PDA

View Full Version : A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)



number8
01-30-2008, 06:09 PM
Too lazy to copy paste or link, but New Line just ordered Bay's Platinum Dune to reboot Nightmare on Elm Street, most likely with a non-Englund Freddy Krueger.

Shit.

Kurosawa Fan
01-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Not even taking into account that this is Michael Bay, a non-Englund Freddie is a terrible idea. Englund is Freddie, for better or worse.

D_Davis
01-30-2008, 06:17 PM
Lame.

Morris Schæffer
01-30-2008, 06:31 PM
Englund is Freddy? For real? I never thought of it that way. You'd think that with such grotesque make-up (mask?), a few other actors could be Freddy also. Moreover, in Freddy VS Jason, Englund was about as scary as (insert something non-scary).

Kurosawa Fan
01-30-2008, 06:33 PM
Englund is Freddy? For real? I never thought of it that way. You'd think that with such grotesque make-up (mask?), a few other actors could be Freddy also. Moreover, in Freddy VS Jason, Englund was about as scary as (insert something non-scary).

It's not as if you can't make out his face through that makeup. He's not wearing a mask. And he wasn't supposed to be scary in Freddy Vs. Jason. Nothing was scary about that movie.

megladon8
01-30-2008, 06:33 PM
Englund is Freddy? For real? I never thought of it that way. You'd think that with such grotesque make-up (mask?), a few other actors could be Freddy also. Moreover, in Freddy VS Jason, Englund was about as scary as (insert something non-scary).


Englund has a pretty distinct face, and while he does wear lots of make-up for the role, it still looks like him.

And to be fair, I really don't think "scary" was what they were going for with Freddy vs. Jason.

D_Davis
01-30-2008, 06:37 PM
All I want to see is the next Freddy Vs. Jason (Vs. Pinhead, or Michael, or Ash, or Leatherface, or Leprechaun :) ...) - this should be a franchise. Just keep adding a monster or a hero. So long as they get directors who are as creative as Ronny Yu to add a bit of excitement to the films.

Morris Schæffer
01-30-2008, 06:40 PM
It's not as if you can't make out his face through that makeup. He's not wearing a mask. And he wasn't supposed to be scary in Freddy Vs. Jason. Nothing was scary about that movie.

I remember Krueger being very scary in the earlier movies, and considering that self-parody is how the character ended up, then why oppose a reboot? True, Bay doesn't inspire confidence and perhaps they're going for ridiculous yet again, but I'd say there's potential to take the character back to his former glory; A window of opportunity.

Kurosawa Fan
01-30-2008, 06:43 PM
I remember Krueger being very scary in the earlier movies, and considering that self-parody is how the character ended up, then why oppose a reboot? True, Bay doesn't inspire confidence and perhaps they're going for ridiculous yet again, but I'd say there's potential to take the character back to his former glory; A window of opportunity.

Because Freddie isn't like Jason and Michael Myers. He has personality. Englund can do creepy if the role calls for it. I wouldn't want a "reboot" because the first one is far too memorable. I don't need some new face reimagining the role. The first interpretation doesn't need improvement.

megladon8
01-30-2008, 06:50 PM
Because Freddie isn't like Jason and Michael Myers. He has personality. Englund can do creepy if the role calls for it. I wouldn't want a "reboot" because the first one is far too memorable. I don't need some new face reimagining the role. The first interpretation doesn't need improvement.


Which is the same way I feel about the reboot Hellraiser coming out this September, sans-Doug Bradley.

Scar
01-30-2008, 07:10 PM
I don't remember Freddy being scary after Dream Warriors.

And, yes, Englund is Freddy. This isn't like Kane Hodder not being Jason.

MadMan
01-30-2008, 07:13 PM
Here's the thing: I don't mind a reboot. But I hate Micheal Bay. And I agree with KF that an Englund less Freddy movie is utterly pointless, that he has personality and such. You can't stick another guy in the suite and have him wear the makeup with the gloves and such because I doubt anyone else could or can play the role like Englund did. Even though the later films slumped into crappy self-parody the first couple were creepy because Englund, despite the wisecracks, was creepy. Hell I remember the great, memorable scene of Freddy with his arms stretching all the way out in the alley, saying "God? I am God" to some scared out of her bloody mind teenager. I doubt a Bay production is going to feature that kind of awesomeness. With Bay attached this won't even be decent or interesting like the Halloween remake was.

D_Davis
01-30-2008, 07:17 PM
This isn't like Kane Hodder not being Jason.

But does Englund have the word KILLER tattooed on the inside his lower lip?

Scar
01-30-2008, 07:23 PM
But does Englund have the word KILLER tattooed on the inside his lower lip?

*chuckle*

I think its safe to say that good 'ol Kane has issues.... I love his portrayal of Jason, but he certainly isn't required for the part of Jason.

number8
01-30-2008, 07:39 PM
Or like whoever the hell played Michael Myers. :P

number8
01-30-2008, 07:42 PM
Tell the truth, I'd give this a chance no matter who's directing if it stars both Englund and Depp.

EDIT: Holy shit, what if they cast Depp as Freddy?

EvilShoe
01-30-2008, 07:46 PM
It's not as if you can't make out his face through that makeup. He's not wearing a mask. And he wasn't supposed to be scary in Freddy Vs. Jason. Nothing was scary about that movie.
The fact that some people actually liked it, was rather scary.

Zing?

Scar
01-30-2008, 07:49 PM
The fact that some people actually liked it, was rather scary.

Zing?

Freddy vs Jason is awesome entertainment.

Kurosawa Fan
01-30-2008, 07:52 PM
The fact that some people actually liked it, was rather scary.

Zing?

:lol:

It's not a zing for me. I thought it was crap.

Kurosawa Fan
01-30-2008, 07:52 PM
EDIT: Holy shit, what if they cast Depp as Freddy?

To be completely honest, I'm sick of Depp. I wouldn't be interested in this at all.

megladon8
01-30-2008, 07:55 PM
To be completely honest, I'm sick of Depp. I wouldn't be interested in this at all.


I'm pretty sick of Depp, too.

He's been Hollywood's go-to boy for eccentric characters for too long.

Grouchy
01-30-2008, 08:04 PM
I don't understand what's the problem with the writers strike, since even before it began, there were zero creative writers in Hollywood and they were already ready to remake anything. Who the fuck can even imagine a Freddy remake without Englund? Do a sequel, a crossover movie or do nothing and let the saga rest. Sit down in front of the PC and write a new monster that's as awesome as Freddy. It can't be that difficult.

Wealthy Hollywood fuckers. All that cocaine crushed their imaginations.

MadMan
01-31-2008, 01:05 AM
I don't understand what's the problem with the writers strike, since even before it began, there were zero creative writers in Hollywood and they were already ready to remake anything. Who the fuck can even imagine a Freddy remake without Englund? Do a sequel, a crossover movie or do nothing and let the saga rest. Sit down in front of the PC and write a new monster that's as awesome as Freddy. It can't be that difficult.

Wealthy Hollywood fuckers. All that cocaine crushed their imaginations.Hah. Shouldn't the cocaine helped fuel their creativity? Maybe they should be doing LSD instead :P

Mr. Valentine
01-31-2008, 01:10 AM
i think it's a dumb idea to remake the franchise but if their going to do it, it would be even dumber to keep Englund.

Grouchy
01-31-2008, 01:22 AM
Hah. Shouldn't the cocaine helped fuel their creativity? Maybe they should be doing LSD instead :P
Whatever drugs they're taking, they're the wrong ones.

MadMan
01-31-2008, 02:15 AM
Whatever drugs they're taking, they're the wrong ones.Yeah, I'd say. They should learn from famous rock gods.

Dukefrukem
08-12-2008, 08:50 PM
Billy Bob Thronton as Freddy? (http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=22493)

D_Davis
08-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Billy Bob Thronton as Freddy? (http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=22493)


This could be cool. I'd be totally down with this.

A dream casting for me would be Crispin Glover.

Spinal
08-12-2008, 11:35 PM
Is this character really so captivating that we need another film about him? I've never understood the appeal.

D_Davis
08-13-2008, 02:09 AM
Is this character really so captivating that we need another film about him? I've never understood the appeal.

The core trilogy, 1, 3, and New Nightmare, are really good. I don't think they are good because of Freddy character is so captivating, but rather they are good because of the things Freddy does, and how he manipulates dreams. He's a cool boogie-man, and he does have an interesting past, one that makes his obsession with the Elm Street children somewhat believable.

So long as they keep Freddy scary, and come up with some creative dream sequences, I would like to see more of this Franchise. I've always preferred horror with an element of fantasy, something beyond just serial killers and torture (something beyond the real), and the best Nightmare films offer up some of the best of this.

Dukefrukem
08-13-2008, 02:19 AM
I absolutely love New Nightmare.

D_Davis
08-13-2008, 02:20 AM
I absolutely love New Nightmare.

It's a great film, a really well made horror flick.

Dead & Messed Up
08-13-2008, 02:23 AM
Is this character really so captivating that we need another film about him? I've never understood the appeal.

I think much of it came from Freddy Krueger being someone who really enjoyed being evil, and whose revenge was more sadistic and clever than his slasher brethren of the 80's. There's a perspective and attitude to his character, which isn't something you can really say for Myers or Voorhees.

Even then, I'm only a fan of the first and seventh films (the ones Craven directed). But I'm not a big fan of slashers.

Spinal
08-13-2008, 02:46 AM
I absolutely love New Nightmare.

Yeah, that's the only one that I like.

Dukefrukem
08-13-2008, 03:25 AM
Yeah, that's the only one that I like.

My favorite part, was when they're at the hospital and you see Freddy for the first time as he rises from the corner and drags her on the ceiling.

Bosco B Thug
08-13-2008, 05:40 AM
This could be cool. I'd be totally down with this.

A dream casting for me would be Crispin Glover. Yeah, Billy Bob Thornton could work. It's such a peripheral and very hammy role, though, I'd see it working against the image of any actor with prestige.

I wouldn't know about Glover, though, I've only seen him as a snively nerd (Back to the Future, Willard, that one Friday the 13th film). I can't imagine him a dirty-mouthed rowdy perv.

Grouchy
08-13-2008, 05:13 PM
Is this character really so captivating that we need another film about him? I've never understood the appeal.
Freddy was always a great character to me. The idea of the guy inserting mayhem into people's dreams and being something of a God inside them is very cinematic. It was recently used in a totally different way in Nightmare Detective.

I'm actually surprised Nightmare on Elm Street was an original script and not an adaptation, because the whole set-up is too clever for '80s slashers. Craven's glory days, I guess.

D_Davis
08-13-2008, 05:25 PM
I wouldn't know about Glover, though, I've only seen him as a snively nerd (Back to the Future, Willard, that one Friday the 13th film). I can't imagine him a dirty-mouthed rowdy perv.

He could do it - he's pretty twisted, in a good way. Just listen to his CD and read some of his books and I'm sure you'll agree.

Bosco B Thug
08-13-2008, 07:06 PM
He could do it - he's pretty twisted, in a good way. Just listen to his CD and read some of his books and I'm sure you'll agree.
See, I didn't even know he had books and a CD (WTF, btw) so it seems I do have a lot to learn about the man.

D_Davis
08-13-2008, 07:20 PM
See, I didn't even know he had books and a CD (WTF, btw) so it seems I do have a lot to learn about the man.

Really?

Oh yeah, he is awesome on so many levels.

His CD is totally insane. Here is a video for "Clowny Clown Clown"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsSx5NA6sXw

Here he is reading one of his books:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoQU-JlxOI&feature=related

I recently saw him to a reading of 3 of his books and present his film What Is It?, along with a Q&A session.

Here is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcce6ddUr5s

NSFW

number8
08-13-2008, 08:39 PM
I fucking adore Clowny Clown Clown.

MadMan
08-13-2008, 10:18 PM
Freddy was always a great character to me. The idea of the guy inserting mayhem into people's dreams and being something of a God inside them is very cinematic. It was recently used in a totally different way in Nightmare Detective.

I'm actually surprised Nightmare on Elm Street was an original script and not an adaptation, because the whole set-up is too clever for '80s slashers. Craven's glory days, I guess.Even though I think that "Nightmare" is a tad overrated, I agree with you that its fairly original. Plus the film features what quite possibly might be my favorite kill of all time: Johnny Depp getting sucked into the bed, with the blood suddenly gushing out all over the place. Disgusting and awesome, all at the same time.

Bosco B Thug
08-14-2008, 05:56 AM
Really?

Oh yeah, he is awesome on so many levels.

His CD is totally insane. Here is a video for "Clowny Clown Clown"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsSx5NA6sXw

Here he is reading one of his books:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoQU-JlxOI&feature=related

I recently saw him to a reading of 3 of his books and present his film What Is It?, along with a Q&A session.

Here is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcce6ddUr5s

NSFW Huh... well, Clowny Clown Clown was pretty great.

megladon8
04-03-2009, 08:16 PM
Jackie Earl Haley is Freddy Krueger. (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/03/now-thats-who-should-play-the-new-freddy-krueger/)

MadMan
04-03-2009, 09:01 PM
Jackie Earl Haley is Freddy Krueger. (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/03/now-thats-who-should-play-the-new-freddy-krueger/)It could work, I guess. He should be wary of getting typecasted, though.

The Mike
04-03-2009, 09:21 PM
Or like whoever the hell played Michael Myers. :P

Dammit, I only knew Nick Castle, Dick Warlock, George P. Wilbur, Brad Loree, and Tyler Mane off the top of my head. :sad:

<----------- Nerd. :lol:

EDIT: Can't believe I forgot Chris Durand! He was the worst!

lovejuice
04-04-2009, 12:33 AM
Dammit, I only knew Nick Castle, Dick Warlock, George P. Wilbur, Brad Loree, and Tyler Mane off the top of my head. :sad:

<----------- Nerd. :lol:

EDIT: Can't believe I forgot Chris Durand! He was the worst!
i have this crazy idea that they should make a new halloween movie ala new nightmare with william shatner.

