3 ms·

> I dearly love the books, but you shouldn't have to read the books to appreciate the film. It should stand on its own legs, and Villeneuve totally misses on th

> I dearly love the books, but you shouldn't have to read the books to appreciate the film. It should stand on its own legs, and Villeneuve totally misses on that shot. This is the part I completely disagree with. I don’t think you need to read the books at all to understand or love Villeneuaves Dune. I hadn’t read the book at the time of seeing it, and I loved it. And then after I read the book I love the movie even more.

cycomanic 3y ago
This is the thing, the people here that complain that you need to have read the book to understand the movie are dune fans. On the other hand there are people like you and my partner who I watched the movie with, who understood and loved the movie without having read the book. I think it's usually much harder to please fans of a book, because they all will find different parts of the book important and something will be omitted, e.g. see the discussions about Tom Bombadil in LOTR.
- echelon 3y ago
  Forget the books for a moment. The film is a brainless action film. Most of the criticisms I made are film criticisms that could be levied against any bad or middling movie. - The film is a vacuum for intricacy and coherence. - The characters are one-dimensional, unchanging, and don't matter. - The stakes might be huge, but they carry no emotional weight. Like most superhero films these days. These are deficiencies in storytelling. If we contrast Lynch's Dune with Villeneuve's, we might find similar analogies in contrasting "Jurassic Park" versus "Jurassic World", Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" versus Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit", or "Independence Day" versus whatever the hell "Independence Day 2" was. Each of these latter films promised more, but they turned out to be empty and soulless. More box checking than composition, more visual spectacle than substance. The same is true of Villeneuve's Dune as a film. I don't need a film adaptation to be faithful. I just need it to be a good movie. I'd be totally fine if the film made a wild departure from its source material, so long as it used that liberty to deliver something impressive. That would honestly mean more to me than a fully "by the books" rendition. Villeneuve's Dune was just lazy.
  - serf 3y ago
    I liked the new one fine, but I felt the same way. It was mostly just gawking at effects rather than story-intrigue for me, although I'm already familiar. Spent more time thinking about the CGI than I did thinking about the plot, I think that might indicate something.
    - antihipocrat 3y ago
      When I read the books I got a strong sense that Dune (the planet) was like a living entity. This planet was the focal point for all political and economic machinations of the universe, yet it was a vast, mysterious and dangerous place. Humans were intruders. Lynch's Dune had many wide shots that attempted to convey this, and when Paul was with the Fremen it felt as if he was truly removed from the rest of the human universe, and within the mysterious universe of the planet. Villeneuve's Dune had amazing visuals yet too many scenes were tightly shot. To me this Dune felt claustrophobic, not vast. and when Paul was with the Fremen it didn't feel so removed from reach of the Empire.
      - antihipocrat 3y ago
        I just rewatched the new Dune, and disagree with my previous assessment. I enjoyed the movie a lot more the second time around. Perhaps I had preconceived notions the first time (I did watch Lynch's version immediately prior). Perhaps also as others have mentioned I didn't catch all the dialogue as it is quieter than the score in many sections, this time I had the subtitles on. The cinematography is great, there are way more wide context shots than I remembered. I also felt the magic was there and there is a dreamlike quality during Paul's spice vision scenes. I'm honestly not sure why I didn't enjoy it the first time. If you are like I was and ambivalent about the sequel, maybe give this movie another go. I've changed my mind and now looking forward to seeing part 2.
        Nursie 3y ago
        I got more frustrated with it on a second watch, about how shallow the characters and their relationships were, and about how the blandness and faded colour choices of a lot of the visuals seemed like a deliberate reaction against the richness and almost pantomime nature of the Lynch version. I came away thinking they got the ornithopters right but little else.
- moomin 3y ago
  One thing I noticed: the movie is very careful to lay out how the betrayal of House Atreides actually works. Every other time I’ve watched a version with someone I’ve ended up needing to explain who the heck the Sardukar are.

cycomanic 3y ago

This is the thing, the people here that complain that you need to have read the book to understand the movie are dune fans. On the other hand there are people like you and my partner who I watched the movie with, who understood and loved the movie without having read the book. I think it's usually much harder to please fans of a book, because they all will find different parts of the book important and something will be omitted, e.g. see the discussions about Tom Bombadil in LOTR.

echelon 3y ago
Forget the books for a moment. The film is a brainless action film. Most of the criticisms I made are film criticisms that could be levied against any bad or middling movie. - The film is a vacuum for intricacy and coherence. - The characters are one-dimensional, unchanging, and don't matter. - The stakes might be huge, but they carry no emotional weight. Like most superhero films these days. These are deficiencies in storytelling. If we contrast Lynch's Dune with Villeneuve's, we might find similar analogies in contrasting "Jurassic Park" versus "Jurassic World", Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" versus Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit", or "Independence Day" versus whatever the hell "Independence Day 2" was. Each of these latter films promised more, but they turned out to be empty and soulless. More box checking than composition, more visual spectacle than substance. The same is true of Villeneuve's Dune as a film. I don't need a film adaptation to be faithful. I just need it to be a good movie. I'd be totally fine if the film made a wild departure from its source material, so long as it used that liberty to deliver something impressive. That would honestly mean more to me than a fully "by the books" rendition. Villeneuve's Dune was just lazy.
- serf 3y ago
  I liked the new one fine, but I felt the same way. It was mostly just gawking at effects rather than story-intrigue for me, although I'm already familiar. Spent more time thinking about the CGI than I did thinking about the plot, I think that might indicate something.
  - antihipocrat 3y ago
    When I read the books I got a strong sense that Dune (the planet) was like a living entity. This planet was the focal point for all political and economic machinations of the universe, yet it was a vast, mysterious and dangerous place. Humans were intruders. Lynch's Dune had many wide shots that attempted to convey this, and when Paul was with the Fremen it felt as if he was truly removed from the rest of the human universe, and within the mysterious universe of the planet. Villeneuve's Dune had amazing visuals yet too many scenes were tightly shot. To me this Dune felt claustrophobic, not vast. and when Paul was with the Fremen it didn't feel so removed from reach of the Empire.
    - antihipocrat 3y ago
      I just rewatched the new Dune, and disagree with my previous assessment. I enjoyed the movie a lot more the second time around. Perhaps I had preconceived notions the first time (I did watch Lynch's version immediately prior). Perhaps also as others have mentioned I didn't catch all the dialogue as it is quieter than the score in many sections, this time I had the subtitles on. The cinematography is great, there are way more wide context shots than I remembered. I also felt the magic was there and there is a dreamlike quality during Paul's spice vision scenes. I'm honestly not sure why I didn't enjoy it the first time. If you are like I was and ambivalent about the sequel, maybe give this movie another go. I've changed my mind and now looking forward to seeing part 2.
      - Nursie 3y ago
        I got more frustrated with it on a second watch, about how shallow the characters and their relationships were, and about how the blandness and faded colour choices of a lot of the visuals seemed like a deliberate reaction against the richness and almost pantomime nature of the Lynch version. I came away thinking they got the ornithopters right but little else.
moomin 3y ago
One thing I noticed: the movie is very careful to lay out how the betrayal of House Atreides actually works. Every other time I’ve watched a version with someone I’ve ended up needing to explain who the heck the Sardukar are.