Oh my, this wasn't suppose to be an argument in the first place. But this is so bad I have to address this point first.

[quote=@Awson]
As for your points about the logic of it -- because it was entertaining. Those aren't even strictly plot holes. Why did they waste the gasoline? Because they had his breeders, which were very important. [color=ed1c24][b]Why did they have a guitarist shooting flames?[/b][/color][color=ed1c24][b]The same reason armies have drummer boys.[/b][/color]
[/quote]

Yes, it is. There wasting a precious fuel source on something completely unnecessary. It's cool for the audience, but that doesn't exist in the movies world...And holy shit that last analogy, instead of just repeating. "That analogy DOES NOT WORK!" one hundred times. No, armies used drums for morality. (and drums don't burn fuel which is integral for humanities survival in the post apocalypse.) The guitarist shooting flamethrowers out of his guitar on a sound stage that had to cost an absurd amount of money to maintain and the flames cost a shit load of gasoline this entire WORLD doesn't have a lot off. And they had so many vehicles chasing them down, when more people probably could of fit on less cars. 

[quote=@Awson]
The story was not a masterpiece. And that's okay. :)
[/quote]

Okay [b]good[/b], doesn't need a defense then. Because it had no story. I'd argue again, the characters are weak and unimportant which makes the story fail. But you seem to like the very little character interaction...

[quote=@Awson]
I guess I'll go through the characters. I'd let you say little growth, but none?

Max and Furiosa: No trust, to trust. Max has a nice moment where he goes against convention and doesn't stay with them. Furiosa's dream of paradise is destroyed, she accepts the Citadel as her home.

Nux: Mindless drone, dreams crushed, abolishes his idol
[/quote]

But why did those things happen, why? Why was there no trust and then trust? Why did someone who was brainwashed for decades, randomly turn heel on some random day? What was their motivations? There was like 100 characters, how about mad max? The title of the damn movie. What was his point? What did he accomplish in the movie? What was his arc? :I

[quote=@Awson]
John Wick has a pretty normal structure. Not totally comparable.
[/quote]

As an action film, I'd argue it did a better job with it's characters, action, setting, world building and was a better movie overall.

[quote=@Awson]
The whole thing being one car chase is strange, huh? That's not inherintly a bad thing.
[/quote]

You make it sound like you'll deny it, but you don't. And it was a problem for this movie. [b](Imo)[/b]

[quote=@Awson]
This was your best point so far. I'm gonna go with....... you were happy with the fact that it was at least trying to have a normal story?
[/quote]

The story sucked, but it was pretty to look at...

Like I said, nothing wrong with liking something purely on it's artistic merit. Well that's kind of the only point this was suppose to be, you're saying it's a masterpiece, I say it sucks. And we can both be right, because it was a personal experience. But even comparing Avatar, it's locations and settings changed constantly and it made the movie better visually because of it...

People do and will get tired of the same thing over and over again. (usually.) Not all style over substances movies will draw you in and it just didn't work for me. Simple as that.

[quote=@Awson]
I don't know what you're talking about. It happens in a lot of movies. Few people say it. Some of those people who do say it, say it matters culturally in addition to being good. Is that so hard?
[/quote]

You say is that so hard, yet don't seem to understand my simple concept and confusion with you're sometimes/all bullshit statements being made one after the other.

So, yes that's correct. But it ALSO has people that SOLELY (meaning only like the movie, not based on ANYTHING else other than political reasons.) 

[quote=@Awson]
You're only proving more that you didn't get it. The point is that the superb action and visuals are enough to make story less important than usual. That's an argument for the lightness of it.
[/quote]

I don't know how many times I can say, "not giving two shits what the characters are doing" was this biggest flaw in the movie and not the story itself. But I said it again. :/ I DO GET IT, I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, THOSE THINGS EXIST. YOU CAN THINK ITS GOOD AND I CAN NOT, AND NEITHER ONE IS INSTANTLY MARKED AS "DON'T GET IT". YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS. >.<

[quote=@Awson]
Because I know that cherry-picking reviews is pointless.
[/quote]

[b]Not when you bring them up in the first place! [/b]It's called lazyness at best. :/

[quote=@Awson]
NO I DIDN'T. I SAID THAT IF YOU WERE PREDISPOSED TO DISLIKE OUTDOOR SURVIVAL MOVIES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY REASON SOMEONE WOULD DISLIKE IT.
[/quote]

[b][u]Not a single person on this god forsaken planet dislikes movies because of outdoor shots![/u][/b] :I I get people that may be genre buffs or people that don't like genres, or actors, or the like. But no human being actually gives two shits about movies shot outdoors...The point is, that means absolutely nothing. Is that really all you can think of, of why someone may not like the story? How about?
[list]
[*] How good is the soundtrack?
[*] Is the acting good?
[*] Is the story/character decisions believable?
[*] Is it super gory?
[*] Is it a thinking man's movie?
[*] Is it a heavily symbolic movie?
[*] Is the movie super realistic?
[*] Is the movie really action heavy?
[*] Does this movie have any super good moments?
[*] Is this movie a slow-burner?
[*] Does this movie have an environmental message?
[*] Does a dog die in it?
[*] Is there some kind of twist?
[/list]

THERE'S A SHITLOAD OF QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED BY IT BEING "AN OUTDOORSY SURVIVAL MOVIE." 

You told me that you weren't going to try, and now you're acting like you actually did try. :I

[quote=@Awson]
It's not egregious to disagree with the majority. It's egregious to misunderstand or misrepresent the majority.
[/quote]

[s]Yet that wasn't really clear beforehand. And I didn't. :/ You said some, I never said/meant all. And almost instantly clarified it wasn't directed at you. (which automatically means, not everyone because you are someone.)[/s]

Edit: You also technically said majority/not everyone. So misread, but point being majority of reviews I've read, do bring up the feminism aspect of the movie, even if it's to discredit it. It's not a fringe. One of the primary actors was a feminist activist and said she wanted to influence the movie in interviews. It's not out of nowhere. :/ But I'll concede that's in the weeds and not the point. Message or not, you liked it regardless and I disliked it regardless.

[b][i]The rest can be summed up with, I agree to disagree.[/i][/b] :/