AvED - What is your opinion? [SPOILERS!]

[Kevin]

Oh I completely agree with you. Plenty of shows I don't like but what I hate is when people going onto sites or threads for these shows and completely trash talk the show and tell the fans there how much they want it to get canceled. That is, as you put it, asinine. I get that everyone has a different opinion about the show. In fact I am well aware that several members here were not entirely happy with the series and that's completely ok. I respect their opinions and they are not going well and saying "I hope this show gets canceled" as they know that insults the fans that do enjoy the show.

Not trying to attack EvilDeadFan89 personally but I am seeing this everywhere on various sites. Lots of people attacking shows that they KNOW has a loyal fanbase of people who are upset that their shows are either getting canceled or on the bubble. To me this is simply trolling.

P.S: I lost a lot of my favorite shows this week that were on network tv with several others almost certainly to be canceled by this week. I am upset and salty about this so I definitely take extra offense with people "wishing" other peoples shows to be canceled. It's been a lousy week for a lot of people.

 

[MaidOfKandar]

I think everyone's got good points going here, honestly - I'm going to be deconstructing the show's failings and falterings and success fairly soon myself. Good on everyone for staying polite here!

 

[Muzzlehatch]

I have watched more than half of the season 1 for now. I still think that S1 fall short after the 3rd episode. All that Brujo psychedelic acid trip was technically not right. It should have been done differently....I mean, more occult, not hippies and 70'. Too much daylight episodes until Ash reach the cabin again... (I mean the restaurant episode should have been more efficient at evening with a Retro restaurant style. with neon signs).

Exactly my opinion. I am sure you could take ep. 1 and 2 just as they are, cut together a huge slice of the season middle, take most of the cabin episodes but without the raunchy humor and you would end up with two or three decent movies.

 

[DyD]

saying "I hope this show gets canceled" as they know that insults the fans that do enjoy the show.

A forum member saying they hope a TV show gets cancelled is too insulting and, according to you, even deserving of a warning or banishment, but flat out saying that a person's comment and personal TV watching habits are "asinine" isn't? That guy is here discussing his opinion on the show simply because he's an Evil Dead fan, just like any of us. Saying that he's a troll for sharing his personal opinion just as passionately as you've been allowed to share yours is far more insulting than anything he ever said.

Not trying to attack EvilDeadFan89 personally

Again, you and Surtur are the ones calling another person's opinion asinine and saying that he's "simply trolling". It doesn't really matter if you preface your response with a "not trying to attack...", once you start throwing words like "asinine" towards other people, you kinda already did. That guy's comments weren't directed at anyone here, seemed completely honest to me and as far as I'm concerned, your responses were far more insulting and certainly aren't improving the discussion.

Look, I get it that the both of you are still sad, maybe even angry and extremely disappointed with the show's cancellation, but let's try to dial down on the sensitivity and avoid taking things too personally. So let's refrain from using terms like "asinine" when talking about other people's opinions, please.

 

[Kevin]

My "asinine" comments was squarely rooted at him saying he wished the show was canceled. More tact could have been used. At any rate if anyone is offended then I am sorry. Tensions have been high all week for me with most of my lineup of shows being canceled so I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. I'll personally drop the matter and move on.

 

[Kain]

It's ok Kevin, I'm seriously pissed that the Expanse got canceled

 

[Kevin]

It's ok Kevin, I'm seriously pissed that the Expanse got canceled

You know I really wanted to get into that series but SyFy has canceled so many of my shows so now I have a rule that I won't watch a SyFy series unless it gets a full run.

I knew the Expanse would get canceled prematurely so I never watched it because I didn't want to get upset with another show I'd likely love get canned.

SyFy kind of dug themselves into this situation and I think they lost support from a lot of would be supporters and they only have themselves to blame.

Sorry for your lost. The Expanse looked like a great show and I've lost a lot of shows this year and last year that meant a lot to me and now I'm struggling to find suitable replacement shows that I feel I can count on.

I dub this the week of tv mourning! For what it's worth, I signed the petitions and stuff to save The Expanse.

 

[Surtur]

A forum member saying they hope a TV show gets cancelled is too insulting and, according to you, even deserving of a warning or banishment, but flat out saying that a person's comment and personal TV watching habits are "asinine" isn't? That guy is here discussing his opinion on the show simply because he's an Evil Dead fan, just like any of us. Saying that he's a troll for sharing his personal opinion just as passionately as you've been allowed to share yours is far more insulting than anything he ever said.



Again, you and Surtur are the ones calling another person's opinion asinine and saying that he's "simply trolling". It doesn't really matter if you preface your response with a "not trying to attack...", once you start throwing words like "asinine" towards other people, you kinda already did. That guy's comments weren't directed at anyone here, seemed completely honest to me and as far as I'm concerned, your responses were far more insulting and certainly aren't improving the discussion.

Look, I get it that the both of you are still sad, maybe even angry and extremely disappointed with the show's cancellation, but let's try to dial down on the sensitivity and avoid taking things too personally. So let's refrain from using terms like "asinine" when talking about other people's opinions, please.

In a larger sense, we were referring to all fandoms where people wish something would be canceled and everyone is out of work simply because they don’t like it, and that is indeed asinine. That’s not directly aimed at the previous poster, but I do not understand why someone would think the franchise should fit their own personal wants. A lot of super fans of various fandoms feel like it’s THEIR franchise, they grew up with it and it should always make them happy. The truth is Bruce, Sam, and Rob own Evil Dead so anything they decide to do with it going forward IS Evil Dead. I understand that the show did not meet some fans’ expectations but the appropriate response is to just give the show up. In a much smaller sense obviously, this is equivalent to saying “ I don’t like that person, I hope he/she dies.”

Also, as far as your last paragraph, calling someone sensitive is an easy crutch to lean on in order to discredit their argument. I think we were being, and still continue to be, rather civil.

 

[Ashenwraith]

So first off the pluses:
New Zealand production team
Ellen
Bruce when not in 'douche Ash' mode
Ted (when not doing the Bruce Campbell 'bro' thing)

Now the minuses:

Well it's obvious from season 3 that the show failed because of Sam, Rob, and Bruce and not because of Starz, although Starz went along with it to give them a chance to turn things around.

Personally, I had a strong feeling the show was going to be canceled during the first episode commentary when Sam was talking about having Bruce/Ash be in diapers with shit problems and barely able to walk. Everyone was depending on Sam to set this grand vision with the pilot, but the rest of the guys ended up having to reign him in instead.

Plus there was that awkward moment where Sam brought up that Rob didn't like how he cast Kelly and Pablo (which I don't think most people were thrilled with to be honest).

Once Sam departed you basically had Rob and Bruce left with mostly rehashed ideas from Xena/Hercules and trying to recapture the secret sauce of tree rape (which explains a lot if you look at it that way and they didn't do too bad considering).

The problem is western culture has degenerated quite a bit since ED1 and nothing is shocking, nor do I think people (often with girlfriends/family) want to watch 'douche bag Ash' try to be shocking. This is why Stan Against Evil is getting a Season 3 and I enjoyed watching that show more (even though I don't really like it).

Game of Thrones has such strong writing they can afford to be trashy and offensive, AvED really couldn't.

And I don't blame that Evildead89 guy for wanting the show to be cancelled. After a while it stopped feeling like Evil Dead and became 'The Bruce Campbell Humiliation Show'. And that becomes even more cringy when Bruce would go on tour and blame his fans for the show failing and scoff at them for wanting a real ED film.

No one forced his head up a prosthetic ass--and if he bothered to run it by his fans they would have told him not to do it.

-----------------------------------

As for the films I still think the first ED is the best. It's campy and rough, but I think it lends a found footage feel to it. This was the only time I felt they were serious about not only making a real horror, but also just good cinema. The level of suspense and camera work looks like Sam had been seriously studying Hitchcock and it paid off.

In ED2 it's obvious Bruce is the hero and not going to die, and yeah it's shot in a way that makes it look like he went back to the cabin with a new girl because he's weird. It's too goofy and random for me. I've still seen it about 30 times and enjoy it.

AoD is fun, but I see it more like a time travel fantasy/comedy like the many others in the genre of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

 

[Swofty]

I'm just waiting for all 3 series to come out on a box set to update (finalise?) my living room collection to be honest .. I watched series 1 in a hospital bed, after hours, illegal stream sorted out for me by a ward porter and under heavy medication on my laptop which was probably the best way to watch it, I've only got so far as episode 2 in season 2 so far but I can't wait for a back to back fest of it all ..

 

[DyD]

Well it's obvious from season 3 that the show failed because of Sam, Rob, and Bruce and not because of Starz, although Starz went along with it to give them a chance to turn things around.