D_Davis
04-05-2009, 03:22 PM
Jackie Earl Haley is Freddy Krueger. (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/03/now-thats-who-should-play-the-new-freddy-krueger/)

I like it.

megladon8
06-09-2009, 04:52 PM
Wes Craven is not happy about all this news of the remake. (http://movies.ign.com/articles/992/992845p1.html)

I also kind of laughed at his comment about the original film...


It's the film of mine that I probably love the most, and which made the most money.

I'm sure those two points aren't connected at all :lol:

The Mike
06-09-2009, 06:27 PM
Wes Craven's been selling out for at least the last decade and a half. And he's mad about this?

D_Davis
06-09-2009, 07:47 PM
Boo-f'n-hoo, Craven.

Sycophant
06-09-2009, 07:53 PM
Oh come on. Internet fans are allowed their indignance. The guy who made the movie should be allowed some, too.

number8
06-09-2009, 08:10 PM
Wes Craven has every right to be pissed. Next thing you know, they'll start making remakes without his official endorsements! You know, his classic films like Last House on the Left! Or Hills Have Eyes! ARE ANY OF THEM SACRED ANYMORE?

The Mike
06-09-2009, 08:21 PM
Maybe Craven's afraid the remake won't have as stupid of an ending....

Dead & Messed Up
06-10-2009, 04:44 AM
Or maybe he feels the people about to make a fortune off a story he created could at least give him a phone call.

Just throwing that one out there.

The Mike
06-10-2009, 04:59 AM
Seriously though, if I wanna make this movie, and I've seen some of the things that have Craven in a producer role over the last decade, I wouldn't call the guy either.

number8
06-10-2009, 05:18 AM
Or maybe he feels the people about to make a fortune off a story he created could at least give him a phone call.

Just throwing that one out there.

No, I'm certain that this is the case. He knows that this is going to shit money and he's not going to see a dime of it. Or have his name on the poster.

angrycinephile
06-12-2009, 02:55 PM
Oof, this will be horrid. Sure, Jackie Earl Haley is inspired casting as Freddy but so was Sean Bean in The Hitcher and look how wasted he was in that film. It doesn't help that Platinum Dunes has never produced a good film and I find their ongoing mission to remake every horror movie ever made quite cynical and disrespectful. Why should I be excited for this when it's clearly all about $$$? Brad Fuller and Andrew Form always talk about how big fans they are of the genre but I don't buy it.

Oh, and to be fair to Michael Bay; he has nothing to do with these films. He's merely the money man and just the executive producer. He might be to blame for starting this company in the first place but not for the outcome of their lazy, lazy movies.

On a side-note... this is my first post on this forum. Like, I guess, many of you I also post on Rotten Tomatoes but since that place is down at the moment I've decided to kick it here for a while.

MadMan
06-12-2009, 03:20 PM
Maybe Craven's afraid the remake won't have as stupid of an ending....I like the ending to A Nightmare On Elm Street. When I first saw it Freddy's arm busting through the door's window and grabbing the mom scared the ever living piss out of me. Great jump scare.

D_Davis
06-12-2009, 03:25 PM
Why should I be excited for this when it's clearly all about $$$?

How do you know this?

Was JC's The Thing all about the $$$?
Was Cronenberg's The Fly all about the $$$?
Was The Ring all about the $$$?
Was Dawn '04 all about the $$$?

Those are all great films and remakes. Three of which I like much better than the originals.

In a way, yes. All (as in every single one) Hollywood films (or really, any film with investors) is about the $$$. They'd like to recoup their costs and probably make a profit so that they can make more movies.

There is nothing inherently wrong with remakes or sequels.

Will this film be good? I have no idea.

Will the original still exist? Sure thing.

Will I have a choice of which one I want to watch? Yes.

And hey, maybe this will be one of the good ones.

angrycinephile
06-12-2009, 04:19 PM
Well, I didn't say that all remakes produced were cynical cash grabs. But as far as Platinum Dunes are concerned. Come on.

Their filmography:

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
The Amityville Horror (2005)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
The Hitcher (2007)
The Horsemen (2009)
The Unborn (2009)
Friday the 13th (2009)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Not to mention they're remaking The Birds and Rosemary's Baby next. Really think there's more to the picture than money when it comes to this filmmakers?

Raiders
06-12-2009, 04:23 PM
Welcome to the forums!

You'll have to forgive Davis. He's a bit of a Michael Bay apologist.

:P

Scar
06-12-2009, 04:25 PM
I actually quite enjoy the chainsaw remakes, and I've got a feeling that I'll quite enjoy Friday the 13th as well.

Its not like Friday the 13th is grand cinema. That series has always been about cash grabs.

Hell, the original Hitcher wasn't a good movie, so the remake is in the same bag in my book. If I had to choose which to rewatch, I'd go with the remake.


Well, I didn't say that all remakes produced were cynical cash grabs. But as far as Platinum Dunes are concerned. Come on.

Their filmography:

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
The Amityville Horror (2005)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
The Hitcher (2007)
The Horsemen (2009)
The Unborn (2009)
Friday the 13th (2009)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Not to mention they're remaking The Birds and Rosemary's Baby next. Really think there's more to the picture than money when it comes to this filmmakers?

D_Davis
06-12-2009, 04:29 PM
Welcome to the forums!

You'll have to forgive Davis. He's a bit of a Michael Bay apologist.

:P

That, and a non-hater of remakes/sequels.

Bosco B Thug
06-12-2009, 07:02 PM
I love the idea of remakes, but these guys at Platinum Dunes pretty much have all the imagination, collectively, of a naughty birthday card. The Amityville Horror is one of the worst things I have ever seen, and Friday the 13th was the absolute dearth of fun.

At least I won't need to worry about anything they put out at all comparing to The Birds. I'm finding it hard to imagine how they will de-tooth and un-class Rosemary's Baby, but oh, they'll find a way.

MacGuffin
06-12-2009, 07:03 PM
I'm finding it hard to imagine how they will de-tooth and un-class Rosemary's Baby, but oh, they'll find a way.

How? I'm afraid it will be too "boring" for mainstream audiences.

Bosco B Thug
06-12-2009, 07:33 PM
How? I'm afraid it will be too "boring" for mainstream audiences.
Is what I'm saying.

But let's see, "Rose" will be a sweet young thang with trust problems, and it'll be like The Omen except with a pregnant girl hobbling around instead of Gregory Peck, because teenage boys like that. An abortion doctor will get it in a gruesome way because ooh, topical.

number8
06-13-2009, 12:04 AM
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes are probably the perfect examples of what not to do with remakes.

Rowland
06-13-2009, 12:07 AM
It has been too long since I've seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, but its prequel, The Beginning, struck me as surpriingly strong.

number8
06-13-2009, 12:09 AM
It has been too long since I've seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, but its prequel, The Beginning, struck me as surpriingly strong.

That was even worse.

Rowland
06-13-2009, 12:17 AM
That was even worse.Nah. It's very well-made by the standards of the modern horror remake subgenre, perhaps overly literal-minded in its origin story trappings but soberly executed all the same, with some black humor and almost-affecting pathos to boot.

Dukefrukem
06-15-2009, 02:53 AM
I'm also a fan of The Beginning. The remake was god awful. Esp. the predictable ending.

number8
06-15-2009, 03:36 AM
Er, you'd think The Beginning's ending would be more predictable, since we know how all the Hoyt family end up. Especially that really stupid fake-out death of Ermey.

MadMan
06-15-2009, 07:10 AM
TCM: The Beginning was mediocre, mostly thanks to the black humor and some of the decent gore. It was just too stupid to be any good.

Dukefrukem
07-22-2009, 06:57 PM
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8618/freddyfirst.jpg

number8
07-22-2009, 09:21 PM
First photo of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger!

(No, really, it's him! We swear!)

Dukefrukem
07-23-2009, 12:51 AM
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4292/nightmare01.jpg

Grouchy
07-23-2009, 02:58 PM
Fuck. Seeing teaser posters and the like, knowing that this is really getting made... it's depressing.

Dukefrukem
07-23-2009, 03:02 PM
Fuck. Seeing teaser posters and the like, knowing that this is really getting made... it's depressing.

That teaser poster is quite good. I have a good feeling about this one. I do.

Spun Lepton
07-23-2009, 11:26 PM
Was JC's The Thing all about the $$$?
Was Cronenberg's The Fly all about the $$$?
Was The Ring all about the $$$?
Was Dawn '04 all about the $$$?

The Thing was made because Carpenter loved the original short story and the original film. It was not a cash grab, it was a personal project for him.

Cronenberg was brought on as a writer/director-for-hire on The Fly, so YES, it was a cash grab.

The Ring was an obvious cash grab, made to capitalize off the success of the (superior) Japanese version. Just because they hired a competent cast and crew doesn't mean it wasn't.

And you're trying to defend Dawn '04 as "not a cash grab"? Are you living on Mars? They remade it to capitalize on the renewed interest in zombie movies knowing full well the name would be enough to draw crowds.

Remakes are the death of Hollywood. You can only survive so long when you're eating yourself.

BuffaloWilder
07-24-2009, 12:47 AM
Really? Am I going to have to be that guy?

Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was not good. Of course it was a cash grab. It was obviously a cash grab.


That's it.

Sycophant
07-24-2009, 12:52 AM
"Cash grab," wha?

Studios don't sink tens of millions of dollars into projects they expect won't make them some of these $$$$, be it an adaptation, a remake, or an original script.

Remakes have been part of the film industry since the thirties.

Dukefrukem
07-24-2009, 12:53 AM
Really? Am I going to have to be that guy?

Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was not good. Of course it was a cash grab. It was obviously a cash grab.


That's it.

Snyder's Dawn of this Dead was his best film.

megladon8
07-24-2009, 12:54 AM
Really? Am I going to have to be that guy?

Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was not good. Of course it was a cash grab. It was obviously a cash grab.


That's it.


If a movie isn't good, that means it's a cash grab?

I thought Shortbus was terrible. It definitely wasn't a cash grab.


And thank you, Sycophant, for saying what I was going to say - while I am sick of remakes as much as the next film buff, they've been around for as long as Hollywood itself. They're not leaving any time soon.

Sycophant
07-24-2009, 12:55 AM
I feel like I make that post once a month.

D_Davis
07-24-2009, 01:10 AM
Dawn '04 > the original

Dawn '04 is a fantastic zombie film.

D_Davis
07-24-2009, 01:11 AM
The Thing was made because Carpenter loved the original short story and the original film. It was not a cash grab, it was a personal project for him.

Cronenberg was brought on as a writer/director-for-hire on The Fly, so YES, it was a cash grab.

The Ring was an obvious cash grab, made to capitalize off the success of the (superior) Japanese version. Just because they hired a competent cast and crew doesn't mean it wasn't.

And you're trying to defend Dawn '04 as "not a cash grab"? Are you living on Mars? They remade it to capitalize on the renewed interest in zombie movies knowing full well the name would be enough to draw crowds.

Remakes are the death of Hollywood. You can only survive so long when you're eating yourself.

Oh please. This is why I rarely discuss films here anymore.

Spun Lepton
07-24-2009, 01:16 AM
I feel like I make that post once a month.

Nobody denies that Hollywood has been doing it since the beginning, but they've never been as pervasive as they have in the last 10+ years.

Remakes are fine. A plague of remakes is a problem.

Spun Lepton
07-24-2009, 01:17 AM
Oh please. This is why I rarely discuss films here anymore.

Oh, please yourself.

BuffaloWilder
07-24-2009, 01:27 AM
If a movie isn't good, that means it's a cash grab?

I thought Shortbus was terrible. It definitely wasn't a cash grab.


Perhaps I wasn't too clear - it was a cash grab because it was directed by Zach Snyder, the cash grabbiest of directors.

Spun Lepton
07-24-2009, 01:31 AM
Perhaps I wasn't too clear - it was a cash grab because it was directed by Zach Snyder, the cash grabbiest of directors.

I would have to disagree. He fought hard to get Watchmen as close to the original source as he could, he obviously has a passion for filmmaking above and beyond the bottom line.

Skitch
07-24-2009, 01:37 AM
Remakes don't really bother me...I can always enjoy the original, and occasionally one is good (DOTD, The Ring)

Spun Lepton
07-24-2009, 01:47 AM
I should probably note that I love Cronenberg's version of The Fly, and I really enjoy Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, (although I could never place it above Romero's). I did not care for The Ring, however. The Thing is my favorite movie of all-time, too.

Dukefrukem
07-24-2009, 12:35 PM
The Ring was horrible. The Ring 2 was worse. Wonder why they didn't remake the third.

Dukefrukem
09-23-2009, 12:49 PM
trailer coming in Zombieland showings

Dead & Messed Up
09-23-2009, 06:11 PM
Dawn '04 > the original

Dawn '04 is a fantastic zombie film.

Oh boy. I'd love to get into this with you. Having recently watched the remake again, I feel confident in saying that it's hardly fantastic. The original is superior in so many ways that it's kind of painful.

megladon8
09-23-2009, 11:50 PM
Oh boy. I'd love to get into this with you. Having recently watched the remake again, I feel confident in saying that it's hardly fantastic. The original is superior in so many ways that it's kind of painful.

Two words.

In deed.

The Mike
09-24-2009, 01:11 AM
Yeah, I just rewatched the orig also. It's fan-freakin'-tastic.

Dead & Messed Up
09-24-2009, 01:14 AM
Two words.

In deed.


Yeah, I just rewatched the orig also. It's fan-freakin'-tastic.

http://stuff.pyzam.com/funnypics/2/pyzamawesome.jpg

number8
09-24-2009, 08:59 AM
You know, I was receptive of the remake when I first saw it, I think mostly because it wasn't the disaster I expected it to be.

