Freddie sucks!
 

Bound to divide opinion. As a massive slasher fan i can never understand the popularity and icon status of freddie. Nightmare on elm street was pretty good but the rest were rubbish. The stuff he says is childish, not that funny and a lot less effective than, say, pinheads. His glove is pretty cool, but is underused as a weapon, with him relying more on daft gimmicky kills. I just don't get why he is revered more than a lot of other standard slasher characters of the day.

Never thought about Freddy himself, but I agree the first Nightmare on Elm Street was the only good one.

I'm a fan of three of the films ( Nightmare, Dream Warriors and New Nightmare ), but I have to agree on a few points you make, neilold. I do think the series went off into slapstick comedy and that was a turnoff for me. I dont mind some witty remarks or a few laughs mixed in with my horror, but the Elm St. franchise took it to ridiculous extremes. In fact, thats the primary reason Freddys Dead is completely unwatchable in my opinion.

You also mention the Glove. You're spot on with your comments. The glove is wicked, but as you say, it's underutilized. There have been some amazing and creative deaths involving the glove, but just not enough!

Overall, I love Freddy and I think his origin is an interesting and disturbing one, and when he's not playing the fool, he can really be one menacing sob! Sadly, this is not always the case.

I disagree, with most of that. First I don't look at Nightmare as a Slasher. To group him in with Jason isn't quite right. The nightmare movies where made to be more fun and less serious than your basic slasher. By far not my favorite, but most of the movies achieved their overall goal, which was to make horror more fun and interesting to a group of people who may not love the strong silent type as is the case with just about every other slasher. He was different in a genre that, at the time, was mostly just variations on the same character in different settings. Oh and Dream Warrior was by far the best, the first one was a bit to meh for me. The second was kind of a joke, but after that, there was some good times. I just finished my first round of all of them with my 8 year old. That's what Freddie is good for, me and my boy can watch them without me having to cover his eyes due to tons of boobies or it being way to over his head story wise. Its a simple horror movie with a great premise. Stop overthinking and enjoy the fun.

I'm a big fan of the first five movies, with 4 bring my personal favorite sequel. However, I hated Freddy's Dead so much that it's the only movie I actually turned off partway through. I stopped after she first got the 3d glasses. It was almost like a parody of the other ANOES movies, and Freddy was basically a comedian. Other than that, he's my favorite movie villain. I felt like in most of the movies, he would say one-liners, but they sounded so menacing that they were more creepy than funny, and the ways he kills people are usually pretty fucked up. His back story is pretty interesting as well.

I don't think they're slashers.

I don't understand that you don't understand he became an icon.
He's got a unique look: the burned skin, the hat, the sweater and the glove.
He has his own song. He's got a cool, catchy name. And a short but solid background story.
What else do you need?
I think he's a lot more interesting than Michael Myers for example.

I remember seeing part 2 when I was 9 and I had nightmares for about 2 weeks.
There was a scene where Freddy crawled out of someone's skin and I was so scared I slept on my stomach so he couldn't get out.

It got me for a while when he came through the wall and stretched down over the sleeping teen. I just knew that every time I closed my eyes he was stretching out of that wall.

And then there is a scene in another one of the movies when he pulls a guy down through his water bed. Like a month later my mom surprised me with a water bed... Screw that...

I haven't seen many of the sequels (I believe I've only seen 2 of them), but if the first is supposed to be the best, I haven't a lot of expectations for the rest. I liked the story line enough (and although seeing Johnny Depp being pulled into a mattress and turned into a blood geyser was hellafunny), Freddy just isn't my kind of villain. I'm more strong silent type like Micheal and Jason. And Freddy is a bit much talk and not so much action. He's able to kill kids while they're their most vulnerable, and yet his body count isn't as impressive as it should be. I guess that's an example of sorts to what has been formally said about lack of use of such an awesome and unique weapon.

That isn't to say that Freddy isn't a slasher or horror icon. His back story is good, his look is grotesque (which is good), and there's no denying Robert Englund's portrayal is stuff of legend. He's just not my cup of tea. And no disrespect to those who love him.

