Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4962382
I’ve talked before about effects from the originals Vs the effects in the 2016 reboot but watching this new movie I was again struck by how some things just look better in the original two movies.

For some reason I feel like photo chemical optical printing lends itself to doing certain effects like ghosts better than CGI. I mean…when I look at the Library Ghost pre transformation or Ray’s blowjob ghost or the jogger in GB2 or even the Scolari Bros…I feel like they look “better” than something like the eyeball creature. The CGI looks so clean and a little too perfect. Like Ghost Egon for example. The CGI Egon looked great but the blue aura around him was…I don’t know. It just doesn’t look as good to me.

It’s the same with the proton streams. There isn’t a shot in GBA where the proton streams look better than certain sequences in GB1 like when they shoot off the side of the building at Mr. Stay Puft or the “Aim for the flat top” shot where the beams go directly at the camera.

Or even the Pink wisps that’s escape from the containment unit.

Am I alone? I don’t they the effects in GBA look bad. Not at all. They really mostly got the proton beams looks quite good. But there’s just something I can’t put my finger on in the original photo chemical process. Somehow by looking less perfect than CGI it looks more real? It’s hard to explain. I don’t mean this in a “I hate CGI!!” way.

Or look at the Ghost Miner. I LOVED that they did him practical. But I think the taxi cab ghost looks better.

It’s it a lighting thing? A shooting on film Vs digital thing? I don’t know. The only ghost in GBA that I think was improved by CGI was Muncher & the Terror Dogs running.
deadderek, Sav C, Nighty80 liked this
#4962387
if anything the streams are too detailed, almost to the point of overcomplication.
There's a lot more going on with the orange core in the Afterlife streams with a more fractured, raw energy look.

Which is great as it's own thing and goes along with the trend that each iteration the streams is different in each movie but I much prefer the rubberised light look of the original effect, personally.
oidoglr liked this
#4962443
The original effects were not photorealistic in my view. Like when they shoot the maid’s cart. At the exposure level and film sensitivity used, you’d never have seen the cores of the beams on film, it would have been just a blinding white light.

Same with Ray shooting Slimer in the hallway, the damage on the wall is already there before the beam gets there.

I much prefer GB1 to GB2 effects though. In GB1 the blue sparks shoot out while the orange beam actually shoots inward, which is what was intended and looks so much more interesting and mysterious than in GB2. Also the cores of the beams are gradiented in GB1 and just a single color in GB2. They also look thinner in GB2. The videogame had awesome streams, the way the beams would entrap seemed much more realistic than either movie.

Afterlife I really love. The beams have the unpredictability dialled up from the originals and the blue sparks are much better looking.

As for the ghosts in Afterlife. I’m not sold on the “airy” look. They look too cartoonish, especially Muncher. And him shooting 7.62 out of his mouth is just weird. Why the machine gun noises?

I prefer the weird “effervescent” look of onionhead and the other apparitions in GB1. The flickering translucency in GB1 looked much more unpredictable and weirdly-menacing than the wispy, friendly, airy look in Afterlife.
Last edited by One time on December 2nd, 2021, 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4962444
gerv wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 2:58 pm
RichardLess wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 1:46 am

It’s it a lighting thing? A shooting on film Vs digital thing?
Personally i'd say it's a "rose tinted glasses" thing, the original is held in such high regard even with some of the effects being basically unfinished\rough at times.
No. Obviously the new movie has better effects overall than the original. The original still has wires and matte lines and janky stop motion animation. But that’s not what I’m referencing.

I’m talking about specific sequences. The proton stream effect when the boys shoot off the roof at Mr Stay Puft looks better to me. Maybe better is the wrong word. I don’t know. No it does look better. From an aesthetic POV.

Same with the ghosts. Now is the subway ghost better than anything in the new movie? No. Personally I find that ghost hilarious due to the noise it makes.

But the blue aura around Egon. That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. Somehow the photo chemical process makes that look more…otherworldly. More ethereal.

Now when it comes to Ghostbusters 2? Again, I think the proton streams look better. They are described as rubberized light. And I just haven’t seen CGI get that aesthetic right or as right as these sequences I’ve mentioned. But the streams in GBA do look better than anything we see in the Sedgwick hotel sequence. It’s just there’s a couple specific shots in the original where those proton streams look amazing and perfect. It’s not rose tinted glasses otherwise I’d say “the original beams look better all the time”. But that’s just not true.

There’s a phenomenon that’s occurred in a bunch of movies like the most recent The Thing remake(from 2011) or This is the End or even Gb2016 or Stranger Things or Prometheus. They all talk about in the behind the scenes process. All those projects were done by filmmakers that wanted to use practical effects over CGI when possible and the FX people warned them and said “no don’t bother we’ll just end up replacing it with CGI anyways” but the filmmakers stuck to their guns. Lo and behold they shoot with practical effects like animatronics and puppets etc but something isn’t right. They don’t look good enough. So what happens? They end up replacing it with a digital version. Countless movies have had this happen.

Why? I think it’s because they aren’t lighting properly and that mixed with rise of digital cameras used over celluloid film.

What’s the greatest animatronic effect ever created? Most FX people would probably say the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. That thing cuts really well between the CGI version and the practical one. Yet we see in some of the sequels…that marriage of practical and CGI isn’t there. Why? We’ll look at how we first get a glimpse of that T-Rex. It’s nighttime, it’s raining. The shots are mostly static.

Digital cinematography, which is what most films use now, doesn’t have the same aesthetic as celluloid. Digital really gives itself away in lowlight conditions.

Ghostbusters Afterlife is the first movie I’ve seen in a long time where it was shot digitally and the animatronics looks amazing. The terror dogs looked terrific. They got the lighting right. But when it comes to the proton streams? I don’t know. Something just isn’t right.
Sav C liked this
#4962467
The thing I liked about Afterlife's effects is that they never took me out of the movie--the budget might have helped, since it forced them to show restraint. I wonder how many effects shots it actually had.

One thing to note is that none of the ghosts in the first two (asides from Slimer in the second one) had an aura. Yes, they gave off light, so the library ghost was giving off purple light for instance. However, if you look at the edges of the library ghost, they're solid. The edges of the Scoleri brothers? Solid. The Dream Ghost? Solid (although perhaps with a little glare). Whearas in Afterlife, Muncher and the Bug Eyed Ghost have very blurred outlines and auras. I like them both, but it definitely has a distinct look. I'd say Afterlife was in-between the originals and ATC (they went all in on ghost auras in ATC).

I believe all of the ghosts in the first two were luma keyed in (asides from the Scoleri Brothers and Jogger (shot on blue screen I think). Ok, I lied, the jogger ghost also had an aura. I'd say out of all the ghosts in the first two, the jogger would be the most at home in Afterlife. The terror dogs were spot on.

I'd say that Afterlife is shot bit brighter than the first two, and that celluloid vs digital is causing a lot of the difference. Digital has so much detail that film grain usually masks (especially in the shadows), so I do know if it's possible to approximate the look of the first two without using the same tech. I'd be curious to see, say, the library ghost composited over some new digital footage.

(On a slightly very unrelated note, I'm thinking of getting one of those Ulanzi 1.55x anamorphic lenses for my phone. Not quite the 2x anamorphic lens that Ghostbusters would have used, but I think it'll get me closer than one of the 1.33x lens (I'll just have to crop the sides a bit).)
jonogunn wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 4:56 pm I liked the original stream better. The orange beam stood out from the blue lighting. It was a smooth looking stream rather than the jagged look of Afterlife. I wish they just did an updated version of that.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The original orange stream was one solid, smooth line, and the blue lights were thinner and less pronounced. In Afterlife, the orange beam is thinner, and instead of being a solid stream, it looks very electric, and almost the same size as the blue streams... Also, the stream doesn't seem to have as much torque.
Kingpin liked this
#4962526
One time wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:53 pm
As for the ghosts in Afterlife. I’m not sold on the “airy” look. They look too cartoonish, especially Muncher. And him shooting 7.62 out of his mouth is just weird. Why the machine gun noises?

Its a nod to RGB i would say, he's spitting pieces of metal out of his mouth so they went with a cartoonish sound effect.
#4962627
I didn't mind the new effects. They were not too over the top like the ATC ones but there is a preference for the original ones I'm sure. I just prefer to think of the packs and evolving. The streams look different because the packs have been modded since gb2 just as they looked a little different from gb1 to gb 2.
Sav C liked this
#4962666
One time wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:53 pm Same with Ray shooting Slimer in the hallway, the damage on the wall is already there before the beam gets there.
There was something I remember hearing that they'd meant to suggest that the Proton Guns/Packs sort've sucked up the atoms from anything nearby to feed the streams... I'm not doing a good job at explaining it.
RedSpecial liked this
#4962725
Kingpin wrote: December 4th, 2021, 3:58 pm
One time wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:53 pm Same with Ray shooting Slimer in the hallway, the damage on the wall is already there before the beam gets there.
There was something I remember hearing that they'd meant to suggest that the Proton Guns/Packs sort've sucked up the atoms from anything nearby to feed the streams... I'm not doing a good job at explaining it.
Yes if you watch Alex's videos he shows the stream go into the wand and then the blue sparks coming out of it where as GB2 the stream and sparks come out of the wand.
One time liked this
#4962842
RealGhostbusterJay wrote: December 5th, 2021, 8:10 am
Kingpin wrote: December 4th, 2021, 3:58 pm

There was something I remember hearing that they'd meant to suggest that the Proton Guns/Packs sort've sucked up the atoms from anything nearby to feed the streams... I'm not doing a good job at explaining it.
Yes if you watch Alex's videos he shows the stream go into the wand and then the blue sparks coming out of it where as GB2 the stream and sparks come out of the wand.
Got a link? :)

    I already explained my motivation indepth a few pa[…]

    Thanks for the info! Do you know if he has any oth[…]

    New member and first post. I agree that it shou[…]

    If you mean wired to the gbfans wand light kit v[…]