Denis Villenueve to direct Dune

[Nicomo Cosca]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Is no one else concerned that Villeneuve is lead writer? First draft done by the well-regarded Eric Roth, sure, but you look over his resume and there's not a lot there that is anything remotely like Dune. And Villeneuve's own instincts as a storyteller are leaning so much toward languid imagery ever since he broke big, and I think back to the beautiful-but-incoherent Lynch film, and I wonder if this is going to be anything but a visual feast/storytelling snooze ala Bladerunner 2049. 

The cast is looking great, at least.

 

Well, I actually really liked BR2049 so I’m not worried about that. But then again, Villeneuve doesn’t appear credited for the script of BR2049, at least not on IMDB (?) 

[Nictarion]

Not worried in the slightest. I’ve liked everything I’ve seen by Villeneuve. 

[Kalbear]

I don't know about the writing being good or bad, but everything I've seen by him has been absolutely fantastic as a film, with great acting performances and amazing cinematography. Something epic like Dune in his hands - where it isn't about frenetic action, but is about sheer moments and majesty - has got me so incredibly excited. 

I admittedly loved BR2049's feel and look (the story not as much) and Arrival is one of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time, so I'm biased, but I think he can do it a lot of justice. 

[Corvinus85]

I don't seen any mention of Charlotte Rampling having been cast as Reverend Mother Mohiam

[polishgenius]

9 hours ago, Ran said:

and I wonder if this is going to be anything but a visual feast/storytelling snooze ala Bladerunner 2049. 

Blade Runner 2049 was a storytelling snooze? Nah.

[Ran]

55 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Blade Runner 2049 was a storytelling snooze? Nah.

It was 30 minutes too long. Even Ridley Scott said so, when discussing why it was a box office failure. It received almost no talk as a best picture or best writing candidate in scores of critics associations' awards. Even most critics who thought highly of it felt it was over-long and could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said, for my part, I kept checking my watch, a thing I don't do if a story has captured my interest. So, yeah, "snooze". But to each their own!

I have no problem with his visual aesthetics -- the man can make jaw-dropping beautiful films -- but I'm very concerned about his instincts when it comes to storytelling, and his taking the notoriously difficult Dune as the first project he's lead writer on feels like it's tempting fate.

In any case, I think we all missed our chance at a great Dune film when Jodorowosky gave up trying to make his.

[red snow]

So many people comment on BR2049 being too long while i honestly enjoyed all of it. The only time i was aware of the passage of time was more a worry the ending was going to be rushed. It's certainly no worse than the original in this respect.

While ridley scott can opine on why Villeneuve's film failed I'm releived Scott was only a producer. His recent track record highlights how bad the sequel could have been under his direction. Look at scott vs villeneuve in terms of their last several films. I know which one I'd rather have tackling Dune as well.

The issue with villeneuve is that his films don't make the kind of money the studios want - especially with higher budgets. A bit like with aronofsky. It leads to that trap of Hollywood thinking "look how successful that low budget "indie" film made - imagine how much we'd make if we scaled that up to blockbuster levels". The problem is villeneuve makes films that don't reach out to the marvel/fast and furious crowd. They pretty much reach out to the same crowd that enjoyed sicario and arrival (prisoners and enemy are even more niche) which doesn't translate to bigger box offices. How popular is the original "blade runner" really? It's a film that gets a lot if love but i think it is still a cult film.

Which is why I'm quite concerned about dune only filming part 2 once they know how well part 1 performs. It has many parallels with BR in the sense the original film wasn't a box office success and has Villeneuve's involvement. I think the book's success may give Dune a small leg up but that's never helped them make a success out of tv shows.

I'm bracing myself for a great half-film as I don't see it making enough profit, however great it is (i wonder if the chinese market has any interest in desert SF - they like robots and mer-people). Ultimately i think we need to wait a few more years or for Netflix/Amazon prime to throw a huge amount of money to do this as TV. Maybe Jeff Bezos is a fan of the books?

[Nictarion]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

It was 30 minutes too long. Even Ridley Scott said so, when discussing why it was a box office failure. It received almost no talk as a best picture or best writing candidate in scores of critics associations' awards. Even most critics who thought highly of it felt it was over-long and could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said, for my part, I kept checking my watch, a thing I don't do if a story has captured my interest. So, yeah, "snooze". But to each their own!

