6 ms·

I was considering to watch it this weekend. So you advise against it?

by folli 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Unklejoe 5y ago
I've never read the book, and had no idea about the plot. I didn't really enjoy the movie. I'd still recommend watching it though. It was clearly done well - I just didn't personally like it. It was hard to become invested in the characters - they all seemed like they were sort of zoned out or high, if that makes any sense.
whydid 5y ago
Do you enjoy explosions, spaceships, and verbal exposition?
- fsloth 5y ago
  There was far less verbal exposition than could have been. For example the mentats and their importance due to the Butlerian Jihad is never explicitly mentioned but only hinted at in subtle ways (which is nice).
  - simonh 5y ago
    The same team are working on a Sisterhood prequel TV series, to the background info is coming.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  Because if you do, I invite you to experience it in 4DX where you can get rained on, punched and perfumed. It will take your mind off alarmingly frequent cuts to Paul's love interest cum Chanel commercial. It may even--a far bigger feat--inure you to the dialogue written (one thinks) by a crack team of out-of-work teamsters moonlighting as screenwriters from your local meetup.
WillPostForFood 5y ago
Go see it! It is a beautiful half movie: it only covers half the book, but is a great interpretation.
jordanab 5y ago
It's fantastic. Go see it in Imax if you can. Going to the theaters will help to get part 2 made.
- flatiron 5y ago
  they really did a number with this. they are getting regular old joes to ask other people to go to the theaters on HBOs behalf. i really gotta figure out how they did that, its pretty remarkable.
  - ericlewis 5y ago
    they made a good movie worthy of imax.
  - jordanab 5y ago
    I'll rather do it on Denis Villeneuve's behalf, who I regard as one of the best filmmakers of the current era. I couldn't care less about Warner/HBO.
  - goto11 5y ago
    It is called "word of mouth" and is essential for the success of a blockbuster.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I was so disappointed after spending like 12 hours watching this film to it ending without telling the complete story. Never mind the Part 1 title card at the beginning. I just assumed they were going to expand upon the story not cut it into pieces. Then to find out that they didn't already green light the rest of the story being made. WTF? Who does this in today's movie universe? We get the full story approved to make or we take it to another studio. Right Mr. Jackson?
  - ericlewis 5y ago
    Disney. marvel. it's not new.
leesec 5y ago
Don't listen to a random person. Predominantly people enjoy it but make your own judgement.
nvrspyx 5y ago
It's a visually beautiful movie and it works better in telling the story than the original movie because it's being broken up into two decently long films. The dialogue isn't fantastic, but it doesn't detract from the experience, IMO. I'd recommend watching it.
criddell 5y ago
I watched it last weekend and my expectations were pretty low. Plus it was 2-1/2 hours which (for me) isn't a good sign. I loved the movie and can't wait for the next part. I watched it on HBO but kind of wished I had seen it in a theater for the big sound and huge screen. I thought the movie was beautifully shot.
kgwxd 5y ago
I think if you've read the book, it's a good watch. But the movie does very little character building, or maybe it tries to do too much of it too fast. Without the preset idea of what the characters are about, I could see how the movie might be a bit flat.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Too fast? The movie is longer than the original and only part of the story is included. How much slower can they make the story playout?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The movie is longer than the original and only part of the story is included The original is a dense 200,000 word novel, not the 1984 movie you seem to be referencing, which itself a cut a lot.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Sure, at this point I'm just hoping it doesn't get Hobbit-ed by making shit up to pad the time and introduce characters not in the original material.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I'm just hoping it doesn't get Hobbit-ed by making shit up to pad the time and introduce characters not in the original material. Well, its being made into two movies instead of The Hobbit’s three, and the source material is about twice as long as The Hobbit, so I think the risk of that is a lot lower. 3-4 hours film per 100K words is probably reasonable [0], the cureent Dune is still very squeezed where The Hobbit trilogy was...very much not. [0] E.g., the first season of Game of Thrones, roughly covering the plot of the book A Game of Thrones, and which hewed pretty close to the source but still cut a fair amount, was 9.5 hours for ~300K words of source material.
  - cygx 5y ago
alistairSH 5y ago
I've read the novel several times over the years, and watched both he 1984 Lynch production and the mini-series several times each. IMO, the new movie is better than both previous screen adaptations. It follows the book pretty closely, only omitting some details, and not adding any McGuffins or other needless new plot points (coughweirding modulecough). I certainly have my nits to pick. But, they are truly nits. Friends have reported non-Dune fans (never read the book or watched other adaptions) can get a bit lost, particularly children. But, my wife and I loved it and hope part 2 gets procured in a timely manner.
- baal80spam 5y ago
  Similarly, over the years I've read the novel in my mother tongue (multiple times), watched Lynch's movie, read the original and finally listened to the audiobook. I have seen Dune today in IMAX 3D and I simply loved it. As for the missing details, I think what especially hit me was SPOILERS AHEAD the whole Jessica<>Hawat tension is simply not there.
colechristensen 5y ago
It’s 80% as good as it could have been. Of course you have to do less in a film than a long book, in some cases details and characters were diluted too much. It also leans a bit heavily on visual style at times. But it is still quite good. Almost as good of an adaptation as lord of the rings was.
nonameiguess 5y ago
The problem with the David Lynch version was it was so edited and short that key scenes were missing, making it confusing as heck to understand what was happening and why if you hadn't read the book. But he kept the internal monologues. The problem with this newer version is it cuts the internal monologues, so much of the context, history, and character building is gone. But it keeps pretty much every scene. Unfortunately, that also results in a really long movie so you only get the first half of the story, but all the action is in the second half. This is all setup and no resolution. And I'm not sure how well it would work without having read the book, because I feel you do miss a lot when you don't have the worldbuilding, which is accomplished almost entirely by internal monologues in the book. It's quite beautiful, though. I expect part II will be a lot better, as Paul's journey with the Fremen is by far the most interesting part of the story, and they barely meet at the end of part I.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The problem with the David Lynch version was it was so edited and short that key scenes were missing Yet, oddly, the reviews I’m reading are saying central scenes of the portion of the book the new film covers that were included in the Lynch film have been omitted from this one.

I was considering to watch it this weekend. So you advise against it?

by folli 5y ago

I was considering to watch it this weekend. So you advise against it?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Unklejoe 5y ago

I've never read the book, and had no idea about the plot. I didn't really enjoy the movie. I'd still recommend watching it though. It was clearly done well - I just didn't personally like it. It was hard to become invested in the characters - they all seemed like they were sort of zoned out or high, if that makes any sense.

whydid 5y ago

Do you enjoy explosions, spaceships, and verbal exposition?

fsloth 5y ago
There was far less verbal exposition than could have been. For example the mentats and their importance due to the Butlerian Jihad is never explicitly mentioned but only hinted at in subtle ways (which is nice).
- simonh 5y ago
  The same team are working on a Sisterhood prequel TV series, to the background info is coming.
emptysongglass 5y ago
Because if you do, I invite you to experience it in 4DX where you can get rained on, punched and perfumed. It will take your mind off alarmingly frequent cuts to Paul's love interest cum Chanel commercial. It may even--a far bigger feat--inure you to the dialogue written (one thinks) by a crack team of out-of-work teamsters moonlighting as screenwriters from your local meetup.

WillPostForFood 5y ago

Go see it! It is a beautiful half movie: it only covers half the book, but is a great interpretation.

jordanab 5y ago

It's fantastic. Go see it in Imax if you can. Going to the theaters will help to get part 2 made.

flatiron 5y ago
they really did a number with this. they are getting regular old joes to ask other people to go to the theaters on HBOs behalf. i really gotta figure out how they did that, its pretty remarkable.
- ericlewis 5y ago
  they made a good movie worthy of imax.
- jordanab 5y ago
  I'll rather do it on Denis Villeneuve's behalf, who I regard as one of the best filmmakers of the current era. I couldn't care less about Warner/HBO.
- goto11 5y ago
  It is called "word of mouth" and is essential for the success of a blockbuster.
dylan604 5y ago
I was so disappointed after spending like 12 hours watching this film to it ending without telling the complete story. Never mind the Part 1 title card at the beginning. I just assumed they were going to expand upon the story not cut it into pieces. Then to find out that they didn't already green light the rest of the story being made. WTF? Who does this in today's movie universe? We get the full story approved to make or we take it to another studio. Right Mr. Jackson?
- ericlewis 5y ago
  Disney. marvel. it's not new.

leesec 5y ago

Don't listen to a random person. Predominantly people enjoy it but make your own judgement.

nvrspyx 5y ago

It's a visually beautiful movie and it works better in telling the story than the original movie because it's being broken up into two decently long films. The dialogue isn't fantastic, but it doesn't detract from the experience, IMO. I'd recommend watching it.

criddell 5y ago

I watched it last weekend and my expectations were pretty low. Plus it was 2-1/2 hours which (for me) isn't a good sign. I loved the movie and can't wait for the next part. I watched it on HBO but kind of wished I had seen it in a theater for the big sound and huge screen. I thought the movie was beautifully shot.

kgwxd 5y ago

I think if you've read the book, it's a good watch. But the movie does very little character building, or maybe it tries to do too much of it too fast. Without the preset idea of what the characters are about, I could see how the movie might be a bit flat.

dylan604 5y ago
Too fast? The movie is longer than the original and only part of the story is included. How much slower can they make the story playout?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The movie is longer than the original and only part of the story is included The original is a dense 200,000 word novel, not the 1984 movie you seem to be referencing, which itself a cut a lot.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Sure, at this point I'm just hoping it doesn't get Hobbit-ed by making shit up to pad the time and introduce characters not in the original material.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I'm just hoping it doesn't get Hobbit-ed by making shit up to pad the time and introduce characters not in the original material. Well, its being made into two movies instead of The Hobbit’s three, and the source material is about twice as long as The Hobbit, so I think the risk of that is a lot lower. 3-4 hours film per 100K words is probably reasonable [0], the cureent Dune is still very squeezed where The Hobbit trilogy was...very much not. [0] E.g., the first season of Game of Thrones, roughly covering the plot of the book A Game of Thrones, and which hewed pretty close to the source but still cut a fair amount, was 9.5 hours for ~300K words of source material.
- cygx 5y ago

alistairSH 5y ago

I've read the novel several times over the years, and watched both he 1984 Lynch production and the mini-series several times each. IMO, the new movie is better than both previous screen adaptations. It follows the book pretty closely, only omitting some details, and not adding any McGuffins or other needless new plot points (coughweirding modulecough). I certainly have my nits to pick. But, they are truly nits. Friends have reported non-Dune fans (never read the book or watched other adaptions) can get a bit lost, particularly children. But, my wife and I loved it and hope part 2 gets procured in a timely manner.

baal80spam 5y ago
Similarly, over the years I've read the novel in my mother tongue (multiple times), watched Lynch's movie, read the original and finally listened to the audiobook. I have seen Dune today in IMAX 3D and I simply loved it. As for the missing details, I think what especially hit me was SPOILERS AHEAD the whole Jessica<>Hawat tension is simply not there.

colechristensen 5y ago

It’s 80% as good as it could have been. Of course you have to do less in a film than a long book, in some cases details and characters were diluted too much. It also leans a bit heavily on visual style at times. But it is still quite good. Almost as good of an adaptation as lord of the rings was.

nonameiguess 5y ago

The problem with the David Lynch version was it was so edited and short that key scenes were missing, making it confusing as heck to understand what was happening and why if you hadn't read the book. But he kept the internal monologues. The problem with this newer version is it cuts the internal monologues, so much of the context, history, and character building is gone. But it keeps pretty much every scene. Unfortunately, that also results in a really long movie so you only get the first half of the story, but all the action is in the second half. This is all setup and no resolution. And I'm not sure how well it would work without having read the book, because I feel you do miss a lot when you don't have the worldbuilding, which is accomplished almost entirely by internal monologues in the book. It's quite beautiful, though. I expect part II will be a lot better, as Paul's journey with the Fremen is by far the most interesting part of the story, and they barely meet at the end of part I.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The problem with the David Lynch version was it was so edited and short that key scenes were missing Yet, oddly, the reviews I’m reading are saying central scenes of the portion of the book the new film covers that were included in the Lynch film have been omitted from this one.