A Nightmare on Elm Street reboot
 

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/08/11/...t-remake-2015/

Didn't they learn their lesson the first time? :nono:

I liked the last one. Was cool to see a legit scary take on Freddy, which we hadn't really seen since the first movie. New Nightmare tried but he came off as meaner rather than scarier.

Definitely could have done a better job on haley's mask though.

All the reboot did was make me miss the real Freddy.

So watch the old movies then. There's freaking seven of them.

i didn't mind the last one. i'll check out a new one. i've always been a sucker for freddy. total mark for dream warriors.

Dumb

Only real problem I had with the last one was the teasing of him being wrongly accused. If they would hage followed through with that all the way, it would have been interesting to have an almost Pied Piper effect: making the families pay with the lives of their children. But the reveal basically negated all that and made it feel unnecessary, and kinda thrown in to make avoid backlash for a new direction. "Maybe he's innocent and he isn't such a -LOL SWERVE THE LAST MINUTE!"

Hopefully, they'll handle that better this go 'round.

Always knew you were a Dokken fan.

Eight actually. I find a reboot threatening because it could possibly cause the original series to fade away from the mainstream and I also long for new ideas with films.

How does a film "fading away from mainstream", whatever that's even supposed to mean, affect your enjoyment of the original(s)?

It doesn't, but I prefer people to know there is only one Freddy.

I'm pretty sure Robert Englund will always be the most noteworthy Freddy Krueger. If someone were to displace him as THE iconic actor to play Freddy Krueger, then it's probably be down to the reboot being a very very good film and that actors portrayal of Krueger being excellent.

If Englund isn't in it, I don't care.

Another reason why I am against a reboot is because it was done already and didn't make any money and most people hated it.


In general, I object to remakes because the writers are basically ripping off someone else's work and making millions. They're in a way guilty of stealing on all accounts.


Are there ever going to be any new ideas?

It made over $115 million on a $35 million budget, how is that not making money?

When compared to the original, that's nada. The reboot also was essentially forgotten after the hype died down.

The original made half of that ($58 million in 2015 money). A lower budget, sure, but the remake did pretty well box office wise. I thought it was ok, nothing special, though.

A female Freddy is a horrible idea. The "Ghostbusters" reboot is being ruined because of feminism. Let's not make a "Nightmare" remake worst then what it's going to be with a chick as Freddy. What's with all the pussy-eating going on in movies?


Even though films are fake, I enjoy movies where even the obviously unrealistic stories still have some sense of realism to them because it makes it entertaining. In the case of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" - I am actually defending women. Men are more scary and the majority of the psychos are male, so there's a better chance of a guy going around murdering kids then a lady.

Furthermore, if a female did kill children and got off on a legal technicality, no mob of people in 2015 would *ever* burn her alive because she is a woman. We would be told how it was the system's fault for making her that way and she would be forgiven and loved by all and would go on "The View", smiling and promoting her book.

How is Ghostbusters ruined?

Again, even though all films are fake, I prefer even the obviously unrealistic movies have a story that takes place in the regular world we all live in. In other words, the rest of earth is normal, but in New York City, an army of ghosts attack and the New Yorkers in the story would respond with the same kind of action people in the real NYC here in the real world would respond with. Doing all that helps the audience relate to the story more.


In the case of the reboot of "Ghostbusters", if ghosts really did attack The Big Apple, I guarantee most women would be screaming, running, and hiding. It'd be mostly *men* fighting the ghosts. It's nature. Men are hunters, fighters, and protectors. It was through the strength of men that the human race evolved. Women are nurturers and caretakers. (I wish we could all be like that. There would be little violence then.)

The original ghostbusters were hardly fearless warriors, and the new movie will likely follow suit. That's why it's funny in the first place. so I don't think you have to worry about your suspension of disbelief being threatened.

So what would you be doin' if ghosts attacked the world, Z? Seeing how you consider yourself a woman trapped in a man's body.

Zeeboe you're just wrong in everything you're saying in this thread.

"Logistics and realism's of a comedy movie about daft looking ghosts" - An essay by Zeeboe

Entertaining that viewpoint even further, the ghostbusters are not warriors. They are scientists doing a job. There are millions of women who perform jobs with potential hazards, some even fatal.

So there you go totally realistic. Not ruined.

I realize there are women who do dangerous jobs, but why do you think whenever there is any type of crime where a small child is involved in anyway, a female cop is sent in to attend to the kid?

It's because men are fucking scary and most ladies are not.

In the movie "Signs", according to the IMDB, the aliens were originally scripted as having feminine builds and movements, thus the movements of tall, thin, female actors were used as models for CGI tests and some shots. However, it was decided that female bodies did not convey a threatening enough posture for the creatures, and a male CGI stand-in ended up being used in the final scene with Morgan as well as on the rooftop.

Know why? BECAUSE MEN ARE MORE THREATENING!


During 9/11, it was mostly male firefighters going in and saving people.



Furthermore, what about the sexism there is against men by casting chicks in roles made famous by men?


Is there ever going to be a male "Sex In The City"? Or a male "Annie"? Or a male lead in a reboot of "The Wizard of Oz"? How about a male as Ripley if "Alien" is remade? I mean, let's please be equal here. But when it comes to equality for men, no one cares.


Or how about no remakes at all and someone come up with something original instead of stealing other people's ideas?

I don't know what that is. Anyhow, if the studio is going to be liberal about the reboot, I think they should cast an African-American man as Freddy.

I am dumber for reading this thread. Fuck me...

If an African-American actor played Freddy, the story could be that a kind farmer named Fred Krueger living in 1917 rural Springwood, Ohio gets falsely accused of murdering white children and is burned alive by a lynch mob. (Robert Englund could play the lynch mob leader who lights the torch and throws it on Fred. Passing the torch - get it?)


Then one-hundred-years-later, Freddy comes back with a vengeance as a dream demon, forcing the teenagers to pay for the sins of their forefathers.

Noo. Too subtle.

I hate reboots too, especially reboots of reboots, but I figure if they are going to do it, they might as well attempt to do something entertaining. So they might rip-off "Candyman" slightly - Isn't that the thing in modern movies now? Isn't stealing other people's ideas what's cool?


A female Freddy will make the film into a BDSM porno.

I wish we could reboot Zeeboe to a good poster

I'm not here to impress you.

I would hope not.

The movie business is dying, but if you guys want to make jokes about it, like you do everything else, be my guest. I guess you guys don't care about anything as long as it doesn't affect your post count.

Yes, you nailed it, Z.

I care, I lay awake at night in a fevered sweat, hoping that studio execs and a list actors still have their jobs the next day.

Zeeboe...this film industry is far from dying....

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

The numbers have gone down. The economy is also different from how it was back in the 80's.

I've seen films on opening weekends and there were barely any people in the theaters. Others have voiced the same concerns and reported low-attendance.


Since video stores are now dead, I can believe movie theaters are next.