If WB greenlights a money grab 3rd IT movie, I will be a bit pissed.
Might not, but we might see "other" movies take an IT route. For instance, WB owns A Nightmare on Elm Street and they've been saying they are looking to re-reboot it (some talks are even of a soft reboot that falls in line with the original series). Imagine if they focused on a younger set of teens (mind you, Nancy and her friends in the ORIGINAL were all supposed to be around 15-years old) that are close, that have to fight Freddy, who is killing the teens of Springwood.
I read a rumour they were doing this... hopefully IT will set the tone after that bloody awful Elm Street remake where Jackie Earle Haley was a fiddler. Such a bizarre angle to take on the character - how to ensure literally nobody is or will ever be rooting for Freddy.
A darker Freddy would be interesting. I still think they fuddled the remake's story. Didn't help that Sam Bayer not only showed his disdain for the NOES series, but for horror movies in general. Dude only directed the movie because Michael Bay told him that if he didn't, he could forget about having him (Bay) helm him get a foothold into the movie industry. Bayer was a music video director prior to that, and was the FIRST director Bay wanted to direct the TCM reboot, but Bayer felt that was beneath him. Bay came with other horror titles (under the Platinum Dunes banner) to give to Bayer, and Bayer kept passing on them. Bay was so tired of Bayer's attitude, he said if he didn't take this one (Elm Street Reboot), he could just stay a MV director for the rest of his life.
This has probably already been brought up, but does this help The Dark Tower's chances of a sequel?
Of all of the cinematic universes, seems like this could be one of the better ones. Rights are probably all over the place though.
Tbf that angle was heavily implied in the original and some of the sequels, and it was actually in the original film before they removed it on account of a pedo scandal in a school. In one of the flashbacks they actually had him licking photos of his victims. They didn't just pull that out of the air.
I also hated the whole making him a likeable character thing they did from 3 onwards. The jokes and set-piece kills were just terrible compared to what we got in the original, where no one was rooting for him.
I actually thought JEH was the best part about that film, and pretty much the only thing they did right.
Jackie was great for the part, what they DID to him wasn't. Jackie, I'll always say this, has a great face for characters. Robert did too. They knew how to work with Robert's distinct facial features when they came up with the original Freddy makeup to allow his look to come through AS WELL AS allow his face to show a range of expression. Jackie's face was caked over with makeup and such, and not only could you hardly see his unique face, it limited his range of expression. For Freddy, that is similar to putting a hockey mask on him. Expressionless slasher killers, there are TONS of them. Freddy, his expression is part of what makes him unique.
IMO, what they should've done was throw out the whole, "He's gotta look as REAL as a burn victim as possible.... because, GROUNDED IN REALITY!!!" Yeah, that was back when people where still using those type of buzzwords on a regular basis. Nah, make a Freddy design that works best with JEH's natural facial features. Fuck the whole realism, this is a fuckin' supernatural killer that slices and dices teens in their nightmares. Additional to that, modify the voice in post, just like with Robert. Give it a deep, inhuman sound. Unmodified, Robert's voice doesn't sound all that creepy, but given a more deep, demonic sound, he sounds more menacing.
