Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Effects of Radiation Poisoning After Nuclear War

Previously I added a sentence about radiation poisoning at the beginning of the plot summary, but some people deleted it because they thought that this was original research ("OR"), which is against the rules of Wikipedia. The sentence I had added was: "Due to radiation poisoning many animals and humans have birth defects, and many are sick". At the beginning of the movie, two-headed lizards are shown in detail, to make a point. In science-fiction movies this kind of scene with animals with birth defects is often shown to suggest the radiation poisoning of nuclear explosion, and at the beginning the audience is already informed that there was a nuclear war that destroyed civilization. And later on, when we are told (verbally by some actors in the movie) that "the Warboys are too sick to fight", and we are also shown that it is standard procedure to use human captives as transfusion treatments for Warboys. And we are also shown that Furiosa has a missing arm, which looks like a birth defect (because the other events in the film already showed effects of toxicity, and so in this case it is almost certain that the director does not mean to imply that Furiosa's missing arm could have been due to an accident or a wound from a battle.) In view of the cumulative evidence that is accumulating in the film (especially the two-headed lizards at the beginning), it seems fair to infer without Original Research, that radiation poisoning after the nuclear war is a significant factor in the plot of the movie. FormalLogician (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1 minute 24 seconds. Which is why we call it Original Research. As for the rest you're applying a reason for their illness, some may have radiation poisoning, some might be ill just because of the atrocious atmosphere, air, water, and food, putting nitrous in their mouths to manually inject it into engines, etc. Both Joe and Rictus use breathing apparatus, but these deformities are not universal and are not explained, so it is impossible to apply a cause to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about Furiosa, but if I remember correctly, when the injured wife of Immortan Joe gave birth, Joe asked his assistant if the baby was without birth defects. As you said, maybe all health problems are not due to radiation (only the two headed lizards appear to be radiation victims), but there is an unusual environment with very toxic pollutants. The formerly fertile "Green Place" became a toxic swamp. And the blood transfusion method appears to be an organized system that was not just engineered for Nux only. Therefore, I suggest that we should put at least a general sentence without direct reference to radiation, such as " a toxic environment that makes people either sick or with birth defects." After all, this is not a cheap science fiction movie with superficially chosen scenes, they showed the blood transfusion to make a point. If I remember correctly, they actually said at the end of the movie that the Warboys are too sick to fight. FormalLogician (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

He asked if it was a male. And we get two headed lizards and other animals now. Again you're applying a theory or OR to the story, even if we had evidence that the lizard was affected by radiation (which we don't) there's no evidence that, that is why the war boys are sick. They could be covering themselves in lead paint for all we know, Rictus has lived there and he's a man mountain, Max and Furiosa are there and they are fine, it could just be the piss poor living conditions plus terrible air and water quality. Outside of the opening narration there is no evidence or mention of radioactive poisoning in the world, so to say it is a major theme of the film is a stretch. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential changes to the plot summary.

There are changes I've been attempting to make towards the plot summary and I'm curious to know if other editors support or are against my suggestions:

• Identify the Wives by their names in the opening paragraph once they're introduced, not the second paragraph. I know the Wives do not appear on-screen until after the first chase sequence, but plot summaries don't have to describe events chronologically. The summary already introduced them at the start, thus it should also say who they are.
• Change this sentence to better reflect what occurs in the movie: "Furiosa drives into an approaching sand storm evading her pursuers, except Nux, who attempts to sacrifice himself to destroy the Rig; Max escapes and restrains Nux, but the car is destroyed by the Rig." Max does not escape until after the car is destroyed; he remains chained to it throughout this scene and he does not restrain Nux. He manages to prevent Nux from dropping his flare for a few seconds, but it's ultimately the Rig crashing into Nux's car that stops him for good.
• Combine these two sentences: "Max steals the Rig, but its kill-switch disables the truck. Max reluctantly agrees to let Furiosa and the Wives accompany him." They flow better as one sentence. Also, possibly remove "Nux returns to Joe" because he doesn't return to Joe. He continues pursuing the Rig and is eventually found by Joe's followers. Since Nux has been established as a member of Joe's gang with the goal of stopping the Rig by this point in the movie, it could be argued this detail isn't needed.
• Shorten the description of the fight with the Bullet Farmer, "Furiosa and Max slow Joe's forces with explosives" and "Furiosa shoots and blinds the Bullet Farmer" are extraneous details that can be removed without having an impact on the ultimate outcome of the scene: Max defeating the scene. It should also be more clear Max killed the Bullet Farmer, or at least caused his death.
• Identify the naked woman by her name, Valkyrie. If she has a name and she's already mentioned in the summary, it might as well be used.

