[timeware]

I'm not opposed to CGI when it works. I am really looking forward to seeing if they will be using puppetry for some of the ghosts. It would be a neat mix of puppetry and CGI if they do small ghosts like the ones from the whole in the wall gang. It would be freaking awesome if they hired the Jim Henson company to do some of the ghosts since their studio is actually haunted by Charlie Chaplin.

[Coover5]

I was watching an old action film and I couldn't figure out what made it look so different compared to modern films and then it finally dawned on me. Real danger. The flinching from the actors firing fully loaded blanks. The genuine shock when a squib goes off near them. And reactions being synchronized because what is happening around them isn't some effect to be added later. They rehearse those scenes over and over but the real risk involved really adds something. I would never want to see an actor in danger but the real effects you see in GB1 and GB2 really added to the reality of it. I really hope to see that again.

[Wiggyof9]

CGI needs to be used in tandem with practical effects. It can enhance a scene, but it shouldnt be the scene. Perfect example is star wars ep 1 through 3 and star wars ep 7 and 8. Eps 1 to 3 used CGI for everything. There wasnt even a real clone trooper costume on set at any point. Eps 7 and 9 used a mix of practical and cgi and looked much better (plus CGI had gotten better over time).

[Davideverona]

I'm not opposed to CGI when it works. I am really looking forward to seeing if they will be using puppetry for some of the ghosts. It would be a neat mix of puppetry and CGI if they do small ghosts like the ones from the whole in the wall gang. It would be freaking awesome if they hired the Jim Henson company to do some of the ghosts since their studio is actually haunted by Charlie Chaplin.

Venman at the piano: "they hate this.." (start playing the Limelights theme).

When I saw the teaser I could tell that the esterior environment was real. I was not so sure about the Ecto. Glad to see a confirmation that there was a real car under the tarp.

[timeware]

I play the Venkman keys every time I see a piano.

I thought it was CGI to. What a kick in the pants it would be if they keep our Ecto one under the tarp and still re use that god awful Ecto from ATC. (not a knock on ATC I just really hate the station wagon Ecto.)

[Wiggyof9]

We already know that this isn't in the same universe as ATC so there is no reason to believe they would use the ATC Ecto-1 or any of the equipment designs.

[back]

When people see the rear end of a 59 caddy it usually reminds them of Elvis' pink Cadillac or in Our culture, the Ectomobile. Those rocket tail lights cant be beat

[Kingpin]

Doing practical effects will be amazing. It will also allow for easier on the spot adjustments. Cant beat practical effects.

It depends on the practical effect. Some still stand the test of time really well (like the melting heads in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the ghosts and collapsing house in Poltergeist), but then you get things like Large Marge in Peewee's Big Adventure or Arnie's head during the "eye removal scene" in Terminator, or his head in the "two weeks" scene in Total Recall where they can be beat, and probably beat really well with CG. Another great example is King Kong, I respect the achievements made by the 1933 film, but it can't hold a candle to Peter Jackson's remake.

[Wiggyof9]

Thats why its best to use a mix of CGI and real stuff. But even then, a mix doesn't always look great. So basically, it doesn't really matter what to form the effects are in as long as they look good.

My hope is that they try to stick to the original style, but less... puppet looking. Basically how the video game handled most of the returning characters. Though I think some would still need to be practical. If for whatever reason they brought Stay Puft back (which I hope they don't, but if they did) I would want him as a suit, not a CGI character. He is too cartoony already that doing him in CGI would look fake.

[Alphagaia]

People will always 'complain', I guess. We are so trained to find errors in effects we also see things that aren't there. People thought the Ecto was cgi for instance.

[timeware]

If we learned anything from Mystery Science Theatre 3000 it's always look for the string!

[Davideverona]

People will always 'complain', I guess. We are so trained to find errors in effects we also see things that aren't there. People thought the Ecto was cgi for instance.

Me too, bur I love to be proved wrong it speaks volumes how much effort and passion Jason has put into these few seconds.

I was thinking: he shot it in mid December. When do you guys think he had a ready script? October? November? Was Aykroyd faking it in his November interview, knowing everything without the permission to say it?

[Alphagaia]

Don't think he was faking. A script goes through many fine-tuning drafts before it gets greenlight, so even if he was going of an old script, chances are the overall storyarc was the same.

[back]

How much did it cost to make the first GB film? 30 odd million?
Be Really interesting to see if it could be done, for the Same amount, again

And as for CGI... Imagine Stay Puft as a CGI in GB1... Yuck!

[dr.paul]

How much did it cost to make the first GB film? 30 odd million?
Be Really interesting to see if it could be done, for the Same amount, again

And as for CGI... Imagine Stay Puft as a CGI in GB1... Yuck!

Inflation says that’d be around $73 million in 2019, interesting experiment!!

[Wiggyof9]

People will always 'complain', I guess. We are so trained to find errors in effects we also see things that aren't there. People thought the Ecto was cgi for instance.

I dont understand why people thought Ecto-1 was CGI. Thinking the shot was done with some CGI trickery i can understand, but the ecto itself? For a teaser? Seems Sony maybeant to do this a wee bit cheaper than ATC, just in case, and would much rather have an intern go through the old props dept rather than do some CGI modeling.

On the subject of practical vs cgi. Back in 1989/1990 Jim Henson was making a movie for Muppet Vision 3d. In it, they tried having a cgi butterfly but they just couldnt get it to work. Jim took some material and put it on a string and made a more convincing butterfly than any of the effects crew. To me, thats the beauty of practical effects.

Jim Henson was also behind the suits used in TMNT and they still look better than the most recent movie did. I hope the newly announced TMNT uses suits with some cgi augmentation to tweak the mouth movements.

[Alphagaia]

How much did it cost to make the first GB film? 30 odd million?
Be Really interesting to see if it could be done, for the Same amount, again

And as for CGI... Imagine Stay Puft as a CGI in GB1... Yuck!

Lets be fair here, the rotoscoping and blackscreen weren't the best when he is stepping on the church, and when he gets hit by the beams, or the sudden lack of people on any of the wideshots.

[Wiggyof9]

Inflation says that’d be around $73 million in 2019, interesting experiment!!

I honestly think they will aim for a lower budget and hope it works out the way dead pool did for fox. After losing so much on ATC and not being able to show ghost movies in China, they likely wont be too loose with the money in this movie. This could be good as they could focus on the story more.

[Davideverona]

https://screenrant.com/j-k-simmons-fron ... interview/

Interesting bit from J. K. Simmons. Has he been casted in the next Ghostbusters?

[Coover5]

I would totally be up for that. He's an incredible actor. If he is in the film I hope it's a part that carries over to sequels.

[Coover5]

Question for everyone:

We all remember Chekov's Gun from English class (aka literature class). For those of you who may have forgotten, the principle is simple: Don't have a gun in the first act if it does not go off in the third act. It has two meaning: Don't have anything more than necessary and don't give false hope. That has inspired my question and since it is purely opinion no attacking each other over answers. If we were to get GB4-6 would you want Aykroyd, Hudson and Murray in the films if they were no longer Ghostbusters (but still Stantz, Zeddemore and Venkman)? Would having them as bystanders be the gun in the first act that doesn't go off in the third? Or do you feel their presence is essential whether they save the day or not? Could we really have the original Busters not saving the day if they were in the film? But if they are saving the day do you feel that makes new busters less important?


As much as I want the original guys to be around it's hard for me to accept that passing of the torch if the new guys are being saved by the old guys. Someone suggest the ghostbusters being gone permanently at the end of GB3 and that really seems to be a valid option the more I think about it. I can't see the busters sitting back and letting the world end unless the new guys can fix it.

[Kingpin]

Awesome, assuming that article pans out. I wonder if he'll be protagonist or antagonist, seeing as he can play both.

