Who's seen the remake of A Nightmare on Elm St?

[bakemeacookie]

lol this movie is terrible.. cant believe people actually liked it

But you paid $12 and concessions to see it. That's all that matters.

There's a saying: "It's better for people to spend $15 and not like a movie - then spend $0 and not see it at all".

hence why remakes > originals.

c

 

[nimbus]

does your gf play video games?

 

[Captain FT]

He said script. I don't think that's the same as a screenplay. I'd be real surprised if they'd even consider a new plot.

The original was great, but I though the first sequel raped. The one with the doctor. That one rocked my face.

The thought of that bed mattress freaks me out.

 

[nimbus]

But you paid $12 and concessions to see it. That's all that matters.

There's a saying: "It's better for people to spend $15 and not like a movie - then spend $0 and not see it at all".

hence why remakes > originals.

c

no, what matters is our opinions of the movie, which is why the thread was created in the first place. notice how the OP talks about the plot, acting and sound design. He didn't make a thread called "i don't think it was smart for this movie to be made!" i don't think anybody really gives a fuck if it's profitable. people either want to discuss their experience viewing it, or want to know if they should see it or not.

we get it dude, you know the industry. we don't always need the lecturrrrreeeee =P

 

[bakemeacookie]

i don't think anybody really gives a fuck if it's profitable.

No. Because the comment is usually followed by "Why does Hollywood do these remakes" which is found in almost all of these types of threads.

If people don't like remakes, they shouldn't lineup by the droves to see them and make them #1 at the box office (ensuring more will be made) - that is the problem.

c

 

[nimbus]

No. The comment is usually followed by "Why does Hollywood do these remakes" which is found in almost all of these types of threads.

The answer to that, is what you are railing about. This is not the first and definatley not the last remake. Esp after last weekend's #1 status. If people don't like remakes, they shouldn't lineup by the droves to see them - that is the problem.

c

sorry for my post it was douchey and i'm trying to get away from spreading negativity like that. you make good points. props on being cool about it and giving a civilized reply

 

[RottenWillow]

For the time "Freddy" was toned down to make it "marketable", they didn't think anyone would go to see a movie as disturbing as Craven's real vision.

Damn I'd actually added something like this to my original post, but deleted it. Dark as Freddy was in the original, he was supposed to be really vicious, but that vision didn't come to fruition nearly to the degree Craven wanted.

Probably 15 years ago I read an interview with Craven in a then already very old Heavy Metal issue where he talked about a movie he was about to make about a vicious murderer who comes into people's dreams and kills them. His plan sounded like a Leatherface for dreamland.

 

[calveless wonder]

I haven't seen it, but it looks way more interesting because of the darker tone. freddy should be scary, not a clown.

freddy was a joke. the nightmare on elm streets were way more cheesy than they were scary. whenever you compare horror movies, freddy is probably the least scary. I'd put pinhead at the top of the list...hellraiser used to scare the fuck out of me

I don't get you guys that want the old freddy. it's supposed to be a horror movie, not a comedy.

Some of these remakes aren't bad. I thought the first texas chainsaw massacre remake was pretty legit. Leatherface was a scary motherfucker, and i like how they used the retarded angle.

The Halloween one i liked how they changed michael myers himself. Made him much bigger and more menacing looking.

 

[jackangel]

the rob zombie remakes of halloween 1/2 were promising... some big mofo named tyler mane played myers, and he's been a minor character in a bunch of films like Troy. however, the movies themselves weren't great. esp. part II. just a bit retarded.

razorbrownies, we understand that they make money. that's why they exist. i think even those who complain understand this, but they're still disappointed with what they perceive to be unoriginal crap. also, keep in mind that the people who complain about a film aren't always the ones that end up spending money on it.

i wasn't looking forward to this new Nightmare, but if it's darker, more evil...maybe they've taken it in the right direction. As for the original, it brings back classic childhood memories of my favourite 80s horror flicks. Objectively, it's not a great film, but none of them are.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Actually Hansel this is Wes Craven's Freddy. Remember?

Everyone forget all those sequels with the wisecracking Freddy, and recall exactly what he was like in the first. He was originally a much scarier Freddy. No silly jokes, or taunts. Just rip your guts out bitch. He stayed much more in the shadows and was truly arcane. That's why I really liked the first one quite a bit, but all the sequels (except to a degree the 3rd installment) were lame.

Ahhh damn you got a point there. I'll have to watch it again, but I've still never seen Freddy as dark and disturbing a character as how he was portrayed in this new one. He was still a little too hyper and clownish for me in the original, at least compared to the latest. But that was a different era, and at the time it was much more effective than it'd be in today's world. I think Englund did an awesome job as Freddy, but I just never found him that scary. The remake really makes him seem like a legitimate, sadistic creepo. And he's so calm and methodical about it all, like he's in complete control over his victims' psyche while they're in his "realm". The humorous one liners are still there, but this time they almost make your skin crawl a little as you're laughing lol.