in his script there was no son of a 100 maniacs
In which script? In "Nightmare On Elm Street: Dream Child" they did show that scene when Amanda Krueger was locked in the Insane Asylum and was raped by 100 maniacs. I just remember that scene, that's why I say that.

he did write the original script with Bruce Wagner, and it was too dark so it was in re-writes by chuck todd

Wes craven diddnt write 3 he wrote a draft that was totally different it only had some of the same characters but everything about it was different the version of dream warriors we ended with has nothing to do with wes script in his script there was no son of a 100 maniacs there was no freddy being fun he was nasty an gross he would say things like im going to rape you an chop your head off an rape your corpse lol also freddys weakness was the elm street house which was like a portal to the dream world it was also were he was born an in the script everyone died except dr neil an kristen

The thing he said about Freddy being near does apply in all the sequels. And he did write Part 3 which has Freddy making them appear to frighten Kristen. Maybe the guy you have been talking to you is mistaken and he was referring to that scene.
"1-800 Spank me? I know that number." Scott Calvin, The Santa Clause.

Well you did not have to assume that about me.
When I know literally nothing of a person, I cannot yet decide whether I can assume that of him or not.
Actually I don't read that as her acknowledging their presence at all.
Yeah, o.k., that's a possibility.
No, we cant go by real time in a movie. We have to go to movie time. That is the narrative. Now if it showed them spending their time together throughout the day you would have a point, but it doesn't. It goes straight from that scene to Tina's scene.
Even by that logic, it still doesn't add up. We don't go from the school scene to Tina's nightmare. We go through some nice evening with Nancy, Tina and Glen where Glen tries to trick his mother with the cassette tape and the girls laugh about it. Then they talk about the nightmare a bit. Then we have a red herring with Rod being a dick (scratching at the windows with that garden tool), but ultimately harmless. Then comes some steamy sex with Glen complaining that he doesn't get some himself. And only
then
, after this whole teen movie pajama party does Freddy appear again. In the whole scenes in between, Freddy wasn't near at all. Had they pulled an all-nighter, Freddy wouldn't have appeared.
He's not like a stalker outside the house who turns out to have been there all along, i.e. the scene getting retroactively creepy because all they time they smiled and talked, the killer could have attacked, but simply chose not to yet.
If you go by the fact that he, as a dream demon, can appear whenever you fall asleep, he's always "there" anyway. But in this case, signalizing his presense is unnecessary since he's
always
there: At the funeral, on that bridge, in the police station. As soon as Nancy falls asleep, he's there, so there's no need to specifically say: "Watch out, Freddy is near" because that's the situation in 100 % of the movie anyway.
Or you can go by the other version, which is "immediate danger": In this case, Freddy was definitely
not
present at all when the pajama party happened. It's not like his evil presence loomed over the house the whole time, threatening to devour them as soon as he pleases. It was only when Tina fell asleep that Freddy appeared. And in this case, signalizing his presence before that scene was unnecessary as well because, well, he
wasn't
there. The situation in Tina's house was totally safe for them. There was not even the theoretical chance that Freddy suddenly pops out of a closet and attacks them. The whole scene in Tina's house was a cooldown scene without any danger at hand. Freddy only ever got "activated" when Tina went to sleep. Had she not gone to sleep, he wouldn't have been activated. Therefore, when they were awake and far away from sleep, Freddy was also still far away and not "near".
How were they supposed to be ordinary girls when they appear at the end right next door as the movie ends?
Those are not the same girls. Have a look at it: Different actresses.
Besides, it's perfectly possible to have the first girls being ordinary girls, singing the old jump rope song, and the final girls being Freddy's dream images. After all, when Nancy and Tina sang the song as children, they were ordinary girls as well. So, the song does exist in the real world, therefore it's possible that these girls are not dream images.
Sure, in the current movie, they are still not there. And in Wes Craven's version, they are part of the dream because
everything
is part of the dream, including every scene Don or Marge are ever in. But in the theatrical version, it's a bit illogical to declare them the girls that signalize Freddy's presence. Nobody is dreaming here and Freddy doesn't appear until after Tina falls asleep after some evening with her friends.
Plus I hate to add sequel lore to this, but in the sequels little girls are always a precursor to Freddy like the beginnings of part 3 and 4.
In those movies, the situation is simpler, though: They are definitely part of a dream. The girls in the beginning of part 1 are the only ones who ever appear without anybody dreaming in any way.

