What's so wrong with bringing color to old films to renew interest to a public accustomed to vibrant pictures?

100% this

That work was really breathtaking that he accomplished with "they shall not grow old." I loved that he had a followup at the end to take the audience through his restoration process. What a class act!

>leave my classics alone
... as in don't colourise them, or don't restore/remaster them at all?

Yes, Ted Turner had it commissioned once he acquired the rights to it and hundreds of other classic b&w films.

Black and white cinematography is unironically better than colour. Limitations increase artistry.

read the op

Because it doesn't renew interest.

I forget which film, but they ended up choosing some probably awful-looking colors for a scene, because it was intended to be viewed in black & white.

I haven't seen it yet, but yeah, weta digital has amazing skill & tech.

There are a lot of films i'd love to see restored/ remastered to such a high quality, especially considering it's somewhat urgent as film degrades and is often lost or destroyed.

Even just digitizing what we can, for posterity, and saving the heavy lifting for the future if anyone is willing to fund that.

Both fiction works, and general archival footage.

You know the original film isn't destroyed when they colourise it?

You're not interested in having a wider discussion?
>Limitations increase artistry.
That's a good point. Even just last year we had two pretty great b&w films. Cold War I think totally justified the medium and utilised it well. Roma, did not.

yeah, Sam the pianist

Fuck off Ted. Yea Forums is a boomer free board

This is the most pretentious thread on Yea Forums right now and possible in the last month.

I would have to say that the films were designed to be presented in black and white and by adding color you alter the directors vision

I would argue that since film is a visual art form, much of cinematic direction was controlled by an understanding of how black and white coloration would appear in a scene. Adding color into scenes shot with an assumption of black and white changes much of the visual impression the director intended and instead inserts the intent of the group remastering the film. This isn't wrong per say, but it does introduce another layer of artistry that wasn't present in the original work. Essentially, it becomes a different film when you add different colors.

Why is it pretentious ?

>Essentially, it becomes a different film when you add different colors.
Yeah, so it has to be done with the oversight of an artist and not a technician.
>the directors vision
overrated

It looks like dogpiss.

that person posted a rhetorical response. why would i want to have a discussion with them.
i answered it literally, because it was a dumb question in the context of the thread. they could have said something constructive if they wanted wider discussion.

>per say

Attached: 1453349396029.png (1280x1172, 768K)

Nothing

Nothing, if you're so eager to cast pearls before swine.

to all intensive purposes you new exactly what he ment

based

>the directors vision
>overrated
isn't the whole point of a film to reflect the directors vision

It kinda looks weird.
For example I always thought Bogart's place in that movie was less well-lit and seedier.
But mono vs stereo I'll always prefer things made stereo.

it's honestly not as bad, compared to what people get away with nowadays (and nobody complains about that, I wonder why)

Attached: 1527537167929.jpg (1920x1888, 613K)

Funny that Michael Curtiz is considered the perfect example of a "studio director"

The film was shot and framed with black and white in mind, the whole art direction was dictated by B&W. Adding color is neat but it's not literally not how the film was intended to be seen. Imagine doing the reverse and taking a colorful movie like Speed Racer (2008) and making it black and white.

Wrong. Every time someone watches the colourised version instead of the original for the first time the original is destroyed

Exactly, it’s not because the director didn’t have the tools to make a color movie, in fact even if he had made Casablanca in the year 2019 he very likely would have left it in Black and white because it was his vision! Excellent post user!

Because its not capeshit.

It will not work on B&W film noirs that has expressionist cinematography

it looks worse. Take a black and white frame and make it yellowish, what exactly does that accomplish? Does it make it more watchable? Not to me it doesn't.

Color film already existed during Casablanca's time, even George Méliès was adding color to his movies when film was it's infancy. I don't know the production history of Casablanca but even then the film was shot with b&w in mind, sorry i'm not as articulate as actual film critic. Look at some of the scenes of this movie like when Rick is drinking by myself. It's looks wrong when color is added because it kinda has 'noir' elements.

Attached: casablanca rick.jpg (1280x720, 63K)

Are you kidding? I am Queen's Boulevard

Peak dishonesty

>You're not interested in having a wider discussion?
Where the fuck do you think you are?