8 ms·

> I was telling my partner that I felt the movie was meant for people who read the book. She thought it was boring. A lot of people who read the book because o

> I was telling my partner that I felt the movie was meant for people who read the book. She thought it was boring. A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring. I think that most people expect character-driven narrative, and so when you get a work that leans more towards ideas and concepts, people tune out. Edit: I think is also why the movie Sicario (also by Villeneuve) threw some people off, because it didn't operate with a "normal" narrative: SPOILER {the roles of main character and protagonist were two different people}: * https://thebarkbitesback.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/going-deep-inside-the-underbelly-of-sicario/ https://thebarkbitesback.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/going-deep...

vetinari 5y ago
On the other hand, if you take a book that leans towards ideas and concepts, and you make series with character-driver narrative out of it so people won't tune out, you get something like Foundation, that has only title and names of places and characters common with the original. All that made the original interesting is lost.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Oh yes. The Foundation series would stand fine on its own, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of everything the book trilogy was, making the experience extremely jarring to me (I've read the books somewhat recently, so they were fresh in my mind when I started watching).
- ericmay 5y ago
  I agree. Having read the books of both series though and coming in with the expectation that I just wanted interesting science fiction I’ve been pleased with both the Dune movie and the Foundation series.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > All that made the original interesting is lost. The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of each basically saying the same thing: > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history. > So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching. * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-foundation-series.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-founda... * https://archive.md/YFxVi https://archive.md/YFxVi
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history[1]. The show, on the other hand, seems to be just another "special heroes with special powers direct the course of history". It wouldn't even be that bad if the show wasn't regularly referencing back to Seldon and psychohistory, essentially telling us one thing, but showing something completely opposite. It's not all bad, though. There are elements that would fit well with the books. The way they handled emperors, for example. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle [1] - Or what could be described as pivotal moments - the whole point of Seldon's use of psychohistory was to set the initial conditions to ensure there's a high probability that future events will take a very particular path[2]. Kind of like we do space missions today, where a probe is launched just right, so it stays on a predetermined path through the Solar System, making it reach its destination years or decades later. [2] - And to my great relief when first reading the trilogy, Asimov wasn't dumb about this. He seemed to have known enough about what today we'd call non-linear systems and chaos theory, that he addressed the obvious problems of psychohistory and long-term stability of Seldon's plan in the trilogy (as well as in subsequent books).
    - addingnumbers 5y ago
      > A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history. That "anthropic principle" goes out the window pretty quick in book 2 when a super-powered mutant becomes the antagonist.
      - spacedcowboy 5y ago
        ... which is the point. It's all about the spinning top (The Foundation) staying spinning and not falling over... Premise: You can't expect predictions to stay true over centuries, you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management. Bonus: due to the circumstantial requirements, you get to make them secret and hidden. Requirement: There has to be tension within a book. There has to be conflict, resolved in a way conducive to literary imperative. Resolution: Something has to be able to challenge this otherwise-perfectly-set-up system. Something that is not predictable, and which would not be easily adjustable by the Second Foundation; something out of the ordinary. A single man, who really can influence history. The Second Foundation would be prepared for a Napoleon of their time, but they wouldn't expect anyone like the Mule. Corollary: The Second Foundation is exposed, introducing tension and conflict for the next book in the series. Who wants to be a puppet on a string, after all ? It could have gone very differently if the Mule hadn't been sterile, or could have taught his skill, but again, literary imperative dictates that "The Good Guys win", so the Second Foundation overcomes the Mule, and the plan is put back on track. Suspiciously well, in fact. The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time. "The Good Guys" changes in later books, of course, and the Second Foundation end up losing, but that's quite literally another story :)
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Foundation so far looks like two different shows: a very cool Empire story with three cloned Cleon guys, and a pathetic cliched YA action series about Terminus. (I'm rooting for the Cleons)
  - spacedcowboy 5y ago
    [grin] I don't think you're going to win there, unless they really take the show in a different direction :)
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      They shouldn't trust that suspicious Demerzel robot, better destroy it.
baq 5y ago
> A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring. the book's pacing isn't exactly brisk from what my younger self remembers of reading it.
allochthon 5y ago
Just my own taste, but after Sicario and Blade Runner, Villeneuve has become one of my favorite directors. I'm looking forward to Dune.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  Arrival hooked me on as well
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Who would have thought a sci-fi film with aliens could be about motherhood/parenting? :)
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Are you making a joke about "Aliens" or is this an honest question
      - KineticLensman 5y ago
        Having a child is a key theme in Arrival and it is set in a context of communicating with mysterious aliens.
      - addandsubtract 5y ago
        It's a rhetoric question. I don't think anyone was expecting that ending.
gjulianm 5y ago
The problem for me is that the movie wasn't leaning into ideas and concepts either. I see a lot of comments about political, religious and ecological topics in Dune but I saw almost nothing about that in the movie, other than very shallow comments/ideas. To me, Dune felt like a completely empty movie: scenes are beautiful, yes, but that was it.
- vianneychevalie 5y ago
  A friend saw it with me, no context at all for him, he was fascinated by the religious war undertones sprinkled through the movie
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > war Given some folks are complaining about the "white saviour" trope in Dune, it would be interesting to see Dune Messiah be made. It's not like Herbert wasn't aware of the idea, given what he knew about (e.g.) T. E. Lawrence ('of Arabia').
    - belval 5y ago
      Haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading the book I just don't see the white savior angle. Freemen were indoctrinated by the Bene Gesserit to believe in a prophesy and Jessica "lies" to them to make them believe Paul is the one. Freemen are being oppressed, but they aren't the weak ones in Dune not by a long shot since they even have enough wealth to outbid the empire on satellites in orbit around Arrakis. I want to see Dune God Emperor adapted now that would start getting to "seriously weird" territory.
      - nsonha 5y ago
        I think white savior just means guy came from outside who has amazing abilities and lead the native.
        belval 5y ago
kybernetyk 5y ago
To me Sicario was a masterpiece. But Dune ... I could never get warm with it. Neither the book, nor the first movie nor the recent one.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vetinari 5y ago

On the other hand, if you take a book that leans towards ideas and concepts, and you make series with character-driver narrative out of it so people won't tune out, you get something like Foundation, that has only title and names of places and characters common with the original. All that made the original interesting is lost.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Oh yes. The Foundation series would stand fine on its own, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of everything the book trilogy was, making the experience extremely jarring to me (I've read the books somewhat recently, so they were fresh in my mind when I started watching).
ericmay 5y ago
I agree. Having read the books of both series though and coming in with the expectation that I just wanted interesting science fiction I’ve been pleased with both the Dune movie and the Foundation series.
throw0101a 5y ago
> All that made the original interesting is lost. The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of each basically saying the same thing: > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history. > So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching. * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-foundation-series.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/dune-movie-founda... * https://archive.md/YFxVi https://archive.md/YFxVi
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history[1]. The show, on the other hand, seems to be just another "special heroes with special powers direct the course of history". It wouldn't even be that bad if the show wasn't regularly referencing back to Seldon and psychohistory, essentially telling us one thing, but showing something completely opposite. It's not all bad, though. There are elements that would fit well with the books. The way they handled emperors, for example. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle [1] - Or what could be described as pivotal moments - the whole point of Seldon's use of psychohistory was to set the initial conditions to ensure there's a high probability that future events will take a very particular path[2]. Kind of like we do space missions today, where a probe is launched just right, so it stays on a predetermined path through the Solar System, making it reach its destination years or decades later. [2] - And to my great relief when first reading the trilogy, Asimov wasn't dumb about this. He seemed to have known enough about what today we'd call non-linear systems and chaos theory, that he addressed the obvious problems of psychohistory and long-term stability of Seldon's plan in the trilogy (as well as in subsequent books).
  - addingnumbers 5y ago
    > A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history. That "anthropic principle" goes out the window pretty quick in book 2 when a super-powered mutant becomes the antagonist.
    - spacedcowboy 5y ago
      ... which is the point. It's all about the spinning top (The Foundation) staying spinning and not falling over... Premise: You can't expect predictions to stay true over centuries, you need a guiding hand to keep that top spinning and not tumbling over, so you need the Second Foundation to be The Management. Bonus: due to the circumstantial requirements, you get to make them secret and hidden. Requirement: There has to be tension within a book. There has to be conflict, resolved in a way conducive to literary imperative. Resolution: Something has to be able to challenge this otherwise-perfectly-set-up system. Something that is not predictable, and which would not be easily adjustable by the Second Foundation; something out of the ordinary. A single man, who really can influence history. The Second Foundation would be prepared for a Napoleon of their time, but they wouldn't expect anyone like the Mule. Corollary: The Second Foundation is exposed, introducing tension and conflict for the next book in the series. Who wants to be a puppet on a string, after all ? It could have gone very differently if the Mule hadn't been sterile, or could have taught his skill, but again, literary imperative dictates that "The Good Guys win", so the Second Foundation overcomes the Mule, and the plan is put back on track. Suspiciously well, in fact. The anthropic principle is validated, and a single man did not in fact change history. This time. "The Good Guys" changes in later books, of course, and the Second Foundation end up losing, but that's quite literally another story :)
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Foundation so far looks like two different shows: a very cool Empire story with three cloned Cleon guys, and a pathetic cliched YA action series about Terminus. (I'm rooting for the Cleons)
- spacedcowboy 5y ago
  [grin] I don't think you're going to win there, unless they really take the show in a different direction :)
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    They shouldn't trust that suspicious Demerzel robot, better destroy it.

baq 5y ago

> A lot of people who read the book because of the upcoming movie also thought the book was boring. the book's pacing isn't exactly brisk from what my younger self remembers of reading it.

allochthon 5y ago

Just my own taste, but after Sicario and Blade Runner, Villeneuve has become one of my favorite directors. I'm looking forward to Dune.

imbnwa 5y ago
Arrival hooked me on as well
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Who would have thought a sci-fi film with aliens could be about motherhood/parenting? :)
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Are you making a joke about "Aliens" or is this an honest question
    - KineticLensman 5y ago
      Having a child is a key theme in Arrival and it is set in a context of communicating with mysterious aliens.
    - addandsubtract 5y ago
      It's a rhetoric question. I don't think anyone was expecting that ending.

gjulianm 5y ago

The problem for me is that the movie wasn't leaning into ideas and concepts either. I see a lot of comments about political, religious and ecological topics in Dune but I saw almost nothing about that in the movie, other than very shallow comments/ideas. To me, Dune felt like a completely empty movie: scenes are beautiful, yes, but that was it.

vianneychevalie 5y ago
A friend saw it with me, no context at all for him, he was fascinated by the religious war undertones sprinkled through the movie
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > war Given some folks are complaining about the "white saviour" trope in Dune, it would be interesting to see Dune Messiah be made. It's not like Herbert wasn't aware of the idea, given what he knew about (e.g.) T. E. Lawrence ('of Arabia').
  - belval 5y ago
    Haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading the book I just don't see the white savior angle. Freemen were indoctrinated by the Bene Gesserit to believe in a prophesy and Jessica "lies" to them to make them believe Paul is the one. Freemen are being oppressed, but they aren't the weak ones in Dune not by a long shot since they even have enough wealth to outbid the empire on satellites in orbit around Arrakis. I want to see Dune God Emperor adapted now that would start getting to "seriously weird" territory.
    - nsonha 5y ago
      I think white savior just means guy came from outside who has amazing abilities and lead the native.
      - belval 5y ago

kybernetyk 5y ago

To me Sicario was a masterpiece. But Dune ... I could never get warm with it. Neither the book, nor the first movie nor the recent one.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]