Author Topic: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed  (Read 32255 times)

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #540 on: April 08, 2021, 12:01:12 AM »
Maybe Filmation could make a Ghostbusters film.

Then make a sequel that's a crossover with Toho's 2016 Shin Godzilla reboot and call it Godzilla vs Kong.





two Filmation Ghostbusters were named Kong

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #541 on: April 08, 2021, 12:49:54 AM »
The first clip from the movie has been released and oh, what a surprise; it's a fucking load of old shit, full of awful humour, 'member berries and terrible CGI, all presented via the medium of flat, TV episode quality cinematography.  Sony Pictures strikes again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iBFIlHDZx0

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #542 on: April 08, 2021, 12:59:13 AM »
Sorry, I'll stop posting in this thread for a bit.  Like most people, the lockdown has affected my mental state quite badly and I'm just getting overly angry at things.  I love cinema and I hate to see the absolute state of modern blockbusters but it's not good to get so worked up about it.  Sorry.

You're right on both counts, modern cinema is basically a cesspool of unrelenting stinking garbage that's also not worth getting upset about.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #543 on: April 08, 2021, 01:10:19 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iBFIlHDZx0

I'd have been relatively happy had the Ghostbusters: Afterlife clip actually been executed like that; atmospheric direction, cinematography and stop motion animation being used to depict deceptively cute creatures acting in a genuinely creepy and malevolent manner towards their victim.

FUN FACT: On the subject of Young Sherlock Holmes.  As I learned from reading my Father's Industrial Light & Magic book as a young impressionable 6 year old, it was the first film to feature a fully CG photorealistic animated character; a knight emerging from a stained glass window.  The effect still looks great to this very day and a damn sight more convincing and charming than the CG Stay Puft Men in the Ghostbusters: Afterlife clip, 36 years later.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #544 on: April 08, 2021, 01:17:01 AM »
Wow never seen that knight before! That looks amazing, really eerie and effective result.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #545 on: April 08, 2021, 01:21:02 AM »
Wow never seen that knight before! That looks amazing, really eerie and effective result.

The effect was overseen by John Lasseter, who would go on to be the chief creative officer of Pixar Animation Studios.


Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #546 on: April 08, 2021, 01:22:19 AM »
Cancelled.

madhair60

  • わたしは価値がないと感じます
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • ほっといてくれ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #547 on: April 08, 2021, 08:51:46 AM »
Wow never seen that knight before! That looks amazing, really eerie and effective result.

It's uncannily convincing, I was all ready to scoff at mid-eighties CGI but no, it's fantastic.

Jerzy Bondov

  • best not bother
    • righto so ive got five minutes off work and uh yeah im gonna have a cheeky volvic
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #548 on: April 08, 2021, 09:21:17 AM »
The effect was overseen by John Lasseter, who would go on to be the chief creative officer of Pixar Animation Studios.

Shortly after this picture was taken Lasseter touched the knight's arse

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #549 on: April 08, 2021, 09:54:51 AM »
I can't say I've ever noticed a major difference in lighting and grading between trailers and the finished product. It could've happened but generally if a trailer of a film looks wank so does the finished product.

Marvel films often change the CGI effects in trailers to avoid giving away spoilers, and all sorts of other things more complex than tweaking the grading. That is probably pretty straightforward to do for a short, disposable clip in this day and age

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #550 on: April 08, 2021, 10:13:22 AM »
FUN FACT: On the subject of Young Sherlock Holmes.  As I learned from reading my Father's Industrial Light & Magic book as a young impressionable 6 year old,

I've got that book too, and it really is a brilliant overview of ILM's golden years of SFX.

idunnosomename

  • PIZZA BEAN
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #551 on: April 08, 2021, 01:31:25 PM »
you could probably animate and render the figure itself in a day now but the camera movement is extraordinarily ambitious (and well-shot in St Augustine's Kilburn in North London) for the purpose of showing the knight's face piece from the back, with the painting reversed, which is just so damned cool. ironically it is only a hallucination, but i suppose you buy it's scary enough to run away from to get yourself killed over.

anyway the mini-stay puft men are shitty babby yoda attempts at funko-popping something you REMEMBER and are extraordinarily shit. somehow even more embarrassing than THE POWER OF PATTY COMPELLS YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #552 on: April 08, 2021, 01:59:28 PM »

Would rather eat smores components separately.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #553 on: April 08, 2021, 10:21:13 PM »
Also you can't escape the feeling that the scene/teaser was devised specifically to sell toys.

How right you are.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #554 on: April 08, 2021, 10:29:54 PM »
Would rather eat smores components separately.

I'd rather eat spores, moulds and fungus.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #555 on: April 08, 2021, 11:00:16 PM »
How right you are.

Haha they couldn’t even get that right!  It looked like the toy company had been in communication with the film makers, corresponding about how the mini pufts should look on screen so the toys would resemble them most effectively.

Such processes are why, for example, the costumes and vehicles of the hit film Batman and Robin ended up looking the way they did in the movie.  Like chunky plastic toys.

The mini pufts in the clip are squashy things.  The key thing about them seeming “toyetic” is they already look like toys in the film, rather than anything else at all.  They look like silicone or latex rubber squashy toys rather than whatever material they should be in-universe.

Hasbro’s product instead resembles rigid teeny terrapin things.  What a strange situation.  Bath toys for toddlers would have worked better than these weirdly moulded, badly painted ornaments.

Chedney Honks

  • When life gives u no hair, ball spin
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #556 on: April 08, 2021, 11:00:45 PM »
Fucking hell I can't believe how angry I am getting the more I read and think about this movie. I just can't stop ruminating. A big part of my life is being insulted and shit on by this movie. Can't take much more of this. Just trying to breathe steadily.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #557 on: April 08, 2021, 11:05:27 PM »
Fucking hell I can't believe how angry I am getting the more I read and think about this movie. I just can't stop ruminating. A big part of my life is being insulted and shit on by this movie. Can't take much more of this. Just trying to breathe steadily.

Probably not worth getting worked up about it.

Chedney Honks

  • When life gives u no hair, ball spin
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #558 on: April 08, 2021, 11:07:26 PM »
Just killed two ghosts, too late :(

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #559 on: April 08, 2021, 11:08:32 PM »


Remember when Garbage Pail Kids had gone shit?

Chedney Honks

  • When life gives u no hair, ball spin
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #560 on: April 08, 2021, 11:09:26 PM »
Looks like Madballs!

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #561 on: April 08, 2021, 11:12:37 PM »
Looks like Madballs!

I insist that it looks like Teeny Terrapins mixed with latter day Garbage Pail Kids.  I will accept no other comparison.


This one is especially Teeny Terrapins esque.  I can’t work out whether they are made from that kind of moulded plaster or a thin plastic material.  Either way, rigid as all fuck.





Madballs were good.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #562 on: April 08, 2021, 11:19:04 PM »
Check out that miraculous paint work




Fuckin works of art

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #563 on: April 08, 2021, 11:32:34 PM »
The incel man babies are just one target demographic. It makes sense for them to market it to children too. The original film had ghosts for the youngsters, but the dialogue also had a bitta blue for t'dads. But that's back when a family could rent a video and all watch it together. Do clans have any such shared experiences nowadays? I don't see this film changing anything.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #564 on: April 08, 2021, 11:36:12 PM »

If the Marshmellow Man was just the first thought that came into Akroyd's mind, how come there are loads of mini marshmellow man kicking about in the future?  I won't be watching the film to find out.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #565 on: April 08, 2021, 11:52:32 PM »
If the Marshmellow Man was just the first thought that came into Akroyd's mind, how come there are loads of mini marshmellow man kicking about in the future?


Chedney Honks

  • When life gives u no hair, ball spin
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #566 on: April 09, 2021, 12:21:17 AM »
Check out that miraculous paint work

How could they do this to me?

idunnosomename

  • PIZZA BEAN
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #567 on: April 09, 2021, 11:30:29 AM »
REMEMBER THE STAY-PUFT MARSHMALLOW MAN? HE'S BACK: IN KINDER EGG FORM!!!

Bad Ambassador

  • Sit down, Mario!
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #568 on: April 09, 2021, 11:31:36 AM »
Hmm, this is getting harder to explain away.

Why are they releasing toys now? The film isn't out for another seven months.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #569 on: April 09, 2021, 11:40:04 AM »

A while back, someone on Reddit leaked this figurine from the upcoming official merchandise for Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

Notice the miniature Stay Puft Man emerging from the larger one?  Well, that rather suggests that the smaller Stay Puft Men from the released clip will be assembling to form a massive Stay Puft Man during the climax of the movie.  This is just another The Force Awakens kind of deal, isn't it?  There they remade A New Hope, under the masquerade of being a sequel and had another Death Star for the heroes to defeat during the third act.  This will be no different; there will be another gigantic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man for the Ghostbusters to defeat at the end of the movie.  Creatively bankrupt.

Tags: