CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › One, Two Billy Bob's Coming For You?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One, Two Billy Bob's Coming For You?

post #1 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:12pm
Thread Starter 
The article: http://chud.com/articles/articles/15...YOU/Page1.html

Absolutely retarded! I have nothing more to say.

Reply
post #2 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:21pm
I'm probably going to be in the extreme minority on this one, but I think Thornton would make for a very entertaining Freddy. Burned up child molester is still the backstory, right? Haven't followed this too closely. I'd buy Thornton as a burned up child molester.
Reply
post #3 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reggie-wanker View Post
I'm probably going to be in the extreme minority on this one, but I think Thornton would make for a very entertaining Freddy. Burned up child molester is still the backstory, right? Haven't followed this too closely. I'd buy Thornton as a burned up child molester.
I have nothing against Billy Bob, but for the reasons stated in the article I just can't see it working out well.

I hate to bash this before seeing the end product. Interview with the Vampire being a prime example of me hating a casting choice, then recanting when I saw the final product, but Freddy's much more set in stone than Lestat was.
Reply
post #4 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:28pm
I am ashamed to admit it, but I was one of the few people that thought that Heath would have made a horrible joker when he was first announced. I am eating my words now because he was utterly amazing. While I know the Joker character in film doesn't have the same history as Kruger, I just wanted to put it out there that initial reactions are often in haste and are wrong.
Reply
post #5 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:31pm
That article verged a little too far into fanboy rant territory. Also, we've seen what Englund can do. It's maybe time for something new.
Reply
post #6 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:38pm
I actually love this casting if it's true.

Of course, I have zero emotional investment in the Nightmare franchise.

While Englund created the role, and certainly seared the character into the cinematic consciousness, I don't see this as being any different than having Bale play Batman after Keaton did, or having Gary Oldman play Dracula after Chris Lee did, or having Craig play Bond after (insert actor here) did.
Reply
post #7 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:42pm
Hell, I'd buy Thornton as a regular child molester, he doesn't even need to be all burny. Bring it on.
Reply
post #8 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:42pm
I think Billy Bob could be really good at this, maybe they will actually make a horror movie again. Let's be honest, Englund's Krueger has become a fucking joke, the clown prince of "scary" movies. Perhaps with some fresh blood and a new look, they might be able to drag a decent movie out of this franchise, which hasn't happened in a long time.
Reply
post #9 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:43pm
Could be worse. I'm actually intrigued by this. Bring it.
Reply
post #10 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keletron View Post
That article verged a little too far into fanboy rant territory. Also, we've seen what Englund can do. It's maybe time for something new.
You're definitely right that the fanboy inside got the better of me on this, but I still stand firm on this.
Reply
post #11 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:50pm
I love Englund, and it would be nice to see him back. But I can't get too huffy about the possible Thornton casting. Such an odd choice, but at least they (possibly) went with someone that can turn in good performances. I mean you guys saw Waking Up in Reno, so you know what I'm talking about. Regarding the age thing, tho - Thornton isn't that much younger than Englund, so that's kind of strange.
Reply
post #12 of 35
8/13/08 at 12:51pm
This is NOT happening. It's just a not true story.
Reply
post #13 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:16pm
Poop. I would have liked this idea. I think you have to re-cast to really set this apart from what's come before. Give Englund a role in it for sure, though.
Reply
post #14 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:17pm
I don't think Englund will be Kreuger, which is fine by me. It's not Billy Bob Thornton, though.
Reply
post #15 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:22pm
This rant comes from a strange place. Why would you want a remake WITH Englund?
Reply
post #16 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:26pm
...and now that I think about it, wasn't it a Chud-written article that proposed Thornton's casting in the first place?
Reply
post #17 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:39pm
I'm with Phil. While it's not exactly the same as keeping Judy Dench in Casino Royale, there was something about that decision that made it a little harder to let the new leaf turn over. It would be the same if they kept Englund.

I'm actually fine with Thornton. I'd like to see him expand his horizons.
Reply
post #18 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:45pm
pretty sure i read an interview with englund and he said that it was pointless casting him in a remake of elm street as they would be tied down with his interpretation and the it would be better for them to go in a totally diffrent direction like all good remakes do. rather than having him hang around a possibly new franchise like old man winter giving out unwanted sagely advice to new creative team.

edit: well my memory invented most of it, but i found the article.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a...et-remake.html

Quote:
Robert Englund has confirmed that he has no plans to play Freddy Krueger in the new Nightmare On Elm Street movie.

New Line is in talks with Michael Bay, Brad Fuller and Andrew Form of Platinum Dunes to revamp the 1984 Wes Craven classic.

Englund, who played the razor-fingered child killer in eight movies in the horror franchise, said a new actor should reinterpret the role.

Speaking at the San Diego Comic Con, he said: "Well I doubt [I'll be in it] because I made Nightmare On Elm Street. That's me. This is a remake of the original and I'm sure they want to take advantage of the new special effects to exploit the dream landscape and that they would want to reinterpret everything. I would hope that they would.

"I would hope that Freddy doesn't look like me. I would hope that maybe he's wearing janitor's overalls and maybe he has an old baseball hat on instead of my fedora. Let a new actor reinterpret it. That's the fun of remaking it."

However, he added: "If they want to ask me to play the dream analysis expert, that would be fun."
Reply
post #19 of 35
8/13/08 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
This is NOT happening. It's just a not true story.
Well then, on the offchance that there is some truth to the rumor, I can think of a whole host of other choices who would be MUCH worse than Thornton for the role. So, place me in the surprisingly large "we like the casting" column.

