(Close Window)
Topic: A new Freddy???
Message: Posted by: critter (Apr 16, 2010 03:02AM)
Robert Englund is being replaced in the Nightmare remake. I just can't wrap my head around it.
What kinds of routines could be inspired by NOES but still be original?
What about a Nightmare inspired routine where you hypnotize a girl to sleep and her nightmares come to life to terrify the audience? I could imagine a lot of possibilities for that.
Message: Posted by: Vic Nadata (Apr 16, 2010 05:53AM)
The original Nightmare is still one of my favorites, after that it just got silly. However for a routine, I would think some form of stigmata would be appropriate. Have the blade marks show up on the spectators arm......
Message: Posted by: KeokeSilver_Fang (May 14, 2010 07:23PM)
Bring your nightmares out into reality. Just a thought.
Message: Posted by: The Curator (May 15, 2010 12:50AM)
Freddy's character will be played by Wolverine.
Message: Posted by: KeokeSilver_Fang (May 15, 2010 08:14AM)
X3 Wolverine who has lost his ability to regenerate his skin but can regenerate everything else apparently.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (May 15, 2010 09:36AM)
COnfabulation routine - i.e. dream vacation or whatever turnd into nightmare

Materialize a dreamed of object

Have Freddy's signature and a slash appear on a signed document of the specs


Tons of things.
Message: Posted by: Regan (May 21, 2010 07:46AM)
It just don't seem right. My nightmares will never be the same!

Message: Posted by: KeokeSilver_Fang (May 21, 2010 08:07PM)
Hey just my opinion, but this new Freddy actually scared me. Let me rephrase that, I wasn't rooting for Freddy to kill the teens knowing it wasn't going to be done in a humerus, or is it humorous? I'll go with both just because I like humus...now I am confused.

IDK why not produce a claw glove? Or turn people to ashes...and bring them back to life as well, I can do the first part ^^.
Message: Posted by: William Draven (May 23, 2010 12:47AM)
Actually a correction the new freddy is played by the guy that did Rorschach from the Watchman, not Hugh Jackman who played Wolverine
Message: Posted by: handa (May 23, 2010 08:37AM)
Curator was making a joke by reference to a character with sharp metal claws as opposed to the actor playing the character.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the onslaught of remakes of movies originally released within my own lifetime. I have little desire to see most of them and less of a desire to build a magic routine around them when they are re-made. It seems a bit too cliche but that's me.

Message: Posted by: critter (May 28, 2010 01:21PM)
Did not care for the remake.
It wasn't so much scary as uncomfortable. The original used suspense and tricked you into disorientation.
The new one was more, here's the normal world, there's Freddy. He didn't have any clever kills like in the other movies. He just stabbed people with the glove.
And if there was a message, it seemed to be that victims of sexual assault should be punished by demon ghosts. WTF?
I wish the studio would have let Wes Craven keep his intended happy ending in the original though. I think those kids deserved a happy ending after everything they'd been through.
Message: Posted by: Bill Ligon (May 28, 2010 01:27PM)
Freddy as an otherworldly character is one thing. Freddy in the real world (or a semblance thereof) is quite another. The first Nightmare on Elm Street I enjoyed as it was full of surprises and interesting turns. Subsequent Freddy movies bored me to tears.
Message: Posted by: William Draven (May 28, 2010 02:49PM)
I thought that the new nightmare was as faithful to the original movie with observations paid to some of the key iconic scenes as it possibly could, while taking the essence of a dark and twisted character like Krugger and giving him more method to his madness, removing most of the silly cartoony camp that came to be associated with him, and over all creating a more "realistic" villain. Also the actress they got to play Nancy could actually, you know... act. This movie certainly won't replace the old Nightmare, but it certainly does stand alone as a Nightmare for the new generation.
Message: Posted by: Bill Ligon (May 28, 2010 03:43PM)
On 2010-05-28 14:27, Bill Ligon wrote:
Freddy as an otherworldly character is one thing. Freddy in the real world (or a semblance thereof) is quite another. The first Nightmare on Elm Street I enjoyed as it was full of surprises and interesting turns. Subsequent Freddy movies bored me to tears.

Oh, yeah, and I had to take ny youngest son to see every one of them. He loved 'em!
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (May 28, 2010 04:00PM)
Speaking of the first one (and excluding the second ending), there is a question throughout as to whether Freddy is real. In fact, the film (excluding the second ending) can be seen as a projection of a teen's (the Nancy Thompson) character) psychosexual neuroses. All of the people who are killed are either people who have let her down or who can engage in sexual activity while she feels she cannot. As a result, it's possible that it is Nancy who is actually manifesting a killer, much as teens supposedly manifest poltergeist activity. The second ending spoils this interpretation by indicating that Freddy is real and external to Nancy (not simply externalized).

The notion of teens dealing with hormonal influences and externalizing their frustrations as poltergeist activity (taken to an extreme level with Freddy), accepted by some parapsychologists, could certainly be used as a background for a bizarre effect. For example, a living and dead test where you determine who let someone down and was fated to die by that teens externalized energy.
Message: Posted by: handa (May 29, 2010 09:15AM)
I liked it better when horror movies were morality plays and not the creation of an anti-hero.

Message: Posted by: Robin DeWitt (May 29, 2010 03:20PM)
On 2010-05-29 10:15, handa wrote:
I liked it better when horror movies were morality plays and not the creation of an anti-hero.


I agree completely. I also liked it better when everything wasn't so graphic. I have no appreciation for slasher flicks.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 31, 2010 06:52PM)
On 2010-05-29 10:15, handa wrote:
I liked it better when horror movies were morality plays and not the creation of an anti-hero.


I don't know when this was...
Maybe before Bela Lugosi's Dracula?
Universal Studios' Wolfman?
Godzilla vs King Kong?
Godzilla vs pretty much everything that Godzilla was against?
As far as I know, the movie monsters have always had a tendency to become anti-heroes.
Message: Posted by: handa (May 31, 2010 08:30PM)
The Shape was not an anti-hero by any definition in John Carpenter's Halloween.

The Alien was not an anti-hero in Alien.

I don't think that Chucky was an anti-hero in Child's Play.

There seems to be a trend as audiences demand more complex stories to give EVERYONE a moving backstory. Good sometimes...bad in other cases.

Sometimes it is OK to boo the villain.

Message: Posted by: William Draven (Jun 1, 2010 12:59AM)
Oh indeed. Most of the times it's great to boo the villain, that is providing that the villain gives us a reason to boo them. I think that's just the direction movie making is taking as it's evolving as a story telling art form. People are beginning to understand that giving the bad guy a reason to be bad makes him or her a more three dimensional character than the classic James Bond villain whose evil for the sake of being evil.

I think the same rule of thumb applies to us as magicians. When you perform a (say card trick) as just that, a series of moves and motions that accomplish a means to an end the result is nothing more than a puzzle. But when you develop your character, present a plot, give the audience a reason to care about you as a person, and WHY it is you're doing the card trick, or better why they should care about the trick, then the presentation transcends just that of a puzzle. It becomes an experience, and thus magic.

Freddy as a villain in the original nightmare was a slasher who stalked his victims in their dreams. It took New Line Cinema close to 7 movies to outline and define Freddy's character, and even then the best excuse we get to his nature is because he's become partnered with some kind of Babylonian dream demons. We really don't have a solid reason why Nancy was the principle character, other than she was. Also I'm not even going to debate the actresses inability to present a convincing character. As beloved as Mr. Englund's portrayal of Freddy is, even his character became diluted, and cartoonish as the movies progressed on. In the new nightmare, they took all the essence that was Krugger and distilled it. They took it back to its original, dark form. They provided Krugger with something he was kind of lacking before, a motive, and they did a better job of tying things in together as an overall story.

Say what you will, but I think the revisit to the classic property was tastefully done, and well executed. Haley's presentation of Krugger is just as much Freddy as Robert's, we're just seeing a rawer, edgier Freddy. If they continue the franchise, and I don't see why they wouldn't, I hope they don't remove that raw grittier edge. Make no mistake, Krugger is a monster, and a monster is just what we got in the new nightmare.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 1, 2010 09:40AM)
I definately don't think the new Freddy was a hero in any way, shape, or form. He was just a child molester with a pointy glove that he stabbed people with.
I didn't find him ominous or clever, just gross.
As far as backstories, I liked Rob Zombie's treatment of his first Halloween remake.
And there was a backstory at the core of the original. There had to be to make Loomis important. And I like the way the old Halloween sequels brought Loomis continually closer to the edge of madness as well.