Jump to content

Villeneuve's DUNE


AC1
 Share

Recommended Posts

I love that they are putting "Part 1" right up front at the top of the movie.  As said, this will help general audience goer from feeling "cheated" when the movie ends without total resolution.  Great move, and I also think it makes sense to not bother putting "Part 1" on the posters and trailers and stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WampaRat said:

The music in this new trailer…mostly likely not from the score(?)

 

Seems pretty “trailer house-y”

the music is from hans but made for this trailer.

The choir u can also hear in the cue "Pauls Dream" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badbu said:

the music is from hans but made for this trailer.

The choir u can also hear in the cue "Pauls Dream" 

It sounds like a rework of this using elements from the score:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badbu said:

the music is from hans but made for this trailer.

The choir u can also hear in the cue "Pauls Dream" 

Yeah. There are some unique elements to it that made my ears perk up. But the standard percussive hits/edits made me think perhaps it was just a fancy piece of licensed trailer music. Looking forward to listening to the full cue once it pops up here in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the trailer wasn't exactly great. Worst of all, the movie doesn't seem to be as visually stunning as Villeneuve's previous movies, specially BR2049. Maybe he should've collaborated with Deakins again?

 

I'm still watching it in IMAX though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

the movie doesn't seem to be as visually stunning as Villeneuve's previous movies

 

I thought the footage looked superb.

 

But its very hard to judge a film's visual style from trailers. Still, I want Dune to succeed and to be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Yeah, the trailer wasn't exactly great. Worst of all, the movie doesn't seem to be as visually stunning as Villeneuve's previous movies, specially BR2049. Maybe he should've collaborated with Deakins again?

 

 

I thought the same. Deakins is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels very much like a "for the masses" trailer (which it obviously and necessarily is). Not that much that's exciting if you're interested in how they're adapting specific things from the book.

 

What I do wonder is how far into the book the first film goes (and perhaps it's been well known for months, but I've avoid any spoilery details - I still have some 50 pages to read and I don't actually remember how it ends).

 

31 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Yeah, the trailer wasn't exactly great. Worst of all, the movie doesn't seem to be as visually stunning as Villeneuve's previous movies, specially BR2049. Maybe he should've collaborated with Deakins again?

 

It'll be hard for anything to compete with BR2049's style, but Villeneuve's non-Deakins films have still been having consistently interesting visuals. I expect this one will have them, too, if you look beyond the battle stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always thought this piece would be a perfect accompaniment to the new Dune trailer. It’s about the same length as the trailer (just 10 seconds shy or so).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dug the trailer! Nice to see some other colours in there and the visuals look great. It's just the final CG suit that seemed a little dodgy to me.

 

Music was very trailer-esque...but looking forward to checking out the Zimmer tracks when they're available here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was good. The teaser was great. OTOH there were jokes and they made me laugh.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the narrative of Chani identifying the Fremen as an oppressed people. It's not that they weren't. It's just that I can't imagine any of them saying so. It didn't even seem to be in their vocabulary.

 

5 hours ago, WampaRat said:

Always thought this piece would be a perfect accompaniment to the new Dune trailer. It’s about the same length as the trailer (just 10 seconds shy or so).

 

You are not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a heads up. I am seeing indications that this music was not done by Zimmer. It's possible the trailer uses elements of the score and mixed them into the trailer-house-produced music, but in my circles I have seen other people attributed to the music by the company who created the trailer. Just trying to nail down for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I wonder how often in cinema a single book has been adapted, specifically with the intention of splitting it into two (or more) parts from the outset, but never got past the first film.  Other than Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, the only one I can think of is Divergent: Allegiant.

 

It seems the list of books that have been split into multiple films is short enough, and those that are abandoned after the first film looks to be even shorter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Tintin.

 

And LotR isn't one book.

 

Tintin contained and combined several elements from different "books". Not the same, and not the point I'm making. It's not a half finished adaptation of a single book.

 

And Lord of the Rings is one book, typically published as three volumes. Bakshi's film covered roughly the first 1.5 volumes. And again, Bakshi's film was only ever meant to be the first half. Bakshi was adapting Lord of the Rings, that's why the name of his movie isn't Fellowship of the Ring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Tintin contained and combined several elements from different "books". Not the same, and not the point I'm making. The film wasn't meant to be the first "part" of a single book, and Tintin tells a complete story.

 

And Lord of the Rings is one book, published as three volumes. Bakshi's film covered the first 1.5 volumes. And again, Bakshi's film was meant to be the first part, it doesn't tell a complete story.

 

 

Indeed. The same thing has happened with the Dune, in the sense that it is one book, dividid in three parts. Here in Portugal, some editions have published it in three and now more recently in two volumes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Romão said:

 

Indeed. The same thing has happened with the Dune, in the sense that it is one book, dividid in three parts. Here in Portugal, some editions have published it in three and now more recently in two volumes

 

Wasn't Dune originally published as a serial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Wasn't Dune originally published as a serial?

 

Indeed, but the story itself was always divided in three parts, narratively speaking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

It seems the list of books that have been split into multiple films is short enough, and those that are abandoned after the first film looks to be even shorter.

 

Apparently, 2004's The Door in the Floor (which I haven't seen) was an adaptation of only the first third of Irving's A Widow for One Year (which I *have* read), but I think that was by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Bakshi's film covered roughly the first 1.5 volumes. And again, Bakshi's film was only ever meant to be the first part. Bakshi was adapting Lord of the Rings, that's why the name of his movie isn't Fellowship of the Ring.

 

Its actually both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, only the end of the latter book is greatly abridged. They had considered also including the Ent attack on Isengard, and early drafts even included Shelob and Sam's rescue of Frodo (with the cliffhanger of Gollum lurking in the background).

 

And it was originally called "The Lord of the Rings: Part One, the Fellowship."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its actually both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, only the end of the latter book is greatly abridged. They had considered also including the Ent attack on Isengard, and early drafts even included Shelob and Sam's rescue of Frodo (with the cliffhanger of Gollum lurking in the background).

 

And it was originally called "The Lord of the Rings: Part One, the Fellowship."

 

This is irrelevant to what we're talking about though. Whether you want to say the film covered the 1/2 or 2/3 of Lord of the Rings really isn't the point. The point is it was an unfinished adaptation of a single novel (though Tolkien preferred "heroic romance").

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find my copy of the book. (Arrgh!) Does the first part ("book") end before or after Alia is born? I know the second part picks up quite some time later. (Two years?) I don't remember where the break between 2 and 3 happens.

 

If this is spoiler-y let me know.

 

I kind of look at telling the story of Dune like I did Lord of the Rings. In so many ways Bakshi's script was much more economical and yet still followed the book better than Jackson and he did it in a couple of hours to get over half of the book. Lynch's problem wasn't that he ran out of time it was that he pretty much abandoned the second half of the book! There's a ton of back story and depth in Dune but narratively it's not that complex.

 

The part of the book that the new movie intends to cover is the part of the book that Lynch actually did pretty well.

 

Is there any word on the running time? Given that it's not the entire book it would be nice if this wasn't over three hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

I can't find my copy of the book. (Arrgh!) Does the first part ("book") end before or after Alia is born? I know the second part picks up quite some time later. (Two years?) I don't remember where the break between 2 and 3 happens.

 

If this is spoiler-y let me know.

 

I kind of look at telling the story of Dune like I did Lord of the Rings. In so many ways Bakshi's script was much more economical and yet still followed the book better than Jackson and he did it in a couple of hours to get over half of the book. Lynch's problem wasn't that he ran out of time it was that he pretty much abandoned the second half of the book! There's a ton of back story and depth in Dune but narratively it's not that complex.

 

The part of the book that the new movie intends to cover is the part of the book that Lynch actually did pretty well.

 

Is there any word on the running time? Given that it's not the entire book it would be nice if this wasn't over three hours.

 

Alia is born at the end of part 2. After that is when you get the two year time jump. Part 1 and 2 are pretty much consecutive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

In so many ways Bakshi's script was much more economical and yet still followed the book better than Jackson and he did it in a couple of hours to get over half of the book.

 

It was indeed more economical storytelling, but really sort of devolves into a mess the second half. The first half of the Bakshi's film is quite good though. It really goes of the rails after the Breaking of the Fellowship.

 

As personal preference, one thing Bakshi kept true to the book that I really liked, that Jackson did away with, was acknowledging the gap between Bilbo's birthday party and Gandalf's return ("17 years passed sleepily in the Shire").  It was just a single line, but I liked that it gave a nod to Tolkien's very leisurely start to things before the main action kicked in.  For that reason, I get why Jackson didn't mention this time gap, there had already been a long prologue and by that point he just wanted to get things moving.  But the way Bakshi did it felt more "Tolkien".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

I can't find my copy of the book. (Arrgh!) Does the first part ("book") end before or after Alia is born? I know the second part picks up quite some time later. (Two years?) I don't remember where the break between 2 and 3 happens.

 

Part 1 is basically the story of the Atreides on Arrakis. It ends when they're over, so Part 2 deals with Paul among the Fremen and the various remaining "side" characters.

 

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

It was indeed more economical storytelling, but really sort of devolves into a mess the second half. The first half of the Bakshi's film is quite good though. It really goes of the rails after the Breaking of the Fellowship.

 

And there the problem also is mainly that it's a "mess", because they couldn't manage to handle the various separate strands of the story post-Breaking. I like much of the bulk of what's there, but the problem is what isn't there, or what's there only in traces - Frodo and Sam can't have more than handful of minutes of screen time during the entire TTT part of the film.

 

Might also be related to chronology issues, which PJ got around by often very liberally stretching and compressing time when jumping between the plot strands. I would like to see someone do an "authentic" film version following Tolkien's own structure someday, because so many of his original twists and cliffhangers are based on his asynchronous way of telling the story. I know it's difficult to do that in a film (or probably considered "wrong" by many), but if a book can choose between telling the story chronologically or in interleaved separate chunks, I don't see why a film must not.

 

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

As personal preference, one thing Bakshi kept true to the book that I really liked, that Jackson did away with, was acknowledging the gap between Bilbo's birthday party and Gandalf's return ("17 years passed sleepily in the Shire").  It was just a single line, but I liked that it gave a nod to Tolkien's very leisurely start to things before the main action kicked in.

 

It was just a single line - plus that (perhaps cheesy but very effective) animation of seasonal transitions, and Rosenman's score - a snippet of music that made a strong subconscious impression on me even at a time when I wasn't aware that music was specifically written for films.

 

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

For that reason, I get why Jackson didn't mention this time gap, there had already been a long prologue and by that point he just wanted to get things moving.  But the way Bakshi did it felt more "Tolkien".

 

I like Jackson's prologue and stuff, and obviously the early parts of the book aren't easy to turn into a "consistent" film, with Tolkien believing for pretty much the entire first book (of six) that he was writing an episodic adventure sequel to The Hobbit. But there is a certain something about the concept of The Shadow of the Past, with much of the plot-specific prologue information framed by the highly atmospheric setting of Gandalf telling it to Frodo, that conveys an enormous depth, at least some of which is simply lost by taking the exposition out of the narrative. Just the title itself with the thought of Gandalf and Frodo smoking at the fireplace in Bag End gives me chills the film can't replicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

a snippet of music that made a strong subconscious impression on me even at a time when I wasn't aware that music was specifically written for films.

 

 

Very well put, I feel the exact same way. There's really a kind of magic in that bit, it really conveys the passage of time in such a simple, yet wondrous and almost nostalgic kind of way. I love it.

 

23 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

But there is a certain something about the concept of The Shadow of the Past, with much of the plot-specific prologue information framed by the highly atmospheric setting of Gandalf telling it to Frodo, that conveys an enormous depth, at least some of which is simply lost by taking the exposition out of the narrative. Just the title itself with the thought of Gandalf and Frodo smoking at the fireplace in Bag End gives me chills the film can't replicate.

 

Again, well said. I've seen a lot of readers complain about how long the Shire stuff takes in Lord of the Rings, but those are among my favourite parts of the book, and The Shadow of the Past may even be my favourite chapter.

 

Tolkien once said that the primary complaint readers had of his book was that it wasn't long enough, and with this I can agree. I could have easily done with a few hundred more pages in the Shire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Part 1 is basically the story of the Atreides on Arrakis. It ends when they're over, so Part 2 deals with Paul among the Fremen and the various remaining "side" characters.

 

 

And there the problem also is mainly that it's a "mess", because they couldn't manage to handle the various separate strands of the story post-Breaking. I like much of the bulk of what's there, but the problem is what isn't there, or what's there only in traces - Frodo and Sam can't have more than handful of minutes of screen time during the entire TTT part of the film.

 

Might also be related to chronology issues, which PJ got around by often very liberally stretching and compressing time when jumping between the plot strands. I would like to see someone do an "authentic" film version following Tolkien's own structure someday, because so many of his original twists and cliffhangers are based on his asynchronous way of telling the story. I know it's difficult to do that in a film (or probably considered "wrong" by many), but if a book can choose between telling the story chronologically or in interleaved separate chunks, I don't see why a film must not.

 

 

It was just a single line - plus that (perhaps cheesy but very effective) animation of seasonal transitions, and Rosenman's score - a snippet of music that made a strong subconscious impression on me even at a time when I wasn't aware that music was specifically written for films.

 

 

I like Jackson's prologue and stuff, and obviously the early parts of the book aren't easy to turn into a "consistent" film, with Tolkien believing for pretty much the entire first book (of six) that he was writing an episodic adventure sequel to The Hobbit. But there is a certain something about the concept of The Shadow of the Past, with much of the plot-specific prologue information framed by the highly atmospheric setting of Gandalf telling it to Frodo, that conveys an enormous depth, at least some of which is simply lost by taking the exposition out of the narrative. Just the title itself with the thought of Gandalf and Frodo smoking at the fireplace in Bag End gives me chills the film can't replicate.

 

 

Lovely post, Marian, wonderful insights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr. Who said:

It has been confirmed by Mark Petrie who did the trailer music that he used a few elements from the score when making the trailer track.

 

Here is his post about it:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=352755436407727&id=100050198212385

 

Awesome. Thanks for confirming that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

It was indeed more economical storytelling, but really sort of devolves into a mess the second half. The first half of the Bakshi's film is quite good though. It really goes of the rails after the Breaking of the Fellowship.

 

Really, after the Council of Elrond even. Its a movie that starts in a bit of a hurry, and then accelerates until at some point it becomes borderline incoherent.

 

But I do quite like the early parts, pantomime Gandalf notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thor said:

Why do I keep seeing LOTR-related posts every time I open this thread to read about exciting DUNE news and insights?

 

I blame Arthur C. Clarke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thor said:

Why do I keep seeing LOTR-related posts every time I open this thread to read about exciting DUNE news and insights?

 

The virus has broken out of its confinement in the LotR subforum.

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.