I've personally never cared for them.But I watched a colorized version of the original 1951 THE THING and wow was it nicely done...added a new dimension to the movie.

I'm sure that the technology for this process has come a little way since I last watched one. But, I think B&W preserves many things that make great movies great.

Modern movies are sometimes shot in B&W for effect, of which I'm sure there are many opinions as to why.

I don't think any great B&W movies gain anything from being colourized (Colorized for you Yanks). Shooting B&W was very different then shooting colour, and the look they went with just wouldn't work in colour.
i mean, can you imagine The Third Man in colour?

Also, another problem is the fact that they really don't know what colour a lot of things really were. I guess the most famous example is Frank Sinatra being given brown eyes....

The Third Man in color ?!? Oh, Dear God...Say it ain't so...

Or 12 angry men or ace in the hole.

Can't imagine any of my beloved classic film noir movies in colour. :no:

only if done with crayons...

The filmmaker did the film in B&W for a reason - whatever that reason might have been. I think it's just monumental arrogance to mess with someone else's art by assuming the film will be "better" in "color". All the colorized films I ever saw looked like pure D shite. Can you imagine Dr. Strangelove, A Touch of Evil or Casablanca in that crappy chalky so-called "color"? I cringe at the mere thought.

Hate 'em, don't mess with a good thing. Also hate the fully restored color films. Both attempts make the image unreal.

Two thumbs down for the colorized B&W classics.

No Mr Lime would not look right in color.

Great black and white:
Paths of glory.
Spy who came in from the cold.

I was looking for a copy of Hitchcocks "Strangers on a Train" could only find colourised, refused to buy it

Other memorable B&W movies that would gain nothing and lose a lot from
colorization:

To Kill a Mocking Bird
Psycho (the real 1960 thing)
The Elephant Man

Another example of a basically useless technology that is trying to make money
for its inventors...

Urgh. Many years ago, when it was the new thing, I was only able to find a film I wanted to rent in a colourized videotape. Some adjustment to the TV controls and I had it back to black and white.

I distinctly remember an acquaintance making a stupid remark walking out of the theater about how he didn't like Schindler's List because it was filmed in B&W. I never understood that guy.

:screwy:

I agree film noir shouldn't be touched. Also agree it's a completely different art form than shooting in color, I mean just look at the crazy light sources making those super-dramatic angled shadows in a masterpiece like Cat People. You flat-out couldn't colorize that pic without serious compromise of artistic vision.

But I don't see a need to be overly curmudgeonly. I bought a 2 DVD set of It's a Wonderful Life for two reasons (other than that fact my wife and I love it): one, the print you end up seeing around Christmas on TV is almost always an old crappy one, I wanted to see it in better quality that usual; two, disc two contains a colorized version, and I am really curious to see how it turned out.

Just curious, you understand. I don't expect great things. But if I see it and I like it and the artistic vision is not besmirched, it's fine with me.

I distinctly remember an acquaintance making a stupid remark walking out of the theater about how he didn't like Schindler's List because it was filmed in B&W. I never understood that guy.

:screwy:

IIRC, Spielberg used a few color elements very sparingly in his movie,
again confirming that for at least 50 years the choice of B&W has
been an artistic one.

I am generally against it, but its not like it is forced down my throat by decree. Well actually, The Third Man in color would not work. It just would not.

I have a thrift store copy of Miracle on 34th Street (yes the original) and it has been colorized. I actually got a kick out of it as it added a rather surrealistic aura to an old chestnut. The copious amounts of Celebration Ale probably helped a well.

At the end of the day, its trying to make something into something that it is not.

Personally, I never cared for colorized movies.:thumbsdn: I equate colorized movies to "electronic stereo" versions of monophonic sound recordings. The results can be impressive, but rarely realistic.

Coloring a black and white sometimes produces disastrous results; garish unnatural looking pictures. Moreover the use of black and white at times accentuates certain aspect of a picture; e.g drabness of East Berlin in "Spy who came in from the cold".

I remember seeing a cartoon once that showed a fellow standing in front of St Peter at the Pearly Gates. St Peter looks up from the books at the fellow and says "You colorized Casablanca, how unfortunate"...

I've personally never cared for them.But I watched a colorized version of the original 1951 THE THING and wow was it nicely done...added a new dimension to the movie.

My reaction -

:thumbsdn::thumbsdn::thumbsdn:
:thumbsdn::thumbsdn::thumbsdn:
:thumbsdn::thumbsdn::thumbsdn:

Lash the Colorizers (or Ted Turner at least)!

Colorization should be punishable. Both for the stupidity inherent in the idea of doing it, and for the arrogance in taking someone else's long-finished piece of work and thinking they will improve it.

The medium IS the message: you react to B/W differently than you do to color for many reasons.

May Orson Welles come back to haunt them.....:tresbon:

C.

The effects and what the director is shooting for in b&w is totally lost when the print is colorized. When one comes on the tube, I hit the color controls and go to b&w. Sadly a color tele does not do b&w as well as a real b&w set and the colorization destroys a lot of the beauty contained within the original print.

I hate them...

It's a travesty. Just as bad (worse?) is pan and scan/cropping. letterbox rules.

I was looking for a copy of Hitchcocks "Strangers on a Train" could only find colourised, refused to buy it

Use the following to search for DVDs:

www.dvdpricesearch.com

You can get that title, not colorized, for less than $10 delivered (in the U.S.), though if you want the Special Edition, it will be a bit more.

The effects and what the director is shooting for in b&w is totally lost when the print is colorized. When one comes on the tube, I hit the color controls and go to b&w. Sadly a color tele does not do b&w as well as a real b&w set and the colorization destroys a lot of the beauty contained within the original print.

That is because in the colorization process, they play with the contrast. You cannot get back to the original by just turning down the color on your TV. Basically, once a film is colorized, it is ruined. You simply need to get a copy that has not been colorized if you want to view it properly.

The only one I ever saw that I HALFWAY liked was a Laurel & Hardy 2 reeler-The one where they were trying to move the piano up that LOOOOONG flight of stairs-It didn't suck, it actually looked like it was in color, rather than some joker takin' a pastel Magic Marker & going to town w/it.

Well I have mixed views on this, but I must say that after watching the “Wizard of Oz” the other night, a horse of a different color seemed to really work for the scene in the colorized version!

Regards,
TB

Well I have mixed views on this, but I must say that after watching the “Wizard of Oz” the other night, a horse of a different color seemed to really work for the scene in the colorized version!

Regards,
TB

You're pulling our leg right?? :scratch2:

Well I have mixed views on this, but I must say that after watching the “Wizard of Oz” the other night, a horse of a different color seemed to really work for the scene in the colorized version!

Regards,
TB

I could be wrong but I thought that the Wizard Of Oz was shot in color except for the opening and closing scenes in Kansas :scratch2:

The Wizard of Oz was shot in color for all the stuff that took place in Oz. The opening and closing were done in B&W on purpose. If the opening and closing were colorized, it would mess with the movie's tone I think.

I don't care for colorized movies, especially ones that were done in B&W for artistic purposes. "stereoized" mono is also a travesty of similar proportions. I have a Benny Goodman recording with Sing Sing Sing that was processed this way. Luckily I can hit the mono switch and negate about 90% of the horrible echo effect, but its still irritating.

If you've never seen a classic B&W movie that is colorized, don't knock it. Some have been redone very well and it adds a whole new dimension.Casablanca was great! What's wrong with having both versions?

As a general esthetic principle, I oppose to any modifications carried out by third parties on works of art (literature, music, cinema, etc). These are the work of artists expressing themselves freely and there is no need for somebody (usually not an artist) to "help" them with claims about what would have been best for those artists if conditions would have been different.

All the best

Let's convert Shakespeare into modern-day language, too. That will make it more accessible. We also have some new color mixtures available since Picasso and Matisse were around. No problem fixing up those paintings a little, either, right? We're not going to disrupt the integrity of the originals, just add a little more color here and there...

