Dune may finally get its proper film treatment

[PB]

I’m watching Foundation and Dune at the same time right now.

Can’t tell them apart.

But I love them both.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I respectfully disagree; Foundation has taken inexcusable liberties. This shall not pass.

[AK47bp]

I respectfully disagree; Foundation has taken inexcusable liberties. This shall not pass.

Both travel to a different planet to influence the locals and have force fields around them.

Edibles don’t help.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Woodsy]

Steam Punk Star Wars with some half-ass Marvel bullshit thrown in. Pretty cool visually, but the story is fucking lame. I mean why the fuck are they fighting with swords? Yeah I saw the whole slow blade cuts bullshit, but for fucks sake it’s the year 10,000 and we’re still playing choreographed sword fight wars?
Come on man

You know Star Wars and a lot of that " Marvel bullshit" were actually influenced by Dune right?

If you cant gronk shields, I won't even start with the Butlerian Jihad...

[Woodsy]

I respectfully disagree; Foundation has taken inexcusable liberties. This shall not pass.

Is PB PAUL KRUGMAN?

‘Dune’ Is the Movie We Always Wanted

The blogger John Rogers once noted that there are two novels that can shape the lives of bookish 14-year-olds: “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Lord of the Rings.” One of these novels, he asserted, is a childish fantasy that can leave you emotionally stunted; the other involves orcs.

Well, I was a bookish 14-year-old, but my touchstones were two different novels: Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” and Frank Herbert’s “Dune.”

Many social scientists, it turns out, are science fiction readers. For example, quite a few experts on international relations who I know are fanatics about the TV version of “The Expanse.” I think it’s because good science fiction involves building imaginary worlds that are different from the world we know, but in interesting ways that relate to the attempt to understand why society is the way it is.

Anyway, that’s my excuse for devoting today’s newsletter not to the latest scary developments in politics and economics but to a much happier event: the U.S. release of a wonderful, satisfying film version of “Dune” — the first movie I’ve seen in a theater since the pandemic began.

Before I get there, however, a word about the new “Foundation” TV series, which is being released one episode a week on Apple TV.

The “Foundation” trilogy had a huge impact on my teenage self. For those who’ve never read it, it’s about social scientists who use their knowledge to save galactic civilization. I wanted to be Hari Seldon, the brilliant mathematician who leads the effort; this economics thing was as close as I could get.

“Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history.

So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.


Now on to “Dune.” The book is everything “Foundation” isn’t: There’s a glittering, hierarchical society wracked by intrigue and warfare, a young hero of noble birth who may be a prophesied Messiah, a sinister but alluring sisterhood of witches, fierce desert warriors and, of course, giant worms.

And yes, it’s fun. When I was a teenager, my friends and I would engage in mock combat in which the killing blow had to be delivered slowly to penetrate your opponent’s shield — which will make sense if you read the book or watch the movie.

What makes “Dune” more than an ordinary space opera are two things: its subtlety and the richness of its world-building.

Thus, the Bene Gesserit derive their power not from magic but from deep self-control, awareness and understanding of human psychology. The journey of Paul Atreides is heroic but morally ambiguous; he knows that if he succeeds, war and vast slaughter will follow.

And the world Herbert created is given depth by layers of cultural references. He borrowed from Islamic and Ayurvedic traditions, from European feudalism and more — “Dune” represents cultural appropriation on a, well, interstellar scale. It’s also deeply steeped in fairly serious ecological thinking.

So why was the 1984 film a disaster? Because the director — yes, David Lynch — either didn’t grasp the subtlety and richness or decided that audiences couldn’t handle it. That is, he did to “Dune” what Apple TV has done to “Foundation.” For example, in the book there’s the “weirding way of battle,” which is about using psychology and deception to overcome foes; in Lynch’s film this was replaced with some kind of gadget.

The great thing about Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part I” is that he respects the audience enough to retain the book’s spirit. He trimmed the narrative to reduce it to filmable size — and even so, his two and a half hours cover only the first half of the book — but he didn’t dumb it down. Instead, he relies on spectacle and spine-tingling action to hold our attention despite the density of the story. In so doing he made a film worthy of the source material.

I wouldn’t say that this “Dune” matches the vision I had when reading the book. It’s better. The visuals surpass my imagination — those ornithopters! The actors give the characters more depth than the book’s author previously had in my mind.

Will this labor of love sell to a mass audience (and allow Villeneuve to finish his story)? The early box office looks good, and this does seem like the kind of film people will see twice — I did — so sales may hold up longer than usual. But I guess we’ll find out.

In any case, all of us former bookish 14-year-olds finally have the “Dune” movie we always wanted to see. Sometimes, things actually do go right.

[Lvovsky]

…. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.


…

What makes “Dune” more than an ordinary space opera are two things: its subtlety and the richness of its world-building.

….
.

Yes and yes.

[climberevan]

I, for one, am happy that the second part has been green lit.

[NW_SKIER]

Where can I get some spice?

[Woodsy]

L of A is an all-time favorite and as amazing as the cinematography is in the Dune it is almost all CGI which as good as it is can't replicate wide shots done on actual locations like Lawrence of Arabia . The movie had a muted blue filter to it and the desert was always hazy in the background but I am nitpicking ..

well...
Not really

As for the visual effects of “Dune,” IndieWire currently ranks Villeneuve’s latest as the frontrunner in the Oscar race for Best Visual Effects. The director’s last science-fiction tentpole, “Blade Runner 2049,” won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. IndieWire’s Bill Desowitz writes: “Villeneuve’s sweeping ‘Dune’ leads the way in the VFX race as a cross between ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and ‘Star Wars.’ DNEG created spectacular VFX for the otherworldly film, overseen by two-time Oscar-winning production VFX supervisor Paul Lambert and Oscar-winning SFX supervisor Gerd Nefzer.”

Desowitz continues, “Shot in Budapest, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Norway, the work is both epic and intimate, from the wind blown sand, to the raging sandstorms (done practically at the director’s request), to the flying insect-like ornithopters (requiring a special in-camera setup and backed by photoreal exteriors) to the iconic CG sandworms, which cause the entire desert to vibrate with the help of custom-built mechanics.”

[From_the_NEK]

Steam Punk Star Wars with some half-ass Marvel bullshit thrown in. Pretty cool visually, but the story is fucking lame. I mean why the fuck are they fighting with swords? Yeah I saw the whole slow blade cuts bullshit, but for fucks sake it’s the year 10,000 and we’re still playing choreographed sword fight wars?
Come on man

I can sympathize; I think the initial reviews broke down into geezer nerds who read the book a long time ago all raving, and younger non-book readers that that were all "eh???"

Seems to have been trending more towards the geezer nerds of late, at least on RT.

buttahflake=geezer but sorely lacking in nerd.

[buttahflake]

It was like watching LARP’ers in some city park, with stupid costumes prancing about with cardboard swords, I mean what the fuck? In the year 10,000 no less. Jesus H. Christ, took me right out of the movie instantly.

[PB]

Feudalism never dies.

[PB]

Is PB PAUL KRUGMAN?

‘Dune’ Is the Movie We Always Wanted

The blogger John Rogers once noted that there are two novels that can shape the lives of bookish 14-year-olds: “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Lord of the Rings.” One of these novels, he asserted, is a childish fantasy that can leave you emotionally stunted; the other involves orcs.

Well, I was a bookish 14-year-old, but my touchstones were two different novels: Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” and Frank Herbert’s “Dune.”

Many social scientists, it turns out, are science fiction readers. For example, quite a few experts on international relations who I know are fanatics about the TV version of “The Expanse.” I think it’s because good science fiction involves building imaginary worlds that are different from the world we know, but in interesting ways that relate to the attempt to understand why society is the way it is.

Anyway, that’s my excuse for devoting today’s newsletter not to the latest scary developments in politics and economics but to a much happier event: the U.S. release of a wonderful, satisfying film version of “Dune” — the first movie I’ve seen in a theater since the pandemic began.

Before I get there, however, a word about the new “Foundation” TV series, which is being released one episode a week on Apple TV.

The “Foundation” trilogy had a huge impact on my teenage self. For those who’ve never read it, it’s about social scientists who use their knowledge to save galactic civilization. I wanted to be Hari Seldon, the brilliant mathematician who leads the effort; this economics thing was as close as I could get.

“Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why the successful resolution was inevitable given the laws of history.

So how does the Apple TV series turn this into a visually compelling tale? It doesn’t. What it does instead is remake “Star Wars” under another name. There are indispensable heroes, mystical powers, even a Death Star. These aren’t necessarily bad things to include in a TV series, but they’re completely antithetical to the spirit of Asimov’s writing. Pretending that this series has anything to do with the “Foundation” novels is fraudulent marketing, and I’ve stopped watching.


Now on to “Dune.” The book is everything “Foundation” isn’t: There’s a glittering, hierarchical society wracked by intrigue and warfare, a young hero of noble birth who may be a prophesied Messiah, a sinister but alluring sisterhood of witches, fierce desert warriors and, of course, giant worms.

And yes, it’s fun. When I was a teenager, my friends and I would engage in mock combat in which the killing blow had to be delivered slowly to penetrate your opponent’s shield — which will make sense if you read the book or watch the movie.

What makes “Dune” more than an ordinary space opera are two things: its subtlety and the richness of its world-building.

Thus, the Bene Gesserit derive their power not from magic but from deep self-control, awareness and understanding of human psychology. The journey of Paul Atreides is heroic but morally ambiguous; he knows that if he succeeds, war and vast slaughter will follow.

And the world Herbert created is given depth by layers of cultural references. He borrowed from Islamic and Ayurvedic traditions, from European feudalism and more — “Dune” represents cultural appropriation on a, well, interstellar scale. It’s also deeply steeped in fairly serious ecological thinking.

So why was the 1984 film a disaster? Because the director — yes, David Lynch — either didn’t grasp the subtlety and richness or decided that audiences couldn’t handle it. That is, he did to “Dune” what Apple TV has done to “Foundation.” For example, in the book there’s the “weirding way of battle,” which is about using psychology and deception to overcome foes; in Lynch’s film this was replaced with some kind of gadget.

The great thing about Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part I” is that he respects the audience enough to retain the book’s spirit. He trimmed the narrative to reduce it to filmable size — and even so, his two and a half hours cover only the first half of the book — but he didn’t dumb it down. Instead, he relies on spectacle and spine-tingling action to hold our attention despite the density of the story. In so doing he made a film worthy of the source material.

I wouldn’t say that this “Dune” matches the vision I had when reading the book. It’s better. The visuals surpass my imagination — those ornithopters! The actors give the characters more depth than the book’s author previously had in my mind.

Will this labor of love sell to a mass audience (and allow Villeneuve to finish his story)? The early box office looks good, and this does seem like the kind of film people will see twice — I did — so sales may hold up longer than usual. But I guess we’ll find out.

In any case, all of us former bookish 14-year-olds finally have the “Dune” movie we always wanted to see. Sometimes, things actually do go right.

I taught the little shit everything he knows.

[Woodsy]

Feudalism never dies.

Just multiplies,
Feudalism!

[Dantheman]

It was like watching LARP’ers in some city park, with stupid costumes prancing about with cardboard swords, I mean what the fuck? In the year 10,000 no less. Jesus H. Christ, took me right out of the movie instantly.

"Because that's what's in the book" isn't good enough for you? Would you feel better if the swords were light sabers?

[buttahflake]

I hate over produced sword fighting scene’s, it’s like watching modern dance, who likes watching modern dance? No one!

[NW_SKIER]

I hate over produced sword fighting scene’s, it’s like watching modern dance, who likes watching modern dance? No one!

Idk. If the chicks dancing are scantily clad, I'll watch.

[PB]

W
T
Fukity Fuuuuuuuck??!?!?!?
Sword fighting is analogous to modern dance??????????
Do you have a brain tumor?!?!?!?

[dookeyXXX]

[SumJongGuy]

I hate over produced sword fighting scene’s, it’s like watching modern dance, who likes watching modern dance? No one!

Not exactly...

[JimmyCarter]

So while my parents had many of the Dune books I thought they were a bit too imposing for a 9 year old so my initial exposure to Dune was through another book they had in the same box:


“The parody follows a similar storyline, wherein rival restaurant-owning families battle for control of Arruckus, which is overrun by giant pretzels and the source of valuable beer.

Pall Agamemnides, heir to a dukedom, struggles to stop a conspiracy that threatens the savage, sugar-swept world of Doon, as evil powers plot to steal the wild beer growing on Doon, to control the native pretzel population, and transform Doon into a lounge-planet”


My initial reaction to the Lynch movie when I finally saw it, given how ridiculous it all seemed, was that it must be based on the Lampoon version

[Peruvian]

Not impressed.

[garyfromterrace]

I hate over produced sword fighting scene’s, it’s like watching modern dance, who likes watching modern dance? No one!

Yeah, no. Love me the modern dance. Season passes for at least a couple of years of Decidedly Jazz Danceworks when I lived in Calgary https://www.decidedlyjazz.com/.
Very entertaining, visually appealing, sometimes live music accompaniment. All and all, ass-kicking goodness.

On topic though. Saw Dune with the help of a gummy last night. Really enjoyed it and felt it was true to the book. Can't wait for more.

[buttahflake]

Jazz dance is ass kicking goodness, said no one ever. Jesus dude, take a lap.

There was a couple of scenes in Dune that I thought were pretty awesome. The scene on the warrior planet, when the dude is doing the voice as the army is being anointed with the blood from those poor bastards was killer. I also thought the scene with the Emperor recovering in the vat of oil and balsamic vinegar was pretty cool.

[tgapp]

Yeah, no. Love me the modern dance. Season passes for at least a couple of years of Decidedly Jazz Danceworks when I lived in Calgary https://www.decidedlyjazz.com/.
Very entertaining, visually appealing, sometimes live music accompaniment. All and all, ass-kicking goodness.

On topic though. Saw Dune with the help of a gummy last night. Really enjoyed it and felt it was true to the book. Can't wait for more.

Damn, Gary is as much a man of culture as he is a total gentleman and an awesome skier. Why am I not surprised?

Also +1 on the modern dance recc. Except watching dance makes me feel like the uncoordinated schlub that I am.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[toast2266]

Now that you guys mention it, I do see some thematic similarities to Dune.