason actually, sort of answered this question. I think that it wasn't that bad of a movie overall. Freddy's one liners were definitely in rare form. Because this did so well, the idea was kicked around that maybe they want to add other fan favorites to the Battle Royale.
Enter Ash, everyone's favorite wise-cracking anti-hero. Maybe anti-hero is a strong word, but he's definitely no Lone Ranger.
So ya love Freddy, Jason and Ash, but should they all meet up and square off? Isn't this just another type of sequel where instead of having to have a higher body count or cooler deaths you have to sneak in as many baddies as possible?
While I'm very tempted by the idea of seein Bruce Campbell strap on the chainsaw again, I've got to pass on the idea. The problem that you're gonna run into is the same one that three Batman movies screwed themself over. No, not latex nipple suits. Trying to fit too much character development into two hours and give enough screen time to all involved. Granted, since all have been in previous movies there is the possibility that you could short change one or two of them. However, you still have to set up the scenario of how they all meet (unless Jason is still toting Freddy's head) and give time for a little plot to be developed outside of the melee. I think that two adverseries is good, but three is too much.