Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Movies that were not shot in color should not have color added to them. Ever.


Nance said...

Oh, bravo! It was bad enough to see that they painted up "Miracle on 34th Street" like a cheap whore, but so help me, if I ever, EVER hear of anyone flinging so much as a pastel wash at "To Kill a Mockingbird", well, there is going to be An Incident.

That's all I can say without having to kill you.

S said...

Don't kill me, Nance! I'm on your side. I saw an add for a collection of Shirley Temple movies that had color added and it made me furious.

The "Miracle on 34th Street" one infuriates me no end. Just last Christmas, I was surfing through the channel guide and got excited when I saw that was one. You can imagine my intense horror when I flipped to it and saw Maureen O'Hara in a green suit! Gah!

I agree with you about "Mockingbird," but I think the one I would most lose my shit on would be "Psycho." Surely no one would ever think to colorize that, right? I mean, he chose to film it in black and white for a reason.

Ortizzle said...

Yep. There's a reason why some things need to be in B&W. When I first started doing B&W photography and developing my own stuff, etc., someone commented on my first collection of pics: "Gee, what a shame these aren't in color." That's the same kind of person who would enjoy the (gasp) colorized version of Casablanca. And it HAS been colorized.

S said...

No, Ortizzle, it HAS NOT BEEN! (Not in my world, anyway!) Just like there was never a sequel to Legally Blonde.

Blog Designed by : NW Designs