HTF REVIEW: "Evil Dead: BOOK OF THE DEAD" Limited Edition *Special Review* (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Maybe next time it's the coffe boy on the set that is reframing the movie.

why bother with absurd examples? it doesn't matter who actually does the work involved in the transfer; we simply happen to be lucky that Campbell was personally involved in this case. in most cases, someone completely uninvolved with the original film will do the work involved in the transfer. but no matter who does the work, the only question we need to ask is: is this what the director wants? in the case of AB's new Evil Dead transfer, that answer is in the affirmative. you can make absurd hypotheticals all day, but the presence of the director's approval (or the lack thereof) is the only meaningful factor, whether the work was done by the producer/star, the coffee boy, or a technician at the studio.
DJ

 

[Scott Calvert]

Mattias, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Why would they frame it at anything greater than 1:85? My point is, flat films are projected in theaters at 1:85. As long as it's within that AR and looks ok (and the director likes it), what's the big deal? Not to be rude, but are you sure you know how the whole matting process works?

 

[Mattias_ka]

Scott Calvert, I know how the matting process is done. But I think it wrong, you think it's right, okey let stop it here.

 

[Stacey]

Thank you Ronald for the awsome pictures of this set...I've been holding off buying any of the Evil Dead DVD's for this one. Am I totally nuts? Could be, but seeing how right now the only way I can enjoy Evil is my VHS copy...so any DVD version will look better!
And this set looks awsome!

 

[Derrick_Ellis]

I will most certainly run out and get this DVD. Especially after meeting Bruce Cambell. He is a really nice guy. A buddy of mine interviewed him for his cable show on public access called 'Jon Collins Presents'. If anyone is a die hard Bruce Cambell fan and wants to see the interview, my buddy has mastered a DVD of his past three shows. Email me for more info if you're interested.

 

[Malcolm R]

Hmmmm. New review guy over at the DigBits gushes all over this one. "A+" all around for video quality, sound quality, and extras. Anyone else with an advance copy care to venture an opinion?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

An A+ for overall audio and video quality is

definately an exaggeration.

I have a lot of respect for Todd's reviews,

so I am uncertain as to why he came to the

conclusion that this looked as good as anything

else with an A+ rating.

 

[Adam Tyner]

More than likely, the A+ is in relation to other Evil Dead releases, representing an exemplary effort on the part of Anchor Bay. I rather doubt Todd is trying to say that this looks as good as, say, The Fast And The Furious...

The impression I got from Todd's review is that he does have a point of reference.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Exactly. The Bits review (I haven't read it yet, but will shortly) likely indicates that this is the best THIS film will ever look. If the transfer is superlative, then it probably warrants an A+. This is probably a different kettle of fish to rating a film's cinematography.

The A+ rating would probably make more sense to some if they compared the disc to other, earlier transfers. Interesting too how the Bits doesn't seem as picky about the transfer as DVD File... but then (thank god) what else is new?

 

[Charles J P]

Maybe this has already been done in the past, but I feel like there is almost a need for a large, official OAR discussion thread that is not associated with any specific movie. Many members here cannot even agree on how to determine the OAR of certain movies.... understandable for movies that have had more than one theatrical OAR and more than one home video OAR.

I think there are some basic guidelines that everyone seems to follow.

1) If the movie had a theatrical aspect ratio of X and it is immediately released on DVD with an AR of X and no one involved in the film (director, producer, or otherwise) ever says anything in disagreement, then I think we would all agree that the OAR is X.

2) If a movie had a theatrical AR of X, and didn’t make it to video for a while or only made it in P&S an now is coming to DVD, and the director and other important involved people are all dead, then the movie should be released in the AR of X and any other AR would be criticized by most everyone here.

Now we get into the sticky situations…

3) If a movie had different theatrical AR’s because it was filmed on a less-popular-for-Hollywood-movies film media, like 8mm or 16mm, and the first video release is P&S and by the time any attempt at OAR video release is made, the director is not available, what is the OAR?

4) If a movie has multiple theatrical AR’s multiple home video AR’s and then the producer says, “it was really supposed to be a Y AR” but the director says “no, it was framed for X AR” then who is right?

5) What happens when you throw in non-director and non-producer types into the mix? Is there opinion even valid?

If someone wants to start this monster thread, I would view it as almost a poll type of thing. Set out some more specifics than I have and then have people come and vote what the proper AR is. T’would be interesting.

 

[AaronP]

I'm gonna stick with the Elite disc. This movie is great, but it isn't worth any more of my money.