Dune was boring

There is nothing boring about My Dinner With Andre. Once again, people who like movies like that, don't like it because it's boring. This isn't hard to grasp.


Also art is under no obligation to be anything it doesn't want to be. And a lot of directors, thank god, don't agree with what you find entertaining. They make the kinds of movies they want to see, and the hope is others will as well. There is no template for what makes a movie entertaining or boring. Stop acting like a movie that happened to bore you was being negligent to some imaginary formula. Dune 2 is doing fine, and lots of people want exactly what it's giving, no matter how much you warn them it's just about a bunch of sand.

I bought a Sting record album on the strength of that codpiece.
I later wondered at my thirst.

Has you ever seen that interview with MTV (I think?) when he was in The Police, he was being obnoxious and he was chased out of the interview by his band mates? They were about to get physical with him when he took off.
I need to look that up again.

Yes, but I'm more familiar with the Much Music interview where he was interviewed in a bath, and was then immediately fellated by the interviewer as soon as the cameras were off.


Basically, Police interviews are action packed.

So dinner and a show?

Dune 1 felt like half a movie; like at the end they were trying to force you to watch the second one. If the second feels like half a movie as well and I've got to watch them together for it to feel like one complete 6hr film, that ain't gonna happen.


Are there any other films that were released in parts that you can't enjoy independently of each other? I don't know of any that I've ever seen.

__________________
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K.

I thought it was pretty good!! Compared to the original. I know the original is old and we have better technology nowadays but I believe the acting and vision of the story was very well done

No, the original is not "old", it has achieved classic status!

Also - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop trying to have it both ways when it comes to VFX. I don't meant you, personally, but in claiming that "we have better technology nowadays", it just highlights the inherent contradiction in what many people say when they're talking about the movies.

How often do we hear people complaining abut the CGI in a movie? Right? But isn't that also the main difference between VFX today and those from decades long ago? So, a lot of people don't ever seem to stop finding fault with CG effects, but at the same time, we get people like you who helpfully points out we have "better" technology today. I mean, yes, in many ways it is better, but if it so much better, why do so many people keep whining about how they want to see more "practical effects"? Which, obviously, the already had back when the first Dune was made.

So stop trying to have it both ways. Either CG effects are an overall improvement, or stop whining incessantly about how awful CG is and how much you'd prefer to see things done without CG effects. It's just terribly annoying.

You can enjoy Part 2 without watching Part 1.

Art isn't under any obligation, but movies definitely are. They are multi-million dollar projects, investments underwritten by people with money, who want to make a profit. They are shown, initially at least, in theaters that want to sell tickets to people like me, a guy who does go to movies in a theater. It's at least somewhat personal to me because I'm somewhat familiar with two theater owners and know just how risky the business is. Theater owners have to sign a contract to show a movie before it's released, based on promises from the distributor. If the movie is a dog, they might be stuck with it for a contracted number of showings. That's what made multi-plexus popular....put the bad movie that you're obligated to show in the small auditorium and show the popular one on the big screen. Nobody who toots the Art trumpet can completely get past the commercial part of the formula unless they are independently wealthy.

I don't look for an imaginary formula, and I can't and don't even want to stop anybody else from getting whatever they get out of it, but my opinion is what it is. I am probably somewhat better than average at predicting hits, but so is anybody else who pays attention.

That's the problem. If you go to a restaurant that makes a claim for great burgers and you get something like fast food, you're disappointed.

correct

wait...what? Art and movies don't exist as separate entities.


Some are. Some aren't. But less should be, because this is exactly the problem. People use this as an excuse to handcuff an artform because 'it's an investment'

I'm personally happy with people making big budget movies if that is what they need to pull off their vision. But if it would shut everyone up about how a movie has to recoup its investments, I'd be happy if a multi million dollar movie was never made again.

ie. people with zero creative talent who should let the people with the talent do what they are investing in, and shut the **** up. Otherwise, don't invest in that talent.

And also me. And lots of other people you aren't.


You don't think other people, with less pedestrian tastes than you, also find it personal?

You don't think I find the discussion of art, and what gets properly distributed or becomes successful and might recoup a living for that arist, as being personal?

Yeah, every artist on earth understands this. This isn't any revelation. And they understand that maybe if they play the game, maybe they will recoup their losses by getting just enough lukewarm eyeballs looking at their product. Or maybe they decide to not care about any of that, and do what they want, and maybe ultimately say something that matters, and that ends up mattering to other people as well.


Or maybe it ends up mattering to no one. And it fails. And that's sad, but also fine too.

You never know.

But that is the risk of creation. And that is also the beauty of it. But that risk becomes virtually pointless if all artist try to placate some imaginary audience, I assume the kind that has you sitting in the middle of it stuffing popcorn in your face.

