Scanners (1981)

[TucoStrangelove]

I just received my Criterion copy in the mail! I cannot wait to watch this, especially with all this controversy

[nagysaudio]

Criterion only looks dark and dull after looking at Subkulture's offering. It's like gazing at the Sun. Everything else looks rather dark afterwards. But that's certainly a terrible way to compare.

[borjis]

I'm happy with the Criterion Blu.

It's NOTHING like what Friedkin did with that awful "French Connection" initial release.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by borjis

I'm happy with the Criterion Blu.

It's NOTHING like what Friedkin did with that awful "French Connection" initial release.

You're right, it may not be, but that's doesn't change the fact that it has been altered significantly.

[Bluebolt]

Originally Posted by vivaperu348

All I know is my head hurts from all these options

Does it feel like it's about to explode? Because I've seen that. You don't want that.

[Kentai]

Originally Posted by Goremeister100

As I said, the scene plays fine on my tv via my blu-ray player and it plays fine via my computer. When I take the screenshot, the green is enchanced for some reason. Instead of talking down to me, do you know why that is?

It's probably because, on general playback, your PC is decoding the video stream using an overlay created by your graphics card, while the screencap is relying on your desktop color settings. This is very common, since video signals are typically YUV 8-bit, while computer graphics are typically RGB 32-bit. If the decoder doesn't tweak the settings a little, you'll get a really weird, gray, undersaturated looking image... but that also means you have to adjust the settings on both to get consistent results between playback and screencaps.

Anyone who hasn't checked out a site like LAGOM should really give it a shot. Obviously, eyeballing a few test patterns isn't as precise as an ISF calibration, but a little fiddling with your desktop color and your graphics color settings (both available in AMD Catalyst or whatever your hardware uses) can get you a lot closer with about 10 minutes of fussing.

For what it's worth, I bought the Criterion version of SCANNERS and watched it over the weekend. Just couldn't help myself with the B&N 50% off sale. I still prefer the "look" of the Subkultur release, but that's got plenty of gate weave and dust and, color aside, just looks like an older, unimpressive master like most of MGM's deep catalog titles that haven't gotten a new master in the last few years. The Subkultur release isn't necessarily the best transfer in the history of ever - it just, y'know... looks the way Scanners always has before.

The blue push isn't quite as obvious as an A/B comparison would suggest, but it is there, and as much as I can respect how carefully Cronenberg and his colorist approached creating this new look, it's still revisionism and I'm still not a huge fan of it... I guess this just is what it is, and either you can dig it or you can't.

[growler]

Bought/watched the Criterion BD Scanners. I like the movie & the green tint when he is looking @ Green text computer monitor doesn't bother me. I assumed it was the reflected light from the monitor. I saw in theaters & owned on DVD but cannot recall how it looked in the theater 33 yrs. ago. I actually find the smoke & haze in the previous scene more distracting but, that must have been the intent of the film makers. I gave away my old DVD but just popped in the Criterion DVD & same color tint.

Has anyone watched the film "Stereo" included on the disc yet? I want my 63 minutes back! Appallingly dull & pointless. Very difficult for me to sit through.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

You're right, it may not be, but that's doesn't change the fact that it has been altered significantly.

Agreed ...

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by Kentai

, it's still revisionism and I'm still not a huge fan of it... I guess this just is what it is, and either you can dig it or you can't.

This is a fair comment ! I too am usually front and center against revising films .... This is a rare case where I really feel they did a nice job.

[Hek_qwerr]

guys ive never seen this movie but the barnes and nobles sale price is really good,is this a safe blind buy?

[The Film Expert]

Films being projected in cinemas back in the day were significantly duller than what we get now for our tvs. Contrast and colors are boosted now to make them look more appealing and lively. With the Criterion Blu I can see it being similar to what was projected in 1981.

I don't see why so many people have a problem with this Blu and would rather have a contrast boosted alternative over it. I guess some people are just never happy.

[Kentai]

Originally Posted by The Film Expert

Films being projected in cinemas back in the day were significantly duller than what we get now for our tvs. Contrast and colors are boosted now to make them look more appealing and lively. With the Criterion Blu I can see it being similar to what was projected in 1981.

Go back to page 20 and you'll see what an actual 35mm print of this looks like. Fading and generational loss aside, it looks a lot closer to the supposedly boosted Subkultur BD than it does the Criterion BD.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Kentai

Go back to page 20 and you'll see what an actual 35mm print of this looks like.

It looks nothing like the Subkultur grading -- red push replaced with...greenish push, very similar to the one present on the Criterion release.

Originally Posted by Kentai

Fading and generational loss aside...

A pretty big detail to brush aside as the discrepancies are quite substantial between the raw 35mm print and what is currently available. Hence my initial comment that there was also quite a bit of guessing on the German release.

Originally Posted by Kentai

...supposedly boosted Subkultur BD than it does the Criterion BD.

I don't think that there is any doubt that it is in fact boosted. The same boosting is also present on the UK release, though it is slightly better managed in some areas.

