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."

The "no" was in reference to my dislike of colorization to black and white movies in general, not the colorized VHS release.

Well EVIDENTLY they didn't, so the movie was filmed in black and white, which technically the way it was meant to be seen...DUHWhat hole did you crawl out of, and when were you hatched? Obviously, you don't know nothing about the originality of filmmaking.

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.

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?"

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?

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.

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!

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...

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

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.

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??

Oh, let see, colorize Alfred Hitchock's Psycho. The shower scene. Hitchock used chocolate syrup to make it look like blood.

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.

When are the colorized Raging Bull & Schindler's Lists DVDs coming out?

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.

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.

Please do not colorize this thread with off-topic comment. Thank you!

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.

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.

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?"

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'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.

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.

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

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