Class316

And something where you don't know whether you should laugh or cry:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

otmetrud

George Lucas, who will fight to the death for his principle of preserving movies in their original form ...

ivelostr2

Class316

Though I must admit, those color pics are pretty good! I wonder how they did it so well.

bareva

nice

Cameron

then Lucas does a digital head move so curly misses an eye poke and shoots moe first. nyuck nyuck...wiseguy eh

JustInsane

Lucas has again provided that he is just an idiot. We need the three stooges back to bitch about the changes in the Star Wars movies.

RockStrongo

I would be against this if they did not release the b&w version. It would be nice to have an alternate version to watch.

I understand though why artists like George Lucas and Sam Raimi would not like this done. Basically, it is making decisions for the director or creator of the film.

Like if 50 years from now, they go back and colorize Schindler's list.

ivelostr2

I understand your point, but Schindler's list was made B&W because of a choice for art's sake. the 3 stooges was B&W because of either $$, availablility, or trend.

RockStrongo

50 years from now, some studio executive may not understand that schindler's list was made b&w for artistic sake.

Basically IMO, the studio should not be making artistic decisions about the movies.

But, in this case, I do not really have a problem with it as long as the original is included.

It could be a slippery slope though.

Steve Phillips

The 3-D versions come out next year.

El-Kabong

There's no double standard here - any changes he does to Star Wars are him doing changes to HIS movie. If he went and started throwing digital munchkins into the Wizard of Oz, then you'd have the basis for - but theyr'e his movies and his right.

If Moe, Larry and Curly were alive and wanted color to their shorts, I'd support it too.

nemein

I've been avoiding collecting the 3stooges since there were just so many different versions and no real definitive collection. I may have to check these out though. What would be interesting is if they did it as an "angle" feature so you could "seemlessly" switch between the color/BW version.

Steve Phillips

That's exactly what these DVDs offer. You can use the angle button to go back and forth between color and B/W.

Ace Hamilton

"There's no double standard here - any changes he does to Star Wars are him doing changes to HIS movie. If he went and started throwing digital munchkins into the Wizard of Oz, then you'd have the basis for - but theyr'e his movies and his right.

If Moe, Larry and Curly were alive and wanted color to their shorts, I'd support it too."

Once a movie has been released to the public a part of it belongs to filmgoers and to cinematic history. To use an extreme example: If George Lucas decided he wanted to destroy all prints of Star Wars that would be a crime against cinema history. If he he cares more about control than cinema history or art, he should have not released the film to the public. Most filmmakers, believe it or not, feel they have a responsibility to preserve films for posterity. Alternative versions are fine but they shouldn't replace the originals.

As to the idea that it is okay to colorize something that wasn't filmed in black and white for artistic reasons but rather for financial reasons, well that theory doesn't take into account an important point. The films are shot knowing that they will be shown in black and white. All costumes, sets, props, et cetera are chosen and lit for the way they will look in black and white, not how they would look on the set to an observer. If the filmmakers had been using color they would have done everything differently.

Rogue588

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace Hamilton
"There's no double standard here - any changes he does to Star Wars are him doing changes to HIS movie. If he went and started throwing digital munchkins into the Wizard of Oz, then you'd have the basis for - but theyr'e his movies and his right.

If Moe, Larry and Curly were alive and wanted color to their shorts, I'd support it too."

Once a movie has been released to the public a part of it belongs to filmgoers and to cinematic history. To use an extreme example: If George Lucas decided he wanted to destroy all prints of Star Wars that would be a crime against cinema history. If he he cares more about control than cinema history or art, he should have not released the film to the public. Most filmmakers, believe it or not, feel they have a responsibility to preserve films for posterity. Alternative versions are fine but they shouldn't replace the originals.

As to the idea that it is okay to colorize something that wasn't filmed in black and white for artistic reasons but rather for financial reasons, well that theory doesn't take into account an important point. The films are shot knowing that they will be shown in black and white. All costumes, sets, props, et cetera are chosen and lit for the way they will look in black and white, not how they would look on the set to an observer. If the filmmakers had been using color they would have done everything differently.

