Original vs Remake: Freddy vs Freddy

In a world where movies are constantly remade, the question always remains – Which is better ? Here I compare the original movies and villains to figure out just that.

 For those who haven’t seen the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, here’s a quick recap:Nancy Thompson, a typical teenage girl, was being haunted by a remarkably bizarre and horribly burned man in her dreams. She discovers that her best friend Tina, as well as Tina’s boyfriend, have been dreaming about the same man. Tina becomes Freddy’s first victim, which causes Nancy to start investigating who this Christmas sweater wearing creep is.When I first heard that they would be remaking an A Nightmare on Elm Street, I was both excited and nervous. I had no clue what they would do, or who they would pick to play Freddy Kruger. As far as I was concerned, no one but Robert Englund could be Freddy.

Robert Englund is the only one that can ever be Freddy.When the movie finally came out, I was pleasantly surprised. I spoke with many people about this new version versus the original, and most had the same opinions:

Well, as much as I do love Mr. Englund, I would have to disagree; here’s why:


The original Freddy was scary, don’t get me wrong, but he was more of a comical movie monster than a horrifically scary and tormenting burn victim. He would spurt green blood and his arms would magically grow a few feet when he chased after Tina. It seemed the artists explored what they could do within a dream world, so many of the things he did would fit with that theme.

Freddy 2.0 had the advantage of coming out over 20 years later than the first, which of course means the resources for his make-up were much more extensive. Freddy 2.0 had the look of a burn victim that had healed over the years; his skin seemed leathery but it also had that just melted look to it. On top of just being melted, parts of his cheeks had caved in as well… Poor dude. One of my favorite things about Freddy 2.0 is that both of his eyes look different. To me, he looks like he was burned alive and both of his eyes had healed differently.


Plot/Freddy’s backstory:

OG Freddy was called a “filthy child killer” by Nancy’s mother, telling her the tale of Freddy and his dungeon like boiler room where he would take and keep children. She told Nancy of Freddy’s arrest and the mistakes made with paperwork during his trial, which had led to Freddy’s freedom. After he was free, the parents of Elm Street took matters into their own hands by setting Freddy’s house on fire and locking him in. Despite Mrs. Thompson’s confidence that Freddy couldn’t hurt anyone else, he returns to seek revenge on the parents by killing their children in their dreams.

In Nightmare 2.0, Freddy gets to be a lot darker, sicker and a lot more volatile. Another advantage of the movie being released in 2010 is that this generation of movie goers have seen just about everything. We’ve seen Cary Elwis cut his foot off, the grotesque ghost of a Japanese girl crawling out of a television, all the way to people being dragged out of bed and down the stairs by an invisible demon; not much gets to us anymore. So it’s not surprising that this time around, the writers decided to make the story, and the character of Freddy, much darker.

Instead of just being a child killer, Freddy 2.0 was a child molester. Nancy Holbrook and her kindergarten classmates all loved Freddy, the school gardener. He would play outside with them all day, paint with them, talk with them, etc. He lived in the basement of the school, and according to Nancy’s mother, the school kids “were his life”. The parents then started to notice claw-like scratches, and when the children admitted what Freddy was doing, the parents decided instead of putting their kids through a lengthly  trial, they would take matters into their own hands. Much like the original Freddy, they found him and intended to coerce a confession. But when he ran, he proved his guilt. Freddy made the mistake of locking himself in an old warehouse where the parents found him and burned alive.

Unlike Craven’s Freddy, Freddy 2.0 was going after the children not to get back at their parents, but to get back at the children themselves, and finish what he started.


Well kids, after all this, which one is better? Classic Freddy is just that- Classic. Englund has all of his gimmicks and cheesy lines (“Welcome to my world, bitch” is my personal favorite), and had produced some of the most iconic deaths in horror.

Freddy 2.0 is more serious, realistic, and just plain sick. While he still has a few classic Freddy lines, the overall tone is much darker than his previous counterpart.


So, Jackie or Robert? Sound off below.

Like what you see? Be sure to also visit Pissed Off Geek too for more news and reviews with a horrific edge. To stay up to date with the latest horror news and reviews from the site be sure to "like" Truly Disturbings's Facebook page and following us on Twitter!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *