It's a Wonderful Life (1946) : New Colourized Version

There you go. :yawn: stud u like


According to the booklet; They had access to photographs, and other on-set material. Obviously the colour version cannot ever be a perfect representation, but it's still amazing to look at.


Yes and it was terrible. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? :rolleyes:
 
anyone who wants ..... WANTS to have a colourised version of such classics .....

SHOULD BE SHOT

if anything, they should be rescanned into 16x9 .....
 
Crikey the R2 "B&W" version looks awful.
I have the 2006 R1 (60th Anniversary) and am happy with it. I love this classic film and will watch it soon for Xmas :)
 
Welcome to RAB Barry_Sandrew (is it really he of 'RiffTrax'/'Legend Films' fame?) :)

I posted the quote purely for 'comedic' intent - not as a slur on the director's wishes :D :) The only version of the film I've seen so far has been the black and white original, and personally speaking, I doubt a lick of colour would change my feelings about it one way or the other ;)
 
Total list of Black and White films that should be colourised







thats it.

None of them. A film be it colour or black and white is part of the vision of the director. For someone to come along and colourise it then it is someone elses vision.
 
YOU SAID: Universal appear to own the film....

I SAID:
Yes they do....

Pay better attention before jumping the gun next time, ok?

Try taking a look at my website. I'm more then aware of the current situation between studios regarding Blu-ray and HD-DVD, and the format war that is currently ensuing. ;)
 
You might like then to explain about the newly colorised versions of 3 Ray Harryhausen classics.

Although Ray only handled the effects he has supervised the colorisations and explains that the B&W filming was a budgetary constraint only.

The new versions are HIS vision and how he wanted them made.

20 Million Miles To Earth is already out

Earth v The Flying Saucers

It Came from Beneath The Sea are out next month.

And they most surely are films where colorisation not only improves the film but will also lead to more people seeing them as they will be on tv more.

The original colorisation process first shown on Laurel and Hardy and Its A Wonderful Life 20 years ago was dreadful and very poor ,so poor that it quickly lead tv stations into banning colorised films.

Its a shame that the 21 disc Laurel and Hardy dvd boxset wastes so much space on these diabolical travesties

However , the new process was used on Bewitched seasons 1 and 2 aswell as other US tv series and its impossible to tell they were made in B&W.

I got the 2 disc dvd of Miracle on 34th Street and The Thing from Another World but both included color versions of a quality similar to the ones from the 80's.

I will buy IAWL to check it out if its a new version.

But there are lots of B&W films that dont suit or need color and Hitchcocks Psycho is certainly one of them
 
I bought the 'digitally remastered' UK dvd release as my first dvd in 2000. The picture quality was appalling - blurry, smeary, with all highlights overblown. The disc was returned immediately.

It's ironic that 7 years later, the best copy of this movie around is a 480 lines US colourised version.
 
It was colourized in High Definition, 1080P. I would like to believe that Paramount will release a PAL version off the HD master though I'm not privy to that info.
 
I guess the main reason I'd like to see Psycho colorized is to see how it will match up with Psycho II which is also very good. I've actually watched the first two films both in B&W and it really was like watching one long film. Psycho II is incredibly underrated.

As for Miracle on 34th Street; They used an 80's colorized version for the 2006 DVD release, which is blasphemy. The version I saw was a newly colorized version done in HD, also by Legend Films I believe. They have yet to release it on DVD for some reason.

If you thought a good job was done on Bewitched, You are going to really enjoy seeing this new version of It's a Wonderful Life. ;)
 
I said "Universal appear to own the film and they dont release Bluray at all".

Your reply was "Yes they do".

How is anyone supposed to know you are replying to the first part of the comment?

Answer- they dont unless you post correctly by making yourself clear

Had you posted "Yes they do own it" then that would have been clearer
 
Why on earth would you think I was referring to Blu-ray or HD-DVD when I was discussing a transfer on a DVD release?

I made myself perfectly clear. That was the subject I was debating on. I'm sorry if you couldn't keep up with this discussion.
 
Why would I think you were referring to Bluray or HDDVD?

Mmmmm,let me think.

Perhaps because of what I already posted above.

My post was in reply to someone asking about a possible Bluray release or did you miss that?

Or perhaps you think as you started the thread that posts from others are not relevant.
Just because you didnt mention Bluray doesnt mean nobody else did

I answered: Universal own IAWL and they dont release in Bluray at all.

Your post directly under mine started - "Yes they do".

How do you think anyone can work out that you were replying only to the first part of the post .
And that was about the ownership of the film - nothing to do with formats at all


Try reading the posts again as they appear and see what you think

It would be like you posting:

"IAWL has been colorised but its never been remade"

And me replying

"Yes it has".

What would you think I was saying?
 
Back
Top