Evil Dead remake? wtf

[Faithless Eye]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=7274

Bruce will star; Sam won't direct; Rob will produce. So, they're remaking Evil Dead.

This kind of sucks, kind of rocks. It'll be nice to see Ash onscreen again, but it's a remake of Evil Dead...you just can't do that.

Evil Dead 4 would be better...and man, how can they make an Evil Dead movie without Raimi directing?!?! his direction (+ Bruce) made that movie! nobody's as great with a camera as he is. nobody.

What do you guys think?

[Faithless Eye]

ok, so this article right HERE (http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_1828.html) says that Bruce Campbell MAY NOT REPRISE HIS ROLE AS ASH.

Evil Dead minus Bruce Campbell minus Sam Raimi plus a large budget for remake = probably not that great (even with raimi producing).

man, i really dont want this to suck...

[Fanible]

Agreed. I think eventually in the end Raimi will get Campbell to do it (or Bruce will do it for old times sake, considering it's those movies that gave him any career at all).

What I'm hoping is that if this is a success that they'll either go on to do the other ones, or more hopefully, Sam Raimi will finally do a sequel to Army of Darkness.

[Quentor]

Why not just do Evil Dead 4. Im sick of all these remakes

[Tenafly Viper]

Wasn't Evil Dead 2 a (pseudo)remake of Evil Dead.... so basically what we have here, is the same story being told three times over the course of four movies.... wow and people bad mouth the Friday the 13th series.

[ZombieMan]

I suddenly feel sick. I can't even bare to read those articles guys, this would suck if they remade it...

[carnage4u]

the fact the people that made the original are thinking of doign it again is odd

I always felt evil dead 2 was just a funnier verison of evil dead 1 anyway

remake of evil dead one to me would just be the 2nd attempt at same movie

which is fine by me.

more ash = good as long as night vrs freddy/jason

[black_dust]

Sam not directing is a bad idea i think, and if Bruce wont play Ash thats even worse! I would rather see a new story in ED4 than watch a polished up version of ED1

[Spike2002]

Dude this is gonna suck. They did this already (for 'Evil Dead 2') and that was great, and now they're gonna do it again and ruin everything they accomplished. RAIMI, GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND MAKE AN 'EVIL DEAD 4', OR AT THE VERY LEASY LET NEW LINE DO 'FREDDY VS. JASON VS. ASH'! DON'T RUIN THE FRANCHISE WITH A REMAKE!!!

[Neverending]

WOW! This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. What's next? Robert Rodriguez is going to remake El Mariachi?!

[Cartagia]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo *breath* oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

Worst. Idea. Ever.

[Aztec]

This just in from AICN:

"Robert Rodriguez to remake El Mariachi"

:D
Seriously though, this is a very stupid idea. Evil Dead 2 was a remake of 1 and AoD had a complete recap of the first film within it. Enough is enough already. Well, at least it's not FvJvA.

[SnoBorderZero]

Never saw El Mariachi but I thought Desperado was pretty stupid. Anyways, I think this is a bad idea to remake this. It's the low-budgetness of the film that made it so great.

[Faithless Eye]

Evil Dead 2 was NOT a remake of Evil Dead 1. It recapped the first film in about 10 minutes then went off on its own tangent. The vast majority of the film, from when Ash goes sailing through the trees onwards, is an entirely different story (with the hand, the boomstick, the annoying woman who can read the passages etc). The only reason he is alone with his girlfriend (rather than with 4 people) is that it simplified the story in order to make it shorter.

Same goes for the AOD prologue. It was reshot in order to make it a nice, quick succession of shots that basically told the story up until that point.

Saying ED2 is a remake of ED1 is like saying that all second parts of two-part TV episodes are remakes because they have the "last time on Star Trek the Next Generation" bits (for example), telling what happened in the last part.

Ugh.

[sniktawt]

Crap!

[FaceOff]

Bogus!!

[Tenafly Viper]

Some discount the continuity problems between the first and second film, because Raimi wants to call it a "sequel" and not a (pseudo)remake. But for me any reconceptualization of past events (including the ending of the first film) will always constitutes more of a remake then sequel (my opinion). ED2 does expand upon the story, adds alot of humor and sequences, but is essentially the same film, with a higher budget and better efx (AoD is a true sequel). Still they're all very fun & entertaining films, and I'm not one to argue, individual opinion.

[sniktawt]

Yeah ED2 is a semi-remake , either that or Raimi's writing is pretty repititous.;)

[SJBKAT]

I reported this in the other thread as well, but I read the latest on this remake over at Dark Horizons, and they said Campbell is not set to star. In fact, a younger actor is being sought after. Just to throw some names out there, Nicolas Brendan and Justin Theroux are two names being mentioned.

[Evilution]

Man, this compels a bold statement; anyone who actually thinks that this is a good idea is either:

A) Smoking crack

B) Haven't seen the originals

C) Have no respect for the originals

D) All of the above

I guess it's typical of the Hollywood archetype: make a little money and clout (Spiderman1 & 2; Grudge), and suddenly the originals aren't good enough that a revision is needed. Hey, is this the first time that a remake of a cult-like-masterpiece is propositioned by the filmmaker? (el mariachi doesn't count).

Poor Bruce...if they remake Evil Dead, he'll be out of the loop. Anyone who thinks the studio heads are gonna want Bruce Campbell to reprise his role as Ash is sniffing glue--yeah, a late-forty year old man playing a twenty-something college student will certainly fly with these number crunchers.

How come Sam Raimi wants to undermine his magnum opus?--Because that is what's gonna happen. If the remake is successful (which it probably will be: add some CGI here, do a quick cut there, throw in a loud bang for a cheap scare somewhere, and make it a PG-13), sequels are a sure bet...which would mean, there are going to be two versions of the Evil Dead trilogy, which will also mean, two versions of Ash. Which version do you think the uninitiated will likely check out?

Sure, anyone can play Jason, Michael Meyers, or Leatherface. But there is only one Freddy, Pinhead, and in this case, Ash. This is a terrible idea. :waa:

[Cartagia]

I sent an E-Mail to Bruse Campbell asking about this. I'll hope, but i won't hold my breath for a response.

[Faithless Eye]

So did I. I said that he'd have an army of fans after him if it fails. Not only to blame him (partially), but also to grab a piece of the real life Bruce for their very own.

[sniktawt]

It's only a movie folks , if you don't want it made and if it is , then just don't go see it.
But you will so what's all the fuss ?;)

[Cartagia]

I think the big thing is that this a very, very cult movie. It's not particularly famous (well, moreso now than before Spider-Man came out) like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Manchurian Candidate or hell, even Dawn of the Dead. We fans are quite devoted. Bruce Campbell has a status of God-hood for us, hell so does Raimi. Reamking a film that people are still clamoring for a another sequel to is ridiculous. The fans don't want a remake. We want Evil Dead 4. We've made that abundantly clear for about the past 5-6 years. To hear that we are soooo close to getting what we wanted, but in a form that no one expected and takes away the life of the original films (Bruce!) is utterly ridiculous. Bruce Campbell is Ash. He owns the character like no one else owns any character... except for maybe Shatner as TJ Hooker... He does the voice over for the games that are still coming out. Even if they do a remake now is NOT the time. We still want our bloody sequel! I'm all for a good remake. I loved the TCM and DotD remakes. But it isn't time for a Evil Dead remake, not yet.

That's what all the fuss is about.

[Faithless Eye]

Exactly. Evil Dead has a cult following which is unequalled by nearly all movies, save possibly Rocky Horror. (i'm not counting Star Wars/LOTR or stuff like that, because they're not really cults as much as ED is.)

Campbell contributed more to the ED series more than any other actor contributed to any other series of films. He owns the series, with Sam Raimi (can there ever be an Evil Dead without Raimi's brilliance?).

