Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4953087
The GB2 severed heads scene wasn't done well. It was cheesily staged and edited in, and was the wrong kind of scare for Ghostbusters. Too realistic and gory, I think the only time we see blood in the movies. Looked more like a Nightmare on Elm Street scene. And no justification for why these would be heads on sticks rather than apparitions and/or full figures like in the Titanic scene. Only thing close in GB1 is the zombie taxi driver, but he's much closer to a skeleton without much flesh or blood on him.
RichardLess wrote: August 1st, 2021, 3:24 am Can anyone else think of a PG-13 movie made within the last 10 years that pushed the envelope like those movies did when we were growing up?
The Shining scene in Ready Player One. Particularly the old lady, in her regular and giant form. The zombie dance hall also had some fun, cartoony zombies with rotting limbs that were in a fitting style for Ghostbusters monsters.

Peter Jackson's King Kong had the incredible, horrific bug pit scene. A girl was kicking the back of my seat rhythmically throughout the entire scene in the theater. Older than 10 years, but same year as Batman Begins.

Indiana Jones 4 had the ant scene with the Russian getting eaten and/or dragged into the anthill.

Revenge of the Sith had the Anakin burning scene.

Batman V Superman had *spoiler* someone *spoiler* getting stabbed by Doomsday.
#4953090
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 am The GB2 severed heads scene wasn't done well. It was cheesily staged and edited in, and was the wrong kind of scare for Ghostbusters. Too realistic and gory, I think the only time we see blood in the movies. Looked more like a Nightmare on Elm Street scene. And no justification for why these would be heads on sticks rather than apparitions and/or full figures like in the Titanic scene. Only thing close in GB1 is the zombie taxi driver, but he's much closer to a skeleton without much flesh or blood on him.
RichardLess wrote: August 1st, 2021, 3:24 am Can anyone else think of a PG-13 movie made within the last 10 years that pushed the envelope like those movies did when we were growing up?
The Shining scene in Ready Player One. Particularly the old lady, in her regular and giant form. The zombie dance hall also had some fun, cartoony zombies with rotting limbs that were in a fitting style for Ghostbusters monsters.

Peter Jackson's King Kong had the incredible, horrific bug pit scene. A girl was kicking the back of my seat rhythmically throughout the entire scene in the theater. Older than 10 years, but same year as Batman Begins.

Indiana Jones 4 had the ant scene with the Russian getting eaten and/or dragged into the anthill.

Revenge of the Sith had the Anakin burning scene.

Batman V Superman had *spoiler* someone *spoiler* getting stabbed by Doomsday.
Again, I gotta disagree. You say it’s cheesy. But also realistic. So it cheesy or realistic? Very hard to be both. And poorly edited in? I don’t know. It’s a jump scare. What’s poorly edited about it? Personally, I love the subway sequence and the movie is much better with it. When I found out it was a reshoot added late in the game— that shocked the hell out of me. It doesn’t feel like one & I can’t imagine the film without it.

Hmm. No justification? I think you may be looking at it wrong. Keep in mind it’s a trick Vigo uses to try & scare the Ghostbusters off. That’s the justification. As for the “it’s the wrong kind of scare for Ghostbusters”—I think it’s the perfect scare. It’s new and something we hadn’t seen before, it’s legitimately scary, it adds incredible tension to the scene. We also feel like *anything* could happen.

Yeah that is true about the shining sequence. I didn’t much like RP1 but that scene, now that you mention it, all I kept thinking was “How did they get away with this?”

The Batman V Superman scene isn’t all that gory. The directors cut is, but that is actually R rated. Not sure I agree with that one.

The other stuff are all good examples, but like you say, outside of the 10 years. Andy Serkis getting his head sucked into giant teethy worm things was super disturbing in King Kong.
#4953100
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 am The GB2 severed heads scene wasn't done well. It was cheesily staged and edited in, and was the wrong kind of scare for Ghostbusters.
What about it was "cheesy"?

I'll concede the selection of heads may've looked a little like the product of a scramble, that whole sequence was added in during reshoots... And I think even the production conceeded some of the severed head props weren't great... Which was why they were pushed towards the back of the selection where possible.

