[HN Gopher] I Found David Lynch's Lost 'Dune II' Script
___________________________________________________________________
I Found David Lynch's Lost 'Dune II' Script
Author : BerislavLopac
Score : 256 points
Date : 2024-01-11 10:47 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| ekianjo wrote:
| ... And locked the article behind a paywall
| n1b0m wrote:
| I'm able to read it for free
| lproven wrote:
| Me too.
| ur-whale wrote:
| https://archive.is/9pz3M
| austinjp wrote:
| https://archive.is/9pz3M
| Jenk wrote:
| https://archive.ph/9pz3M
| looping8 wrote:
| Can some explain how it is possible that an official archive
| would have this document and never look at it? The missing script
| for a never-made movie should attract attention, but nobody cared
| until this one writer found it? Why?
| gopher_space wrote:
| Official archives can mean a few boxes in the basement, and
| submissions aren't catalogued as thoroughly as you might be
| expecting.
|
| Do you know which authors have archives at your nearest state
| school? Is that info even on the internet?
| krisoft wrote:
| > Official archives can mean a few boxes in the basement
|
| This is very apt description. In this case it sounds like
| they have 91 boxes (78 Document boxes, 13 cartons of research
| files)
|
| Not sure if they are in the basement but the record locations
| says: Aisle 9A -- Shelves 1-4
|
| > and submissions aren't catalogued as thoroughly as you
| might be expecting
|
| That is also true in this case. By the sounds of it Frank
| Herbert boxed up all his papers and donated them to the
| library. Later on family donated more as they found more.
|
| There is a very high level inventory, such as "Container 7:
| Maps" Maps of what? Doesn't say. How many? Doesn't say. One
| has to go there physically to find out.
|
| There is also a "Flat file drawer tbd" containing a "Dune
| Atlas". Which to be honest sounds very intriquing. And a
| "Small document box A-204" with "personal items" which is
| decidedly less so.
|
| Source:
| http://archives.fullerton.edu/repositories/5/resources/56
| acheron wrote:
| > Official archives can mean a few boxes in the basement
|
| "Beware of the leopard"
| fuzz_junket wrote:
| I'm doing a master's in library science and archives, currently
| working a couple of internships processing archives. The answer
| is archives are big, complex, and time-consuming. One
| collection I work with is 131 cubic feet of records including
| papers, floppy disks, and photographic film. It's unprocessed,
| meaning the archivists haven't had a chance to arrange and
| describe it, which isn't a wonder considering the size of the
| collection -- and that's only one of many in the backlog.
|
| Even if a collection is processed, because of the volume of
| information in a given collection archivists typically don't
| typically describe every document. In a library you can
| catalogue every book, but that's not possible in an archive.
| And in an artist's papers, how can you know which document will
| be important to someone? How can you know what's artistically
| significant? The time it would take to research the background
| of every document (Was this script ever made? Is it interesting
| to anyone?) would be prohibitive.
|
| Add into the mix that archives are chronically underfunded and
| archivists underpaid. This is coming from the unpaid intern who
| was asked to process a $33,000 acquisition last year. Fun
| times.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| For comparison a regular French-door fridge is about 25 cu
| ft. So 131 cu ft is equivalent to about 5 fridges' worth of
| materials. Not that one would store an archive inside fridges
| :)
| signalToNose wrote:
| 131 Cubic Feet = 0.00148380032 Olympic Size Swimming Pool
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Yeah but how many football fields? ;)
| throw0101d wrote:
| Also, how many football pitches?
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_pitch
| INTPenis wrote:
| Speaking of epic scifi, when are we getting a Hyperion movie? I'm
| just re-reading it now and it would make for an amazing movie
| with todays special effects.
|
| Or like a single season mini series.
| Krasnol wrote:
| I hope we never get a movie, to be honest.
|
| I love the Hyperion books, but it would hurt me even more to
| see the depth butchered for a mediocre Hollywood audience in a
| cinema than it did with Dune.
|
| A mini-series would be nice, but I feel that an animated series
| would be even better.
| INTPenis wrote:
| I often agree about the animated bit, for example I'd much
| rather see the Alastair Reynolds novels as an animated
| series. I just don't think any movie can do them justice.
|
| But personally I thought the new Dune movie was really good,
| I can't wait for the 2nd part.
| livueta wrote:
| Macheneries of Empire is another one I feel would only work
| as anime, not just animated. A lot of things in that, like
| the description of Kujen's (literal) shadow as like a
| canvas of fluttering moths' wings (and a lot of other
| fashion-related descriptions), remind me a lot of
| Gankutsuou's visual effects.
| echelon_musk wrote:
| I really enjoyed reading Hyperion. I bought it in a second hand
| book store before a flight back from NZ to Europe. However, the
| crude writing of this particular passage stayed with me:
|
| "Sissipriss Harris had been one of my first conquests as a
| satyr - and one of my most enthusiastic - a beautiful girl,
| long blond hair too soft to be real, a fresh-picked-peach
| complexion too virginal to dream of touching, a beauty too
| perfect to believe: precisely the sort that even the most timid
| male dreams of violating"
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Well, the character speaking _was_ an utterly degenerate
| asshole, so there 's that...
| devnullbrain wrote:
| That degenerate asshole was a thin avatar of an author who
| twice decided it would be wise to introduce a child
| character & immediately talk about them having sex with
| another character by way of time-travel-shenanigans
| dotancohen wrote:
| What is crude with that? Are you trying to project some type
| of moral by suggesting that a woman's features influence her
| perceived desirability? Or that traditional European features
| are suddenly no longer considered attractive to people of
| European descent (as the author was)? Or that people of one
| sex should not lust for people of the opposite sex? Or that
| sometimes lust as felt by young and healthy people could
| never be a purely physical drive?
| echelon_musk wrote:
| I found it stark to imply that all men dream of violation.
| It just felt like a very out of place part of the book to
| me where perhaps the author's own biases came through
| instead of as an effort to describe a character.
|
| Equally, of course, I'm aware that my reaction to this
| passage also says something about my own conditioning.
| Krasnol wrote:
| It is quite in character for Martin Silenus. Especially
| at that point of the story.
|
| If you had problems with that already, you shouldn't read
| Endymion and Rise of Endymion.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Equally, of course, I'm aware that my reaction to this
| passage also says something about my own conditioning.
|
| All other issues aside, this sentence reveals a self
| awareness that I strive to achieve. I am saving this
| comment for inspiration, thank you.
| scns wrote:
| > precisely the sort that even the most timid male dreams
| of violating.
| paxys wrote:
| It's well understood that to read and enjoy most sci-fi out
| there you have to accept that women and sex will be written
| from the perspective of a 14 year old boy.
| INTPenis wrote:
| You can't get stuck on such details. Even the Dune movie
| removed any references to "jihad", so I'm sure we can
| storyboard something fitting and modern for Hyperion.
| ycombinete wrote:
| I read _Hyperion_ recently and I think it would suffer from
| movie treatment. Like McCarthy's _The Road_ , so much of the
| horror in _Hyperion_ comes from what is left to the
| imagination, like the terror of the shrike; and that which is
| internal to the characters, like the pain of the cross.
|
| I doubt these could be translated effectively to a visual
| medium.
| paul80808 wrote:
| But other scenes, like the squishing of the literary agent
| between the floor and ceiling of a building that had been, up
| until that moment, supported but some kind of energy field,
| would be spectacular.
|
| But more generally I completely agree with your comment. I
| also think the religious symbolism, like the cruciform
| parasite and the tree of pain, were a bit cheesy and
| overwrought in the writing, and would come across cheesy in a
| film, too.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Well I guess you'd have to find a really good director and
| team of writers.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Whet your appetite:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/zcahum/hyperion...
| saberdancer wrote:
| Strange no one commented but apparently Bradley Cooper (of all
| people) is working on making it. https://movieweb.com/bradley-
| cooper-hyperion-movie-epic/
|
| No definite timeline on it.
| pram wrote:
| "Scytale's friends are laughing and wildly rolling marbles under
| their hands as they watch Scytale sing through eighteen mouths in
| eighteen heads strung together with flesh that is like a flabby
| hose. The heads are singing all over the pink room. One man opens
| his mouth and a swarm of tiny people stream out singing
| accompaniment to Scytale. Another man releases a floating dog
| which explodes in mid-air causing everyone to get small and lost
| in the fibers of the beautiful carpet."
|
| I thought the Giedi Prime scenes were pretty strange, but Lynch
| was apparently in a "hold my beer" mood.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| Glad this film wasn't made. It would've been less accurate to
| Herbert's vision than Starship Troopers was to Heinlein's.
| gylterud wrote:
| Is a film only worth making if it stays accurate to the
| author's vision? The books exist and can still be read after
| films are made. The movie must stand on its own merits. If
| the filmmakers have their own vision that might make a better
| film. Of course, there is no guarantee the film will be good,
| no matter what...
| fragmede wrote:
| It should at least be related. World War Z bears little
| resemblance to the book, to the point that basically the
| only thing they have in common use the name and the fact
| that they both have zombies in them.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| World Word Z the book wouldn't make sense as a movie. It
| could work as a mini-series though, with each chapter
| treated as its own episode.
| eszed wrote:
| Not to derail the thread, but I thought WWZ was _such_ a
| missed (both artistic and commercial) opportunity, by not
| following the structure of the book. They could have made
| a whole anthology of stand-alone films, each detailing a
| different element of the world / apocalypse. There was
| more than enough material for an entire franchise, they
| just needed to aim a little lower with each film.
|
| The movie we got was _blah_, but does have one of the
| most visceral moments I've seen in any zombie flick: the
| bit where Brad Pitt stands on the edge of the roof,
| counting down the seconds until he'll know whether he's
| been infected or not.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Why call it "Dune" then?
| broscillator wrote:
| Why did John Coltrane call it My Favorite Things?
| Almondsetat wrote:
| I don't know, why answer a question with a question?
| broscillator wrote:
| To make you think a little about what art means and
| what's it all about.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Seems like you don't have an answer then, teacher sir
| broscillator wrote:
| I do, Coltrane told me. Only he didn't do it on hn
| comments.
| k__ wrote:
| Not everyone reads books but watches movies, so there is a
| market to sell the same story in different media.
| lapcat wrote:
| Most films based on books are made only to cash in on the
| name and preexisting audience of the book.
|
| Consequently, most films based on a book are worse than the
| book.
|
| Neither Dune film is an exception to this. I'd rather just
| read the book again than watch either film. And if you're
| someone who has never read the book, and indeed has no
| desire to read the book, then why do you even need a "Dune"
| film made for you?
|
| What's truly sad about Hollywood is the complete lack of
| original film ideas.
| whstl wrote:
| Agreed. I think some of those films _can_ be enjoyed on
| its own merits, but having read the book just makes it
| more difficult. One can 't help but watch through the
| lens of the book.
|
| It's a hard decision for those making a movie, you either
| push for your own vision and risk alienating book
| readers, or you are faithful and risk making something
| soulless and derivative.
|
| Of course there are exceptions. But I think the majority
| of exceptions lies on directors adapting unknown books
| (like Hitchcock), or perhaps books with less-rabid
| fanbases.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| Verhoeven's _Starship Troopers_ was not Heinlein 's vision,
| but it is a glorious and hilarious satire of Heinlein's
| vision. "Accuracy" was obviously not the point.
| Nursie wrote:
| I love Verhoeven's work (though haven't seen it all).
|
| Did you know that Robocop was an allegory for an American
| Christ?
|
| Troopers is a wonderful pastiche. With half an analytical
| brain you see the anti-propaganda, anti-militarism, anti-
| jingoism, and general poking of fun at Heinlein's ideas in
| what on the surface appears to be yet another brainless
| action movie.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Heinlein had very diverse ideas that he presented in his
| various works via very different POV characters. If you
| reduce his book to propaganda, militarism and jingoism,
| you likely don't see the bigger picture.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| This. If what you take away from Heinlein's book was that
| it was militaristic and propaganda you didn't read the
| book properly.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| It satirizes things that aren't even in Heinlein's vision
| and by that misses the point entirely.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Starship Troopers movie is great, and I'll die on this hill.
| broscillator wrote:
| Accuracy has little artistic value.
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| I would like to know more.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I work with screenwriters on early stage film development in
| production capacity and this is sort of like looking at someone's
| MVP prototype git commits or meeting notes.
|
| You can glean a lot about what was going on at some point in
| time, but I wouldn't project ideas that this was anything more
| than random quick notes. Directors, screenwriters, producers
| generate a huge _output_ in the process.
| keiferski wrote:
| A few decades from now, I think Lynch's _Dune_ will be looked
| upon more favorably than the recent films. They simply have more
| character and vastly more interesting set design, whereas the
| recent ones are visually indistinguishable from most other sci-fi
| films made at the same time.
| lproven wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| One of the few uses of ever-improving "AI" bot generation of
| characters, faces, blending images, etc. I can imagine is the
| ability for fans to remix films and TV.
|
| For example...
|
| * to edit together the original BBC TV _Hitch hikers ' Guide to
| the Galaxy_ with the better SFX of the otherwise poor film.
|
| * to create extra episodes or installments of beloved serials
| where the text exists but the actors are dead
|
| * Or, in this instance, to mix Lynch's visuals and characters
| with Villeneuve's less scenery-chewing version which sticks
| closer to the text.
|
| One could even imagine editing Villeneuve's _Arrival_ to stick
| closer to the text of Ted Chiang 's sublime "the Story of your
| Life", where the way the aliens write is pivotal to the story
| but the screenwriters didn't understand.
| adastra22 wrote:
| It's already being used to upscale Star Trek and Babylon 5.
|
| In 10-15 years, hopefully we can just input this script as a
| prompt, and get a full film in the style of David Lynch.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| If we keep on praising uninteresting, soulless movies like
| Villeneuve's Dune while shooting down more artistic (but
| weirder) views such as Lynch's one, then I think we might
| end up with the opposite: human crews making films based
| GPT's scripts.
|
| The same thing happened with Society of the Snow: a
| technically beautiful movie with nothing to say other than
| being more "faithful" and using native actors. All that is
| appreciated but Alive was a flawed but much more exciting
| telling of the story.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Well what I mean is that maybe a decade or so from now
| any one of us can create such a thing on our home
| computers.
| darkerside wrote:
| > the way the aliens write is pivotal to the story but the
| screenwriters didn't understand
|
| Can you expand? I've read and watched, but don't recall
| anything similar. I watched the movie first, could be why.
| stoneman24 wrote:
| If I remember correctly (can't find the book), the novel
| describes the aliens writing as a intricate multi-level
| rectilinear ideogram where in order to start drawing the
| design, you needed to know the exact ending of the entire
| message. Each ideogram was an entire complex reply. This
| implied that the aliens had a different sense of time.
|
| Whereas the movie, the writing was a simpler circular
| design with slight filaments hanging off and no mention of
| the encapsulated message as a whole IIRC. The movie design
| reminded minded me of the Lucent Technologies logo [1]
| (worked for them a short while, back long ago).
|
| I really liked the story and the movie but different media
| formats have different aims and constraints so it's hard to
| compare. I wish the movie industry would tackle more
| original content (like Arrival) rather than endless
| sequels.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucent
| lproven wrote:
| This is correct.
|
| In order to learn to write the aliens' script, the
| interpreter must learn what Douglas Adams called
| "defocussed temporal perception". To write the language
| you need to be able to _see into the future._ Learning
| the script teaches her to do this.
|
| Seeing into the future she watches her own daughter die
| and there's nothing she can do to stop it.
|
| The scriptwriters didn't understand any of this so they
| made the aliens spray-paint stencils on glass and
| inserted a terrible irrelevant subplot about stopping a
| war.
| darkerside wrote:
| I don't think it's that they didn't understand. They
| movie just focuses on something different from the book.
| Where the book is highly conceptual and philosophical,
| the movie applies this in a very personal way. I walked
| away thinking about how every story ends in sadness and
| despair. Even though we can't see the future in this much
| detail, we all know how every human story ends. And yet,
| we engage with hope, and I think life is still worth
| living.
| cdcarter wrote:
| I have not read the novel, but I felt from the film that
| it was crystal clear that learning the alien writing
| system was what gave Amy Adams' character the knowledge
| her daughter would die.
|
| And yet, when I think about Dune 2021, I feel like it
| lacks a lot of interesting context and explanation from
| the novel. But I know plenty of people who didn't read it
| and loved the film. I suspect DV takes more care to lay
| out the important details than I'm able to perceive
| knowing the book.
| eszed wrote:
| Just one data-point, but I have only seen the _Arrival_
| movie and perfectly understood that element of the
| aliens' writing system, and why it was important to their
| experience of time. I suspect that the circular design
| was chosen to be a better visual depiction (time as a
| closed loop, maybe?) of that idea.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| About Arrival, another one of the soulless, empty outings by
| Villeneuve, it has 7.9 on IMDb and 94% on rotten tomatoes.
| Obviously, nobody really cares about the details
| (unfortunately).
|
| If anyone is interested in the ridiculous amount of potential
| that Villeneuve threw away by becoming Hollywood's generic
| sci-fi director, watch Incendies.
| pier25 wrote:
| Couldn't it be possible that you just have a different
| taste?
|
| I'm not a huge fan of Arrival but I would not have said
| it's empty and soulless. I do think it's a good movie
| though.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Absolutely; all my expressed opinions are my own.
| darkerside wrote:
| I loved the movie Arrival and can't agree it is soulless.
| Don't get so focused on what it lacks from the short
| story that you don't see what it does have that the short
| story does not.
| bawolff wrote:
| I really like the movie, but i think it did lose some of
| the soul of the short story.
|
| The short story is essentially a story about grief using
| time travel as a metaphor but not actually having time
| travel in it. The movie has the character changing the
| past in a critical moment which kind of undermines the
| whole soul of the story imo.
|
| To be clear, i still think arrival is a great movie, just
| rather different from the source material in terms of
| meaning and "soul"
| zerocrates wrote:
| There's no actual time travel or changing the past in
| Arrival.
| hkt wrote:
| What I immediately thought was "seasons 8 to 100 of deep
| space 9"
|
| Strange what we can learn about ourselves through association
| Krasnol wrote:
| I already do.
|
| There are some ridiculous changes to the story, and the end is
| so weird that it's funny, but the dialogues are so much better,
| the characters have substance. The scary ones are scary, the
| glorious ones are glorious. There is actual development in
| Leto. The whole world feels deep. Altogether, it feels like it
| was aimed at a more mature audience. The same audience that
| would also buy the books afterward if they didn't already read
| it.
|
| New Dune however feels more like Young Adult Entertainment. It
| looks fantastic, but the rest doesn't really matter. I didn't
| feel anything for any of those characters. Some of the
| dialogues were really cringe worthy (the Hangar dialogue for
| example) I went there with someone who never read the books.
| They were confused also didn't bother with most of the
| characters or what has become of them.
|
| I will go and see the second one though since it's Dune and I
| love Dune and this might also be the reason why this way of
| making movies works...the nerds still go in even if they
| complain and the "normal audience" gets something which won't
| be too challenging.
| k__ wrote:
| I had the exact opposite impression.
|
| The old movies felt like a caricature of the books. The evil
| characters were ridiculous.
|
| In the new movie, I only disliked Momoa for playing himself
| again.
| wincy wrote:
| I thought the new movies were absolutely awe inspiring. I
| bounced off the old movie pretty hard and thought it was
| some weird joke I hadn't been invited in on.
| Fricken wrote:
| Portraying the bad guy as a raving orange fat man was on
| point. The world just didn't know it yet at the time.
| csa wrote:
| Not op, but I thought that the roles for Rabban and Feyd
| were absolutely ham-fisted acting in the Lynch version.
| Maybe there was a goal to communicate complex character
| elements in a highly condensed way, but it just comes
| across as clumsy to me.
|
| Baron was fine if not better in the Lynch version.
|
| Note that I watched the Lynch version in a theater in the
| 80s and recently rewatched it, and my feeling about the
| acting portrayal of these two characters was the almost
| exactly the same then and now -- painful to watch.
| Krasnol wrote:
| May I ask how old you are (rough ballpark) and if you read
| the books?
| acomjean wrote:
| I bought the dvd of the original Dune before having seen the
| movie. I've watched it a few times. I really wanted to like
| it. Something's really off about it.
|
| If you don't already know dune the original movie is really
| hard. If you do know it there are some changes.
|
| It really is of its time however. It's a kind campy art piece
| that makes it hard to take seriously. Though Sting.
|
| The music in both movies is fantastic.
| eecc wrote:
| You're likely experiencing "marvelification".
| https://youtu.be/5tmxfVWDgMM?si=KCVb-o9g0JYHj8sL
| Krasnol wrote:
| Great video. Thank you and yes, I agree it feels just like
| that. The unfortunate thing here is that this is a reboot.
| I guess it is this why those shallow characters hurt even
| more.
|
| And yes, it is so gorgeous. It looks so breathtaking, but
| it feels hollow... I felt the same thing with the new Blade
| Runner. I really wanted to love that.
|
| Jean Baudrillard would have something to say about all
| that.
|
| Funny though that he brings up the new Dune somehow
| (hopefully?) positively, and there is even a fast shot of
| the new Blade Runner. I wonder if Dune makes the turn in
| the second part, but I doubt it since I haven't seen
| Villeneuve making it in any of his movies I've seen.
|
| What I liked was "The Killer" vs. the whole John Wick
| thing. It was such a brilliant twist on the "revenge"
| trope. I doubt that I'll be able to watch another movie
| based upon this trope again. For me, it reached perfection
| with that.
| Nursie wrote:
| I feel very similarly - I will go and see the new one,
| because I love Dune.
|
| But the last movie was.. sterile, dead. There was no warmth
| between the characters, little of interest in them. It was
| stark. I didn't care for any of them and it didn't seem much
| like they cared for each other.
|
| The old Lynch movie isn't a great film in that it doesn't
| hold together well, and it's not the best telling of Dune.
| But it has so much character, and it has characters, and they
| have meaningful interactions.
|
| I worry that the money that has gone into the Villeneuve
| movies is the last time Dune will be able to attract that
| sort of funding, and the biggest budget telling of the story
| we will have is one in which the characters may as well be
| wax droids.
| Krasnol wrote:
| My hope lies on AI making it right in hopefully my
| lifetime. Or maybe it'll have to be me on some cracked AI
| because the copyright prevents the usual Hollywood AIs from
| making it ;)
| FoodWThrow wrote:
| > New Dune however feels more like Young Adult Entertainment.
|
| Paul Atreides (the main character) is 15 years old in Dune.
|
| Most people that read and revered Dune probably did so during
| their young adult years.
|
| I say this as someone that loves the Herbert's works, but it
| is really apparent that the first Dune book originated from
| an ecological article, and mushrooms (of the psychedelic
| kind).
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _A few decades from now, I think Lynch 's_ Dune _will be
| looked upon more favorably than the recent films._
|
| By whom? Lynch's has been out for decades and is at 6.3:
|
| * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/
|
| Villeneuve's is currently at 8.0:
|
| * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/
|
| The RT for each are at 44% and 83%:
|
| * https://www.rottentomatoes.com/search?search=Dune
|
| Even with recency bias, do you think their scores will change
| much in 20+ years?
|
| The recent one was so "indistinguishable" from recent sci-fi
| movies it won Best Original Score, Sound, Film Editing,
| Cinematography, Production Design, and Visual Effects:
|
| *
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_...
|
| How many other sci-fi films even get nominated (including Best
| Picture and Screenplay), let alone win? What were the accolades
| for Lynch's movie?
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(1984_film)#Accolades
| djoletina wrote:
| People tend to project their personal preferences with an
| aura of superiority to the unknown future when everyone will
| ascend to their level and reach enlightenment.
| glitchcrab wrote:
| Yup, too many overconfident people mistake their own
| subjective opinion for fact and then tell others that their
| opinion is wrong.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's rife in the arts. Such a thing would never happen in
| my preferred field of engineering, of course...
| sho_hn wrote:
| For what it's worth, I think he is most likely correct that
| 20 years from now, any discussion of _Dune_ and its
| adaptations will call Lynch 's version "inventive, but
| flawed" and Villeneuve's "drab and lifeless, aimed at
| movie-goers who had freshly aged out of _Iron Man_ and
| wanted to feel like it ". I can practically feel this
| article stare at me from the screen already, too. And it
| probably wants to provoke a little. If anyone still cares,
| that is.
|
| The reception of Lynch's version will continue to be
| colored by his overall ouvre, and it's all just so much
| more interesting and charming for anyone who has to see and
| write about movies all week long.
| djoletina wrote:
| That article will be an expression of an opinion which
| could be written today as well. Doesn't make it fact.
| Tastes shouldn't be discussed.
| keiferski wrote:
| I said "a few decades from now" because I wanted to highlight
| the fact that the recent Dune movies are unremarkable and
| similar to other films made today, whereas the 80s Dune is
| fairly unique, even for the 80s. In other words: in 2050,
| Dune 2021 will be perceived as just another sci-fi film,
| whereas Dune 1984 will still be weird and unique.
|
| As a side note: does anyone take RT or the Oscars seriously
| anymore? That whole line of argument isn't very compelling to
| me, but I guess it is for some.
|
| And as a final comment: note that I didn't say Dune 1984 was
| an amazing film, I just said it would be looked at more
| favorably than the current films because of its uniqueness.
| This tends to happen to older films: the solid-but-boring
| ones get forgotten, while the weird-but-unique ones develop a
| cult following and get re-evaluated positively.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _In other words: in 2050, Dune 2021 will be perceived as
| just another sci-fi film, whereas Dune 1984 will still be
| weird and unique._
|
| Just like _The Room_ is "weird and unique"? :)
|
| > _As a side note: does anyone take RT or the Oscars
| seriously anymore? That whole line of argument isn 't very
| compelling to me, but I guess it is for some._
|
| How much would you agree or disagree with this 'ranking' of
| Lynch's works?
|
| * https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/david-lynch/
| keiferski wrote:
| The Room is an extreme example because it's mostly
| remembered for being so bad that it's funny, but sure: it
| has had a thousand times more influence than the hundreds
| of competent but procedural thrillers that came out at
| the same time. It will still be watched in fifty years.
|
| I don't like that list at all and think it's basically a
| list of how "traditional" the Lynch film is. I'd put
| Mulholland Drive first personally.
| broscillator wrote:
| Only had to look at the first two spots to strongly
| disagree.
| jihiggins wrote:
| the room is pretty well known, and is more memorable /
| has probably had a bigger impact on cinema than at least
| half of the entries in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in_film#Highest-
| grossing_...
|
| "good" or "bad" is sort of irrelevant
| thfuran wrote:
| >good" or "bad" is sort of irrelevant
|
| To whether something is looked on favourably?
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| It's using RT's scoring, which tends to favor movies that
| are broadly likable over movies that are more willing to
| take risks that don't connect with all of their audience.
|
| A big-budget Hollywood blockbuster will have a high RT
| score even if it's kinda bland. A filmmaker like Lynch
| will have a lower RT score, but the people who connect
| with his movies are more likely have a deeper experience
| than someone who connects with the blockbuster.
| bantunes wrote:
| > the fact that the recent Dune movies are unremarkable
|
| What makes this a fact? Why are they so unremarkable?
| broscillator wrote:
| I can think of no memorable visuals despite having seen
| it on IMAX.
|
| I can remember plenty of interesting visuals from the
| Lynch one despite thinking many other aspects of it were
| horrible, and having seen it in my room 4 years ago.
| pas wrote:
| The new one is basically unfinished, it's a nice setup
| for part 2.
|
| Of course you're right, somehow Lynch did more in less
| time, but also maybe (hopefully!) part1-2 together will
| be a valuable take on Dune.
|
| I have one vivid memory from the Lynch one. The Baron's
| blood torture contraption seared into my mind about 25
| years ago, and I have some half faded ones about the last
| attack, the Imperial palace, and ... that's it probably.
|
| For me Dune was more about vibe, atmosphere, scale, grand
| space opera mindfuck than concreteness and still images.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I can think of no memorable visuals despite having
| seen it on IMAX._
|
| Off the top of my head:
|
| * The arrival of the Imperial delegation for the 'signing
| ceremony'.
|
| * The fight training sequence.
|
| * The view from behind Paul's head, with the Gom Jabbar
| at his neck.
|
| * The opening of the doors on arrival at Arrakis.
|
| * The starting of the ornithopters' engines.
|
| * The found hunter-seeker operator.
|
| * The cockpit view dive of the ornithopter.
|
| * The view of the spice harvester being swallowed from
| the ornithopter ramp.
|
| * The bombs penetrating the ship shields and the
| contained explosions.
|
| * Paul and Jessica on the top of the hill, viewing the
| aftermath of Arakeen.
|
| * The wide dining room shot with the Barron on the left
| and the Duke on the right.
|
| * Paul 'tripping' in the tent.
| broscillator wrote:
| don't remember any of these except maybe the second to
| last
| cdcarter wrote:
| A few you didn't mention that stand out to me, just
| because it brings me joy: - Jessica meeting Mohiam in the
| unrelenting rain of Caladan - The first time a transport
| picks up a harvester - Paul's vision of Jessica holding
| Alia - Salusa Secondus... - Sardaukar dropping into the
| research station, and the Fremen revealing themselves
| from the sand to attack
| abadpoli wrote:
| It's hard for me to think of any one specific scene that
| is visually memorable, because _the entire movie_ is
| visually memorable to me. It's easily one of the most
| visually and auditory impressive films I've seen in the
| past decade, whereas Lynch's seemed like a low-budget
| SyFy film in comparison.
| throwaway44110 wrote:
| By everyone who has seen the Extended cut on YouTube. They
| took a lot of important scenes out of that movie, which Lynch
| hated.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| These are all personal opinions, but I agree that the first
| Dune is a much more interesting movie than the newer one.
| Awards are much more about politics and trend engineering
| than anything else. It's good when they are on your side but
| I bet I can find highly awarded movies that you hate.
|
| Villeneuve's Dune looks like what a very advanced moviemaking
| ChatGPT would do: technically flawless, completely soulless,
| and an absolute snore fest. Lynch's Dune is flawed, but full
| of character, and excitingly weird. It's not a superb movie
| but then again the comparison isn't either.
| keiferski wrote:
| Your ChatGPT comment is a perfect description of
| Villeneuve's movies and I've thought similar things for a
| long time. There's just something missing that prevents
| them from being _great._
| low_tech_love wrote:
| It's a real shame, because he is technically brilliant.
| Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most beautifully
| shot/edited movies I've ever seen, but it just cannot
| reach me beyond the surface.
|
| If you're interested in seeing him put his skills to tell
| an actual impactful story, watch Incendies. By far his
| best movie.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Also Prisoners and Enemy were impactful imo (and Sicario
| of course). I feel like where Villeneuve fails in that
| respect, filmmakers such as Nicholas Winding Refn
| succeed-- I just watched Drive for the first time (I know
| I know), and it was one of the best cinematic experiences
| I've had in probably 5 years. Even though the film had a
| bit of a distant, hands-off quality, one connected with
| the film and characters completely (a lot of that maybe
| had to do with Gosling's impeccable performance, but I'm
| sure the director had something to do with it).
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I agree that Enemy, Sicario, and Prisoner are very good
| movies, not among my favorites but certainly much better
| than his newer stuff.
|
| About Gosling I'll refrain from commenting as it can get
| ugly. :)
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _About Gosling I'll refrain from commenting as it can
| get ugly. :)_
|
| I think it's fair to say that any particular performance
| of Gosling may be good/er or bad/er, but his broad range
| is impressive: The Notebook, Half Nelson, Lars and the
| Real Girl, Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines,
| Only God Forgives, The Big Short, The Nice Guys, La La
| Land, Barbie.
|
| Also: Crazy, Stupid, Love and Drive came out in the same
| year.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| Whenever I feel like something is more fan service than
| contributing something original, I use a couple of mental
| models: pilgrim vs tourist
|
| But also canon vs fan fiction
|
| Do you think villaneuve's dune is more fan service /
| tourism? Is it adding anything new to the world of dune?
|
| (As much as I enjoyed it and want the answer to be "yes
| it's adding something," I'm worried the answer is no)
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| While I agree, I'd say the merit to the new Dune film is as
| an excellent example of ambient film - think of it less as
| a film in which things must happen and more of the waves at
| the beach - calming and tranquil, mostly, an occasional
| freak wave to keep you on your toes.
|
| (Yes, I think it was solidly _average_ otherwise and
| arguably the most boring of Villeneuve 's work if watched
| conventionally).
| broscillator wrote:
| But Dune is very much a story where many things do
| happen, intricate things that have a lot of text and
| subtext.
|
| The tone you describe is at odds with the story it
| presents (and its run time).
| wrsh07 wrote:
| But dune is also a world that I grew up imagining, and
| the movie does an effective job of letting me visit for a
| few hours
|
| I agree that the story is lacking! But the world feels
| real
| broscillator wrote:
| Oh the world and the characters in my head from when I
| read it are much more interesting. I will keep this in
| mind for when (if) I watch the 2nd one tho.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| I agree, I don't think it's a particularly interesting
| Dune film. One could say my perspective is a 'cope'.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Maybe, but in that case wouldn't you be more interested
| in another, more intimate/human movie?
| cowboyscott wrote:
| No offense meant to OP, but this is a good example how the
| commercialization of criticism can really suck the joy out of
| things.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > By whom? Lynch's has been out for decades and is at 6.3:
|
| IMDB has a well known bias towards newer movies.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Citation needed; the top X on IMDB has a mix of recent
| (2014's Interstellar) and older (1972's The Godfather)
| films in their top ranked films:
| https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/
|
| Of course, rankings on any platform should be taken with a
| grain of salt; if you like the film you like it, can't
| argue with taste or personal preference. Ranking tries to
| apply an objective fact (a number, an expert's say-so) to
| an inherently subjective question (did you enjoy it).
| ekianjo wrote:
| Citation I dont have but I analyzed score dumps before
| from imdb and there was a clear correlation between
| recency and higher score over time
| ekianjo wrote:
| > sci-fi films even get nominated (including Best Picture and
| Screenplay), let alone win? What were the accolades for
| Lynch's movie?
|
| Most of the time the awards are just about rewarding
| relationships in the business. They have no bearing on movie
| quality.
| asylteltine wrote:
| The new dune is just better. Some people can't get around
| that fact and I think it's the same realm as retro computing.
| Sure it's cool, it's interesting, it's fun, but it's not
| better. I think they have the same "hobby" as retro computing
| but won't admit it so to speak.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Dune is easily Lynch's worst movie. Hard for me to see it being
| remembered as anything other than that.
| glimshe wrote:
| Lynch himself hates the movie, he had to make it due to
| contractual obligations. It does have a few cool moments, like
| the fight where they activate the barrier shields, but it's
| overall terrible.
| willis936 wrote:
| >They simply have more character and vastly more interesting
| set design
|
| I feel the opposite. Lynch's Dune did its own thing with
| meandering and confused direction. Villenuve's Dune complements
| the book much better. It respects Herbert's intelligence and
| understands the world building decisions Herbert made. I'm
| betting that the book and Villeneuve's Dune will stand the test
| of time better.
| broscillator wrote:
| It respects the source material too much. It serves the only
| function of being an acceptable, technically excellent
| version for two audiences: the purists, who care more about
| the book than about film as an art form; and the people who
| are interested in Dune because they heard about it but they
| will not sit down and read it.
|
| It has nothing to say cinematographically, and it has nothing
| to _add_ to the messages that were written into Dune 50 years
| ago.
|
| It's very competent, nothing else.
| nurbl wrote:
| In contrast, there are many things to say about Lynch's
| version, but he didn't just play it safe. Although compared
| to the plans Jodorowski (original director) had for the
| movie, he was probably conservative :D
| devnullbrain wrote:
| Do you feel the same way about the Lord of the Rings films?
| The most common complaints about those are where it has
| strayed from the source material.
|
| Dune isn't fully pure, either. It goes against the most
| frequent theme of the first book simply by 'shooting'
| scenes outside during the day. Caladan is much more fleshed
| out. It introduces new Bene Tleilax lore in the first film
| which is notable because Herbert himself didn't introduce
| them until there was a second book to write, omniscience to
| restrict and characters to resurrect. Looking at the
| trailers for the next film, Feyd Rautha is bald Elvis
| instead of a handsome Paul-like character and I'd be very
| surprised if all of the Baron's proclivities are retained.
| broscillator wrote:
| I recently got to rewatch the first LOTR film in
| theaters, after not having seen it for maybe 8 years.
|
| I was stunned at how well done it was visually, and how
| well handled the tension and pacing are throughout the
| whole thing. It was just an impeccable cinematic
| experience.
| righthand wrote:
| > It respects Herbert's intelligence and understands the
| world building decisions Herbert made.
|
| I completely disagree, it does a few major plot points
| decently but the gender swap of Liet Kynes completely erases
| the point of that character as a parallel to Paul's journey
| in relation to his determined destiny as outlined by the
| people before him. It completely wipes away any difference
| between the two invading armies as well they both come off as
| generic evil villains where in the book they have a
| purposeful lavishness and guadiness. Not to mention the
| entire obvious white washing of the entire jihad and Fremen
| who are clearly based off of Middle Eastern peoples.
| willis936 wrote:
| The changes to Kynes and Hawat removed subplots to focus on
| the primary plot. They don't even mention Paul's mentat
| training.
|
| I feel that removing the Arabic names from Fremen is to
| make it palatable for modern audiences. Herbert did respect
| Arabic cultures and (in my opinion) did not have an
| insulting representation of them. It is still a caricature
| of a people made by someone who is not of that people. We
| do give up some context, but we also avoid insult in our
| now-global world. I don't think there was any winning move
| here, but I think they gave it thought and made a careful
| decision.
| righthand wrote:
| No I think they took the easy way out because "modern"
| aka 1st world audiences are afraid of the word jihad. It
| wouldn't be such a big deal if people weren't proclaiming
| it to be an accurate depiction of the book when it
| clearly overwrites several big pieces of plot in favor of
| modern anxieties.
| willis936 wrote:
| There are a lot more Arabic aspects of the Fremen in the
| books that didn't make it into the movie. They could have
| left those and removed the word Jihad but they went all
| the way.
| righthand wrote:
| Agreed. Dune is essentially an exploration of Middle
| Eastern cultures, in which a peek into is something that
| could benefit Hollywood and their audiences, especially
| in modern times.
| int_19h wrote:
| With respect to the portrayal of Fremen in Dune, it is a
| very specific trope that is being portrayed; here's a
| detailed analysis of that trope:
|
| https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-
| mirage-...
| eszed wrote:
| I'm with you, _pace_ the bulk of the other comments in this
| thread. My wife, knowing nothing whatsoever about _Dune_, saw
| the movie with me, and "got" every element of the complex
| political background - in the car ride home she asked
| questions and spun theories, all of which were dead-on. It's
| a masterpiece of adaptation, a beautiful film, and I don't
| get the "soul-less" critique at all. On the big screen, at
| least, it's alive as hell, and Paul's prophetic dreams are
| handled perfectly: confusing and suggestive and strange,
| without ever taking you out of the narrative.
|
| It's not even like the film is "slavish" to Herbert's
| narrative, either, like a few people have said. Having Kynes
| assassinated, rather than captured, removes a fun scene, but
| gives the audience a first hint of worm-riding, which is
| narratively useful.
|
| My only regret, which I only arrived at after my third
| viewing, is that the actor playing Jamis should have played
| Stilgar, and Bardem should have played Jamis. I think Bardem
| is slightly mis-cast, but he's also enough of a name that the
| audience would have felt the same regret as Paul does at
| Jamis' death.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I thought Lynch's was corny and funny. But I do think we have
| hit an inflection point of big movie fatigue. Small scope
| movies are just way more fun and interesting right now.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| A few decades from now people will be using AI to make their
| own versions/remixes/blends. Most of them will be trash, a few
| will be outstanding.
|
| Either that or most of us will be dead. It's hard to know at
| this point.
| pier25 wrote:
| What other modern scifi films look like Dune?
| broscillator wrote:
| Thinking about it less than a second: Prometheus. Drab
| colors, very neat and slick sets and costume designs. Heck
| even Interstellar. BR2049 although that's much more
| interesting in having all the neon, at least there's some
| color and some grit.
| pier25 wrote:
| Well BR2049 was made by the same director and probably a
| lot of the same crew so I'd be surprised if it didn't look
| similar.
|
| Prometheus and Interstellar look nothing like these movies
| though. The production design is completely different even
| though there might be similarities in the color grading.
|
| I give you that the super washed out colors has been a very
| common aesthetic in the past 15 years or so but I wouldn't
| say all scifi movies adopt it. Some examples: District 9,
| Avatar 1 and 2, Inception, Tenet, Ex Machina, etc.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| >BR2049 was made by the same director
|
| In fact, most recent well-received sci-fi films were.
| broscillator wrote:
| I'm aware BR was made by the same director.
|
| In contrast, Lynch's doesn't look anything like his other
| films.
|
| Color grading is a huge part of what makes movies look
| like they do, but beside that there is a sterility and
| cleanliness, a monotony in how the images are handled.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _In contrast, Lynch 's doesn't look anything like his
| other films._
|
| Well because this was the only big budget film Lynch ever
| worked on and produced by none other than Dino De
| Laurentiis.
|
| > _beside that there is a sterility and cleanliness, a
| monotony in how the images are handled_
|
| Not sure what you're referring to. Maybe you're missing
| the analog feel of shooting in film? Dune 2021 was shot
| in digital (the newer digital Arri IMAX cameras) and Dune
| 1984 was shot in 35mm.
|
| It's totally fine to not like digitally shot movies.
| broscillator wrote:
| Lol it's not that at all.
| nurbl wrote:
| I agree! I found the new Dune boring, nice looking but generic
| (a lot like e.g. any recent Ridley Scott movie) and the actors
| seemed bored too. It failed to communicate a sense of wonder at
| the strange world. I re-watched Lynch's version after the new
| one, and even though the story is the same, I cared about
| everything that happened. I can overlook other flaws in a movie
| if it's at least interesting. So I think you are right, not
| because Lynch's Dune was a masterpiece (it wasn't), but because
| the new one will be mostly forgotten in a decade or so.
|
| Perhaps the new Dune was so appreciated because it ignores the
| recent trend of over-complicated story telling with time jumps
| and mystification, and instead just tells it straight. But
| that's a pretty low bar.
| jhbadger wrote:
| Also the cast of Lynch's version is better -- you had first
| rate actors like Kyle Mclachlan as Paul, Max von Sydow as
| Kynes, Patrick Stewart as Halleck (and yes, Sting as Feyd-
| Rautha, although that's maybe not a plus as Sting is a much
| better singer than he is an actor).
| ekianjo wrote:
| Sting was hardly seen in the movie though.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Jose Ferrer showing us how to de-cloak better than a dozen
| synchronized Romulan warbirds, Brad Dourif as _the_
| explanation of what happens when you twist a mentat, wee
| Alicia Witt as St. Alia of the Knife, and let 's not forget
| Freddie Jones, a late British actor of a subtle
| versatility. The money men were really quite skeptical of
| hiring him on but after being shown some daillies,
| supposedly they apologized.
| deepnet wrote:
| Lynch's Dune is vibrant, transgressive and weird. Every detail
| is unsettling in the way only Lynch is. The scale invokes awe.
| Excited frisson and disgust overlap uncomfortably. The emotions
| evoked are grand and complex. It is a challenging film, a
| masterpiece.
|
| Villeneuve's dune is an enjoyable film, it conforms to
| expectations, and easily lauded. As such it is somewhat anodyne
| and flat. It is only rich where it borrows from Lynch. The
| scale feels small like tilt-shift does.
| bshimmin wrote:
| So many of the negative comments about Villeneuve's _Dune_ in
| this thread are astonishing to me, but I will just pick this
| one: surely _scale_ is something that Villeneuve does so
| brilliantly! From _Arrival_ , though _Blade Runner 2049_ , to
| his _Dune_ , he has an amazing ability to make things seem
| vast (space ships, buildings, cities...) - it's almost a
| trademark of his work, to me, so colour me baffled that you
| would single this out for criticism.
|
| (For context, I read and enjoyed the Dune books as a child,
| I've seen the Lynch film several times and find it broadly
| comical, I love _Twin Peaks_ , and I think Villeneuve is
| arguably one of the best mainstream directors working right
| now.)
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I think the GP meant Lynch's world (universe) felt bigger,
| more mysterious. Like there were more things going on
| outside this story than could ever be told. Not that the
| physical size of things was too small. I think I agree a
| bit. But that universe is supposed to be small and
| claustrophobic I think? It is part of the lesson in the
| last few books. I liked the scifi miniseries the best but
| mostly for what came after the first book. Lynch's I liked
| when young, but even then I found the amount of internal
| narrative extremely irritating. The new one jas the problem
| of most every adaptation of a beloved and dense written
| work. It tries to serve existing fans and the casual viewer
| with the same movie. It does much better at that than
| anything but Jackson's lotr I think, but it is always hard.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| A few comments in this thread, including yours, have made me
| wonder: are you a fan of Dune and how Lynch adapted it, or
| are you a fan of Lynch's Dune?
|
| Because the qualities you're describing sound very much like
| other Lynch films but not like Herbert's Dune.
| fullshark wrote:
| I agree, because Dune and David Lynch will still be part of the
| cultural consciousness I bet, the new films will be forgotten.
| nwsm wrote:
| I didn't enjoy Lynch's Dune much as a Dune adaption, but I
| commend them for incredible creativity in the characters,
| costume, and sets. Most of the cast are not what I ever
| imagined in the books, but that does make it interesting and
| the characters are convincing.
| transfire wrote:
| I hope one day, with the help of AI, someone will make this
| movie.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| I can't wait for an AI cobbled from the crushing grey
| mediocrity of mass media films to produce distinctive
| artistically novel products.
|
| Will that be before or after AI can drive me through Taco Bell?
| transfire wrote:
| Yeah I keep expecting AI drive-thru any day now.
| effed3 wrote:
| Probably the -value- of F.Herbert Dune is high enough to survive
| a film transposition, givin an higher-than-mean Director (in
| theory), and in pratice all those read and love Herbert work will
| see his message and meanings behind a movie.. Lynch Dune is not
| bad seen today but the director is not 'fit' for SciFi IMHO,
| Villeneuve, decades after, seems mode inside the genre and
| capable to manage the matter and the modern SFX, it's Dune seems
| more close to the essential minimal trascendent adn vastness
| spirit of FH Dune. All IMHO.
| decafninja wrote:
| As a huge Dune fan, I've honestly tried giving Lynch's Dune movie
| a fair shot multiple times. But everything just totally falls
| apart for me with the weirding modules.
| chuckadams wrote:
| The milkable cat duct-taped to a rat didn't help either, though
| that was mercifully just one scene.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I, for one, prefer Lynch's Dune to Villeneuve's. I was very hyped
| for the latter and left the theater disappointed.
|
| You see, Villeneuve's Dune has a great cast, insanely great
| cinematography and sets, but it is also very sterile, devoid of
| life and has very unimaginative directing. Some scenes were
| direct adaptations from the book, like Gom Jabbar scene, Shadout
| Mapes scene, and were very confusing for people who didn't read
| the book. (why does that sand woman shout when Jessica says a
| certain word?). Paul's awakening is very bland, too. His mentats
| were useless. De Vries was just a sad freak who stood nearby and
| then died. Hawat was in three scenes where he had any lines, and
| in two of which he counted expenses, and offered his resignation
| in the third. If I didn't read the book I'd assume he's some kind
| of accountant.
|
| On the other hand, Lynch's Dune also has a great cast, great
| music, great sets, and it also has the all-important dream-like
| mystic feel to it, which is completely absent in the new
| adaptation. Sure, it has a lot of script problems, which mostly
| boil down to far too short runtime, as moviegoers in 1984 weren't
| ready for 2 part movies, so it had to cram the second part of the
| book in the final 20 minutes or so. Had it been two movies, it
| would have been much better.
|
| One big improvement in Villeneuve's adaptation is Momoa's Idaho,
| who basically saved the movie for me. Lynch's Idaho was very
| bland and died far too easily and non-consequentally. Other than
| his scenes, if I ever want to see some scene from Dune on
| Youtube, it'll be Lynch's (except "the Guild doesn't take your
| orders", if you know what I mean).
| ekianjo wrote:
| Same here, it felt very dull and bland. I'm not sure why people
| get excited over the big latest movies like that, just because
| it's a new version of Dune. In 10 years nobody will remember
| it.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| as someone who struggled to get through the book as a kid and
| never saw Lynch's version, I really liked the new Dune as a
| spectacle, and I filled in some of the more confusing parts
| from plot summaries after i came home, but ultimately it did
| place Dune back on my "to read" list :) (and Lynch's Dune on my
| "to watch" after i read the book)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Villeneuve's art direction was also so monochromatic and
| uniform. It looked like a sequel to _Prometheus_ right down to
| the big pale bald men.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| I can't say I disagree with any of the facts of what you say
| (and yet, perhaps because I don't remember Lynch's dune very
| well, I prefer Villeneuve's)
|
| I felt Villeneuve effectively conveyed the dread of the
| inexorable emperor crushing house Atreides. We go because of
| duty, and we make the best of it even when our predecessor left
| us nothing we would need to be successful
|
| The mentats are computers because computers are banned, and
| while they were my favorite characters in the books (who
| doesn't want to be a super smart spice addict?),I felt they
| were conveyed fairly if dully
|
| Finally, the cinematography, the use of light and effects, even
| though ornithopters were more bees than birds it all really
| worked for me. Perhaps more as a place to inhabit than a story,
| though
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Regarding mentats, in Lynch's Dune, we had _Brad Dourif_ as
| DeVries, who stole every scene he was in, and Hawat, with his
| own very memorable character arc, improved by that very
| disturbing heart plug subplot and a _cat_.
| wharvle wrote:
| Dourif's daughter is in the sadly-truncated Dirk Gently
| show, and is an absolute delight.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| I think I need to rewatch it, so I am grateful to this
| thread for that!!
| LegitShady wrote:
| >I felt Villeneuve effectively conveyed the dread of the
| inexorable emperor crushing house Atreides. We go because of
| duty, and we make the best of it even when our predecessor
| left us nothing we would need to be successful
|
| I kind of hated the battle scenes, though. I didn't like any
| of the sardukar fighting scenes, or how the ships exploded
| etc. I don't remember the book well enough to know if it
| matched how it was described, but for visual mediums like
| movies instead of books it felt very fake.
|
| Agreed about the mentats, and the ornrithopters. The
| cinematography has a lot of style but I'm honestly not sure
| if this particular style is to the movie's benefit or not. I
| can imagine it having looked a lot of different ways.
|
| Overall the pacing of the movie felt...boring.
|
| I'll watch the sequel but I'm not hoping for award winning
| movies at this point.
| biot wrote:
| > I didn't like any of the sardukar fighting scenes, or how
| the ships exploded
|
| I thought the ship explosion effect was brilliant and
| realistic in terms of how it would actually work if energy
| shields were a thing in real life. Just like how the slow
| blade penetrates a personal shield, the slow missile
| penetrates the ship's shield. The movie shows this effect
| and the consequences. Once the missile gets past the
| shield, it explodes and the explosion is initially
| contained by the shield. However, the explosion spreads
| internally and it takes a second to take out the shield
| generator, at which point the explosion is no longer
| contained.
|
| Just as an energy shield contains external explosions to
| the outside, it would also have the same effect on the
| inside for the brief moment the shield generator still
| operates.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Btw I always felt that laser on shield == nuclear
| explosion idea was rather bad, as it has immense
| exploitable military potential which somehow wasn't
| utilized at all in the books. I understand that it was
| made to explain why they suddenly fight with knives and
| swords instead of projectiles and lasers, and while the
| explanation works for projectiles, the laser explanation
| fails.
| porkbeer wrote:
| /spoiler
|
| It was though.
| rdl wrote:
| Lynch's Dune is up there with Apocalypse Now as my favorite
| movie. It got the feel of Dune correct, even if it made weird
| changes, and inspired me to start reading sci fi (I think I
| first saw the movie on TV in the late 80s, and would watch it
| whenever broadcast).
| genman wrote:
| I just recently rewatched the new Dune and it has it's own
| special vibe. Certainly knowing the book helps to understand
| many things and this is true that the power of mentats was
| clearly not explained at all and this is unfortunate, but a
| director has to choose on what to focus. To be honest, he
| doesn't really focus on guild too - Lunch has a really fine
| scene that demonstrates the power of the guild and Villeneuve
| is completely missing something like this.
|
| Still I love the new Dune and I love Lynch Dune too, especially
| the fan made extended cuts that are extremely brilliant.
| synergy7 wrote:
| > the fan made extended cuts that are extremely brilliant Do
| you have suggestions where to find them and which one(s) to
| see?
| genman wrote:
| I watched one on Youtube. Try Dune 1984 Alternative Edition
| Redux [Spice Diver Fan Edit]. Let me know how you like it.
| synergy7 wrote:
| Thank you! Will do. Although, it will take me some time
| to find three uninterrupted hours to watch it.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| As someone that works in, and enjoys the visual arts field, I
| think they both have their place. Lynch's Dune is the one I
| would watch on a random weekday night -- there's a warmth to it
| that the new one lacks. As you said, there's something sterile
| about the new one (though maybe it's just the lack of film
| grain...)
|
| But Villeneuve's is the version I would pay to see in 70mm
| IMAX. It is a feast for the eyes, and not every movie has to be
| something deeper.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| What are your thoughts on the sci-fi miniseries?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| To me, they're in an odd balance between Lynch's version,
| and the Villeneuve version. The visuals were much better,
| but because it was broadcast, were mostly experienced on
| TV's that couldn't do them justice -- but at the same time,
| they also weren't good enough for cinema anymore. And in a
| similar vein, unlike the Lynch version, they followed the
| books much more closely, which to me made them lose some of
| that warm fuzziness charm. I also can't say that the acting
| was particularly memorable to me, which is to say that
| nothing stood out as so bad as to be memorable, but I can
| also barely remember who was in it.
|
| And as far as the sequel, Children of Dune goes, that year
| BSG blew it out of the water for me.
| brnt wrote:
| Not movie, but if there ever was one that should, it's Dune.
| It's about us.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I feel the same. I went to see Villeneuve's Dune in the theater
| - the first time I'd been to a movie theater since the equally
| underwhelming Valerian - and it was... fine, I suppose. I was
| really disappointed by the washed-out color schemes permeating
| every shot. It made Arrakis look more like Antarctica to me
| than the Sahara. The only thing I recall being truly wowed by
| were the awesome Mass Effect Reaper-like sound effects that
| accompanied some of the drop ships, but those were more
| menacing in, well, Mass Effect.
|
| All that said, I do think the visuals of Lynch's Dune have had
| longer to enter the public imagination. Cryo's Dune game took a
| lot of visual and musical cues from that movie, and even
| Westwood's Dune 2 felt like it drew mostly from the Lynch
| version. For me as a teenager, those became the iconic
| representations of the Dune universe, and it's hard for me to
| imagine it looking any different. Perhaps in 20 years people
| who grow up with the Villeneuve version will feel the same way
| about it.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Yes, those games! Dune 1 directly uses a lot of movie
| imagery, down to Kyle MacLachlan's look, and it is also a
| very unusual hybrid of an adventure and strategy games, I
| struggle to name any other game that is like it.
|
| I replayed it a few years ago, and it holds up really well.
| Eupolemos wrote:
| Also, there was Duncan Idaho's hairdo in that game
| :chef's_kiss:
| Angostura wrote:
| > ome scenes were direct adaptations from the book, like Gom
| Jabbar scene, Shadout Mapes scene, and were very confusing for
| people who didn't read the book
|
| Particularly if you can't hear the dialogue. During several
| scenes in the cinema, I had to tell my teenagers what they were
| saying. Subsequently downloaded and played an illegal copy on
| my PC so the girls could hear what was going on.
| exhilaration wrote:
| Finally someone mentions the unintelligible dialogue. I saw
| it with my sister and cousin in the theater, we couldn't
| understand maybe 40% of the dialogue. And yes, we're native
| American English speakers. Such a shame.
| zvrba wrote:
| Same here. Even though the "new" Dune has a lot of good VFX, I
| found it boring to watch, and that was only Part I. Before
| watching "new", I watched Lynch's to have something to compare
| to. I vastly prefer Lynch's Dune. It wasn't boring. He managed
| to cram the whole story in less than 2h30 and in (to me)
| coherent and understandable way. Although the movie did demand
| all of my attention and weaving of threads in my mind while
| watching. Lynch still wins, hands down, not the least because
| of the atmosphere.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _[Lynch] managed to cram the whole story in less than 2h30
| and in (to me) coherent and understandable way._
|
| I don't think you can make a coherent and understandable
| movie-Dune without using voice-over character thoughts. You
| need the footnotes.
|
| It's a tricky device, because it's _so_ easy to overuse, but
| Lynch mostly limits himself to where it 's really needed. AND
| makes it play better with his trademark dreamlike mood.
|
| Villeneuve's Dune is what you get without this -- I hope
| everyone read the books! Which on one hand, respect your
| audience. But on the other, most people haven't read the
| books.
|
| E.g. Lynch Gom Jabbar:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCfivcQe48
|
| Villeneuve Gom Jabbar:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbTp1vlRqYA
|
| PS: Wtf Lady Jessica in Villeneuve Pt I? She's got enough
| mettle to defy the Reverend Mother and bear a male child, but
| then all that strength disappears? I get it... setting up for
| contrast with Fremen Jessica, but hamfisted. :(
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "But on the other, most people haven't read the books."
|
| People still enjoyed it, though.
|
| I read the books after the movie and yes, there is so much
| more to the whole world, but apperently other people
| enjoyed it without further context and are eager for part 2
| so apparently the movie worked for them as well.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| That the new Dune movie was widely enjoyed is a testament
| to the central themes and plot of Dune, moreso than an
| opinion on Lynch vs Villeneuve.
|
| Honestly, I want to go back and watch the Sci Fi
| miniseries too, which also had a sequel that goes through
| _Messiah_ and _Children_.
| bitzun wrote:
| Several women have told me they thought Lady Jessica was a
| strong female character in Dune pt 1 after I complained
| that she was more abject/emotional than in the book. It
| felt like we had watched a different movie, but it sounds
| like I'm just wrong.
| wharvle wrote:
| My wife hates when media codes feminine as weak, as in
| pointedly avoiding ever displaying a strong female
| character being upset. Her perception is that a lot of
| media (and usually pieces trying to be extra-feminist)
| communicate "women can be strong... if they get more
| masculine" rather than " _feminine_ can be strong".
|
| That may be the kind of thing you're seeing: not everyone
| may see "she privately struggles with difficult emotional
| experiences, and doesn't bottle that up, but perseveres
| and kicks ass anyway" as weakness.
| zeagle wrote:
| I think sterile is a good description. I couldn't place it but
| that is exactly it: beautiful, expensive, but empty and with no
| life outside of the actors faces.
| liquidpele wrote:
| Also flat, as in there's no "happy times" before that gets
| ruined, it's pure dred the whole movie so it feels like
| there's no climax to build to.
| mctt wrote:
| "The GUILD does not take YOUR ORDERS"
| https://youtu.be/wRy18Euw6W4
|
| Very funny. Thanks for the missing piece of the puzzle.
| killerstorm wrote:
| Lunch's Dune has too much theater and fairy-tale vibe for my
| taste.
|
| The scene with rain really tells it all. "And Paul was
| proclaimed Kwisatz Haderach, summoned the rain, and they lived
| happily ever after". That's not sci-fi...
| ajmurmann wrote:
| It's a drug-fueled, vision or dream which to me makes it
| great. Neither movie has any qualities I like in scifi.
| Neither plays through interesting what-if scenarios and their
| impact on society. Blade Runner, Ex Machina or Primer are
| great examples of that.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I am pretty sure Lynch's Dune was incomprehensible if you
| didn't read the book either
|
| Also, the sci-fi dune has a good take on the scene you mention
| as well
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Never read the book and had no problem understanding either
| fullshark wrote:
| Good review, I really didn't care for the new Dune, or even
| Villeneuve's Blade Runner film and I'm not sure why exactly
| cause both are universally praised it seems. I don't know if
| I'm just being an old fogey or what but both films are
| competently made with top notch special effects but missing the
| souls of their source material.
|
| Sterile and devoid of life would be probably where I'd start
| like you do but I'm waiting for someone with a better
| understanding of the art form to really dig into why these
| films don't really work despite having insane production values
| and great mise en scene.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I liked Blade Runner 2047. It too feels sterile, but in that
| movie it works because it is true to the lore: all natural
| life has died out and the few remaining species are extreme
| luxuries that only the most wealthy people can afford. An owl
| in original movie is artificial, and it too is very pricey.
| fullshark wrote:
| But it's also fundamentally about humanity and what it
| means to be human. Rachel or Batty's arc in the original
| compared to K's arc is much more compelling and alive for
| illustration. K's journey is about solving a puzzlebox
| really.
|
| Idk it just was pretty and had good plotting, but left me
| with nothing after it ended.
| estebank wrote:
| > It too feels sterile, but in that movie it works because
| it is true to the lore: all natural life has died out and
| the few remaining species are extreme luxuries that only
| the most wealthy people can afford.
|
| As opposed to Arrakis, a place so dry where shedding tears
| because someone died is considered as incredibly unusual
| and highly esteemed, if wasteful.
| Duanemclemore wrote:
| I didn't like Arrival, but loved the original Blade Runner
| (and Dune). I was afraid to have my love for BR destroyed,
| so I only watched 2049 to see if I I could trust him with
| Dune, as well.
|
| I actually thought it was quite good, FAR better than I
| anticipated. Whereas Dune 1 was fine (not amazing), and
| could have used some of 2049's balance of brutal inhumanity
| with a little... verve I guess you could say.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >I'm not sure why exactly cause both are universally praised
| it seems
|
| because Villeneuve was basically one of the front runners of
| the "intangible sludge"[1] aesthetic as someone dubbed it.
| Everything he makes has the same cold, color-drained feel to
| it (looking at the trailer for the next part, literally), and
| it's a style that a majority of film and TV makers has bought
| into now. What stood out about Lynch's version was just how
| psychedelic it was, which the book was too, and it's
| completely lost in the new adaption. I'd even go farther than
| 'sterile', Villeneuve's movies are straight up inhuman. With
| the exception of Arrival, which I think owes most of its core
| to Ted Chiang's story, none of the movies Villeneuve has made
| evoke any kind of connection, between characters or to the
| audience.
|
| [1]https://x.com/_katiestebbins_/status/1461348307901378561?s
| =2...
| AC_8675309 wrote:
| There are 3 versions of Lynch's Dune.
|
| Spicediver's version is the best ... if you can find it. The
| steel box / director's cut is the 2nd best. Lastly is the
| theatrical version which is the worst for the average person
| but pretty good if you have read the book once or twice.
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| I have a version that has an Alan Smithee directorial credit
| with the narrated pre history. I believe it is a Japanese
| laserdisc bootleg version that I got. That's my personal
| favorite.
|
| https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/alternateversions/
| wazoox wrote:
| Spicediver's version:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJykw3H4PDw
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| There's another version: the one that played on SciFi channel
| with significantly more cuts (to make room for more
| commercials).
|
| That's actually my favorite version. A lot of dialogue is
| cut, and it ends up better for it. It's more of a "mood" than
| anything else, and even though it's more of a dream than a
| story, it makes more sense than most of Lynch's work; your
| mind effectively fills in the gaps, whether you've read the
| books or not. I haven't seen the fan edit though.
| sgt wrote:
| Loved them both.
|
| Also a huge Lynch fan!
| int_19h wrote:
| What kills Lynch's Dune for me is the ending.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| It might be silly, but has the best guitars
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is an easy comparison: Lynch's has one Sting in it,
| Villeneuve's has a zero Sting, therefore Lynch's is 100%
| better.
| fullshark wrote:
| Infinitely better
| jpgvm wrote:
| They should have found a role for Sting in the new one, that
| would have been epic.
|
| Everything Sting has touched recently has turned to gold, in
| particular the Arcane Season 1 soundtrack:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liPu1_aPH5k
| ajmurmann wrote:
| I also wish Kyle McLaughlin could have played Leto Atreides.
| Maybe because I don't like Oscar Isaac, he always looks like
| a thug to me, but I'd have loved that connection to the
| previous movie.
| abadpoli wrote:
| I watched the recent movies before reading the book and I
| disagree. The Shadout Mapes scene had more than enough context
| clues to understand. Thufir Hawat is very clearly a trusted
| advisor, and for the purposes of the story that's really all
| that matters. The "humans computer" is also there in context
| clues, but even if you didn't catch it, it doesn't detract from
| the movie at all. This seems like something that if you were
| actively _looking_ for a deep explanation of mentats, of course
| you would notice it's missing... but if you didn't know mentats
| were a thing, then the movie's portrayal of Hawat is great.
|
| Paul's awakening is definitely different in the movie, but I
| think it's because in the movie they spread it out (ie there's
| a larger emphasis on Paul's spice trip when saving the
| crawler). Still, having not read the book at the time I first
| saw the movie, I didn't think it was "bland" at all and still
| made for great storytelling to me.
|
| > dream-like mystic feel to it, which is completely absent in
| the new adaptation
|
| Man, I can't disagree harder with this. One of the best things
| about the new movie to me is that the entire thing has an aura
| of intrigue and mysticism that left me just wanting more more
| more.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| The problem with mentats is deeper, as they are integral in
| the traitor subplot, which forms the main intrigue part of
| the first half of the book and pays off in the second half.
|
| In new adaptation Yueh's betrayal came out of the left field
| without real explanation, wasn't shown how it was motivated,
| suspicions of everyone vs Jessica and Leto's trust in her are
| all dropped, and on top of it all Yueh's death was very
| anticlimactic compared to the old movie.
|
| And also, Paul's awakening was my favourite scene in Lynch's
| Dune, and it was a letdown in Villeneuve's.
| abadpoli wrote:
| Yueh isn't a mentat and his betrayal is unrelated to
| mentats. He's suk, but even this is not integral in
| understanding that he was a trusted part of House Atreides
| and then betrayed them. The rest really isn't needed to
| further the plot.
|
| Movie adaptations will never be able to be as detailed as
| books. People that first read a book and then watch the
| movie will almost always notice there are things that are
| missing, and if those missing things are something the
| watcher was really attached to, they will be disappointed.
| But for people who haven't read the book, as long as the
| missing things don't create large plot holes or confusion,
| it's fine. I think Dune does a fantastic job of striking
| the balance of detail while still telling a cohesive and
| fascinating story. Stuff like mentats and suk doctors are
| really fascinating and it's unfortunate that movies don't
| have the time available to expand on them, but the movie is
| able to stand alone without it.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| > Yueh isn't a mentat and his betrayal is unrelated to
| mentats.
|
| Thank you, CO! :-D
|
| But I didn't mean that he's mentat, just that Atreides
| and Harkonnen mentats main activity was related to the
| traitor plot, which was rather faithfully done in Lynch's
| version, and was all but omitted in Villeneuve's. The
| tiny detail that the Baron personally killed Yueh, thus
| removing the last bit of importance from DeVries before
| his death, is the final offence to his character.
| abadpoli wrote:
| I personally found DeVries character to be completely
| unforgettable in the book and there was nothing
| specifically he did that couldn't have been replaced by
| something else, so I suppose that's part of why I don't
| think mostly omitting him from the recent movie is that
| much of a detraction.
| sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote:
| I guess you wanted to say forgettable, but just to expand
| on that:
|
| I recently read the book and I couldn't even remember the
| character now and had to look up who was meant. Maybe
| that is more a testament to how bad I am at remembering
| stuff I read in books than how important the character is
| but there you go.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| The more Brad Dourif shines then. Not only he carries a
| vital piece of exposition, he is quite striking in his
| small role and leaves a lasting impression. Compare this
| to that poor creature who sadly dies having done
| absolutely nothing.
| echelon wrote:
| I _HATE_ Villeneuve 's Dune.
|
| Villeneuve leans so heavily into "show, don't tell" that the
| movie becomes a long trailer. It has lots of visual
| exposition, but no character experiences an arc or
| development. So much rich lore is passed by on the wayside,
| and no work is done to connect the dots between the plot
| points. Elements as essential as character motivations are
| nowhere to be found.
|
| I understand wanting to keep exposition to a minimal, but
| there's a way to craft and weave it into the rhythm and pace
| of a story.
|
| The reason Yueh's betrayal doesn't sting is because no effort
| is put into developing him or his relationships. The fall of
| House Atreides is rather dull, action fluff. The Spice, the
| Spacing Guild, the Mentats, and the Bene Gesserit are passed
| over for more CG and more action scenes. The flash-forward
| dream sequences of Paul are sloppy and don't do the
| forthcoming plot ramifications justice. The Harkonnens are
| turned into cartoons, and their one act of supreme cruelty is
| handled entirely off-camera.
|
| I dearly love the books, but you shouldn't have to read the
| books to appreciate the film. It should stand on its own
| legs, and Villeneuve totally misses on that shot. He
| delivered incoherent action dreck. It's visually appealing,
| but it's practically a GPU advertisement.
|
| I can't entirely hate on Villeneuve, though. Blade Runner
| 2049 is a masterpiece.
| abadpoli wrote:
| > I dearly love the books, but you shouldn't have to read
| the books to appreciate the film. It should stand on its
| own legs, and Villeneuve totally misses on that shot.
|
| This is the part I completely disagree with. I don't think
| you need to read the books at all to understand or love
| Villeneuaves Dune. I hadn't read the book at the time of
| seeing it, and I loved it. And then after I read the book I
| love the movie even more.
| cycomanic wrote:
| This is the thing, the people here that complain that you
| need to have read the book to understand the movie are
| dune fans. On the other hand there are people like you
| and my partner who I watched the movie with, who
| understood and loved the movie without having read the
| book.
|
| I think it's usually much harder to please fans of a
| book, because they all will find different parts of the
| book important and something will be omitted, e.g. see
| the discussions about Tom Bombadil in LOTR.
| echelon wrote:
| Forget the books for a moment. The film is a brainless
| action film.
|
| Most of the criticisms I made are _film criticisms_ that
| could be levied against any bad or middling movie.
|
| - The film is a vacuum for intricacy and coherence.
|
| - The characters are one-dimensional, unchanging, and
| don't matter.
|
| - The stakes might be huge, but they carry no emotional
| weight. Like most superhero films these days.
|
| These are deficiencies in storytelling.
|
| If we contrast Lynch's Dune with Villeneuve's, we might
| find similar analogies in contrasting " _Jurassic Park_ "
| versus " _Jurassic World_ ", Peter Jackson's " _Lord of
| the Rings_ " versus Peter Jackson's " _The Hobbit_ ", or
| " _Independence Day_ " versus whatever the hell "
| _Independence Day 2_ " was.
|
| Each of these latter films promised more, but they turned
| out to be empty and soulless. More box checking than
| composition, more visual spectacle than substance. The
| same is true of Villeneuve's Dune as a film.
|
| I don't need a film adaptation to be faithful. I just
| need it to be a good movie. I'd be totally fine if the
| film made a wild departure from its source material, so
| long as it used that liberty to deliver something
| impressive. That would honestly mean more to me than a
| fully "by the books" rendition.
|
| Villeneuve's Dune was just lazy.
| serf wrote:
| I liked the new one fine, but I felt the same way. It was
| mostly just gawking at effects rather than story-intrigue
| for me, although I'm already familiar.
|
| Spent more time thinking about the CGI than I did
| thinking about the plot, I think that might indicate
| something.
| moomin wrote:
| One thing I noticed: the movie is very careful to lay out
| how the betrayal of House Atreides actually works. Every
| other time I've watched a version with someone I've ended
| up needing to explain who the heck the Sardukar are.
| hinkley wrote:
| It does kinda feel like a movie directed by the Director of
| Photography and not a story teller. But we know Denis has
| been scouting locations for a decade or more. Makes me
| wonder if his director of photography enjoyed the
| experience or felt like puppet with someone's hand up his
| backside the entire time.
| fasterik wrote:
| I didn't find it to be incoherent at all, but I had read
| the book over a decade ago and had seen the previous
| adaptations. In some sense, maybe I was the ideal audience,
| because I knew the outline of the story going in but either
| didn't notice or didn't care when things were left out.
| Given the success of the film both financially and
| critically though, I have to imagine that a lot of people
| who hadn't read the book still understood and enjoyed it.
|
| The reaction to Dune is similar to the reaction to
| Oppenheimer. I'm a huge fan of Christopher Nolan. A common
| criticism I see of him, which echoes what you are saying
| here, is that his characters lack motivation and are one-
| dimensional. I actually don't disagree. For me, film isn't
| primarily about character or plot like literature is. It's
| about creating a mood using pictures and sound. The best
| parts of Oppenheimer weren't the details of characters'
| personal lives or the Manhattan project or the senate
| hearings, they were the sweeping montages of beautiful
| images, music, and snippets of dialogue that came together
| to create a feeling of fear and awe appropriate for the
| subject matter. I feel the same way about Villeneuve's
| Dune. It might not be faithful to the intricate story of
| the book, but I think it nails the dark, vast, mystical
| quality that inhabiting the Dune universe ought to feel
| like.
|
| You mention Blade Runner 2049. For my money, Villeneuve's
| true masterpiece is Arrival. It's not only great science
| fiction but also has a surprising amount of emotional
| depth, which sci-fi usually lacks.
| hnu123 wrote:
| > I, for one, prefer Lynch's Dune to Villeneuve's. I was very
| hyped for the latter and left the theater disappointed.
|
| I prefer neither. Lynch's is odd and silly while villeneuve's
| is just eye candy. Dune should be read. A movie simply isn't
| going to capture all the emotions, inner dialogues, intrigue,
| history, etc. I think it's impossible to make a good movie out
| of Dune without completely reimagining and rewriting it. Dune
| isn't like a detective story or a horror story where the ending
| or jump scares are the the payoff. Dune is the culmination of
| the entire journey. It's greatness lies in the details.
|
| Try it. Read Dune and then watch Dune. Something is off.
| Something is missing. It's like the difference between a grape
| drink and a grape flavored juice. The latter is a poor
| imitation of the former.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| This is just kind of par for the course with Villeneuve; his
| Bladerunner was much the same. Absolutely stunning aesthetics,
| but the story kind of takes the back seat.
|
| That said, while I agree with much of your points I still think
| it is an outstanding movie. I just don't think the movie form
| works for Dune, really, which is really based a lot on inner
| dialogue and philosophical meanderings.
| jgarzon wrote:
| I agree, how I was able to tell that Lynch's is better was
| that, I could watch it without falling asleep. I tried multiple
| times to watch the new one but something about it kept me
| falling asleep
| spookybones wrote:
| Funny I agree with you on everything but the Momoa part. With
| the exception of Game of Thrones, he always plays himself. He
| basically always comes off as a marvel character. I thought he
| and Chalamet were miscast.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| I'll defend Momoa as a choice, I think he fits the role
| perfectly and the exception of Game of Thrones shows he could
| have done something different with it.
|
| Chalamet I agree was miscast, but I would go further because
| I thought Zendaya's performance was unfortunately terrible.
| Duanemclemore wrote:
| Momoa was in a different movie entirely. They could have
| pulled it off - had there been any character that was a tonal
| middle-ground between him and EVERYONE ELSE it would have
| gone a long way to making the movie feel more dynamic and
| alive, less as a series of rote set-pieces.
| usrusr wrote:
| On the other hand in the books Idaho appeared as so much of
| an outlier to every other person that "in a different movie
| entirely" seems weirdly fitting. You could even put Momoa
| in the Lynch version and it would seem accurate to the
| point of parody. The actual Idaho of the Lynch movie on the
| other hand, so unmemorable Lynch might have just written
| out the character entirely. The explanation given in the
| article (deliberately toned down to make the ghola version
| even bigger in part two) is an interesting excuse.
| Duanemclemore wrote:
| Casting a more dynamic and emotive actor makes sense.
| You're right that in the book Idaho is definitely a
| deliberate outlier.
| pyb wrote:
| Interesting that you'd find Villeneuve's Dune "devoid of life"
| ; I feel the opposite way. I don't even normally like
| Villeneuve's work ; found Arrival and Blade Runner a bit empty.
| But I found that with Dune, he finally hit the mark.
| jpgvm wrote:
| As a Dune enjoyer in pretty much all it forms these two movies
| occupy two different categories for me.
|
| One one hand the Lynch adaption is the campy and fun movie I
| like to watch with my friends with a few beers, not pay a whole
| lot of attention to but laugh and have a good time.
|
| The Villeneuve version however is something I want to watch in
| 70mm IMAX, feel the soundtrack in my bones and be left in awe
| at the visuals/cinematography. I don't want to talk, just
| watch.
|
| I like both in different ways.
| WalterBright wrote:
| There was a 3rd Dune movie, a 4 and half hour epic made in
| 2000.
|
| With all these Dune movies, maybe someday one will get it
| right!
| hulitu wrote:
| > You see, Villeneuve's Dune has a great cast, insanely great
| cinematography and sets, but it is also very sterile, devoid of
| life and has very unimaginative directing
|
| The problem with Villeneuve's adaptation is that it does not
| tell a story. If you haven't read the book, you have a hard
| time understanding what this is all about.
| Hasu wrote:
| > (except "the Guild doesn't take your orders", if you know
| what I mean)
|
| That's the SciFi miniseries, not Lynch.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Great, you know what I mean!
| mattnewton wrote:
| Gotta strong disagree, I love Lynch, and the costumes and
| setting. But the script is just bad in that film, in addition
| to long montages of poorly edited "combat" ruining the second
| half, the first half is full of random stuff.
|
| I think my many objections are perfectly summed up by this one
| example. In the books, the "weirding way" is space kung fu. In
| the movie, it's a random sonic weapon where for some reason if
| you shout Maudib at it, it fires. So, the line from the books
| where Paul is lamenting "my name has become a killing word"
| changes from a poetic lament to a _literal_ instruction to his
| army. Queue a ridiculous montage of people shouting over and
| over with lasers.
|
| Denis' adaptation captured the dread of the scene, the
| aesthetics of the fremen, and the religious furvor of it all.
| It feels solemn and full of portent in the way the books did,
| because it follows them slavishly, only making small changes to
| compress multiple characters or omit less important parts. I
| couldn't have asked for a better adaptation as a fan of the
| books.
| wharvle wrote:
| I like both Dunes for different reasons.
|
| I do think there's a major challenge in adapting Dune, which
| is that Paul's arc is just _starting_ at the end. The
| narrative tension doesn't let up until three books later. If
| you've only got one movie guaranteed, morphing it into a
| more-traditional hero's journey isn't the worst way to solve
| that rather large problem.
|
| I'm curious how Villeneuve's going to deal with that.
| estebank wrote:
| If everything goes well, he's going to deal with that by
| making at least a third film adapting Messiah.
|
| https://geektyrant.com/news/dune-messiah-reportedly-
| greenlit...
| tnecniv wrote:
| I also agree with one of the parents that Villevenue's was
| sterile, however the book itself is kind of sterile -- as
| lots of SF of the era was. The world building is
| incredible, and Villevenue captures all that well in the
| sets, costumes, and such. However, characters and dialog
| are not a strength of that book in my opinion.
|
| I love the book though, and I enjoyed Villevenue's
| adaptation because it was exactly how I visualized the book
| when I first read it. However, having such a direct
| adaptation means you inherit the flaws as well -- in this
| case some dryness and the pacing issue that you mentioned.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| I do not agree that sterile sci-fi was anymore common in
| 1965 then any other time period. Books like George R.
| Stewarts earth abides came out ten years before. PKD
| wrote the man in the high castle, martian time slip, do
| androids dream of electric sheep, and the three stigmata
| of Palmer eldritch, Ursula k le guin wrote the left hand
| of darkness a couple years after, like this list goes on
| and on. Yes there's trash like anything a.e. van vogt
| wrote but there's always trash.
|
| Also I think dune is purposefully written in a particular
| way because one of the themes of the book is the
| disposableness of life and this is what the fremen
| oppose.
| nkrisc wrote:
| I agree, though the book is more sterile than
| Villevenue's, I think. His version had a few jokes, which
| is a few more than the book has, as I recall.
| cdcarter wrote:
| I think DV was very clever in making Dune (2021) feel more
| like Leto I's story for a large portion of the film. Though
| we ramp into Paul's, we get a very satisfying focus on
| Leto. Of course, if you hadn't read the book you'd not have
| a clue about the bullfight motifs and probably not enjoy
| that arc at all.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > I like both Dunes for different reasons.
|
| The Sci-Fi channel did a Dune miniseries, that I thought
| was decent.
| wharvle wrote:
| Yeah, it was alright. They did a really good job
| considering it was made-for-TV.
| hinkley wrote:
| If the latter books ever get made, which I highly doubt at this
| point, casting Momoa as one of the touchstone characters was
| not a bad idea, at least audience wise. Budget wise, might be a
| different story.
|
| If memory serves he shows up again in book 3, not 2. They are
| thinner books. Could they pull off 1 movie for Children and
| Messiah?
| wharvle wrote:
| > why does that sand woman shout when Jessica says a certain
| word?
|
| This kind of thing is a "how much do you trust the audience?"
| thing. How literate are they in following a narrative? How much
| cultural or genre context are you relying on them to have?
| Sometimes phrased in certain circles as "respecting the
| audience".
|
| Specifically why might not be attainable, but there are
| conversations in a couple of scenes before that one, and some
| dialog after, that let one fill in the gaps on that reaction
| well enough.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| You see, that particular scene of Mapes job interview is very
| important one in the book and I happened to remember it very
| well when whatching the movie. The book has a lot of
| Jessica's inner monologue, and then she makes a wild guess
| that happened to provoke a very strong reaction from Mapes.
|
| The movie translated this scene _verbatim_ , word for word,
| but omitting all the inner monologue. The chain of thought we
| were presented in the book is just dropped. No amount of
| attention to the narrative by the audience will help because
| the narrative is absent.
|
| That's why I called the direction unimaginative: when you are
| adapting book material to movie form you are supposed to find
| ways to convey such literature elements like internal
| monologue using cinema language. Even voiceover is sometimes
| better than nothing.
| bawolff wrote:
| I found both disappointing. They kind of had opposite prolems
| though.
|
| Imo, the new movie was much better execution, but also is super
| generic removing much of what makes dune actually interesting.
| The lynch movie is in theory interesting but execution was
| poor, making it a drag.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| After Villeneuve had repeatedly blown my expectations out of
| the water. He turned my favorite short story that I thought was
| unfilmable into the fabulous Arrival created a worthy sequel to
| the groundbreaking Blade Runner. So I was extremely excited
| about him making a new version of Dunrle given that Lynch's
| Dune is one of my favorites movies. Yet, I somehow didn't feel
| it. I thought it was that I didn't like the actors nearly as
| much and that I was so used to the music from the Lynch's
| version. I think you hit the nail on the head though by calling
| out the lack of dreamlike qualities. To me that was always what
| I loved about the movie (and other Lynch movies). I can see
| that others might prefer it without that, but to me that's what
| made the movie. Without it it's just yet another space opera
| which I think of as a derogatory term.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| What i'd really want is a tv series that looks like
| Villeneuve's Dune, with ornithopters, ships and all, and has
| a soul of Lynch's Dune, and is 10 episodes for the first
| book.
| hackernewds wrote:
| > Some scenes were direct adaptations from the book, like Gom
| Jabbar scene, Shadout Mapes scene
|
| if it weren't loyal to the source material we'd have pitchforks
| as well. there is no winning with book adaptations
| dayvid wrote:
| My gf and I both left Villeneuve's Dune early in theaters
| because it was so boring.
|
| I watched it again later on streaming with it playing in the
| background and had a much better time. It was good towards the
| end. I think Part 2 will be much better.
| einpoklum wrote:
| One of the reasons Lynch's Dune is so (more) memorable than
| Villeneuve's version is the audio, due to Brian Eno generally,
| and Toto who scored the soundtrack. It was inspiring, majestic,
| spiritual. The newer film does not reach such heights, and
| depths, IMHO.
|
| PS - I watched the extended cut with the tacky animation at the
| beginning, which was probably quite a good thing to have as a
| prelude if you hadn't read the book before. I had read the book
| before though.
|
| Learn more about the scoring of the soundtrack and hear some
| tunes at:
|
| https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/the-unlikely-story-of-totos-s...
| einpoklum wrote:
| I would say the best - or at least most imaginative and
| presumptuous - version of Dune is the one we didn't actually get:
| The version by Alejandro Jodorowsky, in the 1970s. It was a
| grandiose project involving many artists and themes which went on
| to inspire, or feature in, films and comics and sculpture for
| years later (including, among other things, Alien). There was a
| documentary about it several years back, here's the trailer for
| that:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0cJNR8HEw0
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-mLVVJkH7I Audio interview with
| Frank Herbert on the origins of Dune (1965)
| mmaunder wrote:
| The first line saying that Lynch's Dune is a "misbegotten botch
| job" is based on the authors definition of success in art which
| is box office returns. And yet here we are discussing a film that
| turns 40 this year. And there the Wired author is selling ads on
| the back of David's work and disabling my back button to grab
| mailing list signups.
|
| To gain an understanding of David's approach to art, which is
| deeply inspired by Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit", it's
| worth watching The Art Life (2016). David is a believer in the
| artist alone in the room with an infinite supply of coffee and
| cigarettes, creating new ideas with pure creative freedom and the
| removal of societal pressures. There's no doubt that his art and
| all art and creativity is derived from experience and
| experiencing the art of others. But the point is that for
| original art to flourish, there comes a time for the artist to
| seclude themselves and create without market pressures, the
| influence of popular culture and daily distractions. Us devs can
| learn much from him.
|
| So I think Lynch's Dune is spectacular in its originality and
| bold creativity. And I think looking to box office returns as a
| measure of success misses the long term value of that kind of
| originality.
| broscillator wrote:
| > is based on the authors definition of success in art which is
| box office returns.
|
| It's probably also based on Lynch's comments about Dune being
| pretty much his only regret in life.
| deng wrote:
| Exactly this. Lynch would be the first to say that his "Dune"
| is a failure. The movie is pretty much incomprehensible if
| you don't know the book. Famously, the first cut was 5 hours
| long, and he never had a plan how to get the runtime down. I
| mean, just watch the prologue with the woman talking for 90+
| seconds
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqvSJp-6qT4
|
| and tell me with a straight face that someone not knowing the
| book would be able to understand this. It's pure desperation.
| Don't get me wrong: it's beautifully shot, especially with
| the in&out-fading of the face, but it does not work to convey
| the setting of the story. It's simply too much information.
|
| Quite famously, and also in this case, he refuses to even
| discuss it because this is a place in time he would rather
| not go to. It must have been traumatic for him. But this
| failure was a blessing in disguise, as he did this little
| movie "Blue Velvet" afterwards, and the rest is history.
| Lynch would not be where he is today without this failure.
| After "Elephant Man", he was destined to be the next Lucas,
| but instead, he pretty much defined a new genre.
| lukifer wrote:
| > prologue with the woman talking for 90+ seconds
|
| There are multiple cuts, and the one I grew up with (I
| think a VHS recording from cable) instead has a longer
| introduction [0], with detailed exposition while panning
| over paintings of its world. Watching it at around 11yo, I
| found it comprehensible (if bizarre), and compelling,
| before reading the book years later.
|
| I'll have to look again to see if this cut is finally
| available in any official capacity; I've only ever managed
| to find a stitched-together fan edit. It's flawed by any
| measure (many sets and effects that looked good on VHS
| don't hold up on HD), but I actually enjoy most of its
| creative license, and the longer cut mostly holds together
| IMO, in a way the theatrical doesn't.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7FcJwg6OkA
| deng wrote:
| Lynch hates the extended TV cut with a passion and had no
| control over it whatsoever. He even went so far as to
| demand that his credit being removed (he is credited as
| Alan Smithee/Judas Booth for director/writer). The
| prologue might make more sense in the TV edit, but I
| think the execution is pretty bad and ugly. As I've
| written, while the prologue from the theatrical edit
| might not make much sense, it's absolutely beautiful to
| watch.
| wfhBrian wrote:
| > for original art to flourish, there comes a time for the
| artist to seclude themselves and create without market
| pressures, the influence of popular culture and daily
| distractions. Us devs can learn much from him.
|
| Strongly agree.
| Duanemclemore wrote:
| Lynch makes the mistake of liking Paul too much. He didn't think
| about his overall arc through the series. For all Villeneuve's
| many faults as a director and the way he handled the source
| material he's left it open that Chalamet's Paul could be both a
| "hero" and a monster on his way to redemption far easier than
| McLachlan's.
|
| The idea for example that the "Nuremberg-esque" scenes to come
| are a callback to the one from Dune 1 is exciting.
| ncr100 wrote:
| I would honestly like to see McLaughlin go full monster. He's a
| good actor and he doesn't have to be nice, so it would be
| wonderful.
|
| Actors are amazing, in my view coming from my uptight software
| engineer persona.
| Duanemclemore wrote:
| I think he has the range. No one ever asked him for it. Maybe
| at that age he wasn't studied enough to, but the time a
| sequel came out, maybe. I do think the fault there is with
| Lynch not McLaughlin.
| fullshark wrote:
| I believe in Twin Peaks: The Return, he plays an evil
| doppelganger of Agent Cooper. Haven't seen it though.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Yes. He also plays at least two other roles in that, a
| common Lynch trope.
| asciimov wrote:
| I'm surprised that the Sci-fi Channels Dune Miniseries from 2000
| hasn't been mentioned yet. While not a pretty as Villeneuve's
| Dune, it does have its own visual charm and is able to tell more
| story in its 4.5 hour run time. Plus 3 years later they did a
| Children of Dune miniseries that also covers Messiah's story.
|
| For me Villeneuve was Part one story drags along taking forever
| to get to the point. Then there is this 2.5 year wait to get a
| part 2 release; during which I read the first 3 FH Books, waited
| 18 months and read the other 3 books.
| Hasu wrote:
| Agreed. I love the weirdness of the Lynch film, but it's not a
| great Dune adaptation. The SciFi miniseries has the lowest
| production quality (desert scenes shot in real deserts are a
| lot better looking than desert scenes shot on a very low budget
| soundstage), but it's the most faithful adaptation, covers the
| first three books, and still has its own weird Dune charm.
|
| Villeneuve's Dune is sterile and devoid of charm or
| personality. I love Dune, and I was bored to tears watching
| that movie.
| bitzun wrote:
| The parts I found the most insufferable about Villeneuve's Dune
| are two pieces of dialogue towards the end: At one point,
| Chalamet says "You good?" like an American teenager, and Jessica
| has some other similar exclamation I can't remember that feels
| completely out of place, like "This is crazy!". No idea how those
| made it into the movie.
| golemotron wrote:
| TIL David Lynch films with scripts.
| shrubble wrote:
| Dune: The Alternative Edition Redux at
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faHQA_0d9Mo is a fan's "fanedit"
| of Lynch's original Dune movie, about 2h50m I think. I found it
| enjoyable to watch.
|
| "Dune Remix is as close to Lynch's vision as possible. Its
| authors even followed the original script and all the scenes are
| in this version now reassembled in the correct chronological
| order and originally intended. It is true that not all the scenes
| could be found because probably Dino de Laurentis didn't even let
| them film, but much of what is in the cut, according to
| Spicediver, was enough to restore the film practically in its
| entirety according to what was written and planned by Lynch
| decades ago, following the script from scene to scene as
| faithfully as possible."
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| https://archive.is/hHmgY
| Animats wrote:
| Dune, the story of a society who botched the AI alignment
| problem. Mostly because a dictator with too much power delegated
| it to a badly aligned AI. So, what lesson do they take from this?
| That having a god-emperor with too much power is a bad idea? Nah.
| That computers are a bad idea. Then they have to breed biological
| computers to do the job of a flight management system.
|
| Then, despite having the ability to do that kind of
| bioengineering, they can't even crank out "spice" synthetically.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Post AGI sci Fi is more interesting if singularity is
| deliberately nerfed. Imagine 300 pages of "We optimizing. Dyson
| spheres. Hive mind"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-13 23:00 UTC)