Dune [2021]: A Load of Grit.

[alvey]

So much anticipation, so little reward. Unlike even David Lynch's version,
I won't be keeping this one. I mean, it's the year 10,000 and something and
adults are speaking in LA High Schoolese. My memory isn't that great but
I'm pretty sure that Duke Paul Atridies never said "We gotta get outta
here" in the book. And the actress playing Lady Jessica got it all wrong.
Rather than being an beautiful, confident & aristocratic schemer Rebecca
Ferguson played it like a simpering Scandiwegian milkmaid. And a 100 other
irritating things that the geek boards will be flooded with (The eyes
Dennis! The eyes!) over the next few days.

Anyhoo, not recommended. Or if you've read the book, to be actively
avoided.



alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Your Name]

On 2021-10-18 19:38:00 +0000, alvey said:
>
<snip>
> ... to be actively avoided.

Basically sums up Dune in all its boring forms. :-p

[alvey]

Thank you Phylis Stein...

[trotsky]

Dipshit alert.

[RichA]

"Sandworms? You hate 'em, right?"

-Beetlejuice.

[Ed Stasiak]

> alvey

>
> And the actress playing Lady Jessica got it all wrong.
> Rather than being an beautiful, confident & aristocratic schemer Rebecca
> Ferguson played it like a simpering Scandiwegian milkmaid.

Agreed, though it's not the actresses fault, as she's just doing what the director
directs her to do.

I was also miffed that they didn't film the dinner party in Arrakeen scene,
as this not only is a great scene with all kinda good lines of dialog and
opportunity for the actors to do their thing, it hints at the impending events.

They also dropped the scene of Dr.Yueh talking to Jessica about his wife,
which sets up his betrayal of the Atreides and this is pretty important.
Without it, those who haven't read the books are left wondering why he
did what he did.

Also, the scene of Paul and Jessica flying thru the dust storm to escape the
Harkonnens went on W A Y too long and the time should have been used for
the stuff above. Not only is the scene not very important to the story but
visually there's nothing there; it's just a sand yellow tinted cockpit with the
characters bouncing around.

The movie generally skips over the set-up for the Harkonnen attack, which
makes me worried that the director is rushing into a love story with Paul and
Chani, which the story is _not_ about.

> Anyhoo, not recommended. Or if you've read the book, to be actively avoided.

I thought it was well done overall, other then what I mentioned above, it sticks
pretty close to the book.

[alvey]

As for the next film... "Fear is the anticipation-killer"...


alvey
Noting that Paul Atreides is an anagram of Pause Dilater. Gotta be a gag in
that somewhere.

[J.B. Nicholson]

alvey wrote:
> Anyhoo, not recommended. Or if you've read the book, to be actively
> avoided.

I concur; I didn't read the book but I did see both this 2021 version
and the Lynch version. It's been a while since I saw the Lynch version
so I'll try to remember the story details but I'll probably get some
of them wrong.

I didn't care for either version because both versions seem to me to
share the same major underlying story flaws -- it seems to me that the
whole of the story is making a big deal of a minor changing of the
guard. We watch how an empire passes control of a valuable and limited
resource (spice from planet Arrakis) from one family/house to
another. Both the old boss (Harkonnen) and new boss (Atreides) are
wealthy empire apparatchiks.

I didn't see the new boss as worth celebrating (like the the end of
the Lynch version indicated). I never got a clear sense that life for
spice workers or for Fremen toiling under the Atreides family (either
father Leto or son Paul) went from being horrible to being much
better. Therefore I wasn't emotionally moved when Arrakis was handed
off to Atreides or when Paul became emporer. If clairvoyance is what
one gains from being the Kwisatz Haderach (the messiah, which Paul
also becomes), I don't understand why one would also need or desire to
become emperor. It seems like the clairvoyance alone is worth way
more.

Dune requires way too much time to tell a dull story which offered no
characters or plot lines I could identify with, was told almost
without regard to the lower classes (even while basing much of the
conflicts around class struggle), and was peppered with magic (which I
took to be lazy writing).

