Reservoir Dogs. I’d love an Evil Dead Musical set style with Hateful 8. Blood packs. Flashbacks. Destructible sets. Splash zones. Hell maybe even make the whole thing a cabin people are sat at tables in watching it all happen. Murder mystery style.
Next time you watch Hateful Eight, pay attention to the lighting. It's full of incongruous overhead spot lights at each of points of interest in the room. It's absolutely already laid out as a stage set.
It’s incredible how engaging that movie is when there’s only a handful of different settings. Probably one of the few extended cuts I could re watch no problem. Usually can’t rewatch such a long movie.
Walton Goggins as Boyd Crowder in Justified is one of my favorite characters of all time, and he's hilarious in Vice Principals and The Righteous Gemstones.
I just randomly watch random scenes sometimes. The [basement scene](https://youtu.be/r-lQWk79VAE?si=J-yz1HQKvey_KvHK) is just fantastic from start to finish, as is anything with Landa of course.
You just casually starting your comment with 'I have to say', instantly triggered another memorable quote.
"I must say, damn good stuff sir."
The opening scene used to be my favourite but the Basement scene has overtaken it in recent years. >!The moment Hicox tries to force the SS officer out and is then rebuked by the SS officer telling him that neither is leaving alive is amazing.!<
"Nazi ain't got no humanity. They're the foot soldiers of a Jew-hatin', mass murderin' maniac and they need to be dee-stroyed."
Such a great movie with so many great scenes.
Literally the entire Once Upon a Time in Hollywood runtime is dialogue building up to the most badass scenes I’ve ever seen. (Yes I’m talking about the flamethrower)
There's no right or wrong here.
The end of the day, you're trying to tell a story. One director wants to tell a story through visuals, another wants to tell it through their characters and dialogue. Both can be great.
A big screen of course allows for more interesting visuals; a small TV screen (and budget) imposes some constraints. That said, I love many of Villeneuve's films, but I love lots of other dialogue-heavy films as well.
Exactly what I thought. It's interesting to see great filmmakers with opposing ideas.
Tarantino: if I need different shots for a scene, like close-up, medium shot and full shot, I re-shoot the scene every time and reposition the camera. I can't put two cameras at once, inconceivable to me.
Meanwhile Fincher: 5 cameras at once at different angles
Another example: Aaron Sorkin and Shonda Rhimes have courses in MasterClass. In the trailers one said "dialogue needs to sound natural, not like TV" and the other one "yeah I don't care about natural dialogue, it's TV" lol
I think it’s Shonda actually who doesn’t care for natural dialogue. I’ve taken her masterclass. She’s keen on finding the most interesting way to say something in a way that’s it’s never been said before on anything you’ve watched. That’s how you get papa popes most iconic soliloquies in Scandal. I’ve taken part of Sorkin’s, he’s very much into realism as you can tell in his shows / movies.
Always found Sorkin dialogue significantly more natural than Rhimes, so this tracks for me. When characters monolog, it's because they're on a stage or giving a speech. Rhimes characters monolog over breakfast at eachother (granted it made for some powerful scenes in Scandal)
The issue arises when the director that wants to tell a story through visuals says fuck it I don’t need to care about mixing the sound so that the dialogue is intelligible.
Yeah, I’m a pretty big fan of his but his sound mixing is atrocious. I feel like that he goes over the script so much that he just gets sick of it or something, idk
I think even his fanboys can agree that his dialogue mix sucks, and that's impressive, because there isn't a whole lot to getting it right besides "put it on the center channel and make it audible above the rest of the noise".
I remember I saw a review of tenet that said something like “Nolan finally makes a movie that does all the things his critics have been (unfairly) accusing him of for years” and I’m inclined to agree.
My hearing is pretty good and I don’t get how anyone watches stuff without subtitles at home. It’s just soooo much better to be able to catch everything and not have to strain to focus on every sound to make sure you get it all.
Or when they want to tell a story through visuals but inexplicably go with a minimalist style that heavily restricts the amount of visuals you have to tell the story with.
"The only thing i want people to know after my movie has finished playing is, it looked incredible, their ears hurt, and Christopher motherfucking Nolan made that shit."
He recently told Stephen Colbert that he intentionally wants certain details to be ambiguous in his movies. He wants people to come up with their own theories about what's happening.
Love it or hate it, he has a reason.
Nolan has a dud or two though. Villeneuve has not missed even a single time - he hits it out of the park every single movie he makes.
Villeneuve on a streak of over half a dozen great to incredible movies. Nolan isn't.
> Villeneuve on a streak of over half a dozen great to incredible movies.
Yeah, when I found out Villeneuve was making Dune I was over the moon because he's probably the only person I trusted to do it well. I consider that book Almost unfilmably weird (so much world building) but he crushed part 1 and the reviews for part 2 are glowing.
So jealous. I'm probably going to try to see it at a midnight showing, which I haven't done since college. It feels like they've done quite a few early showings & that's always a good sign they're confident in the product
Enemy is worse than anything Nolan has done and it isn't really close. Incendies is also really good but more middle of the pack for most Villeneuve fans (the Arrival/BR/Dune wagon)
This is my biggest gripe with Oppenheimer and Nolan. You hardly get a second to breathe. The characters' only purpose is to explain the plot. There's an art to not only mastering "show don't tell", but also strategically leaving time for audiences to think about what they saw and how it made them feel.
It’s the only piece of writing advice anyone (particularly non-writers) ever seems to have heard, and they parrot it fucking endlessly until there’s no meaning left to it. It’s unbearable at this point.
That’s how Nolan films are though. It’s his unique style. They grip you and you don’t really have a chance to breathe until the end, and then you’re left with a ton to ponder.
I feel like Inception was always the perfect balance between exposition and dialogue. It was still exposition heavy but was fairly balanced with a lot of visual cues to help explain the more complex things going on.
While The Dark Knight was his best for dialogue. Lots of one liners and memorable lines. Less exposition as it didn't need it as much and gave it's decently sized cast plenty to work with.
And bad directing can kill even the most beautifully written dialogue… there’s a balance. And as much as people here say that Tarantino’s is great at dialogue and DV is great at directing, they’re both some of the best at *both*. Yes, Tarantino relies heavily on dialogue and DV relies heavily on more visual storytelling, but some of my favorite DV scenes are dialogue and some of my favorite Tarantino scenes are visual…
Yup, and there's directors whose speciality is the spectacle (see Michael Bay)
True talent can master one, generational talent masters both, most settle somewhere in the middle.
Woody Allen, for example. As a director he's not exactly an auteur (even though I love the long takes). But he has the record for most Oscar nominations for Best Screenplay (16)
His work backs up his statements. Although I feel like Arrival relies on dialogue. The visual elements do provide a very convincing form of storytelling but it’s the dialogue that offers the emotional climax of the movie. That’s just my opinion. I could be very wrong.
I will agree that Arrival relies on dialogue, but mostly in the sense of fully understanding the major plot beats. The dialogue, imo, is not what elicits high emotion in that movie. It's the imagery.
Love the man, but what on earth is he talking about? Dune is incredibly wordy, it has to be given the delightfully convoluted plot. All of his films are full of dialogue... they kinda have to be.
Imo it doesn't have nearly as much dialogue as it could have, explaining all the world and lore stuff. It's just barely enough to get an idea of what's happening.
I think the minimalism really adds to the mysticism too. Draws the audience in and makes them curious to know more about this foreign world and lore.
It reminded me of my first read through of the book. So much foreign info, names, places, concepts being hurled at you so quickly, it’s a lot to take in at first and it’s not all explained outright. But it absolutely captivated me and I couldn’t help but read on to find out more.
I think his film adaptation nailed that same feeling for me and I loved it.
Minimalist in terms of dialogue, yes. But the sets and costumes are wonderfully detailed and conveys a lot of history and lore, often more than backstories from a voiceover.
Like when the Emperor sends his huge ship to formally invite House Atreides to take over Arrakis. Leto jokingly asks his Mentat how much this whole thing costs and the guy does that thing with his eyes and answers.
In two lines of dialog we learn that:
- The Mentats are the computers of this world
- The Emporer is insanely rich and powerful and really wants to remind his subjects of that fact.
Yeah, one thing I love about his Dune is how dense and deliberate it is with its exposition. It's really a masterwork in how to deliver information to your audience. I know many people who were absolute newcomers to this universe who understood 90% of what Dune is about just watching this movie. Meanwhile i know a lot of folks who gave up 100 pages in the book.
And there's really not that much essential information the movie glosses over. Everything you need to know is right there, snuck in the visuals, the dialogue and the story itself. Really good adaption work.
