"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (2010) Pre-Release Discussion (Spoilers) [Archive]

Old Guy

12-13-2008, 01:42 AM

Oh boy...

Platinum Dunes is going to continue its working relationship with Warner Bros. and New Line for A Nightmare on Elm Street (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/films.php?id=6073).

Since Comic-Con in July, it was unknown whether producers Michael Bay, Brad Fuller and Andrew Form were going to be involved in the reboot of the Freddy Krueger franchise. But today, Fuller and Form confirmed to ShockTillYouDrop.com that their deal is done. "It's our next movie," confirmed Form, "hopefully shooting this spring."

Over the summer, Wesley Strick (Cape Fear) was attached to pen the script which is intended to re-imagine the dream-hopping teen killer. "It's like what we're doing to Friday the 13th (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/films.php?id=1490)," says Fuller. "It's not Freddy cracking jokes. We want to make a horrifying movie. The concept is so scary, don't fall asleep or you'll die. This guy gets you when you're most vulnerable, in your sleep. We love that. That's the basis of the movie. It'll be most similar to the first one but in terms of kills and dreams we'll borrow from the entire series."

Shooting is expected to take place in the Chicago suburbs.

Fuller adds that Warner Bros.' positive response to Friday the 13th (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/films.php?id=1490) was very helpful in getting Nightmare off the ground. Test screenings for Jason Voorhees' latest outing have reportedly gone over great.

Addressing the great, incessant question: Will Robert Englund be back? Fuller and Form say they're seeking someone new to don the hat and red 'n green sweater, but they're hopeful Englund will be back for a part in the film.

Old Guy

03-05-2009, 01:20 PM

A Nightmare on Elm Street Sets Release Date
Source: ShockTillYouDrop.com (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=9787)
March 5, 2009

Warner Bros. and New Line have marked an April 16, 2010 release date for A Nightmare on Elm Street (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=47103). The redo is directed by music video helmer Samuel Bayer and is based on a script by Wesley Strick. ShockTillYouDrop.com (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=9776) yesterday revealed FX artist Andrew Clement signed up to create the new Freddy Krueger, although it's unknown at the time of this writing who is playing the killer.

Also on the WB/New Line slate is Final Destination: Death Trip 3D (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=39478), the fourth entry in the series. The studio is moving this one up a week from August 21st of this year to August 14th. That gives the film a little breathing room before Rob Zombie's H2 (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=45601) (aka Halloween 2) opens on August 28th.

Tobias

03-05-2009, 02:23 PM

This isn't like replacing Jason. You could put anyone under hockey mask because Jason doesn't have a distinctive voice/attitude. Replacing Englund's going to one hell of a job.

NewcomerDC

03-05-2009, 03:07 PM

Here's the one thing I don't understand. Having Freddy making jokes before a person dies is almost the equivalent of The Joker in The Dark Knight. So taking that out of the reboot of the franchise will just make this another generic, unneeded film in the horror genre.

Now let's get to the business of music video directors helming movies expected to be big blockbusters. Give it up. Why not get a talented dirctor who has been making films for years instead of some no-name who would only get things right if Freddy was singing and dancing in this film. I just think that the new guy isn't right to hold this film together. As for Michael Bay, what would he do? Will there be any explosions in the film?

Movie06

03-05-2009, 03:28 PM

It's a Horror film, Bay doesn't see any explosions needed.

NewcomerDC

03-05-2009, 03:48 PM

It's a Horror film, Bay doesn't see any explosions needed.
So what's his purpose of having to do anything with this film?

Michael24

03-05-2009, 03:55 PM

It's being made by Platinum Dunes, which I believe is Michael Bay's production company. So he's just a producer, like he was on the Texas Chainsaw and Friday the 13th remakes.

I'm more on the fence about this remake than I was with those two because, like Tobias said, a lot of it hangs on the personality of Freddy himself. Robert Englund has left some pretty big shoes (and a particularly nasty set of claws) to fill. :)

Movie06

03-05-2009, 04:58 PM

You know, I heard the guy playing Rorsarch in Watchmen might be the new Freddy.

Tobias

03-05-2009, 05:11 PM

Me and a friend were talking about this last night, and hit on what makes Freddy so damn scary, and what ruined it in later sequels:

The big, lavish, nightmare sequences are what's wrong with it. If you know you're in the dream, you have a semi-chance of growing a pair and making an attempt to fight back, telling yourself 'it's just a dream'.

The terror comes from both the viewer and the victim not realizing that it's switched over from dreams to reality until something freaky happens, like Freddy just popping up at any point in part 1, or something freaky like Tina's body bag dragging down the hall. The scares come from thinking the dream's started, but not being completely sure until Freddy shows.

DarthGonzo

03-05-2009, 05:19 PM

...why??

That's really all I've got to say. Why?

Movie06

03-05-2009, 05:25 PM

Well, I guess New Line didn't see where the franchise could go.

VenerableViper

03-05-2009, 07:45 PM

If it is truly a reboot, I hope there is a good 20 or 30 minutes on the origin story. The new Halloween movie had some good origin story scenes. I want to know about the man. More graphic detail of his killer/pediphilia ways. How he got caught and footage of the court trial and how he got acquitted.
That quick shot of him in the factory staring at pics just seemed lacking.

Michael24

03-05-2009, 07:54 PM

If any of these horror movies actually called for a prequel, it's A Nightmare on Elm Street. And heck, you could even keep Robert Englund. His age wouldn't matter because he was nearly always hidden by make-up in the series anyway. I believe he once expressed hope in doing a Freddy prequel, one that was very dark and disturbing. (The premiere episode of Freddy's Nightmares focused on this and showed promise, but wasn't handled all that well.)

Michael Myers didn't need a prequel (Rob Zombie took all the mystique away from him by showing he was just a bullied kid from a broken white trash home), but Freddy could easily carry a prequel given the fact he had a history even before becoming the burned-face dream killer.

Soul

03-05-2009, 08:19 PM

Yeah, I'm with Mike on this.
I want a Freddy Prequel.
With No One else but Wes Craven at the helm, or at least producing.
Or..a competent director.
A "Before the Nightmare" was something I would've loved to seen.
Replacing Englund? You just shot yourself in the foot on that one Bay.

Michael24

03-05-2009, 08:27 PM

Replacing Englund? You just shot yourself in the foot on that one Bay.

To be fair, I'm sure anybody who was to handle this reboot (or remake or whatever they want to call these things these days) would look to replace Englund with a "newer" actor anyway. Just the way these things go. :shrug:

But, I'm curious to see what they do with it. :)

Old Guy

03-05-2009, 08:31 PM

With No One else but Wes Craven at the helm

I think it's sad that Craven has directed three Scream movies and wrote/produced remakes of his `70s classics but has only directed two Freddie movies and worked on the script for another. You'd think the man would be more faithful to his most popular creation.

Soul

03-05-2009, 08:51 PM

It's all because of BS with New Line.

Michael24

03-05-2009, 09:55 PM

I think it's sad that Craven has directed three Scream movies and wrote/produced remakes of his `70s classics but has only directed two Freddie movies and worked on the script for another. You'd think the man would be more faithful to his most popular creation.

I think at the time he just wanted to move on and prove he could do something other than Freddy. Even when Nightmare 3 came around he wasn't interested in a direct sequel but instead wanted to make it about Freddy escaping the fictional world to torment the cast and crew shooting a new film. (Ultimately, he got his wish for that when he did New Nightmare.)

Tobias

03-06-2009, 04:15 AM

I think at the time he just wanted to move on and prove he could do something other than Freddy. Even when Nightmare 3 came around he wasn't interested in a direct sequel but instead wanted to make it about Freddy escaping the fictional world to torment the cast and crew shooting a new film. (Ultimately, he got his wish for that when he did New Nightmare.)

He also came up with a concept for 4, but it got rejected just like the 'New Nightmare' idea got rejected for 3. 4 would have involved time traveling through dreams, which sounds a lot like the later 'Butterfly Effect', but New Line claimed it was too high concept for the franchise and nixed it.

Old Guy

04-03-2009, 11:54 PM

Meet your new Freddy Krueger:

Jackie Earle Haley is going to Elm Street, signing to star as iconic killer Freddy Krueger in New Line and Platinum Dunes' relaunch of "A Nightmare on Elm Street."

Platinum Dunes partners Michael Bay, Brad Fuller and Andrew Form are producing with John Rickard co-producing. Samuel Bayer will direct from Wesley Strick's script, with lensing set to begin next month in Chicago.

New Line decided last year to relaunch the movie series centered on the iconic killer, who haunts the dreams of teenagers and kills them in their sleep. Krueger was originally played by Robert Englund in the 1984 original, spawing nine films and two TV series in what was New Line's most lucrative franchise until "The Lord of the Rings."

The relaunch comes on the heels of New Line and Platinum Dunes' rebirth of another horror franchise, "Friday the 13th," which has grossed $65 million domestically since its launch on Friday, Feb. 13.
Haley starred in "Watchmen" as Rorschach and will next be seen opposite Leonardo DiCaprio in Phoenix Pictures' "Shutter Island," directed by Martin Scorsese.

defunctzombie

04-04-2009, 12:02 AM

Meet your new Freddy Krueger:
Rorschach as Freddy Krueger.....

Umm... I suppose that's not bad. Could be worse.

Old Guy

04-04-2009, 12:09 AM

Could be worse.

Or could be awesome.

defunctzombie

04-04-2009, 12:13 AM

I have no problems with it. I liked Haley in Watchmen. It's just that I liked Englund a lot, and I have trouble imagining someone else in the role.

Plague Rat

04-04-2009, 12:31 AM

Dear Hollywood,

Stop with the reboots. Use some creativity PLEASE.

Sincerely, audience.

Old Guy

07-22-2009, 02:51 PM

Here's Freddy:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57381

defunctzombie

07-22-2009, 08:42 PM

Here's Freddy:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=57381
Yeah... I'm going to see this one. :D

Just a shadow pic, but it looks pretty damn good. Glad to know the costume is still there. I was half expecting one of those "design reboots".

thenewme93

07-22-2009, 09:06 PM

I think this is gonna be good..

Michael24

07-22-2009, 09:12 PM

Not bad, but I really want to see a headshot. I'm curious to see if this Freddy will look very different or not.

I'm also hoping Robert Englund's got a small part, perhaps as a teacher or something. He expressed his desire to cameo as a dream researcher, so I hope they got him in there somewhere as a tribute.

I think this is gonna be good..
If it's even half as good as Platinum Dunes' Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, I'll be happy. At least I know it can't possibly be worst than the Friday the 13th remake, though.

creativerealms

07-22-2009, 09:20 PM

Well it's nice that Freddy's look is kept the same. He's too iconic to change.

Englund should get a minor part in the movie. I mean he commented (in a joking manner) that he believes he's too old to play Freddy anymore so many passing on the hat and clawed glove is a good thing.

garfield15

07-22-2009, 09:44 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/Paladin4221/a-nightmare-on-elm-street-200907220.jpg

http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/764505/a-nightmare-on-elm-street/images/a-nightmare-on-elm-street-20090722022758177.html?page=mediaFull

Mod Note: Source added. Please add the source link next time.

Silly McGooses

07-23-2009, 01:43 AM

I thought New Line Cinemas no longer existed?

Michael24

07-23-2009, 01:57 AM

They're still around, but I think I read something awhile back about them decreasing their work load and only doing a few movies a year as opposed to several, or something like that.

OriginalGagBonke

09-03-2009, 07:21 PM

I have a feeling that this could be a somewhat decent remake for once.

Damien

09-04-2009, 01:03 AM

I saw both these pictures awhile ago on Yahoo! Movies. You could actually see his face a little better than on the Coming Soon site. But yes, I am very excited for this. I actually got a little scared when I saw these, especially knowing that they're going for a darker take. I personally don't want all the lame puns and dumb jokes. And no, I'm sorry, not having the jokes doesn't make him generic. Who else is like Freddy?

And yes, we're all sick of remakes. But come on, you're gonna go see them. Don't pretend. I know they seem lame, but at the same time, it's nice to have someone go back and look at classic characters through other interesting angles. If they explored such things through sequels, we'd all do what we did for Superman Returns and say, "It's been how many years since the last one? Why didn't they just reboot?" There's no pleasing us. So just enjoy it.

Old Guy

09-28-2009, 02:19 AM

The moment everyone has been waiting for...THE TRAILER!!!
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=63620829

Michael24

09-28-2009, 03:07 AM

I have to say, that looked pretty good, even for just a teaser. Although I had lost a bit of hope for it after seeing the Friday the 13th remake, unlike that one, it appears this remake will be better paying respect to the original(s). I like that they've kept some of the classic imagery and scenes -- the hand in the bathtub, the girl levitating during her sleep and getting dragged around, the look of Krueger not being changed very much -- and the pool scenes reminded me of Part 2. (Which I liked; so sue me!)

Yeah, I'll add this one to my "Must See" list for 2010. :)

Knightmare

09-28-2009, 07:51 AM

Pretty good, I liked how it really has that "Nightmare" feel to it. It seem just like one of the old Nightmare movies until you heard Freddy speak, it's going to take a while to get used to a new voice coming from his mouth, also he sounded a little too "normal" and from what little they shouwed of his face it looks like they are making him look more like a real life burn victim instead of his classic look. Not sure how that is going to play out. But I'm interested in this one and I hope that it'll bring ol' Freddy back in a big way.

creativerealms

09-28-2009, 11:36 AM

Looks to be a loyal remake.

Mcready

09-28-2009, 12:06 PM

Not all horror remakes are bad, there's some excellent ones like these ones:

The Thing.
The Blob.
The Fly.
Dawn of the Dead.
The Hills Have Eyes.
My Bloody Valentine 3D.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
King Kong 2005.
The Last House on The Left.
The Ring.

Some average or decent ones:
Night of the Living Dead.
Halloween.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Friday The 13th. (Not really a remake, more of a sequel)

Some terrible ones:
Psycho.
The Fog.
etc.

But isn't SAW already this generation's Elm Street?

LinkG07

09-28-2009, 02:36 PM

Not bad. His face seems to be more stiff now, looking as if he can barely move his mouth. But that was just at first glance.

Robin2099

09-28-2009, 04:54 PM

Overall, I thought this was a pretty dang good trailer. It had a lot of visually arresting shots, and seemed to hit most of the major moments of the original while putting a different twist on it. I also liked Jackie as the human Freddy. He seems a lot more like someone who would actually be a child molester in real life, as opposed to Englund who seemed to fit the stereotype more than anything else.

The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is the Freddy makeup, which honestly looks kind of bad compared to say, Two Face. I also don't know about the Freddy voice yet. It almost sounds like he might be trying too hard to not imitate Englund. But judging his entire performance from thirty seconds is stupid, and after reading the script, Haley does have some good Freddy moments, so I'll wait.

Tobias

09-28-2009, 06:07 PM

I need to hear more of the voice before I make a real judgement there, but the makeup I'm not too crazy about. That final shot of him in the trailer made me think of Lord Voldemort.

Hanshotfirst113

09-29-2009, 12:01 AM

Well, I am NOT impressed. This essentially looks like a rehash with the usual Bay-produced slicked-up visuals. The majority of the imagery is lifted from the original, and none as effectively. One shot epitomizes things perfectly: the claw on the wall. Once a creepy image with a subtle and spooky sound, it's now a screamingly bombastic sound effect. Yawn. Craven's original was far from perfect, but it had a certain raggedy edge and an intelligent subtext. Now, like seemingly every movie from the 70s remade nowadays, there's just too much gloss. The films of that period had a grit about them that you simply can't recapture today. The world has clean up and moved on, and maybe it's time for Hollywood to move on too.

Not bad, but I really want to see a headshot. I'm curious to see if this Freddy will look very different or not.

There's only one quick shot in the trailer, but he seems to look different.

I'm also hoping Robert Englund's got a small part, perhaps as a teacher or something. He expressed his desire to cameo as a dream researcher, so I hope they got him in there somewhere as a tribute.

A friend of mine has the "No Englund=No Freddy=No Nightmare" outlook, and it's a hard one to argue with.

At least I know it can't possibly be worst than the Friday the 13th remake, though.

If there is one thing that recent Hollywood has taught us, it is that things can always be worse.

defunctzombie

09-29-2009, 12:06 AM

That face at the end looks weird...but if prices aren't up to ten by then I might go see it in the theatre. Around here the matinee is 7 bucks. :shrug:

Old Guy

09-29-2009, 12:23 AM

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/971/screencap4.jpg

Daikun

09-29-2009, 06:07 AM

The moment everyone has been waiting for...THE TRAILER!!!
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=63620829

I've posted this at a couple of other forums already, and I figured I may as well reiterate it here. This doesn't look like a bad film (the new Freddy seems to have gotten the character down, and most of the scenes from the original film seem to be there), but there's one aspect about this trailer that rubs me the wrong way.

Dear Hollywood:

Your audiences would greatly appreciate it if you would STOP HUMANIZING MOVIE MONSTERS!

In the original films, Freddy was a psychopath who intentionally killed children, and the trailer for this remake seems to imply that he was framed for murders he didn't commit.

Your attempt at humanizing Michael Myers completely missed the point. They're monsters, not victims. They're the embodiment of pure evil. They're the ones who target the victims, not be the victims.

Knightmare

09-29-2009, 06:56 AM

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/971/screencap4.jpg

He does look more like a "real life" burn victim than the more nightmarish classic verison.

To Daikun:

I agree they need to stop trying to explain why thses characters like Micheal, Jason and Freddy are the way they are and just concintrate on telling good stories.

I can understand revamping the original for a new generation(just look at how many times it's been done to Dracula and Frankenstien) and I can understand why you want to understand the villian and he/she does what he/she does, but stop trying to make them symapthetic, but that is the problem with villian based franchises like Nightmare on Elm St., Halloween and Friday the 13th is that the only reocurring part is the villian and people eventually start rooting for them.

Spideyzilla

09-29-2009, 03:12 PM

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/971/screencap4.jpg

I think it's an awful look. He looks like a sad old man! I sure hope he doesn't become sympathetic, with his denial of doing anything in the trailer. It does seem faithful to the original, but I think the face is terrible.

Damien

09-29-2009, 03:57 PM

Trailer looks great. I think some of you are assuming too much. If I were killer cornered by a mob of angry parents, I'd act innocent, too. Still, it'd be interesting if he WAS innocent. His arrest creates the assumption he's guilty. His release based on innocence would not sway the parents; they need someone to blame. I think that works much better than the original "warrant paperwork mix-up". However, I can see the argument against making him sympathetic. Whatever. As long as it's scary.

Robin2099

09-29-2009, 04:28 PM

defunctzombie

09-29-2009, 04:40 PM

I liked Haley as Rorschach, he definitely has the capacity for badassery. So I think he'll do fine. This is coming from someone who has all the previous Nightmare films.

Tapout

09-29-2009, 06:43 PM

I'm really hoping the scene in the trailer is Freddy being a coward and unwilling to face the consequences of what he more than him actually not having done anything.

creativerealms

09-29-2009, 07:00 PM

Freddy's face grows on me a little every time I see it. I mean I still need to see a better, brighter shot of his face to decide, but it's growing on me every time I see it.

Spideyzilla

09-29-2009, 07:05 PM

Trust me, since I've read the script, Freddy is NOT sympathetic at all in this movie. This is Nightmare 1 Freddy with an even bigger mean streak.
It's sort of hard to be "gritty" when you have a budget ten times what the original cost. For that matter, it's hard to say the imagery is not as strong when we just get brief glimpses from the trailer.
Which is such a pathetic way to look at it. I find it sad that Robert Englund himself has said multiple times that he had no interest in wearing all that make up again, and said that FVJ was the last time he was interested in wearing the makeup. When Jackie was cast, he said that he's glad he got the role, and that someone else will be able put his stamp on Freddy. In essence, he's been a true gentleman over it.
Compare that to the internet, where all you ever see is "WAHHHHHH Robert Englund should be Freddy!!!" It just looks sad that the freaking actor who made him so iconic can move on and give this movie and Jackie a chance, but all the fans want to do is complain.
The more I look at it, the more I think the angle of the shot just doesn't work that well. So it will probably look better with a more straight forward shot.

I see your points. I'll give this another chance, Freddy's face is poorly light in that shot.

LinkG07

09-29-2009, 08:51 PM

I think what's putting everyone off is the big lips. :anime:

GregX

09-29-2009, 09:08 PM

Eh... not impressed.

Hanshotfirst113

09-29-2009, 10:02 PM

Your audiences would greatly appreciate it if you would STOP HUMANIZING MOVIE MONSTERS!

In the original films, Freddy was a psychopath who intentionally killed children, and the trailer for this remake seems to imply that he was framed for murders he didn't commit.

Your attempt at humanizing Michael Myers completely missed the point. They're monsters, not victims. They're the embodiment of pure evil. They're the ones who target the victims, not be the victims.

Yes, well, how do you expect them to rehash an idea that already worked fine the first time? The idea of a humanized villain is interesting. Freddy Kruger, however, is probably not the best place to toy with such an execution. But we don't know that they're doing that yet.

Trust me, since I've read the script, Freddy is NOT sympathetic at all in this movie. This is Nightmare 1 Freddy with an even bigger mean streak.

If anything, did they try to demythologize him more in the original sequels?

It's sort of hard to be "gritty" when you have a budget ten times what the original cost.It's pretty hard to make anything gritty nowadays, but that's sort of my point. Yes, they have ten times the original budget. Yes they have the best special effects that money can buy. But is there any non-financial reason for this movie to exist at all? Has there been any point to the spate of recent remakes other than to cash in? I don't expect a film to be reverential to its source material if it doesn't need to be. But I do generally expect it to have some sort of point other than to cash in on a presold name. So far, this movie doesn't looks like it has any other reason for existing. OK, fine, I'm biased. I'll pass judgment on the film once I've actually seen it. But so far, I'm not impressed.

For that matter, it's hard to say the imagery is not as strong when we just get brief glimpses from the trailer.
Maybe. But these days a good trailer should have some cool shots and something striking, of which this trailer has, save perhaps the Saw-esque self-burning, none that my eyes can discern.

Which is such a pathetic way to look at it. I find it sad that Robert Englund himself has said multiple times that he had no interest in wearing all that make up again, and said that FVJ was the last time he was interested in wearing the makeup. When Jackie was cast, he said that he's glad he got the role, and that someone else will be able put his stamp on Freddy. In essence, he's been a true gentleman over it.You don't make Evil Dead films without Bruce Campbell. You don't make Re-Animator films without Combs. You don't make Hellraiser films without Doug Bradly. You don't make Child's Play films without Brad Douriff. You don't make Terminator films without Arnold. Are these truisms? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Yeah, it's annoying whiny fanboy-ism. But you'll forgive people who've associated an actor and a role for 25 years if they have a certain attachment. Hey, I like Haley. I thought that he was fantastic in Watchmen, and he could be fantastic in this. But it's damn hard to see anyone else take on the role, and with the king of crass cash-ins as the producer, fanboys are bound to be skeptical.

Compare that to the Internet, where all you ever see is "WAHHHHHH Robert Englund should be Freddy!!!" It just looks sad that the freaking actor who made him so iconic can move on and give this movie and Jackie a chance, but all the fans want to do is complain.
You're right. They should have cast someone besides Schwarzenegger in other Terminator installments. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but you'll forgive the fans if they have a certain reverence for the actor who has been the only person to play the role for two and a half decades. I mean, yeah, I know they're not being entirely fair, but given the track record of late, it's hard not be a little skeptical.

Oh, and to correct your statement, it's not "Robert Englud should be Freddy." It's that "Robert Englund IS Freddy." I don't hold that preconception, having not been the biggest fan of the franchise. But I can understand people who do.

The more I look at it, the more I think the angle of the shot just doesn't work that well. So it will probably look better with a more straight forward shot.Perhaps they're not too keen to reveal it at this stage. It reminds me of something else, though I can't think what...

Who knows, maybe the movie will be a masterpiece. But with the track record of all involved, I understand the leeriness that fans have. I had the same before Star Trek hit. That worked out better than expected. Maybe this will too. But I somehow doubt it.

Robin2099

09-30-2009, 06:22 PM

If anything, did they try to demythologize him more in the original sequels?

There are seven movies in the original Nightmare series(8 if you count FVJ) so when you try to keep a series going that's bound to happen.

It's pretty hard to make anything gritty nowadays, but that's sort of my point. Yes, they have ten times the original budget. Yes they have the best special effects that money can buy. But is there any non-financial reason for this movie to exist at all? Has there been any point to the spate of recent remakes other than to cash in? I don't expect a film to be reverential to its source material if it doesn't need to be. But I do generally expect it to have some sort of point other than to cash in on a presold name. So far, this movie doesn't looks like it has any other reason for existing. OK, fine, I'm biased. I'll pass judgment on the film once I've actually seen it. But so far, I'm not impressed.

Was there any non-financial reason for Transformers 2? The Dark Knight? GI Joe? The Saw sequels? No there was not. Hollywood is a business, and the point of a business is to make money. Every movie that gets released is released to make money. No one says "I don't care about money. I just want to release a bunch of movies then go broke." And people are buying what they are selling. That simple. Freddy, Jason, and Michael are now as iconic as Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolfman. So why not keep them relevant for a new generation?

Maybe. But these days a good trailer should have some cool shots and something striking, of which this trailer has, save perhaps the Saw-esque self-burning, none that my eyes can discern.

What about the bathtub scene? The scene where Tina's above the bed? When Nancy's walking in a snowing room? All those were very cool shots which will get people hyped for the movie even more. Also, it was just a teaser and not the full trailer.

You don't make Evil Dead films without Bruce Campbell. You don't make Re-Animator films without Combs. You don't make Hellraiser films without Doug Bradly. You don't make Child's Play films without Brad Douriff. You don't make Terminator films without Arnold. Are these truisms? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Yeah, it's annoying whiny fanboy-ism. But you'll forgive people who've associated an actor and a role for 25 years if they have a certain attachment. Hey, I like Haley. I thought that he was fantastic in Watchmen, and he could be fantastic in this. But it's damn hard to see anyone else take on the role, and with the king of crass cash-ins as the producer, fanboys are bound to be skeptical

Funny you mentions all those. Right now, we have Sam Raimi trying to do an Evil Dead without Bruce Campbell, a Hellraiser without Doug Bradley, no more Re-Animator movies, a Childs Play most likely without Brad Douriff, and a new Terminator that isn't staring Arnold. For that matter, in 89 people were still associating Batman with Adam West, so does that mean he should have played Batman in Burton's just because? What about the Bond movies?

You're right. They should have cast someone besides Schwarzenegger in other Terminator installments. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but you'll forgive the fans if they have a certain reverence for the actor who has been the only person to play the role for two and a half decades. I mean, yeah, I know they're not being entirely fair, but given the track record of late, it's hard not be a little skeptical.

It's not really reverence, more like cranky old men who don't get it. All the fanboys(and I am one mind you) want to do is complain that this isn't there "Freddy, Michael or Jason". Then when it is close to the originals like this trailer appears to be they complain because it's too close.

Oh, and to correct your statement, it's not "Robert Englud should be Freddy." It's that "Robert Englund IS Freddy." I don't hold that preconception, having not been the biggest fan of the franchise. But I can understand people who do.

Your right. Robert Englund created and perfected the role of Freddy. But as I said earlier, it's obvious that Robert is a fan of the character and he wants to see this character stay around, and see what someone else can bring to the table. Robert isn't on his personal website saying things like "Boycott this movie!!!!!! I should br Freddy!!!!! Protest and send letters so I can play it again!!!" In fact, this was posted on his official site:

"To quell the rumor mill. No, Rob's not in the new Nightmare On Elm Street (http://www.nightmareonelmstreet.com/) movie, currently filming in Chicago. But I want to assure you that Jackie Earle Haley (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0355097/), who's taking over for Robert as Freddy, is more than capable of playing the role. Let's all support him and hope he brings as much fierceness to the screen as Robert did."

So if the main who made this character famous, and has the most to gain by playing him acts this way, it just makes the fans look more stupid IMO.

Michael24

09-30-2009, 06:34 PM

I admit, as a fan, I do find it hard to imagine someone other than Robert Englund playing Freddy. (Though I'd never heard that Englund claimed Freddy vs Jason was the last time he'd play the part.) However, I'm not about to damn the film just because someone else is playing Freddy. Haley looks like a good choice and I thought he was fantastic in Watchmen, so I'm willing to set my bias aside and give him (and the film itself) a chance. Admittedly, I do wish they had just made a prequel with pre-dream killer Freddy starring Englund instead (if any movie series had a proper "set-up" for a prequel, it's A Nightmare on Elm Street), but I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it.

a Childs Play most likely without Brad Douriff
Unless something has changed recently, I've been hearing since the remake was first announced that Brad Dourif would return, as both Charles Lee Ray and the voice of Chucky once again. I believe Don Mancini himself has said that as well.

Tapout

09-30-2009, 06:43 PM

Admittedly, I do wish they had just made a prequel with pre-dream killer Freddy starring Englund instead (if any movie series had a proper "set-up" for a prequel, it's A Nightmare on Elm Street), but I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it.
I'm not a huge Elm Street fan, and I also know that CGI has come a long, long way, but isn't Englund a little old to be playing a younger version of a 20 year old character?

Michael24

09-30-2009, 06:54 PM

Hanshotfirst113

09-30-2009, 08:19 PM

There are seven movies in the original Nightmare series(8 if you count FVJ) so when you try to keep a series going that's bound to happen.

True enough.

Was there any non-financial reason for Transformers 2?No. And it was abysmal.

No there was not. Hollywood is a business, and the point of a business is to make money. Every movie that gets released is released to make money. No one says "I don't care about money. I just want to release a bunch of movies then go broke." And people are buying what they are selling. That simple. Which is my point. If the movie has said iconic characters in it, how good it is or isn't is almost incidental to the filmmakers and the producers and the marketing people.

Freddy, Jason, and Michael are now as iconic as Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and Wolfman. So why not keep them relevant for a new generation?Is there something wrong with Whale's Frankenstein? Was there something wrong with Carpenter's Halloween? Was there something wrong with Hitchcock's Psycho? Was there something wrong with Nightmare on Elm Street? They're all still "relevant," and still scary movies decades later. They still work fine. What's there to improve upon? Better acting is easy. Better special effects are easy. But capturing the terror of those original movies is the hard part.

What about the bathtub scene? Lifted from the original movie. Seen it before.

The scene where Tina's above the bed?Lifted from the original movie. Seen it before.

When Nancy's walking in a snowing room?OK, interesting, I concede (Rather Argeno-esque, or similar to a scene in the first Hellraiser, but that's beside the point...).

Funny you mentions all those. Right now, we have Sam Raimi trying to do an Evil Dead without Bruce CampbellWhy?

A Hellraiser without Doug BradleyWhy? In fairness though, after seeing the second film, any Barker-less installments don't much interest me.

No more Re-Animator moviesThe original works fine.

A Child's Play most likely without Brad Douriff,Haven't seen any of them, so no comment.

And a new Terminator that isn't staring Arnold.We all saw how well that worked out.

For that matter, in 89 people were still associating Batman with Adam WestValid point, but Batman also has the comics to draw upon.

What about the Bond movies?There's still a sizable contingent who argues that.

It's not really reverence, more like cranky old men who don't get it.What, precisely is there to "get?"

All the fanboys (and I am one mind you) want to do is complain that this isn't there "Freddy, Michael or Jason". Then when it is close to the originals like this trailer appears to be they complain because it's too close.Name me a well-reviewed horror remake, from critics or fans, and The Thing, The Fly, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers don't count. The defense rests ;). Again, it would be a mistake to simply blow this movie off because Robert Englund isn't playing Freddy or the director who has no prior experience with anything other than music videos, or because its much-reviled producer produced many other films which were poorly reviewed and received, or because the writers have virtually nothing to their credit. But they are good reasons to be skeptical.

Listen, I was a huge negative Nancy (HA! Strangely relevant name! I'm so clever!) about Iron Man and Star Trek Zero, and both turned out very well. I'll be glad to eat my words. But Bay and Bayer (how ironic) had bloody well better pull out all the stops and deliver before I do. These movie reinvented their respective franchises and brought something to the table other than cynical cash-ins. Lets see if this movie does the same.

Your right. Robert Englund created and perfected the role of Freddy. But as I said earlier, it's obvious that Robert is a fan of the character and he wants to see this character stay around, and see what someone else can bring to the table. Robert isn't on his personal website saying things like "Boycott this movie!!!!!! I should be Freddy!!!!! Protest and send letters so I can play it again!!!"Very classy of him. And like I've said, I think that Haley is a fantastic choice. I think that he'll do a very good job in the role. He's not the one I'm worried about.

So if the main who made this character famous, and has the most to gain by playing him acts this way, it just makes the fans look more stupid IMO.Which is all very well. But you've still skirted the issue of the track records of all involved parties. In all honesty, I'm more judgmental of who is writing/directing/producing than who's starring right now.

Tapout

09-30-2009, 08:58 PM

Perhaps, but I don't think it'd be that big of a deal. He's in make-up for most of his screentime in the films anyway, so even if he looked older, I don't think it would have been that big of a problem.
You mentioned a prequel. And I assume that would mean a pre-being-burned-to-death prequel. Englund's age would be a factor in that situation.

Tobias

09-30-2009, 09:01 PM

As bad as it was, 'Freddy's Dead' gave us enough on Freddy's past to where I don't think a prequel is really needed. We also got a pretty good (for a t.v. budget) cover of the events leading up to Freddy's creation in the 'Freddy's Nightmares' t.v. series.

Mcready

10-01-2009, 01:53 PM

But what do you think of the remakes to The Thing, The Fly, Hills Have Eyes, The Blob, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Dawn of the dead, Night of the Living Dead, King Kong, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Ring? all excellent remakes.

And does anyone think the SAW franchise is already the new Nightmare on Elm Street series? even Jigsaw is the new Freddy Krueger or Jason in terms of a modern horror icon.

Spideyzilla

10-01-2009, 02:22 PM

Tobias

10-01-2009, 02:29 PM

But.... there can be no further adventures of Jigsaw. He's dead.

I haven't seen any of the SAW movies, but wouldn't they need Jigsaw for the next sequel that opens in like, three weeks?

defunctzombie

10-01-2009, 04:56 PM

I'm not a huge Elm Street fan, and I also know that CGI has come a long, long way, but isn't Englund a little old to be playing a younger version of a 20 year old character?
I assume you mean 20 year old as in how long the franchise is... There's no way the actual character is 20. :sweat:

Spideyzilla

10-01-2009, 04:59 PM

I haven't seen any of the SAW movies, but wouldn't they need Jigsaw for the next sequel that opens in like, three weeks?

No, it's.... confusing.:sweat:

Robin2099

10-01-2009, 05:50 PM

No. And it was abysmal.

But it was still the #1 movie of the year, so obviously people enjoyed it somewhat.

Which is my point. If the movie has said iconic characters in it, how good it is or isn't is almost incidental to the filmmakers and the producers and the marketing people.

That still doesn't mean they aren't trying to make a good movie though. No one aims to make a bad movie with the exception of Uwe Boll.

Is there something wrong with Whale's Frankenstein? Was there something wrong with Carpenter's Halloween? Was there something wrong with Hitchcock's Psycho? Was there something wrong with Nightmare on Elm Street? They're all still "relevant," and still scary movies decades later. They still work fine. What's there to improve upon? Better acting is easy. Better special effects are easy. But capturing the terror of those original movies is the hard part.

There was also nothing wrong with Dracula, Frankenstien, or Wolfman, yet they were still remade in literally almost every decade. The Wolf-man is still a classic, but no one is taking the pitchforks to the Benecio Del Torro one.Then you have the problem that as much as I love those movies, they also become much less scary the more they enter pop culture, especially to newer teenagers who might not want to watch them because there "old."

Why?

Because Sam Raimi wants to do a remake. Even Bruce is OK, with the remake idea since we all know Evil Dead 4 is not going to happen.

Why? In fairness though, after seeing the second film, any Barker-less installments don't much interest me.

Because the series has bottomed out. It really needs a remake because Hellraiser five was beyond horrid even by DTV standards.

We all saw how well that worked out.

In all fairness though, Terminator was pretty much a dead franchise anyway in the public's eyes, Arnold or no Arnold.

What, precisely is there to "get?"

That these are characters that can be done in multiple different ways. It's stupid to condemn something just because it's not how it was when you first saw it.

Name me a well-reviewed horror remake, from critics or fans, and The Thing, The Fly, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers don't count. The defense rests ;). Again, it would be a mistake to simply blow this movie off because Robert Englund isn't playing Freddy or the director who has no prior experience with anything other than music videos, or because its much-reviled producer produced many other films which were poorly reviewed and received, or because the writers have virtually nothing to their credit. But they are good reasons to be skeptical.

My Bloody Valentine was pretty well reviewed. Horror fans liked it, and mainstream critics didn't exactly trash it. So was The Ring.

Which is all very well. But you've still skirted the issue of the track records of all involved parties. In all honesty, I'm more judgmental of who is writing/directing/producing than who's starring right now.

Honestly, the remakes were not that bad. Yes none of them were perfect, but the people in the audience all enjoyed them and that's basically what you want reaction wise in a horror movie. Plus it would be very hard to say that the Platinum Dunes remakes were worse than Halloween 2. Minus The Hitcher anyway.

But.... there can be no further adventures of Jigsaw. He's dead.

There can be. That's why all the movies feature flashbacks.

And does anyone think the SAW franchise is already the new Nightmare on Elm Street series? even Jigsaw is the new Freddy Krueger or Jason in terms of a modern horror icon.

I wouldn't really say they are the new Nightmare franchise. If anything, in terms of how they are released they are the new Friday the 13th's. But Saw is the most successful horror franchise in history, and now Jigsaw is as iconic as Jason and Freddy.

Hanshotfirst113

10-01-2009, 09:42 PM

That still doesn't mean they aren't trying to make a good movie though. No one aims to make a bad movie with the exception of Uwe Boll.

Not what they perceive to be a bad movie anyway.

There was also nothing wrong with Dracula, Frankenstien, or Wolfman, yet they were still remade in literally almost every decade. The Wolf-man is still a classic, but no one is taking the pitchforks to the Benecio Del Torro one.Then you have the problem that as much as I love those movies, they also become much less scary the more they enter pop culture, especially to newer teenagers who might not want to watch them because there "old."
AH HA! Now we arrive at the heart of the matter! I think that much of this can be epitomized here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70t8k9Pc11s). All films, from the lowest of the low to high art all reflect the time and place that they were made. No work of art exists in a vacuum. Horror (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=691) films (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=770) in particular are byproducts of their time, politically, socially, and so forth. Any film simply about special effects or simply about a monster has absolutely no context. If you're going to remake a movie simply to update the creatures or the special effects, then what's the point? If you miss the context then you miss what a film was originally about in the first place! Of course, the beauty of a remake is that you can retool this to fit new ideas, but I've rarely seen that happen. If "newer teenagers" don't watch to watch them then with all due respect, to heck with them. Great art belongs to those who can appreciate it ;). If you're not going to make a film about something, then I question the need for me to watch it.

