Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4892129
My little review of Life:

I think it's a solid 7,7!
The aliens design is very good, and the special effect of both the alien, the zero g (gore) and set extensions are very, very well done. The creature is basically a boneless teeth-less muscle possessing great strength and can fit into the tiniest holes. Yes. Those holes.

I like how the creature is not just a mindless killing machine and how it actually just wants one thing: to survive. It just so happens the humans almost accidentally kill it and it retaliates with increasing ferocity. It also does not go for the kill sometimes when it easily could. Instead it goes for the air or the way out, sometimes even crawling over the humans. Very well done. Of course the situations grow more intesne and it realises the humans are trying to kill and it ups the ante by returning the favor. It feels very intelligent.

The way people die is inventive, though it wish it was a little more show and less tell, though the floating blood and crushed limbs look very good.

The characters were a bit simple and not very indepth, but the order in which they die surprised me and the characters are likeable enough to care for them as they try to fix the problem: trying to contain the thing without it getting to earth.

I won't spoil the ending except that I like the outcome though I wished it was a bit tenser and refreshing as the rest of the movie.
This Post Contains Spoilers
A fun, tense little alien movie with a few little twits that keeps it fresh.

Gold was a fine 7 and Power Rangers we skipped on in favor of playing some Bomberman on the Switch. Next time!
By Commander_Jim
#4892133
Is it just me or has CGI been getting significantly worse lately? Everything looks like videogames. I just watched the trailer for Valerian and its like theyre not even trying to make anything look real, the whole thing looks as fake and greenscreened as the Star Wars Prequels. Justice League didnt look any better and Spider-Man homecoming at least had real environments but the actual effects looked as bad as the Raimi movies.
By pferreira1983
#4892139
Instead of having humans endlessly debate what are "real" looking CGI, Practical Effects, etc. etc., why not use dogs and cats to do it?
The problem you have is that dogs are colour blind so it couldn't work.
Is it just me or has CGI been getting significantly worse lately? Everything looks like videogames. I just watched the trailer for Valerian and its like theyre not even trying to make anything look real, the whole thing looks as fake and greenscreened as the Star Wars Prequels. Justice League didnt look any better and Spider-Man homecoming at least had real environments but the actual effects looked as bad as the Raimi movies.
It's always looked that way although there's more of it now. The terrible colour saturation and cameras they use also doesn't help.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4892144
Instead of having humans endlessly debate what are "real" looking CGI, Practical Effects, etc. etc., why not use dogs and cats to do it?
The problem you have is that dogs are colour blind so it couldn't work.
Good point, although it would still be interesting to know if the Luma channel on its own looks tangible.
By HunterCC
#4892562
Is it just me or has CGI been getting significantly worse lately? Everything looks like videogames. I just watched the trailer for Valerian and its like theyre not even trying to make anything look real, the whole thing looks as fake and greenscreened as the Star Wars Prequels. Justice League didnt look any better and Spider-Man homecoming at least had real environments but the actual effects looked as bad as the Raimi movies.
I thought the Spiderman Homecoming trailer was fine. Looked like an Avengers movie, as it should.

We are talking about this trailer, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch4WmDWbG6g

:) LOL.

The Thor: Ragnarok trailer looked good too.
By pferreira1983
#4892662
Is it just me or has CGI been getting significantly worse lately?
Y'know I've been giving this thread title more thought and it isn't just the CGI but the writing as well. I don't feel writers are capable of balancing serious and fun at the same time. Today's TV, films and video games are either overtly funny or deadly serious and this isn't good. People point to one of the main issues of Answer The Call being that it suffers due to everybody in the movie being the comic relief but it's not just isolated to this movie, it's modern visual media that suffers from this.

At least in genre there are too many extremes of writing. Comedic characters are always presented as standup comediennes, very self aware and therefore always unfunny. Serious characters have little humour, reciting their lines off a script like they're bored and any humour comes from awful sarcastic quips. Everybody in The Big Bang Theory acts like a standup comedian delivering zingers every minute that you fail to truly believe in those characters while in a comedy like The Fresh Prince of Bel Air characters in a comedy have serious moments, they're more well rounded.

