Nostalgia blinds so many people. It's almost sad. People become slaves to their own emotions. The 1981 version was good for its time, don't get me wrong, but if THIS was the film that came out in 1981 it would have been the scariest movie of all time up until that point. People like to hate on things that are new, or considered "remakes". That's cute.
shareIt would have been received better than it was now, no doubt about that. But it would haven been forgotten just as quick as this one was and it certainly wouldn't have gathered a cult following. That's also the reason why there's nothing planned for a sequel and also why the television series chose to build on the original story instead of this one. Sam Raimi went places after this movie, Alvarez went nowhere fast.
The problem with those remakes is that they fail to improve on what made the original so great to begin with. They just water it down, throw in some ideas of their own and you end up with something that's just...average. They succeeded in making it the cashcow they wanted it to be, but it lacked the passion (from both actors and director) to make it a classic.
They just water it down, throw in some ideas of their own and you end up with something that's just...average.True! 🐭 share
But it would haven been forgotten just as quick as this one was and it certainly wouldn't have gathered a cult following.
I've actually had this thought too.
Imagine just lifting this film and dropping it in 1981. It would have become such a huge cult favorite. It would be outright worshipped by horror fans the world over.
Alas, it came in 2013 and is the fourth part of a beloved franchise so get's a lot of hate for not being a slapstick comedy with Bruce Campbell.
it's straight up nu-horror,
die-hards spit on it
Is there a hate for this movie? I thought it was pretty well received.
I think the original was good, not just good for it's time. But I think this one was alright also.
For me, the overrated remake is the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Funny you bring the 2003 TCM because this remake reminded me of that one. It's too slick.
Also, you can't transport a movie from one era to another. You have to take into consideration the context when it was made. Maybe this one will look dated in 40 years when AI rules the world.
To OP: google "recency bias"
I kind of agree.
Of course a film from 2013 is going to look better than a film from 1981, that's just stating the obvious. Especially with how low budget a lot of the early 1980s horror movies were.
I enjoyed 2013 movie, but also enjoyed 1981 more. That's not because I enjoyed it at the time. I was less than one year old when 1981 came out, so I didn't see it at the time. I saw it decades later. So the ascertion that I only like it for nostalgia is incorrect. Films date, but they don't all date badly. Or are we suggesting that every movie that is more than five years old sucks?
When it comes to TCM, they kind of struck gold with the 1974 version. Yes it was cheap, not very chic. But that was partly what made it such a disturbing view. They've not replicated it since. The 2003 version was too polished, you're right. Jessical Biel was great, don't get me wrong. But after going through an ordeal, she just looked like she did before with maybe a small bit of dirt on her skin. She barely had a hair out of place. You didn't feel that she had been through an ordeal. The whole film was too grand looking to be a daunting experience.
I don't think even Tobe Hooper replicated the first one though, to be fair.
I'm sorry but I find all the criticisms of the 2003 TCM film to be hilarious.
I've seem people slam it for having cinematography that is too good and for having a cast that is too attractive. Which is what you two are sort of doing right now. Imagine deriding a movie for being well shot and having attractive people. It's bewildering. A sort of grasping at straws trying to find something to negate it for. I think some of the "it's too slick" criticisms are even about the editing being too good. I've even seen people say the actors feel like actors and not 'real every day people'... which I think is them saying the acting is too good!
Narratives form around movies and TCM 1974 is one that has a particularly strong narrative. It's championed as catching lightning in a bottle, a grueling shoot during a scorching summer that will never ever be replicated. A bunch of young adults getting together, going through hell on earth and releasing an intense horror picture.
I adore TCM 1974 due to it's aesthetic and atmosphere. It's superb but the 2003 remake can easily be argued to have a superior screenplay, acting, editing, cinematography and even pacing/entertainment value and scare factor. The family are less cooky and goofy, they're instead more psychopathic and intense. It's very easy to argue it's a superior movie and I think if you got a group of casual 25 year old movie fans to watch the 1974 and 2003 versions most would say the 2003 one is better.
I love TCM 1974 but I also really like TCM 2003, so I'm playing devils advocate for arguments sake but I'm just saying the reasons people put forward for disliking the 2003 movie are very funny to me. The fact people have to turn to saying it's essentially too good in a number of ways says it all. It's a superb slasher and if it was released in 1974 in place of the original movie, it would have been readily worshipped.
Nobody is criticising them for being attractive though. Marilyn Burns was attractive.
When people said this, they're not whining that the cast is pretty, it's more that they're trying to escape a killer for a full film, and barely had a hair out of place at the end. It didn't feel real.
It's perhaps not a big deal, more that the original felt more authentic in a lot of ways. Not all of those ways deliberate. Some of 1974's grittiness came from necessity due to the film's budget.
I was born in 1977 and was about 5 years old when I saw this in 82! I have loved the franchise ever since. Looking at E1 and E2 in 1995 or 2000 eyes they were shit. In 2013 eyes even more so! E13 is great. A superb film and had it come out in 1981 it would revolutionize filmmaking. It’s would be like T2 in a way.
shareBased.
A lot of people suffer from nostalgic bias and they also are hypocrites in a way. What I mean is these same dudes who claim older movies are better still have their prefered time periods. They'll say remakes from the 00s-10s are worse than their original entries from the 70s-80s but they'll then tell you that the remakes from the 70s-80s are way better than their original entries from the 50s (I'm speaking of sci-fi horror remakes like The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob, The Fly, etc,).
It's not remakes they dislike more so they just have a major bias/preference for all things 70s & 80s.
Another way to look at this whole thing is instead of picturing Evil Dead (2013) being released in 1981 is to picture The Evil Dead (1981) being released in 2013 or 2023. People who think it would break out and become so revered in this day and age are fools. Some people would enjoy it as low budget gory fun but no one would ever rank it as one of the top 20-25 horror films of all time like people do with the 1981 release today. It would get a lot more hate for being cheap and poorly acted/edited. It would never attain a 7.4 on IMDb.
This is like music. Beethoven and Mozart may have been musical greats but most people these days would rather listen to fucking Nicki Minaj. Times progess, standards change. I'm not saying everything in the current era is better than previous eras, it's a case by case situation, but sometimes there is a major gulf in production quality and entertainment value and people need to stop burying their heads in the sand and worshipping older movies.
I say this as someone who loves the original Evil Dead franchise.
Very good post! I agree. With all of it.
share