Sam Raimi's 'Evil Dead' Remake Is Getting Some Script Help From Diablo Cody
Source: Playlist
After endless promises and "confirmations" about the long brewing new "Evil Dead" movie, the Internet was taken by surprise yesterday when a flurry of info hit the web that indicated it was no mere pipe dream anymore. Word was that the film was gearing up for production in Detroit, and that Sam Raimi's regular collaborator, editor Bob Murawski, who worked with Raimi on all three "Spider-Man" films and "Drag Me to Hell" before winning an Oscar for "The Hurt Locker," was also going to be involved in some capacity. By the end of the day, it was revealed that Fede Alvarez, who made the hyped robot invasion short "Panic Attack!" that nabbed him a deal with Sam Raimi's Ghost House Pictures back in 2009, was going to be directing.
Well, it's all official now as Ghost House Pictures has announced the remake is indeed underway with Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Rob Tapert producing along with Joe Drake and Nathan Kahane executive producing and Alvarez directing. But there are few more details that should raise eyebrows. First off, the script was penned by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues, but more interestingly Academy Award winning "Juno" and "Jennifer's Body" scribe Diablo Cody is doing "revisions." The writer/director hit Twitter this evening to quell fan fears (or not) by tweeting cheekily, "Re: EVIL DEAD. Fede Alvarez wrote a brilliant script. My job is easy. Have no fear. (Wait, do have fear.)"
It's a bold choice, and for a series that earned its stripes based on its one liners alone, Cody has a helluva task ahead of her and fans will be merciless if she doesn't get it right. But we think the hire is a smart, savvy one that allows the franchise to inch into new territory stylistically and with a new voice, while still retaining the core of what made is so special. Though we're wary of the remake altogether—the original was unqiue for so many reasons that can't be equally duplicated—this at least affords it the chance to stand distinctly from the preceding trio of films. While the film is confirmed to be on the "fast track," word of the Michigan shoot, Murawski's involvement and casting is mum for now. But Comic-Con is around the corner and we expect big news will be revealed there.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobaldispatch.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FEvil-Dead-remake-poster.jpg&hash=13b7dfa0115f0a7abb6d34150eca7afd7209ccff)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.firstshowing.net%2Ffirstshowing%2Fimg5%2FEvilDeadRemakeUglyFaceFLphofull1.jpg&hash=ac2d2fc820f5ff53877e0baf42b448730491fa5a)
Bootleg Trailer:
Release date: April 12, 3013
Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Jessica Lucas, Lou Taylor Pucci
Directed by: Fede Alvarez
Premise: Mia, a young woman struggling with sobriety, heads to a remote cabin with her brother and a group of friends, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads to danger and horror.
Holy shit, WOW! That looks crazy, gonna be brutal. I just watched the original classic recently though, and my question is, will it have the same imagination? RK, Socketlevel, what's your take on this?
the new one doesn't look fun at all
Quote from: pete on October 24, 2012, 08:35:35 PM
the new one doesn't look fun at all
Pipe down Pete, reelist didn't ask you.
One of those forgotten film secrets that nobody talks about is that the original Evil Dead was TERRIBLE. It wasn't until they got campy that they got good.
Since trying to remake the campiness would fail horribly, I'm happy they're going this direction with it. It's what the first movie could have been if they had the means to make it not terrible. I have a good feeling about this one.
I think that this will be fine, but quickly forgotten. I plan to skip right to forgetting about it now just to be ahead of the game.
Against my better judgement I'm totally intrigued by this (thing that I should totally hate on principal). Having rewatched the original series recently, I was thinking that there aren't really any horror movies I can think of that go as balls-to-the-wall as the first two. ("Dead Alive" is the only one that comes to mind...) Having the original old men endorse this one certainly helps but at the same time it doesn't look that much different from the Platinum Dunes TCM crap. Aggressively dark is not really the original's deal, hopefully the actual film is more fucked up/playful.
Quote from: polkablues on October 24, 2012, 11:20:51 PM
One of those forgotten film secrets that nobody talks about is that the original Evil Dead was TERRIBLE. It wasn't until they got campy that they got good.
Since trying to remake the campiness would fail horribly, I'm happy they're going this direction with it. It's what the first movie could have been if they had the means to make it not terrible. I have a good feeling about this one.
original wasn't terrible; it had a lot of character and personality. its DNA is this fucked up kinda playfulness, though it's not a comedy until the second one.
this however, looks like just another one of those movies that we already have too many of. Reminds me of the Texas Chainsaw remake. Maybe the trailer, like Cabin in the Woods, is completely misleading.
