New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley

[Greg Cox]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

^^

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]

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.

 

[Servo]

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]

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 . . . .

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

^ Here's more info on that.

It makes a little more sense, now.

Spoiler

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.

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]

[ 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.