eXcentris

I have to know, it's killing me.

I mean seriously, what's the point of of having a "colorized scene" of a B&W film on the cover? Ahhhh, I guess it could be worse, they could colorize the whole films.

eXcentris

Darn, wanted to post this in DVDTalk. Mods?

garmonbozia

I am sure they probably do from time to time. I get more freaked out by the colorized photos sometimes seen on the back of the box than on the cover. There have been times when I got a dvd of a B&W film in the mail and was worried about the color photos on the back of the box, scream, and start scrambling to find the words "black and white" in print. Nasty, nasty trick.

darkhawk

Before you know it, sooner or later they'll be putting the movies in B&W and Colorized on the same disk

marty888

It's not really a new thing - look at the original lobby cards from the 40's & 50's for b/w movies, and many of them were "colorized".

Joe Molotov

The DVD for The Christmas Carol (w/ Alistair Sim) has already done this.

BritTVfanMidwst

marty888 said QUOTE: It's not really a new thing - look at the original lobby cards from the 40's & 50's for b/w movies, and many of them were "colorized". :unquote

Actually, old lobby cards and movie posters were often paintings, rather than photos from the film, but I understand your point.

Personally, I *hate* it when an obviously *colorized* photo is used on the DVD or VHS box (and I mean colorised photo, NOT artwork, that happens to be in color, if you understand the difference). I have some VHS tapes of Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers musicals, and ONE of them has an obviously colorised photo on the front that looks god-awful!!! (Ginger's white dress is PINK for god's sake!) So I end-up doing the same thing as garmonbozia, FRANTICALLY, checking the fine print to make sure the film is still in black & white.

But then I HATE it when letter-boxed and cinemascope movies are put out, ESPECIALLY on DVD, in pan-and-scan versions. If I had my way, those "full screen" versions of popular, recent films wouldn't even EXIST!!! Then the public would actually learn about film ratios and the care that most directors use in composing their shots, rather than the idiots that whine "the dvd is broken" cause of the black bars on the top and bottom (anyone besides me think that people who *think* that are TOO DUMB to own a DVD player)?

Which brings up another point-- it is JUST as DUMB to force a TV show picture into widescreen (If it wasn't SHOT in widescreen, that is), as it is to force a widescreen movie into 3:4 TV-ratio pan-and-scan.

WHY, oh why, CAN'T the studios release films on DVD in their *orginal formats*? What the HECK is wrong with that? (eg widescreen as widescreen, black and white as black and white, and old 3:4 films AS 3:4) Some of us actually KNOW something about film, believe it or not.

On a related note, is anyone, besides me, worried that the changeover to HDTV will mean, especially in the US, that older movies (such as "Casablanca", "Gone with the Wind" (technicolor) or "The Wizard of Oz" (sepia, technicolor) which should be properly shown in 3:4 aspect ratio (TV screen size) will suddenly be "stretched" to show on widescreen/HDTV screens? Creating a similar but opposite problem to running a widescreen movie at 3:4 ratio? Or do you think the idiots who design these things will put like black bars on the SIDES of a 3:4 film? (I'm thinking of CLASSIC films: "Casablanca", "Sunset Boulevard", "Citizen Kane", "The Maltese Falcon" which will be lost or destroyed in the rush for HDTV). Thoughts?

Brit TV Fan Midwest
(I also happen to be a classic film fan)

haclong

Hi

Wow... i had not been aware of those restraint while TV format will be switched into HDTV but i'm agree with you. I hate it when they colorized an old B&W movie (i own the Disney's Zorro Complete First Season but i still hoping Buena Vista Damn Them will dig out the original B&W masters of the TV Show and will release it in its original color ) and I also hate it when they "hide" the black bars...
I don't understand what's the deal with those black bars.
Without those black bars, i feel like i'm missing a part of the movie.
I have watched I know what you did last summer (not a good movie though, but it was scheduled on TV and... anyway) and i remember these scene where Sarah Michelle Gellar was talking to her father who were watching TV in his living room and actually, you cannot see any of those two actors because SM Gellar was on far left of the screen on a widescreen format (then out screen on a 3:4 ratio) and her father was on the far right of the screen on a widescreen format and then, again, out screen on the 3:4 ratio...
The scene means nothing suddenly ;p
I hate this...

Heck ! I can't remember if movies on french DVD keeps the widescreen ratio. I believe they are in widescreen format because i believe that black bars does not bother french public as US public but i can't be sure for that... Have to check that as soon as possible ;p...
I'm sure that movie scheduled on TV are resized to fit the 3:4 screen ratio but I'm pretty sure that movie on DVD keep their widescreen format (hopefully for me )
As for the Indiana Jones box set, two different box set was released in the US market : the widescreen box set and the "full screen" box set. In France, only the widescreen box set was released. I think that because less people here will buy the full screen box set...

Spiky

Yes. Luckily I don't talk to them much because I tend to tell them straight to their face. See sig.

ThatGuamGuy

Anybody ever have it go the other way? When I was younger, I worked in a library which had a vhs section. I was a big fan of 'Tunes of Glory' based on showings on television, and one day I saw the box for the video at the library. Looking at it, all the pictures on the back were black and white and the cover was a muted color which looked colorized. I briefly thought that the version I had gotten used to was colorized, but it didn't make sense that it would be (it's not). Still don't know why the box did that, maybe they were trying to appeal to fans of older movies...

BritTVfanMidwst

haclong-- You're example of the Sarah Michelle Gellar film is PRECISELY my point!
When a widescreen film (a rectangle) is run at 3:4 ratio (normal TV, eg a square box) you are no longer seeing the original film-- you're seeing a MESSED-up version.
The problem is even BIGGER with Cinemascope (no pun intended) a early version of what we now call IMAX/widescreen, used in the 1960s. If you've ever seen *Earthquake!* or *The Towering Inferno* or *Journey to the Center of the Earth* on TV and thought, "What the heck is going on, I can't follow this!"-- it's because someone's taken a Cinemascope movie and used a process called pan-and-scan.
(Or *West Side Story* for that matter-- finally caught a *properly* restored version in the correct ratio and it's INCREDIBLE what a difference it makes! It POPS in widescreen! I know folks on this board probably aren't into musicals but watch a couple of the dance scenes in proper widescreen and then in 3:4 and you'll INSTANTLY get it!)

RE: whoever was taking about France only getting widecreen

The ONE country I know nothing about in terms of video/DVD is France (I thought they were still using SECAM, for pete's sake).
BUT here's the deal in the US-- Most major RECENT releases (Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, etc) will be released IN TWO versions-- "widescreen" and "full screen"). There are two problems: The "full screen" version is bad and shouldn't exist--it's NOT the full movie. Second, sometimes the widescreen *isn't* real widescreen, they've faked it by putting black bars OVER a full-screen pan-and-scan version. to have REAL widescreen you need a slightly more expensive animorphic print.
("Grease" has that problem-- Olivia Newton John's ad-lib of a fish movement during "Summer Nights" is GONE-- and the several of the dance sequences don't "look right" because the film ISN'T reproduced correctly). "Harry Potter", the first one, **I've heard** is also messed-up, with faulty/fake non-animorphic widescreen.

The PROBLEM in the US is two-fold: Studios who can't be bothered to treat their films with respect, especially classics; and two-- DUMB people.

No, honestly, I've BEEN in Suncoast and listened to a manager trying to explain to some IDIOT that the DVD is NOT broken if there are black bands on the top and the bottom. I have SEEN this!!! You have no idea how much I wanted to grab the guy, and say, "This is a rectangle, THIS is a square. You put the rectangle in the square and you get--BLANK Places!!!!!". I don't know how the manager kept her cool, but I did say something to her about her incredible ability to stay calm.
(Course I then probably pissed her off by requesting three Hitchcock films all of which were out of print!).
so you have studios who WON'T spend money, studios who think ALL Americans are as dumb as the guy I saw giving that manager grief, and a system that RE-ENFORCEs stupidity by putting the product out in TWO formats. (Like I said, if I had MY way, all movies would be on DVD in the original format-- 3:4 in 3:4, widescreen in widescreen, Cinemascope in a widescreen-like format; b&w as B&w, color as color!)

But then I'm such a movie purist I actually BROKE UP with someone when he said the following: "Ted Turner is such an idiot he colorised "Gone with the Wind"!


(For the FEW of you who might not know this GWTW was NOT made in black& white--it was made in the original Technicolor process (as was The Wizard of Oz, and the 1938 "The Adventures of Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavaland). Technicolor, which shot FOUR pieces of film, simultaneously, in a camera literally 2 FEET by 2 FEET by 2 FEET, produced VERY bright, jewel-like colors, but with a slight "cartoonish" look to them by today's muted color-palette standard. Correctly adjusted/restored Technicolor is absolutely incredibly gorgeous! Beautiful! but not necessarily "real" looking, if you're used to the exetremely dark-looking modern movie methods.
But NO, *Gone with the Wind* was NEVER made in b/w!

Brit TV fan, who's being Roger Ebert tonight for your listening pleasure!

benedict

Better late than never?

Cameron

i can honestly say i have had more people ask if it is in black and white when it has a color cover. They want the B&W...I would'nt have it any other way.

marty888 is right this is old hat with lobby cards, and posters. I think warners original poster art is the best look for classic covers...better than the universal banners, or columbia classics still shots.

eXcentris

Yeah, I saw this thread and went what the hell?

TNAJason

I bought the NOTLD DVD that came out September 7th for the colorized version & the dissapointing zombie star look-alike feature thing. Whitch now means I have 3 versions of NOTLD....
Anchor Bay's 30th Anniversary "Shitty Extended" Edition
Fox's Release that has colorized version,Zombie Stars feature,and commentary
Elite's Superior Millenium Edition
I wouldn't own the Anchor Bay one if it wasn't for the fact that I'm such a completist AND big Dead Trilogy(Soon to be series!!!!) fan.

Walter Neff

There's being a completist, and then there's being a completist. Sheesh. The Elite Millennium edition should be all anyone needs for the original NOTLD.

chileorgullo

what was the first film to be in color?

gutwrencher

I don't get fooled because I know whats up....so it fools and bothers me not.

Cameron

an explanation from filmsite.org

Two-Color and Three-Color (Full-Color) Technicolor Development:

One of the first 'color' films was Thomas Edison's hand-tinted short Annabell's Butterfly Dance. Two-color (red and green) feature films were the first color films produced, including the first two-color feature film The Toll of the Sea, and then better-known films such as Stage Struck (1925) and The Black Pirate (1926). It would take the development of a new three-color camera, in 1932, to usher in true full-color Technicolor.



The first film (a short) in three-color Technicolor was Walt Disney's animated talkie Flowers and Trees (1932) in the Silly Symphony series. [However, others claim that the first-ever color cartoon was Ted Eschbaugh's bizarre Goofy Goat Antics (1931).] In the next year, Disney also released the colorful animation - The Three Little Pigs (1933). In 1934, the first full-color, live-action short was released - La Cucaracha (1934).



Hollywood's first full-length feature film photographed entirely in three-strip Technicolor was Rouben Mamoulian's Becky Sharp (1935) - an adaptation of English novelist William Makepeace Thackeray's Napoleonic-era novel Vanity Fair. The first musical in full-color Technicolor was Dancing Pirate (1936). And the first outdoor drama filmed in full-color was The Trail of the Lonesome Pine (1936).

In the late 30s, two beloved films, The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone with the Wind (1939), were expensively produced with Technicolor - what would the Wizard of Oz (with ruby slippers and a yellow brick road) be without color? And the trend would continue into the next decade in classic MGM musicals such as Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) and Easter Parade (1948). Special-effects processes were advanced by the late 1930s, making it possible for many more films to be shot on sets rather than on-location (e.g., The Hurricane (1937) and Captains Courageous (1937).) In 1937, the Disney-produced Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) was the first feature-length animated film - a milestone. The colorful Grimm fairy tale was premiered by Walt Disney Studios - becoming fast known for pioneering sophisticated animation.

BritTVfanMidwst

Hi--

That's a VERY difficult question! Early, early, early SILENT films, back from the days when Edison had just invented the movie camera actually DID have color, sort-of. The black and white film print was laboriously hand-colored or hand painted. (I've seen bits and pieces of these films in a couple of the AFI specials, notably "The rush to save 100 years" (guessing on the *exact* title) and the effect is very interesting. Also, very, very old silent films often used filters to create color-- so a scene meant to be at night would have a blue filter used and the entire SCENE is blue; similar for yellow or red.

Technicolor was one of the best-known early color processes, but I don't think it was technically the first one. With Technicolor FOUR pieces of film were shot simultaneously (the black and white print, and then 3 more copies of the print each treated to pick-up part of the range of the spectrum in: Red, Yellow, and Blue-- these four pieces of film were combined optically into a new "color" print). The results were incredibly vivid, jewel-tone colors (to the modern eye, technicolor, especially poorly-restored Technicolor can look slightly "cartoonish" because the colors are InCREDIBLY bright; especially compared to modern subdued color palette). Anyway, you NEED to see some of the classic Technicolor films to apprecate it (eg: The Wizard of Oz (1939), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), and Gone with the Wind (1939))

Drawbacks to Technicolor-- The camera was HUGE, and I mean HUGE--the first ones were easily 4 cubic feet (2 feet high, by 2 feet wide, by 2 feet deep)--this VASTLY restricted camera movement-- cameras were loaded onto dollys (little trucks) and moved around a studio on tracks similiar to railroad tracks. This resulted in VERY static camera images.

That's also why B&W films were being made right alongside the early color ones-- not only was B&W *cheaper* at the time, but it was more atmospheric.

Other problems with technicolor-- the film needed a LOT of light--insane amounts of light (If you know anything about photography you'll understand why--the camera needed to expose FOUR layers of film at the same time), the need for a lot of light and wide-open F-stops also restricts depth of field.

So Technicolor, as gorgeous as it is, had problems--you couldn't really move the camera, you were studio-bound (or locations were choosen VERY carefully and required additional lighting anyway), and you need a LOT of light.
And all the special equipment is expensive, even in the 1930s.

--Brit TV fan and classic film buff

Additional resources: Check out any textbooks on the history of film/cinema
Also check out AFI-- The American Film Institute for info on film preservation and restoration

Cameron

good article ^^^

was The rush to save 100 years the show where they were showing cans filled with dust in the USC and UCLA vaults??? Can i find this on dvd?

BritTVfanMidwst

Quote Cameron said:
was The rush to save 100 years the show where they were showing cans filled with dust in the USC and UCLA vaults??? Can i find this on dvd? :unquote

Yep-- that was it! Other *incredible* things in that documentary-- a fire of Silver nitrate film, where the film is STILL BURNING despite being under WATER; and excellent section on the switch from silver nitrate to "safety" acetate film, and subsequent EXCELLENT analysis of why and how safety film loses it's color and contrast (best example I can think of for this is if you look at an *original* print of the *original* *Star Wayrs* film--the poor condition of the film has to do with "safety" acetate.
I actually SAW this documentary on TNT; but I was surprised at (A) how good it was, (B) altho' there was a section on the Ted Turner Warner Bros. film libary restoration work, it wasn't nearly the "corporate commericial" I was expecting. The information in the doc was excellent, really!

Is "The Rush to Save 100 Years" on DVD? I don't think so. But you could check AFI (The American Film Institute) or TNT/TCM (Turner network television/turner classic movies).
Anyway --it's an EXCELLENt documentary, and I urge everyone to see it!

--Brit TV fan & classic film fan

DonnachaOne

Yes! People are fooled by this all the time... when I worked at a video store, people would rent B&W films with a color cover, then come back saying we lied/our tape was messed up (or, even, that we broke their TV).

eXcentris

I would have told them that they were the first ones to complain about this, that the film plays in color on everybody else's television and that therefore, there was clearly a problem with their tv so they should contact the manufacturer.

Cameron

Thanks again...I am going to try to find this. I remember seeing the star wars print as well...all blue...i need to see this again.