Saw some pictures from the Nightmare on Elm Street re-make that's coming out. It's amusing that Jackie Earl Holliman that played Rorschach will be playing Freddy. A long time ago (like, twenty years ago), when I first heard noises about a "Watchmen" movie, one of the names tossed around to play Rorschach was none other than Robert Englund.
Views: 262
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
It feels a little soon to be making remakes of modern horror movies, but I see that Hammer's Dracula was made in 1958, only 27 years after Lugosi's iconic portrayal. (Of course 27 years meant a lot more in them days!)
Likewise its 25 years since the first Freddie film. This validates Leonard Maltin's statement in my 1993 copy of his reviews that Robert Englund was the Cushing and Lee of his day.
Englund might have made a good Rorschach, but isn't he quite tall? I suppose they could have dug trenches for him to walk around in, like 'Scott of the Sahara'.
I Englund might have made a good Rorschach, but isn't he quite tall? I suppose they could have dug trenches for him to walk around in, like 'Scott of the Sahara'.
This is movies. His height would have been a wholly irrelevant consideration -- like Hugh Jackman's height in the X-Men movies.
I wouldn't say 'wholly irrelevant'. Wolverine's short stature is part of who he is and noticing Jackman's height drew me out of the movies a little.
OK, non-fanboys wouldn't realise he's 'wrong', but its an aspect of his personality that they thus miss out on completely. Most other supereheroes are interchangeable in body-types, but Wolverine is supposed to be a rare exception.
Similarly, Rorschach's short stature and 'lifts' in his shoes are part of his story.
But maybe Englund isn't tall. Most modern actors aren't. Maybe I just thought he was big because he happened to be scaring the living bejappers out of me at the time...
But maybe Englund isn't tall. Most modern actors aren't. Maybe I just thought he was big because he happened to be scaring the living bejappers out of me at the time...
But maybe Englund isn't tall. Most modern actors aren't. Maybe I just thought he was big because he happened to be scaring the living bejappers out of me at the time...
Remakes of the Bram Stoker Dracula story, as opposed to sequels, is a category unto itself. Nosferatu and Lugosi's Dracula were made just a few years apart and follow virtually the same plot line - one being a silent film the other a "talkie". In the Fifties Hammer produced their first version and then followed with a "more faithful" rendition, Count Dracula in the early Seventies. Around that same time a made for TV Dracula mini series starring Jack Palance premiered. Palance was the visual inspiration for Gene Colon's comic book rendition of the character. This was shortly followed by another big screen re-do with Frank Langella. More recently Francis Ford Coppola produced his version of the classic Stoker story. That's at least eight Dracula films in a span of approximately 70 years.
Replies
Likewise its 25 years since the first Freddie film. This validates Leonard Maltin's statement in my 1993 copy of his reviews that Robert Englund was the Cushing and Lee of his day.
Englund might have made a good Rorschach, but isn't he quite tall? I suppose they could have dug trenches for him to walk around in, like 'Scott of the Sahara'.
.
great minds...
This is movies. His height would have been a wholly irrelevant consideration -- like Hugh Jackman's height in the X-Men movies.
OK, non-fanboys wouldn't realise he's 'wrong', but its an aspect of his personality that they thus miss out on completely. Most other supereheroes are interchangeable in body-types, but Wolverine is supposed to be a rare exception.
Similarly, Rorschach's short stature and 'lifts' in his shoes are part of his story.
But maybe Englund isn't tall. Most modern actors aren't. Maybe I just thought he was big because he happened to be scaring the living bejappers out of me at the time...
Figserello said:
OK, so he is on the short side, then.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next