Anchor Bay to re-release Evil Dead 2 (1 Viewer)

[Josh Simpson]

Sam doesn't strike me as the type to who would be embarassed at his work, but that he would poke fun right along with us. However, I do not know the man, so I won't act like I can read his mind.

As for Divimax ED II, bring it on! Drop the pand and scan transfer that was on the previous disc, maybe add DTS, and move the extras from the old disc onto disc 2 with possibly some other stuff, and I'm happy.

I've been very impressed with the Dead movies AB has put out as well as some other Divimax titles. I would gladly rebuy this.

 

[TravisR]

"Sam doesn't strike me as the type to who would be embarassed at his work, but that he would poke fun right along with us. However, I do not know the man, so I won't act like I can read his mind."

I was just kicking out a theory but like you said I don't know him or read minds either

 

[Vincent-P]

Army Of Darkness could actually use a better disc. It's never been released in R1 in its proper aspect ratio of 1.85:1, it's always been cropped to 1.66:1. There is an MGM R3 disc that is in the proper OAR, has better looking picture and color, and actually restores a few bits of footage that are missing from the R1 director's cut discs.

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

Can someone explain to me these terms "divimax" and "pan and scan" that are being referred to in this thread, or link me to a thread (or threads) that explain them?

 

[Patrick.C]

I wish that Anchor Bay would release yet another version of AOD. Why? Because the current transfer is awful. Other than the aspect ratio being incorrect, the picture quality is terrible. The MGM R3 version is far superior. I hate that my favorite movie is the worst looking transfer in my entire DVD collection.

If you want to see how much better the MGM version is, go here

 

[James Lambert]

Ocean, Divimax is just a brand that Anchor Bay have incorporated to say that it's taken from a HD source, sort of similar to Columbia's Superbit (before I get flamed, the two brands have different goals). Pan and scan though is a term that I believe is part of this forums mission statement, so I urge you to check it out. There are many websites devoted to it, and I'm sure a search would reveal them (save me the bother of posting a link). In this particular thread though, the keenness to drop the P'n'S is purely down to the amount of room it takes up on the disc, therefore leaving more space for the correct widescreen version.

As for Army of darkness, is the proper aspect ratio 1.85? the 1.66 looks really good! That said, the MGM R3 release is far superior in it's visual quality to Anchor Bay's, almost embarrasingly so.

 

[MarcWi]

In regards to Evil Dead 2 being a direct sequel, this is not correct. In sumamrizing the forst film at the beginning of the sequel events and characters are altered, etc...therefore it is no longer a direct sequel...

Dont get me wrong it still rules though!

 

[James Lambert]

In my mind, Evil Dead 2 always worked as both a sequel and a remake.

 

[Damin J Toell]

That's only because they were unable to get the footage from the first film, so they had to quickly shoot a recap (and it's just yet another blatant continuity error which the films are riddled with, anyway). From the time the recap ends, the film picks up where the first left off. Again, as Sam Raimi says on the AOD commentary, if you removed the intro/recaps from the second two films, all 3 films would be a single continuous story.

DJ

 

[rich_d]

Yes, if you start Evil Dead II with the attack coming through the cabin as Ash is out the front of the cabin it is a continuation of Evil Dead.

However, it can also be considered a re-make. My logic is that Raimi was not forced to recap anything and could have just started the picture as it ended off. He didn't choose to do that - instead (for lack of a better word) "reimagining" the first film where instead of five people going to the cabin it is just Ash and his girlfriend.

If at the start of the second film you had five people going to the the cabin and Ash is now driving, that's a continuity error. Two people (including a different actress) going to the cabin is a reimagined film. One that can continue to the end without the viewer needing to know anything about the first film.

So I agree with James, it works as a remake and a sequel/continuation.

 

[Vincent_P]

I believe Raimi was heavily involved with the Anchor Bay DVD, and 1.66:1 is his prefered aspect ratio. It's not "cropped" at all, the top and bottom matting is opened up a bit, revealing a bit more picture information than a 1.85:1 presentation would.

But I do agree that the overseas MGM "Director's Cut" blows away the Anchor Bay "Director's Cut" DVD, which was cobbled together from various sources, much of them blurry videotapes that were digitally converted to "fake" 16:9 widescreen. MGM had access to an actual film element of the long version for their overseas DVD.

Vincent

 

[Charlie O.]

If Rami was heavily involved with the Anchor Bay DVD then why did it use the same film element as the MGM?

 

[Vincent_P]

Because MGM owns the film elements for the long version, not Universal. Just because Raimi directed the film doesn't mean that he personally owns the interpositive. Anchor Bay licensed the film from Universal, and thus only had access to the film elements in Unversal's vaults- the cut, 81-minute U.S. theatrical release, which they then had to cobble together with an old analog video master of the long version that Raimi and co. had in their possession.

I haven't seen it, but as I understand it, the transfer on Anchor Bay's 81-minute "Theatrical Cut" DVD is superb, and that transfer was supervised by Raimi and he choose the 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

Vincent

 

[Damin J Toell]

It's more of a purposely and blatantly incorrect inside joke for fans of the first film, actually. They continued the joke by getting Bridget Fonda to play Ash's girlfriend in AOD.

Whatever. If you don't believe the writer and director when he says that the film is a sequel, then it really doesn't matter. Make believe whatever you like about it.

DJ

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

So when does everyone think this DVD would come out? At the same time as the next Evil Dead movie (if it happens) for "cross promotion"? I hope it's not too different from the current version. I just bought Evil Dead II recently, I've never "double dipped" before, and I don't want to start.

 

[Rolando]

afraid not so Damin,

there is the issue of... The bridge.

The fact that the recap has Ash and Linda driving up alone with out Ash's sister and their other friends is enough not to make it a direct sequel.

However on top of that they cannot be joined once you remove the intro as you cannot explain why Ash tries to drive away and is shocked to see that the bridge he drove over is destroyed when he had already seen said bridge destroyed in ED1.

see?

Now nobody LOVES these movies more than I do. Everyone I know knows what my favorite movie is. Evil Dead. The sequels rock but there is no escaping the fact that Evil Dead 2 is in a weird zone between remake and sequel. I would say extended remake

 

[Damin J Toell]

Yes, I see that the writer and director who says he made a sequel is wrong, but Rolando from Montreal who watched the films a bunch of times is right.

I've watched the films a bunch of times, too, and I've decided that ED2 is actually a sequel to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and also simultaneously a remake of King Kong and Citizen Kane. It doesn't matter what the filmmakers say they did, all that matters is whatever weird things I invent in my head.

In the meantime, I'll go back to banging my head against the wall to avoid seeing people theorize about ED2 any further. Go nuts, make believe whatever you like.

DJ

 

[Vincent-P]

RE: Army Of Darkness aspect ratio

If you look at the comparison at DVDBeaver that someone posted a link to, the 1.66:1 transfer is GREATLY cropped on all sides. The mattes have not been opened up. 1.85:1 is a much better looking presenation.

 

[Rolando]

okay...

Sorry Damin, I did not mean to upset you man. I was only relating how I saw and how I think others here see it. I in no way meant to imply WE were right over Sam Raimi.

I do remember however that in the commentary of ED 2 AND AOD (going from memory though so don't hold me to it) they seem to have loss of memory of many events. Often not seeming sure if it was for AOD or ED2 that they could not get footage and and the other one they just CHOSE to redo it. I believe even though they had access to ED2 material they reshot some intro scenes like Ash sawing off his own hand.


Sam Raimi has also said in interviews that 4:3 was correct ratio for ED1 then in writing (forgot the name of the book) stated he framed for 1.66:1 then for the book of the dead edition stated that since he could not oversee the matting he asked his good friend Bruce to supervise the matting to what he claims was the correct ratio of 1.85:1

So to me this means that though I consider him a genius of the cinematic arts, he might not consider it as important to remember the details of what he was thinking at the time he filmed something.

So in my opinion, and yes it is just my opinion, I believe there is a possibility that he did not necessarily intend it as a direct sequel.

Theories there can be plenty. including that he decided to do a sequel but had been asked to do a remake so he did both.

Either way as you said Sam Raimi himself (and yes someone indeed said so in the commentary) said you could cut them together as one long story. And it is true (would love to do it!)

Again sorry if what I said sounded confrontational but I assure you it was not. one thing I dislike about the net is you pretty much have to guess the tone of the writer. It was actually playful and I was being buddy-like. But you are right, I am not your buddy and I do not know you and I should have probably taken a more distant, polite approach.

Have a great day!

 

[rich_d]

Roland,

Note: Read the below as if it were spoken in a baritone voice with heavenly sounding music like the music in the background when they explain the Book of the Dead in AOD.

No Rolando, it is you that do not see.

The three films can be viewed as a continous film, if you cut off the summaries at the beginning. That is the truth. What are you going to believe what you see with your own two eyes or what the director says after a few beers on a commentary track?

Damin,

Lighten up dude. I already mentioned that I accepted the sequel idea ... I'm just open to other ideas that you aren't.

Hey, if you want to believe the bullshit meter on some filmmaker is any different from anyone else that's your choice. The difference is that you seem to get huffy about opinions shared when you yourself drift in stuff about the beginning of ED2 as some "inside" joke of a sorts. Funny stuff that, confuse your established audience, piss off the actors that helped you in your first film in one fell swoop. Wile E. Coyote ... Genius. I, at least, give Raimi more credit than you do. Which is that the beginning of ED2 (when push came to shove) didn't work out well.

Roland's right, if you listen to commentary on ED2 and took a shot every time they say stuff like "I don't remember that" you'd be deader than a fake Shemp. As far as the AOD commentary, Bruce Campbell questions Raimi when he mentions the thing about the three films being continuous.