Jump to content




Photo

Ghostbuster on IMAX


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 28 July 2016 - 02:15 AM

I just came back from Ghostbusters at the Meteron in SF.   Eh, you know, not to sound dismissive or hostile about IMAX, but I was expecting something like the IMAX theatre at Great America.

 

You could see more detail in the image, but it still looked like a standard print in some regards.  I thought the movie itself was pretty good (save a little jab at Trek fans towards the end of Act II), but image wise I'm thinking I'm missing something.

 

Did anybody else have the same reaction to the image of the movie?  Did it still look like a standard 35mm print in some regards?

 

*EDIT*

Maybe I didn't see it the IMAX version.  Is that possible?  Anyone?


  • 0




#2 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 28 July 2016 - 08:43 PM

No idea if the film was finished in 2K or 4K, but if the former then you wouldn't really expect to see a massive improvement in image quality in the digital IMAX release over the general release. There's only so much detail there to begin with.

The Metreon has one IMAX screen, it's pretty unmistakable with its huge floor-to-ceiling screen. They were still projecting 15-perf 70mm prints a few years ago, but I think they have since replaced their film projector for a 3D digital system. This was around the time 'Gravity' came out.

That was a real shame since the 70mm projection was so clearly superior to everything else out there, super-bright with dense rich blacks, pin-sharp and smooth, and rock steady registration. Especially with the 15-perf 65mm originated footage in 'The Dark Knight' and 'Interstellar.' But even the 35mm originated footage from films like the Harry Potter series that went through the IMAX DMR digital up-res process looked very good compared to the standard digital and 35mm releases. Blasting an enormous amount of light through that huge negative made a big difference.
  • 0

#3 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 28 July 2016 - 09:41 PM

Ah, okay then.  Yeah, I was expecting a massive screen and so forth, and instead what I saw was essentially an almost standard sized screen.  I tried picking out more detail in various scenes, but found myself looking at a standard print of a feature film.  And I was expecting a blow up, but instead it was like seeing any other film.  Admittedly the screen for the kind of theatre it is, is pretty large, but it wasn't "IMAX" large, which is why I posted here.


  • 0

#4 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 28 July 2016 - 10:33 PM

Were you in the giant theater where you enter from the bottom and can only exit at the top? That's the only IMAX screen at that location. It was like $18/ticket a few years ago, the most expensive ticket you could buy there.
  • 0

#5 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 29 July 2016 - 02:22 AM

No, I was in theatre 8, second floor.  My first time there after all these years.


  • 0

#6 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 29 July 2016 - 03:07 PM

Gotcha. The IMAX theater entrance is directly in front of the ticket taker once you get upstairs. Not sure what number, probably 1. I believe the rest of the theaters are just regular screens.
  • 0

#7 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 29 July 2016 - 11:21 PM

That makes sense.  Though I have to admit, for a regular screen, it was huge.  Not IMAX huge, but big.  

 

I don't know how old you are Satsuki, nor how long and where you've lived in the Bay Area, but there used to be theatre in Burlingame off of 101 (off Airport boulevard), and I think it was the Burlingame Century Theatre.  Anyway, that theatre had one of the biggest movie screens I had ever seen anywhere.  It wasn't an all encompassing screen like IMAX, but it rivaled the size of drive in movie screens.  It was that huge.  I think I saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade there with the family.  

 

Ironically enough that's where I saw Ghostbusters way back in 1984 with some friends.

 

Technically the film looks sharp.  Good vibrant colors, a little more detail compared to other movies I've seen in recent years.  And the effects, for what they were, didn't have that plastic feel to them that CGI at times can give.  A very clean film technically speaking.  

 

I'm curious why more people here aren't talking about it.

 

*EDIT*

This place; http://www.yelp.com/...atre-burlingame

 

p.s. also saw Damnation Alley there  :)


  • 0

#8 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 30 July 2016 - 01:37 AM

Cinemark Theatres across the street has a few XD screens which are quite a bit larger than the standard screens. Of course, they charge a bit more for those. Maybe AMC has something similar?

I'm 36, born and raised in SF. I never really spent much time outside of the city as a kid, just wherever I could get to on the local bus lines. So I spent most of my moviegoing youth at the nearby Alexandria, and also the Coronet on Geary Blvd. Both are long gone now - it's sad when old movie theaters close, especially ones that have been around for half a century or more. I've seen photographs of the Alexandria Theatre that date from the early 1940s.

