Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mad Max: Fury Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/919714/mad-max-is-back-but-is-mel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mad Max: Fury Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150520101922/http://comicsalliance.com/mad-max-fury-road-inspired-artists/ to http://comicsalliance.com/mad-max-fury-road-inspired-artists/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Which poster to use
I tried uploading the final theatrical poster with date, rating, etc., and the upload was reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war so let's settle this here. Why the revert? The final theatrical poster is not trumped by any previous poster. —  Film Fan  22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You know why because it's the fourth time. The rating isn't important for the same reason we don't mention it in the article, we don't need the release date on the poster because it's in the article and it's not even the Australian release date so it's jingocentric. You keep uploading the blue/orange posters and I assume it's because you prefer them, which is fine, but the existing poster has pictures of the cast and a full credit listing which we can use in the article as well, compared to the posters you upload which have the date on. And that isn't a valuable contribution to the article.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not have a valid argument. The rating does matter. It's the rating that shows us it's the final poster. Your upload is simply your personal preference. The only posters that should be considered are the final US poster, or the Aussie poster. You make the argument that your upload has the main cast (not a valid reason) and the billing block on it - but both the Aussie poster and the final US poster HAVE THEM ON TOO. You literally have no argument, and do not know what a theatrical poster is. It's time to concede this farce, mate. —  Film Fan  22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What has altered since this discussion, and why has noone else seen a need to change the poster in the last 2 years? This is literally the same argument, so like last time I'll let a third party weigh in because I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That was me pushing for the Aussie poster. This is me saying either the Aussie poster or the final US poster are acceptable (although really, it should be the Aussie poster) and that you have no argument, and you know it, and, because you have no counter argument, all you've got is that you "disagree" lol. Yeah, if you're gonna dig your heels in with nothing but "I like the other poster", we'll wait for someone else to weigh in.
 * Or, alternatively, you could pick one of the two posters I'm offering you, and we can be done with this nonsense. —  Film Fan  23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMPOSTER, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." Outside the world premiere, which I do not think we can find a unique poster for, the earliest theatrical release for a general audience would be the Australian poster. Arguments about the billing block do not seem to be that relevant, as this is a relatively new film in the internet age, things like cast, production, release dates are not terribly difficult to find reliable third party sources on. Going by the rules, get a variation of an Australian poster. Which would appear to be this one: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, the current poster is the Australian poster (the poster you linked to is American). —  Film Fan  18:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then use that. If there are other Australian posters, I am a bit more flexible with using one that we can argue best gives the idea of the idea of the film across. Details like credits/release dates etc. are not as important I think...whatever we can agree one best gets the point across. The current one is definitely Australian, so go for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts, and the current poster is the only Australian poster, so case closed. Finally. —  Film Fan  18:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mad Max: Fury Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116150509/http://twitchfilm.com/news/2010/07/george-miller-working-on-not-one-but-two-new-mad-max-films.php to http://twitchfilm.com/news/2010/07/george-miller-working-on-not-one-but-two-new-mad-max-films.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151021191031/http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-mad-max-fury-road-lured-oscar-winner-john-seale-back-behind-the-camera/single-page to http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-mad-max-fury-road-lured-oscar-winner-john-seale-back-behind-the-camera/single-page
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151021191031/http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-mad-max-fury-road-lured-oscar-winner-john-seale-back-behind-the-camera/single-page to http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-mad-max-fury-road-lured-oscar-winner-john-seale-back-behind-the-camera/single-page
 * Added tag to http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/11/us/ap-us-film-review-mad-max-fury-road.html?_r=0&referrer=
 * Added tag to http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/film-tv/8074/tom-hardy-esquire-interview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A Reboot
The only citation for this film being a reboot is a link to an article with the headline "How George Miller Rebooted an Iconic Franchise With 'Mad Max: Fury Road' " But at no point in the article does George say the film is a reboot, I suggest the mention of a reboot is removed. 81.130.141.175 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I Comment To .
I Point Out That User Removed Reference To Joint Australian-American Nature of Film And Replaced With Nonsensical "Purely Australian". I Do Not See Point Of Your Undo. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I Point Out You Can Also See "Venture" Was Replaced With Similarly Nonsensical "Adventure". IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * sorry - I clicked to undo your first edit, which replaced "adventure" with "adenture". It undid your second edit at the same time, which I hadn't seen and which was in fact an improvement. You're welcome to reinstate it. I tried to revert myself, but couldn't because you'd already made a third edit. Mortee (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I Thank You For Clarifying. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Production country
Lead says its just an Australian film. The infobox says its both Austrailian and American. Which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an Australian and American film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That depends - as per the MoS - entirely on how the film is described by reliable sources. So far there aren't any direct references to the film's nationality to be able to draw such a conclusion (the 'countries' box on BFI isn't adequate). MapReader (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And since Hollywood Reporter no less is happy to describe this as an Australian Film, so should we MapReader (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. I didn't want to edit war over the matter. Does the NYT review (which mentions that it was also a U.S. production) qualify as well? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can’t comment on NYT as it is paywalled. But clearly there was some US involvement in production, which should be (and is) acknowledged within the article.  That doesnt inhibit RS, and hence WP, describing it as an Australian film.  Such judgements are often made on the basis of the predominant origin of the creative input, but of course it isn’t for us to try and second guess the RS. MapReader (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT article can be viewed here without a paywall and it states both Australia and USA. Mind you, Screenaustralia.gov.au states just one production company, here, the Australian one. It seems that people are including the Village Roadshow in some of the production bits (it doesn't seem to be a major contribution, with the predominate funding coming from Australian companies). Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I am only seeing an infobox listing the countries involved with the film, not a descriptor, unless I have missed it?  As I said above there is no denying the American involvement (just as there was French involvement in Mulholland Drive and British involvement in Game of Thrones, yet both remain widely and rightly seen as American creative products).  There are further references to this Max Max being an Australian film here from the US - this article from the HR explains why it is considered an Australian film - from the UK, here from Australia and Ireland. I wouldn’t have a problem with adding “United States” to the infobox, reflecting the involvement, which doesn’t conflict with the primary description in the lead article as being an “Australian Film” (just as Mulholland has both the US and France in the infobox but is described as “American” in the lead) MapReader (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well MOS:FILMS standards states we should list all countries involved. I've tried bringing this up in discussion with MOS:FILM, but there is little detail about it when it comes to films listed as "in association with" or "co-produced by" when there is one main production company like "a so-and-so production". These rules also seem to differ from country to country so it gets complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The logical position, already reflected by very many film articles, is that the infobox lists the various countries involved and the lead describes the film as directly referenced by reliable sources. All in line with the existing MoS. MapReader (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead uses one source which states one country but as we see here, we've found other sources that list a second one. Which is correct then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of films are made involving entities from second countries yet are seen as creative products from one particular country. The Hollywood Reporter article linked above explains why this is seen as an Australian film, despite the American involvement.  It is reasonable therefore to describe the film (reflecting the RS) as an Australian film in the lead but list out both countries in the Infobox.  MapReader (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but thats interpretation though. I'd lean towards it myself being an Australian film, but if we are going to get technical (which we should be for specifics), we need to deduce what are the countries of production specifically. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely the opposite. “we need to deduce...” isn’t the job of editors, and THAT would be interpretation and fall foul of OR.  Our job as editors - not writers or researchers - is simply to identify (and weigh, where necessary) the relevant reliable sources.  Hollywood Reporter states directly that it is an Australian film, and as a good RS that is entirely sufficient, reflecting as it does a good balance of other RS.  It is helpful for the purposes of our discussion that HR goes on to explain why it comes to that conclusion, but all that we need is the direct citation. As per Mosfilm. MapReader (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about us deducing what it is ourselves, its deducing how Australian or American productions handle their country of production credit as it seems different per countries and different sources say different things. Using them all would be not being realistic for readers as we have indeed found sources that state different things and it remains unclear which is the more accurate for this production. I would say its more "Original Research" by just stating one source over the other for...well, I can't even figure out why we do that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think you are grasping the point, which is that it is not about "deduction" at all. If reliable sources say it's an Australian film, then it's an Australian film.  Of course, differing sources sometimes conflict and the balance and reliability of sources then has to be weighed - but then that's an issue for articles across the whole of WP.  In the case of film, personally I'd give more weight to foreign sources (in relation to the film) as there is obviously a tendency for national sources to try and 'claim' a good film as their own.  In this particular case the film is very widely seen as an Australian film and - as a very reputable and American source -  the fact that Hollywood Reporter is happy so to describe it must carry a lot of weight. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Budget
I thought maybe someone had vandalized the budget range again but it seems User:Chompy_Ace deliberately removed the it, but did not explain with an edit summary. The range listed was $150–185 million but the lower figure of $150 that Box Office Mojo claims the film cost was removed. If the Box Office Mojo figure is wrong then please explain.

Even then Template:Infobox film warns not to cherry pick budget figures. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverted by myself. Chompy Ace 08:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * I took a closer look, even the SMH article that was used as a source for the higher number explains that the figures are disputed by Warner and Miller : "The production company has claimed Fury Road cost $US154.6 million; the studio claimed it blew out to $US185.1 million." So even more so than usual the budget range should be listed for this article. If the producers and filmmakers cant agree how much it cost, no wonder Wikpipedia editors disagree about it so often. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In a feature about Mad Max for Variety Scott Foundas wrote "some say as high as $250 million (not counting P&A)." [The original page wasn't working for me for some reason, I read the Archived copy] but anyway it probably best to stick with the figures that came from the lawsuit, which are probably about as accurate we can hope to get.
 * I tried to dig deeper and get a clearer understanding of this. I always hope that the article body will more clearly explain details from the Infobox but in this case it only made things less clear. Confusingly the Box office section of this article said the budget was $200 million but then immediately after (as a caveat) explains in brackets that this claimed figure was actually the total spend including distribution and marketing costs (so as a simple matter or writing clarity it would have been better to lead with a phrase more like "total cost"). It is also misleading because it misrepresents what both the sources actually say: Scott Mendelson at Forbes said the budget was $150 million; the Deadline reference was not even attempting to provide a conclusive total spending figure, it was only looking at the profits the film had made so far and saying vaguely that the inclusive costs were "well over $200M". (Even if the budget was $150 a total spend of $200 M seems low, according to The Numbers P&A "Even midlevel releases will spend $40 million to $50 million on advertising.") I made a small adjustment and rephrased the text as little as possible to go with the reported budget figure of $150 that Mendelson used in the source (as as User:Chompy Ace is actively working to slim down the article, there did not seem like much point trying to expand the explain such minor details more clearly).
 * FWIW I found another source looking at the lawsuit, an article from Indiewire which explains the discrepancy of the budget figures $150-185 essentially comes down how to count the cost of $31 million in reshoots. Since for once there is a relatively simple explanation for the discrepancy, maybe the infobox should have a footnote to explain?
 * As always you need to to take the figures with a pinch of salt. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite the article achieving Good article status some editors keep vandalizing the budget figures and unfortunately what's even worse is other editors are letting them away with it and not immediately reverting. I've fixed it again. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
I don't understand the reason for your recent edit. Can you please explain to me the point of adding (wife) to the end of each character's name? Thank you. 2601:644:8D80:AB10:38CF:E766:BD3E:217C (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thekevinbrothers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliaboehm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvement and clarification
This sentence structure can be improved - why has the idea occurred twice? Miller came on the idea for Fury Road in 1987; however, the film was in development hell for many years before the idea occurred in 1998. 70.36.60.215 (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I found the old text from last year (the problematic change came on March 9), and put back the earlier text. --Cromwellt&#124;talk&#124;contribs 16:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Short description
The short description guidelines are a bit long and boring for something quite simple but I would encourage editors to read them at least once: WP:SHORTDESC. The purpose behind the short description is to disambiguate similar titles in search results etc. Key personnel are a good way to do that, and the example WP:SDEXAMPLES for film articles is to highlight the director. I do not think the extra word makes the short description any better, it is unnecessary and not of any real help to highlight the nationality of the film. It is better to keep the short description short WP:SD40, which is what my changes were doing. An editor argued that his revert was restoring the status quo it was only restoring a recent version, and my edit was restoring the status quo of the article when it was GA nominated. -- 109.77.202.160 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the short description should be kept short, there is rarely any cause to include the nationality in the short description. (It is not supposed to be a copy of the first line of the article.) -- 109.78.195.175 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Profit
Quoting from the article: "While the film still made a profit, it didn’t quite meet its expectations.[103] The Hollywood Reporter calculated that the loss incurred by the film was around $20–40 million." How did it make both a profit and a loss? Is something wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.44.162.62 (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, no, maybe. It depends. You need to read between the lines a bit, but perhaps this encyclopedia should make it clearer but there is no real contradiction here.
 * "While the film still made a [gross] profit," [based on its theatrical box office gross] "it didn’t quite meet its expectations." The studios always expect to make a very big profit not a small profit, and more specifically it probably didn't meet the opening weekend earning projections reported in the press. "The Hollywood Reporter calculated" and by calculated they really mean estimated and they added in other expenses such as marketing costs which are considerable "that the [net] loss incurred by the film was around $20–40 million." This also says nothing about any ancillary profits that may have been made from home media, or the fact that Hollywood Accounting never ever wanting to admit to actually making a profit, and they like to deliberately keep it murky. Reader beware. -- 109.78.195.175 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Movie production book - Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road
The book Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road (by Kyle Buchanan, 2022) describing the production of movie Mad Max: Fury Road should probably be included in this article. Here are links to the book, and two news articles describing book highlights. Donfede~enwiki (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Chrome-Wild-Story/dp/0063084341
 * "Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road" by Kyle Buchanan circa 2022
 * https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/feb/23/charlize-theron-tom-hardy-mad-max-fury-road-book
 * "Charlize Theron ‘felt so threatened’ by Tom Hardy making Mad Max she required on-set protection" by Catherine Shoard circa 2022-02-23 on The Guardian
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2022/02/22/charlize-theron-tom-hardy-mad-max-fury-road-book/6892728001/
 * "Charlize Theron recalls Tom Hardy's 'bad behavior' on 'Mad Max' set in new book: 'I didn't feel safe'" by Patrick Ryan circa 2022-02-22 on USA Today

Nux
Nux (Mad Max) has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation and/or article improvements welcome --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Budget Update
Using The Sydney Morning Harold as a source to update a movies budget is little odd considering I haven’t ever seen it used before on other budgets. It’s odd timing as well considering the change came after Furiosa bombed at the box office. WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)