Firstly. I am a HUGE fan of DUNC 1. The music, cinematography, script and acting ate 10/10.
However, the second movie was very TV like. The quality of framing was bad. The editing choppy. The characters shallow and cliché. And lastly everyonr looked terrible.
How can you make someone like Timmy and Zendy look so, so bad. It was horrifying to see.
I do not understand why this happened. Any explanation?
Edit: Jason Mamoa did detract in the first movie with his bad acting.
Better than halo and fallout
compared to shit, shit can look better sure
Dunc 1 looked pretty mediocre to me, and was also pretty soulless and boring, have not seen 2 yet, but I'm surprised it looks worse. The general consensus seems to be most people like it more.
don't care. dunc 3 already greenlit. seethe
I love dunc kino
This was one of the best movies to come out or that will come out this entire decade you dumb virgin.
Average Bri'ish geeza and his two lads. Smiling cause they're bout tah play footy and knock back couple o' pints innit.
>This was one of the best movies to come out or that will come out this entire decade you dumb virgin.
Watch better films. It's not even the best film of March 2024.
Ok one of the best mainstream films then. I don't beat off to indie films all day I have a job and a girlfriend.
>Ok one of the best mainstream films then.
Not even that is true. It is terribly made on a purely technical level. Most other mainstream films did at least have somewhat competent cinematography and acting.
>Competent cinematography and acting.
Ok you must surely be trolling if you think capeshit or fast cars and black guys number 6 million had better cinematography and acting than Dune.
Most capeshit actually does have decent cinematography (for mainstream cinema, that is). DUNC did not.
And the acting in DUNC, particularly from the leads, but also from Walken, was outright abysmal.
2/10 bait
it's not bait I'm being completely sincere with you: dunc is a bad movie in almost every sense. Even Ridley Scott would have done a better job.
(You)
(You)
not an argument, watch better movies
I watch better movies and I enjoy DUNC as well
if you've watched better movies you wouldn't bother defending this slop (unless you're a shill)
Why? I enjoy Andrei Rublev, but I also enjoy Terminator 2 even though they are vastly different films. Same with DUNC.
Or are you one of those karagarga discord trannies who only approve of Lav Diaz tier festival flicks and nothing else.
The problem is not that you enjoy Terminator 2 or DUNC. The problem is that you unironically try to argue that DUNC has good cinematography, when you, by your own account, should know better.
Yes, DUNC has good cinematography. Not best ever, not great, but certainly good, better than average.
In fact I'd say the same for most Greg Fraser shot films, The Batman Zero Dark Thirty Rogue One all look GOOD but not great or anything groundbreaking.
>Yes, DUNC has good cinematography.
>better than average.
No, it does not.
>I'd say the same for most Greg Fraser shot films
That shows that you do indeed have very low standards and need to either watch more films, or watch them more carefully, paying more attention to what they actually do with the camera, and what Fraser never does.
It's okay, anon. I, for example, do like B-movie horror from the 80s. That's some vertiable trash.
Maybe not quite as bad as DUNC, but you get what I mean: It's okay to enjoy trash, once in a while, as long as we're not deluding ourselves into believing that it's some kind of masterpiece.
Fricking brainlet shitposter.
>it's not bait
I guess trolling doesn't have "rules" per se, but I feel like denying bait or trolling kind of makes it silly.
Sorry, anon, but if you think DUNC looks good or even just functionally coherent, you really lack a basic understanding of visual storytelling.
It's not bait; if there's one complaint to make about Dune by Denis Villeneuve, it's the casting. The cast is unattractive.
Design isn't.
Tone isn't.
Setting isn't.
Even the editing can be promoted.
...but the cast is very unattractive. It detracts, and distracts, from the film.
It's one thing if you claim, "Denis MEANT that! They're SUPPOSED to be, in his mind, anti-charismatic!" In which case, he succeeds! But it's both bad to watch and completely, and blatantly, NOT the nature of Dune to have leaders who you don't want to look at.
Dune looks like shit, just grey and brown CGI shit, the Lynch version is far superior on a visual level.
