Who didn't see this coming a mile away?

I wonder what impact this will have on the odds of an Overwatch movie getting made.

Those Cinematic trailers are pretty good as short films...

I wonder what impact this will have on the odds of an Overwatch movie getting made.

Those Cinematic trailers are pretty good as short films...

Interestingly Hollywood is taking notice of Naughty Dog. Not only are their games pushing what games can be, but they are being looked at in terms of how to make better movies as well. I feel like action movies have lost their way recently, and will soon see a return to form.

I feel like action movies have lost their way recently, and will soon see a return to form.

Could you elaborate on that? Most action films seem to all the be the same recently, but I guess I'm just not familiar enough with film to see that as any different than it's always been. I'm honestly not much of a movie buff and don't pay much attention to the trends.

I feel like action movies have lost their way recently, and will soon see a return to form.

Could you elaborate on that? Most action films seem to all the be the same recently, but I guess I'm just not familiar enough with film to see that as any different than it's always been. I'm honestly not much of a movie buff and don't pay much attention to the trends.

A lot of Modern Action films fail on the following counts:

1. Forgetting action scenes have to be SCENES. Many have pointless action that has no weight.
2. Unstoppable badass hero. This is boring.
3. Fewer stunts and more computer graphics.
4. Actors who can't do physicality such as running, jumping, fighting etc, leading to things being shot and cut to hide the weaknesses rather than show the stunts and action.
5. The sound design is over the top and outrageous, with too many layers and too much volume assaulting your ears all the time.
6. Focusing on the action first and story second.

Compare the openings of Casino Royale and Quantum Solace. In the former you have a fucking sweet parkour chase with thrilling stunts done on camera, with lots of physicality and wide shots to show it. In the latter, you have shakey cam and cuts every 6 frames. Then in Spectre you just have a long take where the DP and director are jerking off rather than giving you a thrilling time.

Show the action and make it motivated meaningful. Make your technique invisible. Do stunts. Have a good story. Now you're back on track. Superheros punching each other for 90 minutes accomplishes none of those.

I feel like action movies have lost their way recently, and will soon see a return to form.

Could you elaborate on that? Most action films seem to all the be the same recently, but I guess I'm just not familiar enough with film to see that as any different than it's always been. I'm honestly not much of a movie buff and don't pay much attention to the trends.

A lot of Modern Action films fail on the following counts:

1. Forgetting action scenes have to be SCENES. Many have pointless action that has no weight.
2. Unstoppable badass hero. This is boring.
3. Fewer stunts and more computer graphics.
4. Actors who can't do physicality such as running, jumping, fighting etc, leading to things being shot and cut to hide the weaknesses rather than show the stunts and action.
5. The sound design is over the top and outrageous, with too many layers and too much volume assaulting your ears all the time.
6. Focusing on the action first and story second.

Compare the openings of Casino Royale and Quantum Solace. In the former you have a fucking sweet parkour chase with thrilling stunts done on camera, with lots of physicality and wide shots to show it. In the latter, you have shakey cam and cuts every 6 frames. Then in Spectre you just have a long take where the DP and director are jerking off rather than giving you a thrilling time.

Show the action and make it motivated meaningful. Make your technique invisible. Do stunts. Have a good story. Now you're back on track. Superheros punching each other for 90 minutes accomplishes none of those.

I went to see Captain America: Civil War yesterday with nico, who pointed out something I completely hadn't noticed:

There is no longer a huge connect between the music and the movie.

Movie scores have often complemented the on-screen action with themes - characters have specific themes that follow them throughout the film, which helps build emotion during any climax scenes.

Cap has a theme... but it's used so infrequently in Civil War that by the time the big fight comes at the end, the theme does nothing for you... because you don't even recognize it as related to Cap.

The overall mix of the movie is so weighted towards dialogue and sound effects that the music is nearly inaudible in places.

As nico rightly said, it was a huge wasted opportunity... and apparently, it's becoming more common.

I feel like action movies have lost their way recently, and will soon see a return to form.

Could you elaborate on that? Most action films seem to all the be the same recently, but I guess I'm just not familiar enough with film to see that as any different than it's always been. I'm honestly not much of a movie buff and don't pay much attention to the trends.

A lot of Modern Action films fail on the following counts:

1. Forgetting action scenes have to be SCENES. Many have pointless action that has no weight.
2. Unstoppable badass hero. This is boring.
3. Fewer stunts and more computer graphics.
4. Actors who can't do physicality such as running, jumping, fighting etc, leading to things being shot and cut to hide the weaknesses rather than show the stunts and action.
5. The sound design is over the top and outrageous, with too many layers and too much volume assaulting your ears all the time.
6. Focusing on the action first and story second.

Compare the openings of Casino Royale and Quantum Solace. In the former you have a fucking sweet parkour chase with thrilling stunts done on camera, with lots of physicality and wide shots to show it. In the latter, you have shakey cam and cuts every 6 frames. Then in Spectre you just have a long take where the DP and director are jerking off rather than giving you a thrilling time.

Show the action and make it motivated meaningful. Make your technique invisible. Do stunts. Have a good story. Now you're back on track. Superheros punching each other for 90 minutes accomplishes none of those.

So I agree with most of that list, but some of the points come off more dogmatic to me than relevant to good filmmaking. The "Fewer stunts and more computer graphics" point, for example. When I'm sitting in the theatre watching a movie, I give absolutely ZERO fucks about how the particular scene was shot or produced, unless it looks bad. If it is filmed in a way that is convincing and believable within the context of the movie, I don't care if it is CG or real actors or puppets in dollhouses or a mix. For example, the airport battle in Captain America 3 is perhaps my favorite action scene from any movie in the past 10 years, and it is 99% computer generated. The airport itself and most of the characters on screen were fully CG animated. And it didn't "harm" the scene in any way. In fact, the scene as it plays out was only really possible because they decided to go full CG with it.

I run into the same sort of thing in music all of the time as well. You'll see people saying things like "Guitar players MUST record with an old tube amp", and I'll say "I don't give a damn what they play through as long as it sounds good".

5. The sound design is over the top and outrageous, with too many layers and too much volume assaulting your ears all the time.

The overall mix of the movie is so weighted towards dialogue and sound effects that the music is nearly inaudible in places.

Yes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Think about a photograph or a painting or something visual. If you have two or three dominant elements int he frame, drawing your eye, that's generally an effective image. But if you just keep adding tons of stuff, you lose the ability to be coherent and direct the eye.

I feel like it's the same thing for sound. The assault of all the little layers of sound effects makes it really hard to focus on a few key sounds that help the emotion of what's going on. In fact, often times the lack of sound makes certain key effects stand out more.

And as you say, this makes it much harder to let the music do its job. We are living in the 'more is better' world when it comes to sound nowadays, and it sucks.

For example, the airport battle in Captain America 3 is perhaps my favorite action scene from any movie in the past 10 years, and it is 99% computer generated.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. For me, this scene is the epitome of everything wrong with action movies today. First of all, you have characters fighting each other for no other reason then "why not?". Why is Antman there again? Because he was asked and apparently said what the hell. He pretty much just didn't give a fuck and had nothing better to do. What ideological reason was driving spiderman to be there again? In terms of narrative, there is no solid reason for many of these characters to be doing what they are doing.

Second, nothing happens and there are no consequences. People fight, yet at the end of the day nothing changes as a result of the scene, nobody gets hurt, and it was all kind of pointless. See point #1. The black Iron man who crashed even got new legs in the end, so he'll be back to the status quo. It functions as an obstacle in the way of the plot rather than as plot point itself.

I mention stunts because there are several obstacles that CG brings. The first is that the physics are never done right, so it seems fake right off the bat because it moves wrong. Have an actor do a stunt for real, and it not only looks real but you get a real reaction and feeling they are actually doing it. CG also tends to create over the top situations that are so implausible that you no longer suspend your disbelief.

I think CG is a fantastic tool, but not when it's used instead of something real that benefits the film. Mad Max used a shit ton of CG, but did it to supplement the stunts, not in replacement of them. I will take Indiana Jones hanging from the Truck in Raiders or Ethan Hunt scaling that tower in Dubai over that stupid airport fight in Captain America. Hell, I'd even take the boat chase in Face Off! I was actually quite bored during that scene in Captain America, whereas each time Ethan's glove slipped in MI4 my heart skipped a beat!

- No text -

- No text -

For example, the airport battle in Captain America 3 is perhaps my favorite action scene from any movie in the past 10 years, and it is 99% computer generated.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. For me, this scene is the epitome of everything wrong with action movies today. First of all, you have characters fighting each other for no other reason then "why not?". Why is Antman there again? Because he was asked and apparently said what the hell. He pretty much just didn't give a fuck and had nothing better to do. What ideological reason was driving spiderman to be there again? In terms of narrative, there is no solid reason for many of these characters to be doing what they are doing.

Second, nothing happens and there are no consequences. People fight, yet at the end of the day nothing changes as a result of the scene, nobody gets hurt, and it was all kind of pointless. See point #1. The black Iron man who crashed even got new legs in the end, so he'll be back to the status quo. It functions as an obstacle in the way of the plot rather than as plot point itself.

I mention stunts because there are several obstacles that CG brings. The first is that the physics are never done right, so it seems fake right off the bat because it moves wrong. Have an actor do a stunt for real, and it not only looks real but you get a real reaction and feeling they are actually doing it. CG also tends to create over the top situations that are so implausible that you no longer suspend your disbelief.

I think CG is a fantastic tool, but not when it's used instead of something real that benefits the film. Mad Max used a shit ton of CG, but did it to supplement the stunts, not in replacement of them. I will take Indiana Jones hanging from the Truck in Raiders or Ethan Hunt scaling that tower in Dubai over that stupid airport fight in Captain America. Hell, I'd even take the boat chase in Face Off! I was actually quite bored during that scene in Captain America, whereas each time Ethan's glove slipped in MI4 my heart skipped a beat!

