3 ms·

Jodorowsky's version?

tunap 6y ago
Villeneuve's, hopefully... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(2020_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(2020_film)
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  I have high hopes for Villeneuve, but Lynch's dune is still one of my favourite sci-fi movies from 1980s.
  - milesward 6y ago
    [insert instant best friends meme here]
- tildedave 6y ago
  I'm really excited for the movie and the casting looks incredible so far. I wonder how the 2 movie split is going to work narratively. The book itself has kind of a perfect 3 act setup but I'm not sure breaking the story at the end of the book's part 1 (or halfway through part 2) is going to feel very satisfying.
  - toast0 6y ago
    I think you could stop as a cliffhanger when Paul and Jessica escape from the worm, and are confronted by Stilgar. Then you start with a knife battle for the second movie, and who doesn't like a knife battle?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      No, that would be like moving Luke vs Darth Vader fight to the beginning of episode VI. This actually reminded me of a colossal mistake made by Hobbit pt.2 movie, when they ended the part with a dragon flying away to burn the city after the cringiest of chase scenes. They could have easily end the part with slaying a dragon, and then show it again in part 3. All they needed was to find a different POV character!! One dragon kill, shown twice.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The book itself has kind of a perfect 3 act setup Standard 3-act structure has a natural breakpoint at the midpoint twist of Act 2, not that my recollection of Dune is detailed enough to confirm that it maps naturally to 3-act structure in detail.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Of course not. That would have been horrible. Lynch's version is great: it has superb sets and production design, actors, music. One thing it lacks is screentime: first half of the book takes 80% time, while the second half is rushed in the remaining 20%. If we could have 2 (3) part movies in 1980s, it could have been extremely great.
- toast0 6y ago
  > first half of the book takes 80% time, while the second half is rushed in the remaining 20% Yeah, once you get to the end of the first half, it's like oh crap, we're out of time, montage montage, end battle, fight with Sting, plot plot plot, end credits. The film that's supposed to be released this year is reportedly only the first half of the book; I guess we'll see how that goes.

Villeneuve's, hopefully... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(2020_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(2020_film)

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
I have high hopes for Villeneuve, but Lynch's dune is still one of my favourite sci-fi movies from 1980s.
- milesward 6y ago
  [insert instant best friends meme here]
tildedave 6y ago
I'm really excited for the movie and the casting looks incredible so far. I wonder how the 2 movie split is going to work narratively. The book itself has kind of a perfect 3 act setup but I'm not sure breaking the story at the end of the book's part 1 (or halfway through part 2) is going to feel very satisfying.
- toast0 6y ago
  I think you could stop as a cliffhanger when Paul and Jessica escape from the worm, and are confronted by Stilgar. Then you start with a knife battle for the second movie, and who doesn't like a knife battle?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    No, that would be like moving Luke vs Darth Vader fight to the beginning of episode VI. This actually reminded me of a colossal mistake made by Hobbit pt.2 movie, when they ended the part with a dragon flying away to burn the city after the cringiest of chase scenes. They could have easily end the part with slaying a dragon, and then show it again in part 3. All they needed was to find a different POV character!! One dragon kill, shown twice.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The book itself has kind of a perfect 3 act setup Standard 3-act structure has a natural breakpoint at the midpoint twist of Act 2, not that my recollection of Dune is detailed enough to confirm that it maps naturally to 3-act structure in detail.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Of course not. That would have been horrible. Lynch's version is great: it has superb sets and production design, actors, music. One thing it lacks is screentime: first half of the book takes 80% time, while the second half is rushed in the remaining 20%. If we could have 2 (3) part movies in 1980s, it could have been extremely great.

toast0 6y ago
> first half of the book takes 80% time, while the second half is rushed in the remaining 20% Yeah, once you get to the end of the first half, it's like oh crap, we're out of time, montage montage, end battle, fight with Sting, plot plot plot, end credits. The film that's supposed to be released this year is reportedly only the first half of the book; I guess we'll see how that goes.