Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Who was disappointed in Dune?

  1. #1

    Default Who was disappointed in Dune?

    Well I just watched it, have to say, I am just kind of meh about it. Denis Villeneuve changed to much of the storyline to suit me. I was hoping that he would take a cue from Peter Jackson and make a movie that was true to the book. Sadly he made a movie that appealed to hollywood.

    I was initially interested in when the second installment was coming out, now, I do not care if they even make it.

    Another epic novel fucked in the ass by a director that thinks he is smarter than the original author.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    Denis Villeneuve changed to much of the storyline to suit me. I was hoping that he would take a cue from Peter Jackson and make a movie that was true to the book. Sadly he made a movie that appealed to hollywood.
    Is this a serious post?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Velfi View Post
    Is this a serious post?
    Have you read the book and seen the movie? Yes it is.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    Have you read the book and seen the movie? Yes it is.
    The new Dune was fairly true to the book. There were some minor bits left out, like with the water ceremony being cancelled, and some changes that I noticed like who was involved in getting out of the storm, but it didn't change anything significant.

    Also, the comparison for being faithful to the books is Peter Jackson's movies, which you didn't even clarify as not including the Hobbit movies, but just LOTR alone is not at all true to the books.

    You could potentially argue that the Sci-Fi miniseries is more faithful to the book, but I don't see them as a huge divergence personally.

    edit: I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that a man being cast as a LaAaAaAady is a Big Issue.
    Last edited by Velfi; 10-24-2021 at 03:59 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Velfi View Post
    The new Dune was fairly true to the book. There were some minor bits left out, like with the water ceremony being cancelled, and some changes that I noticed like who was involved in getting out of the storm, but it didn't change anything significant.

    Also, the comparison for being faithful to the books is Peter Jackson's movies, which you didn't even clarify as not including the Hobbit movies, but just LOTR alone is not at all true to the books.

    You could potentially argue that the Sci-Fi miniseries is more faithful to the book, but I don't see them as a huge divergence personally.

    edit: I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that a man being cast as a LaAaAaAady is a Big Issue.
    While it is true that changing the planet ecologist to a woman was the first thing I noticed since it was shown in the cast before the movie came out as it turns out her performance was not bad. I had this discussion at work with someone and he was under the illusion that they were going to explore the relationship between a mother and a daughter; not sure why he thought that since they would have to leave the ecologist alive to do it, so that's a no go there. But her performance, while nothing especially significant was adequate. I am more concerned about using a disney actress to play Chani. The little bit we see of her in the movie, again left me with a nothing special taste in my mouth, and they say the second movie is centered around her and not Paul, which seems a little odd to me unless he is also delving into the second, third and fourth books.

    One of the glaring things missing was the politics of the Landsraad, it is the whole reason why the Atreides went to Arrakis and the Emperors actions to send him there. I did like the fact that more than the other two, they showed more of the religious aspects of the Bene Gesserit, but again, they are a political creature as well and they barely even mentioned the spacing guild. That tripod of the throne, the witches and the navigators is the whole reason Arakkis is valuable in the first. Instead the Bene Gesserit look like meddling housewives and we never see the other two.

    I keep hearing people say he is going to wrap it up in the second film, well if so, it is going to be a VERY long movie, which means it will really be two or three movies.

    I realize that some changes are necessary for a multitude of reasons, but changes for the sake of changes, well do not try to then tell me he was true to the vision of Frank Herbert, because he was not. I feel like they threw in a bunch of big names and a whole lot of money and thought that people would not notice any differences. It will be interesting to see if I am the only one disappointed.

    And I agree that the 2000 Sci-Fi three part was more true to the books, and for now, still my preferred one to watch.
    Last edited by kutter; 10-24-2021 at 05:20 PM.

  6. Default

    Yeah it wasn't good because no

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    an orbit gone wrong
    Posts
    13,608
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SonoftheNorth View Post
    Yeah it wasn't good because no
    I'll cut you.

    You had better pay your guild dues before you forget. You are 113 months behind.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taernath View Post
    I'll cut you.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    an orbit gone wrong
    Posts
    13,608
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SonoftheNorth View Post
    You had better pay your guild dues before you forget. You are 113 months behind.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    While it is true that changing the planet ecologist to a woman was the first thing I noticed since it was shown in the cast before the movie came out as it turns out her performance was not bad. I had this discussion at work with someone and he was under the illusion that they were going to explore the relationship between a mother and a daughter; not sure why he thought that since they would have to leave the ecologist alive to do it, so that's a no go there. But her performance, while nothing especially significant was adequate.
    Fair enough. I can see people being upset about Liet recast as a woman, but as far as the story goes (s)he has pretty much done all of their things before the events of the book even start, there's really only for them to recognize Paul and his stillsuit swag, to aid in escape, and then to die.

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    I am more concerned about using a disney actress to play Chani. The little bit we see of her in the movie, again left me with a nothing special taste in my mouth, and they say the second movie is centered around her and not Paul, which seems a little odd to me unless he is also delving into the second, third and fourth books.
    We really have no way of knowing if this is true or not, and based on where it was decided to split the movie there's really nothing to show of Chani up to that point except for Paul's dreams.

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    One of the glaring things missing was the politics of the Landsraad, it is the whole reason why the Atreides went to Arrakis and the Emperors actions to send him there. I did like the fact that more than the other two, they showed more of the religious aspects of the Bene Gesserit, but again, they are a political creature as well and they barely even mentioned the spacing guild. That tripod of the throne, the witches and the navigators is the whole reason Arakkis is valuable in the first. Instead the Bene Gesserit look like meddling housewives and we never see the other two.
    I'll agree to a certain extent, but if you summarize the happenings of the Landsraad it boils down to the emperor is worried about the growing power of Atreides and their Landsraad allies, so Shaddam conspires with Harkonnen to wipe them out via Arrakis. That's basically how they explained it in the movie, so while it is pared down it's not inaccurate. They could explain a bit more about the Bene Gesserit, and I'm guessing the spacing guild will be more explored in the next part.

    Quote Originally Posted by kutter View Post
    I keep hearing people say he is going to wrap it up in the second film, well if so, it is going to be a VERY long movie, which means it will really be two or three movies.

    I realize that some changes are necessary for a multitude of reasons, but changes for the sake of changes, well do not try to then tell me he was true to the vision of Frank Herbert, because he was not. I feel like they threw in a bunch of big names and a whole lot of money and thought that people would not notice any differences. It will be interesting to see if I am the only one disappointed.

    And I agree that the 2000 Sci-Fi three part was more true to the books, and for now, still my preferred one to watch.
    To me, it seems impossible to have a book translated to a movie with no changes whatsoever and still have it be a movie worth watching. I agree that the Sci-Fi version is probably more faithful to the text of the book, but to me Villeneuve's version is the most true to the spirit and feel of the book, and it's definitely the best version put to the screen hands down.

    As far as the casting, I wasn't a big fan of Josh Brolin as Gurney and wouldn't have minded seeing Patrick Stewart again somehow. I liked Jason Momoa as Duncan, and I think Rebecca Ferguson is my favorite Lady Jessica. Timothee Chalamet was a good Paul, but my favorite Leto is still William Hurt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •