I had this semantic argument with another commenter. Saying that something is always lost (which it is) isn't identical to saying that it should never be done or that it isn't sometimes a net positive.

I'm unaware of any Bond film in which (a) Bond becomes essentially secondary to a female protagonist, and (b) his minimal emotional arc is created via a series of fleeting flashbacks to events that occurred when a different actor was playing Bond.

Oh. Well that's a poor example then. Disregard.

This is a semantic issue, apparently. I completely agree that recasting is sometimes beneficial, maybe even often beneficial. There's still an inevitable downside to it, though, even in cases in which the upside outweighs said downside 100 to 1.

I am perhaps overly sensitive about being accused (even in jest) of intentionally generating "clickbait." It's kind of a drag to put a lot of work into something and see a bunch of people suggest you didn't mean any of it and were just trying to manufacture some outrage.

Saying that recasting has an inevitable downside (which it does) is not the same as saying that it should never be done, or that in many cases said downside isn't more than outweighed by the benefits.

As I have stated elsewhere, I did not anticipate anyone freaking out about this piece. My concern was that it would be viewed as stating the obvious.

I didn't say "ruin." Or anything even vaguely resembling that. The movie is superb as is.

Not sure if this was a joke or not, but just in case it isn't: The 100-point scale on Metacritic has no relationship to grading out of 100 in school. 69 is a solid number indicating* favorable but not ecstatic reviews. The equivalent of a D+ would be down around the high 20s.

But does it need to be so visceral? Why does it need that wrinkle?

Pre-release buzz, you're probably right. Don't think it would have affected the critical reception at all. We were ecstatic about Miller's direction, primarily, which would have been exactly the same.

He's saying, "if you think that's surprising, then you clearly are quite insulated."

I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this, because the answers to your questions are in the piece that I wrote. All I can do is repeat what I've already said. For example, regarding the rifle-rest moment: "Theron and Hardy are essentially equals—neither has been in a Mad Max film before. Gibson ceding the spotlight…

The film didn't need that to work

What a razor-sharp piece of response you've made!

Just saying why would I want to leave the critic bubble when the critics are usually right and the general public is usually grotesquely wrong (as is the case with The Witch)? It's cozy in here.

That can happen when you're being attacked. The above comment was just a joke, though.

That's the best articulation of this objection I've seen so far, good job. But I'm not arguing that Fury Road needed Gibson. It obviously didn't; it was one of my favorite films last year. It just crossed my mind when I watched it a second time how much more powerful certain scenes/moments would have been with Gibson…

Because they've never played Mad Max.

Joke's on you. I can't be fired; I don't work there.