[Official Thread] The Evil Dead Remake - Mark your spoilers!
- Thread starter Kain
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
Understood, DeadByDawn!
Back on topic! Here's the first shot released by Universal Studios Florida to promote the HHN Evil Dead cabin:
And a shot of the mask/costume/makeup effects they'll be using:
ETA: I spoiler-tagged these quickly, 'cause they do reveal a little bit about how the remake ends.
Back on topic! Here's the first shot released by Universal Studios Florida to promote the HHN Evil Dead cabin:
And a shot of the mask/costume/makeup effects they'll be using:
ETA: I spoiler-tagged these quickly, 'cause they do reveal a little bit about how the remake ends.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
Woh! ... that looks fantastic. Thanks for sharing 
edit: A youtube preview of the tour:
2013 Preview of The New EVIL DEAD MAZE at Universal's Halloween Horror Nights
edit: A youtube preview of the tour:
2013 Preview of The New EVIL DEAD MAZE at Universal's Halloween Horror Nights
DeadByDawn
Loud Mouth Braggart
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
Swofty link said:Woh! ... that looks fantastic. Thanks for sharing
edit: A youtube preview of the tour:
2013 Preview of The New EVIL DEAD MAZE at Universal's Halloween Horror Nights
I want to live there. :-o
DeadByDawn
Loud Mouth Braggart
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
Swofty link said:
Thanks Dad :bigsmile
Hmm, does that mean that MaidofKandar is my mom? :confused :lol
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
Pft!
Moving the rest of my post to the proper thread!
Moving the rest of my post to the proper thread!
DeadByDawn
Loud Mouth Braggart
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
Swofty link said:
Hi
Thanks for sharing pops, i liked it :laughing
Waiting for obligatory "movie wasnt that scary" etc. comment
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
Ooh, they were showing that all over AS the week the movie came out; the ones Comedy Central showed for it were pretty funny (a different set, I ought to dig it out).
*Runs by shrieking 'THE REMAKE WASN'T SCARY' while waving my arms* :niah
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
teacherpeter
S-Mart Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
In Defense of Fede's Remake
Top Ten Reasons Why Evil Dead (2013) is underrated!
1. Jane Levy gave the performance of a lifetime. Seriously, the facial expressions, the screams, all the physical stuff she did for the role... She acted her heart out in the movie. It's actually the best performance I've ever seen in a horror movie, which says a lot because I've seen a LOT of horror movies. She deserves major recognition.
2. The cinematography was incredible. When I showed the movie to my film buff friend, he commented about 5 minutes in that every shot could be a desktop background. Every single shot was iconic, beautiful, epic, terrifying, shocking, or some other superlative. Later in the movie, when the gore started coming in droves, he still stood by his comment. "Despite how gory this movie is, it never stops being gorgeous."
3. The score was perfect. The music in the remake was very good. I know some people don't notice these things in horror movie, but really, take a listen. It's all A+. Best score in a horror film in ages.
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gOdB5KA6Qo&index=3&list=PLkRPX451d-YIoWtMFzxjdOzdj2jRkhdKV[/video]
4. It had the most believable excuse for a "Cabin in the Woods Retreat" yet. Making Mia a recovering drug addict trying to kick her meth addiction provided both a reason for being in the woods (retreat) and a reason why people questioned her motives when things started to go south (withdrawal). By the time they realized what was happening, it was already too late.
5. It was rife with references to the original films. There was the necklace, the chainsaw, camera tricks, hand possession, Erik quoting things from the original movie in a new context ("Does that sound fine?"), and scores of other references, big and small.
6. It dared to break the mold. Despite the references to the original, the Evil Dead remake stands on its own strongly, too. If I were to show this to someone without telling them it was a remake, nothing would have seemed out of place. The demons looked new and yet familiar. They were less supernatural than the ones in the original. The story didn't lend itself to continuity errors as well as the originals. In the original trilogy it's stated that the only way to kill the Evil Dead is through bodily dismemberment. Then later Ash just resorts to shooting them a bunch of times with shotguns that never need to reload (except in the tensest of moments). This movie took itself seriously, and that was kind of nice. Instead of making it difficult to "kill" the deadites, it was more difficult to save the possessed human. This made sense and avoided plot holes that the other films had. One thing I really liked about the film is that there is a moment, for each of the "Deadites" where you can see where they become "possessed". For Mia it's the tree love scene. Then there's vomit in the mouth, forced making out, etc. It's clear WHY people are possessed, whereas in the original there appeared to be no rules at all. It just happened at random.
