Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

I thought it was quite stunning and I think Miller is a helluva "visual" filmmaker. It communicated a lot of information with minimal dialogue, I liked the nearly-silent film aspect of it.

 

I didn't see "Saving Private Ryan" so my noticing doesn't extend quite so far back. But even considering that particular movie, "not really that new" is kind of a matter of yardsticks. In terms of iPhone generations, anything that happened more than fifteen minutes ago was certainly dealing with the best way to bring down, then cook, mastodons. In terms of overall movie history, "Saving Private Ryan" barely comes up to the knees of 3D, Cinerama, color, ...

All that said, for me the "strobing" got old the first time I saw it. With "Robin Hood", sure, Ridley Scott. But I thought, "Did he even look at this?"

Ever since, whenever I see the effect I'm taken right out of the movie.

I'm not quite sure that is completely true. When I initially saw the effect the only thing that came to my mind was the narrow angle rotating shutter effect...and that would do it. But in any molecular/physical/electronic system there can be trade-offs with that kind of short duration image capture.

If film was used, a higher speed film stock might have to be used. If so, that could mean an increase in visible grain structure for the effect's duration. Digitally cleaning the grain afterwards could certainly be possible, but that kind of cleaning usually leads to other image degradations. Alternatively, a wider lens aperture could be used to let more light in to compensate for the shorter exposure duration; this, however, would reduce image depth of field during the effect. Perhaps not a problem, it would depend on the scene, but it is still a change in overall image characteristics.

Capturing on a digital medium (while digital is certainly better at high speed capture than film), still brings the possibility of enhanced electronic noise as well as decreased dynamic range at electronically boosted ISO values useful for short light duration exposures. Not saying it cannot be done, not saying it cannot be compensated for, but nothing here is free.

As I've seen more of these strobing effects in movies, I've become increasingly convinced it is typically CGI work. Sure, it can indeed be done "in camera" as well, but for me it just feels like something done in digital post. While these effects do not last long, it seems to me that a lack of visual "modeling" (that is, a lack of a sense that curved surfaces are actually curved) is part and parcel of the strobed elements. Also, the edges are too sharp. I get no sense that anything strobed was ever in front of a lens.

Maybe @Vidiot can step in and add what he knows of the effect.

 

Nothing is more frustrating than the lack of action figures from any of the Mad Max films and especially "Fury Road." For many years, there were various rumors that George Miller didn't allow toy companies the option to buy the licensing. About 20 years ago, a toy company released a poorly executed line of figures based on "The Road Warrior." However, these figures were out of proportion and didn't utilize the likenesses of any of the characters, including the Mel Gibson-era Max.

Currently, there is a petition you can sign if you are interested in possibly having photorealistic Mad Max figures made by NECA.
Warner Brothers: Give NECA the license to make figures based on "Mad Max: fury road". »

 

Really??

 

Was this camera shutter effect something that was started around the time CGI was developed and used? Because I don't seem to remember seeing it in older movies.

 

No, the effect isn't related to CGI, though digital video cameras are able to simulate the effect, but the effect itself comes from film.

It's down to using a small degree shutter, such as 45 degrees, as was used in Saving Private Ryan. By using a small shutter degree, you can see debris, dirt and various particles flying in the air during explosions. You can also see individual rain drops when it's raining. With a bigger shutter degree, you would see them as well, but they would be more blurred. This allows for a certain visual 'crispiness' which adds to a sense of realism (unless you don't like the effect! ).

Anyway, have a read of this very good reference on how it's done and why:
45 degree shutter in Saving Private Ryan »

 

Ah, so there was at least one film where CGI wasn't used for the effect.

Well played!

 

During the early 2000s, George Miller had no say when it came to product licensing and the company N2 Toys (ex-Warner Bros/ex-Kenner venture) was able to release Road Warrior products without using actual likenesses of the actors. Those figures are now almost forgotten and were a failed attempt at capturing the essence of the Mad Max characters and stories. Currently, George Miller has control and a) either isn't interested or b) simply won't allow licensing for action figures.

Although I don't play video games, the one from 2015 certainly looked interesting.

 

Having recently picked up the Blu-ray Mad Max Anthology set I re-watched Fury Road again back to back with Thunderdome to see if either film would "improve" to my mind. The latest film actually makes the earlier sequel seem much better than it is. Whilst I feel I could write the book on how poor Fury Road is in comparison to ALL the previous Gibson-era films, I did wonder how much better Thunderdome might have been with Theron playing Auntie instead of Tina Turner. I believe time will record this latest franchise reboot as a grave artistic mistake. I can just see it now; several years down the line you'll get the fifth instalment with Tom Hardy signed up yet again but this time directed by Gore Verbinski ("produced by George Miller") or some other hack! To my mind Fury Road will be just the first in yet another pointless 21st Century Hollywood make-over series. For all its obvious faults (and there are so many of them) it will surely be the very best film of the new franchise. If it took 30 years, many brilliant minds and millions of dollars to create FR, just imagine what they will serve up next in a typical 3-4 year cycle.

I'd like to know how Max suddenly and miraculously escapes the hand irons which are chained to a wall when he is about to be branded with the hot iron? Presumably he was free to tug at them and free himself all the while his back was being tattooed with blood group information? Maybe he was not only agreeable to the process but needed it to remind him of his vital stats the next time in checked in the mirror? It is a strange and convenient set-up that he should be able to simply kick out at his captors, slaying them all pretty effortlessly, when he is threatened with the hot iron and then magically he is free.

 

Saw Fury Road on Blu-ray a couple nights ago. I was really looking forward to this but man was I disappointed. Maybe not seeing this in the theater made some difference but I kept wondering what all the hoopla was about. Lots of great action but that's about it. Not much Max either to be honest. Still think the Road Warrior is a much better movie.

 

I've seen this film 3 times in theatres, once in 3D and no, IMHO, it wasn't any better.

Interesting review here (more balanced and rightly puts FR behind Thunderdome):

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) »

 

Glad to see a handful of other low ratings for this movie being posted here now.
I criticized the film many pages back and felt like a delusional outcast.

 

You shouldn't feel that way. It's hands down one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. Just think about that "plot" for a second and try not to laugh. The whole movie is one LOUD asinine chase. No real characters, no story, no point to anything. I for one do not normally care about "story" or narrative, often preferring the pure cinema experience to story development but this film is a one-note strike from beginning to end. The editing is so fast and jumpy at times as to lose any real sense of the action or place. It's hard to know who's chasing who and why half the time, let alone care. Someone said that there was nothing at stake in this film. The danger isn't felt like in MM1 and 2. I'd agree with that.

 

I re-watched it recently, and I still think it's one of the best action movies ever made. It really is a piece of performance art.

 

Wow! No pixels were used in the following film shoot:

 

This movie sucks, big time, too bad, they had a chance at making a great followup and they blew it. Well at least we have the originals.

 

Actually, the 45° shutter technique goes back many years. It's fair to say that Spielberg and DP Janusz Kaminski revived it and repopularized it for Saving Private Ryan, and that film was nominated for 10 Academy awards and won both the director and the DP Oscars. Whether you like the technique or not, the success of this film made a lot of people more aware of the idea. In the last 20 years, I can't count the number of times that TV shows immediately go for a 45° shutter, and I think, "ah... now the action starts." It's a visual cliche, but I understand why it's done.

Bear in mind that the lighting budget is affected when you have to add more light (which you do for a faster shutter angle), and depth of field is affected in addition to exposure. There's more than one factor going on. Horizontal pans also start strobing more, so that's one reason why they cut very quickly during a 45° shutter sequence, so you won't notice these flaws. This is essentially the same with film or digital. In fact, most digital cameras have the added problem of "rolling shutter" errors, which gives the image kind of a "jello-ish" look. Film does not have this problem.

Generally, film emulsions are not changed in situations like this. If anything, they want the look of the scene to stay consistent. Changing stocks would immediately change the look, often to a point that can't easily be fixed.

Naw, we add motion blur to take the curse off that stuff. The VFX people figured out 20 years ago they had to add motion blur in order to make any added images real. A fast shutter typically would not be used for something like this.

I only saw the film over the summer on Blu-ray, and I didn't like the story or characters. I think technically it was a very interesting movie, and the editing was very well done. But not my kind of film.

 

The movie was flat out boring, should have been like 45 min shorter.

 

Special edition Blu-ray and DVD sets coming in December, including the black and chrome version.

Mad Max: Fury Road “Black And Chrome” Edition awaits you in Valhalla on December 6 »

Although it seems as if the only way DVD buyers can get the black and chrome version is by buying the whole 4 film box-set.

 

I finally saw this, watched it a couple times over a couple days and . . . not good. There were spectacular shots, of course, and plenty of action, but the film had zero gravitas. I didn't care what happened to anyone.

There's a very good three-part series on You Tube by an Australian reviewer as to why Road Warrior is great, while the much higher-budget Fury Road is not, with lots of comparison shots between the two films. Mostly it comes down to CGI.

One telling comparison showed the bad guys carefully advancing up the top of the tanker at the climax of Road Warrior -- looking as we might imagine someone would, doing something that incredibly dangerous on a fast-moving vehicle -- compared to the veritable gymnastics performed throughout Fury Road, as if none of the characters had a moment's worry about the consequences of slipping or mis-timing their acrobatics. Because the characters don't care, we don't care. It's just another videogame.

 

Well, many characters didn't have a worry about the consequences. In fact the War Boys, as was pointed out in the movie, look forward to dying; if it is in a glorious manner then all the better.

John K.

 

Why would anyone want to see a movie with such an amazing color palette in B&W (B&C?)?

 

I was shocked how bad it was. Cardboard cut out characters - with about as much depth. It seemed like a vehicle developed to film stunts and explosions.

 

I can't imagine. I certainly wouldn't.