Jump to content

Villeneuve's DUNE


A24

Recommended Posts

On 7/15/2021 at 1:10 AM, Corellian2019 said:

Reminds me of this book cover

 

That's the cover on the paperback I'm reading. It could easily be the inspiration behind the new poster, but unlike the poster, it doesn't have the desert dunes/planet duality, and while it also shows people in the desert, it doesn't have the element of a single person walking from shadow into the light.

4 hours ago, badbu said:

can‘t wait to hear the score!!! 

 

It's probably the only part of the new film that I'm not actively looking forward to. I'm sure it will be perfectly serviceable in the film, just like BR2049's score was, but I doubt it will be of much interest beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I see, the more excited I am.

 

The second half of the book is tremendous and the finale of Dune is one of the best endings to any book. Denis can pull it off, I think. I'm supporting this so he can.

 

More Dune!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blondheim said:

The more I see, the more excited I am.

 

The second half of the book is tremendous and the finale of Dune is one of the best endings to any book. Denis can pull it off, I think. I'm supporting this so he can.

 

More Dune!

 

My biggest fear is that the movie will be awesome, will bomb anyway, and they'll never make part II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

My biggest fear is that the movie will be awesome, will bomb anyway, and they'll never make part II.

 

It's helpful that they're simply calling it Dune. Worked out great for Bakshi's LOTR…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

That's the cover on the paperback I'm reading. It could easily be the inspiration behind the new poster, but unlike the poster, it doesn't have the desert dunes/planet duality, and while it also shows people in the desert, it doesn't have the element of a single person walking from shadow into the light.

 

It's probably the only part of the new film that I'm not actively looking forward to. I'm sure it will be perfectly serviceable in the film, just like BR2049's score was, but I doubt it will be of much interest beyond that.


i hope it will be a mix of BR2049 and interstellar 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

It's helpful that they're simply calling it Dune. Worked out great for Bakshi's LOTR…

 

People forget that film made money: budget is estimated at between $8 and $12 million, and it made $30.5 in North America alone.

 

They had started work on a sequel: it only fell apart somewhere in early 1980, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

People forget that film made money: budget is estimated at between $8 and $11 million, and it made $30.5.

 

Really? That's more than what Blade Runner did. 

 

"A sci-fi with Harrison Ford and from the same director of Alien? Nah! Let's watch this cartoon instead!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, AC1 said:

"A sci-fi with Harrison Ford and from the same director of Alien? Nah! Let's watch this cartoon instead!"

 

They were released four years apart, though...

 

Anyway, The Lord of the Rings was (and is) a BIG name. Even Jackson confirms that while hadn't read the book, he had "heard the name" before he watched the film.

 

Nevertheless, its not a huge amount of money (especially for a film that was marketed quite fervently) and it was reportedly a very front-heavy commercial performance, which never inspires confidence. At the time, sequels were expected to have a huge fall-off so the studio wanted the sequel to be budgeted at half the amount of the first film (which ran overbudget anyway). Between that and Zaentz' inability to sue the Rankin/Bass Return of the King out of airing, Bakshi (who was already strained from the difficulties of production and supposedly-scathing fanmail) decided to quit and that was that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

They were released four years apart, though...

 

 

 

I knew you would say that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Even if you didn’t enjoy Baskhi’s film, you can still enjoy all the things Jackson stole from it.

 

And I do enjoy the Bakshi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know for certain that's from the score? 

 

Regardless, I'm hoping for INTERSTELLAR with a little bit of GLADIATOR thrown in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Even if you didn’t enjoy Baskhi’s film, you can still enjoy all the things Jackson stole from it.


A whole of a shot and a half…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/7/2021 at 3:12 AM, Chen G. said:


A whole of a shot and a half…

 

The "Proudfeet!" shot. The framing of the Hobbit's hiding under the tree from the Black Rider. The gag of the Wraith's chopping up the pillows in Bree. These are three of the most striking, and memorable bits from Bakshi's film and I wasn't surprised Jackson used them.

 

Some of the shots at Weathertop look a lot like Bakshi as well, and the reveal of Gandalf the White plays out similarly also.

 

Most of the influences are visual, not narrative (though the Bree bit is both). Which stands to reason given that film is a visual medium and Jackson is a very visual director. Jackson was introduced to Lord of the Rings via Bakshi's film, so it makes sense that some of those visuals stuck with him. In some cases, I think he was copying Bakshi intentionally, in other cases I think he just had those visuals stuck in his head. I think someone who never saw Bakshi's film, or read the book first, would have staged many of those scenes differently.

 

On the other hand, I think some things, like the Prologue, which are often regarded as influenced by Bakshi really aren't. New Line wanted the Prologue, and in any event I think a Prologue would be a part of any adaptation of this story (there's one in the BBC radio adaptation, which Jackson was also heavily influenced by).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one shot that Jackson specifically modelled on Bakshi as an homage: the shot of Proudfoot yelling "Proudfeet!" ("which I thought was a brilliant angle"). Then there's the Ringwraith perched over the Hobbits, hiding underneath a branch. Its unclear if this is intentional: Jackson loved John Howe's and Alan Lee's paintings (and Ted Nasmith's) and would often compose shots to directly imitate their paintings. There's a John Howe painting that - as it turns out - is based on the Bakshi scene: Jackson based the shot on the painting, so I'd say it only counts as half of a lift from the Bakshi film.

 

I think the other similarities are largely incidental. Jackson had seen the Bakshi film only twice, and while he does like it, he doesn't have a particularly high opinion of it. The one playing up the idea of that the Bakshi film greatly influenced Jackson is, unsurprisingly, Bakshi himself, in spite of the fact that he could never bring himself to watch the live-action film.

 

You can also make the argument - Bakshi certainly did - that it was an influence in terms of what NOT to do, but that's a much more elusive criteria. The only thing I can tell Jackson treated as a cautionary tale from Bakshi's treatment was Treebeard: "He looked like a walking carrot", he said.

 

The model for The Lord of the Rings was "Braveheart meets Legend." Those were its primary inspirations, not that cartoon.

 

31 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

New Line wanted the Prologue

 

New Line wanted to reinstate the prologue that was already there. But its very different than Bakshi's prologue, and its an approach that several filmmakers had contemplated when trying to tackle this story - its a very natural course to take. If anything, its inspired by the (fantastic) 1981 radio adaptation, which itself took the idea from Bakshi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

There's only one shot that Jackson specifically modelled on Bakshi as an homage: the shot of Proudfoot yelling "Proudfeet!" ("which I thought was a brilliant angle"). Then there's the Ringwraith perched over the Hobbits, hiding underneath a branch. Its unclear if this is intentional: Jackson loved John Howe's and Alan Lee's paintings (and Ted Nasmith's) and would often compose shots to directly imitate their paintings. There's a John Howe painting that - as it turns out - is based on the Bakshi scene: Jackson based the shot on the painting, so I'd say it only counts as half of a lift from the Bakshi film.

 

I think the other similarities are largely incidental. Jackson had seen the Bakshi film only twice, and while he does like it, he doesn't have a particularly high opinion of it.

 

 

Well, I assume you're basing this on Jackson's public comments. I'm not surprised he wouldn't admit to stealing more.  And he almost had to admit to the Proudfeet! shot, so obvious as it is. The shot of the Hobbit's hiding under the tree is almost as blatant.

 

And bonus points if you can find the scene of the Wraith's chopping up the Hobbit's pillows in the book...it's hardly "incidental".  And while I agree that some other similar shots are incidental, and may even be unintentional, that doesn't mean Jackson wasn't influenced by them.

 

And look, I'm not criticizing Jackson's choices. Bad artists copy, good artists steal. I'm glad he lifted the bits he did. And there's no comparison between Jackson's movies, which are almost perfect, and Bakshi's, which is deeply flawed. But let's give credit where it's due.

 

https://i.redd.it/kn1xdc8cux661.png

 

 

Bakshi-and-Jackson-are-painting-the-same-picture-using-different-techniques-600x587_1542570173_crop_550x538.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And bonus points if you can find the scene of the Wraith's chopping up the Hobbit's pillows in the book...it's hardly "incidental". 

 

Its handled so differently, though: one like a Western; the other like a Gothic horror movie. One focuses on the Wraiths, the other intercuts the Hobbits. The language of the camerawork is so different, too; the visuals. If anything, it reminds me instead of the misdirect of when Clarice meets Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs, a film Jackson (like everyone) much admired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its handled so differently, though: one like a Western; the other like a Gothic horror movie. One focuses on the Wraiths, the other intercuts the Hobbits. If anything, it reminds me instead of the misdirect of when Clarice meets Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs, a film Jackson (like everyone) much admired.

 

Mate, whether it's handled differently isn't the point. We're not talking about a different interpretation of a scene from the book. The scene isn't in the book. What you're saying is Jackson handled a scene Bakshi created differently than Bakshi did. I mean, you're de facto admitting Jackson lifted the scene from Bakshi's film.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, we can't read minds and we don't know the Bakshi scene was in his head. That scene is the sort of thing any number of filmmakers could have come-up with on their own. I think its one of those cases where the differences are more meaningful than the similarities.

 

I think its pretty reductive to say: "Two filmmakers, the one aware of the other's work, had come up with similar sequences, hence one must have based his on the other's."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Ultimately, we can't read minds and we don't know the Bakshi scene was in his head. That scene is the sort of thing any number of filmmakers could have come-up with on their own.

 

You know better than this. I'm a little surprised you'd even make this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call it the way I see it.

 

But your point is well taken that it doesn't negativelly affect the film in any way; nor does it negate my point that Bakshi's film is an entirely unsubstantial infleunce on Jackson's: so with this Ringwraith misdirect there are two-and-a-half influences, all early on in The Fellowship of the Ring. Bakshi's film is certainly not one that colours the entire visual style or the treatment of the characters and/or setpieces in Jackson's.

 

I really think Jackson's "Braveheart meets Legend" concept is a much better description of what his movie offers, and ultimately both those films (the former much more than the latter) are several orders of magnitude more significant as influences on him than Bakshi's film (which I do like).

 

Like I said, it suits Ralph Bakshi's interests to play the similarities up. Bakshi even said Jackson based his Lothlorien on Bakshi's own, which to anyone who'd seen both their films (which Bakshi hadn't) is a ludicrous statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I call it the way I see it.

 

Yeah but the point is not whether other filmmakers would have come up with this scene on their own. If Jackson never saw Bakshi's film, maybe you could make that argument. But he did, and by his own admission copied other parts of it. What you want us to believe is Jackson saw Bakshi's film, including the scene not in the book, a scene that Bakshi, not Tolkien, created, then came up with the same scene all on his own. That just stretches credibility, and I don't even think you believe that. I mean, if Jackson hadn't admitted to copying the Proudfeet! shot, would you be here arguing that he didn't?  Because if anything the Bree bit is even more obviously stolen.

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Like I said, it suits Ralph Bakshi's interests to play the similarities up.

 

Well this is undoubtedly true. But the fact that Bakshi plays the similarities up doesn't mean they're not there.  And frankly, his saying Jackson stole Lothlorien is as much as a stretch as you saying Jackson didn't steal the Bree bed scene. In any event, I'm not basing my argument on anything Bakshi said. I immediately spotted the 'homages' the first time I saw Fellowship.

 

But you'll be pleased to know that my other reaction seeing FOTR the first time is how well I think Jackson nailed the images that I had in my mind when I first read the book (which was before I saw either adaptation).  I remember being struck by that, and thinking Jackson actually took very little from Bakshi's film...which is why the bits he did lift stick out so much.  So I very much believe Jackson's films are a book adaptation and not any kind of remake of Bakshi's film. But let's not deny the obvious similarities. It's OK that Jackson stole some of those bits, the best filmmaker's do.

 

And obviously Braveheart's influence on Jackson's films is readily apparent, particularly in the battle scenes.  I don't even think Jackson's films exist without Braveheart frankly.

 

But enough of Bakshi & Braveheart, this isn't the thread or that. Back to Arrakis, where you can argue that Villenueve stole the sandworms from Battle of the Five Armies. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

  I don't even think Jackson's films exists without Braveheart frankly.

 

Yeah. Its shocking to me not more people see that influence. Its not even swept under the rug, either: its something Jackson had pointed to time and again - he was clearly struck by the movie.

 

I can't remember which film I saw first, but I saw them both in close proximity and the influence was just so readily appearant. And its a great example of how (to give credit to your argument) an artist can model his work very closely indeed on another, great work and still produce something original and great in its own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But enough of Bakshi & Braveheart, this isn't the thread or that. Back to Arrakis, where you can argue that Villenueve stole the sandworms from Battle of the Five Armies. ;)

 

Haha.

 

It is, however, relevant in that Villenueve is in a similar situation of doing a big adaptation of the book that had been adapted previously to cinema, although not very succesfully. Indeed, less succesfully than Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I am quite happy that the Lord of the Ring trilogy was made by Peter Jackson and not by Denis Villeneuve.

 

It is even surprising to me how little I am looking forward to this Dune movie.

 

Villeneuve movies always leave me unsatisfied somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that.

 

Nevertheless, I think its only fair to wish Villenueve's film commercial success: the great fear for this film is that it should crash and burn such that part two won't be made.

 

I think it will do good for movies, in this franchise-driven world, to have a new kid around the block (in the form of Dune) stirring up competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

New Line wanted to reinstate the prologue that was already there. But its very different than Bakshi's prologue, and its an approach that several filmmakers had contemplated when trying to tackle this story - its a very natural course to take. If anything, its inspired by the (fantastic) 1981 radio adaptation, which itself took the idea from Bakshi.

 

I didn't realize the BBC adaptation post-dated Bakshi.

 

All of the prologues are terrible. If you need a prologue then recap The Hobbit and emphasize how helpful and benevolent the ring is and introduce Gollum. Everything else should be discovered by the audience at the same time as the characters.

 

Wait, is this the Dune thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Everything else should be discovered by the audience at the same time as the characters.

 

There's a huge value in the audiences knowing things that the characters do not: it generates suspense. That's what's at the heart of Sir Alfred Hitchcock's bomb example: if the characters AND the audience don't see the bomb until it goes off, the audience is surprised when it does, and that surprise soon goes away. If the characters don't see the bomb but the audience does, they'll spend the whole scenes on pins and needles.

 

A few examples of this device:

 

In Titanic, we know the ship is going to sink. Not just because we hopefully don't live under a rock, but also because the framing device beats it into us. Then you flashback to Rose and Jack et al boarding the boat, and you have the suspense of knowing that the boat will sink under them fueling the movie.

 

In The Fellowship of the Ring, we know the Ring is evil, but the characters initially don't, and so all the quiet, seemingly uneventful and stakeless scenes in Hobbiton can last for quite a while, because there's suspense underneath it all.

 

In The Departed, we know who's undercover cop in the mob, and whose the mole in the police, and so whenever they're anywhere near each other, we get nervous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Anyway, I am quite happy that the Lord of the Ring trilogy was made by Peter Jackson and not by Denis Villeneuve.

 

It is even surprising to me how little I am looking forward to this Dune movie.

 

Villeneuve movies always leave me unsatisfied somehow.

 

Same here. I really liked Prisoners (except for the ending), but have not been impressed with Arrival or his Blade Runner sequel. Of course, I will definitely watch it (at home) but I expect a 'not bad but not good either' movie. I really hope I'm wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, same category. Not bad but not good either. I really dug the moral questions in Prisoners (it almost feels like a Thomes Vintenberg movie), that's why it's my favorite Villeneuve. His other ones don't do anything for me. They are okay to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow my Impression is, that mostly Villeneuve takes a bit too much time for the story exposition in his films. So, when you think, now starts the main act, the film is already ending. Just my impression. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

There's a huge value in the audiences knowing things that the characters do not: it generates suspense. That's what's at the heart of Sir Alfred Hitchcock's bomb example: if the characters AND the audience don't see the bomb until it goes off, the audience is surprised when it does, and that surprise soon goes away. If the characters don't see the bomb but the audience does, they'll spend the whole scenes on pins and needles.

 

A few examples of this device:

 

In Titanic, we know the ship is going to sink. Not just because we hopefully don't live under a rock, but also because the framing device beats it into us. Then you flashback to Rose and Jack et al boarding the boat, and you have the suspense of knowing that the boat will sink under them fueling the movie.

 

In The Fellowship of the Ring, we know the Ring is evil, but the characters initially don't, and so all the quiet, seemingly uneventful and stakeless scenes in Hobbiton can last for quite a while, because there's suspense underneath it all.

 

In The Departed, we know who's undercover cop in the mob, and whose the mole in the police, and so whenever they're anywhere near each other, we get nervous.

 

In The Sixth Sense, we know Bruce Willis is dead....

 

Er, never mind.

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.