New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley

[Servo]

T'Baio wrote:

---

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.

I'm not saying it will suck, or it will tarnish the original in any way, and I'm not usually the kind of person who moans about remakes all the time... I just don't see the point, and I really can't see it improving on the original.

Maybe I'm just getting ground down by the slew of pointless, sub-par horror remakes we've seen in the last decade - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, The Ring... none of them brought anything new to the table, and were piss poor shadows of the originals. Originals that didn't need remaking or updating in the first place.

[Nerdius Maximus]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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 . . . .

It's a hit and miss, really. Resurrecting a previously successful or well-known property is not a guarantee of success. There's been a ton of remakes and "reboots" that have not fared as well as the ones you mentioned. The Fog, The Time Machine, Psycho, Black Christmas, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Lost In Space, The Stepford Wives, The Omen, Invasion, Hills have Eyes, etc...None of those were what you'd call blockbusters. So they're still taking a chance.

[Nerdius Maximus]

I don't mind remakes if they're well-made and present an original take on the story. But it seems like they're being churned out to the exclusion of original ideas. As several people have pointed out, remakes have always been around. But at the same time, brand-new films with fresh ideas were being made. You had a mix of the two. Now it seems like there's more remakes out there than originals, at least in the sci-fi/horror genres. And if it's not a remake of a horror film, it's a lame-ass "been there, done that" PG-13(What, they're afraid to show kids getting chopped up now?) teen horror flick with a totally used-up premise.

[The Evil Dead]

Of all the old horror films to remake, Nightmare on Elm Street has got to be the one that would benefit the most from advances in filmmaking...Can you imagine the visuals a talented director could come up with for some of Freddy's nightmares if he gets a decent budget?

[Greg Cox]

Servo wrote:

---

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.

But you've seen James Bond movies without Sean Connery, right? Or Sherlock Holmes movies without Basil Rathbone? Granted, those were adaptations, too, but just because a character is original to film doesn't mean the part is locked up forever.

To me, that flies in the face of the entire history of theater and drama. Hamlet and Oedipus have been played by countless actors over the course of centuries. Where would be if somebody in ancient Greece insisted that "only Iphicles can play Oedipus!"

Classic roles get reinterpreted all the time. Why is Freddy Krueger more sacred than Hamlet?

[Servo]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

But you've seen James Bond movies without Sean Connery, right? Or Sherlock Holmes movies without Basil Rathbone? Granted, those were adaptations, too, but just because a character is original to film doesn't mean the part is locked up forever.

To me, that flies in the face of the entire history of theater and drama. Hamlet and Oedipus have been played by countless actors over the course of centuries. Where would be if somebody in ancient Greece insisted that "only Iphicles can play Oedipus!"

Classic roles get reinterpreted all the time. Why is Freddy Krueger more sacred than Hamlet?

For the most part, I agree with you. I really do, but there are exceptions, at least in my mind.

You're right, I have seen Bond films, Dracula films, Batman films, Superman films...etc, all with various actors playing the central role, and that's fine. However, there are certain roles that I feel can not be improved upon, and that the actor who played them made the role their own - roles such as Ash from the Evil Dead films, Han Solo, the Ghostbusters, the three leads from Jaws... to name but a few. I can't imagine anyone but the original actors playing these roles, because the actors themselves are the one's that made the characters what they are. I feel the same way about the character of Freddy.

I'm sorry if that comes accross as being closed-minded, or dismissive of any other interpretations, but it's just the way I feel about a certain number of cinematic characters.

[Greg Cox]

Fair enough. Just to be clear, I was mostly objecting to the general principle that certain actors or performances are irreplaceable, which tends to be pop up whenever remakes and sequels are discussed. Me, I'm more inclined to give the new guy the benefit the doubt.

Although I will go to my grave insisting that Julie Newmar is the one true Catwoman . . . .

[Checkmate]

So I guess you must have really hated Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, or every single Doctor after the First Doctor in Doctor Who, too? Those were all original characters "made" by the actors that first played them. But they were hardly the only ones to play them and hardly the only ones to be enjoyed by large numbers of people.

To put it simply, you have no way of knowing if you're going to like a new actor's portrayal until you actually see it. It's the very definition of ignorance to assume otherwise.

[Caligula]

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.

Hmm..... Intriguing. Hope they don't find a way to screw that up.

T'Baio wrote:

---

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!

Ben-Hur and The Wizard of Oz are among the best examples. Don't get me wrong... I don't abhor remakes all-together, but the recent trend of remaking horror classics from the 70's and 80's hasn't exactly produced a lot of gems. 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. That being said, the link that Spiff provided tends to make things sound like MAYBE.... just MAYBE the filmmakers for the NOES remake have their shit together.

[Greg Cox]

[quote=Caligula;2798320][ 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.quote]

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.

[Servo]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Fair enough. Just to be clear, I was mostly objecting to the general principle that certain actors or performances are irreplaceable, which tends to be pop up whenever remakes and sequels are discussed. Me, I'm more inclined to give the new guy the benefit the doubt.

Although I will go to my grave insisting that Julie Newmar is the one true Catwoman . . . .

Don't get me wrong, I do give the benefit of the doubt to the new actors for the most part, I just feel there are certain prtrayals that can't be bettered.

Checkmate wrote:

---

So I guess you must have really hated Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, or every single Doctor after the First Doctor in Doctor Who, too? Those were all original characters "made" by the actors that first played them. But they were hardly the only ones to play them and hardly the only ones to be enjoyed by large numbers of people.

To put it simply, you have no way of knowing if you're going to like a new actor's portrayal until you actually see it. It's the very definition of ignorance to assume otherwise.

Did you even bother to read what I actually wrote? I only ask because you seem to have completely missed the point of what I was saying. What is so hard to grasp about the fact that I was taking about certain roles, and not about recasting roles in general?

Ask for the characters you mentioned; Obi-Wan is different because McGregor was playing a younger version of the character. The Prequel Obi-Wan is a different character than the OT Obi-Wan by virtue of the character aging.
As for The Doctor, again, that's a different kettle of fish. The recasting of the role, and the subsequent change in personality/style, is an intrinsic part of the character, and since I only started watching Who during the Davison era, I pretty much knew that from the off. Having said that, there are still, obviously, some versions of The Doctor that I prefer over others.

Once again, just incase you missed it the first two times; there are only certain roles where I don't think the performance by the actor can be bettered, and there are certain films that I don't see the point in remaking. This does not mean I feel that way about all recasts and remakes ever in the history of film.

[Caligula]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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.

[Greg Cox]

T'Baio wrote:

---

Look at New Nightmare. That was a reimagining before reimaginings were in vogue, and I thought that was a pretty cool movie.

I thought so, too. That was actually the first movie novelization I ever edited.

Ah, nostalgia!

[Spaceman Spiff]

Caligula wrote:

---

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.

[Servo]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I thought so, too. That was actually the first movie novelization I ever edited.

Ah, nostalgia!

I agree, it's a great movie, but again, it's not a recast per say because the Freddy in New Nightmare isn't supposed to be Englund's Freddy. It's kinda the point of the film.