Discussion
bloomen said:
It'll be interesting to see how it tickles me since I know the book and original film inside out. I can't help loving the Lynch version even though It's a failure. The casting is perfect. I presume Paul's fightback is where they plan to start the second installment.
big fan of the lynch version here too. love it imperfections and all. new one looks amazing though.
bolidemichael said:
dxg said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I'm quietly and cautiously optimistic, given how well Denis Villeneuve did with Blade Runner 2049.
And with Arrival...It's one of my absolute favourites. I've never felt such intimacy in any other film... It gets me every time I watch it even though I know it back to front now.
Arrival is brilliant! It re-lives the first contact of early explorers with primitive human populations such as the Australian Aboriginals whose culture was almost as alien as the Arrival 'being's' to a western crew. 'Dances with Strangers' is a book on the very subject. Can't recall the author's name immediately.
V1nce Fox said:
bloomen said:
It'll be interesting to see how it tickles me since I know the book and original film inside out. I can't help loving the Lynch version even though It's a failure. The casting is perfect. I presume Paul's fightback is where they plan to start the second installment.
big fan of the lynch version here too. love it imperfections and all. new one looks amazing though.
motco said:
'Dances with Strangers' is a book on the very subject. Can't recall the author's name immediately.
Kevin Costner? 
What struck me was how the movie didn't follow a well worn trope of an overwhelming machismo from the military and also the absence of forceful exertion towards the female protagonist.
She was respected and admired, which was really quite a refreshing perspective and closer to the reality of everyday human relations.
Hopefully, we'll see this 'space' given to Paul Atreides and the people of Arakis. It's what seventies movies possessed... a little bit of breathing room. Finger crossed here.
Edited by bolidemichael on Thursday 10th September 10:21
bolidemichael said:
motco said:
'Dances with Strangers' is a book on the very subject. Can't recall the author's name immediately.
Kevin Costner? What struck me was how the movie didn't follow a well worn trope of an overwhelming machismo from the military and also the absence of forceful exertion towards the female protagonist.
She was respected and admired, which was really quite a refreshing perspective and closer to the reality of everyday human relations.
Hopefully, we'll see this 'space' given to Paul Atreides and the people of Arakis. It's what seventies movies possessed... a little bit of breathing room. Finger crossed here.
Edited by bolidemichael on Thursday 10th September 10:21
Not Mr Costner
bloomen said:
It'll be interesting to see how it tickles me since I know the book and original film inside out. I can't help loving the Lynch version even though It's a failure. The casting is perfect. I presume Paul's fightback is where they plan to start the second installment.
The David Lynch version was a box office flop but that's not a reflection on the film itself, the biggest problem the 1984 version had to overcome was not being Star Wars, Star Trek the Motion Picture and Blade Runner both suffered mixed reviews for the same reason, not enough lasers or explosions.It seems to me that a science fiction film that asks grown up questions is too much for the average film critic or filmgoer to comprehend.
Tango13 said:
The David Lynch version was a box office flop but that's not a reflection on the film itself, the biggest problem the 1984 version had to overcome was not being Star Wars, Star Trek the Motion Picture and Blade Runner both suffered mixed reviews for the same reason, not enough lasers or explosions.
It seems to me that a science fiction film that asks grown up questions is too much for the average film critic or filmgoer to comprehend.
I'd call it a failure as a film overall. No idea what the box office was but I'm sure it wasn't all that great. It seems to me that a science fiction film that asks grown up questions is too much for the average film critic or filmgoer to comprehend.
It had too much material to cover and what it did it didn't do very well. That's not to say it doesn't have many amazing elements but the films you've listed are coherent and accomplished and anyone could watch them and emerge without feeling like they were missing something.
The best way to watch the David Lynch film for the first time is having not read the books yourself, but with a person who has both read the books and already seen the film, and can fill in the gaps for you as you go.
Then go and read the books. And then watch the film again.
That's how I was lucky enough to experience it in 1990.
Then go and read the books. And then watch the film again.
That's how I was lucky enough to experience it in 1990.
bloomen said:
I'd call it a failure as a film overall. No idea what the box office was but I'm sure it wasn't all that great.
It had too much material to cover and what it did it didn't do very well. That's not to say it doesn't have many amazing elements but the films you've listed are coherent and accomplished and anyone could watch them and emerge without feeling like they were missing something.
