Hey Geeks, Scott here.

Back again with another commentary with John Pavlich on his Sofadogs site. This time with the sequel that many say surpasses the original (and I would wholeheartedly agree from a fun-factor), Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn. So cut off your hand,  strap on your chainsaw, and go to town on some deadites with us HERE!

Scott Carelli returns as the Sofa Dogs podcast continues its month-long tribute to classic Horror movies, in preparation for Halloween. In this episode, we follow up our previous commentary for The Evil Dead, with the “splatstick” sequel, Evil Dead 2. Bruce Campbell reprises his role as Ash, perpetually tormented by demonic spirits at a remote cabin in the woods.

Please join Scott and I as we discuss Sam Raimi’s love for a certain Oldsmobile, stop-motion animation, comically large jewelry and a famous soft drink that may be the key to this film’s success. Remember to listen for the preemptive countdown before starting the movie on your DVD.

Hey Geeks, Scott here.

I’m a little late with getting the word out on this one, but I figure better late then never right? Right? Well, once again I’ve joined John Pavlich for a commentary on his Sofadogs site, this time sitting down with Sam Raimi’s “ultimate experience in grueling terror”, The Evil Dead. We’ll also be covering the sequel later this month as well, but for now, pop in the DVD (or Blu-Ray) and listen along HERE!

As the podcast continues this month-long tribute to Halloween and the Horror genre, Scott Carelli joins in on a commentary for Sam Raimi’s feature directorial debut, The Evil Dead. In it, a group of college friends drive out to a remote cabin in the woods. Hoping to relax and enjoy some good times, they soon uncover an ancient book and an ominous tape recording that unwittingly unleashes some dark and deadly spirits. Demonic possessions and mutilating of flesh is the order of the day for most of the running time. Boasting inventive effects and camera techniques, it’s the American classic that would ignite the careers of Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi, forever changing the landscape of low budget, independent Horror cinema.

Please join Scott and I as we talk about building tension, sound editing, the charm of Campbell, the Criterion Company and the debates of taste and restraint in storytelling. Remember to listen for the preemptive countdown before starting the movie on your DVD.

• Geoff Johns hints at a live action Jamie Reyes Blue Beetle TV series
• Mostly empty Game of Thrones teaser hits the web

• Christopher Mintz Plasse and David Tennant join the Marti Noxon penned remake of Fright Night
• The Greatest Muppet Movie Ever Made gets a release date of Christmas 2011
• Batman Year One animated adaptation in the works from the DC Universe Animation Studios
• Footage released for proposed Mortal Kombat reboot
• Harry Potter filming wraps
• Sam Raimi considering directing The Great and Powerful Oz, and delaying World of Warcraft. RDJ attached to star
• Green Lantern writing team hired to pen Green Lantern 2 and The Flash
• Aaron Johnson and Anton Yelchin added to Spider-Man “short”list; villain to be The Lizard?
• RUMOR: Joseph Gordon Levitt to play the Riddler in Batman 3?
• Transformers 3 – 3D and Shockwave confirmed as villain

• New Xbox 360 design is officially revealed
• Project Natal officially renamed “Kinect for Xbox 360″
• Rock Band 3 adds Keys and Harmonizing
• Telltale Games to develop episodic games based on Back to the Future and Jurassic Park
• Comic Jumper video
• Scott Pilgrim is timed PS3 exclusive

Geek Jerk Reaction: Toy Story 3, Jonah Hex

The issue of whether or not to reboot the series is made interesting by the first trilogy’s relative youth. The first movie was released in 2002 to enormous success both financially and critically. The second film followed two years later in 2004, and the final part of the trilogy was released just over two years ago. To add to the intrigue, had it not been for Raimi’s inability to rush out the fourth installment of the franchise, we would have seen it next year.

Sources have said that the reason Raimi couldn’t get the fourth installment of the movie out in time for it’s scheduled 2011 release was due to problems that he had with the script. Apparently those problems could not be worked through in a time frame that pleased both Raimi and Sony. As a result, Raimi and his Spider-Man cast have been removed from the future of the franchise.

All that has led us to the point where we get a reboot of the series instead of a continuation. But that still doesn’t really answer the initial question of whether or not a reboot is too soon. The problem is that the question has two sides to it. First, there is a question as to whether or not the franchise can financially support a reboot. Let’s be honest here, Hollywood would be tripping over itself to reboot every money making franchise it could if it could get away with what will ultimately become a ten year (the new Spider-Man is due out in 2012) turn around. But perhaps what is really important to us (unless you lay awake at night worrying about Sony’s head honchos and how they are going to make their next millions) is the second question. Does a series reboot offer anything new to the audience?

The Financial Issue

Indulge me for a moment while I address the first issue. Can the franchise support a reboot of the series? It’s quite easy to see that the franchise has been an overwhelming success for Sony. Domestically, the first three films ring currently ring in at #9, #13, and #18 on the All Time gross charts. Putting aside inflation for a moment, that means that only Spider-Man and Star Wars have three movies from the same franchise in the top 20. If you expand it out to the top 30, you also let the Lord of the Rings trilogy into the party. That’s pretty impressive company.

Obviously, additional movies worked out pretty well for the Star Wars franchise. Not only were all three of the prequel movies in the top 30 domestically, but they all ended up in the top 100 when adjusted for ticket inflation. I doubt many people would consider the choice to make more Star Wars movies a failure financially.

But when we speak about the Spider-Man movie for 2012, we aren’t talking about a prequel or a sequel. This makes it a lot harder to judge the potential success for the next set of movies. And we are also talking about a gap of only five years between the end of one incarnation, and the beginning of another. The closest comparison that I can come up with in this situation is Batman, which saw an eight year gap between the destruction and rebirth of the franchise. It’s pretty safe to say that everything worked out pretty well in that case.

Ultimately I think Batman offers the best lesson in rebooting a franchise. Fitting that it should also belong in the “comics on film” category. The answer to the financial success of the franchise lies in that lesson. The lesson involves the direction, integrity, and entertainment of the franchise. Ultimately, if Batman was relaunched and maintained the same feeling and direction, it would have flopped. But it was given a breath of fresh air that helped it not only survive, but reach incredible new heights.

So the best answer to the financial issue is this: If Sony can find an entertaining take that heads in a new direction for the series, it will continue to succeed financially. If they fail to accomplish that, then the Spider-Man franchise may be dead well before it reaches it’s sixth movie. With the hire of Marc Webb, it’s obvious that the franchise is headed in a different direction. However, it will be important to see how tight of a leash Sony keeps on Webb and Spider-Man. If Warner had limited Nolan’s vision of Batman Begins, where would that franchise be today?

What Does a Reboot Offer Us?

It’s interesting that the question of financial feasibility ultimately comes down to the direction of the new product. Because that’s exactly the issue that has the most effect on the audience. Stick too closely to the original movies and viewers will get a sense of “Been there, Done that”. Stray too far, and you have the risk of turning off your established fanbase.

Before I get too far into asking what the new movies have to offer those of us that are likely reading this article, I do have to point out one advantage that this franchise has with a reboot happening so quickly. Spider-Man is a movie franchise that has succeeded almost entirely because of it’s appeal to younger viewers in addition to the older viewers. The younger viewers are what give the franchise a unique opportunity to succeed with a franchise reboot. It will have been 10 years between the beginnings of the Spider-Man stories. That’s an entire new batch of kids to rope into the adventures of a wise crackin’, web slingin’, young super hero. And if children these days are anything like I was as a child, (I have my doubts, thanks to “quality” entertainment available in this age) then they will not care about the time between movies. They will just be completely excited about new stories. And for some of them, this time it will be completely new.

But obviously, it’s not the children that we are interested in for this article. What can these movies offer us, the readers, that a sequel could not have given us? Or perhaps, what can it offer us that makes me care that the franchise wasn’t just killed off?

First, it’s important to remember that Spider-Man is a comic book. Reboots and different takes are built into it’s very nature. And when you choose to look at it from that direction, (and choose to completely ignore the dollar signs in the eyes of the people making that decision) I believe that it makes the decision a bit more exciting.

Secondly, we have to take a look at the direction that the original trilogy was headed in. From the beginning, it was clear that Raimi’s take was a borderline slapstick action take on the franchise. Which was fine, and it obviously worked out well for everyone involved. However, that style of movie always runs the risk of turning people off. The first two movies garnered solid critical response. They fetched a 90% and 94% freshness rating from Rotten Tomatoes, which judges the average score from reviewers. Meanwhile, the third movie’s rating plummeted to 63%. While that’s still not a terrible score by RT’s standards, it was a far cry from the first two scores.

I would say that the third Spider-Man movie was still a far cry from a complete failure. It had a long way to go to get to the level of something like Batman & Robin. But it was certainly headed in that direction, with the numerous villains included, and the forever increasing number of people aware of Spider-Man’s identity.

With a reboot, what we are offered is a different direction. Given the decision to hire Marc Webb, I hope that Sony has made the decision to allow a more character-centric approach on the story. Less cheese, more drama, similar action. Get the balance just right, and what we are given could easily surpass the original trilogy.

It’s already been mentioned several times around the internet that the new-look Peter Parker could be centered around his High School life. High School was almost an afterthought in the original movie. As if the writers said, “Alright look, we are just going to have to address this issue, so let’s get it over with quickly”.  Arguably, that’s the exact opposite of what Spider-Man should be like. It’s quite possible that with the new reboot, that could be rectified.

Another issue that Marc Webb’s Spider-Man has the opportunity to “fix” deals with casting choices. I ultimately had very little to complain about in the casting of the characters in Sam Raimi’s take. However, the choices weren’t exactly all that inspiring, either. The casting in Webb’s big movie, 500 Days of Summer, was pretty much fantastic and spot on. If that is what we can get from Spider-Man, everyone should be pretty pleased with the end result. However, some of the choices may seem odd to begin with. I for one would love to see less big names, and more pure talent.

To go along with a better take on the characters, the other thing that I hope we can get from a reboot is better pacing. I already mentioned the original trilogy’s take on High School. But they continued to fast forward through the shining moments of the Spider-Man story. The relationship and eventual marriage to Mary Jane. Peter’s growth as a hero. It’s all presented on fast forward in the original movies. A reboot has the luxury of slowing things down, and exploring them better.

In Conclusion

If I had my choice, this movie would be centered primarily around Peter Parker’s world, and his growth as a character. Mary Jane may not even make an appearance in the first movie. I wouldn’t have Peter leave high school until at least the third movie. Everything in the movies would be focused solely around character moments. Even the villains would be grounded better in reality ala Nolan’s Batman villains.

That’s the gift that the reboot offers us. The idea of a different trip through the same world. If that is the direction the new trilogy takes, then we are in for a treat. If Sony insists on repeating the tried formula, then it may be harder to find a reason to enjoy the movies. But even so, it isn’t as if each new comic series re-invents the formula. Sometimes you just have to enjoy the story for what it is.

What would it take for you to enjoy a Spider-Man reboot? A re-definition? More of the same? Or something that hasn’t been mentioned?

It would appear so. The acclaimed director recently signed on to direct a film adaptation of the massively popular massively multiplayer online role playing game. The film will be produced by Legendary Pictures and Dark Knight producer Charles Roven. Raimi will supervise devolpment while shooting Spiderman 4 and will be begin production after that film wraps.

What does this mean for Spiderman 5, which is rumoured to be a the second part of a two-part story arc beginning in Spiderman 4? Will Raimi utilize over-the-top, hyper-violent fantasty action a la Army of Darkness? Or will he go a more epic, elegant route like Lord of the Rings? Remember when Raimi was rumoured to direct The Hobbit? You think he was still just itching to direct a fantasy epic and felt this was the next best thing?

Discuss

Unfortunately, we know little else about the film, other than Tobey Maguire will still be playing Peter Parker/Spiderman and that Raimi really wants Kristen Dunst back as Mary Jane Watson, but she has yet to commit to it. Oh, and that the film will be out by May of 2011.

Now I have to admit, I’ve never watched an entire episode of Xena or Hercules. At the time they were on the air, I really just wasn’t interested. I’m sure I could enjoy them now, and perhaps one day when I have a little breathing room in my Netflix queue, I’ll give them a shot.