You obviously don't have to like anything you don't have to like. But the reality is when the kind of baked-in disdain you show towards anything that doesn't cater to your interests ends up being shared by enough people (and, rest assured, your attitude is the majority) it is what studios listen to. And then movies don't get made. And so, yeah, now people are stopped from seeing those movies because they don't exist.


Now this isn't me saying you need to pretend you like something you don't. Or shouldn't share your feelings if you hate something or are bored by something. But your attitudes absolutely affect what people ultimately can see because they affect what gets made.

And for the record, I'm not trying to change your opinion on anything. My points were about how we engage with movies that we find boring. The hope being that maybe it can be eventually understood, that being bored by them isn't the only option. There are ways out there to learn to be less bored by things you find boring.

And I thought Hawkeye had the worst superpower.

This seems more like a case of people going into a nice restaurant that doesn't serve hamburgers, and getting angry when they won't make them any.

>>>>There's art, as in paintings, sculptures, photos installations, etc, something that can be funded by an individual. I know a bunch of people, including myself, that do that and the whole business of cost and profit is manageable. Most people that do art don't get rich, but they also don't make art that even costs tens of thousands, much less millions. You have to have a reasonable sense of cost and profit to survive art, which is a very mercantile universe.<<<<<

I'm personally happy with people making big budget movies if that is what they need to pull off their vision. But if it would shut everyone up about how a movie has to recoup its investments, I'd be happy if a multi million dollar movie was never made again.

>>>>That will never happen as long as movies require advertisement, theaters, media attention and enough FX to draw people into the building. Just ask yourself when you last saw a movie that's commercially distributed in theaters that doesn't have FX, action or scenery, not to mention bankable actor names.<<<<

ie. people with zero creative talent who should let the people with the talent do what they are investing in, and shut the **** up. Otherwise, don't invest in that talent.

>>>>>Ain't going to happen. The guys with the deep pockets want not just their money back, but a profit too. Movies are every bit as much of an investment as an art. Just ask the guys with the money whether they'd rather have unprofitable High Art in a movie or a stupid movie that makes a bunch of money. I actually do find it to be remarkable that good movies DO get made.<<<<<

And also me. And lots of other people you aren't.
You don't think other people, with less pedestrian tastes than you, also find it personal?

>>>>You're assuming that my tastes are pedestrian, but half of the reality of anybody in any art is always how do I pay for this, who wants it, will it sell. If you're not thinking about that, you end up working in a RoFa, selling fried chicken. Even if you DO think you know, you might end in RoFa. I know lots of people that try to do art to make a living and most of them have to be dedicated because the living is sketchy and unpredictable. With movies, you up the ante a whole lot because they are expensive to make, market and distribute. You'd be a fool to think that you can make and, especially, sell a movie without some money up front.<<<<<

You don't think I find the discussion of art, and what gets properly distributed or becomes successful and might recoup a living for that arist, as being personal?

>>>>>You have to be thick skinned to be in that business. I'm not. In my early days, I recall being peripheral to some of the crew making the early movies of John Waters. They were literally "passing the hat" to buy 16 mm film and then convincing a local methodist church that the movies (like Pink Flamingos) were fit for family viewing (they're not). Waters knew who his audience was, however, and managed to pull it off. He didn't get funding from a real bank until his early movies had pulled in profits far in excess of their costs so passing the hat, in the beginning, was essential. <<<<<

You say these things as if it is some impossibility for any movie to make a profit, let alone even exist, if it doesn't placate the audience's cheapest instincts.


Do I have to detail the last hundred years of cinematic history, to find the thousands of examples that not only were able to be made, but found ways in which to be financially viable, and yet did not have to compromise on the vision of the director.


Or is this just going to be another one of those things where, if you aren't aware of it, it doesn't factor


Once again, this already happens all the time. There are all sorts of ways that movies can find an audience and distribution without being loaded with FX and McDonalds advertising blitzes.


Your arguments frequently seem to ignore the obvious reality of things existing that counter your point.




You got me on the no scenery qualification, because as far as I can tell most films I watch do in fact take place in....places....but as for the rest, the answer is that I see movies without all of those things all the time. Did you think other people don't do this or something? Or, once again, is it because you don't watch these movies that you assume no one else does?



I agree. Creatively empty people with money are probably going to keep interfering with their 'investments', because they are basically idiots who think having money makes them good at things they aren't any good at.



Not to the people watching them, they aren't. No one goes to movies because of what a stimulating or thought provoking or ground breaking investment they are.



You can keep appealing to the dumbest people in the room with this sentiment, if you think it improves your argument or something.


Hint, it doesnt




This is only hard to believe if you think everyone operates on purely profit driven motivations. Thankfully, art has proven time and time again, not everyone involved in the creation of things is a cynical and creatively empty vacuum.

Yes, it should happen more, but it still happens.


I think we've gone well past the point of assuming. Have you read your posts in this thread?


Having to contend with financial realities is not the same as catering your work to ensure maximum profit. Once again, do we need to point out to you the thousands of films that have been succesful that absolutely did not cater to the audience's most basic needs?





This isn't breaking news. Everyone knows this. Hence, the importance of the word dedication when it comes to being an artist. Also courage and intelligence and soul and individualism and stubbornness. You need to be all of these things, not just because of lack of financing, but mostly because of the very attitudes you are Schilling in this thread. That if people want to make it, they should just give up doing anything that rich dumb people won't back.Or that cynical, impatient and barely engaged audience members don't want to see.


Thank god there are other avenues for people who aren't total creative sell outs.





But there isn't only one way to get this money. And it doesn't always need to be hundreds of millions of dollars.

Its almost like passing the hat isn't still an option.

I would never consider Dune boring. I remember reading Dune about 20 years ago (even though I read only the first 3 books: Dune / Dune Messiah and Children of Dune) and I considered the book sometimes more thrilling and complex than some of Isaac Asimov's books (which I also like) or Arthur C. Clarke's works as well. So Frank Herbert is somewhere at the top of my favourite sci-fi writers.
I do not like though (entirely) what his son wrote. I like the father's masterpieces better.
I recall when some of my friends said that Dune was boring, but that was because they never read the books and also because they have seen the Dune miniseries or other Dune movies, not the new ones or the one from 1984.
I liked Dune made by David Lynch in 1984, but as he confessed in an interview, he said that they cut his financing somewhere at the end of the movie and he couldn't finish the movie as he wanted. But I liked the one made in 1984 too.
Now what Denis Villeneuve did is a proof that better things can come out when you find better financing and an entire wonderful crew to make an effort to achieve what Villeneuve achieved with the 2 films so far.
Also found all the books these days - in audio format - and I started again from the beginning. And I intend to finish Chapterhouse Dune which is the last one from the series - written by Frank Herbert. There are other books written after that, but by his son who continued his work.
Found an interview with Frank Herbert who said a few things about the origins of Dune:
- you can find it by searching on Youtube : Frank Herbert on the origins of Dune (1965).

This?

Yes. Couldn't post the link because I didn't have 10 posts yet .
But yes. That's the one. Interesting interview !

I can't watch videos right now, what is the thrust of what Herbert said about the origins of his novel, Dune?

This debate requires a much longer retort than I'm willing to do, so, instead, I'll look to the biggest box office hits of 2023. Yes, of course I do know that there is an audience for something that some critics define as "quality" (a judgmental term if ever I heard one), and, I generally consider myself to be among them. My favorite theaters are all downtown "Art Houses" and the last time I went was Saturday.

On the other hand, just as I got idealistic waiting for a My Dinner With Andre sequel, I also noted the biggest movies of the recent moment, which, according to "Sources Across The Web" were Guardians of the Galaxy, Barbie, John Wick 4, an iteration of The Little Mermaid franchise, Creed III and Oppenheimer.

I did like Oppenheimer in a "cinema" sort of way (even bought the DVD), as well as the historical element, which for me includes some distant family contact with Oppie's brother Frank, a guy who spent some time in Baltimore at Hopkins. The rest of them, however, are movies that ARE the cheesy entertainment of the moment, playing in the Cineplex at the Mall. Oops....I forgot The Super Mario Brothers movie. I did see Barbie and Guardians....felt suitably entertained for a couple hours, but it doesn't seem as though Quality Cinema that isn't based on financial calculations, has fully arrived yet.

@crumbsroom you got the patience of a saint

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Is your argument now that movies that are designed to be blockbusters, and are marketed as blockbusters, sometimes are blockbusters?


If so, I hate to inform you that listing a bunch of movies that have a broad base of appeal and also attract a broad base of eyeballs, doesn't somehow cancel out my point that smaller movies, aimed at smaller audiences, still can return an investment.


And it also doesn't have anything to do with my initial point that maybe appealing to the most Pavlovian instincts of movie audiences, and constantly making films that pander to their most brainless needs, is a piss poor way to make decent art.


And it also doesn't have to do with my other other point that, if people weren't so preconditioned to reject ever being challenged by all this garbage they are constantly having stuffed down their throats, maybe people wouldn't get so impatient or distressed when they are occasionally being nudged towards thinking for two seconds. Maybe their first instinct wouldn't be to be bored as soon as there is any kind of slow moment in a film.


But sure, let's talk about how people really like big budget superhero movies because that never once occurred to me.