Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


And you thought (hoped) colorization was dead....

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 of 121 OFFLINE   James Reader

James Reader


  • 1,465 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted December 19 2003 - 08:11 AM

But how often does that happen?
"Would you recommend this movie to a friend?"
"Only if I was friendly with Hitler."

#22 of 121 OFFLINE   Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 10,302 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted December 19 2003 - 08:25 AM

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.)

#23 of 121 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M


  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted December 19 2003 - 08:29 AM

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.
-Kevin M.

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert

#24 of 121 OFFLINE   MarkHarrison


    Supporting Actor

  • 597 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2002

Posted December 19 2003 - 09:31 AM

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.

#25 of 121 OFFLINE   PaulBigelow


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 139 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2002

Posted December 19 2003 - 09:51 AM

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.
Best regards,

Paul Bigelow

#26 of 121 OFFLINE   Stephen Ford

Stephen Ford

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 150 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2002

Posted December 19 2003 - 12:48 PM

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.

#27 of 121 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H


    Executive Producer

  • 15,079 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted December 19 2003 - 01:34 PM

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.

#28 of 121 OFFLINE   MichaelBryant


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 76 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2003

Posted December 19 2003 - 01:52 PM

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.

#29 of 121 OFFLINE   Rob Tomlin

Rob Tomlin


  • 4,507 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2000

Posted December 19 2003 - 02:21 PM

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! Posted Image

For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.

#30 of 121 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer

  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted December 19 2003 - 02:32 PM

Which means it's absolutely horrendous and unacceptable. Posted Image
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...

#31 of 121 OFFLINE   Estevan Lapena

Estevan Lapena

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 211 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2003

Posted December 19 2003 - 08:20 PM

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.

#32 of 121 OFFLINE   DeeF



  • 1,679 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2002

Posted December 20 2003 - 04:05 AM

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.

#33 of 121 OFFLINE   Charlie O.

Charlie O.

    Supporting Actor

  • 509 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2003

Posted December 20 2003 - 04:23 AM

If a movie has only a 5.1 remix, can't I just set my audio receiver to mono and get the same results?

#34 of 121 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M


  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted December 20 2003 - 07:41 AM

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?
-Kevin M.

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert

#35 of 121 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor

  • 7,241 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted December 20 2003 - 08:05 AM

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.

#36 of 121 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,483 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted December 20 2003 - 08:52 AM

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.

#37 of 121 OFFLINE   Rob Tomlin

Rob Tomlin


  • 4,507 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2000

Posted December 20 2003 - 12:32 PM

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.

For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.

#38 of 121 OFFLINE   Andrew Budgell

Andrew Budgell


  • 1,289 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2002
  • Real Name:Andy Budgell
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted December 20 2003 - 02:02 PM

Rob, 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. Andy

#39 of 121 OFFLINE   RickGr


    Second Unit

  • 342 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2002

Posted December 20 2003 - 02:25 PM

What about watching a color movie on a black & white TV?

#40 of 121 OFFLINE   Rob Tomlin

Rob Tomlin


  • 4,507 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2000

Posted December 20 2003 - 02:34 PM

Yes. That must be it.

Posted Image

For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users