Talk:Freddy Krueger/Archive 1

How Freddy Functions
Shouldn't there be some explanation of how Freddy keeps coming back and of how he can be killed, etc., etc. From what we know of the movies we should explain things such as how he becomes stronger if he consumes souls and how he is stronger when people fear him.the point is he`s a spirt thats how he functions.... something like a demon basicly.

Child molestor
Was Krueger a child molester? I don't recall that ever being mentioned anywhere. He was a child murderer. I'm going to change this if no one provides proof. --Proudhug 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It wouldnt be a stretch to say he was.


 * I recall someone saying that one of the newspapers in the beginning of FreddyVsJason mentioned him being a molestor. I saw the movie today, and though it flashed too quickly for me to get a chance of seeing all the headlines, he did lick the picture of the little girl rather erotically.


 * And a little girl tells one of the characters in the dream sequence, "His name is Freddy Krueger... and he loves children, especially little girls." --DrBat 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Has a song that little girls sing, probably molested, dead spirts - "One, two Freddy's coming for you. Three, four better lock your doors. Five, six hold your crucifix. seven, eight, stay up late. Nine, ten never slep again.
 * Can't argue with that logic.--CyberGhostface 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The song gives it away but with more that the they are saying, they are telling us that Freddy was a fiction and non fiction character. It said that Freddy was based of the molesting case at the time. They just changed molestor to murder and so that what partialy makes it real. The opposite end is the fact the Freddy is just a made up character in a phsico mind. --Ijustreadwhateverokneelsewrites 8:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but Freddy isn't a child molester-

According to actor Robert Englund (Who plays Freddy)-"Wes wrote the most evil, corrupt thing he could think of. Originally, that meant Freddy was a child molester. Right while we were shooting the fist Nightmare, there was a huge scandal based around an area of single parent yuppies in California known as South Bay. Child molesters had descended on this unsupervised flotsam of seventies leftover Me-generation American children. On the spot we changed the script from child molester to child murderer, mainly so Wes wouldn't be accused of exploiting the South bay case."


 * Regardless of them changing it at the last minute, the later movies in the series (of which Wes was not involved) did imply he was a child molester. But if you want to add that quote to the article (with its source), go ahead. --DrBat 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe he's simply a child killer, not a child molester.

I have the complete "Freddy's Nightmares" series on DVD, and there is at least one episode where a character specifically describes him as a "child molester."


 * It's probably best if its stated that the original intention was a child molester, but he is in fact, canonly, a child murderer, and to link to that article. Disinclination 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At one point in FvJ, Freddy says "I've always had a thing for the s&&ts in this house." (which could be interpretted in a violent or sexual way, since he is slitting a woman's throat when he says it.)


 * Also, I haven't seen enough of the movies to know if he's talking about teens, women, or children.


