|
Shoren posted:That said, Fury Road really blows the original movies out of the water. I never saw the original growing up despite my older brother watching them over and over when we were young. I finally watched Mad Max and Road Warrior and I was wholly unimpressed, I think it was from a lack of nostalgia and misplaced expectations. Hearing others talk about the movies I was exciting Max to be a total badass, one-man army kind of guy, but he always ended up crashing his car and getting the poo poo kicked out of him. I assume the intro to Fury Road is a callback to that because Max was a much better fighter in this one. Aside from setting the bar for post-apocalyptic settings I felt the originals were far too campy and disjointed. The quality of the first and third movies is certainly debatable but The Road Warrior is a classic. Think of it as a classic western in a different setting - a mysterious lone rider drifting around, a remote homestead/outpost being attacked by bandits/Indians, and a desperate stage coach chase to capture the (black) gold at the end. I re-watched it before my last viewing of Fury Road and I can't decide which one I like more.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
Shoren posted:I am entirely behind the times, but I finally saw this last weekend and I loved it. Like the original trilogy, the visuals are by far the strongest part of the movie and are a fantastic example of storytelling by showing. Overall it was a really fun movie that doesn't have many down moments that break the pace like a lot of action movies. By far my favorite part was when Max walks back from the fog after taking out the Bullet Farmer, covered in blood, and one of the wives asks "Are you bleeding?" Can't say enough about how good the cinematography was in this movie. Like you said, they set the bar. When the Road Warrior came out, there just wasn't any movie like Road Warrior. The setting was unique, the stunts were amazing, and I'm always a sucker for Yojimbo-style protagonists who scrape by and succeed through wits and luck as opposed to punching the hardest. It's like how you watch Citizen Kane nowadays and people go "So what, it's just kind of a boring movie", not realizing that it's just a boring movie because literally every film that came out after it was trying to ape it. It's boring because it set the mold in a lot of ways. Road Warrior was the most profitable movie in the world for decades, because it did so much with so little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Am I looking at the old movies the wrong way? What about them makes them classics in your eyes? I like Road Warrior best (Even more than Fury Road, actually) for two reasons. The first is how real everything looks (Aside from a couple day-for-nights and speeding up the footage to make it look faster), not only in the sense of how it was filmed and just about everything being physically there, but in how everything just looks like poo poo that got taken with or stolen during the last few days before leaving for the desert or haphazardly welded together afterwards. I also preferred the more muted colors in Road Warrior over Fury Road. I felt distracted by them, which is a weird thing to say because I'm usually a fan of saturation. The second is how unceremoniously it treats all the characters. Basically everybody aside from a couple of the slower bandits, the people who get away on the bus, the pilot, and Max dies but there's not a lot of focus on it or care about it, and the times that another character did care (Like with the body of that one woman with the '80s hair and football armor), those characters get killed just as quickly for losing focus on their task. I contrast that with Fury Road where we've got slow motion going on when characters die and it just kinda feels overwrought to me. Despite those criticisms, Fury Road was pretty good and enjoyable, it's just not my favorite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Does Mad Max have a lot more speaking lines in the old Mad Max movies? Or was he still five lines and a bunch of dirty looks?Shima Honnou posted:The actual explanation for 160 days is it's a movie and doesn't need to be scientifically or factually accurate, really. When everything else is lauded for being backstoried to oblivion and having an air of realism, is it wrong to ask what they meant? I don't think any normal person asking about that comment is trying to point out a flaw, but are simply wondering how it would work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Does Mad Max have a lot more speaking lines in the old Mad Max movies? Or was he still five lines and a bunch of dirty looks? He has like nine lines in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, and two of them are "I'm just here for the guzzaline."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:From what I understand, Australia was more or less "spared" most of the nuclear war in Mad Max, so I wonder what kind of hellscape America or Europe looks like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mg7qKstnPk
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
I would watch a Terminator movie where the savior of humanity was Lord Humongous. e: The terminator and resistance fighter get sent back in time, can't tell if they went anywhere or not. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:It's like how you watch Citizen Kane nowadays and people go "So what, it's just kind of a boring movie" Anybody who would do this has terrible taste.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I would watch a Terminator movie where the savior of humanity was Lord Humongous. Until he turned out to be evil all along like John Connor . No, I totally don't have a hate-boner for Genisys,why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
VolticSurge posted:Until he turned out to be evil all along like John Connor . No, I totally don't have a hate-boner for Genisys,why? Haha you saw Genisys. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:The actual explanation for 160 days is it's a movie and doesn't need to be scientifically or factually accurate, really. That's fine but it could at least be internally accurate. The thing is that it's such an awesome and engrossing move, but this one line is like "wait, what? How?" Granted, I moved on from it fairly quickly, but I'm still left wondering what their plan was for water on day three.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Drifter posted:When everything else is lauded for being backstoried to oblivion and having an air of realism, is it wrong to ask what they meant? I don't think any normal person asking about that comment is trying to point out a flaw, but are simply wondering how it would work. Okay, that's fine, but I don't actually think any 'normal person' would ask such an inane question. The line is "we can maybe ride for 160 days." It's you goons who are making the stupid leap that "THAT MEANS THEY'RE JUST GOING TO RIDE FOR 160 DAYS STRAIGHT AND DO NOTHING ELSE BUT RIDE." This conclusion makes absolutely no loving sense. They have enough supplies for 160 days of travel. That is the entire meaning of that line. They can travel for 160 days which, as so many people have already noted, is more than enough time to stumble across at least one other pocket of civilization. Or more than enough time to travel to the edge of the continental shelf to skirt any other Aussie apocalypse gangs until they make their way out of Australia. There are so many possibilities for what they can do with 160 days' worth of supplies and the means to travel that not being able to come up with a single hypothetical as to what they will do is a sign of laziness on the viewer's part, not poor writing. I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong to ask that question, I'm saying it reeks of someone whining until someone else does their thinking for them, which is like the exact opposite of what Fury Road does narratively. It's such a  nitpick that I can't understand it. Compared to the film's actual errors - I think there are at least two totally impossible sequences in the buzzard fight scene alone - which all seem to be because of the film's editing, a line about Furiosa coming up with another half-baked, impulsive, shoot first aim later style plan is a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Regulus74 posted:Okay, that's fine, but I don't actually think any 'normal person' would ask such an inane question. You cannot use the emoticon to describe other people after having written a post like this. You are forbidden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Regulus74 posted:Okay, that's fine, but I don't actually think any 'normal person' would ask such an inane question. Okay, but if they're relying on stumbling across other cities or whatever, why would they have that 160 days limiter? Does Furiosa's favorite tv show come on and she's going to be binge watching it to the exclusion of wanting to travel? What happens after 160 days? And you don't have 160 days of supplies with a group of motorcycles. In a desert. Like, nothing you've ranted on about there makes any sort of sense. You sound like a six year old yelling at me about why Hal Jordan is a better green lantern than Guy Gardner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Yeah, there's no way they have 160 days worth of food and more importantly, water on those motorcycles.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Haha you saw Genisys. All I heard about that film was one ad that played over my Pandora station while I was driving. I knew then and there from the sound of it that that movie was gonna suck poo poo. Armyman25 posted:Yeah, there's no way they have 160 days worth of food and more importantly, water on those motorcycles. That's what all the bullets were for. They have enough to rob anyone they come across for their food and water. At least, that's how it's working in my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Okay, but if they're relying on stumbling across other cities or whatever, why would they have that 160 days limiter? Does Furiosa's favorite tv show come on and she's going to be binge watching it to the exclusion of wanting to travel? What happens after 160 days? And you don't have 160 days of supplies with a group of motorcycles. In a desert. The line works just as well if it's just 160 days' worth of gas: Efexeye posted:50 miles to the gallon, say, though it'd probably be minmaxed a lot higher If you don't like that explanation, you could use the one from the post above this one or, I don't know, maybe trust that hyper-competent people like Furiosa and the Vuvalini have a better sense of how long they can last in a post apocalyptic wasteland than we do. It's vague enough that you can come up with multiple justifications for it. The point of that line and of that whole scene is that it's a catalyst for the major turning point in Max's arc and if you're so that you can't get past the literal meaning of her words and the logistics of a plan from a character who has already been shown to forgo detailed logistical planning in favor of immediate action there's no sense in explaining what that scene and the next do from a narrative standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Haha you saw Genisys. No,I saw one of the trailers,the one that spoils the "twist".
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
VolticSurge posted:No,I saw one of the trailers,the one that spoils the "twist". I only saw the first trailer. What was the twist of the movie, with context?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I only saw the first trailer. What was the twist of the movie, with context? That John Connor is some kinda Nanomachines (son) based Terminator and was evil all along. Basically,the Arnie T-101 shoots him and he just gets up again,Not-Linda Hamilton has badly-acted shock,then he tries to kill her,Arnie and Not-Micheal Biehn. Edit: My friend even joked "I didn't think Ultron was in this movie." Because John's Terminator form looks like a low-budget Ultron,sorta,if he was crossed with Dr.Manhattan. Edit edit: actually, here is the trailer in question. VolticSurge fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
I wouldn't say evil all along. Like most things, it was Doctor Who's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
The 160 days thing just means that their plan is to keep running as long as they can, as opposed to what they end up doing, where they turn around and actually solve their problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I wouldn't say evil all along. Eh,yeah. Still reeks of "Ron the Death Eater",which always pisses me off whenever some hack writer pulls that in any media. Glad Fury Road didn't do something like that with Nux,like my  friend thought it would when he saw it and was subsequently blown away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
VolticSurge posted:Eh,yeah. Still reeks of "Ron the Death Eater",which always pisses me off whenever some hack writer pulls that in any media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Motto posted:what It's a TV Tropes thing. Basically, "Ron the Death Eater" is where a character gets vilified to an exaggerated extent by fans and often written as if they're not only a bad guy, but have always been bad. It gets its name because Harry Potter fanfic writers were notorious (and kinda still are) for rabidly hating Ron Weasley and doing things like making him turn into a Death Eater so they have an excuse to get rid of him in their story. Genisys is just a mess of alternate timelines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's a TV Tropes thing. I see the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's a TV Tropes thing. Basically, "Ron the Death Eater" is where a character gets vilified to an exaggerated extent by fans and often written as if they're not only a bad guy, but have always been bad. It gets its name because Harry Potter fanfic writers were notorious (and kinda still are) for rabidly hating Ron Weasley and doing things like making him turn into a Death Eater so they have an excuse to get rid of him in their story. The conception that 'bad people' are bad because of some preternatural essence to be bad, and not because of their upbringing; or that all moral actions are immediately suspended by immoral actions/intents, isn't so much a trope as a pervasive belief that most people hold relative to their own subjective tastes and personal values. The latter especially, you can just pejoratively label "cynicism." Also, the closest thing in fan-fiction that's come to being "notorious" is Fifty Shades of Grey, so in the future it's probably best to err on the side of people not knowing what the gently caress "Ron the Death Eater" means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
VolticSurge posted:Still reeks of [tvtropes horseshit] It's completely unlike that in the actual movie. It's a "twist" in the sense that the T-800 being the good guy in T2 was a twist. K. Waste posted:The conception that 'bad people' are bad because of some preternatural essence to be bad, and not because of their upbringing; or that all moral actions are immediately suspended by immoral actions/intents, isn't so much a trope as a pervasive belief that most people hold relative to their own subjective tastes and personal values. The latter especially, you can just pejoratively label "cynicism." That's not what he's getting at, though I haven't read that tropes poo poo. He's talking about a work that redefines the actions of a character in a previous work as having always been oriented towards the nefarious. Like if you wrote a New New Testament and said that Jesus was a false prophet whose sermons purposefully led people to hell. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
VolticSurge posted:Edit edit: actually, here is the trailer in question. Holeyyyyyyyyy poo poo. That's literally the entire movie. Why would they do that? hahaha 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:That's not what he's getting at, though I haven't read that tropes poo poo. He's talking about a work that redefines the actions of a character in a previous work as having always been oriented towards the nefarious. Like if you wrote a New New Testament and said that Jesus was a false prophet whose sermons purposefully led people to hell. And generally it's something that usually comes about because the author has a hate boner for the character in question, so they just write them badly out-of-character and ascribes a ton of evil to them to try and make them look bad. Usually because making them surprise evil justifies abusing them in-universe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Holeyyyyyyyyy poo poo. That's literally the entire movie. Why would they do that? hahaha Obviously they're doing a callback to the Terminator 2 trailers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
