Fury Road picked as "...best film of the year...".

[Simon_Jester]

The question is, are faults in the film's logic sufficient to undermine or invalidate any depth there may be in the art?

It's like, saying "why didn't the eagles just fly Frodo to Mordor and have him drop the ring into the Cracks of Doom from there" does not automatically invalidate the claim that Lord of the Rings is a great work of literature.

[I am not placing Fury Road on a co-equal footing with Lord of the Rings here; I'm simply observing that what appears to be a fault in the logic of the events in a story does not in and of itself make the story bad]

[Thanas]

The question is, are faults in the film's logic sufficient to undermine or invalidate any depth there may be in the art?

Well, art and what is deep or not is always in the eye of the beholder. So what depth did you see there?

[Dread Not]

Most logical holes I've heard poked in the film have consisted of "Why such extravagant vehicles in a wasteland of sparse resources?" and "That's such an inefficient way of distributing water." Let's just ignore that as soon as the water is shut off the yokels start clawing at each other to scoop up what they can before it dries up, and let's not consider that might be the point. If you're pondering things like "How likely is it that a warrior woman could cobble together a prosthetic arm out of spare parts that functions at least as well as any modern prosthetic?" I hear that, but it strikes me as being nitpicky as fuck.

I'm not trying to sound hostile here, but what does Fury Road have that makes it so much sillier than the time paradox shenanigans of T2, or the "Let's not leave a single marine on the Sulaco, just in case," foolishness in Aliens? Both are still beloved action classics that handle their story and characters with a lot of intelligence.

Well, art and what is deep or not is always in the eye of the beholder. So what depth did you see there?

You have the obvious stuff like the wives being sexually objectified as breeders for Joe's heirs, juxtaposed with Max being objectified as a hood ornament, stripped of his humanity and dignity and valued only for his blood. For the lot of them it's ultimately a fight for freedom and personhood.

There's a fairly prominent running theme of the rewards of motivating through compassion, rather than manipulation, coercion and threats. This is probably most evident in
Spoiler

Capable's discovery of Nux aboard the war rig. It would be perfectly reasonable to expect her to react with anger, alert the others and have him killed/thrown off the rig for attempting to kill her friends and abduct her and the other wives. Instead she recognizes his suffering and shows him sympathy and kindness. This ultimately saves the group, since while it may have otherwise occurred to them to use the winch to pull them free of the mud, it's the extra chain on Nux's wrist that makes it work.

You also have the scene where Furiosa tells Max that only she can operate the war rig, and that they all go together or none of them do. Max decides he'll take his chances with Joe, and Furiosa tries to persuade him with implicit threats of "Joe will kill you, he's a madman, you damaged his wife etc." It's a selfless offer to help him remove his muzzle that gets through to him, and Max later in turn helps them fight their way back to the Citadel despite preferring to be alone and there being nothing in it for him.

Then you have the line about how the Angharad would call bullets anti-seeds: "Plant one and watch something die." Later they meet the Vuvalini and the Keeper of the Seeds, who tries to grow what fauna she can with little success. Then in the climactic battle she at one point she mashes a handful of bullets into a baddie's face, a peculiar tactic to say the least, unless it was a deliberate choice on George Miller's part. This all seems to hint that the Vuvalini's nurturing spirit and peaceful existence of horticulture has been twisted and wiped away after decades of killing and looting passersby. The Dag makes sure to take the seeds with her when they abandon the war rig. The hope of a better world falls to those like her Max similarly seems to realize that his past has damaged him beyond repair and he is not suited to rejoining society, and silently leaves the Citadel at the end. Despite the carnage on display, I would say there is an ironic undercurrent of anti-violence, or at least anti-senseless-violence, throughout the film. Despite the savagery the warboys display, I felt more pity than contempt for them. They live a hard, brief existence, and there's a certain tragedy in how they happily harm others and throw their lives away based on the lies of a tyrant. They feel well humanized by their camaraderie when "witnessing" each other's victories, and Nicholas Hoult seems to have been cast for his youthfully innocent appearance. I'd say Miller managed to strike a delicate balance in delivering action that is simultaneously exhilarating and lamentable.

Anyway, I'm clearly starting to ramble. Sorry Fury Road didn't do a lot for you.

And since I forgot to add it before:

I recall someone mentioning that she was infertile, thus coudn't be one of Joe's wives, and that she was brutal enough to fight her way to the top, (a point which brought about her realization that she had to make amends for her past).

I don't recall any mention of infertility. Personally my thought is her arm is a birth defect and Joe wants to conceive heirs with the healthiest women possible.

