How is this one considered a classic or the best? - A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

The first in each of these horror franchises. At least the director had a new ideal. The sequels they were just recycle ideals from the first director...

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 6 years ago

I dont think they were recycled. They were funnier, had more slashers, and action almost vastly different than the first. The first one was a bust. It was like he was trying to make Halloween but it came out bad. The rest were a lot of fun, were creative, and fresh. Thank god it didnt have him on it. He wanted to end the franchise at one. All the awesome follow ups wouldnt have been made.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 6 years ago

Awesome?

reply

[–] mav100000 (339) 6 years ago

Sorry, I can't get on board with that. I actually don't really like many of the sequels and I feel like this may be the most inconsistent of the big 3 slasher franchises! This one is definitely the best and most intense of them all, though it does lack the humor (Freddy wasn't supposed to be a joke in the beginning). This is easily the strongest of the series (though I do like Dream Warriors quite a bit)!

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Hence the ? after awesome

reply

[–] mav100000 (339) 5 years ago

Sorry, I was actually trying to respond to the OP and just hit the response to you because you were the last in the thread at the time. Still figuring out the rules / workings of the site!

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

No worries

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Why do people harp on the humour? Not all of them had it and the first Freddy did have humour just not exaggerated. They went with that because it was the trend of the time and people liked it. So what’s to attack it for?

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Awesome!

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 3 years ago

completely awesome.

This movie lacked awesomeness 100%.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

Other than being in the same horror genre, I don't see how this is like Halloween at all. This film added a psychological aspect that hadn't been seen in those kinds of movies. It's pretty original in terms of concept.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Halloween was also psychological.
Myers a ghost like killer with unstoppable force who went around the neighbourhood butchering teens. The director technicality is also very similar albeit inferior to Carpenter.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

I enjoy both, but comparatively, there's quite a bit of downtime in Halloween and it makes parts of it kind of boring.

Sure there's some psychological aspects in Halloween, but it doesn't go as far as making you ask yourself wether what you're seeing is actually happening or if it's all in the characters head.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

I think that adds to it though that it couldve been in it’s head. But that’s not what the main thing I think it made it classic. Also I watched the Director’s cut in bluray which was much better and you can see the quality of the director and it’s intent and easily see why it’s a major classic.

reply

[–] Red1983 (60) 3 years ago

How so?

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

Only the first one was good. The rest are joke machines full of groaner one-liners.
The third one had a great idea but disregarded that idea swiftly in favor of more bad jokes.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 5 years ago

Confining Freddy to the shadows was what made him scary. Sadly, with each sequel, Freddy became more visible, and his quips more ridiculous, and as a result the character eventually veered into self parody.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

This. As the ridiculousness grew, Freddy became hard to hate and even worse (for a horror film) impossible to be afraid of.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

But to be honest not hating was actually a good idea. Cuz it made him have more fans and he became so bad ass. There is a reason why he beats Jason. Freddy actually has sympathy, fans, and people can actually relate despite him being evil as fuck and a murderous psychopath. He is in people’s dreams skin deep.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

I don't understand how Freddy is sympathetic or relatable at all.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Understandable.

He was murdered, tortured, and we are constantly reminded about that by his burnt face. Despite this and more he has unbreakable will, has a sharp sense of humour and at times does show sympathy, understanding, and honour. He’s never die attitude is admirable. People have had horrible things happen to them either to them, to people they love, or them to others. In this a lot of the things he does is related to the hardcore shit people have gone through and still people are sympathetic and such so to him. If it werent he wouldnt have so many fans and such a following. I mean do you know how many people dress up as him yearly or have tattoos about him? They wouldnt if they didnt like him.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

You don't have to be sympathetic and relatable to be a good villain necessarily. Before you find out what made Negan such a cunt in The Walking Dead comics, he was still a villain that people love to hate and I'd put Freddy in that same boat. People love him, but I don't think it's because he's sympathetic. He killed children for Christ's sake. He deserved what he got.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

But he is. I dont think it’s without question and I think your downing like with good. I think it’s quite obvious people genuinely like Freddy. And him killing Children doesnt completely justify his murder. He was mentally sick and had no control. By law they shouldve tried him and because they didnt they were just as bad as he was. Hence him coming back and doing all those bad things and getting away with it.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

Child killers deserve to die. Being mentally sick doesn't completely justify it. People like him mostly because of him because of his humour and one liners, not because he's relatable.

The more you talk about him though, the more it sounds like you're arguing against yourself about it not being a classic.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

That’s an opinion not law. He has right to fail trail. It’s inhumane to kill or tortured a mentally ill person. Not saying there shouldn’t be some sort of punishment but to have him killed, burned alive by an entire community without trail is highly illegal and immoral.

I doubt humour and one liners is what got to be so famous. He is on the top tier of horror villains. Humour and one liners is common tier.

