Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Quentin Tarantino Wisely Names 'Mad Max: Fury Road' the Best Movie of 2015
Trace William Cowen
BY TRACE WILLIAM COWEN
@TraceCowen
2 HOURS AGO
SHARE

TWEET
10 0

Image via Gage Skidmore
2015 has proven a particularly storied year for Quentin Tarantino, with The Hateful Eight's long road to existence finally coming to a predictably controversy-laced end just as digital natives the world over scrambled to compile their divisive year-end lists. The Hateful Eight, though certainly not Tarantino's strongest offering, still managed to fight its way onto many of these lists (including our own). But what about Tarantino's choice for the best movie of the year?

"I got a print of [Mad Max: Fury Road] on 35mm and I watched it in my house," Tarantino said when pressed by Premiere for his pick on the Hateful Eight red carpet, IndieWire reports. "And I had it all weekend, and I ended up watching it three different times."


Admitting he hadn't seen as many movies this year due to being slammed with Hateful Eight-related duties, Tarantino also explained his initial hesitance to see Fury Road at all. "I resisted seeing it, for a while, because I was like 'Mad Max? Without Mel Gibson? Forget that.' In a world where Mel Gibson exists, how can you cast Tom Hardy? Then I saw the movie. 'Okay, it’s terrific.' And he’s pretty good in it, I have to admit."

That's a really great choice, Quentin. Also, for what it's worth, Tom Hardy writes really great letters.
Tags: News, Quentin Tarantino, Best Movies, Mad Max: Fury Road
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
RELATED ARTICLES

The Best Movies of 2015
Quentin Tarantino Reveals Why That 'Luke Cage' Movie Never Happened
Ranking Quentin Tarantino's Films Based Only on First Trailers
default
icon

 

[Josh Steinberg]

"I got a print of [Mad Max: Fury Road] on 35mm and I watched it in my house," Tarantino said

So Tarantino is an OAR purist except when the OAR is 3D? That's a little disappointing. But I'm glad he enjoyed the movie.

 

[Tino]

So Tarantino is an OAR purist except when the OAR is 3D? That's a little disappointing. But I'm glad he enjoyed the movie.

Huh? What am I missing?

 

[Race Bannon]

Your post sums up how I feel about the movie in general.

 

[Tino]

Oh you mean he should have watched it in 3D? Got it. I wish they would re release this in IMAX 3D as I wouldn't mind seeing it again on s huge screen. Maybe after the Oscar nominations come out and it leads with about 12 noms. All deserved imo. [emoji12]

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Huh? What am I missing?

Tarantino said he viewed the movie in 35mm, which would have been in 2D. This was a movie that was conceived of being released in 3D from Day One, and even though they ultimately decided to go with post-conversion to achieve that aim, in my book the 3D version is the one that counts as "the original version". Watching a 3D movie in 2D to me is like watching a widescreen movie in pan and scan - you're still getting the story and a general sense of the action and shots, but you're not fully seeing what the filmmakers intended. Perhaps saying it's not OAR isn't completely accurate because 3D technically isn't an "aspect ratio" - and I realize my stance on this may be more hardline than most people - but I think if you're someone who makes a point of seeing films as the filmmakers intended, that consideration shouldn't vanish when it comes to 3D releases.


We've both seen plenty of examples of people (in general, not meaning to single out any members here) who say they only want to see movies in the aspect ratio and sound format that the filmmakers intended (whether that's 1.33:1 and in mono or 2.35:1 and in 7.1 or Atmos), but then couldn't care less when it comes to seeing 3D movies in 3D.


I'd probably see it again in IMAX 3D - I saw it in IMAX on its opening week and liked the idea of the movie more than the actual movie, but I've been wanting to revisit it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I disagree, Josh. It was released both ways, and was shot in 2D, so an argument can be made for either version being the "original". In these situations, I will always advocate for BOTH versions to be made available on home video, but I don't think its fair to compare the 2D/3D divide to the MAR/OAR divide. There are a number of factors that prevent widespread home viewing of 3D versions of movies that simply do not exist for widescreen versus full screen, where letterboxing or pillarboxing can be used to achieve the proper aspect ratio regardless of the shape of one's display. There is also a significant minority of the population that cannot experience stereoscopic presentations for a number of factors, either because their brains don't process information in that way, or because their eyes are too close together or too far apart for the effect to mirror their experience of the world, or any number of other factors. By contrast, the population whose visual perception is too compromised to experience OAR is much smaller.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I disagree, Josh. It was released both ways, and was shot in 2D, so an argument can be made for either version being the "original". In these situations, I will always advocate for BOTH versions to be made available on home video, but I don't think its fair to compare the 2D/3D divide to the MAR/OAR divide.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point, but I respect your viewpoint. Maybe OAR isn't the right term, it's just kind of the only catchall I had to throw it into. At first I was going to compare 3D vs 2D versions to watching a movie in surround sound vs. mixed down in stereo, but I think that's not quite accurate either. For instance, I don't have Dolby Atmos at home, but some of my discs feature at Atmos track. But I'm not missing any actual content listening to that in 5.1, because all of the other channels are folded down into the speakers that I do have. But when you watch a 2D version of a 3D movie, you actually are missing visual information. I strongly feel that when you're watching a 2D version of a 3D movie, you're missing content.


I am absolutely in favor of 2D versions being made available. I don't have any problems viewing 3D, but I know people that do and I try to be sensitive to that. I also think the popularity of 3D conversions vs. shooting native 3D complicates the question, but I think there are certain cases where an argument can be made that regardless of the shooting technique, the intended result was always to be 3D. I'd put Gravity on that list and The Walk. (I feel pretty comfortable saying that if you didn't see Gravity or The Walk in 3D, you didn't see those movies.) I'd probably put Fury Road on there too, since every article with the filmmakers that I've read has mentioned how it was always intended to be a 3D release. I think it would be easier to make blanket statements like mine if the studios didn't reflexively convert certain titles to 3D but only did it when it was part of the filmmakers plan in the first place.


Then again, I think 3D should be something that's included with one's purchase price. We don't charge people extra to see a movie in scope widescreen instead of flat, surround sound instead of stereo, color instead of black & white. Why should 3D magically cost extra? Take away the extra surcharge, make it just a part of the presentation, and then it becomes about the artistry.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I definitely think you have a legitimate perspective (and you're always respectful about presenting your opinion).


I'm most inclined to the position that 3D is part of the artistic intent of the film in situations like Avatar, Hugo or Gravity where it was filmed in 3D and 3D was part of the intention from the get-go. For those releases, I usually try to get the 3D Blu-Ray release, even though I have no plans to upgrade my setup to 3D anytime in the near future, and I make more of an effort to see them in 3D in the theaters. Movies like Mad Max: Fury Road that were planned for 3D but didn't shoot in 3D are a middle ground; I can see the argument that the post-converted 3D is essential to the artistic intent, but I don't really subscribe to it. For these, I'll avoid the 3D upcharge in theaters and I'll only get the 3D Blu-Ray if there isn't a price premium associated with it. For movies like Mockingjay: Part 2, where the 3D post-conversion was pretty much imposed by the studio as a means to drive up the box office revenue (especially for international markets), I would argue that the post-converted 3D actively works against the artistic intent of the filmmakers. Much like the 16x9 HD version of "The Wire", a lot of care is taken to make the least compromised 3D version of an inherently 2D presentation.


I can certainly understand your frustration with the 3D upcharge, in both theaters and on Blu-Ray. For the post-converted films, I would still likely seek out 2D showings because I find the layered cardboard cutout look detracts from my engagement with the film rather than enhances it. On Blu-Ray, I've been frustrated by the recent trend to only include the digital copy with the 3D release of the film. I'll bring my Roku on the road with me when I'm traveling, so the digital copies represent value added to me. Sometimes I resent having to buy a 3D version of the film that I don't want in order to get the Ultraviolet copy that otherwise would have been included at no extra cost with the 2D Blu-Ray of the film. At the same time, I think the 3D upcharge for Blu-Ray is more justified than the 3D upcharge in theaters. On Blu-Ray, 3D requires an additional disc. In theaters, it's literally the same equipment and the glasses get recycled after each screening.


This is an area that's only going to get more complicated as time goes on.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Adam, thanks for the compliment and kind words - I always enjoy reading your posts. (The recent writing on Star Wars was masterful and your Doctor Who recaps are must reads for me.)

To offer a gentle correction: Gravity was shot in 2D, as was The Walk - and I think it's right to consider those on par with native titles like Avatar and Hugo.

And I agree that stuff like the Mockingjay conversion is bad all around. It's bad for filmmakers who lose control of their projects, it's bad for franchise fans that get ripped off by substandard work, and ultimately it's bad for the format. (How much damage was done to 3D by Clash Of The Titans and Alice In Wonderland coming out in crappy quality 3D almost immediately after Avatar?)

I agree that the Blu-ray up charge makes a little more sense than the theatrical one. Sometimes the 2D version is just the left or right eye and can be on the same disc as the 3D version. Sometimes the 2D version is a mix of the eyes and genuinely needs a second disc. I think Marvel's 3D pricing of late has been fantastic - on release date, the 2D versions have been about $18 and the 3D have been $20. That's reasonable to me.

And on the topic of digital copies - I'm also frustrated that you don't get a 3D digital copy when you buy a 3D disc. The UV storefronts I go to do offer the 3D version for sale, so it would be technically possible for them to offer it with the code, but they choose not to. It's not the end of the world, but it would be so easy for them to do that it's ridiculous that they don't. A lot of my relatives have Rokus or similar devices, so it's great to have my collection available digitally - going home for the holidays used to entail packing a backpack of movies, and now I don't have to do that anymore.

And don't get me started on the way theaters rip you off with RealD. (Too late!) RealD sells the glasses to the theater for about $1 a pair. The theater then charges you a $4-6 fee for them. Unlike IMAX or Dolby glasses, the RealD glasses are meant to be purchases, not rentals, but the theaters encourage you to recycle them, almost giving an impression that they're not yours. When you recycle them, the theater then sells them back to RealD, so they've profited twice off your single purchase. That's outrageous to me.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Thanks, Josh.


The fact that Gravity was shot in 2D is stunning to me. I don't think I'd ever even considered it before reading your post. But given how little of the frame was actually live action most of the time -- sometimes only Sandra Bullock's head inside her helmet -- it makes sense that they were able to achieve such an immersive result as a post-conversion. It was definitely an experience in the theater that was greatly enhanced by the depth. Unless something very unexpected happens, it's probably the closest I'll ever get to experiencing what it's like to float in the weightlessness of space above earth's atmosphere.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks, Josh.


The fact that Gravity was shot in 2D is stunning to me. I don't think I'd ever even considered it before reading your post.

That's how I felt after seeing "The Walk" too - I thought it was the most incredible 3D thing I had ever seen, and was utterly shocked to read the next week that it had been shot in 2D. You would absolutely never know watching it. It does for heights what "Gravity" does for weightlessness and space.


I loved the experience of feeling like you were in space with "Gravity" and I will gladly see any movie on the big screen that conveys that kind of experience! If one of the giant theme parks wanted to make "Gravity: The Ride" I'd be so in!


I don't know that Fury Road had that level of presentation, so I think I'm softening on my 2D vs 3D position for this title. It was definitely an immersive 3D experience, but I don't know that I got the level of "you are there" that I did with the other two movies mentioned here.

 

[Tino]

‘Mad Max’ should win Best Picture

http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/mad-max-should-win-best-picture/

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

‘Mad Max’ should win Best Pictur

http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/mad-max-should-win-best-picture/

I don't know if it was the best picture of last year, haven't seen every movie, but it was my favourite. I hope it does, at least, win awards in the technical categories.

 

[Tino]

I don't know if it was the best picture of last year, haven't seen every movie, but it was my favourite. I hope it does, at least, win awards in the technical categories.

I agree Oliver

It will be the most nominated film when the Oscar nominations are announced on Thursday and will win the most Oscars this year. Mostly technical but I hope more. [emoji106]

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I agree Oliver

It will be the most nominated film when the Oscar nominations are announced on Thursday and will win the most Oscars this year. Mostly technical but I hope more. [emoji106]

Oscar noms come out THIS Thursday? I didn't realize that!

 

[Tino]

Yup

http://oscar.go.com/news/oscar-news/oscars-2016-nominee-contenders-and-categories

 

[Joe Wong]

‘Mad Max’ should win Best Picture

http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/mad-max-should-win-best-picture/

While it may not have been the best film I saw last year, nor even the best Mad Max (pretty close though!), I would love to see it win just for the sheer artistry, the insane creativity, and most of all what feels like a throw-all-caution-to-the-wind attitude that George Miller and crew brought to the film. Imagine all the risks faced - physical, financial and reputational - and yet it succeeds with a delirious glee and perfectly embodies the aural, visual and (totally engrossing) entertainment elements that only a film can provide.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

While it may not have been the best film I saw last year, nor even the best Mad Max (pretty close though!), I would love to see it win just for the sheer artistry, the insane creativity, and most of all what feels like a throw-all-caution-to-the-wind attitude that George Miller and crew brought to the film. Imagine all the risks faced - physical, financial and reputational - and yet it succeeds with a delirious glee and perfectly embodies the aural, visual and (totally engrossing) entertainment elements that only a film can provide.

Given how much I bitch about the Academy's "safe" choices, I have to admit I'd be disappointed if they finally give BP to an action movie and this is the one that wins it.


I know a lot of people love "MM:FR", but I just don't get it, and to see it win BP would just make me more bothered that vastly superior action flicks from the past didn't win!

 

[Kevin Lamb]

I *adored* Fury Road in theaters, saw it twice at 22 bucks a pop for 3D D-box. But watching it again at home after being swept away by the emotion and excitement of The Force Awakens and also after recently revisiting Ex Machina (which holds me in awe on an artistic and intellectual level) I found that Fury Road felt...shallow. It is still gorgeous in its production design, cinematography, and 3D presentation but I actually turned it off after 40 minutes because I just wasn't being pulled in on any kind of emotional level. It felt so "one note" to me.


I felt like I was staring at a masterwork of visual splendor that might as well have been a world class painting in some art gallery. You can enjoy the talent and craftsmanship, but are you really gonna stare at a single painting for two hours straight? I don't know. Maybe it's just a movie I'll need to be "in the mood" for and when that time comes I'll be gloriously captivated by it from beginning to end again. But as of now I'm wondering just how often I'll ever need to revisit it.