Conference bookie::movies

    I won't watch "colorized" movies myself, and I don't know why anyone
    would, but I suppose I don't object to their being produced, as long as
    the real movies remain available.
    
    -Stephen

    I'm with Stephen on this....I would much prefer the original but if the
    colorozed version of 'Its a Wonderful Life' introduces it to a new
    audience then great.  I just want to make sure they use a duplicate to
    colorize it and leave the original intact.
    
    BTW, when a movie was filmed in black and white, women actresses had to
    wear brown lipstick so their 'makeup' would show on the finished
    product, thats one reason the faces (especially the eyes and the
    mouths) look strange.
    
    
    Jt

    If maintaining the original form of the film is secondary to introducing
    it to a new audience, then I see no reason to stop at colorization
    (a much nicer term than "idiot-ization"). Why not car chases, exploding
    fuel trucks, and endless MTV-inspired video montages? And then maybe, 
    at the end, Jimmy Stewart can "morph" into an alien and leave in a 
    spaceship.
    
    And who is this new audience that is being served by this process? And 
    don't they have enough genuine new garbage to keep them content without 
    having to resort to altering the past?

>    And who is this new audience that is being served by this process? And 
>    don't they have enough genuine new garbage to keep them content without 
>    having to resort to altering the past?

Good point.  I know several people who actually have said that they dislike
B&W, but I can't imagine any of them wanting to watch anything filmed before,
say, 1968, anyways.

    RE: 'new audience'
    
    Supposedly, once a film has been colorized it is offered in video form
    and/or on tv (hence all the TNT versions of the ones it owns).
    
    I too have met people who use the blanket statement "I don't watch
    black and white movies" though its a shame since there are hundreds of
    thousands of great movies out there, colorization is a way to introduce
    great movie making/acting/editing/musical score etc... to a 'new
    audience'
    
    Jt_who_bought_a_new_color_tv_at_11:00a.m._Saturday_then_rented_4_black_
    and_white_movies_at_12:30_that_same_day :^}

  It seems to me that if two simple rules are followed, colorization should not
be a problem. The two rules are: 

  1). When it is colorized, preserve the original for those who want to see
      it in black and white.

  2). Only the guy who owns it should have the right to colorized it.

  Rule 1 solves the "artistic" problem since nothing is lost. It's not Van
Gough's "Starry Night" that is colored, just a copy. 

  Rule 2 limits colorization to only those films who's artists sold their work
to someone else. If they had really wanted control of their work, they should
have done it for nothing, kept the rights, and gotten a real job to support
themselves. If they sold their work, they don't own it any more, someone
else does and they should have the right to do with it what they please.

  George

I guess my 398.17 reply started this and my general thoughts on colorization
are there, but....

re .6

>  It seems to me that if two simple rules are followed, colorization should not
>be a problem. The two rules are: 
>
>  1). When it is colorized, preserve the original for those who want to see
>      it in black and white.
>
>  2). Only the guy who owns it should have the right to colorized it.
>
>  Rule 1 solves the "artistic" problem since nothing is lost. It's not Van
>Gough's "Starry Night" that is colored, just a copy. 
>
>  Rule 2 limits colorization to only those films who's artists sold their work
>to someone else. If they had really wanted control of their work, they should
>have done it for nothing, kept the rights, and gotten a real job to support
>themselves. If they sold their work, they don't own it any more, someone
>else does and they should have the right to do with it what they please.
>
>  George


I more or less agree with 1, as long as the original print is preserved it's
certainly not as bad as recoloring a Van Gogh original. But this bastardized
version is often the only one many people see. This "new audience" is seeing
a corruption of the original. I don't know that this is necessarily a good
thing. Sure some people may be seeing the film that otherwise wouldn't but it's
not the real film, it's something else.

I don't agree with 2 because it unfortunatly doesn't reflect reality. The
artists who created these films, except in rare circumstances, never had 
control of them. They worked for the studios who had ownership.

The base note brings up an interesting point in that colorization is by no
means the only way films are butchered for both television and video. 
Panning and scanning a film does as much, if not more, damage to the original
film as colorization. Personally I won't watch a panned and scanned film 
any more than a colorized one.

I still beleive that while someone may have the legal right to change (butcher)
a film they own, it's not an ethical thing to do.

  There seems to be an implication that people will see the colorized version
of a film instead of the original black and white version but I'm not sure if
that's true. It's possible that because of colorization more people may see the
original than would see it otherwise. 

  With many films, if they are not colorized they will probably sit in the can
and be forgotten. No one except a few purists who have access to the B&W
version anyway will ever see it again. But if it is colorized and builds a new
audience, some percentage will get curious and go search out the original. 

  In any case, it's not like anything is being taken away from anyone. Do
prints of photographs of masterpiece paintings ruin the original? After all
it could be argued that the light doesn't strike the paint the way the artist
had originally intended.

  Well certainly if they photographed the original, burned it, and replaced
the gallery version with a print it would be a tragic loss but the fact that
I have a print hanging in my living room while the original hangs in the MFA
doesn't harm anything. Likewise, the fact that people are watching colorized
films while the original is available probably harms no one.

  George

Replies .6 and .7 touch directly on my contention in .0 about the 
"art is not sacrosanct" comment.
I truly believe in Rule 2 (in .6).
Whatever the reason any work of art is created, ownership of that
art transfers to the purchaser, subject to whatever "deeded easements"
are contracted between the creator and purchaser.
(I use the real estate term because people may be familiar with 
the concept of "rules of use" passing with a property when it changes
hands.)
As .7 noted, most films are never controlled by their creators.
Directors, writers, even producers are "hired hands" for the business
entities that own the works, and everybody signed on knowing the terms
of those arrangements.
That's okay - those films weren't generally created as "works of art,"
but as items of commerce.

I believe that it implicitly demeans works in all other areas
(engineering, architecture, crafts, you name it) when people
instigate efforts to allow artists life-long control over their work.

- tom]

    I suppose if you had enough money you could buy St. Catherine's
    Cathedral and paint it pink.  So what? Just because you CAN do 
    something, doesn't mean you should. One thing money can't buy
    is taste.

    re .10, but people's tastes differ, and if the person who could afford
    to buy St. Catherine's likes the color pink then you're out of luck. 
    :-)
    
    Lorna
    

  But that's not the question here.

  The question is, if you own St Catherine's can you build a duplicate of St.
Catherine's and paint the duplicate pink leaving the original as is. 

  The anti colorization people are saying no, you can't even mess with the
duplicate.

  George

    I think "anti-colorization people" are saying only an idiot would do
    either.
    
    -Stephen

RE                    <<< Note 405.13 by 58776::S_BURRIDGE >>>

>    I think "anti-colorization people" are saying only an idiot would do
>    either.
    
  I disagree. Most people do not call colorization people idiots. And why
should they, colorized versions of films probably get higher ratings than black
and white versions which means more money. Most complaints I've heard refer to
the distortion of an artists work. 

  Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to explain what's wrong with colorizing
a copy while the original remains untouched. I believe I heard one theory that
it would mean people don't get to see the B&W version any more but I question
that argument. In some cases it may mean that interest is renewed in a work
that would otherwise be forgotten and people will search out the original. 

  So my question remains, what's wrong with colorizing a copy when the original
is still available? 

  George 

>  So my question remains, what's wrong with colorizing a copy when the original
> is still available? 
    
    The argument I've heard is that it distorts the artist's intent.
    Envision Citizen Kane all alone in his grand home, the director trying
    to paint a picture of solitary gloom. Comes across much better in B&W
    than color. Ditto movies of wars past. A haggard doughboy in B&W
    carries a message of quiet desperation. In color suddenly you have an
    entire visual experience, not just a lonely face; the message is lost.
    
    Of course when you're arguing about taste everyone is free to set their
    own standards. Remember "Hooked on Classics"? Classic music recorded
    with a faster tempo and synthesized drumbeat. Same idea as colorization
    only it was music. There was plenty of ridicule but not the firestorm
    of protest as there is over movie colorization. Could it be the REAL 
    target is not the movies but the guy promoting them?
    
      John

    
    There has been much discussion on "bastardizing" B&W films. I don't
    like colorized versions simply because the color is so awful. If it was
    better I probably wouldn't mind as much.
    
    But, has anyone wondered why some of the B&W films were not in color?
    True, Citizen Kane and some others would probably never have been done
    in color, but I suspect a lot of the colorized films would have been
    filmed in color originally if it had been available or less expensive.
    Are there any old producers/directors around to ask?
    
    If they don't mind, most of our arguments against are null and void.
    
    
    Marilyn
     

	I wonder if Steven Spielbegs new film would be getting as
	rave reviews if he had filmed it in color (for those who
	don't know, the flim was shot in b&w).

	How about colorizing the b&w scenes in the wizard of oz?

	FWIW, I'm also one of those who dis-likes the thought of colorizing
	old b&w films, but mainly when it's done against the wishes of
	the director or surviving actors (like Jimmy Stewart).  But in the
	end it does come down to who hold the copyright.

	Some colorized films I've actually had no problem watching, but
	others the colorized version just isn't the same.  For example,
	"It's a Wonderful Life" loses alot in color, though it may be
	due to the poor colorization job.  I also don't think I could
	watch a colorized "Casablanca" ....

    RE: 405.16  by 16913::MILLS_MA 
        
    >But, has anyone wondered why some of the B&W films were not in color?
    
    Critics praised Olivier's "Hamlet" for its moody B&W, but Larry
    admitted years later that he simply hadn't sufficient funds for color.
    
    RE: .17  by 12368::michaud     
    
    >I also don't think I could	watch a colorized "Casablanca" 
    
    Ah, yes "You wore blue. The Germans wore ..." RED?
    
    Meanwhile, in another conference, there's someone who's convinced
    "Elephant Man" was a 40's film, probably because it's B&W.
    

re .16

>   But, has anyone wondered why some of the B&W films were not in color?
>   True, Citizen Kane and some others would probably never have been done
>   in color, but I suspect a lot of the colorized films would have been
>   filmed in color originally if it had been available or less expensive.
>   Are there any old producers/directors around to ask?
>    
>   If they don't mind, most of our arguments against are null and void.
>    
>    
>    Marilyn

Two questions are raised here, would many b&w films have been filmed in
color if the process had been less expensive and do the orignial creators
object to colorization. The answer to both is yes. Many films shot in b&w
would certainly have been done in color if it had been less expensive.
Color film has been around since before sound but it was much more expensive
than b&w. Many would have been done in color otherwise and many would have
benefited from it, especially if they used three strip Technicolor. But the
fact is they weren't filmed in color and colorization by no means changes
them to what they would have been if orignally filmed in color.

As far as what the artistic creators have to say about it I know of no
case where any of them have approved colorization of thier films. In every
instance I've heard of where they've said anything they have strongly 
objected. 


Randy

    I heard it argued that the reason why films are being colorized is
    because some potential viewers wouldn't watch a film that was in black
    and white.
    
    Am I the only one who finds this insulting?
    
    I'll watch anything good, and most of the b&w films I've seen have been
    wonderful.  I've seen a lot of color schlock.
    
    I hope Turner et al. are not being *deliberately* insulting by
    'humoring' that potential audience...
    
    --Kim
    

RE           <<< Note 405.20 by 38400::MCGARGHAN "Question reality." >>>
>                                -< Insulting? >-

>    I heard it argued that the reason why films are being colorized is
>    because some potential viewers wouldn't watch a film that was in black
>    and white.
>    
>    Am I the only one who finds this insulting?
    
  I don't understand why you would find that insulting. Had they said "all
people named Kim", or "all people at Digital" then it would be insulting, but
if they say "statistics show there exist people who will not watch B&W" then
that sound more like a report of a fact rather than an insulting remark.

  If they don't identify you as being part of the group, why be insulted?

  George

    Hi, George.
    
    No, I wasn't really taking it personally (vis-a-vis finding it
    insulting personally) but in a more general way.
    
    I dislike seeing something changed if the assumption is being made that
    something should be made easier or someone won't be able to understand
    it.  I find it patronizing.
    
    But it's my personal take; your mileage obviously varies from mine.
    
    --Kim
    

    Some silly observations:
    
    Regis Philbin, the more intellectual half of "Regis and Kathie Lee,"
    bemoaned the fact that Hitchcock's "The Birds" had been colorized. 
    As it turns out, by no less than Hitchock himself, who filmed it in
    color.
    
    And on SCTV, Guy Cabellerro testified that colorizing the beginning and
    end of "The Wizard of Oz" had been, well, a mistake.  
    
    "The Wizard of Oz" black and white sequences were actually filmed in a
    sepia tone, which is just lovely.  
    
    And how do I feel about colorizing movies?  I have yet to recover from
    the idea that they actually dub "foreign" films in English!
    
    Andria
    

    
    WHY NOT TURN DOWN THE COLOUR KNOB ON THE TV/VIDEO AND WATCH IT IN BACK
    AND WHITE.
    

    While some films may approach being considered art, most are not. In
    the early days of film making, color was not available & when it did
    become an option, the cost was prohibitive. The producers would like
    to have made them in color but could not. Many if not most of the films
    that remain that were made prior to 1950 were clunkers ( there are
    noteable exceptions ), hack jobs and clumsly made. Colorization only
    may make them a bit more palatable to some viewers. The only films that
    I have seen that adding color helped were some Busby Berkey musicals &
    old comedies.

    
    
      I saw an interview with the head of the company that owns It's a
    Wonderful Life. He was saying that they are going to cut drastically
    down on the number of circulating prints of this movie by next year.
    He also said that he has agreements to have no new colorized versions
    made. The really great part was he said by next year they will have
    an original copy that will be shown in wide screen format to be shown
    at theatres and that you might just have to pay from now on to see this
    movie. So what this means is don't expect this movie to be on 100 times
    a week before xmas next year.
    
              -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    RE: .26  by 11685::WOOD 
    
    >I saw an interview with the head of the company that owns It's a
    >Wonderful Life. He was saying that they are going to cut drastically
    >down on the number of circulating prints of this movie by next year.
    
    Nobody owns "It's a Wonderful Life".  That's why it's shown so often. 
    The copyright had been allowed to expire and nobody has to pay any
    royalty to dupe it or screen it on TV.
    

    Republic has recenty re-acquired the copyrights and is starting to
    enforce them.

re .24

> While some films may approach being considered art, most are not. In
> the early days of film making, color was not available & when it did
> become an option, the cost was prohibitive. The producers would like
> to have made them in color but could not. Many if not most of the films
> that remain that were made prior to 1950 were clunkers ( there are
> noteable exceptions ), hack jobs and clumsly made.

How are you defining art? Is it qualitative? I would disagree with these
assumptions. I think most films, with exceptions, are art. Some are not
very good art but art none the less. 

re .25

> WHY NOT TURN DOWN THE COLOUR KNOB ON THE TV/VIDEO AND WATCH IT IN BACK
> AND WHITE.

I addressed this in 398.17. Turning down the color on a colorized film
doesn't return it to it's original b&w at all.

re .26

They'll have a hard time showing _It's a Wonderful Life_ in widescreen
since it's not an anamorphic film. It was filmed seven years before
Cinemascope made widescreen films popular. It's aspect ratio is 1.33x1,
the same as your television.


Randy

    Re .20: The first time I heard a pro-colorizer (Turner, I think) state
    that colorizing would increase the audience for old movies because
    "today's audiences" don't like black and white, I didn't know whether
    to laugh or cry, and I outright didn't believe it.
    
    And then I overheard somebody at a video store commenting on a film
    someone else was suggesting: "Nah, it's black and white."
    
    Now, I don't know whether that person (or the others I've heard saying
    the same thing) dislike B&W movies because of the colors, or because
    most B&W movies available now are "old movies" and therefore aren't
    perceived as being likely to contain saliva-drenched kissing and blood-
    drenched killing scenes, or because they see B&W and think "film noir"
    or "scratchy sound, fuddy-duddy outfits" or "everybody who was in it is
    dead now"... Anyhow, it made me sad, because it suggests that a lot of
    B&W movies might not get aired unless colorized, or perhaps not at all.
    
    My opinion of colorizing as it's usually practiced (i.e., the
    quick-and-dirty job that's done on the majority of CZ movies I've seen
    lately) is basically, "Why bother?" Even though the "don't like B&W"
    crowd do provide a reason of sorts, I still don't understand it. I've
    only seen a few CZ films where the color wasn't outright distracting;
    most of them are sloppy, with colors bleeding off the edges, or are
    boring, because the colorizers used only three or four colors per
    screen, so any ballroom scene will have every fourth woman wearing the
    same color dress, and every fourth man the same color tie (and
    everybody the same color skin (beige) and hair (dark, unspecified)). It
    seems like an awful waste of time and money for no perceptible benefit,
    and I have a hard time imagining that somebody who really does hate
    black and white movies would like the same movies when colorized,
    however badly. But maybe enough of 'em do to make a difference. 
    
    It's also entirely possible that the whole brouhaha was set up to
    encourage movie buffs to run out and buy B&W copies of their favorite
    movies, to preserve them from the Mad Colorists. Too Machiavellian, you
    say? I don't think so. ;-)
    
    -b

>     So what this means is don't expect this movie to be on 100 times
>     a week before xmas next year.

	Never mind next year, I noticed that this year!  Usually it's
	on PBS, AMC, etc but this year the only one (1) airing I found
	was the colorized version :-(

    RE: .31  by 12368::michaud 
    
>>     So what this means is don't expect this movie to be on 100 times
>>     a week before xmas next year.

	>Never mind next year, I noticed that this year!  Usually it's
	>on PBS, AMC, etc but this year the only one (1) airing I found
	>was the colorized version :-(
    
    I second that :-(
    

Ted Turner and the other pro-colorists had hard numbers to justify
their observations about people not wanting to watch B&W movies.
The B&W movies on TV got poorer ratings.
That's why we had quick and dirty (color!) remakes of holiday classics
like "Miracle on 34th Street" and the Marlo Thomas rip-off of "It's a 
Wonderful Life" (by another name).
Is is conscious choice on peoples' parts, or do channel surfers not
stop on bland images as often?  (Why are commercials louder?  
To get your attention!)
So at least we have the almost-original "Miracle" back, and other classics.

- tom]

                      <<< Note 405.28 by RANGER::WEBER >>>
                                  -< re: -.1 >-

>>    Republic has recenty re-acquired the copyrights and is starting to
>>    enforce them.