What do you think makes him a classic?

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

What evidence do we have he is mentally ill though? I don't remember any of the movies mentioning it at all.

The fact that he was such an original idea at the time for the genre of slasher films. A killer who can kill you in your dreams? Most of us could probably outrun Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, but everyone has to sleep sometime. Not only that, but Freddy manipulates people's minds in a way so they sometimes think they're awake, blurring the lines between conscious and subconscious.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

First the obvious, all child killers are ill.
Then the bio, his mother, who was a nun, was raped by a hundred maniacs in criminally insane asylum by 18. When Fred was in school he was bullied by the parents of the kids he murders. He decided to take revenge by killing their children.

The reason why he uses sleep is because he is a vengeful demon. Since he was acquitted of his crimes and the town decided to become vigilantes and take action in their own hands by burning him alive his spirit couldnt accept death so he stayed alive in the dream world and came back to torment the children of the town.

You gotta watch more. I dont think it’s just about the original idea as there sure has been dream horrors before but a big part of is Robert’s performance given that it all has him and that it all didnt have the same directors, line of story, actors, or even themes. The reboot did alright but some true fans panned it and it didnt even live up to sequels while Englund did about a dozen with successful crossovers.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 4 years ago

Yeah you're right about him being mentally ill. Sorry it's been quite a while since I've watched this series.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Well you shouldve on Halloween season.
Two wrongs dont make a right. He was abused which caused him to become disturbed which caused him to abuse the abusers. Had they seeked an alternative method he mightve not become a demon dreamer.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 4 years ago

That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while! Freddy is not sympathetic. He killed defensless kids when he was alive and still kills kids after he dies as a dream demon. I really don't get how you could think that.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Personally I’ve always been an admirable as a kid though I wasn’t superficial and didnt see anything wrong about him. Ive met plenty of people who are ugly or deformed. Ive always liked his horror/ scary aspect and sense of humour.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

Not being a sympathetic and relatable character has nothing to do with his looks.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

When people treat you like crap cause of your looks people can relate to being ugly and being treated like crap. It’s Universal.

reply

[–] VideoGamer1117 (0) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

The concept of a hidden killer is weak and played out. People want to know what they are afraid of. Sure they mightve gone over the top with the jokes but believe it still scared people. Most of his jokes were savage and gorey. Which amplified his horror.

reply

[–] artguylarry (498) 5 years ago

To be fair, the second film (Freddy's Revenge) was just as dark and creepy, but it strayed so far from what we knew Freddy to be. I think they were trying to take him in a new direction, but Dream Warriors came along and put it back on track. Part 3 was also decent (at best), despite the loss of the "dark and creepy" factor. But this was also where Freddy - and even his kills - started to become a joke (come on, Wizard Master? Really??). As for part 4 and everything after, I suppose they were fun, but the franchise became one big joke.

The 2010 reboot, well I think I stand in the minority of those who actually liked it. Because it was dark Freddy again.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

Part three got us all excited because they were going to take the fight to Freddy. They trained and had the attitude. It was going to be a cool fight. But nope. No fighting. the closest we got to a fight was the acrobat girl. She got one hit in. the rest just got killed off like everyone else in the rest of the movies but with even more schlock. No fight. There was more fight vs Freddy in the first one than this. They wasted a great idea. (Always nice that I'm reminded of Dokken every time I think about pt3, though)

reply

[–] artguylarry (498) 5 years ago

I see what you mean about the fight against Freddy. Ironically we got more fight out of part 4. Alice took the greatest strengths of all her friends and took them to kick Freddy's ass. That would've made it a damn good movie if it hadn't otherwise been so ridiculous in every other way.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

I liked 4th. It was a bit creepy and funny. A good mixture of Freddy.

A good part of Freddy is how he terrorises them without much of a fight like we would be. It’s part of the horror. Even if we did fight back how good would it be if he just damn crush ‘em. A lot worst nightmarish.

reply

[–] VideoGamer1117 (0) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

You liked 2010. Nuff said.

Though I give you points.
Second one is actually the best.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

It still feel well short to Revenge.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I disagree, part 3 and New Nightmare were worthy sequels. Even part 2 was pretty decent for what it was and tried to be completely different from the first and Freddy was very jokey in that one either. Part 4 is where the series started to get bad.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

I agree. I think when most people complain, they think for and down. But even those are worthy gems. Thats why such a bold statement. I watched all of them in bluray recently can say they are really not as bad as people say. Not one. They just focus on the cheesyness and probably havent watched it in a long time or at all. But if they watch it again I bet they’d be surprise.
The joke humour factor was okay for me because it added to the fun, i mean the dark subject can be a bit overwhelming and adding that fun factor it made it more enjoyable and more like a popcorn film which is probably what they were aiming at.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 5 years ago

"All the sequels are better"

No, no, no, no, no...

