Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4888288
Skyknight wrote: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.
While I agree, I think that is all based on a person's perception. Whereas I find Stay Puft is more convincing looking than Rowan, I'm sure for many people, especially kids/teens, it's the opposite. But that would make for an interesting survey, finding out what young people (who have seen CGI their whole life) think of older movie effects, and which are more convincing. It would also be interesting to see which one is found to be more realistic when static.

Another thing to factor in would be what medium was preferred: film stock or digital. I remember the first time I saw Bullitt (just part of it, not the whole film,) I thought that it was so grainy, and that we had come a long way with image quality. A year or two later when I was old enough to see the movie in its entirety (and better understood the differences of the mediums), I thought it looked beautiful. So perception does change.

Of course to add to what I said above, I do think the compositing of Rowan is flawless, but with Stay Puft there are some flaws (although the cinematography does a good job of covering them up).

For the record though, I think they both look really good.
Alphagaia wrote: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.
OK, that makes more sense. It would be a little excessive to make the room CGI for the entire scene.
By pferreira1983
#4888341
Skyknight wrote: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.
Exactly as Rogue One has shown. A shame all that CGI matte work and they still can't make it look like anything but Boston. Good effects there, shame about the fantastical effects.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4888347
pferreira1983 wrote:A shame all that CGI matte work and they still can't make it look like anything but Boston.
I don't know, I thought it was a pretty convincing NYC if you ask me. What is it that makes it feel like Boston to you? Is it the architecture, street layout, or something else entirely?
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4888348
Some American cities are fairly interchangeable when you don't see any specific skyscrapers... the locations shot at Boston didn't really have a "Boston-y" feel to them, more a "general American metropolitan" vibe... it's not like we were seeing some of the older gaslamp parts of Boston, which would be more identifiably as that city rather than New York.
Sav C, Alphagaia liked this
By pferreira1983
#4888364
Sav C wrote:I don't know, I thought it was a pretty convincing NYC if you ask me. What is it that makes it feel like Boston to you? Is it the architecture, street layout, or something else entirely?
No matter how many buildings they added digitally it didn't make me believe it was New York like the other two films did. Maybe it's the lack of NY locations.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4888367
pferreira1983 wrote:
Sav C wrote:I don't know, I thought it was a pretty convincing NYC if you ask me. What is it that makes it feel like Boston to you? Is it the architecture, street layout, or something else entirely?
No matter how many buildings they added digitally it didn't make me believe it was New York like the other two films did. Maybe it's the lack of NY locations.
I have to agree with you, I never felt like I was watching NYC. Too many stand alone buildings.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4888373
JurorNo.2 wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:No matter how many buildings they added digitally it didn't make me believe it was New York like the other two films did. Maybe it's the lack of NY locations.
I have to agree with you, I never felt like I was watching NYC. Too many stand alone buildings.
Fair enough. The stories of the first two certainly were interwoven with the city to an extent few films can achieve (or at strive to achieve), with any city. To me the reboot felt either like New York, or just like generic locations that could be anywhere. But I never felt like it was taking place in Boston or another city.

Like I said, it was pretty convincing for me.

The way it was shot did give a very different feel from the first two, though. I'm mainly thinking of the firehouse and Columbia University, which seemed different even though they're both the same.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4888381
Sav C wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote: I have to agree with you, I never felt like I was watching NYC. Too many stand alone buildings.
Fair enough. The stories of the first two certainly were interwoven with the city to an extent few films can achieve (or at strive to achieve), with any city. To me the reboot felt either like New York, or just like generic locations that could be anywhere. But I never felt like it was taking place in Boston or another city.

Like I said, it was pretty convincing for me.

The way it was shot did give a very different feel from the first two, though. I'm mainly thinking of the firehouse and Columbia University, which seemed different even though they're both the same.
To be honest, I'm not familiar enough with Boston to say, "Hey, this looked like Boston!" Lol. I think the difference is GB84 was photographed to feature NYC and various distinctive landmarks. I think I read that GBII wasn't filmed as much in NYC, but they more than made up for it with the walking Statue of Liberty, lol. I guess ATC tried to make up for it with Rowan turning Time Square into like '70s Time Square, but it's not fleshed out enough (maybe something was cut?). And most of the time I did get a very clean, generic vibe from the surrounding city, there was little that screamed NYC. There were one or two moments that felt right though, like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade ghost balloons and the cabbie who didn't want to drive to China town (I can vouch for the accuracy, hehe). Also an Indian guy working in a Chinese take out, you do see that kind of mixing in New York, lol.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4888383
JurorNo.2 wrote:To be honest, I'm not familiar enough with Boston to say, "Hey, this looked like Boston!" Lol. I think the difference is GB84 was photographed to feature NYC and various distinctive landmarks. I think I read that GBII wasn't filmed as much in NYC, but they more than made up for it with the walking Statue of Liberty, lol. I guess ATC tried to make up for it with Rowan turning Time Square into like '70s Time Square, but it's not fleshed out enough (maybe something was cut?). And most of the time I did get a very clean, generic vibe from the surrounding city, there was little that screamed NYC. There were one or two moments that felt right though, like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade ghost balloons and the cabbie who didn't want to drive to China town (I can vouch for the accuracy, hehe). Also an Indian guy working in a Chinese take out, you do see that kind of mixing in New York, lol.
Yeah, I've never been to Boston but have seen it enough in movies and shows to recognize the skyline. Besides, whenever the Yanks play the Red Sox they usually show aerials. From the ground I probably wouldn't recognize anyplace besides Cheers. Even though GBII indeed was filmed less in New York, the city still really does have a presence on the movie. I think the montages help with that, since they add just that many more scenes which wouldn't fit otherwise, drawing you deeper into the movie. (On a side note, I don't think montages should be forced into a movie, but they do deserve to make a comeback.) It's funny you mention the cabs, though, since I was thinking that the checker cabs really are quintessential New York, yet I didn't see any in the reboot. Are they still in use?
JurorNo.2 liked this
By pferreira1983
#4888625
JurorNo.2 wrote:I have to agree with you, I never felt like I was watching NYC. Too many stand alone buildings.
Yeah exactly. I know the architecture will obviously have changed over the years but something still wasn't right when I watched it Can't put my finger on it. :-|
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By DarkSpectre
#4896201
That would've been better than what we got and I'll be damned they CG'd the damn packs. I wondered about that with all the tumbling and pratfalls and I'm really digging the reboot stunt packs. The red slots and the black overall color with the indicators looks cool
Alphagaia, Sav C, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4896233
Alphagaia wrote:New/Alternate footage of the big Time Square fight scene has shown up, with just a few effects and a different cut.
Oh man... I love the Battle of Times Square as-is, but that would've been much more epic... I get why they ditched the crowd of ghosts but personally I think it was a mistake.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896234
Kingpin wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:New/Alternate footage of the big Time Square fight scene has shown up, with just a few effects and a different cut.
Oh man... I love the Battle of Times Square as-is, but that would've been much more epic... I get why they ditched the crowd of ghosts but personally I think it was a mistake.
I agree, a real shame they changed it and replaced most extra's with fog.
By pferreira1983
#4896352
Alphagaia wrote:I agree, a real shame they changed it and replaced most extra's with fog.
So essentially the difference in the footage is that there's a crowd of ghosts waiting on the sidelines for a "okay who's next"? It could have been a longer movie that's for sure so maybe they were right to replace the ghosts with the fog? :lol:
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4896524
pferreira1983 wrote:So essentially the difference in the footage is that there's a crowd of ghosts waiting on the sidelines for a "okay who's next"?
As detailed by Alpha that's just one of the differences. Gertrude Aldridge and Mayhem aren't included in the crowd of ghosts, nor the top-hatted "Uncle Sam" spectre, there's more fights from the various historical phantoms.
pferreira1983 wrote:so maybe they were right to replace the ghosts with the fog? :lol:
The fog was added because having the ghosts stood on the sidelines apparently didn't test well.
By pferreira1983
#4896550
Kingpin wrote:The fog was added because having the ghosts stood on the sidelines apparently didn't test well.
Perhaps it would have raised expectations from the audience that the Ghostbusters were going to take them all on one at a time. It most probably would have been a bit of a continuity nightmare as well.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4896552
I thought the original idea was not all ghosts were melavolent, and some would just look on, not grasping what is going on, like that guy with the suitcase, with the ghosts being impressed after holtzmans powerplay, thinking f that noise, and letting the GB through unharmed.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4903768
Was just browsing the tubes for some slimer video's and found this. I don't think this was posted yet?



Btw wow, it's obvious in hindsight they had to do it because of the damage to the car, but I never saw the whole ecto was cgi in that shot!
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4904438
Hi Alphagaia. Wow, that's really cool to see how they used the physical Slimer as reference for the CGI work. I'm glad you posted that because that was something I had wanted to see most. I remember they had black versions of the car (like before when it was converted within the movie); it's interesting that they used a much different car (in that it wasn't a hearse).
Alphagaia liked this

Two specific ideas I have are basically holiday sp[…]

While waiting impatiently for Frozen Empire to rel[…]

Make it that pack, sell it for $599. (While I […]

Good morning everyone! I have a local toy collect[…]