The Coronet was an especially great venue though, a 2,000 seat single-screen monstrosity. It got all the big summer releases so we used to line up around the block for hours at a time. My first movie there was 'Return of the Jedi' - apparently, I freaked out at the Rancor scene and my dad had to take me home. I asked to go back the next week and stayed 'til the end. That pretty much cemented my love of 'Star Wars' for life.

'Ghostbusters' (2016) - I don't know what to say really. It just does nothing for me. It may be a generational thing, most of the intense dislikes that I've seen online seems to be from people around my age. Perhaps we expected too much. I agree with these reviews, more or less:










  • 0

#9 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 July 2016 - 04:56 AM

I went to the Coronet a few times.  I saw the first Star Wars there during a re-release in 78 or something.  I also saw the first Batman there and a few others.  I had no idea it was gone.  Too bad.

 

I liked the new Ghostbusters.  I went in there not knowing anything about it other than a few fanboys sniping at it.  I've been without a TV, regular news and what not for nearly a year now ever since I moved, so I was spared a lot of the sparring and genesis thereof that's led to the current controversy.    The audience was mostly female with a few couples.  

 

Just as a pure "I don't know anything about this movie..." kind of perspective, I thought it was a lot of fun, and a bit more clever and funnier than the film I saw way back in 1984.  I think it did lack originality, and that it parroted the first film in just too many ways, but it was also a bit more clever than the film with Bill Murry and gang.

 

I didn't really see any anti-male stuff in it, though there were some male characters that were presented as being less than sympathetic.  I guess if I were a young boy who really liked this film, then as a male I might have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it.  But I saw it as a young adult, and thought the 1984 film was mildly entertaining.  I never did get the whole "humor" of Billy Murry laying on the floor with gunk all over his face, and him saying "He slimed me."

 

I had a friend who was a real die hard fan of the 1984 film.  I wonder what he thought of this remake.

 

For me, personally, on the remake-vibe; I do have to agree with Comic Book Girl 19 in that remakes are just beyond pase'.  There've always been certain formulas that worked throughout film, but to recirculate the formula in repackaged remakes of films from years past, and to do it regularly, I think has helped make Hollywood more dependent on the International Market as opposed to looking at domestic box office first, and then the overseas market.  

 

I think the whole political turmoil and backlash and everything else that lead up to the upheaval that this film has caused, is very unfortunate.  But it is just a movie, and a commercial remake of a film that a lot of young men liked.  I figured if people really disliked it, then they would just ignore it, and when it finally left the theatres then they would be able to say why they didn't like it.

 

And I'm glad this website has, by the nature of the profession, avoided major chunks of the backlash that's out there.

 

But, I was curious as to why mister Reitman's Ghostbuster's 3 never took off.

 

Oh well.  I'm not sure what else to say about it.  I guess people here feel the need to be quiet to avoid bringing in the social chaos that is orbiting this movie.


  • 0

#10 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 July 2016 - 05:17 AM

And from Ivan Reitman himself, in his own words, the genesis of the new movie, what happened to Ghostbusters 3, and how this film came about, and what he thinks of the attention given to it;

 


  • 0

#11 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 July 2016 - 07:21 AM

And here Ivan Reitman expands on his thoughts about the Ghostbusters' controversy.  

 


  • 0

#12 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3081 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 30 July 2016 - 11:44 PM

Part of the backlash also has a lot to do with how Sony was run under Amy Pascal and the mismanagement of fan-favorite properties like Spider-man over the past several years.

The Sony email hack revealed some unpleasant shenanigans behind the scenes on 'Ghostbusters' (2016), from Pascal wresting creative control from Ivan Reitman and going behind his back to Paul Feig, to Sony execs weighing the pros and cons of suing Bill Murray if he continued to resist signing onto the project. Then there was Feig's Twitter meltdown where he called some fans 'assholes' because they said some nasty things about the trailer. The whole affair basically set the table against the film with fans who were following the film's release.



Basically, unlike Lucasfilm/Kathleen Kennedy/JJ Abrams with Star Wars, Sony/Pascal/Feig made the critical error of pissing off the internet.
  • 0

#13 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 31 July 2016 - 03:07 AM

Pre-public access to the internet, I was at a Trek convention at the Holiday Inn Golden Gateway off of Van Ness between Pine and Sacramento.  It was put on by the Creation Convention people, and the "CEO" or whatever his title was, put on a slide show for Star Trek III or IV of the stills taken by the production photographer. 

 

We all figured we'd get to see maybe, at most, a dozen slides with some behind the scenes photos.  This guy went on for about an hour, and about 2/3 of the way through people were getting PO'd, and the cat calls and boos were coming out calling for him to stop.  But he wouldn't stop, and kept dropping hints about the film that was coming.  I mean during that period sci-fi and Star Trek fans were a pretty sedate and friendly bunch, but the energy really turned negative and borderline hostile.

 

After reading and hearing about the media flap and fan backlash, it makes a guy wonder if all parties involved are firing on all cylinders.  In all my years of watching films and TV and being a fan of this show or that movie, never have I seen the amount of hatred generated by a single film.  I think the best protest is to vote with your dollar and not go see it.  But cruising the net it's like ... there are people out there who are readying their torches and pitchforks.

 

Maybe being a fan of any media property isn't such a good thing.   :unsure:


  • 0

#14 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 31 July 2016 - 06:46 AM

Part of the backlash also has a lot to do with how Sony was run under Amy Pascal and the mismanagement of fan-favorite properties like Spider-man over the past several years.

The Sony email hack revealed some unpleasant shenanigans behind the scenes on 'Ghostbusters' (2016), from Pascal wresting creative control from Ivan Reitman and going behind his back to Paul Feig, to Sony execs weighing the pros and cons of suing Bill Murray if he continued to resist signing onto the project. Then there was Feig's Twitter meltdown where he called some fans 'assholes' because they said some nasty things about the trailer. The whole affair basically set the table against the film with fans who were following the film's release.

Basically, unlike Lucasfilm/Kathleen Kennedy/JJ Abrams with Star Wars, Sony/Pascal/Feig made the critical error of pissing off the internet.

 

The thing that bother's me about this is we're essentially seeing private correspondence.  It's like a mail thief regularly breaks into your mail box over a month or a year, as well as that of a person you're corresponding to, and then published said correspondence in major magazines and newspapers.  I mean, that's illegal.

 

The film itself, whether you like it or not, should stand on its own merits, and not prejudice the potential audience with studio politics, regardless of who said what, who did what, and who said or did what first.

 

That's the thing that really gets me, because if this had happened pre-net, then I would think all parties involved would have their lawyers come down on the people reporting this, because even though there is some pertinent information on the movies birth, it really isn't anyone's business.

 

I worked on a job where the director (name withheld) was heavily into the legacy of Peter Pan.  Apparently, according to him, Peter Pan was loosely based on an autistic child, and that the author of the original story was trying to pay him homage or make him feel better or some such--maybe thinking it would relieve his autism.  

 

I thought dude was nuts.  Really, I thought he was out there, but it wasn't until this post that I ever expressed any thoughts on him.  It was another job, just like any other.  Maybe the guy was a drug user ... maybe he had subversive politics ... maybe he had some objectionable personal habits.  But big deal.  He was law abiding and did his job at the work place.  

 

I can't help but think that if I plastered his real name all over the place and shouted out to the world about what a crazy person he was, and somehow gained a large political following outside the studio where I worked, that, in pre-public access to the net, that I would get fired, be investigated by both the SFPD and the postal Insepctor, and any other pertinent law enforcement as well as getting my ass sued by him, the studio where I (used to) work, and any other party who felt they were damaged.

 

Now, that same scenario would be a different animal had said same director mouthed off, because then he would be declaring a challenge to whatever fans there were of whatever property he was working on.

 

I remember a cable sitcom that shot on our stage (name of sitcom, cable channel and other parties witheld), and the director was egotistical and thought he was a comic genius.  He wasn't, and, as stage manager, I let him know it.  But I didn't bad mouth the show to people outside the studio.  I never sent any anonymous letters, never told my friends, or anything of the such.  I simply said "Dude, your show's not that funny ... and your dogs keep barking in the prop room."  End of story.

 

But I can see some very unscrupulous person, in our day and age of instant access to all information, just hiding a Go-Pro here and there, and the uploading the footage to YouTube, and then maybe writing some fanboy diatribe about how dude wrecked the show.

 

This whole Ghostbusters' flap really speaks to the kind of nation we've become here in the United States.  It really shows a lack of respect for professionalism and the right to privacy.

 

Repeating myself here; I can't help but feel that this film, had it been made and released in the 1980s, would have been received like ... Supergirl with Slater.  Kind of interesting for those who were inclined to see it, but probably not something that most males at the time would opt to see.  End of story.

 

This whole flap really has been a shock to this sci-fi fantasy fan.  Never in my entire life would I imagine such a backlash for a simple concept.


  • 0

#15 JD Hartman

JD Hartman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Edison, N.J. U.S.A.

