DVD Talk
1/only It's a Wonderful Life thread (merge of the three current threads) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 1/only It's a Wonderful Life thread (merge of the three current threads)


Pages : [1] 2

Jackson_Browne
03-05-06, 01:03 PM
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed but I searched and couldn't find anything about it.

The rerelease thread stickied at the top mentions that It's A Wonderful Life is confirmed to be rereleased. What is the status on this? Does anyone know if this is likely to happen soon or if I would be better off just going ahead and getting the edition that's out now? Thanks.

ThatGuamGuy
03-05-06, 03:47 PM
Does anyone know if this is likely to happen soon or if I would be better off just going ahead and getting the edition that's out now? Thanks.

If you can find it at Sam Goody/Suncoast's 70% off Christmas stuff sale, I'd say go for it, but I'm pretty sure that, when announced, 'It's A Wonderful Life' was targetted as a 60th Anniversary release ... which is this year (though I'd assume the release wouldn't be until at least Thanksgiving, if not Christmas).

Cameron
03-05-06, 04:20 PM
It fell over to Paramount this year with the rest of the republic catalog. Nothing has been announced, only speculation that it would happen. Agreed if you can find the old copy on the cheap its a good deal.

basaro
03-05-06, 06:00 PM
I got sick of waiting for a new release, so I finally got this during the last few months over the holidays. It was $10 or less and it had all the features I had on my VHS copy, so I was glad I got it.

Jackson_Browne
03-05-06, 08:14 PM
Alright, thanks for the help. I'll probably just pick up the edition that's out now when I see a good price on it since nothing official has been confirmed.

joliom
03-08-06, 07:35 PM
It's ridiculous that this hasn't gotten a proper SE yet. Paramount should make it a priority for one of their 2-Disc Special Collector's Editions.

Jericho
03-08-06, 08:28 PM
Interesting side note, but It's a Wonderful Life fell into the public domain. Unfortunately, the underlying works it is based off of are not yet in the public domain. So theoretically anyone could produce the movie on DVD if they got the right license and could obtain a decent transfer of the film.

GuessWho
03-08-06, 09:16 PM
IAWL used to be public domain and that's why it was on every channel 6 times a day and there were a million VHS versions at the dollar store. it as free programming.

But things have changed since a 1993 court case... and they now "enforce the claim of copyright"
NBC has exclusive TV rights and Paramount has DVD rights.

wikipedia:
In 1993, Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend (which involved the movie Rear Window) to enforce its claim of copyright, because, while the film's copyright had not been renewed, it was a derivative work of various works that were still copyrighted.

As a result, the film is no longer shown as much on television (NBC is currently licensed to show the film on U.S. network television), the colorized versions have been withdrawn, and Republic now has exclusive ancillary rights to the film. Artisan Entertainment (under license from Republic) held home video rights until late 2005 when they reverted to Republic's sister studio Paramount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_A_Wonderful_Life#Production_and_distribution

Cameron
08-10-06, 07:29 PM
Amazon put a page up for a paramount release of It's A Wonderful Life for 10.31.06 No details yet...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HEWEJO/002-8155373-5263239?redirect=true&%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

yeldarb367
08-10-06, 08:00 PM
I hope it's a new SE. I've hold off on the current version for some time now.

joliom
08-11-06, 12:38 AM
Awesome news. I'm crossing my fingers it will get the SE treatment it deserves.

Davy Mack
08-11-06, 02:56 AM
sweet

Cameron
08-11-06, 05:17 PM
if they put half the work in of the John Wayne titles...we're gonna be in good shape

Cameron
08-15-06, 03:46 AM
davis dvd is now reporting that lionsgate has retained the entire republic catalog except for Its a wonderful life, which will in fact get a new dvd from paramount on 10.31.06

JP5683
08-15-06, 05:02 AM
There's a page and price up at DeepDiscountDVD also

https://secure.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemid=PRD096001

I'm a huge fan of this film. One of the first email lists I ever joined online was an IAWL fanlist.

There is an excellent book out there by the boy who played young Tommy, Jimmy Hawkins.

It shows up for sale from time to time, but it's expensive. I ordered it from the library in an interlibrary loan, it took a long time to come in, but it was worth it...

Wick
08-15-06, 06:12 AM
Being a big Jimmy Stewart fan, and a movie geek in general, I'm ashamed to say that I have yet to see this film. I think I'm going to rent it today, actually. I need to see it.

If it's re-released, I'll buy it. However, I may end up picking up the version that is out right now.

Ambassador
08-15-06, 11:52 AM
Being a big Jimmy Stewart fan, and a movie geek in general, I'm ashamed to say that I have yet to see this film. I think I'm going to rent it today, actually. I need to see it.

Wow! How is that possible? It used to get shown on TV 3 billion times each Christmas....

Wick
08-15-06, 01:39 PM
Wow! How is that possible? It used to get shown on TV 3 billion times each Christmas....

I don't know. I guess I missed all of the times that it aired, at Christmas-time, or I was just too young to appreciate it when I saw it on TV and didn't watch it. My parents are too cheap to get any type of television above "antenna TV," so I only get about 25-30 channels. CBC usually plays, "Miracle on 34th Street," on Christmas Eve, and none of the other channels I have seem to do much with regards to showing classic Christmas cinema.

JuryDuty
08-16-06, 12:34 AM
The version out right now is good, but I'd sure like to see more extras. I've been collecting IAWL memorabilia for years, and there are a lot of things I'd think they could include on this set such as a photo gallery, the old radio shows, a James Stewart, Donna Reed and/or Frank Capra retrospective, audio commentaries by Jimmy Hawkins and/or Karolyn Grimes or other actors still alive, clips from the colorized version, the Tom Bosley special about the movie, maybe even a commentary by Roger Ebert as he's quite fond of it...

I think people would eat it up over the holiday season.

gcbma
08-16-06, 03:55 AM
...there are a lot of things I'd think they could include on this set such as ... the Tom Bosley special about the movie...

FWIW, the Tom Bosley "The Making of It's a Wonderful Life" special is included on the current "Silver Screen" version that's been out for a few years.

Wick
08-16-06, 11:28 AM
I borrowed it (on VHS,) from one of my best friends, yesterday. My family are going out for a while today, so I'll probably watch it then. I can't wait to watch it.

Dalvin
08-16-06, 11:52 AM
Funny you mention this. I'm actually friends with Donna Reed's son. I play pickup basketball games with him all the time here(I'm not joking). I'll ask him if he has heard anything.

Wick
08-17-06, 04:59 AM
I watched it this morning and thought it was brilliant. It's definitely a masterpiece. I really need to buy it on DVD now.

honestjohn
08-17-06, 03:24 PM
Glad you finally got a chance to see it's a Wonderful Life Wick. When I was teenager back in the 70's, this is the movie that turned me into a Jimmy Stewart Fan. Can't wait for SE to come out. It's going to be a really expensive few months for me with all the great releases coming out. Looks like nobody's getting Christmas presents this year.

PS - Dalvin, tell your friend his Mom was totally hot. Had a huge crush (to be polite) on her.

Davy Mack
08-17-06, 03:28 PM
I too had a crush on Ms. Reed.

;)

gcbma
08-17-06, 05:03 PM
Interestingly, the Out of the Past podcast featured this as a film noir.

mzupeman2
08-18-06, 06:38 AM
As said, the version out now is good. I would probably upgrade considering how great a film this is. Growing up I never thought much of it just seeing bits and pieces of it, maybe I was too young. I thought it was a bore-fest until I watched it in full as an adult for the first time a couple of years ago... fantastic film. This is one of the best Christmas movies ever and I'd double dip.

grim_tales
08-27-06, 03:11 PM
I saw it for the first time a couple of Xmas ago (2004 I think) and I loved it. Fantastic film. :) I will get it, as I dont have any version.

I hope Amazon revise the specs though - "Format: Color, NTSC"

WTF? IAWL is black and white! :confused:

I'm sure it was made/released in 1945.

Cameron
08-27-06, 03:15 PM
it is B&W. Though it was one of the first films to get the color treatment, as at the time it was public domain, and tv stations would eat it up. I'm sure the dvd will be B&W.

though being made in 1945 does qualify for color...remember both Wizard of oz and Gone with the wind are from 1939, and while not the first technicolor movies, they are the most recognized of the early days of technicolor

grim_tales
08-27-06, 04:34 PM
Yeah, I'm not saying it doesnt qualify for colour in that sense, just the film is supposed to be black and white (sepia?) - for some reason my player seems to display b/w films in more sepia tones.
Adventures of Robin Hood was in Technicolor - released in 1938.

Cameron
08-27-06, 06:01 PM
Great site on the history of film and color film at http://www.filmsite.org/30sintro.html

JuryDuty
08-27-06, 06:08 PM
I'd love it if they'd include the colorized version on the DVD as a bonus feature. I have the colorized version on VHS and while I definately prefer it in its original B&W glory, it's an interesting experiment. :)

dx23
08-28-06, 07:18 PM
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7711/itsawonderfullifecer1art1ka2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9495/itsawonderfullifecer1art2fx1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

PatrickMcCart
08-28-06, 08:12 PM
I'd love it if they'd include the colorized version on the DVD as a bonus feature. I have the colorized version on VHS and while I definately prefer it in its original B&W glory, it's an interesting experiment. :)

You could say the same about the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele.

Wick
08-29-06, 05:52 AM
Nice art.

JuryDuty
08-31-06, 10:44 AM
Very nice! Any more info about any extras?

Patrick Mirza
09-13-06, 06:00 PM
Full disc details (http://www.davisdvd.com/news/news.html) are now posted.

The Monkees
09-13-06, 08:45 PM
It sounds like it's not any different with the exception of that Frank Capra tribute. :(

basaro
09-13-06, 09:09 PM
It sounds like it's not any different with the exception of that Frank Capra tribute. :(

Nope, it's ZERO difference from the current version, the tribute is on that too.

This is NOT an upgrade, just another pointless re-release. No need to get this unless you cannot find the current release, which is slowing disappearing from retailers, so hop to it ;)

Wick
09-13-06, 10:23 PM
Although it's pretty bare-bones, I'll still be buying it, especially since I don't own the original release.

JuryDuty
09-15-06, 05:26 PM
Nope, it's ZERO difference from the current version, the tribute is on that too.

This is NOT an upgrade, just another pointless re-release. No need to get this unless you cannot find the current release, which is slowing disappearing from retailers, so hop to it ;)

How disappointing! Geez, if they're going to the trouble to rerelease it, why not at least throw us who currently have it some sort of a bone--pics of movie posters or something. Ah well. It's a pretty cover, but no use buying something I already have. :(

animatedude
09-15-06, 05:38 PM
it's not a new transfer? probably the only reason to get this one is it sounds like it will come with a slipcase.and i don't have any of the old releases.so yeah.

Cameron
09-15-06, 06:15 PM
thats a bummer...Paramount has totally dropped off the face of the planet in the way of classic film releases.

kingtopher
09-15-06, 09:51 PM
How disappointing! Geez, if they're going to the trouble to rerelease it, why not at least throw us who currently have it some sort of a bone--pics of movie posters or something. Ah well. It's a pretty cover, but no use buying something I already have. :(

Why would you want them to rerelease the exact same transfer and extras with a very minor additional extra? You should be happy that you're not getting suckered into rebuying something you already own just for a meager bonus feature that you'll watch once.

Julie Walker
09-16-06, 12:03 AM
If it was a new transfer(has that been confirmed at all?),I would pick it up. But otherwise there is no reason to rebuy it,since I already own it on dvd.

forumsmy
09-16-06, 11:34 AM
I was wondering the same, so I went over to www.dvdcompare.net and looked it up. They say it is just a re-pack of the OOP Republic version.

I think someone else said that here too.

BuckNaked2k
09-16-06, 08:18 PM
Another pointless re-release. Kind of surprising considering:
1. How wildly popular this film is; and
2. It's the 60th anniversary of its theatrical release.

A new transfer with some retrospective interviews, and a documentary, etc. would have been nice, and probably would have sold well.

Chad
09-16-06, 09:25 PM
Wow, one would expect a DVD with a "60th Anniversary Edition" label to have at least something the prior version didn't.

Oh well, that's one less DVD upgrade for me to worry about. :)

grim_tales
09-17-06, 04:23 AM
I'll get the R2 release then.

grim_tales
09-17-06, 06:02 AM
No I won't - according to DVD Beaver, the R2 Universal transfer is AWFUL (taken from a video source) whereas the Republic R1 was sourced from the original negatives. Hopefully this re-release will have the same transfer.

joliom
09-18-06, 05:22 AM
Geez, that's a major letdown. What a wasted opportunity. At least now I can stop holding off on buying it. I'll just grab whichever if the two versions I can find cheapest come X-Mas time, I guess.

animatedude
09-18-06, 10:09 AM
i dunno...i do have feelings it's a new transfer..

Davy Mack
09-18-06, 02:59 PM
I think DVD compare mentioned the republic and artisan versions were the same, didn't mention Paramount...

hmm...

JuryDuty
09-23-06, 10:19 AM
Well, that's encouraging news. LOL geez, you'd think Paramount would send out some sort of press release...this things coming out soon...

Cameron
09-23-06, 01:21 PM
According to Robert Harris who is usually "in the know", this IS going to be a new restored version. Of course some new Bonus Material would have been nice. Looks like it's time to get out the old double-dipper again, attaboy Paramount.

See link, post #17

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=240489


It just says they have been doing work...doesn't state at all that it was for this dvd.

Cameron
09-23-06, 05:16 PM
I'm sure he thought so as well...his post is from back in August, while the specs came out mid september. I would hope that it does carry over to the dvd, but i wouldn't expect it either. Seems that paramount is just doing a port.

Ambassador
09-24-06, 11:51 AM
With all due respect, Mr. Harris is also just wrong sometimes....

(E.g., claims he made that Criterion's CANTERBURY TALE wasn't pictureboxed and that VCI has never issued a progressive transfer, etc.)

grim_tales
09-25-06, 07:23 AM
Wasn't IAWL originally shot in 1.33/1? :confused:
It was made in 1945 and not many (not any?) films were made in Scope back then.

grim_tales
10-09-06, 11:50 AM
Are there any reviews of this yet? :)

joliom
10-09-06, 09:13 PM
Wasn't IAWL originally shot in 1.33/1? :confused:
It was made in 1945 and not many (not any?) films were made in Scope back then.

It's OAR is 1.37:1. I think you're misunderstanding. We don't want it in anamorphic widescreen, just a remastered OAR transfer to improve on the current release. It looks like Paramount is merely porting over the old transfer rather than opting for a newly restored one. Kinda lame on their part if indeed it's true.

grim_tales
10-10-06, 04:59 AM
I see your point :) However wasn't the "old" R1 transfer made from the original film negatives? The UK R2 looked even worse (it was taken from a video master AFAIK). Given the choice I'd go R1.

joliom
10-10-06, 04:09 PM
Yeah the old transfer isn't bad, but considering this is a new release, and a "60th Anniversary Edition" at that, you'd think they'd prepare a brand new transfer down-converted from HD (and a full HD one for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray) to go with it. As it looks now, this is shaping up to be a pretty worthless "upgrade" which is a real shame considering that IaWL is one of the most beloved films in American cinematic history. Paramount is so lackluster when it comes to their classic catalog and their production of Special Edition DVD's. They're not the absolute worst studio out there, but put it this way: You know Warner Bros. would have had a field day with this title - a packed Two-Disc SE at the very least.

nitin77
10-26-06, 07:24 AM
dvdbeaver says new transfer, that is also noticeably better in screenshots :

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/wonderfullife.htm

JuryDuty
10-26-06, 09:40 AM
dvdbeaver says new transfer, that is also noticeably better in screenshots :

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/wonderfullife.htm

Hmmm...well, the stats show it has improved, but I have to say, I think I prefer the screenshots from the Republic version.

basaro
10-26-06, 09:45 AM
^ Good find!
The transfer is new after all, but still no new extras.
At least they did something for this release, I'm not sure I'm going to get this right away though. Good to know anyway, thanks.

bboisvert
10-26-06, 11:19 AM
I'd be curious to see if the audio has been improved at all. There are several moments (one obvious one about 12-13 mins into the film) where there is muffled sound in the Republic release. That could definitely use a good scrubbing, assuming the source is in adequate condition.

roger_d
10-26-06, 12:17 PM
Hmmm...well, the stats show it has improved, but I have to say, I think I prefer the screenshots from the Republic version.


The Republic version is much better, I'm glad i got that one. Will not be upgrading to this new 60th anniversary.

BuckNaked2k
10-26-06, 02:27 PM
The Republic version is much better, I'm glad i got that one. Will not be upgrading to this new 60th anniversary.This is curious. I would have thought that Paramount's 60th release would have a better picture due to a higher average bitrate: 6.41 mb/s vs. the Republic version with a bitrate of 4.19 mb/s.

jonjj7
10-26-06, 02:38 PM
From the screenshots the new one looks better to my eyes, but not enough to make me unhappy with the Republic DVD I own.

nitin77
10-26-06, 06:37 PM
the new one appears to be sharper with better blacks, any particular reason people are saying the republic looks better ?

scrimshaw
10-26-06, 09:01 PM
Because they want an excuse not to upgrade. The Paramount version is obviously better, just look at the newspaper text in the fifth series of screen captures. Not only is the Paramount version sharper, but the text is actually black as opposed to the gray of the Republic version. The reviewer also mentioned that the differences are more apparent while actually watching the movie.

animatedude
10-26-06, 10:39 PM
is this the only movie by Frank Capra that paramount owns the rights to?

BuckNaked2k
10-27-06, 09:00 AM
Because they want an excuse not to upgrade. The Paramount version is obviously better, just look at the newspaper text in the fifth series of screen captures. Not only is the Paramount version sharper, but the text is actually black as opposed to the gray of the Republic version. The reviewer also mentioned that the differences are more apparent while actually watching the movie.I would tend to agree. From the Beaver review: "...Good news is the transfer is superior - although these screen captures may not give it the credit it deserves.....the Paramount looks cleaner (less speckles), less digital noise, smoother and blacks are significantly more piercing. The boosted blacks bring up the detail to a small degree as well.....the 60th Anniversary shows more information - most notably on the side edges (in most sequences). Overall a better release in regards to image."At $13.76, ($11.00 during DDD November sale), this upgrade is a no-brainer for me.

Van528
10-27-06, 09:28 AM
The new Paramount version is definitley better, no question. If you love the film as I do you will want to upgrade. Also notice a little more to see on the sides which is also mentioned.

grim_tales
10-27-06, 10:17 AM
Its $12.88 @ Pacific, shall I order from them?

BuckNaked2k
10-27-06, 11:32 AM
Its $12.88 @ Pacific, shall I order from them?Sure, if you want it right away.

I'm waiting for DDD November sale: $11.00 with free shipping.

PatrickMcCart
10-27-06, 12:12 PM
The Republic DVD isn't awful, but it has a huge amount of DVNR and some really bad compression in spots.

grim_tales
10-27-06, 12:31 PM
Sure, if you want it right away.

I'm waiting for DDD November sale: $11.00 with free shipping.

OK, might get it from them, never used DDD before but Pacific have excellent service :)

BuckNaked2k
10-27-06, 02:16 PM
OK, might get it from them, never used DDD before but Pacific have excellent service :)Many around here swear by DDD. I've had great results with them for the past 5 years. Shipping is a little slow at times, but at these prices who can complain? Not sure what the shipping is like to U.K., but you should be able to get some info over on the store forum. Cheers!

BuckNaked2k
10-31-06, 08:25 AM
Anyone picking this up today?

Would appreciate any thoughts/observations.

Happy Halloween!

grim_tales
11-10-06, 02:11 PM
What do Pacific mean by calling the Paramount DVD of IAWL the "Checkpoint"? :confused:

http://www.dvdpacific.com/search.asp?title=It%27s+a+Wonderful+Life

BuckNaked2k
11-10-06, 02:17 PM
What do Pacific mean by calling the Paramount DVD of IAWL the "Checkpoint"? :confused:

http://www.dvdpacific.com/search.asp?title=It%27s+a+Wonderful+LifeThat just means there's a security sticker somewhere within the packaging...usually one of those 'lil tabs you can pop off if accessible.

Wick
11-10-06, 02:35 PM
I picked it up. It looks really nice, but I've yet to open it or watch it. I just watched it recently, or else I probably would open it and watch it this weekend. I'll probably just end up saving it until Christmas.

I think I'll just end up making it a tradition to watch this movie every Christmas.

bboisvert
11-10-06, 02:41 PM
The Republic DVD isn't awful, but it has a huge amount of DVNR and some really bad compression in spots.

And some badly muffled audio, which (according to the Digital Bits) the Paramount release fixes.

grim_tales
11-10-06, 02:47 PM
That just means there's a security sticker somewhere within the packaging...usually one of those 'lil tabs you can pop off if accessible.

Thanks :)

SIUmark
11-10-06, 03:11 PM
I bought It's A Wonderful Life for the first time a couple days ago. I started watching it last night. It looks great so far. I heard a popping sound as young George goes to the back of the store to see Mr. Gower early in the movie. That's the only negative I have seen or heard so far.

grim_tales
11-16-06, 03:30 PM
I ordered it from Pacific a couple of days ago.

weldon
11-30-06, 05:04 PM
Any more reports on the improved quality? Those of you that had the previous release, are you happy with buying it again?

bboisvert
11-30-06, 05:23 PM
Any more reports on the improved quality? Those of you that had the previous release, are you happy with buying it again?

It's not an amazing revelation or anything... but the audio and video are both a noticable improvement over the previous edition.

If you're a casual fan, I'd say sticking with the Republic makes sense. If you're a major fan and/or anal about having the 'best' editions, Paramount is the way to go...

weldon
12-01-06, 03:57 PM
Thanks, bboisvert. I've made up my mind to get it, especially when it's part of the 2 for $20 deal at Best Buy this week.

tbwmp88
12-02-06, 05:10 PM
I recently saw Miracle on 34th Street in color and prefer it over the B&W version. Any plans or chance of a colorized It's A Wonderful Life?

Mr. Salty
12-02-06, 05:20 PM
Heretic.

paulringodaman
12-02-06, 08:03 PM
hahahahahaha

Cameron
12-02-06, 09:25 PM
Let It Ensue

Why Must They Release Colorized Versions? (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=458906&highlight=colorized)

black and white movies in color on dvd? (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=378421&highlight=colorized)

The Cow
12-02-06, 10:27 PM
I recently saw Miracle on 34th Street in color and prefer it over the B&W version. Any plans or chance of a colorized It's A Wonderful Life?
It has already been colorized by Turner, years ago. It's available on VHS and you can probably find that and some versions converted to DVD on eBay.

basaro
12-02-06, 11:02 PM
Blasphemy!

SINGLE104
12-02-06, 11:32 PM
NO! I strongly opposed the colorization of black and white movies, especially the classics. I want to remain seeing the black and white films the way they were originally meant to be seen, not colorized, which ruins the entire movie.

rdclark
12-03-06, 12:16 AM
Growing up, I saw The Wizard of Oz multiple times on TV - a black and white TV.

I've been waiting for a b&w release of that movie on DVD forever.

To the original poster, what you do is while your black and white Wonderful Life is playing, you turn the tint on your TV all the way to green. Then put on a pair of those red and blue 3-D glasses. The next part takes practice: blink your left eye, then your right eye, then lift off the glasses, and repeat. Get the rate up to 30 changes per second, and voila! The movie is in color. Or you're in a coma. One or the other, I forget. Either way, you'll hear bells.

RichC

The Cow
12-03-06, 12:52 AM
NO! I strongly opposed the colorization of black and white movies, especially the classics. I want to remain seeing the black and white films the way they were originally meant to be seen, not colorized, which ruins the entire movie.
As I pointed out, the answer is Yes.

BKMaggert
12-03-06, 01:09 AM
NO! ...I want to remain seeing the black and white films the way they were originally meant to be seen, not colorized, which ruins the entire movie.

Meant to be seen? If they had the technology and the money, they would've been in color. They were "meant to be seen" in color. Sorry, that's a lame argument.

Should we not convert old, filmed TV shows to HD because they were "meant to be seen" in 480i? B.S.

I admit the original colorizing processes weren't all that great, but as technology progresses, colorizing will be indeterminable from movies made with color film.

Colorize them all at some point, and see them the way they were REALLY "meant to be seen." If you don't like it, turn off the color on your own set. One DVD works for all tastes.

mifuneral
12-03-06, 01:18 AM
A lot of films ARE meant to be black and white. Just because you happen to like color films doesn't change that fact. Orson Welles fought for Citizen Kane to stay black and white and he wasn't the only director at the time to feel that way. There are plenty of films even in the modern era that are black and white for stylistic reasons. You can't say those were "meant to be in color."

SINGLE104
12-03-06, 01:19 AM
As I pointed out, the answer is Yes.
The "no" was in reference to my dislike of colorization to black and white movies in general, not the colorized VHS release.

SINGLE104
12-03-06, 01:34 AM
Meant to be seen? If they had the technology and the money, they would've been in color. They were "meant to be seen" in color. Sorry, that's a lame argument.
Well EVIDENTLY they didn't, so the movie was filmed in black and white, which technically the way it was meant to be seen...DUH Colorize them all at some point, and see them the way they were REALLY "meant to be seen." If you don't like it, turn off the color on your own set. One DVD works for all tastes.
What hole did you crawl out of, and when were you hatched? Obviously, you don't know nothing about the originality of filmmaking.

PatrickMcCart
12-03-06, 01:52 AM
Meant to be seen? If they had the technology and the money, they would've been in color. They were "meant to be seen" in color. Sorry, that's a lame argument.

Should we not convert old, filmed TV shows to HD because they were "meant to be seen" in 480i? B.S.

I admit the original colorizing processes weren't all that great, but as technology progresses, colorizing will be indeterminable from movies made with color film.

Colorize them all at some point, and see them the way they were REALLY "meant to be seen." If you don't like it, turn off the color on your own set. One DVD works for all tastes.

Actually, color was the novelty until the 1950s. It wasn't as if B&W movies were in B&W because it was cheaper. The studios made color films as very special occasions.

It's like saying that Da Vinci would have painted The Last Supper in Adobe Illustrator or Mozart would have composed his Requiem in ProTools. Well, they they didn't. You can create a "what if" like turning B&W into color, but you'd only be fooling yourself.

B&W is an artistic choice just as much as using charcoals on paper. So you don't have the full spectrum... it's not like it limits the artistry of the image.

The Cow
12-03-06, 02:02 AM
The "no" was in reference to my dislike of colorization to black and white movies in general, not the colorized VHS release.
I don't recall the poster asking about your like/dislike of colorization to black and white movies in general.

The topic is:

"It's A Wonderful Life Colorized?" or more specifically "Any plans or chance of a colorized It's A Wonderful Life?"

Mr. Salty
12-03-06, 02:03 AM
Meant to be seen? If they had the technology and the money, they would've been in color. They were "meant to be seen" in color. Sorry, that's a lame argument.
Sorry, but color did exist years before "It's a Wonderful Life" was made, but it was still made in black and white. It was therefore lit and photographed for black and white, which means artistic choices were made for that format. Colorizing the movie after the fact alters those choices. And who's to say what colors things should be since there is no way of knowing what color the costumes, etc., were?

Should we not convert old, filmed TV shows to HD because they were "meant to be seen" in 480i? B.S.
Apples and oranges, because film and television are different mediums. But if a TV show was shot on film, then it already exists in a higher-definition format than NTSC video. Black and white films do not exist somewhere in color, therefore yours is a specious argument.

SINGLE104
12-03-06, 08:22 AM
I don't recall the poster asking about your like/dislike of colorization to black and white movies in general.

The topic is:

"It's A Wonderful Life Colorized?" or more specifically "Any plans or chance of a colorized It's A Wonderful Life?"
And I don't recall the postor asking for your criticism either, and I have the right to post and express my opinions, whether if you like it or not... So there!

TGM
12-03-06, 09:15 AM
I agree that a colorized version of classic B&W's is somewhat of a sacrilege, but, ya know... its weird, sometimes, for me, I'll be in a mood to see a classic movie, but I'll also be in the mood to see it in color... so, I'd be down with a colorized "IAWL" on DVD... I'd just ask that if you are lending the movie to a friend to see for the 1st time, you give them the B&W version...

PatrickMcCart
12-03-06, 11:22 AM
Apples and oranges, because film and television are different mediums. But if a TV show was shot on film, then it already exists in a higher-definition format than NTSC video. Black and white films do not exist somewhere in color, therefore yours is a specious argument.

Exactly.

Colorization is just like pan & scan... it alters an image to make it more "palatable" to the viewer. Remastering a TV show shot in 35mm (or even 16mm) simply enhances the quality that has always been there.

