Forum Archive Home -> Polls -> Colorizing old movies:
Colorizing old movies: | ||||
| offline posted 2006 Feb 21 00:59 | ||||
| A poll idea from ZippyP.
I think B&W conveys more emotion. When they are stupid enough to colorize the classics I just turn the color off - no harm, no foul. | ||||
| redwudz posted 2006 Feb 21 01:26 | ||||
| I don't seem to hear as much about colorizing lately. Maybe it's fallen out of favor. It reminds me of cartoon color most of the time. I can't see that's it's any improvement. | ||||
| offline posted 2006 Feb 21 06:10 | ||||
| :lol: so much for the poll choice. | ||||
| cyflyer posted 2006 Feb 21 06:38 | ||||
| i think colorisation adds an interesting dimesion to old movies. It seems pretty well done. Would like to see more. Anyone have a list of old movies that have been colorised. | ||||
| TBoneit posted 2006 Feb 21 12:37 | ||||
| I Recently saw a release of A Christmas Carol with Alastair Sims that had both the Old B & W and a Colorized version on the same DVD.
If anyone is interested Just do a search on Amazon.com it is the 1951 version. Doing both on one disk makes it a no brainer to buy, family member that want color can waych in color and thos that want the original B & W can watch that version. If they did that with all the releases, I include places like TCM, then great. My Brothers wife hated colorizing. Myself it didn't bother me. I believe that in many films it was only B & W because of budget limitations rather than artistic reasons, Excluding The Wizard of Oz. | ||||
| doppletwo posted 2006 Feb 21 14:23 | ||||
| I wanna see _Clerks_ colorized.
Well not really, but I wouldn't mind it though. | ||||
| MOVIEGEEK posted 2006 Feb 21 16:59 | ||||
| I hate colorization but I don't mind if they restore the film.
BTW...Ted Turner(TBS,TCM,etc) is a moron. | ||||
| MaDmiZe posted 2006 Feb 21 20:36 | ||||
| I play all my DVDs thru an old 19 inch B&W tv. It makes eveything look like a classic : ) | ||||
| ZippyP. posted 2006 Feb 21 22:41 | ||||
Why didn't I think of that? Duh! :smash: | ||||
| Barnabas posted 2006 Feb 22 00:12 | ||||
| I LOVE the colorized movies when done well. The 1st two seasons of Bewitched look fantastic in color, and look just as good as the color episodes do. Early attempts to colorized films, such as Topper were dreadful, but the technology has really improved.
I can't understand why the big fuss over it, as cranking the color control to the left kills the color for those who don't want it. Companies such as Legend films are offering all their colorized movies on a DVD with BOTH color and B/W versions. Both have been restored, so look great | ||||
| mattso posted 2006 Feb 22 00:36 | ||||
| "Hate it. They're butchering the classics."
I love the look & feel of the old b/w classics. From the early horrors to the brilliant '50s Pommy crime/dramas... You can't beat it. Black & white was a beautiful medium - there was loads more attention paid to lighting, shadow & texture etc. Colourizing is unnecessary & a complete waste of time, IMO. Just more retarded antics from the creatively-bankrupt major studios... | ||||
| ntscuser posted 2006 Feb 22 03:04 | ||||
| I'd like to correct a common misconception. Old classics were seldom intended to be viewed in stark B&W. The stars often wore colorful costumes and performed on colorful sets. The prints sent to big theaters in major cities were often tinted by hand with the colors of the original. The less exotic venues received sepia prints which had been chemically treated to make them easier on the eye. It was only audiences in the remote provincial theaters who had to tolerate "soot & whitewash" prints as they were commonly known.
