Remaking Evil Dead?

I feel pretty much the same but I'm resigned to it happening. I'm sure it will have some hot young cast and hopefully decent FX, but I'm not bothered by it as much as I would be if they made a true sequel and it sucked.

We ought to have a thread for who could play a new younger Ash. I know who my first pick would be: Nicholas Brendon.

http://themovieblog.com/2007/11/plea...il-dead-remake

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

And I'll also mention that Dead by Dawn basically was the remake already, so I would of course infinitely prefer a true sequel with the true Ash (to me, he is), but realistically I know that's not what TPTB are going for. They don't care about the long-time fans, they just want a reboot with fresh young faces.

So like I said, I'll check it out as a curiousity but mostly I'm indifferent cause I know this is all business.

So picking up where the first film leaves off isn't a sequel, got it.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

But, they like, re-shot the whole movie in the first five minutes with two characters so it's obviously a remake.

Oh, I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not sure if the sarcasm got through there - personally, I subscribe to the "sequel" view since the second movie is about 90% new material.

In order for Dead by Dawn to be a true sequel, it would have to actually be a continuation of the events and characters from the first film. It's not. There is no indication whatsoever that the events and characters from the first film ever existed, save for Ash himself, and he is a very different person than he was in the original film.

Dead by Dawn is, in essence, a bigger budget remake, re-using the basic idea of people trapped in a cabin in the woods being attacked and possessed by demons. There is no plot continuity between the first and second film unless you choose to disregard the entire opening of DbD up until that fabulous scene where Ash is first possessed, and ignore a key plot difference. Despite being named Evil Dead 2, the second film exists on its own, re-using certain elements of the original while unfolding a relatively more ambitious plot that is much more darkly comical splatstick in tone.

And Raimi himself said that DbD was what he wanted Evil Dead to be in the first place,

So hush.

Negative rep? Really? Alright, let's go.

Well, that's kind of the point of the whole opening sequence where Raimi quickly sums up the most important events of the first film within the space of a few minutes - seriously, everything that happens in the first ten minutes of Evil Dead II happened at one point or another in the first film. Besides, Linda also exists in both films, and at the very beginning of the film Ash and Linda are still more or less the same characters.

So a sequel re-using a similar premise to the original constitutes a remake? I don't disregard the opening of Evil Dead II any more than I disregard the opening for Army of Darkness - they both quickly and succinctly sum up the events of the previous film so there wasn't any confusion about starting the film right where the new story takes off. Besides, what "key plot difference" are you referring to?

Let's go over this - it re-uses certain elements of the original yet unfolds a more ambitious plot than the original. You know, those words could just as easily be used to argue for a sequel - case in point, The Godfather Part II also "re-uses certain elements of the original" and also "unfolds a more ambitious plot" than the original Godfather.

First, citation needed. Second, this needs context - does he mean the film was intended to be a complete remake, because if so why do both films have vastly different plots? I could read that as how he wanted the original to be just as well-made as II, but how I read it doesn't matter because it's not even a quote, it's just unsourced paraphrasing.

This is a debate. You can't tell the other side to hush - if you give your side of the debate and have to explicitly tell your opponent to stop arguing back, your argument can't have that much weight.

1. The opening sequence doesn't "sum up" the events of the first film, unless you only recall those events as "Demons possess girlfriend, then Ash kills her", in which case you're probably not interested in the finer details. I recall other stuff happening, and the "recap" isn't the only part where DbD re-uses that stuff. eg. the mirror scene, albeit with Ash's reflection reaching out and grabbing him, which is still an extension of the basic idea, no doubt thanks to a bigger budget.

2. The premise is the same. The execution is different. The storyline is more ambitious, yes, plainly so. There is a chronology of events making Godfather 1 & 2 a cohesive whole. DbD doesn't meaningfully cohere with ED within their internal plot structures.

3. The key plot difference is the destruction of the Necronomicon.

4. DbD is of course a sequel in the sense that it was made after ED, but not plotwise. A remake doesn't have to be an exact re-shoot to qualify as such.

