New Nightmare on Elm Street Teaser Trailer online! (Merged)
- Thread starter Lithium09xox
- Start date
I watched the remake on Friday and the original again tonight.
Firstly, let's be honest about the original - the acting is beyond terrible. Even Mr Depp was off and I bet nobody saw his long career happening off the back of this 'introduction'. However, the premise and story is excellent. A brilliant concept. The pace is good, the atmosphere works and it doesn't rely on cheap, easy, 'jumps' to get the scares.
There are, as to be expected, some cheesy 80's horror OTT gruesome moments - Freddy cutting himself for no reason other then to make the most of florescent green goo, maggots and anything else off coloured to spurt around. However, the deaths stand out very well - especially the first girl being dragged up the walls (surely a classic scene)
Now to the remake. What exactly was the point is almost copying the original so closely? Nancy was so diluted that I didn't care about her. In fact, they made us connect with the blonde girl at the start so much that I was sad she wasn't Nancy and it wasn't 'her story' we followed.
Was there any real need to have Freddy as a kiddy fiddler? Did that add anything? Also why the doubts over his innocence? The back story was a good addition but fairly weakly handled. Not mentioning the all important glove was a mistake.
Freddie pushing through the wall was in no way better done then in the original and that's got to be a worry. 26 years on and that same scene for 84 looks better!! Where did the money go as it wasn't used on CGI.
The only characters I liked were killed off first. I liked the guy in the coffee place at the start, that was a nice opening actually but a bit too long. I liked the blonde girl and her ex bf was decent enough. Acting was generally better then the 84.
Freddie - rubbish. Stupid voice, not scary, just meh. I'm sure they could have done much better.
The bath scene is another identical copy scene but they missed the best part of her being dragged under the bath.
Who would allow that guys death blog to be posted too?
Final point, the ending. I did prefer that to the odd one in the original.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.
Firstly, let's be honest about the original - the acting is beyond terrible. Even Mr Depp was off and I bet nobody saw his long career happening off the back of this 'introduction'. However, the premise and story is excellent. A brilliant concept. The pace is good, the atmosphere works and it doesn't rely on cheap, easy, 'jumps' to get the scares.
There are, as to be expected, some cheesy 80's horror OTT gruesome moments - Freddy cutting himself for no reason other then to make the most of florescent green goo, maggots and anything else off coloured to spurt around. However, the deaths stand out very well - especially the first girl being dragged up the walls (surely a classic scene)
Now to the remake. What exactly was the point is almost copying the original so closely? Nancy was so diluted that I didn't care about her. In fact, they made us connect with the blonde girl at the start so much that I was sad she wasn't Nancy and it wasn't 'her story' we followed.
Was there any real need to have Freddy as a kiddy fiddler? Did that add anything? Also why the doubts over his innocence? The back story was a good addition but fairly weakly handled. Not mentioning the all important glove was a mistake.
Freddie pushing through the wall was in no way better done then in the original and that's got to be a worry. 26 years on and that same scene for 84 looks better!! Where did the money go as it wasn't used on CGI.
The only characters I liked were killed off first. I liked the guy in the coffee place at the start, that was a nice opening actually but a bit too long. I liked the blonde girl and her ex bf was decent enough. Acting was generally better then the 84.
Freddie - rubbish. Stupid voice, not scary, just meh. I'm sure they could have done much better.
The bath scene is another identical copy scene but they missed the best part of her being dragged under the bath.
Who would allow that guys death blog to be posted too?
Final point, the ending. I did prefer that to the odd one in the original.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.
Summer Rain
New member
do you like my body joey
I thought Nancy came across very badly in the film. I'm not sure if it's more to do with the fact that when the original came out the genre was relatively new and thus fresh. Now we have had so many of these types of films that all these girls come across the same and so our perception of them is they are just "pretty girl screaming, running crying" through a film.
Let's say Halloween was never made then they made it today with the same cast being the age they were then. Would we be saying the "unknown" Jamie Lee Curtis was great in this film or would be seeing her as just another girl, running screaming, crying like the last 200+ girls?
It wasn't needed but I think it was always going to happen. It's common now that people seem to want everything explained or given to them on a plate. This being the case it has to be explained why Freddy was harming children and why he was burned. I'm sure 90% of the people would have assumed that he was a kiddy fiddler but for that remaining 10% it neeRAB to be confirmed.
I agree the original does look so much better. The modern one looks like CGI. However I think it would always look like CGI n matter how much they spent on that scene. Again it's down to a different time. Back in the 80's we weren't so savy about special effects and would say I wonder how did they do that? Now we are programmed to go that's CGI. Even if it isn't we will automaically assume it is and write it off as being such.
