In the original script for the first movie, it was said that Freddy was a child molester, but they didn't add it to the movie because of some court case in California that happened at the time. In The Dream Child they do reference that Freddy is a child molester on a newspaper. Robert England in an interview from last year talked about why he felt the remake didn't work with some and this is what he said: "Jackie's just so good, a wonderful actor, so I don't think it was that," he says. "I've always thought that Freddy is described as a child killer. So, when they make Freddy a child molester [in the remake], that's not what Freddy is, I don't think. By taking it to such a dark, dark place, there's no room for the personality of Freddy to be exploited."
Yes, but i always think it was alluded to in small ways, even in the originals. Like the bit with the phone when he says im your boyfriend now nancy and the tongue comes out she's not legal so.
@chopstixmurphy6134 didn't think it needed to be said but it was implied, kinda like in Freddy vs jason the way they made him lick the photos of the kids he killed to put in his book, you just knew in his acting that he didn't just kill kids he did more.
It may be my age, but long before the remake I always thought of Freddy as a pedophile. It legitimately doesn’t make sense to me that others don’t see it that way
I agree. I've only ever seen the original movie, which was quite a while ago, but I always saw it as being heavily implied that Freddy was a molester. I don't see how anyone could say that it's strange for Freddy to be turned into a molester considering he's a serial killer, and it's not unusual for serial killers to additionally sexually assault their victims. It's pretty normal for them.
He was in the OG script, but there was a high profile legal case dealing with molestation in the media at the time, combine that with trying not to get an X rating from the mpaa made them rewrite it to just heavily imply instead of outright saying it.
The reason would be he never molested his victims he played with them, yes, but he was just a killer of children. Even in the original, he was suspected of killing the missing kids. Not molesting them.
It couldn't be more obvious that in the originals Freddy represents how childrhood trauma never leaves you. I had two different (male) roommates who would both often have extreme night terrors and try to fight off someone in their sleep. These guys later revealed to me they'd been m@lested by their older brothers at night when they were kids and they relive it again and again! Both these boys were serious tweekers because they explained it was the only way they could stay awake for 3-4 days at a time to avoid having these nightmare memories torment them. So how anyone thinks Freddy being a predator is odd, it makes perfect sense since nightmarish terrors following victims into adulthood seems to be a major problem, though often kept secret or not talked about openly...
Honestly I always thought of Freddy as a 'predator'. The fact that all his original victims were portrayed as little girls in innocent dresses, were pretty much a dead giveaway. So the remake's choice to bring that up didn't bother me. Also aside from the original idea, one of the original scripts for Freddy vs. Jason had Freddy be a camp counselor who did 'things' to little handicapped Jason.
For me, the biggest let down in the remake was the lack of creativity in how Freddy killed them. He kills you using your nightmares, the other movies have crazy attacks where he turns the world into these elaborate things, he turns into a giant monster that swallows them whole, or kills them in a crazy supernatural way IRL like the girl on the ceiling or the bed blood fountain, he turns into a TV or any other crazy horrific, over the top thing that no other killer in a movie besides maybe Pennywise, could be shown doing but in the remake, he basically just stabs everyone, he almost became just like a Michael Myers. It just felt like they didn't even try to be creative with the concept. If he was more menacing but also actually used people's nightmares to inception/Silent Hill the world around them to kill them horribly, he could have been terrifying.
Yea I do have to agree on the kills. Aside from one almost good one, the floating victim, everything else was kinda grounded. At least make the blood fountain better or use some Mortal Kombat elements to the kills.
i never really liked this version in the first place, is it just me ? my mom always showed me the ogs when i was younger so when i saw this i was just like…huh…
No,it isn't you. This movie is hated everywhere and considered the absolute bottom of the nightmare franchise by both casuals and people who grew up and loved the series like me. It's just a bad movie,through and through
Freddy was always a creep. The issue with the remake is that it was badly written and rushed out purely as a cheap cash-grab, not that it changed a part of Freddy's character from being (barely) implicit to explicit.
Og freedy was not hiding how much of a depraved sadist he was, he was subtle on his creepiness and loud on presence it was so good it felt like he loved all of it Remake freedy was edgier, looked faker (to me), was not subtle where it mattered, dint have any super charismatic kill and lacked the charm of a true power high creep
it's implied in pretty much every movie but Especially in Freddy's Dead that it included his daughter and when they took her he decided to take their kids permanently.
The 2010 Reboot actually touched on what could've been a great plot twist. When the gang were digging into Freddy's past, Nancy suggested that Freddy was wrongfully accused of abusing and sexually assaulting children when he was just this abnormal guy, potentially stunted emotionally and mentally so that he relates to children more than adults his age and was now exacting revenge by going after the children of his killers but then all that potential was tossed in the boiler when Nancy suddenly remembers, "Oh, no. Freddy actually was this creepy pedo that liked hurting and molesting children and taking photos." What a waste
Although I agree that the plot twist that Freddy was wrongfully accused of abusing and assaulting children, I don’t think it would have been good for the movie as a whole. Think about it for a second, he’s blaming children for their parents actions. It would be a bad message that the alleged “victims” were just lying because they could. It would potentially send the wrong message, and even make things harder for children to talk to parents/trusted adults because media such as this is mainstream enough to impact the way people think. Freddy is the villain, he’s irredeemable, giving a serial child killer a tragic backstory about how he was just “misunderstood” would be perpetuating this false view of him as a sympathetic neurodivergent guy who decided that he was wronged so bad he would continue to kill children? If he really did love those kids feeling betrayed in death would be fine. But throughout the franchise there have been sprinkles and hints of predatory behavior and the concept of Freddy’s disgusting relationship with young girls especially has been shown in several of the movies and even spinoffs. It was the original idea after all, although the movie has its pros and cons. I can agree that it would have been interesting, but not true to the perceived reality of the nightmare on elm street legacy. Going after the kids instead of the parents is not something an “innocent” potentially neurodivergent person would do. Especially if he loved the kids so much that he’d dedicate his spare time just to playing with them. Not to mention the fact that horror as a genre is meant to leave an impression, and scare the audience. This was a warning, a way to bring awareness to child molestation, to comfort those who have gone through it and make those who haven’t understand the pain, terror, and disgust that victims of childhood SA have to deal with. Although it isn’t my favorite movie, I don’t think this ruined the plot. Not trying to start an argument, just sharing my perspective. I completely understand your point and do think it could be a great plot twist. Just maybe in a different movie, that could be cool.
@Nymph_Poppy the Moment Freddy got Nancy for himself stuck in a Dream and tied up on a Bed, is enough to understand it would be wasted Potential if he wasn't a Pedo
According to the documentary "Never Sleep Again," Freddy was always presumed to be a child molester but that they couldn't directly reference it at the time. In the sequel "Freddy's Revenge: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2," there is obvious sexual tension between Freddy and the Final Boy Jesse. This was supposed to be subtext and not as overt as it ended up being. But the producer explained that even though Freddy is called a "child murderer" that any reasonably-minded person would assume that he molested the children as well. So to see him with a teenage boy in this manner, it is supposed to be assumed by the audience that Freddy has a sexual desire for him. In the future films you see more of this sexual innuendo from Freddy towards the teens, some overt and some covert, but they play it up more for laughs so that the audience doesn't focus too much on the implications.
its been with the series since the original, but that doesnt make the 2010 any better. the remake completely drops the ball when it comes to handling the topic with any kind of subtlety or anything
Yeah, I watched the original movies as a kid/pre-teen (I was under 13...lol) and even I knew he was a pedo! Maybe I didn't know what the word pedo meant... but I knew he liked kids way too much.
Wes Craven actually wanted it to be clear, that Freddy is not just hunting and killing kids but he toned it down due to cases of child molestation around the time the film was being produced and he didn't want to be accused of exploting these cases. To be honest, i like Cravens final iteration of Freddy - he's downright sarcastic and evil. But i also liked Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy even if he portrayed Freddy as just evil and depraved as the Screenplay was just bad. But the 2010 Nightmare is by no means a bad remake but could have done better and i think that's because they didn't know how to do the source material justice and made Freddy a replacable slasher.
Fred has kinda always been a kid diddler. He flirted with the teens in the originals, it was just never outright stated that he was a kid diddler, and it was mostly played up for “laughs” I think. It was more just implied. Does that make it any less revolting? No. The remake just said it with its whole chest.
@@AzguardMikeOh but killing is all good? If you idolize him that says a lot about you. And the pilot of Freddy's Nightmares said it with it's whole chest too. You can't watch that and have any room left for "MAYBE he didn't diddle kids?" Nah he 100% did.
As a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I have to say that Freddy as a pedo makes him even more terrifying. Plus it’s alluded to with his creepy tongue flicking. Furthermore, in Freddy’s Dead he tongues down a picture to put in his scrapbook. The context was always there. JEH’s depiction brings it more to the surface because a lot of modern audiences can’t seem to understand nuance. Hell they initially make it seem like he was innocent until we find out he isn’t. which was a brilliant storytelling move also, and scary because I know for years I blamed myself for my trauma and even tried to deny it happened. But I think it would have been amazing if Freddy had been innocent. That would have been a major plot twist and it would make the situation the villain. Because parents will go into a place where reason doesn’t exist over their kids.
yeah but I don't want freddy to be a relatable, tragic villian. His schtick has always been i'm a terrible person and you can't stop me from being terrible - even if you kill me.
In the originals: the whole town pretended he didn't molest a bunch of kids, that they didn't ignore and enable it, that they didn't later mob up and kill him (mob violence and then burning down the mill he ran to), covered up the mill arson, had the kids in therapy and played head games to get them thinking it was just nightmares (hypnotherapy to suppress the truth from kids that already got destabilized and aren't properly grounded, who thought that was gonna work) while they were all segregated from other kids their age that also went through it..... Sexual abuse is bad but the lies to cover it up are half the issue. The originals did get into that, and the (viewers aks Nancy both) vague feeling of "wtf is this saccharin sweet laissez-faire about my classmates and me having heinous dreams and being segregated from each other" wasn't bad filming but intentional.
I'm ngl I always thought the OG Freddy was a predator as well. I mean, the dude is a serial killing demon, the worst of the worst, it wouldn't be far fetched for him to be a predator. I get how that may not sit well with some audiences but Freddy is a monster, an absolute psychopath, a demon. It only makes sense a monster would do monstrous things. But also, at the same time, this feels kinda off to me. Freddy is a bad guy, why can't he be a bad guy? Because it might make someone uncomfortable? He's supposed to be a bad person, hes supposed to represent everything thats bad. Also, at the end of the day he's a fictional villain. You can still be revolted by what a fictional villain is or does, and still enjoy the fictional villain because the fictional villain is entertaining, and _fictional._ As long as they dont glorify it then I don't see the problem with the monster being a monster because well...he's a monster.
Basically on point. It's that Freddy lovers want to keep idolizing their fictional character and don't want him painted in a negative light... even though dude is a literal piece of shit who enjoys killing and has killed many, as well as torturing. It's a similar phenomenon with those who idolize Pennywise Clown in IT and part of the reason why that Texas Chainsaw Masacre reboot tried to be edgy and align the main girl character with Leatherface, "do your thing cuz!"
That's understandable ngl. I feel like more movies need to address the topic, and not shy away for fear it may make people uncomfortable. It's needs to be addressed and brought attention to.
I mean, why should they hate it? It does not glorify Freddy in any way and makes clear that his actions are nothing but pure evil. It's quite unfair to juge the movie by how likable the villain is when the intention clearly was to make him as unlikable as possible, which doesn't go against any of the slasher genre's unwritten rules.
They kind of hint at the pedo stuff in Freddy Vs Jason when they have him lick that photo of the kid... At any rate, they had already successfully "made Freddy scary again" in "New Nightmare"
I've always been under the assumption that Freddy was a diddler, even in the original movies because of the way he teases his targets with what he does and says and the way he acts. Above all else though, if he was JUST a child murderer, then the teenagers that he comes back to haunt, well, they wouldn't be teenagers because they'd have died as kids which implies he did something else / more to them. If I remember correctly, Nancy's parents also got divorced because of the stress of what Freddy did their daughter which strained their marriage.
19:43 man the idea of him being innocent and him revenge killing them because of being wrongly murdered would've been so cool and made him a sympathetic character and could've had such a better ender and story... honestly might steal that idea for my own story
I REALLY don't like the whole, "I wish Freddy turned out to be innocent," which is often suggested for this movie. It would have made the film very victim blaming. There would have been no reason why over a dozen kids all lied about Freddy assaulting them. It makes no sense that they would have made it up.
The parts about the kids saying Freddy did it wouldn't have been in the film. It would have been circumstantial evidence that convinced the parents of his guilt.
Except it sort of happened in real life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial On another level though, I think a lot of people zero in on that as a twist that would have helped to justify the remake, new ground to explore rather than just retreading the original.
R I be always thought the parents made them lie and not that kids really knew what they were doing was bad cause their kids I think it allows more depth and not that he just wanted to kill them after he died but that he really liked kids and the parents were uncomfortable with how close he was with the children.. I don’t think it was victim blaming sense they would’ve been forced to say those things
Exactly, Robert Englund Freddy always made sexual gestures in his films towards the kids. He outright licks a photo of a little girl sexually in Freddy vs Jason lol.
I was little in the 80s and didn't think about things like that. It was weird to me when he was full blown chomo in the remake. Still like it, but it definitely killed Freddy's cool factor.
@@dmutedI think I remember something about playing the villain gives people a sense of freedom other people wouldn’t normally have. Honestly if anyone could play Freddy we might see a lot of different takes.
I saw the original when I was eight years old and it terrified me. Even that young in the 80s I was very aware of child abduction and sa happening due to the Adam abduction. I have always assumed that Freddy was sa ing children and then killing them. It's odd hearing people bashing the reboot not because of the bad effects and weak story but because they brought the sa to the forefront and how his burns looked.
Have you considered that people aren't really upset with the inclusion of that character trait so much as the way it was handled in the movie? He's played up to be sympathetic for a majority of the film because it's constantly hinting that he was killed unjustly, only for it to go 'lol jk, he's a dick' last second. It was included for no reason, not put to use in any real way in the film, and then confirmed last minute just to solidify that the relentless killer relentlessly killing innocent people is actually a really bad dude. It's just a really bad topic to include in a genre of film that is literally made to make light of heavy topics if it doesn't serve any real purpose.
I dunno if the pedo angle was really like uncalled for and the complete downfall of the remake, cause the one thing they did do with Freddy even when they couldn't make it official is still like...hint at it and make him a turbo creep. Claw in the bathtub, "I'm your boyfriend now", Phone mouth, that one scene in one of the sequels where he licks a picture to put in his collection WAY too seductively. I think the remakes problem was...it was a remake, and 2008-2010 was SWIMMING in remakes and only maybe 4 of them were really that good quality wise, and this being in the tale end section of them along with a more predatory Freddy personality wise kinda sunk it. Even the demon in Wes Craven's New Nightmare has more personality than 2010 Freddy.
I personally disagree, but only because I believe this era of including a "reason for the madness" of horror films kind of soured the genre as a whole. Of course there were ample remakes, and a lot of these remakes took a lot of artistic liberty to separate themselves from the original - nothing wrong with that, but a lot of it I noticed relied on mental illness, philias, societal issues, etc etc. Now we no longer really see horror for the sake of horror, it's always an allegory for this mental illness, or the house is haunted because of slavery or gender disparity, or the slasher is actually a victim of this, or the entire thing in an art piece portraying this and not actually horror at all, it's just an easy genre to get away with. I miss when slashers were just kinda crazy people who liked to kill, or the house was on a graveyard, or even just aliens or ghost pirates. Don't Breathe especially fumbled the ball because filmmakers are just scared to make the main characters the bad guys getting what they deserved, something I haven't really seen since Cannibal Holocaust. Please don't take this as me saying your opinion is wrong in any way, I agree with a lot of what you said and I love the points you made! I just kinda see these two movies as a good pinpoint to how horror has changed in a way that I see as kind of annoying, for lack of a better word.
@@officerwaifu6408what bothers me the most is the way these things are handled, it's never "look this guy is the way he is because of (insert illness or something like that) however that doesn't justify anything he did" its always "oh boo hoo look at him! He's a victim of (insert illness or something else like society) he's a misunderstood tragic person he's innocent" i really hate this so much.
The world's just horrendously tossed around the term and it just gets to the point of being weird to get instant karma points on the internet. Are we really doing a moral police on the psycho nightmare human turned spawn from hell? Like the same guy that kills and traumatizes teenagers because why not?? The first movie has Freddy kissing a chick to death and that shit wasn't exactly consensual.
My issue isn’t that they made Freddy a full on child abuser. It’s that when they show Freddy die, it’s sympathetic. When Quentin SEES the flashback, he sympathizes with Freddy. Even Freddy himself thinks that he *did not deserve to die* and even tells Nancy, “Look at me. Look at what you DID to me.” It’s not right that the audience is led to think Freddy is innocent in his actions, and Freddy himself should KNOW he’s evil and relish in the demonic powers death brought him. 2010 Freddy didn’t even draw fun in causing fear or use fear to fuel him. He just wanted Nancy dead.
Except this does happen to some victims. This isn’t the movie telling you to sympathize with him. This is a way of showing the victims( and Freddy) gaslighting themselves into thinking that they’re the problem. It’s been a long time since Freddy’s death, and the kids forgot details regarding the case, leaving them vulnerable to the self-doubt and gaslighting I mentioned earlier.
Media literacy is really dead. You don't think this was meant to manipulate Quentin or cast doubt for the audience until the big reveal at the end that he was actually a molester? How did you manage to take away that we were meant to feel bad for him?
But that's a type of manipulation too, so many abusers guilt trip their victims saying stuff like "if you tell someone, they're gonna hurt me" to keep them quiet, here it's just another way to hurt them, make them feel bad for something that isn't their fault
Maybe I’m just remembering things wrong, but my understanding was that Freddy was always implied to be a creep (not using the actual word, but you know what I mean). Even as a 8 or 9 year old kid, I remember thinking that.
He always was a ped, that was the crimes he was accused and eventually killed for. It was supposed to be a story about judgement and an evil that comes from playing God or some such, but they chickened out and didnt refer to it that much. However, it was clear even in the final cut that he was a child murderer, so at that point ped or not doesnt matter much. Making a child murderer a sort of anti-hero demon thing is kinda funny, it wasnt really the intention, but they went with it.
@lutho7693 I think that's another thing that really hurt this reboot. Almost everyone who worked on this film didn't care about the sorce material at all. Jackie Earle Haley has even said he doesn't like the original films.
And I wish she would've stayed away. Her presence is unbearable in this movie. The other actors at least seem to be trying to work with the little they're given but she is horrible.
I don’t get why people were surprised or uncomfortable about Freddy being a pdf file lol. It was heavily implied from the beginning, but film censorship and current events in the 80s made it impossible to spell it out anymore than they did.
I'm more surprised that most people think that Freddy is better at being a child murderer than a pedophile. Why say he's NOT that kind of a monster when both are equally horrible. I just find it stupid.
As awful as this is going to say, making Freddy a child molester almost humanizes him. Sure it humanizes him in the worst ways possible but it gives him a motive for what he does instead of just being a sinister dream demon
@@thedude2916 I would disagree. PTSD is of course bothersome, and maybe cPTSD is worse, still. So that's a problem. But I did not lose my humanity, it is just a consistent strenuous challenge to fight back against the kind of entitlement, brought about by the trauma created by their entitlement. The CNS-"remembered" lesson being that other people must exist only to gratify my sexual desires, or they are f-slurs, that don't deserve to even exist in my reality... That's how the women treated me, and you rewarded them with sexual worship and dignified lives of sexual pride and bodily well-being - the comfort of desirability, and it's inherent healing power to counteract the dehumanizing sexual humiliation, that does turn people into unfeeling monsters. So you have justified their molestation of children, by allowing "their (f-slur) kind" to feel welcome and loved. And it feeds a lot of rage towards people that fail to get me more and better sex, than a girl could ever hope for, to let me humiliate the girls, and label them "unfit subhuman", with a potency that completely warps the trajectory of the rest of their lives in a negative and self-destructive fashion.
My take is that Freddy was always that type of man even in the original run. I don't think anyone can watch any of those movies then not think that. The remake's issue is that it clashed with two main progressions that fumbled the new direction too much: having it be ambiguous if he was a diddler or not and having him be a murderer that wanted revenge. I think the remake should've had both; where Kreuger was a child murderer, but have his motives be darker than just him being evil. It should've been that he was killing kids outside of the kindergarten to cover up his predatory activities, then have him get caught when he targeted one of the kids in the kindergarten leading to him being connected to the other kids. It would've left the ambiguity pretty valid until the end, leading Nancy and Quinton to realize that Freddy was that sick of a man, he was capable of killing and that he was targeting them to get back at those that killed him by specifically going after the remaining children from the kindergarten.
@@richborn6700that is quite literally what the industry does and everyone hates it. We don’t want shit spoon fed to us. We want to have our own interpretations. Having one implied thing that is told to the audience is boring and is exactly why people hate the “Freddy was always a diddler” thing. If you wanna think that cool. Let other people have their opinions
"His name is Freddy Krueger and he loves children...especially little girls" is straight from Freddy vs Jason. Without really condoning the idea...I frankly am not shocked that the Nightmare franchise never dived into a more 'sexual horror" vibe with the nightmare sequences. Considering Freddy can morph reality, shape shift, shape shift his victims, become a creature etc etc...I feel like a ....gRape scene in a Nightmare on Elm Street movie could be truly disturbing and horrifying in really uniquely gross ways.
Watch the documentary "Never Sleep Again" and it will all make sense. The original concept of Freddy was meant to be a molester but the character was changed to a child killer because of a high profile child abuse case. The filmmakers didn't want to be seen as exploiting that case. So actually, the ORIGINAL Freddy was a pedophile and child killer.
@@jenniferoconnell1560 so what you're telling me is they wanted it but left it out of the original movie Which means onscreen he wasn't a pedophile And my point still stands that him being an onscreen pedophile sucks
@@dmuted I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was refuting the people saying that he was never a pedophile. There were some hints, but it was never explicitly said. I grew up with and stayed terrified of Freddy for years. They should have stayed closer to the original, with it being implied instead of blatant.
And yet Wes Craven began out in the 70s making porn, and his first movie was The last House on The Left, so you'd think him making Freddy a pedo from the start without holding back would've happened.
The movie that stuck with me as a kid was Final Destination 2. I didn't see the whole movie, but I saw the Route 23 Pileup with the Log Truck, and that scene lived in the back of my mind until I finally saw the movie (and rest of the series) as an adult.
@@nin1ch0 It's far more likely for the trucker to get killed by the logs crushing him when they come forward at at stop.... in reality though... most truckers KNOW this, and make sure the load is secured (they are responsible for it before moving and can and WILL refuse anything that they don't personally consider safe... that and they are taking THEIR own life in their hands every time). I do an ATL to RDU/RDU to ATL haul about 4 - 5 times a year (408m or so, almost all interstate) and every single time run into at least one, if not several of these logging trucks... and trust me... yes, every single time, that scene comes to mind. The great thing about reality though... you can either pass them and have them behind you, or get far enough back, that even if something happens, it won't effect you. Sorry, kind of long, but the point is, don't let that fear hold you back from learning to drive, it's an incredible freedom, and I have loved every single minute (For the most part, that one time having to change a tire in the pouring rain in MA wasn't so much fun.. but it was only 10m) of my travels.. from the east coast to the west coast and from the northern border to the southern border.... travel is amazing!
Think for me it was Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, that Tooth Fairy scene silently scared the crap out of me. (I say silently because I never let on until I was much older)
All the Final Destination films fucked me up lmao. All those everyday scenarios being turned into "what if one thing goes wrong," based on pure fate, chance, and luck. That mixed with the reality of things being able to go to shit at any time in freak accidents and showings on the news. Jason, Freddy, other supernatural beings. Being a logical kid, I always shrugged them off as it wasn't real and more akin to fantasy. The final destination films were dosed in little fantasy and so much reality that it got to me. Well, except for the really complicated scenarios (more so in the more modern final destination films), where it was like 30 things needing to coincidentally happen together in a hail Mary type of scenario. It made it more fantasy like, as would highlight that there is actually a force, "Death," in control of all of this. The originals had more of Death barely playing a role, but just nudging reality and the situation barely enough to get what it wanted.
@OscarASevilla I remember when I first saw the bridge scene from Final Destination 5, I knew the first Amazing Spider-Man movie had a bridge scene in it and thought that was it, until the one girl got impaled on the sail boat, then I knew, "This isn't a Spider-Man movie."
I have never encountered anyone who didn't think Freddy was a pedo, even before the remake. Probably because Craven had stated that it was supposed to be that way. And honestly I'm putting Craven's head Canon above New Line's actual Canon regardless.
Craven evn tastefully for lack of better words incorporated that implication without having to outright say it, he made it a IYKYK type thing with the actions Kreuger did to toy with his prey, just by watching his mannerisms how he acted you could piece together he wasn't JUST a killer but an absolute CP monster traumatizing and hunting down the ones that "got away" when he was alive. the remake just blatantly spells it out and I feel that took away some of the implied creepiness of what Freddy Kreuger does and how he acts.
Anyone that complains about the pedo aspect of the Elm Street remake should do their homework. As the Original 84 Elm Street originally had Freddy as a pedo, but they decided against it at the last minute. Imo it makes perfect sense for Freddy to be a pedo, you are supposed to hate him with how vile he is. It’s just Robert Englund with his charisma managed to make him be a comedic Anti Hero of sorts. Robert Englund was fantastic as Freddy there is no denying that, it’s just he’s far too charismatic to portray Freddy how the character was originally intended to be, a vile creepy nasty villain that you are supposed to despise and be scared of.
Just a copy paste of what I already commented but I did my ''Homework''. There's intention and there's the canon Freddy we got over the years. Now, dont get me wrong, just my opinion but I really can't grasp the point of making him a pedophile. Maybe it's just because I grew up with all the movies already existing and heard about Craven intentions wayyyyy after seeing them all (except FvsJ). But the character always seemed more interesting to me as a maniac character of a revenge warpath than a pedophile. Yes Craven wanted to make him a pedophile. Yes, subtext implies it. Yes there's an article shown in Dream Child and if you blink you'll miss it. So from that point on, I'm not denying there a lot of arguments for him PROBABLY being a pedophile. Here's my point. If they made Freddy a pedo, they wouldn't have seen him become so iconic. Try selling lunchboxes of a pedophile and merch. Lets not kid ourselves. People didn't go see ANOES to root for the teens... It's Freddy printed on all the Halloween costumes and coffee mugs and shit. That newspaper calls him a child molester but he was still freed on a technicality (read the actual newspaper) so this might be sensationalism coming from a pissed off town. And mostly, I'm not sure I understand why the community wants him diddling kids. I'm not saying I root for a maniac but plot wise, if Fred Krueger is taking vengeance on Springwood for bullying him (as seen in part 6) and enjoying being a visceral monster... seems plenty enough evil to me and gives him a reason to do his horrendous serial killing. Makes him more interesting that way to me. Putting his sexuality in the movie just feels unnecessary and sure wouldn't have given us those blockbuster kills we had in all of its sequels (I like them but maybe that's the whole point and people would have just wanted one movie... Pedophile would've been the way to go then... nobody would have come back for seconds I guarantee that). He's plenty evil as it is without adding such an uncomfortable topic for a character that's been pretty much just as cool to watch as Myers and Voorhees for decaded. He takes vengeance on the parents of Elm Street by killing their kids. Can't take anything more valuable from them. He kills their kids. He kills the future of Springwood.
@@laststraw9363 You’re not supposed to root for Freddy though, you’re supposed to root for Nancy. This isn’t the Friday The 13th franchise where you can make up your mind who to root for, as Jason is very sympathetic. Freddy being bullied by the parents makes him sympathetic though. And that’s not what Freddy is or should be in the slightest. Yes Freddy became a toy and marketed but that was only after the first movie. Wes Craven never intended for that to happen, it just happened. It’s why every time Wes Craven was involved, he always wanted the kids to be the ones to root for, not Freddy. I’m always in favour for what makes the villain more scary and vile. Like I said Jason is very different, you can root for Jason If you want to. I mean just look at Jason Goes To Hell where Jason steps on a condom that’s not used, that’s very conservative values of safe sex. Jason is very sympathetic and that’s always been how the character was written to be. Freddy should be nothing but vile and horrid, not a goofy comedy character, or someone who was bullied.
@@NuMetalfan1996 Those are good points but I didn’t mean you should root for Freddy… I just meant that people like me who enjoyed the franchise and the sequels didn’t go back for Nancy (Except for part 3 where of course I root for her). I always rooted for the survivors to live but I never wanted to see the Nancy Thompson show. I enjoyed the movies because Freddy’s kills were more creative that his fellow slashers who just thumped their way out with a knife or machete and because Englund was so goddamn good at portraying him. So, while not rooting for him, Freddy seems more interesting to me as a dream demon motivated by revenge than by his sexual impulse. I don’t think you need to root for him to enjoy moments like him pulling a girl in the tv right after appearing in the tv show she was watching or melt a character into a motorcycle while taunting him. His lore becomes more interesting that way. If the franchise never got popular and it would have stayed at part 1, which is something a lot of people would have preferred, Craven himself, I’d agree. Make Freddy a pedo all you want. But as someone who enjoys all the ANOES movies, I can’t. Pedo Freddy just makes him less interesting to me. Without rooting for him, moments like when he consolidates the whole world as his killing playground in part 6 when he says every town has an Elm Street becomes way more interesting if he’s motivated by revenge. I can’t argue that he’s scarier as a pedo but I can argue that he’s less interesting.
It reminds me a little bit of the “IT” miniseries. Where in the source material Pennywise is meant to be the embodiment of evil with no redeeming qualities. But Tim Curry is just that much of a charismatic actor that it gave some people the wrong impression even though people aren’t supposed to find Pennywise charming in the slightest
It was 1989 and my mother thought it was appropriate for a 4 year old to watch Nightmare on Elm St. It scared me to death. Not only did she torment a small little me but her much younger brother who were teenagers thought it was hilarious!! So of course, I became obsessed with it as an adult.
As someone who was a victim of CSA I think this movie is actually a pretty good depiction of the lasting trauma that comes from that type of abuse. In horror - or any movie really - it's used poorly or even romanticized. I like that they didn't downplay the actual horror and responses each character have to that trauma.
I feel like the reboot ruined the Elm Street reputation because of that change Edit: so after some comments that basically confirming that yes, Freddy was pdf but not out right saying he was.