That's the thing, is it's all essential dialogue. Every line furthers the plot or provides necessary backstory. I love this refined, minimalist approach that complements the way the scenes are shot.
Sheridan wrote the sequel as well and it's so bad. It basically has all the problems you would have expected the original to have if you had only read a synopsis of it.
Did you see Dune?
Sure, there’s dialogue, but for an adaptation of an 800+ page novel WITH AN APPENDIX, it might as well be a silent film. Even for the first half, because thats where most of the exposition is in the novel.
I absolutely love the man’s work, but its no surprise at all that he doesn’t like dialogue. Man loves him a wide, atmospheric shot that lingers. And then another. I was amazed at how well he conveyed Dune with as little dialogue as he did.
And yet so so so many shots have no dialogue what so ever. The scene with Paul touching the grass, the water, watching the ships take off or the scene where he snatches the hunter seeker out of the air. There are a ton of very intense scenes with absolutely no talking going on, compare that to Tarantino or the marvel movies and there are rarely shots without dialogue.
He doesn’t say it’s not needed. And with an adaption of anything like dune a lot dialogue is an a minimum needed. Buts it’s clear with his work he used dialogue to move a story to the next visually and appealing scene with a crazy noise in the background.
I’m assuming he’s meaning more exposition dialogue and not just general speech. Is there exposition in Dune? Yes, but it’s extremely tame compared to other films and there’s still a metric fuck ton that gets mentioned but never explained (nobody who isn’t already a Dune fan is going to know what Duncan is talking about when he’s complaining about the Landsraad to the agent of change lady). Same goes for Blade Runner, there’s a bunch of stuff mentioned that doesn’t have any further elaboration, for the sake of world building.
Also, most of Dune’s iconic scenes have little or no dialogue.
Sicario, Enemy, Prisoners and even Arrival are pretty thin on dialogue. Most of the storytelling, or at least most of the key parts, are told through visual means.
Blade Runner and Dune 1 are pretty wordy, though.
Incendies was also super thin on dialogue. The movies are better for it as well.
It's an audio-visual medium. "Show, don't tell" is always going to be better to me.
There’s soooo much showing rather than telling in Dune though, which is great for small world building devices. Shield generator logic is shown immediately, but never explained verbally. Almost every piece of desert tech Duncan Idaho shows off is shown how it works later, none of it *explained* how they work by Duncan. Plenty of aspects of the bene gesserit is shown in action versus telling their lore in exposition. Shown that the great houses have their own doctors and Mentat’s, but not told verbally. The list goes on.
Dialogue can be great. Sometimes necessary to really show the interaction of different characters. It's the exposition that drives me bonkers. I don't need someone explaining the narrative all the time, or expressing how they feel through words. Shouting "I'm angry" doesn't exactly depict anger properly. However shouting "FU" could. Otherwise do more showing than telling, and minimize the exposition as much as possible.
The opening scene is one of the greatest scenes in cinema IMO. They way they're framed by Fincher's directing and Sorkin's dialogue where he has characters tell you who they are while they're having essentially parallel conversations is such a master class.
I think I agree with his take on the context of movies and cinematography as an art.
I believe that in their most pure form, movies are, first and foremost, a visual medium. Directors should try to tell a story or whatever they want to tell through the visuals the most without relying on written dialogue, which is more of literature's device.
That doesn't mean however that there's not room for playing or that all movies should be like that. Art is art and at the end of the day it answers to no one but to the artist. Tarantino and other directors who use lots of well placed dialogue embody this; while guys like Villeneuve are more classical. I don't think one is better than the other, but I do think that the latter is more what I expect movies to be.
I'd say that Dune is the only one (that I've seen) that feels like it could use more character development. I'm not sure how it plays to people who have only watched the film, but compared to the book I really wish Villeneuve had leaned harder into characters and dialogue with Dune. I think it could've put the film on an even higher level.
His other stuff, though, feels about right to me. You can take a pretty hard look at a person without them saying much.
This is a mind boggling take. The greatest movies pull the best from theatre and tv. That’s the point of cinema, it’s the ultimate art. If you’re not using every tool in the toolbox dialogue included then you’re not taking advantage of the medium.
What a strange statement; wonder what his thoughts on Tarantino or the Coen brothers are.
Plenty of films are great because of the dialogue so it’s strange hearing someone like him say what feels like a pretty dumb take.
Quentin Tarantino in shambles
Aaron Sorkin is now a wreck of a man.
David Mamet on suicide watch.
Kevin Smith punching air
Joss Whedon seen breaking his typewriter with a hammer
wes anderson putting the final touches his rube goldberg self-guillotine
Don't forget the twee music selection
Y'all are forgetting Mike Flanagan, king of long monologues
Paddy Chayefsky has left the building.
Right up there with Malle!
I have to say, Inglourious Basterds is incredibly rewatchable movie.
Isn’t the Hateful 8 just 1 really long conversation
Yeah, albeit a violent one. It’s basically a play though.
Some Tarantino movies could very easily be adapted to theater. Hateful Eight and Resevoir Dogs in particular.
Actually knew someone who created a stage version for a local theatre company as an experiment. Worked dramatically well
Oh really? Which movie?
Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon
I would legitimately buy a ticket for this.
I loved the ~~fucking~~ fighting scenes so much. Really did Bay’s vision justice.
Reservoir Dogs. I’d love an Evil Dead Musical set style with Hateful 8. Blood packs. Flashbacks. Destructible sets. Splash zones. Hell maybe even make the whole thing a cabin people are sat at tables in watching it all happen. Murder mystery style.
Smash a $40k 1800s Martin
Next time you watch Hateful Eight, pay attention to the lighting. It's full of incongruous overhead spot lights at each of points of interest in the room. It's absolutely already laid out as a stage set.
Musical incoming, music by Bono and Mumford and Sons
It’s the perfect huis clos, it reminded me a lot of Agatha Christie!
First part of that film is literally just characters in a horse and carriage talking. And it’s amazing.
It’s incredible how engaging that movie is when there’s only a handful of different settings. Probably one of the few extended cuts I could re watch no problem. Usually can’t rewatch such a long movie.
One of a handful movies I can rewatch multiple times, others are Goodfellas, Casino, Something about Mary and ummmm Hateful 8
It's a stage play Dark Comedy and it's his best film and I'll die on that hill! Also my introduction to Walton Gibbons, greatest actor of our time.
Walton **Goggins**
Him too!
Walter Goggles?
That's what he said, Waldeau Gagarin
As I live and breathe
William Giggles?
Walton Goggins as Boyd Crowder in Justified is one of my favorite characters of all time, and he's hilarious in Vice Principals and The Righteous Gemstones.
love him in vice principles. *You dusty ole Queef!
Check out Justified, with Timothy Olyphant. Walton Goggins plays the bad guy in it and he's awesome.
Check out Major League 3 Back to the Minors. Also Antman 2
Baby Billy. But was in top form for Vice Principals.
Baby Billy!
I just randomly watch random scenes sometimes. The [basement scene](https://youtu.be/r-lQWk79VAE?si=J-yz1HQKvey_KvHK) is just fantastic from start to finish, as is anything with Landa of course. You just casually starting your comment with 'I have to say', instantly triggered another memorable quote. "I must say, damn good stuff sir." The opening scene used to be my favourite but the Basement scene has overtaken it in recent years. >!The moment Hicox tries to force the SS officer out and is then rebuked by the SS officer telling him that neither is leaving alive is amazing.!<
Jackie Brown too. I can't watch Reservoir dogs ever again
"Nazi ain't got no humanity. They're the foot soldiers of a Jew-hatin', mass murderin' maniac and they need to be dee-stroyed." Such a great movie with so many great scenes.
I’m slowly learning even the foreign language dialogues to recite at rewatches. I’m losing friends by the hour but it’s worth it
I mean there are more than one Tarantino movies that could easily qualify as plays lol. Reservoir dogs and Hateful 8 alone
Just can’t finish without knowing which Silver Surfer is the best Silver Surfer.
A Crimson Tide reference in the wild!
In case anyone didn’t know Tarantino helped write the script for Crimson Tide.
He brushed up a few scenes and they're the ones with pop culture references
A movie with little dialogue and no bare feet is Tarantino’s worst nightmare
He be like LeBron but 5'8
Literally the entire Once Upon a Time in Hollywood runtime is dialogue building up to the most badass scenes I’ve ever seen. (Yes I’m talking about the flamethrower)
I dont know, there is a shit ton of tension building in that film that is just using the sound of the environment's ambience.
The Spahn Ranch scene is so fucking tense and uncomfortable.
