Elm Street remake - the new Freddy?

[darth los]

Imo, if i had to pick between the original and the remakes I'd take the remake everytime. I just like his sadistic storytelling he employs in his films.

[bassman]

Imo, if i had to pick between the original and the remakes I'd take the remake everytime. I just like his sadistic storytelling he employs in his films. Are you refering to Zombie's remakes? If so then yes, I totally agree. He took Carpenter's dull film and injected some life in it. It may be redneck trailer trash life.....but look at murderers in reality. Most of them come from a background similar to that. As for the new Elm Street - Hailey is an incredible actor, the director is a newbie from music videos, and the original isn't all that hot to me. So this one I'm looking forward to.

[darth los]

Are you refering to Zombie's remakes? Yes, I should have been clearer on that point considering what the o.p. was. Alot of the old slasher films when watched today come off as very cliche'd and cheesy. Alot can be said about RZ's remakes but that's not one of them. I think that he was able to make it his own and at the same time not fuck up the essence of the character. As a matter of fact, imo, Michael Myers comes off as way more sadistic and psychopathic especially in RZ's sequel. Now what they did with the New Jason, well... Textbook examples i guess of something done right and something done wrong, imo.

[bassman]

I felt like they missed the characters in TCSM, as well. It just didn't have the same psycho family feel that the original had. It wasn't a terrible remake, but it had potential to really expand on the original. I think Beil's fine ass is the only reason I can't hate it, though.

[darth los]

I felt like they missed the characters in TCSM, as well. It just didn't have the same psycho family feel that the original had. It wasn't a terrible remake, but it had potential to really expand on the original. I think Beil's fine ass is the only reason I can't hate it, though. I never need much of an excuse to post a pic of her fine ass.

[MinionZombie]

*gawps at picture for about five minutes* I think the TCM remake, while not a patch on the original (naturally), was worthwhile enough to stick around. I really dig R. Lee Ermey's character (who steals the whole show that is TCM: The Beginning), who is just such an utter psycho, but who has the best lines. Jessica Biel ... in tight jeans, tight white vest and a cowboy hat ... ... good lord. Where was I? Oh yeah, Ermey was bad ass in those two flicks. It's a shame they treated the Friday 13th remake as an excuse to do TCM2003 all over again. Same director, DP, etc ... it looked exactly the same, had the same rural horror vibe of TCM03 (totally misplaced in a Friday flick), indeed re-watching it recently there were several shots which I simply couldn't decipher because of all the broken-up scattered light and shadows (often coming through a tree, it seems) ... some shots are like a fucking puzzle to figure out what you're looking at, and they're so brief you've got no chance unless you pause it and stare at it like it's a magic eye picture of a fucking sail boat! I duno about this ANOES remake ... Haley is a big thumbs up, but it looks ridiculously swish visually, and too much like the original. What's the point in seeing the exact same sequences but shot 30 years later with different people? I'll see it, no doubt about that, but it could go either way ... indeed it could easily be more bad than good. I say again - remake a shit movie instead!

[slickwilly13]

I never need much of an excuse to post a pic of her fine ass. Jessica Biel is so fucking hot. Why she doesn't take it all off is beyond me. Lucky ass Timberlake.

[MinionZombie]

Jessica Biel is so fucking hot. Why she doesn't take it all off is beyond me. Lucky ass Timberlake. She has had her norks out before. Only twice so far, mind ... I think it was part of her "image change" period (which included TCM2003). She also got her norks out in some recent movie called Powder Blue where she played a stripper.

[bassman]

She also got her norks out in some recent movie called Powder Blue where she played a stripper. Yeah, also did a nice little dance and played with some hot wax, if I remember correctly.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, also did a nice little dance and played with some hot wax, if I remember correctly. That's the one ... ain't seen the movie (apparently it's shit), but I've seen that clip.

[LouCipherr]

What's the point in seeing the exact same sequences but shot 30 years later with different people? Well, this isn't like the Psycho shot-for-shot remake. I think NOES, even if they keep the majority of the original scenes, could work with an 'updated' look while keeping the original story intact. At least people aren't going to suffer from "remake shock" - meaning, they go and see a remake of their favorite film and find out someone has fucked up the entire story, characters and pacing of a classic. *cough*RZ*cough* It still shocks me how many think RZ did a good job with Halloween and H2. I think you guys need a check-up from the neck up. BTW, MZ: It's a SCHOONER!

