Should the latest Dune movies have been shown as one picture?

I've seen both of the current Dune movies,and I generally liked them .They are the best adaptation of the novel to date,though I acknowledge that is not a high bar to get over.But something occured to me as I watched both films:in an artistic sense,it would have been better if they would have done a Gone w/The Wind,shot both films at once,and had one showing with an intermission.I think that would have made the movies flow a lot better.On the other hand,there could be some serious problems with marketing a movie in that manner to a modern audience.Your thoughts?

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

It's an abridged version of one book... so yeah, you should perceive it as one picture.
But it's just impossible too market it that way.

Dune: Part I - Is 2 hours and 35 minutes long
Dune: Part II - Is 2 hours and 46 minutes long
... combining the entire Dune book in 5 hours and 21 minutes movie.

Which theatre is going to alow a 5 hour+ movie to be broadcasted continuously? Let alone... which person is going to spend more then 5 hours in a theatre? I'm pretty sure there are outliers... but as a whole, I think it might hurt the box office results. I also don't think this is an issue with "modern audiences", since older productions also try to fit their stories in a limited timeframe. I think Villeneuve [i](in interviews)[/i] made it really clear that this is one movie and not a sequel.

... And to make stuff even worst, the story isn't finished. Herberts' first 3 books are perceived as a trilogy, they are meant to be read back to back. And I dare even say that the 4th book is essential reading too since it gives closure to a storyline that starts in the 3th book. Villeneuve also tactically creates an open ending in the 2nd part of Dune. Creating an opening for the 3th chapter, that at this point is named: "Dune Part III" on IMDB [i](but we don't know if it's ever going to be made)[/i]. Part III, probably makes more sense then "Dune: Messiah", espescially with the artistic choices that Villeneuve took.

... This is a discussion that also popped up when LoTR was initially proposed at the publisher. Where the publisher was unwilling too publish a book that was "that long". So Tolkien rewrote the manuscript and created 3 books that function as a trilogy. In the rework all the books still have a: "start - middle - end". Dune was less long and never got this treatment. So we are left with 1 book that is internally split up but is still one story. LoTR eventually became 3 movies [i](that are also heavily abridged)[/i] based on the 3 diffrent books. The 3 movies, still are one story/book... but I think it "feels" better, because of how the story got rewritten to fit 3 different books.

Longpatrol · 31-35, M

It's a splendid idea but I think you're correct, the attention span of modern audiences is quite limited. Back then going for a movie used to be an EVENT folk would dress up nicely etc.

A 5 hour Dune movie with an intermission could have dealt with many of the internal motivations for the characters and also filled out Jessica and Gurney Halleck's characters a bit more.

If there is one thing I could pick upon it would be the tension between them.

laurieluvsit · 26-30, F

I only saw the new one yesterday but I felt the whole time like I needed to see the 1st one to know what was going on in the 2nd one.

I was lost but loved the action and acting.

Longpatrol · 31-35, M

@laurieluvsit I'm glad you liked it! But yes you absolutely have to watch the first one as it really sets up the 2nd film and why the characters are doing what they're doing.

laurieluvsit · 26-30, F

@Longpatrol
Yes, it seemed obvious to me right from the start that there was something else I was supposed to know that I didn't so when I got lost in the story line I just focused on the action and acting, which was superb I thought.
Then when I walked out the door there was a girl that approached me doing a film survey I guess from the producers to see if they should shoot the 3rd one but I told her that I didn't see the first one so was a bit lost and passed.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@Longpatrol

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

@MrBrownstone Could you elaborate?I don't understand what you mean.

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@DavidT8899 Signal for him to read your post.

SW-User

I haven’t seen the second one, but the first just ended unexpectedly. Reminded me of one of the Lord of the Rings movies.

butterflybaby75 · 46-50, F

Dunc dunc! 8-)

NativePortlander1970

I am a fan of the original 1984 film, I couldn't even watch a full minute of the trailer of the recent remake.

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

@NativePortlander1970 With all due respect,the 1984 version sucked eggs.Its obvious the David Lynch didn't take the source material seriously,and it clearly showed.For a much better adaption,check out the Sci-Fi channel limited series,which covered Dune through Children of Dune.

Add a comment...