The Winner Takes 'IT' All: Here's Why Freddy Krueger Didn't Appear In 'IT'
The world of horror may still be "floating" high on the cloud of critical acclaim that is Andy Muschietti's IT, but there is no denying that Warner Bros.' coulrophobic masterpiece wasn't without its flaws.
The world of horror may still be "floating" high on the cloud of critical acclaim that is Andy Muschietti's IT, but there is no denying that Warner Bros.' coulrophobic masterpiece wasn't without its flaws. Bill Skarsgård may have done an expert job at taking over from Tim Curry and the 1990 TV miniseries, however, was there still enough to keep us gore hounds entertained? While cannibalistic clowns and horrific child murders were enough to scare even the most veteran of horror fans, could Muschietti have made IT even scarier?
Speaking to Ain't It Cool, Andy and Barbara Muschietti revealed that other heroes of horror could've had their time to shine in the dark sewers of Derry. However, for those hoping for a flash of Fred Krueger's razor glove or a Robert Englund cameo, it seems that it was never on the table:
"Obviously we considered that for a bit, but I wasn't too interested in bringing Freddy Krueger into the mix. I love the story and I love how Stephen King basically makes a portrait of childhood in the '50s. He's very genuine when he brings all the Universal Monsters to the repertoire of incarnation because that's what kids were afraid of. It would be a natural path to try to recreate that in the '80s, but I really wasn't too crazy about bringing stuff like Freddy Krueger into the story. I thought it was a bit too meta with New Line involved in the film. It's distracting and it didn't feel right, for some reason."
We all know how maligned Samuel Bayer's "reboot" of the A Nightmare on Elm Street series was, and IT could've been the perfect opportunity to bring the Springwood Slasher back to the forefront of horror. It would've been all too easy for New Line to reinvent Freddy and bring him slashing back into the 21st century, but the timing just wasn't right.
One of the biggest changes that leant itself to Freddy was Muschietti's decision to take his movie from the novel's setting of 1958 and move it to 1989 — it meant that we got a more modern take on IT, which should neatly place Part 2 in 2016. It would certainly have helped the kitsch '80s vibe of IT to have someone like Freddy, Michael, or Jason take a stab at our young Losers' Club, but it was never meant to be.
Also, with the lack of '80s horror legends appearing in this year's movie, it sounds like we shouldn't expect Annabelle or the Babadook to pop up in the upcoming sequel. Despite IT taking a decidedly different tact to Stephen King's novel, it appears that two horror icons were just a little too much for the modern version:
"I wanted to bring fears that were a little more layered and related to childhood trauma and more surprising in general. I think that Stephen King was open to that. When he saw the film I basically wrote a letter to him asking him for forgiveness for having taken so many licenses, especially with the many different incarnations of Pennywise. He said 'Don't worry about it. All the changes are great!' I think he understands adaptations are a different animal. Of course it could go well and it could go bad, but I think in this case he really enjoyed it."
Although Jackie Earle Haley played Krueger in Bayer's car crash of a film, true Elm Street experts have long hoped that Englund could return. Just this year, he stuck on that gnarled makeup once more for a special Freddy documentary, and the 70-year-old actor has always said to "never say never."
With IT though, forget Freddy vs. Jason — where the hell was Freddy vs. Pennywise?! While we still don't know what tricks Muschietti and Warner Bros. have up their sleeves for the sequel, it looks like this cameo is well and truly "Fred and buried."