Reservations

[pauli77]

I'd firstly like to say that I'm obviously a big fan of the originals and respect Miller - though the only films of his I like are the Max films, and I'm sure many of you will the be the same.

Everyone seems to be getting really excited by the action elements of the film, but I haven't heard much mention of the other elements that make films interesting: story (beyond there's a chase and Max gets caught up in it and then helps this woman going from point A to point B); character - Max has apparently 18 lines of dialogue and with only a montage setup and a fairly inauspicious start to the film doesn't seem the most brilliant hero you've seen; and now from hearing the comments from people who have seen the footage, it seems that the focus is entirely on the visual and creating a sense of on screen vehicular madness.

There's nothing really wrong with that, but it seems many fans, who I really think will be disappointed, are desperate to like this film and not questioning whether, if this wasn't a Max film, they'd actually want to see this film. Certainly when I think back to those original films, I think of the V8 and the chases and so on but they wouldn't have resonated so much if they weren't genuinely good stories with interesting characters and counter points and themes.

The first film really speaks for itself: I think we could all agree that it was a dark and interesting movie. I really can't remember seeing anything like it beyond American horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The second film though had wonderful character and emotional attachment,think we all forget how important Pappagallo is to the story and has real depth and creates a real emotional counter point to Max's initially cold and uncivilised ways. Max was the middle ground, the outsider, that helped the civilised escape the uncivilised. He's almost a Clint Eastwood figure in the way he rides into town, the man with no name and no home but with great skill. I think if you don't have the emotional grounding - the first film had Max's family and the second had Pappagallo's people - it will play like a live action cartoon.

I don't write this to get flamed - or whatever the forum term is lol - I just wanted to present a different side to a film that I'm trying to judge on its merits, but can only judge, like us all, what I've seen and heard. So far, I've seen a lot of the imagery, that everyone is now raving about, before:







And of course, many things have borrowed/stolen heavily from Max (some of the above) but what made the originals mean so much to us is how unique they were, surely? And I'm not suggesting Miller is stealing or anything like that, I'm just suggesting so far it seems like the makers and us as fans are getting excited about the wrong things. I remember seeing the Terminator Savlation trailer and thinking it was going to be so great and it just wasn't, but it looked great. And that's my point really. I'm looking forward to seeing a action film with cars, but I just wanted to voice my reservations about its quality and depth based on what I've seen and heard so far, that's all.

Something can look good, but it doesn't mean it will have the emotioanl impact of a film that had images like this - not that I now think that's what they're going for:

[Mad_Diekhoff]

I can see what you mean. I don't expect it to have the depth of the first film. Many people don't appreciate it but the first film really isn't going to be out done. It was superior even to the road warrior in my opinion. I was really hoping this new film would offer up more insight into Maxs world but it seems to only ask more questions. I'm still glad to see max back however.

[Taipan]

pauli77:

Your sentiment might as well be applied to the RW, because it is also a very visual movie, with a lot of crazy action in it. But the difference is that this movie's been out for some odd 25 years.

You can't possibly expect Fury Road to reveal all character details and plot intricacies before it's released. So yeah, of course it's going to look like a crazy action packed movie without a backstory in the trailers.

[pauli77]

pauli77:

Your sentiment might as well be applied to the RW, because it is also a very visual movie, with a lot of crazy action in it. But the difference is that this movie's been out for some odd 25 years.

You can't possibly expect Fury Road to reveal all character details and plot intricacies before it's released. So yeah, of course it's going to look like a crazy action packed movie without a backstory in the trailers.

I disagree. RW had very quiet moments and was well balanced. I don't think it had crazy action either with cars going up into tornados and so on, or lots of guns. This is full on insanity, it seems.

I'm not just going off what we've seen, but I'm going off what they've said. Miller said this is just one long chase where he would see if they could reveal character on the move. The entire focus of the pre-release material is the visual and the way they've talked has all been in visual terms. Add into that, that Max's role seems a bit pathetic so far and it makes me wonder. That's all.

