Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:34 am

Stuartmaximus wrote:

You might want to scroll up a bit. You're a week late to the punch on this one.

News Credits: 19 · by **Stuartmaximus** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:52 am

Shadowman wrote:
Stuartmaximus wrote:

You might want to scroll up a bit. You're a week late to the punch on this one.

no that's the first trailer! this is the international one! that dropped more recently

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:40 am

With a lot more Hemsworth!

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:47 am

Stuartmaximus wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Stuartmaximus wrote:

You might want to scroll up a bit. You're a week late to the punch on this one.

no that's the first trailer! this is the international one! that dropped more recently

It is exactly the same trailer.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:33 am

This would the one Stewie is talking about.

News Credits: 25 · by **Ironhidensh** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:48 am

Burn wrote:This would the one Stewie is talking about.

"Not available in your country" Whelp, time to nuke somebody back into obedience.

News Credits: 19 · by **Stuartmaximus** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:14 am

Shadowman wrote:
Stuartmaximus wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
Stuartmaximus wrote:

You might want to scroll up a bit. You're a week late to the punch on this one.

no that's the first trailer! this is the international one! that dropped more recently

It is exactly the same trailer.

ah, right, sorry, it was meant to be the one that Burn just posted recently there!

god knows what happened?

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:45 pm

Ironhidensh wrote:
Burn wrote:This would the one Stewie is talking about.

"Not available in your country" Whelp, time to nuke somebody back into obedience.

Huh, that's really weird, I can watch it.

News Credits: 3 · by **Bradimus** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:48 am

This movie comes off more as a Wayans Bros. spoof of Ghostbusters than a reboot. Granted the trailer is terrible and is not cut by the people making the movie, but the humor is an acquired taste.

And then there is the issue of ectoplasm being hurled from the ghost. I've always thought ectoplasm was evidence of interaction between a paranormal being and the physical world. That is to say, if the physical world is the body and the paranormal being is bacteria then ectoplasm is proof of infection, i.e. pus.

I'm not going to go into any detailed criticism of all the things that bug me, as defining this movie as a spoof legitimizes redoing all the original jokes in this crude and obvious style. I've still got the original, clever movie and that never really needed a sequel, so I'm good.

News Credits: 11 · by **RAR** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:50 pm

The Dragon Ghost is a curious idea.

I'm wondering if it's some left over idea from the development idea of "Ghosts of Aliens". But I'm sure there where haunted objects and things not previously alive that act like ghosts in the TV shows (such as when Ecto-1 or the Ghostbuster's costumes got possessed) so it's not completely unheard of.

If they offer no explanation at all for a Ghost Dragon though I will raise a bit of an eyebrow.

You know Ego would say something was something or other from Tobin's spirit guide and fill the viewer in on what it is they are after.

The question I have in my mind about this Movie is will it be better than Gods of Egypt ?

News Credits: 131 · by **no-one** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:51 pm

Well I got here by mistake. I was linked here via an email notification for the Tak United Warrior thread. Well I'm here now. I very lightly skimmed the thread and I saw something about GB3 that Ramis wanted to make. I could be mistaken, but I thought that the mediocre Ghostbusters: The Video Game that came out last generation was considered GB3? Apologies if this has already been mentioned.

I played the demo and I've always wanted to get back to it. Hypothetical backlog, that seems like a new low.

News Credits: 25 · by **Ironhidensh** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:20 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Ironhidensh wrote:
Burn wrote:This would the one Stewie is talking about.

"Not available in your country" Whelp, time to nuke somebody back into obedience.

Huh, that's really weird, I can watch it.

Yeah, I tried it again (right after you posted this), and it worked just fine. :-?

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:03 pm

They are bringing back Ecto Cooler Hi-C!

News Credits: 25 · by **Ironhidensh** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:07 pm

Man, I drank a lot of thar back in elementary school.

**** me, I'm old.

News Credits: 293 · by **shajaki** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:24 pm

First time caller, long time listener.

I saw the trailer last night when I went to see Jungle Book. My thoughts are.... kinda blank. I really don't know if I'm feeling this. I like those ladies, they're funny and all, but Ghostbusters? I dunno. One thing I know I don't like right off the bat is the CGI ghosts. Am I alone in thinking the ghosts coulda been classic Claymation/stop motion and it still would have looked awesome? :-?

by **Optimum Supreme** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Wow, this abomination makes Ghostbusters Extreme look good.

News Credits: 12 · by **Evil Eye** » Tue May 24, 2016 6:24 am

I haven't actually watched the trailer yet, but I'm not sure I want to even do that. I have a low tolerance for cringe, and everything I've heard about it makes me think it's going to be pretty awful. I mean, the trailer alone is one of the most disliked videos on YouTube...I'm not sure I even want to put myself through that, let alone the actual movie.

But you know what puts me off the movie more than anything? The fact that you're not even allowed to say you don't like it without being accused of being some kind of raging misogynist. The balls-out stupidity of the people defending it ("Hurr, all these people who don't like it are just entitled manbabies who can't handle women in their favourite film!") is just painful. And then of course you have poor old James Rolfe, who dared to say he wasn't going to see the movie because he loves the original Ghostbusters and didn't think there was any point paying good money to see a movie he knew he wasn't going to enjoy, and got brigaded by Tw@tter half-wits calling him "sexist" and making fun of his wife.

So, uh, yeah. I'm not giving them a single penny for this movie. Of course if it does flop they'll inevitably blame "piracy" for its failure...but I'm not sure I'm even willing to pirate it. Even if it isn't my favourite film ever (that would be a toss-up between the first two Alien films) I loved the original Ghostbusters and I'd much rather rewatch the first two movies and watch the cartoon series (which I hear is fantastic) than spoil my enjoyment of the franchise with this dreck.

News Credits: 25 · by **Ironhidensh** » Tue May 24, 2016 8:23 am

I've noticed something the last couple of days. The stores have started putting out the merchandise for the new movie, and in the toys, they have these six inch figures. Two sets, one for new movie team, and a set of the original guys.

The new movie figures are still warming the shelves, while the original gangstas are selling out. >:oP

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:22 am

Went and saw this yesterday. I didn't want to be one of those people who simply wrote it off.

It was ... okay. The comedy was there, but that special something that made Ghostbusters awesome was simply not there.

By the time the movie finished, I felt sad. Sad at the fact that the could get Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Signourney Weaver, and Annie Potts (basically everyone except Rick Moranis and obviously Harold Ramis) to make small cameos, but they couldn't spin the story to connect it to the originals.

Thirty years ... all it would have taken as an appearance by Venkman and Stantz, telling the new crew what they went through, to pass on the legacy. It wouldn't have taken much time out of the movie, there were bits that could easily have been dumped for such a set up.

But no ... they did a gender swap for the sake of a gender swap. And while I didn't necessarily see it, my girlfriend found it to be sexist ... towards men!

So yeah, okay movie, funny in some parts, but nothing like the originals, and not a movie I'll be rushing out to buy.

News Credits: 19 · by **Stuartmaximus** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:08 am

Ironhidensh wrote:I've noticed something the last couple of days. The stores have started putting out the merchandise for the new movie, and in the toys, they have these six inch figures. Two sets, one for new movie team, and a set of the original guys.

The new movie figures are still warming the shelves, while the original gangstas are selling out.

Yeah i noticed a Lego Ecto 1&2 set today, but seeing as i've got the previous Lego Ecto 1.....i doubt i'll be getting it

News Credits: 12 · by **Evil Eye** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:23 am

Well, the movie's out, and all reliable sources are saying it's either complete garbage or simply "meh". I am not surprised, considering the evident height of its creative wit was one of the 'busters shooting the main villain ghost in the crotch (though in their defence, there's not much that can compare with "We had part of a slinky...but I straightened it."). I'm still not going to see it unless I pirate it because I refuse to give money to the hacks behind it, especially considering all the "If you don't like it you're just a misogynerd entitled manbaby who can't handle women in his Ghostbusters" trash being spouted by the usual suspects.

I predict that the SJW crowd will be praising it like the second coming of Primus for a while before either A: forgetting all about it, or B: coming up with stupid articles like "New Ghostbusters is a step in the right direction, but it's still not good enough" or "The Subtle Sexism of the Ghostbusters reboot" or whatever.

James Rolfe was right, as usual.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:34 am

I shouldn't have to remind people about the use of spoiler tags for at least the first two weeks. Common courtesy please.

General thoughts is fine, but straight up "this happened" ... please use the spoiler tags.

News Credits: 22 · by **Rodimus Prime** » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:27 am

I saw it yesterday, and I liked it. It wasn't great, but it was entertaining enough. I haven't seen the original in about 10 or 12 years, nor was I ever a big fan of it, and I don't remember much about it so I can't compare the 2. I'm sure a lot of people on here will deride the new 1 without seeing it, just because. Whatever.

I thought the team was put together very well. Everyone got a little back story in, and they were all equal, even if Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth are more well-known than the others. My favorites were Kevin (Hemsworth) and Dr. Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). The Kevin character was so stunningly stupid, it was hilarious. And Dr. Holtzmann was the exact opposite, she was the Spengler of the group. She came up with all the gadgets, and (this is just personal preference) she was the most attractive. (Too bad for me Kate McKinnon is gay.

) The older guys all made cameos, as well as Sigourney Weaver. Only Rick Moranis was missing (and of course Harold Ramis, RIP). Overall, the story was just average, but this is definitely a good setup for a sequel, which should be much more fun now that the backstories are out of the way. If you like Ghostbusters in general, but aren't a psycho about it, you'll have fun. And Mrs. Slimer!

News Credits: 3 · by **Bradimus** » Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:12 am

Rodimus Prime wrote:I saw it yesterday, and I liked it. It wasn't great, but it was entertaining enough. I haven't seen the original in about 10 or 12 years, nor was I ever a big fan of it, and I don't remember much about it so I can't compare the 2. I'm sure a lot of people on here will deride the new 1 without seeing it, just because. Whatever.

Thanks for the review. Your review was better than the one I read in Friday's paper. That guy wrote a two star review but gave the movie three stars out of four just because. I reserve judgement until after I see the movie, which will be a while since I've only seen one movie in theaters this decade. The first trailer was a terrible representation of the film as the the second trailer (not the international one, the other second trailer) demonstrated. Just more proof the people who make the movie should be the ones to put the trailers together. Hollywood needs to go back to clever trailers that tease the movie that was actually made without giving it away.

News Credits: 22 · by **Rodimus Prime** » Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:56 pm

Bradimus wrote:Thanks for the review. Your review was better than the one I read in Friday's paper.

I've only seen one movie in theaters this decade.

The first trailer was a terrible representation of the film as the the second trailer (not the international one, the other second trailer) demonstrated. Just more proof the people who make the movie should be the ones to put the trailers together. Hollywood needs to go back to clever trailers that tease the movie that was actually made without giving it away.

Honestly, the trailers gave most of the movie away. It was still a fun experience, but I could see some things coming a mile away because they were in the trailer.