What about discuss how the colors affected each scene in It's A Wonderful Life ?

But a true nice discussion, and not just as a door to attack or promote colorization.
-

I don't know where you got that idea from. It's more the idea that a significantly altered work is being passed off as the same movie, and that people who watch it think it's the same as watching the film as it was originally presented. It's like reading the Cliff Notes to a book and thinking that means you've read the book. No, it means you read the plot. It's the same with altered aspect ratios. It's also the thinking process behind these alterations in that they are an attempt to appeal to the masses, and that the masses won't be able to appreciate a work unless it fills their screen and is in color. It's dragging culture down to the lowest common denominator, instead of requiring the lowest common denominator to rise to the culture.

So, because the people who want to see it the wrong way are in the minority, that makes it OK?

I do. Just as mzupeman2 pointed out how people have the right to criticize George Lucas's latter attempts to revise STAR WARS to what he "ORIGINALLY intended." Directors always have to compromise their vision for a film based on various real-life situations. Harryhausen should just accept the films for what they are instead of trying to add color to something that never had it.

If you want to start one, you certainly can. I'm just responding to what's been written here.

I see...so what you seem to be saying is that YOU are the supreme decision maker here...NOT the guys who make the movies. Chaplin tinkered with THE GOLD RUSH for decades after it was finished. Guess that was uncalled for. As is every "Director's Cut" ever released. I hope you are equally outraged about those travesties. And let’s NOT hope missing Amberson's footage turns up...that would be tampering with the original bonafide release to add it back. And since Welles is dead, HE couldn't OK it anyway so THAT’S not acceptable. Who KNOWS how it should have went together. Unfortunately, this is where your logic takes you. Unless you...uh...compromise.

Well, in a way you are the supreme decision maker. Simply don't buy the movies that offend you sensibilities. If some folks want a colorized version of IAWL, God bless 'em. I hope Legend Films fills THAT void and makes money, because it gets some good films restored in BW and that’s fine by me, being the compromising whore that I am.

I personally think that Leonardo had every right to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa if he wanted to...as long as the painting was in his possession

I guess this REALLY has gotten off-topic and I have jumped in when I should have let it go. It is ironic that I am generally in agreement with you...I prefer films in their original form and I myself am no HUGE fan of colorization. I can actually understand the objections if the original films were not offered (George Lucas FINALLY released the Star Wars in spotty transfers....) but in this case it is, as I said, a win-win proposition. YOU and I get the version we want, and color people get something they want to see. I suspect it has less to do with purist vison but really an emotional, gut level hatred of colorization.

No, I'm not saying that at all, and you'd have to reach to get that interpretation from what I wrote. I simply wrote that I have the right to have my own opinion and the right to voice it, not that my opinion was authoritative. You were the one suggesting that there are authoritative opinions, suggesting that nobody has the "right" to disagree with Harryhausen's opinions of his own films.

Probably. The only tinkering I can find that occurred was changes to make the film appeal more to people in the sound era, adding narration and music, something which was probably unnecessary and likely made more for mercenary reasons than creative.

Most director's cuts are an attempt to restore the original creator's original intentions, before interference by the studio or others, using the footage that was originally shot.

There's quite a difference between adding back footage that was originally shot and existed and inserting something that never existed before into the film.

Well, it certainly couldn't be called a director's cut, like how the restored version of Touch of Evil isn't referred to as such. However, again, they'd be working with the original notes and whatever else they have to restore what originally existed back to its original state. Colorization doesn't do that, it adds something that never originally existed on film.

It's not the movies that offend my sensibilities, which is my point. The colorize IAWL is not IAWL, it's a bastardized derivative work. People wouldn't accept an edited version of the film, or a cropped version of the film, as valid, so I don't see why not accepting a colorized version as valid is so hard to understand.

So only films that get colorized get restorations? That doesn't make any sense. I'm thinking that if Legend Films didn't feel that they had to colorize old films, they'd then have even more money to restore the original film.

And why would I have a "gut level hatred of colorization" if not for aesthetic and artistic reasons? I already said that I wouldn't prefer the color version of The Man Who Wasn't There, despite the film originally being shot in color, so I'm obviously not just opposed to colorization because it looks fake.

Thanks for the interesting give and take, Jay G. As always I enjoy reading your posts and always find them enlightening....

For this to happen, Alfred, - an intelligent discussion based on the merits of the DVD itself - posters would have to buy or rent the DVD, watch it and report on it like I did. As I'm the only one who has bothered to do these three things so far after more than 300 posts, I don't think the intelligent discussion you wish for is going to happen anytime soon.

Maybe there should be a special dvdtalk forum for people who don't actually watch DVDs. It could be called "DVD Talk for the visually impaired".

But of course, you've failed the "not just as a door to promote colorization" requirement, so even you wouldn't be capable of such a discussion.

And of course, a discussion about colorization is a discussion of "the merits of the DVD itself," since the only significant difference with the new release over past ones is the colorized version of the film.

Also, one doesn't have to view a colorized version of a film if one opposes it on principle, since objection on principle has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the process. I've seen the screencaps of the colorized version posted here, and I can tell from them that from a technical standpoint, the process has made huge strides in realism, although not completely there yet. However, I wouldn't care if the process was 100% realistic, it's not the way it was originally presented and intended to be presented.

You're like one of those FS supporters trying to win over OAR supporters by saying, "no really, just watch this version! You'll see that the image is opened up and less claustrophobic and you can see the tops of people's heads in close-ups and...." which is all BS. I don't need to watch an altered version to know that it's been altered. If you want to place your personal preferences over the original artwork and allow it to be altered to fit those preferences, that's fine. Just don't think everyone else has to agree with you, or even humor the idea of the altered work as a legitimate successor to the original.

However, if you're willing to send me a copy of the 2-disc DVD, I'll be willing to humor you and watch the color version at least once. I'm not going to wast any of my own money on even renting the colorized version though.

I think Barry prefer to watch this forum instead of watch some Box fighting on TV.
Those discussions never end and people keep almost fighting . Sometimes it's even funny...
Peace on Earth foks :-)

Yeah, the arguing is endless...but it can be fun to do...especially with the articulate posters in this thread (no, I don't include myself in that catagory).

I really do find the debate over this subject very interesting.

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.....

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.