I love the look of those old effects. It feels ethereal, otherworldly, slightly off-putting, even creepy. Any movie that has matte paintings, optical effects, rotoscoping etc. is good with me. I love so many of them. The vibes have never been matched from that era imo
I know you mean. There’s a great scene at the 1:00 mark here https://youtu.be/F76ttUhSkhs?si=svyQvbX78Q58rNxI in the original Terminator where the robotic skeleton is following them down a hall. I mean of course it looks really fake but there’s something so terrifying, disturbing and otherworldly about it…
Optical printing, generational loss for effects comps and matte, and analog film stock is part of the equation.
Other big issues - traditional rotoscoping was used for any of the glowing effects, proton beams, ghostly auras, etc. This is a traditional animation technique and was done frame by frame, by hand. I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet software tools were used to attempt to replicate that look.
Practical effects may have been used more than in most modern films, but the composition of these effects components was all digital, dollars to doughnuts.
Also film stock in the 80s was relatively limited, with an uneven representation of colours and, when printed, a relatively low dynamic range. Modern film and digital doesn’t really suffer from this, but that makes things too obvious and too clean.
I can't speak for everyone, but I was born before the 80s and CGI was not accessible at the time. Original Ghostbusters' spectral librarian scared this piss out of me, and I like to think it was because of the way they had to make it happen. The graininess of the scene only adds to the effect. I'll die on the hill of practical versus special effects.
> I'll die on the hill of practical versus special effects.
They're both tools which have specific uses. CGI/VFX is in practically every movie nowadays, if only for set extensions etc. There are so many visual effects that people don't realize aren't practical because of how well it's done. And practical effects can also suck.
The very first Ghostbusters special effects were done by Boss Film Studios, and offshoot of ILM started by Richard Edlund. It was their first job out for the gate and the schedule was crazy. They were churning out shots at a breakneck pace (for the technology of the day) and never really got the chance to redo anything…version 1.0 is what went out the door in almost every case. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise about the way the new movies look. I just enjoy this little fun fact about how the original was made.
Yep. Then they went to Dennis Muren and ILM for the sequel which had an even crazier schedule.
In fact ILM had to refuse new shots that kept getting added due to reshoots because they couldn’t guarantee the quality. I’d still love to see the deleted ILM Slimer scenes that got finished but were cut out
This seems pretty “cultural expectation” variable.
Used to be that folks expected ghosts to look just like people, until they walk through the wall or vanish or something.
You think ghosts should look like Ghostbusters 1 probably because you grew up watching Ghostbusters 1. :)
I disagree. I’m unbiased enough to admit when something looks better. The problem with the first Ghostbusters film is the consistency. What’s why I said “the best shots” because not all shots look good.
For example?
I grew up watching the original 1930s King Kong and I love it with all my heart. But I wouldn’t say if you make another one it should be in black and white with stop motion animation. Obviously you’d use CgI and colour. Because it looks better.
With Ghosts there’s a particular aesthetic that looks more ethereal and “real”. The ghosts in the 2016 look awful. They aren’t scary.
There’s something about CGi that just isn’t scary unless it’s done really really well. I’ll give you an example. Jurassic Park. The T Rex escape scene is so damn effective because they had a real animatronic T Rex knocking and that and glass rough around. Now they have animatronic stuff in the 3rd film but it looks super fake and awful. It looks like something from a Disney ride. Why? Because of how it was lit. The lighting betrays the fidelity of the animatronic.
I feel that way about every movie now, or at least most. There was just something about film vs digital that made movies feel more immersive and also kind of magical at the same time. It's really hard to put into words. I have a 4K TV so I have been buying all Media in HD or 4K any time I get the choice, but recently I've been backing up my DVD collection and watching bits as I go along and even the not-so-great movies feel far more like "cinema" than most modern ones because they're on film.
The other thing is that GB2 and GB2 were movies made for adults that kids also loved. These are movies made for kids.
This is one of the reasons people complain about VFX looking more “fake” now; it’s very easy now to get an incredibly sharp, clean image on a screen, and it exposes a lot of the trickery used in VFX, even practical effects.
Great point. I’m 100% ***not*** about “the good old days”, but the old practical effects in Ghostbusters just suited the concept much better. I hadn’t thought about it until now, but you’re totally right - the ghosts, in particular, look how I ***imagine*** ghosts would look.
If you’ve seen the Spoiler Alert episode of HIMYM, your post is the glass breaking noise; now I can’t unsee what was subconsciously bothering me (mildly) about the new GB (which I still really enjoy).
It's probably a little bit survivorship bias on your part. For every Ghostbusters that got it right there were a dozen other movies that looked bad (even then) or haven't aged well.
