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.

Ash, have you seen the other Mad Max movies they're really good as well, although it might be a let down as the older movies are pretty cheap looking (but that is part of the charm, lots of innovation due to limitation) compared to Fury Road which uses state of the art special effects and has big action movie budget.

 Alpharius wrote:
Only because I love you all:

https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/206159-we-can-do-it-furiously

And no commissions for me even!

Thanks Alpharius! May you ascend to Valhalla on wings, shiny and chrome!

 Cheesecat wrote:
Ash, have you seen the other Mad Max movies they're really good as well, although it might be a let down as the older movies are pretty cheap looking (but that is part of the charm, lots of innovation due to limitation) compared to Fury Road which uses state of the art special effects and has big action movie budget.

No, I haven't, actually. Usually this is not really my genre of film, though I enjoyed Fury Road a lot.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Ash, have you seen the other Mad Max movies they're really good as well, although it might be a let down as the older movies are pretty cheap looking (but that is part of the charm, lots of innovation due to limitation) compared to Fury Road which uses state of the art special effects and has big action movie budget.

No, I haven't, actually. Usually this is not really my genre of film, though I enjoyed Fury Road a lot.

The first Mad Max is basically a film student movie. Very low budget. I don't think this movie really stands the test of time, however, I know these kinds of movies hold an appeal for some people.

Road Warrior was the best of the 3, but its really just Fury Road Junior, it being basically a similarly intense motorcade of action, just nowhere near the same quality as the new film.

Beyond Thunderdome was strange and interesting for the first half, then in the second half its pretty much WTF. I've read that the director wanted to make something like a version of the "Lord of the Flies" set in his post-apocalyptic wasteland...he did not achieve this goal effectively.

 LordofHats wrote:
I liked it. Someone sat in a room somewhere and said "lets just blow a whole bunch of gak up.' And they did. And it was pretty fun.

Indeed.

Saw it twice. I might have to go back a 3rd time.

I can't remember the last time I wanted to see a flick at the theaters over & over again... (The Matrix maybe? Jurassic Park??)

And... holey, wtf-AWESOME. The mobile heavy-metal stage with the bungee-jumping flame-throwing thrash metalist dude!

 Ahtman wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:The movie is objectively "feminist propaganda".

It may be feminist, in the sense that women aren't shown completely as worthless, but it isn't propaganda at all. Watch Triumph of the Will or the Why We Fight series if you want that. Yes there are more openly offensive films but I am not going to list them.

Having now seen the movie, the 'opinion' that the film is propaganda is complete and utter trash (and yes, I put it in ' ' on purpose because I find the entire idea that anyone can hold that as a legitimate thought highly suspect). There's gotta be a jump the shark moment around here somewhere for this... You know. Where it just gets so insane that not even a loony can buy into it.

Not even sure the film can qualify as feminist per se. Sure there are women in it, and they do stuff, but half of them are basically cannon fodder, and the other half still need Max to save them (numerous times) and show them the true meaning of hope, so honestly, the only thing that makes the film stand out on the feminist front is the large number of action women in the cast.

Yeah... I don't see it either.

In fact, I think it's so not-femanist.

Furiousa didn't save those girls w/o Max's help. I mean, there's this one scene where she uses Max's shoulder to fire that rifle shot! If that isn't an allegory that women needs men...

Okay, see, the reason it's considered feminist is not because the women were super awesome and needed no help, but because they were treated as equal to men. They weren't there just to be a love interest, or just to have a topless scene. They were just capable people trying to survive, just like the men.

Just got out of the theater watching it for the first time.

I felt it was a big fat meh over all. I was riding on the edge of my seat for the first half (About where they go through the canyon and Max and Furiosa realize they have to work together), but after that it just kinda seemed to drag on.

The drum truck was awesome and got my blood boiling in all the right ways, but I feel like they should have saved the Sandstorm scene for the end and extended it out a bit. It just seemed like sensory overload right off the bat.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Just got out of the theater watching it for the first time.

I felt it was a big fat meh over all. I was riding on the edge of my seat for the first half (About where they go through the canyon and Max and Furiosa realize they have to work together), but after that it just kinda seemed to drag on.

The drum truck was awesome and got my blood boiling in all the right ways, but I feel like they should have saved the Sandstorm scene for the end and extended it out a bit. It just seemed like sensory overload right off the bat.

I will agree i didnt like the rain scene with bullet dude that much. besides the awesome furiosa shot.

That was actually the only scene after the Darude - Sandstorm scene I enjoyed. It was tense, especially with what had just happened prior, and Max ended up being a badass somehow.

 jasper76 wrote:
The first Mad Max is basically a film student movie. Very low budget. I don't think this movie really stands the test of time, however, I know these kinds of movies hold an appeal for some people.

It was low budget, but that’s nowhere near the same thing as a student movie. There was a lot of similarly low budget films made in Australia at that time (because it was cheap to make movies in Oz), and almost all of them looked to offset their low production and zero marketing budget by standing out in another simple way – being trashy and violent.

But yeah, I agree that it isn’t a great movie. For fans of video nasty type stuff, man is wronged and gets violent revenge it works okay, but beyond that its really nothing special. Its only really part of the Mad Max films because it made loads of money, so using the name allowed Miller to make a full blown post-apocalyptic movie.

Beyond Thunderdome was strange and interesting for the first half, then in the second half its pretty much WTF. I've read that the director wanted to make something like a version of the "Lord of the Flies" set in his post-apocalyptic wasteland...he did not achieve this goal effectively.

Yeah, there was a lot of production difficulties through the movie. A producer died in a helicopter crash and following that Miller handed over much of the workload of directing to some other guy. I’m not sure how much the different director led to the shift in tone, or if Miller’s grieving meant he ended up going soft and losing the Mad Max feel, but as you say it’s a really disappointing movie.

Saw the movie yesterday, it was pretty fun.

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

Don't you know? Feminazi are just like the Illuminati. If you never see them, it does not mean they do not exist. It means that they are extremely good at hiding all the evidence, which in turn is proof to how powerful they are!

More seriously, though, it is quite funny to see that this movie has plenty of stuff that some feminists have been pushing for, and all the people that were so angry at feminists for this are now completely fan of it. I think it is pretty telling about how epidermic and superficial their reaction was in the first place. And I am pretty sure none of them is going realize this, and they are still going to cry about censorship and PC and whatever next time someone pushes for more stuff like this.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Agreed... I think that movies like Book of Eli, for good or ill are done in a more serious tone (and say what you will about Eli, I actually like that movie) and do a pretty good job of story, backdrop and everything that goes along with.

I loved the look and the world creation of the Book of Eli. It was honestly so close to being a great movie, but there were some things I just couldn't get past.

And it wasn't the final twist (which was silly but whatever). Honestly my problem there was that the main character was supposed to be a fallen Christian, but he was actually just a completely amoral turd. Nothing wrong with basing films around amoral turds (especially not in post-apocalypse movies), but it really jarred with the theme this film was supposed to be exploring.

That whole movie was stupid. Like, seriously, every-freaking-body could write a sacred book for his own sect and call it the Bible. There is literally no interest in using the real one. It is pretty weak by itself, the only reason people are giving it any credit at all is historicity and tradition. If you show any kind of text and manage to get people to think it is the Bible, they will (mis-)attribute all the respect they have for the Bible to that text, which will certainly be less inept.

 whembly wrote:
Furiousa didn't save those girls w/o Max's help. I mean, there's this one scene where she uses Max's shoulder to fire that rifle shot! If that isn't an allegory that women needs men...

And Max was saved by Furiosa or other women in numerous occasion through the movie too.
Have you noticed that this “allegory” shows that the man, who has two valid arms, with numerous shots, is unable to do what the woman is doing? Uh, sure, that must be an allegory that women needs men, but still, men are way less capable than women, am I right .
I think the expression you were looking for was “separatism feminism”. This movie is definitely not separatist, that is right.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Don't you know? Feminazi are just like the Illuminati. If you never see them, it does not mean they do not exist.

