PDA

View Full Version : Questions about Evil Dead


deamonfruba
08-18-2013, 10:09 PM
**I'm thinking about how to ask this question and not be seen as a troll. I swear, I'm not. I'm just legitimately curious.**

I'm not a newbie to horror. Growing up, I wasn't allowed to watch anything rated beyond PG-13 but once I hit college, I started absorbing movies at an alarming rate. A few years have passed and I've slowed down a bit as my appreciation has grown and now I'm trying to build up my understanding of the horror "canon" from Friday the 13th to Bela Lugosi films. I watched "The Evil Dead" a while back and very much enjoyed it but only tonight sat down for what was supposed to be a marathon of all three original movies. I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes of the third and I doubt I ever will because I was a bit too annoyed. This is where my questions come in.

My first problem was the inconsistent story line. I understand the disparity between I and II: Sam Raimi couldn't get through the red tape and get footage of his original film. I stumbled a bit but decided to go with Ash being insane and an unreliable narrator, which could have been really fun to see played out. (I'm disappointed that I didn't see THAT film but Raimi does not exist to serve my odd whims.) But then the second film was just BORING. It had been built up in my mind as this amazing piece of iconic horror when really nothing very new or interesting happened. The gore was so-so, the laughs were pretty dull (except when Ash starts dancing with the lamp - that was great), and the characters were flat. The main chick didn't even seem to give a crap that her father, mother, and husband/boyfriend/whatever were brutally killed and dragged to hell. Then, film III begins with yet another plot shift and I've lost any sense of WHY.

So here's my first direct question: Why is II lauded as so much of an improvement? The first was genuinely creepy and Ash was pretty stellar as a realistic guy pulled into a terrible situation. But the second was nothing to write home about. Is it possible that some of this is a nostalgia thing? A lot of people grew up watching the film which I know for certain colors your appreciation (here's looking at you, Goosebumps). The stop-motion animation (I think?) or puppeteer was neat and I'm not tuned in enough to know whether that was groundbreaking. And the humor was just bland. They played the same tricks on the characters (demon in the cellar allowing its host to speak to their loved ones, for example) and Ash was no longer this normal guy but instead a walking vessel of testosterone who no longer seems human.

Here's my second question: What is the reason for such stark differences between each film's plot? As I said, I first chalked it up to Ash's fragile mental state but then he kind of stopped HAVING a mental state. And he's not exactly telling this story to anybody so I don't understand why we are given a continuous plot if the plot does not remain continuous. It may not have been as much of a choice between I and II but between II and III, it definitely was. I don't trust Raimi as a writer enough to believe that there's some greater reason but this doesn't seem to disturb anybody else. Is it easy to brush off because the series is such a fun time that channels a craving for action and blood? (If that's the case then I think I'm up a creek with this one since that does about nothing for me.)

If anybody has theories, I would be really happy to hear them. Even something that I could build a foundation on would be wonderful so I can try looking at things a little differently.

Thanks a bunch!

Kandarian Demon
08-19-2013, 06:22 AM
**I'm thinking about how to ask this question and not be seen as a troll. I swear, I'm not. I'm just legitimately curious.**

You'll probably never meet a bigger Evil Dead fan than me - I own the movies in several different packagings with different bonus material, I have a book about the movies, t-shirts... I have a huge Evil Dead poster that covers most of one of my living room walls... I even own a jar of dirt from the ground where the original cabin stood. In short: I'm a fan :D

And I don't think you're trolling - you have an opinion, and you're asking questions :)


But then the second film was just BORING. It had been built up in my mind as this amazing piece of iconic horror when really nothing very new or interesting happened. The gore was so-so, the laughs were pretty dull (except when Ash starts dancing with the lamp - that was great), and the characters were flat. The main chick didn't even seem to give a crap that her father, mother, and husband/boyfriend/whatever were brutally killed and dragged to hell. Then, film III begins with yet another plot shift and I've lost any sense of WHY.

So here's my first direct question: Why is II lauded as so much of an improvement? The first was genuinely creepy and Ash was pretty stellar as a realistic guy pulled into a terrible situation. But the second was nothing to write home about. Is it possible that some of this is a nostalgia thing? A lot of people grew up watching the film which I know for certain colors your appreciation (here's looking at you, Goosebumps). The stop-motion animation (I think?) or puppeteer was neat and I'm not tuned in enough to know whether that was groundbreaking. And the humor was just bland. They played the same tricks on the characters (demon in the cellar allowing its host to speak to their loved ones, for example) and Ash was no longer this normal guy but instead a walking vessel of testosterone who no longer seems human.

