What is your opinion regarding this new trend in restoring, colorizing, and raising the frame rate to 60fps? Does it help make people interested in the past? Is it unethical? Is it lying to the viewer? What do you feel when you watch them?
Although I don't like it too much, I can appreciate the effort and the attempt to understand what it may have been like to live in the past. When we see old media from history, we often see it distantly, almost as though they're just part of stories and not reality. However, by taking them and putting them to more modern standards, it can make people understand and relate to the content better. Photographs and footage of the past already capture what life was like, but by altering it to fit with modern technology, it can immerse the viewer better into the scene. I feel that this is beneficial to do as the average joe likely wouldn't try and understand the people in the original pieces of media but may understand it if it feels like it was made with modern capabilities. I don't think it's unethical so long as the original is credited and the alterations are made clear with the preface that it may not be accurate. As long as it does those things and doesn't try to advertise itself as something it's not, then it won't be lying to the viewer. When I watch them, I don't particularly enjoy it, besides the appreciation of what it can do and of the work that went into it. I like history already and this film class has given me a greater appreciation for film so seeing the change to 60fps feels a bit uncomfortable to watch because of how uncanny the footage looks.