-168°
EXPIRED
Ghostbusters 1-3 Collection (6-Disc 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray) £36 Delivered (Using Code) @ Zoom
Ghostbusters 1-3 Collection (6-Disc 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray) £36 Delivered (Using Code) @ Zoom

Ghostbusters 1-3 Collection (6-Disc 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray) £36 Delivered (Using Code) @ Zoom

Buy forBuy forBuy for£36
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Code: SIGNUP10

£49.99 @ Amazon

Triple bill of films in the 'Ghostbusters' franchise. 'Ghostbusters' (1984) stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. After their scholastic grant is withdrawn, New York parapsychologists Peter Venkman (Murray), Raymond Stanz (Aykroyd) and Egon Spenler (Ramis) decide to go into business as Ghostbusters. Initially scorned, the trio become celebrities after ridding a hotel of a troublesome ghoul, and are called in by musician Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) when she experiences strange disturbances in her Central Park apartment. In the sequel, 'Ghostbusters 2' (1989), the Ghostbusters are struggling to get work as they find themselves being sued by municipal authorities. When a physical embodiment of evil is discovered lurking beneath the city, however, their services are once again required. Finally, 'Ghostbusters' (2016) sees four ladies take the lead with Abby (Melissa McCarthy), Erin (Kristen Wiig), Jillian (Kate McKinnon) and Patty (Leslie Jones) forming the new Ghostbusters. As the team get news of spirits lurking beneath the streets of New York City, they don the famous boiler suits and set out on a mission to destroy the ghosts and save the world.

32 Comments

mod

OK, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.
I watched the 2016 version of this not long ago and thought it was really good. In some respects it was even better than the original(s) and I don't just mean the special effects. So if you have read any negative reviews on the 2016 version just assume it was written by slightly sexist fanboys who couldn't bare their beloved 1980's version(s) be given a 2016 makeover with women.

Original Poster

Also showing as £50 from HMV & Zavvi

Released: 21st

Original Poster

andywedge

OK, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.I watched the 2016 version of this … OK, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.I watched the 2016 version of this not long ago and thought it was really good. In some respects it was even better than the original(s) and I don't just mean the special effects. So if you have read any negative reviews on the 2016 version just assume it was written by slightly sexist fanboys who couldn't bare their beloved 1980's version(s) be given a 2016 makeover with women.



I thought it was good. I just didn't see the point of why the receptionist was a tool.

mod

oUkTuRkEyIII

I thought it was good. I just didn't see the point of why the … I thought it was good. I just didn't see the point of why the receptionist was a tool.


They thought he was a good looking tool X)

I thought the 2016 version was rubbish, I gave it to a charity shop after watching, it's in no way linked back to me then.

Original Poster

Why is this cold? It makes them £12 each. I understand I get the regulars that vote cold but these are £20 each or as I mentioned £50 for the set elsewhere?

If you don't like 3 you are getting 1 & 2 for £36 and saving £4 and getting 3 for free.

mod

oUkTuRkEyIII

Why is this cold? It makes them £12 each. I understand I get the regulars … Why is this cold? It makes them £12 each. I understand I get the regulars that vote cold but these are £20 each or as I mentioned £50 for the set elsewhere?If you don't like 3 you are getting 1 & 2 for £36 and saving £4 and getting 3 for free.


Probably down to people who haven't seen the 2016 version (_;)
Shame, as it is a good price for 3 very enjoyable films in 4K

Banned

voicon

I thought the 2016 version was rubbish, I gave it to a charity shop after … I thought the 2016 version was rubbish, I gave it to a charity shop after watching, it's in no way linked back to me then.


You haven't even seen it.
Same as ALL the other haters

though its 4k remastered is it not really 4k as the source was never shot in 4k ..aint it just like polishing a turd

"Ghostbusters 3"??? Get in the sea.

only 2 of these are Ghostbuster films the other one is a big pile of steaming turd

Original Poster

CHEAPASCHIPS

only 2 of these are Ghostbuster films the other one is a big pile of … only 2 of these are Ghostbuster films the other one is a big pile of steaming turd



It's not a review site and as I mentioned 3 is practically free with this deal.

As for the others 4K isn't cracking but it got 4.5/5 for the video and audio improvements.

andywedge

OK, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.I watched the 2016 version of this … OK, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.I watched the 2016 version of this not long ago and thought it was really good. In some respects it was even better than the original(s) and I don't just mean the special effects. So if you have read any negative reviews on the 2016 version just assume it was written by slightly sexist fanboys who couldn't bare their beloved 1980's version(s) be given a 2016 makeover with women.



​I dont make assumptions. A makeover with women would have be fine if they made a good film, like star wars with a lead woman and it was one of the best. As for this, absolute garbage.

Are they going to release 1 & 2 in 4K as a standalone?

Original Poster

ben5363

​I dont make assumptions. A makeover with women would have be fine if t … ​I dont make assumptions. A makeover with women would have be fine if they made a good film, like star wars with a lead woman and it was one of the best. As for this, absolute garbage.



As for this? Are people missing 1-3?

Original Poster

bsmaff

Are they going to release 1 & 2 in 4K as a standalone?



Yea, £20 each

oUkTuRkEyIII

Yea, £20 each



Ok just the 1st one it is

Original Poster

bsmaff

Ok just the 1st one it is



£18 if you use code from description at Zoom

You're never going to get ghostbusters 1 or 2 in 4k, it doesn't exist.

This is remastered crap

ashmac

though its 4k remastered is it not really 4k as the source was never shot … though its 4k remastered is it not really 4k as the source was never shot in 4k ..aint it just like polishing a turd



​It's from FILM as in reality if it's a true remaster they go back to the original film material given 35mm film is around the 8k mark producing 4k from it us perfectly doable and not polishing a turd at all

581d

You're never going to get ghostbusters 1 or 2 in 4k, it doesn't exist. … You're never going to get ghostbusters 1 or 2 in 4k, it doesn't exist. This is remastered crap



​Wrong getting 4k from film is perfectly doable they did it the first time in 93 with Snow White in fact

You couldn't pay me to watch the 2016 film again, the reviews should have been worse. Easily the worst film i have ever seen, i dont understand how anyone enjoyed it, let alone believe its as good or better than the others.
I had no issue with them being women but when their 4 women who can't act and have talent, not funny, then i have a problem. This film was clearly trying way to hard to be funny completely missing the point of Ghostbusters, the original wasn't trying to be funny. Look at how badly they advertised the film, they didn't even know themselves, was this a remake, reboot, sequel cuz trailers were like 30 years ago, if its got nothing to do with the previous films, why even mention them.
The SFX were terrible, all the ghosts had the same horrible blue tint to them, the ending was filled with what looks like some sorta parade of dead ghosts, so id assume all those were killed during some huge parade. Least the ghosts in the original looked way better, and actually a lil scary esp for a kid, this just looked like that crappy Haunted mansion film. So the film was trying to push women power etc but still had to stereotype everything else like the dumb black woman who knows her way round NY and the fat one always complaining about food and falls over a lot. The original cut of the film had a dance number to Bee Gees, why on earth. So glad Sony have decided not to make a sequel to this cuz it was so bad, such a lame villain.

InYerFace

You haven't even seen it.Same as ALL the other haters



Someone loves the latest ghostbusters film sooooo much they even created a new (second) HUKD account just so they could stick up for it

CHEAPASCHIPS

only 2 of these are Ghostbuster films the other one is a big pile of … only 2 of these are Ghostbuster films the other one is a big pile of steaming turd



Look, I know people don't like Ghostbusters 2 but this is a bit harsh.

Rich44

​Wrong getting 4k from film is perfectly doable they did it the first t … ​Wrong getting 4k from film is perfectly doable they did it the first time in 93 with Snow White in fact



I never said you couldn't get 4k from film.

I don't get the whole massive hate for Ghostbusters 2016.. Yes it was poor and not funny but not the worst movie ever, it isn't even the worst for 2016 Independence Day wins that award..

2016 in general is going down as the year of the rubbish sequels

found the 2016 ghostbusters ok
the film itself and story/effects were fine - just the acting was really poor
they were also basically hammy stereotypes overacting so hard they were caricatures of themselves
not sure it should be called ghostbusters 3 as in this collection either - its not really a 3rd its just 'another'

true but it's a contributing factor as to whether this is good value

InYerFace

You haven't even seen it.Same as ALL the other haters



Touchy, where you one of the cast or crew?

Edited by: "voicon" 15th Nov 2016

oUkTuRkEyIII

I thought it was good. I just didn't see the point of why the … I thought it was good. I just didn't see the point of why the receptionist was a tool.


They had to make the male counterpart a tool. The whole point of the casting was to show women could be great leading the known male roles (didn't work out so great) but the flip side was the need to make the old female lead a dizzy male. (didn't work out so great)
Probably could have made a great and popular film if they weren't stuck on trying to shove that in the audiences faces.

As for this deal. They shouldnt be making out its a Ghostbusters 3 because it blatantly isnt considered to be.
it's an obvisous attempt to shift the new film on the back of fans of the originals.
Also not a great idea as fans of the first two will buy sperate 4k versions.

581d

You're never going to get ghostbusters 1 or 2 in 4k, it doesn't exist. … You're never going to get ghostbusters 1 or 2 in 4k, it doesn't exist. This is remastered crap



What do you mean? The original Ghostbusters was shot on 35mm film for the live-action with 65mm effects. They can scan that film at 2K, 4K, 8K ... whatever they like. The first two features were scanned at 4K, that's where the UHD BD comes from. The new feature was shot in 2.8K and will be a slight upscale (most UHD BDs feature upscaling to some degree).
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text