darthalexander
Hank Scorpio
I have a feeling I may end up getting banned soon.
Posts: 7,030
|
Post by darthalexander on Nov 3, 2009 11:29:28 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure this will be an R, with a BS "Ultra Bloody Cut" released on DVD.
You have to be careful with reviews on AICN. Some of them are questionable. I'd wait until more people reviewed it before getting an idea of what we can expect from this. I personally feel it'll be a disappointment (like Friday was) but I am holding some hope because of Hayley's involvement.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 3, 2009 12:16:16 GMT -5
So, it's basically the first movie all over again. Which is already on DVD. With a much better director, cast, and crew. So there's really no point in shelling out $8 at a theater. While the original films never came out and said it (unless you count FvJ as "canon"), Freddy always had a very strong pedophile vibe in the first few films. Especially the original. Though I agree that there is no need for a Nightmare on Elm Street remake (except for making money), it's not just like the original just because it's going back to its roots. Unless this is a shot-for-shot remake a la Psycho (1998), there's at least a reason to see the remake (if you want to), since there will be a new story or new scenes. I still say there's no point in going, since the different scenes and story won't live up to what came before. Ya know, I finally came to the realization of why I don't like so many of these new remakes, or any of today's horror movies in general. It seems the directors of yesteryear--George Romero, Wes Craven, John Carpenter, to name ONLY a few--worked with minimal budgets to put together ballsy horror films that virtually spat in the face of the formulas Hollywood had developed in years past. But today, it's like studios like Platinum Dunes have taken al those ideas, homogenized them, and put together cinematic versions of "Color by numbers" paintings, and the only "new" aspect they've brought to the table is teen angst (which isn't really new, it's just this generation's updated version). Instead of the stereotypical stupid, beer-drinking teens in the original F13 series, the remake had spoiled, obnoxious, pot-smoking ones. Instead of a mysterious killing phantom with almost no rhyme or reason as to why he's seeking to kill his sister and anyone in his way in the original Halloween (Part 6, aside), Michael Myers is now a troubled man from a broken home who suffered from an abused childhood--which COMPLETELY deviates from the original point Carpenter was making BTW. And now, it's Freddy's turn. I feel the same way about so many other horror films of today, too. It seems all of them are glitzy, Hollywood films trying to recapture the feel of something that can't be recaptured. There are no more gutsy financial backers willing to fund a wild, new concept presented by a director no one's heard of. Not all is gloom and doom, of course. There's still a wealth of great indy directors out there, and plenty of indy theaters ready to screen their work. In fact, the indy genre is probably as powerful as its ever been, to be honest. I'm just disappointed with the current trend of horror flicks. That's my long, drawn out two cents. |
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Nov 3, 2009 14:10:10 GMT -5
In case anyone didn't know, Wes Craven wants nothing to do with this movie. No connection whatsoever. He won't even talk about it. And this is WES CRAVEN we're talking about. That should say something about the movie and it's treatment by those making it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Nov 3, 2009 14:16:45 GMT -5
Wes Craven had his name proudly attached to Hills have eyes 2.
He has no room to talk on the quality of anything.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,235 
|
Post by andrew8798 on Nov 3, 2009 14:17:08 GMT -5
And as for Englund he has said he is too old for the Freddy role. only way he could play the character again if it was a prequel
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Nov 3, 2009 14:42:07 GMT -5
Wes Craven? The guy who threw his name on and "presented" They?
Doesn't want to talk about this movie?
That is...interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 3, 2009 16:32:09 GMT -5
Wes Craven had his name proudly attached to Hills have eyes 2. He has no room to talk on the quality of anything. Thats the whole point. If he will attach his name to a POS like that, not wanting anything to do with this remake is not a good sign. At all. |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,480
|
Post by metylerca on Nov 3, 2009 18:23:46 GMT -5
Wes Craven had his name proudly attached to Hills have eyes 2. He has no room to talk on the quality of anything. Thats the whole point. If he will attach his name to a POS like that, not wanting anything to do with this remake is not a good sign. At all. That's not what they're getting at. They're saying that Craven happened to make a few good horror flicks in the 1980's and hasn't done anything of note in a long time. In other words, he's not exactly the Godfather of modern horror cinema, so him not being involved in the Nightmare remake doesn't make or break the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Nov 3, 2009 18:26:28 GMT -5
I didn't think he was that judgmental. He obviously sees potential in the material, its just that with something like Nightmare, it can't be done in a different way than previously done. I.E: It cannot be anything less than a R.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 3, 2009 18:39:32 GMT -5
Thats the whole point. If he will attach his name to a POS like that, not wanting anything to do with this remake is not a good sign. At all. That's not what they're getting at. They're saying that Craven happened to make a few good horror flicks in the 1980's and hasn't done anything of note in a long time. In other words, he's not exactly the Godfather of modern horror cinema, so him not being involved in the Nightmare remake doesn't make or break the movie. ehhhh....I am of the opinion that him being involved heavily with it might have actually made it worse. For starters, the filmmakers wouldn't have been able to make it their own...to put their own stamp on it, for better or worse. This is not about seeing what Form, Fuller, and Carpenter can do. This is about the team of PD and Form/Fuller (whose efforts I have detested to date, for the record) standing up and doing their best with, once again, a pretty much can't miss prospect. If they do fail at this, they need to be DONE with getting their own projects. I mean, how many MILLIONS is Hollywood going to let these guys flush down the crapper before they get ran out on a rail? Secondly, as has been noted, Cravens own track record hasn't been the best lately...so who's to say how helpful his ideas and advice would really be? If the filmmakers are going for a new direction and feel for Kruger, the man who originally created him, though useful to turn to for advice, might not be the best to have onboard as a creative voice....too much of a chance of him steering the character back to what it WAS...not what they want it to be NOW. Like I said, Carpenter gave us this series....but now it's in PD's hands, for better or worse. |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Nov 3, 2009 18:42:43 GMT -5
