The first full trailer will be released on Monday!!

Bring it on Baby! We have been waiting 35 years for this!

I am even willing to over look the fact they picked Ryan Gosling for this!

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 20179 yr by Tom@LCO
edited urls to display video on the forum

looks good

10 minutes ago, Tom@LCO said:

looks good

I hope we won't be disappointed like we did with other long overdue sequels.

Prometheus for example, that was not as good as I expected it to be.

Or Star Wars Episode VII. PFFFT! A REBOOT!

Best is to not have any expectations and then it is what it is. I felt the story had a beginning and an end in Blade Runner.

Star Wars always has a death star lately and Star Trek the ship is always destroyed now. Waiting for 1701-z so we can get to 1702.

It looks FREAKING AWESOME!!

 

The reviews and word of mouth from advance press screenings is that it's incredible and narratively satisfying and as good or even better than the 1982 original.

It's also 163 minutes long which means you will get your money worth!

I am buying tickets right now for next Friday's showing!!

 

 

Edited September 30, 20178 yr by j7wild

I got tickets for the first IMAX showing on Friday, October 6th!!

It has Miss Underwood in it.  Will be near impossible to suspend my rationality enough to believe.  She is too strong a character to be cast in other roles without issues.   I guess I will have to wait and see.

The original movie, is one of my top 5 favorites, can't wait to see this one.

 

 

Miss Underwood? Who?

That should have been Mrs Underwood from House of Cards. Robin Wright .

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101

**version watched: IMAX**

What a stunningly, visually beautiful, cerebral and immersive movie.

It was definitely worth the 35 years wait.

I won't give the story away but at 2 hours and 43 min (including ending credits but not including previews),

you will get your money and time's worth.

In time, this film will surely and rightfully become a cult classic just like the original did.

5/5

I will wait for the crowds to die down and go back next week and rewatch it in 3D.

The IMAX showing I watched was not in 3D, I wonder why?

they were low on glasses.

6 hours ago, Tom@LCO said:

they were low on glasses.

Sir T is soooo silly! 

http://collider.com/imax-2d-movies/

It was never filmed in 3D for IMAX.

Also any NON-IMAX showings in 3D is up converted.

I won't be seeing it in 3D anymore.

I've read some of the reviews online about the 3D version and it's not worth the money.

The only film I saw worthy of 3D was Avatar.

 

On 10/7/2017 at 11:12 AM, j7wild said:

I will wait for the crowds to die down and go back next week and rewatch it in 3D.

The IMAX showing I watched was not in 3D, I wonder why?

For the most part ,the 3D version was not worth it. It was a totally awesome and worthy sequel to t h e original,but they never filmed it with 3D in mind. There were a few shots that looked cool in 3D, yet they were few.

 

I look forward to seeing it again  when it comes out on Blu.

Edited November 24, 20178 yr by Hardkore

That's the problem with films not made with 3D in mind, it just doesn't seem to have the same impact.

I don't usually go to see films in 3D, just because I think they charge too much. But if I decide to watch the film in 3D when it's out on BR, I just watch it that way on my own setup -- which uses the same glasses they sell at the theater -- that also saves spending extra money on a new set of glasses when I can go there and get them out the machine for a couple of dollars, haha.