 * (I read somewhere that a hypothetic plot for FvJ revealed a hidden backstory where Krueger raped child-Jason, after which Jason ran into the lake and drowned.) JimmmyThePiep 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed him from the Fictional pedophiles category, because he really is not known to the audience as a child molester and him being one in the original script was scrapped early on. Flyer22 07:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An old newspaper that can be seen in A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child refers to Freddy as a child molester. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I confirm what Lord Crayak ays. It's 52 mins or so into A Nightmare on Elm Street 5. After Alice places the headline about Amanda Krueger's death onto the floor, she picks up two more papers, one of which bears the headline 'Child molester acquitted'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.221.48 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that wouldn't be something to put in the lead, because for the most part he isn't stated to be a "child molestor" for the majority of the series; just like the whole idea of 1428 Elm Street being his house was something added in Freddy's Dead. It should be noted in the article, just not in the lead.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see why not. It's heavily suggested throughout the rest of the series. Particularly Nightmare 1. All the stuff about licking Nancy's mouth through the phone (which reappears in New Nightmare) and his sleazy comments. In fact, I'd always thought he was a paedophile until someone wrote that he wasn't. I just think many fans don't want to call him a child molester because they see Freddy as a kind of hero, and it's very difficult to see a paedophile as heroic. I could mention a similar case in recent popular culture, but I won't for libel reasons ;) 81.102.221.48 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion is not statement. You are interpreting the scene, which you cannot do here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is stated. It's stated in Nightmare 5. It doesn't need to be restated in every single film to be valid. The fact that the other films bear it out as well, even if they don't state it, merely strengthens the original statement. There is nothing in canon that contradicts this statement, and in Nightmare 1 Nancy's mother calls him a 'dirty child murderer'. I doubt 'dirty' refers here to his standards of hygiene. Besides, it seems most appropriate in the lead because it already describes him as a child murderer, and this is part of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.221.48 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. It is stated in a single film--not the original film at that--says that it is not worthy of mentioning in the lead paragraphs. The lead paragraphs summarize the entire article, and there should not be anything new there that isn't in the rest of the article. The fact remains that saying "there are signs of it in other films" is original research, and not allowed. In the films as a whole he is most associated as being a "child murderer", and only a single newspaper clipping shows him as a "molester". You can assume all you want on your own, but on Wikipedia assumption is original research. Please read WP:NOR and WP:LEAD. BTW, it was actually stated in the lead that he was intended to be a child molester was it was changed at the last minute. This statement was hidden by some coding that was not blocked correctly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Freddy's Sweater
In every movie and every book it was red and black. Definately not red and green. There is no reason to debate this matter, so stop waisting your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I read or heard in an interview that the colors red and green were picked because the colors don't blend in at all and makes Freddy visually more unapealling (I only remember this fact b/c I thought it was stange, red and green are Christmas colors, maybe it has to do with shading). Alas, I do not have a source at the moment and do not remember where I got this info so it may take a while to track down. I was wondering if anyone else has heard this?

Someone mentioned that in the script the sweater was red and yellow which in my mind would look worse but maybe the costume dept thought otherwise. again I have no source on hand at the moment but was wondering if someone else has heard about this.Tsurettejr 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It definitely IS red and green. I have the cover here in front of me.81.102.221.48 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it alternates, like his eye colour. 82.1.68.117 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Too Much
This page suffered from too much redundant reference information. Listing every tie-in release would be better served under the Nightmare Series page. The alternate plot lines category makes reference in Wiki format and that should stay the standard. The IMDB links were also removed due to the Nightmare Series box makes links available to every Wiki film page for the series. If a visitor would like external links for a film, they can be found under each film’s Wiki page. Ucantnot 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

verb-tense-shifting
There's a whole lot of verb-tense-shifting in this article. If someone has time to make all the necessary corrections, it would improve the article. (If none of the article's contributors come along to make the corrections, I will try to do them as time permits.)


 * Yeah. I saw that too. Made a few changes. GLKeeney 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

uncategorized comments
he was also picked on in grade school called "son of of a hundred maniacs"

I thought he was the school janitor not the power plants


 * In Nightmares 1 & 2 it's stated he worked at the powerplant. The other stuff came later. Although, the powerplant is mentioned as being disused a few times, and is shown to be out of commission in Nightmare 2, so it's possible he worked at the plant first then went to the school to be janitor. He definitely took his victims to the plant to kill, though. 81.102.221.48 (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't we mention Freddy was based on two real people?

scream
This sentance seems to be misleading
 * "Scream" is accredited with being the first post-modern horror but Craven stole this title with New Nightmare.

Craven directed "Scream" as well, how could he therefore of stolen the title from himself.Ydam 19:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Speculation my @#$%!
Sean Black

