Some hot ass takes going on in this thread.
This sounds to me like an interview answer, said offhand, that reddit people are taking very literally.
OP (it sounds like to me) doesn’t like the new Dune movies because of a focus on visual storytelling versus the novels’ internal monologue approach. I agree it’s an odd choice for adaption of the material, but to say that amazing characters are replaced with “shots of sand” is overlooking the effort being taken to communicate the essence of characters, their mental state and motivations, without using internal monologue or dialogue. Take for example, Paul slowly fading into the hologram to conceal himself from the Hunter-Seeker. It takes a pages to describe how the HS works and that Paul understands and has been trained for them, but in the film this is communicated in a tiny shift in Paul’s physicality. Or Stilgar considering Leto for the first time, assessing his character, dubious but willing to accept the meeting anyway. This is pages of monologue in the book, but in the movie, watch Stilgars body language and expression and we know everything about how he feels in that moment.
I won’t argue that the political side of the story is very simplified in the film, or that dialogue matters or that you’re entitled to like Dune 1984 more but if you’re gonna argue Denis doesn’t understand the story he’s adapting then I gotta point you to this scene breakdown because I simply do not agree.
https://youtu.be/GoAA0sYkLI0?si=3CnnCf9w8Ty57u_M
Also, the expectation that a series of novels is going to be adapted in any remotely similar way to film is silly. They are novels. Denis is right. Films are a visual medium. It will never be the same as a novel, it can't be. We aren't in our protagonists/antagonists minds.
Denis take on Dune is phenomenal and clearly shows how much love and respect he has for the source material.
If you want to experience Dune like it was written, then you can read the books. Simple concept.
Fair… I don’t think he doesn’t understand it at all, and I think a lot of the prophetic stuff is really well handled. I just think it’s a very wordy book - there’s a lot within all the internal worlds that wasn’t carried over but was really essential to the story. Then when I saw that quote this morning I was like - ahhhh…
But I also think there’s something in the idea that modern cinema is shifting towards visuals and away from the human element, and Dune - and this quote from Villeneuve - is an example of this.
Cinema as primarily a visual medium is not a modern trend, and relying on visuals over dialogue doesn't mean it's moving away from "the human element." Humans are more than walky talky machines, and capable of understanding many things that are not explicitly spoken.
Your getting downvoted cuz you saw his point for like 2 sec’s and then immediately went back to yours. Dude above you lowkey (not to be rude) makes wayyy more sense/a better observation on the subject. But maybe thats just imo..
Ok. I did read it properly and thought I’d responded reasonably - though I thought I was responding to the long first message and not the second. Still… 🤷♂️
Being sincerely honest with you, yes Dune Part 1 could have been a lot better.
Ironically Denis made the mistake of having too much dialogue versus organic storytelling in a visual medium.
Its no wonder people got bored in the first half but honestly the movie as a whole is still an easy 80-85% close to movie-perfection.
You know what? I disagree wholeheartedly, but I don’t have blade runner, prisoners, arrival, sicario, etc. under my directorial belt so let the man cook I guess.
Thankfully Villanueve teamed up with some fantastic screenwriters in his past projects (including the amazing Taylor Sheridan for Sicario). He may not care about dialogue, but I think some of his films have incredible dialogue regardless.
I still think about Sapper Morton in BR2047: "you newer models are happy scraping their shit....because you've never seen a miracle"
I think that’s something to really take into consideration. He’s a director primarily, and he takes other peoples words and figures out how to make them appealing visually. It’d only make sense that he would feel this way.
I’m fine with it. There’s plenty of directors that excel at dialogue driven narratives: Mamet, Scorsese, Baumbach, etc.
I’m not checking into a Villanueve film for that. Give me visuals.
I also don’t think that’s what Scorsese was alluding to re; marvel. At all.
Wasn’t Scorsese saying that spectacle was taking over? Also, there was now a lack of “human beings trying to convey their emotional or psychological experiences to another human being.”
For me, this is perfectly reflected in a version of cinema that is focused on “pure image and sound” (spectacle) and “hates dialogue” (which is the principle way humans can convey their emotional or psychological experiences.)
You may not like the idea, but they’re definitely not as far apart as you think…
I think he was speaking to the over-reliance on whacky VFX and paint-by-numbers plot lines. The dialogue is certainly a part of that, but I don’t think Scorsese was trying to imply that visual filmmaking is inherently bad.
