Home
Superhero Store
Members Area
Learn How
Media
Community
Classifieds
CBM Master List
GhostRiderfan1 Home : News : Videos : Pictures : Polls : Contact

Reasons I think the remake is better than the original

Since Halloween is this month, I'm going to do three of these. One for Freddy, one for Michael and one for Jason. Yes, I've seen the original's so I think my reasons can be counted as vaild. Whether you agree with my opinion or not. Today is, Freddy.

Follow Nick:
View CBM Profile
By Nick Salinski - 10/26/2012
The original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out in 1984, nearly 30 years ago. It's a classic and still one of the better horror films. While I don't particularly like the original. I appreciate and enjoy it for what it is, even if I haven't found horror movies to be scary since I was eight. I heard New Line and Platinum Dunes were rebooting the popular horror flick and I was excited about it because even though I appreciate it for what it is and enjoy it, I still don't like it. My mom however, wasn't particularly too excited because one of her favorite movies and franchises were getting the reboot treatment. I thought it looked good and she thought it looked okay. One of her biggest complaints is the biggest complaint of most people, it isn't Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger. I begged and pleaded for my mom to take me to see it opening day. She gave in. She was starting to fall asleep throughout the entire movie. I was engaged in it. She thinks it is okay. I for one still loved it and think I got my moneys worth, or my moms money I should say. Anyways, here are the reasons I think A Nightmare on Elm Street is better than the original.



Freddy Krueger



Don't get me wrong, Robert Englund was great as Freddy Krueger. But, I think Jackie Earle Haley is better. For me, Robert Englund is way too comedic and not enough frightening and tense. People my age (I am sixteen) prefer Robert Englund over Jackie Earle Haley and it shows how much of an impact Robert made as Freddy, the only other person to be the character. I prefer Jackie as Freddy because he was scarier, he was tense, you could believe this man was a child molester. He brought that sort of rage and anger, you believed this was a very evil, sinister being. I won't touch on how he looked better because the original worked with what it had and it paid off.

Tone



I bet your asking yourself "how does tone make a film better?" Quite frankly, for me tone is a reason I felt this one was better. It all goes back to the fact that for a horror film, the original Nightmare film was lighthearted and comedic. This is alot more serious, more tense film. It brings a sense of freshness to the series, something that I felt it's lacked since the start.

Background



The back story for Freddy in the original was good. The sequels wanted to give more to Freddy as a character and it just got too campy and bad for me to handle. This is why I felt the remakes back story is better and they added something to it to seperate themselves from the original, they try to make you think that Freddy wasn't a molester. They wanted the kids of Elm Street to think that Freddy was a innocent man that their parents murdered after their parents were keeping secrets from them. It was tense and a nutritious for the story.

The Nightmares



I liked some of the nightmare scenes from the original and it's sequels because they were imaginitive and cool. Plus, there is no death better than Johnny Depp blood soup. So, why is the nightmares in the remake better? Well, they're simple and creepy. The classroom one is my favorite because it's the perfect example of how serious this movie is and creepy it can be.

Micro naps



This was a cool, smart, new direction for the Nightmare on Elm Street films. The kids staying up for too long that they start having nightmares, even when they're awake was an addition that is fresh and it's a new way for Freddy to torture and attack them. It was a cool way to give a fresh take on the famous hallway in the school scene. The best example I could give is the scene in the store with Nancy. It went back and forth between real life and the dream. It was a smart, tense, scary thing that was again, healthy for the story which their take on it is solid.

Story



It's a remake. So, why touch on the story for a reason? It's better because it's not as simple as the original. It adds things like the micro-naps and the kids questioning if Freddy was an innocent man or not is what helps it become a solid story. It's fluid and it works. It's nothing new, there isn't anything particular about it. But, it's enough for it to work and it's solid.

Overall: Hate me all you want, call my reasons unvalid. These are reasons I feel the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is better than the original. The most impactful reason, Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Freddy Krueger. The second actor to play the character and is who I prefer. Love it or hate it, after New Line is done with making kiddie movies, they're going back to horror and coming out with a sequel to Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street (the most successful slasher remake) and personally, I can't wait.

Which do you prefer and why? Comment below and be respectful.
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
0
LIKE!
20 Comments
BarnaclePete - 10/26/2012, 1:09 PM
I found the remake rather boring. I don't even think. Finished watching it, but I was never a fan of the original either. I do agree though that Freddy was too comedic. It really got over the top in the sequels, especially when he pulled out the Power Glove. Jackie's Freddy is better, I just wish it was a good movie.

Also, I thought your reasons for liking the remake were pretty clear.
Crossbones - 10/26/2012, 2:54 PM
@LEVITIKUZ: It's okay, I respect all opinions until someone gets snooty with me.

@Splenda: I felt he was campy in the original.
WesleyGibson - 10/26/2012, 3:12 PM
I like both versions.
marvel72 - 10/26/2012, 3:41 PM
nightmare on elm st(1984)owns nightmare on elm st(2010)in every way.
JokerFanHAhaHA - 10/26/2012, 4:06 PM
If you think Freddy was comedic then clearly you didn't see the original, you only saw the sequels. Freddy was intense, you rarely saw his face, and when you did it was creepy. and in the sequels, even if they werre camped up, the more they delved into his past the more they sent the message of "This is a horrible man". They didn't play up his past for laughs, or try to make a sick murderer sympathetic. They showed us what he was. A twisted human being who was a serial killer, a sick pervert, and a sadist.
And No matter what you think, they're not going to make a Nightmare sequel to that. Why? Because they lost money on it. It flopped in theaters, because the majority of horror fans know, that movie was an abomination.

The Remake not only watered down the uniqueness of the dreams or Freddys killings, but they also made the dire mistake of trying to make a horrible unforgivable character a sympathetic edge to him. You don't do that for a child rapist murderer.
Crossbones - 10/26/2012, 4:13 PM
@JokerFanHAhaHA: I did see the original and I found him to be more humorous rather than scary. Again, Robert Englund was good in the role. But, he just never came off menacing.
jessepostal - 10/26/2012, 4:31 PM
there were a few scenes in the original you could call campy, but that was the charm of it, you didn't know what to expect from him
BattlinMurdock - 10/26/2012, 6:31 PM
There are plenty of comedic scenes in the original. I don't think the "tongue phone" scene is played for anything less than campy laughs.

But the first one is pretty damn scary (especially for that time) and it still holds up well today (because of practical effects).

I didn't like the reboot, one of the main reasons being that I thought JEH's Freddy looked like he stumbled out of the makeup prosthetic department three hours too early. Combine that with cheap jump scares, flat characters, and a Michael Bay producing credit, and you don't get my attention.
SUPERBATSPIDERMAN - 10/26/2012, 6:48 PM
I enjoyed the remake but I wouldn't go as far to say that it was better than the original. I thought Jackie Earl Haley was great as Freddy and some of the violence was good but it isn't as good as the original.
jingorot - 10/26/2012, 7:16 PM
original was enjoyable. remake was boring

i rest my case
Christuffer - 10/27/2012, 5:40 AM
I like both versions as well. However, I do enjoy seeing Jackie's Freddy more than I do Robert's. Robert Englund's Freddy is more of a...uh...how do I say this? He's more of a Legion of Doom sort of villain. Know what I mean?
On the contrary, Jackie Earl Haley's version of Krueger is a realistic and a "this is the real world type of scary.

Albeit, it is natural that you would like the newer one better than the original, since that was it's purpose. I'll say it again though, both are good. Just the new one is underrated
hushh - 10/27/2012, 6:50 AM
I actually agree, freddy is my all time favourite horror movie killer and the remake, I beleive is highly under rated.
Does everyone forget that by the end of the original nightmare(s) freddy wasnt scary anymore, half the people he was haunting? wernt even scared of him anymore. Dream warriors was begging for the reboot as far as im concerned and the pancake face burnt skin in the reboot? Try googling what a burn victim actually looks like! Honestly.
comicNERD1031 - 10/27/2012, 8:49 AM
I don't get people who bash on remakes. Like the remake of Nightmare on Elm was way better, i actually jumped. The original i was laughing all the way through.

Same goes for the Texas Chainsaw remake back in '03, 100x better than the original one. If you disagree you clearly haven't seen the first one.

And repeat what I just said for the Total Recall remake.
BattlinMurdock - 10/27/2012, 9:25 AM
Remakes, the failed ones, don't take the movie in any new direction.

They capitalize on what they CAN make better (the effects, the updated, modernized look of the movie) and abandon what makes the original the original.

With this remake, they left Freddy in the dust. They threw in "jump scares" because the movie is horribly paced and lacks any and all suspense. Which is...pretty pivotal for a horror movie. They upped the violence "realistically" and called it a day. And that's why people thought their time was wasted.

That's why I'm looking forward to Robocop. They can do a lot with it, not just based on effects. As long as it tries to have its own identity, it could work out really well.
JokerFanHAhaHA - 10/27/2012, 9:57 AM
Yes. The Remake makes you jump. Thats because it uses JUMP SCARES. Things that jump out to shock you, to distract you from the watered down plot, the bland characters, and the mutilated thing you call a Freddy Krueger.
Crossbones - 10/27/2012, 1:43 PM
@Jerry23: I never saw the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I thought the 2003 reboot sucked.

@JokerFanHAhaHA: This is Freddy Krueger, it's just not the Freddy Krueger that you like. In your mind, there is only one Freddy.
Kalel219 - 10/27/2012, 6:30 PM
The remake sucks and I'm not even a fan of the series but this film was dull, cheap jump scares, a stupid looking villain trying to kill boring characters.

Hell, not even Clancy Brown could save it.

It's cool if you enjoyed it but you have to admit it's heavily heavily flawed.
jingorot - 10/28/2012, 5:56 AM
about jump scares....

i really don't consider it a good kind of horror. sure, it can be effective as an assisting technique to real frights of the film, and if used sparingly. but it really isn't horror, in the sense that it doesn't create a sense of 'fear' per say. it just startles/gets-your-attention-in-a-hurry. the whole thing is just a reflex.

it takes no effort either. it is literally, LITERALLY (i mean that word) the same as me sneaking up behind you and going 'boo'

so, i don't think a film demands respect just because it shouted 'boo' a couple or so times.
Wallymelon - 10/30/2012, 6:51 PM
the best horror films are the ones that make you feel a bunch of emotions. if the whole point is to just gross or creep you out then you get bored with the film. your brain needs to be active bouncing from happy to scared to grossed to remorseful, it cant just be dark. that is my only real reason why i didnt like the remake, i love gore as much as the next guy but like most of you said, the original had that playful creepy feel to it, that the remake lacked.
Growler - 11/6/2012, 10:58 AM
I agree with this editorial.

I admit I was highly sceptical when I first heard about this reboot, but I enjoyed it far more than the original for some of the reasons listed above; expanded and properly filled-out backstory, mood and the way that the kids believed their parents had killed an innocent man. This, along with superior cinematography, a greater sense of tension and Jackie Earl Haley's terrifically creepy portrayal of a weak and pathetic paedophile turned vengeful spirit of nightmares. He was, as always, riveting when onscreen.

Another really good thing this film did, was to put an end to the increasingly weak sequels to the original. Apart from Final Nightmare. That was great.

I'd also like to commend you on your writing skills. If you really are only 16, I hope you continue to write pieces of this quality. Although I did note some slight repetition, your arguments were well thought out and your prose clear, spelling, grammar and punctuation all excellent. If only so many of the people who post editorials here wrote as well.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

.