Mad Max: Fury Road Comic-con trailer

[4too]

Fan Service!

The trailer pretty much confirms for me that they made the same errors (and worse) as they did with Mad Max 3.

Hollywood seriously needs to stop thinking that bigger explosions, more extravagant enemies and more violence make for better sequels.

I'd like to think that there is a story that will redeem the movie, but I think we all know that this is a pipe dream.

Who's watching 'plosions when there be a babe event horizon.

Not enough implied romance for yo' fan'?

OK

Error in Mad Max 3?

NO DOG!

Mad Max 2

'70's Dog Food Commercial: " 'Don't you feel better that finally your dog is getting enough cheese?' "

A true Fan Service will give us DOG !

Scified says yes: http://www.madmax4-movie.com/news/1360

…Recently thanks to Syndey Confidential we have learned that Kirsten has trained a cattle dog for some flashbacks involving Max Rockatansky (now portrayed by Tom Hardy) in Mad Max:Fury Road.
…an animal trainer for movies and recently finished work on the fourth instalment in George Miller's post-Apocalyptic franchise,
…"We were using an Australian cattle dog in a sequence when Max is having these horrible flashbacks where people are blaming him for loss of life," …

DOG!

Come on Su' if you can't get it up for spokesperson/model/actresses, give it up for Dog Meat!


My local library will eventually have a DVD, how about yours? Just don't say never to Dog Meat!






4too

 

[UniversalWolf]

...looking back at Mad Max 1+2+3, it didnt really had much of a story, it was not a complicated or deep setting and for its time a very typical action movie. What I love about it, is the way how it is filmed. It aged very well...

I agree. Nobody who went to see The Road Warrior was expecting Joyce's Ulysses. The story is little more than a simple Trojan Horse in reverse, but it's coherent and logical, and most importantly it's a perfect vehicle for post-apocalyptic wasteland road combat between crazy characters like Wez and Boy. The art direction and cinematography are what make the film really work, though - for all three of the originals, but the first two particularly. The shot composition is all very deliberate and well-realized in a David Lean-inspired sort of way. Oh, and the music is pretty good, too.

In addition, nobody in the originals ever does anything in defiance of the physical laws of the universe. Defying the physical laws of the universe requires CGI, and that didn't exist at a functional level in the late-70s and early-80s. I already see several things in that trailer that completely break any sense of reality, starting with the first shot where Nu-Max steps on a lizard he couldn't possibly see coming. That indicates an expectation that I'm supposed to (or required to) shut down all rational brain function and just let it slide in order to continue watching the movie. Then there's a slo-mo shot of guy leaping from one speeding vehicle to another with an enormous spear in each hand. And why are there people swinign back-and-forth on giant poles sticking out of the top of cars? Oops! There I go over-analyzing again.

In short, I can already tell that this new movie has made little attempt to preserve the appearance and aesthetics of the old movies. Instead it looks like another lugubrious addition to the growing line of Michael Bay style CGI orgy imitators.

FWIW, would Mel-Max kill a helpless lizard for no reason? I've never seen his character as possessing the kind of inherent maliciousness required to just kill things willy-nilly like that. But hey, I guess in this new, baser age mindless cruelty is cool!

 

[Crni Vuk]

I agree with you on the CGI part, definitely. I think movie directors and movie makers have to actually slow down a bit, Cameron said once that he would only use CGI when he had no other options - I guess that one changed latter with Avatar. But with CGI you can make things work that simply are not possible in real life, this includes action scenes as well which is why they feel sometimes so out of this world. I am not rambling against CGI, I think its a great tool for movies! And the technology has matured a lot over the last 10-15 years, and even without any kind of CGI, action movies would do all sorts of things that are unrealistic or physically impossible - a shotgun hit which sends someone flying but not the shoter? But at least for Mad Max I always had the feeling the action was more on a believable level, particularly for the first and second movie. I mean what I am worried about is that the new Mad Max movie will be "alright", a lot about epic action and driving and all that, something that is enjoyable to watch, but also something that is hard to beat on the visual side because its simply so stuning. But what does that mean for the other movies, if they want to start a new trilogy? I mean some movie director said once, where do you go, once you saved the whole world? It needs room to grow in my opinion. Becaues if the first movie has already this kick ass battle of epic proportions, then what will the second or third movie offer you?

 

[Zaxx]

...looking back at Mad Max 1+2+3, it didnt really had much of a story, it was not a complicated or deep setting and for its time a very typical action movie. What I love about it, is the way how it is filmed. It aged very well...

I agree. Nobody who went to see The Road Warrior was expecting Joyce's Ulysses. The story is little more than a simple Trojan Horse in reverse, but it's coherent and logical, and most importantly it's a perfect vehicle for post-apocalyptic wasteland road combat between crazy characters like Wez and Boy. The art direction and cinematography are what make the film really work, though - for all three of the originals, but the first two particularly. The shot composition is all very deliberate and well-realized in a David Lean-inspired sort of way. Oh, and the music is pretty good, too.

In addition, nobody in the originals ever does anything in defiance of the physical laws of the universe. Defying the physical laws of the universe requires CGI, and that didn't exist at a functional level in the late-70s and early-80s. I already see several things in that trailer that completely break any sense of reality, starting with the first shot where Nu-Max steps on a lizard he couldn't possibly see coming. That indicates an expectation that I'm supposed to (or required to) shut down all rational brain function and just let it slide in order to continue watching the movie. Then there's a slo-mo shot of guy leaping from one speeding vehicle to another with an enormous spear in each hand. And why are there people swinign back-and-forth on giant poles sticking out of the top of cars? Oops! There I go over-analyzing again.

In short, I can already tell that this new movie has made little attempt to preserve the appearance and aesthetics of the old movies. Instead it looks like another lugubrious addition to the growing line of Michael Bay style CGI orgy imitators.

FWIW, would Mel-Max kill a helpless lizard for no reason? I've never seen his character as possessing the kind of inherent maliciousness required to just kill things willy-nilly like that. But hey, I guess in this new, baser age mindless cruelty is cool!

Well, my main point about the lizard is that we just don't know but here's a theory.

The lizard has two heads so it's radiated. In the scene you hear a stuttering radio signal / geiger counter or something like that, also Max has some kind of device on this back. First: Max wouldn't spare a radiated lizard. Second: he could have heard it coming from the radio noise if that's part of the scene.

I'm not bothered by the other things you've mentioned. These dudes are crazy as hell, why couldn't they do crazy things like those?

 

[.Pixote.]

Why is it that every time a car rolls over a huge petrol explosion takes place - it doesn't happen in real life, or 90% of motor sport crashes.

There goes another one...

 

[Crni Vuk]

because they all are driving pintos?

 

[UniversalWolf]

I am not rambling against CGI, I think its a great tool for movies!

I don't hate CGI either, but everything has it's proper time and place.

The Mad Max movies - especially the first two - have an innate realism to their style and action because somebody actually did everything you see happen. It may not have been Mel Gibson himself, it may have been a stunt double or even a dummy in crashes, but somebody actually did everything you see.

 

[SuAside]

Who's watching 'plosions when there be a babe event horizon.

Mad Max 2 was already babe heavy, though. Was still good due to downplaying it a bit.
As for Dog, yeah, you're totally right.

I am not rambling against CGI, I think its a great tool for movies!

I don't hate CGI either, but everything has it's proper time and place.

The Mad Max movies - especially the first two - have an innate realism to their style and action because somebody actually did everything you see happen. It may not have been Mel Gibson himself, it may have been a stunt double or even a dummy in crashes, but somebody actually did everything you see.

Well yeah, the thing is that Mad Max movies don't need CGI, or big explosions. Realism made it feel extra tough and made it hurt more (like when seeing Goose crash).
Now everything just blows up and every explosion needs to be bigger than the previous one to keep people entertained. Car designs get more & more retarded, because piling shit on them makes for better sequels.

Stuff like A Boy & His Dog or Zardoz was over the top, and yet very simple. But more importantly, they made sense in their little universe. The new Mad Max seems to take more cues from stuff like Waterworld than from Mad Max. Pretty sad.

 

[4rekl]

Looks like a Michael Bay flick. Lots of explosions and scantily clad women. Doesn't seem to have the grittiness of the first 2 movies (I don't count the 3rd, it was a pile).

 

[alec]

So much hate. Shit.

In addition, nobody in the originals ever does anything in defiance of the physical laws of the universe.

That's debatable. In real life Max would have died a million deaths doing what he does in the original trilogy. I call that defying the physical laws of the universe.

Defying the physical laws of the universe requires CGI

No, it does not. It requires special effects. For example: the original 'The Time Machine' by George Pal (1960, I think) doesn't have any CGI in it and that movie is all about defying the physical laws of the universe. Notice how in the original MadMax trilogy a lot of stunt scenes run faster than they were shot. That's defying the physical laws of the universe because if those shots had been taken at that high speed, people would have died.

I already see several things in that trailer that completely break any sense of reality

How is the original trilogy in any way realistic? Seriously. It's post-apocalyptic FICTION. Everything you see in them breaks any sense of reality.

starting with the first shot where Nu-Max steps on a lizard he couldn't possibly see coming. That indicates an expectation that I'm supposed to (or required to) shut down all rational brain function and just let it slide in order to continue watching the movie.

Sort of the same heat Indiana Jones got for surviving a blast in a fridge. As if all the shit he survived before that wasn't crazy and bonkers enough. As if it was not apparent from the earlier movies that he was a 'hero' with special powers or a shitload of Luck.
Now ask yourself the question: 'Can I, after watching the original trilogy, assume that Mad Max is just a regular fella like myself?' No, you can't. If you think you can, it's called 'delusions of grandeur'. Mad Max is a fictional character of the hero who doesn't really want to be a hero, but hey, he's the hero anyway. That dude survived the apocalypse, bikers, gangers, raiders, Gayboy Berserkers, Smegma Crazies and at least 300 pounds of Blaster, and you're shocked he can hear a two-headed lizard near? What? Really? Does it keep you awake at night and all?

Then there's a slo-mo shot of guy leaping from one speeding vehicle to another with an enormous spear in each hand.

No way! Blasphemy! In the old movies most of the stunts were done at a snail's pace and then the footage was sped up to make it look more incredible, more 'how-in-hell-did-he-do-that'.

And why are there people swinign back-and-forth on giant poles sticking out of the top of cars?

Why do some of the people in the original trilogy have buttless trousers on? Is that comfortable in a desert landscape? Why does the mongoloid wear something that looks like an ancient diving suit and why the hell is he carrying a midget in his neck? What the fuck is wrong with these people? Where do they come from?

FWIW, would Mel-Max kill a helpless lizard for no reason? I've never seen his character as possessing the kind of inherent maliciousness required to just kill things willy-nilly like that. But hey, I guess in this new, baser age mindless cruelty is cool!

There was totally no mindless cruelty in the original trilogy.



Well, that being said, I for one am looking forward to the fourth installment.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I already see several things in that trailer that completely break any sense of reality

How is the original trilogy in any way realistic? Seriously. It's post-apocalyptic FICTION. Everything you see in them breaks any sense of reality.

Does no one understand the concept of context anymore?

A thing can be realistic and not recorded live on the city street... realism does not mean what is real. Mad Max was realistic within context; and those effects shots depicted events in a way that [hopefully] did not put the stuntmen at risk, (in too much danger; or more than they could handle). It's realistic to jump from one car to another... it's not realistic to pirouette from car to car, or to crush the car into the ground when you land on the hood. There is a realistic difference here.

 

[Roentgen]

I just read this article on cracked.com:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-mad-max-4-probably-craziest-movie-ever-made/

It has some interesting tidbits about the movie that actually made me a little more hopeful.

The line about using mostly practical effects got me really interested.

 

[Crni Vuk]

No, it does not. It requires special effects. For example: the original 'The Time Machine' by George Pal (1960, I think) doesn't have any CGI in it and that movie is all about defying the physical laws of the universe. Notice how in the original MadMax trilogy a lot of stunt scenes run faster than they were shot. That's defying the physical laws of the universe because if those shots had been taken at that high speed, people would have died.

I think what he talks about is more the style of the special effects which seem to give the movie often a more natural and gritty feel. CGI effects, no matter how well done, or how expensive, tend to create a certain style in a movie which changes when you make it all actually happen in real life instead of the computer or with the green and blue screen. Now not everything is really possible or can be done on the fly. Those big WW2 shoots that you see in Red Tails or Pearl Harbor? Who has still thousands of WW2 Japanese aircrafts and US ships in his backyard? So they have to mix CGI with real effects at least. But, looking at War movies in particular, you notice that a Pearl Harbor movie has a very different style - just looking at the effects - compared to a movie like Stalingrad for example, and that is because not even one scene that you see in Stalingrad has ever seen a computer screen.

Realistic effects, effects that happen completely outside the computer with pyrotechnics, puppeteering, real mechanics etc. happen to look and feel more realistic on the screen. I am pretty sure you know what I mean. It simply creates a very distinctive style. CGI, even if looks "dirty" somehow still cant REALLY completely replicate the effect of the traditional FX. But I see why its the future. It is simply easier to manipulate. Much easier. You want the explosion gree? Render it in green. Want it in red? Render it again in red. You dont have to shoot the whole scene again. Doesnt always save money, but it does save time. And in some cases money. Because you dont need the actor again just for changing some effects here and there. I sometimes get the feeling like games and movies feel more and more alike because they seem to get in the same direction pumping out lots of visuals rather then going for style ...

the FX industry sucks though. A lot. Not for the movies or because of the effects. For the workers. Those guys are really underpaid and overworked.

Anyone who's interested in how things work in the movie industry and the FX industry in particular can watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcB9u-9mVE

And after I had the fortunate chance to talk once with the manager of a very succesfull advertisement/movie FX company in Germany I can confirm that the movie industry is seriously fucked up. They dont pay on shedule, they dont pay you per hour, and they often expect that you understand that you are working with a "creative mind" to say that. As far as special/visual effects goes things seem to be in general better in the advertisment industry in - not my words!

 

[SuAside]

*snip*

I think it's less about reality as it is about suspension of disbelief. As long as we can reason some elements away, it works. But there's a limit to what can be accepted before getting put off.

As said before, to me Mad Max was great because it started off raw and believable. Part of this largely due to budget constraints, I guess. Hell, the director even used one of his own cars to destroy since the production didn't have money to buy a rolling wreck to use in the final scenes that needed to be shot.

Feels to me like the series is really going full retard now though... It was already off the deep end & now it's probably lost forever.

 

[Eternal]

Looks fun, dumb but fun. That said, I don't really see the need for this. Just as I don't see the need to revisit blade runner.

 

[Crni Vuk]

at least it will not end up like Terminator Genesis. Albeit, I think for this project, it might have been actually a BENEFIT to get Mel on board again. An Old Max? Could have been potentially awesome. But a 70 year old Terminator? No thx ...

Seriously. Has any kind of creativity left the movie buisness? Is there nothing that can save us from all those reebots, sequels, prequels, schmockwels and who knows what else. Now it seems they want to reboot Men in Black. This time without Tom and Will. New Star Wars movies are in the works as well. Independence Day 2 AND 3 ... they talk about it at least.

What the hell.

 

[UniversalWolf]

In real life Max would have died a million deaths doing what he does in the original trilogy.

That's flatly untrue. Go back and watch them again. He drives fast while people are shooting arrows at his vehicles and trying to hit him with various obects, and he crashes a couple of times. He gets hurt when he crashes.

Defying the physical laws of the universe requires CGI

No, it does not. It requires special effects.

Fair enough.

Notice how in the original MadMax trilogy a lot of stunt scenes run faster than they were shot. That's defying the physical laws of the universe because if those shots had been taken at that high speed, people would have died.

Speeding up a shot isn't the same as defying gravity, and I would say the shots that were sped up the most in the first three movies directly correlate with the shots that resulted in the most fatalities. People do get killed in the first three, you know. Quite a few people.

I already see several things in that trailer that completely break any sense of reality

How is the original trilogy in any way realistic? Seriously. It's post-apocalyptic FICTION. Everything you see in them breaks any sense of reality.

Objects are constricted by the physical laws of the universe in the original trilogy; characters in the original trilogy don't have Jedi powers. The setting is a real location, and the colors aren't altered by shaders or filters. In other words, it's more realistic than a cartoon.

starting with the first shot where Nu-Max steps on a lizard he couldn't possibly see coming. That indicates an expectation that I'm supposed to (or required to) shut down all rational brain function and just let it slide in order to continue watching the movie.

Sort of the same heat Indiana Jones got for surviving a blast in a fridge. As if all the shit he survived before that wasn't crazy and bonkers enough. As if it was not apparent from the earlier movies that he was a 'hero' with special powers or a shitload of Luck.

Indiana Jones is not Mad Max.

...and you're shocked he can hear a two-headed lizard near?

Gaining the power of super-hearing is not an automatic consequence of surviving dangerous situations.

Then there's a slo-mo shot of guy leaping from one speeding vehicle to another with an enormous spear in each hand.

In the old movies most of the stunts were done at a snail's pace and then the footage was sped up to make it look more incredible, more 'how-in-hell-did-he-do-that'.

It's been quite a while since I saw the third movie, but in the first two there are no "how-in-hell-did-he-do-that" moments. The Nightrider crashes and dies. Goose crashes and gets hurt. Wez is the most improbably athletic character, but he's certainly not a Jedi able to leap from one speeding vehicle to another with a spear in each hand. Several characters get killed just because they aren't focused enough on what they're doing, or aren't paying close enough attention.

And why are there people swinign back-and-forth on giant poles sticking out of the top of cars?

Why do some of the people in the original trilogy have buttless trousers on?

Fair enough, but bizarre costuming doesn't really carry the same burden of explanation as mounting huge vertical poles on your cars. I guess we'll find out the reason when the new movie is released. Maybe the gals use them as stripper poles.

There was totally no mindless cruelty in the original trilogy.

There was mindless cruelty aplenty, but not from Max: the guy who used to be happily married, loved and protected his dog, and gave a little musical toy to Boy. He's a kind person unless he's defending himself or has a reason for hating someone. Wez is the kind of person who kills for fun. He shoots a rabbit for no reason.

 

[alec]

If you can't understand why Mad Max must indeed be one lucky bastard to have survived those three movies, if you find that paints a completely realistic picture of what a normal mortal can cope with in a post-apoc wasteland, then ... okay. Me, personally, I always assumed that he was an unlikely hero, but a hero nonetheless, and knowing movie history, I always felt it was normal that a movie hero might unexpectedly have or exhibit special abilities, like, say, a higher chance than your average homo sapiens to reach the end of the movie, gunwounds and loose teeth included. Or the ability to react like lightning when hearing even the faintest sound.

But hey, that's just me.

Objects are constricted by the physical laws of the universe in the original trilogy; characters in the original trilogy don't have Jedi powers.

No, they are not. To give you another example of how the Mad Max movies are not constricted by 'the physical laws of the universe', take the last truck chase in The Roadwarrior. At a certain point Max tells the Savage Kid to climb onto the hood of the truck to get hold of a shotgun shell. Remember that scene?

I dare you to climb on the hood of a truck that is driving that fast in a hot and arid desert landscape without BBQ'ing yourself. Seriously, I dare you. Let's see if 'the physical laws of the universe', especially those grand ones of thermodynamics that govern all the rest don't bite you in the ass.

If you are so obsessed with movies having to follow the strict set of rules that govern the universe, you should be a little bit more consistent in your thinking. For instance, speeding up footage to make the stuntmen appear faster is not the same thing as footage showing stuntmen actually going real fast. This is not just a case of gravity not always kicking in when it realisticaly should. Ask Newton. For example: air resistance. In most of the stunt scenes 'the physical laws of the universe' demand that hair and clothes should move more viciously at the speed that is implied by the shown footage. But they are not moving accordingly. How can someone be so obsessed with 'the physical laws of the universe' and yet be so arbitrary as to which laws should be taken into consideration?

As for your mention of 'Jedi powers', you already answered that yourself by writing 'Indiana Jones is not Mad Max'. Do you understand that? Again: lack of consistency.

I'll leave it at that, man. I feel sort of bad for you that you won't be able to enjoy Mad Max: Fury Road because, in the trailer, Max kills a mutated lizard after using his super-hearing to spot it. And the other stuff, of course, the stuff that is not consistent with Newton, Einstein and quantum mechanics.

 

[Gizmojunk]

If you can't understand why Mad Max must indeed be one lucky bastard to have survived those three movies, if you find that paints a completely realistic picture of what a normal mortal can cope with in a post-apoc wasteland, then ... okay.

Have you ever heard of T. E. Lawrence?

 

[Crni Vuk]

the Mad Max of WW1