3 ms·

Dune took "Show Don't Tell" the the utmost extreme that it practically inverted upon itself. There's no character development to speak of, the plot is secondary

Dune took "Show Don't Tell" the the utmost extreme that it practically inverted upon itself. There's no character development to speak of, the plot is secondary, and visual spectacle is placed front and center. I tire of movies with lazy expositional dialogue, but this was absurd in the other direction.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I loved every second of it. It was so refreshing. I guess what’s great for both of us is that there’s just so many movies these days.
- echelon 3y ago
  > I guess what’s great for both of us is that there’s just so many movies these days I vehemently disagree, and I'm not simply being argumentative -- this is something I've held as a strong opinion for decades. I can count on my hand the number of high fantasy series that have been filmed and that have been good. Or the number of spacefaring sci-fi films. I've seen thousands of movies, yet I'd consider fewer than 10% of them "good". Very few sit with me for days after the theater. This world doesn't have enough film. I know my interests aren't being catered to.
  - nwienert 3y ago
    You're lucky, I find something like <2% enjoyable to actually give real attention to. For that reason I watch basically 0 TV or movies anymore. And feels like the less I watch, the less I can watch anything without immediately being annoyed at cheese, cheapness, and mostly just plain unrealistic characters or dialogue (which really and truly is 99% it seems like of shows). I need either high art or a slice of life. Ghibli or Satoshi Kon for anime, stuff like Kubrick in film, or Mad Men for TV. Mad Men especially was my turning point where after that show I couldn't stomach much else. Call me elitist. I watch lower quality YouTube stuff much more easily (at low attention), but once you're trying to sign me up for 30 minutes or more I just give up. Tried watching the 3 Body Problem on Netflix and in just the first scenes (cultural revolution + the scientists convo on God) were so full of cringe. I kept it on as background a bit but petered out after a few episodes.
GuestHNUser 3y ago
> There's no character development to speak of, the plot is secondary, and visual spectacle is placed front and center. I totally agree with this take, but I think Dennis' directing/writing is full of 'Telling' instead of 'Showing', not that he took "Show Don't Tell" to the extreme. The entire movie is full of instances where the audience is told aspects of the characters/world, but isn't shown them in the first Dune movie: - We are told the Atreides ruled Caladan, but at no point is the audience shown who the Atreides' subjects are, or how their subjects feel about the Atreides. The only shots the film has on Caladan are beautiful yet empty areas of the Scottish Highlands. Where are the people they rule over? What does their way of life look like? None of this is shown, but it should have been. - On Arrakis, we are only ever told how strong and powerful the Fremen are from characters like Duncan Idaho. In fact, the only time we get to see the Fremen fight is at the end of the movie when Paul, the child _who has never been in a life or death fight before_, makes a fool of a supposedly strong Fremen fighter! Dennis clearly wants the audience to perceive the Fremen as strong, yet he fails to illustrate their strength on screen. I understand that Dennis wants Paul to be seen as powerful too, but the resulting scene undercuts everything that the movie has told us about the Fremen's fighting ability. If it isn't already clear, I don't think Dennis Villenueve is a particularly good film maker (though this is not to call him a bad one). He likes to have large empty scenery shots which are almost monochrome. I find that it makes his imagery striking but, ultimately, boring. For instance, his shots in Bladerunner 2049 mostly depict an empty wasteland that, though striking in its scale, doesn't drive one's imagination. The original Bladerunner's shots are so cluttered with detail and color that it fills every location with a unique character. This is why I think Bladerunner inspired so much other media after it; the audience's imagination can't help but linger on the sets and one off characters of the original film.
- cgriswald 3y ago
  I agree with the original poster. The novel was extremely expositional, with epigraphs, italicized personal thoughts, and shifting points of view. The film is the novel with all the exposition removed. I see the film not just as an adapatation, but as a direct response to Lynch's version which includes all the exposition you could like. > - We are told the Atreides ruled Caladan, but at no point is the audience shown who the Atreides' subjects are... I'm not sure why this is particularly needed and it isn't really in the novel. The importance of Caladan in the novel is that it is wet (which we do see); and that the way Caladan is ruled (whatever that is) must necessarily be different than how Arrakis is ruled (air/sea versus desert power). I'll have to rewatch the film to see if this can be gleaned from it; but it seems largely irrelevant what day-to-day life is like for Caladanians not in the Duke's direct employ and if the Duke is particularly loved or hated there. > - On Arrakis, we are only ever told how strong and powerful the Fremen are... This is also true of the novel. The main characters know more about the Fremen than anyone and very little at that. The Duke believes the Fremen are his 'desert power' because of the comparison to the Sardaukar on Selusa Secundus and because their estimates of the number of Fremen are greater than those of the Harkonnen or Emperor. Duncan Idaho confirms these suspicions, but the Fremen are largely mysterious even then. We also have the interaction between the Shadout Mapes and Jessica to hint at their capacity for violence.

Waterluvian 3y ago

I loved every second of it. It was so refreshing. I guess what’s great for both of us is that there’s just so many movies these days.

echelon 3y ago
> I guess what’s great for both of us is that there’s just so many movies these days I vehemently disagree, and I'm not simply being argumentative -- this is something I've held as a strong opinion for decades. I can count on my hand the number of high fantasy series that have been filmed and that have been good. Or the number of spacefaring sci-fi films. I've seen thousands of movies, yet I'd consider fewer than 10% of them "good". Very few sit with me for days after the theater. This world doesn't have enough film. I know my interests aren't being catered to.
- nwienert 3y ago
  You're lucky, I find something like <2% enjoyable to actually give real attention to. For that reason I watch basically 0 TV or movies anymore. And feels like the less I watch, the less I can watch anything without immediately being annoyed at cheese, cheapness, and mostly just plain unrealistic characters or dialogue (which really and truly is 99% it seems like of shows). I need either high art or a slice of life. Ghibli or Satoshi Kon for anime, stuff like Kubrick in film, or Mad Men for TV. Mad Men especially was my turning point where after that show I couldn't stomach much else. Call me elitist. I watch lower quality YouTube stuff much more easily (at low attention), but once you're trying to sign me up for 30 minutes or more I just give up. Tried watching the 3 Body Problem on Netflix and in just the first scenes (cultural revolution + the scientists convo on God) were so full of cringe. I kept it on as background a bit but petered out after a few episodes.

GuestHNUser 3y ago

> There's no character development to speak of, the plot is secondary, and visual spectacle is placed front and center. I totally agree with this take, but I think Dennis' directing/writing is full of 'Telling' instead of 'Showing', not that he took "Show Don't Tell" to the extreme. The entire movie is full of instances where the audience is told aspects of the characters/world, but isn't shown them in the first Dune movie: - We are told the Atreides ruled Caladan, but at no point is the audience shown who the Atreides' subjects are, or how their subjects feel about the Atreides. The only shots the film has on Caladan are beautiful yet empty areas of the Scottish Highlands. Where are the people they rule over? What does their way of life look like? None of this is shown, but it should have been. - On Arrakis, we are only ever told how strong and powerful the Fremen are from characters like Duncan Idaho. In fact, the only time we get to see the Fremen fight is at the end of the movie when Paul, the child _who has never been in a life or death fight before_, makes a fool of a supposedly strong Fremen fighter! Dennis clearly wants the audience to perceive the Fremen as strong, yet he fails to illustrate their strength on screen. I understand that Dennis wants Paul to be seen as powerful too, but the resulting scene undercuts everything that the movie has told us about the Fremen's fighting ability. If it isn't already clear, I don't think Dennis Villenueve is a particularly good film maker (though this is not to call him a bad one). He likes to have large empty scenery shots which are almost monochrome. I find that it makes his imagery striking but, ultimately, boring. For instance, his shots in Bladerunner 2049 mostly depict an empty wasteland that, though striking in its scale, doesn't drive one's imagination. The original Bladerunner's shots are so cluttered with detail and color that it fills every location with a unique character. This is why I think Bladerunner inspired so much other media after it; the audience's imagination can't help but linger on the sets and one off characters of the original film.

cgriswald 3y ago
I agree with the original poster. The novel was extremely expositional, with epigraphs, italicized personal thoughts, and shifting points of view. The film is the novel with all the exposition removed. I see the film not just as an adapatation, but as a direct response to Lynch's version which includes all the exposition you could like. > - We are told the Atreides ruled Caladan, but at no point is the audience shown who the Atreides' subjects are... I'm not sure why this is particularly needed and it isn't really in the novel. The importance of Caladan in the novel is that it is wet (which we do see); and that the way Caladan is ruled (whatever that is) must necessarily be different than how Arrakis is ruled (air/sea versus desert power). I'll have to rewatch the film to see if this can be gleaned from it; but it seems largely irrelevant what day-to-day life is like for Caladanians not in the Duke's direct employ and if the Duke is particularly loved or hated there. > - On Arrakis, we are only ever told how strong and powerful the Fremen are... This is also true of the novel. The main characters know more about the Fremen than anyone and very little at that. The Duke believes the Fremen are his 'desert power' because of the comparison to the Sardaukar on Selusa Secundus and because their estimates of the number of Fremen are greater than those of the Harkonnen or Emperor. Duncan Idaho confirms these suspicions, but the Fremen are largely mysterious even then. We also have the interaction between the Shadout Mapes and Jessica to hint at their capacity for violence.