Talk:Mad Max (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mad Max Renegade (2011)[edit]

Can't see anything in this article about "Mad Max Renegade (2011)" and it seems to be also part of this franchise... Is this an omission or this movie is for some reason purposely not included in the article? Here's the IMDB link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011110

Aenchevich (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short, fan-made movie. As such, it's not an official part of cannon, but it might be notable enough to mention in the franchise page. There's just not a lot of quote-able information on it out there. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Anyone else notice an increase in Vandalism on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohwtf (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction?[edit]

The wrong genre. This is not science fiction. --Wetman 10:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is set in the future, but I gather you feel that is not enough to count as science fiction. Would Waterworld count as sci-fi though?--ZayZayEM 02:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In 'Waterworld', Costner's character had evolved "gills". Thats science fiction. Nothing of that kind in Mad Max.Eregli bob (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would certainly be considered 'speculative fiction'. Cnwb 05:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Some consider Mad Max 2 (The Road Warrior) to be a retreatment of the original premise, using similar themes, characters and images, rather than a true sequel." Who says that? The two movies are not that much alike. I'd consider Roadwarrior to have more in common with Beyond Thunderdome. This is certainly nothing like Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2. Besides, a studio making a sequel that's as much like the original as possible is far from unique, and many better examples exist. Also, I though I heard that the first Mad Max movie was not supposed to be post-apocalyptic, just set in a rather chaotic future, and the post-apocalyptic concept emerged for the sequels. Anyone know if they're any truth to that? -R. fiend 21:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am in agreement with R. fiend. This sounds highly POV. Watching the two movies together just doesn't match this description. If the wiki member who entered it can give examples of critics etc who state this I will be happy to eat crow (er, I guess it would be roadkill crow in this case) and put it back in.MarnetteD | Talk 19:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This first film in the trilogy is most definitely -not- (if we treat it as one film outside of any influence from the next two) post-apoc. It is futuristic, chaotic. "Thinking it back" from RW and MM:BT to make it seem post-apoc is shabby POV. Ranieldule 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
R. fiend said "Anyone know if they're any truth to that?" Yes - the paperback edition of the Beyond Thunderdome screenplay mentioned "the war" or "the bomb" happening a few weeks after Max "headed out for the wasteland," indicating between MM and RW. Jimmylogan0916 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its Speculative fiction, which can include Science Fiction Alastairward 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of whether it's post-apocalyptic, at around 1:35 on the commentary track, cinematographer David Eggby says of the visuals, "it was all about desolation and, not so much post-apocalyptic, but certainly in the future less inviting and more desolate than today." Hypnosifl 05:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MM1 was a society crumbling and based on a world which was facing a major oil shortage (The novels explain it a bit better).

MM2 wars had broken out (the war was over oil), as shown and explained in the opening montage given by the leader of the "great northern tribe". Though there was never any inferance of nuclear war, one could assume it given the lack of working "technology"... no radio, tv etc... the lack of regular clothes and cars etc...

MM3 only confims it, with the reference to the "poxyclip" given by the annoying kids, the guy who is selling water at the start, who max runs a gieger counter over him and he says... "whats a little fall-out" and then the end where we see the remains of Sydney, minus the ocean! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.62.51 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the reference to 'high radiation' areas in MM1, which would indicate it too was post-nuclear. Australia was widely surmised at the time to escape a nuclear war relatively unscathed since it was isolated 180 deg. away from the major areas of conflict.

Are you referring to the signs saying "Prohibited Area" near the end of the film? Watching it just now I didn't notice anything else that could be construed as a reference to radiation. The2crowrox (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to high radiation in Mad Max or even Mad Max2. So I have no idea what movie your watching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.147.151 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characters section[edit]

Do people feel the section on characters is needed? Surely the plot summary is all that is needed in terms of outlining the characters. Galaga88 12:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Here here. I think a section on weapons used by Max and/or the other characters is also needed. I will help in these sections if someone would start them.-- Doo Doo 08:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that post was against a separate character section, I believe. I don't think a section for weapons is at all neccessary.--Cúchullain t / c 09:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further genre consideration[edit]

I think this should be classified as post-apocalyptic, however post-apocalyptic is typically seen as a sub-genre of science fiction.

