Dune (2021)

[Guest]

This is a good place to discuss the music as it illustrates these problems in multiple ways. First, again as in BR2049, Villaneuve has the impeccably bad taste to pick the absolute zero talent hack of Hans Zimmer. That man’s approach to music is to throw the kitchen sink in and hope that something sticks. Dense torrents of instrumentation sludge trying to cover for a complete lack of musical ideas, the same overused effects of choruses and somber dirges - this is a man who is so utterly talentless that he cannot muster a single musical theme if his life depended on it. We can all hum themes from Jaws or The Thing, or stuff by Rota, or Morricone, or Chinatown, or Taxi Driver, or Psycho, or Rosemary’s Baby or *hundreds* of movies where a theme elevates the movie (even Spielberg with John Williams), but you’ll never hum a theme from Hans Zimmer, because Hans Zimmer has literally zero composing ability. Talent in music is the ability to strip the music down to just a couple of instruments and still be able to express a theme - that’s how you can HUM the music as a single human with just your mouth! But throwing dozens or hundreds of instruments (in Zimmer’s computerized version) merely covers the lack of a theme under a wall of noise and generic sound “SOMBER CHORUS” - “FOREBODING” - “MASSIVE ARMY OF ZOMBIES” and so on. Really generic and ultimately empty.

So having displayed his utter lack judgment in picking Zimmer, Villenaneuve who lacks an ear for music - he may as well be deaf - is of course comprehensively unable to evaluate the music in the film or modulate it. Ordinarily - if you have even a modicum of understanding of how music works, you understand that you BUILD your effects. So you are usually lower key and amp up as the film’s arcs amp up in emotion, pacing and tempo until you reach a crescendo at your peaks. That is not what happens here. All the music has the same level of intensity in every part of the movie. You have the same droning dirge underlying most sequences, then a hysterical chorus in an action sequence, back to droning, then hysterical chorus, rinse and repeat. The music is the same at the beginning, the middle and the end of the movie. There is zero evolution, zero building, zero escalation, zero modulation. JUST LIKE HIS SCENES. The movie doesn’t build and go places. It’s essentially static and monotonous.

And of course, the bankruptcy of the whole endeavor is underlined by the classic tell of bad filmmaking in use of music. This is when music is used under scenes to give them the ONLY emotional impact and dramatic tension in the scene. The scene is boring as f***, so how about we throw some music at it. Ofen filmmakers will use music selectively under “boring” sequences such as montages of equipment being put together or whatnot - you need the sequence to inform the viewer for expository reason, but it’s boring (just try it without sound to see how lame it is!), so they cover it with a thick slop of music to distract us. That’s just mediocre films that use music in select “boring sequences” - but what can you do when ALL the sequences are boring?? You get the Dune effect - music is present relentlessly under virtually every single scene, because otherwise it would be so painful to wade through that sludge of tedious footage. Terrible music, with zero modulation oppresively present almost all of the time - The Aristocrats of filmmaking, aka Dune. Whew!

What of the special effects? What does Dune have that a million other films haven’t done before and better? Is there any Hobbit or Ring type innovation, how about unusual CGI, or models or even much more than Star Wars from 1977, or over 50 years ago? Sadly nope. And what effects there are, are frankly shockingly bad - when you finally get a load of the sand worm, it’s a dark jumble of hard to see “meh”, like something you might have trapped under your sink when you garbage disposal broke. To be fair, the only OK gadget were those flying copters that looked like giant dragonflies - fair is fair. Everything else was sh|t. Gigantic slabs of concrete everywhere for both vessels and architecture - wow, how inspiring. Costumes - again zero new ideas, the soldiers costumes owed a lot to imperial forces in Star Wars, the humans meanwhile had generic rags, some with faux Bedouine desert themes, all sloppy and lacking in interest or any display of imagination and creativity.

MORE pt 5

agreed. i dislike the Zimmer/Villeneuve combo. they don’t match.

 

[Guest]

Zimmer seems like a good Chameleon, and given the right direction can do the task. Zimmer and Nolan for example pair up well, with the styles and leadership seemingly combining in an appropriate way.

Jóhann Jóhannsson seemed a much better collaborator for Villenueve.

 

[Guest]

I rarely have much to say about the acting or staging of actors, but i’ll mention

The busy work of characters feels fake. The way Jasón Mamoa works on the aircraft in the first scene…. was like watching someone clean in a sitcom. yep, he is working.

sometimes i could believe Timothy was capable of tripping someone so easily, but all of these things are somewhat common in shows and movies, so i can’t really say they are bad, or awful by comparison. we leap past these issues all the time.

the occasional 180 degree flip also makes me wonder if there was much in terms of vision for each scene, or if they just went with it some days.


the Josh Brolin character seemed to have come from a different place then the rest of everyone else. Just made him seem actorly, like he was doing the stage play and everyone else was trying to be more accesible to modern audiences. But Brolin’s character occasionally breaks into more modern humour and speach.


Most everyone at least had good screen presence and carried their roles as well as one can.

way too much blade to neck threats. like why are the guards so bad that they let people get that close, yet also super worried about the slightest movements or appearances of disrespect that they have to threaten killing the offender. just crazy. especially for such a benign type ruler.

 

[Guest]

Nothing about this movie was surprising to me. From the very start it struck me as a very, very bad idea, with about zero chance of being successfull, just as I predicted with BR2049.

The reasons were clear as day. First, source material. In the case of BR2049, I thought there’s about a snowball’s chance in he|| you’d be able to make a sequel to an acknowledged masterpiece like BR and have it compare favorably or even anywhere within a mile or a galaxy. Same with Dune insofar as a starting point. This is a very poor source for adaption to the screen - the novel just doesn’t operate on a cinematic level. It’s been tried before - many times - and failed. At best, given the intellectual nature of that novel, you might stand a chance in a TV series, but a 2-3 part motion picture at a huge budget for general audiences? Nope. Doomed from the start.

Then you have the director, and that seals it. It’s already an almost impossible task, and then give it to a no-talent like Villeneuve? The chances of success here are between zero and nothing. So it wasn’t a hard call to make that this enterprise was doomed, both in the case of BR2049 and Dune.

Villaneuve needs to get lucky to push out a tolerable product. His best is Sicario, and because the idea is very strong, and some of the actors are very good, he can skate by with an OK film - and that’s Sicario, an OK movie (I even enjoyed it!). Of course, it has a lot of the signature Villaneuve failings, which I explored at length in the thread on Sicario, from poor understading of framing and camera placement and generally blocking and staging to casting choices (Emily Blunt, completely miscast as an FBI agent!), but there’s enough good to make it work.

But counting on luck is not a plan and not ability. Lacking in actual ability, DV collapses spectacularly when a great deal of ability is required and you are not going to get lucky because you’d have to win the lottery not once but a dozen times in a row - ain’t gonna happen. Unless you are super talented, you are not going to pull off a sequel to BR or a screen version of Dune. And DV is a very, very poor director.

DV apparently doesn’t have the ability to evaluate material, or he’d never agree to do BR2049 or Dune as those are doomed to fail - but at least part of the responsibilty is on the braindead executives who greenlit those projects in the first place and then put DV in charge… facepalm.

Now that he was put in charge, he has no idea how to evaluate a screenplay - already on paper both those films were sh|tshows - utter trash. Instead of trying to work on those scripts and get other writers and guide them, DV can’t tell. It’s like asking a color blind person to match tiles. He can’t tell what makes a good script or how to develop a script to make it good… he needs to get lucky, and if he doesn’t he’ll fail. BR2049 and Dune were therefore doomed from the first page of the script. It is a director’s responsibility to pick a project and supervise a script - both of which DV fails, as he doesn’t seem to have that basic ability.

DV also doesn’t know how to cast. He can get lucky with a star - Gosling, Chalamet, Gyllenhaal, Adams, del Toro, probably because the studio has input there and there aren’t as many choices for who can open/carry a movie. As soon as options open up into the 100’s and 1000’s, and it’s his pick - he’s immediately lost, and comes up with insane choices and super weak actors. The result is that it’s usually a random collection of actors, and not a coherent performace with chemistry on screen.

DV also doesn’t appear to know how to work with actors (in addition to not knowing how to work with writers), because all those actors really can’t deliver apart from being miscast - you get super limited and listless performances (or outright bad - Jared Leto, ugh!). You may as well work with hand puppets, you’d have more success.

He has no ear for music, doesn’t understand pacing or modulation of scenes and therefore cannot edit, is lost without someone taking charge of camera placement and so on. His staging is a joke (as I remarked before, it’s like placing toy soldiers on the kindergarten floor).

All those are the responsibilities of the director and he’s unequal to the task in all of them. He is good at one thing - and I guess that’s the ultimate 100% necessary talent in Hollywood, and that’s he can get execs to greenlight his projects and put him in charge - that he is undeniably good at. If only the results were better - I’d sooner put a random PA on the set to replace DV and the result would probably be better.

