Why is the third part of the Evil Dead trilogy "Army of Darkness," now called "Bruce Campbell vs. Army of Darkness"?

In all the video guides I look at, the film goes by the original title. But it seems all DVD releases of it have been changed to the "Bruce Campbell........"

Like most of you, I have my DVDs alphabetized on the shelf. Now when I look for "Army," I'll always have to remember to go to "Bruce" instead.

Why was this done? Seems kinda silly to me.

Just file it under A, be the master of your DVDs--or be really be bold, and file it under E, with the other Evil Dead movies.

Sam explains the title issue on the commentary. It was the original title, but it was mostly a joke on Bruce.

Only 2 versions (bootleg and boomstick editions) actually say "Bruce Cambell vs. Army of Darkness" on the cover. The other 4 out of the 6 R1 releases say "Army of Darkness". Like Ginwen said, be bold and just file it in the "A" section. I was feeling like a rebel and put all my 6 R1 versions together.

I file mine under "E", so it can follow Evil Deads 1 & 2 as it is a trilogy (of sorts)

I never alpha my titles....it looks goofy and just wont work for me. my AOD is in the horror....tucked away with the other ED'. so simple.

They are proably trying to get previous AOD owners to buy it by renaming it.

Me too

Even corrected the sort title on DVD Profiler to make sure others get it right as well

I disagree with that. The movie is, and always has been, called Army of Darkness. That title appears on the screen all by itself. The fact that there's a "Bruce Campbell" and "vs" before it means nothing. If it did, all other movies would be called (for example) Arnold Schwarzenegger Linda Hamilton Terminator 2 Judgment Day or Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Presents William Powell and Myrna Loy in 'The Thin Man' (which is what DOES appear all on the same screen).

It just doesn't work that way. Usually. Okay, sometimes there are movies that do it a bit differently, but this case doesn't count, IMO.

Movie Title Screens Page: http://shillpages.com/movies (due for an update later tonight)

The "Bruce Campbell vs" on Army of Darkness means about as much to me as "Indiana Jones and" on Raiders of the Lost Ark.

LOL.........Exactly.

no, i'm pretty sure they're marketing that as the title for whatever reason

and it was given a few different titles overseas upon it's release

capt. supermarket
Evil Dead 3
Evil Dead 3: Army of Darkness
and more

i forgot my favorite, the medival Dead

the "bruce campbell vs the army of darkness" actually first appeared as the title in '93 on overseas releases

Hey, it could be worse. I;ve got a Japanese language movie poster, on which the movie is titled "Captain Supermarket".

Or "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" or "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie." hmmmmm.

The difference is "Indiana Jones" was added for the video. "Bruce Cambell Vs." has been on every film print I've ever seen, and I know in the 4-5 times I've seen it in a theater over the last 10 years it couldn't have been a foreign print. Also, those examples of before the title credits are not the same as a "Vs." "In" or just the names does not imply a title, but "Vs." and "Meet" and even " 's" (as in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" "Felini's Roma") does imply a title.

does the video quality suck on all 6 R1 versions of this movie? I had the bootleg version and it was horrible.

Apparently they are all the same transfer, that is, Theatrical and "Director's Cut", respectively and only the packaging is different.

Then your example of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is wrong. That movie's real on-screen title is simply Meet Frankenstein. The names Bud Abbott and Lou Costello appear earlier on the screen.

Of course, who's to say the full title has to appear at the same time? Star Wars appears on a separate screen than Empire Strikes Back and yet it is an accepted title. I'm sure there's no law one way or the other, but simple syntax implies that names before the title saying "in" or "is/are" denotes that these actors are starring in the film or as the characters (like Reservoir Dogs). When it is something like "meets", it's different. The Abbott and Costello one is problematic because it actually says their first names, too. So one can either say that the first names are part of the title or just a stylistic combination of credit and title (the first names are in smaller type and could be considered de facto parenthetical).

Truth is, it is really a joke, but it certainly can be legitimately argued both ways. If I'm saying the title, I tend to say just "Army of Darkness". But then I never say, "Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope", either.

