Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
By pferreira1983
#4882094
Well, it's another case of someone seeing a pirated copy, missed out on details because of poor visual quality and falsely faults the movie for it, but thanks for admitting your mistake!
Dude if I missed out on any details it's because I didn't see the movie six times like you did. Not sure why you think seeing the pirated movie equals missing out on details? I saw the exact movie you did, just not as many times.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4882139
Well, it's another case of someone seeing a pirated copy, missed out on details because of poor visual quality and falsely faults the movie for it, but thanks for admitting your mistake!
Dude if I missed out on any details it's because I didn't see the movie six times like you did. Not sure why you think seeing the pirated movie equals missing out on details? I saw the exact movie you did, just not as many times.
From what I have seen cropping up on the YouTubes before the digital version came out, you got to experience poor, dark and small video 'quality' that goes in and out of focus, and muffled mono sound which is sometimes hard to hear as it only registered half of the sound. It's nowhere near the same experience.

One time or six, you would never be able to actually see or hear the details in those horrible cam versions.
User avatar
By Skyknight
#4882148
The version I've seen wasn't that bad. It was a bit too dark in the beginning at the mansion with the tour guide, but after that it was okay. No problems with sound at all! But I think it's normal to miss a lot of small details if you watched it only one time. Hell, I'm still finding new details in older movies, I've seen more than 20 time!
But like I said before, I don't have the obligation to watch it again, until I get a really great quality version, and in my own language.
Only watched it online because I can't stay away from the internet until it's out for buying just to avoid spoilers!
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4882202
Oh and the line about the price was great, something "only 48 hundred". :lol:
The only reason that joke is a teensy bit flat for me is because they clearly ADRed it so that Aykroyd could list a higher, funnier price.

That said, I think the GB16 scene is one of the movie's weaker bits. The alts in the alternate cut of the scene are funnier, IMO, including the trailer's "It's a Cadillac!".

EDIT: I missed a whole page of this thread somehow and you guys have changed to the packs!

The packs are a more nebulous element since in the original there is no scene at all of them being developed, rather just a time jump between which they go from not existing to existing and are never altered, and the reboot has several scenes of them being improved.

Although in theory I like the idea of the packs evolving, it doesn't have enough changing impact on the characters' ability to use the equipment for that to mean anything to me either way. I appreciate that the movies take a different approach to it, and Holtzmann kicking ass with the pack in the finale is a highlight, but in terms of how the movies approach them as equipment, I don't think it makes much difference.

That said, design-wise, despite spending my entire life looking at the old pack, I love, love, love the look of the new pack. Call me a blasphemer if you want to but that bright red ring inside just gives the new one a really cool look, and I like the rest of it as well.
MonaLS, JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Skyknight
#4882211
That's something I can't deny! The new packs do look cool. And I really like the thoughts behind it and that they had a real physicist think out the theory how they would work.
MonaLS, JurorNo.2, Alphagaia liked this
By pferreira1983
#4882575
From what I have seen cropping up on the YouTubes before the digital version came out, you got to experience poor, dark and small video 'quality' that goes in and out of focus, and muffled mono sound which is sometimes hard to hear as it only registered half of the sound. It's nowhere near the same experience.

One time or six, you would never be able to actually see or hear the details in those horrible cam versions.
Nope I saw everything. Sound was a little bit of an issue at first but I just turned up my speaker, no big deal. The video wasn't small either, the quality was about the right size.
The version I've seen wasn't that bad. It was a bit too dark in the beginning at the mansion with the tour guide, but after that it was okay. No problems with sound at all! But I think it's normal to miss a lot of small details if you watched it only one time. Hell, I'm still finding new details in older movies, I've seen more than 20 time!
But like I said before, I don't have the obligation to watch it again, until I get a really great quality version, and in my own language.
Only watched it online because I can't stay away from the internet until it's out for buying just to avoid spoilers!
Exactly my point, thank you. Maybe Alpha will listen to you! :)
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4882622
As someone who creates comercials and effects for them, I'm probably very biased to people watching cam versions and complain about effects being shitty, or details being fuzzy.
Since we have to take your word on the quality being okay, and I can only verify by a version on youtube which is absolutely not okay, there is not much to be gained with this discussion, other then a yes it was, no it wasn't back and forth. I can imagine, in time, later version became more watchable so it depends on which version you saw and when you saw it. Anyhow, it;s not a discussion worth having, as it won't change both our conflicting opinions on piracy and/or camversions.

