Scanners (1981)

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

After their HEAVEN'S GATE, I should have known better.

Sorry, I must be out of the loop -- what happened with Heaven's Gate?

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

So Criterion should step in and say "Hey David, I don't approve of your approved transfer, fix that shit"?

Well, if they want an accurate and faithful representation of the original to be preserved as cinema's legacy, YES, OF COURSE, as it happened with Friedkin's FRENCH CONNECTION.

On the other hand, if they are happy releasing some kind of revised art object instead that pleases the director's current wishes but is a deliberate departure from the original, so much so that he didn't even bother to look at the original as reference, for he was "creating anew", they should clearly label it as that.

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

Sorry, I must be out of the loop -- what happened with Heaven's Gate?

That it looks spectacular... but it's also a blatant piece of revisionism.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

From Jon Mulvaney:

Thanks for your email and interest in Criterion's SCANNERS release! To
answer your color question, David Cronenberg hadn't had anything to do
with the previous video color timing, but on this one, this has the
color choices that he prefers now. Some shots happen to be very
different while others are likely more of the same as he did not use a
reference when approving the new color timing.

I hope this helps! Please feel free to write again should you have
further questions. Thanks for supporting Criterion!

Bingo. Like I said, this may be the color timing he likes now, but this is very likely not the color timing audiences saw back in the theatre. Bottom line, he tinkered with the color. It even says above he didn't use any reference for the new color timing.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

That it looks spectacular... but it's also a blatant piece of revisionism.

Yeah, I gathered that was your meaning, Roy.

But were you referring to the fact that it isn't the theatrical version, or did Cimino tinker with the colour?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

Ok that makes perfect sense now. So in fact, the look of the film was CHANGED the for new transfer and thats why its looks so different. So i think we can agree now, that (for all that we now) the Subkultur disc is as close to the theatrical presentation as we will get (at least they used a reference...). I prefer the original timing over a the new revisionist one, any day.
.

I believe this is likely the case. The Subkultur disc is likely the closest people can get to the original look of the theatrical release. If you want new and modern color timing sensibilities, go with Criterion. If you want the film to look like you've seen it since the 80's, get the Subkultur.

Originally Posted by FelixFlankin

I'm all for the director having his vision. But after such a long time, revisions becomes so jarring to the audience. Home video has given many directors a second chance to fix what they didn't like the first time around.

I'm just not sure waiting 33 years is the best way to do that.

Right, and in this case, it wasn't broken to begin with so there was no need to "fix" it.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

Yeah, I gathered that was your meaning, Roy.

But were you referring to the fact that it isn't the theatrical version, or did Cimino tinker with the colour?

I was referring to the color timing, yes.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

I was referring to the color timing, yes.

Ah, I see what you mean. Over at caps-a-holic the difference is pretty dramatic. That's assuming the warmer, browner colours of the DVD are more representative of the director's original intent.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

From Jon Mulvaney:

That's good enough for me. It's his art and he can display it any way he chooses. Looking forward to watching this Artist Approved Criterion edition.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by HansEpp

So here it is folks:

Somebody asked Subkultur at their forums (http://dirtypictures.phpbb8.de/subku...-t4699-90.html) about their release of Scanners and why it looks so radically different from the criterion release.

What they basically said was: They licensed a protection master* from MGM and also had a german release-print (which they did not use, except for reference). Since both were very similar they decided to go with MGM master. I guess no other company worldwide has used this specific master before or after. They also said, that Mr. Cronenberg did not want to give an interview for the film (he said something like, everything he wanted to say about this movie he did a long ago). So they can't tell if what they got is "true" to the directors intentions. But they decided to go with the MGM master since it was very close to their release print. They also provided screenshots of the 35mm print they had!

35mm Print (untempered, raw scan):


Subkultur Blu-ray:


*PROTECTION MASTER: General term for a master copy made as a long term protection or insurance against loss, damage or fading of the original.

One thing i always noticed when i look at a 35mm print vs a bluray, is that the bluray version loses some quality the 35mm print had. If you look at the print you can see it has a very realistic look to the image. Like a moving photograph. The colors are more richer and it has a thicker texture. The bluray looks video-ish by comparison.

[schlock]

It seems lately, it turns out that any Criterion release I want only provokes me to go buy a far superior import instead. Last week it was PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (once again no original theatrical version of the film or even the deleted scenes because Weir doesn't want that version anymore) and now a completely color-timed-to-hell SCANNERS. Criterion gives so much power to the director on the films they license that they're starting to tarnish their image as film preservationists; and by the way, the directors usually DON'T own their films, so, yes, they could tell the director, "No, we're going to release it the way it's always been." But, of course, that would probably not go down so well with these auteurs. But I think Criterion brings this upon themselves by actively approaching these directors to get a "director approved" transfer, basically giving carte blanche for these directors to start tinkering, even on a film they normally wouldn't even want to change if they hadn't been asked.

