Jump to content

Talk:Freddy Krueger/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Freddyhockey.png

Image:Freddyhockey.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

main image

the main picture is a reverse, it shows the glove being on his left hand, when it is supposed to be on his right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.191.66 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

British Wacko

There was probably some buzz about this when it happened but is the Brit with the homemade glove really notable enough to be in the header? If it's notable at all, the best it should get is a mention further down page. I'll check back in a few days and if there's no sensible objection I'll move it somewhere or delete it. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly worth noting in the article, but I don't believe it is worthy of its own section. I would assume including it in some type of "Cultural impact" section. I'm working on a rewrite of the article in my sandbox (the same as what I did for Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers), so I'll see what I can do with it in there. As for right now I would move it down the page somewhere. It certainly shouldn't be solely in the lead paragraphs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about cast

I'm holding a discussion at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Cast in regards to the cast list for the film series as a whole (and the comics if need be).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amanda krueger.JPG

Image:Amanda krueger.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Freddy vs jason promo.jpg

Image:Freddy vs jason promo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Human Face

Shouldn't someone put up what he looked like before he was burned? That close up in the beginning of Freddy v.s. Jason should suffice(in the scene "Freddy's Children" straight before he gets burned by the parental mob). We have one for Jason, why not Freddy? Hell, Pinhead use to have one, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Freddys-dead-face-off.jpg

Image:Freddys-dead-face-off.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Song

i have removed the following lines which seemed unimportant/vandalism/opinion.

This horror song, which is horrific was also one of the most horrifying songs in the horror business, but never covered by The Horrors or The Horror, The Horror. It will be one of the horror favourites in the horror genre. HORROR!Pidgeonman (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Weakness

I noticed that the description of the third weakness was very grammatically sloppy, shifting tone and perspective, and contained numerous spelling and capitalization errors. I corrected it, but it almost seemed to me that that really isn't a weakness at all but simply an ability to fight back. -Jbourne99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbourne99 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Critters Cut out

If i'm not mistaken, isn't there a Freddy Cut out in the movies Critters where one of the aliens that shape shift was about to turn into, before the nerd stops him? I believe it to be the second one and if so why is that not mentioned? Yami (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New Line Cinema vs. Wes Craven

removed the line

"Later, in Craven's Scream a character would say that "the first movie was great but the rest sucked" — a jab at the other films (although Craven denies writing this line).[1]"

Because that is in reference to the friday the 13th movies not nightmare. dont think the source prooves anything either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.143 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a wiki-noob

I was looking through the Freddy wiki for just some background information on the man himself and I read something that I thought was incorrect... it might be a bit trivial... and it might not be that important... but I didn't know quite the right way to reword it so I wanted to see if someone could help me... and this is my first time editing a wiki and I didn't want to mess things up... I made bold the part I'm talking about.... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it Freddy who originally does the tranqulizer dose and then the teens keep him in dreamland (forgive the pun)... like I said I know it's kinda trivial and if it doesn't need to be changed don't worry about it... but if you do change it then cool too... good night!


The television series Freddy's Nightmares and the film Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare also state Freddy is unable to spread his influence outside of Springwood. However, Freddy has managed to move beyond Springwood when he sought out his daughter (who he claims could free him of the town's borders due to being of his bloodline) in Freddy's Dead and when he made his way to Camp Crystal Lake inside the dreams of Jason during Freddy vs. Jason, which indicates that he can be in the dreams of those who are outside of Springwood if they are put to sleep while in Springwood's borders. This was the case with Jason, whom the teens of the film injected high levels of tranquilizer into, in hopes they could move him to Crystal Lake and give him the "home field advantage" in an attempt to use Jason to destroy Freddy. Yet, Freddy then entered his dreams while he was tranquilized. The two were still in conflict within Jason's dreams while Jason's body was being transported back to Camp Crystal lake, and Freddy appeared to lose none of his power during the transportation.


```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylinetturbo (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate explanation

How could his mother have been raped in the 1940s when his birth year is listed as 1938?

Janitor

I always thought Freddy was a janitor not a power plant worker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the inclusion of Freddy v Jason v Ash. After all, comic books have been made about Nightmare on Elm Street and these may not be considered a reliable part of these characters primary fictional biography. Also, some of the mention is of no importance (the personal information about that wikipedia editor). I will clean that portion up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Improper English at "line 32"

I have tried twice now to edit the entry to reflect propar grammar, and it has been rejected both times. The line I am attempting to fix is "Krueger was accidentally locked inside of the asylum, where she was tortured and raped her for several days.". The word "her" does not belong in that sentence.

I also feel that it should be noted that she was raped by 100 inmates of the asylum, giving further creedence to the "Bastard son of 100 madmen" quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.90.45 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger and pedophilia

Taken from the talk page of Largoss:

Largoss. I suggest you read up on the Pedophilia and Child sexual abuse articles, which are topics I am well-versed in, as both articles clearly point out that incorrect use of the term pedophile/pedophilia does not make a person a pedophile. No one can legally be a pedophile, though people can legally be child molesters. But even from a legal standpoint, was Krueger convicted of child molestation? Furthermore, you should also read the archive discussion I linked to (Talk:Freddy Krueger/Archive 1#Child molestor) about why Krueger possibly being a child molester should not be noted in the lead and why he should not be placed in Category:Fictional pedophiles. The creator of the character, Wes Craven, even states that he scrapped the idea of Krueger being a child molester. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is established in Freddy's Nightmares that he was a child molester. Plus it says in the article that the term is applie to anyone who molested children by those in law enforcement. Furthermore, he even states to Laurie in Freddy VS. Jason his "love" for children.Largoss (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

His being a child molester having been "established in Freddy's Nightmares" is addressed in the discussion I linked to above. And not all those in law enforcement incorrectly use the term pedophile. Law enforcement incorrectly using the term does not make a person a pedophile. A 19-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old minor, for example, does not make that 19-year-old a pedophile. In addition, when was Krueger convicted of child molestation in order to have been called a pedophile by law enforcement? Pedophilia's true definition is a post-pubescent person's (as in a mid to late teenager or older adult's) sexual preference for prepubescent children. Can it be proven without a doubt that Krueger has a sexual preference for prepubescent children? So far, especially due to Craven saying that Krueger is not a child molester, it has not been proven without a doubt. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wes has stated that in the original movie that he wanted Freddy to be a being a being of pure evil and that he did not want him to be comedic. The movies have gone away from that and turned him into such. He wasnt originally intended to be a child molester but there have been two instances in the later works that he IS a child molester (night mare 5 and freddy's nightmares respectively). Also it is heavily implied in the begining of Freddy VS Jason. The opening paragraph is suppose to talk of the films as a whole, well if hes been defined as one by two sources, then why is it not included? Largoss (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Craven had intended to make Freddy a pedophile but right before the movie released, a small wave of child molestations occurred and he felt it would be inappropriate. Remember when he licked the photo of the little girl and put it in his he scrap book? Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare I think it was. I would definitely label him that. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I pretty sure Freddy's Nightmares is not Nightmare canon • S • C • A • R • C • E • 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, canon doesn't matter. The show, to my knowledge, never explicitely stated he was a child molester. It was all implied through the editing. Even if Craven says "he's a molester", it wouldn't be a category issue, or a lead issue, as he's never been identified in media as a child molester. It would be great for the article to note that Craven always felt like he was, but it wouldn't be something you'd categorize.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You guys responded before I could. As Bignole points out in the linked archived discussion above and in this one, it is only hinted at that Krueger sexually desired and or molested children (and very rarely mentioned, at that), and some of these "hints" are not even proven hints; they are instead viewer interpretation. Hinting does not automatically equate to fact...but it does often equate to speculation. A quick flash of a newspaper clipping calling Krueger a child molester does not take away from the fact that it is not definitively confirmed that Krueger is one, seeing as the paper could have been branding him that that for other reasons...and Craven has made it clear that Krueger is not a child molester. If other creators of the films were to come out and say that Krueger is a child molester, then we would have something more to work with on that front than simply saying "Here and here, it is suggested that Krueger may have desired children sexually." In Freddy vs. Jason, Krueger does not even focus on children but rather teenagers (even though he calls them children or "kiddies") , just as it seems that most of Krueger's targets (murder-wise) are teenagers. In that case (if he is sexually after them, in addition to murder), he could be called a child molester by law, but that certainly would not make him a pedophile. An ephebophile, maybe, but not a pedophile.
I have no problem with the text of this article suggesting Krueger as a child molester, despite what Wes has said on that matter. But he should not be put in the pedophiles category, for the reasons I stated above and others' reasons of opposition against such. Different versions of the lead (intro) of this article once mentioned that Krueger may have been a child molester and a pedophile, as seen with this link and this one, but, clearly, editors decided that it should not be noted in the lead. I, however, have no problem with it being noted within the lower body of the article. The thing is...when we do that...we get people trying to put him into the pedophile category. Even with the text only stating Wes intended him to be a child molester but changed his mind, some people here still put him into the pedophile category. I do not get that. If Craven scrapped the idea, and it has not been definitively confirmed that Krueger is a child molester, then why try to categorize him as one? Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, worth mentioning, but something of a controversial nature such as this categorization should not be completed • S • C • A • R • C • E • 00:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, the hidden note I put in the External links section about categorizing him as such will keep enough people from doing so. After the 2007 discussion about him being a child molester, this article went months without him being categorized as a pedophile. With the note I added there (in the External links section), it should (ideally) go longer. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just passing through

But if you're serious about getting this to GA you need to get rid of those citation needed tags that are littered in the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jason Goes to Hell

Does this belong in the Cultural references section? While it was an easter egg-style cameo, it was also an official canonical appearance, and I think it belongs in Appearances.  Paul  730 20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But it really wasn't an official appearance. The creative team said they just threw it in there original because New Line had just acquired the rights to Jason and it was more as a site gag than anything real. New Line might have wanted it to be something more, but the director basically says it was a gag and not meant to insinuate anything beyond that - at least, so he says in the "Crystal Lake Memories" book.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
According to Making Friday the 13th, New Line used JGtH to test whether people wanted a Freddy vs. Jason movie. The potential crossover was very much in their minds when they created that final scene. And I know canon isn't everything, but Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street are a shared universe and Jason Goes to Hell is (retroactively, but still) an in-continuity appearance and the first crossover (of several) between the two franchises. Relegating it to Cultural references like it's some kind of Family Guy gag seems wrong. I'd like to amend this articles Appearances section to include the following between Freddy's Dead and New Nightmare:
Freddy made his first appearance in the Friday the 13th series as a cameo in Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993); his clawed hand (Kane Hodder) grabs Jason's mask and drags it to hell in the film's final scene. New Line Cinema used this movie to gauge interest in a potential full-fledged crossover between the two franchises.
 Paul  730 21:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
They used the film, as in if the film made money it would prove to them that there was still interest in the character. The arm grabbing his mask wasn't the gimmick to decide whether there was interest in a crossover film, since that idea had been spinning in the air since the mid 80s. The arm was a gag instituted by the director, because he had access to the props given that New Line owned both franchises. Had he not done that, it wouldn't have changed anything in the history of either franchise give that the crossover film didn't follow JGtH. It followed New Nightmare and Jason X. The gag is up there with his glove and Jason's mask appearing in Bride of Chucky. It isn't a real appearance, it's a gag. What you have is of more importance to the respective franchise pages, than Freddy's personal page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the gag itself was responsible for the crossover, the fact remains that this is Freddy Krueger's first appearance in the F13 series, in which he is a recurring character. And it is a proper "appearance", because we see his arm and hear his voice. It's not a reference to the character, it is the character. It's not the same as his glove prop appearing in the background of Bride of Chucky or Evil Dead 2, or Ash's metafictional "appearance" in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Unlike those other homages, this was done when the concept of a crossover movie was being considered, there was a legitimate chance of the two character sharing the same universe. It's more akin to Jason's appearance in the original Friday the 13th; that was just a "gag" as well but it was still an official appearance.  Paul  730 23:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
But he doesn't really appear. His arm does. It's not a real, or official, appearance. Had you left when the couple walks into the sunset, which is the end of the film, you never would have seen that bit. Jason's appearance in the original wasn't a "gag". He appears in the film before the final "scare". This seems more appropriate for the Mass media section - as "Cultural references" really isn't the best title since not all are "references".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But... he does appear. Just because you don't see him in his entirety doesn't mean it's not an appearance. Sylar appears in shadows for the first half of Heroes season 1 but he still appears. From what I understand, Lex Luthor appears in Smallville season 8 without actually been shown onscreen. Dismissing this because it's just his arm is a technicality - it's still a depiction of the character and it is official - it's a New Line film, it's canon with the NoES movies, what more do you need?
Had you left when the couple walks into the sunset, which is the end of the film, you never would have seen that bit.
Um, that doesn't make sense. Obviously if you walk out during a scene, you're not going to see that scene. How come you get to decide when the film is over? The credits don't roll until after Freddy's cameo. I still think this belongs in the official appearances section. It's notable that Freddy and Jason's rivalry was foreshadowed in the films themselves and that Freddy appeared in a F13 film long before FvJ came out.  Paul  730 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Lex Luthor technically appears at the end of season eight's "Bride", but given it's just the back of a bald head, and they don't identify him in the episode, we don't actually say "Lex Luthor appears in 'Bride'". Even his page doesn't state it, because he isn't identified by name, nor is he clearly seen (like I said, you see the back of a bald head and that's it...obvious to fans, not so much to non-fans). Ah, you just said it, his "cameo". It isn't an "appearance", it's a cameo of his arm. You're attributing your own personal opinion on the significance of his arm, based on the fact that we have FvJ. If we didn't have FvJ, and there was no talk about having FvJ, you'd chalk it up to simple cross film reference, and nothing more. It isn't a real appearance, and should be noted somewhere else. He doesn't actually appear in the film. It's a site gag, and nothing more. Otherwise, you might as well include any TV appearance of the character in "Appearances". He has more screen time in the opening of The Simpsons than he did in JGtH. You're attributing a significance to the arm based solely on the fact that FvJ exists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A cameo is still an appearance, hence "cameo appearance". I do think that, in light of FvJ, his appearance in JGtH is notable. It was the first crossover between the two characters. For example, the original Aliens versus Predator comic is more notable nowadays in light of how the franchise developed. Batman versus Predator doesn't hold the same historical significance. JGtH was an official New Line appearance from Freddy Krueger, in a time when FvJ was being planned. It was not the same as Sam Raimi throwing the glove into the background of ED2 as an homage, or Freddy being spoofed in The Simpsons, and doesn't belong in some pop culture/mass media section. There's no point in us disagreeing back and forth, but I think this warrants further discussion.  Paul  730 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But it's not relevant to that section. That section is devoted to significant appearances in various media, not random cameo appearances that may or may not be official. It isn't significant to the character. If all you can say is, "Freddy's arm appears in Jason Goes to Hell," then clearly there isn't any real need to mention it regardless of the section. For one, it adds nothing to the section. For another it's questionable how "official" it actually is, given that it wasn't New Line's call. The fact that they own the characters only means they can use whatever gimmicks they want without repercussions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rapist

Why is Freddy Krueger in the fictional rapists category? I can't seem to recall an occurrence where Freddy did or it was implied. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rhyme

A while ago, I put in something about the "1, 2, Freddy's comin' for you" rhyme under the "characterization" portion of the article. I thought it would fit since it's Freddy's calling card and has been sung in every single Nightmare movie at least once. Why was it removed? Smijes08 talk, 3:13, 23 February 2010

Because it was an entire section. That's just silly. Feel free to add a paragraph or a sentence. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Why don't we use {{infobox character}}? –Scarce ✉ 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it includes sections that we don't need, and doesn't include sections that we do. Plus, you cannot customize it the way we do for this template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What needs customizing, the design? You can erase the parameters you don't need and there are options to add customized parameters. There are also options to change the style of the title bars but I don't see a need to. –Scarce ✉ 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What need is there to use the template? In my experience, the use of those templates has led to recurring problems with IPs wanting to fill in every available section that goes with the template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If the editor is an IP, chances are they don't know the template's additional parameters. I don't really care, it just seems more efficient. –Scarce ✉ 02:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
They typically do, because they frequent other character pages. I'm merely stating what has happened in the past. I don't find the template more efficient. Both do the same thing. The only difference is that you're using a template over the original code. Use whichever you like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Anyone else find the categorization of this article outrageous?

