Evil Dead roams onto Blu-Ray later this year!

Discussion in 'High Definition' started by Nailwraps, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    This doesn't necessarily mean that this statement came from AB. It could be just the person who wrote the article's personal preference or assumption creeping its way in.
     
  2. Kolpitz

    Kolpitz Purely and Simply Evil

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    Oh yeah, I agree. I'm one of the few people on these boards who doesn't think the 1.33:1 version is the proper way to watch the film. Plus, I've read several interviews with Raimi where he clearly stated that the 1.85:1 version was his preferred version. The only reason anyone thinks the fullframe version is the "correct" version is because the first few DVDs were released open matte. Truthfully, at this point, I'd say just watch the version you like. Personally, I'm a fan of watching movies in the version that the director prefers (with a few exceptions, like the Special Editions of the original Star Wars trilogy). Just because the fullframe version has more information doesn't make it the "correct" version. Most 1.85:1 movies have more information on the fullframe version, since they usually just open up the matte. Even some 2.35:1 movies are shot open matte (i.e.: Dogma). This reminds me of all the times that people bitched about Media Blasters DVDs because they were in the original widescreen, which would cut out some sort of negligable nudity that some Japanese LaserDisc included. Chances are pretty good that this film was not released theatrically in 1.33:1, since most projectors at that time didn't have the ability to play that aspect ration correctly. Modern films like The Blair Witch Project and The Good German that are 1.33:1 are technically printed and shipped to theaters in 1.85:1 with side mattes set into the film itself.
     
  3. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,638
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Well then....the statement is actually correct. Nowhere does it say that the 1.33:1 version was his "preferred" version. It says it was the "original director composed" version...which it was. The film was originally composed for 1.33:1, then years later when Raimi saw the film matted for 1.85:1, he said that was his preferred version. So, when they say that the 1.33:1 version was his "original composed version" they're absolutely correct. Thus, there is nothing wrong with their statement in terms of what you guys are saying.

    ~Matt
     
  4. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I think some of the old men who saw this theatrically in the early 80's need to chime in.
     
  5. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,638
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm actually not so sure this is true. The Good German was definitely not in 1.33:1 when I saw it in theatres. It looked about 1.66-1.78 (probably 1.66). It was shot open-matte (like every flat widescreen film) and then released on DVD in 1.33:1 since that was Soderberg's preferred ratio. Also, films don't come to theatres with mattes set into the films themselves, that's something that's done by the projectionist. Trust me, one of the projectionists seriously fucked up Milk when we went to go see it. Foreheads were chopped off. We complained and got free passes. :D

    ~Matt
     
  6. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,638
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Well, the mattes are not set in at the sides anyway. The print our school rented of Days of Heaven was hard-matted at 1.85:1 when we got it. I've never heard of prints being matted 1.85:1 and then side matted to 1.33:1, though. There would be nothing left in the frame.

    ~Matt
     
  7. Terry44

    Terry44 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Newcastle Upon Tyne England
    Take George A. Romero and Martin. That was projected at 185.1 in cinemas but Romero stated that he prefered the movie fullscreen as widescreen ruined the composition. Watching lionsgate Martin widescreen release was painful compared to the anchor bay release. Maybe Raimi shot Evil Dead fullscreen then later on decided that he now prefered the matted version. Only Raimi and the D.P really knows the answer to this one.
     
  8. Kolpitz

    Kolpitz Purely and Simply Evil

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    Matted is the wrong word; not even sure why I used it. It's a 1.33:1 image displayed in the center of a 1.85:1 (flat) image, with black on the sides. I work at a movie theater, and run projection often; I simply used the wrong term. It's very similar to how they show trailers for flat films in front of a scope movie. It's a scope trailer for a flat film, meaning the film is centered in the middle, with black on the sides.
     
  9. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    Even if it was silent, I bet it would look better than the version everyone owns from online, so I would still want it. I'd take the old audio and add it to the new video myself with tmpge, and have a watchable version of WtW for once. I can't ever make it through what exists now, just too frustrating to try and make out what's going on most of the time.

    I want new silent video (as long as it's the same speed as the download, none of this PAL speed-up bullshit, haven't figured out how to compensate for that yet)!


    Can't speak for the first film, but I saw the second in the theater during it's original run and it was 1.85 (or 1.78, 1.66).
     
  10. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    Windowboxed is the proper term, I think.
    This is exactly what will have to happen to old 1.33 films transfered for HD. Either make a WS version (please don't) or windowbox them.
     
  11. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Well that's the thing. What if THAT is the only version that exists. I'm sure if there was something else out there it would have popped up sometime in the past 30+ years.
     
  12. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,507
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    In that case, yeah it would be pointless. I just can't believe no one invovled doesn't have at least a slightly better version in their home library. Someone has the master, and it has to look better than the mess available now. Even if whoever first ripped that to digital would do it again in a better format it would be better, as darkness and pixalating are really the main issues with the existing.
     
  13. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,466
    Likes Received:
    409
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    i dunno, within the woods doesn't hold that much interest to me. i mean, we've all seen it, and nobody is under the impression thats its all that great...its just interesting. i haven't seen it in about 8 years, and don't really have any interest in watching it again. i honestly don't know what the issue is thats keeping it from being released, but whatever. i don't make a habit of owning more than one copy of a film, but i've become resigned to owning multiple copies of the evil dead films. thats just the way it is with this particular franchise, im surprised people are still complaining about it after over a decade. maybe i should start a petition that anchor bay rerelease evil dead II with the old smiling skull vhs cover art? thats actually my favorite, probably due to nostalgia.

    even if all the extras from the book of the dead edition were duplicated, i couldn't part with that...its just too cool. the same goes for the book of the dead version of part II. i hadn't planned on picking up the ultimate edition, but found it new at blockbuster for $9.99 so figured what the hell? and the featurettes did turn out to be worth it, even if the stories are all the same ones we've heard a million times before.

    i think id honestly rather have a blu ray that had great new features and left old ones off than one with no new features that kept all the old ones on.
     
  14. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    You would think Raimi or Campbell would have held onto a copy. Then again, at the time, I think their mindset with Evil Dead was a means to just get their foot in the door with no idea of the longevity it would have till this day, so I would assume they probably thought even less of Within the Woods back in 79-80.
     
  15. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    It has to do with all of the unlicensed music that they used. I would also assume the shitty quality of the only known copy left would have something to do with it as well.
     
  16. Nailwraps

    Nailwraps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    83
  17. SaxCatz

    SaxCatz New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dry Dry Desert, AZ
  18. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,638
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    That looks pretty awesome. I'm going to have to get my hands on this. It looks like a very solid transfer.
     
  19. dickieduvet

    dickieduvet Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK
    The US disc is region locked :(
     
  20. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,638
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    That is not what I wanted to head :(
     

Share This Page