Actually, *The Mummy’s Hand * is more a remake of *The Mummy * than a sequel since it reuses some of the story elements but with a different mummy. So you’re kind of right in saying that the 1999 version is a remake of both.
I thought of another example that might possibly be a case of the sequel of the remake almost being the remake of a sequel.
Dawn of the Dead from 2004 is a sequel of the remake of Night of the Living Dead, just as the original was a sequel to thye original Night of the Living Dead. The names are even the same (no Night of the Living Dead II) and the plot outlines are identical (survivors take refuge from evil flesh-eating zombies in shoppiong mall).
I’ve heard that the sequel is very different from the original, though. I haven’t seen it – we have enough problems with getting a sitter, and Pepper Mill has an anti-tropism for flesh-eating zombie movies. Still, it’s the closest thing to a S of an R bering a R of an S I’ve come across.
They are a bit different. The Remake of Dawn had running zombies, while the remake of Night had shuffling zombies.
la la la la I can’t hear you…there never was a sequeal to DeL’s King Kong la la la la…