You're talking to someone who religiously watches the Nightmare films, has read all the books, and the comics, and further more knows more than you ever will about Freddy. I'm going to prove you wrong for every edit you reverted. 1. I didn't write that, someone else did. So you just reverted someone ELSES info. Congrats. Besides, that info is cannon. Freddy's Dead, hello? Let's just ignore a movies information about a movie character! 2. Dude, WATCH Freddy Vs Jason sometime, okay? He's with a little girl before the parents show up. Not only that, Freddy taunts Maggie in Freddy's Dead, saying "But you did tell, didn't you?" He thinks she's the one who put him away. Freddy never let anyone get away, so I don't even know why that's in there. And even IF a child did escape and that info is cannon, like I said Freddy thinks Maggie did it. 3. The court thing is said during Nightmare 1! "The lawyers got fat and the judge got famous" etc etc. 4. Hey, I'm sorry, can't articles about fictional characters have technicallities? All information needs to be listed, and I'd hate for someone to be reading this and go "wait a second, didn't he kill that detective in episode one of Freddy's Nightmares, 'No More Mister Nice Guy'?" 5. I thought the posession was an important thing to mention. After all, this IS an article about Freddy Krueger isn't it? He can posess people, he's done it before, lay off. 6. Again, it's a trademark of Freddy, it should be mentioned in the article. 7. This information is important, because not only are the characters from Dream Warriors able to do this, but so are others. Alice, Rick, Mark, and Tracey are all characters who use dream powers to get the upper hand on Freddy and are also known as 'dream warriors'. 8. Once again, you removed more film based cannon information that is verifible if you rented the films!!! As clearly shown in Nightmare 3 and 4, Freddy's victims appear on his chest. Hell, it was an important plot point at the end of Nightmare 4! Why would you remove that? Unless you had no idea what the hell you were talking about (which is totally obvious!) 9. Doc wasn't just any psychistrist, it was her friend and coworker. Again, more film based important information. How is anyone supposed to find out the correct information of any of these films when people like you who never watch them add in your own info?! I thought this was Wikipedia, not the IMDB! 10. Once again, I wanted to point out the discrepency. If there was a problem, you could have moved it to the section where I put the alternate storylines! 11. You removed the entire alternate poltlines section! WHY?! Damn, it's the Marvel comics series, the Innovation comics series, the "Freddy Krueger Tales Of Terror" novels, and the tv show Freddy's Nightmares! Obviously to someone like YOU who doesn't watch the films much less read the books about them the information wouldn't be known. I'm just stating obvious, verifible information. Ask anyone who has read the comics and books. I know, because I OWN EVERY ISSUE! 12. I felt was important to seperate the Nightmare 3 and New Nightmare paragraphs because they had little in common. The Scream comment was needed to prove the point of the original article writer who said Craven and New Line went their seprate ways.

Now, I want you to PERSONALLY give me one good reason why I shouldn't revert my edits or I'll do it anyway and keep doing it until you do!

