It looks like that long, storied reboot of The Evil Dead — which Bruce Campbell has been passive-aggressively confirming and denying, oh, pretty much since the original was released in 1981— is actually, truly going to be made. No, really!
Yesterday, Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert's production company, Ghost House Pictures, issued a press release that said original producers Raimi, Tapert and Campbell are "gearing up to remake their cult sensation The Evil Dead." This "gearing up" consists of hiring filmmaker Fede Alvarez to direct and co-write the remake's script with Rodo Sayagues. And in a move guaranteed to, at best, confuse and, at worst, irritate, Diablo Cody has been hired to punch up the screenplay with her patented dialogue.
Alvarez and Sayagues got the attention of Raimi and Tapert with the 2009 short film Panic Attack (embedded below), which made the Ghost House partners "instant fans" and led to a "blind deal" for Uruguayan filmmaker Alvarez.
In case you are still doubting whether this flick will in fact ever hit the screens (and no one would blame you if you are), Raimi, Tapert and Campbell promise they are "committed to making this movie and are inspired by the enduring popularity and enthusiasm for the Evil Dead series. [They] can't wait to scare a new generation of moviegoers using filmmaking techniques that were not available to [them] thirty years ago as well as Fede bringing a fresh eye to the film's original elements."
As much as I want to see this happen, that last quote makes me nervous. The Evil Dead was a watershed moment in horror culture. A bunch of young punks with no money and no one to answer to made a movie they wanted to see, and the result was a game-changing piece of horror cinema. I suppose it was bound to be remade eventually, and the fact that Raimi, Tapert and Campbell are involved is comforting. But the promised use of "filmmaking techniques that were not available to [them] thirty years ago" (i.e., CGI) and Cody's involvement make me more than a little nervous.
I guess I need to dust off the mantra I use in such situations: "Trust the artists involved, trust the artists involved, trust the artists involved." I mean, Raimi has proved repeatedly that he's a master. Tapert has been his right-hand man from the beginning. Campbell is, for better or worse, Bruce Campbell. If these guys think CGI, Alvarez and Sayagues are right for the job, so be it. But Cody?
I guess we shall see. As long as Ash doesn't end up speaking in the argot of a precocious teen girl and fighting off cheesy computer-animated demons, we might be okay. Trust the artists involved, trust the artists involved, trust the artists involved...
My friends and I have a theory that with the involvement of Cody, they're going to try and make this film the next made-for-Hot-Topic-crowd sensation. Imagine the product placement, quotable one-liners, and fashionable duds this movie will warrant?
"Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas. THANK GOD I DRIVE A PRIUS."
"Boomstick... there's an app for that."
I also forsee a lot of assholes on the Halloween after this debuts, rocking skinny jeans and faux chainsaw-hands.
I have a better idea. Scrap the remake and make a version of Evil Dead: The Musical. The script's all set and it could end up being the Rocky Horror of our times.
Otherwise, we'll have to put up with lame jokes about "boom sticks."
I have a better idea. Scrap the remake and make a version of Evil Dead: The Musical. The script's all set and it could end up being the Rocky Horror of our times.
Otherwise, we'll have to put up with lame jokes about "boom sticks."
I saw some scenes from Evil Dead: The Musical recently, and I was surprised by how good it was, even performed by the theater dept. of a local junior college.
__________________
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
"Godzilla vs. the blog monster! I just got Mike Tyson'd by a tree!"
The only real reason to remake this is if it has a different angle to the material...and having characters speak unlikely and annoying hipster dialogue does not count.
Oh, by the way, Evil Dead was already remade with a different angle...as Evil Dead II.
Updating it for a "modern" generation (young hipsters) is not a good enough reason. I say just shame this modern generation into having taste, and then they can go rent the original and no one has to bother with the remake.
"Godzilla vs. the blog monster! I just got Mike Tyson'd by a tree!"
The only real reason to remake this is if it has a different angle to the material...and having characters speak unlikely and annoying hipster dialogue does not count.
Oh, by the way, Evil Dead was already remade with a different angle...as Evil Dead II.
Updating it for a "modern" generation (young hipsters) is not a good enough reason. I say just shame this modern generation into having taste, and then they can go rent the original and no one has to bother with the remake.
That's what I think is the most insulting I read a youngster view of "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake which he prefers than the original. His comment was "Well I tried watching the original, but I can't stand watching it because the lame effects and it was made in the 80's The story seemed cool, but I couldn't stand looking at the 80's clothes because it seems so old and I don't like old movies." Another person commented that he thought "Silence of the Lambs" was old as well because it was made in the 90's. I was like "Ugh the 90's are not that old!". It really bothers me that kids would rather watch a remake with crappy writing as long it has some CGI effects. Because you know practical special effects "Don't seem real and look cheesy". I just don't care to have those kinds of fans in the community if they don't appreciate old movies for the inventive use of special effects for the time. It's like kids love this hyper-reality that is always fast and on the go. That they don't appreciate good story telling. I know a lot of young kids aren't like that, but I have run into quite a few where they just don't have a reverence for anything that was good because they deem it's "old".
__________________
"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"
That's what I think is the most insulting I read a youngster view of "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake which he prefers than the original. His comment was "Well I tried watching the original, but I can't stand watching it because the lame effects and it was made in the 80's The story seemed cool, but I couldn't stand looking at the 80's clothes because it seems so old and I don't like old movies." Another person commented that he thought "Silence of the Lambs" was old as well because it was made in the 90's. I was like "Ugh the 90's are not that old!". It really bothers me that kids would rather watch a remake with crappy writing as long it has some CGI effects. Because you know practical special effects "Don't seem real and look cheesy". I just don't care to have those kinds of fans in the community if they don't appreciate old movies for the inventive use of special effects for the time. It's like kids love this hyper-reality that is always fast and on the go. That they don't appreciate good story telling. I know a lot of young kids aren't like that, but I have run into quite a few where they just don't have a reverence for anything that was good because they deem it's "old".
This even extends to people who call themselves "movie geeks", but in more subtle ways. People will say that a movie was good "for its time", implying that filmmaking has gotten better in all facets over the years (or something else along those lines). Heck, I even had a conversation with some guy that was going to transfer to NYU film school where he said "I don't like old movies (pre-70's) because they aren't sophisticated like modern movies are" (in all facets, not just FX). Even if you view movies purely as technology, good practical effects look more "real" than good CGI. Phantom Menace is a good looking cartoon (but a shitty movie), but Empire Strikes Back looks fucking REAL, like these characters are actually in a physical world doing stuff, and not standing in front of a green screen.
Mark Kermode puts it pretty well in this review of 2012 (you can skip ahead to 8:10 for the CGI vs. practical debate):
That's what I think is the most insulting I read a youngster view of "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake which he prefers than the original. His comment was "Well I tried watching the original, but I can't stand watching it because the lame effects and it was made in the 80's The story seemed cool, but I couldn't stand looking at the 80's clothes because it seems so old and I don't like old movies." Another person commented that he thought "Silence of the Lambs" was old as well because it was made in the 90's. I was like "Ugh the 90's are not that old!". It really bothers me that kids would rather watch a remake with crappy writing as long it has some CGI effects. Because you know practical special effects "Don't seem real and look cheesy". I just don't care to have those kinds of fans in the community if they don't appreciate old movies for the inventive use of special effects for the time. It's like kids love this hyper-reality that is always fast and on the go. That they don't appreciate good story telling. I know a lot of young kids aren't like that, but I have run into quite a few where they just don't have a reverence for anything that was good because they deem it's "old".
This even extends to people who call themselves "movie geeks", but in more subtle ways. People will say that a movie was good "for its time", implying that filmmaking has gotten better in all facets over the years (or something else along those lines). Heck, I even had a conversation with some guy that was going to transfer to NYU film school where he said "I don't like old movies (pre-70's) because they aren't sophisticated like modern movies are" (in all facets, not just FX). Even if you view movies purely as technology, good practical effects look more "real" than good CGI. Phantom Menace is a good looking cartoon (but a shitty movie), but Empire Strikes Back looks fucking REAL, like these characters are actually in a physical world doing stuff, and not standing in front of a green screen.
And because of that attitude on the part of movie "fans" and "geeks", it's no wonder we're being force fed crap from the major studios. It's easier to aim at the lowest common denominator and obviously more successful that trying to make something original.
I mean some of the techniques of special effects and special effects make up I think still hold true today. For instance "An American werewolf in London" that transformation scene I still think today holds up well. Plus the Lovecraftian monsters in "In the mouth of madness" I think look so amazing. I would rather have that anyday than some person trying to create it CGI. I mean there is some good use of CGI, but I think that depends on people who want it to look authentic. In "Van Helsing" Stephen Sommers really thought the cgi created monsters looked amazing and I thought it looked like shit. I mean just because you have the technology doesn't mean you should use it for everything especially if you aren't going to use it right.
__________________
"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"
I mean some of the techniques of special effects and special effects make up I think still hold true today. For instance "An American werewolf in London" that transformation scene I still think today holds up well. Plus the Lovecraftian monsters in "In the mouth of madness" I think look so amazing. I would rather have that anyday than some person trying to create it CGI. I mean there is some good use of CGI, but I think that depends on people who want it to look authentic. In "Van Helsing" Stephen Sommers really thought the cgi created monsters looked amazing and I thought it looked like shit. I mean just because you have the technology doesn't mean you should use it for everything especially if you aren't going to use it right.
I agree. CGI can do wonders, but a combination of practical and CGI seems to generate amazing results (like Pan's Labyrinth). And not many actors are convincing enough when working with green screened characters. Add in the fact that CGI often lets directors film scenes that defy all natural laws (Pierce Bronson jumping the shark surfing the tsunami in Die Another Day, as one example) and you have a tool ripe for abuse.
It feels as if studio pitch sessions end with something like, "Who cares about the story, what will the CGI look like?" Here's hoping Ghost House doesn't fall into that trap with the remake.
Or decide to broaden the ED audience with a PG-13 rating. *shudders at the thought*
Five twenty-something friends become holed up in a remote cabin where they discover a Book Of The Dead and unwittingly summon up dormant demons living in the nearby woods, which possess the youngsters in succession until only one is left intact to fight for survival.
The plot device in Alvarez's film that sends the kids to the cabin in the woods is for the main character to help his kid sister kick her drug habit by going cold turkey through isolation. Kind of weird, I know! Then demons are unleashed via the Book Of The Dead (when one of them just happens to translate and read it aloud, guess they're majoring in Ancient Dead Languages of the Dead) and the sister becomes possessed, unbeknownst to the rest of them at first since she's already erratic due to drug relapses.
We talked about this a little in another thread, but it's probably another case where the writer feels they have to throw in a "reason" why the kids deserve to die. It's like the stuff about the bag of pot at the beginning of the TCM remake.
Of course, it might actually be Evil Dead as a drug parable, that drugs cause you to become a zombie that hurts the ones you love or whatever. Whatevs yo.
Five twenty-something friends become holed up in a remote cabin where they discover a Book Of The Dead and unwittingly summon up dormant demons living in the nearby woods, which possess the youngsters in succession until only one is left intact to fight for survival.
The plot device in Alvarez's film that sends the kids to the cabin in the woods is for the main character to help his kid sister kick her drug habit by going cold turkey through isolation. Kind of weird, I know! Then demons are unleashed via the Book Of The Dead (when one of them just happens to translate and read it aloud, guess they're majoring in Ancient Dead Languages of the Dead) and the sister becomes possessed, unbeknownst to the rest of them at first since she's already erratic due to drug relapses.
I don't know. Drugs?
GODDAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
I find that theory unlikely. If that is what they are going for, they would have the kids going out to DO drugs. The subtext here is making "positive" moral choices/redemption. Which usually makes characters more sympathetic for the audience. And the friends are trying to help her kick drugs. The "they deserve it" subtext does not apply when folks are being "good".
I don't mind when remakes become re-imaginings, where the plot is changed to tell the story in a different way (like The Fly and The Thing). And I don't mind a bit of an update, as with The Blob, as long as the changes make sense. But, from everything I've heard about going cold turkey on drugs, the script is making a few fatal flaws.
First, this situation is best handled by medical professionals, not a bunch of kids in the middle of fucking nowhere. Getting off drugs, especially the hard stuff, can result in some life threatening moments, requiring medical intervention beyond a standard first aid card.
Also, I don't think the symptom picture is anything like the possession by a deadite. Murderous impulses, maybe, but levitation? Out of the question.
Finally, this sounds more like a slasher flick. Something tells me no one else will be possessed by the deadites, as the addicted is the weakest among the bunch (due to her drug use). So the plot will probably have her offing people one by one, and the others must find a way to stop her.
Sounds more like Jason on crack than Evil Dead, at least to me.
I find that theory unlikely. If that is what they are going for, they would have the kids going out to DO drugs. The subtext here is making "positive" moral choices/redemption. Which usually makes characters more sympathetic for the audience. And the friends are trying to help her kick drugs. The "they deserve it" subtext does not apply when folks are being "good".
That makes sense, but we won't know until we see the movie. It could be just a throwaway set up where the drug taking girl is seen as immoral in some way, or maybe the hero (the good guy) wants to help her to kick drugs but the others don't care. I just doubt that it will end up being a interesting slant or variation on the material, but maybe it will.
You know, with the original flick, they have a wonderful template already in place. They don't need to dick with it that much. Sure, they could develop the secondary characters a little more than Raimi did and update the gags, but they don't need to gunk it up with MEANING.
The people that remade Night of the Demons went off-book too, and we all know how that worked out. Argh! You have a map, people. Follow it!
__________________
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
It looks like that long, storied reboot of The Evil Dead — which Bruce Campbell has been passive-aggressively confirming and denying, oh, pretty much since the original was released in 1981— is actually, truly going to be made. No, really!
Ugh god no I don't want to hear Ash going "Honest to blog" or other stupid shit like that.
"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"