Views : 14,845
Genre: Film & Animation
Date of upload: Apr 20, 2024 ^^
Rating : 4.952 (6/498 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-03T07:27:35.047112Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
The dialogue doesn't contradict. The sandworms are attracted to rhythmic noses. The line about how the shields throw the worms into a killing frenzy speaks for itself. Your chances of being killed by a sandworm simply increase drastically. I haven't read the books. That's simply how I interrupted the lines in the movie.
19 |
Quite disappointing editing breakdown. I mean, apart from the Paul trippy close-up intercut with itself, and the Josh Brolin jump cut, you're not talking about the editing, you're just explaining the purpose of the script, which is already pretty explicit in that scene. You're spending so many minutes rephrasing what the characters are already telling, just to go to the conclusion that "this is set up", "this is more set up", "this is the surprise". You could have done that with the script, you did not need the movie and the shots. I also don't get why you're using the black and white trick, because Walker says it's for him to get a fresh view on a scene that he probably has seen hundreds of times, which is not our case. We don't need a "fresh" view, we need a deeper one, we need to understand why this shot goes after this one, we need to understand why Villeneuve decided to shot like this, how he has built the scene to give life to the worm. You're showing every cut but you make nothing out of them, you're just telling us what the writers had in mind when they wrote the dialogs and the scenes, but what about the editing ? I have no problem with you analyzing the scene through a narrative prism, if this is what you're selling us. But you're selling edit insights, and there's none. Understanding the purpose of the outline of the narrative is not something that will make you a better editor, it is something that is REQUIRED to be an editor, just so you can speak the same language with the director. But what an editor can add to the narrative, to the shots, to the story, to the director, how he can serve his vision, how his editing can serve the narrative already built by the dialogs and the outline of the scenes, THAT is interesting and needs to be broken down. Let's talk about the sound, the evolution of the music, its purpose, let's talk about Liet's voice over the shot of Paul flying over the worm, how it connects many layers of the story into a bigger one.... Let's talk about editing !
67 |
Paul's line to Gurney as Gurney arrives ("I recognize your footsteps old man") is a throwback to their training fight, and so it suggests Paul, while in the trance / dream state is still lucid. So... the jump cut suggests one strange aspect of Paul's experience of time, the line-reading suggests another, and the throwback, a third.
16 |
Thanks for this breakdown! To be fair, flipping the image is the oldest trick in the graphic design playbook. Personally, I think Villeneuve's adaptation is about as good as we can expect, his sense of scale is wonderful. But some of the acting is clumsy (Keynes, for example), he lacks the imperial language from the book (language that Lynch appreciated), and the last shot in the film should have been the body of the man Paul killed (maybe a Lawrence of Arabia rip-off, but still a foretaste of what is to come). Thanks again!
|
It's funny how you say that the set up was important to establish how all of this works, and looking back at it now, it 100% makes perfect sense. But when I watched that sequence for the first time, I didn't even connect that first harvester to the one later, and got what went wrong from the scene at 11:02, because they lingered on the googles shot. For me, "The set up shot" just felt like one of those establishing shots of "the spice business". 😁
1 |
@ThisGuyEdits
1 week ago
Check out the Bonus Scene Breakdown: thisguyedits.com/dune
|