Because Evil Dead has such a dedicated fan base stretching all the way back to 1981, it would be (and WILL be) disastrous to remake it and change everything that we as fans have loved over the years. We're so used to the way Bruce Campbell says certain lines in the films that if they're said any differently, we'll go "THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE!"

A sequel has been sort-of rumored but never eventuated, and THAT'S what we want. We want Ash kicking more ass, even if played by a 40+ year old Campbell. Something completely new, not a remake of the original.

Now, the thing that really pisses me off is that an Evil Dead remake will utterly ruin the name of the original. For example, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Planet of the Apes and The Italian Job are all linked to the remakes in popular opinion (where I am anyway), which means that they're not thought to be very good. The originals are completely forgotten about. Star Wars escaped this (with the prequels) slightly because the originals are so well-known. But Evil Dead won't escape it - it has a huge cult following, but basically, unless you love it, you've never heard of it. So the vast majority of people will think it's something new, and being an Evil Dead fan will be just like, say, being a fan of any other new horror movie. And the original will be forgotten about in popular opinion. The new viewers won't know the greatness, hell, GODLINESS of Bruce Campbell, or anything about the originals. They'll be - I hate to be mean, but this term works fine - n00bs. And the fans will be frustrated because they won't be able to rave about the originals like they once could. It happened with Dawn of the Dead, it will happen with Evil Dead.

To put it in short, nobody but Bruce Campbell can be Ash, nobody but Sam Raimi can direct - anything else is not a true ED movie. We can decide to stick with the originals only, but newcomers will be like "oh another kids-in-a-cabin movie".

Man, I am pissed off about this. It's my favourite series, the one that I hold up on a pedestal, and they are steadily going along the path of ruining it. I might go down to the local cult video store and commiserate with the people there.

[sniktawt]

Personally I felt the the Original sucked anyways , The 2nd one is funny in a 3 stooges way , the third has the worst special effects of any 90's movie so bring on a remake , it can't possibly be any worse than what preceded it.

[SJBKAT]

Wasn't that part of the fun of Army of Darkness? The special effects? I believe thats what makes it a B Film.

[Evilution]

The whole brilliance and charm of the Evil Dead series was the ingenius direction and creative special effects that was neccessitated due to a very low budget...not to mention the cool, uninhibited, and suave acting from Bruce Campbell.

I'll presume they'll just throw a bunch of money in the bucket for this "Remake," and thus, rendering it just another special effects-ladened bore.

[sniktawt]

Wasn't that part of the fun of Army of Darkness? The special effects? I believe thats what makes it a B Film.


I thought they were lame and the Talking skeletons were pathetic.

[Faithless Eye]

Just because the special effects aren't 100% CGI doesn't mean they can't be good.

The stop-motion skeletons were PERFECT for that kind of movie. They wouldn't have fitted in, say, Lord of the Rings, but they were absolutely flawless in Army of Darkness. That they didn't look perfect made them more, sort of, enjoyable to watch. They were also funny as hell. EVERY line that came out of a skeleton in AOD made me feel dizzy with laughter.

[Spike2002]

Stiffler might be Ash, not Bruce.... (http://bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=2885&Template=newsfull)


This just in Bloody-disgusting says that Sean William Scott (Stiffler from "American Pie") will be stepping in to play Ash in the remake and Bruce is O-U-T!!! Wtf is wrong with the world!

[EvilDeadNDN]

boo on the remake.

doesnt need to be done, a 4th should just be made.

thats my 2 cents. if I go into any more detail Ill just mad.

PS- special effects dont make a movie. usually they tend to ruin em if overdone *COUGH* LUCAS *COUGH*

[Faithless Eye]

Stiffler? You've got to be ****ing kidding me!

[evildeadfan]

scott as ash there really isnt a god is there.

[spiderman_2k]

If there was, this remake wouldnt have even been thought up in the first place.

[sniktawt]

Stiffler might be Ash, not Bruce.... (http://bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=2885&Template=newsfull)


This just in Bloody-disgusting says that Sean William Scott (Stiffler from "American Pie") will be stepping in to play Ash in the remake and Bruce is O-U-T!!! Wtf is wrong with the world!


This project is looking up imo.

I can't wait for this , I love SWS !!!

[WhiteWerewolf]

i say bring in Nicholas Brendon (Xander of Buffy). he looks like ash, has the humour skills, plus it would give him finally more recognition like with sarah michelle gellar and alyson hannigan. he should be in more movies.

[evildeadfan]

Nicholas Brendon how about no i still cant see any
one play ash other than bruce.

[Faithless Eye]

I thought Justin Theroux wouldn't be too bad. Better than SWS.

But whoever I go "oh yeah, he might not be too bad" about...it always comes back to the simple fact that nobody can play Ash except Bruce.

i played a demo of the Spider-Man 2 game today and marvelled (no pun intended) at the Bruce voiceovers (he's the tour guide, and it's pretty obvious too - he says "fancy pants"). It made me sad.

[oliver_jones_37]

They should just make Evil Dead 4 (Army of Darkness 2) and base it of the new comic " Ashes 2 Ashes" its brilliantly funny, gory and has a cool story.

Basically when ash comes back from the past, he comes back a few days to early and there ends up being 2 ashes in the same time period...awsome. Theres a kind of back to the future 2 feel about the plot as we see parts of evil dead 2 but from totally different perspectives.

If they do this remake, this means no more Bruce in the role of ash...which sucks balls!

[Sparta*]

That'd be cool, evil dead was awesome

[frateb]

Evil Dead 2 was NOT a remake of Evil Dead 1

i believe it was... what was the name of the main character in both films?... i think you'll find that bruce campbell not only starred in both, he was playing the same character in both...

[KUsubaruchick]

i believe it was... what was the name of the main character in both films?... i think you'll find that bruce campbell not only starred in both, he was playing the same character in both...

It's called a sequel.

[Faithless Eye]

not to mention that Evil Dead 2 was called Evil Dead 2.

[frateb]

It's called a sequel.

roflmao!... so after the events of the first film... he took his sweetheart back up to the same cabin and then played a recording of the translation from the same book that got his friends all killed off in the first film?... seriously, come on... COME ON!!!!... it is, what it is... it was a remake of the first film...

[WhiteWerewolf]

it was both. the way i hear it, evil dead 2 is the way raimi wanted to make the original evil dead. there was the remake action with ash going to the cabin, playing the tape. but in this one, ash went more psychotic, got his hand chopped off, and some other tidbits. so, if you think about it, evil dead 2 shouldve been called evil dead 1 1/2.

[Faithless Eye]

the "remake" bit of ED2 is the first 10 minutes, people! It's a recap/simplifying of the original story so that people can get a grip on the story. Obviously in the interest of keeping it short so that the solo Ash stuff can go on, they don't have EVERY character die in this "prologue" of sorts - they're not vital to Ash's story like Linda was. It was all to keep it simple and to enable the film to get on with the new bits.

They reshot parts of the first two for Army of Darkness as well. Are you calling THAT a remake?

[frateb]

i'll have to sit down and rewatch the first movie again, but it doesn't make much sense what you are saying...

ash (bruce campbell) is the same character in both movies correct?... did he actually go to the same cabin twice (once for ED1 and once for ED2)?...

[Evilution]

ED2 was a blatant remake...anyone who actually saw it knows that. Just because 80% of the film was different doesn't make it a sequel. Bruce was playing the same Ash, in the same cabin, in the same situation...only on a wider canvas.

Sequels imply an extension of a story. ED2 has no extension. Army of Darkness was the true sequel becuase it extended on the previous story. If ED2 is a sequel, then Ash has a brain the size of a fish because he doesn't even acknowledges or remember the obvious predicament he was in.

[GraysGreat]

It was a sequel in which raimi explained what happened in the first differently then what really happened in the first. And it did extend the story. It began where the first one left off after telling a different story of what happened in the first.

[Evilution]

It was a sequel in which raimi explained what happened in the first differently then what really happened in the first. And it did extend the story. It began where the first one left off after telling a different story of what happened in the first.

What you're telling me (if I'm correct), is that Evil Dead 2 is a reinterpretation of Evil Dead? And If I'm correct, isn't that the definition of a remake?

In ED1, Ash has a girlfriend name Linda who he gives a necklace to, who is then terrorized by the forces of evil.

In ED2, Ash has a girlfriend name Linda who has this very same necklace who is then terrorized by the forces of evil.

Now, I don't recall seeing any sequels that has this kind of uncanny similarity. Hell, if you watch Army of Darkness, as Ash is explaining the exposition, he doesn't even mention the incidents that happen in ED1, he goes straight into the incidents that happen in ED2--why the omission?

[GraysGreat]

You cant call a movie a remake when only the first 5 minutes is being remade, and i dont believe it was remade, i just think it was a retelling of what happened before he continued with his story. I think he changed the story because it would flow better i guess or something, but i dont think he was planning on making a remake of the first, especially when he ended up calling it Evil Dead 2. I honestly dont think he was putting that much thought in it. The filmakers were all young and just trying to have fun. Plus it was in the second one that they decided to make the series a comedy. The first they tried to make actually scary. In fact they said they wanted to make "the ultimate experience in gruelling terror". I think maybe they tried to make the second one different because, he changed his mind about the direction he was taking the series, not to remake the film.

[Evilution]

You cant call a movie a remake when only the first 5 minutes is being remade, and i dont believe it was remade, i just think it was a retelling of what happened before he continued with his story. I think he changed the story because it would flow better i guess or something, but i dont think he was planning on making a remake of the first, especially when he ended up calling it Evil Dead 2. I honestly dont think he was putting that much thought in it. The filmakers were all young and just trying to have fun. Plus it was in the second one that they decided to make the series a comedy. The first they tried to make actually scary. In fact they said they wanted to make "the ultimate experience in gruelling terror". I think maybe they tried to make the second one different because, he changed his mind about the direction he was taking the series, not to remake the film.

You made my point when you said i just think it was a "retelling" of what happened before he continued with his story." I can't understand why you can't see that that is the very definition of a remake--the retelling of a story; that is what the remakes like Dawn of the Dead, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, King Kong, Dracula, etc. are all based on--the retelling of an orignal story.

You cant call a movie a remake when only the first 5 minutes is being remade, and i dont believe it was remade.
Have you seen both ED1 and ED2? Because 100% of ED1 was remade--hell, if you listen to the commentary on ED2, Sam Raimi said that he even thought about reshooting the introduction with the same cast in ED1 because no one is going to believe that Ash would be crazy enough to venture back into the very same cabin.

Look, ED2 has no chronological connection what-so-ever to ED1:
It does not continue the original storyline;
It does not make any direct references to the incident in ED1;
ED1 is not even referenced as background exposition in Army of Darkness (the true sequel);

Ash and Linda never correlates the incidents in ED2 to past events...ED2 is in a sense, one of the truest in the regards of a "retelling," a "re-interpretation," a "re-imagining," a "revised," a "remake," etc. of a movie--don't let the numerical value fool you--it would have been a marketing disaster to sell a movie of the same name from an unknown filmmaker.

I'm starting to sound redundant, so I'll end it with this last comment: if ED2 would have continued the story after the end of ED1, it would have been a sequel. But instead, it decided to retell the story and scrapped the original--that is clearly, without any ambiguity, the definition of a remake--and obviously, ED2 is the more superior version of Evil Dead.

[the elmo zombie]

i want evil dead 4!!!!