A Nightmare on Elm Street : If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

The only reason people are calling this movie bad is because the original was a classic but if it never existed this would've been a great movie

Re: If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

I don't think it's fair to say that. The entire film was a bore and uninspired, which is weird because the concept is really good. The dream sequences lacked imagination. The whole film did.

Anatidaephobia; the fear that somewhere, somehow, a duck is watching you.

Re: If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

That's your opinion. This is my opinion, this is a *beep* movie that should have never existed.

Re: If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

Mancini, your post makes no sense.

In order for the original NOT to exist, Wes Craven would have to have NOT created Freddy Krueger.

No one involved in this mess would have had the ingenuity, wit and brilliance to come up with a character like Freddy Krueger. All talentless hacks.

Re: If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

The problems with the film have nothing to do with comparison to the original and everything to do with the atrocious writing, poor visual direction, paper-thin characters, over-reliance on jump-scares and complete lack of imagination. Even without the original, this would still be complete trash.

And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?

Re: If the original never existed this movie would have high ratings

Actually while it might have been better received, it wouldn't have gotten much higher ratings simply because even if you don't consider it as a remake, it fails spectacularly in several ways.

I'll get this out of the way but Jackie Earl Hayley was a decent Freddy. The main problem being that Robert Englund truly made the part his own and anybody else is just going to be a pale imitation of him. Had there been no original then I'd go as far as to say he's okay in the role.

But one of the biggest problems in this is of the reveal. A movie monster is truly scary when we don't see them right away. It lets our imaginations run. Take for example the classic "Alien". We only see the complete Xenomorph at the end of the movie. Throughout the rest it's in shadow or we only catch a glimpse of it or a part of it. It helped to build tension. This was done well in "Insidious" up until we finally see the demon and he loses a lot of scares we had built up. He went from being a dark and menacing and mysterious being to the retarded looking brother of Darth Maul.

Freddy shows up too soon in this. Of course we all know what Freddy looks like but for the sake of tension he shouldn't have been revealed so soon.

Then for the rest of the running time it just feels lame like they're trying really hard not to be too much like the original movie but they forgot to add in any tension or fear. It's just bland and forgettable horror that if it wasn't for the original nobody would really have paid much attention to it.
Top