Ash vs Evil Dead S02 E10: Second Coming Discussion [SPOILERS]

[DarthEnderX]

Hey, first post here.  Just finished the second season and felt like talking about it, so I looked up this place.

I really thought when they went into the past they were going to do the whole "stable time loop" trope where their actions in the past actually cause the first movie to happen in the first place.  But nope.  Good on them for avoiding that cliche I guess.

I had a problem at first with Baal making the deal for the fight with Ash, because they were already winning, and all the things Ash "offered" them if they won they could have just taken. But then I completely forgave it when it turned out he wasn't going to honor the deal in the first place(just like back at the asylum). The whole thing was Baal just screwing with him.

I also REALLY thought the happy ending was some kind of fantasy or dream sequence.  Because I was like "How did they get back the present without the book?"  Pablo didn't have the writing on his body anymore, and the real book got swallowed by the earth.

So, I dunno.  It was weird.  Overall though, I liked the 2nd season even more than the first.  The fights were more ridiculous and goofy, like AoD(for the record, I like AoD WAY more than either of the ED movies).  And I liked that they acknowledged that AoD actually happened.  They seemed to avoid doing that in Season 1.

 

[MaidOfKandar]

Rob Tapert is a fucking trollock hero.

He probably has a head-sized crater in his office from the last two years.

I know I have one in my TV room.

You, me, half the world at this point.

I'd say we got a good sampling of Ted, and I'm sure he will be back on some way for season 3. I was just ill prepared for the Star Warsesque reappearance of Brock, Cheryl, and Chet at the end... but had no doubt Ruby even if it is the 80's version would fall back on her evil ways at some point. Also dueling chainsaws will always top dueling banjos. 


/Glad to see Pablo is back too.
//I'll have more to say at some point.

There's never enough Ted Raimi in Evil Dead, he's the unsung hero of this franchise, it'd be great if a running joke were developed throughout S3 where they stick him in as many roles as possible. Have Hippie Ted Raimi pull Hot Dog Vendor Ted Raimi out of the path of a falling deadite, stuff like that would be hysterical cause honestly, for me, it's not like plot or continuity are the strong suits here, so I say play up the slapstick humor and in jokes tenfold!

I think at some point Ash should end up killing an army of Ted Raimi characters.  I think it'd be decently funny!

Good God, that was bad ...

Was there any reason for Baal & Ruby not kill Ash & Kelly imediatly? I read somewhere that it was important for Bruce to get Ash in a fair, mortal battle without any super powers. If that's the quality he, Rob and the rest of the gang will keep up after firing Craig I honestly don't want to see it. I mean ... making Kelly Ash's daughter like Craig wanted? Not ideal, but way better than this lousy crap (even if the happy ending should be revelead as another evil trick).
 
Beside that I found the episode also quite unimaginative. No remarkable effects, camera work, music or anything.

Apparently the word of law for season 3 is 'mytharc'.  

Wow, what a garbage ending.

I understand wanting to scrap the Kelly is Ash's daughter plot point, but what in hell was the point of rehashing the cabin, and going to 1982, if you're not going to follow through and lead up to, or interact with, the events of the beginning of TED/ED2?

I absolutely loved the idea of having older Ash actually be there and maybe inadvertently be responsible for helping younger Ash behind the scenes without younger Ash knowing. That could've been sooo much fun, but they wasted the opportunity for craptacular a rehash of the S1 finale. I mean, it was so awful it was actually kind of insulting.

Also, why is Ash a hero when he returns to Elk Grove present day? If he changed history, then there's nothing for anyone to celebrate, right? Why are Chet, Cheryl, and Brock still dead? 

I don't understand...

That's another thing that needs to be pointed out - the trip to 1982 is pretty damn pointless, and Ash's re-killing of Henrietta was treated like a much lower level kill than it should have been.

For the most part I have enjoyed the show despite some of it's writing shortcomings and overuse of perverse slapstick humor but that ending was pretty bad. They do this entire time traveling arc with ZERO payout.

We the audience are left to assume that Ash and gang went back in time, completely rewriting history and destroying the cabin and nothing in the present timeline has changed at all except for Pablo being alive? I really hope there is more to it then that. Maybe an explanation in season three.

Episode was rather tame with no real setup for season three at all. What a lazy written episode. Wasn't a huge fan of Craig's work all the time but I feel like his ending sounded like it at least had less time traveling plotholes and a setup for season three.

