MovieChat Forums > A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) Discussion > Does anyone else not like the ending?

Does anyone else not like the ending?


I thought Nancy should have just turned her back on him and gone back down the stairs to her father.

I understand that this was to leave it open for a sequel, but the sequel could still have been made even with the ending I mentioned 

Anyway, I like the movie until that last bit.

Very good. But brick not hit back!

reply

I don't like the ending either. I would have preferred Wes Craven's ending.

reply

The it was all a dream copout? Yeah right! 🤣

reply

I preferred that ending as well.
I guess studios don't like slasher/horror movies not ending on a bang.

"I don't know, this could break my heart or save me. Nothings real till you let go completely."

reply

I don't think anybody likes the ending.

It wasn't the one Wes Craven wanted.

reply

[deleted]

Um, someone sent me the Wes Craven script. It ends the same except for the mother bit.

reply

It seemed to me that the "happy ending" was just a dream. I think it would be normal for Nancy to experience nightmares about what happened...normal nightmares, not ones with a real Freddy. In reality, her mom is dead and she defeated Kruger. They moved. Even the sequel runs with this idea. That's my two cents, anyhow.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

reply

I think its because its so confusing. I think the happy ending makes more sense

Wes Craven's original ending makes zero sense: So, Nancy turns her back on Freddy and defeats him. Then she wakes up...in front of her house, fully dressed. Erm, yeah.

Also, the whole movie would have been a dream "Wizard of Oz"-style. (Which, by the way, means Nancy was never in danger to begin with since the whole concept of dying for real when killed in a dream would have just been part of the dream's plot as well.)

And the whole "I'm gonna stop drinking" is just so over the top unrealistic.

The current ending is much better: The final scene which is just too good to be true really isn't true. It's a dream made by Freddy to trick Nancy.

And with the current ending, the whole movie actually "happened". It was not just one single long dream by one girl.
In the last scene, Nancy thinks everything was just a dream and now she's awake. But the opposite is true: This current scene is a dream, but the rest actually happened for real. Freddy really did kill Tina, Rod, Glen and Marge. And the people really do believe that Nancy is crazy. Marge actually put bars in front of the windows.
With the current ending, all this stuff is still relevant. In Craven's original ending, this would have gotten retroactively declared as all just a dream.

I prefer the theatrical ending over the originally intended one any day. Not as harmonic as Wes Craven's ending, but at least the plot happened inside the movie's real world.

reply

[deleted]

I pretend the movie ends with Nancy turns her back on Freddy. The real ending ends up making everything that came before it confusing as hell.

Haters gonna hate

reply

I like the ending. Also Wes Craven's ending sucks. His ending was that the whole movie was just a bad dream and Freddy wasn't real. That's too much of a cop out for a villain like Freddy. Imagine any other horror movie from the time doing that. Like if Alice just woke up at the end of Friday the 13th and finds that everyone in the camp is alive. It'd be stupid. Or if Halloween just ended with Laurie waking up and all her friends are alive.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

reply

I'm not bothered by it one bit.I think Robert Endlund has the best interruption of the ending saying that it was a never ending loop to the point we first met Nancy,Tina & Glenn when the first time the girls we're sining the infamous song while jump roping.

reply

That seems overly-complicated. To me, Nancy was just having a bad dream about what she had been through. Just a normal nightmare, not a real Freddy-induced nightmare. Everything about the scene is dream-like, including the brightness which was like a dream, everyone being alive like a dream, and then things going crazy like a dream, complete with something as silly as a Kruger-mobile! Nancy was just having a normal nightmare after having gone through hell.

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

reply

The Solar Sailor Posted

and then things going crazy like a dream, complete with something as silly as a Kruger-mobile!

LOL! When I first saw that alternate ending with Freddy in his own specialized car with sunglasses on, on the special DVD they released years ago I thought, "So that's where Comedic Freddy came from."

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

reply

Though the fact that we never see her wake up brings that into question. In a Nightmare on Elm Street, "it's just a dream" doesn't bring quite the same relief. It could be that she didn't defeat him and he pulled her into a new nightmare, first tricking her into thinking all her friends and mother are alive again only to pull the rug out from under her with the Freddy-mobile.

reply

I think Robert Endlund has the best interruption of the ending saying that it was a never ending loop to the point we first met Nancy,Tina & Glenn when the first time the girls we're sining the infamous song while jump roping.

