AB's EVIL DEAD Book of the Dead - My Feelings

[bruce h]

The new Anchor Bay release is softer and duller than the old Elite release, which shows off a much sharper picture with brighter and bolder colors. Skin-tones in AB’s print are also off, with more of a pinkish/reddish hue than the natural looking Elite presentation. The Elite disc DOES have a slight bit of digital noise in certain shots, but overall I feel it's a better presentation of THE EVIL DEAD. As for Anchor Bay's 1.85:1 ratio - it's bullshit. Many scenes look cramped and certain important details are cropped offscreen. You can't tell me that a bunch of kids with a 16mm camera were carefully composing for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and if they were then they are certainly horrible cinematographers. The AB Book of the Dead isn't a complete waste though – the packaging IS neat, and it contains a different, superior stills gallery than the Elite one. Additional (new) supplements include Bruce Campbell’s Fanalysis documentary (which is a nice watch), an interesting featurette about the films UK history, and two Easter Eggs - one of which is a fascinating stop-motion/live-action matte make-up test and the other is a short interview with two of THE EVIL DEAD’s female stars. I personally think if you're a fan you should grab both, but if you're only interested in the presentation of the film itself stick with the Elite release.
- bruce holecheck

[mystro]

1:85:1 was not the OAR, it was 1:33:1 so naturally there's going to be some cropping.

[bruce h]

Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.

The fact that THE EVIL DEAD was shot on 16mm at 1.33:1 is pretty much common knowledge – the real question is what ratio it was composed for. When it was blown up to 35mm for theatrical screenings portions were matted off during projection to approximate a ratio anywhere between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. I highly doubt the film was actually COMPOSED for either of those ratios, I think it was simply shot fullframe, as ANY unexperienced person would do when shooting on 16mm. EVIL DEAD simply looks too cramped when cropped for 1.85:1, and just by paying attention it’s clear that it was always intended to be open-matte (unlike the sequel). I think the whole thing is a marketing ploy to tout the new anamorphic transfer – regardless of the fact that it reeks havoc with the film’s composition.

[rhett]

Yeah...what the hell would the director know about the ratio the film should be shown in? :rolleyes:

[DefJeff]

i think everything about this dvd is top notch. for what its worth, getting this DVD at 27.99 definitally is a bargan. the packaging is alot more then neat to me, i am totally amazed by it, i love it.

oh yea, for anyone that cares, i also found SS's Delirium today at best buy while getting this, it was 12.99 ;)

[ctyankee]

Bruce,

Thanks for the input. I was at Circuit City today and resisted the inpulse to buy the Book Of The Dead. I'm a big DTS fan so I was tempted but without the Within The Woods segment my Elite version will do just fine.

Obviously many will want to have both (or all) editions and that's fine. I'd rather use the money for something new and different.

[gunner]

The most stand-out problem I had with the new transfer is the opening title sequence. The damn text is so soft it looks as though it's out of focus.

Did anyone else think it was cool seeing the Palace Video logo in the "Discovering the Evil Dead" supplement? Kicks any american label's logo out the door.

[Peter Vincent]

On the AB web site, it states the STANDARD DVD comes packed with a 24 page Ladies Of The Evil Dead booklet. (Check out the link: http://www.anchorbayentertainment.com/evildead/dvd.asp )Supposedly, the BOTD version comes with EVERYTHING the standard version plus....blah, blah, blah! Not to be picky, but where the hell is my 'Ladies of the evil dead' booklet?!?!?!?

[PELOQUIN]

i have the ladie of evil dead booklet and it talks about the history of vhs and evil dead and debbies does dallas and all that shit. I was quite dissapointed with the botd. i found it lacking in supplement...why? we only have feauturette of 23mins and 18mins we don't even have over an hour of supplements that cheap. ok ok, the cover art is good but for the price i have paid i have to keep in its stupid case that look like toy. i waited long enought for it when all along i've could buy the elite version with seems to be more pack for the price...but still i've waited too im still very happy with it cause the sound is excellent...very very good!

[DefJeff]

Originally posted by Peter Vincent
Not to be picky, but where the hell is my 'Ladies of the evil dead' booklet?!?!?!?

my limtied BOTD came with a booklet on the pages before the DVD, but i dont remember if it was 24 pages or not, or even if its the same one your talkin about.. but it is supposed to come wiht some kidna booklet, so if your missin that then your missing the whole package.

