Mad Max Fury Road

Did you guys see this?

Cool except its a British Max.Oh the Horror

Cool except its a British Max.Oh the Horror

Click to expand...

Yeah...I'm a movie junkie though! I'll watch just about anything! Even Sharknado 2, LOL!

I saw it.

I'm so sick of reboots.

Basically it's going to be a CGI cartoon for 2 hours with a disappointing story line and new actors I have no vested interest in.

Mad max was an Indi film and had freedom to do whatever they wanted. now every kid knows mad max and the cars so you can't do the stuff you could do when it was fresh.

The big news is the actor that played the toe cutter in the original is in this one as a throw back.

If they really wanted a true sequel then put Gibson in it and call it done.

This is some wacky reboot from a comic that is suppose to take place somewhere in the middle of the original mad max and the road warrior.

At least it will be on cable in a couple of months and I won't have to blow 100$ taking the family to the movies to see it.

Cool except its a British Max.Oh the Horror

Click to expand...

A Brit driving an Aussie car in NAMBIA. The future really is looking bleak....

Having said that, I'll watch it, I may even begrudgingly enjoy it, but that still doesn't make it damn right!

Signed

Disgruntled Australian

P.S. Good to see the last of the V8 Interceptors again...

P.P.S. yes, I know Mel Gibson was born in the US, but we still saw him as being an Aussie (well,we did for a while, but now we refuse to take any credit for him at all....)

I guess I'm the only one who thinks it might be pretty good. Written, produced and directed by George Miller, who created, wrote and directed the original.

They have apparently been faithful to Max's "Interceptor", using a Falcon XB, as in the original. The stunts shown in the trailer look prettty good to me...no too-obvious CGI fakery that I could easily spot.

And Charlize Theron is in it...how could that be bad?

I don't think having the original director or producer means it's gonna be good.

I was pretty excited when the "Miami Vice" movie came out and they had the original producer on board. That movie sucked so bad it hurt. Didn't have anything to do with the TV show whatsoever.

Probably gonna be the same here.

Problem is that those movies and shows were cool in the setting and area they came out.

You just can't capture that again. Make it look like the original and it's outdated, adapt it to modern tastes and it's no longer like the

original.

Just try and imagine a "Bullitt" remake. Oh the horror!

It was cool because of McQueen, turtleneck sweaters, the cars and the typical 60s green tint.

A modern actor thrashing a computer animated GT 500 through an equally cgi San Francisco while some hip hop music is playing in the background would make me throw up uncontrollably.

And I just hate CGI. It's kept me from watching modern action movies since shortly after it appeared. If I wanna watch cartoons I'll stick with Tex Avery and Looney Tunes.

Ok, Kit, you might have a point with Charlize Theron though.

Lux-O, I agree with you on most points there...CGI car, bike and boat stunts/ effects are definitely the worst. If you can't find a stunt team somewhere in the world to get the actual vehicle to do the stunt "practical", then that stunt should not be depicted on film.

The 007 productions actually did a 2-wheel ski with the Mustang (several times, in fact!), spiraled a Hornet over a canal, Jumped a pig-heavy BMW bike from rooftop to to rooftop, spiraled a speedboat in the air across the bow of another boat, flipped an Aston a world record EIGHT TIMES...all without the use of CGI and with actual drivers in the vehicles!

Preposterous as many of them are, they were actually performed and that makes them "cool"...nevermind all the hidden mechanical trickery needed to pull them off. CGI is just...well, you said it; no different than a cartoon.

Fast and Furious is bad with thier cartoon/ CGI stunts, and as much as I like Jason Statham those "Transporter" movies with the Audi CGI-stunts are so stupid I can't watch the rest of the movie.

But..."Miami Vice" was terrible for basically one reason: Jamie Foxx and his enormous ego. When production started, Foxx's character "Tubbs" was second-fiddle to the "Crockett" character...just like in the TV show. However, during filming Jamie Foxx became the recipient of an Oscar for his role as Ray Charles in the film "Ray". Faster than you could say "action"...Foxx and his agents decided that since he was now THE Oscar-winning actor in the film, his role should be beefed up to appropriate proportions. never mind that a script was written, storyboards created and sets built/ acquired...Foxx demanded sweepingf changes, and the studio went along with it. Michael Mann has no power to veto it short of quitting the movie. Pages were rewritten on set every day...to disastorous results. You are right, that movie flat sucked. I blame Foxx.

I still think this could be good...I'll give it a chance. But if it stinks, I'll be the first to agree with you!

I will give it a shot..Being CGI nightmare sucks..But i can get past that if the story ends up being great.

Only one reason for CGI. Money, if the movie flops they loose a lot less money. Using real stunts on a "maybe" movie probably wasn't in the budget. It also speeds up production time. With technology CGI has gotten better but I agree with it not being the real deal.

Let's be real, it's a mad max movie in 2015 or whatever and their also releasing a video game. I have a feeling it will be the last.

If interested.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk3OEnccYsw

You guys might want to investigate the production a little more before condemning the CGI stunts. Virtually all the vehicle action and stunts are real, not cgi, except for the storm stuff. Apparently the cgi is used for background and atmospheric effects. This isn't Fast and Furious by a long shot.

Here is 140+ pages of discussion about the cars with pics (gotta join to see the pics, though, I think). Lots of wondering and speculating as it's a forum. A couple of guys on the forum worked on the movie.

http://madmaxmovies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9228

Somehow forgot to add the url earlier....musta have still been asleep.

I was just bashing cgi and remakes in general, not in relation to this production.

Regarding this movie I only said that having staff from the original flic is not a guarantee for the new movie to be any good.

CGI = The complete absence of the laws of physics. It drives me nuts. All CGI geeks should have to live in the real world for at least 1 year as a prerequisite for getting hired.

Good looking blondes wearing skimpy clothes might make this a "must-see" movie!

Good looking blondes wearing skimpy clothes might make this a "must-see" movie!

Click to expand...

Eh, I was going to say something witty, but then I realized you said 'must-see', not 'musty'.....

It's not a remake.. This was written some time ago and was to be the next installment in the series with Mel but never happened..

CGI is here to stay but is best used to compliment practical effects.. This film was shot using a large amount of practical effects. This is a trend that I'm pleased to see. JJ is doing the same with Star Wars.

Yeah, I agree with the consensus about CGI sucking as well as most reboots and sequel blow but honestly...I am still geeked to see a new Mad Max and Star Wars sequel! Hell, Id love to see another Aliens or Predator movie as well! Bring on the Star Trek sequels also! The fact is that these titles are franchises and will earn money at the box office but they should be expected to be worth the price of admission!

Save the CGI for the low budget B movies on SyFy...they are fun to watch but block buster franchise movies should be 'light years' ahead of them!

Interestingly the movie was supposed to be shot in the same area as the original, in Broken Hill. Unfortunately they had so much rain in this area before the scheduled shooting they had to relocate to a more arid area with a little less green. Lol. Once in twenty year type rains.