I know that I am annoyingly good at spotting CGI effects even when they are getting mixed or used in conjunction with masks and animatronics. Flames are usually really easy to spot for example. I can spot which were done on set and which were added by CGI to make it look bigger than it was.
I disagree. I don't think there were any characters that I liked and could form a connection or liking for. I agree that the opening was very nice but too long.
He was ok but nothing special. I think whomever took it was onto a loser. Not only because they will get compared to Englund but also because as said before there have been so many of these kind of movoes it's pretty much all been done now.
The identical scenes were deliberate to pay homage to the classic scenes in the original. I think they switched her getting dragged under because people were expecting it and it's now a cliche.
I agree taht was much better even though I could see it coming.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they needed to make it anyway but don't feel it would be any better using modern day technology, make up and skills. IMO they would have been wasted as there are so many of these kinRAB of films people will see past them and just want to review it based on one question. Did it scare me and make me jump or not?
You could spend millions on a gory special effect and you will sit there not scared or frightened by it. The next day i walk up behind you and shout BOO! and you will jump with fright. Cost...nothing! That officially means I frightened and made you jump for less money.
Let's say Halloween was never made then they made it today with the same cast being the age they were then. Would we be saying the "unknown" Jamie Lee Curtis was great in this film or would be seeing her as just another girl, running screaming, crying like the last 200+ girls?
It wasn't needed but I think it was always going to happen. It's common now that people seem to want everything explained or given to them on a plate. This being the case it has to be explained why Freddy was harming children and why he was burned. I'm sure 90% of the people would have assumed that he was a kiddy fiddler but for that remaining 10% it neeRAB to be confirmed.
I agree the original does look so much better. The modern one looks like CGI. However I think it would always look like CGI n matter how much they spent on that scene. Again it's down to a different time. Back in the 80's we weren't so savy about special effects and would say I wonder how did they do that? Now we are programmed to go that's CGI. Even if it isn't we will automaically assume it is and write it off as being such.
I know that I am annoyingly good at spotting CGI effects even when they are getting mixed or used in conjunction with masks and animatronics. Flames are usually really easy to spot for example. I can spot which were done on set and which were added by CGI to make it look bigger than it was.
I disagree. I don't think there were any characters that I liked and could form a connection or liking for. I agree that the opening was very nice but too long.
He was ok but nothing special. I think whomever took it was onto a loser. Not only because they will get compared to Englund but also because as said before there have been so many of these kind of movoes it's pretty much all been done now.
The identical scenes were deliberate to pay homage to the classic scenes in the original. I think they switched her getting dragged under because people were expecting it and it's now a cliche.
I agree taht was much better even though I could see it coming.
Basically, I can't work out why they wasted the time in doing this without taking advantage of it being 2009. The technology, make up, skills we have now could have thrown this into a new league and become not a copy remake but a new franchise, a second chronicle perhaps. Instead, it's nothing more then a poor karaoke version of a well loved classic.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they needed to make it anyway but don't feel it would be any better using modern day technology, make up and skills. IMO they would have been wasted as there are so many of these kinRAB of films people will see past them and just want to review it based on one question. Did it scare me and make me jump or not?
You could spend millions on a gory special effect and you will sit there not scared or frightened by it. The next day i walk up behind you and shout BOO! and you will jump with fright. Cost...nothing! That officially means I frightened and made you jump for less money.
hippyrocker
New member
They should do a Freddy Vs Freddy film with Englund wiping the floor with this new geezer lol.
T
<<TANZ>>
Guest
ha ha ha
GorillazAreLove<3
New member
i think the general consensus is that this is a straight up horrorfest, no wisecracks and jokes from FK
spawn_14_1999_99
New member
I saw the trailer for this film yesterday. I wasn't blown away by it. The thing about the Freddy films was they were fun. Even the original was fun to watch despite it not having the humour and jokes of the sequels.
This one looks like it's trying to go darker and a lot more serious. Throughout the trailer I kept getting distracted by how deep Freddy's voice is. I kept waiting for him to start singing "Old Man River."
They should leave the deep voiced killer/monster to Candyman.
I'll probably go and see the film and give it a chance but I think for me Freddy will always be Robert Englund and his films. This has the makings of being the equivilant of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. Not a bad film in it's own right, but not as good for me as the originals.
This one looks like it's trying to go darker and a lot more serious. Throughout the trailer I kept getting distracted by how deep Freddy's voice is. I kept waiting for him to start singing "Old Man River."
They should leave the deep voiced killer/monster to Candyman.
I'll probably go and see the film and give it a chance but I think for me Freddy will always be Robert Englund and his films. This has the makings of being the equivilant of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. Not a bad film in it's own right, but not as good for me as the originals.
aaron11292
New member
It's April for America, don't know about here.
