Before the New Version, Let's Revisit 1984's Dune (arstechnica.com) 201
Thelasko shares a report from Ars Technica, written by Peter Opaskar: Frank Herbert's 1965 sci-fi novel Dune gets a new film adaptation -- this one helmed by Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Blade Runner 2049) -- later this month. But before Ars Technica reviews the movie, there's the matter of its predecessor: 1984's Dune, made by a then up-and-coming filmmaker named David Lynch. Detractors call Lynch's saga -- a tale of two noble space families 8,000 years in the future, fighting over the most valuable resource in the universe amidst sandworms the size of aircraft carriers -- incomprehensible, stilted, and ridiculous. It lost piles of money. Yet fans, especially in recent years, have reclaimed Lynch's film as a magnificent folly, a work of holy, glorious madness.
So which group am I in? Both. Am I about to describe Dune as "so bad it's good"? No, that's a loser take for cowards. I once half-heard a radio interview with someone speculating that the then-current artistic moment was not "so bad it's good," and it wasn't "ironic" either -- it was actually "awesome." (I didn't catch who he was, so if any of this sounds familiar, hit me up in the comments.) Art can speak to you while at the same time being absurd. The relatable can sometimes be reached only by going through the ridiculous. The two can be inseparable, like the gravitational pull between a gas giant and its moon -- or Riggs and Murtaugh.
The example the radio interviewee gave was of Evel Knievel, the '70s daredevil who wore a cape and jumped dirt bikes over rows of buses. Absurd? Heavens, yes. A feat of motorcycling and physicality? Absolutely. But beyond that, we can relate to Knievel's need to achieve transcendence at such a, shall we say, niche skill. We might also marvel at our own ability to be impressed by something that should be objectively useless but is instead actually awesome. A more contemporary example might be Tenet. It's a relentless international thriller about fate and climate change and the need for good people to hold evil at bay. But it's also a "dudes rock!" bromance between Two Cool Guys in Suits spouting sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. It can't be one without the other. "I have faith in Denis Villeneuve and his new version of Dune starring Timothee Chalamet," says Opaskar. "But it will probably be a normal movie for normal people, in which characters with recognizable emotions talk in a recognizable way and move through a plot we understand to achieve clearly defined goals. Which is all fine and good, but how likely is it to inspire sick beats for '90s kids doing ecstasy?"
So which group am I in? Both. Am I about to describe Dune as "so bad it's good"? No, that's a loser take for cowards. I once half-heard a radio interview with someone speculating that the then-current artistic moment was not "so bad it's good," and it wasn't "ironic" either -- it was actually "awesome." (I didn't catch who he was, so if any of this sounds familiar, hit me up in the comments.) Art can speak to you while at the same time being absurd. The relatable can sometimes be reached only by going through the ridiculous. The two can be inseparable, like the gravitational pull between a gas giant and its moon -- or Riggs and Murtaugh.
The example the radio interviewee gave was of Evel Knievel, the '70s daredevil who wore a cape and jumped dirt bikes over rows of buses. Absurd? Heavens, yes. A feat of motorcycling and physicality? Absolutely. But beyond that, we can relate to Knievel's need to achieve transcendence at such a, shall we say, niche skill. We might also marvel at our own ability to be impressed by something that should be objectively useless but is instead actually awesome. A more contemporary example might be Tenet. It's a relentless international thriller about fate and climate change and the need for good people to hold evil at bay. But it's also a "dudes rock!" bromance between Two Cool Guys in Suits spouting sci-fi mumbo-jumbo. It can't be one without the other. "I have faith in Denis Villeneuve and his new version of Dune starring Timothee Chalamet," says Opaskar. "But it will probably be a normal movie for normal people, in which characters with recognizable emotions talk in a recognizable way and move through a plot we understand to achieve clearly defined goals. Which is all fine and good, but how likely is it to inspire sick beats for '90s kids doing ecstasy?"
Nope. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent up.
WTF was THAT stupid idea about?
Look, you've got Patrick Stewart in there, AND Linda Hunt (Mapes), but they simply aren't enough to polish this turd to a shine.
Sorry, Kyle Maclachlan trying to play a 15 year old Paul Atredies, Sting in Black Eagle fighting briefs, and a bunch of guys who are supposed to be riding a giant sandworm looking like they're rocking back and forth on styrofoam surfboards.
No.
