Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4957885
Reading various making of articles over the years I’ve read about the production schedule was so crazy tight on GB1 that they inserted test shots as actual finishing composites.

Does anyone know which shots these were?

If I had to guess I’d say it was the Slimer going around the chandelier. Or maybe the Terror dog chasing Louis out of the apartment after the door man says “bear in the apartment”

Does anyone know for sure?
User avatar
By d_osborn
#4957948
They weren't so much test shots as one-takes, like the miniature Terror Dog crossing the street. GB2 had examples of this, as well. I don't know of any test footage that made it into either movie.

Other shots were rushed through optical compositing, so not as much tweaking/refining. The transparent Terror Dog gargoyle overlooking Dana's introduction and transparent Stay Puft leg stepping on the church are good examples of this.

Richard Edlund has some great bits on the subject in Cleanin' Up the Town.
Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4957956
d_osborn wrote: October 22nd, 2021, 5:44 pm They weren't so much test shots as one-takes, like the miniature Terror Dog crossing the street. GB2 had examples of this, as well. I don't know of any test footage that made it into either movie.

Other shots were rushed through optical compositing, so not as much tweaking/refining. The transparent Terror Dog gargoyle overlooking Dana's introduction and transparent Stay Puft leg stepping on the church are good examples of this.

Richard Edlund has some great bits on the subject in Cleanin' Up the Town.
Yeah I remember them mentioning that in the documentary. But according to this article: https://ascmag.com/articles/visual-effe ... ostbusters
There was also at least one instance where a 35mm test for an effect element turned out so well that it was used as an insert without any additional elements
So a test shot was used somewhere. I’m just wondering what sequence.
User avatar
By d_osborn
#4957958
Interesting, it’s been ages since I’ve read the ASC article. I used to know the editor— a huge prop collector. I bought some Stay Puff concept art from him once.

Bummer they don’t mention more specifics! I’d love to know what element they’re referring to.

The BOSS test footage I’m privy to isn’t something that could have been used in the film in any way. Perhaps ASC was referring more to 35mm reduction exposure tests or something. Early steps in the compositing process that yielded something passable to Michael Gross.
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4957961
d_osborn wrote: October 22nd, 2021, 11:24 pm Interesting, it’s been ages since I’ve read the ASC article. I used to know the editor— a huge prop collector. I bought some Stay Puff concept art from him once.

Bummer they don’t mention more specifics! I’d love to know what element they’re referring to.

The BOSS test footage I’m privy to isn’t something that could have been used in the film in any way. Perhaps ASC was referring more to 35mm reduction exposure tests or something. Early steps in the compositing process that yielded something passable to Michael Gross.
They mention the belt buckle bit right before that quote as being an example of something that changed when the test worked fine. So at first that’s what I thought they meant but when I re read it, it seems to me they are talking about something else. The qualifier “at least” has me intrigued as well.

Wanna know something kinda funny? I was originally just going to message you directly and ask you about this. Out of all the GBfans on here you seem to be the most knowledgeable about production(and I tip my hat to you, I thought I knew a lot but you are on a whole other level). But then I thought “He’s probably busy with the GB2 documentary & might not get back to me anytime soon” but here you are. Kudos!

Since your a fellow enthusiast about the goings on behind the scenes of these two movies, let me ask you a question. What’s your favourite, or in your opinion “the best”, behind the scenes accounts of GB1 or GB2? For me it has to be the Cinefx GB2 article. That had so much great stuff in there. Especially with the lack of bonus features on the DVD of GB2. But what about you? I’m curious if it’s something I’ve read. I kinda hope not because I always love reading new Ghostbusters articles.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4957962
Yes, they've been posting the article in pieces recently. Two so far I think.

As for the test shot, when I read that, the Library ghost came to mind because it sounded like the Boss crew experimented with a few ways to film the ghost and they worked out well enough and finished it by the time there was a test screening:

-In the commentary reel around 10:24-11:05, Reitman says when they scrambled to get ready for a test screening in 3 weeks, the Library ghost was one of the only special effects done. "But he um this first moment of seeing the Librarian and the Librarian shift... I remember our first screening. Our first test screening was only three weeks after we finished shooting. We edited the movie very quickly. It came together nicely and we didn't have much of our special effects but we had this one here, not so much this one but the one that's coming up - the transformation and when we screened it for this audience for people at Columbia Studios they just freaked out... both screamed and laughed at the same time. It was a sense of how the movie was going to work, both truly scary and really funny."

-Then Terry Windell in the Slimer mode of the Blu-ray around 10:20-10:41, says, "I remember the library ghost--They didn't wanna shoot her blue screen. They wanted this sort of in-and-out transparency. So parts of her would be solid, parts weren't. So they decided to shoot her against black and then let the shadows within her costume and everything go black, so that when you pulled the matte areas of her would be nonexistent." Then John Bruno says, "I added the little "Shh" thing, 'cause it was like, it's a library. Um, but in order to make it look weird and look different than anything else that was shot I decided to shoot the scene in reverse. So I had her act it out in reverse. If you look at the book she's holding, she basically turns the page. But if you look at it slowly, her hand is here and she does this and the page follows her hand over."
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By d_osborn
#4958838
RichardLess wrote: October 23rd, 2021, 12:27 am Since your a fellow enthusiast about the goings on behind the scenes of these two movies, let me ask you a question. What’s your favourite, or in your opinion “the best”, behind the scenes accounts of GB1 or GB2? For me it has to be the Cinefx GB2 article. That had so much great stuff in there. Especially with the lack of bonus features on the DVD of GB2. But what about you? I’m curious if it’s something I’ve read. I kinda hope not because I always love reading new Ghostbusters articles.
That's a great question about my favorite articles. I've been putting some thought into this one (and trying to find a few links).

