Comments on: George Miller Moving Forward With Gibson-less Mad Max 4

By: Jonas Rael

Jonas Rael — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:07:26 +0000

If anybody knows where the Auditions are let me Know

By: Jonas Rael

Jonas Rael — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:00:25 +0000

Where are the Auditions at, If he wants a nobody actor I.m your man Mr. Miller( latest role gangs of OZ next season) . Just think about it all you actors out there 6.5 billion people in the world and one person gets to be the most Iconic Australian Hero with a super charged XB GT coupe. At least I’ve got a GT coupe next best thing. Good luck all the best with another great movie Mr. Miller.

By: Hebu

Hebu — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:53:13 +0000

too sad…
I think it’s gonna be a great movie an’ I’m definitly give it a shot. Nevertheless, Mad Max wont be Mad Max without Mel. It’s gonna be “Fury Road”! Doesn’t mean it’s not good or worth it, but just not the same…

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:57:42 +0000

I get what you’re saying, particularly when the actor is actually even co-writing dialogue and truly a part of the creation of that character on screen as opposed to just a vessel for the director’s vision. That character should never be separated from them.

However, there are exceptions. What about prequels, when you want a younger version of the character that can’t be played by the same actor? That’s a little different, right?

In the case of Mad Max 4, I’d rather just see new characters set in the same universe, but I will say that as long as George Miller is the man behind it I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s not like the studio handed off the franchise to some jobber and told him to do whatever he wants with it.

By: Bob The Slob

Bob The Slob — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:50:43 +0000

also, when I say “right” I don’t mean legal right.

By: Bob The Slob

Bob The Slob — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:44:55 +0000

Settled.

Sean, could you at least weigh in on this issue. Kasper pretty much did with his article, which I obviously agree with. Now, that being said, I agree that the creator of a character in most mediums should have the RIGHT to do anything they want. With film (and TV to some degree) it is different since a human being has to play the role of the character. We are only talking about screen derived characters too, no James Bonds, no Batmans…etc. That human being defines part of what that character is…their face is the character’s face…Indiana Jones has Harrison Ford’s face and voice. That is what Indiana Jones looks like. That is part of the birth of that character. Indiana Jones isn’t just a hat, a whip, and a jacket…Snake Plissken isn’t just an eye patch, John Mclane isn’t just a bloodied undershirt…The faces, voices, mannerisms, and acting nuances of those men are part of the screen derived characters for which they FIRST played in the FIRST appearances. Get what I’m saying?

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:21:03 +0000

Alright children settle down or I’ll have to send you to your room.

By: Bob The Slob

Bob The Slob — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:02:46 +0000

asdasd…so mel’s voice, face, acting,…everything about him isn’t tied to the character? Fuck you. Mel played him first, thus PART of the character is specifically tied to him, no matter what. Yes I realize george miller created the idea on paper, but this isn’t books we are talking about fuckhead, this is movies, they have actors in them. Eat shit, and burn in hell…I’ll be there with you, I’m the guy with my cock in your mom’s eye socket.

By: asdasd

asdasd — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:48:21 +0000

Wow seriously Bob, you and your argunent sucks ass. That is, if you even have an argument. Your points don’t make sense, only supposedly ”facts” from your subjectivly mouth.
No matter how hard you try to win this conversation, you can’t get away from this point:

George fucking Miller created the fucking character and the fucking movie himself. He decided Mel fucking Gibson to be the character, and therefore he decided whoever the fuck else he wants in it in any distant future Mad fucking Max film. How fucking hard can this be to understand?

By: joe

joe — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:13:52 +0000

yea fuck not having mel.

By: cobalt

cobalt — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:32:29 +0000

I can remember when “Unforgiven” came out with an older Clint Eastwood doing his cowboy thing…I worried that it was going to be terrible. Last time I checked it won 4 Oscars.

An older Mad Max would rock! Directors don’t care about the cast hey lack good scripts so add another film onto the series….it automatically makes money with out ever paying Mel big money.

I doubt I’ll see it if it’s called “Mad Max” anything. Put Hardy in the movie and call Black Hawk Mad Harvey for all I care.

By: Bob The Slob

Bob The Slob — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:46:09 +0000

Mel Gibson is MAD MAX. END. OF. STORY. PERIOD.

ROBERT ENGLUND IS FREDDY. END. OF. STORY. PERIOD.

KURT RUSSEL IS SNAKE PLISSKIN. END. OF. STORY. PERIOD.

If the character is a script-derived, created for the screen, derived solely from cinema, then the actor who originally portrayed them is 100% tied to the character forever, the character necessitates them to fully exist. INARGUABLE. James Bond, Batman, Jack Ryan, Superman…these are not screen created characters, their true form is in their original medium.

Well done Kasper for pointing this FACT out. Thank you.