Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4896553
Alphagaia wrote:TLDR/W: movie and trailers can differ greatly in tone and color. Really, at least watch it yourself before you make up mind while disregarding others who have.
Again, from what you've posted it still looks unnatural and fake looking. All they've done is changed it from bad colour grading to another form of bad colour grading. People might like that type of picture quality but it just looks unnatural. An overdose of CGI obviously doesn't help either. Some of your shots look far too much like blurry paintings.
Kingpin wrote:Plus colour grading is one element of the film, you're not going to know if the film's good if all you're basing your opinion on is the colour, and not the story - that's like judging Monet on his use of colour rather than on if he's actually painted the portrait with any skill.
Marvel cinematic movies are very mediocre generally but yeah the colour grading does certainly contribute to the boringness of it all.
80sguy wrote:Trailers are usually put together before a movie is even finished. Colouring and special effects are often not finalized yet. Case in point, the 1984 Arnold from Terminator Gensys looked different in trailer and film. Krang's body from the second Bay Ninja Turtles was different too.
But I'm not using trailers as reference, I'm using actual finished clips from the movies. As for Terminator Genisys, the least said about CG Arnold the better. :lol:
#4896555
pferreira1983 wrote:People might like that type of picture quality but it just looks unnatural.
Well... it is a comic book movie. :whatever:
pferreira1983 wrote:An overdose of CGI obviously doesn't help either.
It's mostly employed in instances where it's physically impossible to achieve what they wanted with the actors because they either don't have the physicality (spoiler: Tom Holland doesn't have the equivalent powers of a spider :P), or it'd be too dangerous to try it with a live human being. Films like Spider-Man Homecoming are an acceptable and justifiable use of CG, as practical can't fully cut it.
pferreira1983 wrote:Marvel cinematic movies are very mediocre generally
Still leaps and bound better than DC at the moment. :)
pferreira1983 wrote:But I'm not using trailers as reference, I'm using actual finished clips from the movies
It's reasonable to say that neither of us knows just how "finished" those clips were, it's possible they were released before the editing/visual work was completed... but it's a moot point, as you're pretty set on not seeing it.
#4896558
pferreira1983 wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:TLDR/W: movie and trailers can differ greatly in tone and color. Really, at least watch it yourself before you make up mind while disregarding others who have.
Again, from what you've posted it still looks unnatural and fake looking. All they've done is changed it from bad colour grading to another form of bad colour grading. People might like that type of picture quality but it just looks unnatural. An overdose of CGI obviously doesn't help either. Some of your shots look far too much like blurry paintings.
Some of my shots? I have shown you one shot and a poster of the relevant movie? The effects of LOTR are not on trial here, especially not from a picture that's not showing the real pixelquality of the movie.

At least I convinced you the color grading used for Spiderman is different when compared to Civil War.
Yet you still think it's bad, cannot argue opinion, though you are still basing it on clips that are derived from an earlier build and color, as my earlier post proved.
Ah well, your loss, for me the movie was a breath of fresh air when compared to the latest few Marvel movies.
80sguy, GBPaulRivera liked this
#4896566
Kingpin wrote:Well... it is a comic book movie.
Unnatural in a non-comic book way but then most modern movies looks that way anyway so...
Kingpin wrote:It's mostly employed in instances where it's physically impossible to achieve what they wanted with the actors because they either don't have the physicality (spoiler: Tom Holland doesn't have the equivalent powers of a spider :P), or it'd be too dangerous to try it with a live human being. Films like Spider-Man Homecoming are an acceptable and justifiable use of CG, as practical can't fully cut it.
Problem is the effects never look sharp or convincing enough. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies I think got it better but it's impossible to go back to that mix of practical and CG because the studios tend to go the easier route.
Kingpin wrote:Still leaps and bound better than DC at the moment. :)
Would you hate me if I said I felt indifferent towards both? Both feel "meh, I can pass".
Kingpin wrote:It's reasonable to say that neither of us knows just how "finished" those clips were, it's possible they were released before the editing/visual work was completed... but it's a moot point, as you're pretty set on not seeing it.
But the clips I saw were from the finished film?
Alphagaia wrote:Some of my shots? I have shown you one shot and a poster of the relevant movie? The effects of LOTR are not on trial here, especially not from a picture that's not showing the real pixelquality of the movie.
I guess there's room for improvement?
Alphagaia wrote: At least I convinced you the color grading used for Spiderman is different when compared to Civil War.
Yet you still think it's bad, cannot argue opinion, though you are still basing it on clips that are derived from an earlier build and color, as my earlier post proved.
Ah well, your loss, for me the movie was a breath of fresh air when compared to the latest few Marvel movies.
Okay.
#4896572
pferreira1983 wrote:But I'm not using trailers as reference, I'm using actual finished clips from the movies. As for Terminator Genisys, the least said about CG Arnold the better. :lol:
The clips are not indication that they are from the final finished product either. And you keep ignoring the CGI Arnold all you want, but it doesn't away from the fact that it was one the examples of how CGI has stepped up.
Kingpin liked this
#4896577
80sguy wrote:The clips are not indication that they are from the final finished product either.
Er yes they are as they're from the released film? [/quote]
80sguy wrote:And you keep ignoring the CGI Arnold all you want, but it doesn't away from the fact that it was one the examples of how CGI has stepped up.
I'm keep ignoring CGI Arnold. It wasn't in any way a step up, it still had the uncanny valley of Tron Legacy and that film came out five years before. Although Tron Legacy unlike the fifth Terminator movie just about got away with it due to it being set inside a computer. Rogue One is not really any different to Genysis. It's cool you appreciate bad CGI but you can't honestly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about by using CGI Arnold as an example of improvements in CGI. :wink:
#4896589
JurorNo.2 wrote:And sure, sometimes an effect looks especially fake or dated and I laugh about it. But that's all that happens, it's not a problem to be solved. I dunno, I get the impression some fans need to believe in the absolute reality of the world. But for me, I guess I believe in the absolute reality of the movie, if that makes sense.
You hit the nail right on the head. The "reality of the movie". An effect might be bad but if I'm sold of immersed in the world then it doesn't matter. Not all of the effects in Lord of the Rings hold up but I don't care. I love the world & characters.