Good grief...this has got to be one of most ridiculous thing to argue over...as far as cinematic arguments go!
First of all, no black and white movie is ONLY available in a colorized version! When Ted Turner's lackeys began this craze they always did extensive restoration work on the original film before colorizing it. This resulted in new fgmp (fine grain master prints) of films that had been long neglected. And, of course, nobody was actually coloring the original negative/positive filmstrip anyway (that hasn't really been done on a large scale since the silent days of Pathe and Gaumont).
Second...I watched Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T at least 6 times before I ever knew they were fimed in color. Why? My family didn't have a color TV till 1971! Amazingly enough, I enjoyed all those films (and more) without knowing what I was missing. Dangit...the Venus De Milo doesn't even have arms but I know it is a beautiful bit of sculpture! This same "enjoy it even though something is missing or added (color)" theme is directly related to aspect ratio: ALL OF US learned to love movies with the help of television...and ALL OF US loved those movies on a 4:3 screen...no matter how they were originally filmed.
Third, and this is a big one to me, is the fact that most director's give little honor to source material. If Peter Jackson can hack up and distort/reinvent Tolkien's source material then he could never, ever complain if his (Jackson's) work was released only as a 4:3 dvd (or only a black and white version). Why? Because in disregarding the original work how could he complain if his version was altered in any way.
I've had too much coffee, folks! Sorry 'bout the rant.

Colorization: :thumbsdn:

Candidate for uncolorization: Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948) This one would be more convincing as a B&W film, IMO.

Wow, Mystic, THAT is a great idea. Great movie choice, too. My choice would be a british 1960's horror movie that I cannot remember the title of (even though I have the laserdisc of it). It about a bunch of stranded mariners on a foggy island. The residents have to walk across the seaweedy bay by means of snowshoes and balloons!!! Anyway, saw it on my old b&w tv and loved it. Later got the laserdisc (with its original color) and was kinda bored with it.

I remember that miniseries, "Ike" starring Robert Duval. Obviously in color as it was well into the color era. But to save some bucks, they used vintage WWII battle footage. And they colorized it! The explosions were purple. Looked more like a battle in that place where HR Puffenstuff lived.

The explosions were purple. :yikes:

In theory, colorizing something isn't awful; in fact, for some films it might be a real improvement. It is in the practice that the process becomes a let-down, like those purple explosions Jack Lord mentions. I have yet to see a REALLY satisfying job of colorization, and have seen some pretty atrocious ones. If faced with a choice of buying an original B/W or a colorized version, I'll take the original, every time.

The old filmmakers understood the nature of the B/W film medium, and arranged things like make up and lighting to suit their medium. Just as a painter learns how to mix oil paints to create specific colors, they learned how to make real-life color images appear as they wanted them to, on B/W film stock. To take that film stock, with the lighting, etc... that it had, specifically done for that medium and NOT for color film, and then add color, is a process that is unlikely to ever give an entirely satisfying result.

I have a television and HT amp combo that has no color function. It WAS a color set, but now everything shown on it appears in black and white. Of course, it "needs repair", but I am such a fan of the old B/W movies that I leave it as-is. It doesn't bother me to see modern, color things in B/W, even though I am sure it is different from the way people would have filmed them, had they been originally shot in B/W. Sometimes I enjoy watching using that system, without any color! To me, it is a bit like the difference between reading a novel and seeing the film adaptation of the same novel: sometimes what your imagination fills in, is more satisfying than what someone else can show you.

Third, and this is a big one to me, is the fact that most director's give little honor to source material. If Peter Jackson can hack up and distort/reinvent Tolkien's source material then he could never, ever complain if his (Jackson's) work was released only as a 4:3 dvd (or only a black and white version). Why? Because in disregarding the original work how could he complain if his version was altered in any way.
I've had too much coffee, folks! Sorry 'bout the rant.

Except Jackson didn't change tolkein's book/s and then resell the books, he made his own movies out of them. That's a completely new product, and is different than someone coming along and changing the ACTUAL TEXT of the tolkein books to make it say something DIFFERENT than what he wrote, and then passing them along as "improved" versions.

Can you imagine if Michael Jackson said, "let's add synthesizers to all these Beatles songs instead of trumpets, cellos and violins, because I think synthesizers sound better, and if the Beatles had access to this technology they would have used it? Since I now own the rights to these songs, I can do whatever I want with them because I think it sounds better (or will make me more money when I resell them)?" It's outrageous. But that's exactly what the movie colorizers are doing. It's no different at all.

