Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4997554
In my personal opinion, the best Neutrona Beam shot in any Ghostbuster movie is the wide long shot of the small as ants GB’s shooting down at Mr Stay Puft. The beams look pretty flawless in that entire section of the movie.

It’s interesting to me that in Afterlife they were able to replicate the purple energy beams that we see get released after the ECU explosion in the first film but they couldn’t get the Neutrona beams looking quite right.

Don’t get me wrong. They don’t look awful. They are acceptable. They are more consistent. I

But there is just something about the beams in that part of the ‘84 movie that haven’t been surpassed. The thickness, the rubbery nature. To me those shots show the concept of “rubberized light” perfectly.

In CG the beams somehow seem more “clean”. They don’t feel as dangerous or as wild. Does anyone else feel this?

It’s not about “CGI sucks practical effects rule!” (Use the best technique available) but I just genuinely feel the best beam shots are still on the optical compositing side of things. Which is interesting.
jonogunn, ccv66 liked this
#4997563
Can't say I agree about the CG proton streams feeling any less dangerous than they did with the optical effects of the '80s films. The movement of the beams, coupled with the explosive destruction of the scenery keep them as dangerous in the 2020s as they were in the 1980s.

That shot you feel is the best has some merit, though the beams themselves are just too much like static lines for my preference... They aren't the "rubberised light" that you describe, they actually look more like generic rays because they show such little movement along their length... Which to me doesn't make it the best shot featuring the proton beams.

The best shot in my view is when the guys first open fire at Gozer for the first time, from the 3:22 to the 3:33 marks:



One big thing that I feel stands in the CG Proton steams' favour is the fact that (the events of Frozen Empire's finale being largely the exception) they appear consistant in appearance from scene to scene, which sadly can't quite be said for the original movie.
gerard55 liked this
#4997603
Kingpin wrote: May 7th, 2024, 3:22 pm Can't say I agree about the CG proton streams feeling any less dangerous than they did with the optical effects of the '80s films. The movement of the beams, coupled with the explosive destruction of the scenery keep them as dangerous in the 2020s as they were in the 1980s.

That shot you feel is the best has some merit, though the beams themselves are just too much like static lines for my preference... They aren't the "rubberised light" that you describe, they actually look more like generic rays because they show such little movement along their length... Which to me doesn't make it the best shot featuring the proton beams.

The best shot in my view is when the guys first open fire at Gozer for the first time, from the 3:22 to the 3:33 marks:



One big thing that I feel stands in the CG Proton steams' favour is the fact that (the events of Frozen Empire's finale being largely the exception) they appear consistant in appearance from scene to scene, which sadly can't quite be said for the original movie.
Gotta say, the chonky looking ATC streams would be pretty damn cool if they just had a tiny bit more emphasis on the blue return particles. THAT is the proton stream I want coming out of my wand.
#4997609
The ATC streams were fine with one major error. The filmmakers decided that it would be cool to do this pseudo 3d effect where the streams and sparks break out into the letterbox. This looks fine in darkness because it blends in to the background but with lights on it looks like someone just copied some action vfx stock assets and pasted them on top.
Image
ccv66 liked this
#4997615
Mercifull wrote: May 8th, 2024, 12:09 pm The ATC streams were fine with one major error. The filmmakers decided that it would be cool to do this pseudo 3d effect where the streams and sparks break out into the letterbox. This looks fine in darkness because it blends in to the background but with lights on it looks like someone just copied some action vfx stock assets and pasted them on top.
Image
AY! That's on the Blu-Ray, not the digital, if I remember. I don't know if it was meant to be a 3d effect thing, but it's entirely possible it was meant to be a thing for theaters but not home viewings. One thing I love about the streams though is that spilling "unpropelled" plasma spilling and falling onto the ground where the user is firing. Beautiful.
ccv66 liked this
#4997618
The_Y33TER wrote: May 8th, 2024, 5:05 pmI don't know if it was meant to be a 3d effect thing
It may represent the elements that were 3D in the cinema presentations, but it was a deliberate choice by the team handling the DVDs to include that "out of frame" appearance on certain effects.
ccv66, The_Y33TER liked this
#4997622
Kingpin wrote: May 8th, 2024, 6:23 pm
The_Y33TER wrote: May 8th, 2024, 5:05 pmI don't know if it was meant to be a 3d effect thing
It may represent the elements that were 3D in the cinema presentations, but it was a deliberate choice by the team handling the DVDs to include that "out of frame" appearance on certain effects.
It was the same with the Gertrude Altridge ghost and the sliming scene at the mansion.
The_Y33TER liked this
#4997625
Kingpin wrote: May 7th, 2024, 3:22 pm Can't say I agree about the CG proton streams feeling any less dangerous than they did with the optical effects of the '80s films. The movement of the beams, coupled with the explosive destruction of the scenery keep them as dangerous in the 2020s as they were in the 1980s.

