The director said he always intended it to be in black and white to pay homage to 40s/50s horror movies. His directors cut is black and white noir style and included on some editions of it on physical media.Lots of directors say bullshit like “oh yeah you just gotta buy my movie again in glorious black and white” to artistically elevate their so-so film in a grander light after it comes out and everyone knows it’s mediocre. He claims the producers told him “no” and that’s why it couldn’t be done.So what do we think?Is the black and white version actually better to you? Do you think that was truly what was intended?Why?Or Do you think he’s just acting like a fag and trying to double his movie sales with some bullshit line?I like this movie, but it’s also incredibly overacted, and not in the kitschy way, but the “wow these guys really think they are giving a 5 star performance” way. I just watched half of it in color again for the first time in years and considering restarting it but with the black and white version.
>>216017734I have bit seen it in B&W, never will, it doesnt need it and it adds nothing to the story. its not like shindlers list that used B&W for effect
>>216017734>So what do we think?Who is we, faggot?>>216019065The special effects look genuinely better, and not just due to B&W itself. They were designed to be B&W, which means the story about producers is real - and that it happened when the production was already ongoing.
>>216017734Darabont was for real. The stupid one is Logan because Mangold decided to release a black and white version because people liked his black and white behind the scenes photos on instagram and it doesn't really work.