[Thanas]

Oh those art themes were readily apparent, but I wouldn't exactly call them deep. Rather, the viewer recognizes them at first glance. Deep is something different to me, something that is not readily apparent but visible upon reflection.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't feel qualified to point to deep themes in the movie- only got to see a few parts of it due to circumstances beyond my control.

It occurs to me that, in the general case, if a movie does have deep themes that emerge only on reflection, one would have to consciously know and think about the fact that those themes exist. Otherwise, one would not find them, because one would not take the time to look for them.

I wonder if there are any directors out there frustrated that their work gets dismissed as 'popcorn' flicks when they actually put a lot of thought into symbolism and whatnot.

[gigabytelord]

I don't feel qualified to point to deep themes in the movie- only got to see a few parts of it due to circumstances beyond my control.

It occurs to me that, in the general case, if a movie does have deep themes that emerge only on reflection, one would have to consciously know and think about the fact that those themes exist. Otherwise, one would not find them, because one would not take the time to look for them.

I wonder if there are any directors out there frustrated that their work gets dismissed as 'popcorn' flicks when they actually put a lot of thought into symbolism and whatnot.

Oh yes. Pacific Rim comes to mind.

I am, for some unknown reason, always surprised that movies which rely more heavily on visual metaphors and scene framing to tell a much deeper story than any dialog ever could, always, and I mean always seem to fly right over the head of modern movie going audiences. Westerners in general and my fellow Americans in particular seem to be hardwired to think a movie is shit if it doesn't have detailed and complex dialog. In other words they want the movie's point to be explained to them without much thought effort on their part and if it doesn't meet this requirement then the film is a "Stupid but enjoyable popcorn flick" or worse just plan boring "All it was was just one long car chase!". Don't get me wrong here, please, I love a good conversation filled movie. Inglorious Basterds sticks in my mind as one of the more recent examples of this type. Nor am I saying there aren't any dumb popcorn flicks but I'm agreeing with Dread Not here, this isn't one of them.

God I hope I'm not becoming a movie snob

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I enjoyed it. I thought the action was fairly well done. Plot wise... well, it's not the most high-art cinema out there, but it takes a very simple set of ideas: Max is taken prisoner. Furiosa steals Immortan Joe's wives and runs off. Max ends up helping them. It's a bunch of chicks, a guy, and a big-ass truck in the middle of nowhere, with a horde of raging maniacs after them. That's about it, and they don't pretend that it's much of anything else. It's a very honest movie, for lack of a better term.

There are a lot of themes and subtext that really aren't'the very subtle. There's definitely more to the movie than you are describing.

But it is a vary love it or hate it movie. I personally thought it was a game changer in how much the film conveyed without direct dialogue or obvious cocking of Chekov's Gun. For that alone, it deserves recognition.

Well, yeah, it's deeper than I painted it, but overall, it's not a particularly pretentious movie. It's not all 'Ooh, we're talking about CHILDHOOD, about MATURITY, about PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, if you can't see this you are obviously an illiterate savage. Go pick fleas'. It's not Tarantino, where every goddamn line or scene is a reference to something or struggling with complicated personal or social shit like Linklater. No. It's straightforward.

The deeper elements are in the background, there to be seen if you search them out, but on the surface, the plot is simple and direct. The least... what's the right word... solid elements of the story are the occasional visions Max gets, but they do play a part in establishing his mindset and giving him his motivation. The film works on several levels-- first there's the basic plot (big-ass car chase/survival/action), then there's individual stories with the various characters (Max, Furiosa, Nux, Joe, etc), and underneath that there's a larger social and ecological commentary.

I agree with you and think that might be Fury Road's greatest strength. I saw Ex Machina the same weekend, and in comparison the dialog felt heavy and pretentious, the characters overloaded, and the plot complex enough to defeat itself, yet both films had about as much to say over all. I certainly enjoyed Fury Road more.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I saw Fury Road. It is a decent popcorn flick that works if you shut off your brain and don't think critically. I wouldn't watch it again, too little meat on the plot bone to keep me interested. It has great costumes and visuals but I didn't appreciate a lot of the acting besides the two leads. Not a great movie, it is what it is - a well executed action peace worth my money and entertaining.

I'd rate it in the C-category of movies (A being perfect, B being good but not great, C entertaining, D for Fans only and E for boring failure).

Did you go in with those expectations? I find it difficult to believe that you missed so much of what the film was about.

Most of the people I know who didn't like Fury Road are the types who do not pick up on certain kinds of storytelling without dialog or formulaic plot structure to spell it out. My wife was lost because she wasn't engaging with what the film wouldn't say (but would imply or hint at).

[Thanas]

I saw Fury Road. It is a decent popcorn flick that works if you shut off your brain and don't think critically. I wouldn't watch it again, too little meat on the plot bone to keep me interested. It has great costumes and visuals but I didn't appreciate a lot of the acting besides the two leads. Not a great movie, it is what it is - a well executed action peace worth my money and entertaining.

I'd rate it in the C-category of movies (A being perfect, B being good but not great, C entertaining, D for Fans only and E for boring failure).

Did you go in with those expectations? I find it difficult to believe that you missed so much of what the film was about.

No, I got in expecting to find a movie that is consistent in its logic and has good acting. I found little of the first and some of the latter.

[Alkaloid]

What did you see that was logically inconsistent?

[The Romulan Republic]

There's the oceans drying up thing. I made a thread on it a while ago, and from the responses I got, it seems to be that the world depicted in Mad Max is scientifically impossible, unless Max is just incorrect about the oceans being gone.

I also must point out that Max and Furiosa surviving some of the things they do seems unrealistic, though that's a common action movie issue.

I don't know if that's what Thanas is referring to, though.

[loomer]

One thing to remember on the whole 'oceans drying up thing' is that it would be very easy to get turned around and confused about that. Here in Australia we're already having immense issues with salinity, so the development of great salt flats as part of the environmental disasters that unfolded alongside the economic and nuclear exchanges is not that unreasonable. Easy enough to see that and assume it has to be the remains of the oceans - but it doesn't necessarily follow. It's something that I think reads very differently to non-Australians simply because you guys don't have the cultural exposure - extreme salination actually features in quite a lot of our homegrown post-apocalyptic media or apocalyptic media; e.g. the novel Salt.

[The Romulan Republic]

You could also see a thematic/philosophical inconsistency in the suicidal warriors under Immortan Joe being portrayed as fanatical cultists while Nux's final sacrifice is portrayed as noble. But their is a difference in motivation- the former is done for a misguided notion of glory in the service of a tyrant, while the latter is done, at least in part, to save his friends (though their's still an element of suicidal glory-seeking).

[Darmalus]

You could also see a thematic/philosophical inconsistency in the suicidal warriors under Immortan Joe being portrayed as fanatical cultists while Nux's final sacrifice is portrayed as noble. But their is a difference in motivation- the former is done for a misguided notion of glory in the service of a tyrant, while the latter is done, at least in part, to save his friends (though their's still an element of suicidal glory-seeking).

I would consider it poor writing if a character spun on a dime and changed their entire philosophical outlook in a few days without severe brain damage. Changing who you wish to die for the glory of is a fairly small and believable change.

[Terralthra]

I agree with you and think that might be Fury Road's greatest strength. I saw Ex Machina the same weekend, and in comparison the dialog felt heavy and pretentious, the characters overloaded, and the plot complex enough to defeat itself, yet both films had about as much to say over all. I certainly enjoyed Fury Road more.

Conversely, there are series like Neon Genesis Evangelion, where people go deep into trying to analyze the symbolism of all the Christian symbols and motifs, while the series creator has said in as many words they just added crosses and shit to make it seem deep, and there's no real underlying meaning to them.

[Thanas]

What did you see that was logically inconsistent?

A few examples:
- War boys have the muscles and body types of young male models, yet their diet is poor, which is pretty much inconsistent from what we know of any barbarian horde from history. People who are malnourished do not develop such body types, neither do their throw-away warriors. Likewise, the super models playing his wives are just lol, especially with the makeup.
- Where does Joe get the energy from?
- Humans are not cows, so the whole mothers milk production makes no sense.
- Clothes are apparently a rarity---except for those well-fiting jeans the warboys are wearing.
- In the same vein, the cloths worn by the secondary villains also seem to be of higher quality than one would expect.

Those are just a few of my misgivings over the first few minutes of the movie. I could go on, but you get the point I think.

[Elheru Aran]

I agree with you and think that might be Fury Road's greatest strength. I saw Ex Machina the same weekend, and in comparison the dialog felt heavy and pretentious, the characters overloaded, and the plot complex enough to defeat itself, yet both films had about as much to say over all. I certainly enjoyed Fury Road more.

Conversely, there are series like Neon Genesis Evangelion, where people go deep into trying to analyze the symbolism of all the Christian symbols and motifs, while the series creator has said in as many words they just added crosses and shit to make it seem deep, and there's no real underlying meaning to them.

Anime can be wacky like that, but Evangelion is perhaps a bad example because the deeper meanings and faux symbolism are straight-up deliberate; in their own way it's almost a mockery of Western cinema that the series doesn't actually have deep symbolic issues other than a boy trying to grow in maturity and reconcile with his estranged father.

[Alkaloid]

A few examples:
- War boys have the muscles and body types of young male models, yet their diet is poor, which is pretty much inconsistent from what we know of any barbarian horde from history. People who are malnourished do not develop such body types, neither do their throw-away warriors. Likewise, the super models playing his wives are just lol, especially with the makeup.
- Where does Joe get the energy from?
- Humans are not cows, so the whole mothers milk production makes no sense.
- Clothes are apparently a rarity---except for those well-fiting jeans the warboys are wearing.
- In the same vein, the cloths worn by the secondary villains also seem to be of higher quality than one would expect.

Those are just a few of my misgivings over the first few minutes of the movie. I could go on, but you get the point I think.

Fair enough. I'd call most of those issue you had with the setting rather than logical inconsistencies though. I'd also say a few of them are assumptions unsupported by the movie, a lot like the evaporating seas thing above. I don't believe it mentions anywhere that the war boys are poorly fed, and I'd imagine they wouldn't be given they are clearly a distinct upper class of people raised to be War Boys from early childhood and the Citadel appears to trade food and water to Gas Town and the Bullet Farm for petrol and ammunition.

[Elheru Aran]

Case in point; jeans are fairly durable garments and it's not improbable that a stock of them would have lasted a long time. The Bulleteer's clothes were *entirely* bandoliers of bullets, so I'm not sure where your complaint there is and the Flesh Eater, well, a good suit can also last a while-- it did look rather abused. The wives were a bit silly, but they were being kept secluded, being fed well as breeding stock, and makeup... well Joe wants them to look pretty for him.

IIRC, there are some comics (published by DC Vertigo, written by George Miller) that do explain some of the backstory in depth. Immortan Joe is a former military official; his base is a former Army establishment which had a well drilled for deep water sources and has a reactor.

The milking thing... eh. That's mostly just a 'look how awful the bad guy is' move. I vaguely think there was a suggestion that it was being used to nourish the Warboys. It was weird.

[Thanas]

If they would be properly fed, they wouldn't be used to eating bugs, especially not that kind of bugs. Locusts etc maybe, but not black beetles.

[Elheru Aran]

If they would be properly fed, they wouldn't be used to eating bugs, especially not that kind of bugs. Locusts etc maybe, but not black beetles.

Yeah... I don't have any good in-universe answer for that. It's obviously a thematic decision to show the viewer "look, life sucks so bad for these people that they're totally okay with eating cockroaches", not a logical decision. There's a certain suspension of disbelief involved.

[Adam Reynolds]

- War boys have the muscles and body types of young male models, yet their diet is poor, which is pretty much inconsistent from what we know of any barbarian horde from history. People who are malnourished do not develop such body types, neither do their throw-away warriors. Likewise, the super models playing his wives are just lol, especially with the makeup.

I don't disagree about your criticisms of the movie, but this is a problem that is epidemic to virtually all cinematic depictions of historical or post apocalyptic settings. Look at The Hunger Games having Jennifer Lawrence as the main heroine or Game of Thrones similar depictions of individuals far more healthy than they should be.

This is similarly a problem with the consequences of violence as shown in action movies. Characters tend to not show very realistic injuries as those would be too depressing to see. As a result, violence ends up looking more fun than it should.

[SMJB]

I haven't seen the movie, but everything I've heard makes it sound like the cinematic equivalent of the Second Coming...and everything I've actually seen about it, from analyses of the characters and plot to analyses of the freaking camera angles, makes it seem like that praise is mostly well-deserved.

disposable pregger women.

Wow, fuck you.

Oh those art themes were readily apparent, but I wouldn't exactly call them deep. Rather, the viewer recognizes them at first glance. Deep is something different to me, something that is not readily apparent but visible upon reflection.

I must respectfully disagree. Depth is about having more than two dimensions. (*ba-DUM-tish!*) It should make you think.

[Replicant]

Is it a genuinely good movie?

It is an overrated movie. You watch it and you expect the chase scene with the rig to be the initial third of the movie and somehow it becomes the whole movie.

You could trim this movie into a 43 minutes TV episode, fill it with 17 minutes of commercials, put it on TV and you would lose none of the plot.

[loomer]

You could say the same thing about Mad Max 2. You'd be wrong there, too.