GoddamnyamanProf
Countdown to Armageddon
Django was a better story.so did William Wallace, didn't stop them from making braveheart.
Also Nat Turner was real Django wasn't
An accurate Nat Turner film would just be disgusting and depressing.
Django was a better story.so did William Wallace, didn't stop them from making braveheart.
Also Nat Turner was real Django wasn't
Django was a better story.
An accurate Nat Turner film would just be disgusting and depressing.
Django was a better story.
An accurate Nat Turner film would just be disgusting and depressing.
i'm working on a Nat Turner script, with terrance howard in mind for the lead
http://images.betterworldbooks.com/079/Nat-Turner-Bisson-Terry-9780791002148.jpg
wikipedia nat turner
Turner spent his life in Southampton County, Virginia, a predominantly black area.[5] After the rebellion, a reward notice described Turner as:
5 feet 6 or 8 inches high, weighs between 150 and 160 pounds, rather bright complexion, but not a mulatto, broad shoulders, larger flat nose, large eyes, broad flat feet, rather knockkneed, walks brisk and active, hair on the top of the head very thin, no beard, except on the upper lip and the top of the chin, a scar on one of his temples, also one on the back of his neck, a large knot on one of the bones of his right arm, near the wrist, produced by a blow.[6]
you know any other badge nikkaz who are known actors in in the game
the young fishburn would be my first choice. but he's too old now
what film is ever historically accurate, its a reason why its only based on the true events, you still have to make it a film
So if you're gonna purposely NOT make it accurate to what actually happened, then why make a Nat Turner film at all?