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."

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 feel like him being a pedo was implied in Freddy v Jason

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...

Freddy was already a pervert in the original version of him

Freddy has always been a diddler, but they never really outright said it until dream child when in a newspaper they straight up call him one. Nancy mom also calls him a "flithy child murderer" with some people interpreting as her implying he is one. Point is OG Freddy was both whole Remake was only a diddler but became a killer afterwards which doesnt translate well to me.

The idea of Freddy Krueger liking kids a little too much is older than most people know.

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…

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you name a serial child killer that didn't mess with the children?

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"

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.

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.

If you ask me, not all diddlers are child killers but all child killers are diddlers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 🤷

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?

Hasnt freddy been a creep the whole time?

The true horror is that you had to play as freddy for footage

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.

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.

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.

I always took it that Freddy was a kiddie diddler in the original series.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

Fun fact: Rooney Mara (Nancy) hated being in this movie so much that She almost quit acting all together.

Before the remake my mom told me that Freddy was a child molester. I thought it was well-known this entire time?

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.

I find modern horror empowers their characters too much. They're too tough. You never get the sense that they're in danger.

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.

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

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.

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.

The thing I liked was just Freddy’s acting. They made him scary.

. . .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.

As a survivor of csa, I've always viewed Freddy as a diddler. To the point where he took the place as an agressor in my nightmares, to the point where I would try to stay awake to keep from havjng these specific nightmares. Not to mention the fixation I had on the character as a kid (projected a LOT of stuff that i didnt realize counted as trauma). It was always there for me, so it confused me why everyone else was shocked when the remake stated it bluntly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

Freddy was always a sex predator. It's such obvious subtext.

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 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

Note to self: when the original chooses against making the villain a pedo, follow in their footsteps

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

why are people surprised? He was always very clearly a child toucher..

They just highlighted what was implied in the originals. 2010 remake was awesome. Jakie was awesome.

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

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.

This Reboot had Potential but in the end it fell apart that didn’t capture the Heart and Soul of the Original.

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.

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 💀

I mean to be fair he was always meant to be a kiddie diddler but they never said it out loud

In the remake, I think Freddy should've been innocent, that would've been an interesting twist.

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

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)

Having Freddy be innocent could have been an interesting change

I actually didn't know Freddy wasn't a pedo in the original series. I always thought "child murderer" was pretty much code for that.

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.

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.

There's several moments in the original film and in 2 that make me think that Fred Krueger was absolutely a pedophile and creep. The one thing that always stuck out to me was Freddy Krueger's tongue thing, as well as the way that he just breathes in the first few dream sequences. Flicking his tongue quickly at Nancy in the school dream, or his tongue being the phone receiver, or the way that sexuality was a big motivator in how Jesse in 2 made Freddy "come out"? All these give a really sexual aspect to the character. It was more implied through cues than outright stated though. That's the problem I think people had. That the 2010 Nightmare on Elm Street took Freddy Krueger's character trait of *being a creep* and put it front and center instead of him being a child killer *who also happened to be a creep*. Personally, I think that both interpretations have their place, and, frankly, I will always prefer Freddy Krueger being uncomfortable to watch than some sort of antihero that people support. Same goes for wanting Michael Myers being a stalker that kills without rhyme or reason. The point is that it *is* scary in a very real way. It's fiction, yeah, but it's fiction meant to make you uncomfortable or scared.

I'm a freddy fan I watched it since a kid was never scared lol I watched late at night and never got bored honestly Robert owns that character and no one can replace that it will never be nightmare on elm street without him it feels like another horror movie 😢elm street 1 will always be the best nothing can beat that

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.

In the og script of the original nightmare on elm street was a pedophile, but craven had to change it. Also fun fact. When filming a nightmare 2 they didn’t want to pay Englund so they put a nobody in a rubber mask, they realized they should just pay him and Freddy got his pay and was back in.

I know that it was never strictly stated in the first movie, but I've never thought that Freddy was anything other than a child molester and murderer. Generally speaking, there is a correlation that indicates that serial child murders often have a sexual component. I don't think that Freddy as a child molester is necessarily "just for shock value". Freddy is evil. He's a true human monster. I don't get why people have such a hard time with evil people doing evil things these days. Freddy is enjoyable as a bit of a clown in the original series, but that's not what he was supposed to be, we weren't supposed to identify with him and love him as a hero. He's not a hero. It's ok to hate him and be offended by what he does, that's the point. He's evil. Interestingly, I think we are more accepting these days of vile personality traits and actions from our heroes than we are from our villains, but that's a discussion for another day. The problem I personally have with the new Freddy is, to me, he feels LESS sinister because he's not acting like a clown. There's something to be said about someone who is a child molester, a murderer and a dream demon, who treats the whole thing like he's in a cartoon. It's the reason why the Joker is still one of the greatest villains of all time, there's a reason Judge Doom is so terrifying in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and there's a reason why Stanley Ipkiss is so powerful as The Mask, compared to anyone else who wears it. Cartoon logic in a real world scenario is ridiculously powerful, uncanny and terrifying. Freddy being a cartoon in an otherwise realistic scenario, hit's a certain level of unsettling "wrong" in our brains as they struggle to comprehend what we're looking at, and it makes him feel unstoppable. The new Freddy is just too realistic, and the way he's killed is pathetic. In some respects he does feel more threatening, in a very real way, but he doesn't feel like he's unstoppable, or truly inhuman like original Freddy. You can tell he's enjoying the hunt, but original Freddy is gleeful, giddy and it's clear he loves what he's doing. He wants to flaunt it - that alone gives a sense of unshakable confidence in his own prowess that just can't be matched by cool, calm and calculated. Bringing up the Joker comparison again, it's the reason why he still works after all this time, and the reason why he works so well against Batman. Like Batman and the Joker, the two Freddy's are almost mirror opposites, and you can't flip a dynamic like that and hope to keep the feel of the movie intact.

Freddy was a child predator and rapist in the first movie, that was his ENTIRE BACKSTORY. That’s why the parents killed him!!!! Everyone saying ‘he looks like a paedophile in the remake!’ Yes. And that is why the remake is amazing….because that’s WHAT HE WAS!!!

New Nightmare did the "Freddy is scary again" thing way better than the remake.

The show Freddy’s nightmares references that Freddy did molest his child victims before killing them

to be honest its crazy that this version got so much hate, it was surprisingly good and growing up with the whole campy Freddy it was a nice relief to see this darker version, it actually made me root for the victims more and kept me on edge so much!

I think a big element of the original film that you didn't cover here is the concept of the "Sins of the father are repaid upon the son." The Nightmare on Elm Street films feature parents who are distant, whose past actions are coming back to harm their children, and they don't seem to notice or care. In a lot of ways, this dynamic helped cement the horror into the themes of the 80s, which...has aged better, considering the political decisions made during the 80s and their continued impact on the modern day.

I will say Jackie earle Haley wasn’t the reason the nightmare remake was bad he’s a great actor and killed it and the remake just didn’t feel right in a few ways personally my favorite is the Texas chainsaw massacre remake it’s just worked and worked well

Horror movie fans when children get killed :DDDDDDDDDD Horror movie fans when children get assaulted :(((((((((

The first A Nightmare on Elm Street I ever saw was the remake and it is to this day my favorite of the series. I really, really like Freddy’s looks, voice and demeanor in this movie, he’s just so intimidating and feels like a genuine threat to the characters. I can’t say I’m a fan of him being a pdf in this movie, but it does make him way, way more horrific as an antagonist. You want to see the teens win, you want to see them overcome their fear, past trauma and take down this monster. I completely understand why most people don’t like this movie, especially fans of the original films but I do think this movie is overly hated and I would’ve loved to see a sequel to this remake.

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.

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.

20:50 Since we're talking about Microsleeps, has anyone here ever been so tired, that whilst you're trying to go to sleep. (like actual, sleep-sleep, calling it a night, hitting the hay, catching some Z's whatever you wanna call it) You suddenly go into a microsleep and wake up about 3 minutes later, and then as a result of that you have trouble getting to sleep? Shit sucks man.

My first memory is walking into a room, sitting down with my father, and watching the boiler room scene in the first movie. I was raised on horror movies so they don’t bother me, but that’s my story.

It is assumed Freddy is a pedo in the original and it didn’t affect the movie because Robert englund was amazing. Jackie shit the bed with his performance, his walk, his voice, and then the makeup was dumb. That’s all that. No need to try and make up other reasons 😂

wth? him being a ped-0 is what makes it even more creepy and sinister. this is a horror movie after all. I really like this version its a little more grounded and not just silly cheesy murder spree's.

A big part of why it failed to me is that Freddy doesn’t seem like he’s having fun. In the dream world Freddy is borderline omnipotent and he loves to play with his food, to terrify his victims but 2010 Freddy just doesn’t seem to be having fun

What went wrong was the fact that they made it in the first place . I am sick of all of these " reimaginings " or " reboots " . Every one of them suck . Todays " entertainment " writers have absolutely no imagination , so they take a classic , profitable , beloved movie and butcher it to suit " modern " audiences and make a multimillion dollar bomb that nobody wants to watch. And in the process they ruin the original for future generations .

I would argue that Freddy was always implied to be a pedophile, but that was the kind of topic you couldn't show onscreen back then. If you go back and watch the old movies, there's something predatory and sexual about how Freddy approaches his victims, especially in the first and second movie.