Went to my sisters house last night..and they had ghostbusters on TV. She said that it looked fake, especially the part where the demon dog comes out smashing the door at the party. I told her that it was a real puppet and that those effects were great! She disagreed. My niece who is 17 thinks Ghostbusters sucks as a movie. Quote, “I don't like the movie because it looks so old”.

Ask your sister what her favorite special effects ridden movie is and ask her if she thinks it will look as good in 25 years.

JamesCGamora;169973
Ask your sister what her favorite special effects ridden movie is and ask her if she thinks it will look as good in 25 years.

I know she loved Madagascar and Liked the effects in Avatar. She said, Quote, “That dog looks really fake”.

jedimiller;169974
I know she loved Madagascar and Liked the effects in Avatar. She said, Quote, “That dog looks really fake”.

Well it is fake there no real Terror Dogs in real life.
Also it only cost $30m to make and was made in less than a year.
I'm sure if it was made today with a budget like Avatar had of nearly $300M and also 15 years to make, with the final 4 years of actual filming then Ghostbusters look less fake, lol.

not telling you what to do….

just saying i've heard pain is a great motivator to get others to think the same way as you…

not that i'd know anything about that….just…just something i heard…once…

yeah….

jedimiller;169974
I know she loved Madagascar and Liked the effects in Avatar. She said, Quote, “That dog looks really fake”.

“Madagascar” is a cartoon, not a live action movie.

It's ironic that she says that Vinz Clortho looks fake in “Ghostbusters” while I thought that even after having a zillion dollar budget, the aliens in “Avatar” still looked completely unrealistic and cartoon-like.

Remind your sister that she needs to appreciate that at the time that it took actual craftmanship to do effects and couldn't just crap out an effect with a computer.

Look at “King Kong” or any of Ray Harryhausen films: using early animation techniques they had to use their bare effing hands to give their creations emotion and character. You just don't get that with most CGI films.

I'll take “District 9”, which had a budget of $30 million (10 million more than what Jim Carrey makes per movie) which made their characters look incredibly life-like, over an “Avatar”, which had a budget of $237 million and gave us a 3D cartoon version of “Dances With Wolves”.

The effects definitely have held up well over the years, but yes, I can see where a newer generation would say they look fake with the effects that they're used to now a days.

I prefer the older real effects than everything being computer generated, but yea.

Also, not sure what you were meaning to say, but it wasn't a real puppet of the real size flying through the door. What makes it look fake is the cropping of the film to add the effects shot of the puppet.

However, if your sister doesn't like it because its old, that's her opinion. She's wrong, and that's not how you should judge a movie, but yea.

Hey, those were Oscar-nominated special effects right there. :-)

I would also remind her that without the creative, inspiring and truly awesome special effects of those “Old Movies” as she put it, the special effects of modern movies wouldn't be possible.

Going beyond Ghostbusters, many of the techniques used then are still used even today.

tl;dr: Respect what came before.

Unfortunately it seems kids between 10-18 are the generation that doesn't appreciate the film very much. It's the largest group that doesn't recognize what Ghostbusters are because they grew up in the period where the fandom was pretty much underground. Luckily alot of kids under 10 have parents that loved the film and have passed it on. In 5 years of busting at public events I will say I've never heard anyone complain about the effects. I think the blu-ray brings out some of the matte lines pretty bad but that's about it. I do believe the film has aged very well. Most of the 90's movies haved aged horribly.