- April 2nd, 2017, 11:12 am#4892158
I can't say it looked anything like New York. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Kingpin wrote:Excluding Times Square, The Empire State Building, Rockefeller Centre, The Chrysler Building, the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, Central Park, the World Financial Centre, the Statue of Liberty, Columbia University, Grand Central Terminal and The New York Public Library, the yellow taxis and the white/blue police cars, how would you actually describe the non-famous parts of the city? Move away from the landmarks and the wide, long avenues, and you're basically left with just the flavour of a major metropolitan population centre.Really? Apart from Times Square I didn't notice any of that. Perhaps it's a case of Ivan Reitman doing a better job of presenting New York than Paul Feig because the reboot movie did not in any way look like New York.
What makes New York look like "New York"?
Kingpin wrote:I wasn't saying all that stuff was in the reboot, I was asking that if you cut out all that stuff from any given photograph of New York, then how can you actually what is and isn't New York, instead of just another major American city?Comparing Answer The Call to other films set in New York I notice less of the city, less of the people. It seems less city based, less bustling of people, not what I associate with New York City.
JurorNo.2 wrote:As someone who lives and works there every day, I think part of the disconnect here is that NYC itself has changed a lot in recent years. St. Patrick's just underwent a huge renovation, for instance. Its exterior is now blindingly clean, and the difference is startling. I remember people were literally stopping on the street to comment the first day of the unveiling, lol.My first reaction was: You mean brown wasn't it's original color? LOL.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/13/st-patrick ... -facelift/
HunterCC wrote:That was my first reaction as well, lol. Isn't that awful, we just got used to 100+ years of grime, lol.JurorNo.2 wrote:As someone who lives and works there every day, I think part of the disconnect here is that NYC itself has changed a lot in recent years. St. Patrick's just underwent a huge renovation, for instance. Its exterior is now blindingly clean, and the difference is startling. I remember people were literally stopping on the street to comment the first day of the unveiling, lol.My first reaction was: You mean brown wasn't it's original color? LOL.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/13/st-patrick ... -facelift/
Sav C wrote:Yeah, the photo on the left, before the face lift, looks like it could be straight out of the first two Ghostbusters movies. The second, cleaned up one looks more like it would fit in the reboot.Very true, and there's always this big debate, is NYC too clean now, too commercial? I think there are arguments to be made on both sides.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I think there are arguments to be made on both sides.Personally speaking It'd be rather one-sided. While yes, I lament the fact things have gotten more expensive in the city, and that more independent, less chain-based businesses have been driven out of Manhattan by skyrocketing land prices and greedy landlords, it may be an acceptable cost to have a city that's cleaner and safer than the "gritty" one of the past that gets a rather rose-tinted recollection. I'm not sure many people who fondly remember the city as it used to be would be so willing to advocate it if they'd gotten robbed in Times Square of the 1980s.
Sav C wrote:Yeah, the photo on the left, before the face lift, looks like it could be straight out of the first two Ghostbusters movies. The second, cleaned up one looks more like it would fit in the reboot.No that's not it. The second photo of the church would have looked fine in the reboot. I think maybe the locations they picked betrayed the fact most of it wasn't shot in New York.
pferreira1983 wrote:Just curious, do you think it would have looked fine in the originals?Sav C wrote:Yeah, the photo on the left, before the face lift, looks like it could be straight out of the first two Ghostbusters movies. The second, cleaned up one looks more like it would fit in the reboot.No that's not it. The second photo of the church would have looked fine in the reboot. I think maybe the locations they picked betrayed the fact most of it wasn't shot in New York.
pferreira1983 wrote:I think maybe the locations they picked betrayed the fact most of it wasn't shot in New York.I don't see why you feel that, as there aren't any glaringly obvious Boston landmarks or locations in any of the Boston filming locations. About the only thing that did stand out for me that I knew wasn't New York-like was when the team are busting the parade balloons, and you see a crosswalk sign that doesn't look anything like the ones in New York.
Sav C wrote:Just curious, do you think it would have looked fine in the originals?Depending on the lighting yeah don't see a problem.
Kingpin wrote:I don't see why you feel that, as there aren't any glaringly obvious Boston landmarks or locations in any of the Boston filming locations.I can't describe it but it in no way looks like New York. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies like more like Ghostbusters than Answer The Call.
Kingpin wrote: I don't see why you feel that, as there aren't any glaringly obvious Boston landmarks or locations in any of the Boston filming locations.
pferreira1983 wrote:I can't describe it but it in no way looks like New York. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies like more like Ghostbusters than Answer The Call.OK, I made up my mind. My birthday is next week, and my company gives us the day off, so I'm going to see if I can take the NYC TV & Movie Tour, which claims to include, according to the brochure, "Locations from all three Ghostbusters movies*." I'll see if that can shed any light on this discussion.
RichardLess wrote:I found this totally by accident. Something to listen to, if nothing else:Glenn Frederick wrote:I really liked the score by Theodore Shapiro!See that's something that I really felt was really poorly done. I can't recall a single motif from the score. There were a couple decent atmospheric bits and bobs but nothing really stood out to me.
I've mentioned this in the past but I was really letdown with the behind the scenes artistry on GB 16, from production design, music, cinematography and VFX. Maybe it wouldn't bug me so much if the original two films hadn't had such a deep roster of talent behind the scenes. We got spoiled. This movie looked and felt like a million other movies.
Kingpin wrote:I wasn't saying all that stuff was in the reboot, I was asking that if you cut out all that stuff from any given photograph of New York, then how can you actually what is and isn't New York, instead of just another major American city?As an Australian who has never even been to the USA I think its very easy to tell NY apart from any other US city without landmarks. The same for several other US cities like LA and Chicago. Its hard to describe why but NY certainly has a very distinct look and feel. You can look at a street and know its NY even without knowing the street or any of the buildings on it. Its just the architecture, the age of the city, the decay and just the general atmosphere. Watching Nolan's Batman movies and its extremely obvious they were filmed in Chicago and not New York (the traditional proxy for Gotham City) even without any landmarks.
Commander_Jim wrote:Watching Nolan's Batman movies and its extremely obvious they were filmed in Chicago and not New York (the traditional proxy for Gotham City) even without any landmarks.Except there are a few notable sequences in The Dark Knight Rises that were filmed in New York.
JurorNo.2 wrote:OK, I made up my mind. My birthday is next week, and my company gives us the day off, so I'm going to see if I can take the NYC TV & Movie Tour, which claims to include, according to the brochure, "Locations from all three Ghostbusters movies*." I'll see if that can shed any light on this discussion.Cool, hope you have a great day.
pferreira1983 wrote:Thanks!JurorNo.2 wrote:OK, I made up my mind. My birthday is next week, and my company gives us the day off, so I'm going to see if I can take the NYC TV & Movie Tour, which claims to include, according to the brochure, "Locations from all three Ghostbusters movies*." I'll see if that can shed any light on this discussion.Cool, hope you have a great day.
NHawk wrote:There was a story there with the Ley Lines but they seem to have forgotten the science and mythology.That was one of the problems with the movie. There's a lot of technobabble but you get the impression the writing isn't committed to it making it make sense or make it interesting. Perhaps they needed Dan on as a supernatural science consultant to help re-write those bits of dialogue?
pferreira1983 wrote: Perhaps they needed Dan on as a supernatural science consultant to help re-write those bits of dialogue?Dan actually did. It's mentioned a few times by Dippolt he actualized it. For me the technobabble needed to be out there, and just weird enough you get a feeling what Abby and Erin meant, just not quite, but it all is grounded in the rules according to Dan's (and GFOP).
It was always great to get his [Ivan] feedback, because he just knows it. He did it. He’s the director of the original Ghostbusters. And then Dan Aykroyd would also read drafts and give notes and feedback and pitch things, like pitch equipment stuff and how to make things sound more Ghostbusters-y, which was like a ridiculous email to get. Like, “This is what Dan Aykroyd has to say.”All together a nice interview on how the script changed from R to PG13, and how the really scary stuff got towned down a bit: http://www.slashfilm.com/ghostbusters-k ... interview/
Alphagaia wrote:All together a nice interview on how the script changed from R to PG13, and how the really scary stuff got towned down a bit: http://www.slashfilm.com/ghostbusters-k ... interview/Oh ok, always wondered about that after Feig said the movie would be scary but then clearly wasnt in the slightest
Yep, and nightmare on elm street dream warriors.
You can see our Paranormal Boots in action here: […]