I watched these a few year ago and just watched the 1st one again on amazon instant video and will watch the second again BUT I just wondered why the second movie does not follow this one, at the end of the 1st movie we are to believe most people are now zombies/demons and they go to the country to escape, but no mention of anything happening in the 2nd movie
share[deleted]
Heretic!
Tony the Pimp can be substituted by no man.
... well, maybe Chuck Norris, but even then, I wouldn't like to call it.
Technically this does follow on. When you watch the sequel there is that programme on the t.v which I believe is supposed to be a quasi documentary about the aftermath of Demons events.
Or you could look at it like this: the programme is a sequel to Demons. Because a group go into a city that had been quarantined/abandoned because demons slaughtered everyone.
And I just started watching the sequel now and there is a monologue at the beginning that refers to the first movie directly. So ding ding ding - looks like it does follow on.
shareI think the person was talking about the whole city being overrun by demons thing, sure there's that explanation at the beginning of 2 but that movie is basically Demons 1 but inside of an apartment building and that's it.
shareIt was SUCH a missed opportunity.
A crappy reworking instead of a kick-ass sequel that would've been "Demons" meets "The New Barbarians"!
First of all they're demons not zombies. Second it does follow the first movie. Sally is watching a documentary about what hhappened in the first movie which starts everything in the second movie.
shareThe movie in the tv is actually show the events after the first movie and the 2nd movie itself. From the first you see the alley behind the theater. From the 2nd movie, they find a lone clar sticking out of the ground. A claw that belonged to the demon baby which had one claw cut off.
shareIt's like a meta-video curse I take it, the way the Demon movie in the first one was sort of a testimony to it's power, from the events of the first one I took the movie they're watching as a sort of curse/ritual of the demonic eye "remembering" what it's done and how it's power was released. I took the guy with the metallic mask is the man from the movie who's possessed and goes on a kill crazy rampage, eventually as the power of the demon becomes more "elegant" the killing spree stops and it's power over him becomes more sophisticated, it's able to control him more directly, with a half-mask on the area where he was scratched, he is now a puppet.
And this is how the events of the first movie are set forth.
Now that's just one theory and is negated by the second one, which refers to the first one as a fictional movie-within-a-movie, now if this is true than the first one's movie-within-a-movie is actually a different universe altogether, and it's power used the cinema as a "gate-way" to expel it's power since the girl who's scratched in the first one is in sync with the transformation on-screen.
Then the second one is also set in another plain of reality and the demonic power is using the power of cinema as a gateway into another universe it can expel it's power thru.
So it is a follow-up just not set in the same reality.
Demons 2 isn't meta.
share[deleted]
Well it's kind of follows the first movie. The TV show from which the demons emerge is some kind of docudrama chronicling the events that happened after the first film. (i.e. the city was quarantined due to the outbreak). Somehow, this allows the demons to return. The apartment building I think is just supposed to be in another part of the world, experiencing it's own demon outbreak.
share