Pro-B

[BluMonday]

I read this interview with director Guillermo Del Toro today, and he mentions how he got to fix the color timing on his director's cut of MIMIC as well as re-tool The Devil's Backbone for it's Criterion release, I guess this kind of thing happens more often than not...

(MIMIC) "(The cut) is slightly different, but different enough that I like it. I don't like the other cut. I like this one. And I did the color timing on the Blu-Ray myself and I'm very happy with how the movie looks."

(THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE) "I love that movie, especially the Blu-Ray edition that we redesigned. (DP Guillermo) Navarro and I spent weeks on that. Normally you're rushed, but when you're dealing with Criterion you have the time. I think the movie looks better now than it did on the release prints because the windowing and the DI (digital intermediate) we couldn't do in the prints. We were able to correct things that were intrinsically wrong in the negative. We had a problem in the lab that turned one of the scenes very magenta... it's still a little magenta in the Blu-Ray, but we were able to correct it 85% whereas in the physical and digital prints we were not able to correct it that much."

SOURCE: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/68020

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by BluMonday

I read this interview with director Guillermo Del Toro today, and he mentions how he got to fix the color timing on his director's cut of MIMIC as well as re-tool The Devil's Backbone for it's Criterion release, I guess this kind of thing happens more often than not...

It's become obvious over and over again that "Director Approved/Supervised" does not equal "how the film looked originally". Criterion have made it pretty clear that presenting films in their original form is not their highest priority.

Films definitely need to be protected against their own directors down the road. If we obey everything they say, then in theory they might have some kind of a born again religious experience and censor half of their own work.

[I KEEL YOU]

Raw 35mm
Subkultur
Criterion

Raw 35mm
Subkultur
Criterion

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

It's become obvious over and over again that "Director Approved/Supervised" does not equal "how the film looked originally". Criterion have made it pretty clear that presenting films in their original form is not their highest priority.

Films definitely need to be protected against their own directors down the road. If we obey everything they say, then in theory they might have some kind of a born again religious experience and censor half of their own work.

Or you could actually stop pretending to know more than the directors, its VERY clear from that snippet by Del Toro that what he put on the initial prints was not what he wanted to begin with.
I shot my thesis film on 35mm and never had the chance to colour correct with my cinematographer, which I would GLADLY take the opportunity to do as I didn't know how to myself, but seeing as its been screened and shown with the colours as is would that then count as revisionism?
Obviously not the same as its only a student film seen by not too many people but still the same general principle with Del Toro's case and potentially Cronenbergs (unless he was just going off another source, something that you don't even know yourself)
Stop being so goddamn dramatic

[K1NG J0RDAN]

Originally Posted by Hek_qwerr

guys ive never seen this movie but the barnes and nobles sale price is really good,is this a safe blind buy?

Absolutely. I blind bought it and enjoyed it. Great film with some crazy moments

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

Or you could actually stop pretending to know more than the directors, its VERY clear from that snippet by Del Toro that what he put on the initial prints was not what he wanted to begin with.
I shot my thesis film on 35mm and never had the chance to colour correct with my cinematographer, which I would GLADLY take the opportunity to do as I didn't know how to myself, but seeing as its been screened and shown with the colours as is would that then count as revisionism?
Obviously not the same as its only a student film seen by not too many people but still the same general principle with Del Toro's case and potentially Cronenbergs (unless he was just going off another source, something that you don't even know yourself)
Stop being so goddamn dramatic

I'm not pretending to know more than the directors, nor was I talking about that case in particular. But if you want to talk about that case, fine. Basically: Del Toro wasn't allowed to make the movie look the way he wanted to because of technological limitations. Do you know how many cases like this exist in film history where directors couldn't make the movie the way they wanted to because of limitations in technology/budget/time? Countless! Literally, countless! Sergio Leone wanted to shoot the final shot of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly out of a helicopter so that the human figures would look like dots in a vast landscape. He tried but gave up because the camera would shake too much. Does that mean that he it would be totally acceptable if he reshot the ending 10 years later after the steadicam was invented?

What I am talking about is if directors simply say "Well, this is how I intended the movie to be to begin with" and we take it as some holy words that cannot be argued, then we are sheep that allow them to alter their movies in pretty much whatever way they want. This doesn't only apply to color/contrast settings, but also alterations in cutting:

I have heard Walter Hill say that the newer cut of The Warriors is how he always "intended" the movie to be, as if adding a handful of comic book drawings and a voiceover prologue wasn't possible by 1979's film technology.
Didn't George Lucas say something similar about Star Wars?
And even if we know for a fact that a director wanted to make a different movie than he was allowed to due to cencorship like Hitchcock did with Psycho, does that mean that we should let them alter their work?

I will gladly take a movie that looks WHATEVER it looked like in theatres, even if that means that it doesn't look like what the director intended it to look like at the time over revisionist cases like The French Connection and Star Wars.

There are always exceptions: Like if a director shoots the film entirely, but is forced to alter it prior to its theatrical release. For example, I would love to see the ending of Taxi Driver with its original colors, but that is because Scorsese was forced to remove those colors from his film print in order to get the movie released.

[Bluebolt]

Movie-making is collaborative anyway, and many artists figure into it. The Director is not the be-all and end-all.