Mad Max Furiosa

[batguy]

Seems an appearance of some kind should be in order. The title actually has "A Mad Max Saga" in it.
With de-aging who knows. Maybe we see the Interceptor roar in with a familiar driver for a bit.

Max's '73 Falcon XB has been sighted on the set. I'd guess he probably shows up somewhere in this flick. Like, he makes a token appearance passing through and does something of plot importance.

De-aging Mel? IMO it would be a poor investment. Mel's face has aged pretty hard so that would be a lot of work. Hollywood & the public still has pretty mixed feelings about him. And the role has been taken over by another A-lister. Tom Hardy is Max to a new generation of fans.


Hardy is already 46yo - they might wanna do some de-aging work on HIM for this new show. The Furiosa actor looks a good notch younger than Charlize in 'Fury Road', like maybe 10 years or more. They have a new younger actor in the Immortan Joe mask in the trailer shots (HKB died in 2020). And FR is already a decade back (filmed in 2012-2013). So in theory even Tom Hardy's Max should look about 20 years younger than Tom Hardy today.

But George Miller has never had much love for continuity & timelines. He will probably say "Screw it, Max is an archetype. Give Tom Hardy the industry standard (minor CGI touch-ups) and we're rolling. The audience won't care."

 

[jkno]

I'm not a car enthusiast for the single reason that I cannot afford expensive cars That being said, I see old Mad Max series like a classic Ferrari, while the new Mad Max like a new Ferrari. Both are excellent, but for different reasons.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Well, I'm really not a fan of Max having any encounter with the citadel or any of the characters in this prequel. However... I always found it odd how relentlessly he was hunted down in the first few minutes of Fury Road... so... that could indicate some history. Though... could simply be their standard way of handling people coming into their territory.

If he appears I actually do hope they choose a different character and not waste money on de-aging. Otherwise... why not hire Charlize Theron and de-age her too.

I have complete faith in Miller. He seems to have kept his edge, while other directors lost it and substituted it with arrogance.

 

[Psab keel]

No more of this creepy de-aging crap. Either recast (ie. Tom Hardy was good in the role) or tell a new story. I think de-aging is a shiny new tool that Hollywood loves to play with, but so often it's just a crutch for not having the guts to recast, or worse yet, tell new stories altogether.

 

[batguy]

"CGI cosmetics" have been common on star actors for 20 years.

Whether the CGI work takes off 5 years or 40 years . . . That is more a matter of degree than principle.


Sure, cranking Harrison Ford back 35 years in 'Dial of Destiny' gets a lot of coverage & discussion. But did you notice that George Clooney was de-aged for big parts of 'The Men who Stare at Goats'? Or Woody Harrelson & Matt McConaghay for big chunks of 'True Detective'? Did you notice that Jennifer Anniston, Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise, etc, have just stopped aging, period?

This stuff is one of the standard tools in the toolbox now.


Making Tom Hardy look 30 instead of 46 in 'Furiosa' would not be a big job. They could do it well enough. It wouldn't add too much to the budget. And most of the audience would barely notice. It would just be a subtle benefit to the story, like hair and makeup tweaks.

Will George Miller want to do it? I dunno and I don't really care. The movie is not gonna sink or swim on it.

 

[Psab keel]

Subtle changes to erase a few wrinkles or so are one thing. Ressurecting the dead, like Peter Cushing, or de-aging Ford 30+ years is still creepy to me. Even Carrie Fisher being recreated for Rogue One still weirds me out.

 

[batguy]

Yes, just like the way bad CGI is a problem. But good CGI is not.

I'm saying that de-aging work deserves a fair moderate attitude and not be dismissed out-of-hand. It has perfectly valid uses.

It's currently in the stage that CGI was at 15 years ago. For a while it was really fashionable to say "CGI sucks" and big directors would claim "we didn't use CGI in this movie". It had not really sunk in with the public how widespread CGI was. We're still in that stage to some extent but it's a gradual climb out.

 

[Ron]

I know I am in the minority, but I'll say it.

I still think Keaton was lousy. His manic tantrums only made him look immature.
I also think Burton's eccentricity was a weakness and Jack Nicholson's performance was phoned in. I saw the film in theaters in '89 when it was all the hype and thought it was mediocre. Oh yea, the '89 Batmobile is ridiculous, too.

By the way, do you know that the pearls in a quality pearl necklace are individually knotted and will not scatter, even if you broke the necklace? Only cheap pearl necklaces are strung loosely. So Thomas Wayne was a cheapskate, too.