Because often, people just make stuff up. And in some other cases, the people from the movie themselves talk total bullsh*it. Like Robert Englund saying that the movie is supposed to be a loop. Or this very statement of Wes Craven. You know why I think he's talking out of his ass? Because I have read the screenplay. And in it, there's nothing mysterious about the girls:
Well you did not have to assume that about me. Ive been an advocate on your theory for years on here. I also agree that Robert Englund saying that the ending was showing what was going to happen, i.e. the movie, is ridiculous and makes no sense. I also realize that actors and directors will change their minds about what they originally said or thought.
You see? In his script, the girls were actually there since Tina acknowedges them. It was only in the movie that they decided to make the scene all foggy and mysterious. So, Craven himself obviously did NOT create them with the purpose of signalizing Freddy.
Also, didn't he intend the movie to end with a happy ending and Freddy definitely and ultimately defeated? But guess what: The girls in the end even appear in this non-sequel-hook version of the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGAR2LfvErc
And in the theatrical version, they don't signalize that Freddy is "near", they only appear after we know for sure that Freddy is at work because when they appear, Nancy is already trapped in the red and green striped car, so there's no "signalizing" or "allusion" anymore.
Actually I don't read that as her acknowledging their presence at all. They all knew and played that jump rope song as kids. Remember Nancy is singing it in the bathtub. First those kids were to far off to hear. And why would grade school children be playing that "old" jump rope song, they would be in school. Tina and them barely make it on time. 2nd, she is not referring to the jump rope song the kids are singing, she is saying that the nightmare reminded her of that old jump rope song. The line, "referring to the kids song" is for the audience point of reference, and TIna and Nancy already knew it.
I realize they were going to be in the , it was all just a dream ending, as Craven said it was a haunting image to end with. And Freddy is pretty damn near as he just kidnapped Nancy in a car and killed her mom.
He appears about 10 minutes after the first sighting of them. That's not long in a movie.
Dude that's nothing in the movie. 10 minutes to appearance is not long at all.
Yes, we have to. The girls appear in the morning, in front of the school. Freddy appears late at night, in Tina's backyard. That's a totally different scenario.
But this is a moot point anyway. The girls signalize that Freddy is near? So, they symbolize a person we have literally seen 20 seconds ago anyway, but who won't appear for another 10 minutes movie time? Yes, thanks girls. We already know that Freddy is near (in the broad sense of the word). Tina's scene with him has just ended and even in-universe, the time between Tina waking up from her nightmare the girls appearing is probably less than the time between the girls appearing and Freddy appearing in Tina's yard.
That's like Darth Vader appearing on an imperial space ship and then we hear his musical score in the next scene when Luke is on the ice planet and Vader won't appear for another day.
You see? All this doesn't hold up. The girls don't appear right before Freddy appears. But they appear one scene after the first victim has escaped from Freddy. And in the end, they don't appear until after Freddy has trapped Nancy. So, they cannot symbolize Freddy being near. And in Wes Craven's original version, they were supposed to be ordinary, living girls anyway. It's obvious that Craven made this explanation up on the spot.
No, we cant go by real time in a movie. We have to go to movie time. That is the narrative. Now if it showed them spending their time together throughout the day you would have a point, but it doesn't. It goes straight from that scene to Tina's scene. You cant use other movie analogies because of the complex nature of the Nightmare aspect, even as apt as it might be. Plus, how would we be shown the girls when the first scene was always Tina getting stalked in the boiler room. That would be out of place as hell. How were they supposed to be ordinary girls when they appear at the end right next door as the movie ends? Plus in the original version Freddy was supposed to wear red and yellow sweater so things change.
Plus all I ever said is that is what Wes Craven's explanation for the girls. They showed when Freddy was near and they were haunting. Like ghosts. Plus I hate to add sequel lore to this, but in the sequels little girls are always a precursor to Freddy like the beginnings of part 3 and 4. You know what though, I actually gave you the wrong link. He mentions all of these things in the commentary for the original Nightmare on Elm Street DVD. Him, Heather, and John Saxon.
Well, I li

Ok, not sure why so hostile
Because often, people just make stuff up. And in some other cases, the people from the movie themselves talk total bullsh*it. Like Robert Englund saying that the movie is supposed to be a loop. Or this very statement of Wes Craven. You know why I think he's talking out of his ass? Because I have read the screenplay. And in it, there's nothing mysterious about the girls:
FOREGROUND several GRADESCHOOLERS are playing jump-rope, and the
old ditty they sing continues unbroken from TINA's bedroom.
ROPE JUMPERS
Seven eight, gonna stay up late!
Nine ten never sleep again!
7. MOVING ANGLE FAVORING NANCY. She's a pretty girl in a letter 7.
sweater, with an easy, athletic stride and the look of a natural
leader. GLEN, holding her hand, wears one of the school's
football jerseys; a good-natured, bright kid. Tina's in
mid-conversation.
TINA
(referring to kids' song)
That's what it reminded me of
that old jump rope song.
(shudders)
Worst nightmare I ever had.
You wouldn't believe it.
You see? In his script, the girls were actually there since Tina acknowedges them. It was only in the movie that they decided to make the scene all foggy and mysterious. So, Craven himself obviously did NOT create them with the purpose of signalizing Freddy.
Also, didn't he intend the movie to end with a happy ending and Freddy definitely and ultimately defeated? But guess what: The girls in the end even appear in this non-sequel-hook version of the movie:
And in the theatrical version, they don't signalize that Freddy is "near", they only appear after we know for sure that Freddy is at work because when they appear, Nancy is already trapped in the red and green striped car, so there's no "signalizing" or "allusion" anymore.
He appears about 10 minutes after the first sighting of them. That's not long in a movie.
Well, yes, it is. It's 1/9 of the whole movie time.
Also, we cant go by real world time in a movie, we have to go by movie time and in movie time it was 10 minutes.
Yes, we have to. The girls appear in the morning, in front of the school. Freddy appears late at night, in Tina's backyard. That's a totally different scenario.
But this is a moot point anyway. The girls signalize that Freddy is near? So, they symbolize a person we have literally seen 20 seconds ago anyway, but who won't appear for another 10 minutes movie time? Yes, thanks girls. We already know that Freddy is near (in the broad sense of the word). Tina's scene with him has
just
ended and even in-universe, the time between Tina waking up from her nightmare the girls appearing is probably less than the time between the girls appearing and Freddy appearing in Tina's yard.
That's like Darth Vader appearing on an imperial space ship and then we hear his musical score in the next scene when Luke is on the ice planet and Vader won't appear for another day.
You see? All this doesn't hold up. The girls don't appear right before Freddy appears. But they appear one scene after the first victim has escaped from Freddy. And in the end, they don't appear until after Freddy has trapped Nancy. So, they cannot symbolize Freddy being near. And in Wes Craven's original version, they were supposed to be ordinary, living girls anyway. It's obvious that Craven made this explanation up on the spot.
Obviously they serve no other purpose.
Well, I like the flashback explanation: That this is a scene from 10 years ago, maybe even including Nancy and Tina themselves, to demonstrate the viewer what jump rope song Tina is referring in the next moment. The first scene started with a flashback as well (Freddy building the glove) before it went into the current day, so this might be the same here.

