Villeneuve's DUNE

[Positivatee 327]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Oh, dear. Like it, or loathe it, at least with Lynch's DUNE, we got the whole story.

 

David Lynch has Paul Atreides make it rain on Arrakis to prove he's a god, effectively killing all the sandworms and ending the spice industry anyways. And he makes the Weirding Way be guns because... guns make better sci-fi action than Jedi speed powers? 

 

Oh yes, we get the whole story with David Lynch. A stinking putrid mess of a story 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

I'm aware of all that. At least there was no need for a "part 2", with Lynch's DUNE. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

12 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Although we have a main cast, it's interesting to note that we don't yet know who'll play Emperor Shaddam IV, Count Fenring, Feud Rautha, Jamis, or Irulan.

 

Most of those people won't show up until the second film.

 

12 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'm aware of all that. At least there was no need for a "part 2", with Lynch's DUNE. 

 

I actually quite like Lynch's film. It's a deeply flawed mess, but a beautiful mess.

[Tallguy 3,389]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Dune's challenges aren't really the technology, but with the difficulty in bringing to the screen a frankly very cerebral story, that features a lot of internal dialogue, morally ambiguous characters, and a somewhat unsympathetic protagonist.

 

I think that's very true of the later books but Dune is pretty straightforward adventure.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

1 minute ago, Tallguy said:

 

I think that's very true of the later books but Dune is pretty straightforward adventure.

 

It's certainly a multi-layered book. Some people can read Dune and come away thinking it a simple adventure story, others can read it and unlock the secrets of the universe.

[Chen G. 3,949]

22 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

LOTR could have been a box office disaster had they screwed it up. On the other hand, even if Dune is done brilliantly, as good an adaptation as is possible, in my opinion the box office ceiling is still much lower than LOTR.

 

And look at it in yet another way: Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings made money ($30.5 million against ~$11 million budget ain't too shabby), whereas Lynch's Dune...

 

I really think these comparisons are not and will not do Dune any favours. Everything about it - the nature of the material, its director's ouvre, the circumstances of its production and the circumstances and timing of its premiere - all conspire to make it a very different thing to something like The Lord of the Rings. To then expect it to be The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars is to set oneself up for a disappointment.

[Romão 2,274]

5 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'm inclined to agree with Nick.

Although we have a main cast, it's interesting to note that we don't yet know who'll play Emperor Shaddam IV, Count Fenring, Feud Rautha, Jamis, or Irulan.

 

Jamis is in this one and has been cast. You're right about the others. Only Feyd appears in the first half of the book anyway, and it's quite easy to see how he narratively could be only introduced in the second part

6 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Oh, dear. Like it, or loathe it, at least with Lynch's DUNE, we got the whole story.

 

I love several aspects of Lynch's Dune and it was the whole feel of the movie that made me want to read the book, but Lynch only really partially the first part of the book. The other two were terribly rushed

[Tallguy 3,389]

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

It's certainly a multi-layered book. Some people can read Dune and come away thinking it a simple adventure story, others can read it and unlock the secrets of the universe.

 

And you're welcome. 😉

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

3 hours ago, Romão said:

Jamis is in this one and has been cast.

Wasn't aware. Ta, awfully!

[Jay 37,364]

The runtime for Denis Villeneuve’s Dune has been revealed: 2 hours and 35 minutes long

[toothless 963]

I’ve known that runtime for at least 3 weeks, how is this news? 😂

[Chen G. 3,949]

Yeah, my memory is that its been reported before.

[Thor 7,504]

The Norwegian press screening has been announced. September 13th. And it's in IMAX, so I guess it receives IMAX distribution too; many of us have discussed that.

[Chen G. 3,949]

New images:

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

Soon, we leave for the cinemas. Cinemas are real. The films are real.

[Tallguy 3,389]

So much water loss in those pictures.

[Arpy 4,145]

Is it just me, or does this film look a little too grey, fresh, clean and synthetic? 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I wouldn't try to deduce too much about the film's look from production still photographs. That being said, some of those faux-beduin in the back of some of the shots do look quite grubby.

 

My own issue is that the promotion is quite simply not doing enough to tell the average bloke that this isn't some Star Wars clone. I mean, I look at the bottom shot and I can kinda see Hux standing in front of the troops in The Force Awakens.

 

I'm sure the actual movie will very much have its own sensibility but its the job of the marketing to communicate this to the audience. The trailers arguably did it reasonably well. Everything else - not so much.

[A24 4,333]

5 hours ago, Arpy said:

Is it just me, or does this film look a little too grey, fresh, clean and synthetic? 

 

You've never seen a Villeneuve movie?

 

 

Arrival (2016)

[toothless 963]

11 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

You've never seen a Villeneuve movie?

 

 

Arrival (2016)

Thing is.. that picture has more color than all of the footage shown in all Dune trailers 😂

[Edmilson 7,456]

17 hours ago, Arpy said:

Is it just me, or does this film look a little too grey, fresh, clean and synthetic? 

I agree. From what I've seen in the trailers so far, this movie doesn't look as visually stunning as Villeneuve's previous films. 

 

Still, I'm gonna (try to) watch it in IMAX though.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

18 hours ago, Arpy said:

Is it just me, or does this film look a little too grey, fresh, clean and synthetic? 

 

12 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I wouldn't try to deduce too much about the film's look from production still photographs. That being said, some of those faux-beduin in the back of some of the shots do look quite grubby.

 

To me the movie looks like it was shot digitally, primarily because the movie was shot digitally. And for some movies it works, but the trailers at least to me look overly slick and processed, almost distractingly so.

 

That said, I'm excited for this movie in a way I'm not excited for Foundation or Eternals or Shang-Chi. The set designs, VFX, casting, costumes, tone, etc (at least of what I see so far) are all spot on, and I think Villenueve's the right person to direct Dune. And I want a non-franchise, high concept science fiction film to succeed. So I'm optimistic.

 

But dammit, I want my film grain!

1 hour ago, toothless said:

Thing is.. that picture has more color than all of the footage shown in all Dune trailers 😂

 

We've only gotten glimpses of Caladan in the trailers, and given the amount of time they're taking telling this story, I'm assuming a good chunk of the first part of the film will take place on that watery world, (presumably much more so than in Lynch's film) which will hopefully be more colourful.

 

21 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

 

 

The woman in this picture (Lady Jessica I presume) looks like the Force-ghost of Queen Amidala.

[A24 4,333]

1 hour ago, toothless said:

Thing is.. that picture has more color than all of the footage shown in all Dune trailers 😂

 

That's because I took the most colorful one.

 

Here's a pic more true to Arrival and Villeneuve:

 

 

Compare it to Dune:

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

57 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

To me the movie looks like it was shot digitally, primarily because the movie was shot digitally. And for some movies it works

 

What movies?

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

SKYFALL was shot digitally. It works.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

55 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

What movies?

 

 

Yeah. What @Naïve Old Fart said, Skyfall. That's my answer! Skyfall works.

 

And to be clear, for me a film that was shot digitally "working" means it doesn't look and feel like it was shot digitally.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I don't see why you should shoot a movie on a format only to make it look like it wasn't shot on that format.

 

If you're shooting digitally, embrace that aesthetic, don't try to make it look like something it isn't. I don't recall Skyfall trying too hard to make itself look like film: it looked digital, and it looked great.

[A24 4,333]

I usually don't even realize a movie is digital until it I notice that I can actually count the branches and leaves from the trees far away in the backgroud. It's usually the 'clarity' that informs me that I'm not watching film. And to be honest, I don't know why I should be angry about that. 

 

If you hate digital, then you might as well only listen to vinyl from now on. 

