Is Mad Max considered Sci-Fi?

George Robinson43 said:Me?
Just like how the Star Wars films fall under the space opera umbrella within Sci-Fi,
Neuromancer serves as a classic example of the cyberpunk sub-genre.
Similarly, Anubis Gates fits perfectly into the steampunk category.
And even The Man in the High Castle can be classified under the dieselpunk label!

Nicholas Chavez70 said:Those two films don't have anything in common, nor do they come anywhere close... In "Mad Max," you see post-apocalyptic nomads surviving by moving from one location to another in a desperate search for fuel, water, food, women, and other resources absolutely vital to their survival... There aren't any races (because honestly, who would waste fuel on such senseless displays in a world where a single gallon of gas is worth more than a human life?), what you actually saw there was classic hunting, just performed with vehicles and scavenging... While "Fast & Furious" features gangs, they aren't even remotely similar to those nomads—they might be, perhaps, if the law had completely vanished... 👍

rustywalker42 said:Don't have the time right now. I'll get back to the rest of you soon, but here's my quick take on this last one.

So, what would you base it on? Christian Taylor3So, he actually concluded that Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film just because that opening line isn't there? Seriously?

rustywalker42 said:Don't have the time right now. I'll get back to the rest of you soon, but here's my quick take on this last one.

So, what would you base it on? Christian Taylor3So, he actually concluded that Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film just because that opening line isn't there? Seriously?

Walter Grant5 said:Aaargh. Wait, you think psychology only counts when an author is dissecting a character's psyche? You ever heard of social psychology?

Look, I’m talking about the imagined psychological evolution of civilization in a movie. It’s the exact same thing you’re doing when you talk about the imagined development of technology in other films. We're both just looking at where fiction and Science intersect. You're the only one who thinks you've got it right, though.

Biology’s probably in on it too. You can smell the ecological disaster coming from a mile away. And please, don't even ask if I happened to notice some oil spilling on a few plants or whatever...

Because there are three footnotes pointing to three major dictionaries. Is that actually a solid enough argument?

Doesn't matter at all.

If we’re really gonna go at it, I’ll just tell you straight: you don't call the shots here. That's the moderator's job. But fine. Whatever.

I'm not blocking you. I just can't stand it when people jump in with that kind of crap. Facepalm. Aside from just messing around, honestly. If everyone actually did that, PDFs would be a total disaster because anyone could just drop in a smiley face.

Yeah, it’s not exactly a reliable source since anyone can just go in and edit the text whenever they feel like it. So you basically log in and write whatever you want. Mad Max Comedy is one thing. But when you start throwing in references, that's a whole different ballgame.

That's what I thought. You're the one deciding what's worth using and what isn't.

Here he comes again.
Man, that psychological influence HAS to show up in the visuals or the actual storytelling. I already told you that earlier. Did Goose stumble onto some new kind of cognitive behavioral therapy or what?

We're talking about how society's psyche evolves here, not necessarily about refining some treatment method.

It’s the little things that make a movie. Look, I'm trying to tell you—that whole scene where a gang of thugs is killing and looting just to get their hands on some fuel? That isn't even Sci-Fi. It's just reality happening somewhere in the world right now.

I’m not talking about the small details in the movie, I’m talking about the straws you’re clinging to. Misinterpreted minutiae.

Let's say the lead guy has a kid in 2014, the whole movie takes place in one room centered around that baby, and then it ends on some ambiguous note where you can't tell if it was a dream or reality. You’d immediately slap the Sci-Fi label on that? Look, I'm just making up a scenario here, but I'm trying to say that just because something happens in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Man, what a character you are. Yeah, you're rambling. First off, I wouldn't call that movie Sci-Fi if the audience couldn't tell dream from reality. But come on, no director is going to set a movie in 2014 just so someone on a forum can prove that setting it in the future doesn't automatically make it Sci-Fi.

Look, I'm not claiming the movie doesn't take place in the future, I'm just saying without that opening line, you WOULDN'T know it's set in the future. And by Hells Angels, I mean a biker gang (wasn't referring to any specific movie, and based on your suggestion, looks like you took it that way—my bad if I missed the mark).

Check below under *

Well, if you exclude those dystopian films where society is almost always broken and strip them out of Sci-Fi (which is my personal stance), practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre involves some kind of advanced technology.

