Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Raimi Remaking 'Evil Dead'?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the is-that-even-a-good-idea dept.

Matt writes "Has Hollywood's staleness finally rubbed off on Sam Raimi & co.? Get this, Sam Raimi is remaking 'Evil Dead', the 1981 horror cult classic. Oh and if that wasn't shocking enough, he won't even be directing it... But somehow Rob Tapert and Bruce Campbell are onboard as well."

341 comments

  1. Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you NOT seen Evil Dead II?!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by taijirad · · Score: 4, Funny

      I haven't seen Evil Dead II.... yet.

    2. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1

      Technically that was a sequel.

    3. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd think that you're a cinematic idiot and I'd feel sorry for you. It's a brilliant film! It's so funny and violent and the soundtrack kicks fucking ass. I never thought I'd say this, but can I go to work now?

    4. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by micromoog · · Score: 1
      Yep, this is ridiculous. What's he going to call it, Evil Dead 3*?

      *Army of Darkness notwithstanding

    5. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by micromoog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Imagine Evil Dead with slightly better acting and special effects. It's essentially a remake, oddly enough with the same star. The whole situation's just weird.

    6. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Have you NOT seen Evil Dead II?!

      Evil Dead II != Evil Dead.

      The second one was funny, the first one seemed to me like a straight horror flick. I have to admit I can't discuss the first one too much because it's been years since I saw the original as I found it unimpressive. Evil Dead II is one of my favorite movies and I prefer it to "Army of Darkness" as well, which seemed a bit more forced.
    7. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by cjpez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm under the impression that he did Evil Dead 2 primarily because he wanted to do Army of Darkness, but had done Evil Dead with a different studio, and so he couldn't use that footage in AoD, so he had to re-shoot it basically into Evil Dead 2... I dunno, I agree, weird.

      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    8. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But does it sound like he's going to see it?

    9. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by sordid_mammal · · Score: 1

      Why would he remake Evil Dead AGAIN!? Keep the story going and give us Army of Darkness 2 damnit!

      --
      "Oh, dear. She's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot. Well, that's love for you." - Professor Farnsworth
    10. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by mog · · Score: 1

      Oh thank you. HF is among my favorite flicks. I was a bit down, and that cheered me right up!

    11. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ding ding ding ding! You've won the Evil Dead movie title guessing contest. Evil Dead 4: Evil Dead Again.

    12. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on mods, pull your heads out of your asses.... And go watch High Fidelity.

    13. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Third+Normal+Form · · Score: 1

      I think it should be called Evil Dead#.

    14. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'm still waiting for a Sam Raimi-directed documentary on Slashdot posters called Army of Dorkness.

      It doesn't sound like this will be it, though.

    15. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Not really. It was numbered as a sequel, but in spirit it was really a remake. You can happily remove I from any trilogy and get a working "trilogy in two parts."

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    16. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Actually, my post was more of a joke than an actual criticism. My point is that the entire Evil Dead movie was essentially re-shot and shown in the first 15 minutes of Evil Dead II. Since Evil Dead II has the entire plot of Evil Dead I, Evil Dead II was both a remake and a sequel.

      For those who might not know, if you listen to the director's audio on the DVD of Evil Dead II, you'll learn why it was not a sequel.

      He wanted to use footage from the first as a set up for the second, but couldn't get rights to it. So they hired some look-a-likes of the actors and re-shot parts, but were unhappy with it. So it was decided to make a slightly modified version of the first and then stuck it onto the beginning of the second.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    17. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
      ...he wanted to do Army of Darkness, but had done Evil Dead with a different studio, and so he couldn't use that footage in AoD, so he had to re-shoot it basically into Evil Dead 2

      Actually, on the audio commentary track of AoD Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell explain that the reshoot had nothing to do with not having the rights to the original footage, but that the timing of all the scenes they wanted to use in the AoD intro was all wrong and just couldn't be edited in a way to make it fit right. So rather than try to shoe-horn in butchered bits of old footage in a way that fit the pacing of the intro, they just re-shot what they needed.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    18. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by cjpez · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay... Thanks for the info. Still, it's pretty amusing that they remade an entire movie so that they could use bits in an intro for the next one. :)

      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    19. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by magarity · · Score: 1

      but had done Evil Dead with a different studio

      Studio? What studio? Evil Dead was privately financed. Raimi and Campbell raised the money from private investors in Detroit. It was a completely independent film.

    20. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by thealmightyegg · · Score: 1

      "I'd think that you're a cinimatic idiot and I'd feel sorry for you."

      - Jack Black, High Fidelity

      --


      -----
      120 chairs?! What the hell am I supposed to do with 120 chairs...?
    21. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by shawb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Although the soundtrack is awesome, this is one movie where it was more amusing when the sound failed. Me and some friends were watching EDII at a midnight showing, when the sound went out shortlty after the clock stopped, when the Candarian Demon is first trying to bash its way into the house. At this point, the camera keeps panning wildly around, supposedly following where the demon would be outside the house. However with no sound people in the audience (all Evil Dead fanatics, I'm sure) started making "whoosh" "Zoom" "Zing" sounds that were simply... hilarious.

      One of the few times where "audience participation" (AKA being that annoying guy in the theatre) actually contributed to the filmgoing experience.

      There weren't even any complaints about how the sound went out that night...

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    22. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ah, okay... Thanks for the info. Still, it's pretty amusing that they remade an entire movie so that they could use bits in an intro for the next one. :)
      Evil Dead II wasn't that reshoot though. They did reshoot parts of Evil Dead II for AoD. At the time they made Evil Dead II, Sam and co had no idea if they'd get to make a third movie (AoD was made 6 years later). Evil Dead II was made primarily because of Raimi's lack of success with Crimewave. I'm sure it would have been made eventually, but the timing was due to Raimi, Tapert, and Campbell needing do something successful. Grab a copy of Bruce Campbell's biography, If Chins Could Kill, he explains it.
    23. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by cjpez · · Score: 1
      Evil Dead II was made primarily because of Raimi's lack of success with Crimewave.
      Heh, well I guess I'm just wrong on all accounts. I shall nevertheless cling to my amusement that they essentially made the same movie twice.
      Grab a copy of Bruce Campbell's biography, If Chins Could Kill, he explains it.
      Yeah, I've been meaning to pick that up for some time now... Time to add it onto my wishlist so I don't forget about it again.
      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    24. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I would speculate that what they're really doing is not truly a remake, but an entirely new movie: a prequel to Evil Dead II. I agree, doing a remake of ED I would be bizarre, since it follows basically the same plot as ED II.

    25. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by cjpez · · Score: 1

      Well, they had to sign some deals for distribution at least, maybe that's what I've been thinking off. Regardless, the "they re-did it for Army of Darkness" theory has been thorougly debunked elsewhere in this thread anyway, so I guess I'll just concede all of it. :P

      --
      Al Qaeda has ninjas!
    26. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1

      Well... he couldn't have been desperate to see it, otherwise he'd have already gone...


      ...But the word "yet..."

      Yeah, you know what, I'd get the impression that he wanted to see it. Otherwise he'd say he didn't really want to.

    27. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by xanderwilson · · Score: 1

      Ah, then that must mean you're PLANNING on having sex with Tim Robbins. When you're ready.

      Alex.

    28. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having read Bruce Campbell's autobiog, "If chins could kill", the man deserves a little leeway and success if Evil Dead 4ish is a monster hit

    29. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Bruce Campbell deserves all the success he can get!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    30. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Crap, thats my password!

    31. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      No he's right. If listen to the director's audio on the DVD of Evil Dead II, you'll learn that Rami wanted to use footage from the first movie but could not get rights to it.

      Why do we tolerate a society where artists do not have rights over their own material?! I'd have to kill someone if I spend years working and slaving over a movie, only to be told that it wasn't mine.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    32. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why do we tolerate a society where artists do not have rights over their own material?

      Because if making art costs a lot money, the people footing the bill get to make the rules. Do you find this unjust?

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    33. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that name is reserved by cartoonist Jon Kovalic

    34. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    35. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Total+Immortal · · Score: 0

      and then of course theres the army of darkness remake, i swear peter jackson ripped it of so much in lotr! i mean helms deep was basicaly the climax of army of darkness but with orks instead of skeletons! ;)

    36. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by operagost · · Score: 1

      But do we still get the "tree rape?"

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    37. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Cecil · · Score: 1

      "I haven't seen Evil Dead 2... yet" is from the movie High Fidelity. It's from a scene in which Rob is trying to figure out whether the addition of the word "yet" implies that you're planning to or not.

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
    38. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by EvilAlien · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This has nothing to do with our society, this is a matter of the people with money setting the terms under which they will hand out that money (which is just), and too many artists selling their rights to the material rather than fighting those terms or choosing to shop their skills around to another investor (which is lazy/unfortunate/dumb/whatever).

      So is it just? Sure. Is it fair? Sure, they artists signed the contract.

      Sounds like artists have dug themselves a hole for generations thanks to patronage etc. Is it time for artists to reclaim their rights? Absolutely. Many are. Does our society actually give tham that opportunity? Definitely.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    39. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even more strangely, sometimes artists have control of OTHER artist's work. Every time you hear a Beatles tune used in a commercial, it's because Micheal Jackson owns the rights to it and licensed it to finance his amusement park ranch, not because Paul McCartney sold out.

      My university actually offers a class called 'Economics and Rock-n-Roll' which discusses how artists routinely get mowed over financially. When I took it (as an econ student) half the class was artsy types who took it on a whim because of the title. Needless to say, it was a real eye-opener for them. Attention all aspiring artists: Take some business courses. Trust me, you need it. Even if you have some artsy notion that business is some terrible thing, you better understand how it works if you ever hope to make a living doing your art. From Mozart to van Gogh to Janis, artists who aren't good with finances end up penniless and the suits end up with nicer suits.

    40. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Aren't we all?

      ...

      I fear I've said too much.

    41. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      I did a music degree and we *had* to take a business option.... I ended up in IT.

    42. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      "not because Paul McCartney sold out" McCartney sold out whenever he signed a contract that would allow Michael Jackson to later have the ability to buy all the rights to his songs (granted we are talking about all the beatles songs actually but I'm just referring to it as McCartney's songs to keep in line with your post).

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    43. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by RipTides9x · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a place in the Movie the Evil Dead II that can be used to sync up exactly with the first "Evil Dead" movie to combine the both.

      At the end of Evil Dead, Ash is walking out alone, in the morning, when the deamon *camera* comes towards him, through the house, he screams and all goes black.

      In Evil Dead II, after the girlfriend is killed by the playing of the reel to reel, the next morning he is out behind the shack, and same sequence, demon *camera* comes through the house, but this time he is grabbed, flown through the trees and christmas lights.. etc etc.

      For a Halloween party one year I matched those shots from the end of I and near start of II to make one long VHS marathon movie that played for nearly 3 hours. Yes, you do miss the intro and beginnings of the 2nd movie, but the story from that point seems to sync up pretty flawless until near the end when the playing of the reel to reel comes back into it.

      But for purity yes, both movies are essentially the same exact damn movie. One, the first, leans towards, kids in the woods partying, get killed. The 2nd movie is more along the lines of Man and woman in the woods, woman is killed man goes nutty insane by morning. Hence the Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn.

      Even at one point in BOTH movies the SAME Necklace chain with spyglass is arranged to make a skull. Also note in both movies the car they arrive in is the exact same one.

    44. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      We as a society would NEVER permit car manufacturers from charging us more for driving on certain roads after we've paid for our cars. Or allow mortgage companies to charge us for having people come into our homes, after we bought our house. These things COULD be forced on us via mandated contracts, it'd be perfectly legal. But they are NOT forced on us merely because we would not tolerate it.

      When we buy stuff, we have expectations of ownership and the powers that be respect it.

      But somewhere along the line, the powers that be have so manipulated our copyright laws that those who create actually have the LEAST amount of power over their works. The reason the powers that be get away with it is, again, merely because we tolerate it. I certainly wish we didn't!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    45. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It never occurs to people here that signing away your rights is a conscious decision. It's not that the artists signed contracts that made it clear what they could and couldn't do and what they would and wouldn't own and then changed their mind after they got rich, it's that some rich guy ripped them off from the get-go.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    46. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Correction.

      That WAS your password.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    47. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Okay, but what rights are artists supposed to have, that they currently do not, that they should therefore reclaim?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    48. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The reason the powers that be get away with it is, again, merely because we tolerate it. I certainly wish we didn't!

      Actually, they "get away with it" because they are willing to pay for art. Their subsidy comes with a lot of conditions, which can be easily avoided simply by not taking their money.

      If these artists were serious, they'd get day jobs, work hard, and fund their art themselves. Then they wouldn't have to put up with any conditions at all on their art or its ownership. The only thing we should stop tolerating is no-talent assclowns who sold their souls for a ride in a limousine, and then came whining to us that they have no money and the evil corporations were mean to them. Get a real job, asshat.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    49. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      I would consider that the artist's fault.

      A system of legally-binding contracts that facilitate free enterprise is broken if laws need to be passed because parties cannot be expected to read the terms of the contract before signing it.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    50. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in your view, the choices available to the film maker is to not make films or to give up all rights to the films. I'm not sure how that is a choice?

      Would you "chose" home ownership if EVERY mortgage company or EVERY realtor kept the title to the property? Using your argument, you could simply choose to be homeless.

      Would you "chose" to buy a car if EVERY car dealership kept ownership of the car. Using your argument, you could always choose to walk. And if the car dealerships bought all the roads and forbid walking. You could "choose" to stay in one spot and never leave.

      If that's your world, I sure in heck hope you get it one day because you deserve it.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    51. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Why do we tolerate a society where artists do not have rights over their own material?

      Because if making art costs a lot money, the people footing the bill get to make the rules. Do you find this unjust?

      I find this unjust. It would make more sense to have joint ownership, and once the person footing the bill gets his 100% ROI, he loses all copyright privileges. Of course in the real world artists would let distributors keep distributing material (and keeping some of the profit) for them, but it would not be the corrupt system it is now where record/movie companies can milk artists for millions of dollars, much more than their investment, and still keep exclusive rights. Try reading what Janis Ian has to say on this topic.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    52. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by ostrich2 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to offend you or anything, but I read that whole post in Donny Rumsfeld's voice. Actually, I read it in the voice of the Doonesbury character that was making fun of Rumsfeld from Iraq a few months ago.

    53. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Audience Partici-PATION being annoying? In a midnight movie?

      Hun, you need more Rocky.

    54. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      Of course... its called "leasing". Perhaps you've heard of it.

      Many people choose to lease or rent the use of things because the costs of ownership and full rights are too high. That is how things work. Those who own or have the resources get to choose how their property is used, or at least dictate the terms under which someone else may use it. Those who create always get to choose whether they create with their own resources, or do so with someone elses... and have to make that choice with the possibility that they only get access to someone else's resources with some conditions attached.

      What you are advocating is that creative people get resources handed to them and get to set the terms under which this happens. Sounds like theft or some perverse brand of artistic communism to me. Surely you aren't trying to claim that it is fair for someone to get the product of another person's work simply because they need or want it?

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    55. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      So in your view, the choices available to the film maker is to not make films or to give up all rights to the films.

      Actually, I was thinking of musicians, so thanks for getting me back on topic.

      I'm not sure how that is a choice?

      Actually, it's a pretty clear choice. It's not the only choice, though. For example, there's the choice I described quite clearly in my original post: Get a job and fund their own movies with their own money. Consider the case of Clerks, over which Kevin Smith has complete control, because he paid for it himself.

      But I can see you're going to have trouble understanding this. Let's draw an analogy with home ownership, shall we?

      Let's shall!

      Would you "chose" home ownership if EVERY mortgage company or EVERY realtor kept the title to the property? Using your argument, you could simply choose to be homeless.

      Or I could choose to build my own house, on my own land, using money I earned myself by doing work of some kind.

      How about a car ownership analogy?

      Would you "chose" to buy a car if EVERY car dealership kept ownership of the car. Using your argument, you could always choose to walk. And if the car dealerships bought all the roads and forbid walking. You could "choose" to stay in one spot and never leave.

      Hrm. Okay, maybe not a car ownership analogy.

      Just as the hypothetical automotive scenario you describe is so far from reality as to be stupendously silly, so too is your attempted parallel with the movie industry stupendously silly.

      There are many different ways to make, fund, and distribute films. Many of them are quite friendly to the artist. Many others are not. There are, however, plenty of choices. And remember, 100 years ago, it was very difficult to make movies, and impossible to make movies of the quality available today. But what hasn't changed at all in 100 years is the artist's complete lack of any human right or privilege to make movies easily or cheaply. There are many more choices and opportunities available to the aspiring young filmmaker today, than there were 100 years ago. But that doesn't entitle the artist to the easy answers. Quite the opposite: making movies still costs money. And the people that provide the money are entitled to impose whatever conditions they want. Don't like it? Don't take their money. Make movies within your own budget. Or--once again--get a job, and use your own money. Suffer for your art!

      If that's your world, I sure in heck hope you get it one day because you deserve it.

      Oh, make no mistake: It's your world, too. The world where the default state is, you suffer and die. Anything good in your life is the direct result of hard work or dumb luck. Don't kid yourself that artists have any special rights, to be successful and happy on somebody else's dime. They're people just like you and me, and if they want something worthwhile, they have the same two choices you and I have: work hard to secure it, or submit to the demands of whoever is willing to give it to them.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    56. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      I agree that the major publishers are drafting unfair contracts, but the artists are still signing them.

      In the case of music (which is where this discussion has moved to), the cost of building a small home recording studio to record music has gotten really low (under 5,000$) and the cost to distribute the music has gotten even lower. These studios are beginning to be able to produce music of very high quality, providing someone who knows what they're doing is behind the wheel. Take the explosion of Linux as a model--when interested parties can build systems to play with in their houses, they'll learn all they need to learn on their own.

      My point is that we're reaching a paradigm shift where we the public can reach out and find truly alternative music. The only real advantage major labels have is marketing. What we're really missing is an itunes-like system for independent musicians to seed their music, together with some kind of "scoring" system to promote music that rises in popularity.

      This point cannot be applied to television as well--although the technology to do special effects is going to become available (and in many cases already is) to the broader general market, the acting talent doesn't come free. Unless a decent business model can be made, coupled with a promotion system, independent films just cannot compete with the MPAA.

      Which brings me to my next point--why am I on your 'foes' list?

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    57. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps GP doesn't wish to be literally jizzed up by an entire audience full of frothing, prancing queers.

    58. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not an cinematic idoit. Maybe you are. He was just QUOTING a FAMOUS line from High Fidelity and a discussion about the word 'yet' regarding the question 'Have you seen evil dead II?'.

      Oh, I feel so geeky :)

    59. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by sgant · · Score: 1

      McCartney personally had NOTHING to do with Jackson gaining the rights to these songs. He didn't "sign a contract" allowing Jackson to do this.

      This is taken from snopes.com:

      "The Beatles assigned their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by Beatles manager Brian Epstein and music publisher Dick James in 1963. The Beatles (particularly John Lennon and Paul McCartney) were soon earning so much money from songwriting royalties, record sales, concert performances, and merchandise licensing that they were losing over 90% of their income in taxes, and they were advised to find a way of receiving their revenue in the form of capital gains rather than income (the former being taxed at a much lower rate), such as selling their song rights or putting their money into a public company. The Beatles opted for the latter route, and Northern Songs went public on the London Stock Exchange in 1965. Initially, Lennon and McCartney each retained 15% of the shares, George Harrison and Ringo Starr held 1.6% between them, Brian Epstein's NEMS company was assigned 7.5%, and Dick James and Charles Silver (Northern Songs' chairman) retained a total of 37.5%. In 1969, however, the Beatles lost a buyout bid for control of Northern Songs when Dick James and Charles Silver sold their share of the company to Sir Lew Grade, head of Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

      In 1984, ATV's 4,000-song music catalog was put up for sale, and Michael Jackson (who had coincidentally been introduced to the benefits of song ownership by Paul McCartney himself) eventually outbid all other prospective buyers for it, including Paul McCartney, who wanted to buy back the rights to the Beatles' songs but was apparently unable or unwilling to raise enough money to pay for the thousands of other songs in the ATV catalog as well. So, for $47.5 million, Jackson acquired the publishing rights to most of the Beatles songs. (The four songs issued on the Beatles' first two singles -- "Love Me Do" b/w "P.S. I Love You" and "Please Please Me" b/w "Ask Me Why" -- were not part of the package since they were published before the formation of Northern Songs, and the rights to those songs are now controlled by McCartney's MPL Communications. ATV also did not own the rights to George Harrison songs published after Harrison's songwriting contract with Northern Songs expired in 1968, but they did hold the rights to various other Lennon-McCartney songs not recorded by the Beatles.)

      Another key point here is that although Michael Jackson receives 50% of the royalties generated by Beatles songs by virtue of his ownership of the publishing rights, Paul McCartney and John Lennon (and Lennon's estate, now that he's dead) have always received their 50% songwriter's share of the royalties for all Lennon-McCartney songs. Neither ATV's nor Michael Jackson's acquisition of Northern Songs changed that, and Michael Jackson does not now receive royalties that would otherwise be going to the Beatles had he not acquired the publishing rights to their songs (except that, obviously, if Paul McCartney had managed to outbid Jackson for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog, he and Lennon's estate would be splitting 100% of the royalties rather than 50%).

      As a closing note, we should mention that Sony Corp. paid Michael Jackson $95 million in 1995 to merge ATV with Sony and form Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a 50-50 joint venture, so it's probably more correct to say that Jackson now owns half the rights to the Beatles catalog. "

      There ya go...

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    60. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      "Get a job and fund their own movies with their own money."

      You know nothing about Evil Dead. Rami (sp?!) got money to pay for it himself. It was the DISTRUBUTOR who obtained rights. All distributors obtain rights in those situations because there is no other way to get a movie out into commerce. Try showing up to a theater with a movie you made and ask if they'll run it! Depending on the contract, the rights can revert back to the producer. Or the producer will sometimes make enough money on later films to buy back the rights to the earlier films. But the producer has no choice but to go through the distributors if he wants his movie shown.

      I have no problems with people fronting money for the production of a film to have rights over it. Because there is no cartel on those people. If Rami didn't like one person's terms, he could always find someone else with money and get better terms. There are many people willing to front movies AND give producers fair rights afterwards. There is no cartel in place keeping the movie from being shown like there is in the case of distributors.

      "Or I could choose to build my own house, on my own land, using money I earned myself by doing work of some kind."

      And what if the housing industry passed legislation making it illegal to build your own house. There is NOTHING stopping that from happening other than the fact that we would not allow it. You may think it's silly, but it is also perfectly legal.

      And you wouldn't OWN the land if your mortgage company or realtor kept the title as condition of the contract. Once again, doing that would be perfectly legal. And once again, the only reason it is not done is because we would not tolerate it.

      "Just as the hypothetical automotive scenario you describe is so far from reality as to be stupendously silly..."

      It doesn't matter if the car analogy is "silly." What matters is that it's perfectly legal. What also matters is that the ONLY reason it isn't done is because we wouldn't accept it. Car manufactures would LOVE to be able to force us to use only their dealers for repairs, dictate where and how their are repaired, which is anther way of keeping an ownership interest. But Congress enacted laws which forbids it. Why, because we feel that after paying for a car, we should be able to do anything we want with it.

      And here's a real world example to show you it is NOT silly. Imagine if you went to buy a TV. You took it home and the picture was awesome. You asked your wife to come in and take a look. The second she walked in the picture went black. You call up and ask what the problem is. You're told that you only licensed the TV for one person. You're going to have to pay for each and every person who watches.

      You think that's silly? But that's exactly what Microsoft does. When universities license Office and Windows, they have to buy licenses NOT for every computer. But one for EVERY student and one for EVERY employee who could possibly use the computer. Even janitors. Why does Microsoft get away with doing something involving software that Sony never could involving TVs?! Because we tolerate it. That's the ONLY reason. Sony COULD do it, but we wouldn't let it.

      To me, distributors forcing producers of movies to give up rights solely because they hold the keys to the theaters is no different than all automobile manufacturers keeping interest in our cars after we paid for them. You may see a difference, but I don't. There is no freedom of contact when the only choice is to walk away from the contract.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    61. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't count on this being done. Bruce Campbell's own web site has nothing at all to say about this. Bruce himself has said for years that while he's grateful that so many people love the series, _Army Of Darkness_ made such little money that there could never be a sequel - no one would invest in it. I would think this applies to remaking _Evil Dead_ as well.
      I would also like to point out that even USA Today reported that a script was in progress for a "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" movie and Bruce said no one had said anything to him about it. Consider this to be another rumor.

    62. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by micromoog · · Score: 1
      McCartney personally had NOTHING to do with Jackson gaining the rights to these songs. He didn't "sign a contract" allowing Jackson to do this.

      *snip Snopes reference*

      Wait, what was the first line of that Snopes article again?

      The Beatles assigned their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by Beatles manager Brian Epstein and music publisher Dick James in 1963.

      Right, so they did "sell out" . . . just not directly to Michael Jackson.

    63. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. But, that never occurs to the dolts here who whine and bitch and moan about how the musicians are being "ripped off" by the music industry and how writers are "ripped off" by movie studios and blah blah blah.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    64. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by sgant · · Score: 1

      Correct, not to Jackson. But are you saying the Beatles were sell-outs? Probably not...

      But then again, I'm not going to get into the whole "selling out" nonsense. Artists who make money from their art are not sell outs. When the produce crap just because it may or may not sell based on their name alone could be considered that. But The Beatles? They hardly produced junk. Considering their last album Abbey Road (and I'm going last album recorded here) was probably one of their best ever!

      But anyway, I don't throw around "sold out" about anyone. "Lost their way" or "out of ideas" perhaps...but that's a different matter.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    65. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by micromoog · · Score: 1

      Oh, I absolutely agree about the quality of their work . . . pretty much everything the Beatles touched is awesome. I'm just saying that the current state of their songs' rights is of their own making.

    66. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by I_M_Noman · · Score: 1
      I did a music degree and we *had* to take a business option.... I ended up in IT.
      I did a music degree too, and we *didn't* have to take a business option...I still ended up in IT.
    67. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which brings me to my next point--why am I on your 'foes' list?

      I do not remember, but probably because you responded to a comment of mine in a way that I thought was either less than polite, flamebait, or a troll. That is how most people wind up there. Anyway, you appear to be a decent enough poster from your recent history, so I switched you. (Posting AC because of the inevitable "-1 Offtopic").

    68. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      To me, distributors forcing producers of movies to give up rights solely because they hold the keys to the theaters is no different than all automobile manufacturers keeping interest in our cars after we paid for them.

      I see you have completely missed my point.

      Movie producers have no right to movie distribution. Nobody is required to market, transport, or show their movie. If the producer cannot afford to do it himself, then he's going to have to team up with people who can. That's just the way it is.

      You seem to think that the vast network of movie theaters and distribution channels is there for the benefit of the movie producers. This is not true. That network belongs to the people who put in the time and effort and money to create it. Those are the people who have the right to use it, however they see fit.

      The right to distribution you're talking about simply does not exist. No director--not Smith, not Raimi, not even you or I--has any basis for demanding access to that network, except on the terms given by the people whose network it is.

      Take Raimi, for example. He was not satisfied with simply making the movie. He also desired an audience for the movie. But fulfilling desires costs money. Money he did not have. So he faced the dilemma we all face, every day: "Can I afford to fulfill my desires, or not?" You seem to think that somebody else should fulfill his desires, on his behalf, on his terms. This is madness.

      Since you like silly examples so much, how about this one:

      I need money to pay the rent this month. You have money. Therefore, I propose the following arrangement: You give me money, and I may or may not pay rent with it. I won't pay you back--not even the principal. If you don't agree to these terms, then you're being unfair. You're giving me no choice but to walk away. And as you've so eloquently argued, the choice to walk away is no choice at all. So when can I expect your money?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    69. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "the Candarian Demon"

      Am I the only one who read that as "Canadian demon?"

    70. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ey, Ya woke me from my 10 thousand year slumber, hosehead. That's what I'm so angry aboot.

    71. Re:Don't you mean he's re-remaking it?! by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      I'm at the point where my ontopic posts get modded down enough that I just don't care anymore.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  2. No no no no... by grub · · Score: 2, Funny

    NO MR. RAIMI! Don't do it or, as Linda and Cheryl said,
    We're gonna get you
    we're gonna get you
    not another peep
    time to go to sleep

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  3. Groovy by Gr33nNight · · Score: 4, Funny

    Groovy

    1. Re:Groovy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's got Bruce Campbell, it's a good flick. (Bubba Ho-tep notwithstanding...and yes, I have seen it)

  4. post me woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i love me some cambell. gimmie gimmie.

  5. NOT groovy! by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But if you must, put more boobies in it!

    1. Re:NOT groovy! by bladesjester · · Score: 5, Funny

      The comment "put more boobs in it" gets modded informative? Now *that's* funny.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. Re:NOT groovy! by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can get the producer's wife in there. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

      Campbell and Lawless both managed to get bit parts in Spiderman, after all.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    3. Re:NOT groovy! by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      The comment "put more boobs in it" gets modded informative? Now *that's* funny.

      This henious error has been corrected, it is now modded...insightful? Errr...

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

  6. Senator Intl? by hugesmile · · Score: 1
    "Spider-Man 2" 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, the joint venture of Raimi, Tapert and Senator Intl.

    What state is he the Senator of?

    1. Re:Senator Intl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Senator Intl" is a company. Full name "Senator International" I think they are a publisher/distributer.

    2. Re:Senator Intl? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Worst. Joke. Ever.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    3. Re:Senator Intl? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't you know your state abbreviations?

      He's the senator of Intliana.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  7. I'm happy by Matimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how remaking a movie ruins the origional. I like Evil Dead 1, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness. Even if this remake turns out crappy, its not like they plan on taking away the origionals (see: George Lucas).

    --
    GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    1. Re:I'm happy by ilyanep · · Score: 0

      Sometimes a re-make can be better than the original (ie: The Mummy)

      --
      ~Ilyanep
      To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
    2. Re:I'm happy by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      It doesn't ruin the originals but it cheapens the "franchise". Look at how the Alien series degraded to corn-laden turds after Alien and Aliens.

      Next we'll see remakes of Blade Runner, Citizen Kane and Casablanca. All staring Ben Affleck. All title tracks by Eminem.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, Evil Dead: The Musical? I likee.

    4. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm.. lots of people have attempted to redo casablanca. Look at barbed wire.. (Or whatever that movie was called)

    5. Re:I'm happy by filtur · · Score: 4, Funny
      Next we'll see remakes of Blade Runner, Citizen Kane and Casablanca. All staring Ben Affleck. All title tracks by Eminem.

      I'm pretty sure that Ben Affleck is a replicant.

    6. Re:I'm happy by cyber0ne · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next we'll see remakes of Blade Runner, Citizen Kane and Casablanca. All staring Ben Affleck. All title tracks by Eminem.

      You shut your filthy mouth.

      You never know what Hollywood types might be reading this right now looking for ideas.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    7. Re:I'm happy by p4ul13 · · Score: 1
      I agree that a remake (or remake of a remake in this case) can turn out something worth watching and enjoying. I agree that it doesn't take anything away from the original.

      My personal concern is that I really dig the first three movies, and I'd like to see more from the characters. If this is in fact a remake, then it will at least be the same basic story retold for the third time with different effects and a couple story points tweaked.

      If this is done as a springboard for more sequels, then I guess it's good, but I would think it would simply be better to do a new story that re-introduces Ash to the audience. If people enjoy the movie enough they could check out the older versions then...

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    8. Re:I'm happy by Matimus · · Score: 1

      Why or how does it cheapen the franchise. Does it somehow make the old ones less credible. I guess I just don't see it. It's akin to liking some little local band that suddenly gets big. This small band that you once liked is now popular, and you resent them and their new fans. The music didn't change though, and the percieved cheapening comes from you, not the "franchise". Its not a perfect analogy, but I there is some logic to it.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    9. Re:I'm happy by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny
      Barb Wire. Imagine Bogart with really big breast implants.

      Here's a hacksaw and some soap so you can go wash that mental image out of your brain.

    10. Re:I'm happy by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oooh, Evil Dead: The Musical? I likee.

      I'll swallow your sooooooooul!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:I'm happy by Matimus · · Score: 1
      I fully agree. They even left Army of Darkness open ended. Not that I won't look forward to a remake, but somethink compleatly new would be nice.

      "Shop smart, shop 'S-Mart'."

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    12. Re:I'm happy by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Well, I think that Blade Runner is the most overhyped movie in history, but if somebody did that with Casablanca, I'd have to hunt them down, kill them, then move to Morocco to hide from the authorities.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    13. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next we'll see remakes of Blade Runner, Citizen Kane and Casablanca. All staring Ben Affleck. All title tracks by Eminem.

      The punchline? They're all the same movie.

    14. Re:I'm happy by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you meant:

      Well I think Casablanca is the most overhyped movie in history, but if somebody did that with Blade Runner, I'd have to hunt them down, kill them, then move to Los Angeles to hide from the authorities. :)

    15. Re:I'm happy by Nephilium · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too Late...

      Already been done...

      Nephilium

    16. Re:I'm happy by oexeo · · Score: 1
      "Why or how does it cheapen the franchise. Does it somehow make the old ones less credible."

      Yes, imagine they re-made Good Film, but the remake was crap. Now everyone who watches the remake first will go around saying Good Film is crap. Simple.

    17. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      -1, Unattributed Penny Arcade Reference

    18. Re:I'm happy by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 1

      I realize that half the people on /. won't have a clue who Joni Mitchell is, but something she says on her 'miles of aisles' live album strikes me as relevant here:

      'The difference between Performing Artists and Painters is that no one ever asked Van Gogh to "do starry night again"'

      I think Lucas's issue is that he's forgotten that he produces finished pieces, like paintings. Hopefully Rami keeps that in mind

      --
      Sitting Walrus Blog
    19. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I realize that half the people on /. won't have a clue who Joni Mitchell is

      Sure, we know who Joni Mitchell is- she's that chick who does a cover of that Counting Crows/Vanessa Carlton song, "Big Yellow Taxi."

    20. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr. Bruckheimer, I've got this great idea about a Replicant named Rosebud rampaging through Casablanca..."

    21. Re:I'm happy by TykeClone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sears + K-Mart = S-Mart?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    22. Re:I'm happy by BigKato · · Score: 1

      +1 funny if I had mod pts.

      --
      So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
    23. Re:I'm happy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Actually there was one called Within the woods that was a predisesor to Evil Dead that Sam and Bruce did in order to show as a pitch to investors. I found it on a file shareing network and watched it. about 30 minutes long and in a close tridition of the other 3 with a home video camera feel.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    24. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too late
      they are probably already well into pre-production...

    25. Re:I'm happy by operagost · · Score: 1

      Well, Monet painted the same bridge twice.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    26. Re:I'm happy by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      That's not a good analogy. The correct analogy would be if someone liked a small unknown band that became popular and, when they start becoming popular, start changing their music to make it 'marketable' in a way that effects quality. This would not cheapen the music that this band did in the beginning, it would just mean that the band had changed in a way that this fan no longer liked their music. I do agree, though, that there are plenty of folks who like a band when it is small and unknown then accuse it of 'selling out' when they beocme popular, even though the band has not changed anything.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    27. Re:I'm happy by totipotentsoul · · Score: 1

      C'mon, wouldn't you like to see Casablanca with the original alternate ending?

      --
      The best posts are both flamebait and informative.
    28. Re:I'm happy by illumnatLA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hollywood's actually doing the remake of Citizen Kane, coincidentally enough, with Ben Affleck. The plot's been updated so that rather than Kane being a fictionalized Hearst, he's going to be a fictionalized Rupert Murdoch. Of course, this will mean that rather than running a chain of newspapers, the new Kane will be a Multimedia Magnate.

      The new fictionalized Marion Davies character from Kane, now Wendi Deng, will be played by Lucy Liu.

      I don't want to post a spoiler so I won't reveal what the new Rosebud is.












      Of course, none of this is true, but the scary part is that it could be

      --
      Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
    29. Re:I'm happy by Flagg0204 · · Score: 0

      Blasphemy! Your a witch! Lets take he/she up the cliff and see if she can fly!

    30. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You put the "-" on the right in the wrong place. It goes before the "S".

    31. Re:I'm happy by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Barb Wire. Imagine Bogart with really big breast implants.

      Here's a hacksaw and some soap so you can go wash that mental image out of your brain.

      Hey, that movie accomplished something: it made it to IMDB's 100 worst movies list. That is tougher than it sounds.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    32. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rosebud's a Hummer? A electric motorized scooter? Lucy Liu's ummmmmmmm.............

    33. Re:I'm happy by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it, I remember that comic about hot future girl. My quote was close, but not quite so... angry.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    34. Re:I'm happy by cyber0ne · · Score: 1

      I can't think of the gas station that hosts it off-hand, but there is a chain of gas station convenience stores (at least in SC) called S-Mart.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    35. Re:I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, AoD was re-released in Japan under the title of "Captain Supermarket". I heard it did quite well.

      I think it's just supposed to be a silly name for a department store.

    36. Re:I'm happy by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      Wrong, it was about a Star Wars book. Gabe sheared Tycho's head in half cramming it down his throat.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
  8. This story? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is it really a story? Get this, an editor posted a story. Oh and if that is shocking enough, there won't be a first post...But somehow there will be comments.

    1. Re:This story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fp?

    2. Re:This story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really a story?

      Looks like it.

      Get this, an editor posted a story.

      Why not? The editors are humans using the Internet and finding the occasional interesting piece of information, just like anybody else on Slashdot

      Oh and if that is shocking enough, there won't be a first post

      There is a first post:
      by Anita Coney (648748) on Thursday November 18, @16:16 (#10858642)

      But somehow there will be comments.

      Welcome to Slashdot. A person posts a story, comments ensue. What would make you think this story would go without comments?

  9. Thank god its not a prequel by 3.09+a+hour · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thank god bruce is on, but im really afraid that they will go the way of the Star Wars prequels with "oh oh look at my shiney CG covering up my lack of flavor

    --
    Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
    1. Re:Thank god its not a prequel by talon77 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. brucecampbell.com mentions nothing about this, and that site is usually right on top of Bruce's projects. I won't believe this until one of them confirms it.

    2. Re:Thank god its not a prequel by x+kepa+x · · Score: 1

      i don't believe it eather. it's not gonna happen. but evildead4 will be awsome...

      --
      x kepa x
    3. Re:Thank god its not a prequel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except for the fact that these guys have made one good movie after another. Lucas has not.

      Sam Raimi (Look at the director and writer credits, not producer)
      Rob Tapert
      (ok, maybe not Bruce Campbell, but he's got some gems in there)

    4. Re:Thank god its not a prequel by 3.09+a+hour · · Score: 1

      Ya I also read his auto-biography (great book!) and he mentioned nothing of the sort.

      --
      Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
  10. Please dont... by Folmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only way that this movie would be good, is if it was a low-budget 80'ies horror movie with bad special effects and medicore acting...
    But we already got THAT movie!
    The only reason that they make this movie is that they need some money, and i guess that hordes of fan of the old movies will flock to the cinemas when it arrives... And then their objective will be fullfilled!

    1. Re:Please dont... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something tells me raimi ain't "hurtin' for cash."

    2. Re:Please dont... by goon+america · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same as in George Lucas and Kevin Smith. Creativity requires limits and rules, and finding ways to break them. When you have no limits and no rules, you have nowhere to go.

      Then again, the Evil Dead series has a well-established history of making fun of itself, so there's really not that much that could go wrong. If it turns out to be an overbudget, CGI-laden travesty.... that could actually be kind of funny.

    3. Re:Please dont... by BRSloth · · Score: 1

      The only reason that they make this movie is that they need some money, and i guess that hordes of fan of the old movies will flock to the cinemas when it arrives... And then their objective will be fullfilled!

      Oh, the "George Lucas Maneuver"!

  11. Well Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why God Why?

    1. Re:Well Crap by kfg · · Score: 1

      Why God Why?

      Did I hear you say that there must be a catch?
      Would you walk away from a fool and his money?

      KFG

  12. What do ya mean Horror?! by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " 'The Evil Dead' is such a special film to Sam, Rob, Bruce and horror fans that we are going to take great care in renewing this franchise," said Joe Drake, Senator Intl. prexy. "By keeping its original formula intact and given audiences' appetite for horror, we expect that we'll have a real hit on our hands."

    Ummm... Don't they mean an appetite for Comedy? I don't know about you, but I get more or a laugh out of Army of Darkness than a scream and I assume Evil Dead is the same.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    1. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by Peyna · · Score: 4, Informative

      Evil Dead = attempt at serious horror film

      Evil Dead 2 = attempt at serious horror film, abandoned halfway through the film where it turns into some kind of horror spoof

      Army of Darkness(Evil Dead 3) = full out horror spoof/comedy

      That said, they're all hilarious.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by Jose · · Score: 1

      ED I & II were horror films that were ended up being sorta funny...with Army of Darkness they pretty much gave up trying to be a horror, and just went with the comedy.

      --
      The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
    3. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by jejones · · Score: 1

      No... Evil Dead plays it straight. In the immortal words of Joe Bob Briggs, it has the one property that makes a horror flick great: anyone can die at any time.

    4. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by kyliaar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, actually I would say that Evil Dead is pretty much an attempt to make a pretty serious, suspensful horror flick. There is a lot of intriguing camera movement, sound and overall spookiness. However, Ash's girlfriend becomes pretty funny after she gets zombified and they have a scene that plays on an earlier scene before hell breaks loose.

      Evil Dead II is where you start to see intentional humor. This, in my opinion, is the best of the three movies. Raimi is much better at directing humor than horror. Also, Bruce Campbell does zany pretty well as you see Ash start to slip into insanity. Stuff starts to get very surreal here with Ash chopping his own hand off and the hilarity that ensues from that as well as the classic replacement of his hand with a chainsaw. There are other very memorable scenes in this movie that tend more towards humor than horror.

      Army of Darkness I saw first and I loved it so I wound up buying the whole trilogy. In retrospect, I find it is the weakest of the three movies. All the crappy stop motion, poor dialog, etc. Don't get me wrong, it's great and made me watch the first two but if you have only seen Army of Darkness, you don't have a good barometer to judge the other two with.

    5. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Evil Dead = 100% horror, 0% comedy
      Evil Dead 2 = 75% horror, 25% comedy
      Army of Darkness = 75% comedy, 25% horror
      Evil Dead 4 = ?

      I don't like the way these numbers are shaping up..

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    6. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      I do. Evil dead was a flop when it came to horror. It just barely had enough entertainment value to make me keep watching. Evil Dead II got a little bit better. Army of Darkness is still one of my favorite movies. With quotes like "Good Ash, Bad Ash, I'm the one with the gun", and the "what's that on your face?" joke, it was well worth paying to see. I just with they would come out and do Army of Darkness II already.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    7. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's me but I found Evil Dead 1 to be 100% comedy, 0% horror. No doubt that was unintentional though.

    8. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by demi · · Score: 1
      Evil Dead = 100% horror, 0% comedy

      I really don't think so, though I know you meant this to show a trend rather than be literal. But while I don't think Evil Dead's a "comedy" by any stretch of the imagination, but the movie is definitely infused with a sense of glee. There's no overt "winking" but the movie is undeniably fun and I don't think it was an accident, I think it's just Bruce and Sam's style.

      --
      demi
    9. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in 4, they will summon Rodney Dangerfield and Sam Kinneson? Hmm AoD was horrible, Disney does a 'horror' film. This remake will probably be a disaster. 2 is one of the best films ever. Raimy should take a look at what George Lucas did to the Star Wars series... aweful, and stay away from the ED legacy. But since they won't listen to me, so I can only hope that it will be good. Though I wouldn't go see it with that expectation.

    10. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was an accident. They were trying to make a serious horror movie. They believed they were going to make the best horror movie ever. They failed wonderfully.

    11. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by stor · · Score: 1

      I'm with you man.

      Everyone seems keen on AoD but I thought it was very ordinary compared to ED2.

      ED2 is one of the best horror/comedies of all time.

      If you like ED2 you may also like Peter Jacksons' "Brain Dead". That one is a lot of fun.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    12. Re:What do ya mean Horror?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know bout that - I always thought ED2 was about 75% comedy, or maybe it was just that I was really stoned when I watched them as a kid.

  13. This is really weird... by ajservo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Raimi and Ash are what makes ED... Evil Dead.

    To remove the possessed guiding hand (Raimi) and replace it with a chainsaw (??? New Director)...

    This can't be good.

    I wonder which of the following will appear?

    Stars of the WB
    Tree Rape
    Necrinomicon

    I think more of the former rather than the latter... ugh...

    1. Re:This is really weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Raimi will be directing it (I didn't RTFA), the slashdot editors just can't wrait corretcly, and forget about grammer!

  14. Boomstick! by Innova · · Score: 0, Troll

    Gimme some sugar baby.

    --
    See my Home Theater
    1. Re:Boomstick! by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 1

      Yo, she-bitch.

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    2. Re:Boomstick! by Altus · · Score: 1

      hail to the king baby!

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:Boomstick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good Ash, Bad Ash, I'm the one with the gun." BOOM!

    4. Re:Boomstick! by mesach · · Score: 1

      AAAW now that's just what we call pillow talk, baby.

      --
      moo.
  15. Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously... This is just more proof that even the coolest of people can be corrupted by money. I'll bet he claims that the original simply didn't live up to his vision, owing to budget and studio pressures. Then he'll scamper back behind his curtain at Skywalker Ranch.

    --

    Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    1. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Army of Darkness = Evil Dead 3.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I think ZB's drawing an analogy to "The Lion King 1 1/2". A pathetically obvious attempt to squeeze some more $$$ with an crap direct to video sequel.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      I tend to disagree. Evil Dead is not some artistic work from a pretentious director who spends three years researching before making movies that I don't want to see *cough*Kubrick*cough*, or the brainchild of someone who believes that special effects are one of the most important parts of a movie and has an inflated vision of his own abilities *cough*Lucas*cough*. It's just a cheap, fun 80s horror flick.

      Raimi and Campbell said they had a blast doing it the first time, and that's probably why they want to do it again. Raimi is not the kind of person to get caught up in the hype. When he runs the show, making a fun movie seems to be the bottom line.

