Elm Street remake - the new Freddy?

[Doc]

Looks nice to me. Like, something out of Nightmare 2. We can't see his face though. Tease.

[slickwilly13]

Here's an official sheet. http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16834

[Doc]

I think its an awesome teaser poster, I'd like to see a better official poster, with more story in it though.

[capncnut]

I think it is best summed up in one of the comments. Pretty good teaser poster. Too bad the film is gonna suck.

[shootemindehead]

Have to say, I am utterly fed up with the re-hash mentality of this decade. I've been sitting down to the remakes of the horror flicks of my youth, 'The Amityville Horror', 'The Hills Have Eyes', 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and 'Friday the 13th'. All of them have been rubbish, except for 'The Hills Have Eyes'. Which I thought was much better than the original, but in fairness that wasn't very good to begin with. I have no doubt that this 'Nightmare on Elm Street' will be the pale cousin of the original 1985 classic. But, 'Friday the 13th' in particular was bloody awful. There's very little to recommend it, except for Jason who was actually quite well done for the most part. However, the film is repleat with the most terrible cliches, especially the "telliporting killer" shock. What I mean by that is in some scenes, Jason (a big man by any standard) has literally snuck up on some dopey character in a matter of a couple of frames without making a sound! It's ridiculous. Cheap effort at shocks, but nothing more. The original 'Friday the 13th' was that great, but at least it entertaining for the time and had a decent enough "twist" at the end with the revelation of the mother. They'll probably remake 'Jaws' next.

[MinionZombie]

I think it is best summed up in one of the comments. Aye - and it's sodding Platinum Dunes - all they ever do is remakes. Hell, I remember seeing on their blog two photos - one from Friday 13th remake, and one from ANOES remake - they both had two people standing by a police car in a spooky setting. The images were almost identical ... says it all really. Seriously - the point in re-doing something is because you haven't done it correctly in the first place. But the likes of Friday and Nightmare have been done correctly in the first place. I keep saying it like I'm banging my head against a wall, but remake a shit film and you'll make something better - Drive-In Massacre is a perfect example - it's utter crap, but with the proliferation of Grindhouse-like cinema on our screens again, it would be the ideal time to do it. It's like The Toolbox Murders - the remake is, compared to the original, pretty decent - although it is a bit tame in general, but far more consistent in purpose and style. The original is good for the first 40 minutes, then it becomes an absolutely atrocious piece of nonsensical garbage. Even the odd remake that has been good/entertaining (e.g. TCM, or Halloween) haven't lived up to or beaten the original - so really, what's the point? Hills Have Eyes is another thing though, personally I'm not all that fussed about the original, especially the final act - whereas I rather enjoyed the Aja remake, and the final act was definitely better than that of the original movie, in my view - but that's a rare case. ... Also, Mark Kermode made an interesting comment about these remakes - specifically about the one for Friday 13th - these horror classics came out at a certain point in time, and that is part of the reason why they're so revered and indeed so good - but you take these titles out of context when you remake them, and they then become pretty much meaningless and indeed generally toothless.

[shootemindehead]

Yep. Kermode's obervations (and yours MZ ! ) are pretty much in line with my own. Although, I think it still possible to make a shit remake from a shit film too...'Godzilla', anyone. On remaking movies of a certain vintage, I've often wondered how I'd view a remake of 'Zombie Flesh Eaters'. When I was a lad, this film had such an impact on my life. It's hard to explain it nowadays (not to mention bloody embarrasing ), but I became obsessed with tracking down an uncut copy of it. It had become so notorious that it manifested into some sort of gory holy grail for me. A case against banning films, if ever there was one. I hunted this film like Interpol would chase a wanted man. Had friends all over Europe asking people in video stores about a film that nobody had a clue about. Gemma, my friend in Barcelona, thought I was making it up and was convinced I was sending her on a wild goose chase. I used to frequent a video shop where I lived (even though we didn't actually own a video ) .This was the early 80's and video had just saturated the market a couple of years before. It was before the "Video Nasties" bill fecked everything up. But the shop owner used to let me wander around and look at the boxes (with all their glorious artwork! ) and he'd let me pick some flicks to watch too on the shop's TV during quiet periods. Of course, I picked the most ferocious stuff I could find, 'Monster' (Humanoids from the Deep to you Yanks), 'Driller Killer', 'The Exorcist', 'Dawn of the Dead', 'Cannibal Ferox / Holocaust' and 'The Prowler' etc. But for some reason, I never asked to see 'Zombie Flesh Eaters'. To this day I've no idea why, It was certainly "on my to do list" as it were. Anyway, the "Video Nasties" bill got put through in the UK and these flicks began to disappear from the shelves here in Ireland too. So, I never got to see 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' in the 80's. But over the years, I then built up the film into the 'Citizen Kane' of zombie/gore movies and the likes of "Fangoria" and "The Dark Side" magazines only made matters worse. Then one day in the early 90's, I saw an advert in the back of a mag offering uncut copies (bad ones) of these films for a small price and the cost of P+P. I decided to risk getting 'Zombie Flesh Eaters'. It was wierd. I felt like I was buying sado porn or something. Anyway, the film arrived and I loved it, though I though it was less gory than I'd been led to believe . But it's remained a favorite of mine. With the advent of DVD, I now have a pristine copy of my Holy Grail, but it now seems strangely lacklustre as a polished DVD production. Viewing a "nasty" on DVD kind of diminishes the result in a bizarre way. It comes down to the fact that 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' appeared at a certain time and was part of a certain zeitgiest (I hate that term) and all of those elements went into the enjoyment of the film. It's also coupled with the fact that as a younger person, I wasn't as jaded with movies as I am now. But, even with that taken into account, I think it's the low budget nature and the general weirdness that drove a lot of those late 70's/early 80's horror movies. Especially the European ones. Making big budget glossy remakes of these flicks, just miss the point. It's one of the reasons I am "meh" about Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead'. And probably, if anyone decided to remake 'Zombie Flesh Eaters', I'd be "meh" about that too, although I do believe it's possible to remake good films into good films, 'Night of the Living Dead (1990)' is a fine example of that. In fact, I prefer watching that to the original one now, even though I think we were short changed on the gore. Hmmmm.....sorry for the essay folks.

[bassman]

You guys sure do get your knickers in a twist over some damn remakes. True, most are bad....but at least give it some sort of a small chance. There's no way you could give it a fair viewing if you're already damning it without one second of footage. And what makes it worse is that you guys act like it somehow effects the original. When it doesn't. The original will always be there. I never was a huge fan of the original anyway, but I'll definitely be seeing this one if for nothing else than to check out Haley's post-Watchmen performance. Dude fucking rocked as Walter Kovacs!

[shootemindehead]

You guys sure do get your knickers in a twist over some damn remakes. True, most are bad....but at least give it some sort of a small chance. There's no way you could give it a fair viewing if you're already damning it without one second of footage. And what makes it worse is that you guys act like it somehow effects the original. When it doesn't. The original will always be there. True, people get precious about things. However, the dross that usually comprises a remake has set a dodgy precedent. So much so, that the obvious reaction is not "I'll wait and see", but "This will probably be shte." Also, I think remakes, unofficial sequels and ripoffs do affect the original material somewhat. How many times has someone mentioned "Brainnnsssss..." to you when you bring up 'Night of the Living Dead'? In a conversation I had the other week, 'Day of the Dead' was mentioned and someone said he hated the film, but thought Ving Rhames was good in it and the blonde girl was hot... I nearly puked.

[major jay]

I used to frequent a video shop where I lived (even though we didn't actually own a video ) .This was the early 80's and video had just saturated the market a couple of years before. It was before the "Video Nasties" bill fecked everything up. But the shop owner used to let me wander around and look at the boxes (with all their glorious artwork! ) and he'd let me pick some flicks to watch too on the shop's TV during quiet periods. Of course, I picked the most ferocious stuff I could find, 'Monster' (Humanoids from the Deep to you Yanks), 'Driller Killer', 'The Exorcist', 'Dawn of the Dead', 'Cannibal Ferox / Holocaust' and 'The Prowler' etc. But for some reason, I never asked to see 'Zombie Flesh Eaters'. To this day I've no idea why, It was certainly "on my to do list" as it were. That's very cool, thanks for sharing that.

[kortick]

I will be glad when this remake fad passes. wheter they are good or bad isnt really the point id like to see something original i heard that a re make of Phantasm is being talked about. Coscarelli isnt opposed to it but he thinks he may do one more film himself so the funny part is his will be direct to DVD and the remake will be big budget high release. its true what someone mentioned, it isnt the films alone but the times they were released. I remember when Friday came out and there were riots at drive ins and it was pulled in some places. Also the original Freddy was intense back in 1983 I saw it in a midnight show and the crowd was totally into it. Part II made Freddy a joke, but the first one was a great film at the time.

[Doc]

Part II made Freddy a joke, but the first one was a great film at the time. What makes you say that? He was just as, dark as ever hell maybe, even eviler. Then again, I guess I do know what your saying. Freddy is dark and scary in it because of who he is, but not because of what he does. Busting out into the night instead of a dream and scurrying around, heating up a pool, attacking a toaster, breaking all the objects in Lisa's house.

[capncnut]

i heard that a re make of Phantasm is being talked about. Coscarelli isnt opposed to it but he thinks he may do one more film himself so the funny part is his will be direct to DVD and the remake will be big budget high release. Also the original Freddy was intense back in 1983 I saw it in a midnight show and the crowd was totally into it. Part II made Freddy a joke, but the first one was a great film at the time. Yeah but Kim Myers had a banging pair, even if she didn't get them out.

[Doc]

Yeah but Kim Myers had a banging pair, even if she didn't get them out. Fu*k, by that movie's logic, everyone should dance to 'All Night Long' and hope a hot babe walks in.

[bassman]

If anyone is just dying to see the trailer for this NOES remake....I've just seen that it will be attached to Zombieland next week. As if anyone here needed more of a reason to see a movie called Zombieland....