George Ebersole

Ah, okay. The thing that gets me about this Conan clip, as funny as it was, it's like as a life time scifi fan I couldn't but think thing "Hey! That's our genre ... those are our movies. You big name types go find some other project to do!" Just me :) Hey, thought here, maybe that's what's wrong with today's SFX blockbusters. They're not casting up and coming talented folks, but big name stars. I'm a genius :D

You must really hate her here then :)

So apparently the Earthquake in Japan some years back set back production of the A7 series, and all that's out there are either demo models of the base A7 II or completely kitted A7 R2s. For you pros out there, which do you prefer?

Hmm. It appears that the 2000s are not a good era for commercial feature films. It's like everything from the crime dramas to the romantic comedies to the SFX laden scif/fantasy films have this juvenile approach to dialogue and action, and it's put in a socially/politically acceptable vein such that you can't make fun of stereotypes for fear of bad press no matter how tongue-in-cheek it's supposed to be. I saw a movie back in January on cable about illegal diamond mining in Africa....."Blood Diamond" or something like that. And where it was technically competent, and the script moved well, and everything else, it was shot like a Jason Bourne comic-book "Bond"-ish film. And that's the directorial style today. There was some of that in this new Ghostbuster's film, but the thing that I personally liked about it was that even though it had a few crass gags (not many), it was dialed back in terms of shooting style. You didn't get a lot of steadicam or wire-cam shots twirling overhead, nor over the top dramatic two shots and closeups followed by rapid cut action--that is so characteristic of today's modern film styles. I tried watching the first Jason Bourne film, and it just struck me as intentionally over the top for the graphic novel demographic. Kind of like the last Bond film where it's essentially one giant action scene after the next. Bond's supposed to be a savvy sophisticate, not a one man army. But it's like that's what's made today ... maybe the studios are trying to compete with the computer gaming audience for dollars. If so, then it's a losing proposition. Wow. I wonder when REAL movies are going to start hitting theatres again.

Also watching the old Voyiage to the Bottom of the Sea TV show. A kind of adventure series from the era of when "TV was TV", so to speak.

What did you wind up go seeing instead?

Is there a book on the shooting of the show? by that I don't mean the old Making Of book, but is there a technical journal that talks about the show? Something like American Cinematographer or Millimeter?

The thing that bother's me about this is we're essentially seeing private correspondence. It's like a mail thief regularly breaks into your mail box over a month or a year, as well as that of a person you're corresponding to, and then published said correspondence in major magazines and newspapers. I mean, that's illegal. The film itself, whether you like it or not, should stand on its own merits, and not prejudice the potential audience with studio politics, regardless of who said what, who did what, and who said or did what first. That's the thing that really gets me, because if this had happened pre-net, then I would think all parties involved would have their lawyers come down on the people reporting this, because even though there is some pertinent information on the movies birth, it really isn't anyone's business. I worked on a job where the director (name withheld) was heavily into the legacy of Peter Pan. Apparently, according to him, Peter Pan was loosely based on an autistic child, and that the author of the original story was trying to pay him homage or make him feel better or some such--maybe thinking it would relieve his autism. I thought dude was nuts. Really, I thought he was out there, but it wasn't until this post that I ever expressed any thoughts on him. It was another job, just like any other. Maybe the guy was a drug user ... maybe he had subversive politics ... maybe he had some objectionable personal habits. But big deal. He was law abiding and did his job at the work place. I can't help but think that if I plastered his real name all over the place and shouted out to the world about what a crazy person he was, and somehow gained a large political following outside the studio where I worked, that, in pre-public access to the net, that I would get fired, be investigated by both the SFPD and the postal Insepctor, and any other pertinent law enforcement as well as getting my ass sued by him, the studio where I (used to) work, and any other party who felt they were damaged. Now, that same scenario would be a different animal had said same director mouthed off, because then he would be declaring a challenge to whatever fans there were of whatever property he was working on. I remember a cable sitcom that shot on our stage (name of sitcom, cable channel and other parties witheld), and the director was egotistical and thought he was a comic genius. He wasn't, and, as stage manager, I let him know it. But I didn't bad mouth the show to people outside the studio. I never sent any anonymous letters, never told my friends, or anything of the such. I simply said "Dude, your show's not that funny ... and your dogs keep barking in the prop room." End of story. But I can see some very unscrupulous person, in our day and age of instant access to all information, just hiding a Go-Pro here and there, and the uploading the footage to YouTube, and then maybe writing some fanboy diatribe about how dude wrecked the show. This whole Ghostbusters' flap really speaks to the kind of nation we've become here in the United States. It really shows a lack of respect for professionalism and the right to privacy. Repeating myself here; I can't help but feel that this film, had it been made and released in the 1980s, would have been received like ... Supergirl with Slater. Kind of interesting for those who were inclined to see it, but probably not something that most males at the time would opt to see. End of story. This whole flap really has been a shock to this sci-fi fantasy fan. Never in my entire life would I imagine such a backlash for a simple concept.

