?

Log in

Episode Thirty: Whatever You Do...Don't. Fall. Asleep. - Made Of Fail [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Made Of Fail

[ website | iTunes Store Listing ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Episode Thirty: Whatever You Do...Don't. Fall. Asleep. [May. 28th, 2010|09:12 am]
Made Of Fail

made_of_fail_pc

[queenanthai]
[Tags|]

Episode 30 is live!





SHOW NOTES

Needless to say, spoilers for the Nightmare On Elm Street remake ahoy.

Many, many thanks to DC Comics writer extraordinaire Sterling Gates for joining us this episode! Be sure to pick up SUPERGIRL and WAR OF THE SUPERMEN at your local comics shop (you can order his first SUPERGIRL TPB here at Amazon, too) and follow him on Twitter at @sterlinggates.

So hey, the concept of micronaps is totally real, you guys. We looked it up on the interwebs.

Dayna's "Nobody Loves A Final Girl" essay can be read here.

A beautiful review of the original Nightmare On Elm Street by Dena of That Guy With the Glasses is here.

Lastly, a million thanks to Devin for editing this episode. We assure you that you will be paid twice what Kevin was making for it.








Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Email us at made_of_fail@yahoo.com, or send us a message on Twitter: @made_of_fail.
LinkReply

Comments:
From: (Anonymous)
2010-05-28 05:24 pm (UTC)

Riding on a Night-Mare....

Did you guys see that Robot Chicken Freddy sketch? I think it's kind of stupid and silly : But what are your thoughts?

http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/It%27s_the_Gifts_That_I_Hate

And I agree on remakes. I HATE that they did a new version of Clash of the Titans, when they won't even bother to make a decent DVD transfer of the original.


And do you think a dream based fear demon is scarier, or less scary if they have greater shape-changing abilities?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bluthundur
2010-05-28 10:29 pm (UTC)
Micronaps are real? Well, don't I feel like an uneducated plebeian now. I'll chalk it up to one of those "Believe it Or Not" things that sound fake, but aren't.

Can't wait to listen to the episode!
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: evil_kc
2010-06-08 06:40 pm (UTC)

YES!!

That's right! Remember me when you die: "Fuckery most foul!"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sora50
2010-05-31 05:04 pm (UTC)
That's nearly 40. That's nearly as much as four tens.

And that's awesome.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bluthundur
2010-05-31 03:50 am (UTC)
Great episode guys. Is it wrong that you guys not totally hating the movie helps me validate my opinion?

Now that you have confirmed that micronaps are real, I like that part of the movie much more.

Also, you referenced Final Fantasy VIII and compared Freddy to Pyramid Head. This is why I love you guys.

(And thank you for editing my email. I always worry about rambling on somebody's else show. :-p )
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-01 05:14 am (UTC)

Remakes

Remakes aren't a bad thing its just that sadly a remake is only made with the intent of making a quick buck. I loved Jackie Earle Haley he is a great actor and was really doing everything he could with he character but sadly i get the feeling that the director writer and just about every one else had never seen any of the nightmare on elm street films. all they dared about was the trademark and counting 0n us the fans to sit there smile and take it, as they bend us over and then steal our money.
and for those of you say that remakes are pure evil then what about David Tennant as the tenth Doctor who. at the end of the day each doctor was been nothing more then a remake of his predecessors. in my opinion he was the best but when he first showed up i was less then pleased that i would no longer be seeing Christopher Eccleston. Now with Matt Smith i have the same sense once more as he earns his place in our hearts.
Its the same thing with any Remake as long as it is done with love and respect for the Original not just a way to cash in. another great example is the new Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr while it is not the Holmes i know it show great respect for the source martial.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-01 12:55 pm (UTC)

Re: Remakes

Something a friend mentioned. "Even Joss whedon does remakes
after all Buffy was its self a remake and a damn fine one"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2010-06-01 06:24 pm (UTC)

Re: Remakes

That's a bit different though. Whedon had to deal with a jerk director who screwed everything up. I think the same thing about Gargoyle's Season 3 comic. It isn't really a remake as it is cleaning up someone else's mess.

