Talk:Mad Max 2

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Australian / Core / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force. This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Cinema High‑importance Mad Max 2 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is directed at the recent edit by MarnetteD regarding the ambiguity of the ending, and that Mad Max may have been aware that the tanker was filled with sand. Can you clarify this, I haven't seen the Special Ed, but IMO it seems plain from his expression that he was as surpised by this as the gang members. ---Jackel 15:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I disagree this is totally independent

• I have to agree that max obviously did not know about the sand. The special edition is no different from the theatrical. The only difference was it was widescreen and contained a making-of featurette on the VHS version only. There is an alternate television version cut for violence but it is obviously not the definitive version (and Max still didn't know about the sand, Lol). thunderlippps

The article states 'Additionally, the fuel shortage that drives the plot is reflective of similar social conditions in Australia during the 1970s. Petroleum scarcity during that time led to violence amongst the car culture of that nation.'

Do we have a citation for this? I'll leave it in for now; I'll admit I've never been to Australia, but this seems like a pretty huge statement.

Yes during the 1970s fuel shortages in Australia led to a number of violent incidents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.122.146 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the plot summary the name Humungus is also spelled Humumgous. I think this should be fixed. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.9.248 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ask about correcting a spelling error...just do it. magnius (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from this, the credits list him as The Humungus. Not Lord Humungus. Waynesewell (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge the Pappagello article with Mad Max 2 or throw it out. It's not really all that interesting IMHO. - Heileman

I kindof agree .. but then what about the others such as Humungus? Keeping in mind the 'wealth' of subarticles on gaming and buffy characters etc I am more than happy with character articles for this important movie. --maxrspct in the mud 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Include it extending the article with a cast of characters.

The article mentions Max's wife being incapacitated, but apparently surviving the motorcycle gang attack in the first movie. However, in the opening of this film, right after showing the attack, they show Max standing by two crosses. Both the narration and this scene seems to strongly suggest that both the wife and child died, at least to me anyway. If so, this is a retcon from the first film, where the doctor does say she's going to live. This probably why this article says incapacitated. But what other two graves would Max be standing over, especially right after the scene showing the attack? BTW, if you look close, Max is wearing his leg brace in the scene too.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the scene in the prologue featuring Max standing at the graves of Jessie and Sprog was a deleted scene from the first film. Confirmation? 86.29.92.251 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been changed to say his "family" was killed in the first film. Again, the doctors in the first film cleary state Max's wife will survive. So if she's dead for the second film, and it's strongly suggested she died in the biker attack, then this is a retcon which I think should be mentioned. Fred8615 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor says that she is "salvagable," which means, in this case, that they can use her organs. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may well say 'Mad Max 2', but that photo used for the sleeve has been taken from 'Beyond Thunderdome'. I suggest it be replaced by something taken from 'The Road Warrior' itself. 86.29.92.251 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shown on their cover of Shout At The Devil album and described in their autobiography The Dirt, Motley Crue tooked their image from the movie The Road Warrior between 1982 and 1984. Notice the one shoulder pad from Nikki Sixx which is similar to Max, the make-up under the eyes and the heavy leather of the band members.

This could be added in the trivia or something. If there is no objection, I'll included it.

I Agree. Mad Max 2 is in no way connected to the first film. Humungous and the others are different characters.

Content in this section should be integrated into other appropriate areas of the article or removed, and the trivia section removed.

Why? One of my favorite features of Wikipedia's articles is the Trivia section. rowley 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't designed to be useful. It's designed to follow a set of predefined rules. If something is helpful to someone, the rules can be modified to forbid it, and useful articles can be deleted, but many would consider the Wikipedia project to be a failure if it ever became trustworthy enough for actual serious use. It's much more fun to create a source that you can't rely on or cite, owing to the arbitrary edits of capricious-deleters.--71.203.125.108 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention is made of some of the cars used in this film, and Ford Landau is one of them. I agree a Ford Landau was used, and it was an Australian designed and built Ford Landau, but when you click on 'Ford Landau' in the story you are taken to another page with pictures and information about a Brazilian Ford Landau. The only similarity between a Brazilian and Australian Ford Landau is the name - they are totally different vehicles. If you google 'Ford Australia Landau' you will get pictures and info of a very different car, to the one in the link.

