Does it work as stand alone?
I assume part 2 (or 3) will never get made.
Does this movie stand on its own? Or does the "cliff hanger ending" promise another movie that will never come?
I assume part 2 (or 3) will never get made.
Does this movie stand on its own? Or does the "cliff hanger ending" promise another movie that will never come?
I ask- because I know several people who plan to see it who don't know the whole story. I'm wondering if they'll know they're missing anything.
shareI can see where this remake made somewhat of an effort to be more explanatory and tried to inform people of what was happening .. the problem is it's just too hard and too much for someone to remember cold. And even with a lot missing.
I think they will probably make 2 and 3 ... because I think they did not spend a lot of money on this version ... it was very minimalist.
I would not say so. It ends with the duel between Paul and one of the Freman who resents his presence in the sietch. What I found odd, or maybe I missed it was the explanation that every time you take a crysknife out of it's sheath you must draw blood ... that was never explained. Either those mf-ing Freman did not get a lot of knife practice or they must have had scars all over their bodies!
shareNo.
shareIt has no resolution so no, no matter how well everything else is done it fails as a movie because it doesn't tell a story. You can have a film that is a lead in to a series, or you can have a Part 1 when the rest is already filmed and released in a year or less, but you can't just stop a story midway through and say "oh well, we'll see if we get around to the next part." It's arrogant and insulting to the audience.
shareI would agree with that.
shareI would not agree with that at all. There is no difference between "Dune" and what "Lord of the Rings" did. No one goes around calling "Lord of the Rings" arrogant and insulting. The same was done with the last two "Matrix" films, but let's not ignore the fact that this is a long-term practice in filmmaking. Sergei Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible" was planned to be released in three parts, but the third part was never filmed. Sergei Bondarchuk's "War and Peace" was released in four parts. None of these films "stand alone" as you have to watch the previous instalments to understand the later ones, but are never-the-less masterpieces. There are plenty of such examples across film history and none of them is called arrogant and insulting. In fact, it is no more arrogant and insulting than any serialised TV show. I do, however, think it's arrogant to condemn a movie for being ambitious and telling its story across several parts and presume to know better than a highly-regarded film director how films should be presented. It is also insulting to all the experienced filmmakers behind the "Dune" movies. This is a story too large in scope and too ambitious to be told in a single movie.
shareExcept I made a point to differentiate between this and a series where it was all filmed back to back and released close together. In the case of the Matrix the story presented had a resolution and then opened up the bigger story of the trilogy. In the case of LOTR they filmed it all together and released them one year apart. Dune was consciously made as half of a story. It simply ends. We're talking about very different things. Luckily it seems they just approved the Part 2, but now it has to go through the glacially paced process of starting up a whole new production. We're talking 3 years minimum and quite possibly more. This isn't the Marvel production machine where they spit out movies fast. I would honestly be very surprised if we see Part 2 released before 2024. That's not ok for the resolution to the initial story.
share"Ivan the Terrible" wasn't filmed all at once. "War and Peace" was still in production when part one was released in cinemas. Any serialised TV series you watch live when it goes out hasn't been completed yet. I really don't see a difference here. In ten years time, no one will care whether "Dune: Part Two" was filmed by the time "Dune: Part One" was released and neither should we. Production matters such as these don't affect the quality of the film itself. To claim the film is bad just because part two hasn't been filmed yet is a bit silly honestly. Would you be saying it's a great film if part two were in the can?
shareYour argument does not hold up Alan, simply with the fact that with “The Lord of Rings” they KNEW they were making all the movies, with no doubt. Not so with this or as far as I/we all know.
shareMy argument is that it doesn't matter. How does that affect the quality of the film? We still get the same acting, same writing, same designs, same music etc. as we would if they'd filmed all three parts back to back and that's what actually matters. "Boss" is still a great TV show and a cracking watch even though they had no idea if they'd get to finish their story and got cancelled after the second season. I don't see anyone complaining about "The Sopranos" being arrogant for telling a serialised story without knowing they'd get to finish it.
shareIt's happened before though.
Where is the next part of Alita: Battle Angel? We're still waiting.
I guess for that matter Avatar also launched without a sequel in production, and we know what happened there. Though Avatar sucks so who cares.
You gotta point there. I wonder if they do another episode ... how long will it take them. My impression was that this was an experiment in a really low budget movie with lots of computer effects.
shareit doesn't stand on it own, but if part 2 never gets made, at least you could watch dune '84 to see how the story ends (villeneuve's dune part 1 = the first 90 minutes of lynch's dune). or you could read the book of course.
shareHave you seen this 3 hour 4k "fan edit" version of 1984's Dune yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faHQA_0d9Mo
Absolutely MUST SEE for anyone who wants to feel the real magic of Dune. I'm actually watching it again tonight! :-)
Can only echo the other sentiments here by saying as a stand alone film it fails because it ends abruptly without completing the storyline of the first book and/or film(s) that came before it.
Otherwise this was alright, it held my interest in the 2 hours plus it takes to watch this. I’m not sorry I watched it, the leads were good, even though you only see Zendaya (CHANI) at the very end of the film so there’s that & Ferguson so far is my favorite version of Lady Jessica. No weird hairdo is always a plus. Again a ok version of Dune, but what can you really say? Dune is DUNE no matter how many versions were released, the story plays out the same.
The one thing I found odd is that it’s Duncan Idaho that says “Thank you for the gift of your body’s water” rather than Paul which it was in the past few movies. Call me a heretic if you want to but I really liked the Sy Fy channels take on Dune many years back. Say what you want but to date it’s the only version that actually EXPANDED on the storyline as they also had “Children of Dune” in addition to just the remake of the original story, which I thought was very good so they get loads of credit for that in my book. I’m sure many of you will feel differently but that’s my take on it.
Here’s hoping “Part 2” does indeed come, if it doesn’t then what’s the point? Especially if you cant secure all of the cast for a potential 2nd movie then how much of a waste was it to even make this? Zendaya got cheated by only being in flashbacks & the end of this. I’d complain but hey work is work, right?
I also really like the mini series. Though I'm not sure it's aged well. And I think it looked better on my SD TV.
But I think it's a lot better than the Lynch version.
No. At least not for me. I'm unfamiliar with the source material. And this film mostly felt like a setup for part 2. This film had a lot of exposition. It was the 'world-building movie'. And I'm glad it didn't rush things. Cause there's a lot going on.
So I hope it does well & it's well received. Cause I would love to see a continuation & an actual conclusion to the story
Nope, not at all
share