Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

I also prefer not knowing why they are the way they are. I just think it makes the character scarier and cooler. But, there are some exceptions.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

I think that the approach by various filmmakers in films like Hard Candy and I Saw The Devil creates a very interesting dynamic in a film and to a degree is very realistic. By making both 'supposed victim' a 'villain' and vice versa they are in my view reflecting the nature of violence in real life whether in the form of war or revenge on any scale. A obvious example is the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Each side is perpetuating violence so it is unclear at this point who are the real victims or villains, or indeed who started it. If we strictly consider the world of horror films and specifically the NOES franchise or other films I personally prefer Freddy being a 100% villain, because therefore he is more menacing which creates a more effective narrative and tone for the film. Again however in the real world this may be unrealistic. From reading articles etc i always thought that a great number of real serial killers/psychopaths were shaped to a degree by traumatic and nasty experiences in their childhood caused by adult figures, as also maybe the case for fictional serial killers/psychopaths in film. In this way we can to a degree relate this to Friday the 13th. Because of people(who were supposed to be looking after him) who neglected Jason as a child(e.g similar to real child abuse) he died. Therefore abuse/violence feeds violence.
King Kong for example was a good guy aswell. He just wanted to be loved. Godzilla is also a monster created out of mans propensity for violent destruction on a mass scale – atomic weapons, so the blame lies at humanity in this fictional situation aswell. Perhaps this all also teaches us all that the real monster or evil in the world is Man, as individuals or us as a species.

Feeling no remorse for the teenage victims and enjoying how they invent ways to kill them is no bad thing either HorrorQueen. I think that we all have a violent streak in ourselves, left over from evolution and watching violent movies is a healthy way to let these primal instincts out. Sometimes it takes violence against us to let it out, as in Hardy Candy and in the real world – in war situations etc.

In reference to Frankenstin DirtyGirl and Chainsaw I am sure that Frankenstein's monster was never a 100% villain. He is throughout both films a victims who was UNWILLINGLY CREATED by the real monster - Dr. Frankenstein, as perhaps representing science/the potential evil of man. He didnt mean to throw the girl into the lake he was just playing a game and misunderstood it. He didn't kill her intentionally. He wasn't going to kill the Blind Guy in Bride. Such a scene only shows the monsters true character. He like the blind guy only wanted to make friends with people in what was a very touching and amazing sequence.

Also i hated the kids in Hostel. They were NOT interesting characters just ur regular american college students who were looking for sex. U seem the same guys in tons of recent films made by Hollywood e.g House of Wax (2005)

Last edited by Vasquez (2012-06-23 15:41:40)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

^ I there there are exceptions, too (edit: referring to Jrs1991's comment, vasquez you beat me!!).

This is a pretty interesting thread.

Regarding the information or background on a horror villian, I can do with either some or none. It depends on the antagonist at hand and the kind of character you want to use in your film. I love Freddy for being pure evil, and like DG, wouldn't want him as anything but. However, the idea that UltraViolence proposed about Freddy's background is an interesting one, and might one day be tested in one of the future entries (who knows?). Jason is awesome with his back story, and I wouldn't want him any other way. Michael Myers, as in the original, is an ominous shadow. We've also seen him as more of a real killer with a heavy background, as in Rob Zombie's version. I can admire both versions. But, if I had to choose one, it would be Carpenter's version, for being uber creepy.

I dunno. There are exceptions depending on what you want the story to be about, how you want your audience to feel, and how you want your antagonist to be recieved.

Last edited by The Creature (2012-06-22 11:33:28)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

A few things

The remake is terrible.  Erase that from ANY discussion.  It is the worst horror film I have ever seen, and I am not even close to the only person who has said that.

"You are too forced to like a criminal and not just a robber"

Your point makes no sense.  Freddy is too much of a murderer or criminal to cheer for?  Since he murders children?

The fireflies murdered children and it seems as though they might have been rapists too.  I mean they were the WORST kind of killers.  You have no problem cheering for them.

Maybe I am not understanding your post.