Any thoughts? Bluerules (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

my thoughts, contact the film project.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? Bluerules (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I know how appealing it is to add all the details into the plot summary, but I think we have to use restraint and only include the elements that are vital to the plot.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary changes & reverts

Hi @Darkwarriorblake:, it seems that you wish the plot summary be written in an in-universe style, whereas imho the plot summary should be written in out-of-universe style as per MOS:PLOT. Why do you think an in-universe terminology should prevail? In my mind, anyone who hasn't seen the film already has no clue what a war rig is. Moreover, any English users as a second language less familiar with US English than I am would be hard pressed to guess that a rig isn't part of a sailing ship. AadaamS (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment:I don't see any advantage to saying "war rig" when we can just say "armoured truck". It's simple and clear. Popcornduff (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's called the "war rig" and rig is a common term for a semi-truck? Even if we were to change it to "truck", that doesn't address the other changes that were made by Aadams.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Darkwarriorblake:, I think the in-or-out-of-universe style discussion is at the heart of all my edits, that's why I wrote about it in my edit comments. I would like you (or anyone) to address why you think an in-universe style should prevail. The rig vs truck argument simply serves to demonstrate the point. And no, for instance in British English the common term for semi-trailer is lorry. I chose truck because it's recognisable in most variants of English. I can see many issues with choosing an in-universe style. Is Nux a "war boy" or a "kamakrazy"? Are cars simply "cars", or are they wheels as they are sometimes referred to in Mad-Max slang? Still I don't think it's useful to have a discussion about each and every instance, let's first have a discussion about which general style we should use. AadaamS (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of "in-universe", the use of names? The War Boys are introduced and immediately described as an army, an apt description and one that can be universally understood. They're not Conan, "warrior" is an anachronistic term for a modern audience especially compared to something simple like army. Similarly, "blood bag" should be considered a similarly understandable term while retaining the context of the scene that Max is an object, not a donor as in your edit. The plot is written in present tense as is required, not as a historical document. If we are going for universal understanding, I don't understand how hot rod, a more American-centric term, is more widely understandable than "car". I can acquiesce to changing Rig to Truck if it truly is not a considerably understandable term, but the rest does not stand. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:, we are not writing "in the context of the scene". It should never be a prerequisite to see the film to understand its plot summary on Wikipedia. Our intended audience is the layman who has never seen even one Mad Max film. So yes, strange and unorthodox names for everyday things, like blood donor, should go. Perhaps we should write that he's an unwilling blood donor, that's very clear. Fair point about "hotrod", it should probably be replaced with something better so I am open to suggestions. It's not an army, if anything it's a militia. Immortal Joe isn't a general, he's a warlord or something like that. AadaamS (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That is some extreme pedantry, especially since the first sentence of Militia reads "A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting force". Feel free to bring me a layman who can't understand "blood bag", until then your argument seems to be based purely on preference rather than anything that will actually improve the plot. This plot is in-line with plots on other featured articles, and I see no evidence of any actual issue here beyond maybe rig-> truck. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am discussing this article, not other articles. The plot description is poor in its wording, punctuation and inconsistent in its use of names & terms. If I show anyone on the street a picture from the movie with Max giving blood, the odds are that nobody will call him a "blood bag" without having seen the film first. We'll have to agree to disagree here. Good work on staying clear of the ad hominem arguments! AadaamS (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max Fury Road takes place after Mad Max Beyond Thunderdone as per prequel comic

Although the status of relation of Fury Road to earlier Mad Max films was unclear, the latest Fury Road prequel comic Mad Max: Fury Road - Mad Max #1 confirms that the events of Fury Road chronologically take place after that of the earlier Mad Max films. In the comic it is shown that the events of the Mel Gibson films take place before the events of comic. You can see this here:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/67228/20150708/mad-max-fury-road-max-1-review-welcome-to-the-thunderdome-again.htm

Thus the events of Fury Road are taking place after the Mel Gibson Mad Max films. I think it should be added in the lead section that the events of Fury Road take place chronologically after the events of Beyond Thunderdome. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess maybe you could put that in the release section, where the prequel comics are briefly described. But what happens in a tie-in comic book doesn't really affect this film. I don't think there's any place for it in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: It isn't just a tie-in comic, it's a prequel comic. Also the comics take place within the same universe as Fury Road. Hence, Fury Road does take place after the Mel Gibson films. If there isn't any place for it in the lead I think we can add it n the "Plot" section. I think it is much more suitable there. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You posted the same comment twice, so I deleted the second one (hope that's okay). However, NinjaRobotPirate is right. The comic is not the film. If the film itself does not make it clear when it takes place compared to the others, it's tertiary information. The least appropriate place for it would be the plot section, because that is only utilized to describe the events that occur between the first and last frame. Expanded universe things (which this comic, and all other comics about this film, are) can go in a "Marketing" subsection, or a "Comic tie-ins" subsection, or some third thing, but not in the plot section. Sock (tock talk) 11:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: The prequel comics takes place within the same universe. George Miller said that himself. Is there any Wikipedia rule that it can't go into plot section? I'm just adding one line that is "The events of the film take place after those of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome." KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't matter. The film itself does not make it clear that the film takes place after Beyond Thunderdome, and even if it did, nothing from that film comes in to play here. As I said, we can include, in the area where we discuss the comics, that it is stated that the film follows Beyond Thunderdome. But it's simply not important enough for the plot section, and is arguably not worthy of inclusion at all. Sock (tock talk) 01:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: George Miller himself aaid that he did not care much about chronology. This is the reason why Fury Road is related in a very little way to earlier films. It is also the reason the earlier three films were themselves very loosely connected to each other. But the fact that Fury Road is connected to the earlier films can easily be seen since in the film Max still has the hallucinations of his family being killed in the events of Mad Max 1. Not only that he still wears a leg brace. Also the prequel comic shows how after the events of the third film, Max rebuilds the Interceptor that was destroyed in the second film Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. This is the reason why Max has the Interceptor in Fury Road.

Also your argument of it not being important enough for plot section and not being worthy enough of inclusion at all seems petty seeing as to how it is just one simple line. But still if you say so I think it should be added to the "Release" section. If you're ok with it then I'll add it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd that you used the director himself stating he didn't care much for chronology as a supporting point for including a mention of chronology. And if you look around at most film sequel articles, virtually none contain "Following the events of [previous film]", or at least none that are GA or FA material, in the plot section. A recent example would be Jurassic World, where the plot section opens with "Twenty-two years after the incident at Jurassic Park..." not "Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park". Those events are directly relevant to Jurassic World though, which is not the case here. That, and an actual time span between Thunderdome and Fury Road is not established in the film.

