Reality Check:

This thread is in the "DVD Talk" forum (not the "Movie Talk" forum), which discusses the merits of DVDs and not the merits of films or film processes.

This thread is the merging of three different threads started about the coming of a colourized DVD of It's A Wonderful Life.

If you don't care to see this DVD and you have expressed that feeling and your reasons for it (usually once is enough), I don't see what you are expecting and why you linger.

The same goes for me, of course, since not one poster in the thread (excepting myself and Barry Sandrew, of course, who will be barred if he is suspected of promoting his own DVD) seems to have seen the DVD in question.

It's not a discussion of the merits of the DVD itself.

What's being debated here is a VERY open ended discussion about colorization in and of itself. Unless It's A Wonderful Life is the very first film in history to ever be colorized, which it isn't, then there's no point in discussing it here. It's been discussed to death on these forums in the past. As I've already said once before, this thread has gone off the rails such as every Star Wars thread ever has. Some people are trying to steer it back on course but some people aren't letting this happen.

A proper discussion about the merits of this DVD as far as colorization goes, would include how the colorization itself looks on the title, how you like it, how you dislike it, why you do or don't like it, and if this is going to end up being a purchase for you. But being that you aren't going to even spend money to buy or rent this thing to ever watch it, then you're going way beyond your two cents here and going into that open ended debate that doesn't need to be discussed here.

I don't think people like Jay G has tried to 'convert' anyone. He was simply saying that there needs to be enough sense in this thread for a discussion based on the DVD itself, and apparantly we can't do this here. The only people who have attacked someone like Jay G, has been the people who are dead set against colorization.

Now, I personally couldn't ever see this film in color, and that's my choice. I'm not dropping my five cents but I'm certainly not going to say it doesn't look nice, it looks like a job well done. A film like Miracle On 34th St. however didn't bother me in color, since it's not such a 'mood' piece like It's A Wonderful Life. And that's all that really needs to be said there. Why the discussion needs to venture beyond that point until more people actually have more to say about the new colorized version after they've seen it, is beyond me.

I agree with everything you say but could you just correct your post and replace Jay G. with baracine? I'm the one saying this discussion should be about the DVD and Jay G. is the one saying that all fans of colourization should burn in hell.

Thank you.

Ah....this is getting interesting.....

-popcorn-

Whatever. The same point stands no matter who was on what side.

So, has anybody actually who sat down and watched the colorized version want to share opinions? Such as if it really changes the experience for them and heightens/dampers it?

Like I wrote before, I'm just responding to what's been posted. And considering that the colorized version of the film is the only reason this release exists, discussing the merits of the colorization process is a discussion of the merits of the DVD.

Because people post things that I feel should be responded to, such as mischaracterizations of people who don't like the colorization process, and your mistaken assumption that one has to view an alteration before one can be opposed to the alteration.

And, of course, one could ask why you continue to make new posts in this thread in support of the colorized version, since "you have expressed that feeling and your reasons for it (usually once is enough)."

And of course, it's mischaracterizations like this that keeps causing me to respond. I never said that I thought people who like colorization "should burn in hell," or anything remotely like it. I've simply stated that I feel that colorization is wrong, in my opinion. Anyone with an opinion to the contrary is free to have that opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to view their opinion as in any way, shape, or form as correct or valid, again in my opinion. And I feel that I should have the right to voice my opinion in this forum. Isn't it the point of this forum to voice both positive and negative opinions of a DVD release? I seem to recall someone voicing some very negative opinion regarding a certain other DVD transfer not too long ago on this forum....

By the screencaps posted in this thread, the colorization looks very well done, but not totally realistic, and of course not at all like it should look (B&W).

I don't like it.

I dislike it very much.

Well, I would say why I don't like it here, but you seem to think my reasons for not liking it aren't valid.

It's not.

That's OK, because I put in a dollar, and I haven't quite reached that limit yet. ;)

Why should the discussion completely halt until someone else who's seen the full color version pipe in, especially considering that it's not very likely to happen?

Wouldn't that discussion be, by your logic, "not a discussion of the merits of the DVD itself" though? Either discussion of the colorized version, and its advantages and faults, is valid in this thread, or it's not.

Yes, it seems to me one cannot have a discussion about the pros and cons of the colorized version of IAWL without it touching on colorization merits in general. Its going to happen and thats fine by me, although the thread is not ONLY about the colorized version.

The debate is interesting to me but without resolution ultimately

And I suspect Baracine's "burn in hell" comment was a bit tongue in cheek...

Good lord. Can't anybody distinguish the difference? Talking about the colorized version of this film, how IT looks, how IT feels, and how IT offers an experience to you one way or the other IS pertaining to THIS film.

An open ended debate on why colorization is acceptable or unacceptable is NOT. Why is my logic on this so hard for people who seem to be intelligent to follow?

I love how members of this forum just pick things apart, phrase by phrase, and just completely forget the whole message. All I'm simply trying to say is that I'm with the people who dont' approve of the colorized version of this. My reasons may not be as 'out there' as some of the purists and the reasons those purists are against it are fine, but I think we can safely say this thread carried on more over time about the acceptability of colorization of films themselves, instead of in this one particular instance. And instead of just stating these opinions, it turned into a debate over colorization in general, again.

I can't and won't explain myself on this again. I'm just repeating myself here. Anywho, I look forward to watching my black and white edition of this film that came out last year. I got a great deal on it this year with the new edition out. With the black and white transfer being the same as in the new edition, and me having no desire for the colorized version, it was nice to save some coin.

They probably could have saved the money on the restoration process and colorization, released yet another new edition for this year with some gimmicky packaging, and made a better profit. There are so many people that grew up with this film, I wonder how much money they'd make simply based on the fact that the color version is now available. You think people would have picked up this set as a two discer with special features minus the colorized version anyways? I'm betting on 'most likely'.

Yes, on a DVD I had seen. Why do you keep missing the point?

I have seen the colorized version and other works by Legend Films. There's no arguing whether or not they did a nice job. The colorization for It's a Wonderful Life looks great.

It was just unnecessary. Just as much as would a DTS 5.1 remix had it been included on the DVD. Maybe I'm not as demanding... If it's cleaned up as best as it can be, that's good enough for me. I don't need color to enjoy B&W classics.

Because your logic is very illogical. It's like suggesting that a discussion of a P&S transfer shouldn't bring up OAR. Discussing the colorization of this film is of course going to bring up those who oppose it on principle, because that's one of the major reasons why people aren't going to like/want this specific colorized film. Discussing just whether or not one person subjectively finds it better or worse is just one way to look at it, and for those opposed to it on principle, beside the point. It's not about what image is best, something completely subjective and thus not really defensible on either end, it's about what image is correct, which one only has to refer to how it what was originally shot to determine.

I've seen it too, you posted screenshots a few pages back.

And why do you keep missing my point that I don't have to see the whole colorized version, or see it at all to pass judgment on it? I don't have to see a FS transfer of a WS film, or a dubbed version of a foreign language film, to know that it's not the way I want to see the film. I don't see why it has to be any different for colorization.

What you are effectively saying is that there should never be any intelligent discussion of the technical or artistic merits of colourized films on DVD because you and others have decreed they are evil. All threads on the subject should only serve as a platform for the nay-sayers to endlessly repeat their sanctimonious condemnations. By the same logic, there should never be any threads on torture porn flicks because I personally find them "abhorrent" and evolution should not be taught in American schools (which it wasn't for the longest time).

What about you folks relax a bit with a nice comedy ? [ in color now :-) ]

I Love Lucy and Bob Hope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSmu7...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4VCw...eature=related

I Love Lucy Desilu Studios

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeIPI...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYDS2...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaFjq...eature=related


Split scren demo: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment...,7612540.story

Would be bether if Lucy's hair was blonde??????????
We know she had red hair, but if they budget to shot the show in color film, would they keeped the red hair?

-

Alfred, if you're going to interrupt with silly comedies, you might as well make it an example of fine French colourization (La cuisine au beurre, 1963) with Fernandel:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q-TyVnD5sT0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q-TyVnD5sT0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nm3Ly58n96I&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nm3Ly58n96I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Don't take me wrong in such negativism. Why not relax a a bit?
Seens like you folks are taking the discussion too seriously.

By the way the videos from this french comedy are looking a bit worse than the old screen captures you did, Baracine :-)

No, I'm saying that trying to have "any intelligent discussion of the technical or artistic merits of colourized films," while at the same time trying to silence the negative opinions based on artistic principle, is oxymoronic and absurd. The opinions of those opposed to colorization are just as valid as those in favor of it.

I never said nobody could discuss whatever they wanted in this thread, and in fact I haven't tried to stop anyone. I've just been responding to the comments that I felt needed addressing. That you mischaracterize what I've said so egregiously speaks more about your own feelings towards free speech than it does mine. From my vantage point, the only ones trying to be silenced are the naysayers.

-popcorn-

Folks, now without intention to be anoying, but I think that's perfectly possible to discuss the polemic about film colorization if both sides, the color favorables, and the againt it, could discuss with more open minds, instead of just fervorous try to make the point on the discussion.
No ofense to anybody... I respect both sides , which have had interesting points of view. I just think you both could try to understand more the motives of the each other.

Very early color photography: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=28y64Y6vlIo

New colorization but with weird skin color:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ng_saucers.htm

Legend tends to get weird skin color for B Films. I don't know why.

I did a modification in this capute to try get a bether skin color for the woman on the left.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1...ificatizd7.jpg

The DVD authoring seens wrong since the image detail levels seens lower compared with the anterior version. But the authoring wasn't made by Legend Films. I presume the colorized master HD from Legend films have the bether image quality than any other.

Having seen the entire B&W version over the holiday, it's easily one of the best B&W DVDs out there. Here's to hoping a BluRay eventually comes out since it should look even better than Casablanca (which didn't have a nearly complete nitrate camera negative like IAWL). The original mono sound was amazingly clear, too.

More proof how all a black and white classic needs is a cleaned untampered transfer without the silly needless effort of color and 5.1 remixing.

My father and I usually watch IAWL every X-mas eve. This year we decided to try out the bastardi, er... colorized version. Well, about 6 minutes in I said we had to change it. I don't care how good of a job they do colorizing a film like that, you just aren't capturing the essence of the film and the emotional impact it possesses unless you're watching it in glorious black and white. It was fun to watch as some kind of weird experiment but I can safely say it will never touch my player again.

Watermarks on GettyImages databank.
 

Does anybody have access top Getty Images files without watermark?

There are grat images there, but I can't get the versions without watermark to colorize:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/716...lasses3nl5.jpg


This is the famous screwball comedies actress Carole Lombard

Here a colorization I did from a early Photography of the young Jimmy (James) Stewart.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4...rizedloeo9.jpg

Finally a colorization of Charles Chaplin, as Carlitos:

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1...ncolorsrb7.jpg