Ucantnot

Welcome to Wikipedia!!! edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Ucantnot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Fredd edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments1 person in discussion

You need to reword your article, because Freddy never resided at 1428 elm street. Just because someone published an article about it doesn't make it cannon. As of FINAL NIGHTMARE, his family home was 1667 elm street, as soon on his address box. The house may be the same, but the address is not. He never resided at 1428. Bignole 11:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I went to that site, there is not screenshot that discounts it either. Bignole 12:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bignole. I understand your frustration, but the Map you're referencing is not considered canon. Andy Mangels had no input in the making of the film. His aricle and map does not hold any bearing on what New Line Cinema considers canon. The only mention of the 1665 street address only appeared in the Nightmare Never Ends book. No where else will you find this information (unless someone copied it to their website).

In the US cut of the film, we are shown many flashback scenes from Maggie's past. They take place in a backyard with a white watertower a short distance away. Later in the film, Carlos, Spencer, and Tracy enter the house on 1428 Elm Street - where Carlos is killed and Spencer disappears (and is killed later). Maggie, John, and Tracy split up to search for the then missing Spencer. Maggie searches the basement, and then emerges from the back basement entrance (which leads to the backyard) when she sees the same backyard from her flashbacks w/ accompanying watertower. She states: "Whoa, I'm here." You will notice that the yard, tower, basement, and back of the house are all the same "current time" and in all the flashbacks (ie: Freddy and his adoptive father in the basement, and later Kathryn in the basement - same stove, stairs, etc).

There was also a cut scene from this film, that had Maggie searching the basement before she emerges in the backyard. She notices a wall that is peeling away paint. After chipping away some of the plaster, it's revealed to be a door - which she opens. Within, she sees Freddy's old lair and states, "this was Krueger's house". This is important to note, because it's the same lair we see in her flashback (as a little girl) before Freddy kills Loretta. The US DVD does not include this scene, though it can be viewed on the German DVD release.

There is no easier way to explain it. If you doubt me, please rewatch Freddy's Dead and it will fall into place. There's a long history of the house on 1428 Elm Street being tied to Freddy's origin. You can read more about this @ http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com.

I have provided many references to explain this confusion in the article. The plot point should stay because common deduction skills provide the answer.

That's just it, the house was tied to his history, not the address. Why is the address never seen when you see a flashback of the home when Freddy and Katherine are playing? Why is the only time the address is shown, and it is seen multiple times, is when we see the house after it has decayed and become abandoned? I have never stated that the house wasn't the same. House can and have been moved before, and it wouldn't be unplausible to think that his house might have been moved after the fact. Secondly, why would the Thompsons stay in his home after they murdered him? It seems to me that it would only cause constant reminder of their deed. It seems better suited that they house just be sold to someone else. For a town the murdered a murderer, I think don't full disclosure laws really would be a problem to bend. My only thing is that, since Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia that only uses verified information, we cannot justily say that he lived 1428 elm street. Just because speculation grants us the privilege to say so, doesn't mean that it is sound information for this site. My refering to 1665 as his address is only because it provides a better explaination as to where he lived compared to the Thompsons. If the events of Nightmare 1 took place in 1981, then Nancy would have already been born when Freddy was killed, so, why would she not remember moving to a new house and then bring that up when she finds out that her dream killer is really a man that her parents killed? Bignole 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lotsa questions, I'll answer them one by one: (I've put my answers in bold)

Why is the address never seen when you see a flashback of the home when Freddy and Katherine are playing? Because we only see the backyard from her perspective. The film really uses this one key flashback as the driving force for the story.

Why is the only time the address is shown, and it is seen multiple times, is when we see the house after it has decayed and become abandoned? Because Maggie only seems to remember this backyard and the blocked memory of seeing her mother being killed - this also ties into my first answer. Now, the real reason: is because the house itself is a set (in films 3-6). I would imagine it would have costed beyond the budget to have another non-decayed house built just for one (maybe two) scenes.

House can and have been moved before, and it wouldn't be unplausible to think that his house might have been moved after the fact. I agree. But the source material you reference states that 1428 Elm Street & 1665 Elm Street are two different houses. I think this adds an element of even more confusion for the common fan. Also, I would think the house would appear in dreams as Freddy remembers it, if it had been at 1665. IE: not boarded up, etc, as 1428 is/was.