What can we say about Dune at this point? Just as I said about BR2049, it will never be held up as something that stands the test of time, like the original BR - the original will be rewatched for decades to come, BR2049 will rot on some server somewhere, and the same for Dune. Dune will not ever have the status of a great sci-fi movie, to stand alongside BR, The Thing, The Terminator, Predator, Alien and dozens and dozens of other films.

An incredible amount of money is spent, for embarrasing results - what a waste. Too bad it didn’t go to more worthy projects with actually talented people. Maybe it can do OK at the boxoffice if the stars align and there is no competition while it’s shown, the numbers may be fine. But as a work of filmmaking - it’s clearly a failure. Which is not to say that you won’t have fans - there’s hardly a movie anywhere that doesn’t have SOME fans, and especially here on dvxuser, where there are special interests like cinematography or sets, and with a giant budget you can get a DP and super sets, so at least you’ll have that (the sets on BR2049 were very nice - no such luck on Dune though!).

Oh, and spoiler alert - part 2 of Dune will be a giant failure too… predicting this is about as hard as predicting that sunset will be followed by a sunrise the following day. All IMHO, and YMMV, of course, other opinions always welcome and appreciated, this is just my one man opinion .

this post has me agreeing with one sentence and disagreeing with the next


in the short term, i sort of already implied, there may be quibbles and missteps, but overall, i think the film as entertainment was pleasant and moved along with enough emotional fiber to be considered one of the better shows out this year.

 

[fboonzaier]

Zimmer seems like a good Chameleon, and given the right direction can do the task. Zimmer and Nolan for example pair up well, with the styles and leadership seemingly combining in an appropriate way.

Jóhann Jóhannsson seemed a much better collaborator for Villenueve.

I thought this score beautiful....and I’m definitely not a fan...certainly for my ear his best...difficult to describe the emotion invoked in me by the score and imagery combined, but it really anchored the film for me. Thought the combination quite mesmerizing!
I would also say that undertaking this film would be no small task for any director, but I thought he was patient and made excellent choices in how to approach something, that in the end will only truly work as some sort of mini series (apparently he sees it as 4 films).

 

[Guest]

I thought this score beautiful....and I’m definitely not a fan...certainly for my ear his best...difficult to describe the emotion invoked in me by the score and imagery combined, but it really anchored the film for me. Thought the combination quite mesmerizing!
I would also say that undertaking this film would be no small task for any director, but I thought he was patient and made excellent choices in how to approach something, that in the end will only truly work as some sort of mini series (apparently he sees it as 4 films).

I think Zimmer does good work, i just don’t think his work is in sync with Villenueve. it’s like they make different films.

Zimmer is always ready to make an entrance and bring the action, but Villenueve is much more set back and letting moods deep into the bones. Zimmer never let’s that happen.

Sicario and Arrival showcase that sort of seamless interplay of director and composer. Those films had issues too, perhaps more in script than in anything else, but the films were still rather succesful works.

 

[Guest]

OldCorpse I'd almost argue that Hans Zimmer makes Villenueve's decisions feel more like hesitation or lack of direction, rather than choices. Hans' music often lends a sense of anticipation of payoffs and scenes that never actually land in a Vilennueve film, as they might in a more traditional Hollywood style narrative. If you listen to the more ambiguous and looming music of Jo'hannsson in films like Arrival, you can see how those work with the less defined movements of a Villenueve narrative.

 

[ahalpert]

Such a good movie. Too many good things to say about it, so I'll just say that it delivered me the sort of cinematic adventure I always yearn to re-experience; to be fully invested in the action and the outcome. It made me believe. Twas so much easier to get that when I was a kid.

especially good battle scenes and space scenes. Gorgeously composed and lit. Always moved the story forward and never bored me. Never devolved into endless spectacle.

quibbles: heavy on expository dialogue in the beginning, which is totally understandable; some uneven acting from Oscar Isaacs, Timothee chalamet and zendaya; some desert clothing looked too new to me; the final act felt a little deflated but the very end set an excellent tone to lead into the sequel

I may try to see it in theaters as well while I still can

 

[Guest]

1.

Such a good movie. Too many good things to say about it, so I'll just say that it delivered me the sort of cinematic adventure I always yearn to re-experience; to be fully invested in the action and the outcome. It made me believe. Twas so much easier to get that when I was a kid.

