I bet your sister likes the song “Friday” because it's ‘new’.

You're telling me she didn't even bother to notice the slapstick genius of the whole Terror-Dog Chase sequence?

God, i hate kids now, they overlook anything that has substance just because it's not pretty on the surface. I'm not just defending the movie, it's just a perfect example of how our modern society has molded into this image-laden age where everything should be taken at face-value, doesnt matter what the quality is, and its why we have the stereotypes and generalizations we have now, because just about everything is just depicted with a price tag and then throw in the trash when done, rinse and repeat.

I honestly think the slimer effects rival anything you see today, you feel like he is real. Slime would horrible as a cgi character.

Take Yoda for example, everyone fell in love with yoda in the original star wars movies, but the cgi Yoda in the newer movies just didn't seem real.

Popey;170078
just you dont see hundreds of people going to conventions to talk about godfather :-)

Naturally. They have the Olive Garden for that.(*winston)

(PS: I'm half-Italian on my dad's side. Therefore, I am well within my rights to make jokes.)

Nix;170139
Naturally. They have the Olive Garden for that.(*winston)

(PS: I'm half-Italian on my dad's side. Therefore, I am well within my rights to make jokes.)

classic!

and,really,the only effects that stick out are Vinz Clortho,and that's really only when he's chasing Louis ….the other scenes of the Dogs are either life-size,on screen puppets,or the scenes at the end with the temple and Gozer,and they fit in well considering everything around them is an effect…

EVERY other effect in the movie looks great,even today….the ghosts,the proton pack streams,the trap, Stay Puft,everything still looks great…

vigo_the_butch;170108
I honestly think the slimer effects rival anything you see today, you feel like he is real. Slime would horrible as a cgi character.

Take Yoda for example, everyone fell in love with yoda in the original star wars movies, but the cgi Yoda in the newer movies just didn't seem real.

in cgi slimer looks fine whats cgi anyways is it the second movie or what and in star wars yoda looks perfect im a star wars fan here saying this and on every star wars movie i saw yoda looiked perfect just like slimer

shaunryan825;170431
in cgi slimer looks fine whats cgi anyways is it the second movie or what and in star wars yoda looks perfect im a star wars fan here saying this and on every star wars movie i saw yoda looiked perfect just like slimer

What in the h-e-diddly-hell are you talking about?

shaunryan825;170431
in cgi slimer looks fine whats cgi anyways is it the second movie or what and in star wars yoda looks perfect im a star wars fan here saying this and on every star wars movie i saw yoda looiked perfect just like slimer

STAND BACK! I'll try and communicate with it!

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

shaunryan825;170431
in cgi slimer looks fine whats cgi anyways is it the second movie or what and in star wars yoda looks perfect im a star wars fan here saying this and on every star wars movie i saw yoda looiked perfect just like slimer

Learn some proper grammar and syntax, for crying out loud.

I think this is what Shaun meant to say:

In CGI, Slimer looks fine… what's CGI anyway?

(Ryan, CGI is “Computer graphic image”)

Is in the second movie, or what? And in Star Wars, Yoda looks perfect… I'm a Star Wars fan here saying this, and in every Star Wars movie I've seen Yoda looked perfect, just like Slimer.

In answer to your extremely poorly worded question, no, CGI was not used for Slimer in either film. A combination of colour separation overlay and other older effects processes were used to put Slimer in the scenes he appeared in.

However, there is at least one CGI sequence, in Ghostbusters II. The sequence where Van Horne station is flooding up to the roof with slime is CGI. I'm also pretty sure the shot where Vigo's head pokes out of the painting near the start of the movie is also CGI.

Kingpin;170436
However, there is at least one CGI sequence, in Ghostbusters II. The sequence where Van Horne station is flooding up to the roof with slime is CGI.

Are you sure? I'm visualizing it in my head as we type, and it sure looks like a model shot to me. The slime's got too much texture.

However, I do have it on good authority that the river of slime is CGI. I took a look at the trading cards–the Van Horne was a long stretch of tunnel with air mattresses at the bottom and pink lighting throughout. The river had to have been done with CGI…you didn't think they really flooded a disused subway system with 25,000+ gallons of Pepto-Dismal (TM), did you?
(PS: I also have it on good authority that Bill Murray himself in GBII is in fact an anachronistically-advanced CG creation. You didn't really think they got him to agree on a sequel, did you? )

I also think the proton streams and ghost trap effects are early CG, somehow. Each of them looks a little bit too clean for optical effects–in the first film, they're surrounded by a kind of “dirty haze” when the effects were composited in.

Still, I don't know the ins and outs of behind-the-scenes on GBII, so you're free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You should just tell her that it was the best the people could do back in 1983. It was good enough to get nominated for best special effects at the oscars. I actually know a few people who refuse to watch a movie if it wasn't made recently.