Secondly, why would the Thompsons stay in his home after they murdered him? It seems to me that it would only cause constant reminder of their deed. It seems better suited that they house just be sold to someone else. Again I agree, but there are other themes at work here. Freddy's death was treated as a coverup. They hid his remains, his daughter was sent away from Springwood with a new name & her records sealed, and the Thompson's moved on into the house. I think in their case guilt plays a HUGE role. Guilt for not catching him in time, guilt for being at fault for his release (Lt. Thompson), and guilt for killing him (after the fact). I think it's the same reason Marge kept the glove in the basement (see Nightmare 1). Not to remind them of what Freddy had done, but to keep the secret safe of what they had done. It seems as they tried to erase the memory from the outside in - the memory ended up eating them from the inside out.

My only thing is that, since Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia that only uses verified information, we cannot justily say that he lived 1428 elm street. Just because speculation grants us the privilege to say so, doesn't mean that it is sound information for this site. Again, I agree. But we differ in what is confirmation. When Maggie comes up from the basement and makes the statement of "Whoa, I'm here". This provides the confirmation because: 1) She's in the house at 1428 Elm Street. 2) She's in the same backyard/setting as shown in her memory. 3) Her verbal confirmation ties these two elements together. I hate to reference it again, but the cut US scene in the basement has her stating "this was Krueger's house". In the US it's a cut scene, but in Germany it could be used as canon because it's included on their cut of the film (provided on DVD). Her verbal response verifies the fact. Also, the shooting script is available for download - and both film and shooting script verify this. I can't think of any more ways to verify the information.

My refering to 1665 as his address is only because it provides a better explaination as to where he lived compared to the Thompsons. I understand where you're coming from. But, if you hadn't read that article/map or seen it referenced on a website somewhere - you'd have no other explanation but from what is presented in the film. Since Andy Mangels had no part in the scriptwriting process (or the production process) - his article should not in any way be considered canon.

If the events of Nightmare 1 took place in 1981, then Nancy would have already been born when Freddy was killed, so, why would she not remember moving to a new house and then bring that up when she finds out that her dream killer is really a man that her parents killed? This brings two things to mind: 1.) You're right! But, Wes Craven didn't intend for the house to tie to Freddy's past until he & Bruce Wagner wrote their drafts for Nightmare 3. Freddy's Dead was just tying back to these early Nightmare 3 drafts. 2.) If you view the cut scenes from Nightmare 1, there is a scene (when Marge is telling Nancy Freddy's origin) that Marge states: "you've not always been an only child, Nancy." And this scene was cut for obvious reasons, most of which you state above. In Nightmare 1, Freddy was originally killed in 1974 (though these scenes were cut also). Giving the film (released in 1984) a ten year passing of time. I think Nancy would have remembered having a sister or brother. Only the sequels push Nightmare 1 into taking place in 1981. From the events of Nightmare 1, I think Nancy would have been 17. Simple math (if she were 17) would make her birthdate in 1964. She would have been 2 when Freddy was arrested, and 4 when he was burned and killed. Some people remember things from their early childhood, and some people don't. I don't think she would have made the connection. Although in Nightmare 3, she seems to know about it's true history - given her aloof attitude when confronting Kristen about it.

I hope the above helps.

We already know the houses are the same, but that doesn't constitute the same address. Just because she is in one house doesn't mean that it's located at the same address. We see the "real" house and it's 1428 address on the door, but that's just because we are viewing the actual house. Just because she remembers the house in her dreams doesn't mean that it in fact resided at 1428 elm street.

I already know Craven's intentions about the tying of Freddy to the house, but the fact remains that there was no direct connection, just subtle hints that he might have lived in the house as well. Even in the 3rd movie, when Nancy is saying it's "my house" and the little girl at the beginning refers to it as Freddy's it doesn't necessarily mean that he lived there when he was alive, just that he is there now that he is a dream stalker.

Regardless, I am not trying to dispute the reality of where I really believe he lived, just that there isn't verifiable evidence for his specific address. That is why I changed it to "elm street" instead of the specific "1428 elm street", because there are so many perceptions of reality here. As far as the later films go, they were recycling information in those movies, using things that began to be associated with the character. If Nancy's house had not been used in the first sequel, it would probably never have been used again. Because you said it yourself, it was never Craven's intention to tie Freddy to Nancy's home.

So, as I said, just because he is tied to the physical home it doesn't mean he is tied to it's current address. Also, I think Mangel makes a good point that I made on the discussion page, that when you live in a small community houses tend to be built almost exactly the same. Either way, there is no direct connection to 1428, just to the actual house. Bignole 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

A couple things:

We already know the houses are the same, but that doesn't constitute the same address. Just because she is in one house doesn't mean that it's located at the same address. We see the "real" house and it's 1428 address on the door, but that's just because we are viewing the actual house. Just because she remembers the house in her dreams doesn't mean that it in fact resided at 1428 elm street. Without using that article as a reference, what makes you think it would be any other house number?

Because you said it yourself, it was never Craven's intention to tie Freddy to Nancy's home. Until the third film, then the various drafts begin to tie these elements: You can read the first draft @ http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com and the 4th draft in the novel adaptation of Nightmares 1-3. You can see this idea take shape.

That is why I changed it to "elm street" instead of the specific "1428 elm street", because there are so many perceptions of reality here. Either way, there is no direct connection to 1428, just to the actual house. Well, I think the intentions are pretty clear. The facts of this argument are, that you are using an outside article to make your claim. Written by someone not involved in the film, nor its conception. When you cannot reference your point in the films, the scripts, novels, comics, or anywhere else but one article, this leads to a faulty case. You wrote above regarding "verified information". This usually means you have two or more pieces of information or sources proving the intended fact. You have not been able to do that.

I would ask: without using that one article as a reference, what makes you think it would be any other house number? Numerous references have been given to prove my stance, yet you have not provided any evidence to prove yours.

The only reference I made to the other article was his use of the number 1665. I assume otherwise becuase of continuity errors and deductive logic with Nancy's age and where she lives, and the fact that no one would want to live in the home of a man that molested and killed their children, they would be thinking about it every day of their lives for as long as they lived in the house. It would be much simplier to put the house up for sale.

The only connection is Maggie stepping out and saying "i'm here", and even there there are discrepancies. The water tower is much closer than in her dream...plus, if you watch her dream the house that is there only appears to be 1 story, and Nancy's is 2 stories. Like I said, there are continuity problems, and if you only go by the last film then explain how there are so many children in Springwood during the events of Freddy vs Jason? Because Final Nightmare takes place in 1999 (event wise) so in 5 years there are enough teens to populate a high school, and they didn't just move there because if they had they wouldn't have known about Freddy and it would have defeated the purpose of Hypnocil. My problem is the timeline errors that prevent the events. Bignole 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

::The only reference I made to the other article was his use of the number 1665. I assume otherwise becuase of continuity errors and deductive logic with Nancy's age and where she lives, and the fact that no one would want to live in the home of a man that molested and killed their children, they would be thinking about it every day of their lives for as long as they lived in the house. It would be much simplier to put the house up for sale. Common sense would say, yes, sell the house or tear it down. But, that is not in line (or context) of the story. I would ask other questions, like: why not just cremate Freddy's remains, instead of burying them in a junkyard? Why keep the glove (a used killing weapon) as a memento? And like the city wouldn't have just torn the house down during the events of Nightmares 3-6 anyway. A house looking like that makes property worth plummet. This kind of stuff boggles the mind, but it is part of the story - much like the house's history.

The only connection is Maggie stepping out and saying "i'm here", and even there there are discrepancies. The water tower is much closer than in her dream...plus, if you watch her dream the house that is there only appears to be 1 story, and Nancy's is 2 stories. The angle on the watertower is different because she is an adult. The flashback angles are of those of a little girl. The house angels from the backyard do sometimes give off a one level appearance, but if you look closely at the flashback scene here the second level continues straight up. Also, this matches Maggie's scene later from the basement.

Like I said, there are continuity problems, and if you only go by the last film then explain how there are so many children in Springwood during the events of Freddy vs Jason? Well, timeline issues are another matter. I think that after Freddy's hold over Springwood was broken, people began drifting in to live there. Although, the parents living there before now knew of Freddy's power and began taking measures to suppress him. Also, we don't know what kind of industry Springwood has and how it appeals for local employment and living benefit - we do know the properties would be cheap though.

My problem is the timeline errors that prevent the events. Are you talking about the events given in Freddy vs Jason? If so, I think people began to move back/to Springwood within that first year of Freddy "being dead" and he returned again toward the end of that year causing the deaths referenced in FvJ. Considering we know there had been four years without a Freddy issue, it's safe to say it was within that first year's transition time that these events took place. Also, I doubt the town was that "full" during the first few years referenced - as we only see how it is 5 years later.

