Suture Self wrote:That was the most condescending and whiny post I've read on the forums in a while. Your analysis of the movie is just as shallow and skin-deep as you claim the movie to be. I can understand arguments against Fury Road, but the points you made don't really hold any water. It's about as comprehensive as saying The Bicycle Thief is about someone who stole someone's bike.
Irony. Plot and story are different. And BT story isn't much either bro, nice example. Still a great film
Just seen the film and think that it`s one of the best action films, really. In the movie there is everything that a good action film needs - cars, guns, speed, cool soundtrack and a hot armed girl!
What made this movie good was the "art" of the entire thing. Did you see a bunch of crazy fucking CGI shit in this? Nope. This is a master at his craft. Those action sequences were amazing considering.
Compare this to some bullshit film every loves like Tarkovsky's Stalker, which can be summed up as a group of people walk through a barren wasteland staring at nothing largely in silence for three hours. At least Mad Mex is visually very pretty.
martryn wrote:What made this movie good was the "art" of the entire thing. Did you see a bunch of crazy fucking CGI shit in this? Nope. This is a master at his craft. Those action sequences were amazing considering.
Hmm... should I... should I be the one to point out Mad Max was chockfull of CGI? Nah... nah, better not... I'll just be quiet...
martryn wrote:What made this movie good was the "art" of the entire thing. Did you see a bunch of crazy fucking CGI shit in this? Nope. This is a master at his craft. Those action sequences were amazing considering.
Hmm... should I... should I be the one to point out Mad Max was chockfull of CGI? Nah... nah, better not... I'll just be quiet...
Yes, there was CGI, but it was generally used to supplement the stuntwork. Martryn is contrasting it to movies like all the Marvel universe movies where the entire scene is created through CGI. This article shows the before and after from the CGI effects in Mad Max. (PS, I may have originally seen that article from a link earlier in this thread, so apologies if I'm failing to give credit to somebody here.)
There's a lot more CGI going on in Mad Max than simply supplementing stunt work. The CGI is used deftly, but not sparingly. It's also kind of an unfair comparison to Marvel movies, which not only cover stories that require more CGI than most movies, but are intended to be crazy-ass comic book movies with a certain visual flair. We shouldn't outright blast CGI, I guess was my initial point.
martryn wrote:Did you see a bunch of crazy fucking CGI shit in this? Nope.
literally the entire movie was cgi landscapes
'
the cgi was the best part of this movie. look how dogshit this would've been without it. makes sense why every actor was wondering what the fuck was going on during filming
You're right, shit like Ant-Man should have the exact same location-enhanced shots. Why didn't they strap cameras to actual ants? CGI is ruining everything these days, gawww!
You asked how people praise this and hate on Transformers and then post these pictures. As you should be able to see, backgrounds are enhanced, the subjects of the shots are real. The cars were real. The stunts were real. War machines were built. Fires were lit. Platforms were raised on those giant rusted chains. Do you hate on Lord of the Rings for enhancing the landscape and multiplying the extras in the shot?
CMonster wrote:You asked how people praise this and hate on Transformers and then post these pictures. As you should be able to see, backgrounds are enhanced, the subjects of the shots are real. The cars were real. The stunts were real. War machines were built. Fires were lit. Platforms were raised on those giant rusted chains. Do you hate on Lord of the Rings for enhancing the landscape and multiplying the extras in the shot?
Can you read? I said it was a bad story where nothing happened. It was just boring. Driving a car and having cool stunts isn't the basis of a good movie in my book. Especially since literally thousands of those movies already exist and have done it much better. If it is for you, cool, I just need a bit more substance
Filligan wrote:You're right, shit like Ant-Man should have the exact same location-enhanced shots. Why didn't they strap cameras to actual ants? CGI is ruining everything these days, gawww!
'
