Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Personally, I'm looking forward to this movie. The trailer wasn't that good, however, someone has fixed it:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
It looks like a Hollywood formula remake. Probably enough throwbacks to tickle my nostalgia, with some new-ish “twists” to liven it up. Not expecting anything great, but I’ll watch it on Netflix with The Wife when it gets there.
Depending on reviews, I’d adjust my alcohol levels as needed before/during viewing.
Watched that "cut" trailer. Still looks like crap. Worse than the FF reboot. You should be ashamed of yourself if you still want to go see that pile of dung!
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
timetowaste85 wrote: You should be ashamed of yourself if you still want to go see that pile of dung!
Yeah, we should all be ashamed of ourselves because we might like something you think you won't like.
Glad we got that cleared up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/04 22:20:03
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
This thread went to a bad place quick. I love it when people who dislike the film are already accusing people of calling them sexist for having an opinion. Stay classy and keep on bashing those Millenials!
I am excited to see it, I think Kristen Wigg is hilarious and while I dislike most of the stuff McCarthy does, I think she can be funny given the right material.
Maybe that does make me a terrible person, for liking something.....
I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/04 23:44:20
warboss wrote: I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
I keep hearing this about the CGI and I am a little confused by the argument. How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
warboss wrote: I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
I keep hearing this about the CGI and I am a little confused by the argument. How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
I don't think anyone wants a CGI-less movie, but the ghost are portrayed in this movie as distracting, neon-glow messes. They are so obviously CGI that they look cartoony.
I was also immediately reminded of the 1996 movie The Frighteners. Why do the new Ghostbusters ghosts look like something from 20 years ago?
Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
Dreadwinter wrote: Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
You can do ghosts without random lens-flare type burst of light. That is what I mean about distracting. Look at the vomiting librarian above. It looks like a video game screen capture which just screams lame CGI to me.
warboss wrote: I'm a fan of several of the actresses and thought it was cool to hear about them starring in the reboot...but the trailer really turned me off. It was an unfunny overly green screened cgi mess and that kind of stuff isn't fixable this late in the game. The jokes fell flat without me even cracking a smile once and the visual style reminded me too much of that Egyptian gods movie out now. Despite being a big fan of some of the actresses and the original movie, I'll be skipping this one.
I keep hearing this about the CGI and I am a little confused by the argument. How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
I don't have a problem with CGI but rather unnecessary CGI messes. CGI isn't a one stop solution to film making; practical effects still have a place and a mix of CGI over practical is frequently the best solution if you have the money.
For instance, the scene of ghosts rampaging through the streets of New York... it's obvious to me that the actresses are just standing in front of a giant green screen and the ghost AND the city are cgi. They should have filmed them in the city and then added the ghosts. Same thing looking up from the actresses with the giant uncle same ghost walking down the street at night. Same thing with the vomitting ghost in the library; the wall whole shot of the ghost and library is cgi and then cuts back and forth to the real actress in the actual library. Same thing with the actresses doing their action poses (punching, drawing dual pistols, shooting)... just them with a green screen backdrop and everything but them is fake. That is what I'm talking about.
There was really no reason a big budget movie couldn't have filmed them in a real city stand in for NY and then added in the CGI ghost effects. The original Iron Man movie made use of that combo of real and CGI with bits of his armor around joints missing for mobility but added in CGI. They didn't have to "guess" what the armor should look like as they had the practical worn armor in the same shot so the textures and lighting were spot on. That's why I compared it to that egyptian god movie that does the same thing (actors jumping around in front of green screens for almost all the shots in the commercials). I simply don't like unnecessary CGI because despite tens of millions of dollars it still looks fake.
They actually did a large amount of filming in NYC, from what I understand.
That's where a lot of the early photos of the cast came from; set photos. I'd imagine there comes a point though where it becomes impractical for them to be shutting down an area for filming.
Dreadwinter wrote: Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
You can do ghosts without random lens-flare type burst of light. That is what I mean about distracting. Look at the vomiting librarian above. It looks like a video game screen capture which just screams lame CGI to me.
I think you may need to look in to what a lens-flare is. Also, there isn't really a burst of light so much as ethereal wisps of what I can only assume is supposed to be some sort of spirit energy emanating from the Ghost. No bursts of light or lens flares that I can see.
As far as the scene with the ghosts moving through New York, I am not sure if that is green screened or not. It doesn't look Green Screen to me. However, if it is I would have to assume that it would be much easier to get the correct shot while trying to convey the tone of the movie with a green screen. Also probably a thousand times easier to put the CGI in with a green screen like that.
I get that you guys do not like this movie, but do not blame it on the CGI. The CGI looks great and well done. I mean cmon, they are ghosts in a comedy movie about people who fight ghosts. We are not going for super realistic here.....
I don't think anyone wants a CGI-less movie, but the ghost are portrayed in this movie as distracting, neon-glow messes. They are so obviously CGI that they look cartoony.
They do look VERY cartoony. That's fairly appropriate for slimer (although the original didn't look very cartoony iirc but rather more disgusting... the cameo in the trailer looked more like the 80's cartoon version) but less so for the other ghosts. I imagine they've got hit songs, kids cartoons, and toy tie in sugar plumbs dancing in the studio exec heads just like with the original so they're aiming for that younger PG audience despite the likely PG-13 rating. I'd be ok with that if the rest of the scenes with ghosts weren't just as fake looking.
Kanluwen wrote: They actually did a large amount of filming in NYC, from what I understand.
That's where a lot of the early photos of the cast came from; set photos. I'd imagine there comes a point though where it becomes impractical for them to be shutting down an area for filming.
I can't verify but I believe you; scenes where the ecto-1 is just driving or the girls are just standing around are shot on location. The problem is that (for me at least) the convienence/crutch of CGI shows. Not every scene was green screened but rather it seems like almost every time (in the trailer) where there was a ghost the whole damn thing was green screened instead of just adding the special effects to the actual set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: They are ghosts, they are supposed to be fake looking. Ghosts are not real.....
But they don't have to look cartoony. The wraiths in the 10+ year old LOTR movies look less fake. Eh, whatever. Enjoy the movie! My dislike of an unnecessary overabundance of CGI shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of the movie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/05 01:03:44
Dreadwinter wrote: Wait? Distracting? What? You are supposed to be paying attention to them. They are one of the main themes of the movie. They are intentionally distracting.....
You can do ghosts without random lens-flare type burst of light. That is what I mean about distracting. Look at the vomiting librarian above. It looks like a video game screen capture which just screams lame CGI to me.
This was the original Ghostbusters CGI from the Library.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/05 08:19:32
It also looks like the cinematography is worse in the new one, reducing the depth in the shots so that the ghosts look "flatter". It could also be the color filter. I don't know. The effects are just less convincing, and perhaps too flashy. Ghostbusters was always about some guys going to do a job, where the job just happened to be catching ghosts. The new one looks more like a comic book movie, which loses a lot of that grounded quality.
Dreadwinter wrote: How are you supposed to have a movie about ghosts without CGI?
See above statement about practical effects. They're usually much better. (Compare Fury Road with pretty much every other action movie that year.)
You realize that there was tons of CGI in Fury Road, right?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
I aren't think that. 
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
