New Mad Max Film

IceDiver writes "According to Google News Mel Gibson has signed up for a new Mad Max film "Fury Road". His salary? A whopping $25,000,000.00 Apparently the script has been in the works for 3 years and is highly polished. As a big fan of all 3 Mad Max films, I am looking forward to this one! "

profit ?

[a7244270]

I wonder if they will make any money.

According to the article they are going to spend about 180 mil to make MM4, and MM1,2,3 combined made less than 70 mil.

But then again, these days is seems like all you need ia a hot chick and some special effects to rake it in - plot optional.

Oh Goody

[TheGreenLantern]

Yet another unecessary, overhyped sequel to an aging franchise that has not been original in over 10 years. What's not to love?

Let's see....

[Schnapple]

1. Original director from first film
2. Big budget
3. A script that's been in the works for years
4. Beloved franchise
5. Original actors where possible

Sounds like it can't go wrong, right?

Can you say The Phantom Menace?

this can't be good

[s.d.]

With the first one made in 1979, that means mel gibson will be what, 25 yrs or so older in this one. Now I realize he's only going to be 47 this coming yr, but still, it strikes me the same as making a new Indiana Jones movie at this point. It's a sequel to a movie (or series of movies) I liked a lot, but is the actor too old to portray the character? I don't want to think of Indiana Jones or Mad Max as older -- they're the guys in the originals, characters like that don't age. It's why they switch James Bond actors. You don't want to see James Bond realistically portrayed as a 60 yr old spy. He's a 30+ yr old guy kicking ass and sleeping with hot women.

Highly Polished

[sdo1]

Highly Polished... yea, I know what that means. It means a committee has been hard at work f***ing up what was probably a pretty good script.

A couple of recent script-by-committee disasters include "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", "Batman and Robin", and "The Scorpion King". Of course having one person in full control of the script isn't necessarily a good thing either as Mr. Lucas has so painfully pointed out.

-S

Re:profit ?

[kizarny]

Waterworld made money, over $70 million in its first domestic box office run, before overseas export, video release and licensing. It's a seldom stated film industry secret but... they all eventually make money.

Re:More apocalyptic blather?

[Khomar]

Same thing with the new Terminator movie... It seems to me that Hollywood is scrambling for new ideas since their current batch of writers have run out. Meanwhile, some strange Kiwi's down south had the novel concept (no pun intended) of taking a famous piece of literature, adding massive amounts of love and care, and a heavy dose of creativity and integrity (both severely lacking in Hollywood) to make what looks to be a truly spectacular set of films on a relatively low budget ($70 million per film). Is anyone in Hollywood taking notes? If they are, are they taking the right notes? (I expect to see a slew of terrible fantasy clones released in the coming years until Hollywood once again learns the wrong lesson that fantasy films don't work...*sigh*)

Hollywood today seems to be only capable of rehashing old ideas without any real creative imagination. I do not doubt that this creativity exists, but for some reason it is not allowed to thrive. Why is Lord of the Rings successful? There was very little involvement from the high level, Hollywood executives. They let the creative people be creative with plenty of financial backing and time to truly let them imaginations fly. It was something new and distinctive.

Mad Max IV? When will Hollywood realize that what they need is true creativity. Throwing massive amounts of money at an old, fading idea does not equate to a great movie.

Someday I'll think up a good sig...

Re:According to Google News?

[tfreport]

This should be modded up. This was the first thing I thought about reading this article, there is no Google News in terms of reporting stories. Sure you can mention that they pointed you to the story but saying that something is acording to them is wrong.

It has been said on Slashdot many times that Google should not be held responsible for what it links to (the whole Church of Scientology debate) but it then should also not credit for someone else's reporting. It is only the way it should be that you either always are responsible for links or you never are.

Movies as marketing gimmicks

[Undaar]

I think my favourite part of the article is the president of Fox saying, "This is an event movie, and we know how to market event movies."

It's not even about the movie anymore. It's just about how much marketing can be done; how much money can be made.

The Sure Kiss of Death

[jazman_777]

From the article: But, says Parker, "there are so few roles that define 'big screen action hero' and this is one of them. This is an event movie, and we know how to market event movies. It's Max the way you want to see him."

You see, it's an _event_. Rowf!

Re:More apocalyptic blather?

[Syris]

Movie executives are presented with the following choice:

1. Remake an old movie or add another sequel to a successful series...

or

2. Create an entirely new movie that no one has ever heard of knows about.

Trying a new concept or story always represents a risk to the movie houses, while remaking an old movie or adding a sequel seems a surer way to generate buzz and revenue. If you disagree, consider this thread; it's free publicity for the makers of Mad Max 4.

Re:25 million?

[delfstrom]

You must be a scientist type, then. An engineer would say 25.7M (Example, for ten megapascals an engineer writes 10 MPa, not 1.0E7 Pa)

Re:With that salary...

[nomadic]

Bah, Road Warrior was a 2 hour fight scene; MM3 was a cinematic, multidimensional view of the postapocalypse. And Star Wars is scifi; not hard scifi, but scifi.

Re:I don't know

[El]

When you begin to find cartoon squirrels attractive, maybe you should take that as a sign that you REALLY need to get out more often!

Re:Everyone's free to use sunscreen...

[Reality Master 101]

How about $1Million? Would it REALLY fucking cramp Mel's style? Or Tom Cruise's?

Why are you blaming the actors? What are they supposed to do, say "No thanks, that's too much money"?

If Mel Gibson can attract enough people to the movie to make that much money, who should get the money?

Re:Everyone's free to use sunscreen...

[Alan Partridge]

oh come on! how naiive are you? actors have AGENTS, usually the same ones as OTHER ACTORS ( thus controlling the supply side of "stars" to the studios). If the studios tried giving us films based on interesting ideas instead of bankable "stars" and franchises, we'd all be better served.

Re:VHS tapes

[cskoien]

The new movie better not be dubbed into "American English" prior to release over in the states, like the first Mad Max. Australian english isn't that bloody hard to understand! Hands up whose seen the original Aussie version?

Re:sheesh

[PyroMosh]

Personally, I like weight. Lots and lots of weight.

Why? The weight doesn't make you any safer. In fact it makes you less safe. In a car with a low mass and a low center of gravity, you handle better. Hence, you'll be more likely to avoid an accident by stopping quicker or by an evasive maneuver.

People think weight gives you extra safety in a crash. This is true if you're hitting something that doesn't have enough mass, or inertia to stop your tank, like a small tree. It'll slow down your vehicle and not stop it completely, therefor less force will be applied to you. But factor in modern crumple zones, and this is negated. And then consider that anything that will stop you, well, you're no better off with all your weight. Also factor that the majority of collisions involve multiple vehicles. And in that instance, heavy vehicles are a more dangerous. The energy of a 6000 Lb tank @ 50 MPH > the energy of a 3000 Lb commuter car @ 50 MPH. When the two hit, all that energy goes into the crash. And it makes the crash worse for both vehicles.

I had a Blazer once (a full sized K5, not one of these little pretend SUVs that call themselves blazers now). I used it on the weekends for off roading, and I used it when I went on missions with the Search And Rescue unit I used to work with. Off the road it was a great truck, it sat 4 and all the gear we carried, only ever got stuck once. But on the road, the damn thing was a menace. I managed to spin it twice. Once because of deer, the other time because I got cut off on an interstate full of traffic.

To make a car handle better, (or stop shorter, or accelerate quicker) you LOWER it's mass, and LOWER it's center of gravity. Give it more rubber in contact with the ground helps as do tighter springs.

But with the exception of tires, SUVs are all moving AWAY from all of these objectives! They're getting heavier, they're getting bigger, and taller, they're getting softer suspensions.

Four months ago I was driving down 295 South going toward Philly. On the way I spotted something I'd never seen before in my rear view. A Z06. Brand New. Millennium Yellow. The ultimate sports car. Being DRIVEN.

DRIVEN! HARD.

Conditions were clear, nowhere for a cop to hide, and the guy was hauling. I slam on the gas, and let off a couple miles an hour from where my speed governor is. The guy's like 2000 Ft ahead of me and he's holding his distance. He's weaving through traffic, and I don't want to be too much of a dick, so I slow down. Besides, I know my car trying to keep up with him is ridiculous anyway. The guy's pulling away fast now and like I said, I'm near my speed governor at 108.

5 minutes later I see a smoking thing on the median grass about half a mile ahead. I pull over and see that it's the bottom of a car staring at me, it's rear wheels still spinning, and I get out to see if I can help.

I expected it to be the vette. I really did. He must have been doing 130 when I last saw him. And he was driving like an asshole (and having a world of fun in the process, I'm sure), not 5 under the limit like most vette drivers I see.

It wasn't though, it was an SUV. A 2002 Chevy Trailblazer to be specific. They got clipped by a black sedan, (they said Mercedes or BMW, I forget which now) and you could see the black paint where it had clipped them. The impact put them into a spin and they wound up on the grass median. Once on the grass, they rolled. A car wouldn't have rolled. And (I'm guessing on the force here, since the sedan didn't spin) most cars wouldn't have spun either.

Fortunately, both occupants lived. It rolled once, then settled on the driver's side. The driver was out when I got there, and another guy that stopped at the same time as me was already tending to her (her face was pretty bloody) I pulled the passenger out of the sun roof, (he had his seat belt on and at the angle he was hanging at, he had trouble reaching it himself (he was a large fellow)) he had some scrapes and a nasty looking bruise on his head, but otherwise seemed okay.

This kind of thing happens all the time. There's a reason that the guy going 130 in the vette probably still has it and the 60 year old grandfather who was going to pick up his grandkids with his daughter doesn't have his Trailblazer today. Same day, same road, (long, flat, boring, same conditions. One car was built to handle the road. The other, not only wasn't built to handle the road, but it was later hacked and modified to iron out some of the quirks of it's truck like heritage. And it became more dangerous on the road and less useful off of the road because of it!

I'm not saying I condone the way that the Vette guy was driving (nor all the fun I was having trying to keep up). That's not safe either. (yeah, I'm a hypocrite) But more weight != a safer vehicle. Not unless your such a bad driver that you shouldn't be on the road anyway. And then that safety will probably come at the expense of someone else's safety.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather avoid accidents (though, of course I still want to have crumple zones and airbags, etc in case they do happen) then just simply walk away from one.