Now, the possessive 's can be argued. Most often, it is an affectation by the filmmaker, John Carpenter's The Thing (I think that was there). Sometimes it is an author's name and is part of the title, like Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Frank Herbert's Dune. Sometimes it isn't part of the title. I may be mistaken and I'm away from my DVD collection, but I believe the Exorcist is "William Blatty's The Exorcist" and no one says that is part of the title. Felini had some movies where his name is part of the title. I think I will concede that point I made earlier.

So, which version of the 6 is the best overall?

Depends on what you are looking for. As far as picture quality--they are all the same. They were all transferred from the same source. If you have a region free player go with the R3 MGM release. It was transferred from much better source material (to which I wrote Anchor Bay about and am still awaiting a response). Of the current releases the boomstick edition is the most complete for R1. Hope this helps.

I don't have "The Nightmare Before Christmas" alphabetized under "Tim Burton's...", nor do I have "Forrest Gump" alphabatized under "Tom Hanks is...". I have the original 2-disc "Army of Darkness" LE but if I had the boomstick edition it would still be alphabetized under "A". On-screen titles aren't always the "official" title of a movie. It's hard to provide "rules" but you just have to use common sense. For example, if you were too technical about on-screen movie titles, "Batman Forever" would just be "Forever" and "Apocalypse Now" wouldn't have a title. As I said before, common sense is key, and everyone should know that it's "Army of Darkness", not "Bruce Campbell vs. Army of Darkness", regardless of what the packaging or title screen says.

If not the title screen then what? Someone's word for it? The title screen is as close to definitive as we have. It's what is physically present and attached to the movie. Posters are ephemeral and you can call any movie anything you want to, but in the end, the movie represents itself.

Batman Forever uses the Bat logo icon to stand in for the word "Batman". I can name 2 movies right now that validate that as a title. **** by Andy Worhol AKA Four Stars and AKA Pi. Batman was successfully marketed by using little more than the Logo and the public accepted it to mean "Batman". It's at least as valid as getting Independence Day out of ID4.

Apocolypse Now does have the title. It's before the ending credits, if I'm not mistaken. It's gimmicky, but it's there. It's even buried 2+ hours into the film as graffiti. The 70mm showcase showings didn't even have closing credits. You were handed a program.

I believe Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas IS the full title. He didn't write nor direct it. He just suggested it's story and characters. The title was a deliberate attempt to evoke his ouevre. It goes in the Bram Stoker's Dracula catagory. It's all marketing.

Now, is Bruce Campbell's name actually part of the title? I dunno. It's certainly unique. I believe it's funnier if it is, but as we all know, it's probably just a joke and not really intended as the title. No one is going to arrest you if you file it under B or A.
It's just something to think about.




By the way, Shill. I checked your Titles page on Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein, and for what it's worth, it DOES say their names on the same screen as the title. Your own screencap proves it. The only one that doesn't is Abbott and Costello meet the Invisible Man, but it does have an ellipsis suggesting that it is a continuation of the title. (Abbott and Costello...meet The Invisible Man)

True. I could say I meant "above" rather than "earlier" but I'll just say I mis-remembered, and didn't check first before posting like I almost always do. (I noticed earlier today when I finally did look.)

But there is no "and".

Apocalypse Now does indeed withhold its title screen until the closing credits. The Mummy Returns does the same.

A movie's "real" title should always be whatever it has on the copyright paperwork, but the public doesn't get to see that!

Still, the grafitti in the movie is given no designation over any other appearance of writing in the movie. As far an an uninformed viewer would know, the "Apocalypse Now" grafitti would be no more a title than any other text in the film, such as the Kurtz dossier, or the nametags worn by military officials. The title appears nowhere else in the film, be it the credits or otherwise, and even if it did occur during the credits, it wouldn't necessarily be considered "official" because the original 70mm roadshow edition of the film had no end credits sequence whatsoever. The film itself was originally exhibited with no opening credits (like the video version) and no end credits whatsoever. All credit information was listed in a program given to attendees. Anyways, as I said in my original post, there are no laws as to what constitutes an "official" title, you just have to use common sense. Nine times out of ten it's going to be the on-screen title but that's not always the case.