But remember, Grady from the second movie, he didn't have dreams of Freddy because he moved to Springwood and had no knowledge of the events, he wasn't tied to the town by blood, like Nancy and Tina and Glenn. Jesse had the dreams because he was tied to the house. Skip forward to FvJ, how could there be kids was Weston Hills for seeing Freddy? The events are only about 5 years apart, yet those kids are almost 17, 18, 19 years old. That would mean that they were in the least around 12 or 13 when they were taken away. You can't age that quickly in 5 years, so they must have all moved to Springwood. With no ties to the house, and no bloodline that could connect their parents to Freddy, how could they even know about Freddy? So, as I said, there are losts of continuity errors and going by the last movie doesn't necessarily qualify it for cannon. Bignole 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

But remember, Grady from the second movie, he didn't have dreams of Freddy because he moved to Springwood and had no knowledge of the events, he wasn't tied to the town by blood, like Nancy and Tina and Glenn. Jesse had the dreams because he was tied to the house. Well only Jesse was new to the neighborhood. Grady's family had lived there and we don't know enough about them to make assumptions. If Grady's parents were involved with killing Freddy, he sure didn't know - and neither did any of the other Elm Street kids except for Nancy. The "tied by blood" thing was Nancy's theory, she didn't know the extent of what Freddy's power is. Freddy just targeted the Elm Street kids first. He still had the power to cross into anyone's dreams in Springwood (see Nightmare 2). When Alice became the Dream Master though, this set up a new rule for how Freddy "gets" his intended victims - which didn't last, due to the events in Freddy's Nightmares, Freddy's Dead, & Freddy vs. Jason. The NOES Companion FAQ actually talks about this, see here under question: "Since when can only people in Springwood dream of Freddy? And, if this is indeed the case: how was Lori able to dream of him while on the way to Crystal Lake in Freddy vs Jason?"

You can't age that quickly in 5 years, so they must have all moved to Springwood. With no ties to the house, and no bloodline that could connect their parents to Freddy, how could they even know about Freddy? So, as I said, there are losts of continuity errors and going by the last movie doesn't necessarily qualify it for cannon. Yep, they were all new to Springwood because Freddy's Dead states that only John was the remaining child/teenager left. The parents of Springwood remembered him. He kept them all under a mass psychosis in Freddy's Dead - which means after his hold on Springwood was broken they probably came out of it. Those who chose to stay in Springwood still remembered him, which allowed him to come back. Unlike before, as new families had moved in and Freddy started killing (again) - the the parents actually took action to prevent him from continuing. Which makes sense, because they now know how powerful he can become (see Freddy's Dead). Also remember, even in the first film - none of the actual children remember him - just their guilty parents.

Grady makes a statement in the second movie about moving to this town, that is how we know he isn't originally from there. He's probably been then for awhile, but he wasn't born there.

Lori dreams of Freddy at Crystal Lake because she has already dreamed of Freddy. What I was saying is that if you are not there to know about him you can't dream about him, not that you couldn't do it if you left, because John left and he was still having dreams, but they didn't involve Freddy specifically. Lori's father new about Freddy, so why didn't she know? If the parents that knew caused their teens to become victims why didn't Lori? Bignole 22:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Grady makes a statement in the second movie about moving to this town, that is how we know he isn't originally from there. He's probably been then for awhile, but he wasn't born there. I don't recall this, the only thing I remember that sounded similar was that Nancy was "before his time" - which just meant due their age difference and grade placement in school he didn't know her. I don't know about you, but I didn't know anyone 5 years my senior when I was in jr. high school.

Lori's father new about Freddy, so why didn't she know? If the parents that knew caused their teens to become victims why didn't Lori? Because the parents kept it a secret again. Freddy was treated like a widespread disease. If they erased public records and didn't speak about him, there'd be no way for Lori to know. Even when Freddy killed her Mother, her Father still kept the secret of what really happend. It’s obvious someone originally let slip the Freddy secret during that first year after Freddy’s Dead, which kids began talking about and lead them to either being killed or committed. But even with these kids, it seems Freddy wasn’t able to get a lot of them – because the parents reacted so fast. For Freddy to return, you would have to fear him. The parents of Springwood don't fear him in the general sense (like the original Elm Street parents did - they feared their secret), what they fear is what he will do. We know this because all the parents know about him, but he’s still stuck in limbo. So, general knowledge of him isn’t enough for him to return – it’s all about the fear – which the Springwood parents try to contain.

Well, Grady doesn't even know of Nancy. I didn't know anyone 5 years ahead of me personally, but I knew of them. Grady makes it out to be that he never really heard of her, and if he has lived there his whole life he would have known about the murders and Nancy, because they weren't yet blamed on Freddy.