I know because I owned an Australian Ford Landau.

To fix the article the live link to the brazilian vehicle needs to be removed.

121.210.193.218 09:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary states that Max "slays one rapist-biker." While Max does strike a biker with a large set of bolt-cutters after the scene described, it is not clear that the biker is killed. After watching several later sequences in the film, it appears that this biker may have merely been knocked unconscious. At about 21 minutes into the movie, this character is seen attacking one of the gas-fortress' inhabitants, through the binoculars the Gyro Captain is using. If one looks carefully, one can make out the tattoo on his arm. Later, after Max strikes the tattooed, mowhawked biker, Max charges through the bikers' camp in the truck, he pulls away the tent of a couple in coitus. The male in this couple appears to be the same tattooed, mowhawked biker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max 2 strongly resembles another post-apocolyptic style film A Boy and His Dog (1975) and in this review the writer quotes George Miller as saying MM2 was bascially a remake of it.

Shouldn't that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.69.110 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Apart from them being set post-apocalytpically; I can't see the resemblance. Don't remember any psychic dogs or the hero being a cannibal rapist in Mad Max... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.232.206 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the plot summary, there is the final line...

but remembered by the narrator who is in fact the adult Feral Kid

as if the feral kid has been mentioned earlier. The only refs I can find are further down the article, where the feral kid gets a paragraph in the Themes. Surely something's gone wonky in the editing? -- PaulxSA (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is just Mad Max 2? It was released under this title worldwide except for America where the first Mad Max was almost unknown. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior I saw first when a DVD release was announced. I would like to change the title to the original one, namely Mad Max 2. Any objections? Bigar (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now renamed it Bigar (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object, because Mad Max 2 is not the most commonly used title across all English-speaking countries, and the Mad Max films are well known in all English-speaking countries. WP:EN. Film Fan (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yeah "Mad Max 2" is the original cinema release title, and therefore the correct one. Any other title given it after that is not applicable, and alternative titles should be given as that not the original. After all no-one would call "Godzilla Raids Again" Gigantus the Fire Monster just because that was the messed about USA version title. 86.5.134.132 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any care to tackle the obvious S&M and homosexual/homophobic themes of the film? As so colorfully put in this discussion of the film:

. . . why are the villains in Mad Max II so, well, gay? . . . Don’t believe me? Let us review the evidence. Exhibit A – Lord Humungous: Our chief villain is a fully waxed, steroid-abusing Swede in a metal gimp mask and a studded leather bondage harness, with a name that wouldn’t look out of place in the credits of a fantasy-themed gay porno. . . . Exhibit B – Wez: Wez, Humungous’ second banana, wears eyeliner and backless chaps and rides around on a motorcycle with a skinny blonde twink riding pillion. There’s no subtext here; the character is explicitly homosexual. . . . Exhibit C – Pink Guy: Before he meets the business end of a flamethrower, Pink Guy drives around in a customized hot pink muscle car. That might not be too bad, but he’s dyed his beard hot pink to match the car! Exhibit D – Police Guy: Police Guy gets around in a scavenged police cruiser, and appropriately enough has costumed himself in aviator glasses, a silver helmet and cut down leathers. Remind you of anyone? [photo of the Village People]

This is absurd, the Wez' grief over the death of his boyfriend is his only genuinely sympathetic moment and provides a context for his near suicidal determination. Also, S&M style clothing was typical for depictions of bikers in film even to this day. I don't think a section about homophobic themes has any place in this article. (anonymous posting, 6/28/2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.233.113 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the issue of the seemingly chaste white-clad settlers vs. the rapacious leather-clad Deviants, discussed in detail here: http://www.reelchange.com/Analysis/PostApocPage8.html

Anyone? -- stoshmaster (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition falls under original research and has no place in the article. Unless you have a source that confirms the characters' sexuality, please do not add this again. magnius (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The depiction of Wez's sexuality is so obvious in the film that it seems self-evident and thus doesn't require sourcing. However, I suppose reasonable people can disagree.

