Colourised Films

[Butterslybutts]

I understand that the colourised prints were done in the eighties and haven't been subject to the remastering effort that has graced the black and whites. Perhaps they could colourise them again?

[batman]

Originally Posted by Butterslybutts Perhaps they could colourise them again?

Why? A B/W film should remain a B/W film.

[Windthrop]

This thing called 'Colorization'
Was supposed to create a sensation.
But its' lollipop hues
Created few queues.

Remastering is the way ahead

[Pricey]

My understanding is that Son Of Frankenstein (1939) was the movie that was originally planned for colour but that the monster's makeup didn't come across well in test footage. Apparently the sets and costumes were super colourful 'cos they were all designed and built before the decision to revert to B&W. There is no way that the original Frankenstein (1931) would ever have been in colour.
I have the Laurel and Hardy boxset but never view the colourised versions - it's just wrong. Also I have the Alistair Sim Christmas Carol which has some truly awful colourised scenes but bizarrely whoever makes these decisions decided not to colourise the Ghost of Christmas Present section, with the roaring fire and the spread of Christmas goodies and holly etc - basically the one scene that would have arguably been better for being colourised!!

[winsfordtown]

Originally Posted by Azanti Though I do profess a certain fondness for black and white pictures, one film I did equally enjoy in colour (I am not saying it was better for it, but it seemed to work well) was The Longest Day.

I tend to agree as a rule black and white should be left untouch but even I broke my own rule to buy this. I didn't think it was a disaster either

[GRAEME]

Originally Posted by Azanti Though I do profess a certain fondness for black and white pictures, one film I did equally enjoy in colour (I am not saying it was better for it, but it seemed to work well) was The Longest Day.

No no no no no! It is awful!

Burton's RAF uniformis practically sky blue!

The reasopn they made it in B/W was to blend in all that authentic news reel footage. The colourisation ballses up the whole thing.

I understand we're all entitled to an opinion but in this case you're just plain wrong!

[Windthrop]

Originally Posted by Pricey My understanding is that Son Of Frankenstein (1939) was the movie that was originally planned for colour but that the monster's makeup didn't come across well in test footage. Apparently the sets and costumes were super colourful 'cos they were all designed and built before the decision to revert to B&W. There is no way that the original Frankenstein (1931) would ever have been in colour. I have the Laurel and Hardy boxset but never view the colourised versions - it's just wrong. Also I have the Alistair Sim Christmas Carol which has some truly awful colourised scenes but bizarrely whoever makes these decisions decided not to colourise the Ghost of Christmas Present section, with the roaring fire and the spread of Christmas goodies and holly etc - basically the one scene that would have arguably been better for being colourised!!

You can see what Karloff's makeup looks like in SOF on You Tube in a documentary about using some 16mm colour home movie film

[essaljay]

Originally Posted by winsfordtown I tend to agree as a rule black and white should be left untouch but even I broke my own rule to buy this. I didn't think it was a disaster either

I didn't have to buy a copy of this. It came free with a newspaper. I couldn't see the point of colouring a film so that a thousand troops could have exactly the same colour uniform regardless of condition and for everybody's skin-colour to be identical. It made the whole thing look surreal.

[angelfish]

colourisation of old black and white movies
should be made a criminal offence and those
idiots that want to do remakes of casablanca
and gone with the wind etc. hang em i say
eddie

[Dandy Forsdyke]

Wherewould one purchase a colourised film? It's not for me you understand, just a friend....

[Butterslybutts]

Originally Posted by booby trap You are right, the colourised Laurel and Hardy Prints are very soft in focus, and the frameing is not the same, you can see this more on the titles which are just a still frame from the original titles. I never watch the colourised version, it's not natural colour and like i've said top, bottom and sides are clipped. Always the nice sharpe B&W version for me.

I have the BIG boxed set of laurel & Hardy's which was going for only £50 in HMV a while back. If I recall correctly, the colourisation was done before the latest work on remastering (possibly 10-15 years before) so haven't benefited from the later work. Personnally, I'll stick the colour versions on if young kids are visiting & watch the B&W remasters myself.

[Butterslybutts]

I'm sure that there are many of today's modern colour films that could benefit from a few pre-screenings with the colour 'turned off' to see how well they stand up without the 'enhancement' of colour. I wonder if any Directors/Producers or Editors do this? Just a thought...

[didi-5]

If something was made in black and white, then it should stay black and white, as it was intentionally photographed that way. If something was made in colour, especially before the process was widespread for everything, then it should stay that way. Simple.

If I accidentally see a colourised film, I'll fiddle with the TV controls until it is back to black and white ...