Mad Max: Fury Road: 99% Fresh with 190 Critic Reviews

[Sarex]

I heard somewhere that the guitar guy is the composer for the mad max soundtrack (don't remember where I heard it so take it with a grain of salt).

[Gfted1]

Meet the Flame-Throwing Heavy Metal Guitarist from ‘Mad Max’.

 

 

 

An Australian actor and musician named iOTA was cast as the Doof Warrior. “They said the character was somewhere between Keith Richards and a scarecrow,” he told Buzzfeed about his audition. “So I just kind of got in my best Mad Max 2 outfit: feathers and leather and bits and pieces. I blackened out my teeth and went in there looking pretty disgusting. I played my guitar and that was it. I got the gig.”

[Sarex]

Guess it was bs.

[Volourn]

. "He said a script for the sequel is already done, noting that a potential title is Mad Max: The Wasteland."

 

Seems the next MM may not be  code named after Furiosa afterall.

[sorophx]

I have no hope of seeing another Mad Max movie, seeing how poorly Fury Road is doing in the box office

[CoM_Solaufein]

I'm not concerned about it. The studio will get their money back as time goes on and when the movie is released in other markets.The movie has mostly favorable reviews.

[melkathi]

Doof Warrior and his drummers looked as if they could have been straight out of Brütal Legend.

[Fighter]

Mad Max is a 100+ million already. Is that really considered doing badly?

[Elerond]

Mad Max is a 100+ million already. Is that really considered doing badly?

 

It cost over 150 million, so it hasn't reached yet point where it has become profitable and for some that means it does badly.

[Meshugger]

 

Mad Max is a 100+ million already. Is that really considered doing badly?

 

It cost over 150 million, so it hasn't reached yet point where it has become profitable and for some that means it does badly.

 

 

Uh? What did they do? Reshoot the whole thing three times?

[Blarghagh]

Nope, just twice. And yeah, so far it's not doing great, because that 150m budget was only production, it doesn't even factor in the film's massive advertising campaign. General rule of thumb these days is that you have to make back double your production budget just to break even.

Edited May 20, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Meshugger]

Nope, just twice. And yeah, so far it's not doing great, because that 150m budget was only production, it doesn't even factor in the film's massive advertising campaign. General rule of thumb these days is that you have to make back double your production budget just to break even.

 

lel.

 

From the sounds of it, it looks like 300 million is a good estimate in order to get a sound ROI. I can imagine some investors are having some trouble sleeping at the moment.

[sorophx]

Mad Max is a 100+ million already. Is that really considered doing badly?

it made only 40 mil in its first weekend, finishing second. far behind Pitch Perfect 2, which is not a good sign. 

[Hurlshort]

Well, Pitch Perfect does have the better puns.

 

Honestly I think Mad Max will have staying power.  I rarely want to go see a movie twice, and this one I'm definitely planning on it.

[Amentep]

 

I didn't say (or mean to imply) you could see 3d with one eye.

 

What I meant was that a person with one eye, wearing polarized glasses should be able to watch an unblurry 2d version of the film. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

Do you mean an unblurry 3d instead of 2d? Because you don't need polarised glasses for 2d. If you meant 3d, then wearing polarized glasses won't do anything to make the 3d unblurry. It will still look blurry with one eye whilst wearing polarized glasses because each lens is different for each eye.

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/3-d-glasses2.htm

 

In the above link, a person with one eye is only getting half the picture and it's still blurred.

 

 

Okay so what I am saying is this:

 

If you go see a 3D film without glasses the picture will be blurry, one eye or two eyes.  It is blurry because they are projecting two different complete film images frame by frame that overlap.  What the glasses do is break the films into a left and right channel.  Polarization does this by cutting out specific light wave types.  For 3D to work, you need two full images that are slightly shifted through the depth of field the way the binocular vision normally works; the polarized glasses will insure that Left-Image goes into Left Eye and Right-Image goes into Right Eye by cutting out the other image (which is at the wavelength the polarized lens cuts out).  If done right your mind will put the two images together and create a depth of field - just as it does in everyday life where the "shift" of the angle of light creates the perception of depth.

 

Therefore you should be able to - with one eye - watch a 3D movie using the glasses.  It should look like a normal 2D presentation of a film. You should see the film based on one of the two displayed images, therefore the picture would be 2D to you but the key is that it shouldn't be blurry unless there is some other eye or perception issue at work as long as you are wearing the 3D glasses (and thus eliminating the second image from your eye's perception).

 

Mind you if I had one eye, I wouldn't want to pay the extra $$$ to see a 3D screening, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

 

 

[Fighter]

it made only 40 mil in its first weekend, finishing second. far behind Pitch Perfect 2, which is not a good sign.

 

But that's only US. It's the exact opposite internationally. Hence 100+ million total.

 

‘Mad Max’ Rides To $64M; ‘Pitch Perfect 2′ Chimes In At $27.1M – Intl Box Office.

http://deadline.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road-pitch-perfect-avengers-age-of-ultron-china-international-box-office-1201428554/

Edited May 20, 2015 by Fighter

[melkathi]

I don't know what Pitch Perfect is; 1 or 2. Sounds like a movie about an opera singer losing her voice.

[Fighter]

All I know it has singing.

[Amentep]

I don't know what Pitch Perfect is; 1 or 2. Sounds like a movie about an opera singer losing her voice.

 

Musical comedies about an all-female a cappella group entering singing competitions, in classic "underdog tries to win" fashion.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Amentep

[CoM_Solaufein]

And to think the original Mad Max cost around $650,000 and Road Warrior around 2 mil.

[Hurlshort]

And to think the original Mad Max cost around $650,000 and Road Warrior around 2 mil.

 

Gas prices have really gone up since then!

[Amentep]

^I wouldn't be surprised if part of the cost was vehicle related since they chose to go with practical effects.

 

That said, adjusting for US Dollars (USD) and then inflation gives a slightly different perspective.

 

Mad Max was filmed in 1977 for about $400,000 USD which would be $1.5 million USD now.

 

Road Warrior was filmed in 1981 for about 7 million USD which would be about $18 million USD now.

 

Fury Road is estimated to have a 150 Million budget which seems a large increase (bigger that Star Wars' 75 budget of 11 million (50 million in today's dollars) comparing to the 4x larger Force Awakens budget), and that makes me wonder if some of the production costs incurred during earlier cycles when they tried to film this was rolled into the final cost (this was the third time the film came up for filming)?

[Volourn]

 Well... everything is more expensive then back then.  I imagine the film crews were cheap  in the past now with unions (I'm suire they had them then) they get paid well with benefits and the like. Even extras probably get paid decent money.

 

I wager if you made the original Mad Max now with the same tech it be vastly more expensive than it was.

[Ineth]

Btw, I liked this movie a lot.

 

I don't understand the criticism that Max had a too minor role in it. He was part of everything that happened in the movie. Sure he didn't always say much or proactively lead the way, but that's just 'cause his personality is like that. I don't think a character needs to be a choleric leader type, in order to be a protagonist in a movie.

 

It's true that Furiosa was a more interesting character (or at least one with more potential), hence I wouldn't mind the next movie in this universe to be officially about her, but that's a different matter.

 

PS: I didn't perceive it as a "feminist" movie. In fact it featured quite a few things which feminists have gone outrage-crazy over in other movies or games in the past. Also, after watching the movie I'm still not in any way inclined to believe in patriarchy theory or the wage gap or the 1-in-4 rape statistic, nor to vote for gender quotas or the abolition of due process, so if there was any feminist propaganda in there that I didn't consciously notice, it seems it didn't work... :D

Edited May 20, 2015 by Ineth

[Volourn]

"It's true that Furiosa was a more interesting character"

 

Nah. She was the elast interesting character that had a speaking role. Even the main villain was more interesting. The onyl thing she had was she was a cool kick ass warrior woman. That's it. Max was way more interesting and not as one dimensional. The old ladies and the  5 Princesses also had more depth than her so did Hoult's character.