CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › DEAD BY YAWN
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DEAD BY YAWN

post #1 of 72
7/13/11 at 7:52pm
Thread Starter 

http://www.chud.com/60422/dead-by-yawn/

 

Sorry Nick, but I couldn't wait.

 

 

Anyway, thoughts?

Reply
post #2 of 72
7/13/11 at 8:08pm

After they remade Halloween and Psycho, and when they are remaking such relatively obscure properties like Cactus Flower into Adam Sandler films, it's obvious that nothing is sacred anymore and everything is fair game when it comes to recycling properties.

 

At the end of the day, I'm just happy that my old Evil Dead dvds and lasers still spin, as will the planet, with or without this remake.

Reply
post #3 of 72
7/13/11 at 8:22pm
Thread Starter 

I'm just curious about the remake in general.  They were gung-ho about doing one years ago.  Last year though, Bruce stated that the remake was dead and that if we ever saw another Evil Dead movie, it would be in the form of Evil Dead IV.

 

And now they are issuing a press release about a remake of The Evil Dead.  Is it a fullblown remake?  Is it merely a reboot with Bruce reprising Ash in some sort of capacity?  The fact that most of the rumors circulating the web before the press release referred to it as a pseudo-reboot is very curious.  Were the rumors (reportedly coming from industry insiders) completely wrong?  Or has Raimi folded the remake and EDIV into a single project?  The latter is a pipedream, but you can never really tell with Sam.

 

Whatever the case, I just hope we get a good movie that is at least half as creatively crazy as the original franchise was, albeit in its own way.  I do like that they are going lower budget with it though.  The world does not need a $70 million dollar Evil Dead remake.

 

 

Also, all fan hopes aside, did we ever REALLY think that Sam would actually make a fullblown Evil Dead IV someday?

Reply
post #4 of 72
7/13/11 at 8:23pm

Remakes aren't the problem in and of themselves. Hollywood has been remaking and reinventing properties since it's very inception for new audiences. Where the problem lies is with things that don't really need to be remade or having nothing new or substantial to say.  Is there really anything that can be captured or expressed in a remake of Evil Dead that the original didn't already possess or evoke? I don't think so.

 

I'm telling Hollywood they should seek out concepts or ideas that may have been poorly executed the first go around (somebody pointed out LifeForce on the boards..there you go. That's a film that could use some polish and some pretty new bows) and, I don't know, actually make them work?

Reply
post #5 of 72
7/13/11 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post

Remakes aren't the problem in and of themselves. Hollywood has been remaking and reinventing properties since it's very inception for new audiences. Where the problem lies is with things that don't really need to be remade or having nothing new or substantial to say.  Is there really anything that can be captured or expressed in a remake of Evil Dead that the original didn't already possess or evoke? I don't think so.

 

I'm telling Hollywood they should seek out concepts or ideas that may have been poorly executed the first go around (somebody pointed out LifeForce on the boards..there you go. That's a film that could use some polish and some pretty new bows) and, I don't know, actually make them work?




Yes, but you are asking for absolute selection on subjective works.

 

In other words, there's some young suit out there who can spin (to you and himself) that the original Evil Dead could be improved upon!

 

So, on that note, I'm telling Hollywood to stop this remake glut in general (and currently, it IS a glut) and seek out (and dust off) all the new scripts and ideas that the system has been too scared and flawed to take a chance on in the first place.

Reply
post #6 of 72
7/13/11 at 8:50pm

There's so much in the original Evil Dead film that would never get put in a remake, so a reboot sounds more likely.

 

I'd rather see Evil Dead IV, and who knows? Maybe this is all a smoke screen for them to actually make it under the radar.

 

I'm not crazy about Diablo Cody either. No, it has nothing to do with her being a woman, I just don't like her scripts. I don't need winking/witty dialogue in an Evil Dead film. At least not her brand of witty dialogue.

 

I know a director has already been chosen, but I would have liked to see what Alexander Aja could have done with the project.

Reply
post #7 of 72
7/13/11 at 9:08pm

I like Diablo Cody and think JENNIFER'S BODY is seriously underrated, so I'm down. I also like that her movie will expose Sam Raimi's original to a whole new generation.

Reply
post #8 of 72
7/13/11 at 9:21pm

I don't see the problem with this. If it sucks, the original is still there. If it's good, we get a good horror movie. Cody is cool, I'm interested.

Reply
post #9 of 72
7/13/11 at 9:35pm
Thread Starter 

I don't have a problem with remakes in general.  I just have a problem with remakes that are half-assed retreads of the original film.

 

The Omen, The Hitcher, The Fog, The Amityville Horror, Psycho, etc.

 

As bad as Zombie's Halloween was, it at least had my interest up until the point in the latter half of the film where is stopped doing its own thing and turned into a sped-up repeat of Carpenter's original.  I managed to enjoy his sequel a whole lot more simply for the fact that he was finally doing his own thing.  It still wasn't a good movie, but at least he tried.  Virtually all of the recent remakes that have actually succeeded in being decent updates have done so because they did their own thing.  The remakes of Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, etc. have all turned out well because they either had a different take on the material...............or at least went about executing the same story in an alternate fashion.  Trying to recreate classic scenes from the film that you are remaking just sets up for comparison and defeat.  The Nightmare On Elm Street remake comes to mind.  Amidst all of their CGI-ed redos of the original classic scenes, they had a kernel of an idea that I found interesting: micronaps.  Had they explored that more fully, as well as being able to create their own crazy dream sequences, then it probably would have been a better film.  Not a great one, but a better one.  As with Zombie's Halloween, it's like they couldn't decide whether to just xerox the original with different actors.............or try something new.

 

You want to remake The Monster Squad?  Fine, but don't try to give me a horror comedy.  Instead, why not examine how positively terrifying it would be to be a 12 year old who KNOWS that Dracula and the Wolf Man are roaming about his hometown.  If the movie you want to do is based on a book, how about a more faithful adaptation if applicable?  If you can't do something different, then don't even bother.

 

If we must have a remake, then I want Fede Alvarez's The Evil Dead.................................not a riff on Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead.  You aren't Sam, so don't try to be.

Reply
post #10 of 72
7/13/11 at 9:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) View Post
I know a director has already been chosen, but I would have liked to see what Alexander Aja could have done with the project.


Since he has made three of them already (in a row, no less!), I'll be shocked if Aja even considers directing another horror remake for well over a decade.  Besides, he's deep into planning his epic adaptation of the sci-fi manga Cobra: The Space Pirate right now.

 

Reply
post #11 of 72
7/13/11 at 9:45pm

He does pretty good with them though. The Hills Have Eyes and Piranha 3D do fall into the "same idea, different execution" format. I too think that's key to making a great remake, Bob.

 

All they need to do is this "5 people go to a remote cabin, find a book that unleashes evil that possesses people." That simple one line plot can be done any which way they want. Doesn't even have to be just 5 people. Add in more, have it not 1 last man standing. Maybe it's 2.

 

The original had for quite a stretch of time, 2 men fighting off 3 possessed women. There's something that would be an interesting angle to take and possibly keep for the new one.

Reply
post #12 of 72
7/13/11 at 9:51pm
Thread Starter 

Agreed on all counts, Rene.

Reply
post #13 of 72
7/13/11 at 10:30pm

"using filmmaking techniques that were not available to us thirty years ago"

 

Issuing this statement is missing the point...

 

The Evil Dead is a product of its time. The working conditions, no-budget, the practical effects on the fly, the blood, sweat and tears of it all, in front of and behind the camera. It truly was lightning in a bottle.

 

You want to remake The Evil Dead? Well, you're late to the game, because so many other filmmakers have copied it in the decades since.

 

You can up the ante and deliver a more polished (CG?) and technically sound remake on your "meager" $30 million "budget", but that's totally at the opposite end of the spectrum of what made the first film a classic.

 

With The Evil Dead, you're not trying to remake just a film (and a rather simplistic formula one at that), but you are trying to replicate a cultural phenomenon unique to a whole generation of horror fans.

 

Good luck with that.

Reply
post #14 of 72
7/13/11 at 10:46pm

Fuck i'm kind of surprised but i'm very angry about this. There are many films that deserve to be remade (The Monster Squad as the gentleman above mentioned is a perfect example because that film doesn't quite work) but Evil Dead is not one them.

 

These movies are distinct like few are. The tone has not really been duplicated. Much like Carpenter's I might add.

 

This tells you just how much Sam Raimi must be struggling.

 

I agree with Nick that Jennifers Body was nothing special at all.

Reply
post #15 of 72
7/13/11 at 10:56pm
Thread Starter 

It will be interesting to see what they have to say about Evil Dead IV now.  Sam has been stringing fans along for years when it comes to promising that film.  Doubly so in the past two years.  Again, it's not like I ever thought he would actually make it.  That said, it's going to be real hard for him to get anyone to believe him now if he still tries to keep that hope alive.

Reply
post #16 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:13pm

This is a business decision I understand that but why not do a spinoff not a remake?

