Test audience screenings 7/30 & 12/8 (Spoilers)

[MadMatt]

Not that im trying to or anything...but if there wasent any flash backs in Fury road (although there aperantly is) I guess it could be seen as sequal to the first movie inplace of road warrior. But RW is so cool and connected to the first who would want to do that anyway? LOL I myself im ready for new faces, cars, carnage, and effects. Mel was/is cool and perfect for the first go around. Its just time for something new altogether and it will be fun if you let it be I think. Mel was new back then and the vision/story and stunts was not like anything else back then. So how do you beat that door down again in this new CGI century? I hope Miller has done that! Ive watched the trailer 20 times already never done that before! For any movie! Also the mad max movies back then were not the top of the list for classic 80's films per say but I do know they would fit into a top 20 count for sure. I think the new movie would fare just aswell in this decade of movies. Its going to be lost in the shuffle pretty quick with Starwars coming later on! Unless its sucks bad. Same back then in the 80's Road warrior up against Indiana films and the last 2 Starwars films and Ghostbusters all those movies were big enough to have toys! I remember well I was a kid then lol. Oh cant forget the Rocky films! Predetor and Aliens.

[Ol' Coyote]

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.

Aw man, hopefully they released an unrated version.Well at least FR should be more violent than BT. You said it is hinted so maybe if we play it frame by frame then maybe we can see how the jaw got destroyed lol

Anyway i can actually live with what blackmocco said about how Tom Hardy playing Max is like Daniel Craig playing Bond. The first time i watched Casino Royale, i like how different and similar the same time Bond is. They brought the bits of previous Bonds with a little more grit and violent. Hopefully Tom Hardy can impress a lot of people in this one, but so far i really like what i see from the trailer, the thumbs up scene in particular.

[kennerado]

Looks like yet again we have to wait for the true unrated cut to come out on blu-ray then.

So I guess this also means those full frontal nudity shots from the concept art don't appear in this pg-13 cut either?

[Bomber]

Unrated doesn't mean nudity, gore or violence. All it means is the scenes added weren't rated by the mpaa. It could be sex/nudity, violence/gore or it could just be a deleted scene of Max doing the dishes I the citadel that the mpaa never saw so that didn't assign a rating to it making it "unrated".

[DGSimo]

Looks like yet again we have to wait for the true unrated cut to come out on blu-ray then.

So I guess this also means those full frontal nudity shots from the concept art don't appear in this pg-13 cut either?

What makes you think Miller shot the film like that? Besides nobody is saying anything about the violence being toned down, only there's no excessive gore which the original trilogy didn't really have at least that I can think of at 2am in the morning. lol

There was "topless" concept art though not full frontal nudity and it was present in the April screening since MPAA allows some nudity even for PG-13 ratings if it's not sexualized and IIRC the topless women is for a group of old women in the Citadel referred to as "The Milk Mothers".

[DetritusMaximus]

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.

Aw man, hopefully they released an unrated version.Well at least FR should be more violent than BT. You said it is hinted so maybe if we play it frame by frame then maybe we can see how the jaw got destroyed lol

Anyway i can actually live with what blackmocco said about how Tom Hardy playing Max is like Daniel Craig playing Bond. The first time i watched Casino Royale, i like how different and similar the same time Bond is. They brought the bits of previous Bonds with a little more grit and violent. Hopefully Tom Hardy can impress a lot of people in this one, but so far i really like what i see from the trailer, the thumbs up scene in particular.

It's odd how everyone brings up Craig as Bond. Two major things separate the Bond 'reboot' from this one. One is that with Craig, they are going back and definitely remaking previously told Bond stories (Casino Royale, although one can argue they never really made that one before anyway.), with FR it is not a stated remake of a previous movie. And two, Craig's Bond is about as close to the original Fleming Bond as you can get in the films.

[biolumen]

What makes you think Miller shot the film like that? Besides nobody is saying anything about the violence being toned down, only there's no excessive gore which the original trilogy didn't really have at least that I can think of at 2am in the morning. lol

There was "topless" concept art though not full frontal nudity and it was present in the April screening since MPAA allows some nudity even for PG-13 ratings if it's not sexualized and IIRC the topless women is for a group of old women in the Citadel referred to as "The Milk Mothers".

What irks me, though, is that it seems Miller is being prevented from releasing his "director's cut" because of the ratings requirement. Sure, it's probably minor stuff. A boob here, a missing jaw there. Still, it sucks that his complete vision will have to wait for the bluray (if we're lucky).

[blackmocco]

There was "topless" concept art though not full frontal nudity and it was present in the April screening since MPAA allows some nudity even for PG-13 ratings if it's not sexualized and IIRC the topless women is for a group of old women in the Citadel referred to as "The Milk Mothers".

It's odd how everyone brings up Craig as Bond. Two major things separate the Bond 'reboot' from this one. One is that with Craig, they are going back and definitely remaking previously told Bond stories (Casino Royale, although one can argue they never really made that one before anyway.), with FR it is not a stated remake of a previous movie. And two, Craig's Bond is about as close to the original Fleming Bond as you can get in the films.

And the Milk Mothers are still in there <shudders>! Haha! I loved all that stuff, to be honest. Like Bartertown taken to a new level.

None of the Craig Bonds are remakes. Casino Royale was never made as part of the official Bond canon until Craig came along and Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall are original stories that simply lean on the mythology of what's come before. In Skyfall, Craig's Bond is familiar with the silver Aston Martin even though we know he clearly has no connection to Connery's in Goldfinger. (Craig's Bond won it gambling in CR whereas Connery's was assigned it by Q in Goldfinger.) It's just a nice wink to the audience that even though this is a reboot, they haven't forgotten about what came before. Better to approach FR with that mindset. The Interceptor's here, even though it kinda can't really be.

[blackmocco]

What makes you think Miller shot the film like that? Besides nobody is saying anything about the violence being toned down, only there's no excessive gore which the original trilogy didn't really have at least that I can think of at 2am in the morning. lol

There was "topless" concept art though not full frontal nudity and it was present in the April screening since MPAA allows some nudity even for PG-13 ratings if it's not sexualized and IIRC the topless women is for a group of old women in the Citadel referred to as "The Milk Mothers".

What irks me, though, is that it seems Miller is being prevented from releasing his "director's cut" because of the ratings requirement. Sure, it's probably minor stuff. A boob here, a missing jaw there. Still, it sucks that his complete vision will have to wait for the bluray (if we're lucky).

Well, if reports are true about FR's budget, it's hardly a surprise Warners wants to get it into the most mainstream audience it can. Moviemaking's a business, in the end. Profit means everything and if we all want to see more of this world, FR's going to have to do gangbusters at the box office. I personally can't see that happening as I just can't see a mainstream audience getting on board with this but I really, really hope I'm wrong...

[DetritusMaximus]

And the Milk Mothers are still in there <shudders>! Haha! I loved all that stuff, to be honest. Like Bartertown taken to a new level.

None of the Craig Bonds are remakes. Casino Royale was never made as part of the official Bond canon until Craig came along and Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall are original stories that simply lean on the mythology of what's come before. In Skyfall, Craig's Bond is familiar with the silver Aston Martin even though we know he clearly has no connection to Connery's in Goldfinger. (Craig's Bond won it gambling in CR whereas Connery's was assigned it by Q in Goldfinger.) It's just a nice wink to the audience that even though this is a reboot, they haven't forgotten about what came before. Better to approach FR with that mindset. The Interceptor's here, even though it kinda can't really be.

It doesn't really matter who made the original, it was made and now there is a new one. Reboots/remakes/etc. do not rely on the new version being done by the same people as the original. As I said, it could be argued, but because the movie was such a departure from the book, not because it was made by a different company. Technically there are now three versions of Casino Royale if you include the original TV play from 54. Craig seems closer in character to the Bond in the books, the 'real' Bond(?) who drove a Bentley...like John Steed (there's another reboot/remake that didn't fair well).

Maybe part of the problem is with terminology. Thinking about it, a remake is just that, a new version of a previous film. A reboot seems to be more of a jumpstart for an existing movie series. Since Bond and Star Trek are theoretically continuations of existing movie series that do not directly replace previous films in the 'official' series, they would be rebooting the storylines. Nimoy Spock's appearance effectively makes the new Star Trek a continuation, not a remake. As long as Bond is doing new stories and nothing really contradicts the previous movies (Casino, Never Say Never Again, aside), then Bond is a continuation that is not really tied to a specific period in time, the movies just tell the story in the context of when they were made.
Unlike Batman. Nolan's Batman is a decided replacement for Burton's Batman, a remake not a continuation. By this logic, and if you go with the hero myth idea, then it can be considered a continuation, not replacing anything that came before. All discrepancies can be chalked up to the memory of the future storyteller. With this idea, the BoB becomes nothing more than a nod to the fans, not the story. Max begins this movie with a car, what car doesn't matter to the story. Taking the BoB as a literal reference in a not-so-literal myth story is a schizophrenic expectation of the film. Either way, logic will dictate that the car in the film is not meant to be the same car, but it's up to the viewer to decide if or how it fits.
I like how people are determined that this car must mean this movie takes place before RW because Miller put in the film, yet so willing to completely dismiss Miller's third film. Says a lot about which is more important to some fans, a cool car or MIller's overall creative vision.