Evil Dead remake (Update: News + Evil Dead 4 confirmed)

[toxic]

Evil Dead was always a comedy first ... horror second, IMO.

but he should make a new one, not rehash an old one. And he should do it himself, not farm it out.

I agree with this ... but that would be a pretty big step backwards for a guy who made Spider Man 1 & 2. If the movie is a success, he reaps the financial rewards ... if it fails, ppl will still remember the originals fondly. I don't see where he loses (except in the eyes of the Evil Dead fans... which are few)


Look at the remakes of 'Chainsaw' and 'Living Dead' ... as long as you put out a halfway credible product, people will show up.

Thats the worst part of growing up ... you see everything you love: wither, recycled, or die away. Sometimes its better to have it recycled, and brought back into the public conscience ... it creates more appreciation for the original.

[bbobb]

Evil Dead was always a comedy first ... horror second, IMO.

Ummmm... Evil Dead 1 was not a comedy... it didn't try to be one either.

[Despair]

Agree with Bbobb. Original Evil Dead, was a straight horror movie. It had few funny scenes, but the focus was on scares. With Evil Dead 2 and later on Army of Darkness, Raimi took a different approach, with combining gags and scares.

[Mr-K]

Evil Dead was always a comedy first ... horror second, IMO.

To follow up on the last two posts. Yeah dude, what the hell are you thinking? If you think the first Evil Dead was all about comedy then it's really really really subtle. So subtle that it doesn't exist.

Wait I've been meaning to ask this, am I in the minority in liking the first one the most here? It seems everyone likes Evil Dead 2 more.

[Despair]

No man, I think original Evil Dead is great. Yes its very low budget, but I personally liked serious, dark approach more than later, gag filled films. Those are good, but more of a horror spoofs than actually horror films.

[Dolemite]

I can name several reasons why Rami shouldn't re-make the original ED and should just make a totally different movie (or ED4):

1. He can't out-do the original movie in the gore department. The original was released unrated and without a major Hollywood studio breathing down Rami's neck. Also, you could get away with more blood and guts in general in the 70's. A modern remake would be a clean, sanitized, pussy-whipped bastard child of the original. I mean, how many R-rated movies do you see nowadays that come even close to the splatterfest that is Evil Dead?

2. A big part of the charm of the original, in addition to why it was one of the few horror movies ever made that was legit scary, was the fact that it was low bugdet. It wouldn't be the same with big Hollywood money and big Hollywood studio pressure to make a movie to appeal to the mainstream and adhere to whatever horror trends are running around at the moment. It would become just another popcorn flick. I mean, look at AoD, that was one of Rami's first movies with a big studio and they made him shoot a completely new ending because they wanted it to be "happy".

3. Bruce Campbell...how many actors nowadays can display that much nutjob personality? How many actors nowadays will dive head-first into a mud puddle or be abused phyically like Campbell was for that role? Like Super-Eggroll said, this character was great because of the actor playing him, not the other way around. Ash could have easily been the shittiest character ever.

They can do a remake...hell, it might even be good. But it won't be Evil Dead. Notice how all the horror remakes nowdays are very techincally impressive, and star all very attractive people, and have spiffy CG effects, but all seem to be missing that one little thing? Know what that is? They aren't gritty. They don't feel real. The original ED felt real, despite the low budget, despite the novice actors, despite the shitty stop-animation.

Or maybe because of all that.

Oh, well.

how come everyone feels the urge to remake everything

Because it's easier than using their goddamn brains and coming up with an original idea.

Plus, with a remake, you have the nostalga of the original version doing half the publicity for you.

Wait I've been meaning to ask this, am I in the minority in liking the first one the most here? It seems everyone likes Evil Dead 2 more.

Eh, it's hard to say. All three movies sort of stand alone for me, because they're all so different from one another. The original is a brillant horror movie, but Ash is more of a generic character who doesn't really stand out in any way. The second is probably the perfect combination of horror and comedy and introduced the Ash character we all know and love. AoD kind of abandoned the horror elements and became an action/adventure/comedy. I like all three but I find myself re-watching the original the most.

I guess I'd rank them as follows: ED > ED2 > AoD. But they're all close.

[toxic]

My bad. I meant Evil Dead 2 (being comedy first, horror second). Sorry, I wasn't more distinct. I saw Evil Dead 2 back in (88, 89?) and didn't bother watching Evil Dead 1 until 1995 or so ... So when I think of Evil Dead ... I think of part 2. Which would definitely put me in the "casual fan" category.

[Roufuss]

I can name several reasons why Rami shouldn't re-make the original ED and should just make a totally different movie (or ED4):

1. He can't out-do the original movie in the gore department. The original was released unrated and without a major Hollywood studio breathing down Rami's neck. Also, you could get away with more blood and guts in general in the 70's. A modern remake would be a clean, sanitized, pussy-whipped bastard child of the original. I mean, how many R-rated movies do you see nowadays that come even close to the splatterfest that is Evil Dead?

2. A big part of the charm of the original, in addition to why it was one of the few horror movies ever made that was legit scary, was the fact that it was low bugdet. It wouldn't be the same with big Hollywood money and big Hollywood studio pressure to make a movie to appeal to the mainstream and adhere to whatever horror trends are running around at the moment. It would become just another popcorn flick. I mean, look at AoD, that was one of Rami's first movies with a big studio and they made him shoot a completely new ending because they wanted it to be "happy".

3. Bruce Campbell...how many actors nowadays can display that much nutjob personality? How many actors nowadays will dive head-first into a mud puddle or be abused phyically like Campbell was for that role? Like Super-Eggroll said, this character was great because of the actor playing him, not the other way around. Ash could have easily been the shittiest character ever.

They can do a remake...hell, it might even be good. But it won't be Evil Dead. Notice how all the horror remakes nowdays are very techincally impressive, and star all very attractive people, and have spiffy CG effects, but all seem to be missing that one little thing? Know what that is? They aren't gritty. They don't feel real. The original ED felt real, despite the low budget, despite the novice actors, despite the shitty stop-animation.

Plus, with a remake, you have the nostalga of the original version doing half the publicity for you.

All the reasons you listed primarily had to do with the original Evil Dead and it's fans. It's too bad a humongous good sized chunk of today's movie goers don't know what Evil Dead is, don't know Bruce Campbell ever starred in it, don't know about the gore of the first, It may not seem real, it may not seem gritty, but these fans have NO BASIS FOR COMPARISION.

I don't remember who said it earlier, but look at stuff like The Dawn of The Dead remake. All of my friends I went to see it with had no clue there was even an original, and the closest any of them got was "I saw a zombie movie once on HBO". They had no basis to compare the movie with, except other shit out at the time, and they enjoyed it alot.

This Evil Dead will be a new Evil Dead to them. They may really like the main character, they may like the less gore, they may like the big studio workings, because all they have to compare it with is what's out in the theaters these days.

Then, after the new group of fans latch on and enjoy the movie, they can go ahead and spin some sequels, netting big bucks. Maybe some time down the future, these fans will hear or read that the movie they loved was a remake, and they'll check out the originals. But notice movies like The Dawn of the Dead, they never said it was a remake in any of the trailers or commercial spots, leading people to believe this was a new idea and a brand new movie.

Same thing will happen here. Fans may not like it, but the fans are hardly the majority.

[animegirl]

The Dawn of the Dead remake was one of the only remakes that didn't suck.

[Dolemite]

All the reasons you listed primarily had to do with the original Evil Dead and it's fans.

WRONG. It has to do with horror movies in general and why 95% of them nowadays suck.

The Dawn of the Dead remake was really good and I enjoyed it a lot, but it wasn't a horror movie, it was an action movie. It was almost deviod of gore and tension, and chock full of MTV-style cuts and camera work. The Texas Chainsaw remake was better, but it was still very clean, nice, and sane when compared to the original.

Can you name a movie made lately that actually slowed the pace down at points to build atmosphere or tension or that actually had some decent gore? Or where the characters were actually CHARACTERS with personality and not cardboard cut-outs waiting for their turn to die? Or had scenes where they just cut loose and went nuts? Horror movies are so bland and sanitized nowadays and I'm really harking back I'm to the 70's and 80's when filmmakers were making low-budget movies and weren't afraid to buck trends and make them a little freaky and gritty. There hasn't been a horror movie made in ages that can stand against movies like Evil Dead, The Thing, The Exorcist, the first Nightmare on Elm Street or Poltergeist.

Horror movies are Teh Big Business nowadays. You can't let directors take chances when there's $60 million on the line.

But as you said, most people won't know the original ED, so they won't be able to make that comparison. They're lucky. But as you also said, hopefully the remake will have them track down the original and check it out. Of course, todays retarded kids will be like, "Yo, dawg, dis shit be look like it cost $12 to make! Wherez da CG?!? Yo, dere aint' no Fred Durst innit! It suckz!"