⊃∪∩⪽ | Legendary | October 22 2021 | Denis Villeneuve | Returns to IMAX on December 3

[The Futurist]

Tone is everything.

If it s a drab affair like BR, EXPECT A FLOP.

[Valonqar]

8 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

You keep admitting yourself that this project is a BAD idea.

 

Why do you want it to happen?

 

It can not happen, as a successful movie, even if it was a good idea. (Because there is no audience for a 200m budgeted movie like this.) But it is bad. So?

Never said it's a bad idea just that I understand why previous adaptations didn't quite work. Never said that the book cannot be adapted. As @The Futurist just wrote, tone is everything. if it's drab, than flop city.

 

 

[The Panda]

I think the November release date shows awards confidence

[dudalb]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 3:37 PM, tomknff said:

Warner will market this as the next LORT or GOT, and people will come in expecting some 'out there' things.

The novel "Dune" is no more weirder the LOTR or GOT. The "Normies" ( a term I consider to be insulting and consescending) ate those up.

And the   David Lynch film was CONSIDERABLY more out there then the novel.

IMHO the most important thing is how they handle the backstory and the exposition you need for this film.. That is where Lynch really blew it; his film is hopelessly confusing to the vast majority of people who have never read the novel. His exposition was laughably confusing. In fact I don't he made much of an effort at it, Lynch being Lynch. He was the wrong choice for this material from a storytelling point of view.

Villanueva should definently look at LOTR and see how well Jackson handled the Exposition.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by dudalb

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, dudalb said:

 

Double post.

Edited March 26, 2019 by dudalb

[dudalb]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 6:57 AM, Elessar said:

I'm not saying you are not making some valid points. It's just frustrating that GA ignores some good content because "brand".

 

 

And I find it frustrating that a lot of geeks are not interested in anything that does not have a high sci fi content.

SO it evens out.

[dudalb]

And it's not like just listing ingrediants for a film is a way to predict it's success. You can take two films with pretty much the same incrediants, and one will be a hit and the other a flop. It depends on how the ingrediants are handled.

[terrestrial]

12 hours ago, dudalb said:

The novel "Dune" is no more weirder the LOTR or GOT. The "Normies" ( a term I consider to be insulting and consescending) ate those up.

And the   David Lynch film was CONSIDERABLY more out there then the novel.

IMHO the most important thing is how they handle the backstory and the exposition you need for this film.. That is where Lynch really blew it; his film is hopelessly confusing to the vast majority of people who have never read the novel. His exposition was laughably confusing. In fact I don't he made much of an effort at it, Lynch being Lynch. He was the wrong choice for this material from a storytelling point of view.

Villanueva should definently look at LOTR and see how well Jackson handled the Exposition.

not sure what that means:

more weird or more known/seen than the amount of people who read the books?

 

I am not sure: do you mean audience who didn't read the books beforehand mostly didn't understood the Lynch version?

Bcs in RL?

I do not know anyone who was confused then (during its first theatrical run, no idea how later born audience understand it or not). It made #13 of the year here in Germany, with just under 1.6m admissions. That is a nice result for a Sci-Fi that excludes a lot of potential audience per the here higher/older than in the US age restriction (here binding, not a suggestion).

As a comparison out of the 2018 charts: Age 12 and higher (or 6y + if an official parent is with the child) Black Panther got here  only 0.3m more admissions, Dune had more admissions here than e.g. (both the same ages as BP) Mission Impossible Fallout, or Venom,...

I never heard after Dune something like w.., what was that? or similar.

[TalismanRing]

7 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

not sure what that means:

more weird or more known/seen than the amount of people who read the books?

 

I am not sure: do you mean audience who didn't read the books beforehand mostly didn't understood the Lynch version?

Bcs in RL?

I do not know anyone who was confused then (during its first theatrical run, no idea how later born audience understand it or not). It made #13 of the year here in Germany, with just under 1.6m admissions. That is a nice result for a Sci-Fi that excludes a lot of potential audience per the here higher/older than in the US age restriction (here binding, not a suggestion).

As a comparison out of the 2018 charts: Age 12 and higher (or 6y + if an official parent is with the child) Black Panther got here  only 0.3m more admissions, Dune had more admissions here than e.g. (both the same ages as BP) Mission Impossible Fallout, or Venom,...

I never heard after Dune something like w.., what was that? or similar.

Apart from audiences, contemporaneous reviews found it confusing and messy - at least in the U.S.  Two of most notable critics -

 

Quote

 

"This movie is a real mess, an incomprehensible, ugly, unstructured, pointless excursion into the murkier realms of one of the most confusing screenplays of all time." - Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times

 

"Several of the characters in Dune are psychic, which puts them in the unique position of being able to understand what goes on in the movie." - Janet Maslin, New York Times

 

 

Germany went to the movies far more when Dune was released 35 years ago than they do now, so those admissions are not great comparisons.

Dune 1984's biggest issue was the not only was it messy it was plodding, excruciatingly portentous and devoid of any characters to be invested in.

 

[Valonqar]

Jackson is a warm film-maker, Villeneuve is cold. Dune movie needs warm touch to be rewatchable. Sure, fans will show up, and some GA too, but will they come back and spread the word or is it gonna be one and done? I can't imagine an icy movie to have repeat viewing. So it shouldn't be like BR2049 with a sleepwalking lead, drab tone and clinical visuals. 

 

Also, having seen both Dune adaptations very recently, I don't think that framing them as Irulan's recount of events did them any favors, with just her face doing exposition dump or just her voice. I think that Jackson's FOTR prologue was much more effective. Show >>> tell. Or do both if you have to.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Valonqar

[Elessar]

12 hours ago, dudalb said:

And I find it frustrating that a lot of geeks are not interested in anything that does not have a high sci fi content.

SO it evens out.

There are a lot of movies that don't have sci-fi content that do a lot of business. In fact, sci-fi (at least hard sci-fi) seems to be a much tougher sell. So dunno what you are talking about...

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

Apart from audiences, contemporaneous reviews found it confusing and messy - at least in the U.S.  Two of most notable critics -

 

 

Germany went to the movies far more when Dune was released 35 years ago than they do now, so those admissions are not great comparisons.

Dune 1984's biggest issue was the not only was it messy it was plodding, excruciatingly portentous and devoid of any characters to be invested in.

 

Lynch was simply the wrong choice for "Dune". A director who is as..well,wierd and fond of non lineal storytelling as Lynch is not a good idea for a film set in a world viewers are totally unfamiliar with. Hell, some of Lynch's films set in this world are incomprehensible. It's not I don't like some of Lynch's work..I have a very high opinion of "BLue Velvet" but the guy  is not the guy to go to for straight narrtative..which you really need for "Dune".

I challenge anybody who is not familiar with the novel to make sense out of the pre credit introduction to Lynch's "Dune". Most confusing "exposition" in film history.

Edited March 26, 2019 by dudalb

[Plain Old Tele]

It's a big info dump but I wouldn't call Irulan's spoken prologue confusing.

[The Futurist]

" It was fun"

 

Critics consensus and first reactions on November 11th 2020

 

No‹ that would be fucking glorious.

[Valonqar]

22 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

It's a big info dump but I wouldn't call Irulan's spoken prologue confusing.

her beauty is distracting so they didn't pay attention. 

[terrestrial]

6 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

Apart from audiences, contemporaneous reviews found it confusing and messy - at least in the U.S.  Two of most notable critics -

 

Germany went to the movies far more when Dune was released 35 years ago than they do now, so those admissions are not great comparisons.

Dune 1984's biggest issue was the not only was it messy it was plodding, excruciatingly portentous and devoid of any characters to be invested in.

Again, I do not know anyone in RL who found it confusing,... I mean especially the ~ difficult to follow/understand... part.

My son watched it as a pre-teen (he watched then a few movies he wasn't allowed based on his age then, whilst being ill and me being at work) and did not find it confusing. I asked him today, he still remembers it rather good considering how long ago he watched it.

Maybe they did something with the translation / other speakers that helped, I think I never watched it in the the OV.

 

Yes, more audience in that general time, but not counting for 1984 - 1990 + 1992.

1985, 1986, 1989, and 1990 had even less sold tickets than 2018 (also not a good year), and 1984 (Dune got released 14 December), 1987, 1988, and 1992 was only slightly over 2018. 

It was in my POV actually a good result for the age-restriction/genre combination

More successful Sci-Fi time near to Dune are E.T. and Star Wars.

Mostly comedy, slapstick, animated/children, local movies, fantasy, drama,... made #1 and #2 of the years

In 1984: #1 Police Academy (part??), #2 The NeverEnding Story, Indiana Jones 2, Amadeus, 007 Never Say Never Again, Gremlins.... and the next ones all beside one were for young audience too (starting 12y or even younger)

 

I picked 2018, as members of all ages here will be more familiar with the titles

 

I still liked it 😉 Not love it. Shrugs.

[lilmac]

I really want this film to do well. Loved the book. I just don't think it carries mainstream appeal. 

 

If it's a money loser like BR2049, it will be tougher for Villeneuve to get another big budget picture again (assuming he'd want it).

[The Futurist]

So if the first Movie makes One Billie we could have

 

Dune II : Part I ?

[Steele131]

1 hour ago, lilmac said:

I really want this film to do well. Loved the book. I just don't think it carries mainstream appeal. 

 

If it's a money loser like BR2049, it will be tougher for Villeneuve to get another big budget picture again (assuming he'd want it).

Can you blame him tho? He makes quality films every time, not his fault they don’t make money. Sometimes films just aren’t destined to make money. 

 

Dune has way less baggage too. It won’t be rated R. I highly doubt it will be close to 3 hours. It’s not a sequel to a 40 year old film no one saw. You can go into this without knowing anything. This being from from legendary also helps, they specialize in genre films, they will market it better. I don’t know how much this will make but I know we will get a great film. If an alright Alita film can make 400M, if Mad Max can make 375M. I think that’s the minimum. Guess we will see

[shayhiri]

5 hours ago, Steele131 said:

If an alright Alita film can make 400M, if Mad Max can make 375M. I think that’s the minimum. Guess we will see.

 

LOL, Alita and MadMax are THE two greatest movies this decade, and Top10 ever.

 

Dune should only be compared to BR2049 - a promising project that failed because of the director's unsalvageable style. It will also never make a single cent over BR2049. (259m. WW)

Edited March 27, 2019 by shayhiri