 

It just doesn't make any sense. Cody? Juno and Jennifer's Body type dialog in this flick? Yes I know she is polishing it but I don't want to hear something like " Do you have a tampon? Cuz I swear you must be pluggin. "

 

I am not a Cody hater btw she is talented. Just don't think she is right for this property. Beyond that though Raimi must be in much tougher shape than anyone knows.

 

I know Spiderman 3 was shite and The Hobbit fell through along with a few other projects and Drag Me to Hell disappointed but damn.

 

Remake fucking Darkman.

Reply
post #17 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker View Post
Beyond that though Raimi must be in much tougher shape than anyone knows.


Really? It seems to me Raimi must be pretty well-off. Unless there's some gambling addiction I was unaware of, I imagine he's sitting in a nice big pile of cash. Do we really live in a world where the guy who directed the Spiderman trilogy is hurting??

Reply
post #18 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:20pm
Thread Starter 

Why is it that everyone thinks Raimi is in rough shape?  Drag Me To Hell underperformed and Spider-Man IV got canceled, but beyond that what is going wrong for him?  As far as The Hobbit goes, he put his hand up but we don't even really know if serious talks ever occurred.

 

Besides, the man is directing a summer tentpole fantasy film for Disney (Oz: The Great & Powerful) and is pretty much getting everything he wants on it.  On top of that, he's managed to repair his broken relationship with longtime collaborator Danny Elfman.  How is this considered "rough shape"?  Everyone seems to be acting like this remake came out of nowhere, when the fact of the matter is that it has been brought up constantly for the past five or six years.  Outside of Bruce acting last year like the project was dead, we've always known this was on the horizon.

Reply
post #19 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:20pm

Wake up what has he made since? What earth shattering films have come from Ghost House productions?

 

 

Only person saying Sam Raimi is in tough shape is me nobody else so I take the blame there.

 

Remaking Evil Dead seems like kicking a dead horse is all.

 

Oz seems like his only recent win.

Reply
post #20 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:23pm

If anything, this remake/reboot/whatever needs to be made for 5 million or less. Just to make things interesting. Why not make it for a million or a little less? Raimi should have them get creative just like he had to when he made the original for about $400,000. A "I did it for this much, why can't you?" approach.

Reply
post #21 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker View Post
Only person saying Sam Raimi is in tough shape is me nobody else so I take the blame there.

 

At least one other person has mentioned it above and others are doing so on different sites.  As far as Ghost House Pictures goes, I suspect Sam exerts very little creative control over the projects that the company produces.  Same goes for all of the TV shows he's attached his name to over the years (Hercules, Xena, Spartacus, Legend of the Seeker, etc.).  Some turn out alright, others don't.  Just like Wes Craven, Raimi isn't shy about putting his name on almost anything..............and this has been going on since the late 90s.  Hell, it's not like even Steven Spielberg hasn't put his name on less than stellar projects before.

 

Reply
post #22 of 72
7/13/11 at 11:49pm

I had the impression he was more hands on not Bay like with Platinum Dunes. If so my bad.

 

Non the less its been many years since Spiderman 2. Which is his for last real success box office wise.

Reply
post #23 of 72
7/14/11 at 2:12am

Gah, I don't like Cody for this. She's a good writer, but EVIL DEAD doesn't need such a strong scripting voice behind it.

Reply
post #24 of 72
7/14/11 at 2:58am

If Rami is involved it gives me hope, besides he already remade Evil Dead once as Evil Dead 2. If it's crap as mentiond above you still have the DVDs of the originals.

Reply
post #25 of 72
7/14/11 at 5:29am

Okay so its happening and probably with smart mouth sassy unrealistic dialogue, Ive come to terms with this...

 

Now what hot young thing should we fan-cast as Ash?

Reply
post #26 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:15am

Playing Diablo's Advocate for a moment, has anyone seen much of UNITED STATES OF TARA? I caught a few eps on a flight recently and liked what I saw. The fialogue was certainly more restrained than JUNO or JENNIFER'S BODY.

 

...but yeah, a $30m remake if EVIL DEAD is pretty pointless

Reply
post #27 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:27am

Cody's dialogue can be sparkling. I'm just not sure how it fits into an EVIL DEAD movie.

Reply
post #28 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:36am

This is the sort of remake I'll never understand. It's not the concept that made Evil Dead so good but the alchemy that occurred when that particular bunch of up-and-comers collided. Trying to duplicate it feels foolish.


Edited by Evi - 7/14/11 at 6:49am
Reply
post #29 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:46am

Indeed. I think that's why Cody's inclusion and the budget bug me so much. It's a branding exercise more than anything else.

Reply
post #30 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:51am

Actually, it's Cody's involvement that has me interested. 

 

I love the trilogy. And it seems like they are putting real thought into the remake. I would love for Raimi to be behind it all. But, he's tapped some talented folks.

 

I'll see it, happily.

 

Pretty much love Jennifer's Body, by the way.

Reply
post #31 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:59am

I think I'd be excited for a $30million horror picture produced by Raimi and written by Cody if it didn't have the EVIL DEAD name attached.

Reply
post #32 of 72
7/14/11 at 6:59am

At least we're pretty much guaranteed something different here.  Even its a failure, its going to be an interesting one.  

Reply
post #33 of 72
7/14/11 at 7:05am

There's a part of me that thinks that--given Raimi and Campbell's statements over the last few years--this will actually be some collision between a reboot and Evil Dead IV.  I'm thinking that Campbell may have a role as the "wizened"  (in sarcastic quotes because, c'mon, it's Ash we're talking about here) elder/leader, stepping in part way through the movie to help this new gang of kids deal with the Deadites.  Thus, it will be in continuity, but focusing on the next generation.

 

As far as Diablo Cody goes, I thought Jennifer's Body was somehow and in some deliriously incongruous manner both over- and underrated.  Nick hit the nail 100% on the head by referring to the film as being a longer episode of Buffy with only half the fun.  I can't quite picture how her particular brand of dialogue will play into a new Evil Dead, though.  My biggest fear would be that, left unchecked, she'll turn the film into an overly glib, pop-culture drenched piece of slick.

 

Then again, as was said above, we'll always have the originals.  I say, "Come get some!" 

Reply
post #34 of 72
7/14/11 at 7:20am

The turning over to a feminist voice, plays at least partly as apology for the playful misogyny of the original trilogy. I think Raimi has always been a little embarrassed by the tree rape.

Reply
post #35 of 72
7/14/11 at 7:26am

1) I find it funny that some people hate Kevin Smith and defend Diablo Cody. Both write shitty, unnatural dialogue that is distracting from anything else they're trying to do.  2) Can Hollywood stop pretending that remakes give new life/a new audience to the original material? Many people love the remake of Dawn of the Dead, but don't even know that it's a fucking "remake".

 

I keep holding out hope that this is just them finally making ED4 and trying to keep it quiet, but Campbell is really busy with Burn Notice right now (and for the foreseeable future), so I don't see him showing up as anything more than a cameo.  Maybe he'll be the voice on the tape recorder.

Reply
post #36 of 72
7/14/11 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninhead View Post

1) I find it funny that some people hate Kevin Smith and defend Diablo Cody. Both write shitty, unnatural dialogue that is distracting from anything else they're trying to do.



Horseshit. Smith's never written anything half as affecting as the second half of JUNO. Cody's dialogue can grate, but she knows how to write characters and deliver a narrative.

Reply
post #37 of 72
7/14/11 at 8:07am

The title of this article is a nice turn of phrase. 

 

I kind of hated Jennifer's Body, but conversely, I really like the idea of Cody working on this. I'm very interested in what she comes up with for Ash. As to her and Kevin Smith, it's an apt comparison in that I find the hate directed towards both of them creepy in its intensity. But please, forget I said that, it's the worst possible direction for this thread to go.

 

But honestly, the script seems kinda secondary. No Evil Dead movies has had a particularly good one. Well, Army of Darkness is close. They've been showcases for a director and a lead actor. The make or break on this has got to whoever gets cast as Ash.

Reply
post #38 of 72
7/14/11 at 8:14am



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

 No Evil Dead movies has had a particularly good one. Well, Army of Darkness is close. They've been showcases for a director and a lead actor.

 What?!?! Have you seen Evil Dead 2?? Its amazing, even now in this day and age...

Reply
post #39 of 72
7/14/11 at 8:20am

Yeah, it's fantastic because it's such a kinetic, joyous roller coaster ride, about as well directed as any horror movie ever made. It's not a shitty script or anything, but it's not exactly Network. Imagine, if you will, reading the script for Evil Dead 2 without any of the iconic camera movements, shot composition, or Bruce Campbell in your head. The tight plotting and dialogue are not these movie's strengths.

Reply
post #40 of 72
7/14/11 at 8:28am


 


 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Yeah, it's fantastic because it's such a kinetic, joyous roller coaster ride, about as well directed as any horror movie ever made. It's not a shitty script or anything, but it's not exactly Network. Imagine, if you will, reading the script for Evil Dead 2 without any of the iconic camera movements, shot composition, or Bruce Campbell in your head. The tight plotting and dialogue are not these movie's strengths.



And by that same token the remake itself could be disastrous in issues not related to the script.

 

 

Reply
post #41 of 72
7/14/11 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post

And by that same token the remake itself could be disastrous in issues not related to the script.