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

Well it's like the same with the Elm Street series. Wes Craven selfishly wanted to end the movie after Elm Street Part 1 and just let New Line sink into bankruptcy when they were the only one's who gave his movie a chance.

So he sits out Part 2 and wanted to ruin Part 3 by making it the same premise as New Nightmare which thankfully the studio shut down and we got the best installment in the series (after Freddy's Dead of course) but it came at a cost.

Wes Craven still ruined the series in Dream Warriors by making it the last of the Elm Street kids which made Dream Master and Dream Child totally convoluted and confusing which killed the series and forced "Freddy's Dead" which was awesome because it's what the Freddy movies should have done in the first place instead of trying to work by Wes's Rules who's only desired outcome was death to the Franchise.

We could have had Freddy in a whole new town killing all new 90's Punk Kids but unfortunately this was the last of the real movies and what followed up was a Cheesy 10th Anniversary Reunion Special Attraction movie that just retreads the original with the original Actress and Director and it shit all over everything but people like it because people are stupid and now here we are in 2018 with Halloween doing the exact same thing with their 40th Anniversary and doing it for the 2nd time after H20.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

At least you get it.

I actually dont like Wes Craven. I think he’s over hyped. My favourite is Freddy’s revenge. Although I do like a new nightmare I completely agree that’s how I felt about it. That he shitted on all sequels which I didnt like because they were quite good and as you know by now, I feel they were even better than his original work.

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1448) 2 years ago

The thing with the original is it has alot of film snobbery to it. While guys like us are fans of Freddy first to alot of people in the fan community Freddy comes 3rd after Wes Craven and Heather Langenkamp.

Thats why so many say 3 and 7 are the only worthy sequels though they in reality they don't care for 3 much or split as you can see from comments here but put it in the conversation only because Craven and Langenkamp have credits in the movie otherwise they would just lump it in with 4,5,6 like they truly want to do.

Welove the idea of Freddy and want to see all the possibilities. Sadly most people in the Elm Street community just want to retread the original for all eternity.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 5 years ago

There is no way Parts 4-6 are as good as the original. Or even that good period.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 5 years ago

Four is no worse than Three. And Freddy is just as goofy in Three as he is in Four. The Freddy in Two outrivals either Three's or Four's because, like One, he's largely confined to the shadows ... and retains his menace as a result.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 5 years ago

I dislike them killing off the remaining dream warriors. Also the kills in Part 4 were way more cartoonish than anything in Part 3. The girl getting her head blown up like a ballooon was dumb. As was the girl getting turned into a cockroach.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 5 years ago

Four is pretty goofy. So is Three .. take the fight with Skeleton Freddy. Or Freddy squaring off with The Wizard Master. Or Kincaid bending the legs of chairs with his newfound dream strength. Or "WELCOME TO PRIME TIME, BITCH!"

They're both pretty goofy in my book.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 5 years ago

Whatever. I think the first 3 are the best and that everything afterward isn't as good. And if you don't like that I don't know what to tell you.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 5 years ago

I like the first four. And "Wes Craven's New Nightmare."

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7393) 5 years ago

I could never get into New Nightmare. Just too different imo.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 5 years ago

Where they dropped the ball in "New Nightmare" was not having Robert Englund square off with real world Freddy.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

I think it was okay but I really liked the chapstick humour Freddy. People dont like to admit but he has a good sense of humour.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Because as someone said. He shitted on all the sequels.

reply

[–] sslssg (27403) 5 years ago

I'll give you most of that, but I think that the "Welcome" line was still a little more on the scare side than the goofy. Just a hair, but I think it works better than most of the other one liners in the movie.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3333) 5 years ago

I like Three and Four though I think Four is the most underrated of the sequels while Three is the most overrated.

One thing's for sure: Freddy's make-up in the first Four is pretty great.

reply

[–] sslssg (27403) 5 years ago

I liked Four as well, but while I thought it had some really cool deaths, overall it was less scary for me. Three had some cheesy moments for sure, but I did find it to be creepier. Although that could have just been related to my age when the movies came out.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Strangely these movies had to be intended for teens for it to be gotten the gist. Though they were rated-R.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Im glad your a
Fan of the lower tiers as everybody bashes them and I also think they are great gems.
I like Freddy’s 2nd best make up.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Everybody loves Welcome...

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Lol. But they were original and creative.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

I dont think he is so much in the shadows in two.

I like your ranking.
And I think three and on are similar in degrees.

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

Part 2 Freddy was really cool but Part 3 Freddy was where Freddy needed to be for a modern audience moving foward

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 5 years ago

Yea I think so because the teens got maturer.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 5 years ago

The only sequel that was able to come close to the original was Nightmare 3.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

I think so.

4th wasnt bad either. It was very close to the 3rd.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Because of people like me.

reply