Since this basically still applies maybe you'll answer me here.

Is it impossible for Hollywood to make film's that really revolve around what we all have in common, human nature, if they are simply interested in what sells? It would seem so right? Well than why not more films that can be taken seriously, is there a lack of passion and vision in Hollywood. That can't be so. Because right now it seems that there are Hollywood films vs. everything else films. I mean even Finding Nemo was awesome because it really dealt with issues that we all have felt, as well as using some kick-but special effects and animation.
So it can't really be a stark contrast between the two right? Your post has sparked some very interesting thoughts for me. So what do you think?

Why does Hollywood do that??? Doesn't it seem more or less possible now to devise a math equation that could show any production company that if you don't just stick with the original guys it's going to lose quality, especially with all the proof out there. I mean they understand business don't they, it seems they would pick up on that point quickly.

Or are we as well to blame...

Is it all because of money, egos, and the fact that most of the m.g.p. (movie going public) will eat up just about anything handed to us.

Is that it; are we all as a whole just basically buying into everything flung our way? I mean some of the stuff coming out nowadays would have never cut it thirty years ago. Even with over priced budgets and out of this world special effects. I mean is it even possible for us to create a movie that encompasses all the aspects of a great film - a classic film. Like Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now, and the matrix all rolled up into one style of film.

Now I�m not saying we all want to watch war films, or even films that are imbedded with Neo's clubbing hundreds of Smith's over the head. But couldn't and wouldn't we all benefit from more films, whatever the genre, that just embodied this simple philosophy? More substance�I guess I'm desperate for more magic like Good Will Hunting. That was just beautiful. Even the Matrix itself at least had good cinematic quality, stuck with the same style through the entirety of the trilogy, and used special effects to enhance itself.

Is it more our fault that this happens, I mean does the m.g.p. play the more important role of inspiring what actually makes it onto the silver screen? Is it all about the business and not creating the art? I mean if I,m creating something it's my baby, so if some executive walks in and basically uproots my �child� and hands it over to the new �parents� I'm ready to duel! You know?

Is that stretching it to compare the Industry to �Child Services� and new �Parents� at times?

I think we as the m.g.p. really need to start looking at ourselves and what we buy and except rather than pointing the finger at the �creators� and people at the helm. Not that we all do!

Your thoughts Richard?

Hey Justin.

I will reply to your first comment, I don't want this conversation thread to move off the Evil Dead topic - I think this one is really quite important.

Please understand that we are all very busy with life as well as making time to post, and although we may not immediately reply, or it seems like we don't even look at what you're writing, we do. We read the comments as they are emailed to the writers of each post, every single one.

We also do make comments, we are just behind the posts as getting the posts up there is the most important thing.

So if you don't mind, let's keep this conversation on the post and I'll answer your first comment today\tomorrow when I get a chance.

Cheers.

Now, everyone, back to the thoughts on Evil Dead remake and sequel...

Ok...great!

Thanks Richard.

I thought after a post was a couple of days old they got left alone...thanks for clearing that up.

So as we were all thinking, the evil dead remake...

Richard you may have missed one subtlety in that phrasing...by title, the execs probably don't literally mean they like the films title, but rather that the movie has been selling briskly on DVD...

as in "That title really sells a lot of DVDs". But most of your point still stands...the execs could care less about Evil Dead 1 and 2, which don't sell as well.

Hope this makes sense..

KURt.

Who cares about the Evil Dead remake? Justin's raised more interesting questions, albeit fragmentarily constructed, using your winding summary of the complexities of the Evil Dead saga as a springboard.

You seem distracted by trivialities, Richard, laboring over the technicalities of the who-what-when-where-hows, which, of course, have their place, but are tertiary to spontaneity and good old fashioned philosophizing. Spirited discussion should be neither bridled nor channeled. You may disagree with me, and being one of the head honchos here you have a right to, but really, who did you mean by "everyone" when you rallied the handful of us here to return to "the thoughts on Evil Dead remake and sequel...?" Who cares if the conversation strays? It's a BLOG, man.

I have to say though, that Justin's posts would be a little more readable if they had any flow to them.

I don't know why I'm expending myself at this particular blog on this particular website; it's just that I haven't found a more suitable forum and I have time to burn, sadly.

Aaaanyways, Justin, in response to what I could sieve from your...essay, I'd have to say that you're partly right: in a consumer driven culture, most of what permeates the shallows and nethers of our socioeconomic strata is a projection, reflection, what have you, of our tastes, in all of their baseness or refinement. Hollywood is not an exception, and yet you cannot blame your conveniently titled m.g.p. entirely for this seeming degeneration of cinematic standards.

One reason is that today’s m.g.p. is at best a skewed sampling of the American population in general. It’s primary demographic is the American male teenager, and I don’t think I have to elaborate on what that means. Essentially, the studios cater to whoever’s shelling out the dough, and who can blame them? It’s show business. Consequently though, that sours things for the rest of us because, as Richard wrote, the studios as a result are populated by bureaucratic dicks who greenlight movies essentially, yes, because their titles sound cool. These people just don’t care. To them the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Remember “The Player”?

But don’t get depressed. It’s not all that oppressive, because this is a multifaceted issue. For all it’s faults free-market capitalism possesses the virtue of ironic justice. We saw it dealt to the music industry when millions of anonymous rebels gleefully gave their thumbs down to the music biz and we all watched it kick and scream like a big baby at the hands of Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa and a slew of other p2p network, as we avenged ourselves for being forced to buy bloated, worthless CD’s for the sake of single songs. You have to understand that today’s Hollywood studio system is a decrepit, obese institution that faces a bleak future at the mercy of the inevitable tides of technological change unless those who run it are willing to immediately reassess themselves and adapt; but we all know that they’re not going to do that, don’t we? When has the old guard ever openly embraced change? If they do adapt it will be slowly and unwillingly, and certainly not fast enough to keep ahead of the young, desperate innovators who will overtake them like a pack of hungry wolves.

For years the studios had the sole say in what is allowed onto the big screen not only because they had the biggest budgets to blow on blockbusters, but because they had the monopoly on the distribution of said films. Inevitably, they couldn’t supply us with cinema as art, because true art is not always popular, and by the very nature of their pursuit the studio heads need their productions to make money, to be popular. And if that means alienating fringe audiences, so what? What do they matter, when you have the kids looking for a good time on a Friday night?

The Internet is the gift that keeps on giving, because it is subverting the limitations of brick and mortar theaters and rental stores. The concept of consumer controlled culture comes full circle as, with the advent of new revolutions in technology, America as an audience will be liberated. It’s not that we contributed through our participation to a slackening of Hollywood standards: it’s just that the system of the hit-and-miss blockbuster was not precise enough. By appealing to the majority, Hollywood estranged those discerning enough and forced them to either chase after art house theaters, bitch about how crappy the studio system is, or do what most of us do: pick from what is available. Usually the pickin‘s are slim. We weren’t given variety because variety isn’t what the studios needed to offer to make money. Nonetheless, the demand for decent film was there; now the technology to supply that demand is too, unfettered by limitations of screen and theater space. Just as Apple got with the program and not only placated angry abused consumers but made money in the process with it’s online music store, somebody out there has the chance to tap niche markets and give movie buffs what they always wanted: selection, something we can’t get enough of even from those giant multiplexes they’re erecting all over the place. Richard quotes Sam Raimi as saying that he believes the Evil Dead crowd to be small yet faithful. 100,000 is a big number, but scattered across the U.S. it’s insignificant. All that can change through an internet based distribution system that allows fans to make they’re material come to them. The October, 2004 issue of Wired has a concise briefing on the ramifications of the Internet to the distribution of film and music today, in an article called The Long Tail (http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html) for those of you who might be interested in an essay on similar subject matter that deftly surpasses my own aimless rant.

I can’t prophesy what shape or form these new movie distribution networks/systems will take, and I don’t have to. The exciting thing is that we’ve passed the theoretical stage to where such ideas are practicable thanks to the technology we have today. It is only up to the pragmatic minds of the willing to forge them. We already have a paradigm in Netflix, which is quickly catching up to brick and mortar stores in volume of sales with every passing year.

This spiel though, is just meant as a clarification. It doesn’t eliminate or explain away the reality that, in fact, the tastes of the American hoi poloi are rather mean. So what if the majority of moviegoers consists of teens. The teens grow up to be adults, and then what? That I do not have an answer for. I just hope that as the entertainment system evolves we’ll be enlightened with a slightly more optimistic revelation concerning our cultural fiber. Neither is this meant to be an authoritative statement. The more observant reader will notice that there are virtually no facts or objective supporting data to give this post substance, so if you, Richard or Justin, have any challenges, demands for clarification, specification, elucidation, or what not, feel free to write in response. Maybe I’ll come back sometime and answer them. But a response from anyone is highly unlikely, seeing as how this particular thread has been doing.

Ilya, what I am concerned about, for the majority of visitors to this Movie site, is keeping this particular topic on topic as it's a particularly important one - and I deem important by the amount of comments on associated posts. I don't deem that as trivial, a distraction, etc.

However, you rightly say "seeing as how this particular thread is doing", you've ascertained that it's pretty much been glazed over which is a real shame as it raises some important points.

Triflic - True, the exec could have referred to the title in that manner, which I guess does give them more intelligence than I credited them with! It would be good to know how Tapert felt it came across in the meeting.

Well now we're finally getting some comment from Raimi and Co. regarding Evil Dead 4. That's cool. But my concern is that if Re-Evil Dead fails at the B.O., then that will derail any chances of ED4 being made.

But with Boogeyman's success for Ghost House, preceeded by The Grudge, I guess there's a chance it will be successful and fund ED4.

Either way, a remake will alienate an already fairly small fanbase according to hollywood standards. I was talking to my wife about it and she's *really* against Re-Evil Dead. In fact, it's kinda jaded her opinion of Mr. Raimi, which it too bad. Had they just forged ahead with ED4 the buzz would be much more positive.

As somebody who asked Bruce Campbell what he thought of freddy vs jason vs ash I can assure you he was NOT, I repeat NOT interest in playing the part.