Dune

malickfan wrote:I saw it last week, haven't read the book or seen the '80's version (though I was broadly familiar with aspects of the plot/characters and did play one of the videogame adaptations back in the day), having mulled things over I'm still not quite sure how to feel, on the one hand the film is visually stunning with great production values/set peices, and the plot was easy enough to follow for someone who hadn't read the book, it certainly looks great.

On the other hand I felt many of the characters were mere interchangeable archetypes, either thinly sketched with little character development, or just a bit unlikeable. And whilst I found the plot easy enough to follow, the pacing was a bit all over the place, the film often seems needlessly slow/dense and the mid section dragged i.m.o, not entirely sure i understood all of the dream/visions paul has either.

And was everyone else's screening so loud? I though the score was generic and forgettable, some of the scenes were so loud I could barely make the dialogue, maybe it was just a sound mixing error...

I think I'll have to rewatch it (plan to) or read the book to get a proper sense of how well it adapted the source material, but so far I think I was intrigued by the world building /admired the production values of the film rather more than I liked the characters or was hooked by the plot.

I think this was really a film aimed at fans of the book more than general audiences.

It's funny looking back at my thoughts on the film now that I've actually read the book (finished it a few months back) my opinion on the film has actually grown quite a bit now I know the source material and can understand the choices the writers made a bit better...I'd actually go as far to say that I enjoyed the film more   which rarely happens.

The bolded above still applies to the book i.m.o-the characters didn't seem any better developed in the novel (I was surprised Duncan Idaho was essentially an unseen character) the middle feels bloated and some of the interal politics/gender roles feel rather dated, but my biggest issue with the book wasn't really a negative...I just wasn't a huge fan of Herbert's writing style it felt a tad overwritten and prententious to me?, I guess you could see I enjoyed the story but wasn't a huge fan of the way it was presented? The film streamlined and clarified things for me (the novel has tonnes of very vivid visual scenes and is perfect for the Big Screen) and I think I'll be able to enjoy the second film more now I know the source material.

All that said the worldbuilding, imagery and themes of the book were incredible and I can certainly understand why it's a landmark of the genre, perhaps given time and more exposure to the sci-fi genre I may come to appreciate the writing style a bit more (I do plan to read the sequels eventually), so I guess I'll say I appreciate the book and it's story rather more than I enjoy the way it was actually written.

Avoiding any spoilers, what could I expect from the sequels (if/when I do read them) in terms of style/worlbuilding...I've heard the original series gets weirder and weirder as it goes along...

I think his writing was actually better in the first book than any of the others, so you may want to not continue. The writing is something that grows on you as the grand sweep and meaning seeps into your mind over time. But the characters are not real humans; more like Wagnerian motifs mounted on two legs. Takes some time to accept the mythic viewpoint. May never grow on you.

Just coming here to post that myself. The two trailers look good, it's not gonna be the slow burn the first film was.

I quite liked the slow burn of the first!

{{ Its the colour pallete does my head in most of all, they somehow contrive to make a desert planet look like it was shot on a wet weekend in Scotland. Why its all so washed out and destaurated? Its horrible, its makes everything look so bleak and uninteresting visually.
Was like that in the first film too, in the book Calladhan is this gorgeous ocean world, huge waves, vast skies, and the landmasses are green and lush, in the film its bleak, miserable and always raining.
The people of Arrakis, in the books based on middle-eatern culture, should be massively colourful not everything in various shades of shit brown.
Also Chani's one line of dialogue in this trailer does not give great prospects for her performance! Thats one stilted delivery.
And as Paul he still looks like a strong wind would knock him over, thats hardly the bloodline of the Atriedes famed warriors, soldiers, Generals, leaders and bull fighters! }}

I probably have the benefit of not reading the books... like I hadn't with LotR before the films.

