Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4889019
While there are some shows that cross the line for me, I primarily watch cartoons to be entertained, not because of how realistically they draw the characters. An engrossing story is always a big plus.

It's not always laziness that a particular style is picked. Sometimes it's budget, sometimes it's a deliberate aesthetic choice.

Still, there's a little bit of me that lives in dread at the prospect that Ghostbusters: Ecto Force doesn't live up to your preferred choice of animation style. :P
Alphagaia liked this
By philmorgan81
#4889039
Kingpin wrote:While there are some shows that cross the line for me, I primarily watch cartoons to be entertained, not because of how realistically they draw the characters. An engrossing story is always a big plus.

It's not always laziness that a particular style is picked. Sometimes it's budget, sometimes it's a deliberate aesthetic choice.

Still, there's a little bit of me that lives in dread at the prospect that Ghostbusters: Ecto Force doesn't live up to your preferred choice of animation style. :P
Oh yeah, that's pretty much the way I feel. If I wind up not terribly keen on what the animation of this new Cartoon I will have to hope that the Story and Characters pull me in. :):):) It is going to be great having another Ghostbusters cartoon to enjoy.

You know this may seem real strange, but I feel more confident now than last year when Ghostbusters was getting rebooted, that we WILL actually see another film set in the Original films Canon. I know usually when a property is remade the new status quo is usually what the studios concentrate on, but Evil Dead had been remade and the Ash Vs Evil Dead rose from that. That was with a remake that performed pretty well if I am not mistaken. I often wonder if something like that is one of the many things being worked on at Ghost Corps. ATC may have underperformed, but I am sure that it made enough money to let SONY know that there is still potential in the series. Now all that's left is the execution of the future projects. Like I said I think we are in for a few interesting years. :):):)
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2 liked this
By pferreira1983
#4889361
Skyknight wrote:But I find it sad that so many people prefer the cartoony look over a more realistic look.
Yes, I like shows like "Gravity Falls" as well, but despite the art style, not because of it! Good writing can cover for a lack of realism in the style in ways great visuals can't cover for bad writing, but that doesn't mean that artists should become lazy. A good show can get away with it, but a great show understands that it has to have both to be really good.
Yeah I agree with you on that.
Skyknight wrote:For a new Ghostbusters tv show or animated movie, I think it would have to get both things right to succed. And if they can't do that, it shouldn't be made at all and better to just bring re-runs of RGB back to tv!
Ha, ha! Well said! :lol:
Kingpin wrote:While there are some shows that cross the line for me, I primarily watch cartoons to be entertained, not because of how realistically they draw the characters. An engrossing story is always a big plus.
In my opinion it has to be a balance of both good animation and good writing. If you do only one it isn't a good cartoon series. This is kind of the reason why I'm put off by today's cartoons. :-|
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4889376
pferreira1983 wrote:This is kind of the reason why I'm put off by today's cartoons. :-|
Playing Devil's Advocate, you and I aren't really the primary target audience for most of today's cartoons.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4889377
I haven't contributed to this debate yet, mostly because I'm not as familiar with the comics as you all. But I can see both points of view. Sometimes a cartoon/stylized approach can be a sign of laziness. And sometimes a realistic approach is problematic with human characters because of the uncanny valley. RGB, I feel like you can see the constant struggle to not make the characters look too weird, lol. And there's some expressions or movements they just can't do, like I remember reading about the Peanuts specials or Yellow Submarine.
By pferreira1983
#4889710
Kingpin wrote:Playing Devil's Advocate, you and I aren't really the primary target audience for most of today's cartoons.
You do have a point there although I'd add it's doing a disservice to kids today who should get better.
By scythemantis
#4889873
Yes, I like shows like "Gravity Falls" as well, but despite the art style, not because of it! Good writing can cover for a lack of realism
I'm sorry but....what an incredibly saddening thing to hear anybody say. Stylization isn't a "shortcut" or "compensation" for realism. Stylization is an art form that makes a work distinct, memorable and fun.

"Realism" is the cheap, boring, ugly alternative. Anyone can copy from life. A distinctive, exaggerated or simplified style is what almost all artists strive for and is more challenging to develop.

I have a hard time believing you actually think "realism" looks better. It's hideous. How can anyone prefer it unless they just....hate fun?
Alphagaia, zeta otaku liked this
By Skyknight
#4889901
scythemantis wrote:
Yes, I like shows like "Gravity Falls" as well, but despite the art style, not because of it! Good writing can cover for a lack of realism
I'm sorry but....what an incredibly saddening thing to hear anybody say. Stylization isn't a "shortcut" or "compensation" for realism. Stylization is an art form that makes a work distinct, memorable and fun.

"Realism" is the cheap, boring, ugly alternative. Anyone can copy from life. A distinctive, exaggerated or simplified style is what almost all artists strive for and is more challenging to develop.

I have a hard time believing you actually think "realism" looks better. It's hideous. How can anyone prefer it unless they just....hate fun?
It depends on what you want to do with the show. If you want to make a funny classic cartoon like the Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry, sure make the art as wacky as you like. But for a more story driven show, I prefer a more realistic look. And above all I think the simplified look is being overused these days. It feels like the producers saw that one show got away with it and everybody thought, "If they can do that, we can do too."!

And no! Not anyone can draw realistic. I couldn't draw a real looking human if my life depended on it. That's why I think someone who can do that is a talented artist. At the same time I can't take the better known paintings of Picasso serious, because they look like something I drew in Kindergarten.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4889902
I can tell you with absolute certainty the cartoons artists(and Picasso) can draw atomically correct and realistic, most start out that way, but they just prefer not too, wanting to design (and perfect) their own style and brand.

Picasso purposefully created that unique and thought provoking style, not because he cannot draw or paint.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4889912
Skyknight wrote:At the same time I can't take the better known paintings of Picasso serious, because they look like something I drew in Kindergarten.
Well Picasso's style is deliberate and designed to capture the "essence" of a person in abstract form (blah blah blah ;)). Same with stylized cartoon designs. But I actually agree with you that sometimes it's a sign of laziness. Not everyone is Picasso.
Sav C liked this
By Commander_Jim
#4889915
This talk reminds me of the current Ninja Turtles series (the show, not the crappy movies). Its actually really good, but they let it down with an overly cartoony style that makes it look like it was made for a much younger audience. I didnt bother watching it because of that, but when I finally did, I found it to be one of the best written iterations of TMNT there has been. With a more realistic art style it would have been perfect.
By featofstrength
#4889919
Commander_Jim wrote:This talk reminds me of the current Ninja Turtles series (the show, not the crappy movies). Its actually really good, but they let it down with an overly cartoony style that makes it look like it was made for a much younger audience. I didnt bother watching it because of that, but when I finally did, I found it to be one of the best written iterations of TMNT there has been. With a more realistic art style it would have been perfect.
The first wave of action figures looked better than the actual show.
Image
These figures are detailed and fun. The villain designs however....YUCK.

I gave the show a try, but I didn't make it very far. The cutesy japanime moments...no thank you.
Image
Image
Image
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By zeta otaku
#4889922
Those got toned down as the show went on. The show gets surprisingly dark and some of the monster designs get NUTS... especially when they leave New York and to April's farm house where there are a TON of classic horror movie homages.

Honestly, the only thing I dislike about the show are the crazy long hiatuses Nick gives it.
Commander_Jim liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4889937
Picasso could paint realism, for instance his painting the Alter Boy (had to look it up, full disclosure). The difference between Picasso and say, a kidergartener, is that a kindergartener's drawing would not use color theory and composition, whearas Picasso would. Then again I'm sure there are kindrgarteners who could understand color theory and composition as well as many adults.

For a cartoon or comic though, I'm not sure how artistic they really are. When they draw the Ghostbusters they seem to make them too angry looking.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4889938
Yeah, I noticed the angry look as well. Especially on covers. It's partly done to give out a serious vibe, I think to help sell the comic to the fans to distance it from more kiddy stuff.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By zeta otaku
#4889942
Kingpin wrote:What is with cartoons and hiatuses? Gravity Falls also had that problem.

(Here's another chime in for the current TMNT toon, they even had a frigging reference to The Thing, as well as Ghostbusters)

Loved that Ghostbuster nod... and that Thing episode was DISTURBING. Who ever comes up with some of the monster designs has some MAJOR issues... and I love them for it :D
By pferreira1983
#4889973
scythemantis wrote:"Realism" is the cheap, boring, ugly alternative. Anyone can copy from life. A distinctive, exaggerated or simplified style is what almost all artists strive for and is more challenging to develop.

I have a hard time believing you actually think "realism" looks better. It's hideous. How can anyone prefer it unless they just....hate fun?
I'm not a fan of animation with jagged edges or complete lack of detail. It looks lazy to me. If you want to entertain kids you need to be able to provide a pleasing style and colour. The first way you go about that is making sure characters are drawn in full detail. It's the difference between The Real Ghostbusters and Samurai Jack.
featofstrength wrote:But hey, I'm not the desired audience...what do I know? The studios know what the kids want! They have studies!
Add to Emma Watson's feminist tinkering with the script and I'm sure it'll be a great movie, he lied. :shock:
Commander_Jim wrote:This talk reminds me of the current Ninja Turtles series (the show, not the crappy movies). Its actually really good, but they let it down with an overly cartoony style that makes it look like it was made for a much younger audience.
The CG animation puts me off.
Alphagaia wrote:I can tell you with absolute certainty the cartoons artists(and Picasso) can draw atomically correct and realistic, most start out that way, but they just prefer not too, wanting to design (and perfect) their own style and brand.
That's not entirely true. An animation style such as in Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog is decided upon and put in place however it also comes from time to animate and resources at the companies disposal. Simple is sometimes easier and in most cases this is what modern animation goes for. I remember reading an interview with the people behind the 2D Clone Wars cartoon and everyone was rushed off their feet trying to complete the show. The voice actors didn't know what was going on with every script.
Alphagaia wrote:Picasso purposefully created that unique and thought provoking style, not because he cannot draw or paint.
If most current animation is going for Picasso that might explain why today's cartoons look so ugly.
By Skyknight
#4890012
Alphagaia wrote:I can tell you with absolute certainty the cartoons artists(and Picasso) can draw atomically correct and realistic, most start out that way, but they just prefer not too, wanting to design (and perfect) their own style and brand.

Picasso purposefully created that unique and thought provoking style, not because he cannot draw or paint.
I know he could do realistical portraits(which I consider proof that he was really talented), but he got famous for the stuff that looks like a 4 year old drew it! Are the people that decide what is art and what not completely out of their minds?

Modern art is even worse than that, like Joseph Beuys put a chair in the middle of a room and a big chunk of fat on top of it and called it art. Or another time he put a dirty bathtub in a museum! I don't want to imagine how those things smelled after a few years!
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4890013
Some people like to look at pretty things, some people like to look at thought provoking things, others like to do both, but it does not end there. It also depends on your upbringing, previous encounters with art, your view of life, etc.
There are a lot of reasons different people (dis)like a certain art style and that's perfectly fine.

It does not mean the art is lazy or without talent, it's just not your style?
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890014
pferreira1983 wrote:If you want to entertain kids you need to be able to provide a pleasing style and colour. The first way you go about that is making sure characters are drawn in full detail.


You don't need highly-detailed characters to make them pleasing, and entertaining for kids. That's your preference, and while it works in some cases, it doesn't work everywhere.
pferreira1983 wrote:Add to Emma Watson's feminist tinkering with the script and I'm sure it'll be a great movie, he lied. :shock:
You don't actually know that Emma's involvement with the script is going to be a bad thing (true, I can't say I know it's a good thing either until I've been able to see the film), but really, there are some members of this forum who are very preoccupied with feminism, "feminist involvement" and "feminist tinkering" to a point that is bordering on obsessive. I've seen more invoking of feminism on this forum from people criticising it than from the actual feminists.

So long as it doesn't undermine the film or the character, it's actually rather neat getting to see actors have some involvement in putting together their characters' dialogue.

Sidebar: Picasso and his work are overrated.
JurorNo.2, Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890015
I'll defend Picasso but yeah I've yet to be sold on modern art.
By featofstrength
#4890019
Kingpin wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:Add to Emma Watson's feminist tinkering with the script and I'm sure it'll be a great movie, he lied. :shock:
You don't actually know that Emma's involvement with the script is going to be a bad thing (true, I can't say I know it's a good thing either until I've been able to see the film), but really, there are some members of this forum who are very preoccupied with feminism, "feminist involvement" and "feminist tinkering" to a point that is bordering on obsessive. I've seen more invoking of feminism on this forum from people criticising it than from the actual feminists.

So long as it doesn't undermine the film or the character, it's actually rather neat getting to see actors have some involvement in putting together their characters' dialogue.
The first run wasn't feminist enough?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bea ... 512f846aae

Image
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890020
featofstrength wrote:
The first run wasn't feminist enough?
Might shock everyone here to know that I am NOT a fan of Belle from Beauty & the Beast (1991), at least not when she's introduced. She's a snob laughing at the poor plebs in her town for being too busy to read because they actually work for a living! Not everyone gets free books for being a hot chick, Belle! :roll:

But to be fair, I do like her interplay with the Beast later on.
featofstrength liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890023
Alphagaia wrote:I just liked that candle guy.
Lol, I was actually going to add that. I loved Lumière as a kid!
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4890024
featofstrength wrote:The first run wasn't feminist enough?
I've never really thought about feminism in Beauty and the Beast (the original) to be honest, but you know, so what if the live action version tries to improve on/expand some of the original's messages?
JurorNo.2 wrote:She's a snob laughing at the poor plebs in her town for being too busy to read because they actually work for a living! Not everyone gets free books for being a hot chick, Belle! :roll:
Huh, that's not what I took away from the intro scene at all.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4890025
Kingpin wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:She's a snob laughing at the poor plebs in her town for being too busy to read because they actually work for a living! Not everyone gets free books for being a hot chick, Belle! :roll:
Huh, that's not what I took away from the intro scene at all.
It's OK, I know it's not a popular interpretation. ;)
By featofstrength
#4890028
JurorNo.2 wrote:
featofstrength wrote:
The first run wasn't feminist enough?
Might shock everyone here to know that I am NOT a fan of Belle from Beauty & the Beast (1991), at least not when she's introduced. She's a snob laughing at the poor plebs in her town for being too busy to read because they actually work for a living! Not everyone gets free books for being a hot chick, Belle! :roll:

But to be fair, I do like her interplay with the Beast later on.
Oh, the provincial life! How terrible!

I guess that screenwriter got what she really wanted with Belle through Alice in that horrible Tim Burton adaptation?
Oops...sorry about the side of colonialism! To distract you, here is the worst thing ever put in a motion picture:
Image
JurorNo.2 liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

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[…]