Talk:The Evil Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

"Who will be next possessed by the evil dead?

Will anyone survive this night of terror? I won't tell.
See this movie, you won't regret it!!!!!
The Greatest Horror Movie of All Time!!!!!"

-- What is this? Ad copy?

Horror or comedy[edit]

When I saw this movie I thought it was a satire of a horror movie, but the article seems to suggest that it is a serious horror movie. Is it intended to be humorous, or do I just have a twisted sense of humour to have responded to it that way? --194.98.58.121 (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Both —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over 4th film[edit]

Conflicting texts:

Raimi has been unable to find funding for a new Evil Dead movie. There have been rumors of a movie staring Ash, Bruce Campbell's character in the Evil Dead films, in a sequel to Freddy vs. Jason, referred to as Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash.

vs.

Against popular belief of many rumours, there is NO plan for an Evil Dead IV, a fact confirmed by both Campbell and Raimi on countless instances.

Moving them here until a source is cited on the issue of another sequel vel non.

There was a radio interview that Campbell said emphatically, "no" He's just too old. In the same interview, he said the work on Burn Notice is enough exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

The page says that references to Evil Dead have been made in several productions, and then lists those productions. When you go to those production's pages, the references are not listed. I'm not saying they should be listed on the page of the production, but they should be listed on the Evil Dead page, or else the mention should be omitted. In any event, I think most people, when they see something like this, are going to want to know exactly what the references are. --Corvun 06:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do a little digging, although I'm willing to bet that the list comes from imdb. -Parallel or Together? 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute of ED:IV Continued + AoD Reference to old movie![edit]

Campbell confirmed both on his website and as an extra in the recent release of the "Evil Dead: Regeneration" video game (Multi-system) that there was interest in doing ED:IV, but Rami's schedule was what was stopping any kind of production --According to Campbell-- and that the only way they were going to do ED:IV (past tense) was if Rami decided against doing Spiderman II. While I speculate it's still possible I imagine there will be yet another sequel to Spiderman in the works and that we shouldn't be expecting it any time soon, however I don't doubt we can expect a Bruce Campbell Cameo in that movie.

--

In addition I also recently discovered a reference in Army of Darkness to an old sci-fi movie, a black & white flick by the name of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I'll be requesting a page be done on that soon, but in the mean time I added the reference to the reference section. Correct me if you see something out of place or spelled wrong, or if you think you could word it better by all means...

P-battery 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)p-bat.

Reporting on the reference to The Day The Earth Stood Still is a bit like reporting that the sky is blue. You did not discover anything. It's not a hidden easter egg, it's a flat-in-your-face joke that is repeated three times. This endless overexplaining and listing of movie jokes on wikipedia is... well, it's not wonderful. Is this what wikipedia is really for? Sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out here, it's just something I find annoying generally. 24.33.28.52 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, cowboy. The section was removed long ago, no need to come in here and start flaming people. Take a deep breath, count to 10, go read WP:GF and WP:BITE, and then come back. Aguerriero (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Video game article[edit]

I don't know if anyone cares, but I made an article for the old Evil Dead Commodore 64 game. There was a link to it in the Evil Dead footer box, so I figured, why not. Who made that footer box? Aguerriero 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the footer box. It probably needs work, but it seemed good at the time. --Myles Long 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Sections - Can People Stop Adding Them Because They're Tacky[edit]

Nearly every film article I go to there is a trivia section, which frankly, are pathetic tripe. If someone has decent information add it to the flow of the article, not the easy option to set up a lame trivia section. LuciferMorgan 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't need to be reading about JASON GOES TO HELL in this article for instance. When some punk band writes a lame song with an Ash sample, it's not a trivia question about THE EVIL DEAD. That kind of stuff is intrusive. And for gods sake stop explaining jokes. The reason people laughed is that they got the joke already. Explaining it ruins the fun. 24.33.28.52 04:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, IMHO, the list of translated titles used in other countries are not exactly useful: they'll always be incomplete and don't really add anything about the film. --Outlyer 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one LOVE reading the trivia section to film articles. I felt this article was a little lame because it did not have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.138.234 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee?[edit]

I don't recall it ever being specifically stated in the film where the cabin was.

--Name Theft Victim 00:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of the movie, the Ash character remarks from the back seat of their moving car that they had just passed the Tennessee state line. The end credits of the film (which I just finished watching minutes ago) explictly state it was filmed in both Morristown, Tennessee and Detroit, Michigan. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tree-Rape Scene[edit]

I like that scene where that hot chick gets raped by a tree. She has nice breasts, and it was cool when that long and thick branch or root rammed itself into her vagina. Could someone upload a pic of that? A GIF image would be nice.

No basis for the inclusion of this image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is. It's the main reason why the movie is so famous.
It maybe a significant scene, but it isn't the main reason the movie was famous. Do you have a source that says the movie was famous for that reason? Your initial reasoning above do not state that is why you want the image. You clearly state that you want it because you like it, and then go on to describe the scene as if you were an adult romance novelist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, this is the talk page, not the actual article. Just check out (RULES 1 AND 2 NEWFAG).
Talk pages are not for your personal amusement either. What does it have to do with this page. You came here and made a request for an image in an inappropriate manner. That manner, and your continuous reverts without rewording your request, makes it hard to assume good faith about your intentions. Your choice of wording suggests you just want the image for some personal gratification, and only recently have you mentioned a viable reason to include it (but have no provided a source to verify your reasoning).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Such an image would be largely inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Please provide sources for how this scene is important. EVula // talk // // 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The image should not be included, due to the simple fact that such a powerfully disturbing scene should not be "spoiled" by such a visual preview (in addition to other reasons already stated). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Imagine if somebody were to say, "I like that bit of history when the Nazis exterminated the Jews." I'm amazed that the misogynist imbecile who posted the original comment didn't have his comment removed quick smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.110.229 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DVD Release section?[edit]

Does anyone else think it would be a good addition to the article?--$UIT 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Film articles typically don't have sections devoted just to DVD release, that information usually falls under just "Release", where you'd find reception information. Also, the DVD cover violates WP:FU criteria. Cover art must be accompanied by critical commentary to establish significance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I see. I was wondering why the image was removed. Thanks for the explanation--$UIT 03:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Setting[edit]

I changed the references to where the movie is set because I couldn't find any reference for it. The script itself only says that they are Michigan State students, and the movie was shot in Michigan, but neither of those definitively mean that the movie is set in Michigan. And the only reference for any Evil Dead setting being Dearborn specifically is for the video game. Lachatdelarue 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the first 2 minutes of the film, Ash is looking at a map. He states that they have just driven over the Tennessee border. I think that it is safe to say that the film is set in Tennessee. JazzButcher 06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to my previous post, I have just watched the film again and at the end it says that it was shot in both Morristown, Tennessee and Detroit, Michigan. JazzButcher 06:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Year of Film Release?[edit]

The article states this film was released on October 15th of 1981, but the film credits clearly list it as copyright 1982. Is this a discrepancy, or do films sometimes not get copyrighted until after their release? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It may have had a Copyright pending ... -Ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.232.204 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

plot[edit]

The plots written terribly, as if it had been translated or something. Could we rewrite it?--81.132.41.51 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to fix the plot so its readable. Its fine for the main part, but at times is incomprehensible (I do it myself, but I haven't actually seen the film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.214.74 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the plot summary to the version on 19 February 2008, before an anon account added much of the gibberish. It isn't perfect, but is back to readable. If y'all still want to rewrite it, y'all go on ahead - Foetusized (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

plot[edit]

The grammar in the plot description is still terrible.

How did the last evil survive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.19.148 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's bothering you, stop whining and fix it yourself - Foetusized (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Also known"[edit]

I object to "(also known as: Evil Dead, The Book of the Dead, Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead and The Evil Dead, the Ultimate Experience in Grueling Horror)", especially early in the article. The movie has a title; who cares whether indeterminate numbers of anonymous people "know" it otherwise? Unfree (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Budget[edit]

is the budget true? it was 375000 and sold 24 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goostaw (talkcontribs) 06:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Demons?[edit]

Where did all the links to the different demons come from? Is it actually stated that the Demons are what they're linked to be?

No. They should be removed as OR. I took care of it in this edit. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture Replacements[edit]

Some pictures there should be replaced, mainly the one of the contact lens. Simply because that particular contact lens is not the one used in the movie, it's just a picture of a lens. The links for words (contact lens) is enough for people to know what it is, but we should use the actual lens shown in the movie instead. That's my opinion to achieve full clarity, some may assume that particular lens is in fact one that was used. What do you think? Sivos909 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just removed four images, which had little or nothing to do with the film, that seemed to have been inserted just for the purpose of having an image in each section. I removed the generic contact lens, downtown Morristown (miles away from the filming location, as mentioned in the text), and two film makers of works that had been compared to this film in reviews. I erred on the side of caution; I almost removed a couple more images of people involved in the production, who are pictured a second person that had nothing to do with this film -- Foetusized (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

Did something happen to the top of the article? Where's the poster and the table of actors and directors and stuff? --Matt723star (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Evil Dead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 4, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Could use some improvements here:
  1. Writing style is a bit lacking.
  2. Please file a request with WP:GOCE for copyediting. It doesn't matter if they don't get to it in time for this GA Review, just another helpful step in the quality improvement process.
  3. Please post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, asking for help from copyeditors.
  4. If you know of any other good copyeditors you can ask them on their user talk pages for help, if they haven't previously been involved with this article page.
  5. Example: "The Evil Dead is a 1981 American horror film written and directed by Sam Raimi, and starring Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, and Betsy Baker." Two "ands", indicates this sentence should be broken in two to avoid 2nd use of "and".
  6. " After asking a wide variety of investors, Raimi secured $90,000 to produce The Evil Dead. The film was shot on location in a remote cabin located in Morristown, Tennessee; the filming process was very uncomfortable and difficult for the majority of the crew. " - another sentence that is too long and should be broken in two.
2. Factually accurate?: Sources could use a bit of formatting work:
  1. Please go through and make sure citations are all formatted with information filling out fields from citation templates using WP:CIT.
  2. Please make sure no cites are just a bare link and a title.
  3. Please go through and make sure cites verify WP:V, and of course please review all cites for WP:RS standards.
  4. Example http://www.cracked.com/article_19901_5-great-movie-scenes-made-possible-by-reckless-endangerment_p2.html is this the best WP:RS source for this article? Also, the cite lacks info other than a link? Publisher? Work? Accessdate?
  5. Please check that all links still work and that they have accessdates.
  6. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1823815&displaytype=printable - what is this site? Is this the best WP:RS source there can be for this info?
  7. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/170551-books-of-the-dead-the-followers-and-clones-of-the-evil-dead/ Is this the best most reliable source that can be found for this info?
  8. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21645 - not sure this is the best source for this info, could a better cite be found?
3. Broad in coverage?: Problems with thoroughness issues:
  1. Background sect - this is all Production info. The "Background" sect header should be removed, this info should then all be moved into the top part of the Production sect.
  2. Casting - could more info about casting be added to the Production sect, enough to perhaps justify its own subsection header?
  3. Commercial release - what about some more info on home release? DVD? Bluray? VHS? Commentary and/or reception? Any special features used for these releases?
  1. Started a home video subsection.
4. Neutral point of view?: NPOV issues:
  1. Edits like this one are unfortunately adding POV wording with unformatted sources. "Perhaps the most creative and stylistically recognizable camera trick used " - according to whom? Is this the POV of the editor that added this info? Who is this attributable to?
  2. Please add Rotten Tomatoes ratings and Metacritic ratings to the top of the sect for Early reception. See wording model on how to do this at Batman_begins#Reception.
5. Article stability? Stability issues:
  1. Unfortunately, page has stability problems. Not sure if there are enough people reliably and actively watchlisting this page and noticing changes that degrade its quality.
  2. Example this edit as noted above, that adds an unformatted cite with POV wording.
  3. Another example this problem that was discussed on the talk page. Again, not sure if enough active editors are on top of this. This appears to be a pretty popular page with drive-by-changes from those that might not be improving its quality.
  4. We'll try to give it some more time to see how stability plays out during this ongoing GA Review process.
6. Images?: Lots of images used, here are some comments about things to fix with them:
  1. File:Evil dead ver1.jpg - please reformat this with more fair use rationale argumentation, like at model for File:Batman Begins Poster.jpg.
  2. File:Sam Raimi by Gage Skidmore.jpg - checks out okay.
  3. File:Ted Raimi by David Shankbone.jpg - no issues here.
  4. File:COEN Brothers (cannesPH).jpg - no problems with this one.
  5. File:RedfordTheatreMarquee.jpg - this one is good.
  6. File:Stephen King, Comicon.jpg - this image checks out okay.
  7. File:Bruce Campbell .jpg - kinda wish there was a better quality image for use here, but licensing is okay.


NOTE: Please respond, below, and please don't intersperse comments in between mine in this review, instead please comment below, after this review, below it. Thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Revisiting the page after 48 hours, unfortunately it appears that none of the above points have been responded to or addressed. If the GA Review is addressed, please respond and note it, back here at the GA Review subpage. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it took a while to reply. igordebraga 05:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please move your comments, below, here, instead of interspersed above? Please see the "NOTE:, above, in the GA Review, about that. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Fixed the lead stuff from A, reworked Cast/Development into Production (as well as adding actor names to the plot), changed the Cracked ref, expanded the poster rationale, changed the biased example above. Also put it on the GOCE, don't know if someone will help soon enough. But I didn't put that regarding the aggregators because most of the reviews used there are retroactive - after all, both RT and MC mostly use online texts. igordebraga 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better. :) Could you also post to talk pages of a few relevant WikiProjects asking for copyeditors? And also to user talk pages of a few editors who've demonstrated ability to improve articles to GA or FA in this topic area (film, horror, popular culture, etc.) ? — Cirt (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the note at the Horror Wikiproject, and I can copyedit the article, if no one minds. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Please do! Please keep us posted here, — Cirt (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful. It's been a while since I've seen the film, so I have a few plot-related questions:
  • "Later, Cheryl becomes demonically possessed, and tells everyone that the demons will take them one by one"... As in the demons will kill them?
  • When does Shelly get possessed? Is it after Cheryl is locked in the cellar?
  • "Scotty, now demonically possessed, reanimates and tries to kill Ash" Did Scotty die before this?
Thank you! Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, "The duo directed several low-budget Super 8 mm film projects together.[1] Several of the films they worked on were comedies, including Clockwork and It's Murder!.[2][3] " Are the several films mentioned the same as the Super 8mm film projects?
  • Jumping in here as requested by the nom. I can confirm that Clockwork and It's Murder were all Super 8 mm film projects - all of Raimi's films were shot on Super 8 up until this point (including The Evil Dead), but the larger budget helped prevent the conversion problems they had with Within the Woods when they hit the problem of blowing it from 8 mm up to 35 mm. After the profits made from The Evil Dead they switched the industry standard to make it easier. Miyagawa (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. :) Thank you! Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "J.C. Maçek III of PopMatters said, "What is unquestionable is that the Raimis and their pals created a monster in The Evil Dead." Was the film's title italicised in the original text?
And except for the questions above, I'm done! It's a really interesting article. :) If I accidently cut out an important plot-related detail, please don't hesitate to fix it. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And Yes check.svg Done with copyediting! Sorry about all that indenting. :) I think this is a interesting and well-researched article (and I'm not a fan of the film for the record.). :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review passed[edit]

Thanks very much to those above that helped out with copyediting, — Cirt (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy sect, citation needed[edit]

Citation needed for last sentence in sect, Legacy. — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

La Casa series, unsourced sect[edit]

La Casa series, unsourced sect. This entire section of the article is unsourced. Added {{unsourcedsect}} until this glaring problem is addressed. — Cirt (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced additions notice[edit]

Substed template to top of article page, using {{Unsourced additions}} template. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

La Casa series - revisited[edit]

Adding some citation needed tags in this sect. Lots of unsourced issues still remain with this wholly problematic sect. — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've copyedited this section to match the PopMatters source cited - I've also moved it to the aftemath section, as I think it's more fitting there (it's where the official sequels are discussed) Etron81 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. Still does not explain why you removed changes by Igordebraga (talk · contribs) with zero explanation as to why.
  2. Unfortunately, this means this article is now getting unstable.
  3. Therefore, your actions are directly harming this article's chances of passing for WP:GA quality status.
  4. Please explain why you undid the edit by Igordebraga (talk · contribs) with zero explanation, and if this will happen again.

Cirt (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I undid the edit as it was a deletion of content with no explanation (and forgot to put an explanation in myself - perils of editing late at night) - I am not overly attached with this section (and it may be better covered in the franchise article anyway). It is not my intent to jeopardize a GA status or to destabilize the article (although I am unsure how my actions are doing so). The section can probably be rewritten better, but it does have a source now Etron81 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet you also cut out my fixing of two additions put by Cirt, one unintentional (the gap atop the article caused by {{unsourced additions}}), and one for improvement (requesting a cite regarding Bruce's cameo in the remake). Not the best thing you could do. igordebraga 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to allow some time to see if this article will stabilize again, but right now, unfortunately, it's questionable. — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for any trouble I may have indadvertedly caused - I certainly did not intend to remove a Citation request - If I have any edits I want to make in future, I'll air them here on the talk page first. Etron81 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that sound great, — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I took another look at the edit I reverted and realised that I had mistaken it for a wholesale deletion of the La Casa section, but it actually moved it and copyeidted it (basically what I subsequently did) and added a source for the cameo - I apologise unreservedly for that... Thanks for all your work in getting this article Good status! Etron81 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation. — Cirt (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)