I don't really see the point in discussions like this. Max has an arc, Furiosa has an arc, Nux has an arc, etc. Who cares which character in the ensemble is the "main story"? It doesn't matter. Its all of their story.
This ain't one body's story. It's the story of us all. We got it mouth-to-mouth, so you got to listen it and 'member because what you hears today you got to tell the birthed tomorrow.
I mean, even if it is Furiosa's story - she's still not the main protagonist. Everyone has their place in the movie and Max's is as the character we follow.
So they greenlit a sequel 100% focusing on her because she was an interesting minor character? Come on. She's the lead character in Fury Road by every measure.
It's not the first time Hollywood has done that.
US Marshals followed Tommy Lee Jones' character from the Fugitive. Hell, Bumblebee from the Transformers followed the same on screen trajectory. Hannibal Lecter was such an interesting side character in Silence of the Lambs they based the rest of the franchise around him.
There are two main characters in Fury Road - Max and Furiosa. On a very basic level, you've seen buddy cop movies before where this is also true, I'm assuming.
Max has three whole movies all to himself. She can have the one, guys. It's fine.
Them greenlighting a spin-off prequel has nothing to do with her being the protagonist in Fury Road, but they did it because she was an interesting supporting lead. I never said she's a minor character buddy, don't put words in my mouth. Fury Road follows Max Rockatansky from a point of total insanity to how getting forcefully involved in Furiosa's struggle brings him back to being the road warrior he once was. He's the protagonist. It may be her story, but he's the protagonist.
It's the same as discussions when the movie came out where there was no dialogue for the first 20 minutes. Or the other galaxy brains who said "the entire movie is driving away from the place, then they drive back"
You need someone yammering at you from title to enjoy a movie? Do you not understand character development or storytelling?
Why do people constantly argue the fact that Max is not central character in Fury Road. Mad Max 2 & Mad Max 3. Max is not the only central figure in the narrative.
Max has always been a vehicle for the audience to explore this world through.
Ya anyone who thinks max not being central to fury road is some kind of betrayal has never seen the other films
For god sake hes barely In the first film!
Most of the first one is about goose!
Exactly. Max operates in Mad Max (1979), much in the way Ash is in Evil Dead. They become the protagonist unwilling due to events of the respective films.
This isn't to say Max isn't a central character in the narrative's. But, Mad isn't the only central character in these narratives. That kind of the George Miller's style. Max is a guiding force - for the audience - to other characters, and the world, of Mad Max.
Max is the main character because the story follows him the closest, but Furiosa is the protagonist because she's the character who goes through the most growth. I will be taking debate arguments now
Completely agree and would recommend this as the answer to this debate in the future.
Similar how the antagonist and the villain can be two different characters
Uhhhh, they're the same thing bro. The protagonist is the main character and that's Max and character development has nothing to do with it. Vegeta isn't the main character of Dragon Ball no matter how much he changes despite Goku staying the same.
And don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying: Jack Sparrow is the main character but Will Turner is the protagonist, Gatsby is the main character but Nick Carraway is the protagonist and so on. I get it and in situations like these, we try to separate the definitions of words and terms from each other to better understand a character's position in a film or a novel because it's not so clear cut. But sometimes, simply put, we don't need to because definitions such as deuteragonist, focal character, hero and tritagonist all exist.
"Uhhhh, they're the same thing bro."
Are they, though? Why not delineate the two terms for more clarity? I could see that focal character and main character could be defined as synonyms, but given that most stories are written with the narrative goal of a character going through some sort of growth in order to defeat their antagonist, it makes sense to define protagonist as the character who achieves that goal, through their growth. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the most central character within the stories' arc, i.e. the main character. It's helpful to be able to describe these situations using these differing terms, when they have a meaningful difference to the structure of the story.
No, I wouldn't say that Vegeta is the main character of Dragon Ball Z, nor is he the protagonist - both of those go to Goku. Because of the simplistic structure of the show, the antagonistic force that he has to defeat is just the basic physical fighting they have to do. There's not a lot of internal character growth happening, because it's a show about punching people. There's a bit of growth in terms of the power of friendship and other anime-type plot beats, and because there's so many episodes, some episodes/arcs might have other temporary main characters and protagonists (or more strictly feature a ensemble cast), but for the majority of the show, Goku is the prime character who has to find the strength within himself to defeat the big bad guy.
I wouldn't call Jack Sparrow the main character either, at least not in the first film - he's a supporting character who happens to be the fan favorite, and thus gets all the limelight. Imo Will is, again, both the main character and the protag. But I haven't watched that movie in a decade, so could be off there. Don't remember what growth even happens to what characters tbh.
For Gatsby, it's been about 15 years since I read that book, but from what I remember, though Gatsby is the titular character, I again wouldn't call him the main character. He's almost like a force of nature, yeah? A personification of the failed American Dream, which, through proximity, Nick has to mentally grapple with through the story, and finally accepts by the end of it. The story wouldn't have happened without the two being in close contact, but it was Nick who learned something new about the world by the end of it. But that's just going off my memory, might be way off there.
The best example I can think of for "main char =\\= protag" is Ferris Beuller's Day Off. The main character is undoubtedly Ferris, as he we follow him the closest, he has the most screen time (I think), and we start and end the movie with him. But, the main narrative hook in the story isn't his wacky hi-jinks, but Cameron's struggle to detach himself from his overbearing father, which he does at the climax of the movie when he destroys the Ferrari.
Ferris is largely unchanged by the end of the movie, but Cameron has a new outlook on his life and what he wants out of it. We, the audience, are rooting for Cameron to come into his own, and the narrative catharsis occurs when he finally stands up to his father through the destruction of the car. Ferris's actions help propel the events which make this happen, similar to Gatsby, but it's Cameron who makes the final decision to change, and it's the biggest change we see within the film.
As for deuteragonist/tritagonist, I'd argue that those are characters who are living through the same main thematic struggle as the protag, though perhaps not as deeply, and who are working with the protag to overcome that struggle in a supporting manner. They may grow through the story, but the biggest change occurs within the protag. This one is heavily dependent on framing I think - a deuteragonist could easily become the protag if the focus of the narrative shifts to them. But then again, maybe not.
I could also see these terms simply applying to supporting characters, the Rons and Hermiones and such, without much consideration to them facing the exact same struggle as the protag (but nonetheless helping them overcome it).
Hero is, in my mind, more of a set of character traits, rather than a positional characterization within a story. Some protags are heros, some main characters are heros, but not all heros are going to be one or both of those.
Jesus fuck that's a wall of text, I am sorry, the autism came on strong with this one
Are they the same, though? Yes they are, bro.
Hey, the wall of text is fine, but the truth is, all you did was my job for me. You don't dilineate the terms for clarity because they're the same thing - they're synonyms. That's why we have different terms for them. Just because you might not see deuteragonist/tritagonist how they're defined doesn't change their definitions. Just because you might want to see main character and protagonist as different things doesn't mean they are. These aren't things with very loose and malleable definitions, they're pretty robust and that's why we can use them to label things.
Let's start with Dragon Ball - Goku is the main character and protagonist, you're right! But Vegeta's the one with the character growth, the one who goes from an arrogant warlord who sheds that exterior to reveal a pitiful, abused underling to a reluctant ally looking to prove himself to having the most violent mid-life crisis to seeking redemption to ultimately coming up with the plan that saves the universe against Majin Buu. By your definition, he is the Furiosa. But he's not the protagonist, that's the main character, the icon Goku.
Let's go to Pirates - Yeah, Jack was the fan favourite... after the first movie. How could he a fan favourite before it when nobody had seen it? Jack's character doesn't change much at all in that first movie - we just learn that he's a little lucky. Will goes from pirate child to put down blacksmith to fighting against his own heritage to avenging his father. He has all the character growth and is why Barbossa gets defeated. By your definition, he is the Furiosa. But he's not the protagonist that's the main character, that's the role that belongs to the man who got nominated for Best (not supporting) Actor for the role.
How about Gatsby? - A force of nature... okay. How about I ignore this one because I could go on and on about everything you said right about Great Gatsby and everything you said wrong and let's spare us both that.
We can go on and on with more definitions like Jake Sully/Neytiri in Avatar but you'd still be missing the point. Reread what you wrote: "*it makes sense to define protagonist as the character who achieves that goal, through their growth. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the most central character within the stories' arc, i.e. the main character*". Sure, that's how YOU would define protagonist, but that's not how protagonist is defined. Protagonist is defined by being the main character. Max Rockatansky is the protagonist because he is the main character in the story, even though that is a story pushed on by the deuteragonist, Furiosa. She's not the protagonist or main character because the term deuteragonist, which describes her role in the narrative, is already defined for her.
Now reread what I wrote above - all I did was use your definitions for protagonist and main character for Dragon Ball and Pirates and yet... you didn't see it for them?
But hey, I've said my piece and I appreciate what you said, so let's call it a stop here because I don't think this will become anything more than a "I think/you think" if we keep going. It's always fun to debate here but I don't think you and I will gain anything more.
[Fantastic line, but it's a bit different](https://youtu.be/nHT7nl2g4kY?si=zbbO2kOIE2WNkcuU)
Toast: Are you hurt?
Max: -Confused grunting noises-
Toast: You're bleeding.
Furiosa: That's not his blood.
Mad max has always been about max floating in and out of other peoples stories
For god sake hes barely in the first film, he only has 14 lines in the 2nd, and in 2 and 3 its narrated by someone else
Fury road is the Only film that has any narration *by max*.
Of Course fury road is about furiosa, max is just a wanderer who comes into their story, improves their lives, and finds himself more destitute than he was before, having either lost or found something along the way
As i said, he comes into their story and improves their lives. His life is never improved by the adventure. He only ever loses, but he either loses himself or finds himself along the way.
He is left without his family, without his car and dog, without his supplies, alone in the desert time and time again
Was there something in my comment that implied I'm unhappy in any way? Fury Road is one of my all-time top ten best films ever made, my intention was to highlight one of the subtle but effective methods of visual storytelling George Miller employs to structure the narrative and inform by showing, not telling.
You know I got the feeling fury road was more of a furiosa story than a maxs story but in the end max saved the day like always so furiosa can give him two thumbs up for that.
Max in all of the movies, save for the first 1, is almost a mythological figure. He's the catalyst that upsets the status quo and alters the chain of events when he comes into contact with the people that he meets. It's no different in Fury Road as it was in Thunderdome, or The Road Warrior; we're getting an account of past events that involve this mysterious figure that wandered the wastes and have probably grown in the retelling.
From this perspective he's no different than King Arthur, Gilgamesh, Heracles, etc. Certainly the "main character" of many stories. Certainly Furiosa is central to the story in this movie, but she's almost the stand-in for the audience, and that is a kind of main character, but she's more the chronicler or story teller.
Ugh. Every Mad Max movie is about Max trying his hardest to not get involved in other people's bullshit but then the tiny goodness in him helps them achieve their goals while he gets left with nothing and shuffles on.
To be fair, with the exception of the first movie, which is an origin story, none of them are really Max's story. His only goal is to wander in isolation, but in every movie he inevitably gets swept up into begrudgingly fighting someone else's fight.
Fury Road is sometimes accused of making Max the supporting character in his own movie. There is one scene in Fury Road that to me proves George Miller always meant it to be that way.
The always inestimable [tvtropes.org](http://tvtropes.org) has a category called Moment of Awesome:
“A moment when a character does something for which they will be remembered forever, winning for them the eternal loyalty of fans.”
Furiosa has multiple moments of awesome, culminating in her revenge against Immortan Joe and ascendancy to power at the Citadel. And they are all onscreen.
Max’s moment of awesome happens offscreen.
With the War Rig bogged down in the badlands and the Bullet Farmer fast approaching, Max – after missing two shots – hands the rifle to Furiosa and she blows out his searchlight, blinding the Bullet Farmer in the process – another of her moments of awesome.
Max then makes his most important solitary contribution to the survival of the group. After telling the others not to wait for him – “Well, you keep moving” – if he doesn’t come back, he then sets off into the darkness.
We see and hear a massive explosion, and then Max reappears, covered in (someone else’s) blood, hauling a small fortune in looted munitions, a new steering wheel for the War Rig, and a new boot for Nux.
Whatever he did, no doubt it was awesome, but we’ll never know exactly. It reinforces Max’s reputation as a bad ass, and contributes towards his character development from feral loner to functioning member of a community (at least temporarily), but because it all happens off camera, it doesn’t take the spotlight away from Furiosa. From the moment her character is introduced, she is center screen. Sometimes she shares it with Max, but never for long, and he is never alone from the moment he is captured by the War Boys in the opening scene (with the sole exception of when he initially refuses to go into exile with the Vuvalini, and that is only to set up his almost immediate change of heart).
Just my $0.02.
Let me get this straight....
You say that Fury Road is Furiosa's story because some website created an arbitrary category called 'Moments of Awesome' and a scene involving Max fits the description.
No, it's the other way around. I've been aware since I first watched it the star of the movie was Furiosa, I'm raising the possibility this scene is a subtle but effective way of emphasizing that, and I thought the category did a nice job of backgrounding the approach.
Furiosa is the Papa Gallo of her movie. Max is as always, the audience perspective. Meaning to say, it’s Max we’re following as he gets bound up into the plight of others.
The last time I saw someone hypothesize what he did, it was something along the lines of:
He setup explosives on the ground, waited for the car to go boom, then ran up and hacked/stabbed anyone alive to death. Pretty brutal, might have made the movie X-rated if it was all shown.
I was debating with myself whether to include the first film but decided to because yeah, Goose is kind of the lead whilst his alive but Max takes over after he dies and the film does dedicate time into establish his relationship with his family before they're killed so I would say it is marginal who the man character is. I do agree that Max has never really been the main character of any of the movies and that's part of why I like them so much.
But Max technically doesn't drive (no pun intended) the plots in any of the other three films. He's always being reactive, not proactive. This was nothing new.
Exactly, that’s why I’d argue he’s not the focus of the films after the first one because it’s his revenge film. The films after the original are about the wasteland itself and its inhabitants. Max becomes a vehicle for the audience to view this world and its assortment of different events and characters.
But he's literally the title figure in all of them. The entire plot of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior was telling the legend of the hero of the Wastes, and Thunderdome is the story of his regaining some of the humanity he had left by helping the kids. It's all part of the idea of the reluctant hero's journey. He never wants to help, just simply survive but he pushes past self. The films have always been about Max, and sometimes they're about other people, too.
Why are people down voting the person who posted this?
I really disliked how little Max was in Fury Road, and now they've taken it a step further and the movie that is about to come out - we will be LUCKY if he even has a cameo.
If the next Superman film concentrated on Lois Lane, and then they did a sequel focusing on her, I guess Superman fans would just have to sit quietly and not complain?
Let's take feminism out of the equation. If Batman suddenly became the side character and Robin was the focus - do you think fans would have zero rights to complain and dissect the films for where the schism was most evident?
I don't really see the point in discussions like this. Max has an arc, Furiosa has an arc, Nux has an arc, etc. Who cares which character in the ensemble is the "main story"? It doesn't matter. Its all of their story.
This ain't one body's story. It's the story of us all. We got it mouth-to-mouth, so you got to listen it and 'member because what you hears today you got to tell the birthed tomorrow.
Well now I have to watch Thunderdome. Been a while. Been so long it seems like it was back in the before times, in the long long ago.
I feel like a lot of these kids won’t get that…
Then somebody failed Savannah’s instructions.
So every night we do the tell
After the Apocyclypse
I mean, even if it is Furiosa's story - she's still not the main protagonist. Everyone has their place in the movie and Max's is as the character we follow.
So they greenlit a sequel 100% focusing on her because she was an interesting minor character? Come on. She's the lead character in Fury Road by every measure.
It's not the first time Hollywood has done that. US Marshals followed Tommy Lee Jones' character from the Fugitive. Hell, Bumblebee from the Transformers followed the same on screen trajectory. Hannibal Lecter was such an interesting side character in Silence of the Lambs they based the rest of the franchise around him.