If some parents let it slip then the kids would have had to have dreams about Freddy, and you know as well as I do you cannot stop the spread of gossip when you hit a high school and I'm sure that they didn't wake up and go running to their parents immediately about who they dreamt about, they are teens, they would go to their friends first. Why would you tell all the new parents about Freddy in the first place? All the kids that were in Westin Hills were far too old to have been born in Springwood, especially since we know John was the last, before he died and that was only a 5 year difference. So, if you are trying to keep Freddy under wraps why go ahead and tell the parents that move there. Just by telling the parents (plus the added affect that you have to make them believe you) would give Freddy enough power right there to do enough damage. It makes no sense that the "new" families should even be privey to the town's dark secret. If they blacked out obituaries and newspapers then you'd surely keep your mouth shut to strangers that are moving into your town. If you want to rebuild your town you don't start by telling them about your psychopathic dream stalker that has terrorized your town for a little over 20 years, not including when he was alive. Bignole 03:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, we weren’t shown anything from the initial return, so anything said would have to be a guess. My thought is that the new families (during that first year) weren’t told about him, but one of the new kids found something – which leads to what you stated earlier regarding how secrets are kept in a high school. I’m sure the gossip spread and Freddy began killing again (Mark’s brother, Lori’s mom, etc.). I would think at that point is when the remaining Springwood parents (from before) came forward and as a town decided to carry out the plan they’d devised. Although we don’t know how they came to the conclusions they did. Considering Freddy usually targets teens, I thought it odd when he killed Lori’s mom. Though I think this was his last ditch effort to stop them from containing him. We don’t know what role she played in getting the plan put into action. Did she find out about the house’s history and connect it with one of Freddy’s new victims? Did Freddy kill her as a threat to her husband (Lori’s dad) to stop with the medicating of the teens? Did she spearhead the "conatin Freddy movement"? We just don’t know. I think it’s left vague on purpose so you can keep focused on the current issues presented in the film.

Also, not everyone in Westin Hills dreamt of Freddy. I would think most are there because they have mental conditions, which require them to be there. I think the Freddy “crowd” is a limited number of maybe two dozen or so (which includes the coma patients). Though I think they all get Hypnocyl as a precaution.

Well I wasn't saying everyone in Westin Hills is a Freddy "victim"...but just from gossip in school it should have spread more over. Hypnocil may keep you from dreaming but you are still going to think about him. Any how could someone stumble across something?

It seems that for a movie to take place only 5 years, with really only about 3 years of actual civilized growth, they are explaining away too many extra years that could not have occurred. But we've digressed from the actual point. My point is that cannon needs to be linear and as these movies progressed the new directors and writers have created so many plot holes and recycled so much jargon that it's hard to tell what is actually "true" in that world. One person has one idea, say "lets connect Freddy to Nancy's house" and that quickly turns into "let's make it Freddy's house". If this is Freddy's house, where he is most powerful, why not always bring them back to his house for the kill? It seems that whenever they enter the house, in the dreamworld, it's always by accident, never for their final moments. That is why the house seems more to be his prison, than it does to be his lifeforce. Think about it, who has died in this house? No one has ever died in a dream in Nancy's house, until Freddy's Dead and that was when they were pushing this "1428 elm street IS his home" stuff. Before that, when it was obvious that he was connected to the house, but not by so much history, no one ever died there. Look at the beginning of all the movies (except part 5)...he always originates back at the house after he is defeated. The house is sort of like his banishment, because it was where he was originally brought out and defeated in the first film. Part 2 begins because Jesse has moved into Nancy's home, giving Freddy power. Part Three begins with Kirsten making Nancy's home, it even ends with a light coming on inside the model home. It's like it's saying that every time you beat him he isn't really gone, he's just been banished back to his prison, and he's just waiting for someone to unlock the door. Four begins with Kirsten visiting the home in her dreams. Five was where it started to schew. Bignole 05:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I wasn't saying everyone in Westin Hills is a Freddy "victim"...but just from gossip in school it should have spread more over. Hypnocil may keep you from dreaming but you are still going to think about him. Any how could someone stumble across something? You may think about him, but that isn't enough - you have to fear him or his memory. This works much like the "life lesson": knowledge is power and fear is downfall. I would imagine that someone stumbled across some of the Newspaper clippings/articles. Also, one of the remaining Springwood parents may have mentioned it to a single/group of kids as a warning - we just don't know.

My point is that cannon needs to be linear and as these movies progressed the new directors and writers have created so many plot holes and recycled so much jargon that it's hard to tell what is actually "true" in that world. 1428 Elm Street was retconned as Freddy's house before the Thompson's moved in, there's nothing in the film series that even suggests Freddy lived at a different house number. Again, this is just evolution of the story. This doesn’t threaten the fact that the Thompson’s lived there, it just adds more history. As plot holes go, the Nightmare series has very few - compared to other franchise series out there. Also, don't take this wrong, but the context is canon, not cannon. 'Canon' relates to an accepted principle or rule and 'Cannon' is a large mounted weapon that fires heavy projectiles.

Think about it, who has died in this house? No one has ever died in a dream in Nancy's house, until Freddy's Dead and that was when they were pushing this "1428 elm street IS his home" stuff. Marge was killed in the house in Nightmare 1. Jesse probably died in the house also - considering the ending cycles to the beginning in Nightmare 2. Regardless of what the filmmakers decide to retcon, it's still part of the story. You would also have to explain why the house appears in each of these movies past Nightmare 2. Freddy obviously holds value to it, as he does the Boiler Room - which they give clarity to in Freddy's Dead.

First, you can retard the personal attack. When I typed "cannon" it was a typo, I wasn't under the assumption that that was how it was spelled, I am aware of the correct spelling. I also mentioned Marge dying in the original and it doesn't count as being killed in the house because her actual death (Freddy's burning body over her while she slept) didn't count as a dream death. What I said was no one was actually killed inside the home while dreaming, until the FD movie, making it seem more like it was his prison than his "home". If this is the place where he feeds on his own power then why not bring all the victims to the house to die? You're being hypocritical with the "Jesse probably died in the house" theory, because that follows my "Freddy probably couldn't have lived in the same house because of the timeline difference". It's all assumption that no film has actually made clear. If you incorporate the television series, then the cop that arrested Freddy in the pilot episode was a pseudo-Lt. Thompson. The series' pilot changed the name of the characters but since you need to incorporate all mediums when you are dealing with CANON issues you would have to take into consideration the television show as well. In the pilot you never see him at 1428 elm street. He is at his boiler, with his ice-cream truck. Which makes you wonder why the filmmakers decided to put all of his toys in his basement, in FD. He did all his killings in the boiler room of his old factory, so why would he not keep them all there. It just seems that the FD team took an idea from previous films in the series and completely exploited it to the point that it didn't fit with the rest of the concept. Bignole 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

First, you can retard the personal attack. No personal attack at all, just a FYI.

I also mentioned Marge dying in the original and it doesn't count as being killed in the house because her actual death (Freddy's burning body over her while she slept) didn't count as a dream death. No, her actually dying at the very end of the movie does count - as Jesse confirms in the second film because she was killed "in the living room".

You're being hypocritical with the "Jesse probably died in the house" theory, because that follows my "Freddy probably couldn't have lived in the same house because of the timeline difference". It's all assumption that no film has actually made clear. I'm not being hypocritical at all, I'm just using what the film shows. The movie begins & ends the same, creating a cycle of events in the dream. Does this mean he absolutely died in the house, no it doesn't, that's why I wrote "probably" - because I assume he was asleep in his bed (like he was at the beginning of the film).

If you incorporate the television series, then the cop that arrested Freddy in the pilot episode was a pseudo-Lt. Thompson. The series' pilot changed the name of the characters but since you need to incorporate all mediums when you are dealing with CANON issues you would have to take into consideration the television show as well. I'm full aware of the differences of Freddy's Nightmares, and also all the other materials available. I'm not brining Freddy's Nightmares into the argument, because of these differences. I agree with the NOES Companion on the issue of FN, you can read it here. When it comes to canon, I only support what New Line views as canon. This would be the releases that must clear their channels before release. This includes(ed): Freddy's Nightmares, the Innovation Comic Series, Tales of Terror, and the new Black Flame & Avatar Press series'. The Marvel Comic series was just a license of trademark and characters. The same for Seven Sweetest Dreams and more. Even with the bio given in 'The Life & Death of Freddy Krueger', which New Line once supported - was retconned in the films. So, film events are favored as canon - as some of the novels/books have written whatever to fit their own story. Considering the story is New Line's, it's by their say - not a contracted authors.

It just seems that the FD team took an idea from previous films in the series and completely exploited it to the point that it didn't fit with the rest of the concept. I dont know, I think they wanted to pay homage to the stories presented - but, with their own spin. Are most elements reused? You bet they are, but it doesn't make the house issue any less canon.

Well, unless I use "cannon" repeatedly, you can assume that it's just a typo.

As for Jesse stating that Marge died in the living room, there wasn't anything that stated she died in her dreams. When I say died in the house, I am refering to the dream house. No one dies in the dream house...heck, no one dies in the dream house ever. Now, they have died in the house, but their dreams had them somewhere else. Freddy doesn't reside in the actual house, but in the dream realm version of it. Even if you take what Jesse says, Nancy still states "she died in her sleep", which is more of a homage to her death on the bed while Freddy is over her, burning. When it comes to canon, you cannot just pick and choose what you want to support your theories. Canon involves it all. The same goes for Star Wars. There are 6 movies, but there are like 60 books. You cannot strickly follow one medium because one medium isn't going to give you all the answers. All comics, books, tv shows, etc have to get run through New Line, and if it's something they cared about (and since they have owned the rights for quite some time and don't seem to want to give them up) and I assume they do, they probably wouldn't allow anything to get released that would debunk their stories completely, but more allow for creative thinking to help establish a better timeline. The movies themselves don't do a good job at establishing a clear timeline and continuity base. Films maybe "favored" as canon, but they aren't the only construction material. You don't build a house with just bricks, you need other material if you want to do a clean job. Bignole 02:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, unless I use "cannon" repeatedly, you can assume that it's just a typo. It was used 5 times in this talk thread alone, that's why I thought I'd offer the correct spelling/context.

Even if you take what Jesse says, Nancy still states "she died in her sleep", which is more of a homage to her death on the bed while Freddy is over her, burning. She'd have to be sleeping either way - given the very end of Nightmare 1.

When it comes to canon, you cannot just pick and choose what you want to support your theories. Canon involves it all. The same goes for Star Wars. There are 6 movies, but there are like 60 books. You cannot strickly follow one medium because one medium isn't going to give you all the answers. All comics, books, tv shows, etc have to get run through New Line, and if it's something they cared about (and since they have owned the rights for quite some time and don't seem to want to give them up) and I assume they do, they probably wouldn't allow anything to get released that would debunk their stories completely, but more allow for creative thinking to help establish a better timeline. Glad you brought Star Wars up, as Lucas has stated that only the films, the Clone Wars cartoon, and the latest video games, are his vision and considered canon in the story - see www.starwars.com for more. Though most authors have been respectful to not drastically change any backstory, setup, etc, presented in those films. No, not all things "run" through New Line Cinema. Licensing deals cannot be taken at their word due to no one at New Line says yay or nay upon the content. Many things released fall into this: Marvels's Comic series, the short story for The Life & Death of Freddy Krueger, Seven Sweetest Dreams, etc. Giving license is far from supporting or approving content. New Line themselves did not get involved in approving outside written works (books, comics, etc) until 1990/91. I'm sure it was more for the $$$ and not the storyline. The Elm Street series is a film medium, not a body of written works. The tie-in materials are only in response to the film releases. If it comes down to a film vs. novel release – the film wins, due to this fact.

I didn't say Marge didn't die in her sleep, what I said was that since you cannot say she died in the dream version of 1428 elm street it proves that no one has ever died in the dream version. This should make you wonder that if this is Freddy's "home" and where he is able to "regain his power" then why doesn't he just constantly bring them back to that version of the house to kill them. It seems to me that if you increase your power by killing children, then you would want to do it in a place that would amplify that even more. I figured that when Marge was ripped through the door back into the house, that was her actual death. Her body would have been found in the living room. The house being a "center of power" only stems from the comic: A Nightmare On Elm Street: The Beginning #1 & to a lesser extent the early drafts of Nightmare 3. Though in the comic, Freddy was just using the remnants of his dead adoptive father's (who was buried in the basement) soul to return each time. Again, this idea stems from a comic that really doesn't make sense overall. The dream world is the dream world. Locations are only a reflection of the mind. I don't think the house is any more of a "power center" than the Boiler Room. Really, it's only Freddy's emotional attachment to these locations that bring them into people's dreams.

Of course. I'm not saying that if the film says one thing and a novel says another that we should take the novel, because it may explain the situation better. I agree that which ever medium the construct starts out in becomes its primary basis when it comes to identifying what should be. But when it's own medium becomes into question, because it is contradicting itself, you have to refer to outside mediums in order to make a clearer understanding of the happenings, in some cases. Bignole 04:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC) I never really found the Nightmare series (in the films) contradicting itself, only adding more to the overall picture. When I viewed Freddy's Dead, it was clear to me that the house issue was part of the cover up. The common rule seemed to build more to the mythology - though Nightmare 2 does come close to bending those rules. If the rumored prequel is produced, it'll be interesting where current Freddy history stands.Reply