Buddy, you should have told me that right away. Especially that part in parentheses. "My personal stance"?! What does what you personally believe have to do with anything?

Same goes for this next bit: "...practically every true representative of the Sci-Fi genre..." I mean, how are we supposed to know which ones are true? It carries zero weight when you claim every "true" Sci-Fi has advanced tech. That's like saying "I argued." Anyone can write that. I could shove "true" into my own theory whenever I felt like it.

That is one of the core ideas of the Sci-Fi genre. You see it, for instance, in the works of Arthur C. Clarke.

Exactly.

No need for the sarcasm.

But following your logic, we basically end up at the conclusion that Sci-Fi only exists if it depicts advanced technology.

Post-apocalyptic/dystopian action film.

*Post-apocalyptic stories are a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Now, go ahead, fit that post-apocalyptic stuff into the question you asked me. How would you even know it's a post-apocalypse if there wasn't an opening line in the film?

And what does it all boil down to? I'm arguing with a guy whoPersonally. So he’s out here claiming post-apocalyptic and dystopian movies aren't actually Sci-Fi? That's a reach. I guess that's why he's trying so hard to prove it. Mad Max Isn't it Sci-Fi? Fits that theory, doesn't it?

That's exactly where things fall apart. Both belong to the Sci-Fi genre, but honestly? They have zero connection to each other.

The link between them is just that they're Sci-Fi.

And you said it was... Mad Max Action flicks, like say... Die Hard They barely have anything in common, honestly. But hey, they're both action flicks. I also threw in a few other titles that fall under the same umbrella—no real connection there besides being the same genre. Like... Monty Python I'm ready. Send over the text you need me to rework. Modern TimesLook, that’s not my issue. That's your problem. Besides, genre boundaries aren't some rigid cage; there are tons of subgenres and people mix them with other stuff all the time.

It’s not even me talking—it's just basic Sci-Fi theory. And honestly, I’m still sticking to my guns on this: I don't see any "Science" in that movie at all. Doesn't matter if you try to claim it's technical or social science. It's just not there.

Yeah, that's because you only see Science through this narrow lens of stuff you can actually touch. You don't even count social evolution as part of the scientific side of things. To you, Science just means tech upgrades, and now suddenly medical therapies count too? If it were up to you, "biological science" would probably just be some new species of weed.

Alright, let's take that theory of yours—the one I actually bothered to beef up—and put it to the test. Give me a specific example from the movie we're arguing about. Where exactly does this show up on screen?

I've said this a thousand times already. You’re just not getting the theory. Seriously, you haven't stumbled upon any new types of cognitive behavioral therapy.

Look, what I’m talking about—this idea of a civilization's psychological evolution within a movie—is exactly like what you're saying about how technology evolves in other films. We're both just looking at where fiction and Science intersect. Only difference? You seem to think you're the only one who actually has it right.

Biology's probably involved too. You can practically smell the ecological disaster coming. And please, don't even ask if I happened to notice some oil spilling on a few plants or something...

Doesn't matter. At all.

That’s exactly what I thought. So you're the one deciding what’s credible enough to use and what isn't? Real convenient.

We're talking about the evolution of social psychology here, not necessarily the development of some new treatment method.

I’m not talking about the little details in the film; I'm talking about the straws you're clutching at. Misinterpreted minutiae.

Man, what a piece of work you are. Yeah, you're just rambling. First off, I wouldn't label that film Sci-Fi if the viewer can't even tell if they're dreaming or awake. But come on, no director is going to set a film in 2014 just so you can prove some point to someone on a forum that setting a story in the future doesn't make it Sci-Fi.

Buddy, you should have told me that immediately. Especially the part in parentheses. You personally advocate for it?! And what does it have to do with anything that you personally advocate for it?

It's the same as this next bit: "...practically every real representative of the Sci-Fi genre has some...". I mean, how do we know which one is actually real? Your claim that every real Sci-Fi involves advanced technology carries zero weight. It's like writing "I argued." Anyone can write that. I could shove "real" into my theory too.

But following your logic, we're basically arriving at the idea that Sci-Fi must exist only if it depicts advanced technology.

*Post-apocalyptic stories are a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Now, try fitting that "post-apocalyptic" bit into that question you asked me. How would you even know it's a post-apocalypse if there wasn't that opening sentence in the film?

