"Nightmare on Elm Street" Remake


Recommended Posts

I really want to see a Freddy vs Jason 2 one day...maybe Freddy vs Jason vs Ash vs Jigsaw vs Cloverfied vs Uwe Boll

When I saw Freddy vs. Jason I laughed myself crazy. It was hilarious! I did enjoy the movie.

I would like to see the next installment to be like Freddy vs. Jason vs. Michael Myers!

Better yet, Freddy vs. Aliens, or even Predator

Hahahaha

Here's a shot I snapped of Freddy in the trailer.

Not sure what I think. Kind of looks like the potato-lookin mask on Scarecrow (or the Lion from Wizard of Oz lol). And he talks like The Joker. "This won't hurt. One. Little. BIT." I was just waiting on a laugh...

post-108961-1254341134.jpg

I believe they went with a "realistically" burnt look for this go-round. So Freddy will look like his skin was literally burned off and stuff.

And I'm sorry, but everytime I see you know who now, all I can picture is him as a kid in the Bad News Bears movies lol UGH!

maybe Freddy vs Jason vs Ash vs Jigsaw vs Cloverfied vs Uwe Boll

vs Alien vs Predator vs Robocop vs Chucky vs Optimus Prime vs Undertaker vs CM Punk

:p

I'm with those who think this remake is gonna suck. Quite unrelated to this thread, but I just watched a flick called "Trickr Treat" and it was beyond stupid.. in the ending sequence they had this tiny pumpkin alien killer .. I hadn't laughed harder before. I kinda wanted to fill that thing in a bag and slam it across the room like Austin Powers does to Mini Me in "Goldmember" :rofl:

Only thing I'm not liking about it is the voice, but we've only heard a small part of it soo far.

What's really bugging me is the people complaining about the make-up. They've obviously never seen what a real burn victim looks like or they'd know how good a job they did with just these little previews we're seeing. None of the others were really based on how a real burn victim looks. Hell, the original Freddy make-up design was based off what the guy came up with on a pepperoni pizza he was eating. They studied images of burn victims, but didn't really use a whole lot of that. Just little pieces here and there.

I also doubt there will ever be a Freddy Vs. Jason 2. Can't believe people are still waiting for that. Robert Englund has already said he's done with playing Freddy because he feels he's geting too old to play him.

This starts a whole new franchise of films, making a Freddy Vs. Jason 2 right now using Englund and continuing the storyline from the first wouldn't make sense.

Only thing I'm not liking about it is the voice, but we've only heard a small part of it soo far.

What's really bugging me is the people complaining about the make-up. They've obviously never seen what a real burn victim looks like or they'd know how good a job they did with just these little previews we're seeing. None of the others were really based on how a real burn victim looks. Hell, the original Freddy make-up design was based off what the guy came up with on a pepperoni pizza he was eating. They studied images of burn victims, but didn't really use a whole lot of that. Just little pieces here and there.

I also doubt there will ever be a Freddy Vs. Jason 2. Can't believe people are still waiting for that. Robert Englund has already said he's done with playing Freddy because he feels he's geting too old to play him.

This starts a whole new franchise of films, making a Freddy Vs. Jason 2 right now using Englund and continuing the storyline from the first wouldn't make sense.

Freddy is possessed with demons. He isn't supposed to look like the average burn victim....

I don't think people are concerned if the burns look real. Especially not when they are watching a movie about someone who kills people in their dreams. I want Freddy to have that frightening evil look, not something that looks like a combination of Chunk from Goonies and silly putty.

Now let's not bring Demon Freddy from A New Nightmare into this....

Freddy accepted the "dream demons" when he was being burned to death. Forgot what movie showed that, but don't think it was New Nightmare.

Freddy accepted the "dream demons" when he was being burned to death. Forgot what movie showed that, but don't think it was New Nightmare.

Yes I know that micwa. I was joking because the A New Nightmare Freddy really WAS a demon, not just a demon-infested-like Freddy from the other movies. One could say, it really wasn't "our" Freddy so to speak, even though he was :D

And he told his daughter about the dream demons in Nightmare 6 I'm pretty sure. It was towards the end, before he blew up lol

vs Alien vs Predator vs Robocop vs Chucky vs Optimus Prime vs Undertaker vs CM Punk

:p

I'm with those who think this remake is gonna suck. Quite unrelated to this thread, but I just watched a flick called "Trickr Treat" and it was beyond stupid.. in the ending sequence they had this tiny pumpkin alien killer .. I hadn't laughed harder before. I kinda wanted to fill that thing in a bag and slam it across the room like Austin Powers does to Mini Me in "Goldmember" :rofl:

*shocked*

Trick'R'Treat is the best Halloween film ever made...in my eyes of course, it was perfect!

Yes I know that micwa. I was joking because the A New Nightmare Freddy really WAS a demon, not just a demon-infested-like Freddy from the other movies. One could say, it really wasn't "our" Freddy so to speak, even though he was :D

And he told his daughter about the dream demons in Nightmare 6 I'm pretty sure. It was towards the end, before he blew up lol

Oh! Sorry.

New Nightmare really confused me. lol

Yeah it confused quite a few people, which is the main reason most people don't like it I suppose. Still, plent of people (myself included) consider A New Nightmare to be the best Nightmare movie besides the original (though I think ANN is better than ANoES).

Oh I liked the New Nightmare. It was just really confusing... Oh.. there's the actress playing Nancy, and Robert. Oh, hello Wes Cravern. It was different, that's what I liked.

Wes Cravern sure didn't have anything nice to say about this movie.

Freddy is possessed with demons. He isn't supposed to look like the average burn victim....

No he's not

If you're referring to Freddy's Dead, those demons just gave him the power to control the dream world. They didn't possess him. If you're referring to New Nightmare, that wasn't the Freddy of the films. That was a demon that took on the role of Freddy and brought him from the film world into reality. That was all explained by Wes Craven in the film.

He was never actually a true demon of hell because he's constantly stuck in the dream world. That's all he has power over unless he's brought out and taken out of Springwood like he tried in Freddy's Dead.

About this movie as in, this remake or A New Nightmare? lol now I'm confused

As in this remake. I read his remarks about it somewhere.

NightmarE thanks for explaining, it's been a while since I seen 1-6, but I remembered something about demons. Figured it was via being possessed.

I just saw the Nightmare On Elm Street Trailer...I am sorry but, even though the guy looks alright, NO ONE will ever play Freddy Krueger like Robert Englund did....NO ONE. He was and WILL ALWAYS BE Freddy Krueger in my book.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      577
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!