My Name is Bruce (Bruce Campbell, 2007)

[DrewReiber]

My Name is Bruce

For completions sake, I'm including this one. Unfortunately, "The Man with the Screaming Brain" was a raging piece of trash and the experience of seeing it theatrically was akin to that of Chinese bamboo fingernail torture. After a while, your nerves give out, the pain stops and you just don't feel anything anymore. I've decided to give this one a chance anyway, because on top of a wonderful concept it has real production team this time. "Brain" was produced by and for the Sci-Fi Channel, and from what I can tell, Campbell was very much on his own. I can forgive him for most of the budget restrictions, but the script was inexcuseable.

This time he has the help of producer Mike Richardson (as part of the ongoing Dark Horse Entertainment label), with Mark Verheidon ("Time Cop" comic & film, "Batman/Superman" comics) on script duties. Apparently the movie is to debut in April at the Ashland Independent Film Festival in Oregon, where it was filmed and both Richardson and Campbell reside. I'll be crossing my fingers, because I doubt we'll ever be seeing Ash again after Raimi put the kibosh on "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" to make more money on the "Evil Dead" remake. Ugh.

[Mr Sausage]

I doubt we'll ever be seeing Ash again after Raimi put the kibosh on "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" to make more money on the "Evil Dead" remake. Ugh.

Hah! I love how you're disgusted that they're remaking the Evil Dead, yet the fact that the alternative is a triple franchise mashup called Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash doesn't even make you bat an eye. I suppose dealing with the horror genre for a long period will do that.

Frankly, after Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, there isn't much more you need. I suppose I prefer a remake over slowly bleeding the life out of a deliriously entertaining franchise. The third movie in the series is still twice as inventive as any film in those other two franchises.

[DrewReiber]

Hah! I love how you're disgusted that they're remaking the Evil Dead, yet the fact that the alternative is a triple franchise mashup called Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash doesn't even make you bat an eye. I suppose dealing with the horror genre for a long period will do that.

Or more likely, I really appreciated what Ronny Yu did with the last one, compounded by making ten years of development pay off with a decent writing team (and uncredited polishes by David Goyer).

Still, thanks for the personal attack. It's nice to know that starting threads of discussion can still be a prime motivator for baseless and irritating childishness. Far be it for anyone to point out any potential from the hardwork of established talents in contrast to an in-name-only remake intended for a quick buck.

Frankly, after Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, there isn't much more you need. I suppose I prefer a remake over slowly bleeding the life out of a deliriously entertaining franchise.

In other words, you would rather be guaranteed a waste of time than bother to roll with chance for a potentially interesting endeavor. The studios must love you.

[toiletduck!]

The third movie in the series is still twice as inventive as any film in those other two franchises.

You know, I watched Friday Part VII for the first time in years the other night, so it might just be the proximity speaking, but it was much much better than I remembered. There's some good (occasionally really creative -- esp. for the seventh(!) in any series) shit there. So, I disagree.

But Freddy v. Jason v. Ash? Ughhhhh. So, I agree. And I even enjoyed FvJ to an extent. Much more than AvP, at least.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Mr Sausage]

Still, thanks for the personal attack. It's nice to know that starting threads of discussion can still be a prime motivator for baseless and irritating childishness. Far be it for anyone to point out any potential from the hardwork of established talents in contrast to an in-name-only remake intended for a quick buck.

What personal attack? I wrote that in good humour, and I was hoping to see you share the amusement. Evidently your dogged ill-humour persists.

In other words, you would rather be guaranteed a waste of time than bother to roll with chance for a potentially interesting endeavor. The studios must love you.

Perhaps this would be a good time to stop paraphrasing other people's words; you are quite bad at it. I'm not going to bother to refute what you've said since it's crippled by too many faulty assumptions and trips over its own gimp-legs. I mean, is an Evil Dead remake in my eyes a "waste of time?" Do I see a Jason vs Freddy vs Ash film as "potentially interesting?" Those sound like your opinions; they have nothing at all to do with me.

You know, I watched Friday Part VII for the first time in years the other night, so it might just be the proximity speaking, but it was much much better than I remembered. There's some good (occasionally really creative -- esp. for the seventh(!) in any series) shit there. So, I disagree.

That's the one with the psychic girl, no? Perhaps it is more inventive than I remember. Certainly my opinions on the Evil Dead trilogy are not the be trusted--I couldn't manage a reasonable perspective if I tried.

[toiletduck!]

You know, for a second I almost feel bad derailing a thread in the name Friday the 13th Part VII, but it's gotta be forum precedent, so fuck it!

That's the one with the psychic girl, no? Perhaps it is more inventive than I remember.

Yeah -- it's also the one with the scene in a kitchen where if you're watching, you can see Jason lurking in a dark corner during an earlier slight pan. Totally subtle, probably rarely noticed by casual viewers (because you know there's just a ton of those for Part VII), and still manages to creep the piss out of me.

-Toilet Dcuk

[DrewReiber]

Yeah -- it's also the one with the scene in a kitchen where if you're watching, you can see Jason lurking in a dark corner during an earlier slight pan. Totally subtle, probably rarely noticed by casual viewers (because you know there's just a ton of those for Part VII), and still manages to creep the piss out of me.

Coincidentally, that sequel was originally supposed to be the first Freddy vs. Jason project. When talks broke down between New Line and Paramount, they inserted the Carrie-esque character instead.

[colinr0380]

Strange, I also spent the last week rewatching my Friday the 13th Paramount box set and would agree that the seventh film is surprisingly good. I actually prefer the Paramount Friday films with the interchangable teens - strangely they offered much more fun, and variety in death scenes, than the films since from New Line have (apart from the virtual reality scene from
Jason X with it's inspired homage to the sleeping bag death from part 7 - "Let's all take drugs and have pre-marital sex!" "Yay! I love pre-marital sex!"). The New Line films have gotten better as they have gone on, but Jason Goes To Hell was probably the worst of all the Friday films, a couple of interesting deaths but it was both silly and , even more importantly, boring - I can understand why it took nine years for another one to be made after that came out!

My personal favourite Friday films are the fourth, with Corey Feldman, some brilliant deaths and Crispin Glover getting 'screwed' in a number of senses! The sixth ("So what did you want to be when you grew up?"), otherwise known as the first with the zombie Jason! And the seventh, for the reasons mentioned above - the brief glimpse of Jason in the corner, the psychic battle (maybe not as impressive as the one from Scanners, but then what is?), and one of the best explosions I've seen for a while!

The first three are also great fun. I've never gotten over the twist at the end of Part V, but I'll have to go back and see if it has anything else to recommend it. Part VIII is just poor, but then not as poor as the next film Jason Goes To Hell was!

I also liked the strong sense of continuity between the films, especially between three and seven. I can understand why they moved away from that, but it is still a little disappointing when Jason is in Manhattan at the end of the eighth and somewhere different without explanation at the beginning of the ninth (New Line's first); then is dragged down to Hell (by Freddy!) at the end of the ninth but is in a government facility (run by David Cronenberg!) in the tenth; then is on a different planet in the future at the end of the tenth and is in Freddy's world in the eleventh film! Not even any attempt at a connection, which is a bit disappointing.

[DrewReiber]

Part VIII is just poor, but then not as poor as the next film Jason Goes To Hell was!

You know, I had thought I remembered Part VIII being so bad it was fun to watch. Unfortunately, I discovered I was wrong when I saw it for $6 and picked it up as a late nite joke screening for my friends. It was tedious, frustratingly long and poorly made... *FOR A FRIDAY MOVIE*! I remember revisting Jason Goes to Hell was even more painful and unenjoyable.

Anyway, I'm curious if IV and VI are still as (unintentionally?) funny as I recall, or just as bad. The only films in the series that I thought had any redeeming value were II and III, until I saw Mario Bava's Twitch of the Death Nerve and that kind of took the air out of it.

I also liked the strong sense of continuity between the films, especially between three and seven. I can understand why they moved away from that, but it is still a little disappointing when Jason is in Manhattan at the end of the eighth and somewhere different without explanation at the beginning of the ninth (New Line's first);

To be fair, I believe Paramount did what they did at the end of VIII knowing they were losing the license. Also, I'm pretty sure the only movies that retained any sense of continuity were I-III and VI-VIII.

[colinr0380]

You know, I had thought I remembered Part VIII being so bad it was fun to watch. Unfortunately, I discovered I was wrong when I saw it for $6 and picked it up as a late nite joke screening for my friends. It was tedious, frustratingly long and poorly made... *FOR A FRIDAY MOVIE*! I remember revisting Jason Goes to Hell was even more painful and unenjoyable.

Anyway, I'm curious if IV and VI are still as (unintentionally?) funny as I recall, or just as bad. The only films in the series that I thought had any redeeming value were II and III, until I saw Mario Bava's Twitch of the Death Nerve and that kind of took the air out of it.

I had actually only seen part eight on the television before getting the DVD set, and so came to watch them with incredibly low expectations. I think it might have been because of that, I was pleasantly surprised by all the others and I think the sense of humour was very intentional, beginning with the 3D gimmick of part 3, with flying eyeballs as heads get crushed and such! I'd say three, four and six are probably good as dumb-but-fun horrors! (still not sure about five!)

To be fair, I believe Paramount did what they did at the end of VIII knowing they were losing the license. Also, I'm pretty sure the only movies that retained any sense of continuity were I-III and VI-VIII.

According to the director in the (very good, better than the film!) commentary he asked if he could finally kill Jason off, with the mindset that this was truly the end, and was told he could, probably because they could bring him back if they wanted more (as they had done with part 6 - or really in every film!). It does make the subsequent selling off to New Line seem a nasty move by Paramount though - sure you can have the rights, but we've completely killed even his zombie off in the last one!

Yes, each film went off down its own track but even at part 7 they were still taking the trouble to recap previous events, with highlights of the action. That stopped with the eighth. Part 2 is really a complete remake of part 1, just with a different killer (the best addition to the second film, apart from Jason, was the opening with Adrienne King returning. Imagine if that had happened to Neve Campbell's character in Scream 2 or 3?). I just like the continuity of starting part 4 with a pan over the location of part 3's carnage, even if after that first scene the film goes it's own way. Part 4, 5 and 6 have the Tommy Jarvis character running through them, but even part 7 has a bit of continuity by starting with Jason chained at the bottom of the lake, where he was left at the end of part 6. (Now that I think of it, even part 8 started with Jason underneath the remains of the pier from part 7!)

It was just a nod to what came before, but it was nice for fans and I appreciated those moments! I just got the impression that the New Line films were made thinking (perhaps correctly) that no one watching would care what came before, or not be able to remember?

[Mr Sausage]

The first three are also great fun.

Really? I've always found the first two films to be really very bad, almost unwatchable. I have especially vivid memories of watching the first one continually try for suspense and tension and completely fail in every attempt. It and its sequel make a very bad comparison with Halloween, or even something like Argento's Deep Red. Both films provoke only laughter and amazement at their truly abysmal quality. Such moments as having the revealed killer in part one run around saying in her best (I mean that sarcastically) baby-voice "get her, mommy. Kill her!," or having Jason, standing on a chair, take a swing with an axe at the heroine and promptly fall face first onto the floor had me in peals of laughter. And did anyone honestly think giving their killer a pillow-sack for a head (with one eyehole), cowboy boots, and overalls would make him a convincing threat? Everytime I see him I keep picturing a typical day for Jason: washing his overalls and pillowcases, shining his boots, cutting those individual eyes holes and ever carefully trying them on to see which made the best fit.

I just can't appreciate those movies on their own merits. The only fun to be had is in behaving derisively towards them, which can be its own kind of fun, but this feeling isn't sustained long enough or at sufficient heights to recommend either film over similarly ludicrous movies. Most of the time I just marvel at how such promising situations--the creepiness of being isolated in the woods while something hunts you--are wasted by poor filmmaking. I must admit, their continued popularity as quality shock films is puzzling.

[DrewReiber]

It does make the subsequent selling off to New Line seem a nasty move by Paramount though - sure you can have the rights, but we've completely killed even his zombie off in the last one!

Are you sure they sold the rights? I don't think they ever *owned* Jason, they simply own the rights to "Friday the 13th". That's why those idiots at Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes ended up with rights problems when they tried to go ahead with a Friday remake at New Line (without Paramount's involvement). I'm pretty sure that Jason as a property is under the ownership of producer/filmmaker Sean S. Cunningham. I also believe moved it over to New Line after Paramount let the licensed agreement expire.

Part 2 is really a complete remake of part 1, just with a different killer

The first three films are largely taken from Bava's Death Nerve, sans additional multiple killers, plot and shocking resolution. Cunningham simply spread out each murder from the one movie throughout the sequels, shot-for-shot.

Part 4, 5 and 6 have the Tommy Jarvis character running through them

Ok, I'll give you part 4, but there's still little-to-no continuity between the next several films. Tommy is the new killer by the end of 5, and the beginning of 6 completely throws out every bit of the previous film. The series makes far more sense if you simply drop 5, or you end up having to accept the ridiculous denoument of Jason Goes To Hell which still doesn't explain Tommy's return in 6. Any way you put it, the continuity of the series becomes incomprehensible at this point.

I just got the impression that the New Line films were made thinking (perhaps correctly) that no one watching would care what came before, or not be able to remember?

What, are you saying that the Nightmare on Elm Street series continuity isn't consistent either?!? How is that possible!!!

[colinr0380]

It does make the subsequent selling off to New Line seem a nasty move by Paramount though - sure you can have the rights, but we've completely killed even his zombie off in the last one!

Are you sure they sold the rights? I don't think they ever *owned* Jason, they simply own the rights to "Friday the 13th". That's why those idiots at Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes ended up with rights problems when they tried to go ahead with a Friday remake at New Line (without Paramount's involvement). I'm pretty sure that Jason as a property is under the ownership of producer/filmmaker Sean S. Cunningham. I also believe moved it over to New Line after Paramount let the licensed agreement expire.

Yes, I think that is probably what happened (and explains why they are all called Jason...whatever, rather than Friday the 13th).

Part 4, 5 and 6 have the Tommy Jarvis character running through them

Ok, I'll give you part 4, but there's still little-to-no continuity between the next several films. Tommy is the new killer by the end of 5, and the beginning of 6 completely throws out every bit of the previous film. The series makes far more sense if you simply drop 5, or you end up having to accept the ridiculous denoument of Jason Goes To Hell which still doesn't explain Tommy's return in 6. Any way you put it, the continuity of the series becomes incomprehensible at this point.

He isn't the new killer in part 5, he is just worried he may be, and other people assume he is. Of course the audience is also led to suspect he is, partly because of the way part 4 ended more than anything (another example of themes crossing over from one film to the next). However part 5 is a murder mystery type film similar to the first two parts (and I haven't seen Bay of Blood yet, but it is a film I'm interested in seeing in the future ): is it Tommy?, was Jason not killed in part 4? (he was), or is it, in a Scooby-Doo-like twist, the person we glimpsed for six seconds early in the film now wearing the hockey mask to commit the murders? Sadly the latter, which is why there was all the controversy over whether you can have a Friday the 13th film without Jason.

The sixth film carries over the fears that Tommy spent the whole of the fifth film going over - whether Jason was dead or not. Unfortunately his expedition to unearth the corpse and then his decision to stupidly stake him with a metal pole in the middle of a storm makes his worst fears a reality when he brings Jason back to life as a zombie!

I just got the impression that the New Line films were made thinking (perhaps correctly) that no one watching would care what came before, or not be able to remember?

What, are you saying that the Nightmare on Elm Street series continuity isn't consistent either?!? How is that possible!!!

No, I'm not, although strangely the Nightmare films went down the same route - some attempt at continuity with the earlier films before giving up at the end. For example, the mostly crappy part 2 (only notable for the homo-erotic element, the sado-masochistic death of the gym teacher and the exploding budgie!), is meant to be set in the same house Nancy lived in in the first part.

They take that story to a dead end so the series is rebooted (it doesn't ignore part 2, but the second part has no characters in common with the rest of the series, so could be considered as occuring separately) with the very good third part, Dream Warriors, which reintroduces Heather Langenkamp , back from the first and the only one who knows what is going on and can save the kids, including Patricia Arquette. John Saxon is also brought back as Nancy's father. This turns out, for me, to be the best of the sequels.

Now, there is a very strong continuity between the third, fourth and fifth Nightmare films, which does suggest that there was some attempt to have a continuing story. Whether people recognised the continuity or not is a different matter, made more difficult by the same characters being played by different actors over the films.

For example the part played by Patricia Arquette, Kristen, in the third film is played by Tuesday Knight in the fourth, and ends up getting a firey death in the boiler room furnace! Then the character who was Kristen's friend, introduced at the beginning of the fourth film, Alice, comes to the forefront, becomes the lead, and crosses over into the fifth film to continue her role.