"If these color-happy folks are so concerned about the audience, let them put their millions of dollars into new films, or let them remake old stories if they see fit, but let our great film artists and films live in peace. I urge everyone in the creative community to join in our efforts to discourage this terrible process." - James Stewart on colorization

Cameron
12-03-06, 11:22 AM
Meant to be seen? If they had the technology and the money, they would've been in color. They were "meant to be seen" in color. Sorry, that's a lame argument.


Nope. Hitchcock shot Psycho in B&W because of the gore factor. He had previously shot in color, and went back to B&W.

certain clothes, lighting, cameras, etc. were all chosen as a result of B&W film. Colorization is bastardization, and any film fan who is worth their salt believes this as much as they believe in OAR.

kevkev
12-03-06, 11:36 AM
i think the colour version of night of the living dead is ok. if the director went back and did it himself to a film he couldnt shoot in colour at the time that would be ok??

darkhawk
12-03-06, 11:53 AM
Oh, let see, colorize Alfred Hitchock's Psycho. The shower scene. Hitchock used chocolate syrup to make it look like blood.

waylonsmithers
12-03-06, 12:05 PM
So nice to see that threadcrapping is tolerated when it's an opinion that goes against the majority. In response to your question there are no studio produced colorized DVDs nor are there any current plans for to release a colorized version of wonderful life.

GuessWho
12-03-06, 12:14 PM
When are the colorized Raging Bull & Schindler's Lists DVDs coming out?

rich-y
12-03-06, 01:10 PM
Meant to be seen? If they had the technology and the money, they would've been in color. They were "meant to be seen" in color. Sorry, that's a lame argument.

You do realize that many directors and crews of B&W movies went to great lengths to provide their audiences with a beautiful B&W films that included a full range of contrast between the whites and blacks shown on screen?

They used special makeup on the actor's faces that if colorized today, in the true color used for the makeup, would make the actors appear to be ghastly fiends.

Even in later B&W films things are not quite what they seem. In the recently colorized Three Stooges films there is a set that contained all sorts of mispainted items (including a pot belly stove that was painted some god-awful color that you'd never see in the real world). This was all done to enhance the contrast and increase the B&W viewing experience.

These movies were indeed "meant to be seen" in B&W. It is not a lame argument.

However, I have no problem with colorization. I simply refuse to buy it.

kevkev
12-03-06, 01:17 PM
am i the only person that hates all of hitchcocks films?
ok, the birds and vertigo are ok. but i find the so called suspense just boring.

eedoon
12-03-06, 03:47 PM
Please do not colorize this thread with off-topic comment. Thank you! ;)

tbwmp88
12-03-06, 05:18 PM
It has already been colorized by Turner, years ago. It's available on VHS and you can probably find that and some versions converted to DVD on eBay.

I saw the VHS awhile ago, but can't remember if I liked it better then the B&W. No thanks to anything converted from VHS to DVD.

tbwmp88
12-03-06, 05:39 PM
I don't care if it's not the way it was meant to be seen or if one of my favorite movies goes from color to B&W or the other way around as long as it's more pleasing to my eyes. For all who hate colorization, if you watched Miracle on 34th Street in color and B&W, would you still prefer the B&W version?

SINGLE104
12-03-06, 07:30 PM
I don't care if it's not the way it was meant to be seen or if one of my favorite movies goes from color to B&W or the other way around as long as it's more pleasing to my eyes. For all who hate colorization, if you watched Miracle on 34th Street in color and B&W, would you still prefer the B&W version?
If it's the original movie, (not the remake), then yes, I'll would still prefer the black and white.

Mr. Salty
12-03-06, 07:50 PM
For all who hate colorization, if you watched Miracle on 34th Street in color and B&W, would you still prefer the B&W version?
Obviously the answer to this question is going to be yes.

"If you hate being hit in the head with a hammer, would you prefer being hit in the head with a hammer or not being hit in the head with a hammer?"

Nick Danger
12-03-06, 08:13 PM
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=482843

No one seems to have a problem with the Beatles being remixed to 5.1. They spent a lot of effort in getting the 2.0 sound right.

PatrickMcCart
12-03-06, 10:04 PM
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=482843

No one seems to have a problem with the Beatles being remixed to 5.1. They spent a lot of effort in getting the 2.0 sound right.

Well, we at least have Sir George Martin around. All the sound that's being re-worked to 5.1 has always been there. If you want a comparision to colorization, it would be to re-record the songs entirely in today's style (which is essentially what newer Beatles covers would be). Remixing to 5.1 is an aesthetic change, but it's only using what's there. There's really no comparision to anything related to film image.

I don't care if it's not the way it was meant to be seen or if one of my favorite movies goes from color to B&W or the other way around as long as it's more pleasing to my eyes. For all who hate colorization, if you watched Miracle on 34th Street in color and B&W, would you still prefer the B&W version?

I'm sure the new Legend Films colorization looks fantastic. The new Shirley Temple colorizations they worked on look very close to Technicolor... you could probably get away with convincing people the films were not shot in B&W. However, even the best colorizations can't top the original B&W cinematography. It's a novelty, just like Fox's stereo remixes for their pre-1953 films on DVD. It's a nice curiosity, but that's not what the film really is. That's why I think it's important to have both original and remixed versions of the audio track. Even though you can get wonderful results like the 4.0 track on Criterion's new Seven Samurai. Part of the duty we have as DVD consumers is to support the intentions of a motion picture. This means we need to push for films to be the proper editorial form and length (uncut, uncensored, have the correct framing and aspect ratio, original sound mix, correct color timing, and all of this in one package.

Nope. Hitchcock shot Psycho in B&W because of the gore factor. He had previously shot in color, and went back to B&W.

certain clothes, lighting, cameras, etc. were all chosen as a result of B&W film. Colorization is bastardization, and any film fan who is worth their salt believes this as much as they believe in OAR.

Even better, Hitchcock made Psycho on a low budget (with his TV show crew) and in B&W because he wanted to try making an AIP-level horror film. This is after a slew of big-budget VistaVision/Technicolor productions! The gore factor is one part, but I've always believed that B&W is a vital part of making a horror film scary. Color is great for some horror films, but there's no question that Psycho, The Haunting (1963, Robert Wise), Night of the Living Dead, or even Nosferatu owe a lot of the scare factor to being in B&W.

Cameron
12-03-06, 11:19 PM
i have the new version of miracle on 34th street, and only plan on watching the B&W. Never in my life have I looked at a color film and assumed or believed it was a better movie simply because it was in color. That seems like such a pre 1950's thought process. A film is good or bad based on the merits of the story and structure of the film. At the same time, I have never passed on a film because it was "too old" and have little respect for any film fan who would do so.

colorization has been a stain on film history since its inception back in the 80's. While I would agree that the process has become much sturdier in the past years (as I do own several films with both color/b&w versions on them). I still see it as disrespectful to the artisans, and the dead at this point. I am against parents trying to introduce films in color with the likes of the Three Stooges, Little Rascals, or shirley temple. Better to educate your children on the history, and let the story speak for itself.

I stand by original production whether it be colorization, bleeping of profanity, cutting away from violence, overdubbing lines with new ones, re-animating contreversial frames, zooming in on frames, replacing guns with walkie talkies, or Han shooting first. While I understand that there can be room in the world for both, the original should always hold presedence. If you don't want to here Scarface curse, or hear Jules & Vince discuss a foot massage then skip the movie, don't look for a tv track. These are all one in the same, and worth fighting for as far as I am concerned.

call me an elitest. I'll wear it proud if that means standing up for history

Wick
12-04-06, 12:26 AM
am i the only person that hates all of hitchcocks films?
ok, the birds and vertigo are ok. but i find the so called suspense just boring.

I hope you're the only one. Hitchcock was a genius. He's easily my favourite director of all-time.

PopcornTreeCt
12-04-06, 12:36 AM
Classic films colorized? Hitchcock boring? There is many a reason why I don't post in this forum much anymore.

inri222
12-04-06, 12:50 AM
When are the colorized Raging Bull & Schindler's Lists DVDs coming out?

At the same time that the colorized Eraserhead is coming out.

Davy Mack
12-04-06, 02:57 AM
When will the colorized "Manhattan" and "Ed Wood" be released...?

;)

kevkev
12-04-06, 06:14 AM
ok so i've only seen vertigo, the birds, rear window, psycho and the lady vanishes. i just find him very overrated and a one trick pony.

back to the colour debate, would you not mind having a colour version as well? nobody moans about a 5.1 mix as long as the original audio is there. its the same thing. a agree with the welles theory that all the best performances are in black and white. colour films just distract you from the actors. i always wondered how do they know what colour to use? is it guess work?

Wick
12-04-06, 12:49 PM
Rear Window is my favourite out of the Hitchcock films that I've seen. I own a ton of them and I've been attempting to watch all of them, but I've been busy.

I've seen:

Psycho
The Birds
Vertigo
North by Northwest
Rear Window
Rebecca
Dial 'M' For Murder
Rope
Lifeboat

SINGLE104
12-04-06, 12:57 PM
I just couldn't imagine seeing colorized versions of: Raging Bull, and The Elephant Man (two superb movies.) This will be detrimental to the history of films.

Groucho
12-04-06, 01:13 PM
Quibble (just to be anal): Raging Bull does have color sequences.

SINGLE104
12-04-06, 01:42 PM
Quibble (just to be anal): Raging Bull does have color sequences.
You know what I mean!

Gerry P.
12-04-06, 05:32 PM
Didn't Jimmy Stewart say before Congress that it broke his heart when he viewed the colorized version of 'It's a Wonderful Life'? I know Frank Capra called the process an "insult" to the artists who created the movies.

Cameron
12-04-06, 06:37 PM
Didn't Jimmy Stewart say before Congress that it broke his heart when he viewed the colorized version of 'It's a Wonderful Life'? I know Frank Capra called the process an "insult" to the artists who created the movies.

not sure, but I would love to read both of those actual quotes and where they stem from. It would be nice to have statements from the dead to back up what I feel most people already feel/

Nick Danger
12-04-06, 11:05 PM
Two weeks ago, the American Film Institute called a Los Angeles powwow at which Jimmy Stewart testified that he found the colorized Wonderful Life too awful to watch. "I couldn't get through all of it," he drawled, adding that the colorizing was "detrimental to the story, to the whole atmosphere of the film. I felt sorry for [Cinematographer] Joe Walker." Then a surprise witness appeared: Earl Glick of Hal Roach Studios, parent company of Colorization, Inc., which had performed the cosmetic surgery on Wonderful Life. His associates, Glick proclaimed, had worked closely with . . . Joe Walker himself! The revelation changed few minds, however, and A.F.I. Director Jean Firstenberg reiterated her proposal for a summit of the hostile parties.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1075237,00.html

This is the best I could find. :shrug:

Nick Danger
12-04-06, 11:15 PM
So if remixing Sgt. Pepper with assistance of George Martin is okay, then colorizing It's a Wonderful Life with the assistance of Joe Walker can't be much worse, right?

I honestly don't see much of a difference. In both cases, a group of artists do the best job they can do with the technology available at the time. In both cases, someone else comes by 35 years later with computers and rearranges things to suit the current popular taste. In both cases, just one of the several key people who created the original is trotted out to give it a veneer of respectability.

Yeah, I'm yowling.

Julie Walker
12-05-06, 12:37 AM
I do think remixing an audio track and altering a films appearance are one in the same. Since they are both altering the original work to suit someones viewing preference. ie- "I hate B&W and want all things in color/ I hate mono and want my speakers filled,since I spent alot of money on my HT system!".


Just because they may be working with the original audio and spreading it out to multiple channels,does not make it 'less bad' and 'ok'. Since 99% of the time,they do sound inferior too the original mono or stereo mix.

This is one of the reasons I won't be jumping on the HD bandwagon anytime soon. Since the majority of the films being released only contain the remix only when it comes to older titles.

SINGLE104
12-05-06, 01:17 AM
So if remixing Sgt. Pepper with assistance of George Martin is okay, then colorizing It's a Wonderful Life with the assistance of Joe Walker can't be much worse, right?
Not necessarily, because original soundtracks, and visual cinematography in motion pictures are two different elements of a film. If inferiorly altered, one can be a major distraction more to it's viewer than the other.

Nick Danger
12-05-06, 10:23 AM
I agree that movies are primarily a visual medium. But a good audio track is essential. Have you heard the soundtrack on the Madacy DVD version of Metropolis? It has Beethoven's triumphant Ode to Joy for music while the villain hunts the heroine in dark caverns.

That's an extreme example. But, while it's more subtle than the visual track, the audio track has a great effect on the viewer. Altering the audio track alters the effect on the viewer.

Cameron
12-05-06, 12:19 PM
i would agree, and I think you hear as much about original audio tracks as colorization. (Jaws is a prime candidate, as well as the recent superman recall)

grim_tales
12-06-06, 05:28 AM
I got my 60th AE of IAWL today. There are some wierd "clips" that hold the keepcase shut - never seen them before :confused:

Cameron
12-08-06, 07:25 PM
they are security tabs. if you open them and give a twist they come off

Novasonic
12-09-06, 02:53 AM
Just watched this. I noticed there were sound pops in around 3 or 4 places in the movie that are not in the original release. I'm willing to let it slide though because the video quality is better. I noticed the sound pops around 57 minutes, 1 hour 24 minutes, and 1 hour 31 minutes. Can't remember the exact seconds on those. I believe there was one other one as well, but I don't remember where.

Premise
09-15-07, 04:08 AM
I guess the main selling point is that it includes the colorized version, and it says a restored B+W version.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1449/51hslnffeglss5001customrw1.jpg

cfloyd3
09-15-07, 04:16 AM
The re-releases upon re-releases of this film are beyond absurd. I like it very much but the release I have about 4 re-releases prior suits me fine.

ian959
09-15-07, 05:43 AM
A pox on the colorised version but if it is a genuine restoration of the film then maybe, just maybe ths could be worthwhile indulging again.

Otherwise, just how many versions of the film on DVD do we need?

mnementh
09-15-07, 05:59 AM
Every time you buy a DVD, an angel gets his wings.

AGameWithStones
09-15-07, 07:54 AM
Give it some special features worth mentioning, and I'll buy it.

Otherwise, this gets the raspberries.

