DUNE (Spoilers and News)

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Damn. Delayed to 15 March 2024.

Boo

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[IlyaP]

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is a reason for the delay offered?

WGA/SAG-AFTRA strikes.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[polishgenius]

3 hours ago, IlyaP said:

WGA/SAG-AFTRA strikes.

 

That's a pretty vague reason tbh, for a film that wrapped in December. The assumption is that it's because they need the actors to do press, but if that was it they'd be delaying everything, not just a couple of films. 

 

My guess is it's less to do with the readiness of Dune itself and more to do with the films that should have been following it in the schedule, which are being held up by the strike - basically WB extending their slate of finished films as far into next year as they can. 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

They need Zendaya and her hundreds of millions of insta followers to promote her latest music video scenes in Dune Part 2

[IlyaP]

53 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That's a pretty vague reason tbh, for a film that wrapped in December. The assumption is that it's because they need the actors to do press, but if that was it they'd be delaying everything, not just a couple of films. 

Going off what Garth published this morning on Dark Horizons, which sources a Deadline report in the article: https://www.darkhorizons.com/warners-delays-dune-part-two-to-2024/

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[JGP]

9 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

[raises his lighter]

[IlyaP]

34 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

Today I learned there was a band called Cinderella. Man. Glam rock. The 80s look like they were wild. 

Edited August 25 by IlyaP

[Calibandar]

Its a total dick move by the studio of course. Over the past few weeks as this was speculated about, many good reasons have been given for why delaying the movie is a terrible idea. It seemed that with the release of a new trailer and no word on this, we were safe from their shenanigans. But nope, here we are, 2 months before the release they still pull it. This week there was even an interview with the director of IMAX who said that this movie was very unlikely to be pulled because "it was out of the gate already"

As usual they dont give a shit about the fans, or the audience in general. Their reasons are twofold, first they claim it has to do with the actors strike, so that there is no actor promotion, which as has been pointed out by PG, is very dodgy. Secondly I think they do this to raise the public's sentiment against the actor's striking, making it out to be their fault that this very highly anticipated film is not coming out. It does look like these Hollywood studio's are every bit as nasty as the guild has claimed.

Very disappointing.

Edited August 25 by Calibandar

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Umm or maybe they want to ensure the movie’s success to the maximum,which does rely to a certain extent on marketing the film with the celebs who star in it and have a large fan following/reach,  in the form of :

talk shows/interviews/YouTube/wired videos /social media etc and a global premiere ? 

I think the studios care more about return on profit than spiting SAG-AFTRA tbh. Just an opinion. Especially when the films budget is already large and they need to maximise box office returns. 

Edited August 25 by Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II

[Calibandar]

Sure, you can argue that the sales success will be even greater with the actors doing interviews. 

It just seemed unlikely that they would still pull this movie so close to its release date and having promised it to their audience as a November release for so long. And obviously this is a film that would sell in massive numbers even without that promotion. This is a move that hurts everybody except Warner Bros, especially the theaters who need a big tentpole release towards the end of the year and the audience that's been waiting 2 years already.

As for the strike, from what I have been reading on it and listening to some podcasts, the demands are fair and the studio's didnt want to give them anything worthwhile. They are ruthless. And these kind of shit moves show that they really care about nothing except the dollar income.

[Heartofice]

This is entirely predictable and I never expected to actually get this movie this year. If it was released this year with no fanfare and no support from the actors and then bombed, meaning no further Dune projects were ever made then that would suck, so I'd rather it come out later and do well than release on time and die a death.

[Calibandar]

Dune Sisterhood is filming btw, so we're due that next year as well it looks like.

[Rhom]

3 hours ago, Calibandar said:

And obviously this is a film that would sell in massive numbers even without that promotion.

First movie did $402 million.  Only $108 domestically.

I don't think that counts as a guaranteed "massive" return.  They need to maximize this to the fullest.  I'm okay with a delay to get full promotion.

Edited August 25 by Rhom

[Rhom]

It was the 13th highest grossing film of 2021.

It was surpassed by such icons of cinema as Eternals... Ghostbusters: Afterlife... and Jungle Cruise.

You and I may have a different definition of "massive." 

[Heartofice]

21 minutes ago, Rhom said:

First movie did $402 million.  Only $108 domestically.

I don't think that counts as a guaranteed "massive" return.  They need to maximize this to the fullest.  I'm okay with a delay to get full promotion.

Yeah I wanted to call that out, it did 'ok' and pretty much made it's budget back but was hardly a Barbie style hit. That is pretty much about as much as you could hope for when it comes to a movie like this. I suspect a sequel will do less well, I don't sense a huge clamour to watch anything else in the series. I'd guess the audience of the first movie was a mix of people who loved it and can't wait, and a those who sort of liked it but were probably a bit deflated by it not having a proper ending and didn't feel too enthused to find out what happens next.

I'm more in the second camp.

[Rhom]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah I wanted to call that out, it did 'ok' and pretty much made it's budget back but was hardly a Barbie style hit. That is pretty much about as much as you could hope for when it comes to a movie like this. I suspect a sequel will do less well, I don't sense a huge clamour to watch anything else in the series. I'd guess the audience of the first movie was a mix of people who loved it and can't wait, and a those who sort of liked it but were probably a bit deflated by it not having a proper ending and didn't feel too enthused to find out what happens next.

I'm more in the second camp.

I went with a buddy to go see it.  I didn't realize he hadn't read the book until after we left the theater.  He liked it more than I would have expected based on the lack of knowledge.  I loved the visuals of the movie, but it felt incomplete.  I've said it before in this thread, but when it ended I was stunned how they decided to conclude the movie without a guarantee of a sequel at the time.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Rhom said:

I've said it before in this thread, but when it ended I was stunned how they decided to conclude the movie without a guarantee of a sequel at the time.

That is a pretty ballsy move by them, but it worked out and they got their sequel.

I do think if there was a graph of my enjoyment of the movie over time it's almost a slowly downward sliding line. I really enjoyed the first hour and I was mostly bored by the last third. I think that is mainly a product of how they decided to cut the movie. Ending on a bit of a flat note doesn't really work, it meant part one didn't feel complete or have a conclusion.

I think back to fellowship of the ring, even though you end the movie with the Hobbits looking out to Mordor, you have already experienced a complete movie with a beginning middle and end. Obviously easier as it's a complete book rather than half of one, but that is what comes to mind.