That shot you feel is the best has some merit, though the beams themselves are just too much like static lines for my preference... They aren't the "rubberised light" that you describe, they actually look more like generic rays because they show such little movement along their length... Which to me doesn't make it the best shot featuring the proton beams.

The best shot in my view is when the guys first open fire at Gozer for the first time, from the 3:22 to the 3:33 marks:



One big thing that I feel stands in the CG Proton steams' favour is the fact that (the events of Frozen Empire's finale being largely the exception) they appear consistant in appearance from scene to scene, which sadly can't quite be said for the original movie.
Oops. I wasn’t trying to say my favourite shot specifically featured the rubberized light effect. But that the final sequence, that section of the movie features it. To narrow it down the final crossing the streams features that rubberized light element better than any other. Beautiful stuff.

The part I’m talking about as my favourite shot is my favourite because of the scale, composition and general quality of the FX. It’s a very believable shot and is probably the best in the entire movie. It’s clean. It’s cool. The scale is great. No matte lines. I love it. Best FX shot in the movie. It’s *chefs kiss*. Either that or the first wide shot of Mr Stay Puft. That effect is so seamless. Again no Matte lines. Perfect scale. Completely believable. He looks tactile.

I do think Afterlife did a decent job of the dangerous portion of the beams with general destruction but there’s just something about those original rotoscoped beams that feels more “oh shit this is crazy dangerous”. You know what I think it is? I think it might be how they talk about them and how they are framed. Egon worries about his face burning off. The massive explosion at the end. How they talk to each other. The yelling and the wind. They seem scared of the beams, How Ray is “You got em you got em now don’t cross the streams”. Plus The destruction in the hotel. And they just look WILD. Ivan Reitman kind of created a general feel, an aesthetic when those things are used. There’s an excitement and electricity to those sequences that I’ve only seen in one movie since GB2 and that’s the Muncher bust.

Even in GB2 we get them talking about will they still work? We get that great wind. The chairs popping. The tension is there which just adds to it all. It’s the whole package. I feel those movies just handled it better where as, the Muncher bust not withstanding, the newer films treat is in an old hat kind of way.

In ATC the beams are treated as a joke and nothing to worry about. Melissa Mcarthy riding it like a bull, the shot of the limp stream. At no point do I feel they are worried about these things. They shoot the mooglie in the crotch.


The worst beams from a look POV are the ATC beams. They are too fat. They don’t have the life to them the other ones have. Granted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea. And I’m not against the idea of changing the packs either. Like lightsabers it’s cool if you have different designs but don’t make ‘em worse than the original.

And yeah I agree like I mentioned the cool thing about CG is the beams are more consistent but GB2 also has a consistent look and that’s not CG.

