New Elm Street movie - Freddy not involved

C

Chidori

New member
I've stumbled across a few artciles, many of them a few months old I have to say which says that Warner Brothers are working on a remake of the 1984 West Craven slasher classic 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' but Robert Englund will NOT be involved in the project.

Can anyone else play Freddy? Will we get heaven forbid a CGI Krueger as subtle and realistic as the recent Hulk remakes? Will teenagers be running from an unrealistic computer graphic through the boiler room?

I understand the desire to cash in on the popularity of these movies which have a huge cult following but is there any need to remake this one?

Superman remake - Christopher Reeves is dead so they needed a new Superman. The Hulk could not have been played by Lou Ferigno for physical reasons due to his age but...Robert Englund is still alive.

He's the ONLY guy to ever play Krueger and I don't know how it'd work if he wasn't in it.
 
Freddy not involved? The title of your thread makes it seem like the character won't be in the film.

I don't care who plays him, the film will be second rate to the original, that just seem inherent in remakes. Recent horror remakes might have bigger budgets, better effects, back stories etc, but they never have the simplicity and purity of the originals. Just look at Rob Zombie's Halloween. A wasted hour of boring back story that added absolutely nothing.
 
Well as good as. It's not as if Freddy has been portrayed by other people down the years and in other forms. He didn't start out as a comic book an then morphed into a cartoon an then into a character in a low-budget TV series. The character of Freddy is one that Robert Englund has forged as he is the first and only person to play the character.
 
A NOES remake will occur,that's for sure,but it won't be as quick as the other remakes due to various factors.
Now a NOES remake could be great,the idea of a ghost that kills you in your dreams has so many possibilities that New Line or Wes Craven never really explored.The original is a classic,but far from a perfect movie and I don't see how Robert's portrayal of Freddy could scare anybody in 2010,or whenever it comes out.
The remake is bound to be deadly serious and feature few if any wisecracks and black comedy,possibly even touching more upon the child molester/killer angle that Wes had to shy away from in 1984.

This all tells me that somebody else has to/will be given,the role.
 
I get what you're saying, but what difference does it make whether he appeared in other media before the films? What does it matter that only one actor has played him so far? Freddy is a character played by a person. At one time Superman had only been played by one actor, now he's been played by loaRAB.
 
I always really wanted to see a prequel, but a seriously dark serial killer type film (David Fincher would be awesome) that doesn't gloss over or totally ignore the child molestation part of it, I want to see Fred Kruger as a truly evil bastard.

I really can't see this film getting made though and as there really is little point making yet another sequel I don't have a problem if they reboot the series, I don't even have a problem with another actor having a go at playing Fred Kruger. All I would want is the film to be serious and dark and for Freddy to be evil again and not the wise cracking joker he turned into from part 3 onwarRAB.
 
I'd wage money kingjeremy on that being what happens with the next NOES,and Fincher would be great as the director (doubt he'd do it though,unless the script was something really special).

I feel that Fred should target a group of younger kiRAB in a reboot as opposed to teenagers,that was a problem with the later elm street movies:-the teens were so damn annoying you ended uo supporting Freddy,and that's exactly what happened.
If Fred's going after 7-11 year olRAB and they don't gloss over the molestation too much,it's going to be really difficult like him.
 
Also and don't get me wrong I love Robert Englund but I think another actor playing Freddy would open the part up to become more dark and serious again.

Englund's Kruger like you say had basically become the star of the films and you rooted for him rather than his victims, a new actor would be going in fresh and there would be no expectations of him. I also agree with your post earlier about there being lots of scope still to explore that wasn't done originally by Craven.
 
I've only ever seen one or two of these movies years ago and I have to say I didn't find Freddy scary at all. I know he's become quite an iconic horror figure and Robert Englund is the part but if they want to inject some true scariness into a remake I think changing Freddy might not be a bad thing.
 
Not a big fan of horror or this franchise particuarly, but as Englund was in heavy make up for all of the movies anyway, I don't see why someone else should not play the role...same as Jason in the F13 movies, it's really just a man in a mask.

OK, I know Englund brought a certain something to the role, but you are re inventing the franchise for a new generation and they will not care who is behind the mask, that's the bottom line. As long as it works.

I think you can apply the same logic to the new Terminator movie. A lot of people say you cannot have a Terminator movie movie without Arnie...but yet we got so bored with that 'big tall, mean looking man in dark glasses with a big gun' scenarion years ago, it's been done and aped to death...and most people thought T3 was a waste of time (though personally I liked it).

But to me the story of the future war was always a story crying out to be told, from the moment Skynet took over, the war with the machines, how close we came to being extinct, how John Connor rose to be the resistance leader...and to me Arnie does not have to be a component of that plot at all, save perhaps for a cameo at the very end (though that could easily be CGI'd in from existing footage).

Better a new, fresh, re invention of a franchise than trying to repeat verbatim what was done 20 years before, even if it fails it will have at least have been an attempt to do something different.
 
i dont think it really matters but i hate remakes especially of great past horror films they alwys ruin them but i think halloween remake was good as it explained how michual became a killer
 
in noes remake freeddy should be shroweded in darkness with a new actor playing him
so we dont fully know how he looks because what we cant see is always scareier

if they get a director whos passionate about the movie and not there ego or money it will be good.

look at the joker from nickolson to ledger both are great at the role
if that can be done so can freddy.
 
Bella Legosi was considered the definitive Dracula, the only man to play the role. Later Christopher Lee played him and if asked who the most famous Dracula is, a lot of people would say Lee before Legosi.
 
Is nothing sacred?

Why oh why can't they just leave well alone???

I get so annoyed by all of these remakes ... it's a disaster waiting to happen. Of course I can't judge something I've not yet seen so forgive my cynicism but love them or hate them, the original series of movies are cult classics.

I actually read about this remake a while back and I can only assume it was the trauma that quickly erased it from my memory.

Said at the time Billy Bob Thornton is to take on the role of Freddy :rolleyes: Dunno if it had been confirmed, signed and sealed. Don't really care. They should leave well alone!
 
In doing so totally missing what made Halloween great in the first place, I understand Zombie wanting a different take on the matter but giving Michael a back story and explaining his childhood destroys the character and what he is about.

Michael is just Michael, there isn't really any reason why he started killing and why he continues to do so, he just does, there is no reasoning with him, he's just pure evil. Giving him a backstory just destroys any mystery behind the character. Zombie's Myers was also a bit of a lumbering oath.

I give Zombie some credit for trying something different but it just doesn't work as a Halloween film IMO.
 
If you going to do a remake 25 years later it makes sense to recast the main lead. If the make-up is good, the actor can still look like Robert Englund's Freddy. Then again, if you going to remake it you could scrap the original look of Freddy Krueger and give the character a complete make-over. A new look.
 
The thing that worries me more than anything is CGI as I said...my fear would be that it's another one of those movie where a computer graphic replaces what used to be a man in make-up and effectively ruin the believeability of the movie.
 
Back
Top