RODSERLING said:

JorisE73 said:

Exactly, and how come there is color footage in the hands of some then if it wasn't shot in color?

Of course it was shot in color, that's exactly what I said. Learn to read. It was shot in color, lightened in color, because it was originally meant to be released in color. That's logical.

How logical is it that it would've been released in color while released in BL&Wh?

So where you get that 'logicality' from...

RODSERLING said:

LoveGalore said:

Except shooting it in color WAS cheaper, you dumb ass. And why wouldn't it be cheaper considering movies weren't typically shot on b/w film in 1986? You think b/w film is cheaper than color and LOOKS cheaper? You're dead wrong, as usual.

You're just an insulting troll. Insulting is not aegumenting, it just show your lack of arguments. Ask David Lynch, Darren Aronofski, Christopher Nolan, etc. Why they shot their first movie in B&W instead of color. Because shooting in B&W is way cheaper and faster than in color. Everybody knows that. When you have low budget, it's too risky to shot in color. We tried to make a movie with students friends more than 10 years ago, it was never even an option to shoot it in color. B&W is cheaper, faster, and make it look like it's an intenporal fable. It adds some kind of a "cachet", but it's in fact just because it's cheaper. When you shoot in color, everything must be lighten up and on the good place : objects, costumes, the environment, like the sky, the sea, etc. You have to pay a lot of people to adjust everything to make it look like a real movie. Whereas in B&W, you don't have to worry about so many details. When Chaplin shot the Countess of Hong Kong in 1967 in color, it was a real pain in the ass for him. He had to pay attention to too many details that detracyed him to take pleasure in this movie. Problems he absolutely didn't have in B&W. Looking at the beautiful stills of UTCM in color, it just show that everything was done to make a beautiful, normal, color movie. [Edited 8/10/22 7:56am] [Edited 8/10/22 7:58am]

And how well do you know Lynch, Aronofski and Nolan?

So, I asked a dear good friend of mine who (as a trained director also) works as a restorator of films in the archives of the Brussels film museum (one of the biggest in the world by the way).

And he says surprisingly quite the complete oposite of what you state.

He's an expert though.

While filmin in color is common, filming in BL&W is far more different and expensive nowadays (let alone in 1986 he said) on all levels.

Lightning, crew, sets, wardrobe, make up, etc, and in the end, the developing of the 'film' (meaning 35 or 70mm or whatever). Not my words, i just informed myself.

JorisE73 said:

Vannormal said:

RODSERLING said:

JorisE73 said:

Keaton was supposedly replaced in Aquaman 2 because The Flash got pushed back again and now Aquaman 2 is released before The Flash. It had nothing to do with test screenings.
He would have been introduced in The Flash and would then appear in Aquaman 2 and then Batgirl.
Zaslav is still confident in the Flash movie despite Miller's behavior, but I also think it'll either be cancelled or direct to streaming because reshooting with a different actor is just be more money wasted. Plus all the Snydercut fans are already boycotting evrything DC, especially that Black Adam garbage and now that Dwayne Johnson is one of the main advisors to the DCEU.

Michael Keaton was already introduced in Batman (1989) and Batman Returns, in case you didn't know.

thanks mister useless trivia none asked for.
Everybody understands my post except you it seems.

[Edited 8/11/22 3:43am]

Vannormal said:

JorisE73 said:

RODSERLING said:

JorisE73 said:

thanks mister useless trivia none asked for.
Everybody understands my post except you it seems.

[Edited 8/11/22 3:43am]

Take your pill and relax, old man. You said blabla that Keaton wasn't introduced yet, when he is already in fact for more than 30 years. How funny is that? Like all of you, I have access to private informations too. And most people in the screening tests, especially the "newbies" As you say, didn't understand who the fuck Keaton was supposed to play. Since the scene didn't work, they replaced him with Ben AffleckAffleck, because all the newbies know who he is : a dumbass Bruce Wayne. [Edited 8/11/22 4:38am]

You willfully stay ignorant to try and score points in a game noone is playing with you.
Only YOU didn't understand my post or are unable to understand, as usual: you should have been there, newbie.

JorisE73 said:

RODSERLING said:

JorisE73 said:

You willfully stay ignorant to try and score points in a game noone is playing with you.
Only YOU didn't understand my post or are unable to understand, as usual: you should have been there, newbie.

I should have been there where exactly?

JorisE73 said:

RODSERLING said:

sexton said:

And yet, that's exactly what happened. Prince had always intended the movie to be in black and white. Warner Bros. convinced him to film in color (their preference) and it could be processed later in black and white like he wanted, apparently hoping Prince would at some point change his mind and then they would still have their color print of the movie. But of course Prince never changed his mind.

Clearly : is there interviews from Prince in 1985 telling he expressly wanted the movie to be B&W, or is that just your own interpretation of all that things turned out ?

You are wrong.

Quoted from DanceMusicSexRomance by Per Nilsen:

There were misgivings about the film from the beginning. Prince was determined to shoot in black and white, something that the Warner Bros executives were strongly against, fearing it would substantially reduce the potential audience. They also disliked the way the film ended with Christopher Tracy's tragic death. "There were tremendous arguments," Badeaux recalls. "They wanted the film upbeat and coloured, but, of course, Prince had his way." A compromise was worked out by Prince's management team: the film would be shot in colour film but developed into monochrome in the processing stage. However, some of the first days' scenes had to be re-shot after the initial footage showed that there were complications with the lighting caused by the strange process of making a black and white movie on colour film.

So there you go. LoveGalore, Sexton and others are right. You are wrong. Sit down and stop making an ass of yourself.

Note: edited to fix a typo in the quote.

[Edited 8/11/22 8:58am]

mb71 said:

No. It'll still be shit.

But how do you really feel?

LoveGalore said:

SoulAlive said:

I just watched that clip and even in color,I have to admit,it's still a very bad movie.Atrocious acting throughout.

Ohhh, so you think UTCM was meant to be Citizen Kane?

Now, there's a movie that could use some color ...

[Edited 8/11/22 9:17am]

Genesia said:

LoveGalore said:

Genesia said:

Now, there's a movie that could use some color ...

The connections draw themselves!

Right?! You could totally argue for consideration of Paisley Park as a "stately pleasure dome."

Seriously though ... you could absolutely concoct a fan fic on the parallels between Prince and Charles Foster Kane. The relationship with his mother … the protegée/love interest he pushed into singing … etc etc

[Edited 8/11/22 9:33am]

Interesting opinions.I think Purple Rain has aged very well.I think it's still a powerful,provocative 80s rock n' roll movie.In my opinion,there are only 2 good Prince movies: Purple Rain and Sign O' The Times.The other two are probably best-forgotten

mediumdry said:

Also, on a side note, as much as UTCM isn't a very good film, it is the best Prince film. Apart from the music, Purple Rain hasn't aged well and it is very hard to watch for me with the blatant mysoginy and even worse acting than in UTCM. SOTT is a lipsync fest with weird bits in between (not too dissimilar from the Undertaker, which doesn't lipsync and is better for it), about on par with the worst of the worst, Grafitti Bridge. So, any extra we can get from UTCM is a bonus in my book.

I would have said no, but the colorized fan footage hints to how stunning it would be.

The film doesn't have a lot going for it, so pretty footage wouldn't hurt.

As we now know in retrospect, the b/w did not do justice to the costumes for one thing.

About the debate over b/w being cheaper, that wasn't true.

The reason they would have shot on color was 1) for flexibility, they weren't sure. 2) more film stocks to choose with color, meaning more options for low light, or duplicating older looks 3) more labs handled color, and it was cheaper to process, less shipping the film from location 4) b/w is more forgiving, it hides a lot, anyone with a phone camera knows that, so it's quicker. More importantly it also meant less reliance on a colorist which can be very expensive to make sample prints and with each change you have to make another copy, trying to get skin tones or shadows right. The instructions would be destature all and up the contrast 5) It was a very video approach to film that was a new mindset. More run and gun, work standard but then make it b/w in post production. Michael Ballhaus, the cinematographer, was a master and he'd also just done a b/w video for Chaka Kahn. But given how seasoned Ballhaus was, anyone thinking this wouldn't look decent in color shouldn't be weighing in. But a lot of the scenes in front of white walls were things you wouldn't do for a color film.

Shooting in colour is way cheaper. How can one person be so wrong and yet so loud? Other forums have block features, but we have to put up with people like this.

100%

Was filmed in color, should be released in color.

The outfits, scenery, are gorgeous, color would only enhance this beauty.

Truly hope it happens one day.

For those adamant on this staying black and white, and telling people it shouldn't be watched in color. Who are you to dictate others experiences? Guess what? If it is released in color, you can still watch your black and white copy, me? I will be reveling in the colorful beauty of how this was originally filmed.

[Edited 8/13/22 10:34am]

Yes. Its no great work of art and I'd pay in cold hard American dollars to see those beautiful people (Prince, Jerome, Kristin, Emanuelle and Francesca) and beautiful locations in living color as God intended.

Genesia said:

mb71 said:

No. It'll still be shit.

But how do you really feel?

Haaa. I should stop posting on the internet while drinking.
Actually out of the four films released to cinema, Cherry Moon is the one I probably enjoyed most. I'm quite confident that I'll never see it again though, even if it were to be released in colour.

B&W, as intended. If you're gonna make a colour movie, why make a 1940's throwback like UTCM? It would be selling out your own mandate.

Genesia said:

LoveGalore said:

RIP Rod Serling

Or is it just... Au revoir?

RODSERLING said:

LoveGalore said:

RIP Rod Serling

Or is it just... Au revoir?

Rip yourself.

This board is dying, and insulting trolls like you don't worth my time.
That's also why I stopped my charts and sales topic. Orgers are becoming rare, and too many insulting trolls here, claiming for two years they have private information about the new SDE... Oh wait, still not released right?


I have a wife, two kids, a job, I ve got a life contrary to you.

So, I quit, and let the org die.
Prince projects are dead before 2024 anyway, so there's no point in that org anymore, considering insulting and useless trolls such as you.

So the biggest insulting troll on the board currently is leaving because of insulting trolls? That's a win