That's why I think we can learn something about PRE CGI days. I'm no CGI hater or anything but think back in the day when filmmakers had to solve problems creatively because they couldn't just "fix it in post". They couldn't do whatever their imaginations wanted. If the original Star Wars had been made today Han Solo would've been a green lizard character. That's the way he was originally intended in Lucas's original story art. He was limited by the technology of the day and the movie is all the better for it. Then again, I also love the Star Wars prequels which some say have over blown CGI. But because of the work on those original films, I had already bought into the story and mythology. Seeing the prequels didn't bother me anymore than the Special Editions did(minus the Return of the Jedi song in Jabba's Palace). The movies were still the same, more or less. I was immersed and bought into the reality of the movie.

I'll never understand people that pick apart silly inaccuracies like physics or whatever. If I wanted reality I'd watch a documentary. So long as the filmmaker makes me believe in the world I'm seeing then I'm good. People that complain about James Bond surviving this stunt or that explosion are missing the point entirely.



Excellent point.
deadderek, Sav C, JurorNo.2 and 2 others liked this
#4896597
pferreira1983 wrote:Er yes they are as they're from the released film?
You're either not getting it or being intentionally difficult on this point. Just because the clip was release doesn't mean it's 100% representative of the finished product because we don't know at what point in the film's editing process had been released from, and you can't confidently say it's from the finished product because you refuse to see the finished film.
#4896606
RichardLess wrote: I'll never understand people that pick apart silly inaccuracies like physics or whatever. If I wanted reality I'd watch a documentary. So long as the filmmaker makes me believe in the world I'm seeing then I'm good. People that complain about James Bond surviving this stunt or that explosion are missing the point entirely.
Yeah that's basically what I mean, those types of fans are looking to create a world. Whereas I'm looking to enjoy a story.
GBPaulRivera liked this
#4896623
When the reboot came out I was excited to go and see it so I did. I went to watch it on premiere night and it wasn't what I expected. Although I did like the idea the packs looked a lot less modern than the 1984 original ghostbusters. The flight suits didn't impress me because they just looked like garbage women. Although, I did like that they had the original ghostbusters in it but I wish Harold Ramis didn't die because I would've love to see what his role would have been.
#4896633
timeware wrote:9/11 wasn't just a thing. People lived it, and still suffer the loss of loved ones from it. I remember there was a day when no planes flew, when the country was actually united for a change. People seem to forget that 3000 lives were lost that day. This isn't shit you forget, and some people aren't going to let it go for comedic reasoning. No matter how much time passes by.

I'm not trying to paint you as being insensitive there's a reason why 9/11 is a sensitive topic for people.
Oh hey, I don't know if I replied to you about that, but uhm ... again, time passes, people pass. To be even more honest, I was 6 and only remembered coming home early and watching Cartoons. To a degree, I am insensitive to 9/11 and again, unashamedly/ashamedly laughed at 9/11 jokes. It's like because it doesn't IMPACT me like older kids/teens/adults/seniors who were witnesses to it whether on television or home. Like I said, people should NEVER forget. Forgetting allows for repeated history and mostly bad ones, sadly. So you weren't trying to paint me insensitive, as much as I already was, BUT not to the point that I can't take it seriously anymore. I can, I cry, and I hear that number (2,000 actually) and I am on my knees hearing those screams and seeing those images, praying to God for the future to never see this level of terror which is on par to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the holocaust and other dark points in mankind's history. What my point was iterating is that in a post 9/11 world and its similar to a post-WW2 era, people have become desensitized and its difficult to make people laugh, but to a degree, some of us can't handle extreme fast paced and over the top humor that is improvised and goes on and on because no matter how desensitized and morally confused society gets, we have limitations. The comedies of the past reflect the times, but the best ones that last forever tell us about who we are and that in the face of darkness, monsters, and in some cases a Sumerian god of destruction ... we can have a laugh and get through it. 9/11 isn't a joke, but darkness can be if you are in a light that it cannot touch. Just don't be an asshole and not forget the weight of the matter.
#4896857
Kingpin wrote:You're either not getting it or being intentionally difficult on this point. Just because the clip was release doesn't mean it's 100% representative of the finished product because we don't know at what point in the film's editing process had been released from, and you can't confidently say it's from the finished product because you refuse to see the finished film.
Yes but I don't really think promotional clips would be sent to studios that were unfinished would they?
AustinTheBuster wrote:Although I did like the idea the packs looked a lot less modern than the 1984 original ghostbusters.
They didn't look cool. 8)
#4896858
pferreira1983 wrote:
Kingpin wrote:You're either not getting it or being intentionally difficult on this point. Just because the clip was release doesn't mean it's 100% representative of the finished product because we don't know at what point in the film's editing process had been released from, and you can't confidently say it's from the finished product because you refuse to see the finished film.
Yes but I don't really think promotional clips would be sent to studios that were unfinished would they
Yes, that's actually very common practice, as people work on the movie untill the last second. My post on LOTR confirmed that already and there are plenty of other examples of this on the net if you are interested.
Sav C, Kingpin, GBPaulRivera and 1 others liked this

Make it that pack, sell it for $599. (While I […]

Yeah, we've been building this thing for ten[…]

Someone on FB found it. NARDA ELECTROMAGNETIC RADI[…]

It appears that some time today someone who […]