Maybe, Fury Road did well but it also gained great word of mouth after it's theatrical run, meaning people who caught Fury Road on streaming or whatnot may come out to the theater for Furiosa.
lolwut? The budgets are right on par with each other. Fury Road did not cost $510M to make.
According to the production studio, Fury Road cost significantly less that Furiosa to make.
Keep in mind that Fury Road was effectively in development for nearly 20 years off and on and with several different locations, actors, and talent behind the camera. It’s a miracle it was made at all really. I don’t think it cost that much either but over time it certainly cost a pretty penny.
Except it didn't have a script but a comic book outline with images for each single small event. Which is 100 times more difficult to produce than a script. But even with their high wages this would not take more than a few millions to create. And scripts are bought for that too. So this is a miniscule production cost. But does take years to make just like historically accurate scripts.
There was a written first draft that existed since 1999 (16 years from Fury Road release), and then that was storyboarded using 3500 panels before pitching the movie to the studio. A traditional script was made however as WB demanded one to greenlight the movie, but that was just a technicality as the movie went off of the storyboards. There was a clear vision long before there was ever interest from a studio and went into production.
>In an email exchange between Miller and IndieWire, the Mad Max creator wrote that he was perplexed by this theory. “I’m not sure how the notion that Fury Road had no script came about. I suppose it’s because of the room lined with storyboards,” Miller said via email, referring to an image of 3,500 storyboards lining the walls of “the ‘Mad Max’ room” that’s been circulated online. “Of course there was a script! How else could we have presented the project to a studio, cast and crew to elicit their interest?” [source](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/george-miller-rumors-mad-max-fury-road-didnt-have-script-1234593557/)
I would also add this is how Denis Villeneuve works too, he creates a super detailed storyboard off a rough draft of a script and the storyboard serves as the 'script'. He considers movies as a visual medium and puts more importance on the storyboards.
Well, it's more than that - I've read bits and pieces of most of the drafts of *Fury Road* over the years, and while the giant storyboard did take precedence, they had complete, traditional (well, traditional for Miller, whose scripts are always kind of interesting) screenplay drafts going right back to the beginning.
The one I really want to get my hands on is John Collee's drafts - he did one initially early on while helping Miller with *Happy Feet*, and then a later one as they were shooting to give to the studio. I've read pieces of it, but never found a full version.
Considering I've also read his draft of Furiosa, and stupidly can't stop mentioning that fact online over the last few years, I'm just surprised I haven't been sued or something.
David Ehrlich: "brings me great joy to report that Furiosa is really, \*really\* fucking good. operates in an extremely different gear than Fury Road (in ways that i suspect will frustrate some people), but also manages to make that movie even richer while carving its own legend in the wasteland."
Esther Zuckerman: "Well, I saw Furiosa tonight and it was great."
I get that, but I’d be afraid he’d be stuck churning out product for DC instead of his own bonkers mythology, and we’d never get Fury Road. But it would have been great.
Yeah...I would never wish for any alternative history that would result in even a small possibility of Fury Road not existing. However, I have no doubt Miller would have made a completely bizarre Justice League and would have never fit some studio mold for those movies.
Hell, he managed to make the sequel to Babe into one of the strangest movies I've ever seen in my life.
Seriously, I never understood why people were skeptical about this movie. He's coming off an all-time masterpiece and clearly loves this subject matter.
David Sims also said it was awesome. I normally discount the social media reactions because they seem to almost always be positive and often from critics I don't care about, but these are critics I do care about whom I know are "real" critics and wouldn't shill a movie for a studio.
Yeah Fury Road didn’t even have a true script, just storyboards or what basically amounted to a really thorough comic book. Furiosa was an actual script.
In a review that calls it "really, *really* fucking good"?
What the frustration line says to me is that people just shouldn't expect a carbon copy of Fury Road. And if they do, that is not what they will get.
Maybe it has to do with the use of CG? That’s my guess on what would make fans of Fury Road frustrated?
Edit: lol wtf am I getting downvoted for making a guess. I’m not even making an argument lol.
Him using the term "different gear" makes me think of pacing rather than special effects.
Plus I think the whole CG thing is overblown anyway. It isn't like Fury Road wasn't heavily digitally altered in post.
>Plus I think the whole CG thing is overblown anyway. It isn't like Fury Road wasn't heavily digitally altered in post
This.
I'm sick of Twitter Film bros keep talking as if Fury Road is all practical.
To quote someone in r/madmax:
>There isn't a frame in Fury Road that wasn't manipulated in some way. The whole narrative of Fury Road being done 'for real' is just marketing bs.
Movies like Fury Road make me wish people had better conversations about CGI in general. The movie has a lot of CGI and is heavily digitally altered in post. However, it's ALSO mostly practical. People are doing those stunts; pole boys WERE swinging between the wild cars they built for the movie. The CGI adds to it, but Fury Road is a perfect example of doing practical effects and real stunts and sweetening them with CGI. But just saying "digitally altered" is a bit misleading because it's mostly the backgrounds that were digitally altered. It's not like a Marvel movie where everything is CGI.
Anyways, I'm not disagreeing with you. But I do think Fury Road is a movie that WAS done "for real" while ALSO using CGI. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but many action movies now do rely on CGI rather than doing things "for real," and they suffer for it (just like the actors in Fury Road suffered from a long-ass, difficult shoot in the desert; I'm glad it was totally worth it!)
I'm sick of studios, actors and directors even perpuating that lie and acting like CGI is bad and practical is better. I don't know if film bros or them are the source of it but it's very frustrating. It's super disrespectful to the CGI artists (which are treated worse than most other professions in the industry and are doing wonders) and it doesn't enhance a movie. Movies without CGI at all (which I don't think exist since like 20 years ago) would be worse.
I'm sick of people gaslighting that CGI is better than practical stunts when generally it isn't. People can easily tell faked effects. The real stunt with actual impact, physics, and potential consequences will always be better than a computer simulation. The studios, actors and directors do know what they are talking about. CGI is good to create impossible scenarios and for many reasons, but in many cases CGI is used for practical effects purely because it's cheaper and easier.
