Indeed, we have to remember that viewing screenshots on a PC monitor...is much different than viewing the film on a screen at least twice the size (some probably 3x), and much different lighting characteristics of the display itself.

Agree, can't stand all of this whinning about the colors. The blu looks fantastic. Truth is NO ONE probably really knows what it should be the same for other movies. No one remembers what it was like in the theater regardless if they say they do.

Sorry to disagree, but those of us who were alive back then and went to the cinema do remember that films didn't look teal. Also those of us who've studied the history of film of the late '70s - early '80s. I certainly recall seeing THIEF in the theatre, and it did not look like the Blu-ray. Its colors were more natural. It was a dark film, but not teal...

Agreed that the film is a masterpiece, I'm glad it was released, and will have to live with the Criterion version until another release comes along.

qft

So I guess the people that discount that don't believe in such a thing as sense memory at all?
Or do you only believe in certain senses having a memory. Do certain smells ever conjure up specific memories?
For cryin out loud, Proust wrote a 1000 pages off the whiff of a biscuit.

I can't distinguish pitch differences to save my life, but then I'm not aurally inclined. I'm a visual person.
Don't really understand why that is so hard to comprehend, just because you may not be wired that way.

Of course not. But to remember the colors completely and accurately years earlier? Yes, I think many would call BS on that one.

And as mentioned before, given the fact that each theater can be different, even week to week, a perfect memory would still only relate to that theater, that day.

And just because 'movies weren't teal in the 80s' doesn't mean Thief wasn't unique in its color timing. It was innovative with its synth soundtrack, I don't see why the same couldn't be possible for the look of the film. I know there's internet backlash against the T&O color timing that has become popular recently, but that doesn't mean all films had natural colors in previous decades. Besides, the Thief Criterion isn't T&O anyway. We know Criterion used the answer print for reference, we don't know what was done for home video/broadcast versions of the film, it's just two different sides making assumptions, and giving different people the benefit of the doubt.

To the extent that it is colored now, something like that in the marketplace would have left a distinct impression. It would have looked so unlike anything else in the theaters in that era, that people would have been commenting on it in reviews and articles about the film- specifically in regards to color, not just that it looked 'different'.

This scene:



Looked more like this on my setup:



Watched my copy last night. I have the exact same reaction as you did. And even if it was just simply a screen shot botch job, the same person still chose to publish those horribly incorrect screen shots. Really makes a person go hmmmmm.... And then the "experts" looking at those incorrect screen shots and stating for a fact that the notes within the Blu-ray are a lie.

Why? It wouldn't be the first movie with a stylized color palette. I watched the Castle of Fu Manchu last night and the colors were all over the place, yes, even teal.

There's production design that emphasizes certain color schemes and then there is a wholesale processing of the image that stylizes everything artificially into a narrow range of color.
The former, along with the use of filters and other, 'of the moment' effects, was more common back in the day when Thief was made. The latter is much more common now.

Do you think that this production still, uploaded in 2011 might suggest that Michael Mann was going for this look for the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm21557235...mi_mi_all_sf_2

I need to watch my copy of Thief before I comment on that film specifically. I may actually walk away with a different impression having seen the whole thing rather than just spot checking it.
I have a copy of the book 1001 Movie You Must See, and there are a ridiculous amount of photos in there that are (seriously) processed to teal & orange. Publicity photos of films that never looked anything like that and still don't- so photos, especially ones published (or uploaded) in the last decade aren't going to be a good indicator to me.
I would put more stock in the film's original trailer...and even those aren't always on the mark- though I think they are usually closer than people give them credit for being.

Trailers From Hell has Thief up if anyone is interested in seeing it.

I posted the trailer on here and the fucking BD itself has the trailer.

Like I said earlier, the screen shots really don't represent the BD accurately. Normally I feel like a movie has been pushed too far with one color when you see it seep into the blacks, but the blacks and skin tones on Thief both look natural. It really is a great looking disk.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RBmg1euOQA4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Finally watched it last night and my experience mirrored yours exactly.

Josh may remember this from the theater back in '81, the way I remember Alien and Raiders. He may have some specific scenes in mind where colors have been shifted. I never saw it back then so I can't even pretend to know exactly how close this is to that.
However
Nothing I'm seeing in this disc is inconsistent with a movie made in 1981.
The screenshots appear to be, but the actually disc? No, not at all imo.
In fact, I think it's pretty spot on to the trailer too. There are a range of colors here, and Blues and yellows run a full gamut. And the 'teal' that is there is there in the trailer too. Even scenes (like the diner interior) where I thought it might be pushing it still contained, in other shots or angles, natural earth tones.

This is the second time in as many weeks that screenshots didn't gibe with the experience of watching the disc - the other being the Arrow Phantom Of The Paradise.

and BTW, that scene with the judge was pretty funny.

People are experiencing something similar with Scanners. Most of the controversy over that transfer stems from one screenshot that has a green tint to it. When people watched the actual disk they realized that it's not that green on their setup, the room has green walls, and the character is staring at a green CRT monitor. The rest of the movie looks fine. It may not be wise to dismiss these transfers based on a single screen shot.

Did you enjoy the movie?

You strike me as the sort of person who believes that the original Star Wars trilogy always had CGI aliens and crap in them, and those of us who claim otherwise just don't remember the movies properly.

Josh, I assume you've actually watched the disc in full and still have the issues you do so I'm curious if you can point out a couple scenes where the grading is especially off to you and try to describe how it should have looked. Or if not scenes, then the color of clothing or objects that strike you as being skewed off here.

I could easily do this for Alien and can give you an example if you'd like.

Scanners didn't look overly green to me.

What? Do people actually argue that? The changes made with the Star Wars special editions were well documented, and they are quite obvious while watching. Anyway, this is another comment which adds nothing to the conversation, I don't understand why you can't discuss this without being insulting or condescending. You're coming from the perspective of age and wisdom but your comments are borderline childish at times.

I was born in 1985, so it was impossible for me to see Thief upon its release. That means when it comes to the original intended look of the film I can believe:

1. the director, Michael Mann
2. people on the internet

I'm not here telling anybody they are wrong, or insulting anybody, but I am choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the first option, and arguing that this specific case may not be as open-and-shut as some would have you believe.

What was done to Alien? I know Cameron changed the colors for the Aliens BluRay, I didn't know Alien was altered. I recently purchased both BluRays, but haven't had a chance to watch them yet.

This is the screenshot that caused the uproar:



I'm assuming it looked fine while watching the movie, I haven't watched it yet. Scanners was sold out at my local B&N so I had them order it for me.

Yeah, the whole movie does not look like that screenshot.

Scott manipulated the image in several subtle but substantial ways.
In terms of colors, he upped the saturation and shifted neutral or slightly warmer greys to a more vivid blue and skewed all or most of those blues to the greener end (teal) and away from violet. I see this shift in the sets (especially in the alien ship) and in some of the crew uniforms.

He also crushed black levels and blew out some highlights to make the picture "pop" more (which appears to be the opposite of what Cronenberg did with the Criterion Scanners going by the caps).

These should give you an idea of how they were originally vs how they are on the Bd (top is Bd, bottom dials back cyan and shifts it away from green)



this is a quote from the digital bits review of the '99 dvd release, whose image looks more like the bottom caps above.
I've seen the film multiple times in it's original release and consistently since on home video. The bd is full of piercing, false notes for me in terms of color and gamma. Viewers without much history with it OTOH aren't likely to notice or care and will probably even like the new coloring. But it has definitely been dialed away from it's original, more subdued organic look to something more garishly stylized.