Dune (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Sam Favate]

I cannot see this book ever successfully being translated into a film that works.

The TV mini-series in 2000 was pretty good, I thought. The book is complex, with a lot of characters and settings that need time to establish themselves. That's probably why this film is being devised as two films. The best treatment for the material is probably a Game of Thrones-style show.

 

[dpippel]

I have every confidence that Villeneuve will deliver something special and spectacular.

 

[dpippel]

Josh Brolin has joined the cast and apparently will be playing Gurney Halleck:

https://deadline.com/2019/02/dune-josh-brolin-denis-villenueves-legendary-frank-herbert-1202556464/

 

[The Drifter]

Interesting. I read the Dune novel as a teen back in the early '80's Excellent sci-fi book, with a fully realized desert world/environment re: Arrakis & the inhabitants.

I had high hopes for the film filmed version of the book, but was disappointed. I saw this in early '85 (theatrically) and hated it. Very poorly done, and way too short. In the latter '80's, I do remember giving it another chance - since they were showing an "extended" version on network TV. Tried to watch it, but still hated it. Not long after, I became a big David Lynch fan after getting into the iconic Twin Peaks TV show (1990-1991) & his films (Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man, Mulholland Drive; etc.) - but I never went back & tried to re-watch the '84 Dune, and never will.

I have yet to see the 200X TV mini-series, but have wanted to for years. I know it's very long, and apparently a lot truer to the novel than the '84 film had been.

Not sure how I feel about a new film. In order for it to do justice to the novel, it would have to be 8-10?! hours long.

 

[JQuintana]

I remember it during it's initial run and everyone who saw it thought it was a total dog and that from folks who knew the book.

How in the world will this one be able to attract an audience since most who even know of the book are much much older now. I doubt today's youth know what Dune is.

 

[dpippel]

I don't know about you, but familiarity with source material is not a prerequisite for my enjoyment of a film. It doesn't matter if "today's youth" knows the novels or not IMO.

 

[JQuintana]

I'm sure the creators of the remake will hope enough people know about and care about the subject matter or they could have another Valerian, Mortal Engines, possibly Alita, and other similar high profile flops on their hands.

 

[dpippel]

Again, familiarity with the novels is a moot point as far as getting butts in seats. If it's a good film, people will see it. Plenty of movies have been made with no literary basis at all that were hugely successful (Star Wars, Avatar, The Terminator, etc., etc.)

 

[JQuintana]

It could end up being huge, but I still have reservations. Hollywood seems to love spending millions upon millions of these over the top CGI'd remakes, especially of films that were flops the first time around, thinking they will cash in and many times it all falls flat.

 

[dpippel]

Oh, I have reservations too. Dune is a dense, complex, LONG novel that is going to be very, very challenging to adapt to the screen successfully (see David Lynch's spectacular failure). But Denis Villeneuve is absolutely the right director for this project IMO. If he can't manage to pull it off, then I don't think anyone can at this point in time.

Also, let's get it straight - this is NOT a remake. Villeneuve is going back to Frank Herbert's story as a basis for his film and starting from scratch. He's not redoing Lynch's movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It could end up being huge, but I still have reservations. Hollywood seems to love spending millions upon millions of these over the top CGI'd remakes, especially of films that were flops the first time around, thinking they will cash in and many times it all falls flat.

Well, what they are hoping for is something they can make a bunch of sequels and prequels for. Dune has been something that people have looked at for some time as a potential franchise property that could be like Star Wars. I doubt it. Where Star Wars is simplistic, cute, and straightforward...Dune is complex,weird, and requires a great deal of attention. Those are typically not things that have mass appeal.

I will see anything that Villeneuve makes and I have no issue with him trying Dune. However, Denis grew up loving the same kinds of films I grew up loving. We are the same age. Problem is audiences now no longer care about those sort of films. In the 1970s and even 1980s there was an audience with an appetite for weird and complex films. For science fiction that was about ideas and might challenge an audience. Films you needed to pay attention to and follow.

Now, audiences want nothing to do with that...in a cinema anyway. They want big, dumb, fun. This is not at all what Dune is really and I sincerely doubt Villeneuve wants to turn it into that.

So, great that they are backing him. Great he is getting to make a great big project he wants to make. I just hope that the money people behind the film are not just focused on what this film makes in the first two weeks of theatrical release because I don't think this will perform like a Star Wars or super hero picture.

 

[JQuintana]

That was what I had always heard about the movie and books(s). Loooong and very soap opera like boring.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Problem is audiences now no longer care about those sort of films.

You keep saying this over and over, across many threads, that audiences are no longer interested in films that are character or story driven. I strongly disagree with that conclusion. I think we're looking at the same data, that films from Marvel Studios and similar tentpoles are making up the majority of the theatrical business these days. But I think it's a mistake to say that audiences have simply lost interest in other types of films.

I think a more likely explanation is that as movie theater ticket prices continue to skyrocket, while the quality of home exhibition continues to increase exponentially, and while theatrical windows continue to shrink, that audiences are merely re-evaluating which films are worth seeing in theaters and which can wait for home viewing.

And I understand that. Granted, I live in what's probably the most expensive theatrical market in the country, but even in areas where prices are less than they are here - it costs a lot to see a movie on a date night, even more to see one with family. For that kind of money, people going to the movies feel the need to evaluate, in advance, whether they will like the thing they're being asked to pay a fortune to see. I see a lot of the same calculations happening here in NYC around Broadway shows. It's just so expensive to go that most people aren't willing to take a chance on something new, because if it doesn't work out, that's hundreds of dollars evaporated. I think we're seeing the same thing happening with movie theaters. Buying a ticket to the next Marvel Studios film, if you're a fan of their previous works, is a safe bet - people know what they're getting and know they'll probably like it.

I don't think that means that people are no longer interested in any other type of film. I think it just means that people are feeling the need to be very careful about how they spend their money. There's also far less of a consequence if you miss a movie in theaters. Thirty years ago, if you didn't see a movie in theaters, the best you could hope for was to catch it in a low resolution version that had been cropped and possibly edited for content either on a VHS tape or on a TV broadcast, probably a year after it left theaters. Nowadays, if you miss a film in theaters, you can rent or purchase it usually about two to three months after it was in a theater, in a version that technically may be of better quality than what was shown at your local theater and for a fraction of the price.

I think the massive pop culture success of premium quality television and streaming series, many of which feature actors, writers, and directors originally known for making theatrical films, shows that there's a large audience that's hungry for that kind of storytelling.

 

[Tommy R]

Man, I’ve never read Dune, but now I want to! I remember catching the first few minutes of the movie maybe 15-20 years ago and couldn’t make it past that. But I think I could “get” the book enough at this point. I’ve always liked eco-go but have come to really crave that deeper (and weirder) sci-fi these days.

 

[Sam Favate]

Man, I’ve never read Dune, but now I want to! I remember catching the first few minutes of the movie maybe 15-20 years ago and couldn’t make it past that. But I think I could “get” the book enough at this point. I’ve always liked eco-go but have come to really crave that deeper (and weirder) sci-fi these days.

I would definitely suggest either reading the book or watching the mini-series as an introduction to the material. I don't dislike the '84 film, but if you're unfamiliar with the story, that movie isn't going to help you.

 

[TJPC]

Herbert’s Dune books together with the series of books written by his son to carry on the series, form a library in themselves. They represent a vast, absorbing, and detailed universe.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Problem is audiences now no longer care about those sort of films.

I'd say the bigger problem is that the studios no longer care about these sort of films. Even into the early 2000s, studios had 2-3 tentpoles a year, and the rest of their release schedules were filled with mid-budget character driven movies with mid-budget box office expectations.

Take Villeneuve's Arrival: A bit artsier than most mid-budget movies, but in most respects a classic mid-budget success story: The movie was made for $47 million, and it $100 million domestically and another $100 million overseas.

But studios would rather make several huge movies a years than a couple dozen smaller movies a year. In 2006, the six major film studios (Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, 20th Century Fox, Sony, and Paramount) released 127 motion pictures. In 2017, the six major film studios only released 79.

But the audience interest is still there. Netflix and Prime are moving in to fill the void.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You keep saying this over and over, across many threads, that audiences are no longer interested in films that are character or story driven.

I think you are correct, I probably do. I believe I have said in different threads not only audiences seem to lack interest in these films but so do theater owners and the studios/financial backers. Basically, those are the driving forces behind what sort of films get produced. Those three main groups that "decide" what is going to get made.

So, I do think both you and Adam have valid points. I agree with your points.

Looking at these three main groups--audience, theater owners, studios/financial backers--how am I coming up with the lack of interest idea?

Well, for audience I just go over to Box Office Mojo and look at the top grossing films each year for the last decade. This clearly indicates what audiences are paying to see. So, their part in this is they keep going in droves to see super heroes, Star Wars, sequels, and animated films. The money generated in box office for those films dwarfs everything else that gets made. Generally, you have to go way down the list to find something that is not one of these types of films.

So, is the idea that they are selectively choosing which films to see based on economic factors and the idea that they are hedging their bets that a big budget super hero/sequel/Star Wars/animated feature might be more entertaining to them because they are familiar with what that product is part of the equation? Sure, it likely is in some cases. Yes, I agree that with some folks seeing something "known" that delivers the same thing they have seen before is what they most enjoy and look forward to. The sequel explosion of the 1980s pretty much confirmed that people will pay to see the same thing again, and again, and again.

