|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
I put some information about the director's cut ending in the plot area, because it's still part of the plot.
Sheila is not Arthur's daughter as expressed in the plot section. The only reference to her family in the movie is when Arthur returns to the castle Sheila asked Arthur where her brother was only to find out that he was killed by Henry's men. She then takes out her anger on A chained Ash. Someone needs to fix that. It's insulting to the people who are fans of the trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonk1216 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is in dispute: see Talk:The Evil Dead
From what I've read in other movie articles here, it would be keeping with Wikipedia standards for someone (a better writer than me) to add a little blurb about how the ending of Evil Dead II and the begining of Army of Darkness don't exactly match up and what budget/director/producer/studio forces led to this small inconsistancy.
Wiki Tiki God 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Also -- and I'm not positive on this -- but I think the version I saw had a different ending: Ash drinks the potion but messes up his counting and ends up sleeping for too long. Is that just an 'alternate' ending, or is the article in need of an update? 207.216.10.54 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: [1]. No, the "beginning and ending" of the film do not contain time travel. The beginning does, in the recap. The ending, in all versions, has no time travel; Ash is returned to his native time period after ingesting a sleeping potion. Other than one scene in the entire film, time travel plays no important role in the story; it's not at all a meaningful aspect of the film, it's strictly a means to an end. As such, I don't believe that this category should be included here.--SB | T 06:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, pretty much what everyone here said. The important aspect of time travel fiction is not the depiction of the time travel method, rather it is the presence of the character in a non-naturally occuring time period. JHG 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
On TV they said it was a Fantasy movie. 216.174.135.175 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
Yeah, and Raimi and Campbell admit that it's more action-adventure than horror. I agree. But that doesn't stop all sorts of people (apparently people who have seen about a total of 4 horror films) from calling Army of Darkness one of their favorite horror films. What are ya gonna do? Suggest Evil Dead 1 or 2 and move on.
Where the hell do all those alternate names come from? 199.126.137.209 08:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone fancy starting a new section for the comics? It'll get a lot of heat thanks to the Marvel crossover and people will be interested in fidning out more about the others. Army of Darkness (comics) seems appropriate. (Emperor 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC))
Isn't this article in violation of Wikipedia's non-POV requirement for article entries? The whole page reads like one long advertisement for the mega-corporation S-Mart and its fiscal conglomerates. --Teetotaler
The original ending was too depressing for me. Glad they changed it. And so what if he ended back in S-Mart? I always believed it was to lead the audience to think that either: A:Everything's back to normal or B:Everything may have been a dream-up untillthe deadite shows up.JackorKnave (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
intro says 1992, but infobox says 93. Which is it? Murderbike 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-- same here. IMDb ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/releaseinfo ) says the movie was released in 1992, it's only the wide release that came in 1993 (and that in the US, Taiwan got it's wide release already in 1992). Have a copy of the MGM R3 version at my hands right now and the copyright in the end credits says clearly "Copyright (C) 1992 DINO DE LAURENTIIS COMMUNICATIONS". Hence it ought to be "1992", not "1993". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.186.5 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Was it really "robotic"? Or was it simple wires running down his arm? So when he extends his arm or twists his arm it pulls on wires which are connected to the fingers, closing/opening them?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw said this was his favourite film. He wrote the most positive review about it he ever made. Perhaps worth noticing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.51 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia discourages these kinds of lists of trivia so I've moved this section until it can be converted to prose and properly cited.--J.D. (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Army of Darkness has garnered a cult following since its release. Most of the traits and dialogue that the character of Ash is known for in pop culture derive from this film as opposed to the first two (The exceptions being the chainsaw hand and use of the word "Groovy" which derive from the second film). Among other things, the one-liners Ash speaks are often quoted by fans, and have made their way into other media. For example, in the PC game Duke Nukem 3D, the title character Duke Nukem has several direct quotes from the movie throughout the game, such as "Hail to the king, baby!", and is also reportedly inspired (at least partially) by the character of Ash. Campbell did not entirely approve according to interviews on the subject.[1] The Finnish rock band Lordi has a song entitled "The Deadite Girls Gone Wild," which may or may not be a reference to the film. Also, the video for "Blood Red Sandman" appears to be a deliberate Evil Dead reference. The song "Dead by Dawn" by Showbread, which was written about the Evil Dead series, quotes Ash's line, "Hail to the king, baby!" The popular internet writer Maddox had a tribute on his site to this movie. The Boston-based horror-rock band Bad Ash takes its name from this film.
