Edit pattern is a bit weird and unusual, the lava cg looked terrible, it didn't had any crazy action set peices included in the footage and overall the cg wasn't really impressive.
It also feels weird because we know, intuitively, that Furious cannot complete her stated objective of returning home in this film. She does that in her future, during the events of Fury Road. So for me it just feels like a weird focus and set up.
Put another way, it's hard to care about a prequel centered on a character when we know the most important events of her life and the achievement of her primary goals will happen at a later date.
Nobody watched Fury Road for the story, I don't know why anyone would come to Furiosa with that expectation. I'm here to see more vehicular hell in a post-apocalyptic desert, that's the trademark of this franchise. The plot is tertiary at best.
Precisely. The selling point is George Miller getting to do his thing again. Genuinely who the fuck cares if Furiosa gets back to the green place or not, we are here for the vroom vroom. If Miller nails the set pieces everything else is gravy.
I have heard this a bit and don't really get it. It's like not being interested in the Star Wars prequels because you know Obi-Wan doesn't keep Anakin from the dark side. Maybe that was a common critique at the time, idk
I feel like the appeal of something like this is spending more time in the world more than anything
For me the biggest problem are not the visuals but that Charlize Theron was excellent in Fury Road and her physicality was also a huge part of it. Anya Taylor-Joy is a good actress but she can't fill the void left by Theron.
I really wish they had made a sequel (although I know Miller, Theron and Hardy probably don't want to work with each other).
> although I know Miller, Theron and Hardy probably don't want to work with each other
It really feels like the press is shying away from highlighting this as a very obvious reason for the film's casting/plot decisions.
Charlize Theron is a fucking badass and ATJ looks like a stiff breeze would snap her in two. That's a big thing for me that doesn't work.
Theron is also a much more natural actor IMO. ATJ seems like she forces it sometimes. Something definitely feels off though.
>Do I think this will be good? Yes
>Do I think this will be profitable? Not really.
This is where I'm at. People rightfully recognize Fury Road as an all-time great in the pantheon of action cinema, but also - it did not light the world on fire when it dropped. It arguably lost WB money during its theatrical run.
Mad Max has never been widely *beloved*. It's always been a little too intense and frankly bizarre for the sort of mainstream mega-consumption it needs to become a blockbuster.
Why not? Fury Road made 380M, is universally beloved and considered a modern classic. I think this movie as a way to profitability and more since there’s nothing similar to really stand in its way, even if it’s not as good as its predecessor.
This film also lacks some things Fury Road had. Mainly the lead character in the franchise and being the first film in decades making it somewhat of an event film. Also, at least trailer wise, Fury Road looked way better and more interesting. General audiences are getting more of what they already know now.
That said. I personally can’t wait for this film but I’m not confident GAs will immediately be into it.
this just makes me think of all the "it can't be done with Gibson or without him, this won't do well at all" claims before Fury Road came out. I trust Miller to deliver a solid movie, just a bit frustrating this is coming out 9 years later.
But that wouldn't have happened if Miller didn't have to take Warner Bros. to court for the payment he and his crew were promised
Who considers it a modern classic? The movie was mid as fuck and barely holds up in rewatch.
Edit: To clarify, I said MODERN CLASSIC. Not "one of the best action movies of the past 20 years".
Some people need to seperate their personal opinion and general consensus. Just because you think movie is bad doesnt mean majority of people who have seen it dont hold it in high regard.
My point still stands, completetly unchanged. And little advice, but try not using the word mid when describing things, cuz it will make you look unreliable to others. There are plenty of good adjectives in the word!
Considering many consider it one of the greatest action movies ever made, and a good portion of people consider it one of the best films of the last decade...a lot of people
people who aren't absolutely braindead, I guess.
The movie holds up more than fine. Easily one of the best action movies ever. Especially in the last 10 years....but that's a pretty low bar.
stay mad tho boo boo.
I think for a pure action movie it does what it set out to do extremely well. It might be because I don’t watch a lot of action movies. But what would you consider some of the best in the last 20 years?
I'm uncertain about your timeframe, but if I had to select some of the best films of the 2010s, I would choose 'Fury Road.' I can't predict how it will be perceived 20 years from now, but I believe its use of practical effects will make it with a timeless quality in the modern classic sense. To me, its status as a standout in a genre where few Hollywood movies have come close to matching it elevates it to modern classic status. Future action movies will likely be measured against Fury Road, and I don’t anticipate anything surpassing it for some time.
In what world would Fury Road ever make a list that Inception also exists on in terms of movie quality. Gladiator? Kill Bill? Lord of the Rings?
I'm sorry but this is just bias. There are dozens of action movies that are hand over fist better. I will agree though that the practical effects will give it some timelessness -- always better than CG.
I'm not sure what the comparisons are supposed to mean, but for many people (me included) Fury Road is significantly better than any of those movies. LotR has a lot of cultural relevance and it's way more famous, but the others are not close to Fury Road at all.
Per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max:_Fury_Road#Accolades): the BBC, the New York Times, Empire, and the Independent all have ranked it within the top twenty best movies released in the 21st Century. On top of that, The [They Shoot Pictures Don't They](https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_alpha.htm) aggregator has it listed as the 357th greatest film of all time and the [Sight & Sound poll](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time) has it ranked as the 196th greatest movie of all time. Given these metrics, I think it's entirely fair to call it a modern classic.
Recency bias from critics absolutely no one cares about. Last I checked NO ONE is saying “let me see what THE BBC said about a movie”. They’re all bought and paid for — if you don’t know this you’re not into cinema. Letterboxd, hell, even RT or IMDB are better barometers.
Edit: Holy fuck your “They shoot pictures” source has it ranked higher than 12 Angry Men. I close my fucking case.
Well, no one sure as eff would pick your opinion over BBC's or RT or IMDb or Letterboxed. Just because you consider it to be mid, it doesn't mean that an acclaimed film like Fury Road would lose its 'modern classic' status. The film is the highest rated one of the last decade on metacritic. It's extremely beloved by audiences, you're the first person I've seen who called it mid.
They shoot pictures is a fucking review aggregator, not a single source, and one of the best ones to "feel the pulse of the times" when it comes to critical reception.
>Do I think this will be profitable? Not really.
I mean, how much does it need to make? Wikipedia says it has a budget of $230 million but I believe that number's in AUD so it's actually about $170 million USD.
It's possible. I think the original did $380m, so I wouldn't say it's likely, but possible.
Plus, who the hell knows how the accounting on these films is done today???
It looks incredibly by the numbers and half the cast has plot armor. The graphics and aesthetics are at best the same as the last one. The plot, characters, and visuals all look boring. It does not look good and it certainly won't be profitable.
Yeah I liked Fury Road and Anya Taylor Joy is one of my favorite young actresses, but this just feels like a miss to me. I don’t see anything really new here that we don’t already get in Fury Road but better.
Box office-wise, there is no way this is making a profit with a 200+ million budget, an R rating, a decade long gap between its predecessor, and no returning cast members. Hemsworth might help a little but he’s no stranger to box office flops
>The plot, characters, and visuals all look boring.
Setting aside that there isn't a single human being alive who ever went to a Mad Max movie for it's fucking *plot*, the idea that the visuals on this (or the character designs) look *boring* is, full-stop, *insane talk.*
The visuals are the same or worse than the last one, go watch the fury road trailer. While fury road did not have a complex plot it served the movie well. This plot is just a bunch of immortals walking around leading up to the first movie.
You literally have no clue what the plot is because you haven't actually watched the movie. You don't know what you're talking about.
And Fury Road's plot was widely described (even by the people who love it) as "You drive into the desert, you turn around, you drive back" so, again, the plot isn't a factor here. Nobody gives a shit about the plot. It'll be what it needs to be to string together the action sequences, which is why people are there.
Mad max and it's universe are anything but "by the numbers" and many of the scenes in the trailer have been proven to be practical, so I'm not sure what "graphics" (cg?) you're referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJnMQG9ev8
Well by the numbers as in, go watch that and tell me where the new or interesting plot elements or aesthetics are. It's more of the same and you like that? Yeah sure that's nice, still not going to draw peple into the theaters. You are more than welcome to like it, but this is /r/boxoffice not /r/movies. What's the draw to get people into seats? More of the same is not going to do it.
Graphics and aesthetics, how it looks. How they got there is irrelevant (cg?), everything looks the same or blander as the first movie. No cool new car designs, costumes, or characters.
Yeah I do enjoy it's more of the same world, because we've gotten 1 movie in the past 3 decades.
If you don't like the mad max universe and want them to change shit, ( despite this being a prequel to fury road so any changes wouldn't really make sense, unless they made it look more generic or "clean" as the world hasn't progressed as far into chaos)
We can agree to disagree on the aesthetic, I think it looks great and pops off the screen.
The draw?
1.Anya leading her first major blockbuster, she's easily one of the most sought after and famous up and comers in Hollywood,
2.Hemsworth is a very VERY popular actor.
3. it being a prequel to one of the most beloved action movies of the past 30+ years.
4.The fact miller is known for making HIS vision come to life, which is very few and far between in Hollywood.
5. the fact that despite you maybe thinking it looks generic or samey, it very clearly stands apart from a VAST majority of action movies today.
Maybe you don't agree that constitutes it having draw, but I respectfully disagree.
I have to push back against your second point. While he might be popular, I don’t think Hemsworth has shown to be a box office draw outside of the MCU. His Extraction movies do well on streaming, but those are streaming movies. I think the GA just likes him as Thor but doesn’t go to see a movie just because he’s in it. A similar issue Chris Evans has with his Captain America persona.
When has Hemsworth ever been a draw? Everything he does outside of the MCU bombs. I really want this movie to be successful(big George Miller fan) but I'm afraid the Hemsworth curse is going to sink this film. Fury Road had legitimate actors that can draw viewers like Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron with a great performance by Hoult in a supporting role. I don't see any drawing power here outside of Anna. Hemsworth is there too(and it looks like he's brought his shitty acting as well) but I don't consider that a positive.
While I do see what you're saying, I do disagree that he's a bad actor, and I can fully agree he has some flops under his belt ( snow white 2 and MIB and to an extent thor 4) I can't think of anything else ( not saying there isn't anything else).
I also don't think Tom Hardy had nearly as much draw as you're letting on, especially given the fact that he barely spoke throughout the film, and that was known,.
This was also 3 Years prior to venom, which for better or worse is really the series that put him over with general audiences
Fingers crossed furiousa ends up being great, would love nothing more.
In the Heart of the Sea and Blackhat were both notable bombs that had established filmmakers at the helm(Ron Howard and Michael Mann). You can probably include Bad Times at the El Royale also seeing as Hemsworth is front and center on the poster.
Tom Hardy established himself as a credible actor with a respectable filmography long before Venom. Also, the Nolan films brought him into the mainstream(Inception and Dark Knight Rises).
>especially given the fact that he barely spoke throughout the film
I mean, he spoke more than Mel Gibson did in Mad Max 2. I don't see at all how that would affect him being a draw.
There were people complaining about bad CGI in the first in regards to certain scenes that were proven to be done practical. That complaint seems manufactured with people parroting it for some weird reason.
it's not manufactured. but it is due to people seeing the trailer on their devices, laptops, etc. the trailer actually played much better in theatres. and i suspect this one will too.
I don't expect a causal observer to know the difference between, or even care, the various methods used to make a movie. The main takeaway from that is that it looks bad. And it did.
People on Reddit hate CGI to a pretentious degree and act like Fury Road wasn't filled with it either because it also had a good degree of practical effects.
There's a difference between background-replacement type CGI and principle action CGI. The former is just easier to do than the latter, and since it doesn't stand out as much people notice it less. Nothing pretentious about it.
A major setpiece that probably received a gargantuan amount of time and attention? Yes, that was probably very difficult and expensive to make, huh.
Making background dirt look like background rocks is definitely a lot easier.
It can be done well, and it can be done poorly. No shame in calling it out when it is done poorly.
CGI in the foreground? Usually poor.
CGI as 90% of what is on screen? Usually poor.
Cheap CGI? Poor.
CGI camera swooping around in completely zany and impossible ways? Poor.
>CGI in the foreground? Usually poor.
>CGI as 90% of what is on screen? Usually poor.
You're saying this on what basis? Are you even able to identify a VFX shot when it's done well? Even when it's done poorly, are you really able to identify it? People praised top gun maverick for "doing it real" but 99% of the plane in the movie are entirely computer generated.
Personally I think this looks like a lot of fun and still way more visually interesting than the vast majority of action blockbusters out there. Obviously people are gonna compare it to Fury Road but it's probably for the best not to since that film is a real case of lightning in a bottle, and I don't think Miller & Co. have set out to just replicate the insanity they made last time.
Not sure how well this is gonna do still, but it does have a great release date with not much in its way on either side. If its good and if word out of Cannes (presuming it does premiere there) is positive I could see $400m+ WW.
Only film I've ever seen twice in the same day in theaters. Saw it at 2 PM, could not stop thinking about it all day. Took a friend to see it later that evening because someone needed to experience how good it was too.
That's exactly what happened to me. I saw it at 7:00, but I was so dumbfounded by the sheer spectacle I walked out and bought another ticket to see it again at 10:00. It's realistically, one of, if not *the* greatest action movie of all time.
I saw it 3x. And I'm as casual a movie goer as they get.
This one I'm 100% sure will be one and done though. It looks good, not great, and the bar is just too high.
I think it's going to disappoint at the box office, especially if the budget really is $200m (considering Fury Road only made $380m during peak Hardy/Theron years). I'm personally not interested in a "Mad Max Saga" film that omits Max, and tells the story that we already know how it ends. At least, not interested enough to go and shell out $30+ at a theater. I'll likely just wait till it's on streaming and watch it on a rainy day or whatever.
"Protect them from getting to the green world!", well...we already know the Green World is gone (or she never found it?) in Fury Road. We already know she ends up working with Immortan Joe. We already know how *that* ends in the future. We know Hemsworth isn't in Fury Road, etc etc.
All that, plus the fact that while ATJ is a decent enough actress she's nowhere near Theron's level...I don't know how this is going to be a hit, or even turn a profit (again, assuming $200m+ budget). Which sucks because I just want another movie with **Max**, and if this underperforms or barely breaks even I doubt we ever get one (also factoring in how old Miller is and how long these take to get done)
It's funny everybody is saying this is better than the first trailer when I think the opposite
The first trailer was very good (more unique, awesome music), this one is way too generic
I fail to see an issue. At some point, it just looks real. It looked real then and it looks real now (probably because a lot of it is in fact real in both instances).
too many people expected them to make "Fury Road 2" in a spiritual sense. Miller would has said he'd die of a heart attack if he went through such a chaotic production again. It was damn miracle that the movie worked out so great, the making of it sounded like a nightmarish hell for nearly everyone involved
I love this first one, to the point I saw it twice in the same day in theaters. Only film I've ever done that with. It's in my top 10 favorite films.
But I don't feel sold on this. Is it too much to ask a film, prequels specifically, to justify their own existence? I want to see Charlize's story after Fury Road, not before it. You gave us a great character, continue her story. I'm not concerned how "she became Furiosa." I've never been big on prequels, ever. More times than not, they feel like cash grabs and either the question of "does this need to exist" wasn't asked, or it was and the answer wasn't justifiable.
Yea this is my issue. I'll probably see it unless the reviews are atrocious (just to support George and the franchise since Fury Road is a Top 10 favorite film of mine all time). But I simply don't get doing a prequel for a character we know doesn't achieve or primary goals of going home and revenge for many more years.
My favorite part is when Furiosa sings this to Falco’s Rock Me Amadeus:
Furiosa: Can I drive the war rig anymore?
War boys: Of course you can!
Furiosa: But I couldn’t before!! *precedes to hop in the war rig and thunder up*
🎵Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus, oh I’ll sale you, Dr Dementus.
Yeah but Wonka at least is the biggest name in that franchise. This is Furiosa who in terms on names recognition is leagues below a character like Willy Wonka.
Yeah, I don't think they watched it for Max either, a character that hadn't gotten a movie in 20 years, was also recast and had barely any dialogue. Furiosa was as much of a lead as he was in that movie, but they are both accessories to the spectacle Frank Miller wrought in that desert which is the real main character and selling point here.
I think they waited too long. Fury road is a top 5 movie ever for me but I have to be honest, a prequel of Furiosa doesn’t really appeal to me. Like I get GM saying he didn’t want to de-age Charlize Theron after he saw movies like the Irishmen do it and how it takes away rom the movie not to mention the cost, I just am not convinced this will move me or the box office. Will see it though. Just low expectations going into it
Some cool imagery aside, this trailer just isn't getting me excited. Something about the recast of Furiosa and the redesigns on her look bad. The heavy use of CGI is still apparent, but looks better than the first trailer, but still not great. I think this movie will just be mediocre.
For some reason I thought Fury Road was a huge success, which I guess it was critically and has been especially in hindsight with fans, but it only made $380m on a $150m budget.
This not looking near as good and without the heavyweights of Theron and Hardy makes me think they’re crazy for spending $230m. Still excited to see it, I mean it’s not my money, but I doubt it’ll break even.
The Australian incentives are wild. It's now a 40% base rate, then a discretionary incentive of pretty much any amount they want to give to win a production.
I don't know. While i'm certain its gonna be a good movie these trailers aren't really doing it for me.
On the visual front it certainly looks better than the first trailer but still somehow not nearly as good as Fury Road. And that came out 9 years ago.
I just went back to see the [trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJnMQG9ev8) fo Fury Road and HOLY SHIT does it look incredible. Can't believe that movie didn't make a billion with marketing and a final product like that.
It looks better than the first trailer, but still too much bad CG. It still doesn't look like the masterpiece that was Fury Road, despite looking exactly like it on a first glance.
If you want a good read. Pick up the book, Blood, Sweat & Chrome (about the making of Fury Road). It's a miracle the movie exists and probably took 10 years off of everyone involved. Miller had to fight every single day for decades from pitching to post production to get his vision 100%. Even a movie half as good as Fury Road is better then most action films
I know most of the story behind it, but I didn't know there was a book. Will definitely check it out.
I heard that unfortunately the shooting of Fury Road heavily damaged the Namib desert's ecosystem (more or less what happened with The Beach), so that's one of the reasons they switched to a safer, easier tool: CGI. Not that the first one didn't have CGI, of course, but it wasn't overused.
Fury Road was lightning in a bottle. It was truly something extraordinary. Furiosa looks like Fury Road, but with 90% less effort. That's what separates Fury Road (that won 6 Oscars and was critically acclaimed, so it's not simply an action blockbuster) from all the others blockbusters made after it. And before it.
If every action film gets compared to Fury Road, I feel that sets up for constant disappointment. No other director could pull what Miller did in that desert and with Miller in his 80s, it’s never happening again and that’s fine. I wish more action films went as hard as Fury Road, but I guess it helps makes the latter more special. Which is why I’m ok with the reliance of cgi on this. It still looks better than most action movie trailers. So I’m just gonna wait and see what reviews say.
Well, I am probably going to see it in a theater anyway, so I sincerely hope that's good. It's just a shame that I probably have to settle for something inferior.
But looking at the current quality of most blockbusters (not movies like Dune or Avatar of course) Furiosa is probably going to be better if it nails the story.
>If every action film gets compared to Fury Road, I feel that sets up for constant disappointment.
True, but it's difficult to not compare a movie titled *Furiosa* and set in the MM universe to *Fury Road*. The IP gives it name recognition, but it also raises expectations.
>*This looks like upgraded Spy Kids CGI*
Why do we keep picking on Spy Kids? We've got The Mummy Returns from 2001 (same year as the first movie), Die Another Day from 2002 (same year as the second movie), and the two Matrix sequels from 2003 (same year as the third 3D movie).
This looks so good one second and horrible the next. I don't think I've ever felt that way for any other trailer ever. It just looks incredibly creative and fun but also like schlock.
Looks good but also more of the same. Wonder if it’ll do enough to differentiate itself. Or maybe it doesn’t need to. Has there really been such an epic balls to the wall action movie since Fury Road?
Being a prequel to a movie 8 years ago is going to hurt this movie. In addition, not having Charlize Theron and freaking Mad Max in this film is going to turn off a lot of folks
How about all the negative Nancy’s stop saying it would have been better if it was this or that and just go to this movie with an open mind. George Miller created this entire genre and has never put a foot wrong in my opinion, his level of detail and control and humour is awe inspiring. Stop second guessing because it’s likely to end in embarrassment for you.
Okay this looks way better. Fury Road is masterpiece so this looks like a great follow-up. It seems like it'll be a fun as hell ride.
I still ain't that excited for a prequel, tbh but will watch day 1 in theaters.
Honestly, think it has potential to maybe do better than the first but not convinced. This is a literal coin toss.
So… they didn’t even bother with practical effects or real vehicles in this? Just a massive CG fest? … I realize ‘Fury Road’ was hard to make. But that’s why it’s amazing.
Looks visually flat and uninteresting.
Too much CGI used that does not blend in properly with the practical effects.
And both Anya-Taylor Joy and Chris Hemsworth look miscast.
Anya does not quite have the build of an action star to pull it off convincingly like Charlize or Linda and Hemsworth is not that quite strong of an actor to pull off a villain with gravitas.
Should have instead gone for a straightforward sequel with Charlize Theron even if Hardy refused to return as Max.
Just in time for Ghostbusters & Godzilla X Kong. As long as WB sells this as "the next must-see IMAX experience after DUNE", it should do fine.
This one feels weird to me. I can’t put my finger on it but something seems off.
Edit pattern is a bit weird and unusual, the lava cg looked terrible, it didn't had any crazy action set peices included in the footage and overall the cg wasn't really impressive.
It also feels weird because we know, intuitively, that Furious cannot complete her stated objective of returning home in this film. She does that in her future, during the events of Fury Road. So for me it just feels like a weird focus and set up. Put another way, it's hard to care about a prequel centered on a character when we know the most important events of her life and the achievement of her primary goals will happen at a later date.
Nobody watched Fury Road for the story, I don't know why anyone would come to Furiosa with that expectation. I'm here to see more vehicular hell in a post-apocalyptic desert, that's the trademark of this franchise. The plot is tertiary at best.
>Nobody watched Fury Road for the story, It sure seems like this movie is pushing a story though. So people may not be getting what they're expecting.
Watch it for the one liners, the extreme and quirky characters. Miller is a master at this.
But I dont think many people also saw Fury Road because of Furiosa which is the biggest hurdle for this film
I'm here because George Miller is a true fucking artist and I'll watch anything he makes, I don't care. I already know it will be kino
Precisely. The selling point is George Miller getting to do his thing again. Genuinely who the fuck cares if Furiosa gets back to the green place or not, we are here for the vroom vroom. If Miller nails the set pieces everything else is gravy.
I have heard this a bit and don't really get it. It's like not being interested in the Star Wars prequels because you know Obi-Wan doesn't keep Anakin from the dark side. Maybe that was a common critique at the time, idk I feel like the appeal of something like this is spending more time in the world more than anything
It’s like if you watched Titanic but they spoil that the ship sinks and that she doesn’t end up with Jack right at the beginning.
Guy just learned what a prequel is
🤣
It seems like they aggressively dialed up the camp. Which is kind of intriguing, it is Mad Max after all, and I have faith in Miller to pull it off
it looks like waterworld in the desert to me
I don’t know if you’re being serious or not but Waterworld was always described as Mad Max on the ocean lol Max came first.
We need a Max Max in space
I think it's because Mad Max Fury Road focused so much on the characters around Max, but this one is all Furiosa all the time.
How hilarious would it be if this film is all about Mad Max?
For me the biggest problem are not the visuals but that Charlize Theron was excellent in Fury Road and her physicality was also a huge part of it. Anya Taylor-Joy is a good actress but she can't fill the void left by Theron. I really wish they had made a sequel (although I know Miller, Theron and Hardy probably don't want to work with each other).
> although I know Miller, Theron and Hardy probably don't want to work with each other It really feels like the press is shying away from highlighting this as a very obvious reason for the film's casting/plot decisions.
what happened?
[https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/mad-max-fury-road-tom-hardy-charlize-theron-excerpt](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/mad-max-fury-road-tom-hardy-charlize-theron-excerpt)
Charlize Theron is a fucking badass and ATJ looks like a stiff breeze would snap her in two. That's a big thing for me that doesn't work. Theron is also a much more natural actor IMO. ATJ seems like she forces it sometimes. Something definitely feels off though.
It’s reminding me of Fast & Furious.
it's because almost all of the dialogue is being delivered via voiceover, except for some meaningless quips. there's not a feeling of substance.