It could be reasoned that while a film such as Mad Max certainly doesn't have advanced science compared to today, as opposed to, for example, Star Trek, it does make use of fictional yet theoretically possible scenarios in social sciences such as economics and sociology.

Just my thoughts, Sdr 08:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The link for Brian May goes to an article on Brian May of Queen... this is incorrect, it was a different Brian May. Perhaps someone could fix this.

Really? I thought it was the same guy.--Cuchullain 01:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, me too. I guess its like the Christopher Lloyd who works on Frasier Alastairward 09:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Picture[edit]

The picture of the so-called "Mad Max" car looks like an XC to me, not an XB (or maybe it is with an XC front on it.) Also, gotta love the bodgy supercharger :) --Jquarry 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think the pic is fine. It's credited as a "replica" and there are differing levels of authenticity when it comes to replicas. Jimmylogan0916 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has a fairmont frontend (XC)--59.167.159.112 (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that car in the picture is an XC, and not a true replica as its missing plenty of the flare kit and paint work of the orginal. There are dozens of replicas world wide now, which are pretty much more accurate then an XC with a dummy blower on the bonnet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.62.51 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max's wife[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did they ever say that Max's wife died? I know when Max was listening at the doorway the doctor rattled off a laundry list of problems but then he made remarks that she'd pull through and something about her possibly stabilizing through the night. Next thing we see is Max going out for revenge...so where is it assured that she even died?--Skeev 16:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this myself, and the movie, left on it's own, doens't really give us a clear answer. It's only through MM2 and the novelization that we're sure that she perishes after the attack. One can infer that the story rhetorically states that she dies, however, given the level of rage he goes into, etc. But, technically, you're correct (for what it's worth, a similar argument can be made for Goose, although Fifi does later say that "the Goose bought it." But, still, that doesn't mean that he died for sure if just taken on that. Madmaxmarchhare 15:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also leaves us with the idea that after Max kills the bikers he just drives on into the night and deeper into the wasteland without really returning, even for the funeral which they showed as part of The Road Warrior's opening.
Of course, plenty of things don't quite add up between Mad Max and the last two movies. In part one we're lead to believe that while the world is post-apocalyptic, there is still some civilized normality like regular towns with police and local goverenments. In the second two movies we see a world that's well past any law and order and we never see a real town again, just odd makeshift towns where people don't even acknowledge there's a real world left and they dress in animal skins rather than the typical clothing people wore in part one. So, either something's gone really wrong between movies or Mad Max's world was reimagined for part two and three and part one is an almost stand-alone film which solves any problems with Max's wife surviving.--Skeev 16:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mad Max" doesn't take place in a post-apocalyptic world, just a world decaying and on the verge of apocalypse. Max talks about it in "Beyond Thunderdome" ('poxyclype, etc.). Sparkhead 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you're right: we never find out if she died before the end of the film. BUT, there is that shot at the beginning of The Road Warrior where Max is standing near 2 crosses which are probably supposed to be gravesites. I guess the scene where the bikers run Max's family down is horrific enough to make us believe they were killed outright.

There is a line of dialogue about Max's wife being "salvageable", which is to say that her organs can be harvested. Presumably then she is alive but brain-dead, or otherwise not-coming-back. In the brief hospital scene she is visibly missing parts. The line about telling Max she's fine I would take to mean to stave off him collapsing emotionally. But then this film is very awkwardly edited.

I think it's reasonably clear from the "grocery list" of internal injuries that she wasn't going to make it. "Multiple traumas, spleen, liver, lung, flail chest...left neck of femur, renal shutdown," and so on. Her being salvageable refers to what the fellow above me said.