Firefly family has killed probably close to a thousand.  You are "forced" to cheer for the Fireflys the exact same way as you are forced to cheer for Freddy and the robber/murderous in From Dusk till dawn.  The firefly's and spaulding killed way more than Freddy and they did it with NO REASON or motive.  If you want Freddy to be innocent then you have to want the firefly's to be innocent.  But if that was the case, neither movie would make any sense or be worth a damn.  I'm sorry but your point just doesn't make sense when you use A House of a Thousand Corpses and Devil's rejects as an example of criminals who aren't too brutal to cheer for.

Last edited by PrinceofDarkness (2012-06-22 15:14:44)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

take no notice of idiots on IMDB there are lots on there  ( not all)who haven't the first fucking clue about the art of film or the horror genre in particular. come across lots of them in my time especially on there! also come up against them on Spaghetti Western database and even on here occasionally but they get found out, get swamped and don't last long.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

UltraViolence wrote:

John Jarratt scared the shit out of me. I will never go back packing in australia purely cause of that guy. The film itself was a letdown but the villain stopped it from being a complete disappointment.

How many times have you seen it?
I only ask as I felt the same as you (ho-hum film but great bad guy), until i watched it a 2nd time (and have seen it 6-7 since). Admittedly the "party stuff" build up in the first part of the film is utterly unnecessary, but once they hit the road, it becomes a great little road picture. Maybe try watching it again? It really did have a significant "grow on you" factor for me, and now can't wait for the Canadian Blu ray release.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

I think that Horror Villians ( much like killers in real life ) are way more terrifying when they have no rhyme or reason. They just like to kill..
But if we are digging in the NOES grave and shaking out the Freddy corpse .. let me add my two cents. I was never that big of a fan of the original NOES franchise for two reasons :
#1 - Because it was far too campy. Especially the sequels.
#2 - Because if Freddy was indeed a Pedophile Child Killer WHY did he wait a good 10-12 years to get his revenge on the parents who murdered him ? Wouldnt the revenge be more satisfying if he did it while they were children ? I mean you'd think being a pedophile he would have liked messing with those kids while they were still little ? Kids have a way better imagination and you'd think he would have been in their dreams way back then..  ?
Im in NO way condoning it. But it really makes no sense to me.

Last edited by MistressOf Horror (2012-06-23 16:27:47)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

MistressOf Horror wrote:

Wouldn't the revenge be more satisfying if he did it while they were children ?

Can't argue with that.  Of course, A Nightmare on Elm Street was released in 1984, and censors were tougher back then.  Maybe they couldn't sell the script if Freddy was slicing a bunch of kids?  Still, I definitely see your point.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

MistressOf Horror wrote:

I think that Horror Villians ( much like killers in real life ) are way more terrifying when they have no rhyme or reason. They just like to kill..
But if we are digging in the NOES grave and shaking out the Freddy corpse .. let me add my two cents. I was never that big of a fan of the original NOES franchise for two reasons :
#1 - Because it was far too campy. Especially the sequels.
#2 - Because if Freddy was indeed a Pedophile Child Killer WHY did he wait a good 10-12 years to get his revenge on the parents who murdered him ? Wouldnt the revenge be more satisfying if he did it while they were children ? I mean you'd think being a pedophile he would have liked messing with those kids while they were still little ? Kids have a way better imagination and you'd think he would have been in their dreams way back then..  ?
Im in NO way condoning it. But it really makes no sense to me.

Ill tell you why Kids would be crap. Cause they wouldn't be able to fight back, cause they would just be as easy canon fodder for freddy as german soldiers are in WW2 first person shooters. That would make the film boring. Granted i admit it might be different depending on the age of the kids but i think my point still stands if ay ur talking like 10/11 years old. One of the reasons i think the first film was good cause Nancy was a good character and the dynamic between her and Freddy was interesting, while Craven still made Freddy menacing. And while i agree the sequels got more and more campy the first NOES was not THAT campy, i mean come on. I found the scene where he extends and scrapes his arms against the metal fence in the alley for example actually quite creepy.

Last edited by Vasquez (2012-06-23 20:22:28)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Vasquez wrote:
MistressOf Horror wrote:

I think that Horror Villians ( much like killers in real life ) are way more terrifying when they have no rhyme or reason. They just like to kill..
But if we are digging in the NOES grave and shaking out the Freddy corpse .. let me add my two cents. I was never that big of a fan of the original NOES franchise for two reasons :
#1 - Because it was far too campy. Especially the sequels.
#2 - Because if Freddy was indeed a Pedophile Child Killer WHY did he wait a good 10-12 years to get his revenge on the parents who murdered him ? Wouldnt the revenge be more satisfying if he did it while they were children ? I mean you'd think being a pedophile he would have liked messing with those kids while they were still little ? Kids have a way better imagination and you'd think he would have been in their dreams way back then..  ?
Im in NO way condoning it. But it really makes no sense to me.

Ill tell you why Kids would be crap. Cause they wouldn't be able to fight back, cause they would be just be easy canon fodder for freddy like german soldiers are to us in WW2 games. That would make the film boring. Granted i admit it might be different depending on the age of the kids but i think my point still stands if ay ur talking like 10/11 years old. One of the reasons i think the first film was good cause Nancy was a good character and the dynamic between her and Freddy was interesting, while Craven still made Freddy menacing. And while i agree the sequels got more and more campy the first NOES was not THAT campy, i mean come on. I found the scene where he extends and scrapes his arms against the metal fence in the alley for example actually quite creepy.

I agree that the first was not THAT campy..the beginning was quite frightening. The finger knives against metal.. the boiler room..The little girls singing the song. .
Even the alley scene started out right.  but once it got to the extended arms it just lost all the scare points.. lol and how about that phone tongue ?
http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1945725_o.gif

Last edited by MistressOf Horror (2012-06-23 18:24:52)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

TeeSeeBee wrote:
MistressOf Horror wrote:

Wouldn't the revenge be more satisfying if he did it while they were children ?

Can't argue with that.  Of course, A Nightmare on Elm Street was released in 1984, and censors were tougher back then.  Maybe they couldn't sell the script if Freddy was slicing a bunch of kids?  Still, I definitely see your point.

I understand that teenagers make better marketing sense. I probably wouldn't have picked it apart if they had just thrown in a half ass reason for the time gap ..

-Revenge a dish best served cold ?
-Freddy's been building up enough power all these years to force himself into your nightmares ?
-The teens look at eachother and say " so THATS why we have been having those creepy nightmares all these years. "  .
-Freddy suddenly decides he prefers to kill teens ? 

all jokes aside, Its just a pet peeve I have with the movie.  I do enjoy watching the 1st, but cant stomach sitting through any of the sequels.

Last edited by MistressOf Horror (2012-06-23 18:33:42)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

MistressOf Horror wrote:

I agree that the first was not THAT campy..the beginning was quite frightening. The finger knives against metal.. the boiler room..The little girls singing the song. .
Even the alley scene started out right.  but once it got to the extended arms it just lost all the scare points.. lol and how about that phone tongue ?
http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1945725_o.gif

Took the words right out of my mouth, girl.
Freddy is to cinematic serial killers what chocolate chip Granola bars are to health food.

Last edited by Bunshinsaba (2012-06-24 07:54:55)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Nightmare On Elm St definitely had a little camp in the dialogue between characters at the beginning as well.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

PrinceofDarkness wrote:

A few things

The remake is terrible.  Erase that from ANY discussion.  It is the worst horror film I have ever seen, and I am not even close to the only person who has said that.

"You are too forced to like a criminal and not just a robber"

Your point makes no sense.  Freddy is too much of a murderer or criminal to cheer for?  Since he murders children?

The fireflies murdered children and it seems as though they might have been rapists too.  I mean they were the WORST kind of killers.  You have no problem cheering for them.

Maybe I am not understanding your post.

Firefly family has killed probably close to a thousand.  You are "forced" to cheer for the Fireflys the exact same way as you are forced to cheer for Freddy and the robber/murderous in From Dusk till dawn.  The firefly's and spaulding killed way more than Freddy and they did it with NO REASON or motive.  If you want Freddy to be innocent then you have to want the firefly's to be innocent.  But if that was the case, neither movie would make any sense or be worth a damn.  I'm sorry but your point just doesn't make sense when you use A House of a Thousand Corpses and Devil's rejects as an example of criminals who aren't too brutal to cheer for.

Remember these are fictional villains. Of course if they were real I would be disgusted. I have no problem with admitting brutality in a film with the right measures and done properly makes the film for me. I like violence in my movie hence why I'm on a horror forum not a chick flick forum. The fireflys are not sympathetic characters at all. They are a sick family. But I could argue that the children (baby, Otis, tiny etc) just learnt from their psychotic parents. Monkey see monkey do. I like baby and Spaulding because they are hilarious. Tiny is the more sympathetic probably. He didn't seem to be a cruel character. Sharing his food with the girl in house for example. Freddy is likeable because he's funny. If I was watching for the first time I'd lean towards him being innocent, I don't remember them explicitly saying he did kill children until later movies. I like villains not for their crimes but because they as people are likeable. How many times in newspapers and on tv have the Neibours of serial killers or child abusers said 'he was a nice guy didn't suspect a thing'. My actual example was jeff from hard candy who again until the last 10 minutes we never knew if he did do anything wrong. Yeah he was creepy and gave alcohol to a minor but how many of us drank with older friends and teens? I dont want anyone to be innocent. Remakes should never be discounted completely because they are someones take on a film, sometimes they take it in a different direction which is their beef not mine. If liking freddy, fireflys and other villains makes me sick, then that's fine. I know that I'd never act on these films or copy anything i view. I am 20 and have the mental capacity to know these crimes are atrocities especially the fireflys.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Bunshinsaba wrote:
UltraViolence wrote:

John Jarratt scared the shit out of me. I will never go back packing in australia purely cause of that guy. The film itself was a letdown but the villain stopped it from being a complete disappointment.

How many times have you seen it?
I only ask as I felt the same as you (ho-hum film but great bad guy), until i watched it a 2nd time (and have seen it 6-7 since). Admittedly the "party stuff" build up in the first part of the film is utterly unnecessary, but once they hit the road, it becomes a great little road picture. Maybe try watching it again? It really did have a significant "grow on you" factor for me, and now can't wait for the Canadian Blu ray release.

Only once yes. It was an ok film but I was expecting more. Maybe I shouldnt go into films with expectations a bit more smile I might watch it another time and see how I feel. I wasn't that keen on house of 1000 corpses but I do quite like it more now after 2 more watches.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

UltraViolence wrote:

Only once yes. It was an ok film but I was expecting more. Maybe I shouldnt go into films with expectations a bit more smile I might watch it another time and see how I feel. I wasn't that keen on house of 1000 corpses but I do quite like it more now after 2 more watches.

So often is the case. Bloody expectations!!!  Definitely give Wolf Creek another chance. Jarratt gets even better the 2nd time. LOL.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Bunshinsaba wrote:
UltraViolence wrote:

Only once yes. It was an ok film but I was expecting more. Maybe I shouldnt go into films with expectations a bit more smile I might watch it another time and see how I feel. I wasn't that keen on house of 1000 corpses but I do quite like it more now after 2 more watches.

So often is the case. Bloody expectations!!!  Definitely give Wolf Creek another chance. Jarratt gets even better the 2nd time. LOL.

Resisting an urge to be completely sarcastic seen as I've upset some people..

I will actually. I've just got my Vengeance Trilogy boxset (complete with hammer and gun blueprints!) so I'm watching them at the moment but once I've finished and if I can fit it in inbetween my movie chalenge I will get on it and watch it again.

