Should the classic who be colourised? The Debate..
- Thread starter starsuperion
- Start date
Cool, go commission one and you'll have it to hang in your living room. Or, if you're proficient with photoshop or painting, you can create your own. I'll still be free to admire the original.
That hasn't been the case for some other series. That's really for the market and the DVD companies to decide. Agree, if it's not profitable, they won't be made. At least not officially. But, if they are, they will. Of course, as the cost of colorization declines, it'll become more profitable.
Mr Awe
I think I finally get it. You're seeing things in terms of choice, opportunity and profit: if people could potentially be interested in buying something, then it should be made.
I see things in terms of creativity and artistic integrity: it has already been made once, and modifying it to suit the fickle tastes of a hypothetical audience is absurd. Adding vampires to Hamlet because young people would be more interested in the play if only it had vampires in it would be insulting to Shakespeare and to young people.
I really don't think that art, even the most lowbrow and commercial form of art, can be treated like ice cream and I do believe that there are strict limits to what an audience can demand.
^^ For me, it is. As long as the B&W original versions exist, unaltered, I'm happy. I agree that artistically, it's questionable. But, if the audience demand is high enough, it'll be made no matter the artistic qualities of the product. This explains a lot of what is on TV.
What will keep the show going WON'T be DVDs of the classic series, but NEW episodes, NEW series, NEW material. Full stop.
You can colorize all you want, but the old serials won't be what gets new fans into the show. Only new material for the current generation. Some may go back and explore the old series, others may not. Not ever fan has to be a nerd and see every moment of Doctor Who.
And, no, to colorization.
Ah damn. Twice in as many days I find myself in complete agreement with you. Funny you should mention vampires in Hamlet though. I was going to suggest dumbing down Dostoevsky to the level of Twilight but thought I'd be getting a touch too snippy.
since when is adding colour to something on the same level as vampires being added to hamlet?? that is just such an over reaction to the idea..sheeesh!
I wonder how many Trekkers went out and shot up a convenience store when they announced the Remastered DVDs...
just plain silly...
you'd think I was talking about tie-dyed Daleks, and red and blue cybermen!
I wonder how many Trekkers went out and shot up a convenience store when they announced the Remastered DVDs...
just plain silly...
you'd think I was talking about tie-dyed Daleks, and red and blue cybermen!
Last edited:
I have a question: are you upset by the answer, and that people don't like your idea or because of the passion?
neither.. I am surprised by the passionate responses though.. plus, I am only playing devil's advocate here..It is not like I can do anything to influence the BBC into colourising the show..
besides, it is fun to debate fellow fans.. I respect each and every one of those who have posted on this subject..
How is it different? In both cases, you're altering the original work to make it more palatable for a hypothetical new audience. Adding color, changing the music, adding vampires, it's all the same thing: it comes from the concept that the only thing that matters in art is what the audience is willing to buy.
I have to disagree, this is no way the same..
had there been a different lenses on the camera and a bit later, it would have been broadcast in colour..the fact that outside of the camera, in real life, there is colour.. makes it a return to what it could not have been at that time due to the limits of the technology of the medium..
is it historical? yes.. is anything lost by making the series ALSO available in colour? No, cause we exist in colour in reality.. and the black and white series would still be available for those purists who can't bring themselves to watch those classic episodes in colour
you could say the material was altered by being shot in black and white, since in reality we live in a colourised world..
Are we asking for dance sequences, a change in special effects, and or digital modifications? nope.. just the normal colour we see everyday in real life, and the colour that was present during the original filming..one could say that the older black and white shows are incomplete, because they lack colour..due to the limits of that day...
if doctor who artistically should remain in black and white, then that should have been a consideration to the series as a whole and subsequent series should have been in the black and white format..not in colour..to use that logic.
Aha, so you're saying we should paint old statues, then?
Aha, so you're saying we should paint old statues, then?
no but what would be wrong with a copy that was painted??
No! Black and white Doctor Who shouldn't be colorized just to pander to prats who refuse to watch anything that's not in color.
Every colorized film and tv show I've seen look like crap compaired to their original B&W form. They have a tendency to use unnatural colors. People end up having weird skin tones and I remember seeing a colorized show , I think it was "I Love Lucy", with a christmas tree colored a lime green. In fact the examples of colorized B&W episodes given in this thread suffer from weird unnatural colors. The color is not always consistent. There was an old western, can't remember the name right now, in which a character's hat was constantly changing colors. One minute it was dark blue, then it was brown, then dark green, then black, then blue again. In some cases they only colorize a portion of the scene and leave the rest in black and white. A great example of this is "The Shaggy Dog" in which Fred MacMurray's character is being chased by the police and when the cop car is shown the only thing that's colorized are the lights on the top of the car the rest of the scence is in B&W. In some cases the foreground is colorized while the background is left B&W. In other cases only a persons face and hands are colored while the rest of the scene is left in B&W. Also eyes and mouths are often left B&W. Their's nothing creepier than a person with B&W eyes and oddly colored skin talking with a B&W mouth.
Remeber, crayons are for coloring books not for defacing B&W movies and TV shows just to satisfy asshats who refuse to watch anything that's not in color.
Every colorized film and tv show I've seen look like crap compaired to their original B&W form. They have a tendency to use unnatural colors. People end up having weird skin tones and I remember seeing a colorized show , I think it was "I Love Lucy", with a christmas tree colored a lime green. In fact the examples of colorized B&W episodes given in this thread suffer from weird unnatural colors. The color is not always consistent. There was an old western, can't remember the name right now, in which a character's hat was constantly changing colors. One minute it was dark blue, then it was brown, then dark green, then black, then blue again. In some cases they only colorize a portion of the scene and leave the rest in black and white. A great example of this is "The Shaggy Dog" in which Fred MacMurray's character is being chased by the police and when the cop car is shown the only thing that's colorized are the lights on the top of the car the rest of the scence is in B&W. In some cases the foreground is colorized while the background is left B&W. In other cases only a persons face and hands are colored while the rest of the scene is left in B&W. Also eyes and mouths are often left B&W. Their's nothing creepier than a person with B&W eyes and oddly colored skin talking with a B&W mouth.
Remeber, crayons are for coloring books not for defacing B&W movies and TV shows just to satisfy asshats who refuse to watch anything that's not in color.
Ok I'm convinced! I'm off to colourise An Unearthly Child with my crayolas, then I plan to add a vocal track to all of Chaplin's movies and anyone else think the Mona Lisa would be better in 3D?
Actually in all seriousness, I think the biggest reason not to do it is simply that there wouldn't be a market for it. I seriously doubt that Pertwee DVDs currently outsell Troughton or Hartnell ones by a large enough margin to justify it. People who are that bothered about whether the show is in colour or not are likely to be similarly bothered about the budget/acting/pacing etc. There may be a small group who are ok with all of the above and only put off by the B&W, but somehow I dount that group could possibly be big enough to justify the expense.
Actually in all seriousness, I think the biggest reason not to do it is simply that there wouldn't be a market for it. I seriously doubt that Pertwee DVDs currently outsell Troughton or Hartnell ones by a large enough margin to justify it. People who are that bothered about whether the show is in colour or not are likely to be similarly bothered about the budget/acting/pacing etc. There may be a small group who are ok with all of the above and only put off by the B&W, but somehow I dount that group could possibly be big enough to justify the expense.
Classical statues were originally painted, I think he is having a joke with you.
BTW Count me in for Vampires in Hamlet.
Classical greek statues were painted, classical roman statues, for example, were not. But yeah, it's an interesting question, isn't it? Should we re-paint them? What would be the most authentic way to pay homage to the artist's original intent? This obviously goes way beyond the purpose of this thread, but yeah, it's an interesting debate.
There's already a ghost in the play. I did not pick Hamlet at random.
Yes, once you are used to seeing them spotlessly white on display it seems like sacrilege to paint them, yet that is how they originally were.
I just like to experience 1st and 2nd Doctor Who as the viewers back then did...