Low-budget vehicles[edit]

The article says "Due to the film's low budget, all the vehicles in the film were just modified vehicles of that era." As opposed to what? Modified vehicles from the future, like big-budget movies can afford? Please clarify this point. :)—mjb 18:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing as opposed to a very basic chassis with a completely different body on it, or a completely custom built vehicle Alastairward 09:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like the Rover and Citroen in Gattaca I guess. Eregli bob (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The film was made in 1979, by that stage the XC Falcon was in production. All the vehicles used were bought 2nd hand and were older falcon models no longer in production. Same with all the other cars you see in the film. The only "new" vehicles were the motorbikes, which were the latest model Kwaka K1000.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.62.51 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject, I just watched the documentary "The Madness Of Max" (bonus with the four-film BluRay box set) in which George Miller notes that while his own Bongo van was used at the start of the sequence, the one actually destroyed was one rescued from a scrappie and gutted of potentially dangerous bits like engine and gearbox. The story about Miller's van being wrecked should probably be removed Mr Larrington (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interceptor Capitalization[edit]

Just like "Pursuit Special", think it should be capitalized, but if shown something that conclusively points to lowercase could change my mind. *Spark* 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a 50/50, and I can see it going either way, but the reason why I don't believe that it should be there is because we're trying to say that it's NOT an "I"nterceptor.. therefore, while the mechanic could have meant Pursuit Special, but blurted out "interceptor," which would be just a generic term for a car that's designed to pursue, intercept, and catch a fleeing vehicle. Also, don't forget, the reason that you see "I"nterceptor is because of the erroneous notion that the car is, in fact, an "Interceptor," and not a "Pursuit Special." Throughout the series, there's nothing conclusive that ANY of the cars are "I"nterceptors. Although the yellow cars in MM read "INTERCEPTOR" and "PURSUIT" on the back of them, that only designates those cars' functions, and may or may not be their actual "name." In fact, two of the cars, March Hare and Big Bopper, have _names_, which are distinct from their function (that of an interceptor or pursuit vehicle). I'll not fight for this one hard, because I can see your point, and I think there's validity to it, and I could probably argue it effectively, as well. Madmaxmarchhare 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch through the movie again, theres a point where old mate that cops a lump of metal in the throat is commenting on what he can see out the window of the MFP building - when Bubba's lawyer comes back for Johnny. He says two things, through his vocoder-thingy.

"I think he's out there." and then; "I can see the in-ter-cep-tor."

Whats that all about then, being as it is, in the first movie? StopeDancer

I'm with Madmaxmarchhare, interceptor and pursuit special are just different types of patrol car. They might not even technically be different types (although IIRC, there were 6 and 8 cylinder cars used), the badge simply being there to remind the public what duties this particular vehicle has been assigned to Alastairward 17:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guys, but the terms need to be capitalized. If they are terms used by the MFP, then they are proper terms and need capitalization. They're not just terms that are used colloquially for description. The fact that some of the cars also have "names" (e.g., "March Hare") is irrelevant, as it's a different concept. Individual vehicles are often anthropomorphized and given names, especially in a military context (and you could surely agree that this setting implies a paramilitary milieu). Compare it to bombers in World War II: e.g., the Memphis Belle was a B-17 Flying Fortress. "Memphis Belle" was the name given to an individual plane, akin to "March Hare," but "Flying Fortress" was the name of the model of plane. Both are capitalized. So, the fact that the cars have individual names has nothing to do with whether the model or type of car is capitalized. If the MFP has designations of "Pursuit" and "Interceptor," then the names are capitalized. AE Logan (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ford falcon[edit]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fv20071111pl.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.108.16.189 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production Costs[edit]

Did the film cost $300,000 to produce, or was it $400,000? The 400,000 figure is in the introduction (but absent any information on what currency it is--AUS, US, etc) and then the 300,000 Australian is listed later. Primium mobile (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary[edit]

Is it just me, or is this sentence in the plot summary completely devoid of context: "The big house, where the old lady lived, is situated on top of Mt.Ridley, Craigieburn, and has been renovated since (no beach in area at all)." What big house? Who is "the old lady", Is it his wife? Why does the location (real or fictional?) matter, why should I care that it has been renovated, what does "no beach in area at all" mean? Is it something I would've had to have seen the movie to recognise? 203.171.97.136 (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most profitable?[edit]

Removed the following for a lack of any source:

for decades it had the highest profit-to-cost ratio of any motion picture (cost $400,000, profit in excess on $100,000,000) only losing the record 20 years later in 1999 to The Blair Witch Project

Seems entirely invented. In order to make that much "profit" as opposed to gross, the film would have had to take in something like $300M.