@Osc473 it wasn't a change it always was implied from the start was alluded to in small ways., even in the originals. Like the bit with the phone when he says im your boyfriend now nancy and the tongue comes out she's not legal so.
Freddy still maintained the pedophile aspect but it was much more hinted at...look at the scenes in the original...how he cuts open Tinas shirt open while also gashing her chest....and rolling around with her in her bed, or the tongue flicks at nancy, or the the "I'm your boyfriend now" scene where he tried to put his tongue in Nancys mouth...while you may not think anything at first glance..all of those things have some sexual meaning to them..especially with the age of both Tina and Nancy being presumably under 18
Yeah as a post-janitorial-diddling survivor myself, there is a strange kind of perfection in Englund’s portrayal. They balanced the many dark parts of an already demonic character with the distinctive wit and charm and humor that only Wes could inject into any project and Englund could bring to life. The remake….I actually had to turn off because it made me feel gross; that iteration of Freddy was some kind of cosmic alternate-universe perv…..like you know that saying “what’s the difference between a freak and a pervert? A freak uses a feather a pervert uses the whole chicken.” Yeah Robert Englund was a master with that feather, Jessie Allen Redneck was entire pollo loco. and he could not have held his own against Jason one bit ijs.
Haley’s Krueger feels more like a physical representation of the horrors of repressed trauma. Where as England’s Krueger feels more like a caricature of a child murderer/a quirky movie monster. The remake’s Krueger is so much closer to a real life perpetrator and that’s what people don’t like about it.
The original definitely implies that he's a pedo, they just couldn't explicitly say it at the time because there was a similar events that just happened in real life and it would be pretty insensitive to the victims. I think our society has a weird relationship with murdering in fiction where we tend to idolize the killers in media even though in the movie or show they're absolutely supposed to be a terrible person. Like sure it's fiction but what they're doing is still not something we should let ourselves be desensitized to. Like obviously I'm not saying pedophilia is better then murder, they're both blatantly disgusting awful things that should both be condemned in every society. I guess the problem is that most people don't really have a grasp of what it's like to have a love one who was murdered but sexual assault is unfortunately extremely common and so there's a big sensitivity toward that sort of thing. If you're a victim of that type of thing I completely understand why you'd be turned off by this version of Freddy but I don't really have a problem with him because he's not supposed to be a character you like or root for, you're so supposed to hate him and want the main characters to stop him from causing more harm
This movie is the dormitabis of the nightmare on elm street series (for those who don’t know Dormitabis is a fnaf fangame that has simler topics too nightmare on elm street 2010 maybe even worse) Also the fact Wes craven went to Disney to make nightmare on elm street is crazy 💀
Yeah, but the creator of that fan game introduced the idea to a series that never suggested nor touch on that topic. Freddy was hinted at and designed to be a .PDFhile. Completely different from that situation.
@@chuckingreaper8654 I wouldn’t say FNAF never touched on it “They can detect a predator from a mile away” Plus simply by making William a child murderer they are already kinda implying it since most male child murderers in real life are pdf files
Even crazier? He actually directed a TV movie for them called Casebusters which came out in 1986. ALSO, Disney owned Miramax from 1993 until 2010, meaning that Disney owned the rights for the first 3 Scream films at one point.
@@hazakurasuyama9016 Considering everything we know about william from the games , books and movie , i think it is fair to say that he isn't a pedo , just a child murderer as nothing has ever been even implied that he did anything more besides kill and torture kids because they were easy targets to harvest agony from or to hurt the co owner of his bussiness henry. Besides , in fnaf 2 , the aninatronics are set up to a criminal database , the predator line means anyone who has a criminal record , like being a suspected murderer. Look , william afton is a really bad guy , but considering how many awful things we have seen him do and how many awful things we know he has done , it would be very odd if he was a pedo considering there is never a hint of it in his actions. Plus , scott did say in a reddit post that pedophilia has no place in or around the fnaf storyline. Reffering both in universe and out of universe regarding certain theories at the time. Plus , in real life most child killers aren't trying to harvest the souls of their victims and have secret underground animatronic lairs like william does. So , overall i think we can confidently say that william isn't a pedo. EDIT : in fact , we know for certain that the "recognice a predator from a mile away" reffers to criminals in general and not just pdf files. Because in that same phone call , phone guy says to the night guard "we should be paying them to guard you" and "this place is the safest place on earth". Consideting that the nightguard has full week shifts and is paid i think we can say he is an adult and not a target for child molestors. Also , that phone call was likely prerecorded for other guards as well , due to saying sumner job when it is november. So , yeah. The 1st guy was right , fnaf has never even hinted that william was a diddler. Freddy krueger on tge other hand... yeah , he did that shit.
Directly addressing such a topic has to be handled with EXTREME care and immaculate writing. This movie not only failed at that, but the tonal shift between old Freddy and new sunk it further. I don't think anyone who watched the originals with their eyes truly open had any doubts the older one was a diddy. Thing is, the older movies didn't make it the 'star of the show'. It was just kind of there, but left out of focus in favor of what he was doing NOW instead of what he had done before, and only occasionally directly referenced. It also lent something of an interesting question around why Freddy seemed to have not regularly indulged that particular deed after death and becoming a nightmare monster. I took that as the prior acts not having actually been fulfilling for him, but just a tool for use in torture to satisfy his sadism, which, IRL, is not an uncommon situation. Now that he's a nightmare made manifest, he has so many other tools to use to create fear and satisfy his sadism with, so he has far less desire to resort to that particular old tool. Yes, he has his moments throughout, but it never seems to be for the purpose of gratification directly, but more an extension of torture. It's not a goal for it's own sake. The new Freddy? Not so much. As far as the tonal shift: The feel I got from the old ones was that the sadist had a playground and was enjoying it for all it was worth. While the modern one just kind of seems to be going through motions on a revenge plot.
It's fascinating how we've reached a point where child MOLESTING is considered worse than child MURDER. It's like people were just fine with Freddie killing children in horrible, gruesome, sadistic ways, but finding them attractive? That's just sick, man.
Yeah I always thought that was strange. As horrible as sexual assault is, you can learn to live with it (yeah I know it's hard, don't come for me) but you can't with being dead.
@@Zeitgeist6 I'm an SA survivor myself. Weird to think that some people think it would have been better if that guy had killed me. Makes ya think, dunnit?
@@TheComedyGeek I'm not a survivor of it myself, but logic dictates that being dead is worse since you can't get back life in any way :D. So yeah I agree with you 100%
@Zeitgeist6 The Human element and the unfiltered element is different and dividing. One side says "It's horrible and disgusting that he not only kills, but molests kids." And thr other side that says "Well if they're dead then they cant be upset about it". And while I see it, and molestation of any kind is deplorable. And murder, well that speaks for itself. I think for A Nightmare on elm Street it's more "The horror and disgust doesn't just last in real life even as a kid. It lasts in dreams, nightmares. He transcends the idea of "Well if they're dead, then it wouldn't matter." And the horror of being molested and then killed only doubles if you think about it. After being tormented and ended by Freddy Krueger, only to be a soul in eternal torment and never to be at rest. I Think that's the most horrible thing. I think it's trying to show a whole other story about how it doesn't matter what he did specifically, it will always haunt you."
In fiction it is completely different than real life. Everyone knows murder is bad, but no victims of murder can have opinions on horror movies. The closest thing would be stuff like Dahmer retraumatising the families of the victims The reason people get so uncomfortable with horror movies like Martyrs is because it’s exploitative and audiences are bound to have at least a few victims of assault in theatres. That’s retraumatising them The difference between those situations and sitting down to watch Scream is the personal connection between the film and audience. That’s why it varies based on the viewer. Most people don’t like watching horror films with pedophilia because it can feel exploitative, doing it only for shock value or to make the audience uncomfortable. Movies that handle it tastefully like the Black Phone are better received
It was pretty obvious freddy was a creep from the start. I always thought he abused the children he killed, considering many movies show him making sexual advances on the teena he hunted. I think it just hits different when what everyone thinks is actually said aloud.
Fun Fact about the whole Quentin DBD thing. From my understanding they didn't even reach out to Kyle Gallner to properly scan his face for the model and initially he looked weird compared to now.
I was actually enjoying the 2010 at first. Hell, it looked like Freddy might have actually been innocent. That would have been a great twist. The teaser actually got me excited. I HATE him being a child snuggle struggler.
The remake didn't hold back like the original did. it was implied that Freddy was a P but it couldn't openly say it thanks to real life events during the making if the film. There is a blink and you'll miss it moment in Dreamchild where you see a glimpse at a newspaper article calling him a CM. Wes Craven's New Nightmare was the first real time it openly said Freddy touched a child. with that one line "hahaha I touched him", it did far better job than the remake in my opinion.
How could they not understand that changing someone from 'a murderer' to 'a rapist and murderer' changes the dynamic of the character and how the audience views him?
@@AdamSlander888I don’t mean to be rude, but if you genuinely think that then you probably need to rewatch the film. There definitely were more clues. It wasn’t “very few to no implications”. You just lack media awareness
. . .Wasn't Freddy always a Pedo? I mean we aren't suppose to be rooting for Freddy he is the slasher he is the criminal he is the "monster" and last I checked this or these actions are of a monster granted you could say why do it at all? Some writers want strong foundations of hate to make sure you understand that this person is just that an unredeemable monster~! I guess also if you look deep enough and maybe it's not the intention but there is a bit of poetic irony to Freddy Kruger see...he haunts dreams which you could say is like trauma like a type of PTSD but honestly I'd like to say it's the fact that some monsters we like to believe aren't monster we truly believe they are good which I feel is what they wanted like freddy was a family man the type of guy people TRUSTED~! Showing that this "nightmare" on Elm Street wasn't just a dream...it was a reality and in a sense him looking the way he does and him being what he is kinda captures that fear of...well that type of stranger...we don't know what they'll do all we know is...they're a monster...IDK maybe I'm grasping at straws but I feel there was a vison there.
I remember thinking he was a child molester in the original movies, but I couldn't tell you where I got it from. When people were surprised with the new film, I couldn't understand how people didn't know. I thought it was a well established thing.
Fr, I thought this was well known. I’ve never seen any of these movies but when my friend told me about the character of Freddy, I immediately thought he was a predator.
If I had my way, I'd say Freddy being innocent of all the crimes he was accused of would have been a more interesting take. He took the fall because of mob mentality, and his revenge is kinda justified in a twisted way. That being said, I will play devil's advocate just a little. Making Freddy a predator doesn't immediately ruin the movie for me, as making him so despicable makes it more satisfying when he is defeated. I honestly feel like you can handle the controversial change in a way that works, you just have to be tactful about how you do it. Horror is the best genre to tackle darker and heavier subject matter.
What also hurts the remake is Rooney Mara has said she didn't care about the role for whatever reason or another, I've heard multiple things, I'm not sure which is true.
You're right. And it showed. Others like Katie Kassidy (no idea if I spelled it right), Kyle Gallner and JEH did a great job in their roles, but Roony Mara did the complete opposite. I still like the movie, I just wish they would have had Nancy die instead of Kris and have Kris and Quentin as survivors in the end.
When I saw the remake, I hated how they changed the parents' reasoning for burning Freddy alive. In the original they had the evidence but the justice system failed them, and given that he was killing children, you almost agreed with their actions. In the remake there are dozens of other actions they could have taken other than killing someone, changed schools, talked to the school to get him fired, called police. Burning someone alive should be the very last thing you try for this sort of problem. That stupid character decision ruined the entire movie for me.
I'll admit the micronap thing in this movie is a cool idea The very idea that you shut your eyes for a literal second and Freddy can still kill you is terrifying and I wish they'd explored it more
I think its a mediocre film with some really interesting ideas bogged down by the mishandling of some serious subject matter and odd / bad writing and character choices. I don't like it but it is not the worst one, not that that's a very high bar. Some of those later ones got really rough.
2:05 Yeah, my step-uncle would do the same thing with Chucky from Child's Play. He even blamed a Chucky doll for his semi-truck accident when he was still alive. He said his dog, a small toy breed, Bichon Frise, I think got thrown out of the window or windshield of his semi-truck.
As a survivor of child SA, I always liked Freddy as a character despite the obvious. Like, yeah, he's a creep. That's part of his charm, so to speak. The whole kid killer/molester thing just worked for me in the original movies because Englund gave Freddy a charismatic personality to go with it. Most chomos, like my stepdad, have a personality that is likable to make people drop their guards around them - especially their victims and/or potential victims. The 2010 remake had none of that, and it didn’t feel realistic to me. They drained Freddy of what made him himself, there was no charm or anything that seemed like a man-turned-demonic entity in him; simply just pure evil. For Michael Myers, that formula works. But for Freddy? Not at all. Plus, the fact of, well... I can relate to Freddy in terms of his past and nothing else. Like me, Freddy was abused by his stepfather and was bullied harshly by his peers. Where Freddy and I separate is the direction of our lives as adults, which is what I find interesting. While I got better and recovered from my trauma, Freddy did not. He became the monster that he hated, and because of it, became what he was. Again, the 2010 movie did *none of that.* This may be some degree of rambling from a young horror fan, but I prefer the wacky and comical aspects of original Freddy who clearly enjoys what he's doing and still manages to be creepy or scary. The 2010 version just made everything that Freddy was into what was basically just a demonic version of Michael Myers and Jason, which doesn’t work at all. Also, the kind of victim blaming mentality the 2010 remake took on just rubbed me the wrong way all and all. Sorry if none of this makes any sense, I'm just writing my thoughts down randomly.
umm. I am 47 yrs old. Freddy was a pedo. He was always a pedo. That is the reason why they hunted him down and burned him up. He was funny and scary. Robert's portrait was great, because he was sick and a pedo. He loved it, he enjoyed it and rolled into it.
I think people's biggest problem with the film is the fact the Englund didn't play freddy not the pedo thing if that was the case then more people would hate freddy vs jason
What scares me about Freddy is the fact that if you survive and get away from his sphere of influence, that being Elm Street, but if you decide to come back for whatever reason, he'll feel it and start coming after you, triggering your PTSD. Thats what really scares me about him
I do love the mini Dead by Daylight rant at the end. Really hammers down the love for the character enough to actually dedicate time and effort to actually examine a complete separate media from either of the two main sources
@@dmuted I completely agree there. I still hope eventuality they go back to the original Freddy mechanics in the game. I was never the biggest fan of the character, but he was one of the only horror movie killers to actually terrify me as a kid. I do hope eventuality there comes a day where we get a proper remake that keeps all of what makes the original so good, and some of the original ideas of the 2010 film. And this might just be a personal thing, but I hope Mortal Kombat gets a second chance with Freddy Krueger. His gameplay in MK9 was quite flat and uninspired.
I remember seeing this one for the first time in the theater and declaring that I thought it was better than the original. My friend Robert immediately made me rewatch the original the very next day and I had to recant. The original was better, but that didn't make this one bad. It was certainly better than some of the later entries in the series.
I hear you. I was FIVE when I first saw Nightmare On Elm Street! I watched it with my pops and loved it. However, it must be said that he had to hide the VHS (yes, this was the late 80s) because it freaked me the hell out. Videos even rentals often had covers back then so that was a big part of why. It remains a top favorite for me as Freddy remains one of my all time scariest horror characters. I mean, anything that can reach you in your dreams is terrifying! Robert England is a boss
Back in the day it was always understood, if not outright started that Freedy was a child molester/murderer. As the original horror film morphed into a 'slasher franchise ' his original motivation was gradually downplayed, so from being an nasty evil monster he could become some kind of twisted 'anti-hero', with a quippy oneliner to fit every occasion....
So fun fact about the OG nightmare's ending it was tacked on by a producer i believe Robert Shaye? in order to allow for sequels so that's the reason for that. The ending Craven intend was that Freddy was gone for good, if i'm not mistaken from what i've read he seemed to have wanted nightmare to be a stand alone film but i'm not too overly sure on that fact but for sure ending was tacked on for sequels.
I think one of the reasons I have fond memories of this movie was because the audience I was with and in was very into it. From the beginning sequence in the kitchen they reacted to everything, so it just made it a really fun experience. I remember specifically the opening moment when Dean walked into the Kitchen and it looked dark and dreary. Someone in the audience shouted out "Run, white man!" and the entire audience burst into laughter, and then soon after Freddy's clawed hand appeared and everyone both freaked out and erupted. That set the tone for what was one of my favorite cinema going experiences for a horror movie. While the movie to many people doesn't hold a candle to the original, it will always hold a positive spot for me, because of just how much fun we all had at the theatre when we went to see it.
It was always implied that he was. It was done more in subtext than the blunt way the remake handled it, but it was absolutely always there. I was surprised that they leaned into it as much as they did but I wasn’t shocked by it because I always knew that it was part of the character. And as goofy as Freddy’s Dead is, it actually has some extremely dark themes and scenes which get really close to outright saying it. Especially in the ways he mocks a female character who suffered that from her father. And the fact that the movie as a whole deals with his own daughter who has repressed memories, well… it’s not too hard to read between the lines.
The movie that stuck with me was Silence of the Lambs. (Probably explains why one of my favorite shows and piece of media of all time is the Hannibal (nbc 2013 - 2015) series. Another movie that scarred me was scream, as I walked in on the garage doggy door scene as a 6 year old, and was scared of garage doors for a while. Though, a show that affected me at a young age was Dexter; walked in on an episode my parents were watching, stuck with me. All these pieces, along with Until Dawn being one of my favorite games ever, probably explain my career path of being a forensic medical examiner when I graduate, but also my humor and enjoying certain forms of horror.
@@sleepysadpoet I actually have read them. I personally didn’t enjoy Hannibal Rising, but the others were good, Red Dragon was my favorite. I still enjoy the show more, which is the only time I will say that I enjoy a show/movie over the original book(s). But thanks for the recommendation.
@@AlexCorporationsI wasn't a big fan of rising either, it was weird. I wasn't sure if you'd read them so I thought I'd ask if you read them. I devoured the whole series in the span of like a week and a half. I haven't seen the show bc I don't have the streaming services it's on
@@sleepysadpoet I know Roku, Prime (for free if you use ads), and a few others have it. I personally ended up enjoying it more than the movies. Love SOTL, but Mads playing Lecter like a fallen angel alone until he finds someone to connect with, and doing heinous things to create that bond, is great. With Hugh Dancy playing Will Graham in such a haunted yet torn performance, showing that all of us have the capacity for darkness, as great acts of cruelty require a high degree of empathy, it really shows an interpretation that transcends both the books and films in a way that is so darkly beautiful. I highly recommend that if you get the chance, you watch it (especially the second half of season 2 and season 3). Sorry for rambling, but it’s one of my main media based hyperfixations, and I can’t recommend it enough.
I remember from cinema sins that the ambiguity of Freddy being a child molester in his court case added a unique element to the remake, whether Freddy was legitimately a predator or an innocent man that was unjustly burned to death. If the final shot didn’t confirm he was a predator but had something else that was more disturbing, like pictures of dead animals or tombstones with a picture of the deceased attached, would’ve added another layer of mystery to the character.
As someone who watched both versions, I still think the 2010 version is scarier. Yeah, the writing isn't that great in alot of areas, but it does do one thing that a horror movie does effectively: scare you to death. The original version is good, but it doesn't scare me. Being hunted by someone looking for my life alone isn't enough. But, being hunted by someone looking for my life in retaliation is another thing entirely. The 2010 version of Freddy had been a monster before he got his powers. He physically and psychologically tormented children and hunted them down in retaliation. That scares me, having to experience such torment and as a result you find help from those that care about you. But when the help and protection you've gotten isn't enough to protect you from the retaliation of the one who hurt you, that's incredibly scary to me. It's too bad the rest of the movie outside the concept is clunky and strange, this movie was remade by Micheal Bay after all.
This is confusing. You don't want the bad guy to be a really bad guy because it feels bad? You would prefer the bad guy to do bad things but be innocent of a crime? That's silly.
I get what he's saying, when it comes to slasher villains you want them to be evil, but likeable in a way, almost to the point you're cheering them on. Ain't no one doing that with a pedophile
I didn't really care for the idea of him being a P*do. It didn't add anything to the story, nothing is really done with it, they should have just left him as a killer thats all he really needed to be. Honestly i wish they'd implemented the cut sub-plot where it turned out the kids lied about Freddy. Or better yet, what if someone's kid (maybe Nancy had an older brother/sister) was killed but it wasn't Freddy who did it, but because he's the typical 'creepy janitor' the parents instantly single him out. Then like in the original because there was no proof it was him he gets released, the parents not wanting to accept the murderer was still out there would still kill him. Then Freddy being understandably pissed would target their children for real as revenge. It would also somewhat justify Freddy's targetting the kids too because then its not even really about them it's about hurting their parents for what they did to him. They could even try and find the real killer, but maybe leave it unanswered for a later sequal if they'd got one. Or heck the killer could have even just been a random drifter who is never caught because that happens in real life sometimes. This would make it different enough from the original that it can justify existing, and there's zero need for him to be p*do on top of being a child killer...i mean for goodness sake what is it with horror directors/writers and trying to make every horror villain into a p*do when them just being a killer is plenty motivation to want to stop them.
The funny thing - I did see a Nightmare-inspired tabletop scenario called Tapestry of Suburbia that played around with the idea of the Freddy being the innocent and it was someone else entirely. Interesting Twist: the real creep is inspired by the sadistic coach of Nightmare on Elm Street 2.
Here's my 2 cents: The reason why it went wrong is not because of the whole "child killer/molestor/predator" angle. I've always seen Freddy that way, even in the old movies. My problem is the movie itself. WHY did it need to be made in the first place? What was the reason for remaking it? Did it serve any purpose? To me, it didn't. It came across as a cash grab with the possible hint of renewed interest in the franchise despite the filmmaker's best intentions. I've seen it but it's fine, like the remake of Friday The 13th. It's fine on its own but it brings nothing new. Even though some people didn't like Jackie's portrayal (and only disliked the movie because of that just like how people didn't like Halloween 3 only because Michael Myers wasn't in it, and they wanted Robert Englund, not Jackie Earle Haley), I personally thought it was fine. That's this entire movie in a nutshell to me. It's fine. (Shrugs shoulders)
Hi there! I'm both a Quentin main and someone who's put WAY too much energy and effort into the character as a character, so I want to touch on a few things: Firstly, Quentin is the best. Secretly, as a twist, he was the main character. He was in the credits over Nancy, but under Freddy. Secondly, you did hit the point about his patience and the fact that he's basically a rabid little monster when it comes to protecting the people he cares about. He's very much an altruist when it comes to them, and no more apparent is that than the DBD canon additions they gave him. His story addition was essentially: When he figured out that bringing Freddy out didn't kill him, he resolved to solo Freddy in the Dream World, and tricked him into setting himself on fire. When _that_ didn't work, Quentin was so wildly furious and angry and just wanted to wreck Freddy's shit that he accidentally got the attention of the Entity, which trapped him and Freddy in the Fog. Which means he won. He "beat" Freddy by making him unable to kill anyone else in the real world. Which, honestly, pretty solid overall. Lastly: Yeah, Quentin was kind of the impetus throughout the entire movie. He saved Nancy repeatedly, fought Freddy whenever he was able, figured out about the micronaps, kept trying to help Nancy stay awake even at the cost of his own sanity, etc. Quentin's just. Excellent. It sucks they didn't take Kyle Gallner up on his offer to just use his face when he gave them permission.
@@AdamSlander888 yes it was the episode where Freddy was after people who graduated high school with him during the class reunion one of them mentions it
@@charliecox8016 so something that happened way after the first movie now has to do with the first movie? Plus I ain’t watching that show. Literally will never watch it. NOES 4 was bad and that’s even worse
@@charliecox8016 it was referenced in a tv show4 years after the original movie came out. That does not automatically mean canon. Let’s not forget Freddy was retconned to have a kid.
A lot of people complained about Haley, but I also think he did a good job, he just had a bad script to work with. Rooney Mara said she hated working in horror, and it showed. She did do a good in the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake though. Update: Blumhouse and New Line Cinema, along with James Wan is doing something in 2026, maybe it's a new Freddy movie? Fingers crossed.
I remember a trailer or promo for one of the later films where Freddy looks into the camera and says: "If I catch ya sleeping, you'll wake up dead." If MySpace had been a thing in those days, that would have made a great quote for his page. 🤣 😂
Dude excellent video. It made me want a new Nightmare movie so bad. Btw f*cking EXCELLENT use of the Ferenia theme. I always get excited when I notice anything Metroid related.
MINOR/MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE ORIGINAL FILMS IN MY COMMENT I always vibed more with it being implied more than outright stated like you could always tell Freddy had something about him in the og films with how he spoke/acted towards Nancy in 1. In the second film I subscribe heavily to the idea that a lot of what Freddy does in that film is related to Jesse experiencing an awakening to his own sexuality to which Freddy(who is already being massively intrusive on something intimate like this) influences him to give into impulsive/extremely violent sexual thoughts while he wears the glove, but the only time Jesse himself holds back is during when he goes near his younger sister (who Freddy has been putting his own focus towards) and spares her. Now with Dream Warriors and the other films with how often he'd put himself in situations where he'd make himself attractive in various ways to get what he wants from the kids which is a very common tactic for child predators to do. Freddy vs Jason speaks for itself.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (3/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IVwR87OH0_A/mqdefault.jpg)
In the original script for the first movie, it was said that Freddy was a child molester, but they didn't add it to the movie because of some court case in California that happened at the time. In The Dream Child they do reference that Freddy is a child molester on a newspaper.
Robert England in an interview from last year talked about why he felt the remake didn't work with some and this is what he said:
"Jackie's just so good, a wonderful actor, so I don't think it was that," he says. "I've always thought that Freddy is described as a child killer. So, when they make Freddy a child molester [in the remake], that's not what Freddy is, I don't think. By taking it to such a dark, dark place, there's no room for the personality of Freddy to be exploited."
Yes, but i always think it was alluded to in small ways, even in the originals. Like the bit with the phone when he says im your boyfriend now nancy and the tongue comes out she's not legal so.
how does that make the remake for what the General Consensus perceives the remake to absolutely be as..?
@@Genovese11 On the newspaper it states that he was a child molester.
I always thought he was a child molester. Even in the original ones. You do not have to mention it explicitly.
@chopstixmurphy6134 didn't think it needed to be said but it was implied, kinda like in Freddy vs jason the way they made him lick the photos of the kids he killed to put in his book, you just knew in his acting that he didn't just kill kids he did more.
It may be my age, but long before the remake I always thought of Freddy as a pedophile. It legitimately doesn’t make sense to me that others don’t see it that way
I agree. I've only ever seen the original movie, which was quite a while ago, but I always saw it as being heavily implied that Freddy was a molester. I don't see how anyone could say that it's strange for Freddy to be turned into a molester considering he's a serial killer, and it's not unusual for serial killers to additionally sexually assault their victims. It's pretty normal for them.
I did too...
He was in the OG script, but there was a high profile legal case dealing with molestation in the media at the time, combine that with trying not to get an X rating from the mpaa made them rewrite it to just heavily imply instead of outright saying it.
The reason would be he never molested his victims he played with them, yes, but he was just a killer of children.
Even in the original, he was suspected of killing the missing kids. Not molesting them.
@@user-us5dr2qi2rNope, the pilot of Freddy's Nightmares confirms for sure OG Freddy's a pedo
It couldn't be more obvious that in the originals Freddy represents how childrhood trauma never leaves you.
I had two different (male) roommates who would both often have extreme night terrors and try to fight off someone in their sleep. These guys later revealed to me they'd been m@lested by their older brothers at night when they were kids and they relive it again and again! Both these boys were serious tweekers because they explained it was the only way they could stay awake for 3-4 days at a time to avoid having these nightmare memories torment them.
So how anyone thinks Freddy being a predator is odd, it makes perfect sense since nightmarish terrors following victims into adulthood seems to be a major problem, though often kept secret or not talked about openly...
Not only is that deeply horrific, but that you had TWO room mates with profound PTSD in unconscionable!
@@jackchop1576 You seem to be a well adjusted and generally happy person don't you?
@@jackchop1576 The fact that you just assume they are a white women when they never even stated a gender or ethnicity says a lot about your morals.
Well sad and said perfectly
If they would have just smoked some weed before bed those dreams would have been suppressed.
Honestly I always thought of Freddy as a 'predator'. The fact that all his original victims were portrayed as little girls in innocent dresses, were pretty much a dead giveaway. So the remake's choice to bring that up didn't bother me.
Also aside from the original idea, one of the original scripts for Freddy vs. Jason had Freddy be a camp counselor who did 'things' to little handicapped Jason.
Based darkworld pfp
For me, the biggest let down in the remake was the lack of creativity in how Freddy killed them. He kills you using your nightmares, the other movies have crazy attacks where he turns the world into these elaborate things, he turns into a giant monster that swallows them whole, or kills them in a crazy supernatural way IRL like the girl on the ceiling or the bed blood fountain, he turns into a TV or any other crazy horrific, over the top thing that no other killer in a movie besides maybe Pennywise, could be shown doing but in the remake, he basically just stabs everyone, he almost became just like a Michael Myers. It just felt like they didn't even try to be creative with the concept.
If he was more menacing but also actually used people's nightmares to inception/Silent Hill the world around them to kill them horribly, he could have been terrifying.
I prefer the grounded kills in the remake
@@Dachin55555 To me, it felt like a waste of having a dream killer if he's just going to kill people like a regular killer with a knife basically.
@@mismismism I agree!! He could've still had some crazy kills that are still terrifying and not like, goofy as the og movies
The TV kill was always my favourite! “Welcome to Prime Time, bitch!”
Yea I do have to agree on the kills. Aside from one almost good one, the floating victim, everything else was kinda grounded. At least make the blood fountain better or use some Mortal Kombat elements to the kills.
i never really liked this version in the first place, is it just me ? my mom always showed me the ogs when i was younger so when i saw this i was just like…huh…
Same, I really liked this movie, the originals are decent but I prefer the remake.
@@unknown_grave4546he was saying he hated it bro 🤦♀️
No,it isn't you. This movie is hated everywhere and considered the absolute bottom of the nightmare franchise by both casuals and people who grew up and loved the series like me. It's just a bad movie,through and through
@@Dhampire1976 oh dang, I totally misread that.
I feel like it's underrated but I would say that it's nowhere near as good.
Freddy was always a creep. The issue with the remake is that it was badly written and rushed out purely as a cheap cash-grab, not that it changed a part of Freddy's character from being (barely) implicit to explicit.
Real talk
Og freedy was not hiding how much of a depraved sadist he was, he was subtle on his creepiness and loud on presence it was so good it felt like he loved all of it
Remake freedy was edgier, looked faker (to me), was not subtle where it mattered, dint have any super charismatic kill and lacked the charm of a true power high creep
I feel like him being a pedo was implied in Freddy v Jason
It was implied even in the original movie and in multiple sequels.
"Especially little girls"
His preferred target was children and he wears a bladed "Bad Touch" glove... yeah, its all but spelled out for you.
it's implied in pretty much every movie but Especially in Freddy's Dead that it included his daughter and when they took her he decided to take their kids permanently.
Freddy vs jason was the first time they actually spelled it out for you and didn't hide it
The 2010 Reboot actually touched on what could've been a great plot twist.
When the gang were digging into Freddy's past, Nancy suggested that Freddy was wrongfully accused of abusing and sexually assaulting children when he was just this abnormal guy, potentially stunted emotionally and mentally so that he relates to children more than adults his age and was now exacting revenge by going after the children of his killers but then all that potential was tossed in the boiler when Nancy suddenly remembers, "Oh, no. Freddy actually was this creepy pedo that liked hurting and molesting children and taking photos."
What a waste
Although I agree that the plot twist that Freddy was wrongfully accused of abusing and assaulting children, I don’t think it would have been good for the movie as a whole. Think about it for a second, he’s blaming children for their parents actions. It would be a bad message that the alleged “victims” were just lying because they could. It would potentially send the wrong message, and even make things harder for children to talk to parents/trusted adults because media such as this is mainstream enough to impact the way people think. Freddy is the villain, he’s irredeemable, giving a serial child killer a tragic backstory about how he was just “misunderstood” would be perpetuating this false view of him as a sympathetic neurodivergent guy who decided that he was wronged so bad he would continue to kill children? If he really did love those kids feeling betrayed in death would be fine. But throughout the franchise there have been sprinkles and hints of predatory behavior and the concept of Freddy’s disgusting relationship with young girls especially has been shown in several of the movies and even spinoffs. It was the original idea after all, although the movie has its pros and cons. I can agree that it would have been interesting, but not true to the perceived reality of the nightmare on elm street legacy.
Going after the kids instead of the parents is not something an “innocent” potentially neurodivergent person would do. Especially if he loved the kids so much that he’d dedicate his spare time just to playing with them. Not to mention the fact that horror as a genre is meant to leave an impression, and scare the audience. This was a warning, a way to bring awareness to child molestation, to comfort those who have gone through it and make those who haven’t understand the pain, terror, and disgust that victims of childhood SA have to deal with. Although it isn’t my favorite movie, I don’t think this ruined the plot.
Not trying to start an argument, just sharing my perspective. I completely understand your point and do think it could be a great plot twist. Just maybe in a different movie, that could be cool.
@@Nymph_Poppy He's not blaming the children for his murder but what greater suffering can a parent endure than the loss of a child?
@Nymph_Poppy
the Moment Freddy got Nancy for himself stuck in a Dream and tied up on a Bed, is enough to understand it would be wasted Potential if he wasn't a Pedo
According to the documentary "Never Sleep Again," Freddy was always presumed to be a child molester but that they couldn't directly reference it at the time. In the sequel "Freddy's Revenge: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2," there is obvious sexual tension between Freddy and the Final Boy Jesse. This was supposed to be subtext and not as overt as it ended up being. But the producer explained that even though Freddy is called a "child murderer" that any reasonably-minded person would assume that he molested the children as well. So to see him with a teenage boy in this manner, it is supposed to be assumed by the audience that Freddy has a sexual desire for him. In the future films you see more of this sexual innuendo from Freddy towards the teens, some overt and some covert, but they play it up more for laughs so that the audience doesn't focus too much on the implications.
Freddy's Revenge is a blantently homo-erotic 80s movie, like Top Gun. Who knows why film makers used to do that in those days, but they did.
The idea of Freddy Krueger liking kids a little too much is older than most people know.
Yeah. The original explained it.
its been with the series since the original, but that doesnt make the 2010 any better. the remake completely drops the ball when it comes to handling the topic with any kind of subtlety or anything
@@goldenmolelover I agree. I like the idea of Freddy being a pedo, but I think it's been done in a more subtle yet not convoluted way.
Yeah, I watched the original movies as a kid/pre-teen (I was under 13...lol) and even I knew he was a pedo! Maybe I didn't know what the word pedo meant... but I knew he liked kids way too much.
Odd, we're seeing more and more of this in real life right now but it's too much in fiction?
Wes Craven actually wanted it to be clear, that Freddy is not just hunting and killing kids but he toned it down due to cases of child molestation around the time the film was being produced and he didn't want to be accused of exploting these cases. To be honest, i like Cravens final iteration of Freddy - he's downright sarcastic and evil. But i also liked Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy even if he portrayed Freddy as just evil and depraved as the Screenplay was just bad. But the 2010 Nightmare is by no means a bad remake but could have done better and i think that's because they didn't know how to do the source material justice and made Freddy a replacable slasher.
he deserved his own lines instead of repeating Rober Englund's "best of" lines throughout the whoooole movie
What cleared it up for me was Heather's mom saying "filthy child murderer,"
Fred has kinda always been a kid diddler. He flirted with the teens in the originals, it was just never outright stated that he was a kid diddler, and it was mostly played up for “laughs” I think. It was more just implied. Does that make it any less revolting? No. The remake just said it with its whole chest.
leaving it open to view interpretation is one thing, having your title character being one openly is another thing.
@@AzguardMikeOh but killing is all good? If you idolize him that says a lot about you. And the pilot of Freddy's Nightmares said it with it's whole chest too. You can't watch that and have any room left for "MAYBE he didn't diddle kids?" Nah he 100% did.
No. He hasn’t. He was just a murderer.
@@invaderhempwhat movie said that?
@@MarkBanegas The pilot episode of Freddy's Nightmares that's a prequel to the movies
As a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I have to say that Freddy as a pedo makes him even more terrifying.
Plus it’s alluded to with his creepy tongue flicking. Furthermore, in Freddy’s Dead he tongues down a picture to put in his scrapbook.
The context was always there. JEH’s depiction brings it more to the surface because a lot of modern audiences can’t seem to understand nuance. Hell they initially make it seem like he was innocent until we find out he isn’t. which was a brilliant storytelling move also, and scary because I know for years I blamed myself for my trauma and even tried to deny it happened.
But I think it would have been amazing if Freddy had been innocent. That would have been a major plot twist and it would make the situation the villain. Because parents will go into a place where reason doesn’t exist over their kids.
I'm really sorry you had to go through that as a kid
@@geneyboiimy friend had to as well. Her brother raped her. More than once
yeah but I don't want freddy to be a relatable, tragic villian. His schtick has always been i'm a terrible person and you can't stop me from being terrible - even if you kill me.
@@Izzythedestryr true enough. Him just being truly despicable just makes the essence of him timeless.
In the originals: the whole town pretended he didn't molest a bunch of kids, that they didn't ignore and enable it, that they didn't later mob up and kill him (mob violence and then burning down the mill he ran to), covered up the mill arson, had the kids in therapy and played head games to get them thinking it was just nightmares (hypnotherapy to suppress the truth from kids that already got destabilized and aren't properly grounded, who thought that was gonna work) while they were all segregated from other kids their age that also went through it.....
Sexual abuse is bad but the lies to cover it up are half the issue. The originals did get into that, and the (viewers aks Nancy both) vague feeling of "wtf is this saccharin sweet laissez-faire about my classmates and me having heinous dreams and being segregated from each other" wasn't bad filming but intentional.
I'm ngl I always thought the OG Freddy was a predator as well.
I mean, the dude is a serial killing demon, the worst of the worst, it wouldn't be far fetched for him to be a predator.
I get how that may not sit well with some audiences but Freddy is a monster, an absolute psychopath, a demon. It only makes sense a monster would do monstrous things.
But also, at the same time, this feels kinda off to me. Freddy is a bad guy, why can't he be a bad guy? Because it might make someone uncomfortable? He's supposed to be a bad person, hes supposed to represent everything thats bad.
Also, at the end of the day he's a fictional villain. You can still be revolted by what a fictional villain is or does, and still enjoy the fictional villain because the fictional villain is entertaining, and _fictional._
As long as they dont glorify it then I don't see the problem with the monster being a monster because well...he's a monster.
Basically on point. It's that Freddy lovers want to keep idolizing their fictional character and don't want him painted in a negative light... even though dude is a literal piece of shit who enjoys killing and has killed many, as well as torturing.
It's a similar phenomenon with those who idolize Pennywise Clown in IT and part of the reason why that Texas Chainsaw Masacre reboot tried to be edgy and align the main girl character with Leatherface, "do your thing cuz!"
I never understood why so many people were against that idea, as if killing kids is any better ?
I know two victims of extreme organised abuse since infancy. They love this movie for addressing the topic. They hate how quiet people are about it.
That's understandable ngl.
I feel like more movies need to address the topic, and not shy away for fear it may make people uncomfortable. It's needs to be addressed and brought attention to.
I mean, why should they hate it? It does not glorify Freddy in any way and makes clear that his actions are nothing but pure evil. It's quite unfair to juge the movie by how likable the villain is when the intention clearly was to make him as unlikable as possible, which doesn't go against any of the slasher genre's unwritten rules.
@@imarock.7662 And not do what Cuties did. Thank God I didn't watch it.
@@timothyryan8983 Yeah
That shit just...wtf
@@imarock.7662 The people most uncomfortable are those who have done or know something.
They kind of hint at the pedo stuff in Freddy Vs Jason when they have him lick that photo of the kid... At any rate, they had already successfully "made Freddy scary again" in "New Nightmare"
In Freddy vs Jason he did rape a teenager in her dream
I've always been under the assumption that Freddy was a diddler, even in the original movies because of the way he teases his targets with what he does and says and the way he acts. Above all else though, if he was JUST a child murderer, then the teenagers that he comes back to haunt, well, they wouldn't be teenagers because they'd have died as kids which implies he did something else / more to them. If I remember correctly, Nancy's parents also got divorced because of the stress of what Freddy did their daughter which strained their marriage.
19:43 man the idea of him being innocent and him revenge killing them because of being wrongly murdered would've been so cool and made him a sympathetic character and could've had such a better ender and story... honestly might steal that idea for my own story
Can you name a serial child killer that didn't mess with the children?
Exactly. even James Bulger, murdered by two children, was touched by the kids who killed him. Why would a child killer not also be a diddler?
@@platanoluver there was no evidence james bulger was abused sexually
@@czarnakoza9697 true though one of those kids did become a pedophile
William Afton
My dude William afton😫🙏
I REALLY don't like the whole, "I wish Freddy turned out to be innocent," which is often suggested for this movie. It would have made the film very victim blaming. There would have been no reason why over a dozen kids all lied about Freddy assaulting them. It makes no sense that they would have made it up.
i feel like you're misconstructing a lot of the films iteration of Freddy... hmmmmm
The parts about the kids saying Freddy did it wouldn't have been in the film. It would have been circumstantial evidence that convinced the parents of his guilt.
Except it sort of happened in real life. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial On another level though, I think a lot of people zero in on that as a twist that would have helped to justify the remake, new ground to explore rather than just retreading the original.
@@mephosto
How did you link something? It always deletes my comments when I try that
R I be always thought the parents made them lie and not that kids really knew what they were doing was bad cause their kids I think it allows more depth and not that he just wanted to kill them after he died but that he really liked kids and the parents were uncomfortable with how close he was with the children.. I don’t think it was victim blaming sense they would’ve been forced to say those things
Pretty sure Freddy was always intended to be a molester from the beginning. In reality there aren't many serial child killers who aren't 🤷
Exactly, Robert Englund Freddy always made sexual gestures in his films towards the kids. He outright licks a photo of a little girl sexually in Freddy vs Jason lol.
Exactly, it's weird that a lot of people don't understand that. I think it's because they want to like Freddy.
I was little in the 80s and didn't think about things like that. It was weird to me when he was full blown chomo in the remake. Still like it, but it definitely killed Freddy's cool factor.
Yes but since it's the most horrific crime a person can commit it's hard to love this version as a villain.
Weird to think that's the final factor that makes him not "cool" to y'all . Serial killers aren't cool
The true horror is that you had to play as freddy for footage
What if I told you I actually kinda like playing him
@@dmutedwhat if I told you you're a real one for that.
Freddy players UNITE 💪💪
@@dmuted I agree. It's fun. I can talk just like him, both 80's and 2010.
@@dmutedI think I remember something about playing the villain gives people a sense of freedom other people wouldn’t normally have. Honestly if anyone could play Freddy we might see a lot of different takes.
Freddy was always a child molester, theirs countless moments throughout the OG movies with him being explicitly sexual with the teens
1:12 gotta be honest there was a moment I was wondering "why would someone Mod Freddy Krueger into Resident evil 2?" Before I realized what it was
I saw the original when I was eight years old and it terrified me. Even that young in the 80s I was very aware of child abduction and sa happening due to the Adam abduction. I have always assumed that Freddy was sa ing children and then killing them. It's odd hearing people bashing the reboot not because of the bad effects and weak story but because they brought the sa to the forefront and how his burns looked.
Have you considered that people aren't really upset with the inclusion of that character trait so much as the way it was handled in the movie? He's played up to be sympathetic for a majority of the film because it's constantly hinting that he was killed unjustly, only for it to go 'lol jk, he's a dick' last second. It was included for no reason, not put to use in any real way in the film, and then confirmed last minute just to solidify that the relentless killer relentlessly killing innocent people is actually a really bad dude. It's just a really bad topic to include in a genre of film that is literally made to make light of heavy topics if it doesn't serve any real purpose.
I dunno if the pedo angle was really like uncalled for and the complete downfall of the remake, cause the one thing they did do with Freddy even when they couldn't make it official is still like...hint at it and make him a turbo creep. Claw in the bathtub, "I'm your boyfriend now", Phone mouth, that one scene in one of the sequels where he licks a picture to put in his collection WAY too seductively. I think the remakes problem was...it was a remake, and 2008-2010 was SWIMMING in remakes and only maybe 4 of them were really that good quality wise, and this being in the tale end section of them along with a more predatory Freddy personality wise kinda sunk it. Even the demon in Wes Craven's New Nightmare has more personality than 2010 Freddy.
I personally disagree, but only because I believe this era of including a "reason for the madness" of horror films kind of soured the genre as a whole. Of course there were ample remakes, and a lot of these remakes took a lot of artistic liberty to separate themselves from the original - nothing wrong with that, but a lot of it I noticed relied on mental illness, philias, societal issues, etc etc. Now we no longer really see horror for the sake of horror, it's always an allegory for this mental illness, or the house is haunted because of slavery or gender disparity, or the slasher is actually a victim of this, or the entire thing in an art piece portraying this and not actually horror at all, it's just an easy genre to get away with. I miss when slashers were just kinda crazy people who liked to kill, or the house was on a graveyard, or even just aliens or ghost pirates. Don't Breathe especially fumbled the ball because filmmakers are just scared to make the main characters the bad guys getting what they deserved, something I haven't really seen since Cannibal Holocaust.
Please don't take this as me saying your opinion is wrong in any way, I agree with a lot of what you said and I love the points you made! I just kinda see these two movies as a good pinpoint to how horror has changed in a way that I see as kind of annoying, for lack of a better word.
@@officerwaifu6408what bothers me the most is the way these things are handled, it's never "look this guy is the way he is because of (insert illness or something like that) however that doesn't justify anything he did" its always "oh boo hoo look at him! He's a victim of (insert illness or something else like society) he's a misunderstood tragic person he's innocent" i really hate this so much.
The world's just horrendously tossed around the term and it just gets to the point of being weird to get instant karma points on the internet. Are we really doing a moral police on the psycho nightmare human turned spawn from hell? Like the same guy that kills and traumatizes teenagers because why not?? The first movie has Freddy kissing a chick to death and that shit wasn't exactly consensual.
How could the kids grow up if someone fucking murdered them 😂
@@mrstation6905 The parents had new/other kids?
My issue isn’t that they made Freddy a full on child abuser. It’s that when they show Freddy die, it’s sympathetic. When Quentin SEES the flashback, he sympathizes with Freddy. Even Freddy himself thinks that he *did not deserve to die* and even tells Nancy, “Look at me. Look at what you DID to me.” It’s not right that the audience is led to think Freddy is innocent in his actions, and Freddy himself should KNOW he’s evil and relish in the demonic powers death brought him. 2010 Freddy didn’t even draw fun in causing fear or use fear to fuel him. He just wanted Nancy dead.
Except this does happen to some victims. This isn’t the movie telling you to sympathize with him. This is a way of showing the victims( and Freddy) gaslighting themselves into thinking that they’re the problem. It’s been a long time since Freddy’s death, and the kids forgot details regarding the case, leaving them vulnerable to the self-doubt and gaslighting I mentioned earlier.
Media literacy is really dead. You don't think this was meant to manipulate Quentin or cast doubt for the audience until the big reveal at the end that he was actually a molester? How did you manage to take away that we were meant to feel bad for him?
But that's a type of manipulation too, so many abusers guilt trip their victims saying stuff like "if you tell someone, they're gonna hurt me" to keep them quiet, here it's just another way to hurt them, make them feel bad for something that isn't their fault
@@platanoluver yeah dude, lots of people see it as the movie and the creators endorsing every little thing onscreen.
From what I read, Freddy WAS an innocent man in the initial script, but the ending was reshot.
Maybe I’m just remembering things wrong, but my understanding was that Freddy was always implied to be a creep (not using the actual word, but you know what I mean). Even as a 8 or 9 year old kid, I remember thinking that.
He always was a ped, that was the crimes he was accused and eventually killed for. It was supposed to be a story about judgement and an evil that comes from playing God or some such, but they chickened out and didnt refer to it that much. However, it was clear even in the final cut that he was a child murderer, so at that point ped or not doesnt matter much.
Making a child murderer a sort of anti-hero demon thing is kinda funny, it wasnt really the intention, but they went with it.
The reason they changed freddy from being a diddler to a killer was because the whole Catholic priests scandal was going on around the same time.
Wasn't that in the 2000's? Not 1980's.
@@alemswazzu It pretty much started in the 80's, and has been ongoing for years.
Hasnt freddy been a creep the whole time?
Yes. They didn't say it outright in the original movies because "muh Catholic priest abused children" but he was always intended to be a pedo.
Fun fact: Rooney Mara (Nancy) hated being in this movie so much that She almost quit acting all together.
She's a terrible actress in my opinion
Same with Jackie. Jay from red letter media said that he met him during filming, and he basically thought the original was stupid. Fuck that guy
She deliberately tried to ruin the movie production as she thought of herself to be above the level of a horror movie.
@lutho7693 I think that's another thing that really hurt this reboot. Almost everyone who worked on this film didn't care about the sorce material at all. Jackie Earle Haley has even said he doesn't like the original films.
And I wish she would've stayed away. Her presence is unbearable in this movie. The other actors at least seem to be trying to work with the little they're given but she is horrible.
I don’t get why people were surprised or uncomfortable about Freddy being a pdf file lol. It was heavily implied from the beginning, but film censorship and current events in the 80s made it impossible to spell it out anymore than they did.
I'm more surprised that most people think that Freddy is better at being a child murderer than a pedophile. Why say he's NOT that kind of a monster when both are equally horrible. I just find it stupid.
As awful as this is going to say, making Freddy a child molester almost humanizes him. Sure it humanizes him in the worst ways possible but it gives him a motive for what he does instead of just being a sinister dream demon
Agree. Also it makes it far more personal between Freddy and the protagonists.
If you ask me, not all diddlers are child killers but all child killers are diddlers.
they take your humanity .
Anakin Skywalker would like a word
Strait facts
@@JordiumZ actually no. He did it out of fear of losing his wife.
@@thedude2916 I would disagree. PTSD is of course bothersome, and maybe cPTSD is worse, still. So that's a problem. But I did not lose my humanity, it is just a consistent strenuous challenge to fight back against the kind of entitlement, brought about by the trauma created by their entitlement. The CNS-"remembered" lesson being that other people must exist only to gratify my sexual desires, or they are f-slurs, that don't deserve to even exist in my reality... That's how the women treated me, and you rewarded them with sexual worship and dignified lives of sexual pride and bodily well-being - the comfort of desirability, and it's inherent healing power to counteract the dehumanizing sexual humiliation, that does turn people into unfeeling monsters. So you have justified their molestation of children, by allowing "their (f-slur) kind" to feel welcome and loved. And it feeds a lot of rage towards people that fail to get me more and better sex, than a girl could ever hope for, to let me humiliate the girls, and label them "unfit subhuman", with a potency that completely warps the trajectory of the rest of their lives in a negative and self-destructive fashion.
My take is that Freddy was always that type of man even in the original run. I don't think anyone can watch any of those movies then not think that. The remake's issue is that it clashed with two main progressions that fumbled the new direction too much: having it be ambiguous if he was a diddler or not and having him be a murderer that wanted revenge.
I think the remake should've had both; where Kreuger was a child murderer, but have his motives be darker than just him being evil. It should've been that he was killing kids outside of the kindergarten to cover up his predatory activities, then have him get caught when he targeted one of the kids in the kindergarten leading to him being connected to the other kids. It would've left the ambiguity pretty valid until the end, leading Nancy and Quinton to realize that Freddy was that sick of a man, he was capable of killing and that he was targeting them to get back at those that killed him by specifically going after the remaining children from the kindergarten.
Freddy was always a sex predator. It's such obvious subtext.
Subtext has been lost in this generation that needs all character motivation and plot points spoon fed to them
@@richborn6700that is quite literally what the industry does and everyone hates it. We don’t want shit spoon fed to us. We want to have our own interpretations. Having one implied thing that is told to the audience is boring and is exactly why people hate the “Freddy was always a diddler” thing. If you wanna think that cool. Let other people have their opinions
"His name is Freddy Krueger and he loves children...especially little girls" is straight from Freddy vs Jason.
Without really condoning the idea...I frankly am not shocked that the Nightmare franchise never dived into a more 'sexual horror" vibe with the nightmare sequences.
Considering Freddy can morph reality, shape shift, shape shift his victims, become a creature etc etc...I feel like a ....gRape scene in a Nightmare on Elm Street movie could be truly disturbing and horrifying in really uniquely gross ways.
...what if I told you that's not a snake Freddie turns into in Nightmare 3
@@ikmnification5737 Oh I'm aware.
Watch the documentary "Never Sleep Again" and it will all make sense. The original concept of Freddy was meant to be a molester but the character was changed to a child killer because of a high profile child abuse case. The filmmakers didn't want to be seen as exploiting that case. So actually, the ORIGINAL Freddy was a pedophile and child killer.
@@jenniferoconnell1560 so what you're telling me is they wanted it but left it out of the original movie
Which means onscreen he wasn't a pedophile
And my point still stands that him being an onscreen pedophile sucks
@@dmuted I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was refuting the people saying that he was never a pedophile. There were some hints, but it was never explicitly said. I grew up with and stayed terrified of Freddy for years. They should have stayed closer to the original, with it being implied instead of blatant.
@@jenniferoconnell1560 he never was... Wes craven said once it was never the concept
@@F-Andre watch the documentary on the making of the movie, "Never Sleep Again."
And yet Wes Craven began out in the 70s making porn, and his first movie was The last House on The Left, so you'd think him making Freddy a pedo from the start without holding back would've happened.
The movie that stuck with me as a kid was Final Destination 2. I didn't see the whole movie, but I saw the Route 23 Pileup with the Log Truck, and that scene lived in the back of my mind until I finally saw the movie (and rest of the series) as an adult.
the reason im genuinely scared to get my permit and drive on the highways😶🌫️
@@nin1ch0 It's far more likely for the trucker to get killed by the logs crushing him when they come forward at at stop.... in reality though... most truckers KNOW this, and make sure the load is secured (they are responsible for it before moving and can and WILL refuse anything that they don't personally consider safe... that and they are taking THEIR own life in their hands every time).
I do an ATL to RDU/RDU to ATL haul about 4 - 5 times a year (408m or so, almost all interstate) and every single time run into at least one, if not several of these logging trucks... and trust me... yes, every single time, that scene comes to mind. The great thing about reality though... you can either pass them and have them behind you, or get far enough back, that even if something happens, it won't effect you.
Sorry, kind of long, but the point is, don't let that fear hold you back from learning to drive, it's an incredible freedom, and I have loved every single minute (For the most part, that one time having to change a tire in the pouring rain in MA wasn't so much fun.. but it was only 10m) of my travels.. from the east coast to the west coast and from the northern border to the southern border.... travel is amazing!
Think for me it was Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, that Tooth Fairy scene silently scared the crap out of me. (I say silently because I never let on until I was much older)
All the Final Destination films fucked me up lmao. All those everyday scenarios being turned into "what if one thing goes wrong," based on pure fate, chance, and luck. That mixed with the reality of things being able to go to shit at any time in freak accidents and showings on the news. Jason, Freddy, other supernatural beings. Being a logical kid, I always shrugged them off as it wasn't real and more akin to fantasy. The final destination films were dosed in little fantasy and so much reality that it got to me. Well, except for the really complicated scenarios (more so in the more modern final destination films), where it was like 30 things needing to coincidentally happen together in a hail Mary type of scenario. It made it more fantasy like, as would highlight that there is actually a force, "Death," in control of all of this. The originals had more of Death barely playing a role, but just nudging reality and the situation barely enough to get what it wanted.
@OscarASevilla I remember when I first saw the bridge scene from Final Destination 5, I knew the first Amazing Spider-Man movie had a bridge scene in it and thought that was it, until the one girl got impaled on the sail boat, then I knew, "This isn't a Spider-Man movie."
I have never encountered anyone who didn't think Freddy was a pedo, even before the remake. Probably because Craven had stated that it was supposed to be that way. And honestly I'm putting Craven's head Canon above New Line's actual Canon regardless.
If that's the case, then kids dressing up as Freddy on Halloween are knowingly dressing up like a pedo.
Crazy kids...
i never met one wanted him to be a pedo....
Craven evn tastefully for lack of better words incorporated that implication without having to outright say it, he made it a IYKYK type thing with the actions Kreuger did to toy with his prey, just by watching his mannerisms how he acted you could piece together he wasn't JUST a killer but an absolute CP monster traumatizing and hunting down the ones that "got away" when he was alive. the remake just blatantly spells it out and I feel that took away some of the implied creepiness of what Freddy Kreuger does and how he acts.
When kids dress up as Freddy for Halloween, they're really dressing up as a pedo.
yeah i saw nightmare on elm Street in the 2000s as a child growing up and even as subtle as they were i could tell yep that guy is a child predator
Anyone that complains about the pedo aspect of the Elm Street remake should do their homework.
As the Original 84 Elm Street originally had Freddy as a pedo, but they decided against it at the last minute.
Imo it makes perfect sense for Freddy to be a pedo, you are supposed to hate him with how vile he is.
It’s just Robert Englund with his charisma managed to make him be a comedic Anti Hero of sorts.
Robert Englund was fantastic as Freddy there is no denying that, it’s just he’s far too charismatic to portray Freddy how the character was originally intended to be, a vile creepy nasty villain that you are supposed to despise and be scared of.
ok
Just a copy paste of what I already commented but I did my ''Homework''. There's intention and there's the canon Freddy we got over the years. Now, dont get me wrong, just my opinion but I really can't grasp the point of making him a pedophile. Maybe it's just because I grew up with all the movies already existing and heard about Craven intentions wayyyyy after seeing them all (except FvsJ). But the character always seemed more interesting to me as a maniac character of a revenge warpath than a pedophile.
Yes Craven wanted to make him a pedophile. Yes, subtext implies it. Yes there's an article shown in Dream Child and if you blink you'll miss it. So from that point on, I'm not denying there a lot of arguments for him PROBABLY being a pedophile.
Here's my point. If they made Freddy a pedo, they wouldn't have seen him become so iconic. Try selling lunchboxes of a pedophile and merch. Lets not kid ourselves. People didn't go see ANOES to root for the teens... It's Freddy printed on all the Halloween costumes and coffee mugs and shit. That newspaper calls him a child molester but he was still freed on a technicality (read the actual newspaper) so this might be sensationalism coming from a pissed off town.
And mostly, I'm not sure I understand why the community wants him diddling kids. I'm not saying I root for a maniac but plot wise, if Fred Krueger is taking vengeance on Springwood for bullying him (as seen in part 6) and enjoying being a visceral monster... seems plenty enough evil to me and gives him a reason to do his horrendous serial killing. Makes him more interesting that way to me. Putting his sexuality in the movie just feels unnecessary and sure wouldn't have given us those blockbuster kills we had in all of its sequels (I like them but maybe that's the whole point and people would have just wanted one movie... Pedophile would've been the way to go then... nobody would have come back for seconds I guarantee that).
He's plenty evil as it is without adding such an uncomfortable topic for a character that's been pretty much just as cool to watch as Myers and Voorhees for decaded. He takes vengeance on the parents of Elm Street by killing their kids. Can't take anything more valuable from them. He kills their kids. He kills the future of Springwood.
@@laststraw9363 You’re not supposed to root for Freddy though, you’re supposed to root for Nancy.
This isn’t the Friday The 13th franchise where you can make up your mind who to root for, as Jason is very sympathetic.
Freddy being bullied by the parents makes him sympathetic though.
And that’s not what Freddy is or should be in the slightest.
Yes Freddy became a toy and marketed but that was only after the first movie.
Wes Craven never intended for that to happen, it just happened.
It’s why every time Wes Craven was involved, he always wanted the kids to be the ones to root for, not Freddy.
I’m always in favour for what makes the villain more scary and vile.
Like I said Jason is very different, you can root for Jason If you want to.
I mean just look at Jason Goes To Hell where Jason steps on a condom that’s not used, that’s very conservative values of safe sex.
Jason is very sympathetic and that’s always been how the character was written to be.
Freddy should be nothing but vile and horrid, not a goofy comedy character, or someone who was bullied.
@@NuMetalfan1996 Those are good points but I didn’t mean you should root for Freddy… I just meant that people like me who enjoyed the franchise and the sequels didn’t go back for Nancy (Except for part 3 where of course I root for her). I always rooted for the survivors to live but I never wanted to see the Nancy Thompson show. I enjoyed the movies because Freddy’s kills were more creative that his fellow slashers who just thumped their way out with a knife or machete and because Englund was so goddamn good at portraying him.
So, while not rooting for him, Freddy seems more interesting to me as a dream demon motivated by revenge than by his sexual impulse.
I don’t think you need to root for him to enjoy moments like him pulling a girl in the tv right after appearing in the tv show she was watching or melt a character into a motorcycle while taunting him. His lore becomes more interesting that way.