Nonetheless, my question remains about the rest of the "Deviant" characters (Lord Humongous, Pink Guy, et al). The second source I cite above, from ReelChange, is obviously an intelligent analysis of the film's problematic sexual stereotyping. A quick Google search find many other sources writing on the topic. So I ask again if other editors want to address the question in the article. -- stoshmaster (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The depiction of Wez's sexuality is so obvious in the film that it seems self-evident and thus doesn't require sourcing. - Wrong. See no original research. If you present reliable sources supporting your edits, that's fine. If you don't, it isn't. Geoff B (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

magnius and Geoff B have made their points. My edits to Wez have been duly removed. Can we address the larger issue please? To whit: . . . my question remains about the rest of the "Deviant" characters (Lord Humongous, Pink Guy, et al). The second source I cite above, from ReelChange, is obviously an intelligent analysis of the film's problematic sexual stereotyping. A quick Google search find many other sources writing on the topic. So I ask again if other editors want to address the question in the article. -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think they were just trying to portray a hang of hooligans. A big part of post-apocalyptic gen is the melding of modern styles with tribal styles (mohawks, feathers, colored hair, "warrior themed" style). This makes sense, with all that technology and clothing around contrasting with the primitive nature of society. The pink beard, the clothing, all that; it wasn't really "gay" at all. The ONLY gay thing I saw was how that one tough guy had the blonde twink and honestly that makes perfect sense. I can most certainly see sexually being more open in such a ravished and underpopulated wasteland. Think like prisons or any other situation wehre females are in short supply. Also take into account the fact that there isn't a sizeable population to allow a minority or majority on the view but instead just either a yes or no given the people you are around.And clearly in that all-male populated band of raiders homosexuality is acceptable. So yeah, I don't see the point of adding anything but it really isn't as "gay" as you think. It all perfectly makes sense in the context of the setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole point of the villains wasn't that they were all gay, but that they were heightened to an almost mythological degree - thus, the Humongous being a sculpted hulk of a man in a faceless mask, and the rest of the marauders wearing similarly wired-up clothing, uniforms and colors. All of this is due to the narrator, looking long back into the past and mythologizing the tale for his listeners - this is also acknowledged in the film's skewing of time, with the narrator looking into a distant past that is actually the near future of the viewer. Miller says as much in this article/interview by Danny Peary from his third installment of the Cult Movies books: http://thefilmist.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/danny-peary-on-mad-max-2the-road-warrior/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.251.199 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wes was in Prison prior to this?

Or just there were not as many females to go around?

I wonder what happened to the guy that played this role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.41.190 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this from an interview with Vernon Wells with regard to his character being a gay icon. "It doesn't bother me at all,”he said. “Originally there had been a scene that explained I had raised the the boy on the back of my motorcycle, which would explain why I go mad when he is killed by the Feral Kid. However, in editing they felt the character played better without it, which would make everyone assume we were lovers. I respect what it did for my character, and because of Hosana, it wasn't an issue for me if my character was gay, even if in my real life I am not." http://www.vice.com/read/off-hollywood-vernon-wells 58.173.5.6 (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need cited sources when one of the leather clad gangs is called "the Gayboys." This is in the film and in the script if you can't hear it clearly. Based on this, the argument against discussion of gay themes is the film is a lame attempt at political correctness that actually has no place in this discussion. Vernon Wells is being disingenuous since the original script clearly suggests, if not downright states that at least some of the characters are in fact homosexual. It may also have something to do with allusions to ancient Greek and Roman warriors. They were known to engage in homosexual relations before battles because they believed it infused them with energy and made them better warriors. This may be a tongue in cheek nod to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:5980:8FC0:78FD:C726:1436:DF9C (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if there was any discussion on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.44.113 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Humungus = Fifi McAfee, Max former boss.

The Humungus was supposed to be Goose originally, before the idea was dropped from the script.--Leigh Burne (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person who realises that Mad Max and The Road Warrior seem to be different plots? If you watch the first movie, you'll notice that the land is all normal. There is no indication of a nuclear war. Then in the second movie, the entire area is a wasteland. Did the war happen between the movies or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian Reject (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search around the novels and other fansites show that a nuclear war happened between The Road Warrior and Thunderdome. General dystopia had set in by the first film, so Max goes into the interior deserts of Australia (the Forbidden Zone), which are unpoliced. Between that time and the third film, nuclear war breaks out. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean, did a war happen between the first two movies?--70.27.152.65 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment in the above section regarding the modes of dress for the Marauders. The whole point is that the film is a heightened and mythologized dramatization of events from the narrator's past, now an old man and painting his story in intentionally broad strokes. The desert outback is regarded in an archetypal fashion as The Wasteland, which ties into the above, and so on and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.160.252 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still dosn't answer my question. I wanna know when the nukes fell. Was it between the first two movies or are they sepererate plots?--70.27.152.65 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been answered, if you read above. The look is different because they take place in different locales.--71.203.125.108 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

way to be difficult. yeh, i think the nukes fell between the first movie and the second. i think the narrator mentions it right at the start. hope that helps, dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.227.43 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nukes fell after the second film. There had been a general war over oil before the first film. Again, read the novels for information about this. The only time radiation is a factor is in the third film. So, again, as I've posted above, the nuclear war happens between the second and third film. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the intro to Mad Max2,you will hear the narrator mention how the roads became a "white-line nightmare",while showing a car crash scene from the part 1,along with many other scenes as well. This would seem to indicate that at least some major war had taken place even before the first film,but perhaps not the BIG one. Another explanation for the scenery changes could simply be that Max had moved on to a more remote region of the country. ~Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2sober (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the war happened between the last two movies then how come ammunition and fuel are so scarce in the second movie? All the marauders use crossbows and clubs instead of firearms and somebody has to give Max more shotgun ammo. I believe they say something about scavenging the ammo. Most - if not all - biker gangs use firearms. Somethings fishy here.Canadian Reject (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are repeated images of mushroom clouds in the opening sequence, shown over a reference to two great tribes going to war. There are definite indications of nuclear exchange between the 1st and 2nd movies, otherwise why is the small group able to found the 'Great Northern tribe?' Then in the 3rd movie the nuclkear winter/desolation of the world intensifies. Mdw0 (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Watch again, they're not nuclear fireballs, they're just standard explosions. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a reliable source on this. The New York Times review states MMII is post-nuclear holocaust, and the bomb blasts depicted would support that. Is there some official source you can post otherwise? I had not seen any novels before. If there are any, are they canon and do you have a link? MartinezMD (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a war before films I and II, but the explosions seen at the beginning of MM2 are clearly _not_ nuclear fireballs. If they would have wanted nuclear explosions, they would have culled from the many, many public domain nuclear explosion films available from the US government. There was a war between "two great warrior tribes," and wars have explosions and those are depicted in the opening montage of MM2. Certainly a NYT article wouldn't be authoritative since they're just quoting the oft-misunderstood nature of the film. I can't find it anymore, but someone already did a timeline on the web that was culled from the books, which I would think are more canonical than a NYT article. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am open whichever it ends up being. I just want it to be accurate. Ideally some type of interview or story from the original writer/producers would be ideal. Novelizations of movies after the fact aren't typically written by the same people.MartinezMD (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase 'touched off a blaze' is used in the opening narration which would seem to imply there was indeed a nuclear war (although its placement, IIRC, suggests the blaze happened before the first film). 'Great Northern Tribe' may well refer to the Northern hemisphere as a whole as opposed to an individual group. Assuming I'm not misremembering, there weren't any viable targets in the Southern hemisphere (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, etc.) during the Cold War. 92.25.222.173 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally settled--before a nuclear war [1]. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/roadwarrior/images/3/37/DSC02207.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140421082533 Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full cite: Danny Peary. _Omni's Screen Flights, Screen Fantasies: The Future According to the Cinema_. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Cheers. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of an interview with creator George Miller: he expressly says that Mad Max and Mad Max 2 are not post-nuclear war[2]. Spartan198 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the article does not have a production section. I am thinking about including it in the article, but we need to find some sources on that as well. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nver said this before, anywhere on Wikipedia, but this article is unusually well written and linked. It has a charm and a taste, from the beginning.

Maybe it could merit top badge and front page citation for quality? Decoy (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those who follow Humungus are nameless and to prescribe the name 'Maurauders' to them (7 times in the plot summary!) is erroneous. Its akin to calling them The Bandits or The Raiders, it is a generic word used to describe them and has no basis as being their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.185.82 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there mention of ecocide in this movie? Dornwald (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]