Signed Kyle Guthrie, Krueger Fanatic --The Skunk 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whew. I appreciate the passion demonstrated here, and won't dispute your knowledge of the film.  However, Wikipedia policies and guidelines make it clear that direct observation is not an acceptable source for material.
 * In some ways it may seem counter-intuitive, but a brief glance at the first section of this talk page demonstrates the problem. One person sees Freddy lick the picture, so clearly he's a pedophile (Is he a necro-pedophile or whould that mean the kids needed to be dead, not him? but I digress) another person see the same scene and draws a different conclusion.
 * Looking at the policy of unbiased writing it's supported by verifiability. This means that information must come from reliable sources such a print media or posssibly reputable online entities.  Wikipedia editors in this instance would be a primary source and as such anything they obeserve cannot be added unless substantiated by a secondary source.  I Hope that helps.
 * brenneman {L}  06:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can verify certain information thru links provided on the page itself! The Nightmare On Elm Street Companion doesn't only have this information (including comic scans), but is also where I got some of it (in the form of workprint copy videos for the deleted scenes). I mean, a little fact checking wouldn't be too bad. I know if I was reading an article and went "Wait a second, that doesn't sound right", I'd go right to Google. It's your friend.
 * Further more! Like I said, some of these facts are film verifible. The actual films themselves! For 4.25 each, you could learn everything about Freddy. Some places even sell DVD and VHS copies of the TV series. In fact, AOL is showing episodes on it's website as I type this (I happen to have watched one last night.)
 * In conclusion, if you wanted me to pull up every little bit of information about the films that I can verify, I could. Frankly, I'm a little busy right now doing other things. But I do have proof that Sean here has no clue what in the world he's talking about, and more knowledgable users like myself do!
 * --The Skunk 06:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, just so you know, it is mentioned that Freddy was a molester, many times. It's another obvious thing if, ya know, you've seen every film over one-hundred times.
 * --The Skunk 06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd urge you to actually read both what I wrote and the guidelines I've mentioned. We can't include material "from the film itself."  At all.  End of story.  Some things (like cast from the back of the DVD) are allowed mostly because it would be trivial to source this material elsewhere, but that's simply laziness and pragmatism.  It's pretty simple: If someone reputable didn't put it in print, it can't go in the article.
 * brenneman {L}  06:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Two things. The way you're phrasing this ("REAL Freddy fans") is unnecessarily hostile. In the diff you point out, I made a transcription error, nothing more. Otherwise, listen to Aaron, though note that I'm a little more lenient than he is when it comes to sourcing pop culture stuff, simply due to the lack of print sources; websites are (for the most part) fine.--Sean Black (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I'm hostile, but this is complete bull@#$%!
 * --The Skunk 07:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Is that what you meant? Then 90% of this article is suspect because (gasp!) it's all from movies! And if you say "The Nightmare Never Ends" (a book about making the films that includes a backstory of sorts) is "reputable" print, I should just go ahead and point out that Freddy's Dead didn't get a book (but it did get a comic), not to mention the fact any other non film info up here would be from the book version (cough cough Freddy vs Jason cough cough). Should I point out that you just said that story books do not count as reputable print anyway? What counts as reputable print and who is the judge? Frankly, David Bergintino would be pretty damned reputable considering you allow SOME of the information from one of his books on this page, but then you delete others I add.
 * In conclusion, logic = flawed. Either we can include all of the book information, or none of the book information, as far as I'm concerned. So, oh almighty editor of Wikipedia (and obviously better than those who know something about the articles they're editing), make your decision. Want the article to stay, or should I send it in for deletion?
 * --The Skunk 07:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If, in fact, it is not possible to provide sources for material in the article, then that material should be deleted. I don't think it would be appropriate to nominate the entire article for deletion, because the series is so famous I am sure there is enough verifiable, well-sourced material to warrant an article. But the sources do need to be provided. That means that if the source is one of the Nightmare-related websites, there should be specific links to the places on those websites where the fact is mentioned. And there really, really, should be some print sources.
 * As for "fact-checking," the verifiability policy, linked on every editing page, right under the edit box, couldn't be clearer: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." It is up to the people adding material to do the work of citing sources.
 * The problem isn't "reputable" sources, the problem is that the article currently cites virtually no sources. If I say where I got something, then you can go and evaluate the source for yourself, and if you don't trust the source you don't need to believe the item. If I just say "Jack London was the illegitimate child of astrologer William Chaney, believe me, I know what I'm talking about," the fact is that you shouldn't believe me because you have no way to know whether I know what I'm talking about. And for that matter, people who know what they're talking about can make mistakes or misinterpretations or remember things incorrectly. That's why you'll find that real experts, when writing seriously, always cite their sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If this skunk guy writes an essay on the movies (which it looks like he's perfeclty able to do) and puts it up om his website, could that be cited?

Problems
I really hope we can come to some sort of agreeance on this article. I'd like to see it become something amazing. In fact, I would like to sit here and write the entire history of Freddy from start to finish. Unfortuntly, everything has to be in print when half of the information here isn't in print. The only thing in print is the first half of the story, from the book "The Nightmare Never Ends" and even then is disproven by the films so why is it considered cannon? Besides, this is a fictional character. --The Skunk 21:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You can do what you like, but as far as this page is concerned the whole lot of it is incorrect. There is hardly any out-of-universe information. A proper fictional character article should look like this. Bignole 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the base of this text from?
I believed the base of this information came from The Nightmare Never Ends, but I can't find my copy and further more upon checking on NightmareOnElmStreetFilms.com there are many books with different information detailing Freddy's past and I don't own some of them... --The Skunk 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Amateurish writing
A large amount of content was removed with the edit comment "These edits have made the article look increasingly sloppy and amateurishly written." However, this is not a good reason for removing material, particularly not material that is referenced to a source.

If the writing needs to be smoothed out, it can be. Consider putting a tag on the poorly written sections if you do not wish to edit them yourself.

If an item is disputed, that is if there is more than one widely held opinion, then all significant points of view should be presented with references to sources expressing that point of view.

If no source citations are given, then per the verifiability policy they should be tagged with a tag and, if nobody has provided a citation after a reasonable period of time. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would note that currently the entire article suffers verifiability problems. One of the reasons why it is unstable is that far too much of it appears to represent merely the opinions of individual editors. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

michael russian:you talking about me dude whoa!! sorry,i just gave the theories here so the professionals like you could work on something and i said my english is kinda far from perfect


 * No, I was talking about someone who removed some big chunks of text because he didn't think they were well written. Bad information should be removed. Bad writing should be kept and rewritten. I sometimes improve other peoples' writing. And some people, who can write better than I can, sometimes improve mine. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the 'Freddie's origin' was written alternating between the past and future tense - I've rewritten it in the past tense. Also, the section headings shopuldn't have fullstops in them - Indigenius 17:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are DVD audio commentaries being used as sources?
Just wondering... are DVD audio commentary tracks being used as sources for e.g. Wes Craven's opinions? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to compare the article with the two commentaries (On A Nightmare on Elm Street there's one with Craven, John Saxon, and Heather Langenkamp, if I recall correctly, and there's a solitary commentary on Wes Craven's New Nightmare), but off the top of my head there isn't anything that I know of- certainly nothing I've added, and I haven't come across anything over the course of my monitoring the article that seemed to indicate that it was sourced from the DVD commentary.--Sean Black (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2006


 * Well... I guess I was mostly asking because the section on "New Line vs. Wes Craven" talks quite a bit about Wes Craven and his intentions, and none of it is sourced. Where did comments like "Initially, Wes did not intend for there to be any sequels..." come from? DVD commentaries are one possibility, and I think they'd be valid if cited properly... Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Address
Krueger didn't live at 1428 Elm Street. For one, Nancy's parents were part of the mob that killed Krueger, since they lived at 1428 elm street Kueger could not have lived there. You can't assume that the moved in, because why would anyone actually want to move into the home of a child molester and murderer? Also, it was debunked in the Final Nightmare. Bignole 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

.michael russian:what was debunked there dude?..thompsons moved into kruegers(cursed) house because they feard what they did, and wanted to cover it up,(wich in the end they didn't do so well)


 * Actually, the final nightmare has him residing in 1667 Elm Street, as revealed in Freddy's Dead.. There is no amount of coverup that would lead them to want to stay in the home of the man that murdered their children. A cover-up would have it so that the house was destroyed and park built there. No where in the original movie does it state that Krueger lived at 1428 elm street. People just associate that as his house because that is the house that is always referenced in the later movies, because that was Nancy's house. The original sequel proclaimed it as Nancy's house, not Freddy's. The third movie it is present because that is where Nancy lived and Kirsten dreamt about that house because it is the one place where Freddy was finally captured and killed (not counting his boiler where he was killed twice, technically). Then the house was passed down from Kirsten to Alice, hence the reason it appeared in the 4th and 5th movies, after Kirsten gave Alice her powers. It was the 4th movie that stated that it was his house, and what was meant was that he haunts that house, not that it was his original home. Bignole 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

>> No, the Final Nightmare does not have him residing at 1667 Elm Street - but, at 1428 Elm Street. You're referencing an article not written by anyone at New Line. I have added the plot point back in w/ references. User: ucantnot


 * Go watch Final Nightmare, it does not have him at 1428 Elm Street. When we are in the flashback mode the address says 1667. Also, the Thompsons were already living in 1428 when they murdered Freddy, so he couldn't have lived there. Bignole 11:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

michael russian:some sequels rewriting a little bit of backstory and canon is what the last new work establishing(in other words bignole stay convinced on what you wish)


 * No need to have a fit. Even in Freddy v Jason, the house is not established as his residence when he was still human. The house was established has his ghostly residence because that was where he was originally captured, that was where he was first defeated. Over the years the house itself has had some slight change, but the address of his family home has never changed, and was only established in one film and that was FINAL NIGHTMARE. Bignole 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

michael russian:(well now you talking an interesting possible theory) however each new sequel(except the unrelated wes craven's one) changes slightly certain details of previous backstories given and what the last one suggests its canon. after all on some level i agree with you bignole since there is only one buging-the-brain out of me if they still know its killer's cursed home why they would not destroy it this house is like frigg'in backup fuel station for freddy the main reason why he returned just several months after katherine send him to hell imprisonment in 1999 (freddy's death)


