Discuss the upcoming 4th movie, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire to be released in March 2024.
#5000252
Saw this on Amazon UK too.

That is so weird. I wonder if it’s a search optimisation algorithm thing, or… just they think this will reach more people by tying it back to Afterlife… ??? It sort of implies there’s a version of Frozen Empire from another perspective but we know that’s not the case. It’s an odd one.
#5000254
Chicken, He Clucked wrote: October 2nd, 2024, 2:52 pm Saw this on Amazon UK too.

That is so weird. I wonder if it’s a search optimisation algorithm thing, or… just they think this will reach more people by tying it back to Afterlife… ??? It sort of implies there’s a version of Frozen Empire from another perspective but we know that’s not the case. It’s an odd one.
I have a theory. I think they are going to do exactly what some of us have talked about. Different stories, different franchises, different cast. This is the Spengler family story.

So maybe it’ll be instead of how Marvel has Phase 1 and Phase 2? Ghostbusters is The Spenglers and next will be…whatever.

I think this hints at the franchise going in a different and new direction for the next iteration. Maybe?
#5000256
Could be the animated series will be subtitled The Spenglers?

I could see them going in a different direction. Eg. A cheaper spin-off based in Scotland like Dan mentioned, utilising some of the cast from FE and others.

But I still think there will be a third Spengler film set in NYC with Phoebe as lead. Eventually.
#5000257
GuyX wrote: October 2nd, 2024, 5:12 pm I have a theory. I think they are going to do exactly what some of us have talked about. Different stories, different franchises, different cast. This is the Spengler family story.

So maybe it’ll be instead of how Marvel has Phase 1 and Phase 2? Ghostbusters is The Spenglers and next will be…whatever.

I think this hints at the franchise going in a different and new direction for the next iteration. Maybe?
Basically what Jason Reitman and Gil Kenan have hinted at from the start, they open with this story about The Spenglers then stay in a producer role for other filmmakers to come in and take the baton.

Pretty much. Phase 1 would be GB1 and GB2, the Peter & Dana Saga. Phase 2 would be Afterlife, Frozen Empire, and presumably the next, the Spenglers Saga. Phase 3 would be the start of a new saga centered another a new set of characters with characters recurring from the past 2 sagas. Could be Winston succeeded in starting franchises across the US and the world which they were toying with since the GB1 drafts and most recently what the shelved Ecto-Force animated series was going to feature (and no, no clue if this premise is being kept for the current animated series in the works).

Hard to say if the animated side will be canon or it's own thing since the Dark Horse comic is canon to the movies. The majority of recent MCU animation has been AU. The only canon stuff I think are the Groot shorts and the big canon one is a Wakanda show coming out next year.
#5000260
mrmichaelt wrote: October 3rd, 2024, 3:29 am
GuyX wrote: October 2nd, 2024, 5:12 pm I have a theory. I think they are going to do exactly what some of us have talked about. Different stories, different franchises, different cast. This is the Spengler family story.

So maybe it’ll be instead of how Marvel has Phase 1 and Phase 2? Ghostbusters is The Spenglers and next will be…whatever.

I think this hints at the franchise going in a different and new direction for the next iteration. Maybe?
Basically what Jason Reitman and Gil Kenan have hinted at from the start, they open with this story about The Spenglers then stay in a producer role for other filmmakers to come in and take the baton.

Pretty much. Phase 1 would be GB1 and GB2, the Peter & Dana Saga. Phase 2 would be Afterlife, Frozen Empire, and presumably the next, the Spenglers Saga. Phase 3 would be the start of a new saga centered another a new set of characters with characters recurring from the past 2 sagas. Could be Winston succeeded in starting franchises across the US and the world which they were toying with since the GB1 drafts and most recently what the shelved Ecto-Force animated series was going to feature (and no, no clue if this premise is being kept for the current animated series in the works).

Hard to say if the animated side will be canon or it's own thing since the Dark Horse comic is canon to the movies. The majority of recent MCU animation has been AU. The only canon stuff I think are the Groot shorts and the big canon one is a Wakanda show coming out next year.
I really hope it’s not canon with the films but is canon with the animated universe. I like that about the other 2 series. It was pretty rare for animated shows released years apart, with different creative teams, to share a continuity. That’s what made EGB exciting as a kid. This was the same Egon from the RGB. You kept waiting for ghosts or characters to show up from the first series & the fact that they kept it minimal & showed restraint? The animated series was more restrained with doing call backs or fan service than the movies. They earned it. That 1 episode with the Goblin in the tree? He kidnaps kids. It plays so different knowing the OGB’s faced off with this guy.
#5000269
Imageworks posted a 53 minute recording from Siggraph 2024 where VFX shots are discussed (i.e. Jason Greenblum Visual FX Supervisor talks about Slimer, Ben Aguillon Associate VISUAL FX Supervisor talks about the chess match at the 18 min. mark, Chris Messineo FX Supervisor talks about the Proton Streams at 22:30, Ben Hendricks CG Supervisor talks about the Sewer Dragon chase, Andrew Bain Environments Supervisor talks about the frozen city and library exteriors)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ2GmPzMAU4



GuyX wrote: October 3rd, 2024, 7:10 am I really hope it’s not canon with the films but is canon with the animated universe. I like that about the other 2 series. It was pretty rare for animated shows released years apart, with different creative teams, to share a continuity. That’s what made EGB exciting as a kid. This was the same Egon from the RGB. You kept waiting for ghosts or characters to show up from the first series & the fact that they kept it minimal & showed restraint? The animated series was more restrained with doing call backs or fan service than the movies. They earned it. That 1 episode with the Goblin in the tree? He kidnaps kids. It plays so different knowing the OGB’s faced off with this guy.
I was surprised by how many fans say they want the animated canon to continue but I suppose with the success of sequel shows like X-Men '97 and just overall how well cherished RGB and EGB are, what was I thinking I don't know. Grundel, yeah. That was a great follow-up. Funny they had Samhain and Ghash in the end credits and the former had an EGB toy but never showed up in the series itself but I digress. I figured the animated series will be a standalone based on the new movies (i.e. Like RGB and GB1) but I wouldn't be against a totally new concept like a 'Hellbent era' with a bunch of teams in operation in NYC and the show focuses on the underdogs team.
Kingpin liked this
#5000279
It wouldn't really be much of a stretch for them to continue the RGB series, and blend it with Afterlife. Cartoons don't age so they could really pick up right after RGB ended and still have Egon as a ghost without a speaking role. He operates in tthe background and interacts with Phoebe like in Afterlife etc...

If Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice proves popular enough to get a series they could use the animated loop hole to bring back Geena Davis, and Alec Baldwin's characters without Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin. Say that five times fast. Lol.
#5000280
mrmichaelt wrote: October 3rd, 2024, 7:29 pm Imageworks posted a 53 minute recording from Siggraph 2024 where VFX shots are discussed (i.e. Jason Greenblum Visual FX Supervisor talks about Slimer, Ben Aguillon Associate VISUAL FX Supervisor talks about the chess match at the 18 min. mark, Chris Messineo FX Supervisor talks about the Proton Streams at 22:30, Ben Hendricks CG Supervisor talks about the Sewer Dragon chase, Andrew Bain Environments Supervisor talks about the frozen city and library exteriors)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ2GmPzMAU4



That was a cool video. Thanks for sharing. It’s very revealing & extremely frustrating by what it reveals.


Like holy crap fellas. How can Jason & Gil say they want the ghosts to have similar look & feel of the original optical compositing of 1984 then do sumthing that completely undoes that aesthetic? By not SHOOTING ON FILM

Digital has no generational loss or film grain. It makes crisp, bright, highly dynamic images. AKA THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT U SAY U WANT. U know what I don’t see when I look @ that 1984 footage? Crisp, bright, highly dynamic images. I see a shit tonne of grain, noise, blown out colors, matte lines, flickering etc. Commit to it. Go all the way.

I mostly think Slimer looks ok. Sum shots look WONDERFUL. But the Sewer dragon? It frustrates me how bad it looks. & it looks bad bcuz they r trying 2 make sumthing look like 1984 with 2022 equipment & technology. Mayb bad is the wrong term. It doesn’t look bad it just looks bland. It had no personality. No character. Every ghost we see in those 1st 2 films have sum sort of character or personality.

Didn’t 1 of the puppeteers come on here & talk about the work they did? Now we find out, hey, all that great work was pretty much tossed out & used as reference bcuz they wanted cheeto dust(??) & more control. Then the actors & directors can lie or mislead during the promotions by saying they used puppets & practical effects. Yes. They did. *technically* But that’s not what we the audience will see.

When making the new SNL movie Jason Reitman did sumthing smart. Can u guess what it was? He shot on FILM. 16mm of all things.& why? Bcuz he was after a specific sort of look & feel. Sumthing they say they were after on these last 2 movies.

I duno. I guess it bothers me when the solution to a problem is right there but they ignore it 4 whatever reason
mrmichaelt liked this
#5000282


While I joke about Grooberson driving like an old lady, I don't see how this is a bad scene. It's one of my favorite ghosts in the movie. Unlike Pukie and Slimer, I'm guessing this would have been a very expensive, very difficult puppet to pull off without it making it look like a dragon from a Chinese New Year parade.

