The Nightmare on Elm Street Remake: Seriously?
Has everyone seen the “Newly Remade” Nightmare on Elm Street trailer?
I’m not an authority on many things, but I will go so far as to say I am a Freddy Krueger aficionado.
I’ve seen the series probably more than any other movie in my life. I remember when I was young, I had my entire bedroom covered wall to wall in Nightmare on Elm Street posters and pics from Fangoria magazine.
When I heard they were remaking the franchise without Robert Englund, and WITHOUT CONSULTING WES CRAVEN, I was pretty upset. I could handle the 700,000 remakes of every obscure franchise and cartoon known to man, but why this?
Do the Saw and Hostel type kids these days care about this sort of horror movie? Who is their target audience? Can’t they just let ONE franchise go?
When the trailer came out, I really didn’t know what to think. I’m not sure why they chose to stick so closely to some things and change others, but I begrudgingly said “Well, I’ll reserve judgment until I see more.”
When I first saw the trailer, I had a slight twinge in my gut when it MIGHT be implying that Freddy is innocent? OH NO! Seriously? I had to let it go, hoping that Freddy is just lying in order to not be burned to death.
Then…over the weeks, more and more stuff has been popping up online …and I have to say “Alright, enough.”
1. Separating Freddy from Robert Englund (who is in perfect acting shape, and would be wearing 9 layers of makeup anyway) is a really dumb idea. Robert Englund MADE the character in the original series. I know this is the most obvious complaint, and I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it.
2. What in the hell are you thinking with this makeup job? I have been reading extensively about this remake, and the makeup artists are emphatic that they wanted the mak up to be “real as possible,” it was imperative for him to look as if he was a “real burn victim.” Ok, so realism is important.
A. The friggin movie as about a child molester that supernaturally haunts people in their dreams in elaborate and sometimes comical ways. Realism is important.
B. If they were going to be totally realistic, why is his WHOLE BODY burnt, but the sweater and pants he was wearing are perfectly intact? Not to mention his hat, which to their credit, looks like it has some dirt on it.
C. Screw realism people, he’s the God of his own little underworld, he can make himself look like an ferret if he wants to. Bad Choice.
3. I can’t tell what I’m looking at…ever. He looks different in every shot, and they all suck.
4. The best part of Freddy… is the cracking wise and finding new ways to kill the kids. He was almost the Bugs Bunny of horror movies at times. So why does he sound like he has too many Skittles ™ in his mouth? “Thish whont hurtsh one litshle bitsh.” He is starting to sound like Danny Glover! When so many people complained to the studio about his lines in the trailer, the makeup artist said “Jackie studied what real burn victims sounded like when they talked because he really wanted to nail the realism.” (See 2a-b)
There are some good things:
1. There is some good lore there. There is a lot to pluck from in future movies.
2. The “Look” of it is great, it is directed by the guy who directed a lot of famous music videos, (Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana, Bullet With Butterfly Wings by Smashing Pumpkins.)
3. When I heard that Jackie Earl Haley was playing him, I actually went, “Hrm, well if you’re going to recast him, that’s not a bad choice.
In closing. Of course I’ll see it. I have to.
But I’m going in very very low…BUT I will leave enough room to be pleasantly surprised. So far, I’m not convinced.
What say you, moguls?
Do you like it?
Is VoodrewDaddy being too cynical? Am I too emotionally attached? It’s ALWAYS a possibility.
The funny thing is, I found it slightly odd that my good friend was so upset that Star Trek was being remade, because I guess I just wasn’t invested as much as I am with Freddy.
Here is the trailer to see for yourself…