We just said the same thing!
The original is also great to see how much of Sam Raimi's personality as a filmmaker was already kinda fully formed in that first film.
Side note: Just watched the trailer for the remake again. I'm totally excited for this.
For whatever reason, I really disliked the original. It has moments, for sure, but I don't think it particularly works as a movie at all.
I can see the Platinum Dunes comparison with the new one, but based on the trailer, it reminds me more of Alexandre Aja's fantastic The Hills Have Eyes remake than the lifeless TCM remake.
Yeah, the original is far from terrible (kinda amazed that you would say so, Polka, considering the horror movies you seem to put up with in the horror movies thread).
I'm kind of excited about this, but with some hesitance for sure. I think the trailer looks pretty ballsy and gory (real, textural gore, not the lifeless crap you see in most horror movies today) and I really liked that they aren't going to try for the comedic tone of the second two movies (that would be awful).
I like that Raimi is behind this one, but it's still a remake.
I accept that I'm alone on this one.
You guys probably wouldn't like how I feel about Dead Alive, either.
Polka doesn't like his horror fun, I've gleaned. He prefers it to be another 'Fu' word, Fuuuucccckkked up.
i'm fucking down.
i like that in modage's scathing review of this (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/sxsw-13-review-evil-dead-is-a-grim-humorless-ultraviolent-update-of-a-horror-classic-20130309) he went to bat for fun, e.g.
QuoteFeaturing truly shocking levels of violence but none of the wit or fun of the original, the new "Evil Dead" is mostly a dud.
QuoteWatching the director's short film ("Panic Attack"), one would've expected a similar playful inventiveness to carry over
QuoteThere is a fine line in horror films between those intense films that still invite the audience to have fun and those that are just a punishing experience and the new "Evil Dead" seems to share more in common with the recent-ish wave of extreme empty French horror ("Inside," "Haute Tension") than with the original.
(in fact, it's been named the new french extremity) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_French_Extremity)
i think there are a lot of people, myself included, who miss fun in movies
Reelist got me right:
Quote from: Reelist on October 26, 2012, 12:26:36 PM
Polka doesn't like his horror fun, I've gleaned. He prefers it to be another 'Fu' word, Fuuuucccckkked up.
In other words,
Quote from: samsong on January 04, 2013, 02:10:48 AM
i'm fucking down.
And mod can piss on High Tension all he wants, but I will not have Inside slandered so casually. If he talks shit about Martyrs, we've got a fight on our hands.
to each his own cinema. you must be like a pig in shit right now, 'cause the vast majority of movies right now are dour as fuck. seems like. when i saw kill list i had to go into the lobby and then watch the rest of the movie from a standing position in the back of the theater, and i just finished watching pillow talk for the third time this week. so that's me
but evil dead, it's like we were playing risk and the fun team had russia and then team f'ed up came and they had more numbers and attacked the country, and anyway i can't remember how to play risk, but it sounds like we lost land right here
I actually didn't write "empty," my editors (who prob haven't seen the films) added that. I like "Inside" and "High Tension" to varying degrees and don't think they're empty (I just edited the article to remove that) but they're anything but fun. Was just saying that it's weird to make an Evil Dead remake that doesn't capture the spirit of the originals. It would be like someone remaking "Fargo" and ditching all the that dark comedy and just making a GRITTY MURDER STORY, which would be like, "well, why did you remake this at all?"
On the other hand, what's the point of remaking something if you're not going to do something different with it? The idea of some other director trying to emulate Raimi's tone, or some other actor mugging like Bruce Campbell, is truly horrifying to me.
Lesson being, never remake anything.
the better and bigger principle does seem to be "if you can do something different, why remake" I agree
does this add dimensions to evil dead? no, it strips it of dimensions
I can't get behind that philosophy. I don't want to hear a cover song that tries to sound exactly like the original, I want to hear one that takes a new angle on it, that treats the original as a piece of architecture to be decorated in a whole different style.
I could get behind cbrad's idea, though. When in doubt, just build your own from scratch.
Quote from: polkablues on March 13, 2013, 02:02:14 PM
I can't get behind that philosophy. I don't want to hear a cover song that tries to sound exactly like the original, I want to hear one that takes a new angle on it, that treats the original as a piece of architecture to be decorated in a whole different style.
