- As part of a profile in Screen Daily (via The Playlist), Miller not only reveals that the black and white iteration of Fury Road was his original intent, but producer Doug Mitchell adds that an official version of this cut might receive a theatrical release in 2016.
I absolutely loved Fury Road when I saw it in theaters. In fact, I saw it 3 times on the big screen I loved it so much. One of the things that grabbed me the most was how vibrant the colors were. It kind of blows my mind that Miller originally wanted it in Black and White. Now, I kind of wanna see it.
OH, I want to see this so much!! One of the best movies of the year! I would love to watch a black and white version.
I agree. Some people don't like it, because it was "just action", but it was a truly amazing experience for me, I really, really enjoyed it. Not really related to the article, but the day I went to see it I decided to bike to the theater. Cut to me walking out a couple hours later, unlocking the bike, getting on it and absentmindedly behaving like I was getting paid to do the stunt work in the movie. Really not the best decision on a road bike, to be honest, the curbs really didn't help its shape.
I stopped watching the thing right after the "Russian" raiders spoke up; no idea what kept me watching beforehand - perhaps the faith which my sister's raving review instilled in me. I saw the movie as a fucking mess of things that made no sense - and, unlike other such messes, this one never got to intriguing me.
During the first twenty minutes or so, it felt like a random pile of elements thrown in together to make effort to build some sort of a world; even if it was internally-consistent (which I gathered neither to be true nor false in the limited time I gave to the movie), there was no hint, no explanation given whatsoever to what the hell was happening, which threw me off immediately. If didn't feel like a "figure it out" kind of story where the elements are there and a somewhat-knowledgeable viewer can make the connections, thus reinterpreting the story into a deeper, more detailed picture, either. "Don't strive towards water!", "Hail Coca Cola!" (which was something my sister told me about, I remember), fiery blood as a fuel... Oh, fuck off. Unless there's a new and prominent agrument for watching the movie appears - and I haven't seen any yet - I'm not going back to it.
It's an action movie with a very straightforward premise. There's not a lot of depth to the plot, so there's no real need for back story or exposition. The story makes sense as it progresses. As far as world building is concerned, it's a visually rich movie, so a lot of the information as to the kind of world and culture they live in is gleaned not by what is said, but by what is seen. It's actually great because it's one of those movies that lends itself greatly to people that either want to look more deeply into it and pick up on stuff, while at the same time being a simple, straightforward ride for people who just want some action. I thought the dialogue was actually very creative, and going back to the whole world building, also gives hints to the world and culture the characters live in. Visually speaking, the movie is fantastic. I've said it elsewhere in this thread and I've said it tons of times since I've seen this movie, I will watch this movie again and again just because it looks so damn gorgeous.During the first twenty minutes or so, it felt like a random pile of elements thrown in together to make effort to build some sort of a world; even if it was internally-consistent (which I gathered neither to be true nor false in the limited time I gave to the movie), there was no hint, no explanation given whatsoever to what the hell was happening, which threw me off immediately. If didn't feel like a "figure it out" kind of story where the elements are there and a somewhat-knowledgeable viewer can make the connections, thus reinterpreting the story into a deeper, more detailed picture, either.
Don't strive towards water!", "Hail Coca Cola!" . . . fiery blood as a fuel... Oh, fuck off.
Unless there's a new and prominent agrument for watching the movie appears - and I haven't seen any yet - I'm not going back to it.
It might be impressive visually, indeed, but it's not what I'm looking for in a movie. I consider Avatar and Interstellar both inferior stories because they rely mostly or solely on visual effects; thus, I consider them worse movies overall. Sure, both are achievements in their fields (that black hole in Interstellar, goodness gracious), but it doesn't excuse them from not having an interesting story that makes sense behind it. That being said, I recognize that aesthetics are important in what I can only refer to at this point as "artistic arts" (painting, music, comic books, story-driven videogames etc.) and I understand how people might enjoy what appears to be an inferior product from someone's perspective: for example, I often enjoy low-brow, shitty-lyrics songs because of the sound they produce. If that's your cup of tea, I don't blame you and I understand what you feel, but I do believe arts should be a notch better with what moral issues they present and resolve.
