>looks like a stage play
No. There's no way you can make a stage look this bland and lifeless by set-design and lighting alone. It requires a very particular method of colour grading in post to get things to look this uninspired.
The miniseries actually comes off like a stage play at times, especially the scenes with the Baron in them (which are fantastic to the one). Far more interesting costume design, even if it's cheap.
>It's actually 100mil past the break even point
Literally no one believes in a 500M breaking point with the marketing it had. Most realistic estimates range from 550M to 600M.
It had a $190 mil budget. So by Hollywood israelite numbers x2 is the break even point so $380 mil to break even. It's better than part 1 so I'm not even mad.
If you think a movie needs more than 2x to make a profit, then basically nothing other than horror movies makes a profit.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>If you think a movie needs more than 2x to make a profit
Yes, moron. Read the fricking thread for explanations why. >basically nothing other than horror movies makes a profit
Calling Star Wars, Avatar, Titanic and so on "horror movies" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
1 month ago
Anonymous
There are no explanations.
There's morons parroting morons about cuts movie theaters take on ticket sales that are ripped from context. Where people are seriously posting that theaters take 50% cuts of ticket sales as a constant.
Combined with constantly increasing relative ratio of marketing costs to the producting costs.
Combined with a bunch of other fluff costs that are asspulled as necessary.
Stop being a moron.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>There are no explanations.
Right. No explanations. You truly are the most intelligent person around.
Who cares about cinema's shares, and marketing, and distribution costs? None of those actually matter! All that matters is some random factor of exactly 2, that you pulled out of your arse! My, isn't this fun? If only everyone was as intelligent as you! We could just say the constant pi equals exactly 3 and be done with it, for example!
1 month ago
Anonymous
Okay Sweaty.
Theaters take 50% averaged out, but what this means is that on debut they take far less and that increases as a film runs longer and longer.
Marketing and distribution does not cost x3 or however far you've scaled it these days. Marketing and distribution for a film is typically between .5x to +1.5x the base cost. With lower budget films having a higher ratio.
By 600 million DUNE2 has more than broke even and is turning a very healthy profit.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>what this means is that on debut they take far less and that increases as a film runs longer and longer.
No. At least not generally speaking. >Marketing and distribution does not cost x3 or however far you've scaled it these days.
No one said that, you fricking moron. Advertising costs are a constant number largely independent from the production budget. On average, it's around 50M, in more extreme cases it's around 100M. Which is the case can be gauged by looking at the amount of advertising. For DUNC2, that was huge, hence the 100M estimate. This is not something you can just include in any factor based on the budget. It's something you have to add on top. >By 600 million DUNE2 has more than broke even and is turning a very healthy profit.
No. Pretty much EVERYONE BUT YOU agrees that it is not turning a healthy profit yet.
Even the most optimistic breakeven point, at 500M, would suggest that the profit is only the studio share of anything on top of that. So at 600M, that means maybe 50M profit, IF we assume the most optimistic guess for the breakeven point. For more realistic guesses, it's somewhere between 0 and 25M right now, and might end up at 50M total.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>No. Pretty much EVERYONE BUT YOU agrees that it is not turning a healthy profit yet.
You are beyond dorky anon
1 month ago
Anonymous
You mean pretty much everyone except for a few autists on these threads that will not take 'No, it didn't flop', for an answer.
No one in the world is handwringing about DUNE2 not making its money back and then profit on top of that. There are only wannabe doomposters here saying it based on wienertail napkin math they hold onto at all costs.
>no. at least not generally speaking
Yes, you mean. Yes, generally speaking. Theaters and film companies split costs differently based on timeframe. >marketing is a flat rate
That has never been true.
Marketing is just like any other cost, a mutable one that scales as necessary in a fairly analog manner.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You mean pretty much everyone except for a few autists on these threads that will not take 'No, it didn't flop', for an answer.
Funny how I never claimed that it "flopped", is it. I'm just arguing against your compeltely brainless "it makes a profit from 2x its budget onwards" bullshit. Apparently, you are an autist who won't take "No, it was not a massive success" as an answer. You insist that it must have been highly profitable, against anyone who actually knows about this stuff. >Yes, you mean. Yes, generally speaking.
No. Stop spouting bullshit. Most films get a standard rate for their whole run. It's only a few high-in-demand tentpole releases that get special treatment in their first few weeks, and usually because cinemas really want them right at the start. That's not the case for 90% of things out there. >That has never been true.
Are you fricking moronic? Yes, it's always been true: Marketing costs do not ever depend on the production budget.
>The scenes were filmed in infrared. Pretty kino actually.
Could have achieved the same effect with a simple black-and-white filter. But had he done that, he wouldn't get stupid monkeys like yourself to clap over the novelty of his inefficient methods.
is different from simple black & white you pleb
Yes, it's different. When you just film random stuff in nature.
Not when you film stuff in a highly set-up studio environment where things are always designed with the camera in mind. Just that rather than balancing costume and set colours for the camera as usual, this time Villeneuve made their job more complicated by having them use material that reflected infrared wavelengths. Now they had to consider this shit to get a result they could have achieved much easier with regular costuming. BRAVO, DENNIS!
...I actually don't know what the chains skim, but I understood 25% and up, since concessions are where there cash cows are, along with multiple screenings & less employees in the new age.
If they are stating >600 million
...at $252-ish million domestic, at a (let's say) 35% chain cut, it comes out to being 87.5 milly for the screens, and brings them 164.5 milly. on a budget of 192 milly, so an actual loss domestically (extremely common for decades).
Since foreign screens take upwards to 75% of the cut, you can probably take a safe guess that they only got around 100milly for themselves on that...
so basically, made around 264 milly on a budget of 192 milly...
so it's not great, but not bad.
So let's get down to customer base domestically- price per head (discounting new "variable pricing", hour blocks with discounts, any special screenings, so shooting for an average) was roughly $15.
So with the domestic gross of $164 milly at $15 a head, that is 10,966,666 customers.
Very, very poor. A couple boroughs of NYC worth of people watched it.
I don't know Europoor prices or number reporting practices, but that $400 milly reported would mean maybe 25 million people worldwide watched the movie in theaters.
Since the domestic population is 300+ million people in the U.S., that would mean 3.65% of the population watched it here.
That is just...bad. But normal for the new era.
Now...those numbers are even worse, if as anon said, theaters are skimming 50% of sales. That would mean they only cleared $100 milly domestic on a $192milly budget.
It becomes scarily bad, if you begin to count in daytime block cheap-tickets at 50% of $8 (unknown how much of that makes up the domestic total).
RIP DUNC 2: Electric Flopaloo
(Also really RIP Dunc 1 with those numbers.)
>...I actually don't know what the chains skim, but I understood 25% and up, since concessions are where there cash cows are, along with multiple screenings & less employees in the new age.
No one knows, exactly. Those numbers rarely ever leak.
There was one such leak for one of the Disney Star Wars (I think TLJ) that suggested a 80/20 split, i.e. Disney got 80% of the box office. That is astronomical, and about the most favourable split (for the studio) you can ever expect.
The 50/50 estimate you usually get is trying to average out all films from all studios, with all theaters and chains, in all countries. It's extremely inaccurate, but the best we have in most cases.
Generally speaking: Big studios have more leverage than small ones. Tentpole films have a higher demand than those no one wants to see, so that generates more leverage for studios as well. Big chains can negotiate a bigger share than small single-theater cinemas. Different countries have different dynamics, low GDP countries usually have theaters getting less of a share, high GDP markets give cinemas more negotiation power.
For DUNC, you have a relatively big studio with WB, and at least for IMAX theaters there was demand, so that could mean that DUNC1 and DUNC2 both got a slightly better split for the studio than usual. So 60/40 rather than 50/50, maybe. But, again, that's all just estimates based on very incomplte data.
I love how proud these marketing articles are of just breaking even >YES! OUR INDUSTRY IS ONLY A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY *AFTER* YOU DISCOUNT THE TAX BREAKS!
Production costs are the actual lie and done to rob American citizens via tax fraud. >I need a quadillion dollarydoos to break even goyim otherwise I am going to write this off on my taxes.
$190 is probably just the cost of paying the big stars alone. The main israelite will take like 20 million, Zendaya 20 million, then all the rest of the cast.
Cinemaphile holds a schizo theory that marketing somehow costs double the production budget
>What are operating costs
You think theaters take no money? You think marketing costs no money?
yes, extremely, there are zoomers that think pretty much any movie that doesn't make a billion dollars is a flop disaster.
$190 is probably just the cost of paying the big stars alone. The main israelite will take like 20 million, Zendaya 20 million, then all the rest of the cast.
newbie bonanza. The 101 of box office is that the theater takes half. At least this guy got that afterwards
190+100 marketing, that's 290
theaters take half, so you need 580 to get into profit, if not more.
