Scanners (1981)

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I see nothing wrong with Stephen Lack's performance, and I feel that his detached state adds a lot to the film. This is certainly not a misfire by Cronenberg. If you've seen any of his other films then you should realize that he likes to get surreal and odd performances out of his actors. I'm pretty sure the apathetic and confused state was intentional. Plenty of actors in David Lynch films behave in a similar fashion, but nobody ever complains about that.

I feel the same way about Keanu Reeves in The Matrix.

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Totally agree.

Stephen Lack in Scanners...
James Woods in Videodrome...
Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone...
Jeff Goldblum in The Fly...
Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers...
Peter Weller in Naked Lunch...


All odd quirky actors/characters, which is what makes them interesting.

[Scottie]

The film will be re-released on March 27, 2018 without the DVDs.

[nothingtofearmusic]

Originally Posted by iScottie

The film will be re-released on March 27, 2018 without the DVDs.

Yeah, this site says it's a Criterion release and the Amazon website says Sony Pictures Home Entertainment...since when does Sony have any relationship with this movie?
I get the sense that the image on Blu-ray.com is a placeholder image. Amazon shows no product image at all, and the Blu-ray.com image, if this is indeed a Criterion Edition re-issue-2-B, would have some mention of the Criterion-ness of the item that the image is to be representing...
The older Criterion Ed. cover-art is just gross. Why does that guy's face look like it's morphing to a pizza? Granted, your average moviegoer probably thinks the most-likely-a-placeholder image is gross, but some of those same people might be willing to watch this movie, whereas NONE of them would be willing to watch a inner-toilet view of someone pinching a loaf. Those that would be willing to would most likely have some number of friends and/or acquaintances that have no idea what lurks behind their entertainment center. They must never know......

[MifuneFan]

Sony distributes Criterion movies.

[nothingtofearmusic]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Sony distributes Criterion movies.

Ah, I see. Tnx

[Jacques Souvenir]

Originally Posted by iScottie

The film will be re-released on March 27, 2018 without the DVDs.

So is it going to be the same packaging as before, minus the dvd?

[El Sleezo]

Originally Posted by Jacques Souvenir

So is it going to be the same packaging as before, minus the dvd?

Pretty certain it'll be a normal case instead of a digipak.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by El Sleezo

Pretty certain it'll be a normal case instead of a digipak.

If so I might pick it up again.

[JMDiaz718]

Originally Posted by El Sleezo

Pretty certain it'll be a normal case instead of a digipak.

Hopefully, with original poster art. The tagline, Their Thoughts Can Kill, was memorable back when it was released.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by El Sleezo

Pretty certain it'll be a normal case instead of a digipak.

Too bad I already ditched the original case in favor of a custom cover. Now, if Criterion could just re-issue King Of The Hill in a case that isn't the size of Montana...

[twozbar]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I see nothing wrong with Stephen Lack's performance, and I feel that his detached state adds a lot to the film. This is certainly not a misfire by Cronenberg. If you've seen any of his other films then you should realize that he likes to get surreal and odd performances out of his actors. I'm pretty sure the apathetic and confused state was intentional. Plenty of actors in David Lynch films behave in a similar fashion, but nobody ever complains about that.

I feel the same way about Keanu Reeves in The Matrix.

Stephen Lack is not an actor, he is an artist.
https://www.stephenlackart.com

Cronenberg was aware of this, but cast him for his distinct look. The screenplay had also not been completed when the film was already in production, so Lack has stated the only way to play the character was like "Alice in Wonderland."

[koberulz]

What's the best release of this film? There are a few out there, all looking vastly different.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by koberulz

What's the best release of this film? There are a few out there, all looking vastly different.

I'm glad you asked:

Scanners
US - AVC 1.78:1 open matte 32675 kbps, LPCM 1.0 1152 kbps 24-bit, English subs, inaccurate colors but better compression, most extras, English subs (Region A locked)
DE (Subkultur) - AVC 1.85:1 32893 kbps, LPCM 2.0 2304 kbps 24-bit, accurate colors with boosted contrast, no English subs, extras (Region free) Best PQ
UK - AVC 1.78:1 open matte 29109 kbps, LPCM 2.0 1536 kbps 16-bit / DTS-HD MA 5.0 1819 kbps 16-bit, English subs (Region B)

The DE disc is the closest to what was shown theatrically and has the correct framing/AR. Even though the Criterion disc is approved by Cronenberg he decided to bathe the entire transfer with a sickly green tint, ruining everything about it other than having proper compression.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The Criterion may be duller than other versions, but the green tint was blown out of proportion when people selectively started posting screenshots of scenes lit by fluorescent lights which naturally give off a green hue on film. It is definitely not representative of the whole master.

To say the DE has accurate colors isn't exactly true as it is missing a range of nuances and colors that are present in other editions and are present on the 35mm prints.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The Criterion may be duller than other versions, but the green tint was blown out of proportion when people selectively started posting screenshots of scenes lit by fluorescent lights which naturally give off a green hue on film. It is definitely not representative of the whole master.

To say the DE has accurate colors isn't exactly true as it is missing a range of nuances and colors that are present in other editions and are present on the 35mm prints.

It was not selectively. I picked apart both as I have both discs and it is indeed a blanket green tint on the Criterion disc. My comparisons are gone from SSC, but you can look at these again if you'd like:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=105...0&a=1&go=0&l=1

It's more than evident in every single capture. Also, don't forget that the DE disc has the OAR.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Jacques Souvenir

So is it going to be the same packaging as before, minus the dvd?

Single-disc plastic case + booklet

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

It was not selectively. I picked apart both as I have both discs and it is indeed a blanket green tint on the Criterion disc. My comparisons are gone from SSC, but you can look at these again if you'd like:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=105...0&a=1&go=0&l=1

It's more than evident in every single capture. Also, don't forget that the DE disc has the OAR.

Again, the difference is due to brightness/contrast. The DE has went for the older contrast-boosted look and the Criterion has went slightly duller than usual masters but is made to look egregious when directly compared with the oversaturated and contrast-boosted DE disc.

There is no "blanket green tint" on the Criterion. You can literally take screencaps of the Criterion, boost the contrast and gamma without even touching the color levels and you'll end up with a similar result as seen on the DE disc albeit with more color range and nuances, something which would absolutely not happen if a color and nuance-destroying filter had been placed over the image like you claim there was.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Not to mention, the German release looks like it was sharpened a bit (notice the sudden white speck on that chap's face on the German version of Screencap #5).

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Again, the difference is due to brightness/contrast. The DE has went for the older contrast-boosted look and the Criterion has went slightly duller than usual masters but is made to look egregious when directly compared with the oversaturated and contrast-boosted DE disc.

There is no "blanket green tint" on the Criterion. You can literally take screencaps of the Criterion, boost the contrast and gamma without even touching the color levels and you'll end up with a similar result as seen on the DE disc albeit with more color range and nuances, something which would absolutely not happen if a color and nuance-destroying filter had been placed over the image like you claim there was.

Either way I shouldn't have to fool with my gamma and contrast settings to get something closer to what we saw theatrically. Cronenberg changed his mind and it looks awful whatever technical reason you want to use to explain it. This is why I have both discs.

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Either way I shouldn't have to fool with my gamma and contrast settings to get something closer to what we saw theatrically. Cronenberg changed his mind and it looks awful whatever technical reason you want to use to explain it. This is why I have both discs.

You don't have to mess with the settings to achieve that, the Criterion is already accurate.

Seriously though, I'm with JohnCarpenterFan on this. Checked the caps again, totally agree the Criterion is superior. The "tint" is a non-issue and isn't even very green. It's not like the Matrix movies. Yeah, it's a little duller and paler than the average transfer but not every movie is meant to look vibrant and colorful. I wouldn't even have any issue getting used to this transfer after 5-10 minutes or whatever. I probably wouldn't have noticed it were it not for all the uproar when this disc released a few years ago. It looks more natural, accurate, and artistic to me than the artificial, dated, contrast-boosted Subkultur disc. It's more pleasing and filmic. That's not to say the Subkultur isn't watchable, but it's flawed, that's for sure. Definitely picking up the Criterion if I'm ever inclined to buy the movie. I need to stop falling for these controversies.