Horror

In 2006, Max Brooks published his novel, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. Granted, there isn’t a high standard out there for zombie literature. When people think of books involving zombies, it’s either World War Z, The Zombie Survival Guide or The Walking Dead (which is a graphic novel series). My point is: standards may be low when it comes to zombie-related reading material. That is not to diminish the writing talents of Max Brooks. Author of both World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide, Brooks is certainly an accomplished author. While the quantity of notable zombie literature is low; the quality is high. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is an incredible narrative woven together using short stories to tell a surprisingly believable “what if” scenario. The Zombie genre may be over-bloated with material but trust me: this book is worth checking out, it’s fame is well-deserved.

If you haven't read it yet: check it out. — If you haven’t read it yet: check it out.

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War was so successful that there was actually a bidding war for the film rights. Two companies, Appian Way (owned by Leonardo DiCaprio) and Plan B Entertainment (owned by Brad Pitt) vied for the film rights. At this point: it’s pretty easy to tell who won. For Pitt, it was a personal project that he wanted to do for his children, who were enormous fans of the zombie genre and of the book… so what happened?

Those out there who have read the novel and seen the adaptation already know: the movie is not the book… not even a little bit. They both have zombies in them and involve Israel, I’m being honest when I say that the comparison ends there. To give World War Z an equivalent as an adaptation, I would look to the 1998 version of Godzilla. Both adaptations make sparse use of their source material, opting instead to go with something more generic and easily marketable. In my opinion: this adaptation technique didn’t work (in either case) and crippled what could have been powerful film-making.

I had yet to read the book when I saw the trailer but even then I knew that changes had been made. The zombies weren't supposed to be running. — I had yet to read the book when I saw the trailer but even then I knew that changes had been made. The zombies weren’t supposed to be running.

But I digress, I do not wish to review World War Z. Plenty of critics have already done that. Simply saying I did not care for the film is enough. Let’s instead discuss how a passion product for Brad Pitt became a film that could have easily gone by any other, zombie-related, title.

After Plan B secured the rights to film adaptation, Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski was hired to write the screenplay. He did, two drafts of it apparently. For any out there very curious, here is the second draft of that script. This screenplay was close to the book but deviated in a few areas. Certain locations (like the battle of Yonkers) were altered and the focus shifted slightly for the triumphant spirit of humanity to who was to blame for the zombie outbreak (hint: George W. Bush).

Max Brooks never had any say in the film version of his novel but expressed approval at Straczynski’s work. However, Studios weren’t convinced and the film hit problems. Matthew Michael Carnahan was brought in to make script rewrites and Paramount (the studio who had initially agreed to distribute the film) looked for a partner to share in the costs.

Certain actors increase profits. Brad Pitt increases profits. Brad Pitt with beautiful hair: millions.

No second studio ever entered the picture but with Brad Pitt confirmed to star, Paramount funded the product anyway. Filming began in July 2011 and ended by 2012… only to start again. The reason: the ending. The original ending of World War Z has never been seen but has been revealed. Considerably darker and more open-ended (the War is far from over in the original draft), Studios feared that the original ending would not be well received.

The "camouflage" ending was an invention of cinema. As Brooks wrote many times in his novel: there was no easy way out. — The “camouflage” ending was an invention of cinema. As Brooks wrote many times in his novel: there was no easy way out.

Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard (both of Lost fame) were brought in to completely rewrite the film’s third act. The result was that production had to resume and nearly forty minutes of new material was shot. The ending was re-envisioned to be more hopeful and action-oriented, better appealing to the summer blockbuster crowd. Various political subtexts were also toned down to make the film more approachable.

In regards to art, there is a belief that I hold: art for everyone is art for no one. What I mean by this is that when you try to alter something to make it please the masses, you inevitably lose what was unique about that piece in the first place. There is no piece of work created by any human being that has ever fully appealed to everyone.

More accessible meant more merchandising. Because everyone likes toys.

That being said, I cannot claim World War Z a complete failure: the studio succeeded in their goal. Despite going over budget (125 million became 190 million), World War Z went to gross over $540 million worldwide. Enough success to warrant a sequel and be a surprise financial hit in 2013.

So mission accomplished… I just don’t agree with the mission. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is not a novel for everyone. It is dark and brutal and realistic while still being fantastical (it reads like a war history… against an undead opponent who eats people). While action occurs, it isn’t the focus. So those out there wanting mindless entertainment would be disappointed in it because the novel is simply too smart. It forces the reader to think and question aspects of humanity. It is depressing and uplifting and many emotions in between. The film was a product, a predictable outcome after so many complications. The novel was art. There’s the difference. There’s where they went wrong.

As this post deals with a recent release, I shall do my solemn best not to include any spoilers in the following text. I will just say right now that I am a huge fan of this Evil Dead and I fully recommend it to those fans of horror movies who can stand being grossed out by a lot of fake blood. If gory scares aren’t your thing: stay away.

However, this is not a review but rather an interesting question that entered my mind while I was watching the film. Was I watching a remake of Sam Raimi’s 1981 horror classic or merely a new entry into the Evil Dead series? The marketing has definitely pitched this one as remake. It has the same cabin and same basic plot that The Evil Dead possessed back in 1981. However, as I concluded the movie I became convinced that what I had just witnessed was a sequel and not a remake.

For starters: the title. I know the word “the” can be seen as insignificant yet I feel that this is one instance where it matters. Sam Raimi’s first film in the series is titled The Evil Dead whereas this new film is simply titled Evil Dead. As I stated, I don’t feel this really makes a strong case, by itself, that the new film is a sequel. It is not the first time that a remake/reboot/re-imagining has reworked the title (like all the “re”s in that sentence?). One need look no further than Matt Reeves’ 2010 remake Let Me In, which changed its title a fair amount from 2008’s Let the Right One In. Let Me In, despite the different title, was definitely a remake and it had many more differences in its name than just missing the word “the”. So I will acknowledge that, by itself, this reason falls flat.

Good thing it’s not the only factor supporting the sequel notion. Most remakes recreate the iconic moments that made the original so well-remembered. For instance, while the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th was very different from its original (a lot more Jason this time around), the iconic character of Jason returned. The Magnificent Seven, a loose remake of Seven Samurai, still includes the titular seven defending protagonists. The Evil Dead was known for its main character Ash and his battles with the possessed bodies of his friends. The Evil Dead series is different from other horror movies in the fact that its protagonist is the star. We don’t come to see a Jason Voorhees or a Freddy Krueger, we come to see Ashley Williams blow the snot out of some demons.

Ash is not recreated in this new Evil Dead. In fact, none of the characters in this film share the same names as anyone from the original. The argument can be made that one of the new characters embodies the spirit of Ash from the initial series but the reality remains that this “remake” does not feature the iconic element that made the series so famous. Instead the audience is introduced to a new cast of characters with no prior knowledge of the horrors they are about to unleash upon themselves.

Which brings me to the cabin:

This screenshot is from Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead II.

The "new" Happy Cabin. — The “new” Happy Cabin.

Looks kinda similar doesn’t it? Like exactly the same? I know, I know what you’re saying: “it’s a remake, they’re supposed to look the same.” True but it does allow the possibility of the films sharing the same universe. Sam Raimi’s films were all contemporary meaning they took place in the 1980s. In the new film, two of the characters mention the fact that they spent time in this cabin as children (who wouldn’t want to). This would mean that they probably first came to it in the 1990s (they don’t look that old). By that point, Ash has already been teleported out to his medieval world in Army of Darkness. We never see the cabin destroyed or sucked into the portal at the end of Evil Dead II, it could very well have survived only to be discovered by a new family years later.

Now we’ll come to the book. Naturom Demonto (or the Necronomicon if you want to go by the sequels), the book of the dead. We see this book in every movie. It is the wonderful vehicle by which our characters experience pain and suffering. Some would argue that, since we see the book destroyed at the end of The Evil Dead, this new movie is automatically a remake as the book is once again present and completely not burned to a crisp. This is a valid point. Except that Evil Dead II introduces an intriguing idea: additional pages are discovered in Evil Dead II that are believed to belong to the Naturom Demonto. So, if there can be additional undiscovered pages, why not an additional undiscovered book?

The new Naturom Demonto looks significantly different from the book in Sam Raimi’s films. Gone is the face on the cover, leaving instead a rather blank looking tome… bound in human flesh. Why would Evil Dead deviate so much in book design after sticking so closely to the look of the cabin? Possible answer: same cabin, different book. This theory would also explain the slightly altered appearance and capabilities of the possessed in Evil Dead.

Ew. Imagine touching this and not washing your hands immediately afterward. Just ew.

If the book was a different version of the Naturom Demonto, than the translations would be different and therefore so would the effects of the incantation. The possessed in Evil Dead look different than those in The Evil Dead (they still have pupils for example). Also (and this can be read as a spoiler so be warned) the possessed in Evil Dead do not need to be bodily dismembered in order to stay dead, they drop if you bash the hell out of them (ha, horrible pun). This could mean that this different version of the book had a weaker translation that the first, meaning that its subsequent demons are not as strong.

Weaker or not, I would not want to be locked in the cellar with this.

As you can no doubt tell, I’ve put way too much thought into this. I’m a huge horror fanatic and I owe it all to The Evil Dead. I grew up with that movie (let the scariness of that fact sink in a bit) and I was initially horrified at the idea of someone other than Sam Raimi taking the reigns. Evil Dead surpassed my highest expectations and whether the film is intended as a remake or a sequel, it’s fun that they allowed enough wiggle room for the idea to be tossed around. I eagerly await any future films from Sam Raimi or Fede Alvarez: both of whom have proven to be masters of The Evil Dead.

PS – If you do see the new movie, make sure you stay until after the credits. There is a scene which may or may not definitively solve this argument.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

What Went Wrong With the World War Z Movie

Evil Dead (2013): Sequel or Remake?