Mad Max: Fury Road
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
You don't have to go all b&w to make the film look better. Just take off some of that excessive color and you have a much more natural look to the film. Just dial it down until the sand look like how actual sand normally looks. And after seeing the practical effects shots in that video on youtube I'd almost wish some of the stuff hadn't been augmented with CGI, such as the last crash where the steering wheel and all sorts of other added debris came towards the camera in that unnatural way, obscuring an awesome, done for real, crash.
Axlotl
Master Member
That's my only quibble with this film - too saturated.
Outside of that, I frakking LOVE this movie.
Yeah, they way over-augmented that shot for a 3D gag. The crash is great as it is.
CB2001
Master Member
I think the reason why the color palette was so bright was to make it stand apart from the modern apocalyptic films, which often uses a blue filter to make things look cold and bleak (like how it was in The Day for example). Instead of stylishly being cliche like every other post apocalyptic film, it cranks up the colors to make it stand apart (and it's equally fitting for the desert setting).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
CB2001
Master Member
Exactly. We've already seen naturally looking in the Mad Max series, especially with the desert setting. I say, as an admirer of film, it was the right choice to make the colors pop. It gave it a more unique style in comparison to everything else.
cayman shen
Master Member
It mainly looks fine, but the final moments of the chase look AWFUL, and it distracts from an otherwise emotionally involving moment. Rictus looks like he's in an 80s bluescreen music video lol. Such a shame. Wish they'd stuck with natural terrain. So many amazing real stunts soured by a Roger Rabbit background.
Sounds like they need to fix the CGI in some places, not toss the whole idea.
IMO the decision to use CGI for massive terrain changes was great overall. They needed that specific terrain for story reasons in many places. If they hadn't faked it then they would have shot many of the stunts in other locations. It would have meant compromises in other ways.
Most people don't realize how much vehicle stunt scenes & locations are shaped by the limitations of the vehicles. Having the option of skipping the rocky terrain whenever they needed to for Fury Road would have made an enormous difference for shooting. It's not only a matter of what's standing in the way, it's what might turn out to be in the way if the stunt doesn't go exactly right.
Whole-heartedly agree. I personally feel this might be the only film that's come out in the last decade that future generations of filmmakers will be inspired by.
The ability to make a 1.5+ hour long action scene without having it become boring is rather extraordinary. Miller put many of the last 20 years of effect-heavy action blockbuster directors to shame. It had great stunts that actually had thrill and suspense in them (compared to lots of movies with 3-4 times the budget), great choreography, as well as some great post-apocalyptic lore that had half the people on social media talking Shiny and Chrome. Add to the fact that it was brilliantly photographed, without pretension. The spectacle of MMFY, where everything felt very meticulously thought-out compared to something like Bayformers, which feels like "let's just have more of everything" is what did it for me. (But if I remember correctly you are, or at least were, a pretty big fan of Firefly and lots of folks didn't get that show, so maybe it's just one of those that doesn't have universal appeal.)
No i totally agree with you and didn't mean to come off sounding like a "hater" but was genuinely looking to see what other people saw that maybe I missed
There have been plenty of movies I didn't care for on the first viewing and found greatness in subsequent viewings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There have been plenty of movies I didn't care for on the first viewing and found greatness in subsequent viewings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
astroboy
Master Member
It's a great film because it was made by an auteur, not a committee. It was a vision that took as long as it needed to come into fruition.
Not only that, but the film theorists have something to talk about. Whereas the only thing notable with the MCU is that they've successfully connected films into a universe
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
Not only that, but the film theorists have something to talk about. Whereas the only thing notable with the MCU is that they've successfully connected films into a universe
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
I could go on and on about what makes it great, not just an entry in the Mad Max films, but as a film itself. Many of these points have been elaborated upon here but, just speaking as a great appreciator of films, it has all the things of a well constructed film; carrying on the lineage of the genuinely great films that came before it. The most I can say about it that would make any kind of sense to anyone is that it comprehends and speaks the film language fluently.
astroboy
Master Member
I'd also say that considering this blows the first two films away (And they are regarded as brilliant, genre-defining films themselves) says something
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I'm in the same boat as others here, and I'm probably in the wrong place to say this, but:
I'm in the "Yeah, this movie was pretty cool, but really does it deserve to be put on the pedestal that some people are putting it on?" camp. I certainly didn't dislike the movie. I enjoyed it all the way through, but I've only watched it the 1 time, and I haven't been motivated to watch it again. And it's not like it's some sort of high art, like some people are treating it. They crashed a bunch of trucks in a desert while Tom Hardy grunted for 2 hours. Yeah, it made for a fun ride, but it really wasn't ground-breaking. To me, it was just another action movie with a bunch of 'splosions, but with slightly better editing and angles.
Maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else is. I'll accept that. Again, don't misunderstand me- I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I just don't understand the people saying this is like the greatest movie that's come out in the past century.
I'm in the "Yeah, this movie was pretty cool, but really does it deserve to be put on the pedestal that some people are putting it on?" camp. I certainly didn't dislike the movie. I enjoyed it all the way through, but I've only watched it the 1 time, and I haven't been motivated to watch it again. And it's not like it's some sort of high art, like some people are treating it. They crashed a bunch of trucks in a desert while Tom Hardy grunted for 2 hours. Yeah, it made for a fun ride, but it really wasn't ground-breaking. To me, it was just another action movie with a bunch of 'splosions, but with slightly better editing and angles.
Maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else is. I'll accept that. Again, don't misunderstand me- I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I just don't understand the people saying this is like the greatest movie that's come out in the past century.
Similar threads