I think there's enough blame to go around, to be honest. Starz is very guilty as well in the way they were treating the show towards the end, not to mention the weird and sparse marketing and shoddy distribution throughout its entire run. I'm still not sure what Starz wanted from this show in terms of concept and target audience. Sam, Rob, Bruce, Craig DiGregorio and Starz are all to blame for the show's failure for different reasons. I think the only person who seemed to know what he was doing in this whole mess was Verheiden. Firing DiGregorio and hiring him was one of the few good decisions they made, but unfortunately, he came in too late to actually make a difference.

And I don't blame that Evildead89 guy for wanting the show to be cancelled. After a while it stopped feeling like Evil Dead and became 'The Bruce Campbell Humiliation Show'. And that becomes even more cringy when Bruce would go on tour and blame his fans for the show failing and scoff at them for wanting a real ED film.

No one forced his head up a prosthetic ass--and if he bothered to run it by his fans they would have told him not to do it.

I'm 100% in agreement with all of this.

In ED2 it's obvious Bruce is the hero and not going to die, and yeah it's shot in a way that makes it look like he went back to the cabin with a new girl because he's weird. It's too goofy and random for me. I've still seen it about 30 times and enjoy it.

I'm assuming you know that the first five minutes of ED2 are just an abridged recap of the first film and the sequel actually starts when the evil force pushes Ash through the woods (they even reshot the ending scene of ED1 almost exactly to clue the audience in). Ash never went back to the cabin with a new girl. This discussion annoys me so much that it gets almost an automatic knee jerk reaction out of me when I see someone saying anything about Ash going back to the cabin with a new girl and I just have to correct it. I'm sorry for this rant if you already knew all of this.

 

[Ashenwraith]

I think there's enough blame to go around, to be honest. Starz is very guilty as well in the way they were treating the show towards the end, not to mention the weird and sparse marketing and shoddy distribution throughout its entire run. I'm still not sure what Starz wanted from this show. Sam, Rob, Bruce, Craig DiGregorio and Starz are all to blame for the show's failure for different reasons. I think the only person who seemed to know what he was doing in this whole mess was Verheiden. Firing DiGregorio and hiring him was one of the few good decisions they made, but unfortunately, he came in too late to actually make a difference.

I think Starz was pretty open-minded giving them 3 seasons to do whatever they wanted. I honestly couldn't tell the difference between DiGregorio or Verheiden. I think the last episodes were good because they knew they had to make an ending instead of a half-ass cliff hanger.

As for marketing, I mean this thing had 4 movies stretched over decades (which all went into circulation along with Sam Raimi's Spider-mans -- modern recommendations are often director based) AND a haunted house experience at Universal Studios. Plus Lucy Lawless and Xena/Hercules fans.

The Walking Dead and all of those other shows started with NOTHING like this in comparison, ie Stan Against Evil (which is a complete rip off and a year younger).

The reality is the show lost viewership both among fans and regulars. People are forgiving until you offend and embarrass them.

From a fan point of view we see the old films and want similar.

This means the fan formula was basically...

Bruce (often alone) + mystery / suspense (panning shots/creepy quiet moments) + some lore + a deadite or two.

From Bruce/Rob's view (who clearly were in control of everything once Sam left), they saw the technical breakdown into blood/makeup/sets and they think their audience is really low brow (probably from what they see at cons).

Then they think they need to be even more 'hip and edgy' to bring in young people. How do you hook kids? Drug use, sex, and making Ash play second fiddle to new progressive characters (that pretty much nobody likes).

So Rob and Bruce's formula was more like...

Lots of blood/gross stuff (horror/comedy) + Xena/Hercules like fighting (action) + drugs/sex/new characters (hipness) + rehashed callbacks(lore)

I'm assuming you know that the first five minutes of ED2 are just an abridged recap of the first film and the sequel actually starts when the evil force pushes Ash through the woods (they even reshot the ending scene of ED1 almost exactly to clue the audience in). Ash never went back to the cabin with a new girl. This discussion annoys me so much that it gets almost an automatic knee jerk reaction out of me when I see someone saying anything about Ash going back to the cabin with a new girl and I just have to correct it. I'm sorry for this rant if you already knew all of this.

Yeah most fans knows this now because of the internet but originally it didn't seem like that at all. It's called ED2 and all the other characters/actors are different. Plus there is something 'off' with Ash's character in ED2 since they rush into the horror part with no character building, it's like he starts ED2 with a mild form of PTSD that just gets worse.

To this day I still just imagine he went back to the cabin to sort of face his fears and get over what happened in ED1, maybe at the coaxing of his girlfriend. In fact this is what I tell other people because the official explanation is more difficult to explain, especially if you want to watch and enjoy the films in order.

ED1 -> Less Horror & More goofy-> AoD

 

[DyD]

I think Starz was pretty open-minded giving them 3 seasons to do whatever they wanted. I honestly couldn't tell the difference between DiGregorio or Verheiden. I think the last episodes were good because they knew they had to make an ending instead of a half-ass cliff hanger.

I think there was a pretty noticeable difference in storytelling, characterization and atmosphere this season. Craig was actually building Kelly to be Ash's daughter and most of the stupid stoner and poop jokes were also on him. The whole "head up the butt" disaster was on him, as he was the one pushing the show to be more "edgy" and go further and further into raunchy humor. There was also all the talk about purposefully avoiding any type of significant character development, since "this is a show about a guy with a chainsaw hand" (his actual words). That changed once Verheiden came on board.

As for marketing, I mean this thing had 4 movies based on it (which all went into circulation along with Sam Raimi's Spider-mans) AND a haunted house experience at Universal Studios. Plus Lucy Lawless and Xena/Hercules fans.

The Walking Dead and all of those other shows started with NOTHING like this in comparison, ie Stan Against Evil (which is a complete rip off and a year younger).

I don't think a lot of fans of Raimi's Spider-Man or Xena were flocking to see this show just because of the people attached to it. I actually really doubt most of them would be even aware that Evil Dead is a thing that exists.

The marketing for The Walking Dead when it premiered was HUGE, and it continued to be for a couple of seasons after that. It also had a built-in fanbase from the comics that were a bestseller at the time. I live in a different country and I was aware the show was coming. Even in my country people were hyped for the premiere, based on marketing alone. AvED marketing post-premiere only made me scratch my head and it was practically non-existent for the third season, which is probably when they needed it the most. They wasted too much of the marketing budget on weird, jokey viral videos that didn't do much to inform the audience about the show or make more people want to check it out. Those other shows succeeded because they reached an audience outside of the loyal built-in fanbase. AvED never managed to do that and halfway through the second season they also started losing the audience they already had.

The reality is the show lost viewership both among fans and regulars. People are forgiving until you offend and embarrass them.

From a fan point of view we see the old films and want similar.

This means the fan formula was basically...

Bruce (often alone) + mystery / suspense (panning shots/creepy quiet moments) + some lore + a deadite or two.

From Bruce/Rob's view (who clearly were in control of everything once Same left), they saw the technical breakdown into blood/makeup/sets and they think their audience is really low brow (probably from what they see at cons).

Then they think they need to be even more 'hip and edgy' to bring in young people. How do you hook kids? Drug use, sex, and making Ash play second fiddle to new progressive characters (that pretty much nobody likes).

So Rob and Bruce's formula was more like...

Lots of blood/gross stuff (horror/comedy) + Xena/Hercules like fighting (action) + drugs/sex/new characters (hipness) + rehashed callbacks(lore)

On all of that, I'm 100% in agreement with you. I also believe that's probably the main reason for the show's failure, all I'm saying is that it wasn't the only reason.

Plus there is something 'off' with Ash's character in ED2 since they rush into the horror part with no character building, it's like he starts ED2 with a mild form of PTSD that just gets worse.

Of course they "rush into the horror part with no character building". The character building for Ash was in the first movie. It also makes perfect sense to me that he already starts the film with a "mild form of PTSD". That's from the first night he spent at the cabin, when he lost his girlfriend, his sister, his friends and nearly died. Just another thing to clue people in that the first five minutes of the film are just a recap, along with the fact that it's shot like a recap and that it ends with the exact same shot that ended the first film. Yes, it's rushed. It's meant to be, precisely because it's nothing but a recap. They needed to get the stuff that happened in the first film out of the way fast so they could get to the second night and focus on continuing the story. If it was any longer they'd be just remaking the first movie. The movie needed to present the new characters, not Ash and Linda again.

To this day I still just imagine he went back to the cabin to sort of face his fears and get over what happened in ED1, maybe at the coaxing of his girlfriend. In fact this is what I tell other people because the official explanation is more difficult to explain, especially if you want to watch and enjoy the films in order.

You think that it makes more sense and that it's easier to tell people "Ash casually decided to go back to the same cabin where he lost his girlfriend, his sister and his friends with a new girlfriend who has the exact same name as the one who died, then gave the new girlfriend the exact same necklace he gave to the old one, played the tape recorder again, killed the new girlfriend the exact same way he killed the first one and then buried her in the exact same spot" instead of saying "hey, the first five minutes are an abridged recap of the first film, just ignore it"? Ok then. Really, if you want to watch the films in sequence, just start ED2 at the moment Ash is thrown through the woods by the evil force and you're good to go.

 

[Ashenwraith]

I think there was a pretty noticeable difference in storytelling, characterization and atmosphere this season. Craig was actually building Kelly to be Ash's daughter and most of the stupid stoner and poop jokes were also on him. The whole "head up the butt" disaster was on him, as he was the one pushing the show to be more "edgy" and go further and further into raunchy humor. There was also all the talk about purposefully avoiding any type of significant character development, since "this is a show about a guy with a chainsaw hand" (his actual words). That changed once Verheiden came on board.

Once again this is simply not true. The butt/poop jokes started with Sam Raimi. The up-the-butt thing was admittedly Rob's idea based off of tree rape until the ratings came in and only then did they pretend it was all Starz's fault (this could have actually been Starz's idea to save the show).

Later we got the sperm thing when DiGregorio wasn't even there and they just made a different girl than Kelly Ash's daughter.

The show was basically identical with marginal fan feedback because Rob and Bruce had been controlling the show like they originally bragged they were. And that makes sense.

The Starz puppet master theory is really silly. Starz wanted the show to make money, not fail.

Also Bruce wouldn't be pissed at his fans if it was all Starz's fault.

He knows the fans didn't like HIS show and HIS interpretation of Ash.

I don't think a lot of fans of Raimi's Spider-Man or Xena were flocking to see this show just because of the people attached to it. I actually really doubt most of them would be even aware that Evil Dead is a thing that exists.

Digital TV recommendation algorithms connect media by relation of the director and top cast. Netflix uses similar algorithms and paid millions to develop them.

AvED started as not as big a brand as other horror shows?

It's literally the biggest horror brand by far on TV if we consider..
- global reach
- DECADES of film
- star power (Bruce/Lucy)
- Director/Creativity (Sam Raimi)
- Production (on par or better than the first season of GoT and far superior to AMC's TWD)

Fede's Evil Dead remake was also dream marketing for any TV show.

The Walking Dead in comparison had nearly 0 marketing outside of AMC and was a public TV channel unlike Starz. TWD is just a generic zombie show that couldn't succeed in the past because the blood, gore, and language would have been censored to the point it would have been impossible to make.

If it was any longer they'd be just remaking the first movie. The movie needed to present the new characters, not Ash and Linda again.

But Evil Dead 2 IS a 90 min remake of the first movie while trying to disguise it for marketing/financial gain (not that I blame them).

Sam, Bruce, and Rob have repeatedly mentioned that they were kinda ashamed of the first movie and think it's far inferior to the 2nd. They made ED2 to be a stand alone and to skip or go back to the ED1 after AoD for 'completeness'.

The whole point was to remake the first movie with a professional team/budget and set it up for a sequel (AoD).

 

[Muzzlehatch]

But Evil Dead 2 IS a 90 min remake of the first movie while trying to disguise it for marketing/financial gain (not that I blame them).

Sam, Bruce, and Rob have repeatedly mentioned that they were kinda ashamed of the first movie and think it's far inferior to the 2nd. They made ED2 to be a stand alone and to skip or go back to the ED1 after AoD for 'completeness'.

The whole point was to remake the first movie with a professional team/budget and set it up for a sequel (AoD).

As far as I know this is incorrect. If they had the rights to use footage from ED1 they would not have done the reshoots for the intro flashbacks it in the way it was done.

It is also incorrect that ED2 is a 90min remake. Bruce explains it himself:

 

[DyD]

As far as I know this is incorrect. If they had the rights to use footage from ED1 they would not have done the reshoots for the intro flashbacks it in the way it was done.

