LOL @ all those swallowing the ridiculous claim that this movie uses little CGI. The majority of frames in this movie have in fact been fucked wit..., err, I mean "enhanced with" CGI, thus why its outlandish, unrealistic, surreal and cartoonish look, completely different than the realistic feel and look of the original trilogy, which was 100% shot the old fashioned way, using the real landscapes of Australia and great (and often dangerous) believable stunts perfectly possible by the laws of physics. You can believe in the world of the first three movies. You sure as fuck CAN'T believe the world of Fury Road. The only way this movie could ever have passed muster with critical audiences was if it was the very first movie in the franchise. Then you could accept that in this world the weird and impossible things we see are in fact possible. But with THREE previous movies solidly establishing that the world of Mad Max is just our world, only that things have gone awfully wrong for civilized society and insane violent motorized gangs have been increasingly taking over the land, but everything else remains the same, including how physics works, then there is no way any critical and reasonable viewer can possibly accept this travesty of a film.
And yes, the flame-thrower guitar creep was plain ridiculous, on all levels. This is Miller & company just trying to appeal to the infantile and unrealistic tastes of the "kwel" teens.
This movie was an utter exaggerated and puerile pile of nonsense, a film made with outrageous extravagant impossibilities thrill-seeking younger audiences primarily in mind, nothing to do with the more well-balanced and primarily adult-oriented realistic and believable feel and look of the 3 original movies. Miller is a total sell-out for trying to pass this thing as a "Mad Max" film. He totally threw out the window the more realistic and believable world he built in the first three movies and gave us this ill-conceived and contradictory "bastard child" instead.
Apparently George Miller is suing WB for what he thinks is a breach of contract. It's doubtful we'll ever see another one (with Miller at the helm), which is a shame.
As I’ve said before, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion of the film and it’s perfectly fine that you didn’t enjoy it, but some of your claims seem a bit baseless. Others’ comments about the limited use of CGI for stunts are perfectly founded, as not only was the majority of CGI used to change the landscape, but also because there are before and after behind the scenes videos that show EXACTLY what was practical and what was CGI. It’s all laid out perfectly for the viewer to see what changed between principal photography and release.
“The only way this movie could ever have passed muster with critical audiences...” - are you suggesting the film wasn’t well reviewed and received? Fury Road has a 97% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes, an 85% audience score on RT, and a B+ Cinemascore. As with ANY film, there are people that didn’t like it, but the majority of audiences were quite satisfied with the film.
While there’s no real aggregate system for the “made for teens” claim, I personally don’t agree with that assumption. Critics and audiences of all ages, including those that have seen all Max films on the silver screen, have enjoyed the film. With it’s darker apocalyptic tone and restricted rating amongst other things, it doesn’t feel at all directed solely at younger audiences, IMO.
Ned - that would help explain why we haven’t heard news of the sequels in quite a while. Damn shame, indeed.
Last edited by bassman; 28-Jan-2019 at 06:09 PM.
Reason: .
As I’ve said before, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion of the film and it’s perfectly fine that you didn’t enjoy it, but some of your claims seem a bit baseless. Others’ comments about the limited use of CGI for stunts are perfectly founded, as not only was the majority of CGI used to change the landscape, but also because there are before and after behind the scenes videos that show EXACTLY what was practical and what was CGI. It’s all laid out perfectly for the viewer to see what changed between principal photography and release.
And the difference is easily seen between the before and after. Like I said, the majority of the movie has been altered in one way or another by CGI. That's why it doesn't look like the original trilogy, where no CGI tampering occurred.
“The only way this movie could ever have passed muster with critical audiences...” - are you suggesting the film wasn’t well reviewed and received? Fury Road has a 97% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes, an 85% audience score on RT, and a B+ Cinemascore. As with ANY film, there are people that didn’t like it, but the majority of audiences were quite satisfied with the film.
These days all sorts of crap is given "thumbs up" by these so-called critics, so it doesn't surprise me.
While there’s no real aggregate system for the “made for teens” claim, I personally don’t agree with that assumption. Critics and audiences of all ages, including those that have seen all Max films on the silver screen, have enjoyed the film.
Speak for yourself. Others who have also seen the original trilogy have blasted Fury Road, and rightly so.
With it’s darker apocalyptic tone and restricted rating amongst other things, it doesn’t feel at all directed solely at younger audiences, IMO.
