[Kingpin]

But you're not really answering my question. I asked "What does film grain actually positively contribute to a movie? Why is it a good thing for a film to have it?", you've provided a good example to answer the question "what happens to an existing film with a grain when you remove it?"

I'm mostly familiar with DNR through Googling, I've not seen a film in motion with it (at least, I'm not aware of having watched one), but I've seen the screenshots from DNR'd films, and yeah, the dubious results do speak for themselves:



(For what it's worth, I hate what stripping the grain out did to that transfer of Predator. As much as I hate grain, I have to make my peace with it in older films because removing it [to again borrow from painting analogies) is like bad overpainting/restoration on a portrait]).



I don't feel film grain can be compared to filming something in black & white. As harsh as it may come across, film grain is visual noise, black and white is often a beautiful creative choice (see Sin City, Murder on the Orient Express or Pleasentville).
Grain doesn't enhance or give a film a polish... At most, it can give a production a "gritty" feel, but that's something that you can probably achieve practically with good set dressing and costume departments.

I think the Gladiator 2 monkeys are supposed to be unkempt baboons (based on size and physical traits) - Chimpanzees, Apes and Baboons are recorded as having been used at the real Colosseum in ancient rome. The visual in the trailer does look bad, but it's not completely impossible:




But what if we could banish most (if not all) of the potential grain out of film at the recording process? If digital film can help eradicate one of the more noted impurities that are common with recording footage onto real film, then surely the argument in favour of using digital film has already been solidly made?

Musicians and singers go to substantial lengths to ensure their work is as crystal clear as possible (and even remaster their older works to remove audio imperfections - where possible), and while it may not be possible to substantially improve the visual quality of older films, today's directors have the ability to have as close to crystal-clear a picture as is possible to achieve.

(Plus there are the benefits of not having to move and store all the physical film cannisters, nor having to go through the time and costly processes of transcribing the physical film to digital, and digital film not being highly flammable ).

Anyway, that's my $20 on the topic.

[siaenko]

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.

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'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.

Filming 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

I get where you're coming from, especially when you compare film grain to dust or scratches—those are obvious imperfections, right? But film grain is a little different. It wasn't something filmmakers actively added back in the day, but it was a natural part of the medium, like the texture of a painting's canvas. Grain gives a film a texture that feels organic and adds character to the image.
A clean, crisp image is great, but sometimes, it can feel too sterile. Even though it originated as a "flaw," film grain brings warmth and depth to the picture. It's like how vinyl records have that slight crackle, which some people love because it feels more alive than a flawless digital recording.

[GuyX]

But you're not really answering my question. I asked "What does film grain actually positively contribute to a movie? Why is it a good thing for a film to have it?", you've provided a good example to answer the question "what happens to an existing film with a grain when you remove it?"

I'm mostly familiar with DNR through Googling, I've not seen a film in motion with it (at least, I'm not aware of having watched one), but I've seen the screenshots from DNR'd films, and yeah, the dubious results do speak for themselves:


(For what it's worth, I hate what stripping the grain out did to that transfer of Predator. As much as I hate grain, I have to make my peace with it in older films because removing it [to again borrow from painting analogies) is like bad overpainting/restoration on a portrait]).



I don't feel film grain can be compared to filming something in black & white. As harsh as it may come across, film grain is visual noise, black and white is often a beautiful creative choice (see Sin City, Murder on the Orient Express or Pleasentville).
Grain doesn't enhance or give a film a polish... At most, it can give a production a "gritty" feel, but that's something that you can probably achieve practically with good set dressing and costume departments.

Musicians and singers go to substantial lengths to ensure their work is as crystal clear as possible (and even remaster their older works to remove audio imperfections - where possible), and while it may not be possible to substantially improve the visual quality of older films, today's directors have the ability to have as close to crystal-clear a picture as is possible to achieve.

(Plus there are the benefits of not having to move and store all the physical film cannisters, nor having to go through the time and costly processes of transcribing the physical film to digital, and digital film not being highly flammable ).

Anyway, that's my $20 on the topic.

What does it add? Aesthetic. & it all depends on the film & film stock.

Let’s look @ 1 of the greatest living cinematographers. Janusz Kaminski.

Go watch Minority Report. Or A.I. U film that in digital with a lower grain structure & the visuals aren’t nearly the same. They ratcheted up the grain on those movie. Same with Saving Private Ryan. Ask yourself, “what did it positively add”.

(Grain can also help marry cgi to a scene)

If u think grain is an impurity then u are calling into question the genius of some of the greatest photographers & cinematographers of our time. U may not like it, but calling it an impurity is insulting to the art these people create. It is not an impurity. It’s is a sought after part of the filmic aesthetic.

Why paint with brushes or ink/paint when u can do it all digitally? What does it add? U get impurity of brush strokes. That’s essentially the question u r asking when u get down to it.

Let’s keep in mind digital didn’t take over bcuz it looks better. It took over bcuz of convenience & money.


Film grain absolutely can be compared to color, or any aesthetic choice that provides a filmmaker with the proper look they r trying to achieve. I compared to color to give u an idea of how a technological innovation such as digital doesn’t negate the use of the older method.

An audiophile will tell u a vinyl recording is better than any lossless digital file. Digital is more convenient, arguably cheaper, & more widely available. Maybe u don’t agree with that. Maybe most people don’t agree with that. & yet..vinyl still sells despite the advent of CD’s & MP3’s & it itunes

& yes they used all sort of animals in the coliseum. They also flooded it. But Those baboons look ridiculous & as a reminder:

[Nate Dawg]

I know this is a Ghostbusters thread but what in gods name is that thing? That’s in Gladiator 2???

[Kingpin]

I know this is a Ghostbusters thread but what in gods name is that thing? That’s in Gladiator 2???

As I mentioned above, I think it's meant to be a baboon (after being severely maltreated).

[pmcbryde]

VFX artist here, grain structure and type is a filmmaking tool like any other, used by the director to evoke particular emotions, which is the point of filmmaking.
Grain amount and type could indeed be chosen based upon a director's intentions, and after filming could even be Pushed in developing to accentuate further.

Kubrick did this on Full Metal Jacket to elicit a realistic 16mm feel on a 35mm stock.
Meyer asked for a different film stock on Star Trek 6 than on 2 because he wanted a particular feel.
Deakins (D.P. and who is a strong advocate for films shot digitally) felt Blade Runner 2049's image lackluster until he added film grain.

Steve Yedlin(Asc.)'s video on film vs digital, tldw: either can be treated to look like the other.
https://youtu.be/suZtYPIADHM?si=RD3Se9omK94KmJjN

As a kid I peferred GB2's cinematography because it was cleaner and smoother, but as an adult I prefer GB1's, it looks more spontaneous, natural and horror-like.

Each person will have a different opinion on grain like everything else in life.

[WCat2000]

That’s the thing. People only now think grain adds texture/warmth/detail/realism etc...because it happened to be there. It was an unintentional side effect that was never trying to evoke anything.

If film was clear and grain-free from the start nobody would think of adding it in years or decades later for some emotional feel...because that “feel” would have never existed. It’d be in reference to nothing. The concept of grain adding a sense of anything would simply not exist.

It’s a faux element that’s masking actual real detail.

[GuyX]

That’s the thing. People only now think grain adds texture/warmth/detail/realism etc...because it happened to be there. It was an unintentional side effect that was never trying to evoke anything.

If film was clear and grain-free from the start nobody would think of adding it in years or decades later for some emotional feel...because that “feel” would have never existed. It’d be in reference to nothing. The concept of grain adding a sense of anything would simply not exist.

It’s a faux element that’s masking actual real detail.

None of this true. u have no idea what u r talking about. Plz learn about an art form before talking non sense like this.

This a completely ignorant take that goes beyond opinion & now is entering the misinformation/lie territory.

U can not like grain. that’s fine. But don’t say untrue ridiculous things like

People only now think grain adds texture/warmth/detail/realism etc...because it happened to be there. It was an unintentional side effect that was never trying to evoke anything.

That’s BS. Not true. So wrong.

I apologize if I’m coming across harshly here but u clearly aren’t well informed on the topic & don’t know what u r talking about so why u would make up weird claims like the above is beyond me.

Gordon Willis is spinning so hard in his grave right now.

VFX artist here, grain structure and type is a filmmaking tool like any other, used by the director to evoke particular emotions, which is the point of filmmaking.
Grain amount and type could indeed be chosen based upon a director's intentions, and after filming could even be Pushed in developing to accentuate further.

Kubrick did this on Full Metal Jacket to elicit a realistic 16mm feel on a 35mm stock.
Meyer asked for a different film stock on Star Trek 6 than on 2 because he wanted a particular feel.
Deakins (D.P. and who is a strong advocate for films shot digitally) felt Blade Runner 2049's image lackluster until he added film grain.

Steve Yedlin(Asc.)'s video on film vs digital, tldw: either can be treated to look like the other.
https://youtu.be/suZtYPIADHM?si=RD3Se9omK94KmJjN

As a kid I peferred GB2's cinematography because it was cleaner and smoother, but as an adult I prefer GB1's, it looks more spontaneous, natural and horror-like.

Each person will have a different opinion on grain like everything else in life.

Great post. Well done.

Deakins is still a master but I wish he’d go back to shooting film on occasion. I don’t think he’s surpassed his best film work when he shot two masterpieces in a single year with No Country & Jesse James.

Those Steve Yedlin videos are terrific.

I read an interview with a cinematographer, Hoyle van Hoytema, where he mentioned that film can work better bcuz it reminds every1 on set that money is literally running through the camera. So there’s a subconscious effect on every1 from the sound department to the actors. Every1 is a little sharper, more focused bcuz they know that $$ is running through the machine. & unlike digital, with most mags u get 10 minutes. So the pressure is on. U get the best work from ppl.

[Kingpin]

Plz learn about an art form before talking non sense like this.

This a completely ignorant take that goes beyond opinion & now is entering the misinformation/lie territory.

We can disagree on the merits of film grain while keeping things respectful.
Your comments accusing WCat2000 of "talking nonsense", and of misinformation/lying are out of line, GuyX.

Given the strength of disagreement on the topic, we've probably stretched it out as far as it'll go.

[GuyX]

Plz learn about an art form before talking non sense like this.

This a completely ignorant take that goes beyond opinion & now is entering the misinformation/lie territory.

We can disagree on the merits of film grain while keeping things respectful.
Your comments accusing WCat2000 of "talking nonsense", and of misinformation/lying are out of line, GuyX.

Given the strength of disagreement on the topic, we've probably stretched it out as far as it'll go.

As I mentioned in my comment this wasn’t about film grain. It’s about making things up to bolster a point.

People only now think grain adds texture/warmth/detail/realism etc...because it happened to be there.

That’s an untrue statement. U, a mod, decided to like that post. A post that’s stating a fact that isn’t true. That’s called misinformation/ignorance/lying. Wcat is doing one of those 3 things. I don’t know him so I don’t know which it is. But none of them bode well. U or he can not like grain. But u can’t make up your own set of facts about how it’s been used.

Filmmakers have used and manipulated grain for decades. They’ve done so for aesthetic purposes for decades. It’s not a new phenomenon or recent trend.

If u feel we’ve reached the end of the road for this discussion. I’ll respect that going forward. I hope it’s been educational for those reading.

I highly recommend the Steve Yedlin videos linked above for any1 interested in learning more.

[Kingpin]

That’s called misinformation/ignorance/lying.

If the crux of your objection is WCat2000's choice to use "People only now", then at the very least you could have said something to the effect of "that oversimplifies/that understates how long people have been manipulating film grain for" - and then you could have posted examples of filmmakers using and manipulating grain for decades... That would've allowed you to register your objection without being quite so rude and heavy-handed.

I don't believe WCat2000 was trying to mislead anyone. The choice of wording may not have conveyed his counter-argument as well as it could've, but I don't believe he was ever being malicious or dishonest in what he was intending to say here.

And I do think that to take the obvious heat out of the conversation, it probably would be best to move on now that we've discussed film grain at length.

[GuyX]

That’s called misinformation/ignorance/lying.

If the crux of your objection is WCat2000's choice to use "People only now", then at the very least you could have said something to the effect of "that oversimplifies/that understates how long people have been manipulating film grain for" - and then you could have posted examples of filmmakers using and manipulating grain for decades... That would've allowed you to register your objection without being quite so rude and heavy-handed.

I don't believe WCat2000 was trying to mislead anyone. The choice of wording may not have conveyed his counter-argument as well as it could've, but I don't believe he was ever being malicious or dishonest in what he was intending to say here.

And I do think that to take the obvious heat out of the conversation, it probably would be best to move on now that we've discussed film grain at length.

Appreciate the reply. But Kingpin that’s not the issue as I see it. I’m assuming WCat is a grown man or a grown woman. Google is as available to u as it is to me. & as it is to him or her. (Apologies but I don’t know the gender of this person)

Examples have already been provided by a separate GB fan. Right up there. 4 all to see. If sum1 is just gonna make sumthing up I have to assume they aren’t really interested in learning so I feel the response u wrote is less effective than the 1 I did. U may find it rude, but I find making things up far more rude.

Just so there’s no confusion I feel the need to clarify. The crux of my argument is: Don’t make things up. It’s that simple. That’s what happened here. Sum1 thought instead of researching sumthing, instead of looking sumthing up, they’d just make up sumthing up. That’s a shame. & it was liked by a mod. U.


If u feel it’s time to move on then move on I shall. I hope this is a learning experience for every1. It was 4 me. Thank u 4 allowing me my 2 cents on the matter.

[Davideverona]

https://thedirect.com/article/ghostbust ... 8Jj8yormrQ

Well, that's another nice Ecto they've got themselves into!

More live action Ghostbusters movies coming on the big screen!

[GuyX]

https://thedirect.com/article/ghostbust ... 8Jj8yormrQ

Well, that's another nice Ecto they've got themselves into!

More live action Ghostbusters movies coming on the big screen!

Does that website have enough ads? Wowzer

I wonder how the SNL movie might affect things. I think Sony was expecting it be an Oscar contender but that’s not looking to be the case. Not winning the audience award at tiff must’ve been a big let down. Especially since the Reitman family is so popular there. & the movie has a few Torontino’s as characters. Is that how u say it? Torontinos? Torontonians?

Critics really seem to have it out for him after his couple films became Oscar nominated.

[Davideverona]

So, let's start speculating about everything GB5

[mrmichaelt]

^discuss it in this thread please:
viewtopic.php?p=5000419#p5000419

[Nate Dawg]

VFX artist here, grain structure and type is a filmmaking tool like any other, used by the director to evoke particular emotions, which is the point of filmmaking.
Grain amount and type could indeed be chosen based upon a director's intentions, and after filming could even be Pushed in developing to accentuate further.

Kubrick did this on Full Metal Jacket to elicit a realistic 16mm feel on a 35mm stock.
Meyer asked for a different film stock on Star Trek 6 than on 2 because he wanted a particular feel.
Deakins (D.P. and who is a strong advocate for films shot digitally) felt Blade Runner 2049's image lackluster until he added film grain.

Steve Yedlin(Asc.)'s video on film vs digital, tldw: either can be treated to look like the other.
https://youtu.be/suZtYPIADHM?si=RD3Se9omK94KmJjN

As a kid I peferred GB2's cinematography because it was cleaner and smoother, but as an adult I prefer GB1's, it looks more spontaneous, natural and horror-like.

Each person will have a different opinion on grain like everything else in life.

I was the exact same way about GB2.

What’s interesting is the first two Ghostbusters films show us exactly how they utilized grain to provide a more clean, sterile look.

I’ve often wondered, for those you who claim grain doesn’t add anything, what would Ghosrbusters 2 have been like with Lazlo Kovac behind the camera?

Think about it. Ghostbusters 1 has the edgier harder look but Ghostbusters 2 is the film that utilizes that aspect of the city for its plot. Had they kept that look I think the New York as a dark, violent city would’ve played much better.

What’s really funny or ironic rather is that Ghostbusters 2 had the same DP as Taxi Driver!

I totally understand why people don’t like grain though. It’s like when dvd first came out and people complained about the black bars for widescreen. They thought it was a waste of space.

I thought the cinematography of Afterlife was excellent and they used digital camera. Really beautiful work. Some of the best of the entire franchise. Frozen Empire was weaker but I think that’s a result of the production shooting in more controlled environment.

[Nate Dawg]

Strange. A post I made of a meme disagreeing with WCat’s position was deleted. It said “Boo This Man”. What happened?

[mrmichaelt]

Strange. A post I made of a meme disagreeing with WCat’s position was deleted. It said “Boo This Man”. What happened?

Disagreeing with another person is natural but that meme post was gauche. In terms of the forum rules, it was agreed by the staff it was too trolling in nature and removed. The second post, while ignoring Kingpin's request to stop, was a better way of responding.

[Nate Dawg]

Strange. A post I made of a meme disagreeing with WCat’s position was deleted. It said “Boo This Man”. What happened?

Disagreeing with another person is natural but that meme post was gauche. In terms of the forum rules, it was agreed by the staff it was too trolling in nature and removed. The second post, while ignoring Kingpin's request to stop, was a better way of responding.

I apologize. I wasn’t involved with that back and forth. I didn’t reply to kingpin or GuyX. I would never deliberately ignore a rule like that and if you feel I did I am very sorry that was not my intention. I just thought I was bringing up an interesting point. I thought kingpin was referring to the back and forth between the two of them not that everyone must stop the discussion. He specifically referred to the heated nature of the conversation. I was not trying to ignore anything so please don’t think that.

I try to get along with everyone and my picture of that “boo” gif was just a silly joke.

I’m sorry to do this and maybe this is better served for a PM but since u mention it publicly maybe I should as well. I have to say. I find your accusation a little offensive. I’m thinking about this logically. I’m trying to be fair. We can no longer say “boo” if we disagree with someone or we can’t post images saying “boo”? I want to be clear here. What is trolling about that? What was gauche? It was an African American man saying “Boo! Boo this man” from a comedic film. I’m concerned with you calling it “gauche”. Please let me explain so you can think about this in another context.

Had I posted text without the image and said “Boo! Boo this man” I don’t believe it would have been removed for the stated reasons. I think you’d agree with that. I don’t believe you would have called it “gauche”. It wouldn’t make sense to. If that had been an image of Tom Hanks saying “Boo! boo this man” I want you to ask yourself if you would’ve had that same “gauche” reaction.

Just please understand my intent wasn’t to troll or to disobey/ignore.

[mrmichaelt]

Just please understand my intent wasn’t to troll or to disobey/ignore.

Got it. I was 50/50 you were just in jest or not, and in retrospect I appreciate you were trying to help cool things down with some levity but I admittingly was conservative because it could have led to others jumping in/reheating the convo or Wcat retaliating in a negative way so it was removed. In the future, put yourself in the other person's shoes first. After all the responses Wcat got, if you were Wcat, would you have wanted to log on and see one more person comment on the matter? Maybe Wcat got the joke, maybe not. We simply just want the discussion to get back on track to squarely talking about the movie. I apologize for deleting the post and not reaching out to you to explain what happened.

[Nate Dawg]

Just please understand my intent wasn’t to troll or to disobey/ignore.

Got it. I was 50/50 you were just in jest or not, and in retrospect I appreciate you were trying to help cool things down with some levity but I admittingly was conservative because it could have led to others jumping in/reheating the convo or Wcat retaliating in a negative way so it was removed. In the future, put yourself in the other person's shoes first. After all the responses Wcat got, if you were Wcat, would you have wanted to log one and see one more person comment on the matter? Maybe Wcat got the joke, maybe not. We simply just want the discussion to get back on track to squarely talking about the movie. I apologize for deleting the post and not reaching out to you to explain what happened.

Thanks so much for explaining.

Wcat if you are reading this I completely respect your opinion.

[mrmichaelt]

Concept art of the frozen MAS ballroom, Melody's flames, and frozen garage bay.
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/5WWL51

On early Monday morning (10/21), 3 am Pacific/6 am Eastern, TCM will be playing Sylvia and the Phantom - the movie Kenan told Emily Alyn Lind to watch.

[WCat2000]

Thanks so much for explaining.

Wcat if you are reading this I completely respect your opinion.

Just for clarity I saw the picture and knew you were just joking. I thought it was funny.

[One time]

I think the entire conversations about differing views stems from the fact that there are so few movies in this franchise and that the themes in the movies can be pulled in varying directions depending on what you think a Ghostbusters movie should be.

We had 2 movies in the 80's and 2 (or 3 if we consider the alternate universe ATC) in the past 10 years. There are so few movies (each with differing themes) that it's easy to want each new movie to adhere to "your" own interpretation.

It's not like Batman, or Superman or Spider-man, where the theme is pretty clear cut.

I reckon the GB franchise is like the very varied Alien franchise but with far fewer movies. The opposite end of the spectrum would be something like Terminator, where most people stopped caring about each individual movie because there are so many.

