MovieChat Forums > A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Discussion > Why this didn't work

Why this didn't work

posted 10 years ago by cwamne_h
18 replies | jump to latest

1. We don't need another Nightmare on Elm Street.
2. They made Freddy look way too fake and not scary. What was wrong with the traditional Freddy?
3. They made Freddy a pedophile. This Freddy is more violent criminal/rapists than crazy serial killer. Freddy's passion is in killing, not raping. Freddy has always love killing and the point is that death made him even powerful. This route makes him all revenge.

With new advances in technology, a new Freddy movie can be better, but it has to be done right. I liked how it was directed and the sound etc. but the direction was bad. Robert Englund has said that younger generations would wanna see a newer Freddy, I think there can be both. He said he wouldn't be able to do a lot of the stunts, but the physical part of Freddy in that regard doesn't make him. Its more his voice, humor, and mannerisms like his walk and how he gestures his claws. If I was in charge of a Freddy film, I'd consult Wes Craven and bring back Englund with someone to do his stunts. The favorite Freddy films are usually New Nightmare, the 1st, and Dream Warriors. 2 of those were directed by Wes Craven and one was written by him, so even a little advice from Wes would help.

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

you need to do research because the Pedophile aspect was an homage to the original script of the original movie. Craven thought there was nothing more frightening than a child rapist

but decided to go with simply a child killer because there was a child rape case going on. so he thought it would be more respectful to change it.

[–] cwamne_h 10 years ago

Yeah he did but he said it was the worst idea. Making him a child rapist killed how Freddy was played. In the movies he kinda has that element but his center joy is killing, not raping. But even in the films that element never gave the sense of child rapist. It was always about revenge but Freddy also gets a great kick out of killing, which is why every now and then he kills adults too. So Freddy's whole time is killing. Adding child rapist trues it into a revenge film, which would have ended the franchise early.

[–] Foxbarking 10 years ago

I agree that the child molester aspect hurt this movie. And yes, I know that was Craven's original intent but since it never became realty in the original movie, it's safe to say that it was a bad idea. The key to good horror is to try and scare and make the viewer uncomfortable but not so uncomfortable that they don't want to watch the movie. It's difficult for people to watch anything involved with child molestation.

Also Freddy has always had a crossover appeal between antagonist and someone viewers can root for. Viewers often cheer for horror movie villains. Child molester Freddy effectively ostracized the portion of the audience that normally would be behind him.

As far as casting, Robert Englund had been Freddy Krueger for 25 years. It's not like Dracula where many actors were known in a short, amount of time for playing him.

[–] michaeluk26 10 years ago

Its amazing how some people have a problem with Freddy being a pedophile in this film when he has been a pedo since the beginning, but have absolutely no problem rooting for him knowing he is a child murderer. Hilarious really. Like its OK to kill children, but drawing a line at raping them.

Haters gonna hate

[–] Foxbarking 9 years ago

Its amazing how some people have a problem with Freddy being a pedophile in this film when he has been a pedo since the beginning

No, he wasn't. Yes, Craven conceived the character as a pedophile but he was not portrayed as such in the film from the beginning.

Like its OK to kill children, but drawing a line at raping them.

That I can agree with. It's silly to like him as a murderer but dislike him as a child molester.

Just for the record, my post was not reflecting my opinion of the movie. That aspect didn't bother me but I was saying that I could see why it bothered others.

[–] Martha_Samara_Saxon 10 years ago

I have always seen him as child molester/rapist. Always. Even watching the first movie alone where he sticks his tongue in Nancy's mouth and had his hand between her bare thighs. No to mention all the other girls he kissed over the course of the years. Freddy vs Jason is a newer movie, so maybe it doesn't count to some as the classic freddy but I count it and there was plenty in there. 'He likes children especially little girls'. Also the scene in this movie where he was lifting up Nancy's dress is very similar to that when he's doing it to Lori in freddy vs Jason. I just don't see the difference of what he did in this movie ad what h did in the previous. Since the start of it all, he was a pervert. That hasn't changed.

Also I can say that as a woman, it makes it more petrifying. It has a more sickening twist to the story with this aspect added on, but that's what makes it frightening.

I'm a Timelord.
Right, not pompous at all then.

[–] cwamne_h 10 years ago

I agree completely and I thought so too with Freddy vs. Jason, but child molester doesn't fit. That would mean he would have no attraction likely to the teens. Freddy is just a sick individual with no limits, he loved killing children and now he loves killing teens. It makes more sense to just do with teens and not include a child molester back story.

The remake was a bad portrayal of Freddy because they made his primary thing rape and then revenge. It makes no sense to go he's child molester and then go he's into teens too. It makes more sense to say he likes killing kids, he came back for revenge and loves killing. He terrifies in every way and that includes his sexual molestation theme, it just shouldn't geared at kids, because it would take that away because he kills teens in the movie.

[–] Martha_Samara_Saxon 10 years ago

Thank you for agreeing. As for the child molester, everyone uses this term so loosely that its been convoluted so I'll just state it outright instead of using terms. I saw Freddy as a character that used sexual actions as weapons.

He used these actions on very young girls[children] and teenage girls alike. I can't say that I remember anything concrete about him touching little girls in the first movies. It was more that it was implied and you had to connect the dots to come to this conclusion. We know that Freddy took children to his basement and killed them and tortured them and then he flirted with Nancy, so if you can connect those two dots you come to the conclusion he was doing stuff to the little girls he took to his basement too, but it is not concrete evidence.

However, Freddy vs Jason pretty much set it in stone that he did that to little children girls as well.

I agree Freddy is sick and has no limits and that's what makes him absolutely petrifying. He's still one of the best if not the best horror movie villain I've ever seen.

I don't think that's necessarily true. He could use sexual acts as a weapon on young girls and teenage girls both, just as long as he has the power in the situation. However, I do agree it doesn't make sense h went back and forth from being a child killer to only going after teens. I never really thought about that. As for the remake, while it had it moments, overall it wasn't very good and didn't make a lot of sense to me. Freddy was the victim in all of it, but then he turns into a killer and rapist when coming back for revenge. I don't know. The movies before it made a lot more sense to me. But yes, they did play more on the rapist/molester thing in the newest one. They didn't coat it like these movies did, they spoonfed it to you in comparison to the previous films. However, I didn't have a problem with that aspect as I've never seen him any differently, but I can understand why other people would.

I'm a Timelord.
Right, not pompous at all then.

[–] cwamne_h 10 years ago

Its hard to really say, Wes Craven originally thought that and he changed it, he did say it was the worse idea. It is implied, but at the same time he's doing those things with teens, so it could just be because they are teens now. In the movies they never say he was child rapists and killer. I think Craven took the right route. What drives Freddy is killing and being sadistic. So the sexual thing is one of those sadistic things.

Freddy came back for revenge, but he always loved killing. Occasionally he kills adults, his thing was kids mainly, and when he came back, he got a kick out of teens. The center focus is killing, I think it makes more sense doing it that way. The sexual part is just more so something that is probably there to show his personality of being sadistic. Just like his comedy tone and when he curses, its there to show that he has no limit. His whole thing is having his fun with them, it doesn't mean he rapes them completely, more like fondling and stuff. It can be up for debate though, but its more only based on Craven's original thought. I think it makes more sense that he's just a sadistic killer than, also saying he's a rapist. It doesn't make sense to go he's a child rapist that now rapes teens. I could be wrong, I just think the 1st Elm Street was right.

I think the rapist aspect killed how Jacky Haley approached playing him. Either that or he was just trying very hard to do something much different from Robert Englund's portrayal. And again, the 1st Elm Street is still very good, so no need for a remake yet. I think there should be more Freddy films. With advances in film, a very good Freddy film can be made with a good story and Freddy played right. Also the design, this Freddy looked unscary. I think they should use Robert, but he will need someone to do his stunts. Or maybe even have him just do the voice of Freddy and have someone else doing all the physical stuff. The physical stuff and the makeup is why he would turn it down, from what he said in a interview.

[–] Martha_Samara_Saxon 10 years ago

I agree there should be more Freddy movies and that this design was not scary. I tried to get into it, but I couldn't. It just looked really fake and unconvincing which is odd because you figured the make up would be better now a days the it was back then. It wasn't perfect back then either, but it looked more real than this version. Actually I came to this board to see if any more NOES movies were on there way, but I don't see anything like that which is a shame. This is one of my favorite horrors, so I really hope they start making more. I also wish it was Robert but I think he made his peace with moving on which is disappointing. I agree with you there too if someone just did the psychical stuff and he could do the rest then it would work out. I really wish he'd come back but I don't see anyway we can make that happen.

