I opted to see AoU for a 2nd time instead of Fury Road, but is that really a reboot? I was under the impression it was just another in the series. M
Well...
From IMDB:
George Miller refuses to call the film either a sequel or a reboot. He just calls the film a "revisiting". Miller claimed that after the first Mad Max film he doesn't really see a continuity or set time frame between the films, although he would think of 'Fury Road' as taking place after Thunderdome. In SXSW, George Miller also claimed that the previous three films exist in no real clear chronology, because they were always conceived as different films.
Tom Hardy also spoke on this issue by saying, "We have to take it differently as George is taking it. It's a relaunch and revisit to the world. An entire restructuring. That's not to say that it's not picking up or leaving off from the Mad Max you know already, but it's a nice re-take on the entire world using the same character, depositing him in the same world but bringing him up to date by 30 years." On the other hand, Charlize Theron also said that Hardy wasn't playing Mel Gibson's character. They just happen to be both named Max Rockatanski. In fact, Miller stated with the 30 year gap since the last film and a new actor playing the lead, it was just easier to do a new version of the film without maintaining any continuity. The easiest way Miller puts it is to think of each film as a "legend of the Road Warrior" meaning that each film is a story about Mad Max that happened, but perhaps told by different people and so some things are altered from each story.
The presence of Max's iconic 'last of the V8 Interceptors' police car suggests that this film follows directly on from the original Mad Max. It was destroyed in Mad Max 2 implying that both it and Mad Max; Beyond Thunderdome are in a separate storyline. However, in the original movie, Max had a son who was killed by the Toecutter's gang while in this film he's shown to have a lost a daughter who was killed by a war party, possibly Immortan Joe's forces.
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
I opted to see AoU for a 2nd time instead of Fury Road, but is that really a reboot? I was under the impression it was just another in the series. M
Well...
From IMDB:
George Miller refuses to call the film either a sequel or a reboot. He just calls the film a "revisiting". Miller claimed that after the first Mad Max film he doesn't really see a continuity or set time frame between the films, although he would think of 'Fury Road' as taking place after Thunderdome. In SXSW, George Miller also claimed that the previous three films exist in no real clear chronology, because they were always conceived as different films.
Tom Hardy also spoke on this issue by saying, "We have to take it differently as George is taking it. It's a relaunch and revisit to the world. An entire restructuring. That's not to say that it's not picking up or leaving off from the Mad Max you know already, but it's a nice re-take on the entire world using the same character, depositing him in the same world but bringing him up to date by 30 years." On the other hand, Charlize Theron also said that Hardy wasn't playing Mel Gibson's character. They just happen to be both named Max Rockatanski. In fact, Miller stated with the 30 year gap since the last film and a new actor playing the lead, it was just easier to do a new version of the film without maintaining any continuity. The easiest way Miller puts it is to think of each film as a "legend of the Road Warrior" meaning that each film is a story about Mad Max that happened, but perhaps told by different people and so some things are altered from each story.
The presence of Max's iconic 'last of the V8 Interceptors' police car suggests that this film follows directly on from the original Mad Max. It was destroyed in Mad Max 2 implying that both it and Mad Max; Beyond Thunderdome are in a separate storyline. However, in the original movie, Max had a son who was killed by the Toecutter's gang while in this film he's shown to have a lost a daughter who was killed by a war party, possibly Immortan Joe's forces.
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Did fury road have an origin story of mad max? If not its just another mad max story and not a reboot.
I opted to see AoU for a 2nd time instead of Fury Road, but is that really a reboot? I was under the impression it was just another in the series. M
Well...
From IMDB:
George Miller refuses to call the film either a sequel or a reboot. He just calls the film a "revisiting". Miller claimed that after the first Mad Max film he doesn't really see a continuity or set time frame between the films, although he would think of 'Fury Road' as taking place after Thunderdome. In SXSW, George Miller also claimed that the previous three films exist in no real clear chronology, because they were always conceived as different films.
Tom Hardy also spoke on this issue by saying, "We have to take it differently as George is taking it. It's a relaunch and revisit to the world. An entire restructuring. That's not to say that it's not picking up or leaving off from the Mad Max you know already, but it's a nice re-take on the entire world using the same character, depositing him in the same world but bringing him up to date by 30 years." On the other hand, Charlize Theron also said that Hardy wasn't playing Mel Gibson's character. They just happen to be both named Max Rockatanski. In fact, Miller stated with the 30 year gap since the last film and a new actor playing the lead, it was just easier to do a new version of the film without maintaining any continuity. The easiest way Miller puts it is to think of each film as a "legend of the Road Warrior" meaning that each film is a story about Mad Max that happened, but perhaps told by different people and so some things are altered from each story.
The presence of Max's iconic 'last of the V8 Interceptors' police car suggests that this film follows directly on from the original Mad Max. It was destroyed in Mad Max 2 implying that both it and Mad Max; Beyond Thunderdome are in a separate storyline. However, in the original movie, Max had a son who was killed by the Toecutter's gang while in this film he's shown to have a lost a daughter who was killed by a war party, possibly Immortan Joe's forces.
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Again, only looking at this from a far & not watching the movie (yet), it appears to be like Superman Returns & the Bond movies (up to the Craig era). Seeing that one of the original creators stated essentially the same doesn't dissuade my thought.
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Did fury road have an origin story of mad max? If not its just another mad max story and not a reboot.
It did have some weird flashbacks to his daughter dying. In the original series it was a son. I enjoyed the original Mad Max and Road Warrior and this felt like just a new adventure, not necessarily a reboot, per say.
< Again, only looking at this from a far & not watching the movie (yet), it appears to be like Superman Returns & the Bond movies (up to the Craig era). Seeing that one of the original creators stated essentially the same doesn't dissuade my thought.
M
That's a good observation. It actually sort of feels like a Craig-era bond without a new origin tale. This movie is very stylized and unique. It's unlike any film I've seen in years. It is non-stop, pedal-to-the-metal, jaw-dropping mayhem surrounded by beautiful cinematography. It feels like a mash-up of the best characters of a Sergio Leone western and the maddening machines of a Terry Gilliam film, while setting a new standard for cinematic thrills. This is an action movie that exemplifies poetry in motion. Hard to quantify, but considerably enjoyable. It's a film I intend to own in my collection and I do not own any of the previous three films. I would see the sequel to this.
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Did fury road have an origin story of mad max? If not its just another mad max story and not a reboot.
It did have some weird flashbacks to his daughter dying. In the original series it was a son. I enjoyed the original Mad Max and Road Warrior and this felt like just a new adventure, not necessarily a reboot, per say.
< Again, only looking at this from a far & not watching the movie (yet), it appears to be like Superman Returns & the Bond movies (up to the Craig era). Seeing that one of the original creators stated essentially the same doesn't dissuade my thought.
M
That's a good observation. It actually sort of feels like a Craig-era bond without a new origin tale. This movie is very stylized and unique. It's unlike any film I've seen in years. It is non-stop, pedal-to-the-metal, jaw-dropping mayhem surrounded by beautiful cinematography. It feels like a mash-up of the best characters of a Sergio Leone western and the maddening machines of a Terry Gilliam film, while setting a new standard for cinematic thrills. This is an action movie that exemplifies poetry in motion. Hard to quantify, but considerably enjoyable. It's a film I intend to own in my collection and I do not own any of the previous three films. I would see the sequel to this.
Catch this in the cineplex if you still can.
Trying to get time to see a movie in the theatre right now is like working a Rubik's cube. Needless to say, I'll catch on my home tv instead of theatre.
Mad Max has become the type of heroic figure I've found to become the most interesting. The John McClane (in the first 2), Snake Plissken, Jack Burton, Ash (in Army of Darkness) characters who aren't really heroes. They're the "this isn't my fight" mindset, but get thrusted into a fight due to personal circumstances (1 specific person, freedom, money, getting home, getting fuel, etc) instead of "because it's the right thing to do." He doesn't necessarily care about the cause.
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Did fury road have an origin story of mad max? If not its just another mad max story and not a reboot.
It did have some weird flashbacks to his daughter dying. In the original series it was a son. I enjoyed the original Mad Max and Road Warrior and this felt like just a new adventure, not necessarily a reboot, per say.
< Again, only looking at this from a far & not watching the movie (yet), it appears to be like Superman Returns & the Bond movies (up to the Craig era). Seeing that one of the original creators stated essentially the same doesn't dissuade my thought.
M
That's a good observation. It actually sort of feels like a Craig-era bond without a new origin tale. This movie is very stylized and unique. It's unlike any film I've seen in years. It is non-stop, pedal-to-the-metal, jaw-dropping mayhem surrounded by beautiful cinematography. It feels like a mash-up of the best characters of a Sergio Leone western and the maddening machines of a Terry Gilliam film, while setting a new standard for cinematic thrills. This is an action movie that exemplifies poetry in motion. Hard to quantify, but considerably enjoyable. It's a film I intend to own in my collection and I do not own any of the previous three films. I would see the sequel to this.
Catch this in the cineplex if you still can.
Trying to get time to see a movie in the theatre right now is like working a Rubik's cube. Needless to say, I'll catch on my home tv instead of theatre.
Mad Max has become the type of heroic figure I've found to become the most interesting. The John McClane (in the first 2), Snake Plissken, Jack Burton, Ash (in Army of Darkness) characters who aren't really heroes. They're the "this isn't my fight" mindset, but get thrusted into a fight due to personal circumstances (1 specific person, freedom, money, getting home, getting fuel, etc) instead of "because it's the right thing to do." He doesn't necessarily care about the cause.
M
So, if there had been a Nolan Dark Knight 4 coming out right now...
I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Did fury road have an origin story of mad max? If not its just another mad max story and not a reboot.
It did have some weird flashbacks to his daughter dying. In the original series it was a son. I enjoyed the original Mad Max and Road Warrior and this felt like just a new adventure, not necessarily a reboot, per say.
< Again, only looking at this from a far & not watching the movie (yet), it appears to be like Superman Returns & the Bond movies (up to the Craig era). Seeing that one of the original creators stated essentially the same doesn't dissuade my thought.
M
That's a good observation. It actually sort of feels like a Craig-era bond without a new origin tale. This movie is very stylized and unique. It's unlike any film I've seen in years. It is non-stop, pedal-to-the-metal, jaw-dropping mayhem surrounded by beautiful cinematography. It feels like a mash-up of the best characters of a Sergio Leone western and the maddening machines of a Terry Gilliam film, while setting a new standard for cinematic thrills. This is an action movie that exemplifies poetry in motion. Hard to quantify, but considerably enjoyable. It's a film I intend to own in my collection and I do not own any of the previous three films. I would see the sequel to this.
Catch this in the cineplex if you still can.
Trying to get time to see a movie in the theatre right now is like working a Rubik's cube. Needless to say, I'll catch on my home tv instead of theatre.
Mad Max has become the type of heroic figure I've found to become the most interesting. The John McClane (in the first 2), Snake Plissken, Jack Burton, Ash (in Army of Darkness) characters who aren't really heroes. They're the "this isn't my fight" mindset, but get thrusted into a fight due to personal circumstances (1 specific person, freedom, money, getting home, getting fuel, etc) instead of "because it's the right thing to do." He doesn't necessarily care about the cause.
M
So, if there had been a Nolan Dark Knight 4 coming out right now...
Mad Max has become the type of heroic figure I've found to become the most interesting. The John McClane (in the first 2), Snake Plissken, Jack Burton, Ash (in Army of Darkness) characters who aren't really heroes. They're the "this isn't my fight" mindset, but get thrusted into a fight due to personal circumstances (1 specific person, freedom, money, getting home, getting fuel, etc) instead of "because it's the right thing to do." He doesn't necessarily care about the cause.
I concur. I can even think of several other "anti-heroes" of that ilk.
George miller can hem and haw all he want, to me it's pretty clearly a sequel, in the same vain as the Bond movies were sequels for decades. Yea they retooled some things to bring it up to date, much like Bond did for a long time and will do again.
And yes, all signs point to reboot for Ghostbusters. This group of women will discover for themselves the science of ghosts, proton packs and containment.
Vigo was a man too. And the two in the courtroom were guys, I forget their name though.
But that librarian ghost was definitely female and scary as shit too!
True, though I was only talking about the first one. I don't remember the second one well enough to remember the ghosts in it.
Was Vigo a ghost? Or a possessed person, like Dana and Louis in the first one?
I think a bit of both. Or maybe more mind control over Peter MacNicols character.
Got it. And I forgot that Vigo was the name of the ghost inside McNichols' character. So that one was male. A dead, specific person from the past.
Although, in the first one it seemed like Louis, as the Keymaster, wasn't possessed by a specific ghost, that I remember. He didn't have Zhuul in him, like Dana, he seemed to just have ghosty energy in him that made him a sort of thrall with an important role to play in the ritual. So I actually wouldn't count whatever was in him as a male ghost, like Vigo.
Vigo was a man too. And the two in the courtroom were guys, I forget their name though.
But that librarian ghost was definitely female and scary as shit too!
True, though I was only talking about the first one. I don't remember the second one well enough to remember the ghosts in it.
Was Vigo a ghost? Or a possessed person, like Dana and Louis in the first one?
I think a bit of both. Or maybe more mind control over Peter MacNicols character.
Got it. And I forgot that Vigo was the name of the ghost inside McNichols' character. So that one was male. A dead, specific person from the past.
Although, in the first one it seemed like Louis, as the Keymaster, wasn't possessed by a specific ghost, that I remember. He didn't have Zhuul in him, like Dana, he seemed to just have ghosty energy in him that made him a sort of thrall with an important role to play in the ritual. So I actually wouldn't count whatever was in him as a male ghost, like Vigo.
Agreed. I think Zhuul was an ancient demon of somesort.
Vigo was a man too. And the two in the courtroom were guys, I forget their name though.
But that librarian ghost was definitely female and scary as shit too!
True, though I was only talking about the first one. I don't remember the second one well enough to remember the ghosts in it.
Was Vigo a ghost? Or a possessed person, like Dana and Louis in the first one?
I think a bit of both. Or maybe more mind control over Peter MacNicols character.
Got it. And I forgot that Vigo was the name of the ghost inside McNichols' character. So that one was male. A dead, specific person from the past.
Although, in the first one it seemed like Louis, as the Keymaster, wasn't possessed by a specific ghost, that I remember. He didn't have Zhuul in him, like Dana, he seemed to just have ghosty energy in him that made him a sort of thrall with an important role to play in the ritual. So I actually wouldn't count whatever was in him as a male ghost, like Vigo.
Agreed. I think Zhuul was an ancient demon of somesort.
Just a slight off topic side bar: my 2yr has become addicted to my iPad (for a while, it was the first thing she asked for when she woke up). We've essentially hid my iPad (and her kid brand version) to ween her off it.
Long story short, whenever she goes into her "pad, pad, PAD!" I reply "there is no pad, only Zhuul!"
In terms of the movie itself. I think the four leads are funny. I think it will be interesting to see what the nature of ghostbusting will be in 2015. Is it a franchise business? A non-profit organization? There are plently of movies franchises that didn't need to go back to the well. Blues Brothers 2000 anyone. And some that did and worked. I really enjoyed Rocky Balboa and Creed looks good. Who'd thunk it? As we get closer to the release date and see a trailer I am going to go based on more evidence from the movie itself.
Comments
M
From IMDB: I call it a reboot, but I guess you can decide for yourself.
Did fury road have an origin story of mad max? If not its just another mad max story and not a reboot.
Again, only looking at this from a far & not watching the movie (yet), it appears to be like Superman Returns & the Bond movies (up to the Craig era). Seeing that one of the original creators stated essentially the same doesn't dissuade my thought.
M
Catch this in the cineplex if you still can.
Mad Max has become the type of heroic figure I've found to become the most interesting. The John McClane (in the first 2), Snake Plissken, Jack Burton, Ash (in Army of Darkness) characters who aren't really heroes. They're the "this isn't my fight" mindset, but get thrusted into a fight due to personal circumstances (1 specific person, freedom, money, getting home, getting fuel, etc) instead of "because it's the right thing to do." He doesn't necessarily care about the cause.
M
M
And yes, all signs point to reboot for Ghostbusters. This group of women will discover for themselves the science of ghosts, proton packs and containment.
(Except Slimer. If Slimer has gender. I mean, they call Slimer a "he", but they never gave it a chance to identify it's preferred pronoun.)
(Ok. Stay Puft Marshallow MAN. I'll give you that one ;) )
Also, he seemed to have no genitals. Potentially another technicality, depending on who you ask.
But that librarian ghost was definitely female and scary as shit too!
Was Vigo a ghost? Or a possessed person, like Dana and Louis in the first one?
Although, in the first one it seemed like Louis, as the Keymaster, wasn't possessed by a specific ghost, that I remember. He didn't have Zhuul in him, like Dana, he seemed to just have ghosty energy in him that made him a sort of thrall with an important role to play in the ritual. So I actually wouldn't count whatever was in him as a male ghost, like Vigo.
Long story short, whenever she goes into her "pad, pad, PAD!" I reply "there is no pad, only Zhuul!"
M
Dana was possessed by Zuul The Gatekeeper
Both are Gozer's minions.