[toothless 963]

15 hours ago, AC1 said:

That's because I took the most colorful one.

 

I know, it was just me being a troll for a split second. But to me that greyish look was fitting for Arrival (which also had beautiful cinematography). Somehow, and I might be wrong, I feel like something as Huge as Dune should be more visually appealing. But that's just me  I guess i'm tired of this look. It's not original anymore, and that might be the issue for me  

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

11 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I don't see why you should shoot a movie on a format only to make it look like it wasn't shot on that format.

 

If you're shooting digitally, embrace that aesthetic, don't try to make it look like something it isn't. I don't recall Skyfall trying too hard to make itself look like film: it looked digital, and it looked great.

 

Yeah but I don't think this is where the "film vs. digital debate" has been centred. It's mostly been focused the many advantages the digital brings to production and post, and the capability of digital to still deliver a "cinematic" look, which is generally associated with film.  Steve Yeldin (Rian Johnson's cinematographer) has been the leading proponent of the argument that the film vs. digital debate is moot because done right digital can look like film (and I'm not interested in a debate as to why we expect film to look a certain way, i.e. frame rates, grain, etc.) I don't think there are many people arguing "let's shoot on digital so our movie looks like it was shot on digital". 

 

And to be clear, I'm not against digital even a little bit, I don't care how the sausage is made. Digital is wonderful because it gives filmmakers options they don't have with film. And if they want to shoot digitally and make it look like it was shot on film, great. And if they want a different look, that's fine also. Digital gives them options. But as a personal preference, I generally prefer my films to look like film, even if they're shot digitally. And if they don't look quite like film, it helps when Roger Deakins is the cinematographer. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

47 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I don't think there are many people arguing "let's shoot on digital so our movie looks like it was shot on digital". 

 

As in, people that shoot movies, or fans talking about it like us? Because I think plenty of movies look digital. Sure, many of them don't look very good, but that's not because they look digital, but because they're just not very accomplished films cinematographically.

[A24 4,333]

“It’s where you put the camera and what’s in front of you that’s important. There’s too much obsession these days about digital film … it’s becoming so technically-orientated, and that’s just distracting from what’s actually being put in front of the lens." Roger Deakins

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

 

48 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

As in, people that shoot movies, or fans talking about it like us? Because I think plenty of movies look digital. Sure, many of them don't look very good, but that's not because they look digital, but because they're just not very accomplished films cinematographically.

 

Well to use an example near and dear to you, The Hobbit. Those movies look like they were shot digitally, and in my judgement, to their detriment.

 

And I'm not speaking strictly in terms of cinematography, both films shared the same cinematographer, and Lesnie was a fine one, but the differences in the look of the two films is striking. Jackson will give you the same line Lucas will, i.e. that the digital look is intentional, to reflect an earlier time or some such thing, whatever.  But really, he wanted to shoot digitally for a variety of practical reasons.  But in terms of what I see, I prefer the look of Lord of the Rings, and I think this is most likely the sentiment of the vast majority of people who saw the films.

 

15 minutes ago, AC1 said:

“It’s where you put the camera and what’s in front of you that’s important. There’s too much obsession these days about digital film … it’s becoming so technically-orientated, and that’s just distracting from what’s actually being put in front of the lens." Roger Deakins

 

Yeah, but again, Deakins is speaking as a cinematographer, which you'd expect.  He's talking about how the sausage his made, not what we see on our plate.

 

As an audience member, I don't care if a movie was shot digitally or on film, what I care about is what I see on the screen.  The same as I don't care if they're creating SFX using physical models or CGI, what I care about is how those effects look on the screen.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I always preferred the look of An Unexpected Journey which is certainly very digital-looking, to that The Lord of the Rings. In much (not all) of Smaug and especially Battle of the Five Armies they went for a gradually more desaturated look which I'm not a big fan of, but An Unexpected Journey looked lush and vibrant in a way Rings never did.

 

Many of my favourite films (from a pictorial standpoint) were shot on film: Braveheart, Lawrence, Apocalypse Now. But I'm also a fan of the digital look, when done right.

[A24 4,333]

43 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Yeah, but again, Deakins is speaking as a cinematographer, which you'd expect.  He's talking about how the sausage his made, not what we see on our plate.

 

As an audience member, I don't care if a movie was shot digitally or on film, what I care about is what I see on the screen.

 

 

But ... that's exactly what Deakins is talking about. What "takes place in front of the lens" is "what we see on the screen". Whether it's captured on film or digital doesn't matter to him. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

18 minutes ago, AC1 said:

But ... that's exactly what Deakins is talking about. What "takes place in front of the lens" is "what we see on the screen". Whether it's captured on film or digital doesn't matter to him. 

 

Well it may not matter to him, but it matters to the audience. There's a difference between "what's in front of the lens", and what the audience sees on the screen.

[Chen G. 3,949]

In other words, he's talking about the mise-en-scene, not the cinematography per se.

 

But DPs often have a cavalier attitude towards shooting formats. Like, Freddie Young didn't see the point of bothering to shoot either Lawrence of Arabia or Ryan's Daughter in 65mm (or Doctor Zhivago, which Lean had considered shooting in 65mm black-and-white).

[A24 4,333]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

In other words, he's talking about the mise-en-scene ...

 

Which is what happens in front of the lens. I would think that's what the general audience is looking at, and not whether it's filmed on digital or film, or what lenses are being used, the exposure, aperture and depth of field, .... that's technical stuff for aspiring cinematographers. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

For sure.

 

But then, to play devil's advocate, people will notice the difference between 16mm footage and that of an Alexa 65.

 

But then again, you can shoot as many Ks as you like or with as big a filmstock format as you want, but if its not in focus, not well-exposed etc it won't look as good as something that is.

 

Point is, its a complicated topic. Way too complicated for these simple preferences for either analog or digital.

[A24 4,333]

 

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

But then, to play devil's advocate, people will notice the difference between 16mm footage and that of an Alexa 65.

 

 

I didn't. When I watched John Carpenter's Dark Star I never realized it was 16mm and not 35mm. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Point is, its a complicated topic. Way too complicated for these simple preferences for either analog or digital.

It is a complicated topic, but it’s nonetheless OK for people to state a preference, simple or otherwise. 

[KK 3,307]

8 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

But ... that's exactly what Deakins is talking about. What "takes place in front of the lens" is "what we see on the screen". Whether it's captured on film or digital doesn't matter to him. 

 

Aside from look (which is a very real thing), it's also about methodology and process. I have filmmaker friends who enjoy shooting on film for the discipline of it. It forces you to really plan your film before you walk onto set, because you only have so much film stock to work with. Nowadays, too many young filmmakers just shoot anything and everything and then assemble the film afterwards (a la Peter Jackson and The Hobbit), because digital can afford you that luxury.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Non sequitor. Filmmakers on Villenueve's budget can shoot as much as they want, celuloid or pixels. Kubrick and Wyler were shooting 40 takes long before digital cinematography, and David Lean was cutting until the eleventh hour long before the days of the AVID.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

1 hour ago, KK said:

 

Aside from look (which is a very real thing), it's also about methodology and process. I have filmmaker friends who enjoy shooting on film for the discipline of it. It forces you to really plan your film before you walk onto set, because you only have so much film stock to work with. Nowadays, too many young filmmakers just shoot anything and everything and then assemble the film afterwards (a la Peter Jackson and The Hobbit), because digital can afford you that luxury.

 

 

Well it's a really good point, and I agree completely.

 

But in fairness, for many aspiring and independent filmmakers, digital is not a luxury, it's a necessity. Film stock is expensive, and a lot of aspiring filmmakers might be shut out of the art form altogether if they had to shoot on film. Though again, I agree that being forced to be disciplined and make choices based on necessity and scarcity early on will ultimately produce better art, and artists. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

[KK 3,307]

53 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Non sequitor. Filmmakers on Villenueve's budget can shoot as much as they want, celuloid or pixels. Kubrick and Wyler were shooting 40 takes long before digital cinematography, and David Lean was cutting until the eleventh hour long before the days of the AVID.

 

 

Well, sure. But those were A-list filmmakers who usually get carte-blanche. And all those filmmakers LEARNED their craft on film. So the rigour of specificity and craftsmanship is instilled in them early on. Kubrick didn't always get to do a 100 takes.

 

Now, a lot of film schools don't even carry film anymore. And you can practically make a movie with anything now. Granted, this greater accessibility isn't a bad thing, but certain things do get lost.

 

Digital also further enables the contemporary blockbuster mindset of "we can get all that in post". Granted, that thinking doesn't hinge entirely on the medium of choice, but digital plays a role in that.

 

34 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But in fairness, for many aspiring and independent filmmakers, digital is not a luxury, it's a necessity. Film stock is expensive, and a lot of aspiring filmmakers might be shut out of the art form altogether if they had to shoot on film. Though again, I agree that being forced to be disciplined and make choices based on necessity and scarcity will ultimately produce better filmmakers. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

 

Oh 100%. Shooting on film is a luxury now, simple as that. And it is a great additional cost, that you'd be lucky to get as an independent filmmaker.

 

At the end of the day, if you know what you're doing, you can accomplish great things with both digital and film. BUT, odds are, if you're bothering to go through the hassle of shooting on film, there's a much higher chance that you probably know what you're doing compared to the broader pool of filmmakers working with digital.

[A24 4,333]

Another thing that changed photography and cinematography forever (for amateurs and pros) is the ability to see the result before you hit the shutter/recording button. Knowing exactly what the light is doing is a priceless advantage. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Ultimately, Dune had been shot digitally, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I respect people's personal preference that it had been shot on film (even though I don't agree) but its the sort of thing one best come to terms with. To begrudge a film for the format its shot in is the definition of missing the forest for the trees.

 

I'm honestly kinda surprised Villenueve shot Dune on the smaller LF (4.5K from a 36.70 x 25.54 mm sensor) and not on an Alexa 65 or RED Monstro.

[A24 4,333]

Isn't every big sci-fi movie shot on digital these days? Surely this can't be a surprise? A large percentage of what it shows is digital anyway.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Ultimately, Dune had been shot digitally, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I respect people's personal preference that it had been shot on film (even though I don't agree) but its the sort of thing one best come to terms with. To begrudge a film for the format its shot in is the definition of missing the forest for the trees.

 

Mate, this is a straw man.  No one (at least here) "begrudges" Dune based on the format it was shot on. No one said there was something "wrong" with Dune being shot digitally. No one. The only issue is a personal preference on how the film looks. And that's inarguable. And even if someone doesn't like the way the film looks, that doesn't mean they "begrudge" it.  In any event, none of us has seen enough of Dune to make any informed opinion on it, all we can do is comment on what we've seen in the trailers.

 

People who are named Christopher Nolan and Steve Yeldin, or hold stock in Eastman Kodak or RED have a stake in this little film vs. digital thing. The rest of us just care about what we see on the screen.

 

4 hours ago, AC1 said:

Isn't every big sci-fi movie shot on digital these days?

 

I think the vast majority of movies, no matter the genre, are shot on digital these days. Being against it as a format is tilting at windmills.

 

[A24 4,333]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

People who are named Christopher Nolan and Steve Yeldin, or hold stock in Eastman Kodak or RED have a stake in this little film vs. digital thing. The rest of us just care about what we see on the screen.

 

 

Or Tarantino. And I get why Once upon A Time In Hollywood looks as colorful as it does, it makes sense. But I also understand why not every movie has to look bright and colorful.