80 Responses to “Evil Dead remake trailer”

1. 

   CJ Holden

   October 25th, 2012 at 12:21 am

   I like the trailer too, but the one problem that I have is the Platinum Dunes-esque cinematography. Apart from that: I’m excited.

2. 

   Mouth

   October 25th, 2012 at 12:27 am

   You’re getting soft, Vern.

   I’m agin it. I ain’t fer it; I’m agin it.

   Why can’t they just call it DEAD EVIL or THE TREES ARE ALIVE or CABIN KILLER or something? Out of respect for the original, you know? Other than that reasonable nitpick, I echo this preview’s preview criticism.

3. 

   Mouth

   October 25th, 2012 at 12:29 am

   Same problem I had with TOTAL RECALL 2012. Just call the movie by a different name, show some respect, and I won’t hate the motherfucker.

4. 

   CJ Holden

   October 25th, 2012 at 12:37 am

   Mouth, the thing is, if you make a remake that has certain elements of the original (Just iike here, a group of friends in a cabin in the woods, finding the necronomicon, turning into demons), you just CAN’T give it a different name or otherwise everybody looks at it as a ripoff. This is like when ZATHURA came out and everybody called it a JUMANJI ripoff, although it based on a book, that was a sequel to Jumanji. They wanted it to be a standalone movie, but then for the international market they had to give it the tagline “A Jumanji adventure in space”.

   Sometimes it works, like when Carpenter’s take on WHO GOES THERE was so different from THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, that he could just call his movie THE THING, but come on, are you really telling me that if they would try to hide the remake aspect, right down to the name of the movie, you would like it MORE? You would most likely go “WTF? This is the most shamless EVIL DEAD ripoff I have ever seen! Fuck those guys!”

5. 

   Mouth

   October 25th, 2012 at 1:00 am

   I feel you, CJ. But the one loving lo-fi aspect of my existence (And I know you’ll appreciate this, Mr. DJ.) is that I stand up for the classics. The Classics.

   It’s not [*just*] that I feel that EVIL DEAD and THE THING are untouchably awesome; it’s not that my recess with the other kids will be ruined if the cool 5th graders talk shit to us uncool 2nd graders.

   It’s the desire that these older movies don’t re-enter the 21st century as though they require a special re-entry. I’m old school like that, like how Vern supports record stores & video stores.

   I love me some NetFlix. I don’t torrent, but I get where it comes from. But more sacredly, I want the experience of something like EVIL DEAD (which is a singular experience that really ought not be reduced to a sentence/plause construction that begins with “something like…”) to be untarnished by some 2012 remake gibberish.

   The thing should exist as the thing.

   We shouldn’t taint the thing by having a *new* thing that requires us forevermore (starting with a theatrical release and then in perpetuity in dvd-streaming limbo) to refer to thing A as

   “EVIL DEAD”

   and thing B as

   “EVIL DEAD, THE *NEW* ONE, THE 2012-2013 MOVIE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A REMAKE, HAD MORE BLOOD & GUTS, THE ONE THAT CAME OUT SORTA WITH RAIMI’S BLESSING AND THAT VERN SAID HE KINDA LIKED BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ONE YOU PAID $12 TO SEE IN THE THEATRE BECAUSE HOLLYWOOD TOLD YOU TO BECAUSE WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO DO, NOT SEE IT, HA HA HA, WE NAMED IT AFTER THE 1981 CLASSIC YEAH RIGHT, TRY AND RESIST, DIPSHIT”.

   Again, all these problems would be kindly alleviated if they’d just call it something else. I won’t lose sleep over this, but I wish it weren’t a problem in the first place.

6. 

   El Vincento

   October 25th, 2012 at 1:02 am

   Fuck this shit. I hate Diablo Cody’s movies. Evil Dead 4 or nothing.

7. 

   El Vincento

   October 25th, 2012 at 1:07 am

   Ok, that comment was too AICN.

8. 

   CJ Holden

   October 25th, 2012 at 1:10 am

   Mouth, if “name recognition” aka “The kids are going to see it, because that movie has the same name of a beloved classic” would be such a big deal, the TOTAL RECALL remake would have been the most successful movie of the year. Which it was definitely not.

9. 

   Mouth

   October 25th, 2012 at 1:19 am

   Don’t give a damn about box office receipts. It’s about respect.

