MovieChat Forums > Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024) Discussion > do you think a proper Mad Max film would...

do you think a proper Mad Max film would bomb?


since Furiosa bombed, with Max as main character would it be a proper hit?

reply

This is a great question. Hollywood has always pandered to the sign of the times. Right now we're in an era where the once mighty U.S. middle class has been knocked down to overworked lower middle class/poor. The only people in America who can somewhat comfortably keep their heads above water are white women(and, to a lesser extent, Black women. They're the ones working, making money, loads of dispensable income.

Hollywood panders to the ones who have dispensable income.

Plus, we have to factor in that American's have been really dumbed down, movies have to cater to them as well. So, what do we get? Stupid, cartoonish, cheap CGI, white girl/Asian girl/black girl boss movies.

My best answer as to whether or not a male led Mad Max movie would bomb is; probably..because there's not enough men who can afford for the expensive tickets and if they could they've been conditioned to see another Marvel movie.

Now you, the reader, probably have enough money to see a Mad Max movie several times over. But you're in the minority. Most cannot.

reply

i don't think men or women are living comfortable unless single and with no kids

reply

I know, the number of single American's in their 20's/30's has skyrocketed. Can't blame them one bit.

I've visited many of my friends house and often they tell me their 20 something kid is living with them, in the bedroom on the internet only coming out to raid the kitchen.

reply

I think a 'proper' Mad Max film (with Hardy) instead of Furiosa would easily have done Fury Road box office (45m opening. 150m domestic/380m total. Probably more now adjusted), but if Miller cast Mel as older Max (or at least have him sharing the role with Hardy in flash back/forward a'la Godfather II) then could be more like up to 500m ww levels

But if Furiosa does bomb (like 30m opening, 80m domestic/250m ww), its probably unlikely another Mad Max film will be made

reply

I think there might be some fatigue over the female takeover of the action genre as well, right or wrong.

Even when there's a man as the title character, they often end up being shown up by the ladies. Bond simping for his ex wife.
The Indiana Jones movies ending with him being punched out by scrawny Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Thor. Well, Thor.

It's kind of become mandatory that there's a woman getting the best of guys twice her size in these movies, or moviemakers get accused of sexism, misogyny, which is fine. I applaud it.

We have been seeing a lot of that lately, though. I occasionally hear rumblings of complaint.

reply

>> I think a 'proper' Mad Max film (with Hardy) instead of Furiosa would easily have done <<

Calling the Tom Hardy version of Max a 'proper' Mad Max film is misleading. It's like asking if having a 'proper' Home Alone film with Mike Weinberg back as Kevin McCallister, fighting 'Harry' and 'Marv', would have been more successful than the "Home Sweet Home Alone" rebooted film from 2021, starring Archie Yates as Max Mercer.

Mike Weinberg being front and center as "Kevin McCallister", technically taking place in the same canon as Home Alone 1 & 2, doesn't make it a 'proper' Home Alone film, anymore than Tom Hardy in the title role, technically picking up where the original trilogy "left off", makes a 'proper' Mad Max film.

Mel Gibson owned the role, just as MacCauley Culkin did in the Home Alone franchise.

Merely having the same character -- WITHOUT the ORIGINAL actor who made the role famous -- just isn't the same thing.

reply

Obviously I know Mel is the 'proper' Max but was speaking realistically, they weren't going to bring back Mel after Fury Road it'd be Hardy (unless as I detailed in my post it would've been a Godfather II type flash back/forward thing),

reply

My point still stands.

It's like asking if a hypothetical new "Home Alone in Las Vegas" movie with Mike Weinberg back as "Kevin McCallister" and French Stewart back as "Marv" (Wet Bandits Take Vegas!), would be superior to the "Home Sweet Home Alone" reboot we got in 2021 with new characters, specifically Archie Yates as Max Mercer.

Such a hypothetical project would technically be a "legacy sequel" that directly follows Home Alone 1,2, and 4...as opposed to the "stand alone" reboot we got... but I really have no interest in either scenario.

Would Gibson return as Max? Unlikely, yes. But it's also unlikely MacCauley Culkin is going to play Kevin in a new Home Alone movie anytime soon, too.

reply

It wouldn't do as well in theaters today because everyone has seen enough sequels, remakes, and reboots. People stream more. Theater experiences tend to be a mixed bag.

The fact is, Theaters aren't doing well and people are tuning out movies.

reply

Depends on who played Max. It could be a hit.

reply

Yes. The world doesn't care about this genre anymore. It honestly peaked with that 2pac video in the 90s.

reply

Yes, I’d definitely pay to see Mel Gibson reprise the role.

reply

The original was quite a while ago, maybe a REBOOT, is called for?

reply

Why would they reboot this series?

reply

Because they wrote themselves into a corner. Because the orginial star is really old. Because the story is still relevant and could be enjoyed by current audiences who were not alive when it was first released.

reply

How did they do that? Mad max fury road was considered a great film and one of the best if not the best in the series. This was without Mel Gibson in the role of Max. Furiosa was a prequel showcasing Furiosa's character's origin leading into fury road. The door is open for a sequel to fury road. It doesn't need Mel Gibson to be good as proven by Fury Road. Tom Hardy can slide right back into the role if they made a sequel to Fury Road.

reply

>> Tom Hardy can slide right back into the role if they made a sequel to Fury Road. <<

Tom Hardy is no more Max Rockatansky than Alan Arkin is Jacques Clouseau. The fact each of them replaced THE iconic actor who originated that character didn't make them a natural fit for the character.

reply

Yeah didn't think so. Let the adults discuss cinema, sound good?

reply

What's with the attitude fag boi? i suggested time for a reboot.

What do you care?

reply

Yeah and your reason was stupid. You claimed they wrote themselves into a corner when that was clearly untrue. George Miller made a great film in fury road and it didn't start Mel Gibson.

reply

Didn't have the impact of the first one.

reply

That doesn't matter. Batman Begins didn't have the impact that Batman 1989 did. Did they stop making movies and reboot after Batman Begins? Impact doesn't mean something is better. Batman Begins and Mad Max Fury Road have higher critical acclaim and are higher received by the mass majority than their predecessors. Mad Max fury road Was seen as a great film and the best in the series like I said. So no you are an ignorant buffoon who doesn't understand how cinema works. Blade Runner was a box office bomb but it's seen as one of the best films ever made. There is more to cinematic art than always just chasing money. I prefer a quality movie over a piece of trash like Jurassic world Dominion which grosses tons of money.

reply

>> Mad Max fury road Was seen as a great film and the best in the series like I said. So no you are an ignorant buffoon who doesn't understand how cinema works. <<

They can "see it" however they want. Broadway Melody was considered to be a "cinematic triumph" in 1929 and got absolutely rave reviews and won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1929, and audiences flocked to it, making it a huge hit with critics and viewers alike.

Today, its considered to be a very shallow, obnoxious, and "cliché-ridden" tacky musical that has NOT stood the test of time. It currently sits at a pathetic 39% score on Rotten Tomatoes, regardless of how "successful" and "acclaimed" it was at the time it was released.

Someday people will look back on the "Furiosa" era of the 21st century and realize the original trilogy with Mel Gibson were the only real Mad Max movies, and everything after that was just a lame cash grab trying to continue the franchise.




reply

See and you don't respond to this because you got schooled. Leave talking cinema to the adults please.

reply

INo, it's not that. You're just not sayihng anything... that deserves a response..

reply

Because I proved you wrong. Mad Max fury road is considered a great film. The point stands.

reply

Glad others enjoyed it.

reply

And I'm glad George Miller isn't like you who only cares about chasing money. Go watch Jurassic world Dominion it will do you some good.

reply

You're just talking nonsense. Why?

reply

Why did you say reboot it because it didn't have the impact of the the first?

reply

See no response. Why reboot it just because it didn't have the impact of the first?

reply

I think that the time is good to revisit the beginning of the story and start it fresh again.

reply

Why? Give me the reason? You can watch the old movie for that. First it was do it because it did not have the impact of the first, now it's shifting because you know that was stupid. Retelling a story that's been done is stupid. Especially when fury road and Furiosa were great films.

reply

It's my personal opinion.

I like the concept, post apocalypse, cars, ect.

reply

It is your opinion. It's s not logical though. Fury road was a great film you are in the minority in not liking it. So should it be rebooted because it didn't the impact of the first or because you want the origin story retold? You made the dumb point of impact initially.

reply

Origin story retold.

reply

So then why didn't you lead with that instead of impact?

reply

Don't know.

Now what? YOu got your answer. To your question.

So, what do you have to say that is... you.



reply

I think it's because once I made you look dumb you changed your answer. Just my opinion.

reply

And that's what that was all about?

You wanted to call me "dumb"?

Wow.

Grift, I want you to listen carefully.

I would rather ACTUALLY BE DUMB, then be such a loser that I would put that much effort and obvious caring into calling another person dumb.

YOU are far more pathetic than anyone who is just dumb.

reply

No I showed how you try to walk back your bullshit when proven wrong. You realized that impact was a stupid point so you walked it back and changed. You do this in other areas also. It's your pattern. Typical conservative behavior.

reply

And that's what you are. That's all you are.

Want to guess what I was hoping for when I made the comment?

reply

Sure go ahead. I have a hard time because you kept ignoring me when I responded to you on this. Let's hear it.

reply

Never mind. Just go fuck yourself, you pathetic loser.

reply

Exactly nothing. Get wrecked you prick.

reply

You've ruined any... anthing about the thread. I did have something to say and hoped that someone else would have something to say about it.

Instead I got you, and all you wanted to do was be an asshole.

So... you got what you wanted. So be happy, and go fuck yourself.

reply

>>> And I'm glad George Miller isn't like you who only cares about chasing money. Go watch Jurassic world Dominion it will do you some good.
<<<

Your sarcasm really fails there, since Jurassic World Dominion is EASILY the best Jurassic Park since the original, and was the kind of sequel we SHOULD have gotten in 1997 instead of the lame "Lost World" film with the 12 year girl kickboxing dinosaurs.

Of course, if it went in the direction of Faux Max movies, they would have recast the role of "Dr. Ian Malcolm" with Zachary Quinto looking and sounding absolutely nothing like Jeff Goldblum, and then perhaps we could have gotten "CLAIRE: A Jurassic World Saga" spinoff film that doesn't contain ANY dinosaurs from the Jurassic era in the movie whatsoever, except for a 5 second, blink-and-you'll-miss-it, background cameo of a Brachiosaurus)

reply

I have no interest in watching that garbage and have tuned out of Jurassic Park series since Jurassic world. That killed all excitement I had for the franchise. I didn't even see that in theaters and caught it on streaming at a relatives house. I also sincerely doubt what you said given the horrendous reception Dominion got. A 29% on rottentomatoes, a 38/100 on metacritic and a 5.6 rating on IMDb. So even if you dismiss critics the score by the mass majority of people is horrendous as well. I also have heard horror stories from individuals I trust on movies tell me it's a dumpster fire.

I haven't liked a Jurassic park movie since the first film. To me everyone of them I've seen after that has been absolute trash. So you bashing the lost world and saying Dominion is better is not a high bar to clear, nor does it make me want to see Dominion. I never will watch it. I've seen Fury Road, and Furiosa. Fury Road was an amazing film as was Furiosa. The reception any of those outclass all the Jurassic park sequels. Not just by critics but by mass majority of people as well. So you don't get to use the critics are woke excuse when the majority of people vote fury road and Furiosa as better films also. Anyways enjoy those films I won't ever watch them. I care about quality rather than what makes more money. A movie making loads of cash is no indication of it being a quality film.

reply

Dominion getting absolutely scathing reviews when it was BY FAR the best Jurassic Park sequel was indeed bizarre, but stranger things have happened.... the now iconic cult classic The Chronicles of Riddick has an absolutely terrible 29% "Certified Rotten" score on Rotten Tomatoes, the now beloved Christmas classic It's a Wonderful Life completely flopped at the box office in 1946 and got "meh" reviews, and the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece horror film The Shining was ridiculed when it was first released in 1980 and even got nominated for some Razzie Awards.

I agree with you on Jurassic Park 2 & 3 being so lame that it completely turned me off from future sequels, and I was skeptical that Jurassic World (made decades later when Michael Crichton was long dead) would be anything but a soulless cash crab. I refused to see it in theaters, FINALLY watched it a year later on video out of morbid curiosity to see if it was actually watchable, and I was surprised that the flick was actually better done than any of the original sequels. So, of course, I decided to check out the sequels to THOSE films. Both were decent, and Dominion was FREAKIN' AWESOME and the kind of Jurassic Park sequel we SHOULD have gotten in '97. They actually managed to come up with the kind of story Michael Crichton WOULD have done IF he was alive (not sure if that was intentional or not, but either, way, they NAILED it), and they managed to get both the original cast AND the new cast from Jurassic World integrated into the story TOGETHER in a way that felt organic and NOT forced. Again... freakin' EPIC.

George Miller has lost his touch, just like a lot of great 80s filmmakers like John Carpenter, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, etc. He should sit down and watch kick ass flicks like Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Jurassic World Dominion to learn how to do a PROPER new installment of an iconic franchise that was popular decades earlier.

reply

I don't see Dominion reaching cult status the way chronicles of Riddick did. All the other flicks which you list have strong reception by the majority of people. Dominion got panned across the board. To me it looked like it was relying on nostalgia. A trend that I am sick of by giving the old actors in their roles just for a cheap member berry to get people in theaters. Either way I won't be finding out because I have no desire to watch it. I've heard enough bad things on it from many people which made me not willing to check it out. I don't trust your taste here I'm sorry.

Agree to disagree. Mad Max fury road was one of the best action flicks in decades. My view and the reception of it speak for itself. Also yeah I disagree on Jurassic world being good, I thought that film was trash. And not a fan of Cameron's Avatar. Great visually but very generic story and uninspired uncharismatic generic characters. Aliens and terminator 2 were way better than his Avatar flicks.

reply

No I asked you why it should be rebooted? You said it didn't have the impact of the first. Then I actually honestly genuinely told you how I thought that logic was flawed. You proceeded to ignore my points. You ignored them because you knew what I was saying was true. So after that yeah I turned into an asshole. If you honestly wanted discussion why did you ignore my counterpoints? Only when I get responding did you respond to them.

reply

No. It would flop too. Mad Max is an old property that no one cares about.

Internet fan boys and hollywood press likes to hype some "cult movies" and fool producers into thinking they have huge fan base and EVERYONE wants to see sequel or remake. They give money. And then Blade Runner 2049 flops so much because there was never public for it. Just few fan boys.

Mad Max: Fury Road was semi hit because it was stunning visually. It felt real. They shot on location. Great trailer. But it wasn't mega hit. Budget around $154–185 millions. Got only $153 millions at domestic. + $216 overseas. Basically it only made it budget back. Why on earth they gave $168 millions budget to Furiosa is beyond me. It's more then Fury Road made at domestic.

reply

It's because people respect something that feels like an artistic vision rather than a shelled out property made on a conveyor belt. The original Blade runner was a box office flop as well. Blade runner is obviously based on its atmosphere and subtly of storytelling. It's a slow burn because it lets you soak in that environment. Blade Runner 2049 was fantastic and better than it had any right to be. I am glad studios will occasionally take risks on projects like these. I just hate that it doesn't always pay off. A movie flopping or doing poor financially does not mean it isn't good or great even.

You have stuff like mad max fury road or Blade Runner 2049 get out grossed by garbage like Jurassic world fallen kingdom, Jurassic world Dominion or even star wars rise of Skywalker. That should tell you all you need to know.

Was it a gamble to give that money for Furiosa? Yes but in the end Furiosa was a rather welcome solid addition to the mad max saga. You just wish people had better taste in cinema.

reply

Well it's too expensive to throw hundreds of millions to please few fan boys. Those movies must have small budget. Like 30-50 millions max. Not 150-200.

But like I said - Internet fan boys and Hollywood press likes to hype some "cult movies" and fool producers into thinking they have huge fan base and EVERYONE wants to see sequel or remake. And then they loose money.

Movies are made to make money. It's not charity. If they will not bring back - they would stop being made. Garbage like Jurassic world is what keeps studios afloat and finances other movies. The one that don't make money. If there would be no pop-corn crap that makes 300 millions - there would be no other movies.

reply

AI makes a lot of things possible that didn't used to be practical. You could potentially make a Mad Max movie today with Mel Gibson reprising the role on a relatively tiny budget of under 20 million dollars and it would definitely make a profit. You could either make a movie about an elderly Mad Max on one last suicidal drive (the role could be easily written around him being old since Mad Max was not an extremely physical role anyway) OR you could do a de-aging/face-replace with Mel onto a younger actor similar to the opening of Indiana Jones 5 (the technology is much better and cheaper than it was then). Either way, most of the chase sequences and background replacement could be heavily augmented with AI, or you can just write a script where there aren't a lot of expensive production design or effects. Within a few years, you'll likely be able to generate an entire feature with AI for free, but it's just a question of whether audiences will accept it or not (they certainly will at first, before they all get smart enough to realize they can generate their own movies at home).

Don't get me wrong, I work(ed) in VFX and really hate to have been laid-off along with most of my coworkers, but it's obvious that it's no longer practical to make giant SFX or VFX-laden movies with hundreds of artists working on them when you can file it down to a streamlined crew of 10-15 people and make a decent enough feature film for pennies on the dollar. I think that's the future of filmmaking whether we like it or not. Giant Hollywood feature films have become high-risk, low-reward uncontrollable and ineffective juggernauts akin to that melting superweapon creature in NAUSICAA.

reply

CGI movies look fake and no one wants to see them. That's why Fury Road was success. Because they shot on location and it felt real.

reply

yeah I agree they look fake and hate them too but unfortunately market conditions mean that CGI-generated movies are going to be ever more ubiquitous into the future.

reply