But they didn't seem cheesy, nor the set they built for the train tunnel (if it was built), nor the ghost train effects.

The editing didn't seem cheesy either, it felt in-keeping with the editing of the rest of the movie.
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 amToo realistic and gory
No more than the Taxi ghost. I'm not even sure why "too realistic" is a draw-back? Surely that's a plus, rather than it being a bunch of unconvincing heads?
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 amAnd no justification for why these would be heads on sticks rather than apparitions and/or full figures like in the Titanic scene.
Well... To use an old phrase, the guys "ain't afraid of no ghosts"... But the severed heads of Vigo's scores of victims? (Which is what I interpret them to be) That's still going to rattle the guys.

Plus, production-wise, a bunch of severed heads are more friendly on the schedule and the budget, and I recall it being said that ILM had to put their foot down as they were running out of time to work on ghost effects for the film.
robbritton liked this
#4953141
Kingpin wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 11:59 am
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 am The GB2 severed heads scene wasn't done well. It was cheesily staged and edited in, and was the wrong kind of scare for Ghostbusters.
What about it was "cheesy"?

I'll concede the selection of heads may've looked a little like the product of a scramble, that whole sequence was added in during reshoots... And I think even the production conceeded some of the severed head props weren't great... Which was why they were pushed towards the back of the selection where possible.

But they didn't seem cheesy, nor the set they built for the train tunnel (if it was built), nor the ghost train effects.

The editing didn't seem cheesy either, it felt in-keeping with the editing of the rest of the movie.
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 amToo realistic and gory
No more than the Taxi ghost. I'm not even sure why "too realistic" is a draw-back? Surely that's a plus, rather than it being a bunch of unconvincing heads?
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:41 amAnd no justification for why these would be heads on sticks rather than apparitions and/or full figures like in the Titanic scene.
Well... To use an old phrase, the guys "ain't afraid of no ghosts"... But the severed heads of Vigo's scores of victims? (Which is what I interpret them to be) That's still going to rattle the guys.

Plus, production-wise, a bunch of severed heads are more friendly on the schedule and the budget, and I recall it being said that ILM had to put their foot down as they were running out of time to work on ghost effects for the film.
Apparently the subway scene was filmed at some nightclub that was designed like that. They mention it in the commentary. They didn’t have time to build the set so they shot it in New York at a club that, for whatever reason, had train tracks. Weird eh?
JediJones liked this
#4953145
It makes sense if they're the heads of Vigo's victims. I would have liked that to be clearer in the movie. Ray could've mentioned in an earlier scene that Vigo would surround himself with the heads of his enemies on pikes. And after the scene, throw in a line that Vigo must be toying with them. I don't know if that's what they were meant to be though, because the train wouldn't have any connection to Vigo's history. So I assumed those heads were of the train victims, and as someone said, they just couldn't afford full bodies or costumes. The train effect is great, I just think the heads are some rather cheap, cheesy effects that look low-rent compared to what we usually get in these movies.

The scene is still "off" for the tone of Ghostbusters. The scary ghosts in Ghostbusters are always cartoonish, fantasy-oriented or humorous. The "basic" ghosts are just translucent humans. They don't hit you over the head with gory or bloody body parts. The taxi driver is presented as a joke, so when they give you the most gruesome ghost in part 1, it's not to be a jump scare. I can't be concerned with what's reshoots, every scene has to be judged equally on what it brings to the movie.
#4953157
JediJones wrote: August 2nd, 2021, 8:08 pm It makes sense if they're the heads of Vigo's victims. I would have liked that to be clearer in the movie. Ray could've mentioned in an earlier scene that Vigo would surround himself with the heads of his enemies on pikes. And after the scene, throw in a line that Vigo must be toying with them. I don't know if that's what they were meant to be though, because the train wouldn't have any connection to Vigo's history. So I assumed those heads were of the train victims, and as someone said, they just couldn't afford full bodies or costumes. The train effect is great, I just think the heads are some rather cheap, cheesy effects that look low-rent compared to what we usually get in these movies.

