|
|
|
Tasty Human
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2008, 01:37:11 PM » |
|
Yeah my mom said GB3 is all over the news in NYC
Anyone in that area check out eyewitness news 7
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BraxtAnFILM
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2008, 02:42:39 PM » |
|
Yeah we should jump all over this. Searches for Ghostbusters are going to go up...
If anybody wants to be super cool, they could start emailing news outlets (especially movie news) the link to ROTGB...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BraxtAnFILM
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2008, 02:55:57 PM » |
|
It seems we're closer than ever to getting a third GB film (well, at least as close as we were in the late 90's). You gotta love this headline from this morning's front page of Yahoo:  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
manvsbear
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2008, 04:28:35 PM » |
|
What if it's just a pile of advertising bullshit to hype up Ghostbusters fans to buy the game?
You know it's possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mrbender
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2008, 05:02:27 PM » |
|
I told you all this yesterday and my topic got locked!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
secrecyguy
|
 |
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2008, 06:35:08 PM » |
|
But this is Hank Braxtan who made this topic!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mrbender
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2008, 07:23:58 PM » |
|
Point taken.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonicblaster59
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2008, 07:47:22 PM » |
|
Meh.
I don't have a problem plugging RotGB in all of this "talk" about a new GB3...but I'm not going to fuel the flames of this GB3 rumormill...it's like it's 1998 all over again. Been there, done that...
I'll believe in a GB3 movie when I actually "SEE" photos of SAID production.
GB3 is Ghostbusters: The Video Game...for me anyway.
EDIT:
I've merged the new GB3 topics that have popped up...trying to keep all GB3 discussions/talk in one place. This is going to be the main GB3 page unless Hank or any other Mod wants to do something else...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 08:32:31 PM by sonicblaster59 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mrbender
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2008, 08:33:43 PM » |
|
Sounds good
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bojac
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2008, 05:38:51 AM » |
|
You gotta love this headline from this morning's front page of Yahoo: T______T It's like they're trying to hint towards ROTG but they're not gonna endorse a fanfilm? I still bet a decent chunk of people searched "Return of the Ghostbusters" though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
secrecyguy
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2008, 11:03:37 AM » |
|
Wouldn't it be neat if they end up calling the movie Return of the Ghostbusters?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonicblaster59
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2008, 11:49:53 AM » |
|
It's been done before.
Theres a star wars fan film on the force.net called "Fanboys"
several years later, Hollywood makes a similar star wars movie and they...too...call it "Fanboys".
In fact, they almost have the same plotlines...
Only difference? One is a fan film and the other makes profit...legally.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outlawimpy
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2008, 09:04:03 PM » |
|
I guess we'll see....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BraxtAnFILM
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2008, 10:37:13 AM » |
|
ROTGB makes sense as a title--that's one reason I went with it. If you have two films made within five years, and then you don't make a third film until 20 years later, it just doesn't seem right to simply call it part 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outlawimpy
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2008, 01:03:54 PM » |
|
Me, my friend, and my daughter just got done watching Ghostbusters 2 a few minutes ago and, in light of this news, I couldn't help but laugh when they entered the museum and Peter tells everybody to suck in their gut.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonicblaster59
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2008, 01:32:47 PM » |
|
I couldn't help but laugh when they entered the museum and Peter tells everybody to suck in their gut.  that statment takes on a whole new meaning now...as it really didn't apply to them then. ...okay maybe he was talking to dan ackroyd as he was the only one who tried to hide his weight. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bojac
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2008, 08:42:31 PM » |
|
Last time I saw Ernie Hudson he was in damn good shape. Everybody else...
I'm sure they could get in atleast better shape in the time it would take to get this going (if it happend)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GhostfaceUK
Karma: +1/-0
 Offline
Posts: 58
Ghostface of Nottingham
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2008, 06:47:17 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outlawimpy
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2008, 02:40:23 AM » |
|
Last time I saw Ernie Hudson he was in damn good shape. Everybody else...
I'm sure they could get in atleast better shape in the time it would take to get this going (if it happend)
Why? Are Ghostbusters noted for their stunning physiques? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