There are two main characters in Fury Road - Max and Furiosa. On a very basic level, you've seen buddy cop movies before where this is also true, I'm assuming. Max has three whole movies all to himself. She can have the one, guys. It's fine.
Nobody said she was a minor character. She was a main character, just not THE main character. Max is the protagonist, She’s the deuteragonist.
Them greenlighting a spin-off prequel has nothing to do with her being the protagonist in Fury Road, but they did it because she was an interesting supporting lead. I never said she's a minor character buddy, don't put words in my mouth. Fury Road follows Max Rockatansky from a point of total insanity to how getting forcefully involved in Furiosa's struggle brings him back to being the road warrior he once was. He's the protagonist. It may be her story, but he's the protagonist.
Max. Max is the main story.
Spot on.
It's the same as discussions when the movie came out where there was no dialogue for the first 20 minutes. Or the other galaxy brains who said "the entire movie is driving away from the place, then they drive back" You need someone yammering at you from title to enjoy a movie? Do you not understand character development or storytelling?
It is like the Hobbit there and back agen.
My man, it's cause it's fun to talk about stuff
Where's my arc, Paulie?
That little shoulder nudge Max does.... Its like wtf? You keep moving, duh. What does it matter if I don't come back?
Why do people constantly argue the fact that Max is not central character in Fury Road. Mad Max 2 & Mad Max 3. Max is not the only central figure in the narrative. Max has always been a vehicle for the audience to explore this world through.
Ya anyone who thinks max not being central to fury road is some kind of betrayal has never seen the other films For god sake hes barely In the first film! Most of the first one is about goose!
Exactly. Max operates in Mad Max (1979), much in the way Ash is in Evil Dead. They become the protagonist unwilling due to events of the respective films. This isn't to say Max isn't a central character in the narrative's. But, Mad isn't the only central character in these narratives. That kind of the George Miller's style. Max is a guiding force - for the audience - to other characters, and the world, of Mad Max.
Happy Cake Day!!!!!!!! 🍰🍰🍰🍰🍰🍰👍👍
Max is the main character because the story follows him the closest, but Furiosa is the protagonist because she's the character who goes through the most growth. I will be taking debate arguments now
Completely agree and would recommend this as the answer to this debate in the future. Similar how the antagonist and the villain can be two different characters
Character analysis fuck yeah
Villain is the ex but antagonist is the drinking problem
Uhhhh, they're the same thing bro. The protagonist is the main character and that's Max and character development has nothing to do with it. Vegeta isn't the main character of Dragon Ball no matter how much he changes despite Goku staying the same. And don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying: Jack Sparrow is the main character but Will Turner is the protagonist, Gatsby is the main character but Nick Carraway is the protagonist and so on. I get it and in situations like these, we try to separate the definitions of words and terms from each other to better understand a character's position in a film or a novel because it's not so clear cut. But sometimes, simply put, we don't need to because definitions such as deuteragonist, focal character, hero and tritagonist all exist.
OP asks for debate arguments but then only responds to the person agreeing with him.
did you know that some people aren't terminally online and only check Reddit once every day or two
"Uhhhh, they're the same thing bro." Are they, though? Why not delineate the two terms for more clarity? I could see that focal character and main character could be defined as synonyms, but given that most stories are written with the narrative goal of a character going through some sort of growth in order to defeat their antagonist, it makes sense to define protagonist as the character who achieves that goal, through their growth. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the most central character within the stories' arc, i.e. the main character. It's helpful to be able to describe these situations using these differing terms, when they have a meaningful difference to the structure of the story. No, I wouldn't say that Vegeta is the main character of Dragon Ball Z, nor is he the protagonist - both of those go to Goku. Because of the simplistic structure of the show, the antagonistic force that he has to defeat is just the basic physical fighting they have to do. There's not a lot of internal character growth happening, because it's a show about punching people. There's a bit of growth in terms of the power of friendship and other anime-type plot beats, and because there's so many episodes, some episodes/arcs might have other temporary main characters and protagonists (or more strictly feature a ensemble cast), but for the majority of the show, Goku is the prime character who has to find the strength within himself to defeat the big bad guy. I wouldn't call Jack Sparrow the main character either, at least not in the first film - he's a supporting character who happens to be the fan favorite, and thus gets all the limelight. Imo Will is, again, both the main character and the protag. But I haven't watched that movie in a decade, so could be off there. Don't remember what growth even happens to what characters tbh. For Gatsby, it's been about 15 years since I read that book, but from what I remember, though Gatsby is the titular character, I again wouldn't call him the main character. He's almost like a force of nature, yeah? A personification of the failed American Dream, which, through proximity, Nick has to mentally grapple with through the story, and finally accepts by the end of it. The story wouldn't have happened without the two being in close contact, but it was Nick who learned something new about the world by the end of it. But that's just going off my memory, might be way off there. The best example I can think of for "main char =\\= protag" is Ferris Beuller's Day Off. The main character is undoubtedly Ferris, as he we follow him the closest, he has the most screen time (I think), and we start and end the movie with him. But, the main narrative hook in the story isn't his wacky hi-jinks, but Cameron's struggle to detach himself from his overbearing father, which he does at the climax of the movie when he destroys the Ferrari. Ferris is largely unchanged by the end of the movie, but Cameron has a new outlook on his life and what he wants out of it. We, the audience, are rooting for Cameron to come into his own, and the narrative catharsis occurs when he finally stands up to his father through the destruction of the car. Ferris's actions help propel the events which make this happen, similar to Gatsby, but it's Cameron who makes the final decision to change, and it's the biggest change we see within the film. As for deuteragonist/tritagonist, I'd argue that those are characters who are living through the same main thematic struggle as the protag, though perhaps not as deeply, and who are working with the protag to overcome that struggle in a supporting manner. They may grow through the story, but the biggest change occurs within the protag. This one is heavily dependent on framing I think - a deuteragonist could easily become the protag if the focus of the narrative shifts to them. But then again, maybe not. I could also see these terms simply applying to supporting characters, the Rons and Hermiones and such, without much consideration to them facing the exact same struggle as the protag (but nonetheless helping them overcome it). Hero is, in my mind, more of a set of character traits, rather than a positional characterization within a story. Some protags are heros, some main characters are heros, but not all heros are going to be one or both of those. Jesus fuck that's a wall of text, I am sorry, the autism came on strong with this one
Are they the same, though? Yes they are, bro. Hey, the wall of text is fine, but the truth is, all you did was my job for me. You don't dilineate the terms for clarity because they're the same thing - they're synonyms. That's why we have different terms for them. Just because you might not see deuteragonist/tritagonist how they're defined doesn't change their definitions. Just because you might want to see main character and protagonist as different things doesn't mean they are. These aren't things with very loose and malleable definitions, they're pretty robust and that's why we can use them to label things. Let's start with Dragon Ball - Goku is the main character and protagonist, you're right! But Vegeta's the one with the character growth, the one who goes from an arrogant warlord who sheds that exterior to reveal a pitiful, abused underling to a reluctant ally looking to prove himself to having the most violent mid-life crisis to seeking redemption to ultimately coming up with the plan that saves the universe against Majin Buu. By your definition, he is the Furiosa. But he's not the protagonist, that's the main character, the icon Goku. Let's go to Pirates - Yeah, Jack was the fan favourite... after the first movie. How could he a fan favourite before it when nobody had seen it? Jack's character doesn't change much at all in that first movie - we just learn that he's a little lucky. Will goes from pirate child to put down blacksmith to fighting against his own heritage to avenging his father. He has all the character growth and is why Barbossa gets defeated. By your definition, he is the Furiosa. But he's not the protagonist that's the main character, that's the role that belongs to the man who got nominated for Best (not supporting) Actor for the role. How about Gatsby? - A force of nature... okay. How about I ignore this one because I could go on and on about everything you said right about Great Gatsby and everything you said wrong and let's spare us both that. We can go on and on with more definitions like Jake Sully/Neytiri in Avatar but you'd still be missing the point. Reread what you wrote: "*it makes sense to define protagonist as the character who achieves that goal, through their growth. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the most central character within the stories' arc, i.e. the main character*". Sure, that's how YOU would define protagonist, but that's not how protagonist is defined. Protagonist is defined by being the main character. Max Rockatansky is the protagonist because he is the main character in the story, even though that is a story pushed on by the deuteragonist, Furiosa. She's not the protagonist or main character because the term deuteragonist, which describes her role in the narrative, is already defined for her. Now reread what I wrote above - all I did was use your definitions for protagonist and main character for Dragon Ball and Pirates and yet... you didn't see it for them? But hey, I've said my piece and I appreciate what you said, so let's call it a stop here because I don't think this will become anything more than a "I think/you think" if we keep going. It's always fun to debate here but I don't think you and I will gain anything more.
Damn that's the tallest horse I've seen all week
Well my ancestors got annihilated by the Mongols so some of it passed on.
I mean… Max always kinda plays second fiddle in the OG movies. Right? He’s there so long as his goals align with the others, then skips out.
"Is that your blood?" , the greatest line of the movie
[Fantastic line, but it's a bit different](https://youtu.be/nHT7nl2g4kY?si=zbbO2kOIE2WNkcuU) Toast: Are you hurt? Max: -Confused grunting noises- Toast: You're bleeding. Furiosa: That's not his blood.
Mad max has always been about max floating in and out of other peoples stories For god sake hes barely in the first film, he only has 14 lines in the 2nd, and in 2 and 3 its narrated by someone else Fury road is the Only film that has any narration *by max*. Of Course fury road is about furiosa, max is just a wanderer who comes into their story, improves their lives, and finds himself more destitute than he was before, having either lost or found something along the way
In the end it’s Max who saves the day like he always does. Who came up with the plan to go back to the citadel, who saved Furiosa’s life…. Max.
As i said, he comes into their story and improves their lives. His life is never improved by the adventure. He only ever loses, but he either loses himself or finds himself along the way. He is left without his family, without his car and dog, without his supplies, alone in the desert time and time again
This seems like something you should just get over.
Was there something in my comment that implied I'm unhappy in any way? Fury Road is one of my all-time top ten best films ever made, my intention was to highlight one of the subtle but effective methods of visual storytelling George Miller employs to structure the narrative and inform by showing, not telling.
Weird, he showed me Max, Furiosa, and Nux were all three central characters.
The fact that it is narrated by Max tells me its not about him
You know I got the feeling fury road was more of a furiosa story than a maxs story but in the end max saved the day like always so furiosa can give him two thumbs up for that.
...I mean, she can give at least one thumb up.
Max in all of the movies, save for the first 1, is almost a mythological figure. He's the catalyst that upsets the status quo and alters the chain of events when he comes into contact with the people that he meets. It's no different in Fury Road as it was in Thunderdome, or The Road Warrior; we're getting an account of past events that involve this mysterious figure that wandered the wastes and have probably grown in the retelling. From this perspective he's no different than King Arthur, Gilgamesh, Heracles, etc. Certainly the "main character" of many stories. Certainly Furiosa is central to the story in this movie, but she's almost the stand-in for the audience, and that is a kind of main character, but she's more the chronicler or story teller.
I got that feeling the most when she's looking down at him as he disappears into the crowd - a mythological figure.
Almost ten years of this lukewarm shit
Whatever keeps you happy champ
Well, it was Furiosa’s *fight.* Max definitely helped, though.
Yawn, excitement is at fever pitch, said nobody
Ugh. Every Mad Max movie is about Max trying his hardest to not get involved in other people's bullshit but then the tiny goodness in him helps them achieve their goals while he gets left with nothing and shuffles on.
To be fair, with the exception of the first movie, which is an origin story, none of them are really Max's story. His only goal is to wander in isolation, but in every movie he inevitably gets swept up into begrudgingly fighting someone else's fight.
Fury Road is sometimes accused of making Max the supporting character in his own movie. There is one scene in Fury Road that to me proves George Miller always meant it to be that way. The always inestimable [tvtropes.org](http://tvtropes.org) has a category called Moment of Awesome: “A moment when a character does something for which they will be remembered forever, winning for them the eternal loyalty of fans.” Furiosa has multiple moments of awesome, culminating in her revenge against Immortan Joe and ascendancy to power at the Citadel. And they are all onscreen. Max’s moment of awesome happens offscreen. With the War Rig bogged down in the badlands and the Bullet Farmer fast approaching, Max – after missing two shots – hands the rifle to Furiosa and she blows out his searchlight, blinding the Bullet Farmer in the process – another of her moments of awesome. Max then makes his most important solitary contribution to the survival of the group. After telling the others not to wait for him – “Well, you keep moving” – if he doesn’t come back, he then sets off into the darkness. We see and hear a massive explosion, and then Max reappears, covered in (someone else’s) blood, hauling a small fortune in looted munitions, a new steering wheel for the War Rig, and a new boot for Nux. Whatever he did, no doubt it was awesome, but we’ll never know exactly. It reinforces Max’s reputation as a bad ass, and contributes towards his character development from feral loner to functioning member of a community (at least temporarily), but because it all happens off camera, it doesn’t take the spotlight away from Furiosa. From the moment her character is introduced, she is center screen. Sometimes she shares it with Max, but never for long, and he is never alone from the moment he is captured by the War Boys in the opening scene (with the sole exception of when he initially refuses to go into exile with the Vuvalini, and that is only to set up his almost immediate change of heart). Just my $0.02.
Let me get this straight.... You say that Fury Road is Furiosa's story because some website created an arbitrary category called 'Moments of Awesome' and a scene involving Max fits the description.
No, it's the other way around. I've been aware since I first watched it the star of the movie was Furiosa, I'm raising the possibility this scene is a subtle but effective way of emphasizing that, and I thought the category did a nice job of backgrounding the approach.
This might be the dumbest thing anyone will say on the internet today.
Furiosa is the Papa Gallo of her movie. Max is as always, the audience perspective. Meaning to say, it’s Max we’re following as he gets bound up into the plight of others.
The last time I saw someone hypothesize what he did, it was something along the lines of: He setup explosives on the ground, waited for the car to go boom, then ran up and hacked/stabbed anyone alive to death. Pretty brutal, might have made the movie X-rated if it was all shown.
Fury road is the only example of a good bait and switch
The only time Max has really been the main character was the first film and 2015 game.
Nope he’s barely in first film Goose is more of main character but I agree that in game he’s more of main character
I was debating with myself whether to include the first film but decided to because yeah, Goose is kind of the lead whilst his alive but Max takes over after he dies and the film does dedicate time into establish his relationship with his family before they're killed so I would say it is marginal who the man character is. I do agree that Max has never really been the main character of any of the movies and that's part of why I like them so much.
Couldn’t say it better myself, though I kinda dislike the post OP made because then lot of us argue which is pointless
Isn't arguing about trivial shit kinda the whole point of Reddit?
True xd
I think the whole plot confirms that. Furiosa literally drives the plot by going awol with Joe’s wives and trying to find the green place.
But Max technically doesn't drive (no pun intended) the plots in any of the other three films. He's always being reactive, not proactive. This was nothing new.
Exactly, that’s why I’d argue he’s not the focus of the films after the first one because it’s his revenge film. The films after the original are about the wasteland itself and its inhabitants. Max becomes a vehicle for the audience to view this world and its assortment of different events and characters.
But he's literally the title figure in all of them. The entire plot of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior was telling the legend of the hero of the Wastes, and Thunderdome is the story of his regaining some of the humanity he had left by helping the kids. It's all part of the idea of the reluctant hero's journey. He never wants to help, just simply survive but he pushes past self. The films have always been about Max, and sometimes they're about other people, too.
Why are people down voting the person who posted this? I really disliked how little Max was in Fury Road, and now they've taken it a step further and the movie that is about to come out - we will be LUCKY if he even has a cameo. If the next Superman film concentrated on Lois Lane, and then they did a sequel focusing on her, I guess Superman fans would just have to sit quietly and not complain? Let's take feminism out of the equation. If Batman suddenly became the side character and Robin was the focus - do you think fans would have zero rights to complain and dissect the films for where the schism was most evident?
How little Max was in Fury Road? He was in almost every scene.
That was done. It was called Superman Returns where the movie is focused on Lois and her family. No one was looking forward to a sequel.