Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

lzcutter,

 

Thanks for the information.

 

I almost went to see it in a theater, but I didn?t want to get stuck with a 3 hour movie that I might not like. So I waited for it to turn up on TV, and I liked it quite a lot.

 

The romance was nice, and the special effects were really good.

 

I also liked Gloria Stewart being in the movie.

 

I enjoyed the ?reunion? of everyone on the ship at the end of the film. That cheered me up a little.

 

I think it was a well-made film, with some sequences that were just a little too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=audreyforever wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> > Some of the most successful classic movies are not long ones.

>

> You are absolutely right. Singin' in the Rain is only 1 hour and 43 minutes.

 

 

Yes, and ?Meet me in St. Louis? is only 1 hour and 53 minutes.

 

The 1940 version of ?The Thief of Baghdad? is only 1 hour and 46 minutes, yet it is filled with interesting stuff and it is a well-remembered film, with better color than most modern films, and plenty of very good special effects.

 

?Rebecca? is 2 hr and 10 minutes.

 

?Wuthering Heights? is 1 hour and 44 minutes.

 

?Casablanca? is 1 hour and 42 minutes.

 

These films did not need an extra hour, yet they are classics.

 

Although I watch ?Dr. Zhivago? every time it is on, I usually don?t pay much attention to the first half of it. At 3 hours and 17 minutes, they could take 1 hour out of the first half and I wouldn?t miss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the older classic pirate movies were under 2 hours i.e. "Captain Blood" (1935) starring Errol Flynn., 119 min., "Captain Kidd", 83 min.and "Blackbeard" 99 min.

 

Blow me down TCM how about a tribute to those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am disappointed that you don't mention the 1958 film A Night To Remember. That is an excellent film that is done almost like a documentary of the event. Anyone who is interested in the actual event and values historical accuracy must view that movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*I am disappointed that you don't mention the 1958 film A Night To Remember.*

 

It's based on the book by Walter Lord which I did reference extensively.

 

*Anyone who is interested in the actual event and values historical accuracy must view that movie.*

 

I agree. But, for me, Walter Lord's book has stayed with me far longer than the film made from his book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FredC,

 

I agree that the running time of *Titanic* could have been shorter. The love story could have used some cutting that's for sure but I don't think the sinking should.

 

But at the end of the day, I would still watch it from end to end and still be entertained and still be moved by the human tragedy of the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the 1953 version of ?Titanic?

 

That would be the Hollywood version with the all star cast? I like that one too. It's melodramatic and formulaic. But it's effective. You really can't go wrong with this story. I'm the Will Rogers of Titanic movies. Never met one I didn't like!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HollywoodGolightly wrote:

<< Titanic isn't really about pirates, though, is it? >>

 

That was in reply to your comment about what seemed to you to be the long "Pirates of the Caribbean". The people of 1912 did had Bruce Ismay way down on the ladder from looting pirates.

 

Ha, as I'm typing the 1997 "Titanic" is playing on TBS - the flat screen format, edited, riddled with commercials version :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}

> That was in reply to your comment about what seemed to you to be the long "Pirates of the Caribbean". The people of 1912 did had Bruce Ismay way down on the ladder from looting pirates.

 

Ah, yes, of course, I get it. :D

 

> Ha, as I'm typing the 1997 "Titanic" is playing on TBS - the flat screen format, edited, riddled with commercials version :(

 

I feel sorry for TBS viewers. They really don't know what they're missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep trying to boost the color saturation on these modern movies, but it just doesn?t work. I grew up with vivid Technicolor films like ?The Thief of Baghdad? and ?Annie Get Your Gun?.

 

In these modern films, all the colors look faded to me. I see nothing that is ?white?. Shirts and tablecloths are greenish or bluish. I noticed real whites in Thief and Annie last week, along with a lot of other vivid colors that are in real life but that are not in modern films.

 

The water in this Titanic movie is green and the water foam is green. I don?t think the water in the North Atlantic is green.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> I keep trying to boost the color saturation on these modern movies, but it just doesn?t work. I grew up with vivid Technicolor films like ?The Thief of Baghdad? and ?Annie Get Your Gun?.

 

There's no question that nothing being done today could possibly look as good as the old 3-strip Technicolor, because it's just not the same. And some modern directors do have a tendency to shoot with some color filters, to some degree or another. Even Francis Coppola, in filming the Godfather movies, instructed his cinematographer to give a lot of scenes a sort of yellowish-amber color, and this was done by design, because it invoked an "old-fashioned" look.

 

I can't really say that this is intentional in _all_ modern movies, but I believe in at least a few of them, color filters are used in purpose, for artistic purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}

> Even Francis Coppola, in filming the Godfather movies, instructed his cinematographer to give a lot of scenes a sort of yellowy-amber color, and this was done by design, because it invoked an "old-fashioned" look.

 

I don?t like that.

 

People didn?t see in ?yellow-amber? in the old days, they saw everything in color. For photos, they had B&W and sepia, but all their paintings were in color, their magazine advertising was either in B&W or in color. Their clothes, rugs, walls were in color. Nothing in their lives was ?yellow-amber?.

 

You know what ?yellow-amber? is? That?s the favorite color of movie directors in the 1970s when they made movies about ?the old days?. That is the only thing that ?yellow-amber? will be remembered for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}

> But at the end of the day, I would still watch it from end to end and still be entertained and still be moved by the human tragedy of the story.

 

 

During the last hour or more, I really didn?t care to see the torment of living, freezing, drowning people in such vivid detail, on and on and on and on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I?m watching ?Juliet of the Spirits? now, and I don?t see any whites in this film either. As a matter of fact, I haven?t seen any whites in any color film since ?The Thief of Baghdad? and ?Annie Get Your Gun?.

 

I think I know why. It?s because in a Kodak one-strip color negative film, there is only one piece of film and only one filter can be used to ?color correct? the print. So when they color correct for each scene, the ?whites? take on the correction color. If the correction color is blue, then the whites go blue. If it?s green, then the whites go green.

 

But with 3-strip Technicolor, they actually had the three primary colors, on B&W film, and they could manipulate the color better with each of the three primary colors. Generally, for color correcting, the correcting is done specifically for all whites, to make them as white as possible.

 

That?s why they needed a ?color coordinator? for Technicolor, and that was to correct the colors BEFORE they were photographed, by means of manipulating the colors of the clothing, wall colors, make-up color skin-tones, and lighting colors (color filters on lights).

 

Next time you see an old Technicolor film like Thief and Annie, watch for the whites and you will see real whites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> I think I know why. Its because in a Kodak one-strip color negative film, there is only one piece of film and only one filter can be used to color correct the print. So when they color correct for each scene, the whites take on the correction color. If the correction color is blue, then the whites go blue. If its green, then the whites go green.

>

 

That's a good point. It might just be something related to the color correction on the video transfer. You probably know that process better than I do, since it wouldn't have occured to me that it might be the cause for the lack of whites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some of the tropical islands, coral reefs and shallow depths in some parts of the ocean, the color is turquoise. It may be your TV as I've noticed myself, I can't get the sharp bold colors like I use to. My family bought our first color TV back in 1969 which was a hybrid (tube/transistor) 25 inch Zenith.

 

The brightness and color was something to behold. I remembered when Hawaii Five-O first premeired, it had the most beautiful color and we used that show to adjust the TV set for proper balance. BLUE skies, green palm trees, and a turquoise / blue ocean front. The skin tones were perfect.

 

My TV today doesn't come close (still pretty good though) to the boldness back then even with Directv. OMG does Hi Def SUPPOSE to give us that??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new LCD color TV, and the colors are great for everything shot on video tape, and everything live.

 

I receive a few broadcast HD channels and the color is very good and the picture is extremely sharp. I don?t notice any pixels. People in large wide shots, such as the audience at the Super Bowl were in full detail as if I could see every individual face, and all the colors were good.

 

But the ?97 Titanic movie on TBS, the colors are very dull and the white parts of the ships are generally bluish. It?s as if they painted both ships light blue. The men are wearing bluish shirts. In the last hour of the film, the water foam was green and the water was green, and they weren?t anywhere near any tropical islands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

> I think I know why. It?s because in a Kodak one-strip color negative film, there is only one piece of film and only one filter can be used to ?color correct? the print. So when they color correct for each scene, the ?whites? take on the correction color. If the correction color is blue, then the whites go blue. If it?s green, then the whites go green.

>

> But with 3-strip Technicolor, they actually had the three primary colors, on B&W film, and they could manipulate the color better with each of the three primary colors. Generally, for color correcting, the correcting is done specifically for all whites, to make them as white as possible.

>

> That?s why they needed a ?color coordinator? for Technicolor, and that was to correct the colors BEFORE they were photographed, by means of manipulating the colors of the clothing, wall colors, make-up color skin-tones, and lighting colors (color filters on lights).

>

> Next time you see an old Technicolor film like Thief and Annie, watch for the whites and you will see real whites.

 

No, you'll actually see something that's properly off-white, especially in prints made in the mid-late 1930's through the mid-'40s, when the film stocks were slower (less sensitive to light) and Technicolor refined its processes. The amount of light required to properly expose the three b&w records in a three-strip Technicolor camera was so intense that white objects couldn't be photographed. Beige or mint-green substituted for white which, because of the intensity of the light, photographed as white, which is all that mattered.

 

And the color-timing wasn't done in-camera, using filters, but at the Technicolor Labs in Hollywood or London: one of the beauties of the company's patented dye-transfer system is that it allowed for minute control of the dyes as they were applied to the blank film stock, allowing for a greater range of color combinations than any chemical film process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}

> No, you'll actually see something that's properly off-white, especially in prints made in the mid-late 1930's through the mid-'40s, when the film stocks were slower (less sensitive to light) and Technicolor refined its processes. The amount of light required to properly expose the three b&w records in a three-strip Technicolor camera was so intense that white objects couldn't be photographed. Beige or mint-green substituted for white which, because of the intensity of the light, photographed as white, which is all that mattered.

 

CineSageJr.

 

That?s why I said:

 

?That?s why they needed a ?color coordinator? for Technicolor, and that was to correct the colors BEFORE they were photographed, by means of manipulating the colors of the clothing, wall colors, make-up color skin-tones, and lighting colors (color filters on lights).?

 

What we see on the screen is white. That?s what I was talking about. That?s why I said they adjust the colors of the clothing, walls, etc.

 

Please stop stalking me and stop constantly telling me I?m wrong. Leave me alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}

> And the color-timing wasn't done in-camera, using filters, but at the Technicolor Labs

 

CineSage_Jr, Hudson_Hawk, Sprocket_Man,

 

I didn?t say the color correction was done ?in the camera?. When I referred to ?color correction?, I was talking about work that is done in the lab.

 

That?s what I meant when I said: But with 3-strip Technicolor, they actually had the three primary colors, on B&W film, and they could manipulate the color better with each of the three primary colors. Generally, for color correcting, the correcting is done specifically for all whites, to make them as white as possible.?

 

Stop implying I said something that I never said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...