So, at the minimum it needed to do 380. Then there's marketing costs which is always in tens of millions these days, often 100 for MCU tier movies.
They make 40% of their profit from confectionary and the rest from ticket sales.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/movie-theaters-upscale-food-empty-seats.html
>Theaters don't make "half", they make somewhere around 12%!
The cuts vary by film, distributor, location and time. Disney takes a giant cut in the first four weeks, because they can -- or at least could. Other studios can't. And as a run goes on, the theater gets a larger and larger cut.
>Disney takes a giant cut first four weeks
That was only for the that big gay avengers movie and that was because it was a guaranteed mega buster
lol
Shill or new gay?
There's a schizo with a strange fixation about Dune having to fail apparently, and if is not failing is globohhomosexual israeli slop slop or whatever unrelated memeword but trust me bro is failing
Yeah, all the people with basic understanding of how box office works is just a single schizo badmouthing reddit's favourite fotm, but not the poster right above you, no, he's the most mentally stable dunc appreciatior
...don't forget that studios work with PR firms on discount block marketing, and marketing now costs much less than previously, since it costs 0$ for a youtube video, and very cheap for social media pushes, since it now revolves around NPC/Simp shilling as "grassroots".
But "raw budgey" is, as you nicely pointed out...not included with reshoots or anything else changed after testing (that I am aware of, other H-Wood Anons would know).
>Imagine what it costs to have a premier event in Abu Dhabi. It sure aint "less"
Hey, at least for Abu Dhabi, they didn't need to bring the sand that they had at all those premiers. That's maybe 1000 or 2000 dollars less than in, say, Paris!
Bad example as in Abu Dhabi it probably is less. They filmed most of the movie in Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi of all places would want a premier event there even more then WB ya coping homosexual
1 month ago
Anonymous
> They filmed most of Dunce in Abu Dhabi! And then the actors and crew just stayed there for three years until the Premiere. They did! I know it!
1 month ago
Anonymous
only gaytista and josh brolin went to the abu dhabi premiere. keep crying chud
Not a failure in terms of making/losing money. It did most definitely break even, if only barely so.
But it certainly os a failure if you measure it by the expectations its fans had before release (1 billion plus) and even in the first week (800M+).
The sensible estimates always were around 650M, which is where it will end up, but if you said that a month ago, they called you a naysayer or troll.
He's a genius.
1. His direction favors depth and movement. Watching the Abyss in theaters a few months ago, it felt like he was already imagining his movies in 3D.
2. His writing has mass appeal but is not dumb. Anon here a few months ago elaborated on it very well: >Cameron is VERY good at using simple language, repetition, and easily understood emotional cues to develop a more complex emotional/psychological effect in the context of whatever crazy story he's working with. For example, the word "touchdown" is repeated three or four times in this movie. The first few times it's just banal sports references. It's so boring you don't even notice it. But the third time, when the lead hits bottom, it has both repetition and real emotion attached. This is how these people communicate, they understand the contexts of this one dumb word. Of course, this also requires good performances. >The resuscitation scene steals the show. It's just actors doing what they want to do, and it works. Ed Harris gets to chew the set, and his neck-collar prop is a great thing to throw away clattering on the deck. Then they all cry together and it's a nice release.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/193779069/#q193781229 >Even the tit flash is legit dramatic, thanks for reminding me of that. They just dramatically tear off her top as part of the "let's save her life" acting. The showing of (cold, fishy) booba works as a slight transgression which heightens tension.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/193779069/#q193781425
>His writing has mass appeal but is not dumb
He writes and directs utterly plebeian Big Dumb Action Films elevated by nothing more than massive budgets. He’s Michael Bay with less explosions, Christopher Nolan with less intelligence, Michael Mann with less style.
>Seriously though how does he do it? >Literally every film he’s made in the past 27 years has grossed over $2 billion
It's all international money laundering. James Cameron has ties to oligarchs across the world and they use his film's releases as a way to move money around, think of Cameron as a Panama bank. He also has deep ties to multiple intelligence agencies. It's frankly concerning that he's allowed to operate like this and the mere fact that questioning how he knew to be on a Russian submarine the day the towers were attack makes you seem like a crazy person while saying Avatar legitimately earned billions of dollars is sane proves that the bad guys won.
Yes, surely the theatres show these movies for free
Like how moronic are you ? The theatres take ~50% of the box office money, and the production cost doesn't include all the advertising costs which are HUGE
DUNC is and always will be a box office failure masked by an entire propaganda slop campaignand and fraudulent ticket sale numbers. If David fricking Lynch couldn't turn Dune into a box office success literally no director can. These dirty crooked studio heads have all month been funneling money and paying shills to purchase tickets so it appears that they will break even at 700million to the public eye. That's all this israelite propaganda is. Dune will never be organically successful and culturally relevant until Lynch adapts Messiah. PERIOD.
its honestly too high brow for the masses
in my showing there were no teenagers, only 20+ middle to high class people
it also wasnt marketed nearly as aggressive as other films
I am a wagie enslaved at my local kinotorium
You're correct in that Dune 2's audience, for the most part, tended towards a more astute and well-off bracket. They weren't geriatrics of the sort that day-time slop starring Tom Hanks draws in, but there was an obvious bent towards civil middle-age types, usually men, often accompanied by their equally decorous children.
Most indicative of their middle-class niceties was that hardly any of them actually bought anything from concessions. Crowds of people would walk straight through, to the incredulous despair of the manager's present.
Financially prudent people realise that purchasing anything except the ticket from a cinema is moronic, whereas Terry Frickwit and his family of seven will splurge half a week's wages on popcorn that was only two hours prior vacuum sealed. Terry Frickwit doesn't want to watch Dune 2 however. He want's to watch the Meg 2 or Fast and Furious X.
The demographics drawn in by film releases can generally be assumed from intuition, but it's enlightening to see it in live action.
I've heard countless horror stories of Black folk for example. In various unscrupulous circumstances. If you see a vacant-eyed negress waddle in with a pack of children for instance, consider whatever they've picked up stolen. Consider that she will have an endless supply of voucher codes displayed on a phone with a cracked screen and 2% battery. Consider that whatever overpriced crap they've ordered will be strewn with prodigious disarray over the aisles and seats. In their wake, a trail of destruction a pack of wolves would envy.
The cinema I work in has a pick-n-mix stand. It's hideously expensive and priced by weight, as is boldly advertised, but most Black folk can't read. So when they go to purchase the heaping pile of grotesque slop amassed in their straining pick-n-mix boxes, you're once again faced with the unnervingly hollow eyes of the Black person broodmother, who you already know will refuse to pay for it.
>Also seems like you both are American from the way you argue with these slogans. >>You're fricking wrong.
: Moved
why do they type (speak) like this
I've noticed it too
is spending $10 on a movie ticket really too much for you people?
I live in a rural town in Germany, I'd have to travel to watch it. But now that I'm half hour in, god Zendaya is such a miscast, she can't act at all, so even if I could go watch it in person, I probably wouldn't. She's criminally offensive.
>
I use swatchseries.is , it's so much better imo.
I don't know what's going on but lately (last week) they introduced this weird ad/scam thing where if you just click anywhere on the page it redirects you. despite that I would still recommend it. seems to be much less these past few days so maybe they stopped it
Unlike Villanova, Lynch's merit is not measured in commercial success and popular approval.
Some directors actually care more about making films than making money.
Yet his films will continue to be watched, discussed and praised for as long as the medium still exists, while Villeneuve will have practically zero footprint in said medium.
The Dune movies are his best work, and they are at best 'ok', that's it.
No. Because less than half of the Dune 2 box office was in "$". The majority of the gross was in foreign countries in foreign currencies that return far less to the studio than domestic receipts.
>Movie costs 100 million to make >That will be 300m in marketing >Plus tip
Is this practically true in reality as most of the media companies have the same ownership
41% is the theater cut for the first two weeks of screening and is applied only to the home box office, moron. The theater cut goes up above 50% as time goes on and for international BO it's always above it. Cutting the worldwide BO in half is a very rough estimation but it's working in favor of the movies, the more exact calculations would be even more grim for them
Yes, but that it not an interesting number unless you also consider the costs of making and promoting the movie, as well as how much of those $600 million the company making the movie actually get.
It's not rocket science. I can go out and buy lottery tickets for $1,000, then it turns out I won $100 on said tickets
I technically 'won' $100 on my lottery tickets, but in reality I lost $900
It's going to top out somewhere between $650 - $700 million worldwide. That's at least $100 million in pure profit based on the budget, you just WANT the movie to be a failure because of some political or sexual grievance, or god forbid you're a lynchgay
>That's at least $100 million in pure profit based on the budget
Yeah. But not based on the budget + the astronomical marketing costs, which included a dozen premiers all around the world. Something that's exceptionally costly, and that I've seen done for no other film I can remember.
