The Trailer For The "A Nightmare on Elm Street" Remake

[alchemy]

Yes I knew in the original he was an actual child killer, and as Bella stated
above, there was a mistrial and that lead to the viglante justice. I beleive
the police screwed something up and vital evidence had to be tossed out
of court.

In the TV show Freddy's Nightmares, the very first episode deals with this.
Basically tells the whole story of how it went down. I just think it
would make a very cool twist in this one if they killed the wrong guy
and that's why he is back for revenge. I don't think they will though.

As for the ripping off of the jacket to get to the sweater.
The only justification I can think of for that is he's trying to escape
and he wants to throw off his pursuers, by tossing his outer wear. Kind
of like a perp does when their trying to evade police during a foot pursuit.
LOL. Then he gets torched and is forever trapped in that iconic outfit.
Who Knows LOL. Edit: after watching the trailer again he took his jacket
off because the back of it caught fire. Yeah they probably could
have gone without that scene.

Anyone notice those little girls are back, kinda like the Shining. Were they
victims of his in the original? I can't remember.

The singing little girls were never really explained in the original movies. They only word that's given on them is that it's an old jump-rope song that kids used to sing to keep the boogieman away.

 

[alchemy]

Again, he's a producer for this film. His involvement with the project is: helping pay for it, arranging for distribution, and hiring personnel.
He has no hand in the writing or acting of the film

Seriously people. Chill out.

That's what I'm saying. I enjoyed the new Friday the 13th movie and the guys that are actually making the movie are horror fans themselves. I'll give it a chance. Let's be realistic. Without this remake, the Nightmare series is dead.

 

[alchemy]

Pretty good looking trailer. Now if... if the story changes to reveal that Krueger was actually innocent of his crimes (which I fully realize is only speculation on the part of some), that much would actually get under my skin quite a bit. I thought the premise of Freddy being a monster in real life, then continuing his crimes from beyond the grave, made him a bone-chilling character. Making him a sympathetic type would ruin it for me.

Yeah, but part 6 ALREADY established Krueger as a bit of a sympathetic character. He was a disturbed child who's own mother abandoned, he was past from foster home to foster home and was mistreated and beaten until he was a teenager, and then his daughter was taken from him. Yes, he was a monster, but in a way, you kinda had to feel for the guy.

 

[falcon]

you know i gotta admit that i had my doubts but this actually looks watchable. now i'm kinda anxious 🙂 thanks to jimmy for posting this!

 

[JimmyBoy]

Since people mentioned "Freddy's Nightmares" I don't know why this hasn't been put to DVD yet.

I know that the series wasn't at all related to Jason but they put all three seasons of "Friday the 13th" out on DVD.

 

[BellaRisa]

Bella, not sure what basis your husband has to think that? There is zero indication in the original that he was actually innocent (and the script isn't really deep enough to interpret things like that), and subsequent movies (I know at least final nightmare) actually showed flashbacks of when he was a living child-killer. Confused on that front

Ha, keep in mind he was around 14 when he saw the movie at a party with a bunch of other 14 yr olds and they didn't exactly pay deep attention to the plot, and since then it hasn't really been on his mind 😛 Other people I know who thought the same thing (and like my husband never saw any of the sequels) also assumed that Freddy was targeting the kids of the people who burned him alive because he was killed unjustly and wanted revenge. And, um, frankly I think that makes a little more sense than a guy who was guilty being able come back for revenge, I can see why some people would have though that...

 

[ShadowFyre]

No, Freddy definitely did it. The only reason he got off was because of a technicality on the search warrant.

I was just watching Freddy's Nightmares, and the technicality was that Freddy was never properly Mirandized and advised of his rights. The technicality doesn't change the fact that he actually *did* kill the kids. Freddy's Dead pretty much sets that in concrete.