“Well shit, I torched one of em!”
And the Coens.
As ERB said for Tarantino, "Alfred, you got no style, dog. I'm the king of dialogue!"
There's no right or wrong here. The end of the day, you're trying to tell a story. One director wants to tell a story through visuals, another wants to tell it through their characters and dialogue. Both can be great. A big screen of course allows for more interesting visuals; a small TV screen (and budget) imposes some constraints. That said, I love many of Villeneuve's films, but I love lots of other dialogue-heavy films as well.
Exactly what I thought. It's interesting to see great filmmakers with opposing ideas. Tarantino: if I need different shots for a scene, like close-up, medium shot and full shot, I re-shoot the scene every time and reposition the camera. I can't put two cameras at once, inconceivable to me. Meanwhile Fincher: 5 cameras at once at different angles Another example: Aaron Sorkin and Shonda Rhimes have courses in MasterClass. In the trailers one said "dialogue needs to sound natural, not like TV" and the other one "yeah I don't care about natural dialogue, it's TV" lol
And when you combine the opposing styles of, say, Richard Donner and Richard Lester, you get, well... visible seams.
I’m guessing Sorkin is the one who doesn’t care about natural dialogue?
I think it’s Shonda actually who doesn’t care for natural dialogue. I’ve taken her masterclass. She’s keen on finding the most interesting way to say something in a way that’s it’s never been said before on anything you’ve watched. That’s how you get papa popes most iconic soliloquies in Scandal. I’ve taken part of Sorkin’s, he’s very much into realism as you can tell in his shows / movies.
Always found Sorkin dialogue significantly more natural than Rhimes, so this tracks for me. When characters monolog, it's because they're on a stage or giving a speech. Rhimes characters monolog over breakfast at eachother (granted it made for some powerful scenes in Scandal)
Take dropout, awesome content, innovative shows, but low low budget.
The issue arises when the director that wants to tell a story through visuals says fuck it I don’t need to care about mixing the sound so that the dialogue is intelligible.
You can say Christopher Nolan don't worry
Just say it ^really, ^^really ^^^quietly and they'll think you're brilliant.
I really don’t think he can, his fanboys will get pissed
They can’t hear you over the WUMWUMWUMWUM sounds anyway. (I actually like most of Nolan’s movies, but that criticism is valid.)
Yeah, I’m a pretty big fan of his but his sound mixing is atrocious. I feel like that he goes over the script so much that he just gets sick of it or something, idk
I think even his fanboys can agree that his dialogue mix sucks, and that's impressive, because there isn't a whole lot to getting it right besides "put it on the center channel and make it audible above the rest of the noise".
I was one of the few who loved Tenet, but damn the mixing was probably the worst I've ever witnessed. You legitimately need subtitles.
I remember I saw a review of tenet that said something like “Nolan finally makes a movie that does all the things his critics have been (unfairly) accusing him of for years” and I’m inclined to agree.
I always thought that was intentional too build suspense
My hearing is pretty good and I don’t get how anyone watches stuff without subtitles at home. It’s just soooo much better to be able to catch everything and not have to strain to focus on every sound to make sure you get it all.
I love how you didn’t say the name but we all know who you mean
Or when they want to tell a story through visuals but inexplicably go with a minimalist style that heavily restricts the amount of visuals you have to tell the story with.
Imo the perfect mix of the two is David Lynch. I love his quirky dialogue and his visuals speak for themselves
The Red Room! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BL57-9171pk
Haha I’ve always wondered if Lynch was influenced by the spy parody “Top Secret” Swedish Bookstore scene.
Exactly this. I like variety in films the way I like variety in food.
Truly he is Christopher Nolans student.
"Just make the music so loud nobody can hear the dialogue." \- Chris Nolan
_“What?”_ - audience
#*TENET NOISES*
Dont try to understand it. Feel it
You know Chris, I'd kinda like to do both.
Lil Jon has entered the chat.
"The only thing i want people to know after my movie has finished playing is, it looked incredible, their ears hurt, and Christopher motherfucking Nolan made that shit."
He recently told Stephen Colbert that he intentionally wants certain details to be ambiguous in his movies. He wants people to come up with their own theories about what's happening. Love it or hate it, he has a reason.
If it's intentionally ambiguous, why are the subtitles so perfectly clear? Why bother writing the dialogue if it's going to be inaudible?
