GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   movie snobs- Mad Max: Fury Road Oscar nomination for best picture. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1182881)

Penny24Seven 01-15-2016 05:22 AM

yeah fiddy

Ferus 01-15-2016 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20699829)
Dynamo: Mad Max was so stupid. Their vehicles should have been electric not gas. They live in the sun-drenched desert, and in the future for fuck sakes. Had their cars been electric, they wouldn't have had to fight for gas. It would have been so much cooler if their cars would have been Tesla's and Volts and Faradays. Their electricity could have come from solar panels and wind turbines. Plus all that noise would be replaced with whisper-whirrs, and none of those people would have been hurt in those awful gasoline-fueled explosions. They could have called it Nice-Max instead. See why the movie is so dumb?

I vote Mad Max for the worst movie of the year.

Tesla's and Volts and Faradays in the desert? lol - and how long do you think that would last? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh


Would have been a pretty fucking short movie

bronco67 01-15-2016 08:17 AM

Ultimately, Mad Max was rewarded with all of these nominations because its being recognized as the reason people want to go to the theater. To see a cinematic spectacle with great locations filmed beautifully, and a lean, straightforward story without a constant stream of yapping. The same could be sadi for the Revenant.

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700116)
Do you understand movies were invented as a visual medium, with no dialogue. Just because a bunch of people are flapping their gums for two hours doesn't mean make something a bad movie. Anyway, these are concepts you wouldn't be able to grasp, as simple as they are.

I assume you meant to say it doesn't make it a "good" movie right?

Anyway, why do you think I think a movie is good when there is a lot of talking? What, if anything, does that have to do with this movie sucking?

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20700504)
Most movies that are totally reliant on special effects suck. The exceptions are LOTR, Harry Potter and those like Gravity. Even Stars Wars has lost something.

Compare any of the nominees with Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi,
The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Schindler's List, etc. They don't come close. IMDb: Top 100 Greatest Movies of All Time (The Ultimate List) - a list by ChrisWalczyk55

My opinion is if you HAVE to see a movie in 3D to enjoy it, then by definition it is NOT a good movie.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 20700504)
Most movies that are totally reliant on special effects suck. The exceptions are LOTR, Harry Potter and those like Gravity. Even Stars Wars has lost something.

Compare any of the nominees with Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi,
The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Schindler's List, etc. They don't come close. IMDb: Top 100 Greatest Movies of All Time (The Ultimate List) - a list by ChrisWalczyk55

your post would make sense if there were, you know, actually any sense to it.

MM:FR doesn't rely on special effects, the stunts and shit are real.

besides the fact that the list you linked has LOTR as the #1 movie of all time

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700608)
Ultimately, Mad Max was rewarded with all of these nominations because its being recognized as the reason people want to go to the theater. To see a cinematic spectacle with great locations filmed beautifully, and a lean, straightforward story without a constant stream of yapping.

Exactly, the fast-food era of big screen movies. The reason why so much shit is made today. Use your brain as little as possible, movies are for entertainment, not for getting anything out of it, not for a message or an intellectual experience.

Again with the word "yapping" ... I get the feeling you don't like any kind of movie with serious dialogue or character development. A lot of talking does not equal good, but also does not equal boring. Personally, I prefer to watch movies where it feels like what I'm watching is as close to real-life a entertainingly possible. But that's me.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferus (Post 20700522)
Tesla's and Volts and Faradays in the desert? lol - and how long do you think that would last? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh


Would have been a pretty fucking short movie

:1orglaugh

common sense right.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700608)
Ultimately, Mad Max was rewarded with all of these nominations because its being recognized as the reason people want to go to the theater. To see a cinematic spectacle with great locations filmed beautifully, and a lean, straightforward story without a constant stream of yapping. The same could be sadi for the Revenant.

jfaclon is the sort that is gushing over dicaprio's hugh glass character with his unintelligble dialogue and minimal acting in a chase movie with a similar plot to MM:FR while bashing MM:FR for being a chase movie not having dialogue or plot.

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700634)
jfaclon is the sort that is gushing over dicaprio's hugh glass character with his unintelligble dialogue and minimal acting in a chase movie with a similar plot to MM:FR while bashing MM:FR for being a chase movie not having dialogue or plot.

Nope, didn't even watch that one yet. Honestly I doubt I will like it. The absence of dialogue is not what I disliked about new Mad Max. By the way, while I'm not the hugest fan of the Mad Max films, I did really like the first two and have watched them 2 or 3 times each.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 20700637)
Nope, didn't even watch that one yet. Honestly I doubt I will like it. The absence of dialogue is not what I disliked about new Mad Max. By the way, while I'm not the hugest fan of the Mad Max films, I did really like the first two and have watched them 2 or 3 times each.

it's basically the same flick set in the winter in the mountains.

the first MM was somewhat mediocre. the character development and such was too much, it overshadowed the movie, a distraction from the plot.

CaptainHowdy 01-15-2016 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober (Post 20700053)
Thanks for the invite :thumbsup When will we be going?

:1orglaugh ... Unlike you, I'm broke outside GFY.

Paul Markham 01-15-2016 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 20700626)
Exactly, the fast-food era of big screen movies. The reason why so much shit is made today. Use your brain as little as possible, movies are for entertainment, not for getting anything out of it, not for a message or an intellectual experience.

Again with the word "yapping" ... I get the feeling you don't like any kind of movie with serious dialogue or character development. A lot of talking does not equal good, but also does not equal boring. Personally, I prefer to watch movies where it feels like what I'm watching is as close to real-life a entertainingly possible. But that's me.

:2 cents:

dyna mo 01-15-2016 09:14 AM

yes, all "good" movies must have a message.

thanks movie snobs!

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700660)
yes, all "good" movies must have a message.

thanks movie snobs!

Damn man, you ever heard of straw man?

dyna mo 01-15-2016 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 20700683)
Damn man, you ever heard of straw man?

i'm sure straw man is the latest "intellectual" movie with a message.

you're the one that thinks a good movie must have a message and is not for entertainment purposes and the viewing audience needs to get something out of it other than entertainment.



"Exactly, the fast-food era of big screen movies. The reason why so much shit is made today. Use your brain as little as possible, movies are for entertainment, not for getting anything out of it, not for a message or an intellectual experience."

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700689)
i'm sure straw man is the latest "intellectual" movie with a message.

you're the one that thinks a good movie must have a message and is not for entertainment purposes and the viewing audience needs to get something out of it other than entertainment.



"Exactly, the fast-food era of big screen movies. The reason why so much shit is made today. Use your brain as little as possible, movies are for entertainment, not for getting anything out of it, not for a message or an intellectual experience."

Look up straw man fallacy, you continue to do it.

I never said any of that. Not the way you put it anyway.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 09:47 AM

i quoted you exactly.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 09:51 AM

jfalcon, you have to admit, you're brushing off a movie that garnered 10 Oscar noms, most of which are for production, as a fast-food shit.

get real.

J. Falcon 01-15-2016 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700693)
i quoted you exactly.

No, you didn't. Again, read straw man.

2MuchMark 01-15-2016 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700625)
y
MM:FR doesn't rely on special effects, the stunts and shit are real.

Wrong again douche:



While the makers of Fury Road claim to not have used much CG, they still used a lot of it. They use CG to remove wires and rigs, to add to or change the landscape, and of course color-corect the hell out of it. Even the night time seems were shot in full daylight (overexposed too) and then color-corrected to look like it was night time.

Stop being a douche.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 10:06 AM

Dumbfuckwad canaduhian, you're a dumbfuckwad canaduhian to not be able to even figure out what a simpleton like Markham was claiming.

2MuchMark 01-15-2016 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferus (Post 20700522)
Tesla's and Volts and Faradays in the desert? lol - and how long do you think that would last? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh


Would have been a pretty fucking short movie

And a boring movie too, LOL! I wasn't serious, I was trolling Dynamo.



Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700608)
Ultimately, Mad Max was rewarded with all of these nominations because its being recognized as the reason people want to go to the theater. To see a cinematic spectacle with great locations filmed beautifully, and a lean, straightforward story without a constant stream of yapping. The same could be sadi for the Revenant.

Mmm, kinda maybe for some, but personally I love going to the movies. While I see lots of action flicks, they can be boring if the story is no fun or if the characters are dull.

Some "yappy" movies worth seeing on the big screen were movies like "Gone Girl" and "The Social Network". "Eyes Wide Shut" is another non-action flick that is missed entirely unless watched on the big screen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 20700621)
My opinion is if you HAVE to see a movie in 3D to enjoy it, then by definition it is NOT a good movie.

I agree. Movie makers need to give up on 3D. Most of the time its dark and blurry and distracts from the movie itself. There's nothing wrong at all with 2D movies and if I had my choice between IMAX 3D and IMAX 2D I will always choose 2D but here in Montreal at least, almost every IMAX movie is in 3D now.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 20700700)
No, you didn't. Again, read straw man.

You're now claiming I didn't quote you exactly. No wonder you're not capable of grasping the movie going experience.

2MuchMark 01-15-2016 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700705)
Dumbfuckwad canaduhian, you're a dumbfuckwad canaduhian to not be able to even figure out what a simpleton like Markham was claiming.

LOL!! When shown evidence that your belief in anything is wrong or even a little off, you fall into a tirade of stupid insults.

Face it douche - Mad Max is loaded with CG. You were lied to, and you gobbled the lie up and patted your tummy afterwards.

PS Hillary will win.

2MuchMark 01-15-2016 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700694)
jfalcon, you have to admit, you're brushing off a movie that garnered 10 Oscar noms, most of which are for production, as a fast-food shit.

get real.


As if you never brush off facts don't fit your own pre-conceived false notions. Shut up douche.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 10:11 AM

Dumbfuckwad canaduhian, you're the one trolling me and calling me a douche, so you're a hypocrite dumbfuckwad canaduhian.

Got it. Now run along and go ask your mommy to put the transformers DVD on for you.

bronco67 01-15-2016 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20700702)
Wrong again douche:



While the makers of Fury Road claim to not have used much CG, they still used a lot of it. They use CG to remove wires and rigs, to add to or change the landscape, and of course color-corect the hell out of it. Even the night time seems were shot in full daylight (overexposed too) and then color-corrected to look like it was night time.

Stop being a douche.

Holy shit! That whole canyon was CG?

atom 01-15-2016 10:40 AM

Fury road was a fantastic movie! Good for George Miller. I've only seen The Martian out of the other films nominated so I don't know what chance it stands. The Martian was good but not Oscar material.

2MuchMark 01-15-2016 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700721)
Holy shit! That whole canyon was CG?

Yes but don't tell Dynamo. He will be severely butthurt.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700721)
Holy shit! That whole canyon was CG?

shhh....

no one tell ********** you're being a smart aleck, his big troll would be discovered then for sure!


::::::::::::::::::::::;

The Citadel location was produced via a combination of principal photography in Namibia, shooting in Sydney and visual effects work from Iloura informed by actual rock cliffs photographed in Australia and re-worked using photogrammetry.

Visual effects supervisor - Andrew Jackson considered reference locations in Jordan, including the famous Wadi Rum mountains, but ultimately found suitable cliffs in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney.

“I took a helicopter and we flew backwards and forwards with a high res stills camera. It has real lighting but because it was shot in overcast conditions you can add more key light. We had the chopper standing by for 10 days waiting for the right conditions. We didn’t have one cloudy day for a week and a half, but the day we went was just perfect.”

- Andrew Jackson

FriendFinding_Jay 01-15-2016 03:18 PM

This was probably my favorite movie of the year. What a shame.

nico-t 01-15-2016 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20700608)
Ultimately, Mad Max was rewarded with all of these nominations because its being recognized as the reason people want to go to the theater. To see a cinematic spectacle with great locations filmed beautifully, and a lean, straightforward story without a constant stream of yapping. The same could be sadi for the Revenant.

it never reached the spectacular level, it was the same shit for 2 hours which made it extremely boring to me. You talk about 'yapping' movies, well, one yapping movie (the hateful eight) was a hundred times more entertaining than this.

Another gem of 2015 was the movie 'Dope', highly entertaining and fast paced movie (only thing that really didn't fit the whole movie was the 'if i was white' nagging line at the end. I didn't think of race or skin color the entire movie, it was just a fun ride, until this misplaced line).

Straight outta compton was also a personal favourite, but im biased because i listen to hiphop all my life starting with NWA, eazy-e and dr. dre.

Even terminator genisys blows mad max away for sheer entertainment value, although it was smashed by critics, for T1 and T2 fans it was pure entertainment, i enjoyed it.

bronco67 01-15-2016 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20700911)
shhh....

no one tell ********** you're being a smart aleck, his big troll would be discovered then for sure!


::::::::::::::::::::::;

The Citadel location was produced via a combination of principal photography in Namibia, shooting in Sydney and visual effects work from Iloura informed by actual rock cliffs photographed in Australia and re-worked using photogrammetry.

Visual effects supervisor - Andrew Jackson considered reference locations in Jordan, including the famous Wadi Rum mountains, but ultimately found suitable cliffs in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney.

“I took a helicopter and we flew backwards and forwards with a high res stills camera. It has real lighting but because it was shot in overcast conditions you can add more key light. We had the chopper standing by for 10 days waiting for the right conditions. We didn’t have one cloudy day for a week and a half, but the day we went was just perfect.”

- Andrew Jackson

I actually didn't know the canyon was CG. That's the kind of CG I like .... when it's used to embellish a shot and done so well I don't even know it's there.

The Citadel of course, was obviously CG because I doubt any natural place like that exists, but the canyon wasn't out of the realm of possibility.

Frank 01-15-2016 08:51 PM

The original Road Warrior is a classic.

dyna mo 01-15-2016 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 20701133)
I actually didn't know the canyon was CG. That's the kind of CG I like .... when it's used to embellish a shot and done so well I don't even know it's there.

The Citadel of course, was obviously CG because I doubt any natural place like that exists, but the canyon wasn't out of the realm of possibility.

Both are real. The scenes are enhanced digitally. Andrew Jackson's quote about it is in this thread already. To claim they are cg is misleading ,

It's common knowledge this movie was shot with minimal cg and certainly does not fall under the category of special effects films like lotr, that Markham tried to do and dingbat ********** is trying so desperately hard to troll the thread with

dyna mo 01-15-2016 09:20 PM

"The Citadel – the wilderness fortress of the film’s main antagonist Immortan Joe – was realised through a combination of physical sets built in Namibia, Cape Town and Sydney, plus visual effects work."

georgeyw 01-15-2016 11:04 PM

I'm actually pretty amazed at how well they did the cgi in this movie. Amazing job with that.

Probably should have put that much effort into making the movie not suck :2 cents:

2MuchMark 01-16-2016 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t (Post 20701046)

Even terminator genisys blows mad max away for sheer entertainment value, although it was smashed by critics, for T1 and T2 fans it was pure entertainment, i enjoyed it.

I liked Terminator Genesys too. I thought it was really well done. The story was smart, the acting was good, the VFX were cool, and it was a super-complicated time-travel story which I always love.

2MuchMark 01-16-2016 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20701271)
Both are real. The scenes are enhanced digitally. Andrew Jackson's quote about it is in this thread already. To claim they are cg is misleading ,

It's common knowledge this movie was shot with minimal cg and certainly does not fall under the category of special effects films like lotr, that Markham tried to do and dingbat ********** is trying so desperately hard to troll the thread with

Wrong again.


http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/im.../5/29/1fx1.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...xghshsnfis.jpg
http://a2.files.blazepress.com/image...EyOTU5NzE0.jpg
https://www.fxguide.com/wp-content/u...AL-2-23976.jpg
http://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_f...l-wizardry.jpg
http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/im...0.12.41_AM.png
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OAGn3NCKE0g/maxresdefault.jpg

Now here is Wired Magazine talking about the CG



"An astounding 2000 shots are still VFX Shots".

There is nothing wrong with CG/VFX anyway when done right (they did a good job) so stop crying already.

dyna mo 01-16-2016 07:17 AM

You dimwitted canaduhian, finish the quote:



"An astounding 2000 shots are still VFX Shots". ..

most of those VFX shots involved small details like wire removal or painting out tire tracks from previous shots."

The movie is known for its real stunts, not for fake stunts.


You're a halfassed troll.

Speaking of fake stunts and halfassed attempts, which transformers flick is your favorite?

arock10 01-16-2016 07:54 AM

The answer is movies just suck these days. But TV is good, so just watch tv

Sly 01-16-2016 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 20701350)
I liked Terminator Genesys too. the acting was good,

By who?

Emilia Clarke proved she needs tits and dragons to be worthy of screen time. Which is ironic, because that's the exact opposite of what she was trying to do.

CaptainHowdy 01-16-2016 08:26 AM

I will be reading the newest James Joyce biography ...

brandonstills 01-16-2016 11:16 AM

Plot of entire movie. Get in car and go there. It's not here. Go back.

dyna mo 01-16-2016 11:23 AM

plot of the revenant. hop on horse and go there. eat some shit. kill people. stand in the forest breathing.

ITraffic 01-16-2016 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 20701572)
I will be reading the newest James Joyce biography ...

only worthwhile post in this thread.

dyna mo 01-16-2016 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITraffic (Post 20701731)
only worthwhile post in this thread.

thanks for the bump, i'm sure you took a moment from studying ulysses to post this and we're all eternally grateful.

HomerSimpson 01-16-2016 01:43 PM

It's unbelievable that Mad Max movie which is total bullshit has 10 nominees while for example a really good new QT movie The Hateful Eight has only one nomination.

dyna mo 01-16-2016 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson (Post 20701855)
It's unbelievable that Mad Max movie which is total bullshit has 10 nominees while for example a really good new QT movie The Hateful Eight has only one nomination.

don't forget, hateful 8 not only failed to garner Oscar nominations, it's also a massive box office flop.

it's neither award worthy nor appealing.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123