Have been rewatching Star Trek TNG and still amazed how well rounded those characters are. They are capable of various emotion and you don't feel cheated. Everyone seems to be taking it seriously but not too seriously. Compare Lois and Clark to Smallville, again the former has well written likable characters, the latter goes between extremes of it's characters.

The exception is crime drama because that has always been serious but look at any other genre and there is an imbalance in writing properly developed characters. In fact compare Law and Order to CSI and tell me the difference. One is effortlessly successful and one being too self-aware isn't.

Still don't believe me? Compare the original 80s TMNT cartoon to the 2003 version. The original manages different things even if it's self-aware and a bit goofy it never feels forced, the 2003 is deadly serious and the humour incredibly tacked on (mostly by Mikey). Video games? Of the top of my head God of War is humourless.

I'm totally aware it's today's style of writing but that doesn't make it's characters more believable.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4892744
Everybody in The Big Bang Theory acts like a standup comedian delivering zingers every minute that you fail to truly believe in those characters while in a comedy like The Fresh Prince of Bel Air characters in a comedy have serious moments, they're more well rounded.
I get what you're saying. There was a lot of sentimentality in TV and movies in the past, and somehow in the 2000s that became "cheesy" and something to avoid and/or poke fun at.
By pferreira1983
#4892887
I get what you're saying. There was a lot of sentimentality in TV and movies in the past, and somehow in the 2000s that became "cheesy" and something to avoid and/or poke fun at.
But that's the thing, you need that balance. Two extremes aren't the right way to go unless you're making a caricature on purpose.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4892891
I get what you're saying. There was a lot of sentimentality in TV and movies in the past, and somehow in the 2000s that became "cheesy" and something to avoid and/or poke fun at.
But that's the thing, you need that balance. Two extremes aren't the right way to go unless you're making a caricature on purpose.
I personally agree. And to be fair, ATC does have the sentimental moment with Erin and Abby at the end, and when the girls are looking at the NY skyline. And I'll count Holtzmann's little speech at the restaurant as well. And Erin talking about the mean old lady ghost haunting her and having to deal with the ridicule from that, that was played straight.
By pferreira1983
#4892903
I personally agree. And to be fair, ATC does have the sentimental moment with Erin and Abby at the end, and when the girls are looking at the NY skyline. And I'll count Holtzmann's little speech at the restaurant as well. And Erin talking about the mean old lady ghost haunting her and having to deal with the ridicule from that, that was played straight.
The problem there was that the characters weren't balanced enough to make those moments that the audience could appreciate. Like the examples I gave the direction, editing and music doesn't help. New Who suffers from this as well.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4892904
The problem there was that the characters weren't balanced enough to make those moments that the audience could appreciate.
Sometimes the balance isn't perfect. Like Spies Like Us or Three Amigos, they get all serious at the 11th hour after being all slapstick and silly. Maybe it doesn't make sense with the way the characters have been up to that point, but they're still fun movies and still moments that can be appreciated.
By Peter33vr
#4892922
The problem there was that the characters weren't balanced enough to make those moments that the audience could appreciate.
Sometimes the balance isn't perfect. Like Spies Like Us or Three Amigos, they get all serious at the 11th hour after being all slapstick and silly. Maybe it doesn't make sense with the way the characters have been up to that point, but they're still fun movies and still moments that can be appreciated.

Still waiting for The Three Amigos 2: Return of the Pelvic Thrust
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4893031
I guess this fits with the topic, apparently Kevin Hart is going to be remaking The Great Outdoors (1988):

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/kevin ... 202401288/

So far, I'm seeing the usual knee jerk comments:

A. Do something original! (What an original comment! :cool: )

B. You'll ruin the original! (Yup, hide your DVDs!)

C. Why does it have to be called The Great Outdoors?! Can't it just be called "Generic Camping with the In-Laws Movie"?! (Well yes, but that wouldn't have any built in branding.)

D. Kevin Hart is racist! (Eh, really, people? You want to go there again?)

And E., of course the people defending the idea are using the lame "The original wasn't that great anyway" line. :roll: (Same as when people defended ATC by saying GBII, or even GB84, wasn't that great)

We are nothing if not predictable. :mrgreen:

So far I haven't seen any complaints about quota casting, but the day is young.

For myself, I'm just glad The Great Outdoors (1988) might get some new attention from this, it's a fun movie!
User avatar
By timeware
#4893033
One of my favorite John Candy movies. As long as they don't get political with it I could care less about who they cast. As long as they have the bear in the movie, and keep the bat chasing scene fans shouldn't have a reason to get pissed.
By Commander_Jim
#4893035
At least in genre there are too many extremes of writing. Comedic characters are always presented as standup comediennes, very self aware and therefore always unfunny. Serious characters have little humour, reciting their lines off a script like they're bored and any humour comes from awful sarcastic quips. Everybody in The Big Bang Theory acts like a standup comedian delivering zingers every minute that you fail to truly believe in those characters while in a comedy like The Fresh Prince of Bel Air characters in a comedy have serious moments, they're more well rounded.
Very good post, I absolutely agree. This is one reason why I prefer older movies (especially comedies) so much more. To me a character is so much more funny if I believe that they're a real person I can relate to and like, not just an actor trying to be funny. Its why I can watch movies like Ghostbusters, The Blues Brothers, The Burbs, the Great Outdoors, Christmas Vacation, Plaint, Trains and Automobiles etc. over and over again but modern comedies, even decent ones, once is enough.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4893057
As long as they don't get political with it I could care less about who they cast.
For your sake I hope nobody thinks to remake any of the great political movies of the last century, like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. :P
He never made some autocritic about his movie, even Raimi did it with Spider Man 3
He regrets responding to the trolls, but he clearly doesn't feel any regret for the film he made.
User avatar
By timeware
#4893058
Mr.Smith was meant to be a political movie. It's been years since i've seen great out doors but I don' t remember any big political agenda with it. If all we get is a subtle global warming thing we should consider ourselves lucky.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4893060
It's been years since i've seen great out doors but I don' t remember any big political agenda with it.
It was making a comment on yuppies. I could see a remake attempting an updated version of that, if they decide to go that way.
User avatar
By timeware
#4893065
Like I said I believe it's a natural process. I also agree we can do better as a species but the rest of the world pollutes as well, not just us yanks.

You know how hollywood is. I'm sure there going to try and push some kind of agenda through. :sigh:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4893069
Like I said I believe it's a natural process.
Why would NASA said it's also due to man made sources if it wasn't true?
but the rest of the world pollutes as well, not just us yanks.
Does anyone argue otherwise? We all know China is a disaster in that area for instance. Everyone saw Rio's pollution problem during the Olympics.
You know how hollywood is. I'm sure there going to try and push some kind of agenda through. :sigh:
Stories do have to be about something if they're going to be worth experiencing. Even the dumbest action movies or comedies have a moral center of some kind. Great Outdoors is also about different types of people coming together. Is that too SJW? ;) This board has a tendency to use the word "political" a bit too loosely. As long as a movie isn't pushing Scientology, it's fine with me, lol.
By pferreira1983
#4893076
Sometimes the balance isn't perfect. Like Spies Like Us or Three Amigos, they get all serious at the 11th hour after being all slapstick and silly.
Three Amigos isn't supposed to be totally silly. It's a real situation they find themselves in. As the situation becomes more serious the characters become less slapstick and more real. If we can't find the situation dangerous then we don't believe in the characters. Any good comedy knows when to become serious, it should typically happen leading up to the last act.
I guess this fits with the topic, apparently Kevin Hart is going to be remaking The Great Outdoors (1988):
The remake no one asked for. I mean...why? Why? I mean was there a really big need for a remake for this film? Are the adventures of Aykroyd and Candy at a summer camp a massive money making franchise that has passed me by? I mean WTF?! :shock:
He never made some autocritic about his movie, even Raimi did it with Spider Man 3
I'd take Spider-Man 3 over Answer The Call, not sure the director needed to apologise for the third movie after the movies that came after.
For your sake I hope nobody thinks to remake any of the great political movies of the last century, like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. :P
Wow hang on Kingpin I thought it was already remade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._%26_M ... 2005_film) :mrgreen:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4893083
Any good comedy knows when to become serious, it should typically happen leading up to the last act.
Hey, you're back! :D

