<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Top 100 Movies of Ghostbusters	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://taylorholmes.com/2021/12/09/top-100-movies-of-ghostbusters/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2021/12/09/top-100-movies-of-ghostbusters/</link>
	<description>Movies, Books &#38; TV for people who like to think..</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:02:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hayden		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2021/12/09/top-100-movies-of-ghostbusters/#comment-1147788</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hayden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://taylorholmes.com/?p=27076#comment-1147788</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Taylor, I cannot agree with you any more about the special effects. In fact I would go so far as to say I not only think they stand up to the test of time but they were and are a perfect example of practical/ stop motion effects vs cgi. I would really love to hear from anyone who truly disagrees with that statement just to hear that opinion. I mean, from top to bottom, the fact that these sort of visuals required creativity and ingenuity just screams through on execution. I sometimes think of it the way people will talk about how music on records/ not digital  to them has an unspeakable warmth that is lacking when list n d to again from a computer file. I don&#039;t personally have the history with records for a sample to be able to fully realize what is being expr seed but I can certainly understand it other levels. The possibilities are endless with cgi and this the product Is boundless, but the fact is reality has boundaries and that discrepancy is so grating and jarring to me that 9 times out of ten the immersion factor is almost entirely broken. For me there are very few good examples of cgi but the rule of thumb for me is Soo simple. I really really shouldn&#039;t be able to say, see that, that&#039;s clearly been rendered on a computer scene. And this  is done app the time by the folmakers I believe understand it&#039;s use. It should complement or accentuate reality , not be reality because it&#039;s not real and it&#039;s painfully clear.  Rely characters that are cgi 99 percent of the time make it very hard for me to enjoy at all. It&#039;s almost like looking at a picture and seeing everything as it is on one horizontal plane, and then this digital plane is slapped on top and I don&#039;t think they mix well at all. it&#039;s truly and obviously a major issue for me, I could go on for days, and here I a, sorry but it really grinds my gears. There&#039;s no wonder or spectacle there any more, give me an ET for example any day of the week and the wonder and joy beautiful.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taylor, I cannot agree with you any more about the special effects. In fact I would go so far as to say I not only think they stand up to the test of time but they were and are a perfect example of practical/ stop motion effects vs cgi. I would really love to hear from anyone who truly disagrees with that statement just to hear that opinion. I mean, from top to bottom, the fact that these sort of visuals required creativity and ingenuity just screams through on execution. I sometimes think of it the way people will talk about how music on records/ not digital  to them has an unspeakable warmth that is lacking when list n d to again from a computer file. I don&#8217;t personally have the history with records for a sample to be able to fully realize what is being expr seed but I can certainly understand it other levels. The possibilities are endless with cgi and this the product Is boundless, but the fact is reality has boundaries and that discrepancy is so grating and jarring to me that 9 times out of ten the immersion factor is almost entirely broken. For me there are very few good examples of cgi but the rule of thumb for me is Soo simple. I really really shouldn&#8217;t be able to say, see that, that&#8217;s clearly been rendered on a computer scene. And this  is done app the time by the folmakers I believe understand it&#8217;s use. It should complement or accentuate reality , not be reality because it&#8217;s not real and it&#8217;s painfully clear.  Rely characters that are cgi 99 percent of the time make it very hard for me to enjoy at all. It&#8217;s almost like looking at a picture and seeing everything as it is on one horizontal plane, and then this digital plane is slapped on top and I don&#8217;t think they mix well at all. it&#8217;s truly and obviously a major issue for me, I could go on for days, and here I a, sorry but it really grinds my gears. There&#8217;s no wonder or spectacle there any more, give me an ET for example any day of the week and the wonder and joy beautiful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lisa		</title>
		<link>https://taylorholmes.com/2021/12/09/top-100-movies-of-ghostbusters/#comment-1147634</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lisa]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2021 14:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://taylorholmes.com/?p=27076#comment-1147634</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[If you had pooped on Ghostbusters I never would have spoken to you again. This movie is 80s fabulousness! The end.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you had pooped on Ghostbusters I never would have spoken to you again. This movie is 80s fabulousness! The end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
