I saw Mad Max: Black & Chrome, the black and white version of Fury Road the other day. It was a very different experience without color.
I read that George Miller prefers the film this way, but since the studio wouldn’t allow it he decided to push the color to the extremes. It’s possible the film could work in B&W, but the problem is he didn’t design it that way from the ground up. Instead, he re-graded the film afterwards.
Films made in B&W are crafted very differently. There’s more of an emphasis on strong tonal contrast (the difference between the light and the dark parts of the image). Think about a film noir. There’s a simplicity to that aesthetic: hard lines and hard shadows, the light set sharply against the dark. If Miller was approaching this film in B&W from the beginning, he probably would have designed, staged, and shot it very differently.
I think it's just Miller trying to sell two movies while making one. Not a genuine appreciation for black and white film.
Recently I watched the first one and i found it to be really boring, did I miss something? The story wasn't exciting and I never got in to it. How did it become such a big franchise?
>>82784118
>How did it become such a big franchise
With the second film obviously. You went in with expectations of getting a post-apocalyptic action adventure and psyched yourself out of enjoying a superb post-apocalyptic crime drama.
>>82784118
the first one is very low budget. it's more of a cult film than anything. it's a fairly unique world that you get dropped into, which usually translates to developing a dedicated audience, however large. I didn't particularly like it
the second and third are grander. I thought they were better, and more fully realised, but I can't say I loved them. you watched the odd one out in the series, so if you're confused about why it's popular, that's why
fury road is basically worlds away from the original in production value and action. you could call it a lot of things but boring is not one of them.
>>82784118
The first one is essentially an indie film that was filmed on a roughly $5000 USD budget. Think of it as the prologue if anything, the second movie is where it really hits its stride, and the third movie is actually two different movies that got mashed together.
>>82784381
> $5000
It was $100,000 Dollarydoo's in 1979. It would be physically impossible to make even Mad Max 1 on a microbudget. You have to pay people and action scenes take a long time to film.
It made $100 million dollars though, which meant it was the best %money making film ever until low budget found footage horror became mainstream.
>>82784572
>It was $100,000 Dollarydoo's in 1979
In '79 the AUD was like 42 cents to the USD and the Interceptor alone cost like $15k, so close enough. Its budget was dental floss to a shoestring.
>>82784572
>You have to pay people and action scenes take a long time to film.
They literally paid half the cast in beer.
Personally the first one is my favorite. Road warrior is great, don't get me wrong, but it's not my favorite.
>>82784604
The van they crash into during one of the chase scenes was miller's personal vehicle.
There are some great behind the scenes stories about this movie.
I just want a sttipped down version of the movie with no cgi, all the fotage from the behind the scenes is great.
>>82784668
That myth is exaggerated, I'm pretty sure it was only extra's who got paid in beerwhich is more than what extra's get paid in modern movies, lol. (shhhh don't tell the union)
>>82784734
That was actually pretty common in the 80's for the Australian films industry. Most of the extras were just other workers family members who were doing it for a sausage sizzle and a cold one.