[Davideverona]

At Screen Rant, in particular, we can't wait to find out who you're going to play in Ghostbusters, but I think that's all we can say about that for now!

Seems to me they know he's already signed on but can't reveal it.

(Laughs) Listen, I'm the last guy in the world who will ever give a spoiler about anything, so... No comment!

And neither can he.



As for GB4-6, I'd like to have them around, but not battling in the field. Think Bruce Wayne in Batman Beyond.

Maybe in Gb3 there will be no "a team saves the other" but both teams together will save the world.

[Coover5]

As for GB4-6, I'd like to have them around, but not battling in the field. Think Bruce Wayne in Batman Beyond.

That's a really interesting take. Makes me think of all the stories where a powerful wizard plays a key part but doesn't save the day himself (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, King Arthur) The wizard, or any mentor for that matter, tends to offer knowledge but the hero must use wisdom bringing value to both parts.

[savintheday]

I'm really hoping they use mostly practical effects with minimal CG.

The computer effects in Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park still look amazing to this day because they used it only for things that were difficult or impossible to do practically. Meanwhile, look at your typical superhero movie of today and it's just a garish dizzying mess of CG characters, objects, explosions and environments. It's so over done now that it takes you out of the experience.

Hopefully a lower budget will be a blessing in disguise for GB3.

[Coover5]

Modern CGI is incredible. You can show a CGI image to folks and they will almost certainly be fooled. But there's a caveat to that. A CGI person person next to a real person tends to look fake. If you compare the best cgi grass or trees to real grass or trees you can certainly tell the difference. That's why in those behind the scenes featurettes where they show you how cgi was done they will take out real trees if they plan to put in cgi trees or take out real grass if cgi grass is being added. So I think CGI could be used all the time where we don't have a real life frame of reference: the fantastic sky effects, the non-human ghosts, the proton streams but shouldn't be used for things we are very familiar with: human ghosts (because we know humans, not ghosts!), proton stream damage, the ecto.

Personally I like practical effects because for me they age better but it's different for everyone so I get why people feel differently. Kingpin brought up Poltergeist as great example of practical effects and he's right. it's one of my favorites but it features a scene where a man peels his face off and the effects are lousy. As much as I love that film that scene takes me right out of it and I don't want that happening in GB20 for other folks just for the sake of wanting to use practical effects.

[savintheday]

That face peeling scene scared the shit outta me as a kid! But yeah it looks a little goofy now. Practical isn't the be-all end-all, but I think it should be used in tandem with CG. They compliment each other well when used right.

Speaking of peeling face Gore, I just rewatched The Fly recently and forgot how damn gross and disturbing it was! His body parts falling off gave me legit fear as a kid. But it still holds up effects-wise I think.

[Wiggyof9]

Question for everyone:

If we were to get GB4-6 would you want Aykroyd, Hudson and Murray in the films if they were no longer Ghostbusters (but still Stantz, Zeddemore and Venkman)? Would having them as bystanders be the gun in the first act that doesn't go off in the third? Or do you feel their presence is essential whether they save the day or not? Could we really have the original Busters not saving the day if they were in the film? But if they are saving the day do you feel that makes new busters less important?

Honestly, what I want from GB3 is closure to the main characters story and a good new team approved by the old. The original team is getting way too old to continue. I love Ernie Hudson, but he can't be busting ghosts until he is in his 80's. My hope is that thy give them a nice send off and a last hurrah. Then if a GB4 is made in the same universe, the original cast can have a cameo of some kind, but I wouldn't want them in a main role the way Egon was in EGB. New team, torch passed, leave an option open for a cameo to dispense some advice in the future if they don't do the ultimate sacrifice route.

[mrmichaelt]

https://screenrant.com/j-k-simmons-fron ... interview/

Interesting bit from J. K. Simmons. Has he been casted in the next Ghostbusters?

Weird way to report that. Simmons. My first thought was the mayor.

[deadderek]

No matter what role he's one hell of a step in the right direction.