New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley - Page 4

Greg Cox · April 5 2009, 11:48 PM

Caligula wrote:

I'm also much fonder of the 1988 remake of THE BLOB than the 1958 original..

Indeed. The Blob remake is sadly underrated.

hyzmarca · April 6 2009, 12:11 AM

I have to say that I always preferred New Nightmare, simply because it showed what Wes Craven can do without studio interference.

The Nightmare on Elm Street series always suffered from a lack of coherent artistic vision, right from the beginning. The original movie's shock ending is the beginning of this trend, with the studio throwing away Wes Craven's original vision in favor of a cheap thrill. The rest of the franchise was built on the shoulders this little mistake, and with no one at the helm the result was haphazard and occasionally horrible. The original ending was a hopeful one, but all hope in the series had steadily been replaced by needless brutality and bad cliches.

I think that a reboot is necessary, simply because the series as it is now isn't particularly salvageable, but I'm afraid that this reboot will miss the point. What the series needs is consistency, and a sliver of hope. Not a big one, but just enough.

Greg Cox · April 6 2009, 12:29 AM

hyzmarca wrote:

I have to say that I always preferred New Nightmare, simply because it showed what Wes Craven can do without studio interference. .

If you can find a copy, the novelization by David Bergantino is kind of neat. We had fun with the whole metafictional conceit of that film, adding a framing sequence in which David himself comes to a bad end while writing the novelization . . . .

Caligula · April 6 2009, 12:41 AM

Greg Cox wrote:

Caligula wrote:

I'm also much fonder of the 1988 remake of THE BLOB than the 1958 original..

Indeed. The Blob remake is sadly underrated.

And it was an early foray into the horror genre for SAW's Shawnee Smith, who was just 18 at the time.

Dream · April 6 2009, 12:55 AM

hyzmarca wrote:

The Nightmare on Elm Street series always suffered from a lack of coherent artistic vision, right from the beginning. The original movie's shock ending is the beginning of this trend, with the studio throwing away Wes Craven's original vision in favor of a cheap thrill. The rest of the franchise was built on the shoulders this little mistake, and with no one at the helm the result was haphazard and occasionally horrible. The original ending was a hopeful one, but all hope in the series had steadily been replaced by needless brutality and bad cliches.

I don't know. I despise movies/shows that end with the IT WAS ALL A DREAM cliche. While the new ending wasn't much better the original ending would have been much more unsatisfying.

I hope they will be able to get Wes Craven to write the reboot. It's very obvious that the first, third and seventh movies are the best and they all had him as the writer.

Praetor · April 6 2009, 02:07 AM

Hm... Casting = good. Spoiler = meh.

Checkmate · April 6 2009, 03:42 AM

Servo wrote:

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 no about recasting roles in general?

Yes, I read it, and the point remains. There's no such thing as "certain roles" in regards to the discussion. It could be Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy, Han Solo from Star Wars, or anyone else you care to bring up. People felt that way about James Bond. People felt that way about the Doctor. People felt that way about Obi-Wan. It's all the same thing. You just don't know if someone can do a better job until you see it first hand. To say otherwise is the definition of ignorance.

Servo · April 6 2009, 12:03 PM

Checkmate wrote:

Servo wrote:

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 no about recasting roles in general?

Yes, I read it, and the point remains. There's no such thing as "certain roles" in regards to the discussion. It could be Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy, Han Solo from Star Wars, or anyone else you care to bring up. People felt that way about James Bond. People felt that way about the Doctor. People felt that way about Obi-Wan. It's all the same thing. You just don't know if someone can do a better job until you see it first hand. To say otherwise is the definition of ignorance.

Your snide attempts at calling me ignorant are doing you no favours.

Yes, there is such a thing as "certain roles", whether you agree or not. Just because Joe Public doesn't give a crap who plays who in a remake, doesn't mean that's the way everyone feels.

Anyone but Harrison Ford as Han Solo, is not Han Solo. It's a different interpretation of Han Solo, but as Ford is the one who brought Solo to life, it can not be the same character that my generation grew up with. The new actor will change the character, by defenition of his own performance.

Get it?

April 6 2009, 12:11 AM	#47
hyzmarca Fleet Captain	Re: New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley I have to say that I always preferred New Nightmare, simply because it showed what Wes Craven can do without studio interference. The Nightmare on Elm Street series always suffered from a lack of coherent artistic vision, right from the beginning. The original movie's shock ending is the beginning of this trend, with the studio throwing away Wes Craven's original vision in favor of a cheap thrill. The rest of the franchise was built on the shoulders this little mistake, and with no one at the helm the result was haphazard and occasionally horrible. The original ending was a hopeful one, but all hope in the series had steadily been replaced by needless brutality and bad cliches. I think that a reboot is necessary, simply because the series as it is now isn't particularly salvageable, but I'm afraid that this reboot will miss the point. What the series needs is consistency, and a sliver of hope. Not a big one, but just enough.

April 6 2009, 02:07 AM	#51
Praetor Vice Admiral Location: Totally different head. Totally.	Re: New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley Hm... Casting = good. Spoiler = meh. __________________ "Dude, put the blasty thing down, and have a toke on this baby." - 420 Kirk.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US