‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ Remake Plot Details Revealed

Published 6 years ago by , Updated February 10th, 2012 at 7:24 am,

freddy krueger A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake Plot Details Revealed

The first A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of those classic horror films that just doesn’t warrant being remade. Although fun, the subsequent sequels weren’t up to the level that the first one was, only being made pretty much to milk the idea (if they were all top notch I would think differently).

But they were sequels, the lesser of the two evils – remakes are a different story…

The original series, and knowledge of the character, is still fresh enough that doing a remake (or reboot, or whatever they’re labeling it) seems pretty pointless. Freddy Krueger is one of those rare characters that having anyone else other than the original guy, Robert Englund, playing him is just dumb. Jason Voorhees and Michael Meyers, to name just a couple of examples, can be replaced as far as actors go because they are behind a mask.

But Englund didn’t just play Krueger… he was him.

There’s been a lot of speculation about how close this remake will stick to the original: Will they make it a straight, event-by-event 21st century update or will they put a completely new spin on it? Rob Zombie tried the latter with his remake of Halloween… and just look how that one turned out.

Latino Review got a chance to get a look at the newest draft of the script, and via a video review have let us know some details about the plot:

After being burned alive by a mob of angry parents, a pre-school gardener/caretaker named Freddy returns for revenge against the children, now 18 years old, that accused him of sexual abuse. But was Freddy a child molester or was he falsely accused? This is the central question and main addition to the film’s plot. Freddy doesn’t have many lines, but that isn’t all that surprising considering that the film’s producers have said the character doesn’t joke around.

In principal, I like the idea of going a new direction with an update of a classic character (if we have to have a remake in the first place, that is), but what they’ve added here is not a good idea. Making it so that Krueger’s guilt comes into question? Doesn’t that go against his evil nature? The whole point of the character is that he was a child molester, was killed by a mob of angry parents, and he comes back in the afterlife to seek revenge and causes malicious, horrific havoc on the late-teens who occupy Elm Street (and anyone else who enters his sights).

It’s encouraging to read that the producers say that the character “doesn’t joke around,” but trying to add some moral side to what is supposed to be one of the most evil movie characters of all time is downright strange. Maybe this won’t be the final direction they go in – hopefully they write another draft sans this new moral angle, or perhaps that’s a red herring and it’ll be shown by the end of the film that he was in fact, guilty.

What are your thoughts on the new addition to the plot? Shouldn’t Krueger just be evil and that’s that?

A Nightmare on Elm Street is set to be released on April 16th, 2010.

Sources: LatinoReview and /Film

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. All i would be interested in seeing is if we will see freddy get off trial and burned to death by the vigilante mob. Even more if we see deaths of the victims before freddy dies.

  2. I say they should show some scumbag defense lawyer using some retarded loophole to get Freddy free…

  3. Id like to add that id like to see the Ancient Dream Demons appear in the film and make freddy the offer in dreams he’s forever . As explained in Freddy’s Dead why freddy kept on coming back.

  4. THEY SHOULD MAKE A PREQUEL…Before they killed and burn him. Show how The Pre-Freddy Krueger that terrorized the neighborhood. Before they knew it was him. With the children scared to fall a sleep. Children are taken when they sleep by Freddy. Show how Freddy made the glove with the blades and used them on the children. Show the Sheriff’s investigation. And a great ending. The big HUNT DOWN and BURNING of Freddy striped shirt, hat and all. The end. NOT

  5. @ Dexter
    You got my vote. I was hoping that New Line would make a prequel with Robert Englund but hollywood thinks they need to reboot every damn movie franchise.

  6. The original is my all time favorite movie in the world, and I’ve never been repulsive to remakes, but I really am disappointed they are remaking this one. Expensive advertising, like the one sheet, the staged pictures, or the new comic con footage shown can all look good and awesome and cool, but it’s not going to govern whether the movie is good or pathetically lame, cliché, and down-right terrible from story to characters. Don’t get me wrong, I really want them to prove me 110% wrong, but they did the exact same the thing with Friday the 13th with advertising and such and the movie turned out to be a complete failure, the characters all seemed to be expendable, predictable, and thinner than cardboard — they had absolutely nothing to them and I could care less which one was picked off next. It was basically another sequel with a new bunch of kids that are slaughtered. If it is a REMAKE of an ORIGINAL movie then the remake actually has to be original — and I’m sad to say it wasn’t in the least. Which leads me to say that the real main problem with remakes is that people pick up the idea because they know: # 1 It makes money (proved time and time again it sells to remake a classic, whether they deny it or not it’s the MONEY!), second is it’s the perfect scape goat for upcoming directors, actors, writers, etc. to have their name known and gain extra fame through a well-known name, in this case NOES, and lastly and most importantly is with the knowledge of all this above, the select people behind these remakes don’t spend their time wisely on key elements that made the originals ACTUALLY good! They spend their time on the ONLY thing they know: the iconic character that made it famous, the killer. When they do this they ignore character development, and key storytelling elements that are absolutely essential to making a good film (but it doesn’t matter to them, it makes the $$$ either way) and us unintelligent fans buy into the whole idea and flock to the theaters anyway (even though truthfully I will also probably go see it in theaters just because it’s my favorite film). I have even more confirmed faith that the film will disappoint because we all have past proof of several terrible remakes before this one (all under the belt of the same ones in charge of the NOES remake), otherwise I wouldn’t be so quick to judge. The film is already wrapped up so I know that nothing is going to be undone what already is done. I just want everyone to open their eyes and not be so brainwashed by the same filth that drew us in time and time before! Message to those involved in my favorite movie remake: PROVE ME WRONG PLEASE!

  7. I have to be honest.
    I totaly disagree with the above article.
    I actually thought Rob Zombie’s Halloween remakes were great.
    Fanboys have been on the warpath claiming Zombie “raped” the character of Michael Myers,but to me he gave the character a much needed kick in the butt.
    Hey even if you didn’t like it would you rather we get another glossy cheese-o film with bad rappers ninja kicking him through a wall?
    Me neither.

    As for the NOES remake,we just have to wait and see.
    Robert England is forever Freddy,but I think if their can be any hope of making this franchise scary again then it’s probably for the best the Springwood slasher gets a new face.

  8. I think this is one horror remake that is very much needed. The original while being a classic is very flawed. For starters Freddy was a child murderer not a child molester. Craven had intened him to be a child molester but at the time numerous molestation cases where taking place, and he did not want to have people claim he was seeking publicity from said cases. Also while we all know Englund to be Freddy that doesnt make him the only person capable of playing him. Let’s be honest, Englund isn’t what I would call a good actor. The only reason everyone is upset he wont be in the new film is because they are to short sighted to look beyond the horrible casting made so many years ago. THe fact is Haley is a wonderful character actor and will no doubt give Krueger the debth he deserves. I agree that anyone can play a Meyers or Vorhees, there is no dialouge with those characters. But to play Freddy and do him justice requiers a true talent. That being said I feel that by casting doubt on his guilt, many layers of character depth are given to Freddy. If he was just guilty then by the parents exacting revenge the cycle is complete, leaving no need for Freddy to seek vengeance. Yet by having him innocent or at least having it where the other characters cannot prove his guilt makes for a true reason to have the character return to murder the children. In closing this may be one of the classic slasher films that truly warrants a remake/reimagining. This film needs to be made in order to truly bring Wes Craven’s vision to fruition.

  9. @ Sly
    Freddy was intended to be both child molester/murderer. You could easily tell by watchin the original and its sequels., especially when he wiggles his tongue at nancy, that one scene in Nightmare 2, 4 etc.

  10. I can’t believe that robert englund isn’t gonna play freddy its not going to be the same because nobody can do it like him i watch him since i was a kid and have been waiting for another nightmare or freddy vs jason vs ? but it looks like that ain’t gonna happen I am disgusted and I don’t think I am gonna watch the remake as englund isn’t freddy it just won’t be the same I don’t like wanna a bes bay better get his head together because a nightmare on elm st isn’t a nightmare if robert engulund doesn’t do it its just so meelse in his make because like others have said robert is freddy and you can’t replace that im mad about this

  11. @ Kitty
    I agree with ya that Robert Englund is Freddy. I too wished New Line could of made some sort of deal with Sam Raimi to use Ash or John Carpenter to use Michael Myers in a sequel to Freddy vs. Jason Mostly i was hoping Michael Myers cause he’s my third favorite horror icon. And i thought it would be nice to set that sequel up to take place before beginning of Jason x. If not make a sequel i was also hoping for a prequel w/ Robert Englund. I think it would of been better cause a remake can always be done later with a new actor.

  12. Calling into question whether he was guilty or not is not a good idea. It does take away from the evil that is Freddy. In the original there is no doubt that he did those things. That is why he was killed. Why would you cast doubt on something like that? In original he enjoyed the killings and boasted about the killings. I saw the trailer and he keeps asking “Why are doing this?” That’s dumb. Hopefully they won’t mess this whole story up. But Michael Bay has his hand in this movie which can be a good thing or a bad thing. In my opinion he hasn’t made a good movie since “The Rock” So he probably overload the movie with special effects and take away the most important aspect of the franchise: Freddy is evil right down to the core.

  13. The remake of Friday the 13th was weak. If you want to remake or revamp, or whatever else, go by the story line. The 1st Friday movie was Mrs. Voorhees not Jason, and there was no pot feild. Michael Bay is weak.

  14. I don’t agree that Freddy should be straight up evil in this one I think it would more intresting if he was turned evil by being falsely accused for something he didn’t do. So after the angry parents assume it happend they burn down his house and he come back in the after life and makes the parents pay for there sins by killing there children. He get’s even by tourmenting and killing what there parents value most he driven by revenge essentially the parents turn a normal man into a monster. I’m on boward with that approach don’t get me wrong I love the original but, I think it would be cool to slightly change his character instead of already being evil he’s turned evil. I mean the remake of Halloween took the cheap way out with Michael by turning him into a typical serial killer instead of being pure evil like The Shape that’s something you don’t change and certainly not humanizie his character. Freddy I believe you can slightly change that and it won’t complently hinder his character because he is still evil regaurdless he just isn’t before he get’s burned.

  15. I like the idea that Krueger may not have been a paedophile – it gives more of a reason why he would be pissed off that the children lied to their parents about him, thus the reasoning as to why he decides to kill them all in their dreams.

  16. I like the idea that Krueger may not have been a paedophile – it gives more of a reason why he would be pissed off that the children lied to their parents about him, thus the reasoning as to why he decides to kill them all in their dreams.

  17. Nightmare On Elm Street 1984 was ground breaking for more than just it's sinister portrayal of an accused child molester back from the netherworld to wreak havoc on exhausted teenagers. It's most substantial contribution to the film world was it's strong portrayal of the lead female character. In the horror film genre, more times than not, the women are objectified, viewed as the weaker sex in need of rescue. And even more often are the first to be killed off or tortured endlessly until some big strapping man saves them.

    Wes Craven was able to break this streak by creating a bold, self sufficient, intelligent and worthy adversary for the Freddy. It was Nancy that figured out what the deal was. Nancy that lived to the end. Nancy that didn't succumb to Freddy's knife adorned hand. I am hoping that NMOES 2010 keeps to this original concept. A protagonist in a sports bra and not a jock without his strap.