It is also incorrect that ED2 is a 90min remake. Bruce explains it himself:

Thank you very much for backing me up on this, with video proof no less. That discussion just drives me nuts sometimes. It really isn't that confusing or complicated.

 

[Ashenwraith]

As far as I know this is incorrect. If they had the rights to use footage from ED1 they would not have done the reshoots for the intro flashbacks it in the way it was done.

It is also incorrect that ED2 is a 90min remake. Bruce explains it himself:

Man you guys, who hasn't seen this video on this forum by now?

It's a remake ('requel' in his own words) and no Bruce's explanation doesn't make sense at all (although it's a cute theory)
- He destroyed the book, that looks totally different (even the size)
- 2-3 other deadites/people are missing from the house
- His leg was seriously injured at the end of ED1 (which is probably why he didn't run)

I could go on, but it's obviously a remake and that video is just another fine example of good salesmanship on the part of Bruce.

 

[DyD]

- He destroyed the book, that looks totally different (even the size)

Yes. And that's why the book is nowhere to be found in ED2. It was destroyed in ED1 and it's still destroyed in ED2. They only have the lost pages that Annie brought to the cabin with her in ED2. If it was a remake and not a continuation, why isn't the book around anymore even though the kandarian dagger is? The book looks different in AoD too, the reshot recap changes the actress who played Linda again and omits everybody else who was at the cabin in ED2, and they also reshot the ending scene of ED2 to give it a different conclusion. Does that mean AoD is a remake of ED2? No, it doesn't.

- 2-3 other deadites/people are missing from the house

Cheryl's and Scott's remains melted. There weren't any "people" left in the cabin by the end of ED1 other than Ash. Shelly's dismembered parts and Linda's body were buried outside the cabin. And Linda comes back as a deadite.

- His leg was seriously injured at the end of ED1 (which is probably why he didn't run)

We're talking about a movie where a guy cuts off his own hand with a chainsaw and not only doesn't die from bleeding out, but keeps on going and fighting like there's nothing to it. And you're worried he doesn't have a limp from getting his leg injured the night before?

Yes, there are minor superficial inconsistencies from movie to movie. There aren't any holes in the front door of the cabin. The floor isn't as bloodied and dirty. The shotgun changes from a single barrel to a double barrel. The design of the dagger and the cabin's floor plan are different. Linda is played by a different actress. Like Bruce said, they couldn't use footage from the first film, so they had to reshoot some scenes and omitted certain things that wouldn't have any significant impact on the story going forward in order not to waste too much time and resources on a simple recap and not to confuse people who hadn't seen the first film. They needed the film to function both as a standalone film and a sequel. And it does. Other than those superficial inconsistencies, the narrative still flows perfectly from movie to movie. Other than the reshot recap in the first five minutes, ED2 is definitely a sequel.

And I'm honestly done replying to you on this matter. Have a nice day.

 

[Ashenwraith]

Yes. And that's why the book is nowhere to be found in ED2. It was destroyed in ED1 and it's still destroyed in ED2. They only have the lost pages that Annie brought to the cabin with her in ED2. If it was a remake and not a continuation, why isn't the book around anymore even though the kandarian dagger is? The book looks different in AoD too and they also reshot the ending scene of ED2 that shows Ash arriving in the medieval ages in a different way to start the film. Not only that, they did another recap for AoD, reshooting a lot of the cabin scenes from the previous films with an older Bruce Campbell and yet another different actress playing Linda, once again omitting many details and side characters from the story. Does all of this mean AoD is a remake of ED2? No, it doesn't....

There's no reason to get so offended.

I've read these points many years ago and know them all well.

But this isn't rocket science, the differences between ED2 and AoD are mostly superficial and within the threshold of most sequels, the differences between ED2 and ED1 are not.

He literally drove to the cabin without the people (and there was no recap like in AoD), but we're supposed to believe they were somehow there? That's not exactly a cabin door or actor swap.

Either way, Bruce clearly says 'Requel'. There's no such thing as a 'Requel', it's a synonym for a Remake with liberties which is still and often what Remakes are.

If 'Remake' didn't have the stigma attached to it that's what they would have called it instead of inventing words or calling it 'a parody sequel' (which is also a remake since it's parodying the original).

 

[DyD]

There's no reason to get so offended.

I'm not offended. I just don't see a point in continuing this discussion.

(and there was no recap like in AoD).

Again, the first five minutes of the film ARE the recap.

And once again, have a nice day.