Would'nt it be cool to see the first season colorized?They've come out with some great colorization recently,[have you seen some of the Three Stooges dvds?]The liftoff,the cyclops,the lost civilization,The Keeper- I think it would look awesome on dvd.Gilligans Island's first season was colorized some years back too,remember it's just a [just suppose ]idea. Some may prefer the B and W.

COLOR! GIVE ME COLOR!!!

I bought on VHS The Thing From Another World, and 1933 KING KONG colorized, and I like them better.

Colorization is an abomination unto mankind.

Would'nt it be cool to see the first season colorized?

In a word: NO.


They've come out with some great colorization recently,

Ya, maybe while we're at it we could colorize some early Kurosawa films or Twilight Zone episodes. I'm sure they'd be much cooler.


Some may prefer the B and W.

Yes, where it was intentionally photographed that way.

John O.

I personally prefer the first season in black & white. For lack of a better explaination, I think it adds to the drama.

From a modelers point of view, I'd always wanted to see what the first season uniforms and stuff looked like in color, but with the advent of the internet - problem solved :) .

Here's a "what if"...

What if they'd continued the tone & direction of the first season into the color years? It's been argued that the show wouldn't have lasted, but eps like "The Anti-Matter Man" show a hint of what could've been (IMNSHO :p ).

Colorization is an abomination unto mankind.

I gotta agree. The colorized version of "The Maltese Falcon" was the awful, it looked like it was done by a stoned Jane Fonda with a colored magic marker set. "Kong" was done better than "Falcon" but still didn't look "right" to me. I think a big part of the problem is lighting is different in b&w movies.

I kind of liked the dramatically lit B&W episodes on the Season 1 set.

Think about colorizing Hitler and other war films.

Would that make any of it better?

Irwin Allen wanted to film the first season in color, but it was denied. They did however let him film the effects and stock footage of the JII, the Chariot, and the Rocketbelt in color. That is why when John Robinson used the rocketbelt in season 2 and 3 he switched to the first season costume. The Lydeckers also filmed JII scenes that were never used.

David.

It was my understanding that any color footage shot would be paid for by Allen. He only paid for those sequences in color because he planned on using them as "stock footage" that he knew he'd reuse.

Colorization is an abomination unto mankind.

Well said, JP. I couldn't agree more.

I saw "They Were Expendable" colorized once, and could only think "Why!?" - Ocean, blue; Boats, green; people, tan; Fire, orange. Those were the only colors in the film. It's SO much better in B&W.

One thing to consider is that B&W films are photographed differently than color films. The lighting, the filters, the mood is different. Overlaying color onto that often makes it look ... I dunno, wrong.

Then there's the brilliant colorizer who gave Sinatra brown eyes (forgot which film that was).

Irwin Allen wanted to film the first season in color, but it was denied. They did however let him film the effects and stock footage of the JII, the Chariot, and the Rocketbelt in color. That is why when John Robinson used the rocketbelt in season 2 and 3 he switched to the first season costume. The Lydeckers also filmed JII scenes that were never used.

David.

One of the extras on the "Lost in Space Forever" DVD is all the raw color special effects footage without sound including bloopers. Kind of funny watching them "fly" a Guy Williams doll around the guy in the cyclops suit, and there's some nice shots of the Chariot and Jupiter 2 miniatures.

One thing to consider is that B&W films are photographed differently than color films. The lighting, the filters, the mood is different. Overlaying color onto that often makes it look ... I dunno, wrong.
Yeah, the success (in the sense of how convincingly it is done) depends on both the skill of the person doing it and on the film to which it is being applied. Still have a little more work to do to figure out how to make it look right all the time.

Qapla'

SSB

Did any one get the ST New Voyages DVD? On the DVD, they had the episode in B&W, just to let us see what it would look like in the 60's. I use to joke with my mother, when a B&W movie/show came on, that something was wrong with the TV.

I am a 21st century guy, I really like only color. If I wanted to watch a show in B&W, then I will watch it on a B&W TV.

I am a 21st century guy, I really like only color. If I wanted to watch a show in B&W, then I will watch it on a B&W TV.

Then you must watch everything on a 16x9 HDTV. I mean, those old 4x3 sets are so 20th century. When I see one of those old 4x3 TV shows, I joke that something is wrong with the TV set.

Seriously, you might claim to be a 21st century guy but that's a big fat chunk of 12th century mindset you have. It's narrow mindedness.

The generations before us built the science, technology and culture that we continue to develop. We can't ignore it, dismiss it or rework it to suit or current fashion. We should appreciate it for the work and vision of a particular people at a particular point in history.

As others here have said, B&W is not simply pictures without color. The lighting, filtering and compostion of B&W is different. Not everybody appreciates that fact and I'm OK with that. If folks don't like it, I won't hold a gun to their heads and make them watch it. But to change somebody elses work to suit a currently popular taste is simply wrong.

As I've said before: All television is art. Some of it is very, very BAD art! Nevertheless, it still represents a vision and a work of creative people in their time . A modern thinker should be open to examining and appreciating the creative work of those who have gone before him.

I'm not fan of LIS, but I'm even less of a fan of altering films and TV shows from their original presentation (exceptions of film restoration noted).

In my mind, the subject of colorization always brings up an "In Living Color" sketch where they really colorized an old Charlie Chaplin movie.

José

I love to have the option to see old BW films in color. I respect the BW versions and enjoy them but some things were MEANT to be in color but weren't solely due to budgetary considerations. It's just another way to look at some old programs and films. I imagine some day you'll just hit the 'colorize' button on your HDTV and it will take care of colorizing it.

Does anyone know if there is a device/program that will analyze BW film and photographs to determine what the true colors actually were? I have a sneaking suspicion that BW photos actually record enough data to indicate what the colors are, at least within a narrow margin of error. It would be great to see what colors are actually there in antique ambrotypes and the like.

It would be good to colorize the works of Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams to make them "pop out" more. "Raging Bull" and "Ed Wood" both suffer because they're not in color. I wish books and newspapers would get out of the 20th Century rut of printing black script on white pages.

It would be good to colorize the works of Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams to make them "pop out" more. "Raging Bull" and "Ed Wood" both suffer because they're not in color. I wish books and newspapers would get out of the 20th Century rut of printing black script on white pages.

You had me going there, Zorro. It wasn't until the "books and newspaper" comment that it hit me you were being sarcastic. :lol:

José

It would be good to colorize the works of Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams to make them "pop out" more. "Raging Bull" and "Ed Wood" both suffer because they're not in color. I wish books and newspapers would get out of the 20th Century rut of printing black script on white pages.
Apples to oranges.

Don't get me wrong; I'd only want to see this as an optional feature on DVDs which, naturally, include the original black and white transfer.

Qapla'

SSB

Does anyone know if there is a device/program that will analyze BW film and photographs to determine what the true colors actually were? I have a sneaking suspicion that BW photos actually record enough data to indicate what the colors are, at least within a narrow margin of error. It would be great to see what colors are actually there in antique ambrotypes and the like.
Can't really be done, because a level of gray could represent any number of colors. There is also the issue of using colored filters over the lens when these movies were shot, i.e. using a red filter to make the sky look more portentious and dramatic.

You could narrow it down a little if you knew no such filter had been used and there were a couple of things in a given shot that had to be a particular color, but these would still be guesses.

Qapla'

It would be good to colorize the works of Matthew Brady and Ansel Adams to make them "pop out" more.

I know you're kidding, but I'd seriously like to see a method developed for determining, for the sake of historical research, just what the colors in those old photos were. It'd be great from a modeling perspective to see how to paint an old ship or uniform. Artistically, of course, the old ambros and such that weren't 'tinted' (old terminology for 'colorizing') back then stand on their own in sepia or BW as the case may be.

