Mad Max: High Octane Collection (1979-2015) / Mad Max: Fury Road in B&W (2015)

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by levcore

This was not the case with a lot of DVDs that i remember. It was very common for a barebones release to come out, only to be followed down the line by a special edition.

But at least it sometimes happened with DVD. It never happens with Blu-ray, unless we count 2D/3D releases that have separate features, like Prometheus/Exodus. Okay, there's a couple Blu-rays like that.

[levcore]

it happened with Gravity so you can't say it NEVER happens with blu ray.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by levcore

it happened with Gravity so you can't say it NEVER happens with blu ray.

Gravity was a double dip. I'm talking about right on the first release date.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

Gravity was a double dip. I'm talking about right on the first release date.

Oh... OK. I thought we were talking about double dips down the line. At least that's what i was talking about as we're in the thread for a double dip release. I'm confused, i thought that's what we were discussing here.

[karlpilkington4PM]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

But at least it sometimes happened with DVD. It never happens with Blu-ray, unless we count 2D/3D releases that have separate features, like Prometheus/Exodus. Okay, there's a couple Blu-rays like that.

guess the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films get a pass?

[tommynorcal]

Originally Posted by levcore

This was not the case with a lot of DVDs that i remember. It was very common for a barebones release to come out, only to be followed down the line by a special edition.

This can be traced back to VHS to be honest

[tommynorcal]

(Remastered audio and all that)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by tommynorcal

This can be traced back to VHS to be honest

Eh, this is more of a laserdisc trait

[GasmaskAvenger]

On the topic of MCU films, the early ones had better pacing than the more recent films (Ant-Man and Guardians excluded). I think the first film with their bad pacing habits started was the first Thor, which I didn't really care for much at all.

I mean, Captain America: The First Avenger was paced well but then they started to emulate the Thor formula way, way too much afterwards.

[UltraMario9]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

Gravity was a double dip. I'm talking about right on the first release date.

Warner is one of the few major companies that still do it. I was particularly shocked when I saw this:

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by levcore

Oh... OK. I thought we were talking about double dips down the line. At least that's what i was talking about as we're in the thread for a double dip release. I'm confused, i thought that's what we were discussing here.

Yes, this thread is about a potential double dip, but the point I was making was that there were several DVDs that had single disc and two disc versions released the same day, instead of getting people to double dip.

Now, when we get a release that's missing some expected features, we have to anticipate a double dip down the road. Watchmen had the director's cut on the first release, and then an ultimate cut months later. Gravity Added the silent space version down the road. We waited for the rogue cut of X-Men: Days of Future Past. Avatar had a separate release to include the extended versions. Lots of examples of having to wait.

Double dips happen more often than a definitive version from the start. It's annoying, but it's the way it's been for a while. Doesn't make it any less disappointing.

[Johnzilla2179]

Originally Posted by JJLong

I dislike this idea that movies in certain genre's are supposed to do anything, that there is this stringent view of how things should be.

I often argue with people about this in regards to superhero movies. I see plenty of people claim, simply because they see Marvel movies as the current standard, that superhero movies should not be serious movies. That there needs to be plenty of humor because the premise of these movies is ridiculous and therefore has to be treated in a certain way, and I very much disagree with that.

Also, when it comes to Michael Bay, this idea that he is maligned simply because he is Michael Bay is ridiculous. He's had movies that people see in a positive light, like The Rock and the first Transformers.

One of the reasons why people like Fury Road so much in comparison with not just Bay's action movies, but almost every action movie for the past probably 15 years is because of the way that action is handled and presented.

The action is presented in a clear manner. There is no shaky cam like in the Bourne movies. And while there is plenty going on, the action is shot so that it can be digested and understood in a clear manner.

And the action also has weight to it, in two different ways.

Weight in one sense that one can feel that there is actual danger for characters in those scenes and because of the presentation, there is feeling for the characters.

And weight in another way that differs from a big CGI scene. For all of the great advances in CGI that there has been, there is still a sense that there isn't actual physical weight to what is being presented. The difference between an actual car being destroyed and a CGI car being destroyed can be felt.

Also, the movie knows how to pace itself. And I look at Fury Road in comparison to Age of Ultron and The Winter Solider for this point. Those Marvel movies are a good example of poor action pacing, because they peak before getting to the actually finale of their movies. Fury Road on the other hand builds action properly to culminate to the finale instead of doing too much too early like Age of Ultron and Winter Solider.

I also agree with your sentiments here, @JJLong. However I differ on a few points. I think the idea that ALL movies are supposed to do something in particular is asinine (to a certain extent). Outside of the bounds of craft (i.e. the kind that distinguishes a professionally made film from an amateurish one), I don't really understand why film snobs and the like act like every movie is supposed to be some character-driven drama. There's an art to action just like there's an art to story; there's an art to special effects (practical AND digital) as there is an art to compelling characters. Not to discount either aspect, I just think holding character/story over the heads of so many of these mainstream action films is missing the point. It's not at all what they're setting out to do in the first place so what's the point of even bringing it up? That's like complaining that a John Ford western isn't a futuristic space opera, and therefore it's a "bad movie" as a result.

There's a reason Michael Bay is one of the most successful directors of all-time and it ain't because 90% of the populace has "terrible taste" or something stupid like that. Of course, many of these modern films pretty much fail at action like you imply. But the point I'm trying to make here is that if someone just wants to see stuff blow up, more power to them. As for Michael Bay, he's basically the Nickelback of movies (and by that I mean he isn't the best and certainly isn't the worst but people love to whine about him). To be fair, there's probably too many action extravaganzas that come out these days, but if everything were an indie drama everyone would be complaining about that too (well, except for hipsters and Roger Ebert wannabes).

Speaking of Marvel, I think the idea that superheroes are supposed to be silly because their premises are silly is ridiculous. If we pull out the cultural investment and ballooning, Star Wars features one of the most fantastical plots of all-time, yet that film isn't treated like some comedy. Ditto for many of the James Bond pictures (and he could even be seen as something of a super hero) as well as The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, et al. Oh, but COMIC BOOK films are too low-brow to be taken seriously. People like to crap all over the early superhero films like Tim Burton's Batman, Bryan Singer's X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (to name a few) but as far as I'm concerned those films had more dramatic and overall cinematic weight to them. They weren't overly faithful to the source material and very much made some controversial choices with the stories and characters, but they also treated their versions of the stories with respect. These new MCU films pander a little too hard for my tastes (and I'm a comic book reader to boot), and not every one of them needs some sort of wise-cracking comedian for comic relief. I like film humor as much as the next guy, but the seeming requirement for it to be present in these summer movies is driving me nuts. Lots of folks including yours truly had problems with Gareth Edwards' take on Godzilla in 2014, but I very much appreciated the general lack of levity and stupid jokes there.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

I agree with you, up until you decided to slam Marvel's best film...The Winter Soldier. But I agree with everything else. Age of Ultron and it's overrated Writer/Director combo Joss Whedon also wrote that turd of a sequel Alien: Resurrection, and he script doctored The Avengers, cause if there is anyone worse at writing than Whedon, it's that Hack Zack Penn.

Easy now. No artist is above criticism, but Whedon did write and create Buffy The Vampire Slayer which had some of television's best writing and he co-wrote Cabin In The Woods.

You need to be careful with the label 'hack' because it's really a cheap and lazy way of dismissing something without actually rationally arguing why you dislike it. Unless you were there for the rewrites of The Avengers and know what the extant of his involvement was, you don't really know what he wrote and what he didn't on that or any of the other properties you mentioned. He may have had the only good ideas in those movies. And that kind of thinking is the province of... well... hacks.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by spidervenom1992

I also agree with your sentiments here, @JJLong. However I differ on a few points. I think the idea that ALL movies are supposed to do something in particular is asinine (to a certain extent). Outside of the bounds of craft (i.e. the kind that distinguishes a professionally made film from an amateurish one), I don't really understand why film snobs and the like act like every movie is supposed to be some character-driven drama. There's an art to action just like there's an art to story; there's an art to special effects (practical AND digital) as there is an art to compelling characters. Not to discount either aspect, I just think holding character/story over the heads of so many of these mainstream action films is missing the point. It's not at all what they're setting out to do in the first place so what's the point of even bringing it up? That's like complaining that a John Ford western isn't a futuristic space opera, and therefore it's a "bad movie" as a result.

There's a reason Michael Bay is one of the most successful directors of all-time and it ain't because 90% of the populace has "terrible taste" or something stupid like that. Of course, many of these modern films pretty much fail at action like you imply. But the point I'm trying to make here is that if someone just wants to see stuff blow up, more power to them. As for Michael Bay, he's basically the Nickelback of movies (and by that I mean he isn't the best and certainly isn't the worst but people love to whine about him). To be fair, there's probably too many action extravaganzas that come out these days, but if everything were an indie drama everyone would be complaining about that too (well, except for hipsters and Roger Ebert wannabes).

Speaking of Marvel, I think the idea that superheroes are supposed to be silly because their premises are silly is ridiculous. If we pull out the cultural investment and ballooning, Star Wars features one of the most fantastical plots of all-time, yet that film isn't treated like some comedy. Ditto for many of the James Bond pictures (and he could even be seen as something of a super hero) as well as The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, et al. Oh, but COMIC BOOK films are too low-brow to be taken seriously. People like to crap all over the early superhero films like Tim Burton's Batman, Bryan Singer's X-Men and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (to name a few) but as far as I'm concerned those films had more dramatic and overall cinematic weight to them. They weren't overly faithful to the source material and very much made some controversial choices with the stories and characters, but they also treated their versions of the stories with respect. These new MCU films pander a little too hard for my tastes (and I'm a comic book reader to boot), and not every one of them needs some sort of wise-cracking comedian for comic relief. I like film humor as much as the next guy, but the seeming requirement for it to be present in these summer movies is driving me nuts. Lots of folks including yours truly had problems with Gareth Edwards' take on Godzilla in 2014, but I very much appreciated the general lack of levity and stupid jokes there.

I think I agree with you for the most part, but if that's a dig at Roger Ebert I think it might be misplaced because he tended to celebrate large-scale blockbusters as well as Independent movies if they were worth it. Probably the most accessible mainstream critic of the last 50 years in my opinion.

Also, I think there's an important distinction to be made about movies going silly and being completely humorless. And I don't mean humor as in 'ha ha'- but there's got to be some genuine human levity that makes a character relatable as a human being for me to invest in them. I JUST had this discussion with a friend last night over a movie called The Keeping Room that has completely heavy narrative goings-on but lost me by having almost nothing in it that made me want the characters to succeed even though I was philosophically on their side.

And this is relevant to Fury Road because it ABSOLUTELY has a sense of humor, looks like no comic book, but plays like one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by happydood

Easy now. No artist is above criticism, but Whedon did write and create Buffy The Vampire Slayer which had some of television's best writing and he co-wrote Cabin In The Woods.

You need to be careful with the label 'hack' because it's really a cheap and lazy way of dismissing something without actually rationally arguing why you dislike it. Unless you were there for the rewrites of The Avengers and know what the extant of his involvement was, you don't really know what he wrote and what he didn't on that or any of the other properties you mentioned. He may have had the only good ideas in those movies. And that kind of thinking is the province of... well... hacks.

Sorry, but Whedon sucks. Do a little research about his script doctoring on Avengers, and you'll see that you guy admits that what he tried to fix, did in fact suck, from a different HACK writer. It is also known thru another Google search, that Edward Norton rewrote the same HACK's script for incredible Hulk.

I'll say what I want about Whedon. The guy is a whiny fanboy, whose writing is so full of fan service, I'm amazed he hasn't hurt himself from patting his own back so much. Avengers IS his only success that matters anyway. Nothing else he has done, has been that big. I don't count writing "successful" shows on fledgling networks that can't draw any kind of ratings that interesting. I'd wager that if you asked 10 people what Buffy the Vampire Slayer was, at least 6 of them would know about the crappy movie, before the show.

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by JackKnightStarman

I'd wager that if you asked 10 people what Buffy the Vampire Slayer was, at least 6 of them would know about the crappy movie, before the show.

I wouldn't if I were you. You'd lose your shirt. That show has a huge following, and the film was a huge flop and vanished into obscurity. Most people think the TV show if Buffy is mentioned.

[ThatOneGuy]

Why is there Buffy hate happening in a Mad Max thread?

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

I wouldn't if I were you. You'd lose your shirt. That show has a huge following, and the film was a huge flop and vanished into obscurity. Most people think the TV show if Buffy is mentioned.

Keep telling yourself that about a show that has a small following. Low tv Ratings and sales of DVD sets prove that. I'd bet Buffy fandom is less than ten percent of the populace the size of New York.

[Sky_Captain]

Why is there Buffy hate happening in a Mad Max thread?

Some weird Joss Whedon butt-hurt thing goin on.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Buffy talk in a Mad Max thread... Interesting.