Forums Horror Movie Talk
If Only Freddy Krueger Wasn't a Child Molester - Editorial Piece

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. It has everything a genre fan could want. A sadistic badass who spews venom and one-liners the likes we had never seen, knives for fingers and terror inducing dreams. What more could a fan ask for? Wes Craven got it right and Robert Englund portraying the "Dream Demon" would prove, not just the world of horror, but to mainstream fans that horror was alive and relevant.

In 2010 the world witnessed the rebirth of Freddy in remake form and yes, I am a fan of the film. After a recent rematch of the remake my old feelings came back and a subject that bothered me then came flooding back. It still doesn't sour me on the film again I am a fan and I take nothing away from Robert Englund or the original 1984 veron but I actually enjoyed seeing Freddy Krueger back in action. Call me crazy (and I am) but the remake didn't kill the original. Was it perfect? Of course not. Replicating anything or playing "catch up" will usually result in nothing more than a comparison to the original. Although some remakes do break this mold, it doesn't happen often and generally when something is so ingrained into the culture, such as Freddy, it likely never will.

My complaint with the remake lies in one major plot point. One that Wes Craven originally scripted but because of the era decided not to dive into, child molestation. I can't say I blame Wes one bit. It is a tough topic to deal with even at this day in age when films like Human Centipede are accepted. While Wes decided to leave Freddy's background more of a mystery the remake took the child molestation topic head on. It wasn't a secret that Freddy was "touching children" in 1984 but it wasn't shoved down our throats.

The 2010 remake brings this topic to the forefront and I to this day still have no problem with the subject. It makes you realize just how ck Freddy's mind truly was. But what if the remake went with the same exact storyline only throwing a curveball to fans? This is where I get to the title of this piece. What if Freddy Krueger wasn't a child molester?

What if he was mply wrongly accused and that was the drive that led him to return to "Elm Street"? This is a plot point that I was praying the remake would throw at us and one that to this day still bothers me. It is a "what could have been" type feeling for me. Having the doubt that he actually committed these horrible acts would have caused both sympathy for the character and a drive I think us fans would have really got behind.

Regardless the film is in the can and there is no going back but I will always wonder "what could have been". Remakes in my opinion should build off the original films, not trying to replicate them exactly, and cause fans to rethink things about a movie that they are so pasonate about.

You can throw all of the CGI issues, bad acting and lack of Robert Englund out the window. The first film was by no means perfect and neither was the remake. I also have nothing but respect for fans that mply hate the film, I get it. But I think things may have shaken out a bit differently if the film makers would have allowed the story to evolve and actually make Freddy somewhat of a victim. Am I on a raft out here on the ocean by myself? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

A friend and I actually watched the remake for the first time recently, this thought also popped into our heads. But quickly, we both realized, although it would be an interesting twist, and at one point, the film tricked us into believing that was actually the case, it would take all of the evil away from the character.

He wouldn't be the evil incarnate he is, instead he would be more of a revenge driven villainous anti-hero who's entire existence is to just enact revenge on the parents that murdered him. No more demonic serial killer, just an angry spirit given the chance to get back at everyone.

In my opinion, that's why it wouldn't work, and that's why it wouldn't be able to be stretched out for more than one film. He get's his revenge. Then what? He likes it so much he keeps going?

Sure that could work, but is that as satisfying as what he already is?

I remember seeing the remake last year in the theater..I enjoyed it the first time I saw it..But, the 2nd time I watched it, on Comcast On Demand, I was really bored..And that is one of the ways I know I really like a movie, if I can watch it many times and still enjoy it, And I can watch the oringinal over and over and never get ck of it.And the idea of tting through the remake again bores the shit out of me. I actually can't believe people bitch about H2 on here so much, because in my opinion, it is clearly better than the NOES remake, and Zombie didn't omit a detail about Micheal Meyers that made him scary..But the makers of the NOES remake did. In the original, Freddy was a child killer..Not just a little pussy child molester.

Yeah, it was implied in the original that he was a pervert, like in the Scene where Nancy picked up the phone and she heard Freddy's voice say " I'm your boyfriend now" and his tongue came out of the phone.

It wasn't really stated in the orginal films, but you kind of had to know that Freddy had a sexual interest in his victims. And I think that subtext, in addition to the way the real Freddy liked to psycologically toy with his victims and laugh about it, made him really scary.

I am sorry, but the remake was just weak compared to the original..Yeah, talking a lot about Freddy being a child molester might make the movie more shocking to some people, but really, the idea of someone who not only wants to molest children, but also kill them is a lot scarier..The original movies were all also scarier, because the remake implied that Freddy just wanted revenge against the people who killed him, but in the original films, it seemed more like he wanted to come back and keep killing teenagers in their dreams because he fucking loves doing it. And that means he will go after anybody, not just the children of the people who killed him.

You both make great points however Moon I have to disagree on Zombie's H2, I still find no entertainment out of that movie although I am a fan of Zombie's films and his original re-imagining of Halloween.

Xemobiz I completely see where you're coming from making Freddy into some sort of wrongly accused person that wouldn't led to what we know as Freddy Krueger but I think it could be done both ways. If you have the movie swerve and you find out he really wasn't a molester I still think you can have the "dream demon" we all know and love. It is just for different reasons. Fans would back him even more and it would create a whole new layer to the series.