I'm really hoping the new showrunner and take this show into an entirely new direction moving forward and improve the lazy writing. At times there are hints of brilliance but bad writing continues to strike.

Does anyone here have any possible explanations for the timeline plotholes? At this point I will take even a shaky explanation...

The only way to explain away the timeline plothole is to say it's taking place in another version of the timeline.  Or that Baal and Ash's fight took place in the modern version of the cabin.

So it seems like that interview with Craig is supposed to read like "the big bad producer ruining the vision of the good showrunner" but honestly it comes across to me like Craig was the reason this show was soooo . . Hangover 2-ish vs Evil Dead-ish. That mentality that we can't take it seriously because "This is a show about a guy with a chainsaw arm". That just seems like he doesn't get it at all. Yes, Evil Dead has its crazy funny moments and always has thick sense of humor . . but Evil Dead works because that's contrasted with actual horror that's pretty fukcing cool and unsettling. And the characters aren't ALWAYS goofing around and or making ironic comments even when faced with horrible evil. Even in AOD. They never got that horror element right on this show. They came close a few times . . but it never matched what we saw in Evil Dead or Evil Dead 2.

I'm kind of excited we get some fresh blood to give us a season of Evil Dead. Rob saying "this isn't Evil Dead" is pretty much exactly how  I felt through a lot of this show.The finale was crap, yes, and didn't make sense . . but Craig's version doesn't sound any better.

Plus the new showrunner being involved in Daredevil has me excited too. DD is amazing. I'm pumped for Season 3. Hopefully they can write themselves out of this mess.

I agree with nearly everything. But I am sceptical concerning Mark Verheiden taking over. DareDevil is indeed awsome. In my opinion it even represents everything AvED could have achieved: finding serious drama in a silly premise / genre. On the other hand he wrote medicore or even awful stuff like My Name is Bruce and that stinker of a movie seems to me like a spiritual predecesdor to nearly everything that annoys me about AvED.

I'm skeptical about him too - less for his decent producer credits, mostly because his Evil Dead related credits are flawed, to say the least.

Sorry but I don't think a showrunner could bring something new or change something if the producers say "NO" at the end.  Because if the vision of the producers is crap it will end as it is.  This season clearly prove it.

Maybe I don't agree with 100% of ideas, but Craig's visions was at least 90% better than what we got.  It was also more coherent.  I doubt about him a lot in season 1 but the final he wrote was very good.  

Ash being Kelly's father is maybe not the best idea but at least it bring something new on the table of characters development.  It's way better than a big nothing at all.  I think Evil Dead is supposed to be disturbing at some point.  It was in the 80' I don't know why it should be different.  With today's standards, you need to bring this to a new level.  This idea just remind me Predestination with Ethan Hawks.  This movie is really disturbing and it deal with time travel and butterfly effects.  

The first half of the season which Craig seem to be a lot involved was amazing.  Most of the second half was just wrong.  

So we got an end which the characters changes history but changes nothing at all.  So it was just a big reset button to bring back Ruby as the villain.

I don't understand...

Nobody does. Because none of it makes any sense. But hey, this is Evil Dead! It's bad on purpose! C'mon, it's about a guy with a chainsaw arm! It's supposed to be poorly written, inconsistent and incoherent! You're just supposed to light up a joint and laugh at it like an idiot! Right? So... Haha, I guess?

Craig's original idea for the finale? Just as bad, but in a different direction. I'm also not one bit interested in what his plans for season 3 were and what his overall "vision" for the show seemed to be. I'm actually glad someone put a stop to all of that nonsense, even if meant breaking the season finale completely. A lot of the problems with the show were there since episode 1 of the first season and that interview did nothing but confirm that most of the things I've been having problems with are 100% his fault. I'm also glad that now I have someone specific to blame for the the whole "head up the butt" shenanigans. Craig was removed because he was an incompetent showrunner and his ideas weren't working. Simple as that. About the rest of the interview, geez, what a way to commit career suicide... Before reading that I thought he meant well but just wasn't ready to run a show on his own, but now I think he's also kind of an unprofessional jerk and a big cry-baby.