Mulvaney's response is also very telling. I always enjoy the careful wording of these replies. With NOTLD '90, I remember Twilight Time said that Sony said the new transfer was done under the 'consultation' of the DP, or some such nonsense trying to imply the DP was actually there to overlook it, where in reality, he had a brief phone call with a tech, if even that. And Mulvaney's response carefully skirts the issue if Cronenberg even had any input in this new transfer. Maybe it was another brief phone call, like "Just make it all green, all those 80's colors look cheesy now." Doesn't Cronenberg not even care about this film anymore? So why would he even care to make changes or spend any time color timing it? I bet if MGM had released a bare-bones Blu of SCANNERS, it would have been left untouched and released the way it's always looked, and Cronenberg may not even be alerted about it's release. Maybe because it's coming from Criterion, and Criterion always reaches out to the directors and obviously encourages them to approve it so they can put a Director Approved sticker on the shrinkwrap, so that makes a director like Cronenberg offer input on a film he doesn't care about anymore, just because input has been asked for?

I really worry about THE BROOD now.

[simonjamesconstable]

A screenshot from the upcoming director-approved Criterion Blu-ray of 'Eraserhead':

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by schlock

It seems lately, it turns out that any Criterion release I want only provokes me to go buy a far superior import instead. Last week it was PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (once again no original theatrical version of the film or even the deleted scenes because Weir doesn't want that version anymore) and now a completely color-timed-to-hell SCANNERS. Criterion gives so much power to the director on the films they license that they're starting to tarnish their image as film preservationists; and by the way, the directors usually DON'T own their films, so, yes, they could tell the director, "No, we're going to release it the way it's always been." But, of course, that would probably not go down so well with these auteurs. But I think Criterion brings this upon themselves by actively approaching these directors to get a "director approved" transfer, basically giving carte blanche for these directors to start tinkering, even on a film they normally wouldn't even want to change if they hadn't been asked.

Mulvaney's response is also very telling. I always enjoy the careful wording of these replies. With NOTLD '90, I remember Twilight Time said that Sony said the new transfer was done under the 'consultation' of the DP, or some such nonsense trying to imply the DP was actually there to overlook it, where in reality, he had a brief phone call with a tech, if even that. And Mulvaney's response carefully skirts the issue if Cronenberg even had any input in this new transfer. Maybe it was another brief phone call, like "Just make it all green, all those 80's colors look cheesy now." Doesn't Cronenberg not even care about this film anymore? So why would he even care to make changes or spend any time color timing it? I bet if MGM had released a bare-bones Blu of SCANNERS, it would have been left untouched and released the way it's always looked, and Cronenberg may not even be alerted about it's release. Maybe because it's coming from Criterion, and Criterion always reaches out to the directors and obviously encourages them to approve it so they can put a Director Approved sticker on the shrinkwrap, so that makes a director like Cronenberg offer input on a film he doesn't care about anymore, just because input has been asked for?

I really worry about THE BROOD now.

So true. A few people have referenced French Connection on here. Friedkin made revisions to that blu-ray release that caused a great deal of controversy on these message boards and even the DP piped in to say he was wrong to do that. And lo and behold, Friedkin backtracks and allows the film to be released as it was, thereby proving those people who questioned the director's actions correct.

[KowalskiVideo]

Originally Posted by simonjamesconstable

A screenshot from the upcoming director-approved Criterion Blu-ray of 'Eraserhead':

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ps8d91fbcd.jpg

You haven't made it dull enough!!!! More like this:



Following the current "trend"... The Brood will probably look something like this:

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Perhaps you mean "The Criterion looks like the director intends now."? I find it hard to believe that this is how he intended it to look back then.

And yet I gather from your comments that you don't have a problem embracing the previous releases as being more accurate. Which begs the question: How did you determine that the previous transfers -- and they are definitely not 100% identical -- are more accurate? If you have some factual data proving that they are and you want to share it with us, please do.

However, I actually have with me the Australian and the British releases and there is absolutely nothing that I see there that I can use as proof to argue that they are in any way (more) "accurate" (meaning that the film looks as it did when it was released in theaters). Actually, if I wanted to be really picky, I could pick up a number of examples where the contrast balance cannot possibly be accurate.

Really, if you are going to criticize, gather enough information and then present your case. But don't pick favorites and then build your case on wild speculations that are essentially only your preferences.

As I mentioned in the review, the colors on the Australian and British releases appear natural -- there are no traces of compromising digital boosting or wild spot corrections. But this does not mean that they are in fact correct. There is a very big difference between natural and correct. This takes us to what we actually know is correct -- the transfer used by Criterion is supervised by Cronenberg and at this time is indeed correct.

This entire debate is very similar to the one we had with Criterion's release of Michael Mann's Thief. There were people arguing that it is teal-ed and unwatchable long before anyone had actually seen the 4K transfer. Of course, Criterion's release of Thief is not only watchable, but I can easily argue that it is one of the year's top U.S. releases.

Scanners -- I have all three releases. (I have not seen the German release that is mentioned in this thread and cannot comment on it). I can tell you this about the Criterion release: There is nothing wild about it. It looks very, very good.

Pro-B

[Pecker]

Very interesting.

I'm in two minds with this sort of thing. Is it Cronenberg's film? Yes. Can he do what he wants with it? Yes. Might he have a better idea, with years more experience, of how the film should look for best effect? Yes.

Should we get the film we saw in cinemas? Yes.

Is providing two versions in each instance either practical or likely?

No.

If DC did not use any original notes or reference prints, then it's extremely unlikely the film will look anything like it did on its initial release, even if that was his intent, which it doesn't look like it was.

Steve W

[KowalskiVideo]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Which begs the question: How did you determine that the previous transfers -- and they are definitely not 100% identical -- are more accurate? If you have some factual data proving that they are and you want to share it with us, please do.

You have seen, the following post?

Originally Posted by HansEpp

So here it is folks:

Somebody asked Subkultur at their forums (http://dirtypictures.phpbb8.de/subku...-t4699-90.html) about their release of Scanners and why it looks so radically different from the criterion release.

What they basically said was: They licensed a protection master* from MGM and also had a german release-print (which they did not use, except for reference). Since both were very similar they decided to go with MGM master. I guess no other company worldwide has used this specific master before or after. They also said, that Mr. Cronenberg did not want to give an interview for the film (he said something like, everything he wanted to say about this movie he did a long ago). So they can't tell if what they got is "true" to the directors intentions. But they decided to go with the MGM master since it was very close to their release print. They also provided screenshots of the 35mm print they had!

35mm Print (untempered, raw scan):


Subkultur Blu-ray:


*PROTECTION MASTER: General term for a master copy made as a long term protection or insurance against loss, damage or fading of the original.

I guess that this is some "factual data". Noboby has been talking about the UK/Aussie disc as being "more accurate" (in fact everbody is critizing it for the same things you do, e.g. contrast balance). Everbody is referencing the german disc which looks substantially different from any other release. So Subkultur tells us they actually compared two different entities and found them to be "matching". Criterion did not. Nobody is saying "The german disc looks 100% exactly spot on perfect" but that its the more/most accurate representation of the films original look.

I myself find it hard to believe, that it is pure coincidence (or error) that a german release print and the protection master from MGM (that are generations away from each other) look very similar while the criterion disc is way off. Cronenberg may sign it off this way, but its still revisionism.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

You have seen, the following post?

Hi KowalskiVideo,

I did. And color balance in these screencaptures is also unconvincing. In fact, there is zero chance that people who saw the film in theaters actually saw the exact same color balance that is present in the third screencapture. Some variation of it? Possibly, but not as graded above.

Unfortunately, I do not have this German release to take a look at it.

Pro-B

[MifuneFan]

I'd be shocked if the Criterion version is how it looked theatrically. That one shot I keep pointing to where it's a blanket teal looks world's different from anything else. Even if we want to assume the MGM print is off, I imagine it would show signs of being teal. Cronenberg used no references for color, and just timed it how he saw fit. I don't think that's a marker for theatrical accuracy, but just a marker for how he wants it to look now.

Look at the lights in the shot even, you can't even tell they're on really in the CC version. Everything is so muted and teal here. Again, I'd be shocked if this is what people saw theatrically.

[KowalskiVideo]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Hi KowalskiVideo,

I did. And color balance in these screencaptures is also unconvincing. In fact, there is zero chance that people who saw the film in theaters actually saw the exact same color balance that is present in the third screencapture. Some variation of it? Possibly, but not as graded above.

Unfortunately, I do not have this German release to take a look at it.

Pro-B

You said yourself, its hard to judge from screencaps. You wanted facts. The fact they had a "protection master" and even had a release print to cross-reference it (does that count for something?). So i don't think these four screencaps tell the "whole story", but at least its something to consider. I said it before and i will say it again: no one is claiming that the disc matches exactly what people saw on screen back in the eighties.

But let me put it this way: Subkultur states that their goal was to achieve the most "faithfull" reprensatation (regarding the way it looked theatrically) whereas Criterion clearly states they had the director to approve a colortiming without using a reference and that it may look different now. So why should i even consider the criterion to be "correct" (in terms of historically correct)? I don't see it, they don't claim it. It might even look "better" to some, it might be superior on certain technical aspects, but i'm not interessed in that as long as it is a depature from the original look. I want it as "pure" as possible.

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I'd be shocked if the Criterion version is how it looked theatrically. That one shot I keep pointing to where it's a blanket teal looks world's different from anything else. Even if we want to assume the MGM print is off, I imagine it would show signs of being teal. Cronenberg used no references for color, and just timed it how he saw fit. I don't think that's a marker for theatrical accuracy, but just a marker for how he wants it to look now.

Look at the lights in the shot even, you can't even tell they're on really in the CC version. Everything is so muted and teal here. Again, I'd be shocked if this is what people saw theatrically.

I saw this film when it was originally released back in the early 80's and it had a pretty bland but naturalistic looking color to it. Never leaned towards teal like the headshot here - that would have left a lasting impression on me. If those screen caps of the new Criterion disc are accurate, it's not a faithful reproduction of the original theatrical release.

It's rare, but almighty Criterion blows it from time to time.