MovieChat Forums > Dune: Part Two (2024) Discussion > Kaitain scenes look fascinatingly cheap

Kaitain scenes look fascinatingly cheap

posted 2 months ago by lolkatz (475)
15 replies | jump to latest

While most of the $195 million budget likely went towards the Arrakis battle scenes, there was a noticeable absence of elaborate sets on the imperial seat planet of Kaitain. Unlike the 1984 version, which showcased lavish sets for the emperor's home world, both in its exterior and interior, Villeneuve's Dune Part 2 opts for a simpler approach, featuring serene forests and existing structures chosen for their intriguing architecture, such as Carlo Scarpa’s Brion Tomb in Italy.

As the movie transitions to scenes involving the Emperor and Princess Irulan, it takes on the aesthetic reminiscent of an A24 production—smart, yet indie-frugal. Not sure how to feel about this. Perhaps Villeneuve aimed for a welcomed deviation from the spectacle and grandeur of the Arrakis/Desert War and Giedi Prime sets' complexity.

[–] 123Guy (6215) 2 months ago

I've noticed this director thinks it is cool and unique to have large, blank sets, devoid of detial, personality, even soul. I'm tired of his work being like this.
"ooh look how cool I am doing the exact opposite of over detailed sets like everyone else does... I'm so edgey and fresh"

yeah... and BORING TO LOOK AT.
voting with my wallet.... just saying no.

[–] sonans (1226) 17 days ago

I thought it was a clever design choice, because the emperor had limit power in the world of Dune, most powers hold in the Houses, Guild, superpower women cult(I don't remember the name).

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 17 days ago

The Bene Gesserits. They are a political faction, not a cult. They are on par with the Spacing Guild and the Mentats, human computers, essentially.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 17 days ago

You had it right with the title; Villeneuve was being selectively cheap. He put more focus on the battles of Arakkis than on anything happening on any other planet. It's interesting, in an age when CGI is more readily available, that he can't do the same thing George Lucas did easily with his Star Wars Prequels over a decade ago, and show multiple planets within one movie that each have a unique and interesting look about them. Hell, even the 2000 Dune miniseries did a better job with the sets and CGI, and their budget was even lower than Villeneuve's!

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 16 days ago

I think Villeneuve is one of the most stylish and visually interesting filmmakers I've seen in a long time. And I've gotta say, the Star Wars Prequels don't look half as nice as Dune and Dune 2. The shot composition, the way the set pieces are framed and presented - everything, really - is just much, much more satisfying and breathtaking than what was going on in the Prequels. Well, to me, anyway.

I always think about the story where George Lucas visited Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York set. At the time, Lucas was shooting The Phantom Menace. After touring the massive soundstage with the Five Points set (built in part by Daniel Day-Lewis!) Lucas commented to Scorsese, "You can just use computers to build all of this stuff now."

Now, I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I laughed when I read that story. Scorsese's craftsmanship in bringing Gangs of New York to the screen dwarfs TPM. And I'm not saying CGI doesn't have its use. But I am saying that TPM and the other Prequels feel kinda flat to me. Dune felt like holding my breath for three hours. It's a really good looking film - and a great film in-general.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 15 days ago

Dune and Dune 2 look crude and cheap compared to Star Wars. I mean, with the prequels, you had beautiful shots of Naboo (with the capital city, the Lake Country, the swamps, and the plains included), the glittering cityscape of Coruscant, the deserts of Tattooine, the watery world of Kamino, the space battle scenes in different star systems, the fiery hellscape of Mustafar, and the strange desert world of Geonosis.

What do Villeneuve's films have? Boring desert landscapes (at least those without the worms or Arakkeen), boring Caladan scenes that could have easily taken place in Scotland or England, boring shots of Kaitain that could have easily been shot in Italy or in some Hollywood mogul's backyard, and arena scenes on Geidi prime that could have taken place in any sci-fi film. Yawn. There was nothing truly alien about any of it, nor was it visually interesting beyond the spacecraft and sandworms.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 15 days ago

It's wild how much I disagree. The Prequels seem largely dead and lifeless to me. The shots are kinda boring, the characters dull me out (which doesn't help) and because the momentum of the story is dead, the whole thing comes off as lacklustre. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, it's just mostly okay. I'll agree that there are some impressive CG landscapes and fights, but the atmosphere largely amounts to "so what?"

I do like a lot of Naboo, especially the capital city, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that they're shooting in a real location, so it doesn't seem like mere technical wizardry, but like a great travel documentary with a too-busy foreground.

As to Villeneuve, I wouldn't describe his work as boring. The shots he chooses, to me, reveal worlds and almost always make me really *feel* the epic nature of the universe he's building up. He doesn't just put the shots in for their own sakes, either, but uses the visuals to set scenes, pace action, and reveal character (he does some great stuff with the water of the Atreides homeworld just before they all leave for dust and sand and sun - really nice work).

I agree that the spacecraft and sandworms were interesting, but I disagree that nothing else was. The costumes were. The compositions of his photography were. The way he frames and shoots scenes was.

Frankly, I think he does a magnificent job of shooting "just" sand. He makes me feel a sense of place on Arrakis in a similar way that Leone makes me feel the deserts in his westerns.

I'm not saying I'm "right" with any of this - everybody has their own experiences - but my processing of the Dune films, and my processing of the cinematography of the Prequels, is (I think) almost polar opposite to yours.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 15 days ago

I guess I just enjoy seeing more color and spectacle than I do boring, guy-focused action like you.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 14 days ago

Star Wars isn't guy-focused action?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 14 days ago

It was for everyone before that bitch Kathleen Kennedy took over. Now it's "lesbians in crappy space operas."

But the thing is, I noticed in a lot of "guy-focused" films these days, particularly the ones that fall below the mark, more focus is put on the combat than the spectacle. It's one reason "Timeline" sucked so bad. They made the mistake of squeezing a gigantic book into a 2-hour movie, watered down most of the story, dumbed down the characters, and poured most of the budget into the big battle at the climax. Villeneuve is partially guilty of this, and this isn't the first time he's fumbled at making a good sci-fi film.

[–] Ace_Spade (9367) 14 days ago

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, Star Wars as a franchise is, for the most part, more of a true "Family movie" section where it has a broad appeal and should entertain across demographics. I actually miss that. Because streaming services are able to cater to really, really niche markets, they tend to make things designed for very specific, narrow brackets, and there are fewer TV shows that you can sit down and watch together with a wide group of people.

Any book will have to take some warping to squeeze into a film's runtime. But that doesn't mean they have to be shallow or watered down. I think the two Dune films do a pretty good job of accessing the book's major themes and providing a high degree of nuance and subtlety. Ironically, I'd argue that much of this is in how Villeneuve presents the material. It would be impossible to slavishly recreate every word of Herbert's novel without stretching the series into far more than two films. However, Villeneuve optimises his work by showing us the small things that make up the bigger picture, coming across in performances and the way he shoots each moment.

And, yes, I know he changed a bunch of stuff, but most of that didn't really bug me.

Well, while I disagree with you on Dune falling below the mark, I disagree with you on Villeneuve dumbing things down or not managing to access depth with his filmmaking, and I disagree that he's fumbled sci-fi films (I think the Dunes are both great, I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049, and I absolutely love Arrival), we have found common ground at last: Timeline was rubbish.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 13 days ago

The Dune miniseries made in 2000 actually did a good job on presenting the story (despite some questionable casting and writing in some areas), and the only thing truly limiting the '84 film was cheesy special-effects and Lynch's disgust for martial arts of any kind.

Timeline would have actually done very well as a miniseries, but only if they stuck close to the book, and translated some of the scientific jargon into Lehman's terms for the audience.

[–] Towelie_Towel (1719) 13 days ago

Star Wars prequels looked like Toy Story when compared to Dune.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12404) 13 days ago

That's not what you said between 1999-2005.

[–] Aries (774) 11 days ago

I agree, they should've taken a page out of Jupiter Ascending and made the costumes and sets as ornate and luxurious as possible.

Both the settings and the costumes (esp. Irulan's, who was horribly miscast via the insipid Florence Puke) were seriously underwhelming in comparison to the lavish sets and designs of some of the other worlds like Geidi Prime and Arrakis. The 1984 version did a better job of the Emperor's entourage and costume designs IMO. Christopher Walken was also very unconvincing in the role.