>they spent a gorillion dollars on marketing
No, they probably spent 100M instead of the average 50M that people assume for their breakeven calculations. So rather than 500M, it would need to make 600M to break even (assuming a 50/50 split between cinemas and studio).
>which included a dozen premiers all around the world. Something that's exceptionally costly, and that I've seen done for no other film I can remember.
You have the memory of a goldfish.
Oh, really? How many premiers do you say there were?
>which included a dozen premiers all around the world. Something that's exceptionally costly, and that I've seen done for no other film I can remember.
If you think this is a hit, check how well fricking Godzilla vs. Kong is doing.
I'm getting a deja vu from 2021, where this oh so massive notorious "hit franchise" beat DUNC1.
Then practically only summer block buster movies can prove that they are enjoyed by people, yet many/most of them have zero impact on pop culture and movie discussion, like Avatar, Independence Day etc et al
Meanwhile movies that were flops at the box office, like Blade Runner, Starship Troopers etc, has had huge shelf life and spawned numerous sequels and also huge pop culture impact.
yeah it's silly. If anything this shows that Legendary can hold their weight and are benefitting greatly from WB not having any actual say on what goes in their movies, they just help with distributing their sloppa.
>success of Dune 2
Repeating the same statement over and over like a mantra won't bring it any closer to being the truth. Maybe in some hugbox of like-minded schizos you could pretend it being the case for a time, but this kind of environment will inevitably become very unstable >and both films are from the exact same production company
Why did you have the need to point this out? Are you a console warrior from Cinemaphile? Lmao expected nothing less from dunctards
You guys really suck at movie math. The 2.5-3x budget is a guess. After that you have to do the actual math to account for things like different cuts in intentional areas. Especially in China where you get 20-25% revenue from there so if you make most of your money in China that means the threshold to break even is much higher than estimates.
I'm using some guys box office math here. 22.5% China. 40% international, Domestic First week 60%, Domestic 2nd week 55%, Domestic 3rd 50%. Marketing budget usually half of the budget of movie. Interntationl including China would come out to $141,582,202. Giving it to people say they get half from domestic, let's half the current domestic total $252,390,027 and we get $126,195,013. Add movie budget and half for marketing budget gets you $285,000,000. Compare that to revenue that should get of $267,777,215 and they are still in - $17,222,784. I think they should easily get that amount but at this moment, they haven't broken even.
>After that
No, not "after that".
It's either or. You either work with the 2.5x estimate, which tries to consider all those things (and most often is inaccurate as hell), OR you do all the minute calculations.
The thing is, even those calculations will be based on estimated data, since stuff like the cinema/studio shares usually doesn't get released or leaked. Neither does the exact marketing budget - so you'll have to guess that based on the amount and type of marketing you think it got. >Marketing budget usually half of the budget of movie.
This is complete nonsense. It's what's used in that 2.5x that you (rightly) classed as inaccurate.
Either way ... I think saying that DUNC2 is right now somewhere around the breakeven point is accurate enough.
The sooner this bland grey shit is forgotten the better
Look people actualy read the books they meant something
Frick this grayscale bald albino brown potatoface b***h bullshit
The film cost $500mil to make, double it for marketing. $1bil film. If this doesn't take at least $2bil by the end of April then scifi films will be dead for a decade.
>For some reason I don't buy $600M is a flop
Thanks to inflated budgets nowadays, for some things anything less than a billion is considered a flop. That's for Marvel stuff though.
For DUNC, it's not quite that magnitude. But DUNC2's budget is still is large enough that you can safely say that anything lower than 500M to 550M would most definitely be a flop. Most people agree that with 550M to 600M, it's breaking even. And with more than 600M, it's probably making a small profit. For a significant profit, it would have needed 750M, if not 800M though.
So I enjoyed Dune 2 well enough while watching it, but right after leaving the cinema it felt like I hadn't even watched it. I guess I was never full engrossed in it. It looks fine and the acting was okay. It was never boring, but it wasn't thrilling either. It's like a glass of room temperature tap water. It's not kino and it's not a massive slop of shit either.
Anyone else relate to this?
It's the IMAX effect. It tells you "huge" and "loud" and "lots of stuff happening", so you feel like it's a really immersive experience that overwhelms you.
But if you think about what you've seen, it's really just a the film with what it has to offer (which in DUNC's case is not much). You're even missing out on the proper cinematography that a normal cinema provides (unless they frick the cinematography up like they did in DUNC), because IMAX has this strange vertical format that means you get a huge, mostly empty, picture with stuff only going on in the middle. Completely ruins the framing.
It has some interesting parts, some good performances and some actually very good looking visuals, but the story is watered down, there are some bad performances/bad characterizations and some annoying modern attitudes mixed in that miss the point of the book.
It has some interesting parts, some good performances and some actually very good looking visuals, but the story is watered down, there are some bad performances/bad characterizations and some annoying modern attitudes mixed in that miss the point of the book.
This. The issue is that the DUNC movies are "safe". You have thermonuclear kino potential with the source material, but if Dennis the Menace lacks the balls to bring it to life properly, we get an insipid experience.
It's not though it's literally a better movie? Like factually it's a better movie by any respectable review site and user review system. Fricking tard cope
Whenever i think of DUNC i think of Zendayas ugly face. It evokes a feeling of revulsion.
Combined with the mediocre reviews, it makes me not wanna watch the 2nd movie.
>The mini series is still the more faithful adaptation.
I mean ... that's not saying much. Star Wars is a more faithful Dune adaptation than DUNC at this point.
Serves them right. Should have hired a beautiful, charismatic actress, instead of a stonefaced mutt, for the lead role. Then perhaps they would have made more than just barely break even.
Its funny how all mentally ill manchildren operate.
A few legitimately mentally ill anons who decided that hating DUNC is literally their very own identity and they must pretend as if it's the worst film ever made which made 30 bucks in box office total in order to keep their mental illness and identity in check
If it wasn’t for Zendaya the film would be passably droll but her performance is legitimately worse than any aspect of Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes and society made that it’s punching bag for more than a decade. Frankly, us Zendaya haters are being reasonable.
As opposed to the schizos who desperately need this muddled, neutered, sterile, bland, IDPOL-riddled exercise in big budget mediocrity to somehow be elevated to the status of art via box office returns?
I was pumped to see the first one, as I grew up reading the Dune series, and thought Denis would make a version true to the book, which he said he was going to do in interviews leading up to the release of pt.1, but after sitting through that soulless, hollowed out minimalist slop, I have zero desire to watch the girlboss pt.2 at all
>girlboss pt.2
You clearly haven't read shit.
Chani is a quite literally cucked side character while Paul becomes Space Hitler boyboss of the entire galaxy
>the flying box with basically nonexistent wings is plausible and epic
Yes. Because it has no wings, it's not implied that it's fyling by flapping them. Unlike Villeneuve's moronic contraption.
Flying by flapping the wings is literally from the book
1 month ago
Anonymous
Except the book didn't make them gigantic steel cages with heavy metallic stubby wings. Too bad that Villeneuve's design team doesn't understand basic aerodynamics.
I think the ornithopters were one of the few interestingly-designed things in Denis's films. They could have used more color than none whatsoever, but they looked cool enough. Same with the weird Harkonnen craft.
Sure, if you so desperately want to pretend that it is shit, feel free to do so. No one is forcing you to like it. Just don't pretend that there's anything that DUNC does better.
No, it doesn't. Intelligence doesn't mean you have to create complex things, in fact intelligent people can create simple products/services/content and execute them in a perfect way exactly because it's executed perfectly simple, not complex.
In fact only a midwit/non-intelligent person would think that a movie has to be highly complex in order to be good or "intelligent"
The movie felt like the Star Wars prequels where everyone is in a gigantic fricking room all the time. It is supposed to make the scope of things more grand, but it looks like shit
>heading for a $750 million take on a $190 million budget >"flop"
You should feel bad for not only being so moronic, OP, but then telling strangers about it on the internet, too.
No. The 40% drop per week that has been pretty steady so far, and the general trajectory that has predicted all the results after week 1 with extreme precision. The same trajectory that says it'll fizzle out at around 650M.
How do you suggest it can get to your illusory 750M number? By continuing to maintain its current numbers (with no drop) for another two months? Or by doing the unprecedented and have a rise in revenue rather than a drop over the next few weeks?
>Jaden Smith looking mystery meat >Ugly >Can't act >Always snarling and frowning
Why did israelites put her as a leading actress next to one of their own, then make him kiss her? Seems like not even israelites can escape being preyed upon by each other
(OP)
Just got back from the theater. Still simmering on it. I'm one of the first to say Dunc 1 is mid AF and overrated. Part 2 is definitely better for sure. But these movies are literally Dune 84' stretched out to 2 movies instead of one. Really the only difference is the Dunc series is ironic subversive and 84' is not. But all of the plot beats and most of the scenes are the same.
