MovieChat Forums > Evil Dead II (1987) Discussion > Simple answer to remake/sequal debate

Simple answer to remake/sequal debate

posted 12 years ago by terrencepatrix
22 replies | jump to latest

It is both.

The first movie is essentially re-written during the first 15 minutes of Evil Dead 2. They streamlined the premise of Evil Dead and re-established the main character. Who he was, why he was at the cabin, what the book is, seeing his girlfriend transformed into a deadite...the reason this is repeated in Evil Dead 2 is so that you don't have to reference Evil Dead 1 and avoid continuity issues.

This allowed Sam Raimi to distance himself from the first movie and further expand the Evil Dead universe allowing a movie like Army of Darkness to happen. Lets face it, Evil Dead wasn't that good. It was cheap and cheesy. It's become a cult classic due to it coming off as so campy when in reality it just wasn't that great in the first place. Evil Dead 2 with the re-written premise allowed a lot more freedom to work with and allowed intentional camp. Instead of a standard, slightly forgettable, low budget horror movie we're reintroduced into a world of horror with elements of camp, sci-fi, and comedy.

So when watching Evil Dead 2 it's acceptable to disregard the first film seeing as how the movie re-establishes it's premise and transitions into a sequel.

And it most definitely isn't 8 years after the first film. It most definitely isn't a second book, a second cabin, a second girlfriend named Linda, and a second archaeologist. Because that would be stupid.

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

it is a sequel. not a remake.

Raimi didnt redo the premise of the first film because he wanted to distance himself from it. he did it because he didnt have the rights to use the footage from the first film. had he had the rights , he would have used clips from the first film in the opening to part 2.
The Evil Dead was of course not a big hit, it developed its cult following on home video and cable. in order to have the sequel be seen without the requirement of needing to see the original to understand the premise, he went about in shooting a new compilation to fill in the holes. establish the plot of the first film. the moment he does that it then picks up at the exact moment the first film ended at.

he shot the scenes and condensed the story to just Ash and Linda. the actors from the original did not want to reprise there roles.

the first film ended with Ash being killed by the abomination. THE END
in order to continue with a sequel, they changed that detail so Ash does survive.

it is not 8 years later. it is the exact moment the last film ended on.

if not for the studio legalities, the sequel would have had footage from the first film instead of the new scenes.

for anyone that is willing to dispute that needs to go and listen to the audio commentary tracks and watch the interviews. because they explain all this pretty clear cut.

[–] terrencepatrix 12 years ago

I...don't think you actually read what I typed considering you just largely agreed with me. I didn't go into the behind the scenes stuff (such as the legal rights and actors) but I said that in Evil Dead 2 the beginning is "remade" as a way to re-establish the basic premise of the movie while leaving room to expand the Evil Dead universe.

So it's both. The beginning is a "remake" in the sense that it tells the same basic story while changing certain aspects (no friends, Ash living...obviously) and the rest of the movie is the sequel.

That it was due to legal reasons or actors not wanting to reprise roles doesn't change that. Remade the premise followed by a sequel all in the same movie. It's both.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 12 years ago

While I agree the recap was remade.
I fail to see why people still feel the need to label the film a remake AND sequel instead of just a sequel.

For instance, they re-shot and changed the recap at the start of Army Of Darkness...but you don't get people saying it's a remake AND sequel, just a sequel.

Simple answer to the debate is, it's a sequel.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

exactly. they redid the opening for Army of Darkness with yet another actress to play Linda. though i have yet to see anyone try to nitpick at that.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 12 years ago

Back To The Future II is another one where they re-shot the recap. Yet again, no one thinks that is remake either.

I just can not understand why people only apply the remake thing to Evil Dead II and no other film(s) that also have "remade" recaps.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

yep thats another film that has everything redone. though reason for that was to put Shue in place and have it seem like less of a distraction than if the actress changed after getting in the car.the recap was done with a valid reason of making the transition a little more natural. hard for anyone to dispute that and label it as a remake.

why they nitpick at EVIL DEAD II im not sure. it too has been given a reason by the crew members as to why it was done that way. yes Raimi wanted to do a newer more polished version of The Evil Dead, but he still makes a sequel and not a complete rehash of what he did in the first place.

[–] terrencepatrix 12 years ago

I was only pointing out why people would be confused into thinking this is a remake instead of a straight sequel. The premise and certain key elements where changed in Evil Dead 2 and the story was retconned in order to facilitate a sequel.

I understand there's a legitimate reason for the re-shooting, but since the plot actually changes and the story continues (rather than Ash dying at the end) it becomes confusing to the viewer unless they're out doing research. A person shouldn't have to research a movie to figure out what's going on and the changes aren't addressed in the film itself. So I personally settled on it being both at a ratio of around 15/85. 15 minutes of remake followed by the sequel...I don't understand why that is such a difficult concession for you to make.

I just made the foolish mistake of trying to compromise by allowing the premise and footage was remade followed by the sequel. That's not good enough though for anal retentive nitpickers apparently. I also never once tried to say it was a complete rehash nor have I really seen anyone else on this board doing it.

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

wouldnt go as far to say the story is retconned. the end of the first film doesnt exactly show Ash dead. leaving it open for further continuation.

it wouldnt be confusing back in the day because not everyone saw the original. Army of Darkness also does a recap and its different there too. that doesnt mean the story took a drastic change. the plot remains the same. especially since Raimi & Tapert says all 3 films go together.

there is only 7 minutes of footage that is reshot as a recap. after that 7 minute mark we get the continuation of where the first film ended. so even your ratio is off. you could go and chop off those first 7 minutes and this wouldnt even be an issue. but back during its initial release, not many people saw The Evil Dead. if not for the rights issues, those 7 minutes would be a best of montage of the original. they felt it was necessary to provide the exposition. that doesnt grant it the label of "remake".
with the example mentioned above with BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II. no one has ever labeled that opening scene as a "remake". the viewer still gets the direct continuation after the opening credits sequence. EVIL DEAD II shouldnt be any different.

i understand what you are saying. i just dont agree with it. when the title of the thread says
" Simple answer to remake/sequal debate", i would expect a simple answer. instead what we are getting is more of ones own perspective over a silly debate brought up by a handful of people.

[–] terrencepatrix 12 years ago

No one complains about Back to the Future 2 because most people prefer to pretend it was never made.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 12 years ago

Army of Darkness also does a recap and its different there too. that doesnt mean the story took a drastic change. the plot remains the same.

I have to disagree here as there is a HUGE change in the recap of AoD that changed the plot quite a lot.
But before I address that...

With the recap in ED II, outside of how many people go to the cabin, nothing changes other than slight continuity problems.
You can (and this does work) simply remove the 7 min recap from ED II and edit the 2 films together and the flow. Yes there are still continuity errors...but all films have them regardless.

Now onto AoD.
You can not simply remove the recap of AoD and edit it onto ED II due to the huge plot change I previously mentioned...
At the end of ED II when Ash is sent back in time, he is hailed a hero.
Yet this was changed to the polar opposite in the recap and made him the bad guy.
So in order to make the films flow here, you can not edit the recap of AoD (like with ED II), but have to remove the ending of ED II instead.

Point being. The changes in the recap of ED II are minuscule and only boil down to minor continuity errors, there is no "retcon" at all. But the changes in the recap of AoD are plot/character changing and does retcon the plot previously set up.

So going back to my original point.
Why do people make such a big deal over the progression from TED to ED II which are nothing more than simple continuity errors. Yet are not phased by the complete plot/character change from ED II to AoD?

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

With the recap in ED II, outside of how many people go to the cabin, nothing changes other than slight continuity problems.
You can (and this does work) simply remove the 7 min recap from ED II and edit the 2 films together and the flow. Yes there are still continuity errors...but all films have them regardless.

exactly. doesnt change a thing. it works as a direct sequel to the original.

Now onto AoD.
You can not simply remove the recap of AoD and edit it onto ED II due to the huge plot change I previously mentioned...
At the end of ED II when Ash is sent back in time, he is hailed a hero.
Yet this was changed to the polar opposite in the recap and made him the bad guy.
So in order to make the films flow here, you can not edit the recap of AoD (like with ED II), but have to remove the ending of ED II instead.

right. though thats changed for the sake of once again putting Ash in a bad situation.
with a bit of editing you could still have had him as the hero taking out the beast, have them go from cheering him on to then immediately having them think of him as a witch or what have you. instead they do go and change his arrival. wouldnt say thats a drastic change, cause for me in my mind i dont see how the aftermath of him killing the beast would have been all that different. by the end of the film he is the hero that was written in those pages. so it really doesnt bother my enjoyment of the film.

yea no one ever seems to really nitpick about that opening as much. from what ive seen over the years, people either love the movie or hate it with a passion. guess the people on imdb are more in love with the movie that they look past the continuity issue.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

1. where the hell did you get 8 years later from?
Ash is older because the film was shot 6 years after the original.
the cabin is in the same location as the original. they just filmed it in a different location.
the Professor in the sequel is the same guy who was on the recorder in the original.

2. where did you get that theory of time travel in these films? thats not how it plays out. there is only one Ash who went back to 'mid-evil' times. that is who was on the papers. they documented it when he became the hero who saved the kingdom. present day Ash is what we see in part 2. we see that same Ash in part 3 as he lands there to play out the events that were foretold.

there are many holes and inconsistencies in that timeline there. that all kind of goes against what Raimi & Co have said on the commentaries and interviews.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

it was on paper, that makes it documented. they "foresaw". that makes no difference. if they witnessed or foresaw Ash, the fact that its Ash in the drawings and Ash that ends up through the portal into the distant past, means it all took place.

[–] donutpower 12 years ago

yes i read what you typed. and no i dont agree with you in that its a remake. its not a remake. if that were true then the entire film would be a redo of the entire first film. it is not. only the first few minutes are reshot as a way to introduce audiences to the plot of the original without having had seen the original.

you should have gone behind the scenes, because that is the sole reason why that opennig recap is even there. if not for the rights issues, they would have used clips from the original.

you are misusing the term 'remake'. you cant label the first few minutes of a movie as a remake. makes no sense. and then to call the rest of the film a sequel.

thats like if all the recaps in the earlier Friday the 13th films were reshot instead of using the clips from the actual films. you wouldnt call that a remake and a sequel. its just simply a sequel. case in point, if Paramount had lost the rights to the first few films for whatever reason, then they probably wouldnt have bothered to reshoot sequences for the sake of reminding the viewer what came before. especially when you are at a part 4 or 5.

Raimi wanted people to understand the sequel without necessarily having to see the original. especially since the original was not a big hit. didnt exactly have a huge wide audience during its initial release. that in a sense makes for a good sequel, when one does not need to do their homework beforehand in order to understand whats going on in the movie.

[–] fluffchop 10 years ago

It's a remake. That's the simple answer. Otherwise why does his character go back to the same cabin were the first movie went down. Nothing to do with a sequel in any way shape or form. To debate this fact is ludicrous.

[–] Horror_Metal 10 years ago

It's a remake. That's the simple answer. Otherwise why does his character go back to the same cabin were the first movie went down. Nothing to do with a sequel in any way shape or form. To debate this fact is ludicrous.

*sigh* The first seven minutes of this film are a recap of the original and the actual continuation begins when Ash is hurled through the woods. He only went to the cabin ONCE. Why do you people still have trouble with this? It's not that complicated. Even the tag line says it's a sequel not to mention Sam Raimi has confirmed this many times. Believe it's a remake all you want, but you're wrong.

Horror_Metal

[–] Snake_MacReady82 10 years ago

For me, ED2 begins with the Evil attacking and possessing Ash as the sun is rising, since that is where ED1 left off. Sure, the cabin is in better condition that it should be after the events of the first movie and Linda is buried instead of lying on the dirt next to her grave, but, hey, *beep* it.

Thit and thpin!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

It is the same movie made twice, first as tragedy, the second time as a farce.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]