Why did audiences tolerate B/W movies for so long?

And yet filmmakers & audiences were willing to dump the whole art form into the dustbin of history in no time at all.

I suspect the answer to the original question is that color film was not seen by producers nor audiences as an unequivocal improvement over black & white… at least not for about 30 years, at which point TV went all color & color TV sales naturally took off. The perspective of a youngish person today who grew up with only color TVs & almost all movies in color inevitably would make black & white movies look a little weird.

This is totally irrelevant. The internet is erasing bookstores and videostores from the face of the planet; they’re music on solid pieces of plastic instead of zeros and ones will soon be consigned to “the dustbin of history.” Is that remotely relevant to the value of bookstores in their time, or to CDs? It’s a statement about the thoughtless fickleness of the consumer, not about the product they’re fickle about.

Yes, as did an astonishingly large number of mainstream films through the forties.

Apparently, enough for at least one movie.

The cinematographer, George Stevens, was himself the subject of an earlier documentary. His color footage is extraordinary, but I could buy that it was not sufficient for (or possibly not available to) the makers of The Longest Day. “World War II in Color!” footage has only become publicly available quite recently, after all.

Anyway, somebody somewhere must know what the Longest Day producers were thinking and why they made the decision. I only suggest the (mostly) black-and-white available stock footage was a factor.

The relevance is in comparing the silent/sound transition with the long drawn-out black & white to color transition. Why was the consumer thoughtless & fickle in the first case but not in the second? I don’t think anyone is doubting that silent movies were great when they were “state-of-the-art.” The whole question is about what happens when there is an alternative form.

Not a blanket statement here, there are exceptions on both sides, but to make an analogy:

A color movie is a bright pink cocktail with an umbrella in it. Served at Choo-choo’s Happy Hour where conversation is impossible because of a jukebox turned up to 11.

A black and white movie is a smooth single-malt scotch served at a quiet piano bar with moody jazz in the background.

Again, not carved in stone. But a ‘colorized’ film noir is an abomination just as much as a kiddy movie from Disney would be made in black and white.

falsely excluded middle

If it’s that big a load of crap, it would be a garish load of crap in color.

I think the OP has a legitimate question, even though it was framed in such a way as to invite chagres of Philistinism. After all, nowadays, and for quite some time now, the vast majority of popular films have been in color, and B&W has been very much the exception. It seems to me a legitimate question why this didn’t happen sooner. One could also ask why moviemakers weren’t more eager to embrace the new technology that was available to them. Which, I guess, is kind of like asking why most movies made today aren’t in 3-D.

From How to Read a Film by James Monaco (page 121 and 122 in the 3rd edition paperback):

Since 1968, when much faster, true color stock became available, color has become the norm and it is a rare American film that is shot in black-and-white.

And Odorama.

Am I remembering correctly? I think I saw an interview with that guy where he said he accidentally dropped a video camera of color footage overboard prior to the landing on D-Day.

May I recommend The Shaggy Dog (1959), The Absent-Minded Professor (1961), and Son of Flubber (1963), black & white Disney comedies. All did well at the box office.

There were no video cameras at Normandy. You mean a film camera.

Uh…OK.

I was talking to the original poster, who is prejudiced against B&W films…not just to random people.

Color and Black & White Feature Production in the USA

1950: 61 / 322 (84.1% B&W)
1951: 78 / 312 (79.8%)
1952: 108 / 216 (66.7%) Eastman Kodak introduces the first Hollywood-quality 35mm color negative film (#5248)
1953: 144 / 200 (58.1%) FCC approves NTSC color television system as U.S. standard
1954: 157 / 80 (33.8%)
1955: 138 / 98 (41.5%)
1956: 134 / 139 (50.9%) Fox drops license requirement that CinemaScope movies be filmed in color
1957: 99 / 203 (67.0%)
1958: 91 / 164 (63.8%)
1959: 80 / 96 (79.3%) Eastman color negative film 5250. Increased speed (light sensitivity)
1960: 77 / 74 (49.0%)
1961: 72 / 78 (51.7%)
1962: 67 / 60 (46.9%) Eastman color negative film 5251. Image structure (sharpness) improvement over 5250
1963: 76 / 54 (41.5%)
1964: 80 / 58 (42.0%)
1965: 88 / 50 (36.2%) NBC prime time goes all-color
1966: 115 / 24 (17.3%) CBS & ABC prime time go all-color
1967: 136 / 7 (4.8%)
1968: 170 / 9 (5.0%) Eastman color negative film 5254. Image structure equal to 5251, but increased speed
1969: 171 / 4 (2.3%)
1970: 227 / 1 (0.4%)

That’s one crazy graph. It looks like TV freaked the studios out between 1954 and 1958.

Is there similar data for the switchover from silent to sound productions?

Maybe somewhere. I can tell you that in the U.S. there were 2 sound features of 722 released in 1926 (Don Juan and The Better 'Ole); and 3 wholly silent features of 530 released in 1930 (two of them low-budget westerns).

Mirroring the above post, I found this:

Virtually no talkies before The Jazz Singer.
The Jazz Singer premieres October 1927
Last major Hollywood studio purely silent feature released August 1929*

*exceptions are silent versions of talkies which continued to be circulated into the early 1930s

Source: Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 71

The answer is really simple -> “The Great Depression.” Movies didn’t really hit their stride till then. As talkies were coming in, the depression hit. Movie makers had to figure out how to get audiences INTO a theatre. This wasn’t too hard. Charge them a nickel and give them, news reels, cartoons and maybe a double feature. Later air conditioning was used as a lure.

All throughout the 30s color was being developed and improved, but the fact remained, it was costly. But they had things like TV and such even developed in the 30s. Of course TV was bad and for the very wealthy and there was virutally no programs.

Then came WWII. As the depression eased there were shortages. WWII was really unique because rationing and high patriotism allowed the common man and the very wealthy to be equals. It was REALLY awful to use wealth to get anything on the black market.

If you were rich and lucky enough to have a, say maid, and the maid saw you doing something wrongs, she’d quit and go make just as much, if not more, in a war plant. And everyone PRAISED the maid for helping the war effort and looked down upon anyone who stopped her.

The war drafted everyone from rich people to movies stars. OK it wasn’t exactly an equal draft, but it worked to “equalize” people.

So B&W stayed pretty much till after the WWII. Then after the war there was nothing literally. Iron and steel was used for war production. People wanted THINGS. New cars, even things like Toasters were in short supply. People were making do with 20 year old toasters with outdated and in some cases dangerous technology. So people wanted THINGS instead of movies.

Eventually when people got these things it was 1949 and TV was bursting on to the scene. They could do color TV but there format wars and B&W TV was just easier to transmit and made the picture look better. The decison was made to rush TV out, to get it to the most people.

Then movies started to need something to compete with TV. So color movies became “THE” main draw. By then color was good as easy to produce as B&W. But directors were seeing B&W as an “Artistic” tool.

Finally you have to remember before the early 50s, movies were pretty much a TOTAL vertical system.

That means everything was owned by the studio. They “owned” the movie, the actors (each actor was tied to a studio), the writers, they even owned the theatres which the movies played. They made their own sets, from start to finish everything was run by one studio.

In the early 50s, the Supreme Court ordered the movies to sell off their theatre chains or face anti-trust law suits. This marked the end of the studio system, after which actors, over the next ten years became essentially “free agents.”

So with vertical integration of movie production there were no outside influences strong enough to force anything, that is until TV. Remember the movies actively set out to kill TV…

From Burns and Allen RADIO show.

Gracie) I think George would be a big star on TV. And you could help.
Rita Hayworth) I could?
Gracie) Yes, you could be a guest on his show
Rita) But I am in the movies I don’t want TV to succeed. If Geroge went on TV…(stops a minute and thinks)…On second thought sure I’ll do it.

<and audience laughs…The idea is George was so bad he’s kill TV>