Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Maybe not... practical effects, men in suits, puppetry and animatronics... using greenscreen to film them and then place them into the scene using the computers to refine the details.
It'd trick the brain... full on CGI, the brain knows what it's seeing isn't actually a real thing.

__________________

o_O What?

Are you really generalizing the two?

That would be a yes, then.

BULLcrap.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Looking at a total opposite... RoboCop (1987) vs RoboCop (2014).


The original was a masterpiece... the remake was just a piece of crap.


The effects of the reveal... in 1987 the reveal was of his face... in 2014 it was the inner workings (the "show me" scene).
The 1987 reveal is by far and away more believable... because it was real.

You're saying CGI could better this:

Yeah, I think that's similar to what Paul Feig was supposed to have said in an interview about the effects; he didn't like the idea of his actors interacting with a person with a tennis ball on his head and preferred the actors to be able to see the actor playing the ghost.

Ouch, this looks like Pixels 2.

Here is part of the reason why I find this concept so offensive: I can't abide one of the most backwards, misogynistic industries in the western world having the audacity to lecture me on equality; me from a country that had a female Prime Minister in the 1970s. How dare Hollywood try to project their failings onto more enlightened areas of the world. Create a natural female lead, a Ripley, stop lecturing!

And this couldn't have gone into the existing Ghostbusters 3 thread...why, exactly?

Besides, how is casting four female Ghostbusters different from casting Sigourney Weaver as Ripley (who was originally written with no specific gender in mind so that the character could be played by either a man or a woman)? Assuming Ripley is your standard for a "natural female lead", I don't see that much of a difference between her and the new Ghostbusters.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

You're absolutely right, Rodent. Practical effects always win out over CGI. That's why they used real apes instead of sticking Andy Serkis in a mo-cap suit.

For reasons I'm sure aren't limited to special effects.

I'm saying IF money and time is no object, almost everything in Little Shop of Horrors could be believably recreated with CGI.

Exceptions would obviously be what few things we've still never nailed like human faces.

Honestly, I really don't get where you're coming from. When you think CG, does your mind just immediately go to the green screen hellscape in 300? NOT EVERY MOVIE IS LIKE THAT.

I'm saying the latter. I can't believe what they've done is contrary to what was wanted.

Alright, I was confused by your wording.

It's interesting to look back and see what made the first Ghostbusters trailer work. It plainly sells itself more heavily on thrills and atmosphere, not just a different taste for comedy.

Also interesting to hear people call the new trailer racist for it's one Sassy Urban Black Woman character denigrated to saying "that science stuff" and then seeing the gaping bloody hole of an omission in the old trailer.


Thanks Hollywood, thought we'd be afraid to see it if a DARK-SKINNED GUY WAS IN IT?

Look, they even turned him white in the end, symbolizing his victory over his debilitating Token Black Guy illness.


He didn't have to die first after all. Later it even saved him from that gunshot wound in The Crow.


Small steps, Hollywood. Small, small, small steps.

Ideally that would not be a trailer for a new movie given the MASSIVE spoilers.

All movies should be 1000% original ideas with entirely male casts and only practical effects. Because every movie ever made that was a remake, starred women, or used CGI is terrible. The Departed? Mad Max Fury Road? Lord of the Rings? Those all sucked.

Have I found the maximum rep cheat code yet?

So basically, you're just saying you'd prefer a Michael Bay trailer?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

No one wants thrills, atmosphere, and a different sense of humor.

They want explosions, Megan Fox, and nostalgic disappointment.

Seriously though, WTF are you talking about?

You're basically saying all you want in a trailer is thrills and atmosphere. If you want thrills and atmosphere, Michael Bay trailers are pretty much all thrills because it's too much about the spectacle. I'm glad the Ghostbusters trailer isn't like that.