Making Ghostbusters is the top bar for me. The Cinefex issues are right close behind. Funny enough, both were published under the guise of the legendary Don Shay. I believe I read that Shay and Michael Gross were childhood friends (along with Bernie Wrightson).

The Ultimate Visual History fills in a few gaps. Spook Central really has some great articles to comb through.

GB1 Starburst is a must-read. GB 2, not so much. https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... 984-12.pdf

There's a great interview with John Bruno in this issue of Fantastic Films- https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... ilms41.pdf

Starlog had some great articles, as well. https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... log087.pdf
https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... log085.pdf

The GB2 Rolling Stone is a fun read. It doesn't look like Paul has the RS article from the first film. It's more of an expose on Murray, but it's still a good read.

Premiere Magazine 2004, Of Marshmallow and Men, much in the same vein as Making Ghostbusters. https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... 004-06.pdf

GB2— Peter MacNichol’s interview in Starlog is a must read! https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... log148.pdf

Of course, the James Greene Jr A CONVENIENT PARALLEL DIMENSION is sounding pretty incredible! Only one year until publication!
RichardLess, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4958906
d_osborn wrote: November 1st, 2021, 11:04 am
RichardLess wrote: October 23rd, 2021, 12:27 am Since your a fellow enthusiast about the goings on behind the scenes of these two movies, let me ask you a question. What’s your favourite, or in your opinion “the best”, behind the scenes accounts of GB1 or GB2? For me it has to be the Cinefx GB2 article. That had so much great stuff in there. Especially with the lack of bonus features on the DVD of GB2. But what about you? I’m curious if it’s something I’ve read. I kinda hope not because I always love reading new Ghostbusters articles.
That's a great question about my favorite articles. I've been putting some thought into this one (and trying to find a few links).

Making Ghostbusters is the top bar for me. The Cinefex issues are right close behind. Funny enough, both were published under the guise of the legendary Don Shay. I believe I read that Shay and Michael Gross were childhood friends (along with Bernie Wrightson).

The Ultimate Visual History fills in a few gaps. Spook Central really has some great articles to comb through.

GB1 Starburst is a must-read. GB 2, not so much. https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... 984-12.pdf

There's a great interview with John Bruno in this issue of Fantastic Films- https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... ilms41.pdf

Starlog had some great articles, as well. https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... log087.pdf
https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... log085.pdf

The GB2 Rolling Stone is a fun read. It doesn't look like Paul has the RS article from the first film. It's more of an expose on Murray, but it's still a good read.

Premiere Magazine 2004, Of Marshmallow and Men, much in the same vein as Making Ghostbusters. https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... 004-06.pdf

GB2— Peter MacNichol’s interview in Starlog is a must read! https://www.theraffon.net/spookcentral/ ... log148.pdf

Of course, the James Greene Jr A CONVENIENT PARALLEL DIMENSION is sounding pretty incredible! Only one year until publication!
Oh this is tremendous! Thanks. I hadnt read that Starburst article. What’s great about it is the movie wasn’t even finished at that point. I think that’s the first article I’ve read where the crew was being interviewed before the movie had even finished post production. That was a wonderful read. Most of the info was the the stuff we all know but it’s a trip reading about them not even knowing what the reaction is going to be.

It’s funny how Michael Gross talks about how they hired John Bruno because he had done all these great ghost creatures in previous movies but then Gross goes on to say most of the ghosts had been cut out of the movie. I wonder what he meant?

Thanks again. I think I’ve read most of those. But definitely not the Starburst, that was a great read.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4958937
RichardLess wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 2:36 am I wonder what he meant?
I read it as: Bruno had done a tone of ghost work on past films, that for whatever reason got cut, but he held onto some production stuff that he showed to Gross, which inspired Gross to want Bruno's involvement on Ghostbusters.

Looking at his IMDb, I'm guessing the unused (or differently-conceived) stuff mostly referred to Poltergeist, possibly like this:

Image

Addictedtohorrormovies: Here Are Some Amazing Unused Creature Designs from the Original ‘Poltergeist’
User avatar
By RichardLess
#4959075
Kingpin wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 1:02 pm
RichardLess wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 2:36 am I wonder what he meant?
I read it as: Bruno had done a tone of ghost work on past films, that for whatever reason got cut, but he held onto some production stuff that he showed to Gross, which inspired Gross to want Bruno's involvement on Ghostbusters.

Looking at his IMDb, I'm guessing the unused (or differently-conceived) stuff mostly referred to Poltergeist, possibly like this:

Image

Addictedtohorrormovies: Here Are Some Amazing Unused Creature Designs from the Original ‘Poltergeist’
I duno. I’m not sure if you have the right read on that. Here’s the quote from Gross:
We then had the added benefit that a lot of the people that work for Edlund had worked for him in the past on other films. including Poltergeist. The advantage of having people like John Bruno, for example, who have literally handled ghosts before, was a great benefit. Ironically, now, in the cut of the picture. we have removed most of the ghosts
The “we removed most of the ghosts” I think means he’s referring to removing most of the ghosts from GB.

    Actually the opposite is usually true, movie stu[…]

    ? Terror dogs were trapped both in pre possessio[…]

    tobycj, any chance you have a link to those pics[…]

    There's other threads with this for and agains[…]