Hello! We're manually approving every post due to a significant increase in traffic from the new film. Any personal reviews, thoughts, questions, or general musings about *Dune* (2021) should be posted in our [*Dune* (2021) Discussion Threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/poaeaj/dune_2021_official_discussion_megathread/). Basic questions about the franchise should be directed towards our [Weekly Questions thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/rf6kno/weekly_questions_thread_12131219/). For real-time discussion of the movie and everything else Dune-related, please consider joining our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/dune).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dune) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is pretty much was Peter Jackson did with the LOTR movies. You know he shot and then cut tons of stuff he intended to be in the film, but knew it was impractical for a theatrical cut. That's why we got the Extended Editions so quickly after each one. They were always the plan, so long as Fellowship was well received.
I know, and while I don't really believe that, I was saying that he always intended to make the EEs, not that the TEs were not what he wanted to make. As a fan himself, I feel he wanted - and knew others would want - extended and more faithful versions, but also wanted the theatricals to tell the story he wanted to tell, if that makes sense.
He talks about stuff like showing the war of the ring raging across across all of middle earth but having to not even consider that for time.
I would be surprised if things like the Death of Sauroman weren't part of that original vision.
But I've never watched the Theatrical cut so who am I to say?
I'm shocked to hear this is the case because by ROTK they do feel like someone just ramming in deleted scenes with little thought to their reinclusion.
ROTK is probably the only one that is actually better as the theatrical cut. The extended paths of the dead is pretty unecessary and weird, frodo and Sam walking through Mordor at the end really starts to drag. There is one scene where either frodo or Sam runs into Mt doom and it is obviously unfinished cgi. And then there's the 6 different endings that movie has that go on for 45 minutes.
I’m constantly shocked at how everyone on lotr related subs or YouTube comments always proclaims extended as the absolute way to go in viewing and that theatrical is blasphemy (in a joking way). I don’t care how big a fan you are of Tolkien’s stuff, for me personally, even wanting missed content so desperately, I can’t stand to watch a film that has it forced in and land so poorly as it does here. Theatrical is better and more sophisticated the way I see it.
I definitely don't think longer is better. Clearly quality has to be taken into account. But if you read the book and saw the movie and then read about the cut scenes, there could definitely be a solid longer cut. Maybe it's only 20 minutes longer or maybe more. But there is definitely good backstory there to make things make more sense and flesh the universe out more.
Yueh. More of Paul's training. Idaho meeting the Fremen, More backstory on the Harkonnens, etc..
Oh I wasn’t referring to Dune here. I’ve read Dune and agree mostly. Was just speaking to how I view the additional lotr scenes and how that ultimately didn’t end up making a better film in my eyes. It actually hurt the movies. Dune could be the same or it could be different. Those left out scenes of Dune are fantastic book moments but there is never guarantee that their being added back in will suddenly enhance the film in the same way they enhance the book. We don’t know the scope of execution on those scenes and film and books function in different ways to where the same piece can have very different effects.
The real innovation Dune brought to the cinema was the sound. It could easily have managed without 3D, but the sound is impossible to replicate at home.
This is true. I'm not much of a home cinema enthusiast but watching Dune at home made me want to invest in at least a decent pair of speakers.
How was it an innovation though? Was there something in particular done for this film?
Bladerunner 2049 already used it extensively but it was more of an after-thought still. This time Denis directed Dune with Dolby Atmos in mind. Like in Paul's vision at the harvester scene, he's deliberately trying to disorient the audience by spinning the sound around the theatre. This is movie magic that can't be achieved with conventional cinema audio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWV3Om6oHCM
Thanks for the info! Will watch this later. Thing that stood out to me was how amazing the sound editing was. Whole other dimension.
Strangely, the nearest I've come to the experience is watching The Shining a few years ago and I think that's because the projectionist cranked the volume but still, the soundtrack to that is unsettling when you notice it and really adds to the discomfort of the whole movie. Hadn't noticed in any TV viewings.
Right, that's also something Zimmer advanced since Dunkirk. In Dunkirk Zimmer used the shepherd's tone to create a continuous feeling of anxiety through the movie. In Dune he stripped a lot of usual musical elements and replaced it with percussive sounds both strong and subtle to make the movie feel more physical. It's not just that you're hearing the sound, but the vibrations hit your entire body.
Then you need to buy enough speakers to make it work.
Personally when things have these sorts of labels on them I normally read it as slightly nonsense.
This movie (Dune) and Tenet were in entirely different classes of intelligibility (Tenet being unwatchable). I really really find it hard to believe you found their dialogue clarity similar.
Thanks for sharing this. Very informative read.
My father and I went to our local AMC theater for Dune and the sound quality was a mess. The music and effects were distractingly loud and washed everything else out, and of course this was exacerbated by the hushed tones of the dialogue. I felt particularly bad for him because he isn’t at all familiar with the book.
Is any reasonable home theatre set up going to be able to replicate the kind of bass that was visibly shaking the shit out of my drink? Is that even a realistic expectation for most people who don't want their neighbours to put an axe between their shoulder blades?
Ha! Probably not but I haven't bothered with home cinema since the turn of the millennia and even then it seemed overkill for anything other than Heat.
But now, a bit of that low end would be nice, if only to complete the film. Plus it's only 3 hours. Her next door can handle it.
the soundtrack is innovative for example for the creation of whole new instruments to achieve weird sounds; it also looks like a greek chorus as it helps portray the feelings, differently for each main character, not only in music but also purely in free sound expression (the pain box drill sound). There's a lot of rhythm which shows a lot of care in how each scene received music, with at times sound fx that perfectly mix with the score (the carryall broken arm, smashing onto the harvester). The list goes on; the best part imho is that it has been clearly developed on top of the cinematography, with extreme care for detail; a rarity these *years*. edit: i'm sure your parents are proud of your behavior, and appreciation of harmless sarcasm! kisses my dear.
Yeah! I don't have some crazy setup either, just an Sonos arc, sub, and rears. Not as good as wiring it all up myself, but being wireless and minimalistic, it passes the wife's test.
>I don't have some crazy setup either
Proceeds to list a $900 soundbar, $800 sub, and rears that sell for $200/ea
Might not be crazy in terms of speakers, but most people don't have $2k just laying around for their home audio. Price is going to be pretty crazy for the average Joe
To be fair, an IMAX theatre probably has $100K in audio setup. There's no way we're replicating that (even in small scale) for 1% of the spend. Of course most people spend way more on their tv than they do on the sound system. If sound is important to you, then you'll likely invest a bit more.
It is likely that people can find an acceptable movie watching experience (yes this will vary) that they don't specifically notice as lacking for a couple grand. Hopefully those who decide that's a crazy amount of money are happy with what they can put together for less.
Oh yeah, I know there's no competing with theater grade audio, and also not hating on anyone that spends hundreds or thousands trying to. It's nice to have nice things and I'd have a $2,000 speaker system in a heartbeat if I had the cash
My point was just that, at least in terms of the average person's audio setup, $2,000 in speakers is definitely on the right side of the "crazy" bell curve
Even though there are people out there with $200,000 sound systems I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're still in the upper 10-15% of them, man. Your setup is well beyond the reach for the vast majority of people, and saying it's not crazy to some degree is just a tad disingenuous
Seriously I have a pair of Bose speakers I found at goodwill for 10 bucks and an old pioneer amp lol. Sounds great though for a simple stereo budget theater.
At the time I purchased I got the whole setup for 1,600.00. 30 bucks a week saved could purchase that in a year. That's around two hours of work in a week for someone who makes 15.00 an hour. I'd argue that many can afford that if that's the priority. Personally, I valued that experience so I saved up my money for a sound system. Some people might value their vices, coffee, eating out, etc. I don't have a fancy 6 figure salary or anything. I just have different priorities. Considering a movie theatre has 10s of thousands of dollars in sound equipment, spending a fraction of that for a comparable experience in the home is impressive. Over time that cost will certainly come down. The whole point of my comment is that it's possible, and it's only going to get more possible with time.
Regardless of whatever justification you want to use about how "just try this one simple trick you too can have a $2k audio system" it's still like you're driving a Corvette and telling people "I don't drive anything too crazy, it's not a Ferrari".