The sixth part, Freddy's Dead, is sort of the Jason Goes To Hell of the series - the part that kills the franchise by wrecking continuity, and more importantly, by just being a bad film.

Freddy Vs Jason is marginally better but is also seriously uninterested in it's own history.

The one film that stands outside the continuity debate is Wes Craven's New Nightmare, since that takes place in the 'real' world. It is not a bad film, but one where Freddy is also real, so in a sense it exists on a different plain than the events of the earlier Nightmare films.

I was just making the point that New Line took a property with Friday the 13th and did it no favours by having no narrative continuity link between their films and the earlier films in the series - and much more importantly, by having absolutely no narrative consistency between films in the series they made. There is no link that could be made between Jason Goes To Hell and Jason X, and no link possible between Jason X and Freddy Vs Jason.

This is not to say that New Line didn't take care with trying to create continuity in their Nightmare films - at least until part 6.

Perhaps I'm making the suggestion that they think the audience for the films are so dumb they're just going to see 'the latest Freddy film' or the 'latest Jason' and not need to remember the events of previous instalments? Or for teens who can go to the latest film without thinking they need to have seen the first ten in the series, safe in the knowledge that it doesn't have a number or roman numeral, and that any back story they need to know will be provided to them (i.e. manipulated when necessary to make something that serves the current film's purpose even if it destroys whatever logic the earlier films created).

[colinr0380]

The first three are also great fun.

I just can't appreciate those movies on their own merits. The only fun to be had is in behaving derisively towards them, which can be its own kind of fun, but this feeling isn't sustained long enough or at sufficient heights to recommend either film over similarly ludicrous movies. Most of the time I just marvel at how such promising situations--the creepiness of being isolated in the woods while something hunts you--are wasted by poor filmmaking. I must admit, their continued popularity as quality shock films is puzzling.

I would definitely place a film like Halloween or Deep Red over the Friday films (maybe even Twitch of the Death Nerve when I get to see it!), but I would suggest that the Friday films are what they are, entertainments providing scares wondering when and where (and with what implement!) the next teen is going to meet their end. At their best they created some memorable characters beyond the monster to be interested in, although the monster was always the 'hero' of the films - but with the absence of links between films that has gone too. I would agree that the first Friday is not as powerful as Halloween (or Black Christmas, or Psycho), but if we are comparing like with like I would much rather watch one of the Friday the 13th films described above than most of the extremely poor Halloween sequels.

On narrative continuity being followed over subsequent films - I'm not that big a fan of the Saw films (although it is good to see Shawnee Smith again remembering back to her role as the lead in the Blob remake!), but that seems to be a series taking characters from one story to the next as it goes. It will be interesting to see if that series takes the leap to not having any linkages between instalments in the future.

Taking things back to the Evil Dead films, there is, of course, a very strong link between the second (my favourite of the series) and the third (like the first two Friday the 13th films, the second in the Evil Dead series is a sort of remake of the first). Having Ash turn up in the latest Freddy Vs Jason film would be a similar break in narrative consistency for his character as it was for Jason when he made the leap from space in the future to appearing the last Freddy Vs Jason film! I'd much rather we have another remake/reimagining/reboot of the original Evil Dead, especially since that worked very well with Evil Dead 2, adding more ideas like the possessed hand and dimensional portal to the original idea. I just get the impression with Army of Darkness they were so taken with the idea from the end of the second film that they just decided to follow up on it, not that they were aiming to create a sequel exactly, so I wouldn't be as annoyed to see the series get reset.

By the way (and finally on topic!), doesn't the plot for this My Name is Bruce film sound a lot like the plot of Three Amigos?

[Mr Sausage]

I would agree that the first Friday is not as powerful as Halloween (or Black Christmas, or Psycho), but if we are comparing like with like I would much rather watch one of the Friday the 13th films described above than most of the extremely poor Halloween sequels

Hmm. Despite being very flawed films, I actually like Halloween 4, and to a lesser degree Halloween 2, mostly for the kickass opening, a good deal more than either of the first Friday movies. I really can't think of any particularly redeeming features of those first Friday films, but those two Halloween sequels have a number of things to recommend them: a nice score, a generally imposing villain (that mask, even when screwed with, is still creepier than a pillow case), the ever strange Donald Pleasance, capable cinematography, and an actual hint of atmosphere.

Haven't seen Halloween 5, but I did see Halloween H20 and Resurrection, and they are godawful. It wouldn't take much to convince me that they fail in their aims to a greater extent than the first two Fridays.

but I would suggest that the Friday films are what they are, entertainments providing scares wondering when and where (and with what implement!) the next teen is going to meet their end.

Yes, I am aware of what they are. But it's always so obvious when people are going to be killed (and it isn't helped by the general lack of tension leading up to them). I suppose your point is that the inventive ways people are dispatched is entertaining; indeed, they can be. But those death moments are very quick and don't actually take up that much bulk of screen time. So we are left with five minutes or so of interesting stuff and a lot of filler in between. It just seems that the esteem in which they are held even by non-Friday enthusiasts is proportionately inverse to their actual quality as horror films. It always made me wonder.

[DrewReiber]

He isn't the new killer in part 5, he is just worried he may be, and other people assume he is.

He becomes the killer just before the end credits, seemingly possessed by what is either the spirit of Jason Vorhees or his own dementia. They blatantly disregarded this sequence as the whole affair was a terribly absurd and pointless attempt to get away from the Vorhees origin and keep the series going. It was a huge disappointment and was the reason they so heavily marketed Jason's return in the next entry.

(and I haven't seen Bay of Blood yet, but it is a film I'm interested in seeing in the future

As a fan of the Friday movies, I think you will be rather amused by it.

in a Scooby-Doo-like twist, the person we glimpsed for six seconds early in the film now wearing the hockey mask to commit the murders? Sadly the latter

That's precisely what I'm saying, and why the continuity simply isn't there. The producers clearly abandoned the direction of the series between 5 & 6.

No, I'm not, although strangely the Nightmare films went down the same route - some attempt at continuity with the earlier films before giving up at the end.

They gave up by that up by the second film when they threw out most of the pre-existing characters and even some of the backstory itself, confusing the character's own origin. I heard that their lack of focus on the direction of the sequel was so heightened that they attempted to start the film without Robert Englund to quite negative results behind-the-scenes. The film's release was such a creative disaster that they immediately went back to Wes Craven, despite having dumped him earlier, for a screenplay they could use to get back on track.

Unfortunately, they rewrote it entirely and just used the basic elements and his name to sell Part 3. I've read the adaptation of his original screenplay and it was head-over-heels better than the film they ultimately made. However, the ideas still gave them enough fuel to move ahead successfully. They managed some creative consistency from Dream Warriors to the Dream Child, but yet again they became confident in just exploiting both the character and their audience towards the last two sequels, thanks in large part to lowering the bar and over-exposing the character on television.

They had become so lazy as to rely mostly on the creative elements of the TV show (makeup, writers, etc.) and their behind-the-scenes producers (Rachel Talahay) to slap the film together on the cheap. Talahay later admitted they didn't even think they tried that hard... ugh. Anyway, enough of this tangent. My point stands that they made the same mistake on 6 that they did with 2, except the next time they also started giving the directorial reigns away to anybody. The series had ups and downs, but most of the momentum that propelled it through those initial 7 years as a cultural phenomenon can be tracked back to the groundwork Craven laid out in his various collaborations with New Line.

For example, the mostly crappy part 2 (only notable for the homo-erotic element, the sado-masochistic death of the gym teacher and the exploding budgie!), is meant to be set in the same house Nancy lived in in the first part.

I don't think that's a good enough argument to provide continuity. As I said, it just confuses the entire series after only two films. You never see any of these characters again and most of the new elements were completely ignored until Wes Craven incorporated some of them into New Nightmare. What, the house is haunted because of the first movie? C'mon... that's complete nonsense. It completely contradicts everything in the original where Freddy just goes from place to place as he feels. It's a copout link that the producers threw in because they had no idea what they were doing and couldn't think of anything better without risking having to pay more people to come back.

(it doesn't ignore part 2, but the second part has no characters in common with the rest of the series, so could be considered as occuring separately)

It was completely ignored. Freddy's points of origin were changed yet again in the later sequels, and just about everything he did in the film as a monster was also dropped. In Dream Warriors, they did everything in their power to imply that the last film was irrelevant. They just wanted to pretend it didn't happen.

This turns out, for me, to be the best of the sequels.

I made the mistake of reading Wes Craven's original story before seeing the film and I was crushed by how lackluster it was. I never warmed up to it either, unfortunately. I would say, if we're not counting New Nightmare as a straight sequel, that The Dream Master is the most entertaining in terms of dumb, over-the-top fun.

Now, there is a very strong continuity between the third, fourth and fifth Nightmare films, which does suggest that there was some attempt to have a continuing story. Whether people recognised the continuity or not is a different matter, made more difficult by the same characters being played by different actors over the films.

That doesn't matter, especially considering how many film franchises had done that by then anyway. Those characters also continued in books, comics and other merchandise, which made it all the more curious when they threw it all away for Freddy's Dead. Like I said, I don't think anyone at New Line really cared at that point as long as they threw a lot of easily marketed gimmicks into "the Final Nightmare".

Freddy Vs Jason is marginally better but is also seriously uninterested in it's own history.

I guess that's where we'll just have to completely disagree. I was taken aback by how unnecessarily respectful that script was of both series. I think maybe you expect too much from a decade late, crossover followup following a whole slew of nearly unwatchable sequels, IMO. I mean, what did you want to see, a bunch of seriously aged and poor actors come back from the earlier sequels?

There is no link that could be made between Jason Goes To Hell and Jason X, and no link possible between Jason X and Freddy Vs Jason.

Again, I'm not sure what your problems with Freddy vs. Jason are. It's very obvious to anyone that "vs" was supposed to follow Jason Goes to Hell, and has absolutely nothing to do with a cyber-Jason running around in the future. I can follow that line of logic in an infinitely easier manner than understand most of the intentionally vague and weak links between the various Friday the 13th films.

Perhaps I'm making the suggestion that they think the audience for the films are so dumb they're just going to see 'the latest Freddy film' or the 'latest Jason' and not need to remember the events of previous instalments?

That would be my guess.

[toiletduck!]

My personal favourite Friday films are the fourth, with Corey Feldman, some brilliant deaths and Crispin Glover getting 'screwed' in a number of senses!

I love IV simply for the fact that Jason seems to be having so much fun in that one. I would love to be able to watch Jason all the way throughout it -- setting up all the bodies just right for them to plop down into their friends' laps. Granted, there's instance after instance of this sort of thing throughout the series, but in IV it seems like he's almost scoped this whole thing out beforehand.

Taking things back to the Evil Dead films, there is, of course, a very strong link between the second (my favourite of the series) and the third (like the first two Friday the 13th films, the second in the Evil Dead series is a sort of remake of the first).

For serious, colin? I'll willingly admit that I'm not terribly concerned with the continuity leaps between the later Fridays. If New Line tells me that somehow Jason ended up in space and they stick to their guns on it, I'll roll with the punches. I'm much more concerned about character continuity on Jason's part. On the other hand, as much as I love Evil Dead 2, the opening makes me cringe uncontrollably. It's one thing to randomly jump to a new setting, but Raimi is blatantly lying about the contents of the last film! It's as if he expected an entirely different group of people to show up to watch the sequel...

Having Ash turn up in the latest Freddy Vs Jason film would be a similar break in narrative consistency for his character as it was for Jason when he made the leap from space in the future to appearing the last Freddy Vs Jason film!

Agreed, but the even bigger concerns for me (quick note for everyone's awareness: we're actually intently arguing the validity of Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash on this forum) are twofold:

1)Ash is a hero, and while the villains, Freddy and Jason, are hardly the best of pals, in movie logic, and particularly horror movie logic, and particularly slasher movie logic, good vs. evil is going to trump popular character vs. popular character vs. popular character (unless, of course, FvJvA would take the greatest hits 'wait your turn to provide a character trademark' rehash approach, which would still suck). So in essence, it's Ash vs. Freddy and Jason instead. And this is where my personal bias comes out. I will continually purport that these match-up films are only good for the main event (let's face it, the very few parts of AvP where it actually was Alien vs. Predator really did kick ass), and I simply can't deal with Freddy and Jason joining forces to take down Ash (call it character continuity or just plain prejudice), and if that's not the premise, then it would have to be Ash hunting down the other two, who would presumably still be fighting. Either way, the options for a free-for-all three way brawl are limited -- especially since Ash's appeal comes from entirely different audience sympathies as a hero. Freddy v. Jason v. Michael seems to be about the only three way brawl film that would seem to make sense for the characters involved, but even there is a horrible dread of franchise soaking at the expense of the through line of each series.

2)The tones of the series are entirely incompatible. Freddy vs. Jason was passable because the Friday series has always seemed to be the middle ground between Halloween and Nightmare. While not joke driven like the latter, Friday is still a lot more playful than the former. Jason is the perfect straight man to Freddy's wise-cracking buffoon because you know behind the scenes he's in on the joke. The Evil Dead series, on the other hand, doesn't even have a tone to call its own. While each film is very deserving in its own merits, Ash doesn't have the continuity of any of the 'big three'. The inclusion of this character strikes me as a regression into fanboy baiting (i.e. "What wacky things can we have these characters do/say to each other next?"). Ash is only being mentioned because Raimi's got newfound (spider)power and because Evil Dead's willingness to completely morph itself at the whim of the audience (don't get me wrong, it works), has resulted in a populist character who is everything to everyone, as opposed to having a very specific style. While the Friday and Nightmare series continue to do their thing (even at the occasional expense of continuity), Evil Dead is always trying to do the next big thing (and always at the expense of continuity). But there's a good reason Raimi's on top of his world right now, and it's directly linked to that.

-Toilet Dcuk

[DrewReiber]

On the other hand, as much as I love Evil Dead 2, the opening makes me cringe uncontrollably. It's one thing to randomly jump to a new setting, but Raimi is blatantly lying about the contents of the last film! It's as if he expected an entirely different group of people to show up to watch the sequel...

They did expect an entirely different group of people to show up. It was 6-7 years since the release of the original film and they had to guarantee the sequel would be accessible to everyone. Hell, I never saw the first two and I was able to follow Army of Darkness (in theaters as a kid) and enjoy it immensely because that approach worked. Obviously Raimi would have preferred to just rehash the events of the first movie with footage, but they no longer had the rights to that material and hence a condensed reshoot was in order. It's not their fault, as they had to include people somehow. I've lost track of how many people I've met whose introduction was one of the sequels.

Having Ash turn up in the latest Freddy Vs Jason film would be a similar break in narrative consistency for his character as it was for Jason when he made the leap from space in the future to appearing the last Freddy Vs Jason film!

Agreed

Except to be fair, of the numerous sight gags shared among the three franchises as nods to each other... the Necronomicon from the Evil Dead films is present and implied to be the source of Jason's resurrection in Jason Goes to Hell. How's that for nerdy? Anyway, this was a conceit used by the producer who pitched the crossover and writing the treatment.

but the even bigger concerns for me (quick note for everyone's awareness: we're actually intently arguing the validity of Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash on this forum) are twofold:

1)Ash is a hero, and while the villains, Freddy and Jason, are hardly the best of pals, in movie logic, and particularly horror movie logic, and particularly slasher movie logic, good vs. evil is going to trump popular character vs. popular character vs. popular character (unless, of course, FvJvA would take the greatest hits 'wait your turn to provide a character trademark' rehash approach, which would still suck).

This was a point raised by both Bruce Campbell and Robert Englund while early talks were going on. They agreed that the only way the film would happen was if Ash buried both slasher characters forever. Seeing as how Freddy is going absolutely nowhere and they've decided to completely trash the Friday series and start from scratch, it seems that decision pretty much mirrored where the studios wanted to go anyway. Englund's only interest in playing the character again seems to revolve around the Seven-esque Nightmare prequel that John McNaughton ("Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer) is developing, or a final crossover that would put the continuity to bed and give fans one last big hurrah.

So in essence, it's Ash vs. Freddy and Jason instead. And this is where my personal bias comes out. I will continually purport that these match-up films are only good for the main event (let's face it, the very few parts of AvP where it actually was Alien vs. Predator really did kick ass), and I simply can't deal with Freddy and Jason joining forces to take down Ash (call it character continuity or just plain prejudice), and if that's not the premise, then it would have to be Ash hunting down the other two, who would presumably still be fighting. Either way, the options for a free-for-all three way brawl are limited -- especially since Ash's appeal comes from entirely different audience sympathies as a hero. Freddy v. Jason v. Michael seems to be about the only three way brawl film that would seem to make sense for the characters involved, but even there is a horrible dread of franchise soaking at the expense of the through line of each series.