Not solely, but certainly primarily. That's why this film is childish and overtly exaggerated, unlike the other ones (specially the first two.) Younger audiences tend to go for this kind of over-the-top outrageous action. More mature audiences enjoy the more realistic feel of the original movies. I can easily believe a scenario like this:
It looks real, it feels real... shit, could it maybe, just maybe, be because IT IS FUCKING REAL??? Yes, yes, I think so!
But I sure as fuck CANNOT believe this pile of PURE UTTER UNREALISTIC BULLSHIT:
that would help explain why we haven’t heard news of the sequels in quite a while.
And if they are in the same vein as Fury Road, good riddance, I say!
Last edited by JDP; 28-Jan-2019 at 07:17 PM.
Reason: ;
And the difference is easily seen between the before and after. Like I said, the majority of the movie has been altered in one way or another by CGI. That's why it doesn't look like the original trilogy, where no CGI tampering occurred.
Fair enough regarding your thoughts on the overall look of the film. My point was more that the stunts were performed practically, for the most part.
These days all sorts of crap is given "thumbs up" by these so-called critics, so it doesn't surprise me.
True, but two of those three statistics are aggregated audience reactions rather than critics.
Speak for yourself. Others who have also seen the original trilogy have blasted Fury Road, and rightly so.
I was indeed speaking for myself at the portion where I used “personally”, but the fact that a majority of audiences, including older viewers, enjoyed the film was taken from those same aggregated audience member reviews/reactions that are available online, not my own opinion.
Last edited by bassman; 28-Jan-2019 at 10:50 PM.
Reason: .
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ "aggregated audience reactions" includes the millions of "kwel!" tweens/teens/twenteens which this movie was primarily designed for. My point exactly.
I'm a huge fan of the Mad Max trilogy. I grew up on it. I hold it higher than Star Wars, for instance. I love this new installment. Is it something else? Yeah, it's much more action packed, intense and stressful for one. There's not much in the ways of plot. But it's a perfect update.
I rewatched the original three fairly recently, in the cinema no less. I think number 3 is the weakest one. Compare it to two. Roadwarrior is rather uncompromising and violent. Several bit parts get killed during the final showdown in rather inglorious ways. Shot in the back, skull crushed or whatever. As for Thunderdome... Apart from Blaster, can you recollect any single person getting killed in that film? There's a good here and there who get's thrown off a car, but that's about it. It's very americanized.
Fury Road on the other hand is back to the rather unforgiving violence of Mad Max 1 and 2.
Mad Max 1 & 2 - Rated R.
Mad Max 3 ... PG-13.
Fury Road - Rated R.
One of these things is not like the other.
On popularity...
Even the ruddy Oscars loved it, and we all know how stuffy they are. Six Oscar wins from ten nominations. Then in terms of box office Fury Road is by far the most successful of the series (and that's with figures adjusted for inflation). The gap to second place is $71m.
And the difference is easily seen between the before and after. Like I said, the majority of the movie has been altered in one way or another by CGI. That's why it doesn't look like the original trilogy, where no CGI tampering occurred.
These days all sorts of crap is given "thumbs up" by these so-called critics, so it doesn't surprise me.
Speak for yourself. Others who have also seen the original trilogy have blasted Fury Road, and rightly so.
Not solely, but certainly primarily. That's why this film is childish and overtly exaggerated, unlike the other ones (specially the first two.) Younger audiences tend to go for this kind of over-the-top outrageous action. More mature audiences enjoy the more realistic feel of the original movies. I can easily believe a scenario like this:
It looks real, it feels real... shit, could it maybe, just maybe, be because IT IS FUCKING REAL??? Yes, yes, I think so!
But I sure as fuck CANNOT believe this pile of PURE UTTER UNREALISTIC BULLSHIT:
And if they are in the same vein as Fury Road, good riddance, I say!
So I watched those two links you put up for the videos (embeds, they're embeds!) and... Okay? The first one was more "realistic", but you know what? It's a movie. It doesn't have to be realistic to make sense, or to be entertaining, or to have a good message. Or to tell a good story! Not sure why you're so invested in limiting creative expression. If I'm going to watch a movie about vehicular manslaughter and dystopian outlaw hijinks, I'd rather the people behind it had some fun. Which they clearly did with Fury Road. (Oh, my apologies, 'Puny Road'... You actually called it that. Wow) Now of course you're entitled to your opinion, and I don't expect to change your mind, but... I'll always give the film a 9.5/10, and you can't change that, so stay mad? I'm sure you'll attribute it to just me being "young" or whatever, and maybe there's some truth to that. But I hope I retain more of my imagination than you seem to have when I reach your age, is all I can say.
After all this talk of Fury Road, I decided to revisit the film for the first time in a few years. I still thoroughly enjoyed it! It’s probably one of the greatest action films of the last ten to fifteen years, up there with the John Wick films. Miller’s frenetic shooting and editing goes a long way to ratcheting up the edge-of-your-seat tension throughout. All while generally avoiding the trends of shakey-cam. It’s easy to see why the actors were concerned during filming, but then later apologized to Miller when they saw the finished product.
I feel like this film does a great job of referencing and catching up the audience on the story of Max from the previous films. It’s reminiscent of what Romero tried to do at the beginning of Land, only it’s executed in a more satisfying way here.
After viewing I looked up the facts and trivia, something I often do with films, and was surprised to see that the film features a couple daughters of music royalty in Zoe Kravitz(Lenny Kravitz) and Riley Keough(Lisa Marie Prestley - Elvis). It means nothing to the film, just a piece of trivia I found interesting.
I love it, so count me in as a “kwel teen” in his thirties!
Last edited by bassman; 29-Jan-2019 at 03:10 PM.
Reason: .
One of the interesting things I remember Miller talking about in regards to Fury Road was how he looked at silent cinema, so the visual language of the film is actually inspired by the oldest era of cinema!
Further to that, there was an interesting mash-up of that most-heard piece of music from Fury Road and a scene from Buster Keaton's "The General".
In terms of the look of the films, the first flick is the one that looks the most odd considering they're all supposed to be "post-apocalyptic". The original film, naturally, was a low budget genre flick so there's only so much you can actually achieve (and back in the days of having to get it all 'in camera'). Miller just had to find deserted/empty/open locations in Australia - but with special effects being limited at the time (not to mention budgetary limitations), the sense of 'apocalypse' is very limited in the original movie. Sure, perhaps it's the beginning of something, but it wasn't until we got to The Road Warrior that it felt like what Miller was always going for visually (#2 is visually quite different from #1).
Naturally, with Fury Road being made a long time after the third movie, how cinema is made had moved on an awful lot - CGI being the big contributor - but also in terms of the tools of filmmaking (stunt techniques, camera rigs etc). We've already established that the stunts in Fury Road were done practical with CGI marrying different plates so you can pull off a stunt safely that would otherwise be too dangerous by breaking it down into pieces and stitching it together later. The bulk of the CGI in the movie is rendering the world around them (with, it should be noted, a lot of colour correction going on to boot, e.g. the very deep blue night scenes) and yeah, I get that it looks different, but the whole franchise looks different from one movie to the next. There's not an awful lot of consistency. The third movie feels more like a Hollywood music video when compared to the gritty Australian toughess of The Road Warrior, which in-turn looked much different from the clean roads and green pastures of the first movie. In some ways the first Mad Max feels more like A Clockwork Orange (our world but with an ultra violent criminal twist), whereas The Road Warrior is another world entirely.
Mad Max 1 & 2 - Rated R.
Mad Max 3 ... PG-13.
Fury Road - Rated R.
One of these things is not like the other.
I already said that Thunderdome was in fact the first one to try to also appeal to younger audiences. That is obvious from the movie itself. But still, totally shot the old-fashioned way, and nowhere nearly as exaggerated and outlandish as Fury Road. This movie in fact took that appeal to the younger crowds to the next level. But you can still believe the world of Thunderdome. Not so with Fury Road.
On popularity...
Even the ruddy Oscars loved it, and we all know how stuffy they are. Six Oscar wins from ten nominations. Then in terms of box office Fury Road is by far the most successful of the series (and that's with figures adjusted for inflation). The gap to second place is $71m.
That's not any "badge of honor" in this case, but in fact a tell-tale sign of how much of a sell-out Miller has become. He is catering to the Hollywood crowd, which in turn just loves to cater to the tweens/teens/twenteens. They mean big bucks to these people. So my point exactly... again!
- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by blind2d
So I watched those two links you put up for the videos (embeds, they're embeds!) and... Okay? The first one was more "realistic", but you know what? It's a movie. It doesn't have to be realistic to make sense, or to be entertaining, or to have a good message. Or to tell a good story! Not sure why you're so invested in limiting creative expression. If I'm going to watch a movie about vehicular manslaughter and dystopian outlaw hijinks, I'd rather the people behind it had some fun. Which they clearly did with Fury Road. (Oh, my apologies, 'Puny Road'... You actually called it that. Wow) Now of course you're entitled to your opinion, and I don't expect to change your mind, but... I'll always give the film a 9.5/10, and you can't change that, so stay mad? I'm sure you'll attribute it to just me being "young" or whatever, and maybe there's some truth to that. But I hope I retain more of my imagination than you seem to have when I reach your age, is all I can say.
Like I implied many times before, I wouldn't have had much of an issue with Fury Road if it was not a Mad Max film, or if it had been the first installment in the series. But it is not. There's no less than THREE previous Mad Max movies that established certain things that set it apart from the strange world of Fury Road. As such, then, Fury Road is simply unacceptable.
- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by bassman
After all this talk of Fury Road, I decided to revisit the film for the first time in a few years. I still thoroughly enjoyed it! It’s probably one of the greatest action films of the last ten to fifteen years, up there with the John Wick films. Miller’s frenetic shooting and editing goes a long way to ratcheting up the edge-of-your-seat tension throughout. All while generally avoiding the trends of shakey-cam. It’s easy to see why the actors were concerned during filming, but then later apologized to Miller when they saw the finished product.
I feel like this film does a great job of referencing and catching up the audience on the story of Max from the previous films. It’s reminiscent of what Romero tried to do at the beginning of Land, only it’s executed in a more satisfying way here.
After viewing I looked up the facts and trivia, something I often do with films, and was surprised to see that the film features a couple daughters of music royalty in Zoe Kravitz(Lenny Kravitz) and Riley Keough(Lisa Marie Prestley - Elvis). It means nothing to the film, just a piece of trivia I found interesting.
I love it, so count me in as a “kwel teen” in his thirties!
If you still don't get the point of how utterly different and disconnected from the previous Mad Max films this unrealistic travesty known as "Fury Road" is, I really can't help you. Nobody can. Consider yourself in fact what you just said: a "thirtween"
- - - Updated - - -
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
One of the interesting things I remember Miller talking about in regards to Fury Road was how he looked at silent cinema, so the visual language of the film is actually inspired by the oldest era of cinema!
Further to that, there was an interesting mash-up of that most-heard piece of music from Fury Road and a scene from Buster Keaton's "The General".
In terms of the look of the films, the first flick is the one that looks the most odd considering they're all supposed to be "post-apocalyptic". The original film, naturally, was a low budget genre flick so there's only so much you can actually achieve (and back in the days of having to get it all 'in camera'). Miller just had to find deserted/empty/open locations in Australia - but with special effects being limited at the time (not to mention budgetary limitations), the sense of 'apocalypse' is very limited in the original movie. Sure, perhaps it's the beginning of something, but it wasn't until we got to The Road Warrior that it felt like what Miller was always going for visually (#2 is visually quite different from #1).
Naturally, with Fury Road being made a long time after the third movie, how cinema is made had moved on an awful lot - CGI being the big contributor - but also in terms of the tools of filmmaking (stunt techniques, camera rigs etc). We've already established that the stunts in Fury Road were done practical with CGI marrying different plates so you can pull off a stunt safely that would otherwise be too dangerous by breaking it down into pieces and stitching it together later. The bulk of the CGI in the movie is rendering the world around them (with, it should be noted, a lot of colour correction going on to boot, e.g. the very deep blue night scenes) and yeah, I get that it looks different, but the whole franchise looks different from one movie to the next. There's not an awful lot of consistency. The third movie feels more like a Hollywood music video when compared to the gritty Australian toughess of The Road Warrior, which in-turn looked much different from the clean roads and green pastures of the first movie. In some ways the first Mad Max feels more like A Clockwork Orange (our world but with an ultra violent criminal twist), whereas The Road Warrior is another world entirely.
There is nothing in the first movie that says there's been any "apocalypse". This theme was introduced in the second movie. What we witness in the first film is a world where organized civilized society is still around, but is having a heck of a difficult time trying to control gangs who go around plundering, terrorizing the population and murdering people, including law officers (The Nightrider himself is a cop-killer on the run, for example, and who obviously has connections with Toecutter's gang.) Civilized society gradually losing it to these armies of motorized bandits. We see how this situation ends up affecting and totally changing the life of one particular cop: Max Rockatansky. This is the subject of the first film.
So, there is a perfectly good reason why the first film looks different in that sense than the other two, which are post-apocalypse. But aside from that, they are the exact same world, and the movies are all shot in the old-fashioned way, with great believable stunts and the real landscapes of Australia, thus why they look realistic and believable. Fury Road, on the other hand... looks like something straight out of a video game or comic book. This is NOT our world but some other planet or universe.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by bassman
Bookmarks