This is the most bullsh*t interpretation ever. Why the *beep* should this be a loop?

Apart from the fact that the last scene with the car doesn't match the first scene with the car at all (for example, Rod is not in the car in the beginning and him and Tina are arguing while they are harmonic in the end):

Are we really supposed to believe that Nancy and Tina talk about their dreams like they do (some dirty old man with knifes on his fingernails bla bla bla, did you know you dreamed of the same guy I did bla bla, that's impossible bla bla) if Nancy just experienced the whole *beep* movie in her dream?

By the end of the movie, Nancy knows fully well who Fred Krueger is. So, how can this movie be a loop? Nancy doesn't know sh*t about Freddy when the movie starts.

There's no way that the nightmare she's talking about in the beginning was the entirety of this very movie.

reply

As mentioned Craven's original ending was that the whole film had been a dream. That's why the internal logic of the story breaks down as it goes along, Freddy can come into the real world etc, Craven's endin was to tell the audience that the film was A nightmare on Elm Street.

Craven saw it is a psychological horror, messing with people's carnal fears, their nightmares coming to life. It's the tapping into dreams and their mystery that Craven is banking on selling the film. He envisaged one movie, that turns out to be the creation of a dreaming teenager, not a series. I still think it would have worked.

My understanding of Part 3 was that Craven's idea was it to be a similar meta horror film to New Nightmare. He really didn't think there was mileage in continuing in the direction the series took.

reply

As mentioned Craven's original ending was that the whole film had been a dream. That's why the internal logic of the story breaks down as it goes along, Freddy can come into the real world etc, Craven's endin was to tell the audience that the film was A nightmare on Elm Street.

Which would have been totally stupid. That's like Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star and then awakening in his aunt's and uncle's home, realizing that there was never an evil Empire to begin with and the whole story was just a dream.
You can pull this off in a TV show like "Buffy" or "Angel" that has 100 episodes. If one single episode turns out to be just a dream (like Angel defeating that beast and the darkness disappearing), fine. It's just one chapter in a 100 chapters epic.
But a standalone movie shouldn't nullify itself by this kind of twist.

Craven saw it is a psychological horror, messing with people's carnal fears, their nightmares coming to life.

Which is exactly what the movie would not have depicted. If the whole movie was a dream, then the nightmares never came to life to begin with since this would still have been part of the nightmare itself.
Only in its theatrical version do the nightmares actually come to life since Freddy is a real entity there.

It's the tapping into dreams and their mystery that Craven is banking on selling the film. He envisaged one movie, that turns out to be the creation of a dreaming teenager, not a series. I still think it would have worked.

While I don't like the series myself (the movie can still work as an open-ended standalone film, with Freddy basically winning in the end), the "all just a dream" ending would have been stupid.

If it turns out to be the creation of a dreaming teenager, why did I watch it at all? Me rooting for her would have been for nothing since even her defeat would have resulted in a happy ending since it was never real to begin with.
What would we have gained from Nancy defeating Freddy and her friends being alive again? The same result would have happened if Freddy had killed her: She would have waken up and all her friends would have been alive since they never died in the first place.

That's why Wes Craven's original ending was stupid, but the theatrical ending wasn't: In the official ending, Freddy is actually real and all the stuff really happens. It was an actual plot that spanned over two weeks, not just a fantasy made up by a girl's subconsciousness during the course of one night.

reply

For once I will disagree. I think it would have been fine if she woke up and it was a dream The movie was still scary and you still cared for her. I mean it would have been a cop out but the movies ending now makes no sense and you know this better than most, no matter which way you try to spin it.

Haters gonna hate

reply

I think it would have been fine if she woke up and it was a dream The movie was still scary and you still cared for her.

It was only scary and you cared for her because you thought the scenes are real to Nancy. If she wakes up from a plain dream, then all this caring is retroactively washed away: Freddy killing you in your dreams and you dying for real was just part of the dream as well and was never true to begin with, hence she was never in danger. She would have woken up even if Freddy had killed her.

I mean it would have been a cop out but the movies ending now makes no sense and you know this better than most, no matter which way you try to spin it.

The movie wouldn't have made sense with Craven's ending either: She wakes up from a dream by appearing at the front door, fully dressed. WTF?