>mfw dah heckin mofies are adaptations of the same book
My point is when Dunc part 1 came out all the book gays were like the newer version had so much more in it than Dune 84' when when it all comes down to it they both have about the same. It's just the subtext of the movies that is different with Dunc being subversive and Dune 84' being a straightforward heroes journey.
I liked Dunc part 2 better than Dunc part 1. Dunc part 1 is beyond boring in the 2nd half. I would say Dunc 2 is more technically sound and less tryhard pretentious than Dunc part 1. Denis took the stick out of his ass and just made a movie instead of trying to be all "auteur" and shit which just made part 1 insufferably unnatural and boring.
I kind of felt the same way. I went into the first one with rock-bottom expectations because I kind of hated everything I saw about it from the pre-release material, but I like Dune enough that I still watched it on a whim and ended up liking it more than I expected. So as a result, I actually had some higher-than-rock-bottom expectations for the second one and I suppose they were met, but as a result I wasn't pleasantly surprised, so it felt worse to me overall, though a fair amount of that might just be from the disgust I felt every time Zendaya was on screen. I honestly feel like I would have missed nothing if I'd skipped seeing it.
>/pol/tards
Funny, because it's DUNC fanboys who always fall into /misc/ talking points. Just in another thread today, one of you guys started ranting about how Europe is alledgedly full of muslims raping and murdering everyone.
I can separate the two movies. Dunc 1 was weak Dunc 2 is a lot stronger. It feels like Denis is learning on the job with these movies. The first one felt like hit was hitting the ceiling of his movie making abilities. Dunc 2 feels like he has more pure movie making skill from the experience of Dunc 1. The whole thing simply feels less forced than Dunc 1.
>And all the filmmaking issues DUNC1 had are still present.
i.d.k. it just feels fuller, more natural and less self conscious to me. Like you know the "IM ACTING" meme. Dunc part 1 felt like "I"M DIRECTING". Nothing felt natural. Dunc 2 feels more natural and comfortable in its own skin.
lord of the rings made WAY more cash
The first one was so fricking gay I just don't care. I'd imagine there are a lot who feel the same
shit looks like a stage play based on those screenshots
almost like that's the superior framing for a scene
Doubles confirms it
Good.
No, no, no, anon. A stage play has actors with more than one expression in it.
>looks like a stage play
No. There's no way you can make a stage look this bland and lifeless by set-design and lighting alone. It requires a very particular method of colour grading in post to get things to look this uninspired.
stage play would have better acting, dialogue, costumes and set design
The miniseries actually comes off like a stage play at times, especially the scenes with the Baron in them (which are fantastic to the one). Far more interesting costume design, even if it's cheap.
Extremely based. The costumes and sets of the miniseries were great, even with the low budget.
Sounds like a compliment
oof
this is the break even point
It's actually 100mil past the break even point
>It's actually 100mil past the break even point
Literally no one believes in a 500M breaking point with the marketing it had. Most realistic estimates range from 550M to 600M.
It had a $190 mil budget. So by Hollywood israelite numbers x2 is the break even point so $380 mil to break even. It's better than part 1 so I'm not even mad.
>So by Hollywood israelite numbers x2 is the break even point so $380 mil to break even.
Holy frick, you're stupid.
If you think a movie needs more than 2x to make a profit, then basically nothing other than horror movies makes a profit.
>If you think a movie needs more than 2x to make a profit
Yes, moron. Read the fricking thread for explanations why.
>basically nothing other than horror movies makes a profit
Calling Star Wars, Avatar, Titanic and so on "horror movies" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
There are no explanations.
There's morons parroting morons about cuts movie theaters take on ticket sales that are ripped from context. Where people are seriously posting that theaters take 50% cuts of ticket sales as a constant.
Combined with constantly increasing relative ratio of marketing costs to the producting costs.
Combined with a bunch of other fluff costs that are asspulled as necessary.
Stop being a moron.
>There are no explanations.
Right. No explanations. You truly are the most intelligent person around.
Who cares about cinema's shares, and marketing, and distribution costs? None of those actually matter! All that matters is some random factor of exactly 2, that you pulled out of your arse! My, isn't this fun? If only everyone was as intelligent as you! We could just say the constant pi equals exactly 3 and be done with it, for example!
Okay Sweaty.
Theaters take 50% averaged out, but what this means is that on debut they take far less and that increases as a film runs longer and longer.
Marketing and distribution does not cost x3 or however far you've scaled it these days. Marketing and distribution for a film is typically between .5x to +1.5x the base cost. With lower budget films having a higher ratio.
By 600 million DUNE2 has more than broke even and is turning a very healthy profit.
>what this means is that on debut they take far less and that increases as a film runs longer and longer.
No. At least not generally speaking.
>Marketing and distribution does not cost x3 or however far you've scaled it these days.
No one said that, you fricking moron. Advertising costs are a constant number largely independent from the production budget. On average, it's around 50M, in more extreme cases it's around 100M. Which is the case can be gauged by looking at the amount of advertising. For DUNC2, that was huge, hence the 100M estimate. This is not something you can just include in any factor based on the budget. It's something you have to add on top.
>By 600 million DUNE2 has more than broke even and is turning a very healthy profit.
No. Pretty much EVERYONE BUT YOU agrees that it is not turning a healthy profit yet.
Even the most optimistic breakeven point, at 500M, would suggest that the profit is only the studio share of anything on top of that. So at 600M, that means maybe 50M profit, IF we assume the most optimistic guess for the breakeven point. For more realistic guesses, it's somewhere between 0 and 25M right now, and might end up at 50M total.
>No. Pretty much EVERYONE BUT YOU agrees that it is not turning a healthy profit yet.
You are beyond dorky anon
You mean pretty much everyone except for a few autists on these threads that will not take 'No, it didn't flop', for an answer.
No one in the world is handwringing about DUNE2 not making its money back and then profit on top of that. There are only wannabe doomposters here saying it based on wienertail napkin math they hold onto at all costs.
>no. at least not generally speaking
Yes, you mean. Yes, generally speaking. Theaters and film companies split costs differently based on timeframe.
>marketing is a flat rate
That has never been true.
Marketing is just like any other cost, a mutable one that scales as necessary in a fairly analog manner.
>You mean pretty much everyone except for a few autists on these threads that will not take 'No, it didn't flop', for an answer.
Funny how I never claimed that it "flopped", is it. I'm just arguing against your compeltely brainless "it makes a profit from 2x its budget onwards" bullshit. Apparently, you are an autist who won't take "No, it was not a massive success" as an answer. You insist that it must have been highly profitable, against anyone who actually knows about this stuff.
>Yes, you mean. Yes, generally speaking.
No. Stop spouting bullshit. Most films get a standard rate for their whole run. It's only a few high-in-demand tentpole releases that get special treatment in their first few weeks, and usually because cinemas really want them right at the start. That's not the case for 90% of things out there.
>That has never been true.
Are you fricking moronic? Yes, it's always been true: Marketing costs do not ever depend on the production budget.
Denis is a hack. His movies flop for a reason.
I thought it was good and LOTR was overrated
thought both are overrated and only the star wars OT deserves its fame
>and only the star wars OT deserves its fame
Overrated dogshit
(You)
It is. I'm not even trying to b8. I look down on people who say they're fans of Star Wars
NEWS FLASH: LOW TEST EDGY ZOOMER DOESN'T LIKE STAR WARS. ENTIRE WORLD IS SHOCKED.
Yeah. Like I said. It's overrated dogshit and I'm glad it's fans are miserable about it's even worse current state
jokes on you i never even watched the prequels much less mousewars
Frick you b***h
Yes these two opinions are related.
six HUNDRED miLLIon???
dang. what's the black and white movie in the corner?
it's a scene set on Giedi Prime which has a black sun hence they're bald and white. The scenes were filmed in infrared. Pretty kino actually.
>The scenes were filmed in infrared. Pretty kino actually.
Infrared is predator vision you moron.
>The scenes were filmed in infrared. Pretty kino actually.
Could have achieved the same effect with a simple black-and-white filter. But had he done that, he wouldn't get stupid monkeys like yourself to clap over the novelty of his inefficient methods.
>Could have achieved the same effect with a simple black-and-white filter.
Infrared is different from simple black & white you pleb
left side = black & white
right side = infrared
is different from simple black & white you pleb
Yes, it's different. When you just film random stuff in nature.
Not when you film stuff in a highly set-up studio environment where things are always designed with the camera in mind. Just that rather than balancing costume and set colours for the camera as usual, this time Villeneuve made their job more complicated by having them use material that reflected infrared wavelengths. Now they had to consider this shit to get a result they could have achieved much easier with regular costuming. BRAVO, DENNIS!
>bald and white
literally me
keep coping lardass
the highly acclaimed sequel beloved by audiences managed to break even but not profit, how is that a victory?
it says 20% profit even after their convoluted laundering operation. from 190 is a 3x profit
No, because:
The theatres take ~50% of the box office money
The production budget doesn't include the cost for promotion as in advertising etc
>convoluted laundering
how does it cost 190 in the first fricking place
yes tard we know.
