For sure hoping to do so.
Poll Dune (2021) Spoiler/Rating Thread
- Thread starter wayoung
- Start date
Dune has been criticised for its adoption of genetic memory (transferred by RNA) as a major plot point (not that SF should ever constrain itself to that which we believe to be currently correct IMO). It turns out this theory, originated by Robert Thompson and James Vernon McConnell, might have some validity, at least in simple animals, although reproducibility of the experiments has been problematic in the past.
Planarian - Biochemical Memory Experiments (liquisearch.com)
Study: decapitated flatworms retain memories, transfer to new brains | WIRED UK
Planarian - Biochemical Memory Experiments (liquisearch.com)
Study: decapitated flatworms retain memories, transfer to new brains | WIRED UK
I saw Dune a couple of weeks ago on the Warner Lot with my brother who's an ADR guy. It's definitely a great and very entertaining film. Generally well cast, well written, well directed, and spectacular. I loved what Villeneuve (who was a the screening and answered some questions afterwards) did with the Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 and I think he did a great job with Dune as well.
I think it will be the best of the three versions of Dune produced so far.
That said, I do have some quibbles and observations.
First, the real bummer is that the story isn't complete. It's Dune Part I. I think most people know that. After I heard that Zendaya had only spent 4 days filming and characters like Feyd weren't cast, I essentially predicted exactly when the film will end.
For those of you who read the book, you can figure it out too. Essentially, it's Act I of the Dune story. Villeneuve has not shot anything for the rest of the film, although he's apparently well along on the script. I don't think it's been officially greenlit either.
Second, I wish they'd given Thufir Hawat a bigger role. I really liked that character and his journey in the book. In Villeneuve's film, Hawat is given short shrift compared to Gurney Hallack and Duncan Idaho. Same with Piter DeVries.
I'm sorry, but I didn't care much for Timothy Chammet's Paul Atriedes. I preferred Kyle Maclachlan's Paul in Lynch's Dune.
The take on Baron Harkonnen was, interestingly, very different from the prior portrayals in Lynch's Dune and Harrison's Dune series. Kenneth McMillan's Baron in Lynch's Dune was a dirty, crazy psychopath. Ian McNeice's Baron in Harrison's Dune was the closest, imo, to the book's a scheming portrayal. Here, in Villeneuv's Dune, Stellan Skarsgaard's Baron is a very cold customer. No cackling or colorful language here, like the prior two. More of a big, cold, dark spider.
And that brings me to my last observation. This film isn't a risky, or strange as Lynch's. Lynch's film obviously didn't resonate with audiences. One of the reasons, is that it was cut again and again by Dino Delaurentis. Lynch had to cut more and more of the film out and replace it with narration. You can just tell that it's cut, especially the second act. Some of the scenes, i.e. the fight with Jamis, Thufir's redemption and Paul indicating that he will marry Irulan but not ever have a child with her, only with Chani, were actually filmed but no included in the theatrical cut.
So Villeneuve's film doesn't have that problem. He's been given the time to tell the story properly (if the second film does get the greenlight that is).
But the thing is, and I'm not alone in this I read a review that also discussed it, is that Lynch's film is so interestingly strange. It's a riskier and crazier looking film. Villeneuve's film plays it safer, but, again, that will probably work for more audience members.
So that's it. I really liked Villeneuve's Dune, but I still have a soft spot for Lynch's despite the fact it was cut to hell.
I think it will be the best of the three versions of Dune produced so far.
That said, I do have some quibbles and observations.
First, the real bummer is that the story isn't complete. It's Dune Part I. I think most people know that. After I heard that Zendaya had only spent 4 days filming and characters like Feyd weren't cast, I essentially predicted exactly when the film will end.
For those of you who read the book, you can figure it out too. Essentially, it's Act I of the Dune story. Villeneuve has not shot anything for the rest of the film, although he's apparently well along on the script. I don't think it's been officially greenlit either.
Second, I wish they'd given Thufir Hawat a bigger role. I really liked that character and his journey in the book. In Villeneuve's film, Hawat is given short shrift compared to Gurney Hallack and Duncan Idaho. Same with Piter DeVries.
I'm sorry, but I didn't care much for Timothy Chammet's Paul Atriedes. I preferred Kyle Maclachlan's Paul in Lynch's Dune.
The take on Baron Harkonnen was, interestingly, very different from the prior portrayals in Lynch's Dune and Harrison's Dune series. Kenneth McMillan's Baron in Lynch's Dune was a dirty, crazy psychopath. Ian McNeice's Baron in Harrison's Dune was the closest, imo, to the book's a scheming portrayal. Here, in Villeneuv's Dune, Stellan Skarsgaard's Baron is a very cold customer. No cackling or colorful language here, like the prior two. More of a big, cold, dark spider.
And that brings me to my last observation. This film isn't a risky, or strange as Lynch's. Lynch's film obviously didn't resonate with audiences. One of the reasons, is that it was cut again and again by Dino Delaurentis. Lynch had to cut more and more of the film out and replace it with narration. You can just tell that it's cut, especially the second act. Some of the scenes, i.e. the fight with Jamis, Thufir's redemption and Paul indicating that he will marry Irulan but not ever have a child with her, only with Chani, were actually filmed but no included in the theatrical cut.
So Villeneuve's film doesn't have that problem. He's been given the time to tell the story properly (if the second film does get the greenlight that is).
But the thing is, and I'm not alone in this I read a review that also discussed it, is that Lynch's film is so interestingly strange. It's a riskier and crazier looking film. Villeneuve's film plays it safer, but, again, that will probably work for more audience members.
So that's it. I really liked Villeneuve's Dune, but I still have a soft spot for Lynch's despite the fact it was cut to hell.
I blame WB - they seem clueless most of the time but then I think that of other major studios.
Yeah, the various schools of the Duneverse are important elements. The role of the mentats should not be overlooked or downplayed.
Both are/were really too old compared with Paul's age in the book. Alec Newman performed well but was way too old and had the wrong physique. I think that - too old as he is - Timothée Chalamet's physique is pretty spot on.
I haven't seen the movie but it sounds like an interesting portrayal. I doubt we'll ever see how he ended up with the physique that he inwardly detests, resulting in him projecting his rage and frustration onto other things.
Parts are really good and the added Lynchian strangeness works well for the most part but the weirding modules are silly and the ending is a travesty.
I hope my feelings will coincide after I've seen the movie.
For myself I am exceedingly sad to say that I am disappointed by the film (not that I find it bad, just not that good).
Now it's pluses. It's a beautifully made film. No question about it, from cinematography to set design, costumes, props, ect. It's truly beautiful and without a doubt miles ahead of anything else from other adaptions.
And I really, really enjoyed the first 1/4 of the film, but after that it sped from one scene to another and for me the pacing is terrible for the bulk of the film. It truly feels like this happens in about 4 days time.
Now of course it is an adaption and and adapting a dense book into a film means cutting out a massive amount of material. But I honestly would have preferred the producers going the route of a prestige tv show where a book can be broken down into anything from 8 to 15 hours.
Minus the massive increase in production values, I honestly thank (so far, again this could be key) that the miniseries was a superior adaption of the story.
Casting and characters, generally very little impression as we devote almost no real time to anyone. I didn't care for Jessica at all though, Paul was fine (though I am admit I have a hard time seeing him in what the role evolves into), and the Duke was solid enough that it makes me upset we didn't see more. Everyone else didn't even feel like a cameo.
Of course as someone who has read the books and seen the two adaptions, my view doesn't reflect an outsider. Sad to say my spouse liked it less than I did.
C+ from me, just a C from spouse.
But I will say the audience seemed to enjoy much more than I did. Be curious to see how this performs once I get back home. And I do want to give a shout out, I was so shocked to be able to see this in English, I was absolutely sure it would have been dubbed. It's the fist time I've seen a film outside of North America, so I was shocked when I learned it was an option.
Now it's pluses. It's a beautifully made film. No question about it, from cinematography to set design, costumes, props, ect. It's truly beautiful and without a doubt miles ahead of anything else from other adaptions.
And I really, really enjoyed the first 1/4 of the film, but after that it sped from one scene to another and for me the pacing is terrible for the bulk of the film. It truly feels like this happens in about 4 days time.
Now of course it is an adaption and and adapting a dense book into a film means cutting out a massive amount of material. But I honestly would have preferred the producers going the route of a prestige tv show where a book can be broken down into anything from 8 to 15 hours.
Minus the massive increase in production values, I honestly thank (so far, again this could be key) that the miniseries was a superior adaption of the story.
Casting and characters, generally very little impression as we devote almost no real time to anyone. I didn't care for Jessica at all though, Paul was fine (though I am admit I have a hard time seeing him in what the role evolves into), and the Duke was solid enough that it makes me upset we didn't see more. Everyone else didn't even feel like a cameo.