See, if they make a prequel then whatever goes into that will most likely supercede the original pictures. Part 2 contradicted the original. For Freddy was a strict dream killer, but in part two he was able to leave the dream world and into the real world via Jesse's body. After that movie you never saw it again until FvJ, and even then it was Freddy acting inside, and not actually expelling himself from the body. The theory of the "elm street kids"? It has usually been that he was restricted to 'Elm' street, even stated by Heather in the 3rd movie "you are the last of the elm street kids". From that you have to assume that he most be restricted to his former playing ground and can't jump across town, unless those he is after live, or lived, on elm street. This was contradicted and reinserted several times. First movie, nothing by elm street, second movie there was a lot of non-elm street killings, third was elm street, fourth (explained through Kirsten's power to pull people into her dreams) not so much elm street. By the fourth movie they finally decided to hell with the elm street children. After Alice leaves (because there is no mention of her in FD, only John)Freddy must be restricted back to elm street only kilings, which wouldn't explain the absence of children in FD.

Oh, those pictures are not from the DVD. For one, I supplied all the images for the pages and they didn't come from the DVDs, because I got them at poster sites. Second, I have all the DVDs and the VHS and those are not the pictures on the DVDs, and some of the VHS don't have those pictures. Bignole 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Yep, all the images I uploaded are images from the DVD boxset. The covers in the boxset are different than the individual releases. That was stated in my notes. You can see more here. I'll change the copyright back to the DVD cover stamp. I uploaded all those images for every page except for the one title Nightmare.jpg. I should know where I got the image from and they are all from posters, not from the DVDs. It doesn't matter if they DVDs from the boxset are the same as the posters, because I didn't get the from the boxset, I got them from poster listings. So, if you put DVD cover then you are classifying it incorrectly. One because they didn't come from the DVD, and two because they originally started out as movie promotional posters. Also, the "original licensing" goes to the original artwork, which went to the poster. Bignole 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Taglines edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I'm going to go ahead and worn you that SeanBlack is going to remove those the first time he sees them. He has this thing about taglines being unencyclopedic. I have debated with him on this subject before and he feels he owns the rights to these pages and will do whatever he pleases, because he is the one that started them. That was why I tried to leave them at just the original tagline, instead of the list. His excuse will be that IMBd has a list of all the taglines and so they don't need to be there. Just thought I would let you know. Bignole 04:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Thank you. Do you think they would fare better under the 'infobox'? Reply

I originally tried to put the "original" tagline in the infobox, but it wouldn't show up. If you have better luck then I say sure. But, I wouldn't try and list them all in the infobox. Bignole 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Yeah, that could get a little long. There doesn't seem to be a "rule" for Taglines not to be included; I've found that some film pages list them and others don't - odd. Considering you have fought for their listing, I too consider it an important note - so, I think I'd use the wiki rule to list it because:Reply

"There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."

We'll see if he removes them again, if he does, I'll start a thread to debate the removal and would like your support (if possible). I would think he would want the film listings to include some promotional info, just for association sake - but, I could be wrong...

He says they are unencylopedic...I have debated already. I think if you check the discussion page for the original Nightmare you will see a section where the debate had already started. Bignole 03:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I'll check'em out.Reply

Image Tagging Image:RobertEnglund.jpg edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertEnglund.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images 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. feydey 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

TEMPLATE: Horror Icons Survey on the Discussion Page edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thank you for your support regarding the Phantom of the Opera as an icon. The pointless edit war in the template had inspired me to create a fair method of putting icons on the template by voting under a horror character listed on the discussion page.

Some of the rules were inspired by you. Thanks and feel free to vote. I'm through with edit wars.

(FF7SquallStrife7 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

By the way, me and Bignole cleaned up the Horror Template's Discussion Page and created a fair survey in which users can place their signature on the position regarding Horror Icons that they choose.

Will the Invisible Man be an icon? Will the Phantom be one? Will both? Only the votes will tell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Horror_Icons#HORROR_ICONS_SURVEY_-_RULES

(FF7SquallStrife7 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

Image:RobertEnglund.jpg edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertEnglund.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok ☠ 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Amanda krueger.JPG edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amanda krueger.JPG. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Freddys dead screenshot flashback.JPG edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Freddys dead screenshot flashback.JPG. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Freddys dead screenshot.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Freddys dead screenshot.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Nightmare on elm street screenshot.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nightmare on elm street screenshot.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Freddys-dead-face-off.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Freddy vs jason promo.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.

Unspecified source for Image:Freddy vs jason promo.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading Image:Freddy vs jason promo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for Image:New nightmare freddy krueger.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:New nightmare freddy krueger.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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.