The Illuminate don't have an entire website where they openly show their dire need of attention to compensate for inherent mental problems, i.e. Tumblr.

Mad Max sure is no feminist movie, people of both sides are trying to make it into one or rather find traces they could use to sell it off as one. It's just an action movie with a female protagonist. If we're already on a level of analyzing that includes using another character's shoulder to fire a gun as being a sign of feminism / not-feminism, it's safe to say that it's not

 Sigvatr wrote:
Mad Max sure is no feminist movie

Okay. Never said it was. I said it included a ton of stuff feminists have been pushing for. There is a difference here.

A gun for Jennifer is a feminist movie. Or rather, a feminist power fantasy, I guess. You should definitely watch that one.

Oh, that wasn't directed at you. It clearly isn't one, but some people really try to make it into one

Personally, I don't care for the protagonist's gender at all. Male, female, whatever, as long as the movie is well-written or has non-stop action with great visual effects...that's what matters.

...that and a fire-spewing guitar!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

That whole movie was stupid. Like, seriously, every-freaking-body could write a sacred book for his own sect and call it the Bible. There is literally no interest in using the real one. It is pretty weak by itself, the only reason people are giving it any credit at all is historicity and tradition. If you show any kind of text and manage to get people to think it is the Bible, they will (mis-)attribute all the respect they have for the Bible to that text, which will certainly be less inept..

Sorry but what was the point of the this rant?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible has no intrinsic spiritual value to Christians, because they only read it based on historicity and tradition?

If that is truly your opinion then you have a gross misunderstanding of Christianity? And quite frankly your analysis is quite offensive, and really has no place in this thread expect to troll people.

GG

It's been a while since I saw Eli, but

 generalgrog wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible has no intrinsic spiritual value to Christians, because they only read it based on historicity and tradition?

I am seriously suggesting that the Bible would not help some post-apocalyptic tyrant to rule over his subjects, and that he would be way, way better off starting his own sect while calling it “Christianity” and writing his own book calling it “the Bible” to cash in on the prestige both had before the Bible.
If you think the Bible has something in it that makes it inherently superior to start a cult than any other writing, then you are deluded. Just look at all the cults and religion that have started without using the Bible. Some are even pretty recent, look at Ron Hubbard. Cashing in on the prestige of Christianity make sense, needing or even wanting the actual texts from the Bible do not.
The whole point of the movie is that the tyrant wants the book not because of “intrinsic spiritual value to [him]”, he wants it to control others. And he is either bad at manipulating people, in which case the actual Bible is not going to help him, or good at manipulation people, and therefore he can do better if he writes his own “Bible”.


Actually, have you seen the movie?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Spoiler:

It's been a while since I saw Eli, but wasn't the premise that he had the Bible memorized?

Ahah, no, that was the big reveal. Please spoiler it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible has no intrinsic spiritual value to Christians, because they only read it based on historicity and tradition?

I am seriously suggesting that the Bible would not help some post-apocalyptic tyrant to rule over his subjects, and that he would be way, way better off starting his own sect while calling it “Christianity” and writing his own book calling it “the Bible” to cash in on the prestige both had before the Bible.
If you think the Bible has something in it that makes it inherently superior to start a cult than any other writing, then you are deluded. Just look at all the cults and religion that have started without using the Bible. Some are even pretty recent, look at Ron Hubbard. Cashing in on the prestige of Christianity make sense, needing or even wanting the actual texts from the Bible do not.
The whole point of the movie is that the tyrant wants the book not because of “intrinsic spiritual value to [him]”, he wants it to control others. And he is either bad at manipulating people, in which case the actual Bible is not going to help him, or good at manipulation people, and therefore he can do better if he writes his own “Bible”.


Actually, have you seen the movie?

OK so you are talking in the context of the movie.... I still disagree with the premise though. Because while there are certain church goers that probably do pursue Christianity out of historicity and tradition, it's not an accurate representation for all Christians to say so, because for many Christians there are deep spiritual truths that can be learned from a deep study of the Bible. So that's all I'll say on the subject, since it's getting fairly off topic.

