Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

Tools    





Agree. Very different movie, far inferior special effects.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



Friday night and already the movie is being said to be a soft performer at the box-office




The movies have to look expensive in order to get people to pay.

Nonsense

Also, CGI doesn't make things look expensive.

And practical effects don't come cheap either. I'd imagine in many instances, they cost as much or more than standard CGI



Nonsense
It's not completely nonsense, the movies that go on to make $1 billion or more also almost invariably cost hundreds of thousands to make.

It's also true that some low-budget films - especially horror films - can be profitable without a huge budget, but the returns are also smaller.



I couldn't help but think that the whole post-apocalyptic Australia, Mad Max, Road Warrior thing is used up. Been there, seen that. It's not fun like Star Wars, the movie doesn't create momentum, nobody in the roles is all that appealing and the world still sucks. It's not the production values OR the value of the production, or the unimpressive performance by highly billed Anya Taylor-Joy (whose charisma has yet to arrive), it's the small crowd of unenthusiastic viewers that is the problem. Too much Ho Hum.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I feel the movie would make a better impression on me if Furiosa was played by a different actress. Taylor-Joy just looks way too small and petite in the role compared to Charlize Theron, unless I am wrong?



You probably are.



Nonsense

Also, CGI doesn't make things look expensive.

And practical effects don't come cheap either. I'd imagine in many instances, they cost as much or more than standard CGI

Stop talking nonsense. That argument was raised implicitly by Lucas, Spielberg, and others:


https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...-film-industry


$25 to see Iron Man 3. I better get my money's worth, and that doesn't include parking, eating out, and overpriced snacks, not to mention paying for family members. Going out to watch a highly-anticipated tent-pole, and maybe even on something like IMAX, with the family would be similar to buying a new hard drive.


Add to that the point that even the theater owners in several cases earn more from the concessionaires than from showing movies, especially during the dump months.


So, how does CGI make movies look expensive? Compare Star Trek the original series with Discovery. Notice the difference? And wait till you find out how much it cost them to make each episode of the latter.


BTW, don't confuse making a movie look expensive and making it more expensive. Given that, if CGI is supposed to make movies cheaper to make, then why does it still cost a lot to make tent-poles? Reasons include hiring more people, paying some of the much more (like A-listers), and so forth. Did you ever remember which section of the end credits in movies had the most names? Don't be surprised if it's the CGI team, and in various cases working across two or three countries.


Now, here's where the real pressure takes place: you got investors flush with cash, and they want maximization of profits. So you have hundreds of millions to spend, not to mention an additional $100-200 million for marketing internationally because the domestic market won't cut it. Meanwhile, distributors and theater owners get 30-50 pct of revenues. That means you need to earn at least 2.5 times the production cost, and keep in mind that outside your nonsense world of "just breaking even will do" investors want the highest level of profit possible, or else funding future projects will be less likely.


Given that, why do you think they add not only more CGI but more spectacle using CGI? And for films over 2 hours long? With fewer complexities in plot and characterization and clear black-and-white demarcations for protagonists and antagonists? And usually hitting the PG sweet spot?



$25 to see Iron Man 3. I better get my money's worth, and that doesn't include parking, eating out, and overpriced snacks, not to mention paying for family members.
Movies don't have to be a spectacle for you to get your money's worth. There are all sorts of ways a movie can be worth twenty five bucks and not have a bunch of supposed money up on the screen (or at least the illusion of it, as most money is tied to promotion and actor salaries, not effects).

Basically it's limited thinking to believe you need "More" up there for it to be worth your time. It's like buying a record (you know, when people actually understood they should probably pay for products people put money into producing) and complaining it wasn't worth the money unless there are the most instruments on it.

"I spent twenty bucks on the newest Paul Simon record....and it's just him and a guitar!!??!! Ripofff!!!"

You pay for the experience of watching a movie, and a movie can be a good movie no matter what they spend on it. Some movies need more money to realize themselves, others need considerably considerably less. And they can be equally good.

