Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
spirit animal / unicorn
Joined
·
1,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Wondering what you all thought of the Dune trailer.

I finally watched it, and I was surprised at how good it was, but I also spotted woke crap in it.

Similar to the new Bladerunner and Point Break— they looked (visually) very good, but overall I was pretty disappointed. Don't really consider them to be on a par with the originals at all. Ghost In The Shell live action kinda the same, too.
 

·
Possum Lover
Joined
·
15,344 Posts
I am curious to see what they did with the sand worms. The original movie was pretty good, the little girl who played Alia was nicely creepy.

Edit: not impressed with trailer. Interesting they did use Pink Floyd in it. Clearly they are angling toward the boomers and x gen.
 

·
Start up the rotors
Joined
·
7,637 Posts
Actually, I thought te trailer looked very good. I'm somewhat excited.
I thought the armor looked pretty good, and the Worms (though I thought I saw one without the three split mouth of the book?) aren't bad either.

Casting looks very solid, Momoa as Duncan Idaho is a little ??, but maybe he can act. Bautista as 'The Beast' sounds fun though. Heck, Josh Brolin as Gurney... even Javier Bardem as Stilgar... (that's where Momoa's acting chops will be challenged I think.)

If you don't know Chalamet, you might want to check him out in "The King," which is very good IMHO. His younger age is a better representation of Paul alos, IMHO.

We'll have to see, but I have hopes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=UZXB4aAIJcw&feature=emb_logo
 

·
Listen to the ghosts
Joined
·
5,378 Posts
I always preferred this version:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_3

The Kyle McLachlan version was easily one of the worst movies I ever saw.

As for the current trailer, the visual richness is splendid. The story telling, where the rubber meets the road...well, we'll have to wait and see. It wouldn't be the first time they ruined a good book/movie with wokeness.
 

·
2nd Amendment zealot
Joined
·
747 Posts
I always preferred this version:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_3

The Kyle McLachlan version was easily one of the worst movies I ever saw.

As for the current trailer, the visual richness is splendid. The story telling, where the rubber meets the road...well, we'll have to wait and see. It wouldn't be the first time they ruined a good book/movie with wokeness.
I thought I was the only one who hated that one. I agree, worst movie ever made.
 

·
spirit animal / unicorn
Joined
·
1,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I actually have a lot of problems with both the original novel and the original movie, but they used to be big favorites of mine.

It's fair to call the original movie a classic. And you could also at least say a lot of expense and thought was put into it. I especially like the casting. I also think the music and the credits sequences are really special.

It made me happy that the bits of music you got to hear in the new trailer seemed to fit, and sounded great...

Beyond that, a lot of aspects of the new trailer look great, but I'm concerned about the new movie ending up being full of the usual cliches, instead of something more substantial or innovative.

Just the other night I was remembering something awful about the Matrix. Neo goes to the Oracle to get needed info or wisdom. She kind of treats him like a dope, and part of her advice is that you should "Know Thyself." Naturally enough, she doesn't explain it. Hollywood just leaves the platitude like that, like a shiny Christmas tree ornament to baffle a tiny child.

I was just thinking that the same advice could have been interpreted in an entirely opposite way, and it might have been a lot better--

The Oracle kind of dominates Neo, tricks him, stuns him, tells him he's stupid, tells him he doesn't understand women, etc.--

What if instead "Know thyself" kind of meant something like you should learn your own nation's history and culture before you try to learn another people's history and culture?

It's kind of telling you, be for yourself, be for your own people. Know what YOU are, and THEN you'll be able to know what anybody ELSE is. If you first accomplish that, only then will you really be in a position to know what you can and can't do. You'll know what's spreading you too thin.

Then it's an affirming message that gets your head screwed on straight, and gets your moral compass set up right, instead of this Buddhist p.o.v. where the Oracle tells you you're a speck of sand in the universe, and even if you're an amazing hero, you've got big flaws.

I do get that type of philosophy... But I think the entire encounter with the Oracle has a really hurtful undercurrent...

From the Dune trailer, it looks like Paul is going to run into a lot of the same thing. It's a weird paradox of today's Hollywood that they have to try to sell these white, hetero, male warrior movies, but then the way they want to try to present it to you is with sort of a female Yoda telling this guy how awful he is. The movie kind of sets the example that we're supposed to be critical of these heroes, supposed to doubt them, if you see what I mean. And if you know the story of Dune, Paul is a real ultimate hero.

It also seems like he mumbles all the time, and he looks skinnier than I expect he should. I wonder what that's about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Like many sci fi and fantasy movies based on books, Hollyweird seems to turn most of them into a cowboys vs the spiritual Indians movie like Avatar or some kind of goofy love story with Knights and queens like they did with Lord of the Rings.
If the new movie parallels the Herbert novel I'll be satisfied, but that's not likely since they'll probably try to turn it into another Marvel type action flick, which the novel definitely is not.
Wish someone would take the chance to make "The Forever War" or Niven's "Ringword" into a big budget flick.
 

·
Possum Lover
Joined
·
15,344 Posts
As a woman, I wasn't impressed with the love interest. It just seemed like a woman acting passion. "The script calls for intensity".
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSGNasty

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,552 Posts
I confess that I’ve watched the 1984 version probably two times a year for at least 20 years or more. The sheer grandiosity of scale, especially along with the soundtrack, just reeled me in. It ‘s SciFi! It’s Fantasy! All I can hope for is equivalent casting and as good music. Please, please do not “woke” this movie! (Says the aging baby boomer with clearly anachronistic views of everything :rolleyes:)
 

·
spirit animal / unicorn
Joined
·
1,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I just watched the trailer again, and noticed they show the blue Fremen eyes very, very little in it.

My biggest pet peeve so far is Paul and Chani, though.

The casting in the original wasn't perfect, maybe, but I still thought they were both really, really good. They made a lot of sense to me.

I think that romance is one of the most important parts in the novel, too. It's one of the biggest things the author is hitting you with.

The casting in the new movie, though, is consistent with the entertainment industry, and even other fields, like fashion modelling, trying to be real activists against beauty. They're constantly trying to get us to accept less and less attractive people as attractive, and trying more and more to withhold the most attractive people from us, and trying to make them kind of taboo, and acidly criticized.

It's like a constant stream of these belle laids, androgynous people, and geeky looking people.

I've got no problem with seeing Kyle MacLachlan as a hero, but the new guy looks much more like a random Paul cosplayer, lol.

I'd argue Star Wars has done kind of the same thing.

There's a difference between casting unknowns, young actors or actresses, and fresh faces, on the one hand, and on the other going really overboard with it. Just the mere fact that a certain style of beauty, or favoritism in casting, can be overemphasized, doesn't totally justify absolutely anything you might want to do in response to it.

The music-- maybe they should have used the exact same music as in the first movie!
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,732 Posts
Have not seen it. BUT the worst adaptation of an important book, SciFi or other, by far, is Starship Troopers. end of story.
Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine (original script title), Directed by: Paul Verhoeven Written by: Edward Neumeier, Character names based on: Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein.
As Verhoeven told Empire magazine in August, 2012: “I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring. I asked Ed Neumeier to tell me the story..."

This idjit directed a pooched propaganda piece that was entirely different from the underlying theme of the book: that there was no greater love than to put one's body and life between home and harm.
That's what PV and EN conceive of as "right wing."

PV's next work might as well be : "George Washington conquers the Martians".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I just be one of the only people who likes David Lynch’s Dune. Even Lynch himself has said he doesn’t like the film. But I like it.

I also liked the sci-fi channel mini series.

I’m kinda sad they are making it a movie instead of a series. The books are really long.

The original movie version by Alejandro Jodorowsky was never made , and it likely would have been one of the greatest films
Of all time. In fact they made a documentary about that version. Maybe the only time a film has been made about a film that was never made.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I thought I was the only one who hated that one. I agree, worst movie ever made.
Have not seen it. BUT the worst adaptation of an important book, SciFi or other, by far, is Starship Troopers. end of story.
Starship troopers was perhaps the worst adaptation. It barley resembled the book. But it was also a great film.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I just watched the trailer again, and noticed they show the blue Fremen eyes very, very little in it.

My biggest pet peeve so far is Paul and Chani, though.

The casting in the original wasn't perfect, maybe, but I still thought they were both really, really good. They made a lot of sense to me.

I think that romance is one of the most important parts in the novel, too. It's one of the biggest things the author is hitting you with.

The casting in the new movie, though, is consistent with the entertainment industry, and even other fields, like fashion modelling, trying to be real activists against beauty. They're constantly trying to get us to accept less and less attractive people as attractive, and trying more and more to withhold the most attractive people from us, and trying to make them kind of taboo, and acidly criticized.

It's like a constant stream of these belle laids, androgynous people, and geeky looking people.

I've got no problem with seeing Kyle MacLachlan as a hero, but the new guy looks much more like a random Paul cosplayer, lol.

I'd argue Star Wars has done kind of the same thing.

There's a difference between casting unknowns, young actors or actresses, and fresh faces, on the one hand, and on the other going really overboard with it. Just the mere fact that a certain style of beauty, or favoritism in casting, can be overemphasized, doesn't totally justify absolutely anything you might want to do in response to it.

The music-- maybe they should have used the exact same music as in the first movie!
George Lucas has said that he wanted Star Wars to be the the story of how the weakest kid in the world becomes the toughest badass in the galaxy. So luke had to be kind of a dweeb.

Lucas also said he borrowed heavily from dune.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top