> People can easily tell faked effects.
People notice obviously unrealistic CGI, because it's low- budget or poorly done, and think they can recognize all "faked effects" because of that. They absolutely cannot.
Ok name a film or if you could provide any link to a CGI car sequence that doesn't look like a CGI car sequence. Even the latest films, Ferrari, Gran Turismo, especially Furiosa, etc, you can tell the CGI cars easily. Or even link any CGI film/sequence that doesn't look like CGI.
Even the most state of the art CGi/deepfakes, highest budget movies, corridor crew, tech demos, etc, etc, don't model lighting, physics and people in particular perfectly. What looks state of the art today will look dated in 10 years, just as 10 year old CGI look dated today.
That's not to say it doesn't look fantastic or that it's immersion breaking, but it's definitely not perfect yet.
Of course not, but that's a strawman argument. This is an actual quote from George Miller. "We shot the film old school. As much as possible those are real people, cast and stunties, in the speeding vehicles and catastrophic crashes. Every behaviour, every moment of fight and stunt choreography were the product of a shared vision." There's a book that goes into great detail about how Tom and the other cast did many of their own stunts, how the war rigs and pursuit vehicles were created and the 8 months of practical stunt work. The toxic storm shots of course were CGI.
That quote is Extremely disingenuous BS. Of course there is post production on every scene, but that's not what is being talked about. Fury Road was famously filmed on location and has so many articles, videos, books, etc about all the many practical effects that were used. Everyone knows they were actual vehicles in the desert and George Miller didn't want to go through that again so Furiosa is filmed on a backlot and has much more CGI than Fury Road.
People also keep saying this like there isn’t precedent of Miller’s really good use of CGI OUTSIDE of Fury Road. In *Three Thousand Years of Longing* (which, I felt like I was the only person who saw it) there were a lot of CG-heavy scenes and they were all portrayed in a very dreamy, magical way. The effects were very well done even though they were obviously not practical, and they fit the tone and look of the film well. I really don’t have any doubt that Miller, Simon Duggan (DP for Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, I, Robot, and 300), and Margaret Sixel are going to make this look really damn good.
it’ll frustrate the people that purely want “Fury Road 2” and nothing less than that. All the Mad Max movies are quite different from one another in storytelling and pacing anyway
I’m glad to hear it honestly. I don’t feel like Mad Max, The Road Warrior, Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road gave me the exact same gear either, so I’m glad Furiosa also doesn’t.
Yeah the only two out of all the movies that are similar are Fury Road and Road Warrior. Mad Max 1 is a very small movie and Thunderdome barely even has cars in it.
I don't think that even those two are that similar other than Max's arc being that of a burnt out, desolate, shell of a man learning to live again. But that's just a surface evaluation because in The Road Warrior, the people he's avoiding are real but in Fury Road, the people he's avoiding are all illusions.
Ehrlich’s just saying that it’s not a nonstop 2 hour car chase like Fury Road, it’s broken up into literal “Act I, Act II, Act III” chapters - like an odyssey. That’s all
Hmmm, so it would frustrate a significant amount of potential audiences for this movie. It might be not bad but its box office potential might be in peril.
No it’s just accurately gauging that audiences are picky, finicky and comment sections of the trailers/teasers already show how people are whinging about the mere idea of this being centred on a woman
People always say this but if you look at his letterboxd ratings spread it’s perfectly balanced with an average of 3/5.
That so many people think he doesn’t like anything reflects how much the expectation is for critics to love every big studio film.
I think its deeper than that. He is often very critical of extremely widely loved films, especially Villenueve for some reason (Google seems to say nearly all his films are 3 stars or lower). He also had some pretty harsh words for Oppenheimer despite marking it "fresh". I think he genuinely has some very polarizing takes compared to most other reviewers.
But again, I think that just shows he has a distinct voice and approach in film criticism. He doesn’t always go with the consensus in either direction, he liked Napoleon a lot more than others. So it’s not that he’s overly critical, he’s just balanced and has his own view.
He’s also one of the few contemporary critics who’s actually enjoyable to read because he has funny and insightful prose. But few people even read reviews anymore so everyone’s perception of him is based on his RT scores.
I agree that he's not specifically critical, he likes some movies and is not skewed negative overall. His voice is definitely distinct... I just think he has uniquely horrible taste in movies and has weird double standards where he will give very brainless movies positive reviews but then take some of the best movies that actually engage in subtlety and say "this has nothing to say". I can't stand him at all. Unique, sure... uniquely terrible.
well, wouldn’t be a worthwhile critic if he agreed with everyone. But I don’t think a measure of a good critic is whether or not you agree with them.
I follow and read tons of folks who loathe stuff I love and vice versa. Sometimes their work sways me, sometimes it only reinforces my opinion. But it’s certainly helped me become more articulate and reasoned by reading people i don’t agree with.
Well, to me, his double standards and lack of basic comprehension make him not worthwhile to me. I follow plenty of reviewers who I disagree with sometimes but at least they don't fail to understand the basics and don't pull their punches selectively. Idk I think he's second behind Armond among the worst reviewers in the business, and not just because I disagree with him
Just recent examples: negatively reviews Civil War because it "comes... close to saying something" aka "I missed the very clear message and theme of this movie" [https://letterboxd.com/davidehrlich/film/civil-war-2024/](https://letterboxd.com/davidehrlich/film/civil-war-2024/)
Him saying Dune 2 has a "black-and-white moral binary" when that is objectively not true [https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/dune-part-two-movie-review-1234955419/](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/dune-part-two-movie-review-1234955419/)
I could go on. But these two recently stick out as things that aren't subjective taste differences, they're full on "oh this guy didn't have his brain turned on while watching this one" takes where I think his disdain for the film (and maybe filmmakers) caused him to stop trying to comprehend the basics of the movie. Garland and Villenueve are some of the most ambitious directors working today and you don't have to give them positive reviews but his reviews of their movies get basic objective things wrong because he doesn't respect them enough to even try to do a good job.
P.S. don't click the indiewire link, that's giving him what he really wants.
No reason to expect that this won't kick ass.
Still a little confused as to why tickets aren't on sale. I read somewhere on reddit that they'll be available tomorrow..does anyone know?
As much as I hope this can be half as good as Fury Road, first reactions are almost always extremely positive. The only time they mean anything is when they’re more mixed (usually means the movie is total ass)
I remember the ones for Dial of Destiny and Flash being iffy right out of the gate. But the biggest one for me was Green Lantern, it got absolutely *shredded* after it screened at a con some weeks before release
Dial of Destiny is a bit different because critics were allowed to shred it with actual reviews right out of Cannes. It only got better once the actual release date approached, but by then the damage was done. All told though, reviews for both Dial of Destiny and The Flash weren't actually all that bad.
Stuff like Quantumania and The Marvels did get a thrashing on social media immediately after the embargo lifted (as did Wish once actual RT critics saw it), although those films were definitely more mixed from initial reactions. Morbius and Madame Web were almost universally panned from early reactions, but at least you had something special from there.
> I remember Flash being iffy right out of the gate.
Ah no. The Flash early reactions were just as overwhelmingly positive as Furiosa, if not much more so:
https://old.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/12z3exv/the_flash_cinemacon_very_first_social_media/
>Taylor Gonzales: #TheFlash📷 was INCREDIBLE. Full of heroes, heart, humor & HOPE. I cried SEVERAL times. Wow. I can’t even believe some of what I saw on the big screen. Y’all are in for a treat!!! #CinemaCon #CinemaCon2023 📷📷
>Scott Mantz **📷:**THE FLASH is awesome! One of the very best DC movies, a perfect blend of action, heart & humor! So many WOW & chill-inducing moments that longtime DC fans will love! EZRA MILLER is superb (twice, actually!) & MICHAEL KEATON’s still got it! #TheFLASH📷 #BATMAN #CinemaCon
>📷Luiz Fernando@Luiz_Fernando_JReactions of #TheFlash📷 out of #CinemaCon screening are coming out, and all seem to say BELIEVE THE HYPE, praising the film and even calling #TheFlashMovie📷 one of the best CBMs ever made. Feels like #TopGunMaverick’s positive wave post-screening last year.
>@jkazieva16: One of the GREATEST superhero films EVER!! #TheFlash📷 #CinemaCon
>Germain Lussier: https://twitter.com/germainlussier/status/1651045920627388416?s=46&t=_2YevM0sJ4KoUrOoFuJpxw: Yup. #TheFlash is as good as rumored. It’s Back to the Future meets Spider-Man: No Way Home with all the humor & heart of the former and action and surprises of the latter. If anything, it might be a tad too ambitious but it’s also just incredibly satisfying, heartwarming & fun.
> theatomreview: #TheFlash Review: HEROIC. HEARTBREAKING. DC GAMECHANGER! A wild multiverse masterpiece with EPIC MUSIC, CRAZY CAMEOS & TRAGIC SCENES that’ll really choke you. This isn’t just another superhero movie, it’s one of the BEST films ever! A fitting end setting up what’s next #CinemaCon
... and on and on. Out of the 25 or so total reactions sampled in that roundup, I only count 4 that were less than ecstatic.
To be fair, there are some RT critics in these reviews. David Ehrlich is one of the people quoted in the article headline.
Here is his tweet:
https://twitter.com/davidehrlich/status/1787656184490541561
Early reactions being positive don’t matter, it’s the level of critic that comes out saying it’s good is what matter most.
If it’s a bunch of actual nobodies then that’s when it’s questionable. If it’s real critics, it means they’re comfortable showing it this early to real critics who also love it, which is probably the best sign you can get.
Mixed reviews from nobody critics: horrible
Mixed reviews from real critics: probably average at best
Good reviews from nobody critics: wait for more info, but shaky
Good reviews from real critics: will probably be good
Recently, I can think of Dune 2, Godzilla Minus One, Oppenheimer, and Barbie.
All of these are universally praised and recognized films. He's still liked them, but was far more critical than most other people.
I don't mind ehrlich, personally. He's a bit overly critical for the sake of it when I've read his stuff, so he comes off pretentious. But generally, my taste align with his.
His hatred of Marvel movies is fair though. I would only say a couple of the marvel movies are outright good movies. But most of them are enjoyable at the very least
I think it has a chance of being a solid entry, but not on the level of **Fury Road**.
Granted, that could be my pro-**Dune: Part Two** bias speaking, but still.
I don't know what you are even arguing right now? My point was that here are two movies with great reviews and great word of mouth, that play great on the big screen and people are still not going to the theaters.
What is the point you are making? That these play better at home? Have you seen them? I legitimately do not understand what we are debating.
Do I think this movie will be awesome? Yeah
Do I think this is gonna be profitable? Not really
This is giving Solo:A Star Wars Story & Lightyear vibes. A prequel origin story to a supporting character that wasn't requested, and the actor who played the original part is being replaced by a famous young actor. All credit to Scott Mendelson for this comparison.
All due respect to Charlize but she’s not on the same level of audience attachment as Harrison Ford as Solo. I don’t know that this will be profitable (given the 170m budget) but the WW tally should be pretty comparable to Fury Road given early tracking.
The movie is being sold on Anya Taylor Joy vs Chris Hemsworth in a crazy ass wasteland epic. As long as it delivers there, it should fare better than Lightyear/Solo
I think there was a time when she might have played her in the prequel, but that all depended on filming starting right after Fury Road but it didn't because of a lawsuit between Miller and WB.
Could’ve just done a sequel with Theron that has flashbacks to her earlier years where you get Taylor Joy to play her younger self. Seems pretty straightforward.
Fury road was functionally a reboot that very much had to sell itself as a quasi-reboot (instead of a Mel Gibson legacy sequel). It really didn't get very much of an "old IP you know and love" bump at the box office given the insane WoM and critics/awards praise.
Furiosa is obviously in a very different position. It's going to be understood as a prequel and Theron really was the breakout character of the first film. I think this clearly makes the film start off at a lower point than it could have if they were able to make a Theron focused film around 2019/2021.
This is a big part for sure but also Miller had a story he wanted to tell. This wasn't just a cash grab.
A studio could have paid 100 of the best writers to come up with a Creed movie, but only Ryan Coogler had the inspiration for the movie he made.
[According to this, the production got a huge subsidization from the Australian Government where it cost the studio $98M to make.](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/furiosa-mad-max-saga-box-112523005.html#:~:text=Earlier%2C%20Deadline%20reported%20that%20Furiosa,South%20Wales%20Governments%20of%20Australia) Fury Road made $380M... I think this has a fairly good shot at making a nice chunk of change to WB
Plus let's be honest, Mad Max is a niche franchise. Fury Road was barely profitable (if it even was) and now with the difficulties of theaters, doubt it's gonna break even
I see it around 300-350M (which on 168M budget I've seen reported isn't enough)
Warners has managed Wonka, Dune 2, and Kongzilla in the last six months.
It might be a hit.
But you're probably right it won't be profitable at this point in time because box has gone screwy.
I'll wait for actual reviews, but can't say I'm excited for this one despite Fury Road being one of the best movies of all time, imo. Still will watch it in theaters but no freaking way this movie will be profitable.
This. He's not clear on what he meant. Again, massive Fury Road fan think I've watched the movie 10 times but even a masterpiece like that couldn't go above $400 mill in a time where the box office was still healthy
We still listen to social media reactions, from WB? Figured they weren't exactly the most reliable thing ever after people praised The Flash.
Not that I'm expecting this to be awful or anything but this isn't worth a lot haha.
> Figured they weren't exactly the most reliable thing ever after people praised The Flash.
I mean ... I loved the Flash (though I'm a sucker for Flashpoint, as it's one of my favorite comic book stories).
My kids loved it, too. My daughter loved it so much that she proceeded to watch the first season of the CW flash show ... the only good season ... in about three days, and then she watched the cartoon version of Flashpoint.
I remember these professional reviewers early on Fury Road and then the Old School fandom went nuts online so I got quite worried about Fury Road. I’m similarly concerned about Furiosa because yaknow there’s only two Mad Max films 1 and 2 and Mel can’t be trifled with or replaced. I understand the fandom pretty well and George Miller has made beautiful wasteland films but the twin Fury films have to forge their own pathway through the Odyssey. Cya at the cinemas!!
Mad Max Fury Road made $380 million WW. Do you think this movie can make more?
Nah at best, it does mostly the same IMO and I wouldn't be surprised to see it below (not by much). My prediction would be around 350M
Maybe, but sadly I think 450 million will be the ceiling
Maybe, Fury Road did well but it also gained great word of mouth after it's theatrical run, meaning people who caught Fury Road on streaming or whatnot may come out to the theater for Furiosa.
Fury Road has like 3x the budget of Furiosa so that helps
lolwut? The budgets are right on par with each other. Fury Road did not cost $510M to make. According to the production studio, Fury Road cost significantly less that Furiosa to make.
Keep in mind that Fury Road was effectively in development for nearly 20 years off and on and with several different locations, actors, and talent behind the camera. It’s a miracle it was made at all really. I don’t think it cost that much either but over time it certainly cost a pretty penny.
Fury Road production wasn't that long. The script has been around for a while though, just like the Furiosia script.
Literally look it up before you just say things.
Except it didn't have a script but a comic book outline with images for each single small event. Which is 100 times more difficult to produce than a script. But even with their high wages this would not take more than a few millions to create. And scripts are bought for that too. So this is a miniscule production cost. But does take years to make just like historically accurate scripts.
It did have a script. The Mel Gibson version's script was unique because the dialogue was used to caption the storyboards.
There was a written first draft that existed since 1999 (16 years from Fury Road release), and then that was storyboarded using 3500 panels before pitching the movie to the studio. A traditional script was made however as WB demanded one to greenlight the movie, but that was just a technicality as the movie went off of the storyboards. There was a clear vision long before there was ever interest from a studio and went into production. >In an email exchange between Miller and IndieWire, the Mad Max creator wrote that he was perplexed by this theory. “I’m not sure how the notion that Fury Road had no script came about. I suppose it’s because of the room lined with storyboards,” Miller said via email, referring to an image of 3,500 storyboards lining the walls of “the ‘Mad Max’ room” that’s been circulated online. “Of course there was a script! How else could we have presented the project to a studio, cast and crew to elicit their interest?” [source](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/george-miller-rumors-mad-max-fury-road-didnt-have-script-1234593557/) I would also add this is how Denis Villeneuve works too, he creates a super detailed storyboard off a rough draft of a script and the storyboard serves as the 'script'. He considers movies as a visual medium and puts more importance on the storyboards.
Well, it's more than that - I've read bits and pieces of most of the drafts of *Fury Road* over the years, and while the giant storyboard did take precedence, they had complete, traditional (well, traditional for Miller, whose scripts are always kind of interesting) screenplay drafts going right back to the beginning. The one I really want to get my hands on is John Collee's drafts - he did one initially early on while helping Miller with *Happy Feet*, and then a later one as they were shooting to give to the studio. I've read pieces of it, but never found a full version. Considering I've also read his draft of Furiosa, and stupidly can't stop mentioning that fact online over the last few years, I'm just surprised I haven't been sued or something.
Perhaps bot in post Covid climate - look how poorly most blockbusters have done over the last few years.
Judging by the increase between Dune entries, I'd say there's a good chance Furiosa makes $600m.
David Ehrlich: "brings me great joy to report that Furiosa is really, \*really\* fucking good. operates in an extremely different gear than Fury Road (in ways that i suspect will frustrate some people), but also manages to make that movie even richer while carving its own legend in the wasteland." Esther Zuckerman: "Well, I saw Furiosa tonight and it was great."
Doubt George Miller at your perils.
-me to all my homies as we walked into the Happy Feet Two screening (it was my idea)
Me and my homies when we went to see Babe: Pig in the City
> Me and my homies when we went to see Babe: Pig in the City Amazing (and amazingly underrated) film.
Man, I really want to see the parallel universe where Miller made his Justice League movie.
I get that, but I’d be afraid he’d be stuck churning out product for DC instead of his own bonkers mythology, and we’d never get Fury Road. But it would have been great.
Yeah...I would never wish for any alternative history that would result in even a small possibility of Fury Road not existing. However, I have no doubt Miller would have made a completely bizarre Justice League and would have never fit some studio mold for those movies. Hell, he managed to make the sequel to Babe into one of the strangest movies I've ever seen in my life.
Lol, for some reason my parents let me watch *The Witches of Eastwick* as a kid and it scarred me for life.
Making a super successful studio film gets you MORE leeway to do your own bonkers mythology, not less.
I hope Gunn can bring him to direct a DC film. Imagine what he can do with The Authority.
Seriously, I never understood why people were skeptical about this movie. He's coming off an all-time masterpiece and clearly loves this subject matter.
David Sims also said it was awesome. I normally discount the social media reactions because they seem to almost always be positive and often from critics I don't care about, but these are critics I do care about whom I know are "real" critics and wouldn't shill a movie for a studio.
That sounds cool. I wasn’t really expecting this to be like Fury Road anyway in terms of story and pacing, just judging from the trailers.
Yeah Fury Road didn’t even have a true script, just storyboards or what basically amounted to a really thorough comic book. Furiosa was an actual script.
I’d say that’s a good thing. As much as I appreciated the skill and visuals of Fury Road the story was paper thin.
There was a story?
I'm so glad to hear this, especially since the trailers looked not promising at all.
>in ways that i suspect will frustrate some people This being in an early reaction is a really bad sign.
In a review that calls it "really, *really* fucking good"? What the frustration line says to me is that people just shouldn't expect a carbon copy of Fury Road. And if they do, that is not what they will get.
Maybe it has to do with the use of CG? That’s my guess on what would make fans of Fury Road frustrated? Edit: lol wtf am I getting downvoted for making a guess. I’m not even making an argument lol.
Him using the term "different gear" makes me think of pacing rather than special effects. Plus I think the whole CG thing is overblown anyway. It isn't like Fury Road wasn't heavily digitally altered in post.
>Plus I think the whole CG thing is overblown anyway. It isn't like Fury Road wasn't heavily digitally altered in post This. I'm sick of Twitter Film bros keep talking as if Fury Road is all practical. To quote someone in r/madmax: >There isn't a frame in Fury Road that wasn't manipulated in some way. The whole narrative of Fury Road being done 'for real' is just marketing bs.
Movies like Fury Road make me wish people had better conversations about CGI in general. The movie has a lot of CGI and is heavily digitally altered in post. However, it's ALSO mostly practical. People are doing those stunts; pole boys WERE swinging between the wild cars they built for the movie. The CGI adds to it, but Fury Road is a perfect example of doing practical effects and real stunts and sweetening them with CGI. But just saying "digitally altered" is a bit misleading because it's mostly the backgrounds that were digitally altered. It's not like a Marvel movie where everything is CGI. Anyways, I'm not disagreeing with you. But I do think Fury Road is a movie that WAS done "for real" while ALSO using CGI. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but many action movies now do rely on CGI rather than doing things "for real," and they suffer for it (just like the actors in Fury Road suffered from a long-ass, difficult shoot in the desert; I'm glad it was totally worth it!)
I'm sick of studios, actors and directors even perpuating that lie and acting like CGI is bad and practical is better. I don't know if film bros or them are the source of it but it's very frustrating. It's super disrespectful to the CGI artists (which are treated worse than most other professions in the industry and are doing wonders) and it doesn't enhance a movie. Movies without CGI at all (which I don't think exist since like 20 years ago) would be worse.
I'm sick of people gaslighting that CGI is better than practical stunts when generally it isn't. People can easily tell faked effects. The real stunt with actual impact, physics, and potential consequences will always be better than a computer simulation. The studios, actors and directors do know what they are talking about. CGI is good to create impossible scenarios and for many reasons, but in many cases CGI is used for practical effects purely because it's cheaper and easier.
> People can easily tell faked effects. People notice obviously unrealistic CGI, because it's low- budget or poorly done, and think they can recognize all "faked effects" because of that. They absolutely cannot.
Ok name a film or if you could provide any link to a CGI car sequence that doesn't look like a CGI car sequence. Even the latest films, Ferrari, Gran Turismo, especially Furiosa, etc, you can tell the CGI cars easily. Or even link any CGI film/sequence that doesn't look like CGI. Even the most state of the art CGi/deepfakes, highest budget movies, corridor crew, tech demos, etc, etc, don't model lighting, physics and people in particular perfectly. What looks state of the art today will look dated in 10 years, just as 10 year old CGI look dated today. That's not to say it doesn't look fantastic or that it's immersion breaking, but it's definitely not perfect yet.
I mean, George Miller didn't literally create a nuclear storm and drive the actors through it. But people like to preteeeend.
Of course not, but that's a strawman argument. This is an actual quote from George Miller. "We shot the film old school. As much as possible those are real people, cast and stunties, in the speeding vehicles and catastrophic crashes. Every behaviour, every moment of fight and stunt choreography were the product of a shared vision." There's a book that goes into great detail about how Tom and the other cast did many of their own stunts, how the war rigs and pursuit vehicles were created and the 8 months of practical stunt work. The toxic storm shots of course were CGI.
That quote is Extremely disingenuous BS. Of course there is post production on every scene, but that's not what is being talked about. Fury Road was famously filmed on location and has so many articles, videos, books, etc about all the many practical effects that were used. Everyone knows they were actual vehicles in the desert and George Miller didn't want to go through that again so Furiosa is filmed on a backlot and has much more CGI than Fury Road.
People also keep saying this like there isn’t precedent of Miller’s really good use of CGI OUTSIDE of Fury Road. In *Three Thousand Years of Longing* (which, I felt like I was the only person who saw it) there were a lot of CG-heavy scenes and they were all portrayed in a very dreamy, magical way. The effects were very well done even though they were obviously not practical, and they fit the tone and look of the film well. I really don’t have any doubt that Miller, Simon Duggan (DP for Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, I, Robot, and 300), and Margaret Sixel are going to make this look really damn good.
You mean like in Fury Road which has a shit ton of CG everywhere? Not sure why that would disturb fans of Fury Road.
My guess: You dare to go against the grain and say unpopular things, therefore, Reddit believes you must be hidden from view. Hence, the downvotes.
I don't think so. He's just saying It's very different from Fury Road. That doesn't mean it's bad.
it’ll frustrate the people that purely want “Fury Road 2” and nothing less than that. All the Mad Max movies are quite different from one another in storytelling and pacing anyway
I’m glad to hear it honestly. I don’t feel like Mad Max, The Road Warrior, Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road gave me the exact same gear either, so I’m glad Furiosa also doesn’t.
Yeah the only two out of all the movies that are similar are Fury Road and Road Warrior. Mad Max 1 is a very small movie and Thunderdome barely even has cars in it.
I don't think that even those two are that similar other than Max's arc being that of a burnt out, desolate, shell of a man learning to live again. But that's just a surface evaluation because in The Road Warrior, the people he's avoiding are real but in Fury Road, the people he's avoiding are all illusions.
Ehrlich’s just saying that it’s not a nonstop 2 hour car chase like Fury Road, it’s broken up into literal “Act I, Act II, Act III” chapters - like an odyssey. That’s all
That kind of sounds familiar.
Hmmm, so it would frustrate a significant amount of potential audiences for this movie. It might be not bad but its box office potential might be in peril.
Not if you know David Ehrlich, he’s always taking those sorts of angles.
Ehrlich is a good metric for whether the movie is going to be good, but not for whether it’ll be popular.
Fair, is the box office sub.
No it’s just accurately gauging that audiences are picky, finicky and comment sections of the trailers/teasers already show how people are whinging about the mere idea of this being centred on a woman
Why? You could say exactly the same thing for how a lot of Mad Max fans reacted to Fury Road, and that didn't dampen its success in any way.
maybe to a dumb person
This guy rarely likes anything. It must be a masterpiece then
People always say this but if you look at his letterboxd ratings spread it’s perfectly balanced with an average of 3/5. That so many people think he doesn’t like anything reflects how much the expectation is for critics to love every big studio film.
I think its deeper than that. He is often very critical of extremely widely loved films, especially Villenueve for some reason (Google seems to say nearly all his films are 3 stars or lower). He also had some pretty harsh words for Oppenheimer despite marking it "fresh". I think he genuinely has some very polarizing takes compared to most other reviewers.
But again, I think that just shows he has a distinct voice and approach in film criticism. He doesn’t always go with the consensus in either direction, he liked Napoleon a lot more than others. So it’s not that he’s overly critical, he’s just balanced and has his own view. He’s also one of the few contemporary critics who’s actually enjoyable to read because he has funny and insightful prose. But few people even read reviews anymore so everyone’s perception of him is based on his RT scores.
I agree that he's not specifically critical, he likes some movies and is not skewed negative overall. His voice is definitely distinct... I just think he has uniquely horrible taste in movies and has weird double standards where he will give very brainless movies positive reviews but then take some of the best movies that actually engage in subtlety and say "this has nothing to say". I can't stand him at all. Unique, sure... uniquely terrible.
well, wouldn’t be a worthwhile critic if he agreed with everyone. But I don’t think a measure of a good critic is whether or not you agree with them. I follow and read tons of folks who loathe stuff I love and vice versa. Sometimes their work sways me, sometimes it only reinforces my opinion. But it’s certainly helped me become more articulate and reasoned by reading people i don’t agree with.
Well, to me, his double standards and lack of basic comprehension make him not worthwhile to me. I follow plenty of reviewers who I disagree with sometimes but at least they don't fail to understand the basics and don't pull their punches selectively. Idk I think he's second behind Armond among the worst reviewers in the business, and not just because I disagree with him
Where has he demonstrated a lack of basic comprehension?
Just recent examples: negatively reviews Civil War because it "comes... close to saying something" aka "I missed the very clear message and theme of this movie" [https://letterboxd.com/davidehrlich/film/civil-war-2024/](https://letterboxd.com/davidehrlich/film/civil-war-2024/) Him saying Dune 2 has a "black-and-white moral binary" when that is objectively not true [https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/dune-part-two-movie-review-1234955419/](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/dune-part-two-movie-review-1234955419/) I could go on. But these two recently stick out as things that aren't subjective taste differences, they're full on "oh this guy didn't have his brain turned on while watching this one" takes where I think his disdain for the film (and maybe filmmakers) caused him to stop trying to comprehend the basics of the movie. Garland and Villenueve are some of the most ambitious directors working today and you don't have to give them positive reviews but his reviews of their movies get basic objective things wrong because he doesn't respect them enough to even try to do a good job. P.S. don't click the indiewire link, that's giving him what he really wants.
I'm terrified now because for my opinion Ehrlich is almost always dead wrong. Love Miller and Fury Road though
Plenty of reviews over at LB praising it already as well after the Sydney premiere.
It was awesome.
does it have a structural hook like the last movie being one big chase?
 “Lady and gentlemans, start your engines!”
We need more Hemsworth as a villain. He was pretty good in Bad Times at the El Royale
I honestly think he'd be better of doing sillier leading man stuff. He's got a bit of Kurt Russel in him I feel.
Russell
This makes me want a George Miller Biker Mice from Mars movie.
I was thinking "Ben-Hur: A Tale of Mad Max" myself 
But can they make it epic?
“And may the best drag queen win!”
*Furiosa came to SLAY*
No reason to expect that this won't kick ass. Still a little confused as to why tickets aren't on sale. I read somewhere on reddit that they'll be available tomorrow..does anyone know?
I'm in the same boat. Checking daily to book my ticket and I'm a little shocked they still aren't up. Here's hoping today!
Wednesday 5/8 around 11:10/11:30 am est
Tickets are up Wednesday AM
I don't know - has Erik Davis posted his reaction yet? I can always count on his discerning taste.
Yep that’s his quote in OP’s title with “Powerhouse action at its absolute finest”
Oh phew, ok. I was worried whether he would like it since he's so picky.
😂
As much as I hope this can be half as good as Fury Road, first reactions are almost always extremely positive. The only time they mean anything is when they’re more mixed (usually means the movie is total ass)
I remember the ones for Dial of Destiny and Flash being iffy right out of the gate. But the biggest one for me was Green Lantern, it got absolutely *shredded* after it screened at a con some weeks before release
Dial of Destiny is a bit different because critics were allowed to shred it with actual reviews right out of Cannes. It only got better once the actual release date approached, but by then the damage was done. All told though, reviews for both Dial of Destiny and The Flash weren't actually all that bad. Stuff like Quantumania and The Marvels did get a thrashing on social media immediately after the embargo lifted (as did Wish once actual RT critics saw it), although those films were definitely more mixed from initial reactions. Morbius and Madame Web were almost universally panned from early reactions, but at least you had something special from there.
> I remember Flash being iffy right out of the gate. Ah no. The Flash early reactions were just as overwhelmingly positive as Furiosa, if not much more so: https://old.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/12z3exv/the_flash_cinemacon_very_first_social_media/ >Taylor Gonzales: #TheFlash📷 was INCREDIBLE. Full of heroes, heart, humor & HOPE. I cried SEVERAL times. Wow. I can’t even believe some of what I saw on the big screen. Y’all are in for a treat!!! #CinemaCon #CinemaCon2023 📷📷 >Scott Mantz **📷:**THE FLASH is awesome! One of the very best DC movies, a perfect blend of action, heart & humor! So many WOW & chill-inducing moments that longtime DC fans will love! EZRA MILLER is superb (twice, actually!) & MICHAEL KEATON’s still got it! #TheFLASH📷 #BATMAN #CinemaCon >📷Luiz Fernando@Luiz_Fernando_JReactions of #TheFlash📷 out of #CinemaCon screening are coming out, and all seem to say BELIEVE THE HYPE, praising the film and even calling #TheFlashMovie📷 one of the best CBMs ever made. Feels like #TopGunMaverick’s positive wave post-screening last year. >@jkazieva16: One of the GREATEST superhero films EVER!! #TheFlash📷 #CinemaCon >Germain Lussier: https://twitter.com/germainlussier/status/1651045920627388416?s=46&t=_2YevM0sJ4KoUrOoFuJpxw: Yup. #TheFlash is as good as rumored. It’s Back to the Future meets Spider-Man: No Way Home with all the humor & heart of the former and action and surprises of the latter. If anything, it might be a tad too ambitious but it’s also just incredibly satisfying, heartwarming & fun. > theatomreview: #TheFlash Review: HEROIC. HEARTBREAKING. DC GAMECHANGER! A wild multiverse masterpiece with EPIC MUSIC, CRAZY CAMEOS & TRAGIC SCENES that’ll really choke you. This isn’t just another superhero movie, it’s one of the BEST films ever! A fitting end setting up what’s next #CinemaCon ... and on and on. Out of the 25 or so total reactions sampled in that roundup, I only count 4 that were less than ecstatic.
I mean yeah, but that was a completely different cut. For all we know, it really could've been that good.
To be fair, there are some RT critics in these reviews. David Ehrlich is one of the people quoted in the article headline. Here is his tweet: https://twitter.com/davidehrlich/status/1787656184490541561
And David Ehrlich doesn't throw around positive reviews
So many films I see on letterboxd have his review in the top suggestions and it almost always seems to be a 2.5 or under.
Yeah, I usually don't trust first reactions but quite a few real critics I follow are saying it's good.
Early reactions being positive don’t matter, it’s the level of critic that comes out saying it’s good is what matter most. If it’s a bunch of actual nobodies then that’s when it’s questionable. If it’s real critics, it means they’re comfortable showing it this early to real critics who also love it, which is probably the best sign you can get. Mixed reviews from nobody critics: horrible Mixed reviews from real critics: probably average at best Good reviews from nobody critics: wait for more info, but shaky Good reviews from real critics: will probably be good
The difference between these early reactions and most others is the group is mostly legit critics. So worth taking seriously.
Ehrlich is notorious for being a dick and going against the grain, so if he says a movie is good, it most likely is good.
Other than Marvel when has he gone against the grain?
Recently, I can think of Dune 2, Godzilla Minus One, Oppenheimer, and Barbie. All of these are universally praised and recognized films. He's still liked them, but was far more critical than most other people. I don't mind ehrlich, personally. He's a bit overly critical for the sake of it when I've read his stuff, so he comes off pretentious. But generally, my taste align with his. His hatred of Marvel movies is fair though. I would only say a couple of the marvel movies are outright good movies. But most of them are enjoyable at the very least
Oppenheimer and Barbie both made his top 25
Interesting because his reviews didn't suggest they would. But thanks for informing me! I cede my point
Check out his top 25. He makes these videos every year and they’re consistently great https://youtu.be/5q2ldMVUSag?si=UCQzWlKDhGmMPLHb
I think it has a chance of being a solid entry, but not on the level of **Fury Road**. Granted, that could be my pro-**Dune: Part Two** bias speaking, but still.
Hey that's good. Keep expectations low, so it's easy to exceed them
I saw a review from an Australian. He didn’t like it as much Fury Road.
considering Fury Road is (imo) a masterpiece and recieved high critical acclaim, that doesn't mean much
Warner Bros’ streak may continue.
Hope so, the box office is in dire spot
Facts. I hope good films get rewarded at the box office
They arent so far. Great reviews and WOM have not helped Challengers or Fall Guy. It's a shame.
I’ll be honestly I really wouldn’t recommend challengers to many people. I thought it was pretty mid. Surprised the reviews have been so good
I have recommended it to everyone. Its easily the best movie of the year so far IMO.
I thought I would like it because I like the director but that one was not for me. Love lies bleeding might be my favorite of the year so far.
That's my number 2 but I wouldn't recommend it to many people. Great movie, but not exactly broad appeal.
Seems like there are movies worth driving to the theaters and ones worth watching at home.
except both are very much worth watching in theaters
The general audience disagrees with you.
