Mad Max: Fury Road Steelbook (Best Buy Exclusive)

[MvRojo]

I always check Cinemablend for their review of 3D-worthiness:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or...ket-71474.html

Mad Max got a score of 33/35

[Will.]

I love this artwork but I was hoping for a Furiosa-inspired steel. Wish she was featured on the back.

[LegacyCosts]

Yeah this is release of the year if it keeps that artwork.

[IroquoisPliskin]

Originally Posted by Threat

Really? Other than the steering wheel coming towards the screen, the 3D was just another movie that unutilized it. Prometheus is another one. Yes, it looks great, but it's all depth of perception 3D and nothing jumping towards the screen. That's what I see 3D as. When the 3, 2, 1 countdown flying towards your face prior to the movie is more effective than the scenes in the movie itself, it's a problem for me. I just paid for 3D and didn't get much 3D of anything.

My Bloody Valentine utilized 3D perfectly. You had a pick-axe flying at the screen, or being jammed in the back of someone head in which their eye ball comes flying into your face, and the explosions make you flinch. That's 3D. Avatar had some mind blowing 3D going on as well. But movies like Godzilla, Dawn of the Apes, even Guardians of the Galaxy, it's just a way to get more money in my opinion, the 3D really isn't there effectively. And I REALLY expeced Mad Max to be one movie that would be IMAX 3D worthy, but the 3D was pretty useless.

agreed.

george miller said, he made this solely for 2D, it was 3D post conversion.

movies like avatar and bloody valentine was specialized for 3d presentation.

[PH3AR]

As soon as the pre-order goes live for this, there's nothing stopping me from pre-ordering. Best movie of 2015 so far.

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by Disbchris

I hope the top of the steelbook is just part of of the j card

[Show spoiler]

[solarrdadd]

excellent movie, and yeah, I'm all about supporting the Home Team, so, day 1 purchase!

[GreatGreg]

Originally Posted by Threat

Really? Other than the steering wheel coming towards the screen, the 3D was just another movie that unutilized it. Prometheus is another one. Yes, it looks great, but it's all depth of perception 3D and nothing jumping towards the screen. That's what I see 3D as. When the 3, 2, 1 countdown flying towards your face prior to the movie is more effective than the scenes in the movie itself, it's a problem for me. I just paid for 3D and didn't get much 3D of anything.

My Bloody Valentine utilized 3D perfectly. You had a pick-axe flying at the screen, or being jammed in the back of someone head in which their eye ball comes flying into your face, and the explosions make you flinch. That's 3D. Avatar had some mind blowing 3D going on as well. But movies like Godzilla, Dawn of the Apes, even Guardians of the Galaxy, it's just a way to get more money in my opinion, the 3D really isn't there effectively. And I REALLY expeced Mad Max to be one movie that would be IMAX 3D worthy, but the 3D was pretty useless.

You are totally missing the point of 3D. As such with any 'new' technology, when modern 3D first hit the screens, there was a lot of overuse and exaggeration like things pointing at you and little birds hovering in mid-air.

As the technology matured, so did the use of it. Not to get too sidetracked, but people who dislike 3D often cannot appreciate the depth that it gives a movie, and how many movies are, inherently, filmed for depth even if 3D technology is not used.

Looking forward to this, but bring on the 3D!

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by GreatGreg

You are totally missing the point of 3D. As such with any 'new' technology, when modern 3D first hit the screens, there was a lot of overuse and exaggeration like things pointing at you and little birds hovering in mid-air.

As the technology matured, so did the use of it. Not to get too sidetracked, but people who dislike 3D often cannot appreciate the depth that it gives a movie, and how many movies are, inherently, filmed for depth even if 3D technology is not used.

+1000. The 3D was great in this film, but not if your requirements for 3D = stuff being thrown at the screen. I will be passing on this release.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by IroquoisPliskin

agreed.

george miller said, he made this solely for 2D, it was 3D post conversion.

movies like avatar and bloody valentine was specialized for 3d presentation.

Can you post me a link to where Miller said this please? Cheers!

It's just Miller's quote from the previous page was (thanks to MifuneFan):

OK, I love 3D stereo!

In fact, when we were going to shoot this back in 2001, I was dumb enough to try to do it classic analglyph and just have a few scenes with the green and red as it were.

In this film, if I had a choice, I'd see it in 3D, but I'm extremely aware that some people can't tolerate it.

We're asking audiences to do something that we do not do in nature, and that is force where you look in space in that circle of z axis. And if you don't get it right, you can cause pain and you can cause nausea.

With a quick action movie this, the average cut is 2 seconds, 90 frames, that can be really distressing.

One of the things that took so long, and we were working 20 hours a day right up until the end was to make it as creamy as possible. I'm very happy to say that it's very creamy.

Read more: http://twitchfilm.com/2015/05/cannes...#ixzz3gdysxCFD

[Santa Barbara]

I have two 3D capable home theater setups and at this point I haven't watched a single 3D film in a year. I'm totally fine with this release.

[TheHutt]

I read that the only reason why Miller didn't shoot it in native 3D was the bulkiness and sensitivity of 3D rigs which made them not practical for shooting in Namibia desert.

[JoeKryten]

Originally Posted by TheHutt

I read that the only reason why Miller didn't shoot it in native 3D was the bulkiness and sensitivity of 3D rigs which made them not practical for shooting in Namibia desert.

Yeah, I don't have a direct link to the articles anymore, but both he and the cinematographer have detailed in interviews how Miller went to great expense to have a brand new 3D camera setup designed and the end result was too bulky to utilize the camera movements they wanted (in, through and out of vehicle cabs mostly). So they just went with several really good, compact 2D cameras.

Of course, all that R & D and construction of the 3D equipment showed up in the budget of the film even though they didn't use it...

Yet another reason why a sequel would cost significantly less to make than MMFR.

On a slightly related note, Miller sure does state conflicting things in different interviews. In one interview he states he prefers the 2D, in another the 3D. In one he gives one specific timeline as to where MMFR falls in the films chronology and yet in another he contradicts what he said previously.

Either he's having fun pranking reporters or he just doesn't care about questions like that and gives any old answer. I suspect the latter...

[levcore]

Until i see a link to Miller saying the 2D version is his preferred version i don't believe he said it. He has definitely gone on record to speak very positively about the 3D version. He's a big fan of 3D.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by levcore

Until i see a link to Miller saying the 2D version is his preferred version i don't believe he said it. He has definitely gone on record to speak very positively about the 3D version. He's a big fan of 3D.

And it had nothing to do with selling the higher priced ticket.

[JoeKryten]

Originally Posted by levcore

Until i see a link to Miller saying the 2D version is his preferred version i don't believe he said it. He has definitely gone on record to speak very positively about the 3D version. He's a big fan of 3D.

I definitely saw the interview somewhere. It was a month or two before the film's release, though. IIRC his reasoning was along the lines of "we tried to shoot it native 3D and couldn't and since it was shot in 2D (and he typically doesn't like post-converted 3D) he would recommend the 2D over the 3D".

Perhaps he changed his mind after he saw the 3D conversion or maybe it's all about getting more money from the higher ticket prices. Only George knows for certain.

And no, I'm not wading through thousands of pages of content to try and find the first interview again just to prove it. Life's too short...

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by JoeKryten

Either he's having fun pranking reporters or he just doesn't care about questions like that and gives any old answer. I suspect the latter...

So...

George Miller is a troll?

[q-BUZZ-p]

George Miller has never stated he hates 3D, in fact, he is a fan.

In this video Miller declares his love for 3D and how whenever he gets the chance to see a 3D film he does it. Furthermore, he describes how his natural shooting style supports 3D usage.

George Miller interview: 'We pushed the technology on Happy Feet Two' - YouTube

In this video Miller describes how in 2001 he originally wanted to shoot scenes of the Mad Max film he was developing that would have starred Mel Gibson in anaglyph 3D. He describes the cues the audience would have to put on the 3D glasses.

George Miller 'We wanted to do Mad Max in 2001 with old fashioned anaglyph 3D!' - YouTube

Lastly, it is well documented that Miller expressed his love for viewing Mad Max: Fury Road in 3D at the Cannes Festival. Here is the direct quote he gave at Cannes

OK, I love 3D stereo!

In fact, when we were going to shoot this back in 2001, I was dumb enough to try to do it classic analglyph and just have a few scenes with the green and red as it were.

In this film, if I had a choice, I'd see it in 3D, but I'm extremely aware that some people can't tolerate it.

We're asking audiences to do something that we do not do in nature, and that is force where you look in space in that circle of z axis. And if you don't get it right, you can cause pain and you can cause nausea.

With a quick action movie this, the average cut is 2 seconds, 90 frames, that can be really distressing.

One of the things that took so long, and we were working 20 hours a day right up until the end was to make it as creamy as possible. I'm very happy to say that it's very creamy.


As for the steelbook not including the 3D version, I'm disappointed. I told myself I would not buy a steelbook that didn't include the 3D disc unless I absolutely loved the film after I bought steelbooks that didn't include the 3D disc, like the Hercules steelbook from Walmart, Edge of Tomorrow steelbook from Target, and the TMNT steelbook from Best Buy. The reason has more to do with streaming services recognizing your digital copy code and when you purchase 3D films the code gives you the 3D film on Vudu for some 3D films, like Edge of Tomorrow. The problem, I really liked Mad Max: Fury Road, so I'm probably gonna buy this and then either buy the 3D disc online or the 3D set. I really like the look of this steelbook too. If I didn't like the look, I probably would just pass and get the regular 3D amaray set or purchase a foreign steelbook.

I saw this movie twice. Once in 3D and once in 2D. I, personally, loved this film in 3D and it added to my viewing experience. With that said, the 2D version is spectacular as well and I didn't feel like I must watch this film in 3D to really get the full, immersive experience. I watched Gravity in 3D in the theater and then the 2D version at home and that film is a must to watch in 3D due to the 3D playing such a significant role in the viewing experience, but Mad Max can have a immersive experience with both versions.

[jvince]

Yes! Definitely getting this one.

[wjasoncul]

Originally Posted by mertz523

The news and confirmation are both just fine.

[Show spoiler] behind those sunglasses is this

Reverse and interior art of the Czech steelbook per carllenc @ HDN

[Show spoiler]

Maybe US one will match