Also, just brilliant to not put a new Ash in the film, actually. It sidesteps the problem of someone being compared to Bruce Campbell.
7. 100% practical effects. In 2013 it was already incredibly rare to find a horror film with a decent budget committed to practical effects. Fede pulled out all the stops and made it happen with blood and gore on a level you rarely see. That has to count for something/
8. Superior script and acting to the original. Sure, the 1981 classic had its low-budget charms, including terrible acting and an awful script. This movie had superb acting from most of the cast (though David, Mia's brother, was a bit stiff at parts). Overall the actors demonstrated themselves to be competent professionals, with Jane Levy's performance standing out as being truly superior.
9. Character development actually occurs. It's not the kind of character development you get from a season of Game of Thrones, but it's better than what you'd expect from a horror movie these days. Certainly way better than what happened in Evil Dead 1, and more meaningful than Army of Darkness or Evil Dead 2. See, Mia conquers her "demons" of drug abuse, reconciles with her brother, and becomes much stronger (despite spending most of the movie as a demon), and her brother comes to grips with his abandonment of Mia in the past and there's a great moment in the film where he's about to burn the house down with possessed Mia in the cellar... And then he realizes he can't do it. He can't walk away from her again. So he does it the hard way, trying to save her. The story really is very thought out.
10. It's scary. OK, this is the big one that people will object to. "Oh, the original is so much scarier." This kind of thinking, I believe, is the "rose-tinted goggles effect". I'm not saying the original wasn't scary. Truth is, I've seen so many horror movies now that nothing scares me or grosses me out. But I've shown both movies to a group of friends. They liked both, but the curious thing was that I had several of those friends say things to the effect of "Wow, this is one of those rare franchises where the remake is scarier and better thought out than the original!" I can't ignore that opinion. I had already seen TED about 15 times before I watched the remake. Don't even ask how many times I saw ED2 or AoD... The point is, I was biased in favor of the original and I was surprised to find that, hey, this remake is damn good.
Anyway, what did you think? Are you excited that the remake might be being revived (according to Sam Raimi at Comic-Con 2015) in a Bruce-Mia Crossover movie? Or would you rather see a straight up sequel?
Top Ten Reasons Why Evil Dead (2013) is underrated!
1. Jane Levy gave the performance of a lifetime. Seriously, the facial expressions, the screams, all the physical stuff she did for the role... She acted her heart out in the movie. It's actually the best performance I've ever seen in a horror movie, which says a lot because I've seen a LOT of horror movies. She deserves major recognition.
2. The cinematography was incredible. When I showed the movie to my film buff friend, he commented about 5 minutes in that every shot could be a desktop background. Every single shot was iconic, beautiful, epic, terrifying, shocking, or some other superlative. Later in the movie, when the gore started coming in droves, he still stood by his comment. "Despite how gory this movie is, it never stops being gorgeous."
3. The score was perfect. The music in the remake was very good. I know some people don't notice these things in horror movie, but really, take a listen. It's all A+. Best score in a horror film in ages.
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gOdB5KA6Qo&index=3&list=PLkRPX451d-YIoWtMFzxjdOzdj2jRkhdKV[/video]
4. It had the most believable excuse for a "Cabin in the Woods Retreat" yet. Making Mia a recovering drug addict trying to kick her meth addiction provided both a reason for being in the woods (retreat) and a reason why people questioned her motives when things started to go south (withdrawal). By the time they realized what was happening, it was already too late.
5. It was rife with references to the original films. There was the necklace, the chainsaw, camera tricks, hand possession, Erik quoting things from the original movie in a new context ("Does that sound fine?"), and scores of other references, big and small.
6. It dared to break the mold. Despite the references to the original, the Evil Dead remake stands on its own strongly, too. If I were to show this to someone without telling them it was a remake, nothing would have seemed out of place. The demons looked new and yet familiar. They were less supernatural than the ones in the original. The story didn't lend itself to continuity errors as well as the originals. In the original trilogy it's stated that the only way to kill the Evil Dead is through bodily dismemberment. Then later Ash just resorts to shooting them a bunch of times with shotguns that never need to reload (except in the tensest of moments). This movie took itself seriously, and that was kind of nice. Instead of making it difficult to "kill" the deadites, it was more difficult to save the possessed human. This made sense and avoided plot holes that the other films had. One thing I really liked about the film is that there is a moment, for each of the "Deadites" where you can see where they become "possessed". For Mia it's the tree love scene. Then there's vomit in the mouth, forced making out, etc. It's clear WHY people are possessed, whereas in the original there appeared to be no rules at all. It just happened at random.