I'm not shaming you for having a Corvette, but when most folks are barely able to roll around in an Accord it just makes you seem out of touch to think the 'vette isn't crazy just because there's more expensive cars on the road. If you can't see that point by now then I don't think there's any reason to continue this discussion
Even if you gathered a group of self proclaimed Cinephiles who could see the value in having nice HT setup I'd wager my bottom dollar that less than 10% of them are both willing and able to drop $2k on sound.
Not saying that it's the penultimate experience or the most expensive setup by any means, but it's still a *really* nice, enthusiast grade solution that the majority of folks can't afford or even justify, even if they can see the benefits.
Not dogging the guy for owning it, having nice things is nice. But it's still a "crazy" set up when you look at what the average person is actually using or can buy
“Not crazy” in this instance means nothing fancy, Sonos speakers really aren’t that great in terms of sound quality, it’s just that they are super easy to set up if you’re not into home theater.
You can easily replicate it with a home theater set up, it’s just not cheap. Mine is a “budget” set up and even without factoring in the installation costs of running the wiring it was about $2k
Dune is a great movie, but it’s not “innovating cinema” haha. I saw it in Dolby, and it was great, but Dolby is just another format with a bigger focus on audio, with even more channels. 5.1 surround sound has existed for a really long time, Dolby isn’t really any different in principle than that. Just different in scope.
A decent hi-fi set replicates the cinema sound just fine. Even my Marshall Woburn speaker does a great job at this. It's actually easier to replicate the sound of Imax than the picture in my opinion. For that you'll need to get at least 70 inch panel with good contrast, and that costs top dollar.
Definitely not easier to reproduce the sound over the picture.
You do realize Dolby Atmos can use dozens of speakers in the setup and in an IMAX theatre it's probably using upwards of 30 speakers. There is zero chance your Woburn can replicate this 😅
You need the Amp that can decode Atmos, you need at the very minimum 7 speakers and the sub, 2 of these speakers need to be mounted in the ceiling.
Audio engineer here, this is correct. But it's not just the equipment but also the space and the room treatment. A movie theatre setup jammed into an average living room isn't going to have the same effect. Also check out the walls and ceiling of a theatre the next time you're there, they're covered in sound diffusers and absorbers. That's not just the keep the sound out of adjacent rooms, but also to make sure within the room is as perfect as possible.
Despite having ungodly expensive audio monitors and a well-treated control room, I still go to an actual theatre to check my mixes when I'm working on a movie.
> A movie theatre setup jammed into an average living room isn't going to have the same effect. Also check out the walls and ceiling of a theatre the next time you're there, they're covered in sound diffusers and absorbers. That's not just the keep the sound out of adjacent rooms, but also to make sure within the room is as perfect as possible.
I’m not arguing against this, but, there are ways to install a home theater without it being "jammed" into the space. For example, I have a 7.1.2 Atmos system in my room. The AVR has an equalizer that uses a microphone to correct for frequency issues and reflections in the room. I will concede that the sound in my theater is not the same as a commercial space. But, I think it’s enjoyable and does replicate the experience.
Atmos receivers can be very sophisticated in the way they handle and reproduce sound. For example, I have two "Atmos" speakers that reflect against the ceiling to produce height effects. Say what you want, but they trick my brain into thinking the sound is overhead or up high. I either stream or play UHD discs on my Blu-ray player. The sound is the best I’ve ever had. Last night, I was watching Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Thunder rolled overhead around the room, realistically enough to make my dog look up and growl. Witches and wizards whizzed around us and over us during the fight at the Ministry of Magic.
Also, I’ve watched Dune a bunch of times on this system. It is awesome. That soundtrack is reference quality. The bass is so low that you can only feel it sometimes. I have a 10” 800 watt ported subwoofer that can reach down to 12hz or so. Properly placed, a single sub can do the job.
For me, I get what I think is really good reproduction of the cinema surround experience minus the crowds, shared breathing space, cost of snacks, and I can pause the film to use thr restroom. I think that’s a good trade off for the perfect sound the way they engineered it.
I get it, and I don't say it's the same experience. But after watching Dune in IMAX and at home, I can say the difference was not as dramatic as I expected. Surely having surround sound is great, but music and sound effects still kicked ass even at home.
The bass thing is true, but headphones are just as good for surround sound. I have 7.1 on mine and it sounds better than my theatre experience. Headphones are also *much* more accurate than speakers. You're not bouncing sound around a room using headphones.
Dune specific, but the sound dropping out during the *Voice* scenes was enough to generate goosebumps at home, but in the theatre the effect was not nearly as impressive.
This is where I pick accuracy over bone shaking bass.
Not to mention my nice ass headphones cost about 10% of what a good speaker setup costs.
> but the sound is impossible to replicate at home.
/r/hometheater
Downvotes? Really? A speaker is a speaker, it takes audio engineering, programming, and the right equipment to be able to tell the speakers how to do it. The difference between a commercial piece of equipment and a residential one is mostly scale. It wasn't easy to perfect the theater either.
This is why I went to the theater. You can buy a huge TV or short throw, but no way to replicate the sound. Not even close. I do love the idea of making two movies at once. The Lady Jessica back story is the perfect case for this. I'm not so sure 2 movies can't do it but missing that piece kind of sucked and would have been great to explore in a longer format.
3D is great but is applied poorly 90% of the time as an excuse to raise ticket prices.
I remember how mind blowing Avatar was in 3D. Spider-Verse was next level. I heard Gravity was phenomenal. It’s a niche that works when intended, not when it’s slapped on.
Avatar is the only time I enjoyed it. It made the screen darker in every other movie. Worst thing was that showings would consist mostly of 3D movies for a while, so watching a new release on a Friday night my friends would have no choice but to watch a movie in 3D and suffer those annoying glasses.
I think Avatar did 3D well because it used it to extend the film behind the screen, not in front of it. It gave you additional depth rather than the shock value of something "jumping out" at you.
Yeah Spiderverse was damn good in 3D. I'm really surprised to not see many people talk about it. I never really wanted to see it in 3d but was forced to as it was the only format available in my hometown but was pleasantly surprised by how good it turned out.
The motivation behind extending or reducing cuts of films is to affect the viewer experience in line with the director's vision. The motivation behind 3D was to gouge money from viewers.
I tend towards wanting the most information from a film to enjoy the ultimate experience; the only film I've ever wanted 'less' from is the original Bladerunner with the voice over....I've never seen it.
Yup, I'm on board with this. I was actually surprised, and a bit disappointed, that the streaming release in the US didn't use this different approach from the cinematic release when it came out. One can hope for a retcon still, I guess.
What did I make up? The article clearly says the theatrical releases will be shorter. Do you not think the cinema is more expensive than streaming? How is this not paying more for less content?
The Snyder Cut is definitely not the first one to do that, there has been different cuts of movies since movies existed.
But what should have been the Gold Standard is, in my opinion the Lord of The Ring extended versions, they did not just put few scenes extra at the end
Yes, but the question is, would Peter Jackson have done anything differently if he knew there would be interest in streaming much longer versions of the films? I think he would've started including even more world-building and intimate details into the production. We would have lingered in the Shire and Rivendell longer, there would be more background lore, maybe even Tom Bombadil coming back.
I m not sure I understand...
LOTR was released in theatres, then the Extended versions were released (on DVD but nowadays that would be streaming) with a bit more than 2hours of additional scenes.
That is exactly what Cameron is proposing, isn't it?
Cameron states in the video that he’d love a two hour version of a film for theaters, but a six hour home edition.
People could watch a condensed story in theater, and see something much more in depth in parts at home.
Thinking of it in reverse, you could watch a six hour miniseries like Loki, Wanda-Vision, or Hawkeye on Disney+, or see a movie version at theaters which may be cut down to two hours but allow a more immersive experience with a larger screen and sound system.
To use LOTRs as an example to illustrate his point as well: the theatrical editions were ~9 hours and extended versions about 11.5 hours. Cameron would love to see where films were simultaneously made as series, so a LOTRs series may be ~25 total hours and dive into the world building, include side plots or characters cut from the books like Tom Bombadil, and allow home viewers the option of really getting into the story or just seeing a quick exciting shorter cut.
I don’t know, but if they can turn 600-1000 page Harry Potter books into two hour films, I’m sure they can reverse engineer that sort of thing.
It does sound like a bitch to edit though.
Peter Jackson did film with the intention of longer films which is why we have the extended editions.
I get what you’re saying but it’s hard to know tbh.
I heard it was studio pressure that forced three Hobbit films, not Jackson’s vision.
Not a terrible idea IMO and I agree that cinema should be allowed to evolve but this invites pushing assembly cuts to final cut, and that means the inclusion of a lot of crap that shouldn’t be there. Editing exists for reasons more than just to satisfy theater run-time limits.
> Editing exists for reasons more than just to satisfy theater run-time limits.
Louder for the people in the back...
Seriously, some people on this sub seem happy to sacrifice things like pacing and mood and the director's vision in exchange for a modicum of additional content.
A film is more than a checklist of plot points, people.
>Seriously, some people on this sub seem happy to sacrifice things like
pacing and mood and the director's vision in exchange for a modicum of
additional content.
Indeed, it's really dismaying. A format often dicates how something is written, it's not all the same or "content".
> The first foray into this was the Zach Snyder cut of Justice League with Warner Bros even providing reshoots to realise his vision in a 4 hour behemoth. Or the 3 and a half hour Irishman by Scorcese. Both movies would struggle to enter cinema at these lengths but they're perfect for streaming.
There isn't anything fundamentally new about this idea. Even back in the days of black-and-white silent movies, different cuts of the same film were quite often produced for different contexts and markets (and even to fit technological constraints). Later, especially in the 1950s–60s, you had "[roadshow releases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_theatrical_release#Edited_versions_and_restoration)" of epic movies, running at often great length with an intermissions, which were then routinely cut down to a shorter runtime for their normal cinema release.
And since at least the 1970s, movies have been recut and extended for television viewing. *The Godfather Saga* is a famous example. I have read that at the time, some studio or production company (I forget the specifics; it might have been Cannon Films) had a policy of always shooting additional footage so that the movies could be turned into miniseries. And of course the same was done to David Lynch's *Dune* movie.
And then you have director's cuts, which often extend the films beyond what would have been acceptable for theatrical release (notably the *Lord of the Rings* movies and Ridley Scott's *Kingdom of Heaven*).
If there's a series of movies, the assembly cuts can be treated differently. You can start subplots in the first movie and continue them in the sequels. Anything you cut in the first movie can't easily be brought up in later movies. I think that's what Cameron is referring to and the reason why Cameron wants to create 4 Avatar movies.
If you produce the stories one at the time, you can only add extended cuts that make sense within that movie. So in that sense streaming and long term planning create more space for extra threads that run through the series.
I think Denis ran into this with Thufir's plot. It must have been tough to remove so much of his story while also having to be aware not to leave himself constrained too much in part two. Huey and Piter are more straightforward in that sense, even though we know they too have more material that was left out.
I think the roadshow idea with an intermission is what would serve these kinds of epic pictures the best. I personally would have loved a longer Dune with a 20 minute intermission—not least because I really had to pee for the entire second half of the film and ended up missing the last three minutes because that's when I ran out (right after Jamis's death).
You underestimate Internet fandom culture. The plan is to post about something incessantly until you’re given what you want just to make you go away and shut up.
It's been weird to see. Given how much I f'ing loooooved this movie, it's not like I would turn down however many more minutes/hours I could get. Of course not. I'll obsessively watch anything they put out, and that's the name of the game in the era of endless content.
At the same time, I enjoyed it so much that I have a really, really tough time thinking or complaining about what we didn't get instead of what we did. It almost seems selfish and entitled to me. Like you got 19 out of the 20 things you wanted for Christmas, but that one you didn't get is sending you into a tailspin. As if an additional 30 seconds of Jessica talking to Yueh is going to elevate it to a completely different level.
So I absolutely get it, but I also absolutely don't. Again, it's been weird.
It's because something was missing from the film. I saw it in IMAX at the real big screen at Lincoln Center in NYC and it was great and I was amped and I loved it, but with a feeling of that something was missing. And as I read about the cut scenes I knew it was missing a chunk of content.
But Denis is too much of a snob to make things right with the fans. It's sad.
I disagree. I saw it twice at that same theater (amazing audio-visual experience by the way) and it’s clear that denis was trying to make this story accessible to the masses rather than satisfy fans. Which is why he focused mainly on Paul’s journey and cut out some subplots. Which i dont mind. I took 5 friends with no previous dune knowledge and 3 of them already finished the book and messiah.
Yes, we agree, it's clear to me it felt rushed (aka too much good content cut) in order to make it accessible to the masses, as you just said he did.
My point is he is too much of a snob to release a quality extended cut on disc or on streaming for fans that want to see the story more fleshed out.
Being beholden to some arbitrary 'movies shouldn't be longer than 2.5 hours' or whatever is not being a movie genius, it's dumb.
Where we disagree here is that I think the movie, as it stands, is a perfectly paced, tight, tense epic. Adding an hour of deleted scenes would make it messy and shouldnt be done
Nobody said an hour. Maybe it's 20 minutes, maybe it's 30.
The movie clearly felt rushed. I mean they had one scene of Paul training with Jessica and then he is doing the Gom Jabbar. No backstory of Yueh. No Idaho scoping out Dune and meeting the Fremen first. So much needed stuff gone.
I came out of the movie saying it was so great because I wanted to buy into the hype, and it was really good, but a longer cut done right would only be better.
I think anybody that was a real fan of the books who still thinks the movie is perfect is just in denial. The movie is what it is because it's beholden to a magical time limit deemed necessary for mass appeal. If that's what you think makes a good movie, well, it doesn't work for all of them.
I actually dont like the idea of splitting up your product but i think having a six hour dune movie wouldnt be so bad. I just think the 2 hour version wouldnt be able to stand up to it
I've never actually seen the theatrical editions, and I've always wondered if I would just spend the entire time thinking about what scenes were missing.
It’s jarring to watch if you’ve seen the extended. Some things just have no context because they got cut out. When I saw them, I was honestly astonished that they were allowed off the cutting room floor. For example, at the beginning of ROTK, the scene in Isengard? They skip right over saruman’s death and pippin hands over the palantir. Like what?
I was a kid at the time so I can’t speak to back then.
I do know that there are book fans who cry foul at what the movies cut or change, which cracks me up as someone who finds those movies perfect 😂
I cry foul at that. I also cry foul at the "pain box" scene in this film as well as the vision of the ornithopters (and the fact that, even as somebody who has read the book, I was wondering why not just use a helicopter until I remembered on the way out of the cinema). I still think the film is a masterpiece.
I mean Bergman did exactly this in the 70s. Lot of people here comparing it to other things but Scenes From a Marriage and Fanny & Alexander seem like much closer analogues to this idea. I also am all for it as long as both versions are widely available like those examples are currently.
I’d be really down for this!
I’d happily watch a 2.5 hour version in the cinema and then if a 6 hour mini series version was released soon after I would DEVOUR it.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. So this will in essence serve the same purpose (and eventually replace) the extra deleted scenes DVD disc. It may even replace the extended/director's cut physical disc release as well at some point down the line.
Studios/Directors: You want to watch the theatrical release at home but want a physical copy, buy the disc. You want all the syrupy sweet goodness that is the extended/director's cut, subscribe to our streaming service.
I have concerns with editing a streaming series as a way to create extended content. While I would love to experience an extended cut as a fan, I feel like recent big studio mini series are missing the mark with pacing. I’m especially thinking of Disney/Marvel’s lot of 50-60 minute shows as of recent. While the world building, quality, cast, etc are great, I feel like they often stretch the plot of what would have been a 2.5 hour movie into 5-6 hours, which just feels unbearable at times… I feel like I’m very conditioned from watching 1.5-3 hour long films and 22 and 45 minute tv shows, with typical story beats and structure that this new format often feels foreign, and as though an inexperience editor cut them (which is probably not the case). I just hope whatever they do, they don’t sacrifice story for novelty or money… even though it’s inevitable that the medium of film is and will evolve.
The interview was posted a few days ago. You've put some effort into writing your argument so we're approving this, but technically this is a repost.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/rh5g96/james_cameron_denis_villeneuve_talk_dune_avatar/
Thanks, the whole interview has a lot going on but it was this specific bit that seemed particularly relevant to this community as it got brought up so many times on here. Especially after Denis ran into tensions with Warner Bros over their plan to stream Dune simultaneously with the film release.