Cults are a phenomenon of mass manipulation whether it's based on the Bible or not. However the Bible based cults are quite powerful because of the inherent truths that can be found in the Bible. So a skin of the truth stuffed with a lie, makes the creation of a Bible based cult a powerful proposition. I think this is what the Gary Oldman character was focusing on, the fact that people would flock to someone that had a Bible, because he could misquote it and manipulate it to his nefarious ends. This is what cult leaders do all the time.

As far as the movie, Book of Eli, I actually loved the movie....even though I had to suspend my disbelief pretty hard in spots.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
However the Bible based cults are quite powerful because of the inherent truths that can be found in the Bible.

I completely disagree with you assertion that there is in any way more inherent truths in the Bible than in any other book. I also disagree that the Bible based cults are more powerful than other cults. I am not even sure what “more powerful” means in that context though. But in term of getting people to be obedient, they are clearly on par, not stronger.
I know one pretty damn strong cult that was based on the Beatles lyrics. Quite stronger than most Bible based cults, given the atrocities the Guru was able to make the adepts do.

 generalgrog wrote:
I think this is what the Gary Oldman character was focusing on, the fact that people would flock to someone that had a Bible, because he could misquote it and manipulate it to his nefarious ends.

Take Moby Dick, write Bible on the cover, and you can misquote it. If people were unable to see the misquotations, they will still be unable to do so.

If you want to continue the discussion PM me, as we are off topic.

GG

Done.

The Interviews George Miller has given regarding the uproar of Men's Rights Activists regarding Mad Max: Fury Road have been freaking awesome, and present something not many people notice about the movies:

• Max always is worse off at the end of the movie than he was at the beginning.

• Max also knows that he will never again be a part of the re-building of a civilized society, because he became the very poison that destroyed civilization to begin with, in order to fight against those who destroyed it (a sort of "fight fire with fire" only in this case it is "fight poison with poison"). And this is why at the end of every movie, we see him leave the fledgling societies he fought to help establish, so that he does not bring further destructive impulses into that society. We are not supposed to idolize Max.

MB

Links ?

The best I can do is give you google search keys (I am on an iPad, which takes me about five minutes per link to post, and then doing so screws up my clipboard, which I use for other applications that are important).

If you search on Google:

"George Miller Interview Mad Max Fury Road" or "George Miller Mad Max Feminism"

You will get a series of articles that detail most of these points.

If you google:

"George Miller Mad Max Fury Road backstories"

You will get other results that detail the as yet unpublished (but Miller IS going to publish all of them) backstory materials, which detail the various philosophical aspects Miller uses.

It should be pointed out that Miller's politics WILL piss off a lot of people.

Miller states in one of the interviews that Max is the embodiment of the toxic masculinity which is responsible for the world's destruction (both in the movies and real life), and that he is "inherently a feminist."

He even brought in the author of The Vagina Monologues, Eve Ensler, to help write the backstories to Imperator Furiosa, and many of the other characters (including what Max was doing just prior to the movie)

Arthur Chu wrote a piece for The Daily Beast (which should not be hard to find on Google), which pieces together most of the scattered information on the topic (I think the title is How Men's Rights Activists Destroyed the World.). It basically details the philosophy behind Miller's work, although Chu can sometimes take things a bit too far in his interpretations.

But George Miller did comment on Chu's work as being essentially correct and to the point.

MB

 Sigvatr wrote:
Mad Max sure is no feminist movie, people of both sides are trying to make it into one or rather find traces they could use to sell it off as one. It's just an action movie with a female protagonist. If we're already on a level of analyzing that includes using another character's shoulder to fire a gun as being a sign of feminism / not-feminism, it's safe to say that it's not

Nah, that's just people going looking for little puzzle games of interpretation to explain the feminist themes. But the actual strength of the feminism in this film is that it didn't try to achieve any kind of surface level of feminism with snappy one-liners or loaded speaches. Instead it just stripped out all the action movie cliches that happen to be chauvinist (the woman falling for the man as she sees how strong and virile he is, the man rescuing the woman after she's turned useless somewhere in the third act etc).

Mad Max isn't so much overtly feminist, as it is feminist by default it is one of so few action films that doesn't resort to the old, chauvinist cliches.

If Gorkamorka was a movie, Fury Road would be it.

It was awesome!!!!

If you do the google searches I pointed out, you will find interviews with George Miller saying:

"Mad Max is a feminist movie (franchise)."

For Christ Sake, I don't think you could get any more blatant about it than by hiring Even Ensler as a writer and consultant for the movie (for those who do not recognize the name, Even Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues).

And Eve Ensler is not the only Feminist associated with the movie (exempting George Miller, who is a HUGE backer of Feminist Causes, as well as calling himself a Feminist).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
If you do the google searches I pointed out, you will find interviews with George Miller saying:

"Mad Max is a feminist movie (franchise)."

For Christ Sake, I don't think you could get any more blatant about it than by hiring Even Ensler as a writer and consultant for the movie (for those who do not recognize the name, Even Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues).

And Eve Ensler is not the only Feminist associated with the movie (exempting George Miller, who is a HUGE backer of Feminist Causes, as well as calling himself a Feminist).

MB

Does it matter? Will the fact that it's feminist or not make or break it? What does anyone hope to gain from defining the movie? Who will care?

This is an r-rated film. Not many young girls will see this in their formative years, nor young boys.

Alien is over thirty years old, and there was not nearly as much hubbub about it being feminist than this movie.

My point being, this movie is nothing new.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
If you do the google searches I pointed out, you will find interviews with George Miller saying:

"Mad Max is a feminist movie (franchise)."

For Christ Sake, I don't think you could get any more blatant about it than by hiring Even Ensler as a writer and consultant for the movie (for those who do not recognize the name, Even Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues).

And Eve Ensler is not the only Feminist associated with the movie (exempting George Miller, who is a HUGE backer of Feminist Causes, as well as calling himself a Feminist).

MB

Does it matter? Will the fact that it's feminist or not make or break it? What does anyone hope to gain from defining the movie? Who will care?

This is an r-rated film. Not many young girls will see this in their formative years, nor young boys.

Alien is over thirty years old, and there was not nearly as much hubbub about it being feminist than this movie.

My point being, this movie is nothing new.

It matters for some things, and not for others.

In the context of the debate of Men's Rights Activists, the politics of George Miller are relevant.

In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).

Alien, the franchise, does not have a world that is about explicitly feminine themes. It's world is about Corporatism and greed (and a fear of Science - It is basically a manifestation of "The Frankenstein Complex").

In both cases, there are different messages the producers and directors are hoping to convey.

Not every movie is so blatant about it.

But in George Miller's case, when he made this movie, in one of the interviews he states he was tired of people missing the damned point, and glorifying the wrong aspects of the movies. His point was that Max himself is just as much a part of the evil as the "bad guys" like Immortan Joe, or Toecutter in the original, Humongous in the first sequel, or Tina Turner's character (Auntie something, the name suddenly escapes me) and her clash with Master-Blaster (which produced an interesting heel-face turn by the latter character, and Tina Turner's character was the carrier of the Toxic Masculinity that Miller focuses upon).

As pure entertainment, it is not nearly so relevant. But Miller makes several points in his interviews that Culture (with a capital-C) is currently at a low point (this is backed up by academics and professionals in the field, who cite the decline of production of arts that have a deeper foundation and roots, leading to complex themes that last beyond just the consumption of a product), and that we need to be producing art that gives the audience something deeper and more meaningful that a simple spectacle.

Given the history of other points in history where Culture was neglected, or looked down upon, we tend to see the collapse of civilizations in those periods.

Maybe this is a danger to us now, and Miller is trying to make a point that certain parts of our current society are destroying us (and, to use your example of Alien - it is making the same basic point, just with a different issue).

MB

In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).

*Mad Max-don't see it.
*Road Warrior. Er, there was a dude in charge. There was a lady mechanic and a lady warrior but that was about it so...no.
*Thunderdome. Are you arguing thunderdome avoided strife? The later aboriginal chick was just one character and she wasn't trying to rebuild society...so no.