 * They don't destroy his house for the same reason that they had all those kids on hypnocel. If they destroy his house, or Nancy's house, or any house that has been associated with Freddy, that is the same as admitting that he existed. And acknowledging his existence is what gave him his power in the first place. They beat him by forgetting him. You couldn't get away by just destroying one house, you would have to destroy all houses associated with him and that would stir contraversy among everyone and would generally feed the fear that he might return because the town destroying his haunting zones. Now, I can agree that people moved into his home and Nancy's home, for that matter, after the fact....say around the FvJ era, because providing a new occupant would hide the truth, instead of just destroying...but that was years after Freddy, when the town was trying to rebuild itself. Most of the people didn't even know Freddy, only the residence that has been there since the beginning. Bignole 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and as for tying the house to be Freddy's, that does not mean that he lived at 1428 elm street. All that means is that he lived in that house. (1) people can relocate a house if they so choose to do so. (2) there is nothing stating that that house wasn't part of a low cost homes that were built all the same and in multiple additions. Lastly, I never said he didn't live in the house, I said he didn't live at 1428 elm street. The address is not his.

Bignole 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not accurate Bignole, please see The Final Nightmare again. At no time during the film does it show Freddy living at #1667. During the flashbacks, you only see the backyard of said house. When Maggie arrives at 1428 Elm Street, she begins to search for Spencer. During her search, she emerges from the cellar and arrives at the backyard seen in her flashbacks. She states: "Whoa, I'm here". Also, there is a cut scene that shows Maggie finding Freddy's basement lair behind a shabbily sealed wall. I had listed references proving my points and I don't believe you reviewed any of them. Did you review the film's shooting script? A link was provided. You have also not provided any proof of your claim, other than stating "see the movie again" - which does not show you in the right.

You have referenced an article & Map from the Nightmare Never Ends, written by comic book author Andy Mangels. He had NO PART in the writing or production of the film. Also, your argument above doesn't hold water, due to 1428 is listed in addition to 1667 on the same referenced map. The coverup theme is something that is addressed very heavily in the Elm Street series and the Thompson's moving into the house is just another part of that. Freddy vs. Jason didn't address anything about this problem, so don't confuse the issue. The only thing Freddy does state regarding the house in FvJ: "I always had a thing for the whores in this house" - which could have been Nancy, his wife, etc. Also, your stance does not explain why the house at 1428 Elm Street would continue to appear to the other elm street children (and Alice, Mark, etc.) in dreams - many years after the fact. It's obvious this house holds value to him beyond it just being Nancy's house - which was made clear in The Final Nightmare.

I am readding this plot point w/ reference (again) until you provide actual proof of your claim. Please do not remove until you can reference an actual scene in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare that shows the 1667 house number. If you need the help of screenshots, there are many available @ The NOES Companion. Thanks. - User: ucantnot

micheal russian: i like your reference for Freddy Vs. jason it proves everything where he says "i hate it when they turnning my home into a sluthouse" ---
 * I never said that Nancy's house wasn't his backup power supply into the real world. This argument has been about whether or not the article should say that Kreuger lived at 1428 elm street, which he never did. Bignole 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---


 * You're both also forgetting that Nancy's mother kept Freddy's glove in the furnace, where it remained in Nightmare 2 and presumably every film thereafter. In that sense, Freddy might haunt the house because his glove, the most important part of who he is, remains there. It's also important to note that, through the films, various other locations become entwined with the house. Firstly, the boiler room is the main location where he kills his victims. Then the house and boiler room become connected in Nightmare 3, where the basement of 1428 with its furnace becomes Freddy's own boiler room. In Nightmare 4 the chapel where Alice kills him is linked with him. Nightmare 5 suggests this refectory is part of Westin Hills, which also becomes linked to the house and boiler room. It's entirely reasonable that, by Freddy's Dead, Freddy's own home at 1668 is also added into this mix. Remember, the house where Amanda finds Freddy's cellar isn't 1428 Elm Street at first. It transforms into that house later. It makes more sense that it's actually 1668, which is Freddy's home, and only changes in the dreamscape to take on the form of the house most important to Freddy (which is 1428). This is consistent with the other films, where buildings often change into 1428 Elm Street.81.102.221.48 (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Freddy in the news
Would this news deserve inclusion in the article?: Freddy Krueger's Strikes Hollywood Boulevard Man Dressed As Horror Movie Character Stabs Homeless Man http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_141023454.html Шизомби 05:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

say whu?
"A non-canon spinoff regarded as a horror masterpiece by fans and critics alike"? I personally waited and waited for it to come out, rushed out to see it, and thought it was the biggest pile of drek ever... i don't know if disagreeing with a statement makes it POV but it feels POV and more importantly, its not MY POV ;) But yeah, i would like some citing of sources of fans who call it a horror masterpiece. WookMuff 08:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculative section