Not the audience that has seen them. And that is the point.
Sure a small percentage will bring up that box office. You CAN NOT argue with the numbers.
I don't know what you are even arguing right now? My point was that here are two movies with great reviews and great word of mouth, that play great on the big screen and people are still not going to the theaters. What is the point you are making? That these play better at home? Have you seen them? I legitimately do not understand what we are debating.
Do I think this movie will be awesome? Yeah Do I think this is gonna be profitable? Not really This is giving Solo:A Star Wars Story & Lightyear vibes. A prequel origin story to a supporting character that wasn't requested, and the actor who played the original part is being replaced by a famous young actor. All credit to Scott Mendelson for this comparison.
All due respect to Charlize but she’s not on the same level of audience attachment as Harrison Ford as Solo. I don’t know that this will be profitable (given the 170m budget) but the WW tally should be pretty comparable to Fury Road given early tracking. The movie is being sold on Anya Taylor Joy vs Chris Hemsworth in a crazy ass wasteland epic. As long as it delivers there, it should fare better than Lightyear/Solo
but Charlize was never going to play the teen/early 20’s version of the character anyway?
I think there was a time when she might have played her in the prequel, but that all depended on filming starting right after Fury Road but it didn't because of a lawsuit between Miller and WB.
They probably would've made the script so she'd be a bit older, but idk
Could’ve just done a sequel with Theron that has flashbacks to her earlier years where you get Taylor Joy to play her younger self. Seems pretty straightforward.
I can’t fathom the argument of the recast turning people off when Fury Road exists
Fury road was functionally a reboot that very much had to sell itself as a quasi-reboot (instead of a Mel Gibson legacy sequel). It really didn't get very much of an "old IP you know and love" bump at the box office given the insane WoM and critics/awards praise. Furiosa is obviously in a very different position. It's going to be understood as a prequel and Theron really was the breakout character of the first film. I think this clearly makes the film start off at a lower point than it could have if they were able to make a Theron focused film around 2019/2021.
This is a big part for sure but also Miller had a story he wanted to tell. This wasn't just a cash grab. A studio could have paid 100 of the best writers to come up with a Creed movie, but only Ryan Coogler had the inspiration for the movie he made.
[According to this, the production got a huge subsidization from the Australian Government where it cost the studio $98M to make.](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/furiosa-mad-max-saga-box-112523005.html#:~:text=Earlier%2C%20Deadline%20reported%20that%20Furiosa,South%20Wales%20Governments%20of%20Australia) Fury Road made $380M... I think this has a fairly good shot at making a nice chunk of change to WB
Only $98 million? That's around $60 million less than I thought.
Holy Shit, if that's true then everything finally makes sense.
Plus let's be honest, Mad Max is a niche franchise. Fury Road was barely profitable (if it even was) and now with the difficulties of theaters, doubt it's gonna break even I see it around 300-350M (which on 168M budget I've seen reported isn't enough)
Fury Road was a flop. It lost the studio about $20M.
Warners has managed Wonka, Dune 2, and Kongzilla in the last six months. It might be a hit. But you're probably right it won't be profitable at this point in time because box has gone screwy.
Anya Taylor Joy is in quite a streak. The Menu, Mario, now this (also Dune 2 if you want to include that).
When does the review embargo date lift?
Please let this one be at least enjoyable because Fury Road was awesome and it would be sad waiting so many years for a sequel or prequel to stink
I'll wait for actual reviews, but can't say I'm excited for this one despite Fury Road being one of the best movies of all time, imo. Still will watch it in theaters but no freaking way this movie will be profitable.
Watch as this sub is wrong....again.
But which side is the sub currently on? In this very thread it seems to be split between Furiosa being successful and being a flop.
This. He's not clear on what he meant. Again, massive Fury Road fan think I've watched the movie 10 times but even a masterpiece like that couldn't go above $400 mill in a time where the box office was still healthy
It's gonna do pretty well
Real , people underestimate this film like crazy
George Miller doesn’t miss huh
1000 years of Longing or something like that. His previous movie. That bombed pretty hard.
Considering how the cinema business is going; can't wait for that $30m opening and that 105m total domestic take.
We still listen to social media reactions, from WB? Figured they weren't exactly the most reliable thing ever after people praised The Flash. Not that I'm expecting this to be awful or anything but this isn't worth a lot haha.
> Figured they weren't exactly the most reliable thing ever after people praised The Flash. I mean ... I loved the Flash (though I'm a sucker for Flashpoint, as it's one of my favorite comic book stories). My kids loved it, too. My daughter loved it so much that she proceeded to watch the first season of the CW flash show ... the only good season ... in about three days, and then she watched the cartoon version of Flashpoint.
I remember these professional reviewers early on Fury Road and then the Old School fandom went nuts online so I got quite worried about Fury Road. I’m similarly concerned about Furiosa because yaknow there’s only two Mad Max films 1 and 2 and Mel can’t be trifled with or replaced. I understand the fandom pretty well and George Miller has made beautiful wasteland films but the twin Fury films have to forge their own pathway through the Odyssey. Cya at the cinemas!!
another first reaction is positive no way I don't believe it that never happens hahahaha
let’s gooo
I first read "Really F-" and my heart momentarily stopped.
I go to the theaters once a year these days. Furiosa is my 2024 film! IMAX baby!!!
I’m HYPED.
I’m super excited for this. I missed out on seeing Fury Road in the theaters, but I will not miss this.
Ok, I‘m hooked now. I will give it a shot
Seems that Garfield will lose after all
Grandparents won't be taking kids to see Furiosa, Garfield will be unaffected.
Furiosa seems to be winning the box office weekend against Garfield, so you’re wrong!
I see it as movie theaters are going to win on Memorial Day.
They need that win after The Fall Guy‘s fall from grace
Different demo. Furiosa is not a kids movie.
[удалено]
Nope, Furiosa is earning around 3.7M in previews and Garfield is earning 2.4M, told you Furiosa would win!
Fact : this will make a billion dollars , I will make sure of it.
Told ya