Going out to watch a highly-anticipated tent-pole, and maybe even on something like IMAX, with the family would be similar to buying a new hard drive.
They are probably too expensive. We'll agree there. But that is mostly because they have to recoup the costs of unneccessarily stupidly large budgets. You know, the kind that you're demanding above anything else.

Add to that the point that even the theater owners in several cases earn more from the concessionaires than from showing movies, especially during the dump months.
I got a solution. Don't buy concessions. If you can't get through a movie without eating a twenty dollar bag of popcorn, that's on you.



So, how does CGI make movies look expensive? Compare Star Trek the original series with Discovery. Notice the difference? And wait till you find out how much it cost them to make each episode of the latter.
Of course I notice the difference. One has more CGI in it. Who cares? Even if I assume that means it's more expensive, I'd still prefer to watch the original (or frankly, neither)

BTW, don't confuse making a movie look expensive and making it more expensive.
Why would I confuse this? I simply couldn't care less if one looks more expensive because I'm capable of looking past that to see which one is actually better and more worth my time. And it has nothing to do with CGI. It has nothing to do with cost.

Given that, if CGI is supposed to make movies cheaper to make, then why does it still cost a lot to make tent-poles?
And do you think when they used to do practical effects it was an affordable thign? Or that it was done by one person and not entire teams of people who had to co-ordinate these stunts in real time?

Do you understand all of the other costs that get bundled into doing a practical effect as opposed to generating something on a computer? And as a result of this, do you not understand this is actually frequently more expensive than CGI?

Or how about whether or not you understand that most of the cost of an entire films production has very little to do with the special effects anyways and has to do with advertising and actors salaries?

But sure, it's all that money up on the screen that's dazzling you and making you think you and your family spent a well earned night out. I'm glad CGI has made you a believer in this total nonsense. Studio executives are currently rubbing their hands greedily together, happy that there are still others out there like you not onto the game they are playing.

Given that, why do you think they add not only more CGI but more spectacle using CGI?
Because it's the easier and cheaper way for them to dupe people into thinking they got their moneys worth?



_________________________
There is plenty left for this series. One of the best ideas I’ve heard, is the movie before the apocalypse (pox-calypse). Would it be completely different from the others? Yes. This is right on brand. After rewatching all the films, none of them feel that similar to begin with. Take away the cosplay and vehicles and these all seem distinctly different to me.

Never thought of Thunderdome as not having “the vehicles” until the last bit.



Movies don't have to be a spectacle for you to get your money's worth. There are all sorts of ways a movie can be worth twenty five bucks and not have a bunch of supposed money up on the screen (or at least the illusion of it, as most money is tied to promotion and actor salaries, not effects).

Yes, but those movies are release in a limited way and are used for exhibitions or fundraising. Don't confuse them with tent-poles.


Basically it's limited thinking to believe you need "More" up there for it to be worth your time. It's like buying a record (you know, when people actually understood they should probably pay for products people put money into producing) and complaining it wasn't worth the money unless there are the most instruments on it.

It's not "limited thinking" but "business". It's only in your imaginary world that your arguments stand.


"I spent twenty bucks on the newest Paul Simon record....and it's just him and a guitar!!??!! Ripofff!!!"

Again, that's a niche market. Look up "streaming."


You pay for the experience of watching a movie, and a movie can be a good movie no matter what they spend on it. Some movies need more money to realize themselves, others need considerably considerably less. And they can be equally good.

I didn't argue that a movie has to cost more in order to be good. The word you're looking for is "profitability," and the franchise to consider when it comes to low costs is obviously not Mad Max but Paranormal. Guess which parts of the year those are shown. Look up "dump months."


They are probably too expensive. We'll agree there. But that is mostly because they have to recoup the costs of unneccessarily stupidly large budgets. You know, the kind that you're demanding above anything else.

We don't have to agree. Either you know the facts or you don't, and it looks like you don't. You live in a world where movies don't need "stupidly large budgets," and still can't live with the fact that you do live in such a world. Stop fantasizing.


