Evil Dead (2013)

Army Of Suckness
Raimi & Campbell Remaking The Evil Dead

quote

November 18, 2004 - According to today's Variety, "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi and original producing partners Rob Tapert and Bruce Campbell are reteaming to produce a remake of the cult hit The Evil Dead through Ghost House Pictures and Senator International.

Raimi wrote, directed and produced the 1981 film, which tells the tale of a group of friends who go to a cabin in the woods, where they find an unspeakable evil lurking in the forest. One by one, the teens become deadly zombies. With only Ash (Campbell) remaining, it is up to him to survive the night and battle The Evil Dead.

Raimi will not direct the remake, so Ghost House is looking for a helmer to reinvent the franchise before a script is written.

The original film spawned sequels Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness.

Okay, I know it's the latest thing in Hollywood ... but seriously, this is *bleep*ed up. If they want to remake anything, remake the Evil Dead II, because that one sucked. There's nothing wrong with the original. A little outdated, but still a classic in it's own right.

[color=#666666]This message was edited on 2012-10-16T01:56:36-07:00.

This is horrible.

First off, 1 and 2 are great. It was 3 that sucked.

Okay, now this also makes no sense. 2 is a remake of 1 to an extent.

I didn't think it was possible to be pissed about a new Evil Dead film. Congradulations Sam Raimi, you were just granted permission to suck my balls.

Ill reserve judgment until I hear what the budget is.

The first movie was as low budget as it gets, and the second one wasnt far behind.

With better special effects, I think a remake would be pretty cool. Its better than nothing anyway. Im a huge Evil Dead fan, and I dont see the problem.

Fans of the original, still have the originals that they can go watch and croon over until they are blue in the face. For those of us ED Fans wanting more, a remake will have to do until Raimi gets Spiderman 3 out of the way and takes his head out of his ass and commits to an Evil Dead 4.

I would definately pay to see another rendition of Evil Dead if they had a bigger budget and put some killer special effects in it.

I hear Nic Cage...


But knowing Hollywood it'll be Freddie Prinze Jr

Rob Tapert on The Evil Dead Remake
Source: Sci Fi Wire

quote

January 26, 2005 - Rob Tapert, who runs Ghost House Pictures with "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi, talked to Sci Fi Wire about producing the upcoming remake of The Evil Dead, which original star Bruce Campbell will also produce.

Tapert said they're going to be careful. "I talk to Bruce Campbell every other day, and he says, 'You should see the message boards and all of the stuff I get saying "Please don't do it!"' So we're certainly going to have to tread carefully."

He added that "as long as we stay true to what was the original model of the first Evil Dead, which was that we want to hurt and punish the audience, then those who love it will be satisfied."

"We mean to bring that out to a whole new generation in something that honors all of the people that loved it and yet gives them a new and thrilling ride that they weren't expecting. That's the challenge, and hopefully if we succeed that's kind of the glory."

Raimi wrote, directed and produced the 1981 film, which tells the tale of a group of friends who go to a cabin in the woods, where they find an unspeakable evil lurking in the forest. One by one, the teens become deadly zombies. With only Ash (Campbell) remaining, it is up to him to survive the night and battle The Evil Dead.

Raimi will not direct the remake, so Ghost House is looking for a helmer to reinvent the franchise before a script is written.

The original film spawned sequels Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness.

Sounds to me they still don't get it. No Bruce Campbell, no Evil Dead. Period.

quote everville23

2 is a remake of 1 to an extent.

Were you watching the same Evil Dead 2 that I was watching? The only thing the same about them was that they covered what happened in the first movie in five minutes.

As for this remake, I don't want it to go through. The good thing about the first one was that it was one of the cheesiest movies I've ever seen. Bruce Campbell doesn't exactly look as young as he did back then.

I'm wondering about the motive for re-making The Evil Dead? Raimi is pretty big-time, thanks to the Spiderman franchise. Bruce has found a second calling on the tour circuit shilling his books and making movies. Tapert, well, has worked on most of the projects that Campbell has as well. So of the three, Tapert has the most to "gain" by this being remade, at least in terms of exposure and finances.

It could be friends getting together and redoing a "college film", which is exactly what ED was. In that light, it makes sense, since they are doing it for themselves and aren't too interested in that fans don't want a remake but an ED IV. Odd, considering Raimi and Campbell are extremely sensitive to what fans want (especially Campbell).

I also am curious as to who would play the "Ash" role, since that launched and defined the career of Campbell and is an iconic role. What's next, John Goodman as the Godfather? Ryan Phillippe as the Taxi Driver? Or Josh Hartnett as Sam Spade? Whoever steps into that call will not be able to fill Ash's Chucka's, and will have that always following him around. The best he can hope for is "adequate." Doesn't sound like a winning proposition to me.

I like ED II: Dead by Dawn. I thought it was quite funny, and is on Entertainment Weekly's top 50 DVDs of all time. Remember, that is the film that gave us the immortal lines "Workshed" and "Groovy", not ED or Army of Darkness (ED III). Part of the reason ED II is so good is to watch it with commentary on. Raimi, Campbell, Spiegel, and someone else sit around and make cutting remarks about the film and point out all their screw-ups. It is one of the best commentaries available, and sets a high bar for all other DVD commentaries, which many fail to clear.

I agree with most everyone. Part of the appeal of the first film is the lack of budget, the grainyness. Adding more money and making it "Hollywoood-ized" will destroy what made the first film a sensation at Cannes and prompted Stephen King to call it "The ultimate experience in terror." Those that have suffered through the recent "scare fests" Hollywood has to offer know that big budget and Hollywood do not equal frights.

I am very down on this idea, since I don't see anything good coming of it.