First of all, most of your responses are about other points on your list... you're talking about the weight of the scene within the plot, caring about characters, etc. I was talking about CG vs real stunts. I count that scene as a win for CG because most people don't even realize that they're essentially watching a cartoon as that scene plays out. It is perfectly convincing from a visual point of view. Everyone loves to complain about CG, but the truth is that the majority of CG work that goes into movies doesn't even get noticed... and that's the goal. It should look so good that nobody realized that it is CG. In that regard, Cap 3 is a complete success. CG is only a problem when it isn't convincing, and I agree that happens far too often. But saying while you would say "use less CG", I would say "use better CG".

As to the points you are making, I completely disagree. I think the battle in Cap 3 works brilliantly well specifically because there was weight to it with characters I really care about and an outcome I am invested in. It didn't feel contrived at all, it felt like the natural result of the plot and the character's motivations. If you don't care about any of the characters involved, that's fine, but I wouldn't call that a fault of the movie. They gave us plenty of reasons to care both within the movie and across the larger MCU. I love that it is lighthearted and fun, because the characters are all pulling their punches up to a point, but it still maintained an edge thanks to the concern that something could go truly wrong... as it eventually does.

Your assertion that the scene doesn't effect the plot in any way is also false. It is the "line in the sand" moment where each side fully commits to their beliefs. No wiggle room or turning back at that point. Yes, I'm sure we'll see everyone kiss and make up at some point down the road, but not without repercussions. The way the world views the Avengers has been irreparably changed.

As far as MI4 goes, that is an incredible scene, no doubt about it. The MI movies in general are pretty solid in terms of great all-around action movies. But if that scene were filmed using CG, and the CG looked convincing, it would be exactly as effective. Again, the only time CG causes problems is when it isn't well done.

First of all, most of your responses are about other points on your list... you're talking about the weight of the scene within the plot, caring about characters, etc. I was talking about CG vs real stunts. I count that scene as a win for CG because most people don't even realize that they're essentially watching a cartoon as that scene plays out. It is perfectly convincing from a visual point of view. Everyone loves to complain about CG, but the truth is that the majority of CG work that goes into movies doesn't even get noticed... and that's the goal. It should look so good that nobody realized that it is CG. In that regard, Cap 3 is a complete success. CG is only a problem when it isn't convincing, and I agree that happens far too often. But saying while you would say "use less CG", I would say "use better CG".

I am a huge proponent of CG. There's so much CG in films and TV that you don't even know is CG. But that is mostly background replacement, cloth and hair simulation, wire and rig removal, fire and smoke, and digital set extension. In my opinion making realistic looking humans doing demanding physical activity is a current weak point with CG. So have a real person doing the real stunts, and bypass this weakness until we get better at it.

Your assertion that the scene doesn't effect the plot in any way is also false. It is the "line in the sand" moment where each side fully commits to their beliefs. No wiggle room or turning back at that point. Yes, I'm sure we'll see everyone kiss and make up at some point down the road, but not without repercussions.

They kissed an made up at the very end of the film! Captain America was handed a phone and said to call if he needs anything. Everybody got broken out of prison. Nothing substantial changed internally or externally because of this film. We are right back at square one, and everybody will be back together like nothing happened for the Infinity War.

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

Every movie has CG now. That said, practical effects go a long way toward selling the scene to the ACTORS, and helps them sell it to us.

First of all, most of your responses are about other points on your list... you're talking about the weight of the scene within the plot, caring about characters, etc. I was talking about CG vs real stunts. I count that scene as a win for CG because most people don't even realize that they're essentially watching a cartoon as that scene plays out. It is perfectly convincing from a visual point of view. Everyone loves to complain about CG, but the truth is that the majority of CG work that goes into movies doesn't even get noticed... and that's the goal. It should look so good that nobody realized that it is CG. In that regard, Cap 3 is a complete success. CG is only a problem when it isn't convincing, and I agree that happens far too often. But saying while you would say "use less CG", I would say "use better CG".

I am a huge proponent of CG. There's so much CG in films and TV that you don't even know is CG. But that is mostly background replacement, cloth and hair simulation, wire and rig removal, and digital set extension. In my opinion making realistic looking humans doing demanding physical activity is a current weak point with CG.

Your assertion that the scene doesn't effect the plot in any way is also false. It is the "line in the sand" moment where each side fully commits to their beliefs. No wiggle room or turning back at that point. Yes, I'm sure we'll see everyone kiss and make up at some point down the road, but not without repercussions.

They kissed an made up at the very end of the film! Captain America was handed a phone and said to call if he needs anything. Everybody got broken out of prison. Nothing substantial changed internally or externally because of this film. We are right back at square one, and everybody will be back together like nothing happened for the Infinity War.

You're ignoring the fact that half of the Avengers are now outlaws with criminal records, and the other half are supposed to operate under direct government supervision which is guaranteed to cause problems in the future. Plus you're assuming that just because Cap wrote a letter to Stark that everything is just "fine". You know what they say about making assumptions... ;p

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid? Pretty damn close.

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Yes, because it's way better than number 2 :-) But it was 2011 so not really comparable to mad max.

I went to see Captain America: Civil War yesterday with nico, who pointed out something I completely hadn't noticed:

There is no longer a huge connect between the music and the movie.

Movie scores have often complemented the on-screen action with themes - characters have specific themes that follow them throughout the film, which helps build emotion during any climax scenes.

Cap has a theme... but it's used so infrequently in Civil War that by the time the big fight comes at the end, the theme does nothing for you... because you don't even recognize it as related to Cap.

The overall mix of the movie is so weighted towards dialogue and sound effects that the music is nearly inaudible in places.

As nico rightly said, it was a huge wasted opportunity... and apparently, it's becoming more common.

I re-watched X-Men 2 a few months ago, and the thing that immediately jumped out at me is how prominent and "in your face" the music is compared to the modern Marvel films. It made the movie feel strangely dated, in a way.

I obviously wasn't in the editing rooms for any of these films, but as someone who has gone through the final editing and mixing process many times, I know that I make a lot of those kinds of decisions based on how good the music is, or more specifically, how well it is "clicking" with the scene. My personal impression of the music in the recent Marvel movies is that none of it is particularly strong. It is serviceable, but not much better than that. If I were the one handling the final mix for these films, I would burry the music a bit as well. It isn't strong enough to push it into the foreground, IMO.

Compare that to the music in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or even Nolan's Batman films. All those movies feature fantastic, memorable, effective music that earns it's place in the mix.

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Yes, because it's way better than number 2 :-) But it was 2011 so not really comparable to mad max.

Am I the only person on the planet who didn't like Mad Max? :)

My personal impression of the music in the recent Marvel movies is that none of it is particularly strong.

Alan Silvestri scored the Avengers, and when I saw his name in the credits I was so confused. Here's the guy who gave you some of the best movie music ever in Back the the Future, Contact, and Forest Gump, yet the Avengers score is completely forgettable and almost invisible. Then after that he did RED 2 which was a rad score. So, the problem is the people at the top making bad creative decisions with regards to audio.

I'm a huge fan of Tom Cruise already, and my dad thinks he's lame, so I rented Ghost Protocol and put it on at his house.

At the end of the tower climbing scene I said "That's the coolest thing I've ever seen."

"You're such a queer."

Some people just like different things. He prefers The Avengers, I prefer Mission Impossible. Meh.

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Yes, because it's way better than number 2 :-) But it was 2011 so not really comparable to mad max.

Am I the only person on the planet who didn't like Mad Max? :)

Probably. Mad Max is nothing less than a Masterpiece of film making, in my very humble and clueless opinion.

- No text -

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Yes, because it's way better than number 2 :-) But it was 2011 so not really comparable to mad max.

Am I the only person on the planet who didn't like Mad Max? :)

Yes. But I'm sure it's just the contrarian in you acting up. ;)

Also, The Raid is fantastic (and clearly had a huge influence in the also-excellent Daredevil series' fight scenes), and in the US is called "The Raid: Redemption". Definitely a must-watch.

I obviously wasn't in the editing rooms for any of these films, but as someone who has gone through the final editing and mixing process many times, I know that I make a lot of those kinds of decisions based on how good the music is, or more specifically, how well it is "clicking" with the scene. My personal impression of the music in the recent Marvel movies is that none of it is particularly strong. It is serviceable, but not much better than that. If I were the one handling the final mix for these films, I would burry the music a bit as well. It isn't strong enough to push it into the foreground, IMO.

Compare that to the music in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or even Nolan's Batman films. All those movies feature fantastic, memorable, effective music that earns it's place in the mix.

The only Marvel film I can think of that uses music well- or at least, has really memorable music- is the first Iron Man.

It's not a bad movie, but I have zero desire to watch it again.

The electric sandstorm was the only scene that really stood out to me. Everything else was meh.

I was listening to the Adam Savage podcast one day while heading home from somewhere. They were doing a Mad Max spoilercast, and talked about it in such gushing terms for five minutes I paused the thing and immediately drove to the theater for the $4 before noon weekend showing. I saw it and thought it was good, not great.

Knowing Adam used to work at ILM, I figured they all loved it because of the special effects, or there was maybe stuff I missed. I went to listen to the rest of the podcast on the way home, hoping to hear more about the special effects, but all I heard was about how good it was because of the strong female character.

Socially, I'm as lefty liberal as they come...but if that's the thing that brought it from good to great for those guys, I may not want to listen to them anymore. Ideologically motivated opinions don't sit well with me.

Anyway, I thought it was good, but I don't think I have a desire to see it again.

I can remember the main Avengers theme, and the Captain America theme (which plays during the "...on your left..." Sequence) but not much else.

- No text -

- No text -

Knowing it is an actual stunt helps a bit, but the underwater server in the latest one was a lot more tense, imho.

It hyped the hell out of my fight-or-fly response system and I do appreciate how well-crafted it is, but it just didn't click for me.

Knowing it is an actual stunt helps a bit, but the underwater server in the latest one was a lot more tense, imho.

I love them both, but I do find the underwater scene more terrifying. A lot of people are afraid of heights, and the Dubai scene clearly plays into that. I actually like heights, so half of my brain is thinking "that looks like fun!" while I watch it :) But the underwater scene is like my worst nightmare.

- No text -

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

No, but you should be at least 290 light.

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Yes, because it's way better than number 2 :-) But it was 2011 so not really comparable to mad max.

Am I the only person on the planet who didn't like Mad Max? :)

Most certainly not. I'm not sure it would make my all-time top 20--it's not a movie I'd watch yearly (and if I had the time I would watch most of my favorites that frequently). That said, the movie wasn't made to be liked by everybody--it was made to be liked by George Romero and that is what makes it special. It will be studied by film students as the masterpiece of filmmaking it is for a very long time--probably forever.

- No text -

That said, the movie wasn't made to be liked by everybody--it was made to be liked by George Romero and that is what makes it special.

I don't even think George Romero has seen it. :-p

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

No, but you should be at least 290 light.

Back in my day raid 1 was level 26.

That said, the movie wasn't made to be liked by everybody--it was made to be liked by George Romero and that is what makes it special.

I don't even think George Romero has seen it. :-p

Yeah, probably not. :)

George Miller.

- No text -

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

No, but you should be at least 290 light.

Back in my day raid 1 was level 26.

Actually, since Raid 1 needs to be a mirrored pair, it should be at least 52, including jokers.

I wouldn't be too excited for an Overwatch movie, but I'd watch the hell out of a TV show.

It's incredibly frustrating to watch these pre-rendered action movies where the computer animations were done before the scripts were even written. Transformers comes to mind, where the action is all completely superfluous to the plot because in order to finish in the timeframe the studio gave them they had to start animating everything before principal filming even began.

I think back to the year when Hero and Blade 3 both came out. You watch Hero and it's wide shots, few cuts, just watching these amazing martial artists go nuts. The only edits are in between the moves so you can really see the amazing action. Then you watch Blade 3 and there are so many random cuts and extreme close-ups on fists that it's obvious they're hiding the fact that the action sucks. Which is stupid because Wesley Snipes learned a shitload of martial arts after the first blade in order to make the second and third ones have more realistic action (which the directors and DPs then totally ruined). I honestly couldn't even tell you what was happening in most of the blade 3 action scenes. I guess he punched someone? I'm not even sure how many bad guys were in those scenes.

If the quality is anything like the quality of the short films they released promoting the game anyway.

New horror film about Suits with MBAs and no creative juices or sense of risk-taking whatsoever taking perfectly good film subjects and marginalizing them into oblivion.

--

This is a big problem in Reality TV (where I work), too. Someone sees a great episode and the note that comes back is "That was so good, can we split it up into three episodes?" No, dummy. Making something good take three times as long to happen makes it slow and boring with lots of filler.

Maybe it was seeing it on the small screen instead of in the theaters, but Mad Max Fury Road did nothing for me. It was pointless and the motivations were dumb. Even the struggles they faced (driving through the swamp, for example) were somehow fully skippable on the return trip. The action was good, and I could tell that some of the shots would have been epic feeling on a larger screen, but the whole thing felt kind of "meh" to me, in part because I really didn't give a shit about the characters at all. They could have killed Max in the first scene and it wouldn't have changed the plot at all. He was such an anti-hero that he actually didn't even need to exist.

Good movie, but NOT an action movie.

I've given up on superhero movies. This list and nico's comments via Claude are the reasons why. The best action movie I've seen in YEARS was Mad Max: Fury Road. Nothing else touches it.

You seen The Raid 2? Pretty damn close.

Okay. On the list. Do i need to have seen Raid 1?

Yes, because it's way better than number 2 :-) But it was 2011 so not really comparable to mad max.

Am I the only person on the planet who didn't like Mad Max? :)

I just posted this - I didn't like it either. The whole thing was meh to me and I didn't care about a single one of the characters. Plus the plot was dumb - they totally whiffed on delivering a real hero's journey character arc. The only character who changed over the course of the film was the guy who blocked the road with the war rig to let the others get away.

It's incredibly frustrating to watch these pre-rendered action movies where the computer animations were done before the scripts were even written. Transformers comes to mind, where the action is all completely superfluous to the plot because in order to finish in the timeframe the studio gave them they had to start animating everything before principal filming even began.

One of the problems I have with transformers is that everything is at 11 all the time. A good action scene builds. But when you start out with giant explosions and huge crashing cars, there's nowhere to go. So even though crazy shit is happening, you're adjusted to it and it's your new baseline normal. Trans4mers literally had a 45 minute action sequence in the end, that managed to be boring even though it was objectively nutso. The reason is the above principle. Again, action scenes are stills scenes and so need to be paced out as such!

This is something Uncharted 4 did well. You have ups / downs, quiet / loud, action / relaxation.

It's incredibly frustrating to watch these pre-rendered action movies where the computer animations were done before the scripts were even written. Transformers comes to mind, where the action is all completely superfluous to the plot because in order to finish in the timeframe the studio gave them they had to start animating everything before principal filming even began.

One of the problems I have with transformers is that everything is at 11 all the time. A good action scene builds. But when you start out with giant explosions and huge crashing cars, there's nowhere to go. So even though crazy shit is happening, you're adjusted to it and it's your new baseline normal. Trans4mers literally had a 45 minute action sequence in the end, that managed to be boring even though it was objectively nutso. The reason is the above principle. Again, action scenes are stills scenes and so need to be paced out as such!

This is something Uncharted 4 did well. You have ups / downs, quiet / loud, action / relaxation.

Yes yes yes. It's infuriating when producers don't get that when you start with shit hitting the fan then the rest of the scene has no tension whatsoever.

If by "pushing what games can be" you mean "mostly treading water but getting prettier", sure.

Not that there's anything wrong with taking a good formula and just telling a new story with it. Not everything has to innovate (and in fact I think the games industry has an unhealthy obsession with innovation for innovation's sake), but I think it's safe to say Uncharted isn't exactly moving games forward as games. As a storytelling medium, sure (which is important, I agree). But as games? With gameplay? I don't buy it.

I really like ND, and (almost) everything theyve made has been a really enjoyable experience. But the Uncharted series has never been groundbreaking except in terms of "hey this game has a good story"..

Blade 2 and Blade 3 are definitely figments of your imagination and not real movies that were actually made . . .

sticks fingers in ears

La la la la, I can't hear you!

Uncharted isn't exactly moving games forward as games. As a storytelling medium, sure (which is important, I agree). But as games? With gameplay? I don't buy it.

They are absolutely.

When Tim Rogers reviewed the Last of Us, he said the game had an:

"ability to put us a hundred percent into the moments editors would leave out of a film."

That one sentence had such a profound effect on my view of video games.

That right there is their contribution. I used to think story and interaction were 100% at odds, and the narrative certainly is. But, both the story AND the game are enhanced when you give the player the ability to control these moments that aren't necessarily part of the narrative. You have to do it right though. Scattering audio logs is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to let the player explore. To let the characters have conversations while you are traveling from one place to the other. Environmental storytelling. Stuff like that.

And this is part of the"gameplay". These are moments that otherwise wouldn't work because you are not in control. You are still playing the game even when you aren't shooting.

I took the time to examine a poster in Last of Us. Teen Wolf. Ellie then asks what it is, and Joel tells her about it. Ellie then asks why he as a grown man saw that movie, and he deflects. Holy shit. If you've been paying attention that moment is actually huge and tells you so fucking much about Joel, and it was brought about because of my curiosity and my choice. My play. You can completely miss this. No film would spend 20 minutes in a jeep driving to a volcano with the characters shooting the shit, but it works because you are doing it.

Naughty Dog understands this notion of using interactivity to develop emotional engagement better than any other studio in history. They are not perfect, and even they fall back on to the audio log bullshit. But I'll bet they can craft a game where they don't have to.

Which is stupid because Wesley Snipes learned a shitload of martial arts after the first blade in order to make the second and third ones have more realistic action (which the directors and DPs then totally ruined).

Wat.

Blade 2 had great action, and Guillermo del Toro is one of the few directors who respects the craft enough to use CG as a supplement, rather than as the scene itself (even in the CG-heavy Pacific Rim, the cockpits are entirely practical effects), and the action scenes are all better for it:

Naughty Dog understands this notion of using interactivity to develop emotional engagement better than any other studio in history.

I agree that that does matter. But when I think of the gameplay I figure they maybe break even? But I see you weren't referring to the product overall, but the progress theyve made in that specific area. Fair do's.

One of the things that Uncharted does very well storytelling-wise is the way that you can learn a lot about characters by looking through their journals. As you play the game, Drake constantly writes and draws on his journal (or whoever's journal he has on hand), and it is great on multiple levels, because it refreshes you on the mission, the relationships, characters, and Drake's perspective (Drawing emotions on Sully's stern face, giving dialogue to inanimate objects, and drawing Sam surrounded by cigarette butts are a few examples). It's great, and something that audio logs and cutscenes wouldn't show. Little touches that "wouldn't be included in the movie".

And what's great is that whoever it is translating the game, they "get" it. For some reason, Naughty Dog's games are proving to be a real treat when playing them in a different language (my Crushing-difficulty play-through of Uncharted 4 is in Spanish, and Nate gives Sam a funny Spanish-context nickname that wasn't in the English version). Great stuff.