Busby Berkeley is known to have experimented with color - not always successfully - and color stills from his B&W musicals are known to exist. He for one would probably be delighted with any attempt at colorization even if was not 100% convincing. Likewise there is no such thing as a"silent movie". They were all accompanied by sound of some sort even if it was just an elderly spinster on a piano making it up as she went along. BTW, CinemaScopre movies were seldom shown in widescreen but that's a whole different can of worms for the purists to lose sleep over. | ||||
| offline posted 2006 Feb 22 05:08 | ||||
Many silent films were never accompanied. Starting from the 25 minute Cinématographe presentations in 1895 by the Lumière brothers, through to modern silent films by Andy Warhol and others. Even in present day India, numerous films are shown without so much as a mouse fart, and are designed that way because of language and cultural variations between villages. You are confusing US "HonkyTonk" cinema with the silent era. | ||||
| mattso posted 2006 Feb 22 05:54 | ||||
But they were filmed with black & white in mind, not colour. Thus the "starkness" of lighting & shadow... There's deliberate technique there. The "limitation" is exploited to tremendous potential. Sure, they wore colourful costumes. I'm sure they weren't black & white costumes, amidst black & white sets. So what? That's like saying, movies today are only in "colour", they don't portray the infra-red or ultra-violet... :P | ||||
| Mawdryn posted 2006 Feb 22 10:38 | ||||
| Wasn't colorization just a fad of the late 80's - early 90's? Are they actually still colorizing movies? I don't think I've seen one done since the mid 90's. I would imagine the technology now would be much better than it was back then. I've seen several out of curiousity. A couple didn't look too bad, but most were pretty poor. I usually ended up turning the color off. Either way, I don't think they should mess around with the classics. Movies, that is. Colorizing old black and white TV shows wouldn't bother me at all. I've never seen that done except for one short Honeymooners sketch colorized in 1987 (the first colorized thing I ever saw). I'd love to see Mr. Ed in living color.
I thought colorization was just an interesting "Look what we can do now!" type of thing, and that it had long since died out. | ||||
| rijir2001 posted 2006 Feb 22 10:47 | ||||
Does the noise from the projector count? | ||||
| mikel posted 2006 Feb 22 11:18 | ||||
I've been a projectionist at a college for about 35 years. I have shown 16mm "hand tinted" versions of "The Great Train Robbery" (1904) and "Trip to the Moon" (1902) . Colorizing goes WAY WAY back. I believe it it best to see films the way they were originally intended. To do anything else, (colorizing, pan & scan etc.) destroys the original intent and concept. mikel | ||||
| Cornucopia posted 2006 Feb 22 12:30 | ||||
| ntscuser and offline, you're both part right and part wrong...
The majority of movies from the silent era were shot and mastered without a soundtrack, yet the producer's distributed sheet music intended to be played by pianists and organists at the movie theatres (since many of them were re-converted stage theatres that already had pianos/organs). Not ALL, not NONE. The "honky-tonk" soundtrack is a stereotype BECAUSE that's the way some theatre pianists (with bad pianos) decided to interpret the music (particularly in undercranked/sped-up motion scenes) and it stuck in peoples' minds. If you've ever scene a copy of the restored hand-tinted version (with blood red!) of the silent Phantom of the Opera, accompanied by a great pipe organ and organist, you're in for a hair-raising experience! re:Colorization The quality has increased dramatically in the last 2 decades. Of particular interest is a paper from a couple of years ago by a research team that has devised a way for the computer to "fill-in-the-blanks" and assist with rapid finishing of colorizing scenes. Is it worth it? In moderation, when done on projects where the original producer/director did not specifically INTEND to emphasize the Black and White medium, and when done with painstaking skill and attention to detail. And, as long as the original BW material is restored and still available for distribution and viewing, I think it could be a good thing. It's just that there have been some notoriously BAD examples (more when it wasn't quite "ready for prime time") that have soured peoples appreciation of it. But it can be done well--I saw "Adam's Rib" a few years ago. It would be, say, a 5 on a 0-10 touchup quality scale, where newer processes might get a 7 or maybe even 8. I was ~1/3 of the way through the movie before my doubts as to the originality of the color were confirmable. Scott | ||||
| doppletwo posted 2006 Feb 22 14:05 | ||||
| The GameBoy Advance colorizes old B&W GameBoy games.
Also the SuperGameBoy did this on the SNES too. Some movies were made in B&W because of budget constraints (i. e. _Clerks_) Some movies were made in B&W for artistic reasons (i. e. Hitchcock's _Psycho_) I thought that _The Wizard of Oz_ fell into the second category, but someone else has made a claim in this thread that the opposite is true. | ||||
| ember posted 2006 Feb 22 14:51 | ||||
| The Wizard of Oz was deliberately made in B&W for the first part based in Kansas and then shot on colour film for the part in Oz.
The whole B&W to colour to B&W was intended. :) | ||||
| Cornucopia posted 2006 Feb 22 16:43 | ||||
| :lol: Wizard of OZ! :lol:
Now there is a movie you DON'T want to colorize under any circumstances. Another one is the Italian film, "We All Loved Each Other So Much". Great transition scene!! For those who want to know what GOOD colorization can do these days, it might interest you that the movie "Pleasantville" was shot in color, stripped of all it's color, and then re-colorized/tinted for the shots when the color elements get "introduced" into the scene (intended/done by the producer of course). If I were teaching on the contrast between the Black-and-White vs. Color gestalts, I'd show these 3 together. All great films. Scott | ||||
| tgpo posted 2006 Feb 22 21:28 | ||||
| To me, if a movie is so old that is is in B/W, then I probably don't want to watch it....but if I must I say just leave it B/W | ||||
| ZippyP. posted 2006 Feb 22 21:50 | ||||
I'm shocked that you would choose to deprive yourself of a vast array of very fine films, admittedly older films, that just happen to be in B&W. :shock: If I remember correctly you are a Stanley Kubrick fan, yes? Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove, two very good B&W films by him. Side Note: My personal favourite movie of all time is B&W...the Maltese Falcon. | ||||
| Cornucopia posted 2006 Feb 22 23:24 | ||||
tgpo, I'm shocked! :? google "black and white movies" and your 1st hit is an Amazon list of 25 great B/W films. I've seen them all. They're all great. What about the Marx Bros?? (note my avatar) Other more recent B/W films not on that list... Day the Earth Stood Still Beatles: Hard Day's Night Night of the Living Dead Manhatten Shadows and Fog Clerks Ed Wood Good Night and Good Luck (mostly B/W) Rumblefish (mostly B/W) SinCity (mostly B/W) Nosferatu (1979) Similar things could be said of silent movies. There's still good, engaging storytelling in them. Scott | ||||
| cyflyer posted 2006 Feb 22 23:38 | ||||
| I have "its a wonderful life" - James Stewart , colorised version on videotape and I think its pretty good. The dvd release was only the b/w version. Pity they didn't include both versions. | ||||
| mikel posted 2006 Feb 23 08:47 | ||||
| Add the original KING KONG & CASABLANCA to the great B&W list.
or even Capt Blood or Citizen Kane. There was a lot more attention to textures and shadows in hem days. A note: The first reel (and the end) of Wizard of Oz was NOT filmed in B&W. It was filmed in Technicolor but in a sepia tone. | ||||
| TBoneit posted 2006 Feb 23 09:49 | ||||
This is the text I believe you are referring to? " believe that in many films it was only B & W because of budget limitations rather than artistic reasons, Excluding The Wizard of Oz." The phrase "excluding the Wizard of Oz" was intended to convey that it was done for artistic reasons rather than Budget constraints. TBoneit | ||||
| TBoneit posted 2006 Feb 23 09:52 | ||||
I wonder why they would shoot in color only to strip the color and the colorize certain scenes. My understanding is that B&W film has better definition and lower grain. | ||||
| Cornucopia posted 2006 Feb 23 10:05 | ||||
| Here's the story on Pleasantville. Originally, they shot in color with the intention of selectively "subtracting" the chroma from the scenes where B/W was needed. Then in post, they realized that they could have more control, and get more striking color contrasts, if they lost all the color and tinted what they wanted for color. There's a great article about it that appeared in one of the industry mags a couple of years back when it came out (millimeter, videographer, post, etc).
You're right about B/W film latitude & grain, though. Scott | ||||
| TBoneit posted 2006 Feb 23 11:21 | ||||
| Thanks for the Information.
Roger T | ||||
| ozymango posted 2006 Feb 23 12:09 | ||||
Yes, very cool! :) As luck would have it, I recently watched the original "Mighty Joe Young" (1949) on DVD and it's a B/W film, but near the end there's a scene that takes place at a building on fire -- and the entire sequence is tinted red. That was done orginally, and it's a neat touch. Also I believe in the original "The Portrait of Dorian Gray," the very last scene is in color? So I like when films are restored to their original conditions; I'm not crazy about colorizing but if it's between having a film restored/colorized and me turning down the chroma, or not having a print released of the film at all ... I'll take the lesser of two evils. :) But Scott touched on some of the qualities of B/W film stock versus color film or colorization -- the contrast levels in B/W film (lighting, shadow, etc.) are different from color, and so you can definitely "soften" a B/W print when you colorize it. So even if you turn down the color on your TV, the contrast can me somewhat "muted." You can lose a bit of crispness there. At the same time, there are some color movies that I think look better in B/W! The original "Rocky," fr'instance -- both the lighting and the "mood" of the first film work very well in B/W. I first saw this movie when it came out in 1976, and thought it was pretty good, but saw it again on an old B/W set and it was even better! Looks much better in black and white. | ||||
| AlecWest posted 2006 Feb 25 00:44 | ||||
| For me, it would all depend on the movie. I've seen colorized versions of films that, to me, looked better than the BW version (Scrooge, 1951). For others, it was obvious that the techniques used by a cameraman were "meant" for BW ... and colorizing it was a net-loss in quality. I think I'd hate to see a colorized version of "Citizen Kane." | ||||
| ember posted 2006 Feb 25 11:29 | ||||
From here: http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/faq12.html#19
| ||||
| Nitemare posted 2006 Feb 25 23:36 | ||||
| I am from the camp that believes that MOST of the old movies were done in B&W because that's all that was available at the time, or that it was more cost efficient to shoot it black and white.
While I can appreciate the older movies AND I appreciate the black and white, I believe that if many of those old directors were alive today they'd be thrilled to see a colorized version of their film. They are now colorizing the Three Stooges, and I couldn't be happier with how they turned out. My kids would never have sat still for "old black and white comedy" but they like the color Stooges very much. Although even color didn't make them appreciate the original King Kong. Go figure. In most cases, I'd rather see a colorized original than a modern remake. (Jackson's King Kong being an exception, mind you) I love the original but that remake kicks butt. | ||||
| cyflyer posted 2006 Feb 26 02:42 | ||||
I couldn't agree with you more. Let them colorise the old classics and offer them as a bonus on new dvd releases. | ||||
| ember posted 2006 Feb 26 15:40 | ||||
| I'd agree that the original teams involved with making B&W would love to see their work in colour but you need to also remember that filming in B&W requires painting certain props/clothes in a way that looksgood in B&W. It can also affect the type of shots you make. Film noir is atmospheric for those reasons. Had colour been available to the original production teams the entire look may have been different. (And if you were to bring back to life many of the older directors I'm sure they'd want to use the modern techniques to make those films! Rather than just colouring in what we have on celluloid.)
Apart from that - I can't see what's wrong with colourising old movies. Nobody forces you to watch them. | ||||
| wulf109 posted 2006 Feb 26 17:11 | ||||
| Hollywood shot in B&W because that was state of the art then. If B&W is so wonderful why did Hollyood switch to color when color film became practical.
B&W existed because that's all they had. It's just snob appeal to praise old B&W films. They would have been shot in color if they had color film. | ||||
| cyflyer posted 2007 May 13 05:03 | ||||
| Anyone got any updated info if more b/w movies are being colorized ? Is the trend still continuing ? Just ordered a copy of Purple Heart (dvd), new release, from Amazon., the specs saying 'color' when I know its a b/w movie. Can't get a answer though if its a misprint or a colorized version. I'm all for colorized old movies. Guess I'll have to wait and see, unless anyone knows something ? | ||||
| chazzman posted 2009 Jun 30 20:23 | ||||
| there really are many new movies being colorized by Legend Films...
Most Sci Fi film buffs my age (53) are familiar with Ray Harryhausen. He provided direct input to the colorization process for three of his black and white flicks, "Twenty Million Miles to Earth", "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers", and "It Came from Beneath the Sea. " Four Sherlock Holmes films with Basil Rathbone also have been colorized and restored. "Night of the Living Dead", Abbot and Costello movies and shows, Shirley Temple movies, stooges, etc. This list keeps growing. |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.