Fav monster movie.
1. beast from 20000 fathoms
2. them.
3. 20 million miles to earth.
I love these films.
anyone else have oppion
[deleted]
Here's a quick update: BEAST has just been re-released on DVD in a colorized form. Harryhausen himself approved of the change, pointing out that colorization has come a long way since the chancy efforts of fifteen or twenty years ago. I hope that NetFlix will offer this new edition soon. Steve V.
shareI don't believe you're correct. It's Harryhausen's "20 Million Miles to Earth" that's just been released colorized, for its 50th anniversary. (The new release contains both the original b&w as well as the colorized version.) Reportedly, Columbia is also working on upcoming colorized releases of RH's two other b&w films for that studio, "It Came From Beneath the Sea" and "Earth Vs. the Flying Saucers", though no release date yet.
I checked four sites and none has any info on a colorized version of "Beast", and certainly no such DVD has been released.
A lot of apologists for colorization are making a big deal of Harryhausen's endorsement of mutilating these films by adding phony color to them, and all I can say is that Ray should be ashamed of himself. No matter how much "better" the technology may be than 20 years ago, it's still fake and an assault on the artistic integrity of a film. The alleged fact that they "wanted" to make 20 Million Miles in color is irrelevant; the fact is it wasn't filmed in color, and any colorization is necessarily unreal and inaccurate, besides changing the very nature of the film. As I've said elsewhere, if you agree to altering the picture, where do you draw the line? Why not replace the music track, or cut or redub dialogue, or make other edits, or insert new scenes? It's exactly the same thing.
dvdsavant recently reviewed the colorized 20 Million Miles and said the Ymir looked like a plastic model from a kit, painted green, very fake. I saw a clip and he's exactly right. He advocates people stick with the original, unless a fake green plastic model look is something you'd like.
Colorization is junk -- even the name of the process is mechanical and phony.
Let's hope they leave "Beast", which fortunately comes from Warner Bros., not Columbia, out of this mini-mania to screw around with old films. If you can't stomach black & white, don't watch. Leave the movies alone.
Oh, and as to the original question on this thread...
1. The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms
2. Gojira
3. Gorgo
As we seem to be limited to three.
"Why not replace the music track, or cut or redub dialogue, or make other edits, or insert new scenes? It's exactly the same thing."
I respectfully disagree. It's more like adding voices to a silent movie; old movies are black & white only because they had to be. It was a restriction.
---
Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.
You think adding voices to a silent movie doesn't change it? It's hard to imagine any form of film tampering, even colorization, that would do more to destroy a film's integrity, its very method of expression, than adding sound to a silent. Sorry, and with respect, but that's a preposterous statement.
You've also fallen for the oft-repeated but baseless myth that "old movies are in black & white only because they had to be." Who says? Where is there any proof of that statement? This presupposes that every moviemaker would have chosen color but for cost or technical considerations. But there is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. On the contrary, most filmmakers of the past preferred black & white because it is a vastly more expressive medium in which to film than color. Many of them moved to color only reluctantly and because of commercial considerations from the 50s or 60s onward. You also overlook the fact that b&w was used extensively through the late 60s, and in fact enjoyed a big resurgence from about 1957 or so. This had nothing to do with technical or cost concerns, which were non-issues by then. It was because many filmmakers preferred b&w as a medium to color.
This is not to say that some old b&w films might not have been made in color had not budgetary or other "restrictions", to use your term, intervened. I'm sure some would. But the notion that most if not all would have been shot in color "if only" has no foundation, and in fact is contradicted by the statements of the men who made the movies themselves.
When a movie is shot in b&w its entire design -- the lighting, sets, costumes, everything -- is arranged purposely to appear at its best in a b&w film -- just as in a color film these things are specifically designed for their best impact in color. You cannot simply slap fake computer colors on a film specifically designed for b&w: you destroy the entire look and feel of the movie. (The same holds for a color movie shown in b&w.) If you do not undertsand this fundamental fact, then your appreciation of films must necessarily be very shallow.
No, colorization is just like any other form of film mutilation: it alters the film from what it is, and was supposed to be. Even if you knew for a fact that a filmmaker wanted to shoot a movie in color, you cannot simply go back and change it as if that made no difference, or was in any way authentic. Adding phony computer colors to objects whose true colors you don't know, can only guess at, and which in any case you cannot replicate in their natural depth and subtlety, is not (in the words of the colorizers) "showing the films as they were 'meant' to be seen", a falsehood in the first place. It's some technician's idea of how he thinks a film should look, without any regard for the work of the people who made it, let alone reality. Again, this is a fundamental, unarguable fact.
You may prefer colorized movies, or silents with voices added, or any other changes to someone else's work, but that doesn't mean these are good, the way they were "supposed" to be, or of any value. Any alteration of a film changes it: by definition, a colorized movie is not the same as the actual, original film. You're helping undermine our film heritage, and are blind to it.
Some people have an irrational aversion to b&w movies, or silents, or other aspects of thousands of "old" movies. Again, with respect, that's just too bad. No one has the right to change someone else's art, no matter what the excuse. If you dislike b&w, don't watch it. Just leave it alone for those who like and appreciate what went into making a b&w film what it is.
I never once said it changes nothing. What I was saying is that it changes things in a different manner than your examples, in my opinion.
I stand corrected on the other point, though you didn't exactly provide any evidence yourself, only claimed to have the knowledge. I'd like to see a few quotes on that - out of genuine interest.
However, given that probably the majority of filmmakers are less than artistic (or else most movies would be good, not bad), I would argue that, without a doubt, most of it is indeed black and white due to restrictions (in budget or, further back, technology - in the latter case it's an unarguable fact that they HAD to be b&w, and there wasn't even a choice). I'm sure the likes of Hitchcock could be accusable of preferring b&w, but then we have the likes of Ed Wood, who far more are akin to. Or maybe that's a ridiculous assessment as well.
Keep in mind that I DO prefer watching oldies in their original form. When I first watched King Kong, I watched it in color, and I couldn't help but check it out in black and white the next time. To, yes, experience it in its correct form. I wouldn't want it in cut-off widescreen either. But this isn't because either is necessarily better, but more out of respect for its historical value. In some case I like b&w for its surrealism, but I would argue color is more immersive, as it's, yeah, more realistic. But the theater-like acting usually destroys the sense of realism anyway, in my opinion.
---
Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.
I regret I misinterpreted your initial statement. But it seems to me that the type of change involved, or the manner or degree of an alteration to a film, is a non-issue: all alterations are basically equally bad, in my view. There is simply no excuse for any form of tampering with or changing a film.
If you first saw King Kong in its colorized form (not "color": this is colorization, a process designed to impart phony colors onto a film, not actual, true color), I suspect you are in your late 20s or early 30s, though I have never known anyone of any age who didn't see the original first. If so, I can understand how the way you first saw something would influence you (as it would any of us) and make you see things in a different light.
Still, if my guess as to your age is correct, I think you're hampered as a member the "color generation", many of whom have an irrational aversion to b&w, usually on the basis that it's not "natural" (vs. fake colorization?). I disagree that color is more immersive, its realism notwithstanding. In fact, "realism" often works against immersion, precisely because it imparts too literal a mood. Color certainly can do this, but it's not the same. A film noir of the 40s, for instance, could not possibly be as successful in color (let alone colorized) precisely because it's inimical to the whole mood of the movie. Kong in b&w has a mystical quality to it that is completely lost in colorization -- or even had it been in color. (It's that quality that's so lacking in both remakes, which in any case are inferior to the original on many counts.)
It's all well and good that you want to keep b&w films in their original form, but saying you want to do so primarily for their historical value is missing the entire point. Films should be left as they are because that's how they were conceived and made. They look and sound as they do because of specific decisions made by the filmmakers. Whether a few people would have made their films in color, or used different dialogue, or a different score, is utterly beside the point. A film is what and as it is, and as I said before, you can't go back and un-ring the bell, remake the movie according to what you claim its creators would have liked to do (if one is arrogant enough to presume he knows what the makers would have done decades ago, or how). Even technically, you can't alter the film to make it look as it would have had it actually been shot in color. No one has the right to change them any more than one has the right to repaint the Mona Lisa. (The problem is, while there's only one Mona Lisa, film is malleable and can be duplicated, and so be changed at some idiot's whim, without necessarily destroying the original...though the original can be made unavailable, as almost happened during the first wave of colorization in the late 80s.)
Frankly, the tone of your posts indicates a somewhat condescending attitude toward older films in general, black & white or color, as if they were museum pieces. I may misread you but it seems to me you regard older films, especially b&w, with at best a bemused tolerance, and that you really cannot appreciate what they're about, the talents that made them or the form in which they were produced. This is clearest in your comment that "given that probably the majority of filmmakers are less than artistic (or else most movies would be good, not bad), I would argue that, without a doubt, most of it is indeed black & white due to restrictions." I disagree very strongly with your assessment that most films were "bad", or that the filmmakers are less than artistic -- by the nature of the medium, they really had to be "artistic" to some degree at least (though obviously this varies greatly from person to person). To say that most filmmakers are akin more to Ed Wood than Hitchcock is absolutely unfounded and shows a strong degree of ignorance (I don't mean this insultingly) about older films. Not many filmmakers were in Hitchcock's class (though more than you'd think), but many fewer were in Wood's either. Most fell somewhere between those two extremes, and anyone with a strong familiarity with the films of the past century would understand this right away. There were hundreds of filmmakers who turned out many good films, many of them hidden gems that got little attention at the time, working throughout the 20th century -- in addition to the scores of well-known greats in the industry.
