Freddy remake sequel or Freddy vs Jason vs Ash

[SEANVALEN]

Englund talks Nightmare remake
http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?op...ews&Itemid=167


I thought his comments were interesting.

I think there was a fasination in what a new freddy would be like, but after the phase is over, you look back, and realise Freddy was fine the way he was was.

I just rewatched Freddy vs Jason and had fun, and I thought that I would rathwe see the proposed Freddy vs Jason vs Ash idea then another film that is a sequel to the remake.

I did enjoy the remake, but I must say, there's something not memorable about it, and I think it is that Freddy personality that Englund brings to the formula.

Jason remake I enjoyed because he's covered with the mask, but Freddy's face is linked with the actor, and I think there was just no need for it. I can't believe Freddy vs Jason came out in 2003. Time does fly. They had 7 years before the remake came out to make a sequel to freddy vs jason, it made money, it's insane they didn't continue the possibilities, but if it was Englund's last ever performance, then it was a good one to go outon and well the fanchise had it's longest run with him, the Sean Connery/Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton combination mix Freddy.

[X-human]

As I recall while New Line, and therefore now Warner, had full control over Freddy and Jason when it came to Ash Sam Raimi has to sign off on everything. So I don't think they every really came to an agreement on how it all could be done. Also I found a quote from Bruce Campbell on ACIN from 2004:

I think there are certain execs at New Line and others who are, of course, very excited and rightfully so... I'd hate to just spew bologna when it's just bologna... I think it is real in New Line's mind that it is a viable project and everyone knows it's a viable project. The thing is that making time and figuring out what... um...

Like, let's say you made Ash out of the bounds of the EVIL DEAD series. We do have rights issues that we have to clarify because we've got certain rights owners that are involved in the first EVIL DEAD and then there are other rights owners for the other EVIL DEAD. So, what if you have the character that's got the chainsaw on his arm? Well, he's from EVIL DEAD 2... You know what I mean? And he's spouting bullshit of this and that from these other movies and I don't know. It's a real landmine.

That's why some of these movies get delayed forever. They're legal landmines because it starts to cause every rights owner to go, "Well wait a minute! What do I control?" So, it's awakening the sleeping giants. You know what I mean? Now you have to think about stuff that you never have to think about and you have to start paying attention and that's what eats up the time.

Sam Raimi was in the middle of Spider-man at the time.

Back then I wasn't too keen on it, there were lots of rumblings about ED4 and so I didn't want things to get sidetracked. But in retrospect, I think it would have been great to get all three together for one final showdown and be able to call it quits. Neither Englund or Campbell are spring chickens anymore, so for them to be able to put these things to bed 'around 2005 could have been cool.

[SEANVALEN]

Originally Posted by X-human

As I recall while New Line, and therefore now Warner, had full control over Freddy and Jason when it came to Ash Sam Raimi has to sign off on everything. So I don't think they every really came to an agreement on how it all could be done. Also I found a quote from Bruce Campbell on ACIN from 2004:

Sam Raimi was in the middle of Spider-man at the time.

Back then I wasn't too keen on it, there were lots of rumblings about ED4 and so I didn't want things to get sidetracked. But in retrospect, I think it would have been great to get all three together for one final showdown and be able to call it quits. Neither Englund or Campbell are spring chickens anymore, so for them to be able to put these things to bed 'around 2005 could have been cool.

I'm surprised as J vs F made decent money, that it just seemed the thing to do and legal issues should be worth the hassle.

Deep down I'm seeing a mirage in the desert where Jackie Earle Haley is the George Lazenby of the Nightmare series and somehow Englund does a Sean Connery and returns to the series for Freddy and Diamonds kill in Nightmares

I was looking at the box office for Jason vs Freddy and the nightmare remake, both were made for similar budgets and made the same amount relatively to each other. New Line I think just missed the boat and don't have enough vision to really hammer out a series like Lionsgate with Saw. I don't think age is a issue when it comes to Englund and Campbell's Ash, as long as they are alive, they can always do a Clint Eastwood Gran Tarino and make age a advantage. Alot of wishful thinking.

What we need is someone or rival studio getting the rights and bringing Englund back in some sort of The Dark Knight returns fashion. Anything's possible.

I've read alot of backlash regarding the Nightmare remake/articles. The thing is why make it harder on yourselfs I say to the studio. Not only are making sequels tricky in terms of the longer it goes on, the harder it is to always get it right, but the trusted formula strenghs and familarity you should not need to worry about, Englund and casting was never a issue, but now you have made a split, some who don't care too much, but some who do, but why have the split anyhow, you could have some who do care plus those who don't give a toss anyhow, after the cinema run is over, you got years of loyal dvd/blueray follow up cash.

A remake and new casting works for perhaps 1 film in terms of creating a new beast, with some films this can work, but given Freddy's iconic connection with Englund, it's not a long term investment.

What would of been more natural if they were clever, was have Freddy go through more obstacles and enemires in his world at the same time do his nightmare thing on the young, like in Jason vs Freddy, and maybe their could of been a nightmare type rival to Freddy who sort of is like Freddy, but is not restricted to Elm Street, but now is visiting Elm Street and calling himself something else, now there's a challenge for Freddy, a nightmare civil war with a rival while trying to maintrain his terror on the young, and maybe that rival could of been Jackie Earle Haley. At the end of the day, Freddy had alot of power, power that didn't seem to change until Jason showed up, and rivals are the key to future sequels. Once the remake is out of the way, and maybe another sequel, then they are back to square 1, and someone will see the potential of Jason vs Freddy, it does not need to have Ash, but if it did, it would be cool as well.

I see alot of story possibilities that can be done without reseting the series. And who knows if having Englund gone so the studio can see how strong he was for the formula as they didn't have to worry about casting, maybe they'll see sense.

They recasted the Incrediable Hulk twice because the studio was not happy with the first film, Eric Bana, then Edward Norton, and now there's another Hulk, but neither of these guys were in the role for more then one showing, and they are changing him again for the avengers.

Perhaps the nightmare remake may yeild something positive in terms of a learning lesson with the studio. Batman and Robin was a very important film, not because it was great, but a big lesson was learned and the result was a break, and Chris Nolan-Batman Begins and the Dark Knight-plus 1 more coming. The James Bond fanchise is the same animal, so many changes and approaches. Freddy has died and come back, Then again. He is rebootable with Englund if someone wants it.

Is the sequel to nightmare remake happening for 2012 still? The friday the 13th remake which I really liked and made money seems dead now. This is odd stuff.

[chancetx]

Personally, I think the bigger problem with the "Nightmare" remake was the bland, unlikeable, unattractive teen leads. (I suppose they should get points for not simply casting pretty CW/MTV actors but those were some of the ugliest people I've ever seen in a big budget Hollywood film, Katie Cassidy excepted.) Heather Langenkamp may not have been a great actress but she made Nancy likable and you cared what happened to her character. I didn't care about any of the characters in the new version (again, Katie Cassidy excepted) and was rooting for Freddy to rip them to shreds.

[JimSmith]

The cast from the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake was unattractive?! You need to have your eyes checked! Rooney Mara and Katie Cassidy were so unbelievably gorgeous and magnificent! :-) Totally luscious! :-) And they didn't do a bad job in the movie!

[maybrick]

People are too close to the original series. If you had never seen those films then the remake really isn't a bad movie, and in fact I'd go so far as to say it's the better film in many respects. Robert Englund was (and is) supremely over rated in the role of Freddy Krueger, and even though I like the original film, I never really thought it was all that scary even when I was 11.

[SEANVALEN]

Originally Posted by maybrick

People are too close to the original series. If you had never seen those films then the remake really isn't a bad movie, and in fact I'd go so far as to say it's the better film in many respects. Robert Englund was (and is) supremely over rated in the role of Freddy Krueger, and even though I like the original film, I never really thought it was all that scary even when I was 11.

I agree the remake isn't a bad movie. But the past cannot be undone either. In the same way Tobin Bell is like the iconic villan/for Saw, Englund has had the same effect for the nightmare films. Apart from being a good film the remake, does not make it a repeatable enjoyment. Some audiences like you say get close to a series and expect a Sean Connery/Bond etc or Roger Moore sort of consistent performances. There's something about Freddy with Englund's presentation of him, that it was less realistic and more play to the audience/roger moorish, I dont't think being scared of him initially was the catch, but rather then the concept of the nightmares and the way he kills them/plus his playing to the screen/character, that bit of cheek, , it might not make it a better film you can argue, but it is the formula some expect. I think we need if it happens, a sequel to the remake, just to see how it's gets on beyond the remake, because in the end, what is better for the fanchise long term.

Englund had a great run, but I also think he can still do it and while he can, might as well have left him. Yence the void after Jason vs Fredd was a lost opportunity.

A remake/reboot with new casting is the easiest way to have a instant reaction of must see to see what the interpretation is like, but after the remake is over, what do you do? Look at Quantum of Solace after Casino Royale, I like both films, but it's easier to recast and go back to the beginning, but not everyone can follow it up, Quantum lacked something compared to Casino, yence why Batman Begins/the dark knight and maybe even dark knight rises makes Chis Nolan a modern day god.

Reboot/remake/recasting is a short term ploy sometimes for one more easier dip in the well as the story is always carved out, and like James Bond casting, casting a known figure like Englund again always brings a reaction, but it's not a long term fasination, and in the end, England's shadow will still linger over any sequel remake. Because this is a fanchise, they have to stick with it, and the true reaction to the remake will depend how the fanchise continues.

If they have a consistent plan for sequel films to the remake and keep the tone, then for sure it'll bring a new flavour to the fanchise, but right now, it's just one film among many freddy films, freddy and jason are fanchises over 3 decades now, Jason was more passable to recast/rechange, but perhaps nightmare films have a formula such as the Englund performance that people have a familarity with that they wish to see continue. So like earlier I said, the remake true test is how it's followed up in the coming years. From what I've seen as a reaction, the freddy remake may have tried too hard to be gritty/dark/scary, but it may just come off as darkly grimm, where as the cheese of original freddy films/plus freddy vs jason/less serious approach/with killings/that are not as scary but menacing enough to be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure because it's made that way and englund's freddy is playing to that.

[SEANVALEN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAiXxokI3oA

After watching this, you may feel the need for the film to be made.

I won't give up on this film, we must get the world to sign a petition.