Well, all this is entirely subjective. I actually enjoy watching Freddy vs. Jason in its entirety, despite whatever flaws it might have. It's a far stronger outing than the last 3 sequels of either character's franchise and a fitting formula, especially considering that the filmmakers went to a film like Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein for inspiration. In doing so, I think they also created a pretty decent excuse for following that design through and adding Ash as the Wolfman archetype. Think about it, the tortured, cursed hero battling an internal, possessive curse, all the while trying to stop an vampiric boogeyman whose manipulations include a pathetic, undead monstrosity. You mention the big three, well... I can't but see how obvious a matchup this is considering how horror history has worked in the past.

2)The tones of the series are entirely incompatible.

This is still a subjective viewpoint, as Raimi seems to have no problem in the character battling (albeit in comics) a number of completely different characters in their respective universes, including Herbert West, the Marvel zombies characters and even Darkman (co-written by "Darkman" and "Astro City" comic scribe Kurt Busiek). If your argument is that it's an entirely different issue when dealing with film, I ask 'says who?' Raimi didn't seem to have a problem until he decided the remake was a better deal. So it makes more sense to regurgitate the original film without the director or Campbell, but not do a silly sequel you can take or leave with the involvement of both? You yourself said the Evil Dead series seems capable of morphing into different styles, so where does this incompatibility come in? I just don't see it.

While the Friday and Nightmare series continue to do their thing (even at the occasional expense of continuity), Evil Dead is always trying to do the next big thing (and always at the expense of continuity). But there's a good reason Raimi's on top of his world right now, and it's directly linked to that.

Again, I point out what's actually happening. He was all aboard until he suddenly pulled out with ambigious answers as to why, while simultaneously fast-tracking the remake of Evil Dead. Why? Obviously, he stands to make A LOT more money capitalizing on a remake through his own production house and resident studio than licensing the character with Campbell to another one. Did you notice how fast Campbell turned around and told Raimi he was not allowed to use Ash in the remake?

Raimi is one helluva director, but he's one of the worst producers in Hollywood. Ghost House Pictures and his productions therein are easily some of the worst mainstream horror films of the last several years. The last one they made was such a trainwreck that they had to boot the Pang Brothers and bring in an entirely different director to spice it up. Addressing this propsed "vs." sequel, we're talking about a number of established directors and actors all collaborating to build upon the success of decently made film. In it's place is yet another Ghost House remake that will have none of the heart and soul that its independent origins helped create.

No Raimi, no Campbell... not even a Ronny Yu or David Goyer. NOT EVEN ASH. It will be just another title that will find easy financing and Sony will distribute no matter how bad it is. All because it's an identifiable title with Raimi's name attached, mounted by some inevitably random foreign filmmaker lured by the lights of Hollywood credit and money to make a film within the boundaries of something that's already been done better. All I can say is that Chan-wook Park's dismissal of the offer to direct was clearly the sign of someone who knows a bad deal when they see it.

[toiletduck!]

Obviously Raimi would have preferred to just rehash the events of the first movie with footage, but they no longer had the rights to that material and hence a condensed reshoot was in order.

I'll grant you that my argument could have been approached from better angles, but are you seriously going to tell me that the reshoot had to be so condensed that it was necessary to squeeze half of the four person cast out? It just seems half-assed to me.

You yourself said the Evil Dead series seems capable of morphing into different styles, so where does this incompatibility come in? I just don't see it.

The rest of my arguments are absolutely subjective. Like I said, I'm playing off a very Friday heavy bias here. However, the incompatibility is in Friday and Nightmare vs. Evil Dead where it was last left off (or has ever been, really). Yes, if they wanted to morph it again, they could, but then, in essence, they are just redoing Freddy vs. Jason. And if you're just redoing Freddy vs. Jason, explain to me why Ash is necessary.

And, for the record, I'm not keen on an Evil Dead rehash, either. It's six of one, half dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. Sam Raimi is my anti-Peter Jackson. I want nothing more than Pete to return to his roots and nothing more than Sam to leave his alone.

-Toilet Dcuk

[DrewReiber]

I'll grant you that my argument could have been approached from better angles, but are you seriously going to tell me that the reshoot had to be so condensed that it was necessary to squeeze half of the four person cast out?

Yes I would. Hiring two additional actors just to have them introduce themselves and melt in less than 15 minutes is completely pointless, especially when they serve no other function for the rest of the sequel's story. I don't see why it's so unreasonable for them to expect us to just remember the first film in place of all the reshot sequences up until the film's timeline caught up with the last shot of the original (when the camera catches Ash the next day). They even tried to fill those moments with gags that took a crack at how silly it is that the characters had been there before.

And if you're just redoing Freddy vs. Jason, explain to me why Ash is necessary.

I agree then, it's definitely subjective at this point. I can't think of many films that are 'necessary', though I could argue that the original "vs" was validated by the fact that New Line set it up back in 1993 with every intention of paying off that awful cameo moment in Jason Goes to Hell. I can't tell you that making this movie is important, so much as I bought into the pitch they put together and I was very much looking forward to it until it all fell apart for the Evil Dead remake. Raimi claimed he was going to use the character again and just turned around to make a far more pointless project that, thankfully, died on a lack of its own merit.

I guess I am saying that I'm not looking to convince you that it's important so much as point out that it's more deserving a followup than what killed it. Again, if Raimi had any other good reason behind axing a project so many others were onboard for, I probably wouldn't be as broken up. It's the same in regards to Spider-Man 4, as I could easily live with Raimi taking a shot at The Shadow if another Spider-Man sequel proves unfeasible. However, with FvJvA, we're not talking about Raimi doing anything other than taking a check for someone else's garbage. As a result, I will continue to mourn what *could* have been fun.

