MovieChat Forums > Evil Dead II (1987) Discussion > Blu-Ray ruins the films

Blu-Ray ruins the films

posted 5 years ago by BurningSun (717)
8 replies | jump to latest

Ive been watching the Blu-Ray for the last few years and at times it’s hard to watch due to how awful thr crystal clear 4K quality make the effects look. I thought this was just one of those great movies that had terrible, dated effects. Then I catch it on TV and I’m shocked at how much better everything looks. The effects aren’t amazing or anything, but the look passable. The Blu-Ray really unblurs the lines and makes every crack, jitter, and error clearly visible. The stopmotion on the blu-ray looks atrocious, and the scene where Henrietta’s head comes out of the cellar is the worst practical effect ever. On TV and on the normal DVD, it looks just fine. Not only that, but every greenscreen shot looks like a high school history project, the stopmotion looks godawful, and the superimposed face over the cabin when it says “JOIN US” looks like a bad Halloween mask.

So my advise is not to watch this on blu-ray if it’s your first time. I own tons of other effects-driven 80s horror movies on Blu-ray, such as The Thing and Tremors, and none of them make the effects look worse. Even the first Evil Dead film looks fine on blu-ray. It’s just this one that makes it look incredibly fake,

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 5 years ago

"The effects aren’t amazing or anything, but the look passable. "

Are you, once fucking again, one of those morons who can't relativize and take into the consideration the year a movie was made and its budget? Because this is a very bland statement considering that both first Evil Dead movies have more than decent visual effects if we look at how minimalistic and not expensive they are. Of course, this applies more to The Evil Dead than Evil Dead II, but still, the second movie didn't have such a huge budget neither.

So no, if you conpare it to the visual effects of, let's say, Avatar, they are not amazing. But if you look at them for what Sam Raimi managed to do with so little technology, they are absolutely great.

It's like Peter Jackson's earliest movies, Bad Taste and Dead Alive. He basically paid for Bad Taste out of his own pocket. If you compare the practical effects of Bad Taste to those of The Lord of the Rings (same director), they would look amateurish to you. But there is a huge difference in the time both were made, the fundings they had and, especially, the team that was behind. Even though I prefer BY FAR Dead Alive and Bad Taste to LotR, I don't really like to use the LotR trilogy as an example because it actually had a VERY modest budget for such a huge production.

[–] BurningSun (717) 5 years ago

Way to completely miss the point of my post. Yes, the movie was low budget. Yes, the movie was made in 1987. I said the original effects look just fine, but that the blu-ray make them look bad, even though they really arent. Not too hard to understand, right? I wasn’t slamming the effects, I was slamming the blu-ray. Should I repeat that? hope your kindergarten teacher doesn’t catch on your phone during nap time.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 5 years ago

I edited my comment and, yes, sorry for the too quick and harsh reaction. I actually did miss the point, I give you that. I read you again and realized that my answer was straying from the subject, sorry. Still, I edited my post and hope it brought at least SOME light lol.

[–] Burk48917 (11368) 3 years ago

Pretty reasonable retraction for this site. Well done.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I don't think it matters much. Even on VHS or DVD, the effects didn't look too convincing.

They were somewhat crude owing to the low budget and purposely done in an over the top, stylized sort of way that wasn't meant to look realistic. It's the creativity and the manic energy of those scenes that make them great.

[–] Cognoscente (2649) 4 years ago

It just goes to show you that watching a cheap horror film on video is better because, effects aside, there's something to be said about atmosphere being lost when something is remastered.

[–] MaximRecoil (4619) 3 years ago

This movie, along with practically every other movie made up until about ten years ago, was shot on 35mm film and intended to be viewed via a projected 35mm film print in a movie theater, which exceeds the quality of the Blu-ray. So if you think that Blu-ray ruins this movie, you must also think the theaters that showed it in 1987 ruined it even worse.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

LOL. . .there you go, adding facts and reasonable observations to the discussion. Again. Will you Never Stop?