Jump to content

Villeneuve's DUNE


A24

Recommended Posts

On 25-10-2017 at 10:52 PM, Romão said:

They are 400 meters long. How do you make that vague?

 

That's so easy. By not showing them in full glory in broad daylight and then ride them with Queen music. For instance, you can make things vague by not fully expose them, using sand, distance and dim light. Showing only unclear glimpses of the sandworm would stir the imagination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In this interview, Villeneuve reveals he's also writing Dune with Eric Roth:

 

https://theplaylist.net/denis-villeneuve-james-bond-but-dune-20171109/

 

Plus, Brian Herbert chimes in:

 

https://twitter.com/DuneAuthor/status/928527656001314816

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From the Facebook interview with Villeneuve:

 

“David Lynch did an adaptation in the ’80s that has some very strong qualities. I mean, David Lynch is one of the best filmmakers alive, I have massive respect for him,” Villeneuve said. “But when I saw his adaptation, I was impressed, but it was not what I had dreamed of, so I’m trying to make the adaptation of my dreams. It will not have any link with the David Lynch movie. I’m going back to the book, and going to the images that came out when I read it.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Most of the main ideas for Star Wars are coming from saturday matinees Flash Gordon The Searchers Metropolis Akira Kurosawa Joseph Campbell Dune Star Trek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Oh dear, sorry.

 

I searched for "Dune" and "Villeneuve" and couldn't find anything.

 

:unsure:

 

Jay, please close this thread.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see people comparing some aspects of the Jedi to the Bene Gesserit, okay, maybe just the name and they're a weird secret order, except in the original Star Wars, they're all but extinct, and in Dune, they try to run the show, much to their own detriment. 

 

And the original Star Wars is largely set on a desert world like Dune, but Tatoooine's desert environment really does not affect the plot of the original Star Wars in any way. It's just a setting, an exotic, otherworldly environment that does not look like England or most of the USA. Oppressive heat, sandstorms, exposure, lack of water, nothing. Tatooine is just a rural planet with violent natives (Jawas and Sandpeople), frontier settlers (Luke's family farm), and a frontier city with plenty of colorful visitors and commerce. Tatooine is just the Wild West in space. 

 

Arrakis, on the other hand, and all its mysteries are a powerful crucible for young Paul Atreides, who masters it perfectly to become the Emperor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Except for the cool opening scene (with Drax) and an occasional 'God, why?', the sequel didn't do all that much for me. I'm afraid that, if I watch it again, I will hate it.

 

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Drax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Did Deakins earn the Oscar?

 

From what I've seen (and I'll admit that I have not seen the film in its entirety) I'd say that he "earned" it, as much as Andrew Lesnie, or Claudio Miranda, or Mauro Fiore "earned" theirs. That is to say, I couldn't tell what is in-camera, and what is processed.

It certainty looks lovely, but I long for a return to a simpler time when the look of a film was achieved by an organic process, and not by sending it through a computer.

Take Deakins' second film as an example; a fantastic look was achieved by nothing more complicated  than bleach bypass (with help from over saturated sets!).

I understand that digital grading can do do this sort of stuff in your lunch-hour, but I do wonder if all the effort is being taken out of the technical side of filmmaking? By running something through a computer, how much are filmmakers de-skilling themselves, or is it just another step along the evolutionary  road of movie-making? 

How can audiences "trust" what they see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

48 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Maybe they should no longer nominate Fantasy & Sci-fi movies for best cinematography, Richard?

 

greenroom_1.jpg

 

I do think they're should be a measurable threshold for green screen use, like a ratio of sets/costumes/models:CG backgrounds and lighting/motion capture. eg. if you cross that line, you're no longer eligible for best cinematography and you're now a nominee for best visual fx. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to ask the question: "what is modern cinematography about?"

Is it about getting the desired shot in-camera, or is it about manipulating the caputured image into something that it was not, originally? Is there a point where the image seen on a cinema screen no longer represents what was shot? When that happens, then, IMO, the image ceases to be "photographed", and becomes "created".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Richard said:

When that happens, then, IMO, the image ceases to be "photographed", and becomes "created".

 

I'm not sure if I completely agree (cinematography is more than capturing backgrounds) but maybe we have come to the point that we need to replace the word 'cinematography' with 'visuals', at least for the movies that strongly rely on animated surroundings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Richard said:

I'm trying to ask the question: "what is modern cinematography about?"

Is it about getting the desired shot in-camera, or is it about manipulating the caputured image into something that it was not, originally? Is there a point where the image seen on a cinema screen no longer represents what was shot? When that happens, then, IMO, the image ceases to be "photographed", and becomes "created".

It's not about what's shot, it's about what is finally seen on the big screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

It's not about what's shot, it's about what is finally seen on the big screen.

If that's all it's about, then why shoot anything, at all? Why not just have every background made in a computer, and add actors in, afterwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Richard said:

If that's all it's about, then why shoot anything, at all? Why not just have every background made in a computer, and add actors in, afterwards?

Because this shit wouldn't get an Oscar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/05/2018 at 2:27 PM, Richard said:

From what I've seen (and I'll admit that I have not seen the film in its entirety) I'd say that he "earned" it, as much as Andrew Lesnie, or Claudio Miranda, or Mauro Fiore "earned" theirs. That is to say, I couldn't tell what is in-camera, and what is processed.

It certainty looks lovely, but I long for a return to a simpler time when the look of a film was achieved by an organic process, and not by sending it through a computer.

Take Deakins' second film as an example; a fantastic look was achieved by nothing more complicated  than bleach bypass (with help from over saturated sets!).

I understand that digital grading can do do this sort of stuff in your lunch-hour, but I do wonder if all the effort is being taken out of the technical side of filmmaking? By running something through a computer, how much are filmmakers de-skilling themselves, or is it just another step along the evolutionary  road of movie-making? 

How can audiences "trust" what they see?

 

I'd say the majority of what makes BR2049 look so amazing is the cinematography. Deakins deserved several Oscars before, but his BR2049 win is more than just a pity vote, it's certainly at least among his most deserving works.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
On 7/18/2018 at 12:21 PM, Stefancos said:

But will the Fremen be portrayed as being of Sunni descent?

 

Do they need to be? The Zensunni belief, which led to the Fremen on Arrakis, was an amalgam of two ancient religions: Sunni Islam and Zen Buddhism. They could have a wide range of skin tones, and after 10,000 years, could have picked up converts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I am going to get massacred for this opinion but: Junkie XL!

 

As you all know, I hated the guy IMMENSELY but have totally mystically been bowled over by Mortal Engines, which is still the best orchestral adventure score of the last 10 year, easily. Seems like Peter Jackson has huge power over his composers - they compose Peter Jackson music based on their own ways: Shore sounds a bit like Shore but nothing like the Cronenberg version, Junk sounds something like him but amplified into a great epic composer. As a result I now place Junk alongside Horner, up there with Krull and Willow, loving Mortal Engines. And my favourite scores are as always, Cutthroat Island and Under Fire.

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.