Jump to content

Dune Spoiler Thread


polishgenius

Recommended Posts

There were times in the combat when the striking blow was different. Based on how they made the shields work, and this is emphasized by the burrowing darts, when someone strikes their blade doesn't bounce off, it stops. So the fighting style involves pinning or outmaneuvering your opponent, so the connecting strike can then continue at lower speed. We see Duncan cut the throat of a Sardaukar this way, for example.

Was the speed limit ever given in the books? As a sword is arcing towards a target, its point has a greater speed than the part just above the hilt, so I think some of those cutting motions were meant to connect the lower part, instead of the upper part, which is completely contrarian with how normal swordplay works, and it also explains why all the swords have a straight edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Really I think anyone who thought there was something problematic about that sequence is basically a racist, and most likely in deep denial about it. I'm sure there are a few people like that. 

That's a bit strong. 

I am seeing a fair bit of commentary on the "white savior" trope. There was even this article on CBC's website. While I respect the criticism in general, these paragraphs caught my attention.

Quote

Villeneuve's Dune seemed like it would be a counter to Hollywood's white saviour obsession (see movies like Avatar, The Last Samurai, and Lawrence of Arabia, just for starters) — but Part Onefell back into the same age-old trope and sacrificed much of the nuance from the novel while simultaneously erasing the cultural influences Herbert was inspired by. Now, with a sequel having just been confirmed for 2023, Villeneuve will have to course-correct and make sure the second film rectifies the shortcomings of the first if he wants to make Dune more than just the same type of story Hollywood has told time and time again.

1. Any cinematic adaptation, especially one based on a source as huge and dense as this, is going to sacrifice nuance, if only in a purely narrative sense.  If anyone thinks they can capture all the nuance, and develop characters, and tell a story, and make it cinematic, and get it done in 3 hours or less, step right up. There's a reason there were so many stillborn or poorly executed adaptations of this book.

2. Exactly what "savior-ing" does young Paul do in Dune Part 1? Between the Bene Gesserit conspiracy, Harkonnen hatred, the Emperor's paranoia, his parents' relationship, etc; Paul Atreides is a product of circumstance. The only visions of the future he has (given to him by the ecology of Dune itself), confuse and terrify him. When he does finally show some agency, he chooses to follow the path laid for him and show solidarity with the people who saved him

Quote

Though the visuals and performances are undeniably impressive, the film itself distills Herbert's complex world into a simplified narrative that ignores its Islamic and Middle Eastern roots and instead glorifies Paul (played by Timothée Chalamet) as the saviour — exactly what Villeneuve promised not to do. And while the source material proudly boasts its Islamic/SWANA-regional influences, Villeneuve's film erases much of what made the novel extraordinary, opting to decorate the film with an Orientalist lens through its landscapes, costume design and sound, but never acknowledging the source of the inspiration.

1. Paul is the central character. The claimed tension between "Islamic and Middle Eastern roots" and "Paul as the savior" makes no sense. 

2. Regarding, "acknowledging the source of the inspiration", the source material never does this either. The acknowledgement comes from meta-commentary, statements from Herbert, or the Dune encyclopedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

One of the conceits of this universe is that there's been so much history between then and now that the "sources of inspiration" have been lost to distance, war, and time. In the novel, Piter De Vries quotes Archimedes but he doesn't know the name "Archimedes". He therefore doesn't know the history or context of that quote; but he understands the metaphor. Beyond a vaguely Greek sounding name the Atreides' nominally Greek heritage is also never explored. And it would add nothing to the story if it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

anyone who thought there was something problematic about that sequence is basically a racist, and most likely in deep denial about it.

Of course you do.  Thanks for expressing exactly what we are addressing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Though the visuals and performances are undeniably impressive, the film itself distills Herbert's complex world into a simplified narrative that ignores its Islamic and Middle Eastern roots and instead glorifies Paul (played by Timothée Chalamet) as the saviour — exactly what Villeneuve promised not to do. And while the source material proudly boasts its Islamic/SWANA-regional influences, Villeneuve's film erases much of what made the novel extraordinary, opting to decorate the film with an Orientalist lens through its landscapes, costume design and sound, but never acknowledging the source of the inspiration.

Not sure if the one who wrote it expected Villeneuve to adapt Dune or to make sth completely different.

As for the kids, I dont think the human sacrifice at the Sardaukar ceremony is proper sight for them. The scene thrilled my 15-year-old, I imagine how my younger children would react, no way :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that article from the CBC is rather absurd and makes claims that it can't support. 

The whole point of Paul is that he is not, in fact, a "savior" of anything. He's the catalyst for the deaths of billions. Very weird.

And yeah, I would not take children that young to the film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

And yeah, I would not take children that young to the film. 

Tried to get my 11 year old to go with me, “Dad.  That movie looks really weird.  I’m not going.”

:lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

2. Exactly what "savior-ing" does young Paul do in Dune Part 1?

Well, he basically gets saved by the Fremen. Twice. Thrice if we include the Shadout Mapes when Paul is stalked by the hunter-seeker.

The whole "savior / Lawrence of Arabia" part occurs in the next movie, and it's only a visible part of the story, but far from it all, and not actually the core or the ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

Well, he basically gets saved by the Fremen. Twice. Thrice if we include the Shadout Mapes when Paul is stalked by the hunter-seeker.

The whole "savior / Lawrence of Arabia" part occurs in the next movie, and it's only a visible part of the story, but far from it all, and not actually the core or the ending.

Exactly. He doesn't do any. As a specific criticism of Dune: Part 1, it doesn't work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2021 at 6:02 PM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

Also, Ezra Miller and Barry Keoghan are being thrown around for the role of Feyd-Routha. Jared Leto is also being rumored.

I can't decide whether it's Miller or Leto that makes my teeth grind more. They're both annoying, and approaching a Dwayne Johnson type of fatigue with me. Here's hoping Keoghan gets it. Given the razored moral balance of Druig, he turned in a good, understated performance in Eternals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't tell if the film effectively communicates the story. it makes sense to me, as i know the novels very well.  i do wish this version would've de-emphasized the explosions and combat--it just repeats those errors from prior adaptations rather than thinking through how to present them in a manner consistent with the writing.

sometimes i thought this version may be missing something important at times--rather like this film is just a fan's greatest hits mix tape of scenes--that might prevent someone who doesn't know the story from understanding it. most of the novel's interiority is gone.  that hurts, but it would've always been difficult to get it on screen. 

these questions were asked of me afterward from two smart people who never read the novel:

Quote

 

are space nuns all dangerous?

why not just kill the people on the water planet instead waiting until they go to the sand planet if you don't like them?

i don't understand why the really tall guy doesn't like ned stark?

are they superhuman because they survived the dragonfly crash?

why is everyone so interested in desert LSD?

why doesn't khal drogo just go with them in the end?

why is this guy tryna duel when anton chigurh already told him the answer?

 

and because i shave my head:

Quote

i guess you're on the bad team?

anyway, i loved it. best adaption of the novel. i want the sound effects and soundtrack to play in the background of my house all day now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is better not to like the book too much. I guess I would have not be satisfied with any adaptation if I had been emotionally involved with the story. The fact I had read it over 20 years ago probably helped too .

Watched it second time, seems even better!

Then we watched the one by Lynch. Overloaded and bit cheesy, just as I remembered it. The second half was really hard to get through, can't wait to see how Villeneuve will deal with the part. Anyway, the new one is more... serious and it is good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 8:09 AM, sologdin said:

i can't tell if the film effectively communicates the story. it makes sense to me, as i know the novels very well.  i do wish this version would've de-emphasized the explosions and combat--it just repeats those errors from prior adaptations rather than thinking through how to present them in a manner consistent with the writing.

Kind of. One thing I noticed was during the attack the bombs visibly slowed to circumvent docked ship shields, then detonated. It was a nice touch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Villeneuve has lined up his first post-Dune Part Two project, an adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama.

I think he'll pretty much kill that, and it'll be a return to the somewhat smaller scale of Arrival (I mean, it'll have shittons of CGI, but it's an environment, not tons of characters, races etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...