Evil Dead (film) remake

[LouCipherr]

I know you'll go thermonuclear, but once I actually saw it, I didn't think it was so bad, IF you completely remove the original from the equation & make no comparisons what so ever. Ok then, riddle me this, Moon - if you have to 'completely remove the original from the equation & make no comparisons what so ever' then I have to ask: what was the point?? If you have to 'completely remove the original' in order to enjoy it, that = EPIC FAIL on the remake scale. If they are going to call it a "remake" or a "reimagining" or whatever BS term they want to use, then it needs some comparison to the original - otherwise, it's not a remake. <ahem> Ok, now that my "light work" is done, let's continue... There's huge problems with it, but then in some scenes - particularly in the Director's Cut (RZ's DC's are always better than the theatrical versions IMHO) - are just great. I have a perverse liking of H2 in spite of all it's flaws. You, sir, need a CT scan. I think there's a tumor in there somewhere.. Piranha 2010 - what's not to like about that flick? The original was no masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, and doesn't hold up terribly well, but the remake just wants to have fun and it certainly has an awful lot of fun, delivering lashings of gore and a shed-load of tits in your face. What's not to like?! "What's not to like?" I mean, I don't mind the tits, but other than that... I can't even answer that question with a straight face! And this is coming from a dude who watched Sharknado, Sharktopus, and Two-Headed Shark attack, all three of which I'd rather watch than Piranha. At least they made it deadly clear what kind of movie they were. "Did they get my penis?!" Indeed. c'mon!

[MinionZombie]

And this is coming from a dude who watched Sharknado, Sharktopus, and Two-Headed Shark attack, all three of which I'd rather watch than Piranha. At least they made it deadly clear what kind of movie they were. Which makes your disliking of Piranha 2010 all the more bizarre, plus, the movie totally makes it deadly clear what sort of movie it is! It's killer fish, gore, and tits! You've got a screw loose, chum.

[LouCipherr]

I have plentyof screws loose, that's not news. You must be right, because I did like those other flicks, but... there's a difference between them. Like I said, it felt like Piranha was trying to be serious even though it had comedy elements to it. Sharknado, Sharktopus and the like, on the other hand were marketed as stupid (and fun), the previews and trailers were stupid, and I'm pretty sure they knew exactly where those movies stood in the broad spectrum of things. Piranha feels like it wasn't sure what category it wanted to be in. It tried to be serious in some parts, and in others, it was just flat-out goofy. And, sorry, if I'm going to watch a stupid/funny horror movie, I'd rather see a chainsaw-wielding Ian Zering be swallowed whole by a massive great white swirling around in a tornado above only to cut himself out of the belly 2 minutes later unharmed (HAH!) than see Jerry O'Connell get his dick bit off by an ancient, angry fish. Not funny. Stupid.

[MoonSylver]

Ok then, riddle me this, Moon - if you have to 'completely remove the original from the equation & make no comparisons what so ever' then I have to ask: what was the point?? If you have to 'completely remove the original' in order to enjoy it, that = EPIC FAIL on the remake scale. If they are going to call it a "remake" or a "reimagining" or whatever BS term they want to use, then it needs some comparison to the original - otherwise, it's not a remake. <ahem> Ok, now that my "light work" is done, let's continue... Riddle easily solved. Because it doesn't hold a candle to the original, & bears similarity to it in name(s) only. So why WOULD I bother comparing them? Makes about as much sense as comparing the two "Dawn of the Dead"'s. So, based on that criteria, I had to judge it based as a stand alone flick, free of comparison to the original. Based on that, I thought it was aight to not bad. Pretty good "making of a serial killer" type flick. TBH, if they HAD made it totally as its own thing, devoid of the name association of JC's "Halloween" I would have enjoyed it a bit more. But then again, from a "business" perspective, you draw publicity, curiosity, & a built in audience from that "franchise" association. Sad but true. Sweat, not even broken.

