All Poster Forum
Common Poster Subjects => Authentication => Topic started by: paul waines on May 06, 2012, 01:25:24 PM
-
It's amazing what comes from my loft....
I've dug out the Evil Dead Quad, as Terry from Quadbod asked for a comparison, so ....
Here's the one everyone thinks is the Quad, which is the video poster...
This one measures, 38 1/4" X 29 1/8"
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0059-2.jpg)
And the scarce Cinema release version....
Which measures in at, 39 7/8"X 30 1/4"
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0060-2.jpg)
All the Quads I have seen have been rolled, and all the Video posters are folded.
Now the artwork is marginally bigger on the Quad, but if it was cut down from the Quad, you would go slightly over into
the artwork anyway...
That said, there is a slight difference in the feel of the paper. The Video poster seems a touch thicker, I have got a micrometer
if we want to get technical. the printing also looks different. So here's a few side by side pics taken with a cheap camera...
I have placed the Video poster bang on with the top of the Cinema poster, where the art meets the White boarder...
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0065-3.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0064-3.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0063-2.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0062-2.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0061-2.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0066-2.jpg)
And a few just to show the colour difference, note the Video poster looks Blacker on the Blacks..
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0067-2.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0068-3.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0069-3.jpg)
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0070-2.jpg)
If anyone needs some better pics do say before I put them back, as it's taken a few months to find that
poster...
-
Great info, but I always wondered why a Quad would have the -NOW ON VIDEO- line? Was this a re-release or was it released on Video at the same time it was released in Cinemas?
-
It was released on Video the same day it was at the Cinemas. From what I remember a lot of Cinemas wouldn't show it as it was coming out on Tape at the same time, so it had quite a limited run on the circuits...Hence the Quad is Very scarce.
-
If you scroll to the bottom they talk a bit about the UK release (which pre-dated the US release by almost a year) on this page: http://bookofthedead.ws/website/the_evil_dead_production.html
-
... never mind the posters, what a great pen!
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
Thought You'd like that Terry.... ;) I do use it to make notes about posters.
-
... never mind the posters, what a great pen!
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
Wish I could get me one of those..... *cough*
Stew
-
I'm Glad I never left the Calculator Out......"did I think that or Type it"..... eyeroll
-
I'm Glad I never left the Calculator Out......"did I think that or Type it"..... eyeroll
laugh1
Stew
-
I won't post anything in this thread until the one who started it identifies himself and presents evidence that he is the real Paul Waines :D
-
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/640px-Harpo_Marx-221x300.jpg)
If you go to the back of the house it looks much more like me... ;D
-
... and if you take cranberries and stew them like apple sauce, it tastes much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
My favourite Marx Bros line ... and there's a lot to choose from ... !
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/640px-Harpo_Marx-221x300.jpg)
If you go to the back of the house it looks much more like me... ;D
That mug is creepier than the evil dead quad thumbup
-
Great documentation, Paul.
Now send 'em across the pond so that I can experience this "slight difference in the feel of the paper" myself.
You wouldn't want a friend to get duped now, would you?
cheers
PS -- Graham Humphreys should do more movie posters, eh?
-
Hi, Paul!
So, based on the evidence as presented, the so-called 'video' version could be the larger version, simply trimmed down except for the 'printing differences' which could be accounted for by the variations one might expect in a separate print-run - eg paper quality, slight colour variations, etc.
Although you state the artwork is larger, I'm assuming you mean the dark background area of the artwork is slightly larger but the actual art content (ie dimensions of lettering etc) is identical, so trimming the larger one to the smaller dimensions would produce the 'video' version?
Great info for future reference. Thanks again!
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
Yes, you have it right Terry, Overall you lose about 5/16" of the Black outer edge both vertically and horizontally on the Video version. The actual words. images etc are the same size.
Though I don't think it was simply a case of simply cutting the boarders off, as the Video version is Machine folded. Which must have been done at the time of he print run. Plus the trimming is off set....there's more missing from one side than the other...! Same Top and bottom.