Then I saw it again, and it's kind of shitty.

Morris Schæffer
09-28-2009, 10:50 AM
teaser:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=25925

Fuck teaser. It's a trailer. And it looks promising...I think.

Dukefrukem
09-28-2009, 11:59 AM
youtube too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKs6u5qPRSM)

love it...

Henry Gale
09-28-2009, 05:51 PM
Ok... I'm actually sold on this.

The original was easily the scariest movie I had seen when I did as a kid, and it still remains one of my favourite horror movies. But this actually looks like it could emulate certain aspects of it instead of tarnish them. Some of those elements ('80s production values and Krueger's humour among them) probably being ones I took comfort in when I was younger. Then again... I also loved New Nightmare.

Dead & Messed Up
09-28-2009, 05:56 PM
I said to myself, "No more horror remakes," and I think I can avoid this one too...

...but the presence of Clancy Brown is gonna make it really, really difficult.

Watashi
09-28-2009, 05:59 PM
This looks like a carbon copy of the original minus the camp value.

number8
09-28-2009, 06:07 PM
The idea of remaking or rebooting a slasher has got to be the most vapid and pointless endeavor one can do. It's not like anybody can tell it apart from the sequels.

megladon8
09-28-2009, 06:50 PM
That looks pretty good actually.

Some great imagery there.

I'll see it.

Ivan Drago
09-28-2009, 07:09 PM
Looks kinda cool. I'll probably see it.

Scar
09-29-2009, 12:53 AM
Not really feeling it.

I'll definately see it when it comes out, but don't know if I'll enjoy it like the TCM reboots, or Zombie's Halloween, or, hell, even the Friday the 13th remake.

Mysterious Dude
09-29-2009, 01:38 AM
Samuel Bayer (http://www.samuelbayer.com/musicvideos/0/) is a great music video director. Not sure how well he can handle a feature film, though. That his first film is a remake is not encouraging.

Spun Lepton
09-29-2009, 02:09 AM
Unimpressed.

Wryan
09-29-2009, 04:59 PM
Samuel Bayer (http://www.samuelbayer.com/musicvideos/0/) is a great music video director. Not sure how well he can handle a feature film, though. That his first film is a remake is not encouraging.

It makes sense though for him. He can ease himself into the big leagues without needing to worry a whole helluva lot about story and characters (since they are primed into audiences anyway) and can just concentrate on what one would hope he is good at: the visuals and design and camerawork, etc.

Not saying it's good, just that it prob helps him.

number8
09-29-2009, 05:14 PM
Remember Marcus Nispel, anyone?

megladon8
09-29-2009, 05:20 PM
I don't see what's so deeply disappointing people here.

I don't know what you'd be expecting that isn't showcased in that strategically edited trailer. We really haven't seen much yet.

It has some striking imagery, Jackie Earl Haley is bloody perfect casting, and it's Freddy being scary and menacing as opposed to a jokester (which I think is a pretty smart move for a series reboot).

number8
09-29-2009, 05:59 PM
It has some striking imagery

I don't see any, except for the girls skipping rope... which is in every Freddy movie ever made.


Jackie Earl Haley is bloody perfect casting

He's good, but he's suffering from BatBale voice here. That last bit was just comically bad.


and it's Freddy being scary and menacing as opposed to a jokester (which I think is a pretty smart move for a series reboot).That's kind of lame.

Dead & Messed Up
09-29-2009, 06:08 PM
It has some striking imagery, Jackie Earl Haley is bloody perfect casting, and it's Freddy being scary and menacing as opposed to a jokester (which I think is a pretty smart move for a series reboot).

He's not a jokester, no, but neither was Englund in the original and New Nightmare.

I'm also wary because Bayer's longer music videos for Green Day demonstrate the opposite of subtle characterizations. Watch "Wake Me Up When September Ends" and "Jesus of Suburbia" and observe someone who doesn't know how teenagers behave.

Bosco B Thug
09-29-2009, 07:09 PM
I'd love to give a chance to any new up-and-coming horror director, but Platinum Dunes can keep trying and trying and they'll always suck big hairy balls.

I was more pumped up by the Friday the 13th trailer (likely due to my partiality to the one franchise as opposed to the other...) and look how satisfying that turned out (for me, anyway).

megladon8
09-29-2009, 07:26 PM
I don't see any, except for the girls skipping rope... which is in every Freddy movie ever made.

I thought the shot of Freddy walking down the boiler room hallway which is lit in amber lighting while he remains in shadow was pretty neat.



He's good, but he's suffering from BatBale voice here. That last bit was just comically bad.

I don't hear "Bat-Bale" there at all.



That's kind of lame.

Why? You don't like horror movies to try to be scary? Or you thought Freddy was better as a stand-up comedian than a horror villain?

megladon8
09-29-2009, 07:26 PM
He's not a jokester, no, but neither was Englund in the original and New Nightmare.

That's what I'm saying.

I like the return to scary Freddy, not comedy Freddy, where every kill is a wink at the audience.

That got lamer with every installment in the series.

Spun Lepton
09-29-2009, 08:35 PM
Aside from Freddy being burned at what appears to be the very beginning, it looks like a carbon-copy of the original. It doesn't even look like they're trying to bring anything new to the table. Snore.

Saya
09-29-2009, 08:50 PM
Finally saw the trailer. Ugh. Looks terrible.

number8
09-29-2009, 09:16 PM
I thought the shot of Freddy walking down the boiler room hallway which is lit in amber lighting while he remains in shadow was pretty neat.

It's photographed nicely, but it's not visually interesting at all. Not to mention that all of these images are so familiar and passe. Freddy silhouette walking down a boiler room? Come the fuck on. Again, that's like a checklist image for a Nightmare movie.


I don't hear "Bat-Bale" there at all.

I don't mean literally. It's the forcedness of the invented inflection that's more comical than menacing, reminds me of what Bale tried to do. It sounds like a bad Englund impersonation.


Why? You don't like horror movies to try to be scary? Or you thought Freddy was better as a stand-up comedian than a horror villain?

The idea of it being the thing that'll make this good is what's lame to me. So Freddy's going to be a serious killer instead of a wisecracky one. That doesn't really point to anything.

megladon8
09-29-2009, 10:05 PM
The idea of it being the thing that'll make this good is what's lame to me. So Freddy's going to be a serious killer instead of a wisecracky one. That doesn't really point to anything.


I don't think that aspect is going to make this good. I'm just saying that the scary Freddy was always much more appealing to me than the jokester Freddy. I'm glad to see they took the serious approach instead of making this a borderline comedy.

It's at least a good place to start, IMO.

Grouchy
10-01-2009, 04:31 AM
I'm not gonna bother with this one. The one glimpse of Freddy face we get to see is lame. Makes it more generic killer than the character ever was, even in the worst of the films.

What I'm gonna do, I'm gonna hurry up and buy the old movies boxset while it's still relatively cheap.

