Should The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night Be Colorized for a New Generation To Enjoy?

How about this guy for Paul:

 

Most young people watch films through streaming, and there aren't many old films available to watch. I think it's more about that than a lack of interest.

A Hard Day's Night being in black & white gives it a timeless quality in a way. If it was in colour it wouldn't be the same. A lot of movies are made in b&w as a stylistic choice these days anyway, so it's not like people can't handle it.

 

not bad! : )

 

Indeed. : )

 

That's Paul's grandson! (Daughter Mary)

 

wow, I didn't know that. Cool...

 

I would like for them to colorize the cover of All Things Must Pass and update the recording of My Sweet Lord

 

But would it still fit on vinyl..."It's been like, a hard day's night and I've been like, working like a dog.
It's been like, a hard day's night and I should like, be sleeping like a log.
But like, when I get home to you, you like, know the things that you like, do, they like, make me feel like alright"

 

Do you?

 

I didn't mean that if you colorize something, suddenly every young person is going go running to see it. I just think it's more likely to be of interest to someone who might not otherwise be interested in an old black and white movie. This is prefaced that it would have to be done exceptionally well. Again, check that clip from a few pages back to really see this idea.

 

Art films, artistic films, any great classic film was in B&W. Filming in B&W is an art in itself. Artists filming artists.

Colorize? Turner answer that decades ago when he attempted to colorize classic films. The world was horrified. Turner Classic Movies TCM would never show a colorized film now.

Colorize the Beatles? It's like a newsreel....it is history. Never.

 

This is the ultimate answer.

I'm guessing that only a small percentage of posters here have themselves created some sort of work of art (using the term loosely...no one here has created anything that is of the stature of A Hard Day's Night).

But all of you who are so glib about colorizing the film, whether you've ever done the above or not...imagine for a moment that someone who is NOT you comes along and says "We're going to take that song you recorded that you poured your heart and soul into and dub additional studio musicians and vocalists on top of it." Or "We're going to take that painting of yours and put some dayglo paint over it to give it more 'appeal.'" Or "That novel you wrote...we want it to 'speak to' new generations, so we're going to 'update' it to the current time period and change the main characters you created to make them more modern."

"And then we're going to put that thing out there that YOU created and has your name on it — but since we messed with it, we'll give ourselves a couple of extra lines in the credits. Are you OK with that?"

I've written about a hundred songs and recorded them, strictly on home equipment, and solely for the enjoyment of my friends who helped and me. I would NOT be OK with this…not in a million years.

As for A Hard Day's Night, I care not a whit about "appealing" to someone who is too thick to enjoy a movie just because it's in black and white. Such a person does not deserve the film.

 

OMG that's hysterical...good one.

 

It's all about having a choice, not losing the original.

 

No way

 

Life ain't no damn bottom feeding buffet !

 

I didn't either until I started looking for a Paul lookalike for the future remake of AHDN!

 

You've dodged the question. Speaking for myself, I would not in any way be placated if the process I described was done to something I created and my "original" was still available. It's my vision, my aesthetic choices. Keep your hands off of it.

What you're basically saying is "Screw the original artist. What do we care what he/she thinks? My own needs are more important."

They're not.

 

Huh?

 

I'm not saying that at all. If this was your movie and you controlled all the rights to it and you said you didn't want it changed, remixed, edited, colorized or whatever, then so be it. It would stay just the way it is forever and that would be that. No hands on your creation, man. No problem! Thing is, big commercial movies are products and usually the writers, directors, actors, etc., often don't own the rights to it. Usually the studios do because they put up the millions to make them. So it's not usually as simple as one person making all the decisions (of course there are exceptions ;-) It's often a big commercial decision and therefore if a lot of people think there's money to be made they might very well put it out in different ways. Hence this idea we're talking about could make commercial sense (or not), we just don't know, but it's probably not one person's decision.

 

ah, OK gotcha. : )

 

Haha! The album (UK version) is my favourite Beatles album by a mile... but the film? No thanks!

 

The benefit would be seeing the movie in colour, which arguably looks a lot better than seeing it in black and white. That should be all you need.
And I hope that colour, color thing was tongue in cheek.

 

I've been with this thread from the beginning, and nowhere did 2141 ever say anything about this being done without The Beatles blessing. Also, it was not The Beatles OR Dick Lester's choice to make the film in black & white. It was United Artists who decided the budget. Here's a direct quote from Dick Lester:

The idea of the film came from the film department of United Artists at the beginning of 1964, and they said they’d only do it if it was cheap and in black and white and if we could get it done by July. They thought The Beatles were going to be a spent force by the end of the summer.”

That should put an end to the black & white being an artistic decision nonsense.