3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIn 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 agoDo 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 agoI 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.