Page 18 of 53

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 12:39 pm
by Nomis
Image

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 1:17 pm
by AsianVersionOfET
Oh sweet christ. It's really happening isn't it?

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 1:30 pm
by Nomis
Image

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 3:27 pm
by The Special One
Dobson wrote:
The Special One wrote:
antovolk wrote:CONFIRMED
https://trailer-track.com/2016/12/08/in ... n-the-way/
They've also encrypted it to prevent leaks before the first Rogue One shows.
And here we go! (In a Leader type voice Joker voice)
Image
Thank you

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 4:06 pm
by User of Interest
Holy dogshit! My body is ready!

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 10:25 pm
by OVERMAN
I still firmly believe in the specific case of this movie the rating is gonna tell me everything I need to know. PG-13: Nolan is becoming a coward, still making films with his bloody kids in mind while disrespecting the representation of the events that took place in Dunkirk, mellowing shit down with some teenage drama in times of war. Or Rated R: he's trying something truly ambitious that may actually defy what people came to expect of him as a filmmaker, breaking the limitations of the blockbuster niche he's been sitting on so bloody comfortably. First trailer had more of an art-house teaser, this one may show what I want to see.

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 10:31 pm
by Samuel R. Jankis
OVERMAN wrote:I still firmly believe in the specific case of this movie the rating is gonna tell me everything I need to know. PG-13: Nolan is becoming a coward, still making films with his bloody kids in mind while disrespecting the representation of the events that took place in Dunkirk, mellowing shit down with some teenage drama in times of war. Or Rated R: he's trying something truly ambitious that may actually defy what people came to expect of him as a filmmaker, breaking the limitations of the blockbuster niche he's been sitting on so bloody comfortably. First trailer had more of an art-house teaser, this one may show what I want to see.
No way it will be Rated R.

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 10:51 pm
by dsus4gtr
Patton was rated PG - does that make it any lesser of a war movie than the rated R ones? What matters is the story - not the rating. Plus, Patton told the story from a higher perspective - the level of the generals, with some battle footage thrown in. George C. Scott's performance was one of the greats of all time - and it didn't have to be rated R.

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 10:53 pm
by Law
OVERMAN wrote:I still firmly believe in the specific case of this movie the rating is gonna tell me everything I need to know. PG-13: Nolan is becoming a coward, still making films with his bloody kids in mind while disrespecting the representation of the events that took place in Dunkirk, mellowing shit down with some teenage drama in times of war. Or Rated R: he's trying something truly ambitious that may actually defy what people came to expect of him as a filmmaker, breaking the limitations of the blockbuster niche he's been sitting on so bloody comfortably. First trailer had more of an art-house teaser, this one may show what I want to see.
Image

Re: Trailer#2

Posted: December 12th, 2016, 10:58 pm
by Sky007
This specific war story is one that doesn't need to be R. And to think that only on screen violence can articulate the horrors of war is a pretty limited view of film language/storytelling. Expect a David Lean-esque war film.