But there are comedies where the balance isn't that exact, yet they're still enjoyable movies.

And to be fair, there are different schools of thought on this. I remember the cast of Cheers complaining that they'd lose out on Emmys because another comedy went all dramatic (which award shows eat up like candy). They felt if you're winning for "Best Comedy," it should be for, well, your comedy. :) The Marx Brothers were also against putting too much pathos in their humor (as opposed to their friend Chaplin).
The remake no one asked for. I mean...why? Why?
I'm not complaining, because when was the last time anyone had an excuse to talk about the original?
Are the adventures of Aykroyd and Candy at a summer camp a massive money making franchise that has passed me by?
Do you mean you haven't seen it, or just don't get why it would be remade? I wasn't sure what you meant.
For your sake I hope nobody thinks to remake any of the great political movies of the last century, like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. :P
Wow hang on Kingpin I thought it was already remade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._%26_M ... 2005_film) :mrgreen:
No, no, THIS was the Mr. Smith remake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legally_B ... %26_Blonde
By pferreira1983
#4893091
Hey, you're back! :D
When did I leave?
I'm not complaining, because when was the last time anyone had an excuse to talk about the original?
Yeah but the original wasn't that great. Hollywood are so desperate for remakes they're remaking films that weren't even that good to begin with. It was an ok film but I don't see how they could improve with a remake.
Do you mean you haven't seen it, or just don't get why it would be remade? I wasn't sure what you meant.
I've seen it a couple of times but not sure what's so special about it that it needed a remake almost as though Hollywood thinks it's a big franchise or something.
No, no, THIS was the Mr. Smith remake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legally_B ... %26_Blonde
If you combined this movie with the Jolie/Pitt movie I wonder what would happen? :mrgreen:
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4893104
Yeah but the original wasn't that great.
Assuming that's true for the sake of argument, then why do you care if it gets remade? Isn't that what people always say, remake the bad ones, not the good ones?
I've seen it a couple of times but not sure what's so special about it that it needed a remake almost as though Hollywood thinks it's a big franchise or something.
No it's not a franchise, but it is a fondly remembered comedy.
If you combined this movie with the Jolie/Pitt movie I wonder what would happen? :mrgreen:
Pancakes?
User avatar
By timeware
#4893107
Like I said I believe it's a natural process.
Why would NASA said it's also due to man made sources if it wasn't true?

I like NASA, i support the space program. Do I believe everything scientists tell me? to an extent. They still cant decide whether or not Pluto's a planet or a block of ice. It's also fact that global warming data can be manipulated if you remember climate gate.

When people use the argument that 99% of climate change scientists agree on something I ask people to look at how scientists were manipulating, and glossing over information they didn't want to include in their findings.

Do I believe in global warming? Yes. Do I believe it's man made? No.
User avatar
By timeware
#4893110
I'll look into it. Speaking of cows, the left like to use an argument that a cows fart is destroying the atmosphere and therefore semi trucks must be taken off the road and everyone needs to become a vegetarian. I would like to ask in return how much methane did a t-rex or Megalodon produce when they had to squeeze one off?
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 16

Are they driving to get here? https://www.inst[…]

Please help! Does anyone know whether Anovos are s[…]

Hello from Washington State!

Thanks Fritz! Are the any other Washingtonians on[…]

Looks to me like the same part. If you're not a […]