|
Do goth/scene/whatever the gently caress Kylie is supposed to be still exist still or is that too dated?
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:Do goth/scene/whatever the gently caress Kylie is supposed to be still exist still or is that too dated? She exists in the comics, working at Ray’s bookshop, and later as a GB in her own right when the guys go MIA in time. So I’ve got the 4K Blu-ray, and tried it this evening to see how it looks. I was expecting a crystal clear vibrant picture, but drat it’s dark and super grainy. Honestly, I’m very disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:So I’ve got the 4K Blu-ray, and tried it this evening to see how it looks. I was expecting a crystal clear vibrant picture, but drat it’s dark and super grainy. Honestly, I’m very disappointed. I have not seen the 4K Ghostbusters disc yet, but I got to say, I really appreciate when discs capture the look of film accurately instead of trying to remove film grain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Is the full fort detmerring scene on there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
The Hallmark Keepsake Ornament Ecto One with light and sound looks amazing for $20, unfortunately they dont ship to the UK 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:The Hallmark Keepsake Ornament Ecto One with light and sound looks amazing for $20, unfortunately they dont ship to the UK Remember UK voltage will probably kill it in seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:She exists in the comics, working at Ray’s bookshop, and later as a GB in her own right when the guys go MIA in time. It's just the way the movie was made. Not much to be done about it outside of a few specific shots where I think the grain could've been reduced somewhat. But that's just the overall look of the film, it's a dark and grainy holdover from a more 70s style of filmmaking versus Ghostbusters 2 which came along 5 years later and is much more slick and modern looking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It's just the way the movie was made. Not much to be done about it outside of a few specific shots where I think the grain could've been reduced somewhat. But that's just the overall look of the film, it's a dark and grainy holdover from a more 70s style of filmmaking versus Ghostbusters 2 which came along 5 years later and is much more slick and modern looking. Ok, wow, I've tried to pinpoint what it was about GB1 and films of that era, vs GB2. Is that it? I mean, it also feels like 2 was physically shot differently as well, had way more closeups, and also felt better lit, overall. Like, compare the meetings with the mayor in both films. GB1 feels like it was filmed in a real office in downtown, and maybe there should be a haze of cigarette smoke in the air or something. The meeting in 2 felt like it was done on a soundstage / studio, and everything is crystal clear and bright (despite it being at night). Is there anywhere where can read more about this specific kind of change/difference? I feel like Back to the Future 1 and 2 were like this, and 3 was like GB2, but I might be way off with that one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
There was a discussion of it in the Physical Media thread I think, but a lot of it is about the film stock that was used. I'm not enough of an expert to explain it in detail but a certain type of film was used to shoot Ghostbusters in 1984 and then by 1989 the industry had moved to a different standard. Yea it was that thread, Here's the gist of it from that conversation: VoodooXT posted:Ghostbusters was shot on Eastmancolor 5294, which was a notoriously lovely film stock. It was super grainy even if you processed it as normal without pushing and it had terrible blue/green separation so you couldn't use it for compositing work. VoodooXT posted:It was the fastest film available up to that time, so it meant you didn't need to use as much light if you wanted to shoot scenes in low light and night urban exteriors, and Ghostbusters sure had a lot of those. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Amazing to think that the spooky, oppressive atmosphere in some of our favorite films was, in some significant part, due to a lovely product that the filmmakers wished they could've thrown in a dumpster fire the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It's just the way the movie was made. Not much to be done about it outside of a few specific shots where I think the grain could've been reduced somewhat. But that's just the overall look of the film, it's a dark and grainy holdover from a more 70s style of filmmaking versus Ghostbusters 2 which came along 5 years later and is much more slick and modern looking. Yeah one of the local theatres here specializes in showing classic films and when they showed Ghostbusters I was surprised by how grainy it was. Bacon Terrorist posted:The Hallmark Keepsake Ornament Ecto One with light and sound looks amazing for $20, unfortunately they dont ship to the UK I really really want the old Hallmark Stay Puft ornament but I've pretty much accepted that I just can't get it at a reasonable cost. Postage to Australia is a real killer as well.  Edit: I just checked prices/postage and the lowest I could find was around $60 and the average is about $100.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Amazing to think that the spooky, oppressive atmosphere in some of our favorite films was, in some significant part, due to a lovely product that the filmmakers wished they could've thrown in a dumpster fire the whole time. Is this why all the interior scenes in E.T. look like the house is on fire and filling with smoke?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:Is this why all the interior scenes in E.T. look like the house is on fire and filling with smoke? No, that’s just what Spielberg remembers growing up in Arizona and California looking like