I'm just speculating on what I've seen and not assuming it's going to be great because I want it to be, which Ofc I do.

[Taipan]

RW action isn't crazy by today's standars but 25 years ago it was so over the top it set the standard for post-apocalyptic movies.

Again, you are comparing the RW to FR which doesn't even have a trailer yet and your assumptions are based on people's impressions of the trailer you haven't seen.
Cool down, movie studios always put out action packed teasers to keep the story in wraps until you go and watch the movie. That is not a reason however to think that FR is all action and no substance.

[pauli77]

RW action isn't crazy by today's standars but 25 years ago it was so over the top it set the standard for post-apocalyptic movies.

Again, you are comparing the RW to FR which doesn't even have a trailer yet and your assumptions are based on people's impressions of the trailer you haven't seen.
Cool down, movie studios always put out action packed teasers to keep the story in wraps until you go and watch the movie. That is not a reason however to think that FR is all action and no substance.

We'll see. I'm just trying to create an alternate viewpoint of what we're seeing and hearing. My assumptions on it being all action and no substance are also because of quotes like this from the film maker: Miller said the whole film is a "105-minute chase scene through the wasteland." And cars in tornados all sounds a bit too Michael Bay for me. Turn it up to 11, so it's one louder and so on. The posters are also very video game. So there is a few things feeding into my skepticism, but as I said I need more information and think it will deffo be a good action film.

[MWFV8]

Fury road is a nine figure budget blockbuster trying to compete in a crowded and fleeting market place.

WB has to leverage as much sensation as possible to gain exposure.

Movies are sold on spectacle now, to a very different audience that existed a quarter of a century ago. They are now developed through a industrialised process and led by a corporate mentality. Any depth given to the story and characters will only be there to try and build a franchise.

WB aren't in the business of producing art, making a statement, or satisfying a minuscule fanbase. They are interested in turning a few hundred million dollars into a few billion.

[pauli77]

Fury road is a nine figure budget blockbuster trying to compete in a crowded and fleeting market place.

WB has to leverage as much sensation as possible to gain exposure.

Movies are sold on spectacle now, to a very different audience that existed a quarter of a century ago. They are now developed through a industrialised process and led by a corporate mentality. Any depth given to the story and characters will only be there to try and build a franchise.

WB aren't in the business of producing art, making a statement, or satisfying a minuscule fanbase. They are interested in turning a few hundred million dollars into a few billion.

I don't disagree, but I think its a shame that people are so willing to accept that though; and as Taipan says: we don't really know about the character and story etc I'm just speculating that they aren't giving much thought to that. This was meant really for people to give an alternative viewpoint of what we're seeing as it all seems very one sided but I think I'm in a serious minority lol.

However, they won't turn hundreds into billions. Certainly not with this film. Man of Steel only made around 700 million I think. The last few stunt car action movies (with little depth, as you say we/they don't care about that anymore): Need For Speed cost about 70 million and made about 200 million, Death Race cost around 60 million and made around 75 million, Gone in 60 Seconds cost about 100 million and made about 200 million and Drive - one of my favourite films and it did have a lot of depth - cost 15 million and made about 70 million. To give another comparison, Dredd - which is a violent, action orientated, visual spectacle, future world film - cost about 50 million and made less than its budget.

Fury Road has a 100 million budget. I think it will double that in takings at the cinema.

[scfc68]

I'd firstly like to say that I'm obviously a big fan of the originals and respect Miller - though the only films of his I like are the Max films, and I'm sure many of you will the be the same.

Everyone seems to be getting really excited by the action elements of the film, but I haven't heard much mention of the other elements that make films interesting: story (beyond there's a chase and Max gets caught up in it and then helps this woman going from point A to point B); character - Max has apparently 18 lines of dialogue and with only a montage setup and a fairly inauspicious start to the film doesn't seem the most brilliant hero you've seen; and now from hearing the comments from people who have seen the footage, it seems that the focus is entirely on the visual and creating a sense of on screen vehicular madness.

There's nothing really wrong with that, but it seems many fans, who I really think will be disappointed, are desperate to like this film and not questioning whether, if this wasn't a Max film, they'd actually want to see this film. Certainly when I think back to those original films, I think of the V8 and the chases and so on but they wouldn't have resonated so much if they weren't genuinely good stories with interesting characters and counter points and themes.

The first film really speaks for itself: I think we could all agree that it was a dark and interesting movie. I really can't remember seeing anything like it beyond American horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The second film though had wonderful character and emotional attachment,think we all forget how important Pappagallo is to the story and has real depth and creates a real emotional counter point to Max's initially cold and uncivilised ways. Max was the middle ground, the outsider, that helped the civilised escape the uncivilised. He's almost a Clint Eastwood figure in the way he rides into town, the man with no name and no home but with great skill. I think if you don't have the emotional grounding - the first film had Max's family and the second had Pappagallo's people - it will play like a live action cartoon.

I don't write this to get flamed - or whatever the forum term is lol - I just wanted to present a different side to a film that I'm trying to judge on its merits, but can only judge, like us all, what I've seen and heard. So far, I've seen a lot of the imagery, that everyone is now raving about, before:







And of course, many things have borrowed/stolen heavily from Max (some of the above) but what made the originals mean so much to us is how unique they were, surely? And I'm not suggesting Miller is stealing or anything like that, I'm just suggesting so far it seems like the makers and us as fans are getting excited about the wrong things. I remember seeing the Terminator Savlation trailer and thinking it was going to be so great and it just wasn't, but it looked great. And that's my point really. I'm looking forward to seeing a action film with cars, but I just wanted to voice my reservations about its quality and depth based on what I've seen and heard so far, that's all.

Something can look good, but it doesn't mean it will have the emotioanl impact of a film that had images like this - not that I now think that's what they're going for:

I totally am with you on this; bigger is not always better, case in point is Thunderdome - bigger in many ways than RW but def not better!

[MWFV8]

Fury road is a nine figure budget blockbuster trying to compete in a crowded and fleeting market place.

WB has to leverage as much sensation as possible to gain exposure.

Movies are sold on spectacle now, to a very different audience that existed a quarter of a century ago. They are now developed through a industrialised process and led by a corporate mentality. Any depth given to the story and characters will only be there to try and build a franchise.

WB aren't in the business of producing art, making a statement, or satisfying a minuscule fanbase. They are interested in turning a few hundred million dollars into a few billion.

I don't disagree, but I think its a shame that people are so willing to accept that though; and as Taipan says: we don't really know about the character and story etc I'm just speculating that they aren't giving much thought to that. This was meant really for people to give an alternative viewpoint of what we're seeing as it all seems very one sided but I think I'm in a serious minority lol.

However, they won't turn hundreds into billions. Certainly not with this film. Man of Steel only made around 700 million I think. The last few stunt car action movies (with little depth, as you say we/they don't care about that anymore): Need For Speed cost about 70 million and made about 200 million, Death Race cost around 60 million and made around 75 million, Gone in 60 Seconds cost about 100 million and made about 200 million and Drive - one of my favourite films and it did have a lot of depth - cost 15 million and made about 70 million. To give another comparison, Dredd - which is a violent, action orientated, visual spectacle, future world film - cost about 50 million and made less than its budget.

Fury Road has a 100 million budget. I think it will double that in takings at the cinema.

I don't think that many people are willing to accept it, and I don't think you are in a minority. Cinema is in a very sad state right now. Audiences are sick of remakes, overly leveraged franchises, and shallow sensation orientated story lines. But it's the only way the big studios can secure healthy returns. But even this model is starting to flounder. It's all looking very bleak and nobody knows what the answer is.

It will be very interesting to see how The Rover performs. It's had virtually zero response here.

Fury Road has massive global box office appeal in my opinion. Maybe in the ten figure range, maybe not.

I'm not happy about any of it personally. I feel mostly the same as you. I find it a shame. I feel like an outcast on here to suggest that maybe two headed lizards, robotic arms, and exploding lightning tornados, aren't what Mad Max is about.