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.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a filthy uncultured millenial, this looks like my type of movie.
As a joyless, jaded millennial I think this movie (Judging by the trailer) is just another bland and forgettable comedy film. Play it safe to get those seats filled with those who grew up with the original but change enough so it doesn't blatantly look like a cynical cash grab.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
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?
And they were added onto practical effects/shots whenever possible which is why it looked so great. As I said before, CGI is not some magic panacea that filmmakers should instantly use for every shot that needs something extra. In Fury Road, they could have just filmed actors on a green screen with just a Wii steering wheel in their hands "acting" out the chase scene and added in all the cars and desert with CGI.. but then it would have looked like crap ala the Egyptian gods movie out now instead of the visual spectacle it was. It's just lazy when they film an actor in front of a green screen because of interacting with one single isolated element and then add in the rest of the 90% of the scene/background with CGI. The "action figure" scenes in the trailer are an example of that. There was really no reason they couldn't film Melissa McCarthy on any actual street in front of the Ecto-1 prop car just punching the air and THEN add in the ghost... instead of her just punching the air on an empty green screen stage. YMMV.
It doesn't look like the dislike is just on dakka...
There is an almost 2:1 ratio of dislikes to likes for the trailer. While I'm sure some of those are from fans unhappy with the change to female characters (a view that I find stupid frankly), I doubt that it is just that. IGN commented on the video as well with a comparison that summed up my thoughts on the CGI (and the overall tone for me) quite well... it reminded them more of the live action Scooby Do movies from the past 10 years than the original Ghostbusters. If that trailer was for a super hero movie, the visuals would remind me most of the Green Lantern and compared with the original's Xmen.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/03/05 17:57:53
warboss wrote: And they were added onto practical effects/shots whenever possible which is why it looked so great.
There were practical stunts, layered with tons and tons of CGI.
As I said before, CGI is not some magic panacea that filmmakers should instantly use for every shot that needs something extra.
And yet, CGI was used in almost every single shot in Fury Road.
In Fury Road, they could have just filmed actors on a green screen with just a Wii steering wheel in their hands "acting" out the chase scene and added in all the cars and desert with CGI.. but then it would have looked like crap ala the Egyptian gods movie out now instead of the visual spectacle it was. It's just lazy when they film an actor in front of a green screen because of interacting with one single isolated element and then add in the rest of the 90% of the scene/background with CGI.
You realize that this was never an argument, right?
The "action figure" scenes in the trailer are an example of that. There was really no reason they couldn't film Melissa McCarthy on any actual street in front of the Ecto-1 prop car just punching the air and THEN add in the ghost... instead of her just punching the air on an empty green screen stage. YMMV.
What makes you say that the one shot of Melissa McCarthy punching something was filmed entirely on green screen?
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."
And yet, CGI was used in almost every single shot in Fury Road.
There were plenty but I think "almost every" is a bit of an overstatement although it is true of the chase action scenes that make up over half the movie. I don't consider color correction to get the particular tones used throughout the movie though to be "CGI" but rather when they create something out of nothing. I've seen videos of the before and after and think they did a great job of melding the two.
You realize that this was never an argument, right?
With you, yes, but I thought it needed saying generally. I even considered adding a disclaimer that you weren't arguing otherwise but I assumed incorrectly that it was evident.
What makes you say that the one shot of Melissa McCarthy punching something was filmed entirely on green screen?
Because it looks like a CGI shot with her just standing on a green screen as do the other "action pose" shots of the other ghostbusters. I really dislike pure unnecessarily pure CGI shots and pick up on them easily.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/05 18:26:05
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a filthy uncultured millenial, this looks like my type of movie.
As a joyless, jaded millennial I think this movie (Judging by the trailer) is just another bland and forgettable comedy film. Play it safe to get those seats filled with those who grew up with the original but change enough so it doesn't blatantly look like a cynical cash grab.
You must be one of those employed, fringe (30+ years old) millenials. :-D
Judging from the trailer, it's a parody of a classic and/or comedy. Much like the Brady Bunch and Dark Shadows films. Those tended to come off as being purely stupid.
You realize that there was tons of CGI in Fury Road, right?
No, there was *Tons* of CG in Jurassic World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Terminator: Genishit. Compared to Ultron in particular,it was almost CGI free.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
I'm not sure how a 120 minute long movie with over 2,000 VFX shots - an average of a CGI effect every 4 seconds - qualifies as "nearly CGI free", regardless of what you compare it to.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure how a 120 minute long movie with over 2,000 VFX shots - an average of a CGI effect every 4 seconds - qualifies as "nearly CGI free", regardless of what you compare it to.
It's not like it was nominated for an Academy Award for visual effects...
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure how a 120 minute long movie with over 2,000 VFX shots - an average of a CGI effect every 4 seconds - qualifies as "nearly CGI free", regardless of what you compare it to.
Because you're counting a lot things like color filters and image composites when you cite that 2k vfx shots, as well as practical vfx, rather than digital ones.
Example:
Now, don't get me wrong, there's CGI in it, the sandstorm sequence and a lot of backgrounds are matted in.
This shot everyone loves, for example, is cg but not a 3d modeled image:
This shot was made by compositing each vehicle, which was filmed separate, into the shot, like you would with photoshop. The only thing in it not actually real is the edges of the canyon.
Compare this to say, a shot in Jurassic World, where the only thing in the scene on screen that exists is the actor.
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.
Yeah, I think you may be right about making this friendly for younger audiences. The ghosts just don't appeal to me and I guess that's just me not being in the target demographic.
That being said, I'd love some Ecto Coolers again.
Rick Moranis wrote:
"It's hard to come up with original material," he says. "Occasionally, they get it right or else they wouldn't attempt to do these things. I'm surprised that Disney hasn't done Honey, I Shrunk the Grandkids. But I'm happy with the things I said yes to, and I'm very happy with the many things I've said no to.
Sounds like he thought it sucked too.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Rick Moranis wrote:
"It's hard to come up with original material," he says. "Occasionally, they get it right or else they wouldn't attempt to do these things. I'm surprised that Disney hasn't done Honey, I Shrunk the Grandkids. But I'm happy with the things I said yes to, and I'm very happy with the many things I've said no to.
Sounds like he thought it sucked too.
Sounds like he thought he wasn't a good enough actor to be part of a good movie.
Today I learned a movie is going to suck because an actor who has turned down every role offered to him for twenty years running also turned down this one, I guess?
Maybe it will suck, and maybe it won't, but Rick Moranis non-involvement doesn't mean anything either way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 01:44:20
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
The trailer for Ghostbusters confirmed my non-attendance, so it didn't really tell me anything didn't know.
You know a film is going to be really bad when even the trailer looks boring.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 03:06:11
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Ouze wrote: Today I learned a movie is going to suck because an actor who has turned down every role offered to him for twenty years running also turned down this one, I guess?
Maybe it will suck, and maybe it won't, but Rick Moranis non-involvement doesn't mean anything either way.
No, it's going to suck because it doesn't look funny at all, seems completely forced, and generally appears terrible. That's why it's going to suck. Just happens to also be a movie RM said "no" to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 03:15:07
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.
Having re-watched it several times, I'll stand by "cautiously optimistic". I mean, if I see a 15 or 20 on Rotten Tomatoes, I'm staying home, but for now I'm thinking it might be an OK movie with a sub-par trailer. I will definitely agree with the criticisms of Leslie Jones's character, though - I've seen very little of it obviously but what I have seen seems lazy and cliched.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 03:27:06
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Having re-watched it several times, I'll stand by "cautiously optimistic". I mean, if I see a 15 or 20 on Rotten Tomatoes, I'm staying home, but for now I'm thinking it might be an OK movie with a sub-par trailer. I will definitely agree with the criticisms of Leslie Jones's character, though - I've seen very little of it obviously but what I have seen seems lazy and cliched.
What in the trailer left you cautiously optimistic, out of curiosity?
Stereotypical black speech patterns.
Stereotypical black preferences "It's a Cadillac!"
Stereotypical un-educated but "street smart" black person.
Street-wise black caricatures have appeared in many movies. It is a trope, a cliche, the kind of character that lacks thought or depth in many of its examples. Is that what Jones’ character is in the latest Ghostbusters iteration?
I know this isn't going to be some girly slap fight about how computers are used but I'll charge ahead anyway. It is also important to remember this is just a trailer and may not reflect the final product, but based on the trailer:
As I said earlier I don't care for the music in the trailer. It seems to be trying way to hard to come across as cool and hip, but comes across as some executives idea of what is cool and hip instead.
The original was a balance of horror and comedy but this seems to have moved away from the horror and went all the way to comedy.
The comedy is less verbal, such as the first, and more physical slapstick. Slapstick can be funny, but it is also much harder to replicate, or it shouldn't be replicated at all. Saying "back off man, I'm a scientist" is much easier to redo than jumping on someone and slapping them really hard.
I'm not a fan of the dual wielded pistols or fists. It feels like a merchandising item designed to sell toys from the movie.
It seems more like they are going for a human bad guy then a supernatural entity (Gozer or Vigo*).
I like the people in it, but the trailer hasn't rubbed me the right way and that is all I ask from a trailer. No wait...
*He likes kittens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 05:31:54
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ouze wrote: Today I learned a movie is going to suck because an actor who has turned down every role offered to him for twenty years
Well, yeah, after his wife died he decided to focus on raising kids instead of acting, but they're grown up now, he's supposedly back in acting and rumor has it that there's a new Mel Brook's Sequel in the works... something about a Search for More Money...
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Ouze wrote: I think I need to see the whole movie before I could make the determinations that you are using.
A new form of cinema marketing is born.
The trailer is so ambiguous you buy a theatre ticket for closure.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
TheMeanDM wrote: Stereotypical black speech patterns. Stereotypical black preferences "It's a Cadillac!" Stereotypical un-educated but "street smart" black person.
Street-wise black caricatures have appeared in many movies. It is a trope, a cliche, the kind of character that lacks thought or depth in many of its examples. Is that what Jones’ character is in the latest Ghostbusters iteration?
That's intended. All four roles are stereotypical feminist roles with the streetsmart black, the nerdy "top of her field" scientist, the lesbian weirdo and the "funny" leader woman that keeps 'em together, mix and match all body types. It's pretty bland and shows clearly what the movie wants to be or rather what it's focus is going to be. Hint: not the script.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 11:35:10
3/4 of the leads are either active cast of SNL, or SNL alumni- that means it needs to compete with the likes of The Ladies Man, and Night at the Roxbury. I am confident that it will be awesome in this particular category.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The whole thing with the original was the chemistry between the characters and seeing the trailer i didn't see that. Well probably will check it out in the theaters to find out if it can stand on its own.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