And yes, the acting is also bad. It's one of those productions where you can nobody in the cast understands the script and are just blindly going forth saying their lines and hoping for the best.It also suffers from picking studio mandate meme actors rather than people who fit the roles.
>nobody in the cast understands the script and are just blindly going forth saying their lines and hoping for the best
that's actually Denis Villeneuve's directing style.
>that's actually Denis Villeneuve's directing style.
This, but unironically.
And it works.
This is literally how all the Britbongs in Spain look like
bait
Paul on the right, signifying justice and correctness. Feyd on the left, signifying wrongness and weakness. How does Villenueve come up with such visual genius?
The one scene in the movie that looked very good.
More like the one single shot. That scene in motion was abysmal, like all the action scenes in the movie.
this looks like they are standing on a soundstage in front of a green screen
They are. Well, I assume parts of the set are practical. But the sunset screensaver in the background is greenscreened in.
you're both wrong
forgot pic
Well, still looks like shit.
yes, im aware. that's why i said it looks like greenscreen. the french mind cannot process a background and a foreground at the same time, so everything but the subject is a browngray blur
that's more of a Greg Fraser thing
>australian
>early life section empty
>first credit is a movie called israeliteboy
what conclusion should a reasonable man draw from this information?
His biography is irrelevant.
His work speaks for itself.
And it's begging to be put out of its misery.
The faux sophistication of minimalism haunts the midwit. It's his failure to be able to picture details in his mind's eye.
I wished they just kept this perspective throughout the entire duel, truly a kino frame
I disagree, DUNC 2 looked A LOT better than the first one.
>CGI mouse close up looks like a PS2 game
Sure thing gay
This looks like a memegrid, cherrypicked to lambast how outright amateurish it looks. But when you've actually seen the film, you realize that this is actually as good as it ever gets.
I don't see how anyone can claim the first one looking better than the sequel. The second part has better visuals, better costumes, better production design, better effects better everything.
They have exactly the same cinematographer with the same uninspired approach.
They have the same kind of reduced and simple costuming.
They have the exact same kind of minimalist "brutalist" set design.
They have no noticable difference in production design.
And the CG effects still look like they're being live-rendered by a gaming console from ten years ago.
>They have the same kind of reduced and simple costuming.
This is just a straight up lie and you know it.
Costuming was a lot better in the sequel, in every way possible.
Your picture betrays your point.
Terrible costume.
let's be honest here, if 1984 Lynch version had the same exact costume you'd praise it day and night
>if 1984 Lynch version had the same exact costume
It didn't. If Lynch's Dune had the same costuming, set design, direction, cinematography and writing as DUNC, it wouldn't be what it is, and the people who like it for what it is wouldn't have liked it. Your whole argument is moronic.
I didn't say everything, I said that particular costume. But you are clearly a moron autist who has to pretend that EVERYTHING is the worst thing ever made in order to feel like you have an opinion, so you can't be helped
I would say that DUNC is worse than the Lynch version in every way except it adapts the plot a little better. Otherwise it's a total failure and you can compare them both as a good metaphor for how big budget Hollywood film-making has declined since the 1980s.
DUNC has a way better representation of The Voice. Also scenes like Gom Jabbar are better in DUNC in literally every way possible, better acting, better writing, better costumes, better use of the Voice, better everything. Better Paul, better Reverend Mother.
The only thing which I would say is better in 1984 is the Toto soundtrack and in door set design.
lol
I mean it 100%. Rampling absolutely shat all over that bald b***h in 1984 in every way possible.
Lynch Dune is better in some parts sure, but The Gom Jabbar scene is better executed in DUNC in every way possible, not even a question. Makes the 1984 Gom Jabar scene look like a laughable parody in comparison
Amazing costume design, right here.
I liked watching the miniseries. It was less "playing roles." I even enjoyed how it directed the Box/Gom Jabar scene as more "test" than "BE AFRAID MWAHAHAHAHAHA."
You're not actually making any arguments. Just claims. You say DUNC does those things better. I say it does all of them way worse. What now?
Pick almost anything, for example the Voice. In 1984 there's even embarrassing add-on exposition of Paul saying "She's using the Voice!" in his head after she uses the Voice on him. Then the laughable clunky 15 second walk towards her.
Meanwhile all of that is like 2-3 seconds in DUNC. No exposition needed, no awkward walk, you get all the information you need in 3 seconds thanks to great very efficient visual and audio storytelling. You immediately know how powerful the Reverend Mother is and how the Voice operates and what is the dynamic between the two characters.
>exposition of Paul saying "She's using the Voice!" in his head after she uses the Voice on him
You mean ... like in the book?
Oh my, an adaptation that actually follows the thing it adapts! How terrible!
>all of that is like 2-3 seconds in DUNC.
Yeah. No weight to it, nothing. Pointless, like the whole damn thing.
>You mean ... like in the book?
In the book it directly says that Paul found himself obeying the Voice before he could even think about it. Definitely not what happens in 1984, so DUNC is way more book accurrate in the representation of that part as well.
>No weight to it, nothing
That's the Gom Jabar scene in 1984, yes.
>Definitely not what happens in 1984, so DUNC is way more book accurrate in the representation of that part as well.
Except it isn't, because you need to bring outside information to DUNC to even understand what's going on.
>That's the Gom Jabar scene in 1984, yes.
Dishonest fricktard.
>Except it isn't
Why do you lie? In 1984 Paul literally says "No" the first time Reverend Mother uses the Voice on him saying "come here". And you pretend that's book accurate kek
>you need to bring outside information to DUNC to even understand what's going on
Sounds like you're just dumb. You don't even need the book to know what's happening in the Gom Jabar scene in DUNC, everything is perfectly clear to anyone who is not a literal room temperature IQ tard.
>Why do you lie?
I'm not lying just because I don't follow your bullshit interpretation of "if the text says something, that means you cannot let a character say it to clarify".
>everything is perfectly clear to anyone who is not a literal room temperature IQ tard.
You say, after bringing prior knowledge to the scene.
Yeah, I get it. You love DUNC and therefore need to pretend it does a great job at everything. But it doesn't.
>that means you cannot let a character say it to clarify".
That's not clarifying, in 1984 Paul does the OPPOSITE of what the book says. He doesn't obey the Voice before he could even think about it, he literally says "No" and thinks about it lol
>You love DUNC and therefore need to pretend it does a great job at everything
Lying again, I specifically said that 1984 version is better in some other parts, but most definitely not the Gom Jabar scene, which is pretty evident
>He doesn't obey the Voice before he could even think about it
Imagine being this much of an autist.
>but most definitely not the Gom Jabar scene, which is pretty evident
Say you, because, guess what, you love DUNC.
First you defend something being book accurate, now you pretend only autists care about that lol
>now you pretend only autists care about that lol
No, only autists care about the exact sequence of what a character says or thinks being adapted, rather than the scene actually trasporting what's going on accurately. You care about the former, I care about the latter.
>the scene actually trasporting what's going on accurately.
DUNC does exactly that in the Gom Jabar scene
>DUNC does exactly that
No, it does not. As I said before, it cannot stand on its own, it needs you to already know what's going on to understand what's going on and why.
DUNC opts to not explain anything. You love that, because you don't need an explanation. But that's not what an adaptation should do. It should assume that it needs to make its audience understand what's happening. But let me guess, you're one of those "show don't tell" morons who think that this bullshit mantra 1) is a good idea and 2) means that you should never use words to show something, because "muh visuals". Right?
>it cannot stand on its own, it needs you to already know what's going on to understand what's going on and why.
Yes it does, even more so than 1984.
>DUNC opts to not explain anything.
What? Everything is perfectly explained. No one watches the Gom Jabar scene and fails to understand what happens, you have to be kidding here. In fact I haven't heard a single anon say they had a problem with that scene and 95% of people here haven't read a single page of the book. And yes, something can be explained through more ways than just on-screen text or character exposition spewing. And it's not just visuals, but editing and audio as well which I'm sure even you enjoy more than on-screen text explanation/exposition
>Yes it does
No, it does not. But you cannot be argued with in that regard, can you?
