[Film] Dune

[nickbrighton]

But even the production on Part 2 hasn't been green lit yet, and is dependent upon the box office take from this film. There is still a chance we never see the continuation, which would be awful.

Therefore, I need to see it again!

Indeed, however the box office is now over $200 million against a £165 million production cost, Added to the production budget is approx $40 million advertising , and then the distribution and exhibitor costs, however and with a good few weeks of theatrical release still to come, the film is almost certain to go into profit on its cinema release, and then there is streaming, dvd, etc.

The cost of the next film should be less as a lot of the production costs will be spread over the two films as sets etc will still exist from the first, and as the screenplay for part two was being written last September , it appears that the expectation from the producers is that it will go ahead unless it fails, rather than it has to succeed spectacularly then they will think about it.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

The cost of the next film should be less as a lot of the production costs will be spread over the two films as sets etc will still exist from the first, and as the screenplay for part two was being written last September , it appears that the expectation from the producers is that it will go ahead unless it fails, rather than it has to succeed spectacularly then they will think about it.

Presumably they'll also be able to save money by just reusing footage from all the dreams and flash-forwards that seemed to be repeated about 10times each.

I'm being harsh, I just saw it and thought it was great. A bit overlong (not least because of all the dream sequences) but I've no idea what film the people who've said it was boring or that nothing happened watched.

 

[Acker79]

I saw it this evening and am largely quite meh on it. I did feel like it might be better to see the whole story, but with this film it felt very much like the sort of feeling you'd have if the first lord of the rings film took 2.5 hours to get to the point where Frodo leaves the shire. Like there was a lot of long slow shots that weren't necessary (as another poster noted the repeated dreams), and the story was just starting as the film ended. Like a pilot episode of a TV show that rather than wow you with all it's big tricks, is trying to set the stage for the series and trusting/hoping you'll stick with them.

Someone in the audience did try to start a round of applause, and persevered even when it was clear no one else was joining in.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

the story was just starting as the film ended.

This is the line of criticism I don't understand, from the tone of some comments and reviews I've read, you'd think the credits start to roll just as they're popping open the bubbly to celebrate arriving on Arrakis. It's inevitably not as satisfying as it would be if the whole story were wrapped up in a single film, but I didn't feel I was short changed.

if the first lord of the rings film took 2.5 hours to get to the point where Frodo leaves the shire.

That basically is the plot of Fellowship of the Ring isn't it? Frodo gets the ring, gets stabbed, meets some dudes, Sean Bean dies. At least there're no bloody elves in this film.

 

[Acker79]

This is the line of criticism I don't understand,

It's inevitably not as satisfying as it would be if the whole story were wrapped up in a single film

It would appear you do understand.

but I didn't feel I was short changed.

That's great. All personal opinons and all.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

It would appear you do understand.

Very droll. The part I don't understand is that it was known beforehand that the film only covered the first part of the book, so in itself I don't see that as a valid criticism any more than complaining that Fellowship of the Ring doesn't end with Frodo chucking the ring into Mount Doom would be.

Actually, I think the 70s version of Lord of the Rings was criticised on exactly those grounds, because it was put out as "The Lord of the Rings" but only covered the first half of the trilogy. In that case I think the studio did it deliberately because they thought people wouldn't go to see the first half of a film (which seems a remarkably short sighted strategy).

I did admire the balls out gall of putting "part one" on screen as a subtitle before the sequel's been approved, that can backfire. But I suppose they're rather committed at this point so they might as well run with it.

That's great. All personal opinons and all.

Absolutely. It kept me entertained for a couple of hours, but I don't think it was perfect by any means.
I've not read the books so can't make any comparisons with those.

 

[nickbrighton]

Dune Part Two has officially been announced with an Autumn 2023 release date

For those who didn't seem to grasp that "Dune Part 1" was in fact Part 1 and not the entire first book, this is the second part of the book, but will start where the first left off, so do not be surprised that "it starts in the middle"

For avoidance of all doubt and to avoid further disappointment it covers only the second half of the book Dune, not any of iots prequels or sequels or related material

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Dune Part Two has officially been announced with an Autumn 2023 release date

For those who didn't seem to grasp that "Dune Part 1" was in fact Part 1 and not the entire first book, this is the second part of the book, but will start where the first left off, so do not be surprised that "it starts in the middle"

For avoidance of all doubt and to avoid further disappointment it covers only the second half of the book Dune, not any of iots prequels or sequels or related material

Advice to anyone who expects to get annoyed that Dune: Part 2 starts halfway through the story; watch Part 1 first.#

Actually, I hope / pretty sure cinemas will offer the opportunity to watch them together as a single presentation, which would be amazing.

I'm very pleased Villeneuve has the opportunity to continue the story.

 

[faoileán]

Well. Beautifully shot, amazing costumes. Really boring. First hour and a half was so dull that when things do start happening o couldn’t have given a shit. And because it’s in two parts, it ends just as it’s becoming interesting. Nodded off twice. Don’t think i I’ll bother with Pt. 2

It’s a real shame because I don’t do big whizz bang Marvel films, not really into many blockbusters at all so thought this would strike a balance. I went in knowing the source material and knowing it was dialogue and character driven rather than the next Independence Day but it just didn’t engage me on any real level. Its a beautiful looking piece but… Not for me I’m afraid.

Brighton was wall to wall minge though so you know, every cloud.

I agree, very dull. So many of these scifi books/films have basically the same plot, but in this case they've thrown in a bloody great worm and dispensed with ray-guns and light sabres so that in this future of inter-planetary travel everyone fights with bloody great knives.

 

[Lethargic]

Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it, I have read the books but my teenager children are completely new to the world of Dune and they both enjoyed it.

Sent from my CPH2173 using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

Dune Part Two has officially been announced with an Autumn 2023 release date

For those who didn't seem to grasp that "Dune Part 1" was in fact Part 1 and not the entire first book, this is the second part of the book, but will start where the first left off, so do not be surprised that "it starts in the middle"

For avoidance of all doubt and to avoid further disappointment it covers only the second half of the book Dune, not any of iots prequels or sequels or related material

I think everyone “grasped it”. I don’t think it helped a film that lacked character development and drama and was weighed down by vast tracts of verbal exposition.
It worked well as a book but for me, didn’t translate at all well on screen. It has been remarked in the past that it is un-filmable. The same was said of LOTR but only because of the scale of it. Dune was un-filmable because it doesn’t translate into film language, hence it was so dull on screen.

 

[nickbrighton]

I think everyone “grasped it”. I don’t think it helped a film that lacked character development and drama and was weighed down by vast tracts of verbal exposition.
It worked well as a book but for me, didn’t translate at all well on screen. It has been remarked in the past that it is un-filmable. The same was said of LOTR but only because of the scale of it. Dune was un-filmable because it doesn’t translate into film language, hence it was so dull on screen.

I didn't find it dull at all,and lots of people did like it and cant wait for part two, but not all people did grasp it, just read the comments on here about it finishing just as it started to get into the "interesting" part of the story. Plenty of comments about it not telling the whole story, etc

Perhaps peoples views are bearing out what I said pages ago, a lot of people will not like this, as it isnt anything like the current sci fi blockbuster genre, its a slow burn with scene and world building, with various plot lines that will not come to fruition or even notice until much later. There was a comment about dream sequences and why there were so many- all part of the bigger whole which will become apparent in the second part. The film is not meant to be watched in isolation of the second part.

LOTR wasnt un-filmable because of its scope, it was only un-filmable till Jackson filmed it, hopefully the second part will prove the same for Dune

 

[The Clamp]

I didn't find it dull at all,and lots of people did like it and cant wait for part two, but not all people did grasp it, just read the comments on here about it finishing just as it started to get into the "interesting" part of the story. Plenty of comments about it not telling the whole story, etc

Perhaps peoples views are bearing out what I said pages ago, a lot of people will not like this, as it isnt anything like the current sci fi blockbuster genre, its a slow burn with scene and world building, with various plot lines that will not come to fruition or even notice until much later. There was a comment about dream sequences and why there were so many- all part of the bigger whole which will become apparent in the second part. The film is not meant to be watched in isolation of the second part.

LOTR wasnt un-filmable because of its scope, it was only un-filmable till Jackson filmed it, hopefully the second part will prove the same for Dune

Well, for me I “got” that it was split into two parts, I’d read the books and knew they were doing in two and I thought it made a dull film even worse. As I’ve said many times on here, I’m not into huge special effects blockbusters with no substance. That’s why I thought this would be a good film and was looking forward to it.