Because Sam Raimi wants to do a remake. Even Bruce is OK, with the remake idea since we all know Evil Dead 4 is not going to happen.
Again, the first three films are so good, that I kind of wonder what purpose a remake would serve.

Because the series has bottomed out. It really needs a remake because Hellraiser five was beyond horrid even by DTV standards.I did hear that. Like I said, I was sufficiently unimpressed with the second film that I never bothered going further. Once again, under its special effects, the first movie was a film that explored the dark sides of human nature and human sexuality and the dangers of desire. The second film, it seemed to me, missed that completely, instead simply focusing on the monsters and their creation, de-mythologizing them and becoming an FX show. Never saw any of the others.

In all fairness though, Terminator was pretty much a dead franchise anyway in the public's eyes, Arnold or no Arnold.
I thought that it was dead once Cameron left, but that's just me (though I enjoy the third film well enough).

That these are characters that can be done in multiple different ways. It's stupid to condemn something just because it's not how it was when you first saw it.Oh (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/), you (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051554/) are (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050280/) indeed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053085/) quite (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/) right (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077745/). I just think that you should actually bring something new to the table

My Bloody Valentine was pretty well reviewed. Horror fans liked it, and mainstream critics didn't exactly trash it. So was The Ring.Fair enough.

Honestly, the remakes were not that bad.Like I say, won't judge them without having seen them. But that's now what I've heard.

Plus it would be very hard to say that the Platinum Dunes remakes were worse than Halloween 2.Very hard, but not (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=4474) impossible.

There can be. That's why all the movies feature flashbacks.In Hollywood, it hardly matters if someone is dead if there's more money to be made ;).

I wouldn't really say they are the new Nightmare franchise. If anything, in terms of how they are released they are the new Friday the 13th's. But Saw is the most successful horror franchise in history, and now Jigsaw is as iconic as Jason and Freddy.I think that they hold an equal place in the pop-culture consciousness now.

Tapout

10-01-2009, 11:44 PM

I assume you mean 20 year old as in how long the franchise is... There's no way the actual character is 20. :sweat:
Yeah. Shoulda made that more clear.

Spideyzilla

10-02-2009, 08:56 AM

I thought that it was dead once Cameron left, but that's just me (though I enjoy the third film well enough).

I agree, Terminator was over after Cameron was done. Terminator does whatever James Cameron does with it. The series does not need the likes of Jonathan Mostow or McG.

Michael24

10-02-2009, 03:09 PM

Because Sam Raimi wants to do a remake. Even Bruce is OK, with the remake idea since we all know Evil Dead 4 is not going to happen.
The remake has been pretty much dead for a couple years now. Campbell has said it died quickly after the strong negative fan reaction. Raimi keeps talking about Evil Dead 4 every once and awhile (and supposedly they even have a script), but at this point I'm guessing it's more to keep the fans at bay rather than an indication it'll actually come out at some point, sad as that fact may be. :(

Not what they perceive to be a bad movie anyway.
Filmmakers make movies they like and (with obvious occasional exceptions) are happy with them at the end of the day. It's up to the audience to then decide if they're worth turning into successes once they're released. Is Transformers a bad movie? Perhaps, to you and me. But to the audience at large, it wasn't perceived as a bad movie, but one that apparently gave them what they wanted, and they turned it into a huge success.

I thought that it was dead once Cameron left, but that's just me (though I enjoy the third film well enough).
Cameron has stated he said all there was for him to say after T2. Years later, other filmmakers came along with new stories to tell. But many people seem to feel that there is no Terminator without James Cameron, and if that's how they feel, so be it. I guess it kind of makes sense, in a way. I personally don't feel that way, as I always thought (and Cameron has even said so) that Terminator is just as much Schwarzenegger as it is Cameron. And this year, I felt it was proven that Terminator could still be Terminator even without Arnold. (But that's just me. One of my favorite movies is Men At Work, so what the heck do I know? :p )

I agree, Terminator was over after Cameron was done. Terminator does whatever James Cameron does with it. The series does not need the likes of Jonathan Mostow or McG.
But it was sure fun with them. I see Terminator has having two different paths you can take. You can watch the first two only and be satisfied with a nice little story and feel it's complete and did all it needed to do. Or, if you want, you can go beyond T2 and see a continuation of the storyline, what happened next that lead up to Judgment Day and then what happened after Judgment Day that will eventually set up the entire storyline to begin with.

But this is all straying from A Nightmare on Elm Street, and I suspect a mod will be in here shortly to tell us to get back on track. :)

ToonFaithful

10-02-2009, 06:12 PM

Off Topic:I thought the woman from Dead Silence was suppose to make a cameo....

Hanshotfirst113

10-02-2009, 06:19 PM

Personally, I lay the blame for T3 and T4 only partially on Mostow and McG (I still cannot believe that he credits himself that way) anyway. The writing, which could help but feel muddled and uninspired often times, was an equally big problem. The third film felt a little too much like a rehash of the second, but Mostow's fun set pieces and Arnold's presence make it fun time-killing fluff. The fourth movie doesn't delve anywhere near as deeply into the future world as it should and it's storyline largely just drives in circles, but it looks as good as one would expect a production of its cost to look.

Anyway, apart from Haley and Brown, has anyone else in this movie done anything else of note?

Michael24

10-02-2009, 06:32 PM

The only other cast member I recognize is Thomas Dekker, who's been acting since he was a kid, and has been in a lot from Seinfeld and John Carpenter's Village of the Damned to more recently starring in Heroes before playing John Connor in The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Tobias

10-02-2009, 06:37 PM

Kyle Gallner played Bart Allen on Smallville, and was recently in both The Haunting in Connetticut and Jennifer's Body.

Michael24

10-02-2009, 06:43 PM

In any event, the cast of the original Nightmare was mostly unknown as well, save for maybe John Saxon. Even Robert Englund was mostly just a little-known actor making the rounds on television at the time, appearing in things like Charlie's Angels, CHiPs, and Simon & Simon, and Roger Corman flicks like Galaxy of Terror. I think the most high-profile thing he'd done was the original V mini-series, which was just a year before Nightmare.

Hanshotfirst113

10-02-2009, 07:05 PM

Roger Corman flicks like Galaxy of Terror.

Which, incidentally, is bloody impossible to find.

defunctzombie

10-02-2009, 09:31 PM

Kyle Gallner played Bart Allen on Smallville, and was recently in both The Haunting in Connetticut and Jennifer's Body.
Yeah he was Reed in CSI:NY. I knew I saw him before.

Robin2099

10-03-2009, 12:30 AM

Anyway, apart from Haley and Brown, has anyone else in this movie done anything else of note?

Katie Cassidy is on Melrose Place, and also was one of the stars of Harper's Island, and had a recurring role as Ruby on Supernatural. She was also the star of Black Christmas, and was in Taken so she's done a lot. Clancy Brown needs no introduction. Connie Britton was on 24, and Kyle Gallner was in Haunting in Conneticut.

The remake has been pretty much dead for a couple years now. Campbell has said it died quickly after the strong negative fan reaction. Raimi keeps talking about Evil Dead 4 every once and awhile (and supposedly they even have a script), but at this point I'm guessing it's more to keep the fans at bay rather than an indication it'll actually come out at some point, sad as that fact may be. :(

Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert both were talking about remaking Evil Dead as recently as May, when they were doing interviews for Drag Me to Hell, this past summer. As for ED4, Sam just loves teasing the fans about it, which I would to if I was in his shoes.

Not what they perceive to be a bad movie anyway.

Perception is in the eye of the viewer though. Most critics didn't like Transformers 2, but obviously the fact that the movie made over $400 million proves there were a lot of people who wouldn't consider it a bad movie.

AH HA! Now we arrive at the heart of the matter! I think that much of this can be epitomized here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70t8k9Pc11s). All films, from the lowest of the low to high art all reflect the time and place that they were made. No work of art exists in a vacuum. Horror (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=691) films (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=770) in particular are byproducts of their time, politically, socially, and so forth. Any film simply about special effects or simply about a monster has absolutely no context. If you're going to remake a movie simply to update the creatures or the special effects, then what's the point? If you miss the context then you miss what a film was originally about in the first place! Of course, the beauty of a remake is that you can retool this to fit new ideas, but I've rarely seen that happen. If "newer teenagers" don't watch to watch them then with all due respect, to heck with them. Great art belongs to those who can appreciate it ;). If you're not going to make a film about something, then I question the need for me to watch it.

Characters like Freddy though may have had a basis in the time they were made, but now the characters are so well known that they can be used at any time and any decade regardless. One of the reasons that Scream was so successful was because the audience that was watching Nightmare in the 80's was now old enough to be laughing about it in the 90's. Now, the pendulum has swung the other direction and people want to be scared by them again. Being a fan who grew up thinking they were cool and having nightmares about them, I would rather these movies be remade so the characters can stay in the public eye and scare a whole new generation than have them die out because people think the originals are sacred ground. The new generation watching these should have just as much chance to be effected by, and enjoy them as my generation did. Just like every generation that saw new Werewolf, Dracula and Frankenstein.

Again, the first three films are so good, that I kind of wonder what purpose a remake would serve.

Let's be honest though, the first Evil Dead is easily the weakest of the trilogy, so a remake might be somewhat interesting.

I did hear that. Like I said, I was sufficiently unimpressed with the second film that I never bothered going further. Once again, under its special effects, the first movie was a film that explored the dark sides of human nature and human sexuality and the dangers of desire. The second film, it seemed to me, missed that completely, instead simply focusing on the monsters and their creation, de-mythologizing them and becoming an FX show. Never saw any of the others.

That was unfortunately a result of how iconic Pinhead became. After seeing the impressive makeup of the Cenobites, it was only natural for people to want to see more of them. Plus Barker never really had a huge love for Hellraiser compared to his other works either. He tried to kill Pinhead in his novels, and only showed interest with Pinhead vs Michael Myers and with the idea of a remake.

I just think that you should actually bring something new to the table

Well like I said, the script does have some very cool imagery related to Freddy in it.

Like I say, won't judge them without having seen them. But that's now what I've heard.

Remakes based on movies that are classics will always be unfairly bashed, and criticized regardless. We all talk about how great The Thing, and The Fly were today, but when they were released they were not exactly critical darlings. Plus remaking something like Halloween is a double edged sword because so many people have seen it, and will always put the original on an incredibly high opinion. Whereas, you could have a much easier time reamking something lesser known like Night of the Demons, or House on Sorority Row. Both had cool concepts that could be improved on, though Sorority Row managed to blow it pretty well.

Spideyzilla

12-07-2009, 05:23 PM

Better look at Freddy, hi-res this time. Very cool, he looks like the old Freddy except modernized. A perfect example of modernizing a design will still being very faithful.
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/34785/a-nightmare-elm-street-hi-rez-image-new-krueger

Old Guy

02-25-2010, 01:11 PM

New Trailer:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=103206439

Peter Paltridge

02-25-2010, 02:27 PM

Characters like Freddy though may have had a basis in the time they were made, but now the characters are so well known that they can be used at any time and any decade regardless. One of the reasons that Scream was so successful was because the audience that was watching Nightmare in the 80's was now old enough to be laughing about it in the 90's. Now, the pendulum has swung the other direction and people want to be scared by them again. Being a fan who grew up thinking they were cool and having nightmares about them, I would rather these movies be remade so the characters can stay in the public eye and scare a whole new generation than have them die out because people think the originals are sacred ground. The new generation watching these should have just as much chance to be effected by, and enjoy them as my generation did. Just like every generation that saw new Werewolf, Dracula and Frankenstein.
...Werewolf, Dracula and Frankenstein haven't been made effectively scary in ages. Nothing stays scary forever.

Freddy's not gonna be scary in this one, either, if the trailer is any indication. For people to be scared they have to care more about the victims than Freddy, and they're paying only to see Freddy again. The opening shot was just boring waiting for Freddy to show up, because I didn't care about whoever didn't have a chance anyway.

Also, looks like he wisecracks again. Another reason Freddy stopped being scary is because he just had too much FUN doing what he does. If you want the audience to be frightened, stop making them laugh at your bad guy!

Robin2099

02-25-2010, 11:36 PM

Werewolf, Dracula and Frankenstein haven't been made effectively scary in ages. Nothing stays scary forever.

I dunno know about that. The wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein were still scary going into the Hammer days. Dracula was even still somewhat scary in the FFC 90's version.

Freddy's not gonna be scary in this one, either, if the trailer is any indication. For people to be scared they have to care more about the victims than Freddy, and they're paying only to see Freddy again. The opening shot was just boring waiting for Freddy to show up, because I didn't care about whoever didn't have a chance anyway.

It can still be done, it's just all in the execution. When I saw the F13th remake in theatres, the 17-18 year old teens were screaming when Jason was on screen and yelling at the people to get away. And when I saw Halloween 2 everyone was laughing. So it's all in the execution.

Also, looks like he wisecracks again. Another reason Freddy stopped being scary is because he just had too much FUN doing what he does. If you want the audience to be frightened, stop making them laugh at your bad guy!

I've read the script and Freddy is a mean SOB in this movie. Yes, there's quips there but it's nothing near as bad as the later movies. The fact that Freddy isn't playing Nintendo shows that.

I really liked the second trailer. Haley looks to own the role and I like how he's bringing something new and different and not just channeling Robert Englund.