Also, just brilliant to not put a new Ash in the film, actually. It sidesteps the problem of someone being compared to Bruce Campbell.
7. 100% practical effects. In 2013 it was already incredibly rare to find a horror film with a decent budget committed to practical effects. Fede pulled out all the stops and made it happen with blood and gore on a level you rarely see. That has to count for something/
8. Superior script and acting to the original. Sure, the 1981 classic had its low-budget charms, including terrible acting and an awful script. This movie had superb acting from most of the cast (though David, Mia's brother, was a bit stiff at parts). Overall the actors demonstrated themselves to be competent professionals, with Jane Levy's performance standing out as being truly superior.
9. Character development actually occurs. It's not the kind of character development you get from a season of Game of Thrones, but it's better than what you'd expect from a horror movie these days. Certainly way better than what happened in Evil Dead 1, and more meaningful than Army of Darkness or Evil Dead 2. See, Mia conquers her "demons" of drug abuse, reconciles with her brother, and becomes much stronger (despite spending most of the movie as a demon), and her brother comes to grips with his abandonment of Mia in the past and there's a great moment in the film where he's about to burn the house down with possessed Mia in the cellar... And then he realizes he can't do it. He can't walk away from her again. So he does it the hard way, trying to save her. The story really is very thought out.
10. It's scary. OK, this is the big one that people will object to. "Oh, the original is so much scarier." This kind of thinking, I believe, is the "rose-tinted goggles effect". I'm not saying the original wasn't scary. Truth is, I've seen so many horror movies now that nothing scares me or grosses me out. But I've shown both movies to a group of friends. They liked both, but the curious thing was that I had several of those friends say things to the effect of "Wow, this is one of those rare franchises where the remake is scarier and better thought out than the original!" I can't ignore that opinion. I had already seen TED about 15 times before I watched the remake. Don't even ask how many times I saw ED2 or AoD... The point is, I was biased in favor of the original and I was surprised to find that, hey, this remake is damn good.
Anyway, what did you think? Are you excited that the remake might be being revived (according to Sam Raimi at Comic-Con 2015) in a Bruce-Mia Crossover movie? Or would you rather see a straight up sequel?
Mardeadite
Loud Mouth Braggart
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
RE: In Defense of Fede's Remake
I've been so fed up of people remaking films that I consider decent already that I have avoided this....
(although I agree that the acting and dialogue in The Evil Dead is ropey in places)
... until recently. I saw decent reviews of this film athough that in itself would not be reason enough for me to watch it. I'll admit, part of me is afraid it WILL be an improvement. Not very logical I guess, it's just the idea that something one remembers fondly has been bettered leaves me a bad taste. Maybe because part of the hard work was still done before. I'd rather those creative energies were put into something original.
But I also saw read elsewhere on this site, that there's a good chance this isn't so much a remake as, the similar stuff happening to other people. That it might even be the same world. Or a branch off the same original timeline, and, I'm intrigued.
Anyway, I gave in and bought this on special offer on Blu-ray yesterday. I will watch it soon and let you know what I think.
I've been so fed up of people remaking films that I consider decent already that I have avoided this....
(although I agree that the acting and dialogue in The Evil Dead is ropey in places)
... until recently. I saw decent reviews of this film athough that in itself would not be reason enough for me to watch it. I'll admit, part of me is afraid it WILL be an improvement. Not very logical I guess, it's just the idea that something one remembers fondly has been bettered leaves me a bad taste. Maybe because part of the hard work was still done before. I'd rather those creative energies were put into something original.
But I also saw read elsewhere on this site, that there's a good chance this isn't so much a remake as, the similar stuff happening to other people. That it might even be the same world. Or a branch off the same original timeline, and, I'm intrigued.
Anyway, I gave in and bought this on special offer on Blu-ray yesterday. I will watch it soon and let you know what I think.
teacherpeter
S-Mart Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
RE: In Defense of Fede's Remake
My idea, which branches off my "multiple timelines" theory, is that the remake is actually an alternate universe in which Ash either died, failed to defeat the book in some other way, or never came to the woods for whatever reason, leaving the book behind in the woods to be discovered by unsuspecting people every once in a while. We see at the beginning of the movie that this clearly happens from time to time. This is not the first group to encounter the book in these woods. Furthermore, there's the broken down Oldsmobile from the original. And the fact that the cabin is a complete replica of the original cabin.
So yeah, I think it's a sort of "sequel" to a universe where Ash is absent.
My idea, which branches off my "multiple timelines" theory, is that the remake is actually an alternate universe in which Ash either died, failed to defeat the book in some other way, or never came to the woods for whatever reason, leaving the book behind in the woods to be discovered by unsuspecting people every once in a while. We see at the beginning of the movie that this clearly happens from time to time. This is not the first group to encounter the book in these woods. Furthermore, there's the broken down Oldsmobile from the original. And the fact that the cabin is a complete replica of the original cabin.
So yeah, I think it's a sort of "sequel" to a universe where Ash is absent.
Sutter Cane
Spinach Chin
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
RE: In Defense of Fede's Remake
Interesting point of view. Could be something happening between the first one and the second one since the oldsmobile is gone with Ash in Army of Darkness.
I think the Fede's version was great! The original team was behind it this is why this movie is a respectable remake.
I think it was rejected by fanboys because there's no Ash in it (except for the easter egg)
But we must also thanks the fanboys to haunt Bruce Campbell. Now we got a brand new evil dead series.
teacherpeter said:
Interesting point of view. Could be something happening between the first one and the second one since the oldsmobile is gone with Ash in Army of Darkness.
I think the Fede's version was great! The original team was behind it this is why this movie is a respectable remake.
I think it was rejected by fanboys because there's no Ash in it (except for the easter egg)
But we must also thanks the fanboys to haunt Bruce Campbell. Now we got a brand new evil dead series.
teacherpeter
S-Mart Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
I think that Army of Darkness will prove to be a separate continuity in Ash vs. Evil Dead. I think Army of Darkness probably "never happened" officially, but aspects of all the timelines merged so that Ash could claim things in all three movies happened.
Notice:
1. Ash says in the Ash vs. Evil Dead trailer that he went to the cabin with "Some friends", not just Linda.
2. Ash is missing his hand
3. Ash does not still keep the prosthetic from Army of Darkness. While he says "Boomstick" he doesn't allude to the events of AoD in the trailer at all
BUT as it relates to the remake, well, I think the remake takes place in a continuity where Ash died or was otherwise defeated in the cabin by the Evil 3 decades prior. This explains why the Oldsmobile is still there, is not mentioned as being a new addition to the property, and even explains why the cabin is in such a state in the movie. It was OK after the events of Evil Dead 1, and during Mia and David's childhood, but hillbillies and others have found it a few times over the years (as evidenced by the opening sequence to the film), temporarily unleashing its power, and then wrapping it back up. The book never went far from the cabin and it keeps finding its way back there. The movie wants you to understand that this isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time, that the Necronomicon is used in these woods. It's practically the thesis statement delivered in the first 5 minutes of the film.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
I've posted my thoughts before; I think the points I agree with are Jane (definitely lucky Lily Collins dropped out to make that Snow White movie) and the score. The rest...well. I've said my piece I would add that what character development that does happen with Mia only happens because David has to literally force her through it every single step of the way, which is why I found it dissapointing.
Also Bruce admitted they used post sweetening (AKA CGI) on several scenes of the movie, so it's not 100 percent practical. They got in trouble for saying that and that's why they're admitting to using some non-practical effects in Ash vs ED.
Also I don't want a crossover, and would prefer both continuities stay separate.
I would add that what character development that does happen with Mia only happens because David has to literally force her through it every single step of the way, which is why I found it dissapointing. Also Bruce admitted they used post sweetening (AKA CGI) on several scenes of the movie, so it's not 100 percent practical. They got in trouble for saying that and that's why they're admitting to using some non-practical effects in Ash vs ED.
Also I don't want a crossover, and would prefer both continuities stay separate.
teacherpeter
S-Mart Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
Just curious why it appears all conversations about the remake are forced into this thread? I was shocked to find that my post, which I put a lot of time into, wasn't worthy of its own thread.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
It's just a matter of us being tidy ... and for what it's worth, your post was excellent. I'm looking forward to reading more from you if you'll hopefullly stick around. Pleased to meet you .. (all of us here occasionally get our posts moved around so please don't take it personally).
.. (all of us here occasionally get our posts moved around so please don't take it personally).