If the franchise never got popular and it would have stayed at part 1, which is something a lot of people would have preferred, Craven himself, I’d agree. Make Freddy a pedo all you want. But as someone who enjoys all the ANOES movies, I can’t. Pedo Freddy just makes him less interesting to me.
Without rooting for him, moments like when he consolidates the whole world as his killing playground in part 6 when he says every town has an Elm Street becomes way more interesting if he’s motivated by revenge. I can’t argue that he’s scarier as a pedo but I can argue that he’s less interesting.
It reminds me a little bit of the “IT” miniseries. Where in the source material Pennywise is meant to be the embodiment of evil with no redeeming qualities. But Tim Curry is just that much of a charismatic actor that it gave some people the wrong impression even though people aren’t supposed to find Pennywise charming in the slightest
It was 1989 and my mother thought it was appropriate for a 4 year old to watch Nightmare on Elm St. It scared me to death. Not only did she torment a small little me but her much younger brother who were teenagers thought it was hilarious!!
So of course, I became obsessed with it as an adult.
As someone who was a victim of CSA I think this movie is actually a pretty good depiction of the lasting trauma that comes from that type of abuse. In horror - or any movie really - it's used poorly or even romanticized. I like that they didn't downplay the actual horror and responses each character have to that trauma.
I feel like the reboot ruined the Elm Street reputation because of that change
Edit: so after some comments that basically confirming that yes, Freddy was pdf but not out right saying he was.
He was always one. They never flat out say it
I always just presumed that's what Freddy was meant to have been when he was alive. A serial child r*pist and k*ller.
OP is another superficial Drone...
also, there's no such thing as the concept of 'change'.
@Osc473 it wasn't a change it always was implied from the start was alluded to in small ways., even in the originals. Like the bit with the phone when he says im your boyfriend now nancy and the tongue comes out she's not legal so.
I always just presumed he was. I thought that was the deal with him.
Freddy still maintained the pedophile aspect but it was much more hinted at...look at the scenes in the original...how he cuts open Tinas shirt open while also gashing her chest....and rolling around with her in her bed, or the tongue flicks at nancy, or the the "I'm your boyfriend now" scene where he tried to put his tongue in Nancys mouth...while you may not think anything at first glance..all of those things have some sexual meaning to them..especially with the age of both Tina and Nancy being presumably under 18
Not to mention his pulling Nancy under the water, where we saw some side boob
Yeah as a post-janitorial-diddling survivor myself, there is a strange kind of perfection in Englund’s portrayal. They balanced the many dark parts of an already demonic character with the distinctive wit and charm and humor that only Wes could inject into any project and Englund could bring to life. The remake….I actually had to turn off because it made me feel gross; that iteration of Freddy was some kind of cosmic alternate-universe perv…..like you know that saying “what’s the difference between a freak and a pervert? A freak uses a feather a pervert uses the whole chicken.” Yeah Robert Englund was a master with that feather, Jessie Allen Redneck was entire pollo loco. and he could not have held his own against Jason one bit ijs.
Haley’s Krueger feels more like a physical representation of the horrors of repressed trauma. Where as England’s Krueger feels more like a caricature of a child murderer/a quirky movie monster. The remake’s Krueger is so much closer to a real life perpetrator and that’s what people don’t like about it.
The original definitely implies that he's a pedo, they just couldn't explicitly say it at the time because there was a similar events that just happened in real life and it would be pretty insensitive to the victims. I think our society has a weird relationship with murdering in fiction where we tend to idolize the killers in media even though in the movie or show they're absolutely supposed to be a terrible person. Like sure it's fiction but what they're doing is still not something we should let ourselves be desensitized to. Like obviously I'm not saying pedophilia is better then murder, they're both blatantly disgusting awful things that should both be condemned in every society. I guess the problem is that most people don't really have a grasp of what it's like to have a love one who was murdered but sexual assault is unfortunately extremely common and so there's a big sensitivity toward that sort of thing. If you're a victim of that type of thing I completely understand why you'd be turned off by this version of Freddy but I don't really have a problem with him because he's not supposed to be a character you like or root for, you're so supposed to hate him and want the main characters to stop him from causing more harm
I find modern horror empowers their characters too much. They're too tough. You never get the sense that they're in danger.
I mean kind of its either played up for laughs or alot of reason why it's not scary or interesting
The thing I liked was just Freddy’s acting. They made him scary.
JEH did a great job.
This movie is the dormitabis of the nightmare on elm street series (for those who don’t know Dormitabis is a fnaf fangame that has simler topics too nightmare on elm street 2010 maybe even worse)
Also the fact Wes craven went to Disney to make nightmare on elm street is crazy 💀
Yup… unfortunately in real life child murder and pedophila often go hand in hand…
Yeah, but the creator of that fan game introduced the idea to a series that never suggested nor touch on that topic. Freddy was hinted at and designed to be a .PDFhile. Completely different from that situation.
@@chuckingreaper8654 I wouldn’t say FNAF never touched on it
“They can detect a predator from a mile away”
Plus simply by making William a child murderer they are already kinda implying it since most male child murderers in real life are pdf files
Even crazier? He actually directed a TV movie for them called Casebusters which came out in 1986. ALSO, Disney owned Miramax from 1993 until 2010, meaning that Disney owned the rights for the first 3 Scream films at one point.
@@hazakurasuyama9016 Considering everything we know about william from the games , books and movie , i think it is fair to say that he isn't a pedo , just a child murderer as nothing has ever been even implied that he did anything more besides kill and torture kids because they were easy targets to harvest agony from or to hurt the co owner of his bussiness henry.
Besides , in fnaf 2 , the aninatronics are set up to a criminal database , the predator line means anyone who has a criminal record , like being a suspected murderer.
Look , william afton is a really bad guy , but considering how many awful things we have seen him do and how many awful things we know he has done , it would be very odd if he was a pedo considering there is never a hint of it in his actions. Plus , scott did say in a reddit post that pedophilia has no place in or around the fnaf storyline. Reffering both in universe and out of universe regarding certain theories at the time.
Plus , in real life most child killers aren't trying to harvest the souls of their victims and have secret underground animatronic lairs like william does.
So , overall i think we can confidently say that william isn't a pedo.
EDIT : in fact , we know for certain that the "recognice a predator from a mile away" reffers to criminals in general and not just pdf files. Because in that same phone call , phone guy says to the night guard "we should be paying them to guard you" and "this place is the safest place on earth".
Consideting that the nightguard has full week shifts and is paid i think we can say he is an adult and not a target for child molestors. Also , that phone call was likely prerecorded for other guards as well , due to saying sumner job when it is november. So , yeah.
The 1st guy was right , fnaf has never even hinted that william was a diddler. Freddy krueger on tge other hand... yeah , he did that shit.
Directly addressing such a topic has to be handled with EXTREME care and immaculate writing. This movie not only failed at that, but the tonal shift between old Freddy and new sunk it further.
I don't think anyone who watched the originals with their eyes truly open had any doubts the older one was a diddy. Thing is, the older movies didn't make it the 'star of the show'. It was just kind of there, but left out of focus in favor of what he was doing NOW instead of what he had done before, and only occasionally directly referenced. It also lent something of an interesting question around why Freddy seemed to have not regularly indulged that particular deed after death and becoming a nightmare monster. I took that as the prior acts not having actually been fulfilling for him, but just a tool for use in torture to satisfy his sadism, which, IRL, is not an uncommon situation. Now that he's a nightmare made manifest, he has so many other tools to use to create fear and satisfy his sadism with, so he has far less desire to resort to that particular old tool. Yes, he has his moments throughout, but it never seems to be for the purpose of gratification directly, but more an extension of torture. It's not a goal for it's own sake. The new Freddy? Not so much.
As far as the tonal shift: The feel I got from the old ones was that the sadist had a playground and was enjoying it for all it was worth. While the modern one just kind of seems to be going through motions on a revenge plot.
Exactly.
Both versions of Kruger are diddlers, it's just that one handled it better than the other.
It's fascinating how we've reached a point where child MOLESTING is considered worse than child MURDER. It's like people were just fine with Freddie killing children in horrible, gruesome, sadistic ways, but finding them attractive? That's just sick, man.
Yeah I always thought that was strange. As horrible as sexual assault is, you can learn to live with it (yeah I know it's hard, don't come for me) but you can't with being dead.
@@Zeitgeist6 I'm an SA survivor myself. Weird to think that some people think it would have been better if that guy had killed me. Makes ya think, dunnit?
@@TheComedyGeek I'm not a survivor of it myself, but logic dictates that being dead is worse since you can't get back life in any way :D. So yeah I agree with you 100%
@Zeitgeist6 The Human element and the unfiltered element is different and dividing. One side says "It's horrible and disgusting that he not only kills, but molests kids." And thr other side that says "Well if they're dead then they cant be upset about it". And while I see it, and molestation of any kind is deplorable. And murder, well that speaks for itself. I think for A Nightmare on elm Street it's more "The horror and disgust doesn't just last in real life even as a kid. It lasts in dreams, nightmares. He transcends the idea of "Well if they're dead, then it wouldn't matter." And the horror of being molested and then killed only doubles if you think about it. After being tormented and ended by Freddy Krueger, only to be a soul in eternal torment and never to be at rest. I Think that's the most horrible thing. I think it's trying to show a whole other story about how it doesn't matter what he did specifically, it will always haunt you."
In fiction it is completely different than real life. Everyone knows murder is bad, but no victims of murder can have opinions on horror movies. The closest thing would be stuff like Dahmer retraumatising the families of the victims
The reason people get so uncomfortable with horror movies like Martyrs is because it’s exploitative and audiences are bound to have at least a few victims of assault in theatres. That’s retraumatising them
The difference between those situations and sitting down to watch Scream is the personal connection between the film and audience. That’s why it varies based on the viewer. Most people don’t like watching horror films with pedophilia because it can feel exploitative, doing it only for shock value or to make the audience uncomfortable. Movies that handle it tastefully like the Black Phone are better received
It was pretty obvious freddy was a creep from the start. I always thought he abused the children he killed, considering many movies show him making sexual advances on the teena he hunted.
I think it just hits different when what everyone thinks is actually said aloud.
Fun Fact about the whole Quentin DBD thing. From my understanding they didn't even reach out to Kyle Gallner to properly scan his face for the model and initially he looked weird compared to now.
Yeah, his actor even himself reached to them through Twitter to let them know he's okay with them using his likeness
Sounds like BHVR through and through
I was actually enjoying the 2010 at first. Hell, it looked like Freddy might have actually been innocent. That would have been a great twist. The teaser actually got me excited. I HATE him being a child snuggle struggler.
It would’ve nice if they kept him as a murder at first and then it would made the story a lot more sense
Freddy was always a child diddler.
The remake didn't hold back like the original did. it was implied that Freddy was a P but it couldn't openly say it thanks to real life events during the making if the film. There is a blink and you'll miss it moment in Dreamchild where you see a glimpse at a newspaper article calling him a CM. Wes Craven's New Nightmare was the first real time it openly said Freddy touched a child. with that one line "hahaha I touched him", it did far better job than the remake in my opinion.
One thing we gotta admit is the remake had the balls to do what the original was scared to do
@@thelethalcreator2077 I think it was the Producers's fault.
How could they not understand that changing someone from 'a murderer' to 'a rapist and murderer' changes the dynamic of the character and how the audience views him?
Exactly 💯
He always was tho.. lol. Some people just can't take hints or implications and need to be told outright, otherwise it isn't true.
@@OscarASevillathe first movie had very few to no implications. And almost all of them can be toned down to “well he’s a murderer”
@@AdamSlander888 it was outright confirmed in never sleep again thay he was ALWAYS a rapist
@@AdamSlander888I don’t mean to be rude, but if you genuinely think that then you probably need to rewatch the film. There definitely were more clues. It wasn’t “very few to no implications”. You just lack media awareness
. . .Wasn't Freddy always a Pedo? I mean we aren't suppose to be rooting for Freddy he is the slasher he is the criminal he is the "monster" and last I checked this or these actions are of a monster granted you could say why do it at all? Some writers want strong foundations of hate to make sure you understand that this person is just that an unredeemable monster~!
I guess also if you look deep enough and maybe it's not the intention but there is a bit of poetic irony to Freddy Kruger see...he haunts dreams which you could say is like trauma like a type of PTSD but honestly I'd like to say it's the fact that some monsters we like to believe aren't monster we truly believe they are good which I feel is what they wanted like freddy was a family man the type of guy people TRUSTED~!
Showing that this "nightmare" on Elm Street wasn't just a dream...it was a reality and in a sense him looking the way he does and him being what he is kinda captures that fear of...well that type of stranger...we don't know what they'll do all we know is...they're a monster...IDK maybe I'm grasping at straws but I feel there was a vison there.
This is the Elm Street I've watched the most and I couldn't tell you why. Just came out around the time I was growing up I guess
That isn't an excuse.
@@Gorgutsforcongress Why do I need an excuse?
@Rose_creature I think if they took out the pedo freddy it would be the best Nightmare movie. It's definitely my favorite look for Freddy
@Rose_creature Jackie has always been my Freddy at least in terms of the actor and design.
@@Gorgutsforcongresspeople need excuses for… liking movies?
Note to self: when the original chooses against making the villain a pedo, follow in their footsteps
They just did that cause it was the 80s.
they only refused it because there were several high profile cases at the time and didnt want to be accused of profiting off of them
@@sharkbyte1565 Yeah, cause it was the 80s, that's what I said.
@@TactlessC Even if It wasn't the point still stands
He was one in the original too.
I don't know. Freddy being a molester somehow makes him less... likeable, than a child killer? Idk.
Idk.
You're not supposed to like him
Before the remake my mom told me that Freddy was a child molester. I thought it was well-known this entire time?
I thought this was known too, my mom told me that as well and she told me in the 90's
I remember thinking he was a child molester in the original movies, but I couldn't tell you where I got it from. When people were surprised with the new film, I couldn't understand how people didn't know. I thought it was a well established thing.
Fr, I thought this was well known. I’ve never seen any of these movies but when my friend told me about the character of Freddy, I immediately thought he was a predator.
If I had my way, I'd say Freddy being innocent of all the crimes he was accused of would have been a more interesting take. He took the fall because of mob mentality, and his revenge is kinda justified in a twisted way.
That being said, I will play devil's advocate just a little. Making Freddy a predator doesn't immediately ruin the movie for me, as making him so despicable makes it more satisfying when he is defeated. I honestly feel like you can handle the controversial change in a way that works, you just have to be tactful about how you do it. Horror is the best genre to tackle darker and heavier subject matter.
What also hurts the remake is Rooney Mara has said she didn't care about the role for whatever reason or another, I've heard multiple things, I'm not sure which is true.
You're right. And it showed. Others like Katie Kassidy (no idea if I spelled it right), Kyle Gallner and JEH did a great job in their roles, but Roony Mara did the complete opposite.
I still like the movie, I just wish they would have had Nancy die instead of Kris and have Kris and Quentin as survivors in the end.
Literally made it to the end before realizing this was you lol. So used to only looking for fnaf stuff this is a great video
When I saw the remake, I hated how they changed the parents' reasoning for burning Freddy alive. In the original they had the evidence but the justice system failed them, and given that he was killing children, you almost agreed with their actions. In the remake there are dozens of other actions they could have taken other than killing someone, changed schools, talked to the school to get him fired, called police. Burning someone alive should be the very last thing you try for this sort of problem. That stupid character decision ruined the entire movie for me.
