I've seen both the 1984 and 2021 versions, I like the 1984 David Lynch version better.
The Last Movie You Watched?
- Thread starter TravelingMan82
- Start date
I have mixed feelings, the basic story line was kept in the 84 version, though character details were odd, and because of length, a lot was left out.
The 21 version is more sci fi than fantasy and goes into more detail because of there being 2 movies, but they completely changed some of the characters and ascribed 2021 current male/female gender / rights / advocacy motives and sub plots.
I talked about that here:
What you listed about the 21 version are some of the same reasons I didn't like it.
To be fair, the book is so great and so long, I don't think you can truly do it justice in a movie format.
I love The Sixth Sense, definitely a favourite movie. I liked Unbreakable. The others, some I think would be okay, but just not my cup of tea. Crop circle stuff has been done to death. A couple of others seemed interesting, I just didn't get around to watching, and heard enough bad reviews not to bother. The sort of things that if friends picked it out to watch, I'd do my best to get into the spirit of it.
I was excited when I heard a live action Air Bender was planned, then I found out it was him and was deflated but hopeful, and then people I knew saw it, and it was a complete travesty on so many levels. I think I mostly stopped paying attention to him after that. Then I heard about Split and Glass. They apparently are a fair bit better than his other outings, and I did like Unbreakable enough, that I wouldn't mind seeing them. Not only do those two do a bit better in the ratings, but with Samuel L. Jackson, and James McAvoy, I know I'm going to like the acting.
I agree with @luvmysuper on dialogue being an issue. I think plots holes vary, some are worse than others, but he definitely needs improvement, if you're going to 'hand wave' a plot hole, it needs to be done well.
But, but, but...you don't say what you thought of it!Finally got the chance to see Dune.
I don't call myself a hardcore Dune type, but I own all 14 books in the trilogy.
I think the last movie before that was Braveheart. Obviously I'm not the guy to take out to the movies!
O.H.
I actually had a box set of the trilogy from the mid-seventies, and never got around to reading them. I was a bit too young to get into them then, and later, I just never got around to it. I always kind of meant to, I saw a couple of clips of the Lynch one. I really had a weird pre-conceived idea that it was like Mad Max... fight in the desert for spice or something. So... went to the movie, and LOVED it. Instantly bought the trilogy, and was impressed at how well the movie covered things. I'm really looking forward to the next one. I am going to read book two soon, I had a couple of other books to get out of the way first. I'm thinking I might even watch the Lynch production for fun.
The book is more SF than the movie, going into a great deal of explanation/description of pretty much every bit of mechanism and scientific equipment. And, I did take a look at your thread you linked. Things I agree with, things I don't, but two that I felt I'd comment on...
You might want to refresh yourself on the first book. Lady Jessica was a de facto wife, as concubines of her class and stature were. She directed all the household decisions and furnishings, she ran the servants as well as conferring with Leto's men regarding issues. She hosted the suppers along with Leto. She was a loving pragmatic, romantic, and sexual partner to Leto. She gave Leto the son he desired, and had as much say, if not more, on the raising and educating of Paul. I'm not sure what more 'de facto' is supposed to cover. She was already quite 'elevated'. And, the idea that the one line about making her his wife is some sort of elevation, rather than conveying the sentiment (she already knew how he felt) to her rather than Paul, for the narrative flow.
This one had me laugh. I think maybe you are trying way too hard to see wokeness where there isn't any. Possibly you just lost track of who is whom. Baron Harkonnen was played by solidly built, 6'3" Stellan Skarsgard with really good prosthetics and/or CGI, and a ton of body padding. Coming up out of the pool he reminded me a bit of Marlon Brando in The Heart of Darkness.
It's difficult to discuss things sometimes, because there are any number of changes when a book gets made to a movie, or a movie is remade. There is always decisions based on business, politics, religion, philosophy, etc woke or otherwise, but I think you're reading 'wokeness' into an awful lot. The book is doused in class politics, welfare rights, women's rights, religion, ecology, and so forth, often interwove with each other.... it would be weird not to have those very things in the movie. Obviously Kynes is the big standout for the 'woke' position, but I can't think of much else other than the casting of Thufir Hawat.
I kept telling myself to not bother responding, I'd probably only annoy you, but to start off with "Making Lady Jessica a more prominent and independent character" when she is shown prominent and independent from the very start by making it clear she had a son by choice, and then with the book ending, with the final two sentences:
"Think on it Chani: that princess will have the name, yet she'll live as less than a concubine---never to know a moment of tenderness from the man to whom she is bound. While we, Chani, we who carry the name of concubine---history will call us wives."
There is opinion, and then there is getting mixed up what is the politics of 1965, rather than 2021.
You will not be disappointed.
She was a concubine and not his wife. He never even honored her with that. He later very pointedly realized what he had done was wrong, and told his son. He didn't even tell his concubine to her face that he thought he was wrong, so they did it for him in the movie. We disagree on the interpretation. I think your mistaken, but that's ok.
This one had me laugh. It wasn't Stellan Skarsgard who played Harkonnen in the 84 version, it was Kenneth McMillan. In the book, and to some extent, the 84 version, he is portrayed as so grossly obese as to be unable to even move on his own power, and a depraved and murderous predatory homosexual involved in incest and pedophilia. It was this version I was referring to, and that they changed it to the Skarsgard character to avoid a number of social issues. The fact that you didn't see that at all in the Skarsgard version makes my point beautifully. I see wokeness where I see wokeness.
Again, we can disagree on how we interpret the film. I've spoken to others who have independently stated they believe the same as I do. Kynes was a big deal, so, I guess they decided to be woke about that ONE thing, but nothing else!
That's ok. It was still an entertaining film, even if it was twisted around.
Interesting perspective on which life might be more satisfying or fulfilling, Wife/Concubine, Princess/Mistress. Depends on your point of view I suppose. There's an old proverb about sour grapes.
sour grapes
Definition of sour grapes in the Idioms Dictionary by The Free Dictionary
Exactly. Thank you for making the point. They simply should have made the book as it was written, and not be concerned about the politics of 2021. It's an alien land, an alien culture, an alien landscape and an alien time. The characters do not have to be portrayed in the film as if they are examples transplanted from our current society.
Last edited:
My apologies! An oversight, for sure.
I liked it. Zimmer's score is lovely -- I particularly liked his comment that it's a movie set nine thousand years in our future, and so using today's music and singing in it would be anachronistic.
I've followed a couple of the you-tubers who get into it pretty deep. Many of my favourite scenes from the books ended up on the cutting room floor, though. I would have like to see Lady Jessica in the solarium reading the message on the leaf from Lady Margot Fenring, for instance. It would have made such a wonderful six-hour movie!
A bit like The Lord of the Rings the books will make more than one movie. The current installment only goes as far as Paul facing Jamis after he and Jessica have escaped the Harkonnens. That's just a short piece of the overall story arc. It's a big story, and I'd say well begun.
With reference to your boxed trilogy, I probably have the same one -- a Christmas gift of which I was initially a bit suspicious, as the person who gave it to me was not any kind of sci-fi fan and only really knew I like reading sci-fi. I think I've only gotten a few books that actually were ones I would buy myself. Dune and a few books by J.F. Bone about the same time.
Jesse was a colleague of my dad's in the veterinary school at the university in our town. I remember two things about Jesse and sci-fi: one was that he introduced me to Robert Heinlein; the other was that he refused to introduce me to Frank Herbert whom he described as "a real piece of work, but a good writer."
O.H.
I always like when music fits so well, I just have the overall impression hit me, and only later see how the music, the light, the scenes are on their own merit. Sometimes music can be good, but it hits you as 'soundtrack', not just a part of the whole that is making the impression.
I've watched some Youtube reviews, and... I occassionally feel like we weren't watching the same movie. I think everyone has parts of the book they wanted in, but some people act like it is a high crime, and one of the things I was astonished at, when I read the book, is how much they put in, or alluded to. I was really expecting there to be far more things to be left out. And some, you could just see why it had to be done for narrative purposes, and some things also just don't translate from book to screen. A good adaptation isn't one that is letter perfect, but one that captures essences and picks which parts work best for the larger purpose. I was a bit disappointed with the Kynes character, not because it was cast as a black woman, I could care less about that, but because I really thought they should have kept more of the character's qualities. I like the cagey/visionary/maverick kind attributes. Unfortunately, it is a character that goes to background depths in the book, that isn't going to have the same kind of room in the movie. There's just too much to cover.
I like Science Fiction, but have far too little to what I wish. Too many books, too little time.
EclipseRedRing
I smell like a Christmas pudding
Thank you for reminding me of that movie, I watched it today for the first time in years. What a great fight scene in the alley! It dawned on me as I watched, that in the years that have passed since I first saw 'They Live', and I have aged, I feel as if I have very gradually put on a pair of those glasses, can now see clearly, and don't like what I see. A prophetic film indeed and a little sad
I really enjoyed them both. They make a great double feature.
She knew that Leto regarded her as a wife. It was explained in the book, it was for political reasons, Queen Elizabeth I did the same thing, keep the opens of marriage to the different houses open. She understood this. The entire book (and I presume series) is totally immersed in politics. The differing of opinion is one thing, but to say the movie made changes that elevated her, in the name of wokeness to a 'de factor' wife isn't born out by the facts.
You switched things up. You're thread was regarding the new 'Dune' so that was what I responded to. That said, I see more clearly now, what your point is. I didn't see the '84 version (yet). Yes, I see how 'fat' and 'gay' equaling 'evil' is a problem and is likely a decision to balance that at least somewhat, by keeping on 'fat', which I suppose fits in with gluttonous appetites, and leaving out 'gay' which has nothing to do with it and if your only character in an entire novel that is gay, is also unparalleled evil, yes that is a social/political decision to take it out.
I believe I didn't see it, because I already saw him as an odious, vile, man, so, when I read the book, it didn't occur to me to say, 'oh dear, I don't recall the movie saying he liked young teens to exploit sexually', I just took it as further information to his depravity fleshed out, literally, in the book. So yes removing 'gay = bad' from a character that is already evil was probably 'woke'.
The ubiquitous 'they' is just part of society. That's society, going around doing the 'being a society' stuff. People change, society changes, back and forth and so the story goes. I already said Kynes was a big change, it just didn't bother me at all that it was a black woman, it bothered me that the character didn't get more lines, and that the lines/story weren't more in keeping with the book. Beef with the adaptation, for me, the 'wokeness' didn't matter, the character did.
You missed the point. Everyone gets in a tizzy about tree hugging environmentalists, but Dune is a deeply ecological look at society and civilizations in the mid '60s. Women having and wielding power, and power over men, and power for higher political aims, makes some people get in a tizzy today, Dune had major characters, in predominant roles, one of whom is, so far, only second to the protagonist, that do this...in the mid '60s. Major multinational corporations, governments, religions, all have powerful influence in the world today, based on family, tradition, money, power, hereditary classes...which are all well delineated in the book.
My point is that the first book of Dune (I haven't read the rest yet), has characters that are written of their times (the mid '60s, but also with a speculative view looking into the future) they are not 'transplanted' from anywhere. The movie can't cover everything that happens in the first book. Even reading only as far as the movie went, there is just too much material to cover unless you are going to have a 3-4 hour movie. The essential plot points are there, the essential characters are sketched out, the essential story arcs are set up, and the stories plot lines are mostly followed, some changes due to adaptions... you can't make a book a movie, it still has to follow its visual medium and you make sacrifices to what is on/off screen, etc.
I'm reasonably sure you'll go with 'agree to disagree'. I almost didn't answer at all. Some is my own prejudice. I love the film, and it inspired me to read the book, and I love the book and plan on reading the whole series. I was very affected by the book, and impressed at how well the film reflected the book. That we don't agree to that I understand, but the blame on wokeness seems like a stretch except in a couple of instances, and that labels the whole work, just seems so odd to me. Everything is a nail to a hammer.
I felt conflicted. It's a thread, not a class on film theory, or serious film review. I should have just let it go.
So I went to do the next best thing, and delete it and leave a short note.
I can't delete or edit it. I'm not sure why, some threads I'm able to do that, others not so much.
I guess it stands, for whatever it is or isn't worth, as is.
There's a time limit on members ability to edit, if you wait too long (15 min) it's indelibly stamped into history.
I'm just going to leave it without comment aside from the fact that we disagree on major issues with the film, but that won't stop the sun from rising tomorrow, or us having a grand time here at B&B.
I watched the 1920 Douglas Fairbanks Mark of Zorro recently. My wife isn't a Zorro or silent film or cat fan, so she wasn't impressed when I showed her this Zorro cat.
Kitten who looks like masked hero Zorro goes viral
A kitten from Indonesia has gone viral thanks to his unusual markings, which make him look like Zorro, the masked vigilante.
I think cats are pretty cool. I'd have one if my wife, with allergies, could tolerate it. After 50+ years together, I don't think she'll be giving in anytime soon as her allergies keep getting worse. The closest I get to enjoying a cat is streaming The Cat Hospital on AcornTV. Great show. Even my wife enjoys it.
Mad God.
A completely bonkers stop motion feature, which I thought was very cool, but would have absolutely loved in my younger days, after a hippy cigarette or two...
Went to see the latest in the Jurassic park series. It was so poor that even the return of Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum couldn't save it. It really reminded me more of an Austin Powers sequel. It was merely checking off the cliche boxes. Taking down security to escape? Check. Dangling young girl pulled up just in time? Check. Odd familiarity with operating system? Check. The list goes one.