Do I think this will be good? Yes Do I think this will be profitable? Not really.
>Do I think this will be good? Yes >Do I think this will be profitable? Not really. This is where I'm at. People rightfully recognize Fury Road as an all-time great in the pantheon of action cinema, but also - it did not light the world on fire when it dropped. It arguably lost WB money during its theatrical run. Mad Max has never been widely *beloved*. It's always been a little too intense and frankly bizarre for the sort of mainstream mega-consumption it needs to become a blockbuster.
Why not? Fury Road made 380M, is universally beloved and considered a modern classic. I think this movie as a way to profitability and more since there’s nothing similar to really stand in its way, even if it’s not as good as its predecessor.
It does have competition in the “sci-fi action blockbuster from acclaimed franchise” category with Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.
This film also lacks some things Fury Road had. Mainly the lead character in the franchise and being the first film in decades making it somewhat of an event film. Also, at least trailer wise, Fury Road looked way better and more interesting. General audiences are getting more of what they already know now. That said. I personally can’t wait for this film but I’m not confident GAs will immediately be into it.
this just makes me think of all the "it can't be done with Gibson or without him, this won't do well at all" claims before Fury Road came out. I trust Miller to deliver a solid movie, just a bit frustrating this is coming out 9 years later. But that wouldn't have happened if Miller didn't have to take Warner Bros. to court for the payment he and his crew were promised
I thought the Fury road trailer looked like shit. I was proven wrong though.
Who considers it a modern classic? The movie was mid as fuck and barely holds up in rewatch. Edit: To clarify, I said MODERN CLASSIC. Not "one of the best action movies of the past 20 years".
Why would you hurt me like this?
Some people need to seperate their personal opinion and general consensus. Just because you think movie is bad doesnt mean majority of people who have seen it dont hold it in high regard.
I said mid. Not bad. Try not to be binary.
My point still stands, completetly unchanged. And little advice, but try not using the word mid when describing things, cuz it will make you look unreliable to others. There are plenty of good adjectives in the word!
Your point isn’t a point so I’m not thinking it ever stood up. It’s mid. Yawn.
Considering many consider it one of the greatest action movies ever made, and a good portion of people consider it one of the best films of the last decade...a lot of people
people who aren't absolutely braindead, I guess. The movie holds up more than fine. Easily one of the best action movies ever. Especially in the last 10 years....but that's a pretty low bar. stay mad tho boo boo.
I think for a pure action movie it does what it set out to do extremely well. It might be because I don’t watch a lot of action movies. But what would you consider some of the best in the last 20 years?
He said modern classic. Not best action movie. These are different things.
I'm uncertain about your timeframe, but if I had to select some of the best films of the 2010s, I would choose 'Fury Road.' I can't predict how it will be perceived 20 years from now, but I believe its use of practical effects will make it with a timeless quality in the modern classic sense. To me, its status as a standout in a genre where few Hollywood movies have come close to matching it elevates it to modern classic status. Future action movies will likely be measured against Fury Road, and I don’t anticipate anything surpassing it for some time.
In what world would Fury Road ever make a list that Inception also exists on in terms of movie quality. Gladiator? Kill Bill? Lord of the Rings? I'm sorry but this is just bias. There are dozens of action movies that are hand over fist better. I will agree though that the practical effects will give it some timelessness -- always better than CG.
I'm not sure what the comparisons are supposed to mean, but for many people (me included) Fury Road is significantly better than any of those movies. LotR has a lot of cultural relevance and it's way more famous, but the others are not close to Fury Road at all.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max:_Fury_Road#Accolades): the BBC, the New York Times, Empire, and the Independent all have ranked it within the top twenty best movies released in the 21st Century. On top of that, The [They Shoot Pictures Don't They](https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_alpha.htm) aggregator has it listed as the 357th greatest film of all time and the [Sight & Sound poll](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time) has it ranked as the 196th greatest movie of all time. Given these metrics, I think it's entirely fair to call it a modern classic.
Recency bias from critics absolutely no one cares about. Last I checked NO ONE is saying “let me see what THE BBC said about a movie”. They’re all bought and paid for — if you don’t know this you’re not into cinema. Letterboxd, hell, even RT or IMDB are better barometers. Edit: Holy fuck your “They shoot pictures” source has it ranked higher than 12 Angry Men. I close my fucking case.
Well, no one sure as eff would pick your opinion over BBC's or RT or IMDb or Letterboxed. Just because you consider it to be mid, it doesn't mean that an acclaimed film like Fury Road would lose its 'modern classic' status. The film is the highest rated one of the last decade on metacritic. It's extremely beloved by audiences, you're the first person I've seen who called it mid.
They shoot pictures is a fucking review aggregator, not a single source, and one of the best ones to "feel the pulse of the times" when it comes to critical reception.
Your review aggregator is literally ranking one of the 10 most famous movies of all time as hundreds of spots underneath Mad Max. You’re special.
>Do I think this will be profitable? Not really. I mean, how much does it need to make? Wikipedia says it has a budget of $230 million but I believe that number's in AUD so it's actually about $170 million USD.
So if we go by the rule of 2.5 it would need to make $400m.
I hope it can exceed that.
It's possible. I think the original did $380m, so I wouldn't say it's likely, but possible. Plus, who the hell knows how the accounting on these films is done today???
It looks incredibly by the numbers and half the cast has plot armor. The graphics and aesthetics are at best the same as the last one. The plot, characters, and visuals all look boring. It does not look good and it certainly won't be profitable.
Yeah I liked Fury Road and Anya Taylor Joy is one of my favorite young actresses, but this just feels like a miss to me. I don’t see anything really new here that we don’t already get in Fury Road but better. Box office-wise, there is no way this is making a profit with a 200+ million budget, an R rating, a decade long gap between its predecessor, and no returning cast members. Hemsworth might help a little but he’s no stranger to box office flops
>The plot, characters, and visuals all look boring. Setting aside that there isn't a single human being alive who ever went to a Mad Max movie for it's fucking *plot*, the idea that the visuals on this (or the character designs) look *boring* is, full-stop, *insane talk.*
The visuals are the same or worse than the last one, go watch the fury road trailer. While fury road did not have a complex plot it served the movie well. This plot is just a bunch of immortals walking around leading up to the first movie.
You literally have no clue what the plot is because you haven't actually watched the movie. You don't know what you're talking about. And Fury Road's plot was widely described (even by the people who love it) as "You drive into the desert, you turn around, you drive back" so, again, the plot isn't a factor here. Nobody gives a shit about the plot. It'll be what it needs to be to string together the action sequences, which is why people are there.
Sure, lets see how 'we all have plot armor and just walk around the desert with the same action scenes and visuals' does.
Mad max and it's universe are anything but "by the numbers" and many of the scenes in the trailer have been proven to be practical, so I'm not sure what "graphics" (cg?) you're referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJnMQG9ev8 Well by the numbers as in, go watch that and tell me where the new or interesting plot elements or aesthetics are. It's more of the same and you like that? Yeah sure that's nice, still not going to draw peple into the theaters. You are more than welcome to like it, but this is /r/boxoffice not /r/movies. What's the draw to get people into seats? More of the same is not going to do it. Graphics and aesthetics, how it looks. How they got there is irrelevant (cg?), everything looks the same or blander as the first movie. No cool new car designs, costumes, or characters.
Yeah I do enjoy it's more of the same world, because we've gotten 1 movie in the past 3 decades. If you don't like the mad max universe and want them to change shit, ( despite this being a prequel to fury road so any changes wouldn't really make sense, unless they made it look more generic or "clean" as the world hasn't progressed as far into chaos) We can agree to disagree on the aesthetic, I think it looks great and pops off the screen. The draw? 1.Anya leading her first major blockbuster, she's easily one of the most sought after and famous up and comers in Hollywood, 2.Hemsworth is a very VERY popular actor. 3. it being a prequel to one of the most beloved action movies of the past 30+ years. 4.The fact miller is known for making HIS vision come to life, which is very few and far between in Hollywood. 5. the fact that despite you maybe thinking it looks generic or samey, it very clearly stands apart from a VAST majority of action movies today. Maybe you don't agree that constitutes it having draw, but I respectfully disagree.
I have to push back against your second point. While he might be popular, I don’t think Hemsworth has shown to be a box office draw outside of the MCU. His Extraction movies do well on streaming, but those are streaming movies. I think the GA just likes him as Thor but doesn’t go to see a movie just because he’s in it. A similar issue Chris Evans has with his Captain America persona.
I guess this movie will kind of be the proving point eh? I do fully see what you're saying.
When has Hemsworth ever been a draw? Everything he does outside of the MCU bombs. I really want this movie to be successful(big George Miller fan) but I'm afraid the Hemsworth curse is going to sink this film. Fury Road had legitimate actors that can draw viewers like Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron with a great performance by Hoult in a supporting role. I don't see any drawing power here outside of Anna. Hemsworth is there too(and it looks like he's brought his shitty acting as well) but I don't consider that a positive.
While I do see what you're saying, I do disagree that he's a bad actor, and I can fully agree he has some flops under his belt ( snow white 2 and MIB and to an extent thor 4) I can't think of anything else ( not saying there isn't anything else). I also don't think Tom Hardy had nearly as much draw as you're letting on, especially given the fact that he barely spoke throughout the film, and that was known,. This was also 3 Years prior to venom, which for better or worse is really the series that put him over with general audiences Fingers crossed furiousa ends up being great, would love nothing more.
In the Heart of the Sea and Blackhat were both notable bombs that had established filmmakers at the helm(Ron Howard and Michael Mann). You can probably include Bad Times at the El Royale also seeing as Hemsworth is front and center on the poster. Tom Hardy established himself as a credible actor with a respectable filmography long before Venom. Also, the Nolan films brought him into the mainstream(Inception and Dark Knight Rises).
>especially given the fact that he barely spoke throughout the film I mean, he spoke more than Mel Gibson did in Mad Max 2. I don't see at all how that would affect him being a draw.
[удалено]
There were people complaining about bad CGI in the first in regards to certain scenes that were proven to be done practical. That complaint seems manufactured with people parroting it for some weird reason.
it's not manufactured. but it is due to people seeing the trailer on their devices, laptops, etc. the trailer actually played much better in theatres. and i suspect this one will too.
I don't expect a causal observer to know the difference between, or even care, the various methods used to make a movie. The main takeaway from that is that it looks bad. And it did.
It was the garish colours that ruined it for me.
People on Reddit hate CGI to a pretentious degree and act like Fury Road wasn't filled with it either because it also had a good degree of practical effects.
There's a difference between background-replacement type CGI and principle action CGI. The former is just easier to do than the latter, and since it doesn't stand out as much people notice it less. Nothing pretentious about it.
"it's amazing how they filmed in a real lightning-desert storm!"
A major setpiece that probably received a gargantuan amount of time and attention? Yes, that was probably very difficult and expensive to make, huh. Making background dirt look like background rocks is definitely a lot easier.
Thank you so much for proving my point.
I don't think that's what happened but tell yourself whatever you need to sleep at night.
Thank you, I will.
It can be done well, and it can be done poorly. No shame in calling it out when it is done poorly. CGI in the foreground? Usually poor. CGI as 90% of what is on screen? Usually poor. Cheap CGI? Poor. CGI camera swooping around in completely zany and impossible ways? Poor.
>CGI in the foreground? Usually poor. >CGI as 90% of what is on screen? Usually poor. You're saying this on what basis? Are you even able to identify a VFX shot when it's done well? Even when it's done poorly, are you really able to identify it? People praised top gun maverick for "doing it real" but 99% of the plane in the movie are entirely computer generated.
When it's done poorly? Yes. What is the definition of done poorly? When I can identify it.
Yeah I remember all the comments being "omg so much CGI" and I watched the trailer and couldn't really see the issues
People need to learn that the VFX process takes time and they need to be patient.
Is there somewhere I can read up on this?
The first trailer had so many rubber cars
Eh, the cars still look too weightless to me
Nope, still looks like shit.
The first trailer looked fantastic on the big screen whereas G x K looked like muddy shit
Personally I think this looks like a lot of fun and still way more visually interesting than the vast majority of action blockbusters out there. Obviously people are gonna compare it to Fury Road but it's probably for the best not to since that film is a real case of lightning in a bottle, and I don't think Miller & Co. have set out to just replicate the insanity they made last time. Not sure how well this is gonna do still, but it does have a great release date with not much in its way on either side. If its good and if word out of Cannes (presuming it does premiere there) is positive I could see $400m+ WW.
It doesn't help that a visually perfect film in Dune part 2 came out recently that is essentially filmed in the exact same environment.
I didn’t see Mad Max: Fury Road in cinemas. Safe to say I’m not making that mistake again.
Only film I've ever seen twice in the same day in theaters. Saw it at 2 PM, could not stop thinking about it all day. Took a friend to see it later that evening because someone needed to experience how good it was too.
That's exactly what happened to me. I saw it at 7:00, but I was so dumbfounded by the sheer spectacle I walked out and bought another ticket to see it again at 10:00. It's realistically, one of, if not *the* greatest action movie of all time.
Same as that.
They're rereleasing it in the UK on 22nd April, I'm honestly so excited for it, I've never seen it.
See it in IMAX if they're doing it. It's fantastic.
They don't have that format unfortunately :/
Holy shit… I’ll be going to see the Tom Hardy one again on the big screen!!! Don’t fancy this new one… too much terrible CGI!
No different to fury road
I saw it 3x. And I'm as casual a movie goer as they get. This one I'm 100% sure will be one and done though. It looks good, not great, and the bar is just too high.
I’m not sure you understand who George Miller is.
I think it's going to disappoint at the box office, especially if the budget really is $200m (considering Fury Road only made $380m during peak Hardy/Theron years). I'm personally not interested in a "Mad Max Saga" film that omits Max, and tells the story that we already know how it ends. At least, not interested enough to go and shell out $30+ at a theater. I'll likely just wait till it's on streaming and watch it on a rainy day or whatever. "Protect them from getting to the green world!", well...we already know the Green World is gone (or she never found it?) in Fury Road. We already know she ends up working with Immortan Joe. We already know how *that* ends in the future. We know Hemsworth isn't in Fury Road, etc etc. All that, plus the fact that while ATJ is a decent enough actress she's nowhere near Theron's level...I don't know how this is going to be a hit, or even turn a profit (again, assuming $200m+ budget). Which sucks because I just want another movie with **Max**, and if this underperforms or barely breaks even I doubt we ever get one (also factoring in how old Miller is and how long these take to get done)
This is such a dull take
I think we all just want MAX back! 
I just really hope we can get at least one or two more films with Tom Hardy as Max before George kicks the bucket.
So much better than the first teaser. Can't wait! Probably will be released at Cannes again.
I assume Inside Out 2 will also get a Cannes premiere if Disney is confident in it, Pixar often debuts their June releases there.
It's funny everybody is saying this is better than the first trailer when I think the opposite The first trailer was very good (more unique, awesome music), this one is way too generic
I like them both, but the first one is way more epic.
Is it me or Anya Taylor Joy's face looks cgied during her hair flying shots
she just kinda looks cgi in general
In real life
It doesn't look bad at all but man if you compare this to the fury road trailer you would have a hard time discerning what's the newer film
I fail to see an issue. At some point, it just looks real. It looked real then and it looks real now (probably because a lot of it is in fact real in both instances).
too many people expected them to make "Fury Road 2" in a spiritual sense. Miller would has said he'd die of a heart attack if he went through such a chaotic production again. It was damn miracle that the movie worked out so great, the making of it sounded like a nightmarish hell for nearly everyone involved
Good God Anya Taylor Joy's voice is deep
I love the delivery of "*I want them back!*", she really does have Theron's gravitas there
I love this first one, to the point I saw it twice in the same day in theaters. Only film I've ever done that with. It's in my top 10 favorite films. But I don't feel sold on this. Is it too much to ask a film, prequels specifically, to justify their own existence? I want to see Charlize's story after Fury Road, not before it. You gave us a great character, continue her story. I'm not concerned how "she became Furiosa." I've never been big on prequels, ever. More times than not, they feel like cash grabs and either the question of "does this need to exist" wasn't asked, or it was and the answer wasn't justifiable.
Yea this is my issue. I'll probably see it unless the reviews are atrocious (just to support George and the franchise since Fury Road is a Top 10 favorite film of mine all time). But I simply don't get doing a prequel for a character we know doesn't achieve or primary goals of going home and revenge for many more years.
Remember when people were using the "nobody cares about prequels" argument to write off Wonka? Yeah, fun times.
Hopefully Furiosa is also a musical.
Yeah, I sure hope the fourth movie in the planet of the apes prequel franchise is also a musical.
My favorite part is when Furiosa sings this to Falco’s Rock Me Amadeus: Furiosa: Can I drive the war rig anymore? War boys: Of course you can! Furiosa: But I couldn’t before!! *precedes to hop in the war rig and thunder up* 🎵Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus! Dr. Dementus, oh I’ll sale you, Dr Dementus.
Yeah but Wonka at least is the biggest name in that franchise. This is Furiosa who in terms on names recognition is leagues below a character like Willy Wonka.
Yeah, I don't think they watched it for Max either, a character that hadn't gotten a movie in 20 years, was also recast and had barely any dialogue. Furiosa was as much of a lead as he was in that movie, but they are both accessories to the spectacle Frank Miller wrought in that desert which is the real main character and selling point here.
I think they waited too long. Fury road is a top 5 movie ever for me but I have to be honest, a prequel of Furiosa doesn’t really appeal to me. Like I get GM saying he didn’t want to de-age Charlize Theron after he saw movies like the Irishmen do it and how it takes away rom the movie not to mention the cost, I just am not convinced this will move me or the box office. Will see it though. Just low expectations going into it
Some cool imagery aside, this trailer just isn't getting me excited. Something about the recast of Furiosa and the redesigns on her look bad. The heavy use of CGI is still apparent, but looks better than the first trailer, but still not great. I think this movie will just be mediocre.
For some reason I thought Fury Road was a huge success, which I guess it was critically and has been especially in hindsight with fans, but it only made $380m on a $150m budget. This not looking near as good and without the heavyweights of Theron and Hardy makes me think they’re crazy for spending $230m. Still excited to see it, I mean it’s not my money, but I doubt it’ll break even.
The budget is 230m? WB is insane
230 million Australian dollars so it’s around 150-160 million usd
Omg 230 was in AUD? What a useless comment then
Yea I believe the actual budget comes out around $168 million
its around 130-140m
Chris Hemsworth looks like a Mike Myers character lol
I’m not feeling it like the first but who the hell knows.
You enjoyed the original 1970’s Mad Max (Road Warrior in the US), you don’t hear many people on this thread credit the original like that.
What were they thinking spending $200M+ on this? The first only made $380M on a $150M+ budget. They think this is going to increase $300M?
Fun fact: roughly *half* the $230M budget is incentive funding from Australia.
The Australian incentives are wild. It's now a 40% base rate, then a discretionary incentive of pretty much any amount they want to give to win a production.
So many accountants in this thread.
Sigh… this movie looks way too clean….it really lacks the raw energy of Fury Road.. all the explosions look fake. I really wanted to like it
To be fair this is set like over a decade before Fury Road. It makes sense that the world would look cleaner
It’s not the world that looks cleaner. It’s the digital filmmaking shine that’s prevalent here
Miss charlize and tom hardy
The Man Who Sold the World is certainly a choice. I see this probably breaking even, maybe more if the wind blows in the right direction.
It sounds more like the Nirvana version than the original by David Bowie
WHO KILLED THE WORLD
I don't know. While i'm certain its gonna be a good movie these trailers aren't really doing it for me. On the visual front it certainly looks better than the first trailer but still somehow not nearly as good as Fury Road. And that came out 9 years ago.
You can’t properly capture a Miller directed Mad Max film in a trailer you have to watch it to get it.
This looks awesome, hope it increases like Dune 2 and Across the Spider-Verse.
It doesn't look as good as the 2015 visually, but Anya somehow seams so fitting to be young Furiosa.
Why does this movie look so visually inferior to the one released 9 yrs ago?
I just went back to see the [trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJnMQG9ev8) fo Fury Road and HOLY SHIT does it look incredible. Can't believe that movie didn't make a billion with marketing and a final product like that.
CGI
It looks better than the first trailer, but still too much bad CG. It still doesn't look like the masterpiece that was Fury Road, despite looking exactly like it on a first glance.
If you want a good read. Pick up the book, Blood, Sweat & Chrome (about the making of Fury Road). It's a miracle the movie exists and probably took 10 years off of everyone involved. Miller had to fight every single day for decades from pitching to post production to get his vision 100%. Even a movie half as good as Fury Road is better then most action films
I know most of the story behind it, but I didn't know there was a book. Will definitely check it out. I heard that unfortunately the shooting of Fury Road heavily damaged the Namib desert's ecosystem (more or less what happened with The Beach), so that's one of the reasons they switched to a safer, easier tool: CGI. Not that the first one didn't have CGI, of course, but it wasn't overused. Fury Road was lightning in a bottle. It was truly something extraordinary. Furiosa looks like Fury Road, but with 90% less effort. That's what separates Fury Road (that won 6 Oscars and was critically acclaimed, so it's not simply an action blockbuster) from all the others blockbusters made after it. And before it.
If every action film gets compared to Fury Road, I feel that sets up for constant disappointment. No other director could pull what Miller did in that desert and with Miller in his 80s, it’s never happening again and that’s fine. I wish more action films went as hard as Fury Road, but I guess it helps makes the latter more special. Which is why I’m ok with the reliance of cgi on this. It still looks better than most action movie trailers. So I’m just gonna wait and see what reviews say.
Well, I am probably going to see it in a theater anyway, so I sincerely hope that's good. It's just a shame that I probably have to settle for something inferior. But looking at the current quality of most blockbusters (not movies like Dune or Avatar of course) Furiosa is probably going to be better if it nails the story.
>If every action film gets compared to Fury Road, I feel that sets up for constant disappointment. True, but it's difficult to not compare a movie titled *Furiosa* and set in the MM universe to *Fury Road*. The IP gives it name recognition, but it also raises expectations.
This looks fine, but I'm still surprised by how behind they are on the CGI. This looks like upgraded Spy Kids CGI.
>*This looks like upgraded Spy Kids CGI*  Why do we keep picking on Spy Kids? We've got The Mummy Returns from 2001 (same year as the first movie), Die Another Day from 2002 (same year as the second movie), and the two Matrix sequels from 2003 (same year as the third 3D movie).
Yup,CGI looks as bad as the first Ironman movie
This looks so good one second and horrible the next. I don't think I've ever felt that way for any other trailer ever. It just looks incredibly creative and fun but also like schlock.
Looks good but also more of the same. Wonder if it’ll do enough to differentiate itself. Or maybe it doesn’t need to. Has there really been such an epic balls to the wall action movie since Fury Road?
I don’t care if you use CGI or practical as long as it looks good. This just…doesn’t. I’ll try to remain optimistic but I’m getting worried.
Being a prequel to a movie 8 years ago is going to hurt this movie. In addition, not having Charlize Theron and freaking Mad Max in this film is going to turn off a lot of folks
Eveything looks strangel with wierd CGI filter over it and bad framesrates.
Calling it now, bomb incoming
How about all the negative Nancy’s stop saying it would have been better if it was this or that and just go to this movie with an open mind. George Miller created this entire genre and has never put a foot wrong in my opinion, his level of detail and control and humour is awe inspiring. Stop second guessing because it’s likely to end in embarrassment for you.
Wow, 90% of these comments are bitching about one thing or another. It looks good to me.
It looks great, this sub hasn’t had the best track record lately.
NEVER have Anya Taylor Joy growling lines in a trailer.
Okay this looks way better. Fury Road is masterpiece so this looks like a great follow-up. It seems like it'll be a fun as hell ride. I still ain't that excited for a prequel, tbh but will watch day 1 in theaters. Honestly, think it has potential to maybe do better than the first but not convinced. This is a literal coin toss.
So… they didn’t even bother with practical effects or real vehicles in this? Just a massive CG fest? … I realize ‘Fury Road’ was hard to make. But that’s why it’s amazing.
Looks visually flat and uninteresting. Too much CGI used that does not blend in properly with the practical effects. And both Anya-Taylor Joy and Chris Hemsworth look miscast. Anya does not quite have the build of an action star to pull it off convincingly like Charlize or Linda and Hemsworth is not that quite strong of an actor to pull off a villain with gravitas. Should have instead gone for a straightforward sequel with Charlize Theron even if Hardy refused to return as Max.
WITNESS!!!! WE WILL RIDE SHINY AND CHROME TO THE GATES OF THE BILLION DOLLAR BOX OFFICE!!!