Films shouldn't be colorized, especially the more recent ones you mentioned (i.e. ED WOOD, SCHINDLER'S LIST, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN) that were made after the advent of color film, so clearly they're in b&w for a reason. A colorized YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN? It would be like a black & white edition of SPY KIDS... what on earth for?

Colorized black & white films also look like ass. Complete rubbish. They tend to get overzealous with the colors and do things like give guys green business suits. I accidentally bought a colorized ABSENT MINDED PROFESSOR and was pissed as shit when I saw how lousy it looked. The colors weren't lifelike at all, closer to colors you'd see in a cartoon. I returned that shit on the fly.

I agree with the previous poster who stated that somebody who must have a film in color probably won't appreciate the film anyway. It's like arguing with devotees of pan & scan.

True, because despite the impression given by some people, not every black and white movie was made artistically. The vast majority of black and white movies, especially those made during the 30's, were completely pedestrian in terms of cinematography, and were made in B&W simply because that was what was available.

The problem with colorization is that it's never been done well. At best, it looks like badly stored early color film, and at worst, it looks like a technicolor explosion.

I'd say that, in the long run, it's best that the practice failed.

Back in the late 1980's, Ted Turner was showing "colorized" versions of Fleischer Popeye cartoons on TBS. What I later found out was that they were redrawing the cartoons and dropping frames, similar to something that had been done in the 60's with Betty Boop and early Warners toons.

Leonard Maltin decried Turner's efforts, as he wasn't even using the same (and more expensive) process used for live-action films. But what surprised me was Maltin's statement that it (cartoons) was the one area where colorization might have actually helped!

Anyone seen any "true" colorized cartoons to know how they compare?

And Siskel & Ebert did give kudos to Turner when he had restoration work performed on Gone With the Wind, for a theatrical reissue. "That's what he should be doing! Instead of putting color in the black-and-white movies, he should put the color back in the color movies." But did Turner shear off the top and bottom for GWTW's theatrical version?

Hopefuly they'll colorize the first half hour and the ending of the Wizard of Oz, too. I thought it always looked like crap the way they have it now.

Every true lover of film understands exactly why colorizing b&w films is a horrible, horrible, idea, and doesn't need it explained to him/her. May sound harsh, but that's the way it is. Film is, in essence, a dance of light and shadow, and nowhere is that concept most fully realized than in black & white movies.

I've got the color version on my French 3-disc set. I've glanced through it but never sat down to watch it. The colors are very subdued. It's an interesting look.

Everything.

I can't see how people can say that seeing a colorized B&W film makes it look unrealistic. I don't know about you, but where ever I go, I see people in color. Seeing them in black and white is the unrealistic part.


Saying a film was in black and white as the artistic intent is silly for most filmd pre-50s since the director probably didn't choose to make the film B&W but made it that way because having a color film wasn't a choice then.

It's a bad idea because it looks like crap. If the colorization of film was launched with brilliant quality decades ago, opinions might be vastly different.

You're only allowed one chance to make a first impression and colorization is the Olestra of the film industry.

Here's the simple thing...OAR...would any of you say that's a bad thing? Now, do all directors frame their films with any real artistic merit? No, many just point the camera and use the aspect ratio that everyone else uses. Does that mean it's ok to pan n scan their movies?

I don't see any difference with colorizing films. Even if you ignore those films that took advatage of the asthetic of black and white, and were just doing it for the hell of it, you're still trampling the original presenation of the the film. If that's how you would like to see it, that's fine, but it's no different.

There are people here who just don't see films as an art form (probably because they're use to so much junk that Hollywood has thrown at them over the past 20 years), thus they have no problem seeing B&W films colorized.

The fact that many directors from the 30's, 40's & 50's composed & crafted their films with B&W in mind, is completely beyond their grasp.

I hate the term joe-six-pack, so I won't use it, but there has to be another term that fits this thinking.

The worst offense is when they colorize films like The Longest Day, a 1962 film that certainly could have been made in color if they'd wanted to, but was made in B&W for a specific reason. The colorized Longest Day is an abomination.

If Elephant man or Schindler's List were in color, they wouldnt be Elephant Man or Schindler's List any longer IMO. could you imagine a Charlie Chaplin film, in color with 5.1 audio and CGI?

Good call, Schindler's List is an Excellent example and please tell me nobody wishes this was in color.

For me, it's simple...

If it was filmed in B&W (either intentionally or simply because colour wasn't available at the time) then it should be presented in B&W.

Well the recent Chaplin DVD's had 5.1 remixes.