It seems that it recreates events from the first film and leads into how it originally ended, but at the same time erases almost everything that happened in the first film as if it never existed. Isn't that correct?

So what the hell is that about?

I've only seen the first movie once, but by then I had already seen II lots of times. I looked at the first movie and basically saw the second movie, only not as good. It's like they made II to improve on what they did the first time...not really a sequel at all. Therefore I never understood why they consider II a sequel, since it essentially tells the same story, with pretty much the same sequence of events.

Or did I miss something?

I believe I have read on several occasions that Evil Dead II was both a remake and a sequel of the original.

look at EDII taking place the morning after ED

I believe Sam Raimi did not have the rights to I, and was therefore forced to reshoot scenes to create an intro into II. I do agree however that by doing this, Raimi pretty much negates it from being a sequel. It's a remake.

Of course, in similar fashion, the intro to Army of Darkness screws up the continuity of the way part II ends. But I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to why THAT happens.

Reshooting a recap was an accomodation that Raimi saw as necessary, but it does not convert the entire film into a remake, any more than, say, having some different actors in the Back to the Future sequels makes those remakes. At the end of the recap, ED2 picks up the exact moment the first film leaves off. It's a sequel. Raimi explains this on the Army of Darkness commentary.

DJ

consider it a 'condensed' version of the the EDI story right up until the camera barrels thru the cabin and into Ash, as soon as the camera pulls back and we are flying thru the air with him as he spins and hurls thru the forest, we are now in EDII territory.

Damn you beat me to it, i thought I was going to be able to show off some of my horror knowledge(as limited as it may be).

or as I like to call EDII - it's a continuation. It's definately not a remake.

Question:

I just rewatched EDII with the commentary the other day and they make mention of the extended fight scene with chop-top, did footage for this scene ever survive - I know that Fangoria showed stills of the deleted scene - is it gone forever, or is shown or talked about in further detail in the DVD's supplements?

See, what they did was recreate the events from the first film and lead into how it originally ended, but at the same time erased almost everything that happened in the first film as if it never existed.

lol, I see it the other way around....of course this could be because I grew up watching the first movie over and over again, and didn't see ED2 until it came out on dvd.

I remember that!!! They actually had a poster of the deleted scene in Fangoria, which hung proudly on my wall. (Much to my mothers dismay)

the movie poster I owned that my mother hated was the Near Dark one with Bill Paxton all crispy and with shards of light coming out his head and body.

It's gone forever it seems. They talk about it in the supplements, but the only thing they have to show from it is footage that Greg Nicotero shot with his vhs camera.

It doesn't erase anything from the first film. It is a shorthand recap of the events, and fans of the first film who know what happened in should continue to remember those events. As Raimi describes on the AOD commentary, the films can be made into a single story by removing the recaps. The recaps aren't meant to affect the continuity (which is quite purposely questionable, at best).

DJ

but do you go with the end of ED2 where Ash is immediately a hero in the past, or with AOD where he is captured and put in chains?

I've always seen it as a remake, but I understand why die-hard fans would want to insist it's a sequel. Doesn't Army of Darkness have similar problems at the beginning (although not as bad as the difference between I & II?). It's been a while since I've watched any of these...

It's a good flick

Just saw Evil Dead 1 over the weekend with Tom Sullivan doing a live commentary (!!) and he says (tongue-in-cheek) that the story is being told by Ash and he's gone completely mad so he tells it differently each time.

Until someone comes up with a better answer, I'll go with this one.

i think if you were to rewatch them it would be pretty clear to you where ED2 stops being a remake/recap of the first and starts a continuation of the storyline.

Both. It is an extreme version of the various continuity errors that Raimi and co. ended up embracing after not having the ability to preserve continuity during the making of the first film (e.g., the blood on Ash's face changing from shot to shot). As far as Raimi is concerned, all three films tell a continuous story. Instead of bothering to try to make AOD fit in with the end of EDII, they went in the direction they wanted to take it; the three films are still a single, continuous plot, despite how glaring any continuity errors may be.

This isn't me rationalizing and it's not me making this up as I go along because I am some kind of rabid fan. Listen to what Raimi has to say about it on the AOD commentary track, for example.

It's not a matter of being a die-hard fan or not. It simply is what it is. After a few minutes, the film clearly progresses the story from the first film, picking up at the exact moment the first film ends.

DJ

Djotell - there's no denying if you skip the intro to Evil Dead II, it picks up where Evil Dead I left off. However, there's a big difference between Back to the Future II having a shot-for-shot recap of the ending to Back to the Future I because the original Jennifer couldn't return, and showing a recap at the beginning of Evil Dead II that completely eliminates three of the characters, changes the context as to how the incantations were played on the tape recorder, etc., etc.

And that difference is what? A difference in degree or in kind? What's the difference between showing a different actor in a recap and streamlining the plot in a recap by eliminating some characters? I say its a difference in degree, as seen by the intent both times: the recaps were done differently out of necessity, but the second films were still meant to be a continuous story. The recaps serve the same purpose, and only the extent of the modifications necessary were different. ED2 didn't make all those changes to put the new film into a different continuity, but rather it was necessitated by their inability to either use the original footage or to spend the requisite time and money to recreate the events of the first film faithfully.

I see no dividing line between the two. Anyone who demands that EDII is a remake because of the changes in the recap must also logically claim that BTTF2 is a remake, as well. Trying to make some kind of rule that "changing one actor in a recap makes it a sequel, but anything more than that makes it a remake" doesn't really make much sense.

With all due respect, the insistence that ED2 is a remake borders on being silly. Even considering the recap to be a completely extreme destruction of the events of the first film, it constitutes about 2% of ED2's running time. The other 98% pick up at the exact moment the first film leaves off and can be seen as a direct sequel. Furthermore, the writers and director are on record describing the reasons for and intent of the recap and story structure of the film as being a sequel. At best, all you've got is 2% of a film indicating a remake. Seeing a modified recap and then suddenly deciding that your mind has been polluted and that the rest of the film cannot be considered a sequel is a bit much. It is possible to, as an audience member, put a little thought into considering what you see beyond simply that which is presented within the four corners of the screen. Continuity gaffes aren't magical moments that destroy films. Audience members can muster up the ability to ignore them and treat the film as if continuity was never ruined. Indeed, in the face of the entire rest of the film and the filmmakers themselves indicating that its a sequel with some necessary accomodations, maintaining that ED2 is a remake doesn't seem to me to hold any water.

DJ

I read or heard somewhere that the point in ED2 where Ash is facedown in the water puddle is where ED2 "begins".