[Film] Dune

[Pevenseagull]

Films seldom come close to the books they are taken from imo. If you hadn't read 2001 before seeing the film I doubt you'd have a fecking clue what was going on especially as the film evolved. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that came close to doing justice to the book was The Godfather.

Maybe we should have a thread about films that were as good as the book

'Being There' springs to mind.

 

[jakarta]

the film requires a different type of viewing in the same way that more people will go to say a tour of The Rolling Stones than go to a tour of Beethovens 5th symphony

Oi - don't diss the Stones! A better comparison is Ed Sheeran vs. Beethoven...

From memory didn't Frank Herbert write several follow up books to Dune? If they film them as well we will be here for the next 20 years...

 

[nickbrighton]

Oi - don't diss the Stones! A better comparison is Ed Sheeran vs. Beethoven...

From memory didn't Frank Herbert write several follow up books to Dune? If they film them as well we will be here for the next 20 years...

i certainly wasn't dissing the Stones, but your example works as well as mine

There was an original trilogy written by Frank Herbert, and then several more written by his son and others I believe.

This new film covers the first half of the first book, with the conclusion yet to be "greenlit" . AFAIK there are no plans for a never ending film franchise filming the sequels and prequels, although I do believe there is a TV series planned about the Benne Gesserit order that may be interesting

 

[The Clamp]

Well. Beautifully shot, amazing costumes. Really boring. First hour and a half was so dull that when things do start happening o couldn’t have given a shit. And because it’s in two parts, it ends just as it’s becoming interesting. Nodded off twice. Don’t think i I’ll bother with Pt. 2

It’s a real shame because I don’t do big whizz bang Marvel films, not really into many blockbusters at all so thought this would strike a balance. I went in knowing the source material and knowing it was dialogue and character driven rather than the next Independence Day but it just didn’t engage me on any real level. Its a beautiful looking piece but… Not for me I’m afraid.

Brighton was wall to wall minge though so you know, every cloud.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Well. Beautifully shot, amazing costumes. Really boring. First hour and a half was so dull that when things do start happening o couldn’t have given a shit. And because it’s in two parts, it ends just as it’s becoming interesting. Nodded off twice. Don’t think i I’ll bother with Pt. 2

It’s a real shame because I don’t do big whizz bang Marvel films, not really into many blockbusters at all so thought this would strike a balance. I went in knowing the source material and knowing it was dialogue and character driven rather than the next Independence Day but it just didn’t engage me on any real level. Its a beautiful looking piece but… Not for me I’m afraid.

Brighton was wall to wall minge though so you know, every cloud.

Wasn't it Tarkovsky who intentionally made the first part of Stalker so utterly boring so as to get rid of all the riff raff out of the cinemas so he only had those appreciating his art remaining?

That wasn't as bad as Kurosawa's Throne of Blood which I went to see at the NFT, there is a passage in there where the character is lost in a foggy woods for like 20mins or more, I fell completely asleep, embarrassed I jolted awake, looked around and I kid you not, pretty much the entire audience was also asleep!

 

[S'hampton Seagull]

I'm off to see this shortly, I'll you'll know if it was as dull as mentioned above!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

I'm off to see this shortly, I'll you'll know if it was as dull as mentioned above!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I hope others enjoy it.

 

[marlowe]

Too bad the Jodorowsky one never happened back in the 70s. Orson Welles, Salvador Dali and Nick Nack from The Man With The Golden Gun. Could have been quite something.

If it was anything like El Topo it would have been completely surreal. The weirdest western I've ever seen.

The cast was also going to include Mick Jagger, David Carradine, Gloria Swanson and Amanda Lear.

Jodorowsky's son Brontis was also going to have a prominent part in it as the novel's protagonist, and it was he who played the naked horse riding boy in El Topo.

Music was going to be by Pink Floyd and Magma amongst others.

 

[vegster]

The first book or two was OK but it got remarkably complicated and I think I abandoned the series by book 3 or 4. The Lynch film was pretty good if incredibly grim in places.
From what I have seen of the trailers it looks visually stunning and I have heard this is just half of the first book. I might give it a go but I'm still trying to squeeze in Bond and Respect first while trying to avoid packed cinemas given our 50k + Covid case numbers.

 

[LamieRobertson]

And prior to those he did Sicario which is another corker of a film. The soundscapes and tension that builds, never has there been a more exciting traffic jam in cinematic history than Sicario.

Agree with all that…plus it had Emily Blunt

 

[jackanada]

May I recommend the documentary "Jodorowsky's Dune" about a previous attempt to bring Dune to the big screen that while ultimately abortive influenced cinema for decades after.

 

[GOM]

........ I suspect this although visually stunning will not be to the taste of a wide audience who are used to not having to actually concentrate on plot, and dialogue and to actually think about what they are seeing.......

How on earth did you get that from my comment?

That's how.

 

[nickbrighton]

That's how.

well I congratulate you on spectacularly misinterpreting what I said. Did you also read my comments about how I managed a cinema, and have a pretty good idea what has limited, average, mass and blockbuster appeal, and how that doesn't reflect in any particular way on any given demographic?

Perhaps if I put it this way you may see past your own misconceptions of me!
Would you expect the same audience who bought the Harry Potter books in their tens of millions around the world, and still do, who then bought Artemis Fowl, and Percy Jackson books to then go and buy read and reread at the same rate the Silmarillion? All are fantasy books, all involve mythical creatures etc . According to you I must have a low opinion of those that don't.

The answer is no- they didnt. The Harry Potter Books will have outsold the Silmarillion by a huge %, thats fact Its not conjecture and its not saying that I think readers of the Silmarillion are "highbrow intellectuals " andf better than the readers of the other books.

It does mean that I think if readers of Harry Potter and the other books bought the Silmarillion expecting more of the same style a lot, but not all all, would be very disappointed and unlikely to go on and but the other Tolkien books that are more of a historical style than The Hobbit and LOTR

The simple truth is that although a great Sci Fi book and hopefully film, Dune is very very different from the other genre films mentioned and will appeal to a smaller audience- this is demonstrated out by the lower numbers going to see it than other genre films released during the pandemic

I really do not see why you think that is such a problem that you have to comment that I must think I am intellectually superior to anyone else, which I assure you I don't. I'm just using a decades worth of experience in having to judge this very thing to say its aimed at and will appeal to a different audience.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

I must confess, I equally can go to the National film theatre being high brow with my head up my arse and thoroughly enjoy Tarkovsky's Stalker or Solaris, while the next weekend equally enjoy Avengers Infinity War and End Game. I like Star Wars and Star Trek in equal measure. What can I say.

I know Villenueve's Blade Runner got a bit of stick from audiences, but I absolutely loved it, and so far descriptions of Dune sound right up my street, boring and everything!

 

[GOM]

well I congratulate you on spectacularly misinterpreting what I said. Did you also read my comments about how I managed a cinema, and have a pretty good idea what has limited, average, mass and blockbuster appeal, and how that doesn't reflect in any particular way on any given demographic?

Perhaps if I put it this way you may see past your own misconceptions of me!
Would you expect the same audience who bought the Harry Potter books in their tens of millions around the world, and still do, who then bought Artemis Fowl, and Percy Jackson books to then go and buy read and reread at the same rate the Silmarillion? All are fantasy books, all involve mythical creatures etc . According to you I must have a low opinion of those that don't.

The answer is no- they didnt. The Harry Potter Books will have outsold the Silmarillion by a huge %, thats fact Its not conjecture and its not saying that I think readers of the Silmarillion are "highbrow intellectuals " andf better than the readers of the other books.

It does mean that I think if readers of Harry Potter and the other books bought the Silmarillion expecting more of the same style a lot, but not all all, would be very disappointed and unlikely to go on and but the other Tolkien books that are more of a historical style than The Hobbit and LOTR

The simple truth is that although a great Sci Fi book and hopefully film, Dune is very very different from the other genre films mentioned and will appeal to a smaller audience- this is demonstrated out by the lower numbers going to see it than other genre films released during the pandemic

I really do not see why you think that is such a problem that you have to comment that I must think I am intellectually superior to anyone else, which I assure you I don't. I'm just using a decades worth of experience in having to judge this very thing to say its aimed at and will appeal to a different audience.

I can only mis-interpret that that is mis-interpretable. I understand what you are saying, but not how you expressed it that is all.

It was simply that the words that you used implied something clearly different to your intention. When you speak of 'a wide audience who are used to not having to actually concentrate on plot, and dialogue and to actually think about what they are seeing' you are slighting those that do enjoy HP with not having the capability to enjoy The Silmarillion.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I might see this, although don't feel hugely enthused to do so. In terms of his other films, which have been good, i remember watching Incendies all that while ago, and thinking cor-what-a-cracker.

 

[The Clamp]

well I congratulate you on spectacularly misinterpreting what I said. Did you also read my comments about how I managed a cinema, and have a pretty good idea what has limited, average, mass and blockbuster appeal, and how that doesn't reflect in any particular way on any given demographic?

Perhaps if I put it this way you may see past your own misconceptions of me!
Would you expect the same audience who bought the Harry Potter books in their tens of millions around the world, and still do, who then bought Artemis Fowl, and Percy Jackson books to then go and buy read and reread at the same rate the Silmarillion? All are fantasy books, all involve mythical creatures etc . According to you I must have a low opinion of those that don't.

The answer is no- they didnt. The Harry Potter Books will have outsold the Silmarillion by a huge %, thats fact Its not conjecture and its not saying that I think readers of the Silmarillion are "highbrow intellectuals " andf better than the readers of the other books.

It does mean that I think if readers of Harry Potter and the other books bought the Silmarillion expecting more of the same style a lot, but not all all, would be very disappointed and unlikely to go on and but the other Tolkien books that are more of a historical style than The Hobbit and LOTR

The simple truth is that although a great Sci Fi book and hopefully film, Dune is very very different from the other genre films mentioned and will appeal to a smaller audience- this is demonstrated out by the lower numbers going to see it than other genre films released during the pandemic

I really do not see why you think that is such a problem that you have to comment that I must think I am intellectually superior to anyone else, which I assure you I don't. I'm just using a decades worth of experience in having to judge this very thing to say its aimed at and will appeal to a different audience.

Do you find as people get older their tastes broaden? I am equally as happy to go and see a James Bond film as I am to see an NTL broadcast. I’m not a fan of most of Marvel stuff as I find it very “samey” but other blockbusters I do enjoy. In my 40’s now and I see a far greater range of films than I did in my 20’s.

Having said that, I’m currently nursing a cold and watching the Clash Of The Titans remake. It’s testing my limits a little

Oh, and I broadly agree with your posts.

 

[nickbrighton]

I can only mis-interpret that that is mis-interpretable. I understand what you are saying, but not how you expressed it that is all.

It was simply that the words that you used implied something clearly different to your intention. When you speak of 'a wide audience who are used to not having to actually concentrate on plot, and dialogue and to actually think about what they are seeing' you are slighting those that do enjoy HP with not having the capability to enjoy The Silmarillion.

Do you find as people get older their tastes broaden? I am equally as happy to go and see a James Bond film as I am to see an NTL broadcast. I’m not a fan of most of Marvel stuff as I find it very “samey” but other blockbusters I do enjoy. In my 40’s now and I see a far greater range of films than I did in my 20’s.

Having said that, I’m currently nursing a cold and watching the Clash Of The Titans remake. It’s testing my limits a little

Oh, and I broadly agree with your posts.

In answer to the Clamp question about ageing and broader tastes then on the whole i would say yes . You only have to look at what demographic sees what type of films to see that as people get older they TEND to see less horror, violence, comedy and action and effects driven films, and start to watch more dialogue, plot driven films

Lots of people of course enjoy all types of film throughout their lives, some have a greater range of genre they like than others. However, there is a definite change to viewing habits as people get older

In response to GOM, do you not think that with the advent of twitter, tic tok, facebook, and all the rest that a lot of people (especially younger people) are now used to having shorter attention spans. News for example is now presented in "bite sized " pieces, soundbites, and short clips. People are on their phones every few mins, whilst doing other things. Im not saying people cant sit and watch a 3 hour movie without loosing interest, Im saying that a lot of people are now used to not doing so. There was a whole streaming service whose entire premise was to present TV series in 5-10 minute episodes purely for that reason (Quibi) some great shows but designed to be consumed in very short segments

This discussion has gone of on a tangent somewhat, and I am sorry if my original post wasn't clear in what I was saying. I think we now understand what we each mean-

 

[S'hampton Seagull]

I saw this night, and found the film a little baffling to be honest. Beautifully shot, and some excellent scenes, but did find it hard to keep up with what was going on to be honest.

Doubt I'll watch part 2 as tbh I don't care that much what happens next.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[sydney]

well I congratulate you on spectacularly misinterpreting what I said. Did you also read my comments about how I managed a cinema, and have a pretty good idea what has limited, average, mass and blockbuster appeal, and how that doesn't reflect in any particular way on any given demographic?

Perhaps if I put it this way you may see past your own misconceptions of me!
Would you expect the same audience who bought the Harry Potter books in their tens of millions around the world, and still do, who then bought Artemis Fowl, and Percy Jackson books to then go and buy read and reread at the same rate the Silmarillion? All are fantasy books, all involve mythical creatures etc . According to you I must have a low opinion of those that don't.

The answer is no- they didnt. The Harry Potter Books will have outsold the Silmarillion by a huge %, thats fact Its not conjecture and its not saying that I think readers of the Silmarillion are "highbrow intellectuals " andf better than the readers of the other books.

It does mean that I think if readers of Harry Potter and the other books bought the Silmarillion expecting more of the same style a lot, but not all all, would be very disappointed and unlikely to go on and but the other Tolkien books that are more of a historical style than The Hobbit and LOTR

The simple truth is that although a great Sci Fi book and hopefully film, Dune is very very different from the other genre films mentioned and will appeal to a smaller audience- this is demonstrated out by the lower numbers going to see it than other genre films released during the pandemic

I really do not see why you think that is such a problem that you have to comment that I must think I am intellectually superior to anyone else, which I assure you I don't. I'm just using a decades worth of experience in having to judge this very thing to say its aimed at and will appeal to a different audience.

i have tried to watch it twice but kept getting interrupted ...so got up at 4 a.m today , glass of cab merlot and a spliff and watched it uninterrupted .....i'd give it a solid 7.5 , gadgets and flying things top notch , effects great and Timothee is to die for , if youre a fan then look out for a film called KING where he plays the title roll , Joel Edgerton is great in it.