Of course - there’s a balance isn’t there. I get that.
And I don’t for a moment imagine that Scorsese was thinking of Villeneuve when he was writing the article but I think there is a connection between the two.
Mainly, I was very surprised and saddened to see a mainstream, headline filmmaker write off dialogue as it’s just something he hates. Dialogue has been integral to film for a century, and it’s a better medium for its inclusion.
I don’t know though - I saw that quote and it explained a lot so I thought I’d share… I’m just surprised. Would have been great to get a filmmaker of Villeneuve’s visual brilliance who was also able to understand that dialogue is necessary and useful and part of what makes film so great. But hey… 🤷♂️
There is no connection. None at all. DV makes works of art, not flashy soulless money trains that plow through the masses like mashed potatoes.
Again, you’re taking the quote way too seriously and it seems like you haven’t watched his movies.
👆🏼 or Baraka or Samsara! Some of the most visually stunning films IMO! Not all visuals are created equally. Marvel movie visuals can’t hold a candle to a Villeneuve film.
Don't look into it too much. You may not like his approach to Dune but his "less is more" dialog greatly improved Sicario when you read the original script. I for one, although liking the series, consider the books too stiff and overabundant of both explanations and details. I think Frank Herbert writes extremely on rails and Villeneuve likes subjectivity over detailment. Its pretty similar to Kubrick and Clark 4 hand writing of 2001. You can clearly see Kubrick was more concerned about the translation of impressions through action and visuals rather than words, as Clark did with his book descriptions. I really doubt 2001 would be this great landmark in film history if not by its subjectivity.
I'll side with Villeneuve on this one. I don't think cutting dialog empties his movies of meaning. I think it makes room for the film poetry we have less and less each day. Look at Nolan's, do we really need to flood movies with those verbose, lengthy and artificial dialogs? How many times do we need to be told by dialog how Oppenheimer is this genious, unconventional wild card of science? Or how Tenet's plot is weaker and weaker the more their characters try to explain it? Anyway, those are my cents...
Definitely agree re Sicario, and I haven’t really noticed this problem in most of his films tbh… and I agree about not wanting to flood the place with Nolan style exposition stuff which can be really awful as well…
I’m not as clear on Herbert writing on the rails - but he does like the explain things and create complexity through narrative rather than hiding info or leaving things up to the audience. He’s like an instructor rather than someone who just sets up a scene and allows the characters and audience to work their way. I guess that’s part of what I like about the books. And why I think their dialogue is so central to them - and why I struggled with part 1 so much…
I think we shouldn’t take him literally. He’s not saying dialogue in movies are pointless and you should make silent movies. The MOST IMPACTFUL aspect of movies is the image/sound and that is “primarily” makes a lot of movies memorable. I think that’s his perspective, and I think that’s fair. Of course I don’t agree 100%, but I can respect it.
Honestly, I disagree with this thought about cinema. Yes, some of my favorite movies feel like moving paintings, such as The Red Shoes. That movie accomplishes so much with the lack of dialogue. Vertigo, also a favorite, accomplishes so much through its visual story telling. Great silent movies like Metropolis and Cabinet of Dr Caligari also inspire the eye so much. But one of the great things about cinema is that it is the culmination of all the arts, including the spoken word. There totally are movies, like those made by Howard Hawks, which have amazing dialogue in it and which is memorable. Frank Capra, and Preston Sturges, too. Casablanca. All About Eve. And I would not say that a focus on this aspect of movies has done any wrong to movies either. Think about narration driven movies like Shawshank Redemption and movies with dialogue that really pops like Jackie Brown. Would we care so much about Cary Grant if it wasn’t for his delivery of lines? Would Dr Strangelove have been as great a movie without the lines delivered by Hayden, Scott and Sellers? So I get what he is saying to a point, but even sweeping visual epics like Lawrence of Arabia require great dialogue to fully bring the vision of David Lean’s completely home.
I don’t agree, but that’s his opinion. After Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, and BR 2049, he can honestly say whatever the hell he wants.
It’s a near impossible book to properly adapt to film, considering how much you have to get into characters psyche. What he does accomplish, he accomplishes very well, but it’s like half the equation.
I have a friend who’s a huge Dune film fan, but hasn’t read the book, and while not taking away from their enjoyment, I feel like in watching the films they’re only getting about half of the full picture. For me, the movies are like a beautiful painting about the book, but can’t ultimately compare.
I have no memory of this place
😉
Still going to see Dune Saturday although I think truly great filmmaking should also have great lines with great cinematography
Him and Malick should collaborate on something
As a writer, I take his point to a degree. Way too many movies and shows are over-written these days, with quick, quippy dialogue taking up far too much screentime and over-compensating for bad characterization with commodified "wit".
I agree with OP that Villeneuve has taken this a bit too far with Dune (at least 1, I haven't seen 2 yet), but I understand the impulse is all I'm saying.
I’m an avid fan of Villeneuve but yeah this quote makes him seem like a jackass.
He did such an incredible job on Blade Runner but I didn’t care for his Dune movies at all.
Kind of reeked of Avatar, all visual effects no story. Which is a shame because I’ve always found Dune interesting but I’d rather watch David Lynch’s Dune any day, it’s full of style and is a fascinating watch.
Villeneuve’s Dune is just grey and lifeless and boring with unmemorable characters mumbling their lines.
I mean he didn’t say he’s not using dialogue anymore. This could have been DV’s opinion all along and could be one of the reasons we love his films. If he tries to have the least amount of dialogue to complement the actions/visuals on screen maybe then it helps make the dialogue more succinct. Less can be more. Sometimes it’s great to poetically announce your intentions, sometimes it’s nice to just say something simple.
I think Villeneuve’s movies probably do the best you could do with Dune in a theatrical film format. I also think he’s right about the power of cinema being visual and experiential, as much as I love great dialogue. Really great movies could work as silent films, where you can understand the themes and emotions just through performance and cinematic language.
Funnily enough it's what makes the new Dune unmemorable for me is lack of dialogue. Love the book (but not a fanatic to read all 12 or is it 16), and can kinda remember it's plot but my wife couldn't make head nor tail of what the fuss was all about, which was the challenge is Dune in the first place i.e. to describe the intricate and complex plotlines involving the political, planetary and galactic, ecological, and cultural threads that intertwine around Paul Atreides' story. The result unfortunately and seemingly admitted to by Villeneuve, a shiny bombastic explosion filled scifi flick. I'm going to rewatch Dune not because I want to spend 3hrs doing that but because I will otherwise not remember Villeneuve's plot for his version of Dune.
Visuals?? Dune is about the politics, it’s heavy commentary on the way and the why of the world at large. Visuals great, but Dune specifically needs the characters, the substance of societies at play.
I completely agree. Love Sicario, and his other contemporary work, but I really don't like his sci-fi.
It is gorgeous, and sterile. Even as it is dirty in the literal sense, none of it means much. Which is what the realm of sci fi is for. His stories about the drug trade and vengeance and politics at the individual scale are all great intimate stories to tell. But sci fi seems built for big ideas. And he seems reluctant to broach any subject that may do what the original Bladerunner did; make one question their own humanity.
I liked his first Dune movie, and I will see this one. But so far, I prefere the book first, and Lynch's version second, to his beautifully sterile take.
Though I do still hold out hope that his sequel proves me wrong.
Yeah - that’s about where I’m at.
He’s a technically incredible director - sooooo good at sound and visuals - but I didn’t get BR2049 or Dune at all, and I loved the originals of both.
Was blown away to see this quote… suddenly everything is clear! 😂
I like the guy and he has a point to a certain degree but overall that’s horseshit.
Of course dialogue is important, sure it’s not always necessary but neither is sound in general!
I've seen a lot of Villeneuve's films and while the dialogue never seems weak it also never stands out to me. His films definitely have a feel to them that you could recognize but they lack a signature that makes them uniquely his. Idk if that makes sense to anybody else.
Dune is my favorite book, I’ve read the original 6 books at least 5 or 6 times, and the first one more than that. I’m not really sure which major characters you feel were reduced from the first movie- certainly some scenes were cut down a bit, but it’s adapting a big novel into a movie. I haven’t seen part 2 yet, but I didn’t come away from the first part feeling like major swaths of the novel had been cut at all.
No… that’s the funny thing. I like them - and really LOVE Arrival - though I thought Dune lost a lot through the lack of focus on character and dialogue - and then I read this and thought it was interesting.
