http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/25/new-image-of-tom-hardy-and-charlize-theron-as-their-mad-max-characters/

From the cover of this week’s EW, and complete with a slightly disturbing joke about Charlize Theron‘s character only having one arm, here’s the hero and villainess of Mad Max: Fury Road.




Hardy is playing “Mad” Max Rockatansky, Theron is playing Imperator Furiosa. Brilliant.

George Miller explained to EW that he’s centred his film on action, and the character will come out not through what the players say, but how they behave throughout this huge, epic-length 110-minute chase sequence.

I saw some storyboards by Brendan McCarthy years ago now. They were tremendous, and carved out some very direct storytelling. If Fury Road is still what it was originally planned to be, McCarthy should definitely get a co-writer credit.

And… you do know that if this film is a hit, they’ve got something even more remarkable planned to come afterwards, right? I’m ready to start saving up so I can buy a ticket every night.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/26/more-images-from-mad-max-fury-road-reveal-nicholas-hoult-and-more/

So the ending to the second Mad Max movie is being stretched out to fill an entire 110 minute movie?

As if the chase scene in the second Matrix movie wasn't overlong and boring enough....

Which of the originals is it supposedly most similar to?
MM1 and 2 were fairly raw in places, and 3 was more toned-down.
I'm guessing Thunderdome, by the pictures.

Still, I'll be looking out for this one.

Yet another sign of Hollywood's creative bankruptcy.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

PASS.

OH FFS!

Another good movie for Hollywood to crap all over!

Man, you guys are a cheery bunch today.

I'm looking forward to it.

Um... Charlize Theron!



<--- zero feths given on plot.

 whembly wrote:
Um... Charlize Theron!



<--- zero feths given on plot.

With a robot arm!

 whembly wrote:
Um... Charlize Theron!



<--- zero feths given on plot.

You're the reason we keep getting Bayformers movies.

Think I read a book

 pretre wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... Charlize Theron!



<--- zero feths given on plot.

With a robot arm!

Even with every appendage if she looked like this:

On the positive nothing forces me to see this, and I won't. Mad Max was an uncorruptible classic. Even with Tom Hardy I see no need to waste my money on it.

I wait for it to hit the $5 bin in Walmart

 pretre wrote:
Man, you guys are a cheery bunch today.

I'm looking forward to it.

I don't get the hate for this AT ALL. Not even a little. George Miller is involved, Hardy looks great, and it looks and sounds like tons of road action, unlike that snore-fest Thunderdome.

You cats are willing to gobble up a complete Spidey reboot a few years after the last iteration, but balk at some new actors for a new Mad Max film? It's been almost 30 years since the last one in the series. I think it's okay that Hollywood wants to do something new with that character.

 Frazzled wrote:
On the positive nothing forces me to see this, and I won't. Mad Max was an uncorruptible classic. Even with Tom Hardy I see no need to waste my money on it.

You realize that this film isn't a remake of the original Mad Max, right? It's a new story, just with new actors.

Might have change the names though and give it a spin off in Mad Max world

You realize that this film isn't a remake of the original Mad Max, right? It's a new story, just with new actors.

Playing the same character. Thats a remake.

 Frazzled wrote:

You realize that this film isn't a remake of the original Mad Max, right? It's a new story, just with new actors.

Playing the same character. Thats a remake.

No, that's a recasting. Are James Bond movies remakes or are they just extensions of the same series?

Please tell me they're keeping the Australian accents. I saw the game and, well barring my existing misgivings, discounted it as trash as soon as I heard Max speaking like he was American. I'll be watching this, bur I don't have high hopes at all, it just doesn't look like it has that 80's campness. Actually I instantly thought of that movie Doomsday when I saw those shots, though hopefully this won't turn out the same way that film did.

 pretre wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You realize that this film isn't a remake of the original Mad Max, right? It's a new story, just with new actors.

Playing the same character. Thats a remake.

No, that's a recasting. Are James Bond movies remakes or are they just extensions of the same series?

You have a point there.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
it just doesn't look like it has that 80's campness.

The Road Warrior and Mad Max were many things, but campy they are not.

I won't really have much of an opinion until I've seen a trailer.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
it just doesn't look like it has that 80's campness.

The Road Warrior and Mad Max were many things, but campy they are not.

I won't really have much of an opinion until I've seen a trailer.

And Mad Max wasn't even made in the 80's.

Looks good to me! When is the Waterworld remake coming?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Looks good to me! When is the Waterworld remake coming?

Another Waterworld movie with a recast lead would actually be pretty awesome.

A new "Animal House"

Edit
Small Cap the "h"

 Jihadin wrote:
A new "Animal House"

Edit
Small Cap the "h"

Sounds like a job for Jack Black and the Quicksilvers.

This isn't a remake or a reboot, but a fourth in the series from the guy who directed/wrote/produced the first three.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Which of the originals is it supposedly most similar to?

Third, it looks like. The first didn't have all the crazy cars. Although that tanker does look a little like something out do the second. A mishmash of them all, perhaps?

Or a continuation using elements of the universe?

Cannot imagine the gas price.

 Breotan wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Which of the originals is it supposedly most similar to?

Third, it looks like. The first didn't have all the crazy cars. Although that tanker does look a little like something out do the second. A mishmash of them all, perhaps?

Again, it's not a mishmash remake but another film in the series. The suggested focus on road action makes me think of 2 and not 3. Also, Thunderdome had an older Max at a time when the gas seems to have mostly run out. So I'd place this one as either happening between 1 and 2, or between 2 and 3. The status of the Pursuit Special should answer this question.

Dunno if we can trust Wikipedia in this instance, but it says Fury Road will take place between 1 and 2 and will include the Pursuit Special!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_Special

That would be an excellent time period for it.

Oh hell yeah. I wanna see Max fire up that supercharger.

[quote

Heh, beat me to it Frazzled.

I really wish this didn't exist the originals we're classics we don't need anything added to them, but you never know it might actually be good.

If Hollywood made an original film it might actually be good.

Well, it is still being directed by George Miller so that's one promising thing. My main concern is we're going to see another loved franchise have a bland, generic movie(s) tagged onto it.

Yeah, I really need to see the trailer. I'm afraid right now it doesn;t look like it is adding anything new or have anything new to tell us about the Mad Max universe.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Hollywood made an original film it might actually be good.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

 Jihadin wrote:
I wait for it to hit the $5 bin in Walmart

If it will even be worth that!

So, looks like something similar to the 2nd one?

Does anyone know if Max has moved to the US, or the studio have grown some balls and having it set in Aus again?

The Road Warrior and Mad Max were many things, but campy they are not.

I thought some of the biker gang were pretty campy in the first one..

squidhills wrote:


As if the chase scene in the second Matrix movie wasn't overlong and boring enough....

Boring?! Are you fething kidding me?! Please give me whatever drugs that you are on, so that something like that can feel like a dull experience by comparison!

 pretre wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Hollywood made an original film it might actually be good.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

I'm quite looking forward to 'Jupiter Rising', and have had 'Maleficent' recommended to me for that reason (don't laugh! ) At least trying to do something a bit more fresh.

 pretre wrote:

No, that's a recasting. Are James Bond movies remakes or are they just extensions of the same series?

Casino Royale was a remake

What the hell is with the semi-sepia fetish?

These modern day directors of photography should be beaten like the two-bit hacks they are.

Destroyers of colour.

We all know we watch the Bond movies for the cool spy gear, cars, and females

Though they could have done away with the wicker chair and knotted rope scene

There are two really good Mad Max films, they were directed by George Miller. There is one really bad Mad Max film, which George Miller walked away from, only to come back late in the process to direct the action scenes (which were the only good part of Beyond Thunderdome).

George Miller is back directing this one, and doing it for no other reason than because he wants to make another Mad Max. It might suck, if for no other reason than because most films suck, but there's a lot more reason to think this will be a big success than most of the rest of the sequels and re-releases that have gotten the nerd community so excited.

Fair point Sebster.

I thought some of the biker gang were pretty campy in the first one..

Budget limitations + time makes them a bit silly now, but I wouldn't call it camp.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Casino Royale was a remake

Not really as the first was a campy (there we go!) comedy loosely based on the novel. I mean, Woody Allen was one of many Bonds in that film. It was just an adaptation of the novel.

Quite looking forward to this as I do like a Mad Max film.

However the fact people moan about no originality from Hollywood, well when things like the Wachowski Jupiter Ascending gets made, then delayed, then still looks ropey, I will stick with reboots for now.

Transformers 4 is apparently getting pretty good reviews, and I am looking forward to it, and TMNT could be fun, but I am not expecting greatness. Chris Nolan's Interstellar could be something fresh and very good though.

It's Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. In a post apocalypse scenario. I'm sold.

I could care less about relating it to the "Mad Max" universe. To me the only one worth watching was 2. The first one was horrible to me and the third is just a source of jokes.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to this

Meh. Drop it in the bucket with TNMT Bay style. No interest at all.

 Pacific wrote:

squidhills wrote:


As if the chase scene in the second Matrix movie wasn't overlong and boring enough....

Boring?! Are you fething kidding me?! Please give me whatever drugs that you are on, so that something like that can feel like a dull experience by comparison!

.

I would, man... but if you haven't built up a tolerance for them like I have, they'd probably explode your heart right out of your dang chest, man.

On a serious note, I found the second Matrix movie to be very dull. It was clear the writers didn't have enough plot to sustain a 2 hour film, so they padded out their fight scenes and made them all ten minutes longer than they should have been. The first five minutes of the highway chase scene were golden. The remaining fifteen to twenty minutes were endless monotony. Just my opinion, as always, YMMV.

 sebster wrote:
There are two really good Mad Max films, they were directed by George Miller. There is one really bad Mad Max film, which George Miller walked away from, only to come back late in the process to direct the action scenes (which were the only good part of Beyond Thunderdome).

George Miller is back directing this one, and doing it for no other reason than because he wants to make another Mad Max. It might suck, if for no other reason than because most films suck, but there's a lot more reason to think this will be a big success than most of the rest of the sequels and re-releases that have gotten the nerd community so excited.

You might even have a point and I pray that you are right.

But then I look at the new Robocop movie and loose all hope that this will ever be good.

PhantomViper wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There are two really good Mad Max films, they were directed by George Miller. There is one really bad Mad Max film, which George Miller walked away from, only to come back late in the process to direct the action scenes (which were the only good part of Beyond Thunderdome).

George Miller is back directing this one, and doing it for no other reason than because he wants to make another Mad Max. It might suck, if for no other reason than because most films suck, but there's a lot more reason to think this will be a big success than most of the rest of the sequels and re-releases that have gotten the nerd community so excited.

You might even have a point and I pray that you are right.

But then I look at the new Robocop movie and loose all hope that this will ever be good.

I don't know how that analogy even makes sense. Robocop was a remake by a different director, and this is a new episode in the series from the original creator.

I really can't understand how people can be so negative about this film and so positive over a Pacific Rim sequel.

With limited resources, wouldn't you want to supe up a Prius to conserve gas?

 gorgon wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There are two really good Mad Max films, they were directed by George Miller. There is one really bad Mad Max film, which George Miller walked away from, only to come back late in the process to direct the action scenes (which were the only good part of Beyond Thunderdome).

George Miller is back directing this one, and doing it for no other reason than because he wants to make another Mad Max. It might suck, if for no other reason than because most films suck, but there's a lot more reason to think this will be a big success than most of the rest of the sequels and re-releases that have gotten the nerd community so excited.

You might even have a point and I pray that you are right.

But then I look at the new Robocop movie and loose all hope that this will ever be good.

I don't know how that analogy even makes sense. Robocop was a remake by a different director, and this is a new episode in the series from the original creator.

I really can't understand how people can be so negative about this film and so positive over a Pacific Rim sequel.

Robocop is the example of how hollywood can take an actual good movie and run it to the ground by turning it into a bland and boring generic PG-13 action movie. I have serious reservations that in this day and age, a movie as dark and racy as the original Mad Max can actually be made by a Hollywood studio.

Pacific Rim was just mindless robot vs monster fun. There is less of a chance that they make a bad sequel, because the original movie wasn't good to begin with.

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Transformers 4 is apparently getting pretty good reviews

No it isn't. It sits at 17% on Rotten Tomatoes with critics and viewer reviews are middling.

Hadn't heard about this.

No thanks, Hollywood. No thanks.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Transformers 4 is apparently getting pretty good reviews

No it isn't. It sits at 17% on Rotten Tomatoes with critics and viewer reviews are middling.

Indeed. Its dropped from 25% to 17% in the last six hours. Wow.

squidhills wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

squidhills wrote:


As if the chase scene in the second Matrix movie wasn't overlong and boring enough....

Boring?! Are you fething kidding me?! Please give me whatever drugs that you are on, so that something like that can feel like a dull experience by comparison!

.

I would, man... but if you haven't built up a tolerance for them like I have, they'd probably explode your heart right out of your dang chest, man.

On a serious note, I found the second Matrix movie to be very dull. It was clear the writers didn't have enough plot to sustain a 2 hour film, so they padded out their fight scenes and made them all ten minutes longer than they should have been. The first five minutes of the highway chase scene were golden. The remaining fifteen to twenty minutes were endless monotony. Just my opinion, as always, YMMV.

Also in 3 they start breaking the rules (maybe it happens in 2 as well I can't remember anything from that movie other than the ghost guys with dreadlocks) of their own universe like the Matrix is supposed to be a virtual world yet Neo is still in the matrix even when he's not hooked up to it,

just watch the first one and forget that it has sequels.

There were sequels to the Matrix?

is this a joke?

is there really going tobea new mad max movie?

honestly, from the pics it looks like it captures the "feel" of the movies perfectly, and I look forward to it....

hell they could make another trio of mad max films, and I would not complain... mad max was awesome despite its somewhat cheesy-b-moviness

I thought the sequence in the 2nd Matrix film, with the fight in the Merovingian's foyer (with the awesome music, choreographed in with all the fighting), with the chase scene then going on after, is perhaps the single greatest action sequence in any film. Say what you like about the rest of the film, which wasn't a patch on the original, that one sequence was fething incredible.

If you think it was rubbish.. well, I will have to disagree most strongly! Get a decent TV rig; blu-ray, big screen, crank up the sub-woofer, and change your mind..

 kronk wrote:
With limited resources, wouldn't you want to supe up a Prius to conserve gas?

That is an absolutely incredible idea - I would love it so much if that actually made it into the movie, just because it makes so much sense! Much more than Max's big V8

"m-muh childhood" ITT

 kronk wrote:
With limited resources, wouldn't you want to supe up a Prius to conserve gas?

Why do you think the world of Mad Max is in the state its in?? it's all them damn hippy Prius drivers (minus the cool ones who put monster truck tires on)

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Transformers 4 is apparently getting pretty good reviews

No it isn't. It sits at 17% on Rotten Tomatoes with critics and viewer reviews are middling.

Indeed. Its dropped from 25% to 17% in the last six hours. Wow.

Going to see Transformer...

They have beer on tap there... might do some *behavior modification* before the flix starts

I was told Transformers 4 is almost three hours long, thinks putting glasses on Mark Wahlberg makes him a brilliant inventor, and that the advertised Dinobots don't appear until the very end very briefly.

 Ahtman wrote:
I was told Transformers 4 is almost three hours long, thinks putting glasses on Mark Wahlberg makes him a brilliant inventor, and that the advertised Dinobots don't appear until the very end very briefly.

Well if they want to just skip over the "Beyond Thunderdome" fiasco (except for 'WHO RUN BARTERTOWN"), I'm all for it.

Predator is getting a remake too. Hope they do a lot more 1st movie, and a whole lot less 2nd.

 Ahtman wrote:
I was told Transformers 4 is almost three hours long, thinks putting glasses on Mark Wahlberg makes him a brilliant inventor, and that the advertised Dinobots don't appear until the very end very briefly.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

Predator is getting a remake too. Hope they do a lot more 1st movie, and a whole lot less 2nd.

This is news to me... and while I agree with you, my hunch is, on hearing this... it'll be more like 2nd, and AVP, and Predators, etc.

I think it's hilarious that people are freaking out about how this is a travesty and a raping of a classic franchise, but neglecting to read enough to see that it's the same director that made the original movies that they like so much........

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think it's hilarious that people are freaking out about how this is a travesty and a raping of a classic franchise, but neglecting to read enough to see that it's the same director that made the original movies that they like so much........

I don't need to, as I can already judge from the photography which is horrible.

The half-tone sepia already shows it's going to be modernised schlock


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lets not forget, where's the bloody Australian cast? Are they fair dinkum or what?

It will suck as hard as U.S red dwarf did, I GUARANTEE IT

Americanise it and it will suck.

 44Ronin wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think it's hilarious that people are freaking out about how this is a travesty and a raping of a classic franchise, but neglecting to read enough to see that it's the same director that made the original movies that they like so much........

I don't need to, as I can already judge from the photography which is horrible.

The half-tone sepia already shows it's going to be modernised schlock


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lets not forget, where's the bloody Australian cast? Are they fair dinkum or what?

It will suck as hard as U.S red dwarf did, I GUARANTEE IT

Americanise it and it will suck.

Every time I read one of your posts, I get the overwhelming message of "America sucks!". Is there anything you like about America?

 44Ronin wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think it's hilarious that people are freaking out about how this is a travesty and a raping of a classic franchise, but neglecting to read enough to see that it's the same director that made the original movies that they like so much........

I don't need to, as I can already judge from the photography which is horrible.

The half-tone sepia already shows it's going to be modernised schlock


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lets not forget, where's the bloody Australian cast? Are they fair dinkum or what?

It will suck as hard as U.S red dwarf did, I GUARANTEE IT

Americanise it and it will suck.

What's wrong with half-tone sepia? Maybe that style has some significance to the themes of this movie, the way the movie is coloured can be an important element to the film.

 44Ronin wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think it's hilarious that people are freaking out about how this is a travesty and a raping of a classic franchise, but neglecting to read enough to see that it's the same director that made the original movies that they like so much........

I don't need to, as I can already judge from the photography which is horrible.

The half-tone sepia already shows it's going to be modernised schlock


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lets not forget, where's the bloody Australian cast? Are they fair dinkum or what?

It will suck as hard as U.S red dwarf did, I GUARANTEE IT

Americanise it and it will suck.

The nerd-rage is strong in this one, yes.

~Tim?

Nothing is more American than a British Lead, South African Co-Star, and Australian writer/director/producer!

Isn't this the Mad Max sequel this guy has been trying to get going for decades, not a remake?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Nothing is more American than a British Lead, South African Co-Star, and Australian writer/director/producer!

Wasn't Mel Gibson (an American) the guy who portrayed Mad Max, or am I imagining that bit of film history @_@

 LordofHats wrote:
Isn't this the Mad Max sequel this guy has been trying to get going for decades, not a remake?

It is, and has been pointed out and ignored several times already.

 LordofHats wrote:
Wasn't Mel Gibson (an American) the guy who portrayed Mad Max, or am I imagining that bit of film history @_@

Well he his dad had moved there when he was a tyke to get away from the evils of everything that wasn't his version of super-hardcore Catholicism. His dad is a hoot to read about. I don't recall if he was an Australian citizen or just an ex-pat.

 Ahtman wrote:


It is, and has been pointed out and ignored several times already.

Given that this is a franchise where even the worst sequel (Thunderdome) was pretty damn good, you'd think people would be a little more optimistic. How many other franchise can go through 3 films without turning to complete bile XD

Maybe you do not understand.

You do realise the original film was extensively dubbed OVER in american voices?
Cultural imperialism to the core when you are already dubbing the english language. The American dub is a horrible abomination.

Here is the orginal actors talking about it:

http://youtu.be/lUn6ViBn79g?t=8m14s

Cultural imperialism to the core when you are already dubbing the english language. The American dub is a horrible abomination.