[Andrew]

Okay I watched mine last night.

Fanalysis was good. A bit short and it felt a little too "staged", but I liked it.

The movie...hmm...the sound kicks ass. The widescreen did feel cramped, and the anamorphic didn't give it any crisper of a transfer. It looked a lot darker too. It was okay though, and I can deal :D.

[DavidHess]

I never got to see the Elite dvd but the new transfer seems excellent to me, apart from being able to see the matte lines in the shot of the moon and the fact some of the shot do seem a bit cramped in 1.85:1. Still, I think keeping the original theatrical ratio of the film is good and the book of the dead is hands-down the COOLEST dvd case ever designed. There's nothing out there like this package.

[darqleo]

I have to admit, I really love the Book Of The Dead DVD case, it's a lot better in real life than the pics of it online. I really wanted it for the Fanalysis documentary which is pretty short, but cool. Definitely something a Bruce Campbell fanboy would want. I haven't watched all the goodies on it yet, so this is kind of a half-a**ed review. I know the AOR of this title has been hotly debated already, but I'm going to have to trust Sam Raimi to know what is best for his film. (I'm being hypocritical here because I don't believe George Lucas and Steven Spielberg know best about their older films anymore.) I haven't seen this film since the early 90's and that was on a VHS copy of a copy. ***Tangent*** I was a bigger fan of Evil Dead 2 because I liked the combo of silliness and horror wherein Evil Dead was more straight ahead horror although very stylish. Army Of Darkness is my second fave as it has grown immensely with me over time. Then I originally saw it, I just thought it was okay because a lot of the jokes/gags were being rehashed from ED2. ***End Of Tangent***I wonder if those that say it looks cramped or tight only notice that because they've been watching the 1.33:1 a lot? Maybe it's a good thing if some parts aren't shown on the top or bottom, sometimes things within the frame aren't meant to be seen (i.e. like in Evil Dead 2 you can see that the cabin has not ceiling/roof). I'm just throwing some thoughts out there. It's definitely worth getting if you can get it cheap ($24.99) and you don't own any other version of it on DVD yet. Hey $24.99 is worth it for the packaging and the 2 docs anyway.

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

apart from being able to see the matte lines in the shot of the moon
You can see that in the Elite version, too. I think in pretty much any clear print of ED, that's gonna be visible. ...Just a flaw of the original film.

[rxfiend]

Originally posted by Peter Vincent
On the AB web site, it states the STANDARD DVD comes packed with a 24 page Ladies Of The Evil Dead booklet. (Check out the link: http://www.anchorbayentertainment.com/evildead/dvd.asp )Supposedly, the BOTD version comes with EVERYTHING the standard version plus....blah, blah, blah! Not to be picky, but where the hell is my 'Ladies of the evil dead' booklet?!?!?!?


you're wrong in your assumption that the BOTD comes with everything as that Ladies of the Dead booklet is only available in that standard dvd, not the special book edition. if you read the specs on AB's site, it does not mention the ladies booklet being in the book of the dead edition.

lame, i know.....

:confused:

[Peter Vincent]

So what IS in the Ladies of the Evil Dead booklet? Is it the same thing that's on the BOTD 24-page booklet about the history of the ED on home video??? Am I missing anything major? I just figured why not pack EVERYTHING since your paying, like, a million dollars!!!

[KillerCannabis]

I was a bit disappointed with the transfer on this disc. Not only do I feel that the Elite transfer was better, but the 16x9 on this disc isn't as fabulous as I thought it would be. I have a Vega flat screen and discs that are 16x9 almost ALWAYS look picture perfect, but this disc is majorly flawed as far as I'm concerned. It looks too soft and the supplements aren't all that great. Although the second doc. on the disc came as a bit of a surprise as I didn't know it would be included. It's all about the packaging for me. Book of the Dead rules!!

[bruce h]

Originally posted by DavidHess ...and the fact some of the shot do seem a bit cramped in 1.85:1. Still, I think keeping the original theatrical ratio of the film is good ...

But 1.85:1 isn't the original theatrical ratio.

Originally posted by darqleo I wonder if those that say it looks cramped or tight only notice that because they've been watching the 1.33:1 a lot? Maybe it's a good thing if some parts aren't shown on the top or bottom, sometimes things within the frame aren't meant to be seen (i.e. like in Evil Dead 2 you can see that the cabin has not ceiling/roof).

NO, it looks cramped because it IS cramped. I'll be the first to agree that the matting was essential for the sequel - as it was composed for that framing, not fullscreen. But you miss A LOT of details by watching EVIL DEAD at 1.85:1 - details which were meticulously framed and filmed that way on purpose -- like the box of band aids, the psychic reading of the playing cards, etc. In several shots chins and tops of heads are cut off. There's NO way to convince me that 1.85:1 is the proper framing for this film, I think it had more to do with making sure the buzzword of "anamorphic" was on the packaging.

[DavidHess]

Bruce, According to the ASC 1.85:1 is a standard theatrical aspect ratio, so I'm pretty sure that Evil Dead was shown that way during most of its theatrical release. Despite the inexperience of the camera department and the issues involved with transferring 16mm, I still think it's a valid aspect ratio for Evil Dead.

Maybe you might want to personally supply every theater with a 1.66 plate so they can show future screenings of Evil Dead properly. You can't even get these stupid projectionists to frame Mullholland Drive properly; how the hell is Evil Dead going to get a fair shake?

And what's with the "buzzword" stuff? To me this whole thing is turning into another "Nightmare on Elm Street should be open matte" discussion. Nevermind what open matte really is, how 99.9% of video releases aren't open matte, the difficulties of properly framing and transferring 16mm to video, etc. Throw all the logic and common sense out the window and just make a random accusation. Neato.

[rhett]

Originally posted by DavidHess
Maybe you might want to personally supply every theater with a 1.66 plate so they can show future screenings of Evil Dead properly. You can't even get these stupid projectionists to frame Mullholland Drive properly; how the hell is Evil Dead going to get a fair shake?

Great point David. Bruce, regardless of whether or not the film was intended for 1.66:1, that was not the way it was shown in the vast majority of theaters. But I contest that it was made to be shown in the 1.85:1 ratio because if it weren't then why would Raimi himself authorize and supervise a new widescreen transfer of it?

One thing is for sure though, there is no way the film was intended to be shown in 1.33:1, because it was clearly made for theatrical exhibition, and VHS wasn't even available when the film was in production, so that pretty much limits it to being 1.85:1.

Agreeably though, the film does look cramped during the card sequence, but I blame that to inexperienced filmmaking rather than misframing. The rest of the film did not seem cramped at all, and to me looked much better. Of course this is personal opinion, but I don't think that there is any doubt that this film was intended for a widescreen projection, 'nuff said.

[Plexzol87]

Why can't 1.66:1 be anamorphic?
Can't there be lil' black bars on the sides?

[bruce h]

As previously mentioned - In Bill Warren's EVIL DEAD COMPANION book (the last word on the subject) the films theatrical aspect ratio is named, and it's NOT 1.85:1. Raimi and crew had been filming on 16mm for years, they were used to composing for 1.33:1 and even though they expected the film to be slightly matted for it's theatrical run it's obvious from watching the film that it's composed for fullframe viewing.

As for the "composed for theatrical release" thing - BASKET CASE, another 16mm wonder, was ALSO composed for theatrical exhibiton, and once it was blown up to 35mm and matted you lose A LOT of info that was meant to be seen. And how was it released? Fullframe. If you're happy with a cropped release, fine, that's your opinion, but I'm personally unhappy with it and am very glad I have the Elite version to watch.

As for the "buzzword" - The people of this forum or any other forum aren't the ones who make these companies money, we're just the loudest. It's the standard boob that walks into a Best Buy and knows NOTHING, other than cover art, pictures on the back, and buzzwords like "anamorphic widescreen". Most people who like DVDs would walk into a store, compare the backs of the covers, see that the new AB version is in "anamorphic widescreen" and assume it's better than the others. It's all marketing. It's the same reason Anchor Bay put "From the director of LORD OF THE RINGS" on the cover of BAD TASTE (another release of theirs I don't care for). To push more units. And it's 1.85:1 (as compared to the REAL theatrical ratio) so that it won't show ANY black bars for the people with widescreen tvs. it's all marketing.

[rhett]

I contest to your whole "buzzword" theory. Most casual DVD buyers that compose the DVD market haven't a clue what anamorphic means, and associate widescreen with black bars. So I really don't think Joe Six Pack would go into Best Buy and say, "Hey! The new Evil Dead release has black bars that are anamadorphic, this looks like a must buy". I have several friends who represent this mentality, and all have said the only reason they will buy a film is if they either like it (duh) or if has supplements. Trust me, the word "anamorphic" does not appeal to anyone other than junkies like ourselves or those with HDTV's, period.

Whether it was written in the Evil Dead companion or not, the director has the final say, and if an auteur like Sam Raimi authorizes a widescreen transfer or his most famous movie, then I think that serves as a pretty good indicator that the film is intended for widescreen viewing. Yes, the card scene (all 8 seconds of it) is cramped, but no complete data is lost, and it hardly hinders the scene. In the commentary Bruce makes a comment about how the band-aids looked mighty out of place in the Elite commentary, and with the matte bars this criticism is eliminated. Arguements can be made about the true ratio, but when the auteur of the film supports a widescreen transfer, that to me is a pretty good indicator as to what the true composition of the films ratio is.

[ctyankee]

Originally posted by rhett
Whether it was written in the Evil Dead companion or not, the director has the final say, and if an auteur like Sam Raimi authorizes a widescreen transfer or his most famous movie, then I think that serves as a pretty good indicator that the film is intended for widescreen viewing. Yes, the card scene (all 8 seconds of it) is cramped, but no complete data is lost, and it hardly hinders the scene. In the commentary Bruce makes a comment about how the band-aids looked mighty out of place in the Elite commentary, and with the matte bars this criticism is eliminated. Arguements can be made about the true ratio, but when the auteur of the film supports a widescreen transfer, that to me is a pretty good indicator as to what the true composition of the films ratio is.

I must admit, I get tired of this knee jerk response of the "director know best" or the director's vision should be honored kind of stuff. Director's visions have screwed up as many movies as they've helped (at the very least). But more importantly, my point is that filming is a collaborative effort. Most studios do not even give final cut approval to most directors. So we should trust their sole judgement when they (at the end of the day) don't even get to decide what scenes make the movie and which don't.

Further, the camera crew/director of photography/what have you know more about this stuff than most directors will ever know.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on this aspect ratio stuff. But I certainly will listen to the math/logic comments over some dialogue about what some guy may or may not have intended.

[gunner]

I wasn't too happy with the 1.85:1 ratio either.But in all honesty I don't think I'd like 1.66:1 much more. In my opinion Evil Dead is best viewed fullframe.I just wish that anchor bay would have done what they did with the two sequal releases,give the viewer a fullframe/matted widescreen selection. It certainly would have avoided alot of controversy.
Sam Raimi and Co. hadn't been shooting in 16mm for years it was 8mm which still explains the 1.33:1 theory,I just wanted to point this out. One of my favorite parts of the companion book is when they did some experimental test shots for Evil Dead in 8mm instead of 16mm to try to save on money.They tried to convince investors that they could make a theatrical release on high grade 8mm stock instead of 16mm or 35mm,both of which were much more expensive.When they viewed these test shots which had been shot on 8mm then blown up and printed on 35mm they realized they made a huge mistake.The entire footage was was blanketed with grain the size of golf balls. Too bad AB couldn't have located this test footage,I'd love to see it.

[rhett]

Originally posted by ctyankee
I must admit, I get tired of this knee jerk response of the "director know best" or the director's vision should be honored kind of stuff. Director's visions have screwed up as many movies as they've helped (at the very least). But more importantly, my point is that filming is a collaborative effort. Most studios do not even give final cut approval to most directors. So we should trust their sole judgement when they (at the end of the day) don't even get to decide what scenes make the movie and which don't.

Further, the camera crew/director of photography/what have you know more about this stuff than most directors will ever know.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on this aspect ratio stuff. But I certainly will listen to the math/logic comments over some dialogue about what some guy may or may not have intended. Sam Raimi had complete creative control during the shooting of Evil Dead, and there is no way any studios attempted to manipulate the outcome of the film itself. Hollywood is a completely different ballgame than independent cinema, in independent films there is basically no restrictions as to what a director can include in a film. In Hollywood the producer is usually the one to sway directors as to what decisions to make, since they are the ones supplying the money up front. When you are both the director and producer, like Raimi was on Evil Dead, you basically have control of how the film will turn out, regardless of other people's input.

The camera crew and cinematographer were both entirely amateurs in Evil Dead, and there is no doubt in my mind that Raimi was the true knowledgable talent behind the lense. In fact, for the most part, Raimi was also the Director of Photography, since he was behind the camera for the majority of the film, so he was also the controller of how the film was to be visually presented.

