• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dune 2018 (19,20,21...)

I thought it was in one of the fan edits of the lynch film but was was wrong. The arobortium was in the Scifi mini-series but can't remember if the note from Margot Fenring was mentioned.

It was not. Margot isn't in the miniseries. The role was partially transferred to Irulan who seduces Feyd during the gladiator fight for information on the attack against House Atreides, but leaves before having sex with him, having a spy she formerly planted in the Harkonnen household take her place.

The garden was in the mini but no message. There was an added scene in the directors cut of Paul & Kynes having a conversation in it, and I believe the added bit where Paul is researching sandworms also briefly takes place in it, although I could be remembering that wrong.
 
It's a tricky thing. Prescribed gender roles (and the injustices and pressures thereof) are kind of a major topic in Dune; hell it's literally the final line of the novel! So it might be counter productive to run contrary to that with too bold a choice.
You *could* do Gurney as a female, but it kinda shifts the tone of certain dynamics, especially in regards to Paul, Jessica and later on, even Stilgar.

Kynes by contrast is fairly safe in that regard, as I think is Thufir. You might also get away with Yueh, but making the betrayer a woman might not be such a good look; see also: Piter.

I think it would be the most interesting choice and still make the dynamics work, if enough was done. Jessica gets a companion in her grief (loss of a husband) Paul isn’t really down a father figure, he’s up to his ears in those anyway, and gurney/stilgar is just war buddy stuff.
 
I think it would be the most interesting choice and still make the dynamics work, if enough was done. Jessica gets a companion in her grief (loss of a husband) Paul isn’t really down a father figure, he’s up to his ears in those anyway, and gurney/stilgar is just war buddy stuff.
No, it shifts the tone and context of the Gurney/Jessica relationship from an old warrior distrustful of the witch, to making it look more like they're jealous of Jessica and is carrying a torch for the Duke. All of that is with or without casting Gwendoline Christie and she's known for precisely that kind of character.
 
One thing I always thought David Lynch got right was the look and feel of Dune and, having seen the trailer a few times, I can see some similarities between both so I'm hopeful the 1984 film may get a more generous re-appraisal.
 
No, it shifts the tone and context of the Gurney/Jessica relationship from an old warrior distrustful of the witch, to making it look more like they're jealous of Jessica and is carrying a torch for the Duke. All of that is with or without casting Gwendoline Christie and she's known for precisely that kind of character.

That’s something that I would have changed during the story, so that by the end they are friends, due to shared experience.
But this does illustrate how changing one thing leads to the necessity of changing others, and how that is not always welcome.
 
That’s something that I would have changed during the story, so that by the end they are friends, due to shared experience.
But this does illustrate how changing one thing leads to the necessity of changing others, and how that is not always welcome.
Exactly. Like I said, it shifts the dynamic and now you have the problem of how and why does Gurney attempt to kill Jessica later in the story? How is the conflict resolved? What is the motivation driving them? How does that affect the relationship with Paul, and so on and so forth.
You're also giving Jessica a friend, which is a problem because she's meant to feel isolated and alone and very much under suspicion.

Bold changes may sound like an exciting way to spice things up, but stories are machines, and if you replace one cog with another and it doesn't fit, then you're going to strip some teeth before the whole thing is done.

This kind of this is how many remakes, or scripts that go through multiple repeated drafts with radically different writers end up being bad movies. You take something that was working, you disassemble is, rearrange the parts then reassemble it...only you left a part out because it doesn't track well with the demographic, then you add something new because some producer's wife likes it, or for some corporate synergy which later gets pulls, but too tale, because subsequent drafts eliminate it, but the vestiges are still there. Now you have 3 plot holes, 2 characters that don't actually do anything, a protagonist with confused motivations and a third act that lasts 5 mins, tops.

Not saying it can't be done, but if one change ends up requiring you to change almost everything else; at a certain point one must ask oneself is the change is really worth it, why exactly did one feel the need for the change in the first place, and what is hte point of adapting something if you're going to alter it beyond the point of it being recognisable?
 
Last edited:
In a other semi-related news bit, now that the movie has actually been released Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney over their same day release plan for Black Widow, as it appears Disney never made a deal with her to replace her back end points. The relation to Dune is that the article includes the news that WB has paid out $200 mil to cast & crew with backends points to avoid exactly this situation. Whether this applies to Dune or just internal WB films like DC projects is not stated, at least not in the reprint of the article I saw. The original article is in the WSJ behind a paywall.

https://www.ign.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-black-widow-contract-premier-access
 
Continuing the trend of Covid making the box office a total crapshoot, The Suicide Squad, despite great word of mouth and reviews, took in only $26.5 mil for its opening weekend.

How much of that is to be blamed on HBO max, Delta, the lack of Batman & Joker (compared to the first movie), poor reception of the first movie (which still made bank) there is no way to tell at this point. It's the same amount Mortal Kombat pulled in months ago with much worse reviews during Covid's spring wave.
 
