Clueless Northman Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) Sounds like a criticism of French cinema (which Villeneuve would obviously have been quite exposed to) way more than of Hollywood On 3/3/2024 at 1:21 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Hide contents No. Paul doesn’t threaten to use nukes on the spice fields. They are to vast for that to work. He threatens to disrupt the lifecycle of the Sandworms killing them all off and destroying the ability for any further spice to grow on Arrakis. Spoiler I seem to remember Paul actually saying all spice fields are linked in a way, so nuking one would basically nuke them all, and the worms, the trouts and everything spice-related - so basically instant end of spice all across the known universe, except for the limited existing stocks. Edited March 4 by Clueless Northman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said: Preach! Tell that to 80s action movies. "I'll be back!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 4 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said: Tell that to 80s action movies. "I'll be back!" Arnold has very little dialogue in that film IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Why can’t we have strong imagery AND compelling dialogues ? It’s the old beaches vs mountains dilemma. Btw the movie made around 180 million opening weekend so hopefully it will be enough of a success now to guarantee us part 3! Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said: Sounds like a criticism of French cinema (which Villeneuve would obviously have been quite exposed to) way more than of Hollywood Hide contents I seem to remember Paul actually saying all spice fields are linked in a way, so nuking one would basically nuke them all, and the worms, the trouts and everything spice-related - so basically instant end of spice all across the known universe, except for the limited existing stocks. Spoiler He would do something to the little makers that would cause all of the makers to die destroying the spice cycle. It had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) I said at the time (and I still believe) Godzilla vs Kong should have been a near-silent film. It would have been brilliant. You keep the little girl's sign language, and you allow each character only one line in the entire movie. That line could be something as innocuous as, "Hey, pass me that bottled water." And then clear a shelf, Sunshine; because awards season is coming! It would have been amazing. Tell me that wouldn't have been more interesting (and coherent) than what they actually released. I dares ya. Edited March 4 by Deadlines? What Deadlines? Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 The problems isn't with the idea that some movies could stand to have less or no dialogue. It's that what he actually said was that dialogue is for TV and shouldn't be a big deal in movies. The idea that dialogue heavy movies are a post-golden-age-TV thing is pretty wild too tbh, athough that was an interviewer insert that Villeneuve just agreed with. Like Quentin Tarantino doesn't exist. Hell, like Casablanca doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, polishgenius said: The problems isn't with the idea that some movies could stand to have less or no dialogue. It's that what he actually said was that dialogue is for TV and shouldn't be a big deal in movies. The idea that dialogue heavy movies are a post-golden-age-TV thing is pretty wild too tbh, athough that was an interviewer insert that Villeneuve just agreed with. Like Quentin Tarantino doesn't exist. Hell, like Casablanca doesn't exist. And when Tarantino compiled his list of favorite films of the 2010's, He put Dunkirk and Mad Max: Fury Road in the top five. The latter is pretty economical with the speechifying and the former barely has enough dialogue to fill a sheet of foolscap (double spaced). Casablanca is shit. Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Jesus, people seem dedicated to just showing off their terrible film opinions ATM. WTF is in the water wherever you guys all are? Deadlines? What Deadlines?, SpaceChampion, Corvinus85 and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) Havent read the latest comments yet, but I saw pt 2 this afternoon and loved it. I could use a rewatch of the last stretch on, where they went South though, a few motivations and details were a little less than obvious for me. As a non book reader im okay being left with a few questions to uncover though, keeps me motivated to view a 2nd time in the near future. Eta: Now having read all comments, Im getting a chuckle of of so many others also saying they want to see it again very soon. Edited March 4 by DireWolfSpirit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 9 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said: Why can’t we have strong imagery AND compelling dialogues ? It’s the old beaches vs mountains dilemma. Btw the movie made around 180 million opening weekend so hopefully it will be enough of a success now to guarantee us part 3! Ah. You meant internationally. Everything I was seeing was $80m; but that was domestic I see now. That is good. Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Those of you waiting for it to stream - this is one instance I can confidently say you’ll be getting a lesser experience of this film by viewing it like that. Rewatches sure, but watch it on the big screen for the first time ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said: Those of you waiting for it to stream - this is one instance I can confidently say you’ll be getting a lesser experience of this film by viewing it like that. Rewatches sure, but watch it on the big screen for the first time ! At least if you are going to watch it at home, have a good sound system. Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II and Rhom 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said: And when Tarantino compiled his list of favorite films of the 2010's, He put Dunkirk and Mad Max: Fury Road in the top five. The latter is pretty economical with the speechifying and the former barely has enough dialogue to fill a sheet of foolscap (double spaced). You're responding as if I were arguing that films have to have loads of dialogue. But I didn't. It's just that Villeneuve said he hates dialogue in movies and strongly implied that they shouldn't have much of it, and I'm saying that that's silly. If anything your examples also knock down Villeneuve's point because he's essentially putting forward the thesis that there aren't many strong image-led movies these days, but you named two off the top of your head. There are loads. He might have a point if we're talking strictly big, effects-heavy blockbusters. They're very often visually-lazy movies dominated by quips and buffyspeak, and there Dune stands out. But even there he's not alone: The Creator and The Batman aren't like that for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 6 hours ago, Ran said: Jesus, people seem dedicated to just showing off their terrible film opinions ATM. WTF is in the water wherever you guys all are? We're living in a world where this movie this being hailed as some great masterwork. The war was lost ages ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grey Wolf Strikes Back Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) Saw it last night and was not disappointed! Edited March 4 by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 minutes ago, Relic said: We're living in a world where this movie this being hailed as some great masterwork. The war was lost ages ago... That’s the great thing about opinions and subjectivity in Art though- no ones really wrong cause it is a masterwork for them (and for me) even if this movie dosent appeal to you personally. Calling this’ a lost war ‘ like it’s an objective good or bad, just seems silly and overdramatic… Relic and Corvinus85 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFR Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Relic said: We're living in a world where this movie this being hailed as some great masterwork. The war was lost ages ago... It is. I don't agree with Villeneuve's opinion, of course. I earlier indirectly referred to this specific interview when I mentioned he emphasized the visual experience. And then I proceeded to mention how much I like Andor for the dialogue. There are plenty of dialogue rich movies and shows I like. But regardless of whether I agree with Villeneuve's taste, which he is entitled to since taste is subjective, I can certainly recognize that he is very good at his particular approach to cinema. To me, if he manages to cap off the trilogy with a finale that is of equivalent quality to the rest of the movies, he will have achieved another cinema experience like Lord of the Rings, or the original Star Wars trilogy (although I'm not personally too much of a fan of the latter): a timeless fantasy feat of cinema. I compared Villeneuve's approach with 2001. That is another film that focused on the visual experience with minimal dialogue. In my freshman year of college I took a fun elective on film. 2001 was one of the movies shown. You can guess that no in class, including the professor, had any idea what large parts of the plot meant. They had no idea what the obelisk meant, why the crew was making the journey to Jupiter, why HAL rebelled, what the space baby meant, etc. The professor didn't even care, he felt that this weird journey of cinema was the meaningful thing, not the particulars of the plot. I didn't agree with this - having read the book and been given clarity of what was happening enhanced the movie experience for me - but I could understand that point of view. At the very least, this is in my opinion the only successful adaptation of Dune. The Lynch version is an absurdity. People who enjoy pure camp, like a battle pug, probably like it, but it is an abject failure at capturing the tone and themes of the book. Paul makes it rain at the end, idiotically killing all the sandworms, and the narrator declares that he brings peace across the galaxy. The miniseries attempts to be faithful, but it is an example of incompetence shining through every aspect. The acting is poor, the reworked dialogue is poor, the directing is completely awful. It's about as enjoyable as reading a wikipedia article on the Dune book. Edited March 4 by IFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Why is nobody talking about Christopher Nolan's hatred of dialogue. He hates it so much he makes sure his sound is mixed in such a way that you cannot hear dialogue. He is the true prophet of the new dialogue free age. The Grey Wolf Strikes Back and Kalbear 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) I saw one comment on a youtube video suggest that some of the events regarding Chani from the book might be moved to Dune Part 3 / Dune Messiah, and I think that's probably correct. Spoiler ie. find out she's pregnant, have it and raise it to a toddler, lose the baby during a sneak attack by another House, which pushes her towards joining the jihad in rage rather than fanaticism. Edited March 4 by SpaceChampion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts