Discussion
Mojooo said:
Style over substance
Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Yeah they sound like true fans to me. Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Meanwhile, anyone I know who has even a passing interest in Sci-Fi and who has even heard of Dune says it is fantastic.
But, sure. You try to make an opinion into a fact if you want to.
Narcisus said:
Mojooo said:
Style over substance
Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Of course they did Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Mojooo said:
Style over substance
Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Yeah they sound like true fans to me. Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Meanwhile, anyone I know who has even a passing interest in Sci-Fi and who has even heard of Dune says it is fantastic.
But, sure. You try to make an opinion into a fact if you want to.
liked the first film, not the second.Mojooo said:
Narcisus said:
Mojooo said:
Style over substance
Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Of course they did Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
If you thought Part 1 was dull though I can absolutely see why you wouldn't like Part 2, these films just aren't for you.
C5_Steve said:
Mojooo said:
Narcisus said:
Mojooo said:
Style over substance
Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
Of course they did Thought it was awful and even worse than the first one which I found dull as hell but could kind of see why others liked it as it was building up to something. Part 2 was terrible and even the 2 Dune fans who made me go thought the same.
If you thought Part 1 was dull though I can absolutely see why you wouldn't like Part 2, these films just aren't for you.
I watched part two for a second time yesterday afternoon. Once again I was frustrated by the unnecessary changes and liberties taken with Herbert’s careful world building.
I.e why shields aren’t really used on Dune and why Lazguns definitely aren’t used on shielded enemies (mostly making both technologies redundant), A Bene Geserit crying in the first one was a stretch, but throwing up… come on, but this is just the silly technical stuff.
The real problem for me are the character changes. I’ve posted about them on this thread previously, so won’t repeat myself.
The more I think about it the more I feel the David Lynch movie was a closer adaptation of the source material. (Yes I know there are some major changes, but the imperial dynamics are much clearer with the spacing guild really pulling the strings)
It’s a good science fiction film, just not the faithful adaptation I’d hoped for. That makes me sad as I don’t suppose I’ll live long enough for a proper faithful adaptation.
C5_Steve said:
IMDB also has Part 2 rated far higher than Part 1 if you want to use that site as a scale.........I'd say it's safe to say it's the minority that didn't like Part 2.
If you thought Part 1 was dull though I can absolutely see why you wouldn't like Part 2, these films just aren't for you.
I thought P1 was just OK the first time I saw it, found it dull as hell the second.If you thought Part 1 was dull though I can absolutely see why you wouldn't like Part 2, these films just aren't for you.
P2 was much better all round though. Not enough that I want to watch it again.
I think overall I preferred the first film version.
robemcdonald said:
Skeptisk said:
Genuine question. If you are filming such a famous and well-loved book, why make changes? Would the people who don’t know the source material, like it less if you stuck closely to the book?
That’s a very good question.If you're talking about character changes (like Chani for example), whilst I haven't read the book I've read all about how her character comes across in the books. In this film, it wouldn't make sense and I prefer the version we got on screen within the context of the film. But I'm conscious I haven't spent time with the books so my opinion isn't swayed by how I've created that character in my head.
I think that's important to remember if you are a fan of the books; books allow you to create and form your own mental image and version of the characters. For non-book readers, we're seeing it solely in the context of the film and that world as given to us by the director.
I don't think there's a wrong or right opinion here on whether the changes are good or bad, I just think that your own personal experience with the subject matter will obviously impact your views on what you see or read. I may now go and read the books and love them. Doesn't mean I won't still love the movie.
Skeptisk said:
Genuine question. If you are filming such a famous and well-loved book, why make changes? Would the people who don’t know the source material, like it less if you stuck closely to the book?
Interesting video on that subject (it's quite long at an hour long), it focuses on the Super Mario but he explains it also applies to bookshttps://youtu.be/zn3Yo5ea5L8?si=YXUzM5WIgd34QXRp
Short version is that different genres are good at different things - books let you visualise yourself, know exactly what the characters are thinking whereas films show you the visuals but you have to imagine what the characters are thinking.
