So you want movies to reflect the world at it’s dingiest and ignore all the bright stuff? You’re narrowing reality into a little niche that you personally enjoy. That’s a completely subjective take and not reflective of reality at all. Look, say you like gray. No one’s going to debate you on that except to give their own opinion. Don’t try to make your opinion a singular universal truth.
True enough. But, it's not what I want in a film at this point in my life. That might change. But not right now. Mileage will vary
I grew up in a desert.
Have you ever been to Arches National Park? Or the Valley of Fire, or Bryce Canyon? Lots of vivid colors in those deserts.
And that's a dodge anyway, because a movie's look is not all about the outdoor locations. It's about the clothes people wear, the way they decorate their buildings, etc. We see bare stone on statues in Rome, pillars in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico and think that's what they've always looked like, but in fact those were typically vividly painted, as @Mark2000 says.
I'd much rather see the insanity of something like Jodorowsky's Dune, the aborted attempt to make a Dune film in the 70s, which resulted in the "dream team" of designers who went on to do Alien.
I dig what you guys are saying. I live in Phoenix AZ. I've lived here for almost 40 years. I've been to Bryce Canyon and the Grand Canyon and all over AZ and UT many times. It can be very colorful. I was NOT trying to be sarcastic or put you guys down - I was genuinely asking. I know that people who have never seen a desert IRL don't think there's as much color as there is - and even people who have seen it don't always really look.
You could always watch German art house films from the 80s.
Got enough of those in college.
I’v never heard the ‘84 movie referred to as a “cult classic,” generally. Have heard it referred to as a big budget flop, which it was. But that alone didn’t mean it was a bad movie .
The only thing is that people might think the movie has ripped off Jabba the Hutt from Star Wars. It could look almost comical if not done correctly. I think it might have to be filmed largely from Leto's point of view before the end of the movie to avoid spoiling the reveal. The beginning might be introduced by Duncan Idaho (ghola) and Siona Atreides talking about plotting against the emperor Leto. The audience might perhaps wonder how Duncan and Leto are alive and why Duncan is apparently a traitor. The plots of Messiah and Children would follow, perhaps with more exposition by Duncan and Siona between the two, perhaps with Siona's rebellion, and her capture and testing in the desert to pad out part 1. After Leto's anastomosis with the sand trout and ascension to emperor in Children, the time jumps to 3,500 years later - Leto putting Siona in a spice trance perhaps should be included but probably the Hwi Noree thread would have to be dropped for time and simplicity, which would be a pity. It's difficult to see how to balance the content between two movies and one would not be enough unless it were nearly four hours long. Probably never going to get made anyway but Messiah might on its own.
Wasn't it going to be 14-hours long? No cinema would want to show a movie that long nor would most patrons' bladders tolerate it. Jodorowsky compared Herbert's work to Proust. I've never really understood where he saw the similarity apart from the length of the books. Frank Herbert's six Dune novels total 2,500 pages and just over a million words; the seven volumes of À la recherche du temps perdu total 4,200 pages and just over 1.25 million words when translated into English. Jodorowsky and Giraud (Moebius) took a lot of ideas from their aborted effort and created The Incal graphic novels series about which I know nothing but it's supposedly really good.
That's how I first saw it in the 70s. cut in two and hacked up with commercials.
It does have an intermission point. I had to watch it over two days.
