Home Discussions Lore
We're currently investigating issues with frame rate on PS4 after the most recent update. Thank you to everyone for bringing this to our attention, and for your patience while we look into this

The darkest chapter in DBD

VoodooChildVoodooChild Member Posts: 319

I recently watched the first 3 Nightmare on elm street movies and loved all of them (Including 2 which seems to be a hot take, i also liked 3 more than 1) But i also ended up watching the remake sense that's what our freddy is based on and....wow. Fair warning this is dark and gross and if you are sensitive to crimes of a sexual nature or just dont want to be grossed out everytime you see Freddy or have to go to Springwood you should skip this post.

So you might know that Freddy was a child killer in the original films, pretty dark in itself but the remake takes it a step further by making him a pedophile. That basement in the springwood pre school? That's where he took the kids. Even grosser than that is the fact that hes hunting down and killing his former victims like Quintin, as revenge for telling on him in his movie. That's the plot, that's what they went with. To be fair they were going to make Freddy a pedophile in the original films but decided against it because they didn't want people to think they were capitalizing off of it and also someone probably said "Hey maybe lets not". In this one they also have a disgusting scene where Freddy ties Nancy to a bed, reminds her of her trauma before attempting to [BAD WORD] her again. Did i mention i [BAD WORD] hate this movie?

In game they never directly state this but they dont hide it either, his add ons are toddler clothes, drawings and worst of all a black box filled with pictures of his crimes. I was talking to a friend not too long ago about a game based off a movie called "The warriors" and mentioned that it probably had the distinction of being the only game to have a playable [BAD WORD] (Ajax) but little did I know Dead By Daylight raised that bar to what i hope is the highest it can possibly go

By the way I definitely dont want anything changed or taken out.....unless it was to replace him with the original, but that's not the point of this post. I wasn't even aware of the remake (I dont think a lot of people are) and have been playing this game for so long completely ignorant to how dark Springwood actually is and just wanted to share with you all. Personally every time I play Freddy I'm having a head canon of him being the original wholesome child murderer we all know and love.

Side note if youre wondering the movie isn't just gross its pretty lame, Its retelling the original story but with dumb changes and cliché early 2000s horror tropes (LOUD NOISE = SCARY) with somehow worse special effects. Even if you got past all the gross stuff the only reason to watch it would be to see who Quentin is since he's a original character made for the remake. Hes also the best survivor they could have picked (I can barely remember anything about their Nancy) so good on them for that.


  • KhorzadKhorzad Member Posts: 92

    You know, I understand when people say that Remake Freddy being a pedophile makes him a worse character than the original,as is such an awful and disgusting act...but you know, being a child murderer is not exactly that better either. Both are crimes that puts those that perpetrate them as nothing more than scum that deserves nothing but scorn, and for all of his charisma and ham, Original Freddy is as much as a disgusting [BAD WORD] as his remake counterpart. Remember, the only thing that the creators did is not confirm that he was a pedophile, but is still implied that he was one, and you still things like the telephone scene, where Freddy basically sexually assaults a teen or licks the picture of a little girl that he killed:

  • Nyaren_ChanNyaren_Chan Member Posts: 218

    Original Freddy was a child murderer, but i always felt it was implied he was a pedophile.

  • PigNRunPigNRun Member Posts: 2,428

    The 2010 remake did some things wrong, but its not an awful movie at all. Nancy was useless, but that gave the spotlight to Quentin (which Im not against).

    Halfway through the movie it drastically changes from "Freddy might have been innocent" to "[BAD WORD] pervert!". The former might have been a better approach, giving more reason for Freddy to kill. Giving him a way to represent pure anger rather than just evil character number 3.

    Despite those two facts, I like the darker tone they gave it. They also made Freddy a lot more threatening, in my opinion. And the effects werent bad at all. I cant think of a single scene in that film that looked lame. For instance, all micro-sleep transitions and events in the dream world are really well executed.

  • VoodooChildVoodooChild Member Posts: 319

    I dont think the movie was terrible but it hits every post 2000 movie cliché. I think the only reason its considered so bad and why its even remembered at all is because they took a legendary movie and made it to a by the numbers horror flick youll forget in a week, like most modern horror movies tbh. There were some great ideas and scenes....but they were all just worse versions of the original. The wall scene is the one people point to most but not only is bad CGI it could be from any 2000s horror movie. Even tho the ending was rehashed from the original (which i didn't love either narratively) the ending of the first was an elaborate fake out while the remake just felt like "Hey heres a little more gore!"

    I do fully agree Freddy SHOULD be innocent tho, in the first one its obvious why he wasn't but by 2009 Freddy was known as a wise cracking icon that people loved, turning him into a sexual predator was the worst move they could have made because unlike dream warriors i cant imagine people coming out of the theatre and saying "Man i love Freddy"

    That's the direction i hope take this new one in ,more weird special effects more likable freddy less uncomfortable [BAD WORD] scenes. In the age of post IT i have high hopes for it

  • AjritokaAjritoka Member Posts: 599

    I think that’s what the 2010 remake was trying to fix. Freddy Kruger should have never been likeable. He is a child murderer after all. Actually, he’s a murderer PERIODT.

    And the pedophilia was always meant to be implied. The only reason it wasn’t directly confirmed in the original films was for marketing and publicity reasons.

  • LegionOfDumbLegionOfDumb Member Posts: 413

    The only effect I thought looked bad was the CG Freddy wall. The original just used a rubber sheet and it looked way better. But I agree, not a terrible movie, but still not great

  • PapiQuentin_PapiQuentin_ Member Posts: 889

    And that... is why I love the remake.

    It's not scared to give a dark tone. Pedophilia, past trauma, murder, all of these things that Nancy and Quentin have to fight through to survive. And the whole "Is Freddy innocent?" arc was different and I liked that. The film wasn't scared of putting a darker and different twist on A Nightmare on Elm Street.

    Of course it had the 2000s cliches but come on, every horror film around that time did.

    The biggest weakness of the remake was the lack of character development for Nancy, Jesse etc. Only Freddy, Quentin and Kris had good development.

    Especially Freddy and Quentin. Both Jackie Earle Haley and Kyle Gallner really brought these 2 characters to life. You really felt for Freddy (before realising he actually was a pedo) by Jackie's acting and you really wanted Quentin to live as Kyle portrayed him as a young man who just wants to rid himself of his past trauma and care for Nancy.

    It may not be a great film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. The reason why people don't like it is because it's different than the original films. If you ignore the original films you'll like it a lot more.

    Quentin was definitely the best character that they could've put into dbd as a survivor (he's also underrated as hell. Give him some love)

Sign In or Register to comment.