 

[ShadowFyre]

Ha, keep in mind he was around 14 when he saw the movie at a party with a bunch of other 14 yr olds and they didn't exactly pay deep attention to the plot, and since then it hasn't really been on his mind 😛 Other people I know who thought the same thing (and like my husband never saw any of the sequels) also assumed that Freddy was targeting the kids of the people who burned him alive because he was killed unjustly and wanted revenge. And, um, frankly I think that makes a little more sense than a guy who was guilty being able come back for revenge, I can see why some people would have though that...

I can understand being young and just watching NOES for the scare factor. The first movie definitely has plenty of that. Freddy killed the kids, the parents took revenge by killing him themselves, and Freddy got his revenge by becoming what he became after death. It makes as much sense as the majority of the 80's horror movies like Trick or Treat and Shocker.

 

[DimpleToes]

OMG.. I had such bad dreams from these movies.. cant waite to see it. But wont be the same with out the orignial freddy.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

A film producer's vision has nothing to do with the job they do. They're the financial weight of a project, not the creative part. The actor's carry out their vision of their characters, guided by the director's vision of the story, written according to the vision (you guessed it) of the writers.
Michael Bay hasn't shaped the story; indeed, he isn't involved in the creative process (of this film) enough to do so.

I tend to think that the head honcho on any given project definitely has the power & influence to sway that project in the direction they'd like to see it go in.

While not directly involved in the creative process , part of a film producer's responsibility is acquiring people who are going to be involved in that process. The decision to opt for Director A over Director B is just one example of how a producer begins to "shape" his project.

According to the script that's been circulating, they're not necessarily playing the innocent angle, they're playing the ambivalent angle. Fred insists that he's innocent, but all the evidence points to him being guilty.

You definitely seem like the expert on all things Freddy , so I'll defer to you on this matter.

 

[dusttick11]

Thanks to alchemy for answering my question about those
little ghost girls. I didn't think they ever really explained them
in the films. Yeah, I think your right about this film, he
claims he's innocent but is really guilty.

ShadowFyre, Yes I do remember watching Freddy's
Nightmares back when it was on. I remember the first ep because
it showed his origin. I remember he also was very indignant in it
when they went to kill him. Basically laughed in their faces. They didn't
kill him the way it was stated in the original movie though. I think in
the film they said they burned the building he was in. On the show the
police chief doused him with gasoline then lit him on fire, as the parents all
watched. I think it was down in the boiler room.

JimmyBoy, I don't know if I'm right about this but I think they released
the Freddy's Nightmares on DVD sometime ago. It might have been in
that big boxset with all the films. Someone else might know? I don't
think they released them in a stand alone boxset.

They show the episodes from time to time on the horror channel called
"Chiller Network", if you have that channel.

 

[ShadowFyre]

Thanks to alchemy for answering my question about those
little ghost girls. I didn't think they ever really explained them
in the films. Yeah, I think your right about this film, he
claims he's innocent but is really guilty.

ShadowFyre, Yes I do remember watching Freddy's
Nightmares back when it was on. I remember the first ep because
it showed his origin. I remember he also was very indignant in it
when they went to kill him. Basically laughed in their faces. They didn't
kill him the way it was stated in the original movie though. I think in
the film they said they burned the building he was in. On the show the
police chief doused him with gasoline then lit him on fire, as the parents all
watched. I think it was down in the boiler room.

Whether the jump rope girls were victims of Freddy was never stated explicitly in either the Freddy's Nightmares TV show or any of the Elm Street movies. Given the fact that we don't know who his victims were, just that he was a child killer, I would say that we can fairly safely assume that the girls were indeed killed by Freddy. As I recall, the characters in any of the nightmares were either the intended victims themselves, past victims, or various incarnations of Freddy.I would have to watch the movies again to be 100% certain, but this is what I presently remember.

