I thought Fury Road turned out so much better actually because Miller is an older director who knows and uses better techniques than the average director would today. Kind of hard to explain in short.
I think for Argento having a career of essentially Giallos really stretched his creativity thin. But he still managed to give us some really good titles when he did (also I thought The Stendhal Syndrome minus the bad CG was phenominal).
I don't know about carpenter. I've only seen Halloween and The Thing.

You said it yourself: "Miller, while making fewer films, had commercial success due to working with more mainstream, and family-friendly, material all the while working on his magnum opus; Fury Road. "
This is why Fury Road was made. He's always been friendly with the studios. He made 'films for them', and then he did one for himself. A contemporary of Carpenter, Wes Craven, did the same thing. He made the Scream sequels, which let him make more personal films or more passion projects. It's said that if Carpenter had directed another Halloween sequel, particularly H20, he would've made a 'comeback'. But Carpenter is too individual minded. He makes the stuff he wants, when he wants. He's only made one sequel in his career, compared to Miller, who has done 3 Mad Max sequels (with another one on the way), and one Happy Feet sequel. You have to play along the system, and be successful, in order to be given some support for your passion project by a studio.
Argento is even more radical than Carpenter. I don't know his relationship with Hollywood, but if he was offered studio films, it was a long time ago. He seems content making lower budget Horror films in Italy, and I don't blame him; Hollywood isn't for everyone.

The OP is correct'Mad Max: Fury Road' is WONDERFULLY modern in its camera techniques, effects, and kinetic energy. You would most certainly NOT believe the man who made it was 70 years old at the time of release. It feels like it was made by a young man. Miller's expertise and experience shines in what he was able to accomplish with the real physical stunts/chases/crashes. I can't say I've quite ever seen another movie like it.
Miller does not have a particularly large body of work. This movie was a summation of about 20 years of thinking, ideas, and storyboards. This was a life project for Miller.

We shouldn't forget that one of the reasons that made fury road possible is that the post apocalyptic genre is as bankable as ever, and mad max, being a blockbuster action series, had what it took to interest producers in hollywood.

On top of coming from Mad Max to family movies and back again, he also has the distinction of being both a "slow worker" (there is at least a two year break between his projects, with such breaks extending to EIGHT years between "Babe 2" and "Happy Feet), but of being, and this is interesting from such a "slow worker", a "franchise" man. Apart from the Mad Max, Babe and Happy Feet franchises, he co-directed "Twilight Zone: The Movie", directed (but did not produce and/or write, which is uncommon for him) "The Witches of Eastwick" and delivered what I consider as being his most underrated movie (and one of the most underrated movies of all time, actually), "Lorenzo's Oil". As for "no movies gone wrob68ng", he did deliver "Happy Feet 2", which I see as a pretty spectacular failure, and, to a certain extent "Eastwick" (which is WAY too silly)

I can somewhat see the "link" between Miller and Carpenter, but with Argento?
Thought the same but then thought again and "Dawn of the Dead" shares some of the style which Carpenters "Assault on Precinct 13" had. Basically, its even the same story, but in the one movie, it are Zombies, in the other one some gangers.
Still, I would put Carpenter and Miller over Argento.
And I would like that Carpenter gets the chance to do a decent movie again, like an artistical redemption.
Miller had nearly no movies gone wrong I think. But he has a strange career - he is doing the Mad Max moviea and then totally different stuff, like family movies and such.

But "Heaven's gate" was a much more ambitious movie, thematically, than "Fury Road" which is pure entertainmeent with heroes and baddies, thin screenplay, extensive action scenes and happy ending.
I can somewhat see the "link" between Miller and Carpenter, but with Argento?
Very different moviesat least Carpenter has tried to make like Miller mainstream crowd pleasing works here and there ("Starman", "Big Trouble in Little China", "Memoirs of an invisible man") even if Carpenter's roots are, like Argento, Romero or Cronenberg, "indie" low budget movies.
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

The small problem is, Mad Max: Fury Road maybe a wonderful movie to look at, but cost-wise and production wise, this movie nearly made "Heaven's Gate" look like a picnic.