I got a solution. Don't buy concessions. If you can't get through a movie without eating a twenty dollar bag of popcorn, that's on you.

First, you argue that what I was sharing doesn't take place. Then, you think it doesn't have to take place. Now, you're implying that it does take place and there's a solution to it. Worse, the solution is akin to "Don't watch these expensive movies."


You need to think before you post again.



Of course I notice the difference. One has more CGI in it. Who cares? Even if I assume that means it's more expensive, I'd still prefer to watch the original (or frankly, neither)

Right. First, you argue that they don't don't that. Then they don't have to do that. Then you don't have to watch them. Now, "who cares?" It's as if your flailing your arms wildly, hitting your head accidentally, and hoping that you'll hit the mark.




Why would I confuse this? I simply couldn't care less if one looks more expensive because I'm capable of looking past that to see which one is actually better and more worth my time. And it has nothing to do with CGI. It has nothing to do with cost.

Right. You don't care about something that you argue has nothing to do with the reason why you don't care.


To argue that you're confused would be an understatement.




And do you think when they used to do practical effects it was an affordable thign? Or that it was done by one person and not entire teams of people who had to co-ordinate these stunts in real time?


No, it was because using computers was too expensive.




Do you understand all of the other costs that get bundled into doing a practical effect as opposed to generating something on a computer? And as a result of this, do you not understand this is actually frequently more expensive than CGI?

Right, which is why they use CGI. In which case, the costs should be lower, but it's not. So, how do you explain that?


BTW, that's a rhetorical question because I already explained that to you earlier, but your reading comprehension is that bad.




Or how about whether or not you understand that most of the cost of an entire films production has very little to do with the special effects anyways and has to do with advertising and actors salaries?

Right, all those animators listed in the credits are ghost employees. The CGI appeared miraculously.




But sure, it's all that money up on the screen that's dazzling you and making you think you and your family spent a well earned night out. I'm glad CGI has made you a believer in this total nonsense. Studio executives are currently rubbing their hands greedily together, happy that there are still others out there like you not onto the game they are playing.


It's not dazzling me. Rather, it explains why you are wrong in arguing that CGI would make movies cheaper.




Because it's the easier and cheaper way for them to dupe people into thinking they got their moneys worth?
Bingo.



There is plenty left for this series. One of the best ideas I’ve heard, is the movie before the apocalypse (pox-calypse). Would it be completely different from the others? Yes. This is right on brand. After rewatching all the films, none of them feel that similar to begin with. Take away the cosplay and vehicles and these all seem distinctly different to me.

Never thought of Thunderdome as not having “the vehicles” until the last bit.

I think that was the first movie, where cities were driven by crime, but Max and his family still get to go to the equivalent of a B-and-B and get some vacation time.


It also had partly to do with the low budget.


Finally, I think Miller was going to do that with the next movie, "Wasteland," but it looks like it's been set aside:


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...sa-1235911133/



Yes, but those movies are release in a limited way and are used for exhibitions or fundraising.

They are made for people. You can just call them people.


Don't confuse them with tent-poles.

Your original comment was that people won't go to movies unless there was money up on the screen . There was no qualifier of 'tent pole'. Just 'movies'. But glad to see you're starting to understand why words matter.

It's not "limited thinking" but "business". It's only in your imaginary world that your arguments stand.

A pretty limited argument you're giving here, but I suppose that was to be expected, wasn't it?


Again, that's a niche market. Look up "streaming."

Let me guess, you don't understand analogies? Also I don't stream, I pay artists for their work.








I didn't argue that a movie has to cost more in order to be good. The word you're looking for is "profitability," and the franchise to consider when it comes to low costs is obviously not Mad Max but Paranormal. Guess which parts of the year those are shown. Look up "dump months."

I'll file this one under: Who Cares?


We don't have to agree. Either you know the facts or you don't, and it looks like you don't. You live in a world where movies don't need "stupidly large budgets," and still can't live with the fact that you do live in such a world. Stop fantasizing.

Smaller budget movies make profits all the time. It's funny you think I'm the one who doesn't know facts or is living in a fantasy world. How about you go away and learn something before you ever talk to me again


First, you argue that what I was sharing doesn't take place. Then, you think it doesn't have to take place. Now, you're implying that it does take place and there's a solution to it. Worse, the solution is akin to "Don't watch these expensive movies."

Is this your response to me telling you to stop eating popcorn?


I'm going to stick with that.


Stop eating popcorn


You need to think before you post again.

Thinking is clearly not a requirement in this exchange


Right. First, you argue that they don't don't that. Then they don't have to do that. Then you don't have to watch them. Now, "who cares?" It's as if your flailing your arms wildly, hitting your head accidentally, and hoping that you'll hit the mark.


I don't think any of these things are happening





Right. You don't care about something that you argue has nothing to do with the reason why you don't care.


To argue that you're confused would be an understatement.





No, it was because using computers was too expensive.





Right, which is why they use CGI. In which case, the costs should be lower, but it's not. So, how do you explain that?


BTW, that's a rhetorical question because I already explained that to you earlier, but your reading comprehension is that bad.





Right, all those animators listed in the credits are ghost employees. The CGI appeared miraculously.





It's not dazzling me. Rather, it explains why you are wrong in arguing that CGI would make movies cheaper.





Bingo.

As for the rest of this crap, id offer you some links to clarify all the things you don't understand about practical effects vs CGI, and their ensuing costs, but that would require reading, and that clearly what got you into this predicament in the first place



When someone spends more time talking about how wrong something is than they do actually explaining why it's wrong, I think of that as a red flag.



It's not "limited thinking" but "business"
My man David Hume already figured this out for us. Google "is-ought problem."

I didn't argue that a movie has to cost more in order to be good. The word you're looking for is "profitability," and the franchise to consider when it comes to low costs is obviously not Mad Max but Paranormal. Guess which parts of the year those are shown. Look up "dump months."
You're switching back and forth between arguing from the perspective of the viewer, which is how this started, and arguing from the perspective of the producer, which has no relevance to the original question.

"The producer wants to make money" and "expensive films need to sell a lot of tickets" are obviously true, but have no relationship to the idea that a viewer should therefore want to see something expensive on the screen ("I want to get my money's worth"), which is the statement under dispute. The exchange in watching a film is money for some kind of rewarding experience, not the viewer attempting to extract the most money from the producer.

Right, all those animators listed in the credits are ghost employees. The CGI appeared miraculously.
Huh? The thing you were responding to doesn't say anything like this. It says this:
most of the cost of an entire films production has very little to do with the special effects
The word "most" does not mean "none." So this response makes no sense. Now, you can perhaps disagree about whether it is "most" or not, but you can't just pretend someone said something else in order to make it easier to mock. That's not how arguments work.



The Mad Max franchise is now on life support....


Forty-five years after George Miller introduced audiences to Mad Max, the auteur may have finally hit the end of the road through the postapocalyptic wasteland unless he finds some high-octane gasoline soon.

The revered filmmaker’s Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga bowed to a disappointing $32 million domestically for the four-day Memorial Day weekend and $36.5 million overseas, diminishing hopes for Mad Max: The Wasteland, another Max installment Miller has been toying with for years.

Miller and Nico Lathouris wrote the scripts for both The Wasteland and Furiosa as part of the development process of Mad Max: Fury Road, the 2015 Warner Bros. film that became a surprise awards season juggernaut, winning six Oscars, and which became an instant action classic. The Wasteland would follow Max Rockatansky in the year before Fury Road, and is said to involve a young mother — and (naturally) include plenty of action.

In recent weeks, Miller has acknowledged much was hinging on Furiosa in terms of the possibility of The Wasteland. “I’ll definitely wait to see how this [Furiosa] goes, before we even think about it,” Miller told journalists May 16, the morning after the dystopian action-adventure played at the Cannes Film Festival to a seven-minute standing ovation. Sources agree that Wasteland’s fate is complicated by Furiosa‘s box office, but stress it wasn’t even in development. For its part, Warners — where Miller is a beloved figure — says it is incredibly proud of Furiosa.

The reaction from moviegoers is likely as positive as Miller hoped; it boasts a 90 percent positive audience score rating on Rotten Tomatoes and earned a B+ Cinemascore. But in a troubling and unexpected twist, far fewer females and younger male adults showed up than came out for Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road nine years ago.

On Fury Road’s opening weekend, the split was 60 percent male to 40 percent, according to sources with access to exit surveys conducted by PostTrak. But Furiosa’s audience was 71 percent male and 29 percent female, a worrisome decline and a startling number for a feature marketed as a female-driven vehicle. And the 18-24 age group, who are the most frequent moviegoers, plummeted from 31 percent for Fury Road to 21 percent for Furiosa.

Observers note that Fury Road aside, the male-fueled Mad Max series has always catered to a somewhat niche audience. The first three films, starring Mel Gibson, grossed less than $70 million combined domestically.

“IP like Mad Max and Ghostbusters is old, and they have the fans they’re going to have,” says one theater chain executive. “If studios can budget to that, they might make some decent money.”

Talk of making Miller’s next Mad Max film could resurface if Furiosa gets a major tune up and enjoys a road trip down the box office highway, as Fury Road did thanks to a strong multiplier. But many veteran box office pundits are doubtful whether such a recovery is possible, with one rival studio saying it could have a hard time getting past $90 million domestically.

Fury Road, which successfully rebooted the franchise by recasting Gibson with Tom Hardy and introducing Charlize Theron’s Furiosa, opened to $45.3 million domestically on its way to grossing $379.4 million worldwide — a juggernaut by the standards of the franchise, and a modest hit by Hollywood standards considering it had a net budget of at least $157 million before marketing. Still, it had an outsized cultural impact, enough for the previous regime at Warner Bros. to greenlight Furiosa, as it seemed the studio had a revitalized franchise on its hands, and it would be a way of honoring Miller and the 45-year anniversary of Mad Max. Miller, who remains a beloved figure within the studio, prefers to shoot practically as much as possible before having visual effects supplement the rest, which pushes up production costs.

Miller opted not to bring back Theron, as he felt that de-aging technology used in films such as Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman was distracting to audiences. (Theron, for her part, said she was sad not to return, despite her grueling experience shooting the first one.) Instead, Miller cast Anya Taylor-Joy as a younger version of Theron’s titular character and added Chris Hemsworth as a warlord. Furiosa is also a Mad Max movie without Mad Max (save for a small cameo).

“I think Furiosa suffered without Charlize. People who see the movie love it. The problem is getting them into theaters. She would have been able to do that,” says one studio insider.

Adds a veteran Hollywood executive, “Fury Road was an outlier in the series. It also had a hot young star and a huge female star. Nine years later, it had neither.”

Furiosa caps a May that will go down in infamy in box office lore. Due to the strikes, mega-tentpoles that have come to define summer were delayed, prompting moviegoing overall to plummet and theater chains hoping for a better 2025 (“Just survive til ’25” has become a mantra for studios and theater owners). Miller’s film was never intended to be an all-audience tentpole that anchors Memorial Day — last year, The Little Mermaid debuted to $118 million — but like other recent titles, it still came in well behind tracking predictions of $40 to $45 million.

Wall Street and Hollywood knew this year was going to be tough, and say declarations that theatrical is over are overblown.

“Let’s see what happens next year with Mission: Impossible and in 2026 with the next Star Wars movie,” says box office analyst Eric Handler of Roth Capital.

All eyes are now on June’s Inside Out 2 and July’s Despicable Me 4 and Deadpool & Wolverine to energize the marketplace and help other films in the process.

“This fever will hopefully break in June and July with an overperformance by at least one of the high-profile films to get the wind back in the sails of the box office,” says Paul Dergarabedian of Comscore.

As for Furiosa, it has the upcoming weekend to itself and will still be playing in Imax and premium large-format screens, which ponied up a significant portion of the opening weekend gross. Then, it will have to contend with another vehicle and gun-heavy feature, Sony’s Bad Boys: Ride or Die.



My man David Hume already figured this out for us. Google "is-ought problem."

There is no other way for competitive, for-profit businesses to do business except to maximize profit. That's clear even in the business' corporate by-laws.


It's nice to imagine that there is a way, but you would only be fantasizing.



You're switching back and forth between arguing from the perspective of the viewer, which is how this started, and arguing from the perspective of the producer, which has no relevance to the original question.


I wasn't switching back and forth but connecting investor, producer, and viewer, which is what happens in reality. You don't choose any of them and then imagine that it operates in isolation.


Here's where the switching took place: the claim is that producers don't need to make Hollywood tent-poles look expensive; they just need to make them "good".


For starters, that makes no sense at all because such movies are expensive, and they look expensive. That said, you're countering reality with your ideal view of the world.



What do you see for these flicks? They contain lots of spectacle, are over two hours long, focus mostly on sci-fi and fantasy (which is what happens when you put in a lot of spectacle) or even contain them (e.g., Barbie), are released with IMAX, etc., versions, and cost around $200 million, with another $100-200 million for international marketing.


So, you insist that producers don't need to make them look expensive or even make them expensive, and yet they do. Why do you think that's taking place, Yoda?



Also, do you see different meanings of "good" emerging? Here's what I mean:


"Good" for the ones paying to make the movie means "profitable". Those are the investors.


"Good" for the producers is what makes the investors happy. Otherwise, the chances of not getting funding for future projects go up. That's why they spend a lot on marketing. That's why they put in a lot of CGI-drenched spectacle. That's why they usually go for the PG sweet spot unless the content needs otherwise. That's why they don't show tent-poles during dump months.



"Good" for the viewer means watching something that's entertaining, and given the fact that they have to pay a lot for tickets, and even more for watching shows on IMAX, etc., then they better look good. Otherwise, he'll complain about having to pay $20 to watch a movie that's only an hour and ten minutes long, with only one action scene, cheap effects, and looks like a made-for-TV.



That's why Furiosa cost $170 million to make. That's why it looks like a superhero flick. That's why it's 148 minutes long. That's why it has Anya-Taylor Joy and Chris Hemsworth. That's why it was released right before Memorial Day.






"The producer wants to make money" and "expensive films need to sell a lot of tickets" are obviously true, but have no relationship to the idea that a viewer should therefore want to see something expensive on the screen ("I want to get my money's worth"), which is the statement under dispute. The exchange in watching a film is money for some kind of rewarding experience, not the viewer attempting to extract the most money from the producer.


That makes no sense whatsoever unless people are willing to pay more for something that looks cheap. It's like paying the same rates charged for a Hollywood tent-pole flick to watch a made-for-TV movie on the big screen!


Why do you think the cheaper movies are shown during dump months? Why do you think the ticket prices surge for tent-poles and not for cheapos?



And for all that, you didn't even consider profitability, which was my actual point.


Lastly, you need to live in reality: it's not the viewer attempting to extract the most money from the producer but the other way round.




Huh? The thing you were responding to doesn't say anything like this. It says this:
most of the cost of an entire films production has very little to do with the special effects
The word "most" does not mean "none." So this response makes no sense. Now, you can perhaps disagree about whether it is "most" or not, but you can't just pretend someone said something else in order to make it easier to mock. That's not how arguments work.

I wasn't referring to that but to the claim that all those names referring to animators did not do any special effects. Remember what I said earlier? One of the reasons for the high costs is labor.


One argues that CGI is cheaper than practical effects because all you need to do is to manipulate digital elements from libraries, and probably capture them from reality, like filming and then digitizing scenes. But it turns out that CGI also involves large numbers of people working on various elements, which explains the long lists of digital workers in end credits.



In short, "most" does not have to do with special effects if all of those animators listed in the end credits were ghost employees, i.e., they don't exist. That means the CGI appeared miraculously.