GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE - Andy's Review

[Paul MacLean]

Can't you feel the magic and you-are-there spontaneity...?

I'm all for using real locations when it comes to unique landscapes, castles / historic locations, etc., but static CGI backgrounds have gotten so good, I don't think it makes sense to shoot in locations like Manhattan (or any big cities really) which requires permits, blocking-off streets, plus you have noise, obnoxious bystanders waving at the camera, etc.

[Monterey Jack]

I'm all for using real locations when it comes to unique landscapes, castles / historic locations, etc., but static CGI backgrounds have gotten so good, I don't think it makes sense to shoot in locations like Manhattan (or any big cities really) which requires permits, blocking-off streets, plus you have noise, obnoxious bystanders waving at the camera, etc.

But that's what made a movie set in a teeming large city seem alive. There's that montage in the original Ghostbusters where the guys are beginning to ply their trade. and we see a reporter discussing their business, and we see a bearded guy in the background looking in the camera...



...and that's exactly what you'd see when someone was doing a news report in a big city. Hell, that wasn't even a paid extra...it was just a random New Yorker who wandered into the shot! That's what's been missing in the last three attempts to keep this franchise going...the idea that the characters are inhabiting a world much larger than they are. There's an inherent, uncontrollable frisson that occurs when a movie is shot in an actual location, "happy accidents" that can make a movie seem more spontaneous and alive, which cannot occur within the hermetically-sealed confines of a soundstage. Another good example in in Inglourious Basterds (which I re-watched recently), where a moth flies into a shot during the incredibly tense opening chapter and starts climbing up the side of Christoph Waltz's delicious glass of milk.



That struck me even the very first time I saw it, and it made the verisimilitude of the scene more palpable, that this was happening in an actual place, a small farm where a bug could randomly fly through the window in the middle of a shot. Maybe Tarantino was fuming when he noticed that in the dalies, who knows, but it's a tiny, accumulative detail that so many of these modernized, overly-fetishized greenscreen fests never possess.

[Paul MacLean]

But that's what made a movie set in a teeming large city seem alive. There's that montage in the original Ghostbusters where the guys are beginning to ply their trade. and we see a reporter discussing their business, and we see a bearded guy in the background looking in the camera...

I agree those shots looked great -- but also they are fairly tight shots so they didn't require much crowd control or shutdowns of streets. For the telephoto shots of the Ghostbusters running thru the crowds, I doubt they even closed down the streets at all. The 2nd unit director probably just had them run down a sidewalk full of real pedestrians.

As far as the bearded guy during the news report, that worked, because bystanders often stare at the camera / talent during news reports. But it's a problem when you have actors performing on an actual street and people in the background are pointing and waving -- ruining the believability of the scene.

Another good example in in Inglourious Basterds (which I re-watched recently), where a moth flies into a shot during the incredibly tense opening chapter and starts climbing up the side of Christoph Waltz's delicious glass of milk.

I actually don't find that movie believable at all -- in particular Waltz's earplugs, which are plainly visible in this shot...



In any case, again, I do think there is a place for using real locations. There's a reason The Revenant comes off as more convincing than Everest. But with crowded, traffic-choked urban locations, sometimes it's just more trouble (and expensive) than it's worth -- and often doesn't make a difference. I was surprised to learn Tarantino shut down the freeways in LA for Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. I assumed he just used CGI. It didn't look any more real.

Likewise the big explosion near the end of SPECTRE. Again I assumed it was CGI and was surprised when I learned it was a practical effect.

If it's done with care and precision, I defy anyone to tell the difference. I mean, this from two decades ago, and it looks very convincing...

[AndyDursin]

I actually was surprised by some of those composites -- whoever did the work on this Ghostbusters did a much better job than anything I've seen out of Marvel/Disney -- but in general I much favor location shooting where appropriate.

We've seen a huge increase in "fake backdrop" environments to a degree filmmaking feels like it's gone back in time to the 1950s and bad blue-screened jungle movies. There's no sense of time and place, which is one reason it's fun and rewarding to revisit old movies. That's not going to be there in the digital look of this generation, which is why cinema is on such a downward trajectory. Who's going to want to rewatch Marvel #22 in 50-100 years when we're all gone?