Still and not a knock against prior films the SFX look much better then GBII going forward.
#5000284
I don’t think the point was to make it look like the movies were shot in the 80s (something I definitely do not want)...it was to create scenes as practical as possible.

I don’t know how they could have used a puppet for the Sewer Dragon. It would have been so obvious and out of place. The snake like movement and scale requires CGI. It just does.

Maybe it would have looked cooler as a nighttime chase because he’s glowing blue but it does not look bland. Not sure how every ghost in first 2 movies had more “personality”. Especially ones that only briefly appeared on-screen...that sounds more like nostalgia.
Kingpin liked this
#5000286
timeware wrote: October 4th, 2024, 10:53 amCartoons don't age so they could really pick up right after RGB ended and still have Egon as a ghost without a speaking role.
It depends a lot on the cartoon... RGB dates reasonably well despite it being set in the 1980s, the fashion and hairstyles of the secondary/tertiary and the non-main characters aren't massively outlandish/outdated, though cars and the visible consumer electronics (stereos, TVs, telephones and computers) are the main exceptions... Egon, Peter and Janine's hairstyles notwithstanding.

I'd love to see a revival of The Real Ghostbusters, but tying a revival into Afterlife and Frozen Empire might just result in more confusion in the long run.
GuyX wrote: October 4th, 2024, 10:57 amCommit to it. Go all the way.
I love the first film, but the optical flaws are not the stuff I remember fondly... Digital film and CG ghosts might not fully replicate the feel of the Ghostbusters/Poltergeist/Raiders of the Lost Ark era ghost effects, but they don't look bad either in Afterlife or Frozen Empire.

I'm not convinced shooting either of the last two films on actual celluloid would've improved anything substantially or even slightly... As someone who likes to analyse the finer details of props, costumes and sets, I much prefer the clearer image of digital film stock than real film.
The only real benefit with physical film is how large you can enlarge it versus something shot digitally.
WCat2000 wrote: October 4th, 2024, 2:23 pmthat sounds more like nostalgia.
This thought did come to mind, coupled with the "Record vs. CD" debate.
Is celluloid film really that superior to digital film, or is it being viewed through the lense of nostalgia?
#5000292
Kingpin wrote: October 4th, 2024, 4:52 pm
GuyX wrote: October 4th, 2024, 10:57 amCommit to it. Go all the way.
I love the first film, but the optical flaws are not the stuff I remember fondly... Digital film and CG ghosts might not fully replicate the feel of the Ghostbusters/Poltergeist/Raiders of the Lost Ark era ghost effects, but they don't look bad either in Afterlife or Frozen Empire.

I'm not convinced shooting either of the last two films on actual celluloid would've improved anything substantially or even slightly... As someone who likes to analyse the finer details of props, costumes and sets, I much prefer the clearer image of digital film stock than real film.
The only real benefit with physical film is how large you can enlarge it versus something shot digitally.
WCat2000 wrote: October 4th, 2024, 2:23 pmthat sounds more like nostalgia.
This thought did come to mind, coupled with the "Record vs. CD" debate.
Is celluloid film really that superior to digital film, or is it being viewed through the lense of nostalgia?
I know we discussed it before but to me it’s nostalgia. If today’s technology existed back then all movies would have used it. It would have been the standard. Nobody would have requested movies to have some kind of grainy effect for no reason. It wouldn’t have been a thing. Instead film was the standard so now some say that’s how they were intended to look.

It’s funny that people complain about too much CGI looking fake but want a filter of grain on top of everything instead of having the clearest picture quality possible.

Same with the music. I’m sure no singer would have intended to have scratches or any kind of imperfections including with their voice.
Kingpin liked this
#5000294
It also kind reminds me of the various discussions about which version of New York people prefer: clean and reasonably crime-free vs gritty and "authentic" (Times Square being one of the best encapsulations of this discussion). I'll concede to them the points made on the loss of independent/mom-and-pop businesses and how much more expensive everything is, but the preference for Times Square (and New York as a whole) of old feels more the produce of rose-tinted reminiscing than of reality. Like the 1950s, the affection for that bygone era hides the fact that those times weren't nearly as good as they're remembered to be... And that's the problem with nostalgia.

before I get further off topic... Here's a handful of "close approximation" shots from Ghostbusters and Frozen Empire to showcase celluloud vs. film, and I think the visuals speak for themselves.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

If I'm being honest, Ghostbusters is probably one of the grainiest 1980s movies I've seen. Just look at how much is visible on the logo ghost, or behind Ray in the scene where they interview Dana.

Image
Image
Image

To me, grain is like over-varnishing a painting... It doesn't enhance it, it spoils it:

Image
WCat2000 liked this
#5000300
Looking at those stills REALLY puts it into perspective (no pun intended) that those original straight-shots made the first movie look more grounded in reality whereas FE's angled shots attempt to make it look more like an epic.
One time liked this
#5000304
Kingpin wrote: October 5th, 2024, 8:12 am It also kind reminds me of the various discussions about which version of New York people prefer: clean and reasonably crime-free vs gritty and "authentic" (Times Square being one of the best encapsulations of this discussion). I'll concede to them the points made on the loss of independent/mom-and-pop businesses and how much more expensive everything is, but the preference for Times Square (and New York as a whole) of old feels more the produce of rose-tinted reminiscing than of reality. Like the 1950s, the affection for that bygone era hides the fact that those times weren't nearly as good as they're remembered to be... And that's the problem with nostalgia.

before I get further off topic... Here's a handful of "close approximation" shots from Ghostbusters and Frozen Empire to showcase celluloud vs. film, and I think the visuals speak for themselves.

If I'm being honest, Ghostbusters is probably one of the grainiest 1980s movies I've seen. Just look at how much is visible on the logo ghost, or behind Ray in the scene where they interview Dana.

To me, grain is like over-varnishing a painting... It doesn't enhance it, it spoils it:
Ya if I go visit the firehouse, I never have unfortunately, I’m gonna see it as it is. A building in front of me. I’m not gonna have grain over my eyes. I agree about the NY look. Don’t exaggerate it just for the sake of it.
Kingpin liked this
#5000307
WCat2000 wrote: October 5th, 2024, 12:53 am I know we discussed it before but to me it’s nostalgia. If today’s technology existed back then all movies would have used it. It would have been the standard. Nobody would have requested movies to have some kind of grainy effect for no reason. It wouldn’t have been a thing. Instead film was the standard so now some say that’s how they were intended to look.

It’s funny that people complain about too much CGI looking fake but want a filter of grain on top of everything instead of having the clearest picture quality possible.

Same with the music. I’m sure no singer would have intended to have scratches or any kind of imperfections including with their voice.
I completely agree with GuyX.

Why don't movies get screened in 60 fps or 120 fps? That's closer to what your eye sees. Movies get screened at 23 fps, almost like a shutter effect. In a way your mind fills in the blank frames, in kind of a trance state you are teleported into that world. If you watch a movie at 60fps (on say your tv or projector) it looks fake. It looks too real, like a documentary.

In my opinion that same with overly sharp images. You don't want things too sharp or too clear. The original DVD of GB1 to me was the best grading and grain, almost like experimental cinema. The 2015 bluray as well, just sharper.

The Sewer Dragon doesn't look good to me. It's so desaturated and flat it almost looks black and white. Compare it to the subway ghost in GB1 or the theatre ghost in Gb2. They glow with this other worldly ethereal glow and are anything but flat. Heck slimer practically gives off light in Gb1. The Sewer Dragon just looks like a near black and white undersaturated Unreal Engine render.

Image

Image

Image

I'm not saying they should look identical to GB1 and GB2 (obviously tech has moved on thankfully) but FE lost the "spirit" of the look imo.
#5000314
Kingpin wrote: October 5th, 2024, 8:12 am
To me, grain is like over-varnishing a painting... It doesn't enhance it, it spoils it:

Image
Lol oh kingpin. That sound u heard is every cinephiles collective jaw hitting the floor. “It spoils it”. lol. don’t even know what 2 say to that. 2 each their own. Thankfully Ivan Reitman wasn’t like James Cameron or any other of the DNR heavy users that ruin the natural look of film.

The 1st Predator movie was also very grain heavy but they just DNR’d it to high hell making a waxy looking mess. Grain can add so much 2 a movie. Ghostbusters, Goodfellas, the 1st TMNT movie. Which as coincidence would have it r all suppose 2 take place in NYC

Like u said Ghostbusters is a notoriously grainy film. It’s bcuz of the fast film stock used. I don’t think they should’ve made the new film look like that. But I do think it’s pretty silly 2 say u want ur film 2 have a certain look & feel but then use sumthing that goes against that very idea.

Digital can look great. But it’s also responsible for how homogenized modern films have become. I saw the latest trailer for Gladiator 2 & wept @ its overt digitalness. The original film was so striking & so bold. Now? Gladiator 2 looks like a thousand other movies.