190 x 2 = 380.
if it makes 600 million that's way past the break even point
Your 'math' doesn't take into account the advertising/promotion budget, it only accounts for the theatre cut.
190 x 2
no it's 2 times homosexual
It’s 2 1/2 times its production budget
New gay
>around the 50%
...I actually don't know what the chains skim, but I understood 25% and up, since concessions are where there cash cows are, along with multiple screenings & less employees in the new age.
If they are stating
>600 million
...at $252-ish million domestic, at a (let's say) 35% chain cut, it comes out to being 87.5 milly for the screens, and brings them 164.5 milly. on a budget of 192 milly, so an actual loss domestically (extremely common for decades).
Since foreign screens take upwards to 75% of the cut, you can probably take a safe guess that they only got around 100milly for themselves on that...
so basically, made around 264 milly on a budget of 192 milly...
so it's not great, but not bad.
So let's get down to customer base domestically- price per head (discounting new "variable pricing", hour blocks with discounts, any special screenings, so shooting for an average) was roughly $15.
So with the domestic gross of $164 milly at $15 a head, that is 10,966,666 customers.
Very, very poor. A couple boroughs of NYC worth of people watched it.
I don't know Europoor prices or number reporting practices, but that $400 milly reported would mean maybe 25 million people worldwide watched the movie in theaters.
Since the domestic population is 300+ million people in the U.S., that would mean 3.65% of the population watched it here.
That is just...bad. But normal for the new era.
Now...those numbers are even worse, if as anon said, theaters are skimming 50% of sales. That would mean they only cleared $100 milly domestic on a $192milly budget.
It becomes scarily bad, if you begin to count in daytime block cheap-tickets at 50% of $8 (unknown how much of that makes up the domestic total).
RIP DUNC 2: Electric Flopaloo
(Also really RIP Dunc 1 with those numbers.)
Cope formulas are one of the most entertaining parts of nu/tv/
Well...unlike you, it did make a very marginal profit, but even that is questionable with accounting reporting being what it is.
This is the adult table, if you want the Plebbit table, it's over on Reddit where you came from.
>...I actually don't know what the chains skim, but I understood 25% and up, since concessions are where there cash cows are, along with multiple screenings & less employees in the new age.
No one knows, exactly. Those numbers rarely ever leak.
There was one such leak for one of the Disney Star Wars (I think TLJ) that suggested a 80/20 split, i.e. Disney got 80% of the box office. That is astronomical, and about the most favourable split (for the studio) you can ever expect.
The 50/50 estimate you usually get is trying to average out all films from all studios, with all theaters and chains, in all countries. It's extremely inaccurate, but the best we have in most cases.
Generally speaking: Big studios have more leverage than small ones. Tentpole films have a higher demand than those no one wants to see, so that generates more leverage for studios as well. Big chains can negotiate a bigger share than small single-theater cinemas. Different countries have different dynamics, low GDP countries usually have theaters getting less of a share, high GDP markets give cinemas more negotiation power.
For DUNC, you have a relatively big studio with WB, and at least for IMAX theaters there was demand, so that could mean that DUNC1 and DUNC2 both got a slightly better split for the studio than usual. So 60/40 rather than 50/50, maybe. But, again, that's all just estimates based on very incomplte data.
>is almost certain sail past
Writers that can't even write are so cringe
>Is almost certain to sail past it's breakeven benchmark of $500 million and ultimately earn $600 million to $700 million.
lol
> Doesn't include the $100M in marketing. Had to include tax handouts.
Now this is getting embarrassing. Have some pride.
they'll break even with basedboy merchandise like funkopops and gacha games
but the movie by itself is a flop
a whole of hedging going on there bub
Movies need 2.5x to breakeven so Dune's target is actually $2.5 billion
If Dune cost $190 million, then its breakeven point (assuming a 2.5x multiplier) is $475 million. Assuming a 2x multiplier is $380 million.
learn to count dipshit it's literally 1.2 billion
I love how proud these marketing articles are of just breaking even
>YES! OUR INDUSTRY IS ONLY A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY *AFTER* YOU DISCOUNT THE TAX BREAKS!
>movie costs 190
>makes 600
>this is even
Are Cinemaphilecels moronic?
Cinemaphile holds a schizo theory that marketing somehow costs double the production budget
Shills spotted
Do you think the movie theaters give the studio all the money from the tickets sales? Do you think advertising is free?
>What are operating costs
You think theaters take no money? You think marketing costs no money?
Production costs are the actual lie and done to rob American citizens via tax fraud.
>I need a quadillion dollarydoos to break even goyim otherwise I am going to write this off on my taxes.
yes, extremely, there are zoomers that think pretty much any movie that doesn't make a billion dollars is a flop disaster.
190+100 marketing, that's 290
theaters take half, so you need 580 to get into profit, if not more.
>breakeven benchmark of $500 million
$190 is probably just the cost of paying the big stars alone. The main israelite will take like 20 million, Zendaya 20 million, then all the rest of the cast.
newbie bonanza. The 101 of box office is that the theater takes half. At least this guy got that afterwards
So, at the minimum it needed to do 380. Then there's marketing costs which is always in tens of millions these days, often 100 for MCU tier movies.
Theaters don't make "half", they make somewhere around 12% and expect to profit from confectionery sales.
Movie theaters receive approximately 40% of each ticket sold. You're fricking wrong.
They make 40% of their profit from confectionary and the rest from ticket sales.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/movie-theaters-upscale-food-empty-seats.html
>Theaters don't make "half", they make somewhere around 12%!
The cuts vary by film, distributor, location and time. Disney takes a giant cut in the first four weeks, because they can -- or at least could. Other studios can't. And as a run goes on, the theater gets a larger and larger cut.
>Disney takes a giant cut first four weeks
That was only for the that big gay avengers movie and that was because it was a guaranteed mega buster
lol
Shill or new gay?
lel, what an absolute moron you are
you can simply fricking google box office economics
>movies are no longer profitable unless they break a billy
God, hollywood needs to crash and burn faster
demonic, just like loony troons
yes
It made 130 million so far
Witch honestly isn’t bad for nulHollywood
There's a schizo with a strange fixation about Dune having to fail apparently, and if is not failing is globohhomosexual israeli slop slop or whatever unrelated memeword but trust me bro is failing
Yeah, all the people with basic understanding of how box office works is just a single schizo badmouthing reddit's favourite fotm, but not the poster right above you, no, he's the most mentally stable dunc appreciatior
But why he doesn't answer the question?
>basic understanding of how box office works
lmao, good one
Raw budget is like a third of the cost of movies nowadays. It doesn't include marketing, it usually doesn't include reshoots, re-edits, etc.
>raw budgey
...don't forget that studios work with PR firms on discount block marketing, and marketing now costs much less than previously, since it costs 0$ for a youtube video, and very cheap for social media pushes, since it now revolves around NPC/Simp shilling as "grassroots".
But "raw budgey" is, as you nicely pointed out...not included with reshoots or anything else changed after testing (that I am aware of, other H-Wood Anons would know).
>and marketing now costs much less than previously,
lmao imagine thinking this
>marketing now costs much less than previously
Dunce 2 had celebrity premiers in over a dozen major world cities. Imagine what it costs to have a premier event in Abu Dhabi. It sure aint "less"
>Imagine what it costs to have a premier event in Abu Dhabi. It sure aint "less"
Hey, at least for Abu Dhabi, they didn't need to bring the sand that they had at all those premiers. That's maybe 1000 or 2000 dollars less than in, say, Paris!
Bad example as in Abu Dhabi it probably is less. They filmed most of the movie in Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi of all places would want a premier event there even more then WB ya coping homosexual
> They filmed most of Dunce in Abu Dhabi! And then the actors and crew just stayed there for three years until the Premiere. They did! I know it!
only gaytista and josh brolin went to the abu dhabi premiere. keep crying chud
Cinemaphile calculating profit margins for films they don't like is the equivalent to that South Park joke about measuring dicks.
It’s break even point was 470 million
So it made money
Hollywood still makes movies?
Is it a failure yes or no?
Not a bomb but neither a billion blockbuster.
no
Frick no, there will be a third and Cinemaphile will seethe in another few years. I
Not a failure in terms of making/losing money. It did most definitely break even, if only barely so.
But it certainly os a failure if you measure it by the expectations its fans had before release (1 billion plus) and even in the first week (800M+).
The sensible estimates always were around 650M, which is where it will end up, but if you said that a month ago, they called you a naysayer or troll.
Afraid so
Yes, and I don't mean financially.
Good to hear, Penis Dune is awfully uninspired.