Of course as someone who has read the books and seen the two adaptions, my view doesn't reflect an outsider. Sad to say my spouse liked it less than I did.
C+ from me, just a C from spouse.
But I will say the audience seemed to enjoy much more than I did. Be curious to see how this performs once I get back home. And I do want to give a shout out, I was so shocked to be able to see this in English, I was absolutely sure it would have been dubbed. It's the fist time I've seen a film outside of North America, so I was shocked when I learned it was an option.
Last edited:
I like the movie overall and rate it highly but i do feel it is not for every moviegoer.
I did find that Dave Bautista is just playing an evil version of Drax in this movie. Timothée Chalamet and Oscar Isaac as usual deliver great performances. Stellan Skarsgård also did great as the villain. The Sardaukar reminded me of the Chaos Marines from Warhammer 40K.
I did find that Dave Bautista is just playing an evil version of Drax in this movie. Timothée Chalamet and Oscar Isaac as usual deliver great performances. Stellan Skarsgård also did great as the villain. The Sardaukar reminded me of the Chaos Marines from Warhammer 40K.
In the book there really isn’t much time between the Atriedes arriving on Arrakis and the attack by imperial and harkonnen forces (about a week iirc).
The second part is over a much longer period of time and spans several years.
Perhaps I am not making my point clear. I have read the books (though it's not one that I reread that often, maybe 5 or 6 times since 75 when I first read it, to 3 months ago being the last time), but the while the attack is fairly quick once they arrive, the individual scenes aren't rushed. They have breathe to them. Time for the characters to come to life, before so many of them are removed from the equation. So that you the reader can feel the impact. Here it feels like it takes four days to leave Caladan (I literally caught myself spelling out the sword in the wheel of time series...) and get to the end of the film.
Now in fairness I don't know what I would cut out to make time, and I am sure the studio probably had a requirement about the absolutely length this film couldn't go over.
I go back to The Fellowship of The Ring. I love that book. It was literally the first real book I read, and as much as I love the book I generally agree on everything that is cut out of the teleplay. Just as I have no real issue with characters being merged, character interactions being altered, ect. I think it works for the film. But I really appreciate that Jackson still took time (even in the theatrical cut) to give us scenes where the characters take a moment, were they feel out of place, were they are allowed to experience things (and let us experience them through them). Of course others would have preferred cutting out the 8 minute opening, cut down aspect of the mines of Moria, and give that time over to things like the Barrow Wights, the Old Forrest, or the meeting of the Elves. Hell some are still pissed about Tom and Goldberry not being apart of the film, or that Arwen rescues Frodo. Everyone will see these things differently. The pacing might work for you. And that's fine.
But for myself it felt like I was speed reading versus talking the time to enjoy the new world I am in. And again its why I thank certain material is ill served by being put to film, versus a longer form visual release. Especially since over the last decade we have had some great examples of successful long form adaptions of material. Not that just making things longer means something will be good. To use Jackson again, you can certain tell the story of the Hobbit and the events that occur at that same point of time, and make an 8 hour adaptation. But that doesn't mean the choices you make in telling it will be good. You can also seriously muck up something as well. And I thank its pretty obvious how I think he failed in that one.
Now in fairness I don't know what I would cut out to make time, and I am sure the studio probably had a requirement about the absolutely length this film couldn't go over.
I go back to The Fellowship of The Ring. I love that book. It was literally the first real book I read, and as much as I love the book I generally agree on everything that is cut out of the teleplay. Just as I have no real issue with characters being merged, character interactions being altered, ect. I think it works for the film. But I really appreciate that Jackson still took time (even in the theatrical cut) to give us scenes where the characters take a moment, were they feel out of place, were they are allowed to experience things (and let us experience them through them). Of course others would have preferred cutting out the 8 minute opening, cut down aspect of the mines of Moria, and give that time over to things like the Barrow Wights, the Old Forrest, or the meeting of the Elves. Hell some are still pissed about Tom and Goldberry not being apart of the film, or that Arwen rescues Frodo. Everyone will see these things differently. The pacing might work for you. And that's fine.
But for myself it felt like I was speed reading versus talking the time to enjoy the new world I am in. And again its why I thank certain material is ill served by being put to film, versus a longer form visual release. Especially since over the last decade we have had some great examples of successful long form adaptions of material. Not that just making things longer means something will be good. To use Jackson again, you can certain tell the story of the Hobbit and the events that occur at that same point of time, and make an 8 hour adaptation. But that doesn't mean the choices you make in telling it will be good. You can also seriously muck up something as well. And I thank its pretty obvious how I think he failed in that one.