{{ Maybe I was spoiled by Lynchs version which for all its many flaws its a visual treat. But mainly I was disapointed in the representaion of the planets, I thought Calladhan looked like a shitty weekend at the coast, Giedi Prime is just dark and barren looking, and wors tof all Arrakis looks like evry Hollywood desert film ever made, only with a even bigger fear of colour than before. Its deserts represented like they are just ahuge beach, real desert can be amazing lookingplaces, full of colours n the sand and rocks, colours that change constiently through the day as the sun moves. Where it could be vibrant and beautiful its not.
If I had to sum the first film up in one word that word would be 'miserable'. }}

Villaneuve insisted on using real desert shots. Guess what, we don't come to the movies for unfiltered reality.

{{He could have frankly shot it on a Florida beach for all the difference it'd make once its been bleached and destaurated of all life and colour. He shoots in three filter shades; drizzle greys, washed out blues and 50 shades of shit browns. }}

So I was watching this "making of Dune" documentary, and they show the desert shots suffused with color, and then see it graded for the film and the color is taken out. I wanted to punch the guy.

{{ Just flicked through it and watched few choice moments, but yeah if there was one thing about the film I just did not understand its why they look so godawful. The effects work and everything is fine but visually its a dull, bland washed out nothing.
Its like the director said to his cinematographer, 'yeah I like it but why is there all this natural beauty and colour in it? Can you take that all out and make it look really shit please?'
I did find out at least why Caladan looks so wet and miserable, they shot it in Norway! (does explain why it made me think of a wet weekend in Scotland though)}}

Somehow I don't like it.  I think it may be the way it's being cast as an action movie. I still can't abide the american accents. And what happened to that racy cover shot?

{{ Yup not impressed, still can't get over his casting as Paul, my farts are stronger. He looks like a stiff breeze would knock him over, not an Atriedes, famed for athleticisms and strength, trained as Bene Gessirit and Mentat and the end product of millennial worth of breeding programs, and he looks like his sister is probably also his mother.

But mainly Paul is not a good guy, he embraces a future he is creating, the Golden Path, one that will lead a religious jihad in his name across the universe slaughtering millions. I don't get they are building towards that inevitability. Or playing into the religious jihad aspect of his rousing of the Fremen through prophecy. }}

Sadly it seems the preferred colour palet also remains mud and drab. }}

Another one. Urg...there's perhaps 2 lines of original dialogue. that's okay because Herbert's not known as a wordsmith, but much of what is there feels wrong. Paul shouldn't be asking Chani if she believes in him: their bond is too strong for that. Jessica shouldn't be smacking someone over the head with a rock - that needs no explanation. There's too many hints at lack of control in these key characters.

{{{ The more I see the less I like, and I started from a pretty low liking position after the first bore fest of mud}}

Not one line of dialogue resembles anything Herbert wrote. They're sticking alien messages in the main character's throats. I got better warm fuzzies off the first film's trailers.

{{ And it still looks like washed out mud }}

Bah it's not so bad.

{{ I dont understand the choice to make it all so peelie-wallie* looking. Maybe in the first film to portray  the city and mining areas as bleak or miserable, but now we are with the Fremen, this is their home, the deep desert, the rock plateaus and caves that should make Gimli's heart sing and burst with poetry, it should be emphasising the beauty of the desert, it should be vibrant and colourful in Fremen communities not drab and muddy.
I mean seriously some of that is so destaturated it may as well be in black and white-

Spoiler:

I think I'd prefer it in black and white! It's so washed out it may as well be, you don't lose much really when you convert it as there is so little use of colour to lose.


* in case youre not familiar with this bit of Scots, 'peelie' comes from an old word for 'sickly, listless', and wally is reductive of an Old English word meaning 'faded'. It's used if someone who looks ill, say "he's not looking too good, very peelie-wallie' or of anything pale and lacking colour that shouldn't be, say a weak and milky cup of tea, and it's used in a more or less derogatory fashion when applied to the Scottish complexion. I myself am a fine example of this, when my ex used to return from visiting her family in Italy standing next to her, I wasn't just peelie-wallie, I looked like I had been dead for a week already. My skin tone could most definitely be classed as peelie-wallie! }}