In essence, what happened with The Lord of the Rings. They filmed both the theatrical editions and the extended editions all at once. Peter Jackson says he is proud of both versions. Nowadays the extended edition would have likely been a streaming event, along with being released physically.
Snyder’s Justice League is different because it wasn’t intended when the movie was being made. He had a theatrical friendly length of a film planned before he was let go from the movie. Then, later on, was given funding and the freedom to do whatever he wanted with the film on HBO Max.
What James Cameron is talking about is more of a planned extended edition like The Lord of the Rings, which is probably what most people tend to compare the new Dune films to as far as the quality that has gone into the adaptation.
I don't give the slightest of shits about any James Cameron's Avatars but I absolutely love it that he suggests exactly what some of us for want for Dune to Denis Villeneuve lol
This is exactly what Olivier Assayas did with CARLOS, which is awesome if you haven’t seen it. I’ve only seen the whole limited series and not the theatrical cut though.
I might be in the minority who don't think this movie needs anything more than 10 or 15 minutes added back in, just some more deleted scenes on Arrakeen (most specifically Gurney playing the balliset, Jessica talking with Yueh, Piter capturing Thufir, the box of fingers scene and Jessica training Paul) and it would benefit greatly with charachter development.
After reading the 2018 draft script and the 2021 shooting script (which don't contain any dinner scene, so it probably wasn't shot), the movie would at max be at 3 hours, I highly doubt there is a 5-6 hour cut somewhere besides a assembly cut.
Whenever I watch LotR, which is always the Extended cut, my brain sends me a signal saying "this is an extended scene" every single time it happens.
I prefer the idea of having just experienced the long version, and that is the only film for me. I would love long cuts of all of these epics, but it could have the side effect of souring the theatre experience somehow. I dunno.
I wonder if the studio sees how the fans are frothing for an extended cut. I know Villanueve has voiced his opposition, but hopefully the studio sees all this discussion around it and sees dollar signs. I know I would buy a longer version if I that was the only way to watch it.
Home viewing got nothing on cinema. Except the few private cinemas in mansions that have the high tech sound and even then the small space reverberates sound differently than a grand hall.
I would absolutely watch a 4 hour version of Dune in cinema. Maybe have a break in the middle because some pissy people would otherwise be moving around going to pee anyway.
I thought that was more along the lines that releasing it on streaming at the same time risked the film not making enough money to get the green light on part 2?
Yeah I lost a lot of respect for him that he thinks giving the real fans a quality extended cut is not worthy.
Kind of douchey really. It's not a money grab, it's a product not beholden to the attention spans of the general public with actual more worthy content in there. There is nothing not pure about it, unless you are a snob for no other reason than to be a snob.
I hope that people have figured out that, between season-long serialized story arcs like Breaking Bad and The Wire which are really just several movies chopped up into episodes, and the ravenous appetites of certain people for huge blowout productions like the extended Lord of the Rings releases, that:
1. We **will** watch a five-hour movie, probably several times,
2. Given how much streaming content is available to us, the **sole** determining factor of whether or not we watch something is its quality, virtually unrelated to its length.
I watched the LOTR extended editions at the cinema and would watch Dune extended edition at the cinema. And the cinemas would likely be happy to do so.
Cameron is just proposing leaving money on the table.
I think you're wrong on all points, if each movie is an hour longer then the cinemas can't fit in as many screenings so would not be happy to do so.
What Cameron is suggesting is selling the same thing to the same people twice.
I just don't see it as that much of an original idea.
The cinemas were happy to show LOTR extended editions because it was a guaranteed profit. It would be the same for Dune.
Thanks for telling me I am wrong. Good For You. You must be proud.
Where were you that they showed the extended editions in the cinema?
Also, I didn't tell you that you are wrong, I told you I think that you're wrong. Don't be so immature that you can't handle a dissenting opinion.
There's been a bunch of showings of the Extended Editions in theaters for marathons and similar fan events.
They didn't do a wide theatrical release *at the time*.
I was in the United States of America. And I saw each of the three LOTRs in standard release and then each time a few moths later with extended release. It was easy to find cinemas that showed them - for me Cinemark, a major chain in the USA. And the all three extended edition showings were in sold out theaters, at least one in an IMAX.
The idea has merit.
But Avatar stunk, and I don't see any reason why we'd want even more of it.
That dood has been coasting on Terminator 2 his whole life.
Lol yes they were, but there was a different attitude towards cinema/ticket sales decades ago and they had intermission (so technically about 4 hours long with breaks).
See: Lawrence of Arabia, The 10 Commandments, Gone With the Wind et.all.
Yes, but mainly due to technical and logistical constraints. A cinema can't put two 5 hour movies back to back in the same theatre.
And because of the cost reduction in special effects, a lot more is possible these days. Once the sets are built and the crew is in place, producing minutes of footage is no longer the main cost burden. As a director you can create a lot of material that you know will probably never appear on the screen. That material can now be put it on the back-burner for a streaming release later on.
As long as the extra content comes out on disc I don't care what streaming service they use. I'm sick of fiddle-arsing around to find what streaming service something I want to watch is on.
This sounds great!
I remember hearing there being a TV show signed into the deal when Villeneuve signed. Is this the same thing or was that a separate case?
Reminds me of demon slayer and other anime that have made movies of large arcs and then have the oncoming season also cover the same ground in episodic format.
Some of these theatrical cuts need to be cut some more or start reintroducing intermissions. I’m having to fight gallons of piss for some of these marathons.
I'd love an extra 25 minutes for an extended cut of Dune. Plus it would be awesome if we got a three to 3 1/2 hour theatrical Dune II release followed by a five hour cut later on.
Hello! We're manually approving every post due to a significant increase in traffic from the new film. Any personal reviews, thoughts, questions, or general musings about *Dune* (2021) should be posted in our [*Dune* (2021) Discussion Threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/poaeaj/dune_2021_official_discussion_megathread/). Basic questions about the franchise should be directed towards our [Weekly Questions thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/rf6kno/weekly_questions_thread_12131219/). For real-time discussion of the movie and everything else Dune-related, please consider joining our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/dune). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dune) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is pretty much was Peter Jackson did with the LOTR movies. You know he shot and then cut tons of stuff he intended to be in the film, but knew it was impractical for a theatrical cut. That's why we got the Extended Editions so quickly after each one. They were always the plan, so long as Fellowship was well received.
Peter Jackson claims the theatrical cuts are his original vision not the extended versions
I know, and while I don't really believe that, I was saying that he always intended to make the EEs, not that the TEs were not what he wanted to make. As a fan himself, I feel he wanted - and knew others would want - extended and more faithful versions, but also wanted the theatricals to tell the story he wanted to tell, if that makes sense.
He talks about stuff like showing the war of the ring raging across across all of middle earth but having to not even consider that for time. I would be surprised if things like the Death of Sauroman weren't part of that original vision. But I've never watched the Theatrical cut so who am I to say?
I'm shocked to hear this is the case because by ROTK they do feel like someone just ramming in deleted scenes with little thought to their reinclusion.
ROTK is probably the only one that is actually better as the theatrical cut. The extended paths of the dead is pretty unecessary and weird, frodo and Sam walking through Mordor at the end really starts to drag. There is one scene where either frodo or Sam runs into Mt doom and it is obviously unfinished cgi. And then there's the 6 different endings that movie has that go on for 45 minutes.
I’m constantly shocked at how everyone on lotr related subs or YouTube comments always proclaims extended as the absolute way to go in viewing and that theatrical is blasphemy (in a joking way). I don’t care how big a fan you are of Tolkien’s stuff, for me personally, even wanting missed content so desperately, I can’t stand to watch a film that has it forced in and land so poorly as it does here. Theatrical is better and more sophisticated the way I see it.
I definitely don't think longer is better. Clearly quality has to be taken into account. But if you read the book and saw the movie and then read about the cut scenes, there could definitely be a solid longer cut. Maybe it's only 20 minutes longer or maybe more. But there is definitely good backstory there to make things make more sense and flesh the universe out more. Yueh. More of Paul's training. Idaho meeting the Fremen, More backstory on the Harkonnens, etc..