If the Wiki page is to be believed it made either $30 or $38m against a budget of $40-42m so maybe 'flop' is a bit harsh.It had too much material to cover and what it did it didn't do very well. That's not to say it doesn't have many amazing elements but the films you've listed are coherent and accomplished and anyone could watch them and emerge without feeling like they were missing something.
I have the box set of Blade Runner on DVD containing all FIVE versions! Don't forget that thirty years later people were still arguing about Deckard being a replicant and there have been a couple of cuts of Star Trek the Motion Picture over the years too, also due to the Director disagreeing with the studio bosses.
Tango13 said:
I have the box set of Blade Runner on DVD containing all FIVE versions! Don't forget that thirty years later people were still arguing about Deckard being a replicant and there have been a couple of cuts of Star Trek the Motion Picture over the years too, also due to the Director disagreeing with the studio bosses.
Um, ok. And there are several versions of Lynch's Dune, including an extended version that he disowned and is instead credited to Alan Smithee (an official pseudonym used by film directors who wish to disown a project).What was your point again?
Clockwork Cupcake said:
The best way to watch the David Lynch film for the first time is having not read the books yourself, but with a person who has both read the books and already seen the film, and can fill in the gaps for you as you go.
Then go and read the books. And then watch the film again.
That's how I was lucky enough to experience it in 1990.
hashtagmetooThen go and read the books. And then watch the film again.
That's how I was lucky enough to experience it in 1990.
Edited by bolidemichael on Friday 11th September 10:04
This is a fascinating interview with both David Lynch and Frank Herbert, conducted prior to the release of the already-completed movie in 1983. David Lynch talks about the creative experience from filming such a large movie in Mexico City and Frank Herbert talking about the political commentary of the Dune Trilogy and his iconoclastic views on society's tendencies towards Messianic figures. Frank Herbert was previously a speech writer for a US Senator.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Um, ok. And there are several versions of Lynch's Dune, including an extended version that he disowned and is instead credited to Alan Smithee (an official pseudonym used by film directors who wish to disown a project).
What was your point again?
I have the original on laser disc and the DVD with both the David Lynch and Alan Smithee versions, again the latter version was due to studio bosses not understanding that there is more to science fiction than lasers, space battles and exploding death stars. What was your point again?
The Alan Smithee cut has several minutes of spoilers at the beginning that gives half the plot away because people lack either the comprehension skills or won't concentrate enough to discover the plot for themselves.
My point is that the success of Star Wars made it very difficult to make and sell a 'grown up' science fiction film for the next decade at least.
Prior to the 1977 release of Star Wars there was Silent Running (1972) and Logan's Run (1976) , not without their faults granted but thought provoking intelligent films. After the massive box office success of Star Wars the studios didn't want anything that wasn't light sabres to put bums on seats.
bolidemichael said:
This is a fascinating interview with both David Lynch and Frank Herbert, conducted prior to the release of the already-completed movie in 1983. David Lynch talks about the creative experience from filming such a large movie in Mexico City and Frank Herbert talking about the political commentary of the Dune Trilogy and his iconoclastic views on society's tendencies towards Messianic figures. Frank Herbert was previously a speech writer for a US Senator.
I don't believe Lynch has ever discussed the film since. From what I've heard he absolutely refuses to talk about it.bloomen said:
I'd call it a failure as a film overall. No idea what the box office was but I'm sure it wasn't all that great.
It had too much material to cover and what it did it didn't do very well. That's not to say it doesn't have many amazing elements but the films you've listed are coherent and accomplished and anyone could watch them and emerge without feeling like they were missing something.
Agreed - it tried to do too much and ended up just not being very good despite some really good individual elements and ideas, with the limitations of the special FX of the era. This is the sort of book to film transfer where having good CGI available will make a huge difference to conveying the scope and grandeur of the book.It had too much material to cover and what it did it didn't do very well. That's not to say it doesn't have many amazing elements but the films you've listed are coherent and accomplished and anyone could watch them and emerge without feeling like they were missing something.
Halmyre said:
bolidemichael said:
This is a fascinating interview with both David Lynch and Frank Herbert, conducted prior to the release of the already-completed movie in 1983. David Lynch talks about the creative experience from filming such a large movie in Mexico City and Frank Herbert talking about the political commentary of the Dune Trilogy and his iconoclastic views on society's tendencies towards Messianic figures. Frank Herbert was previously a speech writer for a US Senator.
I don't believe Lynch has ever discussed the film since. From what I've heard he absolutely refuses to talk about it.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff