GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Original Dune Star Kyle MacLachlan Says It's "Disheartening" That New Movie Is Coming To HBO Max

The actor says a movie like Dune is meant to be seen on the big screen.

108 Comments

Actor Kyle MacLachlan understands why Warner Bros. is releasing all its 2021 movies on HBO Max, including the new Dune, the same time they hit theaters, but he isn't enamored with the idea. MacLachlan, who starred in David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune, told the Seattle Times that a movie of the new Dune's size and scale is meant to be seen on the big screen. But he understands that this new strategy of simultaneously releasing movies in theaters and on streaming services may be the future.

"I'm excited to see it," MacLachlan said. "It's one of my favorite books and I look forward to seeing what the director Denis Villeneuve does with it. I think the simultaneous release is kind of the wave of the future. It's disheartening though because a movie like that is meant to be seen on the large screen."

Dune was the first collaboration MacLachlan worked on with David Lynch. The two also worked together on the film Blue Velvet and the Twin Peaks franchise, including both series and the theatrical film.

MacLachlan is not the first high-profile Hollywood personality to weigh in on this new way of watching movies in 2021. Before this, Tenet director Christopher Nolan slammed HBO Max as the "worst streaming service" after WB announced its plan for simultaneous releases in theaters and for streaming. Adam Wingard, who directed Godzilla vs. Kong, said he was initially "devastated" to learn his movie would come to HBO Max on day one, but he later warmed up to the idea.

For its part, Disney is also adopting this simultaneous strategy for some of its movies, like Marvel's Black Widow. When the Scarlett Johansson movie premieres in July, it will be available both in theaters and on Disney Plus through its Premiere Access program. Other films, like Soul and the upcoming Luca, don't require an extra fee.

For what it's worth, we don't know if movie studios will continue to release their films under the new simultaneous strategy after the pandemic subsides. Warner Bros. has said it will go back to the theatrical window in 2022, while Disney has said it will respond and react to what consumers want.

As for the new Dune movie, it releases in October with a lot of hype behind it. Villeneuve previously directed the acclaimed sci-fi films Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, while its cast is stacked with big names like Timothee Chalamet, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Dave Bautista, Rebecca Ferguson, Zendaya, Javier Bardem, Jason Momoa, and Stellan Skarsgard.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 108 comments about this story
108 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for lostn
lostn

6658

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 98

User Lists: 0

Edited By lostn

i haven't gone to the cinema in over 5 years. More like 7.

I prefer the comfort and convenience of my own home. It's cheaper, more people can watch it for one admission, I can watch it whenever I want, pause if I need to, rewatch a scene if I missed the dialog, turn on subtitles, I don't have to travel there or back. I can also provide my own snacks a lot cheaper than what they will charge for popcorn and drinks.

Cinema will eventually go the way of the dodo.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for RogerioFM
RogerioFM

10543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By RogerioFM

Look, I say wait until the pandemic is over and everyone got the vaccine, then worry about going to the damn theaters. People talk like it's the end of the movie theaters, it's not, even if AT&AT tries to push it, a lot of the artists themselves, will push against it, go on strikes, sure, some will not, but I thin the majority will, just worry about taking care of yourselves first.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dussan2
dussan2

160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I wanted to see this in IMax. So I can't disagree.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Divisionbell
Divisionbell

488

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

It’s disappointing we can’t go back to cinemas still, but not much you can do about it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for JIMDOG4442002
JIMDOG4442002

731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

It's good to have an opinion...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for systemoverload
SystemOverload

1193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SystemOverload

Movie theaters will go the way of arcades, almost none existing....

IMAX and movies theaters that other a different experience will survive.

3 • 
Avatar image for btotheotothejtothef
BtotheOtotheJtotheF

285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

"Disney has said it will respond and react to what consumers want." Disney sounding opportunistic as ever. If isis took over they would start responding and reacting to what they want. All about money for them. Scumbags

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@btotheotothejtothef: I think reacting to what consumers want is how most businesses operate if they want to stay in business.

3 • 
Avatar image for btotheotothejtothef
BtotheOtotheJtotheF

285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

@mogan: Do you only respond to people when theres an audience? It genuinely comes across that way. Didn't expect that from a mod but maybe I'm wrong. Sorry in advance if so

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@btotheotothejtothef: I didn't respond again because I didn't have anything else to say. Disney reacts to what they think their customers want because that's who they make their money off. I think that's how most business tends to operate.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for btotheotothejtothef
BtotheOtotheJtotheF

285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

@mogan: Fair enough. An "agree to disagree" response would've been appreciated.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for btotheotothejtothef
BtotheOtotheJtotheF

285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

@mogan: When it comes to theatrical release windows, they shouldn't be monitoring what the citizens want. They should be paying attention to the covid protocols and monitoring what their talent want. Warner is saying 2022 release window for the benefit of the filmmakers. Disney could easily make this announcement too and it would make a lot of artists happy. It's disrespectful to the filmmakers who make their films for the big screen, which I believe is almost all of them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mezzanine58
Mezzanine58

375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@btotheotothejtothef: I mean, I get the general Disney criticism, but calling them scumbags based on a quote which says they'll do what the consumers want seems like you may be stretching for that criticism every so slightly.

God damn corporations, doing what we want them to... how very dare they!

3 • 
Avatar image for naomha1
naomha1

1095

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Personally, I'm stoked to see the new movie. I will say this though. If I had a smaller tv, say, under 42" there's no way I'd watch it at home. Kyle is kinda right. Dune is such a huge series and to make it into a movie kind of requires a large screen to get totally absorbed in. Say, something along 70" to a full theatre screen. It's not really artistic vision to see it that way but to watch something in the 2:35:1 or 2:40:1 is just the shiz. Widescreen so you see EVERY damn thing.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

I get it, but honestly it's not a big enough of a deal for me to pine for the days of the theater lol.

If it's so important for a movie to be viewed on a big screen, then why bother selling it on tape or bringing it to TV at a later date?

I think some people use artistic vision as an excuse to charge people 20 dollars a ticket instead of just letting them stream it on a service they already subscribe to.

3 • 
Avatar image for Ross_the_Boss6
Ross_the_Boss6

4056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I’ve been enjoying watching these on streaming but miss the theater. No way I’m watching Dune on a TV the first time.

2 • 
Avatar image for phattsao
phattsao

291

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

We abandoned theaters, not the other way around.

4 • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

@phattsao: Honestly I think theaters were asking to be abandoned, we just were finally given an excuse.

Overpriced tickets with subpar experience. There are few good theaters out there.

I'm happy with streaming.

I like a good speaker set up like theaters have but there are just too many variables--cost, noisy people, sticky floors, bad seats, and so on--that make the theater experience an unreliable one.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-6793e8ba0e8bf
deactivated-6793e8ba0e8bf

5517

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

@mrbojangles25: I dunno. If you read up on how many demands studios (like Disney) would impose on theaters, they seem to have minority control over ticket prices. Concessions prices are a common complaint also, but if the studios are taking the majority of the ticket money, the theaters have to come up with money for employees and operating costs somehow.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61196

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

@lionheartssj1: all good points.

See? This is why I like forums and such. Perspective!

2 • 
Avatar image for cj_topspin
CJ_Topspin

797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 10

I prefer my home theater to watching a slightly out of focus movie next to a group of obnoxious teenagers in a movie theater seat filled with stale farts while holding a full bladder and contemplating burning my shoes after I leave.

That's just me tho...

6 • 
Avatar image for Chipp
Chipp

1898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Chipp

@cj_topspin

I feel the exact same way.

2 • 
Avatar image for cherub1000
Cherub1000

1372

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@cj_topspin: y'know I was gonna post a comment but I think you've pretty much nailed it there my man! Haha

2 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This is the movie equivalent of games slowly transitioning from physical to all-digital, only it was sped up by the pandemic. Let's face it: huge, high-res screens are available at a fraction of the price they used to be, a decent soundbar provides great audio and it's quite comfortable to sit on your couch and watch new releases. And cheaper. And you can pause the movie. And watch it as many times as you want. Big movie theatres are all but a thing of the past and will never recover from this, financially. And, now that the medium has proven to be just as profitable as screen-exclusive releases (mostly by Disney), there's really nothing else to consider.

Don't fret, it's not like theatres will disappear in a few years. But they will inevitably peter out and be starved for cash in 10. Hey, they will always need a place to screen Rocky Horror on Saturday nights...

3 • 
Avatar image for gargungulunk
gargungulunk

736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 3

@n0matter:

On that note, The Apple debut of that Fantasian game had a lot of fans of the genre crying about they hate mobile, and subs, and blah blah.

But this is really the new marketplace. If it were up to Corporate, we would have gone exclusively digital years ago, and now entirely streaming. It makes sense, as a business model. For a fan base, it's still pretty jarring. I'll always be a physical collector, or a /putting forth the effort is part of the whole experience/ sort of consumer; but yea, the pandemic really pushed home streaming into a whole new dynamic.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bingoh
bingoh

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@n0matter: I'm not so sure about the "cheaper" part. I have to pay for the equipment, the internet connection, the electricity, plus the price of the service and the movie itself ($20+ for new limited releases). Overall, I'm probably paying more to watch a movie on my couch than I would be to go to the theater. All of that is even worse if it's a movie only I want to see, so the price of that movie itself isn't spread across multiple viewers.

Plus, I think you're underestimating the appeal of the "date night" aspect of going to see a movie in a theater. For people who don't want to be shut-in hermits, it's something to do OUT of the house. I don't foresee movie theaters disappearing any more than plays eliminated movies or streaming music eliminated concerts.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bingoh:Think about everything you just said. Are you saying that by going to the movies you wouldn't have to pay for your Internet anymore? Or your electric bill? These are bills you would be paying regardless and have been for years now. Streaming a new release because it suddenly becomes a new feature for your existing utilities doesn't make any sense at all. But if you'd like to calculate gas money and the time you'd lose in transit by going to a theatre, go right ahead. The fact that you also think of leaving your house so you can go sit in a dark room for two hours as "going out" is hilarious.

Your examples speak perfectly to my argument; when's the last time you went to a play? And how many people actually go see plays since alternative forms of entertainment were introduced (like...movies!)? If you've ever been to a concert, about 90% of the experience is getting tossed and socializing, not listening to the actual music. The streaming part, however, DID kill the portable music media industry--purchased a CD lately? Or an entire album? Neither has anyone else. It was inevitable and Napster/other p2p services sped that conversion along just like Covid is doing to the Cinema industry.

Like I've said many time throughout this thread, AMC, Regal and all other owners of these large Cinema industries are already approaching bankruptcy and begging for a bail out. Convenience will ALWAYS win, if consumers are given a choice. What your saying resembles something like..."People will never stop going to Blockbuster to rent their movies, it's part of the experience!" And then there was Netflix...

2 • 
Avatar image for gargungulunk
gargungulunk

736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 3

I get a kick out of how granular this statement is. It's the closing line of an interview regarding the modern work MacLachlan is doing. It's not like he's on his channels blasting the decision...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ClunkerSlim
ClunkerSlim

394

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

HBO Max is the only shot this film has at surviving. It has box office bomb written all over it. It's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy situation, where it's probably a faithful adaption and maybe even a decent movie, but they don't do anything unique enough for people to go out and watch this 4th version of the story they already know.

2 • 
Avatar image for id0ntkn0w7
ID0ntKn0w7

2287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By ID0ntKn0w7

@ClunkerSlim: if David Lynch and the SciFi network failed to do the books justice, then I don't see a reason to subscribe to your theory. The Lynch film was interesting, but ultimately a letdown. The TV movies made in the 90s were...well, they were TV movies made in the 90s. You ever see The Langoliers? Yeah, about that bad. If you haven't seen The Langoliers, watching it is kind of like being in Hell.

I didn't care much for Arrival but, (controversial opinion) I found 2049 to be immeasurably better than the original Blade Runner. So I'm cautiously optimistic. You've seen a trailer that clearly doesn't show everything, and assumed because people have made (a)weirdo and (b) lame-as-Hell adaptations in the past, that people have already heard this story. Neither prior version was well received critically or commercially, so you'd be wrong. You also assume that Villa-that Villanue-that DENIS will do a 1-to-1 with this film. I'm not sure why you assume this, either.

Maybe you just hate Pink Floyd, in which case you are definitely going to Langoliers.

2 • 
Avatar image for davhidrichards
DavhidRichards

174

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@id0ntkn0w7: F*ck Arrival thats his worst film. Still great though.

Incendies. Sicario. Prisoners. Enemy.

This guy is the best in the business today. This couldnt be in better hands.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8
deactivated-64a3ced8b46b8

5977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

@id0ntkn0w7: That was a lot to unpack, references galore! 😯

PS - The Langoliers was awesome, (in written form anyway).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Litchie
Litchie

36396

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

Litchie  Online

K. Being able to show the movie to more people, and people not having to spread corona to watch it is all good in my book.

3 • 
Avatar image for soulmuncher666
soulmuncher666

468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 10

@Litchie: But... but... it meant for da big screen!! Go pay $20 to sit in an uncomfortable, nasty ass fart scented chair!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@soulmuncher666: And that's just to sit in the chair! Don't forget about the $8 candy bar and $7 soda. And having to spray years of sticky shit off of your shoes when you get home. I used to love going to the movies. When the other option I had was watching a DVD at home on a 36" tv...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DoctorTanaka
DoctorTanaka

278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Maclachlan has forgotten David Lynch refused to put his name on the film when it was originally released. The movie bombed in the theaters and only after it became a cult hit on home video and television did Lynch finally begin taking credit for it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-61c387491b649
deactivated-61c387491b649

359

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@DoctorTanaka: I doubt he forgot. And your point? Lynch refused to put his name on it because DeLaurentis and Universal took the film from him, recut it without his permission and filmed a different ending using the 2nd unit department. He didn't get final cut and didn't approve of the theatrical release and that is what bombed. He asked to have his name removed and Universal refused to remove it. His name was however removed from the television "extended" version.

2 • 
Avatar image for Art3Zero
Art3Zero

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Ok boomer.

4 • 
Avatar image for alvisj
alvisj

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Art3Zero: Exactly. I couldn't care less what any actor thinks, movies releasing at home is better for me, the consumer. You know, the people that actually make their stupid jobs so lucrative.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for talestra
talestra

45

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I think that once virtual reality becomes more common, it can be used to simulate cinema experience with a huge screen.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Smosh150
Smosh150

3050

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@talestra: Like Richards already said you can. Hell in Bigscreen they even sell tickets for movies (Or anything that can be streamed in whatever setting you want) in virtual theaters with other people. It's actually pretty fun and a neat way to watch a movie. Though I still prefer non-VR TV/Monitor just because I'm watching a movie for the movie, not the theater experience unless it is something more enjoyable with others like sports, a comedy, etc.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davhidrichards
DavhidRichards

174

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@talestra: Already is

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Carpetfluff
Carpetfluff

927

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I mean, if people want to go see it on the big screen they still can, but it's a risky propositon for many so unless they just put the entire movie making industry on hold for a while what other choice is there honestly?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tekcor
Tekcor

174

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Who gives damn? Why does he care at all how the audience chooses to see a movie? If you think it deserves to be watched in a theater, go watch it a theater. I can decide for myself, thank you very much. I shouldn’t be forced to go to a theater to see a movie, then wait three months so I can see it again at home. That’s the old way of doing things. Let the audience make up their own minds. WB’s strategy is perfect here: theater if you want it, home if you don’t.

The only thing I’d change is allowing the movies to be actually purchased on release date, from any of the standard platforms: iTunes, Amazon, Play, and so on. I know they are trying to drive people to their new streaming service, but that’s not important to me.

4 • 
Avatar image for id0ntkn0w7
ID0ntKn0w7

2287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Tekcor: who gives damn indeed. Let dipshots decide the future of movies. No longer will they be able to afford millions worth of CGI, practical, set design, architects, costumers, composers, etc. The highest paid actors will only appear in a few films per decade because no one can afford them anymore, or they'll appear in odd movies with micro-casts only.

Jesus, let a guy mourn the passing of an era! You fools have a real hard-on for sitting alone on your respective couches

2 • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@id0ntkn0w7 said:

@Tekcor: who gives damn indeed. Let dipshots decide the future of movies. No longer will they be able to afford millions worth of CGI, practical, set design, architects, costumers, composers, etc. The highest paid actors will only appear in a few films per decade because no one can afford them anymore, or they'll appear in odd movies with micro-casts only.

Jesus, let a guy mourn the passing of an era! You fools have a real hard-on for sitting alone on your respective couches

Yeah, because cutting out the middle-man (theatres) and actually earning MORE by charging to stream direct to customers will somehow be less lucrative for studios? Pull your head out of your ass. If anything, movies will have even larger budgets than before. Not to mention catering to a very large contingency of movie-goers who simply don't like to go sit in a crowded theatre at release.

And, yeah, I'm sure actors will simply refuse to act if they're only offered 10 million instead of 20 (lmao!). As if that has ever had anything to do with people wanting to see a movie (us) and not bloated salaries for entertainers and athletes in recent decades.

Nothing worse than an old fart who can't let things go. Time to go yell at kids to get off of your lawn.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for id0ntkn0w7
ID0ntKn0w7

2287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@n0matter: you seem rather naive to think they're just going to stop paying Chris Pratt millions per movie, because you want it, or that theaters will shut down, because you are a shut-in. "You're old!" Helluvah insult, kid. I shall open up my veins tonight in your honor.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for n0matter
n0matter

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By n0matter

@id0ntkn0w7: I could care less how much they pay Chris Pratt. What's naive is thinking that Mr. Pratt's going to cross his arms and stomp around angrily, refusing to do a movie ever again if a studio can't afford his $20 million paycheck. Movies are a business and salary reflects the success of said business. If the business is in the shits, then I'm sure there's an entire generation of mini-Pratts just waiting for a break to take his place for a measily $1 million and they'll do just as good of a job. It happens all of the time.

While we're on the subject of business, what do you think happens to one that generates no revenue at all? Or do you think they tuck away a year's worth of revenue 'just in case'? As I've told others, do a simple google search and you'll find evidence of AMC and other big theatre companies practically begging for financial aid on both private and Federal levels.

Cut deep, my friend. Cut deep...

Upvote •