Nightmare on Elm Street remake

[Alien Redrum]

I don't give a damn about remakes, and this trailer looks good.

Color me excited.

[Sham]

The script was pretty good, and I want to see the movie.

My main problem is that everyone involved completely threw Wes Craven under the bus. The original is his masterpiece, and they're not giving him any sort of credit at all. They didn't contact him or anything to see what he thought of their ideas or what advice he had to give. That's a really shitty thing to do considering he spent THREE YEARS just trying to get the script into the hands of someone willing to produce it.

I'm not even upset about Robert Englund -- it was a chance role that made him a star. But for Craven, he knew he had something special in the first place and worked his ass off to get it out there for people to see.

I think if the original creator of something is still alive when their work is being redone, the new people have the amazing opportunity to ask the creator what they would fix and what they would change if they could do it again. They didn't do that, and it pisses me off.

[Alien Redrum]

I can see what you are saying, but it's not like Craven is suffering for coin, so I don't feel to bad about it. Yeah he got a shit deal, but what can you do.

On one hand, I'm completely down with them taking another look at it without 'shoulda coulda woulda' (especially if you look at Craven's track record in the past 20 years), on the other, the man did create a horror icon and he should have some say.

Either way, it's an awesome choice for the new Freddy (if you can go by the trailer ).

[LivingDeadGirl]

Pros
- Krueger's location when he's burned to death by the townspeople more closely matches nightmare scenery than the white-picket-fence, father figure scenario they showed in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.
- Scenes from the original film are re-created (claw in bathtub) while still adding some new elements
- Clancy Brown (loved him in Pet Sematary II)
- New Freddy (it's not Englund, but a suitable replacement)

Cons
- New Freddy (I'm a sucker for Englund)
- Kept name of original character (Nancy Thompson) but changed names of other characters - if this is supposed to be a re-make, why the name changes?
- Michael Bay (the only horror remake he's had that I actually liked was Amityville Horror)

More than likely this will be a rental, but I'll at least give it a shot.

[Timberwolf West]

Hey that trailer is from my you tube account

I was against this film at first, but I have to admit the trailer won me over a bit. I'm kind of at a wait and see now. I don't think it will top the original, but it may beat out some of the sequels.

[Alien Redrum]

I was against this film at first, but I have to admit the trailer won me over a bit.

I wouldn't say I was against it (I'm not against any remakes), but I was definitely ho-hum about it until I saw the trailer. The trailer is certainly impressive.

I don't think it will top the original, but it may beat out some of the sequels.

Agreed. But not part 3. 3 had the Dream Warriors. You can't beat the Dream Warriors. They stand in the night alone, forever together.

[walls]

I think this looks really good and the casting of Freddy looks to be dead on.

[Atrium Pool]

I have been so against remakes since 2003's Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that it's completely isolated me from most people in the horror community. I haven't met a single person as attached to the belief that you don't mess with perfection as I am. Because at this point, I'm so tired of them only seeking to remake good films that I want to kick one of these Alexandre Aja's or Marcus Nispel's right in the balls! I want them to feel my anger.

Either I'm softening (finally, nearly 7 years later) or I'm losing my mind. Because I'm actually looking forward to this particular remake. I'm not paying theater-admission prices, that's for sure! But, this film is (dare I say it?)... not afraid of style! Or, should I say (more appropriately) that they're trying to mix the gritty Se7en look of "horror" today with the over-the-top colors and visual surreality of a once artful Argento, or the original franchise (when it could afford to go wild, especially in The Dream Master).

I think it's probably just the 'losing my mind' thing. Because I know it won't be any good. It has Michael Bay's name on it. If there was ever any sign of intelligence or substance at all in anything that has his name on or anywhere near it, he had it removed. I'm just thinking this new consideration for a good looking film might be a welcomed change of pace for the genre. Because I'm so sick and tired of these dirty basement, abandoned crackhouse, dusty torture chamber exploitation flicks. I'd give anything for an honest-to-God fantasy horror film again! For a little variety.

[Alien Redrum]

I was going on a long diatribe about how it's movie fans and not Hollywood that are to blame for remakes and Michael Bay's name is another million in ticket sales, but I'll instead just say I think they picked a good Krueger, so it's adding to my excitement to see this movie.

[Atrium Pool]

Hot damn- I forgot about him...

I've never seen him before, don't know anything about him. If he can't be theatrical like Englund, I won't like him.

[Al]

I not particularly fond of remakes, but casting Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy made me think that this just might be cool. The best thing about Freddy is that he has a personality and a voice, Jason and Leatherface seem to lack one when they kill their victims. I had just seen Shutter Island and Haley made the most of his role even with a limited amount (still haven't seen Watchmen and heard he was great in that) and casting Haley might just be a good move. The only problem with the trailer is that it somehow makes Freddy look like a victim in the beginning when Freddy is a psycho, and that part bothered me. I want this movie to be a horror flick and not some demented revenge flick.

[shiki-jitsu]

The only problem with the trailer is that it somehow makes Freddy look like a victim in the beginning when Freddy is a psycho, and that part bothered me. I want this movie to be a horror flick and not some demented revenge flick.

Yeah, but in reality Nightmare on Elm Street is a revenge flick. Granted it's a child murderer exacting revenge on the people that murdered him. Krueger was a victim, and it was the mob of parents that made him what he is.

[Alien Redrum]

The only problem with the trailer is that it somehow makes Freddy look like a victim in the beginning when Freddy is a psycho, and that part bothered me. I want this movie to be a horror flick and not some demented revenge flick.

Yeah, but in reality Nightmare on Elm Street is a revenge flick. Granted it's a child murderer exacting revenge on the people that murdered him. Krueger was a victim, and it was the mob of parents that made him what he is.

Interesting. In all the years of watching this, I've never thought of it as a revenge flick. I'm going to watch this again with a new set of eye(s).

[Neon Maniac]

WTF did you think it was? They mention in the movie itself, that Freddy's getting his revenge. They do this multiple times per movie.

[Alien Redrum]

I'm an idiot. Okay, I was explaining this to Zig tonight (or trying to, rather ).

When I think of a revenge film, I think of movies like Savage Streets, I Spit on Your Grave, Death Wish, etc. Basically where the victims extracting revenge are the good guys (or anti-heroes).

In the case such as this, yes, it's absolutely a revenge film, but I've never looked at Freddy as the protagonist, like I have in the traditional (?) revenge movies. So in that sense, I've never looked as NoES as a revenge movie. Since I haven't, I'm going to go into it with Freddy as the protagonist next time I watch it, because I've never watched it like that.

I hope that makes some sort of crazy sense.