Day 35

Day 35

December 4th, 2023

Another distasteful scene?

I have spent a lot of time dwelling on some aspects of the script that should not have been in the final film we got. Dialog is one thing, but you cannot expect me to not touch on the subject of why they have to show Freddy going down on Lori. Was this necessary? What was the point of this being shown, and finally, did the wounds show up like her chest wounds did?

I feel that this scene was not necessary, but I think I did touch base yesterday as to why it was required. They wanted to separate their Freddy from the inspiration Freddy used for the movie. Fans are fully aware of Freddy, his backstory, what he did, and what was forgotten over time, but to show him doing something unsettling to a teenager outside of Taryn from ANOES 3: Dream Warriors. If they wanted this scene to be the Taryn scene, it fell on deaf ears. At this point, people like the wise-cracking and kind of scary Freddy sans the original back story of him killing and implied…

I feel that the filmmakers wanted to show the audience that in their reboot of Freddy in Freddy vs. Jason, he is back to being what he originally was. In some ways, yes, you can do that, but in others, you can get away with one aspect and be looked upon as really for the other element. Both are in no way good subjects to have as backstories. Still, they wanted to return Freddy to his roots, and well, under a 2023 lens, it is distasteful and another situation that I am surprised nobody called for a cancellation.

For the record, I am not a fan of cancel culture. I know it is a thing, but give people a chance to learn from their mistakes and hopefully grow as a person. If they didn't learn and develop as a person from their situation, throw the canceled book at them, but if they did learn, give the person a chance. Then again, some people are just as nasty and vile and deserve to be canceled. Do I think the cast and crew of this movie need to be nope? It is a product of its time. What was acceptable then is not acceptable now. Does it require a disclaimer? Again, no.

What was the point of the scene? I wish I had an answer to that, and I am hoping to find out more when I watch the commentary tomorrow. I have a gut feeling that it was shown to depict a vile and sick Freddy. I understand showing Freddy killing Lori's mom, but did we have to see Freddy attack and take advantage of Lori? Did we need to see the implied action he was doing? Why did they think it was acceptable to show it?

When you add in the effects noises of the glove as his hand goes up her nightgown, I say to myself, why do we need to see this? Yes, your Freddy is not our Freddy. He shows elements of our Freddy, but you have managed to take him in this one scene and revert him back to the original concept and concept of the reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010).

What we know of him and his past is in our subconscious. Yeah, he is a lousy person up to a certain point, and then everything gets turned around, and we forget about it. Kinda funny. Maybe Freddy bitching and moaning about being forgotten is him bitching about the audience forgetting who he was.

The last question is short and sweet. The answer would be yes if he did something like it was implied with the camera stuck on her face, screaming and crying. Plus, it has always been suggested that your injuries from the dream world do carry over into reality. We see Lori with cuts on her chest and arms, so one would think that it did carry over. We will never know, and I guess that was left up to the viewer to decide.

Either way, this was another terrible choice and a scene that could have been omitted or redone to be a bit more tasteful.