That, being said: ofcourse someone who sees a movie multiple times catch more details, and I hope it helped giving Skyknight a good answer to some of the issues he had with the movie regarding the timeline.
Sav C, pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Skyknight
#4882634
I have to add that that was just the first impression that the movie made to me. And I think if a movie can't convince me that more time passes between scenes at the first watch it's not a very good first impression! But I'll stay quiet now until I own the movie and have seen it a couple more times!
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4882910
While I stick by what I said earlier when comparing the two, as it was truthful for what I saw when I saw it, the scene in the reboot is much better on the Bluray. The YouTube clip lacks contrast and is too bright (I'd say it's my monitor, except the first movie's clip looks just fine,) and in context of the film it plays much, much better than on it's own. In the film it didn't feel like it lacked depth, or like the sound didn't create an atmosphere that extended "outside of the picture."
JurorNo.2, Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4883013
For some reason I feel like we should compare when the Statue of Liberty steps on the cop car to when Rowan steps on the taxi cab.
Now I feel the need to compose Dan in the cab while screaming 'My Fault...!' when Rowans foot comes down.
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890856
We should compare the difference between how the colleges are portrayed in the movies. For instance compare the characters who work at them. Even small stuff like the fact that Columbia isn't mentioned by name in the first movie, but it is in ATC.
By pferreira1983
#4890926
We should compare the difference between how the colleges are portrayed in the movies. For instance compare the characters who work at them. Even small stuff like the fact that Columbia isn't mentioned by name in the first movie, but it is in ATC.
Not sure if this helps but in the original movie the guys more or less did what they liked and treated the university as a place to relax, hang out and drink beer. In the reboot you get the impression it's more strict and orderly.
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4890939
Not sure if this helps but in the original movie the guys more or less did what they liked and treated the university as a place to relax, hang out and drink beer.
We don't actually know that's how they treated things before they got kicked out of Columbia. The only beer drinking we see is after they've been fired, and although Venkman was a slacker, I imagine Ray and Egon were much more professional, if unconventional in their approach and paperwork.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4890941
Not sure if this helps but in the original movie the guys more or less did what they liked and treated the university as a place to relax, hang out and drink beer. In the reboot you get the impression it's more strict and orderly.
True, in the original their work space really seems kind of dark and dingy. Also a little cluttered maybe. In the ESP scene the darkness allows for some pretty nice low-key lighting.

In the reboot, Abby and Holtzmann's work space is surprising nice, especially considering they seem to work for a cheap, poorly managed college. I mean they completely forgot they even had a paranormal program!
pferreira1983 liked this
By HunterCC
#4891147
Not sure if this helps but in the original movie the guys more or less did what they liked and treated the university as a place to relax, hang out and drink beer. In the reboot you get the impression it's more strict and orderly.
True, in the original their work space really seems kind of dark and dingy. Also a little cluttered maybe. In the ESP scene the darkness allows for some pretty nice low-key lighting.

In the reboot, Abby and Holtzmann's work space is surprising nice, especially considering they seem to work for a cheap, poorly managed college. I mean they completely forgot they even had a paranormal program!
I think the oldness and dinginess of the GB84 university can be explained by it being 33 years ago. Community colleges in the states look sharper and better maintained than top universities used to look. The difference between old and new high schools is also striking.

I got the impression Peter was the only slacker in the group, that Egon and Ray actually came up with semi-useful ideas.

Abby and Holtzmans lab looked less professional to me, a workroom they were tinkering in rather than serious research documenting and having students help with experiments. Given the college head had forgotten about them, it was just the two of them experimenting, wasn't it?

They must have used an "SEP field" to stay hidden, lol, and somehow get away with the stuff they stole. The college head could have just briskly walked to them and gotten the college's stuff back.
User avatar
By timeware
#4891150
Not sure if this helps but in the original movie the guys more or less did what they liked and treated the university as a place to relax, hang out and drink beer.
We don't actually know that's how they treated things before they got kicked out of Columbia. The only beer drinking we see is after they've been fired, and although Venkman was a slacker, I imagine Ray and Egon were much more professional, if unconventional in their approach and paperwork.
I cant imagine Peter actually sitting behind a desk signing papers unless it involved hitting on a secretary.
HunterCC, pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4891152
I think the oldness and dinginess of the GB84 university can be explained by it being 33 years ago. Community colleges in the states look sharper and better maintained than top universities used to look. The difference between old and new high schools is also striking.
It's quite possible, I wasn't around back then so I'll have to take your word on it.
Abby and Holtzmans lab looked less professional to me, a workroom they were tinkering in rather than serious research documenting and having students help with experiments. Given the college head had forgotten about them, it was just the two of them experimenting, wasn't it?
Wait, wasn't Holtzmann a student? I'll have to re-watch it sometime, as it's already slipping away...

It was the fact that their work space was very bright and clean-ish that made it seem professional to me. Really that's what it boils down to for me, the lighting. The original two films generally were shot darker, while the reboot was lighter.
By pferreira1983
#4891159
True, in the original their work space really seems kind of dark and dingy. Also a little cluttered maybe. In the ESP scene the darkness allows for some pretty nice low-key lighting.

In the reboot, Abby and Holtzmann's work space is surprising nice, especially considering they seem to work for a cheap, poorly managed college. I mean they completely forgot they even had a paranormal program!
Yeah that's how I took it.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4891192
I think all three of them have a bit of the frat boy in them, that's why Egon and Ray are drinking beer and eating Cheez-Its while meeting their first and only customer, lol. That's a funny reversal because we're used to thinking of college professors as all, well, professional. ;)

With the ladies, it's the opposite, they have to prove their professionalism and skill.
Sav C liked this
By HunterCC
#4891201
Wait, wasn't Holtzmann a student? I'll have to re-watch it sometime, as it's already slipping away...

It was the fact that their work space was very bright and clean-ish that made it seem professional to me. Really that's what it boils down to for me, the lighting. The original two films generally were shot darker, while the reboot was lighter.
Definitely brighter lit and more modern. "Shinier" and more modern. I forget what capacity Holtzman was there at the college, but wouldn't it be weird if she was just a student, considering she was with Abby and Wiig's character when Abby was fired?

The girls acted about as professionally as Peter did, which is to say they didn't, lol. Guess I kinda of give Ray and Egon a pass because we never see them in the college jobs. But they did get kicked out too.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4891203
I forget what capacity Holtzman was there at the college, but wouldn't it be weird if she was just a student, considering she was with Abby and Wiig's character when Abby was fired?
I suppose it would be. Maybe she was Abby's assistant or something?
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4891211
I always thought Holtzman was an android ala "Aliens" style? Didn't appear to be human at all.
HunterCC, pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4891221
I figured Abby put an ad out for an assistant. Wonder how that interview went, hehe.
By HunterCC
#4891229
I always thought Holtzman was an android ala "Aliens" style? Didn't appear to be human at all.
Got to admit, on ST:TNG, Brent Spiner played a character with a wider emotional range than Holtzman, as Data without the emotion chip. That included the weak scene at the restaurant at the end of the movie, where the only real awkwardness was her lines. Seems like she was playing the character she was supposed to, so I blame just the writing and direction for that. (Kinda like Hayden Christensen "I hate sand", not the actors fault.)
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4891230
In my original post in this thread, I made it clear this wasn't a place to bash ATC. A friendly reminder. ;)
By HunterCC
#4891247
In my original post in this thread, I made it clear this wasn't a place to bash ATC. A friendly reminder. ;)
OK, Juror, I'll be gentler this thread for you.

Since plenty of ppl have read the novelisations and other background info, were Ray and Egon competent, and just thrown out because the university was shutting down their deoartment?
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4891253
In my original post in this thread, I made it clear this wasn't a place to bash ATC. A friendly reminder. ;)
OK, Juror, I'll be gentler this thread for you.

Since plenty of ppl have read the novelisations and other background info, were Ray and Egon competent, and just thrown out because the university was shutting down their deoartment?
Hunter, I'm going to take back some of the things I've said about you. :crunch:

As to your question, I mean I feel like the Dean thought they were all trouble makers for their beliefs and casual attitude, but that Venkman was the ring leader.
By pferreira1983
#4891517
Got to admit, on ST:TNG, Brent Spiner played a character with a wider emotional range than Holtzman, as Data without the emotion chip. That included the weak scene at the restaurant at the end of the movie, where the only real awkwardness was her lines. Seems like she was playing the character she was supposed to, so I blame just the writing and direction for that. (Kinda like Hayden Christensen "I hate sand", not the actors fault.)
Depending on whether you like the character or not, or whether you think she has appeal I think it's safe to say Holtzman exists in her own little world. :mrgreen:
JurorNo.2, Sav C liked this
[SPOILERS] NEW GB MOVIE SUMMER 2020!

I had this idea, but of course its just going of[…]

Hello from Washington State!

There's a few of us!

Dan Schoening finished pencils on TF/GB #5. https[…]

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