Another thought, maybe it's not the charecters or the crimes that makes them likeable but the actor/actress playing them? Robert Englund made Freddy likeable while the actor who played him in the remake made him more nasty. Just a thought... Maybe it's not Cap Spaulding I like but Sid Haig... Mindless musings of an insomniac is all.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

UltraViolence wrote:
PrinceofDarkness wrote:

A few things

The remake is terrible.  Erase that from ANY discussion.  It is the worst horror film I have ever seen, and I am not even close to the only person who has said that.

"You are too forced to like a criminal and not just a robber"

Your point makes no sense.  Freddy is too much of a murderer or criminal to cheer for?  Since he murders children?

The fireflies murdered children and it seems as though they might have been rapists too.  I mean they were the WORST kind of killers.  You have no problem cheering for them.

Maybe I am not understanding your post.

Firefly family has killed probably close to a thousand.  You are "forced" to cheer for the Fireflys the exact same way as you are forced to cheer for Freddy and the robber/murderous in From Dusk till dawn.  The firefly's and spaulding killed way more than Freddy and they did it with NO REASON or motive.  If you want Freddy to be innocent then you have to want the firefly's to be innocent.  But if that was the case, neither movie would make any sense or be worth a damn.  I'm sorry but your point just doesn't make sense when you use A House of a Thousand Corpses and Devil's rejects as an example of criminals who aren't too brutal to cheer for.

Remember these are fictional villains. Of course if they were real I would be disgusted. I have no problem with admitting brutality in a film with the right measures and done properly makes the film for me. I like violence in my movie hence why I'm on a horror forum not a chick flick forum. The fireflys are not sympathetic characters at all. They are a sick family. But I could argue that the children (baby, Otis, tiny etc) just learnt from their psychotic parents. Monkey see monkey do. I like baby and Spaulding because they are hilarious. Tiny is the more sympathetic probably. He didn't seem to be a cruel character. Sharing his food with the girl in house for example. Freddy is likeable because he's funny. If I was watching for the first time I'd lean towards him being innocent, I don't remember them explicitly saying he did kill children until later movies. I like villains not for their crimes but because they as people are likeable. How many times in newspapers and on tv have the Neibours of serial killers or child abusers said 'he was a nice guy didn't suspect a thing'. My actual example was jeff from hard candy who again until the last 10 minutes we never knew if he did do anything wrong. Yeah he was creepy and gave alcohol to a minor but how many of us drank with older friends and teens? I dont want anyone to be innocent. Remakes should never be discounted completely because they are someones take on a film, sometimes they take it in a different direction which is their beef not mine. If liking freddy, fireflys and other villains makes me sick, then that's fine. I know that I'd never act on these films or copy anything i view. I am 20 and have the mental capacity to know these crimes are atrocities especially the fireflys.

What in God's name are you talking about?

You said your problem with Nightmare on Elm St was "you are too forced to like a criminal"

Then you used House of a thousand corpses as an example of a movie that you do not have a problem with. 

All I was saying is the Firefly family is just as sick as Freddy, if not sicker, so your whole entire point in the opening thread makes no sense.

Unless I misunderstood your first post.

If you have a problem with Nightmare on Elm St because "you are too forced to like the criminal," then how can you not feel forced to like the Firefly family just the same? They are waaaaay sicker and murdered many more than Freddy.

And when a remake is widely considered the worst film of all time, it should be disregarded.  It has NOTHING to do with the original series.  It is a terrible terrible film.

Last edited by PrinceofDarkness (2012-06-25 20:41:25)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Sorry prince but you've completely missed my point. And if you read my final line from my op you'll see in now way do i cheer on villains. Please read properly. My problem with noes was not that I was forced to like a villain but that I felt maybe for dramatic purposes freddy could have been innocent. Yes fireflys are sicker, but they are also chacters you like because they are portrayed as protagonists through as the film follows them not their victims like in other slashers etc.

And I hate how people disregard a remake because they didn't like it. It's not a valid point anyway! In no way did I base any of my feeling on the remake in my op! This was completely about the original!