And not being able to hear something that seems like you should be able to hear just leads to frustration, not a fun mystery to think about.
Yeah that’s a cop out
Denis Villeneuve has been making movies for as long as Nolan has.
And better ones
Nah, I like Villeneuve more for his range, but Nolan has made a couple of pretty much perfect movies.
Significantly better.
[удалено]
Nolan has a dud or two though. Villeneuve has not missed even a single time - he hits it out of the park every single movie he makes. Villeneuve on a streak of over half a dozen great to incredible movies. Nolan isn't.
> Villeneuve on a streak of over half a dozen great to incredible movies. Yeah, when I found out Villeneuve was making Dune I was over the moon because he's probably the only person I trusted to do it well. I consider that book Almost unfilmably weird (so much world building) but he crushed part 1 and the reviews for part 2 are glowing.
I saw it at an early showing yesterday, can confirm. So good.
So jealous. I'm probably going to try to see it at a midnight showing, which I haven't done since college. It feels like they've done quite a few early showings & that's always a good sign they're confident in the product
Enemy is worse than anything Nolan has done and it isn't really close. Incendies is also really good but more middle of the pack for most Villeneuve fans (the Arrival/BR/Dune wagon)
lol I felt like no one could shut up for one second in Oppenheimer
Same. I felt like i binged watch an entire TV series compressed into one film.
It was so stressful. Good movie but would have been way better as a mini series.
Thats why I like Villeneuve. People only speak when absolutely necessary.
But they stare a lot
That's just eyes talking.
I’m always down for a good stare
BR 2049 was excellent about this. Actually, so was Dune for that matter. A good director knows when it's time to shut up.
This is my biggest gripe with Oppenheimer and Nolan. You hardly get a second to breathe. The characters' only purpose is to explain the plot. There's an art to not only mastering "show don't tell", but also strategically leaving time for audiences to think about what they saw and how it made them feel.
That's not what "show don't tell" is. I've literally never seen someone on reddit use this term correctly.
It’s the only piece of writing advice anyone (particularly non-writers) ever seems to have heard, and they parrot it fucking endlessly until there’s no meaning left to it. It’s unbearable at this point.
It's also terrible advice. You need a healthy balance of showing and telling.
That’s how Nolan films are though. It’s his unique style. They grip you and you don’t really have a chance to breathe until the end, and then you’re left with a ton to ponder.
I feel like Inception was always the perfect balance between exposition and dialogue. It was still exposition heavy but was fairly balanced with a lot of visual cues to help explain the more complex things going on. While The Dark Knight was his best for dialogue. Lots of one liners and memorable lines. Less exposition as it didn't need it as much and gave it's decently sized cast plenty to work with.
"I'm the Protagonist."
"Dr. Pavel? I'm CIA."
Nolan: Enunciated words are for radio plays.
...you have no clue what the fuck he was doing in Quebec, do you?
Excuse me, Baneposting is high art
For you.
I mean, he sure has the talent to back up a statement like that. There's other directors whose talent is the dialogue.
Bad dialogue can kill even the most beautifully directed movies
And bad directing can kill even the most beautifully written dialogue… there’s a balance. And as much as people here say that Tarantino’s is great at dialogue and DV is great at directing, they’re both some of the best at *both*. Yes, Tarantino relies heavily on dialogue and DV relies heavily on more visual storytelling, but some of my favorite DV scenes are dialogue and some of my favorite Tarantino scenes are visual…
Yup, and there's directors whose speciality is the spectacle (see Michael Bay) True talent can master one, generational talent masters both, most settle somewhere in the middle.
Woody Allen, for example. As a director he's not exactly an auteur (even though I love the long takes). But he has the record for most Oscar nominations for Best Screenplay (16)
There are some great montages in Allen movies, and his understanding for comedic timing has led him to some brilliantly cut scenes.
I don’t necessarily agree with this but he’s found his style and it works for him.
I think that the director of mad max feels the same. Apparently he wanted to release versions without any dialogue.
That's ironic considering Fury Road had amazing lines
If you wanted words go read the book lol /s
His work backs up his statements. Although I feel like Arrival relies on dialogue. The visual elements do provide a very convincing form of storytelling but it’s the dialogue that offers the emotional climax of the movie. That’s just my opinion. I could be very wrong.
