Tuesday, July 12, 2011

You Can Go with Sequel or You Can Go with Reboot

I saw on Arrow in the Head that quite the fuss if being made (again) over recent news of an impending sequel to/remake of The Evil Dead. The question seems to be whether fans will get their way with a sequel starring Bruce Campbell, or if the property will simply be relaunched, enabling the studio to possibly save some money while cashing in on the series’ popularity. My question today is, “Why can’t the new movie be both a sequel and a reboot?”

The question might come to me so quickly because I recently rewatched  J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek. Aside from just being a great film, the movie showed us that rebooting a franchise with new actors while serving as a sequel of sorts to the original films is possible. This wouldn’t really work with every property, but consider that Star Trek and the Evil Dead films both have time travel in common.

When we last left Ash (in the films anyway), he had turned in to quite the time traveler. In the official theatrical release of Army of Darkness, Ash returned to the present after battling deadites and Evil Ash back in the Dark Ages. And in the director’s cut of the film, the movie ends with Ash stranded in a post apocalyptic future. Isn’t it possible that Ash (present day Bruce Campbell) could eventually wind up back at the original cabin of the first films, thereby meeting his younger self? In fact, I think I have a comic book to that effect.

Leonard Nimoy and Old Spock’s storyline in the Star Trek reboot really helped the narrative and lent the film a great sense of continuity and authenticity. It would be great if this hypothetical Evil Dead film featured Campbell, and I’d bet dollars to deadites that he’d be willing to do it. Not only would this strategy appease the die-hard Dead fans, but it would open up the series to new possibilities, much like the new Star Trek did.

So that’s my opinion – a sequel/reboot combo is the way to go. Anyone agree with this idea? Hate it? Let me know.


  1. I haven't read any of the comics, but I seem to recall them saying they were going to explain the two endings thing.

    I love the S-Mart ending and am fine with that closing out the series and, in fact, don't need a sequel to the Evil Dead series.

    However, I'd watch anything with Bruce Campbell in it and as such, want any follow-up movie they do make, be it sequel or reboot, to somehow contain Bruce Campbell.

    That said, I didn't really dig the Star Trek reboot approach. I would have preferred a strict reboot and not tied it into the original continuity. But, I'm a huge nerd.

  2. I'm fine with both endings. However, while test audiences apparently didn't care for the post apocalyptic ending, I sort of prefer it. I would have enjoyed seeing what happened to Ash after that ending.

    I agree about Bruce. He spoke at FSU while I went there. After I left, I ended up stopped at a red light right next to him. Followed him to a bar (who wouldn't right? Right??) but couldn't work up the nerve to talk to him. People gathered around the booth he sat in just to be near him.

  3. I remember when Bruce came to FSU and how my car trouble that weekend prevented me from going. I was also trying to line up an interview for the magazine we were both working at, and that fell through. Bah! Cruel, cruel fate!

    I completely dig the apocalyptic ending. It's appropriate for Ash, but does cry out for a sequel. Where, the S-Mart ending, as an ending, can just not be topped. I mean, how does one follow up "Hail to the king, baby"?!

  4. Good point. I wonder how that Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash film would have turned out, though...