This made me reminisce about the note left on the featured Homer Simpson article: "Please limit the categories listed for keep in "category overkill", discussed on the talk page please. Do not add any new categories; discuss them on the talk page first." And the only categories for that page are:

I do believe I shall pick at them. ►Scarce◄ 17:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would easily cut "janitors", "criminals", "factory workers", "undead" (he's not undead for one), "serial killers" (as he's a mass murderer and not a serial killer), "demons" (he's not a demon), "rapists" (not something he's known for), "characters from Ohio" and "adoptees".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally listing Krueger as a pedophile?

All past talk page discussions have been against it, as seen in the banner link above. But in the remake, he is portrayed as one? I haven't seen the remake yet, and am only going by the hidden note listing him in the pedophile category (before my removal of it, that is). Now I know people are always confusing what pedophilia really means -- the sexual preference for prepubescent children -- with other things (such as an attraction to pubertal or post-pubertal teenagers), so I want to know if he is portrayed as a pedophile in the technical sense. If you mean "pedophile" in its common use application -- a child molester or sexual attraction to anyone under 18, then...oh. And if Bignole is now okay with him being categorized as one, then I guess the remake gets Krueger pretty close to the more accurate definition of a pedophile. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The remake doesn't directly say or show that he is. They show that he cut on the children, and the parents only ever say "hurt". But there is heavy insinuation that he molested them, as whenever a parent says "hurt" it's more like they are searching for a better word than "molested". Also, at the end there are pictures that are left unseen but the reaction to them is as if they were pornographic in nature. So...it's up the air. I believe the filmmakers were saying he molested them, but nothing in the film directly says it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Aw, so it sounds like the children were prepubescent or little children in general. I can't imagine a mid or late teenager only being able to say "he hurt me" (unless initially only able to describe it that way due to the trauma), and it sounds like these kids were more defenseless than teenagers would be. It definitely sounds like the filmmakers were portraying him as a child molester. Being a child molester doesn't necessarily make one a pedophile, as the Pedophilia article makes clear to distinguish the two, but him being a repeat offender certainly ups the chances (ups them high up there) that he indeed has a very genuine interest in/or even preference for prepubescent children/little children. Because of that, I would say it's safe to put him in the fictional pedophile category. If you want to leave him out, however, now that I removed it, I'm okay with that as well of course. Since Krueger would often make adult sexual jokes, referring to physically mature people (mid-to-late teenagers or higher), I never quite pictured him as having a sexual preference for little children...and we both know that route was initially scrapped, but apparently the remake had other plans. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a fictional child molester category, as that might be better? In the film, he makes adult sexual comments as well. It doesn't appear that he was only interested in little children, but these specific children.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I tried that category (in the "Show preview" option) when removing the fictional pedophile category. I'm not sure why there isn't a fictional child molester category...other than people generally thinking "child molester" automatically means "pedophile." I would think there must have been one before. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

California State University's Media Psychology Labs Survey Of "Movie Monsters"

i think there should be a mention of this survey as other hoorror characters (such as Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers) both have mentions in their wiki pages on this subject.--121.220.97.38 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Lachie Bennett Lewis

Specifically in the Characterization section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.97.38 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

He's now a Downloadable character for the new Mortal Kombat game

Look at the IGN reveal video. Do you think this should be mentioned somewhere on this article? --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone apparently already added a section on it, I touched it up a bit. Shame that it's the remake version and not Englund though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Freddy in the game; Englund or Haley

I agree that it looks more like Haley than Englund, at least in some shots. The holes in the cheeks were from Haley's depiction IIRC.

That being said, the official explanation from Ed Boone is that it's not based on any specific actor that it based on but rather the generic look for Freddy; burned skin, hat, sweater, claws, etc. So that's what we have to go by. Now if a published reviewer later comes out and says "This looks more like Haley than Englund" we can say something like, "Critics have noted that the depiction appears to be more so and so than so and so".

Even if it's obvious to us, at the moment saying he looks like Haley would be our own personal observations and would be original research.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Reboot" issue.

The 2010 film is both a reboot of the franchise and a remake of the original film, there is no reason why both should not be specified. A reboot does not need to have a follow-up to be a reboot. A single film can establish a new continuity. Why this keeps getting reverted even after we've established this is beyond me. It amazes me that notable, long-time editors can act so unprofessional.--DesignDeath (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

