No part two! It made very little money.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7kaSt9MZX3/?igsh=MXFsd2dibWlrOGJyaw==
shareHad they actually said that a part two would be coming?
share
MovieChat Forums > Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024) Discussion > No part two! It made very little money.
No Mad Max 5 now then
A costly lesson learned for George Miller/studio, at least give audience what they want/expect (mad max)
Hollywood has apparently learned their "Mad Max movies don't need Mad Max anymore" talking point was wrong. What's next, a James Bond movie with no James Bond in it?
Even Solo: A SW Story struggled and that was han frickin solo (played by a younger actor like Furiosa), let alone a relatively recent character the general audiences weren't too familiar with. (although Furiosa would be more than chuffed with a 400m ww gross! but for a SW movie that spelled the end of the standalone 'SW Story' spin off movies which had started strong with 1b Rogue One, and Obi Wan, Boba Fett got turned into stream series)
shareGood we dont need any more actions movies lead by women. Let this be the end of it.
sharemaybe a tv show?
shareAs a life-long massive Max fan... you know what?
Good.
Furious Furiosa: Fury Road was already plenty of proof that Miller doesn't get what made his own damn films good in the first place anymore, if he ever actually did to begin with. If all we could expect out of him is this kind of CGI-ridden, greenscreen-filled, agenda-driven and unapologetically stupid unintentional parody of what Mad Max actually was – tightly scripted, low-budgeted, gritty, raw and visceral Australian films – then by all means, let's absolutely have no more of it.
I only wish the same would apply to every other film series from the 80s and 90s that Hollywood seems intent to run into the ground, but well... one step at a time, I guess.
Great post
sharePlease, Fury Road is much better than the mel gibson films. Miller himself said he didn't have the technology in the 80s to truly put his visión on screen, a thing he finally got to do with FR.
shareYou know, a wise long-bearded wizard from the ancient and distant land of Northampton, England, once said:
I think it's a pretty straight equation—that there is an inverse relationship between money and imagination. If you haven't got any money, you're going to need lots and lots of imagination. Which is why you'll get brilliant movies by people working upon a shoestring, like the early John Waters movies. People are pushed into innovation by the restrictions of their budget. The opposite is true if they have $100 million, say, pulling a figure out of the air, to spend upon their film, then they somehow don't see the need for giving it a decent story or decent storytelling. It seems like those values just go completely out the window. There's an inverse relationship there.
When I first heard this I figured it was just him being his usual "old man yells at cloud" self, but the more I've thought about it and the more I've watched a wider sampling of films, the more I've come to realize he was 100% correct. Case in point, the Mad Max films, where the writing became increasingly garbage as the budgets rose, and they went from gritty and raw action thrillers to pure hollow bombast and CGI spectacle with barely a hint of any actual story to speak of. share
FR was mostly real, with only 2000 CGI shots, so you are wrong. The original trilogy was the aesthetic and narrative basis, but the masterpiece is FR.
shareAmen. Imagine if they made a gritty, no CG, minimal dialogue, sequel in the tradition of Mad Max, and Road Warrior. Mel Gibson making his return in a well written, believable version of what Max would evolve into as a man in his 60s.
It would be badass and it would have no problem doing well in the theatre.
“ Hey, fella! You're a turkey!”
LOL!
sharefury road is part 2. no part 3?
share