Mad Max: Fury Road

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, saying there is no difference between as crappy cam rip and the cinema projection is amongst the dumbest things I have ever seen. I actually feel sorry for anyone who feels that way as they are depriving themselves of so much and honestly refuse to listen to their opinion on a film as anything they say is instantly invalid.

+100
I've watched perfect quality movies on an airplane and thought they were crap because of the display format, only to watch them years later and think they weren't that bad. I don't bother with cams at all now as the crappy quality always detracts hugely from the film for me.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that people fail to realise that Max is a phantom, he's a legend whose exploits are told around camp fire. He is not flesh and blood, he can take on overwhelming odds and always come out on top, which is brilliantly showcased in the film when he disappears into the night to take out the pursuers. We don't see how it went down, just a dis-shelved Max returning with an array of weapons.

I think this is certainly the theme of films 2, 3 and 4. The Feral Kid told the story in the second, Savannah in the third and Max himself in the fourth.

.ak wrote: »

The main character in all the Mad Max movies was Australia/the dead world, it's never been about Max. This movie is just another journey on it, and it really highlights that. Furiosa is the main character imo, and I have nothing wrong about that. Why setup more character building for Max when that's already been done in the past 3 movies?

Max is the main character (and jointly with Furiosa in the new film) but yes the post apocalyptic Australia is the main character and how people adapt to it. That's what will make the back stories for the good (Max, Furiosa, Nux) and bad (Immortan Joe) characters very interesting.

nc19 wrote: »

I meant the movie looked all shiny and fancy compared to the originals. As already stated, I believe this movie suffered from a large budget.

obviously there is a visual difference but it doesn't inform my opinion.

This is a contradiction, no?

Fury Road looks all shiny and fancy compared to the originals and suffers because of it's budget BUT your opinion on a movie is not informed by the visuals. How does that work?

George Miller, and most directors, would create these movies with the intention that they would be watched on a cinema screen. Nobody is directing movies thinking "now, I want it to be just as watchable on an iphone or a downloaded cam version".

The visuals are a major component in Fury Road. The idea that there shouldn't be a difference between watching the movie in a cinema and watching an illegal cam download on your iphone is ridiculous.

Chain Smoker wrote: »

It's way more complicated than just doubling the budget. Fury Road's decent box office performance has largely came from outside the US, that's worth a lot less as the amount the studio actually gets from ticket sales is considerably higher within the US than just about anywhere else. China isn't necessarily a slam dunk either, they tend to love the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to blockbusters, that's generally largely attributed to things like Transformers being more translatable (as one would assume Mad Max also would be) but maybe they just like sh*t.

I would say on the grounds of its current box office performance alone, it doesn't warrant the risk of a sequel. However, due to the OVERWHELMINGLY positive reception from the majority of people who have seen it, the odds are quite firmly stacked in favour of Fury Road making a very healthy profit in the long term and a nice level of fan generated hype for a sequel; that really should push them to make a sequel now when it's easiest to get it in motion. I could see something like a condition that the next one has to be PG-13 though, which would suck.

...have I even said anything in this post?!


One thing I've honestly been very confused by is how a film can have such positive word of mouth praise but fail to show significant returns on that in its box office performance.

I know that a lot of people do not go to the cinema as much as before and do wait for the DVD release which will be in a couple of months I am sure. In the days of the first Mad Max, videos were rare and am too young to remember what their availability was. Ditto for Mad Max 2. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was a mid 1980s films so, going on late 1980s early 1990s memories, I'd say that the VHS tape would be available to rent in 1986 a year after and to buy in 1987/88, 2 years after. This meant one was much more likely to go to see such films in the cinema if they really liked them. Now, many can wait a couple of months to own or rent it, not to mention all the streaming services one can subscribe to. Mad Max Fury Road will make millions upon millions for sure and more people will want to own this than most of the other films this year.

Like Mad Max Fury Road, Jurassic World will probably also do well at the box office and will repeat the same trend when it comes to rental and ownership options. I am unsure if it is best to place a film in the summer or winter? I think Mad Max was placed in the best place for it. I remember with some of the Bond movies, they changed their screening to the winter after one or two were up against the likes of Batman in the summer. But Casino Royale was a summer success. This summer is full of great or potentially great movies: Mad Max, Avengers, San Andreas, Hitman: Agent 47, Terminator Genysis, etc. Some of these will be excellent (Mad Max), some may be grand but nothing special and some may be poor but ALL will get their fans out in force. The new Bond, SPECTRE, plays it safe by being in the winter and will likely do very well due to the reputation of the excellent Skyfall and avoiding the summer hits, and it is good to have something to look forward to this winter since we are not getting any Love/Hate.