4 ms·

>They simply have more character and vastly more interesting set design I feel the opposite. Lynch's Dune did its own thing with meandering and confused direc

>They simply have more character and vastly more interesting set design I feel the opposite. Lynch's Dune did its own thing with meandering and confused direction. Villenuve's Dune complements the book much better. It respects Herbert's intelligence and understands the world building decisions Herbert made. I'm betting that the book and Villeneuve's Dune will stand the test of time better.

broscillator 3y ago
It respects the source material too much. It serves the only function of being an acceptable, technically excellent version for two audiences: the purists, who care more about the book than about film as an art form; and the people who are interested in Dune because they heard about it but they will not sit down and read it. It has nothing to say cinematographically, and it has nothing to add to the messages that were written into Dune 50 years ago. It's very competent, nothing else.
- nurbl 3y ago
  In contrast, there are many things to say about Lynch's version, but he didn't just play it safe. Although compared to the plans Jodorowski (original director) had for the movie, he was probably conservative :D
- devnullbrain 3y ago
  Do you feel the same way about the Lord of the Rings films? The most common complaints about those are where it has strayed from the source material. Dune isn't fully pure, either. It goes against the most frequent theme of the first book simply by 'shooting' scenes outside during the day. Caladan is much more fleshed out. It introduces new Bene Tleilax lore in the first film which is notable because Herbert himself didn't introduce them until there was a second book to write, omniscience to restrict and characters to resurrect. Looking at the trailers for the next film, Feyd Rautha is bald Elvis instead of a handsome Paul-like character and I'd be very surprised if all of the Baron's proclivities are retained.
  - broscillator 3y ago
    I recently got to rewatch the first LOTR film in theaters, after not having seen it for maybe 8 years. I was stunned at how well done it was visually, and how well handled the tension and pacing are throughout the whole thing. It was just an impeccable cinematic experience.
righthand 3y ago
> It respects Herbert's intelligence and understands the world building decisions Herbert made. I completely disagree, it does a few major plot points decently but the gender swap of Liet Kynes completely erases the point of that character as a parallel to Paul’s journey in relation to his determined destiny as outlined by the people before him. It completely wipes away any difference between the two invading armies as well they both come off as generic evil villains where in the book they have a purposeful lavishness and guadiness. Not to mention the entire obvious white washing of the entire jihad and Fremen who are clearly based off of Middle Eastern peoples.
- willis936 3y ago
  The changes to Kynes and Hawat removed subplots to focus on the primary plot. They don't even mention Paul's mentat training. I feel that removing the Arabic names from Fremen is to make it palatable for modern audiences. Herbert did respect Arabic cultures and (in my opinion) did not have an insulting representation of them. It is still a caricature of a people made by someone who is not of that people. We do give up some context, but we also avoid insult in our now-global world. I don't think there was any winning move here, but I think they gave it thought and made a careful decision.
  - righthand 3y ago
    No I think they took the easy way out because “modern” aka 1st world audiences are afraid of the word jihad. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if people weren’t proclaiming it to be an accurate depiction of the book when it clearly overwrites several big pieces of plot in favor of modern anxieties.
    - willis936 3y ago
      There are a lot more Arabic aspects of the Fremen in the books that didn't make it into the movie. They could have left those and removed the word Jihad but they went all the way.
      - 3y ago
eszed 3y ago
I'm with you, _pace_ the bulk of the other comments in this thread. My wife, knowing nothing whatsoever about _Dune_, saw the movie with me, and "got" every element of the complex political background - in the car ride home she asked questions and spun theories, all of which were dead-on. It's a masterpiece of adaptation, a beautiful film, and I don't get the "soul-less" critique at all. On the big screen, at least, it's alive as hell, and Paul's prophetic dreams are handled perfectly: confusing and suggestive and strange, without ever taking you out of the narrative. It's not even like the film is "slavish" to Herbert's narrative, either, like a few people have said. Having Kynes assassinated, rather than captured, removes a fun scene, but gives the audience a first hint of worm-riding, which is narratively useful. My only regret, which I only arrived at after my third viewing, is that the actor playing Jamis should have played Stilgar, and Bardem should have played Jamis. I think Bardem is slightly mis-cast, but he's also enough of a name that the audience would have felt the same regret as Paul does at Jamis' death.

broscillator 3y ago

It respects the source material too much. It serves the only function of being an acceptable, technically excellent version for two audiences: the purists, who care more about the book than about film as an art form; and the people who are interested in Dune because they heard about it but they will not sit down and read it. It has nothing to say cinematographically, and it has nothing to add to the messages that were written into Dune 50 years ago. It's very competent, nothing else.

nurbl 3y ago
In contrast, there are many things to say about Lynch's version, but he didn't just play it safe. Although compared to the plans Jodorowski (original director) had for the movie, he was probably conservative :D
devnullbrain 3y ago
Do you feel the same way about the Lord of the Rings films? The most common complaints about those are where it has strayed from the source material. Dune isn't fully pure, either. It goes against the most frequent theme of the first book simply by 'shooting' scenes outside during the day. Caladan is much more fleshed out. It introduces new Bene Tleilax lore in the first film which is notable because Herbert himself didn't introduce them until there was a second book to write, omniscience to restrict and characters to resurrect. Looking at the trailers for the next film, Feyd Rautha is bald Elvis instead of a handsome Paul-like character and I'd be very surprised if all of the Baron's proclivities are retained.
- broscillator 3y ago
  I recently got to rewatch the first LOTR film in theaters, after not having seen it for maybe 8 years. I was stunned at how well done it was visually, and how well handled the tension and pacing are throughout the whole thing. It was just an impeccable cinematic experience.

righthand 3y ago

> It respects Herbert's intelligence and understands the world building decisions Herbert made. I completely disagree, it does a few major plot points decently but the gender swap of Liet Kynes completely erases the point of that character as a parallel to Paul’s journey in relation to his determined destiny as outlined by the people before him. It completely wipes away any difference between the two invading armies as well they both come off as generic evil villains where in the book they have a purposeful lavishness and guadiness. Not to mention the entire obvious white washing of the entire jihad and Fremen who are clearly based off of Middle Eastern peoples.

willis936 3y ago
The changes to Kynes and Hawat removed subplots to focus on the primary plot. They don't even mention Paul's mentat training. I feel that removing the Arabic names from Fremen is to make it palatable for modern audiences. Herbert did respect Arabic cultures and (in my opinion) did not have an insulting representation of them. It is still a caricature of a people made by someone who is not of that people. We do give up some context, but we also avoid insult in our now-global world. I don't think there was any winning move here, but I think they gave it thought and made a careful decision.
- righthand 3y ago
  No I think they took the easy way out because “modern” aka 1st world audiences are afraid of the word jihad. It wouldn’t be such a big deal if people weren’t proclaiming it to be an accurate depiction of the book when it clearly overwrites several big pieces of plot in favor of modern anxieties.
  - willis936 3y ago
    There are a lot more Arabic aspects of the Fremen in the books that didn't make it into the movie. They could have left those and removed the word Jihad but they went all the way.
    - 3y ago

eszed 3y ago

I'm with you, _pace_ the bulk of the other comments in this thread. My wife, knowing nothing whatsoever about _Dune_, saw the movie with me, and "got" every element of the complex political background - in the car ride home she asked questions and spun theories, all of which were dead-on. It's a masterpiece of adaptation, a beautiful film, and I don't get the "soul-less" critique at all. On the big screen, at least, it's alive as hell, and Paul's prophetic dreams are handled perfectly: confusing and suggestive and strange, without ever taking you out of the narrative. It's not even like the film is "slavish" to Herbert's narrative, either, like a few people have said. Having Kynes assassinated, rather than captured, removes a fun scene, but gives the audience a first hint of worm-riding, which is narratively useful. My only regret, which I only arrived at after my third viewing, is that the actor playing Jamis should have played Stilgar, and Bardem should have played Jamis. I think Bardem is slightly mis-cast, but he's also enough of a name that the audience would have felt the same regret as Paul does at Jamis' death.