?

Log in

No account? Create an account
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: 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) (Expand)
Re: Remakes - (Anonymous) Expand
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[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) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
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)
(Deleted comment)