So I’m watching the Broncos game and see a promo for colorized I Love Lucy, which is apparently the Christmas special and that episode where Lucy and Ethel get a job at the chocolate factory. While I don’t have any problems with CBS showing a couple old episodes of I Love Lucy, I really don’t get the colorization angle. I thought that had pretty much died with TCM back in the 90s.
Am I missing something here, or is it as stupid an idea as it sounds to me?
I might just not read enough on the debate, but I’m not really clear on the argument against colorization.
I’m not talking about colorizing Schindler’s List here. I’m talking about shows and movies that were shot in black and white because that’s the technology they had available at the time. I’m sure if the makers had had the option of filming in color, they would have. So what’s the harm in colorizing it after the fact? The original doesn’t go away.
I don’t see the problem, either. Although color film was available, at the time. It was less expensive to shoot in black and white, and CBS didn’t have the incentive to use color since their color transmission system was rejected in favor of RCA’s, who owned competitor NBC. Lucille Ball would have approved. Anyway, aren’t the black and white episodes also available on the disc for those who prefer to watch them that way?
I’ve heard that more recent colorizations look better than the old ones, but in the past at least colorized movies and TV shows tended to be really ugly. Everyone would have exactly the same skin color, their outfits were often cartoonish-looking primary colors or pastels, and everything looked kind of flat and either over or under saturated.
It’s just a clip show, not even a real episode. Oh! The humanity!
When you shoot a color scene in black and white, you lose information, and you can’t get it back. Colorizing is a process of making guesses at the correct color, for every object in every frame. Since there are a lot of objects and a lot of frame, this means a lot of work, which means either a bunch of low-talent humans, or a few even less talented but cheaper computers. Which means that, regardless of the artist’s original intent, colorized movies and TV shows tend to look like crap.
The same is also true of 3D, incidentally. If you actually film in 3D to begin with, it can look great. But if you instead film in 2D and try to add the 3D later, as many moviemakers do, it’s terrible.
Not sure I get the objection to having pastel like skin colors (or unsaturated or whatever) - black and white isn’t very realistic either. Yes it is more pure, but if computers can make realistic guesses on the missing data - I’m fine with that.
I saw the ads and it looked pretty good to me for a 50s TV show.
If you’re referring to my post, I didn’t say colorization was unrealistic. I said it was ugly. It may also be unrealistic, but that’s not the problem with it.
It was a combination of yours and Chronos - I have seen some poorly done ones - it’s been a while, but I don’t think this looks that bad:
They apparently had existing photos, some color film, and some props from the shows - so they could have recovered some of the info this way.
You’ll note that the apparently red curtain has been changed to blue:
But her top looks more or less correct.
I realize that your objection was to do with the ugliness - not accuracy.
Do you think this one looks ugly? Or do you need more than a still shot to tell?
You know, I like that high-contrast B&W picture better than many of the real color stills that follow. Certainly better than the colorized image here, which I think has all the faults mentioned, if not as dramatically as some things.
I guess I think Lucy’s world should be B&W. At least, I see no reason to change it. What is colorization for? (Should they work up 3D for it too?)
For those who are against colorization, not, as in you personally would choose to watch the original, but believe that the process just shouldn’t be done: Is your concern that the colorized version will replace originals, and the original will be unavailable?
They often have a lot more than that when they colorized movies - sometimes they can get their hands on the set and costume designers notes, which have extensive information on exactly what colors the costumes, props, and sets were. The problem is, these were all picked based on what would look good when photographed in black and white. Scrupulously following those notes and production photos is what led to the hideously garish colorized versions Lamia was talking about.
That may be what her hair looked like, based on the earlier pics, but it looks very oversaturated in the still. And there’s something up with her face.
And you’re talking to someone who prefers colorized version of It’s a Wonderful Life, save for the use of black and white instead of blue for the low-light scenes.
And I remember a colorized intro on a collection I watched (at the doctor’s office, oddly) looking a lot better.
IMHO it’s ugly. Lucy and Ethel’s skin looks weird and fake, and Lucy’s hair doesn’t even look like a bad dye job, it looks like it was colored in with an orange highlighter. Their clothes and the background look okay, but just okay.
Speaking of bad colorization jobs, in 1986, Hal Roach Studios colorized “Suddenly”, a 1954 Frank Sinatra film. Sinatra’s eyes were colored brown in that effort! There’s a reason Frank was known as “Old Blue Eyes.”
I don’t necessarily believe that it’s heretical to colorize something that originally was in B&W, but colorizing “I Love Lucy” does strike me as being just plain wrong. But on the other hand, to colorize a B&W film or tape, first they have to transfer it to a digital tape, and then they have to correct all the splotches, dirt, and splices and all the bad stuff that can occur to a reel of film or tape that’s been stored (and not that well) on a shelf for, what, 60 years? So, if you don’t like the color, just adjust your set. You’ll still see a cleaner, better print in B&W than you saw in the reruns before the colorization was done.
I will go on record as saying it’s probably better to leave the beginning and ending of Wizard Of Oz in B&W.
As far as the question of why they do this, the answer is simple. Lots of people will not watch a black and white show, period. My ex-wife for one. They tried a colorized I Love Lucy episode last year, it won its time slot, third highest on that night and was best in the 18-49 year old demographic. Perhaps the sheer factor of seeing how it turned out gets eyeballs.
If you want to argue, it wasn’t colorized very well, you’re right. But remember as Lily Tomlin said. It’s called show business, not show art.Entertainment – UPROXX
Some TV shows in the 50’s were shot in color, but broadcast in black & white, such as the last three seasons of The Adventures of Superman.
This is something I just don’t understand. Maybe it’s because I remember the TV guide listing whether a show was (B&W) or (C) - not that it mattered - for years we just had a B&W TV anyway.
Just yesterday, I watched All About Eve on Netflix. I’m sure it would have been stunning if it had been made in color, but the story wouldn’t have changed. Would Bette Davis’ performance have been any better in Technicolor? Would Eve have been more manipulative?
What am I missing here?
Familiarity. Lots of kids won’t watch 2D animated movies. Not what they are used to.