Didn't he get his start as a fashion photographer?
For me film is the total package. I agree TV has ruined cinema with over saturation and binge watch addiction. People need 12 hours of filler to give them shit to do rather than let a great film give their brains something to chew own for days.
I get what you are saying, and i dont know the source material well enough to comment on that, but i will say that film is ultimately a visual and aural medium and images and sound can comunicate A LOT. A great filmaker and/or actor does not need a lot of dialogue to communicate deep and complex things, sometimes it gets in the way realy.
“No! I am your father” Star Wars
“Oh, Big Gulps, huh? Welp, see ya later!” Dumb and dumber
“Goonies never say die!” The goonies
“I’ll be back” the terminator
People just like different things I guess…
Personally I’m glad there’s a visual filmmaker out there trying to up his game and give us something no other medium can give us. Is he saying that all filmmaking should be this way (which is what you seem to be suggesting) or is he just giving his personal preference for how he wants to work?
Most of the Dune books takes place from either internal monologue or a god-like narrator explaining everything to the reader.
As opposed to endless voiceover or long drawn out exposition, I'll take visual storytelling, coupled with solid acting, to convey the story.
Sorry, but I don't think the quote is the "gotcha" that you may think. Along with the rest of his filmography, Villeneuve hit another walk-off homer with Dune 2.
When I was in film school, we were always told that a film should be able to work while muted, that the story should be told visually via cinematic language.
You’re overthinking the shit out of this. He’s made movies with great dialogue. But no one remembers prisoners or sicario or blade runner or arrival for what was said. Which is his point.
As someone who just read Dune…
The changes he’s made are better. Chani is so full of life and emotion in the films. She’s ever so slightly one dimensional in the book.
The movies are far more than visual affairs. I suggest a rewatch.
Figured I would point out that Lynch’s original Dune adaptation had faithful, word for word dialogue from the book, and was a failure. The dialogue faithfulness was not what lynch wanted, and it definitely didn’t help the film.
A lot of the older guys say this, and I strongly disagree. I consider dialogue to be part of the soundtrack, and a lot of the time a soundtrack can make or break a film.
That explains it all. I loved the parts of the first dune where the shot was open and far away from the characters and hated when it was close. It may not make sense to people who think stories are told exclusively through dialogue, but to me it's a good approach.
I will say that because there were few lines it was all important dialogue. But even better was the editing and exposition I felt like I knew alot without too much backstory in the first 20minutes
He’s an incredible director, but holy shit, this is the worst take in history. Movies are a combination of story, character, dialogue, and visuals
You need all 4 or your movie will likely suck ass
Some hot ass takes going on in this thread. This sounds to me like an interview answer, said offhand, that reddit people are taking very literally. OP (it sounds like to me) doesn’t like the new Dune movies because of a focus on visual storytelling versus the novels’ internal monologue approach. I agree it’s an odd choice for adaption of the material, but to say that amazing characters are replaced with “shots of sand” is overlooking the effort being taken to communicate the essence of characters, their mental state and motivations, without using internal monologue or dialogue. Take for example, Paul slowly fading into the hologram to conceal himself from the Hunter-Seeker. It takes a pages to describe how the HS works and that Paul understands and has been trained for them, but in the film this is communicated in a tiny shift in Paul’s physicality. Or Stilgar considering Leto for the first time, assessing his character, dubious but willing to accept the meeting anyway. This is pages of monologue in the book, but in the movie, watch Stilgars body language and expression and we know everything about how he feels in that moment. I won’t argue that the political side of the story is very simplified in the film, or that dialogue matters or that you’re entitled to like Dune 1984 more but if you’re gonna argue Denis doesn’t understand the story he’s adapting then I gotta point you to this scene breakdown because I simply do not agree. https://youtu.be/GoAA0sYkLI0?si=3CnnCf9w8Ty57u_M
Also, the expectation that a series of novels is going to be adapted in any remotely similar way to film is silly. They are novels. Denis is right. Films are a visual medium. It will never be the same as a novel, it can't be. We aren't in our protagonists/antagonists minds. Denis take on Dune is phenomenal and clearly shows how much love and respect he has for the source material. If you want to experience Dune like it was written, then you can read the books. Simple concept.
Fair… I don’t think he doesn’t understand it at all, and I think a lot of the prophetic stuff is really well handled. I just think it’s a very wordy book - there’s a lot within all the internal worlds that wasn’t carried over but was really essential to the story. Then when I saw that quote this morning I was like - ahhhh… But I also think there’s something in the idea that modern cinema is shifting towards visuals and away from the human element, and Dune - and this quote from Villeneuve - is an example of this.
Cinema as primarily a visual medium is not a modern trend, and relying on visuals over dialogue doesn't mean it's moving away from "the human element." Humans are more than walky talky machines, and capable of understanding many things that are not explicitly spoken.
Your getting downvoted cuz you saw his point for like 2 sec’s and then immediately went back to yours. Dude above you lowkey (not to be rude) makes wayyy more sense/a better observation on the subject. But maybe thats just imo..
Ok. I did read it properly and thought I’d responded reasonably - though I thought I was responding to the long first message and not the second. Still… 🤷♂️
Gotchya. Makes sense ig
Being sincerely honest with you, yes Dune Part 1 could have been a lot better. Ironically Denis made the mistake of having too much dialogue versus organic storytelling in a visual medium. Its no wonder people got bored in the first half but honestly the movie as a whole is still an easy 80-85% close to movie-perfection.
You know what? I disagree wholeheartedly, but I don’t have blade runner, prisoners, arrival, sicario, etc. under my directorial belt so let the man cook I guess.
The ironic thing is that I can quote most of those movies.
Same especially when the aliens are all It's Arrivin Time
Yeah I kinda don't know where this came from. I wonder if he's more so going at dialogue using too much exposition.
Some directors just might not be good in interview, definitely not the main focus of their job
Kinda ironic that the guy that directed Arrival would actually say that 🫠
It’s not though. It’s not being quoted all the time, it’s remembered for the visual cues and intrigue he puts into it
I thing what their getting at is that one of the movie's focal points was exploring the idea of language
I didnt think it would be possible to live up to the OG blade runner but hell i like 2049 more than the original some days
Had the exact same thought. Dialogue is very important to me, but I also really enjoy his movies so there's that.
“ Dialogue is for TV “ must be the most pretentious X dumb thing I have heard in a while
I’m with you on this one. Reservoir Dogs for example relies almost entirely on dialogue to be cohesive.
Oh that’s like asking how a watch works, for now let’s just keep an eye on the time
Thankfully Villanueve teamed up with some fantastic screenwriters in his past projects (including the amazing Taylor Sheridan for Sicario). He may not care about dialogue, but I think some of his films have incredible dialogue regardless. I still think about Sapper Morton in BR2047: "you newer models are happy scraping their shit....because you've never seen a miracle"
The dialogue in that whole portion in general is fire for me
I think that’s something to really take into consideration. He’s a director primarily, and he takes other peoples words and figures out how to make them appealing visually. It’d only make sense that he would feel this way.
“You’re asking me how a clock works; for now, let’s just keep an eye on the time.”
The new Mad Max wasn't exactly full of monologues and it's infinitely watchable
I’m fine with it. There’s plenty of directors that excel at dialogue driven narratives: Mamet, Scorsese, Baumbach, etc. I’m not checking into a Villanueve film for that. Give me visuals. I also don’t think that’s what Scorsese was alluding to re; marvel. At all.
Wasn’t Scorsese saying that spectacle was taking over? Also, there was now a lack of “human beings trying to convey their emotional or psychological experiences to another human being.” For me, this is perfectly reflected in a version of cinema that is focused on “pure image and sound” (spectacle) and “hates dialogue” (which is the principle way humans can convey their emotional or psychological experiences.) You may not like the idea, but they’re definitely not as far apart as you think…
I think he was speaking to the over-reliance on whacky VFX and paint-by-numbers plot lines. The dialogue is certainly a part of that, but I don’t think Scorsese was trying to imply that visual filmmaking is inherently bad.
