Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No change in size ,  20:34, April 6, 2007
Line 20: Line 20:  
Worse yet, the original actors and directors of monochromatic films expressed outrage, and many of these professionals sought in vain to ask the [[United States]] Congress to ''forbid'' the colorization of their projects as a violation of their intellectual-property interests in their "image" or initial "vision" for their respective projects.
 
Worse yet, the original actors and directors of monochromatic films expressed outrage, and many of these professionals sought in vain to ask the [[United States]] Congress to ''forbid'' the colorization of their projects as a violation of their intellectual-property interests in their "image" or initial "vision" for their respective projects.
   −
Ultimately, the law that finally banned colorization was not any statute, but the law of supply and demand: viewers rejected colorized titles as unrealistic and deserving of the very criticism that a famous actress and Congressional witness once gave them: that they "looked like a cheap watercolor." The most outspoken advocate of colorization--who had in fact bought the rights to the vast film libraries of three different motion-picture studios--quietly stopped issuing colorized titles in 1995.
+
Ultimately, the law that finally banned colorization was not any statute, but the law of supply and demand. Viewers rejected colorized titles as unrealistic and deserving of the very criticism that a famous actress and Congressional witness once gave them: that they "looked like a cheap watercolor." The most outspoken advocate of colorization--who had in fact bought the rights to the vast film libraries of three different motion-picture studios--quietly stopped issuing colorized titles in 1995.
    
=== Current State ===
 
=== Current State ===
12,071

edits

Navigation menu