Do yourself a favor and don't see this. Do everyone else a favor and snap a blu-ray or DVD of it in two.
You thought Patrick Stewart was an asset in "Dune" (Score:2)
I thought that was one of the worst casting decisions in history.
I like Patrick Stewart as an actor, but he was about as wrong a Gurney Halleck as possible (and that includes casting a five year old girl for the part).
https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Gurney_Halleck
Re: You thought Patrick Stewart was an asset in "D (Score:2)
Wasn't thinking about it much more deeply than "he makes anything he's in better".
Yeah, not the best, but Hallek was supposed to be redoubtable and a mentor. Stewart at least has the mentor thing down.
Part maybe needed somebody beefier.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I like Stewart as an actor and he's surprised me in a number of roles where he was playing against type (ie "Green room") but trying to play Gurney Halleck was just wrong. It wasn't the physical attributes it was that he just can't play "jolly" - something that I always image Halleck to be except when he needs to be in action and then the character becomes a remorseless killing machine.
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lynch got the atmosphere of the novel right, but the story was incoherent. The SciFi version got the story right, but the atmosphere was all wrong.
Yes and No [Re:Nope.] (Score:5, Insightful)
Lynch got the atmosphere of the novel right, but the story was incoherent. The SciFi version got the story right, but the atmosphere was all wrong.
That's a good quick assessment.
This is the part where everybody over 50 chimes in with their experiences seeing the Lynch Dune movie. I went in to the movie with absolutely zero expectations-- I had thought that the book was unfilmable (with the technology of 1984)-- and so I was somewhat favorably impressed with what Lynch got right. My thinking at the time was that anybody who hadn't read the book would have found it incomprehensible; Lynch threw in brief moments with a lot of key characters from the book just to give them an appearance, but not enough to really make any sense.
I was pissed, though, that the ornithopters weren't actually ornithopters, but generic SF issue flying-by-magic machines.
Sorry, Kyle Maclachlan trying to play a 15 year old Paul Atredies,
Agree there. Paul, for the time frame of the film, was a skinny kid out of his element. Not a 20-some odd self-assured adult with movie-star looks.
Sting in Black Eagle fighting briefs,
Disagree there; I though Sting nailed the part of Feyd Ruatha. He's the bad boy, but he's also Paul's mirror, the way Paul could have been in other circumstances; I think he captured the duality of the role, despite only minimal actual screen time. And that surprised me completely; I hadn't expected much because I'd assumed Sting had been cast entirely for his celebrity status
and a bunch of guys who are supposed to be riding a giant sandworm looking like they're rocking back and forth on styrofoam surfboards.
The tech of the time. I actually thought the sandworms were well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Nailed it.
As somebody that basically worshipped the Dune books as a kid, that movie gave me a glimpse of what the universe would actually look like. Even if the plot was silly, stupid and incoherent at times. The characters felt lived in, and the atmosphere was beautifully choreographed.
I really dig the scifi miniseries as well, but for completely different reasons. It was too light and airy in spirit, but they did keep the plot close enough to the books to be enjoyable for what it is.
I'm hoping this new
Re:Nope. (Score:4)
Lynch's Dune just plain sucked.
I didn't think it was too bad, but I already knew the story. I watched it with others who had not read the book, and they all hated it. Without reading the book, the movie made no sense at all.
Re: Nope. (Score:2)
I didn't read the book but still looked it. It was weird and a bit confusing, but so what?
I also liked the telefilms from the 2000s (I think).
Re: (Score:2)
Exact same experience here. I LOVED the books in high school (my alias has always been 'TheIxian' based on the planet of Ix in the books).
I thought the movie was pretty good. I had a problem with the weirding modules, just like everyone else. I also scoffed at a few of the other liberties taken (like Paul's water of life triumph which definitely was not exultant in the book). But, overall, I though the tone and aesthetic of the movie really matched my imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
And having read the book it was an incoherently padded movie putting focus where it shouldn't and rushing the 3rd act to the point of absurdity. I don't understand how anyone could defend this movie much less someone who read the book and understands that lynch fucked the universe in the last scene by killing all the worms. (No, rain is not a good thing, nor what people were hoping the Messiah would bring.) The movie makes no sense regardless of how many times you read the book. The new movie is far more fa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why they bother to keep remaking it over and over
Because whom ever finally gets this right will see billions in revenue. Tolkien money. That's why.
