Why is Freddy not attacking the parents, they are still alive, those are the ones who killed him, burned him, not the children. Why almost only their children? Freddy's memory seems really burned down to ashes at that point:)))
shareSimple, Freddy wants to make people suffer, there's evidence that he tortured people before he killed them. His claw doesn't seem like a great weapon for instant death, he'd kill people slowly and painfully.
So since he likes to make people suffer and he killed children, what better way to get revenge than to kill the children of the people who killed him? Plus, the reason the parents killed him is to get justice for the crimes he committed and also to protect their kids.
So, what he did was the perfect revenge.
good point! Thank you for your extended explanation. One thing is still open to me and perhaps others. Most horror stories are a morality play at the bottom. Was Freddy ever convicted of the child murders? If not, everything makes a great sense: "You took right in your own hands and killed me without any proof of guilty. So I do the same with your children." (Of course, no matter if convicted or, they took right in their own hands, was against the law.) If he was convicted it is a less strong revenge story.
shareConvicted? No.
On trial? Yes.
The police had irrefutable evidence taken from his home, that Freddy had killed the children. Unfortunately in their haste to catch Freddy, the police hadn't got the search warrant signed properly. Therefore any evidence they did have was inadmissible.
Krueger laughed and gloated as he was set free. Everybody knew he'd done it, but there was nothing they could do about it. At least not within the confines of the law.
So the parents did what they had to do. They found where Krueger was hiding, and burned it to the ground, murdering him in the process. The cops and judges, many who had children themselves, looked the other way considering it for the greater good.
One of the biggest problems of our modern judicial system.
shareBecause there is nothing more devastating for a parent than having to deal with the death of a child. Killing the actual participants of the mob would almost be too simplistic. He wanted them to suffer a pain greater than their own deaths. Plus it continues to fit his narrative. In life, he was a child killer. In death, he continues to be a child killer. It's almost like he's saying to everyone that there is nothing anyone can do to stop his quest.
share[deleted]
What better revenge on the parents than taking from them what they care most about than their children?
share[deleted]
I think that attacking the children is his way of attacking the parents.
...my essential 50 <i>http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/</i>
He does when Nancy goes to sleep and he's able to get access to her Mom. In the end he gets his revenge on her.
COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed
Part 6 answers this when he talks about his daughter. He tells Maggie that the people took her away from him when they arrested him from his crimes so in return he went to take away the kids of the parents that killed him in return after he got off for his crimes.
shareOld people don't dream.
___
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qssvnjj5Moo