References
This could be a worthwhile replacement for the trivia above that was removed:
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)Hope it helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The above article has this passage:
It is irresponsible to discuss comedic takes on the Middle Ages without mentioning the seminal work of cult director Sam Raimi. His classic film, The Army of Darkness, like so many other films, contains scenes set in a generic Arthurian milieu. Although not identified by name in the film, the local lord is named Arthur, who possesses an important albeit short-lived sword, and there is an unidentified wizard (named Wiseman John in the script) replete with pointed hat, robes, and long white beard. Regardless of Twain-esque in-jokes, Army of Darkness' armor presents a genuinely acceptable vision of medieval arms and armor. In one of the film’s earliest scenes, where the picaresque protagonist Ash—played by Bruce Campbell—confronts Lord Arthur's men, there is a plethora of bland and realistic armors, and they are treated as absolutely mundane objects by Bruce Campbell’s character. Indeed, Campbell's anti-hero disregards the film's armored reality entirely. The film's costuming appears to be functional and, in many ways, serves as a counterpoint to the work’s more fantastic elements.
I'll see what else I can find. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)Some resources retrieved through Film Index International. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help) but it would be nice to get those others to help with this article.--J.D. (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Removed from the article for lacking sourcing for over 3 months. Please feel free to reincorporate with proper sourcing! Doniago (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this information was reinserted at some point, but the only change was IMDb being used as a reference. This isn't acceptable per WP:RS/IMDb. Doniago (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Different versions
|
---|
==Different versions==
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
There are four different versions of Army of Darkness: the 96-minute director's cut, the 81-minute US theatrical version, the 88-minute international edit, and the 88-minute US television version. The director's cut includes numerous new scenes and extensions compared to the US theatrical version. Among the changes are more violence in the pit, a love scene between Ash and Sheila, an extended windmill scene, different dialogue between Good and Bad Ash, an extended speech on the castle roof and a vastly different ending. The television version (which is not available on DVD) includes two scenes not in any other version of the film (though they do appear in rough cut form in the "Deleted Scenes" section of the DVD.) The theatrical release picks up after Ash has returned to the present, in which he stages one final confrontation with the "she-bitch" in the S-Mart Housewares Department. The alternative ending, which was favored by Raimi and Bruce Campbell, depicts Ash as he sits in his Oldsmobile (the same 1973 Oldsmobile featured in many Sam Raimi films), in a cave, the entrance caved in by some of the black powder he made earlier. As he drinks the magic potion (given to him by a person that may or may not be Merlin - the king's name being "Arthur"), he is distracted by a falling rock and takes one drop too many. Ash sleeps well beyond his time, not aging but growing a very large beard, and shouts "I've slept too long!" after awakening in a post-apocalyptic England. When test audiences did not approve of Raimi's original ending, he cut the film down to the international cut that now exists on DVD. When it was again rejected by Universal, Raimi was forced to edit it again to the US theatrical version. The original cut had an opening that was more in tune with the Evil Dead series (included as a deleted scene on Anchor Bay's director's cut DVD). The MGM Hong Kong Region 3 DVD edits together the US altered theatrical, European and director's cuts into a final, 96-minute cut of the film. The film is digitally re-mastered, compiled from original source prints (not from VHS sources as with the Anchor Bay Entertainment releases). A new Blu-ray release of Army of Darkness from Optimum Releasing in the UK was rumored to be of the director's cut, however it was released on September 19, 2008 and included the director's cut as an extra, in standard definition. The movie was released as Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness for the UK Blu-ray release. |
There's an edit war going on with the lead sentence, which says "Army of Darkness, also known as...", and then gives several alternate titles. A few editors have been going back and forth for a while now about exactly what the alternate titles are, and also in what order they should be listed. So, let's discuss that here, and reach some agreement about this. What alternative titles should be listed, and why? This being Wikipedia, it would be better if anyone giving their opinion could provide some references. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Noticed the Wiki article says he confirmed it at Wonder-con but he later denied any sequel at later time in November 2013 while now he claims he originally lied at Wonder-con since he was possibly doing it to be sarcastic. Anyway here's the new link http://screenrant.com/bruce-campbell-army-darkness-2-not-happening/ also the link includes a video as proof too here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzMjP7cE6S0 which is also included on the first website link I posted. --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the alternative titles from what I can decipher are based on the following: Bruce Campbell vs. Army of Darkness is the title that appears onscreen during the opening credits. ([2] and [3] ). I'm not sure how formally we should make this as the title as its definitely appears there, but I think we need to explain that elsewhere, not in the lead. As for the other title, I have yet to find context, without it, these alternative titles are not so useful to users. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It is hard to follow a lot of this; if you can't tell what it's saying, why bother at all? But mostly, what about the part where the mirror shatters and "forms numerous small images of him, each one of which comes alive". Who is "him"? And this makes it sound like dozens of tiny, or large, reflections coming to life, but then it says "he kills it" and then later refers again to "his clone". Maybe this is talking about somethin else entirely, but either way, to a person who has never seen the film it makes no sense. A mirror breaking into pieces suggests numerous images, so why bother if just one "clone" comes out? Why "him" if there are many clones? Etc. 70.109.132.119 (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Somebody doesn't know what "based on" means. Sterlingjones (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This should interest Barry Wom. 2A00:23C7:9985:1701:19A0:E5D6:CD18:9FDB (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)