I'll admit the micronap thing in this movie is a cool idea
The very idea that you shut your eyes for a literal second and Freddy can still kill you is terrifying and I wish they'd explored it more
I get why everyone dislikes the remake, but it’s a personal guilty pleasure of mine as well as being the first horror film I saw in theaters.
Nice glasses 4 eyes. You look dumb enough to like this movie.
I think its a mediocre film with some really interesting ideas bogged down by the mishandling of some serious subject matter and odd / bad writing and character choices. I don't like it but it is not the worst one, not that that's a very high bar. Some of those later ones got really rough.
2:05 Yeah, my step-uncle would do the same thing with Chucky from Child's Play. He even blamed a Chucky doll for his semi-truck accident when he was still alive. He said his dog, a small toy breed, Bichon Frise, I think got thrown out of the window or windshield of his semi-truck.
This thumbnail is the funniest thing ever, only tied with that one Fnaf thumbnail with Springtrap that just says "RAPE".
As a survivor of child SA, I always liked Freddy as a character despite the obvious.
Like, yeah, he's a creep. That's part of his charm, so to speak. The whole kid killer/molester thing just worked for me in the original movies because Englund gave Freddy a charismatic personality to go with it.
Most chomos, like my stepdad, have a personality that is likable to make people drop their guards around them - especially their victims and/or potential victims.
The 2010 remake had none of that, and it didn’t feel realistic to me. They drained Freddy of what made him himself, there was no charm or anything that seemed like a man-turned-demonic entity in him; simply just pure evil.
For Michael Myers, that formula works. But for Freddy? Not at all.
Plus, the fact of, well... I can relate to Freddy in terms of his past and nothing else. Like me, Freddy was abused by his stepfather and was bullied harshly by his peers. Where Freddy and I separate is the direction of our lives as adults, which is what I find interesting.
While I got better and recovered from my trauma, Freddy did not. He became the monster that he hated, and because of it, became what he was. Again, the 2010 movie did *none of that.*
This may be some degree of rambling from a young horror fan, but I prefer the wacky and comical aspects of original Freddy who clearly enjoys what he's doing and still manages to be creepy or scary. The 2010 version just made everything that Freddy was into what was basically just a demonic version of Michael Myers and Jason, which doesn’t work at all. Also, the kind of victim blaming mentality the 2010 remake took on just rubbed me the wrong way all and all.
Sorry if none of this makes any sense, I'm just writing my thoughts down randomly.
umm. I am 47 yrs old. Freddy was a pedo. He was always a pedo. That is the reason why they hunted him down and burned him up. He was funny and scary. Robert's portrait was great, because he was sick and a pedo. He loved it, he enjoyed it and rolled into it.
I think people's biggest problem with the film is the fact the Englund didn't play freddy not the pedo thing if that was the case then more people would hate freddy vs jason
What scares me about Freddy is the fact that if you survive and get away from his sphere of influence, that being Elm Street, but if you decide to come back for whatever reason, he'll feel it and start coming after you, triggering your PTSD. Thats what really scares me about him
I do love the mini Dead by Daylight rant at the end. Really hammers down the love for the character enough to actually dedicate time and effort to actually examine a complete separate media from either of the two main sources
I really do love the character and just wish he was better represented both in his own films and in one of my favorite games.
@@dmuted I completely agree there. I still hope eventuality they go back to the original Freddy mechanics in the game. I was never the biggest fan of the character, but he was one of the only horror movie killers to actually terrify me as a kid. I do hope eventuality there comes a day where we get a proper remake that keeps all of what makes the original so good, and some of the original ideas of the 2010 film. And this might just be a personal thing, but I hope Mortal Kombat gets a second chance with Freddy Krueger. His gameplay in MK9 was quite flat and uninspired.
I remember seeing this one for the first time in the theater and declaring that I thought it was better than the original. My friend Robert immediately made me rewatch the original the very next day and I had to recant. The original was better, but that didn't make this one bad. It was certainly better than some of the later entries in the series.
I hear you. I was FIVE when I first saw Nightmare On Elm Street! I watched it with my pops and loved it. However, it must be said that he had to hide the VHS (yes, this was the late 80s) because it freaked me the hell out. Videos even rentals often had covers back then so that was a big part of why. It remains a top favorite for me as Freddy remains one of my all time scariest horror characters. I mean, anything that can reach you in your dreams is terrifying! Robert England is a boss
Back in the day it was always understood, if not outright started that Freedy was a child molester/murderer. As the original horror film morphed into a 'slasher franchise ' his original motivation was gradually downplayed, so from being an nasty evil monster he could become some kind of twisted 'anti-hero', with a quippy oneliner to fit every occasion....
So fun fact about the OG nightmare's ending it was tacked on by a producer i believe Robert Shaye? in order to allow for sequels so that's the reason for that. The ending Craven intend was that Freddy was gone for good, if i'm not mistaken from what i've read he seemed to have wanted nightmare to be a stand alone film but i'm not too overly sure on that fact but for sure ending was tacked on for sequels.
I think one of the reasons I have fond memories of this movie was because the audience I was with and in was very into it. From the beginning sequence in the kitchen they reacted to everything, so it just made it a really fun experience. I remember specifically the opening moment when Dean walked into the Kitchen and it looked dark and dreary. Someone in the audience shouted out "Run, white man!" and the entire audience burst into laughter, and then soon after Freddy's clawed hand appeared and everyone both freaked out and erupted. That set the tone for what was one of my favorite cinema going experiences for a horror movie. While the movie to many people doesn't hold a candle to the original, it will always hold a positive spot for me, because of just how much fun we all had at the theatre when we went to see it.
It was always implied that he was. It was done more in subtext than the blunt way the remake handled it, but it was absolutely always there. I was surprised that they leaned into it as much as they did but I wasn’t shocked by it because I always knew that it was part of the character. And as goofy as Freddy’s Dead is, it actually has some extremely dark themes and scenes which get really close to outright saying it. Especially in the ways he mocks a female character who suffered that from her father. And the fact that the movie as a whole deals with his own daughter who has repressed memories, well… it’s not too hard to read between the lines.
The movie that stuck with me was Silence of the Lambs. (Probably explains why one of my favorite shows and piece of media of all time is the Hannibal (nbc 2013 - 2015) series. Another movie that scarred me was scream, as I walked in on the garage doggy door scene as a 6 year old, and was scared of garage doors for a while. Though, a show that affected me at a young age was Dexter; walked in on an episode my parents were watching, stuck with me. All these pieces, along with Until Dawn being one of my favorite games ever, probably explain my career path of being a forensic medical examiner when I graduate, but also my humor and enjoying certain forms of horror.
You should check out the Hannibal lecter books!
@@sleepysadpoet I actually have read them. I personally didn’t enjoy Hannibal Rising, but the others were good, Red Dragon was my favorite. I still enjoy the show more, which is the only time I will say that I enjoy a show/movie over the original book(s). But thanks for the recommendation.
@@AlexCorporationsI wasn't a big fan of rising either, it was weird. I wasn't sure if you'd read them so I thought I'd ask if you read them. I devoured the whole series in the span of like a week and a half.
I haven't seen the show bc I don't have the streaming services it's on
@@sleepysadpoet I know Roku, Prime (for free if you use ads), and a few others have it. I personally ended up enjoying it more than the movies. Love SOTL, but Mads playing Lecter like a fallen angel alone until he finds someone to connect with, and doing heinous things to create that bond, is great. With Hugh Dancy playing Will Graham in such a haunted yet torn performance, showing that all of us have the capacity for darkness, as great acts of cruelty require a high degree of empathy, it really shows an interpretation that transcends both the books and films in a way that is so darkly beautiful. I highly recommend that if you get the chance, you watch it (especially the second half of season 2 and season 3).
Sorry for rambling, but it’s one of my main media based hyperfixations, and I can’t recommend it enough.
I remember from cinema sins that the ambiguity of Freddy being a child molester in his court case added a unique element to the remake, whether Freddy was legitimately a predator or an innocent man that was unjustly burned to death. If the final shot didn’t confirm he was a predator but had something else that was more disturbing, like pictures of dead animals or tombstones with a picture of the deceased attached, would’ve added another layer of mystery to the character.
They just highlighted what was implied in the originals. 2010 remake was awesome. Jakie was awesome.
JEH did a great job with what he had. That lil finger wiggle with the blades was cool.
As someone who watched both versions, I still think the 2010 version is scarier. Yeah, the writing isn't that great in alot of areas, but it does do one thing that a horror movie does effectively: scare you to death. The original version is good, but it doesn't scare me. Being hunted by someone looking for my life alone isn't enough. But, being hunted by someone looking for my life in retaliation is another thing entirely. The 2010 version of Freddy had been a monster before he got his powers. He physically and psychologically tormented children and hunted them down in retaliation. That scares me, having to experience such torment and as a result you find help from those that care about you. But when the help and protection you've gotten isn't enough to protect you from the retaliation of the one who hurt you, that's incredibly scary to me. It's too bad the rest of the movie outside the concept is clunky and strange, this movie was remade by Micheal Bay after all.
This is confusing. You don't want the bad guy to be a really bad guy because it feels bad? You would prefer the bad guy to do bad things but be innocent of a crime? That's silly.
I thought i was the only one who thought this. His points left me confused. On top of that why is the act of murder taken so lightly next to SA?
I get what he's saying, when it comes to slasher villains you want them to be evil, but likeable in a way, almost to the point you're cheering them on. Ain't no one doing that with a pedophile
@@ZIZZOBLIZZbecause people are biased and consider murder to not be a "realistic" crime
This Reboot had Potential but in the end it fell apart that didn’t capture the Heart and Soul of the Original.
This!
I didn't really care for the idea of him being a P*do. It didn't add anything to the story, nothing is really done with it, they should have just left him as a killer thats all he really needed to be.
Honestly i wish they'd implemented the cut sub-plot where it turned out the kids lied about Freddy.
Or better yet, what if someone's kid (maybe Nancy had an older brother/sister) was killed but it wasn't Freddy who did it, but because he's the typical 'creepy janitor' the parents instantly single him out.
Then like in the original because there was no proof it was him he gets released, the parents not wanting to accept the murderer was still out there would still kill him.
Then Freddy being understandably pissed would target their children for real as revenge. It would also somewhat justify Freddy's targetting the kids too because then its not even really about them it's about hurting their parents for what they did to him.
They could even try and find the real killer, but maybe leave it unanswered for a later sequal if they'd got one. Or heck the killer could have even just been a random drifter who is never caught because that happens in real life sometimes.
This would make it different enough from the original that it can justify existing, and there's zero need for him to be p*do on top of being a child killer...i mean for goodness sake what is it with horror directors/writers and trying to make every horror villain into a p*do when them just being a killer is plenty motivation to want to stop them.
The funny thing - I did see a Nightmare-inspired tabletop scenario called Tapestry of Suburbia that played around with the idea of the Freddy being the innocent and it was someone else entirely.
Interesting Twist: the real creep is inspired by the sadistic coach of Nightmare on Elm Street 2.
Here's my 2 cents:
The reason why it went wrong is not because of the whole "child killer/molestor/predator" angle. I've always seen Freddy that way, even in the old movies. My problem is the movie itself. WHY did it need to be made in the first place? What was the reason for remaking it? Did it serve any purpose? To me, it didn't. It came across as a cash grab with the possible hint of renewed interest in the franchise despite the filmmaker's best intentions.
I've seen it but it's fine, like the remake of Friday The 13th. It's fine on its own but it brings nothing new. Even though some people didn't like Jackie's portrayal (and only disliked the movie because of that just like how people didn't like Halloween 3 only because Michael Myers wasn't in it, and they wanted Robert Englund, not Jackie Earle Haley), I personally thought it was fine. That's this entire movie in a nutshell to me.
It's fine. (Shrugs shoulders)
In the remake, I think Freddy should've been innocent, that would've been an interesting twist.
Who do you think should've been the killer instead? Just interested to know
@thelethalcreator2077 the parents who killed Freddy. By killing an innocent man they created a demon that actually does hurt their children.
Hi there! I'm both a Quentin main and someone who's put WAY too much energy and effort into the character as a character, so I want to touch on a few things:
Firstly, Quentin is the best. Secretly, as a twist, he was the main character. He was in the credits over Nancy, but under Freddy. Secondly, you did hit the point about his patience and the fact that he's basically a rabid little monster when it comes to protecting the people he cares about. He's very much an altruist when it comes to them, and no more apparent is that than the DBD canon additions they gave him. His story addition was essentially: When he figured out that bringing Freddy out didn't kill him, he resolved to solo Freddy in the Dream World, and tricked him into setting himself on fire. When _that_ didn't work, Quentin was so wildly furious and angry and just wanted to wreck Freddy's shit that he accidentally got the attention of the Entity, which trapped him and Freddy in the Fog.
Which means he won. He "beat" Freddy by making him unable to kill anyone else in the real world. Which, honestly, pretty solid overall.
Lastly: Yeah, Quentin was kind of the impetus throughout the entire movie. He saved Nancy repeatedly, fought Freddy whenever he was able, figured out about the micronaps, kept trying to help Nancy stay awake even at the cost of his own sanity, etc. Quentin's just. Excellent. It sucks they didn't take Kyle Gallner up on his offer to just use his face when he gave them permission.
The show Freddy’s nightmares references that Freddy did molest his child victims before killing them
You mean the show that came out 4 years after the movie did? The show that also has a 38% on rotten tomatoes?
@@AdamSlander888 yes it was the episode where Freddy was after people who graduated high school with him during the class reunion one of them mentions it
@@charliecox8016 so something that happened way after the first movie now has to do with the first movie? Plus I ain’t watching that show. Literally will never watch it. NOES 4 was bad and that’s even worse
@@AdamSlander888 not telling you to watch it just saying it was referenced
@@charliecox8016 it was referenced in a tv show4 years after the original movie came out. That does not automatically mean canon. Let’s not forget Freddy was retconned to have a kid.
A lot of people complained about Haley, but I also think he did a good job, he just had a bad script to work with. Rooney Mara said she hated working in horror, and it showed. She did do a good in the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake though.
Update: Blumhouse and New Line Cinema, along with James Wan is doing something in 2026, maybe it's a new Freddy movie? Fingers crossed.
I remember a trailer or promo for one of the later films where Freddy looks into the camera and says: "If I catch ya sleeping, you'll wake up dead." If MySpace had been a thing in those days, that would have made a great quote for his page. 🤣 😂
Dude excellent video. It made me want a new Nightmare movie so bad. Btw f*cking EXCELLENT use of the Ferenia theme. I always get excited when I notice anything Metroid related.
MINOR/MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE ORIGINAL FILMS IN MY COMMENT
I always vibed more with it being implied more than outright stated like you could always tell Freddy had something about him in the og films with how he spoke/acted towards Nancy in 1.
In the second film I subscribe heavily to the idea that a lot of what Freddy does in that film is related to Jesse experiencing an awakening to his own sexuality to which Freddy(who is already being massively intrusive on something intimate like this) influences him to give into impulsive/extremely violent sexual thoughts while he wears the glove, but the only time Jesse himself holds back is during when he goes near his younger sister (who Freddy has been putting his own focus towards) and spares her.
Now with Dream Warriors and the other films with how often he'd put himself in situations where he'd make himself attractive in various ways to get what he wants from the kids which is a very common tactic for child predators to do.
Freddy vs Jason speaks for itself.