- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Remake of Dune
Posted on 1/29/22 at 7:37 am to Scoob
Posted on 1/29/22 at 7:37 am to Scoob
quote:
. The issue some people have, is it isn't telling the story as deeply as it could be.
I don't think anyone is arguing stuff wasn't cut out.
The movie was 3 hours long. You're not going to get a theatrical release of a major movie that's 4-5 hours long.
This probably should have been a trilogy with the first movie ending with the Harkonnens retaking Dune, but it wasn't. I'm happy we got a version this well made split into 2.
1
Posted on 1/29/22 at 10:02 am to GetEmTigers08
quote:
In fairness, I think this book could easily take up a season of ten hours on HBO
I always thought this would be perfect.
You could do others seasons with the other novels
This post was edited on 1/29/22 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 1/29/22 at 11:47 am to Scoob
quote:
First off- the movie LOOKS fantastic, but you need to know the story already to understand what's going on. I didn't read the book(s), but saw the first film... I can follow along pretty well because I know what happened in that. But that shouldn't be necessary to a viewer of any film.
The subject matter plays a much bigger role in your critique of the movie than I think you’re giving it credit for. Dune is a very hard book to translate into even 2 movies and do it any justice at all. There’s so much terminology that needs to be explained. They’re dealing with the concept of prescience and having to translate it onto the big screen. Etc.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 1:38 pm to Dawgirl
Dune is based on a quasi fundamentalist religious world where you can’t use computers to navigate through space, so you use spice to be able to make the necessary calculations in order to jump into hyperdrive light speed.
Yeah, computers are the problem. Not the other world slavery and absolute desecration of an entire planet.
Paul was brought on too soon, but yeah he is the chosen one.
It is a crazy arse story.
But here is the strange part. There is 10k years of history to tell but in the reboot they decide to only tell half the story of the first movie.
Yeah, computers are the problem. Not the other world slavery and absolute desecration of an entire planet.
Paul was brought on too soon, but yeah he is the chosen one.
It is a crazy arse story.
But here is the strange part. There is 10k years of history to tell but in the reboot they decide to only tell half the story of the first movie.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 4:52 pm to Dawgirl
I thought that Timothy Chalamet ended up being a bad casting decision. His portrayal is uninteresting and kind of flat emotionally, and physically he looks too weak.
The actress who pays Lady Jessica was really outstanding.
The actress who pays Lady Jessica was really outstanding.
Posted on 1/30/22 at 2:39 am to Dawgirl
The 1984 version of Dune is absolute dog shite. I’m a huge David Lynch fan but that movie is dog shite.
Posted on 1/30/22 at 12:07 pm to Madking
OP complaining about this version not being true to the books but the 84 version supposedly is? There was a PUG in the movie. Also they made up shite also, weirding modules for example. Maybe if thet carried around a Pug in this one it would be better.
Posted on 1/30/22 at 12:22 pm to LEASTBAY
quote:
Maybe if thet carried around a Pug in this one it would be better.
Maybe if they spent more time with Gurney Halleck it would be better.
Posted on 1/30/22 at 12:57 pm to Jimbeaux
Watched it again last night because of this thread.
The other worldly beauty and cinematography still had me speechless. I rewound parts just to take it all in.
I think I finally figured out what's wrong with the film.. its that they cast a big name starlet in Zendaya and HAD to get her a certain amount of screen time. She's so irrelevant to part 1, yet is shoved at us repeatedly. Time that could have been spent in exposition or Gurney, Thurfir, etc was spent on long shots of her walking around. It's really heavy handed on the 4th viewing for me.
The other worldly beauty and cinematography still had me speechless. I rewound parts just to take it all in.
I think I finally figured out what's wrong with the film.. its that they cast a big name starlet in Zendaya and HAD to get her a certain amount of screen time. She's so irrelevant to part 1, yet is shoved at us repeatedly. Time that could have been spent in exposition or Gurney, Thurfir, etc was spent on long shots of her walking around. It's really heavy handed on the 4th viewing for me.
Posted on 1/30/22 at 4:00 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
Maybe if they spent more time with Gurney Halleck it would be better.
I agree. 2nd part will be interesting.
Posted on 2/18/22 at 12:23 pm to armsdealer
quote:
The new version tells half a story, I don't think what they made was bad I just don't agree with how it was released without actually telling a story.
this ^^^^
i liked the new version but was so badly disappointed its only telling 1/3rd of the story and ending after they join the fremin
i mean what the ever loving hell? the main story and most of everything that was interesting and made dune good was the rest of the story they chose just to ignore completely
i wouldnt have minded if the movie skipped everything in it and just started scene 1 with the assassination and escape scenes and then go on from there
Posted on 2/18/22 at 1:53 pm to Madking
quote:And yet it's better than the new one.
The 1984 version of Dune is absolute dog shite.
Posted on 2/18/22 at 2:24 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
And yet it's better than the new one.
You’ve seen half a movie. It’s kind of like when Roeper ragged on Fellowship and the Two Towers just to do a complete U-Turn once Return of the King came out. Dune can not be judged on its own terms at this point.
This post was edited on 2/18/22 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 2/18/22 at 2:39 pm to OMLandshark
quote:And that half isn't as good as 1/2 of the earlier one.
You’ve seen half a movie
Posted on 2/18/22 at 2:45 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
And that half isn't as good as 1/2 of the earlier one.
I watched the 1984 version of Dune so much I actually broke my first VHS copy. That's how much of a fan of Lynch's Dune I am.
Having said that, Lynch's Dune pales in comparison to Villeneuve's remake so far. Both in accuracy, cinematography, score, and overall "feel."
Posted on 2/18/22 at 2:52 pm to keakar
quote:
i liked the new version but was so badly disappointed its only telling 1/3rd of the story and ending after they join the fremin
i mean what the ever loving hell? the main story and most of everything that was interesting and made dune good was the rest of the story they chose just to ignore completely
i wouldnt have minded if the movie skipped everything in it and just started scene 1 with the assassination and escape scenes and then go on from there
Just curious, but you know there is a pt. 2 coming out right? They didnt tell 1/3 of the story; the story isnt finished.
Posted on 2/18/22 at 2:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This probably should have been a trilogy with the first movie ending with the Harkonnens retaking Dune, but it wasn't. I'm happy we got a version this well made split into 2.
People want to talk about how it should have been is really how they want to it to be made, not how it should be. Everybody wanted the Hobbit into a trilogy. It was a disaster because it should have been one movie, or two at the max. Just make a good movie, thats what I want. If they can do it justice in two films instead of three or a 10 episode HBO series, then do it.
Also, Lynch's Dune was good and I like Lynch a lot. I can see how people could love it or hate it really. If you've watched it for the first time lately, you'll probably hate it. But it isnt even close to being as good as Villeneuve's. This just blows it out of the water in pretty much every aspect.
Posted on 2/18/22 at 3:05 pm to Centinel
quote:I just don't see how anyone can this other than the cinematography. I didn't really notice the score, but the story telling and "feel" was not nearly as good as Lynch's.
Having said that, Lynch's Dune pales in comparison to Villeneuve's remake so far. Both in accuracy, cinematography, score, and overall "feel."
Posted on 2/18/22 at 3:20 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Just curious, but you know there is a pt. 2 coming out right? They didnt tell 1/3 of the story; the story isnt finished.
and when will that be? 2 yrs, 3 maybe, or not at all
you know they destroyed all the sets right? they arent making any more unless and until this movie makes so much money they have to make another one.
this has already been covered in this thread, they have nothing left from this movie so to make another one they have to start over from nothing so you aint gonna see the next movie for at least a year or two, if ever
Posted on 2/18/22 at 3:36 pm to Madking
quote:
The 1984 version of Dune is absolute dog shite.
quote:
I’m a huge David Lynch fan
I don't believe you.
You can be a Lynch fan and recognize how his hands were tied in making the 1984 film. You can be a Lynch fan and not be crazy about the artistic choices he made with the material (forced or voluntary), the limitations of a single film treatment, the availability of film technology at the time, etc.
However, one cannot be "a huge David Lynch fan" and think the 1984 film is "absolute dog shite." Not possible.
The film was deeply flawed and simultaneously wonderful in its own way.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News