Carcosa
09-15-07, 10:38 AM
Yes, I agree that the concept of re-releasing constantly really makes ones brain hurt but from a business stand point, what should one do? You have a product that you must keep fresh and with DVDs I can think of only one way to do that. :scratch2:

We shouldn't feel obligated to purchase the "newest" version....its not like the one we may have is obsolete or something. And a new re-release gives the studio/label a chance to perhaps catch the eye of a new consumer since its...well, new. Anchor Bay mined the ARMY OF DARKNESS thing beyond belief and none of the later releases had ANYTHING to offer that made the first release undesirable. And I never bought any of them.

In the case of a new-to-DVD title, yes...the studio's tactic IS to offer a barebones release to be followed by a better one, or in the case of WB offering them at the same time (THAT is a good move...WB is the BEST). I suspect the average movie buyer doesn't care much about special features. Only DVD maniacs...like me :banana:

basaro
09-15-07, 10:43 AM
This will probably just be the current SE disc along with a colorized version as well. No reason to pick this up, I'd get the current release for cheap as that drops in price. Unless that is you like nasty colorized films. ;)

Dane Marvin
09-15-07, 11:18 AM
I'm holding out hope that it adds some extras to the previous release. The last version (best so far) just came out last November, but I traded it to someone. So I will probably be in for the 2-disc this year. Every time Christmas sneaks up on us, I have to have this movie...

I'm trying to imagine what the hell this would look like in color. "Wrong" is the answer I'm coming up with.

islandclaws
09-15-07, 11:48 AM
I may as well get this one. I don't have any of the previous editions, so this one looks like it's going to be the one to get. I don't care about the color version at all, but if the b&w is restored and looks even better I'm all for it.

TheMovieman
09-15-07, 12:06 PM
I may as well get this one. I don't have any of the previous editions, so this one looks like it's going to be the one to get. I don't care about the color version at all, but if the b&w is restored and looks even better I'm all for it.

Ditto. I never bought the other releases so I'll go for this one.

cardaway
09-15-07, 01:41 PM
Looks like it comes with a cool slipcover... sold!

But really I'm in for the better picture. I only have one of the first releases and this title is easy to give way.

souvenir
09-15-07, 02:01 PM
Since Jimmy Stewart was one of the bigger proponents against colorization of black and white movies, it seems wrong to have this release at all. Everyone who buys it will be implicitly endorsing the colorization of movies, even though the original version is included and even if that's the version you want.

The Monkees
09-15-07, 02:44 PM
Okay, it took me many years to buy this. Because I had bought it for my dad for Christmas in 1999, so every Christmas I would just watch his. I bought the one last year so when I finally move out I'd have my own copy. Now they release yet another one? The only way I will buy this one is if they add a commentary. I would like to see the colorized version, I hate when companies colorized movies, but I'm always interested in seeing it once, but I would not buy it just for that.

PatrickMcCart
09-15-07, 06:13 PM
Last year's remaster from Paramount looks fantastic, even though it added nothing that wasn't on the first Artisan/Republic DVD.

This really deserves a commentary or two instead of a colorization. James Stewart specifically referenced this film as a reason for his opposition against colorization. I don't care how spiffy it looks, this is one movie that doesn't need color for enhancement.

The Monkees
09-16-07, 02:20 AM
I don't care how spiffy it looks, this is one movie that doesn't need color for enhancement.

I completely agree, I usually just like to see how it looks. But, would never watch it in color again. I hate hate hate hate when movies are colorized. This movie is a classic and completely deserves a full out special edition instead of these re-release after re-release just so Paramount can cash in every single Christmas.

Dane Marvin
09-16-07, 06:25 AM
I completely agree, I usually just like to see how it looks. But, would never watch it in color again. I hate hate hate hate when movies are colorized. This movie is a classic and completely deserves a full out special edition instead of these re-release after re-release just so Paramount can cash in every single Christmas.

Maybe this will be the year of the good SE for IAWL. Lord knows Warner would have decked this out with an excellent edition by now if this were their title. It's definitely in need of a good audio commentary for once.

grim_tales
09-16-07, 08:28 AM
I have the "60th Anniversary" release - I don't care about a colourised version.
I may double dip/upgrade if this is a genuine restoration (though I was happy with the 60th AE) and there are some good extras.

Cameron
09-17-07, 10:54 AM
is this a new colorization or the old 80's master?

also agreed that colorization is a bad thing, but understand that they have to find some way to re-sell old stock.

come on HD paramount

PatrickMcCart
09-17-07, 11:51 AM
Last year's remastered edition from Paramount was from the new restoration, so no re-restoring is necessary.

BuckNaked2k
09-17-07, 01:25 PM
Oh boy, the 51st Anniversary Edition. I just re-bought this last year, so no thanks, I'll pass this time.

Barry Sandrew
09-25-07, 01:54 PM
This will probably just be the current SE disc along with a colorized version as well. No reason to pick this up, I'd get the current release for cheap as that drops in price. Unless that is you like nasty colorized films. ;)

No Basaro - this is the first transfer of the film to high definition. It was newly restored and newly colorized by Legend Films, Inc. this year. The color process used is the latest and most advanced ever and was used by Scorsese for color effects in "The Aviator". Technically, this is certainly the highest quality B&W and color release of "It's A Wonderful Life:.

souvenir
09-25-07, 02:30 PM
No Basaro - this is the first transfer of the film to high definition. It was newly restored and newly colorized by Legend Films, Inc. this year. The color process used is the latest and most advanced ever and was used by Scorsese for color effects in "The Aviator". Technically, this is certainly the highest quality B&W and color release of "It's A Wonderful Life:.


And I'm sure you had Frank Capra supervising that new colorization. It's funny to hear the terms "quality" and "color" when describing a film made in black and white that should only ever be shown in black and white.

pjflyer
09-25-07, 03:06 PM
Is there a phone number where I can DEMAND this will not be colorized?

I only want to see Jimmy Stewart in BLACK/WHITE face.

basaro
09-25-07, 03:12 PM
No Basaro - this is the first transfer of the film to high definition. It was newly restored and newly colorized by Legend Films, Inc. this year. The color process used is the latest and most advanced ever and was used by Scorsese for color effects in "The Aviator". Technically, this is certainly the highest quality B&W and color release of "It's A Wonderful Life:.

So, you're saying the B&W version has been restored this year? Don't care about the color version. The only thing that would get me to buy this is if the transfer is much improved from the 60th anniversary edition. Is that the case? 2 new transfers in 2 years, damn!

This is coming out in HD, maybe soon? Yeah, see below, this is an HD master, so perhaps there will be an improvement in the SD transfer too. Hmmm, can I say quad-dip, oh boy please no...

Barry Sandrew
09-25-07, 03:46 PM
Is there a phone number where I can DEMAND this will not be colorized?

I only want to see Jimmy Stewart in BLACK/WHITE face.

PJ - you certainly have that choice but you should not deprive others of the choice.

MTRodaba2468
09-25-07, 03:51 PM
I'll probably pick it up since I don't have the movie on DVD yet; especially if the B&W transfer is better than the past releases.

I really don't have any desire to watch a colorized version.

pjflyer
09-25-07, 05:18 PM
PJ - you certainly have that choice but you should not deprive others of the choice.

I wasn't serious - I was poking fun at the Tom and Jerry thread.

I don't think they should colorize movies - but I won't lose sleep over it.

Alfred Bergman
09-25-07, 09:09 PM
Hi everyone

According information I have Frank Capra wanted to colorize It's a Wonderful Life, and hired Colorization Inc, a division of Hal Roach studios, to perform the work. This was in 1986 and the colorization was a analogic poor process, with very limited color. Capra had his own desire to the colors to aplied to the colorization work, but when Hal Roach found the film was in public domain thay just ignore Capra and made the work by themselves to get all profit. So the first colorization had not the colors desired by Capra.
Also Hal Roach got Capra as a enemy, due their unfriendly manuever, of despise hin after realise the film was in public domain.

The second colorization of the film, in 1989, made by American Film Technologies (AFT), former Barry Sandrew's company prior to Legend Films, was autorized, usiing the first digital colorization process developed by Barry, that was the most advanced colorization technology in the 80's.
The question is: Was the second colorization complete color designed by Frank Capra? Is this third colorization, made by Legend Films, based in Frank Capra's color design?

Sure the new process have a much richer pallete than the analogic 1886 technology, or even to the simple digital 1989 technology. It's made in DH definition.
The new color design can't be identical to a old technology design, since lots of finer details, that had just a based color in the old process, can get more color detail in the new process. But the basic intention could be used, since would represents Capra's feelings for a color version of his own fim.

This new tranfer, made in HD, while the SE 60 aniverssary was just SD, can also be used for HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises.
I don't see anyone blaming HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises...

baracine
09-26-07, 09:40 AM
I don't think they should colorize movies - but I won't lose sleep over it.

Since this is to be the definitive edition of a family classic, I think not only should the colorized version be kept under some sort of parental lock but that Donna Reed's and Gloria Grahame's shapely silhouettes should be pixilated so as not to cause undue pleasure in the viewer. :)

Alfred Bergman
09-26-07, 02:02 PM
Hi everyone

According information I have Frank Capra wanted to colorize It's a Wonderful Life, and hired Colorization Inc, a division of Hal Roach studios, to perform the work. This was in 1986 and the colorization was a analogic poor process, with very limited color. Capra had his own desire to the colors to aplied to the colorization work, but when Hal Roach found the film was in public domain thay just ignore Capra and made the work by themselves to get all profit. So the first colorization had not the colors desired by Capra.
Also Hal Roach got Capra as a enemy, due their unfriendly manuever, of despise hin after realise the film was in public domain.

The second colorization of the film, in 1989, made by American Film Technologies (AFT), former Barry Sandrew's company prior to Legend Films, was autorized, usiing the first digital colorization process developed by Barry, that was the most advanced colorization technology in the 80's.
The question is: Was the second colorization complete color designed by Frank Capra? Is this third colorization, made by Legend Films, based in Frank Capra's color design?

Sure the new process have a much richer pallete than the analogic 1886 technology, or even to the simple digital 1989 technology. It's made in DH definition.
The new color design can't be identical to a old technology design, since lots of finer details, that had just a based color in the old process, can get more color detail in the new process. But the basic intention could be used, since would represents Capra's feelings for a color version of his own fim.

This new tranfer, made in HD, while the SE 60 aniverssary was just SD, can also be used for HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises.
I don't see anyone blaming HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises...

Alfred Bergman
09-26-07, 02:05 PM
Hi everyone

According information I have Frank Capra wanted to colorize It's a Wonderful Life, and hired Colorization Inc, a division of Hal Roach studios, to perform the work. This was in 1986 and the colorization was a analogic poor process, with very limited color. Capra had his own desire to the colors to aplied to the colorization work, but when Hal Roach found the film was in public domain thay just ignore Capra and made the work by themselves to get all profit. So the first colorization had not the colors desired by Capra.
Also Hal Roach got Capra as a enemy, due their unfriendly manuever, of despise hin after realise the film was in public domain.

The second colorization of the film, in 1989, made by American Film Technologies (AFT), former Barry Sandrew's company prior to Legend Films, was autorized, usiing the first digital colorization process developed by Barry, that was the most advanced colorization technology in the 80's.
The question is: Was the second colorization complete color designed by Frank Capra? Is this third colorization, made by Legend Films, based in Frank Capra's color design?

Sure the new process have a much richer pallete than the analogic 1886 technology, or even to the simple digital 1989 technology. It's made in DH definition.
The new color design can't be identical to a old technology design, since lots of finer details, that had just a based color in the old process, can get more color detail in the new process. But the basic intention could be used, since would represents Capra's feelings for a color version of his own fim.

This new tranfer, made in HD, while the SE 60 aniverssary was just SD, can also be used for HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises.
I don't see anyone blaming HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises...

DoubleDownAgain
09-26-07, 02:29 PM
whoa! Deja vu!

GuessWho
09-26-07, 02:35 PM
Sure the new process have a much richer pallete than the analogic 1886 technology
technology one year earlier

http://www.geekroar.com/film/archives/bttf3_clock.jpg

Ambassador
09-26-07, 03:03 PM
Alfred, just out of curiosity, what's your source for the info that Capra himself wanted to colorize the movie and actually went so far as to contact/hire a company to do it?

tyge
09-26-07, 04:13 PM
good movie

ctyankee
09-26-07, 04:58 PM
Having just watched She, I'm open to colorization. That was terrific and the color really worked for that film. This statement comes with a big if ... that's if ONLY the original version is also available. Then, it just becomes a matter of more choices.

As is been pointed out, sometimes a director wanted to do color but didn't have the budget for it.

One thing that I would be opposed to is colorizing films when the director truly wanted it to be b&w such as HIGH NOON and ERASERHEAD. I don't think that would be right.

BSpielbauer
09-27-07, 12:03 AM
Having just watched She, I'm open to colorization. That was terrific and the color really worked for that film. This statement comes with a big if ... that's if ONLY the original version is also available. Then, it just becomes a matter of more choices.

As is been pointed out, sometimes a director wanted to do color but didn't have the budget for it.

One thing that I would be opposed to is colorizing films when the director truly wanted it to be b&w such as HIGH NOON and ERASERHEAD. I don't think that would be right.

Finally, a post that narrows this debate to its real crux.

The truth is, it is always dangerous to generalize. And, most of the posts above have fallen into that trap.

The truth is, there are films that would be artistically compromised, or in some cases artistically destroyed by colorizing.

The truth is, that there are some films that would actually be improved by a very careful, and very artistic colorization. When this controversy arose, many of the Turner attempts tried to compensate by careful research, searching for the "actual color" of a particular dress, or a gentleman's suit, or the paint job on some studio flat on a soundstage. This was fraught with errors, though, since that color had often been chosen by a production designer for the amount of contrast which would result once the scene was shot in glorious black and white. Those colorization efforts were sometimes so bad as to be laughable. (Reference the chocolate syrup substitute for blood, mentioned some posts back).

The truth is, there are also some films which would actually be destroyed by any attempt to colorize, since the decision was an artistic one from the beginning.

The truth is, there are also some films which would actually be improved by a careful and artistic attempt to colorize, since the decision to film in black and white was purely a budgetary decision. For decades, filming in color was a premium. It cost more. A lot more. There were films that should have been shot in color, but were not, due to the studio's attempts to keep the budget low. There were actual films where the director would have shot in color if he had the clout, or the bargaining power, or the bargaining skills.

The truth is, there were also films where color simply did not exist (in real terms or in practical terms) in film. I would defy any one here to argue that Busby Berkely would have shot most of his 1930s masterpieces in black and white if he had the tools and resources and scientific ability to shoot in color. The color motion picture was still in the experimental stages, and it had not yet been used for any feature when he made his greatest works. It simply "did not exist," as far as he knew. If it had been possible, there is no doubt that that color was more suited to his style, and his intended effect, and his overall desire. He was simply born a few years too early. Would colorizing his films enhance them? In my own opinion, assuming a truly careful and deliberate and studied approach, yes.