I just happen to believe that ol' Billy Bob's the chops to pull it off.
But, only if they're going to go the route of this incarnation of the character being the ghost of a seriously twisted, sick, pedofile who's sole purpose in returing from the grave is to continue to torment, violate & kill children. And I don't mean with a neverending series of bad oneliners & a host of increasingly silly monster puppets & make up effects.
Otherwise , why bother?

Though, they're never likely go THAT dark with a redux , I think they ought to go with a really disturbing, almost Lynchian darkness with it.
Reply
post #20 of 35
8/13/08 at 2:43pm
Englund needs to be in it, but his run as Freddy's done. Let it be.

I'm really starting to foam at the mouth wondering who they ARE actually getting, though.

And yeah, count me with the "Billy Bob could've been interesting" crowd.
Reply
post #21 of 35
8/13/08 at 2:49pm
They aren't getting anybody. This movie is a ways off.
Reply
post #22 of 35
8/13/08 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluerosekiller View Post
I just happen to believe that ol' Billy Bob's the chops to pull it off.
He also has an acting career.

This is the one remake they can really go off the rails with. I loved the low-rent cleverness of the dream sequences in the original, but this remake could be a lot of fun with half a budget.
Reply
post #23 of 35
8/13/08 at 3:00pm
Screw "Lynchian." They should get David Lynch to direct.

Best case scenario: Scariest Nightmare film ever made.

Worst case scenario: Weirdest Nightmare film ever made.

I see no downside.
Reply
post #24 of 35
8/13/08 at 3:34pm
Fanboy rant indeed. I'm not that attached to the Nightmare films, which became a joke after Part 1. Freddy became such an overexposed, wisecracking pop culture icon that he lost all of his power as a villain; he was like Max Headroom killing people. If they must remake the movie, make Freddy evil again. Loathsome. Remember that his character was in a sense a continuation of Krug, the rapist in Last House on the Left.
Why the hell would they have Englund in a remake anyway? That would be like having Sean Connery in Casino Royale; it would confuse the shit out of the average moviegoer.
Reply
post #25 of 35
8/13/08 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
While Englund created the role, and certainly seared the character into the cinematic consciousness, I don't see this as being any different than having Bale play Batman after Keaton did, or having Gary Oldman play Dracula after Chris Lee did, or having Craig play Bond after (insert actor here) did.
It's different b/c Batman, Bond, and Dracula were characters that were created prior in other media. Freddy (and Indy) didn't exist before. The character's iconic personality comes from the performance. Unless the new actor does an Englund impersonation (which I'm not for), the character is going to be re-invented. Why stop at performance? Why not look as well? Or backstory then?
Reply
post #26 of 35
8/13/08 at 4:24pm
You can be pretty sure he will look different. Englund really only molded the role in the sequels. He was (intentionally?) vaguely defined in the original. He was the boogeyman.
Reply
post #27 of 35
8/13/08 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
It's different b/c Batman, Bond, and Dracula were characters that were created prior in other media. Freddy (and Indy) didn't exist before. The character's iconic personality comes from the performance. Unless the new actor does an Englund impersonation (which I'm not for), the character is going to be re-invented. Why stop at performance? Why not look as well? Or backstory then?
Well, why not?

In this age of remakings/cinematic graverobbing, I'd rather see someone actually REMAKE something, as opposed to simply updating it.

Gus Van Sant's Psycho failed for a very good reason - it gave the audience nothing it hadn't already seen - and everything they'd already seen was done better in the original.

While Englund created the character, that doesn't mean that the character is sacrosanct to the actor. The character of Freddy as we know it is as much rooted in the costuming choices, fingerblades, and script as it is in the performance. And I say that with nothing but fond respect toward Englund.
Reply
post #28 of 35
8/13/08 at 6:23pm
Thornton could have been interesting. At least it'd been better material than say, the awful Mr Woodcock or School for Scoundrels.
Reply
post #29 of 35
8/13/08 at 6:58pm
The only thing I think they should absolutely keep of the Freddy character is the finger-blades and the burns (it's like the hockey mask and machete of.....whosewhatsit, that other guy), everything else can be reworked as far as I'm concerned.
Reply
post #30 of 35
8/13/08 at 7:04pm
Remaking the film could be interesting if done right. Englund pulled off being an archetype for evil--and later a parody of that for a few films--but I never bought him as a pedophile. That he was stalking teenagers in all the films made it slightly harder to buy. You only saw actual kids in the dream sequences and only Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare even attempted to deal with the backstory as something more than just giving the guy the most repugnant pre-"undead night terror" background possible.
Reply
post #31 of 35
8/13/08 at 8:51pm
Freddy vs. Jason shows a pre-burning Freddy killing a girl who's about seven.
Reply
post #32 of 35
8/13/08 at 11:08pm
This article was way too much of an AICN talkbacker rant. It's also old news that Englund isn't going to be in the movie. That being said, I agree that Englund is absolute perfection as Freddy Krueger, and it is ridiculously hard to imagine anyone else in the role. It's going to happen though, so we might as well get used to the idea.
Reply
post #33 of 35
8/14/08 at 12:30am
I thought making him a kid-toucher from their past put an interesting angle on the hoary old teen killing - he's a child killer who didn't get a chance to get them when he was active. Aside from the dream shit, there's a Final Destination-y thing to it. He's batting cleanup.
Reply
post #34 of 35
8/14/08 at 2:10am
ok, so...even though this is fake, can I just point out that I fucking called it!

http://chud.com/articles/articles/15...TER/Page1.html
Reply
post #35 of 35
8/14/08 at 2:19am
Screw Billy Bob. Ben Foster, says I!

Whenever they get around to making it, that is.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › One, Two Billy Bob's Coming For You?