Reservations

[MWFV8]

But people are entitled to voice a different opinion, just figure it's better to have a thread for it.

Indeed, there needs to be a place for objective criticism.

[boomerang]

Objective criticism is fine, but for god's sake! See the movie first.

This argument is the reason I stay far, far away from fan boards most of the time.

I'm 46 years old. This is all just nonsense to me.

As far as reservations about the film? I have few. I would like it to be R but it looks to be PG-13. That's a bit disappointing. But I trust Miller, and the trailer already made me gasp.

Will it be the best movie ever? No.

Will it be the best MM movie ever? No.

Will it be the best genre film of 2015? Maybe.

Will it be a great movie? Maybe.

Will it help me gat laid? No.

Will it stop world hunger? No.

Cachunk, cachunk, cachunk....

[biolumen]

Will it be the best MM movie ever? No.

Some at the April screening called it the second best MM movie after MM2. I'm okay with that. Expecting this to be at that level of greatness means my expectations are too high. If I end up enjoying it more than the other two, fantastic. If I end up watching it regularly on BD like I do the first two MM movie, The Matrix, District 9, etc.....terrific.

If it ends up as another Elysium.....then we might have a problem.

[scfc68]

Elysium - great parallel - loads of hype, great in the trailers and visually strong but turned out to be instantly forgettable..And coming after the masterwork of District 9 too

[MachRider]

Your last point is actually important, despite your phrasing lol. All those things were important narratively and tonally. The BoB that everyone moans about is just a cool car lol. Though there is a whole Frankenstein metaphor which I like, that's since been widened to the gangs stuff.

I'm happy to wait and see anyway. But people are entitled to voice a different opinion, just figure it's better to have a thread for it.

Yeah, i have actually started a thread here with kind of rhethoric question whether will we see any exploitation elements in Fury Road.
But that train took off long ago, even before MM2 to some extent. But it got replaced with other stuff, more pronounced gang and survivalist elements like you said and more and more "fantasy" elements. Pockaclipse in thunderdome and the whole of Bartertown is pretty much entirely ppost-apocalyptic fantasy.

Fury Road to me seems just like I would imagine a movie based on Fallout games which have amazing stories, characters and visual elements despite being fantasy-ed version of Mad Max universe. FR is like someone took Max after Thunderdome and transported him into Fallout universe. Immortan Joe, Bullet farmer all seem like Fallout characters.

[scfc68]

Hey, we should all be careful; who knows, Warner Bros execs may be reading this and it's off to Namibia/Australia again to film some more footage and add a little exposition, might only delay film until spring 2016 if we're lucky

[Mad_Diekhoff]

Think of your all time favorite movies. Make a mental list of your top 20 action/science fiction films.

How many of them rely on CGI? If you're like me, none. My favorites involved small scale models, creative filming, and relied heavily on awesome acting and story and real stunts. Hollywood managed to make BETTER movies on SMALLER budgets pre-CGI.

Alien and Aliens
Terminator
Mad Max and Road Warrior
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Star Wars IV and V
Predator
and a dozen more...

Conversely these same franchises were RUINED by CGI. Their later installments simply SUCK.

Do I have reservations about a CGI MM4 (even with promises of little CGI)? You betcha. After watching the 3 minute trailer, there is ample CGI (lizard, dust storm, landscape, much of the action/explosions, the guy flying through the air, etc.). It has plenty of CGI. And I'm betting it'll be a big fat turd, sadly.

As I've said elsewhere, I REALLY WANT to like this film. I'm totally okay with Hardy playing Max. I just think that it's a mistake to do a reboot, to introduce and destroy the BoB, to cast Hayes again as a different villain (no offense to Hayes, but it's just puzzling), and to not put it right between MM1 and MM3, which is the most interesting time frame and probably what 90% of fans would have wanted/demanded.

A long chase through the desert seems like it would get dull... we shall see.

At least twice before Miller used actors twice in the series. max Fairchild (Benno in MM and Broken Victim in RW) and Bruce Spence (Gyro and Jedediah), not an unusual thing for him. You want it between 1 and 3...why? There is no story there for Max. Max's character arc played out in those three movies so there is nothing left to tell between them except 'A day in the life of...' which would be effectively no story and no point, just more of the same. It would look like the cheap rip offs because it would have nothing new to say about Max. A tv series might work, but it would get pretty dull because car chases every week would make no sense. Just another road series like Knightrider/Fugitive/Movin' On/Highway To Heaven/The Hulk/etc. where the main character travels around helping others out. That would make no sense with regard to Max's character given the events in the movies.

If you think this movie looks outlandish, then you need to check out what Miller wanted to do back when he started Mad Max....that movie was not exactly the movie he wanted to make, just the one he could afford to make. Even though I love the first three, maybe this movie is getting closer to the film he has wanted to make all these years.

It would be interesting to see some interviews or material on what george miller originally wanted to accomplish with the first mad max. I love the first film like all get out but before I saw the first three my idea about what the character was in my mind more closely resembled fury road. I cant help but look back to that original poster where max more closely resembled bad cop from RW. I could whine that its a shame george miller doesnt remake the first one the way it was originally intended to be blah blah blah but I think fury road may actually be the purest form of the mythological max yet.

[ralfy]

Here's what I gathered so far:

Movie studios have large marketing budgets and earnings from previous movies (or lots of credit available from investors), which means they have to make more expensive movies each time, guaranteed high returns form some to cover lower earnings for others, and several each year. That's why they focus heavily on sequels, remakes, reboots, etc. Development time for the first movie of some franchises may take a longer period, but sequels, etc., must be made for the next year.

The marketing budgets are generally as high as the amount spent to make the films, which is why movies have to make around three times more than the amount spent to make them. That means they have to be marketed for an international audience, and given cultural and language barriers, dialogue and complex story lines have to be kept to a minimum. Lots of action scenes (with CGI so that they will be easier to shoot) and well-known actors are involved to make the movie marketable.

Because of movie ticket prices and the fact that several companies are engaged in the same strategy, then competition can be very tough. That's why studios hope that they can win with at least one film, even if lower earnings or losses take place for others. That's also why CGI and spectacular shots are used, as a more expensive-looking movie makes the viewer less reluctant in spending. At the same time, any products sold after (such as special or extended editions in video format) become marketable.

For ratings, the sweet spot is PG, which is why many action blockbusters that have been made recently fall in this range. (In my case, I don't mind if violent scenes are PG, as long as the themes of the story are something that adults will appreciate.)

Finally, I can't remember much about the three movies (which I saw in movie theaters) except that what attracted me about the first was the grim, brutal situation people found themselves in, and that punctuated by Max's personal tragedy. I sensed that memories of that tragedy remained in the second, which is why even though much of the movie was dominated by action scenes, what I found most memorable was the ending. As for the third, I think it might have tried to bring resolution to that tragedy.

Given that, I hope that forum members will understand my views, as I am a Mad Max fan, except that I don't focus too much on the weapons, vehicles, costumes, and even action scenes (I do appreciate them, though). What I liked about the first three was a combination of grimness in a post-apocalyptic world, the pain of loss, and the manner by which legends and even myths are created (as seen in the second and third films).

[CouplaDaisygo]

After watching the 3 minute trailer, there is ample CGI (lizard, dust storm, landscape, much of the action/explosions, the guy flying through the air, etc.).

LOL, The lizard and the dust storm are CGI. The majority of rest, including the biggest explosions, the landscape and the guy flying through the air are real and I think you will learn were filmed in camera. Some digital sky replacement was obviously done for story continuity
You can see ALL the locations on google earth. Goanikontes "moonscape" , Rossing Mountain , Henties bay flats off the M76 road etc.

I'd love to see you write a point by point description of which shots in the trailer you think are cgi rather than real filmed action.

[Artemis Flow]

The stunt where the war boy leaps off the back of the War Rig is real , CGI was used only to edit out the cables , an impressive stunt nonetheless as it was done while vehicles were moving reportly at 80 km/ph , theres plenty of photos of large crane rigs used to suspend people and cars from the Namibia shoot

3d2acc_a925795c041d460aa434df3a5cca4637.jpg (49.52 KiB) Viewed 2910 times

3d2acc_00ef16459fae41f7838e36baf808aad0.jpg (29.29 KiB) Viewed 2910 times