I think Gil & Jason should chose 1 sort of aesthetic & stick to it, either don’t worry about making things look like they did in 1984 & forge a new path or if ur guna aim for that 1984/89 optical compositing look, go all the way. Shoot the entire movie on film.

I think Beetlejuice 2 ran into this same problem. They went with a retro aesthetic but shot it all digitally which made the movie look far too crisp & clean. Filming on celluloid would’ve helped soo much with the sterile flatness of the movie.
#5000320
One time wrote: October 5th, 2024, 7:30 pm
WCat2000 wrote: October 5th, 2024, 12:53 am I know we discussed it before but to me it’s nostalgia. If today’s technology existed back then all movies would have used it. It would have been the standard. Nobody would have requested movies to have some kind of grainy effect for no reason. It wouldn’t have been a thing. Instead film was the standard so now some say that’s how they were intended to look.

It’s funny that people complain about too much CGI looking fake but want a filter of grain on top of everything instead of having the clearest picture quality possible.

Same with the music. I’m sure no singer would have intended to have scratches or any kind of imperfections including with their voice.
I completely agree with GuyX.

Why don't movies get screened in 60 fps or 120 fps? That's closer to what your eye sees. Movies get screened at 23 fps, almost like a shutter effect. In a way your mind fills in the blank frames, in kind of a trance state you are teleported into that world. If you watch a movie at 60fps (on say your tv or projector) it looks fake. It looks too real, like a documentary.

In my opinion that same with overly sharp images. You don't want things too sharp or too clear. The original DVD of GB1 to me was the best grading and grain, almost like experimental cinema. The 2015 bluray as well, just sharper.

The Sewer Dragon doesn't look good to me. It's so desaturated and flat it almost looks black and white. Compare it to the subway ghost in GB1 or the theatre ghost in Gb2. They glow with this other worldly ethereal glow and are anything but flat. Heck slimer practically gives off light in Gb1. The Sewer Dragon just looks like a near black and white undersaturated Unreal Engine render.

I'm not saying they should look identical to GB1 and GB2 (obviously tech has moved on thankfully) but FE lost the "spirit" of the look imo.
https://www.slashgear.com/1543676/why-m ... explained/

After reading a few articles it seems 24fps is out of tradition and what people got used to as “cinematic”. I’m not sure I’d be able to tell the difference between 24 and 60. I’ve probably seen something in 60 and not realized it. I read live sports are 60. At least there’s some type of origin for FPS.

Grain just happened to be part of film. It was not made for the purpose of being in movies. This article perfectly explains what I’m saying even though it’s pro-grain. It’s a byproduct that people now like for sentimental reasons.

https://www.soundstripe.com/blogs/film-grain
So, now we get to the big question: Why does film grain matter?
The obvious answer is that it makes a video have a classic feel. (And yes, it’s strange that something that used to be an accident now gives the impression of higher production values...There’s also an instinctive, unconscious nostalgia that film grain creates inside of us. Film grain makes a picture or video feel almost like a shared memory...
If film grain never existed nobody would care. There’d be a reason to.
Kingpin liked this
#5000321
mrmichaelt wrote: October 5th, 2024, 10:01 pm Idk, I've seen people hating on GB2 because of they thought it looked sterile compared to GB1.

Yep. Bcuz it is relative to the 1st film. & then uve got the far end of that spectrum on Frozen Empire. & I think they might be different kinds of sterile. GB2 has a much more family friendly thing going on. There’s less grain 4 sure. It’s a brighter picture. But it still has that detail and grain structure that makes the image pop instead of feel flat & lifeless like Frozen Empire.



WCat2000 wrote: October 5th, 2024, 11:01 pm
One time wrote: October 5th, 2024, 7:30 pm

I completely agree with GuyX.

Why don't movies get screened in 60 fps or 120 fps? That's closer to what your eye sees. Movies get screened at 23 fps, almost like a shutter effect. In a way your mind fills in the blank frames, in kind of a trance state you are teleported into that world. If you watch a movie at 60fps (on say your tv or projector) it looks fake. It looks too real, like a documentary.

In my opinion that same with overly sharp images. You don't want things too sharp or too clear. The original DVD of GB1 to me was the best grading and grain, almost like experimental cinema. The 2015 bluray as well, just sharper.

The Sewer Dragon doesn't look good to me. It's so desaturated and flat it almost looks black and white. Compare it to the subway ghost in GB1 or the theatre ghost in Gb2. They glow with this other worldly ethereal glow and are anything but flat. Heck slimer practically gives off light in Gb1. The Sewer Dragon just looks like a near black and white undersaturated Unreal Engine render.

