Reasonable posts thread (all posts must be reasonable, no visible pictures, no fink-isms)

Hello

Welcome to the reasonable posts thread. This thread is dedicated to all posts being reasonable. If your post is unreasonable by disregarding the rules, then you will be placed on Warning. If you persist, then you will be tagged as Unreasonable. And if you decide to go even further than that, then you will be marked as a Total Asshat. There are rules to follow to post in this thread and they are simple.

Rule 1: Be reasonable when you post.
(if its a reasonable post, then you have nothing to worry about)

Rule 2: Any and all pictures directly inserted into the thread constitutes an unreasonable post.
(if you have a picture to share of something reasonable and pertaining to the conversation, then use a direct link URL. If the direct link URL leads to a stupid picture and/or fink-ism, a warning will be handed out and so on and so forth)

Rule 3: I decide what is reasonable and what is not. If you dont like it then please, by all means, dont post in this thread.

Rule 4: I make up the rules.
(If I decide to change or alter the rules, I may do so at any time without any notice)

Warnings:

Unreasonable:

Total Asshat:

Permanent Asshat:

BingoWings
Ric Olie
TV's Fink
A B C
ChainsawAsh
Leguman

(These people above have continued to make unreasonable posts, were given plenty of opportunities to correct themselves, and decided not to, they will never be taken off this list)

My first reasonable post is the thought of other movies going back and touching up on special FXs like GL did. I was specifically thinking about Ghostbusters

Now Im not a huge GB fan but I do like the movies and I was watching today on CC and I thought to myself, man I wonder if Sony decided to go back and redo all the proton shootings and Mr Staypuft in CGI instead of blue screens. Since it looks like GB3 is coming out, who would know if something like this could happen

What would you guys think of GB went back and did something like this? Would there be fan outcry or would there be open arms with the new special FXs?

Also please mind that I am not a huge fan but I just thought of this and if they actually did touch up any special FXs already in DVD releases or made revisions/alterations, I would love for someone to point them out to me.

Unreasonable:
A B C

Edit: Now please lets get back to reasonable posts, such as would some one like to discuss the topic I brought up?

CompMovieGuy said:

Rule 2: Any and all pictures directly inserted into the thread constitutes an unreasonable post.
(if you have a picture to share of something reasonable and pertaining to the conversation, then use a direct link URL. If the direct link URL leads to a stupid picture and/or fink-ism, a warning will be handed out and so on and so forth)

If you want to add a picture that is fine, just do it reasonably and how its described in the rules. Over the top CGI pictures of "firing the laser" are not welcome but actual illustrations (a real attempt) of what the CGI would look like would be

A B C said:

*Meaningless jabber*

For the love of God, somebody make it stop!!!

Back on topic.

I used to really be into Ghostbuster when I was a kid, but haven's seen either of the movies in well over ten years; so I wouldn't claim to be a huge fan or anything. I would not be opposed to their going back and updating the special effects as an alternative to the originals and the originals continued to be released in their original form.

I like to look at films from a historical perspective. I like to look for the methods and style used by the director, and I really like seeing the evolution of costumes, sets, and special effects. Even if a film could be greatly improved by getting a modernized special effects makeover (which I don't really believe is ever the case, a film is much more than the special effects that adorn it), I would still opt to see the film as it was originally shown to audiences. 

So basically, I am entirely against special effects updates on older films. Though I would be inclined to consider it a harmless exercise used to breath new life into a film and make it more interesting to younger audiences... as Star Wars has shown us my inclination would be absolutely wrong. It isn't always harmless and the original doesn't always come out on the other side unscathed.

When I watch films my dad watched when he was young, I want to see the same films he saw. When I show films I watched when I was young to my kids, I want them to see the films I saw.

A good analogy would be the old 1976 Ford Mustang. Let's say it was a car you drove when you were a teenager (if you are not that old just use your imagination). You tell your kids about this but you don't have a picture, so they ask you, "Okay dad, next time you see a 1976 Ford Mustang on the road, point it out to us so we will know what your old car looked like." A few days later you are driving along and spot a 2009 Ford Mustang, which is designed to somewhat resemble the old late 70's models and you say, "There it is! There is a Mustang, that is the car I drove when I was a teenager." You would have now given your kids a misrepresentation of what you actually drove when you were a kid. Calling it Star Wars from 1977 and presenting it with 2004 special effects is essentially this exact same thing.

As long as they sell the original version along with the 'special' new version, I don't have a problem with it.

Im sorry Sluggo, but I have to put you on warning for breaking Rule 2

CompMovieGuy said:

Rule 2: Any and all pictures directly inserted into the thread constitutes an unreasonable post.
(if you have a picture to share of something reasonable and pertaining to the conversation, then use a direct link URL. If the direct link URL leads to a stupid picture and/or fink-ism, a warning will be handed out and so on and so forth)

Davnes007, I would hope they would couple a new version with the old, but I wonder if they would split them up and sell them separate and then couple them together.

Just a thought I had since GB 3 seems to be happening as much as I dont want it to. An introduction of a "new crew" and who they have in mind for it seems like a horrible idea to me

What other movies would be similar to GB that could/ might be beneficial to a special effects upgrade or that you see could happen in the future?

TV's Frink said:

C3PX said:

*something on-topic, but TL;DR*

Wow, guess you are in the ABC camp of, "Let's see how long we can make this shit go on for".

TV's Frink said:

Regarding updating FX, I always thought Last Crusade could use some cleanup of the bad compositing work, like during the airplane battle scenes.

I actually like Last Crusade and its FXs, seeing things that are done with blue screens (tank falling scene comes to mind) actually brings me back to a time when everything wasnt done on computer and didnt look so fake

I guess Last Crusade could use some touch ups, but knowing Lucas and Mr S, they would go overboard and completely ruin the experience by either
A. Adding aliens somehow to the final product
B. Making the collapse of the "Grail Temple" end with a ring shockwave
or
C. Adding in a Transformer and saying this was the original vision

Granted, these are over the top examples, but Im just saying, whats next? CGI monkeys in Wizard of Oz?

But why? The movie has stood for this long with the effects it has. I just don't get this obsessive updating nonsense. Does every film have to look like it was made this decade?

A very reasonable response, to which I agree.....there may be exceptions, but they are very few and far between

I'm on board with C3PX.  My simple philosophy is as follows:  Leave it the fuck alone!

It's been a couple of years since I last watched Ghostbusters, but there's really nothing effects-wise in that movie that doesn't hold up perfectly today.  But even if it didn't, there's really no point in going in and "fixing" it.  Same for Last Crusade too.  I know exactly which parts you're talking about because they do instantly spring to mind for being not perfect, but I just don't really see any point in doing so.  Like 3PX said, it's been over twenty years, and people have gotten along just fine with it so far.  I'm still bemoaning the loss of the reflected snake in Raiders.  Bah!

So as I write this, Mortal Kombat Annihilation is on.

Is it reasonable to make Mortal Kombat into a trilogy?

I just might think it is as long as PWSA comes back to direct

Well, in his defense, he only directed the first Resident Evil film

Edit: Also I removed TV's Fink, Ric Ollie, and Sluggo from Warning status and moved A B C from Unreasonable to Warning status