That is kind of my point with remakes. Don't remake something and follow the exact story unless it needs it ala THE THING or THE FLY. If a film needs redone because of age that is one thing but if you're remaking something that isn't that old and lets face it ANOES isn't than change things up and give us something different.

I just think if the film makers would have added this layer that the film would have been a nice standalone and could have really revitalized Freddy as the icon he truly is. Lets face it, slashers are characters we root for regardless so why not force us to "back them". We want to anyway. Having the guy molesting children might make you despise the character but in the end where does that put us? We already love Freddy from the originals why not give us a bone and let us feel some sympathy for the guy and almost cheer him as he gets back at those that wrongly accused him.

I think we would have had a better film. But hey, that is why this is an open discuson. Lets hear some other thoughts, maybe I am out in left field here.

The main reason why Wes Change the whole child molestation was because of what was happen in real life during a court case called the The McMartin Trial

The McMartin preschool trial was a day care sexual abuse case of the 1980s. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in California, were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of children in their care. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After x years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expenve criminal trial in American history. The case was part of day care sex abuse hysteria, a moral panic over satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s.

That's why he change it and I glade he did because it one subject that really shouldn't be shown or talked about .

You can read more about the trail here



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

This is how he got the idea of Freddy sort of at least he back story but because of the parent outrage with this trail he change it to what we have now .

Oh yea the trailer lasted 7 years and cost 15 million dollars and there is also a movie on this called Indictment: The McMartin Trial and stars James Wood and Henry Thomas it was a HBO and is a must match and no there don't show anything .I don't think it was ever released on dvd and is hard to fine .If you do check it out one of James Woods best work ever he plays the attorney that defends the McMartins ...

if the accusations were made in 83 and the film released in 84 that was some fast influence

To me, the guy in the remake isn't the real Freddy. He wasn't played by Robert Englund..And I don't think he is that menacing. And in the flash backs in the film, before he was killed, he just seemed like a little pussy..He seemed fucked up, because n real life, child molesters are, because some of them were molested themselves as children and they never came to realize that they have no right to hurt someone else the way they were hurt. The Freddy in the remake seemed like that, or at least that is how I saw him. He seemed mentally twisted,

but not really someone I had sympathy for, or was afraid of..He seemed like someone I could kick ass on. A little pussy. That is why I didn't like the movie..He wasn't Freddy, and to me, that was a big deal. Robert Englund did an excellent job establishing who that character was..Anyone who watches a lot of horror knows that Freddy is not like Jason or Micheal Meyers, in that they may or may not know that killing people is wrong ( we don't know for sure, because Micheal and Jason don't talk), but Freddy definately seems to know what he does is fucked up..But he enjoys it. We know that because of all the fucked up jokes the real Freddy made through how many films?

And I agree, most of us hardcore horror fans do root for the slashers and the monsters..And in a way, that is being rebellious. It doesn't mean that most of us approve of real life violence, but maybe it is a way for us to explore our darker des. I don't know..From what I observe, most horror fans I know, who love icons like Freddy are actually really nice people..And most of the people I know who hate horror, and act like they are perfect, often seem to decieve themselves into doing really mean things to other people..But then act like they are such nice, caring people,and that they had a good reason to emotionally torture people.From my point of view, why not rebell against people like that? Like one day, I was out in public, wearing my Captain Spaulding hoody..And some guy saw it, and started telling me how ck House of 1000 Corpses was..I kind of laughed at him and said," yeah, it's an awesome movie", and then I walked off.Every time I put on one of my horror shirts, with the intention of going out in public, I kind of expect to get crap for it..But I do it anyway, because I love the movies and the characters, and some times I actually get compliments on my shirts. So if you love horror, that is what you have to focus on, not the people who think your are ck for liking it.

It doesn't matter which horror icon you root for, or if they are ever shown in a sympathetic light or not, a lot of people just don't understand. That is kind of how it is.

But that doesn't mean I think Freddy should have been a child molester in the remake...I don't even think there should have been a remake at this point, so I don't know what I would have wanted different.

when it comes to Freddy I was never the biggest fan of him that being said the first 3 movies were the best. In my opinion each movie after the 3rd one became a joke not to mention his story became ridiculous from a child murderer to a disfigured baby who was the the result of his mom being raped by maniacs. now when it comes to this Freddy I loved how he was dark and creepy and mysterious which brought me more interest into the movie to add i find a child molester more evil than a murderer even though wed was gonna do both but i just think that he might get a lot of heat for that. and for Haley I think he has that look for a creeper in a movie and England probably is gonna give up acting soon so probably if he gave up Kruegar Freddy' would die.

while I was watching the movie, I hoped they went the way of making him innocent, but no. of course not.

indeed i thought this too.

one of the reasons i dont like the remake is the fact he is a molester. (that, and amongst other things, i cant stand the way he talks) and for some reason, i feel a little put off dresng up as freddy now :P lol but seriously, i do think it damages the character a little. I'm glad what happened happened with the original and he was just a child killer then.