Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Trailer for the 'A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET' remake.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trailer for the 'A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET' remake.

post #1 of 48
9/29/09 at 8:03am
Thread Starter 
Sorry if this has been posted already but I did a search and found nothing about this remake here.

Meh...


New horror films look far too polished, plus, i'm getting sick of that pale blue tint that they all seem to have now.

But, it does have Connie Britton and Clancy Brown in it at least.
Reply
post #2 of 48
9/29/09 at 9:54am
Why? I really do not get the remaking of all these 70's and 80's horror movies. Is hollywood that hard up for new material that they have to rape the vaults and ruin some great classics? I also heard that they are remaking the Blob, Hellraiser, Night of the creeps, Jaws and worst of all Night of the Living Dead (the original).

I'm sorry, but I am so sick of remakes.
Reply
post #3 of 48
9/29/09 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucia Duran View Post

Why? I really do not get the remaking of all these 70's and 80's horror movies.


They keep making money. If they didn't, remakes would go away nearly over night. True or not, the studios must be percieve a remake of a known or semi-known property (how many people knew or cared that Sorority Row was a remake?) less risky than taking a gamble on something new.
Reply
post #4 of 48
9/29/09 at 10:38am
Hollywood has been repeating itself for years, this is really nothing new.

Also, as Travis noted, most of them are surefire moneymakers. Most of the audience these days seems to avoid originality like the plague, so it's a safer bet to remake an older film.

Why put out a "Jennifer's Body" or "Drag Me To Hell" and make $15-25 million, when you can remake "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th" and make $70-$80 million?

Hadn't heard about the "Jaws" remake, but am not really surprised. I'd rather they just update the effects in the original (like Lucas with the Star Wars SE's) than a completely new remake. If they want to make a new CGI shark pic, they should move ahead with Steve Alten's "MEG"...but then I guess that would actually be something "new" and not a remake.
Reply
post #5 of 48
9/29/09 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R View Post

Hadn't heard about the "Jaws" remake, but am not really surprised.


Maybe something has changed but I had always heard that a Jaws remake wouldn't happen because Speilberg doesn't want it remade. He doesn't own Jaws but he has enough clout to 'request' that it not happen.
Reply
post #6 of 48
9/29/09 at 11:19am
Thread Starter 
A remake of JAWS?

Man, somebody's got some balls.
Reply
post #7 of 48
9/29/09 at 11:38am
I understand the money thing and honestly, I was there for DOTD04, Rob Zombies Halloween and Friday the 13th.....

I realize they are always going to remake movies, but I am just really looking for something new to come out of Hollywood and really excite me. For instance, I am thrilled about this new Zombieland and for daybreakers.

I hadn't heard about Speilberg "requesting" that JAWS not be made. I just remember reading somewhere that it was in the pipeline. And I definitely agree...somebody has BALLS to try and remake Jaws!

That is how I also feel about NOTLD (original). It's my all time favorite movie and I just cannot imagine them redoing it.
Reply
post #8 of 48
9/29/09 at 11:47am
Thread Starter 
NOTLD has already been remade by Tom Savini in 1990, i'm in the minority I know but I like his remake better than Romero's original.

One new original film coming out that i'm really excited about seeing is called Paranormal Activity, that thing looks intense.
Reply
post #9 of 48
9/29/09 at 2:19pm
That's how a lot of people are about Snyder's remake.  In both cases, I like both movies and don't mind having a choice.  And, I'm not usually into remakes.  This one looks fairly pointless.
Reply
post #10 of 48
9/29/09 at 3:08pm
Thread Starter 
I freakin' loved Snyder's version of 'Dawn'.

It's the Die Hard of zombie film's IMO.
Reply
post #11 of 48
9/29/09 at 3:24pm
I'm not a "I hate all remakes!"-type of guy but I think I'm the one person in the world that didn't like the Dawn remake at all.
Reply
post #12 of 48
9/29/09 at 7:01pm

I'll join you for not loving DAWN.

Reply
post #13 of 48
9/29/09 at 8:11pm

I don't hate all remakes. I loved the DOTD04 remake. I enjoyed the zombies on speed! It's rare when a remake really outshines the original. I thought this one did.

 

I did not however like Rob Zombies version of Halloween.

Reply
post #14 of 48
9/29/09 at 8:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucia Duran View Post

It's rare when a remake really outshines the original.



Yeah, it is. I like the remakes of The Blob, The Thing and The Fly more than the original (and that's not to say that the originals are bad, I just like the remakes more). Except for raw power and ferocity, I think The Last House On The Left remake is better in every other way to the original.
Reply
post #15 of 48
9/29/09 at 8:28pm
I'm not automatically down on remakes myself. Every once and awhile a very good one does come along. For example "The Thing" "The Fly". The 70's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was pretty good. Even the 80s "The Blob" was decent.

As for DotD. I love Snyder's version of it and while it might be unheard of to say, I think it's superior to Romero's version in some key respects. For example, I never really found the original to be all that scary. It seems to get cited more for its "Social Commentary" than for fright. The remake was horrifying at times.
Reply
post #16 of 48
9/29/09 at 8:43pm
Thread Starter 
While I do love Romero's 'Dawn' I just don't find his zombie's to be all that threatening.

If you encounter a group of his zombie's you have a very good shot at getting by them, knocking them over and getting to safety.

Encounter a group of Snyder's zombie's and unless your in good shape i'm fairly sure your fucked cuz those bastards will run you down lol.
Reply
post #17 of 48
9/29/09 at 10:09pm

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN isn't scary either but I don't think that takes away from it being a classic.  I doubt many of those old Universal's scare many people in this thread anymore.  I don't think DAWN's goal was to be scary.  There's too much fun going on and this is coming from someone who doesn't buy into its social commentary.  I think too much has been put into it over the years.  NIGHT, on the other hand, is a film that was meant to shock and scare.  The scary think about Romero's zombies is that they are slow.  You look at them and say you can get past them and you CAN....as long as you keep your head.  If you're not smart then you're going to die.  The brain aspects are taken out of the "RoboZombies".

Reply
post #18 of 48
9/29/09 at 11:14pm
The Romero zombies pack, and if you get yourself surrounded, game over.
Reply
post #19 of 48
9/30/09 at 3:21am
Night of the Living Dead zombies scared the crap out of me! Slow yes, but shamblers surround you like Greg said and once that happens you are done.

The Thing and the Fly were fantastc movie remakes. Definitely out shone the originals. I am a HUGE Romero fan, but his Dawn wasn't scary to me either. I still think his two scarierst films were NOTLD and Land of the Dead. Dawn and Day weren't so much scary as they were entertaining.

As for trying to get back to the original topic of Nightmare on Elm Street.... Krueger scared the crap out of me as well. I had many a sleepless night because of him. I think the first two were great, but the rest of the series fell short for me.
Reply
post #20 of 48
9/30/09 at 9:33am
The trailer for A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 sucks.  Sure it's slick looking, but it's such a bore.  

Familiar scenes from the original?  Come on.  There isn't going to be a frame in this thing better than anything Wes Craven was able to create.

I also hate the whole "did he or didn't he" aspect to Freddy's crimes that the filmmakers have decided to include.  It's as if they couldn't think of anything substantial to add to the material, so they've chosen to bog themselves down in needless subplots. 

Honestly, I'm finished with watching old favorites get bastardized.  Rob Zombie's shit sandwiches bearing the Halloween name have ruined it for me, and then there's F13, The Fog, Prom Night ...

What a bore.  
Reply
post #21 of 48
9/30/09 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

I don't think DAWN's goal was to be scary.  There's too much fun going on and this is coming from someone who doesn't buy into its social commentary.  I think too much has been put into it over the years. 



I think a good amount of the original Dawn Of The Dead is scary because it has a real apocalyptic feel to it. The middle section of the movie definitely makes a shift towards more comedy and drama and has some social commentary (I think Romero wanted to make a point but I agree that fans have probably over emphasized it over the years) but the beginning and the end sequences are fairly grim and scary to me.
Reply
post #22 of 48
9/30/09 at 11:12am
I guess it's sad for this new movie that we'd rather talk Dead movies, but I'm glad to say I'm finally going to get to see Diary of the Dead.  I've been waiting for it to hit an HD channel since I missed it a couple of months ago, and it's on later this week.  It has one of the guys from the Unusuals, whereas 28 Weeks Later had two different guys from the Unusuals.  That show, about cops in New York, even managed to have a "zombie" episode!  I'd rather it was still shambling around, looking for my brains, than half the new shows, but that's really getting off topic!

I haven't heard a lot of good about Diary.  If it lives up to that rep and I was a kid, I'd have called it Diarrhea of the Dead.  But, I'm too mature to come up with that now.
Reply
post #23 of 48
9/30/09 at 11:36am
Quote:
I think a good amount of the original Dawn Of The Dead is scary because it has a real apocalyptic feel to it. The middle section of the movie definitely makes a shift towards more comedy and drama and has some social commentary (I think Romero wanted to make a point but I agree that fans have probably over emphasized it over the years) but the beginning and the end sequences are fairly grim and scary to me. 
 

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about the remake. Now Snyder might have had the advantages of a bigger budget and modern technology, but some of those shots from the roof of the Mall of the city in the background burning plus the neighborhood mayhem at the start of the film sell the idea of complete catastrophe.

Romero's version and subsequent films make it clear that there are plenty of survivors out there. Some even living in relative comfort as Land of the Dead shows. In the newer version, there's just no one out there outside of the Mall (with the exception of Andy). Also, you get the feeling in Romero's films that you can survive if you can get to a sparse enough area of Zombies. With the things in the newer version, just one can easilly spell doom if you are not sufficiently armed.

Also, the ending of the new version is a punch in the gut and really makes you believe there is no hope left. That feels more apocalyptic to me.

I'm certainly not saying that the original wasn't a classic and wasn't hugely influential. But I think Snyder trumps Romero when it comes to who created a scarier experience.
Reply
post #24 of 48
9/30/09 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post



They keep making money. If they didn't, remakes would go away nearly over night. True or not, the studios must be percieve a remake of a known or semi-known property (how many people knew or cared that Sorority Row was a remake?) less risky than taking a gamble on something new.

But that's just it -- practically nobody knew SORORITY ROW was a remake.. so that's why I don't buy into this idea that "remakes make money, and if people would stop going to see them, they would disappear". People don't generally think to themselves: "Ah, YESSSS! - a brand new remake of an older movie! I HAVE to go see this because I love remakes!!"

Most of the public will go see whatever they have to choose from on the menu when they wish to see a "new" movie. You're 17 and wanna take your date to a horror picture.... whether it's a brand new never-before-seen horror titles or a remake, what's the difference to them? As you said, they often won't even KNOW it's a remake!  

And did SORORITY ROW make a huge amount of money? There are plenty of remakes which are forgotten flops, like THE MOD SQUAD, THE HONEYMOONERS, THE OMEN, ROLLERBALL, DEATH RACE  .... so does that necessarily guarantee htat "remakes are where the money is"?  
Reply
post #25 of 48
9/30/09 at 2:25pm
Maybe its for the money counters then the audiences? If say, a 40 year old studio exec remembers the original Soroity Row being the best thing since sliced bread, is it his personal nostalgia and therefore existing familirarity with the concept that leads to the greenlight?
Reply
post #26 of 48
9/30/09 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillG View Post
Also, the ending of the new version is a punch in the gut and really makes you believe there is no hope left. That feels more apocalyptic to me.

That's what was cool about the originally planned ending for the Birds.  You think it was all confined to the island, but then you see birds covering the Golden Gate bridge and know we are all screwed.  I love post-apocalyptic films, but so many of them get it wrong.  Maximum Overdrive came from a cool short story, but the movie wasn't a great example of the genre.

To get on topic:

Reply
post #27 of 48
9/30/09 at 2:56pm
Re: DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 -- I've said it before and I'll say it again... I only consider it a "remake" in name only. This was indeed a case of trying to milk the reputation of the Romero classic. And it's a damn shame they had to use that name. It could have been called ZOMBIE INVASION or anything else; it had nothing to do with the 1978 film. There was a mall utilized again, but that in itself was not enough.
I thought the 2004 film was a good zombie movie. And that's really all it was, and there are hundreds of 'em. 
Reply
post #28 of 48
9/30/09 at 3:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi View Post

But that's just it -- practically nobody knew SORORITY ROW was a remake.. so that's why I don't buy into this idea that "remakes make money, and if people would stop going to see them, they would disappear". People don't generally think to themselves: "Ah, YESSSS! - a brand new remake of an older movie! I HAVE to go see this because I love remakes!!"

 


At this point, I think they've remade all the 'brand name' or A-list titles. Now, they're left with The House On Sorority Row or The Stepfather (a movie that I love but it's not really that popular) so the titles that have an automatic recognition with the public have dried up. Like I said though, I think studios percieve something that has already been made as more solid bet than spending $20 or $30 or $100 million on something new. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but that certainly seems to be their mentality.
Reply
post #29 of 48
9/30/09 at 5:03pm
Not all remakes are remade for the same reason. Some are just using a well-known brand to cash in, others just find the source material genuinely inspirational, and many do both.  
Reply
post #30 of 48
9/30/09 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post



At this point, I think they've remade all the 'brand name' or A-list titles. Now, they're left with The House On Sorority Row or The Stepfather (a movie that I love but it's not really that popular) so the titles that have an automatic recognition with the public have dried up. Like I said though, I think studios percieve something that has already been made as more solid bet than spending $20 or $30 or $100 million on something new. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but that certainly seems to be their mentality.

Exactly.

This going for something familiar over something new isn't original.  Hell, look at Universal.  They went a very long time without creating a new monster.  Instead, they just went with what worked and ran them into the ground with one sequel after another. 

I don't see a ANOES 2010 is any worse than, say, parts 4-6, which to me were the pits.  One could say that about 2 even though I enjoy its camp value. 

As I said in another thread, I'm going to watch all of the CHILDREN/CORN movies and one is the current remake and I see another one is coming next year.  People can scream tha the film doesn't need to be remade but did we need seven films in this series? 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Trailer for the 'A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET' remake.