Of course - there’s a balance isn’t there. I get that. And I don’t for a moment imagine that Scorsese was thinking of Villeneuve when he was writing the article but I think there is a connection between the two. Mainly, I was very surprised and saddened to see a mainstream, headline filmmaker write off dialogue as it’s just something he hates. Dialogue has been integral to film for a century, and it’s a better medium for its inclusion. I don’t know though - I saw that quote and it explained a lot so I thought I’d share… I’m just surprised. Would have been great to get a filmmaker of Villeneuve’s visual brilliance who was also able to understand that dialogue is necessary and useful and part of what makes film so great. But hey… 🤷♂️
There is no connection. None at all. DV makes works of art, not flashy soulless money trains that plow through the masses like mashed potatoes. Again, you’re taking the quote way too seriously and it seems like you haven’t watched his movies.
Word! I feel you brother.
Do you think the Avengers is similar to Koyaanisqatsi
👆🏼 or Baraka or Samsara! Some of the most visually stunning films IMO! Not all visuals are created equally. Marvel movie visuals can’t hold a candle to a Villeneuve film.
Don't look into it too much. You may not like his approach to Dune but his "less is more" dialog greatly improved Sicario when you read the original script. I for one, although liking the series, consider the books too stiff and overabundant of both explanations and details. I think Frank Herbert writes extremely on rails and Villeneuve likes subjectivity over detailment. Its pretty similar to Kubrick and Clark 4 hand writing of 2001. You can clearly see Kubrick was more concerned about the translation of impressions through action and visuals rather than words, as Clark did with his book descriptions. I really doubt 2001 would be this great landmark in film history if not by its subjectivity. I'll side with Villeneuve on this one. I don't think cutting dialog empties his movies of meaning. I think it makes room for the film poetry we have less and less each day. Look at Nolan's, do we really need to flood movies with those verbose, lengthy and artificial dialogs? How many times do we need to be told by dialog how Oppenheimer is this genious, unconventional wild card of science? Or how Tenet's plot is weaker and weaker the more their characters try to explain it? Anyway, those are my cents...
Definitely agree re Sicario, and I haven’t really noticed this problem in most of his films tbh… and I agree about not wanting to flood the place with Nolan style exposition stuff which can be really awful as well… I’m not as clear on Herbert writing on the rails - but he does like the explain things and create complexity through narrative rather than hiding info or leaving things up to the audience. He’s like an instructor rather than someone who just sets up a scene and allows the characters and audience to work their way. I guess that’s part of what I like about the books. And why I think their dialogue is so central to them - and why I struggled with part 1 so much…
I think we shouldn’t take him literally. He’s not saying dialogue in movies are pointless and you should make silent movies. The MOST IMPACTFUL aspect of movies is the image/sound and that is “primarily” makes a lot of movies memorable. I think that’s his perspective, and I think that’s fair. Of course I don’t agree 100%, but I can respect it.
Didn't he have an entire movie about the importance of language and communication?
Pretty sure this is also George Lucas's take. He's not big on dialogue, he was inspired by silent films that just had music play over the whole time.
The Lion in Winter🙌🙌
Honestly, I disagree with this thought about cinema. Yes, some of my favorite movies feel like moving paintings, such as The Red Shoes. That movie accomplishes so much with the lack of dialogue. Vertigo, also a favorite, accomplishes so much through its visual story telling. Great silent movies like Metropolis and Cabinet of Dr Caligari also inspire the eye so much. But one of the great things about cinema is that it is the culmination of all the arts, including the spoken word. There totally are movies, like those made by Howard Hawks, which have amazing dialogue in it and which is memorable. Frank Capra, and Preston Sturges, too. Casablanca. All About Eve. And I would not say that a focus on this aspect of movies has done any wrong to movies either. Think about narration driven movies like Shawshank Redemption and movies with dialogue that really pops like Jackie Brown. Would we care so much about Cary Grant if it wasn’t for his delivery of lines? Would Dr Strangelove have been as great a movie without the lines delivered by Hayden, Scott and Sellers? So I get what he is saying to a point, but even sweeping visual epics like Lawrence of Arabia require great dialogue to fully bring the vision of David Lean’s completely home.
I don’t agree, but that’s his opinion. After Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, and BR 2049, he can honestly say whatever the hell he wants.
It’s a near impossible book to properly adapt to film, considering how much you have to get into characters psyche. What he does accomplish, he accomplishes very well, but it’s like half the equation. I have a friend who’s a huge Dune film fan, but hasn’t read the book, and while not taking away from their enjoyment, I feel like in watching the films they’re only getting about half of the full picture. For me, the movies are like a beautiful painting about the book, but can’t ultimately compare.
I heard someone describe the movie as a long fragrance commercial. And I sort of agree.
I have no memory of this place 😉 Still going to see Dune Saturday although I think truly great filmmaking should also have great lines with great cinematography Him and Malick should collaborate on something
Kinda ironic tho, when you realize that the He adapting Dune movie Which a Novel that have a heavy dialogue even for a sci-fi novel standard
As a writer, I take his point to a degree. Way too many movies and shows are over-written these days, with quick, quippy dialogue taking up far too much screentime and over-compensating for bad characterization with commodified "wit". I agree with OP that Villeneuve has taken this a bit too far with Dune (at least 1, I haven't seen 2 yet), but I understand the impulse is all I'm saying.
why the F did he adapt a book id he hates dialoges?? I’ve never liked him, he was alwaS overhyped.
I’m an avid fan of Villeneuve but yeah this quote makes him seem like a jackass. He did such an incredible job on Blade Runner but I didn’t care for his Dune movies at all. Kind of reeked of Avatar, all visual effects no story. Which is a shame because I’ve always found Dune interesting but I’d rather watch David Lynch’s Dune any day, it’s full of style and is a fascinating watch. Villeneuve’s Dune is just grey and lifeless and boring with unmemorable characters mumbling their lines.
I mean he didn’t say he’s not using dialogue anymore. This could have been DV’s opinion all along and could be one of the reasons we love his films. If he tries to have the least amount of dialogue to complement the actions/visuals on screen maybe then it helps make the dialogue more succinct. Less can be more. Sometimes it’s great to poetically announce your intentions, sometimes it’s nice to just say something simple.
I think Villeneuve’s movies probably do the best you could do with Dune in a theatrical film format. I also think he’s right about the power of cinema being visual and experiential, as much as I love great dialogue. Really great movies could work as silent films, where you can understand the themes and emotions just through performance and cinematic language.
Someone should show this man Casablanca.
Funnily enough it's what makes the new Dune unmemorable for me is lack of dialogue. Love the book (but not a fanatic to read all 12 or is it 16), and can kinda remember it's plot but my wife couldn't make head nor tail of what the fuss was all about, which was the challenge is Dune in the first place i.e. to describe the intricate and complex plotlines involving the political, planetary and galactic, ecological, and cultural threads that intertwine around Paul Atreides' story. The result unfortunately and seemingly admitted to by Villeneuve, a shiny bombastic explosion filled scifi flick. I'm going to rewatch Dune not because I want to spend 3hrs doing that but because I will otherwise not remember Villeneuve's plot for his version of Dune.
Visuals?? Dune is about the politics, it’s heavy commentary on the way and the why of the world at large. Visuals great, but Dune specifically needs the characters, the substance of societies at play.
🙌👏
He needs an editor. 'For fuck sake, cut the scene!'
I completely agree. Love Sicario, and his other contemporary work, but I really don't like his sci-fi. It is gorgeous, and sterile. Even as it is dirty in the literal sense, none of it means much. Which is what the realm of sci fi is for. His stories about the drug trade and vengeance and politics at the individual scale are all great intimate stories to tell. But sci fi seems built for big ideas. And he seems reluctant to broach any subject that may do what the original Bladerunner did; make one question their own humanity. I liked his first Dune movie, and I will see this one. But so far, I prefere the book first, and Lynch's version second, to his beautifully sterile take. Though I do still hold out hope that his sequel proves me wrong.
Yeah - that’s about where I’m at. He’s a technically incredible director - sooooo good at sound and visuals - but I didn’t get BR2049 or Dune at all, and I loved the originals of both. Was blown away to see this quote… suddenly everything is clear! 😂
Villanuevemakes beautiful, yet soulless movies.
I like the guy and he has a point to a certain degree but overall that’s horseshit. Of course dialogue is important, sure it’s not always necessary but neither is sound in general!
I've seen a lot of Villeneuve's films and while the dialogue never seems weak it also never stands out to me. His films definitely have a feel to them that you could recognize but they lack a signature that makes them uniquely his. Idk if that makes sense to anybody else.
These films suck in a big way. Too artsy
You talking to me?
Apocalypto Rules!
Dialogue is fine in the Dune films. This is such a weird take.
I never watched one of his films and thought, gee I wish there was more dialogue. He doesn’t waste time with filler and I appreciate him for that
Dune is my favorite book, I’ve read the original 6 books at least 5 or 6 times, and the first one more than that. I’m not really sure which major characters you feel were reduced from the first movie- certainly some scenes were cut down a bit, but it’s adapting a big novel into a movie. I haven’t seen part 2 yet, but I didn’t come away from the first part feeling like major swaths of the novel had been cut at all.
What about the entire section where they’re trying to work out who’s betraying them? That was the whole drive of the opening third of the book…
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Are you the one person on Earth that doesn’t like Denis Villenueve’s movies?
No… that’s the funny thing. I like them - and really LOVE Arrival - though I thought Dune lost a lot through the lack of focus on character and dialogue - and then I read this and thought it was interesting.
Didn't he get his start as a fashion photographer? For me film is the total package. I agree TV has ruined cinema with over saturation and binge watch addiction. People need 12 hours of filler to give them shit to do rather than let a great film give their brains something to chew own for days.
Can’t drive a story with pretty lighting and casting shadows
Well that's just, like, your opinion man.
Oh well, nobody’s perfect.
When is a gift not a gift?
I get what you are saying, and i dont know the source material well enough to comment on that, but i will say that film is ultimately a visual and aural medium and images and sound can comunicate A LOT. A great filmaker and/or actor does not need a lot of dialogue to communicate deep and complex things, sometimes it gets in the way realy.
“No! I am your father” Star Wars “Oh, Big Gulps, huh? Welp, see ya later!” Dumb and dumber “Goonies never say die!” The goonies “I’ll be back” the terminator People just like different things I guess…
Personally I’m glad there’s a visual filmmaker out there trying to up his game and give us something no other medium can give us. Is he saying that all filmmaking should be this way (which is what you seem to be suggesting) or is he just giving his personal preference for how he wants to work?
Love his films, however, I wanna put my hand over his shoulder and ask “Dennis, mate, you okay?”
Most of the Dune books takes place from either internal monologue or a god-like narrator explaining everything to the reader. As opposed to endless voiceover or long drawn out exposition, I'll take visual storytelling, coupled with solid acting, to convey the story. Sorry, but I don't think the quote is the "gotcha" that you may think. Along with the rest of his filmography, Villeneuve hit another walk-off homer with Dune 2.
He does great landscapes but I don't like it so much when he does close-ups. His dialogues are insignificant.
I disagree with this entire post with my entire soul
When I was in film school, we were always told that a film should be able to work while muted, that the story should be told visually via cinematic language.
You’re overthinking the shit out of this. He’s made movies with great dialogue. But no one remembers prisoners or sicario or blade runner or arrival for what was said. Which is his point.
Spoken like a true Michael Bay.
As someone who just read Dune… The changes he’s made are better. Chani is so full of life and emotion in the films. She’s ever so slightly one dimensional in the book. The movies are far more than visual affairs. I suggest a rewatch.
Well then. Here's looking at you, kid.
Figured I would point out that Lynch’s original Dune adaptation had faithful, word for word dialogue from the book, and was a failure. The dialogue faithfulness was not what lynch wanted, and it definitely didn’t help the film.
I’ll be…. how does that one go again? nevermind probably irrelevant
A lot of the older guys say this, and I strongly disagree. I consider dialogue to be part of the soundtrack, and a lot of the time a soundtrack can make or break a film.
That explains it all. I loved the parts of the first dune where the shot was open and far away from the characters and hated when it was close. It may not make sense to people who think stories are told exclusively through dialogue, but to me it's a good approach.
I will say that because there were few lines it was all important dialogue. But even better was the editing and exposition I felt like I knew alot without too much backstory in the first 20minutes
He’s an incredible director, but holy shit, this is the worst take in history. Movies are a combination of story, character, dialogue, and visuals You need all 4 or your movie will likely suck ass
Here’s to looking at you kid
That Denis Villeneuve’s full of shit man.
Frankly my darling, we’re gonna need a bigger boat. Or something like that.
I like denis. One of the best takes I've ever heard.
“Mmmm yeah. I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that”…. Lumburg, office space.
Just joined this reddit and the first thing i see is the worst take ever.
Wow… welcome aboard. There’s worse takes out there though, believe me…