The Ghostbusters (2016) is becoming The Thing (2011) with the practical make up which they put on this guy - to then completely cover him up with blue CGI effects which don't make him scary in the slightest.
Why do special effects departments do this?
>>71800903
well Leslie is always aware of the camera I'll give her that.
The question is, why wouldn't they design the ghost grotesquely, like the original ones? This looks like shit.
These two guys are also ghosts of prisoners, who have been fried in an electric chair. See the difference? Also it's not very original.
>>71800998
It looks like they tried (with this Ghost's eyes) but then yeah when they shine the torch there is absolutely no creepiness at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_ts16_kNQ
Obvious is obvious: Feig only cared about making the women funny in this film. He did not care about making the Ghost's look as realistic or as spooky as possible.
>>71800903
>>71800886
To make it less scary. You're correct. They did it for two face.
>>71800998
https://youtu.be/WINQbNxRz-c?list=PLX64TNJOregrwgbOIRwkC1wAFI8NtIY80
>>71801283
But Feig strictly stated in his email that he wanted it to be scarier... oh well
>>71801306
woahh they got a guy dressed up in an actual suit!?
My entire life has been a lie...
>>71801312
Yeah, but then test audiences... you know... maybe this is scarier, for kids, then the orginal.
>>71801092
I admit, that shot looks cool, but not scary.
>>71800886
oh wow
Didn't even think of that comparison.
Mainly because I avoided that shitty reboot/remake too.
I remember seeing some pics of the shitty cg.
This looks worse.
