#Dune was considered a movie that was impossible to adapt correctly before and the fact that it's been done so well (even with book changes)

[masterskywalkers]

I understand where OP is coming from but the movies named are not the appropriate examples to use for this argument.

Dune parts one and two look incredible mainly because of two things: practical effects and shooting on location. Add these two golden gems of any filmmaking along with Villeneuve's own unique style and the care and respect he has for the medium, you're more or less guaranteed gold. Dune has the potential right now to stand alongside other movie standouts like the original Star Wars trilogy and Lord of the Rings for being timeless works of art and instant classics (which is long deserved for Dune because my god, it has deserved an onscreen adaption like this for decades). There are aspects of Dune that remind me of shots in Lawrence of Arabia in that of their grandeur and I am so thankful and glad we're seeing examples of passionate cinema again (Dune and Godzilla Minus One: I love you both dearly).

While Disney has fallen off track (especially with some of their live-action adaptions - like I do not want to even think about the up-and-coming Snow White adaption and neither does Bob Iger, apparently. Pushed back for 2025 and apparently it might not even make cinemas now - what even is the point?) - it is unfair to talk about the effects used in films like Marvel when it has already been made painfully clear that the visual effects team are pressured and forced to crunch their work. The way these movies work is not down to these effects artists but to the management demands. Plus using special effects for a whole movie like Antman: Quantamania is expensive. I want to say 80% of them are effects and eh, you can tell the focus was more on that than the story. The real debate here - and what movies like Dune prove - is how much of a balance should there be in a movie of practical vs. special effects (personally, I've always thought practical looks better and has more longevity).

Now Mission Impossible is another bad example because a) Dead Reckoning was a good movie that was released at a bad time (literally right before Barbenheimer - Tom Cruise literally argued about this with cinemas as so many IMAX ones were showing Barbie or Oppenheimer on multiple screens but MI could barely get one screen in some cinemas) and b) Mission Impossible had to jump through so many hurdles as it began filming pre-pandemic, halted filming for lockdown, then continued filming as soon as they received the green light to do so under covid regulations (we all remember the Tom Cruise clip that went viral of him arguing with some of his team about them not taking the covid precautions seriously and how it would negatively affect all of them when they should be taking care whilst working hard to finish their product so it can go into cinemas once they were open and profitable again).

I actually weirdly know someone who worked on Mission Impossible - there is a period where I remember seeing the work that had been done on the train crash scene while they were working on it and damn, was it impressive the work the team put into it! - so yeah, I can understand where the budget went for them considering their filming went on for so much longer than they intended or expected.

A lot of the time a film looks fantastic not because of the budget but because of the artistic style of the director. There are so many movies that are released on a low budget that are visually stunning - money isn't everything in this industry - as much as these studios would have you believe - and you can create beautiful works of art with minimal cost. But cinema isn't cheap: practical effects aren't cheap, and special effects aren't cheap. Shooting on location isn't cheap (and can cost more depending on the location, which is why now they've developed screen technology to mimic some locations for cheaper and easier use). Paying your workforce and actors isn't cheap - especially not when they're then told not to work due to a global pandemic, but you're still paying them. Yeah, some films are ridiculously expensive for, seemingly, no good reason. But I would say there are more examples in Hollywood of questionable spending than these two movie examples OP has presented.

But yeah, everyone go watch Dune because those movies are made for the cinema experience and look incredible. There is no doubt that these movies will likely be a blueprint in design for other future movies inspired by these works, and I damn hope it inspires more people to go into the movie industry and make art they're passionate about. Dune is made with a real love for the story by all of the crew - especially Villeneuve and Zimmer - and it shows.

Its wild that Dune part 2 was like $190 million or something and looks phenomenal, and while thats still a lot of money, these marvel/sony/ Disney flops cost $350+millions?!??! It has to be money laundering like it HAS to be. Where is that money going?? Mission impossible cost $567million. Antman cost $450 and looks as drab and washed out and forgettable as every other marvel movie. Like?!??