Young Frankenstein ( Colorized, 1974)

https://archive.org/details/young-frankenstein-colorized-1974-720p

Young Frankenstein is a 1974 American comedy horror film directed by Mel Brooks. The screenplay was co-written by Brooks and Gene Wilder. Wilder also starred in the lead role as the title character, a descendant of the infamous Victor Frankenstein. Peter Boyle portrayed the monster.[4] The film co-stars Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman, Marty Feldman, Madeline Kahn, Kenneth Mars, Richard Haydn, and Gene Hackman.

This version is colorized, but why? I don't know.

the poster

32 points · 15 comments · view on lemmy.world

15 Comments

AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 16d (8 replies)

I don't understand why they would colorize that particular movie. It's not like and old movie that would have been filmed in color if color film was available at the time - it was made in the 70s. It was specifically filmed in black and white to help parody the old Frankenstein movies from the 30s and 40s. It makes no sense to colorize it.

sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 16d (6 replies)

Makes no sense to colourise ANY movie.

inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 16d (1 reply)

I agree, but I think there is exactly one exception. They Will Not Grow Old by Peter Jackson.

About the decision to colourise footage for the film, Jackson said: "[The men] saw a war in colour, they certainly didn't see it in black and white. I wanted to reach through the fog of time and pull these men into the modern world, so they can regain their humanity once more – rather than be seen only as Charlie Chaplin–type figures in the vintage archive film."

sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d

Hmmm. Fair point, I can see the argument, certainly. Although I think it's maybe underestimating audiences to suggest, as Jackson seems to, that we can't recognise the humanity of those men unless they're shown in colour.

That aside, I think maybe the line between fiction and documentary matters here. Or between instances where it was simply "film what's happening," vs instances of carefully crafted sets, lighting, etc.

The latter should be left in B&W I think, if only because the director is unlikely to have been present to supervise and approve the colourisation process.

AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 16d (3 replies)

I'm with you there, though the point most advocate make is that it can bring a new audience to them. But it seems to me it makes even less sense with Young Frankenstein since it was a very conscious choice to film it in black and white.

sanguinepar@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 15d (1 reply)

Yeah, films which were intentionally made in BW should never be colourised. Imagine Eraserhead... in COLOR! 😱

AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 15d

That really does sound horrible.

klu9@piefed.social · 3 pts · 6d

"Up next: the talkified version of Silent Movie."

LennoxAufidius@piefed.world · 3 pts · 15d

Since it's on archive.org at least you can play it in a local player and desaturate the image again.

Bonus@piefed.social · 11 pts · 16d (2 replies)

Oh, hell no!

perishthethought@piefed.social · 4 pts · 16d (1 reply)

Lol, herrre we go... 🤣

Bonus@piefed.social · 5 pts · 16d

I'm done. If people actually can't access this comedy masterpiece any other way, I wholeheartedly recommend they watch this remuddled version. You know, if they're marooned on a desert isle or chained up inside Plato's cave or the like.

(I couldn't leave a reaction emoji, for some reason. 🙂)

Davel23@fedia.io · 10 pts · 16d

Might as well colorize the first 20 minutes of The Wizard of Oz.

Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 5 pts · 16d

Gene Wilder had to convince the studio to do it in black and white.

Color?

No.

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 16d

Why