That's okay because I'm part of the minority that did not like Fury Road at all . I HATE the Snyder-esque color palette especially compared to how good & authentic the originals looked. The action, while technically outstanding, didn't grab me the way the originals did. I get more amped watching Max in Road Warrior simply lean out of a truck and blast a shotgun than I do from any stunt in Fury Road. Lastly, it's not Mad Max without Mel Gibson. I like Tom Hardy but Mel is Max. And I don't care about Furiosa.

Oh yea, the '89 Batmobile is ridiculous, too.

Okay, now you're just asking for a fight.

View attachment 1766213



I am coming from the perspective of someone who was there in 1989, and public expectations were already primed with articles, interviews, stills and clips to expect a darker film. The memory of the farcical Adam West show was irrelevant. We already knew we were getting something different. And, for the most part, people loved it. I didn't.

I accept I'm in the minority here, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their opinion.

Also don't be so quick to credit Burton for infusing Batman with a modern noir vision. Noir Batman was realized by the work of folks like, Neal Adams in the comics. Adams, who passed away unexpectedly just last year (R.I.P.), did the heavy lifting in the early days while Batman was still being drawn strolling with Gordon on the streets of Gotham in broad daylight like any regular Joe with kids playing unfazed in the background. The work of Adams really rescued the image of Batman from the shadow of the TV show. Neal's artwork infused Batman with power and stature. The cape itself was almost its own character when Adams drew Batman. Neal Adams vowed that you will never see his Batman entering a room through the door.

I'm willing to bet that the hopes and expectations of comic readers in 1989 were different than that of the general public. Well, at least that's where I was coming from.

Burton only put his rendition of a Batman that was already realized in comics for years by folks like Adams.

We can agree to disagree about Batman 1989.



Here's my one Neal Adams drawing of Batman I purchased when he was alive.

Spoiler

View attachment 1766237

That's so awesome. Neal was my favorite comic artist. I remember you posting that drawing in the Neal Adams RIP thread. Don't ever sell it!

Everybody loves to credit Frank Miller for giving Batman his edge back. Bologna. It was Neal that did that.

This Furiosa trailer looks good. IMO it doesn't match the 'Fury Road' trailers but it's a promising start.

I like that it's not trying too hard with the action. We all know the action is gonna be there. The trailer seems to be 'over it' and more fixated on the characters & tone. Yesssssss.




IMO Burton's eccentricity became a drawback when it spiraled out of control in the 2nd movie. In the first one it was still hanging together and it did make the show feel alive in a way that a more straight-faced adaptation might not have.

Nicholson chewed the scenery well enough for that show. It wouldn't have been right in Nolan's verse or some others but it was tuned right for that one. I've always viewed his Joker as somebody who was unraveling at the seams and psychologically on his last legs. He's a more drawn-out version of a mass shooter who doesn't really expect to survive the mess he's making. Many other Jokers (Heath Ledger, Mark Hamill, etc) are in a longer-term-adversary gear.

In a sense that makes Nicholson's Joker one of the most correct ones. Too many Jokers end up being mashups of the Joker + the Riddler. They give him too much stability & IQ points (to make him more formidable). It skews away from what the character was intended to be.

Keaton's portrayal fit in the context of the movie and the sparring partner. Take the scenery-chewing Joker away and replace him with Danny DeVito's Penguin, and Keaton just seems moody in a bland boring way.

I think it's impossible to give the '89 Batman a fair shake without considering the time. Everybody was coming off the cheeseball Adam West show. Even "good" superhero movies consisted of the Christopher Reeve Superman shows which were still very throwback & straightlaced in the big picture. Tim Burton took a risk when he leaned Batman into the late-1980s adult world zeitgiest.

YES!!! Joker+Riddler and in the case of The Dark Knight, throw in a liberal amount of The Crow.

While Ledger's Joker is one of the best written villains in cinema history, I still feel Nicholson's Joker is truer to the character. To add, I like Keaton's at times unstable psyche. I can believe this guy would dress up like a bat. With Bale, it felt like being Batman was an occupation to him rather than a manifested persona. The Nolan movies are outstanding (eh, not so much the third) and I wouldn't try to argue that the Burton films are superior but, I do prefer them.

 

[batguy]

That's okay because I'm part of the minority that did not like Fury Road at all . I HATE the Snyder-esque color palette especially compared to how good & authentic the originals looked. The action, while technically outstanding, didn't grab me the way the originals did. I get more amped watching Max in Road Warrior simply lean out of a truck and blast a shotgun than I do from any stunt in Fury Road. Lastly, it's not Mad Max without Mel Gibson. I like Tom Hardy but Mel is Max. And I don't care about Furiosa.