Don't bother Ace. The geeky SW fanboys [of which, i'm one] that think Lucas can piss however much he wants on these flicks [of which, i'm not] will say that's a bunch of bull and that they're "his films" and that you're just complaining that Lucas raped your childhood.

Watch...

As for the bastardization of putting the Stooges in COLOR...well, I don't like it.

HOWEVER...as has already been mentioned...at least Columbia is letting the BUYER have the choice between the two since they realize that there are some that might like to see 'em in color, while there are others that prefer the way they were originally.

It's a shame others don't care about that.

darkside

Sony is including both versions. That puts them far ahead of Lucas in my book.

I'm just wondering if these are the same Stooges colorized DVDs with the Mike Nelson introductions or if two different companies are colorizing the Stooge shorts.

milo bloom

Your first point, I agree. Lucas does come across as hypocritical.

Your second point, I think the only one's Nelson* is involved with are Reefer Madness and Night of the Living Dead. Though I'm usually against colorizing, I'll probably pick these up for the Mike Nelson commentaries.




*I always hear Pearl screaming "Nelson!" whenever I see his name.

Zenigata

The Nelson-introduced one doesn't come out until early next year.

He's also involved in Carnival of Souls (commentary and some other stuff, I believe. And it'll have the colorized and original versions.

Same for Night of the Living Dead

Not sure about the b/w inclusion on Reefer Madness and The Stooges. Hopefully they'll include both for The Stooges..

Oh, and yeah, Lucas is an ass. What's to complain about? They're both there. Unless it's some "principle of colorizing in any fashion, even if it's not being forced on the consumer" thing. This truly goes to show you can't please *everyone* - someone will resort to something absurd.

darkside

I have the Reefer Madness and Carnival of Souls DVDs. Both have the B/W versions and the Nelson commentary is great on both. He does go on a bit too long about Troutair in the Carnival of Souls commentary though.

I believe all of the Legend Films releases will have the B/W versions including the Stooges.

Zenigata

That's good to hear. Say, are the commentaries more joke oriented (ala MST3k, sort of) or like regular commentaries? I've yet to pick any up.

Steve Phillips

You can get the Mike Nelson Colorized CARNIVAL now direct from Legend Films in an autographed edition. The regular disc won't be out for several months.

The legend films colorized Stooges DVD will contain the standard four public domain ones (DISORDER IN THE COURT, SING A SONG OF SIX PANTS, BRIDELESS GROOM and MALICE IN THE PALACE.) Only the first one has Curly, the rest are Shemps.

rennervision

I'm beginning to think some members have their computer set up to automatically respond with the, "It's his movies! He can do what he wants!" answer whenever someone posts disapproval of George Lucas.

ThatGuamGuy

Let's go point by point. Obviously, it wouldn't be $$, since the Stooges were incredibly popular. Was it availability? At first, that case could be argued, sure. But for any Stooge short after 1939, color film was available, so the answer becomes "trend". Now, what does "trend" mean? It means that somebody made the choice that, since the old ones were B&W, they should keep making them that way. In other words, it was an aesthetic choice to make it easier for the viewers. Why is one aesthetic choice inherently more valid to you just because Spielberg can justify the movie being "art" easier than the Stooges?

Note that I say this as somebody who doesn't care about the Stooges. I just don't get how you could say that one artistic choice is more valid than another just because *you* respect the art to which the choice was applied more.

PatrickMcCart

YOU HYPOCRITES.

Lucas is against people changing OTHER'S films without their consent. Columbia colorizing Stooges shorts is a LOT different than George Lucas changing his own films. George Lucas isn't doing it for the money anyways. As he said about merch. rights he has... he wanted the rights not for money, but to have control over them. Think about it the other way... what if Fox didn't give George Lucas final cut and for the last 30 years, he has been begging to be allowed to recut the film into his director's cut. Oh wait... this already happened! THX-1138 and American Graffiti were cut against his wishes and the former is just now getting the treatment he originally wanted.

You fanboys want to attack Lucas with anything... but this isn't it. It's windbags like you that make me 100% behind filmmakers when it comes to alterations. I'd never want to be on the same side as people who spout such vile words on one of the most important directors of the last 1/4 century.