Greg Cox wrote:
[ One of the main flaws these films all seem to have is that they try to be TOO different from the originals, and then end up missing out on what made those movies work in the first place.
Then again, the remakes of THE FLY and THE THING are very
different from the earlier versions and that's part of what make them classics in their own right.
And, oh, I just thought of another terrific remake: the seventies version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.
Right on all counts. I'm also much fonder of the 1988 remake of THE BLOB than the 1958 original. What I was referring to in my previous post are the remakes that have come since 2003 or so. Not too many new classics among those, I tells ya.
What's sort of interesting is that the Internet is okay with remakes to a degree when they're as close to the original as possible. I'm in the other camp, where I think if they're going to remake it, they should do something different with it. Otherwise, I just don't see the point.
I like The Thing from Another World
and The Thing
for totally different reasons. Same with the other movies you guys mention.
As for the Krueger character, I was feeling sort of bad for Englund until I read an interview where he said he hoped the character would continue long after he finished playing him. His affection for the character goes beyond his ego, which is pretty cool. Long before Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull
, Harrison Ford said the same thing about Indy. He wanted Indy to be like James Bond, letting each generation have their own actor in the role.
The "sympathetic Freddy" is definitely different, and I agree that it sounds like it's softening the role, but then the rest of that LatinoReview story says that he's not softened at all, and that the movie will be brutal.