After seeing the trailer for it

posted

I'm actually pretty stoked for the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Looks like they're taking it seriously this time, and it looks fairly scary. I'm gonna try not to get my hopes up too high, but it looks good.

Also:

Letty
Member Since Jul. 2009

2%

11,107 Posts

Letty is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

the film might not come out. they're getting sued by macguyver's people, because they're actually in pre-production on a macguyver movie.

slacker
Member Since Oct. 2005

3%

27,455 Posts

slacker is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Both of these equal yes. I was skeptical about both but Val Kilmer in Macgruber looks awesome and Nightmare looks good.

Swatrob
Member Since Dec. 2005

2%

7,004 Posts

Swatrob is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:
In an interview, producer Brad Fuller initially explained that they are following the same line they did with their Friday the 13th remake, by abandoning the things that made the character less scary—the film's antagonist, Freddy Krueger, will not be "cracking jokes" as had become a staple of his character in later films—and focusing more on trying to craft a "horrifying movie".

Letty
Member Since Jul. 2009

2%

11,107 Posts

Letty is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:
Originally posted by slacker on March 8, 2010 8:28 AM PST the film might not come out. they're getting sued by macguyver's people, because they're actually in pre-production on a macguyver movie.

GAY! I was skeptical about the MacGruber movie but the trailer looked hilarious. What a bunch of lame-os.

Letty
Member Since Jul. 2009

2%

11,107 Posts

Letty is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

And this:

Quote:
In contrast (to Craven's displeasure of remaking the film), Robert Englund, who portrayed Freddy throughout the film series, feels it is time for A Nightmare on Elm Street to be remade; Englund likes the idea of being able to "exploit the dreamscape" with CGI and other technologies that did not exist when Craven was making the original Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984.

Is exactly what I argued with my boyfriend about for an hour when he said that the film was gonna flop because of the CGI.

Letty
Member Since Jul. 2009

2%

11,107 Posts

Letty is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

well, spoofing is protected under fair use. So it may have a shot at being released. But drawing the line between satire and blatant copying is hard to do, and macgruber doesn't really bring a lot of originality to the table. I don't even know why they made more than one skit with that character on SNL, much less a whole damn movie.

slacker
Member Since Oct. 2005

3%

27,455 Posts

slacker is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

I would see a MacGyver movie, but only if Richard Dean Anderson played him. I dont care if he's old now. He's still svelte and still bad ass.

EarfSeyenz
Member Since Dec. 2006

2%

7,882 Posts

EarfSeyenz is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:
Originally posted by slacker on March 8, 2010 8:34 AM PST I don't even know why they made more than one skit with that character on SNL, much less a whole damn movie.

Because it's funny, and if SNL can do anything funny these days they need to milk it.

Osyris_Glitch
Member Since Jan. 2007

2%

12,714 Posts

Osyris_Glitch is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:

Originally posted by Letty on March 8, 2010 8:29 AM PST

Quote:
In an interview, producer Brad Fuller initially explained that they are following the same line they did with their Friday the 13th remake, by abandoning the things that made the character less scary—the film's antagonist, Freddy Krueger, will not be "cracking jokes" as had become a staple of his character in later films—and focusing more on trying to craft a "horrifying movie".

This does not inspire confidence in me. The F13 remake, while I didn't dislike it the first time I saw it, does not stand up to repeat viewings. It's too long and pretty boring. I can't watch it again without skipping ahead to the few non boring kills and tit scenes. I have never had to do that with any other movie in that series. Also, there was nothing remotely scary about it, so saying they "are following the same line they did with their Friday the 13th remake," does not seem like a good thing to me.

LivingDeadPunk
Member Since Aug. 2006

3%

50,998 Posts

LivingDeadPunk is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:

Originally posted by Letty on March 8, 2010 8:33 AM PST

And this:

Quote:
In contrast (to Craven's displeasure of remaking the film), Robert Englund, who portrayed Freddy throughout the film series, feels it is time for A Nightmare on Elm Street to be remade; Englund likes the idea of being able to "exploit the dreamscape" with CGI and other technologies that did not exist when Craven was making the original Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984.

Is exactly what I argued with my boyfriend about for an hour when he said that the film was gonna flop because of the CGI.

