Mike Russell is a RIFF MACHINE. Oh, he manages to fit in his top 10 for 2011, what with its surprises and its shocks and its blatant cheating (THIRTEEN is not the same as TEN, MIKE) but for the 45 minutes preceding that list? The one-liners will. not. STOP. Straight out the gate he starts with an interesting reading of E.T.’s character, and that leads us somehow to a world in which Dinosaurs are turned into smokable drugs, Michael Madsen’s disembodied head plays a role, and Benedict Cumberbatch plays a planet eating cornucopia in the next Star Trek movie. Of course, a discussion about copyright law, and the arguable remakability of Buffy and Evil Dead kept the conversation somewhat tethered, but if you wanted a dose of some squirrelly movie conversation? You got it.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Benedict Cumberbatch sorta resembles E.T. I *still* would. Noel Clarke (Mickey from Doctor Who) is in it too. I can see the Cumberbatch as a Romulan, but I hope it’s something different. Perhaps a Vulcan.
The premise for the Evil Dead remake interests me. I like Diablo Cody just fine, despite Jennifer’s Body. I’m for a Buffy remake as some sort of karma on Joss for Alien: Resurrection.
Just idle curiosity; do you think there might be a chance we might see Akira on a screen hosted by you guys at any point in the future? Because that would be awesome.
And there’s been something bothering me since I listened to the podcast last night.
So, the whole Evil Dead remake. Why is it being called a remake?
From what I understand, it’s got NOTHING to do with the original movie, outside of a vague concept outline. So why call it Evil Dead? Why not save fans, filmmakers and license holders the headache and just give it a different name? It seems to me that the whole franchise is an undue burden on the project as a whole, so why bother with it?
It’s five teens, holed up in a cabin, attacked by evil spirits that possess them and cause them to murder each other. I believe there’s even a necronomicon that summons the spirits. If it WASN’T called Evil Dead, it’d likely be written off as an Evil Dead rip-off. In this case, having the name adds legitimacy to what they’re doing.
Also, it’s not as if the creative team were like “I need a marketable name for my derivative Evil Dead movie.” Tapert/Raimi had been looking to re-do Evil Dead for awhile. So in this case, the license holders don’t have a headache. They want it to go this way. The name “Evil Dead” isn’t a burden on the movie. It’s the reason its being made. The project didn’t exist before Tapert/Raimi decided to do it.
so far as screening Akira goes? That was discussed as a possible “Classics at the Roseway” movie, but not as a Midnight Movie. Those have to be more pop in nature, as a rule. But should “Classics at the Roseway” ever come back, “Akira” is on that list, definitely.
Yeah, Akira would be an odd choice for a midnight movie. I’ve just always wanted the chance to see it on a big movie screen. That and a few other anime movies. That would be glorious.
As for Evil Dead, I guess my complaint isn’t really with this movie itself, but with the wonton nature and speed at which we decide to or not to adapt and remake stuff, and this movie is just a good example.
I don’t understand why anyone thought it should be done. Not to say this won’t be a good movie; it may yet be, but it just seems…superfluous. More so than the average remake I mean. I dunno.
And whether or not it’s going to live up to the name or not is going to be completely inconsequential, because all we’re going to hear in the next however long between now and a month or so after it comes out is how it’s not the original movie, and Lily Collins is nothing like Bruce Campbell, etcetera and so forth, ad nauseum.
They could have very easily given it a new name, and called it a “Spiritual successor” or something, mention how Sam Reimi is behind the whole thing and everyone would have been okay with that (kinda like exactly what happened with Drag Me To Hell), but no, they had to call it Evil Dead and force people to draw direct comparisons. As it stands now, it’s more of an Evil Dead rip-off than it would have been otherwise, because whether it’s a good movie or not, it’s cashing in on the name and nostalgia established and provided by the original movies, and little more.
Maybe I’m just Naive, but I’ve always liked to think there are only two instances when a remake or adaptation is justified (and nine times out of ten, the only instances when a remake or adaptation is any good);
Reparation, when the original work is outdated, or straight up bad and the new stuff improves upon it or erases a previously existing stigma (Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica being perfect examples)
And Exposure; when something is good enough to deserve a wider audience, but won’t get it otherwise. (Let Me In and to a lesser extent Girl with the Dragon tattoo)
This movie doesn’t really seem to fufill any of those. Again, not to say it absolutely won’t be any good, I just can’t help but look the whole thing over and wonder why.
Holy geez. Sorry for the TL;DR.
I dunno – the “They” you’re talking about is Sam Raimi/Robert Tapert themselves. Again – this isn’t a studio-mandated thing. It’s not like the property was hanging around at a studio and they were like “Let’s get Sam & Robert to sign off on this and rush it into theaters.” This is their project. They’ve been trying to remake Evil Dead for more than a few years now. At least 5 or 6.
Eh, I’m just ranting about the whole remake/adaptation infatuation Hollywood has (no one’s ever done that before!) and I just picked a bad movie to use as a whipping boy
I gotcha. This really is more of an exception-to-the-rule thing. Apologies for belaboring the point.
Huh. All this time I thought the genius creators of AxeCop were the first to come up with the idea of erudite dinosaurs with guns in them.
Michael Madsen is currently in the UK. We can watch him nightly in Celebrity Big Brother, he’s trapped in a house with loads of British folk even I haven’t heard of! He looks quite bemused but he did admit that he only does most of the films he’s in for the money.
I fucking hate Big Brother.
That might get me to watch Big Brother for the first time ever.
I mean – it’s not every day you get to see loads of british folk interact with A LION
This is very true. I am tempted to watch it every night to see if he wins but if I’m being honest, I’d rather pluck my own eyes out with a teaspoon.
I double checked and he is the only American in there. Poor bastard.
still listening, so don’t know if you came up with something similar, but let me pitch you a star trek sequel.
An exploratory ship from the Klingon Empire lands on a backwater human colony world. The exchange is peaceful, if tense. The Klingons land with a show of force, but are too honorable to attack civilians unless attacked first. The humans are freaked out by these scary aliens with weird, pointy swords and disruptor guns.
As the Klingons prepare to leave, a saboteur, possibly a rogue Klingon or a stowaway/spy from another race, siezes control of the weapons system and fires some photon torpedoes at the largest settlement, wiping it out.
Captain Cumberbatch’s family are among the dead. He spends the rest of the movie hunting down the Klingons he mistakenly feels are responsible, blowing up any of them who try to stop him. Kirk and company spend the movie chasing after him trying to stop him.
Whether they catch him or not, the damage is done. Since a Starfleet officer was responsible for the attacks on Klingon ships, the Empire holds Starfleet responsible and declares war.
In an interview, Meryl Streep said that she was going to compile all of her unused acceptance speeches into a book. Don’t know if she was serious, but I’ll bet it would be a good read.
-Since the mash-up thing being discussed, why not have ET meet Lexington Steele and have ET steal Lexington Steele’s “talent.”
-If you think of it this way, I thought “Barb Wire” was a great marketing idea on paper. Hot, topless Pamela Anderson shooting guns. After seeing the movie, I’m embarrassed to have said I saw that piece of trash especially after I call Citizen Kane, Patton, Magnolia, Oldboy, and Go as my top 5 movies of all time.
-”Stand By Me”, “Kids”, “Elephant”, and “Bully” are examples of better movies with predominantly all-kid casts.
-A woman going alone to a cabin? Great, the “Evil Dead” remake will fail. That same script concept failed in “I Spit On Your Grave.”
-According to imdb.com and CBS News, Lindsay Lohan is in talks to play Elizabeth Taylor in a TV movie (http://www.imdb.com/news/ni20825878/) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57355910-10391698/lindsay-lohan-to-play-elizabeth-taylor/).
-The main reason why I don’t show up to any midnight movies is in fear of Cort’s “Knife-High-Five.”
-I’m not understanding why Mike didn’t include “The Replacements” with George Clooney. I was memorized by his performance.