Mad Max Fury Road (summer 2015)

T.J. wrote: Ok, not sure why I am taking your bait on this, but if you really want to continue this: If you are correct and one can only learn by experiencing something, then the only way you could know that meth is soul destroying is if you used it and it destroyed your soul. I'm guessing that you are not a current or former meth-head, but yet you understand that it is a bad drug, thus you were able to learn that without using the drug. That's not too hard is it? Now, using the same line of thinking, I can deduce that this movie is not one that I would enjoy and I can know that without having to see it first. Both of these are educated decisions. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think that it is not ok for me to not like it.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd have multiple posts in a thread about a movie you're not interested in.

When you look at the original Mad Max and consider the technology of the times, it's amazing that the chase scenes etc came out as good as they did. It's pretty obvious where Miller/Kennedy had to cut some corners due to budget concerns but it still stands up pretty well. Obviously there's legions of fans (myself included) who really like the flick both in spite of and for its flaws.

Speaking of chase scenes of the era, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FAGgg6Rmrw This will take you to Parts 2 and 3, both worth watching not only for the cool old iron of the time (1974) but for how much was done with so little. Like MM, the budget was tight and some parts were shot in real traffic. Trivia: in Part 3, right at the start you'll see Datsun's original US headquarters, then starting at about :45 you'll see a Mazda dealership, complete with huge rotors. More trivia: the blue van destroyed in the first Mad Max was a Mazda Bongo and was George Miller's personal vehicle. I wonder how he explained that...

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

Have you seen the new camaro thread? I didn't know we were only supposed to comment in threads where we agree with the majority. I'll stay out of this thread in the future.

Curmudgeon wrote: Speaking of chase scenes of the era, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FAGgg6Rmrw This will take you to Parts 2 and 3, both worth watching not only for the cool old iron of the time (1974) but for how much was done with so little. Like MM, the budget was tight and some parts were shot in real traffic. Trivia: in Part 3, right at the start you'll see Datsun's original US headquarters, then starting at about :45 you'll see a Mazda dealership, complete with huge rotors.

slightly off topic but the fat biker on the chopper that flips off the cops at the end of part 2 is my best friends grandfather, he was a bounty hunter and he went by "tiny"

<img src="" />

T.J. wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: Have you seen the new camaro thread? I didn't know we were only supposed to comment in threads where we agree with the majority. I'll stay out of this thread in the future.

Don't play the victim. You are free to post whenever and wherever you want, I'm just saying I don't understand why you would even click on this thread if the subject doesn't interest you.

In reply to edizzle89:

Small world. My family's claim to fame: in 'Sugarland Express' there's a shot looking backwards from the car that Goldie Hawn is riding in, if you watch carefully you'll see a Pinto go through an intersection. It was driven by my oldest brother. He used to invite girls to the movies to see 'his shot'.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

T.J. wrote: In reply to Tom_Spangler: Have you seen the new camaro thread? I didn't know we were only supposed to comment in threads where we agree with the majority. I'll stay out of this thread in the future.

Don't play the victim. You are free to post whenever and wherever you want, I'm just saying I don't understand why you would even click on this thread if the subject doesn't interest you.

Well there's only one solution here:

But does that mean Margie is Aunty Entity? TWO MEN ENTER, ONE PATIO LEAVES!

slefain wrote: But does that mean Margie is Aunty Entity? TWO MEN ENTER, ONE PATIO LEAVES!

Off to build my own patio real quickly now

HiTempguy wrote:

ddavidv wrote: But when you give it the title of Mad Max there is a certain level of - something - you come to expect. It doesn't sound like this film delivers that.

Having recently watched the original Mad Max AGAIN, I realized how truly awful the original is. The plot is paper thin, the action is non-existent, half the movie is literally a camera strapped to a vehicle moving fast down boring, flat two lane blacktop. There is no suspense, if anything you are lost and confused trying to figure out what exactly the berkeley is going on the whole movie. Its so childish, which I get the movie came out in 1979, but there are TONS of 70's and 80's films that are great. Seriously, Mad Max was a b-movie AT BEST back THEN, it wouldn't come out in theatres nowadays even if done to modern standards but with the original dialogue and directing. I've never watched the 2nd or 3rd, but I have them now and will this week. In comparison, Fury Road was god damn amazing. Sure, the plot was straightforward, but it was super well-defined. Them going back to the SPOILER was a nice twist, I (suspending my disbelief and being in the moment of the movie) always assumed they wouldn't. No, it wasn't a dramatic DUN DUN DUN moment, but it was exactly what the movie called for. The characters impressed their "personas" on you, so you didn't even need to know what their names were; they were defined by their roles. Compared to 90% of the superhero movies that come out, and the garbage that is the Transformer series, this movie is excellent. Hell, it's better than 50% of "serious" dramas that come out. And whoever the hell played Max knocked it out of the berkeleying ballpark. Also, the directing was superb. Nothing was forced, everything was done JUST right.

sesto elemento wrote: Charlize Theron

I guess if you like 12 year old boys I mean, yes she is beautiful, but her beauty comes from her power of character (both on and off screen). She's pretty normal otherwise, just a regular skinny chick IMO.

