Talk:Evil Dead II
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Revenue Estimate
- 2 Full screen?
- 3 Remake Theory
- 4 Validity of claims
- 5 My Edit
- 6 Revision Needed
- 7 Remake or Sequel? neither
- 8 A Farewell To Arms
- 9 Dan Hicks
- 10 Fair use rationale for Image:Evil-dead-2-book-of-the-dead-limited-edition-20050923115402419.jpg
- 11 Plot summary
- 12 Temporal Portal - The Final Countdown Vs. The Evil Dead II
Surely the revenue estimate of under six million is too small. Does this include the DVD sales or is it just the Cinema takings? As a film with a "classic horror" status I would have thought that it returned much more than this... 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Illuvater01
Was the film originally shot in 1.33/1 and then matted for DVD release (like the original Evil Dead), or shot in 1.85/1?
In my opinion everything that happens up until Ash is thrown through trees is a remake. The beginning is just a retelling without Ash's pals and only his girlfriend.--suit-n-tie 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think so, too, but not the whole film is a remake. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Validity of claims
I've noticed some of these trivia bits are taken from the IMDb, which is often quite unreliable. I think someone should put a tag or something on this.
- I don't see one that isn't backed up by either the audio commentary on the DVD, Bill Warren's Evil Dead Companion (ISBN 0-312-27501-3), or Bruce Campbell's autobiography (ISBN 0-312-29145-0). Is any item in particulary troublesome to you? --SB | T 03:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Boomstick part of the In Other Media section should be removed, as this is a reference to the third evil dead movie, Army of Darkness, not the second. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Illuvater01
In the 2007 film Planet Terror from Grindhouse, character Cherry Darling gets bitten by a zombie. Losing her leg to this bite, she attaches a machine gun to the stump of her leg, perhaps alluding to Ash's chainsaw hand.
Cherry doesn't attach the machine gone. El Wray attaches it. It's also misleading to say that her leg was "bitten by a zombie." She is attacked by a group of zombies, and one is seen walking/running off with her leg. C d h (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Although no one cares, I have edited out the boyfriend/research partner with simply research partner. Not once was Ed called what's her name's boyfriend.--suit-n-tie 01:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The plot section is awful. I spent a few minutes making the grammar somewhat more comprehensible but someone needs to rewrite the entire section. The syntax is unbelievable and there were links to pages of the supporting characters' first names (i.e. Ed and Jake). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
yeah, this whole article sucks balls, sounds like one of the half-assed plot summaries everyone does in high school, run on sentences and redundancy and way too much information that isn't necessary, and lots of inconsistency in style. i dont care enough about the film to do the edits and im just here to complain but id think if the person writing it actually cared about the movie they'd try to write well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Remake or Sequel? neither
i'd like to redo this section but obviously not without a strong concensus. while many people argue about whether it is a remake or a sequel, there is a STRONGER argument that it is truely neither, but does incorporate aspects of both. the main reason that it is NOT truely a remake is that although the beginning of the film is 75% true to form of the original certain key aspects (storyline deviations) make it clear that is not a remake. first of all, three less characters arrive in the woods intially and secondly, Ash destroys the Necromonicon at the end of Evil Dead. Also the storyline incorporated from part 1 accounts for less than of part 2, since the similarities end after Ash deals with his dead girlfriend. Now the obvious reason that this IS NOT a sequel, which came to me after watching Evil Dead II, seems rather obvious, that in Evil Dead II, none of the events from Evil Dead I have taken place, in fact, they take place within the movie Evil Dead II. Let's clear up the confusion in this article. --AlexOvShaolin 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't you just call it a "retelling" and be done with it? There is no way this is a direct sequel as he burned the Necronomicon at the end of the first one, and in Evil Dead they show up to the cabin like they've never been there before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect, after the recap stated by sam raimi in the commentry of the Army special edition. One will never see the necronomicon in its full form thereafter. Only will you see the missing pages which are brought to the cabin by the other researchers in evil dead 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No one who has ever seen these movies could call this a sequel, regardless of what Sam Raimi may claim . If he claimed the movie was only twenty minutes long and stared Tom Hanks, it would not be true. If he claims that Evil Dead 2 is a sequel, it is equally untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet he is the director, he is the creator, if he said ash is the reincarnation of the tooth fairy and that the deadites are tooth decay out to bring sweet havoc to the world it would be true. If sam says its a sequel then sorry it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A Farewell To Arms
I changed the reference to this to being "the classic novel by Ernest Hemingway" to "by Stubby Kaye. This is presumably a reference to the classic novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway" but someone changed it back as comedian Stubby Kaye didn't really write this novel.
Regardless of the only "real" book titled "A Farewell To Arms" being written by Hemingway, the prop in the movie clearly says "by Stubby Kaye" - this is also mentioned by Sam Raimi in the audio commentary. Accordingly I have changed it back, with clarification. "Stubby" is presumably a joke by the filmmakers in reference to Ash's missing hand. Pearce.duncan 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am watching the movie as I write this and in the scene where you clearly see the book "Farewell to Arms" there is no "by Stubby Kaye" or mention of any other author, at least not that I can see. I realize that they joke about it on the commentary, but I really think you guys are misremembering the movie. I'll at least like to see some screencap of this as proof. As it stands I'm going to edit this because I think it's misinformation. Uselesswarrior 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi-lariously we just went over this issue on this very page *including screencaps* and I wouldn't be shocked if had happened earlier in the history as well. Perhaps this time the conversation should be left here to try and head off future attempts to change it. Blahaccountblah 13:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Evil-dead-2-book-of-the-dead-limited-edition-20050923115402419.jpg
Image:Evil-dead-2-book-of-the-dead-limited-edition-20050923115402419.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The plot summary for films should be between 400-700 words, not two sentences. Believe it or not most readers come to film articles to read the plot. They can pick up the DVD and read a two-sentence blurb. Wikipedia is supposed to offer more than that to readers. The summary before is too long, but it can be shorten to the reasonable length by regular editing according to the film plot guidelines. I'm going to revert it back and instead of cussing editors out in the edit summaries, actually try and participate in this discussion? 06:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- So I grabbed a much shorter but still fleshed out version of the plot from an earlier diff (I think this is the one I grabbed, minus the sequel vs. remake section) and dumped it in my sandbox. It still needs some work (massive wall of text, poor grammar, yada yada yada) but I've managed to trim about 100 words out of it already. I'll keep massaging it over the next few days but that version should be easy to work into an actual plot summary that isn't out of control. In the meantime, I really think the article is better served by temporarily having an overly long plot than a summary that amounts to the blurb on the back of a DVD box. Millahnna (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I have no idea where you got the idea that "most readers" want to read scene-by-scene breakdowns, and even if that were true, it's not actually an argument for including it. We don't decide things by majority rule; we decide based on actual substance. I also absolutely and totally disagree that the article is "better served" by horrible piles of shit in the middle of articles instead of sparse and utilitarian summaries. Having said that, the summary that's there, while still far too long and still horribly written, is not awful enough to warrant total erasure, so whatever.--KS | T 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well it never should have been a scene by scene break down to begin with (that seems to have come from detail creep that began back in 2008 and went on into 2009). Per the plot summary guidelines for Wiki in general and films in particular, that's not what a plot summary is supposed to be. However, it is also supposed to be a complete summary not a placeholder blurb (like those we often use in articles for films not yet released) thus my thoughts that the (admittedly horrid) overly long version served the article better for the time being. That said, I do agree that the one Betty found that I just dropped in could use some copy editing, which will probably cut down on the word count some. It's only 550 words now (well within length guidelines) so I'm not worried about the word count specifically, just the flow of the text. It seems that you and I share that pet peeve in common. In any case, if no one beats me to it, I'll try to go over it over the next few days to improve the sentence structure and flow and all of the usual things I try to look at. I'm sure I'll have typos though so someone should keep an eye on me, as it were. Millahnna (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Temporal Portal - The Final Countdown Vs. The Evil Dead II
I caught the end of The Evil Dead II on TV the other night & seen the scene with the temporal portal. Is the temporal portal the same one used (as in made using the same spacial effects/ CGIs) as the one used in the film The Final Countdown ? Also, how was the temporal portal effect made ? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)