Hail to the king, baby!

[darknation]

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index.php?Show=3270&Template=newsfull

Ash in a post-apocaylptic future battling ZOMBIES! Oh yeah!

[deathz0r]

Yay for Bruce Campbell

[Jonathan]

Sweet!

Now Ling will have to track down the aoddoom team and make a mod of the sequel as well.

[Bucket]

If he manages to get a pirate and a ninja into the plot, he will officially be God.

[ducon]

What? Now he did not wake up old with grey hair?

[Dco16]

Post-Apocalyptic future? I know I sound like a fanboy, but does this follow the theatrical or original ending of AOD? Meh, who cares, they made Evil Dead 2 not continue from 1 and it kicked ass.

[SYS]

It's Evil Dead!!! YAY!!!

[Relica Religia]

Groovy.

[Murdoch]

Sam Raimi and Tapert, when asked if they were considering Sean Scott Williams for the part of Ash, looked at each other for a minute and then, together said, "Who is that?" Sam then said, "I don't think I've ever heard of him".

Ahhhhhhhhahahahahahhaah! I love it.

[Ralphis]

What the hell? How can they make an evil dead movie without Bruce Campbell (the remake).

[Job]

Ralphis said:

What the hell? How can they make an evil dead movie without Bruce Campbell (the remake).

I went to the Bruce Campbell site and read their interview with Raimi regarding this bit of news. It seems they're remaking Evil Dead in the recent style of psychological/supernatural horror movies like the Grudge/Ju-On, Ringu/The Ring, etc. Apparently Raimi wants to see directors like Japanese Shimizuharikawa Yokohamatoyotakiritsubo san or whoever the hell he is get more work and to address the demand for this "new" style of horror movie.

[Ralphis]

Sounds like crap.

[Relica Religia]

All these recent suspense/horror movies have been absolute crap. The movie better be the same style as the original. Or perhaps even like Bubba Ho-Tep. :P

[Scuba Steve]

Pssst, the original was pretty campy itself.

[sargebaldy]

Haven't they remade Evil Dead enough? The original version was "Within the Woods" (1978), followed by "The Evil Dead" (1981) and then "The Evil Dead II" (1987) which was more of a remake than a sequel. A part IV sounds good, but then again I didn't like how they tended to become more comedy movies than horror with each release.

Scuba Steve said:

Pssst, the original was pretty campy itself.

I liked the first one best by far, though I think I'm in the minority on that.

[Job]

sargebaldy said:

I liked the first one best by far, though I think I'm in the minority on that.

Nah, it had style. And in a gritty sort of way, it was actually pretty scary/creepy in it's own way.

[Murdoch]

You're correct about the original ED being a remake of Within the Woods sarge, but ED2 is a direct continuation of the first film. The first 15 minutes or so to the point where Ash gets hit by the evil from the first perspective are basically a compressed retelling of the first film.

[sargebaldy]

Huh, well if it's not a remake it's at least not consistent with the first story. Like his girlfriend (Linda) is alive again for some huge chunk of the movie, and it keeps reusing all sorts of stuff from it too. Plus anything related to the first movie seems to be unknown to him throughout, and the whole deal with the Necronomicon and situation with the cabin is changed. I watched them back to back a while ago and the second one feels like a remake for about the full first half of the movie, and by the time it's done with that the story's been warped enough from the original it's hard to call the rest of the movie a sequel. At least that's how it seemed to me.

[Murdoch]

The girl is alive again and he doesn't know about the book because, as I said, the first part is a compressed recap of the events of the first film. Put it this way. If you took the end of Evil Dead and overlapped it with the start of Evil Dead 2 to the point where the Evil attacks Ash, you'd get one long and relatively consistent movie. The bit where it zooms up to him is shot nearly identically to the end of the first film and I always took it as a queue to say right, the real sequel starts here.

The reason for this was because for some reason they could not get the rights to use highlights from the first film to recap the story. Ironically they did the same again for ED3. There's a few highlights from ED2 right at the start that look the same but were actually reshot, again for legal reasons I believe.

[Scabbed Angel]

Ralphis said:

Sounds like crap.

[zombieribcage]

JoelMurdoch said:

Ironically they did the same again for ED3. There's a few highlights from ED2 right at the start that look the same but were actually reshot, again for legal reasons I believe.

i thought the commentary in ed3 said that the parts from ED2 were reshot for timing and such. at least the hand part. i haven't watched it with the commentary in forever, though.

[Murdoch]

You could be right. My ED 3 DVD hasn't got commentary on it. I was probably getting my facts confused from the five minutes or so I spent reading about it years ago.

EDIT - sarge, I just remembered something about the original, which I haven't seen in a while. Ash destroys the book at the end doesn't he? If so then what you're saying is right. The first part of ED 2 is a remake of the first part rather than a recap like I said.

[sargebaldy]

Yeah, he does. And the book is actually called "Naturan Demantos" instead of "Necronomicon Ex Mortis" although it's still referred to as a "Book of the Dead". So yeah, it's more like it begins with a remake of the first movie and then a continuation of the remake. And then Army of Darkness works off the end of the continuation.

[pickle965]

This is awesome. My life will finally be complete.