That's not what they're getting at. They're saying that Craven happened to make a few good horror flicks in the 1980's and hasn't done anything of note in a long time. In other words, he's not exactly the Godfather of modern horror cinema, so him not being involved in the Nightmare remake doesn't make or break the movie. ehhhh....I am of the opinion that him being involved heavily with it might have actually made it worse. For starters, the filmmakers wouldn't have been able to make it their own...to put their own stamp on it, for better or worse. This is not about seeing what Form, Fuller, and Carpenter can do. This is about the team of PD and Form/Fuller (whose efforts I have detested to date, for the record) standing up and doing their best with, once again, a pretty much can't miss prospect. If they do fail at this, they need to be DONE with getting their own projects. I mean, how many MILLIONS is Hollywood going to let these guys flush down the crapper before they get ran out on a rail? Secondly, as has been noted, Carpenter's own track record hasn't been the best lately...so who's to say how helpful his ideas and advice would really be? If the filmmakers are going for a new direction and feel for Kruger, the man who originally created him, though useful to turn to for advice, might not be the best to have onboard as a creative voice....too much of a chance of him steering the character back to what it WAS...not what they want it to be NOW. Like I said, Craven gave us this series....but now it's in PD's hands, for better or worse. Fixed And as for the last sentence  |
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 3, 2009 18:46:41 GMT -5
Crap...why was I thinking Carpenter? Gotta be because I have THE THING playing in the background right now. I love that film and could watch it all day long.
Damn crossed circuits! ;D
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Nov 4, 2009 3:39:32 GMT -5
At least Craven immediately disowned this, unlike Carpenter, who happily cashed the check on The Fog remake, but still didn't give two shits about it.
No good can come of this. Mark my words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 4, 2009 4:02:19 GMT -5
At least Craven immediately disowned this, unlike Carpenter, who happily cashed the check on The Fog remake, but still didn't give two s***s about it. No good can come of this. Mark my words. Oh no...you're wrong there. Some GREAT good can come of this. Mainly if this thing tanks, then there are at least a few genre classics that are going to be safe. You know an even MORE pointless remake? LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. Why the HELL are they redoing that? It just doesn't make any sense! No sense at ALL. |
|
|
|
Post by happygilmore on Nov 4, 2009 9:17:18 GMT -5
The Friday the 13th remake was Rated-R, and that made good money. The Saw movies are Rated-R, and they make good money. Paranormal Activity is Rated-R, and that's making good money. The Final Destination movies are Rated-R, and they made good money. Zombieland was Rated-R, and it made good money. I highly doubt the Nightmare on Elm Street remake will be rated PG-13. Everyone thought the new Halloween and Friday 13th would suck too. A lot of people did think the Halloween remake sucked. The Friday the 13th remake, however, was met with a lot of praise. I thought the Friday remake blew chunks though. I didn't mind the Texas Chainsaw one, and really did like Halloween. But Friday just blew chunks, hardcore. |
|
|
|
Post by markdown474 on Nov 4, 2009 9:17:24 GMT -5
Thats the whole point. If he will attach his name to a POS like that, not wanting anything to do with this remake is not a good sign. At all. That's not what they're getting at. They're saying that Craven happened to make a few good horror flicks in the 1980's and hasn't done anything of note in a long time. In other words, he's not exactly the Godfather of modern horror cinema, so him not being involved in the Nightmare remake doesn't make or break the movie. Agreed. Further I'm guessing (unless anyone knows otherwise) that Craven wanted nothing to do with the remake from the start, meaning the finished product has nothing to do with him not endorsing it. Craven's absence on this movie will have nothing to do with whether or not it sucks. |
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer
555-BONE
FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Nov 4, 2009 9:41:12 GMT -5
At least Craven immediately disowned this, unlike Carpenter, who happily cashed the check on The Fog remake, but still didn't give two s***s about it. No good can come of this. Mark my words. Yeah, Carpenter is too busy kicking back and smoking [ DRUG REFERENCE REMOVED] to give two craps about any of his early work. |
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Nov 4, 2009 11:08:28 GMT -5
Actually, I like what Carpenter once said about the remakes to his movies: "I already made my movie."
That's when I began to look at it this way: imagine if when you were young and stupid you made a film that garnered popularity, whether mainstream or cult, and a couple of decades later a studio wants to pay you to remake the film.
Given the fact that your film is still well distributed or will soon be getting a wide distribution deal (many original films are distributed on DVD/ Blu-Ray prior to the remake's release for marketing purposes), why wouldn't you take the deal?
This is another reason why I love John Carpenter.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Nov 4, 2009 12:05:44 GMT -5
Why exactly is it a bad thing for Carpenter to accept a royalty check when Hollywood remade The Fog? I mean... I would?  |
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer
555-BONE
FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Nov 4, 2009 12:09:40 GMT -5
Why exactly is it a bad thing for Carpenter to accept a royalty check when Hollywood remade The Fog? I mean... I would? I would too. After seeing how bad the fog remake turned out I'd use that money to pay for mental distress to the twelve people that saw the remake. |
|
