I get the impression that a lot of my fellow forum denizens have seen this series of films.

Can someone explain to me whether they view these three films as having any real continuity? Didn't Ash burn the Necronomicon at the end of the first film? If so, why is it there in the second film? Also, why would he go back to the cabin?

At the end of EVIL DEAD II, didn't one of the other characters read from the book? If so, why does ARMY OF DARKNESS show Ash reading from it?

Just a few of my questions.

Sean

There's a LOT of screw ups in those films. I think they either did it on purpose for shits and giggles, or just didn't give a shit (or a giggle). Either way they were groovy.

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."

I remember reading somewhere that the second film was not intended to be a sequel so much as a remake of the first one. I don't know why that is, though. I think the first one is much better, though most people seem to find the second superior. The third film is just a whole lot of nonsensical fun. I, for one, was hoping that when Sears and K-Mart merged, they would rename it S-Mart. "Shop smart, shop S-mart!"

Hey, do you know this series of Japanese title?

Evil Dead......"Shiryo no harawata" Dead ghost's gut
Evil Dead II.. "Shiryo no harawata 2" Dead ghost's gut 2
Army of Darkness; Evil Dead III...Captain Supermarket.

Hey, do you know this series of Japanese title?

Evil Dead......"Shiryo no harawata" Dead ghost's gut
Evil Dead II.. "Shiryo no harawata 2" Dead ghost's gut 2
Army of Darkness; Evil Dead III...Captain Supermarket.

Captain Supermarket!

Now THAT is funny!

I believe the history of the first film relates to a school project or something. And the first one was more of a horror film. The second was a spoof-remake of the first.

It's because each film was produced by a different production company and none of those companies were willing to share footage. So Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell reshot certain scenes from the previous film with revisions.

I remember reading somewhere that the second film was not intended to be a sequel so much as a remake of the first one.

IMDB's explanation:

"Often considered to be a remake of the first Evil Dead, however this is not accurate. The rights to show scenes from the original could not be obtained to re-cap what happened, so they recreated the beginning to explain how Ash got to the cabin, a headless Linda, etc."

I think the end result is that around the first third or so (?) of Evil Dead II is essentially a remake, while the rest is new territory. And there are conflicts between all the films. The end of ED II and the opening of Army of Darkness, for example, don't quite mesh. It never mattered much to me.

I think the first one is much better, though most people seem to find the second superior.

I find the second one superior, but I think it's just because of what I'm after. I find it to be more slapstick-style fun than the first one. I also saw Evil Dead II first, so that's probably a bias, too. Having said that, I think the original is much funnier and much better than people make it out to be.

Blake

Here's some more info from Deadites Online ("The Fan's Official Source for Evil Dead"):

"Evil Dead 2 is basically what Sam Raimi intended for Evil Dead 1 to be. So yes you could call it a remake, but it works well as a sequel in a Sam Raimish kind of way. The story and some characters were changed, but major elements of the first were kept. New actors were hired. The only actors from the first film to stay is of course is our man Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi. Ted Raimi, who worked as fake shemp in first film comes back in the second film as the possessed Henrietta."

So I'd say the issue isn't exactly clear cut and simple, but with these films I didn't think it would be.

Blake

I think the end result is that around the first third or so (?) of Evil Dead II is essentially a remake, while the rest is new territory. And there are conflicts between all the films. The end of ED II and the opening of Army of Darkness, for example, don't quite mesh. It never mattered much to me.

Me neither. If you are watching these movies for their realism, you missed the boat.

I find the second one superior, but I think it's just because of what I'm after. I find it to be more slapstick-style fun than the first one. I also saw Evil Dead II first, so that's probably a bias, too. Having said that, I think the original is much funnier and much better than people make it out to be. Blake

I think Dead By Dawn is meant to be a comedy, albeit a gory one, where Evil Dead was a fairly serious attempt at making a good horror movie. I thought both worked well, but DBD contains several scenes that my brain refuses to evict-an all to rare occurrence with me-thus elevating into the realms of my all time favorite films. Ash fighting his hand is the funniest fight scene in cinema history and the sheer amount of abuse heaped upon him is insane.