4 ms·

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 mach

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.
  - antihipocrat 3y ago
    That still rings true to me, the interpersonal relationships are lacking emotion.. It's as if all human relations and events are being told from a Bene Gesserit perspective, and perhaps this was intentional. If intentional then it would be a good character arc for Paul to reject this in the second movie.. and then become dispassionate in his own way again in the third

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.
- antihipocrat 3y ago
  That still rings true to me, the interpersonal relationships are lacking emotion.. It's as if all human relations and events are being told from a Bene Gesserit perspective, and perhaps this was intentional. If intentional then it would be a good character arc for Paul to reject this in the second movie.. and then become dispassionate in his own way again in the third