Talk:Army of Darkness

message: 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)
thread_title: Plot Edits

message: 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)
replies: text: Kind of weird to resurrect a 6-year old thread, but alright. In any event, see "Unsourced Material" below. I believe it's the newest thread. Doniago (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request

message: On TV they said it was a Fantasy movie. 216.174.135.175 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So?--SUIT42 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story obviously took a lot from the lord of the rings. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy

message: Where the hell do all those alternate names come from? 199.126.137.209 08:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Also known as

message: 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)
thread_title: Comics

message: 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
:What are you talking about?--$UIT 05:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What am I talking about?  Notice how the article mentions S-Mart over and over?  In fact, the films original conclusion has Ash ending up in the future, but because of corporate pressure from Holywood and S-Mart, the Raimi brothers were forced to change the film's ending so that Ash winds up working at S-Mart.  I know S-Mart's CEO has denied these allegations, but one need not look much further than this article to realize the insidiousness of their marketing strategy and capitalist ploy.  Does the phrase Manufacturing Consent help one to realize the pervasiveness of corporatism and pecuniary interest?  In light of these undeniable facts, one ought to reread and edit this article with caution so that it reads less like an advertisement for S-Mart than an entry on a movie which makes the stories of Edgar Allen Poe seem as unterrifying and dauntless as the US government.  --Teetotaler 20 May 2007
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)
thread_title: Non-POV?

message: intro says 1992, but infobox says 93. Which is it? Murderbike 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Robotic hand?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ben Croshaw 

message: 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)
thread_title: In Popular culture

message: This could be a worthwhile replacement for the trivia above that was removed:
*
Hope it helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal of Popular Culture 

message: *
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)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks! I'm going to see if I can track down the issue of Cinefantastique that had quite a sizable article(s) on the film.--J.D. (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical analysis of medieval elements 

message: *
:A feature overview of some of the key players in the horror genre. Includes a short profile of Bruce Campbell and a two page feature on some of his roles, focusing particularly on the EVIL DEAD trilogy.
*
:Interview with Bill Mesa of Introvision who is overseeing the animation for EVIL DEAD III: ARMY OF DARKNESS and also about his work on DARKMAN, OUTLAND, FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER etc.
*
:The ending of ARMY OF DARKNESS was changed for the video release.
*
*
:Interview with Sam Raimi on his aims for ARMY OF DARKNESS: EVIL DEAD 3. He also talks about writers and films which have influenced him.
*
:Interview with Howard Berger about the make-up used in ARMY OF DARKNESS, JASON GOES TO HELL, DOPPELGANGER.
*
:Sam Raimi talks about difficulties making ARMY OF DARKNESS.
*
:Bruce Campbell talks about making EVIL DEAD III and its post-production problems, as well as his acting.
*
:Extensive piece on ARMY OF DARKNESS, featuring comments from Bruce Campbell, Sam Raimi and other crew members, plus a look at production design and the making of the first two EVIL DEAD films.
*
:Cast and crew talk about making ARMY OF DARKNESS.
*
:On the making of ARMY OF DARKNESS.
*
:'Army of Darkness' to be called 'Army of Darkness: Evil Dead 3' outside United States and Canada. Post-production de- tails.
*
:Sam Raimi is interviewed about DARKMAN, his appearance in other films, the possibility of a sequel, and EVIL DEAD 3 - ARMY OF DARKNESS.
*
:Outline of Raimi's future plans with commnet on DARKMAN and EVIL DEAD III.
Some resources retrieved through Film Index International. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice list. I have access to: * but it would be nice to get those others to help with this article.--J.D. (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional resources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material 

message: 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)
replies: text: I propose listing the titles for which a reliable source can be provided. After that, we can either go in alphabetical order or somehow prioritize them based on the level of sourcing available I suppose. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also known as 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sequel not happening. 

message: 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. ( and  ). 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)
thread_title: Alternative titles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs to be clearer 

message: Somebody doesn't know what "based on" means. Sterlingjones (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not based on A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court 

message: This should interest Barry Wom. 2A00:23C7:9985:1701:19A0:E5D6:CD18:9FDB (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should