I'm 38. I saw Ghostbusters at the movies numerous times..for me its one of the best 80s films out there..I also told my niece that shows like ghost hunters and other ghost cables shows are a rip off of ghostbusters…she said that was a lie.

My 3 older sisters think i'm insane for even liking movies like star wars, terminator, alien, ghostbusters, back to the future. etc.

I'm just a nut to them because I go to the comic con every year and like collecting figures and stuff.

kids today do no appreciate ghostbusters…they don't get the comedy and think the special effects suck.

Meh.. the majority of female Ghostbuster fans are lower I could imagine. It's situations like this is the reason the Back to the Future ride was taken down and the fanfare began to die.

A little perspective, though - the party terror dog stop motion puppet DOES look pretty shonky. It's the one effect in GB1 that really shows the film's age.

Not liking it because of that is a bit short-sighted but, y'know - not everyone can love the same things. At least she gave it a try!

robbritton;169994
A little perspective, though - the party terror dog stop motion puppet DOES look pretty shonky. It's the one effect in GB1 that really shows the film's age.

Its lack of realism does lend it a nightmarish quality, though, doesn't it?

The same goes for Harryhausen's creatures: they're not realistic at all, but they're the kind of thing you might see in a feverish dream.

jedimiller;169972
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”.

At some point, every film is viewed as old no matter how good it is. King Kong is barely watchable and the same with War of the worlds, but they are great classics. I think she needs to understand that “old” is based on the time period. There will be a time when Avatar, Twilight, and Lord of the Rings (Trilogy) will be viewed as outdated and aged. It's somewhat pointless however to expect everyone will like the same things. Things My dad liked such as old westerns I can't stand watching. He doesn't get the new age 3d stuff other and its too busy and fast for his tastes. We have to conclude that WE ARE OLD. That means that we are not the target crowd anymore. Our perspective is too much in the past, and we need rogain.

I don't think that many would disagree that some of the special effects in Ghostbusters are slightly dodgy to say the least and do look dated now. But it's the same case for just about every special effects movie of that time. I would argue though that even if a special effect looks dodgy, shakey, flawed, rough or dated, it doesn't stop it from being entertaining. If anything the dated effects in Ghostbusters (which are still very impressive in my opinion) have become even more enjoyable because they've now acquired a charm which is both humourous and nostalgic.

robbritton;169994
A little perspective, though - the party terror dog stop motion puppet DOES look pretty shonky. It's the one effect in GB1 that really shows the film's age.

Not liking it because of that is a bit short-sighted but, y'know - not everyone can love the same things. At least she gave it a try!

Though I could be mistaken greatly, I seem to remember hearing somewhere that that was one of the few special effects that they (those involved in the movie) were the least proud of.

I could see why one would have a few complaints with the effects. Especially a younger person. There are a few things that stand out, but they don't really hurt the picture as a whole, imo. I guess it depends on what you're looking to get out of it.

It doesn't bother me that the effects are dated on a comedy. The original Dawn of the Dead is one of my favorite movies and it's impact is just as strong today, even if the effects are horrible by today's standards….

Sadly, today's generation* grew up with CGI as the industry standard. Jst point out to her, that the effects were cutting-edge and state-of-the-art at the time. Might I suggest an FX-thru-the-ages film fest? It might provide some perspective.

As for Blu-Ray, ALL FX look like crap on Blu-Ray. The fatal combo is digital cameras + Blu-Ray + HD plasma screens: Live action looks like camcorder home video and CG looks like a video game cut scene.



* Did I really just use the phrase “today's generation”? Frak, when did I get old? What's next, yelling at kids on my lawn? (Which would be a trick, living on the second floor)

RealmMan;170075
As for Blu-Ray, ALL FX look like crap on Blu-Ray. The fatal combo is digital cameras + Blu-Ray + HD plasma screens: Live action looks like camcorder home video and CG looks like a video game cut scene.

i beg to differ, The Thing looks amazing on blu-ray, then again that could just be me as ive never been a fan of CGI it always looks to cartoony, a great example of this is any harry potter film, just watch when he's flying on his broomstick his body moves in whys that are impossible he would have a broken neck afterwards.

True a couple of the effects in GB 1 look a bit off. The Blu-ray version doesnt really help ghostbusters as it seems like sony didnt even bother make the whole film higher quality, all the effects shots look amazing but bits like in the mayors office look like they are being watched though snow. Im imagining that GB2 will look really good on Blu-Ray if we ever get a release.

on a sort of unrelated note my boss at work who is like a 1/4 italian all ways hammers home that she thinks she knows film and is always going about about how godfather is the best film of all time, when ever i challenge her on this i say “godfather is really good, but i dont think its the best film ever” her instant defence is that its better than GB. thing is she knows i like GB but ive never said its the best film ever, her reason for why GF is better is because its timeless and GB isnt, which i dont think is a fair statement, gb suffers from being very 80's the decade it was made but thats fine, where as GF is was made in the 70's and is set in the 50's. You can say BTTF is timeless as its set in a different time zone… GB and GF are both completely different films and shouldnt even be grouped together anyway, they are both good








just you dont see hundreds of people going to conventions to talk about godfather :-)