Was that because of the film itself, or because of the lore of Dune? I don't immediately see them as separate, but from an analytical standpoint, I can see that this film by itself would be different if it were its own IP. Genuinely curious about your opinion on this, because you are a self proclaimed SciFi lover. You and I would go into Dune with some sense of just liking the ideas behind everything. However, from a film making arts and science stand point, does the film still hold up to critical scrutiny? After all, the 'Dune' name carries a lot of pressure to be excellent. Other than a big budget feel, does it deliver? And if so, I am interested in your thoughts. You always have great things to say. So thank you in advance.

2.

the final act felt a little deflated but the very end set an excellent tone to lead into the sequel

As a feature film, do you think a deflated ending with a cliff hanger can warrant it as a good film? The formula feels more series than feature. Sequels are fine, but each film should have a stand alone approach. Not that that it is a hard fast rule, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels had a cliff hanger ending, but in a sense, that sort of made the film end in a fun way. The way Dune is done, I feel I would appreciate more as an HBO series than pretending these are feature films in anything other than length. You could probably cut the film in half and make two episodes of it.

3.
One area I feel I am contradicting myself is the Dune IP vs Original IP influence. If this were it's own IP, I wonder if I would be more or less forgiving. In a sense I might have less anticipation through the slow drawn out scenes to hold my interest. But at the same time, because it is "DUNE"! I have unrealistically high expectations. Does that make sense? Do you have any perspective on that?

 

[ahalpert]

1.

Was that because of the film itself, or because of the lore of Dune? I don't immediately see them as separate, but from an analytical standpoint, I can see that this film by itself would be different if it were its own IP. Genuinely curious about your opinion on this, because you are a self proclaimed SciFi lover. You and I would go into Dune with some sense of just liking the ideas behind everything. However, from a film making arts and science stand point, does the film still hold up to critical scrutiny? After all, the 'Dune' name carries a lot of pressure to be excellent. Other than a big budget feel, does it deliver? And if so, I am interested in your thoughts. You always have great things to say. So thank you in advance.

I feel like I can answer this question pretty scientifically because:

1. I don't like David Lynch's Dune. Actually, I'm not sure if I ever saw it in full. I may have... But I started watching it a few years ago and turned it off. My memory is pretty much shot these days on account of the small kids and the sleep deprivation, etc, so I don't remember the viewing very well but I remember being turned off by the special effects and not enjoying the dialogue or the style. So, if it were just the lore of Dune that lured me, then I reckon I would have liked that movie as well.

2. Memory loss also gave me a chance to enjoy Dune anew somewhat. What I remember most about reading the books as a kid is just how much I enjoyed them. I also remembered the litany against fear, that somebody spit on a table in a gesture of respect that was initially misinterpreted, and that somebody rode on a sandworm at some point. But that was pretty much it, so I got to enjoy the story in the Villeneuve film without measuring it against the novels too much.

3. I was really excited to see Avatar and came out incredibly disappointed.

The Avatar comparison is enlightening because it illustrates how lowly filmmakers prioritize writing the "story" (ie plot, action, characters, dialogue) relative to novelists. Cameron said he wrote Avatar in about 2 weeks. (No surprises there.) Meanwhile, Dune became a cult classic as a complex novel before it was ever adapted as a film, largely because of the rich world-building, complex characters, epic plot, etc. Filmmakers are so eager to skip to the end of the process, the part where we push the red button. But the first part--writing the story--is almost the entirety of this whole other medium (literary fiction).

So, in that sense, yes it is the story of Dune that made the film great moreso (perhaps) than Villeneuve's contributions. (Although history has shown that this is not an easy story to adapt to cinema.) And I think that the story he draws from made all the difference in the quality of the film vs Blade Runner 2049, which I enjoyed but didn't move me or inspire me to the same level.

And let's give credit where it's due. Much of the sensibility of Dune 2021 is pure Villeneuve. The organic, curved, abstract forms of the spaceships are atypical for American sci-fi and reminiscent of the ships he used in Arrival. The pace of the fight scenes and dramatic movement also felt atypical. (I'm rewatching Star Trek: Discovery Season 3 right now before Season 4 premieres, and so many of the fight scenes devolve into endless light shows. They lack clarity of action or dramatic purpose. The excitement and adrenaline seems like the point, rather than some character development or plot development being revealed in the action.)

4. I didn't really like the LOTR movies, which arguably have WAY more lore and cult underpinning them than Dune does. (Of course, I never got past Tom Bombadil when I read the books, and I'm not a fan of the lore itself outside the movies...)

2.

As a feature film, do you think a deflated ending with a cliff hanger can warrant it as a good film? The formula feels more series than feature. Sequels are fine, but each film should have a stand alone approach. Not that that it is a hard fast rule, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels had a cliff hanger ending, but in a sense, that sort of made the film end in a fun way. The way Dune is done, I feel I would appreciate more as an HBO series than pretending these are feature films in anything other than length. You could probably cut the film in half and make two episodes of it.

Personally, I like non-ending endings. I like it when the hero rides off into the sunset, somewhat like at the end of The Dark Knight. I'm a fan of vague continuity, when done right.

I mean, you're in a bit of a tricky spot here because if the sequels never got made, then you'd be a dissatisfied viewer (albeit with a piqued curiosity). But the alternative would be to wrap things up in a bow, which I think would either feel forced or require much more time.

I think he played his cards right. I think this was the perfect set-up for a sequel, and I think he was right to commit to that approach.

The deflation of the ending for me was not marching to Sietch Tabir and seeing a guy riding a sandworm. It was being captured by the group and challenged to a duel by the guy he kills. It was more about the pacing there or my adrenaline coming down, or Zendaya's acting or something. I'm not making a sweeping critique so much as quibbling with minor directorial decisions, perhaps. It's also hard for me to judge because I watched the movie in 3 sittings with my wife when we had time. Part 1 was up to the destruction of the city, part 2 up to spinning in the sandstorm, and part 3 took us to the end. So, I didn't get a chance to ride the emotional waves of the movie in one go.

Also, I thought that the scene of them spinning in the sandstorm was so brilliantly handled and intercut with the Baron Harkonnen stuff... Tough act to follow.

3.
One area I feel I am contradicting myself is the Dune IP vs Original IP influence. If this were it's own IP, I wonder if I would be more or less forgiving. In a sense I might have less anticipation through the slow drawn out scenes to hold my interest. But at the same time, because it is "DUNE"! I have unrealistically high expectations. Does that make sense? Do you have any perspective on that?

It's impossible to say how we'd react differently if we didn't walk in with that baggage. None of the slow scenes felt drawn out to me except maybe Leto and Paul walking in the graveyard, which I blame on some uneven acting by the two of them and that the dialogue was somewhat expository.

Probably the best way to answer that question in a sort of vacuum is to see how someone else enjoys the film who doesn't know the story. My wife loved it and had never read the books. She watched it before I did and then watched a series of youtube backstory explainer videos. By the time she started watching it again with me (late at night of the same day she had watched it in the morning), she probably understood the world of Dune better than I ever had as a kid.

But ultimately, you or me as a viewer just want to be personally served. That's why so much of the new Star Trek pisses me off (both films and shows): because they jettison so much of the spirit that made me a fan in an effort to woo young, non-fans. So, whether or not you would have liked Dune more if it were its own IP is sort of a moot point. All that matters is if you enjoyed it, if it did something for you, if it fired some neurons. If not, then it's a failure, at least for you personally.

I definitely was excited about it and wanted to enjoy it. But the same was true (possibly even moreso) about Avatar (which I saw in IMAX 3D on opening night) and that didn't prevent me from hating Avatar.

 

[Guest]

Thanks Abe, for the thoughtful reply and details.


Movies in the “streaming” age have a certain type of blandness that feels a bit like AI logic. like by being a certain amount of blah, and a certain level of bad, they become more watched. like those posts on instagram with the bad spelling to get people to make commments . idk, like the films being made now are to win the algorithm. Dune 2021 has a certain level of that feel to me.


Overall, watching it online, it was one of those perfect “let’s watch this” sort of things, and it ended up being better than a lot of the other streaming content, but was also a little middling feeling. and any media pretending to be a feature film, but isn’t complete without the pre planned sequels, to me are not to be judged with stand alone features, because if it was a feature it would be around 90 minutes, but because of it’s integrations and reliance on the sequels to resemble anything complete, then it is a series. i’m not saying that as a slight, just trying to categorize it. The original Star Wars managed to be individual films to a degree.

The film Dune 2021 was overall a good watch. and given the format they are making it, doesn’t really matter much if it was a cliff hanger or not, if it lives on line. I’m just saying, if trying to judge something as a feature…. have to figure it out if it is even truly a feature first.

Somethings took me out of the film in ways that prevented me from just going with it.

- actors seemed to be on different pages in regards to performance. Josh Brolin was mostly in a much more forced old world language and speech, but all of a sudden might slip into full Brolin. Oscar was a bit too Oscar, and then suddenly try to be kingly and have that older world sounding language. musk, felt like all of the actors got their own notes and ran with it in their own ways.

- technology. i’ll just mention the dragonfly chopper things. What the holy vibration reduction those cockpits had. also, how can those wings withstand that kind of force to operate, but the break so easily after the sand storm. idk, not saying whether it could really be a thing, but just saying it gave me pause, and took me out of the film. For the books to focus on the politics and get around some of the high tech stuff, Dune2021 certainly had enough tech to make people loose that suspension of disbelief that it was unfortunate.

- Sandworms. i feel these creature are part of the difficulty in adapting to the movies. How does one visually make these things make sense and describe them without horrid exposition?

- The pronounciation of “Harkonnen”. I watched with someone that claims they pronounced that word incorrectly. ymmv.

- i’ve already mentioned some of the staging/blocking and camera movement feeling unmotivated. but for a film that feels made for the streamer platform, i tend to be less bothered by that…. but it is Dune! so it kind of bothers me more than with movies such as Res Notice. Also, given how much i respect ‘Prisoners’, i’m sad to see Villenueve be subject to that.

 

[aram]

[...] but for a film that feels made for the streamer platform,[...]

I disagree in extreme with this statement. The images were all to be seen on a big screen. Some of them would limit the size of the figures to a few millimeters on a smaller screen. The sound was also something that seemed thought for a cinema experience and would make for a much poorer experience with a home set up.

I guess opinions and all that, but also, I wonder what about the film made you feel it was made for a streamer?

 

[markfpv]

Watched it via HBO at home. Visually - it's lovely - assume the sets must have been ginormous!
Have not read the book - but a bit too much "Jedi" stuff with the Mother / son... that kind of stuff always seems too contrived and is used too much as a plot device. Same as the "chosen one" references throughout. Didn't need the reminder every 10 minutes or so. Was I the only one that saw several Apocalypse Now acting / staging devices?

 

[ahalpert]

I disagree in extreme with this statement. The images were all to be seen on a big screen. Some of them would limit the size of the figures to a few millimeters on a smaller screen. The sound was also something that seemed thought for a cinema experience and would make for a much poorer experience with a home set up.

I guess opinions and all that, but also, I wonder what about the film made you feel it was made for a streamer?

Villeneuve was super pissed when they decided to release it simultaneously on streamers so I think we can definitively say that it was not a made for streaming movie

 

[Guest]

I guess opinions and all that, but also, I wonder what about the film made you feel it was made for a streamer?

It was worded oddly, and that is my fault, but I also feel that in other parts of my post I did touch on that concept of Dune having looser narrative with more unfinished threads, making it play more like a first show in a series.


The part you quoted e was meant as: If a show is made for streaming, I am less critical of small flaws, but this movie was "DUNE"! It should offer more.




I am not claiming it was made as a streamer.

But any film that feels like the ending of one episode rather than the end of a part, then it is more a long form or series, as opposed to a traditional feature. those are different formats.

A short is a format. A feature is a format. And a series is a format. Only since streaming have series truly become a front and center format. If a big budget film is made with a story structure that feels more like a first episode, then I'm likely going to think "wow the producers really wanted to cash in for sequel money.


Perhaps Villenueve was excited to try longer form to have more time for character development. Or maybe he is not good at longer format. time will tell. But as a stand alone film, it was nothing more than a mildly entertaining setup for whatever the next film might be about. it didn’t have a real self contained feature film feel. i don’t even think LOTR was as bad as this.


But all that said, i like a good series, just as much as the next person. i’m just trying to categorize the film. as a stand alone feature film is sucked. as a first part in a series it was good.


EVERYONE wants to say how important the STORY is, or how they don't want to make shorts because they are more a "feature film" filmmaker, but when we get to actually talking about feature film structure and narrative, all of a sudden feature means: 90-240minutes, plays in theaters, big budget, pretty pictures, good sound, I liked it.






(EDIT - I re-read the part you quoted from me realizing what part you actually quoted from me and realized the way it may have looked on page, vs what I meant. Decided to correct this in my reply)

 

[Guest]

Villeneuve was super pissed when they decided to release it simultaneously on streamers so I think we can definitively say that it was not a made for streaming movie

Agreed, that was in reference to a comment that was poorly worded by me. It was meant to mean when a film is made for streaming platform, I am less critical, but when it is a screen adaptation of a well liked book, I think it should have a little more than aesthetics and coverage.

We are here discussing a film, how can we be objective about it, if we aren’t discussing how to categorize it? As movie theaters no longer dictate what kind of movies get made, and streaming allows for a variety of longer form story telling, we are beginning to need to have a more clear definition of a "feature" film.

As a pilot episode, i thought Dune 2021 was good. As a stand alone feature? meh.

 

[Guest]

Watched it via HBO at home. Visually - it's lovely - assume the sets must have been ginormous!
Have not read the book - but a bit too much "Jedi" stuff with the Mother / son... that kind of stuff always seems too contrived and is used too much as a plot device. Same as the "chosen one" references throughout. Didn't need the reminder every 10 minutes or so.

Villenueve doesn’t seem to be shy with trope and archetypes.

Was I the only one that saw several Apocalypse Now acting / staging devices?

What is that? I am not familiar with the device, but know the film.

(edit: oh, i do recall the baron doing a few Brando l-esque things)

 

[ahalpert]

The original Star Wars managed to be individual films to a degree.

True, but I mean--A New Hope also ended with an awards ceremony. That sort of capped it all off and felt like a finale, but can we call it narrative genius? And can anyone say that the arc of Star Wars was complete in any meaningful way at the end of that movie? Vader went spiraling off into space, for example. We had never met the emperor. But yes, I agree that the end of Dune made me want to click "Next," but not in a bad way. Just in a I was left excited way. Kind of like how I wish that The Dark Knight Rises had picked up right where The Dark Knight ended.

The film Dune 2021 was overall a good watch. and given the format they are making it, doesn’t really matter much if it was a cliff hanger or not, if it lives on line. I’m just saying, if trying to judge something as a feature…. have to figure it out if it is even truly a feature first.

I guess so, but this is sort of a semantics argument. I mean, the Star Wars films are literally titled "Episode...". What makes Dune a feature for me is perhaps the length of the "episodes" as well as the quality and craftsmanship. Part of that is reflected in the budget. (The final season of Game of Thrones had a per-episode budget of about $15 million, so let's call it $45 million for an equivalent amount of screen time to Dune. Dune had a budget of $165 million, though I'm not sure if that includes advertising.)

I mean...look at the cinematography, man! This didn't feel like TV to me at all, which is why I want to see it again on the big screen. I loved that shot of the shadows of the structure they were hiding in, and then you see the shadow of the head of the enemy soldier poke out and disrupt the geometric form. Camera tilts up, and you see the soldiers peering over the edge and then floating soundlessly down to the ground. So much good shooting in this film... And the pacing.... I mean, whatever, there's a lot of good TV these days. I dunno.... I want to see this in the theater. That genuine desire seems indicative of the type of experience it delivered. If Breaking Bad were playing in a theater, would you go?

- actors seemed to be on different pages in regards to performance. Josh Brolin was mostly in a much more forced old world language and speech, but all of a sudden might slip into full Brolin. Oscar was a bit too Oscar, and then suddenly try to be kingly and have that older world sounding language. musk, felt like all of the actors got their own notes and ran with it in their own ways.

Yeah, probably, but it wasn't bad enough to ruin it for me

- technology. i’ll just mention the dragonfly chopper things. What the holy vibration reduction those cockpits had. also, how can those wings withstand that kind of force to operate, but the break so easily after the sand storm. idk, not saying whether it could really be a thing, but just saying it gave me pause, and took me out of the film. For the books to focus on the politics and get around some of the high tech stuff, Dune2021 certainly had enough tech to make people loose that suspension of disbelief that it was unfortunate.

I thought the ornithopters were awesome. Luckily my brain didn't engage enough to question the underlying physics. Chalk that win up to stupidity or fatigue.

Maybe the sand eroded elements of the wing assembly like a power washer. I was more focused on Paul's decision to turn of his engine and ride out the storm, which was beautiful both poetically and as a plot device.

Everybody has a different threshold for impossible science in movies, or it gets turned on and off in different circumstances. Hard to argue with one's reaction. I was watching a Trek TOS episode recently ("Tomorrow is Yesterday") where they do a slingshot around the sun to go back in time. Let's go along with that method of time travel for a moment... And also pretend that if you're traveling many times the speed of light that you're not going to just shoot past a star no matter how close you pass by it. (Probably it would just bend your trajectory? Maybe you'd shoot around a black hole...) But what really bothered me was that they started their acceleration towards the sun FROM EARTH. And then proceeded to count up their increasing Warp speed for like a full minute on their way from Earth to the sun. It would be like a minute-long scene of someone accelerating up their driveway saying, "60MPH... 70MPH... 80MPH..." How long would it take to drive down even a long driveway at 80MPH? Ultimately, that inconsistency was what un-suspended my disbelief.

- Sandworms. i feel these creature are part of the difficulty in adapting to the movies. How does one visually make these things make sense and describe them without horrid exposition?

It worked for me. Except...how do they sustain such mass and energy expenditures on a planet with so little to eat?

- The pronounciation of “Harkonnen”. I watched with someone that claims they pronounced that word incorrectly. ymmv.

Did you also notice how Anonymous Guard #3 was left-handed in the novel while in the movie he was CLEARLY RIGHT-HANDED?!

- i’ve already mentioned some of the staging/blocking and camera movement feeling unmotivated. but for a film that feels made for the streamer platform, i tend to be less bothered by that…. but it is Dune! so it kind of bothers me more than with movies such as Res Notice. Also, given how much i respect ‘Prisoners’, i’m sad to see Villenueve be subject to that.

What would you say was the worst example of that?

Ultimately, I'd say that the story, characters, and place came alive for me in my watching of the movie. There's a complex formula that goes into that as a movie and for a viewer, some of which is probably up to the chance circumstances of how and when you saw it. I'd say this movie had a lot more to offer me than BR2049. It was more like Arrival but with a much more complex story to tell and a much bigger budget.

 

[Guest]

Did you also notice how Anonymous Guard #3 was left-handed in the novel while in the movie he was CLEARLY RIGHT-HANDED?!

Don't be so quick to dismiss that. Imagine everyone on the U.S.S Enterpreeeze, hanging out with Vule-kanes and Klin-goans.

but this is sort of a semantics argument.

Sort of, but a necessary one. I'm not attacking a word you used to hurt your opinion, I am defining my question for clarity. There is a difference. You can't throw away every semantic encounter in a conversation. We're on a forum, semantics are all we have.

I know a lot of directors and would be directors that claim to be feature film directors. I know people that have done a few short films and are completely overwhelmed by features. And I know feature film makers that are intrigued by longer form series, but ultimately feel that the feature length is the ultimate test of a film maker. Why is that? What is a feature?

So, when trying to discuss a feature film, it is good to have some idea about what makes a film a feature. To me, the most fundamental aspect is how the narrative and emotional journey feels in the time frame of around 100minutes, give or take. Start getting up into the 3hrs, and I am calling it quits. Less than 75, and that feels a little light, like I left the house and spent $25 on soda for this? Films like 'My Dinner with Andre' are well thought of, and I don't think they need to be seen in a theater, but it is certainly a good feature film. Movies like transformers are best seen in a theater, but could be a bad feature film. What is the link? So, when you tell me that Dune Part 1 has great cinematography and great sound and must be seen in a theater, I don't necessarily take that to mean it is a good feature film.

What I am asking is not something I would go on about on a rotten tomatoes review, but here, we are supposedly film makers, so I would think we would want to discuss the finer details of a feature film.

 

[Guest]

What would you say was the worst example of that?

there were a few moments. Nothing overtly offensive.

Watching the scene where Jason Mamoa's character is introduced after just exiting a flying machine. He starts to busy himself with panels on the flight craft. What is he doing? They cut away to a silhouette two shot of the men talking. Why? Because it looked cool? I suppose. That kind of visual story telling tells the viewer over term that shots may or may not have meaning, and after 90minutes of run time, you may subconsciously lose the viewer's trust, or at least the efficacy of each shot. And how many cuts for that simple dialogue scene did they need? And to top it all off they threw in some MCU humour and delivery. Was it funny? Yes. Was it American as heck? Heck, yes it was. It was a universally funny line, I just wish they were able to handle it in a way that didn't feel like a character break into a present day buddy comedy out of California.

Most of them might be similarly innocuous. But have enough of them, and it starts to make me feel the film makers either changed the film in the edit, or they shot the heck out of it and figured it out in the edit? We'll never really know.

I did quite like the rescue scene of the spice harvesters. It had enough action and character development, and the scale of the scenes were captured well. Sometimes it can be difficult to capture scale on screen. The pacing leading up to it and the sound design, it was all solid, if not gratuitously well done. The siege of the city didn't anywhere near the same stakes. Nothing else quite landed as well after that. Given enough time, it could come back around, perhaps in the fourth hour? Is it still a feature film if it lulls after the 30minute mark, with only the promise that in the 4th hour we'll get that next hook in the narrative? Or is that a longer form narrative than the feature?