Yup! Still the GRM forum, where if someone mentions that a woman who isn't jiggly or doesn't have big ol cans (I like big ol cans, and small cans, and most cans for that matter) that person gets likened to a pedophile! Or, someone will mention how she needs a sammich (notice my cutesy intentional misspelling of the word sandwich to make my judging of a woman's body somehow less awful)

Joey

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

slefain wrote: But does that mean Margie is Aunty Entity? TWO MEN ENTER, ONE PATIO LEAVES!

Off to build my own patio real quickly now

You, sir are a braver man than I.

What in Sam Hill are you people doing in here? Go eat dinner or something.

Margie

T.J. wrote: Ok, not sure why I am taking your bait on this, but if you really want to continue this: If you are correct and one can only learn by experiencing something, then the only way you could know that meth is soul destroying is if you used it and it destroyed your soul. I'm guessing that you are not a current or former meth-head, but yet you understand that it is a bad drug, thus you were able to learn that without using the drug. That's not too hard is it? Now, using the same line of thinking, I can deduce that this movie is not one that I would enjoy and I can know that without having to see it first. Both of these are educated decisions. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think that it is not ok for me to not like it.

Hey TJ, I learned through my EXPERIENCE as a cop for 16 years that most illicit drugs have bad effects upon human beings. That experience did not include use, but did include watching and listening to users.

I also learned from watching the rapid slide into misery and then death of a friend and neighbor to avoid illicit drug use. This was another experience.

Your turn.

Ya know, I said something about Charlize Theron not being all that great looking. The more I think about it, that's because I have gone by the roles she plays: the aforementioned Aileen Wuornos:

She put on something like 35 pounds for that role. In that, she's like DeNiro putting on something like 50 for 'Raging Bull'.

Then there was the super severe chick in 'Prometheus':

and now 'Fury Road'.

All are roles not designed to play up her looks but rather her acting chops, of which she has PLENTY. Well, Prometheus wasn't really her shining moment but I lay that at the scriptwriter and director's feet; she did the best she could with it. I liked her in 'Hancock', not so much in the remake of 'The Italian Job', but that wasn't really her fault; that movie sucked compared to the original.

And she ain't ugly by any stretch, either. I have nothing against small knockers except on occasion my cheeks.

Curmudgeon wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FAGgg6Rmrw

This was better than anything in the 1st Mad Max. It was entertaining.

I was born in the 80's, and by that time cinema had gotten a lot more "fast paced" in action. I understand the limitations and what not, and no, I don't like 3 second camera shots, it drives me bonkers.

I'm simply saying that in no point in time in my life has two lanes of blacktop "mildly" passing by entertained me for a minute straight. Its not engaging. I like to consider myself a pretty artistic person sometimes, but I also don't see any art to it. I do appreciate the technical aspect, but the way they did things was born out of necessity due to lack of money rather than being truly "innovative".

At the end of the day, we're having a commentary on the movie. I think the first was awful. The 2nd was great though!

joey48442 wrote: Yup! Still the GRM forum, where if someone mentions that a woman who isn't jiggly or doesn't have big ol cans (I like big ol cans, and small cans, and most cans for that matter) that person gets likened to a pedophile! Or, someone will mention how she needs a sammich (notice my cutesy intentional misspelling of the word sandwich to make my judging of a woman's body somehow less awful)

Lolwut? It was a joke man, cool your jets. Pretty sure I mentioned she is pretty, in that "average nice looking woman" kind of way. I find "that way" very attractive.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: What in Sam Hill are you people doing in here? Go eat dinner or something. Margie

Hmm... Sam Hill is Australian...

Not sure what that has to do with this thread or Fury Road...

HiTempguy wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FAGgg6Rmrw

This was better than anything in the 1st Mad Max. It was entertaining. I was born in the 80's, and by that time cinema had gotten a lot more "fast paced" in action. I understand the limitations and what not, and no, I don't like 3 second camera shots, it drives me bonkers. I'm simply saying that in no point in time in my life has two lanes of blacktop "mildly" passing by entertained me for a minute straight. Its not engaging. I like to consider myself a pretty artistic person sometimes, but I also don't see any art to it. I do appreciate the technical aspect, but the way they did things was born out of necessity due to lack of money rather than being truly "innovative". At the end of the day, we're having a commentary on the movie. I think the first was awful. The 2nd was great though!

joey48442 wrote: Yup! Still the GRM forum, where if someone mentions that a woman who isn't jiggly or doesn't have big ol cans (I like big ol cans, and small cans, and most cans for that matter) that person gets likened to a pedophile! Or, someone will mention how she needs a sammich (notice my cutesy intentional misspelling of the word sandwich to make my judging of a woman's body somehow less awful)

Lolwut? It was a joke man, cool your jets. Pretty sure I mentioned she is pretty, in that "average nice looking woman" kind of way. I find "that way" very attractive.

The 'necessity' was born of not having GoPros and massive CGI readily available and in the filmmaker's defense (again) they did the best they could with what they had. I for one loved the 'hauling ass on a 2 lane' scenes; it was there to set up something good, such as Goose's ensuing crash and subsequent capture by the bad guys. (As a matter of fact, you want to see great timing by an actor? Check out the scene immediately after where the guy flings a brake rotor through the windshield of Goose's borrowed truck.)

Also, check out the original 'ALIEN' sometime; it was made at about the same time (released in 1979), that wasn't CGI and if you look carefully at the 'bridge of the ship' scenes, you'll see why: computers of the era were barely able to do wireframe modeling. It still holds up well today, particularly the 'chest burster' scene; that was done with butchers' leavings! By the way, the shock is real in that scene, the actors were not expecting the spray they got. The director purposely kept them in the dark about that part. http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1095 You don't see that kind of thing any more, it's all CGId and to me has lost a lot.

I am hoping the Mad Max will create a trend back to practical effect though. I am sure they use a lot of CGI, but a good number of the stunts were actual apparently (still haven't seen it). There is something just so much more appealing to a real stunt. Most of the CGI stunts are so over the top and unbelievable (because they can), it just takes the tension out of the scene. E.g. the run down the bus falling off the cliff then jump and grab the spoiler of the sliding car scene in FF7.

I watched a Fury Road trailer on io9 a little while back, Theron's left forearm was covered with a green glove to allow CGI'ing that prosthetic later on. This will lead you there: http://io9.com/tag/mad-max-fury-road and when you find the 'B roll', you'll be surprised how few 'green screens' are in that. You also don't see the 'motion capture' suits common with CGI. I applaud this; it's about time we got our fantasies performed by real people again, not this computer generated crap.

Curmudgeon, I'm glad you've come to your senses. 12 y/o boy? Come on

sesto elemento wrote:

I'm having very very bad thoughts right now. Bad Adrian, Bad bad Adrian

Saw the movie last night with a friend. I loved it, he hated it.I wish I had brought my 12 year old son. Sort of glad I didn't bring my 8 year old son.

I have a question about a few things. What was the chrome paint stuff the "white" guys were spraying on their lips? The rig that Max was in was a diesel, right? It seemed the bad guy that turned out to be a good guy was spitting gasoline into the butterflies on the blower looking thing. Probably not good for a diesel, right?

B roll on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hatTUJT0Kxg

In reply to Mazdax605:

They are members of a "car-go" cult. Apparently they have reverted to the 1950s in automotive ideals and think that a shiny chrome grille is the ultimate in earthly achievements. Therefore, it is not only honorable to die in battle on the road, but it is true devotion to go out styled like a car. At their moment of hari-car-i they adorn themselves with the shiny grill they hope to earn in V8lhalla.

As to what they were spitting into the intakes, they kept referring to how many gallons of nitro-methane they had, so I guess it was the filmmakers version of methanol injection.

Sorry. I was excitable. A family member was being a douche and you got the brunt of my frustration.

Joey

HiTempguy wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FAGgg6Rmrw

This was better than anything in the 1st Mad Max. It was entertaining. I was born in the 80's, and by that time cinema had gotten a lot more "fast paced" in action. I understand the limitations and what not, and no, I don't like 3 second camera shots, it drives me bonkers. I'm simply saying that in no point in time in my life has two lanes of blacktop "mildly" passing by entertained me for a minute straight. Its not engaging. I like to consider myself a pretty artistic person sometimes, but I also don't see any art to it. I do appreciate the technical aspect, but the way they did things was born out of necessity due to lack of money rather than being truly "innovative". At the end of the day, we're having a commentary on the movie. I think the first was awful. The 2nd was great though!

joey48442 wrote: Yup! Still the GRM forum, where if someone mentions that a woman who isn't jiggly or doesn't have big ol cans (I like big ol cans, and small cans, and most cans for that matter) that person gets likened to a pedophile! Or, someone will mention how she needs a sammich (notice my cutesy intentional misspelling of the word sandwich to make my judging of a woman's body somehow less awful)

Lolwut? It was a joke man, cool your jets. Pretty sure I mentioned she is pretty, in that "average nice looking woman" kind of way. I find "that way" very attractive.

In reply to travellering:

Not only that, notice the finger crossing thing they keep doing? Symbolizes a V8 engine.