- October 2nd, 2024, 8:11 am#5000246
Ghostbusters Afterlife II: Frozen Empire: The Spenglers Answer The Call
Chicken, He Clucked wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2024, 2:52 pm Saw this on Amazon UK too.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.
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.
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.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.
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?
mrmichaelt wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2024, 3:29 amI 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.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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Kingpin wrote: ↑October 4th, 2024, 4:52 pmI 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.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?
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.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.
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:
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.I completely agree with GuyX.
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 wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 8:12 amLol 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.
To me, grain is like over-varnishing a painting... It doesn't enhance it, it spoils it:
One time wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 7:30 pmhttps://www.slashgear.com/1543676/why-m ... explained/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.I completely agree with GuyX.
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.
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.
So, now we get to the big question: Why does film grain matter?If film grain never existed nobody would care. There’d be a reason to.
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...
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.
WCat2000 wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 11:01 pmThe 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 viewerOne time wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 7:30 pmhttps://www.slashgear.com/1543676/why-m ... explained/
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.
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-grainSo, now we get to the big question: Why does film grain matter?If film grain never existed nobody would care. There’d be a reason to.
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.Huh?
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.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.
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.This Post Contains SpoilersTo me, grain is like over-varnishing a painting... It doesn't enhance it, it spoils it:This Post Contains SpoilersThis Post Contains Spoilers
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Kingpin wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 11:00 amLet 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.
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.
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.
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.
Still considering it, but I'd like a working foo[…]
We're bringing you the latest updates to the GBFan[…]