I know you're kidding, but I'd seriously like to see a method developed for determining, for the sake of historical research, just what the colors in those old photos were.
The problem with that is that you would need access to original negatives (which do exist in some cases, of course). Adams, for example, manipulated his images at great length in the darkroom to obtain the startling prints we see today. Of course, that makes it much more difficult -- well-nigh impossible -- to determine what the original colors were. It also essentially comes down to the fact that black and white film records luminosity, not color.

But Ansel Adams did do some color photography. It isn't considered as strong as his more well-known black-and-white work, but he did do it.

Qapla'

SSB

Can't really be done, because a level of gray could represent any number of colors. There is also the issue of using colored filters over the lens when these movies were shot, i.e. using a red filter to make the sky look more portentious and dramatic.

You could narrow it down a little if you knew no such filter had been used and there were a couple of things in a given shot that had to be a particular color, but these would still be guesses.

You may be right, of course. I still tend to think there is more information (perhaps even actual colors recorded in the case of old ambros) on the old photos. Spectral comparative analysis utilizing known gray tints to exceedingly fine variations of known colors may provide the key.

There's definitely the advantage of knowing the color of certain items in the photo and that could be a key to colorizing the rest if the gray tonalities were analyzed in comparison to each other, it seems to me it may be possible to do so even when filters were used assuming the filters had a mostly uniform effect on the image. Certain colors may photograph in slightly different tonalities of gray when compared to other colors on the film. It may be possible to assign probable colors in the 90+% probability range. :confused:

The problem with that is that you would need access to original negatives (which do exist in some cases, of course) . . . It also essentially comes down to the fact that black and white film records luminosity, not color.

Right. In the case of ambros, the original glass plates are the negatives.

I'm thinking that if you got down to the molecular level (and maybe not even that far) you may be able to determine more information than is apparent otherwise. It'd be interesting to find out if it's possible. Just a few years ago, DNA testing didn't exist, yet today we can narrow down a probable match on someone's genetic make-up to within one in billions.

I truly respect black and white movies,especially LIS Season 1.But Did anyone see the new Three Stooges colorized dvds?,I think there are two out now with 4 episode shorts each.They're awesome!!They explained how acurately they were made during the dvd extras,for example, a ketchup bottle found in one of the shorts,the colorizing people would search with e b a y,http://www.awltovhc.com/image-1606754-2202639 or wherever for that particular bottle to get the exact colors,sounded very time consuming for all the detail in colors.Very good researching went into these,far better than the colorizing attempts in the last few decades. I recommend checking these out.

I am adamantly opposed to colorization!!!

Just the other day I had to clean crayon off the TV after my 2 and a half year old attempted to color some show on his own. It was awful. No doubt the results would be similar with a colorized LIS season 1. ;)

Huzz

Accurately researching the color of the items used in B&W work is entirely irrelevant for anything other than historical interest. Work photographed in B&W is intended to be seen in B&W. Whether for artistic or budgetary reasons, once phtographed in B&W, that's just the way it is.

We could easily research the color of the suit that Winston Churchill wore when Yousuf Karsh made his portrait...but so what? Karsh composed a B&W photo and that's what it is. Man Ray, Adams, Steichen, Edward Weston, Moholy-Nagy worked almost exclusivley in B&W. They could have used color but they rarely used it. For THEIR OWN reasons, they created in Black and White. The "actual" color is of no relevance. They created images in way that they intended them to be seen.

For us to go back and try to discover the so-called "real" colors is, at best, an insult the work of the orginal artists. Colorization is no different than the panning-and-scanning of Cinemascope movies to fit a TV set. When a completed work of art is presented to us, we may form our own opinions about it. We can hate it, love it, tolerate it or even chose not to look at it. But we can't change it to suit our own taste...we can't repaint pieces of it to match our bathroom tile and then trim off the edges to fit in a frame we bought on sale at WalMart.