The 80's were a strange time. We had Carter in office, were still convinced Soviet Russia was made up of bears on unicycles, and had yet to realize how much porn we'd be able to view on the internet. Strange times. Strange times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 44Ronin wrote:
http://youtu.be/lUn6ViBn79g?t=8m14s

I'm sorry we removed your accents. I'll bake you some brownies to make up for this truely vile crime against your people.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 pretre wrote:

No, that's a recasting. Are James Bond movies remakes or are they just extensions of the same series?

Casino Royale was a remake

So was "never say never again", remake of thunderball.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 pretre wrote:

No, that's a recasting. Are James Bond movies remakes or are they just extensions of the same series?

Casino Royale was a remake

So was "never say never again", remake of thunderball.

Casino Royale (Daniel Craig) wasn't a remake at all, as it wasn't based on the camp comedy of the 60's. It was an adaptation of the novel, which actually had never been made by the franchise up that point.

 Ahtman wrote:


Casino Royale (Daniel Craig) wasn't a remake at all, as it wasn't based on the camp comedy of the 60's. It was an adaptation of the novel, which actually had never been made by the franchise up that point.

Well to be fair, there was a spoof film in 1967 based on the novel and character separate of the franchise we all know and sometimes love.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Casino Royale (Daniel Craig) wasn't a remake at all, as it wasn't based on the camp comedy of the 60's. It was an adaptation of the novel, which actually had never been made by the franchise up that point.

Well to be fair, there was a spoof film in 1967 based on the novel and character separate of the franchise we all know and sometimes love.

I specifically mentioned the comedy of the 1960's and how this wasn't a remake of that. Neither that film, nor Never Say Never, were made by Eon Features, who have made all of the official Bond Films.

 44Ronin wrote:
Maybe you do not understand.

You do realise the original film was extensively dubbed OVER in american voices?
Cultural imperialism to the core when you are already dubbing the english language. The American dub is a horrible abomination.

Hey now. Lighten up with that cultural imperialism stuff. It wasn't but a few years later that a film about Australia captured our hearts in the good ol' US of A, and taught us SO MUCH about Australian culture.



Like your love of large knives, for instance.

PhantomViper wrote:
Robocop is the example of how hollywood can take an actual good movie and run it to the ground by turning it into a bland and boring generic PG-13 action movie. I have serious reservations that in this day and age, a movie as dark and racy as the original Mad Max can actually be made by a Hollywood studio.

That's a fair point. Miller had freedom with the first two films because they were cheap and made a long way from Hollywood. Whereas this time around there's a 100 million in studio money in the project, and that generally comes with restrictions to make sure the film appeals to a wide enough audience. I do know that after cost over-runs executives got involved to get the project finished.

So that isn't promising. But on the other hand it is going to be R-Rated, so hopefully the action scenes will be suitably violent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
Hey now. Lighten up with that cultural imperialism stuff. It wasn't but a few years later that a film about Australia captured our hearts in the good ol' US of A, and taught us SO MUCH about Australian culture.

On re-watching, what's interesting about that film is that the stereotyping of New York is probably further from the mark than the stereotyping of Australians. I mean, you go out to some parts of the outback and you'll meet people that aren't too far from Mick Dundee, but I don't think you ever would have found people that talked and acted like the hollywood stereotypes you get in New York in that movie.

I will go watch it just to see what they have done to it


And dude stop sniffing the gas

Look, for those saying it will be a true sequel, I ask you how?

The aesthetic is already inconsistent with the mad max films. The aesthetic is a big part of the charm and feel of those films.

Washed out colour grading doesn't really make anything dustier, it just crushes colour and forces your colour spectrum into a stupidly artificial tunnel.

How do things look particularly dusty when everything is crushed to look dusty? You lose contrast. You lose dynamic range. You get a fake, unnatural look.

The modern aesthetic of over colour grading sucks. It is an annoying fad that I wish would just die and never return.

You look more dusty when the viewer has a point of reference to see how dusty you are. That reference I am referring to is called accurate colour.

When everything in the frame is sepia graded, you as a character, simply look like part of the background. The sky looks like the foreground, the foreground looks like the sky...bleh


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Another thing: Junkie XL doing the score.

Electronic music will certainly not fit the aesthetic of Mad Max. The original scores had unnerving staccato and haunting brass.

For the love of god spare the dubsteb, jungle, drum and bass, hip hop for other schlok.

Another thing, gibson had like only 16 lines in Mad max 2.....just think about that for a second

Just walk away, walk away

 44Ronin wrote:
Look, for those saying it will be a true sequel, I ask you how?

Same director, who says it is part of the same universe as the previous films. Your counter appears to be that a different colour treatment is being used... and while that may well work as a valid complaint about the film, it's a bit silly to claim it has anything to do with whether or not it is a sequel.

 sebster wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Look, for those saying it will be a true sequel, I ask you how?

Your counter appears to be that a different colour treatment is being used... and while that may well work as a valid complaint about the film, it's a bit silly to claim it has anything to do with whether or not it is a sequel.

My counter is that it will suck. Hard. By not having any of the charm that made the first two mad max films truly great. Thereby not being true sequels, but rather a pale imposter.

The director is only one person who worked on the films, and more often than not, their influence is overstated at the cost of the ensemble of the other people who worked hard to make the films.

Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

 44Ronin wrote:
Maybe you do not understand.

You do realise the original film was extensively dubbed OVER in american voices?
Cultural imperialism to the core when you are already dubbing the english language. The American dub is a horrible abomination.

Here is the orginal actors talking about it:

http://youtu.be/lUn6ViBn79g?t=8m14s

Thats because the original Mad Max film was almost incoherent. Yes I've heard the original one too.

I wouldn't worry. This one will be full of Chinese and American product placements and somehow have a new location link in to Shanghai.

 44Ronin wrote:
Thereby not being true sequels, but rather a pale imposter.

So your argument is that there is no true sequel because no sequel will be too your liking by sole virtue having American money involved.

Call me crazy, but some people might call that bigoted, since American money produces fine movies all the time

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Thereby not being true sequels, but rather a pale imposter.

So your argument is that there is no true sequel because no sequel will be too your liking by sole virtue having American money involved.

Call me crazy, but some people might call that bigoted, since American money produces fine movies all the time

Having a cohesive relation to the first two mad max films is the "sole virtue" that crushes everything.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The last American involvement brought us this abomination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HeZrI5Giw4

Just walk away, walk away

Movies get dubbed all of the time when they take them to new markets/countries.

Getting your panties in a wad over it is silly, and not nearly as entertaining as you think it is.

Also, none of the Mad Max movies are worth a gak. Horrible schlock. I'd rather they took the time and focused on 80s movies that DESERVE a new look.

Like Big Trouble in Little China or Jumping Jack Flash.

 kronk wrote:
Also, none of the Mad Max movies are worth a gak. Horrible schlock. I'd rather they took the time and focused on 80s movies that DESERVE a new look

Maybe I'm crazy but at this point, maybe it is time for a remake of Ghost Busters rather than a sequel Make it in true 80's fashion and style and we can enjoy a neat blast from the past

Also I'd totally be behind a remake of Rumble in the Bronx (EDIT: Except that's not from the 80's is it XD). The problem will be finding us someone of Jackie Chan's caliber, which is a tall order. Jackie Chan's just a swell guy

 kronk wrote:
Movies get dubbed all of the time when they take them to new markets/countries.

Getting your panties in a wad over it is silly, and not nearly as entertaining as you think it is.

Also, none of the Mad Max movies are worth a gak. Horrible schlock. I'd rather they took the time and focused on 80s movies that DESERVE a new look.

Like Big Trouble in Little China or Jumping Jack Flash.

Calls Mad max schlock, mentions Big Trouble Little China.

 44Ronin wrote:


Calls Mad max schlock, mentions Big Trouble Little China.

BTLC is a film that's enjoyed a significant reexamination of it's quality since its release EDIT: Actually, given the entire film is one giant mock of Americanism, its a film you should enjoy

 LordofHats wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


Calls Mad max schlock, mentions Big Trouble Little China.

BTLC is a film that's enjoyed a significant reexamination of it's quality since its release

BTLC is a great film because it is cheesy and doesn't take itself seriously.

You better not look at Mad Max 2 rating on rotten tomatoes...just walk away...walk away.

 44Ronin wrote:
BTLC is a great film because it is cheesy and doesn't take itself seriously.

Actually, I'd argue the film took itself so seriously no one was capable of realizing just how serious it was being A masterful masking of a very serious film behind a cheesy covering. I kind of thought of John Carpenter as a whiny baby when I first started reading about the movie, but these days I kind of understand why he was so angry at the time of the films release.

You better not look at Mad Max 2 rating on rotten tomatoes...just walk away...walk away.

I was expecting to find it having a really low rating, stead I'm like this at the 100% rating. How many films have managed that on RT XD Then I looked and had a little fun going through the list to find the ones I'd seen and the ones I hadn't

I'm just tired of remakes, reimaginings or other nonsensical crap nomenclatures for the fact Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to make good or at least cult classic movies.

On the positive SWMBO and I have scored tickets to Evil Dead, the Musical at the Long Center in September! Hurray!
http://thelongcenter.org/event/evil-dead-the-musical/?gclid=CLaziYziob8CFQwQaQodph8AdQ

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just tired of remakes, reimaginings or other nonsensical crap nomenclatures for the fact Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to make good or at least cult classic movies.

Then it is a good thing this isn't a remake.

I don't even have an issue with remakes. If a movie is good its good. I don't care where the idea came from. People were writing Canterbury Tales for over a century after Geoffrey Chaucer died. Some of them were crap, some of them were so good we keep slapping Chaucer's name on them.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't even have an issue with remakes. If a movie is good its good. I don't care where the idea came from. People were writing Canterbury Tales for over a century after Geoffrey Chaucer died. Some of them were crap, some of them were so good we keep slapping Chaucer's name on them.

Oh absolutely. I've always said that I care more about if a story is well done then anything else. Considering we have been retelling/reimagining stories for as long as there have been stories I always found it a bit odd to complain about it. Of course I also think it is strange to blame Hollywood when the audience gives them no reason not to keep making sequels and remakes. Transformers 4 is the fourth in a line of horrible movies but did huge numbers over the weekend so there will be another just awful Transformers film in the pipeline.

 Ahtman wrote:
Transformers 4 is the fourth in a line of horrible movies but did huge numbers over the weekend so there will be another just awful Transformers film in the pipeline.

Hey, terrible movies can be good in their own way! Battleship and Battle L.A. have provided me many hours of laughter and joy at just how terrible they are. By far two of the laziest movies that have ever been made and as far as I'm concerned they're spoof films

But yeah. When people ask how Michael Bay keeps finding work, I just point to Transformers. Of course he keeps finding work XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Transformers 4 is the fourth in a line of horrible movies but did huge numbers over the weekend so there will be another just awful Transformers film in the pipeline.

Hey, terrible movies can be good in their own way!

Sure, but that doesn't make them not terrible.

 Ahtman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Transformers 4 is the fourth in a line of horrible movies but did huge numbers over the weekend so there will be another just awful Transformers film in the pipeline.

Hey, terrible movies can be good in their own way!

Sure, but that doesn't make them not terrible.

See, not being an "expert" in film making (never went to school for it and all) means that when I see some movies, such as Transformers, Pacific Rim, Die Hard series, etc. I go in (sometimes to the theater), sit down and turn off the brain for a couple hours and just enjoy the spectacle... I mean, I actually do enjoy the TF movies, because I always imagined what it'd be like to run around with Optimus Prime when I was playing with the toys as a kid. So from that perspective, they arent "terrible" movies, even though, yeah... theyre terrible.

I always mention Too Human as a very very bad video game, but I loved it to death. There's no shame in enjoying something terrible or taking no joy from something good

 44Ronin wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Movies get dubbed all of the time when they take them to new markets/countries.

Getting your panties in a wad over it is silly, and not nearly as entertaining as you think it is.

Also, none of the Mad Max movies are worth a gak. Horrible schlock. I'd rather they took the time and focused on 80s movies that DESERVE a new look.

Like Big Trouble in Little China or Jumping Jack Flash.

Calls Mad max schlock, mentions Big Trouble Little China.

It also had a young kim cattrell in it. So it's alright by me. The only film I like better with her in is porkys.