at least one other SF book to turn into a movie... (Score:3)
Supposedly Ringworld will be a series on amazon prime as soon as 2022. I hope it's well received, enough that (especially if Dune did well too) it will open up a lot of exploration of Niven and others. It baffles me that Niven's known space universe has >25 books, we've got the technology now to do great Kzin in movies, and nobody's really been able to convince the studios that there's anything good enough to bother making a movie with yet. I mean, you think the box office receipts for Marvel movies (spe
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think a lot of Pournelle & Stirling's stuff could be made into a GoT level series
I wonder... the problem with starting with a SF-based story is that it guarantees you a fixed following of SF fans but also rules out a large audience who won't watch it because they don't do SF. GoT worked because it appealed to a large user base, e.g. my neighbours who don't otherwise venture much beyond daytime soaps and cooking shows were huge GoT fans, but they wouldn't watch anything SF because it's not their thing. So I wonder if the traditional studios who are only chasing the next cash cow would
Re: (Score:2)
GoT was popular because of gratuitous sex and violence. A Ring World series could work because, if they follow the perviness of the later books, it'll be a smash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"by bookwormT3 ( 8067412 ) Alter Relationship on Wednesday October 20, 2021 @02:24AM"
"Asimov's Foundation is supposedly going to be made,"
What, you wrote this in 2020 and the cron job just now ran?
Re: (Score:2)
And to clarify, TV series are movies by other means. Meh.
Re: (Score:3)
Asimov's Foundation is supposedly going to be made, but that's a bit more brainy.
Apple's Foundation is a horrible abomination that left all of the brains and all of the story behind in the books.
Salvor Hardin, for example, is now a kick-ass young female ranger and a head of security (she is also a "deviation" allowing her to go where others physically cannot). So she doesn't have to rely on her brains.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Jodorowsky's masterpiece
Everything I've ever read makes it sound amazing, got anything with audio or visual or documentary ? thank you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, I will look at it shortly :)
Re: (Score:2)
ordered it,
I happen to know some of those graphics, they were in some books I had when I was younger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why not att
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they are working hard to make Foundation the failed experience that will put off another generation of readers.
Re: (Score:2)
they are working hard to make Foundation the failed experience that will put off another generation of readers.
They are working to make Foundation a combination of Game of Thrones and Star Wars (the GoT part they acknowledged outloud). It may be an ok show for anyone who hasn't read the books, I can't really tell.
I wonder why they couldn't just make something original rather than desecrating Asimov's name. The fans of Foundation books are not the people they want to bring in through name recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nope. (Score:2)
A Fart piece, more like.
Sure, make Baron Harkkonen terribly ugly, instead of actually showing us that he's evil.
Might as well put a black cowboy hat on him and leave it at that.
No. Avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
I watch the first part of the 2 part series of Dune 2021, Then I saw 1984's Dune.
In reference to 84's, you it might have sucked. For me, it was the beginning of good science fiction on in the movies, I was in high school when it came out. and it was geeky enough to make itself amazing.
And that's the problem, it's a perspective thing.
I still like it, and when I watch it, I won't use a modern eye, I'll transport myself back to then, and enjoy it from that prospective. if I use a modern eye, I can see all the
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the 80's people hated the movie. But LJN's toy line for Dune was fricken rad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lynch's Dune just plain sucked.
So did the book it's based on.
Before the new version?! (Score:2)
I saw the new version in the cinema a month ago. Is complete obliviousness to the passage of time the latest affliction to beset the "editors"?
Re: Before the new version?! (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently, the film will only be released in the US and Canada on 22 of October.
I was confused too at first, since it's been released for more than a month here.
Re: (Score:2)
also slashdot wasn't exactly quick with the post about the article
Re: (Score:2)
It leaked out on BitTorrent even before any of the official release dates.
It only covers the first half of the book too, gives it more of a TV mini-series feel because the ending is clearly just setting up the next episode where there will be a satisfying pay-off. Apparently they haven't even green-lit the sequel yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised. Dune adaptations were not received well. No doubt it will get its sequel though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Decent. (Score:4, Insightful)
These kind of films grow on you. I have seen the mini-series and the 1984 version. They all have certain advantages. The new film seems to follow similar dialog to both while also changing it a bit. You will likely recall the original dialog watching the new one which is an interesting feeling. There are scenes and concepts they didn't touch in the new film which are a bit irritating but overall the cinematography is the best yet and the actors seem fairly well for the roles with a few exceptions. It's a good interpretation, now to wait for the next parts...
