Garrett Lundy

[smartass] So nobody really wants to hear my holocaust joke ?! [/smartass]

"Did you know that more people are murdered at 92 degrees Fahrenheit than any other temperature? I read an article once. Lower temperatures, people are easy-going, over 92 and it's too hot to move, but just 92, people get irritable."

Ravi K

So are the DD and DTS 5.1 tracks also jokes like the colorization?

DanFe

So which one to get? There are many.

Brian PB

My DVD Collection

Jason_Els

Come on people, this is Reefer Madness! It's beloved by stoners everywhere for its ridiculous take on marijuana culture. Casablanca it ain't.

Part of enjoying a film is the presentation. Early in the days of film it was common for the film to arrive at theaters without a score or a color filter sheet. It was up to the venue owner or the musician(s) playing in the theater to make stuff up as they went along. The projectionist did the same thing with the color filters. There just wasn't any particular method of display. Later on of course, things got tighter and the advent of sound largely did away with all that.

I have nothing against colorizing Reefer Madness in this case because it's done not to fool anyone into thinking the film is newer or will look better; it was done to complement the film. Reefer Madness isn't a mental hygiene film any longer, it's a social oddity laughed at equally by NORML and the Just Say No crowd. I think it's very clear the film, in this release, is meant to be watched while stoned. Mike Nelson is surely not Roger Ebert but he's just as erudite a film critic and any MST3k fan worth his Torgo costume knows Mike isn't exactly anti-NORML. Colorizing the film adds a psychadelic effect which is in tune with how the film is to be presented. That's all there is to it.

For beauty is only a step removed from a burning terror we barely sustain, and we worship it for the graceful sublimity with which it disdains to consume us. - Rainer Maria Rilke

My DVD Collection

Patrick McCart

Color filters?

Now, some films made in the silent era, with a handful onto the 1930's (with one or two in 1940's) had TINTING/TONING, but not color filters on the projector.

Often films would have the color literally dyed into the film base or the emulsion (tint: base, tone: emulsion) Some even had stencil color... although, most before 1930.

Jason_Els

These were colored glass filters that were placed over the lens of the projector. I have seen original prints of Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Phantom of the Opera (not talking about the Technicolor sequence) presented using this technique. Yes the projector had a lens holder that went over the front of the lens and the filters have little handles that slide into the holder. Some films had pages that came with it telling the projectionist when and which filter to use.

For beauty is only a step removed from a burning terror we barely sustain, and we worship it for the graceful sublimity with which it disdains to consume us. - Rainer Maria Rilke

My DVD Collection

Rob Gardiner

With all due respect, Jeff, this is nonsense. Colorization "destroys" nothing. The term "film colorization" is misleading. The film itself is not colorized.

Colorization step 1: Black and white print of original film is RESTORED.

Colorization step 2: Film is transferred to video.

Colorization step 3: Color is applied to the video copy only. The original black & white film is left intact. In fact, due to the restoration performed in step 1, the film is left in better condition than it was before.

I understand that Ted Turner colorized several films in his catalog in order to renew the copyrights on those films. Had he not been able to do so, they would have fallen into public domain. Had this happened, it would not have been worth it for him to buy the film catalog in the first place, as he would not have been able to profit from them. Had that happened, he would not have bought the MGM catalog to begin with, and those films would be crumbling away in a vault somewhere.

Colorization is not the enemy. The practice of colorization actually PROMOTES the proper preservation and restoration of black & white films.

Joe_Pinney

I was never a big fan of colorization; in fact, I pretty much have loathed it, but in comparing screenshots of the colorized version of Reefer Madness with Madacy's terrible B&W transfer, I gotta say that a good job was done on this disc. The colorization actually sorta fits the era too - the days of early Technicolor films and watercolor photographs.

Plus, they get props for having included the B&W original as well. Hard to complain when two markets are being satisfied. Do some of you guys whine every time there's a full-screen transfer alongside the widescreen one, too? I figure as long as a good clean transfer of the film in the original format is made available to us, I'm a happy camper. If they want to release altered versions too, go for it, but just don't shortchange me on the original version (a message a fella named Lucas can't seem to understand, or chooses not to hear).

Joe_Pinney

Garrett Lundy wrote:
I'd be happy to hear yours if you'll hear mine: Two Jews walk into an oven.....:wink: (OK, it's not actually mine, I got it from Howard Stern...)

Patrick McCart

That's just not how it worked. The film itself carried the color via dyes. I think you're confusing the "filters" with the aperture plate that would be put into the projector, meant to frame the image.