[slickwilly13]

She has had her norks out before. Only twice so far, mind ... I think it was part of her "image change" period (which included TCM2003). She also got her norks out in some recent movie called Powder Blue where she played a stripper. Post pics or I won't believe you.

[MinionZombie]

haha, glad you got the reference, Lou. I'm not talking shot-for-shot, I'm talking sequence-for-sequence. Where's the surprise? "Oh this is the Johnny Depp bit" or "oh this is that chick who gets fucked up on the ceiling after fucking that dude" or whatever. What I dug about the RZ versions of H1 and H2 (although H2 was a follow-up to his flick, and not a remake of the original H2) was that he took the basic beats and then did what he wanted to do with them. If you're gonna remake, you might as well do something different - whether it works or not is debatable (but I think it worked in H1 and H2 - not a patch on the original, no way, naturally - but it worked well for what it was ... and that's not an invitation to say "a piece of shit" ).

[JDFP]

Well, this isn't like the Psycho shot-for-shot remake. I think NOES, even if they keep the majority of the original scenes, could work with an 'updated' look while keeping the original story intact. At least people aren't going to suffer from "remake shock" - meaning, they go and see a remake of their favorite film and find out someone has fucked up the entire story, characters and pacing of a classic. *cough*RZ*cough* It still shocks me how many think RZ did a good job with Halloween and H2. I think you guys need a check-up from the neck up. BTW, MZ: It's a SCHOONER! Why bother making a film if it's going to be identical to the film (or almost identical) to the film that was already made? That seems a bit redundant and silly to me. Count me in as one of those people who shock you for considering R.Z.'s H1 're-telling' to be extremely good, I absolutely enjoyed it. He kept the same plot (and thus the "remake" moniker) and yet had the courage to turn it into a different story with exploring the perspective of Myers as a psychopath instead of a "bogeyman". I personally really enjoyed it. H2 as a continuation to his re-telling was also interesting, though I agree no where near as compelling as his H1. I generally despise re-makes because it's pointless and just, well, there's no damn need for it. I think the only thing worse than making re-makes of classic films is when Hollywood attempts to re-make a foreign film (because, gasp, Americans are too damn inconvenienced to have to read subtitles!), that just ticks me off. If you're going to re-do a film anyway, I think you could learn something from R.Z. in keeping the same plot/ideology of the original but turning it into something completely unique while keeping with the same concept of the original, otherwise why bother to just see the same damn thing again when you've already seen the original? j.p.

[LouCipherr]

haha, glad you got the reference, Lou. Of course! I'm a huge Kevin Smith nutswinger, can't help it. I'm not talking shot-for-shot, I'm talking sequence-for-sequence. Where's the surprise? "Oh this is the Johnny Depp bit" or "oh this is that chick who gets fucked up on the ceiling after fucking that dude" or whatever. The surprise is how they update it and bring it up to "now" so-to-speak. What I dug about the RZ versions of H1 and H2 (although H2 was a follow-up to his flick, and not a remake of the original H2) Thank GOD - he couldn't get the first one right!! If you're gonna remake, you might as well do something different - I don't mind that, but I *DO* mind it when the original story is raped repeatedly and there is no remnants of the original film minus a few character's names and his mask, which I feel was the case with Halloween. but it worked well for what it was ... and that's not an invitation to say "a piece of shit" ). Yes it most certainly is. I dunno man, I guess I'm in the "I don't get it" crowd. It really sucks too, because most people I know other than a select few thing RZ's Halloween was a fantastic film. I just don't see what everyone else sees in it I guess. Or I have a major case of Carpenterism that I can't seem to shake. As far as NOES - I like the idea of them doing quite a few sequences from the original. Like I said, as long as it's brought up to date like the rest of the film. I have no doubt there will be some surprises in this film. Against my better judgement, I'll open this can of worms.... Now, here's what I really find interesting - and I'll put this thought out to all of you who are big RZ Halloween & GAR fans - why is it that Rob can change almost every bit of Halloween aside from character names and his mask and it's perfectly fine, however... Dawn04 was EXACTLY the same experience and yet most everyone rags on that film. Why? They brought it up to date, they changed the story around a bit but kept the "core" of the idea intact - just like what's being called for on NOES and exactly what RZ did with Halloween, but yet it's a bad thing for Dawn04?? Someone care to explain? DO NOT use "running zombies" as the excuse - sorry, but they changed Michael Meyers and every other character in Hallowen up so much from the original, runners vs. shamblers is basically the same kind of change done in Dawn04. There has to be something else about it. Someone help me to understand, 'cause I'm lost.