Sci-Fi Dune

[Pennywise]

 

[Gothamsknight]

 

[emielaen]

My God. This looks incredible.

 

[chintai80]

looks great.

david lynch 1984 version is becoming a distant memory now.

 

[Drizzle]

looks great.

david lynch 1984 version is becoming a distant memory now.

No movie that has Patrick Stewart charging into battle while carrying a pug deserves to be lost to the sands of time.

 

[Breogan]

Third time is a charm....


(try and pretend you don't see the curtain ^ in the background ) to be fair, for the TV budget, they delivered some powerful characters and arcs somewhat true to the books)

 

[Sithborg]

try and pretend you don't see the curtain in the background)

We love and embrace the stage play version of Dune.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Gothamsknight]

 

[antsman41]

Be careful on twitter... a certain casting spoiler is being spoke about greatly.

 

[Sithborg]

At this point, I don't know what character being cast would be a spoiler.

 

[Drizzle]

It's Danny DeVito cameoing as a Harkonnen.

 

[Filmfreak]

Box office projections increased a bit since last week on both lower ends. It went from 50 million to 55 opening weekend and from 125 million to 138 million overall run. I hope it keeps increasing and makes a really solid start with great legs to follow.

 

[-Arya-]

500-600M worldwide by the end should be the mark WB is aiming for.

 

[Filmfreak]

500-600M worldwide by the end should be the mark WB is aiming for.

I think 500 is a pretty low floor considering the first film made 400 with so many things against it and at a time it was mostly an unknown franchise to the general audience. I would say 550-650 is probably more likely if reviews and word to mouth are really good.

 

[-Arya-]

I think 500 is a pretty low floor considering the first film made 400 with so many things against it and at a time it was mostly an unknown franchise to the general audience. I would say 550-650 is probably more likely if reviews and word to mouth are really good.

550 isn’t much higher. Imo WB should skew more conservatively in their expectations. After all, Dune 2 is yet another 2 hour and 45 minute blockbuster. We saw what happened last year with MI 7.

 

[Filmfreak]

550 isn’t much higher. Imo WB should skew more conservatively in their expectations. After all, Dune 2 is yet another 2 hour and 45 minute blockbuster. We saw what happened last year with MI 7.

Runtime wasn't the problem with Mission Impossible. There are numerous films that are around three hours and are doing incredible well. Many don't even belong in a franchise. The problem with that film was its release date that resulted into losing screens and hype.

I actually think that Dune might end up making similar numbers which probably wouldn't be bad if it doesn't have an excessive budget. Considering it doesn't have much competition, 600+ is very much a possibility though. I just think that anything lower than 550 is probably underwhelming all things considered.

 

[-Arya-]

Runtime wasn't the problem with Mission Impossible. There are numerous films that are around three hours and are doing incredible well. Many don't even belong in a franchise. The problem with that film was its release date that resulted into losing screens and hype.

I actually think that Dune might end up making similar numbers which probably wouldn't be bad if it doesn't have an excessive budget. Considering it doesn't have much competition, 600+ is very much a possibility though. I just think that anything lower than 550 is probably underwhelming all things considered.

Long run times definitely have a little do with it. For every Oppenhiemer that performs well there’s a Killers of the Flower Moon that doesn’t. I agree with your point about the 600+box office. I want it to reach that mark, but we shall see how the general audience responds.

 

[Filmfreak]

Long run times definitely have a little do with it. For every Oppenhiemer that performs well there’s a Killers of the Flower Moon that doesn’t. I agree with your point about the 600+box office. I want it to reach that mark, but we shall see how the general audience responds.

Do you think that Killers of the Flower Moon would do much better with a shorter runtime? Sure it was extremely long, we are talking 45 minutes longer than Dune and Mission Impossible by the way, but it's that with the combination of the genre and themes. A very slow crime drama is not the same as epic scale movies filled with action and suspense. Scorsese films rarely do well in cinemas anyway. Hugo has a perfectly reasonable duration, whilst being much more commercial and it still was a big box office bomb.

 

[-Arya-]

Do you think that Killers of the Flower Moon would do much better with a shorter runtime? Sure it was extremely long, we are talking 45 minutes longer than Dune and Mission Impossible by the way, but it's that with the combination of the genre and themes. A very slow crime drama is not the same as epic scale movies filled with action and suspense. Scorsese films rarely do well in cinemas anyway. Hugo has a perfectly reasonable duration, whilst being much more commercial and it still was a big box office bomb.

We had an epic scale movie with action last year that heavily underperformed: Dial of Destiny. There are multiple factors in play whenever movies perform well or not. I maintain that runtime is one of those factors.

 

[Filmfreak]

We had an epic scale movie with action last year that heavily underperformed: Dial of Destiny. There are multiple factors in play whenever movies perform well or not. I maintain that runtime is one of those factors.

That film had lukewarm reviews and very mixed word of mouth that was building for six weeks, alongside many spoiler leaks that people legitimately hated. I didn't say that big scale action movies necessarily do well, just that a long runtime doesn't seem to play a really important factor with fast paced films that people genuinely enjoy. And we're talking about a film with 15-20 minutes more than half of the blockbuster films nowadays, not with an extra hour or something.

Anyway, I agree that are many factors that affect a performance so we'll see how this one will turn out.

 

[-Arya-]

That film had lukewarm reviews and very mixed word of mouth that was building for six weeks, alongside many spoiler leaks that people legitimately hated. I didn't say that big scale action movies necessarily do well, just that a long runtime doesn't seem to play a really important factor with fast paced films that people genuinely enjoy. And we're talking about a film with 15-20 minutes more than half of the blockbuster films nowadays, not with an extra hour or something.

Anyway, I agree that are many factors that affect a performance so we'll see how this one will turn out.

I agree with most of your points. We just have different views on runtime being a detractor. Anecdotally, I have heard the phrase “This movie is just too long.” a lot of times. Indeed, we shall see.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Pennywise]

 

[antsman41]

Going to Part I in IMAX tonight, never got to... before.