      My guess is that they want to bring it more in line with Army of Darkness (by the way, they did have enough budget to make that one look a little better than it did. They made it that way on purpose). I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of those Jason-and-the-Argonauts skeletons, and bad stop-motion animation. If we see any CGI effects, I bet they'll be cheesy - on purpose.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    4. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by zephc · · Score: 1

      actually I think it was a reference to "Naked Gun 2 1/2", and the 3rd N.G. movie was "Naked Gun 33 1/3"

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    5. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of those Jason-and-the-Argonauts skeletons, and bad stop-motion animation. If we see any CGI effects, I bet they'll be cheesy - on purpose.

      I definitely agree with you here. You can tell the direction he'll probably go by looking at the Hercules and Xena TV shows. AoD was still rubber skeletons and stop-motion, but he jumped straight into CGI as soon as he could (as seen on Hercules and Xena); nevertheless, he retained the corny comic-book feel. I'm predicting a lot of very well rendered and very funny zombie/skeleton things.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by Jacer · · Score: 1

      Are you insane, watch the bootleg edition dvd with commentary. Bruce said that they ran out of money and in order to finish, he paid for a portion of it out of his salary.

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    7. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Let's put it this way: it is, in fact, possible to make things less cheesy than Army of Darkness for the same amount of money that they spent on it.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    8. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1
      Actually, I was referring to the fact that Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead... and it couldn't be called 3, since that spot is taken. Since it doesn't carry the story forward, it can't be 4. So 2-1/2 was the logical choice.

      As to the rest of that rant, I was directing it more at the fact that the next flick wasn't a continuation of the story in some fashion. It's just a rehash of a rehash of a rehash. Pure money as the motivator. Or did you guys think that Spiderman proves Raimi didn't sell out?

      And how the hell is it that the original comment provoked so many responses and isn't interesting or even funny? /:)

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    9. Re:Why Not Call it Evil Dead 2-1/2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok after, Evil Dead 1http://gorenight.com/movies/edi/,
      Evil Dead 2 http://gorenight.com/movies/edii/,
      Army Of Darkness http://gorenight.com/movies/aod/
      it must be called Evil Dead Reloaded.

      Why? coz of http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001GAV66/3 02-9968058-4210429

  16. welcome by cyberwitz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new evil self animated severed hand overlord.

    --
    [This sig left intentionally blank.]
  17. I can't see it being a hit without Raimi by GodBlessTexas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Without Raimi's visual style, which along with Bruce Campbell, virtually makes Evil Dead, I can't see how this can be a success. Also, when I met Bruce back in September of 2002, he said he would not ever reprise the role of Ash for any more Evil Dead movies. He said they were just too hard on his body and he was too old for it now. The article doesn't mention what role he'll have in it, so it's unclear exactly how he will be a part of this one.

    --
    Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
    1. Re:I can't see it being a hit without Raimi by mynameisnotnick · · Score: 1

      It wasn't exactly a hit when he *did* direct it...

    2. Re:I can't see it being a hit without Raimi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice slide into the fact that you once brushed a famous person. Assuming that you were one of many standing in line for an autograph, do you really think anything he might have said then amounts to anything now?

      Actors aren't exactly known for their integrity - throw enough money at them and they'll change their minds.

    3. Re:I can't see it being a hit without Raimi by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

      Seeing your nick, GodBlessTexas, did you bring a gun? Or perhaps a chainsaw?

  18. That's appropriate by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny
    Somehow, seeing an online casino ad promising "Real money!" in this story seemed appropriate.

    Why else would Raimi make this movie again, again?

  19. There's a reason... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a reason why I mostly read books now. TV is utterly awful and movies aren't worth it, except for the odd indi and Pixar flicks.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we've all seen the article about you.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101716&cid=866 8442

    2. Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a pretentious asshole. and btw, pixar is nothing but hollywood assembly-line crap. just because its animated doesn't make it good.

  20. ED II Instead by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Informative

    I saw ED 2 before ED 1. That may be why, but I think ED 1 stinks.

    ED 2 is SOOOOOO much better...

    1. Re:ED II Instead by oexeo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ed TV is really where the trilogy went down hill

    2. Re:ED II Instead by Tzarius · · Score: 1

      Well, if the ED2 is that much better, than image the superb quality of ED209!

      *looks at steps outside doorway*

      Well.. maybe not.

  21. Without Raimi directing by GodBlessTexas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I meant to see I can't see it being a hit without him directing. Evil Dead was made by all those whacky camera moves and angles he invented, and without them it just won't be the same.

    --
    Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
  22. Yah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.payfornothing.com/ Has more information about this.

    1. Re:Yah... by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? All I see is a squatter...

      payfornothing.com
      This domain is for sale, blah. blah.

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
    2. Re:Yah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh..

      it's a variable of those words somehow, sorry!

    3. Re:Yah... by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 1


      Dude, you followed a link from an AC comment that doesn't mention the topic at all? Are you new here? or trying to get fired?

    4. Re:Yah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha

    5. Re:Yah... by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      Nah, just tired. Four month old at home. You'd think all of my days-on-end gaming events would have prepared me for the sleep deprevation. Babies add a whole other dimension to not sleeping...

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
  23. Zombie Fascination, Possible Spoilers by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Isn't that the one where Campbell has a fight with his own possessed hand (possible 3 Stooges reference) and ends up spitefully cutting it off and then attaches a chainsaw to the stump to defeat demons that are attacking from outside and the basement?

    I'd buy that, the humour was great. Even better than that other laugh-fest, The Exorcist.

    1. Re:Zombie Fascination, Possible Spoilers by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 1


      What's with all the people commenting about Evil Dead who haven't actually seen it? NO! Ash's fight with his hand is in the second one. Go watch them. The first one is a very freshman effort, but lays the groundwork for Raimi's amusing style.

    2. Re:Zombie Fascination, Possible Spoilers by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Do you mean Evil Dead or Evil Dead 2? 2 is definitive of the brand and is better. Nyah, nyah.

  24. All I can say to Sam now is... by chrisspurgeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Well hello Mister Fancypants."

    1. Re:All I can say to Sam now is... by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You ain't leadin' but two things: jack and shit.

      And Jack left town."


      Oh, the memories...

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
  25. Sears and K-Mart merger by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We now have the year is 2004, we now have S-Marts. Instead of Evil Dead1, don't you think its time for Army of Darkness2?

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:Sears and K-Mart merger by cmpalmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Army of Darkness was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the Sears/K-Mart merger.

      --
      -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
  26. Make 'Em Crappy by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The weird thing is, most movies are remade to be better. Star Wars was great, but George Lucas thinks he can do better with the technology he has currently.

    But these movies were good because they were so crappy! Are they going to try to make it a good movie? Won't that kind of spoil it? Or perhaps they are going to try to make it even crappier than the originals. Make it crappier and those who liked the crappy originals will like it even more? ... ?

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:Make 'Em Crappy by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Make it crappier and those who liked the crappy originals will like it even more?

      Not true. While the acting in the original Star Wars trilogy was crappy, the prequals managed to lower the bar to the point where it became very destracting. I became uncomfortable, feeling as if I had paid to see digitally enhanced dress reharsals.

    2. Re:Make 'Em Crappy by oexeo · · Score: 1

      "The weird thing is, most movies are remade to be better." No, the weird thing is people (like you) actually think they're better

    3. Re:Make 'Em Crappy by GreyyGuy · · Score: 1

      No- the weird thing is that someone THINKS they can be remade better and almost always fail miserably. Psycho? Terrible. Planet of the Apes? Pretty, but still bad. Flubber? Not even Robin Williams could save it. The best I can think of for remakes is a parity with the original. Good as, but different. Think Dawn of the Dead. Good. Maybe not as much of a classic as the original, but with some interesting new stuff.

      I would have faith if Rami were going to do it. And I do have some faith since Bruce Campbell is in it. He was one of the producers of the original so I would expect him to have some say in the new one, and he seems to understand the camp appeal.

    4. Re:Make 'Em Crappy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      No the weird thing is people like you don't like to have a choice.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Make 'Em Crappy by oexeo · · Score: 0

      He said "most movies," therefore by inheritance; I thought it was implied that I meant most remakes are worse (not all), hence you do have a choice.

    6. Re:Make 'Em Crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ocean's 11. Holy shit, the original version of that movie sucked hard. At best, it was an excuse to get the Rat Pack on screen. Otherwise, positively awful.

  27. hehe by enrico_suave · · Score: 4, Funny

    "good bad... I'm the guy with the remake..."

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
    1. Re:hehe by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 1

      or... if you got the OTHER cut.

      "I aint that remake..."

      doesn't quite work does it?

  28. Why not Call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Evil Dead 4: The Army of Darkness 2.

    That'd crack me up.

    1. Re:Why not Call it... by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 4, Funny

      ED4/AOD2 will be a prequel, complete with how the "Evil Dead" became evil (he was a young "Good" before), and how an odd-talking floppy-eared swamp lizard drove him insane.

    2. Re:Why not Call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Evil Dead 4: The Army of Darkness 2.

      Why not go all the way with Evil Dead For The Army of Darkness Too!?

      (anon for obvious reasons --jole)

    3. Re:Why not Call it... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      That's almost as funny as Final Fantasy Ten Two.

      See, the whole business of a sequel's sequel is pretty damn retarded, but how many "Final" fantasies are there?

      It's like the bastard stepchild of ED4:AD2 and Neverending Story 2...

      Comedy gold!!

    4. Re:Why not Call it... by Oyvino · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And Ash could eliminate Jar Jar Binks once and for all in the most spectacular and gory way with a chainsaw or something.

  29. Hollywood doesn't rub off.... by TheAngryMob · · Score: 1

    ...it infects.

    --

    Don't just game, Dungeoneer
  30. New one-liners! Hooray, this means... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Duke Nukem Forever is right around the corner!

    Can't recycle the same old one-liners, there needs to be another Evil Dead/Ash movie first!

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  31. Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead 1 by invid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Evil Dead 2 was not a sequel, but a remake, and a better one at that. I don't see how anything could be better than Evil Dead 2, but what the hell, why not let Sam try again?

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    1. Re:Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead 1 by nsideops · · Score: 1

      Evil Dead 2 was not a remake of Evil Dead 1. When Raimi started working on Evil Dead 2 he wanted a brief recap of Evil Dead 1 to start out the new movie, but he discovered he did not have access to the video footage from Evil Dead 1. Raimi realized it would be easier to just quickly refilm the footage he needed. After a quick rewrite he now had the opening he wanted. At least this is how I understand the situation after reading and listening to interviews from Raimi and Campbell for years.

      --
      Teach someone to use the net and they won't bother you for weeks; show them Slashdot and you may never see them again.
    2. Re:Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead 1 by kyliaar · · Score: 1

      I always wondered where that assertion came from. I've heard it before and anyone who states that must not have a clear recollection of both movies. Entirely different plot, entirely different characters. They do recap the first movie in the beginning with different actors, except for Bruce.

    3. Re:Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead 1 by invid · · Score: 1

      I've seen ED2 several dozen times, and it does stand on it's own without ED1. I admit I only saw ED1 a couple times when it first came out, and I was a bit drunk both times. I think it's time to see it again.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    4. Re:Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to watch it on acid. Great stuff. The movie that is. The acid too actually.

  32. Other remakes on the way??? by YodaToo · · Score: 1

    Seems that before too long someone will remake the some other classics like Blade Runner, Max Max, Terminator, Highlander, etc.

    --
    This way to the egress...
    1. Re:Other remakes on the way??? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      They're remaking Assault in Precinct 13... I'm afraid.

    2. Re:Other remakes on the way??? by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      I hope you didn't mean Mad Max and Highlander. Don't they both have sequials that suck as much as the origionals?

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
  33. Not surprised about Bruce ... by barwin · · Score: 2, Funny

    "But somehow Rob Tapert and Bruce Campbell are onboard as well."

    Really not surprising that Bruce Campbell is jumping at any job offer he can get ...

    1. Re:Not surprised about Bruce ... by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Funny

      You idiot. Bruce Campbell doesn't need any money. He gets more than enough income from his soup business, and sales of the Brisco County Jr. series on DVD. What a renissance man.

  34. Okay, who opened the damned book?? by geekwench · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A remake of Evil Dead without Sam Raimi at the helm must be one of the Worst Ideas Ever. Either that, or one of the signs of an Impending Apocalypse. It was largely Raimi's bizarre sense of black humor that made the original so entertaining.

    An ED movie without Sam directing would be like... well, S-Mart without Ash at the register.

    "Clatto Verata Nicto", baby. ;)

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
    1. Re:Okay, who opened the damned book?? by CaseyB · · Score: 1

      That's "Klaatu barada nikto".

    2. Re:Okay, who opened the damned book?? by Altus · · Score: 1


      Ash is no simple cashier!

      everyone knows he works in Housewares!

      man...

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  35. what's the name gonna be? by jdbo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, Evil Dead 2 was really a 1.5 release... (as it bridged the gap between being a remake and a sequel)... and the third film, "Army of Darkness" (aka. "Medieval Dead", a.k.a "Bruce Cambell vs. The Army of Darkness") was never formally referred to as "Evil Dead 3"... but while those names are technically up for grabs, the studio wouldn't actually name the new remake "Evil Dead 2" or "Evil Dead 3" as this could be confusing to the moviegoers, and higher numbers ("Evil Dead 4") are also out the window as that would turn off people who never saw the earlier ones.

    Therefore, the only possible method of titling this film is to use a branching versioning scheme, and therefore (after accounting for the special edition version of Evil Dead 1 released to DVD) it is entirely clear that the re-remake's title will be: Evil Dead 1.5.2

    Seeing the inevitability of this I have registered that domain, and expect a call from "Ghost House" productions any day now...

    1. Re:what's the name gonna be? by gid · · Score: 1

      I'll probably end up waiting for the stable release, to be dubbed Evil Dead 1.6.0, or maybe even a few versions after that.

    2. Re:what's the name gonna be? by delirium28 · · Score: 1

      Well, not to get crazy technical, but shouldn't it be Evil Dead 1.5.1.2 instead?

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    3. Re:what's the name gonna be? by rk · · Score: 1

      I really try to avoid the CVS checkins of my favorite movies, and wait until they distribute it.

    4. Re:what's the name gonna be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one did you register again? It looks it's still up for grabs to me...

    5. Re:what's the name gonna be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F*CK! You registered evildead1.5.2.com?

      If I had known 2.com was still up for grabs, I would have taken it myself.

  36. Good if it leads to Evil Dead 3 by White-out_On_Screen · · Score: 1

    If this does well, you think it might convince a Studio that it's worth pouring some money into Evil Dead 3? Bruce Campbell's line at his speaking engagements is that Evil Dead will happen when Raimi gets convinced to do it instead of the next Spider Man...if the remake' good and pulls in the money, maybe he could be convinced.

  37. S-Mart by drkich · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have just been "dying" to say this. With the purchace of Sears by K-Mart, does this mean they will rebrand under the name S-Mart?

    Just think of the tie ins!

    --
    Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
    1. Re:S-Mart by wickedmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Living in a border town, just wanted to give you a heads up, there is such a thing as an S-Mart in Mexico. Its more Safeway than K-Mart or Sears.

      --
      Don't be a Hem, find some new cheese.
    2. Re:S-Mart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear a+w restaraunts are joining them it's going to be called... K-sear-aw sear-aw.

    3. Re:S-Mart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K-Mart bought Sears? They can afford that? I thought they were broke....hmmmmmm

      I have $30 to my name....I'M GETTTING A PORSCHE!!!!

      Who says we're in a recession?

  38. biased by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    I've talked to a lot of people who saw ED II first. Somehow they got the sense it wasn't important to see ED I. I had watched ED I when it came out at the theaters in the early eighties. It was so amazing that when ED II came out, I was very loyal to the original and although I enjoy ED II, it still never impressed me as much as Evil Dead I did.

    --
    $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
  39. or instead of remaking it... by spir0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    come up with a new concept. it doesn't need to be redone. those who hate the original are not going to watch a remake, because they're sick of everything else being remade.

    and those who love it won't need to watch it because they like the original enough.

    only the serious fanboys will watch the remake for completeness, and yes, mr Raimi will make a few dollars off them.

    BUT he won't gain any more respect as a film maker. He'll just be another Hollywood wanker.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  40. Too Bad... by Diomedes+Tydeus · · Score: 1

    I was more upset by this little nuget at the start of the article: "But it's official folks, official enough that it's probably safe to say 'Freddy vs Jason vs Ash' is dead."
    I know it's been said to be dead for some time, but I keep hoping. Oh well...
    -Diomedes

    --
    As for Diomedes, you could not say whether he was more among the Achaeans or the Trojans.
  41. Mr. Raimi not directing the remake by Malchized · · Score: 1

    Sam actually wanted to direct the remake, but unfortunately the film's investors had this to say regarding his request:

    "I got news for you pal, you ain't leading but two things right now: Jack, and Sh*t...and Jack left town."

  42. Hollywood has no appetite for cheesy humor... by nganju · · Score: 2, Funny

    and getting rid of the cheesy jokes in the remake will completely lose the spirit of the original. Like when he saws off his own hand which has become possessed, and traps it under a bucket. Weighs down the bucket with a stack of books, the top of which is Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms".

    --
    There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
  43. Um, not off topic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously mods aren't aware that the one-liners in Duke Nukem are directly from Raimi's Evil Dead movies.

    Topic of this article? Evil Dead.

    *gasp*

  44. Ash said it best... by Larmal · · Score: 1

    "yea yea, great, get the fuck out of my face..."*shove*

  45. In related news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From AP:

    KMart has announced a merger with Sears Corp. According to new company spokesman Ash Williams, the combined companies will change names to utilize parts of both names and from this point on be known as S-Mart. In addition the new companies tag line will now be "Shop smart, shop S-Mart".

  46. ..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by pragma_x · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Evil Dead 3 (Army of Darkness) left things wide-open for more mayhem starting with S-MART in a (presumably) necronomicon-tainted suburbia. Perhaps revitalizing the franchise with a few nods from more modern horror films (28 Days for example) in a 4th installment might be the better course? Why yet another remake of Evil Dead 1?

    So anyone out there care to guess if we are going to see a top-of-the-line film or another wonderfully campy B-flick held together with cardboard, kayo syrup, and great catch phrases?

    1. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by erik_flannestad · · Score: 1

      I guess I'd look to what happened when the same company re-made "Ju-On" into "The Grudge".

      The only difference will probably be that the original material is in English instead of Japanese.

    2. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by dswensen · · Score: 1

      a few nods from more modern horror films (28 Days for example)

      The Sandra Bullock movie?!

      I think you mean 28 Days Later, although I guess it depends on how you feel about Sandra Bullock...

    3. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the ending of AoD isn't the ending as it was originally intended by Raimi and Campbell -- it was supposed to end with Ash stuck all alone in prehistory. Maybe they think making a 4 set in the contemporary world would be like capitulating to the studio that forced them to give the movie a happy ending?

    4. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girls with big hooters and skimpy clothes that fall apart easily, and a better version of the love scene with the tree. And it would be great if it had some pro-wrestlers in a tag-team match against the demon possessed zombie hordes with maybe a special appearance by GWAR.

    5. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      Evil Dead 3 (Army of Darkness) left things wide-open for more mayhem starting with S-MART in a (presumably) necronomicon-tainted suburbia.

      You are referring to the "supermarket zombie" ending. I recently saw this one on the cheap-ass R2 4:3 edition. The SE R1 16:9 edition I own has the "end of civilisation" ending. Basically, after he takes one drop of the potion too much, he wakes up in a postapocaliptic, deserted world among the ruins of a modern city. And that's it, scrolling credits.

      Robert
      (proud owner of SE R1 edition of ED, ED2 and AoD ;)

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    6. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off with the rest. by Akaiame · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the original ending (on the DVD) had Ash drank one too many drops and waking up 1000 years later than intended. He finds himself in a post-apocalyptic waste land when he came to. It might be a neat idea if they made another movie expanded on that ending.

  47. Mod parent up! by robyannetta · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why? Perfect timing, baby. Perfect timing.

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
  48. Evil Dead 2 was NOT a remake of Evil Dead 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil Dead 2 was not a remake of evil dead 1. It simply retold the ED1 story in the first few minutes because the first movie was very small and it was very possible that people would see ED2 without having seen ED1. Given how the first ended and the second began, its not a movie that would make much sense without the back story.

    If you watch the ED2 commentary (well, one of them at least), they, Sam and Bruce, state this.

  49. Finally, after all these years, by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

    You will all now be treated to the "Evil Dead" as it was meant to be. As I envisioned it years ago, but had to compromise in the original's production due to budgetary constraints. Now, of course, money is no object, and thanks to digital effects, you shall see things that make the battle for Pellenor Fields look like a cub scout production.

    After years of waiting, I can finally make my movie, my way.

    Love,
    Sam

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
    1. Re:Finally, after all these years, by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Who shoots first?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Finally, after all these years, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he is going to make a screen cap movie of a level from the game Ghost Master?

  50. How I'd see Evil Dead 3 by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    That sounds good, some modern day evilness, nothing wrong with oldschool meets suburbia.

    But depends on your endings, because the drops he takes in the one leads him to the future, and that would be a great setting as well.

    I could imagine zombies in mecha outfits... man I better stop now or I'll be no better than fan fiction authors. Theres tons that could be done though.

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:How I'd see Evil Dead 3 by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      That sounds good, some modern day evilness, nothing wrong with oldschool meets suburbia.

      The beautiful thing with that is they could really riff on Dawn of the Dead. Ya know, zombie shouts "I'll swallow your soul" only to be hit by a minivan piloted by a panicked soccer-mom... or just an Ash-built-riding-lawnmower-of-doom. Good stuff.

      I could imagine zombies in mecha outfits... man I better stop now or I'll be no better than fan fiction authors

      Ack.. thanks. That just gave me a virus flashback. I need to go wash my brain now. :(

    2. Re:How I'd see Evil Dead 3 by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      For some reason, I was also thinking an SUV/soccermom combo taking out a zombie.

      I never saw virus, and with your opinion, maybe I shouldn't.
      I could definately see Ash at a gas station, using a gas pump as a flame thrower.

      Maybe have some sort of anti-hero villian, who makes himself out to be some sort of overlord who's going to take over the world(I can never die), but keeps getting his ass kicked in every situation he appears in by a variety of people down to like an old lady with a walker, who later walks over his corpse.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    3. Re:How I'd see Evil Dead 3 by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Maybe have some sort of anti-hero villian, who makes himself out to be some sort of overlord who's going to take over the world

      A close match to that would be Leslie Nielsen's evil overlord role in Surf Ninjas... which is sort of a "look at how stupid and schmaltzy this is" cult-film with my friends. Good for a cheap laugh, but sincerely pushes the campy-meter a little too far.

      It's also IMDB's #82 (just ahead of FearDotCom and Iron Eagle II) on the bottom 100. Go figure.

      "For as we all know: money can't buy knives"

    4. Re:How I'd see Evil Dead 3 by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. I haven't been big into watching a lot of movies to keep up on the culture. Its amazing how easily one joke/idea can make another seem unoriginal. Or whats amazing is when the idea is recycled and no one cares.

