Obviously ancient status were colored but probably in a much nicer way. No way something like:
https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a...
could be even close to the original ( considering that the Romans generally managed to somehow get skin tones more or less right in the few paintings that survived)
Particularly in this example: https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a...
The bright clothes are fine, but his skin is awful. It's flat and lifeless, like a cold corpse drained of blood. It looks like they put the primer coat on then left it unfinished; I think that's literally what they did. Maybe this look is what they were originally going for, but I don't think so. Look at the detail on that guy's knees, they look just like real knees. I don't believe the original artists went through so much trouble to sculpt hyper-realistic knees then let some intern half-ass the paint job.
I think the reproductions suffer a bit because the distance these statues were from a viewer varied -- but just like murals
No, I don’t think so.
The way some of these “reconstructions” look is just plain awful. And based on the surviving examples of frescoes and paintings they would look as just awful the the Romans.
> I think the reproductions suffer a bit because
They suffer because there is no shading for one thing. The skin and hair especially just look awful. It has nothing to do with the bright colors (I get that part).