Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 December 30

= December 30 =

Colorized films
Why does the color in colorized films always look so bad? So "gawdy"? With today's technology, can't they make it look more natural? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Always? Our article on film colorization answers this question in considerable detail. Come back if you have a more specific question.--Shantavira|feed me 10:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, always. Every colorized film that I have ever seen, yes.  Also, I did read that article.  Where does it address this issue?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's at least some mention of it in the "controversies". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read and re-read that several times. Where exactly is it addressing my question?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's at least illustrated by the two compared samples from different colorizations of The Night of the Living Dead. Gawdy or not... everyone has a prestablished view about a chef-d'oeuvres. Others don't. See also: Restoration. --Askedonty (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Early color films tend to look rather "gawdy" also. And as noted above, there are variations in how good the colorization is. Just like there are variations in the graphics used in many movies nowadays. Sometimes they look pretty good, other times they look pretty fake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Prob'ly because there's so much guesswork involved in selecting the colors to use, and it's so hard to pick the right ones. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing is, colours in the real world are almost infinitely varied and graduate in each other in very complex ways and in fine detail. Colour film (still or moving) captures some, though by no means all, of those variations, gradations and detailing, sometimes in consistently skewed ways that enable one to identify the particular type of film stock just by looking (and film stocks also age and deteriorate in different and characteristic ways). [Disclosure: I used to be a Picture Researcher and often had to source old photos and transparancies for reproduction or for artists' references – figuring out what colour an old car or locomotive really was required a lot of detective work.]
 * No artist's palette (for hand colourization) or computer-aided process is going to be able to reproduce the complexities that colour film can record to the degree that the human eye and brain cannot see the simplifications ("crudity" or "gaudyness", if you like) unless literally years were spent on the process, which is financially and logistically impractical in terms of merely reviving an old movie.
 * Sometimes, of course, the film-mediated departure from reality could be used for deliberate artistic effect. This was done, aided greatly by set design, "artificially" in the film Edward Scissorhands.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This may answer the OP's question. Old film stock can be remarkably improved (as the OP is fully aware of) with modern technology but that costs money. It is not thought worth while, because the cost is not thought  recoverable by the copyright holders. I was blown away by a Woody Guthrie magnetic audio recording that was 'cleaned up'. Yet,  that only came about  because the technicians gave their time 'freely' to improve  a degraded and  out-of-copyright recording.  Copyright holders do not and  won't  suffer such an expense for the enjoyment of the public when they can get the same royalties anyway. It decreases their profit margin. Same goes for colourised films and TV programs. The British Broadcasting Company  has eased up  on this : Doctor Who Restoration Team etc.,  etc.  Just comes down to tight fisted copyright holders (mainly in the US) for such poor cheap-skate colourisation...--Aspro (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I had not considered the financial and/or the copyright aspects of this issue.  I was only thinking of the scientific/technical aspects.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What was the Hanukkah song?
At about 9:38 Eastern standard time on Christmas 2016 on an NPR station, Weekend Edition had a news break, during which time there may also have been messages from the local station or a list of some underwriters for the program. As is often the case when they switch from one story to another or from a story to something else, music was played. There was a really fun-sounding song about Hanukkah. They may have a way to ask about music, but I'm afraid if I try, all I will get are results relating to stories about music, not music between stories.22:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you tried to locate the exact music in their archives: for reference here? Then perhaps someone can more easily recognize it. Maineartists (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those stories don't have a time on them. The only thing that might be useful is "Listen to full show". I do know that would have the song about 20 minutes before the end, but I don't know if that would work with my slow Internet.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried, and it seems to jump from one story to the next without any music in between, and no clue what is happening 20 minutes before the show's end.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Omitting the music could have to do with usage rights. As to the song, the Dreidel Song is the most obvious song connected with Hanukkah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know it's not that one.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hanukkah music may be of help. Tevildo (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty traditional to me. I can't do a thing without hearing it again.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Vchimpanzee • Your best bet is to write NPR Weekend Edition and ask what sound bite they used at the approximate time on Sunday 25, 2016 (Hannukah Song). Here:  You're trying to find a needle in a needle stack this way; when they hold the actual needle. I'm sure they get this "question" all the time. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done. I sent them a link to this topic. By the way, the only lyrics I remember were "Hanukkah, Hanukkah." It was a lively song in the style of Fiddler on the Roof.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it wasn't just the traditional song: "Hanukkah, Oh, Hanukkah":, , ? Maineartists (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm at home and won't get a chance to watch those for several days. Although my Internet is lightning fast compared to before ever since I had to restart my computer for updates, I'm guessing YouTube still won't work.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

, if the lyrics were in English, I'd guess was correct. If Hebrew, it's probably this --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I've heard it, I believe that's correct.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't keep us in suspense. To whom are you replying? Maineartists (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. The lyrics were not in Hebrew, so it was the Youtube videos. This could actually mean I heard the Barenaked Ladies.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)