This thread is about what it’s always been about. How well the proton streams in the movie hold up to the CG ones.
Now that topic covers a wide berth. Like WHY is that the case? Is it visuals? Is it more? The title does not need to be changed to reflect that.
A thread title does not need to cover every conceivable way a subject is discussed. That would be a bit ridiculous and from what I can tell that’s never really been the case. If I wrote a title saying “Even though it’s 2024 it’s impressive that the music in 1984 sounds better than 2024” would we talk about JUST the music as a composition? Or HOW it’s used? There’s a lot of wiggle room there.
Do you see my point? This is a DISCUSSION thread. What is this discussion about at its core? The proton pack beams. Why do they work better in one film over another? The title doesn’t need that when A) there’s only so much room and B) since it’s a discussion it’s obvious you’d get into the “why” of the thing
What I really take issue with is the: “I shouldn’t have to keep on saying this”. Now did Kingpin say “Hey maybe we should keep this thread to visuals only”? No. He did not.—even after I had brought up how the streams are talked about in a reply to his post. He came out with some, in my opinion, rather rude “I shouldn’t have to keep on saying this”. That wasn’t necessary. Imagine reading that from my perspective. As far as I’m concerned I’m on topic and then I get some odd “stay on topic I shouldn’t have to keep saying this” message.
My guess is that Kingpin didn’t realize I was talking about the proton streams. And that’s fine, we all make mistakes. Maybe that’s on me for not spelling it out more. But once I clarified what I was talking about as far I was concerned that should’ve been the end of it. That’s not what happened.
But now we really are off topic. So do whatever makes your job easier. If that means changing the title? Have at it.
If you want to add something to the title maybe add “Why is that?” at the end. Even though like I said that should be implied. Granted I doubt it’ll make much of a difference since I think this thread has been ruined anyways.
[quote=RichardLess post_id=4997712 time=1715462417 user_id=47215]This thread is about what it’s always been about. How well the proton streams in the movie hold up to the CG ones.
[/quote]
In your original post, and a few of your immediate posts after that one, you’d talked about film shots, scale, composition and about comparing the execution with hand-rendered optics versus computer graphic imagery, which, along with the title, would likely give most people the impression this was a topic discussing the visual effects of the proton streams, not the in-world explanation/the pseudoscience behind why the proton streams worked the way they worked (to which the 1984, 1989, 2021 and 2024 films offer almost no explanation/pseudoscience behind their operation).
It wasn’t until The_Y33TER’s post, the 13th in the string, that the pseudoscience started to crop up… And even then, it wasn’t the pseudoscience that was what I took issue with, it was bringing up Melissa McCarthy’s delivery of her dialogue. I don’t see how that was relevant to either the visual effects of the streams, or the science behind them. It just felt like an off-topic criticism of the 2016 film’s direction.
There was another comment you’d made before that which I felt was a little off-topic:
[quote=RichardLess post_id=4997625 time=1715228324 user_id=47215]Granted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea
[/quote]
Those were why I felt the need to ask for the topic to not become a “wider critique thread of the 2016 film” because that looked like the way it was starting to creep, which has happened with other topics I and the other mod team have had to moderate.
As for the thread title, understandably it can’t cover every avenue a discussion could go into, but it can cover a few… And if you want this topic to be able to discuss the pseudoscience along with the visuals, then I think something like this might’ve been a more elaborative title, which could’ve also achieved what michael was suggesting:
Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984 vs 2024
Or Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984-2024
Or Let’s look at the proton streams, the visuals and the science - all movies
etc.
As for me saying “I shouldn’t have to keep saying it”, it’s because I’ve had to make a variation of “please don’t turn this into a wider critique of the 2016 movie” in more than a few topics the last couple of months, and honestly my frustration got the better of me. The remark was genuinely meant for everyone, rather than just specifically you, but I clearly made a mess of that one, so I’m sorry for singling you out.
I think I need to start putting my money where my mouth is… We’ve had too many fractious disagreements on the forum, at the forum’s expense, and I need to change that behaviour. I normally advise other people to use the “ignore user” feature, and I think maybe it’s time I followed my own advice. The forum could do with less friction between us.
I get both your points of view here but I’m not taking any sides. I just think we’re all a little burned out on the culture war stuff but it’s easy to get sucked in.
In your original post, and a few of your immediate posts after that one, you’d talked about film shots, scale, composition and about comparing the execution with hand-rendered optics versus computer graphic imagery, which, along with the title, would likely give most people the impression this was a topic discussing the visual effects of the proton streams, not the in-world explanation/the pseudoscience behind why the proton streams worked the way they worked (to which the 1984, 1989, 2021 and 2024 films offer almost no explanation/pseudoscience behind their operation).
It wasn’t until The_Y33TER’s post, the 13th in the string, that the pseudoscience started to crop up… And even then, it wasn’t the pseudoscience that was what I took issue with, it was bringing up Melissa McCarthy’s delivery of her dialogue. I don’t see how that was relevant to either the visual effects of the streams, or the science behind them. It just felt like an off-topic criticism of the 2016 film’s direction.
There was another comment you’d made before that which I felt was a little off-topic:
[quote=RichardLess post_id=4997625 time=1715228324 user_id=47215]Granted I dislike almost every creative choice from a design stand point in that movie. The packs? The suits? The car? None of it’s my cup of tea
[/quote]
Those were why I felt the need to ask for the topic to not become a “wider critique thread of the 2016 film” because that looked like the way it was starting to creep, which has happened with other topics I and the other mod team have had to moderate.
As for the thread title, understandably it can’t cover every avenue a discussion could go into, but it can cover a few… And if you want this topic to be able to discuss the pseudoscience along with the visuals, then I think something like this might’ve been a more elaborative title, which could’ve also achieved what michael was suggesting:
Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984 vs 2024
Or Comparing the visuals and science of the proton streams: 1984-2024
Or Let’s look at the proton streams, the visuals and the science - all movies
etc.
As for me saying “I shouldn’t have to keep saying it”, it’s because I’ve had to make a variation of “please don’t turn this into a wider critique of the 2016 movie” in more than a few topics the last couple of months, and honestly my frustration got the better of me. The remark was genuinely meant for everyone, rather than just specifically you, but I clearly made a mess of that one, so I’m sorry for singling you out.
I think I need to start putting my money where my mouth is… We’ve had too many fractious disagreements on the forum, at the forum’s expense, and I need to change that behaviour. I normally advise other people to use the “ignore user” feature, and I think maybe it’s time I followed my own advice. The forum could do with less friction between us.
[/quote]
There’s something more important i want to address than why I feel you might be misguided in your analysis of what happened RE the on/off topic post.
What I want to focus is the “ignore” thing.
I’ll be honest. I feel the ignore feature is a last resort. For two people who vehemently dislike each other. Perhaps you dislike me, I don’t know. I’ve always liked you. We disagree, sure. But it’s never something that can’t be addressed or talked about. But..
I think when a long time serving, well respected mod is discussing the possibility of ignoring you for the good of the community then perhaps it’s time to call it day. There’s seem to be two type of Ghostbusters fans at the moment. The positive and the pessimistic. I find myself far too often in the latter category. I don’t like any of the new creative choices. The new movies aren’t what I want from this franchise and there’s only so many times you can say that in different ways before it becomes annoying. And so I guess I crossed that line a long ago & there’s nothing worse than a guest over staying their welcome. You and the other mods seem very much in the positive side. Which is the way it should be.
I’ve very much enjoyed my time and discussions here. Maybe in a few years with the next GB film I’ll check in again. Who knows, maybe I’ll actually enjoy it.
Thanks to all to cool people I’ve met here and fascinating conversations, debates and more I’ve had. Oh I’d better mention all the nice messages I received whilst in the hospital a few years back. Thanks! And ciao! Oh and before I go….
****** Sorry for going off topic. But I gotta address thus******
Wait. What. R u for real? Don’t leave! Ur like 1 of the funniest ppl that visit & even when I disagree with u ur posts r never not interesting or well reasoned. Whose gonna have those old married couple back & forths between u & that Tyler guy? Do u know how much entertainment value those posts have?
This place might end up incredibly boring. I certainly have never got the impression u & Kingpin had any special friction. I’ve seen u have friction with EVERY1 lol. We got into it heavily once & u sent me a nice message afterwards bcuz u added an extra “!” So u thought I’d think u were angry. Then we realized we both loved the DCAU & Battlestar Galactica. When u sent me that script I was so honored. I was nervous about how I was guna tell u it wasn’t good but then against all odds it turned out to be amazing. I told u I wished I have never read the damn thing bcuz now I know I’ll never get to see it. I’ll be honest, as much as I LOVED Afterlife, when watching FE, ur script was never far from my mind.
Anyways, I hope u change ur mind Rich.
As for the topic @ hand
Rwatching Frozen Empire today I realized what the issue is. I think. Mayb. It’s all about diffusion. The beams in the first 2 films r diffused. The CG beams in Frozen empire r too crisp. + they zigzag too much. There’s too much waviness to them like how you’d see with a radio signal on an oscilloscope.
The OG films the blue electrical lines & the orange core looked tube shaped sort of. In FE they r way too thin. + there’s no diffusion.
In an attempt to steer the discussion back to the effects does anyone else want to talk about how awesome the freezing of the streams looked and how they still had that inner orange glow when they dropped and smashed on the floor? I thought that looked incredible (if scientifically implausible)
I think my only issue with the recent streams (Afterlife and Frozen Empire) is the zipping effect. The stream comes out and goes back into the barrel. And not all of the time, mind you. The scene when Phoebe zapped Gary in Terror Dog form, for instance. It came up, gave him a good whipping, then went back to the barrel. In other scenes, the stream continues onward to its target.
One of the things I liked about the GB1 beams is that they don’t start at the wand, they start at the target and arc back towards the wand. This was an intentional decision from the effects team based on how electrical arcs behave (I believe they discussed this in one of the GB documentaries?).
But by GB2 the beams just shoot straight out of the wands, looks like the same thing in Afterlife (haven’t check Frozen Empire). I’d love if they could reincorporate that aspect of the effect next time. It’s a subtle but nice touch.
Edit: I think they said the red beam starts at the target, arcs back to the wand, then the blue beams/sparks/rings move out in the opposite direction. So it’s kind of like the energy is bouncing backwards then forwards.
Probably just went with how the way the streams were portrayed in the cartoon, same as the way the trap function changed from the first to the second movie based on how it worked in the rgb cartoon.
