Evil Dead (2013) Comic Con Trailer Footage

[teemu]

The first works because of :



Or quite simply put. Bruce.

And because shock value was differant in the 80s. We never saw something like Evil Dead become so mainstream at that time.

Today the gore is meaningless. The 80s did a great job of grindhouse expliotation and the early 2000's films took it to the next level with Saw and Hostel. Thanks to those series, today's audiences have seen everything from graphic child murder to genitals cut off and fed to animals. It's retarded it's come to that for several reasons most notably it's ruined shock value. Shock value doesn't exist anymore and so this movie will never have a chance. We've all seen tons of movies where all the main characters die and humanity loses. Top it off with a story we all already know and no interesting actors to draw us in and all you're doing is refining the effects of the original if you can even call it refinement.

This is the very definition of a torture porn, zero orginality, zero story and acting, realistic as possible graphic violence. And it will in no way bring a new generation of younger viewers into the fan fold, the young kids who actually like this movie will think Bruce's version is retarded.

Taking it to broadway is brilliant, remaking it like this is nothing but a waste of money.

has nothing to do with shock value....its called desensitization,which is defined as the diminished emotional responsiveness to a negative or aversive stimulus after repeated exposure to it

 

[karamazov80]

There's some truth to the fact that folks get desensitized to certain things that folks in the past may not have been exposed to. . .however, if we step back in time just a handful of generations, folks had to deal with horrible facts of life all the time that most in the modern western world now don't have to think much about. Death was always lurking. People died early and often from common colds or what are now minor infections, infant mortality was extremely high, and there were places where folks were never very safe considering that lines of communication to authorities may not have existed or worked very well. Working conditions were harsh. Kids worked long, hard hours to help provide for the family. Folks would lose appendages in cotton gins and the like. People raised and slaughtered animals, and no one was shielded from it, which is an offensive idea to some today. Wars were brutal, and fought between human beings in conditions like the trenches of WWI, or the linear tactics used in the Revolutionary War.

So. . .I think it's all relative in other words. Yes, folks are now desensitized to certain things. But back then, folks were desensitized to other, more important realities that dominated lives. People often say that the world today is worse than it was at some idealistic point in the past, but things have always been imperfect.

 

[wofford29]

You must have just watched No Country For Old Men.

 

[CriterionCollector]

There's some truth to the fact that folks get desensitized to certain things that folks in the past may not have been exposed to. . .however, if we step back in time just a handful of generations, folks had to deal with horrible facts of life all the time that most in the modern western world now don't have to think much about. Death was always lurking. People died early and often from common colds or what are now minor infections, infant mortality was extremely high, and there were places where folks were never very safe considering that lines of communication to authorities may not have existed or worked very well. Working conditions were harsh. Kids worked long, hard hours to help provide for the family. Folks would lose appendages in cotton gins and the like. People raised and slaughtered animals, and no one was shielded from it, which is an offensive idea to some today. Wars were brutal, and fought between human beings in conditions like the trenches of WWI, or the linear tactics used in the Revolutionary War.

So. . .I think it's all relative in other words. Yes, folks are now desensitized to certain things. But back then, folks were desensitized to other, more important realities that dominated lives. People often say that the world today is worse than it was at some idealistic point in the past, but things have always been imperfect.

I get what you're saying like when they used to take pictures of dead people in caskets and public executions and the lot.

 

[crows]

I saw the red band trailer and it looks kinda interesting I guess but one thing I do not like about this movie is that the girl doesn't look demonic enough. The make up doesn't look that good, I mean, compared to the original and seeing how much blood they are going to have in the movie the girl in the trailer just doesn't look creepy at all.

 

[karamazov80]

You must have just watched No Country For Old Men.

No, but I will when I get Rainman's figure in-hand

 

[CriterionCollector]

I saw the red band trailer and it looks kinda interesting I guess but one thing I do not like about this movie is that the girl doesn't look demonic enough. The make up doesn't look that good, I mean, compared to the original and seeing how much blood they are going to have in the movie the girl in the trailer just doesn't look creepy at all.

You're right! Because slicing your tongue in half with a wood shaving knife is not quite demonic enough.

 

[CelticPredator]

They aren't demons. They're deadites.

 

[crows]

You're right! Because slicing your tongue in half with a wood shaving knife is not quite demonic enough.

They aren't demons. They're deadites.

either way they don't look horrible enough.
I'm sorry but slicing the tongue just looks stupid. That is personal opinion of course but she doesn't look nearly as messed up as they did in the original. They were pretty horrible and scary looking. Not these girls.

The movie might be good, we don't know yet, I just don't get why they look like that now. They look like "pretty" deadites lol.

 

[Ramatuelle]

They aren't demons. They're deadites.

They're people possessed by Kandarian demons. Original-film knowledge for the win.

