- March 1st, 2018, 9:59 pm#4903655
I know there are posts out there already that deal with all the problems with GB16 but I wanted to create a discussion of the effects and the aesthetic of CGI VS the photochemical/optical printing method of the originals. So let's starts...
I've written before on how big of an issue I have with the design aspects of the ghosts in GB16 and the quality of the CGI. In short, it all looks bad to me. Even the proton gun streams look bad. I'm trying to approach this with as little nostalgia as possible. I'm not saying things were better back in the day just because it was back in the day. That being said the ghosts in the original films look much more believable to me. Not the terror dogs, but the ghosts. The library ghost when we first see her? It's subtle and ethereal. Compare that to the female Ghost we meet in the mansion in GB2016. It draws too much attention to itself. It's too bright. It doesn't look wondrous or scary it looks..clean, sterile & fake.
Let's looks the proton stream FX. My personal favourite "look" is the GB2 version. But we also get great streams in GB1, mostly during the Gozer battle. The quality improves as the movie progresses. The first beams shot at the cleaning lady aren't quite there yet in regards to quality. I'm GB2? They are totally believable 100% of the time and look great. In GB16 they look...not good. The beam looks too fat and again, it looks too clean and sterile. It looks like photoshop work I've seen in fan films. There's something about the rotoscoping effect that works for the proton gun effect that CGI, at least the CGI as used in GB16, can't get right. I don't know why that is. But the Ghostbusters shooting at Mr Stay Puft looks 100 times better than the concert bust.
There is something about CGI that makes Ghosts look kind of lame. Scooby Doo and Haunted Mansion are examples of this. We can now add GB16 in with those. It's an aesthetic thing. More practical effects when it comes to ghosts works much better. I don't think I'm the only one to think so.
So what's going on here? Did GB2016 just have a poor design team? CGI can do robots and destruction and all kinds of things. But fire? Plasma? I don't know. I just know I hate the look of those GB16 proton beams.
I should note that I'm not a CGI hater. I love great effects work like Davey Jones in the Pirates flicks. Gollum in Lord of the Rings. I love the Star Wars prequels even though a common criticsm is they had too much CGI. CGI can do amazing things. But one thing that always had me worried/Curious about a GB3 film was how they were going to deal with the evolution of movie technology since 1989. I remember thinking about this very issue in 1999 when it looked like a GB3 was just around the corner. Sometimes limitations bring about the best In creativity. Had Ghostbusters been made in 2016 it might have looked more like the original Dan Aykroyd pitch that was deemed far too expensive at the time. Now? They could do it no problem. But thank god that didn't happen. Same thing happened with the original Star Wars films. Han Solo was at one point suppose to be a lizard looking thing. If Lucas had made the films with unlimited control and budget like he did the prequels, they would be vastly different. But I digress..
I've written before on how big of an issue I have with the design aspects of the ghosts in GB16 and the quality of the CGI. In short, it all looks bad to me. Even the proton gun streams look bad. I'm trying to approach this with as little nostalgia as possible. I'm not saying things were better back in the day just because it was back in the day. That being said the ghosts in the original films look much more believable to me. Not the terror dogs, but the ghosts. The library ghost when we first see her? It's subtle and ethereal. Compare that to the female Ghost we meet in the mansion in GB2016. It draws too much attention to itself. It's too bright. It doesn't look wondrous or scary it looks..clean, sterile & fake.
Let's looks the proton stream FX. My personal favourite "look" is the GB2 version. But we also get great streams in GB1, mostly during the Gozer battle. The quality improves as the movie progresses. The first beams shot at the cleaning lady aren't quite there yet in regards to quality. I'm GB2? They are totally believable 100% of the time and look great. In GB16 they look...not good. The beam looks too fat and again, it looks too clean and sterile. It looks like photoshop work I've seen in fan films. There's something about the rotoscoping effect that works for the proton gun effect that CGI, at least the CGI as used in GB16, can't get right. I don't know why that is. But the Ghostbusters shooting at Mr Stay Puft looks 100 times better than the concert bust.
There is something about CGI that makes Ghosts look kind of lame. Scooby Doo and Haunted Mansion are examples of this. We can now add GB16 in with those. It's an aesthetic thing. More practical effects when it comes to ghosts works much better. I don't think I'm the only one to think so.
So what's going on here? Did GB2016 just have a poor design team? CGI can do robots and destruction and all kinds of things. But fire? Plasma? I don't know. I just know I hate the look of those GB16 proton beams.
I should note that I'm not a CGI hater. I love great effects work like Davey Jones in the Pirates flicks. Gollum in Lord of the Rings. I love the Star Wars prequels even though a common criticsm is they had too much CGI. CGI can do amazing things. But one thing that always had me worried/Curious about a GB3 film was how they were going to deal with the evolution of movie technology since 1989. I remember thinking about this very issue in 1999 when it looked like a GB3 was just around the corner. Sometimes limitations bring about the best In creativity. Had Ghostbusters been made in 2016 it might have looked more like the original Dan Aykroyd pitch that was deemed far too expensive at the time. Now? They could do it no problem. But thank god that didn't happen. Same thing happened with the original Star Wars films. Han Solo was at one point suppose to be a lizard looking thing. If Lucas had made the films with unlimited control and budget like he did the prequels, they would be vastly different. But I digress..
seekandannoy liked this