Consistency is a general issue with the FX in the GB84. Slimer looks so damn good when we see him in that close up eating at the food cart. He’s PERFECT. But then he can get a bit janky during some other shots. But that close up? Where he wipes his face? Best he’s ever look in any GB movie. I wish they could’ve kept that level of quality for Slimer. But I get it. The production was nuts.
#4997631
The_Y33TER wrote: May 8th, 2024, 5:05 pm AY! That's on the Blu-Ray, not the digital, if I remember. I don't know if it was meant to be a 3d effect thing, but it's entirely possible it was meant to be a thing for theaters but not home viewings. One thing I love about the streams though is that spilling "unpropelled" plasma spilling and falling onto the ground where the user is firing. Beautiful.
Don't get me wrong, it looks great when cropped. I love the particle effects in the ATC streams I think they looked great. But that silly breakout effect was definitely not an accident on the Blu-Ray, its also on the Sky Movies version (satellite television broadcast) as well.
#4997636
Mercifull wrote: May 9th, 2024, 2:12 am But that silly breakout effect was definitely not an accident on the Blu-Ray, its also on the Sky Movies version (satellite television broadcast) as well.
Hmm. Dunno. It was definitely a good idea in theaters, but not for the discs.
#4997637
Mercifull wrote: May 9th, 2024, 2:12 am Don't get me wrong, it looks great when cropped. I love the particle effects in the ATC streams I think they looked great.
They looked so damn good, didn't they?? They looked like they had volume, (3d animation vs 2d animation for ya) beautiful stuff, man. that stream looks like it could Anatoli Bugorski the hell out of you.
#4997638
RichardLess wrote: May 8th, 2024, 10:18 pm the shot of the limp stream.
imo that was pretty cool, it establishes that it's a different form of proton stream, being a plasma stream instead of just a particle stream. kinda interesting of an idea that if the thrower isn't given enough plasma the "pressure" is gonna be lower and the stream won't travel as far.
I personally loved the gear development arc over the course of the movie, it's an idea that I personally think the mainline movies would work really well with. As opposed to Frozen Empire's sudden "oh shit lets dunk the cyclotron in molten brass, cut down my booster tube and leave off my cyclotron pan" (fun fact, the power cell injector box was supposed to be open as well, they designed a whole interior but never showed it in the movie D:), there would be a steady upgrade arc, like how we could potentially maybe possibly see some '09 modes in the next movie...
RichardLess wrote: May 8th, 2024, 10:18 pm The worst beams from a look POV are the ATC beams. They are too fat. They don’t have the life to them the other ones have. Granted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea. And I’m not against the idea of changing the packs either. Like lightsabers it’s cool if you have different designs but don’t make ‘em worse than the original.
totally get it. streams were super thick in 2016, but honestly I like it. the throwers had higher diameter emitters, so it makes more sense that they're thicker streams, whereas our OG wands have pretty tight emitter ends.
ay, I agree the movie had quite a few problems, but you gotta admit, that huge exposed synchrotron causes a neuron activation somewhere. (in my case, big spinny reactor make monkey brain happy) the suits... eh. didn't really like them either, too simple, seems like something you'd see as a "budget Halloween costume" on Pinterest. The car? Pretty mid tier too. I can say I liked some elements (steel tanks), but the roof rack was WAY too simplified.
Kingpin liked this
#4997645
The_Y33TER wrote: May 9th, 2024, 8:18 am
RichardLess wrote: May 8th, 2024, 10:18 pm the shot of the limp stream.
imo that was pretty cool, it establishes that it's a different form of proton stream, being a plasma stream instead of just a particle stream. kinda interesting of an idea that if the thrower isn't given enough plasma the "pressure" is gonna be lower and the stream won't travel as far.
I personally loved the gear development arc over the course of the movie, it's an idea that I personally think the mainline movies would work really well with. As opposed to Frozen Empire's sudden "oh shit lets dunk the cyclotron in molten brass, cut down my booster tube and leave off my cyclotron pan" (fun fact, the power cell injector box was supposed to be open as well, they designed a whole interior but never showed it in the movie D:), there would be a steady upgrade arc, like how we could potentially maybe possibly see some '09 modes in the next movie...
RichardLess wrote: May 8th, 2024, 10:18 pm The worst beams from a look POV are the ATC beams. They are too fat. They don’t have the life to them the other ones have. Granted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea. And I’m not against the idea of changing the packs either. Like lightsabers it’s cool if you have different designs but don’t make ‘em worse than the original.
totally get it. streams were super thick in 2016, but honestly I like it. the throwers had higher diameter emitters, so it makes more sense that they're thicker streams, whereas our OG wands have pretty tight emitter ends.
ay, I agree the movie had quite a few problems, but you gotta admit, that huge exposed synchrotron causes a neuron activation somewhere. (in my case, big spinny reactor make monkey brain happy) the suits... eh. didn't really like them either, too simple, seems like something you'd see as a "budget Halloween costume" on Pinterest. The car? Pretty mid tier too. I can say I liked some elements (steel tanks), but the roof rack was WAY too simplified.
I don’t remember them saying anything about a difference between plasma/particle stream. I remember them just talking about “more power” and then it shoots straight. But it’s been awhile since I’ve watched the movie.

That’s another thing about ATC that bugs me. In the original film I buy every inch of the pseudo science.

But I don’t buy Melissa McCarthy at all saying those lines. There’s a scene when they test out the equipment in the subway and they find a piece of metal and talk about what it smells like and I don’t buy it. It doesn’t sound natural or second hand. Now when Holtzman says that kind of stuff? I buy it.

That’s where having Ramis and Aykroyd becomes invaluable because no one does pseudo science like those two.
#4997649
Please keep this topic's discussion focussed on proton beam visual effects, and not turn it into a wider critique of the 2016 movie. I shouldn't have to keep saying this.
#4997655
Kingpin wrote: May 9th, 2024, 6:06 pm Please keep this topic's discussion focussed on proton beam visual effects, and not turn it into a wider critique of the 2016 movie. I shouldn't have to keep saying this.
“I shouldn’t have to keep saying this”. For real. Especially when I wasn’t off topic.


Did you delete someone else’s post or are you referring to mine? If you are referring to mine…it’s on topic.

Allow me to explain:

Unless you are under the impression proton pack beams are real? Are you? Cause I got some bad news Kingpin. It’s pseudo science. What I wrote applies to beams. The piece of metal they smell. Go check what scene that’s in. I even mentioned it! But Here’s a hint. It’s the scene we were talking about! With the limp beam lol

We were talking about the danger of the beams. What did I say in my response? I said it was how they talked about it. What was my complaint about the 2016 movie? I don’t buy the way they talk about the pseudo science! Meaning the proton pack gibberish. I mention the piece of metal they smell because its in that same scene.