 * A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child features the birth of Jacob Daniel, who could potentially grow up to have some form of dream manipulation. This plot thread is abandoned in later films.
 * Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare has a dream with a history class teacher who mentions Freddy travelling across the ocean in 1493 and 1494. While this is an allusion to the mnemonic of Christopher Colombus sailing in 1492, it could also be a reference to the origin of the dream demons seen in the film, who may have travelled from another continent at some point in the past.
 * Wes Craven's New Nightmare features Freddy as a fictional character within the film, as well as the entire film series being a fictional work. This places the film outside of series continuity.
 * Freddy vs. Jason has Freddy eventually exit the dream world to fight Jason Vorhees. His ability to do so is never explained, though he may simply be at the height of his power. He demonstrates fighting ability that may have come from Rick, the martial artist from A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master.

missing info
The article is missing something like a list of the all the 7 movies with their release years.--MarioV 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this, then bignole pointed out the information was already there. Now I feel stupid. Le Messor 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles?
How did we get the middle name 'Charles'? The books? (This is meant as a serious question, not a challenge. Since the Tales of Terror and Black Flame series are the only ANOES stories I haven't read / seen, I have to assume them.  (Or, Freddy's Nightmares, which I haven't seen in ages and may have forgotten.) Le Messor 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility, but it could be fan conjecture. I'm not positive. Jason's article cites "Elias" as his middle name, but no one is sure where it came from (other than potentially his father who was name in one of the novels, I think). Bignole 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, I figure you added the? Le Messor 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've detached from this article except for revert vandalism and the talk page. I'm working on fixing the Jason Voorhees article, through my personal sandbox. Another user, who is doing the same thing with this article that I'm doing with Jason, added the tag. Bignole 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me who added the tag! Even before your original talk comment on here, I searched pretty hard for any vaguely official reference to this full name, but to no avail. I feel attention needs to be drawn to this, if anyone knows the source, because it's a pretty big character detail! For the record, it appeared (unsourced, of course) in the very first incarnation of the freddy krueger page. DaveMuadDib 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just checked my DVD for volume 1 of the "Freddy's Nightmares" series, and on the "biography" section of the menu, it refers to him as "Freddy Charles Krueger". I need to watch the first episode again, it deals with Freddy's trial and might just contain the reference we need. --DaveMuadDib 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a reference. 'Dave Muad Dib'?  Any relation to Paul?  :) Le Messor 01:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it'll most probably do, but it would be nice to find some kind of in-film reference. Who's to say where the dvd menu designers got their info from? Maybe even wikipedia? ;) lol, glad you appreciate my name. No prizes for guessing what my favourite book is :) DaveMuadDib 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up
I Have Cleaned Up Some Of The Article Into A More Formal Tone{Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)}

Hitman; Blood Money
After each level in Hitman; Blood Money, they show a newspaper which relates how well you did, as well as several erroneous articles.

One article mentions Freddy Krueger, in an 'off-the-cuff' sort of manner. "School janitor burned to death ; police describe the incident as a regular lynching by local residents."

.. I dunno if it's notable. JimmmyThePiep 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find a source that proves that was their intention, great, if not then we can't use it.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That how Groundskeeper Willie dies in one of the simpsons halloween episodes that makes fun of A Nightmare on Elm

SYKOD

The Real-Life Freddy
I changed the title of the section that mentions the man who attacked someone with a homemade Freddy glove. It was called Controversy. I didn't think that was appropriate, since nothing in the section suggested it was controversial. Normally, the reader would expect to find some crticisms and controversies directly relating to the article subject. I'm not happy with the new section title (Emulating Freddy Krueger), so if someone can think of something better, have at it. --ChandlerH 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New nightmare freddy krueger.jpg
Image:New nightmare freddy 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 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 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)