On the economic side...well...yes, movie ticket prices are up, popcorn and soda in theaters has always been way overpriced, but on the whole a night out at the cinema still costs far less than many other things you could go out to do. Also, audiences are still going, even with the price increases and I think a lot of people still see a night at the movies as good bang for their buck. If you are going as a family to the movies then sure the cost to bring a group of kids with you drives the cost way up because the kids will want snacks and drinks whereas adults will skip the 15 dollar bucket of popcorn and 8 dollar soda.

Then there is the home theater side of things, which I agree changed things greatly, in that people can now sit at home and watch an outstanding presentation of a film or show without having to buy a ticket, stand in a line, get over charged for food or drink, or deal with rude/loud/annoying fellow theater goers. I do think that our ability to enjoy a movie at home has never been better.

On the theater owners, well, they now have more say in what gets made. They get to communicate to the people making the movies what they want in their theaters. What they want is more family films because they know a family film will typically sell 3 or 4 or more tickets and a lot more drinks and snacks than an adult film where one or two adults go to the picture and they ignore the snack counter. They want sequels, they want Star Wars, and they want super heroes because those type of films sell more tickets and therefore sell more snacks and generate more revenue. Were it up to theater owners these would be the only types of films that get made.

Then there are the studios, what's left of them, and the financial backers. These guys basically only think in terms of revenue and what they all want is a franchise picture. Something that they can make again and again and again and people just keep paying to see it. Just line them up here's number 2, 3, 4, 5...here are "universe" spin-offs. Also they now think in terms of what will sell to foreign audiences more than ever before. Complex adult films that might include important dialogue sequences and do not have an explosions every ten seconds do not sell to foreign audiences that don't speak English.

This is why the scripts for these big budget films are so "dumbed down"...it's not that people are idiots, it is just that the formula they are working off of for these films mandates that the dialogue be simplistic and not important. The plot should be easy to follow and there needs to be as much movement on the screen as possible.

This gives them "worldwide mass appeal" but to me...well...I find these kind of films boring as all hell. The thing is I am just the audience in this case and I have no investment in these films and why would they do anything different when these type of films typically easily sell a quarter of a billion dollars in tickets and when they hit it right can be full on billion dollar babies?

That's what they are after. Ownership of some sort of franchise where they can churn out the same picture over and over and know the money will keep rolling in...and when it slows down, you just reboot the franchise! Fire the actors and filmmakers and hire new ones. Here's the new Superman, the new Batman, the new Star Wars cast and we will reheat those same old plots and cliches with that because we know everybody liked them the first 10 times they saw them.

Yes, I will complain about this because I don't find it entertaining and it is not at all about making something interesting it is just about regurgitating a formula. I would not at all have an issue with watching a super hero film IF it did something interesting or that I did not expect. The fact is, for me, they just don't. They have the formula so set in stone they will not deviate from it.

This is a fantastic formula for the financial backers. They don't need movie stars or actors, just somebody that looks good in the suit and can toss off a few jokes or one liners. They don't need a good writer, just someone to regurgitate the formula and set pieces people expect. They don't need a good director, just a person that can get the shooting from point A to point B and hand it off to the special effects team. They don't want anybody's stamp on the film they just want a film that looks like the last one and checks off the boxes of the formula.

Then the whole thing gets handed over to marketing and that is typically more important to these kind of pictures than any of the actual filmmaking was. It's literally a case of the shiny wrapper is more important than the food it contains.

Yes, this does bother me and I don't like it...but I understand it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And to bring it back to Dune, my point really is...it does not fit the formula. It is not going to tick off the formula boxes and in this case the film is being made by a good director, one that will put his stamp on it, and he appears to also be filling the film with good actors. This all deviates from the "big money formula."

So, while I think this is exciting and wonderful, I am more than a bit suspect of what the financial people will think of all this...which really should not matter to me but does because I want Villeneuve to make more films the way he wants to make them because I enjoy what he does.

I think we are going to get a high quality film, made by an interesting director, that has no intention of changing the story to meet the demands of an international audience...all of that kind of says this probably won't be a box office smash.

This won't be Star Wars. There will be no prank phone call from Paul Atreides to Baron Harkonnen to slow down the reaction to the attack on his star cruiser so the audience can have a giggle.

 

[TravisR]

Well, for audience I just go over to Box Office Mojo and look at the top grossing films each year for the last decade. This clearly indicates what audiences are paying to see. So, their part in this is they keep going in droves to see... Star Wars...

Nothing wrong with that.