Sounded really cool, so I bought a ticket, looked amazing! Great locations, and usage of terrain.
Oh, but wait. What's this? MOST of that was CGI? So, by ALMOST NO, they meant MOST?? Isn't that false advertising?
I pay to see films that are FILMED, not RENDERED cartoons, so I am very selective and was really thrilled to hear not much CGI will be used.
Looked like quite a lot to me. There's FX footage on you tube....
I don't mind cgi when it's used well and here it is. MM:FF is visually amazing so who cares If they blend cgi with practical effects, well obviosly you do, but it's still a fine piece of cinema that looks pretty damn good.
shareThis here.
CGI may be overused “sometimes”, but I certainly hold not prejudice against it. When it’s done well, it works, and that’s the case with the insane visual feast that is Fury Road.
No bro,the OP is super cool, because he's better than CGI. The end result is irrelevant, if there is CGI,it's crap. Now let him get back to sniffing his own farts and calling it potpourri.
shareThere are some pretty stupid looking CGI sequences I agree, but it didn’t really take me out of the experience.
shareCheck out Dunkirk instead... 👍
shareYou're weird.
shareWhy? Dunkirk has little CGI if any, yet is as epic in scale and as viseral as anything in mad max...
shareThere was nothing epic about Dunkirk. If anything, is was a minimalist interpretation of history. Like doing a D-Day movie with only 1 landing craft, 12 allied soldiers and one German machine gun
The actual battle involved thousands of men, hundreds of boats and planes. In the movie, the beach looks deserted and only an handful of planes and ship are seen.
Yup...
Absolutely correct..
No.
“RENDERED cartoons”
You tell that Miller his revered film is just that, man!
[deleted]
“Unfortunately, it was a terrible Mad Max movie.”
You don’t know that since you only watched 20 minutes of it, idiot.
You cant rate a movie based on 20 minutes.
share[deleted]
For me Thunderdome was by far the most inconsistent film in the franchise so far. I still love it, but it was so far removed from the first two Mad Max films that it seemed almost like a confection at times. As soon as you see Tina Turner camping it up in a fright wig (only just more frightening than Mel's, mind you) you know this is not the thrilling Aussie indie affair you got with Mad Max and Mad Max II (or The Road Warrior for those fond of renames). You can intellectualize it all you want but in the end Mad Max is basically a car chase flick set in a post-apocalyptic world. For me Fury Road totally nailed that premise, and then turned it up to 11.
I'd recommend you give it another go.
I'm not gonna defend Tina Turner's wig... that was a stylistic choice by the director and I don't have a opinion on it one way or the other.
But, the first three movies consistently portrayed an evolving post-Apocalyptic world. The first was the world on the edge of decay and the breakdown of society. The 2nd was about the the complete breakdown of civilization and the scramble for diminishing resources in the aftermath. The 3rd portrayed a world slowly starting to re-assemble in the form of Bartertown... governments, a rudimentary town with currency, etc. But, its very existence is still predicated on scarcity.
Honestly though, even if they had tightened the script up for Fury Road to be consistent with the world of the first three movies, I still prefer Gibson's interpretation to Hardy's. I had high hopes that Hardy would have been an original character set in the universe of the first three movies. That would have made it a direct sequel to the first three but a new trilogy with Hardy. And it would have left open the possibility of a cameo by Gibson as the original Max -- older, weary, maybe a scene in which he died and 'passed the torch.'
As it stands, it looks like Fury Road is going to be a one-off action flick... a trivia question in the future.
You're spot on with that evaluation of the first three: each more post apocalyptic thatn the last.
The fan boyz be all hatin on #3 because they wanted V8 nitro fuelled monster jam truck blowout, which ya know , you just cant have in a post apocalyptic world (unless its The Walking Dead , where they have the infinite ammo and fuel cheat switched on at all times)
Miller did a great job of getting the motorised pig shit powered action scenes into MM3 , and at the same time portraying an increasingly post civilisation world.
re4" I had high hopes that Hardy would have been an original character set in the universe of the first three movies."
He pretty much is isnt he? From my memory of the film, theres nothing to say its not set after the others - except in name. He claims to be the same character therfore its a alternate / parallel world deal.
nothing in the story relies on him being max , just pretend he's called Tom and its the same world where max had his 3 adventures a few years earlier
It wasn't advertised as "almost no CGI," and it isn't "mostly" CGI either.
shareSeveral different places online I frequent, talked it up about how the director would be using "almost no CGI". It was the SOLE REASON I had ANY interest in the film. Didn't care about the plot, the lead guy or any of it. I only went, BECAUSE it bragged about how little they would be relying on CGI. I thought, "Great! Finally get to see REAL stunts, and REAL locations..." so i went, and it looked great. I thought it was really well "filmed", except much of what I saw WASN'T filmed at all. All those cool locations, just more CGI. Oh well.
And so much of the CGI stuff could have simply been filmed, had they chosen a location that looked like that. :(
Plot, schmott. I came for the stunts. Many of them were real, but tons of GCI is what I got. Not movie magic, movie -NOT-magic. (sigh)
Director George Miller famously claimed that 90 percent of the effects in Mad Max: Fury Road were practical.
^ This
shareThank you.
shareI didn't notice any cgi. Are you sure it was there? :p
I'm sure a CGI militant like yourself has a much better eye for it than me.
or perhaps they did such amazing stunts, you just thought "bullshit , that's cgi" when you were in fact looking at real stuff?
