Current Events > The Dune hype is unbelievable

(+) Yeah! (+)

Had three different meetings at work where someone brought it up, talking how it's very good and stuff.

It's the Peter Jackson's LotR of a new generation.

I am surprised at how popular it is for how hard of a watch it is

Its no lord of the rings. Dune 2 is solid

Blue_Popo posted...

I am surprised at how popular it is for how hard of a watch it is

Its no lord of the rings. Dune 2 is solid

To be fair LoTR is pretty hard to watch. Over 3 hours without a break.

It's not a problem for those who watch it in home system, but it was hard on theater.

Ricemills posted...

To be fair LoTR is pretty hard to watch. Over 3 hours without a break.

It's not a problem for those who watch it in home system, but it was hard on theater.

Lotr is much easier to follow in terms of plot and characters

The first Dune was absolutely painful to sit through for like 60% of its runtime. So much political and religious jargon, and lots of dry exposition.

The visuals were awesome, though. That's what got me through it. I have literally no investment in the story after finishing the first movie.

Blue_Popo posted...

Lotr is much easier to follow in terms of plot and characters

Not sure, LotR has a ton of characters and lore, here it's just one guy.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The first Dune was absolutely painful to sit through for like 60% of its runtime. So much political and religious jargon, and lots of dry exposition.

I literally just watched it and it's like we watched different movies. It's a two and a half hour film with maybe half an hour of dialogue, none of which is hard to grasp if you pay attention.

It is awesome. I am tempted to see it again this weekend.

I have bad taste in movies and don't watch quality cinema.

Ricemills posted...

To be fair LoTR is pretty hard to watch. Over 3 hours without a break.

It's not a problem for those who watch it in home system, but it was hard on theater.

Why? How much did you have to pee in a 3 hour period?

Damn, I really want to see it now. The first one was quite enjoyable. No one I was with knew the plot, really -- they complained about whispered lines -- but it had nice visuals at least.

Ricemills posted...

To be fair LoTR is pretty hard to watch. Over 3 hours without a break.

It's not a problem for those who watch it in home system, but it was hard on theater.

I had zero issue watching them in a theater. I actually don't know anyone who had an issue.

hype is deserved, movie is awesome

I thought it was an instant classic. Multiple moments gave me chills and one moment, a moment that was fully expected since the movie was announced, had me literally shaking in my seat. That's never happened to me in a movie theater.

I've tried to watch Dune like 4 times. I fall asleep every single time. I got through Oppenheimer in one sitting and was enthralled the entire time. Dune is just too damn boring.

legendary_zell posted...

I thought it was an instant classic. Multiple moments gave me chills and one moment, a moment that was fully expected since the movie was announced, had me literally shaking in my seat. That's never happened to me in a movie theater.

Haha, yes!

DiScOrDtHeLuNaTiC posted...

It's a two and a half hour film with maybe half an hour of dialogue, none of which is hard to grasp if you pay attention.

First off, there's way more dialog than that.

Second off, I never said I couldn't grasp it. The issue wasn't understanding what was being said-- The issue was that I didn't really care. It failed to make me care about all the different factions and religious prophecy stuff.

At a certain point, it got to the part with the sandwalking shit, and I couldn't help but burst out laughing. I'm sure some people think that's cool and creative, but it didn't really do it for me. I just found it incredibly silly.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

At a certain point, it got to the part with the sandwalking shit, and I couldn't help but burst out laughing. I'm sure some people think that's cool and creative, but it didn't really do it for me. I just found it incredibly silly.

did you understand why they were doing it? are you generally bored by lore / creativity in fiction?

Giant_Aspirin posted...

did you understand why they were doing it? are you generally bored by lore / creativity in fiction?

Of course I understood why they were doing it. The movie beat me over the head with the reason for it. The main character watched the equivalent of an intergalactic YouTube tutorial explaining it. How could I possibly not have understood?

I understand why it exists in-universe, but I also think it is incredibly silly.

And no, generally I'm not bored by lore and world building. I just think Dune in particular is kinda lame and boring.

Glad to see sci-fi back in a big way. There's been spurts here and there but nothing as demanding to the audience as the Dune films, at least for a major blockbuster, since maybe the original Matrix. We're back bby

Smashingpmkns posted...

Glad to see sci-fi back in a big way. There's been spurts here and there but nothing as demanding to the audience as the Dune films, at least for a major blockbuster, since maybe the original Matrix. We're back bby

How expensive was Dune 2 to make? If it's a huge budget, there's a reasonably high chance the studio barely breaks even on it.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

How expensive was Dune 2 to make? If it's a huge budget, there's a reasonably high chance the studio barely breaks even on it.

$190 mil. It's break even is expected at $500 mil and it's on track to match Oppenheimer so it'll do more than fine.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

How expensive was Dune 2 to make? If it's a huge budget, there's a reasonably high chance the studio barely breaks even on it.

$190 million. It will need about $500 million to break even. I predict a 3.25 multiplier on its worldwide opening, so it will make close to $600 million.

I wish the book inspired all the hype.

Smashingpmkns posted...

$190 mil. It's break even is expected at $500 mil and it's on track to match Oppenheimer so it'll do more than fine.

Ya beat me. But I don't think it will have a multiplier like Oppenheimer, as it is more of a known entity and a sequel

Honestly Im pretty sure movies have been so bad for so long now that its dumbed down our expectations for what we consider a good movie.

--Zero- posted...

Honestly Im pretty sure movies have been so bad for so long now that its dumbed down our expectations for what we consider a good movie.

Wrong

bsp77 posted...

Ya beat me. But I don't think it will have a multiplier like Oppenheimer, as it is more of a known entity and a sequel

It's already outperforming part 1 by like double. Split the difference and $700 mil is probably an easy target at this point. Especially with literally nothing else in theaters.

bsp77 posted...

$190 million. It will need about $500 million to break even. I predict a 3.25 multiplier on its worldwide opening, so it will make close to $600 million.

3.25 is pretty strong for March, but I suppose we'll have a better idea of where it's headed after the drops in its second weekend.

When does it come out in China, for that matter? They usually prop it up a bit.

bsp77 posted...

Wrong

Not gonna debate with you of all people lol.

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's already outperforming part 1 by like double. Split the difference and $700 mil is probably an easy target at this point. Especially with literally nothing else in theaters.

You could be right, but the vast majority of movies struggle to beat a 3x multiplier nowadays (many are 2.5x). And there is competition this month with Kung Fu Panda, Ghostbusters, and Godzilla x Kong, but admittedly it is only Kung Fu Panda until March 22nd.

This movie does have enough insanely high word of mouth (Cinemascore, IMDB, Letterboxd) that it could very well beat that 3x multiplier, but I still conservatively put it at 3.25x.

--Zero- posted...

Not gonna debate with you of all people lol.

Hmm. Compliment or criticism? :)

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Of course I understood why they were doing it. The movie beat me over the head with the reason for it. The main character watched the equivalent of an intergalactic YouTube tutorial explaining it. How could I possibly not have understood?

I understand why it exists in-universe, but I also think it is incredibly silly.

And no, generally I'm not bored by lore and world building. I just think Dune in particular is kinda lame and boring.

Thank you. I was trying to read the book as well. Thinking that the book was going to be better than the movie. In this case, no, it wasn't. What we saw and what we get is too similar. They took out one subplot in the beginning but they were right to. It didn't change anything.

My roommate is a big fan of dune. Any criticism is like the person gave you. That it was not understood. Grating to hear.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I understand why it exists in-universe, but I also think it is incredibly silly.

shrug. the worms listen to and react to rhythmic patterns on the surface. if the people walked normally, it wouldn't make sense that their movement didn't agro the worms. are you suggesting that should have been implemented differently? did you find the idea stupid, or the execution of it?

Giant_Aspirin posted...

shrug. the worms listen to and react to rhythmic patterns on the surface. if the people walked normally, it wouldn't make sense that their movement didn't agro the worms.

I know that. I just think the in-universe solution and resulting visuals are very silly. Especially when they're doing it in the middle of sweeping landscape shots while "desert music" plays triumphantly.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

And no, generally I'm not bored by lore and world building. I just think Dune in particular is kinda lame and boring.

I mean...I can't fault you there. The books are notoriously dense.

I am going to see Part 2 again in a couple hours, as my wife hasn't seen it. Already saw it with a friend on Thursday

I found the first a snore, but the 2nd was better.

Still no LotR tho.