Jump to content
Alexcremers

Villenueve's Dune

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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".

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...