And, for the record, I'm not keen on an Evil Dead rehash, either. It's six of one, half dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. Sam Raimi is my anti-Peter Jackson. I want nothing more than Pete to return to his roots and nothing more than Sam to leave his alone.

Hah, that's a pretty good summation! I would definitely say I agree about Raimi, though I do wish Jackson would just go away. =D>

[Mr Sausage]

The Evil Dead series, on the other hand, doesn't even have a tone to call its own. While each film is very deserving in its own merits, Ash doesn't have the continuity of any of the 'big three'

The series as a whole doesn't have a consistent tone, no, but there is a logical development of tone over the three films. The first began as a mostly straight horror film that had its comedic and ridiculous elements, mostly due to the completely over-the-top approach. With Evil Dead II there was a deliberate attempt to increase those ridiculous elements and pair them with more traditional horror elements, which worked so well because the tragic and comic modes are so close anyhow. Army of Darkness then flipped the ratios of the first film, becoming overtly silly and comedic with the horror elements left in a more secondary role.

Part of the reason why the Evil Dead films work so well is their desire not to repeat each other (an irony, I know, given the first section of each sequel is a remake of the events of the previous); they each shift in terms of tone and style, and not wildly, but increasing one element already present in a previous entry while decreasing another.

With the exception of the last fifteen or so minutes, I'm not much of a fan of the first Evil Dead anyway.

But the idea of putting Ash into a film with Freddy and Jason is flawed because, while Jason and Freddy can each share the screen given that Jason is only physical presence anyway, Ash is a character with a generous share of personality. Ash, being the hero, and being a specifically braggart type of hero, demands focus. A movie with Ash essentially has to be about him, what's happening to him, and who is hurting him, because his character is built to command attention, and when he's not doing that something feels wrong. The same can be said for other superheroes like Batman or Superman, characters who by their very nature demand to be at the centre of a story. Trying to balance such a large character as Ash with two other large characters (who might reasonably be fighting each other as well as Ash) is going to result in either bloat, or in a damaging lack of screen time for everyone, which will be universally unsatisfying.

I can see Ash vs. Freddy (although I dread the possible battle of one-liners), and I can see Ash vs. Jason (though the central concept isn't much different from the usual Ash stuff, Jason being undead and all), but a movie with all three that still has to be swiftly paced and tightly made seems impossible. Even House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula in the forties had to relegate the Frankenstein monster to a table for most of the movie and give Dracula and the Wolfman more or less separate tales. And the reason either movie doesn't fall apart is because Frankenstein has the Boris Karloff character and Dracula the Onslow Stevens character around which to tie the stories of the other monsters.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I think it might have been because of that, I was pleasantly surprised by all the others and I think the sense of humour was very intentional, beginning with the 3D gimmick of part 3, with flying eyeballs as heads get crushed and such!

Yeah! Part 3 is still my fave of all the Friday the 13th films if only for the 3D gimmick. I'd love to see them reissue the film in 3D in some way. I still have fond memories having the movie poster (in 3D no less) with Jason smashing his way through a window!

As for Bruce Campbell, Raimi and The Evil Dead franchise, well, he's kinda kept it going via video games with the best, for my money, being Evil Dead: Regeneration. You've got both Campbell and Ted Raimi supplying the voices... lots of great action and funny as hell one-liners.

Personally, I hope that Campbell and Don Coscarelli get going on Bubba Nosferatu: Curse of the She-Vampires. Supposedly, Paul Giamatti is attached. We shall see.

[toiletduck!]

Yes I would. Hiring two additional actors just to have them introduce themselves and melt in less than 15 minutes is completely pointless...

Hiring? We're talking about '87 Raimi here -- the only 'hiring' that would have taken place is a call to cousin 'Todd' Raimi and his new gal pal and maybe, maybe a fifth of Jack.

But I really only brought it all up as a gentle poke at colin -- as you and sausage have pointed out, it works fine within the context of the film. But as much as I enjoy the trilogy, the last thing I would grant it is a strong sense of continuity.

-Toilet Dcuk

[DrewReiber]

Hiring? We're talking about '87 Raimi here -- the only 'hiring' that would have taken place is a call to cousin 'Todd' Raimi and his new gal pal and maybe, maybe a fifth of Jack.

This wasn't an independent film on the level of Evil Dead. Most of the cast were professional actors and the production itself was quite large. DeLaurentiis was now footing the bill, therefore the costs for the level of skills and resources that kind of producer brought along had gone up. The decision may be annoying to some, but it was still out of necessity.

[toiletduck!]

This wasn't an independent film on the level of Evil Dead. Most of the cast were professional actors and the production itself was quite large. DeLaurentiis was now footing the bill, therefore the costs for the level of skills and resources that kind of producer brought along had gone up. The decision may be annoying to some, but it was still out of necessity.

Drew, Drew, Drew... turn that frown upside down, my good man; t'ain't no money or womenfolk at stake here! Fine, scratch the Jack, give 'em fifty bucks a pop instead: instant professional actors! Well, as professional as Ted Raimi, at least.

Personally, I think it's a silly choice befitting a silly movie (the word silly having only the best of intentions here) and necessity had nothing to do with it, but if you insist that there was no cheap way to hire two actors for a day or two worth of shooting in most likely non-speaking roles, I'll play along. It's apparent that you've far more research on the subject under your belt than I.

(...but FvJvA is still a shitty idea!)

--that emoticon that helps get the point across that I'm joking--

-Toilet Dcuk