So, what’s the bottom line here? I'm stuck in this back-and-forth with some guy who... Personally? So he's out here claiming post-apocalyptic and dystopian movies aren't actually Sci-Fi? Really? Is that what we're doing now? Is that why you're so desperate to prove it? Mad Max Isn't it Sci-Fi? Fits that theory perfectly, doesn't it?

The link between them? They're both Sci-Fi.

But you already said that, didn't you? Mad Max An action movie, like say... Die Hard. With practically zero connection to it.

So, there you have it. Both are action-heavy. I also threw in a few more titles that fall under the same umbrella—they don't have anything in common besides being the exact same genre. Like... Monty Python I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What's on your mind? Modern TimesThat’s not even the issue. That’s *your* issue. Besides, genre divisions aren't set in stone—there are endless subgenres and ways to mash them up with everything else.

That’s because you only view Science through the lens of things you can actually touch. You don't even consider social evolution as a scientific aspect. To you, Science is just tech advancements—now suddenly it includes medical therapies too? If it were up to you, the biological side of things would probably just be some new species of plant.

I’ve said this countless times already. You just aren't grasping the theory. Seriously, you haven't stumbled upon any new types of cognitive behavioral therapy. Period.

nimblemarlin6 said:Replying to rustywalker42's question:

So, explain to me—why are (The Road and Mad Max) considered Sci-Fi films?

You can interpret Sci-Fi as just "Science," but I prefer looking at it as Speculative fiction.
Think of Sci-Fi as this sort of "umbrella genre"—it's a broad category where various different genres meet to explore specific speculative themes.
You've got space adventures, westerns, action flicks, war stories, dramas, and so on—and all of them can fall under the Sci-Fi banner.

Now, Mad Max and The Road fit perfectly because they speculate on how society and human relationships might evolve if the living conditions on Earth were to fundamentally shift in the future.
The Road depicts a world where the ecosystem has been completely decimated—exploring that through pure drama—whereas Mad Max shows a world running out of oil that, for some implied reason (likely a nuclear war), is collapsing into total anarchy—told through the lens of an action movie.

Both are serious Sci-Fi films, even if they don't feature high-tech gadgets or explicitly dwell on scientific theories; the Sci-Fi element is simply "packaged" inside the genre itself.

nimblemarlin6 said:You could argue that the *Fast & Furious* flicks share some superficial DNA with *Mad Max*—they both lean into that same sense of being totally detached from reality, centered mostly on high-octane car chases and various explosive showdowns.
But, I mean, let’s be honest—it’s pretty obvious that *Mad Max* isn't just some mindless spectacle about anarchist outlaws racing cars and killing each other.

(My apologies to anyone who felt personally attacked by me putting those two movies in the same sentence. 😁)

Walter Grant5 said:Look, they aren't even talking about scientific motives (don't want to sign off on The Road since I haven't actually seen it), it’s just obvious. Science is a system of knowledge—total human knowledge. If a story is set in the future, it's pretty clear we're looking at newly acquired info from whatever time passed before the movie kicks off. So, you're basically guessing at knowledge and science, which is just pure fiction, aka fantasy. That's how you get Science Fiction.

northerncrane4 said:That opening line is part of the film—just like everything else. How could you possibly conclude that a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away was the setting if the movie didn't explicitly tell you? And besides, is Star Wars even Sci-Fi, considering how much scientific nonsense it's packed with?

How would you even tell that *Star Wars* is happening? A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... Doesn't the opening crawl tell you everything you need to know? And honestly, is Star Wars even Sci-Fi? It’s basically just a bunch of scientific nonsense piled on top of itself.

Walter Grant5 said:Totally. I was just about to call out rustywalker42 in my reply regarding that opening line, but then I noticed he tagged Mad Max as a post-apocalyptic film. My whole point was: how would anyone even know it's the apocalypse without that specific sentence? Based on his logic, the plot is totally normal. Everything happening in the movie fits right in with the era it was filmed in. So, where does the "after the end" part actually happen?

I mean, the whole concept of an apocalypse or post-apocalypse is pure Science Fiction.

I mean, the whole concept of apocalypse and post-apocalypse? That's just straight-up Science Fiction.

Christian Taylor3 said:Even that opening line (which is just a voiceover)...

the words: IN THE NEAR FUTURE...come across the screen

... isn't strictly necessary for you to grasp that we're looking at an imagined, non-existent world, or a state of existence presented as a plausible—scientifically grounded—possibility, perhaps as an evolutionary trajectory for our current world. Back when people were actually watching Mad Max, they weren't exactly killing each other over a single jerrycan of gas (you could argue with plenty of examples, since humans have been fighting over barrels of oil since the dawn of time, let's be honest. But not in a post-apocalyptic/setting like this).

By the time we got to Mad Max 2, the director used a narrator to lay it all out clearly for the audience (though, of course, he was nudged in that direction by American producers 😁):

NARRATOR V/O
But, most of all, I remember the
courage of a stranger, a road
warrior called Max. To understand
who he was you must go back to the
last days of the old world ...

Back when Mad Max first came out, people weren't killing each other over a single jerry can of fuel (sure, you can argue that people have been killing each other over barrels of oil since forever—that's just reality. But not in a post-apocalyptic/setting like this).

By the time we got to Mad Max 2, Miller basically spelled it out for the audience using a narrator (mostly because American producers forced him to 😁):

Psychological development? Give me a break. What are you even talking about? There’s zero character growth happening here. You're acting like people in movies suddenly sprout new senses or something, and then we're supposed to call it "development." In Mad Max, people are exactly how they've always been—cruel, heartless, and selfish. Honestly, look around today; you don't need a post-apocalyptic wasteland to see that. People haven't changed one bit.

What exactly are you referring to? Where? Which scene? Which specific line? Give me some visual or narrative context here. Look, I’m talking about the first Mad Max the whole time, not the sequels. It feels like you keep dragging the rest of the franchise into this.

Where exactly does that show up in the movie? Where is that actually woven into the theme? Is Max some kind of psychologist analyzing how society's psyche evolves? What "societal psychological development" are we even talking about here? What does that even mean to you?

What are you even getting at here? I’ve watched this movie like sixty times—I could practically recite the script in my sleep. Now I'm just sitting here waiting for you to finally break it down and give me a proper autopsy, but we're still spinning our wheels.

Look, cut the crap. It's my own creative freedom. I don't give a damn what you think should be included. My point is simple: you'd just lump that movie right in with Sci-Fi anyway.

Since when were we buddies? What are you even trying to get at here? Look, I'm telling you again: there’s enough dystopian stuff out there that it deserves its own damn genre. Just because nobody has officially carved it out yet doesn't mean they won't. Even an Oscar or a Grammy didn't have specific categories for everything at first, then they just added them. Change is the only constant.

Well, if you strip away those dystopian films where society is almost always broken—which is my personal stance on keeping them out of Sci-Fi—then basically every legitimate representative of the Sci-Fi genre relies on some kind of advanced technology.

Fine, list some movies you're interested in and I'll tell you if they're Sci-Fi or not, assuming I've actually seen them.

I didn't say that, though it looks like you just confirmed it yourself.

rustywalker42 said:No, it isn't. Would you actually call that movie sci-fi if you were talking to someone who’s never even seen it? And if you did, what kind of reaction do you think they'd have once the credits actually roll?

In principle? Yeah. It’s all built on high-end tech we just don't have access to yet.

Look, if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. Believe whatever you want. Online? Seriously?I'm not saying that... Wikipedia. Some ultimate proof that actually shuts down that "according to your logic" argument? No. That’s not how my logic works.

And the Americans say:

Mad Max is an American cult classic from 1979. Dystopian action films? Really? Who even watches these anymore? Mad Max was directed by George Miller and written by Miller and Byron Kennedy.

Mad Max. That's the one. Pure adrenaline on celluloid. You ever seen anything like it? Just raw, unbridled chaos. It’s basically a high-octane fever dream set in an American wasteland. Total madness.

So, what now?

So, here's the thing about predicting the future... Sci-fi.2014? Please. If this were actually 2114, we’d be looking at nothing but wasteland scavengers, desert truckers, and... what else? Bikers? Really?So, you'd probably tell me it isn't even SF either? Please. It’s a drama set in 2114.

Answer me this. Was that drama filmed in 2014 in SF?

Matthew Anderson4 Quote: Blue Velvet I mentioned it because of that dystopian movie. Thought it might be worth a debate to see if the comparison actually holds water. But apparently, there’s nothing worth discussing here besides... Trolled. Another forum user sliding in with comments like...Wait, did I just catch that? Someone actually mentioned Christ was a Buddhist? Seriously? 🙂''...

I’m not trolling. If you think I am, that’s on you. I'm just defending my position. And if standing my ground counts as trolling? Then fine. I'm done with this thread.

Who knows? Maybe there's some commentary on social segregation or the rise of an underworld happening there. I just can't tell if it's a prediction or if we're already living in it.

"Segregation"? I don't recall a single dystopian element in Blue Velvet.

And you, being a moderator, just love a good troll, don't you? Seriously, which part of my quote was confusing? In your eyes, is Out of the Past a crime thriller or a noir film?

I mean, it's not sci-fi, it's a subgenre of sci-fi 😕 and they even bolded it. For crying out loud.

I didn't say it was a sci-fi subgenre; you did. I said Mad Max isn't sci-fi and I'm sticking to that.

I'm not the only one who thinks this; there are endless debates about this online. At the end of the day, I'm arguing with someone who thinks Mad Max is Sci-Fi. So, what now?

Nah. I didn't say that. I said Mad Max is an apocalyptic action film. Just because it’s dystopian doesn't mean it has anything to do with Die Hard.

How can they not see the connection? Both are just satirical takes on society, just separated by a bit of time.

And that’s exactly where the real headache starts.

Nah, I don't buy it. It's too vague and there's no way to actually measure it.

Look, read what you just wrote again. So, according to your theory, if the story is set in the future, it’s automatically Sci-Fi because it involves "newly discovered knowledge"? That's your logic? Even if the setting is a future where all knowledge has basically crumbled into nothing? Didn't that cross your mind?

Not really. Just like you can't wrap your head around the fact that it’s actually Sci-Fi—but hey, admitting you're wrong is hard, I get it.

Yeah, the plot is totally straightforward. It’s just one guy out for revenge. I don't get it—what exactly is supposedly "off" about 1979?

Walter Grant5 said:When I talk about psychological development, you probably just think about some literal "improvement" in psychology—like a field getting a facelift. That's all you see. Just the idea of things getting better.

If you think that's what you're proving with this post:

Psychological development? Give me a break. What are you even talking about? There’s zero character growth happening here. You're acting like people in movies suddenly sprout new senses or something, and then we're supposed to call it "development." In Mad Max, people are exactly how they've always been—cruel, heartless, and selfish. Honestly, look around today; you don't need a post-apocalyptic wasteland to see that. People haven't changed one bit.

Psychology is a pretty broad term. When I talk about development, I’m talking about the progression of events—the whole process of how society behaves, not just some individual's head space—that led to the situation in the movie. And obviously, the whole thing is just fiction.

And why set it in the future anyway? Seriously, what's the point?

What exactly are you referring to? Where? Which scene? Which specific line? Give me some visual or narrative context here. Look, I’m talking about the first Mad Max the whole time, not the sequels. It feels like you keep dragging the rest of the franchise into this.

Splitting hairs over tiny details. Total waste of time.

Where exactly does that show up in the movie? Where is that actually woven into the theme? Is Max some kind of psychologist analyzing how society's psyche evolves? What "societal psychological development" are we even talking about here? What does that even mean to you?

So, you need a character who basically sits there and deconstructs the whole collapse for the audience? Like, they have to explain exactly how the world ended. You're looking for that psychological angle, right? As if the viewer isn't smart enough to piece together how everything went south on their own. Instead, we need this one guy in the movie—some top-tier psychologist or something—who’s constantly hunting for clues or digging into the psyche of the chaos. InceptionLook, you’ve gotta dig deep into the character's headspace. Psychology isn't about how society acts as a whole; it's about the individual. You have to nail the psyche of that one person. And honestly? You need some high-level analysis methods to actually pull it off. Otherwise, what's the point?

What are you even getting at here? I’ve watched this movie like sixty times—I could practically recite the script in my sleep. Now I'm just sitting here waiting for you to finally break it down and give me a proper autopsy, but we're still spinning our wheels.

Look, you can try to nitpick all you want, but I’m not playing that game. You really want to sit here and argue over which exact minute a character killed someone over a can of oil? Forget it. It's not happening.

