New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley

[Capt_Piett]

"When are the people making these remakes ever going to learn: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it""

If they COULD answer that...there wouldn't BE any remakes....

[Servo]

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

---

He is a pretty good choice. There have been rumors for a while that he was being sought for it.

Another rumor--I don't know if it's a spoiler, so I'll code it:

In the remake, Freddy isn't a child killer. He's a school janitor who enjoys playing with the kids, and winds up falsely accused of molestation. Then the parents kill him in the same manner as the original. So when Freddy comes back, he's kind of, you know, especially pissed.

Wow. That's pretty lame.

P0sitr0nic wrote:

---

We used to say Kirk would always be Shatner.

Sorry, but Englund is Freddy. He made the character what it is. I'd say the same about Shatner's Kirk, too.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

---

^ Here's more info on that.

It makes a little more sense, now.

Freddy comes back 13 years later to get the kids who lied about him.

Still very lame. They're basically watering the character down, probably cause they're scared of being accused of glorifying child killers. Funny, people have cheered Freddy along for over 20 years, and nobody kicked up a fuss. I just don't see the point of rewriting the character's whole motivation. Once you do that, it ain't the same character anymore.

[Dale]

Why in the hell don't they just come up with an original slasher and leave the greats like Freddy and Jason alone?

Is there anyone out there writing original films anymore?

[Silent_Bob]

Dale wrote:

---

Why in the hell don't they just come up with an original slasher and leave the greats like Freddy and Jason alone?

Is there anyone out there writing original films anymore?

Why write an original film when you can just change a few details on an old script and call it a remake.

Anyone want to place a bet on when the Scream remake will be announced?

[Skywalker]

Silent_Bob wrote:

---

Why write an original film when you can just change a few details on an old script and call it a remake.

Anyone want to place a bet on when the Scream remake will be announced?

A Scream remake could actually turn out really well if the filmmakers satirize slasher/horror remakes the same way the original Scream satirized original slasher/horror films.

[Greg Cox]

Dale wrote:

---

Is there anyone out there writing original films anymore?

Hollywood is just giving the public what it wants. People complain about remakes and sequels and such, but when you look at the box office figures, the top-grossing films every year are mostly remakes, sequels, adaptations of old tv shows, etc.

Look at last year's biggest movie: THE DARK KNIGHT. It's a great film that deserves all the money and kudos it received, but, hey, it's a sequel to a remake of a movie based on a seventy-year-old comic book . . . .

As long as people keep going to remakes, Hollywood is going to keep making them.

[Servo]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Look at last year's biggest movie: THE DARK KNIGHT. It's a great film that deserves all the money and kudos it received, but, hey, it's a sequel to a remake of a movie based on a seventy-year-old comic book . . . .

I agree with the point you're making, however, I have to be nitpicky and point out that Batman Begins is not a remake.

[Greg Cox]

Servo wrote:

---

I agree with the point you're making, however, I have to be nitpicky and point out that Batman Begins is not a remake.

Depends. Since it was rebooting the series, you could argue that it was sort of a remake of the Tim Burton movie. Or the Adam West movie. Or the old movie serials . . . .

Then again, since it retells the first meeting of Batman and the Joker, I suppose you could also argue that THE DARK KNIGHT is actually the remake of the 1989 version!

In any event, for all its merits, TDK is at least the ninth Batman movie ever made. Which would suggest that audiences don't mind seeing the same stories retold--as long as they're done well.

[Nerdius Maximus]

This is fucking ridiculous. Robert Englund IS Freddy. And besides, he's still fully capable of playing Freddy. With all the burnt-skin makeup on, you wouldn't be able to tell he's old. He looks fine in Freddy VS. Jason. Here's a novel idea, though: Come up with something original!

[Greg Cox]

Nerdius Maximus wrote:

---

Here's a novel idea, though: Come up with something original!

See previous posts. Blame the audience, not the studios. They're the ones who made the FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH remake a hit. And TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, HALLOWEEN, etc.

And movie history is full of superior remakes: BEN-HUR, THE MALTESE FALCON, THE FLY . . . . .

Englund was great, but no actor has monopoly on any role. Look at the history of horror movies. Bela Lugosi was Dracula for a generation, but then came Christopher Lee . . . .

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ Says the man who writes stories in those universes.

I suppose there's some truth in the marketplace, if people didn't want more of this stuff they wouldn't go see it. If there was no finanical incentive to creating more of the same it seems they'd quit producing it.

I think the more hardcore fans probably absorb more of this material than the general populace which might be why we rolls our eyes so much at the thoughts of remakes. We're still watching series and movies that are probably just history to other people out there.

[T'Baio]

Without remakes, do you guys have any idea how many awesome movies we wouldn't have! I'm willing to bet that for some of the people who complain about remakes, they have at least one movie that is one of their favourites that is a remake in some way. And they might not even know it!

Umm...Battlestar Galactica, anyone!?!

[Greg Cox]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

^^

I think the more hardcore fans probably absorb more of this material than the general populace which might be why we rolls our eyes so much at the thoughts of remakes. We're still watching series and movies that are probably just history to other people out there.

You may be onto something there. I suspect that a lot of the people who saw recent version of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL have never seen the original version. Unlike the hardcore fans for whom the classic version is still a living entity.

Still, Hollywood has been in the remake business since at least the dawn of the talkies. Why expect it to change now?

(And you just know that some of the people who complain about Hollywood's lack of originality saw THE DARK KNIGHT six times!)

[Servo]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Englund was great, but no actor has monopoly on any role. Look at the history of horror movies. Bela Lugosi was Dracula for a generation, but then came Christopher Lee . . . .

Different kettle of fish. Lugosi and Lee played the part, but they didn't create the character. Craven came up with the idea, but it was Englund who made Freddy.

It's the same reason why I wouldn't want to see an Evil Dead with an Ash that isn't played by Bruce Campbell, or a Star Wars with a Han Solo that isn't Harrison Ford.

And to address T'Baio's point; sure, there are some great remakes out there - The Thing and The Fly being two of my personal favourites - but that doesn't mean we need the constant number of remakes we are bombarded with these days.
Not to mention the fact that some of these films don't even need remaking. The original Elm Street still stands up pretty well, and it's not like it's subtitled or a B&W classic, so they can't use the excuse that they're "bringing the story to a wider audience", like they do when they trample all over films like Ringu. It just seems pointless and unnecessary.

[T'Baio]

What if the remake of Nightmare is awesome? What's so wrong with that? It's not obliterating the existence of the original. And I'm coming from the perspective of a huge fan of the Nightmare franchise. Look at New Nightmare. That was a reimagining before reimaginings were in vogue, and I thought that was a pretty cool movie.