Hes a master of atmospheric films (and more). Sicario is still indelibly stamped in my mind 9 years later....

He makes his movie flow like no other, I think it really helps that he doesn't overuse exposition and forced dialogue and just gives room to the scene and trusts the audience to pick up certain things.

@@pjetrs "Show, don't tell"....

This is the most stressed movie I've seen in ages. It's so obvious they skipped a lot of explaining from the book

@@emilpettersson4509 Hard to get everything from books into movies. LOTR was the same thing. I see it as two different versions of the actual story that lived in the authors mind.

Epic and massive without losing intimacy...!

As written

Well said!

​@@StudioBinder which software do you used for editing.

Monday's are tough, that's why we wanna kick the week off right!

I also failed to see Interstellar in theatre :(

The SOUND in the theater was amazing!

​@@lanwyacaere9274 interstellar will be re-released in Theaters this September. IMAX Film Print included.

Baaah, i bet that was sooo immersive.. thumpers, ornithopters, muadibs..

Thanks! We do put a lot of love into these.

Esl

Neither Dune or Dune 2 had over the top massive movie sets, nor did they create a massive amount of practical sets. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and Eternals had massive practical movie sets with entire towns built for the movie. However Denis Villeneuve simply knows how and when to use CGI. He seems to have a perfect understanding on what needs to be practical, and how to use CGI to enhance the shot so that you can't even tell that it's CGI. Invisible CGI is the best type of CGI. Disney could really take a lesson from Denis Villeneuve on how to blend practical effects with CGI better.

Meh. Thor the dark world looks better than dune.

Definitely excited for Dune Messiah but it's gonna be years before we see it! 😥

​@@WL1264bruh

@@TraeBeneck nah really kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f9-ohJmoyq2th4U.htmlsi=3OKCJGZ1tAEn2rAv

Best movie of the last 10 years at least

Dina

It's up there for us, too! Thanks for watching.

Its pretty hard to fault such an earnest attempt, but i do think they could have done more with character development and still have kept the full cast.. cant imagine how much they paid to talent alone.. when i make my film, im going to have a completely unknown cast, and make new movie stars out of those who only needed their chance to shine..

He definitely dumbed down the storytelling a bit compared to his earlier works and used common American tropes so it could appeal to a broader audience. But it was still a tremendous achievement.

@@ssssssstssssssss I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with Mr. Villeneuve's earlier work in order to properly comment about the evolution of his storytelling approach, since I've only seen "Blade Runner: 2049" before "Dune" and my experience with that film in particular was almost analogous: a stunning visual achievement with some narrative choices I find difficult to engage with. In any case, I'm not sure if anything was purposefully "dumb down" in order to appeal to a broader audience, I just believe some characters' inner motivations and relationship dynamics with other characters were a bit underdeveloped, given the apparent complexity and richness of the original source material (which I've never read, only heard good things about!).

Thanks for those kind words and thanks for watching!

Very cool!

Same!

Agreed!

Hope you enjoyed it!

You're welcome. You keep watching and we'll keep making them.

Thanks and you're welcome!

Our pleasure!

Denis has been storyboarding it since he was 13...

Hmm, might be an interesting video! Thanks for the suggestion.

@@StudioBinder glad I could be of some help.

Our pleasure!

Great suggestion! Our video would be a long as those films but it'd be worth it!

We're big fans too!

Thanks!

We had to do it!

Thanks for that and welcome to the channel!

Surf's up!

You are most welcome!

Wow, I don't know how we made a better video than Villeneuve's film but that's high praise indeed! Thanks for watching.

Thanks!

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. That's an interesting question. We couldn't find anything on that but if you do, let us know.

I cant stop watching Austin Butlerians facial expressions over and over, he's amazing, sublime...

Yeah, they are exceptional!

@@StudioBinder And Rebecca Ferguson's. Ha ha, I can't not call Austin Butler "Austin Butlerian jihad". And Skarsgard had one emotion in one eye and another in the other, I love when actors pull that, like when Paul stabbed him... Surprise/wonder/fear/recognition/grandfatherly love/amusement/reconciling himself and more, just in a few seconds. But Austin man, fascinating performance

For sure!

We have to agree!

Nice catch! And agreed.

Purely a coincidence! 😉

Thanks for those clarifications!

@alexor081 You’ve never understood or read the books then. The movie absolutely shirks the books, and not just because of adaptation to film media. Visually, yes. Story, no. It’s essentially a cherry picked reinterpretation.

Thanks for sharing. He definitely takes his own approach to that balance.

Welcome!

Thanks for watching!

Agreed!

The sound and music deserve a video of their own. We just might do it down the line!

He hasn't really missed yet, has he?

@@StudioBinder Yea he's done very well and I look forward to seeing his next film whatever it may be.

He's well on his way to becoming one of the greats!

We have the best editors!

We finally did it!

Same!

It will be very interesting to see how this develops. Hopefully, we can steer it away from complete disaster!

lol too random

10 Comedy Points!

We did for Part One: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y7F4lsWhndneoo0.htmlsi=0DwKQK4JA6H8iBgn

@@StudioBinder already watched it, need one on dune 2

Here's a great interview with the VFX Supervisor discussing the first film: beforesandafters.com/2021/11/06/the-dune-visual-effects-team-used-sandscreens-instead-of-bluescreens/

Wow, now there's a question! Maybe we'll get an answer in Dune Messiah.

We couldn't resist.

Great questions! The combo of cameras, lenses, and sensors can do so much these days. But you're right, both anamorphic and spherical can do widescreen!

@@StudioBinder Thank you so much for your answer!!! I really appreciate that. But I mean, any suggestions on how to shot 1,85:1 or 2,39:1? What do I look for in the camera? Or how can I be sure I can use a camera to shot on that aspect ratio? I mean, is it even a thing on on high standard DSLRs these days? I really don't know.

Glad you enjoyed it!

👍

don't get too excited about that

i think you should go to watch it if its still on cinemas, you gonna love all her scenes they are amazing

@@IvaN-cf7qt I wish, but I can't afford the cinema.

It's only 5 dollars in Tuesdays at regal theaters

Yeah, you'll probably wanna wait for Dune Messiah whenever that comes out.

It's an exceptional use, for sure!

they only hate the CGI in movies they don’t like 😂

Now there's a debate!

We definitely appreciate those elements but we had to keep the video to a reasonable length. Haha! But we did cover sound in Part One: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y7F4lsWhndneoo0.htmlsi=nzJ839Dy412plPxI

@@StudioBinder i've watched it, i love your chanel, i follow you guys for a long time! do a part 2 of the analysis of dune part 2 ahahahah

Hate to disappoint but it's 100% human :)

From what we saw, it looks like most of the shots from full to close-up were probably shot on that gimbal set up.

Interesting. They're definitely different films when it comes to pacing.

Thanks for the feedback.

Haha. Now that would have been a bold choice!

👍

​@StudioBinder Doesn't take away from the amazing craftsmanship from each department though. Will you guys cover A.I. anytime soon?

Wat?

Thanks for the feedback!

👍

The style can carry the substance no matter the a movie's budget is (there are several low-budget movies with a style, little dialogue and strong meaning). Without a proper style, the substance cannot be given adequately. But it may feel pretentious because it looks cool. Looking cool is prone to be seen as pretentious, especially in big-budget mainstream movies, even when it is not pretentious-without meaning or just a little and faint meaning-cool. It is the unfortunate part of being cool and stylish. But Villeneueve's cinema, to my mind, is cool with subtle but important meanings. But one should dig it and unearth it and focus on it with great effort. He does not make it rain. He conceals the meanings into the painting and expect audience to find them. It is a style. It is a choice. Villeneueve is not the only director who does this at all. For example, arthouse cinema is full of such kind of approach. But people, especially ones who do not like spend too much time on images and do not know much about how show do not tell work as an important technique in cinema's natural limits, love dialogues. They love more telling than showing. But they love telling and showing a lot at same time even more. They generally prefer to capture deep emotions immediately while watching a scene rather than trying to get them from the movie slowly with much more effort. They want to be filled with long-lasting feelings until their souls crack. Audience tend to like dialogue more than storytelling of the scale, gestures, body movements and other visuals. Because extracting the meaning and the substance from the dialogue is way easier doing the same thing while examining a picture. A chapter of a modern novel is easier to be understood than understanding what a Van Gogh painting is trying to say. So, many people want the dialogue be the king and the visuals be the lord chancellor. I think people should keep this in mind while watching and reviewing a movie. Especially in arthouse films. I mean Dune Part 1 and Part 2 are mainstream movies which have arthouse awareness in their substance but real arthouse ones can be more prone to rely on showing than Villeneueve's all movies, including Dunes. He is not flawless. He gets tired and so does not fix the things that can fix if he focuses and gives the last bit of his energy once more. No one is. But he is talented and knows what he is doing, at least for now. We cannot predict future after all. Note: Frank Herbert's Dune novels can be viewed as pretentious if we think. All those mind-fucking details, especially in the last three books. All those highly esoteric, erotic and weird meanings, internal thoughts, descriptions and actions of the characters. But are they really pretentious? Sometimes it feels too much I admit but I think they are not pretentious in general. Because they are just cool with meaning, originally strange, dense and heavy to digest. It is easy extract meanings from Dune novels. And many things are open to different interpretations. Sometimes one cannot be sure if he or she understand what the author says well. Or misunderstand what he says or think that he or she understand it. Sometimes a reader think that Dune is cold and hollow even if there are all the info and layers and ideas Herbert gives the readers. Brainstorming. Dune is brain storming. And forcing the mind, the heart and the soul to open and see. It is exhausting but for a good reason. Herbert did not do this out of laziness. He had a plan. Not flawless and all true. Not the best writer in the history. But still genious. DV is not lazy either. Yet Villuneueve's Dunes are not as smart and compelling as the original books of course but they require brainstorming as well. Not everyones type, though. And it is OK.

Thanks for sharing! Villeneuve and his team definitely made strong choices and that can often be divisive.

​@@hypatia137 I understand, but it's not that I prefer dialogue over images or that I don't think style can't overlap with substance. The problem is that Villeneuve's films are so enamoured of themselves, instead of focusing on what matters, they are begging, almost blinking, for the audience to say "Look, how cool". Instead of capturing the scene and the story, the feels in the best way possible, the invert the process and create the scene to adapt to how they want it to look and feel. It never feels they had to shoot a piece of the story and they composed it like they did; it feels they compose the image and then create the scene around it. And this completely leaves the story in a second layer. Let me explain it in another way: instead of creating something within the film, the story, that produces a certain feeling in the viewer, they are directly trying to create the feeling. You hear the music screaming and I am like "Am I supposed to feel anything?". Because the music is telling me to feel a way I don't find no reason to feel like. I have not found anything in the story that can cause that feeling. And I don't think Villeneuve paints it deeply so that viewers have to find it and delve into it. No, directly it's just not there. I mentioned before that Villeneuve leaves the story behind and I think that's a huge problem of his. He's mentioned many times that he doesn't like dialogue, that images are much better (not that he prefers them, but that they are better), that “Frankly, I Hate Dialogue. Dialogue Is For Theatre And Television". That is horrendous in my opinion. Sound and dialogue are as vital to a film as images. They could exist one without the other and work but together they usually work better. Stories could be told only with images, but if Villeneuve doesn't excel at all at that, in my opinion, I find it a bit too ridiculous. If he's not good with it, just admit it. If he doesn't care about story, then say it. He lives in his own world in which stylish images mean it all and he can convince audiences of that, and he actually can because people fall for that. A world in which blinking the audience every time is better than focusing on story. People can disagree with me, but that's how I feel about him. I enjoy his films, they are good and they have some story but he's to me just that pretentious.

​​@@turinturambar501 I think this may be an issue just in Dune Part 1 and Part 2. In his other films, I can see the strength of the stories completely. And in Dunes, to my mind, this stems from this: They first create something within in the story, a scene with a story. The scene's story gives something to feel. However, the audial and visual elements sometimes can be swollen with too much grandiose that it can make some people feel that the scene is pretentious without substance and the story is secondary. To me, this happens in some scenes of Part 1 and Part 2, not in every single one of them. The feeling that is given by a scene in level 3. But the sound claims that it is in level 5. There is still relevance and connection between the sound and the feeling that gives some feeling in the story of the scene. But it is not as much as the sound and the visuals claim. This can be distracting for some people. And this make them think that they cannot feel that much at all. Or that feeling not in that scene. And that they feel they are forced by the director. And so the work is pretentious. But it is actually there. Just the tremendous grandiose makes it look small. But this does not mean that the image put there first and then scene and so the story are made secondary. This means that they put story first but sometimes other elements becomes too much for the natural size of the story in a certain scene. Why Dunes may be like that? Because it is one of the hardest novel series to adapt. The way Frank Herbert created his universe is hard to translate into live-action movies and tv shows. And even if he has been making these adaptation in the scope of mainstream, he has been using arthouse cinema's liberties. Experimentation in whichever way he likes. Not caring about what is generally best for the audience. Still, in Villeneueve's Bladerunner 2049 and Dunes do use Christopher Vogler's 12 steps in the protagonist's journey (it is based on Joseph Campbell's 17 steps for the hero's journey which takes many elements from Jungian psychology and mythology). This structures are mostly for mainstream pictures. Arthouse films can prefer not to utilize them. These movies I have just mentioned can be analyzed in the light of 12 steps perfectly. 12 steps cannot exist without creating something within in the film, the story, first. First creating image and then the story in a scene does not produce a film that is suitable for to be divided into 12 steps when analyzing it. His other characters in his other movies which may not fit well into 12 steps or 17 steps are still open to Jungian analysis and such kind of analysis cares about the individual's experiences, feelings and psychological state that emerge because of events and experiences in that person's life and his/her own genetic heritage. A movie which does not care much about the story cannot have characters which can be read with Jung's methods (we can add Freud and others as well if we need). Even though the methods I have mentioned use models and patterns in analyzing human behaviours and meaning of life etc., they still focus on stories and individuals one by one. So, general feelings and how figures, atmosphere and structures look in a scene are not enough for Jungian analysis or 12 steps. Only feelings that come out of a character's situation, the other characters, the events and circumstances which have particular weight on him/her in a scene can be adequate for these two. Unfortunately, neither KZfaq comment section's technical capacity has enough sufficiency to write a detailed analysis for stories of K and Paul Atreides nor I have enough time for that. And I think DV writes the dialogue well enough when he actually writes (because he is not a screenwriter of every movie he directs). He does not waste words. But he should not speak against the dialogue that harshly. I do not think he does not care about the story. I can't say I like his style for just beautiful visual and qualified sound design. I see a stong-enough story within mind blowing audial and visual presentation. Yes I can get emotional and I breathe like human while watching his movies but this feeling does not completely happen independently from the story. I hope he won't become arrogant or ruin his reputation. He is doing too well for now. I am curious how he will adapt Dune Messiah and what will do after it.

Well said. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

From a purely racial and purely geopolitical perspective, I agree that the white saviour narrative and trope is very annoying. But story-wise it works if you consider the whole universe. In the Dune universe humans have kept a purely Monarchical and Aristocratic (Great Houses of the Landsraad) type of governance. So Paul as a member and heir to a great house will be highly trained psychologically, psychologically and intellectually. Besting Jamis an untrained and undisciplined fighter makes sense.

@@jewulo I didn't really look at it as racial, since it looks like both societies are mixed racially. It was more about Pauls dreams or visions. I thought he would enter Arrakis as a student first, led by a strong Arrakian soldier, like Luke Skywalker and Yoda. But I didn't really view Paul as white and Jamis as black. I saw Paul as a kid and Jamis as an adult. Paul's vision in the beginning revealed Jamis talking to him, like the mentor trope. This was done in Monkey Man. The lead was trained before he became their hope to defeat a greedy elite class. But to make Paul kill Jamis did not offer me a "save the cat" moment. Instead of Skywalker, Paul is more like a young Darth Vader

Actually, if you look more into Frank Herbert's vision for this series, you might appreciate the direction it takes. It's not quite what you think.

I have to agree, I am still not over Margot Robbie's snub of Best Actress.

The only overrated thing in Dune part two is Zendayas acting.

​@@karlpeters3703 * remove acting

@@charlesburns7391 true

Thanks for sharing! Sorry you didn't enjoy the film.

How come?

It is a really really good movie. One may love it. One may hate it. One may have mixed feelings. But this should not mean that one can be unfair and arrogant when reviewing it. Respect is important. But I do not mean that one must be completely blind when it comes to flaws of the work. But being open eyed and honest when it comes to flaws should not mean that being unfair and disrespectful against a qualified movie. As for masterpiece thing, the time will decide. It is too early to say that. What will people, newbies and old ones, think about Dune Part 2? I am eager to watch how this movie will age. I do not mean popularity and speaking about the movie all the time, though. A movie can still be masterpiece without becoming as popular as a football team. How people think about it and how they remember it is important.

It’s is a technical masterpiece, even if you don’t believe the film itself is a masterpiece

As you can guess, we really liked it and we're predicting that it will age very well.

Go watch a marvel movie scrub

Go watch a marvel movie scrub

They're definitely two different films and it seems people prefer one over the other.

Difficult question, as both were neither boring, nor wannabe.

Yes and thank you.

Beautifully and concisely said.

Sorry for that. We're not trying to hyperbolic, we just really liked this movie! As for the merits of its adaptation, that's always tough because the books allow for a lot more personal interpretation and the movie sets that interpretation more objectively. What did you think of Lynch's version?

What are you even here for troll?!!!?

Thanks for watching!