Cookies on DVDActive
DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is assumed that you agree to this.
 
Leaderboard Extra
Widescreen or Fullscreen?

Forums - Discs & Movies - Widescreen or Fullscreen? 

10th December 2005 23:50  #31

Adrian Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,305
You could always stop reading it. . . .

12th December 2005 1:56  #32

FangsFirst Member Join Date: August 2005 Location: United States Posts: 290
Adrian wrote: I'm all for "fullscreen" as long as that was the way it is supposed to be seen.  I'm not too fond of reformatting, though it rarely occurs from fullscreen to widescreen, but Evil Dead was reformatted that way.

Evil Dead was NOT reformatted.
It was matted EXACTLY like the original theatrical release (which was the group's only intended market when they started). This was a soft-matte release. Is picture lost?
Yes.
Was it intended to be seen?
No.
Did you miss the "approved by Sam Raimi" bit?

12th December 2005 4:14  #33

Adrian Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,305
Evil Dead was shot in 1981 on 16 millimeter film for an intended ration of 1.37 to 1, according to imdb.

According to other reviews of the Elite DVD:  Quote: Elite have decided to stick with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio transfer which is the correct aspect ratio of the film. The new Anchor Bay region 2 release features a 1.85:1 Widescreen transfer but we'd prefer to see the film how the director intended.

Also, just because it is "director approved" doesn't mean it is what was originally intended.  After all, how many of us believe Star Wars SE is what Lucas really intended?

12th December 2005 18:23  #34

FangsFirst Member Join Date: August 2005 Location: United States Posts: 290
Adrian wrote: Evil Dead was shot in 1981 on 16 millimeter film for an intended ration of 1.37 to 1, according to imdb.
Not to be an ass, but I think we both know how ultimately reliable IMDB is...and I do still stand by the fact that theatrically it *would* have been shown in the 1.85 ratio...


Quote: According to other reviews of the Elite DVD:  Quote: Elite have decided to stick with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio transfer which is the correct aspect ratio of the film. The new Anchor Bay region 2 release features a 1.85:1 Widescreen transfer but we'd prefer to see the film how the director intended.
I've seen a couple of these reviews, and they usually don't give a source for it being the 'correct' aspect ratio. Now, yeah, yeah, who does?
But I'm almost positive here that it's an issue of 'more picture' without clear framing issues in matting (as in, say, Pee-Wee's Big Adventure)

Quote: Also, just because it is "director approved" doesn't mean it is what was originally intended.  After all, how many of us believe Star Wars SE is what Lucas really intended?
A valid point--though at the VERY least, Evil Dead probably *would* have been shown in its matted form at its original release--unlike the monstrosity of the re-re-edited Star Wars.

Some seem to believe that Sam did in fact change his mind later, someone claims the Evil Dead Companion says it was only shown in 1.37:1 ONCE anyway (and that most theatres matted it) and so on.  Which I could almost swear I recall reading or hearing that Sam knew at the time (and obviously the movie is too well-photographed for them to have been ignorant of something like standard ratios in theatres) and so filmed it full frame for simplicity's sake or something of that nature, with a later intention to matte.

That said, until Sam states it specific, I don't think you or I can claim with certainty what the INTENDED OAR was. The filming OAR certainly...and obviously I won't disagree that that was a full 1.37:1.

Um, anyway, this is probably pointless anyway.
Cheers.

13th December 2005 2:48  #35

Adrian Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,305
I think most theaters have 1.37 aperture plates since they will occassionally show classic films.  I don't think it is a must that it would have been matted for theatrical release.  It may have been, but just because it was shown that way doesn't actually mean that it was intended to be seen that way.  I have no way of knowing how it was show in 1982 as I would have only been 9 and seeing as my home town only had 3 screens, I doubt this would have been playing anywhere.

Also, the Book of the Dead framing was done recently to matte it down to 1.85 to 1.  I couldn't find any reviews mentioning this, but I am sure that I read before it was released that Bruce Campbell matted each frame individually for the release.  To me, this indicates that it was never meant to actually be matted.  Absent Sam Raimi's comments from 1982, we may never know.  

There is a lot of discussion also whether Kubrick meant his films to be presented in 1.37 to 1 or not.  

Nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement.  It's more entertaining than most posts.
Page Number: 1 [2]

Quick Reply 

Message Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.
Not Registered?
Forgotten Details?