I have no problem with his visual aesthetics -- the man can make jaw-dropping beautiful films -- but I'm very concerned about his instincts when it comes to storytelling, and his taking the notoriously difficult Dune as the first project he's lead writer on feels like it's tempting fate.

In any case, I think we all missed our chance at a great Dune film when Jodorowosky gave up trying to make his.

Eh, who knows how that would have turned out. Nobody involved (including Jodorowsky) had even read the book at the time.  

[Ran]

30 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

Eh, who knows how that would have turned out. Nobody involved (including Jodorowsky) had even read the book at the time.  

I'm not sure having read it actually improves the odds of a good adaptation. Though to be sure, the miniseries was all right. 

Re: Villeneuve and other films, I have some real issues with Arrival. Beautful, again, well-acted, again, great score, again -- but it should have been a $10 million film, not nearly $50 million. The extra money compromised the script on several fronts. Not really Villeneuve's fault, though. Sicario was indeed excellent, but with a a brilliant, and very tight, script by Taylor Sheridan.

The trajectory of Villeneuve's career, I suppose, is what concerns me most. If someone said he was tackling Dune before BR2049 and Arrival, I'd I've said that was exciting. After... well, it'll look good, anyways. Maybe he'll surprise me.

[Heartofice]

Honestly I can’t think of another director out there that i find more exciting than Villeneuve. I’d say he has an almost perfect track record so far.

His Blade Runner might be considered a little slow and I wasn’t hugely enamoured with the last 3rd, but it was incredibly beautiful and actually I felt engrossed the whole way through. I can’t say the same of the original which really does drag in parts.

His movies seem to combine low budget artistic sensibility with higher budgets. I think Arrival used it’s budget well to create a sense of wonder and awe that a smaller movie couldn’t.

I think Prisoners in particular is a movie for the masses that is gripping but also isn’t trashy. 

I cant think of anyone who combines mainstream and arty so well. There are plenty of directors out there who create amazing looking movies but they struggle to tell a coherent story.. I’m thinking of Del Toro or Gilliam. I think Villenuve is above them

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Even Ridley Scott said so, when discussing why it was a box office failure.

I'm not sure why Ridley Scott's opinion matters. I'm also a bit confused about why the length is supposed to be what killed it at the box office, given that three of the five highest grossing movies of all time are as long or longer, as are several other box-office behemoths.

Slow, maybe, but while a reputation for being slow can account for box office success it doesn't necessarily mean bad. That's a matter of opinion of course but some of the greatest films of all time could only be described as 'slow'. And Dune, despite its epic feel, is not a book that's particularly rapid and action packed (which is to say, there's huge action, but the action takes up a relatively small amount of the pagetime and is often treated as basically backdrop and almost irrelevant, especially in the finale), so I think Villenueve's quite a good fit.

[Corvinus85]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

I have no problem with his visual aesthetics -- the man can make jaw-dropping beautiful films -- but I'm very concerned about his instincts when it comes to storytelling, and his taking the notoriously difficult Dune as the first project he's lead writer on feels like it's tempting fate.

Well the story is there for him to adapt, and not make up something new, which was what BR2049 was. I think we all agree that 2 movies is required to do the novel justice, so I'm confident he'll be able to tell the story in its full, and use his skills for the visual to hit all the right notes.

[red snow]

19 hours ago, Heartofice said:

 

I cant think of anyone who combines mainstream and arty so well. There are plenty of directors out there who create amazing looking movies but they struggle to tell a coherent story.. I’m thinking of Del Toro or Gilliam. I think Villenuve is above them

Off the top of my head I'd say "Christopher Nolan" That guy is a Hollywood dream in the sense you give him a bigger budget and he delivers a bigger box offices.

A lot more thinking leads to the following;

JJ Abrams to a much lesser extent achieves this with his films and arguably TFA may have succeeded without him but both star wars and trek had less successful films after his departure.

Del Toro and Gilliam are still gambles as both can have projects that flop. Del Toro's hit:miss ratio isn't one that makes backing him a guaranteed success.

Tarantino is also a very bankable creator but I'm not sure he deals in mega budget films (they all look great and cost a bit but it's only really the westerns that go outside a modern era comfort zone). I'd be interested to see how he'd handle star trek if that project ever goes forward. I'd say the same thing with scorcese who has a strong track record and makes beautiful looking films but doesn't dabble in SFF which is what we're talking about regarding Dune. This criteria is why i'm crossing off Damien Chazelle although he's edging towards been trusted with big budgets and delivering consistently. First man is almost Sci-Fi and if he could make SF as "real" as he did the space program it'd be very interesting. 

Alejandro Inarittu is probably the "one to watch" in terms of trajectory and skill although he does seem to make films at his own pace and gets distracted by technology which in many ways makes him similar to the grandfather of big budgets and returnability - James Cameron. Hollywood must weep that they can't get him to make more than a film every decade but they live it when he does.

The weird thing is that even though all of the above directors are better choices for getting a financially successful "Dune" film - i think i'd still go for villeneuve over any of them. With the possible exception if Inarittu but weirdly i think that would be a much bigger gamble.

Ryan Coogler, russo brothers I'd need to see some more outside the marvel comfort zone.

 

[Ran]

Err, Alfonso Cuarón? I'd be much more excited if it were Cuarón over Villeneuve.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Err, Alfonso Cuarón? I'd be much more excited if it were Cuarón over Villeneuve.

I'd love to see him return to SF and big budget films. I was just wondering if he's now more interested in personal films like "Roma" although it could well be that was a passion project for him and he'll consider SF/blockbusters in the future. Children of men is still one of my favourite films of the last 20 years so I'd have a lot of faith in him doing Dune - or anything for that matter.

[Heartofice]

Definitely Cuaron is another director i’d be happy to see on projects like this, you can see what he brings to something like a Harry Potter movie that elevates it above a standard kids movie. 

Nolan I have kind of forgotten about for a while , he has his issues too though.

Abrams I tend think of as a bit of a hack really , I’m not a fan of the Star Trek movies at all, and I think he gets by on flashy visuals and workmanlike storytelling.

However I still reckon Villeneuve is at the top of his game and has an almost flawless list of movies , I’m super hyped he is on Dune 

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, red snow said:

Off the top of my head I'd say "Christopher Nolan" That guy is a Hollywood dream in the sense you give him a bigger budget and he delivers a bigger box offices. 

Christopher Nolan is great when he's focused but he's had some moments where he's lost control of his story.


Del Toro should do Revelation Space. I know he's not really shown an inclination to outright SF but its creepy elements and the general atmosphere seem like they'd be right up his alley.

 

Abrams doesn't belong in this conversation at all. He's a pure spectacle director but even on that metric he's a bit better than Zack Snyder but a lot worse than Matthew Vaughn and I think he's been outpaced by people like Justin Lin and James Wan.


I think Duncan Jones might be a guy who can be in these conversations in the future but needs to find a comfort zone when making blockbusters, as he clearly failed with Warcraft (where he goes with Rogue Trooper will be interesting). Similarly Gareth Edwards- Godzilla was awkward, Rogue One was better but still a bit emotionally mechanical- but he's apparently taken time off from blockbusters, quitting Godzilla, to do smaller stuff, for a while, which is probably a good idea.

[red snow]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Christopher Nolan is great when he's focused but he's had some moments where he's lost control of his story.


Del Toro should do Revelation Space. I know he's not really shown an inclination to outright SF but its creepy elements and the general atmosphere seem like they'd be right up his alley.

 

Abrams doesn't belong in this conversation at all. He's a pure spectacle director but even on that metric he's a bit better than Zack Snyder but a lot worse than Matthew Vaughn and I think he's been outpaced by people like Justin Lin and James Wan.


I think Duncan Jones might be a guy who can be in these conversations in the future but needs to find a comfort zone when making blockbusters, as he clearly failed with Warcraft (where he goes with Rogue Trooper will be interesting). Similarly Gareth Edwards- Godzilla was awkward, Rogue One was better but still a bit emotionally mechanical- but he's apparently taken time off from blockbusters, quitting Godzilla, to do smaller stuff, for a while, which is probably a good idea.

Don't get me wrong i wouldn't want Abrams anywhere near Dune and i agree with your concerns about some of the ones I've mentioned but my point was mostly regarding how those directors are bankable - especially Nolan who doesn't need a superhero or star wars for a big box office.

I hope jones and Edwards bounce back same with the guy who directed fant4stic.

Good shout with Justin lin and james wan being Rising stars.

[Werthead]

I actually don't think adapting Dune is as hard as it's made out to be. The problem with the book is that it's 500 pages long, which is an awkward length: too long to be a single movie (as Lynch discovered), too short to be an ongoing TV show (I think Dune's sequels are borderline unfilmable, only the original book would translate to the screen well). The mini-series approach was promising, but lacked the budget to make it work. Two movies to cover the book with a reasonable budget should get it done reasonably well.

Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 were a monstrous, huge one-two punch of intelligent, engrossing and visually sumptuous SF movies which also had a bit of heart to them, which sets Villeneuve apart from other visually intelligent directors who sometimes had problems getting to the emotion of the story (Kubrick, sometimes Nolan when he mistakes schmaltz for emotion). Was BR2049 too long? I never really felt it when watching it. Each sequence of the movie feels just right and logical.

 

Quote

While ridley scott can opine on why Villeneuve's film failed I'm releived Scott was only a producer. His recent track record highlights how bad the sequel could have been under his direction. Look at scott vs villeneuve in terms of their last several films. I know which one I'd rather have tackling Dune as well.

As a producer who was the primer motivator on getting the movie made, Scott's opinion is important but also suspect: he was in full damage control mode for the investors and studio, so his statements can be seen as a bit of arse-covering on his own behalf.

The fact is that Blade Runner 2049 has near-unparalleled blanket critical praise on release and the marketing was reasonable. People can argue about why it didn't do better and many of those arguments are convincing - the run time, the rating, the lack of a mass-media franchise (the number of relative youngsters who've seen Blade Runner is fairly low, I suspect; the review team at io9 even had a weird thing about boasting they'd never seen the original film because it was crusty and old and not hip, or something), Gosling not being an automatic star box office draw - but ultimately the audience just didn't show up, despite the film being brilliant. That happens sometimes, and may happen again with Dune.

As for Scott's own track record, yes, he's hitting a very low average. With the sole exception of the very solid The Martian, he hasn't made a good movie for 12 years (to American Gangster, and then another 6 years before that to Black Hawk Down), and Prometheus and Covenant did a lot of negative damage to the Aliens franchise brand.

Quote

Christopher Nolan is great when he's focused but he's had some moments where he's lost control of his story.

Nolan is a solid visual director, but he has problems with story, structure and pacing, particularly in longer movies. Dunkirk was superb because he pared all of that down to the bare essentials. Interstellar, Inception and his three Batman films all had wonderful imagery but were also quite baggy and had moments of incoherence (even the otherwise splendid Dark Knight is let down by trying to shoehorn Two-Face into the film without the time to do him justice and Joker simultaneously). Before Dunkirk, I would say that Nolan's more cohesive, strongest movie was The Prestige.

Quote

Del Toro should do Revelation Space. I know he's not really shown an inclination to outright SF but its creepy elements and the general atmosphere seem like they'd be right up his alley.

I suspect that wouldn't be his jam, although I could see him doing Chasm City (the story is a lot stronger and the Melding Plague imagery is more in his wheelhouse).

However, I still have money riding on the idea that Del Toro's next or next-but-one film will be Fevre Dream.

Quote

I think Duncan Jones might be a guy who can be in these conversations in the future but needs to find a comfort zone when making blockbusters, as he clearly failed with Warcraft (where he goes with Rogue Trooper will be interesting). Similarly Gareth Edwards- Godzilla was awkward, Rogue One was better but still a bit emotionally mechanical- but he's apparently taken time off from blockbusters, quitting Godzilla, to do smaller stuff, for a while, which is probably a good idea.

I think with one-two failures with WarCraft and Mute, it might be a while before we see Jones tackling a big-budget project of this kind.

[red snow]

I don't have an issue with Dune being a duology. My concern is that they aren't filming it all in one go as it increases the possibility significantly that the second part is never filmed. It's quite common these days for films split into 2-3 films to shoot the whole thing as i imagine it saves a lot of money. But if Dune comes out to Blade runner/typical villeneuve box office numbers then it's probably far easier for producers to throw in the towel if the sequel requires starting from scratch vs having principal filming in the bag and just post production to do. They could still can the project at that point too and possibly regret making both parts at once. But that's sort of the point, they seem to be going into this with the assumption it could be a financial flop.

The Martian was a rare example of a great ridley scott film. My theory is that scott has no way of judging a script meaning his films are mostly reliant on that as we know he can direct the shit out of a film when he wants.