I see where you coming from. But you you have to give NOES it's pretty damn original.

Freddies 'unique look' is no different than any other slasher movie villains own 'unique' looks. BTW, my fave is the bloke in the prowler. His song is pretty rubbish to, just a classic nursery rhyme with a few changed words. His look, i always felt, was too rubbery looking and false to be really scary. His story is original, but after the first movie it was pretty much dead as a scare tactic. Don't get me wrong i don't hate the NOES series, and i've certainly seen a lot, lot worse, i just don't consider him an icon.

Funnily enough i find him less interesting than mike myers, for the same rason some find him more. i like the fact that Mike Myers is an unknown, that he's tacit, slow and relentless, and that he still shows emotion even with a mask covering his face

although the nightmare on elm st series did go down hill until new nightmare, its still considered a slasher movie because it has all the slasher element. lets break down a slasher: A killer who kills teens, The teens have Premarital sex, And the virgin was the one who survives.

Freddy is great. There are bigger things to hate on in horror.

yup there are. Maybe if he wasn't seen as an icon, it wouldn't irritate me as much. However, i still think my point is a valid one

I'd say the series had two major turn-offs to me, which came at the same time: the slap-stick, and the "dream powers." The latter bothered me a lot more. It was like I was watching a very bloody Saturday Morning cartoon about superheroes, rather than a slasher film.

The dream powers just gave the victims way too much power to fight back directly, instead of getting clever.

Do you oppose humor in your horror.

What I liked about Freddy is that he never felt like a generic bogeyman. He had a personality throughout the entire series, while slashers like Jason or Michael Myers were just disposable serial killers without any personality.

The key to Freddy is his domain. All accolades and criticisms aside, something that can literally kill us in our dreams, while we're sleeping, curled snuggly in our beds is F'ng scary!!

This. ^


I love Freddy. ::love:: Could have done without the tv series though. ::big grin::

Who thinks Freddy would have worked better stalking Laurie Strode and Vorhees/Myers in dreamland?

LOL. Comedy. I couldn't imagine Freddy in Haddonfield. Laurie could finish him off lickety split. Michael Myers is bad enough to deal with in real life, it would be even more scary to have him popping up in dreams too! Jason went off to space once too, I imagine he's good anywhere you wanna drop him off.

I refer you to my thread title!

Certainly not. I love Return of the Living Dead and Trick 'R Treat.

As I said, though, the humor turned me off less than the Dream Powers, and I can't recall ever really disliking Freddy himself. I loved Freddy Vs Jason.

I guess that leads us into a problem discussing humor. There's not much for me to say about the humor in the later movies other than "I didn't laugh." It's very subjective.

It's kinda sad & frustrating that after all these years and particularly as lately Wes Craven passed away, now we're having this discussion here!!::shocked::
But the world would have been a totally different place if we all had the same taste & opinion, so we have to deal with this sort of shits sometime.

Anyway to put it in short & simple, like any other slasher or horror movie film series ANOES also got some unnecessary & terrible sequels where at times they indeed focused too much on 'funny Freddy' or whatever but this is nothing but simple arrogance to say there's nothing iconic about Freddy Krueger or "Freddy Sucks"! I don't understand how much standard of knowledge & taste it requires for someone to understand that the concept & presentation of Freddy Krueger is one of the most original & fascinating creations we have in our beloved genre. If we even put aside his character attributes, looks & iconic razor gloves; where most other major iconic characters i.e Jason, Leatherface or Michael Myers are at times like unstoppable killing machines, Freddy on the other hand is way more unpredictable, like Repo said, he has his own domain in every victim's cruelest nightmare where he often plays with their darkest fear. Now if that doesn't make him interesting or iconic to some horror fan then I've to say he/she may have some other funny reasons.

For any great & deserving character in the process to become an 'Icon' among the genre fans, doesn't require a whole bunch of series of stories or films; one single great original story is enough. Horror movie iconic characters like Jason, Michael, Leatherface as well as Freddy would have still treated as HORROR ICON if they even never made those sequels (& remake) back then & till now.

