[pferreira1983]

I've started debating this in my head. A lot of people have been annoyed that their wasn't a Ghostbusters movie released like the original, in terms of visual effects, tone, style of comedy etc. My question to you guys is does today's generation want that? The world of today, the movies made are very different to those from the 1980s. Certainly CGI is used almost all the time now in movies. The reboot while wasn't totally CG in it's approach to effects was almost there. Are people like me just stuck in the past? Comedies are different, humour is different today. To me it's trash but that's just me and my opinion like The Force Awakens is in the minority. Do you think maybe no one wants the humour of the original in movies generally today? Really is there any place for a 1984 style Ghostbusters movie made the same type of way with the same humour? But I don't mean just Ghostbusters, I mean movies generally.

Should we be embracing what I consider rubbish but what casual audiences lap up leading to Box Office results? Perhaps it's a case of if studios feed audience rubbish things they begin to appreciate rubbish since this is what they've been exposed to growing up yet I don't know if that theory totally works. I've read from people who think the reboot is far superior to the original film, perhaps today's generation, the 'millennials' find the movies we loved as a kid old hat.

On a side note not directly related to this topic something interesting happened yesterday. I was watching a review of Batman & Robin and I looked down the comments section. Someone claimed this film was one of the worst movies of all time. While I'm not a fan I have seen tons of movies far worse than that one and said he should see more movies. He wasn't impressed and said at 40 years old he has accumulated 3000 movies, he knows what he's talking about and said the worst movie of all time was Answer The Call. I actually found myself defending the reboot movie, saying that while it's terrible it's still watchable so no I don't agree with him on that either. He continues to argue with me that it is the worst but as someone who gives movies a fair shot I still find it ironic I was the one defending the reboot considering what I think of it.

[Kingpin]

I believe there'll be some people who would like movies to be more like comedies were in the 1980s, but they aren't the biggest dollar at the cinema anymore. Unfortunately the majority of teen and twenty-somethings of the post-millennium era are the ones who've sent out the message that the current crop of comedy is what's popular, and unfortunately it's what we'll have to live with... and because of that, we'll be less likely to go out and view it under our own steam.

If it means anything though, when they're our age, comedy may not seem as funny anymore to them, sp we can at least recline safely in the knowledge that they'll be as left adrift as we are.

As for CG versus practical: there'll be directors who'll favour a mix, but with each generation they'll become fewer and fewer, especially as the number of practical effects houses close, or shift direction. CG, for good and bad, is here to stay.

I wouldn't so much say "embrace the rubbish", but "look for the diamonds amongst the shards of glass". Some films today are garbage, but some are good, and a preference for CG over practical effects for instance shouldn't be something used to discredit a film you might otherwise enjoy.

[JurorNo.2]

Part of it is just your age, seriously. The comedies you enjoyed as a kid, the generations before you wouldn't have appreciated at all.

But it's not all about that. Western mainstream pop culture used to be geared more toward adults, and occasionally families. There were only three channels and families watched programs together. You could be a kid and watch movies that had the occasional edgy moment or grown up cultural references. For the longest time, Disney was pretty much the only studio designed to cater to children at the movies. But now programming is separated out by age a lot more. Plus the MPAA (boo!) and parents groups (booo!) created PG-13 (boooooo!). Not for morality, but to get kids to buy more toy tie ins. Adults can't afford to go to the movies like they used to; they save money so their kids can go to the movies, so now a ton of movies are geared solely at 6 to 12 year olds. Anyone tells you the ratings system is about standards, you have my permission to laugh right in their gullible face.

But Hollywood has been through these conservative periods before (with the Hays Code, for example), perhaps eventually the pendulum will swing back again at some point.

Anyway, I don't think young people are no longer able to appreciate the old school styles. I went to a screening of Wrath of Khan a couple months ago, and there's that scene where Kirk and Carol are talking about their son. A quiet, extended scene, entirely about the dialogue. Let's be honest, very rare in blockbusters today. And the entire audience (it was outdoors) was suddenly dead silent, and you could tell they were totally into the story. Of course, with Hollywood sucking up to China, scenes that emphasize dialogue have gone by the wayside. I'm actually very grateful ATC wasn't tainted by China, even if that did mean less money. There is nothing at all positive about that trend, and it ruins my enjoyment of comic book movies (looking at you, Dr. Strange, a movie truly worth boycotting) and blockbusters in general.

