Films The Official bit-tech Movie Thread - What have you seen lately?

Dune: Part II

I went to NYC to see one of the 70mm IMAX film prints at AMC Lincoln Center. The experience was incredible and the movie is amazing. I seriously want to buy another ticket and go see it here in Philly . . . right now.

But it's not without its flaws. There are some changes from the book that I think really hurt the pacing. Despite being nearly 3hrs long, the events feel rushed. I seriously don't understand the "why" of these changes. There is an upside I really appreciated, but the downsides clearly outweigh those upsides.

All the same, amazing movie. For anyone who has followed the production of these films (but also tries to keep a healthy distance to avoid spoilers (I don't ever watch trailers)), I think it's important to know that the second movie takes us to the end of the first book. It was originally said that Villeneuve wanted to make Dune: Part II contain the last third of the first book and then all of the second book, Dune: Messiah. That didn't happen, and probably for the best (see aforementioned pacing issues). So, don't expect to see any of the second book in this second movie.

 

How many is he planning on milking this for making? I thought it was a two parter originally, but have since heard three...? But is that covering two or more books then?

 

As far as I knew it was only going to be 2 films covering the first book.

Of course these days you can never fully rule out the possibility of unnecessary sequels or unnecessarily creating a franchise.

 

He has stated that he wants to do a part 3 based on Mesiah; and i think ive seen reports that he has a screenplay draft already/in the works...

 

I'm not sure it's Villeneuve milking it or the studio or nobody. Villeneuve originally said he wanted Dune: Part II to cover the last part of the first book and all of Dune: Messiah, and that he'd be done after that.

Based on Part II feeling rushed (despite being almost 3hrs), I'd believe it if he said that he felt like the books deserved to be broken up more, but I'd also believe it if it was a studio pressure thing.

He's said that they are working on a screenplay already for Dune: Messiah and I think he's going to stay on as the director through that movie. He's stated before that he wants to be done after that, which makes sense. The books get super weird pretty quickly. He's probably the best person for the job if they do keep making them, but I have a feeling they'll pass it on to some unexperienced director and they'll be bad on all fronts and won't translate well to film and it'll be a bit of a disaster.

So, I'm looking forward to one more (probably) good Dune movie.

 

I'm trying to think of a great franchise that stopped churning out content while it was still great, and didn't run itself dry, and I genuinely can't. So there isn't much hope for Dune staying great and stopping while it's ahead. If Villeneuve turns it down out of good taste they'll just get someone else.

I'm off to see Pt2 soon, can't wait.

 

This is a good discussion question. I'll say:

• LOTR 1-3. Near perfect movies if you ignore the slightly silly Legolas "hero moments". Yes the hobbit movies and Rings of Power suck but these aren't the same franchise as LOTR movies (or at least, I wont let them be in my head cannon!)
• The original Star wars trilogy before being sullied by the fun but stupid Prequals/Sequels so only counts for ~16years
• Terminator 1 and 2 before being sullied by T3 etc etc so only counts for ~12 years
• Monty Python movies - not strictly a franchise but wouldn't say the films "ran dry"
• Harry Potter Movies - Not my favourite movies but it would be mean spirited to say the films overstayed their welcome. The Fantastic beast movies/franchise definitely sucked

What have I forgotten?

Edit: Reading this post back I think I only confirmed your hypothesis!

 

You did, but it's pleasing to see someone else leaping to exactly the same examples I did and riding the same trajectory of disappointed realisation!

In TV it's more likely. Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul/El Camino stand out as a franchise that held its **** together throughout. Films, I spose the difference is you often have serious changing of the guard, and everyone, even the key writers and directors, is fungible before a commercially viable IP. Even all time greats like Die Hard and Bourne get sequelized to death.

 

Alien?
Matrix?

Although I'm not sure there were books for all of the movies?

 

I'm gonna disagree on the Matrix, especially the original trilogy.

The story for the original film was... honestly nothing to write home about. It wasn't particularly "new" or "groundbreaking" at all. I realise I say that as a lifelong sci-fi/cyberpunk fan, where those kinds of ideas about consciousness, human/computer interfaces, artificial intelligence, virtual worlds, etc, were already quite old hat. The reason it struck such a chord when it was released because it was visually stunning and it brought these kinds of ideas/themes to a far more "mainstream" audience (or... at least... close to "mainstream" anyway...! ). They were doing stuff that no-one else was doing, and not just when it came to visual/special effects. Having the principal actors learn martial arts for the fight scenes wasn't something that was being done regularly in Western films, it's cheaper to risk a stunt performer than it is to risk your expensive big-name talent. They hired Yuen Woo-ping as choreographer for cryin' out loud, that dude's worked with some absolute legends in martial arts films: Sammo Hung, Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen, Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh...

I read something a few years back talking about how a lot of the inspiration behind The Matrix came from anime and manga, particularly Ghost in the Shell and Akira. Once I stopped looking at the original trilogy as trying to be "cinematic masterpieces", and instead as "live-action Western anime", it clicked. I no longer hate Reloaded or Revolutions for failing to live up to the strong start, I could actually enjoy those films as being exactly what they were intended to be: a three-part sci-fi/cybperunk-ish story. I do think they were a victim of their own success, it was going to be basically impossible to repeat the success of the first film but that was always going to be the standard that Reloaded and Revolutions were judged against. But I don't think that alone is enough to make the sequels "bad films".

The fourth film... well... I don't hate it... I'd say it was just... "OK". Maybe 6.5ish/10. The problem with that film was exactly the same problem that kicked off this whole discussion: Warner Bros were eventually going to do it anyway. After the release of the original trilogy, the Wachowskis repeatedly said that they did not want to revisit the franchise, but Warner Bros kept coming back pleading for them to go back to it. If Lana hadn't changed her mind it's almost certain that, sooner or later, WB would have done it anyway. I need to watch it again once or twice, maybe I'll change my mind on future viewings.

 

The later Alien movies / Prometheus movies ruin the franchise (Alien and Aliens are classics though)
Matrix was amazing and culturally seismic, Reloaded and Revolutions had their moments of fun but were disliked even at the time.

It requires someone to have made 2 or more masterpieces and then be strong enough to stop corporate interests taking over to milk it for all the pennies. A rare thing over enough time.

 

A Fistful of Dollars
For a Few Dollars More
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Back to the Future franchise

Riddick franchise

Crank 1 & 2

Blade franchise

Millennium Trilogy (dear sweet baby jesus please don;t let them make the newer books into films)

 

Yeah there are hits and misses with sequel after sequel and spin offs.

Take Star Wars as an example though, if they hadn't done more movies and spin offs recently then Rogue One wouldn't exist and that is by far one of, if not the, best Star Wars movies made, imo of course.

 

Good shout on the Clint Eastwood westerns. I can't agree about Blade, I thought Trinity was a real dip in the graph, but each to their own!

Byron, I agree about the Matrix sequels. I do think the first film stood out for more structural reasons than you've allowed, though. It was an exceptionally well paced, well written film. I'm still struck by its clockwork perfection of balance, there isn't a slow or wasted moment. It was the right film at the right time, but it was also an exceptional piece of filmmaking regardless of the subject matter. The sequels were merely okay, and had structural and technical oddities as well as iffy writing and some questionable acting and direction.

I haven't watched #4. I just can't bring myself to, with so much noise about how bad it is. The trilogy felt, as you say, like it ended exactly where the Wachowskis wanted to end, a complete package.

Anyone weigh in on whether Tremors stayed the course? I never watched those sequels.

 

From what i recall, it was a steady decline after 2... looking at the wiki page, there's a lot more films than i rememeber!

EDIT: Another vote here for the spaghetti westerns, and Back to the Future (my favourite film, and series)

EDIT2: How do people feel about James Bond? I think the good outweighs the bad; but not sure if its consistent enough....

EDIT3: Wallace & Grommit!

 

Yes! Also, Studio Ghibli! There are great ones and less great ones, I've yet to see a bad one.

Pixar isn't a single franchise exactly, but it stands out as probably the greatest oddity as a good to shite ratio. They've done hardly any bad films and can still step out of their own shadow and produce great films, even sequels.

Oh, duh....Toy Story. Fresh from start to finish (as long as they stop now).

 

I mean I'll always watch a Bond movie but some of them are very Carry On Bond-esque.

I'm trying to think if any of the Bourne movies were tosh now you mention Bond.

 

Fair on the Bonds, and regarding Bourne, i submit exhibit A - Bourne Legacy... a film without the titular character...

 

I love that the franchise covers a wide range of, how to describe it, "emotions"? For example:

• Goldfinger - set the standard for so many cliches (laser table and "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!").
• You Only Live Twice - the epitome of the evil boss in his lair, complete with ninjas rappelling from the roof.
• Moonraker - utterly ludicrous and loveable space version of the above.
• Licence to Kill - Bond goes all serious and vengeful (love this film).
• Goldeneye - sublime film that arguably manages to marry all the good things about Bond perfectly, complete with a soundtrack that screams 90s in a good way.

Obviously, there are also the stinkers, but we won't talk about those.

However, I have to say, it may be time to retire the franchise. Aside from Casino Royale, the Bond films after Goldeneye have been utterly forgettable.

 

The latter two movies aren't tosh, but they can't hold a candle to the OG trilogy. Jason Bourne has all the action and thrills of the originals but lacks substance; whilst I liked Vikander's character a lot, the film adds nothing meaningful to the conclusion of the trilogy, so it's difficult to see it as anything other than an action/entertainment money grab.

@Pete J I agree on the Bonds - I'm particularly fond of Licence to Kill because of how raw it is (to date, the only Bond movie with a 15 certificate), quite unlike any other Bond movie, and I think Dalton did a great job as 007. Other notable mentions are Benicio Del Toro as an ultra-menacing henchman, and Robert Davi as Sanchez, probably my favourite Bond villain of all time. Damn, I forgot how much I love this movie!
_______

For anyone interested in the story behind the film's rating: when first presented with a then-unfinished cut of the movie in early 1989, the BBFC gave Licence to Kill an 18 certificate. Significant efforts were made to bring the rating down to 15, with cuts both to the visuals and the soundtrack, and the re-certification of 15 was given by the BBFC weeks before the film's release. Incidentally, a new classification - the "12" certificate - was scheduled to be introduced by the BBFC in August 1989, but Licence to Kill would release in June, so even with additional cuts there was no hope of further lowering the rating.