Mad Max Fury Road Trailer

http://io9.com/heres-the-first-max-max-trailer-and-it-will-make-you-a-1611701107?fb_action_ids=10152584317829730&fb_action_types=og.likes

The fan comments seem to be unanimous based on the trailer to pin their hopes on what must obviously be a potential winner. Trailers can always make any film look better than it actually turns out with select moments and images put together almost creating a new mini-film. On the other hand, they run the risk of revealing potential issues to criticize. While the film is in production, no final conclusions are even possible at this point, but I do see some bad cliches and things that might be departing from the original formula.

First, Mad Max II, or The Road Warrior had some of the best stunts ever seen in a film without creating them with blue screens and computers. This new film looks like they are using those things, and furthermore some of these scenes look too acrobatic or just spectacular but just phoney looking. The stunts in the first two Mad movies while violent and often very visceral didn't have much in the way of circus looking performances with the vehicles (why would any of these types of scavengers in a post apocalyptic world be so skilled with their vehicles as if they practice and rehearse over the top stunts as if they were trained stuntmen).

Second, Mad Max's character has no reason to be such an ass-kicker, he was a former MFP pursuit guy, not a super hero, not a one man army, in fact, in Mad Max II (Road Warrior) he is not physically strong and healthy but limps with the aid of braces. He gets mangled in the film's second act and really without the aid of companions protecting him on his fortified truck, and without a shotgun in battles where few if any of the enemies have a firearm, the character would be killed easily. He survives like a smart rat rather than a ferocious wolverine or something. This character kind of looks like they could be taking some kind of Herculean archetype or something.

That brings me to my third point, this film I think will hurt itself if it all the enemy bikers and what have you are just basically mindless cannon fodder just to serve up more explosions. A film without fierce enemies has no real challenge to overcome and no tension. The biker gang in Mad Max, and the dogs of war Humungus through at Max weren't just weak but more numerous, they were stronger and perverted. I won't get into all that here, but they could easily pin down or kill the protagonists. In other words, they weren't just Stormtroopers or even worse, those skinny robots used by the Trade Federation from the Star Wars prequels, they were vicious and capable, if only the tables were turned because even Max or his allies could sometimes be more ruthless. By the looks of these clips, Max might have some very awesome allies that almost look like comic book heroines or something, again which I think makes this appear to be problematic. People don't survive in this environment because they have all these cliche abilities and strengths, they did less heroic things like stay protected behind walls armed with flamethrowers, they plotted ambushes and set up stratagems, but often in a war of attrition where the good guys were getting killed in the process with the bad guys.

Finally, if anyone remembers why Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was bad- there are lots of reasons, but the basic formula was altered so that Max hooks up with some basically good people, the good guys weren't really getting killed, the film was rated PG in the US so that you could take the kids to see it, and it lost all of the grim character, all of the perversions were gone. If this film goes that route, again, it won't feel like a succession to the first Mad Max films but a new CGI effects film that shows explosions but it lacks the character- and if doesn't get an R rating, it won't feel like those previous films at all, not possible. It would be like the kinds of films Michael Bay makes or something and it will just look like any other film, but you just stamp the Mad Max title on it.

"Are you listening, bronze? I am the night rider!" :gun:

Loved those movies.

There is some very, very off color dialogue in Mad Max II, you would likely not hear it watching the film without turning on subtitles.

There's a part where Humungus is issuing orders to his vermin while they are riding circles around the oil refinery when Max is observing this for the first time, it's not really perceptible what Humungus is saying over his microphone. But turning on the subtitles was really interesting. Understand this is in line with these films' misogynistic and misanthropic sado-masochism themes. There is just no way it's PC these days, especially when the first two films did not hide at all the rapes and slaves it makes of men and women.

There's a scene that I had to turn the subtitles on because of Humumgus mumbling something to Max as he is attempting to escape with the big rig, prompting Humungus to say (in his BDSM outfit): "You defy me, you puppy."

Will we see the return of the V8 Interceptors?

I think I see one in the trailer- although it was implied that the last (known) one was destroyed in the second film.

I have to conclude this film looks like a reboot which takes place somewhere between Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome, so they might retool and resurrect certain elements.

...they might retool and resurrect certain elements.

Might? I think you can count on it. There are no sacred cows in Hollywood anymore. It's a remake and an action blockbuster. Baggage from those alone should automatically cut your expectations in half, if not more. When was the last time there was a good remake? Moreover, one that was faithful to the original? The only one I can think of is True Grit.

I'll wait for it to show up on Netflix.

Servus,

. When was the last time there was a good remake? Moreover, one that was faithful to the original? The only one I can think of is True Grit.

blasphemy, there is only one Duke.:bigsmile:

cheers

D u k e

The Coen Brother's True Grit was closer to the novel than the John Wayne version, and a much better film. The first film isn't necessarily the 'correct' one, but honestly, it really wasn't that gritty. It was made during a time when films were just bland.

I don't usually hold up classics, I think think they are generally overrated and remembered because of nostalgia- made during a time when production values were much lower, censorship in the motion picture industry was a fact of life, messages tended to be whitewashed, depictions of sex and violence sanitized or just corny and awkward, film techniques were primitive and are now discredited, there is the classic fallacy- that something older earns the status of classic and should not be criticized. For example, Citizen Kane is my pick for the most overrated film of all time, since it often is picked by critics as their all time best film. That is a hard standard, and for my taste, I have challenged myself to stay awake through the entire picture, and I still have't done it. It is extremely boring. No matter, even when I am conscious through it, it just doesn't measure up to better, modern films. Forget the story for a moment, the scenes are obvious movie sets with primitive or no sound editing, you can hear the echo of every sound as if the scene takes place in a shoebox, the lighting is uniform and much too prominent, the camera angles are flat straight on shots with no interesting placement or attention, and there is the typical, manufactured Mid-Atlantic accent that no American really has as part of their natural speech (Fathuh, we will have a grawnd time at the bahll). The difference during that time was some New Wave cinema and film noir, but generally the Golden Age of Hollywood just was crap (for my taste).

Look at most superhero films, if you look at the older 70s and 80s Superman films, they're terrible, they aren't masterpieces which age well, if they were ever relevant at all. Even if the modern versions aren't spectacular, I can't argue that they are usually worse than those or the early Batman films and 40s TV shows were like.

This isn't to say that modern films are all great, I'm afraid that while filmmaking as both an art and a science has matured, they've introduced new cliches and bad formulas that don't diverge much, often relying on technology and stock characters rather than a story. It was generally the 1970s that Hollywood started introducing new types of films that showed that stories and characters could be grim and accepted by audiences. But the reality is those types of films typically can't be rated PG, which cuts into the bottom line for film studios who want to release blockbuster type films, that is to say, which draw the largest, youngest audiences.

blasphemy, there is only one D u k e.:bigsmile:

I fixed it for you :clin:

...

I feel the same way about "The Godfather". It dovetails into what I posted before, so-called classics and by extension, remakes have a built-in expectation that the film can rarely live up to. I purposely ignored superhero movies because not everyone would agree upon which is an original and which is a remake.

I know I watch fewer new movies as each year passes. It may explain my fixation on cat videos.