First, don't come to my talk page declaring something "unfair" because I did not respond to your message on the article talk page. I have a life, and I don't wait by on my computer for someone to start a discussion. Thanks. As for the issue in question, it's a remake before it is anything else. Yes, I grant you that it is, in essence, a reboot as well, but a remake first and foremost. You are trying to change the lead, and at this time we're only talking about the film as a remake of the 1984 original. It was intended to "reboot" the film franchise, but as of yet it has not rebooted anything. You're trying to attribute a Wikipedia definition. There are just as many, if not more, sources identifying the film as a "remake" than a "reboot" (466,000 to 151,000 in basic google searching.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

2010 Movie Mistake

Right now the article says:

"In the 2010 remake of the original film, it is suggested that Freddy is a child molester who had sexually abused the teenage protagonists of the film when they were children. When their parents found out, they trapped him in a building and set it on fire, killing him. However, Freddy is never convicted of a crime; the parents of the children, acted vengefully toward Freddy without reporting the crime to any authorities, nor did they attempt to investigate whether there was any truth to the children's accusations. Thus, it is impossible to determine that Freddy was actually guilty, and it is highly possible that Freddy is acting vengefully toward the children as a result of being wrongfully murdered by the parents of the children."

This isn't true. In the movie the children, now grown, find a secret room Freddy, when he was alive, kept at the school they were small children at and sometimes took them too. Inside the characters find a box of old Polaroids that the audience never gets to see, but from the horrified reactions of the characters we can clearly tell they are pornographic in nature. The movie, if you're paying attention, leaves no doubt as to his guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.166.1.214 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

With absolute respect to the writer(S) of the article I regret that I have nominated the material for swift deletion. To cover a fictional character is pointless and a waste of time. There are already articles about the movies, books, and video games. Why on earth would Freddy Krueger be a useful subject to write about? Our time could be better used on subjects people actually need in their day to day lives. It's not like they teach college courses on the mind of a fictional serial murderer who kills people in their dreams. Are high school kids going on killing sprees because they had been inspired by a nightmare Freddy in some way? The answer is no. Then one would agree that if the answer is no why does the article even exist? Who would actually benefit from this information? The answer... No One!96.2.110.63 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Fan Film Edit

I included a section to a fan film about Freddy Krueger, I did this before I logged User DangerousJXD undid my edit. It was removed as Vandalism with a suggestion it may be my work and I am self promoting. I can categorically say it is not my work nor was I involved in anyway.

I apologise for including it in the firstb, I was just trying to add something to what is my favourite film franchise. Dfcfozz (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So, it isn't vandalism, but we don't include fan films. Unless there is significant notoriety about a "fan" created anything, we don't typically talk about it. Because anyone can make a film, just like anyone can publish a book. There needs to be some oversight over these processes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think your edit was vandalism; appeared good faith. I just said it could be possible you had something to do with the fan film because I've seen edits like that before. I didn't outright declare that you were a self-promoting vandal because it was not incredibly likely that that was the case. The edit isn't vandalism anyway. The main reason for the revert is that it's a fan film, as Bignole explained. —DangerousJXD (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up...I will take more care in future...Only way to learn is to make these mistakes, to learn from them, to move on from them and hopefully help me become a better contributor in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfcfozz (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Colors in infobox

The blue on red colors used in the infobox are nearly illegible and distracting. Assuming the purpose here is to provide a legible encyclopedia article, these really need to be changed to something that people can easily read rather than a color combination that is known to be hard to read because the eye can't focus on both the colors at once. TheBlinkster (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Name!

I put his real name and it is not Fred! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash8668 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freddy Krueger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Dream Demon?

When was Freddy actually called a dream demon? I thought the dream demons were the ones that gave Freddy his powers. --58.105.78.220 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe the argument was that they were inside of him, thus making him a dream demon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger in music

With enough examples, a paragraph about Freddy in music would be interesting. I am pretty sure that a lot of metal bands dealing with horror film-related stuff have songs about the good man, but I cannot think of any. A German rock band called Böhse Onkelz released a song about him on their Kneipenterroristen record; I checked because I knew it existed but do not care about the band and therefore am not expected to know their discography by heart. --186.96.82.150 (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ Amazon.com essential video review, Scream, [1]: "Horror fans will fondly remember Drew Barrymore's assertion in Scream that the first Nightmare film was great, but all the rest sucked."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freddy_Krueger/Archive_2&oldid=1240572974"