i understand this, but then why would he need to recap at all???? he must have known that his recap negates most of the events in I (every body dying/possessed, including Linda). if there was no recap, there is no continuity issues, the movies progress into each other normally and not confusingly, tells one story, that of Ash's, there would be no need to discuss and make up conclusions or theories as to the why, no need for this thread, and so on and so on...

why a recap at all?? i am enjoying II so much, but that beginning sours it just a tad!

If there was no recap, ED2 would have begun in medias res, at the moment an unknown force slams into Ash. There would be no explanation of where this force came from, why Ash is in a cabin in the woods, why the force is having this effect on him, who the woman is that rises from the grave, etc. And while this may be an effective way to start a film for some filmmakers, Raimi obviously did not want to have a such a jarring opening without offering any explanation to an audience made up mostly of people that never saw The Evil Dead (surely not theatrically for the vast majority, and probably not on video, either, for many of the rest). Raimi's goal was to draw in as large an audience of new viewers as possible, not waste his time and money by making the film unpalatable to all those but the select few who were hip to the first film and could also remember details of its plot. I can't speak to numbers, but I think a very significant portion of Evil Dead fans had their first exposure to the series via the second film (and probably the VHS release of it). This process repeated over again with AOD, as I know a slew of people I grew up with who saw and quote that film without even realizing that it was the 3rd film in a series.

While it is easy now to discount the idea of viewers not being aware of these films with the current ubiquitous nature of the net, movie message boards with endless Evil Dead threads, IMDb, and cheap high-quality DVDs, this phenomenon was a very real concern in 1993 and especially in 1987. Given the manner in which he wanted to continue the story, and also in the quest to attract new fans, Raimi decided (and I think rightly so) that the film needed a recap. This isn't a Friday the 13th sequel where he wanted to jump ahead 2 years later to a different cast of camp counselors fighting a monster about whom the audience needs few details.

DJ

That's why I really think it helps to see II first, then I. Plus I would think by watching them in chronological order, the obvious change in tone from grindhouse horror to zany comedy is a little more jarring. I say if it gets too hard to reconcile part II as a sequel, edit the two movies together, remove the first 10 minutes of II, then we can get djotell's theory on how the single-barreled shotgun turned into a double-barreled one!

either way ED II was simply "groovy"
and you know i was expecting this slapstick comedy, but it really isn't. it takes itself a lot more serious than many horror films these days that are so laughable it is exhausting.
this one works perfectly, but i thought it was more horror than comedy and i dug it. very enjoyable first experience and can't wait to revist my R3 AOD!!