I just watched No More Mr. Nice Guy, the first episode of season 1 of Freddy's Nightmares, today. You are right. Freddy gleefully admitted that he killed the children and that he was guilty. He only got off because he was never properly read his rights by the police officer who arrested him. He was covered in gasoline and the officer that arrested him actually lit him on fire. It did occur in his boiler room, and they moved Freddy's body to the junkyard and placed it in the trunk of a car, where it was seen in Elm Street 4, The Dream Master. I know the first Elm Street movie made it clear the Freddy was killed in his boiler room as well, but I am not certain if they went any deeper than that, so the TV show may not be in any conflict. It may be clarifying the facts that the movie laid out.

As to whether the TV series was included in the NOES box set, I can tell you that it wasn't. The box set has the first 7 movies, with an extra 8th disc called the Nightmare Encyclopedia. I just had the box set out yesterday.

 

[Adam]

Yeah, but part 6 ALREADY established Krueger as a bit of a sympathetic character. He was a disturbed child who's own mother abandoned, he was past from foster home to foster home and was mistreated and beaten until he was a teenager, and then his daughter was taken from him. Yes, he was a monster, but in a way, you kinda had to feel for the guy.

Well, yeah, but that was the trend back then. Hell, they even tried making Michael Myers more sympathetic by giving him that ridiculous "thorn curse" storyline that started in Halloween 5 and ended in 6. But the origin itself when it comes to Freddy's crimes should not change, in my opinion. And it sounds like you agree. I'm just sayin'. 😀

 

[Radiohead 7140]

The jump-rope girls have no actual place in the plot, and they don't matter. They're just devices to add creepiness to the film (and they do a very good job). There is no reason to think about whether they are actually victims. For all intents and purposes, they aren't even really there.

It's suspension of disbelief beyond the ordinary suspension that goes with watching a fantasy story like this. Another even more glaring example is the ending where nancy appears all better, her mother is sober, she gets in the car with her friends, and the car traps her and the mom gets pulled through the door. I don't think we're to consider whether this actually happened, even within the context of a wildly unbelievable movie. Roger Ebert best sums up how I feel about this type of thing in his review of that infamous ending of Taxi Driver:

"There has been much discussion about the ending, in which we see newspaper clippings about Travis's 'heroism' of saving Iris, and then Betsy gets into his cab and seems to give him admiration instead of her earlier disgust. Is this a fantasy scene? Did Travis survive the shoot-out? Are we experiencing his dying thoughts? Can the sequence be accepted as literally true? ... I am not sure there can be an answer to these questions. The end sequence plays like music, not drama: It completes the story on an emotional, not a literal, level. We end not on carnage but on redemption, which is the goal of so many of Scorsese's characters."

Likewise, with NOES, the ending, as with the appearance of the jumprope girls, plays like music and is much more focused on how it makes you feel than whether it is assumed to actually be happening in the canon of the movie.

For an even more interesting discussion along these lines, let's talk The Shining and Jack Nicholson being (?) the caretaker after all???

 

[Angel_2]

I noticed he said, "what do you think I did? I didn't do anything" in the preview. Perhaps they might emphasize a story line about whether or not the parents killed an innocent Kruger?

I thought about that too, however if that was the case it wouldn't be a remake of the first movie made. The only thing different about this movie will be the cast

 

[JimmyBoy]

JimmyBoy, I don't know if I'm right about this but I think they released
the Freddy's Nightmares on DVD sometime ago. It might have been in
that big boxset with all the films. Someone else might know? I don't
think they released them in a stand alone boxset.

They only released Volume 1 in Region 2 format containing 3 episodes. So far that's it.

 

[Korastus]

I thought about that too, however if that was the case it wouldn't be a remake of the first movie made. The only thing different about this movie will be the cast

Well, not quite.
There are going to be more differences than simply the cast, that is almost 100% certain.
"remake" doesn't mean "take the old script and add new actors."

 

[vladtickleman22]

There are certain things that should not be done. Remaking this is one of them.

 

[Angel_2]

Well, not quite.
There are going to be more differences than simply the cast, that is almost 100% certain.
"remake" doesn't mean "take the old script and add new actors."

True, its still going to be the same basic plot as was with the first movie. I'm just not a fan of remakes cause its pretty much the same movie