Is A Nightmare On Elm Street unfairly hated because of the sequels?

The original ANOES was a very smart and imaginative horror film, the reality bending plot was original and cool. Effects are good, and the realistic female protagonist who is not sexualized a nice touch.

So why is it so hated and laughed at? Mostly by people who haven’t actually watched it, just the campy sequels or cultural osmosis.

Is it hated and laughed at?

Maybe my perception is coloured because I was there, but my impression was that it was very well-received, for the genre - and that it is not looked down on more than any other representative of the genre or the era.

If anything, a little of the original luster may have been lost not only due to the remakes, but also to Wes Craven going from darling and saviour of the horror genre to someone who very clearly had a painfully limited range of ideas and imagination, which became even more painfully boring each time he tried to shock us with his deadly dull and pedestrian peccadilloes. “Be* scandalized!*” “Seriously, dude, we don’t care. Try scaring us again, please.”

ETA: Also, what thrilled us when we were sixteen gets pretty old as we get… pretty old.

I don’t think it’s hated and laughed at. I think it’s a classic.
It’s just the never ending sequels that suck. Much like Jaws, Halloween, Friday the 13th…

I was three years old “at the time” but I’ll admit it was a bit of a shock to me to realize the original was a damn good movie! I’ve tried to get people to watch it but they usually refuse to because they think it is high camp, with Kruger spouting smart ass jokes like Freddy vs. Jason.

Yeah, I am just not seeing all of the hating and laughing that you’re postulating. And as far as the sequels go, it’s not like all of them were total dogs; in fact, I think I would put Dream Warriors pretty far up there in the list of strongest third films in a franchise.

The third one was the best of em all IMO

Which was the third one? My husband and I saw one recently on cable that was all artsy and pretentious. It was awful. One long Obsession commercial. Can’t remember which it was, though.

The original jump off was a fucking classic. Who’s hating and laughing? I’ll hate and laugh them.

Gotta concur with the posters above. Who hates and laughs at it? It’s a classic. Dream Warriors (the third one) is also well regarded. I mean, Rotten Tomatoes gives the original a 95% rating. I’ve honestly never heard anyone disparage the original.

People I have tried to convince to watch the original who have never seen it, the horrible reboot recently just seems to have added to the stigma.

You might want to watch it again…

Freddy and Pinhead are tied for first place in the “Modern Horror Characters Who Were Great in Their First Movie and Then Got Featured in Increasingly Shittier Wastes of Time” competition. The way those characters were wasted compares quite well with how the classic Universal horror characters finally ended up in shitty A&C comedies.

Look Ellen freaking “get away from her you BITCH!” Ripley battled an alien in panties, Sarah Conner decided to turn T2 into porn for fans of buff women.

I’m grading on a curve here.

It’s been years since I saw it, but I’m pretty sure in the “Get away from her…” scene Ripley was wearing her coveralls and boots, in addition to a mechanical exoskeleton. The panties scene is at the end of the first movie and, while it may have some fan service value, makes sense in the context of the movie. She was preparing to enter one of the suspended animation pods and it had been established at the beginning of the movie that the crew wore only briefs in the pods.
Also been years since I saw T2, but I don’t recall there being anything porny about it. The only nudity is Arnold’s. Sarah is arguably violently insane through the whole thing and I don’t remember her getting sexy at all.

We have very different circles then if a buff insane woman is not desireable:p

I can even recall my father making an offhand comment about Sarah in T2!

EDIT: I found Nancy to be a realistic female protagonist for the character’s background, and leave it at that.

I actually still like the series. Yes, it got campy towards the end, but the idea was novel to me and the execution of a few of the movies in the series was fairly good.

I didn’t like the newest remake and it’s tough to put my finger one why. For some reason, the added glimpse into Freddy took away from the mystery I think. I liked the idea that the memory of him was in the ‘distant past’ and was only vaguely alluded to - the remake did away with this. You knew all the gory details. I think that’s why I didn’t like it.

What I liked about the original is that stuff like that was not a weakness, it tied into the “its a dream…isn’t it?..or not?” theme. You could argue it either way, I mean the title of it is A <NIGHTMARE> On Elm Street which is where Nancy lives. Sorry but that makes me smile as a film watcher.

No arguments with that, I was just making a crack about her naked tub battle with Freddy versus your “female protagonist who is not sexualized” claim.

It is a horror movie about a sick pedophile rapist who strikes when you accidentally nod off to sleep, I think the scene is justified.

Ok maybe I meant fan service rather than sexualized.

Nitpick: In the original, Freddy is a child murderer, not a pedophile.

He only become a pedophile for the remake.

I could SWEAR it was at least heavily implied he both molested and killed the kids, his threats to Nancy are full of sexual menace.

EDIT: Official answer is no, although it was in the shooting script.