Why is he not attacking the parents?
-
TwoThousandOneMark — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 11:10 PM)
I think that attacking the children
is
his way of attacking the parents.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
Manna-Fest — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 03:04 PM)
Part 6 answers this when he talks about his daughter. He tells Maggie that the people took her away from him when they arrested him from his crimes so in return he went to take away the kids of the parents that killed him in return after he got off for his crimes.
-
JennaHanson1974 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 02:13 PM)
Why is Freddy not attacking the parents, they are still alive, those are the ones who killed him, burned him, not the children. Why almost only their children?
Did you see the movie? LOL I ask because it's explained in the movie by Nancy's Mom. Nancy's Mom tells Nancy that the warrant was signed in the wrong place and Freddy was released. All of the parents got together and tracked Freddy down in his boiler room where he took the children. Then all of the parents set fire to the boiler room and burned him alive.
To get revenge on the parents that killed him, Freddy started killing their kids. He did kill at least one parent - Nancy's Dad. When he was looking for Freddy's bones to bury them in the used car lot (or whatever that place was) in "Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors".
"Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" has nothing to do with the other movies in the series. (1,3,4,5,6) Freddy killed ALOT of kids in the second one. (And it's the only one I didn't like)
It might be weird, but I LOVE this movie and all of them that had Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger. I know EVERYTHING about this movie series I guess you could say I might be a little obsessed!
-
ElectricWarlock — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 10:26 AM)
The parents are already in enough pain right from the start because the children they had before were taken and they had to start all over again. They'd never quite get over that loss. Also, I imagine killing anyone would leave you with a sense of overwhelming guilt whether they deserved it or not. So they'd have to live with all the pain, remorse, anguish, etc., for all those years.
Then he'd come back from the dead two years later to take their new children once again. To me, that sounds like worse than death. You can tell how much he truly hated those people and how sick he really was. -
SpaceMountainMike — 9 years ago(February 07, 2017 03:33 PM)
Organized crime syndactes (particularly drug cartels) are notorious for going after your family rather than the person who crossed them. The Aryan Brotherhood also does this. They couldn't find the actual person that they wanted to kill so they killed his elderly father just to make him grieve.
My iMDB profile
http://www.imdb.com/board/24297325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(August 25, 2021 11:44 PM)
I think the op asks a good question.
I think the basic facts are that this is a popcorn film and that it is intended for the teens target audience. If they had a bunch of grown adults then it wouldnt sell much.
Storywise,
He did attack the parents, and he wanted to make them suffer, destroy them through their kids and perhaps save them for last. There is a much more psedu-threat here though, which they allude to, much darker, I rather not get into.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation.