Thunderdome

Post by **rockatansky4073** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:06 pm

yeah , finally you said it "pop" the word i was looking for but you found it . It was a movie trying to fit into it's time, trying to fit it's audience, the 80's audience , music, and slapstick.

the other two movies didn't give a sh*t about their time, they just made them, they concentrated on the movie.

Post by **Uncle Entity** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 5:40 pm

NO.

I said "POP" meaning the greater sense of the word, the most in-deep one. THUNDERDOME is a movie able to communicate with masses better than its predecessors, because it speaks a multi-medial, inter-cultural CINEMATIC "language"... in terms of art, of course! THUNDERDOME is an experience, a multi-levelled experience which mix-up what people LOVE and HATE in need to perform a visual message, in need to transmit some genuine FEELINGS.

And I don't see any slapstick there anyway, just people tryin' to attack each other using the everyday objects a-la MacGyver. Don't be fool.

ROAD WARRIOR is of course a pandering movie. The action, the violence, the BI-DIMENSIONAL spaghetti-western dimension... everything is placed there to be fashionably "COOL" and "cult maniacs" appealing as well. THUNDERDOME destroyed the idols and brought back us to REALITY and its deepest meaning.

Post by **Uncle Entity** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:04 pm

slap stick https://secure.reference.com/premium/lo ... DSlapstick

( P ) Pronunciation Key (sl

p

st

k

)

n.

A boisterous form of comedy marked by chases, collisions, and crude practical jokes.

If I'm not wrong, according to this great definition taken by Dictionary.com, the MAD MAX TRILOGY is really slapstick in its own whole.

Take care

You're a slapstick fan too. Good boy. Good, good boy. Really good.

Post by **rockatansky4073** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:21 am

blah, blah, blah...

Post by **Anklecranker** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:58 am

Quote: Originally posted by rockatansky4073 on 26 January 2003

"define, these two", why UNCLE ENTITY and ANKLECRANKER ofcourse... duh.

Lets get one thing STRAIGHT.

MM2 is my personal favorite due to the concentration on Max's tenacity, endurance, and nobility. I do defend Uncle. I stand with him as a Max fan.

If you're lucky.....I stand with you as well.

Post by **Interdictor** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:13 am

Well, there you have it, Nirvancol! (if you haven't run screaming in fear from the forum) We are a divided lot, but really, don't be afraid to jump in with your impressions. Did you have a chance to see it yet? We'd really like to hear your thoughts.

Personally I think the "missing something" from BTD is Byron Kennedy's influance. You are truly missed, Byron. I wonder what films would have been made if the Kennedy half of the Kennedy/Miller equation was still with us.

Post by **Uncle Entity** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:01 am

Nirvancol?

Post by **Nitro** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 10:52 am

I believe that MM1 and MM2 capitalised mostly on the Australian car/bikie culture and that is why it was so successful.

MM3 seems to have abandoned that and gone straight for the jugular of the prized US market, getting a lame 80s pop idol to appear in what was once an Australian series of films with incredible car chases and stunts.

But Tina Turner still seems like a bizarre choice for me. What was Miller thinking? Nevertheless, probably part of the blame must go to the PC juggernaut that was creeping up then so Miller killed two birds with one stone by getting a WOMAN and BLACK to have a significant role (in the previous movies, there were no blacks and women had little screen time) (maybe except Jessie [who I think was cute btw, no wonder Max got mad])

In any case, MM3 didn't really break any new ground and was a fairly banal actioner with obvious hollywood subplots but a lot of people seem to read a lot more into it like UNCLE ENTITY but heck; I'm an Aussie and despise the Americanisation of the world so I'm am clearly biased in this respect..

Post by **Uncle Entity** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:01 pm

"In any case, MM3 didn't really break any new ground and was a fairly banal actioner with obvious hollywood subplots"

Okay now you touched the bottom. Think what you want. Really.

Just a question...

Do you think it's so Hollywood to place as tri-dimensional villain a '40 years old FEMALE BLACK SINGER STILL partially unknown at that time, PRIVATE DANCER apart? (She just achieved this, and it was still a genuine surprise, career-wise)

Do you think it's so Hollywood to FILL 2/3 of the movie with BROKEN ENGLISH as main language when your previous movie was EVEN re-dubbed because Australian wasn't easy to understand?

Do you think it's so Hollywood to mix-up action (great action) with philosophy, myth-making and poetry?

Do you REALLY think the costumes, the vehicles (the never-seen before JUNKMOBILES) the whole concept of a "post-apocalyptic brand-new town" in the desert weren't nothing NEW?

Do you really think it's so Hollywood to turn your hero from a spaghetti-western macho to an human persona?

Do you really think it's so Hollywood to mix-up humour with tragedy in such elegant way?

Post by **rockatansky4073** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 11:20 pm

i bet you luuuurved TITANIC.