MovieChat Forums > Missile to the Moon (1960) Discussion > Somebody colorized this? Stick with glo...

Somebody colorized this? Stick with glorious b+w!


Forget that colorization crap. MISSILE TO THE MOON is perfect as it is, and as it has been for the past 50 years. (50!) Apart from the dishonesty, crumminess and phoniness of colorization, no one can claim with a straight face that "this is the way the filmmakers intended it to be seen"! That's always the lie put out by the fast-buck colorizers, but in this case, it's so ludicrous as to be more laughable than the film itself. MISSILE TO THE MOON is exactly as its creators intended: cheap, stupid, illogical, absurd, fake, ridiculous, and the best remake of CAT-WOMEN OF THE MOON ever made! It's terrific, as was, as is.

Keep your crayons off my Rock Men!

And stick with the pristine, black & white Image DVD, period.

reply

Excellent rant. "...As was, as is..."

reply

You made it over here, escalera! Great!

Now we need more threads on this site. I really am shocked there was only one before this. What, is this some sort of parallel universe?

Well, yeah, probably, but the real point is....

reply

Putting movies of this kind into colour is seldom successful. I rather like MISSILE TO THE MOON, it is quite amusing in parts and I like the idea of a lot of moon women speaking English. but then it is science fiction and if it entertaining as well what more can one ask?

reply

Right!

reply

[deleted]

Yeah! "The way Richard Cunha really wanted to film this movie."

Don't let's give Lucas any ideas!

reply

it looks good in B&W so why colorize it?



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

They're colorizing a lot of these public domain sci-fis from the 50s now: The Phantom Planet, Phantom From Space, Attack of the Giant Leeches, a few others. Totally pointless, except to make a buck, as Columbia did with Ray Harryhausen's three b&w films for that studio from the 50s, and as has been done to older classics like She and Things to Come. As long as people can make money doing this, and the cost of getting the films is low, this travesty will continue. Keep your black-&-whites close!

reply

FWIW, the DVD has both the colorized AND the black and white version on it so if you don't want to watch it in color, chose the other. At any rate, it doesn't appear that the rock men were molested with any crayons.
KS

reply

I know the colorized disc has "both" versions, but the issue is the basic one of colorizing a b&w film to begin with. A lot of us are totally opposed to the concept, even if the b&w original is still available. Colorization, its dishonesty and inherent flaws aside, is just one of many ways technology now allows people to tamper with films in some way (changing music tracks, adding scenes, or new elements to scenes, etc., etc.). The only way to safeguard films is to preserve them as is. No one should have the right to alter someone else's work at their own whim. Besides, colorization changes the film itself (obviously, or else why do it?).

I'm amused, though, by your comment about the rock men. Do you mean they weren't colorized, but left in something of their original "color"? If so, that too is a common flaw of colorization: lots of objects (and most distant backgrounds) aren't colorized at all, which makes them look even odder in a film otherwise smeared with phony, not to mention inaccurate, colors.

reply

Yes, to me it appeared that the rock men weren't colorized. FWiW, I agree that black and white films should be left alone and original.
KS

reply

Good to know we're on the same page re colorization...us and a lot of others, I'm happy to report.

After all, what could be a greater travesty than non-colorized rock men?

reply

Gonna see the Rifftrax version of this masterwork this weekend then go to a puking contest -- the high of my life.

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

reply

I saw just last night that there was a Rifftrax (ex-MST3K) version of this film. I liked those guys, but that's really like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. As to your "contest", let us hope this is not colorized.

reply

Yew were correct, no need to rifftrax it and anyway, it sux grey tomatoes, they stunk. The puke party was funner.

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

reply

I hope you invited Richard Travis.

reply

[deleted]

Just did so, as you'll see.

reply

I would have if I could find his grave marker.

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

reply

Well, as mentioned, the main color is green (sounds like "greed"). The colorized version can be copyrighted by the colorizors (now THAT sounds like the name of an enemy race of Moon people!).

I haven't seen the color version. If Missile to the Moon is colorized, does that make it green cheese? Do the Rock Men look like Gumby? Does the whole shootin' match look like Amazon Women of the Moon?

reply

I don't like colorized movies (note my nickname), but I can see some benefit to it especially when it is a movie of a little artistic merrit as MTTM, as long as they include the original b&w version in the package as this one does. A lot of young people (and some middle aged ones) just will not watch a b&w movie. Completely prejudiced against them for reasons not understood by some old crowbait like me who grew up watching movies in the late '40's an early '50's when most movies were b&w. If one of this bunch watches the colorized version and then later decides to see what it looked like in the original b&w, maybe, just maybe, he or she will start liking b&w.

One of the particularly objectionable aspects of the colorization of MTTM is the making the Moon babes have blue skin, which makes them look weirdly unattractive, where as in the b&w, they just looked like ordinarly earth babes, except prettier than most! Nothing was remarked by the earthlings about them having blue skin. This changes the whole tone of the picture as much as changing the score would have, or more.

By the way this movie was, I believe, designed to be shown in wide screen format. See my post on the subject. Also, read my review!

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

Thanks for your insight, oldblackandwhite, and the information. I, for one, did not know about the blue skin business and can't iamgine why on Earth (or on the Moon) the new producers would do such a thing. I suppose they were trying to be clever.

No matter. I look forward to seeing Missile to the Moon again some day and when I do I suspect it will be in the original Black & White. Now, I grew up watchig movies on TV when everything was B&W. Nowadays I am stunned to find that many of my beloved memories were, in fact, in color all along. On the Threshold of Space (1956) is one title that comes to mind. And that is OK because they were meant to be that way.

I have the colorized version of The Thing from Another World (1951)on VHS. Here was a title I had seen on the Big Screen and it has endured as one of my favorite B&W thrillers. Seeing it in color was interesting. The process added nothing to it but neither, in my mind, did it rob it of anything.

I've seen It's a Wonderful Life (1946) in the colorized format and it looks dreadful. Those ghastly lips. Here the producers gilded the lily as it was distracting and brought nothing to the fable.

reply

I loved this film in black & white. I purchased the colorized version and love it even more. They really did a nice job w/the colorization process. It enhanced the movie even more.

reply

Guys, to each his own; however:

Colorization is artificial. It is not real color.

Colorization cannot even approach capturing the subtleties, the shadings and nuances, of actual color, no matter how "good" [sic] it supposedly is.

They don't know what the real colors of most of the things they're colorizing actually were, so just make it up.

Even in the rare instances where they know approximately what some object's actual color was, they cannot replicate it via computer colorization, which is at very best a poor approximation, not a faithful representation.

Why colorize this stuff? Answer: to make money. It's a fraud and a lie and serves no artistic purpose.

What gives someone else the right to alter another person's work?

If colorization is acceptable, then changing the music score, or reediting scenes, or adding elements (including actors) via computer simulation, or the many other things possible to do to films these days, must in all fairness be "acceptable". You cannot in any logic or rationale say colorization is okay but other changes are not. In my view, no changes to someone else's work are acceptable.

Hence this thread. The fact that the original b&w is also kept around is not an excuse for marring someone else's work, or for passing off fake color as somehow real or accurate.

reply

[deleted]

Exactly, oscar-35. I recall what the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert said about the effects of colorization on films: "It looks like embalmed corpses standing in front of pastel wallpaper."

Luckily, even in this digital age, colorization seems to be very limited. Most people who like black & white films won't buy colorized junk, and those who don't like such films won't buy them in any form. Ray Harryhausen has expressed disappointment and some regret at having helped "supervise" the colorization of his own b&w films, as well as a couple of others. You're right, it's a failed fast-buck scam, pure and simple.

reply

Modern technology is a wonderful thing when used judiciously.
The distributor/conservator Criterion is a great example of folks that rescue older movies and clean them up (remove pops, clicks, jitters, damaged frames etc.) People that think 'film noir' would be better if it was colorized for re-release should have a special place in hell set aside just for them.

reply

And that "special place" should be all in black & white!

reply