>not even a quarter of Avatar
AHHAHAHAHHHAH
>INFINITE
>ECONOMIC
>IMPACT
the real Mubdub Al Doob
>he IS the Knicknack Paddywack!
Seriously though how does he do it?
Literally every film he’s made in the past 27 years has grossed over $2 billion
He's a genius.
1. His direction favors depth and movement. Watching the Abyss in theaters a few months ago, it felt like he was already imagining his movies in 3D.
2. His writing has mass appeal but is not dumb. Anon here a few months ago elaborated on it very well:
>Cameron is VERY good at using simple language, repetition, and easily understood emotional cues to develop a more complex emotional/psychological effect in the context of whatever crazy story he's working with. For example, the word "touchdown" is repeated three or four times in this movie. The first few times it's just banal sports references. It's so boring you don't even notice it. But the third time, when the lead hits bottom, it has both repetition and real emotion attached. This is how these people communicate, they understand the contexts of this one dumb word. Of course, this also requires good performances.
>The resuscitation scene steals the show. It's just actors doing what they want to do, and it works. Ed Harris gets to chew the set, and his neck-collar prop is a great thing to throw away clattering on the deck. Then they all cry together and it's a nice release.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/193779069/#q193781229
>Even the tit flash is legit dramatic, thanks for reminding me of that. They just dramatically tear off her top as part of the "let's save her life" acting. The showing of (cold, fishy) booba works as a slight transgression which heightens tension.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/193779069/#q193781425
>His writing has mass appeal but is not dumb
He writes and directs utterly plebeian Big Dumb Action Films elevated by nothing more than massive budgets. He’s Michael Bay with less explosions, Christopher Nolan with less intelligence, Michael Mann with less style.
>Christopher Nolan with less intelligence
Wow. That's ... very very little intelligence then.
>Seriously though how does he do it?
>Literally every film he’s made in the past 27 years has grossed over $2 billion
It's all international money laundering. James Cameron has ties to oligarchs across the world and they use his film's releases as a way to move money around, think of Cameron as a Panama bank. He also has deep ties to multiple intelligence agencies. It's frankly concerning that he's allowed to operate like this and the mere fact that questioning how he knew to be on a Russian submarine the day the towers were attack makes you seem like a crazy person while saying Avatar legitimately earned billions of dollars is sane proves that the bad guys won.
>Muh conspiracy
Everything is money laundering with you homosexuals. Come off it, fatty
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average man, anon.
i skipped on dune 2 simply because it wasnt in 3D
I feel like there's barely any movies grossing over 700 mil these days
Going to the movies takes too much commitment these days.
I can't wait to see it, I just refuse to give hollywood anymore money. Ever.
Dune looks like what some generic thot thinks of when she hears the word "cinematic".
Are those real screen caps of the movie or is it set photos. Cause fricking lol
Florence and Anya will take it to a billion.
2/10 bait
Everyone knows it needed 500mil to break even.
At least you tried, OP
Bro really thought they were Star Wars
>defending a progessive multicultural movie by slinging racial slurs
okay
>make 3 times production cost
>so far
>flop
Yes, surely the theatres show these movies for free
Like how moronic are you ? The theatres take ~50% of the box office money, and the production cost doesn't include all the advertising costs which are HUGE
What's he smokin' on?
Spice (DMT)
>imagine having daughters
>screech about brown people
That's all you've been doing. Are you delusional?
>Keep moving those goalposts, jeet.
>Cope and seethe you brown frick.
>...n n n no you brought up the brown stuff first!
You're pathetic.
Does this mean Dune Messiah is canceled
No, it will be a web episode instead.
We can hope.
It's cancelled no matter what. WB can barely afford to pay back interest on its massive debts.
They dumbed down Part 1 and shat on all of the characters to add muh action and muh humor and it doesn't even gross a billion. Part 2 is a joke
DUNC is and always will be a box office failure masked by an entire propaganda slop campaignand and fraudulent ticket sale numbers. If David fricking Lynch couldn't turn Dune into a box office success literally no director can. These dirty crooked studio heads have all month been funneling money and paying shills to purchase tickets so it appears that they will break even at 700million to the public eye. That's all this israelite propaganda is. Dune will never be organically successful and culturally relevant until Lynch adapts Messiah. PERIOD.
turn off your screen, take a shower, and go outside
did villeneuve originally plan to make the sequel also?
what the frick do you think brainlet
Reminder that Men In Black is still considered a flop by Sony (despite being a huge box office success) so they don’t have to pay the creators.
maybe apply some sunscreen too, sounds like you haven't been out for a while
its honestly too high brow for the masses
in my showing there were no teenagers, only 20+ middle to high class people
it also wasnt marketed nearly as aggressive as other films
I am a wagie enslaved at my local kinotorium
You're correct in that Dune 2's audience, for the most part, tended towards a more astute and well-off bracket. They weren't geriatrics of the sort that day-time slop starring Tom Hanks draws in, but there was an obvious bent towards civil middle-age types, usually men, often accompanied by their equally decorous children.
Most indicative of their middle-class niceties was that hardly any of them actually bought anything from concessions. Crowds of people would walk straight through, to the incredulous despair of the manager's present.
Financially prudent people realise that purchasing anything except the ticket from a cinema is moronic, whereas Terry Frickwit and his family of seven will splurge half a week's wages on popcorn that was only two hours prior vacuum sealed. Terry Frickwit doesn't want to watch Dune 2 however. He want's to watch the Meg 2 or Fast and Furious X.
The demographics drawn in by film releases can generally be assumed from intuition, but it's enlightening to see it in live action.
I've heard countless horror stories of Black folk for example. In various unscrupulous circumstances. If you see a vacant-eyed negress waddle in with a pack of children for instance, consider whatever they've picked up stolen. Consider that she will have an endless supply of voucher codes displayed on a phone with a cracked screen and 2% battery. Consider that whatever overpriced crap they've ordered will be strewn with prodigious disarray over the aisles and seats. In their wake, a trail of destruction a pack of wolves would envy.
The cinema I work in has a pick-n-mix stand. It's hideously expensive and priced by weight, as is boldly advertised, but most Black folk can't read. So when they go to purchase the heaping pile of grotesque slop amassed in their straining pick-n-mix boxes, you're once again faced with the unnervingly hollow eyes of the Black person broodmother, who you already know will refuse to pay for it.
DUN3: M3SSIAH
'Denis! Denis! Denis!' goes the refrain. 'A million deaths were not enough for Denis!'
That guy wasn't even me. Also seems like you both are American from the way you argue with these slogans.
>You're fricking wrong.
>Goalposts : Moved
>Also seems like you both are American from the way you argue with these slogans.
>>You're fricking wrong.
: Moved
why do they type (speak) like this
I've noticed it too
>he doesn't realize DUNC bros will buy billions of BluRays thus making this a record-breaking success
You should have picked the right side Tolkcuck
>Denis refuses to do an extended cut
no point buying them lol
how much money do movies need to make what the frick is going on what does mayonnaise cost $6 dollars
I just make my own mayonnaise (I leave eggs and butter out in the sun)
>it's a flop it's a flop
It's fricking kino I don't care how much israeli slave tokens it makes
When is it releasing on streaming? I want to download it already.
https://fmoviesz.to/movie/dune-part-two-91jy0/1-1
Thank you for spoonfeeding a link, but I meant in good quality. I should have been more clear.
it wasnt high quality when it was made so never
You know what? Frick it, I'm watching it like this, I can't wait anymore and having the video right there in my face has destroyed my self control.
same. watch it on 2x too. on your phone
is spending $10 on a movie ticket really too much for you people?
It's dunc 2.
A good photo looks great in 1024x768.
Good movie looks good in 360p.
Shitty movie is shit in iMAX.
I don’t want to risk my $10 seeing as DUNC pt 1 literally put me to sleep the first two times I watched it.
I live in a rural town in Germany, I'd have to travel to watch it. But now that I'm half hour in, god Zendaya is such a miscast, she can't act at all, so even if I could go watch it in person, I probably wouldn't. She's criminally offensive.
>
I use swatchseries.is , it's so much better imo.
I don't know what's going on but lately (last week) they introduced this weird ad/scam thing where if you just click anywhere on the page it redirects you. despite that I would still recommend it. seems to be much less these past few days so maybe they stopped it
He won
He's a hack that has never made a good movie.
Factually incorrect.
Absolutely spot on, lynch has a library composed completely out of c-tier movies, has even one of his films crossed a rating of 7.0 on imdb?
> She thinks an IMDB rating means anything
Oh Miss, where to start.....
>Lynch's projects have never been commercially successful, with his filmography making just over $120 million worldwide throughout his career.
KWAB
Unlike Villanova, Lynch's merit is not measured in commercial success and popular approval.
Some directors actually care more about making films than making money.
Yet his films will continue to be watched, discussed and praised for as long as the medium still exists, while Villeneuve will have practically zero footprint in said medium.