Pre-public access to the internet, I was at a Trek convention at the Holiday Inn Golden Gateway off of Van Ness between Pine and Sacramento. It was put on by the Creation Convention people, and the "CEO" or whatever his title was, put on a slide show for Star Trek III or IV of the stills taken by the production photographer. We all figured we'd get to see maybe, at most, a dozen slides with some behind the scenes photos. This guy went on for about an hour, and about 2/3 of the way through people were getting PO'd, and the cat calls and boos were coming out calling for him to stop. But he wouldn't stop, and kept dropping hints about the film that was coming. I mean during that period sci-fi and Star Trek fans were a pretty sedate and friendly bunch, but the energy really turned negative and borderline hostile. After reading and hearing about the media flap and fan backlash, it makes a guy wonder if all parties involved are firing on all cylinders. In all my years of watching films and TV and being a fan of this show or that movie, never have I seen the amount of hatred generated by a single film. I think the best protest is to vote with your dollar and not go see it. But cruising the net it's like ... there are people out there who are readying their torches and pitchforks. Maybe being a fan of any media property isn't such a good thing. :unsure:

And here Ivan Reitman expands on his thoughts about the Ghostbusters' controversy.

And from Ivan Reitman himself, in his own words, the genesis of the new movie, what happened to Ghostbusters 3, and how this film came about, and what he thinks of the attention given to it;

I went to the Coronet a few times. I saw the first Star Wars there during a re-release in 78 or something. I also saw the first Batman there and a few others. I had no idea it was gone. Too bad. I liked the new Ghostbusters. I went in there not knowing anything about it other than a few fanboys sniping at it. I've been without a TV, regular news and what not for nearly a year now ever since I moved, so I was spared a lot of the sparring and genesis thereof that's led to the current controversy. The audience was mostly female with a few couples. Just as a pure "I don't know anything about this movie..." kind of perspective, I thought it was a lot of fun, and a bit more clever and funnier than the film I saw way back in 1984. I think it did lack originality, and that it parroted the first film in just too many ways, but it was also a bit more clever than the film with Bill Murry and gang. I didn't really see any anti-male stuff in it, though there were some male characters that were presented as being less than sympathetic. I guess if I were a young boy who really liked this film, then as a male I might have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it. But I saw it as a young adult, and thought the 1984 film was mildly entertaining. I never did get the whole "humor" of Billy Murry laying on the floor with gunk all over his face, and him saying "He slimed me." I had a friend who was a real die hard fan of the 1984 film. I wonder what he thought of this remake. For me, personally, on the remake-vibe; I do have to agree with Comic Book Girl 19 in that remakes are just beyond pase'. There've always been certain formulas that worked throughout film, but to recirculate the formula in repackaged remakes of films from years past, and to do it regularly, I think has helped make Hollywood more dependent on the International Market as opposed to looking at domestic box office first, and then the overseas market. I think the whole political turmoil and backlash and everything else that lead up to the upheaval that this film has caused, is very unfortunate. But it is just a movie, and a commercial remake of a film that a lot of young men liked. I figured if people really disliked it, then they would just ignore it, and when it finally left the theatres then they would be able to say why they didn't like it. And I'm glad this website has, by the nature of the profession, avoided major chunks of the backlash that's out there. But, I was curious as to why mister Reitman's Ghostbuster's 3 never took off. Oh well. I'm not sure what else to say about it. I guess people here feel the need to be quiet to avoid bringing in the social chaos that is orbiting this movie.