I wonder if Graham humphreys knows anything..?
Ted, they are on there way.... ;)
-
Hi, Paul & all!
We now have additional comments from Sim Branaghan, emphasising that the smaller example is not a video poster. He goes on to say ...
To clarify, Evil Dead opened theatrically (in Glasgow) on 9th December 1982, and a week later in London. The video was released on 24th February 1983. By the standards of the time this was indeed practically simultaneous, but the posters were printed for CINEMAS, though it's perfectly possible some ended up being used in video shops. The key thing is the certificate - in Jan 1983 the BBFC categories changed, and X became 18. The posters (and first batch of pre-prepared video-sleeves) all show 'X', though this quickly changed on early sleeve-reprints to '18'.
In terms of the posters, the smaller versions are simply trimmed versions of the white-border 30x40. I don't know why this was done, and for many years was unaware a full-size version even existed. My own copy (trimmed but unfolded) was bought in mid-1983, and for years EVERY COPY I EVER SAW (and there were dozens) were always this size. In fact the only two documented white-border copies I know of are those of Paul Waines and Eddie Shannon:
http://www.filmonpaper.com/posters/the-evil-dead-quad-uk/
I'm pretty sure (not certain) that Evil Dead had its London premiere at the Scala.
This leads to an intriguing possibility. Given that (in my opinion) only a tiny proportion of the run remained untrimmed, perhaps the few that escaped the guillotine were sent direct to the Scala. It would be interesting to know where Paul Waines' copy came from, though of course it might have changed hands a few times first....
But, it is not accurate to describe this (trimmed) quad as a video poster. It is a cinema poster that (uniquely) happens to prominently promote a near-simultaneous video-release.
As ever, thanks to Sim for this additional information.
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
The Certificate change from X to 18 happened on 1st Nov 1982, I do know the Cinemas in our area never showed Evil Dead, and was the same in other areas of England. As for the exact date of the Video release, I'll check on that.
I got my Video Poster from the Local video Shop in 83, the owner ran 4 of them, he gave me that poster, and a smaller version, which I'll dig out. But I'm sure all that happened with the X cert was a "sticker" saying 18 in a red circle, was placed over the X. When the later (around 84) copies of the video came out they had 18 actually on the printing of the sleeve as opposed to the sticker...
Harry Call also has the Cinema version, as does a good friend of mine, so there's 3 copies. There was one on Ebay about a year ago, which went for some silly money. I'm not sure if thats the one Ed bought.
Dose anyone remember what poster was up in Scotland, as it seems it was shown in every Cinema up there...
-
This is the smaller version, without digging it out to check. It's about a single Crown size, Half sht at most...
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss348/frankenstein31_photos/PICT0785-1.jpg)
And still has an X cert...
Terry, I do remember a comment you made saying you only recognise 30 X 40 as a true Quad size unless there are No known 30X40 copies of a certain poster, are you back pedalling.... ;)
-
I bought mine from a London-based poster designer who has been in the business for over 25 years and had a working relationship with both the Scala cinema and Humphreys. Short of having been stood next to the printer as the posters were run off I couldn't be more certain it's legit.
In my interview (http://www.filmonpaper.com/blog/an-interview-with-graham-humphreys/) with Graham he recalls that there were around 500 printed, although, as Sim will attest, this is quite a low print run in terms of copies versus cost so it's possible there were more. I'm certainly happy to ask Graham if he can recall why it might have been trimmed.
-
Terry, I do remember a comment you made saying you only recognise 30 X 40 as a true Quad size unless there are No known 30X40 copies of a certain poster, are you back pedalling.... ;)
No - I'd stand by that comment. The undersized version would count as a trimmed quad, as we know, thanks to the info in this thread, that a full-sized version exists. Can't see how that's back-pedalling ... or even free-wheeling ... !
'Quad', as we know, simply identifies the actual size of the paper - ie quad-crown which is 30" x 40" ... or possibly, if we're being thorough, also 60" x 20" ... being four times 'crown' which is 15" x 20" - so strictly speaking, the term 'quad' should only be used for those actual dimensions (give or take the odd millimetre or two variation in the 'normal' guillotining procedure, as opposed to trimming down to a noticeably smaller size).
Best wishes.
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
The Certificate change from X to 18 happened on 1st Nov 1982
I believe you have a poster which quotes a different date ...
(http://www.quadbod.co.uk/webimages/bbfc1982categories11115medls.JPG)
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
That's not what the BBFC say on their web site, and Sim says the 9th, that's 3 different dates. Though I don't think that is the point here.
Why would two versions be printed? and what looks like two different Printers. It would be good if Ed could ask Graham what he knows about it.
Re: Trimmed Quad... There's No evidence that it was cut down, I think the Video version was printed like that, and on the smaller paper, two different printings, hence the difference in Quality, and feel... So to say this is a trimmed Quad is all wrong.
I got My Video poster from a Video rental Shop in 83, and the Quad from a fellow Collector, who got it from a Cinema Manager. Which is why I have always called them so.
-
I got My Video poster from a Video rental Shop in 83,
I was 4 in 1983. Man, I wish I had started gathering posters earlier... :D
-
Out of Curiosity I've just measured the Video version again in metric, and it comes out at 970mm X 740mm does this mean anything??
was it printed for a European release?? and the rest sent to Video shops...?
just trying to make some sense of it here ...
-
I was 4 in 1983. Man, I wish I had started gathering posters earlier... :D
I wish I'd stuck to posters and not all the other stuff as well.... :-\
-
I was 4 in 1983. Man, I wish I had started gathering posters earlier... :D
+1
I was 6.
-
I was 10, and a year away from our 1st VCR
-
Man, this place is full of Young Whippersnappers... ;)
-
;D
-
I was 10, and a year away from our 1st VCR
We got our first Beta deck in 1982 and my dad promptly hooked it up to the neighbors' so we could copy movies :)
-
being the oldest on here, I got my first Betamax in 80, and the first thing I copied was Dawn of the Dead.... :D But I'd had to wait until a friend bought a recorder, and a folk lift to take them around each others houses to copy films... ;)
-
How old are you Paul?
-
my parents could afford a VCR when they came out,, we had to wait until my grandparents bought us one Xmas 1984 - WHAT A DAY, they borrowed a friends and they copied THE BLUES BROTHERS. I saved and bought a beta when I was an early teen and started collecting tapes (VHS but manly Beta).
The 1st Video I rented was MEGA FORCE and the 2nd 1990 Bronx Warriors.
After that I cant remember order.
But it cost my mum $300 to JOIN the video library, then pay for rentals on top of that. $300 was at least a weeks wages.
Another library you bought one tape, of your choice and whenever you wanted to you traded it for another title, and paid a fee.
Thats when 90% was beta.
If I had a time machine...:)
-
being the oldest on here...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/archieleach/2fc38a5c.jpg)
-
How old are you Paul?
I just meant amongst the Whippersnappers Bruce, I'm 51 on the 8th of August, and like posters as presents.... ;) preferably Uni-Horror.
-
And I Yell at everything not just clouds.... ;D
-
leos rule
-
leos rule
Ya darn tootin...
-
I am 2 days older than you, but 12 years younger.
-
In the late-1970s, a rich friend of mind bought one of the very first VCRs, for $1000!
It could only play one hour tapes, so movies were on two tapes. As soon as a two hour machine came out, she bought that version, and sold me the $1,000 one for $100. I stuck with that piece of crap for a few years.
Bruce
-
That's not what the BBFC say on their web site, and Sim says the 9th, that's 3 different dates. Though I don't think that is the point here.