Look, cut the crap. It's my own creative freedom. I don't give a damn what you think should be included. My point is simple: you'd just lump that movie right in with Sci-Fi anyway.

So, you cooked up this totally fake version of the movie just so you could corner me into deciding if it counts as Sci-Fi or not. There isn't even a single real-world comparison where a director sets everything in the future just for the sake of it, but sure, let's pretend it's set in the future. Then, after asking my opinion, you hit me with that "I don't care what you think" routine. And get this—after I told you straight up that I wouldn't label it Sci-Fi unless it’s clear whether we're looking at reality or a dream, you pivot to: "The point is, you *would* put it in the Sci-Fi category." Like, wow. Thanks for the insight. It doesn't follow. Not even close.

Since when were we buddies? What are you even trying to get at here? Look, I'm telling you again: there’s enough dystopian stuff out there that it deserves its own damn genre. Just because nobody has officially carved it out yet doesn't mean they won't. Even an Oscar or a Grammy didn't have specific categories for everything at first, then they just added them. Change is the only constant.

Why do you think volume alone makes it a parent genre?

And how do you "not understand" what I'm saying? I'm saying that what YOU personally believe—that dystopian movies aren't Sci-Fi—is just your take (quote follows)

Well, if you strip away those dystopian films where society is almost always broken—which is my personal stance on keeping them out of Sci-Fi—then basically every legitimate representative of the Sci-Fi genre relies on some kind of advanced technology.

That's totally irrelevant. Stop saying "I think" and actually give me an argument that isn't just "I think there's enough dystopia for a new genre" and stuff like that.

Fine, list some movies you're interested in and I'll tell you if they're Sci-Fi or not, assuming I've actually seen them.

That still doesn't guarantee those movies are legitimate examples of Sci-Fi (as you put it), it just means you *think* they are. That's not an argument.

I didn't say that, though it looks like you just confirmed it yourself.

Unless you're claiming you didn't say exactly that. (Gotta preempt this since you love nitpicking) You didn't say it verbatim, but close enough.

I'm not the only one who thinks this; there are endless debates about this online. At the end of the day, I'm arguing with someone who thinks Mad Max is Sci-Fi. So, what now?

Nothing. Maybe one day someone will start arguing that 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't Sci-Fi. Guess I can't do anything against that. 🤷

Nah. I didn't say that. I said Mad Max is an apocalyptic action film. Just because it’s dystopian doesn't mean it has anything to do with Die Hard.

But it’s got action too. How can they even be in the same category? Die HardIt’s dystopian, isn't it? So how the hell can it even be in the same category as... Gattaca.? 😕

How can they not see the connection? Both are just satirical takes on society, just separated by a bit of time.

Most of them are just ironic, sarcastic takes on society. So how does that even work? Spaceballs I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What's on your mind? Modern Times Same boat? I mean, if we're already in it... Star Trek I'm ready. Send over the text you want me to rework. I'll handle the heavy lifting—stripping out the fluff, swapping the locations to the States, and keeping my tone exactly how it should be: short, blunt, and a little bit jaded. Just drop the content whenever you're set. Mad Max Can't have both being Sci-Fi...

And that’s exactly where the real headache starts.

What's up, everyone. Just realized most people here don't see any issue unless it involves you.

Nah, I don't buy it. It's too vague and there's no way to actually measure it.

It's pretty dumb that you aren't counting that as the Science aspect. Science is just total knowledge, plain and simple. If the story is set in the future and you're watching it as an audience member, you've gotta assume something actually happened to get things to that point. It shouldn't just be some unexplained magic trick. That's the whole point—it's Science Fiction.

Look, read what you just wrote again. So, according to your theory, if the story is set in the future, it’s automatically Sci-Fi because it involves "newly discovered knowledge"? That's your logic? Even if the setting is a future where all knowledge has basically crumbled into nothing? Didn't that cross your mind?

Yeah, degradation? Absolutely. But honestly, that loss of knowledge is actually a scientifically sound concept. Even if it’s just a fictional trope for the future. In the realm of Sci-Fi, basically anything built on a scientific foundation—even if it's totally made up—counts. It doesn't matter what field you're looking at.

Not really. Just like you can't wrap your head around the fact that it’s actually Sci-Fi—but hey, admitting you're wrong is hard, I get it.

So how'd you decide to dump it into the post-apocalyptic category then? How would you even know it’s post-apocalyptic if it wasn't mentioned in the very first sentence? Honestly, even that opening line doesn't back up your theory. How can you be so sure the apocalypse actually happened? You're the one who said nothing has changed since 1979.

Yeah, the plot is totally straightforward. It’s just one guy out for revenge. I don't get it—what exactly is supposedly "off" about 1979?

So how are you even supposed to know the apocalypse actually happened? I mean, if we’re using that same logic you use to claim something isn't Sci-Fi—basically saying "you can't prove it," then you can't prove it's a post-apocalyptic story either. Since nobody can prove the world ended, does that mean the movie doesn't count? Makes sense, right? 😕

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

northerncrane4 said:@rustywalker42, look—they’ve got you at the top of the page with a quote and a link from the Film Encyclopedia, which makes it crystal clear that Mad Max belongs in the Sci-Fi genre—it's even listed as a prime example of the sub-genre. So, grab a pen and write a letter to the Lexicographical Institute and Hrvoj Turković; go ahead and break down their sentences one by one, explain exactly where they missed the mark, and don't give them any peace until they fix the error. You could even leave a comment right there on the page.

rustywalker42 said:Since you clearly don't trust me, I'll cut this short right here. Here is what the screenwriter James McCausland actually said:

George and I wrote The [ Mad Max script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1111112631991

So, raw struggle for resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

Because Miller thought it would be more convincing if he set the action in the future.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest, since you couldn't even manage to answer a simple question: how exactly would you see the story taking place in the future if that first sentence wasn't there? You're just talking in circles and dodging the simplest question of all.

I've already written it and I don't know why it's being ignored—that genre should be treated as its own thing. Besides, is any definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film art, the old dogmas get smashed. I don't get why you're being so cynical.

Besides, Australians*, whose cinema the film comes from, classify it as a road movie:

...Mad Max, a pure exponent of the road genre...

http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__.../biber_new.pdf

* Before anyone starts questioning the validity of the article, keep in mind it was written by someone whose doctoral dissertation is titled:a Certain look in The Eye : Representations of Masculinity in Australian Cinema

northerncrane4 said:Fine, then do something about it. Write to the Lexicographic Institute and tell them they need to list post-apocalyptic revenge films as a separate genre in the next edition—defining its specific parameters and how it differs from pre-apocalyptic road movies or dystopian action-romcoms, which deserve their own labels. Lay out your arguments and don't back down until they listen. Then, we’ll finally have a new encyclopedic definition to cite in our debates as legitimate.

rustywalker42 said:Since you clearly don't trust me, I'll cut this short right here. Here is what the screenwriter James McCausland actually said:

George and I wrote The [ Mad Max script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1111112631991

So, raw struggle for resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

Because Miller thought it would be more convincing if he set the action in the future.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest, since you couldn't even manage to answer a simple question: how exactly would you see the story taking place in the future if that first sentence wasn't there? You're just talking in circles and dodging the simplest question of all.

I've already written it and I don't know why it's being ignored—that genre should be treated as its own thing. Besides, is any definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film art, the old dogmas get smashed. I don't get why you're being so cynical.

Besides, Australians*, whose cinema the film comes from, classify it as a road movie:

...Mad Max, a pure exponent of the road genre...

http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__.../biber_new.pdf

* Before anyone starts questioning the validity of the article, keep in mind it was written by someone whose doctoral dissertation is titled:a Certain look in The Eye : Representations of Masculinity in Australian Cinema

rustywalker42 said:Seriously, why the cynicism? You're clearly just trying to stir the pot, but for what? I'm asking you again.
Is the definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film history, the old dogmas get torn apart. If I'm looking for references, I'd much rather trust a PhD specializing in Australian cinema than some random grad from our local ADU (and I'm not exactly huge fans of their curriculum).☕

rustywalker42 said:Since you clearly don't trust me, I'll cut this short right here. Here is what the screenwriter James McCausland actually said:

George and I wrote The [ Mad Max script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1111112631991

So, raw struggle for resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

Because Miller thought it would be more convincing if he set the action in the future.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest, since you couldn't even manage to answer a simple question: how exactly would you see the story taking place in the future if that first sentence wasn't there? You're just talking in circles and dodging the simplest question of all.

I've already written it and I don't know why it's being ignored—that genre should be treated as its own thing. Besides, is any definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film art, the old dogmas get smashed. I don't get why you're being so cynical.

Besides, Australians*, whose cinema the film comes from, classify it as a road movie:

...Mad Max, a pure exponent of the road genre...

http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__.../biber_new.pdf

* Before anyone starts questioning the validity of the article, keep in mind it was written by someone whose doctoral dissertation is titled:a Certain look in The Eye : Representations of Masculinity in Australian Cinema

Miller just figured setting it in the future would make the whole thing hit harder.

I'm not even gonna bother with the rest. You didn't even have the guts to answer a simple question, which was... If you stripped away that opening line, what would give the future away?You're just talking in circles and dodging a dead simple question.

I already said this, not sure why everyone’s acting like they didn't hear me—that whole thing should be its own damn genre. Since when was a definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits the film scene, the old rules get trashed anyway. Don't get why people are being so cynical about it.

rustywalker42;30739649 said:

Quote : Mad Max

What you're getting at here—if we really dig into the specifics—is essentially what one particular... well, let's say one specific example handles. 1984.It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there—wasn't quite what I was expecting. Anyway, if you’ve got something more substantial to say, I'm all ears. Just laying it out there. Quote : Mad MaxDon't even try telling me that you would... Quote : Mad Max He basically put them in the exact same tier as—well, you know. 1984.?

I can't really bring myself to compare Mad Max to 1984—it just doesn't work. I mean, 1984 is a direct adaptation of a novel, whereas Max was built from an original screenplay. It’s a completely different beast.
But look, if we’re just talking about the movies themselves—purely the films—Mad Max is a better movie than the 1984 one.

Quote : Mad Max

Quote : Mad Max It’s basically just a story about one guy out for blood—set in some dystopian future, you know the type. As far as that goes, there isn't any actual connection to... The Fast and the Furious—man, what a ride that was. It’s funny how you look back at those early films and realize they were actually decent crime dramas before they basically morphed into superhero movies where cars fly through skyscrapers. There was something about that initial gritty, street-racing energy in Los Angeles that just felt... I don't know, tangible? Before everything became about impossible physics and international espionage. Now, it’s all just high-octane chaos, but hey, I can't say I hate the spectacle. Sometimes you just want to turn your brain off and watch a car jump between three different moving vehicles. It's a vibe.Even if you stripped away that whole dystopian vibe—which, let's be honest, is half the fun—it would still hold up.

So, look—you mentioned that Mad Max is set in some dystopian future, but if that's the case, how can you say it isn't Sci-Fi? It’s right there in the premise.
Do you think that whole post-apocalyptic vibe in Mad Max is just pure window dressing? Like—maybe George Miller just had this deep-seated obsession with customized hot rods and leather jackets, and he didn't actually want to make a contemporary thriller set in the modern day using standard car models and actual police uniforms?
Could you actually pull off a story like that set in today's normal society—say, some small town out in rural Australia? I mean, seriously. Could it work?

I mean, seriously—who on earth did he think he was hiring to design those vehicles and overhaul the entire police structure? And honestly, why even pretend this takes place in the future in the first place?

Look, it’s pretty clear that Miller made a conscious, deliberate choice to go ahead and shoot the movie—just like that. So, about the future—it’s a funny thing, isn't it? We spend half our lives worrying about what hasn't happened yet, building these elaborate mental maps of where we might end up, only to realize that reality rarely follows the script we wrote in our heads. It’s like trying to predict the plot of a movie while you're still sitting in the lobby—you can guess the genre, sure, but the actual twists? They always catch you off guard. I tend to look at it with a certain level of detached curiosity—not exactly optimism, not quite pessimism, just a steady, quiet observation of the inevitable chaos. We talk about progress as if it's a straight line moving upward, but history suggests it’s more of a jagged, messy scribble. Still, we keep moving forward—mostly because there isn't much of an alternative.It’s more than just some standard police revenge flick—it's way deeper than that.

Look, Mad Max definitely hits all those classic action beats—gang warfare, high-speed chases, pure vengeance—but at its core, it’s actually sci-fi because it uses those tropes to map out massive societal shifts. I get why you might think it doesn't fit the genre, though—if you watch Max and realize there aren't any robots, laser blasters, or starships flying around, you might be tempted to say it isn't science fiction. But that's just not how it works.