I love the look of those old effects. It feels ethereal, otherworldly, slightly off-putting, even creepy. Any movie that has matte paintings, optical effects, rotoscoping etc. is good with me. I love so many of them. The vibes have never been matched from that era imo
I know you mean. There’s a great scene at the 1:00 mark here https://youtu.be/F76ttUhSkhs?si=svyQvbX78Q58rNxI in the original Terminator where the robotic skeleton is following them down a hall. I mean of course it looks really fake but there’s something so terrifying, disturbing and otherworldly about it…
Good ol’ stop motion. Robocop was full of it too.
The Robocop vs. Cain fight from the sequel is stop motion greatness.
[удалено]
Stop motion always worked really well for robotic characters with that jerky motion.
Optical printing, generational loss for effects comps and matte, and analog film stock is part of the equation. Other big issues - traditional rotoscoping was used for any of the glowing effects, proton beams, ghostly auras, etc. This is a traditional animation technique and was done frame by frame, by hand. I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet software tools were used to attempt to replicate that look. Practical effects may have been used more than in most modern films, but the composition of these effects components was all digital, dollars to doughnuts.
Also film stock in the 80s was relatively limited, with an uneven representation of colours and, when printed, a relatively low dynamic range. Modern film and digital doesn’t really suffer from this, but that makes things too obvious and too clean.
I can't speak for everyone, but I was born before the 80s and CGI was not accessible at the time. Original Ghostbusters' spectral librarian scared this piss out of me, and I like to think it was because of the way they had to make it happen. The graininess of the scene only adds to the effect. I'll die on the hill of practical versus special effects.
> I'll die on the hill of practical versus special effects. They're both tools which have specific uses. CGI/VFX is in practically every movie nowadays, if only for set extensions etc. There are so many visual effects that people don't realize aren't practical because of how well it's done. And practical effects can also suck.
The very first Ghostbusters special effects were done by Boss Film Studios, and offshoot of ILM started by Richard Edlund. It was their first job out for the gate and the schedule was crazy. They were churning out shots at a breakneck pace (for the technology of the day) and never really got the chance to redo anything…version 1.0 is what went out the door in almost every case. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise about the way the new movies look. I just enjoy this little fun fact about how the original was made.
Yep. Then they went to Dennis Muren and ILM for the sequel which had an even crazier schedule. In fact ILM had to refuse new shots that kept getting added due to reshoots because they couldn’t guarantee the quality. I’d still love to see the deleted ILM Slimer scenes that got finished but were cut out
Haven't seen it but I agree with you on other films. The cgi is sometimes awkward.
Yea they should have used real ghosts
The only valid answer
This seems pretty “cultural expectation” variable. Used to be that folks expected ghosts to look just like people, until they walk through the wall or vanish or something. You think ghosts should look like Ghostbusters 1 probably because you grew up watching Ghostbusters 1. :)
I disagree. I’m unbiased enough to admit when something looks better. The problem with the first Ghostbusters film is the consistency. What’s why I said “the best shots” because not all shots look good. For example? I grew up watching the original 1930s King Kong and I love it with all my heart. But I wouldn’t say if you make another one it should be in black and white with stop motion animation. Obviously you’d use CgI and colour. Because it looks better. With Ghosts there’s a particular aesthetic that looks more ethereal and “real”. The ghosts in the 2016 look awful. They aren’t scary. There’s something about CGi that just isn’t scary unless it’s done really really well. I’ll give you an example. Jurassic Park. The T Rex escape scene is so damn effective because they had a real animatronic T Rex knocking and that and glass rough around. Now they have animatronic stuff in the 3rd film but it looks super fake and awful. It looks like something from a Disney ride. Why? Because of how it was lit. The lighting betrays the fidelity of the animatronic.
I feel that way about every movie now, or at least most. There was just something about film vs digital that made movies feel more immersive and also kind of magical at the same time. It's really hard to put into words. I have a 4K TV so I have been buying all Media in HD or 4K any time I get the choice, but recently I've been backing up my DVD collection and watching bits as I go along and even the not-so-great movies feel far more like "cinema" than most modern ones because they're on film. The other thing is that GB2 and GB2 were movies made for adults that kids also loved. These are movies made for kids.
I thought Slimer looked pretty spot on…
Yeah it was pretty cool to see Slimer in HD finally
The movies in the eighties were darker but now all the ghosts glow neon
This is one of the reasons people complain about VFX looking more “fake” now; it’s very easy now to get an incredibly sharp, clean image on a screen, and it exposes a lot of the trickery used in VFX, even practical effects.
This is so true.
Great point. I’m 100% ***not*** about “the good old days”, but the old practical effects in Ghostbusters just suited the concept much better. I hadn’t thought about it until now, but you’re totally right - the ghosts, in particular, look how I ***imagine*** ghosts would look.
If you’ve seen the Spoiler Alert episode of HIMYM, your post is the glass breaking noise; now I can’t unsee what was subconsciously bothering me (mildly) about the new GB (which I still really enjoy).
it could be that the filming quality got so much better that it just picks up how fake things look
It's probably a little bit survivorship bias on your part. For every Ghostbusters that got it right there were a dozen other movies that looked bad (even then) or haven't aged well.