Re: (Score:2)
The new one was okay. Nothing really stood out from it, and I think that was its biggest flaw. It just didn't feel grandiose. There was little sense of scale, I think mostly due to the camerawork. Events that were supposed to be huge battles with large armies seemed more like a small group of personal guards.
Picard (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just glad Jean-Luc was able to make a new life for himself in starfleet.
to be serious, I only thought the worm-riding scenes were actually stupidly done, the movie overall was really geeky but I never understood all the hate people had for it. Other than maybe if you didn't already know the story you really needed to pay attention to the first two minutes / not arrive late, because there's a lot of background in the first two minutes.
And the hate doesn't even seem to be directed at the movie length, because I could understand if someone blamed a dislike of the movie over it being trimmed down to almost 2 hours and how they possibly think the movie suffered as a result. I mean, I'm not comparing it to LOTR, but just imagine how much less people would like the LOTR trilogy if it were like 3 hours or so instead of like 9 hours or whatever it was (I forget how long the non-extended version was). But nope, nobody seems to say anything like "it could have been good but it was just too short to possibly be good" or anything, they just say stuff like it just plain sucked.
Re:Picard (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just glad Jean-Luc was able to make a new life for himself in starfleet.
Minus the pug though. Nothing beats seeing him charge into battle with a big gun and a pug under one arm.
Nothing except the cat/rat.
Why is there a cat taped to a rat? Why does no one mention it? It is never referred to and never brought up again. Why WHY WHHYY IS THERE A CAT TAPED TO A RAT??
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I'm not comparing it to LOTR, but just imagine how much less people would like the LOTR trilogy if it were like 3 hours or so instead of like 9 hours or whatever it was (I forget how long the non-extended version was).
You know, I’m a huge Tolkien fan, but - I really didn’t like those movies. I sort of grok why Jackson felt he couldn’t just follow the books but whenever he diverged from the books, the characters got really shallow and stereotypical.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Tolkien characters are shallow and one-dimensional in the books too. Any depth is left up to the imagination of the reader.
I don't get all the hate (Score:3)
The 1984 version is not great but it's also not bad. The main argument against it I've seen is that it's hard to follow. Really? It starts with a narrated explainer and has a scene where the whole plot is laid out clearly during the first 20 minutes. How is that hard to follow? Of course looking back at a film from the 80s the aesthetics look weird. Same with lot's of acting and other choices. Is it weirder then Start Wars? I don't think so. IMHO it's also quite good at taking the important parts of the story and leaving out the rest so it works as a adaptation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the images in that article it looks like what they're calling a "cheat sheet" is just a copy of the glossary at the end of the original book. Not really necessary, just something the author included to give the novel additional depth.
Re: (Score:2)
That's bizarre... every single reference in the cheat sheet is in the first ~30 minutes of the movie. Like, spelled out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't get all the hate (Score:2)
Agreed, itâ(TM)s a victim of itâ(TM)s time, and to do this movie right, you would need at least three 2 hour movies. It would be much better as a series like SF channel did, but with a bigger budget. Special effects have come a long way since 84, as has directing styles.
You cannot look back at movies that tried to be ahead of their time and scorn them, they tried, and had some success, but get let down by technology or acting styles.
I will mention one movie that has grown on me over the years even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? It starts with a narrated explainer
Ah yes, narration. The hallmark of all great storytelling. To be honest the narration both at the start and the narration from the inner monologues were among the worst parts of the film. Really how not to make a compelling movie 101 kind of stuff.
Also people praising the importance of the story should focus on the significance of it raining on Dune at the end.
Tell me, Mr Opaskar (Score:2)
When your mouth just hangs open in astonishment at the audacity and surrealism of today's art...
How is that not awesome?
Maybe I'm old.
--
Don't even bother.
Re: (Score:2)
But for the record (if there is such a thing), all the sandworms (the size of aircraft carriers) would die if it started raining, as it did at the end of Lynch's Dune.
--
Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but tears of joy? For the rains? By fremen?? Doubtful. Fremen don't cry. Ever. Waste of water.
--
Yes, I am sometimes autisticly pedantic while shuffling off to Buffalo, NY in search of the Great Pumpernickel.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, that's what makes the tears so poignant and memorable...