So, it's simple mathematics:

Craven's ending: Doesn't make sense + plot never happened for real, Freddy was imaginary.

Theatrical ending: Doesn't make sense + plot happened for real, Freddy is real.

"Doesn't make sense" is part of both versions. Therefore, we can eliminate it and we're left with:

Craven's ending: Plot never happened for real, Freddy was imaginary.

Theatrical ending: Plot happened for real, Freddy is real.

Conslusion: "Plot happened for real, Freddy is real" is better than "Plot never happened for real, Freddy was imaginary", therefore theatrical ending is better than Craven's ending.

reply

Yes but you are watching a movie to be scared correct? We already know its not real but the movie still is amazing even if it was all a dream, but as I acknowledged it would have been a cop out. But for ME, it would not have changed the impact of the movie on me one bit. You are different and that's fine.

I agree, NONE of the endings make any sense. Do you not remember me praising you and linking your theory of the end on here? You had the best explanation Ive ever seen but even it had flaws. I never said the theatrical ending was worse than Cravens ending. I was just saying I WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE WITH IT because the ending we have now is the only flaw in this horror masterpiece.



Haters gonna hate

reply

Yes but you are watching a movie to be scared correct?

To be entertained. (These movies don't actually scare me.)

And if the movie is good enough, to talk about it with other people. Like we do here on this board:

"You saw Don's face when Nancy mentioned the hat? Do you think he assumed that Freddy is back?"
"Why did Marge put bars in front of the windows and tell Nancy it's for security from a person if she just thinks Nancy is deluded?"
"If Nancy grabs a pot of gold in her Freddy dreams before waking up, can she bring the gold into the real world?"

If it turns out to be all just a dream, then all of these conversations are moot:

"You saw Don's face when Nancy mentioned the hat? Do you think he assumed that Freddy is back?"
"Doesn't matter. It was all in Nancy's head. The real Don never did this."

"Why did Marge put bars in front of the windows and tell Nancy it's for security from a person if she just thinks Nancy is deluded?"
"Was just part of Nancy's dream. Marge never did this."

"If Nancy grabs a pot of gold in her Freddy dreams before waking up, can she bring the gold into the real world?"
"Nancy never brought anything out of the dream, not even the hat. It was all just a dream itself."

See? What an exciting discussion, right?

You had the best explanation Ive ever seen but even it had flaws.

If you found flaws, please tell me. (Or link me to the thread if we already had this discussion. I usually don't remember specific usernames, so I don't know with whom I have already talked about it.)
If your flaws are justified and I agree with them, I can update the essay accordingly. Or maybe I find holes in your rebuttals and changes in my essay aren't necessary.

reply

Look, even though I understand what you are saying, I just simply disagree. Lets agree to disagree.

IF I remember correctly you are the one that had the whole web page that tried to make sense of the endings. But even your best one opened up other questions if I am thinking correctly. Maybe I will have to check it out again. Like I said, it was the best explanation I have ever seen and even linked your page on here.

Haters gonna hate

reply

What exactly is it that you disagree with? I understand that you like the original ending better, o.k. But how exactly do you disagree with the following statement?

If the whole movie is a dream, talking about certain aspects of the contents is a waste of time.
In any regular movie, you can talk about various aspects:
Why did Luke think that killing the Emperor, the most evil person in the universe, would turn him to the dark side? Why was the dead girl still in Mrs. Voorhees' truck by the end of the film? How did Bruce Wayne get from the Lazarus Pit back to Gotham City with no papers and no money?"
If the whole movie is all just a dream, literally every question that you might have can be answered with: "It didn't really happen, it was just part of her dream. All of the characters' actions were just made up in her head." Which makes a discussion about the plot a waste of time.


About your other statement: If you think my essay opens up another question, just tell me what exactly you mean.

reply

Again, I never said which ending I preferred, they all had problems. I am reading your essay again right now. Maybe you did have it all covered. Again I had such respect for it I linked it on here and used it as my official view of the end.

Haters gonna hate

reply

You were right, there are no real flaws. Again, Ive always found your theory to be the best on the subject and linked it on this board before they deleted all the old threads.

Haters gonna hate

reply

I don't have a problem with it. I actually think it's a nice cheery on the chocolate milkshake this film is.

reply

Yeah, I'm not a fan, it feels so rushed. It's also kind of comical.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]