[LouCipherr]

Riddle easily solved. Because it doesn't hold a candle to the original, & bears similarity to it in name(s) only. So why WOULD I bother comparing them? Makes about as much sense as comparing the two "Dawn of the Dead"'s. Which is done all the time, by everyone on this forum and all over the internet. The comparisons are there for a reason. If you 'remake' a film, you had better certainly expect it to be compared to the original film, regardless if it's "bad" or "good". So based on your criteria above, when a remake doesn't hold a candle to the original, we can't compare the two... but, if a remake is decent enough it's ok to compare it to the original. You realize that's a double standard, right? And I think RZ's Halloween shared many similarities to the original than just 'name only', RZ just screwed up the story. Hey, Moon, you actually have to do some work to break a sweat, dude.

[shootemindehead]

*Settles back...cracks open a beer...gets ready for the Lou vs Moon rolled up newspaper fight*

[MoonSylver]

Which is done all the time, by everyone on this forum and all over the internet. So if 1 billion chinamen eat rice, I should eat rice too, right? So based on your criteria above, when a remake doesn't hold a candle to the original, WEcan't compare the two... Got a mouse in yer pocket? You can do whatever you like pal, I'm speaking strictly for myself. but, if a remake is decent enough it's ok to compare it to the original. You realize that's a double standard, right? And I think RZ's Halloween shared many similarities to the original than just 'name only', RZ just screwed up the story. Point missed. It's not if "decent enough it's ok to compare it to the original". It's if they ACTUALLY remake the original or not! Night '90, for example, stuck to the original. So there is ample room for comparison. Movies like RZH, or DOTD'04 are so different from the source material that comparison is really futile. They end up being almost completely different movies. It's almost an apple/oranges comparison at that point. So all I'm left with is how was the film on it's own. I know I've done it before. It's an eay trap to fall into. And some comparison is inevitable. But all I'm saying is, on it's own, it's a decent flick. Compared to the original? The original is a superior film. Hey, Moon, you actually have to do some work to break a sweat, dude. Exactly. And so far whipping yer ass wouldn't exactly qualify as "work:". *Settles back...cracks open a beer...gets ready for the Lou vs Moon rolled up newspaper fight*

[LouCipherr]

Point missed? Perhaps point was not made clear enough. To say a remake can only be compared to the original if it sticks 'close to the source' (or in your own words, "if they ACTUALLY remake the original or not") is not within the realm of reality. If it uses the names, characters, basic story line, and even takes the TITLE of the original film for God's sake, then there is no reason whatsoever that comparisons cannot be made. We here on this forum, you and I included, do it on an almost daily/weekly/monthly basis. In fact, in this very thread you compared the original ED to this remake, saying the original was superior but that this remake was pretty decent. This remake of ED bears about as much resemblance to the original film as RZ's Halloween does to Carpenter's original, so how can you possibly compare the two ED's using your prerequisite for comparison?

[MoonSylver]

Point missed? Perhaps point was not made clear enough. I don't belive there is one, TBH. I think you're arguing for it's own sake & attempting to draw conclusions from my own words that aren't there, but I'll play along. To say a remake can only be compared to the original... Where did I say ever? Emphasis yours not mine... ... if it sticks 'close to the source' (or in your own words, "if they ACTUALLY remake the original or not") is not within the realm of reality. Maybe your reality, not mine. I'm perfectly capable of watching a movie, divorcing myself from the original for an hour & a half, & then when it's over judging it BOTH based on comparison to the original AND on its own. If it's a direct remake, then sure, we can sit down & start discussing point-by-point comparisons. If the two are wildly different, why bother, other than in terms of relative quality? Hell, technically you can compare ANYTHING if you're of a mind to, even things that are only alike in the broadest sense. You really CAN compare apples and oranges. They both food. They're both fruit. But to say " an apple is better than an orange"...well, you're really comparing two different things... And sometimes you can enjoy one of two ALIKE things WITHOUT comparing them. I like steak & I like hamburgers. If I sit down & enjoy a burger, why would or should I compare it to a steak? They're both beef, so why not, huh? Maybe because a burger is a burger, that's all it's ever going to be, it's going to suffer in comparison, I enjoyed it on its own merits, & it's only similar to steak in the most superficial sense in that they both came from a cow. If it uses the names, characters, basic story line, and even takes the TITLE of the original film for God's sake, then there is no reason whatsoever that comparisons cannot be made. We here on this forum, you and I included, do it on an almost daily/weekly/monthly basis.? I know I've done it before. It's an easy trap to fall into. And some comparison is inevitable. Did you fail reading comprehension or are you just being deliberatly obtuse? In fact, in this very thread you compared the original ED to this remake, saying the original was superior but that this remake was pretty decent. This remake of ED bears about as much resemblance to the original film as RZ's Halloween does to Carpenter's original, so how can you possibly compare the two ED's using your prerequisite for comparison? You seem to be obsessed with absolutes. As if there's some Big Book of Movie Reviewing, writ by my own hand, that I'm supposed to be adhering to to. I'm more flexible than that. I can enjoy a film on its own & still draw a comparison in terms of overall quality. You seem to be taking one sentence... I didn't think it was so bad, IF you completely remove the original from the equation & make no comparisons what so ever. ...& turn it into some kind of commandment that I'm supposed to be following. Lighten up Francis. Now... ...are you done picking nits? I got shit to do.

[LouCipherr]

Where did I say ever? Emphasis yours not mine... -sigh- Taken out of context. Nice. Read much? (yes, I can make cute quips too. ). I reiterated your own rule that you can 'only compare a remake if it's "actually" a remake of the original'. Remember? It's not if "decent enough it's ok to compare it to the original". It's if they ACTUALLY remake the original or not! Circular logic. Cool, I get it.

[AcesandEights]

Easy, guys. Remember that the burden of the remake and agony of the reboot weighs differently on each man's soul.

[LouCipherr]

Oh, I'm cool, me and Moon always are. I just wanted to see where the line was drawn in the sand for him on this subject. Apparently, it's very wavy and changes with the tides.

[MoonSylver]

-sigh- Taken out of context. Nice. Read much? (yes, I can make cute quips too. ). I reiterated your own rule that you can 'only compare a remake if it's "actually" a remake of the original'. Remember? [Reganvoice]There you go again...[/Reganvoice] Oh, I'm cool, me and Moon always are. I just wanted to see where the line was drawn in the sand for him on this subject. Apparently, it's very wavy and changes with the tides. No, just not subject to a strict-ironclad-all-or-nothing-baby with the bathwater approach. I'm cool though. If I wanted to really argue with someone who tries to pick apart my sentences, doesn't get me, and is completely irrational, I'd call my ex-wife! Come to think of it, you remind me of her...

[Andrew Crevier]

Dang...Loved this new Evil Dead, and I've been a hugh fan of the original material. I understand that hardcore fans never want to see a classic get remade when the source films are so strong. For the most part I'd like to see these companies re-release some of the older horror movies theatrically across the globe (unfortunately they won't), but put Evil Dead in the context of the current generation of Paranormal Activities and Sinister? This and Cabin in the Woods and John Dies at the End - these are the movies a new generation of horror fan needs to get hip too. I was laughing in the theatre imagining younger folks going to check this out - having no realization that a horror movie could be this bloody fun and intense. What a breath of fresh air. No matter how well a classic is treated, there will be those who just aren't capable of having fun on the new ride. It's like wooden roller coaster aficionados attempting to have fun on Space Mountain. This is one of my favorite remakes --- and, besides The Thing, the rule is that the original will always be more special.

[slickwilly13]

I watched a Swedish clone last night called Wither or Vittra. It was not too bad. The movie is probably as good as the remake of The Evil Dead, but of course, cannot top the original. It is pretty much a similar movie, except it is a creature from folklore, instead of deadites. Has anyone watched Wither?