MovieChat Forums > A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) Discussion > Does this film make sense?

Does this film make sense?

posted 2 months ago by Melton (2377)
24 replies | jump to latest

I’m all for abstract cinema but this seems to be a film that wants to tell a sincere, coherent story… and I’m not sure it does.

The rules are not clear. Freddy’s attacks leave ‘damage’ in the real world, like the deadly slash wounds to Tina’s body and the earlier slashes to her nightgown, but later attacks like ripping up the pillow don’t appear in reality.

Rod is attacked by hanging, but he awakes during it. Shouldn’t the attack end when he wakes up?

Nancy sees Freddy enter Rod’s cell. Is this during her dream? If so, is she still dreaming when she warns her dad? Did Rod even die at all?

Johnny Depp becomes a blood fountain shortly after Nancy’s phone grows a tongue - does that mean his death occurs in… her dream? Did he even die at all in reality??

Obviously the ending is messy because the studio tacked on the ‘still dreaming’ closer, but prior to that I’m still not sure what’s real, what’s dream, what the rules are, and how Craven wanted it to end.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[–] Zarkoff (715) 2 months ago

I don't think they were ever really consistent about Freddy's limitations or the rules to his dream hunting. You just have to go with it. It's a nightmarish journey that's more about the mood and the imagery than the story.

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

Mmyeah, this ain’t David Lynch. If there’s to be any sense of threat then the powers and vulnerabilities of the antagonist need to be clearly defined. Fail.

[–] Zarkoff (715) 2 months ago

No, I wouldn't say that. LOL.

Freddy was a memorable villain with his scars and his sweater and glove of knives. The scenes of him stalking his victims through their dreams were creepy. Lack of consistency is a problem with a lot of horror movies, especially supernatural horror movies. I enjoy a lot of them because I can look past that, I think.

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

Inconsistent rules are a problem with bad horror films, good ones define them clearly.

[–] Zarkoff (715) 2 months ago

IMO some of them are still enjoyable despite some problems with the plot.

[–] Martoto (4289) 2 months ago

Do nightmares make sense?

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

No, why?

[–] Martoto (4289) 2 months ago

Then why expect a nightmare man to make sense?

[–] millsey72 (9606) 2 months ago

My nightmares make a lot of sense

[–] Martoto (4289) 2 months ago

To you.

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

Well firstly ‘nightmares’ are not the same as ‘a nightmare man’ so… false equivalence.

Secondly, why are you asking if nightmares make sense?

[–] Martoto (4289) 2 months ago

Oh so nightmares don't make sense. But nightmare men aren't the same as nightmares so they can't be excused from making sense. Got it.

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

What the fuck are you talking about?

[–] Martoto (4289) 2 months ago

And who said this is an abstract film?

[–] arcticdragon (401) 2 months ago

Doesn't Freddy gradually become more powerful the more his targets fear him?

(I didn't watch the whole series, so I don't know all the rules either)

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 2 months ago

"Did he even die at all in reality??"

Decades of dope haven't done HIM in yet, but his career isn't definitely on life support

[–] BKB (6317) 2 months ago

Anyone who wasn't part of this Generation when this came out in 1984 is obviously going to find some fault and attempt to punch holes in it..

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

Are they?

For my part I broadly enjoy the film and am trying to make sense of parts that, as far as I can tell so far, don’t.

[–] hurricane (1910) 2 months ago

Originally, the movie was supposed to end with Nancy waking up to find everybody alive, and realising the whole thing had been a dream. The Nightmare On Elm Street was supposed to be that Nancy had a nightmare about a dream stalker called Fred Krueger, who didn't actually exist. He was completely fictitious in her nightmare. The studio changed the script slightly, so there was the opportunity for a sequel. So, what we ended on was a tacked on ending, where Freddy inexplicably came back to life, killed Nancy's mother, and drove Nancy and her friends off to an undetermined fate.

If you had the ending the way it was originally scripted, it makes sense that Freddy's powers were slightly inconistent, because that's how dreams are. Inconsistent and illogical.

The ending we got, didn't make much sense in the context of the story, and made Nancy turning her back on Freddy meaningless.

[–] mechajutaro (2788) 2 months ago

Going the "It was all a dream" route would've come across cheap and facile in retrospect. For once, studio intervention may have actually STRENGTHENED a film

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

That makes a lot of sense, thanks.

I wish they’d gone with the original script, esp since it makes sense of Freddy’s inconsistent powers, but I will say that the trollish surprise of the theatrical ending is hugely entertaining.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7428) 2 months ago

I prefer the theatrical ending. And the ending Wes Craven originally filmed doesn't convey what he says it does. His is sbout the same as the theatrical but without Freddy showing up. She turns her back on Freddy, opens up her bedroom door, walks onto the front porch of her house, talks with her mom, gets into the car with her friends, and happily drives off with them. Then the last shot is the girls singing 1, 2 Freddy's coming for you. There is no wake up moment. It seems more she's going into another dream. Yet Wes Craven insists she woke up which isn't even shown.

[–] Melton (2377) 2 months ago

Is there a difference between the original scripted ending and the ‘Craven ending’?

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7428) 2 months ago

I am not sure but the actual Craven ending does not have a wake up scene in it.