First let me say this: I am a die-hard fan of the novels. Wizard’s First Rule was the first fantasy novel I read. I was thoroughly hooked by Goodkind’s writing and characterizations. The story of Richard, Kahlan and Zedd immediately captured me and I was obsessed. It was the first novel I discussed with my husband in depth, and I think we both share an extra fondness for it because of that.

But I’m not here to talk about the novels. I’m here to talk about the television adaptation of the novels. Originally, the show was slated to be only the first novel. A twenty-two episode arc of Wizard’s First Rule. And I agreed that was the only way a visualization of that book could work. A two-hour movie or six-hour miniseries would never cut it. I kept up with the project by occasionally following the production website and keeping up with casting news, excited by what I was seeing come down the pipe.

Then in November 2008, after an excruciatingly long wait, The Legend of the Seeker aired. And as the first episode neared to a close, I was thinking, “Not too bad, the changes they made were necessary. I can live with this.” Then they literally and figuratively threw the book in the fire. And then, everything changed.

Ok, maybe not everything. But I now had to struggle with not to turning into a hysterical fan girl and saying, “but THAT’S not how it happened in the book!” Later, I learned in an interview with one of the show’s stars, Craig Horner (Richard), that the series is based on the characters from Goodkind’s book and the overall story arc, but with lots of episodic stops along the way.

And once I got over that disappointment and used to the episodic idea of it all, I did sit back and enjoy the show for what it is: a fairly predictable series, chock-full of eerily beautiful cinematography (the New Zealand landscape screams, “Epic!”), and an honorable attempt to bring those three beloved characters to life.

However, it doesn’t always succeed. Episode 5, “Listener,” is about as far away from portraying Goodkind’s story and characters as possible. I have to wonder if the writer, Stephen Tolkin, had ever bothered to crack open the source material. I’m assuming he has, since he was one of the three credited writers for the first episode, “Prophecy.” Apparently, at times, he just doesn’t care. And I was about to the point where I didn’t care either.

But I gave it another chance. And am I ever glad I did. Two weeks later, the episode “Identity” aired, and it brought back the essence of the characters and of the original story of the book. While it didn’t tell the story the same way that the novel did, it was done in an interesting way and I was excited again about the series.

I haven’t been disappointed by its return from the winter hiatus, either. The episode, “Denna,” and “Puppeteer” which followed, were everything I’d come to expect from the series, and a little more: faithful to the ideals of the original story and characters, with an interesting twist that makes me want to see where it is going.

So, will this series appeal to those who haven’t read the books? Perhaps. If you’re missing a sprawling fantasy epic of the likes of Xena or Hercules, you may like the show. Just don’t expect it to have that same campy tongue-in-cheek quality. The show does tend to take itself too seriously at times.

If you are a fan of the book series, I say give it a chance. We’ve all seen how things change when they go to film or screen (X-Men, Spiderman, Iron Man, etc.). For both camps however, new viewers and established fans, if you’re willing to be a little patient, I have a feeling the payoff is going to be worth some of the earlier, lesser quality episodes.

Original directors Bond and choreographer Hinton Battle are lined up to co-direct the film version. Carmody says he hopes to shoot the film in the spring of next year in Toronto with some of the original cast. However, he adds, serious rights issues still need to be resolved.

Featuring songs such as “What the F**k Was That?” and “Do the Necronomicon”, the stage version also featured a blood-soaked front row section known as the “splatter zone”.

The 3-D version will provide similar results, without the mess.

No word yet on Kirstin Dunst, but it is understood that Mary Jane Watson will be featured in the film and Sony isn’t looking to recast the character.

The film’s villain has yet to be announced, but Sony has hinted that “once you find out who the villain is, you’ll know who’s playing it”. Most people are assuming The Lizard due to Dylan Baker’s portrayal of the character’s alter ego, Dr. Curt Conners, in the second and third films, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bruce Campbell playing ol’ Fishbowl-head himself, Mysterio.

Principal Photography will begin in Fall of 2009 for a release in May 2011. The fourth and fifth film will be shot simultaneously to both cut down costs and make certain that everyone involved stays together.

Could all of this lead to an obvious Sinister Six appearence in Spider-Man 6? Only time will tell.

A long… long time.