Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4882823
Alphagaia wrote:Edit: @ Kingpin, I wanted to add this to the OP, but I cannot edit that anymore?
The window to edit posts is limited, once it expires, only a mod can edit it (which I'll do in a moment to add the new videos - thanks for posting them, by the way :) )
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4882862
More environment work, where we see ghostspeople are replaced by fog. Perhaps budget cuts or because it would look weird if the ghosts only attacked a few at a time.

User avatar
By Sav C
#4882907
Just saw it on Bluray, and the effects looked really good. They were slightly too saturated still for my taste (my eyes got very slightly strained at points looking at them,) but the added definition really improved them (million times better than the trailers.) Honestly they blended in much better than I expected. The only stuff that looked fake were the
This Post Contains Spoilers
and also
This Post Contains Spoilers
Everything else looked good to me.
Alphagaia, MonaLS liked this
User avatar
By ghostJAR
#4882990
Alphagaia wrote:More environment work, where we see ghostspeople are replaced by fog. Perhaps budget cuts or because it would look weird if the ghosts only attacked a few at a time.



There was two reasons. Reason 1: Because people in the test screening did not grasp the concept of spectating ghosts. Reason 2: It would had put too much strain on the budget.

Also apparently the fight scene was 8 minute long before it was cut down. I would have loved to see that.

This was all on the Director's commentary if anyone is interested.
JurorNo.2, Sav C, Alphagaia liked this
By pferreira1983
#4883231
Kingpin wrote:
On the flipside it could be said, using the same line of logic you have, that a bad CGI effect could still lead to people giggling and laughing at them but still see where the improvements can be made.
I suppose although I haven't seen anyone do that.
Kingpin wrote:As it is, the "tangible failure" thing just feels a bit of a waffle to back up your feeling that all practical effects, whether successful or not, will always be better than CGI, when that just isn't always the case. There's plenty of practical effects that are better than the bad examples of CGI presented here, but there's a reason some practical effects are falling out of favour, and not just because CGI is "easier" or "quicker" - some practical effects just aren't convincing.
I agree not all practical effects are convincing but they have a higher rate of realism that CGI so I don't think I'm waffling, at least I hope not.
Kingpin wrote:You mention The Thing prequel, and in regard to that film's predecessor, while the animatronics and matte paintings were great for their time, they do look a little dated... even unconvincing in places, now. Still, I thought that what animatronic/puppet elements that were made for the recent prequel did feature pretty prominently, but I might have been mistaken.
I think only one shot survives where practical effects can be seen. The advances in animatronics from the behind the scenes I saw looked promising enough that they looked realistic, the only thing that was a little off was the movement of the creature chasing the lead character. I mean it didn't look any less convincing than what we got anyway. I think the suits just got scared that they had a big film coming out with little CGI and weren't used to large reliance on the practical effects so they got scared as this wasn't the norm.
Kingpin wrote:I do believe they may be. Do you recall which scenes you felt had unconvincing physics? Given how many practical car crash stunts they had, I'm a little surprised.
I think it was during the chases with people flying everywhere, one guy impossibly flies towards camera just before Nux goes "what a day, what a lovely day". Stuff like that. Some of the explosions felt unreal. I don't blame them that much for the storm effects as I don't think it couldn't have looked better without particle effects.
Sav C wrote:I'm not familiar with either of The Thing films, but I'd be super curious to know about the reactions to the effects by the test audience, which scored higher?
Are you referring to the prequel? I'm not sure, you're asking the wrong guy however one of the major complaints of the prequel was the CGI effects which do look shoddy and rushed. The Avatar guys can't work miracles within such a small timeframe.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4883238
pferreira1983 wrote:
Sav C wrote:I'm not familiar with either of The Thing films, but I'd be super curious to know about the reactions to the effects by the test audience, which scored higher?
Are you referring to the prequel? I'm not sure, you're asking the wrong guy however one of the major complaints of the prequel was the CGI effects which do look shoddy and rushed. The Avatar guys can't work miracles within such a small timeframe.
I'm referring to the prequel, I'd be curious to know between the practical effects and CGI which scored higher (with the test audiences.) Maybe there is a place online to find that type of info.
By pferreira1983
#4883276
Sav C wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:Are you referring to the prequel? I'm not sure, you're asking the wrong guy however one of the major complaints of the prequel was the CGI effects which do look shoddy and rushed. The Avatar guys can't work miracles within such a small timeframe.
I'm referring to the prequel, I'd be curious to know between the practical effects and CGI which scored higher (with the test audiences.) Maybe there is a place online to find that type of info.
Test screening scores as far as I'm aware are done on paper although that may have changed. I couldn't tell you.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4884558
ghostJAR wrote:[

Also apparently the fight scene was 8 minute long before it was cut down. I would have loved to see that.

This was all on the Director's commentary if anyone is interested.
Would love to see those extra minutes and read the shooting script! I'm very curious what the first 4 hour cut contained and how many effects shots were unused/planned.
Sav C liked this
By pferreira1983
#4884633
Alphagaia wrote:Create your own special effects: http://www.ghostbusters.com/creative-assets/

It's awesome, they have multiple alpha channeled clips of slimer, one of the staypuft balloon and a random specter (where you have to edit out the rotoscoped female shadow though.)
Oh this looks cool, er no wait it's based off the new movie. Hang on a sec...s**t! THE ALPHA CHANNEL?!!! :cry::mrgreen:
User avatar
By GBPaulRivera
#4885212
Commander_Jim wrote: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..
As someone who is studying computer science and the art of computer graphic images ... I just want to tell you that LAZINESS has no part in the creation of CGI unless the person behind it is lazy. You're blaming an system of effects that at one point was praised by people in stuff like The Abyss, Terminator 2, oh and let's not forget Jurassic Park. I think you fail to explain that isn't the tool that's the problem, it's the people. I love Practical effects and Paul Fieg in a Blu-ray extra claimed that he prefers that era of special effects over modern day work, but he also makes a point that CGI does way more than practicality. Yes, today, I commend people of the past for their efforts at trying to make something real. I give you the best example: THE LOVE BUG. That film is one of the goofiest Disney films ever, but EVERY single shot with the car pulling some trick or cartoony style or actual racing is all practicality ... but if you asked any of those guys, would they have been better or felt better if they used CGI then for some of the shots, they'll give you a heartily big YES! You're saying the limitations of reality makes someone work harder in the field of special effects, but I call bullshit on that. A PERSON IS THE LIMITATION AS MUCH AS THE EFFECT. You're not in love with practicality, you're in love with the effort because I bet you that if you went into practical special effects or CGI, you'll realize both require an intensive amount of learning and experience to make them as real as possible. Ghostbusters ATC valued character. Erin was an insecure book worm who by the end realized that shit doesn't matter when its you and your friends who are the last line of defense between two clashing dimensions. Jillian was an eccentric personality who like Bill Murray, poked fun at things, but unlike Bill she was caught up in it all and when the moments required her to be scared, afraid/worried, or concerned, it actually happened, meaning she wasn't a walking one-liner joke machine. How many people thought she was the Egon and well lookie here, she wasn't that at all. You also have Abby who is the cheerleader who just doesn't want to show negativity, but positivity when the mood was killing everybody else because she wanted her friends to not give up on what she knew could be real and how many people are there in the world like that? Even the director admits that the full story could only be truly appreciated with 2-3 hours and guess what? The extended edition did that for many people so obviously its true that he valued character and story, and if it wasn't for the men and women in suits at SONY, we could of gotten that in Theaters. You don't know what goes on behind the scenes of most big films. I get so f****g pissed off by people who think its all a technical pile of wires and lights and electricity going on when in reality there is art to the science of computation because if there wasn't then all those algorithms that made a T-Rex come back to life in 1993 wouldn't have been even in the thought of those software engineers at ILM. I mean for God's sake, the Marvel films are beloved by millions for their character and story equally as their effects and that is 90% CGI.
Last edited by GBPaulRivera on November 3rd, 2016, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alphagaia, Kingpin, JennyWeb and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885218
Kingpin wrote:An article from August about the effects of ATC, including some before/after photos, and some concept art for the flasher ghost, and some of the equipment:

Link
Awesome read! Thx for the link!
By pferreira1983
#4885325
Alphagaia wrote:O yes, the Alpha channel. The effect so great I even used it in my nickname. To run this show!
I knew you were behind it! Ha, ha! :lol:
GBPaulRivera wrote:
As someone who is studying computer science and the art of computer graphic images ... I just want to tell you that LAZINESS has no part in the creation of CGI unless the person behind it is lazy. You're blaming an system of effects that at one point was praised by people in stuff like The Abyss, Terminator 2, oh and let's not forget Jurassic Park. I think you fail to explain that isn't the tool that's the problem, it's the people.
I use the example of first Independence Day movie, a great mix of CGI and practical effects. The difference in quality between the 1996 film and what came out twenty years later is amazing and not in a good way. You'd think the effects would get better but they got worse.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885674
A great documentary about the special effects from the old GB and how it evolved into GB:ATC. It really shows the love and effort being out into this. It saddens me people don't want to acknowledge the love letter this movie wants to be to the old movie, even when it could not be a sequel.

Kingpin, Sav C liked this
By pferreira1983
#4885690
Alphagaia wrote:It saddens me people don't want to acknowledge the love letter this movie wants to be to the old movie, even when it could not be a sequel.
Sometimes less is more.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4886540
You know I've been thinking about it, and the set extensions in the film really are spectacular. Almost all of the effects shots are, really.

Recently I've been thinking of downloading the Pixar program Renderman, since I'm interested in trying to learn 3D animation, and now knowing it was used on the reboot really has me sold.
Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4886545
Since it's included in Adobe After effects I use Cinema 4D fore most of my effects. I've also used it back in the day when making video clips for a famous Dutch band. Since it's the light version it's not ideal, but very manageable money wise if you want a powerful start but not spend a lot while setting up your own little shop.
Sav C, 80sguy liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4886579
Thanks for the advice. After Effects would be a good option since it probably has dynamic link to Premiere. I've tried some 3D work in Photoshop, but often times it is too slow and crashes (yet somehow Flash runs smoothly), so a light version of the program might be my best option. You say AE comes with Cinema 4D, and Renderman seems to be meant to work with Maya, so I'm a little confused as to what the different programs are for. I have absolutely no experience with 3D Animation so this will be a bit of a learning curve.
User avatar
By GBPaulRivera
#4886625
pferreira1983 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:O yes, the Alpha channel. The effect so great I even used it in my nickname. To run this show!
I knew you were behind it! Ha, ha! :lol:
GBPaulRivera wrote:
As someone who is studying computer science and the art of computer graphic images ... I just want to tell you that LAZINESS has no part in the creation of CGI unless the person behind it is lazy. You're blaming an system of effects that at one point was praised by people in stuff like The Abyss, Terminator 2, oh and let's not forget Jurassic Park. I think you fail to explain that isn't the tool that's the problem, it's the people.
I use the example of first Independence Day movie, a great mix of CGI and practical effects. The difference in quality between the 1996 film and what came out twenty years later is amazing and not in a good way. You'd think the effects would get better but they got worse.
ID1 has a great mix of CGI and practical effects. But what's your point? That the effects from then to now are better. Here's the issue you don't see ... the CGI in the new one is pretty much a spectacle, based on the trailers and clips I've seen. Would I have preferred the practicality of the original? Absolutely. Now I haven't seen ID2 because I didn't really like the franchise enough to personally go and watch it. The issue here is that unlike the first one, their problem is to make almost EVERYTHING come to life. Compare ID2 with GB2016. The effects in GB2016 like in the original was focused on the creatures and their effect on the environment, which has to be manipulated by computers as well. However, the environmental changes in GB2016 is that Times Square reverts to its aesthetics in 1976, ghosts in mirrors, a portal/vortex, and a building that doesn't exist VERSUS ID2 where it had to show GLOBAL SCALE CATASTROPHE WITH SHIPS AND VEHICLES AND CREATURES, all of that on computers. The scale in GB2016 was smaller and limited and their ghosts were 90% humans in great physical effects costumes that lit up with 10% being Slimer, Rowan, and Mayhem. In my opinion, CGI should be used like in Mad Max: Fury Road, where its focus is just the environment. Ghostbusters played it safe whereas ID2 wanted to go all in your face in a laughable way. CGI works depending on its DIRECTION is the point of my rebuttal. DIRECTION in GB2016 was better than DIRECTION in ID2. So there you have it, PASSION, DIRECTION, and STYLE among many other things I can't think of right now matter to making CGI a tool for making Art for Film, which is a genre of art already.
Sav C, 80sguy, Kingpin liked this
By pferreira1983
#4887015
GBPaulRivera wrote:
ID1 has a great mix of CGI and practical effects. But what's your point? That the effects from then to now are better. Here's the issue you don't see ... the CGI in the new one is pretty much a spectacle, based on the trailers and clips I've seen. Would I have preferred the practicality of the original? Absolutely. Now I haven't seen ID2 because I didn't really like the franchise enough to personally go and watch it. The issue here is that unlike the first one, their problem is to make almost EVERYTHING come to life. Compare ID2 with GB2016. The effects in GB2016 like in the original was focused on the creatures and their effect on the environment, which has to be manipulated by computers as well. However, the environmental changes in GB2016 is that Times Square reverts to its aesthetics in 1976, ghosts in mirrors, a portal/vortex, and a building that doesn't exist VERSUS ID2 where it had to show GLOBAL SCALE CATASTROPHE WITH SHIPS AND VEHICLES AND CREATURES, all of that on computers. The scale in GB2016 was smaller and limited and their ghosts were 90% humans in great physical effects costumes that lit up with 10% being Slimer, Rowan, and Mayhem. In my opinion, CGI should be used like in Mad Max: Fury Road, where its focus is just the environment. Ghostbusters played it safe whereas ID2 wanted to go all in your face in a laughable way. CGI works depending on its DIRECTION is the point of my rebuttal. DIRECTION in GB2016 was better than DIRECTION in ID2. So there you have it, PASSION, DIRECTION, and STYLE among many other things I can't think of right now matter to making CGI a tool for making Art for Film, which is a genre of art already.
Yeah that's your opinion. I just feel the more reliance on just using CGI in films today works against the movie. I already posted a link in this thread detailing the issues of CGI. The Independence Day movies clearly show a gap in quality. The original looked great and still stands up today, the sequel from what I've seen is terribly fake and you'd expect a sequel released twenty years later to actually have even better effects. I do feel a mix of practical and CGI today is needed and it also depends what camera you use as well since a lot of cameras used in modern movies have trouble distinguishing from natural light and colour. I saw a video on it, I think its called the Aeroflex camera. Great for dark scenes, not good for anything with light. What does this have to do with CGI? Films today can have great CGI but if the camera is letting them down that's not a good thing.
User avatar
By SSJmole
#4887020
I liked the effects. I've mentioned before but that style is very similar to Goosebumps. And the effects from a visuals point are really great. Like a hybrid of current movies and original ghostbusters.

That sorta cloth look on Rowan like when car sticks to his foot and great. The balloon scene I love looks great like when they get crushed and stay puff has a little evil grin its wonderful looking.

Smiler driving the car looks a million times better Imo than GB II Bus driving. And watching extras on bluray I was impressed with how like the guy covered in neon in subway.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4887045
SSJmole wrote:Slimer driving the car looks a million times better Imo than GB II Bus driving. And watching extras on bluray I was impressed with how like the guy covered in neon in subway.
I was surprised to see just how much of the sequences where Slimer was driving Ecto-1 were actually filmed physically against a green screen, I though most of the shots (especially when the car jumps into the vortex) were actually CG.
SSJmole, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4888213
I absolutely love these kind of things, especially if it's GB related.

Quite nice how they managed to New Yorkify Boston by adding a few buildings and a high rise.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4888233
Sav C wrote:Here's another cool VFX Breakdown Reel:
https://vimeo.com/197454487
I'm not sure if these shots are new, or if we've seen them before, but I figured I'd post it anyways. Does anyone know if Carl Edlund has any relation to Richard Edlund, or is that just a coincidence?
We've come a long way, movies!
Sav C, Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4888235
Alphagaia wrote: Quite nice how they managed to New Yorkify Boston by adding a few buildings and a high rise.
Definitely. I was amazed at how convincing it all was, I never ever would've figured it to be CGI. I was really shocked to see the Aldridge Mansion room was CGI, it looks so real!
By Skyknight
#4888276
Yeah like I said before, I love what they've done with the backgrounds, but CGI(and CGI enhanced) characters still look way too fake to be convincing today, and I feel it will stay like that for a long time.
Sav C, pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4888277
Sav C wrote:
Alphagaia wrote: Quite nice how they managed to New Yorkify Boston by adding a few buildings and a high rise.
Definitely. I was amazed at how convincing it all was, I never ever would've figured it to be CGI. I was really shocked to see the Aldridge Mansion room was CGI, it looks so real!
To be fair, the room is only fake for the projectile scene, as they were not allowed to shoot slime everywhere in the real mansion. The backgrounds were probably just photographs from the real deal.
Sav C liked this

Hey and welcome

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[…]