|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Jun 30, 2004 0:27:03 GMT -5
So I'll confess- I've never seen any of the Mad Max movies. Heard tons about 'em and read about a million parodies, of course, but I have yet to actually view one, and at the time this particular one was released, I was a little too preoccupied with drooling, filling my diapers, and waking my parents up 53 times a night. (You know, last year.) But comparing it to the gas shortage we're all facing this summer? Now THAT I can relate to! Excellent tie-in there, Sue; and I'm sure you didn't mean to give anybody ideas, but since I always carry a loaded shotgun in my car anyway, might as well use it to pick up some complimentary petrol! (There. British word used, and it wasn't even from Rich. For shame.)
So, bearing in mind that my sole exposure to The Road Warrior has been 1) your review, 2) that Simpsons episode where Homer and Mel Gibson swipe a MM replica car from a Hollywood museum, and 3) the Samurai Cat parody with Shiro as Max... what about this one makes it your favorite, Sue? Better one-liners, characters, action, what? And for the rest of you kids who've seen more than one of the Mad Max movies, what's your favorite, and why?
-D, off to sleep...
|
|
|
|
Post by zappakub on Jun 30, 2004 1:07:10 GMT -5
Well I've seen Mad Max1 ,Mad Max2 and only parts of number 3. It's a bit easier explaining why the other two are less good but here it goes.
Number 1 : Less budget,less action,less cool stuff,less interesting story
and from what I've seen of number3 : Too kitshy and Tina Turner playing a kind of queen.
And if you've seen Waterworld you've seen a rip-off of number two with less interesting story,characters and an overblown budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by FiveMileSmile on Jun 30, 2004 5:22:41 GMT -5
Two is best because it had more car fights, which in a Road Warrior movie makes sense.
One has some great moments, don't get me wrong (Grenade, Handcuffs, Hacksaw to name just one), but 3 was like an early pilot for Battledome Warriors.
Sue is correct, 2 is clearly the superior Max.
- Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jun 30, 2004 6:12:21 GMT -5
Zappakub and Rich have it pretty much right on the money - although I can't say that I ever thought to compare The Road Warrior to Waterworld. To be honest, I try not to think about Waterworld at all.  Mad Max and The Road Warrior were released in the U.S. at practically the same time, so as it happened I saw them out of order and The Road Warrior never dropped to second place in my mind, even though it was the second film. Mad Max is good, but the technical quality definitely wasn't up to the same standard, which was distracting. It's also a different sort of film - basically a cops and bad guys flick. Interesting as backstory, but not essential to watching Road Warrior. Also, and this has always annoyed the heck out of me, some genius decided that we Yanks couldn't possibly decipher a genuine Aussie accent, so they dubbed Mad Max over with an American voice. To this day, I've never seen the original version. If I remember correctly... I'll have to check this... neither The Road Warrior or (definitely) Thunderdome were originally intended as Mad Max movies. They just recycled Max (and Mel) into those roles. It worked great for Road Warrior, but Thunderdome suffered from a rock 'n roll, 80's-excess mentality that came across as kind of silly. The story it was meant to be (about orphaned/abandoned children in the outback) barely registers on the plot radar. But hey, if you're looking for a mini-marathon, rent all three! Sue |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Jun 30, 2004 7:51:57 GMT -5
Okay Sue, total geek question being lobbed your way... (you so knew this was coming) Does Amoco actually SAY they have no polynuclear aromatics in their gasoline? Like, not PANs/PAH's at ALL? I'm just curious, especially since benzene has been a pretty common gasoline component over the years, and I know I used see quite a bit of naphthalene (which is a PAN) in my jet fuels. Look, I told you it was a total geek question.  |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jun 30, 2004 8:04:50 GMT -5
Also, Sue, can we convert Lissa's big fat juicy brain into some sort of geek fuel?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Jun 30, 2004 8:49:24 GMT -5
Actually, we could! the brain is mostly fat, and fat makes an excellent fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Jun 30, 2004 11:34:53 GMT -5
It's a rare day that I'm actually nauseated in here. |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jun 30, 2004 12:47:09 GMT -5
So how much fuel do you think could be pulled from one normal person's brain?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Jun 30, 2004 14:03:24 GMT -5
Not all that much, to be honest. A brain's got a volume of, what, maybe two or three liters? (I'm not a biologist) Melt it down, do the reaction, and you'll probably get a little over the same amount, if that. Volume doesn't seem to change much, from what I can tell. So you might be able to go 10-30 miles in a car (much less in a truck) on one person's brain. I'm sure Duckie will come in here and correct me at some point, but hey. |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Jun 30, 2004 14:20:06 GMT -5
Not all that much, to be honest. A brain's got a volume of, what, maybe two or three liters? (I'm not a biologist) Melt it down, do the reaction, and you'll probably get a little over the same amount, if that. Volume doesn't seem to change much, from what I can tell. So you might be able to go 10-30 miles in a car (much less in a truck) on one person's brain. Well hey, use the rest of 'im for Soylent Green and BAM!- you're set for the day! Of course, long road trips might get kinda icky... -D |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Jun 30, 2004 14:54:06 GMT -5
Not really. I mean, you don't refine oil in your car, right? You'd have a brain processing plant. Brains would be seperated from corpses, bone particles would be removed, and then they'd be melted down. I'm not sure what else is in a brain, but any impurities (cells, nerves, whatever else is in a brain besides the fat) would be removed, and then you'd add probably sodium hydroxide and methanol or ethanol. (Beer and brain cells. Whoohoo!) You'd probably add some stabilizers, and then package up nicely to sell to consumers for 5.00 (or less) a gallon at the pump.
Can you tell it's a REALLY slow day at work?
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jun 30, 2004 15:50:37 GMT -5
Amoco PREMIUM grade (gold) gasoline has no polynuclear aromatics. They told me so at the management seminar I went to (mostly for the free food) when Amoco and British Petroleum became as one.
As I recall, my co-manager and I decided that we'd each have to impress our boss with our new enlightened managerialness, so she got dibs on "The exciting new helios logo!" and I got "No polynuclear aromatics!" because I could pronounce it better.
You should see our multi-media presentation. To die for. We have overheads!
However, no one ever mentioned whether we had brain matter in our gasoline, and I totally forgot to ask! *smacks forehead*
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Jun 30, 2004 16:19:07 GMT -5
Heh... this is so weird... we have mutants who go to management seminars. I mean, where are the one way mirrors and cameras?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Jun 30, 2004 17:58:31 GMT -5
Cool. I was just curious cause the technology they usually use to make gasoline have a high octane number results in aromatics. Thus the geekdom.
At least, that's what I'll blame it on!
|
|