The Mike
10-01-2009, 05:22 AM
Yeah, pretty sure you can get all 8 films for about 20 bucks right now in those WB 4 Film Packs.

Dukefrukem
10-01-2009, 12:59 PM
Yeah, pretty sure you can get all 8 films for about 20 bucks right now in those WB 4 Film Packs.

haha i think I paid $100+ for them in that box set...

Grouchy
10-01-2009, 05:07 PM
haha i think I paid $100+ for them in that box set...
Around here it's 99.90 pesos. Equivalent to 26 US dollars.

Dukefrukem
02-25-2010, 12:27 PM
Trailer (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indi vidual&videoid=103206439)

(It's on myspace btw so I haven't seen it yet cuz it's blocked at work)

hey it's ethan
02-25-2010, 10:01 PM
I dunno, I think the music video aesthetic of all the Platinum Dunes movies kind of suits this.

Spun Lepton
02-26-2010, 01:45 AM
That trailer was excellent. Dare I say I'm anticipating this a bit?

megladon8
02-26-2010, 01:49 AM
That trailer was excellent. Dare I say I'm anticipating this a bit?


Me too.

It's very pretty.

Dead & Messed Up
02-26-2010, 02:22 AM
Okay, seriously, I'm trying to swear off horror remakes, but between this and The Crazies...

Goddamnit.

number8
02-26-2010, 02:25 AM
Don't you need excellence to be excellent?

number8
02-26-2010, 02:27 AM
For a franchise that's kind of defined by its creative, surreal kills, it's kind of sad to see a reboot recycling the old ones.

Spun Lepton
02-26-2010, 02:53 AM
It looks like there are a few new ideas, but we can only wait and see.

MadMan
02-26-2010, 06:17 AM
Unlike The Crazies remake, which actually looks good, I'm sure this one will suck. Michael Bay's name attached tells me all I need to know.

megladon8
02-26-2010, 04:52 PM
Unlike The Crazies remake, which actually looks good, I'm sure this one will suck. Michael Bay's name attached tells me all I need to know.


Eh, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was better than I expected.

Dukefrukem
02-26-2010, 04:52 PM
Eh, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was better than I expected.

It was actually... unless the very last shot.

Scar
02-26-2010, 10:22 PM
Eh, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was better than I expected.

I rather enjoy both of the new TCM's.

And I know the F13 remake is bad, but goddamnit, I enjoy it. The F13 movies have never been high art.

megladon8
02-26-2010, 11:40 PM
I rather enjoy both of the new TCM's.

And I know the F13 remake is bad, but goddamnit, I enjoy it. The F13 movies have never been high art.


I still haven't seen the F13 remake. Nor have I seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.

But damn, the TCM remake was really, really pretty.

angrycinephile
02-27-2010, 01:33 AM
The remake of TCM sucks. Many, many reasons for this but the primary one is that Leatherface looks like a joke. I honestly think even the transvestite version in the 1994-film is creepier. Compared to Gunnar Hansen, who is so menacing and freaky every time the camera's on him in the original, Nispel's silly "bad-ass" MTV Leatherface does not compare. That's also a film filled with dread and a real unsettling mood throughout which the remake, frankly, has none of.

The Mike
02-27-2010, 02:29 AM
The remake of TCM sucks. Many, many reasons for this but the primary one is that Leatherface looks like a joke. I honestly think even the transvestite version in the 1994-film is creepier. Compared to Gunnar Hansen, who is so menacing and freaky every time the camera's on him in the original, Nispel's silly "bad-ass" MTV Leatherface does not compare. That's also a film filled with dread and a real unsettling mood throughout which the remake, frankly, has none of.

This. Possibly my least favorite movie of the decade.

MadMan
02-27-2010, 05:07 AM
I have no interest in watching the TCM remake, partly because of AC's remarks, but also because I don't want to view a watered down version of the original, although granted I did like the Halloween remake so go figure. I agree with Scar that the F13th remake wasn't very good, but was fun to watch anyways-and yes the original series isn't that great.

hey it's ethan
02-27-2010, 02:54 PM
I think the TCM remake is actually pretty fun and features a surprisingly good performance by Jessica Biel, but the entire movie kind of borders on self-parody throughout because of Nispel's desire to make the entire thing look like a fucking music video.

Also, I'd actually recommend the making-of on the DVD as it's actually pretty revealing and hilarious.

number8
02-27-2010, 03:32 PM
I have no interest in watching the TCM remake, partly because of AC's remarks, but also because I don't want to view a watered down version of the original, although granted I did like the Halloween remake so go figure. I agree with Scar that the F13th remake wasn't very good, but was fun to watch anyways-and yes the original series isn't that great.

It's not really watered down. People forget that the original TCM has like no on-screen gore. The remake actually ramps up the gore considerably.

I hate it.

BuffaloWilder
02-27-2010, 06:42 PM
I'm excited for this - unlike any of the other Platinum Dunes films, this looks like it might have some real competency behind it.

Dukefrukem
03-01-2010, 12:24 PM
I'm excited for this - unlike any of the other Platinum Dunes films, this looks like it might have some real competency behind it.

Why do you think this is? Samuel Bayer is directing it who's entire career is based on directing music videos... which when you think about it, is similar to how Bay directs. Is it because of JEH?

I'm not expecting much at all.

number8
03-01-2010, 02:33 PM
I just don't get the "make every shot look glossy and pretty" style of filmmaking. For a horror movie, no less.

KK2.0
03-01-2010, 03:30 PM
It's not really watered down. People forget that the original TCM has like no on-screen gore. The remake actually ramps up the gore considerably.

I hate it.

The Devil's Rejects is actually closer to the spirit of the original TCM than the remake, imo.

edit: just watched the trailer for Elm Street, it looks great.

Dukefrukem
03-01-2010, 04:27 PM
I just don't get the "make every shot look glossy and pretty" style of filmmaking. For a horror movie, no less.

I've noticed this too, and the only movie that I think pulls it off is Wolf Creek. What kind of film making is that called? Is there a word or technique behind it?

Dead & Messed Up
03-01-2010, 09:56 PM
I'm excited for this - unlike any of the other Platinum Dunes films, this looks like it might have some real competency behind it.

Competency: what Platinum Dunes strives for.

BuffaloWilder
03-01-2010, 10:37 PM
Why do you think this is? Samuel Bayer is directing it who's entire career is based on directing music videos... which when you think about it, is similar to how Bay directs. Is it because of JEH?

I'm not expecting much at all.

Bay isn't the only director whose come from a career in music videos, y'know. Alex Proyas and Tarsem to name a couple both share origins in MTV, and while I can't vouch too much for the former in terms of his recent stuff, the latter's body of work speaks for itself. And, you and Mr. Huit are talking about 'glossiness' and 'prettiness,' but - I mean, are talking about there being some actual attempts at composure to some of the shots we're seeing, or what?

And oh yes, the presence of Haley really does provide a bolster for some of my hopes. I mean come on guys.

number8
03-01-2010, 11:38 PM
I like Haley, but he doesn't really factor in my hopes for any project.

megladon8
03-02-2010, 12:00 AM
8 I can't tell you how many times I've had to hold back from verbally degrading you when I think I see a rating of 2 for Amelie in your signature.

Spun Lepton
03-02-2010, 12:15 AM
8 I can't tell you how many times I've had to hold back from verbally degrading you when I think I see a rating of 2 for Amelie in your signature.

You do realize it's Amelia, and not Amelie, right?

megladon8
03-02-2010, 12:18 AM
You do realize it's Amelia, and not Amelie, right?


Yes, that's my point.

I keep glancing at his signature and reading "Amelie - 2", then I get ready to give him a verbal lambasting of epic proportions, before realizing it's "Amelia - 2", and that the score is probably deserved.

number8
03-02-2010, 02:22 AM
:lol:

To be fair, I'm not a big fan of Amelie, either. Not the "2" kind, but still.

Spun Lepton
03-02-2010, 03:02 AM
:lol:

To be fair, I'm not a big fan of Amelie, either. Not the "2" kind, but still.

I'm cracking my punching knuckles, now.

number8
03-02-2010, 03:18 AM
I... liked the orgasm montage?

Spun Lepton
03-02-2010, 03:19 AM
I... liked the orgasm montage?

:lol:

megladon8
03-07-2010, 07:06 PM
This has some of the oldest looking teenagers I've ever seen.

number8
03-07-2010, 07:23 PM
This has some of the oldest looking teenagers I've ever seen.

No, it's okay. Their age were rebooted.

Dukefrukem
04-16-2010, 04:49 PM
I like this (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44665)clip a lot. She better be sleep walking though.

Spun Lepton
04-16-2010, 09:03 PM
This has some of the oldest looking teenagers I've ever seen.

:lol: That's the first thing I thought when I saw the trailer. "What are these students, like, 35 years old?!"

Spun Lepton
04-25-2010, 08:51 PM
The director refused to retrofit 3D. Bless him. This gives me a liiitle bit more hope that this will actually turn out decent. Good for Michael Bay for backing him.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/24/samuel-bayer-refused-to-convert-a-nightmare-on-elm-street-to-3d/

MadMan
04-30-2010, 10:06 AM
As reported in the horror thread, I was actually glad to be wrong about this movie sucking. No, it was rather good-the second horror remake to be released this year (the other being The Crazies) that really worked. Still hate Michael Bay, but the guy he got to direct this seemed to know what he was doing.

megladon8
04-30-2010, 11:17 PM
Every single thing I have heard about this movie, other than MadMan's review, is that it's absolute putrid crap.

Really disappointing to hear. I knew it wouldn't be great, but it seems it has absolutely nothing going for it.

Dead & Messed Up
05-01-2010, 12:55 AM
Every single thing I have heard about this movie, other than MadMan's review, is that it's absolute putrid crap.

Really disappointing to hear. I knew it wouldn't be great, but it seems it has absolutely nothing going for it.

Worst I've been hearing is that Haley isn't as much of a presence as Englund's Krueger, and that's just bizarre to me. I mean, he was one of the high points of Shutter Island, and probably the highest in Watchmen. How could he not hit this out of the park?

Spun Lepton
05-01-2010, 12:56 AM
Worst I've been hearing is that Haley isn't as much of a presence as Englund's Krueger, and that's just bizarre to me. I mean, he was one of the high points of Shutter Island, and probably the highest in Watchmen. How could he not hit this out of the park?

Perhaps it was just a paycheck to him?

Rowland
05-01-2010, 02:52 AM
Worst I've been hearing is that Haley isn't as much of a presence as Englund's Krueger, and that's just bizarre to me. I mean, he was one of the high points of Shutter Island, and probably the highest in Watchmen. How could he not hit this out of the park?From the FFC review:

"Haley is excellent for what he's given, but he's not given much. The moments in which he's not being sped-up or flash-edited into inconsequence--when he's allowed to deliver a line like the famous "I'm your boyfriend now!"--reveal a glimpse of what could have been. He's disgusting and unrepentant, a bit of a bully, and, posing as he will throughout the film as a teacher at a blackboard, representative of the kinds of real nightmares parents have for their children."

From this and everything else I've read, it sounds like the material and filmmaking just weren't enough to really bring out his performance.

MadMan
05-01-2010, 07:19 AM
I'm trying to recall the last time I liked a movie that got bashed this much. Nothing is coming to mind at the present time. Haley is certainly no England, but I didn't think anyone was going to match England in the role, anyways-and that's the only reason I'd place the original a bit more over the remake, although they still get the same score from me. The visuals surely were the movie's strongest point, but I also liked the young cast as well-the two leads (I'm too lazy to look up their names) did a good enough job, but hey the acting in the original aside from England wasn't very good, either.

Plus hey there's Clancy Brown in the John Saxon role here, although he plays a principal of the high school instead of a policeman.

MadMan
09-14-2010, 06:00 PM
Months later, I'm still the only one on this site that actually liked the remake. Oh well.

megladon8
11-25-2010, 03:54 AM
Another horrid 2010 movie. What was with this year?


I couldn't believe it when the writers copped out on the only shred of semi-decent originality in this movie.

What a waste of time.

Dukefrukem
11-26-2010, 11:55 PM
Months later, I'm still the only one on this site that actually liked the remake. Oh well.

I'm with ya on this MadMan. I liked it. Way better than the Friday the 13th reboot. Sure the actors a bit old for high schoolers, but it works. Didn't really pay attention to it until it was mentioned in this thread. Acting isn't too bad like most cheaply produced horror movies. Biggest complaint is the reuse of deaths from the first movies (or at least glimpses of scares) If you get a chance to put your spin a franchise, why not go hog wild with it? They could have put Haley in more scenes too.

I like the misdirection with Kris dying early. I got the impression that she was gonna be one of the ones to survive the whole movie.

Henry Gale
11-27-2010, 07:48 PM
The only misdirection I thought was interesting (and eventually, one of the few things I liked in it for a good chunk of it) was bringing in the idea of whether or not Krueger was actually guilty or not, with the parents making the kids lie about things, and his vengeance being based on that instead of simply his anger of being caught.

But of course, it was just that: a misdirection.
So after it basically showed that to not really be the case within the plot, the movie went back to being a fairly typical, unchallenging and boringly paced piece mainstream horror. I really wanted to like it too.

megladon8
11-27-2010, 08:00 PM
The only misdirection I thought was interesting (and eventually, one of the few things I liked in it for a good chunk of it) was bringing in the idea of whether or not Krueger was actually guilty or not, with the parents making the kids lie about things, and his vengeance being based on that instead of simply his anger of being caught.

But of course, it was just that: a misdirection.
So after it basically showed that to not really be the case within the plot, the movie went back to being a fairly typical, unchallenging and boringly paced piece mainstream horror. I really wanted to like it too.


Yeah, what you wrote in spoilers.

That was the only mildly interesting aspect of the movie for me.

