New Freddy Krueger played by Jackie Earle Haley

[Servo]

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.

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]

[ 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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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]

[ 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.

 

[Servo]

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!

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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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

Indeed. The Blob remake is sadly underrated.

 

[hyzmarca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[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.

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]

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?