I knew exactly what it was going to be. I knew it wasn’t going to be a Star Wars or similar. You don’t have the monopoly on knowing what Dune is. It’s been around for about sixty years.

It turned out to be rather dull regardless of pt1 or pt2. Taken on its own merits it lacked drama and character development. Maybe when I see both together I’ll view it differently.

I’m glad you and others enjoyed it. I know many people that liked it. I’m in the minority. That does not alter the fact I thought it was dull.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I didn't find it dull at all,and lots of people did like it and cant wait for part two, but not all people did grasp it, just read the comments on here about it finishing just as it started to get into the "interesting" part of the story. Plenty of comments about it not telling the whole story, etc

Perhaps peoples views are bearing out what I said pages ago, a lot of people will not like this, as it isnt anything like the current sci fi blockbuster genre, its a slow burn with scene and world building, with various plot lines that will not come to fruition or even notice until much later. There was a comment about dream sequences and why there were so many- all part of the bigger whole which will become apparent in the second part. The film is not meant to be watched in isolation of the second part.

LOTR wasnt un-filmable because of its scope, it was only un-filmable till Jackson filmed it, hopefully the second part will prove the same for Dune

The film-makers even flagged this up pre-titles with the "Dreams are messages from the deep" line and spoken in the throat speaking style of The Sardaukar. In Dune, especially when Spice is involved, dreams have multiple functions, particularly when you are gifted as Paul is.

To repeat, I really enjoyed the film, and can't wait for the story to continue, especially with Denis Villeneuve at the helm.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

its a slow burn with scene and world building, with various plot lines that will not come to fruition or even notice until much later. There was a comment about dream sequences and why there were so many- all part of the bigger whole which will become apparent in the second part.

Not sure if that's my comment you're referring to, but to be clear, my criticism of the dream sequences was that they could have been repeated less and it would have made them more effective and the film shorter. As it was it felt like the film was bashing me over the head with it to make sure I couldn't possibly miss that "SHE'S THE ONE HE'S HAVING THE DREAMS ABOUT! LOOK! IT'S HER! HAVE YOU GOT IT YET? THAT'S HER!" which reduced any impact it might have had.

The film is not meant to be watched in isolation of the second part.

Speaking as somebody who genuinely really enjoyed the film, that's a cop out. You can't ask people to pay full price and spend two hours plus watching a film that doesn't stand up on it's own. It's fine to leave the story hanging to be picked up by the next film, but you can't just dismiss criticism by saying it'll all be worth it once you pay another £10 in a years time (see that Harry Potter film where they spend 2 hours in a tent).

 

[The Clamp]

Not sure if that's my comment you're referring to, but to be clear, my criticism of the dream sequences was that they could have been repeated less and it would have made them more effective and the film shorter. As it was it felt like the film was bashing me over the head with it to make sure I couldn't possibly miss that "SHE'S THE ONE HE'S HAVING THE DREAMS ABOUT! LOOK! IT'S HER! HAVE YOU GOT IT YET? THAT'S HER!" which reduced any impact it might have had.



Speaking as somebody who genuinely really enjoyed the film, that's a cop out. You can't ask people to pay full price and spend two hours plus watching a film that doesn't stand up on it's own. It's fine to leave the story hanging to be picked up by the next film, but you can't just dismiss criticism by saying it'll all be worth it once you pay another £10 in a years time (see that Harry Potter film where they spend 2 hours in a tent).

I find the “you didn’t get it” accusation almost as dull as the film. Yes, it’s a bit different to other sci-fi but come off it. It’s not a work of giant intellect. It’s a slightly more cerebral take on people living on different planets. Yes, an interesting comment on colonialism and the world building is brilliantly done. But let’s not forget it’s a story that involves magic dust that enables inter-galactic travel, giant sand worms and dragon-fly fighter ships.

Yes, it has an epic, dynastic and dream span element to it but one doesn’t have to be Brain of Britain to “get it”.
Well done, people liked it. Good. I like programmes about narrow-boats and they’re dull as ditch water.

 

[Acker79]

As someone who said this about the film

I saw it this evening and am largely quite meh on it. I did feel like it might be better to see the whole story, but with this film it felt very much like the sort of feeling you'd have if the first lord of the rings film took 2.5 hours to get to the point where Frodo leaves the shire. Like there was a lot of long slow shots that weren't necessary (as another poster noted the repeated dreams), and the story was just starting as the film ended. Like a pilot episode of a TV show that rather than wow you with all it's big tricks, is trying to set the stage for the series and trusting/hoping you'll stick with them.

Someone in the audience did try to start a round of applause, and persevered even when it was clear no one else was joining in.

I will add that I am excited to see there will be a part two, and look forward to revisiting my opinion when I see the whole story.

To expand on my point above in answer to the claims that people like me just didn't get it, it isn't simply about only being given half the story. There are plenty of stories that are told in parts, but when you take one story and break it down you have a choice to make:

-tell the story straight and risk leaving people unsatisfied with half a story when they have to wait so long for the resolution
-adapt the story to account for the serialisation so that each instalment has a clear arc, a journey within each instalment that is complete, but feeds into the larger story.

You almost always get the latter, maybe something invented for the film, maybe a restructuring of the story to move a set piece to where they want to end one part, splitting something so there is a cliffhanger ending.

Dune seemed to go with the former, a risky move given part two wasn't confirmed at the time. For some people it has worked well, and they've not been left dissatisfied. For others it hasn't worked so well. It's not people 'not getting that it's only part of the story' it's just personal preference and individual taste.

 

[Acker79]

I find the “you didn’t get it” accusation almost as dull as the film.

I find you get this occasionally. Some people really like a film, but it isn't universally loved and rather than accept that different people have different tastes, they dismiss the criticism as somehow invalid. With La La Land, it was "people are jumping on the bandwagon, hating it because it's popular to", with Mother! it was the similar "people just don't understand, it's a biblical allegory!". It is lazy, and imo makes the accuser seem quite fragile - like what you like, you don't need the validation of everyone else liking it, too.

 

[The Clamp]

I find you get this occasionally. Some people really like a film, but it isn't universally loved and rather than accept that different people have different tastes, they dismiss the criticism as somehow invalid. With La La Land, it was "people are jumping on the bandwagon, hating it because it's popular to", with Mother! it was the similar "people just don't understand, it's a biblical allegory!". It is lazy, and imo makes the accuser seem quite fragile - like what you like, you don't need the validation of everyone else liking it, too.

Agreed. I want people to like films, all kinds. We can’t all like the same things and I hope people enjoy what they watch. Especially if it’s something they have been looking forward to. But I don’t want to be accused of not getting it if I happen to not like a film. It’s Dune. It’s a space fantasy, there’s not much to get.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

As someone who said this about the film



I will add that I am excited to see there will be a part two, and look forward to revisiting my opinion when I see the whole story.

To expand on my point above in answer to the claims that people like me just didn't get it, it isn't simply about only being given half the story. There are plenty of stories that are told in parts, but when you take one story and break it down you have a choice to make:

-tell the story straight and risk leaving people unsatisfied with half a story when they have to wait so long for the resolution
-adapt the story to account for the serialisation so that each instalment has a clear arc, a journey within each instalment that is complete, but feeds into the larger story.

You almost always get the latter, maybe something invented for the film, maybe a restructuring of the story to move a set piece to where they want to end one part, splitting something so there is a cliffhanger ending.

Dune seemed to go with the former, a risky move given part two wasn't confirmed at the time. For some people it has worked well, and they've not been left dissatisfied. For others it hasn't worked so well. It's not people 'not getting that it's only part of the story' it's just personal preference and individual taste.

I think the problem with Dune is the obvious set piece which you could climax the first part with (if you cut the latter hour or so from the film) is a massive downer, so most people wouldn't come out of the cinema feeling satisfied. It would be a bit like if Star Wars had ended with the rebel base being blown up and only Luke and Leia survive. On that point, one of the major advantages of Star Wars is that it was written as a stand alone film, so the narrative is self contained and satisfying on its own (unlike The Empire Strikes Back, which might be objectively better in many ways but is only a better first half of a story).

I wonder actually if in this case being more familiar with the material makes it worse - I didn't have any sense that the story was only just getting going when the film ended, but if you've read the book, or seen the old film more than once a few years ago, you might be more frustrated by it.