Continuing the trend of Covid making the box office a total crapshoot, The Suicide Squad, despite great word of mouth and reviews, took in only $26.5 mil for its opening weekend.

How much of that is to be blamed on HBO max, Delta, the lack of Batman & Joker (compared to the first movie), poor reception of the first movie (which still made bank) there is no way to tell at this point. It's the same amount Mortal Kombat pulled in months ago with much worse reviews during Covid's spring wave.
I wouldn't put much stock in any box office numbers for at least the next year or so.
I'm sure a lot of people just watched it at home, and they're just not factoring in those numbers to the box office take.

Personally I was already very selective about going to the cinema before all this kicked off, but post Covid? You couldn't pay me to go in a cinema. I'll wait for it to come out on download, or bluray or wherever the fuck, and I think these numbers show I'm far from alone in that.

TL/DR: box office grosses mean exactly feck all right now.
 
And they didn't mean that much in the first place. But yeah, we shouldn't read too much into the numbers.

Of course, that won't stop the studios from walking away with all the wrong takes.
 
And they didn't mean that much in the first place. But yeah, we shouldn't read too much into the numbers.

Of course, that won't stop the studios from walking away with all the wrong takes.
Honestly I think it's less about the studios (since they actually know exactly how much money they made off the online services and are likely taking pains to point that out during the next round of investor calls) and more about the entertainment press being stubbornly slow in catching up to the new reality. Some of these articles I've seen over the last few weeks read like the journo in question is under the deluded impression that the pandemic is over and everything ought to be springing right back to normal circa mid-2019. It ain't and it won't for quite a while yet, if ever.
 
True, although I think it's less to do with stubbornly slow and more trying force reality back to the status quo.
 
It will be interesting to see how No Time to Die does, as that's a major studio tentpole which IIRC won't have same day streaming as its theatrical release. Still though, I think it's time studios, or specifically theatres realize that this genie isn't going back in the bottle. Even if the pandemic clears up and the world is back to normal next year, the theatres are not going to be the same again. About the only thing theatres can offer as an incentive now is the chance to get out of the house for a few hours and not be disturbed, especially since most theatres require you to shut off your cell phones during the movie. That said, the advantages and general convenience to streaming movies at home definitely outweigh that. Those with weak bladders can just pause the movie while at home, and you don't need to worry about bad traffic or late busses preventing you from arriving on time to see the movie. Okay, maybe the theatre is cheaper than the thirty dollar price tag for streaming the new releases, but if you wait a few months you can just see the movie for no additional cost which essentially means its free. Although I imagine those with families probably wouldn't mind paying the thirty dollar premium, feeling they're still making a discount compared to going to the theatre. Not to mention at home, you're eating food you already have, and not paying for the overpriced concession stand food.

Yeah, the entire movie industry is definitely going to be changing in the next few years. The theatre model that existed before the pandemic might as well be considered obsolete now.
 
It will be interesting to see how No Time to Die does, as that's a major studio tentpole which IIRC won't have same day streaming as its theatrical release. Still though, I think it's time studios, or specifically theatres realize that this genie isn't going back in the bottle. Even if the pandemic clears up and the world is back to normal next year, the theatres are not going to be the same again. About the only thing theatres can offer as an incentive now is the chance to get out of the house for a few hours and not be disturbed, especially since most theatres require you to shut off your cell phones during the movie. That said, the advantages and general convenience to streaming movies at home definitely outweigh that. Those with weak bladders can just pause the movie while at home, and you don't need to worry about bad traffic or late busses preventing you from arriving on time to see the movie. Okay, maybe the theatre is cheaper than the thirty dollar price tag for streaming the new releases, but if you wait a few months you can just see the movie for no additional cost which essentially means its free. Although I imagine those with families probably wouldn't mind paying the thirty dollar premium, feeling they're still making a discount compared to going to the theatre. Not to mention at home, you're eating food you already have, and not paying for the overpriced concession stand food.

Yeah, the entire movie industry is definitely going to be changing in the next few years. The theatre model that existed before the pandemic might as well be considered obsolete now.

I don't think theatres are going to go away, and I'm not so sure about the "genie in the bottle" bit either - theatrical windows have already shortened drastically the last few years and it's never been easier to get incredibly high quality pirate versions and yet box office records were still being smashed. The studios have said they're stopping day & digital in 2022 (Disney is already done with it starting September). Don't forget, the biggest audience for theatrical movies have always been teenagers & young adults going out with friends. Going out is the point. Adults/families may only go out a couple times a year (if that), it's the teens who go out every single weekend.

Things are definitely changing and are going to continue changing but I don't see this as the death knell for theatres.
 
Going out Is definitely the point. And unless you have tons of money to spend on tech and even more importantly lighting and having a really dark room with no windows... it's not going to match theatre quality.

Which might be fine, god knows I've watched tons of movies without it being theatre quality. But even with my new 4K tv it's not the same in terms of sound, lighting, etc.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top