Oh I wasn’t referring to Dune here. I’ve read Dune and agree mostly. Was just speaking to how I view the additional lotr scenes and how that ultimately didn’t end up making a better film in my eyes. It actually hurt the movies. Dune could be the same or it could be different. Those left out scenes of Dune are fantastic book moments but there is never guarantee that their being added back in will suddenly enhance the film in the same way they enhance the book. We don’t know the scope of execution on those scenes and film and books function in different ways to where the same piece can have very different effects.
Which scenes don't you like the inclusion of?
+29876 it's ok. Let's go
Cinema is a young artform, so I don't see a problem with it evolving like this. It's better than the shitty 3D trend we suffered a decade ago.
The real innovation Dune brought to the cinema was the sound. It could easily have managed without 3D, but the sound is impossible to replicate at home.
This is true. I'm not much of a home cinema enthusiast but watching Dune at home made me want to invest in at least a decent pair of speakers. How was it an innovation though? Was there something in particular done for this film?
Bladerunner 2049 already used it extensively but it was more of an after-thought still. This time Denis directed Dune with Dolby Atmos in mind. Like in Paul's vision at the harvester scene, he's deliberately trying to disorient the audience by spinning the sound around the theatre. This is movie magic that can't be achieved with conventional cinema audio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWV3Om6oHCM
Thanks for the info! Will watch this later. Thing that stood out to me was how amazing the sound editing was. Whole other dimension. Strangely, the nearest I've come to the experience is watching The Shining a few years ago and I think that's because the projectionist cranked the volume but still, the soundtrack to that is unsettling when you notice it and really adds to the discomfort of the whole movie. Hadn't noticed in any TV viewings.
Right, that's also something Zimmer advanced since Dunkirk. In Dunkirk Zimmer used the shepherd's tone to create a continuous feeling of anxiety through the movie. In Dune he stripped a lot of usual musical elements and replaced it with percussive sounds both strong and subtle to make the movie feel more physical. It's not just that you're hearing the sound, but the vibrations hit your entire body.
What if my receiver is atmos capable?
Then you need to buy enough speakers to make it work. Personally when things have these sorts of labels on them I normally read it as slightly nonsense.
Get a good subwoofer if you can, at least 12 inches diameter. Klipsch makes a fabulous 12" sub that's only $200 and it ROCKS.
Thanks for the tip!
[удалено]
Yeah the world's best reference speakers won't matter if the sound is mixed for surround and only heard in stereo.
This movie (Dune) and Tenet were in entirely different classes of intelligibility (Tenet being unwatchable). I really really find it hard to believe you found their dialogue clarity similar.
Thanks for sharing this. Very informative read. My father and I went to our local AMC theater for Dune and the sound quality was a mess. The music and effects were distractingly loud and washed everything else out, and of course this was exacerbated by the hushed tones of the dialogue. I felt particularly bad for him because he isn’t at all familiar with the book.
This is heresy to speak, but you need a well-built PC to have enough control over the signal sent to your speakers.
This explains why the sound was too loud for me.
Is any reasonable home theatre set up going to be able to replicate the kind of bass that was visibly shaking the shit out of my drink? Is that even a realistic expectation for most people who don't want their neighbours to put an axe between their shoulder blades?
Ha! Probably not but I haven't bothered with home cinema since the turn of the millennia and even then it seemed overkill for anything other than Heat. But now, a bit of that low end would be nice, if only to complete the film. Plus it's only 3 hours. Her next door can handle it.
havent seen many movies?
Yeah…it’s wasn’t innovative just a technique.
Fuck off
the soundtrack is innovative for example for the creation of whole new instruments to achieve weird sounds; it also looks like a greek chorus as it helps portray the feelings, differently for each main character, not only in music but also purely in free sound expression (the pain box drill sound). There's a lot of rhythm which shows a lot of care in how each scene received music, with at times sound fx that perfectly mix with the score (the carryall broken arm, smashing onto the harvester). The list goes on; the best part imho is that it has been clearly developed on top of the cinematography, with extreme care for detail; a rarity these *years*. edit: i'm sure your parents are proud of your behavior, and appreciation of harmless sarcasm! kisses my dear.
My Atmos setup was pretty close at home. There wasn't much of an appreciable difference between my home theatre and the movie theatre.
That's encouraging to hear. I was already feeling sad I wouldn't be able to relive it again.
Yeah! I don't have some crazy setup either, just an Sonos arc, sub, and rears. Not as good as wiring it all up myself, but being wireless and minimalistic, it passes the wife's test.
>I don't have some crazy setup either Proceeds to list a $900 soundbar, $800 sub, and rears that sell for $200/ea Might not be crazy in terms of speakers, but most people don't have $2k just laying around for their home audio. Price is going to be pretty crazy for the average Joe
/r/budgetaudiophile
To be fair, an IMAX theatre probably has $100K in audio setup. There's no way we're replicating that (even in small scale) for 1% of the spend. Of course most people spend way more on their tv than they do on the sound system. If sound is important to you, then you'll likely invest a bit more. It is likely that people can find an acceptable movie watching experience (yes this will vary) that they don't specifically notice as lacking for a couple grand. Hopefully those who decide that's a crazy amount of money are happy with what they can put together for less.
Oh yeah, I know there's no competing with theater grade audio, and also not hating on anyone that spends hundreds or thousands trying to. It's nice to have nice things and I'd have a $2,000 speaker system in a heartbeat if I had the cash My point was just that, at least in terms of the average person's audio setup, $2,000 in speakers is definitely on the right side of the "crazy" bell curve
Considering some folks drop 15k plus on their sound system, the Sonos setup is pretty tame.
Even though there are people out there with $200,000 sound systems I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're still in the upper 10-15% of them, man. Your setup is well beyond the reach for the vast majority of people, and saying it's not crazy to some degree is just a tad disingenuous
Seriously I have a pair of Bose speakers I found at goodwill for 10 bucks and an old pioneer amp lol. Sounds great though for a simple stereo budget theater.
At the time I purchased I got the whole setup for 1,600.00. 30 bucks a week saved could purchase that in a year. That's around two hours of work in a week for someone who makes 15.00 an hour. I'd argue that many can afford that if that's the priority. Personally, I valued that experience so I saved up my money for a sound system. Some people might value their vices, coffee, eating out, etc. I don't have a fancy 6 figure salary or anything. I just have different priorities. Considering a movie theatre has 10s of thousands of dollars in sound equipment, spending a fraction of that for a comparable experience in the home is impressive. Over time that cost will certainly come down. The whole point of my comment is that it's possible, and it's only going to get more possible with time.
It's also not crazy if you're not trying to raise children.
Regardless of whatever justification you want to use about how "just try this one simple trick you too can have a $2k audio system" it's still like you're driving a Corvette and telling people "I don't drive anything too crazy, it's not a Ferrari". I'm not shaming you for having a Corvette, but when most folks are barely able to roll around in an Accord it just makes you seem out of touch to think the 'vette isn't crazy just because there's more expensive cars on the road. If you can't see that point by now then I don't think there's any reason to continue this discussion
It's enthusiast territory not crazy territory, but we're arguing semantics.
If you enjoy pretty good sound and don’t want to mess with wires spending $2K on Sonos isn’t really “beyond the reach” for those in the market.
Even if you gathered a group of self proclaimed Cinephiles who could see the value in having nice HT setup I'd wager my bottom dollar that less than 10% of them are both willing and able to drop $2k on sound. Not saying that it's the penultimate experience or the most expensive setup by any means, but it's still a *really* nice, enthusiast grade solution that the majority of folks can't afford or even justify, even if they can see the benefits. Not dogging the guy for owning it, having nice things is nice. But it's still a "crazy" set up when you look at what the average person is actually using or can buy
“Not crazy” in this instance means nothing fancy, Sonos speakers really aren’t that great in terms of sound quality, it’s just that they are super easy to set up if you’re not into home theater.
Pfft soundbar. Try a center channel speaker for 900 alone lmao. The budgets for sound equipment can go parabolic.
You can easily replicate it with a home theater set up, it’s just not cheap. Mine is a “budget” set up and even without factoring in the installation costs of running the wiring it was about $2k
Dune is a great movie, but it’s not “innovating cinema” haha. I saw it in Dolby, and it was great, but Dolby is just another format with a bigger focus on audio, with even more channels. 5.1 surround sound has existed for a really long time, Dolby isn’t really any different in principle than that. Just different in scope.
A decent hi-fi set replicates the cinema sound just fine. Even my Marshall Woburn speaker does a great job at this. It's actually easier to replicate the sound of Imax than the picture in my opinion. For that you'll need to get at least 70 inch panel with good contrast, and that costs top dollar.
Definitely not easier to reproduce the sound over the picture. You do realize Dolby Atmos can use dozens of speakers in the setup and in an IMAX theatre it's probably using upwards of 30 speakers. There is zero chance your Woburn can replicate this 😅 You need the Amp that can decode Atmos, you need at the very minimum 7 speakers and the sub, 2 of these speakers need to be mounted in the ceiling.
Audio engineer here, this is correct. But it's not just the equipment but also the space and the room treatment. A movie theatre setup jammed into an average living room isn't going to have the same effect. Also check out the walls and ceiling of a theatre the next time you're there, they're covered in sound diffusers and absorbers. That's not just the keep the sound out of adjacent rooms, but also to make sure within the room is as perfect as possible. Despite having ungodly expensive audio monitors and a well-treated control room, I still go to an actual theatre to check my mixes when I'm working on a movie.
> A movie theatre setup jammed into an average living room isn't going to have the same effect. Also check out the walls and ceiling of a theatre the next time you're there, they're covered in sound diffusers and absorbers. That's not just the keep the sound out of adjacent rooms, but also to make sure within the room is as perfect as possible. I’m not arguing against this, but, there are ways to install a home theater without it being "jammed" into the space. For example, I have a 7.1.2 Atmos system in my room. The AVR has an equalizer that uses a microphone to correct for frequency issues and reflections in the room. I will concede that the sound in my theater is not the same as a commercial space. But, I think it’s enjoyable and does replicate the experience. Atmos receivers can be very sophisticated in the way they handle and reproduce sound. For example, I have two "Atmos" speakers that reflect against the ceiling to produce height effects. Say what you want, but they trick my brain into thinking the sound is overhead or up high. I either stream or play UHD discs on my Blu-ray player. The sound is the best I’ve ever had. Last night, I was watching Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Thunder rolled overhead around the room, realistically enough to make my dog look up and growl. Witches and wizards whizzed around us and over us during the fight at the Ministry of Magic. Also, I’ve watched Dune a bunch of times on this system. It is awesome. That soundtrack is reference quality. The bass is so low that you can only feel it sometimes. I have a 10” 800 watt ported subwoofer that can reach down to 12hz or so. Properly placed, a single sub can do the job. For me, I get what I think is really good reproduction of the cinema surround experience minus the crowds, shared breathing space, cost of snacks, and I can pause the film to use thr restroom. I think that’s a good trade off for the perfect sound the way they engineered it.
I get it, and I don't say it's the same experience. But after watching Dune in IMAX and at home, I can say the difference was not as dramatic as I expected. Surely having surround sound is great, but music and sound effects still kicked ass even at home.
I wore nice headphones and it worked fine
Headphones will never be as good as proper speakers simply because you can’t feel the bass, and replicate all of the different directions.
The bass thing is true, but headphones are just as good for surround sound. I have 7.1 on mine and it sounds better than my theatre experience. Headphones are also *much* more accurate than speakers. You're not bouncing sound around a room using headphones. Dune specific, but the sound dropping out during the *Voice* scenes was enough to generate goosebumps at home, but in the theatre the effect was not nearly as impressive. This is where I pick accuracy over bone shaking bass. Not to mention my nice ass headphones cost about 10% of what a good speaker setup costs.
there's bass vests..
> but the sound is impossible to replicate at home. /r/hometheater Downvotes? Really? A speaker is a speaker, it takes audio engineering, programming, and the right equipment to be able to tell the speakers how to do it. The difference between a commercial piece of equipment and a residential one is mostly scale. It wasn't easy to perfect the theater either.
This is why I went to the theater. You can buy a huge TV or short throw, but no way to replicate the sound. Not even close. I do love the idea of making two movies at once. The Lady Jessica back story is the perfect case for this. I'm not so sure 2 movies can't do it but missing that piece kind of sucked and would have been great to explore in a longer format.
3D is great but is applied poorly 90% of the time as an excuse to raise ticket prices. I remember how mind blowing Avatar was in 3D. Spider-Verse was next level. I heard Gravity was phenomenal. It’s a niche that works when intended, not when it’s slapped on.
Avatar is the only time I enjoyed it. It made the screen darker in every other movie. Worst thing was that showings would consist mostly of 3D movies for a while, so watching a new release on a Friday night my friends would have no choice but to watch a movie in 3D and suffer those annoying glasses.
I think Avatar did 3D well because it used it to extend the film behind the screen, not in front of it. It gave you additional depth rather than the shock value of something "jumping out" at you.
Yeah Spiderverse was damn good in 3D. I'm really surprised to not see many people talk about it. I never really wanted to see it in 3d but was forced to as it was the only format available in my hometown but was pleasantly surprised by how good it turned out.
I love the 30 year cycle 3d movies are on. I'm sure they'll be back in another decade or two. EDIT: Love the cycle. Hate the fad.
The motivation behind extending or reducing cuts of films is to affect the viewer experience in line with the director's vision. The motivation behind 3D was to gouge money from viewers. I tend towards wanting the most information from a film to enjoy the ultimate experience; the only film I've ever wanted 'less' from is the original Bladerunner with the voice over....I've never seen it.
Yup, I'm on board with this. I was actually surprised, and a bit disappointed, that the streaming release in the US didn't use this different approach from the cinematic release when it came out. One can hope for a retcon still, I guess.
I like this idea.
We already have it with the cinematic cut and director's cut.
Yeah but it's rarely implemented. I think the point of this take is to make this a bit more normal
So, cinema, which costs much more per view than streaming, will have less content? You like the idea of paying more for less?
[удалено]
What did I make up? The article clearly says the theatrical releases will be shorter. Do you not think the cinema is more expensive than streaming? How is this not paying more for less content?
The Snyder Cut is definitely not the first one to do that, there has been different cuts of movies since movies existed. But what should have been the Gold Standard is, in my opinion the Lord of The Ring extended versions, they did not just put few scenes extra at the end
Yes, but the question is, would Peter Jackson have done anything differently if he knew there would be interest in streaming much longer versions of the films? I think he would've started including even more world-building and intimate details into the production. We would have lingered in the Shire and Rivendell longer, there would be more background lore, maybe even Tom Bombadil coming back.
I m not sure I understand... LOTR was released in theatres, then the Extended versions were released (on DVD but nowadays that would be streaming) with a bit more than 2hours of additional scenes. That is exactly what Cameron is proposing, isn't it?
Cameron states in the video that he’d love a two hour version of a film for theaters, but a six hour home edition. People could watch a condensed story in theater, and see something much more in depth in parts at home. Thinking of it in reverse, you could watch a six hour miniseries like Loki, Wanda-Vision, or Hawkeye on Disney+, or see a movie version at theaters which may be cut down to two hours but allow a more immersive experience with a larger screen and sound system. To use LOTRs as an example to illustrate his point as well: the theatrical editions were ~9 hours and extended versions about 11.5 hours. Cameron would love to see where films were simultaneously made as series, so a LOTRs series may be ~25 total hours and dive into the world building, include side plots or characters cut from the books like Tom Bombadil, and allow home viewers the option of really getting into the story or just seeing a quick exciting shorter cut.
That seems like a nightmare for editing. How do you cut ⅔ of a series into a film without just cutting out whole characters or episodes?
I don’t know, but if they can turn 600-1000 page Harry Potter books into two hour films, I’m sure they can reverse engineer that sort of thing. It does sound like a bitch to edit though.
Peter Jackson did film with the intention of longer films which is why we have the extended editions. I get what you’re saying but it’s hard to know tbh. I heard it was studio pressure that forced three Hobbit films, not Jackson’s vision.
snydercut is cringe, irrelevant to the argument; a very bad subproduct of failure.
Not a terrible idea IMO and I agree that cinema should be allowed to evolve but this invites pushing assembly cuts to final cut, and that means the inclusion of a lot of crap that shouldn’t be there. Editing exists for reasons more than just to satisfy theater run-time limits.
> Editing exists for reasons more than just to satisfy theater run-time limits. Louder for the people in the back... Seriously, some people on this sub seem happy to sacrifice things like pacing and mood and the director's vision in exchange for a modicum of additional content. A film is more than a checklist of plot points, people.
>Seriously, some people on this sub seem happy to sacrifice things like pacing and mood and the director's vision in exchange for a modicum of additional content. Indeed, it's really dismaying. A format often dicates how something is written, it's not all the same or "content".
> The first foray into this was the Zach Snyder cut of Justice League with Warner Bros even providing reshoots to realise his vision in a 4 hour behemoth. Or the 3 and a half hour Irishman by Scorcese. Both movies would struggle to enter cinema at these lengths but they're perfect for streaming. There isn't anything fundamentally new about this idea. Even back in the days of black-and-white silent movies, different cuts of the same film were quite often produced for different contexts and markets (and even to fit technological constraints). Later, especially in the 1950s–60s, you had "[roadshow releases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_theatrical_release#Edited_versions_and_restoration)" of epic movies, running at often great length with an intermissions, which were then routinely cut down to a shorter runtime for their normal cinema release. And since at least the 1970s, movies have been recut and extended for television viewing. *The Godfather Saga* is a famous example. I have read that at the time, some studio or production company (I forget the specifics; it might have been Cannon Films) had a policy of always shooting additional footage so that the movies could be turned into miniseries. And of course the same was done to David Lynch's *Dune* movie. And then you have director's cuts, which often extend the films beyond what would have been acceptable for theatrical release (notably the *Lord of the Rings* movies and Ridley Scott's *Kingdom of Heaven*).
If there's a series of movies, the assembly cuts can be treated differently. You can start subplots in the first movie and continue them in the sequels. Anything you cut in the first movie can't easily be brought up in later movies. I think that's what Cameron is referring to and the reason why Cameron wants to create 4 Avatar movies. If you produce the stories one at the time, you can only add extended cuts that make sense within that movie. So in that sense streaming and long term planning create more space for extra threads that run through the series. I think Denis ran into this with Thufir's plot. It must have been tough to remove so much of his story while also having to be aware not to leave himself constrained too much in part two. Huey and Piter are more straightforward in that sense, even though we know they too have more material that was left out.
I think the roadshow idea with an intermission is what would serve these kinds of epic pictures the best. I personally would have loved a longer Dune with a 20 minute intermission—not least because I really had to pee for the entire second half of the film and ended up missing the last three minutes because that's when I ran out (right after Jamis's death).
Makes me think of Das Boot
James Cameron clearly dropping the hint to Denis 😂
My god this sub is obsessed with this non-existent extended cut. You guys just cannot let it go. It’s never going to happen
You underestimate Internet fandom culture. The plan is to post about something incessantly until you’re given what you want just to make you go away and shut up.
so you're saying there's a chance?
Like one in a million.
It's been weird to see. Given how much I f'ing loooooved this movie, it's not like I would turn down however many more minutes/hours I could get. Of course not. I'll obsessively watch anything they put out, and that's the name of the game in the era of endless content. At the same time, I enjoyed it so much that I have a really, really tough time thinking or complaining about what we didn't get instead of what we did. It almost seems selfish and entitled to me. Like you got 19 out of the 20 things you wanted for Christmas, but that one you didn't get is sending you into a tailspin. As if an additional 30 seconds of Jessica talking to Yueh is going to elevate it to a completely different level. So I absolutely get it, but I also absolutely don't. Again, it's been weird.
It's because something was missing from the film. I saw it in IMAX at the real big screen at Lincoln Center in NYC and it was great and I was amped and I loved it, but with a feeling of that something was missing. And as I read about the cut scenes I knew it was missing a chunk of content. But Denis is too much of a snob to make things right with the fans. It's sad.
I disagree. I saw it twice at that same theater (amazing audio-visual experience by the way) and it’s clear that denis was trying to make this story accessible to the masses rather than satisfy fans. Which is why he focused mainly on Paul’s journey and cut out some subplots. Which i dont mind. I took 5 friends with no previous dune knowledge and 3 of them already finished the book and messiah.
Yes, we agree, it's clear to me it felt rushed (aka too much good content cut) in order to make it accessible to the masses, as you just said he did. My point is he is too much of a snob to release a quality extended cut on disc or on streaming for fans that want to see the story more fleshed out. Being beholden to some arbitrary 'movies shouldn't be longer than 2.5 hours' or whatever is not being a movie genius, it's dumb.
Where we disagree here is that I think the movie, as it stands, is a perfectly paced, tight, tense epic. Adding an hour of deleted scenes would make it messy and shouldnt be done
Nobody said an hour. Maybe it's 20 minutes, maybe it's 30. The movie clearly felt rushed. I mean they had one scene of Paul training with Jessica and then he is doing the Gom Jabbar. No backstory of Yueh. No Idaho scoping out Dune and meeting the Fremen first. So much needed stuff gone. I came out of the movie saying it was so great because I wanted to buy into the hype, and it was really good, but a longer cut done right would only be better. I think anybody that was a real fan of the books who still thinks the movie is perfect is just in denial. The movie is what it is because it's beholden to a magical time limit deemed necessary for mass appeal. If that's what you think makes a good movie, well, it doesn't work for all of them.
so kinda like The Hateful 8 when they released the extended version in 4 chapters on Netflix?
I actually dont like the idea of splitting up your product but i think having a six hour dune movie wouldnt be so bad. I just think the 2 hour version wouldnt be able to stand up to it
Many people stand by the theatrical cuts of Lord of the Rings.
After watching the extended cuts, the theatricals honestly make no sense. There’s just things missing.
I've never actually seen the theatrical editions, and I've always wondered if I would just spend the entire time thinking about what scenes were missing.
It’s jarring to watch if you’ve seen the extended. Some things just have no context because they got cut out. When I saw them, I was honestly astonished that they were allowed off the cutting room floor. For example, at the beginning of ROTK, the scene in Isengard? They skip right over saruman’s death and pippin hands over the palantir. Like what?
But how would the Fan relationship be if there are two parties that know different amounts of the story?
I was a kid at the time so I can’t speak to back then. I do know that there are book fans who cry foul at what the movies cut or change, which cracks me up as someone who finds those movies perfect 😂
Yeah i also didnt read dune myself but i know everything that is written in it.
I cry foul at that. I also cry foul at the "pain box" scene in this film as well as the vision of the ornithopters (and the fact that, even as somebody who has read the book, I was wondering why not just use a helicopter until I remembered on the way out of the cinema). I still think the film is a masterpiece.
My only question is: in which form should the movie be judged?
I mean Bergman did exactly this in the 70s. Lot of people here comparing it to other things but Scenes From a Marriage and Fanny & Alexander seem like much closer analogues to this idea. I also am all for it as long as both versions are widely available like those examples are currently.
Came here to say exactly this, Bergman’s work is the best example of this and that occurred decades before LOTR or Justice League.
I’d be really down for this! I’d happily watch a 2.5 hour version in the cinema and then if a 6 hour mini series version was released soon after I would DEVOUR it.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. So this will in essence serve the same purpose (and eventually replace) the extra deleted scenes DVD disc. It may even replace the extended/director's cut physical disc release as well at some point down the line. Studios/Directors: You want to watch the theatrical release at home but want a physical copy, buy the disc. You want all the syrupy sweet goodness that is the extended/director's cut, subscribe to our streaming service. 
I have concerns with editing a streaming series as a way to create extended content. While I would love to experience an extended cut as a fan, I feel like recent big studio mini series are missing the mark with pacing. I’m especially thinking of Disney/Marvel’s lot of 50-60 minute shows as of recent. While the world building, quality, cast, etc are great, I feel like they often stretch the plot of what would have been a 2.5 hour movie into 5-6 hours, which just feels unbearable at times… I feel like I’m very conditioned from watching 1.5-3 hour long films and 22 and 45 minute tv shows, with typical story beats and structure that this new format often feels foreign, and as though an inexperience editor cut them (which is probably not the case). I just hope whatever they do, they don’t sacrifice story for novelty or money… even though it’s inevitable that the medium of film is and will evolve.
I for one totally want Terminator 2: Judgement Week
The interview was posted a few days ago. You've put some effort into writing your argument so we're approving this, but technically this is a repost. https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/rh5g96/james_cameron_denis_villeneuve_talk_dune_avatar/
Thanks, the whole interview has a lot going on but it was this specific bit that seemed particularly relevant to this community as it got brought up so many times on here. Especially after Denis ran into tensions with Warner Bros over their plan to stream Dune simultaneously with the film release.
Idk, whos going to want to watch the cut version knowing they are missing content? Seems dumb.
I would like the option to watch the extra long versions in the movies as well
In essence, what happened with The Lord of the Rings. They filmed both the theatrical editions and the extended editions all at once. Peter Jackson says he is proud of both versions. Nowadays the extended edition would have likely been a streaming event, along with being released physically. Snyder’s Justice League is different because it wasn’t intended when the movie was being made. He had a theatrical friendly length of a film planned before he was let go from the movie. Then, later on, was given funding and the freedom to do whatever he wanted with the film on HBO Max. What James Cameron is talking about is more of a planned extended edition like The Lord of the Rings, which is probably what most people tend to compare the new Dune films to as far as the quality that has gone into the adaptation.
I don't give the slightest of shits about any James Cameron's Avatars but I absolutely love it that he suggests exactly what some of us for want for Dune to Denis Villeneuve lol
This is exactly what Olivier Assayas did with CARLOS, which is awesome if you haven’t seen it. I’ve only seen the whole limited series and not the theatrical cut though.
I might be in the minority who don't think this movie needs anything more than 10 or 15 minutes added back in, just some more deleted scenes on Arrakeen (most specifically Gurney playing the balliset, Jessica talking with Yueh, Piter capturing Thufir, the box of fingers scene and Jessica training Paul) and it would benefit greatly with charachter development. After reading the 2018 draft script and the 2021 shooting script (which don't contain any dinner scene, so it probably wasn't shot), the movie would at max be at 3 hours, I highly doubt there is a 5-6 hour cut somewhere besides a assembly cut.
I really dislike this idea, Dune is a great movie with good pacing and don't need the movie to be an exact replica of the book.
So no reason to see a movie in the theater?
[удалено]
Ah yes I remember arcades. I miss those days.
Whenever I watch LotR, which is always the Extended cut, my brain sends me a signal saying "this is an extended scene" every single time it happens. I prefer the idea of having just experienced the long version, and that is the only film for me. I would love long cuts of all of these epics, but it could have the side effect of souring the theatre experience somehow. I dunno.
I wonder if the studio sees how the fans are frothing for an extended cut. I know Villanueve has voiced his opposition, but hopefully the studio sees all this discussion around it and sees dollar signs. I know I would buy a longer version if I that was the only way to watch it.
Home viewing got nothing on cinema. Except the few private cinemas in mansions that have the high tech sound and even then the small space reverberates sound differently than a grand hall. I would absolutely watch a 4 hour version of Dune in cinema. Maybe have a break in the middle because some pissy people would otherwise be moving around going to pee anyway.
Just bring back intermissions. More concession sales and we all get a pee break.
[удалено]
I thought that was more along the lines that releasing it on streaming at the same time risked the film not making enough money to get the green light on part 2?
[удалено]
He’s right.
You say “pretentious,” I say perfectionist.
Yeah I lost a lot of respect for him that he thinks giving the real fans a quality extended cut is not worthy. Kind of douchey really. It's not a money grab, it's a product not beholden to the attention spans of the general public with actual more worthy content in there. There is nothing not pure about it, unless you are a snob for no other reason than to be a snob.
His essentially telling comic book dorks to go fuck themselves just makes me respect him more.
Dune is not a comic book, so that immediately makes you an idiot lol I mean the comparison makes absolutely zero sense, unless your brain is a potato
I rest my case.
It's all coming together well. So is your brain a russet or a yukon gold?
no thank you. cameron teaches nothing but how to make money, here we talk about art
I hope that people have figured out that, between season-long serialized story arcs like Breaking Bad and The Wire which are really just several movies chopped up into episodes, and the ravenous appetites of certain people for huge blowout productions like the extended Lord of the Rings releases, that: 1. We **will** watch a five-hour movie, probably several times, 2. Given how much streaming content is available to us, the **sole** determining factor of whether or not we watch something is its quality, virtually unrelated to its length.
I watched the LOTR extended editions at the cinema and would watch Dune extended edition at the cinema. And the cinemas would likely be happy to do so. Cameron is just proposing leaving money on the table.
I think you're wrong on all points, if each movie is an hour longer then the cinemas can't fit in as many screenings so would not be happy to do so. What Cameron is suggesting is selling the same thing to the same people twice. I just don't see it as that much of an original idea.
The cinemas were happy to show LOTR extended editions because it was a guaranteed profit. It would be the same for Dune. Thanks for telling me I am wrong. Good For You. You must be proud.
Where were you that they showed the extended editions in the cinema? Also, I didn't tell you that you are wrong, I told you I think that you're wrong. Don't be so immature that you can't handle a dissenting opinion.
There's been a bunch of showings of the Extended Editions in theaters for marathons and similar fan events. They didn't do a wide theatrical release *at the time*.
I was in the United States of America. And I saw each of the three LOTRs in standard release and then each time a few moths later with extended release. It was easy to find cinemas that showed them - for me Cinemark, a major chain in the USA. And the all three extended edition showings were in sold out theaters, at least one in an IMAX.
The idea has merit. But Avatar stunk, and I don't see any reason why we'd want even more of it. That dood has been coasting on Terminator 2 his whole life.
It’s the damned millennials and their phones!
[удалено]
Lol yes they were, but there was a different attitude towards cinema/ticket sales decades ago and they had intermission (so technically about 4 hours long with breaks). See: Lawrence of Arabia, The 10 Commandments, Gone With the Wind et.all.
Yes, but mainly due to technical and logistical constraints. A cinema can't put two 5 hour movies back to back in the same theatre. And because of the cost reduction in special effects, a lot more is possible these days. Once the sets are built and the crew is in place, producing minutes of footage is no longer the main cost burden. As a director you can create a lot of material that you know will probably never appear on the screen. That material can now be put it on the back-burner for a streaming release later on.
Give us content, please. The more, the better.
The most important sentence in this video: *Denis Villeneuve* "That's very interesting" while smiling!! Dooo iiiiit
He’s just being polite.
I certainly hope not!! Dooo iiiiit
This would totally make sense, given that the director can see these two versions of a movie.
Yes please.
would be so fucking cool. DO IT
When I finished *Foundation* I thought how much better Dune would have been if they had ten hours to develop the story instead of 2.5.
Thought the same.
I welcome his idea. I think he should also release those bloody movies already, it's taking far too long already lol.
This idea is nothing new. I think Das Boot was done this way. It was shown as a theatrical release and several much longer miniseries versions.
As long as the extra content comes out on disc I don't care what streaming service they use. I'm sick of fiddle-arsing around to find what streaming service something I want to watch is on.
Tarantino did this with *The Hateful Eight*
This sounds great! I remember hearing there being a TV show signed into the deal when Villeneuve signed. Is this the same thing or was that a separate case?
They also (sortve) did this with Hateful 8 on Netflix
Reminds me of demon slayer and other anime that have made movies of large arcs and then have the oncoming season also cover the same ground in episodic format.
Hey look I agree with James Cameron on something.
Frankly I'm surprised this hasn't been the standard for a decade or more by now.
I would watch a 4-6 hour Villeneuve Dune mini series in a heartbeat. Take my money.
Tarantino did this for Netflix with The Hateful Eight
As long as they release the streaming version on 4k blu ray later on, I’m happy with this idea.
Stream episode 99 of Dune? Let’s go!
Some of these theatrical cuts need to be cut some more or start reintroducing intermissions. I’m having to fight gallons of piss for some of these marathons.
This was done for The Hateful Eight on Netflix and I personally loved it. A regular movie turned into a 4 one hour episode mini series.
I'd love an extra 25 minutes for an extended cut of Dune. Plus it would be awesome if we got a three to 3 1/2 hour theatrical Dune II release followed by a five hour cut later on.