Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by Ash, Oct 7, 2007.
Oh it's a floater alright.
oh, so u don't need to see the film properly, i get it...
Well it's a question of seeing more from top to bottom or, left to right...it really doesn't matter, the widescreen version was director approved so who are you to say which way was intended.
director approved only because of the horde of fanboys who have no interest in film, but in technology....evil dead was filmed full frame not 1.85, and don't give me that every film was shot open matte garbage because that's a cop out to justify the industries demand for widesceen films even though many weren't shot that way....
a true widescreen film if shot that way will have more pic info on the sides , rather then a fullframe film that many DVD companies these days crop by putting black bars on top and bottom without gaining the info on the sides...
Uhhhh.......every film IS shot open-matte and then are matted by the projectionist. A movie will not be filmed in "Anamorphic Widescreen". The screen the director looks through in the camera will have his intended widescreen aspect ratio, but the actual film prints ARE open-matte. So it's not garbage, it's simple fact. So to say movies are filmed in widescreen would be incorrect. Movies are filmed FOR widescreen, but not IN widescreen. Wonder why some DVDs are put in the "wrong aspect ratio"? That's because they are taking the movie from an open-matte print of film, but did not present it in its proper ratio.
However, some films CAN be viewed in both open-matte and widescreen with no problems. The Evil Dead and The Shining are prime examples. But, what happens most of the time is that since the direcctor is filming with a widescreen ratio in mind, they don't care about what is in the top of the frame (i.e. boom mics and set lights) due to the fact that the film will be presented in widescreen, and the top of the image will be cut off. An example of THIS would be the original DVD release of Black Christmas. It was released open-matte, against the director's intentions. Booms mics were visible in the top of the frame.
So why do directors do this? Why don't they just make movies in full frame? Most likely because widescreen gives you a very good-looking and properly famed image. Also because widescreen has been the standard since the late '50s.
Oh, and Director approved can mean nothing sometimes. I doubt Sam Raimi gave a crap about what it looked like in widescreen. Anchor Bay probably showed him the widescreen print (if at all) and he probably said, "yeah that looks okay." And they get the idea, "ok! Director Approved!" He probably had almost nothing to do with the telecine process of Evil Dead when AB made their first DVD of it. (2001/2002 I think it was. He would've been busy working on Spider-Man anyway.) Also, the "Director Approved" version of The Shining is an open-matte version. IMO, the widescreen version looks 100x better. I sometimes ignore "Director Approved" unless I know for a fact the director had DIRECT involvement with the film. (i.e. most Criterions.)
so what your saying is a true scope film is shot open matte....?
Well, true scope films, no. Those are more of a rare case, considering there have been instances in the past where 2.35:1 films have been improperly presented in 1.85 and 1.78 ratios. I was moreso referring to films in a 1.85 ratio. But no, you are correct. "True Scope" films are not matted, but still that does not mean all 2.35:1 films ARE scope. (Like so many claim to be.) Just like Terminator 2 is a matted 2.35:1 image. "Jaws" is true scope.
They only went widescreen to compete with TV, a screen could be made bigger by expanding a theater sideways instead of costly reconstruction to raise the roof and maintain a 4:3 screen. It was not originally an aesthetic choice, in fact most of the first films screened widescreen were not composed for it and it was applied after the fact. Many directors were against it like Orson Welles and Fritz Lang, who said widescreen is for snakes and funerals.
Are you going to buy it smart ass??? :lol:
Uh huh. :evil:
anyones thoughts on the full frame transfers colour hues?
i swore i'd never buy another ED dvd but this set is just so damn nice! def the back packaging for any edition yet. now, not again until within the woods included.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Speanroc on this one. As for choosing which version of what movie is better, we basically only have 1 version of: Piranha, Basket Case, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, and Night of the Living Dead (if I'm not mistaken, that's always full screen). I don't think those movies will ever be released in widescreen (in region 1). So, why are we arguing over The Evil Dead? Because way back when, some theaters showed it in widescreen? Obviously, its legacy is much more on home video than in theaters. And I really think the colors on the THX widescreen DVD were not as good as the original fullscreen version. We should have two options if possible in this case, and surely Anchor Bay with Starz paying for it, can afford to give us both versions.
Well, the reason anyone bought Anchor Bay's THX or Book of the Dead edition was because they wanted the best edition available of The Evil Dead. Maybe it was released several times in the past, but I really think most of us care about bonus features. And some of us can be mad at Anchor Bay all want for not giving us this edition 5 years ago, but it's better late than never. And I'm damn glad this is coming out and you can bet that I'll be picking it up. The film deserves this edition. I can't say I'm sorry people apparently already have 3 or 4 copies.
So, all in all, when the dust has settled... Does this version blow the other versions out of the water?
I have the Special Edition Elite release and want to know if it would be wise to upgrade.
It blows away the other editions for one reason. I'm briefly in the extras.
I asked Tom Sullivan the question regarding the production time for the stop motion effects, and there is a brief glimpse of me standing in line to get my Book of the Dead autographed by the ladies.
In all seriousness... Is this a better release than the Elite DVD?
I have up until now avoided double dipping on any movie (excepting Night of the Living Dead--had the original Elite already but HAD to get the Millennium release), but I went ahead and got this one strictly because it is the first one that contained material featuring the female cast members.
I have always thought that the Evil Dead's cast was a large part of the movie's success, and even though Bruce Campbell is obviously the star and the one who has gone the farthest, I was always a little annoyed that the past DVD versions never really mentioned the other cast members in their special features etc.
I thought it was great that the three actresses have finally come to terms with their participation in the movie, and are now willing to do meet-n-greets with their fans etc., but it's especially cool to have this DVD release to hear about what they all had to say about the experience etc. I was also really surprised to see "Hank Delrich" show up in the extras, because it seemed like he had all but disappeared.
Anyway, blah blah. Is the movie transfer better--I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I thought the selection of extras and the content showcasing the female cast point of views made this a worthwhile double dip, especially at a price of 15.99.
Well it's $24.99 at work, which is why I ask and I don't see any stores still listing it as on sale. In any event, I think I'm going to take the plunge. I haven't heard that the picture is WORSE so it should all be ok. It's got widescreen, full screen and lots of new extras.