It's a fact that many people just don't want to watch B&W films. If colorizing a movie or TV show helps expose it to a new and wider audience, why is that bad?

I believe the 3 Stooges gives you the option of seeing the shorts both ways. I don't see anything wrong with releasing something that way if possible.

Yes, some colorizers(?) aren't very good or may not do enough research to properly color the material they are working with, but sometimes the work isn't all that bad.

Using the logic that art (no matter how good or bad) should not be changed in any way doesn't take into account the many producers and directors who would have used color if they'd had the money for it. I don't know of any colorized movie nor TV show that has been released only in a colorized version. (I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong!) As long as the original version is available, why deride someone who prefers a colorized one?

I've found some of them quite funny. Night of the Living Dead was funny at the beginning when the first zombie attacks the brother and sister. The brother tries to scare his sister by telling her the old guy is coming for her. As the old guy is approaching, his bright green color should have alerted both of them, but in the original, the zombies were normally flesh colored so the brother's kidding makes sense. When it's obvious there's a weird GREEN guy coming, the brother should have been scared too! Instead, the sight of the green zombie doesn't phase him.

In The Miracle on 34th Street, sometimes the Santa suit looks green. The Fleischers' Popeye cartoons (my personal favorites) look very strange colorized. They have a kind of smokey look about them. Although I prefer the B&W versions myself, I don't object to the colored ones. I'd rather my kids see them in color, than not get a chance to see them at all.

I understand some TV stations and networks make a concerted effort NOT to broadcast B&W material. Isn't that one of the reasons Turner started to colorize so much stuff a few years back?

There's an argument concerning the 'purity' of the BW 'art'. IMHO, some things I just don't consider art.

While I wouldn't watch The Maltese Falcon in color except perhaps once for the novelty, The Three Stooges or Gilligan's Island or some such wouldn't bother me at all seeing in color. Film noir is by definition BW and is high drama and art. Gilligan's Island, while it has certain morally redeeming values and is vastly entertaining comedy, is fairly low-brow.

I understand some TV stations and networks make a concerted effort NOT to broadcast B&W material. Isn't that one of the reasons Turner started to colorize so much stuff a few years back?

Yes. And then he started TCM, on which probably 70% of the movies shown are black & white. Maybe it's my age but I honestly don't understand why someone would prefer to watch artificially colored images rather than the original b&w - even if it is a relatively low-budget old Stooges short. Not to mention beautifully shot, composed, and lit b&w features like "Angels With Dirty Faces" or "The Bride of Frankenstein" or TV shows like "The Twilight Zone" or "The Outer Limits". The "look" of those movies and TV shows was drawn from a very particular "pallette" and applied with great skill and artistry to the "canvas". To spread artificial color over the top of them is just sort of pointless, and it misses the point besides. I mean, I don't lose sleep over somebody colorizing a Three Stooges short - but like I say - I don't even understand the desire to do so.

.... But we can't change it to suit our own taste...we can't repaint pieces of it to match our bathroom tile and then trim off the edges to fit in a frame we bought on sale at WalMart.

Evidently, we can! That's what we've been discussing here!

Maybe someday we'll even be able to change plain, old, intriguing 2-D B&W movies into realistic looking 3-D Color movies!

Using the latest in computer CGI graphics, we may even be able to integrate 3-D shots of the bat and ball man from the House of Wax into any scene in other 3-D movies to accentuate the effect.

... I don't even understand the desire to do do.

Do do?

no! do be do be do (in black and white)

If colorizing a movie or TV show helps expose it to a new and wider audience, why is that bad?


You can't change something while at the same time claiming to expose it to a wider audience. The two are are mutually exclusive.

If you cleaned up the language in a Henry Miller book, more people might read it. But then it wouldn't be a Henry Miller book any more.

Once you colorize something, you have completely destroyed the work of the orignal cinematographer and/or director of photography. Films are a visual medium. If the visuals are altered, the movie is altered.

The fact that a director may have WANTED to shoot in color but couldn't because of the budget is meaningless. Busby Berkley wanted to shoot all of his lavish 1930's musical numbers in three strip Technicolor. He couldn't...so he didn't. They were shot in B&W, lighted for B&W, composed for B&W and filtered for B&W. Putting color in them doesn't make them color movies by Busby Berkley.

If he had the budget in 1936, he would have certainly used a different arrangement of light and shadow. He would have used a different mix of color for various costumes. He may have put some dancers in sequined gowns and some in solid colors. We don't know how he would have produced his numbers in color. We only know with certainly that he designed his production to get the best effect in B&W and layering color on top of it would be a mockery of his work.

There's an argument concerning the 'purity' of the BW 'art'. IMHO, some things I just don't consider art.


Of course there's an argument.

But the fact that there are things that some people don't consider as art, doesn't give them the right to change it.

I could stare at almost everything Picasso has done and NEVER for the life of me understand why it appeals to anyone. I think the guy was a no talent hack and got rich by selling to people who wouldn't know art if it peed on their leg. And that really is my honest opinion. I'm entitled to it and Picasso lovers are welcome to argue with me about it.

The fact remains that, even if I hate his stuff, it is not for me or for anybody else to change to suit my taste. The creations, awful and pointless as they may be, are his creative vision.

The merit of art is not determined by majority rule. Just because enough people don't like the way something was originally done, doesn't justify changing it to better satisfy their personal preferences.

Of course there's an argument.

But the fact that there are things that some people don't consider as art, doesn't give them the right to change it . . .

The fact remains that, even if I hate [Picasso's] stuff, it is not for me or for anybody else to change to suit my taste. The creations, awful and pointless as they may be, are his creative vision.

The merit of art is not determined by majority rule. Just because enough people don't like the way something was originally done, doesn't justify changing it to better satisfy their personal preferences.

Well, there's right and then there's right. Whoever owns the property can change it at will by editing, colorizing, cropping, whatever.

If you're arguing that it's not right in a moral, ethical sense in that it is unfair to the producers ('artists') of the films and programs, then I certainly respect your opinion though I don't necessarily agree with it on a case by case basis.

We've been exposed to 'altered art' forever. Reader's Digest's versions of books, movies that bear nothing but the title in common with the 'original vision' of the novels they are based on, BW prints of colored paintings, movies editied to meet the demands of the studios or the ratings system, programs edited to include more commercials, etc. It's all part of the smelly, soupy brine of popular culture that comes at us in faddish waves.

Is it necessarily a bad thing? In some cases, yes, certainly. The alterations may destroy the character of the original work and misrepresent what it was all about. In other cases, not really. Editing out the cursing of some movies actually makes them more watchable for me where otherwise I may have flipped the channel in disgust. I'm exposed to the gist of the story whereas otherwise I would not have been. (And story is the real emphasis of most 'artists' who may or may not have the most elegant means of transmitting it to us.)

Personally, I've been exposed to altered versions of movies and books and programs and such and, if intrigued, I've gone to some attempt to see the work in its 'purer' form and have been rewarded. However, I haven't yet chased down the BW copies of the first year of Gilligan's Island, as much as I adore the series.

George Lucas has shown to me that there is an art in and of itself in refining movies. I'm open to the possibilities of altered works though I'll not necessarily enjoy them in that state.

Colorization is an abomination unto mankind.

To me, colorization looks like some little kid taking crayons to a newspaper photo with the gray tones showing thru from underneath.

Do do?

I have a desire to do do right now.
Back in a few minutes.

I had a thought that might throw a monkey wrench into the mix. Yes, I hate colorization of old movies. But there's something I LOVE colorizing of.

Manga.

Many comics books in Japan are published in B&W line art only. Akira, for instance. When they're released in America, they're given a class-A colorization treatment by some of the best computer colorizers in the biz. Viz's release of Akira - decent and exciting pen art to begin with - was stunning after it was colored up. And it wasn't just colored, it was shaded, lighting effects were added, textures and backgrounds were added.... I have no idea if the original artist ever wanted all that, or how he reacted to it. But it was glorious!

Which leads me around to Frank Miller's "Sin City." I haven't seen the comic but I assume it's B&W? Trailers for the upciming film version show it to be a highly stylized B&W production with selective colorizing. Looks interesting!

Using the logic that art (no matter how good or bad) should not be changed in any way doesn't take into account the many producers and directors who would have used color if they'd had the money for it.This basic argument has come up a couple times and it seems to presuppose that the finished product is somehow a victim of limitations. If you look honestly at the creative work you’ve done as modelers you’ll know that this is a false assumption. Limitations are the fire that forge creativity. Artists of all kinds evaluate and work to the top of their available resources. This makes the final product a beneficiary, not the red-headed-step-child, of more highly innovative ways of thinking to get the most from what is on hand.

There are often hundreds of people working on a film or TV show in different capacities - even Gilligan’s Island - and their collective intentional effort combines to get you what you see, and it’s no accident that it is what it is - and a larger budget doesn’t necessarily get you anything better. Since George Lucas has been mentioned, I’ll use him as an example (I often do). What have larger budgets gained him as a story teller? I would argue they have wrecked him and more, have made him look like a narcissistic fool for having the money to go back and tinker with his earlier work.

Getting back to the first point, let us suppose it were found in the Vatican record that Michelangelo had intended to use more Ultramarine in certain areas of the Sistine ceiling but could not afford enough Lapis to make the larger quantity of color due to the Pope’s inability to pay him in a timely fashion, and that this mystery notation gives us a precise map as to where to apply the Ultramarine (maybe it’s even written in Mike’s own hand). Should we then, 500+ years after the fact, "colorize" the frescos the way the artist intended? No, of course not, a great part of what makes a work of art worth looking at is that it is a record of the artist’s struggle and who he was at the moment of creation - and it is up to him to decide when it is done, not us.

BTW, I happen to agree with Brent 100%.

John O.

When a completed work of art is presented to us, we may form our own opinions about it. We can hate it, love it, tolerate it or even chose not to look at it. But we can't change it to suit our own taste...we can't repaint pieces of it to match our bathroom tile and then trim off the edges ...

Explain that to Andy Warhol.

I knew someone was going to bring him up! He always was a trouble maker. Damn you Chris!:devil: As the old song goes, art isn't easy...

John O.

Should we then, 500+ years after the fact, "colorize" the frescos the way the artist intended?

IIRC, this has been done since it appeared that pollution and varnishing had changed the original work, suppressing the colors. There was a big argument over whether the varnishing later applied was put there by design of the artist or by someone later altering or attempting to preserve it. In any case, the pollution, varnish and all were removed to give a more glowing colorful presentation of the artwork. Many folks were dead set against the restoration but without it, the paint would have eventually flaked off.

There are often hundreds of people working on a film or TV show in different capacities - even Gilligan’s Island - and their collective intentional effort combines to get you what you see, and it’s no accident that it is what it is - and a larger budget doesn’t necessarily get you anything better.

Something like Gilligan’s Island is more of a construction, a company produced play (didn't such troupes often change Shakespeare's plays so that Romeo and Juliet survive and live happily every after and such).

To make an analogy: I consider such shows as being more like architecture than a single work of art since there really is no one single guiding influence as occurs in classier productions.

Even where you have buildings designed by famous architects, there are frequently changes, additions, and improvements made to the structures and usually there are few upset about them as long as they preserve the essence of the structure.

I think Drayton Hall near Charleston, SC is a historically fascinating place because it is a Georgian structure that has had NO such improvements ever made. However, if one were to live in such a place, he may find the lack of modern plumbing to be very inconvenient.

IIRC, this has been done since it appeared that pollution and varnishing had changed the original work, suppressing the colors. There was a big argument over whether the varnishing later applied was put there by design of the artist or by someone later altering or attempting to preserve it. In any case, the pollution, varnish and all were removed to give a more glowing colorful presentation of the artwork. Many folks were dead set against the restoration but without it, the paint would have eventually flaked off.Sorry dude, that's a totally different deal. You're talking about restoration work and there are always arguments about "original intent v. alterations made over time" and what to include and what to delete. I'm not going to get into the specifics because I know way more about this subject than is worth going on about. The point of the restoration of the Sistine ceiling was not to change its basic nature (as colorizing a film arguably does) but to protect it from further damage and restore it to its supposed original appearance. Yup, there was a lot of hub-bub and hand wringing at the time, but it is generally accepted that what you see is now is closer to what it was when new than we’ve seen in maybe 450 years. BTW, the famous hands of God and Adam as seen on the ceiling were not painted by MA, but were repainted by an unknown artist as a part of the many restoration campaigns.

I’m totally cool with the restorations like the one done to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, but to colorize it would be plainly disrespectful.

John O.

Something like Gilligan’s Island is more of a construction, a company produced play (didn't such troupes often change Shakespeare's plays so that Romeo and Juliet survive and live happily every after and such). I really don't have a problem with that. Going back to Andy Warhol, there is nothing wrong with creating something new out of old material, he did it all the time and it served to get people to look at things freshly. But don't go changing the original material and then try passing it off as the original or stamped in anyway that it's "what the artist intended" 'cuz that's BS. BTW, R&J, like Hamlet and many other Shakespeare pieces, was a well known story with different variations before the Bard got his hands on it.

As for architecture, it's a deluded architect or designer who thinks that he's going to get precisely what he's drawn up. I don't think there is a building on Earth that is built "as drawn". Again, I don't think this agrument has any meaning to the point of colorization since no sane architect has ever had a building ripped down and rebuilt because it didn't meet his original intent. Art without compromise and flaw is just mechanical craft.

John O.

For some reason I'm reminded of that Salvador Dali abstract sculpture that was smashed by an overcritical museum patron. The museum asked Dali what he wanted done with the perpetrator. Dali examined the damage to his sculpture and aaid "Let him go. He finished it for me!"

:freak:

Though I doubt the director of a noir classic would say the same about colorizing.

The point of the restoration of the Sistine ceiling was not to change its basic nature (as colorizing a film arguably does) . . .

I disagree with you on that point. The basic nature of a film or program is the STORY. I don't think blind people who listen to TV programs have a real problem with colorization. :p

. . . don't go changing the original material and then try passing it off as the original or stamped in anyway that it's "what the artist intended"

I don't think anyone's suggesting that.


Again, I don't think this agrument has any meaning to the point of colorization since no sane architect has ever had a building ripped down and rebuilt because it didn't meet his original intent. Art without compromise and flaw is just mechanical craft.

Well, since it's my analogy, let's look at colorization as being putting on a different color of paint. You're acting as if EVERYTHING changes due to colorization and that's simply not true.

As to painting the house a different color, depending on the house's historical nature (analogous perhaps to the quality and artistry of a film or movie) would I get upset about the decision. Of course, some paint jobs are tacky and garish and lower the property values in a neighborhood but generally, they won't make a big difference.

As for architecture, it's a deluded architect or designer who thinks that he's going to get precisely what he's drawn up. I don't think there is a building on Earth that is built "as drawn".

That's precisely my point on the matter of TV and movies. They're already so diluted and full of haphazard and arbitrary decisions that I'm not going to get too upset in most cases when they're colorized. One could argue that the "director's cut", arguably the "purest form" of the movie from an artistic standpoint, is not right because the movie has been altered from its theatrical release. Yet, all the arbitrary studio head decisions and such have been filtered out. And of course, if the movie is based on a novel, it is undoubtedly changed significantly in most cases from the novel. Which is the pure form of the story?