>Everything is perfectly explained.
Where? When?
>95% of people here haven't read a single page of the book
Kek. Nearly everyone who frequents Dune/DUNC threads has read the book.
>something can be explained through more ways than just on-screen text or character exposition spewing.
Ah, yes, here we go. "Exposition bad!!!" - because you don't actually know what exposition is.
>editing and audio as well
Editing and audio in DUNC imply nothing.
>Where? When?
In the scene? The entire scene from the first frame till the very last one? And the scene before it with Jessica and Paul?
>Nearly everyone who frequents Dune/DUNC threads has read the book.
Anon most people on this board don't even watch movies, let alone read books.
>Editing and audio in DUNC imply nothing.
I don't think even you believe that. The way the Voice is mixed in DUNC implies nothing? Or the editing after Reverend Mother says "Come here, kneel" also implies nothing?
I don't think you believe half of the things you're saying now, you're just saying it out of pure mental gymnastics. Go ahead, tell me anything what's not understandable about the Gom Jabar scene in DUNC.
>In the scene?
No, not in the scene.
>most people on this board don't even watch movies
And now you're being outright facetious. Great.
>The way the Voice is mixed in DUNC implies nothing?
You mean ... LOUD? No, that implies nothing. That's just how every single sound is in DUNC. But in this case it's spoken words = LOUD. Great.
>you're just saying it out of pure mental gymnastics.
Right back at you. You've had this "DUNC good, Lynch bad" agenda from the very start, that quickly became "spoken elaboration bad, muh loud audio good". You are just describing what DUNC does, then say that it is preferable because it's what YOU want from it, not because it actually does anything better.
>You mean ... LOUD?
No, I mean how it's mixed. There's a large difference between someone yelling in DUNC and someone using the Voice, you are the facetious one here.
Listen to the Voice here in the Gom Jabar scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbTp1vlRqYA
You can clearly hear multiple voices mixed in as if all of Bene Gesserit is talking at once. And if you have speakers better than shitty laptop ones you'd also hear shockwave like sub frequencies at the same time, which in cinema feels like a wall of air pushing you. Can't think of a more clear cut example of something being way better executed in DUNC than exactly this.
>You've had this "DUNC good, Lynch bad" agenda from the very start
Lying again, I am specifically talking about the Gom Jabar scene and have specifically noted 1984 version executes some other things better, but not that scene.
>you need to bring outside information to DUNC
Not really, the number one question everyone had after the films was "how do they stop the worm?".
>the number one question everyone had after the films was "how do they stop the worm?".
Because DUNC not only failed to answer questions, it also failed to even raise them. It did not do any exposition. Ask anyone who's only seen DUNC what exactly spice is, they won't be able to answer. At best someone will tell you it's a rare resource, maybe someone picked up that it is used as a drug. Some will just tell you it's space fuel. But not a single one of them will actually want to know more about it, because DUNC never makes anyone care. Same for Yueh's backstory, or the baron's motivation. Or everything about Kynes that didn't get adapted. Or Alia. Or the resolution to Thufir's subplot.
the two adaptations are also a really good case study in how film critics have been completely fricking useless at every period of history.
yea and the only reason dune isn't better in that regard is some homosexual cut it to 2 hours meanwhile penis had over 5 to make hollow shit with diminished returns
Lynch could have made such a better trilogy. It's a shame he wasn't given that.
Lynch hates his movie, and Hollywood, for doing that to him. Outright hates them. With good reason.
I don't like Lynch movies, btw. But even I see the "charm" of his Dune.
>I said that particular costume.
That particular costume would have felt terribly out of place in Lynch's Dune. Stuck out like a sore thumb. No, you either change everything, so that it fits, or you immediately run into the problem that it'll stand out negatively, not just because it's trash, but because it doesn't fit.
still worse costumes than the Lynch version
>Lynch version
sovl
This looks used, lived in, real, strange. I can imagine some wild back stories. Dunc stuff looks straight off the shelf from the Apple store.
This looks like the packaging on the soap your grandmother gives your sister for christmas.
all grids are memegrids
Bullshit.
Agreed, it's just trolling.
Both films were very bland for almost all of their runtime though, but DUNC 2 had at least some cool costume and set design in there, a couple of scenes the desert actually looked interesting. It never looked hot though, absolutely pathetic in that regard.
Is this a joke those stills look extremely mid
>mid
fr fr, btw whats your favorite fortnite skin
Millennials constantly say “MEDIOCRE AT BEST” which is infinitely more homosexualy and obnoxious than just saying mid.
sure it looks better but its still a boring movie
It was much more interesting. Much more ideas. And it showed change, and also how everything stays the same.
I think it's comparable to the first. Only thing I hated was the amount of unnecessary hand held in the Fremen scenes.
I watched it last night. Ugly, ugliness, horrid UGLY seeps from every pore of this abject piece of trash
>ugly characters
>ugly acting
>ugly women
>ugly disrespect towards the book story
>ugly attitudes of characters when compared with book characters
>non-stop UGLY Chani, nothing like the book Chani in behavior or looks
>important plot points changed or missing
>a few good action sequences
The leaf homosexual should be hanged for this. I hate the movie even more than the first one and I thought it wouldn't be possible.
You are a homosexual.
stop trying so hard
Stop being a homosexual.
Anya knows you don't mean this and only pretending. She forgives you
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED
The book already exists. There is no point in doing a 1 to 1 translation of the book to screen.
I think it's slightly better than part 1 but still the most boring sci-fi epic ever made, don't let shills trick you
>DUNC 2 looked bad
>I am a HUGE fan of DUNC 1
>cinematography
Surely you must realize that DUNC1 looked just as bad as DUNC2, right?
>How can you make someone like [...] Zendy look so, so bad.
Ah, okay, so you're just baiting.
She's literally a model. She photographs well so yes its a bad sign when you cant photograph someone like that despite how they look in real lofe
It's like a YA novel but really drawn out and boring. Is the novel also like this?
DUNC1 follows the first half of the novel relatively close, just skips huge parts of it, particularly the character setup and exposition, and half the political intrigue plot (that's pretty much the heart of the story).
DUNC2 completely goes off the rails and treats the novel more as a very vague checklist of plotpoints, which might or might not play out completely differently, to the point where it compeltely writes out characters or changes them 180 degrees.
it is literally a YA novel about the teenaged target audience getting to become space emperor, have two hot gfs etc.
Part 1 had more variety but I think Part 2 had its moments.
Oh, look, it's a black and white filter ...
>BUT MUH INFRARED MEME CAMERA
Yes, black and white filter on infrared light component, so the set designers had to paint shit according to how paint reflects the invisible spectrum rather than the visible. How fricking original! More work for everyone but Villanova himself!
are you from a labor union or what, crying about a Hollywood set having to do work for a film lmfao
Just telling you how it is.
Villanova is a hack.
>workers have to... work
lmao
Are you really too stupid to understand the argument? The problem is not that they have to work, the problem is that you could have had the same on-screen effect with significantly less effort. Which would have meant less expenses and less time wasted (that could have gone into actually improving the sets - and, hell, they desperately needed imrovement).
now you're crying how the production design was spending too much fricking LMAO
what's next, they shouldn't have filmed in the desert because it's too expensive, just do it in post same thing am I rite lmfao
>you're crying
I'm not crying. I'm pointing out that Villanova has no idea what he's doing and wasting money.
>shouldn't have filmed in the desert because it's too expensive
It actually isn't. But that shows how little you understand.
>It actually isn't
you're so right, you actually save money when you move an entire Hollywood production to Wadi Rum and can only shoot during golden hour in the desert, a well known money saving hack am I rite kek
You do think building an in-studio set of a giant desert in a studio is any cheaper? Or that fully greenscreening it is even remotely possible?
That being said ... if you desaturate the shit out of your footage and make the desert not look like a desert anymore, you might as well just go with some cheap CGI ...
with an in-studio built set like pic related you can have as many takes as you want since you have the same exact conditions all day and night. you don't depend on the weather or the sun. you can have "golden hour" conditions 24/7 if you want, not just an hour per day to shoot
not the case with shooting in a desert
Right. Then why does literally every single production choose to film on location? Could it be because this greenscreen hell produces terrible results that do not in any way look authentic?
You are mad
Every time I see this I always think it's Kylo Ren's helmet visor and people are sitting inside of it.
At this point of your career, how do you prepare for a role like this?
>I watched the first movie again to get familiar with the main characters, some of the names and so on. Somebody in the theater once said to me—I had to play a king in a play, and I said to this older actor, “How am I going to do that? I’m this guy from Queens.” And he said, “Don’t worry about it. If the other actors treat you like the king, you don’t have to do much.” I sort of relied on the trappings of the emperor.
Speaking of being from Queens—you have a very distinct voice. And you ended up using your regular voice in the movie, without any accent work. How did you and Denis come to the decision that the Emperor of the Known Universe would talk like a guy from Queens?
>I hope I wasn’t too Queens. I tried to tone that down.
What did you think of Walken's casting?
physically/visually he does the part, acting wise he was sub par imo
does the job but nothing special
His acting was fine. Momoa, Brolin and Zendaya were noticably bad.
>What did you think of Walken's casting?
Shit. Don't want to say I told you so ... but I told you so. The guy hasn't delivered a good performance in decades.
And the only reason he was cast was literally for the Fatboy Slim memes on /r/eddit ... that didn't even happen, because the zoomer fanbase of these movies has no idea about that song and its connection to Dune.
He was alright, don't think he had enough scenes.
I think that's exactly the point.
The Emperor is a force that's always looming over the story, you almost never see him but his presence is there.
Really fricking bad. And I don't even blame Walken for it, he showed up and was himself and spoke like he normally does. It's Denny's fault for giving him the role to begin with
He did a good job. It was meant to be a decrepit, weird emperor, like a Persian shah.
I don't understand why Denis Vieleilnaeinuneave cast all his characters with that group. NONE of them are attractive. Unless that's the point, I really, really don't get it.
Yes, even very, very old Christopher Walken was a bad casting choice. Bad in the film, bad for the audience. 2024's audience instantly sees or hears Christopher Walken and thinks "cowbell" if they recognize him at all. That's not the emperor of the universe, Denis.
They shouldnt have omitted to spicing guild
What Scary Movie is this from?
the Dune 2000 miniseries
lmao at great value stilgar and gurney standing around reminds me of pic related
I loved the Dune tv miniseries. It's DESIGNED very well. It's attractive. It's actually fun to watch.
I didn't love the overuse of the screaming lady in the first DUNC soundtrack but Hans really outdid himself with part 2
The idea of power as a crushing burden and how if you know things you *CAN'T* change things (you have less choice) is brilliant.
This is a nice theme for Dunc tbh. Hans still got it, after all these years. The first movie lacked a good theme track.
Each time I hear it, I hear
>O' say can you see!
>By the dawn's early light!
man, I too felt the same. dunc 1 was good but Dunc 2 felt a little off.
>And the CG effects still look like they're being live-rendered by a gaming console from ten years ago
Can you point to an example that isn't the spice silos?
dunc1 was 7 at best dunc2 is 4 at best
Lots of grey and brown, something about sandBlack person prophecies and a chosen one, obnoxious Zimmer soundtrack that goes BRRRRRR, unengaging plot and characters that ends with a knifefight between a twink and a bald psycho
Can somebody explain what's actually good or admirable about these movies?
Paul being space Hitler
the real Hitler was more interesting
It's about worms.
Worms is actually one of my favourite German cities. I particularly like the Worms Cathedral.
Nothing in DUNC comes even close to looking this majestic and elegant.
>DUNC has good cinematography.
DUNC 2 was shot to perfect. To get the right amount of sovl it needed the film making sloppiness of TDKR
DUNC's Chani is just awful, she diminishes the movie every time she's on screen
>when Paul stares back at her after making the emperor kneel and we get a close up of Chani and Irulan
Pugh was a 10/10 in that scene compared to Zen
>yes it is!!!
>no it isnt!!
>repeat for the next 120+ posts
Agreed, actually. There's little to no point when this is basically just about opinions. I'll refrain from replying further. The DUNCtard guy just keeps accusing me of lying anyway.
I accept your concession
Kek. I knew this was coming. It's always the same with you shitposters.
But, seriously, last reply to you. Keep celebrating this as a win. It's the only thing you've got, you dishonest little prick.
>has no argument whatsoever anymore
>"uhhhh you're a dishonest prick"
Bravo.
I stand by what I said 100%.
Is this true?
?t=166
All of it
>let me tell you how your enjoyment of DUNC hurts my feelings
Is she drunk?
Nevermind. She loosens up a bit as it goes along. Pretty decent review, although I thought the movie was bad and she seems to think it's good
She's DRUNC
DUNC 2 so good that tv keep seething.
Nah, part 2 looked great, way better than the first
>denis (rhymes with penis) said "wee, this looks bon. we put in final cut."
my dune.jpg
>part 2 looked great
>posts one of the most goofy looking scenes
Yes, anon, it's called "ironing".
Ok zoomer I’ll bite. What’s so goofy about it. Not enough iron man thrusters in the heckin badass spec ops suits? Anti grav fields too lame? Technology too mysterious? Not enough subway surfers?
OP's right. DUNC 2 is a popcorn blockbuster loosely based on the novel. As an adaptation engaging with the book, it's abysmal in the character dynamics, politics among "the great houses", etc. Lowered my esteem of Denis A LOT. Makes me side-eye the people who called him Kubrick.
is this a bot post? who the frick called Villeneuve Kubrick lmao
"“It’s an honor for me to sit here and talk to you,” Spielberg said. “Let me start by saying there are filmmakers who are the builders of worlds. It’s not a long list and we know who a lot of them are. Starting with [Georges] Méliès and Disney and Kubrick, George Lucas. Ray Harryhausen I include in that list. Fellini built his own worlds. Tim Burton. Obviously Wes Anderson, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Ridley Scott, Guillermo del Toro. The list goes on but it’s not that long of a list, and I deeply, fervently believe that you are one of its newest members.”
So he didn't call him Kubrick, the same way he didn't call any of those other names Kubrick. Dumbass.
The actor David Dastmalchian, who has appeared in Prisoners, Blade Runner 2049 and Dune, once told The Hollywood Reporter that Denis Villeneuve "is a genius… he's our generation's Stanley Kubrick"
>The actor David Dastmalchian
Who?
>appeared in Prisoners, Blade Runner 2049 and Dune
Ah, so probably one of Dennis' best friends.
You should read what Simon Pegg has to say about JJ Abrams.
>Méliès ... and Disney
>Kubrick, ... George Lucas
That alone wasn't enough to make you question his sanity/sincerity?
Spielberg is an industry plant himself. More talented than the likes of Nolan or Villeneuve, but a sellout and studio director nonetheless.
perfect trilogies
>Lord of the Rings
>Denis' Dunes
>Pirates of Johnny Depp & Gore Verbinski
>DUNC 2 is shit
correct
>I am a HUGE fan of DUNC 1
cringe
you did not watch it in the cinema, instead you watched a pirated unreleased copy at home in a moronic format
>you watched it in peace instead of with a bunch of hollering Black folk and zooms on phone
I live in urban hell, I ain't going to a theater
the unreleased copy you pirated is in a shitty widescreen format that is why it looks bad
i live in a white country, so seeing it in the cinema was not an issue for me
It was kino sorry chuds
Dunc 2 was a thousand times better than Dunc 1. You have shit taste, OP.
whatever, looked gay anyway