Scanners (1981)

[Partyslammer]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

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.

I want a film to look (at least as close as possible) the way it looked when it was originally released in theaters. I don't mind revisionist home video releases like say, E.T. or The Wizard Of Oz 3D as long as I also have an option to see it as it was originally released. You see a problem with that?

[marblearch]

Clearly director involvement can be a mixed bag. The David Fincher supervised Criterion release of The Game is excellent - just compare against the shoddy looking Universal blu ray release of this title.

But rather than debating the technical details or memory of what the film looked like the simple test is -
if the screen shots are close to accurate -then I do not like the Criterion transfer and will pass.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

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.


Pro-B

Actually, this is a discussion forum, so I have every right to post my opinion as long as I don't insult anybody (which I see happen a lot in here by the way). If I want to pick favorites I have every right to. To my eyes (and many others in here), the Criterion release looks awful. I know what an 80's movie looks like, and I know what a film these days looks like with today's color-timing sensibilities. The Criterion does not look like an 80's film. But, since you asked for facts, they have already been presented. You are just choosing to ignore them. Not only does the Criterion release not appear to be even close to accurate in terms of color timing - it just looks bad.

Originally Posted by KowalskiVideo

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

[Show spoiler]

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

[Show spoiler]

Hey, excellent job! Do you work for a Hollywood studio? If not you should - you've got that special knack with color that they're looking for these days!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by 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.

The fact that the German release is matched very closely (not exactly, but closely) to the protection print means nothing then? The point of the protection print is to preserve the original colors long-term. The fact is that the protection print proves what the color timing was back then, and it's nothing like the Criterion. It's not just about some people that claim they remember how it looks back in the 80's - the protection print proves what it looked like back in the 80's.

Originally Posted by 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!!!!

Yeah, I'm used to seeing this happen by now in these threads. It's a losing battle.

[nagysaudio]

You guys... This is probably the first time this low budget B movie was actually color timed. So be happy

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

You guys... This is probably the first time this low budget B movie was actually color timed. So be happy

Why? It was timed fine for the German release.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Why? It was timed fine for the German release.

You should buy that one then

[harry keogh]

Do these dullards believe and go along with everything their governments tell them as well? Sheep.

[I KEEL YOU]

The tint issue aside, why does the director's approved Criterion release have a 1.78:1 aspect ratio when the film's original aspect ratio (according to IMDB) is 1.85:1, which the German Subkultur release has. Did Cronenberg also decide that the film should have a different aspect ratio, or what?

Not that it's a big deal, the difference between 1.78 and 1.85:1 is barely noticeable to me, but the fact that it's incorrect just adds to the theory that the color timing might be incorrect as well.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

Do these dullards believe and go along with everything their governments tell them as well? Sheep.

LOL! I bet you listen to mouth breathers like Alex Jones don't you?
INFO WARS!
DOT
COM!

[harry keogh]

No, I just don't blindly follow.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

The tint issue aside, why does the director's approved Criterion release have a 1.78:1 aspect ratio when the film's original aspect ratio (according to IMDB) is 1.85:1, which the German Subkultur release has. Did Cronenberg also decide that the film should have a different aspect ratio, or what?

Not that it's a big deal, the difference between 1.78 and 1.85:1 is barely noticeable to me, but the fact that it's incorrect just adds to the theory that the color timing might be incorrect as well.

Criterion's Videodrome was cropped quite dramatically compared to the Universal disc. But Criterion's disc looked far better, despite the drastic cropping. I have no idea what happened with the cropping in that film. So I guess Criterion does make some odd choices at times regarding aspect ratios or cropping. Supposedly Videodrome was approved by the cinematographer and Cronenberg. At least the colors were natural-looking in that film.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by harry keogh

No, I just don't blindly follow.

WHEW! That could've been a disaster there.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Criterion's Videodrome was cropped quite dramatically compared to the Universal disc. But Criterion's disc looked far better, despite the drastic cropping. I have no idea what happened with the cropping in that film. So I guess Criterion does make some odd choices at times regarding aspect ratios or cropping. Supposedly Videodrome was approved by the cinematographer and Cronenberg. At least the colors were natural-looking in that film.

Yeah, I know about this. In the Criterion audio commentary, Cronenberg mentions that he filmed his movies so that they would be home format friendly. But I'm not talking about the cropping. I'm talking about the aspect ratio - two different things. The German release of Scanners doesn't appear to be cropped compared to Criterion anyway, they just have the two slightly different aspect ratios.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by mar3o

The fact that the German release is matched very closely (not exactly, but closely) to the protection print means nothing then? The point of the protection print is to preserve the original colors long-term. The fact is that the protection print proves what the color timing was back then, and it's nothing like the Criterion. It's not just about some people that claim they remember how it looks back in the 80's - the protection print proves what it looked like back in the 80's.

The artist that created this artwork said, definitively, this is how the film should look. That's good enough for me!
You like the German edition, go get that one. Case closed.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Yeah, I know about this. In the Criterion audio commentary, Cronenberg mentions that he filmed his movies so that they would be home format friendly.

I never knew that.

Which disc is that on?

Steve W

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by rickah88

The artist that created this artwork said, definitively, this is how the film should look. That's good enough for me!
You like the German edition, go get that one. Case closed.

And in 1981 he said it should look differently. I'm sure he was aware when it was released theatrically how it looked.

We all know very well that directors, cinematographers, etc. change their mind sometimes. So why should I like how he says it should look now, just because he says so? Why can't I choose to like how he said it should look back in 1981? I don't need to change my mind like the wind just because a director does. I like how he used to say it was supposed to look, not how he says it's supposed to now.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by mar3o

And in 1981 he said it should look differently. I'm sure he was aware when it was released theatrically how it looked.

We all know very well that directors, cinematographers, etc. change their mind sometimes. So why should I like how he says it should look now, just because he says so? Why can't I choose to like how he said it should look back in 1981? I don't need to change my mind like the wind just because a director does. I like how he used to say it was supposed to look, not how he says it's supposed to now.

Nobody ever said you need to like this version, short of you.
I even stated in my last post that since you prefer the German version, have it at.
So if you, admittedly, don't prefer the "Artist Approved" Criterion version, what do you hope to achieve by posting in it's thread? Sway those who do prefer this version?
There are 1000's of BDs for which I don't care. Here what I don't do: post in their threads. But that's just me.

[nagysaudio]

Criterion's version looks superb. There's tons more detail than on the DE and UK discs. No sharpening, no blown-out contrast. Very film like. This is a great transfer. I even prefer the new color grading. Looks more like a professionally done movie instead of a half baked B one. I'll be picking this up

Cronenberg, please do The Fly in the same manner.

[GxyExpress999]

I think I will get both German & Criterion versions eventually. Just curious.