The 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' remake has a Freddy...

[DC 536]

The only thing about it I'm not convinced on yet is the make up for Freddy's burns. To be fair, you don't really get a good look at them in the trailer, but there's something, I don't know, off about it. The talk is that it looks more like an actual burn victim than the Robert Englund's version, so I guess I'll have to wait and see when the movie comes out.

 

I'm glad that, like with the Halloween remake and the revamped Friday the 13th, the overall look has stayed the same, particularly the glove.

[Guest ShaneMcCutcheon]

Also, am I the only person in the world who empathises with Freddy Kreuger and kinda thinks it's karma coming back on the lineage of the people who wronged him?

seeing as he was a sick child murdering **** who killed over twenty kids, probably?

 

If they can get back to everything that was good about the first film, and ignore the utter tripe that came in all the sequels then this could be good. Get back the gritty, sinister, pure evil that Freddy had and just ignore the all singing, all dancing comedy character that he became (which I'm sure they will) then this'll be enjoyable.

 

People forget what a brilliant and classic horror film the first was sometimes, and how different it was to every other Nightmare on Elm Street movie, just on the basis of what the subsequent films turned it into. I do get annoyed with remakes of films that were absolutely fine first time around but I'm sure this'll be decent in its own right.

[DC 536]

If they can get back to everything that was good about the first film, and ignore the utter tripe that came in all the sequels then this could be good. Get back the gritty, sinister, pure evil that Freddy had and just ignore the all singing, all dancing comedy character that he became (which I'm sure they will) then this'll be enjoyable.

I take it you haven't seen New Nightmare?

 

On a side note, parts 3 and 4 were really good too.

[Guest ShaneMcCutcheon]

I thought three was awful. Dream Warriors? hideous comedy horror, everything i hated about what the franchise became.

 

I didn't like Four either. You're right though, I've not seen New Nightmare. Had given up on the franchise long before that and just accepted that the first was awesome classic horror, but that was as far as it'd go.

[Guest Anime Otaku]

The Nightmare on Elm Street movies never really appealed to me but I might give them a go since it sounds like Freddie is more than just a straight up slasher and I have to say I do like the look.

[DC 536]

I strongly recommend New Nightmare then; you should love it (even if some of the effects are a little dated now), especially the version of Freddy, who's as evil as he's ever been (I adore the scene near the end where he comes out of the bed, jus the aesthetic look and feel is perfect Krueger).

[Guest ShaneMcCutcheon]

nice, I'll give it a look. I remember when it came out the story didn't appeal to me at all. It sounded like a bad idea (although I know that doens't always translate to a bad film) but I'll definitely check it out. Evil Freddy is one of the best horror characters ever. I just have issues with comedy Freddy

[Guest Fiona]

I take it you haven't seen New Nightmare?

 

On a side note, parts 3 and 4 were really good too.

 

I didn't like 3 or 4 either, that's when it started to go downhill for me. Haven't seen the new one. Sometimes I think that studios are in such a rush to make money off the franchise that they don't think of a decent storyline before making a sequel. I feel the same way about the Halloween and the Friday the 13th series's. In both cases the originals were scary as hell, but as usual they were ruined by really bad sequels.

 

The worst by far was Halloween (oh I can't remember the number), where it was the niece that was channeling the ghost of Michael. Totally lame.

[DC 536]

nice, I'll give it a look. I remember when it came out the story didn't appeal to me at all. It sounded like a bad idea (although I know that doens't always translate to a bad film) but I'll definitely check it out. Evil Freddy is one of the best horror characters ever. I just have issues with comedy Freddy

It's officially a non-canon story, which allows the plot to make sense and not step on what's come before.

 

Basically, the subtext is that an actual demon exists in the real world, but gets trapped by great storytellers through the ages. Originally, this was old tales around fires, then it was books and texts before finally movies took over. The last incarnation this demon took was in the Nightmare tales, but since these have stopped being made, the demon can escape the stories and enter the real world... and the demon loved being Freddy so much, that is the form it takes.

 

Now that makes it sound like this demon isn't Freddy, but it is Krueger through and through, just he's now been made real, which is where the fun begins.

 

To trap the demon back in the story, Wes Craven needs to make another movie (New Nightmare - the movie of the movie we're actually watching). The reason Heather is brought back is because she, as Nancy, was the one being everyone associates with beating him, so she is the one to do it again in New Nightmare (both the movie and in "real life").

 

It sounds overly complicated, but the movie is a Freddy movie, albeit a stand-alone film that was made to allow Craven to close the book, allow Freddy to become what he was always meant to be and, lastly, to be a dry run for Scream.

Edited December 19, 2009 by DC

[Guest Inno]

The worst by far was Halloween (oh I can't remember the number), where it was the niece that was channeling the ghost of Michael. Totally lame.

 

Bar the remake, the only Halloween films I can bear are 1 & 2 which I consider classics... and H20 is not bad either.

[Guest Nemesis Enforcer]

Thinking about it I am not sure which series went downhill the farest: Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween or Friday The 13th

 

They all really suffered from the lets make another part becuase there is money to be made and lost their way in the process, but seeing as Nightmare was my fve of the 3 original films I will have to say that one I think

[Guest Anime Otaku]

The worst case of Sequelitis for a horror movie IMO was Blair Witch. Though that depends on how well you rate the first movie but by any standard the second was utterly horrendous.

[Guest ShaneMcCutcheon]

I actually didn't think the second Blair Witch was really all that much worse than the first. but that's becuase i think the first is terrible.

 

as far as friday the 13th, halloween, nightmare on elm street, for me it's really only the first Nightmare on Elm Street that I love whereas with Halloween and Friday the 13th I think that at least the first two movies in each series were outstanding.

[DC 536]

I didn't like 3 or 4 either, that's when it started to go downhill for me. Haven't seen the new one. Sometimes I think that studios are in such a rush to make money off the franchise that they don't think of a decent storyline before making a sequel. I feel the same way about the Halloween and the Friday the 13th series's. In both cases the originals were scary as hell, but as usual they were ruined by really bad sequels.

The original Friday the 13th was a good horror film, but the series didn't pick up until parts 3 and 4. As for not having new/decent storylines, again, subjective as that may be, the Ft13th franchise did try to alter things up rather than plod the same ground. For example (and, bear in mind, parts 2, 3 and 4 were originally going to be basically the beginning, middle and end of Jason's story arc, thus everything happens over a small time period)...

 

• Part 1 - It's Mrs. Voorhees doing the killing, although we aren't aware of this until the end.
   
   
  
• Part 2 - Jason, again, not revealed until late in the film, is now the one doing the killing (and, best of all, he's the original victim, out to get revenge for his mother).
   
   
  
• Part 3 - Is a direct continuation from part 2. Also introduces THE MASK!!
   
   
  
• Part 4 - Follows on directly from where part 3 ended and has the brother of a victim in part 2 seeking her out (this is part of the remake). Was originally to be the end of Jason and was written/released with that in mind.
   
   
  
• Part 5 - *SPOILER* It's not Jason doing the killing, but a copycat. This was to set up Tommy Jarvis as the new villain/anti-hero (depending on your viewpoint), but reaction to a non-Jason doing the killing scuppered that idea.
   
   
  
• Part 6 - Generally considered the best of the series and the first to really have Jason as the undead, super-strength uber-zombie we know and love. Unusually for a sequential slasher franchise (I can only think of the Halloween series having the same protagonist in a run of movies), a recurring good guy character appears for the third time in a row.
   
   
  
• Part 7 - My favourite entry in the series due to upping the ante by having a telekinetic female as the protagonist (giving it the unoffiicial name of Carrie v Jason). This is also the debut of Kane Hodder.
   
   
  
• Part 8 - Generally considered the second-worst or worst (depending on who you speak to) entry in the series. The original screenplay had Jason in New York pretty much from the start, but the studio drastically reduced the budget, meaning on-location shots were pretty much out the window (only the very end scene are in the city, the rest of the movie was filmed in, I believe, Canada). Some of the kills are good, but the ending sucks so much balls.
   
   
  
• Final Friday - They tried to give a plausible reason as to why Jason keeps coming back after being shot, hung, burned, drowned, shot, stabbed, shot, drowned, shot, burned, etc, etc, so some credit should be offered for that... but it's so implausible, it's insulting, even for fans used to bullshit reasons for why things happen in movies. Some scenes are good, Creighton Duke is a character I'd loved to have seen explored some more and the end scenes, when Jason comes back, are fun. The best thing about this movie is that it instigated the idea of Freddy v Jason.
   
   
  
• Jason X - This is actually a really good entry in the series and, again, adds something new to the story instead of rehashing "kids come to camp site, kids get killed, rinse and repeat" ideas. Jason has been caught and sentenced to death (the original script actually called for a courthouse scene where ALL of the crimes (murder, vandalism, theft, etc) Voorhees has commited would be brought up for trial, which, to me, would have been awesome to see, at least from a visual perspective). Having the opening set during an indetermined date in the future was a stroke of genius because it meant they could do what they wanted, but not interfere with any later movies that are set before it. Basically, they've tried to execute Jason (with my favourite look for him over the entire series), but can't, simply because nothing works. Instead, they've decided to just freeze him... but SOMETHING GOES WRONG!!! An exploration team eventually find him in the year 2455 and thaw him out. Carnage inevitably ensues, but it's done in such a way as to both pay homage to earlier films in the franchise, but also has a lot of originality as well. It also gives a much, much better explanation as to why Jason keeps coming back; he was born with a supercharged cellular regeneration system, thus can recover from almost anything... and then to upgrade him, he ends up as Uber-Jason, which is whole other treat.
   
   
  
• Freddy v Jason - The last of the original run, this is another great entry and a damn good film on its own. Amazingly, Jason, who kills virtually everyone who dies in the movie, ends up the hero, while Freddy (who only kills one person... and even then, he was going to let him live to send a message instead) is the villain. Again, it wasn't just a rehash of "kids come to camp site, kids get killed, rinse and repeat", but a departure from what had come before while still remaining in tune with both horror icons and their previous movies. The ending of this is brilliantly written and everyone involved deserve credit for creating a movie that pleased both sets of fans, didn't make one out to be weaker than the other and left the ending ambiguous enough to create credible arguments over who actually won (Jason did, if you must know).

 

And all of that leads us to the remake, which took the best parts of the first four entries and will get its own sequel next year (making it the thirteenth movie of the series overall). As you can see, the basic premise is the same (but then again, pretty much every slasher film has the same basic premise) over the series, but the ideas behind it, the stories, have enough differences to make them more than rehashes of the same movie over and over again.

The worst by far was Halloween (oh I can't remember the number), where it was the niece that was channeling the ghost of Michael. Totally lame.

You're a little mistaken, Fiona.

 

Halloween 4 had his niece, Jamie Lloyd, in the movie, but she wasn't channeling/possessed by Michael Myers, she was his intended victim (due to the curse placed upon him at birth where he had to kill every member of his family). At the very end, when Michael was supposed to be dead, the curse was passed on to Jamie in the final scene to give a cliffhanger ending to what was meant to be the end of the series. Part 2 was originally meant to end the Myers storyline, with Halloween III being a completely new story - the idea being that Halloween would become an anthology of different stories every year, like Tales from the Crypt, but the fans shit a brick and the idea was shelved. The blame for this can be put firmly with the studio, who didn't advertise the fact part 3 wasn't a continuation of the Myers story, thus moviegoers were stunned to find out ol' Shatner Mask was nowhere to be seen.

 

At the end of part 4, Jamie has the Curse of Thorn placed upon her, not possession of Michael's ghost, but when part 5 was greenlit, this was retconned slightly to a fragment of the curse, giving her a psychic link with her uncle instead. At no point was there a movie with Jamie Lloyd "becoming" Michael or channeling his spirit/power.

Bar the remake, the only Halloween films I can bear are 1 & 2 which I consider classics... and H20 is not bad either.

Halloween III is a good movie when you take it own its own merits. The others are a bit shit, but H20 ignores everything after part 2 (Michael's been living under his house for 20yrs), so you can watch Halloween and Halloween II, followed by H2O, ignore the retcon for Resurrection and pretend it was Michael who got beheaded, thus giving you a complete and credible three-movie series.

[Guest Inno]

so you can watch Halloween and Halloween II, followed by H2O, ignore the retcon for Resurrection and pretend it was Michael who got beheaded, thus giving you a complete and credible three-movie series.

 

Pretty much how I've always looked at them :)

[DC 536]

Halloween: Resurrection had a great concept written into it for the extras, but the technology or the studio wouldn't allow it.

 

For those who haven't seen it, the basic idea is that an online reality TV show, where the contestants have to last a night in the old Myers house. Busta Rhymes, the owner of the show, is, unbeknownst to the contestants, going to dress up as Michael and try to scare them out of the building after filling them in on the Halloween history. Of course, the real Michael is already living under the house and doesn't take kindly to visitors.

 

The great idea was to do with the cameras attached to the contestants heads. Each one had a small camera to allow the viewers of the web show to see whatever they were looking at and, originally, the main DVD extra was going to be the ability to switch between these cameras during the movie, allowing you to see it from a character POV.

 

Now that alone is genius, but the really great part was that when someone was killed, their camera obviously ended up as a static shot of whatever was in front of it when they (or, in one case, their head) stopped moving. The DVD extra would still allow you to look through the dead contestants cameras, with the idea that a lot of (at least from original cut of the film) off-screen stuff could be seen.

 

Things like how Michael can move around the house so quickly and so silently or little glimpses of things as Myers walks past previous victims and so on. The possibilities of an extra like this, if explored fully, are astounding and it's just a pity it was never followed up on.

[Guest ShaneMcCutcheon]

the idea being that Halloween would become an anthology of different stories every year, like Tales from the Crypt, but the fans shit a brick and the idea was shelved. The blame for this can be put firmly with the studio, who didn't advertise the fact part 3 wasn't a continuation of the Myers story, thus moviegoers were stunned to find out ol' Shatner Mask was nowhere to be seen.

was III the Season of the Witch with the masks?

 

That film sucked donkeys

[Guest Fiona]

Jesus DC what's up with you and the Friday the 13th and Halloween series. I say I think the sequel's are shit, and you deliver a page long expose of how the movies was supposed to unfold. It doesn't change my opinion one bit, the sequels after the first couple were shit.

 

It's not a real complicated storyline in each one, I mean I could follow it. The problem I have with these movies is the following:

 

Bad guy goes crazy

Goes on a killing spree, either in a small town or a wilderness camp

Everyone splits up instead of staying together (always loved that part)

They all die in a horrific manner

Bad guy never gets caught.

The blonde is spared for the sequel

 

I mean it's a pretty basic storyline. Once you get rid of the original group that should be it.

[DC 536]

Jesus DC what's up with you and the Friday the 13th and Halloween series.

God forbid someone gives a counterpoint. :roll

[Guest Fiona]

God forbid someone gives a counterpoint. :roll

 

You can have as many counterpoints as you wish, but there really isn't a counterpoint to my statement. I watched the first couple in each series and enjoyed them, that made me want to watch more, but I must say I was extremely disappointed in the sequels.

 

I could understand if I just said that they were crap without seeing them, but that's not the case. It doesn't matter what the film was based on or how the story was played out, I thought they were shit and said so.

 

With these kind of horror films once the initial shock value wears off that's it for me. As I said before the storyline is simple to follow and it just becomes repetitive, just like this post.:P