So, not about Dune 2, but still an interesting 'what if....'
https://www.joblo.com/dune-val-kilmer-david-lynch-movie/
https://www.joblo.com/dune-val-kilmer-david-lynch-movie/
Dune Part 2 2023 (24, 25, 26...)
- Thread starter wayoung
- Start date
I thought that Lynch's Dune looked as bad as its writing deserved. Between the horrific (not in the right way) Harkonnen's, the ridiculous shield effect, the "stillsuits" that introduced stupid nostril tubes so that everybody can have uncovered faces (which is fucking stupid and goes completely against both the book and common sense), and just the general grossness of basically everything, the Lynch Dune movie just looked like garbage to me. Its barely even really a Dune adaptation, its mostly just a bad David Lynch film based loosely off of whatever the 80s version of cliffnotes was for Dune.
The fact that Villeneuve used the Lynch movie as the basis for his adaptation and not the books has been obvious from the first trailer. If you told me that he'd kept the cat milking scene I'd believe you, and I fully expect the "weirding module" to show up, and for Part 2 to end with it raining on Arrakis. The only Lynch thing he changed was the Harkonnen's, and while his are slightly better (no disease pustules or blood obsession), they're still awful, being bald, motor oil bathing creatures, which was definitely not their description in the books.
The fact that Villeneuve used the Lynch movie as the basis for his adaptation and not the books has been obvious from the first trailer. If you told me that he'd kept the cat milking scene I'd believe you, and I fully expect the "weirding module" to show up, and for Part 2 to end with it raining on Arrakis. The only Lynch thing he changed was the Harkonnen's, and while his are slightly better (no disease pustules or blood obsession), they're still awful, being bald, motor oil bathing creatures, which was definitely not their description in the books.
I don't disagree with most of what you say here, but I took the "art design" to mean the sets. Some of the sets were amazingly good. And however stupid the Harkonnen and Sardaukar looked, Irulan's gown in her first scene was spot-on perfect as the overly-designed display that she was supposed to portray by her presence in the throne room.
And yeah, Villeneuve must have forgotten, when he was busy bragging, that the Lynch movie is still around and people who have read the book can tell exactly what he copied from Lynch and what he just made up himself.
Bald Harkonnens...
They all look like potatoes.
There was a colouring book, I believe, released to accompany Lynch's Dune. The tinction required to render the Baron's pustules must have been such fun for the kiddies.
Someone has never used an anatomy coloring book.
Nope, we had to freehand draw in biology class and I didn't study the subject beyond the age of sixteen. Colouring in your work was optional - done on your own time.
Yeah, my mom had a Gray's Anatomy coloring book from her Masters work. My sophomore year my teacher used art and coloring to support learning.
I've heard of that book - although I'm not squeamish about blood and viscera, I wouldn't choose to spend my time colouring it. I've seen example pictures from the Dune book and it did not seem age appropriate for young children.
Young children aren't the only ones who color. In my geography course in college, part of our class supplies included a geometry set and a set of pencil crayons. By that time most people don't need to have either of those for school, and neither of my study partners did. So I brought my geometry set, rounded up whatever extras (extra protractor, extra compass, extra ruler), and told them they could share. This went on until the final exams, when I told the supervising instructor that the people on either side of me would be borrowing these things; it was an arrangement we'd had all semester.
There's a British version of D&D I play, called Fighting Fantasy. Coloring books based on those have been published. They're not exactly kid-friendly, either. They're marketed to older teens and adults due to the blood/guts/gore/monsterish stuff.
There's a British version of D&D I play, called Fighting Fantasy. Coloring books based on those have been published. They're not exactly kid-friendly, either. They're marketed to older teens and adults due to the blood/guts/gore/monsterish stuff.
Last edited:
https://www.joblo.com/denis-villeneuve-teases-dune-trilogy-says-words-are-on-paper/
Make of that what you will.
Make of that what you will.
While adult (as in “marked to the age of majority,” not “sexy,” though there are those as well) coloring books have come into vogue in the past decade, remember that Lynch’s Dune was in an era of… idiosyncratic marketing towards children. Anything remotely spacey or fantastic was considered appropriate for kids. I remember being four and one of the neighbor kids showing off the new Terminator 2 steel foundry play set, the one with the T-1000 action figure that changed color to silver when it got wet.
Four to six year olds should not be watching Terminator 2. Robocop had the same thing. It wasn’t until the mid-90s that studios started aiming movies at PG-13 so they wouldn’t completely warp the children the tie-ins were aimed at.
I've never really understood the hobby - I'd rather spend the time learning to draw more proficiently if I had the inclination to be artistic. However, it's not for me to dictate how people want to spend their time. I know I've wasted enough of my own on trivial nonsense.
It’s supposed to be relaxing, meditative. I never liked coloring when I was little, so I never tried, now. Maybe I’d like it better, my fine motor skills and patience have improved, I probably wouldn’t have so much trouble staying in the lines, on the other hand, I’m still as colorblind as ever and don’t like trying to figure out what color something should be in a vacuum.
My fine motor skills are shot to hell due to the side effects of chemo.
Yes Denis, we know, it's called a "book"
So I guess at this rate we could expect a third movie by, say, 2035?
This assumes only young children, and not teens or adults who also benefit strongly from use of art.
Similar threads
