Comment on Furiosa's Box Office Opening Explained: What The Hell Happened With The Mad Max Prequel?!

jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• rezz@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Honestly I am baffled by your meh opinion. Fury Road is hands down a top 10, top 5 action film of all time. I’d say the main rivals are The Matrix, Mission Impossible Fallout, Die Hard, Fifth Element, etc.

  It is really even top 3 for narrative action, meaning how the action forwards the characters so consistently, which is notable here given the lack of dialogue.

  source

  • hakase@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I also think Fury Road was mid at best for an action movie. All of the people putting it on “best of all time” lists makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills (I also think the Fifth Element was legitimately terrible btw).

    source

    • rezz@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yes, objective relative to the rules or conventions of visual storytelling in an anatomic sense. This means the literal structure of the action and its values relative to characters.

      Each shot (that is not in a moment of montage) has a quantifiable beginning-middle-end that is motivated by the character’s actions on the screen, and again nested inside of the sequence or scene. The reason most people experience the pace of Mad Max as unrelentingly brisk is because due to the lack of wasted frames on characters. It is hyper efficient. There isn’t a single shot-reverse shot dialogue in the whole film. There isn’t unmotivated action. There is not an unnecessary or missing character on screen. And the framing from edit to edit does not yank your eye somewhere it’s not meant to be.

      Compare this to another all-time action film, Bourne Ultimatum—which has an insane volume of superfluous or narratively unmotivated camera coverage in its action. Literally the action 50% of the time, while utterly spectacular, does not advance the characters at all, and certainly does not have an opinion of its action to infer from the camera choices.

      You’re also completely entitled to not care and think it’s boring! But there are definitely objective storytelling mechanics that are binary insofar as they are present or not on a scene to scene, shot to shot basis.

      source

      • hakase@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        that is motivated by the character’s actions on the screen

        This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can we objectively know when a character’s actions are or aren’t sufficiently “motivated”? And even if the beginning-middle-end is somehow determine this, how can you prove that a lack of this beginning-middle-end is objectively bad?

        the lack of wasted frames on characters

        This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “wasted” be objectively defined here? How do we know that “wasted” is objectively bad?

        There isn’t unmotivated action.

        This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “unmotivated” be objectively defined here? How do we know that “unmotivated” action is objectively bad?

        There is not an unnecessary or missing character on screen.

        This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “unnecessary” be objectively defined here? Also, how do we know that “unnecessary” characters are objectively bad?

        And the framing from edit to edit does not yank your eye somewhere it’s not meant to be.

        By your subjective judgment, unless you can somehow show otherwise. Also, how do we know that the camera yanking your eye somewhere its not meant to be is objectively bad?

        Bourne Ultimatum […] has an insane volume of superfluous or narratively unmotivated camera coverage in its action

        This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “superfluous” and “narratively unmotivated” be objectively defined here? And even if they could, how can you show that this is objectively bad?

        there are definitely objective storytelling mechanics that are binary insofar as they are present or not on a scene to scene, shot to shot basis.

        Great! Back to my original question then, since nothing you’ve said here has been relevant to it: what are they, and by what metrics are they precisely defined and quantified? And more importantly, how does that objectively prove that Fury Road is a top 10 action movie?

        In short, at this point it’s clear that you have no idea what objective means, so I think we’re done here.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I could stand watching it again, I caught it in the theater, then bought it on Blu Ray, but I haven’t felt a need to re-watch it since then.

    I would definitely put the Matrix, Die Hard, Fifth Element, John Wick head and shoulders above it. Two of my other favorites too… Silverado and the Untouchables.

    Like I say, it’s not bad, I just didn’t think it was as great as everyone says it is. It was fine. It had a high bar being a new entry into the Max Max series after 30 years, but it didn’t fall all over itself or anything.

    source
  • Akasazh@feddit.nl ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Hey man, is ok if someone doesn’t dig what you love, is a matter of taste and everybody is different.

    There’s no objectivity in taste.

    source