www.madmaxmovies.com

kickherintheguts wrote:It's hard to accept MM4 will be set after Thunderdome

Technically, the version of Mad Max 4 starring Mel Gibson was always going to be set after TD. For all we know, nothing has changed except the man playing the lead.

And for the record, Miller has said TD was his personal favorite.

biolumen wrote:And for the record, Miller has said TD was his personal favorite.

uh oh

Taipan wrote:

biolumen wrote:And for the record, Miller has said TD was his personal favorite.

uh oh

This is why I said it was prudent to consider budget constraints in the first two films.

biolumen wrote:

kickherintheguts wrote:It's hard to accept MM4 will be set after Thunderdome

Technically, the version of Mad Max 4 starring Mel Gibson was always going to be set after TD. For all we know, nothing has changed except the man playing the lead.

And for the record, Miller has said TD was his personal favorite.

You nailed it!

DetritusMaximus wrote:

MWFV8 wrote:The idea of the man as myth with each story being told from the faulty memory of someone in the future (only works for the second two movies, no 'tell' in MM) is a neat idea, but there is a linear continuity to Max storywise and his clothing and car follow along. I have trouble believing this movie is set at anytime before Thunderdome with everything wilder and crazier...except him.

I was thinking about this. RW is retold by the feral kid, TD is retold by the older savage girl, but who told the first movie?

I think it's Fifi. His character had kind of an "observer" roll being the captain (naturally) and portrayal. He was the closest member on the force to Max next to Goose, so it's likely he'd know when his friend snaps and goes on a rampage he couldnt control. He wanted Max back on the force; it could be to keep an eye on him, could be to protect him from getting killed, or protect him from the force having to eventually arrest him for murdering all those gang members.

Listen to the narration with him in mind telling the story; there's a tinge of regret and loss in it.

themanw/oaname wrote:

DetritusMaximus wrote:

MWFV8 wrote:The idea of the man as myth with each story being told from the faulty memory of someone in the future (only works for the second two movies, no 'tell' in MM) is a neat idea, but there is a linear continuity to Max storywise and his clothing and car follow along. I have trouble believing this movie is set at anytime before Thunderdome with everything wilder and crazier...except him.

I must admit, I'm struggling to fit it in to an existing timeline - whether that's meant to be done or not, from those stills of an early showing of the intro it looks like it is, or has, a retelling of the backstory.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if it fits into an existing storyline or not; the majority (vast majority I would imagine) will have almost no preconceptions of Mad Max beyond the trailer and perhaps a few references they see in video games like Fallout. It's only the fans that will be bothered about that aspect of the film so it's fairly irrelevant (outside of Australia perhaps) what is done with the continuity of the film. It'll be a blockbuster if it is a good film and appeals to "an audience" but not Mad Max 1979's audience.

Sadly, the film, in box office terms, has to be judged as stand alone as all indications are that it isn't a sequel. Of course we as fans can be pretty naffed off when it doesn't live up to our expectations.

That's kind of my point. If it does not fit into or with the storyline so far and if most new viewers have no real idea of Max, then why bother going to the effort to find someone who could carry off playing Max, or the costume details, or the car. You could start fresh with new characters and not waste valuable running time trying to re-establish the character, even if it you set it in Max's world the a lot of constraints would be eased if it was a parallel story, just not his.

DetritusMaximus wrote:You could start fresh with new characters and not waste valuable running time trying to re-establish the character

Fury Road was always going to require a ton of money to make. 20th Century Fox was going to pony up over $100 million 10 years ago, and Warner Bros has coughed up much more than that today. The fact is, if Miller replaced Max with some other character, he doesn't get that money. Unfortunately that's how the movie industry works at the moment. Everything today has to be a sequel, reboot, re-imagining or whatever.....franchises are the big thing. Studios are loath to put up big bucks for something original, and the sad fact is, if Fury Road doesn't have "Mad Max" in the title and "Mad Max" as the main character, then he doesn't get to make his vision of the movie.

DetritusMaximus wrote:That's kind of my point. If it does not fit into or with the storyline so far and if most new viewers have no real idea of Max, then why bother going to the effort to find someone who could carry off playing Max, or the costume details, or the car. You could start fresh with new characters and not waste valuable running time trying to re-establish the character, even if it you set it in Max's world the a lot of constraints would be eased if it was a parallel story, just not his.

For want of a more intricate explanation, because it works. Why would you go to the trouble of trying to create a new character? Change a vehicle that you know looks cool? or a costume that makes sense? When they remade Nightmare On Elm Street they didn't get rid of Freddie Krugers knife glove and striped jumper because it just looks right. You don't reboot Batman and decide to call him Owlman because you know Batman works lol. The only constraints placed on the world will be by people like you and me because we have a preconcieved notion of what and who Max is but the average movie-goer will accept whatever Max is infront of them but whether they like them or not will remain to be seen.

I'm just trying to point out that the film fitting into an established storyline is irrelevant to whether the film will be a blockbuster or a bomb, as the thread title asked.

Pauli-
Point taken about the subject of the thread. None of this has anything to do with the success or failure except in the most cynical money making exploitive sense, as pointed out by Biolumen. Use the name and iconic character/vehicle to get approval and backing, toss everything else aside. I understand how that works. Or could work, in this instance. Miller has shown himself to be a bit more independent and original in his productions than most of the industry. I also think he has more respect for the character and story of Max and for himself than to leverage that into a pile of financing without doing it some justice. But this also has nothing to do with the movie being a success or failure. If integrity and respect were required for a movie to be a success, well.......Hollywood would full of unemployed and empty studios.