DVDizzy Forum

Hi,

I'm taking a "Film and literature" class this year at school, the purpose of which is to watch "classic" films and analyze what makes them famous.

One of our first movies was Casablanca. My teacher showed it in black and white (obviously the way it was made)... but I was looking around and saw part of a colorized one on YouTube.

I did some research and found out that it was colorized by Turner in the 80s (when he was colorizing tons of old movies for TCM), but was very controversial so it went away just like that. Was it ever officially released on a VHS? I couldn't find proof of such a tape... only articles from the late 80s about it being colorized, and a bunch of people acting like it was the work of Satan.

I'd kinda like to see the color version just for kicks... While I can appreciate black and white movies, it just seems more... realistic in color.

Which leads me to another note: Why does everyone hate colorized films so much? Films made in the 30s and 40s were not made in black and white by choice... only because the studios did not own color cameras. If someone tried to colorize Hitchcock's Psycho, on the other hand, I would object to it since he made it that intentionally for effect.
But the old movies were made black and white because they didn't know any other way. I realize they weren't "intended" to be seen in color... but what's so bad about it? I'm sure that if they owned a color camera, many of those movies WOULD have been made in color. And with today's technology, it looks pretty good... to the point that I didn't even know movies like Lassie were ever NOT in color... since it looked like it was made natively that way.

It can sometimes look okay and sometimes look horrible. I don't hate colorized per say, but I think people should watch the B&W too.

This reminds me of this classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkHR6J2nYl8

drf wrote:I did some research and found out that it was colorized by Turner in the 80s (when he was colorizing tons of old movies for TCM)

TCM didn't exist until 1994, he was doing the colourisations for broadcast on TBS.

drf wrote:but was very controversial so it went away just like that.

And rightly so.

drf wrote:Was it ever officially released on a VHS?

Yes, in 1994.



Amazon Marketplace

drf wrote:While I can appreciate black and white movies, it just seems more... realistic in color.

Obviously you've never seen the tongue-in-cheek colourisation of Reefer Madness by Legend Films.

drf wrote:Why does everyone hate colorized films so much?

Because it's an unnecessary revisionist practice that in some ways can harm a film more than help it. Plus, no matter how well colourisation techniques evolve over the years (compare the simple crayon colors of the late 80s to the impressive colourisation of the classic "I Love Lucy" episode "Lucy Goes to Scotland"), it will never be accurate to the real thing, even with extensive colour sources available (the "Lucy" episode in question had many still photos in high-quality color, as well as some color home movies).

Colourisation is, to use a term you're fond of, a "noob" practice. It's done so that ignoramuses who don't know how to appreciate black and white cinematography may discover classics like Casablanca or It's A Wonderful Life. There are some positive aspects, but they are few and far between compared to all the negative aspects of colourisation.

In some cases, though, colourisation is a necessity. Several 1970s episodes of "Doctor Who" instantly come to mind. Because of the BBC's practice of wiping and/or junking tapes in the archives (for space reasons as well as economic ones - they believed at the time that the old material was no longer financially viable), there are quite a few episodes of the series from the 1970s that don't exist in its original color tapes. Instead, off-air recordings made from other places (such as Canada, the US, Australia) are the only color copies in existence, and sometimes the color copy is inferior to the 16mm black-and-white copy that managed to remain in existence in the BBC's archives. One example is the story "Doctor Who and the Silurians". It only exists as 16mm black-and-white film prints, which are high quality. The color copy is from an NTSC source, and the Doctor Who Restoration Team managed to "marry" the two sources together, by combining the colour signal with the black and white film to produce a high quality color video. The DVD goes into detail on it a bit more, but there's also the RT Article (which also includes "The Sea Devils" and "Warriors of the Deep" as all three were in a "Beneath the Surface" boxset).

Anyway, I've rambled on a bit about how colourisation helped "Doctor Who". But that's one of a few unique cases. For the most part, colourisation is a big fat no-no to anyone who has respect for film's history. Heck, even if Ray Harryhausen said he originally wanted She to be in colour, it was made in black and white. And the 2006 revisionist colourisation should only be considered a novelty (as are all colourisations), and never a replacement or successor.

drf wrote:Films made in the 30s and 40s were not made in black and white by choice

Actually, yes they were. While in about half the cases, it was a matter of economics (Technicolor was expensive and used only for productions a studio felt would benefit from colour), black and white cinematography was an artistic choice as well. Heck, from 1939 to 1966 there were separate categories at the Academy Awards for cinematography: one for black and white, another for colour.

You also have to realize that colour films have been available since filmmaking began, although it often was crude. Key scenes in a silent movie would be tinted according to the mood a director wanted portrayed (for example, a sad scene might be tinted blue, a big exciting scene might be red, etc.). And two-strip Technicolor did provide color in a sense, but it looked very...well, painted is the best word to describe it. Over the years, not much of early two-strip Technicolor survives (as far as I know, I haven't read much on the two-strip process), and what I have seen is not very impressive to today's standards (though it likely would have been cutting-edge in the 1920s).

Three-strip Technicolor that became prominent in later years didn't start until the early 1930s, and was still rather experimental. Then again, Technicolor itself was always meant to look more vibrant and glossy than real life (which is why Technicolor orgies like The Wizard of Oz, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Meet Me In St. Louis and [/i]Singin' in the Rain[/i] are a bit larger-than-life in their use of colour).

Even if it was an economic decision half the time, the other half of the time, colour films were not exactly that big on audiences. There's a great many silent Many silent films knew

ETA:
I honestly don't remember what I was going to say during this whole "There's a great many silent Many silent films knew", though I assume I wrote something, erased it, then wrote something else without finishing it. I think I was going to say how there's a great many silent films that knew it'd be hard enough portraying emotions and story without dialogue, that the black and white element added to the "fantasy" of a film.

drf wrote:... only because the studios did not own color cameras.

Technicolor pretty much had a monopoly on colour cameras and the colouring process, so studios had to rent out cameras from them. It also didn't help that many early Technicolor productions was done under the watchful eye of Natalie Kalmus, who sometimes clashed with studio directors because their vision of colour didn't match with how she wanted Technicolor presented.

Disney was one of the few studios who really had an "in" with Technicolor, which is why pretty much everything since 1934's "Flower and Trees" is done in colour, with the exception of a few films that are artistically chosen to be done in black and white (The Shaggy Dog, The Absent-Minded Professor, etc.). Another major Hollywood force who eventually worked nearly-exclusively with Technicolor was MGM's musical division. Much of the films from the Arthur Freed, Joe Pasternak, and Jack Cummings productions are in Technicolor, and it wasn't until the mid 1950s that they had to start using inferior colour companies due to rising costs and MGM's decline.

drf wrote:If someone tried to colorize Hitchcock's Psycho, on the other hand, I would object to it since he made it that intentionally for effect.

As did other directors in the 1930s/40s. Black and white cinematography is a beautiful thing. It's truly a pity that not many movies are made in black and white anymore.

drf wrote:But the old movies were made black and white because they didn't know any other way.

That is wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother addressing it. Hopefully you'll learn a lot in this "Film and Literature" course.

drf wrote:I realize they weren't "intended" to be seen in color... but what's so bad about it?

It's like taking the Mona Lisa and saying, "let's give her a vibrant red dress, a little rouge on her cheeks, and make her a blonde". It's revisionist in the bad George Lucas way. You're basically asking for someone to take a piece of work that is finished, complete, done, and redo it to satisfy a "noob" desire to see something in a format they're more familiar with.

drf wrote:I'm sure that if they owned a color camera, many of those movies WOULD have been made in color.

But the fact remains that they didn't, and even if they did, a good deal of the black and white films out there (even during the pre-1950s when colour became slightly less expensive) are intentionally done in black and white. For example, consider much of the film noir that emerged in the 1940s. Early on, they were black and white because it was an economic decision (many studios saw these films as B-movies). But over time, a pattern emerged that became predominant in most film noir and black and white, while still the economic choice, also became an artistic choice. The way that light and shadows react in black and white is much more effective than in colour. Still, colour films in the film noir genre did exist (some consider Leave Her to Heaven to be a film noir, and it's another one of those Technicolor orgies.). But it was predominantly a black and white genre, and eventually, that was by choice and not by money.

albert

I'll just add that if you want to see an example of early 2 strip Technicolor, check out Universal's Silent Phantom of the Opera, where limited scenes were in 2 strip Technicolor. There's many public domain versions available, but this is by far the best (and not all copies have the Technicolor scenes in place)



The two tone colour (with an emphasis on Red) is still stunning today, and has a huge impact on viewing.



