Scanners (1981)

[blackashford]

Cronenberg can present this film however he wants. I don't care if this how he wanted the film to look originally. It's his film and if the studio (the only people he has any obligation to) is fine with him doing this, then that's all he should have to worry about.

No one else has to like it, of course. And thankfully for those that don't like it, there are alternatives.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

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.

What I asked for is facts proving that the transfers used for previous releases are more accurate, especially in relation to what Criterion have produced. The fact that the German label had access to a "protection master", as you note, does not at all prove that their release accurately replicates the look of the film's theatrical release -- whatever that might be.

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

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.

Because the information that has been circulated so far indicates that the previous transfers have not been in any way or form endorsed by Cronenberg. And also because I don't see enough to determine that the German release could be more historically correct.

Pro-B

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

What I asked for is facts proving that the transfers used for previous releases are more accurate, especially in relation to what Criterion have produced. The fact that the German label had access to a "protection master", as you note, does not at all prove that their release accurately replicates the look of the film's theatrical release -- whatever that might be.

Yes, release prints vary quite a bit. But, a protection master would look like release prints are supposed to look like. That is the point.

Because the information that has been circulated so far indicates that the previous transfers have not been in any way or form endorsed by Cronenberg. And also because I don't see enough to determine that the German release could be more historically correct.

Pro-B

If the intent is to make a video transfer look like a particular element, no director involvement is required. One has the reference source. You just make the video look the same. Any competent colorist can do that.

The bottom line is really just this...the German transfer of this film is based on a master film element from the time the film was released. The new transfer from Criterion has been color timed by the director based on what he likes today. There is a big gap between 1981 and 2014. A lot can happen to a person's perception in 30+ years.

I agree the new transfer is "director approved", but it is not historical preservation, it is revisionist editing.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Yes, release prints vary quite a bit. But, a protection master would look like release prints are supposed to look like. That is the point.

I know what a protection master is, there was no need for clarification. The point that I repeatedly attempted to make here is that even when one looks only at the screencaptures posted above, it is very clear that some interpreting has been done by the people in Germany as there are obvious color discrepancies on the Blu-ray. In other words, I am not at all convinced that the release is "historically accurate".

On the other hand, Criterion have very clearly stated that their transfer reflects how Cronenberg wants his film to look now. There is no mystery there.

Pro-B

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I know what a protection master is, there was no need for clarification. The point that I repeatedly attempted to make here is that even when one looks only at the screencaptures posted above, it is very clear that some interpreting has been done by the people in Germany as there are obvious color discrepancies on the Blu-ray. In other words, I am not at all convinced that the release is "historically accurate".

On the other hand, Criterion have very clearly stated that their transfer reflects how Cronenberg wants his film to look now. There is no mystery there.

Pro-B[/QUOTE]

If I'm reading the pertinent posts correctly, the comparison caps from Subkultur are from a raw scan of a German release print and the their transfer based on the protection master. They also state they did not use the release print, which implies they were more satisfied with the protection master, or perhaps that the protection master was close enough to the print to be considered "accurate", at least within the inevitable variation range of the photochemical process.

If I have interpreted their statement correctly, then the logical conclusion is that the Subkultur transfer is as close to the intended look of this film in 1981 as is reasonable for 33 year old elements from a 33 year old "B" movie.

It is equally obvious that Criterion's transfer diverges relatively dramatically from what the film looked like in 1981. I look forward to making a comparison myself as I do have the German transfer and plan to get the Criterion release.

Of course it is the director's privilege to make alterations in a film he directed. It should be pointed out that Cronenberg would not be the first respected director to F*ck up a transfer.

[KowalskiVideo]

Thanks Mr. Robert George for giving some more technical background on the issue. Makes perfect sense to me.

Its not mentioned in the review but the german disc has 24bit PCM Audio (Mono), is the criterion disc 24bit or 16bit? If i understand correctly, pro-bassoonist already owns the criterion disc (so you might be able to see some of ther german master footage in the Stephan Lack interview piece!). Further could you provide screenshots from these scenes? I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

Yes it is, here are some more caps:

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

Further could you provide screenshots from these scenes? I'm just curious.

I do believe the computer Blu-ray player software I use does have a capture feature, though I have never used it. I'm sure I can figure it out. When I get my hands on the Criterion disc, I'll take some caps from both discs using the same software/computer. That should make this sort of comparison as even as possible.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Robert George

I do believe the computer Blu-ray player software I use does have a capture feature, though I have never used it. I'm sure I can figure it out. When I get my hands on the Criterion disc, I'll take some caps from both discs using the same software/computer. That should make this sort of comparison as even as possible.

I can take care of that as I own the DE disc and I my equipment is calibrated. When I get the Criterion disc I will make some comparisons.

[Monroville]

In the end, you what is nice about this?

We have 3 different versions of SCANNERS to choose from (unlike THIEF or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD [1990]). Considering there are either region free editions out there and/or cheap region free blu-ray players, the options are available none-the-less.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by Monroville

We have 3 different versions of SCANNERS to choose from

Unless I'm mistaken, the Paramount version makes it four. Love the options.

[Mentasm]

I think you just have to apply a bit of common sense to stuff like this. Eyewitness accounts and indeed the human memory are notoriously unreliable, so I take any claims that people remember what a film looked like 33 years ago with a fairly large pinch of salt. Never mind that what they saw in the theatre probably wasn't wholly representative of the original intention anyway...

