Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GustavoLeao

Denis Villeneuve's DUNE ?

26 posts in this topic

I'll be digging this... but ONLY if they ask Sir Patrick to play Gurney Halleck (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my money, as a longtime fan of Dune, they got SO close with the 2000 miniseries; which was much more faithful to the book, even if it lacked a certain star power.  I'll admit, other improvements could very well be made; the miniseries had a deliberately staged look and some very dated late '90s visuals that could be remedied but I'm just worried that a movie wont' do justice to the epic backstory as the miniseries did.    The '84 Lynch version had a wonderful look (and Sir Patrick, yes), but it missed the mark in so many other ways as well.

Dune is not an easy book to get right.  Wishing them luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never even UNDERSTOOD the 1984 movie before I read the book, not even with the added extended TV version scenes. I seriously thought it was just me and that Gurney Halleck's perfection distracted me too much before I heard from others that they had the same problem. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 1984 movie. It's bizarre and ridiculous, but highly enjoyable. Not just for Gurney (though I admit, that is a big reason). I also like "My name is a killing word," and the amazingly horrified acting that ensues from Kyle MacLachlan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the David Lynch version because it is confusing and not in a good way (which Lynch can often succeed with for me).  It is my only experience with Dune as a franchise, but it does seem to be an incredibly hard property to adapt.  MY biggest issue is the Villeneuve is such a talent, I'd hate to see him sucked in 100% into reboot territory.  He was doing new and creative original stuff before Blade Runner...and I'd like to see him still out there creating such stuff. No matter the talent of the director, when they are working on big name properties with lots of money and hope being thrown at it...the work will never truly be his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 1984 movie. It's bizarre and ridiculous, but highly enjoyable. Not just for Gurney (though I admit, that is a big reason). I also like "My name is a killing word," and the amazingly horrified acting that ensues from Kyle MacLachlan. 

Maybe Villeneuve could take elements of the prior two versions (the fidelity of the 2000 version, the bizarre-ness of the 1984 version) as well as his own vision, and truly make a perfect adaptation out of it.   There's an odd part of me that really wished Alejandro Jodorowsky got the chance to make his mid-'70s psychedelic "Dune"; from the documentary "Jodorowsky's Dune" and the Moebius preproduction art I've seen of it?  It would've been like a non-chemically induced acid trip committed to film. 

Jodorowsky's Dune doc trailer

I bought this ^ on blu ray sometime last year, and it was amazing.  The journey of Jodorowsky's sadly aborted movie was about as interesting as the Dune saga itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jodowsky's Dune is a good doc, though what would've helped it even more is a cut to the producers who are just like "and how the hell were we going to pay for all of THIS?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jodowsky's Dune is a good doc, though what would've helped it even more is a cut to the producers who are just like "and how the hell were we going to pay for all of THIS?"

Let alone actually make it.   Jodorowsky's version was conceived of in the time just before Star Wars; the visual effects technology of that era just wasn't up to the task.   But I would've been very interested to see the attempt; who knows what they could've come up with using more practical means? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always meant to watch that doc, Sehlat, but completely forgot. Thanks for the reminder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always meant to watch that doc, Sehlat, but completely forgot. Thanks for the reminder. 

I think you would really enjoy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3-hour extended TV version of DUNE directed by David Lynch ( who removed his name from the credits ) was very good, much better than the theatrical version. I enjoyed the 1984 movie, specially the longer version, I dunno why. Mever read the books, thought.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 1984 movie. It's bizarre and ridiculous, but highly enjoyable. Not just for Gurney (though I admit, that is a big reason). I also like "My name is a killing word," and the amazingly horrified acting that ensues from Kyle MacLachlan. 

Maybe Villeneuve could take elements of the prior two versions (the fidelity of the 2000 version, the bizarre-ness of the 1984 version) as well as his own vision, and truly make a perfect adaptation out of it.   There's an odd part of me that really wished Alejandro Jodorowsky got the chance to make his mid-'70s psychedelic "Dune"; from the documentary "Jodorowsky's Dune" and the Moebius preproduction art I've seen of it?  It would've been like a non-chemically induced acid trip committed to film. 

Jodorowsky's Dune doc trailer

I bought this ^ on blu ray sometime last year, and it was amazing.  The journey of Jodorowsky's sadly aborted movie was about as interesting as the Dune saga itself. 

One of the most interesting parts of the doc was how the pre-production work influenced sci-fi franchises that followed.  The folks tapped to work on Jodorowsky's Dune went on to work on many other big name movies and took some of their creative ideas from his Dune movie with them.  If they tried to make his Dune now it would look visually derived from those now classic sci-fi films (like Aliens), when really it's the other way around.

Edited by Locutus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ech. It was a fun ride with his creativity while it's lasted.  Maybe after Dune he will return to making his own stuff. Why must so many good one end up on the reboot conveyor belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping "Arrival" wasn't Villeneuve's "District 9" (his best work, only to be followed by mediocre runups).   

Villeneuve's "Blade Runner" sequel fills me with anticipation and a bit of dread, to be honest.  Not that I think he won't pull it off, but rather I'm not yet convinced that it really needs to exist.   A feeling I share with "Dune."   The 2000 SyFy adaptation was satisfying for me, save for some early-2000s production values and a very 'stagey' look.    But the story's been told twice already, and I'm really convinced that a movie is NOT the best format for such a complex and layered story as "Dune" unless they "Lord-of-the-Rings" it to death. 

Either way, I'm sated as far as "Dune" is concerned, but I'll probably see it because I just love the story so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping "Arrival" wasn't Villeneuve's "District 9" (his best work, only to be followed by mediocre runups).   

Villeneuve's "Blade Runner" sequel fills me with anticipation and a bit of dread, to be honest.  Not that I think he won't pull it off, but rather I'm not yet convinced that it really needs to exist.   A feeling I share with "Dune."   The 2000 SyFy adaptation was satisfying for me, save for some early-2000s production values and a very 'stagey' look.    But the story's been told twice already, and I'm really convinced that a movie is NOT the best format for such a complex and layered story as "Dune" unless they "Lord-of-the-Rings" it to death. 

Either way, I'm sated as far as "Dune" is concerned, but I'll probably see it because I just love the story so much...

Arrival is great, but he also made the well made "Enemy" too, and the well received "Sicario" (which is definitely good, just not a subject matter that interested me much), and I've heard a lot of good things about "Prisoners."  That is what bums me out.  Not that he made one great film and is now in this machine of reboots and sequels...but that he had a pretty good track record going of new stuff...not based on major properties that are BOUND to have a board pushing it in whatever direction will garner the most money.  I mean he has adapted books and short stories well, but when the properties get bigger and the budgets grow? That is when the studios are going to have more control. I would just rather some of these terribly talented people didn't get sucked into that machine all the time.  And if they do? Do it just to make a bit of money for the project you really wanna do.  That is my only hope for what Villeneuve is up to. 

But Dune is super niche and is never gonna make a huge chunk of change.  It might do modestly well, but it just isn't the kind of property I see breaking into mainstream success.  Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping "Arrival" wasn't Villeneuve's "District 9" (his best work, only to be followed by mediocre runups).   

Villeneuve's "Blade Runner" sequel fills me with anticipation and a bit of dread, to be honest.  Not that I think he won't pull it off, but rather I'm not yet convinced that it really needs to exist.   A feeling I share with "Dune."   The 2000 SyFy adaptation was satisfying for me, save for some early-2000s production values and a very 'stagey' look.    But the story's been told twice already, and I'm really convinced that a movie is NOT the best format for such a complex and layered story as "Dune" unless they "Lord-of-the-Rings" it to death. 

Either way, I'm sated as far as "Dune" is concerned, but I'll probably see it because I just love the story so much...

Arrival is great, but he also made the well made "Enemy" too, and the well received "Sicario" (which is definitely good, just not a subject matter that interested me much), and I've heard a lot of good things about "Prisoners."  That is what bums me out.  Not that he made one great film and is now in this machine of reboots and sequels...but that he had a pretty good track record going of new stuff...not based on major properties that are BOUND to have a board pushing it in whatever direction will garner the most money.  I mean he has adapted books and short stories well, but when the properties get bigger and the budgets grow? That is when the studios are going to have more control. I would just rather some of these terribly talented people didn't get sucked into that machine all the time.  And if they do? Do it just to make a bit of money for the project you really wanna do.  That is my only hope for what Villeneuve is up to. 

But Dune is super niche and is never gonna make a huge chunk of change.  It might do modestly well, but it just isn't the kind of property I see breaking into mainstream success.  Who knows.

^
People said the same thing about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" though...

I'm not saying "Dune" will be a blockbuster, but I also think it has potential to be tweaked into a more commercial property.   That said, I'm still not sure if we really need it.  Like you, I would rather that Villeneuve tackle more original work as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping "Arrival" wasn't Villeneuve's "District 9" (his best work, only to be followed by mediocre runups).   

Villeneuve's "Blade Runner" sequel fills me with anticipation and a bit of dread, to be honest.  Not that I think he won't pull it off, but rather I'm not yet convinced that it really needs to exist.   A feeling I share with "Dune."   The 2000 SyFy adaptation was satisfying for me, save for some early-2000s production values and a very 'stagey' look.    But the story's been told twice already, and I'm really convinced that a movie is NOT the best format for such a complex and layered story as "Dune" unless they "Lord-of-the-Rings" it to death. 

Either way, I'm sated as far as "Dune" is concerned, but I'll probably see it because I just love the story so much...

Arrival is great, but he also made the well made "Enemy" too, and the well received "Sicario" (which is definitely good, just not a subject matter that interested me much), and I've heard a lot of good things about "Prisoners."  That is what bums me out.  Not that he made one great film and is now in this machine of reboots and sequels...but that he had a pretty good track record going of new stuff...not based on major properties that are BOUND to have a board pushing it in whatever direction will garner the most money.  I mean he has adapted books and short stories well, but when the properties get bigger and the budgets grow? That is when the studios are going to have more control. I would just rather some of these terribly talented people didn't get sucked into that machine all the time.  And if they do? Do it just to make a bit of money for the project you really wanna do.  That is my only hope for what Villeneuve is up to. 

But Dune is super niche and is never gonna make a huge chunk of change.  It might do modestly well, but it just isn't the kind of property I see breaking into mainstream success.  Who knows.

^
People said the same thing about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" though...

I'm not saying "Dune" will be a blockbuster, but I also think it has potential to be tweaked into a more commercial property.   That said, I'm still not sure if we really need it.  Like you, I would rather that Villeneuve tackle more original work as well.

I dunno, even back then I knew the Lord of the Rings would be big. It is nerdy, but lots of people read either Lord of the Rings or just the Hobbit in school...for class. That is how I discovered the universe, required reading of the Hobbit.  And I enjoyed it, but I knew lots of people who had read it. Heck I believe when the first movie came out it was a generational thing, my brothers and I went with my parents and some aunts and cousins. So many interested in seeing this book they were all at least somewhat familiar with made for the big screen. 

Now my dad read Dune. My mom (who likes sci-fi, Bradbury is one of her favorite authors) couldn't get past a chapter or two (she only attempted it because he was into it, and she just found it tedious).  I don't know many who were into Dune.  My brother gave it a whirl with a group of friends. I think he liked it, and that same group of friends all got together to laugh at the Lynch film. But while I know it has a small devoted fanbase, I just don't think it has had that same kind of reach as LOTR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping "Arrival" wasn't Villeneuve's "District 9" (his best work, only to be followed by mediocre runups).   

Villeneuve's "Blade Runner" sequel fills me with anticipation and a bit of dread, to be honest.  Not that I think he won't pull it off, but rather I'm not yet convinced that it really needs to exist.   A feeling I share with "Dune."   The 2000 SyFy adaptation was satisfying for me, save for some early-2000s production values and a very 'stagey' look.    But the story's been told twice already, and I'm really convinced that a movie is NOT the best format for such a complex and layered story as "Dune" unless they "Lord-of-the-Rings" it to death. 

Either way, I'm sated as far as "Dune" is concerned, but I'll probably see it because I just love the story so much...

Arrival is great, but he also made the well made "Enemy" too, and the well received "Sicario" (which is definitely good, just not a subject matter that interested me much), and I've heard a lot of good things about "Prisoners."  That is what bums me out.  Not that he made one great film and is now in this machine of reboots and sequels...but that he had a pretty good track record going of new stuff...not based on major properties that are BOUND to have a board pushing it in whatever direction will garner the most money.  I mean he has adapted books and short stories well, but when the properties get bigger and the budgets grow? That is when the studios are going to have more control. I would just rather some of these terribly talented people didn't get sucked into that machine all the time.  And if they do? Do it just to make a bit of money for the project you really wanna do.  That is my only hope for what Villeneuve is up to. 

But Dune is super niche and is never gonna make a huge chunk of change.  It might do modestly well, but it just isn't the kind of property I see breaking into mainstream success.  Who knows.

^
People said the same thing about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" though...

I'm not saying "Dune" will be a blockbuster, but I also think it has potential to be tweaked into a more commercial property.   That said, I'm still not sure if we really need it.  Like you, I would rather that Villeneuve tackle more original work as well.

I dunno, even back then I knew the Lord of the Rings would be big. It is nerdy, but lots of people read either Lord of the Rings or just the Hobbit in school...for class. That is how I discovered the universe, required reading of the Hobbit.  And I enjoyed it, but I knew lots of people who had read it. Heck I believe when the first movie came out it was a generational thing, my brothers and I went with my parents and some aunts and cousins. So many interested in seeing this book they were all at least somewhat familiar with made for the big screen. 

Now my dad read Dune. My mom (who likes sci-fi, Bradbury is one of her favorite authors) couldn't get past a chapter or two (she only attempted it because he was into it, and she just found it tedious).  I don't know many who were into Dune.  My brother gave it a whirl with a group of friends. I think he liked it, and that same group of friends all got together to laugh at the Lynch film. But while I know it has a small devoted fanbase, I just don't think it has had that same kind of reach as LOTR.

Beg to differ.

Most in my circle have read it.   Different strokes for different folks.   I'm not saying that guarantees a blockbuster of Dune, but even the LOTR cartoons didn't do very well.  I wouldn't say the LOTR movies were in the bag, either.   That first one was a risk.   And all I'm saying is that if Villeneuve can tweak the material to make Dune more commercially appealing?  Who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is more, I know that LOTR, or at the very least The Hobbit, are often actually taught in High School/Middle School. In my middle school I believe that my English class one year required that you had to read so many books on your own, and then when you finished the book, had to take a computer quiz that just sort of proved you read it. Dune wasn't on a list or anything I saw people reading in their own time.  I'm sure some did read it, but I knew a TON of people at the time I read the Hobbit and the movies were on the way that were excited about it. I was in middle school at the time, and there are a lot of buzz about that first movie.

Maybe Dune could be tweaked to be more mainstream, maybe it could surprise me and be a big hit. But I just have my doubts about this property and mainstream crossover success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is more, I know that LOTR, or at the very least The Hobbit, are often actually taught in High School/Middle School. In my middle school I believe that my English class one year required that you had to read so many books on your own, and then when you finished the book, had to take a computer quiz that just sort of proved you read it. Dune wasn't on a list or anything I saw people reading in their own time.  I'm sure some did read it, but I knew a TON of people at the time I read the Hobbit and the movies were on the way that were excited about it. I was in middle school at the time, and there are a lot of buzz about that first movie.

Maybe Dune could be tweaked to be more mainstream, maybe it could surprise me and be a big hit. But I just have my doubts about this property and mainstream crossover success.

I understand the doubt.  Frankly, I wish they'd do something new, but oh well.  We seem to be stuck in a self perpetuating cycle of remakes and reboots. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have, in a lot of way, begun to really do my part for reducing the ticket sales to these things.  In 2016 I went to the theater 6 times...only two were a major release of a franchise, and that was Beyond (which admittedly I saw twice!) and Rogue One, but the 4 others I paid to see were Hail, Caesar!, Green Room, High-Rise, and Cafe Society. All smaller movies. If I had more time (and money really) to get to the theater, I would definitely try to see more of the smaller stuff and less of the big blockbuster-y stuff.  I want to both support the little guys trying to actually make something fresh and different, and just not feed into this machine that cranks out these movies that feel increasingly assembly line to me.

People love to complain about DC movies, but no one seems to actually stop going to them. The compulsion to still go is what confuses me, when you don't enjoy the products made by the same people, why keep going? Out of some sense of loyalty to a brand that you know it won't really resemble? So anyhow...I know my one ticket sale isn't gonna put a dent in these ridiculous box office takes for these silly movies, but I figure at least I'm not contributing to the problem.

...well too much anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any artist known first for their original work who then hitches themselves to a franchise is doing it for two reasons - admiration and self-respect. They admire what's gone before, but they're paid so badly the franchise work is probably the first time they're ever going to make any real money. You have to respect yourself on that front, because no-one else is going to.

Okay, that's probably not true in Villeneuve's case, but I'm sure he has the same fear for job security we all experience. I'm not at all opposed to seeing his version of Dune - I'd far rather it went to an intelligent, stylish director like him than some hack. 

I actually think his doing work like this increases the chances that we;ll get him doing his own thing again later, a la Nolan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any artist known first for their original work who then hitches themselves to a franchise is doing it for two reasons - admiration and self-respect. They admire what's gone before, but they're paid so badly the franchise work is probably the first time they're ever going to make any real money. You have to respect yourself on that front, because no-one else is going to.

Okay, that's probably not true in Villeneuve's case, but I'm sure he has the same fear for job security we all experience. I'm not at all opposed to seeing his version of Dune - I'd far rather it went to an intelligent, stylish director like him than some hack. 

I actually think his doing work like this increases the chances that we;ll get him doing his own thing again later, a la Nolan. 

It could've been worse, I suppose:  Michael Bay's "Dune" (buggies)... :giggle:

giphy.gif68747470733a2f2f33382e6d656469612e74756d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0