I'm not saying they should look identical to GB1 and GB2 (obviously tech has moved on thankfully) but FE lost the "spirit" of the look imo.
https://www.slashgear.com/1543676/why-m ... explained/

After reading a few articles it seems 24fps is out of tradition and what people got used to as “cinematic”. I’m not sure I’d be able to tell the difference between 24 and 60. I’ve probably seen something in 60 and not realized it. I read live sports are 60. At least there’s some type of origin for FPS.

Grain just happened to be part of film. It was not made for the purpose of being in movies. This article perfectly explains what I’m saying even though it’s pro-grain. It’s a byproduct that people now like for sentimental reasons.

https://www.soundstripe.com/blogs/film-grain
So, now we get to the big question: Why does film grain matter?
The obvious answer is that it makes a video have a classic feel. (And yes, it’s strange that something that used to be an accident now gives the impression of higher production values...There’s also an instinctive, unconscious nostalgia that film grain creates inside of us. Film grain makes a picture or video feel almost like a shared memory...
If film grain never existed nobody would care. There’d be a reason to.
The difference between film & digital is the same as the difference between ink & paint on a canvas & using a digital paint program on ur computer. It’s that simple. 1 is a chemical reaction & the other is 0 and 1s. What u prefer is up to the viewer
If film grain never existed nobody would care. There’d be a reason to.
Huh?
If film grain never existed, film wouldn’t exist. We would’ve have pictures and films at all. ? U could literally say that about anything. U can’t get more reductive than that lol

24fps was chosen bcuz it was the cheapest amount of film that u could run through a camera that gave the illusion of real movement representing life. 24fps is why we get things like motion blur. Peter Jackson released his hobbit movies in 48fps & it was hated by almost everybody bcuz it looked too clean. They weren’t use to seeing no motion blur. (Not to mention the films were shot digitally and presented 48fps digitally). Audiences complained the hobbit looked like a British Soap Opera. 48fps died right then & there as an alternative. ppl are use to 24fps & generally don’t like change. But I never saw it so I have no idea if it looked that bad.
#5000333


The SIGGRAPH video confirms that the majority of shots showing NYC (pedestrians, traffic, buildings and aerial shots) in FE are cgi.

Also that proton stream effects are modulated (toned down) depending on if the on screen character is speaking or gesticulating.

Kenan also made the blue “electric” arc that goes around the yellow beam on the proton stream flat against the yellow (as opposed to corkscrew around it like in the earlier movies) because the blue would look too big when Trevor fired it towards the camera.
#5000343
Kingpin wrote: October 5th, 2024, 8:12 am It also kind reminds me of the various discussions about which version of New York people prefer: clean and reasonably crime-free vs gritty and "authentic" (Times Square being one of the best encapsulations of this discussion). I'll concede to them the points made on the loss of independent/mom-and-pop businesses and how much more expensive everything is, but the preference for Times Square (and New York as a whole) of old feels more the produce of rose-tinted reminiscing than of reality. Like the 1950s, the affection for that bygone era hides the fact that those times weren't nearly as good as they're remembered to be... And that's the problem with nostalgia.

before I get further off topic... Here's a handful of "close approximation" shots from Ghostbusters and Frozen Empire to showcase celluloud vs. film, and I think the visuals speak for themselves.
This Post Contains Spoilers
If I'm being honest, Ghostbusters is probably one of the grainiest 1980s movies I've seen. Just look at how much is visible on the logo ghost, or behind Ray in the scene where they interview Dana.
This Post Contains Spoilers
To me, grain is like over-varnishing a painting... It doesn't enhance it, it spoils it:
This Post Contains Spoilers
I just looked @ these again & what stands out…..well….1st look @ those pictures from Frozen Empire. Just LOOK @ em. It looks like some1 rubbed yellow nicotine or grease all over the frame. The ‘84 images look beautiful & , what’s the term? “real”. lol. Frozen Empire looks like an overly glosssy coffee stained image.

It’s interesting bcuz of the varnish thing u mentioned. Out of those screen grabs, which film looks like it has stuff smeared on it? I know that’s not the point u were trying to make, u were talking about the grain but it’s interesting to me the literal piece of art in those pix had this yellow tint from the varnish & the FE images look kinda like that lmao.
.
Last edited by Kingpin on October 8th, 2024, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Added spoiler tag to reduce post vertical length
#5000351
I duno if any1 remembers this but a few days ago I made a post about how Frozen Empire is now subtitled “The Spenglers”? And even uploaded an image of the poster and how it appears on Amazon Prime Video?