I don't know about you, but even looking at that still gives me a buzz.

netty wrote:I'll just add that if you want to see an example of early 2 strip Technicolor, check out Universal's Silent Phantom of the Opera, where limited scenes were in 2 strip Technicolor. There's many public domain versions available, but this is by far the best (and not all copies have the Technicolor scenes in place)



The two tone colour (with an emphasis on Red) is still stunning today, and has a huge impact on viewing.



I don't know about you, but even looking at that still gives me a buzz.

Oh geez, how did I forget about that? I bought that set at a local video store (they had it for only $10.99) simply to view the two-strip Technicolor scenes after watching the "Glorious Technicolor" documentary (borrowed the The Adventures of Robin Hood DVD from my library, it's rather sad and pathetic that I still don't own this film...) and reading more about it online.

albert

I love the 1925 Phantom of the Opera. I really do. It's a much better film than the stage musical is, for all its gloss and glamour. However, the musical works so much better on stage (and I can say this with authority being as its one of the few stage musicals I've actually seen). And even though its 90 mins (? or approx) and silent, it never drags.

Hm, so the musical was based on the old movie?

I just love the musical... it has possibly my favorite music of all musicals, and although I have never seen the Broadway one (When it was playing in Detroit, I was too young... but next time it comes back I'm getting tickets), I've seen the new movie...

TCM didn't exist until 1994, he was doing the colourisations for broadcast on TBS.

Yeah, same difference... TV airing, nonetheless.
I know they show the old movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca all the time on TCM... Is it the black and white ones? Or do they still show the colorized version? (I know Citizen Kane was never colorized because people chewed out Turner for even thinking about it)

So the 1994 VHS is the only home video release? I take it all DVD releases are black and white?

Colourisation is, to use a term you're fond of, a "noob" practice. It's done so that ignoramuses who don't know how to appreciate black and white cinematography may discover classics like Casablanca or It's A Wonderful Life. There are some positive aspects, but they are few and far between compared to all the negative aspects of colourisation.

Well, it's not to say that I don't respect black and white films... but I think they look good in color (the ones that aren't crappy jobs, that is).
As long as they're not doing what Lowry and Lucas are doing (making ONLY the new "improved" versions available and acting like the old ones never existed), I don't mind. I think they should do a 2-disc set where one is black and white and one is color. And maybe some featurettes about how they added color to it.

Actually, yes they were. While in about half the cases, it was a matter of economics (Technicolor was expensive and used only for productions a studio felt would benefit from colour), black and white cinematography was an artistic choice as well. Heck, from 1939 to 1966 there were separate categories at the Academy Awards for cinematography: one for black and white, another for colour.

I didn't realize that color video cameras were around back then... I know they HAD them, but I thought they cost a lot of money and getting one was really expensive and hard to do.

For that matter, how is it that they can have color films from WWII (some of the stuff with Hitler, and Nagasaki's atom bomb "mushroom cloud"), but not movies? Were those just colorized later? Or did the government favor the military over the cinema?

As did other directors in the 1930s/40s. Black and white cinematography is a beautiful thing. It's truly a pity that not many movies are made in black and white anymore.

Schindler's List was... though I haven't seen it, it's on my list of movies to see.

That is wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother addressing it. Hopefully you'll learn a lot in this "Film and Literature" course.

LOL, so you don't have to answer my n00b sounding questions? I admit I'm not very good with film history... what I know a lot about is the technical stuff in today's day and age (i.e. DVD structure and navigation, encoding, etc.)

For example, consider much of the film noir that emerged in the 1940s. Early on, they were black and white because it was an economic decision (many studios saw these films as B-movies).

Wasn't Citizen Kane a B-movie? But yet it's said to be the best movie of all time... when they only made it in black and white to be cheap.

Heck, I know this has nothing to do with old films, but The Terminator was another B-movie, and even the most recent DVD release has tons of noise and poor picture quality because of that. That's one film I wouldn't mind Lowry or someone working on, because compared to the super high quality of T2, it just looks horrible.

2099net wrote:I'll just add that if you want to see an example of early 2 strip Technicolor, check out Universal's Silent Phantom of the Opera, where limited scenes were in 2 strip Technicolor.

Is this at all similar to the Cinecolor process that the Fleischers used on "Poor Cinderella?"

drfsupercenter wrote:Hm, so the musical was based on the old movie?

I just love the musical... it has possibly my favorite music of all musicals, and although I have never seen the Broadway one (When it was playing in Detroit, I was too young... but next time it comes back I'm getting tickets), I've seen the new movie.

No, the musical was based on the book. Technically.

May I also recommend you, you know, try listening to another musical? "Phantom" is really not very good.

LOL, says who?

I've seen tons of musicals... I was even in tech crew for the one my school did last year. I just love the music in Phantom of the Opera the best. Wicked is pretty good too. (Again, never seen it live... my mom got us tickets for December, but I have heard Wicked music)

So how is the old Phantom movie different than the book?

SpringHeelJack wrote:May I also recommend you, you know, try listening to another musical? "Phantom" is really not very good.

Agreed, it's just another head-ache inducing Andrew Loyyd Webber show that is actually quite cheesey and overblown and lovable for that reason. seeing it on stage is like watching a magic show where everyone yells alot, but fortunately there are no strobe lights like Evita (but there are pyrotechnics).

The 1925 silent film is a billion times better than the 2004 movie. It's the most accurate film version of the book but it still omits scenes and plot concepts and the ending is changed. I'd recomened reading/seeing both (and the 1990 book "The Complete Phantom of the Opera"), once you do you'll better appreciate the story and understand why the musical is so crappy. The silent movie is my favorite of it's era and one that everybody should see.

drsupercenter, for someone who so blindly wants things like open matte live action films your interest and comments on colorized films is honestly quite sad. I hope that by taking this film class you learn a thing or too. The Maltese Falcon in colour? *shudders and prepares to be suspended by Luke for putting up such a comment*

I know this is way off topic, but if anyone is interested in the 1925 Phantom, they should get this ASAP

http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Opera-Hol ... 882127331/

its fantastic. It has the full shooting script, pages and pages and pages of publicity materials, notes of the extended San Fancisco version from 1925 edit, pages on the premiere and press review/news reproductions, the 1929 "sound" re-issue, and of course essays on the original novel and the film's adaptation and filming.

I really would give this book 11/10.

edited to add

I'd hurry up if you have even the slightest interest, as the book is out of print more often than in print.

And look at the prices for some of the out of stock books from the same range here
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/searc ... J.%20Riley

I have about 6 of these books, but it doesn't look like I'll be getting any more!

drf wrote:Hm, so the musical was based on the old movie?

I just love the musical... it has possibly my favorite music of all musicals, and although I have never seen the Broadway one (When it was playing in Detroit, I was too young... but next time it comes back I'm getting tickets), I've seen the new movie...

Have to agree with Brendan (aka SpringHeelJack). See other musicals. Phantom is not the best thing out there (though it does have its moments, and for all its bombastic yelling and begging lyrics, "All I Ask Of You" is one of my favorite love songs from the vast array of musicals). And don't always go for the mainstream "everyone and their mother knows about it" stuff like Wicked or Rent. One or two viewings of those does not allow someone to suddenly say "I'm a huge fan of musicals, I've seen Wicked!" I'm not slighting either (haven't seen Wicked, and only saw the movie version of Rent), but the mainstream stuff isn't always the best stuff. Unless it's something genius like Avenue Q.

I tend to go for film musicals more than stage musicals, mainly because I've got a higher affinity for film than for stage, and also because half the time I'm a cheap bastard who doesn't like paying to go to the theatre (heck, I work the box office for my college simply so I can get in free for the staged productions!). Plus, I'm not a big fan of taking a train up to New York, or even just crossing the bridge to Philly to see a musical. And local theatre, even though it is quite good, is not something I schedule my life around.

drf wrote:

TCM didn't exist until 1994, he was doing the colourisations for broadcast on TBS.

Yeah, same difference... TV airing, nonetheless.

I know, I was simply correcting the assumption that TCM existed in the late 80s. It actually was started up to provide a channel that specifically avoided airing edited (this included colourisation) movies that are interrupted by commercials.

drf wrote:I know they show the old movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca all the time on TCM...

Not necessarily all the time. Usually they'll appear during the "30 Days of Oscar" programming in February/March. And after that, it's not often seen unless it's part of something like a tribute to Orson Welles or Humphrey Bogart (such as the August programming where each day is dedicated to a specific classic film star).

drf wrote:Is it the black and white ones?

Always.

drf wrote:Or do they still show the colorized version?

NEVER. TCM is dedicated to airing movies unedited, uninterrupted, commercial-free, non-colourised, and in OAR (though their airing of several live-action Disney movies is quite confusing - The Shaggy Dog is properly shown in black and white, but is open-matte even though theatrically it was 1.75:1.)

drf wrote:(I know Citizen Kane was never colorized because people chewed out Turner for even thinking about it)

And rightly so.

drf wrote:So the 1994 VHS is the only home video release? I take it all DVD releases are black and white?

Yes and yes.

drf wrote:I think they should do a 2-disc set where one is black and white and one is color.

Many colourised films are offered this way (or sometimes just on the same disc if the films are short enough), and Columbia's catalog of Ray Harryhausen films have been re-released in the past couple years or so as two-disc sets with the original black and white and a new colourised version, along with new extra features.

drf wrote:I know they HAD them, but I thought they cost a lot of money and getting one was really expensive and hard to do.

It was expensive, which is why the studios would use them only on productions that they deemed "worthy" of color, if the director wanted to shoot it in color. And Disney, of course, was always using them as he had some sort of exclusive contract with Technicolor.

drf wrote:For that matter, how is it that they can have color films from WWII (some of the stuff with Hitler, and Nagasaki's atom bomb "mushroom cloud"), but not movies? Were those just colorized later? Or did the government favor the military over the cinema?

If I remember correctly, a few well-known directors were hired (or volunteered) to shoot color footage of events during World War II (George Stevens, notably) for posterity. Don't know why some are in color and some are black and white, though I imagine color was chosen as a better representation for history. I'll have to research this further at a later date.

drf wrote:

As did other directors in the 1930s/40s. Black and white cinematography is a beautiful thing. It's truly a pity that not many movies are made in black and white anymore.

Schindler's List was...

I know.

drf wrote:though I haven't seen it

See it. Sooner rather than later.

drf wrote:LOL, so you don't have to answer my n00b sounding questions?

I refuse to address noob questions or statements that are written as if they were fact, and that one statement was noob because filmmakers back then KNEW what they were doing, and you went around saying "they made black and white because they didn't know any other way".

drf wrote:I admit I'm not very good with film history... what I know a lot about is the technical stuff in today's day and age (i.e. DVD structure and navigation, encoding, etc.)

It's better to know the history before you learn the current stuff. For example, if I only knew about the new series of Doctor Who and nothing about the classic series, then went spouting off stuff like "The Doctor has hinted that he had family before, I wonder what he's talking about!", fans who know more would chew me out for not knowing about Susan Foreman (his granddaughter).

It's fine knowing a lot about DVDs and encoding, but you have to understand the film process to better understand the how and why of encoding on DVDs. For example, a lot of noobs seem to think that Blu-Ray will offer something like The Jazz Singer in crystal-clear digital quality that looks like it was shot two days ago. So when they watch the Blu-Ray for Close Encounters of the Third Kind and complain about how there's grain and how the quality is not "new", a lot of old-timers (or people who read up/understand how film works) will just roll their eyes at them. Robert Harris actually had an article about this over at TheDigitalBits, where he harshly criticizes Fox's transfer of Patton on Blu-Ray because it's been DNR'd and digitally cleaned up more than it should have been in order to present an image that looks like 2008 rather than something from 1970. Unfortunately, he removed the article (perhaps there was too much backlash) but the fact that it was a problem big enough for him to write about (as he mentions other films too, but Patton was the main one he was focusing on) shows that they've got to stop catering to the "noobs" when it comes to classic films on Blu-Ray.

drf wrote:Wasn't Citizen Kane a B-movie?

Hardly. It's rare for a studio to give the director complete control over the production, which is what RKO did.

drf wrote:But yet it's said to be the best movie of all time... when they only made it in black and white to be cheap.

They did not make it in black and white to "be cheap".

drf wrote:Heck, I know this has nothing to do with old films, but The Terminator was another B-movie

It's more of a low-budget semi-independent film than a B-movie in its traditional definition.

drf wrote:and even the most recent DVD release has tons of noise and poor picture quality because of that.

That's likely due more to the cameras and film stock used (as it is low-budget) along with artistic intent. It's an intentionally gritty picture, it's not meant to look as clean and polished as the rest of the world.

drf wrote:That's one film I wouldn't mind Lowry or someone working on, because compared to the super high quality of T2, it just looks horrible.

T2 was made after Cameron had established success with the first film, Aliens, and The Abyss, so that gave him the capital and clout to film it with higher-quality equipment. It's like how the huge success of Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi led to the bigger budget sequels Desperado ($7 million, ten times that of El Mariachi) and Once Upon A Time In Mexico.

enigmawing wrote:Is this at all similar to the Cinecolor process that the Fleischers used on "Poor Cinderella?"

Somewhat. Two-strip Technicolor used red and green filters on black and white film strips, while Cinecolor used had the two film strips that were red (not capturing the red light) and cyan (capturing only the red light).

Wire Hanger wrote:The 1925 silent film is a billion times better than the 2004 movie.

Agreed, though I probably wouldn't say billion times better. The 2004 movie is cold and by-the-book, with little to make it unique or standout.

Wire Hanger wrote:The silent movie is my favorite of it's era

No love for Sunrise or The Last Laugh?

Wire Hanger wrote:drsupercenter, for someone who so blindly wants things like open matte live action films your interest and comments on colorized films is honestly quite sad.

(channeling Lauren Cooper)

Innit though?

Wire Hanger wrote:The Maltese Falcon in colour?

Aaaghh! My eyes, my eyes!

albert

Have to agree with Brendan (aka SpringHeelJack). See other musicals. Phantom is not the best thing out there (though it does have its moments, and for all its bombastic yelling and begging lyrics, "All I Ask Of You" is one of my favorite love songs from the vast array of musicals). And don't always go for the mainstream "everyone and their mother knows about it" stuff like Wicked or Rent. One or two viewings of those does not allow someone to suddenly say "I'm a huge fan of musicals, I've seen Wicked!" I'm not slighting either (haven't seen Wicked, and only saw the movie version of Rent), but the mainstream stuff isn't always the best stuff. Unless it's something genius like Avenue Q.

Well the song Phantom of the Opera itself is one of my favorite Broadway songs ever... simply because it's different. I'm not a big fan of slow romantic songs, but Think Of Me was pretty good.

I've seen a fair number of home-video musicals... heck, don't most of Disney's animated movies count as musicals? At least Beauty and the Beast for that matter (which is an operetta even). I actually saw an off-Broadway performance of the theater show, as well... and The Lion King theater play. Rumor had it that my school was doing BatB next year, so my family went to see it... and then they picked Edwin Drood instead.

Not necessarily all the time. Usually they'll appear during the "30 Days of Oscar" programming in February/March. And after that, it's not often seen unless it's part of something like a tribute to Orson Welles or Humphrey Bogart (such as the August programming where each day is dedicated to a specific classic film star).

Well, my teacher printed out the TCM info sheet on Citizen Kane, and it had 2 listings in the next couple months. I didn't see Casablanca listed, but still.

NEVER. TCM is dedicated to airing movies unedited, uninterrupted, commercial-free, non-colourised, and in OAR (though their airing of several live-action Disney movies is quite confusing - The Shaggy Dog is properly shown in black and white, but is open-matte even though theatrically it was 1.75:1.)

Ah, well, I never actually watch TCM... I know what it is, but I either rent the DVD or watch newer movies... So I wonder what they'd show if they were to show something like The Jungle Book... hopefully it would be the open-matte version

If I remember correctly, a few well-known directors were hired (or volunteered) to shoot color footage of events during World War II (George Stevens, notably) for posterity. Don't know why some are in color and some are black and white, though I imagine color was chosen as a better representation for history. I'll have to research this further at a later date.

Well, when we watched the video footage in history class, the color on Nagasaki's mushroom cloud was awful - I'd almost rather have it in black and white! But maybe that was the really early Technicolor that looked really weird?

I refuse to address noob questions or statements that are written as if they were fact, and that one statement was noob because filmmakers back then KNEW what they were doing, and you went around saying "they made black and white because they didn't know any other way".

Well I jumped to a conclusion there... and then realized it sounded n00b after I got replies.

It's fine knowing a lot about DVDs and encoding, but you have to understand the film process to better understand the how and why of encoding on DVDs. For example, a lot of noobs seem to think that Blu-Ray will offer something like The Jazz Singer in crystal-clear digital quality that looks like it was shot two days ago.

I'm actually not that type of person at all... and the complete opposite even.. which is why I complain about Disney's Platinum Editions so much... because they DO make them look like they were made yesterday and there's just no way an old movie should look that good. Though I am curious what Sleeping Beauty will look like on Blu-Ray... and if we have a Blu-Ray player by then I might rent it...

Hardly. It's rare for a studio to give the director complete control over the production, which is what RKO did.

Oh, well... my teacher said it was made as a B-movie with a limited budget, and ended up being a huge success (albeit not until long after it came out). Is that wrong? Or did I just interpret some of that wrong?

It's more of a low-budget semi-independent film than a B-movie in its traditional definition.

Isn't the definition of a B-movie one that's made with a limited budget and not really expected to do well? (Back in the 40s and 50s, the ones that they made just to have another new movie in theaters...)

T2 was made after Cameron had established success with the first film, Aliens, and The Abyss, so that gave him the capital and clout to film it with higher-quality equipment. It's like how the huge success of Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi led to the bigger budget sequels Desperado ($7 million, ten times that of El Mariachi) and Once Upon A Time In Mexico.

Oh. I just watched T1 and T2 in a row and then started on the TV series (which is pretty good, so far)... and the fact that both are "special edition" DVDs made me think that T1 should at least look better than a VHS...

drfsupercenter wrote:Well the song Phantom of the Opera itself is one of my favorite Broadway songs ever... simply because it's different. I'm not a big fan of slow romantic songs, but Think Of Me was pretty good.

I've seen a fair number of home-video musicals... heck, don't most of Disney's animated movies count as musicals? At least Beauty and the Beast for that matter (which is an operetta even). I actually saw an off-Broadway performance of the theater show, as well... and The Lion King theater play. Rumor had it that my school was doing BatB next year, so my family went to see it... and then they picked Edwin Drood instead.

If by "different" you mean "jarringly out of place with the rest of the score, which is what Andrew Lloyd Webber's idea of what 1800s opera music sounds like", then yes, I agree with you. If by "different" you mean "different than what I think Broadway sounds like", you still need to listen to other musicals. Have you heard of Stephen Sondheim? He's my buddy. He's fun.

As for your school doing "Drood" instead of "Beauty and the Beast"... they were right in doing that.

LOL, well, I've never seen Drood. Isn't that more of a play than a musical?
Then again, I'd never seen Thoroughly Modern Millie, and they did that last spring... my sister was in the musical and I was in the stage crew. I'm planning on being in crew again this year...

Still, it might not fit in the actual context of the musical, but it's a good song by itself.

I mean, really, I'm tired of people bashing stuff that I like. I'm sure you guys could give me 500 reasons why Pokémon's bad too, but bottom line is this - I don't care. I like stuff for my reasons, and really don't care whether you like it or not. I'm open to suggestions but I really don't appreciate everyone trying to convince me that Phantom of the Opera is bad.

I fail to see what Phantom has to do with colorizing movies...

and honestly, SO LONG AS THE B&W ORIGINAL REMAINS IN PRINT, I could care less if they colorize a film. I'd prolly keep both, and watch whatever suits my mood at the time.