Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880241
Fair enough on Kong, maybe a better example would've been decapitated Linda in Evil Dead II, Large Marge in Pee-wee's Big Adventure, or Arnie's head during the "nose probe" and "two weeks" moments in Total Recall
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4880245
I'll have to take your word on Evil Dead II and Peewee's Big Adventure as I haven't seen them, but Total Recall is definitely a good example.

The 1976 King Kong is also a good example, specifically the snake fight.
Last edited by Sav C on September 12th, 2016, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By pferreira1983
#4880255
Sav C wrote: At the time they may have been able to do better with the terror dogs had they had more time. For me the terror dog stop motion only looks dated at Louis's party. They could've cut the shot where it lands on the table, where the motion is unrealistic. The saturation varies drastically from shot to shot, at times becoming almost completely unsaturated and too bright (like when it hits the door.)
Maybe they could have made that particular shot of the landing on the table better but I'd be interested to know if the visual effects artists considered other, better techniques had they more time and money. The shot of the dog running along the street after Louis always looked a bit fake although with CGI I don't know if they could have got the movements right.
Sav C liked this
By pferreira1983
#4880257
Kingpin wrote:Fair enough on Kong, maybe a better example would've been decapitated Linda in Evil Dead II, Large Marge in Pee-wee's Big Adventure, or Arnie's head during the "nose probe" and "two weeks" moments in Total Recall
What do you think about the shot of Arnie fixing his face in the mirror in the first Terminator movie?
By 80sguy
#4880283
pferreira1983 wrote:I'm not too sure about that. Yeah CGI is easier to use
CGI isn't easier to use. In fact, it can be harder to work with than practical effects. CGI makes it easier to achieve CERTAIN things that would otherwise be difficult with practical effects. The fight scenes in Iron Man for one would be incredibly difficult if they were done piratically.
pferreira1983 wrote:but it's become a crutch for a lack of craftsmanship in visual effects. Why spend time polishing something you built or painted when you can get a computer to do the numbers?
The computer is a tool. It doesn't do the work for you. You still need people behind that computer to think about how the scene looks and where things will go. Also, how is it a lack of craftsmanship? Making 3D models takes A LOT of effort. It's not easy. The skills required maybe different, but to say there is a lack of craftsmanship is petty. The Marvel films have entire city blocks recreated in CGI for fight scenes.

Again, it's not a "crutch" either. It's just how movie making is done now compared to 20-30 years ago. Things change. The way we make movies change. CGI is just one of the changes.
pferreira1983 wrote:That was to overlay CGI on top as in motion capture. They weren't presenting human beings like the Ghostbusters movies do.
My point still stands. Real people were still used. That was going to happen in Ghostbusters regardless of the CGI because they need a person as reference.
Kingpin wrote:Fairly poor - true, it was limited what they could do, but it's not convincing.
That was the only effect in that film I thought stood out. Especially when compared to the scene before when he operated on his hand.
By pferreira1983
#4880285
80sguy wrote:
CGI isn't easier to use. In fact, it can be harder to work with than practical effects. CGI makes it easier to achieve CERTAIN things that would otherwise be difficult with practical effects. The fight scenes in Iron Man for one would be incredibly difficult if they were done piratically.
I have to disagree. With CGI it's incredibly easy to create something from scratch. The reason movies use CGI more is not just more cost effective but that it's easier for directors to wrap their heads around using computers to do all the work.
80sguy wrote:The computer is a tool. It doesn't do the work for you. You still need people behind that computer to think about how the scene looks and where things will go. Also, how is it a lack of craftsmanship? Making 3D models takes A LOT of effort. It's not easy. The skills required maybe different, but to say there is a lack of craftsmanship is petty.
It really only takes someone with computer knowledge to be able to create images. There really isn't much artistry involved at all. I understand that technology changes but digital effects are too often used where practical effects could be used. It's a simple fact and a lot of CGI looks worse in today's movies than what came before. The other problem with visual effects today is that they're used not just for sci-fi related stuff but to also present reality and that is where the dip in quality goes. CGI in small doses is very effective. Too much CGI creates fakery.
Kingpin wrote:Fairly poor - true, it was limited what they could do, but it's not convincing.
Yeah I remember that being fake. They definitely were limited with that scene.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4880287
pferreira1983 wrote:Maybe they could have made that particular shot of the landing on the table better but I'd be interested to know if the visual effects artists considered other, better techniques had they more time and money. The shot of the dog running along the street after Louis always looked a bit fake although with CGI I don't know if they could have got the movements right.
They could gave made a miniature table for the miniature dog to land on that could've been composited into the shot. With that in mind the dog could've been an animatronic. But that would've taken up more time and money.

When the terror dog ran out of the building it was actually "go motion," a subcategory of stop motion. They use go motion to achieve motion blur on still shots. It may be why it looks fake now, since theoretically at 24 Frames Per Second (which is six frames more than what is needed for realistic motion) your mind would create natural blur. Just keep in mind that that is not a fact, it is just a theory. I didn't hear it anywhere else and I haven't looked into it that much.

Also the majority of the effects shots in the film were made on their first try, since they didn't have time to redo them. Odds are they would've given it a second try on some shots had they had the time.

What's harder, Practical Effects vs CGI? Truthfully it doesn't matter. All that matters is which one is better at achieving the effect you want the way you want it.
Last edited by Sav C on September 12th, 2016, 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
By 80sguy
#4880310
pferreira1983 wrote:It really only takes someone with computer knowledge to be able to create images. There really isn't much artistry involved at all.
Not true. With that mindset, you'll be telling me it only takes a person with knowledge in art to create a masterpiece. The computer can't make a scene look good. The PERSON has to do that. The computer can't decide weather or not this car look like an actual car. "Computer knowledge" only gets you to a certain point.

Again, IT IS A TOOL. You still need the basics of art, color, perspective and composition. The computer doesn't know that stuff. James Cameron mentioned this in the making of Terminator 2. While working on another film the CGI character didn't look like it stood properly in the scene. Cameron asked if they checked the perspective, the horizon line and everything that goes into making a scene look correct. That was basic artistry skills he used.
pferreira1983 wrote:It's a simple fact and a lot of CGI looks worse in today's movies than what came before.
That's not a fact. There are movies in the earlier days of CGI that look horrible. Lord of the Rings had piratically all the sets created in CGI. So are you saying that what we see in Lord of the Rings was worse than what we saw in say, Spawn? Which looked like it came from a PS1 game? CGI has only gotten better. The problem is that we're seeing too much mediocre CGI.

If you really say it's gotten worse I'd like to point out Terminator Genysis, where a full CGI recreation of Arnold from the first Terminator was made. A lot of people thought they just reused footage.


pferreira1983 wrote:I have to disagree. With CGI it's incredibly easy to create something from scratch.
Have you created anything in CGI before? I've watched tons of making of videos from films about there process and from what I've gathered, it's not "incredibly easy".
Last edited by 80sguy on September 12th, 2016, 2:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sav C, Alphagaia, MonaLS and 3 others liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880374
pferreira1983 wrote:I have to disagree. With CGI it's incredibly easy to create something from scratch.
Just for clarification of where you're coming from, you've worked on 3D modelling and animation, texture work, working these into video projects?

I studied 3D animation as part of a national diploma and bachelor of arts degree over the course of three years, and "incredibly easy" is a subjective term.
pferreira1983 wrote:It really only takes someone with computer knowledge to be able to create images.
Please trust me, more people can use a computer for basic processes than can use it to create "images". You still need to have a lot of artistic talent and background to use a computer to make things, and make them look good. It's like giving a canvas and paint to a class of ten people, those ten people can apply the paint to the canvas, but it's unlikely all 10 will actually make something that could be considered art.
pferreira1983 wrote:but digital effects are too often used where practical effects could be used.
We're veering dangerously close to what I'd refer to as the "candle argument" (or maybe it'd be more effectively described as the "silent film" argument = why use a lightbulb when a candle is good enough?/Why have "talkies" when silent films were good enough?

Sometimes digital effects are just a better altnernative. A practical effect might look good, but if not engineered or operated properly, can look terrible (Kamelion from the classic series of Doctor Who comes to mind, Bruce from Jaws is another, less niche example).
pferreira1983 wrote:It's a simple fact and a lot of CGI looks worse in today's movies than what came before.
That's more an opinion than actual fact, while the bad CGI does stand out, the best stuff is so good that often we don't notice it at all - we're never going to have a perfect idea of how much CGI is bad compared to what's good, although the VFX breakdowns do help give us a better idea.
pferreira1983 wrote:The other problem with visual effects today is that they're used not just for sci-fi related stuff but to also present reality and that is where the dip in quality goes.
Why is that inherently a problem? Passed are the days where you can get hundreds and hundreds of extras to portray scenes like the burning of Atlanta in Gone with the Wind, due to higher fees, union regulations, even health and safety. But with CGI, you can not only increase the crowd sizes, you can also increase the danger without it bringing any actual harm to your cast.

CGI lets you digitally extend sets, recreate whole cities from past eras, construct armadas of ancient ships and fleets of vintage warplanes.

And you don't have to worry about storing or dismantling any of those elements after the production has ended... in fact, you can potentially reuse the for future instalments in the film series if there's a sequel.
Sav C, Webster, Razorgeist and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4880376
80sguy wrote:If you really say it's gotten worse I'd like to point out Terminator Genysis, where a full CGI recreation of Arnold from the first Terminator was made. A lot of people thought they just reused footage.

Haven't seen Genysis yet, but I saw that video awhile back. It is so cool what Hollywood can recreate these days.
Kingpin wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:I have to disagree. With CGI it's incredibly easy to create something from scratch.
I studied 3D animation as part of a national diploma and bachelor of arts degree over the course of three years, and "incredibly easy" is a subjective term.
I've tried some 3D modeling in Photoshop, and I say tried because I didn't get very far. I can create a ball and a cube, but they're presets. Granted my computer can only edit SD video (HD and 4K need proxies) so that is a minor setback.

It is super hard in my opinion, but I guess it varies by how much knowledge you have on the subject. Like I've said it really doesn't matter which is harder, all that matters is which one gets the effect you're going for the best. You may not want a realistic effect, you might want a stylized one.
pferreira1983 wrote:but digital effects are too often used where practical effects could be used.
We're veering dangerously close to what I'd refer to as the "candle argument" (or maybe it'd be more effectively described as the "silent film" argument = why use a lightbulb when a candle is good enough?/Why have "talkies" when silent films were good enough?
For the record, even though I'm fine with progress, I do believe that older techniques should continue to be practiced if only to provide a connection to the older films. You may be a cinephile, but if not, how often do you watch black and whites/silent films? When the film The Artist was released, it probably gave this entire generation a connection to the older b&w/silent films (which they may not have had otherwise,) same with how the reboot has given an entire generation a connection to the first two Ghostbusters.
CGI lets you digitally extend sets, recreate whole cities from past eras, construct armadas of ancient ships and fleets of vintage warplanes.
That reminds me, the VFX Breakdown you posted awhile back brought out what I especially like about CGI - the actors were interacting with a real set, but the part of the set that wasn't the focus of attention or being interacted with was recreated digitally.
By Skyknight
#4880630
mrmichaelt wrote:Zero VFX posted another reel yesterday.

https://vimeo.com/182545402
or
http://www.artofvfx.com/ghostbusters-se ... -zero-vfx/
What the...? Even the textures on the packs were CGI?
Okay I guess that's the good kind of CGI like the backgrounds that blend in perfectly. But if they can do that, then why is there even terrible CGI anywhere like when it's in the center of the action? How comes it that center stuff always looks so fake, like most of the ghosts? It should blend in like this every time and not just for background stuff!
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4880637
I think it's just a stylistic choice.
I happen to like it because it's a somewhat novel approach in how to showcase a ghost. While the style looks close to HM and the Frighteners, the bony overlay all ghosts except Slimer seem to have is a nice addition to the effect and a new twist on the transparency: the ghost is transparent, but only to itself, showing bones through skin. It's a nice effect that needs to be seen on a big screen to be fully appreciated for the details, but I can understand some people find it not 'realistic'. It's not intended to be and debatable since ghosts are per definition open to interpretation and your mind knows it's an effect. Since the ghosts are lightsources themselves this adds to them jumping out if the screen instead of blending in.
The glowing drones used as stand-in for light reflections on the surroundings adds to the believability of the effect.
Last edited by Alphagaia on September 15th, 2016, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
MonaLS, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4880659
Kingpin wrote:Possibly a stylistic choice, but also keep in mind it's not one studio doing all the work, but several.
Why would it matter multiple studios have worked at the effects? All ghostdesigns have to be approved by the head of art direction (who forwards it to Feig and co) who has outlined a few general rules about how the ghost should look. It all must be one coherent style.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880664
It's an explanation for why some shots might look good, while others don't, that a company that's considered the A-grade worked on the scenes and sequences where the CGI isn't noticeable, and another company that's B-grade, or A-grade but has a B-grade staff contributed to the bits that didn't seem quite so polished.

I guess I also mentioned it to exorcise the assumption that some people may have that all the CGI/effects work is done by a single studio.
Alphagaia, deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4880665
Ah, I agree with you there. It's also time constraints of course. Lady Eldridge looks the most polished imo because they probably had the most time fine tuning her for the first trailer.

I want to see Slimer though. I heard they tried a puppet, but enhanced it with CGI but even after that Feig found the puppet still lacking and went mostly digital for the little spud. Wonder if that's true. I love the evil look he gives when he steals the Ecto and drives straight at them.
By Skyknight
#4880697
Alphagaia wrote:The glowing drones used as stand-in for light reflections on the surroundings adds to the believability of the effect.
I don't think so. The ghosts glow much more brightly than the drones which leads to them not lighting up the surroundings enough and looks much less believable at all. If they wanted to make the ghosts so bright, they should've upped the illumination on the drones threefold to make it look realistic. Another option would have been to turn down the glow on the ghosts to a third of what they have. And for heavens sake they should also be more tranparent! They're a prime example for bad CGI that stands out too much! To me the new Slimer looks like something straight out of a Pixar movie, so bad is it!
deadderek, Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4880699
Well, agree to disagree, but the glow is already quite apparent on the surroundings: look at the blue colors reflecting on Erin, the painting and the various objects in the room of this trailer screenshot. And it al shifts accordingly as the ghost moves around the room. As a special effects lover, I really like what they done with it as it's a novel approach.