Well it seems like that may have been a false alarm. That’s not what’s happening. Turns out for sum odd reason, @ least this is how it appears for me, when u click on & watch the red bannered “The Spenglers” poster, it plays a sort of DVD special feature or promo about The Spengler family. Why that would be something available on Amazon Prime Video instead of the actual movie, I’m sure I duno.

But that seems to be the explanation versus the movie getting sum new subtitle or that it’s any indication of a change in the brand going forward.
#5000352
GuyX wrote: October 5th, 2024, 9:33 pm Grain can add so much 2 a movie.
Let's expand on that, then: What does film grain actually positively contribute to a movie? Why is it a good thing for a film to have it?
About the only time we see anything approximating film grain outside of an old movie or TV show is either when we look up at a bright light or patch of sky and see that sort of "static" against the brightness/whiteness, or that fuzzy "noise" that occurs when we're looking around a room in a low-light environment.

It seems clear that film grain wasn't something that was consciously added by the director to the film, it wasn't an intentional stylistic choice back in the '60s/'70s/'80s... (Though it is now for people trying to replicate the vintage/grindhouse look...) It was a by-product, either of the original recording, or the film being processed, or some other factor...

Given it's largely not been an intentional addition to the film, I feel there's an argument to be made that film grain is a visual flaw, not a visual attribute... And should be counted in the same group as dust, scratches, splice marks and reel change marks.

Which then leads me to the next bit, what's wrong with the image appearing crisp and clean? Shouldn't a clean and crisp image be what directors aim for?

If it helps to explain why I don't get the love for film grain, it's like if someone were advocating that films looked better when viewed on a 1980s or 1990s CRT television, rather than on a LED monitor.
GuyX wrote: October 5th, 2024, 9:33 pmI saw the latest trailer for Gladiator 2 & wept @ its overt digitalness. The original film was so striking & so bold. Now? Gladiator 2 looks like a thousand other movies.
I'm not defending Gladiator 2, because it seems like an unnecessary sequel that nobody was really asking for, but let's remember just how much of that film was achieved with "digitalness"? Most of Rome and the Coluseum were digital matte paintings.
GuyX wrote: October 5th, 2024, 9:33 pmFilming on celluloid would’ve helped soo much with the sterile flatness of the movie.
Will have to disagree with you there, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice looked perfectly good on digital film.
GuyX wrote: October 6th, 2024, 10:56 pmI just looked @ these again & what stands out…..well….1st look @ those pictures from Frozen Empire. Just LOOK @ em. It looks like some1 rubbed yellow nicotine or grease all over the frame. The ‘84 images look beautiful & , what’s the term? “real”. lol. Frozen Empire looks like an overly glosssy coffee stained image.
They're decent, but I wouldn't go as far as "beautiful", in comparison.

I attributed the yellow hues to the fact the film was colour graded to suggest summer (and then colour graded more towards blue for the frozen scenes).

The shots from the '84 movie at times almost have a purplish hue, and also look a little dark/desaturated (look how dim Ecto-1's lightbars and tailfins appear).
GuyX wrote: October 7th, 2024, 10:31 amWell it seems like that may have been a false alarm. That’s not what’s happening. Turns out for sum odd reason, @ least this is how it appears for me, when u click on & watch the red bannered “The Spenglers” poster, it plays a sort of DVD special feature or promo about The Spengler family. Why that would be something available on Amazon Prime Video instead of the actual movie, I’m sure I duno.
Likely to appeal to people who want to see the special features, but have moved away from owning physical media.
Good to know the mystery has been solved.
WCat2000 liked this
#5000358
Kingpin wrote: October 7th, 2024, 11:00 am I attributed the yellow hues to the fact the film was colour graded to suggest summer (and then colour graded more towards blue for the frozen scenes).
Interesting, I thought it looked that way because they couldn't completely eliminate all of that yellow fog that was in NYC when they filmed due to the wildfires in Canada in summer 2023.
#5000360
mrmichaelt wrote: October 7th, 2024, 5:28 pm Interesting, I thought it looked that way because they couldn't completely eliminate all of that yellow fog that was in NYC when they filmed due to the wildfires in Canada in summer 2023.
Not sure how much of the smokey footage eventually made it into the film... It was clearer on some days compared to others, but they could also have worked some cinema magic on some of the footage to clear it up a little. Here's a comparison shot of some of the filming, and the corresponding scene in the film... The buildings in the distance do look pretty hazy, but the smoke seems less thick than


Image
Image

I think they did film some of the Ecto-1 footage when the smoke was this bad:
Image
But I think the most overcast of that footage was left on the cutting room floor.
mrmichaelt liked this
#5000363
Kingpin wrote: October 7th, 2024, 11:00 am

Let's expand on that, then: What does film grain actually positively contribute to a movie? Why is it a good thing for a film to have it?
About the only time we see anything approximating film grain outside of an old movie or TV show is either when we look up at a bright light or patch of sky and see that sort of "static" against the brightness/whiteness, or that fuzzy "noise" that occurs when we're looking around a room in a low-light environment.

It seems clear that film grain wasn't something that was consciously added by the director to the film, it wasn't an intentional stylistic choice back in the '60s/'70s/'80s... (Though it is now for people trying to replicate the vintage/grindhouse look...) It was a by-product, either of the original recording, or the film being processed, or some other factor...

Given it's largely not been an intentional addition to the film, I feel there's an argument to be made that film grain is a visual flaw, not a visual attribute... And should be counted in the same group as dust, scratches, splice marks and reel change marks.

Which then leads me to the next bit, what's wrong with the image appearing crisp and clean? Shouldn't a clean and crisp image be what directors aim for?

If it helps to explain why I don't get the love for film grain, it's like if someone were advocating that films looked better when viewed on a 1980s or 1990s CRT television, rather than on a LED monitor.

Let me answer ur question with what happens when film grain is REMOVED from a film. It’ll help u see more what film grain is VS what it adds, bcuz what it adds isn’t the same for any 2 people but what it IS, more or less, is detail.
I duno how familiar u r with the widely used & derided DNR process when film are remastered for blu ray/4K. But there r plenty of directors who agree with u & don’t like grain. It’s a personal artistic choice. Like in music u can say “hey why did they use this note instead of that note” or dress making “this color instead of that color”.
When u remove grain from a film, u remove fine detail. So no, it’s not like a scratch or a flaw. Removing grain blurs the image, causes skin surfaces to become waxy.

Think of grain this way. B4 color film all we had was black & white. Now no filmmaker worth their salt would say “Why would u make a film in B&W when color is available?” Or “black & white wasn’t an artistic decision, what did it add? In early days They had no choice but to film in black and white, so now that color around let’s add color to those films”. That last part was actually a thing Ted Turner was into. Coloring older B&W films. Classics. It created a large controversy at the time.

Today shooting B&W very much is an artistic decision. It’s used to evoke a feeling, sometimes a time & a place. I’m not saying they r exactly the same but I just use it as an example so u can see u r looking @ grain in what I would consider the wrong context.
I'm not defending Gladiator 2, because it seems like an unnecessary sequel that nobody was really asking for, but let's remember just how much of that film was achieved with "digitalness"? Most of Rome and the Coluseum were digital matte paintings.
I duno if you’ve seen the trailer but if u haven’t u really shouldn’t comment on this until u do. It’s sumthing to behold. I couldn’t believe my eyes. I dont remember Russel Crowe fighting an army of alien looking primates & bad CG Rhinos. When I mention “digitalness” I don’t mean digital matte paintings. Why? Bcuz I’m not thinking of how silly it is that they recreated the colosseum in the only way they possibly could. But when I see digital alien primates(I have no idea what these things are I’ve never seen a bonobo open its mouth like an unhinged Cobra) I think hey that’s pretty silly. Beyond that the cinematography isn’t as striking or as bold from what I’ve seen so far. None of those Ridley Scott “kingdom of heaven” blues. Same cinematographer as the first film too. Here’s a better way to say it.

If u were to show me Gladiator 1 trailer, I’d say yep that sure looks like a Ridley Scott picture. That is soooo not the case with this new movie. I’d say yep that sure looks like a bad Roland Emmerich Gladiator rip off.

i attributed the yellow hues to the fact the film was colour graded to suggest summer (and then colour graded more towards blue for the frozen scenes).
Yeah that’s probably what they were going for. I just thought it was striking when put up against the beautiful work of the 1st film(I’d call it beautiful) & a little funny that out of the 2 films the 1 most closely resembling the painting u posted was Frozen Empire but like I said I know that’s not the point u were making by posting the painting. I just thought it funny.
Will have to disagree with you there, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice looked perfectly good on digital film.
Now for me this isn’t so much a digital thing since Burton has been working digital for while but I think it’s his worst looking film. It looked like a cheap TV pilot & it ruined the effect of some of the “practical stuff”. I quite liked the film. But thought Burton was phoning it in visually.
  • 1
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
Struggling with Hat Lights.

Try asking gbhqpartsdepot on etsy/ebay. He seems[…]

Proton Props UK

I’m not going to be getting into micro argum[…]

Still considering it, but I'd like a working foo[…]

We're bringing you the latest updates to the GBFan[…]