When Tim Rogers reviewed the Last of Us, he said the game had an:

"ability to put us a hundred percent into the moments editors would leave out of a film."

That one sentence had such a profound effect on my view of video games.

That right there is their contribution.

To a degree. Designing a game to draw out low points in nice periods of interactive mellowness isn't a new concept.

Naughty Dog's contribution, I think, is integrating character expression. Optional and action-driven dialogues, characters writing in their journals... with Uncharted 4 the techniques have started getting pretty interesting, like enabling characters to return to conversations that they were distracted from.

Maybe it was seeing it on the small screen instead of in the theaters,

I'll change that maybe to almost definitely. It's on HBO this month and I stopped watching it after ten minutes. I'll wait until I have my PSVR faux IMAX screen.

but Mad Max Fury Road did nothing for me. It was pointless and the motivations were dumb. Even the struggles they faced (driving through the swamp, for example) were somehow fully skippable on the return trip. The action was good, and I could tell that some of the shots would have been epic feeling on a larger screen, but the whole thing felt kind of "meh" to me, in part because I really didn't give a shit about the characters at all. They could have killed Max in the first scene and it wouldn't have changed the plot at all. He was such an anti-hero that he actually didn't even need to exist.

Um, Furiosa is the hero. Duh.

I said something like this already. It's not really my kind of movie. (I like talkers, and this is an anti-talking movie.) Locke is my kind of Tom Hardy road movie, but I still think MMFR is cinema at it's best--doing what only cinema can do--especially when someone with a real creative vision is allowed to follow through. That's rare these days. MMFR is head and shoulders above any Marvel movie I've seen. I understand reacting against the hype--I'm usually in that camp, saying that the latest greatest thing isn't all that. In this case, though, I think the critics are right.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can tell that they're doing great action, but the camera is too close more than half the time. There are kicks happening below the frame so you see blade lift his knees but don't actually see the kick he's dodging. The cuts are on the motion quite often as well, making it difficult to track. He's jumping the line left and right (and up and down) so it takes just as long to figure out what you're even looking at as it takes to realize they're doing something. Was this a highly choreographed fight that used real pro martial artists? Absolutely. Was it shot to emphasize the action and amaze the audience? No. It was cut up, probably to hide how slow it was or moments where one actor or another made a mistake. It was zoomed in so we couldn't see how far away from one another they were. It's overly busy and full of distraction. The scene makes you feel like you're watching an epic fight but it doesn't actually let you see the fighting.

Blade blocks a sword swing and then we get an ECU of the sword on sword... you have no idea why they're both just standing there for two seconds. Then we're back but it's over blade's shoulder as there's more sword action... Now you can't see what' blade is doing because his body is in the way. Now it's a wide where you feel like you could actually see the action, except the kicks are below the frame. Back in super tight on.. a sword being rotated or something? Too close to tell what's really going on. Out wide for a high kick. Cut to reaction of onlooker. Back in tight on blade's face as swords flash in front of it...

The only visible action from that whole sequence was a single high kick, and all of the action was delivered at the same breakneck pace from start to finish.

Compare to Hero:

First, they build tension. Mad tension. Even the fight is just building more tension because it's not *real* in terms of the story, but in their minds. The shots begin long, showing every motion, every detail. When they cut to over a shoulder, it's a replay of what you just saw in the wide shot so it's taking the context and applying the reaction of the actor to it. Then, as the tension builds, the cuts become more frequent. Any new action is shown wide, moves you've seen already are shown quickly and close up, making them more urgent than before but still familiar enough as not to confuse you. When the final attack comes, you don't even need to see it because, just as the fighters have already envisioned the entire fight, so have you. You know what will happen, and so do the characters. This fight furthers the plot, shows you the action, builds the tension, and is done so in an artistic and beautiful way. In blade 2, they don't learn anything until the fight is over. It's an interlude in the story that is shiny to look at but lacks substance.

I remember seeing a very interesting interview with Jackie Chan, where he complained about the editing in Hollywood actions films.

He said that action films today cut exactly on the hit. This is so true. This is a problem because you never actually see the hit. What he does when he cuts is show the hit twice. You see a punch land, cut, and on the new angle the hand is back 3 frames or so, then it hits again. Because they eye and brain take a moment to adjust after a cut, it ends up combining the two hits into one bigger one.

I just finished cutting an action movie, so I tried it. It's amazing. Everything has a heft and weight to it. The hits feel like hits! All because you purposely break continuity and don't try to be slick.

Smart guy.

- No text -

All because you purposely break continuity and don't try to be slick.

I need to go watch Battleship Potemkin again. Eisenstein's cuts beat the screen like a drum.
I have the Kino version and it's amazing.

I need to go watch Leone's westerns again, too. That Sad Hill sequence is a lot like the climax of Battleship Potemkin, just half the length and with fewer battleships. :)

You see a punch land, cut, and on the new angle the hand is back 3 frames or so, then it hits again. Because they eye and brain take a moment to adjust after a cut, it ends up combining the two hits into one bigger one.

I just finished cutting an action movie, so I tried it. It's amazing. Everything has a heft and weight to it. The hits feel like hits! All because you purposely break continuity and don't try to be slick.

Smart guy.

You... You didn't know that? That's like Editing 101, man. What's funny is that some people actually complain about this type of editing (I remember hearing some of it around the time The Force Awakens came out). It looks off once you're aware of it, but if you're immersed, your brain doesn't register it, since it's piecing the same action with a separate angle.

Kind of like a visual version of this trick:

You are too busy reading this to notice that the
the word "the" was used twice in a row in this sentence.

Kind of like a visual version of this trick:

You are too busy reading this to notice that the
the word "the" was used twice in a row in this sentence.

"Trick"? My brain stumbled all over that sentence. It reads even clunkier than usual for a simple word doubling, probably because the line break screws with the flow expectation.

The following sentence was in an E-mail I received from my manager, not 5 minutes ago:

Doing has been an incredibly strong day so day, we are on track to have our best bug fixing day yet.

- No text -

Maybe it was seeing it on the small screen instead of in the theaters,

I'll change that maybe to almost definitely. It's on HBO this month and I stopped watching it after ten minutes. I'll wait until I have my PSVR faux IMAX screen.

but Mad Max Fury Road did nothing for me. It was pointless and the motivations were dumb. Even the struggles they faced (driving through the swamp, for example) were somehow fully skippable on the return trip. The action was good, and I could tell that some of the shots would have been epic feeling on a larger screen, but the whole thing felt kind of "meh" to me, in part because I really didn't give a shit about the characters at all. They could have killed Max in the first scene and it wouldn't have changed the plot at all. He was such an anti-hero that he actually didn't even need to exist.

Um, Furiosa is the hero. Duh.

I know, but she also didn't really have a journey. At the beginning of the film, she wants to help the girls get to a free land where they'll be safe. Along the way she realizes that free land is the one they started in, sans John the Immoran, but still... Her mind is made up from word one and it doesn't change at all.

I said something like this already. It's not really my kind of movie. (I like talkers, and this is an anti-talking movie.) Locke is my kind of Tom Hardy road movie, but I still think MMFR is cinema at it's best--doing what only cinema can do--especially when someone with a real creative vision is allowed to follow through. That's rare these days. MMFR is head and shoulders above any Marvel movie I've seen. I understand reacting against the hype--I'm usually in that camp, saying that the latest greatest thing isn't all that. In this case, though, I think the critics are right.

I don't mind a non-talky movie (La Jeté, or if you want something more people have actually seen, The Insider), but this was an intentionally non-thinky movie. The spectacle was great, and the art direction was great, and the world was well thought out and the characters were... boring. Really, really boring. They didn't really relate well to one another, only the one guy had anything like an arc, and the "epic" nature of it was kind of lost in the very deliberate and direct progression of the story.

I remember seeing a very interesting interview with Jackie Chan, where he complained about the editing in Hollywood actions films.

He said that action films today cut exactly on the hit. This is so true. This is a problem because you never actually see the hit. What he does when he cuts is show the hit twice. You see a punch land, cut, and on the new angle the hand is back 3 frames or so, then it hits again. Because they eye and brain take a moment to adjust after a cut, it ends up combining the two hits into one bigger one.

I just finished cutting an action movie, so I tried it. It's amazing. Everything has a heft and weight to it. The hits feel like hits! All because you purposely break continuity and don't try to be slick.

Smart guy.

I fully agree with him (and you!). What movie did you cut?

The following sentence was in an E-mail I received from my manager, not 5 minutes ago:

Doing has been an incredibly strong day so day, we are on track to have our best bug fixing day yet.

There are a lot of bugs in your manager's automated email parser, apparently.

I don't mind a non-talky movie (La Jeté, or if you want something more people have actually seen, The Insider),

I'm confused. Le Jetee and The Insider are pretty talky. Good ones, though.

- No text -

You... You didn't know that? That's like Editing 101, man.

First of all, it's not editing 101 or everyone would do it. Second of all, when I saw this interview 8 years ago, no I did not know that. Being able to try it just now on a film with fight scenes was pretty cool.

I don't mind a non-talky movie (La Jeté, or if you want something more people have actually seen, The Insider),

I'm confused. Le Jetee and The Insider are pretty talky. Good ones, though.

I'd consider them thinky, but not too talky. I dunno. Mad Max (the original) wasn't very talky and i loved that one.

You... You didn't know that? That's like Editing 101, man.

First of all, it's not editing 101 or everyone would do it. Second of all, when I saw this interview 8 years ago, no I did not know that. Being able to try it just now on a film with fight scenes was pretty cool.

As a fellow editor, I have to agree with Cody. The Editing 101 lesson is to "cut on the motion" because it draws continuity to your shots.

The fact of the matter is that there's really no hard and fast rule for all situations. That's what makes editors artists and not algorithms.

The fact of the matter is that there's really no hard and fast rule for all situations. That's what makes editors artists and not algorithms.

Ding Ding.

Walter Murch lists a hierarchy for what you should think about when you make a cut. He calls it the rule of six:

1. it is true to the emotion of the moment
2. it advances the story
3. it occurs at a moment that is rhythmically interesting and “right”
4. it acknowledges what you might call “eye-trace”—the concern with the location and movement of the audience’s focus of interest within the frame
5. it respects “planarity”—the grammar of three dimensions transposed by photography to two (the questions of stage-line, etc.)
6. and it respects the three-dimensional continuity of the actual space

Now he is a well respected editor, and many people always follow the rule of six when evaluating an edit. In one of the films I cut for my senior thesis, I purposefully broke these rules. For the film, I established my own hierarchy. Much of the thesis talk was in explaining why. That film won the Adobe design achievement award in 2007 for live action.

There are no rules set in stone.

Mad Max (the original) wasn't very talky and i loved that one.

...Why...?

- No text -

I don't mind a non-talky movie (La Jeté, or if you want something more people have actually seen, The Insider),

I'm confused. Le Jetee and The Insider are pretty talky. Good ones, though.

I'd consider them thinky, but not too talky. I dunno. Mad Max (the original) wasn't very talky and i loved that one.

La Jetee has a voice-over throughout, and I'd say most films where words are prominent tend to be thinky. I'm perplexed by your taste. I can understand George Miller's universe not being someone's cup of tea. But if you like the original movie, the latest one is a refinement of the first one's strengths. Like you say, the first one wasn't about words either, but it was about movement combined with visuals combined with sound--the new one uses these cinematic elements with a bravura and confidence that makes the first movie look amateurish by comparison.

I don't mind a non-talky movie (La Jeté, or if you want something more people have actually seen, The Insider),

I'm confused. Le Jetee and The Insider are pretty talky. Good ones, though.

I'd consider them thinky, but not too talky. I dunno. Mad Max (the original) wasn't very talky and i loved that one.

La Jetee has a voice-over throughout, and I'd say most films where words are prominent tend to be thinky. I'm perplexed by your taste. I can understand George Miller's universe not being someone's cup of tea. But if you like the original movie, the latest one is a refinement of the first one's strengths. Like you say, the first one wasn't about words either, but it was about movement combined with visuals combined with sound--the new one uses these cinematic elements with a bravura and confidence that makes the first movie look amateurish by comparison.

I agree that those elements were refined in the new movie, absolutely. But the first one had a compelling plot and the new one didn't, plain and simple. If the story of MMFR were worth telling, I'd have liked it a lot more, but it played out like a second grader's effort at a comic book where the first one was a masterpiece of depicting one man's fall from the past and ascension in a new hellscape.

The more I think about MMFR, the more I feel like it should have either told the entire story from the point of view of the guy whose name I cannot ever remember who started as a servant of the Immortan and ended up sacrificing himself to save the others, or from the perspective of one of the women from "the green place" who was trying to save the seeds (but that's a stretch because it would be just as easy to tell a shitty story about them too. In my head there's a real journey there that none of the other characters have that has both personal and world-impacting meaning). MMFR could have delved into both of those stories and made them more meaningful, but instead chose not to and diminished its own impact greatly.

In the end, I think film making should be about telling a story first, and all of the artistry and spectacle, if it doesn't fuel that storytelling, really isn't worth spit.

I definitely expected too much from MMFR. I enjoyed AVP (though I do *not* think it was a good movie) because I expected the story to be a shitty excuse to get aliens and predators to fight each other, and that's exactly what I got. I wouldn't watch it again, though.

The fact of the matter is that there's really no hard and fast rule for all situations. That's what makes editors artists and not algorithms.

Ding Ding.

Walter Murch lists a hierarchy for what you should think about when you make a cut. He calls it the rule of six:

1. it is true to the emotion of the moment
2. it advances the story
3. it occurs at a moment that is rhythmically interesting and “right”
4. it acknowledges what you might call “eye-trace”—the concern with the location and movement of the audience’s focus of interest within the frame
5. it respects “planarity”—the grammar of three dimensions transposed by photography to two (the questions of stage-line, etc.)
6. and it respects the three-dimensional continuity of the actual space

Now he is a well respected editor, and many people always follow the rule of six when evaluating an edit. In one of the films I cut for my senior thesis, I purposefully broke these rules. For the film, I established my own hierarchy. Much of the thesis talk was in explaining why. That film won the Adobe design achievement award in 2007 for live action.

There are no rules set in stone.

Super cool. Congratulations on the recognition.

Shame none of it is in the film.

Mad Max was a cool, pretty, exciting film about basically nothing. Worth watching, but probably only once (and again in UHDV, eventually).

MMFR deserves all the credit in the world for delivering an aesthetic style, a look, a certain energy, and nailing it out of the park in each and every way. The commitment to perfection across all aspects of the production shows, and it is truly impressive. But I also think it is a completely flat, meaningless, boring story with no characters worth caring about. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people praise MMFR for its "strong female characters"... there isn't a strong character, male or female, within 100 miles of that movie IMO. It's not overtly sexist, and it drives home a message of equality in the most simplistic way possible, so it does deserve a shred of credit there. But people go on about Furiosa like she's the standard all female characters should now be held up against, when in reality she's as flat and 1-dimensional as everyone else in the movie.

*spoilers from here on out*

The film relies on nothing but the most obvious manipulative tactics to try and make us care about any of the characters. They don't do anything to make us care about any of the women trying to escape, but they're all beautiful and being held captive by people who look like monsters, so that's all the development we need there, right? And then they go ahead and kill the pregnant one(who we don't care about aside from the fact that she's pregnant) just to make sure we really hate the bad guy, but again, he looks like a monster so we already know we're supposed to hate him.

There's also the skinny dude who flips sides more times than I can count, for no apparent reason beyond the fact that he finds one of the pretty girls pretty. And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

It makes my brain hurt lol

MMFR deserves all the credit in the world for delivering an aesthetic style, a look, a certain energy, and nailing it out of the park in each and every way. The commitment to perfection across all aspects of the production shows, and it is truly impressive. But I also think it is a completely flat, meaningless, boring story with no characters worth caring about. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people praise MMFR for its "strong female characters"... there isn't a strong character, male or female, within 100 miles of that movie IMO. It's not overtly sexist, and it drives home a message of equality in the most simplistic way possible, so it does deserve a shred of credit there. But people go on about Furiosa like she's the standard all female characters should now be held up against, when in reality she's as flat and 1-dimensional as everyone else in the movie.

The film relies on nothing but the most obvious manipulative tactics to try and make us care about any of the characters. They don't do anything to make us care about any of the women trying to escape, but they're all beautiful and being held captive by people who look like monsters, so that's all the development we need there, right?

The point wasn't to give each of the wives their own arc before we had an Avengers film with them together. They served as a plot device, and STILL had distinct characteristics, and each contributed to the group in one way or another by the end (even the hopeless Cheedo).

And then they go ahead and kill the pregnant one(who we don't care about aside from the fact that she's pregnant) just to make sure we really hate the bad guy, but again, he looks like a monster so we already know we're supposed to hate him.

Except you're completely wrong. The bad guy doesn't kill her (if anything, he actively tries to keep her from harm multiple times, for selfish reasons, of course, but he doesn't directly contribute to her death), circumstance does. She was the wives' pillar. The true leader who was always willing to do what needed to be done, and so she had to die, from a storytelling standpoint. Her actions saved Max (and the group) multiple times, but ultimately played a big part in how she died.

There's also the skinny dude who flips sides more times than I can count,

He flips side once. Literally once in the movie, from the immortan's side, to the side of the wives. This is very telling with regards your poor critique...

for no apparent reason beyond the fact that he finds one of the pretty girls pretty.

If you didn't have earplugs, you'd hear why he flipped sides. The first time the girls spared his life (on orders from Angharad, who was the leader that Furiosa answered to), they planted seeds of doubt in his mind. His direct failure of IJ's orders caused him to BSoD, until Capable talked to him about fate.

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

I'll definitely say that the feminist embrace of Furiosa is pretty dumb (as are most feminist things), since she is a character that fits in a world, not a power woman.

It makes my brain hurt lol

Clearly.
I'll be sure to put the Wiggles on for you, since that's more your speed. ;)

MMFR deserves all the credit in the world for delivering an aesthetic style, a look, a certain energy, and nailing it out of the park in each and every way. The commitment to perfection across all aspects of the production shows, and it is truly impressive. But I also think it is a completely flat, meaningless, boring story with no characters worth caring about. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people praise MMFR for its "strong female characters"... there isn't a strong character, male or female, within 100 miles of that movie IMO. It's not overtly sexist, and it drives home a message of equality in the most simplistic way possible, so it does deserve a shred of credit there. But people go on about Furiosa like she's the standard all female characters should now be held up against, when in reality she's as flat and 1-dimensional as everyone else in the movie.

*spoilers from here on out*

The film relies on nothing but the most obvious manipulative tactics to try and make us care about any of the characters. They don't do anything to make us care about any of the women trying to escape, but they're all beautiful and being held captive by people who look like monsters, so that's all the development we need there, right? And then they go ahead and kill the pregnant one(who we don't care about aside from the fact that she's pregnant) just to make sure we really hate the bad guy, but again, he looks like a monster so we already know we're supposed to hate him.

There's also the skinny dude who flips sides more times than I can count, for no apparent reason beyond the fact that he finds one of the pretty girls pretty. And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

It makes my brain hurt lol

This is so weird. I'M the guy who complains about the lack of character development and cartoon characterizations in action movies. I got exactly what I wanted from MMFR. Allusions to the main characters' past, telling details about the principals, and a sense that this world had its own logic that was completely different than my own. I saw enough of the iceberg is another way of putting it. To tell more in a movie so devoted to dramatically showing would have been out of place. I didn't know a lot of explicit details about the characters' history, but I had no doubt that George Miller had notebooks (or hard drives) in his house full of that history. You could tell. His vision of the world sold it and the characters in it. There's an analogy to practical effects here.