Alien Romulus was a huge hit, Alvarez managed to condense what made the franchise so successful into a single movie by combining elements from all while not losing the thematic spirit.

My own preference is for Ghostbusters 1, the theme of contrasting the very serious tone (low camera angles, gritty, dirty look, no one smiles, etc.) with the absurdity of what they are doing. In GB1 the OG's were playful and sarcastic but you respected that there was this whole other serious/scientific side to them, the side that could actually build nuclear accelerators and work with lethal radiation, etc. There was this underlying respect you had for them. It was a joke, but it wasn't a joke if that makes sense. It was a great juxtaposition. Afterlife had some of that.

Then there is the whole, lets forget the thematic contrasts and just have fun with it angle (GB2, FE, etc) where suddenly actual children, fans and uneducated moms were seen to do everthing the OG's did. Where we are seeing the character who knew least about actual Ghostbusting (Janine) saying: "Sure Gary, super secret underground Ghostbusting stuff" proving that even the least qualified OG (not even a Ghostbuster, just their receptionist) treats an actual new Ghostbuster like an adolescent child. The gravitas in what it means to be a Ghostbuster is lost.

Then the movie has to be tremendously funny to make up for losing that "drama" and we are seeing varied results.

[BatDan]

Ya need to change up the formula.

The best part of FE was Winston and Ray giving the tour of the PRC.

They need to give us more of THAT and make a movie built off of that vibe.

You dont need the same old “theres a big bad, get the big bad/monster of the week” formula for every movie. Theres only so much you can do and thats probably why the writers over stuffed it

Make a business comedy about how the OGs turn something like Ghostbusters into a branched franchise and all the goofy hijinks they get into in finding the right people and facilities.

I honestly think some people on here forget Ghostbusters at its heart is a workplace comedy.

Because after you tell THAT story..guess what? You can practically go anywhere and do anything.

[jonogunn]

I'm on the boat where I want the team on their heels throughout the movie. Like any other adventure type movie they don't get to go home and break in between battles, they are geared up and on some adventure. Cut out most of the cast for the next one I don't care what reason...lucky is working fulltime for Winston, Trevor wants to go to college...whatever. Keep the team small, let them get lost in the spirit world in their gear and have to find their way out. Just...a new formula please. I thought Frozen Empire would be like this.

Whatever route they go next, as long as it's story first. Sacrifice whatever else that doesn't fit in just PLEASE nail the story.

[mrmichaelt]

Imageworks posted a Slimer VFX reel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-CmrVNpRA

[Raystantz84]

I'm on the boat where I want the team on their heels throughout the movie. Like any other adventure type movie they don't get to go home and break in between battles, they are geared up and on some adventure. Cut out most of the cast for the next one I don't care what reason...lucky is working fulltime for Winston, Trevor wants to go to college...whatever. Keep the team small, let them get lost in the spirit world in their gear and have to find their way out. Just...a new formula please. I thought Frozen Empire would be like this.

Whatever route they go next, as long as it's story first. Sacrifice whatever else that doesn't fit in just PLEASE nail the story.

I was really expecting FE to go a different direction as well. I think that's what is so disappointing about it for me. I have yet to rewatch the whole movie since I saw it in the theater. I've caught clips of it on youtube when they pop up but just have no inclination to watch the whole thing again. And i have seen Afterlife COUNTLESS times (I love Afterlife.)

Going by the inital working title (Firehouse), I was expecting, and looking forward to, the entire film taking place within the firehouse. Even the first trailer kind of hinted at this. I was expecting/hoping the NYC freeze would occur fairly early into the film and then the GB's would have to spend the rest of the film preparing for a seige on the Firehouse. Sure, they would have little adventures here and there (with Slimer running around, maybe having to venture out into NYC to try and get Venkman, etc.), but most of the film would be spent getting setup for the seige. I like everything about the beginning, the initial Ecto bust, Ray's Occult, Phoebe getting put on the bench....but once we get to Melody, I felt the momentum just dropped. I didn't HATE the firemaster stuff but I was not expecting something like that in a GB movie.

It sucks a new GB movie came out THIS YEAR and I really have no desire to watch it again after my initial viewing.

[GuyX]

Some of you may have seen this already but for those who haven’t. This is a series on YouTube, very funny, called “Pitch Meeting” where, well, you’ll see.






To me this nails many of the issues with the movie.