As for evidence of why filmmakers of the past eschewed color for b&w, or made the other creative decisions they did, I can't go through all the books I've read down the years that include references and statements pertaining to such things. I can only recommend that you try reading biographies and film books that touch on the lives of the directors, producers, actors, and others who made those films, and books concerning films of particular genres or eras. You'll find lots to learn and understand, about this aspect, but also others, that may lead you to a wider and deeper appreciation of older films, as something much more than objects of "historical value". As to colorization itself, many of these filmmakers never lived to see it, but quite a number did -- directors like Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Elia Kazan, Fred Zinnemann, as well as foreign talents like Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, and contemporary directors like Spielberg, Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick; actors such as James Stewart, Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Fred Astaire, Audrey Hepburn, Katharine Hepburn, dozens and dozens more; and all went on record in the 80s and after as opposing colorization. (Cinematographers were especially aghast at and against this process.) Modern filmmakers like Woody Allen have contracts expressly forbidding any alteration of their films in any manner; so did Kubrick. Contemporary directors like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, who work almost exclusively in color, have led efforts to preserve films in their original forms, for artistic as well as "historical" purposes, and they have also made sure that their b&w films, like Schindler's List and Raging Bull, will remain unmolested by the colorizers and other destroyers of film. It's because of the opposition of such people and their efforts that the Library of Congress established the National Film Registry in 1989, to prevent the tampering with films so many people are so indifferent to.
I'm sorry you seem to be of a later generation than mine. I think you were robbed of some experience and enjoyment you can't really capture now, especially if you think b&w films are that way simply because color was too costly or didn't yet exist. There was vastly more to this than you realize. A lot of filmmakers only reluctantly switched to color and widescreen, for instance (Wilder, Ford, Kurosawa, Hawks, for four). Even Chaplin refused to give up on silent films until 1940. Their b&w movies looked and sounded as they did because they wanted them that way, not because they "had to". As I said before, I'm sure some movies would have been shot in color had budget or technical considerations not existed (Captain Blood (1935) and Prince of Foxes (1949) are two films that seem to belong in color, though they're quite all right in black & white). But even movie-makers of the 60s made many excellent b&w films out of choice, because the films worked better that way: Kubrick, Kramer, Preminger, Ritt, Lumet, Frankenheimer, Richard Brooks, Kazan, Wyler, many others. I was lucky enough to come in near the end of the great b&w period and grew up seeing all these things as they were filmed (and, indeed, meant to be seen). My negative attitude towards colorization and other changes is based on a respect for a film's integrity and the work that went into making it the way it was made, a strong moral objection to tampering with someone else's work, and the fact that you cannot get a film to look or sound like something it isn't: colorization is false as well as fake. The people who mar films in this or other ways aren't driven by concerns over how a film should have looked; they want to make a buck, period, and what better way than to add phony, inaccurate colors to it and sell it as something new. Talk about "artistic" impulses.
You're certainly more cultured than I. Truly cannot deny that.
When I first watched King Kong, in its colorized version, I was less of a "movie buff" than I am now. Far less. And I was a teen, still am. I'm 19 years old (you're probably all like "OH, that explains a lot" by now). Having known the movie for long but never watched it, I bought it immediately upon seeing it in a store. It was a cheap DVD that included both versions. Naïve as I was I decided to watch it in its colorized form, because that would supposedly add more to it, make it feel more recent or something. I do not hold such a mindset today.
I'm very much a part of the "color generation". In fact, growing up, I never really watched anything from before the '70s. It's not until very, very recently that I've actually started to have an interest in older cinema. I still find most things pre-'70s flawed in many ways (apart from film noirs of the '40s and '50s, I tend to find the cinematography of movies around that time, from what I've seen, bland to say the least), but I do have more respect for it, and upon viewing some of them I've had a lot of my prejudice neutralized (watched Them! yesterday and was very impressed by many things). A major complaint I still have is the acting, which almost never impresses me. Tends to come off as theater-like to me. Coming back to technical issues, I would assume a lot of the exaggerated conversational volume stems from the microphones of yesterday needing louder input, at least if two characters stand far apart. This is just an assumption, though; maybe they actually spoke louder back then, or maybe it really is just a style of acting.
"It's all well and good that you want to keep b&w films in their original form, but saying you want to do so primarily for their historical value is missing the entire point. Films should be left as they are because that's how they were conceived and made."
You're not incorrect.
"Frankly, the tone of your posts indicates a somewhat condescending attitude toward older films in general, black & white or color, as if they were museum pieces. I may misread you but it seems to me you regard older films, especially b&w, with at best a bemused tolerance, and that you really cannot appreciate what they're about, the talents that made them or the form in which they were produced."
I do tend to not hold older movies in very high regard, often arguing about how bad they are in comparison to newer movies, because while they can tell remarkable stories, they're also much too riddled with technical flaws (not including "colorlessness"). A lot changed upon watching The Invisible Man, though, one of the first b&w movies I fell in love with. But I still, as I said earlier, have issues with the acting (in particular) in almost all of these movies. But sometimes I'm not looking for realism, and in such cases I find it much more enjoyable - hell, the kind of acting can even make it even more fun to watch. I watched The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms the other day and loved it. As for my little Hitchcock/Ed Wood arguement, you're probably right that most fall in-between. I did mean movies in general, though, not just oldies. Even if modern movies are irrelevant given the subject of forced contra chosen b&w. You could say I did not think that one through.
Thanks for going through the trouble of writing out that part concerning filmmakers on the subject.
"You'll find lots to learn and understand, about this aspect, but also others, that may lead you to a wider and deeper appreciation of older films, as something much more than objects of "historical value"."
That's something I aspire to. As a self-proclaimed movie buff, I do want to genuinely like many of these older movies. I don't mind some recommendations of quality work, if you care to take the time to write a few titles. Know of anything with particularly good camera work? I loved that one scene in -- I think it was -- Out of the Past where the camera followed a guy walking down stairs, at least partly. Brilliantly shot. Doesn't have to have that, though. I'm up for pretty much whatever, save for musicals - let's not get into that, though; another subject entirely. What are some movies you consider to be all-around brilliant?
Your view on colorization is very respectable, and though I personally don't mind (like, but far from exactly, how I don't mind remakes), I agree that a movie is not meant to be that way. But to kind of pull a 180 on the subject, there truly are exceptions to every rule: Batman & Robin is better in black and white (this one doesn't deserve to be kept original anyway). Makes it seem darker. That is all.
---
Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.
BG, you're very generous and open-minded, I think. I don't know that it's so much that I'm more cultured than you, at least not naturally (I think of myself as basically a dope), but I do have close to 40 years on you, so what I really have is a lot more experience. But your posts read like those of someone 10-15 years older than you are, so that's a compliment to your writing ability and your thoughtfulness.
I do take great issue with your assessment of things like acting styles and technical aspects (such as cinematography or sound) in older films vs. new. As to the latter, obviously you have to take into account the level of technology available, say, 70 years ago vs. today. The problem I have with your statements is that you seem too dismissive of older films on such things, as if they had precisely the same equipment and technical advances at their disposal as today's filmmakers have. I know you know that's not the case, but I think much of your criticism tends to such an undertone. I happen to think that the camera work on most older films can be really amazingly well done, presuming one understands whatever limitations technicians were laboring under. It's like criticizing special effects of 50s sci-fi films solely on the basis that they aren't as "real" or "good" as CGI is today. You're comparing apples and oranges. In fact, I'd argue there's a far greater wealth of technical wizardry in older films that didn't have use of modern equipment, because their makers had to be more inventive and use imagination and talent more broadly and effectively. These are the people who invented this industry, or the second generation, and what they accomplished was astounding, given their more limited technologies. Early sound films (1927-1937) don't sound so good, even compared with films made from the late 30s onward (when advances in sound recording caused filmmaking in this aspect to leap years ahead in just a few months), but that doesn't mean the films are poorly done or no good. The same goes for all aspects of film technology.
Similarly with acting. Styles change over time. Silent film acting was a specialized technique, much different from stage acting. When sound came in, many film actors couldn't make the transition to the new requirements of performing with sound, which is why so many silent stars' careers faded, and why Hollywood raided Broadway for actors used to using their voices, and whole new stars arose. After World War II new styles of acting emerged (notably "the Method", with people like Brando, Clift and Dean), which conflicted with the styles of older actors but brought their own life and style to films. Acting was revolutionized again in the late 60s and 70s (DeNiro, Pacino, etc.). It's always evolving. Again, while you may have your preferences like anyone else, to simply paint all acting before -- what? 1970? -- as overdone or unrealistic or whatever is extremely narrow-minded, to say the least. It's also, I think, utterly false: there were literally thousands of terrific actors, of all kinds, working in movies from the beginning up to whatever cut-off date you use to divide "older" acting from the "new"...which isn't all that new anyway. Point is, you can't just draw a line in the sand and say things were bad up to this year, but wonderful afterwards (as you do by saying you don't care for pre-70s films as much as post-70s ones). Nothing works that way, especially art. (Personally, I think a lot of the actors working today aren't all that good, because they're lazy in their characterizations. But of course hundreds are superb.)
A word you've used is realism, which I think is your problem. As you yourself have said, films aren't reality in the first place. But remember that the films of the 30s, or 40s, or 50s, and so on, each reflected their own form of realism, based on the styles and mores of their times. For example, postwar films in the late 40s became very involved with "realism", which variously took the form of location filming, a documentary-like approach, real issues, and so on. From today's standpoint these films may not seem as "real", but they were tremendous advances from what came before. Things seem more "real" today only because film has advanced as society has evolved. Once more, it seems as if you're judging the old by the standards of the new, which with a fluid art form you simply cannot do.
The fact that you seem to have drawn that line in the sand at circa 1970 means to me that you're missing out on more than you can ever realize, as well as failing to understand how the movies you do like came to be that way -- how film evolved into the kinds of styles you prefer. I don't condemn your preferences for certain eras of films: for me, I prefer the 50s, because I was born then and growing up they constituted most of the films I saw on TV from the late 50s and throughout the 60s. But I've also gone on to appreciate, not only other eras and kinds of films, but also even the 50s films I like in many deeper and more complex ways, understanding how they came to be and what they were all about, how they pointed toward the future in their style and substance. It sounds like you're in the early stages of going deeper into pre-70s films, which is good, but you have to shed your somewhat closed mind about them, learn about them, understand them and embrace them. You will still have preferences for one thing or another, but that isn't the same as disdaining films of a type or era you don't care for as much.
And I promise you -- there's nothing as much fun as opening yourself up to the thousands of great (and many bad) films that await you, of all genres, all eras, and of varying quality. You've got a great treat in store...provided you genuinely open yourself up, broaden your horizons, watch other films not in the context of comparing them to today's movies, but taking them on their own terms. This last is unquestionably the single most critical mindset you have to develop to truly be a film buff, or better, a film expert. If you can't manage this, all else will fail.
As for what movies I consider to be all-around brilliant, well, that's kind of a tough one. "Brilliant" is a term I shy away from, though I certainly have used it regarding some films or filmmakers. Instead, let me give you some titles in different genres. Not all will be in b&w, and they'll encompass many decades. (I'll keep it pre-'70!) But these are all very good films, some of them landmarks. You've probably seen some, but if so, see 'em again. This list looks long but barely even scratches the surface, but it's a good start (and, of course, reflects my own prejudices!).
Drama. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Grapes of Wrath, How Green Was My Valley, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, The Best Years of Our Lives (in my opinion, the greatest American film ever made), Gentleman's Agreement, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Sunset Boulevard, Ace in the Hole, From Here to Eternity, On the Waterfront, Marty, The Apartment, The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May, In the Heat of the Night.
Comedy. Horse Feathers, Duck Soup, It's a Gift, A Night at the Opera, Nothing Sacred, Road to Morocco, Heaven Can Wait (1943, no relation to the 1978 film), Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Lavender Hill Mob, Road to Bali, Some Like it Hot, One Two Three, Dr. Strangelove.
Westerns. Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Red River, Fort Apache, Wagonmaster, High Noon, The Searchers, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, 3:10 to Yuma (1957), Rio Bravo, The Magnificent Seven, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Noir/Crime/Mystery. The Public Enemy, Angels with Dirty Faces, The Roaring Twenties, The Maltese Falcon, Murder My Sweet, Detour, Crossfire, Out of the Past, Kiss of Death (1947), Key Largo, The Asphalt Jungle, Night and the City (1950), The Narrow Margin, Bad Day at Black Rock, Violent Saturday, Witness for the Prosecution, Anatomy of a Murder.
Action/War/Adventure/Epic. The Adventures of Robin Hood, Gone with the Wind, The Black Swan, Bataan, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, The Purple Heart, Twelve O'Clock High, The Steel Helmet, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Ten Commandments, Giant, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, The Guns of Navarone, Lawrence of Arabia, A Man for All Seasons.
Musicals -- I know, I know, but even so, a few: Yankee Doodle Dandy, The Jolson Story, Easter Parade, Singin' in the Rain, The Band Wagon, West Side Story.
Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Horror. The Invisible Man, King Kong, The Mummy (1932), Bride of Frankenstein, Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie, The Body Snatcher, Destination Moon, Rocketship X-M, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The thing From Another World, The Man From Planet X, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, The War of the Worlds, Invaders From Mars (1953), Gojira (the original Japanese version of Godzilla), Them!, Tarantula, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Forbidden Planet, The Time Machine, Robinson Crusoe on Mars.
Foreign. Bicycle Thief, Rashomon, The Wages of Fear, Seven Samurai, La Strada, Tokyo Story, La Dolce Vita, Divorce Italian Style.
I think I've exhausted myself and you. This is only a short list (!), and I could think of scores more films. But it'll give you a lot to start on if you care to use it as a guide. As I said, just open yourself up, stop judging older films by new films' standards (which, in my opinion, are pretty low these days, with a few exceptions), watch and learn about the films, the people who made and starred in them, and learn. There's so much great stuff to see. And it's all a reflection of the history of this country, and the world, over the past hundred years or more. Just take your time, and also watch things you discover on your own. I guarantee, if you open up, you'll find whole new worlds to explore, learn about, have fun with, and enjoy. And don't ignore B movies, bad movies or low budget movies. Most of these are enjoyable, many even good.
Anyway, what's better than watching movies?
Mr.Hobnob53,
wholly concur with you as to the irreplaceable value of B&W.
Today's film-noirs would be better if they're filmed in bw.
Imagine the horror we would get if "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold"
gets the colors ?
The detective and spy genres must always be in bw to convey the gloom.
(Even Richard S Prather's Shell Scott, if he ever makes it to the screen,
must be in bw, even today)
War movies with combat scenes would also be better without color.
However "The Bridge On The River Kwai" owes its success to color
and let it stay that way.
However, I feel that for the Sword & Sandals and Western genres
they must be always in color whenever possible.
But the SciFi & Horror movies of the 50s look much better in their
original state, if only for the fact that their remakes in color stink.
Movies like Tarantula, The Day The World Ended, It Came from Outer Space,
the Black Lagoon Creature trilogy, the British Quatermass X-periment 1 & 2,
and It Came from Beneath The Sea(fortunately my DVD version was before colorization)
with their bw, bring back the 50s flavor into our PC-surfeited
times.
I don't like "20 Million Miles from Earth" too much, perhaps because of the
poor elephant(I'd rather have a gorilla !)but I bought the DVD anyway for its
50s atmosphere although it's colorized !
As said, I am with you wholeheartedly, except that I feel a little vexed
for you to have ignored in the Noir List "The Line-Up"(1958); and in the
Westerns "Escape From Fort Bravo"(1953),and above all "Fort Massacre"(1958),
truly a war movie instead of being only a Western.
Look forward to your posts.
Thank you, lezo., we do indeed seem to be on the same page. I can't understand many people's blindness to what things like colorization do to films, and what this can lead to. Even TCM, in one of its between-films extras, is publicizing some dolt in L.A. who substitutes new musical scores on old movies. For TCM to give this destruction of older films some validation is completely appalling.
I didn't think of The Line-Up but that is a great one. (I also forgot to include The Killers, 1946.) I actually thought of adding Escape From Fort Bravo but decided I was putting in too much by then. Fort Massacre is also good.
I got 20 Million Miles to Earth in its original b&w form so had no need to buy the colorized version. But I did get the colorized DVDs of It Came From Beneath the Sea and Earth Vs. the Flying Saucers because those discs have the original Columbia logos on them, which the previous b&w dics did not. I'm very persnickety about having films in their complete, unedited, original forms. 20 Million had the studio logo included in its earlier b&w release, so that was fine. At least we can "toggle" the colorized DVDs so that we can watch the pristine b&w originals.
Thanks for your kind words -- and I'm very glad to see someone else who's in agreement about saving our film heritage. See you later.
If we are talking 'bout TCM(Ted Conning Method) then no wonder !
This guy is buying every classical movie he could get, and then paw-claw
them in beyond recognition, or simply put them away bekoz they're not PC
enufor T's taste, and deny our children the True Western-American Cultural Heritage.
(Perhaps he's the main Western movies peddler for Kim-The-Adipose-Toad's
20,000-movie collection !)
I once watched on his channel(at the time it was not yet TCM, I forget
the former name) a documentary on Gregory Peck; with all the sweet talk
going on about Greg's career, not once was his part as Lt.Clemons in
"Pork Chop Hill"
mentioned, yet it was one of Greg's greatest roles.
Of course as the b0ss of the much vaunted CNN(Canned News Network)
he has to polish his image as the great PC Leftard.
And don't think you are the only "very persnickety" about old movies,
I'm myself extremely reactionary to any deletion or alteration from
and of the beloved old photoplays, good and bad alike.
My most cherished logos are of United Artists(the original)
and Universal International(still visible on reruns of 50s & 60s movies)
See you soon.
PS: by the way, my two favorite Korean War movies are "Men In War"
and "Pork Chop Hill", symbolically set in 1950 and 1953 respectively.
Thankfully, they aren't making any KW movie today, or the PC would gag
a maggot.
And before I forget, in your next post I would like your opinion on
Mr. Leonard Maltin, film critic emeritus.
For me, his credentials are one consonant short.
TCM has always been TCM -- maybe you're thinking of his other channel, TNT? TNT used to show a lot of these movies before TCM came along. But the Gregory Peck documentary ("Gregory Peck: His Own Man") wasn't made until I believe 1997, which is two years after TCM came on the air, and they were the first to show it.
I saw the Peck program (which is occasionally rebroadcast on TCM), and though I don't recall specifically its not mentioning Pork Chop Hill, it is surprising they omitted it if for no other reason than Peck produced it! But then all these bios invariably omit some films, since they are time-limited. There were two books on Peck's career in the 90s, one a basic, by-the-numbers bio, the other one that tried to be deep and heavy but which was so full of inaccuracies and startling omissions (as well as being badly written) that it was an absolute waste.
I find Leonard Maltin to be an okay but basically routine critic. He's famous only because of his two Guides (the Classic as well as the regular Guide). I find these useful if not always accurate, and they persist in some annoying traits (for instance, listing the shorter running time of foreign films edited for American release as the standard running time, even though the originals are now the primary -- or only -- versions now seen in the U.S.). Maltin farms out his critiques in the Guide to assorted "experts" in various genres, so not all the opinions are his own. This may be understandable given both books' length but can sometimes make the reviews and ratings less than consistent. Maltin himself is no great film scholar, and seems more interested in being a celebrity, but there's not a lot of depth to most of his criticism. And I say this as someone who has absolutely no use for the other extreme of pretentious, self-important criticism put forward by so many self-styled "experts" more interested in impressing one another as supposed intellectuals, rather than in thoughful, straightforward exposition. But a little more depth than you normally get from Maltin is also called for.
His Guide only gives The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms **1/2 ! It used to be just ** -- obviously they revised their rating at some point, as they sometimes do. This despite a review that for other films rates ***. No consistency.
Thank you hobnob53 for your informative post, especially
about Mr. Leonard Maltin ( he "Bombed" both the 2 "Mannequin"
movies along with the second 1990"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ! )
So TNT still exists alongside TCM.
Now that I think of it, it's logical as TNT is
the "administrative" channel while TCM is devoted
to classical movies only.
Still, I think it's rather selective...
By the way, have you ever seen the 1953 Italian-made movie
"Ivan, Son Of The White Devil" with Paul Campbell and Nadia Gray ?
It's a costumed-swashbuckling action movie about the 19th Century
Balkans War against Turkish domination.
Ivan was an undisciplined and dissolute officer of the Tsarist
Russian Army. To redeem himself, he went unofficially as a
"military advisor" with the Greek Freedom Fighters, where he met
his implacable match Emiro Abdul, the cruel Turkish Army ruler of
the region.
The movie is very well-made and the sword fights rival
Erroll Flynn's best.
Unfortunately, I saw this movie only once when just seven-year old,
so I remember only the scene where the evil Abdul died by gunfire
after a cliff-hanging saber duel with Ivan.
It's surprising that such a masterpiece has altogether disappeared.
Perhaps it's somewhere in Adipose-Toad Kim 20,000-movie collection ?
Or TdTr would be so charitable as to show it some day on TCM ?
If it is not deemed too p0-inc0 as to offend the Turks like Terry
Gilliam's 1988 "Baron Munchausen" did !
I must say, I know a lot of movies, but I have never seen or heard of Ivan, Son of the White Devil. I imagine it's probably not available on DVD, at least not in the US. Do you think you'd like it as much today? Just for fun I looked it up in Maltin: as you'd expect, it's not listed. But in fairness it does sound a little obscure.
shareIt's listed in IMDb.
As I said it's a very good costumed swashbuckler,
and I want very much to watch it again.
You can see the poster for its French release at :
http://www.encyclocine.com/index.html?menu=5213&film=9655
(Incidentally, I find the Italian movies of the 50s much
better than those of the 60s)
It's unfortunate that such good movies have fallen into oblivion,
like the masterpiece "Fort Massacre" which is not even available on VHS.
And another masterpiece too, the 1958 "The Beast Of Budapest" that got forgotten.
You must read Mr. Maltin's gem of an explanation for the non-showing of some movies deemed no longer politically correct.
Yeah, like the 1916 "Birth Of A Nation", no doubt.
I looked up Ivan, Son of the White Devil on IMDb. Not much information there, though I was interested to see that the top two stars were Americans. The US title was just plain Ivan, and it says that version ran just 75 mins., compared to the original's full-length 104. It really doesn't sound as though this is one we'll see anytime soon. Could it be available on Region 2 DVD from Italy or elsewhere in Europe?
However, I do have some good news for you: Fort Massacre is now available on DVD. It was recently released on the MGM Limited Edition Collection, their series of high-quality MOD DVD-Rs (like Warner Archives). Most of these films are from United Artists (some from AIP and other labels, but none from MGM itself, most of whose titles are owned by Warner). They add more each month, and there are a lot of great films coming out on this label. Retail price is $19.95 and they're available at most DVD sites. It's too bad you didn't mention this a week ago because Screen Archives Entertainment, which carries the MGM line, had them on sale all through September at 25% off -- something you normally never see anywhere, since the price of these films is pretty steady on all sites (you can sometimes find some titles for a dollar or two less at times). But the MGM films are available from Amazon, Movies Unlimited, SAE, DVD Planet and others. Check around for the best deal, and for other titles you might like. MU is currently offering free economy shipping for orders over $50. SAE (screenarchives.com) has the entire list of the MGM MODs (over 200 now) if you click on the appropriate link on their home page (there's a box showing their latest movies about 1/3 of the way down the page; click on MGM for the entire list). SAE is the only site I know where you can see a list of all the available MGM films at once.
No word on The Beast of Budapest, which I saw once, decades ago.
Where is Maltin's explanation about the non-showing of movies no longer p.c.? Not sure what you're referring to. As far as The Birth of a Nation (1915) goes, it's still shown (TCM runs it every so often), and in fact a brand new, upgraded, multi-disc DVD release is due in November. I'm not going to get into an argument on the issue of "political correctness", an overused and itself politicized term, but I know of no one (outside of the KKK and other white-supremicist groups) who defends the extreme and obvious racism and historical lies of the film. This is why it's important to watch such things with two minds: one, recognizing its factual dishonesty and viciously racist attitudes, while also appreciating its amazing cinematic advances and techniques, in story development, direction, camera work, and so on.
This is far from the only film with such problems, but one of the reasons it's important to keep such films around is to gain insights into the attitudes of the era they were made in, apart from their story or cinematic worth. I completely oppose any efforts to suppress or, worse, change films (or books or anything else) to fit someone else's conception of what's "p.c.", more "accurate", more "fitting", or anything else. All works of art should be kept exactly as they were made, period. But they also need to be understood and discussed in the context of their own times, and their flaws pointed out.
Concur wholly and heartily with you.
The past should not at any price be altered for the "beautifoul" eyes of the
current trend, every movie or book or magazine article for that matter, must
remain a time capsule of its era, so that the next generation will be able to judge.
The same goes for the vilest of monuments which should be preserved in infamy
as examples of what not to be done(thanks Boris Yeltsin !)
America's Greatness lies not in her self-congratulating, but in the honoring of her enemies ( the monument to Native American Chief Crazy Horse for instance )
Apologies for overuse of the "pc" expression.
However Mr. Maltin himself wrote in the foreword to the 1997 edition of his bulky film encyclopedia, about some movies no longer politically relevant.
Of course "Birth Of A Nation" reflects the views of the Confederacy,
Which got its own lion's share of vilification from many Civil War apologists.
When I watched "The Defiant Ones" I had a lump in my throat, especially at the last scene. Alas, too many today's movies are just pretexts for Whitey-bashing.
"Fort Massacre" remains for me a war movie to stand on a par with "Bridge On The River Kwai".
Thanks for the information.
Next time I will give you a list of movies which should be worth of DVD status.
lezardormeurgeant, let me suggest that, since we've gotten way off-topic here, we take this over to the Private Message route and continue there. You can send me a PM anytime. See you there.
I'll close this discussion here by stating that I emphatically do not believe there is anything "P.C." about The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. He was an equal-opportunity destroyer.
Colorization is junk -- even the name of the process is mechanical and phony.
Hiya hobnob.
Yeah, it is junk, you're right, but ...
I have the Ray Harryhausen box on Blu-ray, and the She box, and I have to confess I really love the "Colorized" versions in those. Especially since you can switch back to the originals; I think I'd be unhappy if they were forced. I think of the "colorized" transfers as the popcorn versions, and I choose which one I watch based on my mood.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. share
Hi p-a-b,
Actually, I have the colorized versions of two RH Columbia movies, It Came From Beneath the Sea and Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. But in both cases I bought them only because they had the complete film -- meaning the opening and closing Columbia logos -- which the b&w DVDs for some reason lacked. As a completist, I want to have the full, original, intact film, logos included. Curiously, the regular b&w DVD of 20 Million Miles to Earth did have the logos intact, so I didn't have to get the colorized version of that one. But the colorization itself is crap. Even Harryhausen, who allegedly "supervised" the colorizations, was shocked and dismayed by the results, especially since neither the octopus in ICFBTS nor the Ymir in 20 Million were the bland, smooth green they've been colorized as. But what did he expect?
What I never got was having RH supposedly oversee the colorization of She and Things to Come. He had nothing whatsoever to do with either film and had no more knowledge about them than any other film expert. I assume he was hired solely for the value of his name, and to make the colorizations seem somehow authoritative. And of course I expect he was well paid for his participation in the desecration of someone else's work.
Don't hold back, hobnob, tell us how you really feel!
Mate, I completely take your point, and as I said, I wouldn't have been happy if the "colorized" (hate that word so much I just have to keep using it!) versions were the only options for those films. I personally enjoy it as a gimmick, though; I think for me it has a nostalgic feel to it, perhaps because it reminds me of the hand-tinted photos my grandparents used to have on their mantle. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it's photorealistic colour.
I bought the She box because I wanted the films, even though I knew Harryhausen was being used as a banner headline. She is the only title I watch from it now, having bought the more recent restored and remastered BD of Things to Come from the UK. Still, I think they did a fairly amazing job with the transfers, and my understanding is that She, at least, was originally shown tinted, so perhaps "desecration" is too strong a word in that case.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Don't hold back, hobnob, tell us how you really feel!
Aaarrrrggghhhhh!!! Grrrrrrrr! Must destroy human race!
Well, you're right that colorization (or would "colourisation" look more genteel?) is a gimmick. It doesn't remind me of hand-tinting, though; it just looks like crummy fake colors.
She is available here in the US in an excellent transfer from Kino Video, so the colorized version wasn't needed for that reason. In the US there is no box set containing it that I'm aware of; the colorized version, like that of Things to Come, is a single DVD. The latter film came out on the Criterion label last year, and no version could look better than that, so there too, the colorized disc is not only unnecessary but not as good.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it's photorealistic colour.
Oh, boy, wanna bet?! I'm tired of hearing so many people say, "At last, we can see it in color!" or "Now it's the way it was meant to be seen!", which is false both factually and artistically.
my understanding is that She, at least, was originally shown tinted, so perhaps "desecration" is too strong a word in that case.
Yes, but tinted is not color, and color is not colorization. share