So it seems like that interview with Craig is supposed to read like "the big bad producer ruining the vision of the good showrunner" but honestly it comes across to me like Craig was the reason this show was soooo . . Hangover 2-ish vs Evil Dead-ish. That mentality that we can't take it seriously because "This is a show about a guy with a chainsaw arm". That just seems like he doesn't get it at all. Yes, Evil Dead has its crazy funny moments and always has thick sense of humor . . but Evil Dead works because that's contrasted with actual horror that's pretty fukcing cool and unsettling. And the characters aren't ALWAYS goofing around and or making ironic comments even when faced with horrible evil. Even in AOD. They never got that horror element right on this show. They came close a few times . . but it never matched what we saw in Evil Dead or Evil Dead 2.

I'm kind of excited we get some fresh blood to give us a season of Evil Dead. Rob saying "this isn't Evil Dead" is pretty much exactly how  I felt through a lot of this show.The finale was crap, yes, and didn't make sense . . but Craig's version doesn't sound any better.

Plus the new showrunner being involved in Daredevil has me excited too. DD is amazing. I'm pumped for Season 3. Hopefully they can write themselves out of this mess.

I'm 100% with ya. That's exactly what I was thinking while reading the interview.

Oh DYD, that first paragraph = exactly how I feel.

At this point, I wanna know why RT let CDG continue to build the season toward the Kelly and Ash thing if he didn't want the idea to finally play out.  Letting the hints linger throughout the season only to let that happen last minute was an odd choice.

---

@DarthEnderX - Welcome to the board!

 

[Kevin]

Personally I hope the new showrunner brings a much needed new direction for the series that focuses on these elements:

-More actual scary horror
-More mythology, world building and more interesting characters

I felt like Sam Raimi's series premiere was the sweet spot for this. The setup to the show felt damn near perfect. The premiere had some fantastic horror elements, Amanda initially seemed like she was going to be a more important character, better "Sam Raimi" camera techniques and overall a really solid start to the series. As the series went on I felt like with each episode they wanted to outdoor the perverted jokes in the previous episodes until it eventually became nothing but perverse humor all the time. I've enjoyed the series so far for what it is but if given the chance, I would much rather the series go into a different direction that might be closer to what Sam Raimi would want.

I just felt like Craige had a very narrow view when it came to the world of "Evil Dead" and he didn't see the potential for interesting characters, deadites, weapons and lore and other weirdness the franchise has brought over the years. He seemed to only care about the humor aspect and nothing more. Evil Dead is all of these things combined. At least to me!

 

[Joem1k]

Personally I hope the new showrunner brings a much needed new direction for the series that focuses on these elements:

-More actual scary horror
-More mythology, world building and more interesting characters

I felt like Sam Raimi's series premiere was the sweet spot for this. The setup to the show felt damn near perfect. The premiere had some fantastic horror elements, Amanda initially seemed like she was going to be a more important character, better "Sam Raimi" camera techniques and overall a really solid start to the series. As the series went on I felt like with each episode they wanted to outdoor the perverted jokes in the previous episodes until it eventually became nothing but perverse humor all the time. I've enjoyed the series so far for what it is but if given the chance, I would much rather the series go into a different direction that might be closer to what Sam Raimi would want.

I just felt like Craige had a very narrow view when it came to the world of "Evil Dead" and he didn't see the potential for interesting characters, deadites, weapons and lore and other weirdness the franchise has brought over the years. He seemed to only care about the humor aspect and nothing more. Evil Dead is all of these things combined. At least to me!

100% this.  

You hit the nail right on the head goodsir, and from the slight info we've gotten so far of s3 we could be heading in that direction.

 

[DarthEnderX]

Personally, I have no interest in seeing actual scary horror in the show.

Army of Darkness is not scary at all. It's all about the humor aspect. And AoD is the only reason I know or care about this franchise at all.

 

[Joem1k]

Personally, I have no interest in seeing actual scary horror in the show.

Army of Darkness is not scary at all.  It's all about the humor aspect.  And AoD is the only reason I know or care about this franchise at all.

From what i gathered so far for there direction of s3, the comedic elements will probably still be in there but toned way down to a degree to find that perfect balance and used when needed (EXAMPLE : physical comedy,banter,dark humor) i just hope they will keep a good balance between it so it stays at a ed2 esque level. 

But overall it's going to be a slow crawl before we get anymore info on s3 till spring time, let the wait and see game begin i guess  :-/

 

[Lawlessfan]

I really enjoyed  the season 2 finale. 
I loved Ruby (Lucy Lawless) I just wish we would have more fight scenes with Ruby/Lucy!
Yeh some things confused me but Ill wait and see if season 3 answers them!
I can't wait to see what happens in season 3!

 

[Mardeadite]

I enjoyed series 2 a lot... but that last episode was really confusing and the time travel stuff really did not make sense.

I guess Ruby's explanation about 'alternate timelines and a constant present', or whatever it was, allows for the fact that those who died, remained dead, despite young Ash no longer having played the tapes. But... that still doesn't make sense as the hut was still destroyed in the past, and Ash's hand returned*. And it makes time travel a complete waste of time.

I accept that Pablo came back because that was not as a result of the change in time-line (if I understand correctly). I think it was due to the deal they did with Baal. I.e. the evil folks leave and return Pablo alive, if Ash wins. It's kind of odd that Ruby insisted the the deal be honoured despite the fact she had already altered it in her favour...

So, was that how they returned to the present? I.e. a result of the deal? Or did Pablo remember the time warp spell?

And how come the Necronomicon alone is enough to birth the spawn now? If that was the case, Ruby needn't have bothered with all that stuff with defacing the book, and torturing poor Pablo last season. They were originally just planning to bury to the book, so she could have just popped down to the cellar after they had left and had her way, surely?

But, as has been said, maybe Baal's presence alters that, creating an extra reserve of power, or something.

But anyway. I still largely enjoyed the episode. The action stuff was fun. While I enjoyed the battle between Ash and Henrietta overall, it got a bit too nasty for my taste with the.. fluids, and the thing with Ashes foot. I understand that the films also pushed the boundaries with that sort of thing (which is why I also didn't like the infamous tree root scene in the first film) but I guess we all have our limits in what we find acceptable. I confess to finding dismemberment, etc, and splurting blood rather amusing (not in real life, I hasten to add) but that was a bit much for me. As for the up the bum stuff in episode 2, I'm rather conflicted there. On one hand I found it very funny, but the brown fluids, dear me...

The bit when Ash got his head stuck in the piano, and Baal/Chet tortured him by playing the keys was a highlight for me.

I wasn't keen on the parade scene. The whole town just did a quick switcharoo, just like that (and that's not taking into account the paradoxical idea that there should be no 'Ashy Slashy' story in the new timeline, but constant present and all that. Eh, What?)

Overall, a fun, enjoyable, but kind of rubbish episode, and rather disappointing as it was a real missed opportunity when considering the Back to the Future 2 type shenanigans they could have pulled, which was actually a plan, at some point, according to that interview.

Considering the stuff mentioned in that interview:

Spoiler

The idea that Kelly would be Ash's daughter wouldn't have been so bad (but still bad) if this was a predestination paradox, i.e. Ash was always her father due to a fixed time loop. Actually, there is a bit of resemblance between Bruce Campbell and Dana DeLorenzo. They've both got those prominent facial features going on. However, that's not what they were going with. They suggest that Kelly *becomes* Ashes daughter. I.e. she wasn't in the original time-line, and Ash's affair with her mother changed things.

Thing is, if that had happened, you would have ended up with a different Kelly, genetically speaking a half sister of the original. Dana would have vanished, in other words, and another girl with some resemblance would have appeared in the Kelly shoes. Instead they went with Dana-Kelly having an epiphany and getting stroppy with Ash. Okay.

But anyway, it's a silly idea anyway. I'm not so bothered with the fact Ash flirted with her in the beginning (he only did that in a couple of episode in Season 1, and it's not as if he knew. And by the changing timelines thing, that version wasn't his daughter anyway). It's just this whole idea that the neighbour girl who Pablo brings to the store just happens to end up Ash's daughter... I guess you get around that with 'destiny' and whatnot, but, no. Silly, silly silly.

By all means make her Ash's surrogate daughter. She kind of is on her way to that already, but not that.

*Or more accurately wasn't cut off in the first place. Interestingly after being cut off, that hand appeared to be possessed too, and flips the bird.. but does nothing else. Does that mean it will come back yet again? Please, lets keep the repetition to a minimum.

** If you were to describe a woman as having 'big facial features' you'd get the impression she was a bit ugly, wouldn't you? But Dana's work. She is very pretty.

 

[Muzzlehatch]

While I enjoyed the battle between Ash and Henrietta overall, it got a bit too nasty for my taste with the.. fluids, and the thing with Ashes foot. I understand that the films also pushed the boundaries with that sort of thing (which is why I also didn't like the infamous tree root scene in the first film) but I guess we all have our limits in what we find acceptable. I confess to finding dismemberment, etc, and splurting blood rather amusing (not in real life, I hasten to add) but that was a bit much for me. As for the up the bum stuff in episode 2, I'm rather conflicted there. On one hand I found it very funny, but the brown fluids, dear me...

I think the big difference between the infamous tree rape and all the necro-/cropophilia we had to endure during the TV series so far is simple: The former was not played for cheap laughs and accompanied by embarrassing one liners like the later.

 

[MaidOfKandar]

So, was that how they returned to the present? I.e. a result of the deal? Or did Pablo remember the time warp spell?

And how come the Necronomicon alone is enough to birth the spawn now? If that was the case, Ruby needn't have bothered with all that stuff with defacing the book, and torturing poor Pablo last season. They were originally just planning to bury to the book, so she could have just popped down to the cellar after they had left and had her way, surely?

I'm guessing Pablo knew the spell somehow.  It's a huge plot hole.  Maybe some of the tattoos were still there?

The only way to wiggle out of number two is for them to say the presence of Baal eased the process.  Which is a bit of a huge stress.

While I enjoyed the battle between Ash and Henrietta overall, it got a bit too nasty for my taste with the.. fluids, and the thing with Ashes foot. I understand that the films also pushed the boundaries with that sort of thing (which is why I also didn't like the infamous tree root scene in the first film) but I guess we all have our limits in what we find acceptable. I confess to finding dismemberment, etc, and splurting blood rather amusing (not in real life, I hasten to add) but that was a bit much for me. As for the up the bum stuff in episode 2, I'm rather conflicted there. On one hand I found it very funny, but the brown fluids, dear me...

I think the big difference between the infamous tree rape and all the necro-/cropophilia we had to endure during the TV series so far is simple: The former was not played for cheap laughs and accompanied by embarrassing one liners like the later.

And those deeds weren't committed by the hero in the movies.  The problem with people hating this other stuff is that it's Ash being gross or perverted, all characteristics he didn't have in the films.

 

[Guywiththegun40]

Its just a different style of humor that isn't "Evil Dead". Craig did not get Evil Dead, and judging from a lot of what he's said . . it sounds like he doesn't really like it that much. I bit my tongue and really tried to just accept the crudeness and the constant sex jokes . . but really in none of the movies was that really a thing. I mean, Ash was kind of dorky when it came to that. "After all I'm a man and you're a woman . . " He was a goofy, reluctant hero who turned into a badass and sure, had his selfish moments, but would step up and genuinely cared about fighting evil and helping people, and certainly wouldn't interrupt all that to bang a waitress in the bathroom.

I don't mind that Ash, in his old age, got a little sleazy as long as it stays true to who he was in the older movies . . I mean people change, especially if you've had a lot of sht go down in your life and you just say "fuck it". And this is a new show, so I suppose there can be some room for new interpretations . . but it can't be so over to the top, to the point that he's making sleazy sex jokes while talking to his (presumed) long dead sister and cutting tension in every scene, and retconning the movies to make it seem like he's always been this way.

Sorry but I can't picture Evil Dead 1 Ash partying with Chet and doing hard drugs. It just doesn't fit. And its played for laughs because Craig has this "Fuck it, its only Evil Dead" attitude. He did good with a lot of the show but I'm glad we're getting someone new before he really went off the rails with Evil Dead reduced to a raunchy sex comedy spoof of what Evil Dead was.

 

[E Tu Cheryl?]

Its just a different style of humor that isn't "Evil Dead". Craig did not get Evil Dead, and judging from a lot of what he's said . . it sounds like he doesn't really like it that much. I bit my tongue and really tried to just accept the crudeness and the constant sex jokes . . but really in none of the movies was that really a thing. I mean, Ash was kind of dorky when it came to that. "After all I'm a man and you're a woman . . " He was a goofy, reluctant hero who turned into a badass and sure, had his selfish moments, but would step up and genuinely cared about fighting evil and helping people, and certainly wouldn't interrupt all that to bang a waitress in the bathroom.

I don't mind that Ash, in his old age, got a little sleazy as long as it stays true to who he was in the older movies . . I mean people change, especially if you've had a lot of sht go down in your life and you just say "fuck it". And this is a new show, so I suppose there can be some room for new interpretations . . but it can't be so over to the top, to the point that he's making sleazy sex jokes while talking to his (presumed) long dead sister and cutting tension in every scene, and retconning the movies to make it seem like he's always been this way.

Sorry but I can't picture Evil Dead 1 Ash partying with Chet and doing hard drugs. It just doesn't fit. And its played for laughs because Craig has this "Fuck it, its only Evil Dead" attitude. He did good with a lot of the show but I'm glad we're getting someone new before he really went off the rails with Evil Dead reduced to a raunchy sex comedy spoof of what Evil Dead was.

 
I can totally picture it, Scotty was downing shine on the way up to the cabin in the first one, while driving Ash's car, Ash didn't really seem to mind nor did Linda, Shelly or Cheryl, they were singing, joking around and having a blast!

 

[Mardeadite]

Interestingly, the only episode where we actually saw a sex scene was the pilot.... directed and co written by Sam Raimi himself...

I don't disagree, mind you, concerning the over the top sleaziness of the character. It should be toned down. I'm not sure the showrunner who left is totally to blame though. It was there from the start of the series.

I look forward to see what the new guy will do, though.

I could imagine young Ash smoking joints, sure. Ketamine and angel dust though? Probably not. But then we know so little about the character.

 

[E Tu Cheryl?]

Interestingly, the only episode where we actually saw a sex scene was the pilot.... directed and co written by Sam Raimi himself...

I don't disagree, mind you, concerning the over the top sleaziness of the character. It should be toned down. I'm not sure the showrunner who left is totally to blame though. It was there from the start of the series.

I look forward to see what the new guy will do, though.

I could imagine young Ash smoking joints, sure. Ketamine and angel dust though? Probably not. But then we know so little about the character.

We do know though that he lived in sh*tty trailer parks for the last 30 years and didn't really do much with his life in that time, under that pretense and also the series opening with him smoking weed and stupidly re-awakening evil, then not even remembering it happening, It's not really out of the question, is it?

 

[DyD]

Interestingly, the only episode where we actually saw a sex scene was the pilot.... directed and co written by Sam Raimi himself...

I don't disagree, mind you, concerning the over the top sleaziness of the character. It should be toned down. I'm not sure the showrunner who left is totally to blame though. It was there from the start of the series.

I look forward to see what the new guy will do, though.

I could imagine young Ash smoking joints, sure. Ketamine and angel dust though? Probably not. But then we know so little about the character.

"Co-Written" doesn't mean Sam was in the writing room with them throughout the process. It just means he turned in the outline/first draft and let Craig and his writers do whatever they wanted from that point on. The leaked draft for the pilot written by him and Ivan was very different from the script they shot (and much better, in my opinion). I'm pretty sure Sam had very little creative input on the show beyond directing the pilot. He isn't as involved as a lot of people seem to think he is. Also, the problem is not with having sex scenes in the show. There's a sex scene in AoD. There's sexual innuendo and insinuated sex throughout the ED trilogy. The problem is with tone. The problem is when that affects the character portrayal. The problem is with the overabundance of sleazy humor and with turning every character into a sleazy pervert and every deadite into a sex fiend. I'm trying to think of a single deadite this season that didn't attempt anything sexual with their victims and I'm coming up short. And that's all on DiGregorio and his writers.

About Ash's portrayal, the problem is trying to retcon the character into being something that he never was. This season clearly stated that he was always a womanizing party animal, an asshole and a bully even before he went to the cabin. And that CLEARLY clashes with his portrayal in the first two movies, where he was kind of a dork and the "mellow nice guy" compared to Scotty, who was actually an asshole. The background they tried to give Ash on the show is more in line with Scotty than it is with original Ash. That undermines the "zero to hero" character arc he had in the movies and the biggest aspect of the character's development so far.

 

[E Tu Cheryl?]

Interestingly, the only episode where we actually saw a sex scene was the pilot.... directed and co written by Sam Raimi himself...

I don't disagree, mind you, concerning the over the top sleaziness of the character. It should be toned down. I'm not sure the showrunner who left is totally to blame though. It was there from the start of the series.

I look forward to see what the new guy will do, though.

I could imagine young Ash smoking joints, sure. Ketamine and angel dust though? Probably not. But then we know so little about the character.

"Co-Written" doesn't mean Sam was in the writing room with them throughout the process. It just means he turned in the outline/first draft and let Craig and his writers do whatever they wanted from that point on. The leaked draft for the pilot written by him and Ivan was very different from the script they shot (and much better, in my opinion). I'm pretty sure Sam had very little creative input on the show beyond directing the pilot. He isn't as involved as a lot of people seem to think he is. Also, the problem is not with having sex scenes in the show. There's a sex scene in AoD. There's sexual innuendo and insinuated sex throughout the ED trilogy. The problem is with tone. The problem is when that affects the character portrayal. The problem is with the overabundance of sleazy humor and with turning every character into a sleazy pervert and every deadite into a sex fiend. I'm trying to think of a single deadite this season that didn't attempt anything sexual with their victims and I'm coming up short. And that's all on DiGregorio and his writers.

About Ash's portrayal, the problem is trying to retcon the character into being something that he never was. This season clearly stated that he was always a womanizing party animal, an asshole and a bully even before he went to the cabin. And that CLEARLY clashes with his portrayal in the first two movies, where he was kind of a dork and the "mellow nice guy" compared to Scotty, who was actually an asshole. The background they tried to give Ash on the show is more in line with Scotty than it is with original Ash. That undermines the "zero to hero" character arc he had in the movies and the biggest aspect of the character's development he had so far.

Ok so if the mythology of the first two movies is so sacred then why would he go back to a cabin with his girlfriend where his previous girlfriend and all his friends got possessed and killed? Didn't Ash also get killed at the end of the first one? I guess what I'm asking is, does sunlight kill deadites or not?

 

[DyD]

Ok so if the mythology of the first two movies is so sacred then why would he go back to a cabin with his girlfriend where his previous girlfriend and all his friends got possessed and killed? Didn't Ash also get killed at the end of the first one? I guess what I'm asking is, does sunlight kill deadites or not?

Are you seriously asking this stuff? Also, I fail to see what any of that has anything to do with what I just posted, but ok, here we go (again)... Ash never returned to the cabin with a new girlfriend. He never even left. The first movie shows the first night Ash spent at the cabin, when all his friends and girlfriend got killed. Evil Dead 2 shows the second night he spent at the cabin, when Annie and the others arrive and Henrietta is discovered buried in the cellar. That's why there's no book in ED2, only the lost pages Annie brought to the cabin with her. The book was burned in the first movie. The first 5 minutes or so of Evil Dead 2 are just a streamlined recap of the first movie, with his friends and some other details omitted. They had to do this because they couldn't use any footage from the first movie due to rights issues and tried to do it in a way that wouldn't confuse people who hadn't seen the first movie. For the people who had seen the first movie, the point of transition from one chapter to the other is the force shot that runs through the cabin and throws Ash through the woods. They remade the shot exactly as it was in the first movie to clue you in. It's pretty damn obvious if you're paying attention to it. So that also answers your question about Ash dying at the end of the first movie. He didn't. He was thrown through the woods, knocked his head on a tree, started to get possessed, the evil force was driven away by the sunlight and he passed out. He woke up at dusk. Then the second part of the story begins. Of course this approach generated some small inconsistencies, but none of them affect the overall story or the character arc. It's just small, superficial and inconsequential details that are inconsistent. The story still flows nearly perfectly from one movie to the other and there aren't hardly any inconsistencies within each separate movie. I mean, c'mon, did you really think Ash had returned to the cabin wearing the same clothes, with a different girlfriend who's also named Linda, gave her the exact same necklace he had given the previous one, played the tape recorder again, then killed his new girlfriend and buried her in the exact same way he had done with the previous one? Is it really that difficult to connect the dots and figure out that the first few minutes of ED2 are just a condensed remake of the first movie?

About the sunlight killing deadites, it doesn't. But it weakens the evil force's power. That's why the force sometimes seems to manipulate time to make night fall faster and last longer. It happens both in ED2 and AoD, and that's something that the writers in AvED have completely forgotten about during the first season. In the first movie, it wasn't the sunlight that killed the deadites, it was the burning of the book. Once the book was burned, the sun started to rise.