The truth is, those who argue for "OAR" and "show it the way it was in the theater" are often misguided (and also overbearing). The mere presence of a true "Director's Cut" serves as a serious argument against that notion. The fact is, there have been a few cases where a director's cut improved the original.

The same thoughts apply to aspect ratios.

The same thoughts apply to improvements and enhancements in audio content (2.0 versus 5.1, for example).

The same thoughts apply to upconversion of video technology, for example the attempts to add lines of resolution by taking a 480i television broadcast (shot using video cameras) and increasing it to 720p or to 1080i, or to 1080p.

Again, we all generalize. I am guilty of this, too. And, it is always a mistake. There are exceptions.

Question: The Wizard of Oz had artistically deliberate transitions from black and white (with sepia) to color, and then back again. Would the directors have also considered using widescreen had it been an available choice? Would they have also used DD 5.1? Or, perhaps DTS EX? Of course they would have.

Question: Would any attempt to colorize "To Kill A Mockingbird" be a serious artistic mistake? Of course it would.

Generalizing. A huge mistake.

Usually.

-Bruce

PatrickMcCart
09-27-07, 12:48 AM
This new tranfer, made in HD, while the SE 60 aniverssary was just SD, can also be used for HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises.
I don't see anyone blaming HD-DVD or Blue Ray realises...

Last year's version was remastered in HD already. The colorization would require an HD master of the B&W original.

Cameron
09-27-07, 12:58 AM
According information I have...


Where does this info come from? I would like to read it.

baracine
09-27-07, 09:31 AM
I would personally like to see a lot of recent colour films re-colourized by experts. A lot of them have gone the way of pallid, colour-fading-into-blue films like the recent Spielberg efforts. And I would certainly like to see the Legend Films colourization of It's a Wonderful Life. I consider their colour work to be (1) works of art and (2) the most sincere homage to a B&W film that can be made.

And I agree with all the self-evident platitudes dutifully expressed here that not all films should be colourized. But this one, definitely... Imagine the swirling ink-black waters and the swirling white snow while George contemplates suicide. No! Wait... Better rephrase that! Think of the Christmas tree. Yeah, that's it! the Christmas tree. And Zuzu's petals...

Another valid objection to colourizing this film is that its central "dream" part is really a film noir where everything goes wrong. I consider this just another challenge for the colorists to give us the most lurid colours they can come up with and contrast them with the "happy" parts... And, as they say, this film has been colourized twice already. Maybe the third will be the charm...

But then again the naysayers will come up with a cute little saying like: "Teacher says everytime they colourize, an angel dies..." :D

bookcase3
09-27-07, 11:20 AM
Colorization of b&w films is a little like releasing full-frame movies -- it gives options to people who don't really care about the integrity of films. It's a choice, and my preference would be to see the original.

baracine
09-27-07, 12:15 PM
Colorization of b&w films is a little like releasing full-frame movies -- it gives options to people who don't really care about the integrity of films. It's a choice, and my preference would be to see the original.

You can also see it this way: The most talented monks of the Middle Ages spent the greatest part of their time colourizing the Gospels in books like the Irish Book of Kells:

http://www.mindstring.net/acad/teaching/L571/notes/img/Kells.jpg

Very few of them were excommunicated or burned at the stake for desacrating the black and white originals.

baracine
09-27-07, 12:37 PM
Refurbishing sound:

I understand why some Beatles songs were remixed by George Martin & Son with the blessing of the surviving Beatles and the widows of the departed ones for the Cirque du Soleil show "Love"... Listening to this record on a home theatre system is an unforgettable experience.

Please note, however, that when A Hard Day's Night was put on DVD, they remixed the mono sound for Dolby Surround while preserving the original mono mix of the songs because the original mono mix used in the film was actually different (different takes, etc.) from the stereo mix also available on some of the (non-soundtrack) records at the time. But they managed to do it in a way that still filled all 5.1 speakers, which was sheer genius.

When Disney does its Platinum Editions of its classics, it refurbishes mono sound into a 5.1 Disney Enhanced Home Theater mix that is simply stunning. I had listened to the restored mono music of Bambi on the 1992 CD but what they did with it on the recent DVD is just magic: the sound is spatialized, the soloists and chorus appear distinct from each other, even when only one track was available to begin with, the sound effects are discretely directional, the fidelity and renonance of strings and percussion seem increased by some unknown process (God! I hope it's not re-recording!) background noise is non-existent and the surround speakers are always active. The new sound mix on Peter Pan is so good, in fact, it can almost make a purist forget the horrible things they did to the film's original colour palette.

Refurbishing visuals:

Colour correcting problems aside, the digital refurbishing that is done to the visuals on all the Disney films represents an upgrade that sometimes makes the film actually look better than it ever did but you hear very few purists scream that this is "against nature" - unless, of course, they get the colours horribly wrong as they did on Peter Pan, in which case I reserve the right to have a conniption fit.

PatrickMcCart
09-27-07, 07:16 PM
I'm fairly sure that the 5.1 mix for A Hard Day's Night utilized only the restored British mono mix and the isolated music/effects track. Since there was no participation from Apple, they apparently didn't have access to the song masters (unlike the 5.1 remix for Yellow Submarine). But that's why Miramax's 5.1 mix keeps the sound effects during songs unlike the previous MPI stereo mix. It could have been better, considering the sound is almost entirely center mono whenever there's no music. In comparison, there's a ton of directional dialogue on Yellow Submarine, as well as excellent separation of the sound effects. The new Help! remix seems to have directional dialogue, too.


The comparison to colorization to biblical pages by monks is irrelevant. Monks had to reproduce everything by hand. They were not taking existing books and coloring over them. While not as damaging (since you can always turn off the color), colorization is like pan & scan in that it's a process to make films more visually appealing to the general public. People want to fill their TVs, so why not make sure you're getting your money's worth by getting all the colors while you're at it?

It's like how VCI's new DVD of the '51 A Christmas Carol includes the fully restored original B&W version, a new colorization made from the new remaster, and a 16x9 tilt and scan version. So, there's a version for people who want all the colors on their TV used, want their 16x9 TV screen filled, and also for people who just want to see the movie.

Alfred Bergman
09-27-07, 07:40 PM
THEY THINK ABOUT CENSORSHIP TO THE CLASSIC "THE INVISIBLE MAN"

In the film Clud Raimes, that plays the invisible mas, when appears invisible his is suposed to be naked, or his clothes would appears. So he go around naked everywhere, despite of be invisible.
Naked is a unaceptable thing for TV to movies in cetains TV broadcast in certains horary.

The digital solution is to add floating black bars evertime the invisible man appears (as invisible). To preserve the moral sense of a classic film.
For a futher versions like The Invisible Woman, there would be two floating black bars, to cover the invisible torax of her.

Just getting fun fellows.
One think that I like about colorization is the fact of bring back more health films, with far less sexual exploitation comapred to actual cinema industry.
It's harmfull to kids to watch most of the actual production from TV and cinema, with ultra violence, consumism and individualism ideal. But people prefer to atack colorization instead of the violence culture on actual TV.

baracine
09-28-07, 07:59 AM
I'm fairly sure that the 5.1 mix for A Hard Day's Night utilized only the restored British mono mix and the isolated music/effects track. Since there was no participation from Apple, they apparently didn't have access to the song masters (unlike the 5.1 remix for Yellow Submarine). But that's why Miramax's 5.1 mix keeps the sound effects during songs unlike the previous MPI stereo mix. It could have been better, considering the sound is almost entirely center mono whenever there's no music. In comparison, there's a ton of directional dialogue on Yellow Submarine, as well as excellent separation of the sound effects. The new Help! remix seems to have directional dialogue, too.

The point is the makers of the Hard Day's Night DVD preserved the original mono mix of the songs - which belongs to United Artists by the way - instead of using the available stereo mixes, which are in fact different from the mono mixes and not just in stereo. I thought it was a good idea to centre the sound during most of the picture but to open up the aural vista during the actual performance of the songs in public.


The comparison to colorization to biblical pages by monks is irrelevant. Monks had to reproduce everything by hand. They were not taking existing books and coloring over them. While not as damaging (since you can always turn off the color), colorization is like pan & scan in that it's a process to make films more visually appealing to the general public. People want to fill their TVs, so why not make sure you're getting your money's worth by getting all the colors while you're at it?

I was yanking your chain about the monks although they did actually write over older texts in a process called a palimpsest, because parchment was so expensive and so rare they always recycled it. Yes, colour is just another option, one I really, really like.

It's like how VCI's new DVD of the '51 A Christmas Carol includes the fully restored original B&W version, a new colorization made from the new remaster, and a 16x9 tilt and scan version. So, there's a version for people who want all the colors on their TV used, want their 16x9 TV screen filled, and also for people who just want to see the movie.

I also appreciate the 16x9 option, which is something I experiment with on my widescreen TV anyway (Please don't call the cops just yet!). But, in this case, as the 16x9 version is anamorphic, I will be getting a little more definition while I'm doing my diabolical experiments. I just feel sorry the colourized 16x9 version isn't also available.:( (OK, now you can call the cops!)

PatrickMcCart
09-28-07, 02:22 PM
The point is the makers of the Hard Day's Night DVD preserved the original mono mix of the songs - which belongs to United Artists by the way - instead of using the available stereo mixes, which are in fact different from the mono mixes and not just in stereo. I thought it was a good idea to centre the sound during most of the picture but to open up the aural vista during the actual performance of the songs in public.

No, the AHDN DVD includes a 5.1 mix only. No original mono track. UA has no stake in the film anymore (and hasn't since the original release - only distributor). Walter Shenson owned the film outright until he signed it over to Miramax around 2000. Although, I'm not sure if his estate still owns the film while Miramax only received theatrical and video rights for some time. He licensed the film to Universal for the 1981 theatrical re-release.

baracine
09-28-07, 04:58 PM
No, the AHDN DVD includes a 5.1 mix only. No original mono track. UA has no stake in the film anymore (and hasn't since the original release - only distributor). Walter Shenson owned the film outright until he signed it over to Miramax around 2000. Although, I'm not sure if his estate still owns the film while Miramax only received theatrical and video rights for some time. He licensed the film to Universal for the 1981 theatrical re-release.

I never said the DVD included the original mono track. The ONLY AHDN DVD I know of that is still in print is the Buena Vista DVD - also known as the Miramax Edition in the US and the Alliance Atlantis Edition in Canada:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41R74CAR8CL._SS500_.jpg

Although the soundtrack is NOMINALLY 5.1, it is in reality the same old Walter Shenson-concocted Dolby Digital 2.0 soundtrack of the 2000 re-release: the whole film is centre-speaker mono but the songs fill up the FL-FR-SL-SR speakers with a Dolby Surround (Dolby Pro Logic) 2.0 mix that incorporates the original mono mix of the songs - along with the sound effects, especially girls screaming. The mono mix of the songs used in the film was prepared by George Martin (in a hurry) especially for the film and it belongs to the film and to whomever has the rights to the film. United Artists also put out a mono soundtrack LP incorporating the mono song tracks in the mono version and the mono song tracks enhanced-for-stereo in the "stereo" version (along with mono/true stereo George Martin instrumentals) when it still had the rights to the songs.

Simple, isn't it?

The fact remains that the songs you hear on that DVD and in the film are in mono and they are from the original mono mix prepared for the film and they are different from the stereo versions which you can hear, for instance, on the stereo Parlophone British AHDN album: different takes, different instrumentation, different voice tracks, different attacks, variants in the words, etc.

I was praising the DVD for keeping this original mono mix of the songs, which has historical importance. I am also expressing the hope that this mono mix will never be replaced or tampered with.

Julie Walker
09-28-07, 05:30 PM
Taking a mono mix and spreading it out to 5.1 speakers does not 'preserve' the original audio mix quality at all. :)

And turning off the color on a colorized films does not 'preserve' the original black and white photography either. :)

That's why those Fox releases of public domain movies in B&W and color versions are not what they appear. You don't get the true original B&W version of the films on the release. You get the color version with the color turned off,which lacks detail and so forth.

Read the review of their release of Carnival Of Souls. I think it was on tihs website,or hometheaterforum.com,which went into more detail on how the two prints looked.

Ambassador
09-28-07, 07:13 PM
I also appreciate the 16x9 option

I mean this question honestly, baracine: Are you really serious?!?!

baracine
09-28-07, 07:17 PM
Taking a mono mix and spreading it out to 5.1 speakers does not 'preserve' the original audio mix quality at all.

I see you totally missed the point I was trying to make about the AHDN DVD using the original mono mix of the songs, the only mix the distributors have access to, by the way. As for spreading it out, I personnally think it adds to my enjoyement of the film and that something had to be done to make the film compatible with today's home theatre technology, which is more advanced than that of the theatres where the film originally played.

And turning off the color on a colorized films does not 'preserve' the original black and white photography either. That's why those Fox releases of public domain movies in B&W and color versions are not what they appear. You don't get the true original B&W version of the films on the release. You get the color version with the color turned off,which lacks detail and so forth.

Read the review of their release of Carnival Of Souls. I think it was on tihs website,or hometheaterforum.com,which went into more detail on how the two prints looked.

I have no idea which "Fox releases" you are referring to but I think it's a case of "Here we go again". I've never seen a DVD where both versions of a film were offered (by Legend Films anyway) where the B&W version wasn't from the original restored B&W film elements.

Ambassador
09-28-07, 07:18 PM
It's harmfull to kids to watch most of the actual production from TV and cinema, with ultra violence, consumism and individualism ideal.

How so?

baracine
09-28-07, 07:23 PM
I mean this question honestly, baracine: Are you really serious?!?!

Oh my God! You are going to call the cops, aren't you?

http://www.mindspring.com/~boycekb/images/Smilies/Scared.gif

Ambassador
09-28-07, 07:36 PM
Oh my God! You are going to call the cops, aren't you?

It just really puzzles me that a person who apparently likes movies as much as you do seems relatively unconcerned with experiencing them as originally intended by their creators/experienced by their original audiences. I'm trying to think of an analogy, since I know you're fond of them, and I guess it would something akin to preferring a blown-up reproduction of the Mona Lisa because the original is too small to see properly from a distance. Or perhaps lopping off several inches from either side of the Last Supper so that it fits on the wall over one's kitchen table.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to the fact that I believe that there's some sort of "aura" to the aesthetic experience of watching movies that gets lost via technological/digital reproduction/reimagining. Sure, it might be vaguely interesting, but it doesn't really add to my aesthetic enjoyment of the original. And it's weirdly fascinating to meet someone for whom "aura" (or however you define the idea I'm getting at) doesn't fit into his sense of aesthetics -- viz. original color (or lack thereof), aspect ratio, audio mix, etc. It's a bit like finding one's own political/religious/philosophical polar opposite -- only in the world of film buffs.

baracine
09-28-07, 09:07 PM
In the end, I suppose it comes down to the fact that I believe that there's some sort of "aura" to the aesthetic experience of watching movies that gets lost via technological/digital reproduction/reimagining.

The moving picture itself, whether it is achieved through an ugly mechanical clockwork conventional camera or a modern digital contraption, is a technological wonder that places several layers of intervening constructions and assumptions between the viewer and the reality (quote http://mgroove.forumlivre.com/html/emoticons/quotes.gif unquote) it supposedly reproduces. The films I like I have seen so often that there is nothing I welcome more than a chance to experience them differently or to glorify them with totally artificial - but not necessarily totally arbitrary - colours, or to test whether the way they were shot originally happens to be compatible with today's accepted projection ratio. Whether Dorothy's departure on the yellow brick road is not made more majestic, for instance, by being shown in a 16x9 ratio. It's a pleasure that is not unlike the pleasure one feels at dusting, polishing or restoring a damaged piece of furniture or repairing a favourite toy or - if it were possible - seeing someone you love grow suddenly younger. It is not very different from an artist's habit of transforming the usual and the expected into the unusual and the unexpected or of stepping back to look at an object from a different angle. Today's technology makes all of those things possible and makes the viewer into an artist capable of delving in different ways into a fixed, definite, established and accepted work of art, to question it and make it supply even more meaning. And it all happens in the privacy of one's own home so no one ever needs to know about it and judge you.

Except when you discuss it on a public thread like this one, of course, which really cheapens the experience...:D

AGameWithStones
09-28-07, 09:35 PM
I want to see nudity in It's a Wonderful Life. When is someone going to invent nakedization for classic clothed films?

Ambassador
09-29-07, 03:27 PM
The moving picture itself, whether it is achieved through an ugly mechanical clockwork conventional camera or a modern digital contraption, is a technological wonder that places several layers of intervening constructions and assumptions between the viewer and the reality (quote http://mgroove.forumlivre.com/html/emoticons/quotes.gif unquote) it supposedly reproduces. The films I like I have seen so often that there is nothing I welcome more than a chance to experience them differently or to glorify them with totally artificial - but not necessarily totally arbitrary - colours, or to test whether the way they were shot originally happens to be compatible with today's accepted projection ratio. Whether Dorothy's departure on the yellow brick road is not made more majestic, for instance, by being shown in a 16x9 ratio. It's a pleasure that is not unlike the pleasure one feels at dusting, polishing or restoring a damaged piece of furniture or repairing a favourite toy or - if it were possible - seeing someone you love grow suddenly younger. It is not very different from an artist's habit of transforming the usual and the expected into the unusual and the unexpected or of stepping back to look at an object from a different angle. Today's technology makes all of those things possible and makes the viewer into an artist capable of delving in different ways into a fixed, definite, established and accepted work of art, to question it and make it supply even more meaning. And it all happens in the privacy of one's own home so no one ever needs to know about it and judge you.

I think you've explained yourself and your position better in the above paragraph than in your many previous posts throughout all the colorization threads around here. So I feel like I finally have a better sense of your logic.

Of course, I must confess that I still don't buy it -- not even from the point of view of empowering the consumer. Most specifically, your analogy that it's "not unlike the pleasure one feels at dusting, polishing or restoring a damaged piece of furniture or repairing a favourite toy" seems to me particularly false, since there's a huge difference between restoration and re-imagination. As does your claim that it's "not very different from an artist's habit of transforming the usual and the expected into the unusual and the unexpected" -- since works of art themselves aren't generally designed to change (or be changed by other hands).

Of course, having read Walter Benjamin too, I agree entirely with your first sentence, but I don't think that the multiple layers of mediation necessarily eradicate the intentionalities of the creator(s) of individual films -- or the "specialness" or "aura" or privileged nature of that intentionality. It's just like the photography of Matthew Brady or Ansel Adams; however many times they are copied, there is still an original negative that all of those copies should more or less correspond to.

What I find most intriguing about your position is the degree to which it reminds of the early surrealists. All of your alterations to the original seem to be designed to produce something new/different from the original work. If that's true, then I think there's some merit to your arguments. However, I think that it's necessary to frame what you're doing explicitly as creating something new -- and not watching an "improved" version of the origianl. (Which is how Legend and most other fans of colorization seem to pose their efforts -- to varying degrees.)

At the same time, I also find your desire to find a chance to "experience differently" the "films you like [and] have seen so often" a bit puzzling. Again, due to different conceptions of aesthetic experience. To me, part of the appeal of art is being able to return to something that exists in a finished state and finding that whatever "different experiences" you have with it are due largely to changes within yourself over time. Or if I find that I'm no longer getting anything worthwhile out of one of what used to be my favorite films (such as, say, North by Northwest, which I've perhaps seen too many times), then there are literally tens of thousands of other movies just waiting to be watched. I guess my point being that I'd just as soon watch a different movie than watch a colorized or otherwise altered version of a movie I already know in order to achieve a "different" experience.

At any rate, I genuinely appreciate your response. Like I said, I feel like I have a much better sense of what your logic is. But it's a logic I just can't buy myself.

baracine
09-29-07, 04:01 PM
Ambassador, I do consider the timid changes (colourization, different aspect ratios, improved sound) I submit the precious original (and its "aura") to as improvements. I remember the thrill I had when I first heard portions of The Wizard of Oz soundtrack remixed in genuine stereo from the available recording stems on an old laserdisc (the That's Entertainment boxset if I recall correctly). And which one among us has not thrilled to a perfectly wonderful and unexpected restoration of a favourite film? Or hearing a soundtrack that has been cleaned up and stripped of its pops and hisses and other monstrosities? Or seeing a film on a larger screen? Or with increased definition, whatever the process? Or even in an improved transfer? Or just the ability to zoom out of the picture to eliminate overscanning?

About the aura of a film:

When I was 14, my Jesuit College's cine-club presented Hitchcock's Vertigo in a 16 mm 4x3 B&W print. I remember being so very proud of my analysis of the film in front of the whole class the following day, talking about its music, its script, its various levels of meaning, up to the point where I mentioned the mysterious quality of the black and white photography and the image composition. That's when our teacher politely coughed and mentioned that the film had been shot in colour and VistaVision, that our College couldn't afford a colour widescreen print, but that he was sure some of the original photography's qualities were still visible in the print we were shown. (Red faces all around...)

Alfred Bergman
10-01-07, 02:03 PM
From Wikepedia and from Barry Sandrew. Capra was angry about don't get the money he want, since the movie was already public domain and Colorization Inc would not pay hin as he wanted. So he got hoywoody friends and started a moviment against colorization using creative rights as argument. But in reality was a "monetary rights" moviment.
Directors are people usually as many person in society, despiute of marterpieces they made. ANd like many peple they like money a lot. If colorization would pay hin well, he would not mind to add crayons all aorund. Remambering Colorization Inc by the time of this incident had a very rudimentary analogic technology with very poor results, limited color number, poo resoltion, and even so Capra would colorize with them if could get a good perfcentage of profit.

Ambassador
10-01-07, 03:37 PM
For some reason, my post wasn't actually showing up, so I've just reposted it:

Ambassador, I do consider the timid changes (colourization, different aspect ratios, improved sound) I submit the precious original (and its "aura") to as improvements.

vs.

And which one among us has not thrilled to a perfectly wonderful and unexpected restoration of a favourite film? Or hearing a soundtrack that has been cleaned up and stripped of its pops and hisses and other monstrosities? Or seeing a film on a larger screen? Or with increased definition, whatever the process? Or even in an improved transfer? Or just the ability to zoom out of the picture to eliminate overscanning?

Once again, you're blurring the difference between restoration and re-imagination. I'm all for restoration: cleaning up the soundtrack of the damage it has acrued over the decades, watching the film on the big screen or in an HD transfer, etc. I don't consider creating a stereo or dolby digital soundtrack out of a mono soundtrack, or creating color where it didn't exist before, or altering the original aspect ratio as "restoration" (or, as I'm sure you well know I'll say, even necessary). A case in point, of course, would be those silly canon blasts that replaced the gunshots in the opening scene of the "restored" version Vertigo. That wasn't restoration at all, and immediately took me out of the film because it didn't belong (and I knew it, from previous viewings).

When I was 14, my Jesuit College's cine-club presented Hitchcock's Vertigo in a 16 mm 4x3 B&W print. I remember being so very proud of my analysis of the film in front of the whole class the following day, talking about its music, its script, its various levels of meaning, up to the point where I mentioned the mysterious quality of the black and white photography and the image composition. That's when our teacher politely coughed and mentioned that the film had been shot in colour and VistaVision, that our College couldn't afford a colour widescreen print, but that he was sure some of the original photography's qualities were still visible in the print we were shown. (Red faces all around...)

An interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure what it proves. I remember watching -- and learning to love -- lots of great widescreen movies in their pan-and-scan versions on TV when I was growing up: Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, the Sergio Leone westerns, etc. Obviously, they're so well constructed that their qualities still shine through various forms of butchering (editing for commercials, pan-and-scan, etc.). Now that I can see them regularly as originally composed and intended, I appreciate them even more, and I'm not sure that I'd ever want to go back to someone else's version of what they're supposed to look like. In fact, I guess my eyes have gotten so used to the way certain directors frame their shots, that something really seems awry when I see their widescreen films in pan-and-scan (and sometimes even in open matte).

So perhaps what I mean by "aura" is partly just a sensitivity to certain styles of framing and composition. At any rate, I'm willing to trust and privilege most directors' original intentions, despite whatever flaws there might be.

Cameron
10-01-07, 07:15 PM
whats the point in bumping this thread when there is another thread where you posted the exact same thing.

Cameron
10-01-07, 07:20 PM
Some people will never care about preservation of film. They don't care about aspect ratios, added f/x, remixed sound, or colorization. That's fine, but I do. In that same note, I have little respect for the opinions of someone who talks about film, but does not only cherish but protects those original intentions.

kingtopher
10-01-07, 08:10 PM
Seriously, could you run your posts through a spellcheck or something. That's hard to read.

Poo resoltion?

baracine
10-02-07, 05:46 AM
Some people will never care about preservation of film. They don't care about aspect ratios, added f/x, remixed sound, or colorization.

I obviously care a great deal about the preservation of film and aspect ratios. It is you who doesn't care about added f/x, remixed sound or colorization.

That's fine, but I do. [On] that same note, I have little respect for the opinions of someone who talks about film, but does not [...] cherish or protect[...] those original intentions.

See what I did here? I preserved your original intention but corrected the syntax and grammar.

baracine
10-02-07, 05:58 AM
An interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure what it proves. (...) So perhaps what I mean by "aura" is partly just a sensitivity to certain styles of framing and composition. At any rate, I'm willing to trust and privilege most directors' original intentions, despite whatever flaws there might be.

That 4x3 reduction of Vertigo was not properly pan-and-scan (which hadn't been invented), since the VistaVision image is originally 1.5:1 (two 4x3 frames one on top of the other)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/VistaVision_8_perf_35_mm_film.png/300px-VistaVision_8_perf_35_mm_film.png
and can be shown in any ratio from 1.66: 1 to 2.1:1 according to the choice or whim of the projectionist, 1.85:1 being the "preferred" ratio. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/25/Vista-vision.jpg/200px-Vista-vision.jpg
So the original composition is pretty well preserved, even in 4x3. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision). And it could even be argued that it conveys more information about the original composition than the 1.85:1 "preferred" version. What was more telling was the absence of colour which made the film extremely murky but which didn't strike us as odd in those days when colour was an exception and TV was in black and white and we were used to "decoding" black and white films more than colour films. What is really remarkable is that I and my fellow teenage sophisticates were really impressed by this film and were able to discuss it intelligently without the added benefits of widescreen colour projection.

I don't consider creating a stereo or dolby digital soundtrack out of a mono soundtrack, or creating color where it didn't exist before, or altering the original aspect ratio as "restoration" (or, as I'm sure you well know I'll say, even necessary). A case in point, of course, would be those silly canon blasts that replaced the gunshots in the opening scene of the "restored" version Vertigo. That wasn't restoration at all, and immediately took me out of the film because it didn't belong (and I knew it, from previous viewings).

A great deal was made of those two poor "cannon blasts" but when you play the old mono soundtrack and the new 5.1 foley one after the other, the difference is really minimal, once you take into account the spatialization of 5.1 as opposed to the turgid, gelatinous nature of a mono mix. The same goes for those two "too loud" cushions being thrown on the floor by James Mason. This criticism is meaningless when you compare it to the painstaking effort that had to be expanded to reconstruct the whole sonic landscape so that stereo music could be inserted and the film restored. I personally care more about Bernard Herrmann's precious original stereo recordings than I ever will about those two miserable rooftop gunshots. And you make it sound like they were inserted maliciously, whereas the Vertigo restoration was probably the most important single act of genuine love, adulation and respect for a piece of film that ever came about in the history of cinema.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2KdHqaQgOs4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2KdHqaQgOs4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Julie Walker
10-02-07, 02:25 PM
A great deal was made of those two poor "cannon blasts" but when you play the old mono soundtrack and the new 5.1 foley one after the other, the difference is really minimal, once you take into account the spatialization of 5.1 as opposed to the turgid, gelatinous nature of a mono mix.

The mono mix on Vertigo does sound much better than the 5.1 mix and the difference is quite drastic!

Listen to the volume levels of the dialogue for example in the scene with Stewart in the ladies apartment at the beginning. The mono mix,the dialogue is at their natural audible level and rings true. The 5.1 mix,the dialogue and other audio effects are much lower and sound false.

In fact,I recall reading Robert Harris describing how they had to salvage the audio on Vertigo for the remix. And since the available audio stems were full of hiss and noise and the dialogue was not available on its own mix. So to hide the music and effects in the audio,they recorded it at a much lower volume level. Then overlaid new effects and music to 'enhance' the audio to 5.1. And it's all quite complex and technical. But basically it shows they should have just left it alone and restored the audio in mono as best that they could.

You may think mono audio sounds terrible compared to 5.1. But that could not be further from the truth. It's quite easy for me to appreciate a films original mix,whether it be mono or 5.1. I'd rather have good original audio,than a distracting altered mix. And 99% of the time,since someone who was not apart of the original production is not overseeing the audio remixing. The choices the audio technician makes to create the 5.1 mix are not always in line with how it should sound.

So a background piece of audio that is lower in the original mix. May call attention too itself in the remix by being brought up louder into the forfront. This changes the mood and atmosphere of a sequence. And great attention to detail in audio of all volume levels is used in many films to convey a specific mood. So by altering the volume levels of the dialogue,music and effects. You are altering the mood of the film. And many times that can severely take away from the experiance.

Ambassador
10-02-07, 02:47 PM
And you make it sound like they were inserted maliciously

It's comments like this one, in comparison with this one:

That 4x3 reduction of Vertigo was not properly pan-and-scan (which hadn't been invented)

that really gives me the impression that you're reading too much into specific passages of my comments and not actually understanding the whole of my argument. I merely gave Vertigo as an obvious example -- of audio retinkering. I didn't even cite it as example of pan-and-scan. (You'll notice that my examples of pan-and-scan were all films that were shot in 2.35:1 or so, such as Bridge on the River Kwai, Zulu, etc.)

At the same time, I didn't say that the rejiggered gunshots were inserted "maliciously." Ignorantly, perhaps. At any rate, they're a mistake, and the original DVD should have either have been corrected or at least have given us the option of choosing between soundtracks.

What is really remarkable is that I and my fellow teenage sophisticates were really impressed by this film and were able to discuss it intelligently without the added benefits of widescreen colour projection.

As my previous post should have made clear, I agree with this supposition, but also submit that your impressions and discussion of it would naturally have been richer if you had been able to see it in its original glory. I think we're pretty much on the same page here.

the turgid, gelatinous nature of a mono mix

This is a matter of opinion. I don't have much of a problem listening to mono recordings, be they motion picture, Benny Goodman jazz recordings, or early recordings by Rachmaninoff or Caruso. Is it as rich as stereo or Dolby Digital? Of course not. But neither is it as rich as listening to live music or stage plays. But I can enjoy what we've got just fine without fake rejiggering.

whereas the Vertigo restoration was probably the most important single act of genuine love, adulation and respect for a piece of film that ever came about in the history of cinema

This is also a matter of opinion. One could easily cite the restorations of Lawrence of Arabia or Spartacus as being more influential in drawing attention to the need for -- and audience for -- large-scale restorations. Of course, I realize that both LoA and Spartacus are problematic from a purist standpoint, since both involved recutting the films and inserting newly recorded dialogue. My point, in the end, is that you don't really do your argument any favors by making such sweeping generalizations.

But I don't essentially disagree with you about the importance/necessity of film preservation and restoration. All I can keep doing is saying that there is a very clear dividing line between trying to recreate the creators' original intentions and re-imagining them in various other ways.

baracine
10-02-07, 06:57 PM
So a background piece of audio that is lower in the original mix [...] [m]ay call attention too itself in the remix by being brought up louder into the forefront. This changes the mood and atmosphere of a sequence. And great attention to detail in audio of all volume levels is used in many films to convey a specific mood. So by altering the volume levels of the dialogue,music and effects. You are altering the mood of the film. And many times that can severely take away from the experiance.

The "background piece of audio" in question here is Bernard Herrmann's magnificent musical score and as it takes center stage in all the crucial scenes in the movie, I think it's a good idea to hear it in stereo and in better fidelity that was possible before. And the 5.1 dialogue is just fine. The 5.1 mix in general is extremely loud and has to be toned down compared to the mono mix. And the mono mix has to be turned up to be as audible as the 5.1 mix, which also turns up the background noise.

In fact,I recall reading Robert Harris describing how they had to salvage the audio on Vertigo for the remix. And since the available audio stems were full of hiss and noise and the dialogue was not available on its own mix. So to hide the music and effects in the audio,they recorded it at a much lower volume level.

I'm afraid you were misinformed. The restorers worked from an isolated dialog track and from a composite music+sound effects track. The dialog is always recorded separately on a sound source separate from the composite music+sound effects track. Otherwise, they couldn't export the film and dub it in different languages. The foley had to be redone because of the decision to replace the original music + sound effects track with a stereo recording of the music. Theoretically, they could have kept the original foley in the non-music scenes - and they did, for example, in the scene in Elster's club with the subdued conversations in the background. But most of the time, the sound effects (traffic, etc.) - which are very discreet in this film - had to be made directional. e.g.: the traffic outside the Argosy bookshop. The only scene where they kept the original mono mix was in the cemetery scene because the original music recording for that scene hadn't survived on tape in either mono or stereo. But they didn't just take the optical music+sound effects track they had, which was considered too damaged. They hunted around the world and finally found a relatively pristine track on a Spanish language copy of the film.

The original mono soundtrack shows strident voices with lots of background noise. The clean-up was done very well in the digital domain and leaves the voices sounding much more natural. If I have any criticism about the new soundtrack, it is that the "turgid, gelatinous" nature of the original mono mix was heavy in the lower register, which gives at times more momentum to the bass in Herrmann's music and an overall sense of doom. E.g.: The strings when Scotty gets out of his car in the alley behind the flower shop were much more ominous in the original mix because the whole mix was bottom-heavy and there are many other such examples. And yet, both the mono music mix and the stereo tapes were a product of the same recording sessions.

Alfred Bergman
10-11-07, 02:18 PM
I remamber the film restorer, Robert Hqarris, saying that Alfred Hitchcock got a bad advice about preserve his films. The preservation was about camera negatives and dupes. But the soundtrack components, several separeted tracks, wasn't preserved and this got problems about reralise the films with bether soud or doubling with quality.
There was other ditails about the mess-up advice for preservation. I will try to find the article.

PatrickMcCart
10-11-07, 08:13 PM
whereas the Vertigo restoration was probably the most important single act of genuine love, adulation and respect for a piece of film that ever came about in the history of cinema.

Vertigo really isn't that big of a restoration compared to others. That's reserved for Kevin Brownlow's restoration of Napoleon... spending over 30 years of his own time and money slowly piecing together a 6 hour film.

Not to knock the efforts of Mr. Harris and Mr. Katz, but they had the full financial and archival support of Universal, among others (AMC, Hitchcock's estate). This is the case with nearly any major studio film. Brownlow was constantly having to go behind people's backs at points and often doing stuff that could have put him in serious legal trouble.

Vertigo, and other film restorations backed by major studios are indeed treated with love and respect for the most part.

Premise
10-16-07, 02:38 AM
Was there ever a recall over the audio problems? The four loud pops are rather annoying. Is there a Paramount contact I could ask about this? Thanks.

Rob
10-19-07, 11:57 PM
Has anyone seen this yet? I just found it when I searched Amazon to find the 60th ann. edition, after reading this thread.

http://www.amazon.com/Wonderful-Life-2-Disc-Collectors-Color/dp/B000VDDDVO/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-9951353-3371264?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1192852386&sr=1-2



[UPDATE]: Oops, just saw the thread on this very DVD.

Rob
10-20-07, 12:02 AM
A pox on the colorised version...

"A pox upon me for a clumsy lout."

ken_572002
10-20-07, 09:12 AM
Yikes...that's a lot of cabbage for a colorized film currently in PD. Not sure how Legends can justify such a high MSRP...seems it will hurt sales on their part.

Carcosa
10-20-07, 10:38 AM
From Wikepedia and from Barry Sandrew. Capra was angry about don't get the money he want, since the movie was already public domain and Colorization Inc would not pay hin as he wanted. So he got hoywoody friends and started a moviment against colorization using creative rights as argument. But in reality was a "monetary rights" moviment.
Directors are people usually as many person in society, despiute of marterpieces they made. ANd like many peple they like money a lot. If colorization would pay hin well, he would not mind to add crayons all aorund. Remambering Colorization Inc by the time of this incident had a very rudimentary analogic technology with very poor results, limited color number, poo resoltion, and even so Capra would colorize with them if could get a good perfcentage of profit.

Ah....didn't see the front end as being a Wikepedia quote. I will have to check this myself. Seems to be more of an opinion than fact.

Carcosa
10-20-07, 10:41 AM
Yikes...that's a lot of cabbage for a colorized film currently in PD. Not sure how Legends can justify such a high MSRP...seems it will hurt sales on their part.

If you are refering to the colorized / b&w combo....well no, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE is not a PD movie. It was at one point but the rights were secured by Republic Pictures some time ago and have since past to Paramount.

Barry Sandrew
10-21-07, 03:48 PM
Yikes...that's a lot of cabbage for a colorized film currently in PD. Not sure how Legends can justify such a high MSRP...seems it will hurt sales on their part.

Hey Ken, It's not a Legend Films release. Paramount Pictures is releasing it November 13th. This is a newly restored black and white HD transfer and new color using the Legend Films' 48bit colorization process. This is likely the definitive B&W and colorized DVD of IAWL until DVDs evolve to film resolution. Currently only the standard definition release is available. I have no idea when they will release the HD versions.

Carcosa
10-22-07, 09:33 AM
Hey Ken, It's not a Legend Films release. Paramount Pictures is releasing it November 13th. This is a newly restored black and white HD transfer and new color using the Legend Films' 48bit colorization process. This is likely the definitive B&W and colorized DVD of IAWL until DVDs evolve to film resolution. Currently only the standard definition release is available. I have no idea when they will release the HD versions.

Maybe Ken is getting this mixed up with the SCROOGE release...Legend Films IS releaseing a colorized and b&w restoration of the 1935 version of this film, which IS in the public domain but has yet to see a definitive home video release.

ken_572002
10-24-07, 05:00 PM
My apologies for thinking 'Wonderful Life' was still in the PD. While I have enjoyed almost everything that Legends has put out, I will have to pass on 'Wonderful Life'. Just doesn't seem to be the type of movie that should be colorized.

That said Barry...when can we expect to see more of the 'John Wayne In Color' releases? Those films are MUCH more enjoyable, in the colorized format...

Carcosa
10-24-07, 07:43 PM
My apologies for thinking 'Wonderful Life' was still in the PD. While I have enjoyed almost everything that Legends has put out, I will have to pass on 'Wonderful Life'. Just doesn't seem to be the type of movie that should be colorized.

I'm really not interested in ANYTHING that is colorized for the most part (just not my thing) BUT Legend does a great job with it's restorations so we always get a top quality B/W version with everything they release....pretty smart marketing on their end....so the new SCROOGE release is a must buy for me.

As far as IAWL, the current version is just fine.

Alfred Bergman
11-04-07, 02:01 PM
Hey, look that, a digital HD restoration of Nosferatu:

http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/nosferatu/trailer/064-nosferatu.mov

http://www.kino.com/video/news.php?news_id=57

But they didn't replaced the missing frames, since most missing frames was available in other footages, prints, but with inferior picture quality.
Lucciano Berriatua was the film restorewr for the reconstruction of the film, and prefered to not use the best footages in somes scenes, since the best footage was shorter for some scenes and he didn't weant a abrupt change in image quality. The restoration of Chaplain Keystone shorts used a similar approuch, and they demonstrated that a long lower quality footage was placed for the entire scene, and a short version of the same scene, with more image quality, was left due be not complete.
I prefer to mix the quaity and lower quality footage in a same scene, even that this create a fall in picture quality allong the scene. Matching the contrast and gometry of the frame, with some sharpness adjust to the lower quality footage, helps to ride the image quality hiccup.

Thos digital restoration of nosferatu was based in the reconstrunction of the film by Lucciano Berriatua, and so follow this same principle. Lucciano foun a print of superior quality in the Cinematheque Francaise, bether than any other print of nosferatu, and he spent years and years trying to find that (I think was shot from original camera negative, so a fisrt generation print).
Some segments was deconposed, and there was some censored cut scenes not available in this quality print. Those segments was replaced with footage from toher prints, and that's why some scenes are really very good, and others just so-so. So the censor cuts, deteriored segments, wa s the reason, together with their decision of not allow image quality changes allong the same scene when possible.

For me they could have replaced the missingf frames at least, since if balanced by digital filters to get more sharpnes (since the frames was available in lower quality footage) and match contrast and geometry, the change in quality would not be much noticeable. The scene when Orlock rises after suck blood from Huter, have some missing frames that should be replaced. See the trailler in the link above.

The tinting seens to have some few different choices for this new digitally restored version, compared to the earlier Kino DVD. It's the third different tint of the movie in a reestored edition, since the earlie Kino DVD had diferent tinting than Image Entertainment DVD. The carnivorous plant scene was yellowed in the eraly Kino DVD, and in those clips are tinted and toned getting a gradient from red to orange.

Premise
11-05-07, 10:42 PM
The screencaps of the colorized version are up at DVDBeaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wonderfullife.htm).

Alfred Bergman
11-05-07, 11:26 PM
Accoding this review, and the screen captures confirm, the colorized version it's a new and bether transfer, while the B&W that come together is the old B&W tranfer, more solf, less crisp.
The Black and white is even the same disc of the earlier DVD, same bitrate graphic.

If you want more details in B&W you need to play the color version and turn dow the colors.

A too yellowed color balance to my taste, perhap looks bether on TV. I removed the yellowed excess by Photoshop and it looked bether.
The technology looks the same, but if you look to the second screen capture (man with open arms) comparison on the link above, it looks very uggly.
I never saw a colorization work able to put the greened color for the veins in the back of hands.

Check the review: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdco...nderfullife.htm

They would segment the skin not in a single sellection, but in a multiple sellections, one for face cheeks, ears (changes color if have light behind) one for neck, one for hands and hands back, and create a color spectrun for each one, since the real human skin have different depht (more or less blood according depth) and so different color, saturation and hues for regions.
They have cpontless sellection on a scene, so the cost almostwould not be increase . Also once the skin is overal separeted from the rest of i age, it's esay to segmet it for hands, eras, neeck...

I got a screen capture and alterated a littlke the colors for nech and cheak, making nech more "cold" and cheeks more warm. It got a bit bether!

Alfred Bergman
11-05-07, 11:30 PM
I hope paramount have the decency of ralise this dvd on Brazil!!!!!!!!!

Carcosa
11-06-07, 12:53 AM
The colorized captures on the DVD BEAVER website are truly amazing. While I prefer films to be seen how they were originally presented, I have no trouble admitting that I admire what I've seen in this technology. Its really come a long way.

Premise
11-06-07, 01:07 AM
The colorized version has a much higher bitrate, and no audio pops. I might pick this one up, and just turn the color down.

TheKing
11-06-07, 04:55 AM
Colorization has really come a long way. I'm impressed, may have to buy this new edition, since I only own the Republic version.

ken_572002
11-06-07, 05:59 AM
I still do not think I could ever bring myself to watch a colorized version of It's A Wonderful Life, but I have to admit that Legends Films did a top-notch job on the film.

baracine
11-06-07, 07:46 AM
Sold!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews33/its%20a%20wonderful%20life/its%20a%20wondswerful%20colorPDVD_031.jpg

As the reviewer puts it:

Disc 2 has the colorized edition of the film (also dual-layered and progressive). To be fair - it looks quite impressive and unless I was reviewing I would probably never have indulged in a viewing. But I am and I did. I'd seen the film so many times that watching it in color was a kind of neat change - I admired the colorization - the look in Donna Reeds eyes - but I, of course, cannot recommend this to those who have not seen the film before. But to those who keep it as a holiday staple with the family huddled near and the cold wind whistling outside - it might make the leap to those in the family who 'don't like black and white films' (savages that they might be). It seemingly does not contain the below mentioned audio 'pops'. I am kind of keen on this technology and it's amazing to see how far it has come.

If you don't own the 60th Anniversary release (how can that be?) then this 2-disc version is the one to own - for the classic version and the bastardized anomaly which serves as a curiosity... and disrespectful change. The colorization does look exceptionally good folks.... just not the way it was shown originally. Would Capra have wanted to in color if he had the choice? - I guess we'll never know.

Alfred Bergman
11-06-07, 10:15 AM
WITH E EXCEPTION OF THE SECOND CAPTURE IN DVD BEAVER, THE COLORIZATION LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. WELL DONE BARRY!

LEGEND FILMS TECHNOLOGY, SIMILAR TO OTHER COLORIZATION METHODS, GET BETHER IF HAVE A LOW CONTRAST FILM ELEMENTS OR FOOTAGE.

I prepared this image comparison of my own, with a readjusmtment of contrast, since DVD screen captures on PC always looks faded, also re-color balancing the image, and trying to regionally change the skin color in specific areas to get it more warm and dinamic, making cheeks more vivid and warm, and for other side turning the neck less warm or more cold.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2271/sawonderfuladjustmentofaj1.th.jpg (http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sawonderfuladjustmentofaj1.jpg)

The silly duck-egg blue rectangles are just to avoid anyone to copy it or mistake with Legend Films original.

I can turn this image even more contrasting and it will still look natural, ALMOST LIKE A REAL CONTRASTING COLOR PRINT. By colorizing in low contrast and turning to higher contrast we got fine results. But itf the only surviving element for It's A Wonderful Life was a high contrast, and the colorization would start from that, the result would be not pleasant, like the colorization of Things to Come showed us.

So I think if Legend Films could adapt their tools to try to turn the image contrast naturally lower, like did Lowry Digital Image (actual DTS Digital Images) while restoring Roman Holiday, they will get far bether results for colorization of contrasting footage.

Even higher contrast version:
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6847/sawonderfuladjustmentofvf9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
By BetoDarce (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/BetoDarce)

Alfred Bergman
11-06-07, 12:17 PM
Who can recognize all actor played as caricatures in this cartoon??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKAZ7_czZO8&NR=1

I was able to identify a lot: Peter Lore, Greta Garbo, Invisible Man, Three Stooges, H.Bogart, Hedy Lamar, James Cagney, Harpo and Goucho Marx, Bethe Davis, Bing Cosby, Gary Grant, E.J Robson, Jimmy Stewart, Frankeisntein Monter from 1931, Mickey Rooney, Judy garland, Buster Keaton, Oliver Hard, Clark Gable...

Barry Sandrew
11-06-07, 10:57 PM
Hey Alfred,

You likely ripped that image from a teaser which I believe Paramount placed in another DVD as a preview.

The DVD will be released until next Tuesday (Nov. 13th).

The original telecine of the film that Paramount gave us to work with was exceptional in quality and I definitely could not justify touching the underlying black and white element.

The studio would not find the contrast you present acceptable. I hope you can see that it's intrusive and completely changes the moment. The original filming of Donna Reed was intentionally lensed soft. Your adjustments made her look like she has a sunburn.

Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D.
Founder/COO
Legend Films, Inc.

.

.

Barry Sandrew
11-07-07, 11:28 AM
Alfred,

I thought I posted this yesterday but it didn't get put up for some reason.

You must have ripped the image of Donna Reed from the teaser we produced for Paramount. I believe that teaser was released on a recent DVD as a preview of the November 13th release of It's A Wondeful Life".

Paramount supplied us with a high definition transfer of the Capra film that was of exceptional quality. There was no need to mess with the contrast because the well balanced luminance in the transfer provided a look that was true to the original cinematograpy.

Our intention is to present a studied creative interpretation of the film using color. If color design is intrusive it becomes the central focus and that's not what we're about. When a person say's that they enjoyed the film in color and forgot it was colorized, we've succeeded.

The shot of Donna Reed that you present above was priginally lensed in soft focus for a reason and to add contrast destroys that effect. In fact, with increased contrast the color pops to the point where she looks sun burned and the whole intention of the shot is lost.

.

Alfred Bergman
11-07-07, 11:30 AM
Hey Alfred,
You likely ripped that image from a teaser which I believe Paramount placed in another DVD as a preview.
The DVD will be released until next Tuesday (Nov. 13th).
The original telecine of the film that Paramount gave us to work with was exceptional in quality and I definitely could not justify touching the underlying black and white element.
The studio would not find the contrast you present acceptable. I hope you can see that it's intrusive and completely changes the moment. The original filming of Donna Reed was intentionally lensed soft. Your adjustments made her look like she has a sunburn.
.

Nice to hear from you again, Barry. Yes, a supoerb new tranfer....

My high contrast adjustmente wasn't to be like that in final steps. I made it to demonstrate that a high contrast print could be colorized like a high contrast real contrasting color print use to look.
Despite you have the best worldwide technology, personally I believe sometimes Legend Fils colorize a contrasting print with the color dynamics (for Saturation anf hue) of a low contrating print, like did in the Sci-Fi film Things to Come.

The first image (comparison) was the adjustment itself (not soft as should) and the second image was for demonstrate that colors get bether along colorisation of high contrast if follow the natural dynamic of colors of real high contrast prints.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2271/sawonderfuladjustmentofaj1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The industry need to understand the the B&W grading sometimes need to be globally altered; and sure the regional contrast relations would be kept. In other words, would alter like just a curves (gamma curves) and not like darken or brighter just a section of the frame, as darken a shirt for example.
Colorization it's somewhat a entire new version of the film, and grading balance of B&W don't necessarilly works for color. But bether cold be done for certain scenes if the B&W grading cold be modified when needed.

Barry: What about improve even more skin colorization by creating few more color differences, by getting sellection for different sector of skin, like cheek, hands, neck, chest, arm?
Each one would have a own color spectrun (similar to each other but with little differences) and soft connected to the other areas, getting seamless trazition, and a more natural result?
This could solve the lack of cheek color and over saturated necks, often in colorizations.
Your Photo Real algorith creates color variances, but like a texture colors, and not exactly for large color variances for regions of body skin.
The mouth borders, the noze edges and the eyes would work like extrategic points to turn tracking near automatic.

If I could use your colorizatrion tools for a day or two... Could create dreamful colorizations...
But it's a tool you kept by seven keys or even more :-)


Alfred

PS: Screen capture came from this review, from the Disc itself: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wonderfullife.htm

Alfred Bergman
11-07-07, 11:53 AM
Alfred,

I thought I posted this yesterday but it didn't get put up for some reason.



You really posted it yesterday, but there is 3 forums on DVDTalk about It's a Wonderful Life colorized, so I posted practiacally the same in all :-)

brisco32
11-07-07, 12:52 PM
But people prefer to atack colorization instead of the violence culture on actual TV.

This is a classic logical fallacy. As if you have to choose one thing or the other.

I guess some people prefer to complain about people complaining about colorization instead of ending all war.

Why aren't you ending all war?????

Come on, Clud Raimes, end all war.

Alfred Bergman
11-07-07, 02:28 PM
This is a classic logical fallacy. As if you have to choose one thing or the other.
I guess some people prefer to complain about people complaining about colorization instead of ending all war.
Why aren't you ending all war?????
Come on, Clud Raimes, end all war.
What I mean is that we don't see much critic to the TV crap, ultra violence, sexual exploitation, retard almost porn comedies, opression of the actual media, cause the media dominate. But colorization, a small market is target of several furious critics, depite be getting back productions much more health.
This flag of freedon, is in reality a manipulation.
Ending all war??? What do you mean by that?

Barry Sandrew
11-07-07, 02:29 PM
http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2007/11/dvd_extra_georg.html

“…It is impressive and probably the best colorized movie to date. Legend Films' latest effort very respectfully works around the almost noir-ish cinematography by Joe Biroc, Joseph Walker and the un-credited Victor Milner. Color draws attention to the Jack Okey's incredibly detailed set decoration for Mr. Gower's drugstore, for instance. Probably the best sequence in color is the fabled swimming pool dance, including very intricate shadow lighting that would never have been used in an actual color film of the era (Legend adopts the more recent convention of stressing the golden side of the spectrum, particularly in the flashbacks to the 1920s)."

domino harvey
11-07-07, 02:42 PM
“…It is impressive and probably the best colorized movie to date.
Like that's an achievement. "Syphilis is the best venereal disease yet!"

Ambassador
11-07-07, 03:03 PM
My God! Do we really need three separate threads that all say the same thing??? Since Alfred seems loathe to let a single one of them die a natural death, can one of the mods lock or merge two of them?

brisco32
11-07-07, 03:26 PM
What I mean is that we don't see much critic to the TV crap, ultra violence, sexual exploitation, retard almost porn comedies, opression of the actual media, cause the media dominate. But colorization, a small market is target of several furious critics, depite be getting back productions much more health.
This flag of freedon, is in reality a manipulation.
Ending all war??? What do you mean by that?

Reductio ad absurdum. I am saying one has nothing to do with the other, then I did the same thing.

Do you really believe more people complain about colorization than violence in media? Talk about selective attention!

But the essential point remains. You implied that people on this board were remiss because they cared about colorization but not blah blah blah. So i asked why are you here complaining about complainers when you could be out there ending all war.

I'll give you until tomorrow to end all war.

wahlers
11-07-07, 04:12 PM
Well, I have to say that the screenshots I saw on dvdbeaver look great in color. It looks like Technicolor to me.

It might be different in motion, but it looks good as screenshots.

The copy I have is the really old republic version that came with the brass tree ornament, so I'll upgrade to this one.

Barry Sandrew
11-07-07, 04:38 PM
Sold!

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews33/its%20a%20wonderful%20life/its%20a%20wondswerful%20colorPDVD_031.jpg

As the reviewer puts it:

Indeed, Capra did want It's a Wonderful Life in color. According to Mike Agee of Hal Roach Studios, Capra signed a contract with Markle and Hunt of Colorization Inc to colorize It's A Wonderful Life back in the mid 80's. Cary Grant was so impressed with the first colorized film, Topper that he suggested to Capra that he should colorize several of his black and white films. Agee tells me he actually has the signed contract. Unfortunately after Markle and Hunt discovered that the film was in public domain, they decided Frank's advance payment was not necessary and they dumped him. More unfortunate... they made an enemy out of someone that would have made a significant ally.

.

bboisvert
11-07-07, 05:24 PM
What I mean is that we don't see much critic to the TV crap, ultra violence, sexual exploitation, retard almost porn comedies, opression of the actual media, cause the media dominate.

You must not read much if you think those topics are not discussed and/or criticized.


Just because I think that colorization is a stupid idea and looks like crap, doesn't mean that I'm ignoring violence, sexual exploitation, global warming, trans fats, or public appearances by Tom Cruise. It just means that I'm sticking to the topic at hand.

I'll gladly discuss trans fats in the appropriate situation.

Alfred Bergman
11-07-07, 09:49 PM
My God! Do we really need three separate threads that all say the same thing??? Since Alfred seems loathe to let a single one of them die a natural death, can one of the mods lock or merge two of them?
Yeah a problem :-) So here am I posting again, trying to fill the three treads...
Well, here the adjusted but less or without sunburn look, more close to soft intention.
Al that is just trying to show that skinn get a bit bether if got little differences in color for cheek, neck and others.
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/8463/softerdonnareedgr6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Other thing colorization technology will probably advance in near future is about 3D estimation, to calculate bether reflex of colors or even few interferences in the color hues due colored pieces near objects. There are already some few 3D estimation, for particular situation, according Barry, but it's in early stages I presume.

Barry should make a colorization test. Something like colorize the opening and the ending scenes of The Wizard of Oz, which had those sequences in Kansas a B&W sepia tone. If the colors get well like in the Land of Oz scenes, would be interesthing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEEUehKXMM8

If we coud erase the memories of this film, from the mind of a anti colorization cinephile, and present the film for hin first as a B&W glossy & grain version, and after that present the original color film, claming it was a colorization with the latst technology, what would hin say??

It's possible that maybe he says: "This is a insult, and it's not like the original classic B&W with the strong glossy great silver shades. The colors are garish and too strong. Colorization should be forbiden."

Alfred Bergman
11-07-07, 10:10 PM
Indeed, Capra did want It's a Wonderful Life in color. According to Mike Agee of Hal Roach Studios, Capra signed a contract with Markle and Hunt of Colorization Inc to colorize It's A Wonderful Life back in the mid 80's. Cary Grant was so impressed with the first colorized film, Topper that he suggested to Capra that he should colorize several of his black and white films. Agee tells me he actually has the signed contract. Unfortunately after Markle and Hunt discovered that the film was in public domain, they decided Frank's advance payment was not necessary and they dumped him. More unfortunate... they made an enemy out of someone that would have made a significant ally.
.
The whole colorization history could be very different if Markle and Hunt hadn't turn out discharging Capra from the project!
Could you imagine if thew investiment made by Ted Turner in the 80's was made today.

I supose it's not easy for Barry. He practically invented the colorization, the first digital process, and since the 80's is beeing attacked by anti-colorizatioin croops, or hard critics about the quality of the colorization technology, or called of Syphilis disseminator like we heard here.
Let's be more repectable to someone who allow some of his time to go to the forums and respond questions and talk with crazy film fans like us.