So just to confirm. Proton pack beams? They are pseudo science. Why the original movies work well? The pseudo science is believable. 2016=Not.

I was on topic. But now I’ve gone off topic about how I wasn’t really off topic because you went off topic asking people to stay on topic. Oh no I’ve gone cross eyed.
#4997660
RichardLess wrote: May 9th, 2024, 9:56 pm For real. Especially when I wasn’t off topic.
You were off-topic:
RichardLess wrote: May 9th, 2024, 2:27 pm That’s another thing about ATC that bugs me. In the original film I buy every inch of the pseudo science.

But I don’t buy Melissa McCarthy at all saying those lines. There’s a scene when they test out the equipment in the subway and they find a piece of metal and talk about what it smells like and I don’t buy it. It doesn’t sound natural or second hand. Now when Holtzman says that kind of stuff? I buy it.

That’s where having Ramis and Aykroyd becomes invaluable because no one does pseudo science like those two.
Whether you believe Melissa's performance was credible or whether Harold and Dan's writing influence would've made things better is irrelevant either to the way the proton beams in the 2016 function, or how dangerous they were, or how they were achieved via the visual effects.

We try to allow a bit of flexibility with some topics, but there is a limit, and I'm not convinced the tangent you went down was justified.
prodestrian liked this
#4997690
Kingpin wrote: May 10th, 2024, 3:29 am
RichardLess wrote: May 9th, 2024, 9:56 pm For real. Especially when I wasn’t off topic.
You were off-topic:
RichardLess wrote: May 9th, 2024, 2:27 pm That’s another thing about ATC that bugs me. In the original film I buy every inch of the pseudo science.

But I don’t buy Melissa McCarthy at all saying those lines. There’s a scene when they test out the equipment in the subway and they find a piece of metal and talk about what it smells like and I don’t buy it. It doesn’t sound natural or second hand. Now when Holtzman says that kind of stuff? I buy it.

That’s where having Ramis and Aykroyd becomes invaluable because no one does pseudo science like those two.
Whether you believe Melissa's performance was credible or whether Harold and Dan's writing influence would've made things better is irrelevant either to the way the proton beams in the 2016 function, or how dangerous they were, or how they were achieved via the visual effects.

We try to allow a bit of flexibility with some topics, but there is a limit, and I'm not convinced the tangent you went down was justified.
I’m sorry but You’re wrong.

I was on topic. I referenced specifically how the beams feel more dangerous BY THE WAY THE CHARACTERS TALK ABOUT THEM. Do you want me to quote that line? It’s there. Look up to my reply to you.

Whether or not you disagree with that is irrelevant. Pseudo science covers a wide area in these films. The proton packs are pseudo science. The beams are pseudo science

I was talking about how believable the characters can make things feel. For Chris sakes I specifically mention that earlier. How characters react and talk about the effects plays into their quality.

I was on topic. I was talking about what this thread was about. You jumped the gun. A simple “oops my bad. I didn’t realize that’s what this was about” what have sufficed.

You saw the words “another thing” “2016” and took it from there plus got a little rude with the “I shouldnt have to keep saying this”(I mean. You’re a mod. Saying that is exactly what you should be doing—when appropriate).

Here’s how you know you’re wrong. I’ve been off topic many times. You say something. 9/10 you are right. I don’t give a shit. But not this time. I would not be putting up a fight and giving a shit otherwise. But this is about principle. I know I was on topic.

Edit: Here’s the line I’m talking about: “think it might be how they talk about them and how they are framed. Egon worries about his face burning off. The massive explosion at the end. How they talk to each other. The yelling and the wind. They seem scared of the beams, How Ray is “You got em you got em now don’t cross the streams”. Plus The destruction in the hotel. And they just look WILD. Ivan Reitman kind of created a general feel, an aesthetic when those things are used. There’s an excitement and electricity to those sequences that I’ve only seen in one movie since GB2 and that’s the Muncher bust.”
#4997692
RichardLess wrote: May 10th, 2024, 8:48 pm
Kingpin wrote: May 10th, 2024, 3:29 am

You were off-topic:



Whether you believe Melissa's performance was credible or whether Harold and Dan's writing influence would've made things better is irrelevant either to the way the proton beams in the 2016 function, or how dangerous they were, or how they were achieved via the visual effects.

We try to allow a bit of flexibility with some topics, but there is a limit, and I'm not convinced the tangent you went down was justified.
I’m sorry but You’re wrong.

