Snak posted:

That is insane. I can only assume they are doing a massive amount of VFX because I can't imagine how else it would take them so long. Incedentally that's a terrible sign, because Mad Max is not a franchise that should be dependent on CGI rather than practical SFX. I'm actually a big fan of CGI used properly, but wrecking actual cars is the way Mad Max should be.

Blind Sally posted:

There's some interesting stuff in there and I'm heartened by the overall positive response, considering all the delays, but holy crap those people are getting WAAAY too wound up about continuity and whether or not there are enough callbacks to the older films.

Blind Sally posted:

Firstborn posted:

Hey, the animated Highlander movie (not the weird tv show) is probably the second best Highlander movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxcsgVwmTM

Blind Sally posted:

That reminds me of this one particular scene in The Thing where Kurt Russel tosses a grenade. He didn't toss it far enough, so you actually see him jump backwards in a bit of a panic. IIRC, he mentions it during the bonus commentary on the DVD.

Neo Rasa posted:

Is there a movie earlier than Mad Max where the hero purposefully walks away from something they know is going to blow up as it explodes in the background with them walking towards the camera but they're completely calm?

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/mad-max-fury-road-lands-an-r-rating-in-todays-mpaa-ratings-bulletin/ posted:

Mad Max: Fury Road
Rated R For intense sequences of violence throughout, and for disturbing images.
Release Date: May 15, 2015

Svaha posted:

Depicting slavery does not equate to endorsing it in reality. You are criticizing feminists for things they have not yet said, and are unlikely to say imho. You are the person bringing your lovely politics into a fun action movie. Stop it.

WAMPA_STOMPA posted:

I know nothing about Mad Max but this movie looks cool and also kind of like if Borderlands was a movie.

Crackerman posted:

See also: Fallout 3/New Vegas.

Babe Magnet posted:

quote:

The games industry is in a bad place when reviewers rarely bother to mention the celebration of brutality on display in most major titles.

Capn Beeb posted:

I wonder how the 3D effects are. Kinda tempted, honestly.

Robutt posted:

And yeah I don't know anything about the production of Thunderdome but the film did strike me as quite uneven

TheJoker138 posted:

Only totally serious art house films are let into the Criterion collection, so of course the forums about them are full of that kind of people. You know, serious art house films like Godzilla, Robocop, and Chasing Amy.

fatherboxx posted:

The concept designer and a co-writer on Fury Road, Brendan McCarthy, also did a "Mad Max on water" comic back in the 80s called Freakwave. He shipped it around Hollywood so you may guess he doesn't like Kevin Costner very much. It looked like this:

morestuff posted:

It's not figurative, Furiosa quotes the same number earlier.

A GLISTENING HODOR posted:

That reminds me, it came up in conversation the other day: who was that troll critic that deliberately prevented movies from having 100% scores on rotten tomatoes?

IIRC he was busted when Toy Story 2 or 3 came out and now he's banned from the tomatometer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418459/maximized-madness-armond-white posted:

None of this mindless madness is meant to scare you as Jurassic Park did. Miller’s action-cinema ferocity is hollow. His apocalyptic circus has video-game spectacle but no cinematic power; its revved-up imagery is unconnected to an understanding of what sensation and violence have done to our souls. That was the real point of Jurassic Park as well as of Neveldine/Taylor’s unnerving pre-apocalypse satire in the Crank series, Gamer, Jonah Hex, and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. Neveldine/Taylor stepped up action cinema and stepped forward philosophically, whereas Miller applies the intellectual version of what race-car drivers call “drag.”

Danger posted:

If I'm remembering correctly, neither of those were the wives' response to Nux when they first encountered him. Max wanted to toss him out or kill him or something and they protected him, saying he was just a boy.

Baron Bifford posted:

I just watched Mad Max 1, which was filmed in the Australian countryside and thus has plenty of greenery. It's a very stark contrast to Fury Road, which was film in the Namibian desert. How could the Australian countryside have desertified so radically? Do we see a progression towards desert in the movies between?

Baron Bifford posted:

Nonsense. Mankind could relearn those old skills, especially if the decline is gradual and foreseeable.

thehomemaster posted:

Also I find it really weird that people are complaining about male gaze and 'caressing' the bodies, it didn't happen at all.

Vagabundo posted:

She gives away that she's being contrarian for the sake of attention when it becomes clear she's either being dishonest about the content of the film, or hilariously disingenuous. Is she suggesting Marie Shear's definition of "feminism" is irrelevant?

@femfreq posted:

"We are not things” is a great line, but doesn’t work when the plot and ESPECIALLY the camera treats them like things from start to finish.

@femfreq posted:

As a film Mad Max absolutely adores its gritty future. The camera caresses acts of violence in the same way it caresses the brides' bodies.

Just Offscreen posted:

Antiseeds, antiseeds...where?. See this is why I need to see it again.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The simple reason is memes.

The longer answer is that the memes reflect an extremely pervasive nerd ideology.

Nerdism places incredible emphasis on continuity, so a film that eschews this is incomprehensible. Note how, despite the film being incredibly stylized, the conversation over Fury Road is dominated by plot synopses and descriptions of the worldbuilding. Things like Max's ability to predict the future are ignored. When the ultimate objective is to catalog plot points on wookiepedia, the fact that Optimus Prime disappears between shots is a threat.

There are also elaborate fantasies of Bay as a despotic sexual harasser, which overwhelm and terrify the Tumbler subset of nerds. In this view, Bay is responsible for the theft of society and we can have a pure liberal multiculture if we simply eliminate people like him through advanced twitter shame-campaigns. Reddit MRAs call meme-repetition 'signal boosting'. In Fury Road, Immortan Joe is exactly such a Michael Bay figure: he loves big cars, explosions, and literally holds Rosie Huntington-Whiteley captive. So Fury Road provides a variant on 'Joss Whedon' liberal feminism, where we enjoy Joe's evil - but only so long as he's badly beaten up at the end. Have your cake and eat it.

This is part-and-parcel with the above. Nerds demand an immersive franchise universe (e.g. the 'MCU', the Star Wars EU, the Alien 'Quadrillogy'.) and ideological purity. Oppression cannot be presented as systemic. It must always be a moral threat from 'outside the universe'. Luke Skywalker is 'natural', and Jar Jar Binks is an artificial imposition by Lucas, the degenerate.

(The same phenomenon occurs when a superhero is recast as black, or female. The normal crass commercialism of comic films is suddenly unacceptable, suddenly perceived as an artificial imposition by 'SJWs'.)

It is immoral for Bay to depict a woman as powerless. Megan Fox's character 'dresses like a slut', but not in an 'empowering' way. Even though, in the films, this character trait stands for her misguided attempt to escape poverty by selling herself, class-ignorant nerds vacillate between slut-shaming Fox and demonizing Bay. The skimpy clothes in Fury Road are acceptable because they are imposed by Joe.

As I noted much earlier in the thread, Fury Road's narrative structure is identical to the entire 6-film Star Wars series - but condensed into a single film, scrubbed of objectionable/satirical content, and presented in chronological order so that it ends with the triumph of the liberal rebellion. The meme-elevation of George Miller to greatest living filmmaker is likewise a condensed, inverted version of the ridiculous meme-demonization of figures like George Lucas and Shyamalan.

People who literally do not know what cinematography is now write book-length fantasies about how 'lazy' JJ Abrams is, or devote entire webseries to debating whether Matthew Vaughn is racist. It's a false progressivism based around punishing celebrities' perceived sins - lust, greed, sloth, etc. - via endless twitter campaign.

No nerd has ever gotten insanely mad at (say) Wim Wenders or Jane Campion, and nobody gave a thought about Miller when he made Babe and Happy Feet. But once someone makes a film in a science fiction/superhero franchise universe... God help us all.

Pirate Jet posted:

Usually you wouldn't use a video that offers praise AND critique if you wanted to prove someone was "demonstrably poo poo."

GyverMac posted:

But is it really considered a failure when it might be his objective from the start to make a incoherent balls to the walls cgi action fest? It also sells like hot poo poo. If a director succeeds in making the movie exactly after his vision, and said movie becomes a box office hit, its a success right? How does its failure to follow certain "movie laws" negate that succeess?