Also, perhaps seek out more indie movies that aren't as concerned with CGI, toy tie ins, or pandering to an oppressive government.

[SSJmole]

The china thing makes sense though. It's a new untapped market. Movies are not made just for USA. So it gets them money, some movies are funded just by international sales. Like the Warcraft movie is bad but they did try I think. In China that film made lots of money so it could get sequel just based on those sales. As no offence to anyone but USA does not always choose right as I said in other thread in USA sales on BTTF vs transformers is shocking.

That said some pandering is bad. Big example is Mandarin in iron man 3. They ruined his best enemy!!

[JurorNo.2]

The china thing makes sense though. It's a new untapped market. Movies are not made just for USA.

I'm not speaking out of xenophobia, heh. On the contrary, I'm against Dr. Strange precisely because I support Tibet. And Disney/Marvel essentially sold out Tibet and the Dalai Lama just to appease the Chinese government. Just to make box office money.

So yeah, anytime an ATC hater wants to sings the praises of the almighty box office, maybe try thinking about where that money comes from. For my part, I'm never paying for a Hollywood blockbuster again unless it's NOT distributed in China.

It's also a problem from an artistic standpoint. Blockbusters have been simplifying their dialogue to cater to overseas audiences. That's why CGI spectacle has taken over so much.

And the reason China didn't screen ATC (or Suicide Squad) was because the government wants to control what its people sees and believes. The Chinese government is bad news. Hollywood would have you believe they cater to them for the sake of diversity. But it's all about money.

[SSJmole]

Oh I agree its about money but that is what rest of post says about the money helps. Every movie is made to make money. I was not trying to call you racist but explain that global business want mass appeal. Like I live in uk and we tend to like different stuff to USA our charts can be very different. Again not calling you racist I was ironically talking about it been done for money

[JurorNo.2]

Oh I agree its about money but that is what rest of post says about the money helps. Every movie is made to make money. I was not trying to call you racist but explain that global business want mass appeal. Like I live in uk and we tend to like different stuff to USA our charts can be very different. Again not calling you racist I was ironically talking about it been done for money

It's OK, I understand. I love that other countries have different tastes; it's too easy for us to forget that, isolated as we are. Heck, we barely realize different parts of our own country have different tastes.

[SSJmole]

Oh I agree its about money but that is what rest of post says about the money helps. Every movie is made to make money. I was not trying to call you racist but explain that global business want mass appeal. Like I live in uk and we tend to like different stuff to USA our charts can be very different. Again not calling you racist I was ironically talking about it been done for money

It's OK, I understand. I love that other countries have different tastes; it's too easy for us to forget that, isolated as we are. Heck, we barely realize different parts of our own country have different tastes.

Oh **** your country. But yes don't be racist.


(I was been ironic don't anyone take that serious)

[Sav C]

I think there will always be room for fun, well-made movies like Ghostbusters and GBII. They're timeless.

[pferreira1983]

I wouldn't so much say "embrace the rubbish", but "look for the diamonds amongst the shards of glass". Some films today are garbage, but some are good, and a preference for CG over practical effects for instance shouldn't be something used to discredit a film you might otherwise enjoy.

Great points Kingpin. Strong Box Office results from movies like the Transformers series seem to give Hollywood the confidence to keep making that type of film. Studios also seem to lack confidence in trying something new, perhaps going back is too risky? For all the discussion on how drab family movies (Marvel, Star Wars, Jurassic World, Transformers, etc) look today with saturated colours I don't think Hollywood studios are in any rush to change things around. My only hope is that people will eventually get bored of modern movie making and take some of the skills of the past forward.

Anyway, I don't think young people are no longer able to appreciate the old school styles. I went to a screening of Wrath of Khan a couple months ago, and there's that scene where Kirk and Carol are talking about their son. A quiet, extended scene, entirely about the dialogue. Let's be honest, very rare in blockbusters today. And the entire audience (it was outdoors) was suddenly dead silent, and you could tell they were totally into the story.

Totally. I would say for better or worse fast cutting in modern movies really started with Dark City in 1998. Since then pacing is way to fast. My dad and me went to see Man of Steel when it was released and he didn't understand a thing going on because of the speed of the movie. I had trouble as well. Same goes for Mad Max Fury Road. Also when films do go for quite character scenes the editing goes the complete opposite way and it drags to a snails pace of ten second takes. Has Hollywood forgot how to balance editing of a movie?

That said some pandering is bad. Big example is Mandarin in iron man 3. They ruined his best enemy!!

From what I understand Marvel execs were worried that casual audiences would have trouble with the fantastical elements of the character, another issue of today being audiences wanting everything so grounded all the time that all the fun of what you're watching disappears. Marvel traded off this by making the Mandarin not the real Mandarin but an actor that way it would be 'credible' to casual movie going audiences. Yeah I know it still sucks but that was their reasoning I'm guessing.

I think there will always be room for fun, well-made movies like Ghostbusters and GBII. They're timeless.

Maybe in time but not today.

[Sav C]

Anyway, I don't think young people are no longer able to appreciate the old school styles. I went to a screening of Wrath of Khan a couple months ago, and there's that scene where Kirk and Carol are talking about their son. A quiet, extended scene, entirely about the dialogue. Let's be honest, very rare in blockbusters today. And the entire audience (it was outdoors) was suddenly dead silent, and you could tell they were totally into the story.

Totally. I would say for better or worse fast cutting in modern movies really started with Dark City in 1998. Since then pacing is way to fast. My dad and me went to see Man of Steel when it was released and he didn't understand a thing going on because of the speed of the movie. I had trouble as well. Same goes for Mad Max Fury Road. Also when films do go for quite character scenes the editing goes the complete opposite way and it drags to a snails pace of ten second takes. Has Hollywood forgot how to balance editing of a movie?

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this! Lots of editors really seem to have forgotten the art of pacing. There definitely is a skill to it. Take for instance Rocky, which does get off to a bit of a slow start, but by the montage the pacing has picked up and the movie feels exhilarating (or if you want a more modern example, the same goes for The Walk). The interesting thing though is that the cutting really isn't that fast, or at least it isn't so fast you can't understand what's going on. Like they say, a little goes a long way. Pacing doesn't have to vary so much in speed for the movie to be immersing.

I think there will always be room for fun, well-made movies like Ghostbusters and GBII. They're timeless.

Maybe in time but not today.

Yeah, but I think if they were made now they would still be easily accepted.

[pferreira1983]

Like they say, a little goes a long way. Pacing doesn't have to vary so much in speed for the movie to be immersing.

I feel that editors and directors have forgot about pacing in movies.

Yeah, but I think if they were made now they would still be easily accepted.

I don't know. They might be criticised for being too slow paced to modern eyes.

[Sav C]

Like they say, a little goes a long way. Pacing doesn't have to vary so much in speed for the movie to be immersing.

I feel that editors and directors have forgot about pacing in movies.

Some certainly seem to have... Just curious, have you ever heard of the website called Cinemetrics? It's a place where people keep a log on the length of shots in movies, and then use that information to generate statistics such as "Average Shot Length". They have over 15,000 movies and TV shows in their database. It's pretty cool, although I'm not sure how accurate the info is (I seriously doubt the accuracy is down to the frame).

Here's Ghostbusters in their database: http://www.cinemetrics.lv/movie.php?movie_ID=5695 According to them the longest shot lasts 61 seconds! It also says the shortest shot is 0.1 seconds! Let's think about that for a moment. While I'm not sure which shot is the longest in the movie, I'll assume it is either the Steadicam shot outside of the library, or Louis's party scene. In both the camera is moving throughout the shot, the image is "alive", therefore there is no nagging urge to cut. When Ray and Peter are on the university steps, even though there is much going on, they're passing the bottle back and forth which keeps the shot engaging. If you were to sit and stare at something for a whole minute (besides your TV or phone) you'd probably get very bored and want to look at something else, but if you were walking you don't have the problem of getting bored as there is always new stimulus.

While I'm also unsure of the quickest shot, I know one of the quicker shots is when the Ghostbusters are on the rooftop temple and fire the proton streams at Gozer. The streams come towards the camera, but the shot only lasts for a split second. Even though it is so quick it doesn't really register, they can get away with it as we know exactly what is going on: the busters are firing the proton streams. The shot isn't bringing anything new to the table, it is simply there to enforce what we already know, therefore it can afford to be quick.

Jumping ahead to the shot in Ghostbusters II where the Statue of Liberty's foot steps on the cop car... The shot is quick, but is just long enough to get the message across without feeling rushed. The shot starts one frame before the Statue's foot enters the frame, which gives us enough time to process what is happening. First we get to process that we are looking at a cop car, second we get to process the Statue taking a step. If the shot were to start as the foot was coming down on the car it would feel rushed, but as it is we have time to realize exactly what is happening and it feels natural.

What I'm trying to say is that there are many factors that decide whether pacing is too fast or too slow, including how much new information is being introduced with the shot, and how much is happening visually.

Somehow all of this "editing knowledge" eludes me when I actually go and try to splice something together.

Here's an article you may be interested in about this subject, about films made last year where the shots average less than two seconds: http://nofilmschool.com/2016/01/furious ... conds-shot

[Kingpin]

I feel that editors and directors have forgot about pacing in movies.

It may not be that they've forgotten how to do pacing, but that a lot of cinemagoers may not have the patience or attention span for pacing like we used to have.

[SSJmole]

I feel that editors and directors have forgot about pacing in movies.

It may not be that they've forgotten how to do pacing, but that a lot of cinemagoers may not have the patience or attention span for pacing like we used to have.

This. Movies get split in half , cut ect... To make it shorter.

Also more dialogue is short and "sound bite" like and best lines put in trailer so they can "trend" ect...

That's it. People now days don't want to see a movie , they want to talk about it. That's it todays movies suffer as they need to be quick and easy to tweet. As if one goes "the movie is too long" everyone will start screaming it and film suffers.

Like look around here about ghostbusters. (no not arguing why) people quote it and mention jokes who haven't seen it. Back in the day that was only kept for pop culture icons and hard hitters now everyfilm is given that

[Sav C]

I feel that editors and directors have forgot about pacing in movies.

It may not be that they've forgotten how to do pacing, but that a lot of cinemagoers may not have the patience or attention span for pacing like we used to have.

True, although I personally feel pacing oftentimes feels unnatural. Like I was somewhat saying above, there's a visual rhythm created with a movie's shots, and that's how you should know when to cut. If a shot introduces something new, that thing should be given time to be processed before introducing something else, otherwise it can be confusing. Also a cut should be made if a shot is lingering on something for so long you get bored.

Maybe that's all just instinctual, and maybe what feels natural to some editors feels unnatural to me.

I don't play video games much myself, but I think people who do also are quicker at processing visual information, so maybe that could contribute to movies being paced faster.

[pferreira1983]

Here's an article you may be interested in about this subject, about films made last year where the shots average less than two seconds: http://nofilmschool.com/2016/01/furious ... conds-shot

Thanks for that link. I really couldn't understand a lot of what was going on in Fury Road. I remember when The Sum of All Fears came out on DVD a review article criticised the film for having dated editing and pacing, that it wasn't fast enough compared to the The Bourne Identity and other films of that time. Ironic as TSOAF probably got the editing just right.

It may not be that they've forgotten how to do pacing, but that a lot of cinemagoers may not have the patience or attention span for pacing like we used to have.

Do you think so? Maybe with some editors. I think newer editors have been brought up on quick editing as you say due to short attention spans. What a shame.

[Sav C]

Here's an article you may be interested in about this subject, about films made last year where the shots average less than two seconds: http://nofilmschool.com/2016/01/furious ... conds-shot

Thanks for that link. I really couldn't understand a lot of what was going on in Fury Road. I remember when The Sum of All Fears came out on DVD a review article criticised the film for having dated editing and pacing, that it wasn't fast enough compared to the The Bourne Identity and other films of that time. Ironic as TSOAF probably got the editing just right.

Happy New Year pferreira! To be honest I haven't actually seen any of the films on the list, or those that you just mentioned, but I thought that the link was interesting nonetheless.

[pferreira1983]

Happy New Year pferreira! To be honest I haven't actually seen any of the films on the list, or those that you just mentioned, but I thought that the link was interesting nonetheless.

If you compare the editing between The Sum of All Fears to The Bourne Identity they're both every different. The editing in the latter is very fast paced along the lines of today's movies. The editing in the former movie feels like a 90s movie style of editing, i.e. you can follow what's going on.