I was on topic. I referenced specifically how the beams feel more dangerous BY THE WAY THE CHARACTERS TALK ABOUT THEM. Do you want me to quote that line? It’s there. Look up to my reply to you.

Whether or not you disagree with that is irrelevant. Pseudo science covers a wide area in these films. The proton packs are pseudo science. The beams are pseudo science

I was talking about how believable the characters can make things feel. For Chris sakes I specifically mention that earlier. How characters react and talk about the effects plays into their quality.

I was on topic. I was talking about what this thread was about. You jumped the gun. A simple “oops my bad. I didn’t realize that’s what this was about” what have sufficed.

You saw the words “another thing” “2016” and took it from there plus got a little rude with the “I shouldnt have to keep saying this”(I mean. You’re a mod. Saying that is exactly what you should be doing—when appropriate).

Here’s how you know you’re wrong. I’ve been off topic many times. You say something. 9/10 you are right. I don’t give a shit. But not this time. I would not be putting up a fight and giving a shit otherwise. But this is about principle. I know I was on topic.

Edit: Here’s the line I’m talking about: “think it might be how they talk about them and how they are framed. Egon worries about his face burning off. The massive explosion at the end. How they talk to each other. The yelling and the wind. They seem scared of the beams, How Ray is “You got em you got em now don’t cross the streams”. Plus The destruction in the hotel. And they just look WILD. Ivan Reitman kind of created a general feel, an aesthetic when those things are used. There’s an excitement and electricity to those sequences that I’ve only seen in one movie since GB2 and that’s the Muncher bust.”
That is interesting. Do Dan, Ivan & Harold add to the believability of the effects by how they talk about them?

I think so.

Are we not allowed to talk about the 2016 movie here? Because there is one element I liked with the so called “limp scene” which was adding the grounding wire collar. That was funny. But I think Rich has a point. The way the pseudoscience or whatever u wanna call it. It adds to what a movie is all about, right?

Suspension of disbelief. That DEFINITELY plays into how an audience receives a movie. Even a movies effects.

bcuz Obviously the 2016 movie has BETTER quality special effects. There’s no “jank”. So why do we buy into the original films more?

I have my own theories. It has to do with how much special effects/CGI is used. 2016 assaults the senses a bit. Too much,. & this plays into the beams & how we view them. I think how each director moves the camera or doesn’t move the camera.

& finally? The actors. It’s true. The actors. In GB2 when they are busting the Scoleri bros, I buy the guys doing a job. They are not really quipping with each other. Venkman is trash talking the ghost. & we see him look distressed at times. All that plays into how the audience looks at it. While those beams are being fired, it’s business.

I think the 2016 beams match the movie. They are bigger, larger than life more pronounced. Brighter. They feel more comedic to me. Less dangerous. But they don’t look unreal.
#4997695
Richardless, when you started this thread, it was strictly about the visuals of the proton streams in 1984 and 2024. Right?

All Kingpin is saying you went off-topic talking about something other than the visual effects. When you later posted to the effect of 'another thing that bugged me about the 2016 movie' is 'this actor isn't believable'. You know we still have ongoing issues with people beating the dead horse that is "ATC Sucks" and when you say things like 'another thing that bugged me about the 2016 movie was this actor's acting' - that is a gateway for other people to then take the thread on a further tangent about how the movie was terrible. It's unfortunate, but we still have to keep a tight leash when ATC comes up. We don't want to, but we do. That's why Kingpin responded the way he did.

So what do you want this thread to be about, Richardless? Only about comparing the proton stream visuals like it seemed to be from the start or did you think of some other things and now what to expand the discussion to include exposition from actors in the movies? If you to want to do the latter, that's fine. It won't come off as off-topic anymore. We may have to tweak the title of the thread a little.
prodestrian, Kingpin liked this
#4997712
mrmichaelt wrote: May 10th, 2024, 10:47 pm Richardless, when you started this thread, it was strictly about the visuals of the proton streams in 1984 and 2024. Right?

All Kingpin is saying you went off-topic talking about something other than the visual effects. When you later posted to the effect of 'another thing that bugged me about the 2016 movie' is 'this actor isn't believable'. You know we still have ongoing issues with people beating the dead horse that is "ATC Sucks" and when you say things like 'another thing that bugged me about the 2016 movie was this actor's acting' - that is a gateway for other people to then take the thread on a further tangent about how the movie was terrible. It's unfortunate, but we still have to keep a tight leash when ATC comes up. We don't want to, but we do. That's why Kingpin responded the way he did.

So what do you want this thread to be about, Richardless? Only about comparing the proton stream visuals like it seemed to be from the start or did you think of some other things and now what to expand the discussion to include exposition from actors in the movies? If you to want to do the latter, that's fine. It won't come off as off-topic anymore. We may have to tweak the title of the thread a little.


This thread is about what it’s always been about. How well the proton streams in the movie hold up to the CG ones.

Now that topic covers a wide berth. Like WHY is that the case? Is it visuals? Is it more? The title does not need to be changed to reflect that.

A thread title does not need to cover every conceivable way a subject is discussed. That would be a bit ridiculous and from what I can tell that’s never really been the case. If I wrote a title saying “Even though it’s 2024 it’s impressive that the music in 1984 sounds better than 2024” would we talk about JUST the music as a composition? Or HOW it’s used? There’s a lot of wiggle room there.

Do you see my point? This is a DISCUSSION thread. What is this discussion about at its core? The proton pack beams. Why do they work better in one film over another? The title doesn’t need that when A) there’s only so much room and B) since it’s a discussion it’s obvious you’d get into the “why” of the thing


What I really take issue with is the: “I shouldn’t have to keep on saying this”. Now did Kingpin say “Hey maybe we should keep this thread to visuals only”? No. He did not.—even after I had brought up how the streams are talked about in a reply to his post. He came out with some, in my opinion, rather rude “I shouldn’t have to keep on saying this”. That wasn’t necessary. Imagine reading that from my perspective. As far as I’m concerned I’m on topic and then I get some odd “stay on topic I shouldn’t have to keep saying this” message.

My guess is that Kingpin didn’t realize I was talking about the proton streams. And that’s fine, we all make mistakes. Maybe that’s on me for not spelling it out more. But once I clarified what I was talking about as far I was concerned that should’ve been the end of it. That’s not what happened.

But now we really are off topic. So do whatever makes your job easier. If that means changing the title? Have at it.

If you want to add something to the title maybe add “Why is that?” at the end. Even though like I said that should be implied. Granted I doubt it’ll make much of a difference since I think this thread has been ruined anyways.
#4997715
RichardLess wrote: May 11th, 2024, 3:20 pmThis thread is about what it’s always been about. How well the proton streams in the movie hold up to the CG ones.
In your original post, and a few of your immediate posts after that one, you'd talked about film shots, scale, composition and about comparing the execution with hand-rendered optics versus computer graphic imagery, which, along with the title, would likely give most people the impression this was a topic discussing the visual effects of the proton streams, not the in-world explanation/the pseudoscience behind why the proton streams worked the way they worked (to which the 1984, 1989, 2021 and 2024 films offer almost no explanation/pseudoscience behind their operation).

It wasn't until The_Y33TER's post, the 13th in the string, that the pseudoscience started to crop up... And even then, it wasn't the pseudoscience that was what I took issue with, it was bringing up Melissa McCarthy's delivery of her dialogue. I don't see how that was relevant to either the visual effects of the streams, or the science behind them. It just felt like an off-topic criticism of the 2016 film's direction.

There was another comment you'd made before that which I felt was a little off-topic:
RichardLess wrote: May 8th, 2024, 10:18 pmGranted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea
Those were why I felt the need to ask for the topic to not become a "wider critique thread of the 2016 film" because that looked like the way it was starting to creep, which has happened with other topics I and the other mod team have had to moderate.

As for the thread title, understandably it can't cover every avenue a discussion could go into, but it can cover a few... And if you want this topic to be able to discuss the pseudoscience along with the visuals, then I think something like this might've been a more elaborative title, which could've also achieved what michael was suggesting:

Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984 vs 2024
Or Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984-2024
Or Let's look at the proton streams, the visuals and the science - all movies
etc.

As for me saying "I shouldn't have to keep saying it", it's because I've had to make a variation of "please don't turn this into a wider critique of the 2016 movie" in more than a few topics the last couple of months, and honestly my frustration got the better of me. The remark was genuinely meant for everyone, rather than just specifically you, but I clearly made a mess of that one, so I'm sorry for singling you out.

I think I need to start putting my money where my mouth is... We've had too many fractious disagreements on the forum, at the forum's expense, and I need to change that behaviour. I normally advise other people to use the "ignore user" feature, and I think maybe it's time I followed my own advice. The forum could do with less friction between us.
prodestrian, The_Y33TER liked this
#4997748
RichardLess wrote: May 9th, 2024, 2:27 pm I don’t remember them saying anything about a difference between plasma/particle stream. I remember them just talking about “more power” and then it shoots straight. But it’s been awhile since I’ve watched the movie.
Been a few months for me, but I know for a fact they say it's a plasma stream in the marketing and promo material.
#4997765
Kingpin wrote: May 11th, 2024, 5:29 pm
RichardLess wrote: May 11th, 2024, 3:20 pmThis thread is about what it’s always been about. How well the proton streams in the movie hold up to the CG ones.
In your original post, and a few of your immediate posts after that one, you'd talked about film shots, scale, composition and about comparing the execution with hand-rendered optics versus computer graphic imagery, which, along with the title, would likely give most people the impression this was a topic discussing the visual effects of the proton streams, not the in-world explanation/the pseudoscience behind why the proton streams worked the way they worked (to which the 1984, 1989, 2021 and 2024 films offer almost no explanation/pseudoscience behind their operation).

It wasn't until The_Y33TER's post, the 13th in the string, that the pseudoscience started to crop up... And even then, it wasn't the pseudoscience that was what I took issue with, it was bringing up Melissa McCarthy's delivery of her dialogue. I don't see how that was relevant to either the visual effects of the streams, or the science behind them. It just felt like an off-topic criticism of the 2016 film's direction.

There was another comment you'd made before that which I felt was a little off-topic:
RichardLess wrote: May 8th, 2024, 10:18 pmGranted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea
Those were why I felt the need to ask for the topic to not become a "wider critique thread of the 2016 film" because that looked like the way it was starting to creep, which has happened with other topics I and the other mod team have had to moderate.

As for the thread title, understandably it can't cover every avenue a discussion could go into, but it can cover a few... And if you want this topic to be able to discuss the pseudoscience along with the visuals, then I think something like this might've been a more elaborative title, which could've also achieved what michael was suggesting:

Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984 vs 2024
Or Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984-2024
Or Let's look at the proton streams, the visuals and the science - all movies
etc.

As for me saying "I shouldn't have to keep saying it", it's because I've had to make a variation of "please don't turn this into a wider critique of the 2016 movie" in more than a few topics the last couple of months, and honestly my frustration got the better of me. The remark was genuinely meant for everyone, rather than just specifically you, but I clearly made a mess of that one, so I'm sorry for singling you out.

I think I need to start putting my money where my mouth is... We've had too many fractious disagreements on the forum, at the forum's expense, and I need to change that behaviour. I normally advise other people to use the "ignore user" feature, and I think maybe it's time I followed my own advice. The forum could do with less friction between us.
There’s something more important i want to address than why I feel you might be misguided in your analysis of what happened RE the on/off topic post.

What I want to focus is the “ignore” thing.

I’ll be honest. I feel the ignore feature is a last resort. For two people who vehemently dislike each other. Perhaps you dislike me, I don’t know. I’ve always liked you. We disagree, sure. But it’s never something that can’t be addressed or talked about. But..

I think when a long time serving, well respected mod is discussing the possibility of ignoring you for the good of the community then perhaps it’s time to call it day. There’s seem to be two type of Ghostbusters fans at the moment. The positive and the pessimistic. I find myself far too often in the latter category. I don’t like any of the new creative choices. The new movies aren’t what I want from this franchise and there’s only so many times you can say that in different ways before it becomes annoying. And so I guess I crossed that line a long ago & there’s nothing worse than a guest over staying their welcome. You and the other mods seem very much in the positive side. Which is the way it should be.

I’ve very much enjoyed my time and discussions here. Maybe in a few years with the next GB film I’ll check in again. Who knows, maybe I’ll actually enjoy it.

Thanks to all to cool people I’ve met here and fascinating conversations, debates and more I’ve had. Oh I’d better mention all the nice messages I received whilst in the hospital a few years back. Thanks! And ciao! Oh and before I go….

I LOVE THIS TOWN! Aha!
#4997794
RichardLess wrote: May 14th, 2024, 3:25 am
Kingpin wrote: May 11th, 2024, 5:29 pm

In your original post, and a few of your immediate posts after that one, you'd talked about film shots, scale, composition and about comparing the execution with hand-rendered optics versus computer graphic imagery, which, along with the title, would likely give most people the impression this was a topic discussing the visual effects of the proton streams, not the in-world explanation/the pseudoscience behind why the proton streams worked the way they worked (to which the 1984, 1989, 2021 and 2024 films offer almost no explanation/pseudoscience behind their operation).

It wasn't until The_Y33TER's post, the 13th in the string, that the pseudoscience started to crop up... And even then, it wasn't the pseudoscience that was what I took issue with, it was bringing up Melissa McCarthy's delivery of her dialogue. I don't see how that was relevant to either the visual effects of the streams, or the science behind them. It just felt like an off-topic criticism of the 2016 film's direction.

There was another comment you'd made before that which I felt was a little off-topic:



Those were why I felt the need to ask for the topic to not become a "wider critique thread of the 2016 film" because that looked like the way it was starting to creep, which has happened with other topics I and the other mod team have had to moderate.

As for the thread title, understandably it can't cover every avenue a discussion could go into, but it can cover a few... And if you want this topic to be able to discuss the pseudoscience along with the visuals, then I think something like this might've been a more elaborative title, which could've also achieved what michael was suggesting:

Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984 vs 2024
Or Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984-2024
Or Let's look at the proton streams, the visuals and the science - all movies
etc.