They are just different movies from different eras. FR and MM#2.

I try not to let a first classic set movie the bar too high for sequels. 'Last Crusade' was a great sequel (especially for 3rd movie) but it falls short of 'Raiders' in many specific ways. It also makes up for it with its own set of new strengths that 'Raiders' didn't have. Same with other awesome sequels. Terminator 2. Aliens. Empire Strikes Back. The Dark Knight.

Yeah, FR is in the same universe with the old Mad Max movies. But 'Rogue One' is in the same universe with 'Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure.'

Okay, now you're just asking for a fight.

I have mixed feelings about the Keaton car. It's a real show-stopper in terms of styling/production design. On the other hand you could defeat it with a speed bump.

I do think it was the perfect car for the Burton movies. It struck the same balance of style & function that everything else did. The characters, the scripts, the costumes, the gadgets, etc.

That's so awesome. Neal was my favorite comic artist. I remember you posting that drawing in the Neal Adams RIP thread. Don't ever sell it!

Everybody loves to credit Frank Miller for giving Batman his edge back. Bologna. It was Neal that did that.

Yep, yep, yep. Neal Adams is underappreciated for helping save Batman from the evil clutches of cheesiness.

YES!!! Joker+Riddler and in the case of The Dark Knight, throw in a liberal amount of The Crow.

While Ledger's Joker is one of the best written villains in cinema history, I still feel Nicholson's Joker is truer to the character. To add, I like Keaton's at times unstable psyche. I can believe this guy can would dress up like a bat. With Bale, it felt like being Batman was an occupation to him rather than a manifested persona. The Nolan movies are outstanding (eh, not so much the third) and I wouldn't try to argue that the Burton films are superior but, I do prefer them.

IMO the best Batman movies tend to be the first one each director makes. After the first one they start skewing farther off into making their own type of movie and less of a Batman show. It was true with Burton & Nolan, and to some extent with Schumacher.

The post-Nolan Batmans . . . . Affleck & Snyder tried but they never got the movie they needed.

Pattinson & Reeves turned in a decent first entry. Now let's see how long they can stay on the bull's back.

 

[Ron]

They are just different movies from different eras. FR and MM#2.

I try not to let a first classic set movie the bar too high for sequels. 'Last Crusade' was a great sequel (especially for 3rd movie) but it falls short of 'Raiders' in many specific ways. It also makes up for it with its own set of new strengths that 'Raiders' didn't have. Same with other awesome sequels. Terminator 2. Aliens. Empire Strikes Back. The Dark Knight.

Yeah, FR is in the same universe with the old Mad Max movies. But 'Rogue One' is in the same universe with 'Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure.'

Even the original Max trilogy seemed to have a loose continuity much like the Dollars trilogy.

I have mixed feelings about the Keaton car. It's a real show-stopper in terms of styling/production design. On the other hand you could defeat it with a speed bump.

I do think it was the perfect car for the Burton movies. It struck the same balance of style & function that everything else did. The characters, the scripts, the costumes, the gadgets, etc.

It's certainly not as capable as the Tumbler was on set (although I don't know how the drivers saw out of that thing) but yes, styling-wise, it's one of the coolest designs ever. Sure, there wasn't much under the hood in reality. You might even say it was like driving a suped-up parade float. Same for the '95 Batmobile. But in-universe, it's stellar (pardon the pun). If I can accept a guy with bat-shaped boomerangs can take on armed thugs, I can accept he'd drive something as equally implausible. As far as realistic cars, the 2022 Batmobile is killer and of course the '66 is still a classic.

IMO the best Batman movies tend to be the first one each director makes. After the first one they start skewing farther off into making their own type of movie and less of a Batman show. It was true with Burton & Nolan, and to some extent with Schumacher.

The post-Nolan Batmans . . . . Affleck & Snyder tried but they never got the movie they needed.

Pattinson & Reeves turned in a decent first entry. Now let's see how long they can stay on the bull's back.

Yup. I agree. And I would argue Batman Begins is a better Batman movie while The Dark Knight is a better movie in general. I didn't like Synder's Batman although it seems a lot of fans love his version, especially the suit. I did enjoy Reeves' Batman and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Sorry, back to Max...

 

[batguy]

It's certainly not as capable as the Tumbler was on set (although I don't know how the drivers saw out of that thing) but yes, styling-wise, it's one of the coolest designs ever. Sure, there wasn't much under the hood in reality. You might even say it was like driving a suped-up parade float. Same for the '95 Batmobile. But in-universe, it's stellar (pardon the pun). If I can accept a guy with bat-shaped boomerangs can take on armed thugs, I can accept he'd drive something as equally implausible. As far as realistic cars, the 2022 Batmobile is killer and of course the '66 is still a classic.

The Tumbler was really functional in some ways and impractical in others. I balked at the exterior skin design. Too complicated. To many panels with edges to catch on things and get torn off and be difficult to fix. Wonderously bad aerodynamics too.

The Schumacher-mobiles - I try to go easy on those movies in general. But man, those two cars . . . Ugh.

The '66 car is odd but it has mojo. Totally iconic.

Yup. I agree. And I would argue Batman Begins a better Batman movie while The Dark Knight is a better movie in general. I didn't like Synder's Batman although it seems a lot of fans love his version, especially the suit. I did enjoy Reeves' Batman and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Sorry, back to Max...

Agreed on 'Begins' versus 'Dark Knight'.

I felt like the Pattinson/Reeves movie was a bit too theatrical & nasty. IMO Batman doesn't belong in the same universe as 'Se7en'. But the actual character portrayals worked well.

 

[pengbuzz]

The Tumbler was really functional in some ways and impractical in others. I balked at the exterior skin design. Too complicated. To many panels with edges to catch on things and get torn off and be difficult to fix. Wonderously bad aerodynamics too.

Admittedly, not a big fan of the Tumbler. Looked like an engineer went crazy with a 3d polygon program and then forgot to hit "smooth poly".

The Schumacher-mobiles - I try to go easy on those movies in general. But man, those two cars . . . Ugh.

Yeah, I despise those wheeled garbage-fests; too much neon, way too "bulbous" looking, and reeked more of ideas for action figure vehicles than anything live action.

The '66 car is odd but it has mojo. Totally iconic.

It does! It also had a retro-sleek look and looked powerful at the same time. My fave:

Spoiler

The 1989 Batmobile. THAT lady had power and elegance (although I agree that speed bumps would have taken her out of the running!

Agreed on 'Begins' versus 'Dark Knight'.

I felt like the Pattinson/Reeves movie was a bit too theatrical & nasty. IMO Batman doesn't belong in the same universe as 'Se7en'. But the actual character portrayals worked well.

Agreed on all counts with that. The movie works, but it didn't feel quite "right" to me for Batman. It is an excellent movie and I'm not knocking it; it just didn't hit me right. But it was interesting to watch, and I did really like the parts with Alfred and Bruce TBH (especially when they reconciled at the hospital).

Back to the topic though: as long as Furiosa adheres to the general "swing" of the Mad Max films, I'm good with some minor oddities in the canon/ continuity. I always envisioned those movies as being told from the perspectives of the survivors of the apocalypse, with the accounts differing a bit from one movie to another because different people were telling those stories, recounting them from their own points of view.

Also: the Mad Max world focuses on Oz (Australia); I'd be interested to see what other parts of the world look like in that time and if any governments survived.

Crazy idea:

Spoiler

It's just Australia and the rest of the world managed to recover and has a "no go" zone around the continent.

 

[Ron]

The Tumbler was really functional in some ways and impractical in others. I balked at the exterior skin design. Too complicated. To many panels with edges to catch on things and get torn off and be difficult to fix. Wonderously bad aerodynamics too.

The Schumacher-mobiles - I try to go easy on those movies in general. But man, those two cars . . . Ugh.

The '66 car is odd but it has mojo. Totally iconic.



Agreed on 'Begins' versus 'Dark Knight'.

I felt like the Pattinson/Reeves movie was a bit too theatrical & nasty. IMO Batman doesn't belong in the same universe as 'Se7en'. But the actual character portrayals worked well.

Yeah, I was never a big fan of the Tumbler. I appreciate that it's different. Too "tanky" looking for me though. I like a sleek Batmobile.

The '95 Batmobile is certainly its own animal. It's like Batman meets Tron meets Alien. I didn't like it at the time but it's grown on me somewhat over the years...somewhat. Maybe because it's so quirky. Still, not even close to being my ideal Batmobile. As a piece of art, I can appreciate it. As a car, nah. The '97 Batmobile on the other hand. The open single seat cockpit, the lopsided proportions, the disco nose cone. So odd. Definitely not my thing or anybody's thing from what I can tell. I imagine though it would look great on a comic panel. It kind of has the lines of a luxury 1930's roadster but turned up to 11. Ironically makes sense considering Bruce comes from old money. Again, as a live action Batmobile? Hard no.

The Snyder-Mobile is probably what the Tumbler should've been although it's still a little too militaristic looking and little too off-roadish with the open wheels. A few tweaks to the design and it could've really worked.

I love the '22 Batmobile. Sure, it looks like a Mad Max design (to tie back to this thread) but that works as a year 1 car, or year 2 as it were. Not too fanciful with muscle car lines. I can see him cobbling it together in the Batcave.

And yes the movie did have Se7en vibes. Well, as you said, let's see how far they stray in the second one.

 

[batguy]

Yeah, I was never a big fan of the Tumbler. I appreciate that it's different. Too "tanky" looking for me though. I like a sleek Batmobile.

The '95 Batmobile is certainly its own animal. It's like Batman meets Tron meets Alien. I didn't like it at the time but it's grown on me somewhat over the years...somewhat. Maybe because it's so quirky. Still, not even close to being my ideal Batmobile. As a piece of art, I can appreciate it. As a car, nah. The '97 Batmobile on the other hand. The open single seat cockpit, the lopsided proportions, the disco nose cone. So odd. Definitely not my thing or anybody's thing from what I can tell. I imagine though it would look great on a comic panel. It kind of has the lines of a luxury 1930's roadster but turned up to 11. Ironically makes sense considering Bruce comes from old money. Again, as a live action Batmobile? Hard no.

Both of the Schumacher cars were "More cowbell!" versions of the Keaton car. I don't even like them as comic drawings.

To be fair, I'm a lifetime gearhead with a lot of opinions about custom cars. I'm not impressed by heavy-handed obvious things like big pointy wings and light-up panels.

The nicest thing I could say about the Schumacher cars is that they fit the production design. I didn't like those cars for the same reasons why I didn't like the movies as a whole. I just think of them as a separate reboot of the 1960s TV show rather than being sequels to the Burton movies. (In fact Burton's two movies are barely even in the same universe with each other in my mind.)

The Snyder-Mobile is probably what the Tumbler should've been although it's still a little too militaristic looking and little too off-roadish with the open wheels. A few tweaks to the design and it could've really worked.

The Snydermobile seemed to take the wrong lessons from the past IMO.

At this point I'm really sick of them picking the most exaggerated cartoonish idea on the table. Lately every new Batmobile looks like they came up with a good design two movies ago, and now this is part#3 and they've added unnecessary crap onto it to sell a fresh batch of toys.

They look like one of the cobbled-together sci-fi vehicles that the studios had in the 1980s. It would show up in a 4th-season episode to menace the hero car in 'Knight Rider' or 'Dukes of Hazzard' or 'The A-Team' because the show was losing ratings.


The Keaton Batmobile worked because it had an almost Star-Wars aesthetic. It was a combination of an overall coherent shape + clearly sculpted body panels + patches of exposed tech. It looked a bit too much like a sex toy but that wasn't inherent in the design approach.

Whereas the Tumbler & Snyder car . . . they both looked like somebody dumped a load of of random plate steel scraps onto the prototype and then welded the plates in place where they landed.

I love the '22 Batmobile. Sure, it looks like a Mad Max design (to tie back to this thread) but that works as a year 1 car, or year 2 as it were. Not too fanciful with muscle car lines. I can see him cobbling it together in the Batcave.

And yes the movie did have Se7en vibes. Well, as you said, let's see how far they stray in the second one.

The '22 car is pretty good - for a "work in progress".

If the car stays unchanged for several movies then I'm a bit less impressed.

 

[ZeroSum]

So, anyway...

 

[pengbuzz]

Both of the Schmacher cars were "More cowbell!" versions of the Keaton car. I don't even like them as comic drawings.

To be fair, I'm a lifetime gearhead with a lot of opinions about custom cars. I'm not impressed by heavy-handed obvious things like big pointy wings and light-up panels.

The nicest thing I could say about the Schumacher cars is that they fit the production design. I didn't like those cars for the same reasons why I didn't like the movies as a whole. I just think of them as a separate reboot of the 1960s TV show rather than being sequels to the Burton movies. (In fact Burton's two movies are barely even in the same universe with each other in my mind.)

I feel about the same: the Schumacher films felt like "1966 Neon meets Alien" to me.

The Snydermobile seemed to take the wrong lessons from the past IMO.

At this point I'm really sick of them picking the most exaggerated cartoonish idea on the table. Lately every new Batmobile looks like they came up with a good design two movies ago, and now this is part#3 and they've added unnecessary crap onto it to sell a fresh batch of toys.

They look like one of the cobbled-together sci-fi vehicles that the studios had in the 1980s. It would show up in a 4th-season episode to menace the hero car in 'Knight Rider' or 'Dukes of Hazzard' or 'The A-Team' because the show was losing ratings.

Yeah; It makes me wonder what it would look like if I were to throw it into photoshop and delete the extra stuff?

The Keaton Batmobile worked because it had an almost Star-Wars aesthetic. It was a combination of an overall coherent shape + clearly sculpted body panels + patches of exposed tech. It looked a bit too much like a sex toy but that wasn't inherent in the design approach.

Whereas the Tumbler & Snyder car . . . they both looked like somebody dumped a load of of random plate steel scraps onto the prototype and then welded the plates in place where they landed.

Your last line made my wife laugh out loud!! lol

The '22 car is pretty good - for a "work in progress".

If the car stays unchanged for several movies then I'm a bit less impressed.

Right? I expect both the suit and the car to advance in the sequels.

So, anyway...

View attachment 1767989

ROFL! Yeah, I tried changing the topic back earlier, and the gang went bat crazy!!!

So...wondering why she paints her forehead black?

 

[ZeroSum]

 

[batguy]

Yeah; It makes me wonder what it would look like if I were to throw it into photoshop and delete the extra stuff?

It might help. You'd probably have to do some legit body panel sculpting though. Like, adding some overall body size in addition to just stripping away plate-steel junk.

Your last line made my wife laugh out loud!! lol

Glad somebody got a kick out of it.

So...wondering why she paints her forehead black?

Yeah that may be explained this time.

I imagine we're gonna see how she lost her hand, too. My money is on Immortan Joe being responsible for that.

 

[pengbuzz]

It might help. You'd probably have to do some legit body panel sculpting though. Like, adding some overall body size in addition to just stripping away plate-steel junk.

Yeah... I did a little bit just to get a feel for what it would take. Not my best work, but this was just "quick and dirty":

(the first is an official pic; the second I redid some stuff and removed the watermark because it was messing with my perception! ©KGP Spy Photography, DC Comics/ Warner Bros.)

Yeah that may be explained this time.

I imagine we're gonna see how she lost her hand, too. My money is on Immortan Joe being responsible for that.

I think you're right: he'd be stone cold enough to blow/ cut her arm off, and it would explain why she decided to bolt with his harem in Fury Road.

It also makes me wonder how much younger they will show Immortan Joe, and what shape he's in if/ when they first meet? It's my impression that both his physical and mental condition have been steadily deteriorating, and accelerating as time goes on. We may also see him not relying so much on the mask at first, and by the end, being entirely dependent upon it.

Just some thoughts.

 

[batguy]

Yeah... I did a little bit just to get a feel for what it would take. Not my best work, but this was just "quick and dirty":

(the first is an official pic; the second I redid some stuff and removed the watermark because it was messing with my perception! ©KGP Spy Photography, DC Comics/ Warner Bros.)

Yeah that's a start. I think it would take much more though. Fast-moving vehicles need whole body shapes in general. Pre-WW2-style open wheels (and standalone fender shapes) are outdated when vehicles are cruising at speeds over 40-50 mph. It's too easy for open wheels/fenders to get caught on stuff. And for Batman it would be harder to punch the car through obstacles/walls/etc. The wheels need protecting. The bodywork works better when it's a shell around the whole thing.

I think you're right: he'd be stone cold enough to blow/ cut her arm off, and it would explain why she decided to bolt with his harem in Fury Road.

It also makes me wonder how much younger they will show Immortan Joe, and what shape he's in if/ when they first meet? It's my impression that both his physical and mental condition have been steadily deteriorating, and accelerating as time goes on. We may also see him not relying so much on the mask at first, and by the end, being entirely dependent upon it.

Just some thoughts.

Charlize's Furiosa showed a pretty serious grudge against Immortan Joe in 'Fury Road'. They had history.

The new trailer says "45 years after the apocalypse" . . . but that puts 'Fury Road' at least 50-60 years after the apocalypse . . . and Tom Hardy's Max was how old in that? Didn't Max used to be a cop with a family before the nuke action? I think George Miller is hand-waving a bunch of continuity snags as usual.