New Mad Max Movie!!!

[DaOld Man]

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/07/27/sdcc-first-mad-max-fury-road-trailer-is-strangely-beautiful/

[Howard_Casto]

Yup, no Mel Gibson.... they couldn't even be bothered to find someone who sort of looks like the character.... so racist ---tallywhacker--- or not, it isn't a Mad Max movie. 

[DaOld Man]

Yup, no Mel Gibson.... they couldn't even be bothered to find someone who sort of looks like the character.... so racist ---tallywhacker--- or not, it isn't a Mad Max movie.

I sadly agree. But Mel is getting pretty old, still it looks like he could have been cast as an older Max. At least its the same producers who did the first three, so maybe some of the old feel will come through.

[spoot]

Charlize Theron in it.......so, at least one person will be able to act.  Other than that....I hold no hope.

[wp34]

It would have been much more interesting as a continuation of the same story.  Even just a cameo from Mel would have been awesome.

If this is a reboot I'm not sure why because they have the original writer/director.

[Howard_Casto]

Well it's supposed to be a sequel, but Max is being played by a Hardy boy (literally) who can't act and is all-around just terrible.  Say what you want about Mel, but the guy can act.  You would think with the original people involved they would have insisted on a better or more seasoned actor... but nope. 

Also they are doing some really weird crap.... like if you notice the cars and the guy strapped to the front all all of that jazz, looks almost like a scene-by-scene remake of the second film... but it's not.  Also they've cast the guy that played the gang leader in the first film as some random guy who just happens to be yet another gang leader in this film.  So it's one of those GI Joe 2/ Star Trek deals where it's a reboot but at the same time it isn't... and those never turn out well. 

I mean MM films aren't exactly Shakesphere, so they don't have to do much to make it good, but if they are just going to re-visit themes already covered in the old films there really isn't any point. 

One of the nice things about the MM movies is that where they are post-apocalyptic, they hold up extremely well.  Aside from a random Tina Turner appearance, it's hard to tell when they were filmed. 

[ark_ader]

Danny will be happy.  I bet it is shot in his backyard.

[vorghagen]

Actually shot in Namibia.
They were going to shoot it in the same place as Mad Max 1 & 2 but then we had a heap of rain and the entire area turned green. Not really suitable for a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

[pbj]

The appeal of these movies has always been lost on me.

 

[TopJimmyCooks]

it's up there with highlander in terms of unappealing trainwreck appeal. 

[SNAAKE]

no mel gibson = not watching

[wp34]

it's up there with highlander in terms of unappealing trainwreck appeal.

Blasphemy.   

[Howard_Casto]

Dude don't make me shoot lightning out of my katana to materialize Shaun Connery, who's obviously Spanish... because...reasons and have him be-head you. 

[wp34]

Dude don't make me shoot lightning out of my katana to materialize Shaun Connery, who's obviously Spanish... because...reasons and have him be-head you.

Well Highlander 2 did suck for that reason.

[BadMouth]

relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/video/the-onion-reviews-dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes,36436/

[Howard_Casto]

Heh.  That's about how I feel at this point.  One day they'll release a new franchise that's actually good and I'll die from the shock. 

wp34:  Don't you mean that Highlander 2 was AWESOME for that reason?  Shaun Connery+anything =awesome. 

[spoot]

Shaun Connery+anything =awesome.

The Avengers "remake" begs to differ.

[Howard_Casto]

Eh I dunno.  Uma in a catsuit... Shaun being all Scottish.... a franchise that was so niche that nobody remembered it anyway... I'm gonna say it was still pretty awesome considering the source material. 

[lilshawn]

it looks okay...i mean, i can look past mel not being in it...

but where in the storyline does this movie fit in??

it look about the end half of road warrior, but not so far as thunderdome. in the middle someplace?? during the delivery of the fuel and the aftermath??? 

[dkersten]

A) There can be only one, and there should have been.. All I have to say about Highlander 2..

B) Mad Max was the first movie, so a sequel would fall between that and Road Warrior.  However, the trailer is ambiguous, he still has the interceptor (the last interceptor), but it is destroyed, so it is impossible to tell where it falls in the series.  The end of RW saw the interceptor blown up where it is just rolled in this one, so maybe at the end he goes back and patches it up... ?  Either way, you can't go from Mel to unknown actor to Mel.. it is too much of a disconnect.

It's kind of like trying to follow the Jack Ryan movies where there were 3 or 4 different Jack Ryans.. While each story is independent of the others, they still have some common history (and a friggin name ffs), so at least stick with a similar actor and not vary it by putting drastically different actors (with drastically different ages) in the same role..

At least with movies you can get away with it though..  IMHO, in a book series it is blasphemy to do that.  I was a huge fan of W.E.B. Griffin until he went from one book to the next in his Badge of Honor series and jumped ahead 2 decades but left the characters the same age, just "updated" them.  One book he was using pay phones and CB radios and the next they are using cell phones and laptop computers.  But all the history and events are referred to as if they were mere weeks before.  No excuse for doing that in a book whatsoever..  I surmised from that debacle that the author had gone senile and was no longer worth reading.  I gave him one more shot after that but his next book was just as bad - butchered the past books and the history of the series in question.  ruined it for me, so I stopped reading his stuff.

With movies I just don't really care much..

[Vigo]

Just like there is only 1 James Bond, there is only 1 Jack Ryan

[shponglefan]

So is this going to be yet another PG-13 modern incarnation of an R-rated franchise*?  If so, pass. 

(*Beyond Thunderdome notwithstanding)

[wp34]

Heh.  That's about how I feel at this point.  One day they'll release a new franchise that's actually good and I'll die from the shock. 

wp34:  Don't you mean that Highlander 2 was AWESOME for that reason?  Shaun Connery+anything =awesome.

Connery is awesome but Highlander 2 = Midi-chlorian.

[Howard_Casto]

Eh not really.  The film's plot was crazy, that's to be sure, but the acting and action and what-not was very good. 

Highlander lost all credibility when it comes to plot as soon as they decided to make a sequel.  "There can be only one!..... Oh wait... there's these other guys see... beat them and you are the one.... until we find some more guys..."

[wp34]

Eh not really.  The film's plot was crazy, that's to be sure, but the acting and action and what-not was very good. 

Highlander lost all credibility when it comes to plot as soon as they decided to make a sequel.  "There can be only one!..... Oh wait... there's these other guys see... beat them and you are the one.... until we find some more guys..."

I won't disagree with you on the acting and action.  It is a fun movie to watch. But the "explanation" of why they are immortal and where they came from should never have happened--similar to midi-chlorians.  The movie was a big money grab and should not have been made.

[dkersten]

No, midi-chlorians or whatever was made far worse than anything else because there was a "Lucasfilm authorized" series of "official star wars" books that had a completely different explanation for the force that was thrown out the window when Lucas decided to make another billion dollars on his franchise and thought he knew how to write a good story.  A crappy sequel is far better in comparison to saying "this is the official backstory for the original movies" and then making a prequel that is completely different than that "official" story.. Now, if they made ANOTHER highlander 2, threw out the first highlander 2 story, went a completely different direction, then said "no this isn't a reboot, this is part of the story line" even though NOTHING fit together, THAT would be equivalent to or even trump the "midi-chlorians" debacle..

All I can say is that if they somehow set this movie after RW (in which the LAST interceptor blew up) but have Max driving an interceptor, they will officially be in the general category with SW ep1-3 and any highlander sequel.  I can forgive crappy stories, but I despise any time a major part of a story is just thrown out and screwed up for the sake of keeping a franchise alive. 

Star Trek did it right.. they came up with a plausible (in terms of sci-fi anyway) reason to rewrite the entire story line and reboot the franchise.  And frankly, I enjoyed the latest Jack Ryan movie..

[Vigo]

No, midi-chlorians or whatever was made far worse than anything else because there was a "Lucasfilm authorized" series of "official star wars" books that had a completely different explanation for the force that was thrown out the window when Lucas decided to make another billion dollars on his franchise and thought he knew how to write a good story.  A crappy sequel is far better in comparison to saying "this is the official backstory for the original movies" and then making a prequel that is completely different than that "official" story.. Now, if they made ANOTHER highlander 2, threw out the first highlander 2 story, went a completely different direction, then said "no this isn't a reboot, this is part of the story line" even though NOTHING fit together, THAT would be equivalent to or even trump the "midi-chlorians" debacle..

They kinda did just that. Have you seen Highlander 2 and the recut? Everything they explained about immortals and the mystical nature of the original movie was thrown out the window to make them into space aliens and the Highlander and Ramirez are all part of this weird intergalactic rebellion but never remembered it because they exiled to earth and reborn as punishment.

Then they threw that away that plot then recut the movie into Highlander 2: Renegade, where they are no longer aliens but unwilling time travelers from the past are that were banished by priests to random points in time in order to delay the prize from being won.

Take your pick, but they both contradict everything else in the franchise.

And frankly, I enjoyed the latest Jack Ryan movie..

No Harrison Ford, but I really liked it too. 

[Slippyblade]

@Vigo

Seriously?  I never saw this re-cut you are mentioning but I think I need to dig it up now cause it sounds even worse than the original #2...

[Vigo]

Yeah, it has been years since I have seen either version, but I remember being told they had "fixed" highlander 2. I went out and bought the DVD and just ended up scratching my head because it still didn't make any sense. I remember trying to figure out how those two dudes on jetpacks could possibly be from the distant past.

[Howard_Casto]

Like I said, plot doesn't matter on Highlander because there isn't any plot.  I mean later in the franchise we find out that there are like 3 or 4 more McCloud's of his clan that just happened to not only survive the slaughter of his people, but also be immortals.  Then there was this female immortal even though it was pretty much spelled out that female immortals don't exist "princes of the universe" and all that.  And of course the abomination of a franchise finale that was on the Scifi channel that featured the whole clan, minus the animated one and made evne less sense. 

My point is, if you want to pick on Highlander films for not making any sense, look somewhere besides part 2.... it was merely trying (yet admittedly failed) to expand the universe to make room for more sequels.  Of the sequels, it probably makes the most sense. 

To me pointing out part 2's shortcomings and giving the others a pass would be like saying Friday the 13th part II was terrible because it ignored the plot of the first (adult Jason after child Jason jumps out of the water at the end of part 1) and not even mentioning Jason goes to Hell, which butchered the plot so bad that everybody pretends it didn't happen.  One is kind of bad, the other is unforgivable. 

[wp34]

The first movie was brilliant.  Highlander 2 is where the train went off the rails.   The SciFi Channel one might be the worst movie I've ever seen.  I don't think the other movies are getting a pass but Highlander 2 is just the one that ruined everything.  To quote Matt Guitar Murphy "They're all pretty bad".    Fortunately the TV show came along and redeemed the franchise. 

Like I said, plot doesn't matter on Highlander because there isn't any plot.  I mean later in the franchise we find out that there are like 3 or 4 more McCloud's of his clan that just happened to not only survive the slaughter of his people, but also be immortals.  Then there was this female immortal even though it was pretty much spelled out that female immortals don't exist "princes of the universe" and all that.  And of course the abomination of a franchise finale that was on the Scifi channel that featured the whole clan, minus the animated one and made evne less sense. 

My point is, if you want to pick on Highlander films for not making any sense, look somewhere besides part 2.... it was merely trying (yet admittedly failed) to expand the universe to make room for more sequels.  Of the sequels, it probably makes the most sense. 

To me pointing out part 2's shortcomings and giving the others a pass would be like saying Friday the 13th part II was terrible because it ignored the plot of the first (adult Jason after child Jason jumps out of the water at the end of part 1) and not even mentioning Jason goes to Hell, which butchered the plot so bad that everybody pretends it didn't happen.  One is kind of bad, the other is unforgivable.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah but you aren't getting it.  Highlander 2 made the tv series possible via breaking the cannon which HAD to happen in order for such a stand-alone, cult film into a full fledged franchise.  Highlander didn't do well at all sales wise.  When Highlander II, a film co-starring Connery, the biggest star in the universe at the time, was released, sales picked up, thus saving the franchise. 

Plus I'll still state, Highlander 2 was awesome.  Why?  Because Shaun Connery was in it.  The Hunt for Red October was a boring snorefest of a film... or it would have been without Connery.  James Bond....  a stupid franchise full of stupid plots and stupid clichés.... but they started it off with Connery and thus it still endures to this day.  He can save any film..... ANY film.  If anything the whole point of Highlander 2 was that in the original film, the flashbacks with Connery were far more interesting than the film's real plot.  People wanted to see more of him. 

In terms of stuff happening on screen, other than the flashbacks, the only thing the original Highlander had going on was that awesome opening at Madison Square Garden featuring the Rock'N'Roll Express. 

[wp34]

Yeah but you aren't getting it.  Highlander 2 made the tv series possible via breaking the cannon which HAD to happen in order for such a stand-alone, cult film into a full fledged franchise.  Highlander didn't do well at all sales wise.  When Highlander II, a film co-starring Connery, the biggest star in the universe at the time, was released, sales picked up, thus saving the franchise. 

Plus I'll still state, Highlander 2 was awesome.  Why?  Because Shaun Connery was in it.  The Hunt for Red October was a boring snorefest of a film... or it would have been without Connery.  James Bond....  a stupid franchise full of stupid plots and stupid clichés.... but they started it off with Connery and thus it still endures to this day.  He can save any film..... ANY film.  If anything the whole point of Highlander 2 was that in the original film, the flashbacks with Connery were far more interesting than the film's real plot.  People wanted to see more of him. 

In terms of stuff happening on screen, other than the flashbacks, the only thing the original Highlander had going on was that awesome opening at Madison Square Garden featuring the Rock'N'Roll Express.

I could be wrong but from what I recall the TV series took place before Highlander 1.  Highlander 2 had little to no effect on the series.  Highlander 1 had some brilliant cinematography and of course Clancy Brown.

I tend to agree with you on Connery's ability to save any film but I've never seen Zardoz which looks horrible. 

[spoot]

Plus I'll still state, Highlander 2 was awesome.  Why?  Because Shaun Connery was in it. 

You need to put aside your man-crush and admit Highlander 2 sucked.   

[TopJimmyCooks]

I formally apologize for bringing Highlander into this discussion.  I am thorry. 

[Grasshopper]

Highlander 2 has to be the most bizarre sequel I've ever seen. They completely rewrote all the rules established in the first film, and then didn't even bother to explain what the new rules were.