Mad Max: Fury Road

[BuffaloWilder]

...you think the director, the crew and the stunt team are all intentionally misleading everyone?

I mean, that's the reason they're not filming right now - they're working on dozens of experimental 3D Camera rigs that'll allow them to shoot the film in just such a way, at speed and six inches off the ground.

[Scar]

Can't wait for a whole ton of practical stunts.

[Irish]

...you think the director, the crew and the stunt team are all intentionally misleading everyone?

Yes. I think the producers will use anything they can to promote the movie, like producers always do.

At best, they'll use CGI to clean up and add to the visuals, the way the Bourne movies have a crap ton of CGI effects in them.

At worst, there's no way they're going to do what they did in Road Warrior, with a super tanker going 50mph down a highway with guys hanging off it followed by a half dozen others on shit kicker motorcross bikes.

It's too dangerous, too expensive, and waaaaay too time consuming.

[Irish]

Can't wait for a whole ton of practical stunts.

Pop in Road Warrior right now and you can stop waiting. :lol:

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know, man. Considering the estimated budget that these two films have together, and how much of that is ostensibly going toward these practical stunts, it's not too hard to imagine Miller doing something that could very well top that sequence, in conception if not in execution.

Also - I don't know what the producer's said, if anything. It's been mainly Miller and co., who've been saying these kinds of things.

[Scar]

Pop in Road Warrior right now and you can stop waiting. :lol:

Own it on Bluray.

[Irish]

I don't know, man. Considering the estimated budget that these two films have together, and how much of that is ostensibly going toward these practical stunts, it's not too hard to imagine Miller doing something that could very well top that sequence, in conception if not in execution.

Hey man, CPU cycles are expensive. ;-)

I am entirely cynical about these kind of sequels. It's been too long. The people involved are almost always trying to shore up their legacy and cash in one more time.

Think about the sequels that have been made years or decades (!) after the original films. The Two Jakes. Godfather Part III. The Phantom Menace. Crystal Skull. None of them are any damn good.

And those pictures had the benefit of the original creators on board. Byron Kennedy has been dead for 27 years. Miller has spent most of his career making softball movies. I mean, c'mon! Lorenzo's Oil? Babe? Pig in the City? It's not like this guy is well practiced, having made a series of non stop actioners for the last two decades.

I can't see a single reason why Fury Road would vary from the norm of horrible sequels.

If they were serious about making this movie, they'd give Ringo Lam or Johnnie To 25 million dollars and kick their ass out to the Australian outback and not bother them for 3 months.

But they're not serious. They're cashing in. Which would be fine .. but when a movie producer reaches into my pocket to take the 10 bucks, I'd wish they stop claiming they were giving me a hand job too.

[BuffaloWilder]

And those pictures had the benefit of the original creators on board. Byron Kennedy has been dead for 27 years. Miller has spent most of his career making softball movies. I mean, c'mon! Lorenzo's Oil? Babe? Pig in the City? It's not like this guy is well practiced, having made a series of non stop actioners for the last two decades.

Well, that depends. If you're talking about plot or narrative, then - sure, neither of them are as harsh as the mad Max films. But, as far as pure, visceral technique and emotional or thematic veracity goes, I don't think Miller's been in any kind of slump.

I mean, look at the chase sequences in Happy Feet - people talk about those in pretty-well glowing terms, and they're as sharp and tense as anything in that first Mad Max film, I think.

I can't see a single reason why Fury Road would vary from the norm of horrible sequels.

Well, he's been working on it pretty extensively for about the last twenty years - and, this particular iteration of the screenplay since '98. Everyone who's read it says its astounding, and almost a silent movie, and so on.

But they're not serious. They're cashing in. Which would be fine .. but when a movie producer reaches into my pocket to take the 10 bucks, I'd wish they stop claiming they were giving me a hand job too.

Usually, when you're "cashing in" on a franchise, you don't put this much time or effort into keeping it resuscitated, after so many setbacks.

[Irish]

Well, that depends. If you're talking about plot or narrative, then - sure, neither of them are as harsh as the mad Max films. But, as far as pure, visceral technique and emotional or thematic veracity goes, I don't think Miller's been in any kind of slump.

C'mon really? You're overthinking it. The Mad Max movies have nothing to do with emotional or thematic veracity. Good god! Max could have been played by a wax dummy in those first two films and they would have been just as good.

I'm not saying Miller's in a slump overall. I'm saying he's lost his feel and his taste for this kind of movie.

I'm also suggesting the half the reason the first two films were any good was because of Byron Kennedy. Thunderdome, after all, was a solo project by Miller.

Usually, when you're "cashing in" on a franchise, you don't put this much time or effort into keeping it resuscitated, after so many setbacks.

If there's a smell of money about a franchise people will keep plugging away. It took to ten or twelve years and something over two dozen revisions for Freddy vesus Jason to hit the theaters.

Or do you really think stuff like Happy Feet 3D gets made because someone is bursting with creative vision?

[BuffaloWilder]

C'mon really? You're overthinking it. The Mad Max movies have nothing to do with emotional or thematic veracity.

Well, yeah - that's kind of the whole point of those movies, and Miller's style of filmmaking; they were pure, visceral spurts of emotional energy conveyed entirely through visual technique. Pure cinema, that phrase Hitchcock coined, was something Miller referred to a lot during their production. Thematically - yes, that's a strong facet as well. Maybe not the first one, which is a relatively unambitious drive-in film, but the other two are literally all about the use of myth in society, among other things.

Good god! Max could have been played by a wax dummy in those first two films and they would have been just as good.

Well, I don't know about that - but yeah, he was intended to be a cipher character, like Eastwood's Blondie.

I'm not saying Miller's in a slump overall. I'm saying he's lost his feel and his taste for this kind of movie.

Well, hey - let's wait and see.

I'm also suggesting the half the reason the first two films were any good was because of Byron Kennedy. Thunderdome, after all, was a solo project by Miller.

Well, no - it was co-directed by George Ogilvie. Also, I'm not alone in thinking it's probably the most thematically and visually ambitious (that opening shot!) out of the whole trilogy, and a very near-improvement over The Road Warrior, which is saying something.

If there's a smell of money about a franchise people will keep plugging away. It took to ten or twelve years and something over two dozen revisions for Freddy vesus Jason to hit the theaters.

Well, I think there's a difference - considering those are studio-owned characters that are passed around from one workman director to another. The Mad Max films and so on are pretty well entirely owned by Miller, who's one of the more cautious and secretive directors in the system.

Or do you really think stuff like Happy Feet 3D gets made because someone is bursting with creative vision?

The movie itself? Oh - well, I wouldn't know anything about that one. :lol:

[Irish]

Pure cinema, that phrase Hitchcock coined, was something Miller referred to a lot during their production. Thematically - yes, that's a strong facet as well. Maybe not the first one, which is a relatively unambitious drive-in film, but the other two are literally all about the use of myth in society, among other things.

Pure cinema? Yes, sure. Themes? Not so much. Unless you're talking about them consciously aping the whole hero-with-a-thousand-faces thing.

I've got a soft spot for Thunderdome, mostly because of the way Tina Turner insists on over enunciating every word of dialogue, but the movie was overwritten (it's really two films) and waaaaay overproduced.

When I talk about Kennedy, I'm talking about the producers. That's where all the money and the power and most of the bigger creative decisions are made. There's a noticeable, say, straying of the "pure cinema" between Road Warrior and Thunderdome and I suspect that's 100% attributable that Byron Kennedy was in the ground at the time 'dome was made.

Freddy Versus Jason was just an example. But if Fury Road is a big budget film with named actors, nobody is going to take any risks. No risks means no daredevil practicals. (You think they're going to strap Charlize Theron into some jalopy in the middle of the Australian desert?). Miller is a name to film fans, but he's not going to have enough pull with big money to make his own decisions (unless this movie gets a ton of foreign financing). I'd be surprised if he even has final cut on this.

The movie itself? Oh - well, I wouldn't know anything about that one.

=)

[BuffaloWilder]

Pure cinema? Yes, sure. Themes? Not so much. Unless you're talking about them consciously aping the whole hero-with-a-thousand-faces thing.

Well, that by itself really isn't a theme - but yeah, the second film is pretty implicitly concerned with not just executing that formula, but the place and use of myth and lionization. It's also the first time that Miller strikes on what becomes a pretty constant thematic and visual trope in almost all of his films, a tribe surrounded on all sides by a vast wasteland, whether that's physical or moral, and everything that's followed from that.

I've got a soft spot for Thunderdome, mostly because of the way Tina Turner insists on over enunciating every word of dialogue, but the movie was overwritten (it's really two films) and waaaaay overproduced.

Well - okay, I guess.

When I talk about Kennedy, I'm talking about the producers. That's where all the money and the power and most of the bigger creative decisions are made. There's a noticeable, say, straying of the "pure cinema" between Road Warrior and Thunderdome and I suspect that's 100% attributable that Byron Kennedy was in the ground at the time 'dome was made.

...well, except he died at the tail end of pre-production, while location scouting for the film. His creative input on the movie is pretty well-documented.

Thunderdome still has many, many moments that are part-and-parcel with The Road Warrior's Keaton-esque approach to action-filmmaking, but it's also quieter and more methodically paced, in places. Here and there, it's focused more on that societal aspect that was so implicit in those first two films, and the role of mythmaking becomes a lot more important to the surface narrative.

Freddy Versus Jason was just an example. But if Fury Road is a big budget film with named actors, nobody is going to take any risks. No risks means no daredevil practicals. (You think they're going to strap Charlize Theron into some jalopy in the middle of the Australian desert?).

You - you know they, um...they have stunt people for that, right?

Miller is a name to film fans, but he's not going to have enough pull with big money to make his own decisions (unless this movie gets a ton of foreign financing). I'd be surprised if he even has final cut on this.

Well, he's not just a big name to us nerds, he's one of Australia's film figureheads. The only film I'm aware of that Miller didn't have final cut on was Happy Feet - and, well. That's an extreme example, considering what was cut out.

[Irish]

It's also the first time that Miller strikes on what becomes a pretty constant thematic and visual trope in almost all of his films, a tribe surrounded on all sides by a vast wasteland, whether that's physical or moral, and everything that's followed from that.

I like this insight.

...well, except he died at the tail end of pre-production, while location scouting for the film. His creative input on the movie is pretty well-documented.

Again, don't believe everything you read. Kennedy died two years before Thunderdome was released. That kind of talk strikes me as the PR guys cashing in on his coffin to promote the film.

Here and there, it's focused more on that societal aspect that was so implicit in those first two films, and the role of mythmaking becomes a lot more important to the surface narrative.

Yeah, but when it does that it does it badly. All that on the nose junk about Captain Walker? Good god.

The film was better when it was about pig shit and Master Blaster's politics.

You - you know they, um...they have stunt people for that, right?

:lol: Nice one, you dirty dog. I mean it's going to be easier and -- not to make a pun -- more practical to do all that on a soundstage with a green screen. And cheaper too.

Well, he's not just a big name to us nerds, he's one of Australia's film figureheads.

Unless a chunk of the financing is coming from AU, it doesn't matter what his reputation is there. Ask John Woo, Ringo Lam, and Tsui Hark how well their massive, multi-million dollar native reputations served them when they tried to shoot with Hwood money.

[Grouchy]

And those pictures had the benefit of the original creators on board. Byron Kennedy has been dead for 27 years. Miller has spent most of his career making softball movies. I mean, c'mon! Lorenzo's Oil? Babe? Pig in the City? It's not like this guy is well practiced, having made a series of non stop actioners for the last two decades.

I was agreeing with you for the most part - thing is, I want this to be good, but I keep thinking about Crystal Skull. But this, I don't agree with. I think Pig in the City and Happy Feet have plenty of action set pieces that are worthy of the George Miller of the '80s.

[Qrazy]

Again, don't believe everything you read. Kennedy died two years before Thunderdome was released. That kind of talk strikes me as the PR guys cashing in on his coffin to promote the film.

I don't believe you.

[

Show Spoiler

See what I did there?

]

[Irish]

I was agreeing with you for the most part - thing is, I want this to be good, but I keep thinking about Crystal Skull. But this, I don't agree with. I think Pig in the City and Happy Feet have plenty of action set pieces that are worthy of the George Miller of the '80s.

Yeah. I want it to be good too .. but man, I just think it's got too many things against it. I think it's going to be Crystal Skull all over, up and down.

Pig in the City and Happy Feet are animated films shot on soundstages and inside computers. Their demands are very different from the demands of shooting practicals on location with live actors and heavy machinery.

[BuffaloWilder]

Yeah. I want it to be good too .. but man, I just think it's got too many things against it. I think it's going to be Crystal Skull all over, up and down.

Pig in the City and Happy Feet are animated films shot on soundstages and inside computers. Their demands are very different from the demands of shooting practicals on location with live actors and heavy machinery.

Actually, Pig In the City was live-action, and was probably a lot harder to film than anything in the Mad Max series, given that they were using animatronics and trained animals. But then again, I don't think this is what Grouchy's trying to get at, though.

[Irish]

But then again, I don't think this is what Grouchy's trying to get at, though.

I think you're both nuts

He's got experience but it's the wrong kind of experience. At this point hiring Miller for Fury Road is like hiring Mister Rogers to host Saturday Night Live.

[Morris Schæffer]

Nicely argued Irish and Buffalo. If anything, I wish the trailer was already here so that I could get an idea of who is more right.

To be honest, going back to Spinal's reply here:

This is George Miller action we're talking about.

And then thinking that Miller's action apex was probably wayyyy back in 1981 makes me wonder if people shouldn't be a bit more cautious. And yes, Happy Feet had some memorable action scenes (though animation is probably not quite the same as live-action which I reckon gets more physical for both star and helmer) and no I haven't seen Babe 2.

Will he still have it in him to direct truly visceral, pulse-pounding action scenes?

[Irish]

Nicely argued Irish and Buffalo. If anything, I wish the trailer was already here so that I could get an idea of who is more right.

Thanks, Morris.

Just for the record: I hope I'm wrong ... but I know I'm not. =P

[Spinal]

He's got experience but it's the wrong kind of experience.

Directing three Mad Max movies is the wrong kind of experience for directing a fourth? Okay, then.

Also, Tom Hardy is a huge upgrade over Mel Gibson. Huge.

[Irish]

Directing three Mad Max movies is the wrong kind of experience for directing a fourth? Okay, then.

He directed that stuff more than 25 years ago. He's going to be rusty at it, just like anyone would at any skill after taking so long a break. Plus, the Mad Max movies were collaborations between Miller and Kennedy. Without Byron, the series suffered.

Doing children's movies or adult dramas is an entirely different beast than doing actioners. Hire the right guy for the job, somebody who knows how to stage chases and fights because they've been doing it year in and year out for decades. I was mostly serious when I mentioned To and Lam. Those guys have action in the blood because they've been working it for so many years. Miller hasn't done shit in this genre since 1985.

Also, Tom Hardy is a huge upgrade over Mel Gibson. Huge.

I don't see it. Hardy doesn't have the charisma that Gibson had in '79 or '80.

You need that because, frankly, the Rockatansky character is so completely shallow and one dimensional.

[Spinal]

He directed that stuff more than 25 years ago. He's going to be rusty at it, just like anyone would at any skill after taking so long a break. Plus, the Mad Max movies were collaborations between Miller and Kennedy. Without Byron, the series suffered.

Doing children's movies or adult dramas is an entirely different beast than doing actioners. Hire the right guy for the job, somebody who knows how to stage chases and fights because they've been doing it year in and year out for decades. I was mostly serious when I mentioned To and Lam. Those guys have action in the blood because they've been working it for so many years. Miller hasn't done shit in this genre since 1985.

I've gotta say, I find this to be a very bizarre take. Hire a Hong Kong director to come in and do Mad Max instead of the guy who was responsible for directing the first three?

He's going to be rusty? What? So maybe they don't use the first couple of takes then.

And I do not agree that Beyond Thunderdome represents a downtick in the series.

[Spinal]

I don't see it. Hardy doesn't have the charisma that Gibson had in '79 or '80.

He has much more charisma. He's a much better actor. He is presumably not a racist lunatic.

[Irish]

I've gotta say, I find this to be a very bizarre take. Hire a Hong Kong director to come in and do Mad Max instead of the guy who was responsible for directing the first three?

Hong Kong directors, the action directors, tend to have a what-the-hell inner craziness that American directors lack. Most of the big name guys have been working the genre for a long time. They know the ins and outs, they've got a feel for what's possible, they know what's been done and what hasn't and they know how to take that to another level.

Miller has been out of the action game for far too long. Three movies a quarter of a century ago doesn't make him the best choice to helm this project.

You're just not going to get the "pure cinema" visceral thrill out of a 65 year old man who's going back to the well just one more time and doing it in the studio system.

That and the needs of the market -- this is going to be another PG13 piece -- are going to make it a mushmouthed, cynical half effort toward old glory. At best it will be akin to Return of the Jedi, a recycling of successful images and themes from previous installments. At worst it's going to be Crystal Skull, a withered, clownish production that makes you feel sorry for the stars and seethe at the producers.

He's going to be rusty? What? So maybe they don't use the first couple of takes then.

Think bigger. I'm saying he's lost the ability to make good choices on any scale: story, setups, action sequences, all of it.

Look at the industry track record again: Towne, Coppolla, Lucas, Spielberg, Raimi, Romero (!!!). They all failed when trying to return to their roots. Why would anyone think that Miller and Fury Road are going to be the exception?

He has much more charisma. He's a much better actor. He is presumably not a racist lunatic.

That's the real reason for your objection to Gibson. Not without merit, but it has nothing to do with ability or charisma.

I also suspect it's the reason why Gibson isn't involved in this project.