Last edited:
Of course, as we all know, Paul is the real villain even though he's presented as the hero saviour. Although he is philanthropic by nature, he is bound to his fate and is merely a clockwork mouse on rails once he achieves full prescience and sets the Fremen in motion. All he can do is try to steer the least worse path for humanity enslaved and seemingly ultimately doomed by prescience. He is not the monster who will break mankind's shackles.
Last edited:
I feel the motion picture does an excellent work in going through the motions. It tells the story of the Dune books, up to the point where it cuts off, and those in the audience who know the story already can find all its elements in the movie, too. But necessarily, many if most of them are left at the level of knowing nods.
The mentats are there, doing their thing; that medicine is practiced literally by hand is another way to make the Butlerian Jihad implicit. The religious backstory is there even beyond the blatant and plot-furthering Missionaria Protectiva aspect, with the Atreides family tombs highlighting their brand of spirituality and the general atmosphere. The weird ways of war are implicit, too - but, like many a thing, made more explicit by cool visual cues, with the excellent shield action demonstrating (and expanding upon) what the audience otherwise might have forgotten was already stated early in the movie about fast projectiles vs. slow moves.
But it's all subtle nods and tips of hat, and the movie may well feel dull and basic if one doesn't knowingly and deliberately choose to see the things that are there. Or then it may feel more like a mood piece, which I guess is fine, too: the mood certainly sets in soon enough, nicely and jarringly switching from the pseudo-Scotch cold damp to the choking dust and heat, without giving us much respite in alternate milieus.
The one real change, the death of Kynes (dropping the as such key expository inner monologue and instead exploiting the moment to foreshadow worm-riding and all the adjoining fascinating desert secrets), is what might have been done to a greater degree to turn this into a more, umm, edible movie, one where the audience doesn't need to bring their own lunch box to it. But that's not what this take on Dune aspires to be.
Getting a sequel made is not doing justice to the aspirations here. What this one needs to be is a 16-hour mammoth, with the audiences mummifying in their chairs while suffering through year upon year of desert travails. It won't be that; the next part will be something else altogether, if it gets made. And perhaps it will be epic. But I sure hope it won't try to "fix the errors" of the first part!
Timo Saloniemi
The mentats are there, doing their thing; that medicine is practiced literally by hand is another way to make the Butlerian Jihad implicit. The religious backstory is there even beyond the blatant and plot-furthering Missionaria Protectiva aspect, with the Atreides family tombs highlighting their brand of spirituality and the general atmosphere. The weird ways of war are implicit, too - but, like many a thing, made more explicit by cool visual cues, with the excellent shield action demonstrating (and expanding upon) what the audience otherwise might have forgotten was already stated early in the movie about fast projectiles vs. slow moves.
But it's all subtle nods and tips of hat, and the movie may well feel dull and basic if one doesn't knowingly and deliberately choose to see the things that are there. Or then it may feel more like a mood piece, which I guess is fine, too: the mood certainly sets in soon enough, nicely and jarringly switching from the pseudo-Scotch cold damp to the choking dust and heat, without giving us much respite in alternate milieus.
The one real change, the death of Kynes (dropping the as such key expository inner monologue and instead exploiting the moment to foreshadow worm-riding and all the adjoining fascinating desert secrets), is what might have been done to a greater degree to turn this into a more, umm, edible movie, one where the audience doesn't need to bring their own lunch box to it. But that's not what this take on Dune aspires to be.
Getting a sequel made is not doing justice to the aspirations here. What this one needs to be is a 16-hour mammoth, with the audiences mummifying in their chairs while suffering through year upon year of desert travails. It won't be that; the next part will be something else altogether, if it gets made. And perhaps it will be epic. But I sure hope it won't try to "fix the errors" of the first part!
Timo Saloniemi
A retread.
Meh.
Meh.
Maddeningly, it appears to be only on the more expensive ad-free plan. Heck with that,I'll wait.
Yes, that was always how they advertised it. You get day and date streaming on the premium plan, but not on the ad supported side. That goes for all their day and date releases for 2021, so far as I understand the situation.
Seen it, enjoyed it, but honestly could do with a little less pomp if it was made to a miniseries than a movie. It basically screams to be a series. Maybe one day it will be.
That day came 21 years ago. And if the second part gets made and it's an equivalent length, the movies will actually be more a half hour longer than the miniseries.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0