Hollywood is dead.

[vta]

They've become like a cover band, rehashing old **** in a bar. I wonder when the LOTR remakes are going into production... :cool:


A Nightmare on Elm Street (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/weekendroundup-04-30-10.html)

You can't talk about the new "Nightmare" flick without comparing Mr. Haley's performance as Freddy to that of original baddie Robert Englund. After all, Englund played Freddy in eight films and a TV series. So how does Earle stack up?

Michael Rechtshaffen of The Hollywood Reporter writes that while there's "admittedly something truly unsavory about Haley's portrayal... there's just no replacing Englund." That said, Mr. Rechtshaffen didn't like the movie as a whole. His bottom line: "Good luck staying awake."

Roger Ebert is not much of a fan of this redux either. He gives the movie just one star out of four and writes that he watched the horror movie with "weary resignation." Ebert doesn't delve into who was the better Freddy, but Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune writes that, in the new movie, Jackie Earle Haley is underused. "The role asks criminally little of him beneath all that goopy melted-face makeup."

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gives the movie a "B-," and compliments Haley on his "dour malevolence." Overall, though, the EW critic calls the new "Nightmare" a "by-the-numbers bad dream that plays a little too much like a rerun."

Filmcritic.com's Bill Gibron really liked what he saw, giving the movie four out of five stars and calls Haley "brilliant in the role -- not too comical, always too cruel -- and imbued with a sinister tragedy that is hard to shake." However, Jen Chaney of the Washington Post disagrees. She argues that while Haley "pours every bit of menace he can muster into Krueger," she found his makeup "completely unterrifying." Robert Englund was, in her opinion, "irreplaceable" because he "knew how to have a killer good time."

[Yeagermeister]

I've been saying that for years.

[big dog cowboy]

Not that much different than TV. Original shows do pop up every year but it seems like most of them are just remakes of old shows that were once popular.

[theogt]

If Hollywood was dead for making crap movies, then it was never alive. Why would anyone look at a Nightmare on Elm Street remake and think this somehow represents "Hollywood?" Of course it's a crap movie. No one ever expected any different. It was a crap movie in the 80s. But crap movies make a lot of money.

[vta]

Why would anyone look at a Nightmare on Elm Street remake and think this somehow represents "Hollywood?"

Because it's coming from the same place as the multiple other crap remakes they've been churning out over the last 10 or so years?

[Jon88]

They don't make movies like they used to 25 years ago and then before that.

[theebs]

why would hollywood be dead or film making be dead based on a michael bay produced horror remake.

The original nightmare on elm street wasnt a crap movie, it was made on a shoestring budget in like 3 weeks or something and it still holds up.

but to generalize and say hollywood is dead is pretty odd.

[Maikeru-sama]

why would hollywood be dead or film making be dead based on a michael bay produced horror remake.

The original nightmare on elm street wasnt a crap movie, it was made on a shoestring budget in like 3 weeks or something and it still holds up.

but to generalize and say hollywood is dead is pretty odd.

This.

[ScipioCowboy]

It's an issue of originality for VTA, methinks.

[vta]

why would hollywood be dead or film making be dead based on a michael bay produced horror remake.

The original nightmare on elm street wasnt a crap movie, it was made on a shoestring budget in like 3 weeks or something and it still holds up.

but to generalize and say hollywood is dead is pretty odd.

When you're digging the bottom of the barrel for more material, you're pretty much running to the end of your creative resources. Shoe string budget or not has very little to do with a story being good. It was 'fun' for it's time, it's not a timeless classic worth rehashing.

[vta]

It's an issue of originality for VTA, methinks.

I haven't watched too much of recent things and what stands for 'originality' has taken form in things like shock value and Special FX. Cop-outs.

[Jon88]

I haven't watched too much of recent things and what stands for 'originality' has taken form in things like shock value and Special FX. Cop-outs.

I was watching Caddyshack the other day and thought to myself "they really don't make 'em like this anymore."

[vta]

I was watching Caddyshack the other day and thought to myself "they really don't make 'em like this anymore."

They can't make anything like they did anymore, because the 'they' in that equation are not making movies anymore. A new generation is in there making nothing.

Hollywood is running on momentum and prior glory. Technology and creative prime are out of synch and now we have technically beautiful, but vapid movies. The same sorry three-act stories being told over and over again with no originality.

[Jon88]

They can't make anything like they did anymore, because the 'they' in that equation are not making movies anymore. A new generation is in there making nothing.

Hollywood is running on momentum and prior glory. Technology and creative prime are out of synch and now we have technically beautiful, but vapid movies. The same sorry three-act stories being told over and over again with no originality.

I agree. I was talking with someone a few years ago about all these old movies being remade, and we both came to the conclusion that they're out of ideas.

[ScipioCowboy]

They can't make anything like they did anymore, because the 'they' in that equation are not making movies anymore. A new generation is in there making nothing.

Hollywood is running on momentum and prior glory. Technology and creative prime are out of synch and now we have technically beautiful, but vapid movies. The same sorry three-act stories being told over and over again with no originality.

Hollywood has become so ideologically monolithic that it limits its available talent pool, in my opinion. Michael Medved has mentioned that certain ideologies are passed around as currency among Hollywood elites, and if you don't share those ideologies, you may have difficultly finding an in.

[vta]

Hollywood has become so ideologically monolithic that it limits its talent pool, in my opinion. Michael Medved has mentioned that certain ideologies are passed around as currency among Hollywood elites, and if you don't share those ideologies, it can be very difficult to find an in.

I can imagine. They're kind of incestuous and cannibalistic in their ways of keeping things within the tribe and constantly feeding on already made material.

[BraveHeartFan]

I haven't seen the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street ( i will ) but I've read about it and what not. It sounds like I'll ultimatley be disappointed by what all they've totally changed, rather than just updating the movie, but I can't disagree more that the original was crap.

The original was pretty solid, especially for it's time, and was a solid horror flick.

Now all the ones they put out after it? Yeah they could have done without that. They got progressively worse and pretty much from the second one on the only reason to even watch them was for the funny lines from Freddy.

But the original was really solid. Very much like I thought the original Friday the 13th and Halloween were also very solid. Well with Halloween I think it was better than solid. I thought it was very good and I really wished they'd never made any sequels to that one and I was extremely disappointed, even more so than I knew I'd be, with the Rob Zombie remake cause of how he completely screwed up what I thought was already a pretty solid story that all he had to do was update and it would have been just fine.

[jimmy40]

When you're digging the bottom of the barrel for more material, you're pretty much running to the end of your creative resources. Shoe string budget or not has very little to do with a story being good. It was 'fun' for it's time, it's not a timeless classic worth rehashing.If there's a place for reality tv and the crap that is MTV then there's a place for anything.

[jimmy40]

LOS ANGELES - Freddy Krueger is raking in cash at the box office again.

A remake of the slasher flick "A Nightmare on Elm Street" led the weekend with a $32.2 million debut, according to studio estimates Sunday. Released by the Warner Bros. banner New Line, the movie features Jackie Earle Haley as Krueger, a psycho killer who stalks and slays victims in their dreams.

Fright films typically drop steeply in their second weekends, since hardcore horror fans rush out to see them in the first few days. But the remake already is headed toward a solid profit after an opening weekend that roughly matched its modest production budget of just over $30 million.

Given the history of slasher sagas — the original 1984 "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was followed by seven sequels — the franchise likely has a long life ahead of it.

"It's certainly something we would entertain, the same with 'Friday the 13th,'" another New Line horror series that was revived last year and has a sequel in the works, said Dan Fellman, head of distribution at Warner Bros.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" was unable to match the fresh start of "Friday the 13th," whose remake had a $40 million opening weekend in February 2009.

This weekend's other new wide release, Brendan Fraser's family comedy "Furry Vengeance," bombed with just $6.5 million. The Summit Entertainment release stars Fraser as a housing developer assailed by the cute woodland creatures whose habitat is threatened by construction.

The previous weekend's No. 1 movie, DreamWorks Animation's hit "How to Train Your Dragon," slipped to second place with $10.8 million, raising its total to $192.4 million.

While "A Nightmare on Elm Street" opened well, overall business was modest, continuing a lull as theaters prepare for the summer season, Hollywood's busiest time.

Blockbusters begin arriving this Friday with Paramount's "Iron Man 2" opening domestically. Robert Downey Jr. returns in the followup to the 2008 smash, which premiered with a whopping $98.6 million weekend, ranking No. 15 on the domestic chart for best debuts.

"What 'Nightmare on Elm Street' did is bridge the gap between the middling last part of spring leading into the summer," said Paul Dergarabedian, box-office analyst for Hollywood.com. "'Iron Man 2,' I'm prepared to say, is going to be one of the biggest openings of all time. Interest is huge."

In limited release, Sony Pictures Classics' "Please Give" opened strongly with $128,696 in five theaters, averaging a healthy $25,739 a cinema. That compares with an average of $9,665 in 3,332 theaters for "A Nightmare on Elm Street."

"Please Give" stars Catherine Keener and Oliver Platt as a Manhattan couple who buy an elderly neighbor's adjoining apartment — with the stipulation that the old woman can live out her life there before the buyers can do any expanding and remodeling.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Hollywood.com. Final figures will be released Monday.

[Jon88]

The industry needs more directors like this guy. Most of his movies are original and a few could be considered classics. In this video he destroys some fat lady trying to make him look like a fool.

7L2ukSJFgCM&playnext_from=TL&videos=Frl7oYCXocQ

[tiny tim]

I wonder when the LOTR remakes are going into production... :cool:


The Lord of the Rings has been made into films more than once. Ralph Bakshi was the first one to bring the Lord of the Rings to the Cinema in 1978. The Bakshi version covers part 1 "The Fellowship of the Ring" and some of part 2 "The Two Towers". In 1980 Rankin/Bass made a Lord of the Rings movie that covers part 3 "The Return of the King".

Peter Jackson first heard about the Lord of the Rings by watching the Bakshi version. After he saw the movie he wanted to know more so he read the book that the movie was based on. It was years later when Peter Jackson came out with 3 movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings. The Fellowship of the Ring coming out in 2001, The Two Towers coming out in 2002 and The Return of the King coming out in 2003.

[vta]

The Lord of the Rings has been made into films more than once. Ralph Bakshi was the first one to bring the Lord of the Rings to the Cinema in 1978. The Bakshi version covers part 1 "The Fellowship of the Ring" and some of part 2 "The Two Towers". In 1980 Rankin/Bass made a Lord of the Rings movie that covers part 3 "The Return of the King".

Peter Jackson first heard about the Lord of the Rings by watching the Bakshi version. After he saw the movie he wanted to know more so he read the book that the movie was based on. It was years later when Peter Jackson came out with 3 movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings. The Fellowship of the Ring coming out in 2001, The Two Towers coming out in 2002 and The Return of the King coming out in 2003.

Was it animated or live action?

Plenty of classics are retold and it makes sense, with people having different interpretations of an authors work, e.g. Dracula, multiple Shakespeare plays, etc.

I can see retellings of influential books and stories and I wish the people making movies would actually read more instead of simply watching other people's movies and trying to capitalize on their success or popularity.

From Texas Chainsaw, to that awful Black Christmas movie to Rob Zombie ruining a good classic horror film. Dating back to that lousy Psycho remake. What a waste of film, these guys are farting out.

[tiny tim]

Was it animated or live action?

Plenty of classics are retold and it makes sense, with people having different interpretations of an authors work, e.g. Dracula, multiple Shakespeare plays, etc.

I can see retellings of influential books and stories and I wish the people making movies would actually read more instead of simply watching other people's movies and trying to capitalize on their success or popularity.

From Texas Chainsaw, to that awful Black Christmas movie to Rob Zombie ruining a good classic horror film. Dating back to that lousy Psycho remake. What a waste of film, these guys are farting out.

Both the Ralph Bakshi and the Rankin/Bass are animated. Bakshi used rotoscope in his version so it kinda feels like a live action movie (sometimes during the movie it feels closer to a live action movie than other times during the movie).

I like seeing different movie versions that are based on a book. Seeing how different the same characters look in different movie versions and also what parts from the book that each movie will keep and cut out and what changes from the book that each movie version will have and so on.

As for the new Nightmare on Elm Street that people are talking about on this thread. Well I have a $7.50 coupon that came with my 1984 Nightmare on Elm Street Blu-ray so I will for sure be seeing the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie.

[Doomsday101]

I've been saying that for years.

Same here. Every blue moon someone comes up with an original thought but for the most part Hollywood is in the recycling business.

I guess we could start calling their movies “Green Movies” :laugh2:

[vta]

Both the Ralph Bakshi and the Rankin/Bass are animated. Bakshi used rotoscope in his version so it kinda feels like a live action movie (sometimes during the movie it feels closer to a live action movie than other times during the movie).

I like seeing different movie versions that are based on a book. Seeing how different the same characters look in different movie versions and also what parts from the book that each movie will keep and cut out and what changes from the book that each movie version will have and so on.

As for the new Nightmare on Elm Street that people are talking about on this thread. Well I have a $7.50 coupon that came with my 1984 Nightmare on Elm Street Blu-ray so I will for sure be seeing the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie.

All I remember is this:

http://www.conversationmarketing.com/bilbobaggins.jpg

Saw it when I was a kid. The Hobbit, which is I guess based on the same thing. Don't know if it was part of a series or not, or what you're referring to.

[tiny tim]

All I remember is this:

http://www.conversationmarketing.com/bilbobaggins.jpg

Saw it when I was a kid. The Hobbit, which is I guess based on the same thing. Don't know if it was part of a series or not, or what you're referring to.

The Hobbit is another story by J.R.R. Tolkien. The Hobbit was published in 1937 in England. In the story of the Hobbit Bilbo finds a ring. In the Lord of the Rings Bilbo leaves the ring to Frodo. The ring turns out to be the one ring made by the Dark Lord Sauron. Since the Lord of the Rings was such a long book it was published in 3 volumes in 1954 to 1955 in England (if a story that long was published today there is a good chance it would be published in one volume).

Anyways the picture you posted is from the Rankin/Bass movie version of the Hobbit that came out in 1977.