Talk:Scanners

message: I think the Scanners remake has been cancelled.  The page about it has disappeared from the IMDB, although I have yet to find any news proof that the remake isn't going to happen.--MythicFox 08:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's news that it's on again, hurrah.  --Ebyabe 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Cant we get the pic of that scanner's head exploding near the start of the film?
:::Are we allowed to show that much violence? Bubble bunny
:::: ROFL. No way. That is way too disgusting and gory for wikipedia. Waffle247 13:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Reverted vandalism that added bogus sequels.Rob Banzai 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor revert

message: It's possibly to interpret the ending in another way. You could see it as only one of them survived, and you are not sure which person is in the body, couldn't you?
:I agree.  I added: Nontheless, it is also possible that Revok successfully scanned Vale and is trying to dupe Kim into believing otherwise in addition to what already exists.  Perhaps that will better clarify the intentionally vague ending. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending?

message: The plot summary mentions that "We've won" are Cameron's last words. Did they mean the last words of the film, or did I miss something? Either way, should be edited for clarity.--76.10.75.168 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are the last words of the film, not Cameron's last words. I've tried to clarify the final part as per Cronenberg's own commentary. Whoever wrote that part of the plot summary really should've paid more attention or at the very least, listened to Cronenberg's own commentary. The film is really very straightforward. Cameron Vale allows his body to be destroyed, in turn transferring his own consciousness into Revok's body. Vale survives, Revok dies. The movie is absolutely clear about that. Why some people insist on making it more complicated than it needs to be is beyond me. MartinShadow (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have to be careful.  While Cronenberg is the creator, his commentary is ex post facto and could contain an element of correcting, after the fact, what he may see as flaws in the film.  In other words, if the images and words on the screen don't support what Cronenberg says is there, the most we can say is not "this happened" but "Conenberg intended this to happen."  Don't assume that because he says it's there, it's actually there.  Artists don't stand still, and their current interpretations of work done by their younger selves should not be taken to be absolute fact.For instance, I had a fairly strong online argument with David Gerrold once about whether Star Fleet in the Star Trek universe was military or not.  Gerrold reported from his own knowledge that Roddenberry intended it to not be military, but while acknowledging the accuracy of his reporting and the factuality of Roddenberry's intention, my argument was the evidence of what we have seen and heard make it quite clear that Star Fleet is military.  The creator's intentions are one thing, what actually resulted from them was quite another.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Words

message: I've removed this section and put it here as it is essentially a list and is unsourced. It needs to be converted into prose, properly cited and integrated back into the article.--J.D. (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the list, since you removed it without consensus.  Please note that, like plot sections, popcult entries which are straight-forward decriptions of the contents of a media artifsct are sourced by the media artifact itself.  If they stray into analysis or interpretation, they may then require additional sourcing.Please do not remove the section again until a discussion has been held here and there is a consensus to do so. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: I heard there was an incident where a couple of stuntmen ending up being killed accidentally. I also heard that one of the actors nearly got his head burned. Is this true? And is there evidence to support it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.139 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the stuntman being killed, but some guy driving a truck past the set was checking out the production and he crashed into a car killing two women. This is mentioned in the "SciFiNow" magazine article I just listed in the new "Further reading" section in the article. I didn't seen any mention of the stuntman death, if so, but I think I remember reading a long time ago it was the first time fire gel was used in a movie. Also, the article said that Jennifer O'Neill was upset and crying in her trailer at the start of production because she signed on to the movie having only seen a script with all the violence removed given to her by some producer. Also, McGoohan, a devout Catholic and alcoholic caused problems on the set by asking O'Neill is she was a slut, a whore because she had had five husbands. Nice guy. I'm sure he's with Jesus now. 5Q5 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Filming incident?

message: The section on "Physiology of a Scanner," while well-written, seems to be entirely original research. Any sources we can add to it? Dayewalker (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiology of a Scanner section 

message: 1. “Vale has been able to get by using his telepathy to make people eating near him allow him to partake of their meals.” Not explicitly established. ISTM he’s simply been eating unfinished meals left behind.
2. “Vale psychically overhears two women talking negatively about him, when suddenly one of them begins to convulse. Without knowing he is responsible for this, Vale attracts the attention of two ConSec agents.” Not explicitly established that Vale doesn’t know he’s hurting the woman. Or is it that he doesn’t know he’s responsible for attracting the agents’ attention? Clarification needed.
3. In popular culture: not every exploding head is a reference to Scanners. Sometimes an exploding head is just an exploding head.
a. “Consistently, their favorite film was Scanners, with all other films compared to it and found wanting.” I’m an SCTV fan and do not remember Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok mentioning Scanners at all, let alone “consistently.” I could be wrong, but citation needed either way.
b. “A man’s head explodes when the THX audio track Deep Note plays.” Could just be an exploding head; not particularly Scanners-like.
c. “Peter eats a Fudgsicle in one bite, then winces, screams, and his head explodes.” Could just be an exploding head; not particularly Scanners-like.
Felicity4711 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Contains Subjective Interpretations 

message: ALRIGHT. I HAD to post this review here since IMDB probably wouldn't approve my review. And I NEED to let others to read it. So here's that:
I had high hopes for this film, but it was just weird. And never really focused on the wonders of telepathy, which is a mind-to-mind ability, not "nervous system to nervous system" ability.
With that said, what's with the large number of reviewers saying that Scanners have teleKINETIC abilities?
Hello? They're TELEPATHS. Scanners have only demonstrated very minor telekinetic and pyrokinetic abilities. Along with the TECHNOpathic ability to read and control MACHINES
Learn the goddamn difference. 
Telepathy - Connects two minds together which allows for the direct transmission of information. Abilities include mind reading, mind control, illusion projections, consciousness transferral, mind switching, and mind blasts where you overload another's mind to stun, render unconscious or kill. 
Telekinesis - Moving objects with one's mind.
What's so fucking hard to understand? Or are you all old people who are too stupid to understand? 
Almost all the review on this movie state that they're telekinetic, discovered telekinetic powers or use telekinesis to control machines (it's technopathy morons)
Movie even mentioned that they were TELEPATHIC CURIOUSITIES. Jesus fucking christ. 
Not sure why people confuse the two so fucking much or think Professor X of X-Men has telekinetic powers.
** Maybe because they are right and you are wrong?  Telepathy involves the transmission of thoughts and emotions.  Yes, there could be a physical reaction to strong thoughts and strong emotions, but there is not -- repeat is not anything like what is seen in Star Trek, in Scanners or in the X-men.  When you see someone moving objects, changing the physical form of objects -- or making people's heads explode -- is telekinesis.  At least it is a limited form of telekinesis, acting on the other person's body to boil their blood, impact their blood vessels, destroy their brain or other organs, or some other physical action.  Telepathy = thought transmission.  Telekinesis = action.   Maybe the confusion is the idea that if you are telekinetic, you should be telekinetic for all objects under all circumstances i.e. if you can induce physiological changes in a person ... you should also be able to move forks and spoons around your head?  Is that the confusion?  Because it is non-obvious and non-essential.   Here is an example of a type-limited telekinetic mutant -- Magneto can only do telekinesis on iron and iron-related objects.   Ergo -- these "scanners" can induce physiological changes in their victims but they may or may not be able to move rocks.   That's telekinesis, not telepathy.   I'm willing to accept that a telepath *could* induce a death via strong imagery alone, but what we seen in Scanners is clearly telekinesis.  Chesspride  66.19.84.2 (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telepathy vs Telekinesis: Difference.