In the coming months, you’ll be able to stream part two of the defining sci-fi blockbusters of the last two years. Chances are you’re excited about Dune: Part Two, and you’re cringing at the very idea of accidentally starting to watch Rebel Moon: Part Two — the Scargiver. I’m right there with you. But does one film really deserve the praise while the other deserves the scorn? Here’s my opinion. Keep in mind that I’ve only seen part one of both films, so my opinion is based on that.
A director and producer can really shape a film. The director traditionally concerns themselves with what you see on the screen, in other words the performances from the actors. The producer concerns themselves with trying to afford to do the things the director wants to do. Often times this means making decisions that challenge the director to do more with less. Sometimes that works out, and sometimes it doesn’t.
Dune was directed by Denis Villeneuve. Villeneuve has been consistently praised for creating films with detailed, beautiful visuals and subtle acting. If anything, Villeneuve films have been a bit too dry and subtle for some. But overall, there’s a lot to like. Known as an “actor’s director,” Villeneuve challenges performers to bring out the most in themselves.
Rebel Moon was directed by Zach Snyder. I’ve talked a bit about Snyder before. There’s a lot of controversy in the Snyder catalogue. A generation ago, Snyder brought visuals that no one had ever seen before. Over time, though, the Snyder mystique faded. The perception was that Snyder films glorified brutality and toxic masculinity, at the expense of subtle performances. I personally think that the book’s not closed on that, but yes I acknowledge it. At any rate, Snyder is known for putting a heavy personal stamp on his projects and that comes at the expense, perhaps, of good acting.
I mentioned visuals quite a bit in the previous section, but that’s not always the director’s purview. The cinematographer is charged with capturing the best possible images as things are shot. However, in this sort of sci-fi epic, it increasingly comes back to the director to shape the visuals of the film. These things are so heavy with special effects that it’s often the director who has the final say in what things look like.
Here’s where you really see the difference. Even the quickest look at Villeneuve’s films give you the feeling that there’s something different every time. You can generally guess which film a shot came from by the visual style. On the other hand, Snyder’s films can really only be distinguished by their setting. The visuals of Rebel Moon look surprisingly similar to those in 300 despite their vastly different settings. This makes the viewer feel like there’s nothing new to see even when there is.
Writing and story are two different things. Dune is based on a previous work, a very successful book series. Rebel Moon is supposedly original, but it absolutely feels like a discarded Star Wars film. From the overarching themes to props like glowing swords, you feel like there’s something derivative about Rebel Moon while Dune feels fresh.
That’s sort of unfair because the truth is that if you look at the story, neither is really incredibly fresh and new. Both tell stories of intrigue and heroism with themes that echo back at least 1,000 years. But somehow Dune’s story feels fresher because there are little bits of story that you haven’t seen before. I suppose that’s true of Rebel Moon as well but the bits you haven’t seen before tend to be things like overly sexualized giant spider women. The stuff you haven’t seen in Dune is more like the specifics of culture and politics.
On the other hand, my jaded ear doesn’t really read too much difference in the actual writing, that is to say the dialogue. Both films are full of overly dense and stilted language. So it comes down to acting and directing to make that seem natural. That’s where I’m going next.
Now we get into the less popular opinion. Dune relies on “A-List” stars. These are people you like already, people you want to listen to. They’re good at their jobs, creating sympathetic characters. But I honestly think that the acting in both films isn’t terribly that different. Dune’s is better but not incredibly better. It just comes down to your previous emotional investment in the actors themselves.
Chances are you’ve seen Dune’s Oscar Isaac, Rebecca Ferguson, Timothee Chalamet, and Zendaya in something else. They’re glamorous and desirable, that’s sort of the general feeling. On the other hand, Rebel Moon stars “that lady who was in white makeup in Star Trek Beyond,” “that guy who was Dario Naharis in Game of Thrones,” “that other guy who was Dario Naharis in Game of Thrones,” and “umm I think that guy was in Sons of Anarchy.”
Unknown actors can have great performances. It happens all the time. On the other hand, known actors carry baggage with them. If you didn’t like Euphoria then maybe Zendaya is an immediate turnoff. But by and large I think the positive reception from Dune comes from our established emotional commitment to these actors. That’s not a bad thing. Casting is the art of putting the right people in the right roles. For a big-budget film like Dune, it’s smart to have familiar faces.
I will say that while I was impressed by Dune: Part One, I’m not among those who was floored by it. I was already familiar with the source material. Truth is, I am actually not a huge fan of the actors and I find some issues with the story itself. But its visuals, the quality of its acting, and the way it felt original really made me like it. I’ll happily sit through part two when it comes to streaming.
On the other hand, I agree with a friend who said that the slide at the end of Rebel Moon: Part One that promised part two seemed like a threat. It took me three tries to make it through part one. It’s not like the story was hard to follow, it was just hard to keep paying attention. The visuals were beautiful and well-realized, but seemed unoriginal and derivative. I wasn’t invested in the story at all. Basically, I was bored.
So yes, it’s fair. And I think it’s deserved. All art is subjective, and that includes movies. In my opinion Dune is the better film and it’s worth your two hours. Based on part one, Rebel Moon isn’t. It’s a shame, because I think that tens of thousands of hours were spent on Rebel Moon. Hundreds of people put their best work into it, only for one unknown blogger to trash it. I always feel bad when I see a bad film because the truth is that it takes just as much hard work to make a bad film as it does to make a good one. Possibly more.
I guess I’ll let you all know when I’ve streamed both. I will watch both, perhaps just to be masochistic, but at any rate, I’ll do it.
The post STREAMING SATURDAY: Is Rebel Moon really worse than Dune? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
Let’s start with direction
A director and producer can really shape a film. The director traditionally concerns themselves with what you see on the screen, in other words the performances from the actors. The producer concerns themselves with trying to afford to do the things the director wants to do. Often times this means making decisions that challenge the director to do more with less. Sometimes that works out, and sometimes it doesn’t.
Dune was directed by Denis Villeneuve. Villeneuve has been consistently praised for creating films with detailed, beautiful visuals and subtle acting. If anything, Villeneuve films have been a bit too dry and subtle for some. But overall, there’s a lot to like. Known as an “actor’s director,” Villeneuve challenges performers to bring out the most in themselves.
Rebel Moon was directed by Zach Snyder. I’ve talked a bit about Snyder before. There’s a lot of controversy in the Snyder catalogue. A generation ago, Snyder brought visuals that no one had ever seen before. Over time, though, the Snyder mystique faded. The perception was that Snyder films glorified brutality and toxic masculinity, at the expense of subtle performances. I personally think that the book’s not closed on that, but yes I acknowledge it. At any rate, Snyder is known for putting a heavy personal stamp on his projects and that comes at the expense, perhaps, of good acting.
Cinematography and visuals
I mentioned visuals quite a bit in the previous section, but that’s not always the director’s purview. The cinematographer is charged with capturing the best possible images as things are shot. However, in this sort of sci-fi epic, it increasingly comes back to the director to shape the visuals of the film. These things are so heavy with special effects that it’s often the director who has the final say in what things look like.
Here’s where you really see the difference. Even the quickest look at Villeneuve’s films give you the feeling that there’s something different every time. You can generally guess which film a shot came from by the visual style. On the other hand, Snyder’s films can really only be distinguished by their setting. The visuals of Rebel Moon look surprisingly similar to those in 300 despite their vastly different settings. This makes the viewer feel like there’s nothing new to see even when there is.
Writing and story
Writing and story are two different things. Dune is based on a previous work, a very successful book series. Rebel Moon is supposedly original, but it absolutely feels like a discarded Star Wars film. From the overarching themes to props like glowing swords, you feel like there’s something derivative about Rebel Moon while Dune feels fresh.
That’s sort of unfair because the truth is that if you look at the story, neither is really incredibly fresh and new. Both tell stories of intrigue and heroism with themes that echo back at least 1,000 years. But somehow Dune’s story feels fresher because there are little bits of story that you haven’t seen before. I suppose that’s true of Rebel Moon as well but the bits you haven’t seen before tend to be things like overly sexualized giant spider women. The stuff you haven’t seen in Dune is more like the specifics of culture and politics.
On the other hand, my jaded ear doesn’t really read too much difference in the actual writing, that is to say the dialogue. Both films are full of overly dense and stilted language. So it comes down to acting and directing to make that seem natural. That’s where I’m going next.
Acting and to a lesser extent casting
Now we get into the less popular opinion. Dune relies on “A-List” stars. These are people you like already, people you want to listen to. They’re good at their jobs, creating sympathetic characters. But I honestly think that the acting in both films isn’t terribly that different. Dune’s is better but not incredibly better. It just comes down to your previous emotional investment in the actors themselves.
Chances are you’ve seen Dune’s Oscar Isaac, Rebecca Ferguson, Timothee Chalamet, and Zendaya in something else. They’re glamorous and desirable, that’s sort of the general feeling. On the other hand, Rebel Moon stars “that lady who was in white makeup in Star Trek Beyond,” “that guy who was Dario Naharis in Game of Thrones,” “that other guy who was Dario Naharis in Game of Thrones,” and “umm I think that guy was in Sons of Anarchy.”
Unknown actors can have great performances. It happens all the time. On the other hand, known actors carry baggage with them. If you didn’t like Euphoria then maybe Zendaya is an immediate turnoff. But by and large I think the positive reception from Dune comes from our established emotional commitment to these actors. That’s not a bad thing. Casting is the art of putting the right people in the right roles. For a big-budget film like Dune, it’s smart to have familiar faces.
So is it really fair to love one and despise the other?
I will say that while I was impressed by Dune: Part One, I’m not among those who was floored by it. I was already familiar with the source material. Truth is, I am actually not a huge fan of the actors and I find some issues with the story itself. But its visuals, the quality of its acting, and the way it felt original really made me like it. I’ll happily sit through part two when it comes to streaming.
On the other hand, I agree with a friend who said that the slide at the end of Rebel Moon: Part One that promised part two seemed like a threat. It took me three tries to make it through part one. It’s not like the story was hard to follow, it was just hard to keep paying attention. The visuals were beautiful and well-realized, but seemed unoriginal and derivative. I wasn’t invested in the story at all. Basically, I was bored.
So yes, it’s fair. And I think it’s deserved. All art is subjective, and that includes movies. In my opinion Dune is the better film and it’s worth your two hours. Based on part one, Rebel Moon isn’t. It’s a shame, because I think that tens of thousands of hours were spent on Rebel Moon. Hundreds of people put their best work into it, only for one unknown blogger to trash it. I always feel bad when I see a bad film because the truth is that it takes just as much hard work to make a bad film as it does to make a good one. Possibly more.
I guess I’ll let you all know when I’ve streamed both. I will watch both, perhaps just to be masochistic, but at any rate, I’ll do it.
The post STREAMING SATURDAY: Is Rebel Moon really worse than Dune? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