I have to side with your BF. CGI usually isn't scary. It's usually overdone and too unrealistic, too non-corporeal to actually be frightening. Remember, the Nightmare movies got less scary as the series progressed and the scenarios got more and more absurd. (The A-Ha kill... not scary) Like real nightmares, the dreams in that series were more scary when they mostly resembled a real world that you could relate to.

Also, the cgi nose stealing from Freddy Vs. Jason looked retarded.

LivingDeadPunk
Member Since Aug. 2006

3%

50,998 Posts

LivingDeadPunk is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:

Originally posted by Osyris_Glitch on March 8, 2010 9:32 AM PST

Quote:
Originally posted by slacker on March 8, 2010 8:34 AM PST I don't even know why they made more than one skit with that character on SNL, much less a whole damn movie.

Because it's funny, and if SNL can do anything funny these days they need to milk it.

it was funny the first time, and then maybe the time with the gay son... (or was that the first time?) but it's just not funny anymore.

slacker
Member Since Oct. 2005

3%

27,455 Posts

slacker is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Nah, the ones where MacGruber gets progressively drunk are great.

Osyris_Glitch
Member Since Jan. 2007

2%

12,714 Posts

Osyris_Glitch is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

urgh. i saw the nightmare preview. i really don't know how i feel about it. thy showed the scene where freddy comes out of the wall, which in the originally the used canvas, and they were using cgi, it just looked dumb and mad me mad.

Mallory
Member Since Nov. 2009

1%

1,236 Posts

Mallory is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

MAD ME AM MAD ME AM ANGRY MAD MAD MAKE IT ME MAD

Letty
Member Since Jul. 2009

2%

11,107 Posts

Letty is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

hehe ME LIKEY BREADSTICKS!

Mallory
Member Since Nov. 2009

1%

1,236 Posts

Mallory is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:
Originally posted by Mallory on March 9, 2010 4:05 PM PST urgh. i saw the nightmare preview. i really don't know how i feel about it. thy showed the scene where freddy comes out of the wall, which in the originally the used canvas, and they were using cgi, it just looked dumb and mad me mad.

Why use expensive, time consuming CGI to render something that could be captured in a few hours and look more realistic with a camera, some lights and a piece of stretchy material?

LivingDeadPunk
Member Since Aug. 2006

3%

50,998 Posts

LivingDeadPunk is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

to make it look fake and stupid?

Mallory
Member Since Nov. 2009

1%

1,236 Posts

Mallory is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

But why would anyone WANT that?!

LivingDeadPunk
Member Since Aug. 2006

3%

50,998 Posts

LivingDeadPunk is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

i wish i knew.

Mallory
Member Since Nov. 2009

1%

1,236 Posts

Mallory is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

It's laziness. Back in the day, when you wanted an effect, you had to figure out how to do it or you had to have someone else figure it out. Now they just have an easy out, but half of the time, it ends up just looking silly.

*sigh*

LivingDeadPunk
Member Since Aug. 2006

3%

50,998 Posts

LivingDeadPunk is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

I just watched the trailer. I do not like his face. I did not like that wall effect, and I do not like his voice. HMF!

EarfSeyenz
Member Since Dec. 2006

2%

7,882 Posts

EarfSeyenz is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

I know it sounds stupid but thats one of the reasons I loved the first Resident Evil movie. The licker was made by Stan Winston and it looked awesome.

Swatrob
Member Since Dec. 2005

2%

7,004 Posts

Swatrob is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Also all cg isn't bad example being anything Weta does like Gollum or King Kong.

Swatrob
Member Since Dec. 2005

2%

7,004 Posts

Swatrob is currently offline

Reply with Quote

posted

Quote:
Originally posted by Swatrob on March 11, 2010 5:21 AM PST Also all cg isn't bad example being anything Weta does like Gollum or King Kong.

I am completely with you on that one. One of the first things that came to my mind when all this talk about cgi came about, my mind instantly went to LOTR... If it's done right, high quality and done with care and precision, the results can be spectacular.

EarfSeyenz
Member Since Dec. 2006

2%

7,882 Posts

EarfSeyenz is currently offline

Reply with Quote

ifuckinghateyou.com - your enemy's enemy is your friend.