Reel Talk with...

So Reel Geekz is launching a new section.  We will be taking your suggestions of people in the movie business to interview!!!!  This could be filmed, over the phone, via webchat or email.  You pick the person (with a few suggestions thrown in by us), we attempt to get a hold of them and you enjoy the experience as we blog about our success and failure along the way.

If successful, we will then take suggestions for questions (within reason as there may be some topics that are taboo).  If you were the first to suggest the interviewee (or gave us a hand in securing an interview), then we will make sure your question gets asked for sure (again, within reason).

There is however, one major rule.  A rule by which we will abide by while attempting to get a hold of the possible interviewee.

We will not pester them!  No more than 2 follow ups in regards to the same contact attempt. 

Other than that, we will do whatever it takes to try and set something up with them.  If the need for other rules come up or you suggest a rule that makes the section "more entertaining", then we reserve the right to augment the rules.  So stay tuned to Reel Geekz as we will be announcing the first person on our list (oh yes, we have a list already!!!) very shortly.

A Nightmare on Elm Street, 2010

Hello! This is my first post on Reel Geekz and I'm super excited. First, because I have a lot of opinions that I usually refrain from sharing, and second, because my first post is about a topic that I usually do not enjoy discussing. Ever.

Growing up, I was not a fan of the horror genre. My first experience with a scary movie was Pet Cemetery 2 (yeah, I know, not even the original) at a birthday party when I was about 9 or 10. I had to not just leave the room, but leave the party. I raced home on my bike, in the middle of broad daylight, only stopping when I was forced to at a traffic light. I felt like I was being watched and followed, and of course I imagined I was being followed by a big dog with glowing yellow eyes. I turned and nearly had a heart attack at the sight of a squirrel about 5 feet behind me. Yeah, I was that bad.

That wasn't even the worst experience. When I was about 13, at another birthday party the movie for the night was A New Nightmare, my first Freddy Krueger film. Needless to say, I didn't last long sitting for that movie either. I ended up in another room playing cards with my friend's sister. I suffered weeks of sleepless nights (and extremely annoyed parents) as a result of that night.

Since then I've become much more comfortable with horror films. Sure, I might be kept up an hour or two after I would normally go to sleep, but being scared is part of the fun. I've since seen almost all of the Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the Thirteenth, Scream, Halloween, and Saw series of films. Most recently, my husband and I went to see A Nightmare on Elm Street, the reimagining of the original. So let's get to the review:

Freddy Krueger? Check.
Nightmares? Check.
Elm Street? Check.
Make you jump out of your seat scenes? Check.
Gory death scenes? Check.
Cheesy one-liners? Check.

If you were hoping to see any one or more of these things when you bought your ticket, then you got what you paid for. The story was essentially the same as the original 1984 version, only updated to fit in the 21st century, and there was ample opportunity for your date to cling to you in fear. Let's face it, that's the only reason you'd bring a girl that's not your sister to a movie like that. Worked for my husband.

This film was the epitome of a cheesy horror franchise revival: lots of fantastically gory effects, and groan-worthy one-liners. What I found endearing about the film was how it embraced and owned the cheese and made no efforts to claim otherwise.

Anywho, what was different about this film was the explanation of the back story. If you've seen the original films, you know what happened to Freddy and why he picks on the Elm Street kids. This time around, you get to see more of the past and Freddy becomes humanized...for a short while anyway.

Another fantastic difference is the leading actor. Of course Robert Englund will always be "Freddy Krueger" but the man is in his 70's now. The mantle was passed to whom I consider to be the best choice: Jackie Earle Haley. This man has played some real creepers lately and has the best voice for inducing chills. I'd love to meet this man in real life; he's probably the nicest guy in the world, which would mean he does his job well. I was reading a story shortly after seeing Nightmare and in a really tense scene I picture Haley as the bad guy and it totally creeped me out. Again I was up until about 4am...I guess some habits die hard.

***SPOILER ALERT***
I'm not going to tell you how the movie ended, though it was very similar to the original. What I am about to tell you is how it didn't end in a segment I'll probably be sharing with you often: "How My Husband Thinks it Should Have Ended". He's not much for the reviews of how the film was, but how the film should have played out. In sharing these ideas with you, I might imply how the film did end so if you haven't seen it, STOP READING NOW!

So, he thinks it should have ended with the father of the lead boy being the actual pedophile and Freddy is getting revenge for being framed and killed by said father and the other parents, by terrorizing and killing their children in their dreams. At the end, the kids discover that the father is guilty and bring Freddy from the dream world into reality just in time for Freddy and the father to come face to face. Freddy would make quick work of the father but, in order to keep the franchise alive, will decide he prefers his hack n' slash self.

I hope you enjoyed my first review! More to come.

Artistic Licence

Alright so I saw Iron Man 2 last night and I must say "AWESOME F'ING MOVIE".  However, it does brig up a topic I want to talk about.  Artistic Licensing according to Wikipedia (I know, not a great source) as "a colloquial term, sometime euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art."  Basically when a director or writer change details of something from the source material.

Recently this can be seen in the majority of comic book, novel, televisions and video game adaptations or movie remakes.  Often these the details of these movies do not match the original work or are pieced together in a way that changes the overall look, feel or message of the story.  I won't say exactly how this applies to Iron Man 2 as many of you reading this may not have seen it yet, but rest assured, some characters are not exactly as they were in the comics (*cough* Mickey Rourke's character).  Another example is Spider-man shooting webs from his wrists.  This did not happen in the comics until after the movie came out (and in fact, has since been ret-coned out of existence) and Spider-man had mechanical devices that shot the webbing from cartridges.  The reason he makes the characteristic hand motion in the movie and comics is in reality based on the fact that the mechanical devices relied on a pressure button in his palm to activate.  However, this is an example of good artistic licensing.  Whats the difference?  Let me example.

Good Artistic Licensing

This is when details are changed due to copywrite laws on the source material, to modernize a story or to make the story more believable.  Such examples are Spider-man's webbing.  This was done to make the story more believable as it was felt that a teenager being able to develop a substance like his webbing when the government could not was a problem.  This type of licencing I am okay with as it helps the story out.  However, the other side of the coin is changes made for no apparent reason or that twist the source material.

Bad Artistic Licencing

In the Transformers comics, the Matrix of Leadership is possessed by Optimus Prime as a symbol of his leadership not a key to start a machine.  Or how the Allspark is transformer heaven, not an advanced jumpdrive and source of all transformers.  Or in Spider-man, the character Venom speaks in the third person because it's a combination of the symbiote and the mind of Eddie Brock.  However, in the movie he calls himself "I".  There was no reason for these changes and I say they tend to ruin the movies for die hard fans.  It could be said that changes in the source material are sometimes for the benefit of the new audience rather than die hard fans so that they can better understand whats going on or enjoy the work with no idea of the history already established.  However, some changes like in Transformers or Spider-man does not make the movies any easier to follow or get into and just anger fans (like me).  I am sure there are more examples of good and bad artistic licencing but right now those came to mind.  If you don't have to make a change....DON'T!!!  The source material is good, that is why people make them into movies!

Place a comment below if you have any other examples of good or bad licensing.