Jump to content

Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fred or Freddy

[edit]

The character's name is "Freddy Kreuger". Not "Fred". It doesn't appear as "Fred" in any script, nor in the credits of any of the movies. While one might be tempted to "class it up" or something similar by assuming that "Freddy" is short for "Fred", that's never stated. Nor used. In any of the movies. Or the television show. Assumptions without verification and validation have no place here, no?

Please, somebody, edit this article to restore legitimacy to it! This isn't about what anybody thinks reads better or sounds better or more classy, as it were, it's about veracity and clewing to the source material when ostensibly providing accurate expanded information about said material.04:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.49.202 (talk)

Rewatch the original film and look at the credits. It says "Robert Englund as 'Fred Krueger'". It says it at the beginning, in the end, and it says it on the film's poster.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His name is said very few times in the film, none of them being "Freddy". Have you ever seen the original? $©@®©Ξ 04:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats scemantic banter, Nancy calls him Krueger in the movie, Nancy may have said Fred only one time calling him Fred Krueger when she shows her mom the name on the hat, saying to her "Do you know who that is mother" its blatantly not scary, despite his name listed as Fred Kruger. Also this is a ghost story as Ive seen it incorrectly stated in a Freddy article on wiki listing him as undead, Nightmare is a completely unique and original monster idea, Freddy is part ghost/boogeyman (wich is why he juxtaposes invisible/visible when he attacks several times in nightmare 1 and elswhere, rods bedding twisting to hang him invisibly is an example and Rod not seeing amandas killer when the room is lit), freddy is a teen killer when hes dead, haunting his murderers by taking revenge on their teenage children. Its eluded that his murderers were teens when they killed him wich is why 98% of all his victims are teens except for Nancy and her Dad. This is later changed in Freddy Vs. Jason. I believe they mostly refer to freddy as Krueger wich sounds scarier, like a german deathcamp nazi. Nancy at least calls him Krueger, esp when she tells him "your nothing". 

Its suppose to be a new twist on a ghost story/boogeyman with an anti Frankenstien theme, where supernatural Freddy

is a creation of society (unlike Frankenstien he's not a sympathetic monster). Also the other article lists Nancy as winning, when clearly at the end wich this article agrees with, the convertable and red and green marking, Freddy wins with the death scene of the mother being pulled through, the story not picked up in Nightmare 3, wondering how Nancy got back to life and escaped Freddy lol. The Freddy Krueger dictionary on wiki lists Nancy winning the first movie and defeating Krueger which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital3dg (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He says 'Come to Freddy' whilst Nancy dreams of him in the boiler room in the school's basement. Since he is also more popularly called Freddy Krueger in every other source, I think this should be changed to 'Freddy' for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.214.130 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the character is known, which is why his article is Freddy Krueger, and not Fred Krueger. But, we don't retcon names that are later popular here. We go with what is credited. He is called more often, "Fred", and is credited as such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no difference to me which way he's credited but I have to pipe in here. Although he's more commonly known as "Freddy" he is referred to as "Fred" in the film several times. When Nancy confronts her mother in the kitchen, she pulls his hat from a drawer and says, "It even has his name written in it. Fred Krueger, mom. Fred Krueger. Do you know who that is, mother? Because if you do, you better tell me because he's after me now." Her mother replies, "Fred Krueger can't come after you, Nancy. He's dead. Believe me, I know." Later in the basement, her mother says, "You want to know who Fred Krueger was? He was a filthy child murderer who killed at least 20 kids in the neighborhood..." Later, while talking to her father on the phone, Nancy says of Glen's murder, "Fred Krueger did it, daddy." (Sadly I know the film so well I was able to quote all that from memory.) If memory serves, I think Nancy also refers to him as "Fred" in ANOES 3. VinnieRattolle (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember two dream sequences, one in a boiler room where Krueger taunting Nancy, saying "Come to Freddy", and the other where Krueger impersonating Tina and say "Help, Nancy, save me please? Save me from Freddy." Even Nancy's fight with Krueger during the climax she once referred Krueger as "Freddy". --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think on the plot section, we can leave one sentence with "Freddy" due to what the character referred himself in the film, and the rest of it as "Krueger", which is actually the whole point of me changing the plot section of from "Freddy" to "Krueger" but leaving one sentence because of this dispute. On the cast section, I've adjusted as "Fred 'Freddy' Kureger" in hope that this would solve this matter .--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pee-Wee Herman"

[edit]

In the plot section there is a sentence that states Pee wee Herman played Freddy Krueger. Is this true or is it just another person making fun of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.13.88.108 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Last 2 Paragraphs of Plot

[edit]

Someone who has seen the film more recently than I needs to rewrite the last two paragraphs of the plot section. Glen and Marge are spoken of as being murdered in the next-to-last paragraph, but then the last paragraph mentions them all being in the car the next day. Any thought? --Brandon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Marge and Glen are murdered. After defeating Krueger, Nancy wishes for her original life back and when she opens the door, she does. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit) Nancy defeats Krueger in her bedroom. The ending is sometimes interpreted as being a dream, but that's original research, so we can only write what we see. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 18:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]

Will close this discussion for now. Will re-open when another proposal at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) closes. Continue discussing at "Discussion" subsection if you may. --George Ho (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=A Nightmare on Elm Street|new1=A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984 film)|current2=A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)|new2=A Nightmare on Elm Street|}}

– WP:DABCONCEPT normally discourages disambiguation pages if a page of the broad concept exists. Resident Evil (disambiguation) is kept as an exception, and the "Nightmare" dabpage is undeleted as a result of the recent deletion review. A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) was recently proposed as the primary topic or the broad concept, but many opposed. Therefore, if the franchise can't be the main topic, perhaps dab page should take over since it's undeleted (finally). Meanwhile, the 1984 film, very first one, should be disambiguated. In fact, numbers for the 1984 original are large but inconclusive, especially in the last 90 days. It must have included readers who do not want to read the article beyond the lede and readers who really want to read either the 2010 remake (90 days) or the franchise (90 days). As for its own significances, the original can't top its sequels', its remakes', or the franchise. Even neither Johnny Depp's appearance nor the fact that it is the VERY first film of Freddy Kreuger series doesn't make the original the primary topic of the same name. Unless I'm wrong, usage and long-term significance are prominent criteria for primacy, as there can be no other. Even title recognition is already explained in WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRECISION. George Ho (talk)

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. This is a binary inquiry. If the original film is not the primary topic of the term, then the franchise is. If this page becomes the primary topic page, it will promptly get a {{dabconcept}} tag, and at least be converted into a set index page, since I'm sure no one wants to delete the partial title matches which make up the vast majority of links on the page. bd2412 T 18:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
    • Look, the consensus opposed the franchise as the main topic. What's wrong with the opposers' comments? George Ho (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that it is either the film or the franchise; the film is the primary topic unless and until the franchise as whole overtakes it in importance; if it is determined that the franchise as a whole has overtaken its original installment, then the franchise is the primary topic. bd2412 T 19:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • One way of the other, there shouldn't be a disambig page. The franchise page takes care of that all by itself. There isn't a reason to have a disambig page considering there is a table at the top of the franchise page linking to all of the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bignole: According to logic, Resident Evil is a franchise page, so Resident Evil (disambiguation) shouldn't exist, right? Also, you opposed the franchise to take over. Am I seeing your inconsistency here? --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, you're arguing about a series that was in existence as a video game franchise and has an equally strong film franchise. There are many different things people might look for with Resident Evil, and not all of it would easily be found at the start of that franchise page. In this case, we're only talking films here and they are all collected into a table at the top of the franchise page. As for your claim of inconsistency. I have not argued anything regarding a page move. I've argued against the existence of the disambig page itself. That has been consistent, and you can go back to the original discussion of deletion where I said that. What I said on the other page was that we shouldn't be moving the pages period. This page can stay as it is, and the franchise page can remain a quasi-disambig page for collecting all of the films for navigational purposes (not to mention the template at the bottom of every page that helps with that as well). Thus, there has been no inconsistency in my stance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Bignole: (if you can add it to watchlist, I won't ping you) I'll rephrase. You're against the disambiguation page, but you are also against picking the franchise as the primary topic/broad concept? AlsoPer WP:DABCONCEPT, the franchise would have been branded the primary topic or broad concept if not for majority's opposition per WP:CONSENSUS. Also, other opposers' comments in prior discussion didn't mention how the original 1984 film meets the primary topic; rather they were against the idea of branding the franchise as the broad concept. Probably your comments were the same as yours, as you like the current setup as is, yet I haven't read your comments about the original. Since then, I requested a deletion review to have the dab page resurrected. George Ho (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You don't need to ping me, I am watching the page (even if it isn't on my watchlist). Yes, I am against the disambig page....straight up. I don't believe that any page needs to change names, but I'm less concerned with a name change so much as the redundancy that is the disambig page. Just because there is not agreement over whether the original film or the franchise should be the primary topic does not mean that the best course of action is to recreate a page that adds nothing and just copies other pages. That's like the complete opposite of what should have happened.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with a redundant dab page? Is it good or bad? And what's wrong with something that may add "nothing"? ...Actually, how does adding the remake entry add nothing for the dabpage? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy by it's very nature is the problem. Why do we need 2 pages to say what 1 page already says just fine? Having the remake still does not add anything, because the franchise page has the remake listed as well. Per the deletion policy, we should avoid unnecessary content forking. Content forking is where we have multiple pages that are redundant to each other because they cover the same topic. In this case, a dab page and a franchise page that are virtually identical in topic (not content, because obviously the franchise page has content and the dab page does not).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Content forking doesn't mention disambiguation pages specifically. Can you point me where it says about redundancy (in general)? Also, WP:Disambiguation doesn't say that a dab page should be deleted just because of its redundancy. George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per "reasons for deletion": "5.Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)". Per WP:CONTENTFORK: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." WP:DISAMBIG doesn't talk about redundancy, because it covers when it is appropriate and not appropriate to create the page in the first place. To cover redundancy would be redundant to the fact that you created a criteria for creation in the first place. Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous." - There is no ambiguity here. All searches for "A Nightmare on Elm Street" are intended to be for the films. Whether it's the first film, the remake, the endless sequels, or the franchise, it is all about the same topic. We're not talking about a conflict between Mercury the element, Mercury the planet, or Mercury the Roman god. Those are different topics that share a name, and thus conflict arises when you search for them. We have a single topic here, with a parent article and multiple sister articles. We also have ambiguation for all film titles, with the exception of the first film. Thus, there is no need for a disambiguous page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to this the proposition that WP:DABCONCEPT also addresses content forking in that it expresses a clear preference for addressing topics in an article - and not a disambiguation page - if it is possible to have an article on the topic. Where a franchise page exists, and all of the links asserted to be ambiguous are on the franchise page, then the franchise page is clearly able to cover the entire topic. bd2412 T 02:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant it may be, the disambiguation page serves as a benefit for readers who want to search for either the original, the remake or the franchise of the exact same name. If the dabpage takes over the exact title without extra precision, the readers would comfortably search for either (or all) of three without being force to consider either one the primary topic. And readers won't have trouble reading the prose of the original film to search for just the franchise or the remake. We must consider the interests of all other readers, not just yours, mine, an administrator, or someone else. Also, since when dabpage is also an article? "Creation of multiple separate articles" do not include dabpage, unless the dabpage is proven to be an article. Do you have alternatives besides set index conversion that is proposed in Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)? George Ho (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more beneficial than the franchise page which lists every film in the series in a neat little box right at the top. No troublesome prose to sift through. Thus, given that there is a primary topic (though there is disagreement over whether it's the franchise or the original film), and one page already exists that allows for easy navigation between all of the films, exactly what is the point of the disambig page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I told BD2412 that I would like to see the draft of the proposed set index article after I saw one list page of HMS ships. If the set index turns out better than the dabpage.... well, I need to brainstorm. As for the dabpage, it helps readers search what they are looking for. Also, it is need for the eventual lack of primary topic. Right now, the page is at early resurrecting development and needs more time to finds its purpose. George Ho (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a primary topic, it's "A Nightmare on Elm Street". The consensus needs to be whether it's the original film or the franchise article that will acts that point of contact for a search. Regardless, "A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)" is not the appropriate call. You say, "it helps readers search what they are looking for." Again, and I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out, A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) does the exact same thing. You cannot miss the giant table at the top of the page that lists the films, their titles, as well as director/writer/producer. It's more beneficial than the blanket dab page that just lists names, and it's a page that has already "found its purpose". The fact that you got the dab page reinstated (without any notification to anyone involved that you were trying) is irrelevant to the fact that there is still clear consensus that the page shouldn't even exist. I would bet money if it was put back up for AfD it would get deleted again, with the same reasoning as before. You're the only one fighting to keep it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did notify those involved in AFD before the DRV was concluded; I only notified the active, not the inactive. To help you change your minds, I added more entries. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't help me change my mind. You didn't include things of the same name that are different topics, you include things of different topics, with different names. People searching for those topics, will get those pages, not the Nightmare on Elm Street page. It isn't a primary topic for those searches. You're grasping at straws.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose additions of partial titles whose pages do not exist, should I or you remove them? But leave {{intitle}} in please. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2b

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clear lack of support after a full listing, and with no comments or !votes for a week now.(non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Whether or now List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media (formerly split from A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)) is redundant to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) is not the issue here. Also, the bigger issues here are the recognition of titles and primary topic criteria. In fact, the original 1984 film is not significant enough to top the significances of the 2010 remake and the franchise, despite high numbers. The fact that it is the VERY first film of the Freddy Kreuger franchise and is also Johnny Depp's mainstream debut doesn't make the original film more significant than others of the same name. Speaking of numbers, the stats of the 1984 film looks inconclusive: it must have included readers who didn't read the whole article and went to either the remake or the franchise of the same name. In the last 90 days, the 1984 film does top numbers of the franchise and the remake, but still inconclusive to me. Previously, based on WP:DABCONCEPT, the franchise itself would have been the broad concept and taken over 1984 film's current title, but readers opposed in Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street#Requested move. Therefore, I requested a deletion review on the previously-deleted dabpage, and then the page had been undeleted. Then somehow, the dabpage became and the set index article coexist right now. This situation aside, the original film must be disambiguated because disambiguation makes titles easily recognizable. George Ho (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The 1984 film is the iconic film that started the entire franchise. It seems rather peculiar to suggest that is is not more significant that the others, especially as evidence appears to suggest that it is. older ≠ wiser 04:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, being the first and the starter doesn't automatically make the film significant. George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that it is significant by just about any measure. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • More significant than the franchise or the remake? --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Original film: events that inspire the original film, such as (according to Development section) some creepy old man glancing at then-young Wes Craven and deaths of Cambodians by "nightmare"; the story itself, the casting, the creation of killer, the starter of franchise. Franchise: so many sequels, the short-lived TV series, novels, video games, Freddy vs Jason, etc. Remake: considered awfully worse than the original, attempted darker and scarier tone of Freddy, moderately successful profit, casting, the story, the reincarnation of the known killer. --George Ho (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • And your point is ... ? From the article: produced on a relative shoestring budget, an instant commercial success met with rave critical reviews and earned its budget in the first weekend. It had a very significant impact on the horror genre. My point is that this first film is iconic and highly significant beyond any of the later attempts to capitalize on film's success. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My point: the first film doesn't top the significance of the franchise, and the franchise may not top the other, as well. Remake obviously doesn't top either of them. Or if one tops the other by significance, then probably the first film and the franchise are equally popular. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes it does since, in this case as in others, the franchise would not exist without this film. Phrasing like "Then somehow" means that you haven't even thought through the ramifications of your request. Requesting page moves just for the sake of requesting them does not seen to be helpful to the project IMO. MarnetteD | Talk 05:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Is this a serious discussion? This is just a roundabout way of getting the same thing the disambig page was meant for. There is no reason to have this "list of media" page, because frankly the franchise page handles ALL of this ALREADY. As a matter of fact, I'm tempted just to propose that page and the dab for deletion. You got the dab page reinstated by yourself, there was no wide discussion, just an administrator who heard your voice only. So, please don't act like there was a consensus change, it was a silent auction is what it amounted to. All you need is a "This is the page for the 1984 film, for the page on all things Nightmare on Elm Street see the franchise page" at the top of this page. Solution found, no need for page renaming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Curiously, if the hatnote is sufficient, how can readers be counted by statistics? By minutes of reading the article, or simply reading the article for one second and then click the link in the hatnote? --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reader statistics are irrelevant here. If you make the dab page (or that other one) the primary topic and rename it "A Nightmare on Elm Street", then when people type that in it will create an increase flow to the dab page that will show whether people are looking for a general (show us all the films) page or the first film in the series (or even the remake for that matter). So, the counter argument is just as true. Thus, the statistics in that specific regard are irrelevant. What is the most likely destination...it's probably the first film or the remake. Sending them to a catch all page will not do anything but divert their time away from their original search. If they were searching for a specific film, they'd type it in and the redirects would catch them when they did not have the exact title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, the stats are relevant for this case (until, as you said, the dabpage/set index becomes primary topic) because... I don't think readers want to read all the way through the original film. Rather than wanting to learn about Cambodians and a real-life creepy old man, maybe they want to use the franchise page, so they can click one link read about homoerotic subtext in A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, but I guess numbers are low. Same for the 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th, 7th. And I don't think "Freddy vs Jason" counts, right? And combining the numbers won't help much? George Ho (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's where the hatnote comes in. If someone types in "A Nightmare on Elm Street", it's more than likely they are either looking for the original film or the franchise as a whole (e.g., unlikely they are looking for Freddy vs. Jason, or Nightmare 5, because they can type that). As such, since we know that as far as searches on google, or discussions within the world of cinema go (thanks to Erik's links below), the original film is by far the best primary topic to use. By placing a hatnote to the franchise page, you offer the reader a 1 click opportunity to go to a page that catalogues all the films, comics, music, etc. into one location. The films, which are more than likely the intended search, are all listed in a neat table right at the top of the page. The Table of Contents allows for easy navigation to anything else. Readers don't need their hands held.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I can see the appeal of linking this term to the general franchise, my impression is that a reader would not be astonished to end up here. Maybe to boost navigation, we could expand the hatnote in this film article to link to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). George Ho, you mentioned that you did not think that this film was important, but I think WorldCat.org indicates otherwise. This states, "A Nightmare on Elm Street. Halloween. Night of the Living Dead. These films have been indelibly stamped on moviegoers' psyches and are now considered seminal works of horror." This suggests a focus on the first film. This focuses on the music of the first film. This focuses on the dreams in the first film. Google Scholar also indicates a few relevant results. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) is now re-created, making it split from List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media. George Ho (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, per older ≠ wiser, the 1984 Nightmare on Elm Street is a definitive entry in film history. No other topic comes close, really. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location

[edit]

The original film is NOT set in Ohio, but takes place in Los Angeles. The sequel occurs in the fictional town.67.172.238.164 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original film takes place in a town called "Springwood". They never specify which state it is in. You can tell from the palm trees in the background that it was clearly filmed in California, but they never say that's where it is set. The 6th movie in the franchise specifies that "Springwood" is located in Ohio and a central point of the plot is that that particular town is where Freddy lived, died, and haunted. It's arguable if its cannon or something, but the movie is certainly not in Los Angeles.November49 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Release/Box Office Sections

[edit]

The Release section (under Distribution) and the Box Office section (under Reaction) have redundant information, and some of the information in the Box Office section is simply incorrect - notably, the film did not gross $25 million in Holland and the cited source refers only to the U.S. gross. Also, the correct figure for the U.S. gross appears to be $25,504,513 and not $10,777,659, as both Box Office Mojo and IMDB report the total domestic gross as the former number. So, I'm going to go ahead and move the Release section into the Box Office section and correct the errors. If anyone has any ideas for information to add to the Distribution section, probably information related to the film's marketing, that would be great to flesh out that section, and if anyone has any feedback related to the changes I'm making, be sure to let me know. Rasil Bathrobe (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Nightmare on Elm Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Nightmare on Elm Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Nightmare on Elm Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Nancy Thompson (film charecter)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nancy Thompson (film charecter). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese releases info

[edit]

Can anyone find any info on the Japanese releases (more specifically the VHS copies)? 206.255.66.172 (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Nightmare_on_Elm_Street&oldid=1229134750"