The timeline of these movies doesn't make much sense anyway. I watched Mad Max and Road Warrior this weekend after seeing Fury Road, and enjoyed them, but I was struck by how normal everything was in Mad Max. Its a post-crisis landscape where gangs like Toecutter's rule the roads, but....there are still cops, gas stations, restaurants, grass? Then within Max's lifetime, say 20 years, we get to the inhuman society of Fury Road, where there are new religions and no one has any memory of the life we know? I know malnutrition, no education and everyone having cancer goes a long way, but Joe's society seems like it should be hundreds of years after the bombs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:The timeline of these movies doesn't make much sense anyway. I watched Mad Max and Road Warrior this weekend after seeing Fury Road, and enjoyed them, but I was struck by how normal everything was in Mad Max. Its a post-crisis landscape where gangs like Toecutter's rule the roads, but....there are still cops, gas stations, restaurants, grass? Then within Max's lifetime, say 20 years, we get to the inhuman society of Fury Road, where there are new religions and no one has any memory of the life we know? I know malnutrition, no education and everyone having cancer goes a long way, but Joe's society seems like it should be hundreds of years after the bombs. Joe's society was actually there already before the apocalypse, it's just that the government really doesn't care what happens in the interior of Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:The timeline of these movies doesn't make much sense anyway. I watched Mad Max and Road Warrior this weekend after seeing Fury Road, and enjoyed them, but I was struck by how normal everything was in Mad Max. Its a post-crisis landscape where gangs like Toecutter's rule the roads, but....there are still cops, gas stations, restaurants, grass? Then within Max's lifetime, say 20 years, we get to the inhuman society of Fury Road, where there are new religions and no one has any memory of the life we know? I know malnutrition, no education and everyone having cancer goes a long way, but Joe's society seems like it should be hundreds of years after the bombs. Now go watch The Road, and consider that's supposed to be 6 years (more like 8 going by the kid's appearance in the movie) on. Also, consider that maybe things got worse faster in places other than where Max was a cop. And that if this is supposed to be 40 years on, that's plenty of time for two generations of War Boys to be raised in Immortan's cult, and that those outside the citadel aren't necessarily as divorced from the past as the War Boys. And finally, at this point, Max is a character like James Bond...when it happens doesn't matter, and continuity outside of a single film doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Yeah it makes more sense if you consider that while the coasts and cities may have held onto civilisation for a little bit longer (until total infrastructure collapse, nukes, whatever), the rural outback regions slid into leatherdaddy anarchy much earlier. The interior had been effectively abandoned for some time, Max's highway patrol outside Melbourne was the extent of modern civility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
I only saw this movie once and don't see how it was hard to understand. In fact, I think most everyone had a fleshed out motivation without horrible exposition. Miller et al. did a great job at that and pretty much everything else too. I actually cared about the action and its consequences! In contrast, perhaps I just lack the aesthetic genius but I can't follow, say, the Transformers movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Yudo posted:I only saw this movie once and don't see how it was hard to understand. In fact, I think most everyone had a fleshed out motivation without horrible exposition. Miller et al. did a great job at that and pretty much everything else too. I actually cared about the action and its consequences! Had you seen the original 3, or anything that drew its setting from them? If so, you were already halfway to getting it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Also, consider that maybe things got worse faster in places other than where Max was a cop. And that if this is supposed to be 40 years on, that's plenty of time for two generations of War Boys to be raised in Immortan's cult, and that those outside the citadel aren't necessarily as divorced from the past as the War Boys. I'd imagine the major metropolitan areas like Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne probably held out longer than places like, say, Dubbo or Alice Springs, especially if we were to accept that Mad Max is set roughly where it was filmed (in and around Melbourne).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
The gang of Russian Buzzards was pretty neat too. Sort of implies Russian soldiers got stranded in Australia one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
Shadeoses posted:The gang of Russian Buzzards was pretty neat too. Sort of implies Russian soldiers got stranded in Australia one way or another. I think they're just meant to be "foreign" in the sense that they've developed their own language in the time since the bombs dropped. In the Russian dub of the film they speak German.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 03:55
|
|