Bruce Campbell conquers New York Comic Con with amazing Evil Dead footage, mere presence

Discuss

19 Responses to “Bruce Campbell conquers New York Comic Con with amazing Evil Dead footage, mere presence”

  1. Norman Eschenfelder says:

    I love LOVE love Bruce Campbell! My halloween costume this year and the last three years will be Ash, with the chainsaw and the Necronomicon in my hands (and instead of the right hand of course)

  2. ObeyMyBrain says:

    I kept thinking the 2 guys from Cabin in the Woods were going to show up. Especially after they said something like, “we never should have touched anything in that basement”

  3. Chris Arendt says:

    Sentences shouldn’t start with “And.”

  4. mobobo says:

    that preview makes me think there is a whole bag of awesomeness in the offing 

  5. Nash Rambler says:

    Updated tree rape, eh?  That might tease the dollars from my wallet.  Glad to hear there’s chainsaws though.  Wouldn’t be “Evil Dead” without some hot chainsaw action.

  6. Tree rape, chainsaw, hand cut off, cabin, and it’s NOT a remake or reboot? 

  7. David Hill says:

    The ‘tree rape’ scene is the one big thing he modified from 1 to 2. It still had the tree, but sans rape. Because unlike most guys, Sam Raimi grew up.

    I don’t know much about it. But I’m looking at who they replaced Ash with. I’m not sure I can see her filling that role. I might be wrong. I thought the woman in Drag Me To Hell was pretty damned good, but I think a lot of that came down to Raimi’s direction. 

    The beauty of Evil Dead was, Sam Raimi was brilliant. He did things no filmmaker at his time had done. The things Sam did, they’re in every single action/horror movie on the screen today. This remake cannot hope to do that; they’re just going to be doing those thirty year-old things. It can’t be Evil Dead, because it’s not revolutionary. 

    Also, I cannot stand Diablo Cody. She’s about as familiar with the way real people talk as, say, Kevin Smith. Or Joss Whedon. Their lines might sound cute as memes or ad copy. But they’re not conversational, and they universally feel forced. 

  8. ocatagon says:

    Even if it’s another Evil Dead movie, there’s still the question of do I want another Evil Dead movie. If it has the Necronomicon, tree rape, and chainsaws, all I can think is I’ve already seen that movie – three times. I’d rather they put their energies into something original. But what do I know – this will make them tons of money.

    • eldritch says:

      Sometimes a movie is made to break new ground. Other times, a movie is made to please the cult fan following. This is a case of the latter.

      Not every movie that gets made is meant to appeal to everyone. Sometimes a movie is made for a certain audience. Sometimes that audience isn’t you. Don’t rain on their parade just because you aren’t a part of it.

      • ocatagon says:

        Sorry, it just seems like most of the movies today are only meant to appease the cult following, but they’re the people buying movie tickets.

        • Donald Petersen says:

          Nah, the trouble is that most movies are meant to appeal to as broad an audience as possible in order to turn as big a profit as possible.  Horror movies are usually a cheap(ish) investment for a studio, since they rarely have to spend a lot on talent, exotic locations, pricey production values, or six-figure-plus script doctors.  But even the relatively freewheeling horror-film purveyors are allergic to risk, and are much more likely to spend the slightly larger budgets, not on original fare, but on solid, known-quantity, name-brand “cult” franchises… hence the interminable sequels of the 80s and 90s, and the endless stream of reboots of those same franchises today.

          What made the first Evil Dead so great was a handful of barely-out-of-their-teens filmmakers doing the best they could with a loose-change-under-the-couch-cushions budget (okay, low six figures) and more talent than sense.  It’s still a perfectly serviceable plot, and there’s no reason why the remake shouldn’t be an utterly scary and competent little horror movie, as long as the right people are making it (and it seems they are).  Great, as far as that goes.

          But yeah, we’ve been to that nasty little cabin in those godforsaken woods more than a few times by now.  No matter how talented the singers, at a certain point we tire of the same old song and dance.

          I just wish the studios would admit that there are stories worth telling and characters worth seeing that we didn’t see back in the 70s and 80s.  It feels like the abuse Universal used to heap on its stable of movie monsters from the 30s onward through the 60s… as if nothing could possibly be scary unless it be named Dracula, Larry Talbot, Im-Ho-Tep, or Frankenstein’s Monster.  For awhile there we simply couldn’t get away from Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, and Leatherface.  And maybe Chucky.  We had those relentlessly stupid Final Destination flicks for a while there, and now we’re stuck in an endless loop of found-footage horseshit and zombie movies of wildly varying quality.

          Buy a fresh script, somebody!  For the love of Mike!

  9. AwesomeRobot says:

    Here’s hoping it’s actually entertaining and not some shit gore fest that horror has seemingly resigned itself to. 

Leave a Reply