She is transparent by the way as her legs and dress are fading into nothing, but again, it all boils down to preference. You like it if a ghost is completely transparent, GB:ATC takes a different/original(???) approach with the bones and partial transparency.

Image

I think your preference is just different then mine, or less tolerant to different styles of ghost projection, you want the ghost to blend in instead of stand out, and that's OK ofcourse. Just means the style is not for you.

Maybe it's because the RGB ghosts almost never were transparent I'm used to a bit more solid style as well.
MonaLS liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880702
Skyknight wrote:they should've upped the illumination on the drones threefold to make it look realistic.
Either the upgrade in lighting capacity, or battery storage, would've had an impact on the maneuverability and weight of the drone. Either option probably wasn't workable.
Skyknight wrote:They're a prime example for bad CGI that stands out too much!
I must respectfully disagree, they aren't. There are plenty of well-documented examples of truly bad CGI out there, with which these don't even compare. What they are, is an example of style you're not keen on.
Skyknight wrote:To me the new Slimer looks like something straight out of a Pixar movie, so bad is it!
Either we're not watching the same Pixar movies, or that's ended up being an unintended compliment... did you see those photo-realistic backgrounds on The Good Dinosaur? :)
MonaLS, Sav C, GBPaulRivera and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4880721
Same reason Eldridge changes face or Mayhem flushes red when angered, perhaps? They manifest more or less slime in their form and glow. Only seeing his countour with his red eyes makes him more creepy and the ghost is trying to scare his victims. For Eldridge it was the facechange, sparky the sneak factor and Mayhem his changing glow like when he jumps out of the mannequin.
MonaLS, GBPaulRivera, 80sguy liked this
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880722
MagicPrime wrote:So why did the puke ghost emit so much light, but the subway ghost had to have a flash-light on him to be visible...
That isn't really what the topic's about, but I'll bite:

Quasi-in-story explanation: the different ghosts have different scare approaches. Gertrude Aldridge is big and obvious and in your face, the ghost at the Subway station works on creeping terror. I imagine they might have some control over how much they glow, but the torch didn't have any actual effect on him.

Other quasi-in-story explanation: how much a ghost glows can depend on how active/agitated they are: if they're not bothering anyone, they're dim and very mute in appearance, if they're trying to scare someone they're bright and extremely responsive.

Technical, production explanation: not having the Subway ghost glow fully when Erin, Holtzmann and Abby see him allowed for giving that utterly creepy shot of him.
Webster, Alphagaia, MonaLS liked this
By deejeerie
#4880738
MagicPrime wrote:So why did the puke ghost emit so much light, but the subway ghost had to have a flash-light on him to be visible...
Another possible reason: In the Manor the area was light and it was daytime. The subway tunnel was dark with limited light.
By Skyknight
#4880754
Kingpin wrote:Either we're not watching the same Pixar movies, or that's ended up being an unintended compliment... did you see those photo-realistic backgrounds on The Good Dinosaur? :)
I'm not talking backgrounds here, because we already established that most of the backgrounds enhanced with CGI looks good. I'm talking CGI movie protagonists. Slimer looks on par with the main characters of the Monster Inc. and (if you like the comparison with Dreamworks better)Madagascar series. The CGI used on him makes him look like he belongs into a completely animated movie instead of a live action one and that's not looking good!
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4880756
MagicPrime wrote:'Utterly creepy' is subjective. I didn't think it was creepy at all. I just wondered why he wasn't glowing. I will just add it to my list.
Hmm, you are right the result is subjective, but wether you personally are scared or not does not negate the reason why the ghost is controlling his appearance and thus glows less.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4880767
Skyknight wrote:I'm not talking backgrounds here, because we already established that most of the backgrounds enhanced with CGI looks good.
I know, I know, I jest.

The thing is though, Slimer does not look like something from a Pixar or DreamWorks animated film, and I feel it unfairly dismissive to say so.

I feel it should be noted that we've never discussed/dissected the ghosts in the 1984 and 1989 movies to such a critical level as we have with the 2016 movie - we accepted them at face value, and I believe we can employ the same approach with the 2016 ghosts.
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2, GBPaulRivera and 1 others liked this

Hey and welcome

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]