Mad Max: Fury Road - Part 5

[Mr.T]

There was a viral blog entry a few weeks back where a man showed Aliens 1986 to his 11 year old and his friends, they liked it.

The internet ganged up on him, said he was abusive for showing such a frightening film to impressionable young children.

Did those whiners bother turning on their TV? Today's standard TV & Cable shows have way more controversial themes than anything Alien could touch. Just a few exploding chests and a talking cyborg head is mild compared to the crap kids can see on any network show today.

 

[PunyGod]

Its also a question of the type of content. People always think its ridiculous that we let children watch all kinds of violence but we get upset at them seeing a boobie.

I don't think that is unreasonable though. Children know what violence is from a very young age and they know it is wrong. As long as you aren't showing them torture porn they can process what they see in most movies. There certainly wasn't anything in FR that was extreme.

But most kids don't know how to process sexual imagery. They don't know that its not OK to objectify women. And they certainly aren't going to get any kind of feminist message from this movie.

Seeing scantily clad women taking off chastity belts and seeing women being milked like cows is not something I would show to a young child. Not without having a long conversation with them about what all this means. Seeing this kind of stuff at the wrong age can screw up their development.

 

[Mr.T]

Mild violence doesn't bother me when watching movies with my kids. Sexual content is where I draw the line, no doubt.

 

[DA_Champion]

Haha lol sorry to push all your buttons.

Fwiw i agree with y'all.

 

[Lencho01]

‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ Hero Furiosa Inspires Art From Jamie McKelvie, Greg Ruth, And More

 

[PunyGod]

‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ Hero Furiosa Inspires Art From Jamie McKelvie, Greg Ruth, And More

One of the artists drew the green sock Charlize was wearing on set.

 

[Voltron]

Hopefully this ushers in a new age of practical effects but somehow I doubt it.

Maybe less CGI. Practical effects are more expensive and dangerous.

In this superhero age of movies they still need CGI for obvious reasons.

 

[PunyGod]

There is still a lot of CG in virtually every shot.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/


http://imgur.com/a/zsRVc

 

[Voltron]

Miller is married to a woman. In fact, his wife edited Fury Road.

Yeah, and here's the reason on why he got his wife to edit it if no one's seen this before. Jump to the 17:21 mark. [YT]tI6k_8tomRE&feature=youtu.be&t=17m30s[/YT]

 

[TheVileOne]

There is still a lot of CG in virtually every shot.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/


http://imgur.com/a/zsRVc

Yeah I imagine a lot of the delays came out of giving the movie that really filtered look and all of the digital compositing background work that was done. Miller seems to have overshot the film anyway.

 

[Voltron]

There is still a lot of CG in virtually every shot.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/


http://imgur.com/a/zsRVc

But that's how CG should be, enhancing the background instead of it being at the forefront. I love the colour grading it's bright and vibrant unlike Ultron where it's awash with muted blue-grey tones.

 

[Leenie]

There is still a lot of CG in virtually every shot.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/


http://imgur.com/a/zsRVc

I'm not the type of person to dismiss CGI "just because." I mean, without CGI, we wouldn't be getting some of these great comic book movies over the past several years.

It is still quite impressive how much practical stuff was in Fury Road, though. The CGI was great in the film, too. This movie is basically a spectacle of special effects all around.

 

[jmc]

Those shot comparisons show how a master craftsman uses CG as a tool and not as a crutch.

 

[dark_b]

this movie has a lot of groundbreaking practical vehicle stunts. but it was obvious that they used CGI backgrounds while watching the movie. i didnt want to writte anything because some would start defending that its all real. i like that Miller is not afraid to use cgi. make the best movie possible. something that a known popular director can not do. because he is obssesed with practical effects even when using small amount CGI would help.

i do like that ''day for night'' shots are back . i always liked the stylized look that some other directors used. i think Nolan used it in the dark knight trilogy.

 

[Voltron]

The best CGI are the ones where you can't tell it's CGI.

 

[dark_b]

i think the team who did the color grading deserves an award. i knew that namibia wasnt that orange. but holly s... did they change the look of the environments.

 

[spider-neil]

Maybe less CGI. Practical effects are more expensive and dangerous.

In this superhero age of movies they still need CGI for obvious reasons.

That's what I meant. Less CGI.

Shots that feel tactile because they are filmed and then enhanced rather than pure CG.

An example. In Avengers when Hulk Buster drops Hulk into that construction site, if I were directing I would have built a miniature of construction site and then destroyed it top to bottom. In the actual movie the scene is completely CG and looks and I was a little taken out of the movie.

Mad Max is one of the greatest action movies ever for me because I was actually scared for the stunt drivers because it all looks and feels real.

Fast and Furious felt like that at first but with every iteration they are using more and CG and it doesn't feel 'real' any more.

 

[dark_b]

An example. In Avengers when Hulk Buster drops Hulk into that construction site, if I were directing I would have built a miniature of construction site and then destroyed it top to bottom. In the actual movie the scene is completely CG and looks and I was a little taken out of the movie.

fact:
cgi studios can make this shot look 100% real like it would happen for real. all simulations and weight would look physically correct.on the same budget

my theory:
MPAA rating and artistic choice. they on purpose make it look fake and cartoony to get a pg13 rating and so that the young kids enjoy those movies like a saturday morning caroon.

 

[Octoberist]

I really think it's a number of things.

It's about putting down the effort to push for stuff like that. Certain directors are conditioned to use CG companies to do everything, since they're already there as a resource. Otherwise, the director would have to hire a practical FX house, and that takes another team to construct the models and shoot the fx shot.

It is possible but I think due to the time constraints it's just harder. But I think IF the director wants to do it from the get-go there's always a way to fit it into the schedule and budget.

I think the CG in the Avengers 2 are fine, but it also builds a disconnect because we all know its all done by computers. So yeah it does take me out of the movie instead of going 'wow', in which Mad Max does.

 

[Octoberist]

And if I'm right, that's why practical FX houses are dying out. So there are so few out there, which leads directors to go back to CG. Which is a shame. It's like a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Octoberist]

The best CGI are the ones where you can't tell it's CGI.

That's really impressive. I had no idea about those compositions.

 

[Voltron]

I think the CG in the Avengers 2 are fine, but it also builds a disconnect because we all know its all done by computers. So yeah it does take me out of the movie instead of going 'wow', in which Mad Max does.

An example. In Avengers when Hulk Buster drops Hulk into that construction site, if I were directing I would have built a miniature of construction site and then destroyed it top to bottom. In the actual movie the scene is completely CG and looks and I was a little taken out of the movie.

Some Ultron CG scenes are fine, but it was so terrible at the beginning where it was clearly CG Cap, BW and Thor by the way they didn't fluidly moved.

Also the stunt doubles for Charlize and Tom are excellent where I couldn't tell the difference and didn't take me out of the movie unlike Black Widow in Ultron where it was clearly Scarlett's stunt doubles doing all the stunts.

All in all MMFR just felt so real and I was completely engrossed from start to finish.

 

[Octoberist]

Those movies - the Avengers - cannot be made without CGI. But I think it's just Joss didn't push ILM hard enough.

It's funny. With the Oscar for best Visual Effects, its in a weird state because every movie now has CGI up the butt. But rarely does a movie push the envelop anymore, and that's why I can't see any of the Avengers films winning an Oscars for best VFX.

I don't blame them because it requires new software and R&D - and that costs money. As much as I give James Cameron crap for Avatar, at least he's pushing for new technology. He's pushing for a new experience.

 

[Voltron]

That's really impressive. I had no idea about those compositions.

Yeah I had to do a triple take on the first canyon example where I couldn't tell it was CG at all.

 

[Voltron]

Those movies - the Avengers - cannot be made without CGI. But I think it's just Joss didn't push ILM hard enough.

It's funny. With the Oscar for best Visual Effects, its in a weird state because every movie now has CGI up the butt. But rarely does a movie push the envelop anymore, and that's why I can't see any of the Avengers films winning an Oscars for best VFX.

I don't blame them because it requires new software and R&D - and that costs money. As much as I give James Cameron crap for Avatar, at least he's pushing for new technology. He's pushing for a new experience.

Of course those superhero movies need CGI. But the CG in TWS I thought was done better than in Ultron where there was only one scene that you can tell it was CG whee Falcon drops a CG Cap on the helicarrier.

Yeah Avatar was groundbreaking it looked half real half cartoonish.