I'm a Timelord.
Right, not pompous at all then.

[–] cwamne_h 10 years ago

When asked about it, I think he was most concerned with the stunts and makeup. I think he truly just wants the character to be played well. The guy who played Jesse in Elm st. 2 said he feels that the Freddy movies are just about done most likely. People say it won't happen anytime soon. If I was in charge and as a non fan, I would love forward. Compared to many other horror films, the remake made a good bit of money. 115 million is pretty good, stuff like Saw and Paranormal Activity bring in more though, but this was more like Lady in Black money, which is getting a sequel. Not to mention if they do a good Freddy film, it probably will make really good money. The 1st Insidious only made 97 million and then over 160 million in the sequel, so I think making a new Freddy makes sense money wise. I think Freddy can reach a new audience if its made right. It probably would have made more money if it was good, word of mouth kills movies, kinda like Batman and Robin, it started out well but dropped, clearly because people were saying how bad it is.

I think all the technical stuff in this was right but Freddy was just made unscary. I think if a really scary Freddy is made, then people will come to see it, plus anything with a big name, will likely make money. Which is why the new Jason and Halloween made money, the last Halloween underperformed because the previous one was bad. So if a new Freddy is distanced from the reboot, it stands a chance. I think I would consult with Wes Craven, maybe have him produce and write the story. I'm not sure if Craven is still great or not, but he may have some good ideas. I did not like New Nightmare but many fans love it, but Dream Warriors he wrote and of course he wrote and directed the original, those are the absolute best.

The issue too is that horror is now stuff like Paranormal Activity. But there is still a market for stuff like this though and if its really scary it for sure will. For me, Freddy doesn't really scare me but its more putting myself in the person's shoes. I think there should be more surprise added to it. And just make sure his kills are gruesome at times. The story would be the hard part. I think I would follow Freddy vs. Jason, but just in the sense that Freddy is alive. In that film Freddy has his fear back, but the issue is that here has been a long over a decade gap, so maybe he's weak again. Or have him enter the real world briefly to do the work himself, kinda like Elm street 2 or throw someone else's mind like Jesse or Alice, even though they are old, but they could have teens now. Jesse isn't for sure alive but he isn't completely dead either, Alice is definitely still alive. Or maybe have someone find out about the story of Freddy and then he is brought back. A lot of ways to go, I think I would try something different to keep it fresh.

[–] NickiDrea 8 years ago

There is very little difference between a child rapist and a child molester.

Your comments about the sexual aspects of his child killings shows a basic lack of knowledge about sex offenders. That's not intended as a insult, merely an observation.

That hexagon-face bitch, she's so passive-aggressive.

[–] Oldguy69 10 years ago

One of the many things the original did so very well was using small clues regarding the nature of Freddy instead of being explicit. There are many hints of rape and child molestation in the movie but while watching it you're not really aware. But still you feel that extra bit of discomfort because the movie taps into some of the worst things you can think of.

Often you will find that this specific way of playing with what we are afraid of is used in most of the greatest horror movies.

[–] generationofswine 10 years ago

It didn't work because it lacked all of the surreal humor & even the over-saturated colors of the first film.

Sort of the reason why the new Evil Dead didn't work.

When you take a horror movie that was good because of the humor, & then remove the humor,you've just made a movie that doesn't work.

Everyone loved the first movie because it made them laugh while it frightened them, not because it frightened them.

[–] michaeluk26 10 years ago

The original had very little to no laughs. Freddy was written as pure evil. Wes Craven was disgusted, and a little bit concerned, that New Line turned Freddy, a child molester and murderer, into someone the audience cheered for.

Really the only one liner was " I'm your boyfriend now Nancy" in the original. The things like cutting off his fingers and laughing maniacally while taunting his victims was scary.

Haters gonna hate

[–] generationofswine 9 years ago

The Child Molester thing didn't happen until well after the Original was released.

[–] justinpushplay-530-85387 10 years ago

What's wrong with film above all else is the writing, acting and pacing. All three kids get together at the funeral 8 minutes in are already aknowleding the existance of something supernatural. The original reaches that point about 30 minutes in. The writing is horrific, the casting of mid 20 something's to play teenagers is laughable and the performances... Just watch Nancy's reading of "you have no idea what I've seen" and it's a fairly accurate representation of the rest of the casts' skills in the film.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]