Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mad Max
#21
I liked the movie Salt but I don't remember anyone harping on the "triumph of feminism" ... it was a good action movie. Likewise, I don't remember Tina Turner being hailed as a "triumph of feminism" in Beyond Thunderdome.

The new Max is a good action movie too. But all this over analysis is daft. It should be enjoyed for it for what it is. But apparently a small army of dolts is paid to morph things into some stupid gender caricature. What a waste of time.

[Image: mad-max-beyond-thunderdome-tina-turner-a...erdome.jpg]
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#22
If it comes to female heroine, I like the Ripley type best.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#23
I thought it was spelled "Replay"... because she always redo the same roles again and again... S2
Reply
#24
I have watched Mad Max 1 and 2, the other day at home.

I didn't remember that in the 1, the world is still our civilisation even if it's severly degraded already.
I love how the offices in the House of Justice are in complete mess, with almost nobody inside, unkept and in disorder while some voice on a microphone constantly reminds policemen of the laws.
It's a story of a biker gang going after road police agents. No special vehicle yet, but we can already understand why the world became as it is in the next movie.

I love the part when Max is dressed up all in white, with very nice clothes on and... repairing his car!

In the second movie, how many years passed? 10, maybe less. But it's already as if there hasn't been any civilisation for 100 years.

The biker shown on the black and white picture that John posted above became mad when his young male slave (or was he just a volontary slave) looking like a californian hard rock guitarist of the 90's and always sitting on the back of his bike, was killed by a steel boomerang.

There is also a female warrior... who died without doing much. What a waste.
Reply
#25
This evening I went to watch this movie: Great! Great action, aweful carachters, awesome scenery,... post apocalyptic poeple have more gun cartridges and have developed more technology and medical knowledge.
I didn't understand all the dialogs. Hard to understand all these quick short, sentences, in a non-familiar context but ok. I got the idea.

It was not clear to me what statu Furiosa had at the Citadel... It was supposed to be an all-male domination where all women are slave, and she was stolen when she was a child, but she had some significant power there...

Realy there isn't much about feminism in that movie. It's all blown up. I don't even think that the female hero is more important than Mad Max as some suggested.
At the end it happens that only a few women were left from her original tribe and that's these women who fought the bads alongwith Max and the warboy who defected.
It's more a kind of "let's give women some credit, a chance to take part" than a hidden feminist message. I think it was fine.
Reply
#26
Yeah, that woman, Charlize Theron, is going to be in hot demand over this movie, on top of her other things. Perfect figure too.

Unfortunately, she is living with that idiot, Sean Penn. That meams her bulb is not turned on bright. What a waste...................S18
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#27
Bit of trivia ...

Immortan Joe (Super Bad Guy) is played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, the same actor who played the Toecutter in Mad Max.

[Image: 250?cb=20150521134356]

Kinda interesting and cyclic. The Toecutter was the original nemesis ... he effectively 'created' Mad Max from sane Max.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#28
On another forum I read this about the Toecutter:
Quote:I like to think he survived this gruesome accident and become known as "immortan" because of how unlikely his survival was!


Quote:Miller is making a prequel comic that gives the history of Immortan Joe and several other characters. He was a high ranking military man named Joe Moore who used his authority and loyal soldiers after the war to start a cult. By the time Fury Road starts, there was no one left that remembered him as anything other than Immortan Joe.

Physicaly he is not much different in reality... but looks much more friendly! S5
[Image: 635674753658762734-GTY-472515634-72883568.JPG]

Not feminist: everybody's the same:

art-eater.com Wrote:In the age of social media we tend to think of objectification as something that only happens to women, but Fury Road is an exploration of how anyone and everyone regardless of gender can be turned into a ‘thing’ and robbed of their humanity. It’s also a story of why that humanity is worth fighting for.
link
Reply
#29
I can't but think that this movie hints to the Islamic State.
Replace skulls with arab writings on black flags and you get it.
Reply
#30
Some fans recreating the scenes!

[Image: 20150508_144803-animation.gif?w=870]

[Image: picmonkey-collage-4.jpg?w=870]

[Image: 1a.jpg?w=870]

[Image: picmonkey-collage.jpg?w=502&h=502]
Reply
#31
S13S13
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#32
(06-02-2015, 07:35 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Some fans recreating the scenes!

Oh geez!! Those were pretty tame ... but I forgot about the age in which we live! There will probably be a bunch of Darwin worshipers trying to recreate the stunts ... can you imagine the lawsuits?? The Horror!! The Horror!! ... the Lawyers!! ... the Lawyers!!
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#33
I saw Fury Road, primarily because of being an animation director/producer for so many years. This director, George Miller, does not do computer animation - everything is done the old-fashioned way, with real actors doing stunts and a few blue screens and painted glass foregrounds.

Tremendous action - it is remarkable Miller had enough time to make any of the characters more than cardboard cut-outs. Even the bad guys (as repellingly "disgusting"-looking as Baron Harkonnen in Dune) were given the chance to have personalities the audience could get into. I wonder how the female co-lead could only have one arm unless Miller went back on principles, and did some digital editing - unless Charlize Theron actually amputated her arm for the role.

Gotta love the guitar-playing hood ornament.
Reply
#34
I agree. You should watch the "behind the scene" videos on YouTube. You wonder how there hasn't been more accident or even dead during the making of the film. On one video a biker is realy jumping over the armored tank truck. And this for just a fraction of a second of action, which you barely notice.
They did it the good old way and it's visible in the result.

On "behind the scene" videos you will see that Charlize's arm is wrapped in a lime green glove. Then a computer detect this contrasting color and replace it by digital pictures of the prothesis. He stole the technique from Terminator, IMO.
This amputated arm doesn't add anything to the story and the prothesis is too advanced technologicaly for a world returned to barbary. It doesn't fit with the relatively primitive technology of these poeple. They don't have night vision googles, radar, on board electronic or even radio but she has a robotic arm connected to her nervous system?

Also interresting in all Mad Max movie: The absence of military vehicles (at least complete ones). Which compound what John is saying: they require too much maintenance!
Reply
#35
(06-04-2015, 08:54 PM)WmLambert Wrote: I saw Fury Road, primarily because of being an animation director/producer for so many years. This director, George Miller, does not do computer animation - everything is done the old-fashioned way, with real actors doing stunts and a few blue screens and painted glass foregrounds.

Tremendous action - it is remarkable Miller had enough time to make any of the characters more than cardboard cut-outs. Even the bad guys (as repellingly "disgusting"-looking as Baron Harkonnen in Dune) were given the chance to have personalities the audience could get into. I wonder how the female co-lead could only have one arm unless Miller went back on principles, and did some digital editing - unless Charlize Theron actually amputated her arm for the role.

Gotta love the guitar-playing hood ornament.

His use of effects is discussed here ... I agree with the article that he uses CGI so skillfully that you tend to forget it's there ... for instance, I didn't even think of the storm being CGI until it's mentioned in that piece. Very masterful.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#36
Don't be too inclusive with the use of the term CGI. Computer-generated doesn't include glass-painting or blue screen. The new usage of digital cameras makes them internal to the SFX, but are really two real-life actions superimposed to create the scene. In the old days, we had to shoot through the glass painting so it appears to be behind the main action. Nowadays, it's the same idea - but uses the computer to insert the cinematography using pedestal levels with digital colors rather than use a second layer of B&W film used to hold back a portion of the screen. The reversed W&B film is sandwiched with the shot to be matched up with it. The resultant images look like they were real, because they were.

CGI has a computer nerd sitting in a cubicle creating digital imagery that doesn't exist in nature. In LOTR, CGI techs shot pictures of Andy Serkis and wrapped him in unreal skin using anatomical locations synched with the video images. See


All techniques are mature and look real. What George Miller does is to use real acting that is tweaked, rather than bits and pieces concocted out of some artist's imagination.
Reply
#37
What category would you use to describe the Haboob from hell?
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#38
It's interesting to look into the MadfMax forums that are out there. There is much really good inside stuff there, like Charlize Theron: "Shooting in the often brutal location of Namibia (“We were there for almost eight months,” remembers Theron, “We all went through everything”) added to that tangible quality Miller was after. It just wouldn’t have been a Mad Max movie if it was filmed on a backlot. “It’s not a greenscreen movie shot inside a studio. It’s out there in the real world,” says Miller. “The film looks different – it feels different – than a CG movie. It feels like you’re really there.”

Then four or five posts later, some tyro says: "Not CGI? Everyone keeps repeating this nonsense. The whole fucking movie appears CGI. The massive tornados inside a sandstorm with people flying all around - I suppose all that is real. Give me a break. Notice below the images with the enhanced explosions with no vehicles, then magically with vehicles. Exhibit A of CGI."
[Image: mbpA9bXuyaRl.jpg]

Of course, those who have a clue come back and try to straighten out the riff-raff: "So whats the issue? ...Its 3-4 plates or shots composited together after being filmed separately for safety. You've got the shot of the fuel truck being practically destroyed, the shot of the convoy around and then likely 2 or 1 shot of Max, or Hardy's stunt double, being raised on the pole with a close up of Hardy looking out and then all those separate elements combined for one shot."

The way that the sand-tornado was put together probably started with real sandstorms and more of the same layered together so the composite images would look awesome. We've come a long way since a prop guy would sprinkle soap flakes from overhead to look like snow. I'm sure no one would deny usage of CGI where it enhances the stuff Miller was starting with. The difficulty with Miller's penchant for acting instead of make-believe, is that "filming" is now digitized rather than filmed. There are many possibilities with digital A-rolls and B-rolls that makes the old bluescreens passé. What is to be noted is the punch in the gut that real-life action gives that is lacking with pure CGI.
Reply
#39
With pure CGI, movies looks like animated cartoons, with realistic 3D rendering. This is very visible with the late Star Wars and other films for 8~12 years old kids.
Of course there is a lot of CGI in Fury Road (You think the Citadel is real?) but there is also this reality in most of the movie.

In some way the sandstorm was too much. Too huge. We would have liked a more realistical one. It was not necessary to add this surnatural element. A normal sandstorm would have done just fine, even better as it would have added to the sens of reality.

There are a few scenes redundant from the past episodes, which is nice because it's fnny and build the Mad Max legend:
- The old woman trying to shot the bad guy with a riffle and miss him miserably
- Max scaring everybody with an empty sawed shotgun, then his future friend making a tantrum over this.
- Max first say no, no way, I'm going my way. Then say yes.

I was watching Mad Max 3 "Beyond the Thunderdome" and it looked so peaceful, by comparision, in fact a movie for kids, with a lovely story about kids.
While "Fury Rad" is almost a horro movie, I wouldn't recomand to under 16 YO's.
Reply
#40
The problem today is that CGI is a new "PlayPretty" and everyone wants to play with the thing, to show folks, including themselves, that they know how to use it. But left out of the mix is the word "judicious". In other words, "tastefully rendered" is still not part of the industry's lexicon yet.

I read the review of this new "Jurassic World" CGI fest, and it is at the point where the critics are starting to realize that too much of a good thing is,.............well...................Too Much! After this summer, and assuming the movie industry has come off its CGI High, I suspect we may begin to see a degree of "push back" against all the fakery, no matter how awesome it may look at first blush.

And its not just the CGI alone that is rendered so tastelessly. If you go through the video below, there is more than CGI rendered tastelessly. The Steven Spielberg type chase scenes, where the monster is suddenly only a few feet behind, yet never seems to catch the fleer, got old after the first time one is forced to watch anything Spielberg. People appreciate realism over "Gee Whizz", first and foremost.

And its in our society as well. Take that actress in the video below. She can be rendered fairly attractive with the minimum layers of makeup. And the one thing that renders her enticing is that overly generous mouth, that has other sexual connotations, designed to turn on the young male moviegoer. So what does she do to that enticing sex object when attending the gala event? Naturally, she has it so overdone by all the heavy, dark red makeup that all we see is one large moving advertisement to fellatio. One Huge target of sexual Tastelessness. And obviously nobody has realized that whoever rendered her appearance that way is very tasteless themself.

Tastelessness is still ruling supreme in society. UGH! S18



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)