11 ms·
I think it's also worth reflecting on how modern attention spans have shortened. Modern media has spoiled us with instant and constant gratification in our pock
by m12k 5y ago
I think it's also worth reflecting on how modern attention spans have shortened. Modern media has spoiled us with instant and constant gratification in our pockets. Dune, the book, was written in an era where it was still considered acceptable for media to demand something of its consumers, like attention, patience and so on - and the movie is a faithful adaptation of the book.
- gjulianm 5y agoI honestly don't like too much these kinds of takes. People still read long, boring books, still concentrate and pay attention to certain media... Responding to criticism that something is boring, slow-paced or whatever with the equivalent of "the youngs these days" is not too productive.
- marcellus23 5y agoI think there is an argument to be made that movies have generally gotten dumber and plots more obvious. So when a film comes along that expects you to do a bit more work, I think lots of people find it confusing. (for example, figuring out that the reason no one uses guns is that shields only block fast things -- the former is unexplained, but easily deduced from the latter, which is reinforced many times.)
- kevinh 5y agoThe gun example is a bad one—that's not why they don't use guns. They don't use lasguns because they cause a nuclear explosion when fired against shields.
- MayeulC 5y agoOh, and since you are the only one mentioning it on this page, one of my pet peeve with the movie is: why so freaking many lasers? Two is two more than we should have seen, I think. (the other pet peeve is that they don't draw blood every time we see a crysknife).
- spywaregorilla 5y agoWhy don't they just use the shields as nuclear weapons then?
- m12k 5y agoSpoiler alert for Part 2!
- Jtsummers 5y agoConvention, just like why nukes haven't been used as weapons in over 70 years in the real world. If your enemy does it to you, you'll do it to them.
- euroderf 5y agoBut also, isn't there an agreement that any house that uses nukes against human targets gets obliterated by the entire Landsraad ? Which might make a bit problematic the Fremens' use of nuke(s) in the Lynch-version assault on the emperor.
- Jtsummers 5y agoI think you're correct. It's been a while since I read the books and I deliberately didn't reread them before the movie to avoid the kind of frustrations that occur when you see an adaptation and are too-familiar with the books so a few of these details are escaping me at present. The Fremen in Lynch's adaptation did what they did in the book. They won the war any way they could as they were the underdogs, without taking Arakeen they couldn't win it.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI'm not an expert on the world of dune or anything, but I guess I would have assumed that nukes on a relatively barren sand planet would be pretty ok.
- Jtsummers 5y agoExcept that others will use it against you. Also, because this movie didn't convey it well, Spice is literally the thing that keeps the Empire and the economy going. Without it, there is no interstellar travel (thanks to a religious opposition to thinking machines). So maybe on an arbitrary barren sand planet you could try and get away with it, but this is not the one you want to test that on. It would be tantamount, at the time of the book's writing, to nuking the OPEC nations on Earth, you know, the places where (at the time) an incredibly large percentage of oil was being pulled out of the ground and keeping the global economy going.
- marcellus23 5y agoI didn't mention lasguns, just guns.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI don't buy that this is an actual trend. If anything I think we're seeing more original plots than we used to. Even marvel plots are a hell of a lot more interesting than their equivalents in the 00s, 90s, and 80s. A lot of content is starting to get smarter, and more genre savvy, and indie content is thriving more than ever before.
- marcellus23 5y agoYou and I must be watching different marvel movies.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI would comment as follows. Iron Man - sort novel for setting marvel tone but mostly banal action movie Iron Man 2 - banal action movie Thor - banal action movie Captain America: The First Avenger - particularly banal action movie Marvel's The Avengers - banal action movie Iron Man 3 - banal action movie, sort of interesting to see protagonist suffering PTSD anxiety from being a superhero Thor: The Dark World - banal action movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier - first interesting take. Patriotism is not the same as government obedience. Real fight choreography approaching a soft john wick. Guardians of the Galaxy - Early rock and roll aesthetic pretty interesting Avengers: Age of Ultron - banal action movie, perhaps mcu lowpoint Ant-Man - superhero heist movie, literally deconstructs larger than life superhero tropes. I think thumbs up Captain America: Civil War - by this point doing the mcu's own thing, which is novel, but probably not interesting outside Doctor Strange - banal action movie Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - aesthetic still feels mostly fresh. Spider-Man: Homecoming - super down to earth high school drama, frustrated working class villains suffering the fallout of superheroes, seems interesting to me Thor: Ragnarok - great film, very genre savvy. Rare achievement to make godly strength brutes feel really engaging to watch. Taika Waititi is a genius. Black Panther - pretty good. interesting aesthetic. directly addressing racial tensions. Avengers: Infinity War & Endgame - Mostly fan service and not too surprising but honestly still novel. Ant-Man and the Wasp - Ehhh I really don't remember Captain Marvel - Beginning had some great hard sci fi imo. Thought the ending message of newly apotheosizied female not needing to prove herself to her evil male mentor was a solid take, whereas a classic "mano a mano" kind of showdown would be so typical of the genre Spider-Man: Far From Home - Villain emphasizing themes of the power of deceptive media? heck yeah. Wandavision - Really bizarre and interesting start. Unfortunately non-self-aware conclusion Falcon and Winter Soldier - Active discussions of race and the problematic nature of superheroes being supremacists? Very good. Loki - kind of a super cliche topic (time cops) that is also somehow really rare? eh. honorable mentions for Logan and Deadpool for being just great; and the Amazing Spiderman for its excellent aesthetics despite terrible writing.
- gjulianm 5y agoAgain, isn't this "the youths these day" argument again with no data to back it up? I mean, to put a quick example, Tenet requires a level of attention that other movies don't require. Also, from the movie it's not so obvious that shields only block fast things. To me it looked like they work like a strong fabric held by a force field, but that can be penetrated if enough force is applied.
- marcellus23 5y agoI'm pretty sure one of the characters explicitly says near the beginning of the film that it's fast vs. slow that makes a difference. It's not about the youth these days, it's about Hollywood -- the fact that Hollywood movies are more commoditized and generally "samey" than previously is a pretty well-known development. It's an industry thing, not a culture thing (or, well, it may be driven by cultural changes, but I don't entirely believe that, and don't want to speculate anyway).
- nsonha 5y ago> not so obvious that shields only block fast It's literaly said so by one of the character in the same scence shields are introduced: "the slow blade penetrates the shield"
- skohan 5y agoI don't think it's a fair characterization. I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie. I think the issue is you can watch the film as many times with as much attention as you want, and without extended context there will be a lot which goes over your head.
- marcellus23 5y agoCan you give an example of something that goes over one's head? > I think just about everyone can infer how shields work after watching this movie. If you re-read my comment, my point is not that people can't infer how shields work (they actually don't need to infer it, because it's told to them explicitly in the first 10 minutes), but that they can't infer why swords are used instead of guns. That requires an inferential leap that the movie doesn't spoonfeed you. I've had people IRL tell me they were confused by the swords, so no, it's not a given that people can infer that.
- CRConrad 5y ago> my point is not that people can't infer how shields work (they actually don't need to infer it, because it's told to them explicitly in the first 10 minutes), but that they can't infer why swords are used instead of guns. Isn't that utterly obvious from how the shields are supposed to work? > That requires an inferential leap that the movie doesn't spoonfeed you. What, "...and bullets move fast, so of course guns won't work" is a "leap"? Come on! And here I thought I was pessimistic and cynical about the average IQ of the populace at large...
- platz 5y agoI hadn't read the books. If you think about it for about 5 seconds, it makes sense swords are the only thing that are effective against shields and the explanation about fast vs slow is very clear.