To sum things up, my ultimate point is that just because there are minor inconsistencies in movies that were made years apart from each other it doesn't mean that the inconsistencies in the show are excusable, that the inconsistencies in the movies are there on purpose or that having inconsistencies in the story is an actual part of the Evil Dead style. It annoys me to no end that I have to keep making this point over and over again.

 

[E Tu Cheryl?]

Are you seriously asking this stuff? Also, I fail to see what any of that has anything to do with what I just posted, but ok, here we go (again)... Ash never returned to the cabin with a new girlfriend. He never even left. The first movie shows the first night Ash spent at the cabin, when all his friends and girlfriend got killed. Evil Dead 2 shows the second night he spent at the cabin, when Annie and the others arrive and Henrietta is discovered buried in the cellar. That's why there's no book in ED2, only the lost pages Annie brought to the cabin with her. The book was burned in the first movie. The first 5 minutes or so of Evil Dead 2 are just a streamlined recap of the first movie, with his friends and some other details omitted. They had to do this because they couldn't use any footage from the first movie due to rights issues and tried to do it in a way that wouldn't confuse people who hadn't seen the first movie. For the people who had seen the first movie, the point of transition from one chapter to the other is the force shot that runs through the cabin and throws Ash through the woods. They remade the shot exactly as it was in the first movie to clue you in. It's pretty damn obvious if you're paying attention to it. So that also answers your question about Ash dying at the end of the first movie. He didn't. He was thrown through the woods, knocked his head on a tree, started to get possessed, the evil force was driven away by the sunlight and he passed out. He woke up at dusk. Then the second part of the story begins. Of course this approach generated some small inconsistencies, but none of them affect the overall story or the character arc. It's just small, superficial and inconsequential details that are inconsistent. The story still flows nearly perfectly from one movie to the other and there aren't hardly any inconsistencies within each separate movie. I mean, c'mon, did you really think Ash had returned to the cabin wearing the same clothes, with a different girlfriend who's also named Linda, gave her the exact same necklace he had given the previous one, played the tape recorder again, then killed his new girlfriend and buried her in the exact same way he had done with the previous one? Is it really that difficult to connect the dots and figure out that the first few minutes of ED2 are just a condensed remake of the first movie?

About the sunlight killing deadites, it doesn't. But it weakens the evil force's power. That's why the force sometimes seems to manipulate time to make night fall faster and last longer. It happens both in ED2 and AoD, and that's something that the writers in AvED have completely forgotten about during the first season. In the first movie, it wasn't the sunlight that killed the deadites, it was the burning of the book. Once the book was burned, the sun started to rise.

To sum things up, my ultimate point is that just because there are minor inconsistencies in movies that were made years apart from each other it doesn't mean that the inconsistencies in the show are excusable, that the inconsistencies in the movies are there on purpose or that having inconsistencies in the story is an actual part of the Evil Dead style. It annoys me to no end that I have to keep making this point over and over again.

Whatever helps you get to sleep at night... for me, a nice tall glass of Pink F*ck hold the pink will do just fine... incidentally, I came up with a variation for the recipe that is quite good, ketamine-free of course, anyone interested? I was thinking of starting up a new thread...

 

[DyD]

Whatever helps you get to sleep at night... for me, a nice tall glass of Pink F*ck hold the pink will do just fine... incidentally, I came up with a variation for the recipe that is quite good, ketamine-free of course, anyone interested? I was thinking of starting up a new thread...

Knock yourself out, then.

 

[Mardeadite]

Co-Written" doesn't mean Sam was in the writing room with them throughout the process. It just means he turned in the outline/first draft and let Craig and his writers do whatever they wanted from that point on. The leaked draft for the pilot written by him and Ivan was very different from the script they shot (and much better, in my opinion).

Okay, I thought the first episode was pretty much Sam and Ivan's baby, but that's interesting. I'd be interested to check out the unmodified version written by them.

Also, the problem is not with having sex scenes in the show. There's a sex scene in AoD.

I was thinking more of the sleazy nature of the sex scene rather than the fact one occurred, but if Sam and/or Ivan didn't write it, I guess that makes my point irrelevant.

I don't disagree with a lot of your points although I like both series overall.

I think we agree they could be better. This last episode definitely could have been better...