Also, I just saw in the paper yesterday that either NBC or CBS has 
purchased sole TV rights for  the movie. Next year it definitely wont 
be available every day at almost any time.


re Color

I guess I am in the minority. I enjoy some of the colorized versions. 
Especially "Casablanca". I think you get a little more depth in the picture.
You sometimes miss some of a scene when all the black and white seem to blend 
together.

- John

> I guess I am in the minority. I enjoy some of the colorized versions. 
> Especially "Casablanca". I think you get a little more depth in the picture.
    
    I've been thinking about this in particular. The flashbacks to when
    Rick and Ilsa were in love in Paris might go very well in color.
    I remember Ilsa's "party dress" with lots of little stitched valentines.
    It would look really great in pink. (It \WAS/ pink, right???)
    
    But the scene at the airport -- who would even THINK of colorizing that?
    
      John

RE  <<< Note 405.34 by 29670::QUINN "Crying? There's no crying in baseball!" >>>

>I guess I am in the minority. I enjoy some of the colorized versions. 
>Especially "Casablanca". I think you get a little more depth in the picture.
>You sometimes miss some of a scene when all the black and white seem to blend 
>together.

  I'm with you. I think color is almost always better than black and white. The
airport scene would be mostly black, white, and gray anyway because it was
night, but adding deep purples and blues to a dark dramatic scene doesn't hurt
at all. 

  George

> I think color is almost always better than black and white.

	Anyone willing to place a wager that these same set of
	people also are *against* letter-boxing? :-)))

    Re .37: (this is a sort of a rathole, but bears some remote connection
    to the overall question of whether 'tis nobler to leave films as their
    directors and producers finally released them, or to loose the dogs of
    Crayola and pan-and-scan)
    
    Over New Year's, I think, TNT had a "sing-along" festival of musicals.
    Whenever a song came on, they'd switch to letterbox format and would
    display the lyrics beneath the picture. [No "follow the bouncing ball,"
    though; they changed the color of the text to indicate meter, I think.]
    Fairly amusing; but it did make me wish the entire films were shown in
    letterbox, as switching back and forth only emphasized what was trimmed
    in the p&s version.
    
    -b

re .37

I agree. At a guess I'd say at least 90% of people who prefer colorization
would object to letterboxing. Sad but most likely true.


Randy

  What's letter boxing?

  Sounds like some illegal type of boxing match from the end of the 19th
century. 

  I know it has something to do with kangaroos, the WBA, and the SPCA but
that's about it.

  George

    What is letterboxing?
    
    Lorna
    

    Letterboxing is shrinking the image on videos so that when viewed
    through the TV you have a balck margin on both top and bottom. I'm not
    technical, no doubt we'll see a better explanation than mine, but
    letterboxing shows films the way the director intended, rather than
    cutting out the left and right which is necessary due to the
    differences in film and TV screens. (or something like that)
    
    FWIW, I like letterboxing, and don't care one way or another about
    colorization as long as both versions are available.
    
    
    Marilyn

> letterboxing shows films the way the director intended, ....

	To be more precise, it shows films the way they were shown
	on the big screen (ie. wider screen than TV).  Letterboxing
	is also appropriately described as "less is more" because even
	though less of your TV screen is being used, you are seeing more
	(or all) of the orignal film.

	So call "made for TV movies" don't suffer from loss of information
	because they were filmed for the small screen to begin with, but
	films like Blade Runner use the full wide screen of a movie theatre.
	If you ever watch a film on the small screen and can see one character
	apparently talking to an off-screen character in the same room, most
	likely that character is not really off screen if you were to see
	it letterboxed ("The Graduate" has a couple of scenes like this).

	HDTV's will not only have higher resolution, they will
	also be wide screen TV's (and hence letterboxing won't
	be needed).

 <<< Note 405.37 by 12368::michaud "Jeff Michaud, PATHWORKS for Windows NT" >>>
       -< Do pro-colorization go hand-in-hand with anti-letter-boxing? >-

>>	Anyone willing to place a wager that these same set of
>>	people also are *against* letter-boxing? :-)))


You would lose your bet here. As I said, I like colorization because
it picks up some details you don't see in the black & white. Why do 
you think I like losing more detail in the normal VCR format. Letter
boxing is fine for me, and when HDTV gets here it will be even better.

Just from the curves and contours color picks up on Ingrid makes it all 
worth while for me.

- John

re .42

Actually letterboxing doesn't in any sense shrink the image. It just doesn't
blow up a portion of the image as panning and scanning does.

btw, One reason why you seldom see letterboxing on broadcast and tapes but 
almost always (these days) on laserdiscs is that there is some loss of vertical
resolution. This loss is tolerable on laserdiscs because they have a much 
higher resolution to start with. But with broadcast and tape sources it's 
turns a bad situation into worse-than-bad.


Randy

>>>	Anyone willing to place a wager that these same set of
>>>	people also are *against* letter-boxing? :-)))
> You would lose your bet here.

	I don't think so because there is always an exception to
	every rule and it's quite possible you're just one of the
	exceptions, not part of the rule ......

  I think I sort of fit the mold. I won't say I like colorization but it
doesn't bother me that much. I definitely like films filmed in color better than
if they are filmed in black and white. 

  I now understand what you mean by letter boxing and I find it distracting. 

  Maybe I just need better glasses, but I find I can't see the picture when
they shrink it down to pick up the wings. Our living room is set up for our
17" Zenith and letter boxing effectively makes it into a 15" TV.

  George

> Our living room is set up for our
> 17" Zenith and letter boxing effectively makes it into a 15" TV.

	Letterboxing certainly isn't for folks with such small
	TV's!  I've never even heard of a 17" tube!  It use
	to be they came in 12", 19", 25", etc and then when they
	started making square corner tubes those same tube sizes
	then claim diagonal measures of 13", 20", 26" (or 27"), etc.
	How old is the TV?

	I find a 20" screen small, 17" for a living room must
	be murder on the eyes??  Get a new TV for the living room
	and put the 17" in the bedroom :-))

    re .47, I agree.  I prefer movies filmed in color, and I don't like
    letterboxing.  I, also, don't have a very big TV - maybe a 20" - and I
    can't afford a bigger one.  I can't afford to spend $500. to a $1,000.
    on a tv set.
    
    Lorna
    

  Now that you mention it, maybe it is a 19" or 20", I forget. The point is
that what ever size TV you get, you set it up in your living room to be easy to
see from your favorite chair. If they reduce the size of the objects on the
screen, you are going to be squinting regardless of the size of the screen.

  George 

    I suppose watching any (not-made-for-TV) movie on a television set is,
    in some ways, messing with the "vision" of the director; if it was
    meant to be seen on a huge screen with a crowd of people all laughing
    or crying or booing or cheering at the same time, seeing it on a tube
    alone at home just won't cut it. [Hey, I've got an idea; let's boycott
    theatrical films on video! Put 'em back in the theaters where they
    belong! ;-)]
    
    It's certainly true that letter-boxing uses less of the TV tube, and if
    you're starting with a small set anyway, it'll make some movies look
    like you're viewing them through the wrong end of the binoculars. But
    screen size is relative; the first set I got when I left home was a
    black and white 12", because it was cheap. I didn't miss color because
    we'd only had a black and white set while I was growing up, and while
    the screen size was pretty tiny, I tended to live in small apartments
    and didn't have to be too far from the screen. That little TV lasted me
    ten years (and is still around, though rather the worse for wear); when
    I finally acquired a 19" (or is it 21"? I forget) color set, and could
    watch from across the room instead of perching in front of the tube, I
    enjoyed the change, but didn't find that being able to see the colors
    made me like movies or shows any better.
    
    I expect a lot of one's feelings about this depends on what you're used
    to. A letterboxed film looks smaller than a panned&scanned one on the
    same TV set, but if I got used to watching TV on one of those teensy
    portables with the 4" screens, and then watched a letterboxed film on
    my old 12" screen, it would loom large by contrast. I suppose, ideally,
    we'd have sets we could adjust such that we could get letterboxing if
    we wanted, and if not, could zoom in on the center of the picture and
    make it fill the screen. [Didn't somebody else already suggest that in
    here someplace?] But I suspect most of today's TV viewers wouldn't pay
    any extra for the opportunity, so it probably won't happen any time
    soon...
    
    -b

>     I suppose, ideally,
>     we'd have sets we could adjust such that we could get letterboxing if
>     we wanted, and if not, could zoom in on the center of the picture and
>     make it fill the screen.

	That wouldn't work to well since the center of the picture
	is not always where the action is (otherwise there wouldn't
	be a need for them to pan & scan it when transfering it
	to video).

> [Didn't somebody else already suggest that in here someplace?]

	We did talk briefly about HDTV, but that's not as above
	because an HDTV *is* widescreen so there is no need to
	letterbox.  The problem with HDTV's will be that initially
	everything (broadcasts, cable, videos, ...) will be for
	the small screen so you'll have wide black bands on the left
	and right of the picture.

> If they reduce the size of the objects on the
> screen, you are going to be squinting regardless of the size of the screen.

	I disagree.  I have a 26" screen and never squint watching
	something in letterboxed format.  Watching the 13" I used
	to have in letterboxed format was noticable, but much better
	than missing 1/2 the film like normal :-)

	But no one can force you to like letterboxing :-))

Please keep in mind that I'm generalizing here. I know that there are certainly
exceptions to this (or anything else for that matter). To enjoy letterboxed 
films you need the correct equipment to start with. You need the right source,
a laserdisc player, and the right display, a decent size tube or projection
screen. Most people have a certain amount of disposable income. We allocate
that money according to what's most important or enjoyable to us. People to
whom films are important are likely to allocate more money to them than people
who have less interest. I've spent the money to get a good size screen, 
surround sound, and a laserdisc player. I've spent around $20,000 over the
past three years on laserdiscs alone. I've had to put nearly 20,000 miles
on my car because I couldn't afford another to do it, but films are simply
more important to me than a new car. If films really are important to you then
you'll most likely spend the money to display them properly. Again I know that
there are exceptions to this but most people who actually desire letterboxing
will be able to properly display them. Generally if you have a small screen
you probably wouldn't like letterboxing anyway.



Randy

> To enjoy letterboxed 
> films you need the correct equipment to start with. You need the right source,
> a laserdisc player, .....

	I disagree that you need a laserdisc player, a letterboxed
	videocasette looks just as good as a non-letterboxed one.

	The reason you really need a laserdisc player if you want
	to see movies letterboxed is because 99.9% of all videocasette
	movie releases only come non-letterboxed.  Only special
	editions (like a directors cut) will you *maybe* it be
	letterboxed.  Off the top of my head, only Woody Allen
	has a [single] film which he will only allow to be on
	videocasette or TV/cable only if it is letterboxed.

	On laserdisc however it's not unusual to have the laserdisc
	format of the same movie be letterboxed because laserdisc
	owners are more likely to be true movie lovers and don't
	want to see a film butchered to fit on the small screen.
	(though I have a friend w/a laserdisc who hates letterboxing,
	go figure ....)

    re .54, I love movies, but I simply do not earn enough money to spend
    $20K on equipment in the past 3 yrs.  As a matter of fact, I don't
    believe I've spent $20K on any one thing in the past 3 yrs.  For those
    of us whose gross income is well under $30,000. a year, that sort of
    spending is simply not possible, no matter how much we love film.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: HDTV and letterboxing
    
    As I recall, none of the leading HDTV screen size proposals are the
    proper aspect ratio of "standard" wide-screen.  There are currently 
    some problems with video tube technology to accomplish this affordably.
    I believe the "standard" wide-screen (CinemaScope and some others) are 
    2.35:1, and "normal" are 1.85:1.  Today's TV screen corresponds to the 
    WWII-era film size of approx 1.5:1.
    
    The exact number are probably off a little.  The 1994 Maltin film guide
    gives all the various film process aspect ratios in the back.  I'll try
    to get the exact numbers tonight.
    
    The latest proposed TV screen size (based on tube cost issues) is
    1.9:1.  I saw this in a magazine specializing in Wide-Screen Film 
    and video- and laserdisc-transfer issues.
    
    - Dave

    Hello,
    
    I saw a wonderful t-shirt in a catalog. There was a man standing in
    front of a "judge" (God?) in heaven. The "judge" was reviewing the
    paperwork, and said "So you were the one to colorize
    `Casablanca.'...How unfortunate."
    
    Linda

re .55

>I disagree that you need a laserdisc player, a letterboxed
>videocasette looks just as good as a non-letterboxed one.

Actually no letterboxed film has as good a resolution as a non-letterboxed one.
You lose some vertical resoluton in the process. It tends to be more acceptable
with laserdisc because the resolution is so much higher to start with. But with
the low resolution of tapes the further loss of some vertical resolution really
hurts.

re .58

That's great! What catalog was that? I don't normally wear T shirts but I'd
love to have that one anyway.


Randy

    
    
    reply -1
    
       How many LD's do you own, Can I borrow them? :*) just kidding..
    I saw the ending of the restored version of Lawrence of Arabia
    the other day (Wish I had caught the whole thing). It was letter boxed
    and looked pretty good although I do have a 48 inch TV (which helps).
    In the credits there was a mention of thanks to Steven Speilberg for
    his contribution. My question is does anybody know what his
    contribution was.
    
          -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    FWIW, I don't like colorization but will watch it anyway if the movie's
    good enough (*any* Irene Dunne flick) or rare enough.  I love letterbox
    and don't understand the big deal about screen size.  For cryin' out
    loud, move closer to the box!!!
    
    Leslie

	IMO, this colorization gimmick is sort of blasphemy - it is no
	respect for history, art, memories. Old movies are like proofs
	from the past, worthy to keep exactly as they were. When this
	is generally accepted, where does it stop? How about altering
	Karl Malden's big nose a bit, to satisfy an audience who hap-
	pens not to like big noses? Or on another tangent, freshen up
	the colors on Mona Lisa a bit (she seems so dark anyway), to
	draw in more audience?
	Some said you can always choose between the original and the
	manipulated version, but can you? If you've never seen the
	original film, how would you know if it was the manipulated
	one you watched? The fact that some of the old films were made
	in B&W because of lack of money doesn't matter IMO, they were
	made at the time when economical conditions were bad, and this
	is also part of the history..

	A lot of these old films are not only art (and many of them in
	a more innocent way than nowadays), they are historical pearls
	that should not be manipulated by more or less talented money
	makers.

	Poul
	

  Were all movies filmed in stero? If not, should they try to set up speakers
the way they were originally set up when showing the films? 

  And what about theaters, weren't the old movies made with traditional theaters
in mind? Aren't the new theaters constructed differently? When I was a kid the
Curtain opened and the screen was set up on a traditional stage. There was a
balcony and the architecture of the buildings were somewhat classic. Today they
are shown in prefab rooms that are often smaller, modern in design, and have no
stage. Should that be allowed? 

  And what about the popcorn? Is it made the same way that it was back when
these movies were made? Also, it seems that the candy was different and the
Coke we drank in the theater came in glass bottles. People drove to the theater
in cars that had fenders and door handles and there was no choice, everyone
watched the same short followed by the same double feature. Are we really
experiencing the same thing that people did when they viewed these movies years
ago? 

  And what's all this nonsense about watching the movie on that small box in
your living room, what's that all about? Is that in any way historic? 

  Why bash distributors for colorization while accepting all the other changes?

  George

    	..and view early period art at museums only by candlelight as well.

	..the colors were there in the early films, now some people just
    	  want to view them in a more modern (some view 'better') light
    	  which shows them out more clearly. 

    	I prefer the classics to be in B&W myself as well, but if someone
    	wants to view them with more modern equipment, let them enjoy it
    	too...   

    RE: .63  by 7361::MAIEWSKI 
    
    >And what about the popcorn? ...
    
    We brought ours from home in a brown paper bag.  The extra nickel we
    got from the returnable bottles went for a frozen Charleston Chew.
    
    >People drove to the theater in cars ...
    
    We walked.  I think everyone should have a movie theater within walking
    distance from home.  We had two.  The Capitol and the Regent.  Both are
    still there.
    

> Why bash distributors for colorization while accepting all the other changes?

	Because your note is more humorous than realistic.  Ie.
	it's unrealistic to treat all aspects of movie viewing
	with the same importance.  Colorization is considered a
	major aspect of a movie, while the taste of the popcorn
	would not be quite as major (though bad popcorn can
	ruin a movie :-).

    I don't he was trying to make these items any more important. He was
    just trying to get you to realize that no one ascect of the move makes
    it what it is. A big screen, the in jokes of the time, the unknown
    future, and many more features are that are becoming harder and harder 
    to recapture. It is a fact of life many people see black and white and
    turn the move off. With a little color the movie gets a chance to be
    seen again. 
        We as a people are getting more and more interested in seeing
    different version of the same thing. Directors cut or added footage gives
    new life to an old movie.  Why do people scream at added color? I mean 
    the director cast the colors as well as he did the shades of gray. Many 
    early pictures the colors were all the director did see. Color added
    or footage added what is the difference. You can argue on a case by
    case basis color did or didn't add to this film but to just say
    colorization kills any film is foolish.  
                            Jeff Peters 

I think there are basically two arguments against colorization, those based
on practical grounds and those based on moral grounds. Jeff in -1 makes a
good point about objections on practical grounds, colorization doesn't harm
some films as much as others. Films such as _Green Dolphin Street_ which are
not filmed with any particular character and should have been filmed in
Technicolor in the first place aren't harmed all that much (although color-
ization is a poor substitute for Technicolor). Almost anything in the film
noir genre, from _The Maltese Falcon_ to _Touch of Evil_, would be harmed
immeasurably.

Objections on moral grounds depends on an individuals beliefs of course. For
myself I find it very objectionable morally but I don't necessarily expect
anyone else to share my views (anymore than I would expect them to share my
religious beliefs).

And btw, pretty much everything said about colorization is equally applicable
to panning and scanning.


Randy

I watched the latest "Reflections on the Silver Screen" on AMC last night,
this month's is with Gene Kelly. Prof. Brown asked him about his experiances
with his wide screen (Cinemascope) films. Kelly said that they had basically
been betrayed by the studios because they told him the entire screen would
be used. He therefore choregraphed the films to make full use of the wide screen
but most theatres showed it on a smaller screen. The films were panned and 
scanned for this with the result that three dancers were reduced to 1.5. They
showed the effect in a clip from _It's Always Fair Weather_. Kelly said no
one had seen the film since it's premiere because he didn't consider seeing
it panned and scanned as seeing it. That's a little bit of an exaggeration
since it has been shown in it's orginal aspect ratio in some theatres and on
laser disc. But the point is well taken.

Btw, it's an excellent interview, catch it if you can.


Randy