Dr. DVD

A bit off topic, but I heard from a somewhat unreliable source that WB has scrapped plans to have a sequel to this one because it didn't perform too well at the U.S. box-office. Any truth to it or just an unsubstantiated rumor?

OldBoy

God, I hope it's a rumor. Would love to see more of this world and a little more Hardy...

Abob Teff

From BoxOffice Mojo:

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $153,636,354 40.6%
+ Foreign: $224,800,000 59.4%
= Worldwide: $378,436,354
Domestic Summary
Opening Weekend: $45,428,128
(#2 rank, 3,702 theaters, $12,271 average)
% of Total Gross: 29.6%
> View All 19 Weekends
Widest Release: 3,722 theaters
Close Date: September 24, 2015
In Release: 133 days / 19 weeks


I'll admit I'm a bit surprised. I would have thought the domestic gross would have been higher, particularly with the critical acclaim it got. Still, $378 million + is nothing to sneeze at. We got sequels to Happy Feet and Babe ...

Edited to add: Home Video (US)
Home Market Performance
Domestic DVD Sales $18,705,055
Domestic Blu-ray Sales $34,844,606
Total Domestic Video Sales $53,549,661

Solid Snake

How big are DVD/BD sales enough to get a studio to notice that.. "holy shit.. people are actually watching it now?" Cuz I know some flicks get a big notice afterwards and once that fanbase is there and craving for more.. the studio will jump on that sometimes.

I wasn't surprised that it didn't do gangbusters here in the US. We're not big fans of anything not part of the norm usually right now. Foreign countries are always game for our big shit. Bad or not. Usually.

TomOpus

Also Mad Max opened against Pitch Perfect 2 and Avengers: Age of Ultron was in its 3rd week.

Abob Teff

At a $200 million budget - and I know those things are tenuous with "Hollywood math" - it over doubled its ROI. We want a sequel! Question is, how much does George Miller have left in his tank?

To SolidSnake's point, I know Pitch Black was one that found its legs on home video and that's what got us sequels. There are others, I just don't know what they are.

Trickshot

100% agree with this observation, but I don't see it as a negative. Actually watched a good part of the movie again last night, and kept thinking it was even better after repeated viewings. I absolutely love this movie.

Side note, my mum commented on it the other day after seeing it for the first time, asked me if I'd seen "Demolition Road", I eventually figured out she meant Fury Road. Mum said she thought it was going to suck, but it really didn't. lol My mum is really cool. And Demolition Road might not have been a crappy title either.

Solid Snake

<iframe width="660" height="415" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dfm4gvxNW_o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

inri222

It looks better without all that fake computerized coloring.

dex14

Yup... That is my biggest problem with the movie. I kept hearing how it was like this savior of action movies and stunts. The stunts are great... But the movie still looks heavily CGI to me.

Solid Snake

That's probably my main gripe about it.. the cg. I don't mind that it was was there... but it seemed like it they didn't clean it up enough to composite it w/ the live action. Otherwise... I don't mind what they did.

I don't mind the colors because it does tell story too but... I would have preferred a non filtered look.

slop101

I understand color-correcting to make it look like the same time of day, but yeah, they overdid it with the computer-colors, and it would've looked better with the more natural coloring. Still not really interested in the B&W version though.

fumanstan

I'm the opposite, I loved the color and tone in Fury Road and thought it fit perfectly.

Mabuse

I still can't get my head around the idea that the director's preference is black & white, but when it was deemed he couldn't do that he went the other direction into excessively over colored.

Solid Snake

It goes beyond that though. The world has gotten even worse. The environment is worse now than when we last saw that shithole world of Mad Max. I don't mind it cuz it does add to the world building but I would have been fine w/ a less wildly excessive environment of a look. I just prefer more natural looking things.

The way those shots look don't enhance what Miller was going for in terms of the environment. It just doesn't look as sweltering as MM4 ended up looking.

You're overthinking it.

It's a preference. He likes it in B&W. Not that wild of a thought to have. The Mist is also another film where the director thinks it works better in B&W. We got that option too. And I do think THAT film looks so much better w/o the color. Mostly cuz the effects weren't tight enough and the taking away of the color actually helps out a lot of those effects better.

Now with MM4? Did Miller ever say that that was a literal idea of his to film it in B&W for theaters as a literal production action? I know he likes it that way and would prefer it but I don't know if he ever went past..."It'd be neat if we filmed it like this, guys..." I'd like to see a source on that.

Personally... I'm not sure. I'm game to see wtf that experiment looks like. I can see it working just w/ the prime color palettes that he used for the colors and then taking it out. A lot of whitish and harsh blacks probably popping out in your screen.

Mabuse

I'm over thinking it? You just wrote 3 fucking paragraphs.

First of all, no film is shot on B&W film anymore. All of the B&W films that have occasionally been made over the last couple decades are shot on color and corrected in post.

In every past instance that I can think of, of B&W films made in the predominantly color film era, the filmmaker was pressured to release the film in color out of fear that B&W would turn off audiences. The Man Who Wasn't There was released in color in Europe. In the case of John Boorman's The General the studio insisted a color version be included on DVD. Boorman made a VERY desaturated color version to appease them.

As far as I know Miller's preference for Fury Road is B&W. It surprises me that he didn't go the Boorman route and make a desaturated color that boarders on monochromatic, like Saving Private Ryan.

inri222

A: Bartender, I don't like dark beer so could I please have a Budweiser.
B: We don't have Bud, but I do have Pabst.
A: No thanks, I'll have a Murphy's Irish Stout instead.

Mabuse

Thank you. That's perfect.

Why So Blu?

I'm under the assumption that this is stateside art.


EDIT -

http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/7...ition#/slide/1

Abob Teff

I like the idea, but calling it a "two film collection" is just fucking shady.

I think the "over-stylized" palette works very well for this film. I'm intrigued by a black and white version, but cannot imagine it would ever be a preferred version.

Dan

I'll buy it if the Black & Chrome version is on UHD. The link above makes it sound like only the color version will be on UHD, though.

Michael Corvin

I'm not sure how that would look with a desert setting. Maybe like Pitch Black?

bluetoast

But will it even look that good in B&W, even if that's his preference? Because there's a huge difference in actually lighting and shooting for B&W, and just turning on a filter. Maybe they'all color correct from the original elements and not from the saturated stuff, which could help.

Solid Snake

Hrmmmm... from the original elements. I dunno. I think Miller would have to use the finish product cuz even then the cgi is in there w/ the saturation. Yeah. It'd have to be the from the finished product.

Spiderbite

The 3D version is my preferred version. It looks excellent.