Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dune: Part Two – First Look

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#21

Post by MikusR »

no_wizard wrote: post #2

A fair question I have, I think, is are these new Dune movies any good? I always felt it would be best as a limited series so there was more time to expand on the characters / story / world and that movie runtimes - even though they're getting longer - just aren't a good medium for complex stories like this that rely on heavy background and backstory HBO paved the way for high value high production series, seems like…

No it is not. There was Sci-Fi channel miniseries Dune and Children of Dune. Those, despite the lower budget, are much better than than the movie.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#22

Post by lapcat »

gurchik wrote: post #8
no_wizard wrote: post #2

A fair question I have, I think, is are these new Dune movies any good? I always felt it would be best as a limited series so there was more time to expand on the characters / story / world and that movie runtimes - even though they're getting longer - just aren't a good medium for complex stories like this that rely on heavy background and backstory HBO paved the way for high value high production series, seems like…

If you’ve already read the book, you might enjoy the movie. If you haven’t, I’m reminded of this article: https://www.theonion.com/dune-part-two-to-pick-up-right-wher...

I've read the book, and I quickly found the movie to be unwatchable because of dumb, pointless changes to the story. Not quite as bad as David Lynch's "Dune Velvet", but still bad.

One thing that really bothered me is that the movie had Gurney Hallack warn Paul not to sit with his back to the door rather than Thufir Hawat. In the book, this was an important early scene because it's a setup for Thufir's death scene at the end, when he says, "The universe is full of doors." Of course Thufir's death hasn't been shown yet in the movies, but they already degraded it somewhat.

There were other changes that bothered me too. IIRC there was something crucial missing from the gom jabbar scene that left out a big part of the motivation for it. I don't remember all the details now. (Edit: Now I remember. The Reverend Mother explained that an animal would gnaw off its own leg to escape the trap. In the book, she explains that a human would fake death and kill the trapper to eliminate a threat to its kind. Whereas in the movie, she just says "What will you do?" WTF?!?) I stopped the movie after a half hour or so. I didn't see the point, when the book is so much better.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#23

Post by carapace »

no_wizard wrote: post #2

A fair question I have, I think, is are these new Dune movies any good? I always felt it would be best as a limited series so there was more time to expand on the characters / story / world and that movie runtimes - even though they're getting longer - just aren't a good medium for complex stories like this that rely on heavy background and backstory HBO paved the way for high value high production series, seems like…

This seems as good an opening as any...

No. (the first one, haven't seen the second)

This "Dune" is not good. It's pretty, but stupid.

For one thing, just one little thing, what's the Baron's guy's name? Not the Feyd-Ruatha/Raban amalgam. The mentat.

No one says Piter's name!? If you haven't read the book you wouldn't know WhoTF that character is.

- - - -

I could go on and on, but what I really want to say, what I want future filmmakers to hear, is just this:

Just film the book.

Don't change the dialog, don't change the characters, don't add scenes and for fuck's sake don't delete any! Just film the book. Don't second guess Frank Herbert. He lucked out, made a masterpiece, and a whole Universe so real you can taste it. (the rest of the series not so much, but "Dune" itself is a window onto an alternate Universe.) You wouldn't hack up Shakespeare, you're not going to improve on Dune. Just film the book.

Whew! That was bottled up for a while.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#24

Post by AmericanChopper »

dmreedy wrote: post #17
AmericanChopper wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They compromised on complexity a bit when they de-islamified the Fremen and decided they would be better off as crusaders rather than jihadis, which kinda turns some of the central themes of the story on its head.

I don't necessarily disagree with the position that compromises were made, but > better off as crusaders rather than jihadis At the risk of sounding edgy, I'm not sure I see the distinction between these two things? My impression of Herbert is that the pseduo-arabism that he draped over his themes didn't serve as a moral judgement or a stand-in for motivation, but to provide some remove for his immediate audience (lo…

Some of the main themes of the book revolve around anti-colonialism, with the book drawing very obvious parallels to western interference in the Middle East after the discovery of spice, sorry I mean oil. Jihadis fighting against colonial forces fits into this theme perfectly. Crusaders on the other hand were just a different group of colonisers who had previously sought to conquer the Arabs. This doesn’t fit into the main themes at all, it completely subverts them.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#25

Post by xwdv »

no_wizard wrote: post #2

A fair question I have, I think, is are these new Dune movies any good? I always felt it would be best as a limited series so there was more time to expand on the characters / story / world and that movie runtimes - even though they're getting longer - just aren't a good medium for complex stories like this that rely on heavy background and backstory HBO paved the way for high value high production series, seems like…

I love the movie, but I didn’t go in expecting a complete work. I expected something that would cut off abruptly at some point. There’s just too much to fit in. So perhaps with that framing in mind, I enjoyed what I watched and would have gladly sat hours to watch more. Very immersive world.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#26

Post by dicroce »

You know, it was probably super smart not showing Emperor Shaddam IV in the first film. The audience has enough to learn and see that is mandatory it was probably wise leaving out some things that weren't mandatory for the first film.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#28

Post by AmericanChopper »

dmreedy wrote: post #19
AmericanChopper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than turning Paul into a crusader, what did they really leave out of the book? The dinner scene, and some of the more minor Leto scheming was all I could remember. Did they have the Jessica finding the conservatory scene? I can’t remember…

They left out pretty much the entirety of the Butlerian Jihad and Orange Catholicism as themes motivating the world. Mentats are barely discussed even though they are present. And yeah, no dinner scene, and no conservatory, as far as story telling beats

Oh yeah, I guess they did… I imagine they’ll have to expand on that a little bit more in the part 2 for the rest of Thufir’s story to make sense though. Now that I think about it they didn’t put much effort into Piter de Vries either.

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#29

Post by pdntspa »

no_wizard wrote: post #2

A fair question I have, I think, is are these new Dune movies any good? I always felt it would be best as a limited series so there was more time to expand on the characters / story / world and that movie runtimes - even though they're getting longer - just aren't a good medium for complex stories like this that rely on heavy background and backstory HBO paved the way for high value high production series, seems like…

I watched it baked off my tits and it was fucking AWESOME

Fantastic stoner movie

Re: Dune: Part Two – First Look

#30

Post by dmreedy »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #24
dmreedy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree with the position that compromises were made, but > better off as crusaders rather than jihadis At the risk of sounding edgy, I'm not sure I see the distinction between these two things? My impression of Herbert is that the pseduo-arabism that he draped over his themes didn't serve as a moral judgement or a stand-in for motivation, but to provide some remove for his immediate audience (lo…

Some of the main themes of the book revolve around anti-colonialism, with the book drawing very obvious parallels to western interference in the Middle East after the discovery of spice, sorry I mean oil. Jihadis fighting against colonial forces fits into this theme perfectly. Crusaders on the other hand were just a different group of colonisers who had previously sought to conquer the Arabs. This doesn’t fit into th…

Ah, yes, fair enough. Though to be fair there is of course a transition from "Occupied" to "Occupier" as the story progresses. Which I think is part of that broader curiosity about the origins of zealotry, and its vector.

But I do agree that that particular axis is one of the weaker parts of the adaptation. Though I'm not convinced personally it subverts the theme entirely; just maybe skips a few steps.

Post reply on HN