Not that I agree with the ending... Obviously, it is one of the many liberties taken with the story that never happened in the book but make for a nice movie ending...
Let's not forget Jodorowski (Score:2)
...he was supposed to put out an even more ludicrous version of Dune. They even made a documentary about it some years ago
Re:Let's not forget Jodorowski (Score:5, Insightful)
I love Jodorowski as much as the next guy. But can we please stop mentioning his version of Dune that he was supposed to make that he never made because it required a ludicrous budget?
Even I can write a script for the greatest movie of all time, and even have someone make a documentary on what a shame it is that I was never able to make it. But ultimately I didn't make it did I? So my ultimate great movie is a complete nonevent that doesn't count.
I watched Dune 2021 Part One yesterday (Score:5, Insightful)
and it sucked.
I mean it was a good effort: Villeneuve didn't fall into the trap of making it a stupid Marvel-style action movie, and some of the stuff he came up with are truly good (like the firefly helicopter things). But the rest was awful. The kid playing Paul Atreides is the blandest actor I've seen in a long time. The guy playing Duke Leto, Oscar Isaac, has "shitty Star Wars actor" permanently tattooed on his face. Lady Jessica looks like she's having particularly painful periods from start to finish. Javier Bardem's face overdoes it as Stilgar, while his otherwise great acting skills seem to be on pause in that movie.
And on and on.
It's not truly awful, but it's bad enough that I still prefer Lynch's version - and that's saying something, because it was kind of an abortion.
To Villeneuve's credit, it was a tough nut to crack. Still, he really pulled it off with Bladerunner 2049, to my utter amazement and enjoyment, but missed the mark quite badly with Dune.
Re: (Score:3)
The ornithopters are in the books. Villeneuve rendered them nicely, but didn't come up with them.
I thought it was a decent attempt, but inevitably there wasn't time to do it right and so some things didn't make sense because key context was missed. (Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen it!) In the books, the Atreides deduce from context that Liet is a Fremen god, and when Kyne takes Paul and Jessica into the ecological station and Paul asks "Who are you to the Fremen?" it's because one of them addressed
The 1984 version is pretty good. Also: Giger(!). (Score:3)
It does capture the totalitarian vibe of the Dune universe. David Lynchs weirdness together with H.R. Gigers epic total horror design (Giger designed the fundamentals of the Alien franchise in case you didn't know) conveyed a slightly campy but coherent version of that. I also thought that the actors and character portrayal was very well cast and well done across the board, right down to side-parts. Even Sting totally nailed a Lynch-driven Feyd Rautha. Also in that regard the movie still holds up today IMHO. It's also that part where Villeneuve is probably most eager not to screw things up. Totos opening theme and the title images is as epic and timeless as ever
The problem with Dune 1984 is that IIRC Lynch wanted to squeeze Dune into an 4-5 hour film but profit requirements cut that back to regular feature film length. It shows in the beginning sequence that really takes its time to do the worldbuilding. That the last 2 thirds had to be chopped up and cut down to standard hollywood fare squandered a bit of the potential. Enter Villeneuve. Villeneuve actually liked the 1984 version because he liked the material but he thought it fell short of its potential (Duh.). IIRC reading and later watching Dune (1984) it's even one of those experiences that compelled him to become a director and redoing Dune was on his wishlist since his teens.
So let's hope for the best. I was weary seeing the first trailer, it looked closer to the book but a little "meh". Trailer two showed more glimpses of the world, the navigators and other details and it sure looked better. I'm hopeful that Villeneuve can deliver on his intention one-up the 1984 Dune. I really like him for not screwing up Bladerunner 2049 - I thought for a movie that absolutely positively does not need any sort of sequel and has a high chance of suffering from one he did a tremendous job and delivered a plausible story in the BR universe with a very present cast.
If he does the same with a Dune redo, I'll be fine with it.
My 2 eurocents.
Dune ain't good movie material (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm waiting for this version to prove me wrong, but I doubt it will.
Dune doesn't really work as a movie for two reasons: First, it's way, WAY too convoluted to be told in a mere 2 hours. That's one of the reasons why most people who didn't know the books hated the 1984 version: It doesn't make any sense if you don't know how to fill the logical gaps in the story the movie tells because you know from the books what belongs in there. The movie has to leave out certain parts of the story unless you want to make it a test drive for Prep H due to people having to sit still for 10+ hours.
And then there's the fact that a LOT of the story is told as internal monologue of characters. The whole 5th book is essentially Paul talking to himself. That works fine in a book, it even still kinda works for a theater play, but a movie audience expects to see more than a guy staring at them with a blank face while hearing his inner monologue. Movies are "show, don't tell" media, and unfortunately Dune is a story that is told, not shown.
Like I said, I'm waiting for the new version for a final verdict, but unless they find a way around these problems, that's not going to change.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a matter of personal taste. I read _Dune_ when I was 12 and thought it was terrible. There might be a good sci-fi story in there somewhere but it is so buried under useless inner monologue to even glimpse a bit of it.
The other genre that extensively uses inner monologues? Romance novels, and those are pure dreck as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Dune is more fantasy than sci-fi. The technology isn't entirely irrelevant, but the things which really define the setting are magical rather than technological.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, really, most of the stuff that is labeled as sci-fi falls into the fantasy category because, unless the technology exists, it is fantasy.
If your story involves any of the following, it is fantasy/magic based:
- Time travel
- FTL
- Worm holes
- Force fields
- Anti-gravity / Inertia dampening
Re: (Score:2)
I saw the Dune movie before it was made. When I read engaging fiction, it turns into a head-movie including visuals.
I have enjoyed films that many impugn for length, 238 minutes of La Belle Noiseuse, or the 219 minute DVD cut of Heaven's Gate, but I also recall missing part of Star Wars from having to pee the consequences of the large Dr. Pepper that seemed like a good idea on a hot summer day. There is no market for 12-20 hour book-reading-length films.
Series presentation can work well, especially if t
Re: (Score:2)
Good news is this one has no inner monologuing like the previous one, and also doesn't attempt to tell the whole first book in one film.
What's not obvious until you see the title card is that this film is called "Dune Part 1" and ends as Paul and his mother join the Fremen.
Sigh (Score:2)
We can revisit 1984's Dune all you like, it's not going to change anything. Unless if by "revisit" you mean "revise". A subtle but important difference. Because only by revising the old film's plot and beating it into today's context of current events and point of views will you ever be able to claim that it was about climate change. It was also not a thriller, simply because it wasn't thrilling. David Lynch is to blame for that.
Because I have yet to see a movie by David Lynch that wasn't boring. Except Dun
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to make Dune about climate change if you want to, but why would you want to?
Re: (Score:2)
Blade Runner 2049 sucked (Score:2)
Hollywood keeps forgetting it's telling a story, not showing some visual effects to make up for a hollow plot line. In that sense CGI is the worst thing that ever happened to the movie industry. With each improvement in the realism of the special effects the plots become thinner and thinner with the last Star Wars trilogy as the current low-point.
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest CGI Sin: Color Grading + new dune (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why gatekeep? Blade Runner? awesome 2049? eh, OK (Score:2)
It's EXTREMELY rare that a franchise has multiple AMAZING movies. For example, Aliens blew my mind and still does. Alien was great, but not as impactful as Aliens, the rest?...e
I never read the books (Score:4, Insightful)
So I actually love 1984 Dune. It's not incomprehensible at all. I still remember and understand the entire thing - so much so that when I saw the new Dune, I was disappointed at how badly it copied the old one scene for scene, and how bad the acting is in the new one.
The only thing I don't like about the old Dune was the massive fighting scenes where they just sort of play that operatic music in the background, because it took forever. Everything else about the old Dune rocked. It was stylistically and acting-wise exactly what I wanted out of a creepy space opera. It's still one of my favorite movies.
Don't let other people tell you what you should or shouldn't like.
Re: (Score:2)
THANK YOU! Yes, I always thought the old Dune was awesome and have seen it countless times. It rocks! I still like it! The new one? The trailer left me cold, even though I wanted to see it as awesome. It wasn't. Especially the whiny, voice-cracking protagonist. What!? I have no patience for that and would not enjoy imagining myself as that nebbish. Though I am not going to movie theaters it would not even be at the top of my streaming rental list, sorry to say. Just wanted to come here and say the old Dune
Re: (Score:2)
You can like it, that doesn't make it a good film. The 1984 version would be better placed as a mother telling you a story as you fall asleep. The classic movie making 101 rule of show don't tell is just pissed all over, it's a movie entirely reliant on an excruciating amount of narration and still borderline incoherent of you don't know the material.
I can forgive bad acting but the 1984 movie was outright horrible, even when it didn't take a dump on the source material.
Even its own director didn't want to
Wait, you want me to cut it down to two hours? (Score:5, Informative)
Evel Knievel (Score:2)
I always really liked it... (Score:2)
Personally I always really liked it having only discovered it around the mid-2000s.
But my wife and I also sit around watching Lost Boys, Bio Dome, Seven, Shawshank, Interview with, Goodfellas, Godfather, Pulp Fiction and other older quirky classics.
I always enjoyed the 1984 dune as a middleground and the correct amount of Kitch applied to Starwars.
Also maybe I am just a geek but the CGI for the 80s was actually AMAZING if you watch other flicks of the same era.
Enjoyable For It's Own Merits, But (Score:2)
Though, the problem is: David Lynch villainized gingers and the gay men; as for the latter, I think that Al
It's Grown on Me (Score:2)
Three changes... (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the Lynch movie, but parts are a hot mess. I think it would be an amazing movie with three changes:
1. Get rid of the Weird modules. Completely unnecessary.
2. Tone down all the disgusting Harkonnen shit--blood sucking, boil popping, cat milking, all of it. We get it, they're villains.
3. Give the Bene Gesserit back their hair.
Beautiful movie (Score:2)
This movie was great. I will say it's not levels of Blade Runner 2049 great, and I'd attribute that mostly to the fact the story wasn't complete. I didn't know this was part one until I saw the title at the beg
LOVE the EON reference (Score:2)
It's a complex story (Score:2)
It requires a Game of Thrones length series
I like the David Lynch one. (Score:2)
I give 0 fucks about this new one. I know the old one takes a lot of shit. I don't care, and I admit I never read the book.
Writer and director David Lynch has said he considers this movie the only real failure of his career. To this day, he refuses to talk about the production in great detail, and has refused numerous offers to work on a Special Edition DVD. Lynch claims revisiting the movie would be too painful an experience to endure.
From IMDB. I disagree. I didn't even know it was a David Lynch movie until recently, but having seen Lost Highway in high school the only thing I can remember about that was the awesome soundtrack.
There is also a great documentary about Jodorowsky's failed Dune [wikipedia.org] which features a lot of weird shit and HR Geiger designs.
1984 Dune is a Masterpeice (Score:2)
What's not to like in 1984's Dune? It's plain awesome.
Exactly, awesome is the word a movie that is awe inspired. Patrick Stewart and Sting. The messing with emotions. Everything about it is big and to be watched as it is. Don't forget this movie was made for a big screen, not a flat screen in your lounge with a shitty sound system fighting with light and noise from outside.
It's not Star Wars or Star Trek. Like 2001:ASO, Dune is a work of art. A lot of people don't get that because they're too busy nitpicking what it isn't to let go and appreciate it for
Re: (Score:2)
I have only one real problem with the original movie, the weirding module added nothing and as such should not have been there. All my other memories of it are glorious.
That's more than a nit, frankly. It's a big departure from the story.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several major departures from the book in the movie.
The weirding modules were meant to adapt the Benne Gesserit Prana Bindu and Weirding Way (combat style) into something more easily explained.
At least that was something that wasn't completely made up out of whole cloth like the rain at the end of the movie.
Even still, I really like the experience of the movie. It is unique and has a very cool aesthetic that I really appreciate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, having it rain on Arrakis at the end of the movie was dumb. That shouldn't happen at all until much, much later in the saga (the end? don't recall) and even then it's only scattered showers in some regions mentioned IIRC. But weren't Fremen mentioned going to other planets, with more water? Seems like a ham-handed attempt to shoehorn that into the end of the only movie Lynch was going to get to make.
My point wasn't that the weirding module was the only departure, just that it was the only one that piss
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine you go into this movie having never read the books and never having heard anything about Dune, Arrakis, Atreides or Harkonnen.
Does the movie make sense?
Re: (Score:2)
This was me at eleven years old. It was hyped by 3-2-1 Contact Magazine and was just plain baffling when I spent paper-route money to go see it.
The Sci-Fi Channel miniseries was good. My kids liked it. The length was correct for Dune - a movie is too short.
I am a fan of most of Lynch's work but not this one.
Re: (Score:2)
People have actually heard of the mini-series!
To most people it's a book, Lynch, and 2021 movie.