I'm actually re-reading Dune at the moment and just read the part in the tent where Paul and his mum have just escaped the attack - it's important to the book as it's when Paul realises a whole load of stuff but how on earth would you film it and make it entertaining. Similarly whit the Guild's involvement - we want films to "show don't tell" but there's not a whole lot to show.
C5_Steve said:
robemcdonald said:
Skeptisk said:
Genuine question. If you are filming such a famous and well-loved book, why make changes? Would the people who don’t know the source material, like it less if you stuck closely to the book?
That’s a very good question.If you're talking about character changes (like Chani for example), whilst I haven't read the book I've read all about how her character comes across in the books. In this film, it wouldn't make sense and I prefer the version we got on screen within the context of the film. But I'm conscious I haven't spent time with the books so my opinion isn't swayed by how I've created that character in my head.
I think that's important to remember if you are a fan of the books; books allow you to create and form your own mental image and version of the characters. For non-book readers, we're seeing it solely in the context of the film and that world as given to us by the director.
I don't think there's a wrong or right opinion here on whether the changes are good or bad, I just think that your own personal experience with the subject matter will obviously impact your views on what you see or read. I may now go and read the books and love them. Doesn't mean I won't still love the movie.
I can see why they made some of the changes I suppose.
The biggest change was massively shortening the time frame from around five years to a matter of a few months and as a result we more or less completely lost Alia.
The ending is in a way the biggest disappointment though. The idea of Fremen just jumping in ships for a bit of space combat with the Lansraad.. they wouldn’t have made it into orbit. This is where the importance of the spacing guild really comes into play. The spacing guild runs everything. Without them interstellar travel isn’t possible. Even the calender (it’s not 10191ad it’s 10191ag, after guild) shows how they really dominate the political landscape. And this is just in the first book. To completely omit them is a real mistake.
That said the only way you’ll know if I have a point or I’m just a misery guts that should be happy with what they got is…
Go read the book.
Ps I don’t think I’d personally use GoT as an example of adapting a story for the screen.
robemcdonald said:
In a way they’ve fleshed out Chani’s character, making her Fedaykin and openly stand against the Lisan al Gaib prophecy. Neither of which I particularly mind, well I guess I mind the second one a bit.
I can see why they made some of the changes I suppose.
The biggest change was massively shortening the time frame from around five years to a matter of a few months and as a result we more or less completely lost Alia.
The ending is in a way the biggest disappointment though. The idea of Fremen just jumping in ships for a bit of space combat with the Lansraad.. they wouldn’t have made it into orbit. This is where the importance of the spacing guild really comes into play. The spacing guild runs everything. Without them interstellar travel isn’t possible. Even the calender (it’s not 10191ad it’s 10191ag, after guild) shows how they really dominate the political landscape. And this is just in the first book. To completely omit them is a real mistake.
That said the only way you’ll know if I have a point or I’m just a misery guts that should be happy with what they got is…
Go read the book.
Ps I don’t think I’d personally use GoT as an example of adapting a story for the screen.
Oh I don't think you're being miserable at all! You make some very good points and I respect that if you've read the books there's a huge amount of additional content available we haven't seen. I'm looking forward to the TV series for that very reason, I'm all for getting more of the world. I can see why they made some of the changes I suppose.
The biggest change was massively shortening the time frame from around five years to a matter of a few months and as a result we more or less completely lost Alia.
The ending is in a way the biggest disappointment though. The idea of Fremen just jumping in ships for a bit of space combat with the Lansraad.. they wouldn’t have made it into orbit. This is where the importance of the spacing guild really comes into play. The spacing guild runs everything. Without them interstellar travel isn’t possible. Even the calender (it’s not 10191ad it’s 10191ag, after guild) shows how they really dominate the political landscape. And this is just in the first book. To completely omit them is a real mistake.
That said the only way you’ll know if I have a point or I’m just a misery guts that should be happy with what they got is…
Go read the book.
Ps I don’t think I’d personally use GoT as an example of adapting a story for the screen.
The little bit of the guild we get in the Lynch film was great and they're presented as this massive power but even in the Lynch film, they're not given enough time. The floating thing in the box isn't even explained very well
In the new films by glossing over them it removes the issues you're pointing out. Within the story of the film as presented we're given just enough info on them and spice for the purpose of the story but they're intentionally left out. The guild are clearly a massive focus of the books however the films are focusing on Paul and Chani, rightly or wrongly. It's about the relationships and the themes of their own stories. Their identities. The politics are dumbed down, because it's very hard to make intergalactic space politics interesting on a screen.
It's the same with the timeframe, you can't show a 5 year time lapse on screen (you can do it off-screen and then say 5 years has passed but that would cause numerous issues with the film) and as a result of wanting to shorten it you have to lose his sister as a character but I thought the way they kept her in was interesting and fitted with the story and the story to come I'm sure.
PS I was talking about the various plot lines and characters they dropped from GOT (even the early series), not it's overall performance across them all. But even then the issues with the last series are because the story was rushed and truncated to end, rather than being given more time. There's not an infinite amount of time and budget for these things and stuff always ends up by the wayside.
C5_Steve said:
however the films are focusing on Paul and Chani, rightly or wrongly. It's about the relationships and the themes of their own stories. Their identities. The politics are dumbed down, because it's very hard to make intergalactic space politics interesting on a screen.
And there is the problem in a nutshell. At its core Dune isn’t a romance story. It’s actually a warning about the danger of charismatic leaders.There’s a good reason it’s considered to be unadaptable. I don’t necessarily believe that myself though. Political dramas are moving into the mainstream. Look how popular Oppenheimer was and that’s largely a political story.
In Dune the politics should be front and centre. Otherwise it’s just star wars for adults.
robemcdonald said:
And there is the problem in a nutshell. At its core Dune isn’t a romance story. It’s actually a warning about the danger of charismatic leaders.
There’s a good reason it’s considered to be unadaptable. I don’t necessarily believe that myself though. Political dramas are moving into the mainstream. Look how popular Oppenheimer was and that’s largely a political story.
In Dune the politics should be front and centre. Otherwise it’s just star wars for adults.
Fair point, but again I think the film does a great job of getting those themes it wants to focus on across (which are still from the source material). The themes of power causing suffering to others, the link between people and their environment, religion being used as a form of control and fate vs free will etc These are all key themes in the book and all front and centre in the film. Yes, they're at the cost of the politics but I'd argue that whilst Oppenheimer is certainly a very political film, it's key engagement with the audience is actually through focusing on the man himself and not the politics. The reason that films is so good is it portrays Oppenheimer as falible, as just a man with his own struggles. Very similar to how Paul is shown in the films with his struggle to accept his "fate" and his desire to try and do right by everyone. There’s a good reason it’s considered to be unadaptable. I don’t necessarily believe that myself though. Political dramas are moving into the mainstream. Look how popular Oppenheimer was and that’s largely a political story.
In Dune the politics should be front and centre. Otherwise it’s just star wars for adults.
robemcdonald said:
C5_Steve said:
however the films are focusing on Paul and Chani, rightly or wrongly. It's about the relationships and the themes of their own stories. Their identities. The politics are dumbed down, because it's very hard to make intergalactic space politics interesting on a screen.
And there is the problem in a nutshell. At its core Dune isn’t a romance story. It’s actually a warning about the danger of charismatic leaders.There’s a good reason it’s considered to be unadaptable. I don’t necessarily believe that myself though. Political dramas are moving into the mainstream. Look how popular Oppenheimer was and that’s largely a political story.
In Dune the politics should be front and centre. Otherwise it’s just star wars for adults.
Skeptisk said:
I suspect that it was adapted for both modern sensibilities (Chani didn’t figure as much in the book as an independent character and it was more common at the time it was written for women to have bit parts) and because she was being played by Zendaya, who is popular so they wanted to use her more.
Chani is rather passive in the book, and even in the Lynch film. As you say, that is less appealing to a modern audience and also does the character a disservice in my opinion.Personally the changes to her character don't bother me that much and I find it more interesting having her as an independent character. Besides, Paul foresees (as in prescience) that she will accept the necessity of his political marriage later.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff