Why are we pretending this has any cultural relevance? It outright flopped. Dune 1 didn't even clear $400M. Dune 2 is tracking to land around $600M. It lost to kung fu Panda 4 domestically. It probably won't even end up being top 5 box office this year alone.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
It’s just The Batman (2022) of the current year. It’ll be memory holed in a few months.
This.
I've liked Denis Villeneuve by and large, but DUNC and The Batman from Matt Reeves are pure examples of
>If you make capeshit but make it plodding and dull, you can convince midwits into thinking you're sophisticated.
It's the shit people accused Nolan of with his Batman movies (TDK is ultimately to blame for everyone getting this idea). But the difference is Nolan was making things "realistic" relative to what Batman and superhero movies were at the time. They're still high octane action movies. They have more in common with 007 than they do frickin' "Heat". The Batman and DUNC are just the types of movies you get from people who have no real vision but want to present like they do.
For all those on this site who spend their time complaining about Dune, I ask you: what the hell were you expecting? Seriously, it's just space Arabs fighting each other and riding giant worms. I haven't read the books but damn; The premise simply sounds impossible to adapt to film.
You can tell by watching it that it doesn't need to plod on as long as it does. Nothing happens in that first movie. It's all world building for a world and character arc that are pretty clear from the jump. It's not an issue with the concept or content, it's an issue with pacing and story-telling.
Lynch's Dune is a mess, but it's visually more engaging and breezes through the story at a much better pace.
I agree, Lynch's version is great in that sense. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VSV9S2Ol3bc
SOVL
Dune is very insteresting from an exposition standpoint. Were all judging it having seen Lynch or havikg read the books. To a newbie, the story candy is still untasted
I saw the first of the new DUNC movies before Lynch's and never read the books. I think the Lynch movie just functions better as a viewing experience period.
>Lynch's Dune is a mess, but it's visually more engaging and breezes through the story at a much better pace
It gets through the story at a nice pace, until we get to the second half, then it just goes at breakneck speed. Could definitely benefit from an extra 45 minutes.
The Spicediver cut is nice as a curiosity, but it does little to fix this fundamental issue. Much of the extra content seems to be front loaded which is where it is not needed in the slightest.
It should have been two films just the way Villaneuve did it. I don't remember well but I think Lynch's film became the most expensive Kino of its time
>Seriously, it's just space Arabs fighting each other and riding giant worms. I haven't read the books but damn; The premise simply sounds impossible to adapt to film.
Avatar managed.
avatar has sexy space cats, that's different
Honestly as a fan of the books if you take out the shield bullshit Avatar pacing would make sense. It's the autistic amount of lore for each object, contextualizing it within a future where computers don't exist and guns exist but are very sparingly used that gets in the way. That and the huge cast of characters but there would be more time to let them breathe without the lore autism.
It could've been 10 minutes shorter but it still kicked ass, I don't know wtf people were expecting out of these movies, like this would be the first Hollywood adaptation in history to explore every single nook & cranny of a book that's 70% worldbuilding? They simplified it as they should have.
I really wasn't put off by the pacing or the whispering because it suited the look of the world. I would rather it look like ArtStation-core than the dated as frick Moebius style that people think would somehow translate well into a big budget movie.
If it's memory holed, how did you recall it when making your comment?
I like The Batman a lot better than this shit. It's a stale ass adaptation of a far superior book.
Exactly. Someone last night here was trying to claim Matt Reeves will never be on the level of Nolan and Villeneuve, which is ridiculous, because Nolan is the outlier. Nolan has made several immensely profitable films like Oppenheimer, Inception, and Dark Knight. Reeves and Villeneuve don't have the industry capital to survive multiple Tenets. Nolan's next movie could be another Tenet, without a pandemic excuse, and he'd still have no trouble getting the budget he'd want on the subsequent film.
>It’s just The Batman (2022) of the current year.
I loved both and desire to see them multiple times on the silver screen. I guess you're right.
It's projected to make 700 million at the moment.
it has relevance in my mind, and that's all that matters to me
i'm going in to watch it a fifth time on friday and i can't wait
it's becoming my favorite film of all time
>i should kill myself for liking a film you don't like
seek help NOW
>only a fool would take these posts as fact
Is only wee banter, love. No wonder you're trying to escape through film
>h-haha I was just p-pretending xD
Just keep shilling bro, it'll work out
i dont need to shill, the movie is a massive success :3
These obvious shill posts don't help your cause. Try something more subtle.
concession accepted
Concession on what? Your non sequitur makes me conclude they're outsourcing third worlder shills that can't even understand English properly.
i already accepted your concession, robert. dont talk to me.
Sure thing, Pajeet. Sure thing.
Take the poo to da loo Radish.
i loved it too! i'm going to watch it for the seventh time on saturday with my wife and her boyfriend
hopefully she'll let me watch them when we get home, we'll see
Try seven billion
The acting was bad, the story was almost non-existent and there were no stakes. The visuals were just meh. If you loved the book then I'm sure it was nice to see an adaptation but didn't do it for me. Was incredibly bored for the final hour.
I love the book and I thought these shit movies made a mockery of it.
I liked the movie, but agree that it dragged a bit.
>there were no stakes
I do love that exact criticism when it's applied to vampire flicks.
Saw both and read book. Movies shat on the book.
The movie went down a different avenue then the book but doesn't inherently make the movie shit.
If the entire gladiatorial scene didn't strike you as frick that's cool then good for you but you are a homosexual. The pacing of Pauls and Chi's romance was weird though, thought we had an entire crossing the desert love story budding but it immediately cut to them being battle buddies.
that gladiator scene was awesome. whats his name who played sting's character did a great job
Dunc 2 wasn't anything deep or particularly sensical at parts but frick was it awesome when it was genuinely awesome.
Evil Lady Jessica is my favorite hard change and I'm curious where it plays out. EVERYTHING on the black/white planet was fun. The liquidy fireworks made me feel gross and slimy whenever the Baron was on screen afterwards.
>frick that's cool
Imagine even considering grading a film-viewing experience in those categories.
Enjoying a movie based on my enjoyment of what I'm seeing? My God!
Go back to smelling your own farts and tell me why Waterworld isn't a great fricking movie because it's just dumb fun.
>Enjoying a movie based on my enjoyment
That's circular. The problem is not that you enjoy something, but that you base your enjoyment on the perceived "coolness" of what you see, rather than the intellectual and emotional stimuli you get from the narrative and characters.
>just dumb fun
Nothing is ever just "dumb fun". There are reasons why you consider something "fun". Those can be good reasons, or bad reasons. They are reasons nonetheless.
I enjoyed the books based on their intellectual merits, genuinely if you want to talk the books themes I'm
so tear into me.
But the movies provided enough spectacle to be entertaining, I don't care much if you think a fireworks show is too simple to be a good reason to enjoy it.
How about you provide your own opinion and contribute to the conversation, just being a nitpicker of others isn't interesting to talk to.
>How about you provide your own opinion and contribute to the conversation
I have. DUNC gives me nothing. It's empty. Devoid of anything. I do not care about spectacle, I care about whether something resonates with me on a deeper level. The books did, DUNC did not. I cannot even hate it for disrespecting the book, because there's just nothing of substance there that I could hate.
Fair enough I really disliked Dunc for turning my favorite character, the Imperial geologist, into a fricking nothing character and making the coup incredibly uninteresting.
But 2 was much more enjoyable in the parts it exceled at then shitty in the parts it failed at.
>But 2 was much more enjoyable in the parts it exceled at
I enjoyed all the action in Dune 2, and it's just any and all romance that was a complete waste of time. It was really clear to me that the two leads didn't even like each other, and they were paid to be with each other on screen. A movie like that will never be remembered.
This is a movie with Timothee that's much better than Dune 2, and he loves a man in this one. So either
>the actor is gay
or
>it's easier to pretend to love a man compared to Zendaya
so you think this gay romance movie is better then Dune 2? pretty "homosexual" opinion
I bet you haven't even seen it, and you're trying to say it's bad. Anyway, I'm filtering this thread now. I single handedly destroyed the Dune general by filtering it and never posting it. You can doubt it, but it's true. If the movie was good, the general would still exist. Please reply after I've left.
go watch more gay shit and enjoy yourself
Yeah they sucked in that role, again it felt like there was supposed to be a falling in love travel into the desert scene but it just jumped to an action scene.
I "get" that they aren't having Chani be the character in the book by feeling betrayed by Paul's choices, notably already being a 2nd wife and having had a kid missing, but it's clearly the pay off in the third where she rising against Paul and Jessica leads him into being a "monster", worm.
>starts with unbelievably slow pace, 2 hours of the worst parts of the books. Completely glosses over world building outside the freman
>all of sudden the emperor comes down to Arakis and there are 2 second battle scenes then… that’s it
Amazing movie
Denisflicks always flop. Why did you expect this one to be different?
>Why did you expect this one to be different?
He didn't say that he did.
But /r/eddit most definitely did. Their box-office subforum (which is full of Villeneuve bootlickers) was unironically predicting it to break a billion before it came out. And right now they're all about whether the "700M dream" is still possible, overhyping every single day's new domestic numbers.
They also downvote anyone who dares to say that all projections for DUNC2 point at 600M, or that DUNC1's 400M were barely enough to break even.
The budget was below $200M
how on earth is that a flop?
My cope formulas can prove everything under $600m gross is a flop.
it's just sand starwars
dune (the book) is the inspiration for star wars. star wars is literally a dune ripoff.
and the book was inspired by lawrence of arabia
> if it's an inspiration, that makes it a rip-off
Do Americans really?
What could have been..
She'd get a nasty sunburn, Satan.
They've both made a large enough profit to greenlight part three, learn to cope /misc/tard, people like what you don't. Just wait for that right wing snow white on youtube, that sound more your speed.
>white savior
>women are the ultimate form of evil in the universe
i dont think them casting a single monkey means it can't be a pol film.
>Greenlight
Nothing has been greenlit. Opposite actually. Denis said that he would "like to" adapt Messiah "someday".
denis went into hans zimmer's studio and handed him a copy of messiah
https://screenrant.com/dune-3-movie-conditions-legendary-ceo-future-response/
The CEO himself said its not greenlit. Plus, Denis already has at least 2 other films on his docket.
>dune 2 is bad because.... BECAUSE PEOPLE LOVE IT!!!!
It's bad because it's a fricking shit adaptation, you c**t.
>it's a shit adaptation because.... BECAUSE PEOPLE LOVE IT!!!!!!
It's a shit adaptation because it absolutely fricking butchers the book's story, characters, themes and everything else that made it good in the first place. People love it because they're moronic and don't/can't read.
>It's a shit adaptation because it absolutely fricking butchers the book's story, characters, themes and everything else that made it good in the first place.
wrong
So you haven't read it then.
yeah i did
he didn't butcher anything
So you haven't read it then.
there are three characters that are changed at a foundational level in the dune films compared to the books: stilgar, chani, and lady jessica.
Stilgar in the book is a mentor and friend to paul, who is at first skeptical of the prophecy, but sees potential in paul in becoming a powerful fremen, and so takes him under his wing to teach him how to become a fremen. over time, he becomes enveloped in the idea of paul being the mahdi and paul cries that he lost a friend to the religious fervor surrounding him. In the film, he very quickly becomes a believer, and is changed to be comedic relief during key moments. this change is the only change i didn't fully like, but i understand why they felt the need to do it.
chani in the book is very supportive of paul and thinks he might be the mahdi. she is with him the whole way through. as a result, she's kind of a non-character in the book to be honest. in the film, she is a non-believer and serves as a counter to paul's religious rise while at the same time being his romantic partner, introducing an interesting conflict for paul and a character that shares the audience's sentiments. this is a change i really like, although i wish zendaya was better at acting and didn't act like an american the entire time.
lady jessica in the book is extremely cautious of paul's gradual rise as the messiah and at many points tries to quell it, but eventually becomes agreeable to it as it can help her and paul get revenge. in the film, once she takes the water of life she becomes a big driver in pushing paul towards becoming the kwisatz haderach, as if she had been taken over by the bene gesserit reverend mothers. i find this change interesting in the same way as chani as it adds further conflict for paul, and rebecca ferguson sells the role extremely well - i love seeing her act motherly, then her transition into becoming menacing.
all in all, most of the changes in the adaptation i feel helped the film.
good post unironically
>while at the same time being his romantic partner
And it was extremely poorly done, the "romance" materialized out of thin and wasn't anywhere near believable at any second of it. It was just there for the sake of being there
>introducing an interesting conflict for paul
Can you elaborate exactly what conflict Zendaya's c**t persona brings to Paul, that wasn't in the book, but much more nuanced?
>as it adds further conflict for paul
Now I get it. You are just parroting that every change is adding a new "conflict" like a NPC, without understanding yourself what it means. A literal plebbitor turning terms into buzzwords, spewing them mindlessly to give his gibberish a shallow appearance of any sort of meaning behind it
if you dont understand how chani and jessica being two opposing forcing pushing paul in different directions isn't conflict (person v person) you're an idiot.
Shut your stupid mouth plebbitor before embarrassing yourself any further. It is not the conflict you're imagined it to be because
>Paul never considers his mother wishes
>he didn't want to become a messiah regardless of Zendussy telling him "not to change". He's on the same page with her from the start so there's no conflict at least untill the final events
His decision yo take the mantle of a messiah is abrupt and messy in the movie. He sees Tabr Sietch destroyed and that for some reason pushes him drink the water of life and through the visions obtain motives hidden from the viewer
>>Paul never considers his mother wishes
you don't need him to consider her wishes in order for their to be conflict. his mom is trying to push him a particular direction that he's desperately trying to reject. that is conflict.
>>he didn't want to become a messiah regardless of Zendussy telling him "not to change". He's on the same page with her from the start so there's no conflict at least untill the final events
so then there's conflict.
"A conflict is a literary device that presents the struggle between two sides due to a disagreement in values, desires, motivations etc."
They were already on opposite sides, for different reasons stemming from their love for Paul. Having Zendaya scrunch up her face a bunch and be completely different from other Fremen is not a good change, it only takes away from the character.
Based effortposter spoonfeeding the contrarians. Anyone with eyes and a brain comes to these same conclusions.
Dune fans don't read other books, so they don't understand how book-to-screen adaptations work.
Dune was considered to be ''unadaptable'' for so long, after lynch's terrible looking slop we got this kino, It's truly bizarre that you gays have such a hate boner for this.
>there are three characters that are changed at a foundational level
What about Duke Leto? His book counterpart is a good man yes, but he is also a sharp guy when it comes to politics. He frees slaves, because they will be fiercely loyal, he uses spies and espionage, he sends men on suicide raids, he has a propaganda man sell his big good guy image, and he even does kind deeds in front of everyone, so that the legend of his benevolent nature will spread. His downfall came because the emperor took sides, and because Piter managed to turn Yueh.
Movie Leto lacks all of that nuance. He just was an unironically Ned Stark-like, honorable fool. They dumb him down for the adaptation, and then they have the emperor call him out for being a weak man, who used kindness, despite being in cutthroat politics. Well book Leto was just as cutthroat, if he felt the absolute need to be, and his kind and benevolent image was carefully manufactured.
I could go on and on about how characters like Piter, Baron, Rabban, Gurney, Kynes, Thufir and the rest, were either made simpler, or entirely disregarded.
Chani will mostly be cut from the fan edit.
I wonder if we'll ever get those close to 180 minutes of deleted scenes from Dune 1 and 2? Like if Denis doesn't release them, maybe the studio will, or maybe someone leaks them? Either way, that's the only way to make a fan edit.
Good for the fans. Spiderman's cut of the Hobbit movies is only better because it's taking from shit source, Dunc isn't that.
Characters, maybe, but that's to be expected when adapting a 900 page paperback novel to just under 6 hours of film. Changes have to be made, characters and side plots cut/condensed.
Themes, though? You have to fundamentally not understand Dune to believe this.
>Themes, though? You have to fundamentally not understand Dune to believe this.
The unpleasant air of Paul becoming a leader was about all it got right and even then it barely scratched the damn surface, for frick's sake.
What themes were left out that were so central as to make this a bad adaptation?
They cut the fact that the war is a jihad. The movie makes it a war of liberation. The Fremen weren't fighting for liberation...they were already free. The Harkonnens literally gave zero fricks about Fremen and had no intention of oppressing them. The Fremen wanted to kill Harkonens because they are religious fanatics that want to behead heretics. The movie did not cover that whatsoever.
>they were already free
The Harkonnens hunted them down. There were not free to do as they please. The only time they were sort of free was for the very brief Leto rule but after that it was back to normal, until Paul won the war ofc
That isn't a theme anon. Your are correct in that it's a better motivation to the Fremen for trying to slay the galaxy but learn some "media literacy", as homosexual as that is, before you confuse story telling elements.
>Themes, though? You have to fundamentally not understand Dune to believe this.
That all extreme are destine to fail? Leto fails despite being the Lawful Good guy that he is, because somethings are more valuable then loyalty.
Fat boy slim fails being the Lawful Evil that he is, because he doesn't inspire loyalty just fear.
Human PC's are destine to fail because somethings in our life defy what we know as "the rules".
Benjeserit are just overbearing fools who want humans to be machines after fighting a war to make sure machines didn't pretend to be humans.
>It's a shit adaptation because it absolutely fricking butchers the book's story, characters, themes and everything else that made it good in the first place.
But it doesn't and also it's universally acclaimed
>it's universally acclaimed
By morons.
>But it doesn't
As you've just proven.
>I, the Cinemaphilecel, am a supremely intelligent gentleman and everyone else is wrong
literally who gives a frick about books
Black person mentality, lmao
if you like the books so much maybe you should marry them.
It's literally the only adaptation of Dune that understands the themes of the novel. Lynch treated it as a standard hero's journey.
>Lynch treated it as a standard hero's journey.
You're not particularly intelligent, are you?
Not every story fits your Campbellian mold, shithead.
>Not every story fits your Campbellian mold
Sure, but Lynch's Dune, which was financed as a response to Star Wars, is one of the stories that does.
It's also a terrible movie that moronic incel homosexuals pretend to like to be contrarian on an anime forum
No, it does not. You're a fricking brainlet.
>Herbert likened the initial trilogy of novels (Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune) to a fugue – Dune was a heroic melody, Dune Messiah was its inversion, while Children of Dune expands the number of interplaying themes. Paul rises to power in Dune by seizing control of the single critical resource in the universe, melange. His enemies are dead or overthrown, and he is set to take the reins of power and bring a hard but enlightened peace to the universe. Herbert chose in the books that followed to undermine Paul's triumph with a string of failures and philosophical paradoxes.
Aside Paul worrying about a potential Jihad, the first book is a standard hero's journey, with a bit of a twist that the prophecy and the messiah are engineered. Still, Paul geniuenly falls in with the Fremen, and even if the prophecy is artificial and not divine, he does accomplish his goals. It's the second novel that really undermines Paul, and hits home that a charismatic, righteous and justified leader, can still become a monster.
>the first book is a standard hero's journey
Funny how it says the exact opposite in the passage you quoted.
didn't read have sex and kys
I think it did a pretty good job with the time constraints, it should have been a 10 episode mini series for sure, but it's definitely as good as we'd ever get with the time and resources allotted to it.
I could have done a better adaptation, at least from screenplay perspective.
What movies have you made? Why haven't you made (it)?
Villeneuve's Dune is an amazing critical and commercial succes, and a modern classic in the making. Baiting incels can stay mad while slurping DUNChads' big meaty gonads
cope and cry b***h breasts. DUNC has already prevailed
i liked the films.
i enjoyed them.
will i watch them again? well yeah, i watched dune part one two times, once with my brother and once with a girl that i know and appreciate.
dune part two i watched with the girl, but i will watch it a second time, with my brother.
why? because i did enjoy the films.
it was entertainment, and this is what im looking for.
like the worms.
like the soundtrack.
like the white bald guy.
just entertaining movies.
>like the soundtrack.
BBBBBWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMM
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
>It lost to Kung Fu Panda 4 domestically
KFP4 will end its domestic run around $175M, the number that Dune 2 has surpassed today
>It probably won't even end up being top 5 box office this year alone.
Wonka doesn't need to be in Top 5 to be profitable
> As of Tuesday, the Kung Fu Panda franchise sits at approximately $1.82 billion in total box office gross. Since the latest sequel had the second-highest domestic opening of the franchise, and compared against the other installments, even a pessimistic prediction would see Kung Fu Panda 4 topping $300 million (surely an impossibly low figure) by the end of its run, enough to put it well over $2 billion.
> More likely, Kung Fu Panda 4 will finish with at least $500 million worldwide when it finishes its run, if not higher. I suspect the higher end of outcomes could be $700 million if the nostalgia factor kicks in enough. [Forbes]
And the entire KFP fancise cost less to make and market than just Dune 2 alone.
Now, we dance:
?si=gri8yrGS2c7SLtfu
The Kung fu must flow
>next gen zoomies are swapping the already jaded zoomers in a competition on who can act the biggest contrarian on this rotten butthole of a site that has seen far better days
Damn bro, you're pretty smart. Wanna be our new king?
i'm good lil bro, grown out of this game already but you kids have fun now
You're over it but still posting? Interesting technique
“Cultural relevance” is a meme invented by “journalists” (read: shills) upset they weren’t paid to shill avatar
Cope
>movie studios can never make money but can continue to make movies
so glad we got Cinemaphile accountants breaking these news stories.
I liked the movie, the arena scene was kino
Dune 1 came out during COVID and had a day one release on HBO Max. Dune 2 is likely going to make around $700 million worldwide, which is pretty good for a movie with a budget of $190 million. And the movie is making much more money than Kung Fu Panda 4.
>Dune 2 is likely going to make around $700 million worldwide
Its trajectory is 600M, maybe slightly more. And that's the breakeven point for it.
You have a source for this?
>You have a source for this?
For what? The trajectory? Look at what it made so far, take the 40% loss per week and apply a simple recursive projection. The numbers are all out there. 600M to 650M is where it's headed. That is assuming that its rate of decline keeps consistent, of course.
Your source is "I can just tell"?
Dune 2 had the exact same opening weekend gross as Oppenheimer, which went on to gross nearly $1 billion worldwide.
>Your source is "I can just tell"?
My source are cold hard numbers.
Let's wait and see. You don't have to trust me, you don't even have to trust the official reported numbers when DUNC leaves cinemas in a few weeks. But if the trajectory holds, those numbers will agree with my prediction, not yours.
>Dune 2 had the exact same opening weekend gross as Oppenheimer, which went on to gross nearly $1 billion worldwide.
"Therefore, all movies that have the same opening weekend have the same final box office. I just proved it with logic!"
>"Therefore, all movies that have the same opening weekend have the same final box office. I just proved it with logic!"
If two movies have the same opening weekend AND second weekend grosses, then it's extremely unlikely that the two movies will end up having a $400 million gross disparity at the global box office.
Okay, if you insist. So, how does Dune 2 $250M domestic final compare to it's $300M production and marketing nut? Doesn't look good.
> China will save it!
Sure.
>So, how does Dune 2 $250M domestic final compare to it's $300M production and marketing nut?
lol this is so disingenuous. The first one grossed $325 million overseas during COVID and part 2 is outpacing it. It'll make around $700 million worldwide, which is fine.
> N-n-no! Those numbers d-d-don't count!
Doesn't work that way.
>movies only make money in the US
Stop pretending to be moronic to prove your non-point
>Stop p-p-pretending to be -r-r-moronic to p-p-prove your non-p-p-point!!!
Superhero movies are front-loaded. JL made $2,103,667 in its second Monday. Dune 2 just made $4,808,963. 130% more.
>Superhero movies are front-loaded.
EVERYTHING is frontloaded. Fricking moron.
I don't know if English is your first language, but when people who talk about this say "front-loaded" they're referring to drop off over time. A film is "front-loaded" when it has a 60-70% drop off from its first to second week. Dune's drop off is significantly better than JL's.
>when people who talk about this say "front-loaded" they're referring to drop off over time.
No shit, Shylocke.
Yes, by that very definition, EVERY FRICKING THING is frontloaded.
>A film is "front-loaded" when it has a 60-70% drop off from its first to second week.
Nope. Those numbers are arbitrary. If something drops off just 1% per week, it's also frontloaded. You're not very bright, are you?
This is autism for sure. If you're interested I can explain how languages work: a word's literal meaning often isn't how said word is functionally used in a sentence. When people say so-and-so is "front-loaded" they're using the term as a comparison to other films. Otherwise the term is useless, since it would apply to all movies.
>a word's literal meaning often isn't how said word is functionally used in a sentence
Kek. I accept your concession.
Next time, use words the way they're meant to be understood, not how you want to "functionally" use them.
This is literal autism btw. You should get checked. Heads up, when someone says “traffic was torture this morning,” they aren’t literally comparing their morning commute to waterboarding.
You've lost. And this wasn't even a huge argument. All you had to do was to correct yourself on your word choice. Instead you doubled down and made a fool of yourself.
Again, "front-loaded" in this context is a comparative term you absolute fricking mong. It's like "tall" or "small"; they aren't used as terms with objective meaning in themselves, but as comparative adjectives.
A way to compare the relative performances of a movie that drops 10% in its second weekend and movie that drops 80% is to say that the latter was "front-loaded"
>It's like "tall" or "small"
Nope. It's like "positive" and "negative". Any number > 0 is positive, any number < 0 is negative. Anything that makes more at the beginning than at any later point is frontloaded, anything that does not is not. It really is that simple.
You argument is like saying "10 is positive, that means 4 is negative, because functionally I want to use this as a comparative adjetive".
You're simply a moron. And keep doubling down.
But Dune isn't a superhero movie! It's a movie about a spaceman, with superpowers like clairvoyance, a mind controlling sonic scream and Batman tier fighting skills.
>JL made $2,103,667 in its second Monday. Dune 2 just made $4,808,963. 130% more!!! *begins to cry*
So now you're reduced to cherry picking individual days and ignoring those that disprove your point. This is just sad.
This literally proved my point. Like I said, JL is heavily front-loaded. Look at how much better Dune's doing in its second week.
>This literally proved my point! Because $167M is bigger than $176M. And don't mention years of inflation or I'll cut myself! I will!
Notice how the numbers in the left column are higher than the numbers on the right column? Now based on this you can extrapolate that column A will end up outpacing column B over time.
> Regression toward the mean? No!!!!!!
Sad. So very sad.
>The first one grossed $325 million overseas
No, it did not. Learn to use box office mojo properly. It made 290M during its original run.
The rest is from the IMAX rerelased from this year ... for which it reports 30M from the UK (which people have called out as a misreport, by the way, because there's no way it made 30M in the UK in IMAX theaters exclusively within two weeks, while making at most 100K anywhere else).
The funny thing is that 50%-100% of production budget is spent on marketing. So they may have spent $285-$380M in total
Yes, I understand how Hollywood accounting works.
>50%-100% of production budget is spent on marketing.
The number usually given is 50%, and that only holds true for very few things nowadays: Mid-budget, non-tentpole projects. The other figure given is an absolute number of 50M, but with the same caveat.
You cannot apply it at all for arthouse stuff, which often doesn't have an ad budget at all. And you cannot apply it to high-budget films (400M+), because not even the most excessive marketing will get anywhere close to 200M.
The problem you have with DUNC2 in particular is that it had very aggressive marketing, moreso than would be usual for a film of its budget and relative importance. So even assuming a 100M marketing budget seems pretty sensible.
>moreso than would be usual for a film of its budget and relative importance.
Is this based on literally anything but a subjective hunch? Or do you have actual data? I haven't seen a single trailer for Dune 2 on television.
>I haven't seen a single trailer for Dune 2 on television.
You probably haven't watched much television then. And had an ad-blocker online.
Either way, DUNC2 also had premier events with its full cast in like 15 different countries. That's pretty expensive. I don't recall any film ever getting that kind of publicity. Not even Star Wars Episode 1. (That one was huger in cross-marketing, licensing and product sponsorship though.)
bot post
that's considered a flop?
>It lost to Kung Fu Panda 4
Kung Fu Panda 4 is a better movie by any reasonable metric.
The second one made more money than the first one? How is that possible?
>How is that possible?
Why would it not be possible? Many sequels make more than the first film.
And DUNC2 quite obviously had a significantly bigger marketing push than DUNC1. (Also a higher budget. So it needed to make more money. Much more, actually, which is why 600M is not looking good for it.)
You don't care about film, and you don't know anything about economics, so why are you talking about this? Why not do something more productive, like suicide?
I like your prose.
>You don't care about film
Kek. That's a good one, coming from a Villeneuve fanboy. Have you ever even seen a real film? As in, not Hollywood mainstream schlock?
>you don't know anything about economics
Right. That's why you get so butthurt over someone giving you one of the simplest possible mathematical projection models.
Here's my offer to you: Lets wait two or three more weeks and see where DUNC2 ends up, okay? Then you can try to come up with excuses for why someone who knows nothing about "economics" schooled you.
>Why not do something more productive, like suicide?
Ah, ever so civil. As expected from Villeneuve bootlickers.
NTA but you're so pseud you sound like you learned English from anime villains.
>learned English from anime villains.
Anime dialogue is not even written in English, child.
Who THE FRICK goes to the cinema to watch the second installment of a series without having bothered to watch the first one?
I didn't see it in theaters. Why are you being stupid on purpose?
Oh, so YOU didn't saw it in theaters and then went to watch the sequel at the cinema? Well that changes EVERYTHING.
So what? How are the people who were only willing to watch it on streaming devices going to turn into people who want to watch the second one at the cinema?
You moronic homosexuals or shills or whatever are pretending that the statement that a sequel made more money in the cinema than the original movie is not outrageous so you cannot be taken seriously.
>the statement that a sequel made more money in the cinema than the original movie is not outrageous
Dunno what to tell you, anon, other than to look up different franchises in terms of their relative box office. For about half of them, the sequel DID make more money:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchise/
Many more people see a film than see it in theaters. Dune has been on streaming services for 2 years now. There will be a considerable number of people who saw it that way.
First one had a day one streaming release because it came out during COVID
>First one had a day one streaming release
It didn't, actually. It did for the US. But at that point, it had been out in Europe for a whole month, and underperformed there.
>and underperformed there.
Not by 2021 standards, which was the height of COVID. For reference, the top 10 highest grossing movies of 2019 made over $1 billion worldwide, while only a single film made over $1 billion worldwide in 2021.
>Not by 2021 standards, which was the height of COVID.
Yes, by 2021 standards. And it was well past the height of COVID, imbecile. At the height of COVID, in 2020, cinemas were closed to begin with. And DUNC came out half a year after they'd reopened, performing worse than things that had come out one month after, with much stricter restrictions.
Anyway, by 2021 standards, DUNC was only the 12th best performer overall. That's hardly something to write home about. Behind such "giants" as Fast and Furious 9, Venom, Shang-Chi, The Eternals and fricking Godzilla vs. Kong. None of which was considered a huge hit. Some of which are in fact considered outright flops.
>DUNC was only the 12th best performer overall.
That's without a proper NA release. If you look at the bottom half of the top 10 highest grossing films of 2021, they all did worse overseas than Dune. Which means that if the film had an actual NA release, then it would have comfortably been the 6th or 7th highest grossing film of that year.
>without a proper NA release
What are you talking about? There was a "proper release".
>would have comfortably been the 6th or 7th highest grossing film of that year.
Which is still not that great. Again, you claim it was a massive success, when it really only made back what it cost, and did worse than cheaper things did under worse circumstances.
>What are you talking about? There was a "proper release".
There absolutely wasn't. Not only was it on HBO the day before its official theatrical release here, but there was a streaming-quality leak a week prior to that. I don't know a single person who saw Dune 1 in theaters, which explains why the second one is doing so much better here, despite drop offs from the people who found the first one boring.
>you claim it was a massive success
Literally where did I claim that?
>Not only was it on HBO the day before its official theatrical release here, but there was a streaming-quality leak a week prior to that.
So, let me get this straight: Because the studio decided to release it on their streaming platform, of their own volition, the cinema release was "improper" and shouldn't be counted when we discuss box office revenue?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Dune's streaming revenue isn't counted in the original's BO numbers, which again, is why part 2 is doing so much better at the box office.
>Dune's streaming revenue isn't counted in the original's BO numbers
And why would it?
By the way: There is no such thing as a "streaming revenue". Streaming models aren't usually pay-per-view. The moment something releases on stream, it becomes part of a package deal of lots of different shit that people either pay for in bulk, or not at all.
>which again, is why part 2 is doing so much better at the box office.
Oh, so suddenly COVID is not the reason DUNC1 did poorly anymore? Because, for some reason, things now tend to do better than in 2021 in general now.
>There is no such thing as a "streaming revenue".
Yes there is. App revenue is the primary metric investors judge these services by, not viewership per se.
>Oh, so suddenly COVID is not the reason DUNC1 did poorly anymore?
A movie can do poorly for multiple reasons. You know this. Again, you're being disingenuous.
>App revenue
App revenue is not counting for singular films. That's the fricking point.
>A movie can do poorly for multiple reasons.
And DUNC1 did poorly because it was trash. Same reason DUNC2 is doing poorly.
>App revenue is not counting for singular films. That's the fricking point.
No one even implied that it was. There are ways to calculate how much value a film adds to a platform based on multiple factors, including a spike in subscriptions when it's released. WB felt that Dune 1's streaming performance was good enough to justify green lighting a sequel and giving it an even higher budget.
>And DUNC1 did poorly because it was trash. Same reason DUNC2 is doing poorly.
Dune 2 is doing objectively well, and that's according to every industry analyst. You can think it's trash, which is fine, but given the film's high cinema score (and high scores on quite literally every platform) that's a minority opinion.
>There are ways to calculate how much value a film adds to a platform based on multiple factors
Except, no, not really. That's the problem with Netflix' model of wildly cancelling their most succesful shit based on some truly ridiculous metrics and then wondering when there's fan outrage, while keeping trash that no one really needs or wants. They basically fly blind.
>Dune 2 is doing objectively well, and that's according to every industry analyst.
It's doing well enough to break even. It's not doing well enough so far to promise much of a profit.
If your contention is that nothing that is streamed can ever be said to "do well" because the format doesn't have a metric for success that makes sense, then that's an indictment of the model itself, not of Dune's performance in particular. My only point is that Dune 1's domestic box office isn't representative of the popularity of the first film, given that most Americans saw the film on a streaming service, not in theaters.
>It's doing well enough to break even.
This is speculation on everyone's part. We actually don't know what would constitute "breaking even" for Dune 2 at this moment.
>then that's an indictment of the model itself
Yes.
>not of Dune's performance in particular
It means that DUNC's performance in streaming cannot be fully evaluated. And that it therefore cannot be responsible for any part of the share of the streaming service's revenue.
Therefore, just adding some arbitrary number to the box office to "correct for" anything won't work.
>isn't representative of the popularity of the first film, given that most Americans saw the film on a streaming service, not in theaters.
Yet, most of those who saw it on stream would not have gone to the cinema to see it. So, again, not a good argument. People watch anything on stream, because it's convenient and barely an effort.
>We actually don't know what would constitute "breaking even" for Dune 2 at this moment.
We will never know for certain. Not for this film, nor for any other. Because marketing budgets aren't usually released publicly, distribution costs aren't released either, and the cinema's share isn't either. It's all based on estimates, some more conservative than others.
But the very lowest breakeven-point that I've seen for DUNC2 is in the low 500Ms. More commonly are the mid-to-high 500Ms, sometimes going up as far as 650M. The marketing is what's throwing everyone for a loop here (and in most cases where it's questionable). It just so happens that it's a pretty wide range and DUNC2 looks to end up right within that range after all is said and done.
anyone have the image of the anon with a yarmulke?
>It lost to Kung Fu Panda 4 domestically.
Kung Fu Panda 4's opening weekend gross was $57 million and Dune 2's opening weekend domestic gross was $82 million. So this is objectively wrong.
It was great regardless. way better then Dune 1
Yo momma flops
>DUNC is a FLO-ACK
Do banks accept review scores as deposits?
What's a flo-ack?
Dune 2 is an incredible film and a massive success. I am 100% immune to Cinemaphile contrarianism.
Also, Paul Atreides is the man. Dorks could never understand.
>an incredible film
It is indeed incredible that something as bad as this could be made with no one stepping in and course-correcting at any point.
>a massive success.
Kek.
Doesn’t work on me, sorry bro.
They might see the truth one day.
based
total sperg death
DUNC cannot fail
it can only be failed
I thought it was a good movie, albeit a bit disjointed. They did a good job making Paul's rise to power not look like heroic but tragic.
Zoomers being this desperate for a cultural landmark is endearing.
Man I just saw it. Part 1 was nearly perfect but this shit just butchered it.
All the fremen stuff, what they did to Paul and Jesscia, the lack of chemistry with Chani, the weird additional scenes. Weirdly it didn't bug me with Part 1 but this one I just don't understand why they shifted it so much. Felt like a skeleton of the actual story was there and they just filled in the gaps with some bad pacing. Paul isn't a man assuming the mantle of destiny with his eyes on the horizon for a greater tomorrow, he's just a zealot.
>Paul isn't a man assuming the mantle of destiny with his eyes on the horizon for a greater tomorrow, he's just a zealot.
huh i got the complete opposite reading from his character. he's at first reluctant at doing what he needs to do, but then he realizes it's the only path forward for everyone he loves. and he takes it by the balls once he drinks from the water of life.
Really? I felt like Paul's character and his connection to the Fremen were such a non-factor in this movie. There was barely any chemistry between him or anyone as they all barely interacted as we had to jump to a new scene. When he drank from the Water of Life I felt more confused than understood as compared to the book.
>Really? I felt like Paul's character and his connection to the Fremen were such a non-factor in this movie
There is no way anyone can actually think this way is there?
Is he wrong? How many of the Fremen does Paul even interact with? It's like Chani and Stilgar. He's using the brown hordes to destroy people who wronged him.
you actually enjoyed part 1 over 2? 2 was so much more entertaining. especially the last 20 minutes of dune 1 that are super slow randomly
There were more scenes in Part 1 that left a impression on me of the grandiose nature and scale of the universe in Dune. Even small, simple scenes leave a lasting impression on me.
I walked away from this feeling nothing. It felt bland and uninspired in comparison, plus all the changes to Chani annoyed the hell out of me.
the emperor's ship landing on arrakis didnt give you that sense of scale and grandiosity?
No. I care more about the character moments. Even when I was reading the novel the things characters would say felt stronger to me than the world itself. Yeah the special effects were good but it's at the service of a hollow product for me.
Fok anyone spoonfeed me some resources on getting numbers?
I think we can agree Dune 2 was a pretty good movie and at the same time Panda 4 seems to have more Gross daily compared to Dune.
Feels like this is a # thread
>Fok anyone spoonfeed me some resources on getting numbers?
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl68715265/?ref_=bo_hm_rd
You can also try the box office reddit for daily updates, but most people over there are morons with an agenda, why try to spin the numbers certain ways, as if they could influence them with their interpretations.
TY for the link
>why try to spin the numbers certain ways, as if they could influence them with their interpretations.
Yea I agree with that, but a lot of peps probly enjoy shitting or talking bout numbers similar to that board with # threads.
THOUGH I can argue Dune 2 did better in the span of 5 days compared to Panda 4 no?
>400 million while same day digital
>part 2 scoring about 700 million, biggest opening since Barbiehimer
>cost less then 200 million.
"flop"
dune 1 sucked
I don't understand why people pretend these movies are good
Dune 1 kinda does suck compared to the new movie at least
Nu-Dune was good. Nu-Dune was kino.
It's attracted a really annoying fanbase of political nerds that keep talking about how weird it is
the books are just so rich with dialogue and prose. to hand it over to a hack like vilneve and watch him do the "muh dialogue is unimportant, it's about the visuals" bullshit is just hard to see
The first movie should have ended with the attack on house Atreides, with the heroes ether captured, or scattered.
Is there any way to do the world building and exposition of Dune, without it being clunky? Even the new movie had to have narration, and video books for exposition.
dune 2 in imax is one of the coolest movies i've ever seen. kys homosexual.
Dune is as famous as LOTR. Why the frick tehe movie is not making billions?
It's shit.
I'm trans btw
Dunc2 is profitable and is tracking closer to 700 million than 600 million. My guess is it'll fall around 650 to 680 million which is a fine performance I guess. It's definitely profitable but it's not the cultural phenomenon that zoomies are claiming it is.
Like I'm legit baffled that they're constantly denigrating OG Star War trilogy and LOTR to prop this up. It's kind of funny and a bit sad. It's like they want a film franchise that'll be their cultural touchstone but nothing quite sticks.
+ that "correction" itself is going to be little more than smoke and mirrors and vary wildly between j*wish "accounting" and executives angling for pay bonuses.
I haven't seen it but I've seen normies comparing it to the godfather part 2, empire strikes back, two towers, etc.
can someone point me to a regular thread? I just got back from the theater
Dune generals died because it turns out most anons thought the film was meh at best and just aren't interested.
I saw it with my boomer dad today, during march break, and the theatre was 15% full
Granted this is Canada and two medium popcorns and two drinks were literally and I am not kidding 50$, it cost nearly 100$ to see this movie for two people
Absolute fricking insanity
It's just beyond the pale at this point and I don't care how good the movie is. I'm not going back to theatres for a long while.
15% full makes sense if you watched it during the day, and not at night. It cost me $50 to watch it as well. I don't go to the movies often anyway.
I liked Dune 2, but Cinemaphile is absolutely right in that it was good at best, and not great. The casting of Chani alone ensured it wouldn't be great.
Didn't you enjoy how fricking awful the trailers for future movies were? Remember when they used to tailer which trailers played for which movies, instead we get Soctiabank telling me that if I enjoyed Dune I'll enjoy The League Of Magical Blacks or whatever the fricking Quebec rom-com was.
I had different trailers during my previews, so I think trailers differ depending on country. For me, it was some Godzilla movie, and Furiosa. It says a lot about where you live, if you saw a trailer for a Black person movie.
I'm in Alberta hence the Scotiabank reference, good to know they treat others with more respect then us. We did get that Furiosa one which might actually be worth seeing, on a small screen for less then 50$ a person.
>good to know they treat others with more respect then us
I'm Australian, and they think they just know that nobody would watch Society of magical Black folks for free. Also, you can watch Furiosa and I'll listen to what Cinemaphile thinks about it; I do that with most movies. I didn't even think Fury Road was particularly good.
I think they just know*
my movie didnt start until 24 minutes after the booked time.
all of the trailers were awful with the exception of gooses movie with blunt, but the only other movie Im going to watch this year is deadpool, and I dont need to see that in imax
I saw the trailer for that goose movie during the Oscars and thought it was literally a parody movie trailer. Back burner of a movie that I'm sure will be fine but not worth going to the theaters for, see also Bullet Train.
Why is the most important thing about a movie for zoomers how well it does at the box office?