The acting was atrocious from everyone involved (particularly Rooney Mara, who should never be a lead actress ever again) and the 30-year-old teens were the most noticeably out of place I've seen in recent memory.

Watching the Making-Of on the DVD truly made it seem like two things went on behind the scenes:

1.) No one involved had ever actually seen the original Craven film

2.) The Freddy make-up was so bad that even the filmmakers were having a hard time not trashing it when asked about it.

Henry Gale
11-27-2010, 11:10 PM
I dunno, if I remember right, I thought Rooney Mara was fine in it. Easily the best of the teen characters.

Jackie Earle Haley, Connie Britton and Clancy Brown are obviously great on their own too, just none of them seemed to be used enough here (even Haley). And even for the non-Freddy of those, I can't recall much that they were given to do when they were on screen.

Except Britton getting Krueger's glove through her face in the final shot. That I do recall.

megladon8
11-28-2010, 02:25 AM
I can't imagine how one could have been impressed by Rooney Mara, even to the point where one would declare her performance "fine".

Her lack of emotion, vocal range and facial expression would make the most mumbly of mublecore directors turn her away.

She was terrible, and even worse was the fact that she was supposed to be the lead.

eternity
11-28-2010, 03:43 AM
I can't imagine how one could have been impressed by Rooney Mara, even to the point where one would declare her performance "fine".

Her lack of emotion, vocal range and facial expression would make the most mumbly of mublecore directors turn her away.

She was terrible, and even worse was the fact that she was supposed to be the lead.
http://crowdfusion.myspacecdn.com/media/2010/09/30/the-social-network-erica-600w.jpg


Yeah, okay.

Dukefrukem
11-28-2010, 04:59 PM
She definitely wasn't terrible.

megladon8
11-28-2010, 07:35 PM
http://crowdfusion.myspacecdn.com/media/2010/09/30/the-social-network-erica-600w.jpg


Yeah, okay.



Great retort there, eternity!!

You showed me...with a screenshot from another movie...

eternity
11-28-2010, 07:43 PM
Great retort there, eternity!!

You showed me...with a screenshot from another movie...
Again, I quote:

"Her lack of emotion, vocal range and facial expression would make the most mumbly of mublecore directors turn her away."

You're not just speaking about her one performance in A Nightmare on Elm Street here. In which I direct your attention to The Social Network, where her "lack of emotion, vocal range, and facial expressions" were enough for David Fincher and the large amounts of people who praised her performance in that film, as well as Youth in Revolt.

You're bad at being condescending. My retort actually was quite good.

megladon8
11-28-2010, 07:44 PM
Again, I quote:

"Her lack of emotion, vocal range and facial expression would make the most mumbly of mublecore directors turn her away."

You're not just speaking about her one performance in A Nightmare on Elm Street here. In which I direct your attention to The Social Network, where her "lack of emotion, vocal range, and facial expressions" were enough for David Fincher and the large amounts of people who praised her performance in that film, as well as Youth in Revolt.

You're bad at being condescending. My retort actually was quite good.


Yes, I was just speaking of her performance in A Nightmare on Elm Street.

I have not seen The Social Network, and I am not judging her in that movie by how she was in this one.

In this one, she was terrible. As was everyone else involved, and the movie itself.

So yeah, your retort was a fail.

MadMan
11-29-2010, 05:34 AM
Well at least Duke liked it too, and Henry gave it a shot. I'm now interested in watching it again, just because its now been months since I last saw it and I'm wondering why I thought it was a good movie. I wanted to hate it, too, as Michael Bay is behind it, but that didn't happen. The young cast was just fine for the most part, although a few of them weren't very good-mainly the young guy who gets killed in the dinner, and the dude who dies in jail but I really was willing to excuse bad acting seeing as that happens all the time in slasher movies and the horror genre in general.

As for Haley, I thought that he made the role his own and did a fine job with it. Of course he wasn't going to be better than Robert Englund-I would have been amazed if he had been-so that wasn't the point. With the makeup it looked as if they were aiming for a semi-realistic looking burn victim.

Dukefrukem
11-29-2010, 11:38 AM
Well at least Duke liked it too, and Henry gave it a shot. I'm now interested in watching it again, just because its now been months since I last saw it and I'm wondering why I thought it was a good movie. I wanted to hate it, too, as Michael Bay is behind it, but that didn't happen. The young cast was just fine for the most part, although a few of them weren't very good-mainly the young guy who gets killed in the dinner, and the dude who dies in jail but I really was willing to excuse bad acting seeing as that happens all the time in slasher movies and the horror genre in general.

As for Haley, I thought that he made the role his own and did a fine job with it. Of course he wasn't going to be better than Robert Englund-I would have been amazed if he had been-so that wasn't the point. With the makeup it looked as if they were aiming for a semi-realistic looking burn victim.

I agree here. And now that you mention how poorly setup the opening scene was, they could have thought of a better way to introduce Freddy. It's hard to pretend like you don't know what's going on in reboots. I didn't grow up on the franchise, but as I started watching the movies I portrayed Freddy as the scariest of the three slashers. (Jason, Michael, Freddy) I liked the idea that he was so elusive and played with his victims before he decided it was time for them to die. Myers and Jason just appeared and killed...and I always thought that was kinda campy.

Out of the three classic horrors remade by Bay's production company, Nightmare on Elm St is the most well rounded, despite Meg thinking the acting was poor. I liked the imagery too; some of the effects from the real world to the dream world was nicely done. The lack of nudity in Nightmare kinda classes it up a bit (for a horror movie).Friday the 13th was the worst, the screenplay and acting is F level bad. Have you seen that remake Meg? I'd be interested in you comparing the two. TCM also being bad, but the build up in the first half is worthy of viewing.

Henry Gale
11-30-2010, 01:43 AM
Out of the three classic horrors remade by Bay's production company, Nightmare on Elm St is the most well rounded, despite Meg thinking the acting was poor. I liked the imagery too; some of the effects from the real world to the dream world was nicely done. The lack of nudity in Nightmare kinda classes it up a bit (for a horror movie).Friday the 13th was the worst, the screenplay and acting is F level bad. Have you seen that remake Meg? I'd be interested in you comparing the two. TCM also being bad, but the build up in the first half is worthy of viewing.

You see, I didn't like that one either, but I would still say I liked some pretty big aspects of it. Particularly how the opening sequence plays against expectations, how some of the characters seem to be intentionally designed with in some places turning around what seem to be the archetypes in mind, how the asian and black guys are given room to be the smartest and funniest, and in some ways, the toughest of the bunch. Plus, the part at the end, silently hovering back through the scenes of all the murders; I thought that was pretty effective too.

I mean, I'm still not a fan of it overall, though I'd still argue it's better than most of the original ones, but that's another discussion. (That discussion also may include me contemplating whether or not Freddy vs. Jason is my favourite Jason film.) The Nightmare series though, it has some great entries, and this reboot, even if it did end up being better than I felt it was, still makes me sad that the life of the original franchise, and the general spirit it had throughout, is now done for good. Having it this disappointing with little chance for any redemptive sequels makes it even more of a shame.