 

 


This is what worries me. Where would Evil Dead be without ram-o-cam, without the growling effects, without the shadows and eery mist, without the stop motion creations? All part of the fabric of these films. Somehow the idea that all this will be updated into modern techniques just doesnt fill me with hope. Maybe the new director is a bona fide genius and I'll eat my words when it comes out. At this point though I would rather they made a film of the Evil Dead stage musical. I would even prefer that over an Evil Dead 4 maybe....
 

 

Reply
post #42 of 72
7/14/11 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Dobler View Post
Now what hot young thing should we fan-cast as Ash?


It will be one of them from Supernatural I bet. Don't really watch the show much so I don't know their names. Sideburns McBlandperson, or the one who always looks like he's auditioning for "the tough one" in an 80s boy band.

Reply
post #43 of 72
7/14/11 at 11:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Dobler View Post
Now what hot young thing should we fan-cast as Ash?


No one.  Bruce Campbell has stated repeatedly in interviews that one of his conditions for agreeing to a remake was that there would be no new Ash.  So short of Bruce reprising his character (which would effectively make this a reboot AND a sequel if it happened), Ashley J. Williams will not be present in the remake.

 

Personally, I'm glad, as it makes it virtually impossible to determine from the outset what character(s) will survive the events of the film...............if any do at all.

Reply
post #44 of 72
7/15/11 at 2:50am



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post




No one.  Bruce Campbell has stated repeatedly in interviews that one of his conditions for agreeing to a remake was that there would be no new Ash.  So short of Bruce reprising his character (which would effectively make this a reboot AND a sequel if it happened), Ashley J. Williams will not be present in the remake.

 

Personally, I'm glad, as it makes it virtually impossible to determine from the outset what character(s) will survive the events of the film...............if any do at all.


 

Ok fair enough

 

Just putting this out there......what about if they were? what about one of the Jackass crew? Physical punishment? oh yes!
 

 

Reply
post #45 of 72
7/15/11 at 3:44am

Noone can replace Campbell because Ash IS Campbell. Hell, if you were to ask me to describe him, one of the first things characteristics I'd mention is that he speaks English like he's reading it off a piece of paper.

Reply
post #46 of 72
7/15/11 at 6:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Dobler View Post

Just putting this out there......what about if they were? what about one of the Jackass crew? Physical punishment? oh yes!


Huh.  Johnny Knoxville actually sounds pretty damn perfect.

 

Reply
post #47 of 72
7/15/11 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post


Huh.  Johnny Knoxville actually sounds pretty damn perfect.

 



There was a scene in Walking Tall from 2004 where he is going through some major violent slapstick shit in a house that first made me think this because that was about when they first talked up a remake...

 

Reply
post #48 of 72
7/15/11 at 7:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post




No one.  Bruce Campbell has stated repeatedly in interviews that one of his conditions for agreeing to a remake was that there would be no new Ash.  So short of Bruce reprising his character (which would effectively make this a reboot AND a sequel if it happened), Ashley J. Williams will not be present in the remake.

 

Personally, I'm glad, as it makes it virtually impossible to determine from the outset what character(s) will survive the events of the film...............if any do at all.




That's actually a great idea but then I wonder how do you even do this film?  Like it or not, the character of Ash is The Evil Dead series.  Maybe it would be interesting to go in a completely different direction and focus more on the horror of the situation itself but then you run the risk of basically turning out a rote zombie vs. band of survivors film that we've seen a thousand times before.  I'm also looking at this through the prism of the series as a whole so my thinking might be a bit colored because the character of Ash himself wasn't really defined until the second film (which you could technically view as a remake of the first but I tend to ignore that) and viewing it as a single, one off film might allow for a new and fresher take.

 

I must admit part of me craves one last Evil Dead starring Bruce Campbell as Ash though.  Basically I want an Unforgiven/John Rambo send off for Rami and Campbell with the character and franchise they created.

Reply
post #49 of 72
7/15/11 at 8:02am

The part I keep going back to is $30 million. Why $30 million? Where did they get that number? Are there going to be medieval Army of Darkness shenanigans? Because otherwise, there's no reason they should be spending any more than "Saw" money to do a sequel to a no-budget cabin horror classic.

Reply
post #50 of 72
7/15/11 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

The part I keep going back to is $30 million. Why $30 million? Where did they get that number? Are there going to be medieval Army of Darkness shenanigans? Because otherwise, there's no reason they should be spending any more than "Saw" money to do a sequel to a no-budget cabin horror classic.


 

The Tree Rape concession has really been hit hard by inflation.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › DEAD BY YAWN