MovieChat Forums > Evil Dead II (1987) Discussion > The confusing opening and the remake or ...

The confusing opening and the remake or sequel question

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8201)
12 replies | jump to latest

There's a long thread on this board where arguments are presented supporting Evil Dead 2 (ED2) as a remake due to the first 7 minutes (or whatever), which blatantly deviate from what transpired in the first movie, and arguments supporting that it's a sequel.

Speaking as a person who saw both films back-to-back for the first time last night and who therefore has no emotional attachment to these movies, I was extremely confused by the opening of ED2. I was assuming that Ash was taking a different girlfriend to another cabin for a vacation, but this didn't fit because he finds the Book of the Dead and the audiotape (in a room and not the basement, as was the case in the first movie), which releases the demons in the woods. We then meet the daughter of Professor Knowby getting off the plane and planning to go to the cabin with her beau, which smacked more of sequel events rather than remake.

There was no time to reflect on the confusing start while watching ED2 so I just settled down and enjoyed the horror comedy. (This also made it different from the first film, which was serious horror, albeit over-the-top and cartoonish).

No matter how you slice it, the beginning of ED2 is very perplexing and awkward to first-time viewers. Coming to this board and reading the highlights of that aforementioned thread explained everything: Sam Raimi wanted to do a recap of the first film but didn't have the rights to the footage, so he did a half-axx "recap" that established the same basic events as a quick set-up for his sequel.

Conclusion: The first 7 minutes (or whatever) are a remake and the rest of the movie is a sequel; yet the sequel is more of a sequel to the prologue version of events than the previous movie version because Ash already knew the bridge was out from events in the first film, but not from events in the prologue of the second film.

So both those who say ED2 is a remake and those who say it's a sequel are right because the movie is a mix of BOTH.

Now I realize some sheeple are going to make an "appeal to authority" argument wherein they'll quote Sam as saying that ED2 is definitely a sequel and that settles the matter; therefore it's in no way a remake. But we have to separate the art from the creator. The art speaks for itself regardless of what the creator claims. And evidence from the two movies themselves verify the above: ED2 is part remake and part sequel.

[–] StarWarsRey (566) 6 years ago

Thats the way i always thought of this movie, as part remake part sequel.

[–] AdamWaldron96-2 (178) 6 years ago

Thanks for clarifying this a bit. What I’m more curious about is this: for Army of Darkness, Sam had some rights to Evil Dead II (there are some shots of the second one in Army of Darkness), but yet he reshot scenes of Linda and Ash cutting off his own hand for some reason. Was their another rights issue there, or did Sam do that for comedic effect since he did the same thing in the second one?

Also, the three movies on their own, the reshot scenes are fine, to me at least. It’s only slightly confusing in Ash vs Evil Dead when they reference events from these movies, and it’s like “which Linda we talking here? Linda #1, 2 or 3?”

[–] Wuchak (8201) 6 years ago

I don't know (I haven't seen AOD yet); maybe someone else can answer.

[–] janelsenor (2042) 3 years ago

It's funny because Bruce explains the reshot scene of cutting off his hand as being due to a rights issue, but then there are many other clips of ED2 in the intro for AOD.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Yeah I always felt like if Sam Raimi wanted to "correct" the first movie in a way. It's definitely a partly remake and partly sequel.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yeah.

It annoys me when I see people calling anyone who was confused by that stupid. The opening of ED 2 doesn't just recap, Evil Dead 1, but makes major changes to the story, like the book not being burned. It plays out a lot differently.

[–] zephyr_cape (2979) 4 years ago

I love how confuddled it is. This movie does whatever it wants.

[–] Alocirp (680) 3 years ago

Agree with your assessment here. I just re-watched these movies having mostly forgotten them, and was confused by the beginning of this one as well. It may technically classify as a recap, but if that's the case, it's a really shitty recap. As you said, certainly different enough from the original film to be perplexing to the viewer.

Interestingly to me, the exposition of ED2 "remakes" the original film to about the same extent that the rest of the film does. That is to say, there are differences in regards to characters, along with some minor plot points, but the setting and overall story are basically identical. So even apart from the confusing intro, I can understand why this feels to some viewers much more like a "re-imagining" of the original (with the added comedy being the primary difference) rather than a direct sequel.

Either way, the arguments and insults thrown around in that other thread were almost as amusing as the movie itself.

[–] Wuchak (8201) 3 years ago

They were entertaining, weren't they? That's why I started this thread -- to maybe bring peace to the two factions.

[–] Cognoscente (2480) 3 years ago

If it wasn't for the first reel, this movie would have been too short to be considered feature-length.

[–] prolelol (1421) 3 years ago

"The first 7 minutes (or whatever) are a remake and the rest of the movie is a sequel."

As a big fan of Evil Dead films, perfectly said.

[–] Zarkoff (759) a month ago

That's the best way to describe it.

The recap section actually makes a lot of major changes to the story, including removing three main characters. The first ED also ends with the book being burned, which causes the bodies of the possessed to fall apart. That's just ignored.

So ridiculous how people talk as if you are stupid if you were confused by that.