- Home
- Horror Films and Thrillers
- North American Films
- A New Freddy for Bay's Relaunch of "Elm Street"?
A New Freddy for Bay's Relaunch of "Elm Street"?
- By Peter Gutiérrez
- Published 02/5/2008
- North American Films
- Unrated
Peter Gutiérrez
Over the past fifteen years, Peter's criticism, non-fiction, short fiction, poetry, and comics have appeared in numerous publications. In December he was quoted in a PW cover story on comics: publishersweekly.com/article/CA6624192.html%20
Other current/recent work:
Rue Morgue (issues #82, 84)
BookShelf
ForeWord Magazine
School Library Journal
MySpace = peter_gutierrez
Although no official statement has yet been made, it seems that Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production unit is not going to have Robert Englund reprise his franchise-making role as Freddy Krueger. There are a lot of rumors floating around about the production, which was announced last week by New Line. However, none of them include Englund in the star role as the knife-fingered, dream-invading, wisecracking child-killer.
At the risk of upsetting the legions of Elm Street fans out there, I'm wondering what the fuss (yep, the outcry has started already) is all about. I'm not saying that the relaunch will be any more inspired than the Texas Chainsaw films that came out this millennium. I'm not saying that the new actor in the role will be better than Englund. I'm just saying that, given the fact that this will be a re-boot that the producers hope to parlay into a whole new extension of the cycle, then... well, doesn't this decision kind of make sense?
Moreover, to claim that a character is "iconic" while also claiming that only one actor can play him doesn't quite make sense. Have other actors followed in roles made iconic by Basil Rathbone, Lon Chaney, Boris Karloff, Sean Connery, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, etc., etc.? Sure they have. And not because these original actors were no good or their films unsuccessful. They just got older. It was time for newer generations to try their hands, for better or worse.
Bear in mind that a quarter century will have passed between the first Elm Street film and the relaunch. That's a pretty good run with one actor in the lead.
Of course the argument can be made that age is just a number, and if Englund is physically and creatively still up for the role, why not let him tackle it? That would make sense if there weren't one other important factor to consider: the new picture is conceived as a square-one origins tale, not just another sequel or a straight remake of the original. That is, we may be seeing a younger Freddy Krueger than we've ever seen on screen before, so the choice to go with an actor several decades younger than Englund may actually be, uh, rational.
I admire Englund as a talent and particularly enjoyed his recent work in Behind the Mask. I'd love to see him in more varied roles like that, and not just in cameos such as Hatchet (in which his work was also fine, limited as it was). Let's stop feeling sorry for him or betrayed personally. There will be plenty of other reasons not to see Platinum Dunes' ongoing remakes of horror classics and near-classics. In fact, fans may look back at this development fondly in 2009, appreciating how they can now neatly partition the first series from the second, grateful that their memories of their beloved Englund are not tainted by his participation in Bay's new nightmare (pun intended).
source: Shock Till You Drop
At the risk of upsetting the legions of Elm Street fans out there, I'm wondering what the fuss (yep, the outcry has started already) is all about. I'm not saying that the relaunch will be any more inspired than the Texas Chainsaw films that came out this millennium. I'm not saying that the new actor in the role will be better than Englund. I'm just saying that, given the fact that this will be a re-boot that the producers hope to parlay into a whole new extension of the cycle, then... well, doesn't this decision kind of make sense?
Moreover, to claim that a character is "iconic" while also claiming that only one actor can play him doesn't quite make sense. Have other actors followed in roles made iconic by Basil Rathbone, Lon Chaney, Boris Karloff, Sean Connery, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, etc., etc.? Sure they have. And not because these original actors were no good or their films unsuccessful. They just got older. It was time for newer generations to try their hands, for better or worse.
Of course the argument can be made that age is just a number, and if Englund is physically and creatively still up for the role, why not let him tackle it? That would make sense if there weren't one other important factor to consider: the new picture is conceived as a square-one origins tale, not just another sequel or a straight remake of the original. That is, we may be seeing a younger Freddy Krueger than we've ever seen on screen before, so the choice to go with an actor several decades younger than Englund may actually be, uh, rational.
I admire Englund as a talent and particularly enjoyed his recent work in Behind the Mask. I'd love to see him in more varied roles like that, and not just in cameos such as Hatchet (in which his work was also fine, limited as it was). Let's stop feeling sorry for him or betrayed personally. There will be plenty of other reasons not to see Platinum Dunes' ongoing remakes of horror classics and near-classics. In fact, fans may look back at this development fondly in 2009, appreciating how they can now neatly partition the first series from the second, grateful that their memories of their beloved Englund are not tainted by his participation in Bay's new nightmare (pun intended).
source: Shock Till You Drop