Post: #176

More SJW bullshit:

Post: #177

I'd like to mention that Pitch Perfect 2, a story about an all female college acapella group made 70 million this weekend, and Mad Max only made 40.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/05/1...ox-office/

Did the feminine story line kill what should have been a monstrous opening weekend?

Or is there something else going on?

WIA

Post: #178

$40 million for an action flick is kind of a meh opening. Its not a raging success by any means but it did enough to live to fight for another weekend. The key will be next weekend & just how big of a dropoff in sales there will be. If it does less than $ 20 mil then its a bomb

Post: #179

(05-17-2015 01:05 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I think some of this uproar is almost indistinguishable from the "I see misogyny everywhere" that we make fun of feminists for. We win hearts and minds by being rational and using logic, not by becoming the flip side of the same coin and "seeing feminism everywhere".

The writer;

the main actor;

the main actress;

and the film's director

all spoke publicly in the mass media about how this is a 'feminist' movie; how they are being deliberately subversive by forcing feminist ideas into a male-orientated action movie and using it as a bait-and-switch to discuss how men are bad and destroy societies due to their 'toxic masculinity' and that one day they won't have to sneak it in and this will standard in male-orientated films, to celebratory applause by the feminist-centric media construct.

So some of us forum members spoke publicly in the forum and blog about how this is a 'feminist' movie; how they are being deliberately subversive by forcing feminist ideas into a male-orientated action movie and using it as a bait-and-switch to discuss how men are bad and destroy societies due to their 'toxic masculinity' and that one day they won't have to sneak it in and this will be standard in male-orientated films, to clearly co-ordinated snark-filled derisive booing by the feminist-centric media construct.

Then forum members claim we're being paranoid and seeing feminism everywhere, when the creators and reviewers have clearly and repeatedly said that

IT'S

ON

THE

FUCKING

BOX

Post: #180

Quote:I think some of this uproar is almost indistinguishable from the "I see misogyny everywhere" that we make fun of feminists for. We win hearts and minds by being rational and using logic, not by becoming the flip side of the same coin and "seeing feminism everywhere".

100% agree this is starting to become the flipside of all the feminist bullshit

apparently to understand why this movie is "dangerous" and needs to be "attacked" youre supposed to read a bunch of articles now... that were written by feminists

guys here complain about feminists being killjoys and anti-fun... and then do the exact same thing - dissecting this movie and writing longass boring diatribes

"hey i kinda like this movie"

"what?? read this 1.500 word article why you should NOT like it!"

alot of dudes here have completely lost the plot and are taking themselves and this movie way too seriously

P.S. i watched terminator 2 last night... strong female character that beats down men, male lead barely talks... is this a feminist movie too? maybe someone can help me figure it out if i can watch it or not

Post: #181

I saw it for free and it was a great action movie with a crappy feminist story. None of it made a bit of damn sense because they never really explain the motives of Charlize Theron's character. She makes it to the top of this guy's massive army after being kidnapped by him as a kid years prior to the start of the movie, then she betrays him and steals his wives. Why does she give a shit about them? Also, Immortan Joe's wives have stupid ass motives too. They leave behind a guaranteed life of luxury and occasional sex with an ugly, but powerful warlord who loves them for probable death in the desert on the way to some rumored man-free utopia. Is it possible that Immortan Joe was so beta with them and they hated him so much they'd rather die than spend another moment with him? I don't know, but upon reflection that seems likely.

I liked the War Boys and Max. Everything else in the movie was shit.

I do think the media opportunistically blew up Clarey's article to paint us as whiny MRAs to the general public and to promote Mad Max. Unfortunately they were successful in doing this. In addition to the usual suspects, a lot of casual observers who don't care one way or another had a good laugh at our expense. The enemy hurt our credibility by painting us as a bunch of people sensitive about this shit even though George Miller himself and his people said it was a feminist movie.

Still, Clarey's article is filled with inaccuracies because he never saw the movie. It is also overly alarmist in parts.

My theory is that Mad Max and the studio shill reviewers pulled a reverse Protein World. This phony controversy they started and magnified got more people in the seats. Still not enough to beat Pitch Perfect 2, though.

Post: #182

^^ spoilers.

I'm just waiting for a good torrent of it to pop up. If the action is good enough, I'll watch it in the cheap-o theater nearby.

Post: #183

(05-17-2015 08:49 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  ^^ spoilers.

I didn't spoil anything other than the man-free utopia crap and a bit of pointless backstory about Charlize Theron's paper-thin lesbo character.

Post: #184

All the squabbles about it being feminist or not aside (and I don't quite like the taste the movie left in my mouth either regarding this), the reason this movie is so much better than most of the blockbusters Hollywood released in recent years is precisely because it does not over-explain everything. It works on the principle that cinema ideally should always operate on: Show, don't tell (and don't show if it doesn't matter for the story, or enhances a character's portrayal - that is why e.g. the scene where Max comes back blood stained from his fight is not shown). So I really don't give a rat's ass if a character's motives aren't explained outright, there is a lot of subtle world building going on in the movie without some annoying voiceover explaining to a dumb American audience what they're seeing, like in a Nolan movie.

Which makes it all the more puzzling why the movie is then marred by these unnecessary on-the-nose moments like the one where one of the wives kicks the chastity belt to the dust, or another says "You don't have to do it just because he tells you to", or the dialogue with the old woman and the pregnant wife. They just don't fit with the narrative style of the rest of the movie. These moments almost feel like that Vagina Monologues cunt literally scribbled them into the existing script.

Overall it's a brilliantly staged and directed movie, the production design is beyond fantastic. But yes, it does portray literally every single man (except Max, arguably) as a freak, mindless drone or greedy psycho. Can you imagine the shitstorm in the press if they had reversed all those roles? A cult of violent, disfigured and desperate women who keep a few men as "seed givers".

So yeah. Amazing movie, ideologically very questionable.

Post: #185

Quote:I knew something was off when I watched those commercials, it was all flash and no plot hints.

This was exactly what I was thinking - ok, looks snazzy but what's the story here, really? Not even worth pirating this piece of shit.

Post: #186

The best way to describe what just happened with the ROK Mad Max article:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...

We just officially entered stage two.

Post: #187

The performance is adequate, but not strong:

Quote:Over at Warner Bros. they must be heaving a sigh of relief with the same breath they're using to congratulate themselves. Sure they have to settle for 2nd place but they have to be proud that they're spending their weekend defending Fury Road's $44M take and not what could have been a $100M write-off. Rumors abounded that the shoot was troubled (Tom Hardy apologized to director George Miller in Cannes for his behavior on-set) and early test screenings reportedly went poorly. Reshoots were necessitated yet still the studio didn't know what to do with the nearly dialogue-free film. That they ended up with what is being hailed in many circles, from Connecticut to the Cannes Croisette as a classic, one that could propel the franchise down the line, is a testament to testing.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4061&p=.htm

The producers knew they were sitting on a pile of garbage and had them do reshoots. They were really getting frantic that they are going to lose 100 mio. $ there. I think they ordered some expensive re-shoots and then pumped 150 mio. $ into advertising. I dearly hope it does not pay.

If it makes 300-400 mio. $, then it's a net loss and there won't be any feminist sequels to that crud. I can only estimate what it will look like - Emperor Furiosa creating a new feminist Utopia and fighting against some evil psychopathic patriarchy who wants to subjugate them.

If it does not make more than 700 mio. $, then the studios won't risk it. They are probably a bit pissed off at the director already.

Post: #188

(05-18-2015 05:00 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4061&p=.htm

The producers knew they were sitting on a pile of garbage and had them do reshoots. They were really getting frantic that they are going to lose 100 mio. $ there. I think they ordered some expensive re-shoots and then pumped 150 mio. $ into advertising. I dearly hope it does not pay.

If it makes 300-400 mio. $, then it's a net loss and there won't be any feminist sequels to that crud. I can only estimate what it will look like - Emperor Furiosa creating a new feminist Utopia and fighting against some evil psychopathic patriarchy who wants to subjugate them.

If it does not make more than 700 mio. $, then the studios won't risk it. They are probably a bit pissed off at the director already.

I am thinking for ways to cut their profit.

Filming myself the movie in theatre and putting it very quickly on torrent might be a good one.

Post: #189

(05-18-2015 05:30 AM)LÉtranger Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 05:00 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4061&p=.htm

The producers knew they were sitting on a pile of garbage and had them do reshoots. They were really getting frantic that they are going to lose 100 mio. $ there. I think they ordered some expensive re-shoots and then pumped 150 mio. $ into advertising. I dearly hope it does not pay.

If it makes 300-400 mio. $, then it's a net loss and there won't be any feminist sequels to that crud. I can only estimate what it will look like - Emperor Furiosa creating a new feminist Utopia and fighting against some evil psychopathic patriarchy who wants to subjugate them.

If it does not make more than 700 mio. $, then the studios won't risk it. They are probably a bit pissed off at the director already.

I am thinking for ways to cut their profit.

Filming myself the movie in theatre and putting it very quickly on torrent might be a good one.

not worth it, they can track you down and sue you.

Post: #190

(05-18-2015 05:30 AM)LÉtranger Wrote:  [quote='Zelcorpion' pid='1023614' dateline='1431943221']
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4061&p=.htm
Filming myself the movie in theatre and putting it very quickly on torrent might be a good one.

I seriously don't think we should encourage breaking the law in this forum. Especially one with a very harsh penalty.


@Zelcorpion

The budget does not include tax refunds(australian). Keep in mind that this is an R rated film. "WATCHMEN" barely broken even 2 years after it was released. The movie will make a profit in home video. This will not be enough for them to jump-start a sequel. Now you know why every comic-book film has to have a PG-13 rating and are allowed one "fuck" in the entire film. For an R rated film to make a profit at the theater phase the budget has to be considerably lower and either the content or the artist involved has to have a very large following, ex:

50 shades of grey: 40 million budget
Any Quentin Tarantino film...


I have no idea why this movie cost this much, these actors are not A-listers. Their contracts were likely written to include 2 more sequels with fixed increases. There have been articles popping up over the years about set building costs declining and that at some point it will equal visual effects. Well i guess that was bullshit. If this movie had an a-list male actor, he would have asked more than the (entire cast combined) X 2.

Post: #191

The days of 'A-List' are kind of over for the time being, Hollywood is definitely leaning towards ensemble pieces. I heard it's something to do with what audiences in Asian countries prefer, and them becoming a more and more important market share. Could be wrong though.

What I mean is, the days of just whacking a big star in a movie pretty much on his/her own, and having their surname plastered in big letters on the poster, doesn't seem to be the way they do it anymore. There's exceptions though of course, maybe the Bond movies perhaps?

So, with that said, Tom Hardy is pretty A-List in today's terms.

Post: #192

(05-18-2015 10:18 AM)Teedub Wrote:  The days of 'A-List' are kind of over for the time being, Hollywood is definitely leaning towards ensemble pieces. I heard it's something to do with what audiences in Asian countries prefer, and them becoming a more and more important market share. Could be wrong though.

What I mean is, the days of just whacking a big star in a movie pretty much on his/her own, and having their surname plastered in big letters on the poster, doesn't seem to be the way they do it anymore. There's exceptions though of course, maybe the Bond movies perhaps?

So, with that said, Tom Hardy is pretty A-List in today's terms.

Tom Hardy is not an A-lister, not even close. An a-lister is usually a male actor that can carry a movie on his own. What this means is if he attaches himself to any piece of shit script(with no previous following--novel, comicbook etc) directors, agents, producers and the studios are all jumping in head first. Even for independent films, its very easy to get financing if you have a guy like Jeremy Renner attached. For instance, if Tom Cruise or Mat Damon like a script, the studio will likely greenlight. Tom hardy on the other hand did not drive fans to see Mad Max, the franchise is carrying him, not the other way around.

Post: #193

(05-18-2015 10:33 AM)8ball Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:18 AM)Teedub Wrote:  The days of 'A-List' are kind of over for the time being, Hollywood is definitely leaning towards ensemble pieces. I heard it's something to do with what audiences in Asian countries prefer, and them becoming a more and more important market share. Could be wrong though.

What I mean is, the days of just whacking a big star in a movie pretty much on his/her own, and having their surname plastered in big letters on the poster, doesn't seem to be the way they do it anymore. There's exceptions though of course, maybe the Bond movies perhaps?

So, with that said, Tom Hardy is pretty A-List in today's terms.

Tom Hardy is not an A-lister, not even close. An a-lister is usually a male actor that can carry a movie on his own. What this means is if he attaches himself to any piece of shit script(with no previous following--novel, comicbook etc) directors, agents, producers and the studios are all jumping in head first. Even for independent films, its very easy to get financing if you have a guy like Jeremy Renner attached. For instance, if Tom Cruise or Mat Damon like a script, the studio will likely greenlight. Tom hardy on the other hand did not drive fans to see Mad Max, the franchise is carrying him, not the other way around.

Fair enough. I'm perhaps talking from a UK perspective - over here Tom Hardy is a much bigger star than someone like Jeremy Renner. In fact, my interest in the Mad Max film was originally peaked because Hardy was cast in it. A lot of directors and actors, on both sides of the Atlantic, often express a desire to work with him - hence why he props up in odd projects such as The Drop.

Post: #194

----------------------------------------

Post: #195

(05-18-2015 10:59 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  A-list used to mean actors that could open any kind of movie, anywhere. Now it's more complicated.

Apart from Pirates of the Caribbean, Johnny Depp can't even open his wife's thighs. And even those films aren't big in the US, but abroad. Put Tom Cruise in a small WW2 drama, nobody cares. Big budget action film? Sure. Liam Neeson in an Taken-like action film will be a hit, but nobody cares if he does a romantic comedy. And his paycheck on different films reflects that. Is Colin Firth a big name in the US or UK? Nope. But Kingsman made +45 million dollars in South Korea mainly because of his presence.

***TRIGGER WARNING***

These faggoty losers are why you should never go to a midnight premiere showing of a popular movie these days. I made the mistake of going to a midnight premiere of the original Iron Man flick back in 2008 when I was still in college and it was jam packed with a bunch of nerdy manchildren and ugly fat nerdy girls wearing costumes and acting like complete retards. Theaters should ban these weirdos.

Post: #196

(05-18-2015 10:46 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Fair enough. I'm perhaps talking from a UK perspective - over here Tom Hardy is a much bigger star than someone like Jeremy Renner. In fact, my interest in the Mad Max film was originally peaked because Hardy was cast in it. A lot of directors and actors, on both sides of the Atlantic, often express a desire to work with him - hence why he props up in odd projects such as The Drop.

I actually like Tom Hardy. He's a good actor and always pulls a reliable performance. But this movie was just a paycheck for him.

All in all, British and Australian actors are much better than American actors. You guys have a theatrical tradition that goes back centuries to the days of Marlowe and Shakespeare. By comparison, we Americans are just duffers. We have the big studio money but you have the talent.

My favorite current British actors working in the US are Jason Statham, Daniel Craig, and Michael Caine.

Something about Jason Statham that I really like...maybe not a great actor, but a solid dude.

.

Post: #197

(05-18-2015 12:16 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 10:46 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Fair enough. I'm perhaps talking from a UK perspective - over here Tom Hardy is a much bigger star than someone like Jeremy Renner. In fact, my interest in the Mad Max film was originally peaked because Hardy was cast in it. A lot of directors and actors, on both sides of the Atlantic, often express a desire to work with him - hence why he props up in odd projects such as The Drop.

I actually like Tom Hardy. He's a good actor and always pulls a reliable performance. But this movie was just a paycheck for him.

All in all, British and Australian actors are much better than American actors. You guys have a theatrical tradition that goes back centuries to the days of Marlowe and Shakespeare. By comparison, we Americans are just duffers. We have the big studio money but you have the talent.

My favorite current British actors working in the US are Jason Statham, Daniel Craig, and Michael Caine.

Something about Jason Statham that I really like...maybe not a great actor, but a solid dude.

.

Yeah it probably was just a paycheck kind of film for him. I get the impression his Bane role was too. He likes doing smaller character pieces like Bronson and Locke (both good for different reasons, if you haven't seen them. Completely different performances too), rather than the big Hollywood stuff - but like all those guys, these want to get paid too. Gives them the financial freedom to do the arty stuff they want on the side.

I dunno man, America has had some brilliant actors. De Niro, Nicholson, Brando. Hell, I'll even throw a woman in - Meryl Streep. In current terms, Leo DiCaprio is fantastic. I think a lot of what makes actors great is having excellent film choices. Leo consistently lands brilliant parts. Even on things where he isn't the lead - like in Djanjo Unchained. I also used to love Ed Norton, but he kind of slowed down after that hot streak in the late 90s where he did American History X and Fight Club in consecutive years. Oh, and James Gandolfini's Tony Soprano is one of the best performances I've ever seen. It's remarkably subtle at times, but endlessly engaging.

Talking of great actors, I watched a couple of Daniel Day Lewis interviews yesterday, that guy is amazing. Literally becomes the character. He's English theatre trained, but has taken the American 'method' style to it's ultimate degree. A great combination!

Yeah, Statham is a cool cat. Always seems like a top bloke in interviews and stuff. Funnily enough, his girlfriend is in the Mad Max film.

Post: #198

^^^

Teedub, yeah, you have a point.

I forgot to mention two other Englishmen I really like to see on the screen: Ray Winstone and Michael Fassbender.

Winstone is to me the quintessential British rage-aholic character actor. Love that guy.

And Fassbender is a great actor. Anyone who doubts it should see "Hunger."

Yeah, Daniel Day Lewis is in a class by himself, but he only seems to get geared up once every few years.

Post: #199

My error. Fassbender is German-Irish. My apologies.

Post: #200

Meh, he trained in England - we'll take him!