If this is a sequel and not a remake...

Well that's not the first seven minutes then. []
That's roughly the first minute of EDII and I quote again from the post I was replying to...

No, I'm saying that those first seven minutes don't come off like a re-cap, they come off (especially when you watch the movie for the first time) like just the first seven minutes of a movie not connected to any sort of story that came before it.

Everything I described happens within those first seven minutes. Indeed, by the 6.53 mark.
Again, a lot of the SAME things happen in seven minutes you say come off like they're not connected to any sort of story before it.

Yes, I meant what I said. ED2 begins like it's not a continuation of the previous movie. It just begins with Ash and Linda going to the cabin, and it's hard to tell this is actually a "recap" at first. Maybe if it was done more like AOD's recap (narration or something) it would be more obvious, but they didn't do it that way, so it's not obvious. And this event of seeing only Ash and Linda go to the cabin is different than what we saw in the original Evil Dead. And yes, I know all of the arguments about how the recap was only including important stuff and left some stuff out because it wasn't important to the sequel. Still doesn't change the fact that it's hard to interpret this as the intention when you first watch the movie, which is why a lot of people make the argument that it feels more like a remake than a sequel. (And even after you know Raimi's intention, I still prefer to view it as a remake rather than a sequel.)


That is, unless you have seen the original. When Ash is hit by the force outside the Cabin, which is how the original ended.
For anybody who has seen the original, it's the clear point where the recap ends and the direct continuation of The Evil Dead Story begins.

Well, I was under the impression that most people hadn't seen the original when ED2 was released, so there wouldn't probably be very many people who would make that connection anyway. That's why a lot of people saw it as a remake - a good portion of the audience hadn't seen the original, and they didn't have the rights to the first movie anymore (to show footage), so many thought they decided to just start over with a brand new story.


Never said it wasn't and it's clear many have misinterpretated the point of the beginning of the film like yourself.

Yes, and for the reasons I've mentioned, one can easily see why.


So? Nothing to say a recap has to remain consistent in each and every way. If it had to, then it would be hard to summarize to start with.

I never said it did. AOD's recap of ED2 doesn't explain everything that happened in the movie. It leaves out, for example, the characters of Annie, Jake, Bobby Joe, etc., but the things it does show doesn't contradict any of those characters (or events with those characters) existing either.


You can watch EDII without ignoring the end of the original and pick up from where Ash is hit by The Force. Which is how The Evil Dead ends and EDII picks up from once the recap is over.
And true, you can skip the recap of EDII because it was there for people who had not seen the original Evil Dead.

However, skip the recap of AoD and the third still does not work in relation to the end of EDII. AoD changes the context of Ash's presence in "Medievil" Times. At the end of EDII, Ash is the hero. In AoD even after the recap is done, he most certainly is not.
Or, you can choose to ignore the last couple minutes of EDII. So, AoD does not directly continue the storyline like I said, or you wouldn't have to skip the ending of EDII.

It's still the same logic - in order for ED2 to be seen as a direct continuation of Evil Dead, you have to skip the first seven minutes. In order for Army Of Darkness to be seen as a direct continuation of Evil Dead 2, you should ignore the last couple of minutes of Evil Dead 2. My point, though, is that you can't mistaken AOD as a sequel to ED2. We see footage of ED2, we hear Ash narrating, etc. Whereas ED2 can easily been seen (exactly as it is) as if there is no continuation at all of the movie that previously came before it.

Here's my tuppence, dumbed down not to make anyone feel stupid or anything like that, but to try to offer a very clear explanation of my views ...

The film is called Evil Dead II. Evil Dead 2. "2" meaning the second, a film that follows on from the first film "The Evil Dead". Here are my reasons that Evil Dead II is not a reboot or remake, but a sequel.

As has been brought up, the film "Hulk" was rebooted as "The Incredible Hulk". The film "Spider-Man" was rebooted as "The Amazing Spider-Man". And finally "Batman" was rebooted as "Batman Begins" (the fact that these are all superhero franchises is purely because superheroes, already a franchise with history eg. comic books, are easy to reboot with different storylines/approaches. This connection obviously has no effect on the sequel/remake/reboot discussion on TED/EDII). The main point to note is that none of the aforementioned reboots - or any reboots to my knowledge - use a numerical figure to denote any connection to previous films (eg. The Incredible Hulk 2, I'll ignore the others because they had sequels in their own cycle, which will obviously become confusing in relation to this discussion). To reboot means to discard all previous continuity of events etc and start anew, usually with the aim of creating a new franchise.

"Dawn of the Dead" (2004) was a remake to "Dawn of the Dead" (1978). "Assault on Precinct 13" (2005) is a remake to "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976). "The Longest Yard" (2005) is a remake to "The Longest Yard" (1974). I'm sure you catch my drift. A remake is a piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium. Generally, but of course not always, a remake uses the same name as the original ("Internal Affairs" (2002) - "The Departed" (2006) being an exception). Again, numbers are not used in the titles of the remakes because it is essentially the same film (ie. not The Longest Yard 2).

And now, sequels. A sequel is a film that follows on or expands upon an earlier piece of work. Often, sequels use numbers in the title to denote their position in the canon of a series. You don't need examples ... except for "The Evil Dead" (1981) and "Evil Dead II" (1987). EDII both follows on and expands upon TED, which makes it an unusual sequel, but a sequel nonetheless.

Now, there may be some exceptions to the 'rules' of reboots and remakes, but I am pretty sure there won't be, due to their very nature. I think the strongest piece of evidence in this whole argument is that Raimi describes it as a sequel. He created the story, therefore he knows it better than anyone else. Who are you to say that he's got it wrong?

I am aware that was unnecessarily long and drawn out. My bad.


Come with me if you want to live.