Talk:Ash vs Evil Dead

Early Release for S01E01
AVED S01E01 seems to have been released a day early on starz play, but not sure about a reference that isn't geoblocked and/or restricted to subscribers? Hydroksyde (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

rights issue?
can it serve as a sequel to army of darkness if it cant actually reference that film at all? they cant show clips (like they did with 1 and 2 in the first ep ) theres no iron hand, no s-mart , no reference to ashes time in the past (so far) ... so it seems that its a sequel to evil dead 2 and army of darkness doesnt exist in the universe of the tv series. heres an article, one of many but contains a quote from bruce about the subject about halfway dawn saying army of darkness isnt canon to the tv series http://www.thedevilseyes.com/2015/07/army-of-darkness-not-canon-to-ash-vs-evil-dead.html

2.24.147.31 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * They've played fast and loose with continuity since ED2, best not to be too pedantic about it or you'll draw no useful conclusions about /any/ of the series Hydroksyde (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The article previously stated that the series served as a direct sequel to Evil Dead 2, and I have removed this part of the sentence, as there is zero indication this is the case. Pixstrad (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah it could only be a direct sequel to Evil Dead 2 if it were set in medievel times, this series can only be looked on sequel-wise as a follow on from Bruce Cambell vs Army of Darkness but only the version with the S-Mart ending.86.5.134.132 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the iron hand is back, and when they created it there was no reference to the original. So they are at least using some parts of AoD as reinventions.  104.186.132.216 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the rights issue has been resolved. Season 2 alludes to Army of Darkness. --Hoodie92 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing Songs
Why are some songs that are in the episodes left out from "List of songs in Ash vs Evil Dead"? Reading the article I see that a lot of the songs are referenced from tunefind.com, yet some of the songs that the site names that are in the episodes are not in the episode song list here. e.g episode 2, "Journey to the Center of the Mind". During recap of last episode and the story when Ash is using chainsaw to cut head of his former neighbor. "You've Still Got a Place In My Heart" After Ash kills the dedite in his car. 86.45.46.23 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC) 



Exaggerated RottenTomatoes score
The RottenTomatoes rating is a bit ridiculous, I mean it's an ok show but not absolute perfection like the 98% would imply. Per their rating it's better than 2001: A Space Odyssey or The Godfather 2. Would it make sense to mention instead the Metacritic score (75%) which seems more sensible? Laurent (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit as we report what RT and MC and other sites report - it matters not if it "makes sense" - it is what the widely respected review aggregator reports. It my not make sense per your reasons, but it is what it is. Etron81 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When the numbers are clearly erroneous though (100% for season 2??), shouldn't we use our discretion and remove such numbers? Although RT's rating are often in Wikipedia's article, I don't think there are any rules that they *have* to be there. Laurent (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Each RT reviewer can classify their review as either fresh or rotten. RT currently says 46 of 47 reviews for season 1 were classified as fresh, and 14 of 14 for season 2. This gives 98% and 100% fresh reviews which is a correct computation from the given numbers. An "error" would be something like RT counting the submitted reviews incorrectly or somebody hacking them to conceal rotten reviews. Do you have any evidence of that? If not then there is no error and no reason to hide the information. In addition to the fresh/rotten classification, reviewers also assign a rating with a number up to 10. Both seasons say "with an average rating of 8/10" in the article. Both your film examples have a higher average rating. There just happens to be more reviewers who classified them as rotten. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * People can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of people know that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't remove a score just because you don't like it. Also, you can't compare movie ratings to TV ratings on Rotten Tomatoes - TV ratings are always higher. Hoodie92 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears the ratings are factual information. If some RT ratings seem odd... well... it's up to RT to decide how their rating system works. If it is commonly accepted that RT ratings are useful, then include the information. At that point it is up to readers to decide how how much the rating is worth. Alsee (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviews are needed
Perhaps the better way to balance out the Rotten Tomatoes Anomaly (discussed above) is to post actual reviews of the series from different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:115F:647:1900:E4B2:FF4E:F2AB:84FB (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph clarification
A few months ago I edited the opening paragraph to clarify that Evil Dead is created by Sam Raimi, because there are two people with the last name Raimi mentioned in the opening sentence and after that the paragraph just used the last name "Raimi" without clarifying which Raimi it was. I noticed now that the paragraph is back to just describing "Raimi" as creating the Evil Dead franchise, and I don't want to start an edit war so I figure I'll ask here for people's thoughts on it.

I think the opening paragraph of this article would be very confusing for someone not already familiar with the creation of the Evil Dead franchise. Describing the creator as "Raimi" when there are two Raimis essentially makes it so the reader requires familiarity with the franchise already to understand the article. Obviously using the last name alone will be required sometimes in the article for readability, so I'm only suggesting the clarification that it's Sam Raimi be added to the opening paragraph. (I'd also like to add that the most recent person named Raimi in the article at the time of that sentence is Ivan Raimi which could even lead readers to assume it's referring to him.) After the opening paragraph I'm sure people can figure it out from context, but as of right now the opening paragraph is ambiguous to anybody not already familiar with the creation of the franchise. ARZ100 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)