   Especially in the long term — what are we going to think of ourselves as a culture if half our movie output is a pale echo of the movies of the 1980s?

   It’s about respect. Titleistical respect.

10. 

    CJ Holden

    October 25th, 2012 at 1:26 am

    What do you mean “Half of our movie output”? Last Friday 11 movies started at the US Box office. One of them was a reboot (Alex Cross), one was a sequel (Paranormal Activity 4) the rest was all new. And that’s not the exeption, that’s pretty much the norm!

    And about the title issue: Well, they ARE remakes. You don’t make a cover version of a song and give it a different title either.

11. 

    CJ Holden

    October 25th, 2012 at 1:27 am

    (FOrgot one sentence) I think it would be more disrespectful to pretend that this is an all new movie, based on a brand new story, by giving it a whole diffeent name.

12. 

    Mouth

    October 25th, 2012 at 1:42 am

    Yes, you’re right, the “half our movie output” is hyperbolic.

    It just *feels* that way, and Vern, for one, has documented the absurd number of remaquels, preboots, re-dos, and ill-titled fake sequels that have infected our cineplexes in recent seasons.

    But I continue to disagree with you that these many many remakes should be allowed to exist in this form. They *absolutely* should have “a whole different name,” as you accidentally suggest. My idea of “respect” differs from yours. Our definitions *would* overlap, except that *so many* fucking remakes exist. It ain’t right. I’m playing the role of fuddy-duddy preservationist. Just come up with a different title, filmatists! What the fuck!

13. 

    Vern

    October 25th, 2012 at 3:04 am

    Mouth, obviously I basically agree with your attitude as it applies to most of these remakes, but I got a more positive outlook on this specific one. For one thing, it doesn’t just kind of have Raimi’s blessing. It’s actually those guys that have been wanting to do it and chose the director and oversaw the whole thing. Also I think it’s EVIL DEAD not just because of the plot but because of the visual style and envelope pushing attitude. So you kinda gotta call it EVIL DEAD. Or DRAG ME TO HELL 2: NECRONOMICON CABIN ATTACK.

    I forgot about the Diablo Cody factor. But I see that as a plus. YOUNG ADULT forever.

    Also, I wonder if they’ll do 15 different special edition blu-rays of the remake.

    Anyway, we’ll see how this pans out in April or whenever.

14. 

    Griff

    October 25th, 2012 at 3:06 am

    I got to admit, that trailer looks way better than I was expecting, I’ll go see it when it comes out

    but as I said before, I hope they keep the black comedy, the original Evil Dead IS still funny, just not as much, but isn’t everyone forgetting that scene where one of the deadite girls turns into a stereotypical 1940’s woman giggling a 1940’s style female giggle? or the scene where Ash is sitting next to his dead friend and says something like “it’s gonna be ok” while trying to give his obviously dead friend a drink of water? tell me that’s not black comedy

    so while I appreciate they’re trying to make this actually scary instead of downright silly like Army of Darkness, they still got to have some humor there otherwise it’s just not Evil Dead

    but I have a good feeling about this one actually, if they keep the Sam Raimi style creativity and craziness, this very well could be the best horror remake since The Hills Have Eyes (or maybe even Dawn of the Dead)

15. 

    Griff

    October 25th, 2012 at 3:10 am

    and on a related note, I’m not the biggest horror guy, but I do love me some Evil Dead

    I was lucky to catch Army of Darkness on the Sci Fi channel once around 1999, I remember laughing my butt off, but I didn’t finally see the other Evil Deads until they were on blu ray and after so many years of them being on my “to do list” they both blew me away

16. 

    karlos

    October 25th, 2012 at 5:41 am

    I, too, was expecting this to be horrible in that New Line remake kinda way (F13th, NoES), but it really isn’t and I think it looks different enough – just – to make this, if not entirely worthwhile, than at least worth catching.

    What exactly is the thing with Diablo Cody anyway? I thought everyone loved her. Apparently, she didn’t actually write this but “polished” the dialogue. That’s what Bruce has said, anyway, and I’m simply not man enough to argue.

    I’ve only just seen ARMY OF DARKNESS after somehow not catching it over the years. It was the director’s cut, but that didn’t help for the most part. I really did think the awful humor killed much of the film. Ash desevered a better sending off, in my opinion.

    Oh, and the tree in the ED remake doesn’t rape. It “attacks” is what I’ve read, but not in that manner. I’m guessing that’s Raimi’s influence as he regrets putting it in the original ED.

17. 

    Griff

    October 25th, 2012 at 5:56 am

    I got to be honest guys, the more I watch that trailer, the more I like it

18. 

    ShootMcKay

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:11 am

    That splitting tongue shit at the end of the trailer made me think this could be good fun.

19. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:19 am

    The more I don’t refuse to watch this trailer, the better I feel about it.

    I’m convinced that there are two reasons this movie was made, neither of which have anything to do with creativity or art or storytelling.

    1. It was gonna happen anyway, so Raimi and Campbell figured they might as well do damage control and make a little cash in the process. I do not believe that either of these guys has a burning desire to make this movie, because they already made this movie. If they had a burning desire to make this movie, they’d have made EVIL DEAD 4 as soon as Raimi finished SPIDER-MAN 3.

    2. They were sick of answering questions about EVIL DEAD 4

20. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:25 am

    The more I don’t refuse to watch this trailer, the better I feel about it.

    I’m convinced that there are two reasons this movie was made, neither of which have anything to do with creativity or art or storytelling.

    1. It was gonna happen anyway, so Raimi and Campbell figured they might as well do damage control and make a little cash in the process. I do not believe that either of these guys has a burning desire to make this movie, because they already made this movie. If they had a burning desire to make this movie, they’d have made EVIL DEAD 4 as soon as Raimi finished SPIDER-MAN 3.

    2. They were sick of answering questions about EVIL DEAD 4, so they figured they’d just sever the continuity at its source so that nothing will grow there ever again.

    I don’t care what everybody’s intentions are. I don’t even care if the movie turns out okay. I’m on Mouth’s side. Some things should be left as is. To quote the 2022 remake of RUSHMORE which has a soundtrack of current pop hits and stars a better-looking actor: Nihil Sanctisne?

21. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:26 am

    I meant “the more I refuse to watch this trailer.”

    It’s early. I’m tired.

22. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:40 am

    Also don’t know what’s up with my “EVIL DEAD 2 style remake the first one for the first half then continue with new material for the rest of the running time” double post.

23. 

    RRA

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:52 am

    Better Raimi/Campbell do this remake and actually make money, more so than giving it to say Michael Bay I suppose. Or maybe they wanted more creative say and not get a remade so bad, so useless it could inadvertedly give the original a bad rap? (I once met a kid who knew of Zombie’s HALLOWEEN but not the John Carpenter original. I couldn’t decide whether I wanted to cry or punch that little shit.)

    I honestly don’t care about this remake. I hope it’s good. I’ve sorta grown beyond the “outrage at good horror movies getting remade” stage in my life. God knows I would be impressed if (and now this won’t happen) this was released unrated or even got the dreaded NC-17. But it won’t.

    “The more I don’t refuse to watch this trailer, the better I feel about it.”

    *HORNS BLARING* Smug Pollution!

24. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 25th, 2012 at 7:19 am

    I think it would have been neat if this new EVIL DEAD movie was a variation on the original film, much in the way that the Frank Oz LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS was a variation on the versions that came before it. They’d basically just have to adapt the script of that EVIL DEAD musical from a few years ago that was so popular.

    Also this time I hope it’s a dude that gets raped by the tree. They could cast Bruce Campbell as the voice of the tree and have him sing “Feed Me Seymour”.

25. 

    Sternshein

    October 25th, 2012 at 7:37 am

    I love Evil Dead 2 with all my heart yet I dont like Evil Dead all that much which still blows my mind. I think this new version looks like a serious version of Evil Dead 2 which I can get behind. Although I get a feeling it will be funnier than we are expecting.

26. 

    Brendan

    October 25th, 2012 at 9:31 am

    It’s not a bad trailer, but how is this ANY different than the Platinum Dunes joints that get cranked out? Same GRITTY look and atmosphere, same bleary digital look, same rapid-fire cutting and more ‘realistic’ approach to make-up and gore. The only ways that this differentiates itself from those is the imagery and camera moves that are note-for-fucking-note from Raimi. I don’t get it guys, why is this getting a pass?

27. 

    Brendan

    October 25th, 2012 at 9:34 am

    It also bothers me because you know those fuckers are gonna start polluting message boards to talk about how ‘unrealistic’ and ‘ugly’ the real EVIL DEAD looks compared to this one. Yes, those people would never have understood the appeal anyway, but there’s also a strong chance that they’d never have known ED exists, prior to this. Now we’re not going to be able to avoid them.

28. 

    Sweetooth0

    October 25th, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Maybe if I go in with my expectations set as low as possible this will surprise me and turn out decent like Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead. It was no classic to be sure, and kinda missed the memo on what makes Dawn of the Dead the original so good, but it did deliver on the action and gore and was competently made. Based on the trailer this looks to be pretty much the same deal.

    I am not feeling the Platinum Dunes polished look though. Evil Dead doesn’t feel right unless it shot on gritty film stock.

    Also, the deadites eyes not being white looks like shit.

29. 

    Dtroyt

    October 25th, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Maybe I’m just jaded, but that trailer does absolutely nothing for me. The cinematography takes me right out of it. The shots of familiar ED moments like the tree rape and possessed hand look like hollow recreations. This trailer actually reminded me a lot of the trailer for the god awful Elm Street remake. Through in some reshot versions of classic scenes of the original. Mix it with some OMG that’s so much more intense than the old version. Give it a little gritty sepia filter and try to trick the world. Maybe I’ll be happily surprised and it’ll be good, but I’m not on board yet.

30. 

    Dtroyt

    October 25th, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    *throw in, not through in. Oops

31. 

    Mr. Subtlety

    October 25th, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Man, I can’t believe you guys are so forgiving about this one. Look at the trailer, you dorks — it’s the exact same beats done again with Platinum Dunes scruffy attractive people and pretty camerawork. If I wanted to watch the exact same thing again but a little more professionally, I’d just watch EVIL DEAD 2. I’m not going to be scared or interested in watching the exact same thing I’ve already seen in some cases *twice*. If Raimi wanted to move away from the series, fine — but at least just have the new guys do EVIL DEAD 4 so they feel obligated to come up with some new gimmicks and not just repeat the same ones we already saw. I mean, there’s just not a single thing in that trailer that looks new or interesting. EVIL DEAD just lives and dies so much on the imagination and experience of it that I can’t imagine a rehash could possibly be worth my time.

32. 

    Amazing Larry

    October 25th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    @RRA: Your “Why these kids today…” comment about Rob Zomibie’s Halloween may be the crux of the problem in remaking The Evil Dead, rather than what IMO would’ve been the better option: The Evil Dead 4.

    Consider the target audience for the remake: 18-24 year olds… most of whom are too young to even connect to Army Of Darkness, much less the first two movies. Show them a photo of Bruce Campbell, and they’ll identify him as “that guy from Burn Notice”. And those in that demographic who *do* become aware of the remake as the release date approaches are gonna think it’s a ripoff of/sequel to/reboot of/ The Cabin In The Woods. Maybe not the best frame of reference.

    And those of use with a prior knowledge/liking of the source material are probably gonna be less inclined to judge the remake on its own merit, or skip it altogether because The Bruce will be absent. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me.

33. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 25th, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    You want to extend a franchise? This is how you extend a fucking franchise:

    http://www.avclub.com/articles/arnold-schwarzenegger-is-going-to-play-conan-the-b,87966/

34. 

    caruso_stalker217

    October 25th, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Conan isn’t a viking.

35. 

    RBatty024

    October 25th, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    I think the viking statement was just an example. He’s saying that Conan is like a Viking king who wants one final battle before entering Valhalla…I think. Anyway, if memory serves, Beowulf becomes king before finally fighting that random dragon at the end of the poem, so maybe that’s what he has in mind.

    I have to agree with Amazing Larry. I think a lot of people are going to look at that preview and think, “This looks a lot like that Cabin in the Woods movie.” I know these people are idiots, but idiots make up a large portion of the movie going public. You can’t make a blockbuster without attracting the all important idiot demographic. There are some great remakes out there, but they’re normally ones that look at the original and say, “You know what, I can do better than that.” Before Wizard of Oz there were a number of film adaptations of Frank L. Baum’s work. There was a version of The Maltese Falcon from the 30s that no one cares about these days. The problem with most modern remakes is that they are either too polite towards the original, lovingly carrying out each scene from the original, or they are made by directors who are fighting outside of their weight class. I’m sorry Len Weisman, but you are just not going to compete with Paul Verhoeven. A great remake picks a film that had squandered potential. That’s why I would love to see a Highlander remake. There’s a movie that I like, but when I watch it I still think to myself, someone can top this.

36. 

    Griff

    October 25th, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    I just think we should give this one a chance guys, I’m not saying it’s guaranteed to be good, but judging by the trailer I don’t think it should be written off either

37. 

    Chopper Sullivan

    October 25th, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    I just hope they have a ripped up poster of The Hills Have Eyes remake in the cellar.

    It bugged me that Rob Zombie didn’t have the kids watching The Thing remake in his Halloween.

38. 

    gingersoll

    October 25th, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    How is this any better than the previews for Platinum Dunes type shlock? There is nothing here that would be out of place in those terrible films…

39. 

    gingersoll

    October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 am

    Also, just got so say: Don’t worry, Vern. If anyone is dumb enough to not watch the original Evil Dead because they’ve seen a “new” version… they probably aren’t the type of person who would watch it anyway, let alone appreciate it.

    I have no problem with remakes and redos and rewhatevers. As long as the old movies aren’t put into a big furnace or something, what’s the harm in making terrible films with the names of old good ones? It only makes the old ones look BETTER (if indeed they are better, not always the case!) and in many cases revives interest in films forgotten to the general public. Even if only 1 out of 10,000 go watch an old classic because of the remake, that’s a BIG chance for that old movie to entertain and inspire people again.

40. 

    neal2zod

    October 26th, 2012 at 5:36 am

    Quick question – anybody have any of the Evil Dead Blu-Ray/DVD Special Editions or whatever? There’s so many of them it’s really daunting to figure out which one is the best. I’m flirting with the idea of buying the Army of Darkness “Screwhead” Edition whatever that is, but I’m worried about them releasing another, better special edition, especially after the remake comes out.

41. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 26th, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Mr. Subtlety: Speaking strictly for myself, I spent most of my outrage on that goofy “Yippie Ki Yay, Mother Russia” tagline on the new DIE HARD poster. There’s not much left in the tank.

42. 

    clubside

    October 26th, 2012 at 6:57 am

    I have pretty much all of them neal2zod, DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-ray. The Evil Dead Blu-ray even has two aspect ratios so that’s a plus, but as rights have changed hands getting every special feature and commentary does require multiple purchases, even the extra expensive Book of the Dead version of Evil Dead II is missing stuff. As far as Army of Darkness goes, here’s the High-Def Digest review:

    http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2140/armydarkness.html

    It is missing special features from the older DVD releases but uses the same high-def video transfer as the HD-DVD I own which looks a lot better than either of the DVD editions.

    Army of Darkness is the one you have to worry about the least in terms of re-releases however, as it is handled by Universal now while The Evil Dead and Evil Dead II rotate every half dozen years. That actually kinda sucks since The Boomstick Edition is the one to own if special features and commentary are important, and it’s out-of-print and only DVD.

43. 

    Mr. Subtlety

    October 26th, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Jareth — fair point, outrage triage is an acceptable excuse.

44. 

    The Original... Paul

    October 26th, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    I can’t tell who the “Ash” character is.

    That is all.

    Also I’m with Mouth on this one. Stop calling the fucking remakes the same names as the fucking films, assholes!

45. 

    CJ Holden

    October 26th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    So when a theatre plays HAMLET, they should give it a different name, because there were already a million other stage productions of HAMLET before?

46. 

    Mouth

    October 26th, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    No, as long as they’re using the original script. Stage directions are malleable and obviously vary from performance to performance, director to director.

    No one in the 21st century has a personal tie to Elizabethan England theatre or Richard Burbage & co.’s performances.

    And no one in the Shakespeare family is having their name [or rights to a bigger bank account based on the original work] fiddled with by greedy capitalists.

47. 

    Mode7

    October 26th, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    I’m pretty sure name recognition is the only reason most of these shitty remakes even exist.

48. 

    CJ Holden

    October 26th, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    What about the PSYCHO remake? It was pretty much the same on purpose, except for some tweaks that would make it not the same, plus it based on a novel of the same name.

49. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 26th, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Mode7’s right. People are so used to brand names and franchises in every other area of consumerism that they’re loathe to try anything they’re not already familiar with, even if they don’t particularly like it. I’d like to say that’s just some marketing bullshit that has no basis in reality, but then I remember that the Times Square McDonald’s is always packed with tourists. Motherfuckers come thousands of miles to go to the restaurant capitol of the world and they get the same damn burger they could get in their hometown. Yeah, it’s a shitty burger. They were well aware of that before they ordered it. But at least they know what they’re getting. Better something you know will suck than taking a chance on an unknown quantity.

50. 

    Mouth

    October 26th, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    I’m not saying the remakes & remake titles are illegal or illegitimate. I’m just saying it’s disrespectful for producers & filmatists to allow them in such massive numbers in so many brazen attempts to cash in on quality original films with sub-quality rip-offs.

    But I don’t hate the game or the players. I love some remakes, new treatments of old material, reappropriating a template and adding different details.

    I just wish more people in the position to make a remake realized the power they yield, the power to muddy up wholesome memories of great movies. It cheapens everything; it makes the world a worse place. I have the right to be irked when I am forced to pause & differentiate between Hitchcock’s best film and Van Sant’s treatment/interpretation of that classic. Just use a different title, and this wouldn’t be a problem.

    These motherfuckers are just like the Eddie Murphy character at the beginning of THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN — stealing a name in order to steal the name’s imprimatur and credibility. But I doubt any of these filmatists have the sand or the secret heart of gold to go on to expose the corruption in a Congressional Energy Committee.

51. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    October 26th, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Why can’t they just slap a : REQUIEM or : REBIRTH or : RETRIBUTION or : REDEMPTION on the end of a remake title? Those words have long since stopped having any meaning when they follow a colon, but they could still come in handy for purposes of clarity. That way I won’t have to practically fistfight the dude at Best Buy when he keeps insisting that, yes, they do have STRAW DOGS in stock, look it’s right there with Cyclops on the cover.

52. 

    Mode7

    October 26th, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    I agree Mouth and I have a feeling that most of the filmatists in question would also agree. Unfortunately for all of us it’s money men and PR people that make these kinds of decisions, and from their perspective they’re making the correct call. These people are all striving for excellence in their respective fields, if anyone’s to blame it’s (as always) the general public. Actually I suppose you could blame PR people for getting into the PR game in the first place.

    I was gonna write a rant about how anything that ever meant anything to anyone is in the process of being re-packaged, de-souled and turned against them and then I remembered The Greatest Living British Comedian Stewart Lee had already done it so I’ll just link to that instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KNGDZhoRyA

53. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 26th, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Majestyk: A buddy of mine used to add the word “Stepford” to all these remakes: STEPFORD PSYCHO, STEPFORD POSEIDON, STEPFORD AT A FUNERAL, STEPFORD FAME, STEPFORD STEPFORD WIVES. After a while he was pretty much using the word for every movie that was coming out.

54. 

    Anaru

    October 26th, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    Cutstory: In New Zealand back in the ’80s there was a non-alcoholic whiskey substitute called Claytons. It was as bas as it sounded so “Claytons” rapidly entered the vernacular as a adjective meaning a poor imitation.

    Therefore, we would say Claytons Psycho etc

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claytons

55. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 27th, 2012 at 12:13 am

    CLAYTON’S MICHAEL CLAYTON. Classic.

    My video store has a film called NAKED RASHOMON in the Japanese film section. I haven’t watched it, but I like to think that it’s a remake of RASHOMON with an all-nude cast. I also like to think that it’s part of a large series of naked remakes of classic Japanese films. SEVEN NAKED SAMURAI.

    There’s a new angle for remakes: just do the damn things nude. NAKED DOG DAY AFTERNOON. NAKED NAKED LUNCH. DRIVING MISS DAISY NAKED.

56. 

    Vern

    October 27th, 2012 at 1:34 am

    Paul, there’s not an Ash character.

    Also, did you know that you just wrote “That is all. Also…”

57. 

    Chopper Sullivan

    October 27th, 2012 at 2:51 am

    Ash wasn’t much of a character in the original anyway. He was just the Final Girl.

