Originally Posted by bud16415
, Like many people the world of technology started the year you were born and in your case it was 1970
No, not 1970, but good guess.
and some of our fondest memories are from our formative years. You say you have no nostalgic feeling towards B&W being born long after that era. Having your exposure to B&W side by side to better technologies. Following that logic a child born today will not feel 1080 resolution is acceptable to watch and will much prefer having it manipulated into 8k or 16k in order to watch it in any interesting way. Other wise they will say 4k is crap still.
I don't think comparing a picture RESOLUTION to B&W versus color are in the same ballpark as one another. I grew up watching FILMS and films were higher than 4K resolution at the movie theater. Many very recent movies were shot in 2K digital and CANNOT be increased to 4K or 8K no matter what beyond "upconversions" whereas film can be rescanned to 4K or even 8K. There is a limit of usefulness to resolution versus screen size and watching movies on a 22" CRT TV didn't need 4K in the 1980s. I had a laserdisc player in the late 1980s and sought out widescreen versions wherever possible as I did not want parts of the picture removed. Now one can talk about wanting to get rid of black bars and fill the screen (something I feel is a legitimate desire), but I did not want to trade losing picture for it. Full frame movies lose nothing, however (they actually gain) and if I had to watch a movie on a 4:3 sets and had a choice between 1.85:1 and full frame, I'd choose full frame for that reason (larger picture as long as information is not lost).
In other words, these choices are about wanting to see the best quality picture and as much picture as possible for IMMERSION reasons. Thus, when a director says he doesn't want say Terminator 2 given a Dolby Atmos (or DTS X) soundtrack for the 4K re-release, I have to disagree. The 5.1 soundtrack was nice for its day, but unlike the picture/movie itself, the sound can be remixed for better immersion using more channels. The alternative is to let a pre-set upmixer to do it (e.g. Neural X) to less controlled results. I honestly have to question the sanity of someone like James Cameron for choosing a computer program over human remixing (most using Atmos capable systems will not choose straight 5.1, particularly if they have a larger home theater with multiple rows as coverage is poor with only some of the speakers being used; actual theaters with 5.1 would have had arrays so the tradeoff is not 1:1).
You are correct the motion picture industry and Ted Turner are all about only one primary thing and it is not creating art. It is about making money. They employ artistic folks because the consumer demands a product they enjoy to watch, but for the most part if the max profit can be had shooting on 35mm then that’s what they will do. Look at the spaghetti westerns of the 60’s. They shot them as cheaply as they could over seas with open matte with low budget all the way and the return on cost at the box office were incredible.
I cannot know Ted Turner's intentions at the time. Assuming he had no interest in colorization and was just trying to make money doesn't sound plausible to me. All companies would have been doing it. Some people despise black and white the way others despise pan & scan. The sheer overreaction from people like Roger Ebert was ridiculous, IMO. They lobbied Congress to stop it. So much for free expression.
Ted Turner wasn’t colorizing movies to make them better he was trying to wring out profits from old stuff that was sitting around by putting a new spin on it, And IMHO was not improving it at all. Now if he owned the rights to them he shouldn’t have been taken to court over it. If I want to buy a Rembrandt and paint a picture of my dog on it I guess I have the right to do that, even though a lot of people are not going to like it.
The comparison is absurd given he was not altering or changing the original film stocks. Painting over an actual Rembrandt instead of a copy is another story entirely. That is defacing the original.
Around here a lot of historic wonderful old buildings are being bought and tore down to build Burger Kings. I don’t like it. I could have bought the building if I wanted and didn’t and as many people that hate it there are an equal number that call it progress and like the idea.
I'm not a huge fan of Burger King (liked it when I was a kid, but tend to choose Wendy's if fast food is the only choice now) and clearly it's nice to preserve historical things, but OTOH we can't keep every old car, building and house that was ever made. There is limited space and resources and also safety to consider.
@Dave in Green
and I are not 100 years old and grew up in the golden years of B&W. We are older than you and I think our parents were that generation. But you don’t have to be from a generation to admire that time and like to enjoy it as it was then.
Despite saying several times I do not want to replace the orginal and would not support releasing a catalog with only a colorized version, I keep getting responses as if I had. All I said is I'd be interested enough to watch a modern colorization of a film I love like The Maltese Falcon. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have to watch it again. I wouldn't mind it being an "extra" on a disc that had the room just to compare. I'd even watch the Ted Turner version if I could get a hold of it and hadn't sold my VHS transfer hardware (already transferred all my stuff). Like or not, that event was part of human history too! But instead my very point is that I get these knee-jerk "OMG!" type reactions that clearly Turner got as well that places one's own self-importance and opinions above that of other humans. It's this fundamental "I don't like it so no one else should either!" egotistical gut reaction that when taken to extremes (as has been done throughout human history) has lead to numerous atrocities, wars and other "bad" things all because someone doesn't like something or they think their rights should supersede everyone else's rights in turn and they think everyone else on the Earth should agree with them. You might as well call it the God complex because it's a god-like ego that drives that kind of thinking. How many wars and other atrocities have been committed by people who think they shouldn't have to put up with this group or that group thinking/worshiping/screwing the wrong thing/god/person? No, whether I like colorization or I don't, it's not my place to tell others to think like I do nor would I want to. Differences should be celebrated not attacked as long as they are hurting no one.
Film-Like clearly has a different meaning to me than it does you.
I shot 35mm film myself for nearly two decades. I think I know what film-like means....