yes
In short: yes.
Blockbusters tend to push the envelope in technology, and B/W films are automatically disregarded as “old.”
thanks i thought so ha ha
the relation between a spectrum, the iris, and brain is fascinating
we want colour 4 our money!
B/W is considered Arty and Arty is considered a BO risk.
What’s the most successful, box office wise, B/W film in the last 40 years?
Schindler’s List which was made for $11M, well below the usual budget of a spielberg pic.
then that argument about the girl (in schindler’s list) with the red dress rises
Maybe not blockbusters, but there is a fair sized audience that still accepts black and white for prestige films, or there was the last time one of those was released anyway. However they need to be “serious” art films, or as the average film-goer would understand that statement, so it likely wouldn’t translate for just any film, although, who knows? If one was able to be made and was entertaining enough they still might. Pleasantville used black and white as a hook, Schindler’s List rolled in the dough and I’m sure others could still be made and successful if there was a compelling reason for it.
blockbu$ter$
avatar in black and white :O(
it’s always an artistic choice, the girl in the dress was a choice
funny i believe avatar would be a blockbu$ter in black and white!
Gone With the Wind is proof that colour sells.
Like, I doubt it, the color palette of a new world is part of the appeal isn’t? (I haven’t seen, nor wish to see it)
Clerks, Raging Bull, Ed Wood, Sin City, and Good Night and Good Luck did pretty well. Jarmusch’s Stranger Than Paradise made close to $2.5 million dollars on a $100,000 budget.
There have been more relatively high profile black and white films since the ’70s than people seem to think:
The Last Picture Show
Wings of Desire
Broadway Danny Rose
Rumble Fish
Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid
Zelig
The Elephant Man
Pi
Right, high profile, but not blockbusters. That’s the thing. Clerks and Pi didn’t have enough money for color, Raging Bull and each of the others were artistic decisions, and Dead men Don’t Wear Plaid is the only one that really wouldn’t be considered a prestiage picture.
Adjusted for inflation, The Bells of St. Mary’s (#50), The Best Years of Our Lives (#73) and Seargent York (#97) are the only three films that would make the top 100 highest grossing films of all-time.
ouch
There is really no reason to make a black and white film now. Its almost pretentious to do so, and if you do, it better be amazing.
Also, some on here don’t understand the definition of blockbuster. Elephant Man is a masterpiece, but blockbuster it was not.
The world movie going audience is fairly stupid, and when they see that a movie is in black and white, they automatically assume that it will be old and stuffy.
-Adjusted for inflation, The Bells of St. Mary’s (#50), The Best Years of Our Lives (#73) and Seargent York (#97) are the only three films that would make the top 100 highest grossing films of all-time.-
In the 1940s there were about 132 million people living in the US. By 2000, it was more like 281 million. More people equals more tickets sold, so simple adjusting for inflation doesn’t really mean what it looks like it means.
Pretentious to do black and white?
That’s really an absurd thing to say. Why does everyone think color is the be all end all? That’s like saying drawing is pretentious, but painting is not.
Do paintings SELL for more than drawings? Yes.
Does it mean they are BETTER? No.
Matt, in the 40s people were always watching television too, so they got there entertainment that way right?
A better argument would be the lack of multiplexs in the 40s.
Uli—it’s simple math. Gross is based on how many tickets are sold. If you have twice the population to sell tickets too, and the percentage of population that buys movie tickets stays relatively stable, you’re going to sell more tickets, so comparing grosses from different eras, even if you’re adjusting for inflation, doesn’t give you an apples to apples comparison. You’re right about there being more screens, though. You have more screens and more people to put in front of them, so obviously you’re going to get bigger grosses today, even when you compensate somewhat for inflation.
B & W films that are new would not be considered dull and lifeless at the outset. However just as sound added a dimension to the movie-going experience, so has color. This aspect of visual pleasure is paramount in drawing many viewers to the flicks, and its absence will definitely keep some folks away.
Humor has a similar impact. Children are told what they will see. With no reviews geared to the child reader we have the adult’s perception of the humor that is appropriate for their offspring. Disney and Pixar set up their demographics according to the number of children and the attitudes of the adults. They do not factor in the attitudes of the children.
One of my all-time favorite movies is in B & W, does not meet the 40 year time span, and is rife with humor. The humor could be called ‘realistically ’absurd’.
Was ‘Dr. Strangelove’ a children’s film? Definitely not. Was it a blockbuster? Ah, now there’s the rub.
‘Dr. Strangelove’, released in 1964, returned over 5 times it’s initial $1.8 million at the box office. It still stands #31 on IMDB’s all-time list. It has been mentioned many time by members of this website on their all-time lists. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, it was a great one and maybe even a blockbuster. A humorous B & W film addressing critical adult issues that has stood the test of time.
like2sleep
do the majority of film watchers associate these films as being dull or lifeless?
is colour the key 2 huge profits?