Although I do love Evil Dead II, and have a very different opinion about the quality of the movie, I have always felt that the original Evil Dead was superior in every way. I too don't get why the second movie is getting so much praise in comparison (it IS the preferred movie in the trilogy of many Evil Dead fans).

The way I see it - I watch the original Evil Dead when I want to watch what is in my opinion the most perfect horror movie ever made. And I watch ED II and Army of Darkness when I want to laugh at Bruce Campbell. I'm a big fan of the guy, I bought "My Name is Bruce" the second I could get my hands on the DVD... and I see ED II and III as kind of the ultimate movies for me as a Bruce Campbell fan. As a horror fan? I MUCH prefer Evil Dead I.

I think that some fell in love with the trilogy because of the horror in the first one, while others fell in love with the humour of Bruce Campbell... and I know quite a few non-horror fans who loves ED II and AOD for the humour, so I think that's why they have a wider appeal. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but that's my theory...


Here's my second question: What is the reason for such stark differences between each film's plot? As I said, I first chalked it up to Ash's fragile mental state but then he kind of stopped HAVING a mental state. And he's not exactly telling this story to anybody so I don't understand why we are given a continuous plot if the plot does not remain continuous. It may not have been as much of a choice between I and II but between II and III, it definitely was. I don't trust Raimi as a writer enough to believe that there's some greater reason but this doesn't seem to disturb anybody else. Is it easy to brush off because the series is such a fun time that channels a craving for action and blood? (If that's the case then I think I'm up a creek with this one since that does about nothing for me.)

I don't really think there's a greater reason either. But, it never bothered me. Evil Dead, the original, is in my opinion completely seperate from the two others... they're not really in the same "universe".

You know that whole thing about many fans seeing ED II as a remake, even though Raimi says it's not?

I know about the footage thing, but... how many movies have you watched where SO much time is spent on explaining the story of the previous movie before the new chapter begins?

I still see it as part remake, or a remake with an extended story line, and as with all remakes, little things have been changed. AND I see it as a spoof remake... the comedy version of the original.

I think ED II and III ties together pretty well, though... set in that crazy "universe" where nothing makes sense anyway. But like I said earlier - I don't even see them as being set in the same "reality" as the original movie.

I think maybe Raimi and the other guys have changed their stories a bit to try to adapt it to what the fans want to hear. Remember how he used to spread stories about how the original cabin was haunted, and how it burned down under "mysterious circumstances"? I used to believe him! :D I think the guys are very aware of how much of a fandom Evil Dead has created, and with all respect (and I DO have respect for them), I think they might be "manipulating" the truth here and there in other ways too, and I don't particularly trust that their explanations are nescesarily true... or at least I think over the years, they've changed their minds about why things are as they are and how the ED universe works.

And one final thing that I almost forgot: The original Evil Dead, as much as I think it's the greatest horror movie of all time, is FULL of flaws, and no one's ever denied that... and it's kind of a part of the charm of ED, which I think have been passed on to the two other movies as well. They must never be too perfect, they have to be a little goofy, or it won't be Evil Dead anymore. That's actually one of the reasons why I never got as excited about the 2013 remake as I had hoped for.

Giganticface
08-21-2013, 07:50 PM
You'll probably never meet a bigger Evil Dead fan than me - I own the movies in several different packagings with different bonus material, I have a book about the movies, t-shirts... I have a huge Evil Dead poster that covers most of one of my living room walls... I even own a jar of dirt from the ground where the original cabin stood. In short: I'm a fan :D


You are awesome. *bows*


Although I do love Evil Dead II, and have a very different opinion about the quality of the movie, I have always felt that the original Evil Dead was superior in every way. I too don't get why the second movie is getting so much praise in comparison (it IS the preferred movie in the trilogy of many Evil Dead fans).


ED II has always been in a constant battle with the original on my favorites list. Usually, it's ahead of the original, but at times the original beats it out. I believe there was a period in the 90s where it was #1, but typically it's around #3, with The Shining and The Exorcist at the top.

