Scanners (1981)

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

Don't fool yourself, sometimes films should be protected from their creators.

I agree with this. As an abstraction, it sounds counter-intuitive; the world of cinema has (or should have) taught us by now that a creator can be his creation's worst enemy.

Having said that, Cronenberg is a bit of an exception (at least for me). I trust him. It's not just that he's a fellow Canadian. It's not just that he's probably my favourite working director.

It's more about how smart the guy is. Have you ever read or heard an interview with him? I'd be hard-pressed to name a more cerebral or articulate public figure. I imagine he also has the self-awareness to keep himself from brazenly modifying his earlier works without some kind of purpose. And that "purpose" would have to be something really important, because he's probably got a much better understanding of how potentially fragile film history is once directors take the kind of licence Lucas, Friedkin, Hill et al have with certain subsequent releases of their classic films.

Beyond all that, he'd probably rather make another movie than tinker around with one of his least favourite ventures. Isn't that why there's no commentary on this release? He doesn't want to talk about it.

[cakefactory]

I don't think this really counts as him modifying his work, anyway. It just looks different than the other two in terms of just being...duller or something. It doesn't look like some kind of intentional stylistic change along the lines of the first Matrix being turned green.

[simonjamesconstable]

I always find the Second Sight version a bit visually fatiguing to be honest, so this difference in the director-approved version is a good thing for me.

[MifuneFan]

Pretty drastic difference . I've never seen the movie, so I couldn't say which is accurate (if any), but to my eyes, the Second Sight one looks better. Having gone from looking at the Criterion caps to the SS ones, it was like night and day. It almost made me think the SS came from a better source or something. I don't think the CC edition looks bad though, it gives that feeling of being a movie of that era.

This is the one shot to me from the screeshots that just makes the CC transfer look off/strange compared to the other. That fire, and the glowing off of it doesn't look right at all.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Pretty drastic difference . I've never seen the movie, so I couldn't say which is accurate (if any), but to my eyes, the Second Sight one looks better. Having gone from looking at the Criterion caps to the SS ones, it was like night and day. It almost made me think the SS came from a better source or something. I don't think the CC edition looks bad though, it gives that feeling of being a movie of that era.

This is the one shot to me from the screeshots that just makes the CC transfer look off/strange compared to the other. That fire, and the glowing off of it doesn't look right at all.

The most awkward shot to me is this one:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...496&position=8

If you only look at the upper half of the picture you'd think that it was a grey day and that it was pouring rain, but then you scroll down and see that the sun is shining like crazy.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by nissling

Actually, the whole "Director approved" thing doesn't necessarily mean anything. If a transfer is a restoration from an interpositive and that interpositive was approved by the director, the movie company can say that the transfer was "Director approved". Of course, I want the picture and sound to be represented and not created so if the absolutely final transfer has been approved then I'd go for that one.

Criterion has the directors approve their actual transfers. It's why it took so long for Y Tu Mama Tambien to be announced.



It's nice to once again see the people coming out to question the directors intent, and I'm so happy to already see the word teal thrown out there!
Always makes my day!

[The Film Expert]

I still don't know why a bunch of armchair experts think that they know more about how a film should look than the people who actually made the film just because they spend most of their time posting on online forums.

I see someone admitting they haven't even seen the film saying that it doesn't look "right" to them. How ridiculous is that?

I'll be buying the Criterion Collection Blu-ray as it is the only director approved edition and I would really like to own it in Hi-def as it is tied with Dead Ringers as my #1 Cronenberg film. Here's hoping, the later also gets a director approved Blu-ray soon.

-The Film Expert

[HansEpp]

Originally Posted by KrugerIndustrial

What makes you believe the MGM DVD had correct color timing to begin with?

I can't be sure that the MGM disc is correct, but at least it isn't bathed in modern colortiming. You know the "Teal & Orange Transformers & Co. Look". But hey, of course Mr. Mann always wanted the film to look like that...
If you are happy with the release, ok. I'm not happy at all.

[NLScavenger]

I've never seen Scanners, but I'm going to see it next month on the big screen when it's shown at EYE Amsterdam. I might be able to make some comments on the color, but that really depends on the materials they use (Film, DCP or in the worst case Blu-ray)

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

The most awkward shot to me is this one:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...496&position=8

If you only look at the upper half of the picture you'd think that it was a grey day and that it was pouring rain, but then you scroll down and see that the sun is shining like crazy.

Yeah,. It looks like this film was hit with a "smog" filter compared to the other edition (again, not commenting on which is actually more accurate since I wouldn't know). Maybe Cronenberg did it as some sort of weird social commentary to gain awareness about pollution

[stvn1974]

As long as Hayden Christiensen doesn't show up in the film I will be getting the Criterion. Approved by the director is good enough for me.

[The Film Expert]

The Second Sight Blu-ray has severe color boosting and suffers from strange noise reduction which completely removes detail in certain scenes.

The Criterion Collection Blu-ray has much more natural looking colors and is the only Blu-ray approved by the director.

To anyone reading this thread, do not pay attention to these people claiming it doesn't look right, these people just enjoy threadcrapping and making abig scene out of something they have no idea about. The Criterion Collection Blu-ray is the edition to get, despite what some armchair experts will try and tell you.

-The Film Expert

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by The Film Expert

The Second Sight Blu-ray has severe color boosting and suffers from strange noise reduction which completely removes detail in certain scenes.

The Criterion Collection Blu-ray has much more natural looking colors and is the only Blu-ray approved by the director.

To anyone reading this thread, do not pay attention to these people claiming it doesn't look right, these people just enjoy threadcrapping and making abig scene out of something they have no idea about. The Criterion Collection Blu-ray is the edition to get, despite what some armchair experts will try and tell you.

-The Film Expert

Pro-B, an actual film expert, not one that labels themselves as such in forums, says nothing of the sort in his review of the SS disc

Presented in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, encoded with MPEG-4 AVC and granted a 1080p transfer, David Cronenberg's Scanners arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of British distributors Second Sight Films.

The high-definition transfer is virtually identical to the one Australian distributors Umbrella Entertainment used for their Blu-ray release of this cult film a few months ago, and this is good news. The only very small discrepancy I could spot is with the brightness levels - select sequences here look slightly brighter, but the difference is indeed minimal at best. Detail and depth are indeed very good, especially during close-ups (see screencapture #3), while some of the outdoor footage boasts very pleasing fluidity. Colors are stable and very natural. Some extremely light noise is visible but it is never distracting. The best news here is that there are no traces of excessive degraining corrections. Sharpening corrections also have not been applied. Unsurprisingly, from start to finish the film has a very pleasing organic look. Finally, I cannot say that there are any major improvements in terms of compression - Scanners looks as good as it does on the Australian release. (Note: This is a Region-B "locked" Blu-ray release. Therefore, you must have a native Region-B or Region-Free PS3 or SA in order to access its content).

[L'armée des ombres]

I really love when some of you guys are pissing in the wind
Do you think a guy of Cronenberg's statue would release something and put his name to it if it wasn't up to his standard

[surfinhank]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

I can't be sure that the MGM disc is correct, but at least it isn't bathed in modern colortiming. You know the "Teal & Orange Transformers & Co. Look". But hey, of course Mr. Mann always wanted the film to look like that...
If you are happy with the release, ok. I'm not happy at all.

This is probably the main issue here: even though this version is "director approved", the real question is... is it the director's "original intent"? Was is shown this way in the theaters when it was released? (If not, was it because of technical limitations of the time or maybe studio interference?)

Or is it "director's intent: 2014"... an afterthought thanks to all the new technology and software available today.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

As seen with Criterion's release of Michael Mann's "Thief" (which should be renamed to "Teal....

I thought this argument ended when Criterion confirmed that Michael Mann's 1981 answer print was used for color reference. Guess some people are still unconvinced. Whatever. Thief looks incredible.

Originally Posted by nissling

Actually, the whole "Director approved" thing doesn't necessarily mean anything. If a transfer is a restoration from an interpositive and that interpositive was approved by the director, the movie company can say that the transfer was "Director approved". Of course, I want the picture and sound to be represented and not created so if the absolutely final transfer has been approved then I'd go for that one.

There's also a difference between "Director-approved" and "Director-supervised." Cronenberg supervised this transfer, rather than just nodding his approval at Criterion's work.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Pro-B, an actual film expert, not one that labels themselves as such in forums, says nothing of the sort in his review of the SS disc

So by that logic, I guess everyone here should just shut up and accept David Cronenberg's supervised transfer. After all, he made the film...he doesn't just talk about it on forums.

[The Film Expert]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Pro-B, an actual film expert, not one that labels themselves as such in forums, says nothing of the sort in his review of the SS disc

I was lent the disc by a friend, and I watched it on a 100" projector. These problems become more apparent when you watch it on a bigger screen. I don't know how big this reviewer's screen is, but the problems are definitely there.

-The Film Expert

[L'armée des ombres]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

After all, he made the film...he doesn't just talk about it on forums.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

So by that logic, I guess everyone here should just shut up and accept David Cronenberg's supervised transfer. After all, he made the film...he doesn't just talk about it on forums.

I'm just making the point that I'd take Pro-B's words over some self-labeled Film Expert any day of the week. I trust Cronenberg as a filmmaker, but we all know there are times when such expertise doesn't translate perfectly when supervising a new transfer. Many directors like to tinker, or do some sort of revisionism to fit with how they want the movie to look now. I'm not saying Cronenberg is definitely guilty of that, but in a general sense, the terms "Director Approved" doesn't instill absolute confidence in me anymore.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'm just making the point that I'd take Pro-B's words over some self-labeled Film Expert any day of the week. I trust Cronenberg as a filmmaker, but we all know there are times when that expertise doesn't translate perfectly when supervising a new transfer. Many directors like to tinker, or do some sort of revisionism to fit with how they want the movie to look now. I'm not saying Cronenberg is definitely guilty of that, but in a general sense, the terms "Director Approved" doesn't instill absolute confidence in me anymore.

Nor do online reviews intsill absolute confidence in me.

At any rate, I'll be buying this release. And that's really all I care about. Anyone who doesn't want it is free to not buy it.