TalkHorror - Horror Talk For All Horror Fans

Rumors have been on and off for years about a Evil Dead re-make. I guess the question is do you think it will happen? Or if it should happen?
I for for one think it is a bad idea. A sequel would make more sense...

I'd prefer it didn't happen, but I've resigned myself to the fact that remakes are made whether they're a good idea or not. I would only like it if the actor reinvented the Ash character, made it is own thing, rather than trying to imitate BC. It could be interesting that way. Or it could be a total flop - but I don't care, I still have the original to watch!

Bruce once quipped that by the time they got around to making a sequel, Ash would be in a wheelchair. I say that Ash in a wheelchair would still kick ass! Go for it! harepopcorn:

They already did kinda remake it with Evil Dead 2. There's no way they'd be able to capture the cheesyness of the original.

mrblue Wrote:They already did kinda remake it with Evil Dead 2. There's no way they'd be able to capture the cheesyness of the original.

:claaaap:

The original wasn't really that cheesy. It's one of the scariest films ever made if you ask me -_-...

I can see the flaws in it though; some of the makeup effects were half done (demon-actors necks only painted as opposed to covered) and the acting/direction wasn't the best, near the beginning, though it improved very noticeably by the time the action started to occur.

I could see a remake being done, but only by a hypercompetant director, one who ISN'T going for cheezy, and who nonetheless isn't hung up on "epic" or "dignified" direction. An Evil Dead remake could very well be the most effective horror film ever; but there are some things that would HAVE to be done to achieve that.

There's no way you can say that when Ashs guy friend turns into full on skeleton/demon that that doesn't look cheesy? That's what makes Evil Dead what it is.

mrblue Wrote:They already did kinda remake it with Evil Dead 2. There's no way they'd be able to capture the cheesyness of the original.

Actually Evil Dead II is a sequel. The start with Bruce arriving at the cabin with his soon to be anorexic girlfriend was suppose to be a flash back of the first movie.(Apparently they couldn't afford so just left out the group of friends)
Raimi sold the rights to the first ED and was not aloud to use the original footage.

A lot of people claim its a remake and I was just going off that. Personally the Evil Dead franchise isn't a fav so Idk all the facts to it.

I think part II has so many funny moments. The flying eye ball scene gets me every time Then you have the Ash one liners. Bruce Campbell is so good in this movie. I can't see anybody coming close to matching his performance.

Its obvious he'll get replaced if Sam doesn't come back to direct or his younger brother. And whoever they get won't most likey add anything to it anyways.

Briggs, Evil Dead is not all cheese but some moments can be a little campy like when the girl is sitting cross-legged on the floor laughing and clapping. That was campy. The rest was pretty scary but when the camera chases Ash around the house... that's also a little cheesy. I think the movie is typical drive-in horror. Still good though.

As for Evil Dead II, I see it as a remake that can be read as a sequel much like how The Thing was a remake but if you really think about it... it can be a sequel to the Howard Hawks film.

mrblue Wrote:There's no way you can say that when Ashs guy friend turns into full on skeleton/demon that that doesn't look cheesy? That's what makes Evil Dead what it is.

Not to me, Blue >.>. I mean, the makeup effects weren't the best but the moment when Scott gets right up and starts strangling Ash was a great moment of rising-action leading to the climax.

FreddysFingers Wrote:Briggs, Evil Dead is not all cheese but some moments can be a little campy like when the girl is sitting cross-legged on the floor laughing and clapping. That was campy. The rest was pretty scary but when the camera chases Ash around the house... that's also a little cheesy. I think the movie is typical drive-in horror. Still good though.

Well the Sheila-demon, before her change into outright violence, I personally group into the category of "scary because it's played so childishly". The evil-spirit POV bits I can more see where you're coming from; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... though I usually attribute that stuff more to the comic-bookish style Raimi employs at some point in most of his films.

I know the Sheila-demon freaked my friend out the first time we saw it. I was a little put off by it but the rest of the film is pretty strong. I hated that demon that was locked in the cellar.

Mr. Briggs Inc. Wrote:Well the Sheila-demon, before her change into outright violence, I personally group into the category of "scary because it's played so childishly".

I'm gonna agree with this here. She was totally creepy. I didn't laugh. (Not the first time, anyway.)

It'll happen when everyone finally stops caring. I honestly don't really care for the franchise after the first film despite everyone creaming their pants over part II.

I'm ignoring the above statement, and offering some new info on the "quasi-remake" of Evil Dead form Bloody Disgusting:



"Bloody Disgusting is being told exclusively that Sam Raimi is gearing up to produce a quasi-remake of The Evil Dead, his breakthrough horror film from 1981 that starred Bruce Campbell as "Ash", a modern day warrior who fends of resurrected deadites.

In an exclusive scoop, we're told that Fede Alvarez (Federico Alvarez) is directing for Raimi's Ghost House Pictures and Mandate. The remake was announced way back in 2004. No word on casting or if Bruce Campbell will return.

As Dread Central reported yesterday, it sounds as if caasting is already taking place in Detroit, Michigan for a "low budget" shoot before Raimi steps behind the camera for Oz: The Great and Powerful."

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/25308

Quasi-remake? Wasn't that already Evil Dead 2? So this would be a remake of Evil Dead 2 unless he's doing something that's really, really different.

Yeah, I have NONE idea why they're calling it that. Although... it's better than saying "we're remaking this movie" and then you go and watch it, and it's actually quite different. That always pisses me off. ie: Clash of the Titans. They should have just called it something else. It was WAY too different from the original (not only in plot, but theme) to be considered a straight-up remake, imo. So maybe it's their way of saying it will be a pretty different movie. *shrugs* We'll see.