Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seriously, that's just her regular manner of speaking.

Yeah, you're right. At first I thought she was trying to put on an English accent at times, but its totally her natural voice.

 curran12 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The Mad Max movies don't have a particularly strict continuity. It's meant to be loose and dreamlike.

Even the director/writer/producer has said as much.

Yes, but being a continuity lawyer is a longstanding tradition of people trying to maintain the appearance of being smart and critical about a movie/game/series without actually having anything of value to say.

Thats not exactly true having continuity in a story is very important... just look at game of thrones where they employ a team specifically to ensure that, and every movie has people paid to do exactly that... yes stories that play fast and loose with continuity can still be entertaining and fun, but its an important part of suspending the audiences disbelief.

I could easily say those who can watch action scene after action scene with no story linking them and glaring continuity errors are just the lowest common denominator that that kind of film appeals to, so them being raving fan bois contributes nothing of value.

The film has some problems that deserve criticism, just because you don't see it that way, doesn't make those criticisms of no value, and certainly doesn't justify your `everyone else is stupid for not thinking the same as me`` comments



That, despite these issues, the film is still a good one, speaks volumes to how well done the action was if it makes up for the lack of story. that doesnt mean it couldnt have been an even better film had the story gotten a bit more attention.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Anyone else notice this. Max narrates he used to be a cop......but in this civilization, only the really old remember civilization.
someone's hardiest age couldn't be a cop.

Maybe the radiation slows down aging

yeah, that max is so young, indicating not much time has passed, even if max was a cop in his early 20`s, and 20-30 years have passed since the apocalypse, thats still a really short time for things like the citadel to get to the point they are at.


I mean, we presume enough smart and skilled people were left over to build things like the citedel, gas town, and bullet farm, but where are they allÉ


also, for some reason, max and his guys can go through the pass, close it, joes crew can clear the pass the first time and get through, yet the 2nd time... they cannot clear the pass for some reason and are trapped forever on the other sideÉ

and everyone at the citedel just rolls over when they come back cause joe is deadÉ

if it was that easy, why didnt furiosa just kill joe to begin withÉ

surely there must have been some kind of 2nd in command or someone who was next in line, but no, the entire citadel pulls an abrupt 180 from worshiping joe to accepting their new leader

I like the theory that the Fury Road Max is actually the Feral Kid. That would mean this version of Mad Max actually is mad.

 easysauce wrote:
Thats not exactly true having continuity in a story is very important... just look at game of thrones where they employ a team specifically to ensure that, and every movie has people paid to do exactly that... yes stories that play fast and loose with continuity can still be entertaining and fun, but its an important part of suspending the audiences disbelief.

No, because not all media works like comic books, where half the game is linking together little bits of lore and figuring out how they interact. A lot of the time, in fact almost all of the time outside of nerd media, that stuff just doesn't matter at all.

It's important to realise the Mad Max films have a deliberate mythical quality to them - characters are fairly broadly drawn and things don't break down neatly in terms of time. It's almost as if what we're seeing isn't a direct transcription of events, but a foundational myth being retold years or even generations later. In Mad Max 2 this is explicit - this is the story retold by the Feral Child. In Mad Max 3 it isn't explicit, but again it is dealing with the formation of a new civilisation that Max helped deliver from peril. The same happens again in Fury Road.

So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.

 sebster wrote:

So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.

Perhaps Max is just a glutton for "Sob story" people, and can't help but get suckered in to helping them (MM2, Thunderdome) and we're seeing one man helping a larger number of people over a nondescript period of time.


I personally do not think that the Feral Child is "Max" in Fury Road, as there are too many pieces that don't seem to fit, but either way, I think that Seb is correct in that, very differently to most other movies, the Mad Max world is in no way hindered by a lack of timeline.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.

Perhaps Max is just a glutton for "Sob story" people, and can't help but get suckered in to helping them (MM2, Thunderdome) and we're seeing one man helping a larger number of people over a nondescript period of time.


I personally do not think that the Feral Child is "Max" in Fury Road, as there are too many pieces that don't seem to fit, but either way, I think that Seb is correct in that, very differently to most other movies, the Mad Max world is in no way hindered by a lack of timeline.