Hell, I think it's outrageous that they even "computerized" the original Star Trek series with gaudy CGI. Retouching some skin blotches and flaws in the film and that kind of thing to RESTORE the original is one thing, but adding something completely new and different is way out of line, in my opinion. Not to mention presumptuous. Like I said, if we had taken that approach with Shakespeare's plays or other art work, a lot of it wouldn't even be recognizable today. I think that does a massive disservice to the historical record as well as to the artist.

Good grief...this has got to be one of most ridiculous thing to argue over...as far as cinematic arguments go!
First of all, no black and white movie is ONLY available in a colorized version! When Ted Turner's lackeys began this craze they always did extensive restoration work on the original film before colorizing it. This resulted in new fgmp (fine grain master prints) of films that had been long neglected. And, of course, nobody was actually coloring the original negative/positive filmstrip anyway (that hasn't really been done on a large scale since the silent days of Pathe and Gaumont).


If my memory is right, Turner originally wanted to have only his colorized versions available to the public, because he could copyright his colorization of the films, and then he would control and, more importantly, profit from every copy of the film. But there was a public outcry against it, and he decided that things available in B&W, too, might be in his own best interest.



Second...I watched Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T at least 6 times before I ever knew they were fimed in color. Why? My family didn't have a color TV till 1971! Amazingly enough, I enjoyed all those films (and more) without knowing what I was missing.


There is a huge difference between taking something away from something and adding to that something. In most cases, it would be better to remove color from a color film than to add color to a B&W film.


Dangit...the Venus De Milo doesn't even have arms but I know it is a beautiful bit of sculpture!


Yes, but if the original arms could be found and restored to it, it would be better. We put up with the imperfection because there is no good alternative. With old things, some parts can be lost or damaged, and there is nothing to be done to alter that fact. True, we could add arms to the Venus de Milo, but since we do not know precisely what they should look like, it would ultimately be changing the work of art to something else. (And that, by the way, is exactly what is done when colorization is done to a film; the selection of color is not what the original people selected, it is just something someone else tacks on later. Additionally, some films are intentionally in B&W; e.g., Manhattan.)

In the case of the Venus de Milo, if there were photographs of the original, but the arms were destroyed, it would be possible to recreate them with some degree of authenticity. But as things are, no one knows what they should look like, so it ought not be done.


This same "enjoy it even though something is missing or added (color)" theme is directly related to aspect ratio: ALL OF US learned to love movies with the help of television...and ALL OF US loved those movies on a 4:3 screen...no matter how they were originally filmed.


This only shows that it is possible to enjoy something in a less than ideal state. This reminds me of a story about Kubrick, who, when he saw what network TV did to his 2001, was horrified, and decided to film his later films in 4:3 but keep the action and everything he wanted in a narrow band in the middle of the film. That way, for theatrical release, he cropped the top and bottom to get the image as he wanted it, but when the film was shown on TV, people saw material above and below what he wanted. That was, in his opinion, preferable to the severe cropping that people did to show 2001 on TV. That way, everyone saw all of what he had wanted people to see, though on TV, people saw more than was necessary.



Third, and this is a big one to me, is the fact that most director's give little honor to source material. If Peter Jackson can hack up and distort/reinvent Tolkien's source material then he could never, ever complain if his (Jackson's) work was released only as a 4:3 dvd (or only a black and white version). Why? Because in disregarding the original work how could he complain if his version was altered in any way.
I've had too much coffee, folks! Sorry 'bout the rant.


A film is different from a book, and there is no getting around that fact. If you want to keep exactly true to a book, you should simply read a book. A film may be inspired by and based upon a book, but a film is not a book. That does not mean that one should butcher a film to see it, any more than one should butcher a book to read it. You may as well tell us that no reader should complain if publishers started altering all books on purpose (as opposed to printing errors that often are introduced), omitting chapters that they regard as unnecessary, and be fine with condensed versions of your favorite novels. The integrity of a book should be honored, and likewise, the integrity of a film should be honored.