    And would it be better if they got some schmoe to pretend to be Bruce Campbell? The answer to the question I just asked is: no, it wouldn’t.

58. 

    Griff

    October 27th, 2012 at 3:14 am

    “There’s a new angle for remakes: just do the damn things nude.”

    that is a BRILLIANT fucking idea!

59. 

    Griff

    October 27th, 2012 at 3:17 am

    “A Few Good Naked Men”

    “Naked and Sleepless in Seattle”

    “Jurassic Park Naked” (“hold on to your butts”)

60. 

    Griff

    October 27th, 2012 at 3:20 am

    “Dirty and Naked Harry”

61. 

    Mode7

    October 27th, 2012 at 3:58 am

    Nude Christmas

62. 

    CJ Holden

    October 27th, 2012 at 5:19 am

    Isn’T the porn industry doing such things for decades?

63. 

    Griff

    October 27th, 2012 at 5:39 am

    Nude Halloween

64. 

    CJ Holden

    October 27th, 2012 at 5:40 am

    Tagline for NUDE HALLOWEEN: “You Thought YOUR Costume Is Slutty?”

65. 

    ShootMcKay

    October 27th, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Is nudity actually considered slutty?

66. 

    Mode7

    October 27th, 2012 at 8:08 am

    yeah if you make the effort.

67. 

    Jareth Cutestory

    October 27th, 2012 at 8:23 am

    CJ: The only “naked” film that I can confirm the existence of, NAKED RASHOMON, doesn’t appear to be porn; it’s certainly not a “pink” Japanese film – it looks like some money was put into the production to make it classy. It probably isn’t just a remake of RASHOMON with a bunch of naked actors, but it would have to be more entertaining if it was.

    Also, I’d totally watch Griff’s A FEW GOOD NAKED MEN.

    Kaffee: And don’t wear that perfume in court, it wrecks my concentration.
    Galloway: Really? THAT’S what wrecks your concentration?
    Kaffee: I was talking to Sam.

    Also, THE ASSASSINATION OF NAKED NAKED JESSE JAMES BY THE NAKED COWARD ROBERT FORD.

68. 

    The Original... Paul

    October 27th, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Vern:

    Also, did you know that you just wrote “That is all. Also…”

    Huh. Didn’t notice that. Smartass.

    Your post should’ve read:

    “Paul, there’s not an Ash character.

    That is all.

    Also, did you know that you just wrote “That is all. Also…”

69. 

    gingersoll

    October 28th, 2012 at 1:23 am

    I am going to make a shirt that says “That is all. Also…”

    I think this phrase says a lot about dealing with people in the modern world.

70. 

    renfield

    October 28th, 2012 at 11:43 am

    “If I wanted to watch the exact same thing again but a little more professionally, I’d just watch EVIL DEAD 2. ”

    This is what’s weird, 2 is already more or less a slick, super-movie-fied remake of 1.

    I didn’t watch the trailer for a while because there’s basically two kinds of movies, and one “should” be remade and the other “shouldn’t”.

    1. Movies that had good content/ideas but the execution left something to be desired. Go ahead and remake that shit.

    2. Movies that have nothing special in terms of story/content but are treasured because of their form/execution.

    Why the fuck would you remake movies in category 2? Do you see what I’m saying? EVIL DEAD is just a haunted cabin movie, but it’s the stuff like that obviously-superimposed full moon shot that make it a treasure.

    But I watched the trailer and I am pro-EVIL DEAD REMAKE. It looks like it has this certain something to which it is appropriate to apply the EVIL DEAD brand. Honestly I haven’t gotten that giddy feeling of wanting to laugh/cringe simultaneously since I watched DRAG ME TO HELL, and this looks like an R-rated film in the same spirit. Those who are calling this another Platinum Dunes type thing seem to be ignoring hundreds of little lovely rhythmic and visual details in that trailer.

    I also think it’s unhealthy to be so pro- or con- on remakes based on what stupid people on the Internet will say. It is bad to be so invested in such things in a world that has The Internet. It will lead to unnecessary stress. I’m guilty of it too but we should all try to get over it.

71. 

    renfield

    October 28th, 2012 at 11:51 am

    I also don’t think we should be disparaging 18-24 year olds. Obviously many of them are stupid, as are many people in any age group.