I won't be seeing more Dune. I'm done with Dune. For me it's not the
case of Dune being too difficult to translate into a movie, it's a
case of Dune not being worth the effort of translation.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <slrnsnhgb...@forestfield.org>,

J.B. Nicholson <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
>alvey wrote:
>> Anyhoo, not recommended. Or if you've read the book, to be actively
>> avoided.
>
>I concur; I didn't read the book but I did see both this 2021 version
>and the Lynch version. It's been a while since I saw the Lynch version
>so I'll try to remember the story details but I'll probably get some
>of them wrong.
>

...
...

>
>I won't be seeing more Dune. I'm done with Dune. For me it's not the
>case of Dune being too difficult to translate into a movie, it's a
>case of Dune not being worth the effort of translation.

That's an interesting take: I don't like the movie, so the book is bad.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> That's an interesting take: I don't like the movie, so the book is bad.

That's not what I said, so your glib attempt at a joke is lame and
bad. I didn't review the book. I reviewed the story I had been shown
in the movies.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <slrnsnhlu...@forestfield.org>,

It wasn't intended to be glib or a joke, that's what I got out of your
post.

>I won't be seeing more Dune. I'm done with Dune. For me it's not the
>case of Dune being too difficult to translate into a movie, it's a
>case of Dune not being worth the effort of translation.

I don't see another way to take that than as a diss of the source
material (book). Which is fine -- I don't like the book as much as
many people do. But I came to that conclusion after reading it.

FWIW I thought the Lynch movie was a disaster back in the day. I didn't
see 2000 mini-series, and I haven't yet seen the new movie, though I hope
to make time for it in the next few weeks.

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> I don't see another way to take that than as a diss of the source
> material (book). Which is fine -- I don't like the book as much as
> many people do. But I came to that conclusion after reading it.

A reasonable interpretation is not to assume that I'm critiquing the
book which I explicitly mentioned I hadn't read but that I'm
discussing the two Dune movie variants I wrote that I saw.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <slrnsnhs5...@forestfield.org>,

OK. I think I will see it this weekend, for better or worse.

[Ed Stasiak]

> J.B. Nicholson
> > alvey

> >
> > Anyhoo, not recommended. Or if you've read the book, to be actively
> > avoided.
>

> I didn't read the book

If you haven’t read the book(s) then you can’t say the story sucks
and isn’t worth adapting.

> but I did see both this 2021 version and the Lynch version

The Lynch version from 1984 is a great sci-fi flick but a terrible
adaption and while the 2000-03 SyFy tv series was reasonably
close to the books, it looked cheesy.

The planned (14 hour long!) adaption by Alejandro Jodorowsky
in the 1970s would have looked cool as hell but would have been
a complete acid trip of a movie that had almost nothing to do with
the original story (yet Frank Herbert was cool with it).

The new movie looks good and I’m cautiously optimistic while at the
same time, worried that the director is rushing thru the story to get
to the action scenes and turn it into a love story, at the behest of his
Chinese overlords producing the movie.

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you haven’t read the book(s) then you can’t say the story sucks
> and isn’t worth adapting.

Sure I can, in fact I already did. It's unfortunate that you didn't
like the Lynch Dune movie but that movie, like any mainstream
Hollywood movie aimed at a general audience, ought to be able to stand
up on its own including the uninitiated.

[trotsky]

For better or worse? It's practically flawless.

[Ed Stasiak]

> J.B. Nicholson
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > If you haven’t read the book(s) then you can’t say the story sucks
> > and isn’t worth adapting.
>
> Sure I can, in fact I already did.

No, you're saying the 1984 and 2021 movies story sucks, you haven't
read the original story and so you can't say it sucks.

> It's unfortunate that you didn't like the Lynch Dune movie

I liked it as a sci-fi flick but I didn't like it as an adaption of "Dune".

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, you're saying the 1984 and 2021 movies story sucks, you haven't
> read the original story and so you can't say it sucks.

The gatekeeping you and one other poster bring up here suggests you
two have some other interest in defending the story against anyone who
dares to critique it. Since I initially posted on this thread friends
of mine who have read the first book told me that the Lynch movie is a
reasonable adaptation of that story. According to the early-80s
interviews around the release of Lynch's Dune Frank Herbert seems to
be fine with the Lynch movie. I take their words for that. I think I
get enough of the story to be sufficiently well-versed in it to stand
by my views of both movies and I remain convinced that Dune is simply
highly overrated.

[trotsky]

On 10/29/21 5:04 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No, you're saying the 1984 and 2021 movies story sucks, you haven't
>> read the original story and so you can't say it sucks.
>
> The gatekeeping you and one other poster bring up here suggests you
> two have some other interest in defending the story against anyone who
> dares to critique it. Since I initially posted on this thread friends
> of mine who have read the first book told me that the Lynch movie is a
> reasonable adaptation of that story.

I can't tell if you're lying or just misinformed. According to wiki the
"rough cut" of the movie was over four hours long, and there was a 186
minute version of the story that was shown on TV that Lynch disavowed.
So much more story was shot, but it sounds like Lynch wanted a link that
could be shown in the theaters that wasn't too long so it stands to
reason a large amount of storytelling was missing from his version.

According to the early-80s
> interviews around the release of Lynch's Dune Frank Herbert seems to
> be fine with the Lynch movie.

A Google search doesn't yield any such comments, and I wonder if they exist.

I take their words for that. I think I
> get enough of the story to be sufficiently well-versed in it to stand
> by my views of both movies and I remain convinced that Dune is simply
> highly overrated.

The new Dune has the best cast I've ever seen in a movie. The special
effects and set designs are state of the art. The sound, even watching
it streaming on TV was incredible. And it captures the spirit of the
book very well. What it doesn't do is capture the sense of machinations
behind the scenes that are constantly going on, showing the book to be
as much political commentary as it was "science fiction". If you want
the proper Dune experience you have to read the book. The movie is a
nice companion piece though, especially seeing the sandworms brought to
life.

[moviePig]

I think "well done overall" sums up my reaction, too ...at least as far
as recreating the book's ambience. (This was an Art Director's movie,
and I thought they pulled it off.) Do miss the Guild, though...

[Otto J. Makela]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> I think "well done overall" sums up my reaction, too ...at least as
> far as recreating the book's ambience. (This was an Art Director's
> movie, and I thought they pulled it off.) Do miss the Guild, though...

I suspect we'll encounter the Guild at a later point. If I remember
correctly, they didn't really manifest as individuals in the first book
which was a clear change in the Lynch movie.

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

[moviePig]

On 11/3/2021 8:40 AM, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> I think "well done overall" sums up my reaction, too ...at least as
>> far as recreating the book's ambience. (This was an Art Director's
>> movie, and I thought they pulled it off.) Do miss the Guild, though...
>
> I suspect we'll encounter the Guild at a later point. If I remember
> correctly, they didn't really manifest as individuals in the first book
> which was a clear change in the Lynch movie.

I only vaguely remember them as a political presence. But I thought the
"technology" they afforded was one of 'Dune's better sci-fi conceits.

[trotsky]

Tech was never a focus of Herbert, intrigue was.

[moviePig]

...which is perhaps why that particular tech wafted into mysticism.

[trotsky]

Yeah, I would say it's as much fantasy as science fiction. In fact, does
science really enter into it?

[moviePig]

Well, the plausibility of giant mobile creatures is always dicey, but I
did like the just-loopy-enough idea of warping space (with spice) to
achieve interstellar travel. One reviewer had the temerity to compare
this movie to STAR WARS, as if they were in the same genre...

[Eddie Grove]

Most stuff passed off as science fiction is just fantasy with silly
impossible tech explanations for how the magic works.

The series is the creation story of a god. That's how I approach it.
The science is about as good as a 40 night storm drowning the earth.
Shoot a laser at a shield and -boom- devastating explosion.
Conservation of mass, energy, or even water don't apply.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the book, and will watch whatever movies
come out.

[J.B. Nicholson]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I would say it's as much fantasy as science fiction. In fact,
> does science really enter into it?

Dune is certainly fantasy and not science fiction despite the
spaceships. The "voice" (the ability to push a virtually unignorable
and seemingly highly suggestive command into anyone else's head at
will where only the trained or familiar can resist the command) is
pure fantasy. Spice seems magical -- a mild hallucinogen that causes
small effects in the human-like creatures of Dune (blue eyes, if I
recall the movies) when one is exposed to enough spice, but spice is
also powerful enough to play a key role in giant spaceships traversing
great distances via space folding. Both are piles of unanswered
questions that the story doesn't seem to want the audience to ask. The
limits are basically undiscussed in both Lynch's Dune and the new Dune
part 1 movies. I got the impression that scientific inquiry is also
absent; the long movies trudge along without seeing people conduct
experiments in order to learn how their universe works. Instead,
learning the voice takes a secret-shared-among-the-few mode like
witches practicing magic spells.

[Bice]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 17:01:15 -0500, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>
>Well, the plausibility of giant mobile creatures is always dicey, but I
>did like the just-loopy-enough idea of warping space (with spice) to
>achieve interstellar travel.

It's been a while since I've read the books, but I don't think the
spice was actually used to warp space. It just made the navigators
prescient enough to know which warped paths through space would be
safe to travel.

-- Bob

[moviePig]

A while for me, too, and I'll readily defer. Nor did I mean any
methodology specific enough to exclude that description.

[J.B. Nicholson]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> If you want the proper Dune experience you have to read the book.

No, nobody needs to do that. You're trying to distract attention from
a disapproving review of a movie with a hamfisted no true Scotsman
retort.

What you offer in response doesn't address any point I raised in my
review. I'm guessing that you don't repeat that rubbish to anyone who
didn't read the book but tells you that they liked Villeneuve's Dune.

[trotsky]

Some people think labelling a movie with a "genre" is somehow
meaningful, but I always thought Star Wars was best labelled Cowboys and
Indians in space. Meanwhile Dune is a sprawling five hundred page
fantasy with elements of science fiction. And I believe the political
intrigue and elements of religion are its main focus. The pigeonholing
is the sign of a small mind.

[trotsky]

I can't remember either but Bice sounds like he's right. Maybe the book
is unfilmable. Villeneuve took a damn good shot at it though.

[Ed Stasiak]

> trotsky
> > J.B. Nicholson

> >
> > The gatekeeping you and one other poster bring up here suggests you
> > two have some other interest in defending the story against anyone who
> > dares to critique it.

Nonsense, if you want to shoot the shit about the books (when you get
around to reading them) then I’m up for it but you’re saying the _story_
sucks and is unflimable, when you’ve only seen _adaptions_ of the story.

> > Since I initially posted on this thread friends of mine who have read the
> > first book told me that the Lynch movie is a reasonable adaptation of
> > that story.
>
> I can't tell if you're lying or just misinformed. According to wiki the
> "rough cut" of the movie was over four hours long, and there was a 186
> minute version of the story that was shown on TV that Lynch disavowed.
> So much more story was shot, but it sounds like Lynch wanted a link that
> could be shown in the theaters that wasn't too long so it stands to
> reason a large amount of storytelling was missing from his version.

The best version I’ve seen is the “Alternative Edition Redux Fanedit”.

> > According to the early-80s interviews around the release of Lynch's
> > Dune Frank Herbert seems to be fine with the Lynch movie.
>
> A Google search doesn't yield any such comments, and I wonder if
> they exist.

Wouldn’t surprise me, Frank Herbert seemed happy anyone was willing
to film his story, he was even fine with Jodorowsky’s planned version
even though it would have had little connection to the book.

If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend "Jodorowsky’s Dune",
a really good documentary interviewing the director and others about
the never-filmed adaption of "Dune".

The guy is bat-shit crazy but I would have liked to have seen his adaption,
as it would have been cool as fuck even if only remotely connected to
the original story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky%27s_Dune

https://i.postimg.cc/0Nn2LVVy/jodorowsky-frank-herbert.jpg
https://ibb.co/s2JT9dN