The scene is still "off" for the tone of Ghostbusters. The scary ghosts in Ghostbusters are always cartoonish, fantasy-oriented or humorous. The "basic" ghosts are just translucent humans. They don't hit you over the head with gory or bloody body parts. The taxi driver is presented as a joke, so when they give you the most gruesome ghost in part 1, it's not to be a jump scare. I can't be concerned with what's reshoots, every scene has to be judged equally on what it brings to the movie.
I always assumed they were Vigo’s victims. Vigo is based on Vlad the Impaler with a mix of Rasputin. Heads are a reoccurring motif with Vigo. “On a mountain of skulls…” there was a prophecy, just before his head died”

Egon does say “somethings trying to stop us we must be close”. Like I mentioned earlier, what’s cool about this scene is that it’s something new. Are they ghosts? A vision? We don’t know. And that’s ok! We don’t need to know every little thing. And also, are the scary ghosts always cartoonish? The hands that molest Dana aren’t cartoony. That’s a very intense scene. Also, what does it matter if something is presented as a scare or for comedy? So if the taxi driver had been a scare, it wouldn’t be ok?
Kingpin, robbritton liked this
#4953423
It's all about what's appropriate for the movie. Of course the movie is supposed to be scary. It's not supposed to use blood and gore to have that effect. Most good, scary movies don't rely on blood and gore to have their effect. Or the kind of jump scares where the camera just cuts to something scary. The terror dog/chair scene is a perfect example of how to do a scare properly. The shock happens not as a camera trick, where the camera cuts away to something that wasn't there before, but because the villain was actually hiding in the room and emerges on camera. It's cheesy when the scare happens only because of an editing trick. The first head walks into camera, but most of the others just appear after an editing cut. And in the terror dog scene, there is no blood or gore. Adding blood dripping off the terror dogs mouth would have only made it worse.

In another movie, blood and gore might be appropriate. Kill Bill is R-rated and has lots of blood and gore. It's appropriate for that movie and its violent story. It's not a movie that you expect to take young children to for a family outing.
#4953425
JediJones wrote: August 6th, 2021, 7:07 am It's all about what's appropriate for the movie. Of course the movie is supposed to be scary. It's not supposed to use blood and gore to have that effect. Most good, scary movies don't rely on blood and gore to have their effect. Or the kind of jump scares where the camera just cuts to something scary. The terror dog/chair scene is a perfect example of how to do a scare properly. The shock happens not as a camera trick, where the camera cuts away to something that wasn't there before, but because the villain was actually hiding in the room and emerges on camera. It's cheesy when the scare happens only because of an editing trick. The first head walks into camera, but most of the others just appear after an editing cut. And in the terror dog scene, there is no blood or gore. Adding blood dripping off the terror dogs mouth would have only made it worse.

In another movie, blood and gore might be appropriate. Kill Bill is R-rated and has lots of blood and gore. It's appropriate for that movie and its violent story. It's not a movie that you expect to take young children to for a family outing.
Why is it not suppose to use blood & gore? Who made these rules? Raiders of the Lost Ark & Temple of Doom have waaay more blood & gore than GB2, they were movies kids loved. It’s a single scene and what do you really see? Some bits of flesh hanging off the neck & withered faces. Christ, Indy 3 actually shows a dudes decapitated head rolling on the floor. The scene in GB2 with the heads always reminded me of the scene in Raiders where Marion gets stuck in that room with all the skeletons and sees a snake coming out of ones mouth.

Jump scares can be great. Ben Gardner’s head in Jaws. The Attic scene in The Exorcist. The problem is they got over used in the 90s and early 2000s.

Ratings are an external thing forced upon the movie. It shouldn’t affect ones enjoyment because it exceeds the arbitrary rules of having a little blood & gore. Watch the scene again, I mean there really is not much blood at all. You don’t see any blood pouring out. Just a bit here and there added to the flesh. And I don’t think it qualifies as a jump scare either. Ray’s re entrance might where he shouts “Guys” but like you said, we see the head before they do. Once we see the first head it’s primed the audience for something scary happening, thus negating the “jump” scare. If it had been a POV shot of Winston it might be a jump scare. But otherwise it’s just some quick cutting between the guys being terrified and their POV’s of the heads.

The first Harry Potter movie had a dude take his head as a greeting, “Nearly Headless Nick”. Star Wars shows Obi Wan chop a dudes arm off, and we see the gory results. But Ghostbusters should be somehow above all this because…?

Any family going to see a movie called “Ghostbusters”, a movie directed and written by the guys who did Animal House, Caddyshack, Blues Brothers & SNL…I think they should expect a surprise or two lol.
#4953427
It's about the tone the movie has set for itself. Raiders had blood and gore in the very first scene. GB2 is adding something with a more gruesome tone late in the second movie that doesn't fit with the movie and a half we've seen already. Every ghost and monster had a cartoon, fantasy, otherworldly or unrealistic quality, but the severed heads don't. There are no ectoplasmic halos around them, they're not dressed up in funny clothes, and they appear to be human and not fantasy creatures. They're also just dead, inanimate body parts, which hardly qualifies as a ghost.

The issue isn't about someone taking a kid to see the movie, it's about the movie staying true to its tone and style. Take Gremlins for example, there are a lot of things taken out of the early script that would've been too gruesome for the movie. The mom's severed head rolling down the stairs, the mogwai eating the dog, etc. Not every scene is appropriate for every movie. The gremlins themselves are mutilated, but that is a much softer thing to watch because they are ugly and unlikable fantasy creatures, not humans or dogs.

And the established rules and style for the GB universe don't fit with this scene. We've never seen that seemingly physical objects can appear out of nowhere and disappear instantly. That's where the cheapness of the editing comes into play. A proper entrance isn't designed, the camera is just used to cut away and make most of the heads appear instantly where they weren't present before, and then disappear the same way. If we could see them materialize out of a mist or something, or if a wall fell down and revealed them, the scene would at least look less cut-rate and bargain basement.

In 1989, I asked myself then why in the world was that scene in the movie? I thought it was junk. There's nothing "Ghostbusters" about the scene at all. It looks like something you'd find sitting in the deleted scenes section on the DVD and be able to instantly say, oh, okay, I can see why they cut that out.
#4953449
RichardLess wrote: August 6th, 2021, 8:49 am Any family going to see a movie called “Ghostbusters”, a movie directed and written by the guys who did Animal House, Caddyshack, Blues Brothers & SNL…I think they should expect a surprise or two lol.
Even The Real Ghostbusters in its day had some creepy stuff, there were the Spawn of Cthulhu and Cthulhu itself getting visibly blasted, and then regenerating... Then there were a whole host of ghosts in The Ghostbusters in Paris: where one ghost's face melted off, another was shown as a decayed phantom, even more had unnerving elongated limbs and faces, the possessed statues and mummy in the Louvre, the possessed gargoyles at Notre Dame cathedral, the much more twisted forms of the frat ghosts from The Old College Spirit and the top hat ghost and its gluttonous belly from Slimer Come Home...

While the scene does stand out compared to the rest of the film, I think it helps to ram home that Vigo is a threat, and more than just a floating disembodied head in a painting.

They're a spectral manifestation, like the train, like the Titanic, like the nanny.

Just because we've never seen something happen in a Ghostbusters movie before doesn't mean it automatically breaks that universe's rules... There's centuries of paranormal history to work from and only an hour and a half to feature it. Understandably between budget, practical effect limitations and running time we're not going to see everything.

And perhaps they weren't physical manifestations but mental projections? Like the wall of fire and dead apes seen by Dr. Zaius and the others in Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
JediJones wrote: August 6th, 2021, 10:16 amIf we could see them materialize out of a mist or something, or if a wall fell down and revealed them
Either of those would've been a far more cheesy reveal than the scene we ended up with.

What's it to do with Ghostbusters? It's part of the "investigation" in "Professional paranormal investigations and eliminations".
robbritton liked this
#4953455
The heads are useful as they tie the subway location to the backstory of Vigo. The train makes sense because of the tracks, the heads make sense because of Vigo's influence on the location.

Without them nothing in the film, aside from the lower half of Vigo's portrait, gives us any sense of his terrible power. Without them he's just a guy with a bad haircut.
Kingpin liked this
#4953460
The burning photos of Vigo say something about his power. As does his possession of Janosz. The possessed Ray driving scene woulda, shoulda, coulda have, much more effectively than the heads. The tunnel is more associated with the slime and its "negative energy." So the ghosts down there seem like they would be activated more by the slime than Vigo. My perception is the slime's energy is the source of the ghost resurgence in New York, and Vigo is just one of the spirits that's been "charged up" by the slime. I don't see any ghosts in Ghostbusters as being figments of imagination, or manifestations of fears a la Pennywise in It. So I see the subway stuff as being the slime charging up ghosts around it to try to scare people off from getting close to it. We already saw it try to defend itself by grabbing Ray. I think at best, that's what the movie is implying in the subway, rather than Vigo tracking the GBs there and sending stuff at them. Janosz' kidnapping of Oscar kind of shows Vigo needs an avatar to do stuff out away from the museum, other than being able to affect photos that feature his own image. But even the photos could've been affected by the slime, since the fire didn't happen until the slime was revealed in them. Ultimately, Vigo couldn't display a lot of power in the movie, because the whole threat is that he needs to take over Oscar to get a presence in this world and be able to harm it. The more power he shows in the real world, the less motivation he has to go after Oscar.
#4953463
True. I shouldn't have used the phrase terrible power without context, as looking back it was misleading. I was referring to the terrible power of his living reign as a torturer and tyrant. Literally how terrible he was when alive as a Vlad the Impaler analogue. Some heads on pikes are a visual reminder of this at a point where the film is leaning more heavily on mood slime than the 'reality' Carpathian butchers! This is the fate that awaits if the GBs don't derail Vigo. The stakes represent the stakes!

Your points are all dead on about his ghost powers, and I'm sorry my original statement was badly written!
#4953472
JediJones wrote: August 6th, 2021, 10:16 am It's about the tone the movie has set for itself. Raiders had blood and gore in the very first scene. GB2 is adding something with a more gruesome tone late in the second movie that doesn't fit with the movie and a half we've seen already. Every ghost and monster had a cartoon, fantasy, otherworldly or unrealistic quality, but the severed heads don't. There are no ectoplasmic halos around them, they're not dressed up in funny clothes, and they appear to be human and not fantasy creatures. They're also just dead, inanimate body parts, which hardly qualifies as a ghost.

The issue isn't about someone taking a kid to see the movie, it's about the movie staying true to its tone and style. Take Gremlins for example, there are a lot of things taken out of the early script that would've been too gruesome for the movie. The mom's severed head rolling down the stairs, the mogwai eating the dog, etc. Not every scene is appropriate for every movie. The gremlins themselves are mutilated, but that is a much softer thing to watch because they are ugly and unlikable fantasy creatures, not humans or dogs.

And the established rules and style for the GB universe don't fit with this scene. We've never seen that seemingly physical objects can appear out of nowhere and disappear instantly. That's where the cheapness of the editing comes into play. A proper entrance isn't designed, the camera is just used to cut away and make most of the heads appear instantly where they weren't present before, and then disappear the same way. If we could see them materialize out of a mist or something, or if a wall fell down and revealed them, the scene would at least look less cut-rate and bargain basement.

In 1989, I asked myself then why in the world was that scene in the movie? I thought it was junk. There's nothing "Ghostbusters" about the scene at all. It looks like something you'd find sitting in the deleted scenes section on the DVD and be able to instantly say, oh, okay, I can see why they cut that out.
It feels like you are moving the goal posts a bit. Your last post mentioned kids & family. Now you say it’s not about that? I only brought it up because you did.

Look, if you don’t like the scene? Fine. That’s cool. You don’t have to like every scene in the movie. But it feels like you are stretching it a bit to justify your issues. This whole idea of the editing being wrong or cheap…it just has no basis in reality. I’ve looked at the scene three times trying to see objectively how you could view it that way and..I don’t get that at all from the scene. It’s an excellently constructed horror sequence. It doesn’t cheat, there’s no sloppy cuts. It’s effective at the job it’s trying to do. Scare us. The one part I could see someone having a problem with is Ray’s “Guys!” Reappearance. I think that could’ve been a bit tighter. Again, the audience sees Ray before they do but it kind of negates the scare the audience is suppose to have at Ray suddenly reappearing and yelling “Guys!”.

This idea about “rules” feels a little haphazard too. This is the paranormal. There are no “rules” established. Vigo & Gozer don’t fit your descriptions for how this franchise treats “ghosts”. The woman’s coat that comes alive, it doesn’t have that. And the Taxi Cab guy from the 1st movie is also not like that. And here’s something to keep in mind. Even the Ghostbusters are surprised by what they are seeing. Even Ray is like “What the…” we haven’t seen the GB’s freak out like that since the library ghost. This terrified them.

You can’t look at a movie that deals in the supernatural or paranormal, especially one that establishes that there are different kinds of ghosts and supernatural phenomena, and say “Hey! That’s not how things are suppose to be! That ghost or manifestation doesn’t fit”.

It’s like…during the montage there’s that scene with the crystals floating and we see some laser contraption set up. What is it? What’s going on? We don’t know. It’s something new. Or look at the Titanic arriving. Suddenly machines and non living entities can be ghosts? Now you shouldn’t look at that and say “what? A boat ghost? That’s against the rules” you should be saying “oh cool. Something different and new”.
Kingpin, robbritton liked this
#4953788
RichardLess wrote: August 6th, 2021, 6:43 pmThis whole idea of the editing being wrong or cheap…it just has no basis in reality. I’ve looked at the scene three times trying to see objectively how you could view it that way and..I don’t get that at all from the scene. It’s an excellently constructed horror sequence. It doesn’t cheat, there’s no sloppy cuts.
To be fair, there's no objective basis for the editing being "cheap" or wrong or not. It's all subjective. Even the word "cheap" adds subjectivity because how do two people define "cheap" in regards to editing and is it the same definition? Both of you only have your opinions of the scene.
#4953821
droidguy1119 wrote: August 12th, 2021, 1:21 pm
RichardLess wrote: August 6th, 2021, 6:43 pmThis whole idea of the editing being wrong or cheap…it just has no basis in reality. I’ve looked at the scene three times trying to see objectively how you could view it that way and..I don’t get that at all from the scene. It’s an excellently constructed horror sequence. It doesn’t cheat, there’s no sloppy cuts.
To be fair, there's no objective basis for the editing being "cheap" or wrong or not. It's all subjective. Even the word "cheap" adds subjectivity because how do two people define "cheap" in regards to editing and is it the same definition? Both of you only have your opinions of the scene.
Cheapness has a discernible quality to it is my point. You can say something is cheap but what makes it cheap? By the other persons definitions, I don’t see it. But ones man’s cheap is another man’s riches. And that’s kinda my point. I’ve tried looking at it by taking my bias and nostalgia goggles off and I just don’t see anything “cheap” about this scene. I don’t think it’s a valid criticism. I could see him saying that about the climax, which isn’t really cheap as it is “poorly put together”.
#4953842
RichardLess wrote: August 12th, 2021, 10:54 pmCheapness has a discernible quality to it is my point. You can say something is cheap but what makes it cheap? By the other persons definitions, I don’t see it. But ones man’s cheap is another man’s riches. And that’s kinda my point. I’ve tried looking at it by taking my bias and nostalgia goggles off and I just don’t see anything “cheap” about this scene. I don’t think it’s a valid criticism. I could see him saying that about the climax, which isn’t really cheap as it is “poorly put together”.
Cheapness has a discernable quality to it in some contexts. I don't know how to define "cheap" with regards to editing -- I would be inclined to use words like "sloppy" or "amateurish," which do not necessarily mean the same thing as "cheap."

In any case, you're allowed to disagree, but there is no objective truth about the scene beyond who worked to create it on all levels, what technical equipment was used to finish it, and what occurs in the script during it. I also don't think it's particularly "cheap," but I don't even know what it means. (On the other hand, I would disagree with your assessment of the finale as merely "poorly put together," as half of the set looks like an unfinished basement, which I think rates as the traditional definition of "cheap" compared to the grandeur of the temple set at the end of the first movie.)

Hey everyone. I somehow misplaced my Blue Power C[…]

Munchers green, artist isn't clean. I just kno[…]

Hello

Welcome aboard, Medicop! :)

We're bringing you the latest updates to the Ghost[…]