Have the VCI release with both B&W and Color versions, accompanied by Patrick Macnee intro and outro.

This as a film I have to watch every Christmas as it is a masterpiece. I recorded the film today on Channel 5HD (UK) and without realising I'd recorded the colour version as well as the b/w version. I'm not 100% against colourisation if it makes watching older more accessible to people (although I do love b/w films). But I started watching the colour version and then put on the b/w version and the difference is incredible. There is so much more detail and incredible picture quality in the b/w version. It is head and shoulders above the colour version.

I have it colorized on DVD, I think, though it all seems sepia-toned. I remember it in black and white and would prefer that version, maybe because I had a B&W TV when I was young.

Colorization is lame. This film thrives on B&W, it being an overnight ghost story no less, on Christmas Eve.
The soul of this film is quite lost with colour.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

Ugh-I have just finished watching the 'colourized' version of this classic-it was borrowed off a friend, and it never occurred to me that anybody could have ruined this film by applying this technique. On calling her, it appears that she owns both the orininal B/W
and
this colour version, but the original has never been watched, and is still in it's cellophane What a shame-by colourizing it, all of the nuances of light and shade are ruined-also, the actors were specifically made up and lit for B/W film, which is hugely different from colour, and the result is that they look odd, as though the colours weren't moving with their characters. I shall re-watch the B/W version next week (and probably buy it off her), and enjoy it hugely Unfortunately, with my new TV, it would appear it's impossible to simply turn the colour 'down', as I used to do in the old days, when I stumbled upon colourized versions of Laurel and Hardy or Harold Lloyd films, which sort of did the trick
I've
seen
things you people wouldn't believe

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

If they were to repaint the Mona Lisa, it would indeed be a crime.
Why would that be a crime? Mona Lisa is a butt-ugly eyesore which looks 100% like an ugly, obese man. Repainting it couldn't possibly be anything other than a major improvement.

Great post! Lighting is part of the director's eye and his artistic impression. This is why I would NEVER by a copy (a numbered print) of an original work of art. Varied shades, and varied colors of colors? Ew!
Black and white photographers would wait from hours to days, just to get the right shot because of the shade or lighting.
I am not a professional, but I give credit to the original intent of the artists.

cvalance: I've decided to visit this Colorization Crash-site through you because you seem to be one of the more rational contributors, and I agree in general with your views.
I would love to be able to see every favorite B&W film of mine in the original natural colors that were there before the camera - but only in a technically good color system.
I'm always fascinated to see natural color stills from early B&W films made in the 1930s, when color films were extremely rare. (A shortlist of those I have seen: "The Sign of the Cross", "The Private Life of Don Juan", "Camille", "The Prince and the Pauper", "The Prisoner of Zenda", "Lost Horizon".) Natural color stills from B&W films of the 1940s were more common - for example: "Casablanca", "They Died With Their Boots On", "Hamlet" - but just as interesting. And in the 1950s many B&W productions were recorded in color photographs.
I'm also fascinated by natural color portraits of early stars who never appeared in a color film - everyone from W C Fields to Buck Jones.
Since early in the Silent Era, all films were deliberately designed in color, because the actors demanded it. They felt better wearing color costumes on color sets, even though almost all of the films would be in B&W. But, in most cases, we can only know through surviving costume and set designs what the original colors were like. And all this is complicated by the fact that B&W silent films are almost always on
Orthochromatic
stock, not
Panchromatic
stock, so that the tonal values are inevitably distorted. (For example, a red will look black and a blue will look pale gray.)
Natural color stills and color portraits from the Silent Era must be extremely rare, if any at all exist. I've never seen a single one. (Have you, or anyone else?) The covers of contemporary film magazines carried thousands of color portraits of the stars, but these were all paintings, not photographs. (Show me one natural color photograph among them all, and I'll be grateful.)
Even as late as January 1936 - when "
Photoplay
" apparently had the first natural color photograph (by
George Hurrell
) of a movie star (
Norma Shearer
) on the front cover of a movie magazine [see the
Internet Archive
website] - it's been claimed that there were only four (4) still color cameras in Hollywood. And it would be another two years (1938) before professional cut-sheet
Kodachromes
would be available for use in ordinary plate cameras. (Natural color portraits of film and stage stars - including Adele and Fred Astaire and Billie Burke - had appeared on back covers, inside covers, and inside pages of film magazines during the first half of the 1930s, but these were rare and in advertisements.)
With the sole exception of the French trichromatic
Gaumontcolor(1912)
system, natural color processes in early films were two-color, utilising either Red & Green or Red & Blue.
Artificial color systems included color-toning - in which a B&W positive was chemically treated to produce a monochrome image - and hand-coloring, with or without stencils, in which a B&W positive was painted with a wide variety of color dyes.
Both of these systems had serious defects. Color-toning distorted tonal values, even in a Panchromatic print, and could not produce blacks. Hand-coloring gave a hybrid image that looked like a cross between a B&W and full-color image - the result always looked unreal. (The modern Colorization systems do the same - which is one reason why their critics find them esthetically objectionable.)
The two-color systems could give very natural-looking results if the colors used were red (or a variant of red) and blue (or a variant of blue). The red could give very convincing skin tones and earth tones, and the blue could give very convincing skies and seas. (One particular American process called
Vericolor(1933)
appears to have given excellent results.) Muted greens could be produced, but only if the blue was close to a primary cyan and the red was closer to orange than a primary red - as in the
Cinecolor(1932)
process. [See the
Timeline of Historical Film Colors
website.]
Because they were limited-color systems, none of the two-color (subtractive) processes could reproduce yellow, magenta or violet. But this was not a fatal drawback - they could still produce harmonious natural-looking color images.
The ideal solution to producing an acceptable color version of a B&W photographic image (still or moving) would be the discovery of a system that could convert the image's colorless tonal values into the true color values of the original subject. This may seem impossible - but the apparently impossible has been done before. (At one time a color photograph seemed to be impossible.)
An achievable alternative would be a limited-color system using a color-toning process which gave acceptable natural-looking color, similar to the best two-color systems of the past. This would require a certain amount of matting, but a workable computer program could be devise

As long as the black and white are available for viewing, I don't see a problem.
Yes, that's exactly my point. If a dictator (say) wanted to colorize all B&W movies and destroy all B&W copies, I'd be screaming louder than anyone here.
If Leroy Neiman wanted to Neimanize his version of the Mona Lisa, I don't care as long as the original is protected. The only person who would have a right to complain is DaVinci, and he's been long gone. And I'm not convinced he's be as outraged as some people
Some folks need to learn what the definition of "deface" is. We live in a world where militants are actually
destroying
thousand year old works of art because they don't fit into their narrow minded vision of what the world should be.
There have been some shoddy attempts, particularly early on, e.g., Frank Sinatra with brown eyes in Suddenly. The technology has improved, more importantly those who are overseeing the colorizing have done a better job.
LOL. The first colorized movie I saw had a gray haired gentleman whose face tones would infiltrate his hair, so his hairline would change almost from frame to frame. Terrible. Later efforts are amazing except for the odd hues they use, but the fitment and shading today is amazing.
And I have no gripes with anyone who hates colorization as long as they don't force their preferences on the rest of the movie watchers. I used A-1 Steak Sauce as an analogy and I think it's appropriate: if someone wants to use this swill on a good piece of steak, let them. Just because I think it's sacrilege doesn't mean I think the product should be banned.
If a rapper wants to sample Nat King Cole for his hip-hop, let him. As long as the original is forever there for me to enjoy in my own way, I don't care what they do with their copy..
Thanks for the well considered comments.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

You make some excellent points. As long as the black and white are available for viewing, I don't see a problem.
There have been some shoddy attempts, particularly early on, e.g., Frank Sinatra with brown eyes in Suddenly. The technology has improved, more importantly those who are overseeing the colorizing have done a better job. For the recent colorized Andy Griffith Christmas Show, the producers uncovered color photos of the original filming to better match the colors. They also consulted with the president of the Andy Griffith Fan Club (why, I can't say)
Others colorized projects were misguidedThe Maltese Falcon. But the public rejected those films, while embracing others, early TV series such as I Love Lucy.
I was disappointed in the sanctimony and hypocrisy of esteemed film makers who railed against colorization, especially Martin Scorsese. It's one thing to be influenced by a film and create your own work of art, but to remake it, with the same title, is disgraceful. An artist who truly respects the Mona Lisa would never paint a copy and call it the "Mona Lisa."

Your resorting to name calling undermines your arguments, can't reason with that mentality or in this case, lack of same.

This message has been deleted.

Who are YOU to decide WHICH films can be altered and which cannot? You
are nave to the point that you believe a film's budget has anything
to do with the lighting, design and art that goes into photography.
Again, just because a black-and-white film MAY have been shot in color
had it been in its budget, doesn't make it ethical to alter film
history.
Most cinematographers preferred shooting in black-and-white, as did many
directors. In fact, color (even beautiful Technicolor) was often
dismissed and "saved" for "frothy" films like musicals and comedies.
Haskel Wexler, for example, who shot "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
in 1965 BEGGED (and won) to shoot in black-and-white, despite having
(with stars Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) the budget to shoot in
color. The film would not have been as effective otherwise.
Black-and-white isn't just automatically "art" in of itself. But neither
is color. So, your constant comparison of an idiotic sitcom like
"Gilligan's Island" makes no sense to me, as the show is just as dumb
in color. But to answer your question, it is TV history and should be
left, sold and broadcast as is. It is respect for film.
Why do I care when they're not "my films???" Another stupid comment.
People who appreciate art in any form respect its origins and want to
see it preserved as is. Why anyone "needs" to see a black-and-white
film or TV show in color is beyond me. "Scrooge" loses its shadows,
lighting and overall impact when fake "color" is applied to the image.
At best, it is fixing something that isn't broken, and at worst,
destroying the original intent of the filmmakers - all because the
childish and the tasteless wish to see artificial "color." What is wrong
with you that you cannot comprehend this???
If Crayollas are that important to you, go buy some and a stack of
coloring books.

I said:
Now if someone wants to mount a defense of a specific film that they believe was intended to be in B&W and colorized, I'm willing to listen.
So you said:
I would assume the opening/closing segments of "The Wizard of Oz" cost
less money than the Technicolor sequencesAnd while we're colorizing "Scrooge", let's colorize Woody Allen's "Manhattan" and Spielberg's "Schindler's List", too.
So what does these small samples have to do with anything? I said that a large percentage of films would have been in color if it could have been budgeted and I'm right. Again, for what artistic reasons are Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, Mr. Ed., Glen or Glenda etc. in B&W? Color filming was an enormous cost which is why the vast majority of films were shot in B&W. And BTW, the reason the first segment of Wizard is in B&W was not for artistic reasons, but to set up the impact of the introduction of color to most movie goers when Dorothy enters Oz.
And most importantly, why does it bother
you
if movies are colorized?????? They're not
your
films. Because you don't like colorized films you want to deny it for someone else? Says a lot about your character.
And speaking of character, thanks for keeping your insults down to printable ones, such as "idiot" and "moron". I see you deleted your post below to Navaros where you called him both an "a$$hole" and a word that starts with "C" and is a derogatory word for an intimate part of the female anatomy. I guess your reasoned logic couldn't contain your vulgarity.
Enjoy your last word.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

TWO idiots for the price of one.
You two fools actually support such defacement on THOSE merits???
Talk about single-digit IQs.
First of all (and I cannot believe I'm actually commenting on this
so-called "point"), the remakes of "A Guy Named Joe" and "Cape Fear"
have
A): NOTHING whatsoever to do with the highly unethical practice
of colorization. They are simply remakes.
B): Both films (especially "Cape Fear") are actually well-intended and
decent.
YOU argue (I suppose) that the originals are superior, yet would support
colorizing them.
Gee, that makes sense.
As to the incredibly stupid post that most black-and-white films would
be in "in color" if such budgets afforded them, what on EARTH does that
have to do with the art of black-and-white photography????
I would assume the opening/closing segments of "The Wizard of Oz" cost
less money than the Technicolor sequences. With that logic, let's go
ahead and colorize Garland's "Over the Rainbow." We all know how much
"better" "Oz" would look if the WHOLE film was in colorright?
Especially since we know the B @ W scenes cost less to film.
Your logic.
And while we're colorizing "Scrooge", let's colorize Woody Allen's
"Manhattan" and Spielberg's "Schindler's List", too.
Morons. Two for the price of one.

Even if I conceded every point you made instead of debating line for line, my question is why colorization bothers anyone? Again, the originals remain untouched and lovingly preserved and available for viewing by anyone at anytime.
No one is forcing anyone to watch a colorized version of any film, and the originals haven't been permanently archived or destroyed.
And as far as "defacing" art, I believe that 99.912 percent of the B&W movies ever filmed would have been done so in color if they could have budgeted for it. Would anyone say the first years of Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, or the mountains of B movie drive-in fodder were done in B&W for artistic reasons?
Now if someone wants to mount a defense of a specific film that they believe was intended to be in B&W and colorized, I'm willing to listen. But even so, the only person who would have a legitimate gripe IMO would be the writers, producers, and director of such a film.
Otherwise, if someone wants to pour A-1 sauce on their U.S.D.A. Prime New York Strip steak, I say it's their choice.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

Raising Spielberg and Scorsese as defenders of classic films is hilarious if it weren't so sad. They both dishonored the respected A Guy Named Joe and Cape Fear, by producing unneeded and unasked for remakes.

Touchy??? Defacing the original black-and-white photography is total
disregard for both the director's and the cinematographer's vision.
And the fact that they're not touching the negative is totally beside
the point.
Black and white is NOT inferior to color, but rather an equal, but
different art form. We have a responsibility to honor the original vision
of film.
When this horrid practice began in the '80's, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese
and Spielberg himself all went to court to fight Ted Turner's tacky,
money-grubbing process. And although the courts agreed colorization was
basically unethical, he was, of course, legally allowed to deface classic
black-and-white film, as he has ownership of the titles. Fortunately,
the public - at the time - lost interest. Movies were soon being released
with the proud banner, "in glorious black-and-white."
And please don't attempt to defend your tacky stance by stating they've
"improved" the process. Even if colorization looked organic (it does
not), it wouldn't change the act of totally disregarding the original
intent of the lighting and photography.
The recent colorization of several "I Love Lucy" episodes is flat-out
insulting and awful. The garish, fake "red" hair, fake "blue" eyes and
gray teeth totally interfere with image and interfere with Ball's genius.
The restored black-and-white Blu Ray episodes look fantastic, totally
recapturing the brilliance of Karl Freund's photography and Lucy's
irreplaceable talent.
The act of colorization totally goes against the very purpose of
photography itself.
And you know it. Or DO you? Anyone who would support photo-shopping a
blonde Mona Lisa for private use OR public consumption probably doesn't
know it. Truly pathetic.

Wow, you guys are touchy.
If they were to repaint the Mona Lisa, it would indeed be a crime. If someone photoshops a digital copy of the Mona Lisa, what's the problem?
It isn't as if they're taking the only surviving copy of a movie and physically coloring the print defacing it forever. The originals remain unaltered and will be forever preserved in their original format for those who want to see them.
I liked the colorized version of this film better than the B&W version because so much more detail was exposed. Later I acquired the Bluray version (B&W only) and enjoy that more because the film is so much more sharper and detailed than the color version or the standard def version.
If they offer a Bluray colorized and I like it, I'll buy yet another copy.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

When you colorize Lucy, the terrorists win.

Agree, but this tacky, retarded defacement is sadly making a comeback. We
now have CBS broadcasting colorized episodes of "I Love Lucy" twice a year.

Colorization should be a capital crime. Maybe we oughta repaint the Mona Lisa in pastels while we're at it. You know. Brighten it up a little bit for the tourists.