MMFR deserves all the credit in the world for delivering an aesthetic style, a look, a certain energy, and nailing it out of the park in each and every way. The commitment to perfection across all aspects of the production shows, and it is truly impressive. But I also think it is a completely flat, meaningless, boring story with no characters worth caring about. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people praise MMFR for its "strong female characters"... there isn't a strong character, male or female, within 100 miles of that movie IMO. It's not overtly sexist, and it drives home a message of equality in the most simplistic way possible, so it does deserve a shred of credit there. But people go on about Furiosa like she's the standard all female characters should now be held up against, when in reality she's as flat and 1-dimensional as everyone else in the movie.

The film relies on nothing but the most obvious manipulative tactics to try and make us care about any of the characters. They don't do anything to make us care about any of the women trying to escape, but they're all beautiful and being held captive by people who look like monsters, so that's all the development we need there, right?

The point wasn't to give each of the wives their own arc before we had an Avengers film with them together. They served as a plot device, and STILL had distinct characteristics, and each contributed to the group in one way or another by the end (even the hopeless Cheedo).

You're twisting my meaning. I don't need a multi-episode arc's worth of development to care about a character. I cared about Matt Murdock after the very first scene in Daredevil. Every character in MMFR is a caricature; 1-note, 1-dimensional, flat, lifeless, boring.

And then they go ahead and kill the pregnant one(who we don't care about aside from the fact that she's pregnant) just to make sure we really hate the bad guy, but again, he looks like a monster so we already know we're supposed to hate him.

Except you're completely wrong. The bad guy doesn't kill her (if anything, he actively tries to keep her from harm multiple times, for selfish reasons, of course, but he doesn't directly contribute to her death), circumstance does. She was the wives' pillar. The true leader who was always willing to do what needed to be done, and so she had to die, from a storytelling standpoint. Her actions saved Max (and the group) multiple times, but ultimately played a big part in how she died.

Again, twisting my meaning. Yes, the bad guy wanted her alive, but she died in the process of escaping his evil clutches. We're supposed to feel bad about her death, but as I already said, there is so little to her character (or anyone else's) that I had no investment in what happened to her or anyone else. It's a testament to how poor the storytelling is that I could watch a pregnant woman die and not care, given how sensitive I am to that sort of thing on a gut level.

There's also the skinny dude who flips sides more times than I can count,

He flips side once. Literally once in the movie, from the immortan's side, to the side of the wives. This is very telling with regards your poor critique...

Wrong. We see him flip sides multiple times, as he bounces back and forth between the two groups. He just agrees to go with whoever he's stuck with at the moment, and only finally commits to one side because of the pretty lady.

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

Agreed. None of which is remarkable or special or anything beyond every other lame action movie ever made. 2 tough people get together and fight better than the bad guys. Big deal :)

There's also the skinny dude who flips sides more times than I can count,

He flips side once. Literally once in the movie, from the immortan's side, to the side of the wives. This is very telling with regards your poor critique...

Wrong. We see him flip sides multiple times, as he bounces back and forth between the two groups. He just agrees to go with whoever he's stuck with at the moment, and only finally commits to one side because of the pretty lady.

Not sure we watched the same movie, then.
You're going to have to tell me when he "bounces back and forth between the two groups". The only time that I ever saw him side with the wives was when he dropped Immortan Joe's revolver, and had to be talked back into action by Capable. He never once went back to Joe.

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

Agreed. None of which is remarkable or special or anything beyond every other lame action movie ever made. 2 tough people get together and fight better than the bad guys. Big deal :)

Eeeexcept that they kind of don't. Furiosa gets stomped and stabbed, Max gets tossed about like a ragdoll. The wives, the Vuvalini, and Nux all contribute to the group's success. It's a Mad Max-universe film that revolves around the War Rig, not Furiosa, not Max, not Nux, not the Wives, or Joe. It's a story about how characters interact in this world, edited and produced in a way that surpasses most of what Hollywood churns out each year.

In my repeated watchings of the film, I see the entire iceberg behind every scene now, not just the action on the screen, and that's something that very few movies have ever delivered.

Not sure we watched the same movie, then.

Cruel and I must have been duped into watching the bad version :p

- No text -

I'll take your Cody-esque escape from answering the question as an admission of defeat, since you can't provide a single bit of evidence to support your claim.

Checkmate. ;)

I think a lot of people saw a different movie.

Sometimes people just talk!

In fact, the allusions to a greater lore is what got me going in the first half of the movie. It felt very Halo-esque in that regard.

This is so weird. I'M the guy who complains about the lack of character development and cartoon characterizations in action movies. I got exactly what I wanted from MMFR. Allusions to the main characters' past, telling details about the principals, and a sense that this world had its own logic that was completely different than my own. I saw enough of the iceberg is another way of putting it. To tell more in a movie so devoted to dramatically showing would have been out of place. I didn't know a lot of explicit details about the characters' history, but I had no doubt that George Miller had notebooks (or hard drives) in his house full of that history. You could tell. His vision of the world sold it and the characters in it. There's an analogy to practical effects here.

The world building was terrific, but the story they told in that world was awful. Did the characters have personality? Yes, except for Max and Furiosa. Did they develop as characters? Aside from the side switcher, no, none of them did.

Could this story have been told without Max or Furiosa? Yes, absolutely. What if the breeders had just left on their own, and we followed the side-switcher from the beginning as he tracked them down, boarded the vehicle, and then failed to do as he'd been led his whole life to believe he should have done? Watch as he realizes his life was a lie, that people can be more than property, and that he was super horny for the hot girls. Then, in a true about-face, he sacrifices himself to save the breeders and stop the Immortan, allowing people who value life to return home and start a society about more than power and war. That would have been such a better movie, and the fact is that it's really the exact same plot, minus the two main characters.

Why does that work? Because those two characters are boring, unlikeable, and impossible to relate to. All of the others have circumstances that at least relate to the human condition, but Max and Furiosa don't react to the world in believable ways. Max literally has nothing going on. There's the weird flashback hallucinations but it's clear they don't matter at all and are at best a bandaid added in post to pretend that there's a reason for why he does what he does (but I don't buy it because it's never shown to have any effect on Max). Furiosa because her level of investment should be 100% but turns out to have been like 3%. She finds out the green place is gone and she's just kind of "oh well" about the whole thing.

In movies we talk about the "all is lost" moment in the script, where they fell into the chasm where memories go to be forgotten, or the shark is literally eating the boat they're on, or the alien has kidnapped the little girl who you were risking everything to save. In MMFR, when Furiosa realizes The Green Place isn't around anymore, instead of despairing because she spent months arranging secret deals, risked her position and the lives of her friends, and killed scores of people for literally nothing, she just takes a deep breath and decides "we go on" *and then* is immediately convinced to go back instead. What? I mean, everything she lived for was a lie, so she made the only decision she could, and then someone tapped her on the shoulder and she just up and changed her mind? Garbage writing.

Side-switcher has a great "all is lost" moment after he fails the Immortan. He curls into a ball and despairs properly. Then, an unexpected visitor convinces him that what he believes he lost was really for his own good, and he gets up, switches sides, and has real conviction moving forward. Why on earth wasn't he the pivotal character of the film? He is literally the only one who grows or changes over the course of the entire movie, and instead of this being an epic moment of sacrifice it feels so much more like "well thank god we spent all that time setting up that this dude could die instead of someone we really want the audience to care about." Completely undercutting the potential of the event.

So disappointing.

- No text -

- No text -

Sometimes people just talk!

And sometimes people run when they're proven wrong. ;)

Sometimes people just talk!

And sometimes people run when they're proven wrong. ;)

I DO have a job, you know. Besides, I like leaving you in suspense ;)

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

Agreed. None of which is remarkable or special or anything beyond every other lame action movie ever made. 2 tough people get together and fight better than the bad guys. Big deal :)

Eeeexcept that they kind of don't. Furiosa gets stomped and stabbed, Max gets tossed about like a ragdoll. The wives, the Vuvalini, and Nux all contribute to the group's success. It's a Mad Max-universe film that revolves around the War Rig, not Furiosa, not Max, not Nux, not the Wives, or Joe. It's a story about how characters interact in this world, edited and produced in a way that surpasses most of what Hollywood churns out each year.

In my repeated watchings of the film, I see the entire iceberg behind every scene now, not just the action on the screen, and that's something that very few movies have ever delivered.

I feel like you're kinda making my point for me, here. The anchor of the whole movie is not a character, it's a truck. There's just nobody and nothing worth caring about in the entire thing. I started off by saying that I think it is impeccably well made in terms of every aspect of the production. The stunts, costumes, cinematography, sound design, all top-notch. I just think it's a crappy, shallow story with nothing characters, and for me personally, strong characters are the absolute most important thing in any story. If I don't care about the characters, I'm not invested. And if I'm not invested, all the production values are essentially a huge waste for me. I watch MMFR and wish such care and thought and execution had gone into a movie that featured a story worth telling.

I've long suspected this, but now it's clear. Kahzgul inhabits a slightly different, more dismal universe than ours where Destiny is plagued by lag and cheaters, and Mad Max: Fury Road isn't an incredible movie.

This is so weird. I'M the guy who complains about the lack of character development and cartoon characterizations in action movies. I got exactly what I wanted from MMFR. Allusions to the main characters' past, telling details about the principals, and a sense that this world had its own logic that was completely different than my own. I saw enough of the iceberg is another way of putting it. To tell more in a movie so devoted to dramatically showing would have been out of place. I didn't know a lot of explicit details about the characters' history, but I had no doubt that George Miller had notebooks (or hard drives) in his house full of that history. You could tell. His vision of the world sold it and the characters in it. There's an analogy to practical effects here.

The world building was terrific, but the story they told in that world was awful. Did the characters have personality? Yes, except for Max and Furiosa. Did they develop as characters? Aside from the side switcher, no, none of them did.

Could this story have been told without Max or Furiosa? Yes, absolutely. What if the breeders had just left on their own, and we followed the side-switcher from the beginning as he tracked them down, boarded the vehicle, and then failed to do as he'd been led his whole life to believe he should have done? Watch as he realizes his life was a lie, that people can be more than property, and that he was super horny for the hot girls. Then, in a true about-face, he sacrifices himself to save the breeders and stop the Immortan, allowing people who value life to return home and start a society about more than power and war. That would have been such a better movie, and the fact is that it's really the exact same plot, minus the two main characters.

Why does that work? Because those two characters are boring, unlikeable, and impossible to relate to. All of the others have circumstances that at least relate to the human condition, but Max and Furiosa don't react to the world in believable ways. Max literally has nothing going on. There's the weird flashback hallucinations but it's clear they don't matter at all and are at best a bandaid added in post to pretend that there's a reason for why he does what he does (but I don't buy it because it's never shown to have any effect on Max). Furiosa because her level of investment should be 100% but turns out to have been like 3%. She finds out the green place is gone and she's just kind of "oh well" about the whole thing.

In movies we talk about the "all is lost" moment in the script, where they fell into the chasm where memories go to be forgotten, or the shark is literally eating the boat they're on, or the alien has kidnapped the little girl who you were risking everything to save. In MMFR, when Furiosa realizes The Green Place isn't around anymore, instead of despairing because she spent months arranging secret deals, risked her position and the lives of her friends, and killed scores of people for literally nothing, she just takes a deep breath and decides "we go on" *and then* is immediately convinced to go back instead. What? I mean, everything she lived for was a lie, so she made the only decision she could, and then someone tapped her on the shoulder and she just up and changed her mind? Garbage writing.

Side-switcher has a great "all is lost" moment after he fails the Immortan. He curls into a ball and despairs properly. Then, an unexpected visitor convinces him that what he believes he lost was really for his own good, and he gets up, switches sides, and has real conviction moving forward. Why on earth wasn't he the pivotal character of the film? He is literally the only one who grows or changes over the course of the entire movie, and instead of this being an epic moment of sacrifice it feels so much more like "well thank god we spent all that time setting up that this dude could die instead of someone we really want the audience to care about." Completely undercutting the potential of the event.

So disappointing.

All I can say is I cared enough and knew enough about Max and Furiosa. I found them completely believable as characters. You call them dull and I call them dulled, or more accurately damaged. I'm not a fan of the "must-have moments" school of scriptwriting (or any kind of fiction writing if the writer knows what he's doing). I don't relate to your obsession with Nux or this notion that he should have been the focus of the movie. It just makes me think you don't get it. The big twist of the movie is that Max isn't the focal point you'd expect--the women are. That said, if you don't get that Max lost his family and grasp how that affects his journey in the movie--if you didn't see Furiosa despairing--if you don't get that this movie is primarily a visceral experience that follows its own rules (and shouldn't be judged as an Elizabethan drama), I'm at a loss.

George Miller has influenced everyone from Guillermo del Toro to Vince Gilligan. For me, watching MMFR was delightful because I felt like I was watching a master at the top of his game. But enough. Whenever I feel like I'm trying to explain heaven to a bear, I take it as a sign I should stop. I'm stopping. :)

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

Agreed. None of which is remarkable or special or anything beyond every other lame action movie ever made. 2 tough people get together and fight better than the bad guys. Big deal :)

Eeeexcept that they kind of don't. Furiosa gets stomped and stabbed, Max gets tossed about like a ragdoll. The wives, the Vuvalini, and Nux all contribute to the group's success. It's a Mad Max-universe film that revolves around the War Rig, not Furiosa, not Max, not Nux, not the Wives, or Joe. It's a story about how characters interact in this world, edited and produced in a way that surpasses most of what Hollywood churns out each year.

In my repeated watchings of the film, I see the entire iceberg behind every scene now, not just the action on the screen, and that's something that very few movies have ever delivered.

I feel like you're kinda making my point for me, here. The anchor of the whole movie is not a character, it's a truck. There's just nobody and nothing worth caring about in the entire thing. I started off by saying that I think it is impeccably well made in terms of every aspect of the production. The stunts, costumes, cinematography, sound design, all top-notch. I just think it's a crappy, shallow story with nothing characters, and for me personally, strong characters are the absolute most important thing in any story. If I don't care about the characters, I'm not invested. And if I'm not invested, all the production values are essentially a huge waste for me. I watch MMFR and wish such care and thought and execution had gone into a movie that featured a story worth telling.

Reminds me of a certain video game. Yet, here we are.

- No text -

It actually would explain a lot lol

- No text -

Sometimes people just talk!

And sometimes people run when they're proven wrong. ;)

Who made you staff again? :-p

if you didn't see Furiosa despairing--if you don't get that this movie is primarily a visceral experience that follows its own rules (and shouldn't be judged as an Elizabethan drama), I'm at a loss.

Yeah definitely. You have to actually LOOK and see what the characters are feeling, rather than listen to the tell you how they feel.

Seriously, a couple of us on these boards craft stories for a living. We're genuinely interested in the art of storytelling and spend lots of time thinking about it, doing it, and discussing it. You've got an opinion that I disagree with, but if I were to dismiss yours in the way that you're dismissing mine, I think you'd be insulted. I know I am.

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

---

I'll back up to a very broad stroke of where I'm coming from; the underlying premise of my approach to all art, film or otherwise:

I believe that the point of art, speaking is the most broad sense possible, is to illicit an emotional reaction in the audience. Mad max gave me no reaction. But it gave you something. That's great; it did it's job as far as you're concerned. For me, it lacked in what I need in a story. I'll grant that I lean far more heavily on character development and story arc than most modern blockbuster films are willing to attempt. But I think those things are important and I found them lacking in MMFR.

The reason I focus on Nuk (that's the side switcher, I take it) is not because I'm obsessed with him but because his story is the only one that makes a journey. He's the only character that learns something about himself, the only one who is in any sort of emotional way affected by the events of the film, and the only one who changes as the story progresses.

Not every story needs to follow the same path: One story may start with a seed, watch it grow, and end with a tree; while another story may start with a forest and then burn the whole thing down, but if you start with a tree and end with the exact same tree, why didn't you just take a picture. Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

I hope this explains a bit about where I'm coming from and helps you see that disagreement is an inherent element of perspective. The tall man thinks the chair too small, and the short man thinks it too big, while the middle-sized man finds it flawless. They are all correct.

if you didn't see Furiosa despairing--if you don't get that this movie is primarily a visceral experience that follows its own rules (and shouldn't be judged as an Elizabethan drama), I'm at a loss.

Yeah definitely. You have to actually LOOK and see what the characters are feeling, rather than listen to the tell you how they feel.

I could see it with Mel Gibson's Max. I didn't see it with Tom Hardy's.

Furiosa I didn't see it at all. She spent the whole film telling us the stakes were high but showing us she didn't really care and they didn't really affect her at all. If anything, her character worked against the plot and story to make me feel it was less important and less significant than it should have been.

To be clear: I think Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are terrific actors. But the writing for Tom left him with nothing to do and the writing for Furiosa actively worked against what she was doing. It didn't work for me.

You're thrown into a crazy situation, there's not much explanation for what's going on, and there's stuff going down. You gotta buckle up and strap in and WITNESS what's going on. It's a great time. You're totally spot on about this movie. This thread has been fun to watch, let me tell you. Mad Max was totally my movie of the year last year.

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

For what it's worth, I didn't read it like that at all, and I definitely wouldn't expect that from Kermit.

Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'm genuinely asking. Not every character actually needs an arc--that's not how life works. Sometimes things just happen. Not everyone changes all the time. In my mind, Nux is the main character of Fury Road. I really feel like the film is his journey more than anyone else. No, the film obviously doesn't focus on him, and it would have probably been a vastly different film if it had. But I feel like he really is the main character, and we see his journey through the eyes of Max and Furiosa.

Sometimes people just talk!

And sometimes people run when they're proven wrong. ;)

I DO have a job, you know. Besides, I like leaving you in suspense ;)

That explains the extended disappearance the other night. ;)

Seriously, a couple of us on these boards craft stories for a living. We're genuinely interested in the art of storytelling and spend lots of time thinking about it, doing it, and discussing it.

Sure. Be wary of arrogance, though. This is the internet, and I may indeed be a dog, but it's not wise to presume the people you're arguing with lack experience, knowledge, or even credentials in this area.

You've got an opinion that I disagree with, but if I were to dismiss yours in the way that you're dismissing mine, I think you'd be insulted. I know I am.

I'm not dismissing you. At a certain point, though, there's no point. Everything has been said as persuasively as it can be said.

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

---

I'll back up to a very broad stroke of where I'm coming from; the underlying premise of my approach to all art, film or otherwise:

I believe that the point of art, speaking is the most broad sense possible, is to illicit an emotional reaction in the audience. Mad max gave me no reaction. But it gave you something. That's great; it did it's job as far as you're concerned. For me, it lacked in what I need in a story. I'll grant that I lean far more heavily on character development and story arc than most modern blockbuster films are willing to attempt. But I think those things are important and I found them lacking in MMFR.

I'll take that leaning and raise it. Movies i like as they pop in my head: Local Hero, The Last Picture Show, Carol, Lost in Translation, Casablanca, Moon, Diner, Being John Malkovich. Notice anything? I'm not an action movie buff and tend to not like the vast majority of blockbusters. Certain films can transcend the limitations of a genre. I think MMFR comes close to inventing its own genre. Brazil is another film I'd put in that category--singularly unique.

The reason I focus on Nuk (that's the side switcher, I take it) is not because I'm obsessed with him but because his story is the only one that makes a journey. He's the only character that learns something about himself, the only one who is in any sort of emotional way affected by the events of the film, and the only one who changes as the story progresses.

Not every story needs to follow the same path: One story may start with a seed, watch it grow, and end with a tree; while another story may start with a forest and then burn the whole thing down, but if you start with a tree and end with the exact same tree, why didn't you just take a picture. Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

I hope this explains a bit about where I'm coming from and helps you see that disagreement is an inherent element of perspective. The tall man thinks the chair too small, and the short man thinks it too big, while the middle-sized man finds it flawless. They are all correct.

I think we've established that I saw things in the film that you didn't see. I think it's evident that there are many people who know film as well or better than you and me who saw things you didn't see. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, but it may mean you might want to give it another chance. Maybe on a bigger screen this time (and with a good sound system).

Maybe on a bigger screen this time (and with a good sound system).

For some films this is crucial. See 2001. The film is an almost transcendental experience when you allow the visuals (which are bone chilling really) and the sound to engulf you. If anybody hates that film because the ending didn't make sense to them, then I can almost guarantee they didn't see it properly.

In some ways this is happening to video games too. You don't know how many people I know who find many old games lame. Well, when you play them on an emulator and reload save states all the time, then yeah, it's going to suck.

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

Agreed. None of which is remarkable or special or anything beyond every other lame action movie ever made. 2 tough people get together and fight better than the bad guys. Big deal :)

Eeeexcept that they kind of don't. Furiosa gets stomped and stabbed, Max gets tossed about like a ragdoll. The wives, the Vuvalini, and Nux all contribute to the group's success. It's a Mad Max-universe film that revolves around the War Rig, not Furiosa, not Max, not Nux, not the Wives, or Joe. It's a story about how characters interact in this world, edited and produced in a way that surpasses most of what Hollywood churns out each year.

In my repeated watchings of the film, I see the entire iceberg behind every scene now, not just the action on the screen, and that's something that very few movies have ever delivered.

I feel like you're kinda making my point for me, here. The anchor of the whole movie is not a character, it's a truck. There's just nobody and nothing worth caring about in the entire thing. I started off by saying that I think it is impeccably well made in terms of every aspect of the production. The stunts, costumes, cinematography, sound design, all top-notch. I just think it's a crappy, shallow story with nothing characters, and for me personally, strong characters are the absolute most important thing in any story. If I don't care about the characters, I'm not invested. And if I'm not invested, all the production values are essentially a huge waste for me. I watch MMFR and wish such care and thought and execution had gone into a movie that featured a story worth telling.

Reminds me of a certain video game. Yet, here we are.

Despite my pithy comment, I'll reiterate once more that I DID care about the characters so on a basic level, I don't agree with your analysis of the film.

Did the characters have personality? Yes, except for Max and Furiosa.

I will add my 0.02 here and say that I thought both these characters had a lot of personality. In some ways they are both the "strong, silent type" which doesn't leave for much in the way of speaking, but I thought they both conveyed a lot of emotions and inner turmoil with the expressions on their faces. I thought Furiosa occupied an interesting place due to the gender politics of their world. I also thought their decisions made sense in the context of the film. Max convinced Furiosa to turn around, and it all made sense to me--the timing, the way Max waited and thought about it before suggesting, how Furiosa was not a complete pushover about it, but eventually realized and agreed it was the right thing to do.

Also I wanted to add something unrelated to this forum's discussion. Last summer I remember overhearing multiple people complain about the movie saying, "They drove here and then they talked and then they drove back! Booorring!" and I thought that was a hilariously reductivist critique, one that could make anything sound boring if applied. Kind of the yada-yada-yada of movie reviews. "They yada-yada'd the best part!"

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

For what it's worth, I didn't read it like that at all, and I definitely wouldn't expect that from Kermit.

Good to know. I have very limited experience actually talking to most of your guys (send me party invites, yo).

Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'm genuinely asking. Not every character actually needs an arc--that's not how life works. Sometimes things just happen. Not everyone changes all the time. In my mind, Nux is the main character of Fury Road. I really feel like the film is his journey more than anyone else. No, the film obviously doesn't focus on him, and it would have probably been a vastly different film if it had. But I feel like he really is the main character, and we see his journey through the eyes of Max and Furiosa.

I agree that not every character needs an arc, but MMFR is directed in such a way that it seems to be holding a sign saying "look how Max and Furiosa grew over the course of this film! Look at that silent, knowing nod they give each other at the end! See how Max finds freedom and Furiosa finds redemption!" But none of those things happened. The shots are massively indicating the significance of Max and Furiosa's parting, but there isn't one because their joining was purely out of desperation. They needed each other, and now they don't. There's not really a story there. Nuk has a story but the direction flatly dismisses it. The writing practically ignores it after he dies. If I don't care about anyone left in the film, and the people left in the film don't care about the one character I did kind of care about, it just makes me care about those people even less, which made me literally ask myself "why am I watching these people? They're boring."

In a movie about cars and guns and explosions and violence, with an incredible setting and fully realized world, the characters the movie follows actually bored me.

Maybe on a bigger screen this time (and with a good sound system).

For some films this is crucial. See 2001. The film is an almost transcendental experience when you allow the visuals (which are bone chilling really) and the sound to engulf you. If anybody hates that film because the ending didn't make sense to them, then I can almost guarantee they didn't see it properly.

In some ways this is happening to video games too. You don't know how many people I know who find many old games lame. Well, when you play them on an emulator and reload save states all the time, then yeah, it's going to suck.

For MMFR, there were definitely shots where I could tell that, in a theater, they'd be epic. Driving into the storm, for example. The shot is from so far away that even on my 50" TV the war rig was like half an inch long. I actually told my wife, "I bet that looked amazing in the theater." But there's the problem, just as you've stated it: It didn't look amazing on TV. It was difficult to see and thus difficult to figure out what, exactly, I was looking at. It took me out of the movie. I did enjoy the SFX (I have a baller surround sound system), but neither spectacle nor audio help what I feel was a lackluster script. A silent character does not have to be an emotionless, passive, or reactionless character. Again, I loved Mel Gibson as Max and I felt Tom Hardy just didn't deliver that level of performance.

2001 I saw for the first time in a theater so I can't say. Fucking awesome film though. Good god. The pacing is truly incredible.

Video games and save states. Some games like 100 hour long RPGs need it because otherwise they become 300 hours long, which is just asking too much of your player (example: Fallout 4 survival mode. I want the extra restrictions on item weights for ammo, and needing to eat food and drink water, but only being able to save by sleeping basically ruined it for me simply because I don't have enough free time to waste 20 minutes re-doing whatever I just did before I stepped on one damn land mine I didn't see. God how I wish there was a middle difficulty where I could save anywhere), but lots of the old action games were actually really really short games so they needed to be nearly impossible in order to get you to play for more than 20 minutes. Kids these days. In my day we only knew one kid who could beat level 2 of Ninja Gaiden. "Danny the Master" we used to call him. Manages a Taco Bell now, but back then, he was a god among mortals.

Reminds me of a certain video game. Yet, here we are.

The circle is now complete.

Seriously, Destiny inhabits a weird space of frustration and enjoyment for me. When it works, it works well, but when it hiccups (which it does far too often), it's the most disappointing thing. I'll add that the story of TTK was great. I wish they could re-work the rest of the game with that level of polish and attention to plot and writing. Apparently (according to Kotaku) the original story had all of that but they had to scrap most of it when they re-worked the game 1 year out from release. To be fair, it was re-worked because the decision makers thought the plot was bad, and all the cutscenes in the world won't save you from a bad plot. Still, I'd probably have preferred the attempt compared to the nothing we actually got in vanilla.

That was really flattering. I'm not sure I deserve it, but thank you all the same.

In a movie about cars and guns and explosions and violence, with an incredible setting and fully realized world, the characters the movie follows actually bored me.

That's fair enough, and I'll never tell you that you're wrong to have that opinion. In fact, I don't even necessarily completely disagree.

However, I do think that is part of why I liked the film. I can't pretend to understand film-making or story-telling technique, but I LIKE that the most important character in the film (arguably) wasn't the main character. Maybe it just fits with my cynical world view--the real heroes are often nameless, faceless, and forgotten, while the people we sometimes (often?) uphold as heroes are just people doing things instinctively and because of their circumstance. I doubt that's any part of the intended message of the film, but I see it in there all the same.

In a movie about cars and guns and explosions and violence, with an incredible setting and fully realized world, the characters the movie follows actually bored me.

That's fair enough, and I'll never tell you that you're wrong to have that opinion. In fact, I don't even necessarily completely disagree.

However, I do think that is part of why I liked the film. I can't pretend to understand film-making or story-telling technique, but I LIKE that the most important character in the film (arguably) wasn't the main character. Maybe it just fits with my cynical world view--the real heroes are often nameless, faceless, and forgotten, while the people we sometimes (often?) uphold as heroes are just people doing things instinctively and because of their circumstance. I doubt that's any part of the intended message of the film, but I see it in there all the same.

Art is what you get out of it. And that rarely matches what the artist thought it would be.

New horror film about Suits with MBAs and no creative juices or sense of risk-taking whatsoever taking perfectly good film subjects and marginalizing them into oblivion.

--

This is a big problem in Reality TV (where I work), too. Someone sees a great episode and the note that comes back is "That was so good, can we split it up into three episodes?" No, dummy. Making something good take three times as long to happen makes it slow and boring with lots of filler.

Paging Peter Jackson...

- No text -