As for me saying "I shouldn't have to keep saying it", it's because I've had to make a variation of "please don't turn this into a wider critique of the 2016 movie" in more than a few topics the last couple of months, and honestly my frustration got the better of me. The remark was genuinely meant for everyone, rather than just specifically you, but I clearly made a mess of that one, so I'm sorry for singling you out.

I think I need to start putting my money where my mouth is... We've had too many fractious disagreements on the forum, at the forum's expense, and I need to change that behaviour. I normally advise other people to use the "ignore user" feature, and I think maybe it's time I followed my own advice. The forum could do with less friction between us.
There’s something more important i want to address than why I feel you might be misguided in your analysis of what happened RE the on/off topic post.

What I want to focus is the “ignore” thing.

I’ll be honest. I feel the ignore feature is a last resort. For two people who vehemently dislike each other. Perhaps you dislike me, I don’t know. I’ve always liked you. We disagree, sure. But it’s never something that can’t be addressed or talked about. But..

I think when a long time serving, well respected mod is discussing the possibility of ignoring you for the good of the community then perhaps it’s time to call it day. There’s seem to be two type of Ghostbusters fans at the moment. The positive and the pessimistic. I find myself far too often in the latter category. I don’t like any of the new creative choices. The new movies aren’t what I want from this franchise and there’s only so many times you can say that in different ways before it becomes annoying. And so I guess I crossed that line a long ago & there’s nothing worse than a guest over staying their welcome. You and the other mods seem very much in the positive side. Which is the way it should be.

I’ve very much enjoyed my time and discussions here. Maybe in a few years with the next GB film I’ll check in again. Who knows, maybe I’ll actually enjoy it.

Thanks to all to cool people I’ve met here and fascinating conversations, debates and more I’ve had. Oh I’d better mention all the nice messages I received whilst in the hospital a few years back. Thanks! And ciao! Oh and before I go….

I LOVE THIS TOWN! Aha!
****** Sorry for going off topic. But I gotta address thus******
Wait. What. R u for real? Don’t leave! Ur like 1 of the funniest ppl that visit & even when I disagree with u ur posts r never not interesting or well reasoned. Whose gonna have those old married couple back & forths between u & that Tyler guy? Do u know how much entertainment value those posts have?

This place might end up incredibly boring. I certainly have never got the impression u & Kingpin had any special friction. I’ve seen u have friction with EVERY1 lol. We got into it heavily once & u sent me a nice message afterwards bcuz u added an extra “!” So u thought I’d think u were angry. Then we realized we both loved the DCAU & Battlestar Galactica. When u sent me that script I was so honored. I was nervous about how I was guna tell u it wasn’t good but then against all odds it turned out to be amazing. I told u I wished I have never read the damn thing bcuz now I know I’ll never get to see it. I’ll be honest, as much as I LOVED Afterlife, when watching FE, ur script was never far from my mind.

Anyways, I hope u change ur mind Rich.
******
As for the topic @ hand

Rwatching Frozen Empire today I realized what the issue is. I think. Mayb. It’s all about diffusion. The beams in the first 2 films r diffused. The CG beams in Frozen empire r too crisp. + they zigzag too much. There’s too much waviness to them like how you’d see with a radio signal on an oscilloscope.

The OG films the blue electrical lines & the orange core looked tube shaped sort of. In FE they r way too thin. + there’s no diffusion.
#4997795
In an attempt to steer the discussion back to the effects does anyone else want to talk about how awesome the freezing of the streams looked and how they still had that inner orange glow when they dropped and smashed on the floor? I thought that looked incredible (if scientifically implausible)
Kingpin liked this
#4997806
Mercifull wrote: May 15th, 2024, 2:50 am In an attempt to steer the discussion back to the effects does anyone else want to talk about how awesome the freezing of the streams looked and how they still had that inner orange glow when they dropped and smashed on the floor? I thought that looked incredible (if scientifically implausible)
on god.
#4997815
I think my only issue with the recent streams (Afterlife and Frozen Empire) is the zipping effect. The stream comes out and goes back into the barrel. And not all of the time, mind you. The scene when Phoebe zapped Gary in Terror Dog form, for instance. It came up, gave him a good whipping, then went back to the barrel. In other scenes, the stream continues onward to its target.

Other than that, I was fine.

https://i.imgur.com/ACZMXJX.jpg During a ceremo[…]

Neutrona wand plasma tip

I tried searching the forum, but everything that c[…]

Cancelled Hasbro RTV 2021

Does anyone know why this product was pulled? […]

That looks great! Even moreso if that curve err[…]