Some directors like to tell the same story over and over again as variations on a theme.
I'm talking about you Luc Besson!
I can appreciate the gems that those variations produce. FR is one of those gems.
And did anyone else notice the Farscape actress? 2 Farscape ties to MadMax now.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.

Perhaps Max is just a glutton for "Sob story" people, and can't help but get suckered in to helping them (MM2, Thunderdome) and we're seeing one man helping a larger number of people over a nondescript period of time.


I personally do not think that the Feral Child is "Max" in Fury Road, as there are too many pieces that don't seem to fit, but either way, I think that Seb is correct in that, very differently to most other movies, the Mad Max world is in no way hindered by a lack of timeline.

Some directors like to tell the same story over and over again as variations on a theme.
I'm talking about you Luc Besson!
I can appreciate the gems that those variations produce. FR is one of those gems.
And did anyone else notice the Farscape actress? 2 Farscape ties to MadMax now.

Could you point those ties out to me? I loved farscape but any references in mad max went right over my head.

Immortan Joe was Grunchlk in Farscape.


One of the old birds was Noranti.

And warrior woman from RW was Zhaan, making three. Did not know Joe made it into Farscape!

I thought I recognized Noranti!

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
And did anyone else notice the Farscape actress? 2 Farscape ties to MadMax now.

One of the fun things about Mad Max for Australians is spotting all the bit part and soapie actors who turn up in minor roles. I didn't watch Farscape so I didn't get any of those, though.

But there were a couple in there that probably only Australians would get. The best one in this film was Quentin Kenihan, he was the paralyzed kid in the chair, who looked through the telescope. He was a fixture on Australian tv through the late 80s and early 90s - he was born with a whole host of medical conditions, so when he was a kid he did a lot of pretty sappy tv specials. But somehow he grew up to be a really awesome guy, who's both hilarious and an excellent advocate for people with disabilities. Seeing him in turn up in the post-apocalypse was awesome.

The other one was Megan Gale, who played the pointlessly nude chick up the electricity tower. She's something of a really fething hateful presence on tv and radio, famous for no reason basically. Seeing her get run over by a truck was awesome.

Saw it today and I fething loved it... it was over the top, crazy, insane, and awesome. My buddy said he wished then elaborated on the 'crow people' on the stilts and some other stuff, but I am glad they didn't. I enjoy moments of, "What the feth was that?" with no explanation.

Yeah, sometimes over explaining stuff can cause things to lose some of the mystique of the world or characters or muddle the movie themes and message by focusing too much on irrelevant details, this movie does a great job of giving a little bit of explanation and letting the audience's

imagination run wild and letting them piece together the rest.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, sometimes over explaining stuff can cause things to lose some of the mystique of the world or characters or muddle the movie themes and message by focusing too much on irrelevant details, this movie does a great job of giving a little bit of explanation and letting the audience's

imagination run wild and letting them piece together the rest.

Cloverfield was ruined for me that way. Over explanations can kill interest in movies.

We needed more rock guitar god. I don't think he was in it enough.

Also, I truly enjoyed seeing Batman 3-Bane getting beaten up by the Mad Max version of Bane at the end!

Watched it, really enjoyed it. It was one massive action sequence, but it worked. Which is odd because action movies are not my cup of tea. Unlike other explody movies, this one worked by having an individual event, focusing the narrative on it until it was complete, then moving on, all whilst keeping the chain of events connected.
It meant lots of stuff got blown up but I didn't get a headache keeping up with the action - almost completely the opposite of the crap Bey produces.

Didn't like Hardy's accent though. Also I watched it in 2D. Whilst watching it I'd completely forgotten it was available in 3D, which shows good directing. Right up to the point when the guitar guy get's blown up and his guitar comes thrusting to the front of the screen. I groaned so loud the whole audience must have heard me. Totally immersion breaking and a real let down.

 Henry wrote:
Watched it, really enjoyed it. It was one massive action sequence, but it worked. Which is odd because action movies are not my cup of tea. Unlike other explody movies, this one worked by having an individual event, focusing the narrative on it until it was complete, then moving on, all whilst keeping the chain of events connected.
It meant lots of stuff got blown up but I didn't get a headache keeping up with the action - almost completely the opposite of the crap Bey produces.

Didn't like Hardy's accent though. Also I watched it in 2D. Whilst watching it I'd completely forgotten it was available in 3D, which shows good directing. Right up to the point when the guitar guy get's blown up and his guitar comes thrusting to the front of the screen. I groaned so loud the whole audience must have heard me. Totally immersion breaking and a real let down.

I quite enjoyed the flying guitar at the end. Was a bit of a tongue in cheek nod back to the old 3D movies where it was all about having stuff fly out at you, I thought.

Y'know, Everyone is saying "This movie has no CGI, everything is real and practical are not exactly right. alot of scenes where shot like these
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/

I don't think I've seen anyone say there was no CGI, just that it is used less than other action movies lately, and isn't overwhelming.

I heard, and this is my experiance "OMG, All the car stunts are real, they crashed those cars for real and rode in the canyon."

an I keep telling them that half those shots would be impossible W/O CGI in some shape or form

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I heard, and this is my experiance "OMG, All the car stunts are real, they crashed those cars for real and rode in the canyon."

an I keep telling them that half those shots would be impossible W/O CGI in some shape or form

But they did crash those cars for real. The fact that they digitally composited together footage of a car exploding in a desert with cars driving in a desert doesn't mean that the statement "They used mostly practical effects in this movie!" is somehow untrue. And they did ride in the canyon, it just wasn't the same canyon we saw.

Saw it in 3D last night. Loved it. I almost don't have a complaint about it. It was the perfect mesh of Mad Max meets the Road Warrior with a modern updating.

I literally cannot stop saying "Oh, What a Day ! What a lovely day!" in my head.

I just saw it. Furiosa is awesome.

I am told by the internet that it's 'feminazi propaganda', but I don't see it...

Oh well, just as much credit in that assertion as there has been in every single assertion involving the term 'feminazi'.

By the way, what the feth was that thing with spitting gasoline into the front intakes to boost the engine?

Is that gak really a thing?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I just saw it. Furiosa is awesome.

I am told by the internet that it's 'feminazi propaganda', but I don't see it...

Oh well, just as much credit in that assertion as there is in any assertion involving the term 'feminazi'.

Me neither.

And I hear that the supposed "MRA boycott" is nothing of the sort, it was just some clickbait troll website farming for clicks. The whole thing is completely exaggerated.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I just saw it. Furiosa is awesome.

I am told by the internet that it's 'feminazi propaganda', but I don't see it...

Here is the jist of why it is "Feminazi Propaganda"
Because there is a women in there who isnt a sumbmissive position.
Pretty why.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The whole thing is completely exaggerated.

On a global scale, probably. I've also been told the same thing by others online, but they are likely just taking part in the same trolling.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The whole thing is completely exaggerated.

On a global scale, probably. I've also been told the same thing by others online, but they are likely just taking part in the same trolling.

Whatever suits your narrative.

?

The movie is objectively "feminist propaganda".

http://time.com/3850323/mad-max-fury-road-eve-ensler-feminist/

I hope so. I think George has done it in quite a genius way and managed to weave that story into a movie that will attract a lot of people for other reasons. At its heart, this is a woman’s story. In one scene, he shows those milking machines where women are nothing more than their milk, and it’s so symbolic. Even that first sign where it says, “Women are not things.” Where have we seen that before?

It’s a sort of sneaky feminism. When you say the premise—a woman warrior escapes with female sex slaves—that doesn’t necessarily sound like a blockbuster. But because it’s an action film, guys will see it. Something similar is happening with another summer film: Amy Schumer, who’s a really outspoken feminist comedian, is coming out with the rom-com Trainwreck. LeBron James is in the movie, which I think might lure men who might not otherwise go. Is that subversive feminism the best way to address women’s issues in film?

One day, we won’t have to sneak it. One day we will be overt. One of the great things about this film is that when you have women on your side, you have a better chance of surviving. It’s clear that we’re all served better when women are equal. We don’t want to dominate. We just want our stories to be given equal consideration—to also get a spot on the playing field.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road-george-miller-interview

The question worth asking is, is the film being feminist propaganda necessarily a bad thing, and does the film's feminist propaganda prevent it from being an awesome action film?

The answer to both questions is "no", imo.