If you are going to listen to logic about how the film is intended to be presented, then think about going to a theater and seeing it. You are not going to see it in full frame, or even in 1.66:1. The ratio it will be shown in is 1.85:1 and it is as simple as that. I work at a large multiplex in my city, and when I do projectors, we project films based on a flat (1.85:1) or scope (2.35:1) ratio. We don't even have a 1.66 plate to change the ratio of the film to 1.66:1, so I doubt the late night theaters and drive-ins in the 80's that Raimi intended his film to be shown on would have had them either.

I don't think anyone will agree that there was anyone technically superior behind the camera than Sam Raimi, or that he never had full creative control on the film. Regardless of the collaborators, this is Raimi's film, and the director deserves final say on what his film should look like. And no matter what ratio people enjoy seeing the film in, there is no doubting that the intended theatrical relation was widescreen, end of story.

[jscott]

Originally posted by rhett
if an auteur like Sam Raimi authorizes a widescreen transfer or his most famous movie, then I think that serves as a pretty good indicator that the film is intended for widescreen viewing.

Unless that auteur is a dope smoking, Three Stooges mimicking wisenheimer. I don't think that Sam Raimi knew what 1.85 was in 1979.

[Andrew]

Is it just me, or do some of you disagree with bruceh no matter what? Damn...

Anyway, I appreciate Sam's opinion of liking it in Widescreen. That's fine. I just think it looks like shit in Widescreen and ruins the framing of the film. I'm glad I still have the Elite version, as I think it has a better look to it (not just the widescreen thing, it's a lot darker), but I'm even happier I have the AB one.

BTW - rhett - I'm pretty sure BC wasn't complaining about the Band-Aids, I think they were there to show a sense of irony. Not sure though.

[rhett]

I am not trying to disagree with anyone...all I wanted to get across was regardless of which ratio is preferred, the correct theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1. It just irks me that people campaign for DVDs to be released in their widescreen ratio (Sleepless) or for the film to be restored in the director's vision (Friday the 13th: Part VII) yet complain when Evil Dead is finally shown as intended.

It also seems that recently with several new Horrordvds members that Anchor Bay can't do anything right, and it quite honestly annoys me. Take them away and there is basically no major horror market on our beloved digital medium. I really think we should stop taking them for granted and applaud them for all the good they are doing in pioneering quality horror titles on DVD rather than attacking them for every little nitpick that can be observed.

[Andrew]

Oh I agree with you, I love AB and a lot of people are way too picky. And the comment I made about disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing wasn't directed towards you.

[Sinister Ash]

Originally posted by rhett
I am not trying to disagree with anyone...all I wanted to get across was regardless of which ratio is preferred, the correct theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1. It just irks me that people campaign for DVDs to be released in their widescreen ratio (Sleepless) or for the film to be restored in the director's vision (Friday the 13th: Part VII) yet complain when Evil Dead is finally shown as intended.

It also seems that recently with several new Horrordvds members that Anchor Bay can't do anything right, and it quite honestly annoys me. Take them away and there is basically no major horror market on our beloved digital medium. I really think we should stop taking them for granted and applaud them for all the good they are doing in pioneering quality horror titles on DVD rather than attacking them for every little nitpick that can be observed.

Agreed

[MISFITZ]

Watched a bit of my copy the other day.


Man, I love the package. The way it's all squishy is just too cool!!

Drink me if you don't agree.

However, (and feel free to disagree ;) ) I do think the look on this AB version is very soft too. Almost like I'm running my wires though a RF screw connection!! (And i'm going through COMPONET) I have the Elite DVD as well. (hell I got too many versions of this film, PERIOD) And honestly, when I saw the Elite DVD the first time, i thought it was TOO CLEAN for a film like Evil Dead. That the sharpness kinda took away from the film.

But the AB version is NOT the flip side of the coin I was talkin about. Just looks muddy. Sorta VHS-ish.

Seems now I enjoy my Elite Evil Dead version even more now!

It's the one I'll watch. But mad props for a sick package design!!! Really, you should own both versions if you are a hard core fan.

[Werner Von Wallenrod]

So, the ideal situation is to take the Elite disc and keep it in the AB case... Then stick the AB disc in the Elite box, and feel free to lose it under your couch. ;)