Re: Trimmed Quad... There's No evidence that it was cut down, I think the Video version was printed like that, and on the smaller paper, two different printings, hence the difference in Quality, and feel... So to say this is a trimmed Quad is all wrong.
Hi, Paul!
To be fair to Sim ... if you're quoting my previous posting ... he actually gives 9th December as the release date, not the change of certification.
Re: Trimmed quad - I'm happy to accept the possibility that the under-sized version was produced intentionally in that size - either on smaller paper or when guillotined to those dimensions after printing which technically I suppose wouldn't make it a 'trimmed quad' - so we're singing from the same hymn sheet there.
And no-one's the oldest here except me.
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
Any ideas on those Metric sizes Terry? I do think they maybe a clue to all this...
-
Old age and metric don't mix.
Seriously though .. ahem ... unless there are lots of other posters exactly that size, it's more than likely just a random choice of a size of paper which would accommodate the artwork which was featured in the 30" x 40" quad. If video posters generally don't have white borders (and I know nothing about video posters) that might have been why they decided to just use the artwork as it was and bleed it on all four edges as they didn't want a white border. The finished size would be just the consequence of them removing the borders from the artwork as it already existed.
Seems reasonable.
Best wishes,
Terry - www.quadbod.co.uk
-
I'm not sure on that one, quite a lot of Video stores had Cinema Quads up as display/advertising as well as the usual smaller video posters... People in those stores did'nt care where posters came from, they put anything up, even cuttings from magazines.
I think those Metric sizes are too spot on for random. the folds are very precise also.
I hope Ed can get some info from Graham.... it would be great to get to the bottom of this.
-
What are these posters $$ going for now??
-
I've seen the Smaller (video version... ;)) go for £100+
Only ever saw One white boarder one sell, and that was over £300...
-
I've seen the Smaller (video version... ;)) go for £100+
Only ever saw One white boarder one sell, and that was over £300...
Just got my white border for $150 USD, but that was a fluke (like most of my purchases). It is also a little banged up, but not terribly so.... lovingly used if you will.
-
If you paid only $150 Harry, that makes it $600 for normal people... ;D
-
Apologies for the delay in posting this but I've been having a back and forth with Graham for a couple of weeks and we've confirmed one thing:
There are definitely two original versions of the Evil Dead quad. One full size with a white border and the other trimmed with no border.
The question of why there are two versions is still unanswered and even Graham is stumped. Below are some excerpts from our discussions:
Graham's initial reply after I enquired if he knew why two versions existed (one with white border):
I recall providing artwork for the quad only. But I think you are correct in that the alternative size was for video stores. It might also have been created as an insert for any of the numerous industry magazines (with an over-run?).
I am sure that the quad run was limited because the film's success was not anticipated. There would have been sufficient for UK cinemas front of house and the substantial fly posting and London underground campaign.
But this should really be checked with the boys that know (ie. Nik Powell & Steve Woolley). 'white border'? there should have been no white border on anything.
Me:
It's a bit of a mystery as all of the ones without borders are not full size quads (ie 30x40) and the ones with borders always are. Do you reckon the white border ones could be ones that survived being cut down to the ones that were on the tube etc?
Graham:
Might have been a printers error, though I actually watched the first ones come off the printing press to ensure good colour adjustment.
Graham then agreed to check his own copies of the poster that he has at home
Graham:
Well, it looks as if you were correct!
I have both the trimmed and untrimmed versions. Why they are not 30'x40' is a mystery. They were certainly supplied to be so. Must have been a specific reason, though I can't imagine what.
The border version measures 39 and 3/4" x 30 and 1/4".
The trimmed version measures 38 and 1/4" x 28 3/4"
Photo of the two attached, showing that the print is the same size.
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3972/2posters.jpg)
[Note that Graham's smaller version is UNFOLDED.]
Graham:
I suspect one was for theatres and one for advertising (underground etc).
----------------------------------------------------
This tallies with some of Paul's thoughts and recollections as well as the fact that there's no way my source for the full size would have had a bootleg of any kind (he used to work directly with Palace Pictures and Graham). Sim also distinctly remembers seeing and handling tens of copies of the smaller version at fairs over the years (his own copy is the smaller one). He is of the opinion that the full-size version was likely the same print run and that the smaller version is simply trimmed version of the same poster, not a separate run.
My next port of call is a chap called Paul Webster (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0916986/) who Graham mentioned in my interview with him as being the person who was in charge of the Evil Dead marketing campaign. If anyone knows why there are two versions it will be him. The only problem is that, as you'll see if you follow that link, he's now a 'big-shot' producer, so it's extremely likely that he'll tell me to take a long walk off a short pier, if I can even find contact details that is. I shall give it a shot though!
Graham also sent me some other Evil Dead related images that I thought you guys would like:
A computer game tie-in poster
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1906/edgameposter.jpg)
An Evil Dead press ad announcing the success of the film designed by Graham
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4327/edscreenintadsmll.jpg)
An Evil Dead competition leaflet (check out the prize!)
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4452/edcomp.jpg)
The questions:
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/2431/edquestions.jpg)
An early screening invite for Evil Dead 2, designed by Graham:
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4441/ed2invite.jpg)
-
Nice detective work Ed! It pays to have friends in high places... clap
-
tell that to Jesus. :(
-
Thanks Harry :)
Sim has done an excellent job of summarising what we now know and where we're at with this investigation, which I'm posting with his permission:
There are two versions of the (November 1982) Evil Dead quad - full-size 30x40 with a white border, and trimmed 28¾ x 38¼ without. It seems likely - though not yet certain - that both are from the same initial print-run. The white-border versions are exceptionally rare, with less than 10 copies currently known to exist. Given that Graham (in the Film on Paper interview) suggests a likely initial run of c.500 copies, we can speculate that only a handful (perhaps 5% or so) escaped the guillotine.
We can assume this for two reasons: (1) Posters printed 'bleed' HAVE to be printed on oversize paper initially (then trimmed to size), so even the "small" versions would have needed to be printed at 30x40 originally, and (2) The tiny number of surviving 30x40 originals IN ITSELF suggests that the majority of the run was later trimmed. It just isn't economical to print less than 500 copies of anything on a large-format litho press.
So, the question then becomes, WHY was the majority of the run subsequently trimmed? At the moment we don't know. Graham himself isn't sure, despite being present during early stages of printing 'to ensure good colour adjustment'. It seems possible that Palace's original Publicity Manager Paul Webster might have an idea about this, but we're not confident of getting hold of him to find out. That's how things stand at the moment - not much further forward than they were to begin with unfortunately.....
-
Thanks for all you have done to try and get to the bottom of this Ed, personally I still believe what I have always believed ... (and so does Graham by the sound of it) ;) until I have definite proof otherwise... :)
If these were Originally printed at a full 30x40 why make them smaller than the industry Quad size, if not for another use..? Also the "trimming" is off centre, if you check! Not that that means a lot, but it's shoddy work... Also something to take note of is the folded ones are machine folds and very accurate...
I do hope someone can get a word with this Paul Webster fellow, I say we just Knock on his Door and.....Oh,!! sorry that was another thread... ;)
-
Thanks as always Ed for the informative research. I consider there would have been only one print run as well.
I think the explanation is mundane - the printer misunderstood the instructions given to him and trimmed off the "superfluous white border", leaving a few posters uncut. All of the posters, irrespective of their size, were used (because of the low print run) for either theatrical use or video promotion. There would have been little or no practical consequence of the posters being two different sizes and that this was not planned.
Mark
-
It's a good point Mark, but I can't help think 500 posters to cover the Cinema release, and the many Video stores across the country? Seems Nowhere near enough. Think how many Video rental shops there were, must have been well over 500 through out the U.K....And those promoters would know that was going to be their primary market...