This movie isnt a sequel.... its a reboot, a "re-imagining"
Stop thinking about trying to add it to a time line because it wont fit.
Yes no doubt about it now as MIller and his leads have all said this. Which is probably why he has the Interceptor in the beginning to establish this is a new continuity.
My previous post was more wondering what role the Interceptor would of played when Mel Gibson was attached and it was a sequel.
I don't know. What Miller said equally supports the idea that its a reboot/remake as well as a sequel. The whole "word burgers" thing about it being told from a different perspective also allows the film to work as a sequel as a reboot/remake. The Interceptor has for many been the nail in the head in regards to the film being a remake/reboot, but I feel is was included to more or less bring an icon from the series back for the new film. But, again the "word burgers" aspect allows Miller to get a away with bringing back the Interceptor as well as telling the story he wants to tell without being hindered by previous continuity. This I feel will let those who wish to (yours truly included) view the film as a sequel. Also, if it were a true reboot/remake it would have started from the beginning when Max was still a cop, whereas the new film starts in the wasteland with Max already an iconic character.
Well I wouldn't call it a hard reboot, more like a soft reboot. A few little changes here and there which allows GM to keep things fresh.
It's not like there was an overall story line that ran through the first 3 films like the Star Wars trilogy. Each story is its own self contained story so there is some flexibility there.
Bad cop wrote:I don't know. What Miller said equally supports the idea that its a reboot/remake as well as a sequel. The whole "word burgers" thing about it being told from a different perspective also allows the film to work as a sequel as a reboot/remake. The Interceptor has for many been the nail in the head in regards to the film being a remake/reboot, but I feel is was included to more or less bring an icon from the series back for the new film. But, again the "word burgers" aspect allows Miller to get a away with bringing back the Interceptor as well as telling the story he wants to tell without being hindered by previous continuity. This I feel will let those who wish to (yours truly included) view the film as a sequel. Also, if it were a true reboot/remake it would have started from the beginning when Max was still a cop, whereas the new film starts in the wasteland with Max already an iconic character.
I'm inclined to agree. The wordburger thing, hero myth, reboot, etc., all fit either way. Rebooting with the idea that it is told from the skewed memory of a person to whom the events are in the past allows 'misremembered' details. We know the car is the iconi BoB, that would be a nod to the viewer of the movie, but to the 'Histroy Men', well he had a car and that's all that matters. It would not matter to them if it was the Bob, the Lonewolf, or the Lar's Chevy.
Bad cop wrote:I don't know. What Miller said equally supports the idea that its a reboot/remake as well as a sequel. The whole "word burgers" thing about it being told from a different perspective also allows the film to work as a sequel as a reboot/remake. The Interceptor has for many been the nail in the head in regards to the film being a remake/reboot, but I feel is was included to more or less bring an icon from the series back for the new film. But, again the "word burgers" aspect allows Miller to get a away with bringing back the Interceptor as well as telling the story he wants to tell without being hindered by previous continuity. This I feel will let those who wish to (yours truly included) view the film as a sequel. Also, if it were a true reboot/remake it would have started from the beginning when Max was still a cop, whereas the new film starts in the wasteland with Max already an iconic character.
Fact of the matter is Fury Road is a reboot no matter how you look at it. Miller says it, Hardy said it, people who've watched it said that too. Not a single doubt in my mind that it is a reboot.
Perhaps the reason why it partially could be viewed as a sequel is because it was supposed to be a sequel in the first place? Ever since the production halted in 2002 the story probably began to change to accomodate for new actors, new settings, new technology and little by little it turned into something that shouldn't be called a direct sequel anymore. I think that created a lot of confusion.
hey guys, long time lurker here, just registered now because i have something to ask.
People had been saying this is PG13, but those leaked photos where Immortan Joe's jaw got destroyed like that doesn't look like it's PG13. Maybe it used to be an R rated movie ?
"You know, Hope is a mistake. If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane."
Ol' Coyote wrote:People had been saying this is PG13, but those leaked photos where Immortan Joe's jaw got destroyed like that doesn't look like it's PG13. Maybe it used to be an R rated movie ?
That's a good question. Since we've already seen the production still of Joe's messed up face, there's probably no harm in asking blackmocco if it makes an appearance in the film he saw.
Hi folks. If you really want to try and fit it into the timeline, you can always try. Doesn't work for me though. All this talk of Word Burgers doesn't work for me based on how the movie is presented to us. I know people really want this to work with the previous movies but I can't help but feel you're going to be disappointed going in with that attitude. This felt like a brand new take on it. Remember when Roger Moore took over the role of Bond from Sean Connery and it seemed like Moore was still playing the same character? FR's not like that. More like - as the reviewer says - when Daniel Craig came in and the filmmakers started from scratch keeping the elements and character people liked. FR's like that. Also, as I said, there are discrepancies in the movie that don't add up with the previous movies.
Yeah, the movie's definitely PG-13 in its current form. There's no gore or blood. It's still plenty violent but you never see that shot of Immortan Joe at all. It's all just hinted at in fast cuts.
"...and it was here in this blighted place, he learned to live again."
blackmocco wrote:Hi folks. If you really want to try and fit it into the timeline, you can always try. Doesn't work for me though. All this talk of Word Burgers doesn't work for me based on how the movie is presented to us. I know people really want this to work with the previous movies but I can't help but feel you're going to be disappointed going in with that attitude. This felt like a brand new take on it. Remember when Roger Moore took over the role of Bond from Sean Connery and it seemed like Moore was still playing the same character? FR's not like that. More like - as the reviewer says - when Daniel Craig came in and the filmmakers started from scratch keeping the elements and character people liked. FR's like that. Also, as I said, there are discrepancies in the movie that don't add up with the previous movies.
Yeah, the movie's definitely PG-13 in its current form. There's no gore or blood. It's still plenty violent but you never see that shot of Immortan Joe at all. It's all just hinted at in fast cuts.
Daniel Graig got alot of flak when he took the role as Bond but he did a great job. I'm sure it will be the same with Hardy.
blackmocco wrote:
Yeah, the movie's definitely PG-13 in its current form. There's no gore or blood. It's still plenty violent but you never see that shot of Immortan Joe at all. It's all just hinted at in fast cuts.
I wonder if we'll get an unrated, or uncut or directors cut (or whatever they call them these days) version when the dvd/blu-ray gets released? I hope so.
