[cheebacheeba]

**I'm thinking about how to ask this question and not be seen as a troll. I swear, I'm not. I'm just legitimately curious.**

...You realise when you lead with that, it kind've automatically makes one wonder. Not that I personally give a shit...

I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes of the third and I doubt I ever will because I was a bit too annoyed.

It's an entertaining film, but I guess you have to accept it's a major departure from the style of the first two.

I stumbled a bit but decided to go with Ash being insane and an unreliable narrator, which could have been really fun to see played out.

I am hoping that if ever there's a "real" follow-up to the original trilogy that this is just what they do, come up with a comedic/"plausible" reason for it, like too much head trauma or some such.
Or, he's just told the story various times on various drinking nights.

But then the second film was just BORING.

Each to their own. I didn't really find it boring.

Why is II lauded as so much of an improvement?

I myself have wondered this.
I can see that there was more money spent on it...I can see that additional characters and storylines and the advancement in effects, I guess that might be something to do with it?
Could be the iconic removal of the hand scene?
Could be that the horror/comedy thing was more accessible to more people than the darker by comparison first?
Who knows.
I've got my preference in the first though.

Is it possible that some of this is a nostalgia thing?

Maybe for some.

and Ash was no longer this normal guy but instead a walking vessel of testosterone who no longer seems human.

I guess he was angry, bitter, and kind've insane at this point.

And he's not exactly telling this story to anybody

I think that's an unknown.
Could be simply in his own memories.
Or, maybe he just wanted to make films that entertain though don't really make a hell of a lot of sense?
As for the changes in stories, I think it just serves as an "intro" of sorts to people that may not have seen the film prior to the one theyre watching, my guess anyways.

Though from what I've heard, ED 2 is closer to what he wanted to make in the first place. He took an existing character/survivor from the first one and instead make something halfway between sequel and remake.
I haven't seen them in a while, but #3 pretty much picks up where #2 left off, right?

I dunno. Doesn't bother me too much.
Though I will say that I've always found the first "the evil dead" film to be more atmospheric, and had more staying power than the second one did.
Never much liked the second. Took the horror/comedy thing a bit far for my liking.