Nightmare on Elm Street 2010

i heard freddy is victimized in this one and possibly ruins everything

I wasn't even aware that this existed until now! Thanks for the info. I will definately be checking it out. I remeber being a kid and being scared shitless watching the old ones.

Without even seeing it, I can tell you, yes, they ruined it. By even remaking it they ruined it. That is what modern Hollywood does. They take classics (even Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween) and ruin them.

Thank God they shelved the Poltergeist remake, for now at least.

HeyWayne wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Without even seeing it, I can tell you, yes, they ruined it. By even remaking it they ruined it. That is what modern Hollywood does. They take classics (even Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween) and ruin them.

Thank God they shelved the Poltergeist remake, for now at least.

That's why I've stayed away from Clash of the Titans. You don't mess with Harryhausen!

See? Perfect example!

CServant wrote:

Does Hollywood really need to remake any movie from the 80's?! Lack of creativity and an easy $$$ grab I guess. I wait for them to come to cable...

I agree, it was ruined before they ever began filming

what if they remake shitty 80's movies to make them better? just a thought.....

then we might see a Garbage Pail Kids remake or a CHUD remake.

i will still see Freddy in 2010.....

It's A Booooooooooy!

restlesssoul wrote:

then we might see a Garbage Pail Kids remake or a CHUD remake.

Holy crap!...CHUD?!
man, that's funny.

Haven't seen it, probably won't. But we've been on the real Elm St. that Wes Craven had in mind, and seen the house. We don't live too far from that town.

i agree 100% it is disheartening that hollywood has come to rely on remakes and sequel-extravganzas year after year after year. while i say that, i am still interested in seeing the new nightmare. growing up, these horror flicks were a staple. is it "ruining" it?? i personally don't think so, i'd prefer to think of it as a new take on a story i grew up with. did the train wreck that was the phantom menace and the kingdom of the crystal skull make me like empire or raiders any less? no. and while i didn't like them much, or at all (partially b/c they were held to such high standards as i loved the originals), it was fun to watch them. yes, halloween and friday the 13th have been remade as well..... but this one should be interesting b/c freddy is a villain who doesn't just walk around mute and killing people, he had/has the added personality of a voice.... and if i remember anything from the originals it was robert england's delivery of some very, very poorly written jokes. so we'll see if that angle gets brought in or if the new freddy is just a killer and not a comedian as well.

on a side note, i read a pretty good article talking about the current state of hollywood and how and why these remakes are getting done, and with no name actors. the economy has hurt everyone, movie companies included. like everyone else, the pressure is to do more with less and one of the ways to do that is to take (A) an established franchise and add to it (B) actors who don't require $25,000,000 paychecks. It simultaneously helps control costs and taps into an already established market.

JM9427 wrote:

actors who don't require $25,000,000 paychecks. It simultaneously helps control costs and taps into an already established market.

Some actors should take a paycut....

Is it really going to hurt you to receive $10 million as opposed to $25 million?

i dont think i will check it out. as a kid those freddy kreugar films were legendary to me , I only saw portions of them as a kid, but they scared the hell out of me. what a brilliant premise too, freddy only gets you when you sleep, and we all need to sleep... brilliant story idea.

anyways, modern horror films are garbage and rubbish. huge body counts and lots of blood really doesnt equal scary. the modern horror films that have made an impact on me, blair witch, open water, house of the devil, house of 1000 corpses, devils rejects, wolf creek, hostel, paranormal activity.

all these with the exception of hostel really arent heavy on the blood and gore factor. its much more about tension. thats whats missing from nearly every modern horror flick. tension. scaring someone is a real art form. and it takes as i said more than some blood and dead bodies to pull it off. most modern horror films just arent scary, flat out. there is a reason why the new trend the past few years has been to remake the classics, texas chainsaw, last house on the left, hills have eyes etc... Those are the classics, the perfect horror films if you will. And again, even those, arent full of blood and gore. they are scary as hell, but the tension seals the deal. the girl screaming bloody murder for what is it like 5 minutes in the original texas chainsaw massacre, when she is at the dinner table with leatherfaces family, thats about as scary as any body and blood in modern horror. and the film open water was brilliant in large part because we are left to wonder ourselves what happened, same with blair witch. we arent spoonfed answers in these two films. what happened is up to us, any ending a director could come up will inevitably be critiqued and criticized, and people will say "its not scary", or "that was stupid". With open ending, more psychological horror films, like blair witch, like open water the viewers imaginations create the endings, and our own imaginations are often far scarier places than any thing a director might put on screen.

what the hell happened after heather dropped the camera in blair witch? What happened to the couple in open water? those are questions that will keep one up at night.