Jump to content
IGNORED

Dune - Denis Villeneuve to direct!


womblingfree
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, jonamok said:

Nice. I’m already looking fwd to the art book.

 

There's been bits and bobs all over artstation for ages in the meantime.

That's how I heard they'd made the proper announcement in fact. Looks like a corker from those stills. And the casting, fuuuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Momoa as Idaho is all sorts of wrong. As is Issacs as the Duke ( he’s probably my fave actor working today, but he is so wrong for this role )

 

and the bloke playing Paul is simply too old.

 

Far from convinced. Still, if anyone can pull this off it’s Villeneuve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sandman said:

Momoa as Idaho is all sorts of wrong. As is Issacs as the Duke ( he’s probably my fave actor working today, but he is so wrong for this role )

 

and the bloke playing Paul is simply too old.

 

Far from convinced. Still, if anyone can pull this off it’s Villeneuve. 

 

Timothee Chalamet doesn't look 15 but he looks fairly youthful.  I was going to argue that he was the right age for the end of the book but didn't realise it only took place over a couple of years.  According to a wiki timeline anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 15/04/2020 at 12:44, Vulgar Monkey said:

 

There's been bits and bobs all over artstation for ages in the meantime.

That's how I heard they'd made the proper announcement in fact. Looks like a corker from those stills. And the casting, fuuuck.

 

Do you have any links please?

 

I've been on artstation and there is just so much stuff if you search Dune. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*searches*

 

Shit, I see your point.

In retrospect I might have been thinking of some professional grade fanart, as it were, rather than anything official. Happens all the time with big IPs; others in the industry (and online community in general) jizz themselves with excitement once something is announced and go make their own interpretations, some of them very good in their own right. Might have been thinking of that - I know I remember seeing some environmental stuff that sold scale really well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/05/2020 at 16:21, Vulgar Monkey said:

*searches*

 

Shit, I see your point.

In retrospect I might have been thinking of some professional grade fanart, as it were, rather than anything official. Happens all the time with big IPs; others in the industry (and online community in general) jizz themselves with excitement once something is announced and go make their own interpretations, some of them very good in their own right. Might have been thinking of that - I know I remember seeing some environmental stuff that sold scale really well.

 

For me, Dune is held in a weird real world/fantastical look, I think because so much time in the book is spendt on characters interior viewpoints on the world.

 

I really like Matt Griffin's take. he's done a few covers of the recent editions.

 

image001.jpg

 

In fairness, that could be Chalamet.

 

 

Dune_Thumbnail.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In anticipation of this, I read the book for the first time as part of my lockdown education. I loved it. 
 

Then having never seen the ‘84 film I thought I would rent it off iTunes to see if it was any good. 
 

Spoiler

I did not like it. 
 

It starts out ok, and the first half does a reasonable job of setting the scene.

 

Some of the imagery is imaginative, and the explanation of how the Space Guild does interstellar travel is bonkers (is that taken from one of the other books or just an invention of Lynch?).

 

But the second half goes rapidly downhill. After Paul and Jessica meet Stilgar, they’re part of the team within 2 minutes (maybe a consequence of trying to cram the story into 1 film?). The Weirding devices are utterly ridiculous, and the revelation that Paul can just blow things up with his voice at the end is terrible (IMHO of course).

 

Considering this came out the year after Return of the Jedi, the visual effects aren’t up to much, but maybe that’s just because ILM were way ahead of everyone else at the time?

 

But the biggest problem for me is that the film distorted a major message of the story. Paul is supposed to be a normal man (although obviously skilled in observation and manipulation), who is desperately trying to avoid becoming a messiah like figure for the Fremen, yet in the end succumbs to achieve their goals and ends up almost becoming a dictator. He maybe even believes it himself at the end. It’s a parable about the seductiveness of power.  That’s the way I interpreted it anyway, am I way off the mark here?

 

In the film he is effectively a superhero who becomes a god at the end who can make it rain at will. I didn’t think this sat well with how I think the book portrayed him.  Is this explored any further in the later books?


I thought Sicario and Arrival were great, and in my opinion Blade Runner 2049 is a modern masterpiece. I have complete faith that Denis Villeneuve can make something special here, especially as he is splitting it into 2 movies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gigawatt said:

In anticipation of this, I read the book for the first time as part of my lockdown education. I loved it. 
 

Then having never seen the ‘84 film I thought I would rent it off iTunes to see if it was any good. 
 

  Hide contents

I did not like it. 
 

It starts out ok, and the first half does a reasonable job of setting the scene.

 

Some of the imagery is imaginative, and the explanation of how the Space Guild does interstellar travel is bonkers (is that taken from one of the other books or just an invention of Lynch?).

 

But the second half goes rapidly downhill. After Paul and Jessica meet Stilgar, they’re part of the team within 2 minutes (maybe a consequence of trying to cram the story into 1 film?). The Weirding devices are utterly ridiculous, and the revelation that Paul can just blow things up with his voice at the end is terrible (IMHO of course).

 

Considering this came out the year after Return of the Jedi, the visual effects aren’t up to much, but maybe that’s just because ILM were way ahead of everyone else at the time?

 

But the biggest problem for me is that the film distorted a major message of the story. Paul is supposed to be a normal man (although obviously skilled in observation and manipulation), who is desperately trying to avoid becoming a messiah like figure for the Fremen, yet in the end succumbs to achieve their goals and ends up almost becoming a dictator. He maybe even believes it himself at the end. It’s a parable about the seductiveness of power.  That’s the way I interpreted it anyway, am I way off the mark here?

 

In the film he is effectively a superhero who becomes a god at the end who can make it rain at will. I didn’t think this sat well with how I think the book portrayed him.  Is this explored any further in the later books?

 

You're not wrong. The '84 film misses the mark on several points. The sequel books make the film miss the mark even more.  Paul was never a god, just a man playing god. 

 

Herbert was fairly relaxed about it. He didn't see how Hollywood at the time could do it differently and enjoyed going down to Mexico to see the production. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
14 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:


Oh no not like every other modern blockbuster!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:


Just sharing the headline bro

 

Oh that’s not aimed at you, more the fact it always gets jumped on as a potential sign of trouble by websites desperate for a story and people wanting to claim something is in trouble when it’s the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sarlaccfood said:

 

Oh that’s not aimed at you, more the fact it always gets jumped on as a potential sign of trouble by websites desperate for a story and people desperate to claim something is in trouble when it’s the norm.


Totally. I've never made a film that didn't need fairly extensive pick ups. Not that we ever have the budget to do em...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kerraig UK said:


Totally. I've never made a film that didn't need fairly extensive pick ups. Not that we ever have the budget to do em...


Yeah they’re simply part of the schedule and budget for almost everything I’ve worked on (with maybe only one or two exceptions that I can think of)
 

They just get forgotten about if the film is universally praised but if there’s any detractors they always point to them as some kind of “behind the scenes chaos!!!1”

 

Oh well, if there’s any progressive politics in Dune I’m sure by remarkable coincidence we’ll be hearing about the reshoots again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 19/06/2020 at 19:30, kerraig UK said:


The team are planning to head back to Budapest, Hungary, where the movie shot in 2019 at Origo Film Studios. 

 

Now, this isn’t strictly on topic, but the above grammar has bothered me for some time and I’m just drunk enough to want to get into it on a Tuesday evening. Surely the correct grammar is “where the movie was shot in 2019” ? It’s necessary to use passive voice. 
 

I see the above frequently used to describe game or movie release dates - Summer Blockbuster 3: The Reckoning releases in August this year.
 

I don’t understand why this is acceptable grammar, much less why it’s so widespread these days. It sometimes feels like I’m Winston Smith and I’m the only one who’s willing to acknowledge that 2 plus 2 does not equal 5. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been perplexed by the recent popularity for omitting the "on" from American press copy, so "Thing happened on Tuesday" becomes "Thing happened Tuesday".

How is that remotely acceptable for professional writers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Popo said:


The team are planning to head back to Budapest, Hungary, where the movie shot in 2019 at Origo Film Studios. 

 

Now, this isn’t strictly on topic, but the above grammar has bothered me for some time and I’m just drunk enough to want to get into it on a Tuesday evening. Surely the correct grammar is “where the movie was shot in 2019” ? It’s necessary to use passive voice. 
 

I see the above frequently used to describe game or movie release dates - Summer Blockbuster 3: The Reckoning releases in August this year.
 

I don’t understand why this is acceptable grammar, much less why it’s so widespread these days. It sometimes feels like I’m Winston Smith and I’m the only one who’s willing to acknowledge that 2 plus 2 does not equal 5. :wacko:


Isn't it just American dialect? Grammar isn't fixed. It constantly shifts. And we're in a period of extremely fast shifts. PMSL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ryanm said:

I've been perplexed by the recent popularity for omitting the "on" from American press copy, so "Thing happened on Tuesday" becomes "Thing happened Tuesday".

How is that remotely acceptable for professional writers?


'This thing happened Tuesday' is infinitely better reading than 'this thing happened on Tuesday'. Anyone can see that.

It's important to point out at this point that there is not correct or incorrect grammar. There is only expression through words. Anyone who thinks their grammar is correct is by definition incorrect. What you mean by correct is only; most widely accepted. Until it's not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.