Well done Keith.mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:thenextnolan wrote:
Dunkirk General Information/Discussion
I completely agree. And I thought I was the only one worried about the film having a summer release date. I hope Nolan realises there is no room for fake shootings and no blood in this project, time to burn that PG-13 blanket he's been hiding under since the batman movies. No more movies for your goddamn kids Chris.Allstar wrote:If this isn't rated R Nolan is officially a pussy.
lolmchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:thenextnolan wrote:
As much as I'd like this to be rated R, he wasn't "hiding under a blanket" with the PG-13 rating. All 3 Batman films had no reason to be rated R, Inception had no reason to be rated R, Interstellar had no reason to be rated R. The Prestige had the most reason of all of his more recent films, yet he made it work as a PG-13 film and it's his best film imo. My point is, all of his past 6 films had little to no reason to be rated R.OVERMAN wrote:I completely agree. And I thought I was the only one worried about the film having a summer release date. I hope Nolan realises there is no room for fake shootings and no blood in this project, time to burn that PG-13 blanket he's been hiding under since the batman movies. No more movies for your goddamn kids Chris.Allstar wrote:If this isn't rated R Nolan is officially a pussy.
This does, though. So yeah, if all this is true, it should be rated R, but he's hardly been "hiding" with the PG-13 rating.
Posts: 104
Joined:
December 2015
To those complaining about the Rated R nonsense, It makes no sense whatsoever for him to make a Rated R film. He has never been THAT type of filmmaker, and probably never will be. And remember, you can get away with a lot in PG13 films these days... It's not like in the 90s.
I do believe the World War 2 rumors, but I think they're partially true. Nolan always takes certain concepts and flips those concepts upside down to create something fresh and new. I think it might be an alternate-timeline set in the World War II era. I don't think it's a pure WWII film like a Saving Private Ryan. I think it's something much different. Kind of like Inglorious Basterds, but obviously a more Nolan take on the material. A World War II mind-bender...
I do believe the World War 2 rumors, but I think they're partially true. Nolan always takes certain concepts and flips those concepts upside down to create something fresh and new. I think it might be an alternate-timeline set in the World War II era. I don't think it's a pure WWII film like a Saving Private Ryan. I think it's something much different. Kind of like Inglorious Basterds, but obviously a more Nolan take on the material. A World War II mind-bender...
I agree. Nolan is not such a type of filmmaker to whom 'R' in the rating field is important in any way.
Yeah, I doubt that Nolan, while writing a script, is thinking whether it will be PG-13 or R rated. He just writes what he likes based on his own personal sensibilities and of course what is relevenat to the story being told. And, to be honest, who really cares? I bet that The Dark Knight would have been rated R if there were a few more curses in it. What would be the difference? It would have been a better movie?
It all depends... You can make a war movie with a PG-13 rating and sometimes you SHOULD make it rated R. Depends on what sort of war film you intend to tell.
If you want a story of a single, regular company, you probably SHOULD make it R, because of the LANGUAGE (mostly) and also battles.
But if you want to show the intrigue of war, decisions made behind closed doors, it doesn't need to be R.
I can't see Nolan make the first movie, mostly because I can't see him write realistic dialogue for simple soldiers. The second type of film would be more Nolan's style, more cerebral... with possible battles shown on a large scale, not a human scale... So again, no need to make it R.
However, if I could choose, I would like Nolan to TRY to do the first one, try to write different dialogue than so far, do something outside of his comfort zone. It could be a failure but it could also help him grow and try to achieve what Spielberg or Kubrick have so well - variety.
If you want a story of a single, regular company, you probably SHOULD make it R, because of the LANGUAGE (mostly) and also battles.
But if you want to show the intrigue of war, decisions made behind closed doors, it doesn't need to be R.
I can't see Nolan make the first movie, mostly because I can't see him write realistic dialogue for simple soldiers. The second type of film would be more Nolan's style, more cerebral... with possible battles shown on a large scale, not a human scale... So again, no need to make it R.
However, if I could choose, I would like Nolan to TRY to do the first one, try to write different dialogue than so far, do something outside of his comfort zone. It could be a failure but it could also help him grow and try to achieve what Spielberg or Kubrick have so well - variety.
Dark Knight and specially DKR could have benefited from R rating elements, given the fact that Dark Knight is a crime thriller and Rises has multiple fighting sequences and even kind of a war vibe to the third act, I'm not the first one to point out how lame some of the fighting oriented sequences look from his films and I even would care to say Interstellar could have been more ambitious in that regard since it is a story where these explorers travel to distant worlds that in the end happened to be not as hostile as they should have been. This is not a complain about how Nolan manages stories or characters but rather how he needs to fit them into PG-13 worlds... I guess to be more approachable to a wider audience... imo he just ends up loosing some of the edge and believability of those worlds.Bacon wrote:As much as I'd like this to be rated R, he wasn't "hiding under a blanket" with the PG-13 rating. All 3 Batman films had no reason to be rated R, Inception had no reason to be rated R, Interstellar had no reason to be rated R. The Prestige had the most reason of all of his more recent films, yet he made it work as a PG-13 film and it's his best film imo. My point is, all of his past 6 films had little to no reason to be rated R.OVERMAN wrote:I completely agree. And I thought I was the only one worried about the film having a summer release date. I hope Nolan realises there is no room for fake shootings and no blood in this project, time to burn that PG-13 blanket he's been hiding under since the batman movies. No more movies for your goddamn kids Chris.Allstar wrote:If this isn't rated R Nolan is officially a pussy.
This does, though. So yeah, if all this is true, it should be rated R, but he's hardly been "hiding" with the PG-13 rating.
Maybe, Nolan's gonna make A Very Long Engagement type of movie? A drama above the war. Note that this film was Warner Bros. product as well.