The Dune movies are his best work, and they are at best 'ok', that's it.
Frick, now I wish Jim Jarmusch had done DUNC instead of Shitternoob
No. Because less than half of the Dune 2 box office was in "$". The majority of the gross was in foreign countries in foreign currencies that return far less to the studio than domestic receipts.
Did that help?
It's going to make money even if not that much. Today when 90% of big blockbusters flop this is not a bad result.
But yes it would be 2x more popular if designs were better and they actually showed some color.
Bidengays vote against their own economic interests
> Answers "her" question
> "She" has a sissy hissy because it's not the answer "she" demanded.
Happy Transgender Visibility Day, anon.
>40%
>somehow isn't half
LOL you thought you had something there
JUNC
not even 1 (ONE) billie?
dayyyum GYAATTTT
>Movie costs 100 million to make
>That will be 300m in marketing
>Plus tip
Is this practically true in reality as most of the media companies have the same ownership
Thebatman chads where we at?
Much better film. The characters actually seem like real people. Action is actually thrilling. Cinematography is better too IMO
41% is the theater cut for the first two weeks of screening and is applied only to the home box office, moron. The theater cut goes up above 50% as time goes on and for international BO it's always above it. Cutting the worldwide BO in half is a very rough estimation but it's working in favor of the movies, the more exact calculations would be even more grim for them
I wouldn't wager on it personally considering how the movie was astroturfed
Does anyone actually like Part 2 more than
>muh spectacle
? Does anyone who actually appreciated Part 1 like Part 2?
Yes, but that it not an interesting number unless you also consider the costs of making and promoting the movie, as well as how much of those $600 million the company making the movie actually get.
It's not rocket science. I can go out and buy lottery tickets for $1,000, then it turns out I won $100 on said tickets
I technically 'won' $100 on my lottery tickets, but in reality I lost $900
It's going to top out somewhere between $650 - $700 million worldwide. That's at least $100 million in pure profit based on the budget, you just WANT the movie to be a failure because of some political or sexual grievance, or god forbid you're a lynchgay
>That's at least $100 million in pure profit based on the budget
Yeah. But not based on the budget + the astronomical marketing costs, which included a dozen premiers all around the world. Something that's exceptionally costly, and that I've seen done for no other film I can remember.
yes yes I'm sure they spent a gorillion dollars on marketing so you can conveniently pretend the movie was a flop and validate your own worldivew
>they spent a gorillion dollars on marketing
No, they probably spent 100M instead of the average 50M that people assume for their breakeven calculations. So rather than 500M, it would need to make 600M to break even (assuming a 50/50 split between cinemas and studio).
Oh, really? How many premiers do you say there were?
>How many premiers do you say there were?
You have the reading comprehension of a goldfish.
Ah, so you're just shitposting then. Okay. Carry on.
No, my insults towards you are genuine, I think you are of extremely low intelligence and vastly overrate yourself.
>which included a dozen premiers all around the world. Something that's exceptionally costly, and that I've seen done for no other film I can remember.
You have the memory of a goldfish.
If you think this is a bomb check out how badly Ghostbusters is doing
If you think this is a hit, check how well fricking Godzilla vs. Kong is doing.
I'm getting a deja vu from 2021, where this oh so massive notorious "hit franchise" beat DUNC1.
Yeah but this and KxG will make money and I don't care about your queer forced rivalry. I'm just happy Ghostbusters continues to fail
Then practically only summer block buster movies can prove that they are enjoyed by people, yet many/most of them have zero impact on pop culture and movie discussion, like Avatar, Independence Day etc et al
Meanwhile movies that were flops at the box office, like Blade Runner, Starship Troopers etc, has had huge shelf life and spawned numerous sequels and also huge pop culture impact.
are Dunegays gonna ape out if Kong 2: Starring Godzilla from the Japan movies surpasses this?
Another movie's success doesn't preclude the success of Dune 2's and both films are from the exact same production company and distributor. Who cares?
yeah it's silly. If anything this shows that Legendary can hold their weight and are benefitting greatly from WB not having any actual say on what goes in their movies, they just help with distributing their sloppa.
>success of Dune 2
Repeating the same statement over and over like a mantra won't bring it any closer to being the truth. Maybe in some hugbox of like-minded schizos you could pretend it being the case for a time, but this kind of environment will inevitably become very unstable
>and both films are from the exact same production company
Why did you have the need to point this out? Are you a console warrior from Cinemaphile? Lmao expected nothing less from dunctards
You guys really suck at movie math. The 2.5-3x budget is a guess. After that you have to do the actual math to account for things like different cuts in intentional areas. Especially in China where you get 20-25% revenue from there so if you make most of your money in China that means the threshold to break even is much higher than estimates.
I'm using some guys box office math here. 22.5% China. 40% international, Domestic First week 60%, Domestic 2nd week 55%, Domestic 3rd 50%. Marketing budget usually half of the budget of movie. Interntationl including China would come out to $141,582,202. Giving it to people say they get half from domestic, let's half the current domestic total $252,390,027 and we get $126,195,013. Add movie budget and half for marketing budget gets you $285,000,000. Compare that to revenue that should get of $267,777,215 and they are still in - $17,222,784. I think they should easily get that amount but at this moment, they haven't broken even.
>I'm using some guys box office math here.
Sounds legit
>After that
No, not "after that".
It's either or. You either work with the 2.5x estimate, which tries to consider all those things (and most often is inaccurate as hell), OR you do all the minute calculations.
The thing is, even those calculations will be based on estimated data, since stuff like the cinema/studio shares usually doesn't get released or leaked. Neither does the exact marketing budget - so you'll have to guess that based on the amount and type of marketing you think it got.
>Marketing budget usually half of the budget of movie.
This is complete nonsense. It's what's used in that 2.5x that you (rightly) classed as inaccurate.
Either way ... I think saying that DUNC2 is right now somewhere around the breakeven point is accurate enough.
The sooner this bland grey shit is forgotten the better
Look people actualy read the books they meant something
Frick this grayscale bald albino brown potatoface b***h bullshit
The lead actor does not appeal to me also neither does zenyatta or however u spell her name.
For some reason I don't buy $600M is a flop
Because it isn't and it's run isn't over. It's done fine. It's just not the huge new franchise WB would have wanted
>it's run isn't over!
Anon, Dunce 2 has lost 600 screens since it opened. It's kinda over.
The film cost $500mil to make, double it for marketing. $1bil film. If this doesn't take at least $2bil by the end of April then scifi films will be dead for a decade.
>The film cost $500mil to make,
Ok moron
>what is shrinkflation
Remember when Way of Water haters were literally like this and it still exceeded expectations? Pepperidge Farm’s remembers.
>For some reason I don't buy $600M is a flop
Thanks to inflated budgets nowadays, for some things anything less than a billion is considered a flop. That's for Marvel stuff though.
For DUNC, it's not quite that magnitude. But DUNC2's budget is still is large enough that you can safely say that anything lower than 500M to 550M would most definitely be a flop. Most people agree that with 550M to 600M, it's breaking even. And with more than 600M, it's probably making a small profit. For a significant profit, it would have needed 750M, if not 800M though.
They've fricked the storyline for any progression into Dune Messiah by leaving out several major events in the first two films.
>Blockbuster flops because it has shitskins
*SURPRISED PIKACHU FACE*
I know nothing about box office stuff but how is this a flop? And why do everyone here want it to be a flop?
because it is boring and soulless slop. people know.
So I enjoyed Dune 2 well enough while watching it, but right after leaving the cinema it felt like I hadn't even watched it. I guess I was never full engrossed in it. It looks fine and the acting was okay. It was never boring, but it wasn't thrilling either. It's like a glass of room temperature tap water. It's not kino and it's not a massive slop of shit either.
Anyone else relate to this?
It's the IMAX effect. It tells you "huge" and "loud" and "lots of stuff happening", so you feel like it's a really immersive experience that overwhelms you.
But if you think about what you've seen, it's really just a the film with what it has to offer (which in DUNC's case is not much). You're even missing out on the proper cinematography that a normal cinema provides (unless they frick the cinematography up like they did in DUNC), because IMAX has this strange vertical format that means you get a huge, mostly empty, picture with stuff only going on in the middle. Completely ruins the framing.
It has some interesting parts, some good performances and some actually very good looking visuals, but the story is watered down, there are some bad performances/bad characterizations and some annoying modern attitudes mixed in that miss the point of the book.
This. The issue is that the DUNC movies are "safe". You have thermonuclear kino potential with the source material, but if Dennis the Menace lacks the balls to bring it to life properly, we get an insipid experience.
Are you mad your marveslop is getting mogged critically by dune?
Critictard, how does it feel accepting that your favourite flick is worse than Black Panther?
It's not though it's literally a better movie? Like factually it's a better movie by any respectable review site and user review system. Fricking tard cope
>factually it's a better movie
Hey there, Mauler. How is your next 5-hour rant coming along?
The first one was mid
It's ok to be gay like you are now, anon.
I dig you are a paid shill, unable to do basic accounting, and you are screaming how nobody should question your carefully paid for narrative.
Man do I got some bad news for you, Dunc.
damn yall Black folk seething big time
Whenever i think of DUNC i think of Zendayas ugly face. It evokes a feeling of revulsion.
Combined with the mediocre reviews, it makes me not wanna watch the 2nd movie.
The mini series is still the more faithful adaptation.
Its a bit shit tho
>The mini series is still the more faithful adaptation.
I mean ... that's not saying much. Star Wars is a more faithful Dune adaptation than DUNC at this point.
Serves them right. Should have hired a beautiful, charismatic actress, instead of a stonefaced mutt, for the lead role. Then perhaps they would have made more than just barely break even.
Gun to my head I'd buttfrick one of lynch's navigators over that sheboon Zendaya any day. And if you say you wouldn't, you're lying.
Its funny how all mentally ill manchildren operate.
A few legitimately mentally ill anons who decided that hating DUNC is literally their very own identity and they must pretend as if it's the worst film ever made which made 30 bucks in box office total in order to keep their mental illness and identity in check
If it wasn’t for Zendaya the film would be passably droll but her performance is legitimately worse than any aspect of Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes and society made that it’s punching bag for more than a decade. Frankly, us Zendaya haters are being reasonable.
Sure, she's a bad actress. Most of the film is about Paul though, not to mention that she gets cucked lol
As opposed to the schizos who desperately need this muddled, neutered, sterile, bland, IDPOL-riddled exercise in big budget mediocrity to somehow be elevated to the status of art via box office returns?
A director being intelligent doesn't mean his movies have to be complex.
I was pumped to see the first one, as I grew up reading the Dune series, and thought Denis would make a version true to the book, which he said he was going to do in interviews leading up to the release of pt.1, but after sitting through that soulless, hollowed out minimalist slop, I have zero desire to watch the girlboss pt.2 at all
>girlboss pt.2
You clearly haven't read shit.
Chani is a quite literally cucked side character while Paul becomes Space Hitler boyboss of the entire galaxy
Chani does not "get cucked" in anything you can read. And Paul does not become "Space Hitler" in DUNC2. You're mixing your separate canons here, anon.
Lynch reigns supreme, problem Villenucucks?
DUDE LE SOVL xDDD
>muh completely phsically-impossble steel insect
Villeneuve is so fricking devoid of any creative spark.
>the dragonfly is impossible yet the flying box with basically nonexistent wings is plausible and epic
lynchgays are absurd
>the flying box with basically nonexistent wings is plausible and epic
Yes. Because it has no wings, it's not implied that it's fyling by flapping them. Unlike Villeneuve's moronic contraption.
Flying by flapping the wings is literally from the book
Except the book didn't make them gigantic steel cages with heavy metallic stubby wings. Too bad that Villeneuve's design team doesn't understand basic aerodynamics.
I think the ornithopters were one of the few interestingly-designed things in Denis's films. They could have used more color than none whatsoever, but they looked cool enough. Same with the weird Harkonnen craft.
Aside from being way too big, I kinda agree. Everything else is completely bland compared, so they stand out.
Lynch's version was shit, let's be honest instead of delusional.
Sure, if you so desperately want to pretend that it is shit, feel free to do so. No one is forcing you to like it. Just don't pretend that there's anything that DUNC does better.
Can someone please explain to me why it's so monochrome in Giedi Prime. As in, in detail?
Because Villeneuve is a hack who thought that just desarturating anything like he did for the rest of the film wasn't enough.
No, it doesn't. Intelligence doesn't mean you have to create complex things, in fact intelligent people can create simple products/services/content and execute them in a perfect way exactly because it's executed perfectly simple, not complex.
In fact only a midwit/non-intelligent person would think that a movie has to be highly complex in order to be good or "intelligent"
mindbroken
Whatever. Baron was pissed leto broke up when they were young with him that's why he had him in the tub to kill him. Leto was bisexual.
This movie will make money but the first movie lost money so it evens out.
>whispers something you can't hear
STAHP LIKING NU-DUNE! STAHP IT STAHP IT STAHP ITTT
Like what you want. But accept that others call it out for being uninspired trash that's not even well-made on a technical level.
The movie felt like the Star Wars prequels where everyone is in a gigantic fricking room all the time. It is supposed to make the scope of things more grand, but it looks like shit
>heading for a $750 million take on a $190 million budget
>"flop"
You should feel bad for not only being so moronic, OP, but then telling strangers about it on the internet, too.
>heading for a $750 million take
Kek. You mean 650M. And even that isn't guaranteed anymore.
cope and seethe
Read it and weep, fool:
https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons/Dune-Part-Two-(2024)/Oppenheimer-(2023)#tab=day_by_day_comparison
You haven't been following the actual numbers, have you, brainlet?
>the actual numbers
as in /misc/ schizo numbers? no i havent
>/misc/ out of nowhere
Obsessed
No. The 40% drop per week that has been pretty steady so far, and the general trajectory that has predicted all the results after week 1 with extreme precision. The same trajectory that says it'll fizzle out at around 650M.
How do you suggest it can get to your illusory 750M number? By continuing to maintain its current numbers (with no drop) for another two months? Or by doing the unprecedented and have a rise in revenue rather than a drop over the next few weeks?
>"NEXT LOTR"
Frick, she's ugly
>Jaden Smith looking mystery meat
>Ugly
>Can't act
>Always snarling and frowning
Why did israelites put her as a leading actress next to one of their own, then make him kiss her? Seems like not even israelites can escape being preyed upon by each other
because "the message" is more important.
demoralization is the primary goal now
the white man must never be given a single ray of hope
LOOKS LIKE MUTT’S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS
(OP)
Just got back from the theater. Still simmering on it. I'm one of the first to say Dunc 1 is mid AF and overrated. Part 2 is definitely better for sure. But these movies are literally Dune 84' stretched out to 2 movies instead of one. Really the only difference is the Dunc series is ironic subversive and 84' is not. But all of the plot beats and most of the scenes are the same.
>But these movies are literally Dune 84' stretched out to 2 movies instead of one.
mfw dah heckin mofies are adaptations of the same book
>mfw dah heckin mofies are adaptations of the same book
My point is when Dunc part 1 came out all the book gays were like the newer version had so much more in it than Dune 84' when when it all comes down to it they both have about the same. It's just the subtext of the movies that is different with Dunc being subversive and Dune 84' being a straightforward heroes journey.
Dune 1 made me want to see Dune 2. Dune 2 makes me not want to see Dune 3.
I liked Dunc part 2 better than Dunc part 1. Dunc part 1 is beyond boring in the 2nd half. I would say Dunc 2 is more technically sound and less tryhard pretentious than Dunc part 1. Denis took the stick out of his ass and just made a movie instead of trying to be all "auteur" and shit which just made part 1 insufferably unnatural and boring.
I kind of felt the same way. I went into the first one with rock-bottom expectations because I kind of hated everything I saw about it from the pre-release material, but I like Dune enough that I still watched it on a whim and ended up liking it more than I expected. So as a result, I actually had some higher-than-rock-bottom expectations for the second one and I suppose they were met, but as a result I wasn't pleasantly surprised, so it felt worse to me overall, though a fair amount of that might just be from the disgust I felt every time Zendaya was on screen. I honestly feel like I would have missed nothing if I'd skipped seeing it.
Personally, I think if a director makes a flop they should be publicly executed.
kek another incel math thread. Just let it go /misc/tards you can't hate it into failing. Go outside today, work on yourselves.
>/pol/tards
Funny, because it's DUNC fanboys who always fall into /misc/ talking points. Just in another thread today, one of you guys started ranting about how Europe is alledgedly full of muslims raping and murdering everyone.
that was a /misc/tard anon they're in every thread on Cinemaphile.
Yeah, except he also claimed that DUNC was great because muh reviews.
This was never going to make close to a billie. Dune is not an “event film” nor is it a long-running franchise with a large, built-in fanbase.
I can separate the two movies. Dunc 1 was weak Dunc 2 is a lot stronger. It feels like Denis is learning on the job with these movies. The first one felt like hit was hitting the ceiling of his movie making abilities. Dunc 2 feels like he has more pure movie making skill from the experience of Dunc 1. The whole thing simply feels less forced than Dunc 1.
>Dunc 2 is a lot stronger
It's not even trying to adapt the book anymore, anon. And all the filmmaking issues DUNC1 had are still present.
>And all the filmmaking issues DUNC1 had are still present.
i.d.k. it just feels fuller, more natural and less self conscious to me. Like you know the "IM ACTING" meme. Dunc part 1 felt like "I"M DIRECTING". Nothing felt natural. Dunc 2 feels more natural and comfortable in its own skin.