'Nightmare on Elm Street' remake

[TallGeekyGirl]

Now it's Freddy's turn...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8XYZDu5zs

Nightmare on Elm Street remake, 2010...

[imjustasteph]

What? Elm Street without Robert Englund? No thank you very much.

[DAnnino]

Originally Posted by imjustasteph

What? Elm Street without Robert Englund? No thank you very much.

Agreed.

Has Hollywood run out of ideas? Heck, I'm still waiting for The Forever War, Gates Of Fire, and Armor. Plus, if they're so fired up to do remakes, why not make a Starship Troopers that's more faithful to the book?

[Mr. Sender]

Rorschach is Freddy, so I'm sold. I also think the preview looks better than the first movie. Blasphemy, I know.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by DAnnino

Has Hollywood run out of ideas?

During the last underway one of the movies the ship was showing The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and at some point it hit me that I was watching the sequel to the prequel to the sequel of a remake.

[Not_Done_Living]

A new Nightmare for a new generation..

NMOES was the very first horror film i ever saw, at 14 years old, at a friends party (which also led to my first .. experience ...

I have seen all of the films. I have seen all the TV Episodes (I even still have them all on VHS tapes). They are my favorite films, and Krueger is my Favorite Monster.

No this is not Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger. But we have to set that aside, and even though it is in our nature to make the comaprison, let the new film stand on it's own.


The re-imagining of Jason in the new Friday the 13th and Michael Myers in Halloween was simple.. they are voiceless once they become the monster. It is mannerism and optics that make them recognisable.

For Freddy... he is a character with a voice. He is a comedian of the blackest kind, sarcastic, caustic, witty and punny with a vile putrid manner.

This is the part that will make or break the franchise. He is more than a red and green sweater, fedora and finger knives. I hope this does well, and i hope this series can break the Even Episode curse the last series suffered from (where 1, 3, 5 and 7 were great, and 2, 4 and 6 were absolute dreck) I don't know where to class Freddy vs Jason... as it was more a F13 film featuring Freddy than anything else.

I am looking forward to this one.... it looks like they kept some key storyline elements.. making it more of a remake then a re-imagining.. but adding more backstory will certainly be interesting.

[BamaRainbow]

Originally Posted by imjustasteph

What? Elm Street without Robert Englund? No thank you very much.

Entitled to your opinion and all that, but could that comment have been any more shallow? (I read some online comments regarding the trailer, and one person actually whined that Haley didn't "sound" like Freddy.)
Englund really is too old for the character (he's 62 years old), and that was more than obvious 6 years ago in Freddy vs Jason. (Personally, he was really pushing it in 1994's Wes Craven's New Nightmare.) After 25 years, no. Englund needs to be retired from the series.
Why is it people can accept a new James Bond every few years now but the mere idea of a new Freddy Krueger is deemed unacceptable? (For reference, the year before the very first Nightmare on Elm Street, there were two Bond films released--one with Sean Connery and one with Roger Moore--and Moore was in a Bond film the year after Elm Street premiered. Since then, we've had Timothy Dalton in two films, Pierce Brosnan in four, and Daniel Craig in two.)
I'm actually looking forward to seeing Jackie Earle Haley tackle the character of Krueger. His recent turns as Ronnie in Little Children (a really good but criminally underrated film) and, of course, Rorschach in Watchmen should be ample proof of his ability to deal with Krueger. It'll also be a bit interesting to see a really SCARY Freddy once again. (After 25 years, Freddy's become a little too "cuddly".)
The only real downside I see is that Haley is pushing 50 which means his run as Krueger (if the film's a success) will either be relatively short or they'll be pumping out sequels very quickly.

[mags]

Originally Posted by BamaRainbow

Entitled to your opinion and all that, but could that comment have been any more shallow? ...
Englund really is too old for the character (he's 62 years old), and that was more than obvious 6 years ago in Freddy vs Jason. ...
Why is it people can accept a new James Bond every few years now but the mere idea of a new Freddy Krueger is deemed unacceptable?

I don't see how wanting the actor who really made the original movies to be in this one is shallow. His over-the-top delivery is why Freddy Kruger is well loved even as the villain. Replacing a character with a new actor every few years because the character can never be old, that's shallow. Saying someone shouldn't be able to do their job anymore (especially when that job is delivering lines with his acerbic sarcasm) because they are 62 (or even 56 as you were suggesting) is beyond shallow.

James Bond is the forever young "superhero." Freddy Krueger is a man with burn scars covering his entire face. I can't imagine how the two could even be accurately compared, much less use that comparison as "proof" why Englund should be replaced. His face is obscured, and there is no reason to assume he can't act as well as ever.

[MisterGrey]

So, wait, what's this "sympathetic" treatment they're giving Freddy?

I was disappointed by the movies after the first NOES precisely because of the over-the-top nature that Freddy's character took on. They were campy fun but the idea behind the character and the story in the first film was genuinely creepy and unsettling. The first one had its ridiculous moments (like the blood geyser and the booby traps that Nancy sets) but it was still spooky. Once Freddy became this talkative wiseacre, though, it kinda lost that. "New Nightmare" grazed what Freddy could have been, but his transformation from undead child killer to ancient Mesopotamian (or whatever) demon-god took him out of that original context, so, it really didn't count. (Don't get me wrong-- I think "New Nightmare" is probably the second best of the series. But its Freddy is a different entity altogether).

I'd like to see a Freddy that combines the New Nightmare and original NOES versions, while eliminating the over-the-top elements. Get back to the roots and go down to the bare basics. A disfigured, undead pedophile who murders from beyond the grave in his victims' dreams. Now that is some scary NFBSK.

ETA: As for Jackie Earle Hayley, he was pretty damn spooky in "Little Children." The scene where he (NFBSK spoiler) threatens his date while masturbating in front of her was unsettling and something out of a horror movie. I was really psyched when I heard that he was the new Freddy, and Enlund's endorsement sealed the deal. I don't think that Englund is too old-- Wes Craven says on the DVD commentary for the original NOES that he had envisioned either a stuntman or an older actor when originally casting the character-- but I think he's done everything he can with the character, and if there's going to be a reboot, I want to see what someone else has to bring to the table.

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by MisterGrey

So, wait, what's this "sympathetic" treatment they're giving Freddy?

Apparently, according to some sources but not all, this remake is going to question whether Freddy was really guilty or not. So, one premise is he's killing teenagers to get back at kids who lied about being molested by Freddy. Also, some sources say he wasn't a murderer in this remake, "just" a pedophile. Again, not all sources report the "Freddy is justified because he never killed anyone". But I have read in it a few places.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by MisterGrey

So, wait, what's this "sympathetic" treatment they're giving Freddy?

Details are still sketchy but rumors have been flying ever seen the first trailer was released that in this version Freddy is innocent of the original murders that the parents of Springwood burn him to death for, becoming a killer in the dreamworld only after he is wrongly killed.

ETA: Dream-spanked.

[MidgardDragon]

Originally Posted by imjustasteph

What? Elm Street without Robert Englund? No thank you very much.

These were my thoughts exactly. No matter how over-the-top campy the series eventually became, it was almost always worth it because of Robert Englund. I thought maybe Jackie could pull it off, but after seeing the makeup and hearing the voice, I'm gonna have to say that's a big fat no. I'm not one to get bent out of shape about remakes like much of the interwhine...err...net. But this one is just not going to work without Englund, period.

ETA: And feel free to whine about how "shallow" that is. But I'm sticking by it. It's not Nightmare without Englund, which is why they should just stay away from it altogether if he's too old for it.

[Brad from Georgia]

I've heard a rumor that instead of making the seventh Harry Potter movie, they're just going to remake the sixth.

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by imjustasteph

What? Elm Street without Robert Englund? No thank you very much.

I would have thought so too. But the trailer looks far more promising than I would have thought. It helped when Englund endorsed the new Freddy as well. The only thing I'm really not sure of is the more "sympathic" treatment they're supposedly giving Freddy in this one. I liked Englund's unremitting and unapologetic monster. We shall see. Bottom-line, it doesn't look nearly as bad as it could have been.