5. This isn't Watergate. Check out Wikipedia.

Also, while the reaction toward Ash is a 180 in AoD, the time travel storyline from DbD is being continued. There is nothing to suggest such a continuity in plot from ED to ED2. Similarities such as the name of both girlfriends being Linda do not make a case for it being a sequel in anything other than the most superficial sense; Instead, it screams out "remake".

That's kind of the point of a recap, to include all the most important stuff the audience needs to know into a shorter amount of running time. When you need to sum up an entire movie in the space of five or ten minutes, you're going to have to leave out the finer details no matter what (otherwise, you might as well just watch the whole original movie in its entirety). I also acknowledge the various call-backs to the first movie (the broken bridge, the hiking trail, the mirror scene etc.), but don't see how that automatically means it's a remake if it's the same basic idea executed with better technology.

I don't know, it's not like there's a whole lot of meaning to the Evil Dead movies. The first movie has Ash stuck in a cabin fighting Deadites. He's still there in the second film, still fighting Deadites.

I've heard it handwaved as such...



"Not plotwise"? What does that mean, exactly? The first 10 minutes constitute a remake of the first film, but the remainder of the film is new content. That's most of the film, so it makes more sense to call it a sequel than a remake.

What exactly am I looking for on Wikipedia, though? I looked up Dead by Dawn's Wikipedia entry and even the plot summary describes the beginning of the film as a "retcon" to help viewers catch up with the plot of the first film before launching into the sequel's new plot. Besides, Wikipedia isn't that reliable a source in the first place so either of us citing it to our advantage doesn't make much sense.

Haven't we been over this several times already? The first 10 minutes of Evil Dead II are supposed to be a recap of the first film's most important plot points. The next 70 minutes are a brand-new continuation of those events. Besides, what's a sequel "in the most superficial sense"? It's a continuation of the plot or world of an existing work. Evil Dead II is definitely that.

So let me ask you something: Do you see any point in rewatching The Evil Dead, considering you view the beginning of DbD as a condensed retelling of that film?

Yes.

Are you going to specify your reasons?

I would rewatch it, too, btw. You know why?

The obvious reason - it's an entirely different movie. I don't get why you have to ask that.

Jesus Christ, can we ban him already? Two negative reps from you for what? Seriously. Chill the **** out.

You sir, are my least favourite member on this board. You solidified that in this thread with your immature and inane actions.

Onto the film and how you are incredibly wrong and need to back away from this thread and hopefully the forum itself.

I seriously, don't get how you are saying it's more of a remake than a sequel. Did you decide to not watch the ending of the first film and the scene right after the re-cap? Where the EXACT same damn thing happens and then the story CONTINUES on.

Do you park in the handicap spot?

If you knew the history of everything, you would know Raimi got into some COPYRIGHT issues, which is why the first ten minutes of the film was reshot. Omit the other characters to get the basics down. Ash and his girlfriend. For a guy with a deadite name and avatar you'd think you'd know about this?

I seriously, cannot, for the life of me, comprehend how you say this is NOT a sequel when film LITERALLY picks up where the first one left off. Riddle me that god dammit.

You, to me, are on the same level as JRS.

I don't know why I should have to, either. It's pretty obvious that it's another take on the Evil Dead story idea.

But oh well.

Wait...what?

It also literally has continuity issues between the two, which become even more apparent when some geek insists on forcing them together. There are also literally at least a dozen similarities or outright re-creations of stuff from The Evil Dead that exist throughout the film, not just during the opening 15 or so minutes.

Also, I am aware of the legal problems with the film and I'm sure you nutted in your britches yesterday when you googled it. You can also google Sam Raimi and the Dead by Dawn remake/sequel argument, and find quotes supporting both. Just a tip for ya. Considering that he also "retconned" AoD, however, your argument remains unconvincing.

We still have yet to get into the stylistic differences between the first film and its remake, and perhaps if I am not banned, we will.