Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
By pferreira1983
#4879580
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Look I'm not into FX at all, but the effects in ATC are clearly not poorly produced or anything. They are CGI and perhaps that's what you're bumping up against.
It's a reliance on digital effects. The problem extends to modern Hollywood movies generally. At least they bothered to still use real people for the new effects.
deadderek wrote:
I think most of the ghosts look straight out of Haunted Mansion or Scooby Doo. Not menacing looking in the slightest.
Exactly! Boss Films and ILM did terrific work on the first two movies.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4879585
Don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous respect for practical effects, some of the things they've achieved are phenomenal.

But, like CGI, if done poorly, they really stand out, and not in a good way. The Terror Dog crushing the table in Louis's apartment is one such example, the original King Kong is another, and the practical effects used for Donovan's death in The Last Crusade are perfect examples of how some practical effects can miss the bar, or can only do so much due to their limitations.

I'm willing to accept CGI for certain things, and forgive it's use in some instances - when it's done well.

On that note, here's another VFX reel I just found on youtube, check out some of that good/unnoticeable CGI work in the set extensions (also, I just noticed the "If you see something, say something" poster at Seward Street Station):

Alphagaia, Lee FW, JurorNo.2 and 1 others liked this
By 80sguy
#4879603
pferreira1983 wrote:It's a reliance on digital effects. The problem extends to modern Hollywood movies generally.
CGI makes it easier to achieve certain things, that's why it's used. If it was available when the original Ghostbusters was made, they would have used it too. It's not a problem, it's just how movies are made now.

Practical effects aren't perfect by any means either. When Arnold cuts his eye open in The Terminator the mechanical head sticks out, when come compared to all the others. Or the ending of Nightmare on Elm Street with the dummy mom pulled in the window.
pferreira1983 wrote:At least they bothered to still use real people for the new effects.
That's always going to happen regardless of how good CGI becomes. The Mummy, Avatar, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the actors are still used to film the characters. Effects are just added later.
Kingpin, Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By MagicPrime
#4879629
No one is saying CGI sucks. But, for instance, the Fury Road video above. If that had been a G. Lucas Star Wars film they wouldn't have bothered with the actual cars running in the desert then enhancing that footage with CGI. They would have just CGI'd the whole thing.
By Commander_Jim
#4879645
Thr problem with CGI is that its ushered in a kind of lazyness into filmmaking. Before CGI because of the limitations of practical effects it meant that special effects were used very sparingly, just a couple of "wow" scenes per movie, the rest of the film actually had to be carried by story and great characters. And when you're absorbed into a movie because of the story and characters, it just made the special effects moments all the more believable. Now they dont need to worry about story and characters because movies can be comprised of constant CGI spectacle. And as realistic as it has become, movies have never been less believable because we dont buy the cardboard cutout characters and arent absorbed by what little story there is.

Jaws and Alien are famous examples of where the limits of special effects forced the filmmakers to instead concentrate on old fashioned great directing to create suspense, atmosphere and characters you believe. Now, those movies would just be CGI fests. A good comparison is Ninja Turtles 1990 vs Ninja Turtles 2014. Both films told the same basic story with the same characters. The 1990 film had a lot of depth and emotion and its focus was on their individual relationships, particularly Leonardo and Raphael, as well as the fathers and sons theme. The characters were so well done and it made it so easy to believe that these guys in suits were Ninja Turtles. Because theres limits to what you can do with guys in big hulking suits, 90% of the film is story and character. Flash forward to 2014 and there are no limits on special effects, and we got very shallow one dimensional characters who needed to wear things to tell us their personalities (Donatello is the nerd wearing goggles, Raphael is the tough guy in the bikie bandanna etc) and the movie was just a constant stream of CGI dazzle that was as exciting and as absorbing as watching someone else play a video game. And it never came close to feeling as realistic as the first film.

I just hope that with this long string of big budget blockbuster flops of late, along with the huge popularity of story and character driven TV shows on Netflix, AMC and HBO that we might soon see blockbusters again that have an emphasis on story and character.
By Razorgeist
#4879682
MagicPrime wrote:No one is saying CGI sucks. But, for instance, the Fury Road video above. If that had been a G. Lucas Star Wars film they wouldn't have bothered with the actual cars running in the desert then enhancing that footage with CGI. They would have just CGI'd the whole thing.
So its not so much that CGI sucks its that we have a bunch of shitty film makers running around who use it too much or where it isn't needed got ya.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4879727
Kingpin wrote:I realise I'm committing sacrilege here, but I actually prefer the look of the ghosts in ATC to the Scoleri Brothers... the latter just look too comedic, almost Evil Dead comical.
I rather like the idea of ghosts being caricatures of their former selves. Besides it's good the Scoleri Brothers were comical, it fits with the first plot point of the film being uplifting and fun. But there's nothing wrong with preferring the ATC ghosts over them.
PeteVenkman_Jedi wrote:There are people who think the ghosts look a bit too Scooby Doo / Haunted Mansion, I'm one of them. I've explained my reasons as to why I feel this way in my post above. I will add to that by saying that the amount of glow and the saturation of the neon colour, in Lady Eldridge's case Electric Blue, is a bit too much and further harms the realism of the effect.
Some of my first posts on this site was concerning this very subject: Chroma Properties of the Ghostbusters Effects and Luma Properties of the Ghostbusters Effects. Keep in mind those were from the first trailer and that the color was tweaked significantly for the final film, at least that's what I've heard.
Commander_Jim wrote:Jaws and Alien are famous examples of where the limits of special effects forced the filmmakers to instead concentrate on old fashioned great directing to create suspense, atmosphere and characters you believe.
Stay Puft was supposed to be 300 feet tall and rise out of the water next to the Statue of Liberty. Due to time and budget constraints the scene ended up the way it is in the movie. Even thought it's only speculation, I think that it is much better the way it is than the way it was initially intended.
User avatar
By MagicPrime
#4879816
Razorgeist wrote:
MagicPrime wrote:No one is saying CGI sucks. But, for instance, the Fury Road video above. If that had been a G. Lucas Star Wars film they wouldn't have bothered with the actual cars running in the desert then enhancing that footage with CGI. They would have just CGI'd the whole thing.
So its not so much that CGI sucks its that we have a bunch of shitty film makers running around who use it too much or where it isn't needed got ya.
Exactly.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4879818
Razorgeist wrote:
MagicPrime wrote:No one is saying CGI sucks. But, for instance, the Fury Road video above. If that had been a G. Lucas Star Wars film they wouldn't have bothered with the actual cars running in the desert then enhancing that footage with CGI. They would have just CGI'd the whole thing.
So its not so much that CGI sucks its that we have a bunch of shitty film makers running around who use it too much or where it isn't needed got ya.
Fair enough. The thing is, I'm sure there were Baby Boomers complaining about FX taking over in the 80s, even though film makers were still using practicals. In fact I know there were, because they were my own parents, lol.

Even that New York Times review of GB84 complained that the ending was more FX than comedy.

The concern that FX would dominate over story isn't a new phenomenon. And practicals weren't always considered the poor, oppressed underdog. They've simply been given the nostalgia boost in recent years.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4879819
Commander_Jim wrote:Now they dont need to worry about story and characters because movies can be comprised of constant CGI spectacle.
They also don't worry about story and characters because dialogue doesn't always translate well overseas. Hence the emphasis on CGI spectacle.

It's like the old nickelodeons, their primary audience were immigrants who didn't know English yet, but could laugh at the slapstick humor.

GB16 would have had trouble in China regardless of the paranormal thing, because it emphasized quips and references the audience wouldn't necessarily understand.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4879820
I was searching through YouTube to see if some new effect houses put out some content when I stumbled on this scene in 1080p.



I just noticed when Holtzmann returns her guns the readout says: 1984. :D

The numbers on top say: 120871. Should this ring a bell as well? It looks a birtday date or something.
JurorNo.2, zeta otaku liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4879821
Alphagaia wrote:
I just noticed when Holtzmann returns her guns the readout says: 1984. :D
What a slap in the face, huh? ;)
zeta otaku, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4879835
You know what I was thinking? The SFX of the first film were pushing the boundaries of what we accept as reality at the time, but they still blended into the shots as if they were actually there. In Ghostbusters II the ghost designs became a little less realistic, and more cartoony. Between 84 and 89 video games had gained some traction, and as we know video games aren't realistic. Now in 2016 video games are an everyday part of life, and I believe people are willing to accept less realistic (although maybe more artistic) effects in movies. It is a stylistic choice to have the ghosts in the new film blend in less than the first two, and that is absolutely fine. Anything done to fit a director's personal style is A-OK.

But my point is, do the effects in Ghostbusters standing out more from their environments than before coincide with unrealistic video game graphics becoming an everyday part of life, causing people to accept things that blend in less? Or am I just being stupid and rambling? Just something to think about.
Last edited by Sav C on September 6th, 2016, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JurorNo.2 liked this
By Raystantz Italy
#4879837
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Commander_Jim wrote:Now they dont need to worry about story and characters because movies can be comprised of constant CGI spectacle.
They also don't worry about story and characters because dialogue doesn't always translate well overseas. Hence the emphasis on CGI spectacle.

It's like the old nickelodeons, their primary audience were immigrants who didn't know English yet, but could laugh at the slapstick humor.

GB16 would have had trouble in China regardless of the paranormal thing, because it emphasized quips and references the audience wouldn't necessarily understand.
You're right. When Erin is firing the mk1 proton gun in the subway and the stream fails to grab the ghost....Holtzmann`s "whoops" here in Italy is traslated with an erectile dysfunction joke. Worsening the scene.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4879839
Raystantz Italy wrote:
You're right. When Erin is firing the mk1 proton gun in the subway and the stream fails to grab the ghost....Holtzmann`s "whoops" here in Italy is traslated with an erectile dysfunction joke. Worsening the scene.
Lol, I kept going back and forth on that, if they realized how that looked. I mean that image would make more sense if these were guys.

In any case, yes, that's another thing that can happen with translations. They attempt to over explain a joke.
User avatar
By AppleIsleBuster
#4879872
Kingpin wrote:I realise I'm committing sacrilege here, but I actually prefer the look of the ghosts in ATC to the Scoleri Brothers... the latter just look too comedic, almost Evil Dead comical.
I concur, I never understood why the ghosts in the first two movies were demonic or inhuman (oddly enough this criticism never involved Slimer, who I love to this day) so it made sense to me why Feig grounded the ghosts in a more human form. To me, that makes it scarier because I know people are scary. And ghost people? Fuggeddabouddit.
By Commander_Jim
#4879878
I always find human ghosts scarier than monster or demonic ghosts, for my money the passengers of the Titanic and the ghost train are the creepiest ghosts to ever appear in GB. But I still find the Scoleri brothers scary (terrifying as an 8 year old in the cinema), I think because they are humanized, unlike Slimer and other monster type ghosts, because we know their names and how they died.
Sav C, deadderek liked this
By Razorgeist
#4879889
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Razorgeist wrote:
So its not so much that CGI sucks its that we have a bunch of shitty film makers running around who use it too much or where it isn't needed got ya.
Fair enough. The thing is, I'm sure there were Baby Boomers complaining about FX taking over in the 80s, even though film makers were still using practicals. In fact I know there were, because they were my own parents, lol.

Even that New York Times review of GB84 complained that the ending was more FX than comedy.

The concern that FX would dominate over story isn't a new phenomenon. And practicals weren't always considered the poor, oppressed underdog. They've simply been given the nostalgia boost in recent years.
I remember an interview with Tom Savini once where he stated it depends on how close to real something gets. The makeup effect for the phantom in Phantom of the Opera where Lon Chaney stretched his face using tape and rubber bands (dont quote me on that) looked much better than the latex makeup used in a remake years later.
I always find human ghosts scarier than monster or demonic ghosts, for my money the passengers of the Titanic and the ghost train are the creepiest ghosts to ever appear in GB. But I still find the Scoleri brothers scary (terrifying as an 8 year old in the cinema), I think because they are humanized, unlike Slimer and other monster type ghosts, because we know their names and how they died.
Agreed, thats one thing I think EGB did better than RGB. I always assumed that the Scoleri brothers made themselves look more grotesque as a means to frighten all the bystanders hence their more demonic look. Also they were twisted in life so in their spirits reflect that. I think ghosts should look humanoid with a hint of monotonousness to them the movie House did a good job with this too.
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4879962
MonaLS wrote:They look nothing like Scooby Doo ghosts.
While they DO look like Scooby Doo ghosts, they look more like the ones from that Haunted Mansion movie with Eddie Murphy.
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4879963
deadderek wrote:
MonaLS wrote:They look nothing like Scooby Doo ghosts.
While they DO look like Scooby Doo ghosts, they look more like the ones from that Haunted Mansion movie with Eddie Murphy.
I thought we settled this last page with a picture comparison? The Frighteners is the closest, thx to look and tone and doing that kind of look first. HM uses the exact same color palette as GB:ATC but creates a different tone and vibe, but I can understand the visual comparison yet not the tone, but none of the SD ghosts look anything close to the ghosts of GB: ATC and all behave way to cartoony.
Look at the two videos and the pictures I posted last page.
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4879964
The reboot has made huge advancements in the area of Special Effects by blending in-camera and computer imagery in ways never done quite like this before. The in-camera effects served as basis for realistic movement and lighting, and the computer imagery created more life like textures.

Honestly I am under the impression that they did more in-camera shots (all with CGI touch ups of course) for the reboot than they did in the originals, which had many optical composites.

Personally my own tastes do not sync up well with the style taken with the ghosts (mainly saturation wise,) but that does not make their efforts and accomplishments any less impressive.
Alphagaia, Webster, JurorNo.2 and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Webster
#4879968
I enjoyed the effects although there were times when there was potentially too much 'neon glow'. When Aldridge appeared I felt like Abby though, she was so beautiful and her transission from 'peaceful' to ecto-projecting ghoul was pretty smooth. The effects used in the orginals were great for the time and suited to what was available, however I'm persoanlly of the opinion that had they tried to replicate that style in the reboot it would have looked incredibly dated and out of place.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, Sav C and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4879981
Webster wrote:I'm persoanlly of the opinion that had they tried to replicate that style in the reboot it would have looked incredibly dated and out of place.
I'm reminded of this line from Christopher Guest's A Mighty Wind:
"To do then now would be retro. To do then then was very now-tro, if you will."
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4879995
Webster wrote:I'm persoanlly of the opinion that had they tried to replicate that style in the reboot it would have looked incredibly dated and out of place.
It might be a little more complex than that. For the reboot, they absolutely would've looked out of place, but the thing is that the reboot was shot on digital. Digital movies have their own aesthetic which fits very well with computer generated imagery, but not so well with old school effects. For movies shot on film stock I believe that the effects style would still hold up, as practicals and optical composites fit the aesthetic of the film medium really well (although CGI doesn't always.) In each case they look like they're meant to be together. Had they shot the reboot on film (and I'm not saying they should've, Paul Feig gave some incredibly rock solid reasons for his choice of digital over film) they probably could've pulled off the style of effects from the original with ease.

My point is that each medium (and their way of achieving the effects) would still look good, and not dated or out of place, as long as they don't mix them.
JurorNo.2, Webster, deadderek and 1 others liked this
By pferreira1983
#4880206
Kingpin wrote:
But, like CGI, if done poorly, they really stand out, and not in a good way. The Terror Dog crushing the table in Louis's apartment is one such example, the original King Kong is another, and the practical effects used for Donovan's death in The Last Crusade are perfect examples of how some practical effects can miss the bar, or can only do so much due to their limitations.
The Terror Dog effect has dated but for the time it was the best they could do, same with King Kong. Also I thought Donovan's death in The Last Crusade was very effective. It's pretty scary and you couldn't say the same thing if it was a CG effect.
80sguy wrote:
CGI makes it easier to achieve certain things, that's why it's used. If it was available when the original Ghostbusters was made, they would have used it too. It's not a problem, it's just how movies are made now.
I'm not too sure about that. Yeah CGI is easier to use but it's become a crutch for a lack of craftsmanship in visual effects. Why spend time polishing something you built or painted when you can get a computer to do the numbers?
80sguy wrote:That's always going to happen regardless of how good CGI becomes. The Mummy, Avatar, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the actors are still used to film the characters. Effects are just added later.
That was to overlay CGI on top as in motion capture. They weren't presenting human beings like the Ghostbusters movies do.
Commander_Jim wrote:And when you're absorbed into a movie because of the story and characters, it just made the special effects moments all the more believable. Now they dont need to worry about story and characters because movies can be comprised of constant CGI spectacle. And as realistic as it has become, movies have never been less believable because we dont buy the cardboard cutout characters and arent absorbed by what little story there is.
That's a very good point. Hollywood however has not learned this yet.
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880225
pferreira1983 wrote:The Terror Dog effect has dated but for the time it was the best they could do, same with King Kong. Also I thought Donovan's death in The Last Crusade was very effective. It's pretty scary and you couldn't say the same thing if it was a CG effect.
I appreciate those were the best they could do at the time, and Donovan's death was scary (though it would be years after I first saw Last Crusade where I'd see that scene uncensored), but it doesn't undermine the point that those effects did seem a little dated/unconvincing even in 1984/9.
pferreira1983 wrote:Yeah CGI is easier to use but it's become a crutch for a lack of craftsmanship in visual effects. Why spend time polishing something you built or painted when you can get a computer to do the numbers?
You still need the human element to implement the motion, to paint up the textures and craft the 3D models in CGI work, it's craftsmanship of a different nature, but there's still a lot of human talent needed to make the kind of CG elements that you don't even notice were there (like the Fury Road examples).
Sav C, Webster, 80sguy liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4880231
pferreira1983 wrote:
Kingpin wrote:
But, like CGI, if done poorly, they really stand out, and not in a good way. The Terror Dog crushing the table in Louis's apartment is one such example, the original King Kong is another, and the practical effects used for Donovan's death in The Last Crusade are perfect examples of how some practical effects can miss the bar, or can only do so much due to their limitations.
The Terror Dog effect has dated but for the time it was the best they could do, same with King Kong. Also I thought Donovan's death in The Last Crusade was very effective. It's pretty scary and you couldn't say the same thing if it was a CG effect.
At the time they may have been able to do better with the terror dogs had they had more time. For me the terror dog stop motion only looks dated at Louis's party. They could've cut the shot where it lands on the table, where the motion is unrealistic. The saturation varies drastically from shot to shot, at times becoming almost completely unsaturated and too bright (like when it hits the door.)

On the 2014 Bluray when it runs out of the building the shot has been darkened enough so that you do not see the garbage matte, but around the dog there is a very thin outline of yellow light that I would assume is caused by a misaligned matte during compositing, allowing light from the bulb to shine through.

In the end on the roof they still look great, and same goes for all of the in-camera effects.

I'm sorry but King Kong is not a valid example. It was the pioneer for the majority of the effects techniques used in the film, many of which were in use in some form or another up until the digital era.

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]