I agree with alot of your statements, Pyrrho, but I really feel that if any director re-imagines a book (which vastly differs from the movies that leave out part of the source...lets face it, it is difficult to be faithful to any book in 90 minutes of screen time) to suit his fancy (or commercial viability), then that director cannot complain if his financing company decides to alter the film in any way. I'm guessing that my major beef here is that one of my fave literary series (Hobbit/Lord of the Rings) was re-imagined into stupidity. If Miramax wanted to release a 30 minute non-violent version for kids, I cannot see how the Jackson camp could complain. Wow, I'm really getting off the subject here!

...
Hell, I think it's outrageous that they even "computerized" the original Star Trek series with gaudy CGI. Retouching some skin blotches and flaws in the film and that kind of thing to RESTORE the original is one thing, but adding something completely new and different is way out of line, in my opinion. Not to mention presumptuous. Like I said, if we had taken that approach with Shakespeare's plays or other art work, a lot of it wouldn't even be recognizable today. I think that does a massive disservice to the historical record as well as to the artist.

In the case of Star Trek, you can buy it either with or without the new CGI. I saw some of the episodes in HD on TV, and decided I did not like the new effects, so I bought the DVDs that have the original effects. I can tell you, however, why they did the CGI and that is because the original effects do not have the same picture clarity as the normal picture. You see, the original was filmed, so it can be made into true HD, but when the effects were originally made, they planned on just showing it on TV, not at a cinema, so the clarity and so forth of the effects were done to be good enough for analog NTSC TV only.

Now, I do agree that they should have tried to make the new effects more like the original, but, still, in this case, you can buy the original if you want the original. (Actually, you get the original picture, but you don't get the original sound, which annoys me. It is fine that they remastered the sound in surround sound, but I wish they also included the original mono track. Since DVDs allow for multiple soundtracks, there is no good reason for them to have left it off.)

I agree with alot of your statements, Pyrrho, but I really feel that if any director re-imagines a book (which vastly differs from the movies that leave out part of the source...lets face it, it is difficult to be faithful to any book in 90 minutes of screen time) to suit his fancy (or commercial viability), then that director cannot complain if his financing company decides to alter the film in any way. I'm guessing that my major beef here is that one of my fave literary series (Hobbit/Lord of the Rings) was re-imagined into stupidity. If Miramax wanted to release a 30 minute non-violent version for kids, I cannot see how the Jackson camp could complain. Wow, I'm really getting off the subject here!


Do you think that it is okay to print copies of the book in altered form without the author's consent? If not, why feel differently about films?

As for the director versus the production company, that will get us into a very sticky kind of problem. Is it "art" or a business commodity? What kind of contract was signed? This will get us too far away from the subject of this thread, so I will not presently pursue this aspect.

By the way, I am not as unsympathetic to your thoughts about making movies from books as may appear from what I have said so far. I am a big Jane Austen fan, and no one has ever done any of her books properly on film. In Pride and Prejudice, usually they make Jane less intelligent than she is in the book. The best version I have seen of it is in:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000244FFU/ref=nosim/dvdpricesearch

But they do some changes that I don't like (like making Jane less intelligent).

No, I don't think its okay to alter without author's consent...still, if the publishing company wants to do it, and they own the rights, there is little for me to do but complain/pontificate (just like we are doing here).
I am WAY IN AGREEMENT with you over the Jane Austin problem. The BBC does (again, I agree) it best...but it is just not good enough. I'm not crazy about ANY of the Austin films...but I'll keep seeing 'em when they appear.

I'm ok with colorized movies. For those that don't care for them, they can remove the color with the tv controls. Everybody's happy........................

I'm ok with colorized movies. For those that don't care for them, they can remove the color with the tv controls. Everybody's happy........................

:p:

Or better yet gat a b&w set. FWIW, sometimes I'll even view color broadcasts with the controls on B&W and like them better. Never got used to color cowboy (person?) movies. Also, prefer M.A.S.H. and some others in B&W.

I'm ok with colorized movies. For those that don't care for them, they can remove the color with the tv controls. Everybody's happy........................

No, not everyone will be happy that way. When they add color, they also play with things like contrast and brightness, which is necessary for making the color look halfway decent. How much those things are adjusted varies from scene to scene. So turning down the color does not restore the film to the original look. In fact, once it is colorized, there is no possible way to adjust one's set to get it back to the original look.