I despise "torture porn" but I'm probably going to see this, if only out of loyalty to Raimi and Campbell. I find that first girl in the trailer, the one whispering about "....its in here with us" to be really annoying, but I'll get around it.

someone else: The make up doesn't look that good, I mean, compared to the original

Compared to the first film? Are you serious? I am a serious Evil Dead fan, but the makeup in the first film was beyond hokey, right down the the creamed corn decay. They had a budget of what, $5? Of course this makeup is better.

The only thing I really found creepy was the girl's severed head grinning up at her killer through the plastic bag, that was nasty.... let's hope there's more stuff like that in there. *gets popcorn*

 

[Ramatuelle]

I could have made a better Freddy vs. Jason using Movie Maniacs figures.

Hey, do that! I wanna see!! For real

 

[crows]

They're people possessed by Kandarian demons. Original-film knowledge for the win.

I despise "torture porn" but I'm probably going to see this, if only out of loyalty to Raimi and Campbell. I find that first girl in the trailer, the one whispering about "....its in here with us" to be really annoying, but I'll get around it.



Compared to the first film? Are you serious? I am a serious Evil Dead fan, but the makeup in the first film was beyond hokey, right down the the creamed corn decay. They had a budget of what, $5? Of course this makeup is better.

The only thing I really found creepy was the girl's severed head grinning up at her killer through the plastic bag, that was nasty.... let's hope there's more stuff like that in there. *gets popcorn*

I guess "better" is the wrong word to choose , but the girl in the trailer doesn't look scary.

 

[Ramatuelle]

That severed head grinning up through the bag was all the scary I needed to see. I can wade through the dreck, waiting for some good stuff to come floating across the screen.... nothing is perfect, and having expectations too high can be a problem - see: Prometheus.

Will this be an Oscar-winner? Heck no, but maybe it will be fun. I can tell you more than the makeup, the thing thatworriedmeis a Book of the Dead with "LEAVE THIS BOOK ALONE!!" [or whatever] scrawled across the pages.... that's no fun, the whole fun of the BotD was that they had *no idea* what the recording was reciting. Er, not till it was too late anyways.

 

[Ramatuelle]

I love how people keep saying, "It'll be okay since Bruce and Raimi are attached." Both have fully admitted to being whores if the check is big enough. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here.

WHO IN HOLLYWOOD is NOT a whore if the check is big enough?!!! Come on, man! Seriously. EVERY one of them does this, and so would you. So would I.

Like there's an elite class of moviemakers sitting around on clouds, going "My project must remain pure, ne'er will I entertain a thought of doing something for filthy lucre!!" PFFFFFFFFFT be serious.

Purity talks, but ten or twenty million walks. Count on it.

 

[CelticPredator]

Deadites, Demons, Michael Jackson...what's the difference.

 

[Matt S]

either way they don't look horrible enough.
They were pretty horrible and scary looking. Not these girls.

The original Evil Dead had atrocious make up - go back and look at it.......not scary looking, just terrible - of course, back in the day....

 

[thenammagazine]

WHO IN HOLLYWOOD is NOT a whore if the check is big enough?!!! Come on, man! Seriously. EVERY one of them does this, and so would you. So would I.

Like there's an elite class of moviemakers sitting around on clouds, going "My project must remain pure, ne'er will I entertain a thought of doing something for filthy lucre!!" PFFFFFFFFFT be serious.

Purity talks, but ten or twenty million walks. Count on it.

You completely missed the point of the post.

 

[Ramatuelle]

I chose to respond to the part of your post that I found salient. It's silly to hold those two to some higher standard of filmmaking; they like money, just like you and I do. And at least it does not look like they are completely butchering their original concept, as do many who return to long-dormant franchises.

Having rewatched the trailer, it looks like they are using John Carpenter's oft-used tactic of having the titular pestilence spread mouth to mouth, see: Prince of Darkness, original "The Thing" etc. Not exactly the same, but yeah. Looks like it. Ugh! So disgusting. *munching popcorn*

 

[thenammagazine]

I chose to respond to the part of your post that I found salient. It's silly to hold those two to some higher standard of filmmaking; they like money, just like you and I do. And at least it does not look like they are completely butchering their original concept, as do many who return to long-dormant franchises.

Having rewatched the trailer, it looks like they are using John Carpenter's oft-used tactic of having the titular pestilence spread mouth to mouth, see: Prince of Darkness, original "The Thing" etc. Not exactly the same, but yeah. Looks like it. Ugh! So disgusting. *munching popcorn*

I was making the same point as you are though. People are using the fact that both are involved as some sort of lame promise that the end result is going to be spectacular. The reality is, their involvement means nothing more than they're getting a check.

 

[karamazov80]

WHO IN HOLLYWOOD is NOT a whore if the check is big enough?!!!

David Cronenberg comes to mind. That guy does whatever the hell he wants and pulls zero punches. But he is the real exception. Most filmmakers who refuse to compromise end up relegated to the indie film circuit, where they'll be lucky to make enough money to get by.