As a massive evil dead fan...I love this!
just not the same without the funny bits tho :(
Evil Dead wasn't about being funny. 2 and 3 are the funny ones.
Quote from: soopahfly on October 25, 2012, 19:14:52 PM
Evil Dead wasn't about being funny. 2 and 3 are the funny ones.
I meant more stupid than funny?
The first one was just trying to be a serious horror film, with low budgets and naff actors. Pure B-Movie gold.
ahhh... it's been that long since I've seen them they've all blurred into one :o
I'm not sure what to think as it looks like it could lose the charm the original had from being a B-movie. I'm glad they seem to be keeping the style the same though.
The tree scene lives!!!
Quote from: soopahfly on October 25, 2012, 19:14:52 PM
Evil Dead wasn't about being funny. 2 and 3 are the funny ones.
Really? Any sources or interviews that back this up? I always thought it was supposed to be a bit of a black comedy.
Nah, the reaction of love because it was tacky, they went with in two and three.
They did try to make 1 serious, watch it again and you can tell they tried. Nige is right, low budget and bad actors.
2 and 3 they played to the strengths and what people liked. Dam clever if you ask me, if they just tried to do the same again with a bit more cash 2 and 3 would have flopped.
Sam Raimi and the others intended the first to be a serious film (then realised afterwards that in the sequal it would work well with a mix of dark humour and horror). There is a pretty good summary of the original intentions for the film under the Within The Woods section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evil_Dead_%28franchise%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evil_Dead_%28franchise%29)
Its pretty obvious when you thin about it since 2 is simply a black comedy remake of 1. Why else would it be the same story?