SteveCoppock (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also problematic as it disagrees with the American Graffiti article, which also claims the most-profitable crown. That claim has a citation (a 1999 book about George Lucas' films), so this one should probably go unless somebody can provide a source. Any takers? Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got the new winner - no matter how you will count this, Paranormal Activity has the biggest gross revenue ever made compared to it's budget. It was made for 15.000 $, and almost without "classical" marketing and it grossed over 100 MILLIONS $. BWP cost something around 50.000 $ on production, but also at least 400.000 $ on marketing, which for me shows how much the whole film cost. And of course Mad Max is out of gas here, even if it was cheaper than BWP in whole production-marketing-release process. Myrth from Poland

Goose's burnt face?[edit]

In the film when Max goes to see Jim Goose in hospital and starts to remove the sheet it looks like there's a part that's been cut. Because it cuts from Max removing the sheet immediately to Max's shocked reaction. Is this part missing or something because I have the Australian Special Edition of the DVD and that happens in it, but I'm sure I remember seeing Goose's face. Anyone know about this?


220.233.7.176 (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also I believe I saw the face scene (which I remember as so extremely shocking that I'll never forget it) on a UK terrestrial broadcast (most likely ITV) around late 1980's (I was around 15 year's old). Eyes attached to not-a-lot-else in the tent, rather like an Alien body. However, there appear to be very few people on the internet in the various discussion fora, that have ever seen this. More research is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.33.71 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Mad max is a very lowbudget movie: could they ever afford the make up ? --81.247.112.231 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Quality - Plot Summary[edit]

As of 7/13/08, the quality of the writing in the Plot Summary section of the article is horrible. There are numerous errors in grammar and syntax. Many of the sentences are convoluted and unclear. It reads as if it were written by someone who is not a native speaker of English and who is not fully fluent. I regret that I don't have time to clean it up right now, but perhaps someone else could take a stab at it, is it's significantly below Wikipedia's standards for quality. AE Logan (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFP[edit]

The MFP is referred to as the 'main force patrol', i am unsure of this but i thought it was an acronym for 'Melbourne Freeway Patrol' as the movie was filmed in areas around Melbourne as well as Melbourne itself. Please discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing really to discuss since the movie time and time, again, state that Max et. al. works for the "Main Force Patrol." Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The movie is not based around any location... so it is not Melbourne you see in the movie, but "Sun City". MFP were a specialized FICTIONAL branch of Police Force..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.62.51 (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Toecutter?[edit]

I can't recall him dying. He just hisses like a cat and that's the last we see of him. Since he's leader of the gang and drives the others to atrocities, I find it odd he doesn't get his cumuppance. Magmagoblin (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he probably got his comeuppance when he smashed headlong into the semi-tractor and was run over by it. I mean, it seemed like a harsh way to go, but that's just me... Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the toecutter does INDEED get his comeuppance..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.240.95 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Surname?[edit]

I have started a discussion about Max's Surname on Max Rockatansky. Please comment there if you have input on this subject. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Car destroyed was NOT a Chevrolet Impala[edit]

The car that was attacked by the motorcycle gang was an Australian production 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, not an Impala. Impalas had additional chrome around the door frames, plus Impalas had their own unique steering wheel when the car on the film was seen with a standard steering wheel. The statement's source is a fansite and fansites are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. I'll change the statement and use a source that is no more or less reliable according to Wikipedia.NJM2010 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of trim variations, it is my understanding that those 1959 Chevrolets marketed in Australia were all labelled Impala. They also had kooky little rear turn signal lamps which were not used in North America.Eregli bob (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. My grandfather's Australian production 1959 Chevrolet is a Bel Air. My understanding is that 1959 Impalas were never marketed in Australia unless they grey imports.NJM2010 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For further proof, here are some page scans of a feature story that Australian Classic Car magazine did on an Australian '59 Bel Air. September 1996 edition. Quote from the article: Only the four-door sedan was built here and in six-cylinder form only. It was nominally a Bel Air but the accessory list was somewhat sparser than on the US cars despite their expense at around £2400 - more than twice the price of an FC Holden.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af158/NJM_2009_photo/IMG_zpscc3a1d94.jpg
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af158/NJM_2009_photo/IMG_0001_zps3fa5ab3d.jpg
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af158/NJM_2009_photo/IMG_0002_NEW_zps5c5fc09c.jpg
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af158/NJM_2009_photo/IMG_0003_zps300e8e87.jpg
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af158/NJM_2009_photo/IMG_0004_zpsb8e0d2d5.jpgNJM2010 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which biker ran over Max's wife and kid?[edit]

Does anyone know which gang member killed Jessie and the kid?--70.254.45.71 (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character names[edit]

There seems to be a lot of information about character names that must come from somewhere other than the movie—the novelization, perhaps. I don't think that's really appropriate for the plot summary of the film. --Tysto (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's first widescreen film???[edit]

Wasn't Smiley (1956 film) and its sequel Smiley Gets a Gun shot in CinemaScope?Foofbun (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the entry is implying that "Mad Max" could be considered Australia's first widescreen film that was produced and released solely by an Australian company in Australia. "Smiley" and "Smiley Gets a Gun" were co-productions between Britain and Australia, and the IMDb listing for the "Smiley" films doesn't not have an Australian disribution company, like Mad Max had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchinDaFilms (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "radio locum work"[edit]

Does the writer mean locum tenens where a physician fills in for another physician? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one threw me for a loop. After some research, I think this likely began life as some kind of a typo-like mistake (perhaps indeed on the term locum tenens) when brought in from the cited source. I found strong hints they got work for a time answering emergency medical CB (and/or UHF CB) radio calls in some area of the bush or outback, keeping in mind this was 1979, long before most folks had mobile phones. Hopefully cleaned up at least a bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Acolytes[edit]

The motorcycle gang of Toecutter is named Acolytes, which is decorated with Ref. 1: "Gasoline" series 5, episode 18

I cannot find out what series that would be, not even if I paste that in google, adding the word Acolytes. I find many other TV series, but all totally unrelated. There is a wikia about Mad Max but it's not clearing it up either: http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Toecutter%27s_gang . The citation needs to be clarified. Thx, Thomas--79.226.34.5 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT-related film?[edit]

Should Mad Max be categorized as an LGBT-related film? There are many hints of homosexuality such as Chief Fifi McAfee, two members of Toecutter's gang and their "Push me, shove you" catchphrase, and one of the gang's victims purportedly been sodomized before running away from Max and Goose. - Areaseven (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Sprog (child) while wife is at beach[edit]

We see the child playing in the grass beforehand and later we see her return to discover the child is missing. Are we really to believe that they left the child on its own there while she went for an extended hike, swim and sunbake session? Is this just changing sensibilities or is there something I am missing eg was Max looking after the child during the time in between (before he decided to go looking for the motorcycle gang)? If so why didn't they immediately wonder where the child was? 2001:388:6080:148:FD56:2ECD:21A5:7C0D (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember every single plot point, but my recollection is that they let the child play freely. It was a rural area in the 1970s, so it wouldn't exactly be unheard of to let your kid go unsupervised for extended periods of time. I don't really know about an apocalyptic near-future Australia, but my parents didn't really care where I was, as long as I came home at the end of the day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false box office figures[edit]

This film did not gross anything close to $100 million at the box office. Anyone with a scrap of common sense would know this is laughably false. Box Office Mojo places the gross at $8.75 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.76.24 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo does not give a worldwide figure, just the American gross. The $100 million figure in the article is sourced to the Routledge Encylcopedia of Films. The figure is easy to substantiate: The Hollywood Reporter states "1979’s Mad Max, which Miller helped fund by working shifts as an emergency room physician, set a world record for most profitable film upon release, grossing $100 million-plus worldwide on a budget of less than $1 million, and made a star out of its lead, Mel Gibson." This is further corroborated by the Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats which notes it set a record budget/gross ratio, earning $100 million in its first two years of international distribution. It seems to be a fairly well substantiated fact, so on what basis do you consider it false? Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that an English-language action film would make 10 times more in the rest of the world than it did in the US is just crazy. That has never happened in the history of cinema, not even vaguely close. With $8.75mil earned in the US and A$5mil earned in Australia, where exactly did the film make up the other $85mil of its gross? Additionally, Mad Max 2 is widely reported as being a bigger financial success than the first film, and yet no one has claimed that the film made anything close to $100mil worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.76.24 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The details for the numbers appears to be hard to find, and I appreciate the questioning, but given that Mad Max is widely reported as earning $100mil worldwide, I don't think the lack of detail is wikipedia's problem. There are Mad Max fan forums which may be a better place to discuss this, track down detail, and argue discrepancies. Remember, wikipedia is not the place for original research. --.../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little unusual so I see where the IP editor is coming from, but it's not such a crazy notion if the film doesn't get a wide release. For instance, The Inbetweeners Movie grossed $36,000 at ten theaters in the United States and it still made $88 million worldwide (over 2000 times its US gross) and there are probably other such instances where a hit film gets a limited release in the United States and a wide release elsewhere. Using the average price of a US cinema ticket for 1980 (~$2.69) and the German admissions (3.2 million) then it would have made about $8-9 million there, so adding that on to the $15 million it pulled in from Australia and the United States takes the total up to $23-24 million. I can't find a record of the admissions in France, but the new film earned twice as much in France as it did in the Germany, so if the original performed better in France too then you are looking at least at $10 million there, so already you are over $35 million from just four countries. English-language films tend to earn more in the UK than they do in Germany or France, so it is plausible it did at least another 10 mil there if it did 8 mil in Germany. Once you add that in you are getting on for $50 million and that's just five countries. So is it surprising that a huge global hit made so little in the US? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? The few numbers we have suggest it is not implausible. Besides, this is all irrelevant; plenty of independent sources cite the $100 million claim and Wikipedia is a WP:Verifiable encyclopedia i.e. we regurgitate what other sources say, we don't decide what is true and what isn't based on our own intuitions. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe lack of detail isn't Wikipedia's problem, but I think Wikipedia contradicting itself in two closely related articles is. (I don't know, I'm not an editor.) From Mad Max 2:
"Outside of the U.S., the film earned rentals of $25 million (including Australia), for a worldwide total of $36 million, making it the highest-grossing Australian film worldwide."
If Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, then this statement isn't original research, meaning Wikipedia has a source that shows Mad Max made less than $36 million. 2600:6C4E:133F:EAFC:7483:8F19:2057:951A (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mad Max. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mad Max (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names?[edit]

I notice the article mentions Nightrider's real name and gives Goose the last name of Rains. I don't remember either of these from the film and I always assumed Goose was Jim's last name. Where did these come from? 172.58.136.22 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where they come from, either. I never noticed that before, and I don't remember these full names ever coming up in the film. However, a Google search turns up hits in reliable sources, so I guess either we weren't paying close enough attention or they're established in other media. For example, this article from Wired.com, which confirms "Rains" as Goose's real last name. One thing you have to watch out for on Wikipedia is so-called "fanon", widely accepted facts based on fanfiction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mad Max. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mad Max (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sprog[edit]

This is Australian slang for semen or ejaculate, my source is that I am australian. I’ve edited this Wikipedia on more than one occasion to properly reflect this but it keeps getting changed, which is disgraceful in my opinion 58.109.220.89 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mad_Max_(film)&oldid=1217390822"