|
|
|
#31
12-24-2008, 09:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
12-25-2008, 12:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
12-25-2008, 03:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Random bits of stuff in the collection: Yamaha YP-D4 turntable with B&O MMC 10E cart Allied 495 receiver 2 Magnavox amps, AMP150 and an AMP178, currently under the knife. Onkyo TX-4500 Onkyo Radian III speakers
|
|
#34
12-29-2008, 04:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#35
12-29-2008, 05:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
| Audiokarma |
|
#36
12-29-2008, 08:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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...
|
|
#37
12-29-2008, 08:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#39
12-29-2008, 10:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#40
12-29-2008, 10:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Pioneer: SX-1250, RT-1020L, PL-530, P-D70, CT-F9191, H-R60, SE-205 & HPM 100s. KLH: Models 16 & 18, Tivoli Model CDP & Model 6 Speakers.
|
| Audiokarma |
|
#41
12-29-2008, 10:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Blind tests reveal audio truths. IF you ride like lightening, you will crash like thunder ~ BIG YOUTH
|
|
#42
12-29-2008, 11:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Be yourself. Everyone else is taken.
|
|
#43
12-29-2008, 12:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#44
12-29-2008, 12:16 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
|
|
#45
12-29-2008, 12:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!
|
| Audiokarma |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