That makes sense. Though I have to admit, for a regular screen, it was huge. Not IMAX huge, but big. I don't know how old you are Satsuki, nor how long and where you've lived in the Bay Area, but there used to be theatre in Burlingame off of 101 (off Airport boulevard), and I think it was the Burlingame Century Theatre. Anyway, that theatre had one of the biggest movie screens I had ever seen anywhere. It wasn't an all encompassing screen like IMAX, but it rivaled the size of drive in movie screens. It was that huge. I think I saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade there with the family. Ironically enough that's where I saw Ghostbusters way back in 1984 with some friends. Technically the film looks sharp. Good vibrant colors, a little more detail compared to other movies I've seen in recent years. And the effects, for what they were, didn't have that plastic feel to them that CGI at times can give. A very clean film technically speaking. I'm curious why more people here aren't talking about it. *EDIT* This place; http://www.yelp.com/biz/hyatt-cinema-theatre-burlingame p.s. also saw Damnation Alley there :)

No, I was in theatre 8, second floor. My first time there after all these years.

Ah, okay then. Yeah, I was expecting a massive screen and so forth, and instead what I saw was essentially an almost standard sized screen. I tried picking out more detail in various scenes, but found myself looking at a standard print of a feature film. And I was expecting a blow up, but instead it was like seeing any other film. Admittedly the screen for the kind of theatre it is, is pretty large, but it wasn't "IMAX" large, which is why I posted here.

Wow, I saw the new Ghostbusters movie, and thought it was pretty decent. But cruising the net I'm still reading a lot of negative feedback. I actually thought it was okay. Very odd.

I just came back from Ghostbusters at the Meteron in SF. Eh, you know, not to sound dismissive or hostile about IMAX, but I was expecting something like the IMAX theatre at Great America. You could see more detail in the image, but it still looked like a standard print in some regards. I thought the movie itself was pretty good (save a little jab at Trek fans towards the end of Act II), but image wise I'm thinking I'm missing something. Did anybody else have the same reaction to the image of the movie? Did it still look like a standard 35mm print in some regards? *EDIT* Maybe I didn't see it the IMAX version. Is that possible? Anyone?

Hey, you're welcome. I ask because people on my Canon thread say that the EOS series, and in fact all Canon lenses, tend to be slower. Me, if it looks good, then there's no beef either way. Parts of your footage reminded me of the midwest here in the States, or even some of the outlying lowlands before you hit the Sierra Madres along the California Nevada border. Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing.

It is a Mitchel ... gah, when will I get it right. That big motor on the outside and way that magazine sat should have given it away. One of my bosses actually has that camera (he's retired, and sailing the Caribbean).

Chris; wow, beautiful footage. You didn't find it an odd mix of a Sony A7 wearing Canon glass?

You and me both. A lot of dramas are over, so I can now propel my middle aged self back into the scene ... how I'm going to get there, I have no idea. Years back when BAVC first put up a job board it was filled with spam, but appears to be cleaned up now.

I didn't know they used Arriflexes for my favorite television series of all time :) http://www.imdb.com/media/rm151262464/tt0060028

My faith in the sci-fi genre is being restored by the short film scifi community posting their stuff on YouTube. Here's one that I think is really clever;

Many years ago I interned on a show called "Midnight Caller", and one or the higher ups for Lorimar sort of off handedly complimented SF by saying "San Francisco has no bad angles". I don't live in the city, but have spent long stretches there and worked there every now and then. And whenever I see footage of SF, even if its super-8 stuff from the 80s or something even older or more contemporary, it always looks darn good for both the skill level that the city attracts, and the native surroundings. I'm sure there are bad shoots and bad footage of SF, but I hope I never see them.

Wow. It looks pretty flat. How did you accomplish that?