Surprised you don't have the option of seeing the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street in 3D this coming weekend? Wish you could experience Freddy's claws popping out of the screen as if they could stab you right in your seat?
Don't worry, you'll probably get the chance with the sequel, but as for this latest visit to the horrific dreamworld inhabited by the crispy Mr. Krueger, there will be no extra-dimensional spectacle, and we can thank director Samuel Bayer for this, according to the Los Angeles Times:
"When New Line initiated several conversations about converting 'A Nightmare on Elm Street" to 3-D, 'we pushed back,' says director Samuel Bayer. 'This was shot in 2-D and was meant to be shown in 2-D.' He added, 'Just like I don't want to see a lot of great movies remade' — alluding to the other Hollywood vogue — 'I don't want to see a lot of them in 3-D.'"
Funny that he should mention the remake issue, because there are surely as many people against a Nightmare redo as there are people against the money-grabbing 3D conversion trend. But at least Bayer is only willing to piss off some moviegoers, right?
Is Bayer really the one behind the protest against retrofitting the film, or would that be producer Michael Bay, who has long been vocal about his antipathy for the format - particularly in terms of converting films originally shot and intended to be presented in 2D (it's still undecided if Bay will shoot Transformers 3 in 3D -- though I think he should, just to be safe).
Bay's production company, Platinum Dunes, hasn't been completely unwilling to work with 3D. Their planned sequel to last year's Friday the 13th remake was going to be shot in the format (Friday the 13th Part 2 was recently canned, or at least put on official hiatus), and producer Brad Fuller admitted to the Times that the film's script was even written around the idea, for ultimate gimmicky results:
"'The good 3-D movies will be the ones that are constructed that way in the first place,' says Bay producing partner Brad Fuller. (In a script for a potential 'Friday the 13th' sequel, for instance, a kill scene was written involving a body on a zipline because the idea of a body sliding full-speed toward the audience was deemed particularly effective in 3-D.)"
You may recall that Freddy Krueger has been rendered in 3D before, but in the old anaglyphic (red/blue-lens) style, back in the early '90s. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare features a plot-relevant -- but still forced -- 3D segment for its climax. I remember very little about that installment, other than Roseanne and Tom Arnold's appearance, so I guess the device wasn't too special (of course, I probably saw it on 3D-less VHS rather than theatrically or 3D-inclusive DVD, so that also explains my "forgetfulness").
The Samuel Bayer-helmed remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street hits theaters nationwide this Friday, April 30, 2010.
Are you glad it wasn't it converted? Do you hope Freddy has another opportunity to leap off the screen in 3D in the future?