Dune (Film) Post-release thread (open spoilers from film)

Cafe Society
501

I don’t disagree. I think the characters of the doctor and housekeeper were too thinly written and could have benefited from better writing and only a little bit more screen time, but the dinner scene would definitely have occupied at least an additional 10 minutes, if not longer, and probably would have ground the narrative flow to a halt. But I dearly would have loved to see the characters interact in that scene, especially in the discussion on drowning.

In the book, most of the characters are brought out through inner monologues, so they are all, in a sense, unplayable without some pretty heavy handed inner thoughts being voiced. But, for the fans of the book, Paul needs to be played as callow and shouldn’t appear to be a seasoned fighter. The book’s arc is him growing into his destiny. He starts the story in his mid- to late-teens and is a child of privilege, highly trained, but never really tested in any battle. I thought MacLachlan was way to old for the part and even Chalamet struggles to play young enough at the start of the film.

502

I thought Chalamet was perfect for the role and did an amazing job. I think what some people interpret as poor acting or writing – he’s callow and clueless, mumbly and lacking in leadership presence, selfish, a poor fighter – was exactly what Paul is supposed to be in the first half of the book.

He is not a hero, he is not a leader, he is not an admirable person. If you liked Paul by the end of the book, you didn’t really understand the story.

503

Same here.

And the SFX for this were way, way better than the Lynch version, I don’t know what Dropo’s talking about there.

Only thing I prefer from the Lynch version is Stewart’s Gurney. I like Brolin well enough, but prefer Stewart’s more theatrical stylings for that particular character.

504

Omniscient wrote: Christopher Nolan has pretty clearly expressed disdain and indifference to the kinds of people using cheap soundbars or built-in flat screen TV speakers to watch movies. But even most standard movie theaters and my expensive living room home theater setup can’t manage to make these movies legible half the time.

Nolan is talking nonsense here, he’s deliberately mixed the films like that. I also have a good home theatre setup and bought the Dune blu-ray specifically because it has a Dolby Atmos soundtrack to take advantage of my setup. The Dune dialogue is inaudible at times, Nolan’s Inception and Tenet are inaudible for massive long stretches of the movies. None of these three films are smart enough to survive without the dialogue. Contrast this with 2001: A Space Odyssey which has hardly any dialogue at all, runs about the same length and remains riveting throughout!

505

I never noticed audio issues on Inception, but Tenet is clearly mixed so the dialogue is hard to hear. I only saw it on TV with subtitles. Still a bad movie, but I could at least know what they were saying.

Bane, on the other hand…I am glad I have subtitles for him.

506

Doh my mistake - I meant “Interstellar” not “Inception”!

507

By “SFX,” I first assumed you were referencing sound effects, though I now understand you mean visual effects (vfx) which are done in post-production. I am used to hearing the term “special effects” in the context of on-set events like pyrotechnics or wirework.

To clarify: I found the vfx in the Lynch version more entertaining (as distinct from “better”) than the newer one.

Generally, I prefer the look of models and miniatures to CG. Both usually look fake to me, but shooting real objects under studio lighting renders a look that is noticeably different and often more dynamic than CG. In the Lynch version, there are several vfx shots conspicuously well-composed to convey scale. In the Villeneuve version, the CG is indistinguishable from numerous other sci-fi movies. This difference is especially noticeable in scenes where stuff explodes. In Lynch’s version, (miniature) stuff is actually exploding, captured by cameras running at high frame rates. That has always looked cooler to me than umpteen iterations of CG explosions.

Lynch’s version also contains a number of vfx shots I would call “cheesy.” I do not deduct points for that, especially in a film as audaciously bad as Dune. Rather, I appreciate the time and effort that went into creating them far more than I do for someone sitting in front of a computer screen waiting for the software to render an image.

508

I was referring to both in-production and post-production effects. So properly SFX and VFX, yes.

I differ. For instance, I really didn’t like their shield effect, the 2021 one is much better (by which I do mean I find it more entertaining). Especially the use of colour, but also that it’s more true to the book descriptions.

Whereas when I revisited the Lynch one, the masking was sometimes so obvious as to be distracting.

And the use of CGI lets them have things like the 'thopters that are actually ornithopters. Lynch didn’t even bother trying.

Yes, we can tell - because miniature explosions don’t scale well. They always look like a miniature (petrol) explosion.

I greatly prefer the kind of things that were done in the new film. That’s some beautiful Macross Missile Massacring, right there:

509

I thought the sfx in the new movie were excellent throughout. I can’t remember a moment where I winced or rolled my eyes at a bungled effect.

510

Agreed. It strikes me as a bizarre complaint to be frank. The effects were cutting edge and authentic. Sometimes I fear that (older) people made up their minds that they hate CGI back when they watched The Mummy for the first time and will never come around no matter how much it improves.

511

I am not super sophisticated about effects, but i thought the whole movie was gorgeous, and there weren’t any “that physics is wrong” moments that distracted me. (one of the spiderman movies was beautifully rendered, but the physics were wrong, and every time he swung on a web it bothered me.)

512

Oh, and yeah, the shield effect looked right to me.

513

I think it’s a matter of viewer perspective. I don’t mind seeing matte lines or obvious miniature work because I am always aware I am watching a movie and moments where I can see the hand of the filmmakers adds entertainment value for me. Not everyone feels that way, to be sure.

No one is complaining. I stated a preference is all. Some of the CG in the newer version served no narrative purpose, but was intended to save money on production costs for sets. In the earlier version, everything you see on a set was actually built. My appreciation and enjoyment of the latter is far greater than for the former.

514

That’s obvious, we’re all talking about our own preferences here.

But for me, all the explosions in the Lynch versions look the same - petrol mushroom clouds and basic fireworks. That marker light + missile bloom + ground carpet explosion effect I linked to isn’t something they could even attempt using that antiquated level of pyrotechnical tech. So we lose out on a very impressive visual effect, and in its place we have …? Bits of papier mache + plaster walls blown up with petrol? Pass, thanks.

Cite that CGI is always cheaper than miniatures. From what I know it can vary quite widely, either way, but really good CGI is very expensive. Because the labour costs of good CGI are way more than the labour costs of good miniature work.

MMV. I appreciate good CGI artistry just as much as good modelmaking. They’re both crazy-hard to do well and I don’t privilege one over the other.

515

I was not referencing miniatures, but the partially built, full-size sets that were augmented by CG. For example:

516

What’s partially built there, and what’s CG? Can you tell? All seems pretty seamless to me. If you can’t tell, what difference does it make? You’d prefer they do it with the obvious miniatures of the first movie? To what end?

And what about that set “serves no narrative purpose”? Visualizing Caladan is a narrative purpose.

517

DISCLAIMER: I found no cite that proves or disproves any of the following speculation.

I’m inclined to believe that at least part of the platform was built and that the principal actors standing on it were really there. I am uncertain whether the banners on the platform or the people and carpets in front of the platform are real or (at least partially) CG.

I am far more certain everything behind the platform and to the sides of it is CG. Note that this includes all of the background, the architecture, forestry and most of the “people.” I strongly suspect many of those CG-people do not have faces, but the resolution of the still prevents me from confirming it.

To my eyes, it appears completely fake. The images to the sides of the platform look like they’ve been composited to a much narrower live-action plate. Not definitive on its own, but the limited color palette is commonly a sign of CG. Also, I know from common sense they did not build that set, nor feed, costume and pay for all those extras as the costs would have been astronomical (especially when CG is available).

Not something I would have noticed (or cared about) while watching the film, but from the still, you can see that the guy standing in front of the platform to the immediate right of the stairs is casting a shadow extending (screen left) in front of him. Now look at the dude facing him on the immediate left of the stairs: he casts no shadow at all. I don’t think he’s real.

Miniatures could not be used for shots like this that have a live-action element; if there is any camera movement as well – I don’t recall whether there is or not in the scene – that would make using miniatures beyond impractical.

My viewing entertainment preference for miniature/model work over CG never befouls my judgement when it comes to knowing what techniques would work for any given scene. More to the point, simply because I might enjoy watching one technique more than the other, that in no way precludes me from enjoying the other. Why does it have to be a competition between them? That way of thinking is completely alien to me.

“…obviously, we had the limitations on some of the sets, not all the sets, but some of the sets we had limitation for the space, because some of them also were just for budgetary reasons.” - https://screenrant.com/dune-movie-denis-villeneuve-avoid-green-screen-how/

“Having fabric painted to mimic what the set would ultimately look like also allowed post-production artists to avoid having to paint out awkward green shades of color produced by green screens. The use of fabric to imitate a deeper space than is financially or physically possible is a common practice in theater, where actors are often limited to a small (by comparison) stage.” - Here's How Dune Managed To Avoid Using Green Screen - IGN

518

I’m sure you can tell from some of the pixels. And from seeing quite a few shops in your time.

Most big films are colour-graded nowadays. It’s not a sign of anything.

And then (my bolding)…

Nothing there says this didn’t serve a narrative purpose. In fact, they quite explicitly do say that:
*It all creates this world, that makes it more real" Making the made-up world seem more real to the actors and the audience serves the narrative, not just the budget.

Also, I bolded the part of your cite that kind of undershoots your point - you have no idea if the designer is talking about that set you posted or not. He may only be talking about some Arrakis sets, because a green hue there would be very noticeable. On green Caladan, not so much.

519

I do not understand the second sentence. What does “shops” refer to? Shops where they do CG? I’m really not sure.

But he says “…some of them also were just for budgetary reasons.” That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

My original quote did not specify any set:

520

Feel free to search the internet for that exact sentence.

That sentence is talking about why they had limited set size, not why they chose to fill them out with CG.

Then don’t follow up with pictures meant to back up your argument that actually undercut it.