I can tell you maybe why ED II is typically ahead of the original on my list. First off, I saw it before seeing the original, and completely fell in love with it. When I later saw the original, it was awesome, but I suppose expectations were set by ED II, and the original being so different, it came as a slight disappointment on first viewing. It was missing some of the things I loved about ED II. Of course, it blew me away in other ways, and it might have been the first splatter I'd ever seen. Now that time has passed and things have evened out, I see them as very different movies, and similar to your experience, I watch one or the other, depending on what mood I'm in.

The second reason is because Bruce's physical comedy in ED II is ridiculously amazing and unique, especially the parts with his possessed hand. Also, the way he jerks around and uses his eyes -- to me, this was some of the best stuff I had ever seen. It was funny, but also visceral and scary. I was floored, and thought there was nothing like it.

Finally, I'm a huge Skinny Puppy fan, and at the time, I had no idea that so many of their samples came from Evil Dead II. "May God forgive me for what I am about to unleash upon this earth." "Who's laughing now?" (A song's even named after this.) I believe there are more. I also loved Ministry/Revolting Cocks ("Groovy"), and it seems like a lot of other bands (especially industrial) have sampled this film. Because of this, the film gained instant cult status for me.

...

RE: "What is the reason for such stark differences between each film's plot?"

I don't really think there's a greater reason either. But, it never bothered me. Evil Dead, the original, is in my opinion completely seperate from the two others... they're not really in the same "universe".

That's the most concise way I've ever heard anyone explain it. I totally agree.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, KD. Something tells me that you could write a book on this. I'd read it. :)

metternich1815
08-21-2013, 08:48 PM
I have no idea about the plot differences, but I will say that I really was not a big fan of Evil Dead 2 either. I thought it was a good film but not great. I do not understand why it is so admired either. I enjoyed the humor in Army of Darkness, but I did not find Evil Dead 2 that humorous. The first Evil Dead, in my opinion,is far superior to the sequels (again, it should be noted that I did enjoy Army of Darkness).

cheebacheeba
08-21-2013, 09:12 PM
**I'm thinking about how to ask this question and not be seen as a troll. I swear, I'm not. I'm just legitimately curious.**

...You realise when you lead with that, it kind've automatically makes one wonder. Not that I personally give a shit...

I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes of the third and I doubt I ever will because I was a bit too annoyed.

It's an entertaining film, but I guess you have to accept it's a major departure from the style of the first two.

I stumbled a bit but decided to go with Ash being insane and an unreliable narrator, which could have been really fun to see played out.

I am hoping that if ever there's a "real" follow-up to the original trilogy that this is just what they do, come up with a comedic/"plausible" reason for it, like too much head trauma or some such.
Or, he's just told the story various times on various drinking nights.

But then the second film was just BORING.
Each to their own. I didn't really find it boring.

Why is II lauded as so much of an improvement?
I myself have wondered this.
I can see that there was more money spent on it...I can see that additional characters and storylines and the advancement in effects, I guess that might be something to do with it?
Could be the iconic removal of the hand scene?
Could be that the horror/comedy thing was more accessible to more people than the darker by comparison first?
Who knows.
I've got my preference in the first though.

Is it possible that some of this is a nostalgia thing?
Maybe for some.

and Ash was no longer this normal guy but instead a walking vessel of testosterone who no longer seems human.
I guess he was angry, bitter, and kind've insane at this point.

And he's not exactly telling this story to anybody
I think that's an unknown.
Could be simply in his own memories.
Or, maybe he just wanted to make films that entertain though don't really make a hell of a lot of sense?
As for the changes in stories, I think it just serves as an "intro" of sorts to people that may not have seen the film prior to the one theyre watching, my guess anyways.

Though from what I've heard, ED 2 is closer to what he wanted to make in the first place. He took an existing character/survivor from the first one and instead make something halfway between sequel and remake.
I haven't seen them in a while, but #3 pretty much picks up where #2 left off, right?

I dunno. Doesn't bother me too much.
Though I will say that I've always found the first "the evil dead" film to be more atmospheric, and had more staying power than the second one did.
Never much liked the second. Took the horror/comedy thing a bit far for my liking.

Gustav Weil
08-22-2013, 02:29 AM
Good thread,
I always got the feeling that Sam Raimi cared little for the horror genre.
It's well documented that Sam and team picked horror as the genre of their first movie simply because it was cheap to make and had a better chance of finding an audience.
The unexpected success of ED 1 allowed Raimi to indulge his goofier side in part 2 and 3 with all the stooges references and slapstick.
I actually watched 2 and 3 before I had ever seen the first movie and it took me a while to warm to it..