Posted 31 July 2016 - 06:57 AM

Satsuki, thanks for posting that link.  Maybe next time Sony execs will listen to their fan base.  I thought the film was just awful.


  • 0

#16 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:28 AM

I got through 20 minutes, absolutely atrocious and a complete waste of time/money. Sony is in big trouble this year.
  • 0

#17 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 01 August 2016 - 08:55 AM

I got through 20 minutes, absolutely atrocious and a complete waste of time/money. Sony is in big trouble this year.

 

What did you wind up go seeing instead?


  • 0

#18 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2016 - 12:25 PM

What did you wind up go seeing instead?


I watched the Infiltrator, it was atrocious as well. Poor Bryan Cranston, he books these great roles with such horrible scripts.

I peeked into Jason Bourne thinking I'd watch that, but the first action scene was just silly and I was already fed up with the film 10 minutes in.

I should have watched Cafe Society, but it wasn't playing until the evening. I actually wound up sitting through the Cranston film because at least it wasn't stupid. :shrug:
  • 0

#19 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1265 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 02 August 2016 - 03:40 AM

Hmm.  It appears that the 2000s are not a good era for commercial feature films.  It's like everything from the crime dramas to the romantic comedies to the SFX laden scif/fantasy films have this juvenile approach to dialogue and action, and it's put in a socially/politically acceptable vein such that you can't make fun of stereotypes for fear of bad press  no matter how tongue-in-cheek it's supposed to be.

 

I saw a movie back in January on cable about illegal diamond mining in Africa....."Blood Diamond" or something like that.  And where it was technically competent, and the script moved well, and everything else, it was shot like a Jason Bourne comic-book "Bond"-ish film.  And that's the directorial style today.

 

There was some of that in this new Ghostbuster's film, but the thing that I personally liked about it was that even though it had a few crass gags (not many), it was dialed back in terms of shooting style.  You didn't get a lot of steadicam or wire-cam shots twirling overhead, nor over the top dramatic two shots and closeups followed by rapid cut action--that is so characteristic of today's modern film styles.  

 

I tried watching the first Jason Bourne film, and it just struck me as intentionally over the top for the graphic novel demographic.  Kind of like the last Bond film where it's essentially one giant action scene after the next.  Bond's supposed to be a savvy sophisticate, not a one man army.  But it's like that's what's made today ... maybe the studios are trying to compete with the computer gaming audience for dollars.  If so, then it's a losing proposition.

 

Wow.  I wonder when REAL movies are going to start hitting theatres again.  


  • 0

#20 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2369 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 August 2016 - 12:12 PM

Next year... Nolan's new film 'Dunkirk', that will be the next "real" movie I've seen in the future. Shot entirely on 70mm, it's going to be distributed on 70mm as well. Plus, it's going to be all done in camera. The BTS stuff so far is amazing, literally crashing mock up air planes into the ocean, putting huge sections of sunken ships right into the ocean for people to cling onto. They have thousands of extras for the big action scenes and are using tricks like smoke/fog and false perspective.

In terms of the story, it's probably just a plain jane war epic, just done right, without all the whiz bang of modern movies. Here is hoping he doesn't mess it up!

The problem with modern movies is that they pander to the lowest common denominator in every level. Fart jokes have become the norm because you can't get any lower then that. When you watch the new Ghostbusters move and then you watch the original Ghostbusters movie, what do you see? The new movie (from what I watched) seems entirely ad-lib, with the actors giving advice to the director on what the scene should be. Notice how the actresses are NEVER scared of the ghosts? It's like everything is fake and they know it.

Now, watch the original Ghostbusters, it seems very well scripted, it's suspenseful, and somewhat intelligent when it comes to the characters motivation. They aren't just a few chicks running wild, in the original movie, those guys were broke, they got a loan and they started a business with it. The whole thing made sense and when they saw ghosts earlier in the movie, they were actually shocked by them. Those guys were acting based on a script and in the new Ghostbusters, it appears the girls were writing the script as they went along. Using fart jokes, screaming sessions and horribly stupid scenarios to build tension. Nobody can just make a scene anymore without some ticking clock in the background. Either someone rushes in mid scene and stirs the pot or there is a train that's going to run them over. What happened to scenes being good enough to stand on their own without the ticking clock?

When I started watching the new Ghostbusters, when I closed my eyes, it could have been any Melissa McCarthy movie... which is the biggest problem of all.
  • 0


Visual Products

Abel Cine

Zylight

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Pro 8mm

Tai Audio

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Zylight

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc