4 ms·

I still feel cheated of a novel take by this reboot of the franchise. Even the 'blue eye' effect in this trailer is a carbon-copy of David Lynch's and Anthony M

I still feel cheated of a novel take by this reboot of the franchise. Even the 'blue eye' effect in this trailer is a carbon-copy of David Lynch's and Anthony Masters' 1984 version, with the sclera tinted blue (which is not an intuitive way to create an artificial blue-eyed effect). I actually liked the earlier version, and it would be easier to like Villeneuve's take if it owed nothing to Lynch's. But he can't seem to 'unsee' the 1980s version.

Clubber 3y ago
Dune seems to be one of those books that's really hard to translate into film. I had to read the book before I understood what the heck was going on in the 1984 film. Having said that, I'm pretty excited about part 2.
- tartuffe78 3y ago
  Having read the book it was still hard to watch that movie without constantly thinking "how is this supposed to make sense"? Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones had a bit of that, where you know reading the books made the show easier to follow, but that Dune movie felt hollow
  - toyg 3y ago
    It didn't help that a lot of it was cut.
CyberDildonics 3y ago
You feel cheated by the whole movie because their scleras are blue?
MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
In the book, it's "blue on blue," which I took to mean blue sclera.
hooby 3y ago
Villeneuve did pay some small homage to Lynch - just as he did to Jodorowsky. But nothing substantial. The bigger parallels are all things taken straight from the book. So, in cases were both Lynch and Villeneuve closely followed the book, they end up with similar results. The eyes are one example of this - they are described as entirely blue ("blue-within-blue") in the book, and that's why both movies (as well as the TV-series) did blue scleras. That part is just book-accurate. The book also described the blue as being increasingly dark the stronger the spice saturation - to the point of getting almost entirely black. The reason nobody ever was accurate to that detail, is down to black eyes feeling uncanny and scary. Eyes like that would weird out viewers, and not allow them to connect with the characters.

Clubber 3y ago

Dune seems to be one of those books that's really hard to translate into film. I had to read the book before I understood what the heck was going on in the 1984 film. Having said that, I'm pretty excited about part 2.

tartuffe78 3y ago
Having read the book it was still hard to watch that movie without constantly thinking "how is this supposed to make sense"? Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones had a bit of that, where you know reading the books made the show easier to follow, but that Dune movie felt hollow
- toyg 3y ago
  It didn't help that a lot of it was cut.

CyberDildonics 3y ago

You feel cheated by the whole movie because their scleras are blue?

MathMonkeyMan 3y ago

In the book, it's "blue on blue," which I took to mean blue sclera.

hooby 3y ago

Villeneuve did pay some small homage to Lynch - just as he did to Jodorowsky. But nothing substantial. The bigger parallels are all things taken straight from the book. So, in cases were both Lynch and Villeneuve closely followed the book, they end up with similar results. The eyes are one example of this - they are described as entirely blue ("blue-within-blue") in the book, and that's why both movies (as well as the TV-series) did blue scleras. That part is just book-accurate. The book also described the blue as being increasingly dark the stronger the spice saturation - to the point of getting almost entirely black. The reason nobody ever was accurate to that detail, is down to black eyes feeling uncanny and scary. Eyes like that would weird out viewers, and not allow them to connect with the characters.