You're mistaking "visually rich" for "eye candy." Fury Road is visually rich. It has a strong, consistent color palette. It has amazing framing and composition. The shots are well timed and wonderfully paced. The acting is great, the story is tight and unfolds well, and it's an overall very strong film. It's not a soulless, fluff piece. The movie got a 97% on rotten tomatoes. People who went to film school, to learn how film is made and what makes for good movies (i.e. people who know more about film than you or I) almost unanimously agree that this movie has strong merit. So, while critiquing movies might be subjective, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your criteria.
I was not critiquing it, as it implies objective criteria used in the judgement. What I did was expressing my opinion on the matter. I never meant to say that others shouldn't watch it, and I think it would be wrong of me to do so. I never liked the movie because it started as a bloody mess, and I admitted freely - and, if memory serves, more than once - that I've never seen it past first ten or twenty minutes. Others enjoyed it? Fine by me. What you say did make me think over whether I should give it another shot, and for I stand by my first answer and would rather not spend time on the movie anymore. I'm grateful for your explaining the appeal to me, as it might change my opinion of it later on. Can you explain the difference? Is Interstellar not visually rich? Is Avatar not?So, while critiquing movies might be subjective, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your criteria.
You're mistaking "visually rich" for "eye candy."
Let me tell you, it's times like these that made me wish I paid attention in art class. I'll give it my best shot. (If any film nerd is reading this, please help me out.) So let me start by saying that I have not seen Avatar or Interstellar so I can't really use those movies one way or another. So let's take them out of the equation. When I was talking about comparing visual richness to eye candy, it was a response to this part of your reply . . . When I read this, I feel like metaphorically speaking that you're comparing a cheeseburger from McDonalds and a Cheeseburger from a gourmet burgers and beer restaurant. You think "Hmm. Cheese, buns, burger, onions, blah blah blah. They're both cheese burgers. They're probably on par." The thing is though, while on paper they may seem the same, the burger from the gourmet place will without a doubt be superior, due to use of better ingredients and better cooking techniques. There are tons of elements to what makes a good “movie burger.” Script, acting, sound, musical score, blah blah blah. You get the idea. Since we're talking strictly visual though, the two main visual ingredients are composition and color. The more skilled a director/cinematographer/whoeverfuckingjobitistodothisbullshit, the more competent they are in framing shots so that they are visually appealing. The skill involved varies greatly and the more you watch movies, the more you pick up on it. I'm not very good at this whole comparing and contrasting bullshit, so I'll just throw out four examples here. Keep in mind that I know we're looking at movies from various times, but just look at the elements involved. Watch the trailers for each though, and get a feel for how each one is framed and how it has an impact on how you view the quality of the film. Ignore the acting. Ignore the proposed plot. Just pay attention to what you're seeing. Hell, if it helps, I recommend watching all four trailers with the sound turned off. Toxic Avengers – This movie is a low budget, cult classic film. I'm using this as a baseline, not because it has eye candy (because it doesn't), but because it's a great example of how poor composition and lack of a strong color palette can take away from a movie. Scene after scene here, you see that there isn't much use of dynamic angles. Most shots are very straightforward and squared off. The director is content to just get the needed characters and elements in frame and call it a day. At the same time, there's no real color palette to give it an artistic flair, to grab your eyes and make things look exciting. Visually speaking, it's very boring. Batman and Robin – Here things get a little bit better. In a lot of the scenes, the framing is better and the angles tend to be more dynamic. They're not perfect, but they're much better. At the same time, the directors chose to work with very vibrant colors. The problem with this film though, is that the colors demand too much attention. In a lot of scenes, the colors are overwhelming and distracting, making it harder for the viewers to pay attention to what is going on on screen. This is bad eye candy. The Avengers – This movie is what I would point to as a good example of good composition and good color palette. The majority of shots are very well framed. They're exciting without being confusing. The color palette is almost perfect. It's dark where it needs to be dark, it's vibrant where it needs to be vibrant, and it all feels very natural, making it an easy movie to watch. Fury Road – Look at each scene shown, carefully. Visually it's so good, almost every single scene could be taken and printed and hang upon your wall as a piece of art. The framing is phenomenal. The colors are bright and vibrant while at the same time feeling natural and not overwhelming the viewer. It is absolutely gorgeous. So with those four examples in mind, you can kind of see why it's a step above. So what makes eye candy, “eye candy”? Movies that have visually exciting elements but don't pull you in all the way because there are other elements to the movie missing, such as acting, script, etc. They're pretty for the sake of being pretty but their prettiness isn't enough to make the movie good. Movies like After Earth and Fant-4-Stic are great examples. Fury Road on the other hand is stunning on top of being good.Can you explain the difference? Is Interstellar not visually rich? Is Avatar not?
That being said, I recognize that aesthetics are important in what I can only refer to at this point as "artistic arts" (painting, music, comic books, story-driven videogames etc.) and I understand how people might enjoy what appears to be an inferior product from someone's perspective
Thanks for being so thorough with your explanation. I now see what you mean; perhaps I'm going to pay more attention to it in the future. That being said... I don't mean to be antagonistic, but we're clearly seeing different pictures over the same image. I've watched all four of the trailers - not fully, but enough to understand the framing style and such, with no sound - and I disagree with your saying that Fury Road is stunning. There were a few great shots which I appreciated during the trailer. Colors were fantastic, I can't deny that: bright yet not overly so, edgy and visually tasty. Most of the camerawork, however, looked silly to me; overly simple - I can't compare it with anything better than "child's view", which is to say I don't mean to be condescending or otherwise offensive. It is as if the framing had too much emphasis on certain things; it overshot with being sweet. The Avengers' trailer was, indeed, well set - maybe it could have been done better, I don't know, I'm no expert - and Batman and Robin was ill set, I agree with both of those statements. Fury Road was, however... different. I hope you see what I mean, because I lack the vocabulary or erudition to elaborate.
To each their own, I guess. I found it strange to have Russian raiders in what was supposed to be Australia, but I don't remember it as a bad part. IIRC, they didn't even screw up the pronunciation unlike so many other movies (please correct me if I'm wrong though).
I don't remember what it was exactly. All I remember is that it was a bit wonky, as if with a Ukrainian accent or something similar. There are Russian immigrants aplenty in Australia. A friend of mine went there with his family from Perm' when he was 14 - that is, ten years ago. I remember him noting that there were enough Russians there, of which he, too, was surprised. So, if it's really Australia in the movie, be not astonished.they didn't even screw up the pronunciation unlike so many other movies
I found it strange to have Russian raiders in what was supposed to be Australia
It was great. And the fact that everything was done almost entirely sans-cgi makes even more entertaining for me to watch. At any time I can stop and think "what would they have had to do to pull this off?" Karl does the strong-quiet-surly protagonist well. Every time I see it I think Eomer/Dredd and I find myself appreciating his subtle expressional cues. It crawled in a few spots, but the visuals were what kept me interested.
I think you're getting movies mixed up, but you made a good choice of movies to mix up. Just like Fury Road, the Karl Urban Dredd movie was absolutely fantastic because of both color palette and cinematography. I could honestly watch both movies over and over just for the visual spectacle.Karl . . . Dredd
Oh wow... I don't know why I had Karl stuck in my head. Had to glance at Max's face to realize that is NOT him... and yes. The Slo-Mo scenes were freaking delicious.
I dunno. I'll check tomorrow and see if IMDB lists other crew members or just actors. If they do, I'd willing to spend half an hour to check back and forth. Lord knows I spend hours on IMDB when I'm watching Netflix, seeing who has been in what shows. Did you know Jack Nicholson was on the Andy Griffith Show? I did.
The film wasn't even close to sans-CGI, although some of it was practical. "Fury Road" had some of the best uses of CGI in modern cinema, and I can say that because most people didn't even notice them. Here's some comparisons between Fury Road shots before and after CGI was applied. So yeah, the War Rig wasn't fake, but a lot of vehicles were and were so well done you though they were also practical. That's the tragedy of those working in special effects: when they do their job best is also when their efforts are most invisible.And the fact that everything was done almost entirely sans-cgi makes even more entertaining for me to watch.