# Would you say most movies became in color by late 50s in USA?



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Would you say most movies became in color by late 50s in USA?


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

I am from Turkey. As of 1968, color movies started being common in Turkey. Before 1968, there were so very little color turkish movies. The year of 1968 became a turning point. Before 1968, it was only an exception to see a color turkish movie. 

Turkey is a backward country as we all know.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The switch began in the '50s for sure, but even well into the 60s there were many b/w films still being made. The Haunting, Psycho, Dr Strangelove, Raisin in the Sun....just four I watched last week. Color sure took over and that's why Young Frankenstein was such a novelty. I love b/w photography, having spent thousands of hours in the darkroom. There's a timeless quality to it. The grandkids won't watch anything in b/w - they're sure missing out.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> The switch began in the '50s for sure, but even well into the 60s there were many b/w films still being made. The Haunting, Psycho, Dr Strangelove, Raisin in the Sun....just four I watched last week. Color sure took over and that's why Young Frankenstein was such a novelty. I love b/w photography, having spent thousands of hours in the darkroom. There's a timeless quality to it. The grandkids won't watch anything in b/w - they're sure missing out.


Dr. Srangelove, as it is from 1964, is very absurd to be in black and white by american standards back then.

It was very absurd for an american movie to be in black and white in the year 1964.

An american movie from 1964 being in black and white would be as absurd as a turkish movie from 1974 being in black and white.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Seems like it was around the time that stereophonic recording was introduced commercially into the classical music/opera market; roughly around the late '50s probably. But I know almost nothing about movies.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

The Longest Day (1962)

I remember being disappointed in the theater that this wide screen war "spectacular" was in b&w.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Color movies go back to the 1920s & 1930s ("The Wizard of Oz," "Beau Geste," "Mysterious Island") but they became ubiquitous after the Second World War when materials were once again available.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> I love b/w photography, having spent thousands of hours in the darkroom. There's a timeless quality to it. The grandkids won't watch anything in b/w - they're sure missing out.


Not an American film; but I still marvel at the glorious b&w images in The Innocents (1961). Black and white is ideal for ghost stories.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I can't explain why, but in some way b/w film can be more effective and dramatic than color. The Longest Day would not have the same impact if it were in color. The starkness of the image without color has an emotional component. I realize that the world isn't in b/w, that's the odd thing. Or maybe it's just that I grew up in an era when most TV was b/w and I got used to it?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

atsizat said:


> Dr. Srangelove, as it is from 1964, is very absurd to be in black and white by american standards back then.
> 
> It was very absurd for an american movie to be in black and white in the year 1964.
> 
> An american movie from 1964 being in black and white would be as absurd as a turkish movie from 1974 being in black and white.


Film Noir was very popular in the 1950s, and many directors continued to be fond of Black & White as part of their artistic expression. Black & White gives a different "feel" to a film, and the cinematography, lighting, and staging will be done quite differently than they would for a color film.

But the "transition" from Black & White to Color was a slow event. Part of that was due to the high cost of filming in color.

For Dr. Strangelove, the black & white cinematography *contributes to the film from an aesthetic point of view*. This style of filmmaking allowed Kubrick to creatively use shadows, and create a film noir tone for the viewers. It also gives a sort of "newsreel" gravitas to this comedy: This is clearly satire, and not farce.

Director Kubrick had just filmed Spartacus, a full-color extravaganza, and I believe he chose Black & White for *Dr. Strangelove* deliberately.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

atsizat said:


> Would you say most movies became in color by late 50s in USA?


Most folks would probably consider the *1960’s *the start of the color era, and it was certainly the point when the vast majority of movies switched over.

By the 1950’s, *Eastman Kodak* had developed a similar process to that of *Technicolor* and by late in the decade, further advancements by both had drastically *reduced the cost* of shooting in color. At this point, the popularity of *color* began to skyrocket and by the mid-1960’s, *black and white* was only being chosen as *an artistic option*.

Funny, but '*Mister Rogers' Neighborhood*' was perhaps the last black & white show on *network* *television*. Meanwhile, over on public television, black & white lived on a little while longer. The first season of Mister Rogers ran without color on NET (National Educational Television) in 1968.

The *FIRST national color broadcast* in the United States (*the 1954 Tournament of Roses Parade*) occurred on January 1, *1954*, but over the next dozen years most network broadcasts, and nearly all local programming, continued to be in black-and-white. And, as with new technology, the average American household only gradually embraced the Color TV. This was for several reasons: One being the high cost, but it would also be years before most shows were shot (and aired) in color. 

During the first six months of *1954*, fewer than 8,500 color television sets were manufactured in the United States.

Though it lasted a mere eight episodes, _*The Marriage*_ has a firm place in history, as the prime time sitcom series made the leap straight to color in the summer of *1954*. But color shows were rare.

*Bonanza*, the first Western televised in color, premiered on a Saturday night in the fall of *1959*. After *Gunsmoke*, *Bonanza* was the longest-running and most successful Western in U.S. television, airing for fourteen seasons.

The first season of _*Gilligan's Island*_ was in black & white, before the sitcom jumped to color in *1965*. *NBC *had all of its* news in color by October '66. The three major networks announced the jump to mostly color show line-ups happened between 1965 and 1966.

Still, by 1969 only 33% of US households had Color TVs.

Color television sets finally surpassed black & white in 1972 (>50%).*

As hard as it is to believe*, Pittsburgh TV station WQEX was still broadcasting in black & white until 1985, when their transmitter burned down and had to be replaced.*


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

In the 1970's, in my middle-class American home, we only had a black-and-white television for several years. Color television, at least in my family, was considered something of a luxury. My parents also were suspicious of anybody, especially their children, spending too much time watching television, but didn't set firm rules.

Black-and-white cinematography can be absolutely stunning, as in the 2013 film "Ida" by Paweł Pawlikowski:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Good point. Try to imagine Schindler's List in color. I can't, it needed b/w.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

atsizat said:


> Dr. Srangelove, as it is from 1964, is very absurd to be in black and white by american standards back then.
> 
> It was very absurd for an american movie to be in black and white in the year 1964.
> 
> An american movie from 1964 being in black and white would be as absurd as a turkish movie from 1974 being in black and white.


Not really; there are a lot of good b&w movies from that era: _The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Seconds..._


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I can't imagine Bergman's Wild Strawberries or The Seventh Seal being in color, either.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

People still listen to, and occasionally make, mono sound recordings too. I think the comparison is apt.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> Not really; there are a lot of good b&w movies from that era: _The Pawnbroker, Fail Safe, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Seconds..._


I wound't watch a black and white american movie from 1960s. It is not acceptable for the time. Not unless it is a turkish movie.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Good point. Try to imagine Schindler's List in color. I can't, it needed b/w.


It does not need b&w. Not really. It is about 1940s but there are a lot american movies in color from 1940s. Let me say Technicolor.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

atsizat said:


> I wound't watch a black and white american movie from 1960s. It is not acceptable for the time. Not unless it is a turkish movie.





atsizat said:


> It does not need b&w. Not really. It is about 1940s but there are a lot american movies in color from 1940s. Let me say Technicolor.


So, it sounds like you much prefer movies in color to black and white. Many people feel this way, and it's a perfectly reasonable preference. Still, you should know that many other people like movies in black and white and know that some directors choose to make movies in black and white, despite it being no cheaper, even today, because they feel it helps them express what they want to express.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

Really just a footnote; but I remember in the mid-1960s being perplexed seeing a black and white movie at the drive-in, then two or three years later seeing the same movie in in authentic color on television. The not entirely convincing explanation is that the American distributor saved money by circulating the color movie in b&w. Only a few modest budget movies were affected; but still...

 
1966

The only movie affected I remember, unfortunately.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

2007

In a rather pointless, self-congratulatory "artistic" stunt, the movie is available in both color and black and white in a 2-disc DVD set. The movie is wretched enough in color that I haven't bothered with the b&w version on Disc 2. Black and white doesn't improve what was ordinary dreck in the first place.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

geralmar said:


> Really just a footnote; but I remember in the mid-1960s being perplexed seeing a black and white movie at the drive-in, then two or three years later seeing the same movie in in authentic color on television. The not entirely convincing explanation is that the American distributor saved money by circulating the color movie in b&w. Only a few modest budget movies were affected; but still...
> 
> 
> 1966
> ...


It wasn't the only one: X - the Man with the x-ray Eyes was also done this way. It's one of those American International cheapies but had a terrific cast: Ray Milland and most surprisingly Don Rickles in a dramatic role. I saw it on TV in good old b/w several times, but when I finally saw the color version - wow! What a difference.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

atsizat said:


> I wound't watch a black and white american movie from 1960s. It is not acceptable for the time. Not unless it is a turkish movie.


Then you're missing out on some great films. Another classic: The Last Picture Show, deliberately done in b/w to set the scene so to speak was '70s, but in addition to ones already named:

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
8 1/2
A Hard Day's Night
Night of the Living Dead

All great movies worthy of their fame and done in b/w for a reason.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

atsizat said:


> I wouldn't watch a black and white american movie from 1960s. It is not acceptable for the time. Not unless it is a Turkish movie.


Or Swedish.

Or Japanese.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

N Fowleri said:


> In the 1970's, in my middle-class American home, we only had a black-and-white television for several years.


I also grew up with b/w TV; I recall that as a kid around 1980 I was so used to b/w that I found color TV when I saw it at friends' or relatives very artificial and many color TVs of that time looked rather artificial or were in any case not well adjusted in contrast/saturation etc. (In Germany color TV started only in 1967.) This was also funny because I had no clue about the actual colors of muppets or cartoon characters, unless I saw them in a printed magazine.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

We didn't have colour TV til 1973, by which time I'd got well used to B&W for everything.

It was reported that Hitchcock didn't choose to make Psycho in B&W...the studio that finally agreed to make it wouldn't give him the budget for colour. This must surely have been the case for any number of movies?


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Most American TV shows from the 50's 
Leave it to Beaver
Andy Griffith etc..... all back&white most 50's movies I know were all black&white

James Bond came in the early 60's and was in color .I'd say by 1965 everything was solidly in color.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

"Color television sets finally surpassed black & white in 1972 (>50%)."

In the USA, but not til 1976 in the UK.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Forster said:


> "Color television sets finally surpassed black & white in 1972 (>50%)."
> 
> In the USA, but not til 1976 in the UK.


Even as late as the early 1980's I remember people had a nice color TV in the living room but had a small rabbit ear B&W in the kitchen or bedroom.Or there vacation home on the ocean or the lakehouse was a rabbit ear B&W.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

bagpipers said:


> Most American TV shows from the 50's
> Leave it to Beaver
> Andy Griffith etc..... all back&white most 50's movies I know were all black&white
> 
> James Bond came in the early 60's and was in color .I'd say by 1965 everything was solidly in color.


TV and Cinema are different.

By 1970, most turkish films were in color but the first color broadcast on TV was made in 1982. And black and white broadcasts still went on until 1984. There was only one channel in Turkey from 1968 to 1986, which belonged to the goverment.

First black and white TV broadcast started in Turkey in the year 1968 but only the rich people could buy a TV in Turkey. Before 1968, there was no TV to be bought in Turkey. However, By 1968, color films were already being produced in Turkey.

So, why do you talk about TV when I am talking about cinema?

Don't mix TV with Cinema.

In 1940s, there are too many american movies that were shot in 3 strip Technicolor. You must know that.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

atsizat said:


> TV and Cinema are different.
> 
> By 1970, most turkish films were in color but the first color broadcast on TV was made in 1982. And black and white broadcasts still went on until 1984. There was only one channel in Turkey from 1968 to 1986, which belonged to the goverment.
> 
> ...


Because TV and cinema are similar. Issues of color vs. black and white are similar between the two. That it why we are talking about TV. I think we all know there are differences, in addition to the similarities.

I will mix TV with Cinema. In this day and age, they are all the more intertwined.

Why don't you acknowledge that lots of people enjoy black and white movies and TV, regardless of what is technically possible or what is more economical?


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

N Fowleri said:


> Because TV and cinema are similar. Issues of color vs. black and white are similar between the two. That it why we are talking about TV. I think we all know there are differences, in addition to the similarities.
> 
> I will mix TV with Cinema. In this day and age, they are all the more intertwined.
> 
> Why don't you acknowledge that lots of people enjoy black and white movies and TV, regardless of what is technically possible or what is more economical?


They are not smilir at all. Cinema existed beforeTV.

TV existed in 1920s but did you have it in 1920s? I will guess No.

Cinema existed since late 19th century, also.

The only reason I was talking of my country (Turkey) was, because it is perfect example of a backward country.

There was no TV in Turkey to be for sale untill 1968 but Cinema existed so much before.

Please give up the sh** that TV and Cinema are the same if you were too poor to to go to Cinema.

Turkish movies who were shot in color in late 60s were watched in black and white untill 1980s in Turkey. Because TV and Cinema were different!


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

atsizat said:


> They are not smilir at all. Cinema existed beforeTV.
> 
> TV existed in 1920s but did you have it in 1920s? I will guess No.
> 
> ...


I am not too poor to go to the movies and you are being very insulting by making such an accusation.

I never said TV and "Cinema" are the same; I said they are similar. I also said there are differences.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make about black and white cinematography. Is it just that you don't like it, so you don't understand why anybody would choose to make a movie in black and white when they could do it in color? 

Although there was a time when black and white was cheaper than color for making movies, that is no longer the case, yet some people still choose to make black and white movies. It is okay if you don't like that, but you should understand that some people do.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

N Fowleri said:


> I am not too poor to go to the movies and you are being very insulting by making such an accusation.
> 
> I never said TV and "Cinema" are the same; I said they are similar. I also said there are differences.
> 
> ...


They are not smilar.

There were too many american color movies in 1940s which were shot in 3 strip Technicolor. And during these days, most people couldn't even afford to buy a black and white TV but they could buy a ticket and see a color movie.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

atsizat said:


> They are not smilar.
> 
> There were too many american color movies in 1940s which were shot in 3 strip Technicolor. And during these days, most people couldn't even afford to buy a black and white TV but they could buy a ticket and see a color movie.


What is your point? Please say what point you are trying to make.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

N Fowleri said:


> What is your point? Please say what point you are trying to make.


How wrong it is to compare Cinema with TV is my point. I told you.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Movies are not made for TV. 

You go to Cinema and see it.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Okay, so that is a new point about cinema vs. tv. What was your point about black and white vs. color?


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

If TV was important, Turkish movies would be in black and white until 1980s when color broadcast began.

But color movies were commonly produced since 1969 in Turkish Cinema.

You would watch those movies in black and white even in 1980s on your TV in Turkey.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

atsizat said:


> If TV was important, Turkish movies would be in black and white until 1980s when color broadcast began.
> 
> But color movies were commonly produced since 1969 in Turkish Cinema.
> 
> You would watch those movies in black and white even in 1980s on your TV in Turkey.


I don't understand what point you are making. Are you making the point that it was annoying to have to watch movies, that had been made in color, in black and white on TV in Turkey up to the 1980's? Well, yes, I would agree that movies that are intended to be watched in color are better in color. This doesn't happen anymore. Isn't that nice?


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

N Fowleri said:


> I don't understand what point you are making. Are you making the point that it was annoying to have to watch movies, that had been made in color, in black and white on TV in Turkey up to the 1980's? Well, yes, I would agree that movies that are intended to be watched in color are better in color. This doesn't happen anymore. Isn't that nice?


My point is, films were not made for TV.

Don't make it sound so.

You go to cinema and watch the film.

That is the purpose of movies.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

atsizat said:


> My point is, films were not made for TV.
> 
> Don't make it sound so.
> 
> ...


I understood that point. What point were you making about black and white vs. color?


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

N Fowleri said:


> Because TV and cinema are similar. Issues of color vs. black and white are similar between the two. That it why we are talking about TV. I think we all know there are differences, in addition to the similarities.
> 
> I will mix TV with Cinema. In this day and age, they are all the more intertwined.
> 
> Why don't you acknowledge that lots of people enjoy black and white movies and TV, regardless of what is technically possible or what is more economical?


You also have remember TV plays heavy on the mind for us they grew up before Netflix and the greater availability of movies.As a in the 1980's,re-runs of Leave it to Beaver,Andy Griffith,My three Sons etc...... were still on TV all the time but movies then seen more in theatre's unless they were super classics were seen less on TV

Everyone had seen Mr. Ed but not everyone had seen "Double Indemnity" but a lot of that changed with VHS and movie rentals and then exploded with Netflix and Hulu.

By the time I was old enough to remember what I had watched both TV and Movies were in color but the question was what were you exposed to from the past.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

atsizat said:


> TV and Cinema are different.
> 
> By 1970, most turkish films were in color but the first color broadcast on TV was made in 1982. And black and white broadcasts still went on until 1984. There was only one channel in Turkey from 1968 to 1986, which belonged to the goverment.
> 
> ...


I think we can agree color came to cinema first then TV later.In the US color was common in cinema in the 60's and TV by the 70's


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

bagpipers said:


> I think we can agree color came to cinema first then TV later.In the US color was common in cinema in the 60's and TV by the 70's


Color was common in cinema in the 50s in USA, not 60s.

Eastmancolor came in 50s, which made color for Cinema cheaper than 3 strip Technicolor which had been used between mid 30s and early 50s.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

atsizat said:


> TV and Cinema are different.
> 
> By 1970, most turkish films were in color but the first color broadcast on TV was made in 1982. And black and white broadcasts still went on until 1984. There was only one channel in Turkey from 1968 to 1986, which belonged to the goverment.
> 
> ...


This is probably a good time to point out the *The Academy Awards ("the Oscars") *continued giving out awards in _BOTH_ *Color Cinematography* _AND_ *Black & White Cinematography* up until 1967 (for films released in 1966). For films released in 1967 and later, the Cinematography categories were merged (as were the Art Direction and Costume categories). The Cinematography Award was first split in 1939, although unique _"Special Achievement (Color)"_ Awards were given out in *1936, 1937*, and *1938*. From *1939 through 1966* Color and Monochrome films were released side-by-side. 

*39th Academy Awards (1966): Best Cinematography (Black & White)*

Winner
_*Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?*_ — Haskell Wexler

Nominees
_*The Fortune Cookie*_ — Joseph LaShelle
_*Georgy Girl*_ — Ken Higgins
_*Is Paris Burning?*_ — Marcel Grignon
_*Seconds*_ — James Wong Howe

The following year, 1967, four of the five nominees (*Bonnie and Clyde, Camelot, Doctor Dolittle*, and *The Graduate*) were in color, with only one nominated film, *In Cold Blood*, deliberately shot in Black and White, as the director.

But B&W films were alive and healthy in the early 1960s: In fact, from 1960 until 1964, two of every five nominees for *Best Picture* were in Black & White. For 1965, _three_ of the five *Best Picture* nominees were in B&W. And in 1966, only one.

But Black & White films were practically drowned in the bathtub in 1967, when *American film studios terminated production of black-and-white output in 1966, *following announcements from the three major TV networks* (NBC, CBS, *and* ABC) *committing to* Color (*_at least_* 50%) *The networks were also airing full color FILMS, and the studios felt the earth move. In fact, features that had been only partially completed were halted and ordered to restart in color, an odd echo of what happened in 1929, when all studios transitioned to TALKIES practically overnight.

Lately there's actually been a resurgence of films shot in Black & White. There's a great list of B&W films produced since 1966 on Wikipedia (_


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black-and-white_films_produced_since_1966


_), and you can see by scrolling through that B&W films dwindled to only four produced in 1969, then slowly rebuilding, with 15 B&W films in 1970, with a steady release of 8 to 12 B&W films every year.

Here's a fascinating podcast on that resurgence - the *recent rise in black and white cinematography*, its roots, the technical aspects of it and-- most importantly-- the artistic merits of it. . . .


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

atsizat said:


> Dr. Srangelove, as it is from 1964, is very absurd to be in black and white by american standards back then.
> 
> It was very absurd for an american movie to be in black and white in the year 1964.
> 
> An american movie from 1964 being in black and white would be as absurd as a turkish movie from 1974 being in black and white.


Black & White cinematography is a choice.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

pianozach said:


> Black & White cinematography is a choice.


Color was more expensive. Therefore it was a budget thing 

In early 1970s, Some of Turkish movies were still being made in black and white because of the budget reason.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

atsizat said:


> Color was more expensive. Therefore it was a budget thing.



Nowadays it isn't. The cost is the same regardless because "digital".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Speaking as a digital "photographer", black and white is an artistic choice, and is actually more expensive because it requires post-processing which is more than just pressing the 'convert to black and white' button. One has to tune the contrast until the result is satisfactory. I assume the same holds for the shooting of films in our digital age.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> Speaking as a digital "photographer", black and white is an artistic choice, and is actually more expensive because it requires post-processing which is more than just pressing the 'convert to black and white' button. One has to tune the contrast until the result is satisfactory. I assume the same holds for the shooting of films in our digital age.


I don't get what is artistic about the old black and white.

In the past, movie makers were spending more money to have their movies in color.

High budget American movies sticked to the color as of late 1930s.


----------

