|
Considering the fact that the wives, Furiosa, and Max managed to sway a fanatic war boy like Nux to their side, it's feasible to think that Furiosa could convince war boys who are already loyal to her to help with the plan. Anyone who didn't take her side would then be a necessary kill. I don't think we get enough details of the plan to leap to the conclusion that it involved coldblooded murder.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:That guy was hired to write a comic book about a movie he didn't understand. Helluva life that must be. He literally used one of the arguments MRAs used about how ungrateful the wives are. WoodrowSkillson posted:its almost like comic books are a bankrupt medium perpetuated by immature manchildren 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I meant open door as in the "inescapable prison" in which she is "utterly trapped" in fact has an exit, not as in actually a door (though, I guess it is literally also that, come to think of it). You then kindly revealed it; even describing the shadow play that the opening in the prison provides! The hole does not deny us the view of the woman, the hole provides us it. And two feet in width, you say? As a man, I am two feet from shoulder to shoulder, roughly. Large enough to fit me through then, through your own admission. Louis C.K. had this brilliant line about some lovely movie he was watching with the writer/director/star. The guy was trying to argue the effectiveness of a murder scene by saying that the violence is implied and Louis just goes "but you're not implying violence, you're showing that it definitely didn't happen." That's basically what that Transformers scene looks like to me - it's implied that she's imprisoned but we're shown that she's definitely not. It's ridiculously ineffective visual storytelling which is actually kind of rare seeing as Bay is one of the few directors who actually applies what he learned in film school to his craft. EDIT: Here's the Louis clip https://youtu.be/X_i9WUHK_gA?t=1369 VVV I haven't seen any of it aside from the clip in this thread Regulus74 fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Okay so what is the interpretation supposed to be This is not how interpretation works, please don't make me defend SMG. SuperMechagodzilla posted:that I guarantee no-one in this thread has ever seen Wrong. quote:Frankly, it's extremely unlikely that Miller went through everything with his cinematographer and meticulously removed the breasts in each shot. When was the last time you saw a hospital deathbed scene with a ton of cheesecake everywhere? Miller is simply a good filmmaker who's doing a good job of presenting a dramatic scene. I actually agree with this and I think that the lack of objectification is just as likely a product of Miller's fundamental lack of male gaze - i.e. the idea of doing something like positioning an actress so that her cleavage is prominent in a shot genuinely never occurs to him at all - as it is deliberate blocking choices to get tits off the screen. Never once in his interviews has he come across as someone concerned with identity politics and afaik the only consulting Ensler did was to give the wives insight into the lives of sex slaves. People declare the film feminist because - like every other piece of Miller's work I've seen - humanism is one of its central themes and the binary nature of pop politics means that humanism is on the same side as feminism so they might as well be the same thing even though that isn't true in practice. Also, since part of your gimmick is to be pedantic, you realize that there are several words that describe what you're talking about better than "thinkpiece" that have the added benefit of making you not sound like an illiterate child, right? VVV Fair point Regulus74 fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
By choosing to become a blood bag Max saves Furiosa's life and reclaims his humanity. He says his own name for the first time in the film right after he sets up the transfusion to reject the idea of dehumanization.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 20:31
|
|
about the blood transfusion scene
|
Just want to point out that I looked for a bunch of little details the last time I saw the movie and Splendid's uninjured left foot is definitely the one that slips. I agree that Max blames himself for it but she doesn't slip because of the blood.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
I know I saw her right foot dangling off the rig and it makes sense that it slipped off of something curved like a fender. And now all I want to do is see this in theaters for a third time but it's not showing anywhere near me. Goddamn it I love this movie. Regulus74 fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
A lot of people cannot seem to come to terms with the fact that GoT is plot driven while ASoIaF is character driven. I've still yet to see a negative review of MMFR that isn't just a long winded way of saying "I do not understand visual storytelling." Even when the movie isn't to a person's taste the reaction is more like "meh it was alright."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Bruceski posted:Is there a way to genuinely ask "what's the difference" that results in a couple of sentences of explanation and not a three-page argument? If so, assume I asked it that way. A plot-driven narrative is written around rigid plot points. Even if it seems illogical or nonsensical or inconsistent for the characters to get to the plot points they'll do it because the setpieces take precedence over everything else in telling the story. A character driven narrative is written around well defined characters and their actions. If there are specific plot points the writers want to reach but it's not feasible to do so without compromising the character, they will alter or drop the plot points because the characters are the story. It's much easier to make this distinction if something is badly written (GoT) or slavishly devoted to one type of narrative (ASoIaF is only character driven). MMFR isn't as easy to describe as one or the other because it's so well made. I'd say it leans more toward being plot driven since it relies on setpieces but it uses those setpieces brilliantly to depict character arcs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 23:41
|
|