Ok, not sure why so hostile but it was from the Never Sleep Documentary. Craven said it signaled that Freddy was near. I cant help what the man says. He appears about 10 minutes after the first sighting of them. That's not long in a movie. Also, we cant go by real world time in a movie, we have to go by movie time and in movie time it was 10 minutes. Obviously they serve no other purpose.
Edit - Its not in the NSA documentary, its in a documentary about the original only. Its almost like the NSA one. It has a Spanish title on youtube. I will try and link it. Its named something very similar to NSA.
Edit 2 - Found it. Its called Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mEORQOC4Z8&list=PLPo8D-33O6uvEL8ZuzcQLWanoDLHvPcAB
Its a great doc about the first one.
Haters gonna hate

I get the concept that the children jumping rope symbolize Freddy. I think in general they represent victims. The thing is if you had never seen the sequels you would think the first time they were seen(Nancy and the others walking to school) that it was a flashback of their childhood. Maybe as children they did not know about details of Freddy the killer but somehow the jump rope song got passed down to them.
The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.

Craven said its to signify when Freddy is getting ready to come.
Where did he say this?
If it's really true, then it's bullsh*t: The jump rope girls in the beginning appear in a situation where Freddy isn't even
close
. He doesn't appear for another five scenes or so.
And in-universe, the time between the jump rope girl scene and the next appearance of Freddy is about 12 hours: Jump rope girls: Early in the morning before school. Next appearance of Freddy: Late at night in Tina's house.
So, this explanation absolute nonsense.

Craven said its to signify when Freddy is getting ready to come.
Haters gonna hate

Nancy is singing that song in the bathtub. How does she know it?
I think they explained it as a Nursery Rhyme that the kids sang.. I think they said that in one of the movies.

I don't know about anyone else but I got the impression from Marge that the child murders and the murder of Kruegar happened before Nancy was born. Or at least when Nancy would have been a baby and totally unaware of what happened. I could see Nancy as a very young child hearing about the made up nursery rhyme(and of course unaware of the sinister meaning and origins) and literally jump roping to it.
The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.

Through out the series we see the jump rope kids as symbolizing past victims but they are not any one in particular. The thing is the very first time we see the girls jump roping it does look like an image of the past. Maybe the past as in Nancy's childhood. Can't remember but did one of the girls have blond and the other brown hair(a child Nancy and a child tina). Just a little image from childhood shown. The girls clearly knew the song and either Nancy or Tina says the situation reminds her of the old jump rope song. And like someone else said Nancy was singing it in the tub. As far as the girls at the end of the movie I cannot remember if they were the same. Anyway even though we assume kids jumping rope to the song are usually victims( and that is indeed correct through out the series) I like the idea that the first intention of this could possibly be an image of the past.
The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.

Nancy is singing that song in the bathtub. How does she know it?

Nobody seems to see those girls jumping rope though.
1, 2 Freddy's coming for you. 3, 4 better lock your door.

or they may be the ghosts of some of Freddy's victims who have escaped his grasp but haven't yet "moved heavenward" - they live in an intermediate state sort of like a genteel Purgatory or Limbo

Their first shot is b&w, which nearly tricks one into thinking it will be a flashback scene.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

The kids are there for the audience's benefit. They're like the symbol of Freddy.

Could be a flashback.
Or some kind of ghost, projection or memory of previous Freddy victims.
Over the series, the girls tend to appear as a fore-warning that Freddy is near.
I've always taken them to be some kind of apparition sent by Freddy as a message that he's not far off. A way of striking fear before he fully makes his return.
How exactly these apparitions appear is kind of open to interpretation, I guess. But the meaning is always clear.

In this I think they're just flashbacks to the past.
Green Goblin is great!