Would The (classic) Twilight Zone have worked in color?

[terentii]

I don’t think of it as “old-timey.” Where *noir *is concerned, I think of it as gloomy, sinister, brooding, portentious, gritty.

[Trancephalic]

Or, y’know, chiaroscuro.

[terentii]

@Trancephalic

Or, y’know, chiaroscuro.

Ex-actly!

[Just_Asking_Questions]

@MaxTheVool

To the extent that that’s true, is it really true, or is it just something we’re used to? That is, to us black-and-white immediately makes us think “old-timey”, but if you took someone who actually lived in 1930, in a real full-color world, but who had never seen a photograph or movie, is there any reason to think they would think that B&W represented their world better than color?

You’ve articulated what I’ve been trying to put into words.

In the days of the Globe Theatre, did they do Shakespeare’s plays in B&W and silent? Of course not. People knew how to understand drama in color and sound, even back then.

So why do people prefer (not just enjoy, but prefer) B&W and silent movies? The original movie makers didn’t make silent and B&W movies because they were artistic, but because that’s all they had, so they worked within the limitations. Sure, sometimes they made good movies, but don’t you think they would have used color and sound if they had it from the beginning? Did renaissance painters paint in B&W?

[Trancephalic]

I’m sure many painters would’ve preferred a digital camera, too.