Last edited by UltraViolence (2012-06-26 03:13:48)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

UltraViolence wrote:

Firstly, I love these films. The first was genuinely scary and still holds up and the fun dark comedy was brilliant. However, I think I would have liked Freddy more (because lets face it, he is the reason we watch them) if he was innocent in life and was wrongly accused of the crimes against children, THIS is the point of my post,  the rest is just filler. ^^ That is the problem I have NOT that I like a childkiller or rapists but that I think he should have been innocent for dramatics sake. his revenge would have felt more justified and I would have felt less guilty about enjoying the death scenes. I had this problem with Hard Candy too. I am forced to like a criminal (Maybe I should have said paedofile as I was talking about hard candy) and not just a robber like in From Dusk Til Dawn (The Geckos are the anti heros therefore you are supposed to like them)   or a hilarious psychotic clown like in Zombies firefly family films (Never once to I say I like the fireflys but Spaulding who is not said to be a villain until the last minute or so) but in NOES and Hard Candy I'm made to like peodofiles and child killers and I can't quite handle that. So much so I was stripped down by some pillock on IMDB when I shared these thoughts about both films. Am I the only one who sees this as a problem or am I being a tit and ready way way too much into it? Maybe those on IMDB are right and I'm as much as a monster as them because I like them more than I should. (Btw I felt the need for a bath when I realized I'd been routing for a peodofile in Hard Candy and still feel kinda grubby for liking the Fireflys)

Last edited by UltraViolence (2012-06-26 03:09:39)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

yea as I said.  The fireflys are SO MUCH more brutal than Freddy.  If you feel grubby for liking Freddy, then you should feel grubby for liking the Fireflies.  Otis is as vicious and brutal as it gets.  As is Captain Spaulding after watching both films.  Captain Spaulding and Mother Firefly raised a family of murderous and they proceed to fill their house up with corpses.  Also, we follow the victims in House of a Thousand Corpses the exact same way the victims are followed in Nightmare on Elm St.  In House of a Thousand Corpses, I don't believe the Fireflies are antiheroes.  It is not until the Devil's Rejects that we actually follow the Fireflies and not their victims so much.

As I keep saying, if you feel grubby for liking Freddy then you should feel EXTRA grubby for liking Fireflies.  Freddy being innocent would not work.  Just like Fireflies being innocent in House of a Thousand Corpses would not work.  You don't cheer for the fireflies in a House of a Thousand Corpses and you don't cheer for Freddy in Nightmare on Elm St.  Unless you can accept feeling Grubby like myself and a ton of others.

Last edited by PrinceofDarkness (2012-06-26 18:33:53)

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

I accept that... Just like I felt sick at the end of I saw the devil for supporting a guy who tortured a man and murdered him. I don't cheer anyone on but I like freddy as a character. It could work freddy being innocent like it works geam-ja being innocent in lady vengeance. I said I felt grubby for enjoying house and tdr several times... Am I now missing something? I never said fireflys were anti heros. I said the gecko brothers were. Am I being fucking trolled or something. Sick of explaining this now. Can admin just delete the thread..

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Relax people.  It's OK to have different opinions.  Everyone has them, and all you have to do is respect each others.  I don't like "Devil's Rejects," and I get shit for it all the time.  Fair enough.  I like "Ghosts of Mars," and get shit for that, so be it.

Wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything, now would it?  Otherwise, I would have no need to send out the monkey brigade to smack some sense into some of you!  tongue

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

Lol az! I found lots of people who liked ghosts of mars on a Facebook horror group I go on wink I get shit for not liking the original Halloween. (ducks and hides). I'm not hardcore like some of the people here, but I like to think I know what I'm talking about some of the time.

Re: A problem I have with Nightmare on Elm Street...

^^
Yeah, I remember the original Halloween thing you said a while back.  Can't remember if I responded or not; doesn't matter, one of the regulars here things Jaws sucks(!), though I forget who it is.  I wish Facebook didn't record so much info on you, I'd frequent it more often.

If you don't mind, send me a PM of the Facebook movie page so I can take a look.  They may need more monkeys, lol