New horror film about Suits with MBAs and no creative juices or sense of risk-taking whatsoever taking perfectly good film subjects and marginalizing them into oblivion.

--

This is a big problem in Reality TV (where I work), too. Someone sees a great episode and the note that comes back is "That was so good, can we split it up into three episodes?" No, dummy. Making something good take three times as long to happen makes it slow and boring with lots of filler.

Paging Peter Jackson...

In a movie about cars and guns and explosions and violence, with an incredible setting and fully realized world, the characters the movie follows actually bored me.

That's fair enough, and I'll never tell you that you're wrong to have that opinion. In fact, I don't even necessarily completely disagree.

However, I do think that is part of why I liked the film. I can't pretend to understand film-making or story-telling technique, but I LIKE that the most important character in the film (arguably) wasn't the main character. Maybe it just fits with my cynical world view--the real heroes are often nameless, faceless, and forgotten, while the people we sometimes (often?) uphold as heroes are just people doing things instinctively and because of their circumstance. I doubt that's any part of the intended message of the film, but I see it in there all the same.

Art is what you get out of it. And that rarely matches what the artist thought it would be.

In a movie about cars and guns and explosions and violence, with an incredible setting and fully realized world, the characters the movie follows actually bored me.

That's fair enough, and I'll never tell you that you're wrong to have that opinion. In fact, I don't even necessarily completely disagree.

However, I do think that is part of why I liked the film. I can't pretend to understand film-making or story-telling technique, but I LIKE that the most important character in the film (arguably) wasn't the main character. Maybe it just fits with my cynical world view--the real heroes are often nameless, faceless, and forgotten, while the people we sometimes (often?) uphold as heroes are just people doing things instinctively and because of their circumstance. I doubt that's any part of the intended message of the film, but I see it in there all the same.

Reminds me of a certain video game. Yet, here we are.

The circle is now complete.

Seriously, Destiny inhabits a weird space of frustration and enjoyment for me. When it works, it works well, but when it hiccups (which it does far too often), it's the most disappointing thing. I'll add that the story of TTK was great. I wish they could re-work the rest of the game with that level of polish and attention to plot and writing. Apparently (according to Kotaku) the original story had all of that but they had to scrap most of it when they re-worked the game 1 year out from release. To be fair, it was re-worked because the decision makers thought the plot was bad, and all the cutscenes in the world won't save you from a bad plot. Still, I'd probably have preferred the attempt compared to the nothing we actually got in vanilla.

Maybe on a bigger screen this time (and with a good sound system).

For some films this is crucial. See 2001. The film is an almost transcendental experience when you allow the visuals (which are bone chilling really) and the sound to engulf you. If anybody hates that film because the ending didn't make sense to them, then I can almost guarantee they didn't see it properly.

In some ways this is happening to video games too. You don't know how many people I know who find many old games lame. Well, when you play them on an emulator and reload save states all the time, then yeah, it's going to suck.

For MMFR, there were definitely shots where I could tell that, in a theater, they'd be epic. Driving into the storm, for example. The shot is from so far away that even on my 50" TV the war rig was like half an inch long. I actually told my wife, "I bet that looked amazing in the theater." But there's the problem, just as you've stated it: It didn't look amazing on TV. It was difficult to see and thus difficult to figure out what, exactly, I was looking at. It took me out of the movie. I did enjoy the SFX (I have a baller surround sound system), but neither spectacle nor audio help what I feel was a lackluster script. A silent character does not have to be an emotionless, passive, or reactionless character. Again, I loved Mel Gibson as Max and I felt Tom Hardy just didn't deliver that level of performance.

2001 I saw for the first time in a theater so I can't say. Fucking awesome film though. Good god. The pacing is truly incredible.

Video games and save states. Some games like 100 hour long RPGs need it because otherwise they become 300 hours long, which is just asking too much of your player (example: Fallout 4 survival mode. I want the extra restrictions on item weights for ammo, and needing to eat food and drink water, but only being able to save by sleeping basically ruined it for me simply because I don't have enough free time to waste 20 minutes re-doing whatever I just did before I stepped on one damn land mine I didn't see. God how I wish there was a middle difficulty where I could save anywhere), but lots of the old action games were actually really really short games so they needed to be nearly impossible in order to get you to play for more than 20 minutes. Kids these days. In my day we only knew one kid who could beat level 2 of Ninja Gaiden. "Danny the Master" we used to call him. Manages a Taco Bell now, but back then, he was a god among mortals.

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

For what it's worth, I didn't read it like that at all, and I definitely wouldn't expect that from Kermit.

Good to know. I have very limited experience actually talking to most of your guys (send me party invites, yo).

Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'm genuinely asking. Not every character actually needs an arc--that's not how life works. Sometimes things just happen. Not everyone changes all the time. In my mind, Nux is the main character of Fury Road. I really feel like the film is his journey more than anyone else. No, the film obviously doesn't focus on him, and it would have probably been a vastly different film if it had. But I feel like he really is the main character, and we see his journey through the eyes of Max and Furiosa.

I agree that not every character needs an arc, but MMFR is directed in such a way that it seems to be holding a sign saying "look how Max and Furiosa grew over the course of this film! Look at that silent, knowing nod they give each other at the end! See how Max finds freedom and Furiosa finds redemption!" But none of those things happened. The shots are massively indicating the significance of Max and Furiosa's parting, but there isn't one because their joining was purely out of desperation. They needed each other, and now they don't. There's not really a story there. Nuk has a story but the direction flatly dismisses it. The writing practically ignores it after he dies. If I don't care about anyone left in the film, and the people left in the film don't care about the one character I did kind of care about, it just makes me care about those people even less, which made me literally ask myself "why am I watching these people? They're boring."

In a movie about cars and guns and explosions and violence, with an incredible setting and fully realized world, the characters the movie follows actually bored me.

Did the characters have personality? Yes, except for Max and Furiosa.

I will add my 0.02 here and say that I thought both these characters had a lot of personality. In some ways they are both the "strong, silent type" which doesn't leave for much in the way of speaking, but I thought they both conveyed a lot of emotions and inner turmoil with the expressions on their faces. I thought Furiosa occupied an interesting place due to the gender politics of their world. I also thought their decisions made sense in the context of the film. Max convinced Furiosa to turn around, and it all made sense to me--the timing, the way Max waited and thought about it before suggesting, how Furiosa was not a complete pushover about it, but eventually realized and agreed it was the right thing to do.

Also I wanted to add something unrelated to this forum's discussion. Last summer I remember overhearing multiple people complain about the movie saying, "They drove here and then they talked and then they drove back! Booorring!" and I thought that was a hilariously reductivist critique, one that could make anything sound boring if applied. Kind of the yada-yada-yada of movie reviews. "They yada-yada'd the best part!"

And then Furiosa, THE STRONGEST FEMALE CHARACTER OF ALL TIME, gets her 1 and only moment to show any strength of character since the start of the film, but instead she gives up and decides to lead the other women to their deaths out in the desert until Max talks her out of it.

Because she's not a superhero or master strategist. She was a glorified Uber driver who knew the rules of the world that they lived in. Again, she wasn't even the leader of the group. Most of her plans went downhill, but working side by side with Max, they complemented each other enough to get ahead.

Agreed. None of which is remarkable or special or anything beyond every other lame action movie ever made. 2 tough people get together and fight better than the bad guys. Big deal :)

Eeeexcept that they kind of don't. Furiosa gets stomped and stabbed, Max gets tossed about like a ragdoll. The wives, the Vuvalini, and Nux all contribute to the group's success. It's a Mad Max-universe film that revolves around the War Rig, not Furiosa, not Max, not Nux, not the Wives, or Joe. It's a story about how characters interact in this world, edited and produced in a way that surpasses most of what Hollywood churns out each year.

In my repeated watchings of the film, I see the entire iceberg behind every scene now, not just the action on the screen, and that's something that very few movies have ever delivered.

I feel like you're kinda making my point for me, here. The anchor of the whole movie is not a character, it's a truck. There's just nobody and nothing worth caring about in the entire thing. I started off by saying that I think it is impeccably well made in terms of every aspect of the production. The stunts, costumes, cinematography, sound design, all top-notch. I just think it's a crappy, shallow story with nothing characters, and for me personally, strong characters are the absolute most important thing in any story. If I don't care about the characters, I'm not invested. And if I'm not invested, all the production values are essentially a huge waste for me. I watch MMFR and wish such care and thought and execution had gone into a movie that featured a story worth telling.

Reminds me of a certain video game. Yet, here we are.

Despite my pithy comment, I'll reiterate once more that I DID care about the characters so on a basic level, I don't agree with your analysis of the film.

Maybe on a bigger screen this time (and with a good sound system).

For some films this is crucial. See 2001. The film is an almost transcendental experience when you allow the visuals (which are bone chilling really) and the sound to engulf you. If anybody hates that film because the ending didn't make sense to them, then I can almost guarantee they didn't see it properly.

In some ways this is happening to video games too. You don't know how many people I know who find many old games lame. Well, when you play them on an emulator and reload save states all the time, then yeah, it's going to suck.

Seriously, a couple of us on these boards craft stories for a living. We're genuinely interested in the art of storytelling and spend lots of time thinking about it, doing it, and discussing it.

Sure. Be wary of arrogance, though. This is the internet, and I may indeed be a dog, but it's not wise to presume the people you're arguing with lack experience, knowledge, or even credentials in this area.

You've got an opinion that I disagree with, but if I were to dismiss yours in the way that you're dismissing mine, I think you'd be insulted. I know I am.

I'm not dismissing you. At a certain point, though, there's no point. Everything has been said as persuasively as it can be said.

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

---

I'll back up to a very broad stroke of where I'm coming from; the underlying premise of my approach to all art, film or otherwise:

I believe that the point of art, speaking is the most broad sense possible, is to illicit an emotional reaction in the audience. Mad max gave me no reaction. But it gave you something. That's great; it did it's job as far as you're concerned. For me, it lacked in what I need in a story. I'll grant that I lean far more heavily on character development and story arc than most modern blockbuster films are willing to attempt. But I think those things are important and I found them lacking in MMFR.

I'll take that leaning and raise it. Movies i like as they pop in my head: Local Hero, The Last Picture Show, Carol, Lost in Translation, Casablanca, Moon, Diner, Being John Malkovich. Notice anything? I'm not an action movie buff and tend to not like the vast majority of blockbusters. Certain films can transcend the limitations of a genre. I think MMFR comes close to inventing its own genre. Brazil is another film I'd put in that category--singularly unique.

The reason I focus on Nuk (that's the side switcher, I take it) is not because I'm obsessed with him but because his story is the only one that makes a journey. He's the only character that learns something about himself, the only one who is in any sort of emotional way affected by the events of the film, and the only one who changes as the story progresses.

Not every story needs to follow the same path: One story may start with a seed, watch it grow, and end with a tree; while another story may start with a forest and then burn the whole thing down, but if you start with a tree and end with the exact same tree, why didn't you just take a picture. Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

I hope this explains a bit about where I'm coming from and helps you see that disagreement is an inherent element of perspective. The tall man thinks the chair too small, and the short man thinks it too big, while the middle-sized man finds it flawless. They are all correct.

I think we've established that I saw things in the film that you didn't see. I think it's evident that there are many people who know film as well or better than you and me who saw things you didn't see. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, but it may mean you might want to give it another chance. Maybe on a bigger screen this time (and with a good sound system).

Sometimes people just talk!

And sometimes people run when they're proven wrong. ;)

I DO have a job, you know. Besides, I like leaving you in suspense ;)

That explains the extended disappearance the other night. ;)

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

For what it's worth, I didn't read it like that at all, and I definitely wouldn't expect that from Kermit.

Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

Why is that such a bad thing? I'm genuinely asking. Not every character actually needs an arc--that's not how life works. Sometimes things just happen. Not everyone changes all the time. In my mind, Nux is the main character of Fury Road. I really feel like the film is his journey more than anyone else. No, the film obviously doesn't focus on him, and it would have probably been a vastly different film if it had. But I feel like he really is the main character, and we see his journey through the eyes of Max and Furiosa.

if you didn't see Furiosa despairing--if you don't get that this movie is primarily a visceral experience that follows its own rules (and shouldn't be judged as an Elizabethan drama), I'm at a loss.

Yeah definitely. You have to actually LOOK and see what the characters are feeling, rather than listen to the tell you how they feel.

I could see it with Mel Gibson's Max. I didn't see it with Tom Hardy's.

Furiosa I didn't see it at all. She spent the whole film telling us the stakes were high but showing us she didn't really care and they didn't really affect her at all. If anything, her character worked against the plot and story to make me feel it was less important and less significant than it should have been.

To be clear: I think Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are terrific actors. But the writing for Tom left him with nothing to do and the writing for Furiosa actively worked against what she was doing. It didn't work for me.

If you've said your piece and have nothing left to add, that's one thing, but it sounds more like you're saying I'm a moron for disagreeing with you.

---

I'll back up to a very broad stroke of where I'm coming from; the underlying premise of my approach to all art, film or otherwise:

I believe that the point of art, speaking is the most broad sense possible, is to illicit an emotional reaction in the audience. Mad max gave me no reaction. But it gave you something. That's great; it did it's job as far as you're concerned. For me, it lacked in what I need in a story. I'll grant that I lean far more heavily on character development and story arc than most modern blockbuster films are willing to attempt. But I think those things are important and I found them lacking in MMFR.

The reason I focus on Nuk (that's the side switcher, I take it) is not because I'm obsessed with him but because his story is the only one that makes a journey. He's the only character that learns something about himself, the only one who is in any sort of emotional way affected by the events of the film, and the only one who changes as the story progresses.

Not every story needs to follow the same path: One story may start with a seed, watch it grow, and end with a tree; while another story may start with a forest and then burn the whole thing down, but if you start with a tree and end with the exact same tree, why didn't you just take a picture. Mad Max: Fury Road gives me a picture of Furiosa, a picture of Max, a picture of the breeders, a picture of the Immortan, and a picture of the mother-bikers, but it gives me arc only for Nuk.

I hope this explains a bit about where I'm coming from and helps you see that disagreement is an inherent element of perspective. The tall man thinks the chair too small, and the short man thinks it too big, while the middle-sized man finds it flawless. They are all correct.

if you didn't see Furiosa despairing--if you don't get that this movie is primarily a visceral experience that follows its own rules (and shouldn't be judged as an Elizabethan drama), I'm at a loss.

Yeah definitely. You have to actually LOOK and see what the characters are feeling, rather than listen to the tell you how they feel.

Sometimes people just talk!

And sometimes people run when they're proven wrong. ;)

Who made you staff again? :-p