Does anyone know if there are plans to issue more (hopefully a complete set) of the colorized Rathbones? The two later ones (Prelude to Murder & Woman in Green) are particularly well done, and really bring these titles to life. Why did they go no further in 2005?
shareDidn't know any had been coloured. mine are all black and white.
shareEEEEEEK!!!
I cannot understand why ANYONE would want to watch a classic black and white movie such as the Rathbone Holmes series in those dreadful (and no matter what anyone says, they ARE dreadful) colourised versions!!
Part of the beauty and appeal of all these films is in the wonderfully atmospheric monochromatic photography.
Leave and watch things as they were meant to be seen, please....
100 % agree - the very fact that the films are in black and white gives them that wonderful sense of history, looking at a bygone period that entralls the viewer. The same can be said when Laurel & Hardy films were given colour a few years ago - looked awful.
What he said! Just say no to colorization!
shareThe thought that colorization might attract a younger crowd to the classic series who otherwise think that B&W means boring is a valid one. The B&W version will always be available, but the copyright owners could squeeze extra mileage (and dollars) from the next generation who grew up on color and HD. I, too prefer B&W, but that's because I'm of the generation that consider this series nostalgic and appealing. Perhaps after four were colorized, this gamble didn't pay off, so extra expense in colorization was put on the back burner. Or, the rights to the other videos are owned by another, less willing to disturb the way things are.
shareThis make me laugh. The people in charge started to colorize old movies back in the 80's when that b-movie actor Reagan became president. I always thought that they colorized the movies in order to make Raygun appear less old. "Color added by computer" was the saying in those days of Jim & Tammy and Ron & Nancy!!
shareI agree about the colorizing, especially with the Sherlock Holmes series. However, after watching again and again, all the movies with Rathbone/Bruce, seeing them this way (for me at least), adds a small bit of freshness to my viewing. I would very much like to see a few of the Falcon, Saint and Michael Shayne films colorized.
shareOnly these four are colorized because they are in the public domain. The other titles are owned by CBS, I believe, who obviously have no intention of colorization
shareThe thought that colorization might attract a younger crowd to the classic series who otherwise think that B&W means boring is a valid one.I get the impression that those most deeply prejudiced against black-and-white are those who remember having black-and-white TV sets—particularly those who had to wait a long time before they could afford a color set. I hear from a lot of people of that generation that once they got color, they never wanted to go back. I'm not sure colorization is really needed to attract a younger crowd—or that it even helps. The original photography might be more of a selling point.
Not sure how you got that impression. I grew up on b&w TV and I hate colorization. I don't think it has much to do w/what one grew up with; I think it's just a difference in sensibility: either one appreciates b&w or one doesn't.
shareI totally agree with you. Good cololization adds a LOT to the original films. Those retros that don't like it can turn the color down on their TVs and shut up.
shareColorization is disfiguring a film maker's work. It's adding colors haphazardly, to an existing work of art. In my opinion, people who simply can't watch b&w are culturally retarded.
shareI watched the first 10 minutes of this film in its colorized version, and it looked lousy. The color choices were bizarre and garish.
Some colorized films look better than others, but even so, I don't see how colorization really draws a larger younger viewership to old films. Some people just really think everything looks better in color than in black & white, and consequently like colorization.
But in most cases, if a viewer can't handle black & white, they usually can't handle the cinematography, acting, and style of older films either.
http://ocdviewer.wordpress.com
In an update to my previous comment....
The colourisation (UK spelling!) process affects the tonal values of a b/w film when applied. So to Lorenb-2, turning the colour down does not give us "retros" the original look of the film, it completely distorts the balance in the monochromatic tones. So we won't just shut up.
The best colourisation I have seen so far was when I recently purchased the Ray Harryhausen set with It Came from Beneath the Sea/Earth vs Flying Saucers/20 Million Miles to Earth. Although I stand by my comment of "leave 'em alone!" I have to admit there have been obvious advances in colourisation techniques.
One good use of this process is to colourise existing b/w copies of "lost" TV shows. Examples are the early Jon Pertwee Doctor Who stories which have been done. This has been achieved with good results to allow for viewing as close as possible to the originals.
5 films it should be a crime to colourise:
Psycho
The 39 steps
Great Expectations
Oliver Twist
A Canterbury Tale
Anyone got any others...?
Any silents films that weren't colorized originally. There were some attempts at adding color to some silent movies before WWI. What you will usually see is the clothing and some of the background in color (dyes applied either by hand on each print or using a stencil process - they might have been another process, but I can't remember), but the faces, hands, and usually the hair is still in black and white.
No film noire films should be colorized.
On the Waterfront
Some Like it Hot
Abbott & Costello films
The 3 Stooges
Sunset Boulevard
Most b&w films shouldn't be colorized, although it might be a novel experience to see some movie colorized.
Yes, Psycho should not be colorized. Hitchcock chose to film in B&W for a reason - it probably wouldn't be the classic it is had it been filmed in color.
"Hitchcock chose to film in B&W for a reason..." Yes - it was cheaper.
"...it probably wouldn't be the classic it is had it been filmed in color." Oh, come now - you can't seriously think that.
I just took a peek at this film in the colorised version; it doesn't look terrible (or at least not as bad as I remember them looking back in the 80s). Of course I prefer to and did watch it in B&W.
I did notice that the picture is slightly larger on my screen than the B&W version, which results in edge pixellation (not sure if that's the right term, but you probably know what I mean) of people and objects that are more prominent in the picture. This was actually more distracting than the color, to me.
Never forget the first time I saw a 'colorized' film... the mouth, teeth etc... are still B/W. I never got over it and the final straw came when some genius colorized 'Private York'. I honestly think they destroyed all copies and declared Ted Turner* Legally Insane and took CNN from him.
* Ted Turner was a leader in the colorization movement.