Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4867632
Just chiming in to say that I now feel a bit silly about looking at the color properties of the effects in the reboot, since I've noticed that they change considerably between every trailer, TV spot, vignette, etc. It's possible that the Luma write-up is credible, but I haven't gone back and checked it.

Even though the information about the reboot can be discarded (Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II are still good,) hopefully it can still be used by someone to help them learn to read a Vectorscope/YC Waveform.

At least my cinematography essay is still good: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3IQ8g ... sp=sharing
GoldfishGroup liked this
#4869778
Sav, I've actually been taking a lot of screen grabs of the "before" and "after" shots that we've seen from all the different trailers, TV spots and vignettes, fancy combining that intended topic I was gonna post with your own write up?
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4873409
Here's an article I stumbled upon about my favorite ghost Slimer, and how his animatronic was created for the reboot: http://www.character-shop.com/tcsgbslimers.html
Image
They used a technique that I had never seen before, by using a physical prop on set, and then applying CGI on top of it. This varies from the first film, where Slimer was in a fixed position, shot against black (therefore not exposing that part of the film,) with the camera moving around him, so that once composited it looked like he was moving around. In the second film he was still shot on black, but the camera was static, and Slimer moved around on a stage.

Which brings me to a point I wanted to talk about. As someone who is slightly biased towards the look of Practical Effects, I have to say that the argument of having a physical object to interact with on set as opposed to a tennis ball has been misinterpreted and is currently somewhat silly. In the original two films, they had nothing to interact with, not even a tennis ball. The ghosts were optically composited into the shots after the fact, as with any shot from any movie that is a composite. That argument is only good when it comes to replacing in camera effects with CGI, not Optical Composites.

Now that is not a dis to the reboot. I have a huge amount of respect for them listening to people's complaints about CGI, and taking the public's advice on how to make effects better (even if some of the public is misguided.) It probably made the actor's performances better. I'm just saying that the argument is not meant to support Optical Composites (even though it has been spun that way,) it's meant to support in camera effects. As far as performances go, this new technique probably gets better performances than those by actors performing with Optical Composites, although it would vary by the actor.
By HunterCC
#4873785
Very cool "Slimer" article. But holy crap Sony! Reading the bottom of the page:

"Pleased with our work, we were anxious to see the finished product. Going in, we knew that we would be serving mainly as movement reference, and sure enough, the animators faithfully duplicated a lot of the movements we created on set. Unfortunately, worse news was yet to come: at the end of the film, the great work by TCS and crew was completely left out of the end credits. For a $144 million film, it's disappointing to deliver something of value above and beyond what the Director and Production have requested, to have great looking Practical FX smeared over by inferior CG work, and to then be not given the credit deserved."
User avatar
By Sav C
#4873801
HunterCC wrote:Very cool "Slimer" article. But holy crap Sony! Reading the bottom of the page:

"Pleased with our work, we were anxious to see the finished product. Going in, we knew that we would be serving mainly as movement reference, and sure enough, the animators faithfully duplicated a lot of the movements we created on set. Unfortunately, worse news was yet to come: at the end of the film, the great work by TCS and crew was completely left out of the end credits. For a $144 million film, it's disappointing to deliver something of value above and beyond what the Director and Production have requested, to have great looking Practical FX smeared over by inferior CG work, and to then be not given the credit deserved."
That shocked me when I read it. How can Sony be so unprofessional?

In my opinion Slimer looked better in the originals than he has in the reboot trailers (my theater didn't get the film so that's all I've seen so far,) and the puppet they built looks on par with the original Slimer puppets, so it's a shame that they smeared it over with inferior CG (no better way to put it.)

I see you only have a few posts, welcome to the site!
User avatar
By Sav C
#4886542
Here's a hypothetical, would a major film studio allow a movie to be made nowadays using the same SFX/VFX techniques as Ghostbusters (and GBII) if it had roughly the same amount of special effects as they did? Or would it be too much of a risk?

Both films had roughly 200 VFX shots.
#4886575
Sav C wrote:Here's a hypothetical, would a major film studio allow a movie to be made nowadays using the same SFX/VFX techniques as Ghostbusters (and GBII) if it had roughly the same amount of special effects as they did? Or would it be too much of a risk?

Both films had roughly 200 VFX shots.
It's a difficult question to answer. They could but the studio would try to persuade them not to because film studios seem to think CGI looks more realistic than practical effects as my previous example of The Thing showed. Like Star Wars the fans would definitely get behind a mix but remember unlike Star Wars Sony didn't listen to fan input so it could go either way to be honest.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4886582
pferreira1983 wrote:
Sav C wrote:Here's a hypothetical, would a major film studio allow a movie to be made nowadays using the same SFX/VFX techniques as Ghostbusters (and GBII) if it had roughly the same amount of special effects as they did? Or would it be too much of a risk?

Both films had roughly 200 VFX shots.
It's a difficult question to answer. They could but the studio would try to persuade them not to because film studios seem to think CGI looks more realistic than practical effects as my previous example of The Thing showed. Like Star Wars the fans would definitely get behind a mix but remember unlike Star Wars Sony didn't listen to fan input so it could go either way to be honest.
Good point. I think the clout of the director must play a big factor too; Steven Spielberg or Ron Howard probably get to make their films exactly the way they want to without much studio interference.
#4886605
Sav C wrote:Good point. I think the clout of the director must play a big factor too; Steven Spielberg or Ron Howard probably get to make their films exactly the way they want to without much studio interference.
Yeah that plays a part. Depends of course on Box Office performance. The more hits the director has had recently the more the studio leaves the director alone.
Sav C liked this

Or if you bought the access pack you get them inst[…]

Now that we at SAGB have actually got through our […]

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal el[…]

I have not heard of this. On the Matty PKE, if the[…]