Holmes...I don't Holmes can properly translate into film. It's less a mystery story, and more a lesson in logic. In Doye's books, they gloss over any action, which wouldn't go over well with the movies...and then spend the whole thing talking.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queenanthai
2010-06-01 09:08 pm (UTC)

Re: Remakes

Buffy wasn't so much a remake as simply a continuation of the movie.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: evil_kc
2010-06-09 01:46 am (UTC)
I wonder though... The series was what Whedon wanted the show to be. The movie was pretty much taken out of his hands. So which one would you say is the remake? The true vision, or the one that came out first?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-02 12:29 am (UTC)

Re: Remakes

the only thing that is a constant in Doctor who is the tradis being a blue box some times he built it him self other times he stole it and in some case he won it. there is there inst a phone it and just how alien the doctor him self is as they often remark that the doctor is only half human and evolved human or all Gallifreymite or Gallifreian or time lord.Time lord going from being a title given only to those that prove them selves worthy of it to an entire species.
Doctor Who has only convenient continuity

as for Buffy i don't know much about the movie other then it was face plamingly bad at time with a great concept that was later made into a TV series that was just kick ass. but doesn't fallow the same rules set up in the movie.

maybe they could be considered more of reboots then remakes. the point is they took something and used it as a reference point and then ran with it making necessity adjustments as they go. Allowing a new audience to fall in love with what have grown to be our old friends.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-02 11:29 pm (UTC)

Re: Remakes

Man i got owned -bows- your right Retcon is the proper word.
this is why you guys have the pod cast and I'm the loyal fa^_^
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-02 08:38 pm (UTC)

The show down between nancy and freddy

i was watching the original all over again and that last 2 minutes are such a blur between reality and dreaming that it could be a series of micro naps as nancy and freddy face i mean that moment with her mom its down right nuts.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
From: (Anonymous)
2010-06-02 09:35 pm (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

I kind of thought it was a bit of a downer. I really would have rather that she managed to put him down. Instead he just keeps coming baaack.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queenanthai
2010-06-02 11:08 pm (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

Yeah, but the upside is that we got Dream Warriors out of it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-02 11:26 pm (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

That on the menu for me to night it funny but in the only one of my friends that has a massive movie collection so any time they haven't watched something it turns into a week long event of viewing awesomeness
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2010-06-02 11:40 pm (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

It's hard to get enthusiastic about sequels when there's fifteen gajillion of them. I haven't really seen any past number one, excluding Freddy versus Jason.

Did anyone else here feel like FvJ was a comedy, rather than a horror movie?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queenanthai
2010-06-03 01:26 am (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

Well...it gave Jason a little too much play for my tastes, and the script wasn't the greatest thing in the world. It does have its laughs ("You kids need assistance?" "WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK?!"), as any good horror movie should, but it had a really nice tight mythology to it. Really easy to sum up the feel of both serieses (serii?) in one movie...this is so not answering your question, is it?

It was good with popcorn. I'll put it that way.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: retrotaku_ftw
2010-06-04 11:30 pm (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

Well i thought of it as an old school monster mash then anything else. Did anyone notice that they made lots of references to other horror movies like Halloween and Hell Raiser even a Chucky reference.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: noelct
2010-06-03 12:19 am (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

Now, see, I have a problem with that interpretation of the material. As it was originally shot, the entire film was supposed to be a dream (A Nightmare On Elmstreet), and Nancy would wake up and ride off with her friends in a happy ending. The only reasons they added the shock reveal during reshoots was that a) it wasn't testing well, and b) somebody pointed out how successful CARRIE and FRIDAY THE 13TH had been, and they had shocking cappers, so why not us?

Either way, all a dream or the entire final act a dream, I still find it a cheat. Yes, it would be very clever on Freddy's part, but it completely robs the situation of drama if there's an inability for any true conflict. I don't like Freddy being pulled into reality because it doesn't make sense. I don't like "it's still a dream" even less because it feels cheap.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
From: noelct
2010-06-07 04:24 am (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

But, by your argument, she never does beat him on his own turf. If the booby traps were sprung in a dream, then they are physically unable to harm him, so he's just mugging for her benefit. The final tag even reveals that the whole "I take my power from you" bit has no real affect. More staging on his part. If, we are to believe, it's all still a dream.

So, yes, I still feel it's cheap. If she wins on his turf, then give her the victory. By your reasoning, she puts up an admirable fight, but never had a damn chance. For this film to work, I feel it needed a happy ending. Not the "it's all a dream" as originally intended, but with her ultimate victory being definite.

Otherwise, what was the point?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queenanthai
2010-06-07 04:50 pm (UTC)

Re: The show down between nancy and freddy

Well, I think you can actually harm Freddy in the dream world. He's very, very powerful, and he's immortal, but he's not omnipotent. If we're going on fear being his power, then it stands to reason that the less afraid of him you are, the more you can harm him. Nancy grew less and less afraid the longer the movie went on, until she was finally able to turn her back on him.

I do agree with you on a major point - there really is no reason Freddy SHOULD be able to be brought into the waking world. That's where the entire series chuffed it. He shouldn't even be able to exist. There are ways to sap his strength long enough for him to lie dormant for a time, or suppress him altogether (this is where Freddy Vs. Jason completely nailed it) - but no, bringing him into reality just fucks up the whole point. Like Nancy said, he isn't alive, he's just a dream, albeit an extremely powerful one.

Where, and I can't believe I'm going to say this, Freddy's Dead got a key part of the mythos right is introducing the dream demons which originally gave Freddy his power. I believe they're the key to making Freddy immortal. If Freddy is ever to be well and truly killed off once and for all, you don't "bring him into reality." You target and destroy what's powering him. Then you take out Freddy on the dreamscape, and that will prevent his return once and for all.

Now if I don't have it totally right with that option, I'll eat someone's hat. (I don't have a hat.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: noelct
2010-06-03 12:11 am (UTC)
Dayna, I'm glad you didn't hate the new one as much as you could have. Though I've been defending the remake's right to exist these last few months, a "C" is around where I stand in its grading, too ... even though I might sneak a + in front of it.

Other than the eyes, I loved the new Freddy and his makeup. Yes, even more than Englund. This felt, to me, like what Freddy always should have been and what I rarely found in the originals. And the addition of his ultimate goal when it comes to Nancy was marvelously chilling. That said, I agree about the muddled way they tried to replace "killer" with "molester". The two are not mutually exclusive.

Though I agree that the kids are a little too old and pretty, I didn't have a problem with any of the actors or character concepts. The specific writing, though, and the whole amnesia element really hold them back and remove an element of them having struggled to overcome past victimization only for their tormentor to return. They really missed the mark on that. And I can see what you all are saying about Nancy. I didn't find her quite as week as all did, but, no, she's no Nancy Thompson.

Other problems I had were the parents getting a good setup but no payoff, the revised opening (I prefer the party scene), and everything falling apart when Freddy is dragged into reality (an element I never championed in the old franchise). And, like you guys, I felt it totally missed out on the "robbing Freddy of his fear power" element.

But I still liked it. It could have been a much better movie, yes, but it could also have been much worse. Which is still exactly how I feel about the original.

Great episode, though. And Sterling, you were a great guest and I'll definitely have to check out your run on SUPERGIRL, which I haven't followed since Peter David knocked it out of the park.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: noelct
2010-06-03 12:57 am (UTC)
Oh, and about THE THING, it's not really fair to call it a remake. The original film (which I love) only adapted the first third or so of the original novella - find saucer and frozen beast, beast thaws, rawr, fry it with electricity - where as Carpenter's version (which I also love) has all that take place at a previous camp and, thus, focuses on the remaining two-thirds of the novella - dogs are infected, spread the rawr, who's who, blood test, lotsa flamethrower. Both are actually quite faithful adaptation, just selective in their adaptations, which is probably why I equally love both for different reasons.

Which raises the question of why is there no separation between a remake and a fresh adaptation of source material? The new DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL was a remake, but WAR OF THE WORLDS wasn't. The majority of the DRACULAs and FRAKENSTEINs aren't remakes. New adaptations of Shakespeare aren't remakes. They are what they are: new adaptations. Which, to be frank, is what all remakes are: new adaptations. I love the comparison you guys raised on your show about how, no, they are not painting over the original (*cough*STAR WARS*cough*), they're setting up a new canvas alongside it to make a new interpretation. There's nothing wrong with that because it doesn't replace the original or destroy the original or, let's be honest, tarnish the memory of the original. The old one is still there and will still be discovered and rediscovered and old fans are free to cling to their love of it, but now there's something new next to it that will rise or fall on its own merits. If it succeeds, it succeeds. If it fails, it fails. But I will always defend its right to try.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: muppetfan23
2010-06-04 06:40 pm (UTC)
If this is a re-imagining, and not a remake. Can we consider this a parallel universe? If so, how cool would it be to have Freddy versus Freddy?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: muppetfan23
2010-06-04 09:34 pm (UTC)
Alas, Poor Kevin!! I knew him Horatio!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queenanthai
2010-06-04 10:34 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: evil_kc
2010-06-08 07:04 pm (UTC)
My god, Dayna that's great!
...especially because I'm watching that right now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: muppetfan23
2010-06-09 04:28 am (UTC)
Is there a button for everything?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: queenanthai
2010-06-09 05:12 pm (UTC)
THERE IS ALWAYS A BUTTON
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)