Loved the live stunts! The rest of the cgi riined it for me. See the YouTube about the fx.
Theres a cool 20 min video on how they made all the vehicles - which are all pretty real , amazingly!
https://youtu.be/9L67BiENzYs
Yeah it was. I remember. It's even the headline of one of the special features on the dvd.
But I disagree with op. The movie made the perfect mix between CGIs and practical effects. The explosions were real (well technically fake but I think you get the point), they built sets and insane cars, the stunts were almost all performed as we see it on screen, etc. This is way more work than most of the movies made today. I don't know where op wants to get when he says it was a cgi fest. If he would watch the making of on the dvd he would see how even though cgis were used, the movie is also filled with practical effects.
The movie was visually stunning. It didn't win 6 oscars for nothing (considering that they were all for technical categories).
Okay I admit that the plot is not the new Gone with the Wind, but I didn't watch it for the plot. This kick ass adrenaline driven action was so entertaining and on a technical point of view it was an unique experience.
The OP probably has a pretty crazy standard in his head for this comment: "So, by ALMOST NO, they meant MOST??"
I bet money he's even thinking of stunt scenes with visible wires, and then the wires are removed with CGI... So he considers the scene to be all CGI just for that.
There's no other way to get to "MOST" of the scenes being CGI without that kind of uneven standard.
Watch the fx bts on YouTube to see what I mean.
You sound like a typical film snob who likes to hate what is popular. I recall the talk,but it was about how he used more practical effects than chi. I never heard it described as "almost no CGI". It's almost like you twisted the words so you could have something to complain about,and let everyone know how cool you are for not liking CGI.
shareSorry you missed that. I heard it or would not have bought a ticket.
The CGI "Looked" fantastic. I won't argue that. BUT, I thought I was giving them money to film stunts on REAL sets.
How does that make me a film snob?
You pay for Coke, they give you Pepsi. Just shut up and accept it, right?
Funny thing *I* notice in movie chat groups when I call out how CGI is ruining movies these days, is MOST responses come from people who DO CGI, work on FX and such. Nice.
How in the fucking hell are CGIs ruining movies?? Are you retarded?? How would you make a movie like say... Terminator let's say... Interstellar without using CGIs?
CGIs makes it possible to put on screen something that came out as pure fantasy from someone's head. There is different kinds of entertainments. I personally prefer practical effects as well, no doubts. I always appreciate to see an effort put into the building of real sets and costumes designing. Of course I prefer by far seeing the original Star Wars which look way more "authentic" that the prequels' unwatchably done cgi fest.
But... This doesn't change the fact that in a way or another... Cgis are necessary for certain movies. And as long as the human kind will have the power of imagination, he will be welcome to express his vision however he wants.
Something that promotes creativity and make possible to put on screen the impossible isn't quite qualified as a source of destruction for the industry.
You know what actually is harmful to the movie industry? The controversies, especially recently. This is something that right now fucks things up. Cgis have been there for a while and they are here to stay, deal with it.
Let me address your second question first. "Am I retarded?" The answer is no, and I am not even sure how you would jump to such a conclusion.
Your input on how movies can be made seems rather sophomoric, as does your potential perspective about my mental capacities. Not gonna bother to guess YOUR age, but will treat you AS IF you are a mature adult capable of discussing this topic in a calm manner. Though your first two sentences say otherwise. :)
How did they ever make movies without CGI? I guess NO MOVIES existed before your computer came to me. Using your level of terminology... DUH!!!! Tons of great movies came out pre CGI.
Watching the history of CGI you can see how it becomes more important that the story. Well, sir... oops, I mean douche-tard, with no good story, why bother making a movie at all? TO THIS DAY, many films flounder because they are focusing more on OOH COOOL GRAPHICS than whether it serves the story best.
One of, if not THE first big CGI movie: Phantom Menace. Oh yeah... THERE'S a winner. Great job on that. Jurrasic Park worked ONLY because CGI wasn't the focus. The Abyss only used a small part of CGI - most of the under water shots were REAL.... no days, they'd just CGI most of that. Magic flushed.
But, oh the masses, (kids) LOVE their shiny/pretty. TRANSFORMERS is a CGI winner making BANK, while being some of the DUMBEST movies in existence. To the point of the name being used as a put down: "GO BACK TO YOUR TRANSFORMERS" etc etc
Way to go, CGI! Knocking out of the park with these WINNERS. (sarcasm. Look that word up if you are too young)
CGI is not so amazing. ANY breathing idiot that has motor functions to control a MOUSE, can learn and do great CGI. I mean GREAT CGI. The playing field is leveled. There is nothing special about it. It looks great. Anyone can do it, and they are every day.
And you get a prize for missing the entire point of my thread: that they LIED to the public about the production.
"How did they ever make movies without CGI? I guess NO MOVIES existed before your computer came to me. Using your level of terminology... DUH!!!! Tons of great movies came out pre CGI."
But... What the... How did you even... Where exactly did I say otherwise??
Of course movies are older than CGIs and indeed movies can exist without them.
Of course a director who's REALLY motivated would be potentially able to build realistic sets and costumes to depict the future or something like that... But he can't make a huge space ship fly for real no matter how motivated he is...
Yes he could go with a 2001 Space Odyssey technique à la Stanley Kubrick... But that kind of effects works only with a space background and would never look realistic if a scene would be shot in a city.
So yeah if you want to show some imaginary stuff with a quality and almost realistic look... You need cgis...