Good points. Firstly I have no arguemenrs over wes craven as a person, in fact I love many of his films, especially scream and last house on the left. Nextly if its mor to do with the amount of films, and is based on just one, then there should be numerous other ones, where's cropsy for starters? The story is original, but only to the point of it would involving dreams. From what i remember there isnt a bif amiubt of back story, and his malevolence us downpkayed in favour if nit very goid humour.A slasher villain, in a hat, with a clawed glove isn't exactly a world away from other slasher villains.

What other slasher villain can do this?

For me, I think Freddy became an icon cause he was around when I was a teenager and I don't think that most of the younger generation will enjoy him as much. I own all of the movies and they will always be collectibles to me; I also have his figure still in a box.

Yes, his lines are goofy and some of the killings may seem a bit cheezy but that's who Freddy is and it's hard for me not to like him! Everyone always remembers him for the hat, sweater, knife fingers, and the burnt skin. How many people don't know him due to these famous trademarks??

Well said. And as comical as Freddy can be sometimes, I still wouldn't want to end up in a room alone with him. That to me says he may be cheesy sometimes yes, but he never totally lost what made him really scary.

I was thinking the same thing.

Which goes to show a great actor is key to making an iconic character. How many different actors played Micheal or Jason? More than one for both of them. A handful even. Freddy though? Robert Englund. He made Freddy. Gave him the personality that sets him apart from other slashers. You can't just put anyone in that get up and have the same effect like Jason or Micheal have.

Jason and Michael never speak and are relentless and unrecognisable, that's why its easy to swap actors. With freddie it would be virtually instantly recognisable. Either way it it doesn't make him a horror icon. Nobody has yet to answer why cropsy and the bloke from the prowler, or even harry warden aren't equal icons or why they shouldnt be. As for the clip what other villain could do that, well any kind of entity and a director with a reasonable budget

like said i don't hate freddie, or necessarily all the movies, i just don't think he's an icon any more than any other slasher villain

The definition of Icon is, " a person or thing widely regarded as a representative symbol of something." If Freddy doesn't represent horror, I really don't know what or who does. As for Cropsy and " the bloke from the prowler" I imagine the term " widely regarded " doesn't apply, so that's a clear separation in my mind. Freddy is known from one continent to another. Children, adults and everyone in between know his name, his costume and his face. The name alone brings immediate visions of terror and flashing blades. When u say Freddy, you say horror. Asking why "the bloke from the Prowler " isn't regarded in the same iconic light as Freddy Krueger is like asking why we don't put sawdust in our soup. It makes no sense.

not sure how freddie is 'representive' of horror, in that case dracula should be above them all surely, same arguement for well known global appeal.

p.s i love your 'swadust in the soup' analogy repo, its random but great!

Ha! Yeah, Neil, that one came out of nowhere.
As to your point about Dracula, I agree Ol' fang face should be atop or near the top of any list of horrors representatives...just a few notches above Freddy!::stick out tongue::

Of course you could always start a reasonable argument that Michael and Jason shouldn't be included either! Still let's not slaughter too many sacred cows eh!

Amen to that, brother!

I first read that as Michael Jackson. I'm amused.

one final thing about freddie, and its, by a long way, the thing that irritates me the most abbout his films. Given that the person freddie is after can have powers (dream warriors). Why doesnt somebody just turn themselves into an invisible, indestructible, impervious to damage, entity and just instantly vapourise freddie, and then dissolve his vapour! problem solved! Its a dream so it actually makes a lot more sense than a normal kid trying to shoot a slasher villain!

Also why does freddie limit his choices to kids in America rather than any kid in the universe!

Okay have you actually seen A Nightmare on Elm Street?

Why does Michael Myers stalk one town? Why doesn't he stalk the kids in Mumbai?

I suppose because that would be too easy, & it wouldn't be much fun if Freddy was so easily defeated. I liked Dream Warriors, Phillip's death is one of my favorites especially. As to why Freddy stuck to America, it's because the parents of the Elm Street kids are the ones who burned/killed him. Not the parents of the children in Brazil.