Are the German, UK etc. versions 100% accurate to the 'original' theatrical experience (whatever that was)? Probably not, but they are almost undoubtedly closer than the Criterion disc based on visual evidence, the general look of films from that era (they didn't tend to be completely blue/green) and the fact that Cronenberg is also human, and just as prone to memory lapses and revisionist preferences as everyone else.

Me, as long as a release doesn't look terrible I'm usually happy enough if minor changes are made. I get a bit hacked off when those changes are really obvious and/or detrimental to the film (like Lionsgate turning everyone orange on a bunch of their releases), but if done well they generally don't bother me (The Terminator looks great, as does Aliens, even if both look different from every other version I'd previously seen). As other have said, at least in this case there are options.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Robert George

If I have interpreted their statement correctly, then the logical conclusion is that the Subkultur transfer is as close to the intended look of this film in 1981 as is reasonable for 33 year old elements from a 33 year old "B" movie.

It is equally obvious that Criterion's transfer diverges relatively dramatically from what the film looked like in 1981. I look forward to making a comparison myself as I do have the German transfer and plan to get the Criterion release.

Of course it is the director's privilege to make alterations in a film he directed. It should be pointed out that Cronenberg would not be the first respected director to F*ck up a transfer.

I am sorry, but we are obviously disagreeing. Your "logical conclusion" is essentially a willingness to accept a specific scenario based on an assumption -- which is that what was done in Germany accurately replicates some authentic look that is drastically different from what the new Criterion transfer offers.

More than likely I am going to get this German disc next week to take a look at it, but as mentioned earlier based solely on captures posted above it is very clear to me that guessing work was also done in Germany. In other words, I do not at all buy the "as close to the intended look as reasonable" claim.

Pro-B

[rickah88]

This will definitely be a case study going forward, I suspect.

You've got a very accomplished Director saying this is his preferred look. Add to that you've got, arguably, the top BD label in the world putting it out. Yet people are balking becuase?
They claim that's not how it looked, in the theatre, over 3 decades ago? Give me a break. If your memory is that good, you should be off in Vegas counting cards, not posting on blu-ray message boards.
That's not the way it has looked up until now? Again with the "previous format/version is the standard" argument. How does anyone know those previous versions are correct? They just happened to come down the pipeline first, that's all.

Sorry, but I'm siding with the accomplished Director and Gold Standard BD label on this one.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Sorry, but I'm siding with the accomplished Director and Gold Standard BD label on this one.

The Criterion release looks drastically different compared to every version ever released. Dozens of releases over the years (spanning the globe) got it wrong, but this one got it right?

[schlock]

Hahaha! I love these threads. It's always the same. A screwed up Blu transfer gets met with deservedly upset consumers, the battling ensues between those who complain and those who complain about the complainers, and THEN, it always reverts to the same last argument: that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, could actually EVER remember how a film actually looked 30 years ago, so whatever screwed up transfer gets put out now, regardless of tampering, HAS to be right because a director signed off on it. Hey, how does Cronenberg even remember how the film looked 30 years ago? Surely he can't recall that, either. It's been 30 years!!!!

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by Seymour

The Criterion release looks drastically different compared to every version ever released. Dozens of releases over the years (spanning the globe) got it wrong, but this one got it right?

Well, it IS Criterion. Some people seem to think they can do no wrong.

And no director has ever botched or drastically revised a newly restored film's color timing before >cough<William Friedkind/French Connection>cough< so that cannot be the case here.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by Seymour

The Criterion release looks drastically different compared to every version ever released. Dozens of releases over the years (spanning the globe) got it wrong, but this one got it right?

I trust Criterion implicitly, but in this instance I’m having a hard time getting around this logic, especially in light of the Mulvaney email quoted in post #355, which makes it sound as if they didn’t even try to reproduce the original theatrical look. Is this part of a new philosophy on their part? What if the director goes nuts and decides he now prefers beet-red skies and blue faces? If they’re creating new art, then I may judge it anew; they don’t get to decide that I like their new movie just because I like the original movie.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Partyslammer

Well, it IS Criterion. Some people seem to think they can do no wrong.

What wrong did they do?

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by tama

What wrong did they do?

They asked the director to supervise the video transfer like they always do. But who cares about director's intentions nowadays? I just want a film to look the way people on the internet say it's supposed to look.

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by Bluebolt

I trust Criterion implicitly, but in this instance I’m having a hard time getting around this logic, especially in light of the Mulvaney email quoted in post #355, which makes it sound as if they didn’t even try to reproduce the original theatrical look. Is this part of a new philosophy on their part? What if the director goes nuts and decides he now prefers beet-red skies and blue faces? If they’re creating new art, then I may judge it anew; they don’t get to decide that I like their new movie just because I like the original movie.

Criterion has always been more about respecting artistic intentions. What few controversies they've encountered have always revolved around director's decisions.

The Paths of Glory Blu-ray was cropped, but Criterion understood that Stanley Kubrick found black bars on home video releases distracting, though he never lived to see widescreen TV. Plus the film was likely matted to something around 1.66 in theaters along with being shown full frame back then.

The director of photography was brought in for The Last Emperor and there was uproar about how he'd cropped the film for a new aspect ratio.

Heaven's Gate was re-edited by Michael Cimino for the Criterion Blu-ray, and he was able to transform one of the worst films of all time into a pretty great epic.

My stance on the issue is that I respect the wishes of these filmmakers and understand that while I may not be buying something that's faithful to what came out in their theatrical release, they look how they're supposed to according to the people who worked on the film. And sometimes these artistic wishes are ones from many many many years ago.

I dread the day we get a better master of The Dark Knight, and people complain about the color correction not looking "natural" like the 2008 release does.