For the love of movies: The Past, Present, and Future of Cinema and what makes us fans (1 Viewer)

[Capt D McMars]

Yes, due to the story he is telling, the first film, or first half of the entire story, has to play out in that first couple of hours. This is a case where I would find it cool if Denis cut the film into one long feature for home viewing. I don't mean it as a complaint because I think he is behind the 8 ball making the first film. Sure, the maximum length they really want a feature film to be is no longer than 2 hours and 17 minutes. So, if you have five hours of story, well, yes, that has to be more than one film. Dune is a dense and complex universe with a lot of things to lay out for the audience and so that first film, part one, is hard.

He does have the advantage that he is working from a novel, so the story is all mapped out and he knows what the ebb and flow is and needs to be. I get the sense that watching Dune 1 and 2 back to back, if you have the 6 hours to spare, will be the most satisfying way to view it. I mean the second half of the story is going to ramp way up. This is where taking novel to screen can be complex and why Dune is not an easy story to do that with.

That was one of the issues that David Lynch's Dune had...too much to say (going by the Novel) in too little an amont of time, and many things ended on the cutting room floor!!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Agreed, Before the "Franchise" mindset took over the movies, a good stand alone feature film was golden. Would would never see The Adventures of Robin Hood 2 or 5 or Whatever!!
That being said, some stories requier more to flesh out the storyines. Point in case Star Wars was to be a trilogy, as was the Hobbit series.
What happened is that the movie industry has became like old TV used to be. The mindset thet if one Western is successful, than why not 50? And we saw this with other genres as well, filling up the airwaves with multipule Dr Shows, Detective shows and degenerating into the grabag of "Real Life" programs, designed for the lowest common denominators.

Yes, I feel like this began in the 1980s and they just continued to refine the approach. Now they want you to write for "franchise" and if you write standalone this makes the project far less desirable.

TV shows do it better because it is all mapped out to start. You have all the people assembled to make 10 episodes or whatever. You have your cast and you have the arc of the story and you tell it in segments that have their own ebb and flow.

With films, they feel you have to keep the audience into the story for two hours or whatever, and their way to achieve that is to give you this feeling of constant motion with quick cutting and putting the flow of the film on a stopwatch.

Plus with the way they do the big franchise films now, it tends to be different people taking different approaches at different times and the concern is more does each film click to the stopwatch more than tell a good story. Just did we hit joke-action sequence-joke-character says what the next task/destination is-joke-action. All timed in 10-30 second increments.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Agreed, and it seems that the aspects ment to enhace a film have taked over as a leading aspect rather than allowing the storyline and actors shine...I'm mentioning the over use of GCI. I remember with the closing credits were no longer than 3 minutes or so...Now it goes on so long that they drop in bonus scenes just to keep your attnetion to the 20 minute closing credits from Hell!!!

 

[JohnRice]

Yes, due to the story he is telling, the first film, or first half of the entire story, has to play out in that first couple of hours. This is a case where I would find it cool if Denis cut the film into one long feature for home viewing. I don't mean it as a complaint because I think he is behind the 8 ball making the first film. Sure, the maximum length they really want a feature film to be is no longer than 2 hours and 17 minutes. So, if you have five hours of story, well, yes, that has to be more than one film. Dune is a dense and complex universe with a lot of things to lay out for the audience and so that first film, part one, is hard.

He does have the advantage that he is working from a novel, so the story is all mapped out and he knows what the ebb and flow is and needs to be. I get the sense that watching Dune 1 and 2 back to back, if you have the 6 hours to spare, will be the most satisfying way to view it. I mean the second half of the story is going to ramp way up. This is where taking novel to screen can be complex and why Dune is not an easy story to do that with.

I thought the same thing, but that doesn't even need to happen. It'll be a 5+ hour movie, so there would have to be a disc change anyway.

 

[jayembee]

Agreed, and it seems that the aspects ment to enhace a film have taked over as a leading aspect rather than allowing the storyline and actors shine...I'm mentioning the over use of GCI. I remember with the closing credits were no longer than 3 minutes or so...Now it goes on so long that they drop in bonus scenes just to keep your attnetion to the 20 minute closing credits from Hell!!!

End credits have been excrutiatingly long for decades. It's not a recent development.

Plus, the reason for them is primarily all of the guilds and unions demanding acknowledgement of their existence. So we now have to sit through credits listing the stars' personal assistants, the accountants at the studio, craft services, the folks who cart the porta-potties to the set, and such. I get it...it takes a village, but it really seems absurd to be listing people in the credits who have a decidedly tenuous relationship with the production of the film.

On the other hand, one of the things I love seeing in the end titles in animated family films is the list of Production Babies. They always make me smile.

 

[Desslar]

Agreed, Before the "Franchise" mindset took over the movies, a good stand alone feature film was golden. You would never see The Adventures of Robin Hood 2 or 5 or Whatever!!
That being said, some stories requier more to flesh out the storyines. Point in case Star Wars was to be a trilogy, as was the Hobbit series.
What happened is that the movie industry has became like old TV used to be. The mindset that if one Western is successful, than why not 50? And we saw this with other genres as well, filling up the airwaves with multipule Dr Shows, Detective shows and degenerating into the grabag of "Real Life" programs, designed for the lowest common denominators.

But that is surely partly due to the fact some of the necessary mechanisms did not exist at the time of the Flynn Robin Hood to make a franchise really lucrative. There was no TV, no home video, little merchandising - just not many opportunities to cash in on an ongoing franchise.

That said, franchises did exist even back then, especially in the horror genre with Frankenstein, Dracula, King Kong, etc.

 

[Capt D McMars]

But that is surely partly due to the fact some of the necessary mechanisms did not exist at the time of the Flynn Robin Hood to make a franchise really lucrative. There was no TV, no home video, little merchandising - just not many opportunities to cash in on an ongoing franchise.

That said, franchises did exist even back then, especially in the horror genre with Frankenstein, Dracula, King Kong, etc.

I belive the reasons why the horror genre was so furtile for sequels is that they were cheap to make and was a way to experiment with what Serials had been doing at that same time, only with bigger budgets. After more families had aquired TVs these serials went from radio to Television.

 

[Joe Wong]

That said, franchises did exist even back then, especially in the horror genre with Frankenstein, Dracula, King Kong, etc.

Indeed... I've never seen them, but non-horror "franchises" included a series of Andy Hardy films (16 in total, 1937-58) and a series featuring Ma and Pa Kettle (10 from 1947-57), amongst others.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Indeed... I've never seen them, but there was a series of Andy Hardy films (16 in total, 1937-58) and a series featuring Ma and Pa Kettle (10 from 1947-57), amongst others.

And the early Blondie and Dagwood series as well, most of these were the b features after the main fatues, between the News reels and Cartoons.

 

[BobO'Link]

And the early Blondie and Dagwood series as well, most of these were the b features after the main fatues, between the News reels and Cartoons.

Where I grew up (in the 50s/60s) and everywhere I've been or heard about the sequence of a double feature presentation was the coming attraction trailers followed by a cartoon and/or short and/or newsreel, the "B" movie, *possibly* another cartoon and/or newsreel and concession "commercials" ("Let's all go to the lobby...") with the "A" movie ending the showing.

 

[Desslar]

Where I grew up (in the 50s/60s) and everywhere I've been or heard about the sequence of a double feature presentation was the coming attraction trailers followed by a cartoon and/or short and/or newsreel, the "B" movie, *possibly* another cartoon and/or newsreel and concession "commercials" ("Let's all go to the lobby...") with the "A" movie ending the showing.

People had bladders of steel in those days.

 

[BobO'Link]

People had bladders of steel in those days.

That's what the concession ads were for... give you time to get some relief as there was usually 5-15 minutes between the movies.

 

[Capt D McMars]

That's what the concession ads were for... give you time to get some relief as there was usually 5-15 minutes between the movies.

...and a smoke break, back in the day!

 

[BobO'Link]

...and a smoke break, back in the day!

You could smoke in many of the theaters back then...

 

[Desslar]

That's what the concession ads were for... give you time to get some relief as there was usually 5-15 minutes between the movies.

Ah, that should be OK then (although not sure about the ladies if it was a sold out show). Also, you probably you couldn't buy a 54-oz vat of Coke in those days.

But personally, I always liked watching those 50s/60s concession ads when they would play them in the theater (decades later), so I might have stayed in my seat.

 

[jayembee]

That said, franchises did exist even back then, especially in the horror genre with Frankenstein, Dracula, King Kong, etc.

Universal's Classic Monster films were the original shared universe film franchise.

 

[jayembee]

And the early Blondie and Dagwood series as well, most of these were the b features after the main fatues, between the News reels and Cartoons.

Actually, the "B" features were before the main features. Like the warm-up acts at concerts.

Oops...Howie beat me to it.

 

[TravisR]

I realize this thread is dedicated to movies but I have to say that I've seen some superlative TV shows just in the past week. Atlanta, Barry, Better Call Saul and We Own This City are as good as nearly any movie that I've seen in years. Anyone that is sick of the endless franchise movies needs to at least give some TV shows a shot because there is great work being done there.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That said, franchises did exist even back then, especially in the horror genre with Frankenstein, Dracula, King Kong, etc.

These are not at all the same thing as today's big franchises. When people cite these they don't at all account for the fact that these were B pictures made fast and on the cheap just to throw in as another feature to give you more time to spend in a theater. They were not the big focus that were meant to make a company's entire fiscal year. It is basically ridiculous to compare them.

Charlie Chan, Ma and Pa Kettle, Andy Hardy, Sherlock Holmes, these were not franchises at all in the way today's big budget features are. There is no comparison.

 

[TravisR]

Universal's Classic Monster films were the original shared universe film franchise.

I'm a huge nerd so it used to somewhat annoy me that there was no real continuity between those movies (some seem to take place in 1800's or maybe the turn of the 20th century and then connect to a series that are then-modern day or adding up all the "30 years later" in The Mummy movies means the last one takes place in the 1990's) but now with the hyperfocus on continuity from fans of Marvel or Star Wars, I find the lack of continuity in the Universal horror movies to be quaint and enjoyable and a sign of a time when people were more relaxed.