    But you gotta keep in mind that a lot of “kids these days” are more attuned to old classic shit than kids in previous generations. Shit is so much more AVAILABLE now. If you read about EVIL DEAD on a message board you can be watching it within like 10 minutes thanks to bittorrent and shit like that.

    I’m no longer in that much-reviled age group (thank god), but the sort of thinking still offends me. For example I am interested in 70’s rock and have therefore studied it. And then somebody who was a teenager in the 70’s starts moaning about “kids these days”, and meanwhile their familiarity with their own generation’s music basically stops at Zepp and Floyd. I hate that shit! I know more about your generation than you do, you culturally illiterate fucks.

72. 

    NixEclips

    November 18th, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Wow. Some of the things said, here.
    Why don’t we just slap the year at the end of the remake titles? The Thing 2012. Evil Dead 2013. Would that make you happy, Mouth? ‘Cause that’s the only logical solution I can think of.
    BTW, you contradict yourself when you say it’s okay if they’re following the same script with Shakespeare productions, but the Psycho remake doesn’t count.
    Oh, I hated The Thing Pre-Make, but am looking forward to this, after seeing the trailer.
    Love you guys!

73. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    April 6th, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Man, when am I gonna learn to follow my instincts? Today I found myself in the suburbs, where matinees cost $5 (less than a medium popcorn in New York) so I said fuck it and gave this a chance.

    It was everything I feared and one thing I never even considered: boring as hell.

    I have a million things to say about it but I’ll save ’em for the review. I will say this, though: There’s a post-credits cameo that, if I’m ever forced to compete in the Kumite or something, could basically be used to turn me into a rage-fueled berserker like that spicy soup that giant white wrestler dude eats in that Thai movie.

74. 

    Charles

    April 6th, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    I thought it was very skillfully made. It looks great and the effects are top notch, but it was all to familiar in a disappointing way. However, I bet the younger generation of horror fans that might not have seen the original film will love it.

75. 

    Franchise Fred

    April 6th, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    For about the first half I thought it was a pretty uninspired retread, trying too hard to do the gags of the original with a twist. But once it kicked in it just won me over with its relentless assault on its characters.

    But then I have no attachment to evil dead 1. You start doing Evil Dead 2 you better bring it.

76. 

    Chopper Sullivan

    April 8th, 2013 at 1:33 am

    The setup was a snoozer but otherwise I dug the hell out of it. Fun, nasty, and a great boss battle at the end. Not sure what you found offensive about the post-credit thing Majestyk, besides the blatant pandering.

77. 

    Mr. Majestyk

    April 8th, 2013 at 5:36 am

    Just that it existed at all. You give me this dreary, boring cash-in instead of the movie you’ve been teasing us with for 20 years (not that I even want it anymore) and then you have the gall to taunt me like that? Not groovy, fellas. Not groovy at all.

    It also adds to my ongoing feud with Bruce Campbell. After BUBBA HO TEP finally proved once and for all that he could, like, actually act, he could have pushed himself and expanded his craft. Instead, he became even more of a lazy, pandering catchphrase machine than he ever was. It’s just another case of him thinking all he has to do is show up and we’ll all fall at his feet in worship. Not buying it anymore, big guy. Do something worth a damn and we’ll talk.

    (I guess he’s fine on BURN NOTICE, although it’s the kind of Hawaiian shirt role he could play in his sleep.)

78. 

    Griff

    April 8th, 2013 at 5:51 am

    I was initially pretty excited for the Evil Dead remake, but eh, I dunno, I think I’ll wait for blu ray for this one where it’ll be unrated anyway

79. 

    Shoot McKay

    April 8th, 2013 at 6:26 am

    Looks like EVIL DEAD gets theatrically released here in Sweden, so naturally, I can´t naturally fuck up the opportunity of watching a hardcore splatterfest in the cinema especially if it is an EVIL DEAD. I´m cautiously optimistic, despite my last disastrous experience in the cinema watching a movie from an otherwise highly regarded franchise.

80. 

    Charles

    April 8th, 2013 at 8:53 am

    (SPOILERS) I am good with the groovy little bit at the end of the credits as long as it ends up being foreshadowing of things to come, but if there is not a plan in place to make a true sequel to ARMY OF DARKNESS then it is complete BS.