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:No, that’s just what Spielberg remembers growing up in Arizona and California looking like And now it happens for real, every year!   Btw, thanks for the info about the film stock, goons! I find that stuff interesting, and it'd be super neat to see a big-budget film from the 5294 era shot in 5295. Do those exist, or did 95 just flat out not exist then? I'd look this all up, but I'm at work, and am already spending enough work time on SA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Yeah, thanks for all the fascinating info! So basically we’ll never get a crisp clear GB84, and the Blu-ray version is kinda superior for clarity? Also, I guess that’s why Aliens hasn’t had a 4K release either? So many dark scenes that just become a snowstorm because of the grain?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There was a discussion of it in the Physical Media thread I think, but a lot of it is about the film stock that was used. I'm not enough of an expert to explain it in detail but a certain type of film was used to shoot Ghostbusters in 1984 and then by 1989 the industry had moved to a different standard. Thank you! This is something I have wondered for the longest time but never figured out quite how to articulate it. I always thought the way GB1 looked compared to GB2 was more realistic and film like but could never put my finger on why I thought that. I always used to feel that GB1 was a film and GB2 was more a TV episode (not just the look but the shots) and knowing that the film used is one of the big differences gives me that classic A-ha! moment. It has also made me wonder, if GB1 had been shot on the same film as GB2 would it still look as good? Does the lower quality film enhance the atmosphere of GB1. Similarly if GB2 had been shot on the same film as GB1 would be better received?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Has there ever been a canonical crossover between the Ghostbusters and the Real Ghostbusters? When I was a kid I used made it work by thinking the Filmation Ghostbusters were the kids of the original Ghostbusters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Yeah, thanks for all the fascinating info! So basically we’ll never get a crisp clear GB84, and the Blu-ray version is kinda superior for clarity? Unfortunately 4k is one of those things that just isn't as simple as like when we made the jump from VHS to DVD or even DVD to blu ray. When it shines, it really can be a stunning format and for me it was totally worth the money I spent on upgrading, BUT you can't just automatically re-buy all your old blu rays in 4k and assume it's gonna be a clear upgrade. You kinda have to pick your spots, read reviews, and learn the strengths and weaknesses of the format. So like, with Ghostbusters one thing that hurts the UHD is that there was a somewhat recent "mastered in 4k" blu ray release that looked really really good. So this isn't a situation where the UHD came along and replaced an aging blu ray from 2007. And that situation shows up with a decent amount of popular older films, like Goodfellas, which also got a really nice new blu ray transfer within a year or so of the UHD release. Then you throw in something like the specific filmstock used(for GB) to shoot the film not being ideal in terms of grain, and the UHD just isn't really that great compared to the already excellent blu ray. Then, even within some films you have to accept some ups and downs if you want to enjoy what 4k has to offer, because they can be a bit uneven. Take the Predator UHD for example, there are a few scenes early on that I'd consider overly grainy to the point of being a distraction......but then that kinda resolves itself and the majority of the movie looks fantastic. So for a movie nerd it's actually kind of a fun format because there's lots of factors to evaluate and pay attention to but not every release is a no-brainer upgrade, and that's without even getting into upscaled digital intermediates. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Has there ever been a canonical crossover between the Ghostbusters and the Real Ghostbusters? Isn't there an episode where the Real Ghostbusters visit the seg where GB84 is being filmed and find it haunted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Has there ever been a canonical crossover between the Ghostbusters and the Real Ghostbusters? The IDW comics have 'The Ghostbusters Get Real' with the film Ghostbusters meeting the cartoon ones and pointing out about every difference. Also later on that connects to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles crossover, where they recruit 'Blonde Egon' to replace the MIA movie Egon. They also had a crossover later with the 2016 Ghostbusters, which may or may not have actually managed to salvage something out of that. I'm sure they'd probably have done one with the Filmation Ghostbusters too if they had the rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