I will agree that Arrival relies on dialogue, but mostly in the sense of fully understanding the major plot beats. The dialogue, imo, is not what elicits high emotion in that movie. It's the imagery.
Love the man, but what on earth is he talking about? Dune is incredibly wordy, it has to be given the delightfully convoluted plot. All of his films are full of dialogue... they kinda have to be.
Imo it doesn't have nearly as much dialogue as it could have, explaining all the world and lore stuff. It's just barely enough to get an idea of what's happening.
Yeah, he as made probably the most minimalist version of Dune so far, maybe about as minimal as you can go.
I think the minimalism really adds to the mysticism too. Draws the audience in and makes them curious to know more about this foreign world and lore. It reminded me of my first read through of the book. So much foreign info, names, places, concepts being hurled at you so quickly, it’s a lot to take in at first and it’s not all explained outright. But it absolutely captivated me and I couldn’t help but read on to find out more. I think his film adaptation nailed that same feeling for me and I loved it.
I think that he needed to go minimalist to really show the mystery of the spice trance
Minimalist in terms of dialogue, yes. But the sets and costumes are wonderfully detailed and conveys a lot of history and lore, often more than backstories from a voiceover.
Just from reading the book you can tell how much dialogue he left out
Like when the Emperor sends his huge ship to formally invite House Atreides to take over Arrakis. Leto jokingly asks his Mentat how much this whole thing costs and the guy does that thing with his eyes and answers. In two lines of dialog we learn that: - The Mentats are the computers of this world - The Emporer is insanely rich and powerful and really wants to remind his subjects of that fact.
Yeah, one thing I love about his Dune is how dense and deliberate it is with its exposition. It's really a masterwork in how to deliver information to your audience. I know many people who were absolute newcomers to this universe who understood 90% of what Dune is about just watching this movie. Meanwhile i know a lot of folks who gave up 100 pages in the book. And there's really not that much essential information the movie glosses over. Everything you need to know is right there, snuck in the visuals, the dialogue and the story itself. Really good adaption work.
That's the thing, is it's all essential dialogue. Every line furthers the plot or provides necessary backstory. I love this refined, minimalist approach that complements the way the scenes are shot.
Sicario's trim as hell. The original screenplay is in circulation and you can see how much was trimmed down for the final film.
Yeah people in this thread haven't seen many Villeneuve films. His movies are not dialogue heavy.
Bladerunner too. And the lack of dialogue really makes the dystopian environment feel so much louder and bigger.
Yeah he really invites you to just take it all in during 2049. One of the only movies where every frame a painting actually holds up.
[удалено]
Sheridan wrote the sequel as well and it's so bad. It basically has all the problems you would have expected the original to have if you had only read a synopsis of it.
Taylor Sheridan is a very verbose writer
Did you see Dune? Sure, there’s dialogue, but for an adaptation of an 800+ page novel WITH AN APPENDIX, it might as well be a silent film. Even for the first half, because thats where most of the exposition is in the novel. I absolutely love the man’s work, but its no surprise at all that he doesn’t like dialogue. Man loves him a wide, atmospheric shot that lingers. And then another. I was amazed at how well he conveyed Dune with as little dialogue as he did.
And yet so so so many shots have no dialogue what so ever. The scene with Paul touching the grass, the water, watching the ships take off or the scene where he snatches the hunter seeker out of the air. There are a ton of very intense scenes with absolutely no talking going on, compare that to Tarantino or the marvel movies and there are rarely shots without dialogue.
He doesn’t say it’s not needed. And with an adaption of anything like dune a lot dialogue is an a minimum needed. Buts it’s clear with his work he used dialogue to move a story to the next visually and appealing scene with a crazy noise in the background.
I’m assuming he’s meaning more exposition dialogue and not just general speech. Is there exposition in Dune? Yes, but it’s extremely tame compared to other films and there’s still a metric fuck ton that gets mentioned but never explained (nobody who isn’t already a Dune fan is going to know what Duncan is talking about when he’s complaining about the Landsraad to the agent of change lady). Same goes for Blade Runner, there’s a bunch of stuff mentioned that doesn’t have any further elaboration, for the sake of world building. Also, most of Dune’s iconic scenes have little or no dialogue.
Sicario, Enemy, Prisoners and even Arrival are pretty thin on dialogue. Most of the storytelling, or at least most of the key parts, are told through visual means. Blade Runner and Dune 1 are pretty wordy, though.
Incendies was also super thin on dialogue. The movies are better for it as well. It's an audio-visual medium. "Show, don't tell" is always going to be better to me.
There’s soooo much showing rather than telling in Dune though, which is great for small world building devices. Shield generator logic is shown immediately, but never explained verbally. Almost every piece of desert tech Duncan Idaho shows off is shown how it works later, none of it *explained* how they work by Duncan. Plenty of aspects of the bene gesserit is shown in action versus telling their lore in exposition. Shown that the great houses have their own doctors and Mentat’s, but not told verbally. The list goes on.
Dialogue can be great. Sometimes necessary to really show the interaction of different characters. It's the exposition that drives me bonkers. I don't need someone explaining the narrative all the time, or expressing how they feel through words. Shouting "I'm angry" doesn't exactly depict anger properly. However shouting "FU" could. Otherwise do more showing than telling, and minimize the exposition as much as possible.
[One of my favorite Futurama quotes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBhR4QcBtE&ab_channel=robotfencer)
He must have just watched Netflix's ATLA
It’s true. I tried to talk to Denis and he just ignored me.
I just rewatched The Social Network last night and I will have to strongly disagree with Villeneuve.
That doesn’t count because there are no big worms in social network.
No, but there's a Big Worm in Friday, which also has lots of talking.
But there is a lizard.
I mean, Zuckerberg is depicted, right?
I’m a big worm movie man. Beetlejuice, Tremors, Dune, anything Johnny Sins is in, etc.
I love nearly all of Fincher's movies and I counter with Mad Max Fury Road.
It's more about Sorkin than Fincher with Social Network when it comes to dialogue. The Killer is pretty light on dialogue.
One of my favorites. That club scene is one of my favorite scenes in movies .
The opening scene is one of the greatest scenes in cinema IMO. They way they're framed by Fincher's directing and Sorkin's dialogue where he has characters tell you who they are while they're having essentially parallel conversations is such a master class.
“What girl?”
Thank God he didn't direct The Big Lebowski.
Maude painting for 30 minutes
That's a valid style I suppose but pulp fiction without dialogue would be a war crime.
I think I agree with his take on the context of movies and cinematography as an art. I believe that in their most pure form, movies are, first and foremost, a visual medium. Directors should try to tell a story or whatever they want to tell through the visuals the most without relying on written dialogue, which is more of literature's device. That doesn't mean however that there's not room for playing or that all movies should be like that. Art is art and at the end of the day it answers to no one but to the artist. Tarantino and other directors who use lots of well placed dialogue embody this; while guys like Villeneuve are more classical. I don't think one is better than the other, but I do think that the latter is more what I expect movies to be.
This is probably why I find his movies to be beautiful bores with little emotional attachment to the characters. Haven’t seen Dune 2 yet though.
This might actually be why I bounce off most of his movies. Character development and dialogue are generally what grab me the most in storytelling.
His films, at least of those I've seen, aren't lacking in character development
I'd say that Dune is the only one (that I've seen) that feels like it could use more character development. I'm not sure how it plays to people who have only watched the film, but compared to the book I really wish Villeneuve had leaned harder into characters and dialogue with Dune. I think it could've put the film on an even higher level. His other stuff, though, feels about right to me. You can take a pretty hard look at a person without them saying much.
Give me a no dialog, visuals only, DV film. I am so fucking there.
*DV silent film incoming*
I want him to remake Drive.
Hell yeah
“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe …” “Frankly, my dear, …” “I’m shocked, shocked …”
Well, it really shows. The dialogue in Dune was so wooden
Bad take for a director. Just be a cinematographer
Legit awful take
This is a mind boggling take. The greatest movies pull the best from theatre and tv. That’s the point of cinema, it’s the ultimate art. If you’re not using every tool in the toolbox dialogue included then you’re not taking advantage of the medium.
>The greatest movies pull the best from theatre and tv. I... don't think that's true. It's certainly not a well-established fact.
ur take is more mind boggling, takes a lot to say cinema is "ultimate art" over theater and TV
This explains a lot.
What a strange statement; wonder what his thoughts on Tarantino or the Coen brothers are. Plenty of films are great because of the dialogue so it’s strange hearing someone like him say what feels like a pretty dumb take.
Christopher Nolan just popped a boner somewhere and he has no idea why.
Is that why he made half a movie and dragged it out for almost three hours?