Discuss Dune
Discuss → Movies → Dune → General
Denis Villeneuve Wants To Direct DUNE: MESSIAH After DUNE PART TWO
posted by OddRobSTAFFMOD on October 29, 2021 at 1:50 AM
Yes please. I think this will be Denis Villeneuves Godfather/LOTR/Star Wars. It makes perfect sense for him to continue with the books till Part 3.
Reply by tmdb82469342
on October 30, 2021 at 5:53 PM
Now THAT'S the mechajutaro I remember!
Reply by northcoast
on October 31, 2021 at 11:38 AM
Thanks for the info, OddRob.
It would be awesome if Villeneuve could film the second book.
Reply by Adam
on October 31, 2021 at 3:55 PM
Did he ever change?
Reply by lostincinema
on November 7, 2021 at 10:52 AM
And it looks like the first two parts won't even break even: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/438631-dune/discuss/6182215ca097dc00428a98a8
But I hope he gets to do ALL the books as series if not movies!
Reply by OddRob
on November 8, 2021 at 11:15 PM
Part 1 wont breakeven at the cinemas. But Part 2 more than likely will considering its Cinema only and not HBO Max day one.
Reply by lostincinema
on November 9, 2021 at 3:44 AM
It's sad that they are going back to cinema only. I thought this shift would become permanent.
Reply by OddRob
on November 9, 2021 at 3:57 AM
They would lose to much money. We would literally never see a film hit the billion club again if this kept up. Something Hollywood would never allow. I for one am happy we are going back to cinema only. But I can see both sides as a plus/negative.
Reply by lostincinema
on November 9, 2021 at 4:55 AM
I don't get it. What is the positive side in cinema only releases for audience?
Reply by OddRob
on November 9, 2021 at 5:07 AM
Its the experience of going out, getting excited to see a film you have been waiting for years to come out. Seeing it on a big screen opening night with other fans. Some people dont have a 3k +video/audio set up to enjoy a film at home, or the time to watch it in peace, family people will understand. Also supporting a film you like in the hopes that they will make the same type of films in the future. I would like to see a in between. One month cinema exclusive than moved over to streaming, both sides win IMO. But honestly I think Hollywood really wants to go back to cinemas only, the money they are losing is probably unbelievable.
Reply by lostincinema
on November 9, 2021 at 5:39 AM
This can be done even when a movie is simultaneously released in cinemas and online streaming platforms. If any thing it will give more choice. So people who want the "cinema experience" will opt for it. And people who decided it's not worth it for them will stream it. It looks like Hollywood is moving back to cinemas only to snatch away the choice from the audience.
Reply by OddRob
on November 9, 2021 at 6:18 AM
"Snatch away the choice from the audience" AKA Want more money, yes, yes they do.
Reply by northcoast
on November 14, 2021 at 8:33 AM
To tag along with OddRob--
I really think the Industry needs to return to cinema-release only, followed by (again to echo OddRob) streaming a month or two later. Remember back in the day-- not so long ago! --when we had to wait six months or more to watch a film on alternative formats following theatrical release? When the pay-cable networks finally started showing it and/or it finally appeared for rent on the shelves of our local video rental store (where, in the latter case, you also incidentally got real-world contact with and got to chat up your friends and neighbors)? Those days weren't so bad and you got to build up your anticipation a little more if you missed the release in-theater. A little delayed gratification is not a bad thing.
The simple truth is this:
Prior to the pandemic, movie theaters were already struggling, competing with online streaming.
The pandemic itself nearly killed them.
If movie studios, now, routinely allow theatrically-released films to also stream simultaneously, movie theaters/cinemas WILL vanish, and that experience of watching films on the "big screen", in the presence of other random people with whom you can share the experience and hear and see the reactions to the film in real time, will no longer be an option.
So I agree with OddRob-- release a movie exclusively in cinemas first, followed by a brief wait for streaming availability (one to two months-- still a lot less of a wait than back in the "olden days" of only 10 or so years ago). Just FYI, I am not talking about many "Independent" films that just cannot get distribution-- they can stream immediately, just like back in the misty times of the early 2000s and before when they went straight-to-video.
Reply by lostincinema
on November 14, 2021 at 12:45 PM
If people are choosing streaming instead of theaters who exactly has the problem here?
It's like people don't care for the theater experience and you are nevertheless imposing it on them.
Reply by northcoast
on November 14, 2021 at 1:19 PM
lostincinema--
I was waiting for that sort of argument.
The issue is that, though a majority might wish for simultaneous streaming, a solid minority will prefer the big-screen experience. (I remember the film critic Leonard Maltin saying in one of his books that he even had a friend who NEVER saw releases on home video and refused to own a VCR; he only saw films in-theater. Kind of like me never owning a microwave, and never planning to . . . and I've been cooking for myself for 25 years).
The majority is not always right.
Another issue is the loss of yet another service economy job from the landscape-- thousands and thousands of them, actually. It is not good psychologically for anyone when the society moves completely to an "at-home" experience . . . where entertainment is streamed in, food is delivered, every other purchase big and small is made virtually, even work itself is no longer in-person . . . empathy is lost, and humankind becomes just a collection of unconnected, even unfeeling, recipients of various sustaining inputs.
lostincinema, your very screenname suggests love for the cinema-- but the "cinema" was never intended as an exclusively solitary experience, watching movies alone on a smaller screen. It is more immersive than that . . . the sounds around you, the visuals, the gasps and laughs of the audience around you.
And I say this, lostincinema, as someone who watches plenty of films by myself, at home, largely, like everyone else, out of cost and availability concerns (can't afford to watch everything in-theater, nor are many films even available theatrically where I live).
But the option to watch in-cinema, SOCIALLY, immersed, should always be there, and it won't be if we move to streaming-only or even streaming-simultaneously . . . again, the majority is not always right.
You can have your streaming, lostincinema-- you will just have to wait. A little while. One or two months. Unless, of course, your viewpoint wins out. Which would be a sad day for the art form.
I am sure I have not convinced you, lostincinema-- so you and I will just have to disagree on this.
Reply by northcoast
on November 15, 2021 at 4:34 AM
mechajutaro--
Oh, I do agree on that, mecha. Around my neck of the woods, my small-town two-screen theater charges $5 - $6.50 depending on time of day, which I think is reasonable. They charge up to $8 if it's a 3-D release, which I usually avoid anyway since, due to my vision, I can't see 3-D projections (to me they just look like 2-D; although I will sometimes pay the higher price if no 2-D projection is available).
The bigger town 15 miles over, with three "mega-plexes" of 7 to 10 screens, are charging up to $8 for regular releases, $9 for 3-D; these are actually reduced rates-- courtesy of the pandemic --which I still think are reasonable. BUT, I have heard horror stories where major metropolitan areas with those enormous 20- to 30- screen theaters charge much higher . . . and that will have to change.