I could get behind cbrad's idea, though. When in doubt, just build your own from scratch.
wait, what. why are you trying to make it sound like i suggested a philosophy of sameness? polanski's cul-de-sac has fun, is it the same movie as evil dead?
you're just saying this movie does things you like, and i'm just saying this movie does things i don't like
and 1/2 of my sentences was in support of what cbrad said
I misinterpreted what you had written in your last post. Initially I read it as you saying that remakes shouldn't try to be different from the original, and that's what I was responding to, though now I realize that's not at all what you were saying. My bad.
I still stand by my last post, just disregard the argumentative aspects of it.
I'm not looking for a step-by-step recreation or something and avoiding an Ash-like stand-in may be one of the best creative decisions they made making this thing. BUT unfortunately the direction they took doesn't work. I thought the trailer looked like hot shit too so in theory there is a harder edged version that could've worked but I don't think this was it.
so was this good? don't lie.
Quote from: 03 on April 24, 2013, 03:17:28 PM
so was this good? don't lie.
No.
The only good that might come from this is that it might cue a wave of horror movies that move back into being gory and not so watered down, but it takes more than that to make a good movie.
This was a series of pretty boring shock scares mixed with awful dialog and really forced nods to the original. Like, you know... a remake.
gross. i didnt really expect it to be good but i was kind of hoping it would at least be fun. ill take my chances i guess.
Quote from: RegularKarate on April 26, 2013, 08:46:32 PM
Quote from: 03 on April 24, 2013, 03:17:28 PM
so was this good? don't lie.
No.
The only good that might come from this is that it might cue a wave of horror movies that move back into being gory and not so watered down, but it takes more than that to make a good movie.
This was a series of pretty boring shock scares mixed with awful dialog and really forced nods to the original. Like, you know... a remake.
right, because gore is the most important element of the genre that really needs a revival. yep.
Quote from: Neil on April 27, 2013, 11:13:04 AM
right, because gore is the most important element of the genre that really needs a revival. yep.
When did I say that? I even said that it's not.
Quote from: RegularKarate on April 28, 2013, 11:24:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 27, 2013, 11:13:04 AM
right, because gore is the most important element of the genre that really needs a revival. yep.
When did I say that? I even said that it's not.
Quote from: RegularKarate on April 26, 2013, 08:46:32 PM
The only good that might come from this is that it might cue a wave of horror movies that move BACK into being gory and not so watered down
Quote from: RegularKarate on April 26, 2013, 08:46:32 PM
The only good that might come from this is that it might cue a wave of horror movies that move back into being gory and not so watered down, but it takes more than that to make a good movie.
I could listen to you guys argue all day.
Right RK, definitely read that the first time, and I'll say that what you chose to make bold this go 'round is a blatantly obvious fact of about making any kind of movie, which is why i didn't feel it necessary to include or comment on.
maybe our definitions of the word, "gore" is worth discussing, for instance what imagery is useful in driving the plot, but that seems unlikely to happen.
Anyhow, if there is a, "wave of horror movies that move into being gory and not watered down," which is all I was commenting on, then count me out, just like you can count me out of this useless cash grab of a film.
This is a dead discussion and I hate to seem like I'm trying to beat a dead horse, but to clarify, I never said or meant that gore is the only thing lacking in modern horror. I just mean that a lot of the horror movies being cranked out these days are really toothless and since part of horror is making people scared or at least uncomfortable, gore can be useful.
That dead horse is looking pretty gory.
I'm with RegularKarate here. I hate it when I'm watching a movie about extremely violent villains and then they're so watered down we never get to see that. I'm all for suggesting violence instead of showing, but a lot of modern horror movies don't do that with suggestion in mind. They do that because they want the PG-13 or whatever, and so they randomly cut away from gore just because of that. Gore or no gore, you still need much more to make a horror film successful, but if the only reason you're gonna cut away from blood and guts is out of fear of the MPAA, then that's bullshit.
so i took my girlfriend to this last night for her birthday after we ate at like three different restaurants. curb jokes were made. this was not nearly as bad as some have made it sound.
SPOILERS
i thought the switching of the protagonist randomly at the end was actually really cool and interesting. the chainsaw shot was absolutely beautiful. i thought this was a very fun horror movie. if anything, it didn't go as over the top as it should have. i wanted more cheesiness, the performances took themselves a little too seriously, almost as if the actors were trying to make it a good movie when they just should have embraced the stereotypes i.e. cabin in the woods. did anyone stay for the bruce campbell cameo?
Someday I'll have time to go to the theater again and I'll finally watch this and lay down the definitive opinion on it. Until then, it exists as a perfect artifact in my mind, unsullied by the dust of reality. FOUR HYPOTHETICAL STARS.