Talk:Legend Films
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Is this list notable?
All the films on this list are public domain films that have been issued a million times by other companies. Is there anything particularly notable about listing one company's releases of this material? 23skidoo 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that these are restored and also presented in colorized versions, many of which have never been availible before in color? It's notable that the company has released the only restored versions of a number of the films on this list, including "Reefer Madness" and "Jack and the Beanstalk." Their release of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" also features the most extensively restored version of the film. (I apologize if I'm sounding too much like an ad for the company, but I do appreciate their work). If this amount of restoration isn't notable, then what is? (Ibaranoff24 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
- The fact that it seems all the films they're offering are public domain is a bit odd. I personally find the whole notion of colorizing films morally reprehensible; I side with John Huston and Orson Welles, both of whom were fortunately able to save their greatest B&W films from colorizing. IMO colorization should only occur in restoring color-produced films. But that's not an issue for this article. 23skidoo 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. And I hardly think that the colorization of Shirley Temple movies, and Reefer Madness could do any harm. The term "morally reprehensible" does not apply to the titles being released by Legend Films. Its founder has stated that he would never colorize black and white films like Citizen Kane and Casablanca unless one of the original creators was involved with the colorization.
- BTW: They mainly release public domain films because they don't have to pay to use them. Also, not all of the titles they colorize are public domain. The Shirley Temple films, for example, are copyrighted works for which the studios have requested colorization. (Ibaranoff24 06:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
- The fact that it seems all the films they're offering are public domain is a bit odd. I personally find the whole notion of colorizing films morally reprehensible; I side with John Huston and Orson Welles, both of whom were fortunately able to save their greatest B&W films from colorizing. IMO colorization should only occur in restoring color-produced films. But that's not an issue for this article. 23skidoo 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
23skidoo, I hardly think anybody cares about your personal opinions regarding colorization, or your somewhat overblown comment about colorization being "morally reprehensible"(?!). Those who bemoan such technology are nothing more than modern day luddites, in my opinion of course! Why you would find the fact that the company takes public domain film and colorizes them "odd" is indicative of your clear lack of understanding at to the reasons they do this. When this company ,or any other, colorizes a public domain film, the colorized version is then copyrighted as a new version and becomes the property of the copyright holder. I don't know what you couldn't comprehend about this.
In regards to your, again overblown, innacurate, contention that "I side with John Huston and Orson Welles, both of whom were fortunately able to save their greatest B&W films from colorizing" That comment is entirely untrue. First, no one seriously considered colorizing 'Citizen Kane', even though Ted Turner did make a joke about doing so at one point to irritate his critics. Turner would not have been able to ever release 'Citizen Kane' in a colorized version to start with, as Welles, not Turner owned the rights.Welles' 'The Magnificent Ambersons' was colorized, so I have no clue as to what you are talking about. As for Houston, 'The Maltese Falcon' was indeed colorized despite his objections. The same is true of 'Treasure Of Sierra Madre'-also colorized. So just what films did Houston save? And the bottom line is those two films mentioned were owned by Warners, not John Houston, so these were not "his" films to start with but works for hire. Your comment means nothing at all, and simply demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about the issues involved.
Are you able to understand that these colorized videos do not replace the original films, and are only alternate versions that you needn't watch if you choose not to?
- - unsigned comment made by Yakofujimato; 16:42, 15 May 2006
[edit] This is a press release "disguised" as an entry
This kind of garbage makes me retch.
- - unsigned comment made by 71.122.164.179; 17:08, 2 May 2006
-
- Seems like there are a good deal of facts on here to me. Either add something constructive or don't contribute, you pretty much blanked a page that had information and external links and contributed nothing.
- - unsigned comment made by 64.165.0.73; 00:11, 3 May 2006
- Seems like there are a good deal of facts on here to me. Either add something constructive or don't contribute, you pretty much blanked a page that had information and external links and contributed nothing.
-
[edit] Off Color Films
I deleted the "Off Color Films" logo, since the banner is no longer in use by the Legend Films company. (Ibaranoff24 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC))
[edit] My apologies
The Three Stooges titles released by Sony Entertainment were colorized by West Wing Studios, not Legend. My mistake. (Ibaranoff24 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
