Quote:
Originally Posted by deamonfruba
**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 :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deamonfruba
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by deamonfruba
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.