I believe they mean the Filmation GBs and the RGBs, in which case, no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
deoju posted:Jason Reitman said, “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.” It will be considered Ghostbusters 3 until the next Ghostbusters thing comes out and THAT will be Ghostbusters 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MoreHorror/status/1158193366867181569 https://twitter.com/MI_Ghostbusters/status/1157522209625268229
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
I wonder if people ate the fluff that exploded out of the giant marshmallow man at the end of GB1 and were like "wow this is actually pretty good" and that led to a big surge in sales
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
There's no such thing as bad pr. The mascot rampaging through mid town Manhattan was great for brand recognition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
deoju posted:There's no such thing as bad pr. The mascot rampaging through mid town Manhattan was great for brand recognition. “Stay-Puft: Ray Stanz Nearly Ended The World Because He Loved Our Marshmallows So Much” *four months later* 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:“Stay-Puft: Ray Stanz Nearly Ended The World Because He Loved Our Marshmallows So Much” Feels like the prequel to The Stuff. The government buries his body, he oozes out of the ground as he decomposes, people eat it, and they become possessed and go crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Violator posted:Feels like the prequel to The Stuff. The government buries his body, he oozes out of the ground as he decomposes, people eat it, and they become possessed and go crazy. Stay-Puft’s body? He was liquid by the end there, buddy, they painted IF YOU SEEK HIS FLAVOR, LOOK AROUND YOU in the middle of Central Park West in memoriam
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Was the Stay Puft marshmallow man made of actual marshmallow or was it not just white ectoplasm? It is a nice touch that Dana buys a pack of Stay Puft marshmallows at the start of the film. They don't appear again in GB2 do they?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Was the Stay Puft marshmallow man made of actual marshmallow or was it not just white ectoplasm? They don't. There IS one shot somewhere in GB1 with a Stay Puft billboard on the side of a building, though. It was surreal when I noticed that after watching the film many, many times over the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
The Stay-Puft references earlier in the film (Dana's shopping and a billboard in a matte painting) were so subtle that unless you watched the film over and over, you'd never notice them. It's one of those cases where blatant would have been better, because I remember that Ray's "It's the Stay-Puft marshmallow man" mostly got "the what-what man, now?" reactions in the cinema instead of laughs. (Although it could have been that I'm a Brit and marshmallows just weren't a thing here in the 80s.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
The text on the marshmallow bag is pretty small. And the mural is pretty faded. Watching a VHS copy on an 18" CRT it'd be easy to miss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Was it ever supposed to be an actual, recognizable mascot like Big Boy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Was it ever supposed to be an actual, recognizable mascot like Big Boy? It's really similar to bunch of old mascots, but still legally distinct from any of them    Edit: apparently he appeared in Aykroyd's original script
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It's really similar to bunch of old mascots, but still legally distinct from any of them
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Stay Puft turning to liquid means it got pretty hot, right? Did Walter Peck die from being scalded by molten hot mallow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 07:14
|
|
|
deoju posted:The text on the marshmallow bag is pretty small. And the mural is pretty faded. Watching a VHS copy on an 18" CRT it'd be easy to miss. I don't recall the mural, but I definitely didn't notice the bag until DVD
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Stay Puft turning to liquid means it got pretty hot, right? Did Walter Peck die from being scalded by molten hot mallow? Rapidly dropping through the air cooled it. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I don't recall the mural, but I definitely didn't notice the bag until DVD Definitely noticed the bag in theaters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
They actually had the original prop on display at Comic Con! ... It did not age well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 19:31
|
|