The plot summary is meant to do just that, summarize the plot, and not describe things tertiary to what happens on screen. But as I said, it'd be right at home with the rest of the information relating to the prequel comics. I would suggest wording that the comics take place "between the events of Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road, but that's just me. Sock (tock talk) 15:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Thanks for your advice but actually only Mad Max Fury Road: Mad Max #1 takes place between the events of Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road. The Furiosa comic takes place directly before Fury Road and Nux & Immortan Joe takes place many years before Fury Road. I'll add small plot details about all comics instead and include in it that events of Mad Max #1 takes place between the events of Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road. That would be more convenient. Thanks for your help. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I think you and I have separate definitions of "small", my friend. The plot summaries for the comics make up 20% of the article! These definitely need to be chopped down considerably, or possibly broken into their own article if there's enough third-party sources discussing them. A one- or two-sentence synopsis would be appropriate here, not an in-depth summary. Sock (tock talk) 12:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say, but I figured maybe I was being too minimalist. Detailed descriptions of the comics could occur in their own article, if the comics are notable. It seems like a valid split to me. According this article from Vulture.com, the comics have taken a lot of criticism over plotting and characterization. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: I told you that I was going to insert the plot details of all the comics. Believe me, I've tried to keep them as small as I could and I've only added the most important plot details. I don't know how to get any smaller than this. Simply adding one single line to the Release section that one of the comic takes place between Beyond Thumderdome and Fury Road just for the sake of it would be irrational and unneeded. That's why I asked you to instead simply place the line "The events of Fury Road take place after that of Beyond Thunderdome" in the lead or "Plot" section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You said "small" plot details, not full-blown summaries. Small plot details would be brief overviews of the plot for the comics. I'm not saying only include the line about when it takes place, but I am saying mention that and give a broad summary. If you want to go as in-depth as you have that's fine, but it needs to be in a separate article as I mentioned above. As I said, a fifth of the article being dedicated to just the plot summaries of the tie-in comics. The plot summary of the actual film doesn't take up that much. Sock (tock talk) 12:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The comics section as it stands are written with a WP:INUNIVERSE perspective which is to be avoided. They are taking up way too much room in this article see WP:UNDUE. At best they are tie-in media and they need to be split into their own article which can be linked to from this one. MarnetteD|Talk 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why can't the comic book coverage be in its own article? I see various articles about them, such as this. If the summaries go there, there we could have a hatnote in the film article's plot summary to alert readers to the comics article and the section that adds more to the plot. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: It's not a full blown summary actually. I tried to be as concise as possible and kept only the most major plot points. I had to thin it out a lot. Inserting just one line that "The comic takes place between Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road." seemed to be unneeded and undue. That's why I instead asked you to simply write it a "The events of Fury Road take place after that of Beyond Thunderdome. But I guess you're rigjt the plot summaries are too long for the article and need to be in a separate article. I have nonproblem with removing thdm. Please remove them. Sorry for the inconvenience. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Not you again. I still remember you. Last time you kept imposing your opinion and keep harassing me. Besides the comics aren't just toe-in, they were officially confirmed to be canonical. But still anyway I agree their plot summaries is too long for the article. I don't have any problem with then being removed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and split the comic books into Mad Max: Fury Road (comic book). Feel free to add more contributions there, as I'm admittedly inexperienced at creating articles for comics. Sock (tock talk) 13:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: The correct title should be "Mad Max: Fury Road (comic books)" not "Mad Max: Fury Road(comic book)". There are 4 comic books not just 1. Please correct the title. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Title is correct. See WP:NCCOMICS, and for an example, see The Walking Dead (comic book), which currently has 144 issues. Sock (tock talk) 14:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: I agree but The Walking Dead's issues' story centre on one single set of characters. Mad Max: Fury Road's story centres on different set of characters in each comic. Anyway I don't agree with you adding just the cover art of Furiosa issue. I think the art of all issues should be added together in a panel that showcases covers of all issues. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: That is not how comic book articles have ever worked. Only one image has been used as a primary identifier for media, be it films, comics, music albums, or even pornos. For a better example, how about Venom (comic book), which actually consists of various runs and series of the same title, despite their lack of connection outside of the title character. This comic book series is all one run, so it should be treated as such. That, and (comic books) is still not a valid title no matter how you swing it.

As for why it's Furiosa's cover, the issue focused on Furiosa issue is the one with the most coverage, and thus it best represents the series as a whole for right now. When the collective graphic novel artwork is released, I will replace it with that. Please take a look through MOS:COMIC before making further suggestions. Sock (tock talk) 14:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Well alright thanks for the inflrmation. I didn't know about this before. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Your plot summaries share a striking resemblance to those listed in this ScreenCrush article, and are concerning enough as a possible copyright violation that I will be removing them for the time being. Please rewrite them in original wording if you manage to read the comics for yourself, or do a considerable rewrite of the initial content so there is no more close paraphrasing. Sock (tock talk) 15:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Only the plot summary of the first comic that is Nux & Immortan Joe was copied fron ScreenCrush. Rest plot summaries are written by myself after reading through the comics. Besides even in the plot summary of first comic I removed and edited a lot of material from it. It's not a complete copy and paste. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I see my error and will restore the other two, but not being "a complete copy and paste" does not mean it isn't plagiarism or copyright infringement. The core writing of the Nux and Immortan Joe summary is identical to the summary on ScreenCrush, and is therefore unusable. Simply swapping out and deleting words does not negate plagiarism. You'll need to rewrite that from the ground up before it can be restored. Sock (tock talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: I've already restored the summaries of the other two comic since they were completely original and self-created content. I'll write an original plot summary of the first one after reading it. Thank you for your help. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why So Serious?

I love wikipedia and I 'use' to love editing on here. That is until I got sick of all the editing wars. I love Mad Max Fury Road and just wanted to add a little to the article. But when information gets repeatedly removed I get disheartened. The worst part is the never ending battles that still leave WRONG information. I don't even want to touch the issue of why so many people care about 'critical acclaim'. Get over it. Certain editors unrelenting efforts to trim sections to the 'suggested' length has rendered it completely inaccurate in places. I don't even want to try anymore. Even asking questions will shoot up red flares. So I will just query: What can be done to bring decent editors like myself back into the mix, who leave when they get tired of battling those editors with status that give them too much weight? SIDE NOTE: This question is also a semi-social media test to see whether the editors in question (who know exactly who they are) respond in a way which will only prove my point or if there are any editors who side with me, or can offer solace to my plight. Rant over. And I know it's in the wrong place. I don't care. I just don't care anymore. MiracleMat (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If you expect other editors to help you through this dilemma you're having with Wikipedia, I don't think the way to get constructive feedback is to taint the discussion with cavalier dismissals like "get over it". Surely the simplest advice to you would be "get over it", but I don't think you'd like to hear that any more than anyone else would. That said, we have guidelines for plot length, for instance, because editors (well-intentioned as they might be) have a dickens of a time picking the most important plot points, and tend to ramble about things that are best left to the actual movie-watching experience. Excessive plot length is also problematic for copyright reasons, i.e. the concept of "derivative works". Somehow, the community prevailed at Star Wars (film), a total cruftbait article, where editors have managed to convey the most important parts of the 2 hour film in 625 words. It's doable, even if it is unsavory. The rest of what you're asking, or testing, or whatever it is you are doing, I have no idea. I'm not sure where your frustration about asking questions comes from, though. You've only made edits in talk space 7 times since 2013. Maybe discussing your reverted edits (as we are encouraged to do per WP:BRD) might help reinforce in you the collaborative nature of this hobby? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this page, so I'm a bit offside, here, but I've seen "plot" sections frequently describing every single event in the film. That isn't "plot". I'm tempted to trim them, but I'm not sure what that accomplishes, & I don't want to add dozens of film pages to my watchlist to keep them from getting rv'd. So in a sense I do sympathize, but...I have to ask, is what you want to add genuinely relevant? Or merely interesting? Read a film review in something like Videohound: it captures the essence & offers the reader enough to decide if the film's worth seeing, without giving anything away. That should be the goal at WP, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the revert button is used like a knee-jerk reaction, corrections to the existing text (which we want to keep) are being thrown out with extensions (which we do not want as the plot is almost above the 700 word limit already. There is too much detail in the plot and the phrasing is poor. For example:

• Toast is captured and put in Joe's car, but she distracts him, allowing Furiosa to hook Joe's mask to his car's wheels with a chain, tearing his face off and killing him.
• Should be changed to: Toast is captured by Joe, but she distracts her captor which allows Furiosa to kill him.

The difference is that the emphasis has been changed to what happens from how it happens this would then refocus the section to the plot itself, not minor characters, not vehicles, props or other 'production' values. For instance the fact that Immortan Joe has a mask is not central to the plot, to make it concise, Immortan Joe could at his introduction be described as frail as well as tyrannical.

As for general editor behaviour, I had one big fight with a WP:OWNER of this article and then I simply gave up after that editor simply decided that violating MOS:PLOT with respect to in-universe style is the way forward. Imho, a film plot should be perfectly understandable to anyone on the street who is able to read English but has never seen a single Mad Max film. At the end of the day the subject of this article just a piece of entertainment and after that I tried to engage on slightly more serious content. TREKphiler: WP is under no obligation to leave out spoilers in the plot and inducing readers to see the film isn't an objective of this article. AadaamS (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Cyphoidbomb:, what do you think about my suggestion to shift the emphasis? AadaamS (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AadaamS I prefer conciseness and accessibility to readers who are unfamiliar with the series. I have not seen the movie, however, so I think I should defer to others for the nuanced changes. If we can avoid details that may not matter (for instance that Toast is put in a car), then let's. Although a fact may be important in the movie, it may not be important for understanding the plot. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the "less-detailed" version is appropriate (& even that much detail is too much, IMO); the object is to describe the film in a way people who have not seen it might decide if they want to, not tell them everything that happens in it. Read a review in one of the movie guides: that should be the model. WP, generally, is insanely beyond that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Trekphiler:, I disagree with you. I think WP should factually describe the major plot from beginning to the end of its resolution and having read the plot, the moviegoer should have no major surprises. AadaamS (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

More sources, mostly for the vehicles

I've got too many tabs open in my browser. Here are a few more sources:

• Mad Max creator George Miller's return to auteur space from The Saturday Paper. Background, interviews, mostly on development and filming
• Is this the greatest moment in Australian cinema history? from News.com.au. Kind of lightweight. Mostly interviews and reactions from cast and crew. Some choice quotations from actors about their characters.
• Mad Max Fury Road - exclusive chat with production designer Colin Gibson from the Irish Examiner. Interview with Gibson, mostly about the cars.
• Mad Max’s Production Designer on How He Made All Those Badass Cars from Vulture.com. Another interview with Gibson, also mostly about the cars.
• How 'Mad Max's' Megacars Were Melded from The Hollywood Reporter. Brief article, mostly about the cars.
• Every Killer Car in Mad Max: Fury Road Explained from Bloomberg Business. Extensive background and detail on the cars.
• Here’s How They Built the Beastly Machines for Mad Max: Fury Road from thecredits.org (also republished in Autoweek). Long, detailed interview with the art director about how the cars were designed.
• Charlize Theron on Mad Max: Fury Road, being part of a feminist action movie from Entertainment Weekly. Interview with Theron, mostly about her character.
• Charlize Theron: 'I'm not a fan of scrawny little girls pretending to kick butt' from The Daily Telegraph. Not as interesting, but a few details about her character.

At some point, it might be worth discussing an article like List of vehicles from Mad Max: Fury Road, because there's a staggering amount of sources about this. I've got some experience in writing articles like that, but I honestly find them a bit crufty. Problem is, I don't think I can really summarize these news articles here without the information on the vehicles completely overwhelming the production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sequel or reboot

Just curious, how do you decide what's a sequel and what's a reboot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.119.190 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Usually, it's obvious. The Godfather Part II is a sequel, and Batman Begins is a reboot. A reboot ignores previous continuity, while a sequel follows it. Sometimes you can't quite tell, as the continuity is ambiguous. When it's at all contentious, then we go by what the sources say. When it's so ambiguous that even the sources are confused by it, I generally favor saying nothing, as we've done here. George Miller himself has said in interviews that he's disinterested in such labels (reboot vs sequel), which would explain why nobody can really tell. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So, being labeled 4th in a franchise (i.e., Mad Max 4) doesn't necessarily indicate a sequel (or prequel, etc.)? Not that it ultimately matters. I'm just trying to understand how this one fits. As you said, some times it's obvious. This one isn't! Thanks for responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.119.190 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically, everything after the first film is a sequel, and they're all just different types of sequels. I found one of the articles I read about this: [1]. Miller simply calls the film "a revisiting", which is probably the best we're going to get out of him. The stories are loosely connected, but there's no "official" continuity. If it makes you feel better, you could probably consider it a sequel of ambiguous chronology. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian–American co-production

Editors keep adding to the lede that this is an Australian film, but it appears that's only half the story, as this appears to be considered an Australian–American co-production. [2] Per WP:FILMLEAD: If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. So clearly we wouldn't put this info in the first sentence, but I'm having some trouble finding an intuitive spot for it.

The fourth instalment in the Mad Max franchise, the Australian–American co-production is set in a future desert wasteland where gasoline and water are scarce commodities. (?)

The film, the fourth instalment in the Mad Max franchise, is an Australian–American venture produced by Kennedy Miller Mitchell, RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Village Roadshow Pictures. The film is set in a future desert wasteland... (?)

Thoughts, anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk)

I don't think it's necessary to hash out the exact wording here, but I would combine the two: "The fourth instalment in the Mad Max franchise, it is an Australian-American venture produced by Kennedy Miller Mitchell, RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Village Roadshow Pictures. The film is set in ..." This avoids the repetition of starting consecutive sentences with the same subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Good suggestion, NRP, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The countries are covered in the infobox, the film guideline specifically states that if there is more than one country involved then not to put it in the lead, and the list of studios is irrelevant to the lead. It's an unnecessary addition to placate a jingoistic agenda. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, I'm confused how you could be confused about the guideline, as I pasted the relevant portion above in green. The guideline doesn't want it in the opening sentence if it is multiple, but says explicitly, If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. That's what we did. We covered the national interests later in the lead section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea for us to state the film's country of production in the lead if we're ever going to resolve the addition of "Australian" from good-faith editors who notice the country of origin is missing. Some of them probably are making disruptively nationalistic edits, but others, I think, are just trying to be helpful (and haven't read the sources). And, yeah, we're just supposed to keep it out of the lead sentence, though I'm not sure why. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine the rationale is to avoid clutter. There's a lot of info to get across in a lead sentence including genres, and then wedging nations into it as well just bloats it up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if it's just two nations, I don't think it's very cluttered. Well, I guess it's not terribly important, and if I ever feel that strongly about it, I can bring it up at MOS:FILM. I don't think we're ever advised one way or the other about production companies, but it seems harmless enough to include them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that the MOS doesn't encourage the mention of the prod companies, but in a case like this, it seems reasonable to add, lest we're left with a meatless sentence like "The film is an Australian–American co-production." Seems like if you're going to mention production info, the prod companies might be included. On the other hand, my first example above didn't mention the production companies, but seemed clunky transitioning between the national origin and the plot. Anyhow, I'm flexible about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ace's actor

The actor who played the Ace is Jon Iles, but according to IMDB, that Jon Iles is not the same man as the Jon Iles that this article links to. Can anyone confirm that they're the same person? -CaptainJae (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In this article, he's identified as "John Iles", an ex-SAS soldier. However, the name is misspelled; the actor's LinkedIn profile spells it "Jon Iles". Also, it doesn't mention anything about the SAS, but instead lists the Royal Australian Navy. In this article, Emanuel Levy briefly describes him as a military adviser. That's not very helpful, but it does lead me to believe that they're probably two different people. One looks to be English and the other Australian; one looks to be ex-military, and the to be a voice-over actor. The British Jon Iles has a personal website that has no mention of Mad Max. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's been no further discussion, so I'm just going to delink the name, as it seems likely to me that they're two different people: an Australian ex-military actor and a British voice actor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the feminist point of view in any way relevant?

There's an unique paragraph dedicated to an official feminist approval. I wonder should every movie include one or what is it that makes this particular movie an exception? Wikipedia should keep politics and facts separate. So I suggest to remove that paragraph. Not that it ever happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.71.6 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

88.112.71.6 Are you talking about the single-sentence in the critical response section? Why is that a problem for you? A number of professional film critics took note of the strong feminist theme. The film is about women fighting back against mistreatment. Who would you expect to comment on this? We discuss the cold war messages at Dr. Strangelove. We cover political themes in the article on Citizen Kane likely because these issues are intrinsic to the films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant per reasons noted in the #Should commentary on sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist feelings be included? section above. And, yes, as also noted in that discussion, that single sentence about feminism is insufficient. That text will be expanded at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it shuold be included in the article because of mainstream coverage but I don't think Critical reception is the correct section for the mention since feminists aren't film critics, they are politicians. Perhaps move to a new section named Political response or something similar? AadaamS (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AadaamS, as I've stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, we don't limit our critical reception sections to simply what critics stated; well, I mean we sometimes do, but MOS:FILM is not strict about it. As indicated by the Audience response section at MOS:FILM, we can include audience response material in the Critical response section; this is mainly if there is not enough audience material for it to be its own subsection. And, in this case, as we can see, the feminist content currently in the article is too small to be its own section; MOS:Paragraphs is clear about such sections as well. That stated, regarding critical reception sections, I look at the inclusion of material from commentators who are not professional film critics as an "everyone's a critic" thing. "Critical reception" doesn't only mean "what the professional film critics think." I understand what you mean by your suggestion, but the WP:RfC above closed as being for one paragraph (even though I disagree with the interpretation that consensus was for one paragraph only). And, in this case, I don't think that one paragraph needs its own section. Furthermore, professional film critics commented on the feminist aspects as well, so the material is connected to the critical reception material anyway; so in that regard, I also don't see that we should have two different sections commenting on the feminist angles/disagreements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Future plans for Furiosa

In the Sequels section, the article contains the statement, Later in October in an interview with Digital Spy, [Martin] revealed that Furiosa won't appear in the sequel and clarified that Mad Max: The Wasteland is just a working title for the sequel. Why is this here? We're not a crystal ball, and even if sourced, some things are still speculative, since nobody knows whether or not the draft that Martin was working on at the time the quote was taken is still valid, and if Furiosa will or won't eventually appear in the sequel. I think it should be cut on the basis that we're not running a fan blog, gossip column, or other up-to-the-minute-fact factory. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the nature of Wikipedia that these kinds of sections turn into a sequentially ordered collection of random factoids. There was a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#What should be included in an updated production section?. I don't have very strong feelings about the quoted text, but I agree it's a bit forward-looking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot Error - He had a son, not a daughter.

"Max chooses to stay behind, but after seeing visions of his dead daughter"

No, Max had a son in the first film, his name was Sprog and he was a toddler, not the young girl that is seen in the flashbacks. More likely the girl is just someone that he could not save. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfcat aus (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember her calling him "daddy." It may not be the same child as the one who died in the first movie, they do take place years apart. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You say you remember, but is there a reliable source? In IMDb she is listed as "Glory The Child", no mention of any parenthood. Garavello (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This film is not a sequel, it's reboot. So the girl probably was Max's daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.39.126 (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I've been wondering this too, is there any evidence that either (A) the girl in this one is his daughter, or (B) this film is a reboot as opposed to a sequel? --zandperl (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As this is considered a re-boot, George Miller has changed the game a bit, and it looks like he most likely decided to change Max's offspring to a girl. I believe she refers to him as "Pa" before he rides after the motorcycles. Calling her his daughter seems appropriate. MiracleMat (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Miller said this wasn't a re-boot, however. It's just as much OR as saying that he had another family between Road Warrior (where Max was in his early 20s) and Fury Road (where he's 33). The only thing that's not OR is that the girl addresses him with paternal titles. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In the film, the girl outright calls Max "Pa" in the onscreen dialogue during her last appearance, which pretty clearly means she's Max's daughter in this new reboot-continuity. A thought: Maybe she was adopted by Max after the war and the loss of his own biological family? 98.212.253.18 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which poster to use

I uploaded the Australian theatrical release poster because this is an Aussie-American co-production with stronger ties to Australia. The poster was reverted back to the US poster. Having lots of experience uploading posters I've always found that consensus in these matters has been to use the poster from the country with the strongest ties. Please post your thoughts. Cheers. — Film Fan 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate this kind of nationalistic drama. The existing poster is fine, and there's no need to change it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Australian. I'll add as well that if we were to go with the US poster, this is the final and most used (because it's the best) US poster. — Film Fan 13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(My comments copied over from the File page) Per the lead and infobox, the film is American and Australian, so there is no reason that an Australian poster would take priority. Additionally the purpose of the infobox image is not to serve some nationalistic notion but to easily identify the film. The added poster is also not a release poster since it says "coming soon" on it, so it wasn't even a recent poster, and I know the age rating is on it, this is something I took issue with in my edit summary. So no, I do not agree to the use of the modified poster.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• The film has US involvement but is primarily Australian and has a clear Aussie identity.
• The poster you uploaded is not even the primary US poster.
• Your argument in the edit summary was that the poster you uploaded "doesn't say it isn't Australian". When has a poster ever been labelled "not Australian"?
• Theatrical release posters always have the rating on them, which your upload does not have, while the Australian poster and the final US poster do. The "in cinemas soon" comment is completely irrelevant to the argument. — Film Fan 14:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this "Aussie" identity and please indicate how you have allocated a percentage to it's national identity.

Otherwise feel free to source its Australianishness versus its Americanishness and other -ishness that may be involved.

Then explain what that, if anything, has to do with the image used to easily identify the article to a western audience.

The poster uploaded has appropriate images of the cast and a full billing block as any release poster would do.

The age rating is of absolutely no importance; not to the article, not to the image, not to the suitability OF the image.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you don't know what Mad Max is. I can't even be bothered anymore. — Film Fan 16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)