      --
      God spoke to me.
  51. Just use the standard Lucas arguments by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 1

    Let's save everyone some time. Just take all the overused "Lucas ruined SW" arguments and replace "Lucas" with Raimi. They'll be the same disgruntled arguments we always see on slashdot.

    --
    -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    1. Re:Just use the standard Lucas arguments by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 1

      Oh, and before you jump on me, replace "SW" with "Evil Dead."

      --
      -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    2. Re:Just use the standard Lucas arguments by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you, Raimi ruined Star Wars. That guy will add a chainsaw to a handless arm faster than Dr. Evil will add laser beams to some freakin' sharks.

  52. Theirs a prequel as well by oexeo · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about a prequel, this works for every worn out franchise. The synopsis would go something like this: Some really interesting shit which happened to the characters before, but was never referenced in the original movies, and probably introduces plot holes. The actors will also be older (despite being set in the past), but we'll use a soft lens, and hope you don't notice.

  53. Evil Dead Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Eh. Once I decided to try and find the most different covers of a single song.

    The song I could find with the most covers was "Kick out the Jams"... I've got almost 30 of them. Not that I like the song much... just thought it was interesting how many people had thrown out their take on the song.

    Given that this is the 3rd version of Evil Dead (AoD doesn't count as a remake), I think it could be interesting to see yet another version of it. Hell, let everyone make a version! Open source it! It could be the cinematic equivelent of a jazz standard. Everyone should take a swing at it. Imagine:

    Evil Dead - a Merchant Ivory Film
    Evil Dead - Pixar
    Evil Dead - Shaw Bros.
    Evil Dead - the Royal Shakespear Company
    Evil Dead - By Weebl and Skoo
    Evil Dead - starring Clint Eastwood
    Evil Dead - starring Tom Cruise
    Evil Dead - starring Jim Carrey
    Evil Dead - starring Mcauley Culkin (sp?)
    Evil Dead - starring Will Smith

    It'd be sweet.

    1. Re:Evil Dead Forever by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Or you could just make one film, and completely change cast and crew from scene to scene. It'd be like a mental breakdown!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Evil Dead Forever by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1

      You forgot the original Evil Dead - "The badness which dies" by Akira Kurosawa all 4 rain filled hours of it...

      on the subject of most number of remakes is there anything that beats 3 Yojimbo/Fistfull of Dollars/LastMan Standing ?

    3. Re:Evil Dead Forever by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
      Royal Shakepeare Co.? Hell, let's do it right... and fast:

      Evil Dead, by The Reduced Shakespeare Company

      Do the three movies in 10 minutes? These guys could.

      p.s. the Will Smith idea would be a Hollywood darling, but only if you included Martin Lawrence... ouch. The new tagline: "You so evil!"

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  54. Re:..it went bad, so I cut it off where? by Lao-Tzu · · Score: 1


    Isn't that "it went bad, so I cut it off at the wrist"? Which makes more sense, since he didn't cut off any "rest" and he did cut his hand off at the wrist.

  55. A re-remake? by LabRat007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thats so bad I don't even think S-mart will carry it.

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
  56. I wonder... by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    Maybe Army of Darkness FanFiction is worth it. Spend some quality time writing scripts and sending them to Bruce. I know he says they're not doing any more sequels, but if you can make the guy laugh enough. Maybe its a hobby I should start up. Video game programming isn't worth it anymore. I was also thinking about submitting SpaceBalls Episode 0 scripts, and Tron 2 scripts. I think in Tron 2, it would be cool if the video game things came out of the digitized world instead of people going in. I could imagine a tank coming through a worm hole and crushing down a bunch of parked cars. Its exciting stuff to think about, movie scripts and all. You wouldn't think they take anything but creativity and some free time.

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on your scrawling above, and your sig about mythical creatures speaking to you ... You live entirely in a fantasy world, don't you?

  57. Act of social commentary? by raider_red · · Score: 1

    Evil Dead was pretty much a send up of the slasher movie genre. Now that we've seen near scene-for-scene remakes of Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Dawn of The Dead, the logical next step is to remake the parody as a commentary on how stupid and derivative Hollywood has become.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  58. Perfect timing... by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    K-Mart just bought Sears...
    S-MART LIVES!

    Shop Smart, Shop S-Mart.

  59. Endless remakes by ffub · · Score: 1

    Hollywood seems to be awash with remakes. And not of good scripts, bad films - the perfect candidates, but films like the italian job, which had a patchy script, but brilliant acting, cast, and direction. So they get the lousy script and add lousy acting, cast and direction. nice one.

    Bout time hollywood relenquished their monopoly of the film industry and allowed some others to have go, methinks.

  60. not exactly news, is it? by javaxman · · Score: 1
    I'm fairly certain I heard about this over a month ago, granted, it was from a completely fanatical Evil Dead fan.

    Man, you've got too many big projects going on when you can't even be bothered to direct your own re-make. The time is right to do it, someone in Hollywood smelled the money of yet another special-effects humor zombie blockbuster, Jackson said what the heck, I'll take that paycheck, but I'm a little busy, how about my buddy directs?

    Hey, what do you guys want from Raimi?

    Would you ask Peter Jackson to make all of his movies look like Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles? Actually, *I* wouldn't complain, but all the same... cut the guy some slack, he's making cash. If you like the original better than the remake... hey, unlike Lucas' flicks, you can at least still *get* the original!!

  61. I have a theory by Anthet · · Score: 0

    Ive read a couple of rumors regarding a evil dead 4
    4.
    Im thinking that this might be a way to make some money to help em accomplish making evil dead 4.

  62. Tree rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, the first thing I thought of when I read the headline was "Haven't 100 billion Japanese directors already remade that one scene where the forest comes alive and rapes that chick with vines?" Am I the only one who immediately thinks of that scene whenever I hear the words "Evil Dead"? As a 12-year old kid, that scene spooked me far more than any of the other gory shit. Anyone know if that scene in Evil Dead was the first instance of that kind of stuff or whether he just copied it from Japanese porn (which was probably unavailable in the West when that film come out)?

  63. The funny thing is you may be right... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Read this.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  64. Strange by sverrehu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here's what Mr. Bruce has to say:

    http://www.bruce-campbell.com/projects/evil-dead -4 .htm

    1. Re:Strange by dswensen · · Score: 1

      There was a much longer rant on his site about how Evil Dead 4 would never be made, but they're years old.

      Dig back far enough in the media archives and you'll see George Lucas talking about how he'd never make the prequels. If only, huh?

    2. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Link:

      http://www.bruce-campbell.com/projects/evil-dead-4 .htm

      What that page points to, complete text:


      Evil Dead IV

      Are there any plans to make an Evil Dead IV?

      No.
  65. Ack. by pragma_x · · Score: 1

    So it is. Thank you.

    More accurately, as one source has it:

    Ash: It got into my hand and it went bad. So I lopped it off at the wrist.

    <PSA>
    Remember kids: get your ears checked regularily or you'll be embarassed like uncle Pragma here.
    </PSA>

  66. George Lucas should take notes... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    If you don't like your old movie, go ahead and remake it (Evil Dead II was really just a remake of Evil Dead 1) but leave the originals alone for posterity (and the enjoyment of the fans).

  67. Original Evil Dead inspiration for SpiderMan 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never seen the Evil Tree Limb or Doctor Octopus' tentacles in the same scene, have you? Coincidence? I don't think so.

  68. so a question... by ed.han · · Score: 4, Funny

    so does this mean that large explosions will feature a corona effect now? :>

    ed

    1. Re:so a question... by micromoog · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the disembodied hand will shoot first?

    2. Re:so a question... by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but Ash's "boom-stick" will be replaced with a walkie-talkie.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:so a question... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      I'm officially lame: I don't get that one.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    4. Re:so a question... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Informative


      The bastardized DVD release of "E.T." was digitally edited. The government agents who storm the house to find E.T. now carry walkie-talkies instead of handguns. Spielberg had his Lucas moment and we're all worse off for it...

    5. Re:so a question... by ophix · · Score: 1

      the remake of ET by speilberg(however you spell it) had the guns of the cops in a couple of scenes replaced with walkie talkies because he didnt like the idea of guns being used against children in his movie or some other bs.

  69. Evil by humina · · Score: 1

    A current hollywood version would be truly evil.

    --
    check out the best blog ever:
    http://oehlberg.com
  70. Bruce Campbell said that years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you can rake up a lot of debt in a couple years.

    Considering he's so typecast himself as the stooge/rogue/scoundrel...He'll be following William Shatner's lead and become a self-referential media whore in no time.

    1. Re:Bruce Campbell said that years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Elvis.

  71. That's ridiculous by ggeezz · · Score: 1

    Raimi has commented on this before (because fans keep bugging him to do another in the series). The reason he hasn't done it before is that no one would finance the movie because it would probably not make money until it came out on dvd (if then). Raimi has plenty of money himself. In case you haven't noticed, he's directed a few hits since Evil Dead/AoD . . . Spiderman, Spiderman 2, The Gift, and The Quick and the Dead to name a few.

    We should take this as a gift.

    Get a free iPod Photo now (really)

  72. In a nod to other remakes by four2five · · Score: 0

    I think the first order of business is for the hero to judiciosly take a chainsaw to a cgi-animated fellow that bears a distinct likeness to Jar-Jar. Enought of a likeness to be funny but not so much as to bring the wrath of the Lucas Arts lawyers. Because, as we all know, lightsabers trump chainsaws.

    --
    -or so you'd think
  73. Here's a Q... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... Will Ash be replacing his hand with a walkie talkie?

    Groovy!

  74. "Greedo Shoots First" jokes... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
    Begin in 3, 2, 1...

    Or should they be "Greedo chops his hand off with a chainsaw first" jokes? (And, yes, I know that was actually in EDII)

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  75. LONG live Bruce! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously, if he has anything substantial to do with this movie I will be seeing it. He's just plain hilarious in everything he's in.

  76. Alien/s by schon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Alien series is an experiment of telling a series of stories, while changing the genre each time.

    Alien was a horror/suspense movie.
    Aliens was a pure action flick
    Alien3 was a drama
    Alien Resurrection was a comedy.

    The only problem was with the fourth one - they hired the right guy to write it (Joss Whedon), but forgot to tell the idiot director that it was *NOT* supposed to be a b-movie. (Or maybe the did tell him, and he didn't understand them - English isn't his first language.)

    Of course, if this theory holds, Alien 5 will either be a romance, or a musical (or possible both.)

    1. Re:Alien/s by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Aliens in love?
      or how about the end of Space balls where the alien busts out of the guys chest then sings hello my darling.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Alien/s by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1

      actually alien's prequel of sorts is also a comedy

      Dark Star: during the scene where Pinback is trying to track the beachball alien down the narrow service ducts, Dan O'Bannon realised that this funny bit they were filming could also make a great horror, he then went on to write Alien, (IFAIK as a studio fund-raiser for Dune)

    3. Re:Alien/s by TheJaff · · Score: 1

      The only problem was with the fourth one - they hired the right guy to write it (Joss Whedon), but forgot to tell the idiot director that it was *NOT* supposed to be a b-movie. (Or maybe the did tell him, and he didn't understand them - English isn't his first language.) Well the idiot director later (2 years?) came back with the exceptional Amelie from Montemarte so he isnt all bad. Still, Alien 4 is the worst of the movies, at least before Alien vs Predator (which Im going to see tonight).

      --
      28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds... that is when the world will end.
    4. Re:Alien/s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Alien series is an experiment of telling a series of stories, while changing the genre each time.

      Is this true or an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc or maybe "revisionism" (scare quotes used to indicate negative connotation)? i.e. anachronistic retelling of history, e.g. George Lucas' infamous ever-changing claims about his original vision for Star Wars...

      Alien was a horror/suspense movie.
      Aliens was a pure action flick
      Alien3 was a drama
      Alien Resurrection was a comedy.

      All of those are Drama. Drama is an overarching genre concept that includes almost all screenplays (things like Un Chien Andalou might not qualify). If it isn't Drama, it's Narrative or Poetry.

      Furthermore, accepting that all screenplay genres are subgenres of drama, genres are defined by conventions used and not by mood evoked. By that standard, they all qualify as action/adventure and science fiction. The first one also qualifies as horror.

  77. Only in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" by geekwench · · Score: 1

    In Army of Darkness, it goes a little differently. ;)

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
  78. This is my BOOMSTICK! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    Alright you primitive screwheads listen up. This is my BOOMSTICK!
    It's a twelve gauge double barrel Remington, S-Mart's top of the line.
    You'll find this in the sporting goods department. Thats right, this
    sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids Michigan. It retails for about
    109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel and a hair trigger.
    Thats right, shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that!?

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  79. Remaking old cool movies with new effects tech by brainchill · · Score: 1

    I think this is really cool actually. If it isn't a sequal or preqaul an actual remake of some of the good oldies using the tech of today would make for some class A entertainment. Imagine how scary Jason and Freddy could be today if the originals were redone.

    I think in the case of the evil dead it might detrack a bit because I don't love these movies because they were scary I love them because they are so cheasy that they crack me up. The evil dead/army of darkness movies are awesome!

  80. when are they going to remake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are they going to remake Dolemite?

  81. If this movie sucks... by goodEvans · · Score: 1

    I will KICK YOUR ASS Raimi. I mean it.

  82. Wait wait, I dont understand... by quantax · · Score: 1

    I am a fan of the Evil Dead movies, but there is something I do not understand about this remake. We have Evil Dead I which was a poor attempt at a serious horror movie, then we have Evil Dead II which was a much better, non-serious attempt at a horror movie with more character to it, which ended up being fairly hilarious on purpose. Army of Darkness follows along the same ideas as Evil Dead II with the mixture of 'horror' and comedy.

    So then is this remake going to attempt to rectify the first movie's 'error', and make an actual scary Evil Dead movie, or are they going to remake the first movie in the spirt of Evil Dead II & Army of Darkness?

    --
    "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
  83. What's he going to do next...remake Evil Dead II? by potuncle · · Score: 1

    Yea, why remake a moving that has already been remade? Especially when the existing remake is one of the best and most perfectly directed horror movie ever? Evil Dead II wouldn't be as great as it is if the effects people weren't on such a limited budget. Sam Rami's going to have millions of dollars and replace the inginuity with CGI?

  84. I'm going to cry by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    I love "The Evil Dead", "Evil Dead 2", and "Army of Darkness". I own every DVD version of them made, including Anchor Bay's numbered editions. I own foam rubber mask version. Have I mentioned I like thses movies?

    But you know that this remake will just be sad, disappointing, and make you feel like your testecles were soundly wrenched. First, Raimi not directing?!?! Second, they can't make a sequel? Third, is Bruce going to act in it, or just produce? 4th, is Ted going to act in it in 300 lb rubber outfits, or just produce? 5th, no way in hell could they accurately remake Dead without cleaning it up so much that it looks like "Leave it to Beaver".

    I can not describe how much I fear this will blow. This will blow like Moby Dick (no pun intended) on crack with a sneeze. You know what I'm imaging in my head right now- "Wing Commander" crossed with "I know what you did last summer". I'm seeing Deadites crawling out of TV sets and saying "Groovy- I see dead people" while looking in a mirror. I see a CGI dog.

    Maybe I'll be wrong, maybe it will be good. Maybe it will be a cinematic tour-de-force of epic proportions. Maybe I'll win the lottery (and I don't even play it).

    Excuse me while I go out to find religion so I can pray that this will be good.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  85. It's also not listed on his home page by Hellraisr · · Score: 1

    generally, if something's not listed on www.bruce-campbell.com, it's a hoax.

    However, they may just not have posted anything yet because it may not be set in stone...

    I tend not to believe any evil dead rumors or any bruce campbell related stuff until I see it on his official page.

  86. Within the Woods by Headw1nd · · Score: 1
    Ok, I'm not a disciple of the Evil Dead series, but how in the world did this thread go on as long as it has and I haven't read anthing about "Within the Woods"? The embryonic seed of the Evil Dead movies? Where we first see Rami and Bruce exploring the concept of possession and zombies? Bruce's film debut?

    I mean really people, what kind of geeks are we? I expected to see this mentioned in the first few posts!

    Well, that's my karma whoring for today. Now I'll leave the grunt work of actually relating it to the subject to someone else.

  87. Re: by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    I totally agree. The fact that Rami had a limited budget meant he had to actually be creative. Art is not made by throwing money at a problem.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  88. This could be a good thing by Rysc · · Score: 1

    On the one hand, doing Evil Dead's plot again (this will make the fourth time, for those of you counting) will be good... if Bruce Campbell stars. If not, maybe not

    On the other hand, I keep seeing them say "We know horro flicks are popular... we know what horror fans want... we want to make a great horror flick..." and in this I see what could be a big problem: Evil Dead wasn't a horror movie! While there were some tense moments and while it did contain many horror movie staples, it was essentially a comedy from the start. The comedy nature was more subtle (and gently satirical) in Evil Dead I, and more obvious in Evil Dead II.

    If the makers of this rereremake are trying to make a horror movie, they could pyull it off and it could do well. If they're trying to make a comedy/mock-horror, as the original two were, then they'll have a definite hit among Evil Dead fans--but will probably turn off the major audience that didn't like the first two to begin with.

    I have always wondered what an attempt at seriously doing the plot of Evil Dead II would be like. It helps that you have a built in sequel.

    --
    I want my Cowboyneal
  89. So if it's EoDIV... by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

    (AoD Spoiler alert)

    Will they be going with the original ending of AoD (where he gets back to S-mart), or the 'official' bootleg edition where he wakes up too late and every one is already dead?

    That franchise has been fixed and tweaked and remade so many times that I haven't been this confused since the last time I saw a Kevin Costner movie...

    --
    I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
  90. Evil Dead 2 by kalislashdot · · Score: 1

    I thought Evil Dead 2 was a remake of Evil Dead?

  91. Digitize It! Evil Digital Dead Re-Animated! by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    How about re-doing the whole movie with digital animation. After cutting and pasting between Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness, they could take the whole process a step further, intertwining footage with digital effects. Yes, it is gratuitous geekiness, but why not!

  92. Evil Dead: The Musical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be cooler if he made a movie rendition of Evil Dead: The Musical. I saw it over the Summer. Absolutely hilarious.

  93. Evil Dead and the World of Tomorrow by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    A horror/comedy done like "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." Like a digitally re-animated "Re-Animator." Its time to bring campy gore into the 21st century, and I'd love to see the Evil Dead crew involved in it.

  94. Okay, but... by oliverk · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be funny as hell if Raimi and Campbell just kept remaking the same film every 10 years or so and incrementing the release number? I'm sorry, but I'd drop by to see that every time it came out! Evil Dead...eh, good, not great. Evil Dead II -- _fucking_ great. Army of Darkness...eh, good to great. Moral of the story? Stick with what works.

    Shit, for that matter, maybe Lucas can just make another Empire and make us all happy!

    --
    ---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
  95. Klaatu, Barada, Nikto by kaufi · · Score: 1

    hope he doesn't forget to say the magic words before shooting it again...

    looking forward to it :-)

    --

    ---
    awake and alert!
    -Penguin Mints

  96. Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash by LoFreQ · · Score: 1

    I thought Raimi was busy with Freddy vs Jason vs Ash. How does he have the time to recycle the same idea in so many ways?

    --
    SINARS is not a recursive sig
  97. You will die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...one by one lover boy.

  98. Only if they then begin a remake of this remake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could be really great. As soon as the movie hits theatres, Raimi announces he'll be remaking the remade. It's so obvious once you've said it.

  99. Important note. by shinma · · Score: 1

    It's important to note that the article mentions Bruce Campbell only in his role as producer.

    It's possible (and probable) that he's not playing Ash.

    --
    Shinma
  100. Remake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shock :^0, Surprise :*o, an 'artist' squeezing every last bit of cash out of their past works. See 'George Lucas' and 'Pete Townshend' for more examples.

  101. Jim Carrey, alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This... is my BROOMSTICK!
    (enemies laugh)
    (Jim looks and he's holding a broom)
    *ahem* my BOOMSTICK!

  102. Who will play Ash? by duckpoopy · · Score: 1

    Bruce Campbell may be getting a little long in the tooth...

    --
    word.
  103. This would make the third remake by Moosifer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doesn't anyone remember Within the Woods?

    1. Re:This would make the third remake by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Idle Hands :-)

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  104. Well, you know what assuming does, doncha? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    but I get more or a laugh out of Army of Darkness than a scream and I assume Evil Dead is the same.

    Couldn't you at least have the courtesy to read a few of the previous comments on the trilogy (of sorts) before assuming that because the third movie is a comedy, so was the first...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  105. Recent rise in zombies. by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    There seems to be a large rise in zombie-movies in the last two-three years...

    Resident Evil 1 & 2
    Dawn of the dead.
    Shaun of the dead.
    28 days later.
    I'm sure there are a couple more i missed.

    Coupled with the recent release of Doom 3, i'm thinking someone knows something we don't and is trying to prepare us for an inpending uprise of the undead. =o
    Just remember, aim for the head and stay away from seemingly innocent children.

    1. Re:Recent rise in zombies. by arock99 · · Score: 1

      There has been a lot of zombie movies recently yes but unless i'm one myself I don't remember any zombies in the evil dead movies...not the first or second anyways. The characters were possesed by Demons.

  106. Eviler Dead Again? by Hugs-A-Lot · · Score: 1

    Oh man I LOVE these movies! I have all of the Evil Dead movies on DVD! You just cant beat having your own hand trying to kill you on a cold windy night for a big scary laugh! LoL

  107. Godzilla 2000? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Maybe in spite of all the modern effects etc they have at their disposal now they'll still make it campy. Godzilla (new york, matthew broderik etc) was terrible, in spite of nice special effects and product placement. Gozilla 2000 returned to a guy in a suit and bad dubbing. If your franchise is based on camp, you do a serious movie and expect it to be taken seriously.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  108. Here we go again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Raimi is remaking 'Evil Dead', the 1981 horror cult classic. Oh and if that wasn't shocking enough, he won't even be directing it...
    Oh no... We all know what's going to happen. Evil Director - By Paul W.S Anderson
  109. Into the Woods (1979) ? by Shadow_139 · · Score: 0

    No both seen "Into the Woods" is was the first, and type of Piolt to EvilDead.., not meant to general release. -- Then he made "Evil Dead",is a shit small budget and the remake was "Evil Dead 2", redone was a bigger Budget..., then can "Evil Dead - Army of Darkness- Which is ether the second film in the time line is for count EvilDead 1 & 2 betten at the same time but for the EvilDead 2 is be real EvilDead 1 did not happen..., which makes Army of Darkness is the 3rd.., but really the 4th..... hehe I'm even comfusing myself...,dam I need coffee... --- OOOOH, SORREEEE!! I only created THE UNIVERSE!!! You're right, I should be out running LAPS." -God

  110. I was going to say the same thing by mandrake*rpgdx · · Score: 1

    Even though they swear it's a sequel. How can someone be that dumb to actually go back to the same house, play the same tape, and give the girl the same necklace?

    --
    click me
  111. Hey dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil Dead II is what we in the non-retarded world call a SEQUEL...not a remake. Say it with me...SEE-KWUL...

    I remember watching the first Evil Dead as a young child and it scared the ever loving shit out of me. I hope a remake (note: only one "re" needed) can capture the rawness that's in the first one.

  112. Sean William Scott as Ash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feast on this geekboys! This site reporst that Sean William Scott is gonna play ash!