Talk About Movies: Part 4
Somehow threads merged, so here's part 4 of our ongoing movie discussion.
One of the things I like most is that Villeneuve keeps Herbert's ambiguousness about Paul. This is not about a Messiah coming to save everyone. It's about power, and how religious fanaticism can corrupt.
I also saw a YouTube video with the editor, who mentioned that everything looks so real because they used the CGI "camera" like a real camera, and didn't fly it around and do Whirlybirds and swoops with it like you would see in a superhero movie. The camera doesn't move that much at all except as a real camera would
If there's one criticism I have, it's that there's an air of inevitability about all of Paul's exploits in the film, which somewhat lessens the tension. There's never any doubt that he's going to succeed.
saw Dune 2 , while not a big action or sci Fi guy it was quite good.
too many action scenes for me and I have trouble suspending logic a lot (and also hate the whole military industrial complex side of stuff ) but it was shot beautifully and I liked the storyline. good message and must watch on imax imo .
It’s amazing how much of the message the films managed to get across, considering how much had to be omitted from the books. Most of the changes are solid and very well thought. The female characters have much more agency and it works way better.
DV did a great job stripping the story to its essentials while still building the larger world.
The books are still the ultimate version of the tale, but these films serve as an amazing visual companion and form a magnificent version of the story. The visuals of Geidi Prime absolutely exceeded my imagination in the best way.
I caugtht Drive Away Dykes (real title) a couple day ago... it's entertaining, but It's Cohen lite.
I stand with Rooksx.
Dune Part 2 is a big-budget, sci-fi spectacular that's really a mediation on the dangers of hero-worship, religion, and fanaticism.
that statement will come back to haunt you once you see the film... 'Other team' is... misleading.
Huh? That's my memory from reading the book, nothing to do with the film. Whatever is in the film, that doesn't change what is in the book.
Anyway, I'm probably not going to watch the films. Strikes me as the same thing that happened with Peter Jackson's LOTR movies. Everyone raved about them, but I hated the first one and didn't go to see the others. Took away almost everything I liked from the books and added lots of other crap including tons of fighting. I'm not interested in watching war movies of any variety.
books are not films and films are not books. Why people compare them is baffling to me.
Really?
I understand (and often agree with) your sentiment. But finding it “baffling,” is pretty lol.
Right. Therefore, you shouldn’t worry about adaptations “ruining” the original stories.
Think of it like history, they’re different translations of the same text. Each has their own merit.
Really?
I understand (and often agree with) your sentiment. But finding it “baffling,” is pretty lol.
Right. Therefore, you shouldn’t worry about adaptations “ruining” the original stories.
Think of it like history, they’re different translations of the same text. Each has their own merit.
Watching the Fellowship Of The Ring movie didn't ruin the book for me, it was just a very unenjoyable experience. If someone tells me they also hated that movie, but loved Dune, I will consider watching it. But if I had never heard of the book, this just wouldn't sound particularly interesting to me.
It's funny, I immediately drew parallels in my tastes in LOTR to Dune.
I think it's an unpopular opinion; I prefer Fellowship over Two Towers/ROTK. Similarly I like Part 1 over Part 2.
Really?
I understand (and often agree with) your sentiment. But finding it “baffling,” is pretty lol.
The way fans rage about screen adaptations of books is pretty strange. For one, I don't love any book or comic so much that I'm going to invest time and emotional energy in getting anxious about an adaptation.
More importantly, if you want something that's 100% faithful to the book, read the book. Apart from the practical considerations (film length, production time, money, etc) that make reproduction impossible, what would be the point? It would be boring if an adaptation were exactly the same.
Thirdly, a lot of the written source material could frankly use some help. The LotR books are dryly written with mostly non-existent characterisation. When Gandalf dies in the book, the extent of the mourning is "Alas for Gandalf!" and then on they go. Similar with Boromir's death. The film made those scenes much more emotionally weighty.
Who are you trying to convince? I said I agree with the sentiment.
However, expecting people to NOT compare adaptations to the source material is lol. They’re gonna do it, every single time.
The way fans rage about screen adaptations of books is pretty strange. For one, I don't love any book or comic so much that I'm going to invest time and emotional energy in getting anxious about an adaptation.
More importantly, if you want something that's 100% faithful to the book, read the book. Apart from the practical considerations (film length, production time, money, etc) that make reproduction impossible, what would be the point? It would be boring if an adaptation were exactly the same.
T
I don't think you got the books, at least in those parts. As a reader, even the first time, I never thought Gandalf was dead, and I figured the other members of the fellowship didn't think he was dead either. Boromir was a minor character who was a traitor to the cause. It makes no more sense for anyone to mourn his death than the death of Saruman.
To derail the film adaptation discussion even further : my pet peeve are movies (loosely) based on real events that viewers identify as being 100% true and fail to understand the creative liberties that a director/screen writer will take... sigh 😡
Ugh, just watched a video about the differences between the new Dune films and the books, and apparently my favorite character from the book was dropped from the plot of the film. They beefed up other female roles for the film, but dropped the most important female character from the books
Spoiler
who killed the primary villain
. I guess they didn't think a creepy preschooler with the mind of an adult would have gone over well with viewers?
Ugh, just watched a video about the differences between the new Dune films and the books, and apparently my favorite character from the book was dropped from the plot of the film. They beefed up other female roles for the film, but dropped the most important female character from the books
Spoiler
who killed the primary villain
. I guess they didn't think a creepy preschooler with the mind of an adult would have gone over well with viewers?
Spoiler
Two main problems spring to mind.
Where do you find a YOUNG child with the required acting ability?
How do you make a CGI toddler flipping around and doing Fremen-fu not look stupid?
I think they made the right choice and the change to her character works well.
To derail the film adaptation discussion even further : my pet peeve are movies (loosely) based on real events that viewers identify as being 100% true and fail to understand the creative liberties that a director/screen writer will take... sigh 😡
And for an even further detail my pet peeve is movies based on real events period. I have zero interest in them
When did this turn into the 'WHY MOVIES SUCK according to me' thread...
The changes Villeneuve made or omitted from the books were all fine. Trying to introduce Alia as a major character would never have worked.
Gonna need a Spice Girls cameo in the next sequel. It's all about the spice, you know. And the big-ass worms.
