Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Steve Phillips, Dec 18, 2003.
But how often does that happen?
Well, I checked out their site as well, and sent them an email begging them to please stop this madness of adding colour to movies that where never ment to be in colour, under the guise of "restoration".
For the longest time, the only version of "The Thing From Another World" I could find was a colourized version, which I refused to buy on VHS. Watching the DVD this year in beutiful B&W was one of the best nights we had, and now it looks like were heading down the same road with goofy colorized versions.
It's not the same as a 5.1 mix of a mono source, as most 5.1 mixes of a mono source usually (if done right) clean up the sound so everything is better defined (dialog clearer, music pushed into the other speakers, so it well sound like what it would in a theater today). Adding colour is destroying all artistic intent.
The only exception, I'd suppose, is if a film maker went back and personally oversaw the colourization process so that it was done to his wishes (which has never happened to the best of my knowledge.)
Three Stooges classic shorts in color....nope.
Not to harp on the point already made but just to re-state, the colorizing prosses severely alters the original black levels & shading in order to lay the computer generated color image over it, turning the color down doesn't give you the original image any more than turning the color down on a color film gives you a natural B&W movie..it just gives you a film drastically altered from it's original form.
I think it's a bad move. It's cool if they release it along with the original black & white. But I fear that's a step in the wrong direction. I'd just hate to see it get any kind of foothold where it could possibly become popular.
They keep trying and trying and trying...
Despite their attempts these colored atrocities still have a phoney, paint-by-numbers look. These movies all have the same general appearance -- it's almost like bad two-strip color.
The color palatte is all wrong, everybody has the same skin color and tone -- yuck!
What do these people do to determine the "correct" colors?
If I was going to develop some sort of "colorization process" the plan would be something like this:
1. Obtain a terrific Technicolor film print
2. Make a black and white print from that color print
3. Try to make the black and white print look like the original color film using whatever "colorization" process is being developed.
4. Make corrections to the process and try again using the original color film as a guide.
5. Don't stop until processed film and original look the same.
6. Slowly go crazy and bankrupt.
My guess is that they should try to compare an original B&W print and stills taken at the same time. If there is any differences in the sensitivity to the colors in the two film stocks (and that difference is known), colors may be derived -- kind of like the stems used for the old "stereo" sound now being utilized.
I'm not suggesting that this be done but it might make for an interesting exercise.
The artistic intent was not 5.1 either it was mono.
You could argue that adding color makes the movie as it would be now and makes things clearer.
Some black-and-white films were made by director's choice well after color was common. I'm not interested in somebody second guessing which ones would be color now. It's sad, really. I love a good black-and-white image. It's sometimes more appealing than color. I hope this is pretty isolated and doesn't become one more think we have to worry about with DVD.
I couldn't care less if they want to colorize black and white movies. If there is a market for them they might as well tap it. As others have said, it isn't any worse than pan and scan or remixed 5.1 audio.
That sure doesn't sound like something a true supporter of the directors intent and artistic integrity would say.
I must say that I am extremely surprised to see so many comments virtually supporting the practice of colorization!
Which means it's absolutely horrendous and unacceptable.
Really, they are including the Black and White version are they not? I don’t understand the need for yelling at Fox. Had they NOT included the B&W version, then I think all this hate would be justified. I could care less for the colorization but hell if they’re going to include it, just think of it as a supplement.
Many people don't realize that almost all silent movies were tinted; i.e., colorized. It wasn't until the sound era that movies were allowed to be shown in unadorned black and white, just as they had been photographed.
I'm perfectly satisfied with the black and white photography of most things. There are some older movies which wouldn't be hurt by being colorized, and those are the ones that come up most often: Shirley Temple movies, Laurel and Hardy, etc.: musicals and bright comedies. What most people don't realize is that color will not add anything useful to most movies, like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc. Color won't make these movies better or even more popular than they are now.
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Fox DVD covers for the Fox Studio Classics are all in color, even if the movie inside is B&W? Photographers have been "painting" their photos since forever.
I can think of one project that simply demands colorization: Cinderella, with Julie Andrews. This TV program was broadcast live in 1957 in COLOR, but the only existing version of it is a black and white kinescope (a film print made by placing the camera directly over the black and white monitor). The colors of the costumes and sets should be carefully researched, and then digitally applied to the black and white film print.
If a movie has only a 5.1 remix, can't I just set my audio receiver to mono and get the same results?
Many will see this comment coming...
Yes they were tinted...by the original filmmakers/studios! What we are up in arms about is outsiders hands (totally unconnected with these original films) coming into play years later and deciding that the original films format (B&W) is somehow inferior. Cleaning up a sonically bad mono track or, if done with respect to the original track (and hopfully presented with the original mono track), a 5.1 remix IMO isn't as disrespectful as altering the original cinamatographers art in these B&W films.
Now, just to play semi-devil's advocate, if the original mono track or B&W image is scrapped then I am with everyone in calling foul, but these films/DVD's that we are talking about here do come with the original version, yes?
I personally don't have a problem with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and REEFER MADNESS being colorized. Both of these have around twenty DVD releases and for NIGHT, it's best to get the Elite version. There are a couple good versions of REEFER depending on if you want the extra films. Since there are so many of these PD titles available, most of them the exact same thing, I don't mind something different. Many Euro horror films have hit the PD market and I always wished they would include the cut "R" rated versions to these because if I want the definitive version I know to go to Blue Underground or Anchor Bay. I would prefer the PD label to give me something different.
I plan on buying this colorized NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD just to show my friends how much better the B&W version is. They hate B&W and think all movies should be colorized so I plan on showing them the color version against the brilliant B&W transfer from Elite.
Now, colorized versions to films with 20 other DVD releases isn't going to bother me. If studios started releasing colorized versions only, then I'd have a problem. I currently own three versions of NIGHT so something different would be worth a purchase just for a collector's standpoint.
Tinting and toning are NOTHING like colorization. However, some processes were used which were very similar in technique, but not intent. Back to tinting and toning... Those processes really can only be compared to color balancing rather than colorization.
Paint-on-film was used for a lot of films, but was often an afterthought. However, some films were indeed intended to be painted over like many Georges Melies films. Winsor McCay's "Little Nemo" was released in a hand-painted version which was done by McCay himself.
The Handschiegal stencil process was used on some films, but mostly as intended by the filmmakers. Greed originally had all gold objects tinted gold, Phantom of the Opera featured The Phantom's cape in crimson red. Even The Wizard of Oz featured a special stencil process for the shot of Dorothy opening her house's door to Munchkinland.
Speak for yourself. I think many people here definitely realize that many silent films were tinted.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? The silent films that were tinted were done by the original film makers and were intended to be shown that way theatrically.
I don't see what this has to do with "colorization" that we are talking about.
It is still a similar topic, and I for one am fine with it being brought up. Thanks DeeF for telling me that many silent films were tinted. *I* for one didn't know that! It seems that Rob needs to take a pill, he's getting kinda upset that his opinion is being debated upon.
I am also fine with colourizing, as long as the b&w is still in print. For example, I love ebing able to watch both the black and white and colour versions of A Christmas Carol.
What about watching a color movie on a black & white TV?
Yes. That must be it.